CIVIL LIBERTIES  
Chelsea Green Publishing / By Steve Fox and Paul Armentano and Mason Tvert
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 341

Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink?

A new book explains how we're steering people away from cannabis and toward the use of a very harmful and deadly substance: alcohol.
August 6, 2009  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

The following is an excerpt from the just-released book, Marijuana is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink? by Steve Fox, Paul Armentano, and Mason Tvert (Chelsea Green, 2009).

Dateline: February 1, 2009. It’s Super Bowl Sunday and throughout the nation millions of Americans have stocked their shelves and refrigerators with alcohol for the big game. In living rooms across the country, guests will enjoy the libations and gawk at the humorous beer commercials sprinkled liberally throughout the telecast. Like the Fourth of July and fireworks, the Super Bowl and booze are an American tradition. There is no societal stigma associated with this excessive drinking. It is all part of the celebration. Like the old saying goes: “We don’t have a drinking problem. We drink. We get drunk. No problem.”

But as the day’s festivities build to a climax, the nation is thrown into turmoil. Internet headlines announce that Olympic swimming hero Michael Phelps, who months earlier had electrified audiences throughout the world by winning eight gold medals in Beijing, had been captured in full digital glory taking a bong hit at a private party. The horrors! How could he do such a thing?

Almost immediately online articles appear, replete with quotes of disillusionment from anyone with even a tangential connection to the world’s most decorated Olympian. Hours later, Phelps issues a public statement. He apologizes for his “regrettable” behavior and “bad judgment,” and promises “it will not happen again.” Was Phelps’s apology issued because he was reportedly also drunk and “obnoxious” at the same party? Of course not. Being drunk in public is not the sort of behavior that triggers public outrage and social condemnation.Taking a hit or two of marijuana, on the other hand, most certainly is.

In the days that followed, our society piled on the way it often does when someone famous is caught smoking grass. Predictably, there was mockery and derision. For example, one Huffington Post blogger posted a column with the headline, “Phelps Congratulates Cardinals on Super Bowl Win.”1 (The Arizona Cardinals lost the game on a last-minute touchdown, caught, ironically enough, by another recently outed marijuana smoker, Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver Santonio Holmes.) The body of the essay included such “witticisms” as Phelps claiming to have missed the end of the game because of a “wicked attack of the munchies.” Naturally, the writer did not mock Phelps’s drunken behavior.

Several of Phelps’s corporate sponsors, while not immediately jumping off the financial gravy train, expressed their own sense of dismay. Michael Humphrey, chief executive of the PureSport beverage company, issued the following statement: “We applaud the fact that he (Michael Phelps) has taken full and immediate responsibility for his mistake and apologized to us, his fans and the public and we support him during this difficult time.” Similarly, a U.S. congressman from Phelps’s home state of Maryland, Elijah Cummings, appeared on television to express his deep concern and disappointment in this otherwise “great kid.”

By week’s end, America’s corporate establishment brought the hammer down upon Phelps. First, the Kellogg’s Company dropped the Olympic gold medalist as a spokesperson, explaining that his behavior was “not consistent with the image of Kellogg.” Soon thereafter, USA Swimming, the sport’s national governing body, suspended Phelps from competition for three months -- even though he had not violated any existing drug-testing policy. (Marijuana is not a prohibited substance during the off-season.) “[W]e decided to send a strong message to Michael,” the organization said, “because he disappointed so many people, particularly the hundreds of thousands of USA Swimming member kids who look up to him as a role model and a hero.”

Far from being outraged (at least publicly) about the decision, Phelps was contrite and repentant. According to USA Swimming, Phelps “voluntarily accepted this reprimand” and was “committed to earn[ing] back [their] trust.”

As if all of this wasn’t enough, Leon Lott, the sheriff in Richland County, South Carolina, where the bong hit heard round the world had occurred, launched a criminal investigation of the matter worthy of a hunt for a suspected terrorist. Several weeks following the incident, twelve armed deputies, with guns drawn, burst into the home where the party had taken place and arrested two residents. Cops also seized four laptops, a desktop computer, and an electronic storage device. They found less than six grams of marijuana in the home -- which is about what they would find in any off-campus apartment in the United States -- but they were hardly concerned about illegal contraband. Rather, the lawyers for the defendants said that the cops only wanted to know whether the two individuals had witnessed Phelps using marijuana. Richland County law enforcement officials later arrested six more individuals, all in an effort to weed out the nation’s most famous weed aficionado. Finally, after several weeks of this taxpayer-funded silliness, Sheriff Lott eventually announced that he had failed to find sufficient evidence to press criminal charges against Michael Phelps, or for that matter, anyone else.

Let’s review, shall we? The most successful Olympian in history attends a college party, pounds a few beers, and allegedly behaves like a drunken ass. At some point during the evening, he inhales a bit of marijuana. When all of this becomes public, he is run through the social, corporate, and legal wringer—but only for his suspected pot use. So what lesson has our champion swimmer learned? That’s simple. Next time he goes out in public, he should just stick to being drunk and obnoxious.

Michael Phelps’s story is hardly unique. Rather, it highlights the myriad ways that society intentionally steers citizens away from cannabis and toward the use of a more harmful substance, alcohol.

Sure, all Americans know that marijuana is illegal, and most are aware that the government purposely spreads misleading information about the drug’s allegedly adverse effects. But how many of you have stopped to think about the ways that other entities are directly or indirectly involved in maintaining cannabis prohibition? After all, the government could not uphold the status quo all by itself. It requires the assistance of private and public employers, athletic associations, and the mainstream media. Each of these groups, by acting according to (assumed) societal norms, their leaders’ own personal biases, or perhaps, as we discuss later, their own financial interests, take actions that reinforce the government’s criminalizing of cannabis.

While these coercive actions and public policies have certainly not eliminated the drug from our society, there is little doubt that collectively they have produced an artificially low level of marijuana use among U.S. adults.


  • 1
View as a single page
 
submit to reddit
Steve Fox is director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project. Paul Armentano is the deputy director of NORML (the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), and Mason Tvert is co-founder of Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER)They are the co-authors of the book Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink (2009, Chelsea Green).
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: alcohol, pot, marijuana is safer: so wh

comments COMMENTS ( 341 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
 

Comments are closed-

Have a Marijuana if you can....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Tom Degan on Aug 6, 2009 12:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's an argument I've made so many times I'm getting bored with it:

By the time one reaches my age (I'll be fifty-one in ten days) one has known - at the very least - fifty people who have died on lung cancer and another fifty who have died of cirrhosis of the liver. Now ask yourself the following question:

How many people what I personally known who have died as the result of consuming too much grass?

ANSWER:
Not only have I never known anyone to die in that matter, I am not aware of it happening in all recorded human history.

I cannot believe that seventy-two years after pot was made illegal, we are still having this same stupid argument.

I need a drink....On second thought....

The Children of 1977

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Taconic Killer - a deadly mixture! Posted by: progressive-life
» Obviously... Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Obviously... Posted by: lightwing1
» RE: regressive death strikes out again Posted by: progressive-life
» RE: Taconic Killer - a deadly mixture! Posted by: progressive-life
» RE: Don't feed the trolls. Posted by: Ghoulman
» We Used to Call That State... Posted by: popeurbanxxiii
» RE: It was the alcohol! Posted by: sasquuatch55
» .19 BAC! Posted by: permanentilt
» What's that again, CaliJim? Posted by: hagwind
» RE: What's that again, CaliJim? Posted by: tommy_slothrop
» Hopeless, indeed. Posted by: CaliJim
» RE: Have a Marijuana if you can.... Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
» Thank you, Ghoulman.... Posted by: Tom Degan
» Not quite true Posted by: Aimleft

Comments are closed-

Again, why too much focus on the culture side of cannabis? Let's stick to the industrial side first.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 6, 2009 12:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would be much better for Alternet to remind the readers that Ron Paul is currently trying again to push for legalizing industrial hemp for production. HR 1866 is the bill in the House, Senate version unknown. If you keep trying to talk to people only about the culture side, it just rubs off in the wrong direction and people won't know the wide variety of benefits of hemp. Here's Alternet's better article on hemp for you to read:

http://www.alternet.org/environment/133055

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Couldn't agree more Posted by: GatoPreto
» Different problem Posted by: Malkavian

Comments are closed-

End of story???
[Report this comment]
Posted by: atheistcable on Aug 6, 2009 12:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Sheriff Lott eventually announced that he had failed to find sufficient evidence to press criminal charges against Michael Phelps, or for that matter, anyone else."

Is that the end of the story here? Is it possible for Michael Phelps to sue the police or the city for violating his 4th Amendment rights? Do we just passively accept the police raiding our private lives, busting into our homes, on silly suspicions without fighting back--and hard with Big Lawsuits against the city?

And sports figures. It makes me sick when a football player, for example, is arrested for possessing some pot--and then, with head hanging low, apologizing to the public for his "error" and "unworthy behavior." Give me a break!

A real man would face the cameras and say: "Yeah, I smoke pot occasionally, so what? I just happen not to respect this country's irrational federal drug policies."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Phelps Laps Up Bad Advice Posted by: americansheep

Comments are closed-

Then the aftermath
[Report this comment]
Posted by: joebanana on Aug 6, 2009 1:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Phelps goes on to break a world record in the butterfly, Damn, that weed stuff must be really bad. I like the proposed bill, making possession of "enhanced marijuana" a life sentence, with a million dollar fine. T he senator that proposed that bill needs to take a drug test. Like all pot smokers are millionaires, and how you supposed to get a million dollars while in jail? Not thought through very well, eh? How much money does this bozo get paid?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Unbelievable
[Report this comment]
Posted by: texaslefty on Aug 6, 2009 1:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is a proven fact if you smoke pot your babies will be born naked.....

All we have is more right wing hype, it is alright for them to go out and have a couple of belts of liquor but if you smoke a joint, bong, or pipe Heaven Forbid. I know sometime when I am having an upset stomach or headache smoke a little and I feel better. If you are pissed and want to mellow out smoke a couple of bong hits. I can do anything while I am smoking as well as I can while I am not smoking. I would rather be around someone that has smoked a joint of the killer bud than someone that has drank 3 or 4 beers. The pot head will be mellow and you can't tell about the drinker he might want to fight or he might want to f**k you never can tell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Unbelievable Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: Unbelievable Posted by: wavydavy
» RE: Unbelievable Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Hmmmmm.... Posted by: Cybershaman
» I wasn't born naked... Posted by: zigy
» The devil you know Posted by: suprmark

Comments are closed-

Why? Why do we continually have to answer such questions about it?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Aug 6, 2009 1:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because this country is a corporate oligarchy who know how to rule the now very dumb down masses.

Otherwise how do you explain the continued existence of people like Limbaugh, Beck, oh heck the whole Faux Crew? What is more, how do you explain that corporations would support their shows and that they have any following whatsoever?

But I digressed a bit.

Only when we are given a choice of a progressive leader who is not a corporate pimp, can we break the oligarchical hold on this country. In reality, when you look at the history of corporations and the reasons they exist, I believe most would conclude they should be disbanded and relieved of the power they have over this country.

The Declaration of Independence, in 1776, freed Americans not only from Britain but also from the tyranny of British corporations, (Remember the East India Company and the Tea Party?) and for a hundred years after the document's signing, Americans remained deeply suspicious of corporate power.

They were careful about the way they granted corporate charters, and about the powers granted therein.

Early American charters were created literally by the people, for the people as a legal convenience. Corporations were "artificial, invisible, intangible," mere financial tools. They were chartered by individual states, not the federal government, which meant they could be kept under close local scrutiny. They were automatically dissolved if they engaged in activities that violated their charter. Limits were placed on how big and powerful companies could become. Even railroad magnate J. P. Morgan, the consummate capitalist, understood that corporations must never become so big that they "inhibit freedom to the point where efficiency [is] endangered."

The two hundred or so corporations operating in the US by the year 1800 were each kept on fairly short leashes. They weren't allowed to participate in the political process. They couldn't buy stock in other corporations. And if one of them acted improperly, the consequences were severe. In 1832, President Andrew Jackson vetoed a motion to extend the charter of the corrupt and tyrannical Second Bank of the United States, and was widely applauded for doing so. That same year the state of Pennsylvania revoked the charters of ten banks for operating contrary to the public interest. Even the enormous industry trusts, formed to protect member corporations from external competitors and provide barriers to entry, eventually proved no match for the state. By the mid-1800s, antitrust legislation was widely in place.

In the early history of America, the corporation played an important but subordinate role. The people -- not the corporations -- were in control. So what happened? How did corporations gain power and eventually start exercising more control than the individuals who created them?

The shift began in the last third of the nineteenth century -- the start of a great period of struggle between corporations and civil society. The turning point was the Civil War.

Corporations made huge profits from procurement contracts and took advantage of the disorder and corruption of the times to buy legislatures, judges and even presidents (sound familiar today?).

Corporations became the masters and keepers of business. President Abraham Lincoln foresaw terrible trouble. Shortly before his death, he warned that "corporations have been enthroned . . . . An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people . . . until wealth is aggregated in a few hands . . . and the republic is destroyed." (Sound familiar again?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Corporations continued.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Aug 6, 2009 1:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
President Lincoln's warning went unheeded. Corporations continued to gain power and influence. They had the laws governing their creation amended. State charters could no longer be revoked. Corporate profits could no longer be limited. Corporate economic activity could be restrained only by the courts, and in hundreds of cases judges granted corporations minor legal victories, conceding rights and privileges they did not have before.

Then came a legal event that would not be understood for decades (and remains baffling even today), an event that would change the course of American history.

In Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, a dispute over a railbed route, the US Supreme Court deemed that a private corporation was a "natural person" under the US Constitution and therefore entitled to protection under the Bill of Rights. Suddenly, corporations enjoyed all the rights and sovereignty previously enjoyed only by the people, including the right to free speech.

This 1886 decision ostensibly gave corporations the same powers as private citizens. But considering their vast financial resources, corporations thereafter actually had far more power than any private citizen.

They could defend and exploit their rights and freedoms more vigorously than any individual and therefore they were more free. In a single legal stroke, the whole intent of the American Constitution -- that all citizens have one vote, and exercise an equal voice in public debates -- had been undermined.

Sixty years after it was inked, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas concluded of Santa Clara that it "could not be supported by history, logic or reason." One of the great legal blunders of the nineteenth century changed the whole idea of democratic government.

Post-Santa Clara America became a very different place. By 1919, corporations employed more than 80 percent of the workforce and produced most of America's wealth. Corporate trusts had become too powerful to legally challenge. The courts consistently favored their interests. Employees found themselves without recourse if, for example, they were injured on the job (if you worked for a corporation, you voluntarily assumed the risk, was the courts' position). Railroad and mining companies were enabled to annex vast tracts of land at minimal expense.

Gradually, many of the original ideals of the American Revolution were simply quashed. Both during and after the Civil War, America was increasingly being ruled by a coalition of government and business interests. The shift amounted to a kind of coup d'tat -- not a sudden military takeover but a gradual subversion and takeover of the institutions of state power. Except for a temporary setback during Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal (the 1930s), the US has since been governed as a corporate state.

We, the people, have lost control. Corporations, these legal fictions that we ourselves created two centuries ago, now have more rights, freedoms and powers than we do. And we accept this as the normal state of affairs.

We go to corporations on our knees. Please do the right thing, we plead. Please don't cut down any more ancient forests. Please don't pollute any more lakes and rivers (but please don't move your factories and jobs offshore either). Please don't use pornographic images to sell fashion to my kids. Please don't play governments off against each other to get a better deal.

We've spent so much time bowed down in deference, we've forgotten how to stand up straight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Corporations continued. Posted by: kimpohl
» RE: YES.... Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal
» WRONG Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: I stand corrected...sort of... Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal

Comments are closed-

Don Quixote
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Don Quixot on Aug 6, 2009 1:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 10 years of media control and brainwashing the nation German nazis turned normal people like you and me into haters and killers of Jews. In just 10 years. In America there have been 70 years of brainwashing the nation about pot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Don Quixote Posted by: Sananda

Comments are closed-

Marijuana
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Aug 6, 2009 2:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That article was funny. Americans seem to love being the Church Lady, and wagging our fingers every time one of our heroes falls off their pedestal, so to speak.

But I don't think the weed-heads should be picking on the drunks, and saying our drug is better than your drug. Can't we all get along, and agree that a person's personal behavior is nobody's business? In saying that alcohol makes you an idiot, you're still accepting the premise that drugs are naughty, and that Big Brother should guard the cookie jar.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Marijuana Posted by: Don Quixot

Comments are closed-

I hate to say it,
[Report this comment]
Posted by: linecrosser on Aug 6, 2009 2:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but the best way to get it legalized might just be to let the corporations do it. What I mean is, since it is obvious that all the negative BS propaganda is mostly coming from the parrot heads in the government, being told what to do and say by the Corporate State because their afraid it will cut into their profits and effect their current bottom line, then let them in on it. We've already beating them, there is more pot now than ever, and yes it is a better quality than it was back when I started in 69. Hemp could start so many new green industries, to list them would be longer than the original post. We could turn all the prisons into grow-ops and put out some great bud. We could replace tobacco fields with hemp being made into textiles to start the home grown clothing industry. It's fear that has created this mess and its not just fear from the medical industry, so we've got to show them that they won't just be kicked to the curb, and lose just a small portion of the trillions they've already raped from the public.
Then maybe, in a decade or so, of a public that accepts and benefits from it being legal won't be lead by a bunch of self serving murderous bunch of assholes and well actually see some hope thru change for real.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thai stick Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: medical mj Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: medical mj Posted by: Aimleft
» RE: medical mj Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» Dunno really Posted by: Malkavian

Comments are closed-

Don Quixote
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Don Quixot on Aug 6, 2009 2:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Personal behaviour is nobody's business, but laws are everybody's business. The way laws treat pot, that does not kill, and alcohol and tobacco, both killing around 7 million people per year, is hardly fair.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Don Quixote Posted by: linecrosser
» RE: Don Quixote Posted by: sowles

Comments are closed-

legislation is not made objectively but drawn up to placate powerful associations of people
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Suzon on Aug 6, 2009 2:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
known as corporations.

In the UK, royal charters have been granted to the Worshipful Company of Brewers, the Worshipful Company of Distillers, the Worshipful Company of Vintners (wine) and the Worshipful Company of Tobacco Pipe Makers and Tobacco Blenders. (There is no Worshipful Company of Marijuana Growers, hence the penalties.)

Royal charters, legally binding contracts, are a sort of protection racket for these industries. The men who run them support the monarchy in return for influence over ministers and judges.

The arrangement in the US has to be arrived at by other means (campaign donations), but it's still undue influence for the purpose of unjustified enrichment.

The overprivileged corporation is the enemy of the people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

How about we not use drugs or alcohol?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gladmueth on Aug 6, 2009 3:44 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about we don't "push" anything? I'm tired of the perception of the almost vitamin- like benefits of pot put out by pot supporters.
Pot, drugs, or alcohol, whatever the choice, your brain is altered. I've tried them all and feel I'm no better of a person by far on any of them. Medicinally pot has it's place, but personally I find it weak to take any form of drug on a regular basis or in the style of "pounding a few beers" for recreation. Minds are not made better for having taken any of these. I think this argument is two sides of the same coin. If you wanna smoke pot, then smoke it for God's sake. I won't respect you the more for choosing it over alcohol or vice versa. But please, whatever your choice, don't drive. The pot vs. alcohol uproar is juvenile and representative of what both do to your thinking and priorities. It's only a matter of time before they rightly loosen the laws on pot, but really, pot is hardly a necessity in life and politically there are much more important NEEDS we should be fighting for on behalf of our American citizens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The LONE CONCLUSION Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» The only need Posted by: linecrosser

Comments are closed-

The Hypocrisy and Insanity....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: drricklippin on Aug 6, 2009 4:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...on this is truly beyond the pale and says so much ab issue out what is wrong with America.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Hypocrisy and Insanity.... Posted by: drricklippin

Comments are closed-

It is not as easy as the authors would have you believe.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Skrunge Worzle on Aug 6, 2009 4:02 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a wealth of research evidence from around the world that shows consumption of marijuana is highly likely to be a strong contributory factor in a number of severe psychoses including bipolar illness, mania, depression, schizophrenia and others. The adverse effects are many times greater if it is consumed in conjunction with alcohol.
Furthermore, marijuana smoking is at least as dangerous in terms of lung disease and cancers of the lung and digestive tract as tobacco.
Frequent marijuana use also causes appreciable long term damage to both short and long-term memory.
Pot is not a harmless recreational high and, I believe, it is firmly on the correct side of legality. If we wish to save our citizens, perhaps further controls on alcohol are required.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thank you, Warden Posted by: kettleblack
» The wealth Posted by: linecrosser

Comments are closed-

Seems to me the evidence suggests alcohol is "safer" only in one area:
[Report this comment]
Posted by: harryf200 on Aug 6, 2009 4:34 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Driving.
"A New England Journal of Medicine report on drivers without alcohol in their systems who were stopped by police for reckless driving found that 45% had marijuana and 25% had cocaine in their systems." Source: http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/
drivingissues/1104432032.html

This is explained.
"marijuana can affect concentration, perception and reaction time up to 24 hours after it’s smoked ... (T)hat’s much, much longer than alcohol can affect behavior."

This is disputed by some, e.g.:
"A growing body of research indicates that marijuana is on balance less of a road hazard than alcohol. Various surveys have found that half or more of fatal drivers have alcohol in their blood, as opposed to 7 - 20% with THC, the major psychoactive component of marijuana (a condition usually indicative of having smoked within the past 2-4 hours).(3) The same studies show that some 70 - 90% of those who are THC-positive also have alcohol in their blood. It therefore appears that marijuana by itself is a minor road safety hazard, though the combination of pot and alcohol is not."
Source: http://www.soop.ca/potfacts/safetodrive.html

But if you read the latter carefully you will notice it only points out that more drivers in fatal accidents have alcohol or a mix of alcohol and pot, or other drugs, in their blood. All that proves is there are more incidences of people in FatAcs with alcohol, or a mix of it with other drugs, in their systems, not that alcohol is more dangerous. Alcohol might be more dangerous, but that conclusion cannot be drawn from the data quoted there.

Either way, I shan't be drinking or smoking dope before I drive!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Different effects Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Different effects Posted by: harryf200
» RE: Different effects Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Different effects Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

Vote
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thethinkingman on Aug 6, 2009 5:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For Pete's sake people, stop all this whining on about corporations in an axis with politicians. The corporations don't vote , you the people vote.

Tell your local pol that you won't vote for him unless he pledges, publicly to strike down the anti-weed laws.

It's true the pols get their money from the corporates but they get their political power from you.

Jeez.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Vote Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Vote Posted by: rider3
» Corporations don't vote Posted by: linecrosser
» RE: Vote Posted by: robert.noll

Comments are closed-

Pot is not safe
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson on Aug 6, 2009 5:20 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pot is not safer than alcohol because it accumulates in the body over a long period of time. You can detect pot in your urine for a long time after consumption.

Alcohol has been purified and standards set by the government. Bad alcohol blinded people in the past. Pot has not had standards set. There are many varities and contaminents.

Pot sticks to your fat cells in the brain and lungs (anything you smoke into your body is not good for you).

Military (mainly Vietnam) smoking pot had side effects such as memory loss, increased weight gain, lack of focus, etc.

We did tests in the NY State Research Labs under grants from both the state and the NIH.

The rule of thumb here is...anything you smoke or eat in excess takes a toll on the body. Those who insist on pot smoking being good for you are just avoiding the truth because they are addicted.

It doesn't matter if it helps people who are sick, etc. Medical use is different than public consumption. It's not a vitamin or cure. The government does need to purify and test it for medical use.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pot is not safe Posted by: kateco2
» RE: Pot is safe Posted by: kettleblack
» RE: Pot is not safe Posted by: parmentano
» RE: Pot is not safe Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: corrected title, Pot is safe Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Pot is not safe Posted by: tommy_slothrop
» RE: Pot is safe Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» Pot is safer than alcohol Posted by: Gripoxen

Comments are closed-

Means and Ends
[Report this comment]
Posted by: talkville on Aug 6, 2009 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Means: cannabis, alcohol, coffee, cocaine, tobacco, 'ecstasy', lsd, soda pop, sugar, sleep-aids, anti-depressants, diet-pills, crank, barbiturates, heroin, tea...........

End: Escapism, our favorite attitude toward the external world and reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 'Escaping' to where, exactly. Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: 'Escaping' to where, exactly. Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: What about pain management? Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: What about pain management? Posted by: talkville

Comments are closed-

Both are losing propositions
[Report this comment]
Posted by: PJT on Aug 6, 2009 6:16 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, when you get to be MY age (60) and after having filtered many gallons of vodka through the liver AND smoked many bales of dope, you realize that trying to decide which is least bad is kind of like trying to determine whether beating your head against a wall hurts less than wacking your head with a hammer.

Since we are fast on our way to second-class status as a country anyway, frankly, I don't care if people who heretofore were rotting their insides with alcohol make the monentus decision to begin wasting their brain cells with dope, or vice versa. Either way, it just means more marginal citizens are downgrading to full moron status. From where I stand, both resemble more the subhumans wandering around WalMart zombie-like with carts full of twinkies and bacon treats than the clear-headed, fit and sober people I choose to associate with.

Let me put it another way, in case you misunderstood the first time. Alcohol is unhealthy because it is an organic poison and when you drink it, you are poisoning yourself. Dope is bad because it is a psychoactive substance that impairs your thinking and screws up your brain. When you smoke it, you substitute zombieland for reality. If you think you need either, what you really need most is psychological counseling.

By the way, I think between a mean drunk and a zonked 60 year old dope smoker I would pick the mean drunk to deal with any day. The mean drunk offends by being rude and abusive; the dope smoker offends by making a pathetic spectacle of himself by self-induced psychological disability. Both are losers in my opinion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Both are losing propositions Posted by: richholland
» RE: Sober; you left out God. Posted by: sasquuatch55
» RE: Both are losing propositions Posted by: Cybershaman

Comments are closed-

Pros and cons
[Report this comment]
Posted by: solrev on Aug 6, 2009 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pros and cons can be argued forever but legalizing pot is just a round the corner, that includes Internet gambling also. The government is not about to let the cash cow roam free, nothing personal it’s just business. Two things the government should consider, which they probably will not, are the price and the quality. The price has to be low enough to eliminate the black market. The quality has to be as high as possible, one hitter pot. If you never smoked the resin soaked roaches, then you missed the hit of the day. That resin can not be good for your lungs. One hitter buds in a bong would really help out your lungs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Once again the headline doesn't match the article -- what were you editors on?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: hagwind on Aug 6, 2009 6:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't read the book, but this excerpt is mostly about idiotic media coverage, knee-jerk attitudes, and grandstanding by a law-enforcement officer. It says nothing about whether marijuana is safer than booze or tobacco. If the book makes a case that it is, or that stoned drivers are less likely to cause accidents than drunk drivers, or that marijuana smoke doesn't do bad things to your lungs, why not post that instead of this?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ring, ring Posted by: linecrosser

Comments are closed-

Another fallen hero
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mkahn on Aug 6, 2009 6:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More fundamental than the whip-weary dead horse of substance politics is the need for a more comprehensive hero myth in order to celebrate a man's ability to swim fast. For that matter, the need for a similar hero/villain myth for cannabis or alcohol. What is it about parts of the modern american cultural psyche (the pop side, to be sure), in its predilection for establishing an almost totalitarian attitude toward virtue that it prefers, quite frankly, BS to reality? And by BS I don't necessarily mean lies - that would require a healthy concern one way or the other for a particular idea's relevance and verity to the issue at hand.

Does this stem from the myth of American individualism, where success is proof of a necessary and sufficient degree personal virtue? (i.e. to suggest otherwise is to admit, to the detriment of this myth, that he had help?) Or is it simply driven by the constraints of corporate sponsorship, and the desire to co-brand with heroes as legendary, virtuous and omnipotent as the particular brand purports to be? It seems easy to establish that culturally unhealthy hero worship preceded corporate cultural dominance. Sure, there is the "but he's role model for kids" counter-argument, but can't we try for a moment the concept that a demonstration of humanity and fallibility (as some might judge) might do more to boost the motivation and self-image of the would-be champion than the "because he's more virtuous all around than you can ever hope to be" hero myth? The latter seems more useful as a tool for oppression than achievement.

Now, the cultural need for larger-than-life heroes is by no means a trait exclusive to Americans, indeed it is probably an essential component in the national psyche of all would-be superpowers and empires. Though in the American case, dependence does appear to have reached an unhealthy level. Recall while Clinton/Lewinsky proceeded apace, France had its own controversy: should Mitterand's wife and mistress have sat together at his funeral? Or, if you like, Obama purportedly smokes cigarettes: a meditation on that fact might be healthy--or not, depending on the state of one's addiction to heroes and villains.

Excuse the somewhat off-topic post, but to bring it back around: Michael Phelps, alcohol and cannabis are perhaps more kindred spirits than we would like to think. As a consequence of their actual existence in the real world, all may turn out to contribute facts to an accurate account of either Great Things or Horrible Tragedies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

elevated level
[Report this comment]
Posted by: BobPomeroy on Aug 6, 2009 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's an "elevated level of THC"? In AZ, any determination of THC equals DUI. Not that I'm cheering that, but who has done any studies about actual impairment by THC? On what basis was it reported by NY authorities that she had an "elevated level" and how was that determination relevant?, given blood alcohol level?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A question of economics and individual rights
[Report this comment]
Posted by: snax on Aug 6, 2009 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see current efforts at controlling marijuana posession and use as nothing more than a flexing of social and political muscle with little valid reason to actually punish people for such.

While it is true, that like alcohol, marijuana has it's own set of ill effects, it is also true that millions of people manage to use it responsibly for decades. So the question is why do we punish for posession and use - particularly in a time of economic downturn?

The benefit of legalizing pot, casting aside all of the pros and cons of actual use vs. any other drug, is that our law enforcement can work to deal with far more important things like rampant property crime and other things that really do matter! Not only would we be removing workload from officers, but it would also reduce court and encarceration costs that are taxpayer funded. A similar argument could be made for other types of drug posession, particularly in cases where encarceration does little to stand in the way of abuse. Instead of spending $100k per year per person locked up, we could do allot more good in our society by paying a much smaller amount to actually help drug abusers - regardless of their drug of choice.

I have the longstanding belief that there is one primary reason marijuana use is so heavily regulated. Beyond the unwarranted hysteria of some, it all boils down to markets and taxes. In short, because governments can easily regulate alcohol and tax it's sale, they don't want the competition from home growers who might otherwise forgo liver poisoning and frequent urination for something a little more pallatable - and more or less free!

Anybody that can keep a fern alive can grow useable pot! The alcohol and private prison building lobbies will never stand for that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

It's the euphoria, stupid.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: grindermonkey on Aug 6, 2009 7:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
US religions, their sycophant corporations and their lacky government have been regulating euuphoria for many decades. Euphoria results naturally from freedom, especially freedom from fear. Fear not love is the only tool of religion and it shapes and directs the propaganda machines that control the masses. Booze and pot produce euphoria, a natural defense against the ignorance and fear that sales pitches, sermons and demonic cartoons create.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's the euphoria, stupid. Posted by: talkville
» RE: It's the euphoria, stupid. Posted by: richholland

Comments are closed-

marijuana is safer than alcohol or tobacco
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vasumurti on Aug 6, 2009 7:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A November 4, 2002 Time/CNN Poll found that eighty percent of those polled felt marijuana should be legal only for therapeutic purposes. 72 percent felt recreational users should get fines rather than jail time, which is essentially decriminalization. The complete legalization of marijuana was favored only by 34 percent of respondents, but this figure is twice as large as it was in 1986. Marijuana is safer than alcohol and tobacco, and our drug laws should reflect this reality.

Throughout history, the legal and moral status of psychoactive drugs has kept changing. During the 17th century, the sale and consumption of tobacco were punished by death in much of Europe, Russia, China and Japan. For centuries, many of the Muslim domains that forbade alcohol sale and consumption simultaneously tolerated and even regulated the sale of opium and cannabis.

Each year, the U.S. government spends more than $30 billion on the drug war and arrests over 1.5 million people on drug-related charges. Over 318,000 people are now behind bars in the U.S. for drug violations, greater than the total number of people incarcerated for all crimes in England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain combined.

According to a 2003 Zogby poll, two of every five Americans say “the government should treat marijuana the same way it treats alcohol: It should regulate it, control it, tax it, and only make it illegal for children.” Close to 100 million Americans, including over half of those between the ages of 18 and 50, have tried marijuana at least once. Military and police recruiters often have no alternative but to ignore past marijuana use by job seekers.

In 1996, California voters passed a law to regulate medical marijuana within the state. In 2000, voters in California approved an initiative allowing people who are arrested for simple possession of drugs to go through a rehabilitation program rather than through the court process that would result in prison. Since the program began, most agree it has been very successful. It results in less recidivism and is considered cheaper than imprisonment.

Richard Posner, Chicago's chief judge of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and one of the nation's leading legal scholars, says marijuana use should be legalized as a way of reducing crime. Posner, a Reagan administration appointee once described by American Lawyer magazine as “the most brilliant judge in the country,” explained his views on marijuana in The Times Literary Supplement, a British publication, and in later interview:

“It is nonsense that we should be devoting so many law enforcement resources to marijuana," says Posner. "I am skeptical that a society that is so tolerant of alcohol and cigarettes should come down so hard on marijuana use and send people to prison for life without parole.”

Posner is the highest-ranking judge to publicly favor the repeal of marijuana laws. Several judges of the federal district court, a level lower than the appeals court, have made similar calls, including Robert Sweet of New York and James Paine of Florida, both Carter Administration appointees.

New York University law professor Burt Neuborne said it's significant that “one of the leading intellectuals in the judicial system recognizes that the laws don't seem to be working well.”

Posner and other federal judges have complained that sentencing guidelines force them to give unjustly severe prison sentences to relatively minor drug offenders. Says Posner: “Prison terms in America have become appallingly long, especially for conduct that, arguably, should not be criminal at all. Only decriminalization is a sure route to a lower crime rate. It is sad that it appears so far below the horizon of political feasibility.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

We all know this
[Report this comment]
Posted by: james108 on Aug 6, 2009 7:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This has been obvious for decades. It is not as easily controlled by big pharama.
It makes (some) people think and question things.

The democrats and republicans have been in on this for decades and still are. Even Obama is part of the lie by his slick omissions. It's like the official story that we're fighting terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are murdering men, women and children to put those countries and their resources under the control of multinational corporations. It's simple. It makes sense. Most of the people I've been listening to here are are actually causing it, by rationalizing other lies of the politicians, and refusing to question things "crazy" things. If it's so crazy, why are they afraid to look into things and desperate to shut down discussion? The truth does out when you follow it through. The game's all connected and most people are a part of it, even here. That's how it happens.

People who follow the democrat and republican version of things live in a virtual reality where none of this makes sense (unless wooooo, it's a conspiracy), but it makes perfect sense. You can't pick and choose the lies and cover ups you want to subscribe to, because ignorance can and will be used against you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» If they gave it a rest Posted by: james108
» i know i sound fed up Posted by: james108
» RE: We all know this Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» excuse me? Posted by: james108
» RE: We all know this Posted by: maxpayne

Comments are closed-

Tell Congress to support a sensible marijuana policy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: greenferret on Aug 6, 2009 7:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two bills in Congress - the Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act and the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act - could move federal marijuana policy two big steps forward. It's time to end the government's senseless and costly war on suffering patients and nonviolent marijuana users.

Tell your members of Congress to support a better marijuana policy today!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

It all has to do with whole-sale volume sale vs quality production.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Aug 6, 2009 7:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Marijuana can be grown anywhere and one can take a small dosage and feel good and not come back for more so fast. Alcohol on the other hand requires a lot to produce, hence productivity plus there's a whole sale volume sale business to be made out of it. Where does this leave us? In this profit-driven madness, alcohol is considered good for the economy while marijuana is deemed a "threat". That is why the prohibition on alcohol failed while the prohibition on cannabis stands to this day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Pot laws are about hemp too
[Report this comment]
Posted by: lisafrequency on Aug 6, 2009 7:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hemp is a very valuable crop and it has been wiped out of production. Oregon recently passed a law to make it legal to grow hemp.

In the early days of our country it was a law that everyone grow hemp. Hemp is good for so many things that I don't have the time to write it all to name a few: paper,food,clothing,fuel. How crazy is it that this important crop is illegal?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pot laws are about hemp too Posted by: lisafrequency
» RE: Pot laws are about hemp too Posted by: richholland
» RE: Pot laws are about hemp too Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Pot laws are about hemp too Posted by: lisafrequency
» RE: Pot laws are about hemp too Posted by: JenniferBedingfield

Comments are closed-

Marijuana is Safe: So Why Tax and Regulate it?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bcainw on Aug 6, 2009 7:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two of the three authors are from MPP and NORML: groups that will only discuss the option of "taxing and regulating" Marijuana under what I have called a "Government Marijuana Dispensary" program. After the "shakeout" occurs what you are going to see is your government become your new Marijuana Drug Dealer: the same government that has busted over 20 million Americans over the last 20 years because they deemed Marijuana too dangerous.

So why won't they discuss an option where adults (over 18) can simply grow their Marijuana without any "taxation or regulation?"

Such a model already exists in Bruce Cain's "MERP" Model. But NORML, DPA and MPP won't even discuss it with their members. Why is that?

You can read much more about MERP and why it makes much more sense that the crap these guy are dishing out. If you go to one of their conferences please get the word out on MERP. They won't. And that is sad because only MERP will destroy the Mexican Drug Cartels, provide free medicine to the sick and stop the "pigs" (e.g., policeman that bust Americans for mere possession) from breaking down your door looking for that evasive "pot garden."

We should all have a "pot garden."

MERP Headquarters
The Marijuana Re-Legalization Policy Project (MRPP)= "MERP"
http://www.newagecitizen.com/MERP.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Methinks some of us doth protest too much . . .
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on Aug 6, 2009 8:07 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does drinking alcohol cause lung cancer (in the guy sitting next to you)?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Are you dumb? Posted by: xmvince
» RE: Are you dumb? Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
» RE: Are you dumb? Posted by: xmvince
» RE: Are you dumb? Posted by: xmvince

Comments are closed-

WASUPDOC
[Report this comment]
Posted by: sowles on Aug 6, 2009 8:25 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every now and again some dope pusher writes a book about how great MJ is. Like it's a god or something. Pot is hell in smoke! It's a gateway drug. If you have ever witnessed a talented person go to blazes because he thought pot was so great, you'd never touch the stuff. This myth about MJ being harmless compared to liquor will bring another generation of young people into the fold and more BILLIONS into the coffers of the Drug Lords. Aside from the health aspects of emphasima, cancer of the lungs, throat, mouth and heart disease; have you seen someone high on pot? They act like idiots and that is just the short-term effect of being high. The long-term effects are loss of short-term memory, enlarged mamery glands in males, poor judgement when operating a vehicle or machinery and a mental disorder brought on by sustained use of the drug: mainly pariona, forgetfullness, loss of libito, and yet to be determined, but probably true, damage to one's reproductive DNA. An uptick in suicide by adolesents is under study but also will prove to be true. I guess if one hates a society or themselves, pot is the way to go. There is no mistake about it that the Cartels push billions of tons of this green matter across the border, not only for the profit in MJ, but it's link to cocaine, meth and herion, where the real profits lay. Think about the connection to crime where drugs, especially MJ are concerned: The US has the largest prison population in the world. Surpassing North Korea, China and Russia. About 2,000,000 of the 2,500,000 incarcerates are in prison because of drugs. Not the casual use therof, but the crimes committed under the drugs influence. Whether it be white collar crime, theft, rape, assault or murder this is what the new age drug culture has wrought. It's too bad that the parents of our newest generation will not, or are afraid to because of the highly-finance pot lobby, educate their children about the evils of pot, LSD, meth, cocaine, herion, opium and most other mind and body altering substances. I once knew a terrifically talented writer, who, when he was not high on pot, wrote like Ernest Hemingway. When on the drug, not only his witing went to pot, but so did his mental and physical health. The poor man comitted suicide at age 31 while high. If he had stayed in school and persued his writing there is no doubt that he'd be an Oscar/Emmy award writer today. This is not the same old argument, but it is a warning to those who may be thinking of "trying it out." Beware, your life, liberty and livelyhood may be on the line if you do!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: WASUPDOC Posted by: xmvince
» RE: WASUPDOC Posted by: sowles
» RE: WASUPDOC Posted by: xmvince
» RE: WASUPDOC Posted by: doneman2000
» Reefer madness propaganda Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» You have no clue Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: You have no clue Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» I don't know where to start Posted by: linecrosser
» RE: WASUPDOC Posted by: Gripoxen

Comments are closed-

Pot Smoking Congressmen.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: melpol on Aug 6, 2009 8:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Distillers of alcohol have lobbyists with pockets stuffed with dollars. There is no incentive for congressmen to decriminalize marijuana. Pot smokers have to organize and put together a billion dollars. That would make each senator a pot smoker and a voter for the decriminalization of marijuana.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pot Smoking Congressmen. Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

And, Pot Smoking Presidents...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gazooks on Aug 6, 2009 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Constant day care
[Report this comment]
Posted by: xmvince on Aug 6, 2009 8:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is this 24/7/365 day care or something? If I want to I'm gonna smoke some weed - no law or system should have anything against that as it's my body.

If the government created life, then sure, prohibit marijuana if you want to almighty creator - but wait, they DIDN'T create life therefor they have NO right to tell me what I can and can't put into MY body!

Grow up government, learn to respect the people that give you your power - because without us, the people, you'd just be a bunch of lonely assholes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

fact:
[Report this comment]
Posted by: WyrdSister on Aug 6, 2009 9:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NO ONE spends 10 days in the ICU in a chemically induced coma in order to detox your body of THC, but that is EXACTLY what happened to my cousin who had spent 20+ years with vodka.

'nough said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Anything Can Be Abused.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gazooks on Aug 6, 2009 9:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Including too much o'nuthin'.

Anyone that's taken the time to consider the prohibition of controlled substances and the politics thereof understands the the absurdity of it and the corruption it breeds. More than anything, the prohibition of pot has contributed to both contempt for law by users, and the rabid support of the law by the same cartels that control distribution, make billions in profits and control politicians.

We live in a chronically abusive culture. Some of us find the use of psycho-tropics to be a beneficial aid to a more peaceful and reflective way of being appreciative to the amazing complexity and beauty of the world. It is a very ancient practice.

It's difficult to be preoccupied with power and control over others and to participate in an aggressive and self interested mindset while using pot, particularly with Cannabis Sativa. In other words, you're likely less inclined to exploit or or to be exploitable as a result and therefore less useful to an aggression based culture. Alcohol is much better suited.

In any case, the injustice of the pot laws are much too profitable for corrupted interests and their proxies, and the indoctrination of an unwitting and co-opted public much too ingrained for an honest treatment of the question of legalisation.

More likely it will become less a federal issue excepting importation, and more of a discretionary area for state enforcement as seen in California. It could have impacts on population redistribution as it has already in Mendocino.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I suspect that the D.E.A. has infiltrated these alternet posts
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thedevil666 on Aug 6, 2009 9:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't see any other reason why people would write such obvious B.S. on some of their posts. Every study I have seen that links pot use to mental disease is a correlational study. As someone with a degree in math who has more than a layman's understanding I can tell you that showing that there is a correlation does NOT IMPLY CAUSAL EFFECT. The chance is greater that people with mental disease are driven to using pot as a form of self medication since it is cheaper than pharmaceuticals designed to combat these diseases.

As far as being a brain-dead loser with increased mamary glands (read man-tits) I can only say that after working my way through college, I managed to pay off my school loans before I graduated. To this day I have no debt. I also have single digit body fat as I exercise frequently. I am hardly your steriotypical stoner and there are many more out there that are like me. The fact is that there are many people, such as Carl Sagan, who live highly productive lives while frequently using marijuana. I am sick of tired of all the ignorant idiots insulting me and all of the other people who use marijuana responsibly. I could refute every one of the lies posted here but I have more interesting things to do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

hmmm
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tazdelaney on Aug 6, 2009 9:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
my brother, deceased basically from massive drinking, used to work as top aide for carolina representative preyer, who long headed the house ethics committee and specialized in inquiries into organized crime. preyer once told him that disconnecting the government from organized crime would be like seperating a tree from its roots and that it started with prohibition, aka drugwar I. anywhere you look the government itself is a RICO Act case. but the government excluded itself from such charges when they started to mount...

the drugwarII was begun immediately after the end of prohibition but that time no required constitutional amendment was done and like the FCC, created in 1933 in total repudiation of the 1st amendment, has never been questioned by a treasonous congress or executive or judiciary.

while 64,000 died in the 20th century from illegal drugs with over 33 million imprisonments; merck's vioxx killed 55,000 in 7 years and no one went to jail. 12x more people die from legal pharma than all illegal drugs combined, yet the obummer drug czar calls marijuana "a dangerous and highly addictive drug with no medicinal value."!!!

the drugwar is all about profits and control of an organized crime government. like general smedley butler said, "war is a RACKET!' and america is as it has always been: a war racket police state with the rightwing bible belt cheering it on and 'liberals' voting for war funds and mandatory minimum sentencing. government by garbage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Because you can Grow it yourself- No Profits for Corps
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Purple Girl on Aug 6, 2009 10:03 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pots illegal for one reason- they can't stop people from growing their own. There is no way they can control the production or distribution. Although pot is bulkier than other drugs- it's more convenient and compact than alcohol fro distribution purposes.
Additionally the legalization of pot would have a devastating effect on their huge profits from antidepressants, anti anxiety, pain killers, sleep meds.....
And for those of you who scream "lung Cancer"- pot can be administered as an edible (butter), vaporized steam or steeped as a tea.
Accidents are certainly a serious concern- so DUI would still be illegal. But honestly the pot smoking driver is the one in the Right lane doing the speed limit (or less)- out of a bizarre mixture of paranoia and placidity. Or more likely the one driving the back roads.Love those Dirt Road,esp.
Came up on two gals,One day, frantically searching their car on a notoriously pitted dirt road. When I stopped to ask them if they needed help- they said the needed a lighter.Apparently the car's didn't work, and matches would not do. I gave them my extra lighter. Pipe Smokers?
Pots not legal because they can't control the commerce. It is far too easy for the average person to enter the market. Entreprenuership is only revered by the Right if it makes someone a billionaire- otherwise you're just part of the window dressing and servant class.
They want to not only harness the revnues, they must be sole propriators over it.'Mom and Pop' is the Antithesis of Capitalsim, because it imposes the effects of a truely Free Market on Corps."Free" did not refer to the lack of regulations over commerce, but the Markets Accesssiblity to the People.
IN what Twisted logic could you ever assume our Founders meant no Oversight, when it was exactly the lack of oversight (thus swindling) of the masses by the Nobles and merchant class they revolted against???? "Free Market" is The 'Mom and Pop' Shops,Not Family Crests or Logos.The corps have been stalking and devouring real entrepenuers and small business owners since at least the '80's with the family farms.Pot would be the Mom & Pop industry they could never control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

marijuana is harmless
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vasumurti on Aug 6, 2009 10:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A pamphlet entitled "10 Things Every Parent, Teenager and Teacher Should Know About Marijuana" produced by the Family Council on Drug Awareness tells us marijuana is not physically addictive. The 1980 Costa Rican study, the 1975 Jamaican study and the 1972 Nixon Blue Ribbon Report all concluded that marijuana use does not lead to physical dependency. The FBI reports that 65 to 75 percent of criminal violence is alcohol-related. On the other hand, Federal Bureau of Narcotics director Harry Anslinger testified before Congress in 1948 that marijuana leads to nonviolence and pacifism.

In a message to Congress on August 2, 1977, President Jimmy Carter insisted: "Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself."

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Law Judge Francis L. Young wrote on September 8, 1988: "Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."

After years of suppression by the government, the truth about medical marijuana is finally coming out. Dr. Tod Mikuriya, former director of marijuana research for the entire federal government, wrote in 1996: "I was hired by the government to provide scientific evidence that marijuana was harmful. As I studied the subject, I began to realize that marijuana was once widely used as a safe and effective medicine. But the government had a different agenda, and I had to resign."

Tobacco kills about 430,700 each year. Alcohol and alcohol-related diseases and injuries kill about 110,000 per year. Secondhand tobacco smoke kills about 50,000 every year. Aspirin and other anti-inflammatory drugs kill 7,600 each year. Cocaine kills about 500 yearly alone, and another 2,500 in combination with another drug. Heroin kills about 400 yearly alone, and another 2,500 in combination with another drug. Adverse reactions to prescription drugs total 32,000 per year, while marijuana kills no one.

A November 4, 2002 Time/CNN Poll found that 80 percent of those polled felt marijuana should be legal only for therapeutic purposes. 72 percent felt recreational users should get fines rather than jail time, which is essentially decriminalization. The complete legalization of marijuana was favored only by 34 percent of respondents, but this figure is twice as large as it was in 1986. Marijuana is safer than alcohol and tobacco, and our drug laws should reflect this reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: marijuana is harmless Posted by: sunnywater
» Well... Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

To Pot or Not to Pot
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kib on Aug 6, 2009 10:36 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Their is so many ways to dice this one up. Just think if pot was legal, would their be laws for domestic versus imported? I believe if pot did become legal the majority of the market would be imported. But at what cost? All of a sudden corn, wheat, and other farmers would begin to stop producing food to produce a drug. Next thing you know the UN and other agencies wouldn't have enough food supply to feed the hungry or supply a diseater. On good thing is we could finally free ourselves from foriegn oil, because be would be to high to drive, and rely on public transportation. The list of ups and downs are endless here is the bottom line. a href="http://fiestamovement.com/agents/view/58">Pot Cowboy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: To Pot or Not to Pot Posted by: xmvince

Comments are closed-

The Truth is Out all Over Town....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: picket on Aug 6, 2009 11:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... that MJ is GOOD for all the adult populace to use medicinally or as a relaxant. Cannabis anti-prohibition advocates.. your Overseers, your Owners the Lawmakers have been corrupted by power and $$$$$$$$$$$$.

The Lobbyists RULE.

Your Owners the Lawmakers have their hands over their ears and refuse to speak truth or to listen to the people about MJ. They have spouted LIES so often about MJ that they are a laughable group. The MJ Laws are bad, they are unjust. LEO's are mocked in private conversations all over the USA, people know that even the LEO's and Lawmakers LOVE their POT too. It is going to take generations to respect an American justice system gone bad, if ever. The system has been corrupted simply by demonizing a God-Given plant.

The unfortunate ones, you know who you are do not think it is FUNNY. It is not a Joke. Somebody has to pay the price to justify the billions flushed to keep MJ illegal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

"Marijuana is Safer..." LOL!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: AgnosticPriest on Aug 6, 2009 11:59 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see your point, but just because someone believes marijuana is safer than other drugs, doesn't make it a candidate for decriminalization!

If you want to try to decriminalize it, the angle you should be taking is the hemp plant itself, not the damn drug. I would not vote to decriminalize marijuana, but I would vote to decriminalize the cultivation of hemp.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Marijuana is Safer..." LOL! Posted by: sunnywater
» RE: So you support prohibition Posted by: kettleblack

Comments are closed-

I speak with my cash!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: shelle621 on Aug 6, 2009 12:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I feel for Michael. What a guy!! Superstar & stoner!! Go man - We need some productive role models. So sorry some a-hole had to put him out there like that - but Greatful for his bravery! I am speaking with my cash - kelloggs is one biggie for my family. No matter how bad I may have the munchies - no way will I every eat a kelloggs product - ever. As well as every pothead friend I know!! My kids support me - (They are right up there with wally world - walmart.) I spend $30 or more evry 2 weeks on cereal - not for them. I even have looked up a list of every other product they make - That is the only power we have except the right to vote (If it really counts) . I feel very stongly in my right to speak with my wallet - it works when nothing else does. Peace be with all - tokers or not! Freedom to choose is all we want!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» not that brave Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

The article fails completly...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: zigy on Aug 6, 2009 12:28 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to explain WHY and HOW "...alcohol is a very harmful and deadly substance". Yes, yes of course taken in excess its depressent effect can be deadly. And yes, it should not be used by people operating machinary or cars. And yes, some people are prone to aggressive behavior when indulging. But lets not blame the drug, lets put the blame where it really lies, with the flawed (or undiscerning, or indiscrete) individuals who use certain substances irresponsibly.

I recall reading an article several years ago by an anthropologist who hypothesised that humankind would not have been able to endure the stresses of civilization had we not had recourse to the relaxing effect of alcohol. I have read of several studies that have concluded that, used in moderation alcohol has "beneficial" effects on the heart and circulatory system.

My own intuitive theory about the affects of alcohol is that "introverts" (who, studies show have "overly active" inner minds) can use alcohol very effectivly to slow their minds and thereby carefully examine their many thoughts in a quiet, reflective manner, while (at least some) extroverts (who tend to require mental stimulation from external stimuli, and lacking such may tend to become depressed) are prone toward impulsivity when using alcohol. These are the folks (if I may venture a conjecture) who give alcohol a bad name by commiting such sins as driving under the influence, or abusing a spouse, or acting in an aggressive or obnoxious manner.

One might also keep in mind that the fine motor skills that have evolved in humans create a kind of "lethargic tension" unnatural to us as animals. A moment's reflection will reveal that mammals are usually in a state of physical activity or dormant. (Obviously other mammals do not sit in a closed room typing at a keyboard or manipulating a writing implement all day as we do). Alcohol relieves this "lethargic tension" that results from our "unnatural" fine motor skills.

Some of the finest poetry in the world (in my humble and amatuer opinion) was written buy some of the classicial Chinese poets such as Tao Ching either in praise of alcohol or celebrating events surrounding the consumption of such.

So, all in all, it is not the alcohol that is dangerous and deadly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

at the very least, hemp should be legalized
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vasumurti on Aug 6, 2009 12:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Under our drug laws, even the growing of cannabis hemp -- the nonspyschoactive variety of the plant--is outlawed in order to enforce the marijuana laws.

Hemp has many economic uses. It contains the longest fiber in the plant kingdom and is one of the strongest and most durable. It can be used for commercial and industrial applications, including insulation, textiles, clothing, and rope. The fiber and pulp can be used to manufacture nondeteriorating paper using a relatively pollution-free process. The plant can also be used for biomass applications. Its seeds yield oil similar to linseed, which can be used in many commercial and industrial applications. In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the seeds have been used for human consumption.

"Hemp. It's marijuana's nonspyschoactive sister," writes Ed Rosenthal. "You couldn't get a buzz if you smoked a bale of hemp, but it's still illegal to grow it in the United States." Industrial hemp is legally grown in over thirty countries. For thousands of years, people grew hemp and prospered. It flourishes without pesticides. Thomas Jefferson considered hemp so vital to America that he risked his life to smuggle hemp seeds out of France. George Washington grew hemp and instructed his caretaker at Mount Vernon: "Make the most of the hemp seed. Sow it everywhere."

Industrial hemp was first grown in Kentucky 250 years ago. It is currently grown in other countries across the globe, including France, England, Canada, Australia, China, Hungary and the Ukraine. Industrial hemp has virtually no THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. It cannot be used as a drug. None of the countries that allow industrial hemp production have experienced any drug problems relating to the crop. Using modern processing techniques, hemp can be used in place of petrochemicals. Instead of synthetic plastics made from oil, we can use natural fiber and processed bioplastic derivatives. Plastics and polyester rely on foreign oil, while cotton consumes enormous amounts of water, fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides.

Industrial hemp is very clean, easy to grow and is one of the most environmentally sound sources of industrial fiber in the world. Environmentally friendly detergents, plastics, paints, varnishes, cosmetics, and textiles are already being made from it in Europe. Industrial hemp can meet our fiber needs while also revitalizing our struggling rural economies.

Hemp is already being used in place of trees for pressboard, particleboard, and core concrete construction molds. Paper made from hemp is acid-free, stronger and lasts far longer than paper made from trees. Hemp fabrics are far stronger and more resistant to mold than any other natural fiber. Builders in France and Germany use hemp for construction material, replacing drywall and plywood. Hemp can be used to manufacture plastic plumbing pipe, replacing such toxic materials as polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Hemp fiber is already being used in place of glass fiber in surfboards and snowboards. Hemp could also provide the resin itself.

For ideological reasons, the federal government refuses to allow farmers to grow hemp despite the fact that industrial hemp is currently grown legally worldwide. The George W. Bush administration took anti-hemp policy to a new extreme, attempting unsuccessfully to ban the import of hemp foods and cosmetics. Erwin "Bud" Sholts, director of the Wisconsin Agriculture Department's marketing division, said hemp "is the most value-added, prolific fiber crop man can grow." Sholts acknowledged that hemp is an emotional issue, but points out that "other nations with drug laws as tough or tougher than ours have overcome this hurdle." The U.S. is the only major industrialized nation that prohibits the growing of industrial hemp; anti-drug hysteria should not blind the public to the commercial and industrial applications of hemp.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» hemp was the reason Posted by: james108
» RE: hemp was the reason Posted by: Cybershaman
» could be partly Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

Legalize Marijuana in California
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ab390 on Aug 6, 2009 2:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Marijuana should be legalfor adults who choose it as a healthier alternative to alcohol. Americans should not be arrested for making healthier choices about their own bodies.

No matter how many people we arrest, it's still easier for high school students to buy pot than beer. Keeping marijuana illegal does not benefit our children. It benefits special interest groups: the alcoholic beverage industry, the prison industry, police departments and their suppliers, government bureaucrats, and drug cartels.

Tell your legislators in Sacramento to legalize marijuana. Visit yes390.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yup. Posted by: talkville

Comments are closed-

POt
[Report this comment]
Posted by: zzdinko on Aug 6, 2009 3:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pot totally ROCKS dude, Gotta have it!

RT
www.anon-web-tools.net.tc

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

IN CONCLUSION, I THINK I PREFER THE PRESENT STATUS UNDER WHICH I CAN 'SAFELY' GROW MY OWN AND SMOKE
[Report this comment]
Posted by: blurider on Aug 6, 2009 5:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...it at home in private, to a regime under which it's legal, but taxed, regulated and I'm forced ('encouraged') to buy the 'legal' stuff! After watching the effects of our government's involvement on 'organic farming' I'm feeling just a bit 'Republican' about government and the things I put inside my body!

Perhaps I would continue to be 'inconvenienced' when I travel but I'm not such a head that I wouldn't prefer a few days or weeks 'dry' to facing the penalties in Ethiopia, for instance - or worse! (does it get any worse?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Correct me if I am wrong, please.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: re:mcd.'s on Aug 6, 2009 7:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Didn't the toxicology report for the N.Y. woman who was driving down the highway the wrong direction indicate that she had one of the chemical marker substances found in marijuana in the test they did on her? Would this indicate that this chemical found in marijuana can in a small percentage of people cause delusional thinking and paranoid thoughts, detachement from reality and in a few people couldn't this cause down-right craziness?
Isn't today's weed compared to that of colonial days an adulterated basement plant that has been tampered with in the way that it is grown? Could this possibly be the reason that it can make certain people paranoid compared to the original version of the plant? Don't dealers lace it with other drugs sometimes? If so how does that make it safer than a shot of liquor?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

clae shoes
[Report this comment]
Posted by: wen on Aug 6, 2009 7:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]

Comments are closed-

INTERESTING PARALLELS
[Report this comment]
Posted by: realtruther on Aug 7, 2009 2:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"After all, the government could not uphold the status quo all by itself. It requires the assistance of private and public employers, athletic associations, and the mainstream media. Each of these groups, by acting according to (assumed) societal norms, their leaders’ own personal biases, or perhaps, as we discuss later, their own financial interests, take actions that reinforce the government’s criminalizing of cannabis."

"After all, the government could not uphold the 9/11 fraud all by itself. It requires the assistance of private and public employers, the military industrial complex, foreign lobbies, and the mainstream media. Each of these groups, by acting according to (assumed) societal norms, their leaders’ own personal biases, or perhaps, as we discuss later, their own financial interests, take actions that reinforce the government’s blatant lies about that day."

And before anyone goes saying this is off topic, many in the media have suggested that 9/11 skeptics are "just a bunch of paranoid potheads!" It's all about the control...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Why?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: billwald on Aug 7, 2009 9:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because I can't grow alcohol in my living room. I can grow marijuana. Follow the money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why? Posted by: sowles

Comments are closed-

Alcohol is poison
[Report this comment]
Posted by: frantaylor on Aug 8, 2009 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like any other. It has a finite toxicity level that is easily achieved by someone who wants to do themselves in.

Your body knows it's poison, that's why you puke if you drink too much.

Even if it doesn't kill you outright, it is killing your insides, your liver in particular, just like non-lethal doses of any other poison.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

NO MONEY TO BE MADE WITH LEGAL POT
[Report this comment]
Posted by: staicnoise on Aug 8, 2009 2:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alcohol containing beverages are easily made at home, but it's a hassle to do so. Marijuana on the other hand is several degrees less a hassle. Hell given enough lazy careless growers the stuff could end up as plentiful as volunteer hemp still is in Kansas road ditches, years down the road.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Strange Logic!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ramanan50 on Aug 10, 2009 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both cannabis and alchohol are injurious to health.
Not only that; it ruins one's family and life.
There is no point in comparing two things that are bad health wise and draw a conclusion that one is less harmful and hence it has to be promoted is like comparing the bite of a king cobra and the jaws of a crocodile.Avoid both.
Goal should be to lead a healthy and peaceful family and social life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Demand a better federal marijuana policy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jks789 on Aug 14, 2009 9:23 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two bills in Congress - the Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act and the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act – could move federal marijuana policy two big steps forward. It's time to end the government's senseless and costly war on suffering patients and nonviolent marijuana users.

Tell your members of Congress to support a better marijuana policy:

http://tinyurl.com/decriminalizeMJ

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

MTS to AVI Converter
[Report this comment]
Posted by: boay on Aug 25, 2009 7:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MTS to AVI Converter,best MTS to avi converter

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Sure
[Report this comment]
Posted by: smithgoogler on Aug 26, 2009 1:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
buy generic online

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Victoria
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rrrbert on Sep 3, 2009 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Under the name cannabis, 19th century medical practitioners sold the drug, (usually as a tincture) popularizing the word amongst English-speakers. It was rumored that Queen Victoria's menstrual pains were treated with cannabis. And sexual dysfunction and
performance anxiety as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Have a Marijuana if you can....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Tom Degan on Aug 6, 2009 12:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's an argument I've made so many times I'm getting bored with it:

By the time one reaches my age (I'll be fifty-one in ten days) one has known - at the very least - fifty people who have died on lung cancer and another fifty who have died of cirrhosis of the liver. Now ask yourself the following question:

How many people what I personally known who have died as the result of consuming too much grass?

ANSWER:
Not only have I never known anyone to die in that matter, I am not aware of it happening in all recorded human history.

I cannot believe that seventy-two years after pot was made illegal, we are still having this same stupid argument.

I need a drink....On second thought....

The Children of 1977

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Taconic Killer - a deadly mixture! Posted by: progressive-life
» Obviously... Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Obviously... Posted by: lightwing1
» RE: regressive death strikes out again Posted by: progressive-life
» RE: Taconic Killer - a deadly mixture! Posted by: progressive-life
» RE: Don't feed the trolls. Posted by: Ghoulman
» We Used to Call That State... Posted by: popeurbanxxiii
» RE: It was the alcohol! Posted by: sasquuatch55
» .19 BAC! Posted by: permanentilt
» What's that again, CaliJim? Posted by: hagwind
» RE: What's that again, CaliJim? Posted by: tommy_slothrop
» Hopeless, indeed. Posted by: CaliJim
» RE: Have a Marijuana if you can.... Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
» Thank you, Ghoulman.... Posted by: Tom Degan
» Not quite true Posted by: Aimleft

Comments are closed-

Again, why too much focus on the culture side of cannabis? Let's stick to the industrial side first.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 6, 2009 12:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would be much better for Alternet to remind the readers that Ron Paul is currently trying again to push for legalizing industrial hemp for production. HR 1866 is the bill in the House, Senate version unknown. If you keep trying to talk to people only about the culture side, it just rubs off in the wrong direction and people won't know the wide variety of benefits of hemp. Here's Alternet's better article on hemp for you to read:

http://www.alternet.org/environment/133055

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Couldn't agree more Posted by: GatoPreto
» Different problem Posted by: Malkavian

Comments are closed-

End of story???
[Report this comment]
Posted by: atheistcable on Aug 6, 2009 12:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Sheriff Lott eventually announced that he had failed to find sufficient evidence to press criminal charges against Michael Phelps, or for that matter, anyone else."

Is that the end of the story here? Is it possible for Michael Phelps to sue the police or the city for violating his 4th Amendment rights? Do we just passively accept the police raiding our private lives, busting into our homes, on silly suspicions without fighting back--and hard with Big Lawsuits against the city?

And sports figures. It makes me sick when a football player, for example, is arrested for possessing some pot--and then, with head hanging low, apologizing to the public for his "error" and "unworthy behavior." Give me a break!

A real man would face the cameras and say: "Yeah, I smoke pot occasionally, so what? I just happen not to respect this country's irrational federal drug policies."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Phelps Laps Up Bad Advice Posted by: americansheep

Comments are closed-

Then the aftermath
[Report this comment]
Posted by: joebanana on Aug 6, 2009 1:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Phelps goes on to break a world record in the butterfly, Damn, that weed stuff must be really bad. I like the proposed bill, making possession of "enhanced marijuana" a life sentence, with a million dollar fine. T he senator that proposed that bill needs to take a drug test. Like all pot smokers are millionaires, and how you supposed to get a million dollars while in jail? Not thought through very well, eh? How much money does this bozo get paid?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Unbelievable
[Report this comment]
Posted by: texaslefty on Aug 6, 2009 1:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is a proven fact if you smoke pot your babies will be born naked.....

All we have is more right wing hype, it is alright for them to go out and have a couple of belts of liquor but if you smoke a joint, bong, or pipe Heaven Forbid. I know sometime when I am having an upset stomach or headache smoke a little and I feel better. If you are pissed and want to mellow out smoke a couple of bong hits. I can do anything while I am smoking as well as I can while I am not smoking. I would rather be around someone that has smoked a joint of the killer bud than someone that has drank 3 or 4 beers. The pot head will be mellow and you can't tell about the drinker he might want to fight or he might want to f**k you never can tell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Unbelievable Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: Unbelievable Posted by: wavydavy
» RE: Unbelievable Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Hmmmmm.... Posted by: Cybershaman
» I wasn't born naked... Posted by: zigy
» The devil you know Posted by: suprmark

Comments are closed-

Why? Why do we continually have to answer such questions about it?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Aug 6, 2009 1:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because this country is a corporate oligarchy who know how to rule the now very dumb down masses.

Otherwise how do you explain the continued existence of people like Limbaugh, Beck, oh heck the whole Faux Crew? What is more, how do you explain that corporations would support their shows and that they have any following whatsoever?

But I digressed a bit.

Only when we are given a choice of a progressive leader who is not a corporate pimp, can we break the oligarchical hold on this country. In reality, when you look at the history of corporations and the reasons they exist, I believe most would conclude they should be disbanded and relieved of the power they have over this country.

The Declaration of Independence, in 1776, freed Americans not only from Britain but also from the tyranny of British corporations, (Remember the East India Company and the Tea Party?) and for a hundred years after the document's signing, Americans remained deeply suspicious of corporate power.

They were careful about the way they granted corporate charters, and about the powers granted therein.

Early American charters were created literally by the people, for the people as a legal convenience. Corporations were "artificial, invisible, intangible," mere financial tools. They were chartered by individual states, not the federal government, which meant they could be kept under close local scrutiny. They were automatically dissolved if they engaged in activities that violated their charter. Limits were placed on how big and powerful companies could become. Even railroad magnate J. P. Morgan, the consummate capitalist, understood that corporations must never become so big that they "inhibit freedom to the point where efficiency [is] endangered."

The two hundred or so corporations operating in the US by the year 1800 were each kept on fairly short leashes. They weren't allowed to participate in the political process. They couldn't buy stock in other corporations. And if one of them acted improperly, the consequences were severe. In 1832, President Andrew Jackson vetoed a motion to extend the charter of the corrupt and tyrannical Second Bank of the United States, and was widely applauded for doing so. That same year the state of Pennsylvania revoked the charters of ten banks for operating contrary to the public interest. Even the enormous industry trusts, formed to protect member corporations from external competitors and provide barriers to entry, eventually proved no match for the state. By the mid-1800s, antitrust legislation was widely in place.

In the early history of America, the corporation played an important but subordinate role. The people -- not the corporations -- were in control. So what happened? How did corporations gain power and eventually start exercising more control than the individuals who created them?

The shift began in the last third of the nineteenth century -- the start of a great period of struggle between corporations and civil society. The turning point was the Civil War.

Corporations made huge profits from procurement contracts and took advantage of the disorder and corruption of the times to buy legislatures, judges and even presidents (sound familiar today?).

Corporations became the masters and keepers of business. President Abraham Lincoln foresaw terrible trouble. Shortly before his death, he warned that "corporations have been enthroned . . . . An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people . . . until wealth is aggregated in a few hands . . . and the republic is destroyed." (Sound familiar again?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Corporations continued.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Aug 6, 2009 1:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
President Lincoln's warning went unheeded. Corporations continued to gain power and influence. They had the laws governing their creation amended. State charters could no longer be revoked. Corporate profits could no longer be limited. Corporate economic activity could be restrained only by the courts, and in hundreds of cases judges granted corporations minor legal victories, conceding rights and privileges they did not have before.

Then came a legal event that would not be understood for decades (and remains baffling even today), an event that would change the course of American history.

In Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, a dispute over a railbed route, the US Supreme Court deemed that a private corporation was a "natural person" under the US Constitution and therefore entitled to protection under the Bill of Rights. Suddenly, corporations enjoyed all the rights and sovereignty previously enjoyed only by the people, including the right to free speech.

This 1886 decision ostensibly gave corporations the same powers as private citizens. But considering their vast financial resources, corporations thereafter actually had far more power than any private citizen.

They could defend and exploit their rights and freedoms more vigorously than any individual and therefore they were more free. In a single legal stroke, the whole intent of the American Constitution -- that all citizens have one vote, and exercise an equal voice in public debates -- had been undermined.

Sixty years after it was inked, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas concluded of Santa Clara that it "could not be supported by history, logic or reason." One of the great legal blunders of the nineteenth century changed the whole idea of democratic government.

Post-Santa Clara America became a very different place. By 1919, corporations employed more than 80 percent of the workforce and produced most of America's wealth. Corporate trusts had become too powerful to legally challenge. The courts consistently favored their interests. Employees found themselves without recourse if, for example, they were injured on the job (if you worked for a corporation, you voluntarily assumed the risk, was the courts' position). Railroad and mining companies were enabled to annex vast tracts of land at minimal expense.

Gradually, many of the original ideals of the American Revolution were simply quashed. Both during and after the Civil War, America was increasingly being ruled by a coalition of government and business interests. The shift amounted to a kind of coup d'tat -- not a sudden military takeover but a gradual subversion and takeover of the institutions of state power. Except for a temporary setback during Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal (the 1930s), the US has since been governed as a corporate state.

We, the people, have lost control. Corporations, these legal fictions that we ourselves created two centuries ago, now have more rights, freedoms and powers than we do. And we accept this as the normal state of affairs.

We go to corporations on our knees. Please do the right thing, we plead. Please don't cut down any more ancient forests. Please don't pollute any more lakes and rivers (but please don't move your factories and jobs offshore either). Please don't use pornographic images to sell fashion to my kids. Please don't play governments off against each other to get a better deal.

We've spent so much time bowed down in deference, we've forgotten how to stand up straight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Corporations continued. Posted by: kimpohl
» RE: YES.... Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal
» WRONG Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: I stand corrected...sort of... Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal

Comments are closed-

Don Quixote
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Don Quixot on Aug 6, 2009 1:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 10 years of media control and brainwashing the nation German nazis turned normal people like you and me into haters and killers of Jews. In just 10 years. In America there have been 70 years of brainwashing the nation about pot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Don Quixote Posted by: Sananda

Comments are closed-

Marijuana
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Aug 6, 2009 2:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That article was funny. Americans seem to love being the Church Lady, and wagging our fingers every time one of our heroes falls off their pedestal, so to speak.

But I don't think the weed-heads should be picking on the drunks, and saying our drug is better than your drug. Can't we all get along, and agree that a person's personal behavior is nobody's business? In saying that alcohol makes you an idiot, you're still accepting the premise that drugs are naughty, and that Big Brother should guard the cookie jar.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Marijuana Posted by: Don Quixot

Comments are closed-

I hate to say it,
[Report this comment]
Posted by: linecrosser on Aug 6, 2009 2:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but the best way to get it legalized might just be to let the corporations do it. What I mean is, since it is obvious that all the negative BS propaganda is mostly coming from the parrot heads in the government, being told what to do and say by the Corporate State because their afraid it will cut into their profits and effect their current bottom line, then let them in on it. We've already beating them, there is more pot now than ever, and yes it is a better quality than it was back when I started in 69. Hemp could start so many new green industries, to list them would be longer than the original post. We could turn all the prisons into grow-ops and put out some great bud. We could replace tobacco fields with hemp being made into textiles to start the home grown clothing industry. It's fear that has created this mess and its not just fear from the medical industry, so we've got to show them that they won't just be kicked to the curb, and lose just a small portion of the trillions they've already raped from the public.
Then maybe, in a decade or so, of a public that accepts and benefits from it being legal won't be lead by a bunch of self serving murderous bunch of assholes and well actually see some hope thru change for real.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thai stick Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: medical mj Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: medical mj Posted by: Aimleft
» RE: medical mj Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» Dunno really Posted by: Malkavian

Comments are closed-

Don Quixote
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Don Quixot on Aug 6, 2009 2:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Personal behaviour is nobody's business, but laws are everybody's business. The way laws treat pot, that does not kill, and alcohol and tobacco, both killing around 7 million people per year, is hardly fair.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Don Quixote Posted by: linecrosser
» RE: Don Quixote Posted by: sowles

Comments are closed-

legislation is not made objectively but drawn up to placate powerful associations of people
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Suzon on Aug 6, 2009 2:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
known as corporations.

In the UK, royal charters have been granted to the Worshipful Company of Brewers, the Worshipful Company of Distillers, the Worshipful Company of Vintners (wine) and the Worshipful Company of Tobacco Pipe Makers and Tobacco Blenders. (There is no Worshipful Company of Marijuana Growers, hence the penalties.)

Royal charters, legally binding contracts, are a sort of protection racket for these industries. The men who run them support the monarchy in return for influence over ministers and judges.

The arrangement in the US has to be arrived at by other means (campaign donations), but it's still undue influence for the purpose of unjustified enrichment.

The overprivileged corporation is the enemy of the people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

How about we not use drugs or alcohol?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gladmueth on Aug 6, 2009 3:44 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about we don't "push" anything? I'm tired of the perception of the almost vitamin- like benefits of pot put out by pot supporters.
Pot, drugs, or alcohol, whatever the choice, your brain is altered. I've tried them all and feel I'm no better of a person by far on any of them. Medicinally pot has it's place, but personally I find it weak to take any form of drug on a regular basis or in the style of "pounding a few beers" for recreation. Minds are not made better for having taken any of these. I think this argument is two sides of the same coin. If you wanna smoke pot, then smoke it for God's sake. I won't respect you the more for choosing it over alcohol or vice versa. But please, whatever your choice, don't drive. The pot vs. alcohol uproar is juvenile and representative of what both do to your thinking and priorities. It's only a matter of time before they rightly loosen the laws on pot, but really, pot is hardly a necessity in life and politically there are much more important NEEDS we should be fighting for on behalf of our American citizens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The LONE CONCLUSION Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» The only need Posted by: linecrosser

Comments are closed-

The Hypocrisy and Insanity....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: drricklippin on Aug 6, 2009 4:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...on this is truly beyond the pale and says so much ab issue out what is wrong with America.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Hypocrisy and Insanity.... Posted by: drricklippin

Comments are closed-

It is not as easy as the authors would have you believe.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Skrunge Worzle on Aug 6, 2009 4:02 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a wealth of research evidence from around the world that shows consumption of marijuana is highly likely to be a strong contributory factor in a number of severe psychoses including bipolar illness, mania, depression, schizophrenia and others. The adverse effects are many times greater if it is consumed in conjunction with alcohol.
Furthermore, marijuana smoking is at least as dangerous in terms of lung disease and cancers of the lung and digestive tract as tobacco.
Frequent marijuana use also causes appreciable long term damage to both short and long-term memory.
Pot is not a harmless recreational high and, I believe, it is firmly on the correct side of legality. If we wish to save our citizens, perhaps further controls on alcohol are required.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thank you, Warden Posted by: kettleblack
» The wealth Posted by: linecrosser

Comments are closed-

Seems to me the evidence suggests alcohol is "safer" only in one area:
[Report this comment]
Posted by: harryf200 on Aug 6, 2009 4:34 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Driving.
"A New England Journal of Medicine report on drivers without alcohol in their systems who were stopped by police for reckless driving found that 45% had marijuana and 25% had cocaine in their systems." Source: http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/
drivingissues/1104432032.html

This is explained.
"marijuana can affect concentration, perception and reaction time up to 24 hours after it’s smoked ... (T)hat’s much, much longer than alcohol can affect behavior."

This is disputed by some, e.g.:
"A growing body of research indicates that marijuana is on balance less of a road hazard than alcohol. Various surveys have found that half or more of fatal drivers have alcohol in their blood, as opposed to 7 - 20% with THC, the major psychoactive component of marijuana (a condition usually indicative of having smoked within the past 2-4 hours).(3) The same studies show that some 70 - 90% of those who are THC-positive also have alcohol in their blood. It therefore appears that marijuana by itself is a minor road safety hazard, though the combination of pot and alcohol is not."
Source: http://www.soop.ca/potfacts/safetodrive.html

But if you read the latter carefully you will notice it only points out that more drivers in fatal accidents have alcohol or a mix of alcohol and pot, or other drugs, in their blood. All that proves is there are more incidences of people in FatAcs with alcohol, or a mix of it with other drugs, in their systems, not that alcohol is more dangerous. Alcohol might be more dangerous, but that conclusion cannot be drawn from the data quoted there.

Either way, I shan't be drinking or smoking dope before I drive!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Different effects Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Different effects Posted by: harryf200
» RE: Different effects Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Different effects Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

Vote
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thethinkingman on Aug 6, 2009 5:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For Pete's sake people, stop all this whining on about corporations in an axis with politicians. The corporations don't vote , you the people vote.

Tell your local pol that you won't vote for him unless he pledges, publicly to strike down the anti-weed laws.

It's true the pols get their money from the corporates but they get their political power from you.

Jeez.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Vote Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Vote Posted by: rider3
» Corporations don't vote Posted by: linecrosser
» RE: Vote Posted by: robert.noll

Comments are closed-

Pot is not safe
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson on Aug 6, 2009 5:20 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pot is not safer than alcohol because it accumulates in the body over a long period of time. You can detect pot in your urine for a long time after consumption.

Alcohol has been purified and standards set by the government. Bad alcohol blinded people in the past. Pot has not had standards set. There are many varities and contaminents.

Pot sticks to your fat cells in the brain and lungs (anything you smoke into your body is not good for you).

Military (mainly Vietnam) smoking pot had side effects such as memory loss, increased weight gain, lack of focus, etc.

We did tests in the NY State Research Labs under grants from both the state and the NIH.

The rule of thumb here is...anything you smoke or eat in excess takes a toll on the body. Those who insist on pot smoking being good for you are just avoiding the truth because they are addicted.

It doesn't matter if it helps people who are sick, etc. Medical use is different than public consumption. It's not a vitamin or cure. The government does need to purify and test it for medical use.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pot is not safe Posted by: kateco2
» RE: Pot is safe Posted by: kettleblack
» RE: Pot is not safe Posted by: parmentano
» RE: Pot is not safe Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: corrected title, Pot is safe Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Pot is not safe Posted by: tommy_slothrop
» RE: Pot is safe Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» Pot is safer than alcohol Posted by: Gripoxen

Comments are closed-

Means and Ends
[Report this comment]
Posted by: talkville on Aug 6, 2009 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Means: cannabis, alcohol, coffee, cocaine, tobacco, 'ecstasy', lsd, soda pop, sugar, sleep-aids, anti-depressants, diet-pills, crank, barbiturates, heroin, tea...........

End: Escapism, our favorite attitude toward the external world and reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 'Escaping' to where, exactly. Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: 'Escaping' to where, exactly. Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: What about pain management? Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: What about pain management? Posted by: talkville

Comments are closed-

Both are losing propositions
[Report this comment]
Posted by: PJT on Aug 6, 2009 6:16 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, when you get to be MY age (60) and after having filtered many gallons of vodka through the liver AND smoked many bales of dope, you realize that trying to decide which is least bad is kind of like trying to determine whether beating your head against a wall hurts less than wacking your head with a hammer.

Since we are fast on our way to second-class status as a country anyway, frankly, I don't care if people who heretofore were rotting their insides with alcohol make the monentus decision to begin wasting their brain cells with dope, or vice versa. Either way, it just means more marginal citizens are downgrading to full moron status. From where I stand, both resemble more the subhumans wandering around WalMart zombie-like with carts full of twinkies and bacon treats than the clear-headed, fit and sober people I choose to associate with.

Let me put it another way, in case you misunderstood the first time. Alcohol is unhealthy because it is an organic poison and when you drink it, you are poisoning yourself. Dope is bad because it is a psychoactive substance that impairs your thinking and screws up your brain. When you smoke it, you substitute zombieland for reality. If you think you need either, what you really need most is psychological counseling.

By the way, I think between a mean drunk and a zonked 60 year old dope smoker I would pick the mean drunk to deal with any day. The mean drunk offends by being rude and abusive; the dope smoker offends by making a pathetic spectacle of himself by self-induced psychological disability. Both are losers in my opinion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Both are losing propositions Posted by: richholland
» RE: Sober; you left out God. Posted by: sasquuatch55
» RE: Both are losing propositions Posted by: Cybershaman

Comments are closed-

Pros and cons
[Report this comment]
Posted by: solrev on Aug 6, 2009 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pros and cons can be argued forever but legalizing pot is just a round the corner, that includes Internet gambling also. The government is not about to let the cash cow roam free, nothing personal it’s just business. Two things the government should consider, which they probably will not, are the price and the quality. The price has to be low enough to eliminate the black market. The quality has to be as high as possible, one hitter pot. If you never smoked the resin soaked roaches, then you missed the hit of the day. That resin can not be good for your lungs. One hitter buds in a bong would really help out your lungs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Once again the headline doesn't match the article -- what were you editors on?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: hagwind on Aug 6, 2009 6:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't read the book, but this excerpt is mostly about idiotic media coverage, knee-jerk attitudes, and grandstanding by a law-enforcement officer. It says nothing about whether marijuana is safer than booze or tobacco. If the book makes a case that it is, or that stoned drivers are less likely to cause accidents than drunk drivers, or that marijuana smoke doesn't do bad things to your lungs, why not post that instead of this?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ring, ring Posted by: linecrosser

Comments are closed-

Another fallen hero
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mkahn on Aug 6, 2009 6:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More fundamental than the whip-weary dead horse of substance politics is the need for a more comprehensive hero myth in order to celebrate a man's ability to swim fast. For that matter, the need for a similar hero/villain myth for cannabis or alcohol. What is it about parts of the modern american cultural psyche (the pop side, to be sure), in its predilection for establishing an almost totalitarian attitude toward virtue that it prefers, quite frankly, BS to reality? And by BS I don't necessarily mean lies - that would require a healthy concern one way or the other for a particular idea's relevance and verity to the issue at hand.

Does this stem from the myth of American individualism, where success is proof of a necessary and sufficient degree personal virtue? (i.e. to suggest otherwise is to admit, to the detriment of this myth, that he had help?) Or is it simply driven by the constraints of corporate sponsorship, and the desire to co-brand with heroes as legendary, virtuous and omnipotent as the particular brand purports to be? It seems easy to establish that culturally unhealthy hero worship preceded corporate cultural dominance. Sure, there is the "but he's role model for kids" counter-argument, but can't we try for a moment the concept that a demonstration of humanity and fallibility (as some might judge) might do more to boost the motivation and self-image of the would-be champion than the "because he's more virtuous all around than you can ever hope to be" hero myth? The latter seems more useful as a tool for oppression than achievement.

Now, the cultural need for larger-than-life heroes is by no means a trait exclusive to Americans, indeed it is probably an essential component in the national psyche of all would-be superpowers and empires. Though in the American case, dependence does appear to have reached an unhealthy level. Recall while Clinton/Lewinsky proceeded apace, France had its own controversy: should Mitterand's wife and mistress have sat together at his funeral? Or, if you like, Obama purportedly smokes cigarettes: a meditation on that fact might be healthy--or not, depending on the state of one's addiction to heroes and villains.

Excuse the somewhat off-topic post, but to bring it back around: Michael Phelps, alcohol and cannabis are perhaps more kindred spirits than we would like to think. As a consequence of their actual existence in the real world, all may turn out to contribute facts to an accurate account of either Great Things or Horrible Tragedies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

elevated level
[Report this comment]
Posted by: BobPomeroy on Aug 6, 2009 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's an "elevated level of THC"? In AZ, any determination of THC equals DUI. Not that I'm cheering that, but who has done any studies about actual impairment by THC? On what basis was it reported by NY authorities that she had an "elevated level" and how was that determination relevant?, given blood alcohol level?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A question of economics and individual rights
[Report this comment]
Posted by: snax on Aug 6, 2009 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see current efforts at controlling marijuana posession and use as nothing more than a flexing of social and political muscle with little valid reason to actually punish people for such.

While it is true, that like alcohol, marijuana has it's own set of ill effects, it is also true that millions of people manage to use it responsibly for decades. So the question is why do we punish for posession and use - particularly in a time of economic downturn?

The benefit of legalizing pot, casting aside all of the pros and cons of actual use vs. any other drug, is that our law enforcement can work to deal with far more important things like rampant property crime and other things that really do matter! Not only would we be removing workload from officers, but it would also reduce court and encarceration costs that are taxpayer funded. A similar argument could be made for other types of drug posession, particularly in cases where encarceration does little to stand in the way of abuse. Instead of spending $100k per year per person locked up, we could do allot more good in our society by paying a much smaller amount to actually help drug abusers - regardless of their drug of choice.

I have the longstanding belief that there is one primary reason marijuana use is so heavily regulated. Beyond the unwarranted hysteria of some, it all boils down to markets and taxes. In short, because governments can easily regulate alcohol and tax it's sale, they don't want the competition from home growers who might otherwise forgo liver poisoning and frequent urination for something a little more pallatable - and more or less free!

Anybody that can keep a fern alive can grow useable pot! The alcohol and private prison building lobbies will never stand for that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

It's the euphoria, stupid.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: grindermonkey on Aug 6, 2009 7:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
US religions, their sycophant corporations and their lacky government have been regulating euuphoria for many decades. Euphoria results naturally from freedom, especially freedom from fear. Fear not love is the only tool of religion and it shapes and directs the propaganda machines that control the masses. Booze and pot produce euphoria, a natural defense against the ignorance and fear that sales pitches, sermons and demonic cartoons create.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's the euphoria, stupid. Posted by: talkville
» RE: It's the euphoria, stupid. Posted by: richholland

Comments are closed-

marijuana is safer than alcohol or tobacco
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vasumurti on Aug 6, 2009 7:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A November 4, 2002 Time/CNN Poll found that eighty percent of those polled felt marijuana should be legal only for therapeutic purposes. 72 percent felt recreational users should get fines rather than jail time, which is essentially decriminalization. The complete legalization of marijuana was favored only by 34 percent of respondents, but this figure is twice as large as it was in 1986. Marijuana is safer than alcohol and tobacco, and our drug laws should reflect this reality.

Throughout history, the legal and moral status of psychoactive drugs has kept changing. During the 17th century, the sale and consumption of tobacco were punished by death in much of Europe, Russia, China and Japan. For centuries, many of the Muslim domains that forbade alcohol sale and consumption simultaneously tolerated and even regulated the sale of opium and cannabis.

Each year, the U.S. government spends more than $30 billion on the drug war and arrests over 1.5 million people on drug-related charges. Over 318,000 people are now behind bars in the U.S. for drug violations, greater than the total number of people incarcerated for all crimes in England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain combined.

According to a 2003 Zogby poll, two of every five Americans say “the government should treat marijuana the same way it treats alcohol: It should regulate it, control it, tax it, and only make it illegal for children.” Close to 100 million Americans, including over half of those between the ages of 18 and 50, have tried marijuana at least once. Military and police recruiters often have no alternative but to ignore past marijuana use by job seekers.

In 1996, California voters passed a law to regulate medical marijuana within the state. In 2000, voters in California approved an initiative allowing people who are arrested for simple possession of drugs to go through a rehabilitation program rather than through the court process that would result in prison. Since the program began, most agree it has been very successful. It results in less recidivism and is considered cheaper than imprisonment.

Richard Posner, Chicago's chief judge of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and one of the nation's leading legal scholars, says marijuana use should be legalized as a way of reducing crime. Posner, a Reagan administration appointee once described by American Lawyer magazine as “the most brilliant judge in the country,” explained his views on marijuana in The Times Literary Supplement, a British publication, and in later interview:

“It is nonsense that we should be devoting so many law enforcement resources to marijuana," says Posner. "I am skeptical that a society that is so tolerant of alcohol and cigarettes should come down so hard on marijuana use and send people to prison for life without parole.”

Posner is the highest-ranking judge to publicly favor the repeal of marijuana laws. Several judges of the federal district court, a level lower than the appeals court, have made similar calls, including Robert Sweet of New York and James Paine of Florida, both Carter Administration appointees.

New York University law professor Burt Neuborne said it's significant that “one of the leading intellectuals in the judicial system recognizes that the laws don't seem to be working well.”

Posner and other federal judges have complained that sentencing guidelines force them to give unjustly severe prison sentences to relatively minor drug offenders. Says Posner: “Prison terms in America have become appallingly long, especially for conduct that, arguably, should not be criminal at all. Only decriminalization is a sure route to a lower crime rate. It is sad that it appears so far below the horizon of political feasibility.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

We all know this
[Report this comment]
Posted by: james108 on Aug 6, 2009 7:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This has been obvious for decades. It is not as easily controlled by big pharama.
It makes (some) people think and question things.

The democrats and republicans have been in on this for decades and still are. Even Obama is part of the lie by his slick omissions. It's like the official story that we're fighting terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are murdering men, women and children to put those countries and their resources under the control of multinational corporations. It's simple. It makes sense. Most of the people I've been listening to here are are actually causing it, by rationalizing other lies of the politicians, and refusing to question things "crazy" things. If it's so crazy, why are they afraid to look into things and desperate to shut down discussion? The truth does out when you follow it through. The game's all connected and most people are a part of it, even here. That's how it happens.

People who follow the democrat and republican version of things live in a virtual reality where none of this makes sense (unless wooooo, it's a conspiracy), but it makes perfect sense. You can't pick and choose the lies and cover ups you want to subscribe to, because ignorance can and will be used against you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» If they gave it a rest Posted by: james108
» i know i sound fed up Posted by: james108
» RE: We all know this Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» excuse me? Posted by: james108
» RE: We all know this Posted by: maxpayne

Comments are closed-

Tell Congress to support a sensible marijuana policy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: greenferret on Aug 6, 2009 7:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two bills in Congress - the Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act and the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act - could move federal marijuana policy two big steps forward. It's time to end the government's senseless and costly war on suffering patients and nonviolent marijuana users.

Tell your members of Congress to support a better marijuana policy today!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

It all has to do with whole-sale volume sale vs quality production.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Aug 6, 2009 7:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Marijuana can be grown anywhere and one can take a small dosage and feel good and not come back for more so fast. Alcohol on the other hand requires a lot to produce, hence productivity plus there's a whole sale volume sale business to be made out of it. Where does this leave us? In this profit-driven madness, alcohol is considered good for the economy while marijuana is deemed a "threat". That is why the prohibition on alcohol failed while the prohibition on cannabis stands to this day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Pot laws are about hemp too
[Report this comment]
Posted by: lisafrequency on Aug 6, 2009 7:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hemp is a very valuable crop and it has been wiped out of production. Oregon recently passed a law to make it legal to grow hemp.

In the early days of our country it was a law that everyone grow hemp. Hemp is good for so many things that I don't have the time to write it all to name a few: paper,food,clothing,fuel. How crazy is it that this important crop is illegal?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pot laws are about hemp too Posted by: lisafrequency
» RE: Pot laws are about hemp too Posted by: richholland
» RE: Pot laws are about hemp too Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Pot laws are about hemp too Posted by: lisafrequency
» RE: Pot laws are about hemp too Posted by: JenniferBedingfield

Comments are closed-

Marijuana is Safe: So Why Tax and Regulate it?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bcainw on Aug 6, 2009 7:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two of the three authors are from MPP and NORML: groups that will only discuss the option of "taxing and regulating" Marijuana under what I have called a "Government Marijuana Dispensary" program. After the "shakeout" occurs what you are going to see is your government become your new Marijuana Drug Dealer: the same government that has busted over 20 million Americans over the last 20 years because they deemed Marijuana too dangerous.

So why won't they discuss an option where adults (over 18) can simply grow their Marijuana without any "taxation or regulation?"

Such a model already exists in Bruce Cain's "MERP" Model. But NORML, DPA and MPP won't even discuss it with their members. Why is that?

You can read much more about MERP and why it makes much more sense that the crap these guy are dishing out. If you go to one of their conferences please get the word out on MERP. They won't. And that is sad because only MERP will destroy the Mexican Drug Cartels, provide free medicine to the sick and stop the "pigs" (e.g., policeman that bust Americans for mere possession) from breaking down your door looking for that evasive "pot garden."

We should all have a "pot garden."

MERP Headquarters
The Marijuana Re-Legalization Policy Project (MRPP)= "MERP"
http://www.newagecitizen.com/MERP.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Methinks some of us doth protest too much . . .
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on Aug 6, 2009 8:07 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does drinking alcohol cause lung cancer (in the guy sitting next to you)?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Are you dumb? Posted by: xmvince
» RE: Are you dumb? Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
» RE: Are you dumb? Posted by: xmvince
» RE: Are you dumb? Posted by: xmvince

Comments are closed-

WASUPDOC
[Report this comment]
Posted by: sowles on Aug 6, 2009 8:25 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every now and again some dope pusher writes a book about how great MJ is. Like it's a god or something. Pot is hell in smoke! It's a gateway drug. If you have ever witnessed a talented person go to blazes because he thought pot was so great, you'd never touch the stuff. This myth about MJ being harmless compared to liquor will bring another generation of young people into the fold and more BILLIONS into the coffers of the Drug Lords. Aside from the health aspects of emphasima, cancer of the lungs, throat, mouth and heart disease; have you seen someone high on pot? They act like idiots and that is just the short-term effect of being high. The long-term effects are loss of short-term memory, enlarged mamery glands in males, poor judgement when operating a vehicle or machinery and a mental disorder brought on by sustained use of the drug: mainly pariona, forgetfullness, loss of libito, and yet to be determined, but probably true, damage to one's reproductive DNA. An uptick in suicide by adolesents is under study but also will prove to be true. I guess if one hates a society or themselves, pot is the way to go. There is no mistake about it that the Cartels push billions of tons of this green matter across the border, not only for the profit in MJ, but it's link to cocaine, meth and herion, where the real profits lay. Think about the connection to crime where drugs, especially MJ are concerned: The US has the largest prison population in the world. Surpassing North Korea, China and Russia. About 2,000,000 of the 2,500,000 incarcerates are in prison because of drugs. Not the casual use therof, but the crimes committed under the drugs influence. Whether it be white collar crime, theft, rape, assault or murder this is what the new age drug culture has wrought. It's too bad that the parents of our newest generation will not, or are afraid to because of the highly-finance pot lobby, educate their children about the evils of pot, LSD, meth, cocaine, herion, opium and most other mind and body altering substances. I once knew a terrifically talented writer, who, when he was not high on pot, wrote like Ernest Hemingway. When on the drug, not only his witing went to pot, but so did his mental and physical health. The poor man comitted suicide at age 31 while high. If he had stayed in school and persued his writing there is no doubt that he'd be an Oscar/Emmy award writer today. This is not the same old argument, but it is a warning to those who may be thinking of "trying it out." Beware, your life, liberty and livelyhood may be on the line if you do!

[