the regulate, control and tax cannabis act [Archive]

saz

10-07-2010, 12:49 PM

California's Prop 19: Leading the Way to Pot Legalization

By Adam Cohen
Wednesday, Oct. 06, 2010
Time.com (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2023860,00.html?xid=huffpo-direct)

Next month, Californians will vote on Proposition 19: the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010. Prop 19 would make recreational use of marijuana entirely legal — and allow cash-strapped cities to raise funds by taxing it. Completely legalizing pot may sound like a radical idea, but not to the people who are actually going to decide: the latest Public Policy Institute of California poll found that 52% of likely voters support Prop 19, with just 41% who oppose it.

In fact, Prop 19 is polling better than Senator Barbara Boxer or her Republican opponent, Carly Fiorina. It is also outpolling the gubernatorial candidates, Democrat Jerry Brown and Republican Meg Whitman. It is gaining support as the election grows nearer — and it has the backing of the state Service Employees International Union, perhaps the state's most powerful union.

One of the main arguments for rethinking marijuana laws is economic. A new study by the libertarian Cato Institute found that turning cannabis into a regulated commodity would save $8.7 billion in law-enforcement costs annually, while generating $8.7 billion in revenue.

Supporters of Prop 19 argue that in these dire fiscal times, when the state has been laying off teachers and hospitals have been firing nurses, putting low-level pot users through the legal system is a luxury California cannot afford. Governor Schwarzenegger — who opposes Prop 19, which he believes goes too far — said when he signed the pot-infraction law that bringing criminal charges for pot possession is a waste of "limited resources" in a time when the state faces "drastic budget cuts." The governor may also have been thinking about conditions in his state's prisons, which house twice as many inmates as they were designed to hold, and were ordered last year to reduce the overcrowding.

Prop 19 is also getting strong backing from civil rights groups, including the state National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Latino Voters League. Fueling their support is a study by the Drug Policy Alliance that found that in the state's 25 largest counties, blacks were arrested at double, triple and even quadruple the rate of whites — even though studies have shown that young blacks use marijuana at lower rates than young whites.

But the biggest factor driving the pro-legalization movement is simply changing attitudes. People today are more skeptical of the claim that pot is a gateway drug and that people who use it are destined to move on to harder substances. In fact, a study published last month in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior found that life factors like employment status and stress were stronger predictors of whether teenagers would use other illegal drugs than whether they had smoked marijuana.

The best indicator of where marijuana policy is headed may be the demographic breakdown of the Prop 19 polling. In a SurveyUSA poll, only 36% of likely California voters over the age of 65 said they were certain to vote yes, while 61% of those between 18 and 34 were certain they would. That is similar to the gap that polls have found for gay marriage — another social issue on which public opinion and national policy have been changing fast. When polls show a dramatic gap between the generations, as they do on marijuana legalization, it is a good bet that before long, the young people's position will prevail.

.

saz

10-07-2010, 01:33 PM

Legalization up in smoke? Not anymore

Norm Stamper, 34-year veteran police officer who retired as Seattle's Chief of Police in 2000
Posted: October 4, 2010 12:42 PM
The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norm-stamper/legalization-up-in-smoke_b_749360.html)

A few short months ago, California's Proposition 19, the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (http://www.yeson19.com/), seemed likely to fade away in a puff of smoke. After more than three decades on the front lines of the disastrous "war on drugs," I feared this best-hope-to-date chapter in the battle for sane drug laws was a lost cause. But something has changed in the public's consciousness, and in its resolve.

On September 30 the Public Policy Institute of California (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2010/sep/30/prop_19_52_latest_poll_californi) published the results of its new poll. It shows Proposition 19 winning, by a resounding 52-41 margin. Other polls (http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2356.pdf) are similarly encouraging.

For one thing, more and more police officers have decided that the 40-year drug war is a farce and a failure. These cops have been eyewitnesses to the ruinous effects of drug arrests on the lives of the people they've been hired to protect and serve, and they're finally speaking out. Members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (http://www.copssaylegalizedrugs.com/), in particular, have been reaching out to service clubs, civic groups, and fellow cops throughout the state. They've been especially persuasive in countering the escalating fear-mongering misrepresentations of anti-19 forces.

Parents, including multiplying ranks of formerly resistant single moms, fed up with violence in their neighborhoods, with marijuana's ready availability in schools, and with the heartbreaking realities of their teenage children's criminal records, are at last speaking out against the absurdity of the state's marijuana laws. (And they won't be dissuaded from voting for Proposition 19 simply because of their governor's cynical, last-minute but long-overdue gesture in reducing penalties in simple pot possession cases.)

Surprising numbers of conservative Californians have joined forces with civil libertarians to create a formidable bloc of states' rights advocates opposed to indefensible government intrusion into our everyday lives.

Human and civil rights advocates, such as the NAACP, have taken official positions in opposition to the deep-seated racism reflected in drug law enforcement, and in support of Proposition 19.

And, of course, Golden State voters are increasingly motivated by reliable estimates that California, buried under a mountain of debt and forced to slash vital services, stands to capture up to $1.4 billion in new revenues, along with substantial savings in law enforcement and other criminal justice costs.

But perhaps the biggest boost to the pro-19 campaign may be found in the vast army of young adults working for its passage. A natural anti-prohibition demographic, young Californians not only oppose their state's marijuana laws they are investing substantial time and energy to the cause of replacing them. They've organized, mobilized, gone door to door, rallied their friends.

Cynics take note. These young people will show up at the polls. And, in all likelihood, they will cast the decisive votes that will restore adult possession of marijuana as a basic freedom.

.

ericg

10-07-2010, 01:56 PM

i was going to post something on this but you did the trick.
i think it's the best news i've heard all decade!!! i mean i hope it comes true.
i hope someone figures out the use of hemp as a gas would relieve our addiction to foriegn oil.

M|X|Y

10-07-2010, 02:17 PM

Part of me is excited at this prospect and the other side of me is a little concerned about what even more widely available pot is going to mean to my job as a future parent.

It's not that hard to get to begin with. I'd be happy with it still being illegal but with lower penalties and no jail time if you're caught with it.

Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno.

yeahwho

10-07-2010, 03:04 PM

M|X|Y do you work in the Alcohol/Prison industry?

Perhaps (Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges.) the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges.

The above is a nationwide look at the war on drugs. When I dug a little deeper I noticed that since medical marijuana has become legal in Cali the drug arrests actually went down over the past 10 years, as seen in this chart (http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_PrisonsJTF.pdf). it shows a composite of arrests in California from 1990 to 2005. The chart shows a trend of accelerated violent crime in California while the trend nationally has been less violent crime over the past 15 years.

I'm for the legalization of marijuana, if this actually comes to pass the dynamics and lifestyles of Californians will be incredibly changed, plus I guess the same will be said for those living within 20 miles of the states borders.... I might start driving down there from Washington :D the TSA stresses me out and I think we've found a cure for all that stress.

On another note it comes as no surprise the Alcohol lobbyists (http://www.eastbayexpress.com/LegalizationNation/archives/2010/09/13/booze-lobby-funding-the-no-on-19-campaign) are against legalizing marijuana, The California Beer & Beverage Distributors disclosed it donated $10,000 to defeat Prop 19 — which would regulate and tax marijuana like alcohol. The alcohol lobbyist's funds will help spread the lie that employers must tolerate stoned employees, and the talking point that 'California doesn't need another legal, mind-altering substance.' Alcohol causes an estimated $38 billion in costs in California each year from emergency room visits, arrests, etc, according to the Marin Institute. There are roughly 3,500 deaths annually from alcohol-related illness and more than 109,000 alcohol-related injuries in California. Conversely, pot caused 181 emergency room visits in 2008, according to a study by the non-partisan RAND Corporation, despite being used by more than four million Californians monthly.

And finally not to harsh anyone's mellow the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/2010/1006/New-poll-shows-California-tilting-against-legalized-marijuana) came out yesterday with this headline New poll shows California tilting against legalized marijuana but you know "consider the source".

saz

10-07-2010, 03:25 PM

the other side of me is a little concerned about what even more widely available pot is going to mean to my job as a future parent.

seeing as it would be regulated and controlled, it wouldn't be more widely available as drug dealers, gangs and organized crime will essentially be put out of business.

M|X|Y

10-07-2010, 04:26 PM

no, i dont work for the prison system.. i know what you're getting at and i generally agree.

i'm just talking about one aspect to legalization that i haven't really seen addressed. what would legalization actually look like? will pot be as freely available as alcohol is now? how many people/kids have stayed away from pot in the past because its illegal? how many more people will pick it up when it becomes legal? etc etc.

for your average kid that doesnt live in the ghetto, drug dealers aren't as visible as all the places you can go and buy beer at for example.

yeah i know pot isn't as horribly terrible as we were brought up to believe, but its not like its GOOD for you.

again, i think that legalization is probably the best way to go, but there are a lot of unanswered questions about the implications and consequences that have not been explored.

saz

10-07-2010, 05:29 PM

yeah i know pot isn't as horribly terrible as we were brought up to believe, but its not like its GOOD for you.

yes it is good for you, very good for you in fact, as it has incredible medical benefits (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/).

M|X|Y

10-07-2010, 05:49 PM

What if i'm already healthy and don't have:

ADD/ADHD (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#1)
AIDS (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#2)
Anorexia (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#3)
Arthritis (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#4)
Asthma (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#5)
Auto Accidents (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#6)
Alzheimer’s Disease (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#7)
Brain Injury (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#8)
Cancer (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#9)
Chemotherapy (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#10)
Chronic Pain (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#11)
Chronic Nausea (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#12)
Colitis (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#13)
Crohn’s Disease (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#14)
Epilepsy (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#16)
ESRD/dialysis patients (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#17)
Side effects from Dialysis (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#18)
Fibromyalgia (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#19)
Glaucoma (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#20)
HIV (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#21)
Head Injury (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#22)
Hypertension (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#23)
Irritable Bowel Syndrome (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#24)
Migraines (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#25)
Muscular Dystrophy (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#26)
Multiple Sclerosis (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#27)
Muscle Spasms (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#28)
Nausea (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#29)
Paraplegia (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#30)
Parkinson’s Disease (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#31)
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#32)
Quadriplegia (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#33)
Radiation Therapy (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#34)
Seizure Disorders (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#35)
Sleep Disorders (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#36)
Spinal Cord Injury/Disease (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#37)
Sports Injury (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#38)
Tourette’s Syndrome (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/#39)

(from the page you cited) - by the way, a lot of those are redundant. We can add stubbed toes, hangnail pain and a million other things in there if we wanted to get specific - - its good for pain relief, yes.

How is smoking pot good for me?

Again, I'm not totally against pot or legalization and while I think people should be able to indulge in it without going to jail, I'm not convinced its GOOD for me.

Other than 'stress relief' how is it GOOD for a healthy person who doesn't suffer from any of the ailments above?

I don't think its necessary to prove its good for everyone to make an argument for legalization. I just want to know how exactly proponents envision it being made available once its legal.

(didnt mean to get caught up)

saz

10-07-2010, 06:35 PM

it has relieved any stress, anxiety, headaches, pain, chronic pain, and tension that i've suffered. also, it's great for fighting the common cold.

M|X|Y

10-07-2010, 06:59 PM

so its not. good discussion. thanks for calling (y)

saz

10-07-2010, 07:15 PM

it's also immensely safer than alcohol. but if you're being sarcastic, then whatever.

Turchinator

10-07-2010, 08:13 PM

mxy is being perfectly honest and pretty articulate in his concerns as a parent.

many Californians share the same concerns.

I just don't think this will pass this time around.

I am for legalizing the dispensaries and operating them as is.

The medical marijuana industry in Califrnia is catered to casual users who can get their hands on a doctors note, not real sufferers.don't beat around the proverbial bush.

I want to see people have safe access and not have to go to prison for making a personal choice in the privacy of their home.

I am not about legalizing so everyone can burn one down in the middle of the street and drive around getting stoned.

that would concern me as well.

it should be illegal for minors and treated as alcohol as far as DUI's go.

saz

10-07-2010, 09:23 PM

I just don't think this will pass this time around.

the polls so far tell a different story:

Field Poll (http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2356.pdf) (PDF) (9/14-21)

Have you seen, read or heard anything about Proposition 19, a statewide ballot proposition that would legalize marijuana under California law?

(As you know) Proposition 19 legalizes marijuana under California but not federal law and permits local governments to regulate and tax its commercial production, distribution and sale. Allows people 21 years or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Fiscal impact: Depending on federal, state and local government actions, potential increased tax and fee revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually and potential correctional savings of several tens of millions of dollars annually. If the election were being held today, would you vote YES or NO on Proposition 19?

Yes 49
No 42
Undecided 9

SurveyUSA (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollPrint.aspx?g=64e49923-a2d8-4467-8116-8ee310682f61&d=0) (9/19-21)

California voters may also vote on several propositions. On Proposition 19, which would change California law to legalize marijuana and allow it to be regulated and taxed, are you …

Certain Yes 47%
Certain No 42%
Not Certain 11%

Support for Prop 19 has remained remarkably steady for a ballot measure. This recent poll is in fact a statistically insignificant change from three weeks ago when SurveyUSA last polled the question and found it at 47 percent yes, 43 percent no (http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/09/03/yes-on-prop-19-still-leads-47-to-43-support-for-marijuana-legalization-measure-drops-slightly/), and barely changed from July when the ballot measure was leading 50 percent yes, 40 percent no (http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/07/12/ca-prop-19-legal-regulated-marijuana-favored-50-40-in-new-poll/).

PPP recently also found Prop 19 winning 47 percent of the vote, while 38 percent expected to vote no (http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/09/22/prop-19-initiative-to-legalize-marijuana-in-california-favored-47-38-in-new-poll/), which was only a very modest drop in support from their July poll that had the initiative winning 52-36. The firm “yes” is normally the most important part of a ballot measure poll because undecideds tend to break towards “no,” so the agreement between the two polls is very indicative of strong support.

PPP (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_CA_922513.pdf) (PDF) (9/14-16)

Proposition 19 would legalize marijuana under California but not federal law. It would permit local governments to regulate and tax commercial production, distribution, and sale of marijuana. Will you vote yes or no on Proposition 19?

Yes 47%
No 38%
Undecided 14%

Prop 19 Hits 52% in Poll -- California Legalizing Marijuana?

by Phillip Smith, September 30, 2010, 04:03pm
stopthedrugwar.org (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2010/sep/30/prop_19_hits_52_poll_california)

Proposition 19 (http://www.yeson19.com/), California's "tax and regulate" marijuana legalization initiative, is winning, according to the latest poll results. A Public Policy Institute of California poll (http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=959) released Thursday had support for Prop 19 at 52%, with 41% opposed and 7% undecided.

The medical marijuana industry in Califrnia is catered to casual users who can get their hands on a doctors note, not real sufferers.don't beat around the proverbial bush.

right. people who aren't suffering. while i imagine that there people receiving medical marijuana who don't really need it, it's ludicrous to suggest that people with serious ailments can't access medical marijuana as it isn't catered to them.

I am not about legalizing so everyone can burn one down in the middle of the street and drive around getting stoned.

it should be illegal for minors and treated as alcohol as far as DUI's go.

and that's exactly how it will be regulated.

saz

10-07-2010, 09:33 PM

law enforcement against prohibition:

LEAP officers sign powerful California petition (http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php)

To the Voters of California:

As police officers, judges, prosecutors, corrections officials and others who have labored to enforce the laws that seek to prohibit cannabis (marijuana) use, and who have witnessed the abysmal failure of this current criminalization approach, we stand together in calling for new laws that will effectively control and tax cannabis.

As criminal justice professionals, we have seen with our own eyes that keeping cannabis illegal damages public safety -- for cannabis consumers and non-consumers alike. We’ve also seen that prohibition sometimes has tragic consequences for the law enforcers charged with putting their lives on the line to enforce it. The only groups that benefit from continuing to keep marijuana illegal are the violent gangs and cartels that control its distribution and reap immense profits from it through the black market.

If California's voters make the sensible decision to effectively control and tax cannabis this November, it will eliminate illegal marijuana distribution networks, just as ending alcohol prohibition put a stop to violent and corrupting gangsters' control of beer, wine and liquor sales.

As law enforcement professionals, we especially want voters to understand that legalization will allow us to do our jobs more effectively and safely. In 2008, there were over 60,000 arrests for simple misdemeanor cannabis possession in California, yet nearly 60,000 violent crimes went unsolved in our state that same year. When we change our cannabis laws, police officers will no longer have to waste time on low-level cannabis arrests; we'll be able to focus on protecting the public from murderers, rapists, drunk drivers and burglars. Cannabis cases will no longer clog up court dockets. And room in our costly, overflowing prisons will be freed up when we stop locking people up just because they tested positive for cannabis while on probation.

Because of all the overhead and administrative savings that legalization will generate, our criminal justice apparatus will have more resources to keep more good law enforcers employed serving the public in this time of fiscal turmoil. Ending prohibition will also put a stop to other crimes and problems caused by the illegal marijuana market, such as robberies, gang warfare, gun-running and house fires caused by underground grow operations.

Controlling marijuana through a regulated system will also reduce its availability to kids. Right now, illegal dealers have no incentive to check IDs or avoid selling to juveniles, given that the market is illegal for everyone. But under adult legalization, licensed cannabis businesses will face penalties and consequences that will effectively deter underage sales. Indeed, a recent study from Columbia University shows that teens currently find it easier to purchase illegal marijuana than age-regulated alcohol.

And, because marijuana is illegal and unregulated, its producers aren’t required to do any quality control or safety evaluation, and sometimes it is adulterated with other drugs or harmful chemicals. While law enforcers understand that every drug has the potential for abuse, making cannabis illegal has made it much more dangerous than it otherwise would be under effective regulation.

Please join us in supporting the sensible solution to California’s failed cannabis policies. Let’s vote to control and tax cannabis this November – for safety’s sake.

Click here to sign and endorse! (http://yeson19.com/endorse/enforcement)

Sincerely,

MacKenzie Allen
Former Deputy Sheriff, Los Angeles Sheriff's Dept.
Deputy Sheriff, King County Sheriff's Dept. (Ret.)

James Anthony
Former Community Prosecutor, Oakland City Attorney's Office

L. Lawrence Baird
Former Senior Reserve Park Ranger, Orange County

William Baldwin
Correctional Officer, California Department of Corrections (Ret.)

Nate Bradley
Former Officer, Wheatland Police Department
Former Deputy, Sutter County Sheriff's Office

Walter Clark
Deputy District Attorney, County of Riverside District Attorney's Office (Ret.)

Stephen Cobine
Captain, Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office (Ret.)

William John Cox
Former Officer, El Cajon Police Department
Former Sergeant, Los Angeles Police Department
Former Deputy, Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
Retired Supervising Trial Counsel, State Bar of California

Bill Dake
Former Officer, San Francisco Police Department

David Doddridge
Narcotics Officer, Los Angeles Police Department (Ret.)

Stephen Downing
Deputy Chief, Los Angeles Police Department (Ret.)

Rick Erickson
Officer, Lakeport Police Department (Ret.)

Paul Gallegos
District Attorney, County of Humboldt

Diane Goldstein
Lieutenant, Redondo Beach Police Department (Ret.)

Dr. Nina Graves
Former Military Police, Santa Barbara

James Gray
Judge, Superior Court of Orange County (Ret.)

Terence Hallinan
Former San Francisco District Attorney

Michael J. Hansen
Former Border Patrol Agent, San Diego Sector

Russ Jones
Former Narcotics Detective, San Jose Police Department, DEA Task Force

Kyle Kazan
Former Officer, Torrance Police Department

Leo E. Laurence, J.D.
Former Biker Enforcement Task Force Member, San Diego District Attorney's Office
Former Deputy Sheriff, Missouri

Madeline Martinez
Correctional Peace Officer (Ret.), State of California Department of Corrections

Danny Maynard
Former Yolo County Sheriff’s Office
Former Sacramento Port Police Department

Walter McKay
Former Senior Police Specialist, Police Assessment Resources Center, Los Angeles, CA
Former Detective, Vancouver Police Department

Joseph McNamara
Chief of Police, San Jose Police Department (Ret.)

Joe Miller
Deputy Probation Officer, Mohave County Probation Department
Police Officer, Needles Police Department (Ret.)

John O'Brien, Esq.
Sheriff, Genesee County, MI (Ret.)
University of Phoenix, Southern California campus

Jerry Ross
Former Stanton Police Officer

John A. Russo
Oakland City Attorney

David Sinclair
Former Deputy Sheriff, Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff

Mike Schmier
Former Deputy District Attorney for Los Angeles
Former Administrative Law Judge California State
Former Federal Labor Prosecutor San Francisco

Jeffrey Schwartz
Senior Deputy District Attorney, Humboldt County (Ret.)

Lyle Smith
Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (Ret.)

Norm Stamper
Executive Assistant Chief of Police, San Diego Police Department (Ret.)
Chief of Police, Seattle Police Department (Ret.)

Jeff Studdard
Former Reserve Deputy Sheriff, Los Angeles County

Turchinator

10-07-2010, 10:12 PM

right. people who aren't suffering. while i imagine that there people receiving medical marijuana who don't really need it, it's ludicrous to suggest that people with serious ailments can't access medical marijuana as it isn't catered to them.

it's just part of the conversation I am just stating the obvious. I never said that anyone CAN'T access medical marijuana. I said most dispensaries have regular pot users who are using the law to their protection. which they should be.

why call it medical marijuana? why pretend that we are providing medicine for patients? in LA and San Francisco, pot shops run rampant with the classic stereotypical pot culture. As David Cross once put it, I'm not so sure I like being categorized into that sub-culture.

I repeat, I am FOR Prop 19 but it is not such a Slam Dunk. I see both sides of the issue, that's all. we'll see in November. are you a CA voter, saz?

the more important piece of news is the Governor signing the decriminalization bill.

yeahwho

10-08-2010, 03:45 AM

I should first preface any statement with the fact that I am a recovering alcoholic and drug abuser. I really wouldn't partake in the herb nor would I go out of my way to encourage anyone to use or not use booze or drugs so far as it doesn't hurt or endanger themselves or others.

I sort of look at prop 19 from the viewpoint of how weird the USA is in general as far as being completely uptight about legally obtainable marijuana. I also feel as if California is in a very tight financial bind and they have really nothing on the ballot except this prop 19 to push it around the corner towards more jobs and capitol. I do not see really anything more dangerous about marijuana than booze other than willy nilly uptight redneck backwards bullshit thinking. The fact that booze is sold everywhere yet destroys lives and kills people daily is pretty insane.

If people want to smoke a doobie, sit out on their decks, lay at the beach or giggle at Disneyland why should our government deny them this simple relatively safe drug, yet allow alcohol to be served everywhere? The math is wrong and for future generations perhaps we can change how they relax in a safer less addictive matter than what the liquor industry provides.

Like I said at the beginning, I really have no intention to smoke marijuana when it becomes legal anywhere (been to Amsterdam, partied completely sober in hash bar(s)/coffee shop(s)) so for me it's just a matter of helping out the economy for California and providing adults with a grown up alternative to alcohol. Lord knows the cookie and ice cream industry will make some bucks along with the music industry.

Once it has been legal for a decade most folks will look back and think... man I'm forget what day this is, has anybody seen my knees? :D

Adam

10-08-2010, 04:07 AM

I'm for legalisation of pot. But.

Problem with some pot-heads is that they do believe its better for you smoking it than not smoking it. Putting smoke into your lungs can never be healthy be it highly toxic (tobacco) or moderately toxic (cannabis). There is too much believed propaganda out there in the pro-pot community.

I'm not saying it doesn't have some benefits to pain relief, stress related issues but the side effects to some (links to schizophrenia) and to all (increase risk of cancer) need to be learned. Not many now believe alcohol is totally safe. Too many believe cannabis is totally safe. Address that, then it'll get through I think, otherwise it won't.

Basically, I'm saying pot-heads do themselves no favours by only acknowledging the beneifits, show that you understand the risks like we all generally do with alcohol then you've got an argument. Along with its less addictive, does less damage etc than alcohol.

good luck.

kaiser soze

10-08-2010, 07:05 AM

First let's get Hemp back into the textile picture. If we can prove to the common person who knows jack shit about it how freaking amazing of a plant it is, then it could open up the door for medicinal/decriminalized marijuana. Considering both are lumped together anyways.

ericg

10-08-2010, 07:31 AM

it's a little dated, but here's an interesting site.
www.hempfarm.com
check out jack herer too. you can view his book, 'the emperor wears no clothes' at www.jackherer.com.

M|X|Y

10-08-2010, 08:26 AM

this is the most compelling arguement i've seen

http://www.phoenixtears.ca/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjhT9282-Tw

basically the guy says he's cured hundreds (i think?) of people of cancer by taking a pound of herb and producing a toothpaste sized tube of resin paste which is ingested orally.

saz

10-08-2010, 09:36 AM

Putting smoke into your lungs can never be healthy be it highly toxic (tobacco) or moderately toxic (cannabis). There is too much believed propaganda out there in the pro-pot community.

I'm not saying it doesn't have some benefits to pain relief, stress related issues but the side effects to some (links to schizophrenia) and to all (increase risk of cancer) need to be learned. Not many now believe alcohol is totally safe. Too many believe cannabis is totally safe. Address that, then it'll get through I think, otherwise it won't.

Basically, I'm saying pot-heads do themselves no favours by only acknowledging the beneifits, show that you understand the risks like we all generally do with alcohol then you've got an argument. Along with its less addictive, does less damage etc than alcohol.

good luck.

"propaganda" eh?

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html)
Friday, May 26, 2006

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.

Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.

They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.

"This is the largest case-control study ever done, and everyone had to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use," he said. "Bias can creep into any research, but we controlled for as many confounding factors as we could, and so I believe these results have real meaning."

Tashkin's group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA had hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer on the basis of earlier small human studies, lab studies of animals, and the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers -- exposing them to the dangerous chemicals for a longer time. In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.

While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.

The study was limited to people younger than 60 because those older than that were generally not exposed to marijuana in their youth, when it is most often tried.

More Evidence That Marijuana Prevents Cancer (http://www.alternet.org/drugs/142121/more_evidence_that_marijuana_prevents_cancer/)

Marijuana Policy Project / By Bruce Mirken

New study finds that marijuana smokers have a lower risk of head and neck cancers.

August 21, 2009 | Among the more interesting pieces of news that came out while I was on vacation the first half of August was a new study (http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/2/8/759) in the journal Cancer Prevention Research, which found that marijuana smokers have a lower risk of head and neck cancers than people who don’t smoke marijuana. Alas, this important research has been largely ignored by the news media.

While this type of study cannot conclusively prove cause and effect, the combination of this new study and existing research — which for decades has shown that cannabinoids are fairly potent anticancer drugs (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14570037?ordinalpos=18&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) — raises a significant possibility that marijuana use is in fact protective against certain types of cancer.

A team of researchers from several major universities conducted what is known as a “case-control” study, comparing patients who had squamous cell carcinoma of the mouth, larynx, and pharynx with control patients matched for age, gender, and residence location who did not have cancer. By looking at matched groups with and without cancer, researchers hope to find patterns indicating risk or protective factors. In this case they focused on marijuana use, but also took into account known risk factors for this type of cancer, including tobacco and alcohol use.

A team of researchers from several major universities conducted what is known as a “case-control” study, comparing patients who had squamous cell carcinoma of the mouth, larynx, and pharynx with control patients matched for age, gender, and residence location who did not have cancer. By looking at matched groups with and without cancer, researchers hope to find patterns indicating risk or protective factors. In this case they focused on marijuana use, but also took into account known risk factors for this type of cancer, including tobacco and alcohol use.

After adjusting for those confounding factors, current marijuana users had a 48% reduced risk of head and neck cancer, and the reduction was statistically significant. Former users also had a lower risk, though it fell short of being significant. The investigators crunched the numbers several different ways — for example, by amount of marijuana used or the frequency of use — and the findings stayed the same nearly across the board, with moderate users showing the strongest and most consistent reduction in cancer risk.

The scientists write, “We found that moderate marijuana use was significantly associated with reduced risk HNSCC [head and neck squamous cell carcinoma]. The association was consistent across different measures of marijuana use (marijuana use status, duration, and frequency of use).”

Strikingly, among drinkers and cigarette smokers, those who also used marijuana reduced their cancer risk compared to those who only drank and smoked cigarettes. So marijuana may actually have been countering the known bad effects of booze and cigarettes.

5 Things the Corporate Media and Government Don't Want You to Know About Marijuana (http://www.alternet.org/drugs/148013?page=entire)

AlterNet / By Paul Armentano
August 29, 2010

News outlets continue to ignore research that belies government anti-pot propaganda.

4. Marijuana may be helpful, not harmful, to people with schizophrenia.

For years now the mainstream media has run rampant with reports that smoking cannabis causes (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6201LW20100301) or exacerbates mental illness, particularly schizophrenia. Yet several overlooked studies published earlier this year indicate that pot may actually be helpful to some patients with the disease. For example, in May a team of researchers writing in the Canadian Journal of Nursing Research reported (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20420097) male schizophrenic subjects consumed marijuana "as a means of satisfying the schizophrenia-related need for relaxation, sense of self-worth, and distraction." (Survey data published (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7681) in 2008 in the International Journal of Mental Health Nursing also reported that many schizophrenic patients obtain relief from cannabis, finding that subjects consumed cannabis to reduce anxiety, mitigate memories of childhood trauma, enhance cognition, and "improve their mental state.")

A separate assessment of schizophrenic patients published in June in the journal Schizophrenia Research found (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483565) that subjects with a history of cannabis use demonstrate higher levels of cognitive performance compared to patients who had never used the drug.

Investigators at the Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, the Zucker Hillside Hospital in New York, the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, and Princeton University compared the neurocognitive skills of 175 schizophrenics with a history of cannabis use with 280 subjects with no history of illegal drug use. Researchers reported that cannabis users demonstrated "significantly better performance" compared to nonusers on measures of processing speed, verbal fluency, verbal learning, and memory. Marijuana use was also associated with better over all GAF (Global Assessment Functioning) scores.

Authors concluded: "The results of the present analysis suggest that (cannabis use) in patients with SZ (schizophrenia) is associated with better performance on measures of processing speed and verbal skills. These data are consistent with prior reports indicating that SZ patients with a history of (cannabis use) have less severe cognitive deficits than SZ patients without comorbid (cannabis use). ... The present findings also suggest that cannabis use in patients with SZ may not differentially affect the severity of illness as measured by clinical symptomatology."

A second study published in 2010 by this same research team also questioned the media’s often repeated claim that pot use is a root cause of the illness, finding that cannabis use is not independently associated with the onset of psychosis in first-episode schizophrenia patients. The researchers concluded (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20471224): "Although cannabis use precedes the onset of illness in most patients, there was no significant association between onset of illness and (cannabis use) that was not accounted for by demographic and clinical variables. ... Previous studies implicating cannabis use disorders in schizophrenia may need to more comprehensively assess the relationship between cannabis use disorders and schizophrenia."

Other than this single story by Time Magazine’s Maia Szalavitz (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2005559,00.html), no other media outlets made mention of any of the above studies, and most continue to promote the federal government’s specious allegation (http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20050503/federal-report-marijuana-causes-mental-illness?src=rss_foxnews) that pot use causes depression, schizophrenia, and suicide.

M|X|Y

10-08-2010, 10:00 AM

Adam

10-08-2010, 10:14 AM

You almost prove my point saz. The problem with these links is none of them seem to be peer reviewed. Its how science works but its slow going, its not perfect but believing something in research that "appears to lower risk" is different to saying "will lower the risk". The journals they do appear in are suspect at best and are a collaborative of research that never gets a 2nd look in (as in they are different to most Medical Journals). The problem is then we often take one study at face value. For example: A glass of red wine per day will cure cancer, a glass of red wine per day will cause cancer. You'll find studies for both.

Like I say, I am pro-legalisation, I think it will solve more problems that it'll create but there has yet to be several massive studies done to fully evaluate its risk. Colleges doing research is all fine and good and long may it continue but then larger studies of many 1000s need to done, and re-done, reviewed to come to an evaluated risk taking into account all previous studies of what harm it can do once a good amount of evidence is in.

You need to see it happen before you can be certain of it. We have seen that smoke in lungs can kill. Its a starting point. If THC happens to regulate the damage done and fix other things, then what proportion of the population does it effect? Of these, can previous medical history explain the results? You take another random section of the population. Same results or different? Do it again to be sure. Send it off to be peer reviewed. What conclusions do they make? Act upon any suggestions and are you getting the same results? Well do it again taking a larger sample. Send it off to be peer reviewed. Ok, we now have a theory. A theory is still a theory tho, far too many unknowns will still exist but we can take good educated guesses.

All that takes time and money, too much medical research falls down in its early stages, a lot of it never gets published because it shows the wrong results or they run out of money or they hit a dead end.

Maybe propaganda was the wrong word. Misinformation?

saz

10-08-2010, 10:24 AM

The problem is then we often take one study at face value. For example: A glass of red wine per day will cure cancer, a glass of red wine per day will cause cancer. You'll find studies for both.

that is so misleading, disingenuous and simplified.

I think it will solve more problems that it'll create but there has yet to be several massive studies done to fully evaluate its risk. Colleges doing research is all fine and good and long may it continue but then larger studies of many 1000s need to done, and re-done, reviewed to come to an evaluated risk taking into account all previous studies of what harm it can do once a good amount of evidence is in.

right. keep telling yourself that.

You need to see it happen before you can be certain of it. We have seen that smoke in lungs can kill. Its a starting point. If THC happens to regulate the damage done and fix other things, then what proportion of the population does it effect? Of these, can previous medical history explain the results? You take another random section of the population. Same results or different? Do it again to be sure. Send it off to be peer reviewed. What conclusions do they make? Act upon any suggestions and are you getting the same results? Well do it again taking a larger sample. Send it off to be peer reviewed. Ok, we now have a theory. A theory is still a theory tho, far too many unknowns will still exist but we can take good educated guesses.

All that takes time and money, too much medical research falls down in its early stages, a lot of it never gets published because it shows the wrong results or they run out of money or they hit a dead end.

Maybe propaganda was the wrong word. Misinformation?

yeah, misinformation. as opposed to your speculations.

Turchinator

10-08-2010, 10:32 AM

exactly, Adam, just like a study last year claimed that pot MIGHT lead to testicular cancer in men. just because a random sample of 400 men were tested, it just isn't conclusive data, especially with the other side of the coin that saz is defending, marijuana as a super cure all.

So am I supposed to treat my testicular cancer by smoking a doobie to help my cancer treatment?

:D

saz- you are barking up the wrong tree- you have a group of people that are for legalization but understand there are some risks involved with Marijuana use.

smoke a joint, man. relax.

saz

10-08-2010, 10:38 AM

exactly, Adam, just like a study last year claimed that pot MIGHT lead to testicular cancer in men. just because a random sample of 400 men were tested, it just isn't conclusive data, especially with the other side of the coin that saz is defending, marijuana as a super cure all.

i didn't state it was a "super cure all", but rather, it has tremendous medical benefits.

So am I supposed to treat my testicular cancer by smoking a doobie to help my cancer treatment?

:D

gee, could you be anymore snide?

saz- you are barking up the wrong tree- you have a group of people that are for legalization but understand there are some risks involved with Marijuana use.

yeah, a "group" of people.

Turchinator

10-08-2010, 11:06 AM

gee, could you be anymore snide?

not in this thread, no...

that is so misleading, disingenuous and simplified.

right. keep telling yourself that.

yeah, misinformation. as opposed to your speculations.

"propaganda" eh?

my comment was absolutely serious. there are conflicting studies, that's all. wasn't trying to be snide, but to pose a concern with the data that's out there. surely you read that study last year linking testicular cancer to marijuana use, no?

seeing as it would be regulated and controlled, it wouldn't be more widely available as drug dealers, gangs and organized crime will essentially be put out of business.

what about raids and robberies? I still think there will be a black market as long as the dispensaries and growers are carrying large amounts of money and high grade pot.

what happens if a teenager gets his older sibling to purchase a large amount so that he can supply it to his underage friends?

I'll hang up and wait for your response.

saz

10-08-2010, 11:09 AM

there are conflicting studies, that's all.

such as?

what about raids and robberies? I still think there will be a black market as long as the dispensaries and growers are carrying large amounts of money and high grade pot.

was there an alcohol blackmarket and bootlegging industry after prohibition was abolished?

Turchinator

10-08-2010, 11:15 AM

such as?

was there an alcohol blackmarket and bootlegging industry after prohibition was abolished?

such as I just told you. one study says marijuana cures cancer. one study says marijuana causes cancer. that's conflicting info if I've ever seen it. I'm not a linkster, look it up. 2009 study published in a Cancer Journal.

there are many cases of dispensaries and growers being robbed for their crops and their cash.

If you have a criminal who has a chance to get his hands on pounds and pounds of free potent weed, he is going to break the law to get some...

this is my opinion. It is based on living in different cities with different views and laws on marijuana.

Adam

10-08-2010, 11:22 AM

Yeah man, we are all for it, relax.

I mean. We all know the benefits of cows milk. UNICEF recommend cows milk in a babies diet (after the mothers own milk, but if they ain't breast feeding or now weaning or whatever is what I mean), its been proven over and over again how great milk is. We didn't find this out by accident, we looked at it and came to its conclusion. Pot has yet to reach that level and thus we aren't giving it to babies yet. We might one day and we'll all hit ourselves on the foreheads saying " d'oh, why didn't we do this centuries ago? Oh well, sucks to be the previous generation I suppose".

There should be some social freedom, governments aren't here to take all the fun away (just most of it). I feel studies already show that pot is less harmful and less addictive than alcohol so we should moderate it the same way we do alcohol - maybe less so. We shouldn't however claim it can clear peoples lungs, cure certain things until we know it can. All we know right now that it is harmful to a certain extent but as with a lot of drugs, there can be a lot of positives - social and medical. Which is why you can give paracetamol to babies when teething or other pain and not THC for example. Paracetamol is still addictive and can cause liver damage. The baby could live with the pain but it'd lose on sleep and so would the parents. The trade off is better parents and a sleeping baby in less pain but slight damaged caused to the liver which will generally repair itself.

The problem I have and the point I'm trying to get across is that some people refuse to believe pot causes ANY damage at all. Like its the nectar of gods and not one possible thing is wrong with it. We can all find studies and believe what we want to see and we all do it. I'm a wishy washy lefty who wants to spend spend spend and tax tax tax - I read articles to reinforce that view and I think the Tory party are mainly full of racists and bigots. But give me some middle ground the same way I will give them some props for a good idea if they ever have one.

saz

10-08-2010, 11:32 AM

California Pot Legalization Could Stop the Murderous Drug Cartels Waging War in Mexico (http://www.alternet.org/world/148092/california_pot_legalization_could_stop_the_murdero us_drug_cartels_waging_war_in_mexico/)

Raw Story / By Daniel Tencer
September 5, 2010

The Mexican drug war that has taken the lives of 28,000 people (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN30206049) over the past four years could conceivably come to an end if California votes to legalize marijuana.

The Mexican drug war that has taken the lives of 28,000 people over the past four years could conceivably come to an end if California votes to legalize marijuana, say prominent American and Mexican policy makers.

Hector Aguilar Camín, editor of the Mexican magazine Nexos, and Jorge G. Castaneda, a former Mexican foreign minister and current lecturer at NYU, write in a Washington Post column (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302205.html) that Mexican drug gangs could see their revenue drop 60 percent if marijuana was no longer a contraband item.

"As their immense profits shrank, the drug kingpins would be deprived of the almost unlimited money they now use to fund recruitment, arms purchases and bribes," they write.

Camin and Castaneda's arguments join those of the former Republican governor of New Mexico, Gary E. Johnson, who wrote at the FireDogLake blog (http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/68970) Friday that marijuana decriminalization is "probably the only practical way to weaken the drug cartels."

"America’s policy for almost 70 years has been to keep marijuana -- arguably no more harmful than alcohol and used by 15 million Americans every month -- confined to the illicit market, meaning we’ve given criminals a virtual monopoly on something that US researcher Jon Gettman estimates is a $36 billion a year industry, greater than corn and wheat combined," Johnson wrote.

Mexico debates legalizing marijuana

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0QiIGoL-Gc

A heated debate is underway among senior officials in Mexico over whether the government should legalise the use and sale of marijuana.

The discussion comes as violence from competing drug cartels in the country continues to spiral out of control, claiming thousands of lives every year.

Felipe Calderon, Mexico's president, has said he is firmly against the legalisation, arguing that it would only create "millions" of more drug addicts.

But Vicente Fox, the country's former president and member of Calderon's conservative National Action Party, has urged the government to legalise drugs in order to "break the economic structure that allows gangs to generate huge profits in their trade, which feeds corruption and increases their areas of power".

"We should consider legalising the production, distribution and sale of drugs" because "radical prohibition strategies have never worked," he explained.

Al Jazeera's Franc Contreras reports from Mexico City, the capital.

Former Fed Says Punish Cartels With Legalization

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lIe1Lav4fY

Retired federal anti-drug agent Terry Nelson talks to students in El Paso, just across the Mexican border, why he thinks we need to legalize all drugs after he spent decades fighting cartels on the front lines of the "war on drugs." Terry is a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, which any citizen can join at http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com (http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php)

saz

10-08-2010, 11:34 AM

such as I just told you. one study says marijuana cures cancer. one study says marijuana causes cancer. that's conflicting info if I've ever seen it. I'm not a linkster, look it up. 2009 study published in a Cancer Journal.

no one has ever developed cancer from marijuana.

there are many cases of dispensaries and growers being robbed for their crops and their cash.

If you have a criminal who has a chance to get his hands on pounds and pounds of free potent weed, he is going to break the law to get some...

this is my opinion. It is based on living in different cities with different views and laws on marijuana.

yes, and liquor stores are also held up.

saz

10-08-2010, 11:38 AM

Yeah man, we are all for it, relax.

oh i'm quite relaxed, but rather perplexed by the hostility due to sharing information.

We shouldn't however claim it can clear peoples lungs, cure certain things until we know it can. All we know right now that it is harmful to a certain extent but as with a lot of drugs, there can be a lot of positives - social and medical.

The problem I have and the point I'm trying to get across is that some people refuse to believe pot causes ANY damage at all. Like its the nectar of gods and not one possible thing is wrong with it. We can all find studies and believe what we want to see and we all do it.

no one has claimed that it can clear lungs, nor has it been proven that it is harmful. no one has ever died or overdosed from marijuana. also, a lot people cook it with food, as opposed to smoking it.

Turchinator

10-08-2010, 11:46 AM

no one has ever developed cancer from marijuana.

okay you win... here is the research I was telling you about, did you get a chance to see this last year?

Young men who began using marijuana as adolescents or who smoke pot at least once a week appear to be twice as likely to develop testicular cancer as those who never used the drug.
The association, as reported by researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, was strongest with nonseminoma, an aggressive, fast-growing subtype of testicular cancer that typically strikes men between ages 20 and 35.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/16/health/he-marijuana16

Marijuana use linked to increased risk of testicular cancer

Risk appears to be elevated particularly among frequent and/or long-term users

SEATTLE — February 9 — Frequent and/or long-term marijuana use may significantly increase a man's risk of developing the most aggressive type of testicular cancer, according to a study by researchers at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. The study results were published online Feb. 9 in the journal Cancer.
The researchers found that being a marijuana smoker at the time of diagnosis was associated with a 70 percent increased risk of testicular cancer. The risk was particularly elevated (about twice that of those who never smoked marijuana) for those who used marijuana at least weekly and/or who had long-term exposure to the substance beginning in adolescence.
The results also suggested that the association with marijuana use might be limited to nonseminoma, a fast-growing testicular malignancy that tends to strike early, between ages 20 and 35, and accounts for about 40 percent of all testicular-cancer cases...

http://www.fhcrc.org/about/ne/news/2009/02/09/marijuana.html

there you have it, my point all along is that both studies are inconclusive but essential to the conversation

yes, and liquor stores are also held up

great point, saz. very true. I don't know the statistics, but I would think that there are some small organized crime rings that focus on low level alcohol trafficking. I would like more info on the matter, but you bring up a good point.

honestly, who's being hostile?

Burnout18

10-08-2010, 11:52 AM

Look i never smoked pot or been high but a lot of ppl i know do butttt....

How can you say that legalizing weed and controlling it through govt. law is somehow worse than how the supply is provided now? If i am a parent i would want it controlled like alcohol. Weed is readily available now in high school and middle schools, not just colleges. Scumbag criminal dealers will sell to anyone, any age. You should have more fears as a parent now than if it was legal.

Adam

10-08-2010, 02:24 PM

In the UK, if you're under 18 its easier to get hold of pot, coke, ket et all than it is alcohol. Let the government be the dealers, they are slightly lesser crooks than the current dealers.

Turchinator

10-08-2010, 02:30 PM

on the government marijuana dole, that ought to go over well...

saz

10-08-2010, 03:19 PM

okay you win... here is the research I was telling you about, did you get a chance to see this last year?

there you have it, my point all along is that both studies are inconclusive but essential to the conversation

there is nothing inconclusive about the medical benefits of marijuana. it relieves people's pain and discomfort. meanwhile no one has ever developed any form of cancer from marijuana.

yeahwho

10-08-2010, 03:55 PM

Kid Presentable

10-08-2010, 06:17 PM

Regulation, freedom to grow and smoke in quantities for personal use, tax revenue, I can support that. But, I don't think I can support it in a world where alcohol is the benchmark for how good society is at handling its taxable intoxicants.

I lived in Lambeth during/just following their experiment, and found I drank less when I could smoke a spliff instead. But, the world at large doesn't need two poorly managed drains on its various health systems. Australia-wise, cut licensing hours and crank up the cost of booze (and the legal age mayhaps) and the weed thing would be maybe manageable.

From the other thread. Not going to plop links in here. My point is more about what happens if it is then legalised and regulated. I know a few paranoid schizophrenics, and pot was definitely not good for them. Those benefits of marijauna links are laughable. Benefits: 'opens up bronchial tubes'. And?

saz

10-08-2010, 06:49 PM

Those benefits of marijauna links are laughable. Benefits: 'opens up bronchial tubes'. And?

you've selected one minor point in an attempt to ridicule the medical benefits (http://www.medicalmarijuanacure.com/benefits-of-marijuana/).

Kid Presentable

10-08-2010, 06:59 PM

you've selected one minor point in an attempt to ridicule the medical benefits.

Rather than critique my methodology, focus on the 'benefits' in that link, and think about how simplified a world view they offer:

Anorexia:

Benefits
- Increases appetite
- Improves overall mood

Sports Injury:

Benefits
- Reduces pain
- Reduces swelling and inflammation
- Sleeping aid

Quadriplegia

Benefits
- Reduces pain
- Reduces spasms

HIV (for fucks sake :rolleyes:):

Benefits
- Increases appetite
- Reduces pain
- Sleeping aid
- Helps with nausea

I mean, get stoned if you want to get stoned, but these are reverse-engineered medical rationales for using ganja. There are medical benefits to not smoking weed also.

saz

10-08-2010, 07:21 PM

i don't see a "simplified world view", but rather a simplistic and cynical attitude.

Kid Presentable

10-08-2010, 07:25 PM

i don't see a "simplified world view", but rather a simplistic and cynical attitude.

It's probably all the links you've been looking at.

Here is a list of common diseases that marijuana has been known to benefit. We have outlined the basic symptoms and the potential benefits marijuana has on each disease.

Says it all really. And bear in mind, I support the principles of the regulate, control and tax cannabis act.

Turchinator

10-08-2010, 07:46 PM

I sneezed a lot once and got some pot on my skin and I broke out in a rash.

I found out from an allergist that It's actually possible to have an allergy to marijuana if you are susceptible to pollens, grasses, or tree allergies.

also, marijuana actually gives me headaches sometimes.

I'm probably the exception to the rule. seems inconclusive.

YES to 19- Safe Access and Decriminalization are the key components for me.

checkyourprez

10-08-2010, 09:21 PM

not in this thread, no...

my comment was absolutely serious. there are conflicting studies, that's all. wasn't trying to be snide, but to pose a concern with the data that's out there. surely you read that study last year linking testicular cancer to marijuana use, no?

what about raids and robberies? I still think there will be a black market as long as the dispensaries and growers are carrying large amounts of money and high grade pot.

what happens if a teenager gets his older sibling to purchase a large amount so that he can supply it to his underage friends?

I'll hang up and wait for your response.

you wont win this argument on any practical reason.

id bust so much shit out it would make your head spin.

there is no reason it should not be legal.

Adam

10-09-2010, 12:11 AM

Can I just say, if jammyb was still about (as in still posting here) I doubt she'd say cancer and pot have no link. Maybe she was just prone to getting lung cancer really young and pot had nothing to do with it? Its all unknowns. One case I know, but I'm sure there is others.

Just because its not proven doesn't mean there is no link but I also know the opposite can be true - lets find out. I'm saying smoke in lungs has been proved to increase the chances of cancerous cells developing. We need far more research on both sides of benefits and problems before a strong case can be argued either way. But we can easily legalise on what we do know.

The attitude of refusing to believe pot has any problems linked to it at all can turn someone like me who regularly smokes it, enjoys it and wants people to get the same enjoyment as me out of it against it because I see so many kids refusing to believe there are potential problems. It takes a rational debate to the extremes and that is not good for either side.

Turchinator

10-09-2010, 02:33 PM

you wont win this argument on any practical reason.

id bust so much shit out it would make your head spin.

there is no reason it should not be legal.

I AGREE

hello, I would actually love to hear your responses, checkyourprez!

the only thing is, I'm not trying to make an argument, just contributing to the discussion on Prop 19 and relaying some of the concerns I have and have heard others share here in California. It's going to have to be part of the discussion before this bill passes and if you want the rest of the nation to follow in these footsteps.

there are some great responses in this thread and I agree a lot with what Adam, yeahwho, MXY, and KP were saying.

yeahwho

10-09-2010, 05:13 PM

The argument to continue to let drug dealers monopolize marijuana quality, availability, profits is the argument that pushes legalization to be the way I would vote. Since I have a 0 gain/loss in the outcome other than knowing that I'm not being nicked in my paycheck for court dates, public defenders, police work, prison costs and families being tormented over someone having personal use weed in the glove box etc.

Instead the weed is regulated, jobs are created, the legal system is freed up some and the profit goes to a tax base, not a drug running organization.

On the downside I know slurpee lines will be huge at 7/11's across California.

I read a pretty level headed article about Prop 19 in the Travel Section of USA Today, Will Mendocino County become the Napa Valley of marijuana? (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2010-10-07-mendocino-marijuana-tourism_N.htm?csp=hf&loc=interstitialskip), it points out some of the pros/cons of such an economy. I think it misses a few points on the business end, it tries to show how Mendocino County would or could become a weed mecca. I love coffee, but really I'm not interested in going to Ethiopia.

saz

10-09-2010, 06:27 PM

It's probably all the links you've been looking at.

Says it all really.

UC studies find promise in medical marijuana

February 18, 2010|By John Hoeffel
The LA Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/18/local/la-me-medical-marijuana18-2010feb18)

As an $8.7-million state research effort comes to an end, investigators report that cannabis can significantly relieve neuropathic pain and reduce muscle spasms in MS patients. More research is urged.

With an innovative but little-known state program to study medical marijuana about to run out of money, researchers and political supporters said Wednesday the results show promise.

"It should take all the mystery out of whether it works. We've got the results," said former state Sen. John Vasconcellos, who led the effort to create the 10-year-old Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research.

The center has nearly spent its $8.7-million allocation, sponsoring 14 studies at UC campuses, including the first clinical trials of smoked marijuana in the United States in more than two decades.

Much of the research is still underway or under review, but five studies have been published in scientific journals. Four showed that cannabis can significantly relieve neuropathic pain and one found that vaporizers are an effective way to use marijuana. Another study, submitted for publication, found that marijuana can reduce muscle spasms in multiple sclerosis patients.

Dr. Igor Grant, a neuropsychiatrist at UC San Diego who is the center's director, called the pain studies "pretty convincing" and urged the federal government to pay for additional clinical studies.

The center funded a range of research, including six studies of whether marijuana reduces neuropathic pain, which is caused by a damaged or abnormally functioning nervous system. A UC San Francisco study of patients with HIV-related pain found that 52% of those who smoked marijuana experienced significant relief.

"I think that clearly cannabis has benefits," said Dr. Donald I. Abrams, a San Francisco oncologist who led that study. "This substance has been a medicine for 2,700 years; it only hasn't been a medicine for 70."

Abrams doubts that the research will alter the debate over marijuana. "Science has not been driving this train for a long time now. I think it's all politics," he said.

Grant was more optimistic: "We have a different administration, and they are looking at the science basis of many things."

He said the research shows marijuana should no longer be classified as a Schedule I drug. "It is not a drug without value," he said.

.

saz

10-09-2010, 06:32 PM

Just because its not proven doesn't mean there is no link but I also know the opposite can be true - lets find out.

and just because i wore a pair of dark blue boxers doesn't mean i won't get a cold.

I'm saying smoke in lungs has been proved to increase the chances of cancerous cells developing. We need far more research on both sides of benefits and problems before a strong case can be argued either way. But we can easily legalise on what we do know.

that's tobacco. not marijuana. thc kills aging cells and keeps them from becoming cancerous. and besides, you don't have to smoke it. you can cook it in food.

yeahwho

10-09-2010, 06:57 PM

you wont win this argument on any practical reason.

id bust so much shit out it would make your head spin.

there is no reason it should not be legal.

With the above logic, every salient point made in behalf of continuing marijuana prohibition could statistically be countered with the insanity of the alcohol industry.

Do you also believe alcohol, the most destructive drug I and millions of other US citizens have ever encountered should be once again criminalized? I don't, but any argument on drugs will evolve into a drug is a drug is a drug.

jackrock

10-10-2010, 09:02 AM

Adam, re: lungs. Like saz said above, cannabis is not tobacco, smoke is not smoke when they are coming from two completely different substances. Maybe you are talking from experience? You use/d cannabis, you may feel it has a hindering effect on your lung capacity, makes you wheezy after prolonged use, yes? Blame the black market, and the control that commercial croppers have on the supply. Cannabis has a plethora of pests and pathogens that are attracted to it, whether grown indoors or wherever. Fungus gnats, spider mites (and their webs), powdery mildew, hell even chlorophyll is irritating. You, without a doubt have smoked these things, they are difficult to detect in your bud, they are also the cause of these detrimental effects on the lungs. Clean, pathogen free, (clorophyll) flushed, feels like air when smoked. You give the control to people who know what they are doing, put regulations that prevent these pests from entering the supply chain, most of the detrimental effects of smoking will go away. That said, heavy use may still cause bronchial problems. My point is, it doesn't have to be as bad as it is. And honestly, it's bad. Most people really have no idea what good cannabis is or what potential there is for it (again, you know who to blame). We'll look back on it and think how terrible it was, fortunately we'll be able to laugh, because we will be high as shit.

Dr. Donald Tashkin, a pulmonologist at UCLA, hired by the US government to find a correlation between cannabis smoking and cancer:
"What we found instead was no association and even a suggestion of some protective effect," says Tashkin, whose research was the largest case-control study ever conducted. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.
Something else to note about Tashkin, he's a pro when it comes to setting up case control studies, so much so that he helps other scientists and researchers do so.

I'm not saying that it doesn't have detrimental effects when smoked, I wouldn't advise an athlete or someone with a weakened immune system to smoke, pass the vape instead. I say 95% of the negativities associated with cannabis are effects of prohibition and the black market.

I'd like to see a tobacco addict smoke a fat joint of clean cannabis. I wonder the influence of THC as an expectorant, I've heard second hand that it causes the user to hock up tar that was caked in there, unpleasant for the time being but ending in relaxed and leavened pathways. This is pure spec so don't take my word for it, just musing and thinking out loud. However I do know that cannabis tar doesn't want to stay down there like tobacco.

I sneezed a lot once and got some pot on my skin and I broke out in a rash.

Rashes can be caused by the essential oils present, obviously that doesn't explain the sneezing but reference for others. :)

travesty

10-10-2010, 07:33 PM

Sir SkratchaLot

10-11-2010, 12:13 PM

Wow Saz, hit a nerve on this topic?
Are you really trying to say that there are ZERO negative effects to having marijuana smoke in your lungs? That's a pretty bold statement and frankly one I can refute from personal experience.

I hope you're not about to make an argument that marijuana should be criminalized based on some shakey anecdotal evidence after saying we should do nothing about global warming for lack of proof even though the majority of scientists say its exacerbated by humans. I'm sure you weren't going to do that.

saz

10-11-2010, 01:35 PM

Are you really trying to say that there are ZERO negative effects to having marijuana smoke in your lungs? That's a pretty bold statement and frankly one I can refute from personal experience.

no. what i've been saying is that there are no scientifically proven negative health effects from cannabis. no one has ever developed cancer, overdosed or died from it. and again, you don't have to smoke it. you can cook it and eat it.

interesting too that no one has really picked on the impact this will have on gangs, organized crime and in particular the mexican drug cartels, whose market and profit margin will be severly impacted by legalization, as this is what pro-legalization proponents, particularly those in law enforcement, have been emphasizing.

p-branez

10-11-2010, 02:23 PM

What we should really be thinking about is how the industry will be set up. If everybody agrees, which is what I'm reading here, the important part is over. This is an agriculture boon unlike anything to yet hit California.

-How will the marijuana industry be regulated?

-What percentage of profits does the State of California tax?

-What monies will go into drug/alcohol rehabilitation/education programs.

-Will various uses of marijuana such as textile/medical/recreational be equally taxed?

The real dynamic is in how the State of California takes on the above issues and maximizes the profits while making the risk factor of a mind altering drug less dangerous than it currently is under prohibition.

This is where i was going with the thread i made, to talk about the policy implications. Citing a handful of studies isn't going to eliminate the numerous fears (even if some are unfounded) of parents with teengers. We have to place this discussion in the context of California - that's where this thread started. the text of the bill is short and sweet and doesn't address these important issues you bring up ( http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Text_of_Proposition_19,_the_%22Regulate,_Control_a nd_Tax_Cannabis_Act_of_2010%22_%28California%29- odd that no one has posted the actual text of the bill we are all talking about)
what about the lawsuits to follow if the bill passes? i just hope that california can do legalization effectively and efficiently to pave the way for future reforms.

Turchinator

10-11-2010, 03:08 PM

this article describes the differing viewpoints in California and how marijuana advocates are split on Prop 19. it talks about some of my previous points:

A dopey measure on marijuana

Pot advocates are split on Prop. 19

California has enough problems without legalizing pot
By George Skelton Capitol Journal

October 11, 2010

The ballot initiative, bankrolled primarily by a prospering entrepreneur of the pot industry, would permit local governments to regulate and tax commercial cultivation and retail sales of marijuana. And it would permit all Californians at least 21 to grow and possess their own weed for personal use.
Such activity, however, still would violate federal law.Starting Jan. 1, pot smoking (http://www.latimes.com/topic/health/behavioral-conditions/tobacco-addiction-HEBEC000018.topic) will be even less of a state crime. Under a bill recently signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/arnold-schwarzenegger-PEPLT007379.topic), it will be deemed an infraction, equivalent to a traffic ticket.

Since 1996, when voters approved Prop. 215, it has been legal in California to grow, sell and smoke marijuana for medical purposes, subject to local control. A "patient" needs only a doctor's "recommendation," not a prescription.
Merely a quarter of buyers at medicinal pot shops "are truly in need of it because of a medical condition," says attorney George Mull, president of the California Cannabis Assn., which advocates "reasonable regulation of medical marijuana (http://www.latimes.com/topic/health/health-treatments/medical-marijuana-therapy-HETHT000012.topic)."
Mull opposes Prop. 19, illustrating a split in the marijuana community.
"We think it's kind of goofy to jump ahead to recreational marijuana when we haven't done medical marijuana correctly yet," he says.
The pitch basically is this: Cops currently waste many millions chasing down nonviolent pot smokers. There's a $14-billion industry that could be taxed to help the debt-ridden state. And marijuana "prohibition" has created killer drug cartels.

Opponents counter that relatively little, in fact, is spent nabbing or prosecuting marijuana users. "There's nobody in jail for possessing less than one ounce of marijuana," says Fontana Police Chief Rod Jones.

State prison data show that fewer than 1% of inmates have been sentenced for marijuana crimes of any kind.
"Long, long ago in the John Lennon (http://www.latimes.com/topic/entertainment/music/john-lennon-PECLB003005.topic) era, people got thrown in prison for possession of marijuana," says Cassandra Hockenson, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. "Not so much today."

Such talk scares Dr. David Sack, a psychiatrist and chief executive of Promises celebrity rehab centers. "Drugs cause tremendous hardships to children and families, and the risk of addiction goes up with exposure," he says.
"Marijuana is clearly addictive, impairs judgment and increases the risk of motor vehicle accidents and interferes with brain (http://www.latimes.com/topic/health/human-body/brain-HHA00008.topic) development, particularly in adolescents….
"The biggest concern I have is that legalization will create a societal validation that marijuana is not harmful."
Legalizing "recreational" dope would create yet another problem for the state.
Prop. 19 is a crackpot idea. Therefore, California voters just might pass it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap-20101011,0,4158366.column

yeahwho

10-11-2010, 05:43 PM

this article describes the differing viewpoints inCalifornia and how marijuana advocates are split on Prop 19. it talks about some of my previous points: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap-20101011,0,4158366.column

That writer seems a bit biased at first but overall he sort of caught the correct spirit if you were against prop 19. The rationale of legal increments (small quantity) legalization seems short sighted, it will not solve anything because a gram of weed here and there is not the problem. The scenario is some of the finest skunk comes from Cali in the form of pounds and kilos. The black market will still reap the fortune at the taxpayer expense, risk = profit which affords premium legal representation for the drug runner.

And I'm sorry David Salk, let's see you campaign against legal alcohol sales with the same ferocity you do against marijuana. Everything is addictive, I knew 'full fucking well" alcohol was destroying my life years before I found help, it's no secret marijuana is not the greatest drug on earth (everybody knows cocaine is ;)) but lets be grown ups and realize marijuana is not going to destroy California if it becomes legal. There are merits of marijuana use which millions of Americans can attest to, they are tax paying adults that are functional responsible citizens who pretty much have had it with government intervention and intrusion on smoking a joint.

The author George Skelton writes, We can become an even bigger laughingstock to the nation, seems like a ridiculous statement IMO, Oaksterdam turned a downtrodden district of America into a viable interesting vibrant community. It isn't the laughingstock at all, it's an idea that works. Everybody knows California is whacked, that's why I love going there and now it can be safer to visit with the decriminalization of marijuana.

Las Vegas should be doing this. To become a true adult Disneyland.

jackrock

10-11-2010, 07:07 PM

Wow Saz, hit a nerve on this topic?
Are you really trying to say that there are ZERO negative effects to having marijuana smoke in your lungs? That's a pretty bold statement and frankly one I can refute from personal experience.

Read my comment above and you can see how that is largely a product of prohibition and the black market itself.

abbott

10-11-2010, 07:51 PM

dont we need a good black market?

lots of good americans that do great things are going to be fucked if they have to pay taxes on the drug sales.

taxing drugs will destroy all of the problems created by prohibition.

the prison industry will suffer and crime at the border will no longer be great news for the press.

wtf...........

M|X|Y

10-12-2010, 11:10 AM

travesty

10-12-2010, 04:21 PM

Yeah, basically my lungs sucked for about 7 years. Even though I was very athletically active I would still be out of breath walking up a few flights of stairs. Coughing and wheezing. Not to mention the "lung oysters" that came out occassionally. Now that I don't smoke I also don't seem to catch colds nearly as often as I did either. I was using pretty regularly but I never smoked cigarettes so there was only one culprit. That's just my experience.

M|X|Y

10-12-2010, 04:33 PM

thanks, homie (y)

Dorothy Wood

10-12-2010, 05:24 PM

sounds like you just had some shitty weed, dude.

anyway, stop ignoring p-branez, he said some important things!

(so did many of you, just noticed he was over-looked)

anyway, I'm not saying it's the perfect drug, but I know a lot people who do it and are fully functioning people who contribute to society. they aren't goofy hippies eating snack cakes all day.

I use it for fun, but it also helps me manage my clinical depression. When the darkness creeps in, it simply turns on a light.

Plus, high people don't get in punch fights and puke all over the street like drunk people do.

It's just kinda ridiculous that my dental surgeon can give me a prescription for 30 vicodin for pain when I didn't really have any. and that shit can destroy your liver (when it's not making me constipated and giving me nightmares...sure, I took a couple to see if it was awesome, it wasn't), and is highly addictive.

but...somehow when medical marijuana is prescribed to people with minor issues, it's a big deal? news flash, people abuse all kinds of prescribed drugs.

Humans like to get fucked up, it's just the truth. Enough with the denial, just make it safer. Even animals like to eat fermented fruit every now and again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGFpvogfGp4&feature=related

travesty

10-12-2010, 06:30 PM

such a funny video Dorothy...I've been that Ostrich sooooo many times.

I had the best I could afford as a college kid and a bartender.

p-branez

10-12-2010, 07:31 PM

anyway, stop ignoring p-branez, he said some important things!

(so did many of you, just noticed he was over-looked)

oh yeah, thank you :) and i agree with all that you have to say (y)

what i'm most interested regarding prop 19 is that the discussion about marijuana is moving forward. Americans always hear with reference to race and class that we need to have that "conversation." but the journalists or politicians never really talk about where the conversation takes place or what it entails. drugs and their place in our society is another issue we need to talk about. and i think having a ballot proposal to redefine how californians classify marijuana is getting the "conversation" started. we'll talk about marijuana with our friends and family. hopefully we can begin to move beyond the stereotypes that all pot smokers are dirty criminals or hippies who laugh at movies all day.

i recently talked about prop 19 with a friend and for once, while talking about marijuana, i didn't feel like a deviant or some stereotypical stoner. i didn't lower my voice in public. i felt like my friend and i could have an open, honest, and analytical conversation about the policy, its implications, the merits of the opposition, and our personal opinions. regardless of the outcome of the election, i'm happy to see the discussion about the benefits and drawbacks of marijuana and legalization begin to take hold.

M|X|Y

10-13-2010, 12:28 PM

me too, p-branez.

I grew up in a house where smoking pot was considered one step away from smoking Crack and one nice thing about all press is that I've since been able to discuss it with family on that same level. I feel that the media has done a decent job at informing the ignorant on the basics, especially when you see legitimate and respected types on TV talking about it on shows my grandma watches. I think they would consider using it if it were medicinal reasons, whereas in the past they would've thought the someone was trying to get them hooked on something to ruin their lives.

saz

10-25-2010, 05:23 PM

Let's Be Honest: The War Against Marijuana Has Failed

Joseph McNamara
Research Fellow, Hoover Institution; Former Chief of Police, San Jose, California
Posted: October 25, 2010 03:20 PM (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-mcnamara/lets-be-honest-the-war-ag_b_773627.html)

I've worked in law enforcement for 35 years, including 15 years as the police chief in San Jose, California. Over my career, I have seen firsthand how misguided our marijuana policies are for our state and our country. That's why I narrated the Yes on 19 campaign's new TV ad.

Joseph McNamara tv ad (youtube) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_oIpIyZRu0)

For 70 years, we have prohibited marijuana in this country, each day expecting different results. But as William F. Buckley once said: "Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could."

We spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year arresting people for marijuana possession, sending them to trial, and incarcerating small-time offenders.

And yet, despite our war against it, marijuana is so freely available that anyone who wants it in California can get it.

Today, because it is illegal, teenagers have an easier time buying pot than beer. For any high school student, trying to purchase a six-pack without ID means being turned away by a liquor store owner who is concerned with losing his license. The same can't be said for drug dealers who exploit prohibition to profit off our kids.

On my watch as police chief in San Jose, the city was named the safest large city in the country, despite having the fewest police per capita. That's because we policed intelligently. And between smart policing and sound policy we can make our streets safe, instead of paying lip service to the failing war on marijuana.

California cannot afford to continue the same failed policies of the past. We need to pass Proposition 19 to tax and control marijuana like we do alcohol.

Controlling and taxing marijuana will generate over a billion dollars in new revenue every year, in contrast to the current $14 billion criminally-controlled market for marijuana, the largest cash crop in California. This money will go to local communities, allow police to focus on violent crimes, and put drug cartels out of business.

Proposition 19 will take marijuana out of the hands of criminals and put it into the hands of licensed vendors. That way, it will be easier to keep it away from our children.

That's why I am asking you to join me and many others in law enforcement by voting YES on Proposition 19.

You can help the Yes on 19 reach its goal of raising $100,000 to keep the ad on the air by clicking here (http://www.yeson19.com/ad).

.

Turchinator

10-25-2010, 07:58 PM

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-poll-20101023,0,1103452.story

Survey shows legal pot measure failing

California's marijuana legalization ballot initiative, Proposition 19 (http://www.latimes.com/topic/lifestyle-leisure/recreational-substance-use/marijuana-use/proposition-19-%28california-2010%29-EVHST0000249.topic), is trailing badly, according to a new Los Angeles Times/USC poll, which found likely voters opposing it 51% to 39%.

The marijuana legalization measure has led in most polls, but support has softened recently. The initiative's supporters, who are short on money, have not run the television advertisements that most political strategists say are essential to communicate with voters in a state the size of California.

"If voters don't see a compelling reason to vote for an initiative, the default is to vote against it," said Darry Sragow, the interim director of the Times/USC poll. "That may be happening here in the absence of a visible, compelling campaign." The poll indicates that "voters who are going to make the critical difference seem to be saying, 'I'm not ready to do this,'" he said.

Proposition 19, which needs a majority vote to pass, would allow Californians who are at least 21 to grow up to 25 square feet of marijuana and possess up to an ounce. Cities and counties could authorize commercial cultivation and sales, and could impose taxes.

The poll, conducted for The Times and the USC (http://www.latimes.com/topic/education/colleges-universities/university-of-southern-california-OREDU000019271.topic) College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, found the initiative favored by Democrats (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/parties-movements/democratic-party-ORGOV0000005.topic), 51% to 41%, and opposed by Republicans (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/parties-movements/republican-party-ORGOV0000004.topic), 66% to 23%.

Men were evenly split, and women were leaning against it. Both sides consider mothers a key swing vote, with backers of legalization saying it would lead to regulations that would do more to keep pot from children, and opponents saying young people would have easier access and so more would use it.

Likely voters younger than 40 are in favor of Proposition 19 by 48% to 37%, but older voters are opposed, the poll found. Among likely voters 65 and over, only 28% support the measure, while 59% said they were opposed.

Poll respondent Nancy Bynes, 51, who is married with two adult children, said she smoked pot as a teen in the 1970s. A dog groomer who lives near Nevada City, she said she doesn't believe marijuana is dangerous and wants police to focus on serious crimes. "Go after the meth labs, please. Pot is not worth it," said Bynes, who switches her registration between parties.

But Shawn Lidtka, a single Democrat from Garden Grove and a mechanical engineering student at Cal State Fullerton, said he opposes legalizing marijuana because he believes the drug saps people of their ambition. "My goal is to be deeper into life, not diminish it," said the 28-year-old Army veteran.

Some polls have shown Latino voters, initially against legalization, swinging toward it, but the Times/USC poll found they are against it by 2 to 1. White voters also oppose the measure. Supporters of legalization have highlighted statistics showing members of minority groups are arrested for marijuana possession at higher rates than whites.

saz

10-26-2010, 09:25 AM

Automated Polls Show Prop 19 Winning 56-41: Anti-Marijuana Stigma Could Be Throwing Off Live Polling (http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2010/10/22/internal-polls-prop-19-winning-56-41-anti-marijuana-stigma-could-be-throwing-off-other-polling/)

By: Jon Walker (http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/author/jon-walker/)
Friday October 22, 2010 3:17 pm

Yes on Proposition 19 has just released a set of internal numbers for polling they conducted last week, which compared responses given to live interviewers versus automated telephone polling. Interestingly, there is a huge divide between the level of support expressed for Prop 19 with the two methodologies. They find that if an individual is responding only to a computer program, they are much more likely to express support for Prop 19.

Yes on Prop 19 (http://yeson19.com/sites/default/files/Prop%2019%20live%20vs%20auto%20poll.pdf) (10/13-14)

Live interviews (with leaners):
Yes 41
No 46
Und/DK/Ref 14

Automatic interview:
Yes 56
No 41
Und/DK/Ref 4

I have previously speculated that Prop 19 might be do better in polls conducted without live interviewers (http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/07/26/yes-on-prop-19-winning-52-36-us-majority-supports-legalizing-marijuana/). There is still a stigma in many communities attached to marijuana use which could make some voters embarrassed to tell a stranger over the phone they plan to vote for legalization.

PPP and SurveyUSA, which use automatic interviews, have consistently shown greater support for the initiative. We have seen recently that SurveyUSA (http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/10/20/ca-marijuana-initiative-prop-19-still-leading-48-44/), using mostly automated interviews, found the measure winning 48-44 while PPIC (http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/10/21/ca-initiatives-prop-19-now-trailing-anti-climate-reform-prop-23-down-big-majority-rule-prop-25-leading/), using live interviews, had it losing 44-49.

This internal polling from the campaign confirms not only that interviewees seem to be lying to live pollsters, but also that this effect is quite pronounced among certain groups — particularly young voters. In live interviews, voters under 30 support the measure only 49-37. But in the automatic interviews, young voters support Prop 19 by an enormous 73-22 margin.

In general, ballot measures tend to be very difficult to poll. The social and legal issues associated with marijuana use makes things even more complicated. The ability to do a straight-up comparison of the results of automated versus live interview polling helps explain some of the wild discrepancies we’ve been seeing in Prop 19 polling of late. The results provide very positive news for supporters of the measure, and if they are correct, Prop 19 will likely become law.

Yet the results also a reminder that we should treat all polling on this measure with a healthy dose of skepticism, given how hard it appears to be to get accurate information on how people truly intend to vote come election day

.

Turchinator

10-27-2010, 10:43 AM

lol u mad ?

across the state, the polls show the bill is losing ground.

there is no money on either side, though activist George Soros just pumped $1 million into the YES on 19 Campaign.

the ACLU recently endorsed the Bill as well.

check out these links, saz. the Governator decrimanilized marijuana in California, which meets the demands of many casual users who are not motivated enough to get to the polls.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/10/prop-19-up-in-smoke.html

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/politics&id=7747722

saz

10-27-2010, 10:54 AM

no, i am not mad. actually, the majority of polls have shown prop 19 winning, and as i just clearly demonstrated, people are more comfortable not admitting to an actual pollster how they intend to vote. also, proclaiming that casual users are not "motivated enough" to go to the polls is a blatant assumption and generalization. i can see that you are quite possibly cheerleading prop 19's defeat, as you have taken the contrarian, pessimistic and even negative view in this thread. however just because you might be cheerleading its defeat, doesn't mean prop 19 won't pass. and to be honest, i can't see how anyone in their right could oppose something that makes so much sense, which would generate billions in revenue, create tens of thousands of jobs, quite possibly put gangs and organized crime out of business, while cutting into the profits of mexican cartels, with law enforcement officials, active and retired, actively supporting prop 19.

Dorothy Wood

10-27-2010, 02:22 PM

I have a question...what will the gangs and drug dealers do when their main revenue source is plucked from them?

make meth? start robbing people?

just asking. I want prop 19 to pass.

saz

10-27-2010, 05:04 PM

find or rely on other forms of profiteering (blow, meth, smack, prosititution) just as they did after prohibition was repealed in 1933. the mexican cartels might take the biggest hit.

Turchinator

10-27-2010, 07:07 PM

or they could just aim for the other 47 contiguous states where the drug is still illegal.

and if you think the "motivation" comment was a generalization, then why are campaign workers in Nor Cal using the term

"Turn Out, Don't Be a Burnout"

to get young voters to come out next tuesday?

no, i am not mad. actually, the majority of polls have shown prop 19 winning, and as i just clearly demonstrated, people are more comfortable not admitting to an actual pollster how they intend to vote. also, proclaiming that casual users are not "motivated enough" to go to the polls is a blatant assumption and generalization. i can see that you are quite possibly cheerleading prop 19's defeat, as you have taken the contrarian, pessimistic and even negative view in this thread. however just because you might be cheerleading its defeat, doesn't mean prop 19 won't pass. and to be honest, i can't see how anyone in their right could oppose something that makes so much sense, which would generate billions in revenue, create tens of thousands of jobs, quite possibly put gangs and organized crime out of business, while cutting into the profits of mexican cartels, with law enforcement officials, active and retired, actively supporting prop 19.

lol, I'm not cheerleading for anything. I said from the beginning I didn't see it passing but will Vote YES. if it passes I will be surprised.

the wording of this bill would create too much disparity between local governments, and the whole issue with the Feds would end up being a clusterfuck.

saz

10-27-2010, 07:30 PM

generalizing people who use weed as slackers is unfortunately a popular cliche.

Eric Holder To Prosecute Distribution, Possession If Prop. 19 Passes

Marcus Wohlsen | 10/15/10 09:18 PM | The Associated Press (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/15/eric-holder-to-prosecute-_n_764153.html)

San Francisco — Attorney General Eric Holder is warning that the federal government will not look the other way, as it has with medical marijuana, if voters next month make California the first state to legalize pot.

Marijuana is illegal under federal law, which drug agents will "vigorously enforce" against anyone carrying, growing or selling it, Holder said.

The comments in a letter to ex-federal drug enforcement chiefs were the attorney general's most direct statement yet against Proposition 19 and set up another showdown with California over marijuana if the measure passes.

With Prop 19 leading in the polls, the letter also raised questions about the extent to which federal drug agents would go into communities across the state to catch small-time users and dealers, or whether they even had the resources to do it.

Medical marijuana users and experts were skeptical, saying there was little the federal government could do to slow the march to legalization.

"This will be the new industry," said Chris Nelson, 24, who smokes pot to ease recurring back pain and was lined up outside a San Francisco dispensary. "It's taxable new income. So many tourists will flock here like they go to Napa. This will become the new Amsterdam."

If the ballot measure passes, the state would regulate recreational pot use. Adults could possess up to one ounce of the drug and grow small gardens on private property. Local governments would decide whether to allow and tax sales.

Experts say the two situations are not the same.

If Arizona wants to crack down on illegal immigration more strictly than the federal government, the U.S. can act to prevent police in the state from enforcing the law, said Robert Mikos, a Vanderbilt University law professor who studies the conflicts between state and federal marijuana laws.

If California prevents police from enforcing the stricter federal ban on marijuana, the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government cannot order local law enforcement to act, he said.

It "is a very tough-sounding statement that the attorney general has issued, but it's more bark than bite," Mikos said.

"The same factors that limited the federal government's influence over medical marijuana would probably have an even bigger influence over its impact on recreational marijuana," Mikos said, citing not enough agents to focus on small-time violators.

Prop. 19: Former Police Chief Strikes Back At U.S. Attorney General

Lucia Graves l lucia.graves@gmail.com | HuffPost Reporting (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/15/prop-19-advocate-former-p_n_764757.html?ir=Los%20Angeles)
First Posted: 10-15-10 04:43 PM | Updated: 10-15-10 05:46 PM

Former San Jose Chief of Police Joseph McNamara said Friday that "Californians are not going to let politicians in Washington, DC tell them how to vote."

McNamara's statement, released by "Yes on 19," comes in response to Attorney General Eric Holder's comments (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-15/marijuana-legalization-measure-in-california-opposed-by-justice-department.html) that the DOJ will "vigorously enforce" federal drug laws even if Proposition 19 passes in California on November 2.

"As we saw with the repeal of alcohol prohibition, it takes action from the states to push the federal government to change its policies," said McNamara.

"Passing Proposition 19 in California will undoubtedly kick start a national conversation about changing our country's obviously failed marijuana prohibition policies," he added. "If the federal government wants to keep fighting the nation's failed 'war on marijuana' while we're in the midst of a sagging economic recovery and two wars, it just proves that the establishment politicians' priorities are wrongly focused on maintaining the status quo."

McNamara, now a research fellow in drug policy at Stanford University, has argued (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-15/marijuana-legalization-measure-in-california-opposed-by-justice-department.html) that the 60 percent of the cash that supports violent drug cartels comes from the sale of illegal marijuana.

A recent Field Poll (http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Poll.pdf) of 599 likely voters found that 49 percent support the ballot measure while just 42 percent opposed it.

Turchinator

10-27-2010, 07:46 PM

YES on 19

Turchinator

10-31-2010, 12:29 PM

the campaign is now just reaching tv, radio, and facebook this weekend...

there are so many Californians that are disinterested in this, or are uneducated about it. too little, too late?

and of course the marijuana advocacy sites are going to show the polls that spin the results closer towards "YES"

let's see if this push is enough to put it over the top. young voters are the key.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=169620139720980&ref=ts

saz

10-31-2010, 01:26 PM

and of course the marijuana advocacy sites are going to show the polls that spin the results closer towards "YES"

more like how the l.a. times and everyone else opposed to prop 19 are spinning the results closer towards "no".

people are much more comfortable telling automated telephone polling how they will vote on the measure, as opposed to a live interview (http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2010/10/22/internal-polls-prop-19-winning-56-41-anti-marijuana-stigma-could-be-throwing-off-other-polling/).

regardless, i'm nervous about tuesday and if it doesn't pass (despite all of the polls leading up to voting day which have consistently shown the yes vote leading), it will eventually become a reality:

Gallup Finds Nearly Half of America Supports Marijuana Legalization (http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2010/10/29/gallup-finds-nearly-half-of-america-supports-marijuana-legalization/)

By: Jon Walker
Friday October 29, 2010 8:26 am

Americans’ support for marijuana legalization is the highest it has ever been (http://www.gallup.com/poll/144086/New-High-Americans-Support-Legalizing-Marijuana.aspx), according to the latest Gallup poll. Currently 46 percent of Americans believe the use of marijuana should be legal, while 50 percent think it should stay illegal. The American people are now roughly evenly split on the question. The issue of marijuana legalization has gone from a once fringe position to something solidly mainstream. Most importantly, the trend line shows accelerating movement in the direction of greater acceptance for legalization.

According to the poll, liberals, adults under 30, and people who live in the Western states are most supportive, while Republicans, conservatives, and those over 65 are the least supportive. This huge age divide partly explains why support for legalization is trending up and will likely continue to for years to come.

Just one year ago, only 44 percent supported legalization, 54 percent opposed it, and just five years ago, only 36 percent supported legalization (http://www.gallup.com/poll/19561/who-supports-marijuana-legalization.aspx) and 60 percent opposed–a massive 10-point swing from opposition to support in only five years. Based on the current trend line, I easily suspect by the 2012 election we could see more Americans who support legalization than oppose it.

It is important to keep in mind that this is a poll of all Americans. As a whole, registered voters tend to be slightly more conservative than all Americans, and those most likely to vote tend to be more conservative still.

Whether Proposition 19 succeeds or fails this year in California, the issue of marijuana legalization is not going to go away. With the trend moving in the direction of marijuana, legalization, it will likely become a reality in an American state (or several states) soon. If not this year, than likely in 2012, 2014, or 2016, the citizens of astate with a ballot initiative process will use direct democracy to end marijuana prohibition.

p-branez

11-02-2010, 01:00 PM

^
detroiters (http://saferdetroit.net/index.php) were supposed to vote today on legalizing up to one ounce for those 21+, but it was inevitably caught up in legal issues.

and this graph (http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm) is from a new UK study that 'suggests alcohol is more dangerous than heroin or crack'

travesty

11-02-2010, 03:44 PM

I am pretty sure that if heroine or crack were as widely available, cheaply priced and as widely accepted and used as alcohol is now then that graph would look a whole lot different.

Turchinator

11-02-2010, 07:46 PM

http://theweek.com/article/index/208886/marijuana-activists-vs-prop-19

medical marijuana advocates are against Prop 19. It could push the growers out of business and "corporatize marijuana"

Prop 19 is a good first step towards legalization, but a poorly written bill that was poorly funded and likely will not pass.

saz

11-02-2010, 09:14 PM

it's a proposition, and seeing as many former and current law enforcement officials, judges etc are supporting it, i'll take their arguments and expertise over medical marijuana activists. growers wouldn't be pushed out of anything. yes, corporate marijuana would become a reality, however the tax revenue would be in the billions, and it would lead to a growers and jobs boom, as what we've already seen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzOpMc7WVBE) is just the tip of the iceberg.

Turchinator

11-02-2010, 10:46 PM

56% to 44% with 18% reporting. Prop 19 projected to Fail.

only the Bay area overwhelmingly voted YES.

Holder really threw a wrench into this one...

saz

11-03-2010, 06:53 PM

yay, another victory for the mexican drug cartels, who surely said "thank you california" last night.

saz

11-03-2010, 08:04 PM

Even in Loss, Prop 19 Got More Votes Than Every Major GOP Candidate (http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2010/11/03/even-in-loss-prop-19-got-more-votes-than-every-major-gop-candidate/)

By: Jon Walker
Wednesday November 3, 2010 12:01 pm

I plan to eventually do a much more in-depth analysis of Proposition 19′s modest loss in California, but I thought I would share some initial thoughts.

With 97.1 percent reporting (http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/ballot-measures/), there were 3,359,776 votes for the measure (46.2%) and 3,906,895 votes against (53.8%). The measure lost by 7.6 percent, which is significant but not particularly large for ballot measure.

Prop 19 was more popular than the statewide Republican candidates

Despite this being one of the best years nationally for Republicans in decades, more Californians actually voted for Prop 19 than for the Republican candidates in the top four statewide races. In the Governor’s race, Meg Whitman got only 3,029,919 votes (41.2% of the vote), in the Senate race, Carly Fiorina got 3,094,338 votes (42.5%), in the Lieutenant Governor’s race, Abel Maldonado got 2,812,582 votes (39.4%), and in the race for Attorney General, Steve Cooley got only 3,215,104 votes (45.6%). A quarter of a million more voters supported Prop 19 than they did any of the major Republicans on the ballot.

Support for Prop 19 statewide in California is apparently less “fringe” than support for the Republican Party.

Turnout: demographics is destiny

This was basically on awful year demographically to have a marijuana legalization initiative on the ballot. Midterm elections always see lower youth turnout, and this year was no exception. While there are signs Prop 19 might have slightly boosted youth turnout, nothing can compare to the ability of a presidential race to really bring out young voters.

Clearly, the increase in turnout from older conservatives in this historic GOP wave election was not helpful for Prop 19. In 2008, Congressional Democrats won the national popular vote by around 10 points, and this year, they lost it by around seven. Putting up a ballot measure that polls best with individuals who vote Democratic in that kind of environment is going to face a huge headwind. In a presidential year and/or without a once-in-a-century massive Republican wave, Prop 19 would have done significantly better

.