First of all... anyone who has ever used marijuana will tell you that there is not a problem with it... you will notice that those who are 100% against legalizing it have never used it and do not know what they are talking about. Gateway drug! my A$$... "Yes it is, any heroin addict you meet started out using marijuana"... yeah, they also drank milk... therefore milk is a gateway drug, let's make that a crime to posses and use at well... and do away with those dumb ass commercials with that milk "rock star" guy while we are at it. Gee, I don't know about you but I enjoy getting a "buzz" without poisoning my kidneys, liver or brain. But gee, if you smoke alot of pot on Saturday night you won't have that killer Sunday morning hangover... oh man, I will really miss that ! Not to mention all of those bar fights that start from some a-hole who gets nasty when he is drunk, let him smoke some weed and that same guy will be the nicest guy you could ever know... I just say it's a "no brainer" for those of us who enjoy the herb and know the real truth... unlike the opposers who have never smoked and have no idea what the hell they are talking about.

Check this article out about these no good criminal type marijuana users... enjoy

http://www.slate.com/id/222...

I have smoked marijuana before and it is bad for you, why because it messes up your lungs is what you forgot. That's why when you take a deep hit why do you think you cough so much. Weed even messes up your lungs more than cigs do. Unless you don't smoke weed everyday. I don't understand why so many people stick up for weed like if there gonna make love to it or something. Weed is a drug period no matter what anybody tells you. I just don't know why people tell you its good for you. Who ever tells you that is because they must be high on it. Also marijuana messes up your thought processes if you have smoked it for a long amount of time. You have to look things up or google it, its just common sense. I'm not saying that its really, really bad for you i just think that when it comes down to it its a drug and it will have a negative affect on you later on in life if you continue to smoke it. Also i have been smoking it for about 2 years and that was about 6 or 7 years ago and i quit because of how stupid it can make you and how stupid it makes you look. Like i said I'm not saying its the worse because its far from it compared to other hard core drugs out there and its really not that bad if you smoke it for only a little while. So I'm going to just try to say that weed is ok maybe to try when you are sick from your stomach and cancer, or just to try when your young and having fun for a little while but in my opinion don't smoke it for years and years because overall it will do some damage.

How many pot heads do we have locked up and taking precious room in Ca penal system?

How much more harmful is marijuana than alcohol which has killed thousands every year?  

Legalize it and you won't be hearing about our precious law enforcement (and our tax dollars) chasing after these illegal growing operations or some pot head that just wants to get high.  Just like increasing hwy speed limit from 55 to 70, there will be an initial jump in people getting stoned, but will settle out to weekend buzzers.  Who knows, maybe even taks some alcoholics off of the streets.   

So your saying you want more pot heads running around the streets buying pot from stores if it becomes legal. Do you think that would make the world a better place. Alcohol is more dangerous i agree, but marijuana is a drug whether you like it or not and having more people on drugs don't solve anything. Even if its marijuana! You would just have a bunch of lazy people on munchies killing there brian cells. That's what you get out of smoking Marijuana!

1.  Milk is not a mood altering chemical and is actually good for you.  (That's RF's old argument..not new here)  Milk has no potential for addiction.

2.  Only people who never smoked pot are against legalizing it?  FALSE.  There are people here on the blog alone who are against legalization and were long time pot smokers.

3.  If you believe people are against it because they never tried it and don't know what they're talking about?  I suggest you talk to an oncologist who has never had cancer or a male gynocologist who has never had a baby.

4.  Using the argumment that alohol is worse for you than pot is like saying a broken leg is worse than a broken arm.

5.  Marijuana is inhaled deeper (as a rule) and held in the lungs longer exposing the lungs to carcinagens for a longer period of time.

6.  People DO drive under the influence of pot and get DUI's for it.

Good point Nancy, finally someone else that has the same idea. I've smoked weed a couple of years when i was a young teen and i finally stopped when i got wiser and saw how stupid it makes you when i saw someone else that was on it and i was sober.

The question here is not whether weed is good for you or not. Alcohol is a dangerous substance & yet it is heavily pushed by Madison Ave. Why?

Weed is far less dangerous than alcohol. 

6.  People DO drive under the influence of pot and get DUI's for it.

People also drive under the influence of legal dope & get DUI's.

Basically people should never drive under the influence of any mind altering substance. That is something I think most people here would agree with.

If the best argument you have comparing weed to alcohol is lung damage, then you better try a lot harder. Drink a bottle of whiskey everyday for the next ten years & have a friend smoke ten joints a day for the next ten years. Then see who walks away from the experiment with their liver,brain,job,drivers license, and every other part of your life alcohol damages. If you are going to use the argument about lung damage Nancy, how come I don't see you crying about outlawing cigarettes? Oh yeah many of you are moaning about cigarette smokers too.

Remember Nazi Germany heavily campaigned against tobacco use....

Another question is why fund the anti drug campaign yet use it to fund clandestine wars in Latin America (and the Middle East)?  It's a contradictory policy going back to Nixon (Blew up under Reagan).

CIA has brought Cocaine into the US yet they do drug stings in the hood.  Who has the planes and boats to bring in this stuff?

An Air Force Captain was busted 4 years ago for pushing mad weight from Columbia.  Is he just a rogue officer?

Info, by now even you know what I do and it's absurd to say that the best argument I have is lung damage.  The question is, why do you approve of ONE MORE damaging chemical.  You won't find me advocating ANY mood altering chemical unless it's prescribed by a legitimate physician..

You've been around long enough to know this topic pops up all the time and you act like it's some revelation from an almighty being.  I'm not arguing ANY point, that's not my job.  I present information, opinions, and when I'm in the mood like I was about a week ago, I provide links.

Even in my job I don't argue, I don't preach.  I teach.  Everyone is entitled to the information and what they do with it is up to them.  I ain't no ones mama (except my two offspring) and I ain't no ones babysitter.

Now, we can sit here and toss stats back and forth all day but the reality is, you aren't going to convince me that pot is wonderful and healthful for you and I'm not going to convince you it isn't.  This is one of the most circular discussions on the blog and it will never get resolved here.  Pointless...  other than for the folks outside the blog who read the material that is.

 " 5.  Marijuana is inhaled deeper (as a rule) and held in the lungs longer exposing the lungs to carcinagens for a longer period of time."

A lot of people eat marijuana, Nancy. Besides, using vaporizers where carbon is not inhaled is becoming more common.I'm sure you know that.

The stuff is no more addictive than caffeine is - you should know that too.

--virgil

 I don't believe in law enforcement welfare supported by those who continue to believe that marijuana should be made illegal again, no matter what it may cost the rest of us.

--virgil

Marijuana is inhaled deeper (as a rule) and held in the lungs longer exposing the lungs to carcinagens for a longer period of time.

i guess smoking it isnt the preferred method anymore

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/07051515114 5.htm

It's more like economy and foreign relations welfare, Virgil.

How do you think the CIA was able to circumvent rules (and a limited budget) congress laid down to prevent them from overthrowing stable governments as they had done with their blessing in the past?

Personally, I think it will just lead to more dumbing down of our society to be honest with you.  Just one more way for people to escape thier realities.  Health issues aside, that's pretty much why I am against it. 

I never said pot is wonderful. I even noted at the top of this post that I don't advocate the use of either substance. 

prescribed by a legitimate physician

HA HA

Don't you mean a pusher of dangerous "legal" drugs with tons of side effects?

 Just one more way for people to escape thier realities. 

That's already happening.

"prescribed by a legitimate physician

 HA HA

Don't you mean a pusher of dangerous "legal" drugs with tons of side effects? "

Inforwar, don't be a Jones Monkey.

. We all know you're not a legitimate physician, and we don't need someone like you implying you know how to tell who are the legimate physicians either.

--virgil

 I think it will just lead to more dumbing down of our society to be honest with you.

That was a blanket statement.

Some of the most intelligent people on this planet smoke(ed) weed....at the same time I guess some of the dumbest people on this planet smoke weed too. I would say our educational system & and Madison Ave. should take the wrap for the deliberate dumbing down of our society.

"That's already happening."

Hence,

Cable Television and Fox News.

--virgil

Image is everything

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

 http://www.people.com/peopl...

Francais,  

"It's more like economy and foreign relations welfare, Virgil"

Acccording to a Harvard study, 77 billion to be injected into the economy with marijuana's full decriminalization.

--virgil

That 77billion wont go to the privatized prisons that need the weed smokers in jail to get their share of the welfare.

It wont go to secretly overthrowing governments without the knowledge of Congress.

Virgil I don't go around calling you a monkey. I thought you would be happy to see me taking a stand for an issue you deeply believe in. I never said I was a physician. I was pointing out how physicians push legal drugs with a lot more side effects & health risks than weed.

Vigil I already know what you think of Alex Jones....it is childish of you to use every opportunity you get to take a shot at me for supporting him.

I am not a huge fan of Noam Chomsky but you don't see me following you around hurling insults like a rabid puppy.

NY Times: Afghan Opium Kingpin On CIA Payroll

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, October 28, 2009

A bombshell article in today’s edition of the New York Times lifts the lid on how the brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a suspected kingpin of the country’s booming opium trade, has been on the CIA payroll for the past eight years. However, the article serves as little more than a whitewash because it fails to address the fact that one of the primary reasons behind the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was the agenda to reinstate the Golden Crescent drug trade.

“The agency pays (Ahmed Wali) Karzai for a variety of services, including helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the C.I.A.’s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar, Mr. Karzai’s home,” reports the Times.

An October 2008 report from the Times reveals how, after security forces discovered a huge tractor-trailer full of heroin outside Kandahar in 2004, “Before long, the commander, Habibullah Jan, received a telephone call from Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of President Hamid Karzai, asking him to release the vehicle and the drugs.”

In 2006, following the discovery of another cache of heroin, “United States investigators told other American officials that they had discovered links between the drug shipment and a bodyguard believed to be an intermediary for Ahmed Wali Karzai.”

The Times article out today also discusses how the CIA uses Karzai as a go-between between the Americans and the Taliban. He is also directly implicated in the manufacturing of phony ballots and polling stations that were attributed to the President’s disputed election victory.

“If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck,” the American officer said of Mr. Karzai. “Our assumption is that he’s benefiting from the drug trade.”

Officials quoted by The Times described Karzai as a Mafia-like figure who expanded his influence over the drug trade with the aid of U.S. efforts to eliminate his competitors.

The Afghan opium trade has exploded since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, following a lull after the Taliban had imposed a crackdown. According to the U.N., the drug trade is now worth $65 billion. Afghanistan produces 92 per cent of the world’s opium, with the equivalent of 3,500 tonnes leaving the country each year. Other figures put the number far higher, at around 6,100 tonnes a year.

The New York Times exposé pins the blame on Karzai, but fails to explain that one of the primary reasons behind the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was the United States’ agenda to restore, not eradicate, the drug trade.

Before the invasion, the Taliban collaborated closely with the U.N. to reduce opium production down to just 185 tonnes, a figure at least 2000% below current levels. The notion that the “Taliban benefits from the drug trade” and that the U.S. is trying to stop it, as both Bush and Obama claimed, is the complete opposite of what is actually happening.

As Professor Michel Chossudovsky has highlighted in a series of essays, the explosion of opium production after the invasion was about the CIA’s drive to restore the lucrative Golden Crescent opium trade that was in place during the time when the Agency were funding the Mujahideen rebels to fight the Soviets, and flood the streets of America and Britain with cheap heroin, destroying lives while making obscene profits.

The Times implies that the drug lord Karzai being on the CIA payroll is little more than an embarrassing coincidence, when in reality he is just a middle manager for the U.S. military-industrial complex’s control of the drug trade in Afghanistan which stretches back decades and was only interrupted when the Taliban came to power.

“Heroin is a multibillion dollar business supported by powerful interests, which requires a steady and secure commodity flow. One of the “hidden” objectives of the war was precisely to restore the CIA sponsored drug trade to its historical levels and exert direct control over the drug routes,” writes Chossudovsky.

“As revealed in the Iran-Contra and Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) scandals, CIA covert operations in support of the Afghan Mujahideen had been funded through the laundering of drug money. “Dirty money” was recycled –through a number of banking institutions (in the Middle East) as well as through anonymous CIA shell companies–, into “covert money,” used to finance various insurgent groups during the Soviet-Afghan war, and its aftermath.”

Within two years of the CIA’s covert operation in Afghanistan, “CIA assets again controlled this heroin trade. As the Mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan Intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories. During this decade of wide-open drug-dealing, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad failed to instigate major seizures or arrests.”

This is the history of the Afghan opium trade that the Times won’t tell you, and in failing to do so today’s article serves only to whitewash the true scale of the agenda behind the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan.

Infowar,

" I was pointing out how physicians push legal drugs with a lot more side effects & health risks than weed."

I misread your post. I apologize.

--virgil

No problem. We should stop working against each other Virgil. I think there are a lot of us here who could be extremely effective working together on key issues we agree upon.

 Francais,

 "That 77billion wont go to the privatized prisons that need the weed smokers in jail to get their share of the welfare."

Certainly the change will be painful for those who depend on drug war prohibition for their bread and butter .

No doubt about that !

--virgil

afghanistan and different forms of opium are old news info..they have been supplying it forever...the CIA involvment is no big surprize anymore either..its happened with other countries other drugs...just the names have changed..

Pot Smoking Not Linked to Lung Cancer

May 23, 2006 -- People who smoke http://www.webmd.com/mental...>marijuana do not appear to be at increased risk for developing http://www.webmd.com/lung-c...>lung cancerlung http://www.webmd.com/cancer...>cancer, new research suggests.

While a clear increase in cancercancer risk was seen among cigarette smokers in the study, no such association was seen for regular cannabis users.

Even very heavy, long-term marijuana users who had smoked more than 22,000 joints over a lifetime seemed to have no greater risk than infrequent marijuana users or nonusers.

The findings surprised the study’s researchers, who expected to see an increase in cancer among people who smoked marijuana regularly in their youth.

“We know that there are as many or more carcinogens and co-carcinogens in marijuana smoke as in cigarettes,” researcher Donald Tashkin, MD, of UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine tells WebMD. “But we did not find any evidence for an increase in cancer risk for even heavy marijuana http://www.webmd.com/smokin...>smoking.” Carcinogens are substances that cause cancer.

Tashkin presented the findings today at The American Thoracic Society’s 102nd International Conference, held in San Diego.Boomers Reaching Cancer Age

The study population was limited to people who were younger than 60 because people older than that would probably not have used marijuana in their http://children.webmd.com/t...>teens and early adult years.

“People who may have smoked marijuana in their youth are just now getting to the age when cancers are being seen,” Tashkin says.

A total of 611 lung cancer patients living in Los Angeles County, and 601 patients with other cancers of the head and neck were compared with 1,040 people without cancer matched for age, sex, and the neighborhood they lived in.

All the participants were asked about lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol, as well as other drugs, their diets, occupation, family history of lung cancer, and socioeconomic status.

The heaviest marijuana users in the study had smoked more than 22,000 joints, while moderately heavy smokers had smoked between 11,000 and 22,000 joints.

While two-pack-a-day or more cigarette smokers were found to have a 20-fold increase in lung cancer risk, no elevation in risk was seen for even the very heaviest marijuana smokers.

The more tobacco a person smoked, the greater their risk of developing lung cancer and other cancers of the head and neck. But people who smoked more marijuana were not at increased risk compared with people who smoked less and people who didn’t smoke at all.

more here

http://www.webmd.com/lung-c...

afghanistan and different forms of opium are old news info..they have been supplying it forever...the CIA involvment is no big surprize anymore either..its happened with other countries other drugs...just the names have changed..

Old news to some & new to others. 

Nancy you are such a loser.  Your arguments are meaningless, Yeah you won a battle for a few months, but by next year, it will  be legalized.  You won't have your big mouth running out of the side of your neck.

My professor did in fact in 1975 compared milk to the leading of being an alcoholic, it makes no sense.  He also said when you old ladies (now) burned your bras, our roles would be totally confused, our divorce flew to the moon, because we let women try to make decisions with cross wires while on Mars.....get really Nancy poo...........your a loser and alwayws will be.

I will show you my Combat Action Ribbon, my two purple hearts, my 3 letters of commendation got my  department, and being made an expert witness in drug abuse......i wish you would quilt more and stay off the frickin pcre ur persons belongs back shen you Annie Oakley around, and while you are at it, I wonder how many drunk driving deaths, liver problems, breaking up families and frinds has been ruined just since I wrote this little email.........get a grip.  Anyone who promotes alchohol ove pot is nuts, and you are in the category old lady.

Alcohol is what killed my husband, he smoked weed but weed isn't what gave him cirrhosis of the liver and kidney failure.   2 pints of Kessler a day. went down real smooth.   Alcohol turned my dad into an extremely mean POS! it also killed him.       &nb sp;       &nbs p;         Weed is nothing compared to alcohol.  How many deaths are caused by a drunk drivers, how many from smoking  pot?  how many people have died from overdosing on alcohol and how many from pot?    No one will ever convince me that pot is as dangerous as alcohol.  

What I find interesting is that weed itself "crashes through the left-right paradigm."

There seems to be little to no relationship between one's support for legalizing weed and whether one is "conservative" or "liberal."

Find 1,000 random people who support legalizing weed and who identify as either conservative or liberal, and I estimate that each will number close to 500.

Culver, was that your only reason for blogging today?  Just to let everyone know how much you hate me?  It seems every time you rear your ugly head that's what spews out.

Are you sure you aren't redkerns sock puppet?  Or just puppet.

On the topic of marijuana.   Use your heads and logic folks.  When we have bad air days and smoggy days people start complaining about respiratory ailments and lung diseases.  Do you honestly believe that inhaling chemicals isn't harmful to your lungs?

The rationalization of smoking pot just amazes me.

Once more...for the record.  You have never heard me say that drinking isn't harmful.  Pay very close attention while I say it AGAIN.  Why would you want to add ANOTHER mood altering substance that has NO medical health benefit, to alcohol?  Note I didn't say it didn't relive SYMPTOMS, I said no health benefit..

" The rationalization of smoking pot just amazes me."

Well,

I say make butter with it and eat it !

--virgil

 " Note I didn't say it didn't relive SYMPTOMS, I said no health benefit.."

Nancy,

People eat it; and,  that fact is becoming more common in communities where prop. 215  has been allowed to be implemented.

--virgil

Whatever.

Sam touches upon this in an interesting way in his most recent Weedpatch Gazette.

Whatever,  what ... , Nancy ?

--virgil

Sam touches upon this in an interesting way in his most recent Weedpatch Gazette.

Which I won't read due to his intellectual cowardice.  But I imagine he has some rationalization.

.

Why would you want to add ANOTHER mood altering substance that has NO medical health benefit, to alcohol? 

You're right.  Make alcohol illegal and cannabis legal, and call it a day.  Or do you have a rationalization why that isn't OK?

Personally, I believe that the actual number of people who use chemicals to alter mood or consciousness would not change.

The chemicals that they use might change a little, though.  It wouldn't change much, however, since pot is already not difficult to obtain.

With a nod to Nancy's counseling background, I am nevertheless in favor of legalization even though my own preferences for mood alteration are not chemical (other than a good Cabernet).

Sam has blocked me from his blog so I don't go there. I don't think the war on drugs is working, evidenced by all the pot busts in the mountains, they probably miss as much if not more than they find. I never heard of anyone getting stoned and getting mean like drunks do. 

BTW Info, nice post, well thought out as usual.

Pogo, my experience with pot users concurs with yours.

While I, er, would not want to get into a car with some of my friends after they have smoked, I have never seen a marijuana user become mean or violent after using.

Infowar is interesting, I will say.  Agree with him(?) or not, he is not toeing a party line, and I like that.

 I don't think the war on drugs is working

It's working if you are a shareholder in GEO (formerly Wackenhut).  Who would have thought?  Wall Street actually has a financial incentive to keep people behind bars.

The "freedom fighting" Sandistas think it's working, too

It worked out for Col. Oliver North.

There is a difference between decriminalization & legalization.

I say decriminalize it & bring down the underground market for marijuana & all drugs for that matter. Oh man...if that happened, the crooks in D.C. using the CIA to bring in the dope will not make as much money. Ahh how sad....

Jfrancais did you watch the film 'American Drug War'?

Great points man.

Thanks Apollo & Pogo for keeping an open mind.

Yes, I have.

The dope game is big business in Kern County.

They're hiring in Taft.  Shareholders all over the world are making money off the cheap prison labor.

It's easy to marginalize street dope dealers and drug users when you make a fat profit off of them.  The same thing happened with slavery when those "playful childlike" negros were offered "protection" under that system.

You become numb to the fact that cocaine has been brought in to the country by arms of the government when you making a little dough and balling off the system..

Ricky Ross got played and politicians got praised...

one less thug off the street...hooray (ugh)

spam code- nihga