These are the opinions of Llewellyn, not necessarily The Californian’s.

THANK GOD!

So Ric, let me ask you, are you a medical professional?  You so freely speak against Marijuana - what about tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, chocolate, sugar, ibuprofen, acetaminophen, etc. - all are drugs that we can legally obtain, and all have a negative side to them.

What definitions do you use to explain the potential of one drug over another?  What do you personally define as "medicine?"

What makes you an expert on the chemical properties of Marijuana?

Do you know the history behind marijuana and other now illegal substances?  Do you know why Marijuana was criminalized?  Do you realize that most of the abolishment of substances was based upon racist and oftentimes incorrect and invalidated information?

I find it rather interesting that many who claim themselves as "conservative" and seem to be vehemently against big Government have no problems with the Government butting into the personal lives of it's citizens.  Seems rather hypocritical to me.

No matter what substance we're talking about, legal or illegal, people have and will always abuse them.  Many people abuse alcohol, and we already tried prohibition only to find out it wouldn't work.  We waste billions of dollars a year on a drug war that goes no where.  There is evidence that our own government has funded the illegal drug trade for military purposes (airlifts in Southeast Asia during Vietnam run by the CIA to help fund the South Vietnamese).

In these economic times, it makes perfect sense to end such a ridiculous waste of money.  Guess you're not all that fiscally conservative, are you?

Just to make it clear - I do not abuse any illegal substances, and those who know me on this site personally can attest to that fact.

"So-called medical marijuana is a con. Smokers just want to smoke"

I used to work in a critical care hospital, watching people slowly die. I used to think they smoked to ease the naseau they had from many different meds and to help them with a lack of appetite, but now that I've read your article - I'm sure they're just toking it up for fun. ***rolls eyes***

I have to respectfully disagree with this. As someone who has parents, one who has been diagnosed with cancer twice, the other currently being treated for cancer, I've seen that medical marijuana can make a difference in the quality of issues such as pain management, nausea and appetite.

If we are going to demonize drugs based the ability for people to abuse them, perhaps we should look at the pharmaceutical drugs that are administered by physicians every day that are abused.  

Attention Drug emergencies soar for U.S. kids: Report 

Wyoming prescription drug deaths doubled since '05

Prescription Pills: The New Drug of Choice for Teens

Anything that's open to ingestion is open to abuse, including caffiene, sugar and alcohol. If we're using the argument that no one should receive the benefit of something that eases their pain because others might abuse it, we'd better start taking a good, hard look at the pharmaceutical companies, because they've been peddling those pills (to children and adults) for decades.

My ex-SO was a Marine,served during Operation Ranch Hand.He was doused,drank and ate Agent Orange. He had an ostomy and a colostomy~ and yes he did get a Doctors prescription to be able to toke a joint legally.

Not so respectfully~ you get your backside removed,sewn shut, have two stoma and a couple of bags  that you use use to relieve your body of waste products for some 30 years and get  back to me.

It helped him with his attitude,appetite and I say may the Gods bless him.

Some may abuse this~ but just for Him...it was worth it. R.I.P.

As previous posters have noted, medical marijuana is definitely not a con.  - Now I want to look at the other side Llewellyn's bigoted coin.  What's so bad about recreational marijuana? 

Mankind has enjoyed altering their consciousness for at least three thousand years with BOTH marijuana and alcohol. It is logical to assume they always will. Since every major government study has shown marijuana is non-addictive and far less harmful than alcohol, why do we persecute those who choose the LEAST harmful substance, while we celebrate the use of the MORE harmful one. It makes no sense - except to bigots, of course.

Thank God for Ric!

Finally a voice of reason amongst these drug addicts that roam like zombies around Bakersfield. I'm glad there is someone who sees eye to eye with me, someone who understand what's really going on. This "medicine" is dangerious, addictive, and destructive. Families are torn apart, people are murdured, and souls are lost from this "medicine". Our society has alcohol already, so why must they turn to a much more harmful and destructive substance. It just makes no sense to me.

I'm probably showing my ignorance (it's not the first time, nor will it be the last) but I thought you could get medical marijuana in pill form.  Before mybrother-in-law died from pancreatic cancer  he took a pill that I was told was a form of marijuana to aid with his nausia and pain.  It was a God send for him.  Was it a placebo?  My sister is a Registered Nurse, they could have fooled him and me I suppose but not her. 

Yes, medical THC already exists in pill form - hence the difference the original author here identified between a doctors RECOMMENDATION for marijuana and an actual PRESCRIPTION. THC is the active ingredient in marijuana that (AFAIK) is the sole chemical compound that is touted for both medical and recreational effects. Here's a link:

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/on...

Legitimate research (i.e., using medical references) on this is quite easy to do with respect to the need (or lack thereof) within the medical community for access to prescribing smoked marijuana. I've done a fair bit of research on this topic for graduate level psychopharmacology and health psychology courses, and haven't found any convincing arguments on a scientific basis for prescribing marijuana. The best case scenario for marijuana to be an appropriate treatment for any condition it is typically recommended for is as a last-ditch effort when EVERYTHING else has either failed, the patient has become unresponsive to all other medications, or the patient is allergic to everything else.

The most reasonable argument I've come across for allowing smoked marijuana to be legal is that terminal patients are probably exempt from the anti-marijuana argument concerning the side effects of smoking. Personally, for terminal patients, I don't really care if they want to smoke some pot (as long as similar cautions are followed as being under the influence of alcohol). Let's just not pretend that this is something that it is not.

An interesting pro-legalization argument is that allowing the FDA to regulate when and how marijuana is prescribed is that it would provide a way to set up a punitive structure for doctors who recommend marijuana at the drop of a hat for all kinds of silly things.

Edit: For those with knee-jerk criticisms and assumptions about the original author, re-read his first sentence. Also, I'm aware that I haven't said anything about the financial argument for legalization. I haven't done any of that research, so I can't really speak to it. My suspicion is that it's not a very convincing argument, but I haven't seen any hard numbers from reputable sources either way.

 mymother

>>>" zombies around Bakersfield. I'm glad there is someone who sees eye to eye with me,"

That's pleading guilty to a lot there.

>>>"This "medicine" is dangerious,"

No.  The DEA's own administrative law judge, Francis Young, concluded after an exhaustive review of the evidence:  "Marijuana, in it's natural state, is one of the safest therapuetically active substances known to man."

>>>"ddictive,"

No.  Every major government study has concluded marijuana is not addictive.

>>>"and destructive."

No.  You've got marijuana confused with alcohol.  As Judge Francis Young and countless other experts have noted, marijuana is amazingly safe and non-problematic.   There have been NO deaths from marijuana in all of recorded history.

>>>"Families are torn apart, people are murdured,"

No.  That's marijuana prohibition that causes that.  It throws innocent people into jail and causes a black market with all its ensuing violence and corruption.

>>>"and souls are lost from this "medicine"

What if there are no "souls" to begin with?  It's pretty hard to lose something that doesn't exist.

>>>"Our society has alcohol already, so why must they turn to a much more harmful and destructive substance."

Shame on you, coming here and fostering lies that harm so many millions of people!  If you had a soul, you would definitely lose it for that black-hearted demonization.  Alcohol is at least a hundred times more harmful than marijuana.  

 "That's pleading guilty to a lot there."

If speaking the truth is a crime, then yes, guilty as charged.

"The DEA's own administrative law judge, Francis Young, concluded after an exhaustive review of the evidence"

Ok, so let's trust someone who isn't a doctor on this matter. Oh wait, let me guess, I'm lying! Yes I'm full of lies because you disagree with me and my good pal science.

"No.  That's marijuana prohibition that causes that."

You are forgetting that violent behaviors that the active ingredients cause the user to exhibit.

"What if there are no "souls" to begin with?  It's pretty hard to lose something that doesn't exist."

This is proof that this "medicine" causes people to lose their soul.

 You are forgetting that violent behaviors that the active ingredients cause the user to exhibit.

Say what?  If anything, the drug mellows people out.

reads like an uneducated person throwing silly jabs trying to  pass judgment in a place they should research before they open their mouths and embarrass themselves..must be one of those import moms from the midwest..perhaps she gave birth to the author of this blog..

Mom could you possibly tighten up that string of beaming intellectual retorts..i only have a 17 inch monitor and its running out the bottom onto my keyboard..

Hey Ric, maybe you should stick to writing about things you actually know about. This certainly isn't one of them.

You guys have to at least give him credit for making his column a blog post. The other three "conservatives" haven't bothered (sissies!). As I recall from his last blog, Mr. Llewellyn actually took the time to answer each and every comment, even the really inflammatory ones.

If he responds here as such, that remains to be seen, but he still should at least be applauded for opening this up for discussion.

Just my $.02.

Applying the term “medical” to pot is like claiming medicinal status for White Willow bark.

Tell that to  American Indian tribes or the ancient Egyptians.  The Salicin in the bark works wonders for pain, and  the salicylic acid derived from Salicin is the precursor compound to the most common pain reliever, acetylsalicylic acid (Aspirin).

And, tea from the willow bark has far less irritation to the stomach lining. I prefer the Indian remedy myself.

Here’s the kicker, THC, one of the active chemicals in pot, has been shown to be effective in the relief of nausea, but not the myriad symptoms, conditions and syndromes for which adherents claim relief. Let’s face it. It’s the smoking, not the THC, that is at issue here. This whole charade is a subterfuge for comprehensive legalization, not just “compassionate use.”

Meanwhile, some silly scientists made an interesting discovery...........

THC cuts lung cancer growth, spread

The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.

They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, Delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. Lung cancers that over-express EGFR are usually highly aggressive and resistant to chemotherapy.

http://www.scienceblog.com/...

Alcohol not harmful? I can spend about $20 and get a lethal dose at nearly every grocery store in town that comes in a convenient extra large plastic bottle.

" I have a problem with legalizing marijuana. Pot is not medicine and tagging it “medicinal” is a ruse to obscure a new surge toward comprehensive legalization."

A lot of physicians disagree,  and there's also a great deal of consensus that marijuana legalization would be a good thing for a number reasons. Some of those reasons include reduction in drug related crime with the added benefit of a reduced tax burden on an already financially broke state and federal govt. 

I would say that the burden of proof is on you to show why we should not completely decriminalize the growing and use of marijuana.

You've not done that.  You  instead used 800 words ( somebody paid for ...?) to talk about  what deceitful knaves the anti-prohibition crowd is.

--virgil

Or not. Lol. Carry on!

Ric, great article, thanks for writing it.  As for the ones who jumped right on your article, they are the usual ones who have always wanted marijuana legalized and this topic has been argued here just about as much as our politicians.

I find it kind of funny that some who question your credentials concerning this topic are free and easy with THEIR opinions on just about every topic under the sun.  Everyone's an expert and everyone's a critic.

What I get sick of is the attacks just because they disagree with you.

Definitions of bigot, racist, moron, idiot, stupid, biased, deceitful, uneducated::::  Someone who completely disagrees with your point of view.   You know, we've battled this topic so many times and not once have I insulted any of you or called you any names because we disagree.  Is it really necessary for the rest of you to sink that low?

Marinol is the pill form of THC and one of the reasons people don't like it is that it's very slow acting.  A joint is faster for any relief (or high) they get.   Of course if you have a loved one in pain, sick or dying we would all try anything to help them but the issue here for the most part is that the "clinics" were NOT being frequented primarily by people in real need.  That's what you learn when you talk to REAL people who use it who have nothing to lose by telling the truth in groups but certainly have a lot to lose by telling the truth to pollsters.

(FSG, do you want to challenge MY credentials?   What are YOUR credentials?  There are "scientific" studies that will say anything you want them to say, all you  have to do is google them.)

mymother

>>>"I'm full of lies because you disagree with me and my good pal science."

Funny. All the major government studies have found marijuana is non-addictive and far less harmful than alcohol. Those studies are found here:

http://www.druglibrary.org/...

>>>"violent behaviors that the active ingredients cause the user to exhibit."

That's totally absurd. It is common knowledge that marijuana causes people to be less agressive. The opposite of alcohol. The annual Euro soccer tournament is plagued every year with violence between rival fans. Every year except for the year 2000. That was the year they held it in Amsterdam. Officials were amazed at the absence of their yearly headache. That's one of the big differences between alcohol and marijuana.

Don't bother with your religious proselytizing.

NancyII

>>>"

some who question your credentials concerning this topic are free and easy with THEIR opinions on just about every topic under the sun."   

You will note most marijuana reformers are well-backed with the facts. That's why marijuana reform is winning - especially on the Interenet where the truth can't be censored.

>>>"Definitions of bigot,...... Is it really necessary for the rest of you to sink that low?"

It's not sinking low. It's telling it like it is. -- Note I have documented how every major government study has found marijuana is non-addictive and far less harmful than alcohol.  Only bigotry and greedy, cruel exploitation sustain the abomination of marijuana prohibition.

>>>"the issue here for the most part is that the "clinics" were NOT being frequented primarily by people in real need."

No. The real issue is there was never a good reason for the monstrous fraud of marijuana prohibition when it was perpetrated by megalomaniacal bureaucrat, Harry Anslinger, and friends in 1937. The people of California are just fine with adults having marijuana. The latest polls show 56 percent of Californians want an end to marijuana prohibition.

You've GOT to be kidding.  The truth may not be censored but it certainly is self serving and easily manipulated.  Not to mention that you skipped the part where that "truth" has plenty of back up from BOTH sides of the debate.

You also missed the point about sinking that low.   Debating is one thing, accusing people of being stupid or a moron because they disagree is another.  You're entitled to your opinion and all the "facts" you want but bear in mind that others are just as entitled to their opinion along with the the  facts they bring up.

Now my friend, I'm not going to sit here and argue with any you.  I've been doing that for 5 or so years and I'm done with it.   You continue to blog about it, I'll continue to DO what I do.  In real life.

I have one comment, Mr. Llewellyn.  Your column was very well written.  But for once -- just this one time -- I have no opinion on the subject.  The writing, though, super!  If there is one thing I appreciate, it's that.  Hope you don't mind my saying so. 

NancyII
 

>>>"The truth may not be censored but it certainly is self serving and easily manipulated."

Not really.  It was before the Internet, when it had to pass through so many corporate/government filters.  As I stated, every major government study has found marijuana is non-addictive and far less harmful than alcohol.  They are just a click away - here:

http://www.druglibrary.org/...

>>>"you skipped the part where that "truth" has plenty of back up from BOTH sides of the debate."

Not about marijuana prohibition, it doesn't.  That's why any "argument" supporting prohibition withered rapidly, years ago.

>>>"Debating is one thing, accusing people of being stupid or a moron because they disagree is another."

I was only addressing the term you objected that I used.  I don't speak the other posters.  However, their anger over the monstrous injustice of marijuana prohibition is understandable.  I addressed your objection to the term, "bigot."  This is an important concept to the issue since it was, and still is, one of the principle pillars supporting the American Inquisition.

>>>" You're entitled to your opinion and all the "facts" you want but bear in mind that others are just as entitled to their opinion along with the the  facts they bring up."

No.  The facts don't change.  In this issue, there are only people with the facts - marijuana reformers, and people who present their bigoted poison as fact.  As I said, the pretense was broken long ago here on the Internet. 

 FSG, do you want to challenge MY credentials?

You weren't the one posting the article. 

As it pertains to your credentials, you would most likely have more credibility than Llewellyn does.  Be that as it may, you and I have had our discussions about this before, and let's be honest, neither of us are scientists or medical doctors, so our opinions only go so far - though I give you credit where credit is due.

You've seen this issue from a clinical perspective as it pertains to drug treatment (If I remember correctly), which definitely gives you more credibility than many, but at the same time that doesn't automatically equate to a completely spherical understanding of the issue.  The same can be said for me - I've witnessed the issue from a specific perspective, but not really in a clinical reality (though I'm related to a number of people who are clinical professionals, and I do converse with them from time to time on such an issue.. which doesn't make me an expert, but definitely gives me a new perspective).

What are YOUR credentials? 

I'm a historian who has studied the history of drug use, abuse and abolishment in this country.  I know for a fact that virtually every drug currently considered a schedule 1 substance at one time or another was used for medicinal purposes.  I also know that historically, most of the schedule 1 substances were banned based upon faulty propaganda (i.e. the first anti-marijuana laws were specifically enacted in an attempt to get rid of illegal Mexican immigrants in the 1930's.. i.e. Marijuana Tax Act of 1937). I also know for a fact that we spend billions of dollars a year in an attempt to prohibit the trafficking, distribution and sale of these drugs, yet it does not put even a small dent on the problem.  I know for a fact that the very government that spends these billions has also supported the drug trade in certain circumstances to exploit a geo-political gain.

I'm also someone who did at one time use marijuana in socially recreational settings.  I was never hooked on the drug, nor was I ever enticed to try harder substances.  After a time, the novelty wore off, and I easily decided to end my use (I was also considering joining the Marines as an officer candidate at the time, and they required 1 year of no marijuana use to be considered for the position). I know literally dozens of people who have smoked marijuana.  I'd say my exposure to the drug and to people who have used the drug is pretty well defined.  Therefore, from my own experiences and observations, I've come to the conclusion that there are a great many myths surrounding the substance - from both sides.  I'll admit that there are plenty of people who make their arguments for the legalization of marijuana that are nothing more than potheads who want to ensure they can partake of their toking with no issues from the law.  I also know that there are people against marijuana that haven't the faintest clue what they're talking about (i.e. the argument that pot is a gateway - of everyone I've ever known to use the drug, I can honestly think of only 3 or 4 who ever went on to try harder drugs).

There are "scientific" studies that will say anything you want them to say, all you  have to do is google them.

Exactly - which is why I rely on a combination of self education, as well as personal observation and experience. Either way, I have every right to challenge the author of this article, as he was providing his opinion not neccisarily based upon fact.  I, however, have provided ample evidence and facts to suggest that some of his argument might be based upon misinformation, and possibly a lack of true understanding of the history of the anti-drug legislation and how propaganda has indeed been used to brainwash the masses.

My entire point is that any substance you put into your body can have consequences, and I pose the question of how one can support the abolishment of one substance over another.  I believe that we could be much more productive and cost effective if we changed the focal point - from attempts to prohibit human beings from their own free will, instead to better education which will provide for a more informed populace.  There will always be addiction - I say we treat the addiction for what it is - a sickness, instead of treating it for what it isn't - a crime.

As far as people name calling, I surely hope you weren't referring to me, because I would ask you to clean the lenses on your glasses a bit more often. 

FloridaStateGrad

The thrust of your post is excellent, but there are a few sticky points.

>>>"I'll admit that there are plenty of people who make their arguments for the legalization of marijuana that are nothing more than potheads who want to ensure they can partake of their toking with no issues from the law."

Nothing more than potheads?  Do you not see how heavily you have bought into the demonization?  Can we substitute "marijuana consumers" for that phrase, please?  Further, what's wrong with marijuana consumers advocating for an end their monstrous persecution?   Marijuana prohibition is the only major issue where the key stakeholders are excluded from the debate.  This would be the same as saying Black people should not fight for their rights - or, their arguments have no validity,  because they're just doing it for their own benefit.  --- Of course there is nothing wrong with marijuana consumers banding together to fight for their freedom.  Just as every other persecuted group has done. 

It doesn't matter what a person's motivation is in this debate - only if their arguments hold water. 

>>>" There will always be addiction - I say we treat the addiction for what it is - a sickness, instead of treating it for what it isn't - a crime."

What has addiction to do with the topic - marijuana?   The vast majority of adult marijuana consumers need no treatment.  Certainly not for any "addiction."  They just need to be left alone.

 Nothing more than potheads?  Do you not see how heavily you have bought into the demonization?  Can we substitute "marijuana consumers" for that phrase, please? 

I haven't bought into any demonization, especially considering I've known plenty of people who call themselves "pot heads."  I will not substitute the word, instead I would add "marijuana consumers" to the list with "potheads."  If you don't like it, that's your own problem, and I suggest you worry about more important things - like the people who actually oppose legalization.

Further, what's wrong with marijuana consumers advocating for an end their monstrous persecution?   Marijuana prohibition is the only major issue where the key stakeholders are excluded from the debate.  This would be the same as saying Black people should not fight for their rights - or, their arguments have no validity,  because they're just doing it for their own benefit.  --- Of course there is nothing wrong with marijuana consumers banding together to fight for their freedom.  Just as every other persecuted group has done. 

I can't believe you actually equated the pro-marijuana movement to black rights.  The two are completely different issues - blacks were and have been persecuted for the color of their skin, which is something they were born with.  Marijuana "consumers" are persecuted because of a personal choice.  I support the right for people to make a free will decision on what to do with their bodies, but I'm not going to ever claim that such an issue even comes close to race rights.

Seriously, look throughout history - in the grand scheme of things, the vast majority of marijuana users have never been "persecuted," and those who have run into some sort of legal or social trouble have had it easy compared to those hated for the color of their skin.

It doesn't matter what a person's motivation is in this debate - only if their arguments hold water. 

That's not entirely true.  An argument can be completely logical but be motivated by unethical principles.  Motivation is definitely an important aspect when considering an argument, except when speaking of specific issues regarding law and the legal process.  However, we're not arguing from a legal standpoint, as the laws currently favor the anti-marijuana point of view.  Instead, we are arguing from a stance of personal choice and freedom, which is an ideal.  Depending upon your specific motivation, your argument can and will look different.

However, I don't see why you and I are having this debate, since I'm technically on your side, I just happen to be coming from a different perspective.  In the end, you and I both desire the same thing - for the Government to take it's nose out of the private business of it's citizenry.

What has addiction to do with the topic - marijuana?   The vast majority of adult marijuana consumers need no treatment.  Certainly not for any "addiction."  They just need to be left alone.

That's not entirely true.  I spoke of addiction specifically because Nancy has professional experience in that field of work, therefore I was tailoring my argument towards her.  However, since you've brought it up, I'll debunk your argument with my own experiences/observations.  I have a number of childhood friends who have indeed become addicted to marijuana.  Ever hear of such terms as "wake and bake?"  I sure have, and I know quite a few who literally cannot function until they've had their fix of pot for the morning.  Like many other substances, marijuana can be addictive - especially on a psychological level.  It's unfortunate, but I have a couple of formerly close friends in mind when I speak of this.  All of them were extremely intelligent and did well in high school (most in the top 10% of the class), yet 8+ years after we've graduated, and they are all college drop outs.  What do they all have in common?  They are addicted to marijuana.  They smoke a ridiculous amount each day, much more than someone who we'd consider a "recreational" user.  To back up my argument, my mother, a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist for more than 30 years has seen clients who are habitual marijuana users who have shown similar characteristics.

Obviously not every user will experience addiction - however to deny that some are addicted shows willfull ignorance. 

While I am an advocate for personal freedom, I'm educated and informed enough to recognize that there are in fact many who abuse substances - whether it be marijuana, alcohol, vicadin, caffeine or any other drug.  Therefore, for those people, we should be able to provide better care and services to help those who do suffer from addictive personalities.

FloridaStateGrad

>>>"blacks were and have been persecuted for the color of their skin, which is something they were born with.  Marijuana "consumers" are persecuted because of a personal choice.  I support the right for people to make a free will decision on what to do with their bodies, but I'm not going to ever claim that such an issue even comes close to race rights."

Why not?  Isn't freedom supposed to be our most cherished possession?  Persecuting the consumers of the second most popular recreational drug (after alcohol) is as blunt an attack on Americans' freedom as has been seen. 

>>>"the vast majority of marijuana users have never been "persecuted,"

Untrue.   800,000 innocent Americans are given a permanent "criminal" record with a marijuana arrest each year in the U.S.  This puts up huge obstacles to adequate employment, housing, scholarships, even the right to keep your own children.  That's 20 million people that have been made second-class citizens so far.  The arrest of these individuals is terroristic to all cannabis consumers.   That counts as a hefty persecution in my book.

>>>"An argument can be completely logical but be motivated by unethical principles."

It still doesn't matter when the primary goal is not "to win," but to arrive at the truth.  False, unsubstantiated positions will be burned away.

>>>"I have a number of childhood friends who have indeed become addicted to marijuana.  Ever hear of such terms as "wake and bake?"  I sure have, and I know quite a few who literally cannot function until they've had their fix of pot for the morning."

Those folks have some problems, but it's not addiction.  Anymore than repeatedly eating ice cream or playing golf is an addiction.  Addiction consists of severe withdrawal symptoms that compell continuous use.  There is no such thing as "psychological addiction."  That was a term invented by prohibitionists to cast a specter onto marijuana consumers.

>>>"I have a couple of formerly close friends in mind when I speak of this.  All of them were extremely intelligent and did well in high school (most in the top 10% of the class), yet 8+ years after we've graduated, and they are all college drop outs. "

That's interesting, but anecdotal information doesn't count for much.  Most marijuana consumers have no trouble finishing college and establishing themselves in life - unless they have the Scarlett Letter of a marijuana "conviction," of course.  Indeed, studies have shown that marijuana consumers tend to be the most educated.

>>>"They smoke a ridiculous amount each day, much more than someone who we'd consider a "recreational" user."

And some people eat ridiculous amounts of ice cream or play ridiculous amounts of golf.  It doesn't make them addicts.

>>>"my mother, a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist for more than 30 years has seen clients who are habitual marijuana users who have shown similar characteristics."

A rare number of people over-indulge.  Their "disfunction" if any, is likely not marijuana.  Their heavy use is probably a symptom of some real problem.

>>>"to deny that some are addicted shows willfull ignorance."

No.  To buy into the idea of marijuana's "addictive" capability is to drink the Kool-Aid.   Addiction involves avoidance of severe withdrawal symptoms.  Marijuana doesn't have them.

I think Marijuana can be addicting and does kill some brain cells and it also affects the memory. Marijuana can cause minor withdrawal symptoms because my brother smokes it everyday and if he doesn't have it for one day, he gets sick and gets cold sweats, I don't know but that sounds like withdrawal to me.

animaluvr

When it comes to the facts about marijuana, what you think doesn't count for much.  In the 30's, some people thought it turned you into a bat.  Marijuana is non-addictive, and kills no brain cells.  In fact, studies have shown marijuana actually helps generate NEW brain cells. --  Sorry, but I don't believe the stuff about your brother getting sick and having cold sweats without his marijuana.  If he does, call the Guiness Book of World Records, because he would be the first person in recorded history to do so.

Why not?  Isn't freedom supposed to be our most cherished possession?  Persecuting the consumers of the second most popular recreational drug (after alcohol) is as blunt an attack on Americans' freedom as has been seen. 

If you really believe that, I suggest you lay off the pipe a bit.  You're really not helping your case.

Untrue.   800,000 innocent Americans are given a permanent "criminal" record with a marijuana arrest each year in the U.S.  This puts up huge obstacles to adequate employment, housing, scholarships, even the right to keep your own children.  That's 20 million people that have been made second-class citizens so far.  The arrest of these individuals is terroristic to all cannabis consumers.   That counts as a hefty persecution in my book.

Technically, the consumers of marijuana know that partaking in the ingestion of the substance is illegal.  Therefore, they make a conscience choice to break the law.  To say that these individuals are persecuted is a misnomer.  I don't agree with the law, but I'm not about to agree to your mode of thinking.

It still doesn't matter when the primary goal is not "to win," but to arrive at the truth.  False, unsubstantiated positions will be burned away.

It matters in the eyes of those you are trying to convince, and right now, that's what is most important.  If you continue to make many of the arguments that you do, marijuana will most likely always remain illegal, because you are not providing a solid argument that holds water.  My argument comes from a much more logical perspective, and to me, makes a lot more sense.  More individuals are actually considering the legalization because they realize that the drug war is a waste of time and money.

Those folks have some problems, but it's not addiction.  Anymore than repeatedly eating ice cream or playing golf is an addiction.  Addiction consists of severe withdrawal symptoms that compell continuous use.  There is no such thing as "psychological addiction."  That was a term invented by prohibitionists to cast a specter onto marijuana consumers.

Ok, Mr. expert, based upon your educated opinion, what problems do they have?  I think trained experts such as my wife and mother would disagree with you.  So would the many psychologists I know personally.  If you're going to make an argument, back it up with proof, instead of false accusations.  There most certainly is psychological addiction, and it can happen with anything.  It does happen with overeating, and it can also happen with other activities.

That's interesting, but anecdotal information doesn't count for much.  

It most certainly does.

Most marijuana consumers have no trouble finishing college and establishing themselves in life - unless they have the Scarlett Letter of a marijuana "conviction," of course.  Indeed, studies have shown that marijuana consumers tend to be the most educated.

What studies are you referring to?  What is the statistical sample?  I'd be willing to wager that these "studies" are not academically solid.

And some people eat ridiculous amounts of ice cream or play ridiculous amounts of golf.  It doesn't make them addicts.

Keep telling yourself that.

A rare number of people over-indulge.  Their "disfunction" if any, is likely not marijuana.  Their heavy use is probably a symptom of some real problem.

I highly doubt you know what you're talking about.  I'm sure Nancy will agree with me, as will other clinical experts.

No.  To buy into the idea of marijuana's "addictive" capability is to drink the Kool-Aid.   Addiction involves avoidance of severe withdrawal symptoms.  Marijuana doesn't have them.

You're incorrect.  Addiction is not an avoidance of several withdrawal symptoms - it is a depedancy on a substance, either psychologically or chemically.  In a psychological addiction, the body craves the pleasure which the chemical provides.  I've witnessed psychological addiction firsthand, and I've consulted with experts on the subject. Your argument that marijuana is not addictive like other substances is based on your unwillingness to see reality.  Where you are partially right is that not all users become addicted.  I'm a prime example - I enjoyed marijuana usually once or twice a month at parties for a few years of my late adolescent period.  As mentioned above, the novelty wore off for me, and I realized that doing something illegal was probably not a good decision, and therefore decided to end my use, immediately.  I haven't touched the substance in almost 6 years. 

If I were you, I'd give up the hard sell, because it won't work.  You're continuing to attack someone who's trying to help.

I am distrustful of the legalization of pot simply because it invites commercial interests which in turn make for lobbyists which in turn make for apathetic politicians currying favor. In other words, it's about the money more than freedom of choice or letting a terminal patient toke up. These people don't give a rat's tail about your lifestyle or the suffering of cancer patients. Not anymore than booze lobby's care about drunk driving fatalities.

If the tobacco industry is an indication, the first target of marijuana vendors will be our most vulnerable citizens, the teen population. Anyone who thinks otherwise is beyond naive. Easy access to pot will have tragic consequences for teens. Ignoring that very real possibility for the sake of "recreational" use or for collecting some tax dollars is little consolation for parents who need to arrange their teens funeral.

Alcohol and nicotine are institutions. Despite the tragedy it has inflicted, it is not going away. So, let's add another destructive behavior because being a pot head is harmless and wholesome. Oh, that's right; marijuana is a medical cure-all. So was tobacco.

Catpaw..thank God, a voice of reason.    Thank you.

I personally don't give a hoot about convincing bloggers of the dangers of legalizing pot, what I care about is that people reading the blog are getting all the hoopla about the benefits and how great it is with little opposition.  Hopefully people out there will do some research on their own and not just sit dumbly nodding (off) while reading most of these posts.

Genie, bottlle, genie bottle...and only Catpaw has seen this so far.  NO one here is saying alcohol is good for anyone so don't even go there.

By the way, the word a couple of you were searching for is amotivational.  And no, I'm not arguing with anyone..done with that thank you very much but I'm not likely to stop posting information.

You know, Catpaw, I hadn't considered that.  Very good points.

I have a solution to that problem:

1) Provide legislation that prohibits the advertisment of marijuana.

2) Establish a State Store system, for the cultivation and sale of marijuana.  Make it illegal to buy on the street, but legal to purchase from the State.  Continuously monitor the black market to ensure pricing remains competitive, which in turn should disrupt and potentially destroy the black market. I'm pretty sure most consumers would probably prefer to go through proper legal channels to obtain verifiable marijuana, instead of risking obtaining an inferior product for a jacked-up price on the streets.

Unfortunately, no matter what we do, people will always use and oftentimes abuse substances - there's really no way we can honestly stop that.  Instead, I'd rather see we improve education so that each individual is better informed.  If at that point they chose to use a specific substance, why waste our time and money in an attempt to prevent them?  We can spend billions more a year and I'll wager that those who want to use will find a way.  Therefore, let's stop wasting our money.

Catpaw,

" Alcohol and nicotine are institutions." 

Actually,

so is marijuana prohibition. We  spend fifty billion (50 bil. ), that we don't have,  a year on  it. And  it's still accessible to our young.

Kids already smoke marijuana and they drink beer and they smoke cigarettes -  demonizing teenagers is not a rationale to make marijuana illegal again.

Alcohol, cigarettes and marijuana are NOT the same thing, you guys.

--virgil

Nancy,

 "By the way, the word a couple of you were searching for is amotivational.  "

another myth developed about marijuana after the first attempts to criminalize it in 1937. It's like that gateway notion - something someone just thought up in some back room some place when the doctor was not present.

--virgil

If you guys remember, amotivational was term used to racially sterotype the African American. 

--virgil

These words appear at the end of Llewellyn's column:  "Ric Llewellyn is one of four conservative community columnists whose work appears here every Saturday.  These are the opinions of Llewellyn, not necessarily those of The Californian."

I always thought how nice it must be to write a column without having to salt and pepper and otherwise doctor it up with links of all kinds.  That's the difference between Ric Llewellyn and bloggers.  He doesn't need to "prove" his opinion. 

One can read the column and agree or not, but I don't believe it's common practice for a columnist to be prodded to prove he has a doctorate in any subject about which he may write. 

I think it may have something to do with freedom of the press.  Long may it thrive!  And congratulations to The Californian for posting his column. 

 "That's the difference between Ric Llewellyn and bloggers.  He doesn't need to "prove" his opinion. "

Even when the point being made is silly .

--virgil

Hey, Virgil:  I'd like a link to that opinion, please.  Just for fun.  As mentioned, I don't have a dog in this fight.  I just want a link for your opinion about the column. 

My comments had to do, first, with the fact that the column was well written, and, second, with the fact that it was nice that his column didn't need to be slopped up with links as to the formation of the writer's thoughts in bringing the column to fruition. 

Alicen,

 " I don't have a dog in this fight ... "

the tax burden created by the enforcement of marijuana prohibtion is your dog - see it that way .

http://www.drugsense.org/wo...

--virgil

So virgil, couch potato is something else the evil poeple made up to criminalize pot smokers?

there is also an alternate delivery method other than smoking and pills.  its vapor particles.  no smoke

Nancy,

doesn't couch potatoe have something to do with too much television ?

--virgil

"... its vapor particles.  no smoke"

 presumably, it's healthier ( who knows ? ).

Lot's of people prefer to eat it in brownies, butter and candy.

--virgil

Like virgil said kids will and have been using pot cigarettes and booze since before my time..that is a weak argument..naturally as said so many times in the past the laws would follow the same guidelines as any other drug or alcohol item. I know some of you get tired of rehasing this subject with the same ol argument but so do those in favor of legalizing it..I have two reasons..

1) helping the very sick

2) pulling California out of this economic slump....if it goes down hill after that..as in the past it can always be rendered Illegal again. What part of that dont you people understand?

If you non advocates have a better idea for a quicker fix Im willing to listen..but I doubt it..

get your fiber  lol

Whatever.

actually Nancy 'couch potato' probably describes most of the people that write on the blogs on a regular basis....has nothing to do with pot..just a change of funiture