imagine just imagine the different strains of weed that would be made ? make it legal to smoke inside restaurants again ? ( just weed though). it is less harmful than alcahol but i dont know if it would be miss used by many more people. more stores getting robbed cause of it. more burglaries. i dont know man maybe if there is some restrictions. it would be tight though. i keep hearing everywere that they are going to legalize it but who knows. Alcahol and tobbaco are legal because our country was founded on them. not sure if you can say weed was ? native american indians used it and most other tribes so couldnt it be passed cause of cultural beliefs ?

 

word im willing to make the exchange i smoke cigs and it sucks because theyre so damn delicous but no where near the delicious level of herb. im willing to quit and bring tobacco down seeing as they donate millions annually to the DEA & drug war just to keep them off their backs. kinda annoying....nicotene i believe is not listed in the DEA drug schedule system. Marijuana is schedule 1 which is rediculous (sch1 meaning 0 medicinal use and high risk of abuse/addiction known to be highly dangerous) cocaine is schedule 2......meaning some medicinal use and less risk of abuse.....does this make sense i think not....the DEA needs to get a re-tune, change their targets.

 

got this from a website....i think there's enough reasons to ban cigs

 

As most states are using the tax revenue from tobacco to balance their budgets, just listen to the politicians whine and cry about lost tax income after banning smoking everywhere.. even in bars & casinos...

and why not tax a personal product line that is non essential and "growing" instead of one that is shrinking??
such as ...hmm.... feminine hygiene ?

AND Don't you be touching my smokes.. due to my employment I am prohibited from ANY drug or alcohol consumption, even when "off duty"

 

Sadly, you know there are several doctors who probably work while intoxicated. And you know cops get effed up after their shift ends...

Yes, I know it's a generalization, but still, you can't determine who can and cannot get a legal substance.

Annual causes of deaths in the US


Taken from: http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

 

What do you do?

 

I'm a Truck Driver, I do a lot of "Super Size" loads most are DOD,some are top tier hazmat.
and yes I've had to submit to "pube hair analysis" several times. (that gives a minimum of 7 years history)

And the last government requirement I've had to submit to was the "TWIC" registry. (Transportation Worker Identification Card) finally got the damn card this week. just anther gov. thumb on me.

 

Damn. That sucks.

 

Legalizing weed won't solve anything. When the government becomes involved, the price goes up. The people who you buy from now? No longer just misdemeanors... now they're terrorists because they are stealing directly from Uncle Sam. The stuff you grow hidden in the backyard? You might as well be Osama (except they'll catch you). Getting a job? The process becomes harder. You AND science AND Jesus AND Allah AND the flying spaghetti monster might all swear that marijuana doesn't affect your performance, but owners and operators will lean to the side of caution. More money will be spent on weed when it becomes legal than was ever spent when it wasn't. The statistic chart above where 0 deaths a year are caused by weed? Ought to be top 5 within a year.

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

 

No... I'm sure that there would be a legal limit of plants allowed to be grown at a residence/property. More would require special licensing. I mean people can brew beer and raise tobacco at home but who really does that.. not many I Know that the system they are trying to put forward in California treats it like alcohol where you must be 21 with ID to get it from a Licensed distributors or establishments aka "coffee houses" and medical patients can still have their home plants up to whatever the limit is.

 

The problem with this issue, is that it's always viewed either from the perspective of:

1) A pothead who doesn't want to go to jail... or
2) A politician who insists on allowing his opinion of the pothead to influence what he thinks is "right for his people."

Now, let me give you an actual medical perspective, from a medical student with access to primary literature and real clinical experience.

----

1) It is currently defined as a Schedule 1 drug, which is the category of (paraphrasing) - "No medical use, high abuse potential"

2) The official position that I take actually correlates with the AMA's position... quoted below:

---

Physician's don't arbitrarily pick and choose what medications to prescribe. For a medication to be FDA approved and make it's way into clinical practice, it must:

1) Undergo a rigorous drug trial procedure illustrating controlled experiments.
2) Must be comparable in safety profile to currently available drugs designed for the same purpose.
3) Must show a proven, objective benefit from a Randomized Control, Double-Blind study.
4) Must show a low potential for abuse.
5) Must show consistency of formulation from pill to pill, dose to dose.
6) Must not carry adverse side effects... like getting high.... from standard use.
7) Must have a safe method of delivery that patients can safely-self administer.

---

Here's where marijuana has it's problems getting approved, from an OBJECTIVE standpoint:

1) It has never been considered for drug trial therapy by any major corporation willing to front the MILLIONS of dollars necessary for proper certification.

2) The Feds won't give it money for political reasons, as they are elected by people who don't understand medicine.

3) We have MORE EFFECTIVE, SAFER drugs that accomplish the same goals. (Canniboid receptor agonists for appetite increases in psychotic patients... NSAIDS far stronger than over-the-counters, opiates and narcotics). Even if marijuana accomplishes the goals, why not use something more targeted, with less risk, and without the "nasty side effect of getting high" ?

4) There is no hardcore proof that it can achieve the effectiveness of already prescribed drugs, but it's a catch-22, since no one wants to fund the studies.

5) Smoking it is NOT a safe route of delivery. When a patient needs a nicotinic receptor agonist for whatever reason, we give them nicotine gum or IV fluids... NOT a cigarette. Therefore, THC will need another route of administration.

6) There's a potential logical fallacy here... Just because something is "safer" than something else available to the public, does not mean that it SHOULD be legalized. The converse of the argument is "well, I guess we should make cigarettes, alcohol, bad diets, microbial agents, motor vehicles, perscription drugs, firearms, and sexual behaviours illegal." ... since you have a better chance of dying than from marijuana. Sorry, it doesn't hold water.

The ultimate example: Why don't we outlaw abortion? It's got a near 100% death rate. It's unsafe. Therefore, it should be illegal. Right?

This borders on the edge of subjectivism, so I'll leave this aspect of the topic with the above as food for thought.

7) The consistency of the medication is questionable based on outside sources. THC content varies plant-to-plant. To standardize route of delivery and make it optimal for use would likely result in a pill form using recombinant DNA technology.

It would only be FDA approved if the concentrations of THC were sufficient to produce the desired effects (weight gain, pain management, whatever)... but NOT enough to incapacitate or "get high." Use of the medication for purposes of getting high would then STILL BE ILLEGAL, falling under the laws regulating prescription drug abuse and ignoring a product's labelling.

------


In the end, for me to prescribe Marijuana, it must be:

Proven efficacious.
Proven it's the best option in terms of therapeutic value.
Proven it will not be abused, through removal of opportunity of abuse.
Backed with studies, meta-analyses, and practice guidelines.


This is a MUCH more complicated issue than college students wanting to get high. "Medical marijuana" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for potheads.... and the more potheads that do pursue this route, the less likely it'll become legal and universal.

 

From experience... I watched my father suffer from the side effects of chemo.... I got him a small (1 person) hookah.. after just 3 or 4 hits,, the nausea was abated... sadly it was too late to save him from the cancer, he passed away on 1-1-71

 

I think that's over simplifying the people who are pushing for this. I know TONS of people who have never smoked the stuff in their life, nor do they plan to, but they still feel that it should be legalized. I certainly don't consider myself to be even a moderate user, but I'm still supportive of it. So it's not just viewed as an issue for potheads and politicians.

 

What about Vicodin, Morphine, OxyContin, etc? Those run higher risks of dependency and overdose more than marijuana (which is near zero)
There are numerous ways to ingest THC which do not involve the combustion of the product. Edibles and vaporization, being amongst the preferred methods.
Not a good example. There are just as many people who believe that it isn't death of a human if an abortion is performed before the fetus becomes viable.

 

Im gonna have to say no.. I work in the hospital and I see more people getting hurt directly due to alcohol, drugs and most commonly dope.. often times the users are the once inflicting harm to the innocent.. from car accident up to direct assault up to suicide.. I cant imagine how can it be regulated where alcohol itself is doing damage now and people wont stop using it irresponsibly.. I dont care about the user, Im concerned about the community

 

i know what you mean man, one of my best friends younger brother came down with leuchemia at the age of 15. he suffered and fought it but as he got closer to his 18 birthday he was in more pain and just living at the hospital. he had hundreds of pills to take for everything,
1. they would make him tired and life less all the time
2. didnt work as well.
3. took too many
4. took away appetite
5. restricted sleep
6.cost a lot more money.

so he decided to start smoking it. ya i know he was 17 and not at least 18 but what would you do ? he was not going to school since he was too sick all the time. he started smoking mainly because he was depresed in the possition he was in but later found out it was helping him. after he started smoking he stopped little by little laying off his required medicine and it got to the point were he was selling his pain killers to get money for weed because it was more effective to him. he changed a lot, went from not being able to do anything living in the hospital 3 weeks out of the month to being able to go home and only spend one week a month there. he had more energy started to put on the weight that the cancer took away and just looked healthier in general. i dont know wether it was making him better or wether it just seemed that way to us.. but ill never know, him and his brother passed away in a car wreck so i guess he beat it out his cancer.. his brother used to smoke with him all the time and often got it for them. it brought them closer together and it wasnt just one taking it as medicine it was both doing it together. making both feel good just one needed it more inside than the other.
have you ever been depressed and smoked ? you dont feel depressed anymore after wards. it numbs a lot of the pain away. its not a bad drug safer than the rest and even alcohol.

 

I agree. I have smoked pot before but I'm certainly not a pot head. I haven't smoked in a few weeks. Its still nice to chill out with some friends with it every now and then tho.

 

well i live in california and they should legalize it and tax it. the government would def make bank off of it. in cali whoever wants to smoke it smokes it. nothing stops anyone from smoking it here. i know more people that smoke than dont.

snoop doggin.

 

legalization won't happen anytime soon. we started the 'war on drugs' and too many other countries are now involved. decriminalization would be an easier and quicker route

 

Just because Decriminalization may be easier and quicker doesn't mean its the right step, and furthermore, The Govt would then be growing the market for marijuana but not regulating it and missing out of the revenue that would still be going to illicit channels.