There have now been a number of studies showing the positive effects of marijuana for people suffering pain from various conditions. Is is far less hazardous than many of the prescription drugs that are used daily by millions of people. It is also far less dangerous than many of the drugs used to control pain, and also less addictive.

This country should have learned from its disastrous experiment with prohibition: alcohol has always been used since the world began, and will always continue to be used. Making it illegal only caused higher prices. As California is a major grower and has been called the largest cash crop, not to legalize and tax it is ridiculous. The DEA costs taxpayers million trying to eradicate it but the growers are already one step ahead. Making it legal would benefit by controlling its use and sale and the taxes would support the state.

Have we learned nothing from the Mexican drug cartels? It is so dangerous that the U.S. is warning its citizens not to travel in many areas there. We legalize cigarettes and alcohol and control sales and use. Both of those legal drugs are far more addicting and dangerous than marijuana. How many have heard of marijuana caused driving accidents, or the diseases caused by smoking legal tobacco?

The question may be moot, as the courts may decide that Federal drug laws override whatever California votes.

And if they didn't, cheap, legal California pot would result in smuggling to other states, causing the neighboring states to increase border checkpoints with California (causing even longer traffic jams than those going into California slowed down by California's fruit embargo).

Why can't California legalize and tax such substances? There are now many stores that sell marijuana legally here in California and states already are able to impose their own taxes on most products now sold within the state.

As this is the "initiative state" that has probably had more in the past few years than any other, it is probably one that could be passed as more people seem to favor legalizing it.

It's been rumored that the cereal, chip and cookie lobbyists are the ones actually pushing this legislation :)

I have been for legalization, taxation and regulation of Marijuana for years. It has long been recognized to be one of the largest cash crops in the country. Making it illegal only benefits the criminal elements of society.

I just recovered from cancer last year - and while undergoing treatment - I was surprised at the number of individuals (some even church members) who offered to obtain marijuana for me. The anti-nausea medications that were legal functioned for me - but if they hadn't I would have not hesitated to use pot - medicinally, of course! Problem is - I don't know how to inhale...

I'm reminded of the debate in our history about prohibition of alcohol. That was an area where Adventists were united, seeing it as a matter of public health and safety. Ellen White said in 1881: "The advocates of temperance fail to do their whole duty unless they exert their influence by precept and example–by voice and pen and vote–in favor of prohibition and total abstinence" (RH, November 8, 1881). And in another talk that year she said, “perhaps I shall shock some of you if I say, If necessary, vote on the Sabbath day for prohibition if you cannot at any other time” (Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White: A Biography, volume 3, p. 160).

Just wait until Pat Robertson gets a wiff of this news--he'll do a Haiti on California--It is even pre-set to fall in the sea anyway. Pacific Press moved just in time. Tom

It is interesting that Bill Cork brings in Ellen White on Prohibition. Not just for the parallels with recreational drugs but with the underlying philosophical difference we see being debated today in the guise of healthcare. That is Freedom and personal responsibility versus Government control. Should freedom be restricted because some abuse it. Should responsibility be given over to the government because some won't take responsibility for themselves or for some reason want to be wards of the government?

Government has a history of restrictions. For example government decides to fine airlines if the plane sits on the tarmac for longer then a certain period of time. Solution. Immediately completely cancel the flight to avoid a possible fine. What sounded like a good idea becomes a larger problem for more people.

Ellen White was on the wrong side in support of prohibition. Freedom is more important than giving rights away to a government for them to do with as they please. Yet strangely with such a long history of this reality we still see people wanting to do it because they think an idea is better because they don't consider all the consequences. If you want to love and care for your neighbor go for it. But if you want to love and care for your neighbor through the government think again because that is not why the government does things.

Ron

The official SDA church should not, and never would endorse making marijuana legal. Nor can it be compared to alcohol use. The illegal use of any substance does not imply it is always harmful in all usage, just as many prescription drugs are very necessary in the conditions for which they are prescribed, but the unauthorized use, distribution and sales is always illegal--which, BTW, makes them prime targets for a huge illegal trade. This was demonstrated in Florida recently where an entire ring of buyers, distributors and sellers were very profitably engaged in prescription drug sales or knock-offs.

Because marijuana is a cash crop, especially when its growth, use, and sales are all illegal, it is guaranteed to be very profitable, as the Mexican drug cartels have shown. If it was legalized, especially in California, with controlled sales, it would eliminate many of the drug cartels from their profitable business. History has repeatedly shown that when a product has a large market, it will always be sold. Controlling by legalization would result in taxes and profits, no less than the many casinos here in California.

"Freedom is more important than giving rights away to a government for them to do with as they please."

So, to be logical, we should have no laws on driver licensing or testing, no laws prohibiting any behavior that does not harm anyone else.

The parallel is that alcohol and drug use are not "victimless crimes." Add up all the other costs: car crashes, disease, etc. This is a matter of protecting the public, is it not?

It's ironic people want to get rid of public smoking ... especially in California ... despite calls for freedom ... yet want to legalize something that is a proven public safety hazard.

Thanks Bill. Tom

If marijuana is a "proven public safety hazard," compared to what?

Please give some of the "safety hazards" from marijuana use. Texting while driving is far worse, and equal to driving drunk. How many fatal accidents have occurred from marijuana use? And, largely, it is used at home for it has a relaxing affect.

I am not supporting its use, but compared to the legal drugs now used it is far less hazardous, and it also has been proved to be beneficial for relieving chronic pain--which is why many drugs are prescribed presently, and this has proved to be more effective for some than the prescription meds and with less side effects.

It is far less hazardous than many of the prescription drugs that are used daily by millions of people. It is also far less dangerous than many of the drugs used to control pain, and also less addictive.

************************************************************************************************

Elaine...

Less addictive? When I was younger, they didn't call users "heads" for nothing...looking back, it was a nice euphemism for addict. It's a myth that it isn't addictive. In fact, studies have been done showing that marijuana is far more addictive both psychologically and physically, than was previously thought. It's a mind altering substance and outside of medicinal use, is used far more by people for the expressed purpose of getting high...which goes beyond the idea of having a social drink. You don't smoke it socially, you smoke to get stoned.And while the scare tactic that pot use will lead to the abuse of harder drugs is now laughed at...I saw enough people who did "graduate" from one to the other.

Its recreational use is far from harmless...as you make it sound.

Thanks...

Frak

I post about this and can't even spell my name correctly! =)

BTW... I have also read that studies were done showing that lung damage due to pot smoking has been shown to be significantly worse than from cigarettes. I'm wondering if this is true. If so..even more collateral damage.

Thanks...

Frank

Medical examiners have said that regular marijuana smoking has the potential for affecting the lungs as does tobacco.

The question is not so much whether it is harmful, as we would all agree that liquor and cigarettes are also; however, when such products are illegal, the nation reaps the result as prohibition was a test case for showing how successful that was. There is tremendous black marketing of cigarettes with entire truckloads being hijacked to avoid the federal and state taxes. Why is marijuana not similar? It's no less than prostitution: it is illegal in all states except certain counties in Nevada, but is controlled and health inspections are conducted regularly in the European nations where it is legal. Also, in some European nations, marijuana is legal. If there is more use and more problems, someone can furnish that information. Because something is legal will not necessarily increase usage. I have a nephew who has lived in the Netherlands for approximately 10 years but has not become a "pot" addict because of the legality, anymore than we in the U.S. have become smokers or drunkers because they are legal.
Many states are planning on increasing taxes on cigarettes and now on sweetened sodas--which are more conducive to poor health than the few who use marijuana. Would anyone vote to make sweetened sodas illegal?

Bill Cork wrote:
--
So, to be logical, we should have no laws on driver licensing or testing, no laws prohibiting any behavior that does not harm anyone else.

The parallel is that alcohol and drug use are not "victimless crimes." Add up all the other costs: car crashes, disease, etc. This is a matter of protecting the public, is it not?
--

No, that would not be logical and it is not consistent with what I said. The fact is there is a huge difference between state and federal law. Which is part of the problem here since Federal laws are thought by some to over rule the state law if the state law legalized MJ. That is a symptom of the problem of an over reaching government.

The second problem is that if you start down the road of saying this substance is harmful therefore it is illegal sets up once again the over reaching of government. Extra taxes on sugar or salt or fat, removal from certain locations of certain products. Which interestingly began as a tax on MJ 1937 Marihuana Tax Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_Tax_Act

As for protecting people, we should limit vehicles to under 20 mph shouldn't we, or say that people have to wear helmets for all activities where they could potentially fall. Protecting people from themselves is not a sufficient reason to create laws. Other factors have to be weighed. When government becomes involved it often becomes political factors which create the reason for these laws, attempting to please a segment of society.

Here in Washington state the Governor has proposed a tax on bottled water a tax based upon per ounce of water. If the tax went through it would double to price of a case of bottled water that is purchased at Costco. Is that for the safety of the people? Or is it an attempt to collect money for the state?

" When has government ever fixed anything? Ronald Reagan once said the most scary words in the English Language were; "Hi, I'm from the Government; and I am here to help you!" he later said when asked about that quote that he could not recant it and offered advice to anyone who hears it; "RUN" he said." http://politetactics.com/44598.php

Ron

rc

The chemical substance in the weed is harmful to the user-fine if the user is responsible for the consequences including costs. But when the chemical substance is harmful to others then it is a societal issue and can and should be regulated.

The active chemical in pot effects the sensation of time and space. That is why it is preferred by drummers in rock bands. The drummer that is "high" can beat the hide off the drum. But that same response effects driving on a public highway. Now it is a public issue and must be regulated. There are many other side effects that have both personal and public consequences. Mostly detrimental to public health and well being to the individual. It just ain't recreational--if one considered recreational as re-creating a healthy well adjusted responsible adult human being.

A listing of stupid governmental trial ballons has no impact or revelvance on/to the bottom-line of the "recreational use of pot!" Tom

What would Jesus do? Would he smoke marijuana?
Case closed. How idiotic is this church becoming?
Lord have mercy.

I beleive we are discussing public policies rather than private practices. I am a vegetarian; however, I think it would be a mistake for governemnt to force vegetarianism on everybody.

Public policies need to be based on the best possible cost/benefit analyses of the various alternatives.

Although I'm open to evidence that is persuasive in the other direction, I think that the costs of keeping marijuana illegal exceed the benefits of doing so.

Also, all the laws that protect people from second-hand tobacco smoke would apply to Marjuana. too.

Jesus wouldn't smoke it- he would have used it to "anoint" himself.

Read the antics of Saul after his "anointing" by Samuel. Check out the kaneh bosom in Moses' recipe for the tabernacle. A professor from Hebrew University has written that it can be translated as "cannabis" instead of the "sweet reed" of the KJV.

"According to Aryeh Kaplan, cannabis was an ingredient in the Holy anointing oil mentioned in various sacred Hebrew texts. The herb of interest is most commonly known as kaneh-bosem which is mentioned several times in the Old Testament as a bartering material, incense, and an ingredient in Holy anointing oil used by the high priest of the temple.

The jewish priests at Elephantine Island wrote (c. 500 BCE) that since the temple had been destroyed they had made their wives as widows, not anointed themselves, nor had any wine. IOW, no sex, no hash oil, no alcohol.

The priests burned it in a small tent and claimed they saw Yahweh in a cloud. No kidding.

We would have a much safer, more peaceful country if they outlawed alcohol and legalized what was known as The Tree of Life.

David

Cost/benefit? Have you run any figures? If so have you run the figures on the institutional costs of caring for infants born of pot smoking mothers? I spend a significant portion of my professional life treating congenital anomolies. In the course of my career, I have worked in several state operated institutions for the care of the mentally retarded. Case after case, the medical history demonstrated a mother as a pot head. Fortunately, most of those infants die at an early age. Although some are now in their 40's and 50's.

Dave, I sat on the jury of a man who raped and killed a woman and stole her jewelry to buy pot. The issue of legalizing Pot did not become an issue on either side. He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole plus 35 years for robbery. Cost/benefit indeed!(The woman was a newly wed woman working as a case worker for the Department of Health.)

Keafan

Are you suggesting that we live our lives like King Saul?

Tom

I was going to say "Well, if the church and/or Seventh Day Adventists are going to promote the legalization of marijuana, we might as well promote the legalization of same-sex marriage."

But then I remembered where I was. What ever happened to us being peculiar people?

Alexia

The Seventh-day Adventist church is not promoting the legalization of marijuana. I am expressing my personal views on this subject and others are expressing theirs. None of us is speaking for the denomination or any of its organizations.

Tom

The cases you mention are indeed horrific and they are among the reasons why I think it wrong to use marijuana for non-therapeutic reasons. I say the same things about alcohol.

I see this somewhat as I do the issue of abortion. If outlawing it would stop it, I would certainly favor making it illegal. But I see little evidence that laws against abortion,except when it is required to save the life of the pregnant woman, make it less frequent whereas there is significant evidence that such laws make abortions more dangerous. Likewise with marijuana and alcohol.

Also, driving down its price so that people don't find it necessary to steal to finance their practice would be a good thing.

I don't think Ammiano's legislative proposals as they now stand are entirely adequate. But I do think that they are moving in the right direction.

Dave

In the days of prohibition there were 400 "unsolved" murders in Chicago each year. Today the number is the same adjusted for population. Besides there are more than twice that number of alcohol related deaths annually each year in Chicago from automobiles alone.

You want to place an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff with a hair pin turn. I want to build a fence along side the road.

For an ordained minister of a Church that preaches the sins of tea, coffee, tobacco, alcohol, and sea food without scales and the "other white meat" I am surprised.

Behavior that adversely affects innocent others should be controlled--substances that potentiate such behavior should be out-lawed. Cost is not a factor. Tom

To paraphrase:

How's that "Just say noey" thing been working out?

Friends,
The facts are that marijuana use and alcohol use go hand in hand plus they have devastating effects against the public. Anyone who believes otherwise needs to spend some nights in the local ER and look at the toxicology screens of the patients involved in MANY accidents, fights, domestic violence....etc.
Just spoke with the local county DA (patient of mine) who was outlining the many problems associated with this issue. One problem not mentioned above is that many hard drug users make their money for their habit by selling marijuana(because it is so easily obtained) to the local school age youth. How are you planning to "regulate and tax" that activity and many similar activities???
The idea of tax and regulate is "pie in the sky"!!!
With no penalties for "personnal cultivation" and no ability to track this how many people will go to the store to buy highly taxed and regulated marijuana vs growing your own???
Unfortunately what we are witnessing is just one more example of a breakdown of society. The idea that the taxes would pay for the destruction effects on the public is nonsense!! Case in point is alcohol/tobacco. They are heavily taxed but in NO WAY do they come close to paying for their effects either medically or for the victims!!!
While I believe the "genie" is out of the bottle already the effects will be very bad!! And you sure as h--- better stay off the roads at night!!
Fred

Tom wrote:
--
The chemical substance in the weed is harmful to the user-fine if the user is responsible for the consequences including costs. But when the chemical substance is harmful to others then it is a societal issue and can and should be regulated.
--

There you go now we can get down to it. For the good of society we have to outlaw fat, oh sure the body needs some so we can regulate some fat pills but for the good of society though we have to stop all the unhealthy fat people Fat is implicated in numerous cancers and heart disease and it is supported by the horror that is capitalism by numerous restaurants and stores. We have got to stop this, Mrs. Obama is already on board with her movement it just needs to be enhanced. For the good of society that is. We only want to take away your freedom until you do what we want you to do then everything will be OK. And of course we always assume that when the government takes a freedom away that was the right thing to do historically because then it is a tradition. With that tradition then becoming the best and wisest choice and thus our starting point. Rather like the Climate change folks who simply assume that what we had in the last 100 years is the optimum world climate anything different would be bad.

Ron

When was the last time anyone heard of domestic disputes, fatal driving accidents that claimed the lives of others, or court cases involving robbery and killing, with a super sized McDonald's meal as the catalyst? We're not talking about taking a freedom away, we're talking about the legalization of something that is presently criminal. Personal health is certainly compromised by both excess fat and cannabis use. But, the potentially violent results of the latter speak for themselves.

If we take this libertarian line of reasoning forward, why don't we get rid of seat belt laws, cell phone/driving laws, laws regulating the time and place for swimmers, bike riding regulations, and even traffic laws in general. After all, they all infringe on our "personal freedoms."

Hey, why should we be restricted to the right side of the road...left for those in the U.K? =)

Thanks...

Frank

The real culprit is the slicky-slide and swing sets in the backyards of millions of homes across America. And tossing your kids in the air and catching them.

Adrenaline is the gateway drug! Lets outlaw it!

How many have felt the adrenaline rush when you get a big strike on your fly line?

Or felt the emotion of the altar call at the conclusion of a Week of Prayer?

But somehow if you can get a chemical into your body its suddenly wrong and needs to be outlawed?

Ron is correct that this is a freedom issue. A personal rights issue. The idea of Larson's that its a policy issue with the deciding factor to be the results of a cost-benefit analysis is not taking into consideration the cost of the loss of freedom.

Should we ban the swing sing set because kids love the rush? Or fishing because it may lead to LSD?

Cannabis is a pacifist drug. A spiritual drug. Take 2 dozen teens, give 1 dozen a bong and some stash while giving the other dozen a bottle of Jack and a 24 pack. At the end of 2 hours the drinkers will be wanting to go to the military recruiting center to sign up to kill muslims while the other dozen with the bong will have a tendency to want to join the Peace Corps or go to church.

In a capitalist society the elites prefer, if anything, the scotch/wine/beer people. The bong people tend to think for themselves and will not happily join the ranks of the wage slaves.

Its hypocritical to allow alcohol while making cannabis the same level of illegality as heroin. Joe Coors and his brothers fund one of the most conservative think tanks in the country. McKee's manipulate Collegedale and beyond in SDA circles with the profits from their obesity enhancement products.

One of the few true statements in the Bible is God speaking from the "Burning Bush". Spirituality is enhanced with cannabis as those priests knew. The problem is that cannabis is detrimental to conformity hence the organized religion's intolerance of it.

IMO, of course.

Frank7

Your comment fits the profile of drinking, not cannabis use. I have NEVER seen anything of what you are talking about from any of my friends or acquaintances that smoke weed but I have seen it ALL from those that use the legal and Biblically sound alcohol.

Maybe you could back up your wild assertions with some statistics for us.

Tom Z wrote

>>> If so have you run the figures on the institutional costs of caring for infants born of pot smoking mothers? I spend a significant portion of my professional life treating congenital anomolies.

http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec22/ch259/ch259a.html

"Marijuana: Whether use of marijuana during pregnancy can harm the fetus is unclear. The main component of marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol, can cross the placenta and thus may affect the fetus. However, marijuana does not appear to increase the risk of birth defects or to slow the growth of the fetus. Marijuana does not cause behavioral problems in the newborn unless it is used heavily during pregnancy"

The underlying issue here is the method society uses for choosing which things to discourage and how to discourage them.

We have ended up where we are by a series of laws enacting over 100 years without a coherent underlying policy.

What is needed is a coherent policy.

/Bevin

Keafan...

I'm simply piggybacking off of posts like Fred Eastman's, and Tom's. Yes, anecdotal, but, they have outlined their personal and professional experience with this. Why don't you take it up with them, and see if they're off the mark? I feel that Fred also makes some good points concerning the regulatory nightmare that this would become if legalization were to happen.

I've also seen the damage it has done to people I know. First pot, then graduating to coke and crack. Nearly destroyed their lives. It's not so innocent.

Thanks...

Frank

The most pathatic line of illogic I have read in years--from a bunch who believe that Dan 8: 14 predicts the beginning of the final judgment. Ichabod! (There must be some sort of hallinogenic substance in linketts. )

This conversation reminds me of my days as a Soda Jerk at old E.M.C. Every afternoon two little old blued silver hair ladies would come in and order a hot fudge Sunday but add--hold the whipped Cream--which was just plain milk fizzed up with CO2. A story I told to a neighbor restaurateur, who topped with the fat ladies who would come in and order a cheeseburger/ bacon and with gooy fries and a diet coke.

If we want to cut health care costs, we should urge smoking, drinking, drugs, obsesity,and fast driving. It will shorten the life span and thus save health care costs by at least 12 years. Not to mention SS payments. Push drugs and fast foods-- It will help balance the budget.

Tom

I sometimes don't read Tom Z's posts but on this issue I have read them and I'm totally in agreement with him.

How a minister of the gospel can support legalization of pot boggles the mind. We have come a long ways, baby, and it isn't in the right direction, at least in this lead article. May the Good Lord show the man of the cloth a better way.

Friends,
As long as we are on a roll I think we should repeal most if not all gun control laws as they don't work, cost alot to enforce, enfringe on my freedom to name a few. The handgun repeal in Wash. DC has lowered the crime rate significantly now that the responsible citizens can carry "heat" at home. While we are at it I think we should put "coke" back in Coke as the public should be able to make that decision responsibly. Are there any lines that should not be crossed today by this "enlightened" society???
Fred

Fred

A careful reading of the Second Ammendment would require that anyone wishing to keep and bear Arms shall be required to join the National Guard for at least three years and/or any branch of the armed forces of the United States of America. And shall meet all physical, mental, and emotional requirements of such services. Tom

Tom wrote:

--
A careful reading of the Second Ammendment would require that anyone wishing to keep and bear Arms shall be required to join the National Guard for at least three years and/or any branch of the armed forces of the United States of America. And shall meet all physical, mental, and emotional requirements of such services. Tom
--

That is so funny, do you know anything about history. Have you even looked at what the word Militia meant at the time of the writing of the constitution? Of course there was no National Guard then or any branch of the Armed forces of the United States. It is bizarre what has happened in this country that Progressives (aka political liberals) have so distorted history.

Take some time to learn the facts.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

--
George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution,referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people
themselves." The list goes on and on.

By contrast, nowhere is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the militia, by any of the Framers, as anything other than the "whole body of the people." Indeed, as one commentator said, the notion that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the "collective" right of the states to maintain militias rather than the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, "remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."
--

No wonder we don't understand freedom anymore.

Ron

RC
That is exactly correct.
The overarching principal of the framers of the constitution is captured in the Quote of Thomas Jefferson.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The reference to a "well regulated" militia, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today's
English, the term "well regulated" probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous.

The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only
what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.

To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and
correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army:
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a
militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

if weed is legalized, and if the FAA doesn't learn how to enforce the required "8 hrs from lite-up to lift off",
just as they haven't figured how to enforce "8 hrs bottle to throttle", then it won't matter how many crotch bombers try to destroy our transportation system... NorthWest pilots will do it for us!!! just like Foster Brooks shows Dean martin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8L-ZZSc8JU

if you think flying high now is interesting...just vote to legalize pothead pilots!!!

http://www.drugrecognition.com/Marjua.htm

try this quote:
Marijuana is not a water soluble drug like alcohol or cocaine. Rather, it is fat soluble, which means the body rids it's self of the drug not by flushing the drug out of the body with other waste in the urine but rather by storing the drug in the body fat. Therefore, marijuana use is cumulative in its effects on the body. This cumulative effect explains why long-term heavy users look "burned out" and "spaced out" even when they have not been using the drug recently.

In the work place and on the roadway, marijuana intoxication can be very dangerous as the drug destroys the brain's ability to perceive depth perception. Without depth perception serious accidents can occur. For example, a Conrail train engineer high on pot crashed into a commuter train killing two people. In another famous incident a commercial airline pilot high on marijuana crashed an air cargo plane at Newark airport. One of the most costly cases was in 1985 when a computer operator high on marijuana crashed the American Airlines reservation system causing 19 million dollars damage.

The FAA found that this impairment lasts for days after the pleasurable intoxicating effects wear off. Two Lear-jet pilots being studied by the FAA showed significant operational errors three days after smoking marijuana even though the two pilots both said they felt fine and thought they were safe to fly.
end fearsome quote

and if you choose to take a taxi instead, remember, Reverend Jim Ignatowski might be your driver!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsRIgRv0L4o&feature=related
(start about minute 6:00)

The contributuons to this discussion seem to emerge from one or the other of two influential ethical paradigms, one that places a premium on personal liberty and the other being more concerned about the common good.

Some have noticed, sometimes disapprovingly, that this time around I have framed the issue in terms of the common good. I think that our policies on this matter ought to aim at doing what will be most beneficial for all those who are affected by them.

On many other issues that strike me as more important, I make personal liberty the primary concern.

I don't think that keeping marijuana illegal except for medical purposes is a major violation of personal liberty. Denying people the liberty to worship as they please so long as they don't hurt others qualifies.

But even those of us who agree that in this instance our first priority should be the common good can disagree about what policies are most likely to achieve that. This is because we can disagree about the relevant facts.

I have proceded on the "factual" premises that Californians already earn about fourteen billion dollars a year from growing and selling marijuana, that it is less dangerous to its users and others than are many alcoholic beverages that are legal, that current attempts to eradicate growing and selling it are failing, that the benefits of continuing these efforts are exceded by their costs and that our current policies make profits from it artificially and dangerously high.

I take very seriously all those responses that challenge any of these "factual" premises because they might cause me to change my mind. I can't say that I do the same for those that try to insert extraneous considertions such as the correct interpretation of Daniel 8:14. If these are relevant, please help me see how.

Many thanks!

Dave

So I'm the heavy in this pot boiler. Pot smoking by pregnant women was a significant part of a life style that resulted in seriously deformed and mentally compromised infants that required life long institutionalization. Today, after my clinical years, crack babies have taken the lead in birth defects in inner city parts of Georgia.

Obviously James Madison didn't know about pick up trucks with gun racks or he might have insisted on well regulated and disciplined.

The major gun dealer in Augusta went out of business. It seems a customer bought a hand gun and didn't know how to load it. He took the gun and clip outside and a friend showed him how to insert the clip. He then went back inside and asked the clerk a question about the gun. The clerk took the gun not knowing the clip had already been inserted. The clerk pulled the trigger to demonstrate something or other and killed a bystanding customer.

I was assigned to an infantry training bn. in WWII. The rifles were stacked at the end of the barracks and locked down.

The squad came in from rifle practice and stacked their rifles. The corporal went down the line of rifles and pulled the trigger on each. About the fifth or sixth rifle, there was a bullet in the chamber. The gun fired. The bullet went through a double 2 x 12 beam, through the floor of the second level, through the foot locker and the tray and lodged in the lid of the foot locker upon which a G.I. was seated. On the way through the beam the bullit cut through a 16 penny spike or it likely would have wounded the G.I.

Well regulated is a very significant word in any generation when it comes to harmful substances and to weapons.

Just because someone has enough dollars to buy a gun doesn't mean they have enough "cents" to use it properly. I sleep well not because of the National Rifle Association but in spite of the NRA. Others apparently feel otherwise. Most sound just like Ben Hur. Tom

Off the main point...Whatever the intention of well regulated militia was in the Constitution, the idea that an armed American citizenry in this day and age could stand up to the likes of the Pentagon's military might is not even a consideration. For the NRA and its supporters to use this as a controlling reason to bear arms is to rely upon a practical implausibility.

Pick ups and gun racks against the Air Force and smart bombs? C'mon!

Thanks...

Frank

After 45 years of a declared "War On Drugs", we as a nation have accomplished the following:

1. We've created a gigantic prison-industrial complex that incarcerates approximately 2.5 million people--with staggering costs to state budget--comprised of largely young people, little fish fed into the machine by the big fish who are rarely arrested..

2. We've created a gigantic criminal sub-culture that thrives on the illegality of drugs, a sub-culture ranging from street gangs (better known as urban terrorists),drug millionaires & billionaires, corrupt American local & federal agents (does anybody honestly think that major police corruption all comes from south of the border?), and narco-states like parts of Columbia, Mexico, and Afganistan, along with drive-by shootings, gang murders, and a general break-down in the social order for large swatches of major cities.

3. A concurrent contempt for the law, police officers, and judicial institutions.

4. And an equally gigantic police beauracracy; e.g., state, local, federal agents; more & more prosecutors and judges, all feeding into the prison-industrial complex.

Personally, I think anybody who uses/abuses legal or illegals drugs is an idiot. But today, anywhere in America, anybody from age 10 to 90 can buy any illegal drug they want with little chance of being arrested.

This War on Drugs may have started with good intentions, the best of motives. But the road to hell has always been paved with good intentions. When it comes to drug policy in America, we have an excellent view today of how the law of unintended consequences works!

Shalom!
Jeris E. Bragan

Dear David,

I almost wholeheartedly agree with your deliberations. Just the week before we fed the shredder with piles of outdated lab reports "Urine on drugs - opiates, cocaine, LSD,amphetamines, benzodiazepines, THC - -" required by the health authorities for our addicted patients. Togehter with my team I repeatedly discussed the nonsense of testing for THC (Marihuana). In many discussions of experienced professionals we discussed the nonsense of testing for THC - except when it goes for having the driving license or similiar the pilots license (both the authorities can withdraw or withhold)- read the explanation for this in the post of John Alfke. He also makes clear why a THC intake very easily is detected over a long time thereafter - by the police, it is an exhilarating experience of success for the cops. And then Justitia goes wild.

The damages of marihuana were already displayed here; some not mentioned obviously are horror myths up to today, just rather unsuccessfully preached to scare the kids off or to support our self - esteem : We are the better ones. - I in any case can only very earnestly plead : Never never touch - - .

But there are addicts although I have some questions about the addictive potential. They simply are dependent and need a lot of money, often obtained by "drug related crimes" - that means, crimes to get the means for then buying the drug - since the end user of marihuana pays for something that could be as cheap as peppermint tea because the producer and the dealer are in a criminal market setting,subjected to penalty that therefore allows a high revenue.

The now dependent addict is unduly criminalized and exploited in the framework of todays legal situation. Is this ethical ? Are we entitled to say : "That is your fault, you could have known better !"

The Holland example should be taken serious - also including the problem of "drug tourism" . (Politically today it would be impossible to support anything like the California proposal here in Austria since people clinge to their prejudices and superstitions.)

Convincing prevention, supportive treatment and withdrawal are other issues.

Each Thursday the local newspaper prints the number of arrests and convictions in the local criminal courts. This coming week, I will list the number of arrests and convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol and the number of convictions for driving under the influence of other controlled substances. Legalizing alcohol has not stopped the crime rate in America. It just changed its nature. Tom.

But even those of us who agree that in this instance our first priority should be the common good can disagree about what policies are most likely to achieve that.

David L

I have approached this from 2 angles. First, that cannabis was used by priests/prophets/anointed kings in the Bible, and then from a personal liberty point of view. If you study the writings of Jefferson and his friends you could come to the conclusion that making organized religion (especially catholicism) illegal would be for the "common good". But, liberty trumps common good. Liberty IS THE common good in this country.

Cheney-Bush think that torture is for the "common good".

The Pope believes that a world ruled by Catholics is in the interest of the "common good".

There is no evidence that making, and keeping, marijuana illegal is inside the area of a constitutionally valid "common good". Alcohol, yes. Guns, no (not constitutional). Religion, no (not constitutional). Divorce, no. Polygamy, no. Homosexuality, no. Smoking, no (unless second-hand smoke, etc which affects others).

There is a stronger case for banning motorized vehicles than there is for banning weed.

Majority rules except when it tramples on LIBERTY, the primary inalienable right.

Frank7.... You are correct that the intention of the 2nd amendment, as used by the NRA, is a joke. Citizens should be able to have any type of firepower the federal government has. Under the constitution we should have the right to own a tank, armored personnel carrier, and an F-16 (or 22 or 23 or whatever the latest configuration is).

It never ceases to amaze me how much "righteous indignation" is aroused by our country's military losses in overseas wars against "jihadists" who have one purpose, trying to kill as many "American infidels" as possible yet we seem to accept the staggering yearly losses for DUI not to mention the "drug wars" in our midst. When I lived in Maryland in late 70's the statistics showed 80% of traffic fatalities were from DUI. That has since dropped to around 50% which is about the national average currently. We lose 10 times the number of people annually to DUI than we have lost in all the military deaths since 9/11.
I would give these discussions more credibility if I saw an attitude of how better do we deal with this ongoing carnage rather than "just legalize it and the problems will be solved" approach which seems to be the basis of most "pro legalization" arguments. As Tom has so nicely pointed out legalizing "alcohol" hasn't solved that problem!!! It is also much easier to grow "pot" than to build a "still" and make you're own. Prohibiting alcohol consumption for those under 21 really has a great track record doesn't it!!!
All these activities are peoples attempts to "escape" lifes problems/realities. I think we would be better served by more discussions on how to reach and help these people rather than how can we make it easier for them to engage in self/public destructive behavior which in the end affects us all !!!
Thanks for your time/consideration.
Fred

Are there any reliable studies that compare the overall common good with respect to alcohol before and after Prohibition?

It would be very hard--probably impossible--to keep constant the irrelevant variables. Yet it would be helpul to know if the widespread conviction that Prohibition did more harm than good is justified by the facts.

It wouldn't surprise me if Prohibition actually ended in the name of personal freedom rather than the common good even though the second is what I usually hear.

I don't think that ending Prohibition in the name of personal freedom is necessarily an unjustied rationale; however, it is different.

Every society must strike some successful balance between personal freedom and the common good. When enforcing a law is more costly all things considered than not having the law in the first place, largely because so many citizens view the law as an unjustified violation of their personal freedom, the common good is ill served.

I think that this is where we are in California at this time; however, I'm willing to be proven otherwise.

P.S.: Is there any truth to the claim that a major reason why marijuana was outlawed in California in the first place is that influential businessmen did not want competition from the easy availability of hemp to be used for other purposes?

In this case the latent as distinguished from the manifest motivation was neither personal freedom nor the common good but protecting profits.

How accurate and relevant is this from http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mj005.htm?

Marijuana Timeline in The United States
Copyright © PBS Online and WGBH/Frontline.

1600-1890s
Domestic production of hemp encouraged.

American production of hemp was encouraged by the government in the 17th century for the production of rope, sails, and clothing. Marijuana is the dried flowers that come from Cannabis sativa and Cannabis indica plants. Cannabis sativa is usually used to produce hemp. It has longer fibers (than Cannabis indica) that are preferred for hemp use.

In 1619 the Virginia Assembly passed legislation requiring every farmer to grow hemp. Hemp was allowed to be exchanged as legal tender in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland.
Domestic production flourished until after the Civil War, when imports and other domestic materials replaced hemp for many purposes. In the late nineteenth century, marijuana became a popular ingredient in many medicinal products and was sold openly in public pharmacies.

During the 19th century, hashish use became a fad in France and also, to some extent, in the U.S.

1906
Pure Food and Drug Act
Required labeling of any cannabis contained in over-the-counter remedies.

1900-20s
Mexican immigrants introduce recreational use of marijuana leaf.

After the Mexican Revolution of 1910, Mexican immigrants flooded into the U.S., introducing to American culture the recreational use of marijuana.

The drug became associated with the immigrants, and the fear and prejudice about the Spanish speaking newcomers became associated with marijuana. Anti-drug campaigners warned against the encroaching Marijuana Menace, and terrible crimes were attributed to marijuana and the Mexicans who used it.

1930s
Fear of marijuana
During the Great Depression, massive unemployment increased public resentment and fear of Mexican immigrants, escalating public and governmental concern about the problem of marijuana.

This instigated a flurry of research which linked the use of marijuana with violence, crime and other socially deviant behaviors, primarily committed by racially inferior or underclass communities. By 1931, 29 states had outlawed marijuana.

1930
Creation of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN)
Harry J. Anslinger was the first Commissioner of the FBN and remained in that post until 1962.

1932
Uniform State Narcotic Act
Concern about the rising use of marijuana and research linking its use with crime and other social problems created pressure on the federal government to take action.
Rather than promoting federal legislation, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics strongly encouraged state governments to accept responsibility for control of the problem by adopting the Uniform State Narcotic Act.

1936
Reefer Madness
Propaganda film Reefer Madness was produced by the French director, Louis Gasnier.

The Motion Pictures Association of America, composed of the major Hollywood studios, banned the showing of any narcotics in films.

1937
Marijuana Tax Act
After a lurid national propaganda campaign against the evil weed, Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act. The statute effectively criminalized marijuana, restricting possession of the drug to individuals who paid an excise tax for certain authorized medical and industrial uses.

1944
La Guardia Report finds marijuana less dangerous
New York Academy of Medicine issued an extensively researched report declaring that, contrary to earlier research and popular belief, use of marijuana did not induce violence, insanity or sex crimes, or lead to addiction or other drug use.

1940s
Hemp for Victory
During World War II, imports of hemp and other materials crucial for producing marine cordage, parachutes, and other military necessities became scarce.

In response the U.S. Department of Agriculture launched its Hemp for Victory program, encouraging farmers to plant hemp by giving out seeds and granting draft deferments to those who would stay home and grow hemp. By 1943 American farmers registered in the program harvested 375,000 acres of hemp.

1951-56
Stricter Sentencing Laws
Enactment of federal laws (Boggs Act, 1952; Narcotics Control Act, 1956) which set mandatory sentences for drug-related offenses, including marijuana.

A first-offense marijuana possession carried a minimum sentence of 2-10 years with a fine of up to $20,000.

And this:

1960s
Marijuana use popular in counterculture

A changing political and cultural climate was reflected in more lenient attitudes towards marijuana. Use of the drug became widespread in the white upper middle class.

Reports commissioned by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson found that marijuana use did not induce violence nor lead to use of heavier drugs. Policy towards marijuana began to involve considerations of treatment as well as criminal penalties.

1968
Creation of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs
This was a merger of FBN and the Bureau of Dangerous Drugs of the Food and Drug Administration.

1970
Repeal of most mandatory minimum sentences
Congress repealed most of the mandatory penalties for drug-related offenses. It was widely acknowledged that the mandatory minimum sentences of the 1950s had done nothing to eliminate the drug culture that embraced marijuana use throughout the 60s, and that the minimum sentences imposed were often unduly harsh.

Marijuana differentiated from other drugs
The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act categorized marijuana separately from other narcotics and eliminated mandatory federal sentences for possession of small amounts.

National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) founded

1972
Shafer Commission
The bipartisan Shafer Commission, appointed by President Nixon at the direction of Congress, considered laws regarding marijuana and determined that personal use of marijuana should be decriminalized.

Nixon rejected the recommendation, but over the course of the 1970s, eleven states decriminalized marijuana and most others reduced their penalties.

1973
Creation of the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)
Merger of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNND) and the Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement (ODALE).

1974
High Times founded

1976
Beginning of parents' movement against marijuana
A nationwide movement emerged of conservative parents' groups lobbying for stricter regulation of marijuana and the prevention of drug use by teenagers.
Some of these groups became quite powerful and, with the support of the DEA and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), were instrumental in affecting public attitudes which led to the 1980s War on Drugs.

1986
Anti-Drug Abuse Act - Mandatory Sentences
President Reagan signed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, instituting mandatory sentences for drug-related crimes.

In conjunction with the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, the new law raised federal penalties for marijuana possession and dealing, basing the penalties on the amount of the drug involved. Possession of 100 marijuana plants received the same penalty as possession of 100 grams of heroin.

A later amendment to the Anti-Drug Abuse Act established a three strikes and you're out policy, requiring life sentences for repeat drug offenders, and providing for the death penalty for drug kingpins.

1989
Bush's War on Drugs
President George Bush declares a new War on Drugs in a nationally televised speech.

1996
Medical Use Legalized in California
California voters passed Proposition 215 allowing for the sale and medical use of marijuana for patients with AIDS, cancer, and other serious and painful diseases. This law stands in tension with federal laws prohibiting possession of marijuana.

>>> First pot, then graduating to coke and crack. Nearly destroyed their lives. It's not so innocent.

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/study-say-marijuana-no-gateway-drug-12116...

A 12 year study by U Pittsburg reveals the gateway (graduating to) argument is a myth

/Bevin

Friends,
Bevin referenced an article in his last post which I just read and would encourage you all to read as it is a good example of incomplete and misleading conclusions being referenced. All the subjects studied ranging in ages 10-22 used illicit drugs. (marijuana, alcohol,tobacco) The main conclusions reached were that the pathway used for the drugs being used depended on which drug was the easiest to obtain. Alcohol if that was easiest, marijuana if that was easier. Hardly a recommendation for legalizing marijuana!!! Also the study partially identified the more relavent factors in drug usage and addiction mainly social factors, poor parenting, etc.
All of these drugs(marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco) were addictive and abusive and it depended on the ease of obtaining these rather than which drug they started with but they all ended up at the same BAD endpoint.
Thus my earlier comment that this whole issue is just one more example of a degradation of society NOT the enlightening of society.
The real question should be how (if possible) can we stop this degradation??? How can we as Spectrum readers have some effect on these very damaging effects to our fellow human beings???
Again I would encourage each person to carefully read the whole study before you come to a final conclusion yourself and this applies to ALL articles/references made on this forum irregardless of the subject being discussed!!!
Thanks for the reference Bevin.
Fred

Bevin,
Maybe you could research any studies regarding marijuana/meth connections. I would be interested to see some studies on this issue as this seems to be a very big problem in " my neck of the woods"
Thanks
Fred

Thus far, almost every response on this thread, either pro or con, has been bolstered by anecdotal evidence. This is understandable because up to this point there have been almost no peer reviewed, scientific studies on marijuana. Since the federal government criminalized it in the 30s, it is illegal to possess it even for scientific study. Consequently, no tenured professor or recognized scientist would pursue legitimate research that could compromise his or her career and possibly result in incarceration. It seems insane to base public policy on opinion only, but on this issue, that is where we as a society currently find ourselves.

While I personally find myself on Dave Larsen’s side of the issue, without any real evidence I recognize the naysayers opinions as being just as legitimate as mine. I can't imagine that the proposed legislation has any reasonable chance of passage. Very few politicians would risk their careers on an issue that a large segment of their constituencies has effectively demonized. My preference at this point would be for decriminalization accompanied by scientific, clinical research.

Whatever the outcome, I hope that we as church members resist the temptation to demonize the users as being worthless, losers. From my perspective as a former academy teacher, I can state that pot smoking, for many of our young people, was nothing more than a right of passage. Some did become casualties and wound up with other addictions, but most of them simply outgrew it and went on to successful careers as doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers and even SDA ministers. I have enjoyed the article as well as the responses, and like Dave, appreciate the mirth it has brought me.

rcs makes sense to me.

To Bevin and Fred Eastman :

The personal experience and a continuous sharing with other persons of experience is biased; but belive me, studies are too (see the study on olnazapine maybe three years ago). But with frequently exchanging the personal observations and discussing them we can say that marihuana is addictive for some ( - just have the tough experience of getting and keeping them clean !), but labelling it as gateway drug is not to be upheld.

And you dont get "holes in your brain" with the dosage you had taken in the past, and you did not get schizophrenia, with marihuana you most probably tried for a self treatment during the uneasiness of the prodromium, the "duration of untreated illness".

To rcs :

Thank you very very much for an other aspect. It is against the example of Jesus to demonize - I`d say : humilate - the drug user, the drug addict. Even the behaviour of medical personnel, even of those specialized in the treatment of addicts towards their patients is sometimes abashing.

And : Are we "the better ones" ? I always was a "good boy" and with this strategy successful; sometimes I had the idea that God should be very glad having people like me on this earth. But what pharisee am I just missing the experience of those you could observe ? - You make us aware of another danger (!) within the recent legal frame : OK, kids, it is your experiment with some few joints . The police confiscates the cellphone of your retail dealer and finds out the connection to you. And you get known and registered as criminals. This is an unjust, inadaequate, exceeding response. No driving license, severe troubles in school, the future as a nurse, a physician, a teacher, a minister jeopardized not because of your "weak character" or the brain damage you have allegedly acquired, but because of our legal framework (in California and in Austria).

In small amounts, marijuana is practically legal in California. If you are caught in possession of an ounce or less, no arrest or imprisonment is allowed; there is a maximum $100.00 fine. Most cops won't even bother to write you up for it; they'll just confiscate it, if that. And if you know a cooperative doctor, you can just get a prescription, to treat stress or nervousness, etc.

I have a client who was caught with several ounces of pot, and the police didn't even bother to charge him. (Of course, they did charge him for possession of the 10 grams of cocaine he also had.)

Dave

re: "How accurate and relevant is this...."

Thanks for posting that material.

I would say the time-line is relevant and mostly accurate. It is misleading in a single particular: it puts the racial aspect of legislation on hispanics. The supply source was hispanic but the users were just as likely to be other minority races.

1930's: “There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others. … Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.” — Harry J. Anslinger, America’s 1st Drug Czar (FDR – JFK)

“Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. Hasheesh makes a murderer who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him…. Marihuana influences Negroes to to look at white people in the eye, step on white men’s shadows and look at a white woman twice.” — William Randolph Hearst, Newspaper Tycoon

1970's: "I want a God**** strong statement on marijuana, I mean one that just tears the a** out of them. You know, it's a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish."

"You have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this all while not appearing to." (about the War on Drugs to Chief of Staff, H. R. Haldeman, according to Halderman's diaries)

"[S]oft-headed psychiatrists who work in places like NIMH (National Institute for Mental Health) favor marijuana because they're probably all on the stuff themselves."
-- Richard M. Nixon - Former President

***************

On May 18, 1971, Art Linkletter visited the Oval Office where he and Nixon discussed marijuana vs alcohol (Dick's Drug)

Linkletter: "Another big difference between marijuana and alcohol is that when people smoke marijuana, they smoke it to get high. In every case, when most people drink, they drink to be sociable. You don't see people --"

Nixon: "That's right, that's right."

Linkletter: "They sit down with a marijuana cigarette to get high --"

Nixon: "A person does not drink to get drunk."

Linkletter: "That's right."

Nixon: "A person drinks to have fun."

Linkletter: "I'd say smoke marijuana, you smoke marijuana to get high."

Nixon: "Smoke marijuana, er, uh, you want to get a charge of some sort, and float, and this, that and the other thing."

Nixon: "And your drug societies, uh, are, are, inevitably come apart. They --"

Linkletter: "They lose motivation."

Nixon: "-- mind"

Linkletter: "No discipline."

Nixon: "Yeah."

Linkletter: "You know I did a show --"

Nixon: "At least with liquor, I don't lose motivation."

And Dave... Nearly 30 years ago I wrote a college term paper titled "The Politics of Marijuana". The research for that paper taught me a tremendous amount about the "spin" politicians put on "policy". At the time, the Nixon tapes were not available but his statement about making laws that were racist while appearing to NOT be racist says a lot in a few words. Its similar to what W did with the post 9/11 "security" laws. Spin it as security while reducing the privacy rights of citizens.

And for those that might think its just Republicans that want to take away personal freedoms...

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans . . . ."
-- William J. Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993

" the purpose of government is to reign in the rights of the people"
-- Bill Clinton during an interview on MTV in 1993

Give me Liberty or give me death.

keafan
This is amazing! I was unaware that marijuana use is another place where the sexual insecurities of some white men vis-a-vis men of color surfaces. Astonishing!!
Dave

While in an SDA grade school in the mid-30s, a speaker chosen by the school introduced us to "reefers" and marijuana, I doubt that any of the middle-school age kids had ever heard about it. But he showed us the pipes and paraphenalia used and told us of the dangers.

Skip to the mid 70s when I expect, judging by my own children in the SDA academy and their friends, practically all of them experimented with some of the available drugs and were introduced to them by their school mates. Unfortunately, at least three of the students went to hard drugs and eventually lost their lives because of them.

However, knowing the students involved and their homes, they all came from highly dysfunctional homes in their manner of raising children. Nearly all of the kids grew up to be responsible, college educated professionals. It was considered part of the "growing up years" to experiment. Of course, alcohol was introduced, but I know of none who became alcoholics, either.

Our children must learn about some things personally. All the preaching is less effective than their peers during the teen years, but given a stable, loving home, allowing them room to develop is the best assurance of mature, responsible adults.

Dave L

I don't know the particular rules in Cali for obtaining the status of a registered medical marijuana user but I am assuming that an MD is involved. If so, have you spoken with any SDA MD's about their degree of willingness to prescribe marijuana or recommend that a patient be authorized by the state to use marijuana as part of their medication regime?

Elaine

Your recollections parallel what I've heard from others: that the troubled personalities caused the addictions, not that the addictions caused the troubled pesonalities. Either way, the death of those young people is sad and sobering!

keafan

Yes. It is my understanding that an MD's prescription is required. But no, I haven't asked any doctors about it. I should.

David, Elaine et al
How the system works is that an MD writes a prescription for "medical" marijuana then the "patient" is allowed to grow a proscribed amount of their own marijuana or have in their possession a certain legal amount for medicinal purposes. Unfortunately there are certain unscrupulous marijuana docs who will prescribe medical marijuana for anyone with a "headache" for a fee generally around $250.00 and upwards. Local law enforcement agents here estimate approximately 80-90% of "medical" marijuana is really bogus!!!
The number of scripts coming from legitimate sources statewide is actually quite small.
Unfortunately very few on this forum actually deal with this issue and see the troubles inherent with this problem as they play out in the ER or daily practice of medicine.
The current laws in California make enforcement virtually impossible and so in essence you have legalized marijuana now.
If this law were to pass the state would risk losing federal funds for many areas (including Medical funding) and that threat alone will block this legislation.
Agreed that the drug ALONE doesn't cause all social ills but it sure isn't helping or lifting up society. Just because a few youth view this as a "right of passage" doesn't mean we as "adults" should encourage this behavior especially when we have so many "at risk" youth in society today!!
A large part of the reason that you can't get effective alcohol legislation is the prevalance of alcohol abuse in our legislative bodies!!
One of the worst cases I personnally had to deal with was a man who was "high" on marijuana and drunk who was a 8 time convicted DUI record who was driving along and saw a motorcycle coming toward him (husband&wife on the motorcycle) and he decided to hit them head on by purposely pulling into their lane. Couple was killed instantly. He lived but I had to operate on him for his broken leg. This particular patient spit in my face as we were trying to care for him in the ER preparatory to taking him to the OR. He was obviously a troubled man but the couple ended up paying dearly for his "freedom" to act irresponsibly!!! I could give you MANY similar stories but how many instances does it take to understand this issue???
Sincerely
Fred

Fred,

It is unconvincing that the accident you describe was due to alcohol, as what are the stats on accidents caused by marijuana alone? There is really no comparison

Currently, the abuse of prescription drugs has become a major problem, and there are physicians implicated in this just as in marijuana, which is far less addictive.

Are there any predictive studies that legalizing marijuana will increase usage? For inquisitive teens, forbidden use makes it exciting. Alcohol and tobacco is not legal in California for anyone under the age of 21, but how effective has that been? There is reason to believe that binge drinking in minors is much more of a problem in the U.S. than in the countries where alcohol (wine or beer) is less restricted. If making those illegal would greatly diminish use, where is the evidence?

To Fred and Elaine :

The fatal accident in discussion maybe was caused by alcohol plus THC (what about the alcohol concentration in his blood ?) - - - But the case really gives no clear evidence.

Are you aware of the problems with flunitrazepam and oxazepam, of course under restrictions of prescription, but illegally on the market for free sale, taken in the addicts scene in enormous dosages ?

And what about the glue sniffers ? Or in the last times some tirecleanser which the body transformes into GABA, a neurotransmitter, with horrible results ?

To Elaine and David :

I just can boast the experience with a great number of drug addicts, and have to add another aspect to what Elaine brought to our attention :

Schizophrenics I found overrepresented by twenty times, posttraumatic or postinfectuous brain damages were overrepresented, genuine epileptics were overrepresented, slightly disabled were overrepresented - - this by scrupulously analyzing the biography and searching for the early incidents for those diagnoses. (What you usually read in the records : "Drug epilepsy" - no, the patient had his first seizures in early schooltime and one should have had also long talks with his mother !)

Therefore I earnestly must question parts of the AR "Special Issue" on "Adventists and Addiction" (Jaroslav Kis) or James Coffin ("Puff and Nonsense" in AR somewhen 2005) - the material is still in my files for writing to the authors cited. I apologize for that.

Here are the numbers for Richmond County, Georgia for one week ending March 3, 2010.

Sentencings Richmond County: population 61,000. for Week ending March 3, 2010.

Superior Court Sentencings

Hard Time for possession cocaine/methamphetamine/oxycodone/heroin/methadone total number- 33 ranging in age from:19-58 One physician age 32 for distributing oxycodone, Percocet, lorazapam, Endocet, and Tylenol with codeine (first offenders act five years probation lost of license to practice medicine.)

DUI –Total 53--18 female) Typical sentence one day in jail, 40 hours community service, attend substance abuse classes, loss of driver’s license clinical evaluation. Fine of 250 to 2000 dollars. Age range from 19-64.

Possession of marijuana Total number 9: Same as DUI one day in jail, community service, substance abuse classes. Fine of 250- 1000 dollars.
Tom

Although I oppose both, I think it unjust and unsafe that someone who POSSESSES marijuana should receive the same penalty as someone who DRIVES under the influence of alcohol.

I agree with Frank7. My ex-husband smoked pot and drank with his mother's supervision and condonation as she did it herself (she professes to be a Christian now). He is now an addict of crack cocaine and has been in and out of prison 6 times in Kansas for parole violations because he would use again. He has been out this time since August. Knock on wood, he is 46 and you can only hope that he has beat it. I also have a ex-brother-in-law who has struggled with it since 1985. He cannot beat what he calls his pleasure with "Mr. Happy." He is a successful draftsman and does well, but he cannot beat it and he is suffering from asthma as a result. A marijuana is equal to 6 cigarettes. It is addictive and is a "gateway" drug that will ruin others around you and will eventually cause poor brain functioning. I don't see the point of using a foul smelling substance as being pleasurable. I had two friends who did roll their jeep in high school in 1979 because they smoked 5 joints throughout the day. It is dangerous and impairing. Don't be fooled by the myths.

I don't think the Feds are going to agree with the passage of the California bill. They are tired of the precedence that California has set in the past.

Surely, there should be a recognized difference between any addictive substance for medical use and for recreational use.

There a numerous prescriptive medications that are far more addicting than marijuana, and they are being illegally used and sold. Should they be prohibited for prescribed medical use?

What is the definition between "addictive" substances and those promoting health? Many prescribed meds can, and have become addictive, yet serve a very useful purpose. Perhaps there should be tighter controls, but not elimination of such substances.