Questions on Decriminalization/Legalization movement

[emilynghiem]

10 Common Marijuana Addiction Symptoms

This site does not present science to support the existence of a physical addiction to marijuana. It lists symptoms and assumes the addiction.

Not surprising since these people make their living by treating marijuana "addiction."

I'm not saying that what they claim is positively false - I am saying that I would like to see the science ... and not from an organization that has a financial interest in the results.

Hi NDF:

I would rather promote research efforts and focus on spiritual healing to get rid of all cause of addiction and abuse. We wouldn't be worried about risks of alcohol, tobacco or other drug addictions if our focus was on curing them instead of arguing whose habit is worse.

I was only posting those articles to "try to help," but honestly do not believe those arguments themselves are helpful. I find they DETRACT from really solving problems. They waste resources arguing about issues after the fact and don't cure anything.

Before we go any further, can we at least agree that
smoking cannabis introduces more health risks
(either physically from smoking or psychologically from the risk of addiction)
than NOT SMOKING AT ALL.

Please let me know if you require scientific research
to prove this point, or if it is ok for us to assume that
* smoking anything at all
poses more risk to ones' health
than not smoking at all
* if patients are going to take MJ for medicinal purposes,
the oils or extracts specifically tested to be more effective,
are good enough and do not require smoking anything.

Could we agree to stick to arguments that do not require any research?

Otherwise, if anything deserves more research,
I'd rather push institutions to pursue medical research on the factor of forgiveness
in spiritual healing therapies that successfully cure the causes of addiction and abuse,
especially the methods of exorcism/deliverance that can cure people of things
that medicine alone cannot.

That is what is deserving of research and medical proof.
it would do a lot more to cure cancer than cannabis.

If you want to push for medical research to prove that
spiritual healing is more natural, effective and risk-free
than smoking cannabis to relieve symptoms of diseases,
yes, I will agree to push institutions to research and prove that.

Can we agree that no research is needed to prove that
* not smoking marijuana poses less risk to one's health than smoking it.
* the medicinal benefits of cannabis do not require smoking it

Thanks!

========================================
I tried to find more articles
but I generally do not agree with pursuing either side of this whole line of argument:
The Adverse Effects of Marijuana (for healthcare professionals) | California Society of Addiction Medicine
Pharmacology and effects of cannabis: a brief review

I could run back and forth trying to dig up this and that,
but frankly why isn't more research being done and asked for
on SPIRITUAL HEALING that can CURE cancer, schizophrenia, addiction, etc.

Cannabis cannot do that. Why is so much research focused on fighting media issues
about "impairment or addiction" instead of focusing on medical cures and solutions
that could potentially reform our entire prison, medical and mental health systems?

Spiritual healing can even cure criminal illness.

Look at the case of David Berkowitz (formerly the Son of Sam)
who is now a different person when he rid himself of occult influences
that enslaved him with psycho obsessions under which he killed people.

Where is the research on that?

Dr. Peck observed the impact of Exorcism on two "incureable"
schizophrenic patients, where they went through all the stages
to regain their normal state of mind so they could undergo proper
treatment instead of rejecting it due to "demonic" personality and rages.

So it does disturb me that so many people are more concerned
with research on marijuana to defend arguments on legalization.

if Cannabis and Medicinal Advocates were SO concerned about
people's health and lives, why isn't there equal research or efforts in
spiritual healing that is 100% natural with no risks or ill side effects?

Of all the people i've shared this idea with, of medically proving the
process of spiritual healing, and reports of it curing cancer, schizophrenia,
and other diseases, only ONE person on this board offered to even read
the books and look into it, with a sincere interest in understanding how
the healing process works. I will try to contact Harvard about following
up on their study that showed no results of intercessory prayer, and ask
about forming a team to study exorcism and removing demonic voices
and obsessions in schizophrenic patients.

I should not have brought up links if they are not going to help.
Sorry about that!

 

[emilynghiem]

It's the bullshit that pisses me off. It's the pretense that doesn't solve a damn thing.

Just by legalizing it - we can cut the number of people in federal prison by about 27,000. That helps solve quite a bit right there.

(Numbers from the Federal Bureau of Prisons)
http://www.ussc.gov/Data_and_Statis...cing_Updates/USSC_2013_Quarter_Report_4th.pdf

Are we planning on using all drugs to make the point of one drug? Are we distinguishing between trafficking and simple possession?

Again. It's the bullshit factor. There are a boatload of people that just want to smoke a couple blunts a day in their home, wearing underwear and eating a bowl of Captain Crunch and playing video games. They don't care what argument is proposed as long as that's what they can do. 'Fess up and say so.

The other group of people saw a whole bunch of money and wanted to get their cut. Throw spaghetti at the wall arguments. Talk about how it's the problem solver when it's not. 'Fess up and say so.

Both camps whip out medicinal use when it's convenient. That is a different type of category.

Dear Disir:
I think KevinW was honest and clear when he stated his motivation was the money and revenue. To me, that contradicts arguments, blaming the alcohol industry and govt for pushing their agenda for money if that is all you care about either, but that is KW world.

In my world, I agree with you that people are jumping on this issue for political convenience for their own benefits, and don't really care about autistic children or cancer or AIDS patients. If they did, they would push for "medical research" into spiritual healing that is even more natural, free, effective and without risks than cannabis.

Instead, they only ask or care about research that focuses on cannabis. What does that tell you? of course they have an agenda.

To give credit, there is ONE person on this board who isn't on drugs, doesn't support that, but pushes legalization to help those who need medicinal access and relief AND DOES RESPOND to the issue of spiritual healing and the ability to help more people this way.

ONE PERSON.

Others may be on a one-track agenda, but at least honest about their arguments as KevinW did not have anything to hide. While the majority of responders on here HONESTLY do not believe in any physical addiction or tolerance issues.

I probably align most with you and K&D,
while I am willing to include and defend the other viewpoints equally in order to reach a consensus on policy that takes ALL our objections and issues into account to resolve them.

Where we do not agree to pay for each other's policies politically, that is where I suggest we all push for the various parties to operate and fund their own separate systems.
We can agree on the central policy on the public level, and then privatize the rest where we believe in funding or following different standards. We only fund what we all agree on, and whatever we don't, we accept responsibility for the implications. That is another reason why i would push for spiritual healing, so I don't have to pay for all the extra costs of criminal addiction and abuse that "could have been cured for free." I believe we could invest in education, housing and health care with the resources we'd save per state.

if the Democrats want to run things through centralized systems of schools, housing and health care as their own govt, that's fine, we could do that through the party system and structures for electing local, state and national reps. Republicans who want to protect free market enterprise, can use funds/taxes for microlending to create a network of independent businesses, charities, schools, and nonprofits to run things instead of govt.

Back to the arguments, it is mighty odd to feel I must be "the only person in the world" who has had friends who are addicted to pot and wouldn't stop because they are convinced they aren't harming themselves or their minds -- where "coincidentally" the only ones who successfully quit ADMITTED THEY HAD AN ADDICTION THAT IMPAIRED THEIR JUDGMENT.

And the only person who seemed to understand the significance of spiritual healing WASN'T ON DRUGS OR TRYING TO JUSTIFY A HABIT. Is that a coincidence also?

So of course, given the fact I have run into too many people mixed into this issue with other political agenda besides public health, I am biased and deeply concerned about spreading any misconceptions underestimating the dangers of addiction and denial.

If we reached an agreement on that, I think that would overcome one of the key barriers in decriminalization and moving from retributive to restorative systems of justice.

We'll see if we can get there, with the few people who aren't in denial about the dangers of marijuana addiction. The rest will benefit also, but in the meantime, they hurt the credibility of the arguments by contradicting their own complaints about the motivation of others.

I think this will diminish the more people get united who do have faith in solutions to end the criminal addiction, abuse and trafficking issues that fuel the fear and dependence on law enforcement to rule by punishment. Assuming there are no dangers just makes the fear and opposition worse. I really wish we didn't have that additional battle to fight that gets tacked on to this issue. but that's part of the process of reaching consensus.

In the end, I think we'll see that our diversity in approach and opinion helps reach out and bring together more people. So it helps more than it hurts. We need to show that our differences do not need to block anybody from developing solutions we all agree with. We don't necessarily need to convert or change minds in order to work things out together.

Thanks again for everyone here!
May the best of what each of you brings to the table make the banquet complete.
You are all very special with valuable insights and contributions. Thank you!

 

[MikeK]

"Very few" means "none" and "not very" means "not". Having no withdrawal symptoms (euphemized as "very few") kinda seals the deal. Stop trying to stretch, Harry.

And we have a word for "mental addiction": habit. Anything can be a habit; coffee in the morning, taking a certain route to a destination, watching football, posting on this board. That doesn't make any of them "addictions".

Feel free to post any evidence at all of cannabis inducing nausea, "GI problems" and the like. Talk is cheap.

Pogo....its from Psychology today.....i know you think im brilliant,but i did not write the article....and a "habit" is mental....is it not?....

Well why did you post it then? Without a link I might add... of course a habit is mental. That's my point; addiction is physical. You're trying to fit an addiction peg into a habit hole. It won't work.

And yes, I know you're brilliant. That's why I wanted to put you back on track here.

I believe the reference is to a May, 2012, article by Lynn O'Connor, PhD, who teaches Clinical Psychology at UC Berkeley.

My late wife was a clinical psychologist and her position on this subject is diametrically opposed to Dr. O'Connor's rather misleading presentation. Another opposing opinion is found in, Marijuana, The Forbidden Medicine, by Dr. Lester Grinspoon, MD, PhD, Professor of Psychiatric Medicine, Harvard Medical School. What Dr. O'Connor fails to emphasize in her article is the critically important fact that the active components in marijuana THC/CBD impart absolutely none of the biological effects common to addiction to such substances as opiates and amphetamines.

What Dr. O'Connor describes in her article are the symptoms of Addictive Personality Disorder, which she should be thoroughly familiar with but fails to elaborate on. Factually, the symptoms of "marijuana addiction" described in her article are suggestively induced and are for the most part imaginary. Those marijuana users who respond so acutely to cessation of marijuana use may be compared to individuals who experience suicidal despair from rejection in a love affair. Such individuals lose weight and manifest symptoms of various medical conditions but such dependency on the attention of another person is invariably traced to some deficit in the personality of the sufferer. It is a psychological disorder and nothing more.

Both my wife and I enjoyed marijuana throughout the sixties and seventies when it was decriminalized in New York City. But we stopped abruptly when Ronald Reagan escalated Nixon's irrational War On Drugs, which threatened our freedom. We both missed the tranquil euphoria and the mind-expanding effects of the drug, but withdrawing from it was simply an exercise in mind over matter. We wanted it but we couldn't have it and in time the recollection of the experience diminished. There was nothing more dramatic than that.

I haven't used marijuana in over thirty years. If it became legally available to me I would resume using it in edible form (I'm too old to be smoking anything).

One drug I would like to try is MDMA (ecstasy) but it is high on Big Brother's list of forbidden experiences. So at this time I will settle for hearing about the experience from anyone who is familiar with it.

 

[bluesman]

The war on drugs is bogus. The people who enforce the drug laws know it is bogus but they cannot say anything without jeopardizing their career in law enforcement.

There is little question that alcohol is much worse for society than reefer.

There is no question that ending the prohibition of marijuana would de-fund gangsters and cartels.

There is no question that the federal government is over-reaching when it seeks to control the consumption of marijuana and also outlaw the cultivation of industrial hemp as a cash crop.

The people who wan to keep the drug wars alive are the people that get money from it. Politicians get money from the prison and law enforcement lobby who want more money allocated to their industries.

The drug war and the prohibition of marijuana are both stupid things.

 

[Katzndogz]

The drug industry is so altruistic that they have no intention of making money off of American addiction. It's for the love of all mankind.

This is how drugs work they impair judgment. No addict could be expected to recognize the danger of addiction. It will always be wrong to want to stop an addict from using. It's the victims who complain, law enforcement who takes them off the streets or courts who put them away.

 

[Pogo]

And it's science that tells us you're full of shit.

 

[bluesman]

The drug industry is so altruistic that they have no intention of making money off of American addiction. It's for the love of all mankind.

This is how drugs work they impair judgment. No addict could be expected to recognize the danger of addiction. It will always be wrong to want to stop an addict from using. It's the victims who complain, law enforcement who takes them off the streets or courts who put them away.

That would be how a socialist would see it. This is America. There is nothing evil about profit or making money.

However, there is something wrong with the federal government outlawing the cultivation of commercial hemp. Benjamin Franklin was a hemp farmer and I am pretty sure he wouldn't agree with the over-reaching Drug War or the funding of Cartels and Gangsters that result from the prohibition of Marijuana.

 

[Pogo]

Presidents who smoked

Just sayin'. Gives a new meaning to "Presidential Papers".

 

[BlindBoo]

The drug industry is so altruistic that they have no intention of making money off of American addiction. It's for the love of all mankind.

This is how drugs work they impair judgment. No addict could be expected to recognize the danger of addiction. It will always be wrong to want to stop an addict from using. It's the victims who complain, law enforcement who takes them off the streets or courts who put them away.

Katz is like a Nazi and anyone who enjoys using recreational marijuana is a Jew.

"Into the showers you sub-human addicts!"

 

[KevinWestern]

The drug industry is so altruistic that they have no intention of making money off of American addiction. It's for the love of all mankind.

This is how drugs work they impair judgment. No addict could be expected to recognize the danger of addiction. It will always be wrong to want to stop an addict from using. It's the victims who complain, law enforcement who takes them off the streets or courts who put them away.

But Katz, say a musician smokes weed and conceives a wonderful piece of music that brightens the day of about 10 million individuals? Is that “a waste”? Was his judgement “impaired” when he made the song, or just altered?

Alcohol removes inhibitions, and makes people behave like animals. Marijuana makes people think and ponder. A countless number of very influential writers, businesspeople, musicians, directors, etc all swear by the drug to help them generate new ideas.

You don’t have to think in such black/white terms.

 

[emilynghiem]

So if you want legalization, do you agree to pay for the consequences, the costs, or health care treatment of any such person with personality disorders who gets addicted?

If a child gets sick from digesting a brownie left in a park that contains MJ,
should other people have to pay for that who didn't agree to legalization?

(Or would this be like the Obamacare changes, where both sides will deny blame for the problems, saying it wasn't caused by the reforms but "would have happened anyway.")

How do you suggest to prevent the same problems from happening where currently we cannot even keep alcohol away from danger addicts who will drive drunk etc.

If people cared enough to come up with a better policy, this could be more beneficial if it also applies to stopping similar issues with alcohol that aren't easily policed either.

Pogo....its from Psychology today.....i know you think im brilliant,but i did not write the article....and a "habit" is mental....is it not?....

Well why did you post it then? Without a link I might add... of course a habit is mental. That's my point; addiction is physical. You're trying to fit an addiction peg into a habit hole. It won't work.

And yes, I know you're brilliant. That's why I wanted to put you back on track here.

I believe the reference is to a May, 2012, article by Lynn O'Connor, PhD, who teaches Clinical Psychology at UC Berkeley.

My late wife was a clinical psychologist and her position on this subject is diametrically opposed to Dr. O'Connor's rather misleading presentation. Another opposing opinion is found in, Marijuana, The Forbidden Medicine, by Dr. Lester Grinspoon, MD, PhD, Professor of Psychiatric Medicine, Harvard Medical School. What Dr. O'Connor fails to emphasize in her article is the critically important fact that the active components in marijuana THC/CBD impart absolutely none of the biological effects common to addiction to such substances as opiates and amphetamines.

What Dr. O'Connor describes in her article are the symptoms of Addictive Personality Disorder, which she should be thoroughly familiar with but fails to elaborate on. Factually, the symptoms of "marijuana addiction" described in her article are suggestively induced and are for the most part imaginary. Those marijuana users who respond so acutely to cessation of marijuana use may be compared to individuals who experience suicidal despair from rejection in a love affair. Such individuals lose weight and manifest symptoms of various medical conditions but such dependency on the attention of another person is invariably traced to some deficit in the personality of the sufferer. It is a psychological disorder and nothing more.

Both my wife and I enjoyed marijuana throughout the sixties and seventies when it was decriminalized in New York City. But we stopped abruptly when Ronald Reagan escalated Nixon's irrational War On Drugs, which threatened our freedom. We both missed the tranquil euphoria and the mind-expanding effects of the drug, but withdrawing from it was simply an exercise in mind over matter. We wanted it but we couldn't have it and in time the recollection of the experience diminished. There was nothing more dramatic than that.

I haven't used marijuana in over thirty years. If it became legally available to me I would resume using it in edible form (I'm too old to be smoking anything).

One drug I would like to try is MDMA (ecstasy) but it is high on Big Brother's list of forbidden experiences. So at this time I will settle for hearing about the experience from anyone who is familiar with it.

Question: if people believe or don't believe in abortion, or experimenting with drugs, or have different views about driving and drinking, how can we be expected to be under one health care policy that pays for costs? Shouldn't we have freedom to organize where we are not forced to pay for other people's choices, lifestyles or habits we don't believe in?

What if we separated systems by party or by district. Is there a way to do this, where everyone has MORE freedom to follow their beliefs without interference by other views?

 

[thanatos144]

And if the majority of people decide not to make a harmful drug legal?

tapatalk post

 

[bluesman]

And if the majority of people decide not to make a harmful drug legal?

tapatalk post

Then they will re-instate the prohibition of alcohol.

 

[bluesman]

So if you want legalization, do you agree to pay for the consequences, the costs, or health care treatment of any such person with personality disorders who gets addicted?

If a child gets sick from digesting a brownie left in a park that contains MJ,
should other people have to pay for that who didn't agree to legalization?

(Or would this be like the Obamacare changes, where both sides will deny blame for the problems, saying it wasn't caused by the reforms but "would have happened anyway.")

How do you suggest to prevent the same problems from happening where currently we cannot even keep alcohol away from danger addicts who will drive drunk etc.

If people cared enough to come up with a better policy, this could be more beneficial if it also applies to stopping similar issues with alcohol that aren't easily policed either.

Well why did you post it then? Without a link I might add... of course a habit is mental. That's my point; addiction is physical. You're trying to fit an addiction peg into a habit hole. It won't work.

And yes, I know you're brilliant. That's why I wanted to put you back on track here.

I believe the reference is to a May, 2012, article by Lynn O'Connor, PhD, who teaches Clinical Psychology at UC Berkeley.

My late wife was a clinical psychologist and her position on this subject is diametrically opposed to Dr. O'Connor's rather misleading presentation. Another opposing opinion is found in, Marijuana, The Forbidden Medicine, by Dr. Lester Grinspoon, MD, PhD, Professor of Psychiatric Medicine, Harvard Medical School. What Dr. O'Connor fails to emphasize in her article is the critically important fact that the active components in marijuana THC/CBD impart absolutely none of the biological effects common to addiction to such substances as opiates and amphetamines.

What Dr. O'Connor describes in her article are the symptoms of Addictive Personality Disorder, which she should be thoroughly familiar with but fails to elaborate on. Factually, the symptoms of "marijuana addiction" described in her article are suggestively induced and are for the most part imaginary. Those marijuana users who respond so acutely to cessation of marijuana use may be compared to individuals who experience suicidal despair from rejection in a love affair. Such individuals lose weight and manifest symptoms of various medical conditions but such dependency on the attention of another person is invariably traced to some deficit in the personality of the sufferer. It is a psychological disorder and nothing more.

Both my wife and I enjoyed marijuana throughout the sixties and seventies when it was decriminalized in New York City. But we stopped abruptly when Ronald Reagan escalated Nixon's irrational War On Drugs, which threatened our freedom. We both missed the tranquil euphoria and the mind-expanding effects of the drug, but withdrawing from it was simply an exercise in mind over matter. We wanted it but we couldn't have it and in time the recollection of the experience diminished. There was nothing more dramatic than that.

I haven't used marijuana in over thirty years. If it became legally available to me I would resume using it in edible form (I'm too old to be smoking anything).

One drug I would like to try is MDMA (ecstasy) but it is high on Big Brother's list of forbidden experiences. So at this time I will settle for hearing about the experience from anyone who is familiar with it.

Question: if people believe or don't believe in abortion, or experimenting with drugs, or have different views about driving and drinking, how can we be expected to be under one health care policy that pays for costs? Shouldn't we have freedom to organize where we are not forced to pay for other people's choices, lifestyles or habits we don't believe in?

What if we separated systems by party or by district. Is there a way to do this, where everyone has MORE freedom to follow their beliefs without interference by other views?

Yes there is a system like that. You would have to conquer a section of land, declare yourself the dictator, have a military force to back you up, and then tell everybody exactly how to live. Your dictatorship will be what we would call here an over-reaching government but drugs and birth control could be illegal and then you could tell the poor people to feed their own damn babies.

 

[thanatos144]

And if the majority of people decide not to make a harmful drug legal?

tapatalk post

Then they will re-instate the prohibition of alcohol.

So it is ether you get your drugs or you use fascism. You sure it isn't addictive?


tapatalk post

 

[bluesman]

And if the majority of people decide not to make a harmful drug legal?

tapatalk post

Then they will re-instate the prohibition of alcohol.

So it is ether you get your drugs or you use fascism. You sure it isn't addictive?


tapatalk post

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying it would be fascism to make alcohol illegal but it is not fascism when marijuana is singled out? There is little question that marijuana users don't get all rowdy or start beating their wife. Why should the federal government be telling citizens what the can and cannot consume?

 

[FA_Q2]

Bars are businesses that could be shut down or lose their licenses. These would be corporations writing legislation. Just like the privatized prisons that write legislation to increase the prison population.

They aren't going to prison for smoking a joint on the porch. Now, you can go to jail for smoking a joint on the porch depending on where you live but you aren't going to prison for it.


Cutting the bullshit. Don't dress it up with a bunch of feel good bullshit. You changed dealers. It's about tapping the cash and not about improving the economy or putting Americans back to work in these tough times.

And that is different than Anheuser-Busch how? The parallel with alcohol and MJ are extremely close. We are better off without prohibition and we will be better off without the same for MJ. The historical proof is already there.


It’s not about tapping the cash either btw. It is about not allowing the government to control all the asinine decisions that a person can make. It is about addressing the ACTUAL problems that drug abuse brings – something that prisons do not do but rather exacerbate the problems. It is about real regulation on drugs rather than illegalization that leads to dangerous and unknown products. It is about removing the various other infringements on our rights that come along with a failed war against personal actions. It is about removing the dealers and the crime that they perpetuate. It is about securing a border that is mainly breached with murderous drug runners who will rape and kill at will. In short, it is about restoring basic freedoms and sanity to a failed system.

It's all about the cash. At no point in time have the actual problems been addressed and there is a reason for that. Again. It's all about the cash. Morality can be bought 2 for a dollar at your local 7-11. State rights my ass. If you don't change it at the federal level then it can be taken away at any time. Last time I checked federal law supersedes state law.
So, since you have no intention of reading what I wrote earlier and every day is a brand new day let's recap.

First, the black market is going to exist because the street has better quality and a lower price and in places such as Colorado---you can buy it after 7PM. Quality and price have been a primary bitch since this started. And where was one of the sources in January off the street in Colorado? Grown in Nebraska.

Territory. So, what's the problem with a couple of corporations that are involved? Well, as we have seen from your pals at ALEC they have a tendency to write the legislation. Just like they do in places like Arizona where the privatized prisons profit off of inmates. It's just business, right? And these corporations are different, right? Tell me how those six plants grown at home are going to impact business. Tell me what the repercussions are going to be for those that are popped for dealing without a license. Tell me you care just as much about those folks going to prison as you did in using them to justify passing it. You know, the whole destroy lives thingy? Kind of like how at the very same time there is a desperate attempt to attach a morality in buying from the dispensaries because it's not attached to violence.

What did Al Capone actually go down for? Tax evasion.

Your cartels aren't the violence. Listen to what they are telling you. Violence is useful to teach someone a lesson but it's really bad for business as a full time gig and if it was all about the cartels there wouldn't be violence across the border. Marijuana is bulky and here and there is fine but it's not worth the risk by the time it hits here. It isn't the be all that it's made out to be. Marijuana is not the cause of violence with the gang bangers. So, we can cut the shit there. But your right, they do morph. But, if we focus on the cartels then any marijuana that would come from them wouldn't impact the businesses. Won't do a damn thing about the violence but it would be great for business in the states--unless the source is coming from what's grown in the states.

Even in the article provided, the violence is not from the cartel. The cartel provides the drug. It's like blaming a cartel for the gangbanging in the 90s.

But, I haven't heard too many opposition arguments either. If people were really concerned with addiction then they would start looking into what works and what doesn't. AA/NA isn't too damn successful. The 12 step programs are a billion dollar industry and they don't have to keep records beyond 3 months and if there are failures that are recognized then it's because of the individual. There's no comparison into the research. There is no comparison made between countries. Nothing. Nobody even bothers to mention dual diagnosis.

So, lets cut the shit on how this is a problem solver. It's not. Let's not pretend that this is going to impact the cartels. It's not. Let's not pretend that there is any actual caring involved in whom will be going to prison. It isn't there. Let's not pretend that this is actually going to rid the violence. It won't. It's about cash.

Meanwhile, the problems persist.

I read what you wrote previously. The problem is that every single one of those points has been addressed and destroyed by other posters already. You are still clinging onto the false assertion that there is a massive black market for alcohol. This is completely and absolutely false. The black market evaporated when it was made legal. It was the entire point of making it legal again – making it illegal failed miserably.

A lot of the problems are addressed with legalization. A point that has been made over and over again without any refutation from you other than demanding it’s about money over and over again. What problems does keeping drugs illegal solve? What exactly is the ‘benefit’ of such unsound policy? There is none – not a single benefit that is gained through the illegalization of MJ. We should start right there because if taking a freedom to act in one way provides zero benefit then the government has no reason or right to restrict that behavior.

 

[Politico]

Cannabis is not a drug, nor is it addictive. It is deliberately mischaracterized by the DEA.

Simple answer: government needs to stop lying about it.

Bahahaha!

 

[nodoginnafight]

So if you want legalization, do you agree to pay for the consequences, the costs, or health care treatment of any such person with personality disorders who gets addicted?

If a child gets sick from digesting a brownie left in a park that contains MJ,
should other people have to pay for that who didn't agree to legalization?

You treat it exactly the same way you would if someone left a half-empty bottle of booze in a park.

Why?

All your "tough" questions have already been answered a long time ago. It really isn't that confusing or complicated.

 

[Silhouette]

Cannabis is not a drug, nor is it addictive. It is deliberately mischaracterized by the DEA.

Simple answer: government needs to stop lying about it.

If the government needs to stop lying about it, it would then tell you it knows it is a multi billion dollar industry that used to stablize the economy of Mexico. And that now becoming legal for anyone to produce and sell, will cause the price of it to plummet and has done just that. Those involved in the new gold rush should enjoy their extremely tiny window of time for huge profits. Soon they won't be able to give it away on the streetcorner to kindergartners.

Meanwhile prepare for Mexico to disintegrate internally. Just in time for Russia to be advancing, doing more submarine tours in the Gulf or illegal flyovers with their fighter jets on the West Coast [both happened in the last couple of years]. Russia and China's pal Venezuela will smile through its rotting teeth as the Southern border of the US becomes a free for all. This is all too big for a pot head to take in though. They're too busy "just chillin'".

Tobacco companies have already bought up huge tracts of land preparing to crop out the green gold and when they do, that industry and a large part of Mexican economy will go "poof" up in smoke.

Keeping weed illegal and expensive therefore, does two things:

1. Deters kids from getting to it as readily which
A. Makes it harder for them to get and
B. Keeps it more enticing to keep them from going after easy meth or heroin

2. Preserves an entire nation's stability and in strategic alliance with the US.

Making it legal and inexpensive will make tobacco companies rich. Hippies are so stupid.