backtop


Print 76 comment(s) - last by The Raven.. on Jul 26 at 11:26 AM


Oakland, Calif. has just approved the nation's first "industrial" sized marijuana farms.  (Source: Memphis Flyer)

Californians will vote in November about whether to legalize recreational use.  (Source: A Greener Nation)
"Industrial" sized farm wins approval from the state of California, tests federal resolve

The U.S. is slowly approaching the legalization of the medicinal and recreational use of the Canabis sativa plant -- commonly known as marijuana or pot.  Now the city of Oakland, located in the San Francisco Bay Area, has announced the landmark approval of the nation's first "industrial" marijuana farms.

The city will offer up to four industrial licenses.  The huge licensed farms will mark a transition away from small local growers, who often operate in a less-regulated atmosphere.  The downside is the loss of small business, but a clear upside is a greater assurance of a quality, safe end of product.

An upside for the city is that it will be able to pull in tax revenue from the farm.  Currently while medical marijuana sales are taxed in California, cultivation generally is not. Council Member Jean Quan describes the plan to transform Oakland into the Silicon Valley of pot, stating, "This is going to grow as an industry. And someone is going to have a high-tech producer."

Opponents of marijuana offered little opposition to the approval of the large farms.  Only small growers voiced any major qualms with the plan, saying that they would be run under by this new "agribusiness".

Currently fourteen states have approved medical marijuana -- Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.  A number of states are also considering proposals to approval recreational use as well.  Detroit, Mich. will vote on a proposal to legalize recreational use this fall, as will the state of California.  Recent polls show that 50 percent of Californians support recreational use.

As a medicine marijuana can reduce nausea, reduce anxiety, induce hunger in chemotherapy patients (or patients with eating disorders), lower intraocular eye pressure, and act as a general pain reliever.

Recreational marijuana use is enjoyed by many Americans as it produces a state of relaxation and mild euphoria.  Use does impair motor skills, much like alcohol -- and may raise lung cancer risk.  However, according to an exhaustive study published in the medical journal 
Lancet, marijuana has a lower risk of both physical harm and dependence than alcohol and tobacco -- both legal recreational drugs in the U.S.

Many U.S. politicians including the popular U.S. Congressman from Texas Ron Paul support decriminalization of marijuana.

It appears that the last three U.S. Presidents all experimented with marijuana at one point.  Democratic President Bill Clinton (who served from 1992-2000) infamously claimed [video], "When I was in England, I experimented with 
marijuana a time or two, and I didn't like it.  I didn't inhale and never tried it again."

Republic President George W. Bush (who served from 2000-2008) stated, "Al Gore, I tried it, it wasn't part of my life."

And current U.S. President Barack Obama stated [video] in 2007, "When I was a kid I inhaled frequently." 

When asked if he inhaled, Obama, at the time serving as an U.S. Senator from Illinois quipped, "That was the point."

Under Obama's administration federal raids on growers in states with legalized marijuana have ceased.  Amid that backdrop and spreading medical use (and potentially recreational use) the stage appears to be clearly set for national legalization.  If that happens Oakland's decision to get a head start on industrial-scale growing may prove a very wise decision for the region's financial prosperity.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Never smoked myself
By Denigrate on 7/22/2010 9:03:03 AM , Rating: 5
Not a smoker, and never tried the stuff, but I've never really understood why it's illegal. I won't try it even if legalized as I'd rather have a beer and have no issues chilling out, but we've wasted billions upon billions of dollars on a relatively benign drug. More people are harmed by alcohol related issues than pot, and I'd guess it will remain that way.




RE: Never smoked myself
By meepstone on 7/22/10, Rating: 0
RE: Never smoked myself
By The Raven on 7/22/2010 9:35:14 AM , Rating: 5
I'm a libertarian so you should know my basic opinion on this issue, however you aren't entirely correct.

Whether you are smoking cigs, mary jane, cloves, Kingsford briquets, or a campfire you are harming your body. On top of that if the substance is a carcinagenic (which I understand smoked MJ is) it is even worse.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?co...

From my chemical dependancy class (circa 2002?) I basically was able to boil it down to the difference in harmful effect to your body between the 'evil weed' and cigs was everything but the effects of the smoking portion.

So what I'm saying is that put it in some brownies and now we're talkin'.

Anyway just my attempt at making sure everyone understands the known effects of the chronic lol. Somebody straighten me out if I'm mistaken.


RE: Never smoked myself
By Wiggy Mcshades on 7/22/2010 9:44:09 AM , Rating: 3
That's pretty correct as far as i know. Anything you light on fire then inhale is bad for your body. everyone just needs to vaporize it then its all rose pedals and sun shines.


RE: Never smoked myself
By Mitch101 on 7/22/2010 11:28:14 AM , Rating: 3
RE: Never smoked myself
By Wiggy Mcshades on 7/22/2010 11:58:10 AM , Rating: 2
im hearing a triple rainbow possibility is in the works


RE: Never smoked myself
By Mitch101 on 7/22/2010 1:05:49 PM , Rating: 2
But What does it mean?


RE: Never smoked myself
By ssjwes1980 on 7/22/2010 11:10:03 PM , Rating: 5
"you must construct additional pylons"


RE: Never smoked myself
By dsumanik on 7/25/2010 12:40:27 PM , Rating: 2
Hello guys, from canada here...

Anyways I am a former heavy smoker and quite familiar with the effects over the long term. You have a lot of laughs and fun at first, but then lose some short term memory, and motivation and it gets boring after awhile. Id probably say is prozac more harmful to a child.

Thats said The biggest fear I have from legalizing marijuana i the "combo" effect and impaired drivers on the roads.

What i mean by this, is that you can have 3-4 beers and still be able to drive just fine, likewise you can go smoke a joint, even a big one like a gram or so and again still be just fine to drive...however the problem is that if you have a few beers at a party..then smoke a joint...oh man, you are just trashed....and should not be driving.

There is no way for police to test for this combo effect either, likely a person could pass a breathalyzer when "combod" yet be far more intoxicated than if he/she had blown slightly over on just straight booze.

When i was a kid and funds were low, id pick up a 6 pack and a dime bag... your good to go a whole night on that easy whereas 6 beer aint gonna do all that much, or vise versa the dime bag on its own will last an hour or 2 at most.

Yeah it comes down to the individual making a judgement decision, but imagine if people found a foolproof way around breathalyzers...the fear of getting caught by the cops is what stops most people from driving, they never envision running someone over...but they can see can busted at a checkstop easy.

You can getreally messed up combining alcohol and weed, and I am sure in some scenarios still pass a breathalyzer when you shouldnt be driving...and there are idiots out there who will abuse this frequently and eventually kill someone.


RE: Never smoked myself
By quiksilvr on 7/22/2010 3:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
But smoking is so much cooler! Cmon maaan. Just gimme my zig zags and cannabis. I'll just grow a new lung like that rat did:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/21/rat-lungs-succe...


RE: Never smoked myself
By The Raven on 7/23/2010 4:11:56 PM , Rating: 2
lmao

I damaged my lungs just laughing at that.


RE: Never smoked myself
By kyleb2112 on 7/23/2010 6:44:21 AM , Rating: 3
This is what's always bugged me about the "medical" marijuana debate--the fact nobody even brings up putting the active ingredient in pill form to spare people's lungs. We've got all sorts of drugs based off opiates, but I don't see hospitals handing out crack pipes.


RE: Never smoked myself
By Ammohunt on 7/23/2010 2:48:08 PM , Rating: 2
I would like to see a study of people prescribed pot that ceased using it after they recovered from their problem...my guess is there are exactly 0.


RE: Never smoked myself
By Regected on 7/24/2010 8:23:44 AM , Rating: 2
There is a drug derived from THC. It's called Nortryptalin. They prescribe it as and anti-depressant and mild pain reliever. Ti's floating around free clinics and has even made its way quietly into Walmart's 4 prescription list. I've used it, and I've smoked weed; both act about the same, but the pill does not show up on a drug test.


RE: Never smoked myself
By nafhan on 7/22/2010 10:05:21 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah, I'm agreeing with Raven. Smoke is smoke; little particles made from burning one type of leaf generally aren't going to be a whole lot better or worse for you lungs than little particles made from burning a different type of leaf.
Overall, I really don't think it's legality has anything to do with it's affects on the human body. In fact in light of tobacco and alcohol being legal, I really don't get it at all.


RE: Never smoked myself
By acase on 7/22/2010 1:00:16 PM , Rating: 5
I'm no expert either...but I believe the bigger problem with cigarettes is all of the other ingredients put in there besides the tobacco.


RE: Never smoked myself
By TSS on 7/22/2010 5:37:26 PM , Rating: 2
I use the stuff, and had a little chat with my lung doctor when i got a collapsed lung (completly unrelated, i was in thought i'd ask) and he said the tar in weed was about 4 times as bad as tobacco (the packages, not cigs, don't know about those), basically negating less nicotine in weed.

However, as i understand nicotine, it's not actually nicotine that's harmfull for your body, it's the cancer-inducing product your liver processes it into. If that's true, then smoking weed is healhtyer then tobacco. But only slightly i'd imagine. You will still suffer throat and lung damage like any other smoker though.

Eating it doesn't have any ill effects that i'm aware of. But i will say that eating weed is different from smoking it. Smoking weed makes you stoned. Smoking hashisj makes you high. Eating weed makes you mellow. And yes, i know that doesn't make sense, i didn't understand much of it either before i experienced it.

All that said though, I'm of the firm oppinion that if your happy without drugs for gods sake don't ever start using them. They are only ment for those who cannot stand their perception of reality.


RE: Never smoked myself
By Ammohunt on 7/23/2010 2:51:11 PM , Rating: 2
So how do you know what reality you can stand if you are stoned all the time? or have been taking the pot for so long you don't remember what it was like to be non stoned?(Like Tommy Chong)


RE: Never smoked myself
By blueeyesm on 7/22/2010 9:14:00 AM , Rating: 2
Look for "Grass! The Documentary"
http://worldfilm.about.com/library/00nowplaying/bl...

This will explain why it was banned and became the posterchild for the 'drug war'.

(I wasn't aware it was banned in my province, though)


RE: Never smoked myself
By blueeyesm on 7/22/2010 9:14:48 AM , Rating: 2
(The movie, I meant)


RE: Never smoked myself
By mydogfarted on 7/22/2010 10:10:34 AM , Rating: 3
Also check out the CNBC special Marijuana Inc. A couple of key points:
- It costs almost as much to fight the war on pot as it destroys in street value of it. Keep in mind that number is often calculated on the weight of the plant, not the weight of the actual smokeable buds.
- A medical dispensary in Oakland CA pays $600,000 in taxes a year, and makes enough to provide medical insurance to all it's employees.

One of my worries about commercial farming of it, is big tobacco companies getting their dirty hands into it. Considering all the chemical additives they've added to tobacco, imagine what they'd do to pot.


RE: Never smoked myself
By BBeltrami on 7/22/10, Rating: 0
RE: Never smoked myself
By SoCalBoomer on 7/22/2010 2:38:20 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, a better model is to reduce the welfare programs and create educational/training programs to minimize the amount of dependents upon government programs. Now you have a constructive program instead of one that sustains a minimum living level and a minimum level of motivation.

We need money to go where it's needed - Cali's roads are horrid because gas tax money gets siphoned for entitlement programs and pensions. . . we don't need new revenue streams which merely encourage politicians to spend more. . .

That being said - I don't really care about Pot except to remind some friends that driving under its influence is the same as driving under alcohol's influence - it's DWI, not DWD . . . :D


RE: Never smoked myself
By theArchMichael on 7/22/2010 6:06:39 PM , Rating: 2
Its called "Work Fare" in New York. Giuliani is a bastard, but a lot of people in his first administration really did some good work with this and got a lot of people off welfare WHILE training them for decent jobs making decent money.

Are you mad because it sounds like a free ride for the bums on welfare?
It is.

They get more money, get paid to go to school and for training, the state helps them find good paying jobs.
But then, they are off welfare and they're contributing members of society.
It sucks that the system now is so inflexible and politicized that in many places it "pays" to be a deadbeat and not try to do anything with your life.

BTW, I can't wait to smoke some of this good G13 they're slanging over in CALI!


RE: Never smoked myself
By NaughtyGeek on 7/23/2010 12:19:38 PM , Rating: 2
The tax potential is not "fairie dust." Granted, the tax estimates being conjured up by some pro-legalization groups may be high, but where there is a market, there is a tax potential. The bigger problem with taxes is the failure to tax "socially acceptable" vices like soda. Everyone thinks it's a great idea to tax the crap outta smokers and drinkers because there's enough people that don't do it to maintain votes. However, when it's suggested that "acceptable" vices be taxed on the same levels as the taboo ones, there's a big uproar from the hypocrites. Legalize it, tax it, and let those who are living that life style tax free now join in with the rest of the tax base.


RE: Never smoked myself
By EJ257 on 7/22/2010 9:19:22 AM , Rating: 2
I never went out of my way to smoke it either but I have inhaled second hand smoke from it. I just never understood why it was kept illegal even after medical benefits were found from smoking it. I mean you have a lot of drugs which have far worst side effects (chemotherapy drugs for example) and they have been approved by the FDA for human use. Makes no sense.


RE: Never smoked myself
By Nik00117 on 7/22/2010 9:24:41 AM , Rating: 4
I find the vast majority of Americans tend to support the legalization of weed for both fun and medical purposes.

Did you know it takes 46,000 grams of weed to make a individual OD...and die...I'm sorry your not going smoke 46,000 grams of weed in one sitting...That just ain't going happen.

Secondly legalizing weed is going reduce the burden our prison system, and ploice force. In fact I know a ploice officer who said he doesn't care how much weed you have you, he isn't going arrest you for it.He said it's simply not worth his time.

Thirldly we can tax it!


RE: Never smoked myself
By jimhsu on 7/22/2010 10:04:52 AM , Rating: 5
To be clear here - an LD50 of 46000g doesn't mean that you can ingest that much without it killing you. It depends greatly on the route of administration.

The best famous example I have is the cheeseburger: a cheeseburger is decidedly nonlethal if administered orally (except for long term cardiovascular effects and whatnot), but is quite unpleasant if blended and administered intravenously. As is with marijuana; the smoked kind is far more lethal per gram than the swallowed/chewed kind, simply because the combusted carcinogens make it that much further into your body.


RE: Never smoked myself
By bubbastrangelove on 7/22/2010 10:11:51 AM , Rating: 3
You obviously never met my old fraternity brother Yak.


RE: Never smoked myself
By OUits on 7/22/2010 12:07:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I find the vast majority of Americans tend to support the legalization of weed for both fun and medical purposes.

Yeah but..
http://graphjam.com/2009/11/11/song-chart-memes-po...


RE: Never smoked myself
By Hiawa23 on 7/22/2010 11:06:29 AM , Rating: 3
not a smoker or drinker, never was, as my mother always told me never to drink or do drugs, 36, now, & that kind of stuck with me, but I think they should legalize the stuff in all states. They are not stopping anyone from getting the stuff & the amount of money spent trying to contain it has to be outragious, plus the number of people serving time for it has to also be a huge number. I look at it no different than beer, the govt should legalize, even start farming the stuff as there is alot of money to be made, tax it, cause like I said if you want it, you can easily get it, you can easily get it legally to.


RE: Never smoked myself
By Uncle on 7/22/2010 2:47:39 PM , Rating: 3
Thats because Alcohol is legal and Pots not. Once pot comes out of the closet I think the stats will change quite a bit. I'm not against any drugs. As long as the big Pharms can drug America into a stupor with all the different anti-depressant prescriptions and the big Pharms can have DRUG STORES in every town to peddle their wares whats there to argue about without looking like a hypocrite. If we can just keep the Big Pharms out of the Pot business, things might work out in the long run. If we can get back to growing more hemp for paper, clothes etc we'll have a win win for all.


By The Raven on 7/22/2010 9:45:43 AM , Rating: 4
Since states are usurping the power of the federal gov't I don't see how this is going to fly. I mean, AZ passes a law that upholds the federal laws by encouraging enforcement and that is a 'no no' but if you pass a law where you blatantly defy federal law like this or create sanctuary cities where you harbor enemies of the state it is ok?

(Disclaimer: I'm libertarian and not criticizing Obama alone, so don't reply to me with anything about Bush I/II, Clinton I ;-) , or Reagan regarding this. They are all rapscallions!)

States' rights now!




By bupkus on 7/22/2010 11:00:25 AM , Rating: 4
I believe the perception that the Federal government is distant and abusive towards individual rights and interests is growing.
There was a time not too long ago during the civil rights movement that the opposite was seen to be true. Now welcome the economic collapse and massive bailouts and lets not leave out Enron where the Federal government is seen as regulating business both not enough and too much depending on which side of the isle. Indeed, the Federal government and our two party system is run amuck and there seems no way to bring the system back into balance. With the nation at stake, incredible amounts of money in play and an incredible polarization of proposed solutions seemingly along ideological lines alone I would love to see a Federal downsizing and return now to greater states rights.


By ssjwes1980 on 7/22/2010 11:29:08 PM , Rating: 3
Funny that the side that didnt like Big Bother Gov. is all about it now. If the people that voted them in where smart they would be for states rights cause more power to the states = less Fed power/less power to make War. Ron Paul was the guy they really should have voted for hes a good mix of both sides endwar/smaller Gov/more freedom to the individual. What part of that message was lost on them? Oh right forgot he had an (R) by his name... People seem to not even look into who they vote for anymore. Wake the F*&K up people.


By Dark Legion on 7/23/2010 11:24:56 PM , Rating: 2
It's the (R) next to his name that's the problem. How many other people with an (R) next to their name actually share those beliefs and would vote for him? Clearly not nearly enough. And how many Dems would actually vote for an (R) that actually shares some of their beliefs? Again, not nearly enough.


By Denigrate on 7/22/2010 11:21:30 AM , Rating: 2
Reality is that the Federal gov has been trampling all over states rights for years. The States are merely taking back what was theirs in the first place.


By Treckin on 7/22/2010 12:29:36 PM , Rating: 1
Why would you criticize Obama for allowing MM states to cultivate in the face of federal restrictions, but then claim you support states rights... If anything you should be stoked for this particular brand of nullification.

On top of all that though, where the fuck has state's rights gotten us anyway? Understand that privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment to the constitution explicitly gives civil rights jurisdiction to the federal gvt because of the excesses of power that occurs under the confederate states (as well s many northrrn states and western territories).

In general the fed has attempted at least in mission if not in practice to protect the constitutional rights of minorities and whites alike, while states rights have classically served only the interest of the white wealthy businessmen.

You preach much Alexis de Tocqueville style stuff, nut you forget that Democracy in America was written before the civil war. It remains unclear if the leading supporters old America's super-decentralization would have stayed so ardent in the face of the trauma of the civil war.

Whatever they would have thought, I know for my part that individual locals only really care to preserve local traditions or autonomy In this society when they are attempting to preserve some vestigial institution or tradition.


By The Raven on 7/23/2010 4:12:16 PM , Rating: 2
RE:
quote:
Why would you criticize Obama for allowing MM states to cultivate in the face of federal restrictions, but then claim you support states rights... If anything you should be stoked for this particular brand of nullification.

I was illustrating how the feds are trying to have it both ways. I DON'T want it both ways. I think you misunderstood me. I want a state to be able to 'legalize pot' and 'enforce immigration law' if the people of the respective states so choose.

RE:
quote:
Where the **** has state's rights gotten us anyway?

Well if the founding fathers didn't believe in states rights then the right to own slaves might very well have been cauterized into the constitution at its signing. Though I don't think they would've actually agreed to that and therefore the USA most likely never would have came to be.

And the civil war itself? That is one of the best examples of the benefit of states' rights from the point of view that you are presenting. If there had not been free states, who do you think would've freed the slaves in the south? Not to mention, if you didn't want to be a slave, you could at least risk death or worse by escaping to a free state (thank you Harriet Tubman) until the laws changed. If all states had the same laws, the emancipation might have taken a lot longer to come to fruition.

On the other hand it could be argued that the gov't overstepped its bounds by forcing the south to give up slavery. Damn federal gov't! ;-)

So just remember, we need federal law and we need state law. It was one of the big debates during the formation of our country and it should continue to this day. Unfortunately people don't realize how much they should care to decide on what is a happy medium.
quote:
You preach much Alexis de Tocqueville style stuff, nut you forget that Democracy in America was written before the civil war. It remains unclear if the leading supporters old America's super-decentralization would have stayed so ardent in the face of the trauma of the civil war.

First of all I challenge you to find anything in "Democracy in America" that doesn't apply to us today (at least in part). I haven't really thought about it in the context of the civil war in particular, but I will have to do that.
Yes horrific things may come to past such as the Civil War, and de Tocqueville might waver in his thoughts, but as soon as he took a quick trip to the border he might move to Arizona where federal immigration law is actually going to be enforced or move to California were he can escape the horror with some ganja.


By xthetenth on 7/24/2010 6:09:08 PM , Rating: 2
Ha, you actually believe the confederate propaganda about states' rights. Look who had control of the government in the leadup to the Civil War. Oh, and look at the fugitive slave law of 1850, that was a gem. Northern states want to hold trials to see if an accused slave is actually a slave? Tough.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of...

"In 1854, the Wisconsin Supreme Court became the only state high court to declare the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional, as a result of a case involving fugitive slave Joshua Glover, and Sherman Booth, who led efforts that thwarted Glover's recapture. Ultimately, in 1859 in Ableman v. Booth the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the state court."

States' rights in action! Really, for every good thing the federal government manages to do, they either have or will do something equally bad.


By The Raven on 7/26/2010 11:26:00 AM , Rating: 2
RE: "confederate propaganda about states' rights"
Check your sarcasm detector.

The rest of your comment is confusing. Which side are you on? Do you want the federal gov't to get bigger or smaller?

I can't tell from your comment. Pending clarification I'll hold back a response. Thank you.


Legalize it.
By GrandMareg on 7/22/2010 9:49:55 AM , Rating: 5
And tax the living hell out of it. Solves a lot of issues.




RE: Legalize it.
By Whedonic on 7/22/2010 1:13:26 PM , Rating: 2
Seconded. I can see the chain reaction now:
Politician1: Hey, let's legalize pot so we can actually finance Iraq/Afganistan from the taxes!
Pol2: F'n great idea!
...time passes...
Pol1: Welp, we've made some huge monies, let's go do some more fightin'.
Pol2: Yeahhh, about that...with this stuff being legal and all, nobody wants to fight anymore.
Pol1: So what do we do with all this cash?
Pol2: Money fight?
Pol1: Money fight.


RE: Legalize it.
By JonnyDough on 7/22/2010 5:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
People with the legal right to have and grow it, will just grow it. Pot will have no dollar value at all once they legalize it. The only reason alcohol does is because its not as easy to make alcohol.


RE: Legalize it.
By brandonicus on 7/22/2010 6:58:11 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, because everyone has the patience and physical space to grow their own marijuana. Also, we all know how much the average pothead enjoys physical labor such as agriculture. This must explain why tobacco is failing...


RE: Legalize it.
By gorehound on 7/23/2010 9:25:44 AM , Rating: 2
I have been smoking weed since the fall of 1968.I wish to live long enough to see the prohibition end.
and on another note medical marijuana is a joke !!!
i live in maine and have hep-c, insomnia, no appetite, and seizures.i meet the conditions for this but no doctor is prescibing so i and others voted for yet another useless law.
they also want to sell weed at 300 - 400 per ounce which means you might as well just buy it illegally.
Screw This Government !!!!
I am sick of all you republicans and democrats


RE: Legalize it.
By The Raven on 7/23/2010 4:23:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah that would be better than the situation now. But I hate sin taxes (eventhough I don't smoke or drink or TAN!).

And easy with the taxes there nitro. Tax it too high and we're looking at creating alot of the problems that we are trying to eliminate ("moonshiners" "rum runners" etc., capice?, lol --- read: drug cartels).

Anyway I agree with the sentiment anyway given the current state of the laws.

But I wouldn't want to give anymore money to the gov't (state or federal) at this point as it just makes them stronger.


Great...
By xler8r on 7/22/10, Rating: 0
RE: Great...
By raumkrieger on 7/22/2010 9:21:52 AM , Rating: 2
As if they already aren't. Based on the way our country is going it would appear that most of the government is stoned out of their minds too.


RE: Great...
By Denigrate on 7/22/2010 11:17:58 AM , Rating: 2
Nah, the ruling class, both Parties, just think they are smarter than us and that we just don't know what we need. Apparently, individual freedoms need to be revoked to protect us from ourselves. Nevermind that our country was founded on the basis of individual freedom.
quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


RE: Great...
By Uncle on 7/22/2010 5:52:18 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not American. but is that from the Bill of rights or from the Constitution. This is one of the reasons why country's around the world have taken guns out of society or are in the process of doing so under the guise of Law and Order. Ever notice how country's that have clamped down on guns have some pretty strange Leaders and politicians coming to power ah hem excluding the wonderful, undeniably, fantastic, freedom loving, righteous, self centered Americans.


RE: Great...
By RjBass on 7/22/2010 9:25:00 AM , Rating: 2
That's our governments new way of thinking. If they make pot legal and half the country is stoned out of their gourd, then the government can get away with more as the stoner's simply won't care.


RE: Great...
By The Raven on 7/22/2010 9:36:32 AM , Rating: 2
That would be great if they were so stoned that they forget to vote. Bring it on.


RE: Great...
By nafhan on 7/22/2010 10:09:17 AM , Rating: 2
Look at the amount of time the average American spends watching TV, playing video games, and browsing the internet. Do you really think that would make much of a difference?
Responsible people will avoid it or use it at appropriate times, and the rest will just have another option for zoning out. I don't think it would make any difference at all.


RE: Great...
By Camikazi on 7/22/2010 1:12:53 PM , Rating: 2
Yea cause those people aren't already stoned all the time :P


RE: Great...
By priusone on 7/24/2010 1:46:38 AM , Rating: 2
If the people I know drank instead of smoked Mary J, there would be WAY more accidents and vehicular homicides. How many times do you hear of someone getting stoned and going home to beat their families? I've never cared for the stuff myself, but sheeple sure are stupid when if comes to being fed lies.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2063-alcohol...

Below is a DEA link. Just change the work marijuana to alcohol or cigarettes and it reads the same.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html


.
By Daniel8uk on 7/22/2010 11:02:56 AM , Rating: 2
This would be a very good business opportunity for our capitalist system, think about it, if the big lobbies can push hard enough and move this a step further, I.e. making pot totally legally for anyone and everyone (over a certain age of course) then it would open the flood gates for a market that is addicted to the product and hence a life-time supply of money coming in from each and every customer (give or take a few of course).

The amount of money over that time would be huge.




RE: .
By hexxthalion on 7/22/2010 11:52:59 AM , Rating: 1
"flood gates for a market that is addicted to the product"

there's no such a thing like an addiction to weed

i don't know anyone who's addicted to it


RE: .
By geddarkstorm on 7/22/2010 2:30:19 PM , Rating: 4
Yes.. yes there is addiction to weed, aka cannabis. Use of it also increases depression (because of the chemical dependence that develops for it to maintain well being instead of natural opioids in your brain) and the risk of other psychological disorders like psychosis or schizophrenia. See:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20635282
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20624444
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20534820

for just the tip of the iceberg.

No, it is not harmless, though it is not the most harmful thing out there. Nothing that screws with your neurotransmitter system is harmless, period, and will always, over long term exposure, mess up the brain. This is because the brain is plastic and will adapt to whatever it is repeatedly exposed to (even ways of thinking), literally changing its shape and function to extents.


RE: .
By derricker on 7/23/2010 12:39:09 AM , Rating: 1
Do you try things yourself or just parrot every study made by people who never try things first hand and designed solely to sustain statistics nobody believes??


RE: .
By hexxthalion on 7/23/2010 4:57:10 AM , Rating: 1
exactly... i've been smoking for a long long time and there have been times i simply haven't smoked for weeks/months even years. there's nothing like addiction to weed or hash, it's complete bullshit.

there's nasty addiction to ciggies which are legal.

What makes you high is amount of THC and also there 2 factors, combination and amount of them what gives you different experience.


If I RECALL correctly...
By Dean364 on 7/22/2010 10:06:36 AM , Rating: 2
Damn it Cohagen, GIVE THE PEOPLE AIR!!!!!




RE: If I RECALL correctly...
By smackababy on 7/22/2010 11:16:38 AM , Rating: 2
YOU IDIOT! YOU BLEW MY COVER! THEY'LL KILL US ALL!


Intoxicants and Taxes
By Spacecomber on 7/22/2010 2:02:07 PM , Rating: 4
The Smithsonian Magazine recently had an article on the passing of prohibition laws in the 1920s.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/...

One of the interesting facts that was noted was how much of our federal government had been funded by liquour taxes up until then. It was the advent of the national income tax that put the prohibitionists in a position to get their legislation passed, i.e., they could argue that it was fiscally feasible to do so.

Of course, the flow of alcohol and money wasn't stopped by prohibition, it simply made organized crime a more powerful force in american society.

The parallels to our modern society are obvious. The illegality of recreational drug use has hardly stemmed its use. Americans continue to consume great quantities of recreational drugs, and the money generated flows into the hands of war lords and drug cartels that eventually became powerful enough to destabilize their governments (Afganistan, Columbia, and Mexico leap to mind).

Now, cash strapped state governments dream of tapping into this source of revenue for themselves. Personally, I don't find this any more noxious than state sponsored gambling as a source of revenue, and I think it lays the groundwork for a much more realistic way of coping with the problems that drug use can cause for some people. Instead of relying on jail sentences to try to manage drug abuse, we can turn to education and treatment (as we largely do with alcohol). And, we may be doing our allies, who have been put in the position of fighting our drug problem on their soil, a favor by cutting out the need for an illegal drug trade.

The current method of dealing with recreational drug use clearly is broken in this country, and I think decriminalization and regulation makes more sense.




No Objections?
By scumofscotland on 7/22/2010 2:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, I guess I am now officially completely out of tune with our current culture since I see no posts in opposition to legalizing pot. Are none of you concerned about how this will further promote millions of people to spend their time with numbed minds? For those of you who have children are you not already hard pressed to counter balance a culture that encourages drug use? Does your vision of life only center around increasing tax revenue and/or a desire to spend your time stoned?




RE: No Objections?
By nOpeMan on 7/22/2010 6:34:21 PM , Rating: 2
Can tell you a story from switzerland. We give out methadon or some stuff to herion addicts since ten years or something. Example for the whole world to take care of addicts (at least some say so).

On the other hand, smoking tabako is still legal with 14, wine and beer 16 and the "hard" stuff 18.

I wouldn't worry about legal dope in america, you have the "substances" all on age 21 anyway. I would worry about bloody gunfights in the southern regions of your continent, fueled by about I guess, 20% good old MJ.


Needs Correction....
By blueeyesm on 7/22/2010 9:10:05 AM , Rating: 2
"...marijuana has a lower risk of both physical harm and dependence than alcohol and tobacco..."

not 'that'.




This is brilliant!
By moenkopi on 7/22/2010 12:27:59 PM , Rating: 2
This could be the most brilliant thing! Maybe this will stop those violent drug gangs from taking over the country of Mexico, and stop illegal immigration at the same time.




Monumental waste of money and life
By Motoman on 7/22/2010 12:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
The "war on drugs" is a catastrophic failure, and an utter waste of taxpayer money. And because such drugs still remain illegal, drug runners risk their lives getting it from one place to another.

The federal government needs to admit this abject failure, that there never was any reason for the ban in the first place, and legalize and tax pot. Period. No other course of action would bear any resemblance to reality.




the irony of it...
By chalupa on 7/22/2010 1:06:39 PM , Rating: 2
So when some people turned to selling drugs to support their otherwise unattainable lifestyle, government prosecuted them. But now it's ok to sell drugs if it solves our gov't financial problem? Haha.
My point is really not against marihuana. I personally don't think its a destructive drug. Legalization of it is probably right, but it's still for the wrong reasons. Gov't needs to figure out a way to spend less than they make and not support themselves with the drug money. What happens when they run out of money again? Will the legalize coke and crystal meth just because it could be taxed?




High-tech uh?
By corduroygt on 7/22/2010 4:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
Now that's a high-tech farm if I ever knew one :)

I'm generally OK with this idea as long as it's just as strictly regulated as alcohol and people are reminded that THC stays in your system for weeks, unlike alcohol, which is gone by the next day.

Driving with THC level above a certain limit should be DUI and Jail time, I don't want some stoners crashing into me.




Yay!
By dj LiTh on 7/22/2010 6:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
Yay!!! Wait what was the article about again?




legalities
By NickR on 7/22/2010 6:42:13 PM , Rating: 2
the legal issues attached to Pot was all about the 1920's industralist keeping a lock on investment - substantial monies had been invested by the likes of Paul Getty in wood plantations to support print news papers etc - the Hemp plant makes the most wonderful paper and rope, cheaper easier and much better quality - with a little work (like the manufacture of Flax) it can be used as textiles, and has a number of industrially useful extracts. So as usual the legality was about Big US money wanting to safe guard their incomes.




Canada loves Pot
By Pastuch on 7/23/2010 4:05:20 PM , Rating: 2
As a Canadian I want to take a minute to say 'bravo!' to our southern neighbors. 15% of Canadians have openly admitted to smoking pot so you have to assume the number is double that. The closer the US gets to decriminalization the closer we get to nationwide legalization and taxation. I'm honestly shocked the Canadian government didn't legalize years ago. Usually when they see new tax revenue the deal is done ASAP.




Come On!
By JEEPMON on 7/24/2010 2:16:12 AM , Rating: 2
I know the HUGE push to legalize pot use is from 99% pot smokers. But do we need another drug that is legal that greatly impairs judgment and reflexes like alcohol. Isn't alcohol enough? Will there be any now police tests to see if you are over the limit of pot?
We have enough people dying from drunk drivers now double that from pot impaired drivers.
STUPID!
I don't care if pot is less harmful to your body that cigs or alcohol it is the idiots operating heavy machinery driving buses and cars and flying planes or even riding bicycles or motorcycles. Trust me if you smoke pot you have lost some of your mind already and you need all you can get.
Also if you want pot legal then make all the stuff legal like crack meth extacy heroin why have ANY illegal?
instead of focusing on smoking dope get a job, and education, volunteer you time and money to charities read and make yourself better.




Oakland IS NOT SILICON VALLEY
By stm1185 on 7/22/10, Rating: 0
"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki