I am as close to a teetotaler as exists anywhere. I don't do booze nor any other mind altering substance. If legalized, I do not expect to use hemp.

But, I am sick and tired of the misuse and abuse of drug laws to rob law abiding citizens.

In the late 70's, I took an elective criminal justice course in the community college. We had to do a term paper. I chose the thesis that hemp was not that much worse than alcohol to justify a life sentence for one reefer in, I think it was South Dakota, not sure after 35 years.

In the end, after searching many days for scientific evidence how bad hemp really was, I had to change the thesis to: it would be better if everyone stopped using alcohol and used hemp.

There were two major studies, one in India by the British India Hemp Drug Commission, which found exactly that.

And, the second was in NYC, Mayor la Guardia's commission found exactly the same thing.

About that time, Consumer's Report did a feature article on a study on an ocean isle where large amounts of hemp are eaten. No difference in social issues (jail time; DV; sicknesses; crime; etc.) were found between the users and non-users. Well, there was a minor difference in susceptibility to a rare virus, big deal.

What I found was at the end of Prohibition, the liquor companies spent millions of dollars on the hoax that hemp turns people into raging killers. It doesn't. It's all about stiffing the competition, period.

Over the years, as hoaxes about hemp are disproved, they change it. When it was easily proved hemp does not turn you into a raging killer, the next hoax was it causes you to use harder drugs. That was also disproved. Finally, at one stage, all they could say was it caused possibly perhaps maybe a change in neurons in the brain.

They shut up for a while, then started back with the hoax that it turns you into a raging killer.

I hate liars. Over the years I have become an extremist on drugs, and think all drug laws involving any form of government should be repealed. All, 100%.

Alcohol has always been our worst problem, yet it is totally legal, and only those who misuse it are arrested for the crimes they commit. Enough already.

Legalize it. This is one I've changed my mind on since visiting Amy's site.

But there is a fourth reason too. California (hippy) pot growers in Humbolt are shaking in their boots - so are the gangsters (all of whom probably voted for Obama who is going to tax the rest of us mercilessly) because this will open up competition in their markets and their revenue will be impacted by both the free market and state/federal taxes. HA! Take that suckers! 'Bout time you guys started paying your fair share - who knows, maybe it will turn them into conservative tax hawks.

Yet none of these Humbolt Hippies know how to get creative - this could be a boom for them, actually. Just as Napa has their wine tasting rooms and vineyards...so should Humbolt have theirs...hmmmm. And just like Napa, the surrounding businesses would thrive (especially small diners opened at 3 am).

I don't touch the stuff personally. It makes me paranoid.

I had heard that teenagers smoking pot during brain development years increases the chances of developing schizophrenia. Does anyone know if this is BS? If it is true, maybe a 21 age requirement would suffice.

Anyways. Legalize it. Amy has convinced me!!!

Legalize it and tax the hell out of it.

If you want to grow your own you have to have a tax stamp (easily obtained at the local city office) and you have to have reasonable precautions to protect your crop, i.e. surrounded by a tall chain link fence. If you are caught growing without a tax stamp, it is a civil fine at double to quadruple getting the stamp.

It would be sold the same way alcohol is. You get get 10 or 20 joints for $20. Out of that $5 would go to the manufacturer, $5 for the fed, $5 for the state, and $5 to cover drug rehab programs.

If you can't pass the roadside test or refuse to take it (and pass the the breathalyzer), you have to take a piss test for THC. If you fail the THC test and won't do the roadside gymnastics, you lose your license for three months.

States can opt in or out on it. Just like they did after prohibition, but carrying it through a "non-use" state would not be illegal.

I'm not sold on legalization of marijuana. Back in the '70s, it was easy to obtain and relatively cheap, and friends and I smoked it a lot. But legalization would send a message that it's OK. Well, as a parent, I don't agree that it's OK. I can't speak for others, but speaking for myself I find that its true that impaired my short-term memory somewhat. If legalized, it's likely to deleteriously affect a lot of people.

Gillespie talks about marijuana being safer than marijuana. I don't buy that - not exactly. A stoned person doesn't to have the same abilities to react that a non-stoned person has; it impairs coordination, like alcohol. This could be a life-or-death matter for people driving while stoned or operating machinery. They are potentially not only a danger to themselves, but to whomever is in a car with them, e.g., or to other motorists on the road. Being caught driving while stoned should be roughly similar to a D.W.I. (which is quite severe in my state.)

It's true that marijuana doesn't affect the body like alcohol does. Whether it's addictive or not may depend on the individual. Years back, I think I found it somewhat addictive to the extent that it provided an escape of sorts for a young adult (myself) who wasn't fully mature. The irony is that persistent use of the stuff makes coping with life harder than it is vis-a-vis completely abstaining. Also regarding physical effects, it has a bad effect that booze doesn't have - the crapping up of the lungs, in a matter similar to cigarette smoking.

I agree with those who say that even if it is made legal, it's still pretty bad for teens; old people, with their aches, pains, and sad memories are the ones who need it most.

But to those who say "my kid was a straight-A student before becoming addicted to pot" I'd say: Never underestimate the secret desire of a teen to escape responsibility and the need to grow up in general. There are, after all, kids who ruin their grades and prospects with nothing more than too much skateboarding and screen time - because they WANT to. I.e., pot is the symptom more than the cause.

And, from Barbara Ehrenreich's "Drug Frenzy" essay from her collection of essays from the 1980s: "The Worst Years of Our Lives: Irreverent Notes from a Decade of Greed":

"Alcohol is the drug that undid my parents. When my own children reached the age of exploration, I said all the usual things - like 'No.' I further told them that reality, if carefully attended to, is more exotic than its chemically induced variations. But I also said that, if they still felt they had to get involved with a drug, I'd
rather it were pot than Bud."

(And I assume she meant she would always feel that way, no matter how old the kids got to be. Unfortunately, thanks in part to the anti-
tobacco forces, I bet it'll be quite a while before pot laws loosen.)

Personally, I believe in letting kids sip wine at dinner with their parents, if only so as to take away the "forbidden fruit" allure. (Not sure if letting kids have beer with their pizza with their parents would be OK too, for certain reasons.) However, I understand if Ehrenreich would feel uncomfortable with that.

And another reason to legalize pot is:

FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS LOSE THEIR JOBS!!!

(The anti-statists took our jerrrrbs!)

irlandes - There remains no convincing evidence that marijuana causes psychosis in otherwise healthy individuals. Overall, the evidence suggests that marijuana can precipitate schizophrenia in vulnerable individuals but is unlikely to cause the illness in otherwise normal persons.(1.) Epidemiological data show no correlation between rates of marijuana use and rates of psychosis or schizophrenia: Countries with high rates of marijuana use don’t have higher rates of these illnesses than countries where marijuana use is rarer, and research has consistency failed to find a connection between increases in marijuana use and increased rates of psychosis.(2 & 3) As with all medications, the physician needs to consider what is an appropriate medication in light of the individual patient’s situation, and may well suggest avoiding marijuana or cannabinoids in patients with a family or personal history of psychosis. This is the sort of risk/benefit assessment that physicians are trained to make.

SOURCES
(1.) Hall W., Degenhardt L., “What are the policy implications of the evidence on cannabis and psychosis?” Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 2006 Aug;
51(9):566-574.
(2.) Hall W. “Is Cannabis Use Psychotogenic?” The Lancet, vol. 367, Jan. 22, 2006.
(3.) Frisher M. et al. “Assessing the Impact of Cannabis Use on Trends in Diagnosed Schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005,” Schizophrenia Research, vol. 113, September 2009.

(Yes I know, I stole that post from the MPP but they don't mind)

Jim P. - Studies show(can't remember where i read it but I did) that stoned drivers are less likely to get in accidents than totally sober people. has something to do with fact that marijuana consumers are more aware of their intoxicated state so they drive more responsibly than normal. But the decreased reaction time might make them more likely to not be able to respond to other irresponsible drivers BUT they would be better off than a drinker.

No one should drive intoxicated. Marijuana while driving and drinking while driving should be the same.

Feebie - your cost estimates are way out of wack. $20 for 10 or 20 joints? No chance. No one will buy the dirt mersh your talking about. It will be more like $15-25/gram, $40-60 per 1/8 oz and $250-350/OZ. of those prices say 20-40% goes to taxes. But with a non for profit 501c3 distributors such as s4041b will allow in new york state it would be hard to levy taxes on it. NYS can't charge sales tax on product sold by 501c3 orgs.

Also urine tests only prove that you consumed weed in the last 60 days or less. So for DWH we need blood tests. Maybe pin prick like diabetic insulin tests. That should be possible in theory.