Should marijuana be legalized? | Napa Valley Register

Many California cities -- now including Napa -- have approved the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries within their city limits.

In each city the debate takes place about the benefits of marijuana for patients and also expand to whether it should be outright legalized.

Here in Napa that debate is taking place right now via Kevin Courtney's Aug. 20 article about the Napa City Council giving the go-ahead for marijuana clinics to operate in the city.

What do you think? Should marijuana be banned in all uses, be allowed for medicinal purposes only or be legalized and taxed like tobacco and alcohol?

Vote here and give your opinions below.

Should marijuana be legalized?(polling)

115 comment(s)

post-it wrote on Aug 20, 2009 10:42 AM:

" Probably, and the Netherlands is a decent model.

The drug problem is not a supply problem it is a demand problem. "

steph wrote on Aug 21, 2009 8:19 AM:

" Legalize it, fine, but don't ask me to support MORE lazy stoners with welfare. Mandate drug testing for welfare recipients, enforce the work rules in California for welfare, and then let's talk about legalizing a drug that promotes sloth. Not all pot-heads are unemployed, but use of pot definitely is a drag on work ethic. "

luv1mom wrote on Aug 21, 2009 1:06 PM:

" I think what everyone doesn't realize is that alot of people already smoke marijuana, you just don't know it. Yes, you probably work with them, maybe it's your hairdresser, or store clerk . . . . they work, they contribute to society, just like everyone else. "

Raven wrote on Aug 21, 2009 6:28 PM:

" no real reason not too legalize it. "

funnyme wrote on Aug 21, 2009 7:28 PM:

" Personally, it doesn't matter to me either way (note the emphasis on 'personally'), I don't use it, never have.

I just wonder what EXACTLY legalize marijuana means. For instance:
- Will you be allowed to grow it in your garden just like you grow tomatoes?

-Will you be allowed to 'give' it or 'sell' it to your neighbors just like you do with your summer veggies?

-Will it be readily available at the grocery store just like alcohol and tobacco are?

-Will they check ID and minimum age just like tobacco and alcohol at Safeway, Lucky, CVS, Longs?

- How much is too much to have in your possession, in your jean's pocket, purse, car, home?

-How much is too much for you to be driving around and not be a DUI and the fatal consequences in some cases?

-Will life insurance, health insurance, auto insurance, etc., set different standards for pot smokers vs tobacco smokers?

That's for starters... "

SouthNapa wrote on Aug 21, 2009 7:36 PM:

" No. Next question. "

steph wrote on Aug 22, 2009 8:52 AM:

" I think what a lot of pot smokers don't realize is that many of the rest of us are fully aware that there is a lot of pot smoking going on and that we're not all clueless and nervous teetotalers. Some of us have better things to do, that's all. "

broke wrote on Aug 22, 2009 9:01 AM:

" Now that light bulb is lit and the thought of more money for our politicans to spend. How exciting for them. We all know that the money will never satisfy there need to spend. Cut welfare, elminate free medical, housing, food stamps. This state is broke, the US is broke, No amount of pot will ever make a dent in this debt our politicans worked so hard to create. My opinion on pot is very simple. Legalize it and tax it like were taxed for everything else. Lets not kid ourselves even legalized pot won't make our debt disappear. Its just not a good arguemnt. "

misfit wrote on Aug 22, 2009 9:02 AM:

" Yes. But, how can you assume that all "Stoners" are on welfare or are lazy. I work with many professionals and I have friends who are nurses, firefighters, teachers, who smoke pot on occasion. They don't get s*it faced drinking alcohol but, like to relax a little. Life is stressful right now for everyone. Let it be! "

misfit wrote on Aug 22, 2009 9:06 AM:

" Alcohol has done more to harm families and society than any pot smoking has. I think alcohol should be illegal! Look what it does to your liver. Look what it does to families with children growing up in alcoholic homes; it has a devastating effect on them for life. It's tragic actually but, yet here we are condemning marijuana use? When will we be able to see through the trees to the forest? "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Aug 22, 2009 1:29 PM:

" Regulate and tax marijuana production in a similar manner to alcohol production and distribution.

Adults should have the same access to marijuana as they do to alcohol.

~Ruff "

NVC wrote on Aug 22, 2009 3:00 PM:

" I'd say yes for all down to these:

funnyme wrote"How much is too much to have in your possession . . .?"

How much alcohol are you allowed at home, etc? If this were Federal wide, R.J.Reynolds & Phillip Morris would eliminate the majority of personal sales via competition.

"-How much is too much for you to be driving around and not be a DUI and the fatal consequences in some cases?"

This is apropos.

There are currently indicia for determining if someone is under the influence of M.J. I think that would be a good start. Nevada passed a recent law re: this issue and I don't think the law will remain as is. Google 'Nevada DUI Marijuana'

"-Will life insurance, health insurance, auto insurance, etc., set different standards for pot smokers vs tobacco smokers?"

life & health; I never understood how it would cost more for a tobacco user than someone who drank a bottle of Jack Daniels every night. Maybe this has changed.

Personally, I think insurance co's will continue to weasel, where they can, like typically do and still raise rates.

Auto, just like it is with alcohol. DUI's increase rates, driver discounts, etc.

I also wonder if legalization, on a state level vs. Federal(ideal), would result in a massive immigration from other states. Typically, productive (i.e.employed) members of society, can't just pick up and move to a state with legal pot, but those who can, could. Long time residents in the 'Emerald Triangle' area in CA experienced this problem when the MMJ 'green rush' first started.

Now, if the 13 states that have voted in MMJ, all legalized it, maybe that would diffuse some of the diaspora. "

Raven wrote on Aug 22, 2009 3:01 PM:

" The same folks who have pot on a par with heroin are also the ones who say pot is a performance enhancing drug and banned it's use by Olympic athletes. And who was stoned when they did that? "

funnyme wrote on Aug 23, 2009 12:21 AM:

" NVC,
So, are you saying that the Tobacco Companies would likely be the ones picking up this 'market'?

How about 'goodies' made with pot (brownies, and stuff)? Will they be sold at your local bakery?

So, what's next, Napa Valley restaurants serving 'weed delicacies'?

How do you suggest this be regulated and taxed? Like tobacco is? Alcohol? Prescription drugs?

I think it is much more complicated than just chanting "Yes, legalize marijuana now!", and the least thing we need now is another government branch been born, don't we? "

vocal-de-local wrote on Aug 23, 2009 1:50 AM:

" I just had this conversation with my nineteen year old today. He has never smoked pot and was unable to provide very much insight other than to say that maybe our plot of land could be turned into something besides bare dirt!

I'm wondering, who's going to be allowed to "grow" pot? Will "boutique" crops emerge? Or will the emerging industry be controlled by big business, or those who already have a stake in it?

There are few obstacles for those who want to grow wine grapes on their one acre plots. You will probably see the same thing with pot, except it's a lot easier to grow than grapes. There will be such a surplus of pot available on the market that prices will be driven down considerably. You will have your cheaper varieties and your more expensive ones, just as you see in the wine industry, I think.

I am concerned about how this will affect productivity in this country, though. But maybe everything in life should not revolve around "productivity"?

Cannabis does affect memory. What people like about cannabis is that it makes it so you cannot "remember" uncomfortable experiences. Those who abuse it could end out being developmentally stunted. Same thing happens with alcohol abuse. Do we want our physicians or engineers making mistakes because they do not want to remember uncomfortable experiences? Do we want our store clerks to forget the amount of change the owe us?

I have very mixed feelings to say the least. Seems as though we have evolved in the direction of wanting to tuck discomfort away with drugs, legal or not so legal. Perhaps humans have always sought a life of "forgetful bliss". "

krusty wrote on Aug 23, 2009 4:57 AM:

" Funnyme, I would imagine that the set up would/could be similar to the current set up for alcohol. Businesses would have to apply for a permit and have their application approved before they could sell anything containing marijuana. They could also limit marijuana sales to businesses that have a full liquor license currently. When you look at it, there aren't many places in town where you can purchase hard alcohol. What if these places were the only places allowed to sell marijuana? "

Sandra wrote on Aug 23, 2009 9:33 AM:

" There are things that could be done to take the "Crime" out of pot, without having it sold via brownies in the supermarket.
First off, allow it to be grown for personal use.
Limit the amount allowed to be transported by each individual.
Let the government sell it as some states sell alchohol, in stores that just have alchohol, and nothing else, and tax, tax, tax. I do not think this would be so complicated as many states already do this with alchohol. Canada also has this system for alchohol.
Keep all the dui laws, or add to them if additional testing for pot is needed.
And I'm with Steph, drug test those getting social welfare assistance if there is suspected drug use, and not just for pot.
But do not expect if this happened that the drug cartels would dry up and blow away, they will just switch the focus to other illegal substances. "

Skip M. wrote on Aug 23, 2009 9:58 AM:

" It always strikes me as interesting how simple logic and politics seem to diverge. Funnyme asks how marijuana would be regulated and taxed. Don’t we already have the ATF? Would it not be logical that this would be the agency to regulate marijuana since this is the regulatory body with the proper infrastructure already in place?

It seems as though political choices tend to gravitate toward creating some new agency to address a given agenda. The fact is, there are plenty of resources in place to administer the taxing and regulation of marijuana as a legal product.

And regarding tourism in Napa: Most agricultural regions have diverse crops. In many areas you can find apples, pears, hops (for brewing beer), grapes, corn, wheat, and dairy farms all within close proximity to one another. But Napa has this single fixation on grapes and wine. Napa once was a major agricultural region supporting many crops. So, if you are concerned about the affects on tourism with the potential of marijuana crops in the region, I submit that this would become a new tourism draw. And think about it, if you have tourists making their way to Napa to sample the region’s marijuana varieties, they are bound to get the munchies, bringing more revenue to other businesses in the region. "

NVC wrote on Aug 23, 2009 2:39 PM:

" Hi funnyme,

Obviously,I don't know, but I would think the tobacco co's would jump on it. They already have farmers (climate notwithstanding) the labor,machinery, distribution, retailers, etc. I also think the demand for tobacco products is going down, as a whole. I would predict an emergence of a 'connoisseur' market, that wouldn't be in direct competition with the big boys. It's all conjecture at this point.

I think it would be regulated just like alcohol, as far as sale to minors, advertising limitations, taxes, etc. Just like homebrewing beer, people could grow their own if desired, but most don't.

I don't think it would need another branch of government. Agencies like ATF, and ABC are already in place, and it would likely be dealing with many corporations they already deal with.

DEA could utilized former MJ agents on other drugs or homogenize them into Dept. of Homeland Security increasing the force on borders and counter-terrorism.

Bakeries could be issued licenses, just like restaurants are for alcohol.

I also think it is more complicated than saying 'legalize now,' but not an insurmountable feat. There would probably be bumps in the road figuring out the taxing structure & licensing to businesses.

I don't agree with any argument saying legalization will be the decline of western civilization as we know it. There is no evidence when it was legal here in the U.S. that it was an epidemic problem. Modern models also prove this not to be the case. I also believe people are better educated now about substance use vs. abuse as a whole.

Here's an interesting UCSC study on Amsterdam's drug use post prohibition:
http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/03-04/05-03/drug_study.html "

surfdogge69 wrote on Aug 23, 2009 10:03 PM:

" A marijuana dispensery in SF that got shut down by the Feds. paid to the City of San Francisco. 4.1 MILLION dollars in taxes..They also paid the FEDERAL Government several Million in taxes..The government gladly took the tax revenues, but didn't repay it when they shut the company down..What a double standard..By legalizing and collecting the taxes would help many states economy's along with helping balance the Federal Budget..Combine this with more vigorous enforcement of traffic laws, in particular speeding on freeways, would bring BILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS TO THE STATE AND FEDERAL COFFERS. WHY ARE THEY SO AGAINST THESE ISSUES........ALSO ELIMINATE FREE VEHICLE USE AND FREE GAS TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AWAY FROM WORK..$$$$$$$$$$$ "

tripnote wrote on Aug 24, 2009 12:42 PM:

" Not against, but it needs some restrictions.

a Cannabis club could get out of hand rather quickly. we don't need people getting Marijuana cards just because it's easier than obtaining from a dealer.

How about if the club gets approved have greater restrictions on the amount you can obtain a day...or per month. I hear you can buy an ounce per day, which is 50 times more than some would smoke per day (1/2 gram per day is still a lot of smoke!)

Therefore allowing people to only buy an ounce per month would stop the spread of pot to people who don't need it medically, or reselling to friends, breaking down into smaller high priced amounts. An ounce is an enormous amount of Pot!

If an 1/8 of pot is 45-60 bucks, people will simply get their card and buy from a dispensary instead of the black market, which is about the same price. Buying from a dealer is never as much fun as going into a store more flavors than a Baskin Robbins.

How about also making the pot a little more expensive, so regular “pot heads” don’t use the dispensary for their daily source.

Also what kind of person is our city going to attract that doesn’t have a legitimate medical issue… We’d have the only club for miles around. I really don’t want drug resellers coming into downtown Napa bringing potential problems. "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Aug 24, 2009 2:16 PM:

" Yes it should be legalized. "

funnyme wrote on Aug 24, 2009 6:45 PM:

" NVC,
Thanks for the link. Interesting study I have to say, and while reading it occurred to me that in fact LEGALIZE or DECRIMINALIZE, seem to be two very different things when it comes to addictive substances. I don't know, it still seems a bit complicated to me. We'll see I guess.

Would this be something that goes out for voters to make a decision?

Skip M,
You say "Don’t we already have the ATF? Would it not be logical that this would be the agency to regulate marijuana since this is the regulatory body with the proper infrastructure already in place?"
It would certainly make a lot of sense if it is ATF (ATMF then?), unfortunately I can't trust 'logic' with bureaucracy.
Bush created a "Homeland Security Department (In addition to CIA and FBI), and now BHO has the illusion of creating a "Civilian National Security Force".
More government, less freedoms and more room for corruption.

I don't think I would have a problem with reasonable, productive, law abiding adults using pot any way it pleases them...it's their counterparts who worry me a bit. "

NVC wrote on Aug 24, 2009 7:09 PM:

" funnyme,

Nice catch. Big difference IMO also.

IMO, the 'decriminalize' are the ones that have or might gain a market share without having to compete with the big boys/big money.

The 'legalize' opens the market to complete competition. Essentially, IMO, eliminating the majority of the house/residential growers (excluding personal growers) They'd actually have to find real jobs or capitalize on their years of 'expertise'

I'd be pro 'legalize' for the above reason(s) Medical patients being separate. (not providers/growers)

We'll see indeed. It'd be nice to tax it, as it's being sold irregardless of current methodology.

(shrug) just opine, nothing more. "

NVC wrote on Aug 24, 2009 7:15 PM:

" Skip M,

I think the stink of skunk emanating throughout the valley would dissuade tourism.

Legalization would be equivalent to going into a store and buying cigarettes.

Wine is Napa's niche. A weed can grow anywhere. "

freeport56 wrote on Aug 24, 2009 8:06 PM:

" "Lazy Stoners on Welfare", the Band.

Where are they playing? "

freeport56 wrote on Aug 24, 2009 8:12 PM:

" I am actually disappointed with this group. Not one of you touched on the current law in California. Under an ounce is $109.00 ticket. I would say that was rather decriminalized.

Selling pot so taxes can be paid, hmm. What would it\will it attrack to Napa that does not exist in bulk now? Increase in crime, stoners...?

But think of the tax money. Morals v. Soul "

jack27022003 wrote on Aug 25, 2009 1:13 AM:

" look what happened during prohibition. We created a nation of gangsters. The religious people that got it passed in the first place even said that.
If this were legalized, we would put many gangster types out of business, raise some badly needed funds for important things, and make room in prisons for real criminals.
Humans are going to get intoxicated, regardless of it being legal or not.
It's time to move on, and let people do as they please here. "

NVC wrote on Aug 25, 2009 8:52 AM:

" freeport56,

You're correct under an oz. is decriminalized, but that is just 'possession'. Growing falls under something like 'manufacturing' and 'intent to distribute' which isn't decriminalized, so the black market is still being funded.

Statewide or Federal legalization wouldn't attract anybody to Napa. JV sales Coors, but people in other locales can buy it at a local store, they don't come to Napa.

I don't believe you can legislate morality. People will find a way to do what they want and they're accountable for their own decisions, just like other grown-ups.

As far as the taxation. Why shouldn't growers making 6figures+, tax free, not have to share the burden of cost for our roads/schools/infrastructure/etc?

The genie has been out of the bottle for decades. Kids can get pot easier than alcohol. We can either continue to live in denial or accept reality and control it via regulation/taxation just like alcohol or nicotine products. We have lost 'the war on drugs' years ago. IMO The only thing 'the war' is doing, is funding the prison system 'empire', which is big business.

Here's an older article, arguing education is competing with money used to fuel the war on drugs. http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/factsheets/effectivenes/

I'm sure there are 100's more articles/studies using datum from FBI sources. "

tripnote wrote on Aug 25, 2009 12:57 PM:

" if California legalizes, they will come - Millions of Pot heads moving to California! Ouch. "

tomhansen wrote on Aug 25, 2009 1:34 PM:

" If millions of pot heads have to move to California because pot is legal here, then it should be decriminalized nationwide. Just my humble opinion. Thank you very much for 'listening.' "

pharper wrote on Aug 25, 2009 3:38 PM:

" 30% of all marijuana sold contains drugs other than marijuana (cocaine, ecstasy, PCP) unbeknownst to the buyer. I'd be willing to bet money (not much; I'm a starving college student!) that the percentage would go up if it became legal to grow and sell marijuana privately. Pot is not just sold by harmless hippies and stoned college students. Very serious drug dealers sell it, and I for one (were I the sort of person who smoked pot) would not feel safe knowing that my dealer also sells other drugs that may have found their way into the weed I'm buying.

I do not want people who are stoned on the roads while I'm driving. I don't want to live next door to someone's pot garden, and I definitely don't want to walk down the street to the smell of cannabis. Weed is a drug, and despite common belief, it is a very serious one that can cause permanent damage and yes, addiction.

Some people will claim that since alcohol and cigarettes are legal, so too should marijuana be, but consider this: if alcohol and cigarettes were newly drugs being introduced to the market right now after a period of illegality (let's pretend Prohibition has always been in place), do you really think anyone would allow them to be legalized knowing the dangers?

I doubt it. "

NVC wrote on Aug 25, 2009 7:21 PM:

" pharper wrote:"30% of all marijuana sold contains drugs other than marijuana (cocaine, ecstasy, PCP) unbeknownst to the buyer."

Wow, so they're actually losing money selling pot, given the prices of the other drugs being worth more than the MJ. Imagine if 30% of cubic zirconia had diamonds sprinkled in it, just so you'd get addicted and want more . . .Let's see a source for your 30%

Coffee & soda causes addiction. People are ok with that.

"if alcohol and cigarettes were newly drugs being introduced to the market right now . . ."

This (I can't believe) I agree with. I, also, don't think either would get past the FDA today. However, with the stress levels of the avg. American, I'd guess they'd find something, even if it was more harmful to feel better.

Dangers to whom? The individual? Some people choose to race nitro-methane drag bikes and it's dangerous. If they get maimed society would have to deal with them. Do we outlaw racing?

We don't make everything that's dangerous illegal, only if it has negative effects on society as a whole, and even then it's debatable.

By your logic let's outlaw Artic fishing, logging, steel working, construction, truck driving & PG&E workers, because those are some of the most dangerous jobs in America . . . oh wait, but the public can reap the benefits of their deaths, so that's ok. If it's an occupation it's ok, but if it's recreation it's 'bad'

Stunning . . . "

pharper wrote on Aug 25, 2009 8:15 PM:

" Except for many of the things you named (in fact, most) HAVE to be done. Far as I know, no one HAS to smoke pot.

I'm afraid I can't find the original source I had (I found it when I was trying to prove a point to a friend) but according teendrugabuse.us does talk about the likelihood of other drugs being combined with weed.

Coffee and soda are not inherently addictive, whereas marijuana and other drugs are. Ever heard of Soda-Drinkers Anonymous? I don't think so.

Dangers to themselves and others. I don't want to pay for your medical bills because you're a stoner who can't get a job and develops lung cancer from all the pot smoke. I also don't want to be the one you hit with your car on the road while you drive home stoned out of your mind. I certainly do not want any kids I may someday have to be exposed to the more than 400 dangerous drugs and chemicals found in cannabis because you can't keep pot smoke confined to your backyard. If secondhand cigarette smoke can kill, pot smoke is doubly dangerous.

People will always find things that are bad for them, but I for one don't want to legalize something that has dangerous and sometimes deadly effects on not just the user, but those around him. Save marijuana for those who have no other way of surviving a disease like cancer or getting through the pain of a terminal illness. "

funnyme wrote on Aug 25, 2009 9:34 PM:

" I just 'voted' NO!
I believe the benefits of either decriminalize or legalize pot don't outweigh the harm.

Minors cannot legally buy cigarettes or any tobacco product for that matter, but you still see them smoking or chewing tobacco. Tobacco is legal.

Minors cannot legally buy alcohol, but you still see them drinking. Alcohol is legal.

Do I want to see KIDS stoned just because they have 'easier' access to it?

No, I don't!

Don't we have a HEAVY campaign against smokers? Will we see a heavy campaign against pot smokers 50 years from now?
(Well, maybe not me -I'd be 98?- but hopefully my kids will) Why start then?

If SOMEONE could guarantee that the cartels would disappear if the USA legalizes/decriminalizes pot, I'd change my vote (not mind)...now, is there anyone out there who can go after THESE "weapons of mass destruction"?

I would find unbelievable that the people who hate cigarette smokers would approve of pot smokers, that's why I asked if this would be something to put out there in the ballots for us to vote on.

Will the vote count or pot heads will have marches down the street trying to 'overturn' it?

Like I said, I don't use it, never have and the reason is because when I was a young teenager my parents walked me over to the 'convenient store' (I grew up in Mexico City) to 'look' at the 'drug addicts' loitering with a beer and a joint in hand... their glassy eyes and disheveled looks and the particular smell just scared the living feathers out of me. I decided right there and then I would never use drugs...And yes, there are some things I much rather forget... "

NVC wrote on Aug 25, 2009 9:54 PM:

" pharper wrote"I'm afraid I can't find the original source I had "

I had a hunch . . .

". . . and develops lung cancer from all the pot smoke."

Not proven whatsoever:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html

"If secondhand cigarette smoke can kill, pot smoke is doubly dangerous."

If people ate it around you, you wouldn't be exposed. In fact, if you kept yourself out of most 'smoking' areas you wouldn't be exposed to cigarette smoke and risk certain death.

"Save marijuana for those who have no other way of surviving a disease like cancer or getting through the pain of a terminal illness."

Bless you and your medical wisdom. It's a shame people with pain wouldn't qualify under your merciful program, but as long as they can 'survive' they don't need it. Tolerance to traditional pain meds be darned, they'll just have to take a 'drug holiday' and suffer until they can feel better.
People in mental anguish, who haven't gotten relief from traditional meds wouldn't qualify either, but they're probably faking it too eh? Let's just deny them in case they're pretending, so they don't get away with it.
Can I be present when you tell a combat vet that PTSD is 'all in his/her head and to get over it'? I guess they should just increase their benzo dosage huh?

I'm hanging up now. Be well. "

NVC wrote on Aug 25, 2009 10:25 PM:

" funnyme,

As long as you made an informed decision, I applaud you and it's your vote.

"Do I want to see KIDS stoned just because they have 'easier' access to it?"

Unfortunately, I think if you asked most kids, they'd tell you MJ is easier to acquire than booze. And that would be due to the regulation and controls of alcohol.

re: cartels and guarantees, there aren't any guarantees in life. You know that. :) The mobs got out of alcohol post prohibition, that's a fact.

There can always be appeals.

I don't use it/grow it either, but I've delved past a lot of misinformation out there that I had been taught most of my life and believed up until the last several years. The drug war is a losing battle and it can be argued that it's financing an industry (prison) rather than the monies going to our schools.

Then some bureaucrat can fritter that money away in the education system. (shrug)

See ya in 50 years . . . well maybe not for me either. "

pharper wrote on Aug 25, 2009 11:30 PM:

" NVC, looks to me like you're taking what I said and twisting it just a tad.

Or perhaps I wasn't clear.

Medical marijuana is one thing. I believe people who need it to treat a medical condition (or in most cases, the symptoms of a medical condition) should have access to it. The average layperson should not.

And let's be realistic here: most people SMOKE their pot; you and I both know that pot brownies aren't nearly as common. Besides that, inhaling ANY kind of smoke into your lungs DOES often cause cancer. It's the specific nature of it. You're implying that since not everyone gets lung cancer from smoking, it's not a cause, when all scientific evidence points to the fact that inhaling smoke into your lungs of any kind does damage them, whether cancer or some other kind of respiratory or lung disease. It's also terrible for teeth and gums, not to mention that the levels of THC in marijuana are many times higher than they were in the '60s, making the drug more potent.

It kills brain cells, causes short- and long-term memory loss, and can lead to an eventual lack of coordination, depth perception, and a decreased lung capacity.

Marijuana is a DRUG. And just as we wouldn't give Valium to someone who doesn't need it, we shouldn't give marijuana to just anyone either. "

Downtownsupporter wrote on Aug 26, 2009 7:37 AM:

" Legalize It. Sell it downtown. The shops could afford the "high" rent. Pharper, you have a right to your opinion but standing on your soap box about every topic on here and spewing "facts" may be damaging your credibility and detracting from your following. Print this Dan Ross, It is no personal attack and stays on topic. Dont know why it was censorred in the first place. "

thzn wrote on Aug 26, 2009 8:15 AM:

" its not a drug, its a flower... "

thzn wrote on Aug 26, 2009 8:22 AM:

" pharper: there are no deadly effects of marijuana. it couldnt kill you if you tried, its just a flower buddy, just like roses or daisies... "

post-it wrote on Aug 26, 2009 9:23 AM:

" my son who started HS this year, came home and told me that a "bunch" of kids used pot. He also stated that you couldn't tell by looking at them... I would reiterate, that it is easier for a kid to get pot than a beer. (that was even the case way back when I was a teen and the drinking age was 18)

I also believe that we have kind of thrown the baby out with the bathwater in regards to hemp. There are plenty of places where it is a more economical product than others, but because it can be associated with pot it is banned. My understanding is that it is a much better product for paper products than timber.

Our drug policy should address the issues surrounding demand rather than focusing on the criminalization of use and distribution. "

pharper wrote on Aug 26, 2009 12:43 PM:

" Standing on my soapbox about every topic? Like what? I'm curious now. Oh, please, I'm just stating the facts. Everything I've said can be backed up by numerous citations...feel free to ask your doctor.

Pot CAN kill you. Too much THC is extremely damaging to the brain, not to mention long-term effects like breathing problems, lung cancer (which, yes, is possible) and the potential for killing oneself due to being under the influence of pot - a car accident, a stupid dare, stumbling into the middle of the road, feeling "invincible" and therefore trying other drugs, having a bad run-in with your dealer, etc.

YES, pot CAN kill you. It's very disingenuous to say that it can't. "

Skip M. wrote on Aug 26, 2009 12:59 PM:

" If the "War on Drugs" that has been ongoing in one form or another for more than 100 years was so effective, why would there even be cartels or people using said substances to this day? You cannot legislate morality. This is proven again and again. I submit that the "War on Drugs" (with regard to marijuana) does more harm to the community at large through the various enforcement activities and providing an environment that fosters an underground economy, than any harm that would be realized by simply legalizing pot and regulating like alcohol and tobacco.

According to the Marijuana Policy Project, the cost of enforcement is roughly $7.7 billion annually. For those that object to the source of this number, I am open to any other data or sources you can cite. Given this number, the savings in enforcement costs alone would go far in balancing most state and local budgets. Add to this revenue that would be generated though taxes and licensing fees (roughly $6.2 billion according to MPP), and you have a net gain of approximately 13.9 billion spread across federal, state, and local budgets. Again, I concede that the MPP is a single source for my data, and I am open to review any other source and data you can propose as a counter point.

People love to complain about the cost of long commitments to seemingly unwinnable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What about the cost of the unwinnable war happening right here in our back yard? "

Skip M. wrote on Aug 26, 2009 1:12 PM:

" Pharper: Name me one person who has died from an "Overdose" of marijuana.

Deaths from alcohol poisoning:
Makamae Auli'i Ah Mook Sang (July, 2009)
Shelby Lyn Allen (December, 2008)
Michael Starks (August, 2009)

Deaths from water poisoning/intoxication (drinking too much water at one time):
Jennifer Lea Strange (2006)
Cynthia Lucero (2002) "

Sandra wrote on Aug 26, 2009 1:47 PM:

" I think if marajuana was legalized, the pros would outweigh the cons.
Despite what some worry over regarding accessability to minors if it was legal. I think it would actually be harder to obtain if legal, for those underage.
Do you think the drug dealers check I.D's? Any teenager knows where to buy pot, or knows someone who knows where to buy pot. It is EASY to obtain. Back in the dark ages, when I smoked it as a teenager, it was much easier to get than alchohol. I cannot see why that would of changed. Along with the pot, other substances are also available. If it was legal, for the most part, it would be out of the dealers hands, as it would no longer be a cost effective product for them to sell.
People who really want to smoke it, already do so, at a much bigger cost to society, than we as society would pay, if it was legal. Those of us who have smoked it in the past, and no longer have the habit, know that it has a tendency to make you lose motivation. I cannot picture a bunch of stoned people driving on the highways and streets in larger numbers because it is legal. They most likely would be at home eating.
I do not think the amount of people smoking would increase that much. Many of us have been there, done that, and moved on, because we need our brains to function at a certain level to work and support our families. We are not going to take up the habit again, just because it is legal. "

Sandra wrote on Aug 26, 2009 2:00 PM:

" Pharper,
In order for someone to get lung cancer directly related to pot use, wouldn't they need to smoke it in HUGE amounts? I would guess a joint or two a day is not enough. I think you are looking at this from a perspective of someone who has never smoked it before. Believe me when I tell you, no one needs to smoke it in the amounts it would take to produce lung cancer. It is my understanding that you only need a couple of puffs to feel the effect, as you are correct, the thc levels are much higher. I do not think it would be possible for anyone to smoke enough to get lung canceer from inhaling the smoke.
As for "pot can kill you"...well sure, along with just about everything else in the world. Being a teenager can kill you, because of lack of judgement that comes with hormonal imbalances. Getting in a car and driving can kill you, crossing the street can kill you, riding a bike, flying in a plane, heck, going to school, can kill you.
The idea that pot can kill you is way overblown. Alchohol is much more likely to result in someones death. "

pharper wrote on Aug 26, 2009 4:24 PM:

" I'm willing to accept that I may be wrong in the sense that one cannot overdose on marijuana; I looked it up and there is no evidence that such is possible.

However.

Inhaling smoke into one's lungs can and does cause lung cancer; that we know. What kind of smoke isn't really the issue at hand. But again, I'm willing to accept the fact that there is evidence that marijuana doesn't cause lung cancer in nearly the way that cigarette smoke does.

But (and there is a but) it does not change or excuse the effects that marijuana can and does have on the body. Perhaps it can't kill you in and of itself, but using it can cause your death, as I said above (driving, lack of coordination, etc.). It can also cause serious long-term effects, like respiratory illnesses (again, from the smoke), loss of balance/coordination, difficulty holding on to a thought, short- and long-term memory loss, and other types of brain damage due to the chronic levels of THC in today's marijuana.

I do NOT want my future retirement money going to a bunch of stoners who didn't have the sense or the willpower to stay away from what is a powerful drug - and getting stronger. I also do NOT want my life in danger because there are potheads driving on the same road as me, or smoking next door to me in their backyards.

No, I've never smoked it, and you can bet that I never will. I know what the consequences can be, and frankly, knowing them, I don't understand the meager monetary motivations for legalizing it compared to the vast bevy of evidence of its..."badness." "

sickonapkins wrote on Aug 26, 2009 5:03 PM:

" pharper: I find it kind of funny that you are so worried about people driving high and yet you haven't expressed concern about drunk drivers. As a matter of fact how many people do you know/heard of who got a DUI from being high? I also find it pretty funny that you keep emphasizing the potency of marijuana. You do realize that more people go to the ER for vitamin overdoses that marijuana overdoses right? Also when you list all the drugs available to society marijuana would be the ABSOLUTE last one. Prescription drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes would all be at or near the top and they're all legal....funny isn't it. Well at least to me it is. "

NVC wrote on Aug 26, 2009 6:22 PM:

" Pharper wrote:"YES, pot CAN kill you. It's very disingenuous to say that it can't."

It probably could, but it would be easier to kill yourself with water.

The government determined about 1500lbs. could kill you if you succeed you'll be the first: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/mj_overdose.htm

As for driving, I'd love to see the CHP fatalities stats with a person solely under the influence of MJ.

"I don't understand the meager monetary motivations for legalizing it compared to the vast bevy of evidence of its..."badness.""

Meager isn't the word for the amount of possible tax revenue. Colossal would be closer. As for the 'bevy' well, I'm glad the D.A.R.E. program is still mindwashing people. As long as the sheep never are able to interpret studies, and trust studies from one source (opposed to other studies replicating their results) it should be effective.

Are you in the 'explorer program', by chance? "

pharper wrote on Aug 26, 2009 6:58 PM:

" sickonapans - I haven't mentioned drunk drivers because that isn't the issue at hand; of course I don't want them on the road either, but at this point I believe a crusade to ban alcohol would be a fruitless effort, don't you? I'm tlaking about pot because that is the topic of this discussion, and I'm not willing to let yet another drug put my life and the lvies of my friends and family members who drive in danger.

I don't know anyone who would drive while stoned, so I don't know anyone who has gotten a DUI for driving under the influence of marijuana. But just so you know, as you seem unaware, the effects of marijuana affect one's ability to drive safely in many of the same ways alcohol does.

NVC - I don't know what the explorer program is; I am just a college freshman who does her research. I trust multiple studies; one study is not definitive, and I learn a whole lot of things from places far removed from D.A.R.E., which, for the record, doesn't teach anything about marijuana except to tell us "just say no."

Perhaps my wording wasn't as clear as I'd like it to be. As I said before, I'm willing to believe that no one has overdosed on pot before and that it would be difficult to do so. However, the EFFECTS of marijuana can kill you, or cause outside factors to contribute to one's death. "

jeeper16 wrote on Aug 26, 2009 9:18 PM:

" Dude, what was the question again??? "

Skip M. wrote on Aug 26, 2009 9:59 PM:

" Pharber: It is entirely appropriate for SickoNapans to bring the comparison of drunk drivers, as well as the other dangers inherent to alcohol since both marijuana and alcohol are intoxicants. In fact, both have certain medicinal uses as well. Studies show that alcohol, consumed in MODERATION helps reduce blood pressure. Similarly, marijuana has uses in the treatment of glaucoma and it reduces the nausea associated with chemotherapy and aids medications.

Diving while impaired by anything (alcohol, marijuana, prescription medications, sleep deprivation, ect.) is inherently hazardous to everyone on the road. So I am sure SickoNapans would concede with me that this should not be condoned regardless of the cause of the impairment.

Similar to the story of alcohol and prohibition, far more damage has been done by virtue of the enforcement of laws enacted by an executive order of Richard Nixon, than has ever been done as a result of the peaceful use of this product prior to the enactment of that order. Current laws regarding marijuana foster an underground economy and gang turf wars over control of that economy. The street punks of today trace their stories back to the likes of Al Capone and others of the prohibition era. This is not to romanticize today’s street gangs, I merely point to a historic corollary.

And like the repeal of prohibition, the legalization of marijuana (which must be done at the federal level based on supreme court rulings) will eliminate an entire market that these street thugs thrive upon. In addition to delivering a devastating blow to street gangs and drug cartels, significant revenue would be generated through regulation and taxation.

The challenge is taking the emotion and propaganda out of the equation and looking at the issue through the clear lens of logic. "

sickonapkins wrote on Aug 26, 2009 11:05 PM:

" Pharper: I'm just about the farthest thing from unaware. I just wanted to make the point that throughout my entire life I have never once heard of somebody getting a DUI from being stoned and I know TONS of people who smoke. DUI's from drinking on the other hand....well we all know how that goes.

Skip M. I agree with you 10000%. You should add texting and talking on a cell phone to that list too.

I just feel that as a society we have WAY bigger issues that we need to focus on. Marijuana should be an afterthought. I don't know if its me but it seems like just about every other day there is an article about a meth bust. We need to stop HARDCORE drugs because those are the ones that can ruin your life the first time you try them. "

Skip M. wrote on Aug 27, 2009 5:15 AM:

" SickoNapkins: I think you and I are on the same coir for this subject. Meth is incredibly destructive. Even the manufacturing process is highly toxic. Growing pot requires clean fertile soil and leaves no toxic residue after it has been harvested.

I have never had my life threatened by anyone smoking pot. They just want to get mello. Meth heads, on the other hand, don’t need a reason to get violent. "

NVC wrote on Aug 27, 2009 12:18 PM:

" pharper wrote:"I don't know what the explorer program is"

I intended it as sarcasm, but in hindsight think it came off as a mean spirited comment to those involved with the explorer program. It's actually a good program that often takes kids in bad environments and provides positive role models. My apologies to anyone involved in the program that was offended. You can google it, if interested.

"I trust multiple studies"

Trust shouldn't be part of the equation. Trust is an emotion. I agree that multiple studies are important(duplication of experiments/studies), but I'd rather have 2-3 well designed studies than 100 that were poorly conceived and don't rule out myriads of factors that could have skewed the findings.

"However, the EFFECTS of marijuana can kill you, or cause outside factors to contribute to one's death"

You're arguing semantics now. A cup of coffee before driving could result in the same thing . . . a death(just in case, I'm not comparing coffee with MJ). What 'could happen' isn't the argument. It's what do we know with current and historical data re: the legalization of a prohibited substance.
Where are the reams of data substantiating that MJ was a societal menace and all the alleged dangers/deaths prior to 1937(the Marihuana Tax Act) when it was legal in the U.S.?
Google 'reefer madness' and look at the roots of the movement. The anti movement was born from fear/scare tactics and hasn't changed to this day.

Approach the information with this outline in mind:
http://www.criticalthinking.net/SSConcCTApr3.html "

Downtownsupporter wrote on Aug 27, 2009 3:34 PM:

" Pharper stated: "Oh, please, I'm just stating the facts. Everything I've said can be backed up by numerous citations...feel free to ask your doctor."
I seriously question your "facts" since you do not ever cite your source. When called on it, you say you cant find it again. Do you have any "facts" from Peer Reviewed Primary Literature or research? Or, are you getting your "facts" from web pages such as wikipedia and those from biased special interest groups? You make a lot of statements without ever backing them up. Until you cite sources, people will take your comments with a grain of salt. By the way, Doctors often prescribe marijuana so I'm sure that not all of them would agree with your, "Facts." In his hit song "Legalize it" Peter Tosh says Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, and judges smoke it. I know, it's just a song but, probably even some people that you have looked up to as role models have or do smoke marijuana, they just don't glorify it like snoop dog. "

XMAN wrote on Aug 28, 2009 12:50 AM:

" Sure. Grow all the marijuana you want and smoke it plenty. I'll be sitting on my front porch in a rocker, just watching the grapes grow. "

pharper wrote on Aug 28, 2009 2:48 AM:

" Downtownsupporter, for ONE of my facts I said I couldn't find my ORIGINAL source. However, I have plenty of them; if you'd like them I'd be happy to p[rovide them; it just seems unrealistic to cite the multiple sources I have for everything I say every time I say it - I only have so many words in a post. I never use Wikipedia or similar sites for my information; my high school (and now my college) were/are very adamant about not using it as a reliable source since anyone can edit the information there. I use sites like www.nida.nih.gov, teendrugabuse.us, healthcalculators.org, family.samhsa.gov, and many more that I'd be happy to name in another post.

Yes, doctors prescribe it when the potential benefits outweigh the potential harm, just as with any drug, from ibuprofen to Vicodin.

The people I look up to don't smoke pot; I look up to people often for the specific reason that they hold the same ideals as I do, like not drinking (or in the case of adults, not getting drunk) and not smoking pot. If I ever found out my doctor smoked pot, I would change doctors immediately. "

Skip M. wrote on Aug 28, 2009 7:22 AM:

" Pharber: This is great that you rely one other sources for your information. However, it would appear that the resources you rely upon have a very specific agenda, and the information you are getting is decidedly slanted toward that agenda.

That you choose to associate yourself with like minded people certainly gives you reinforcement of your ideals, and we all need this type o support. It would appear from your statements that you possibly abstain from alcohol and other intoxicants as well. This too is admirable. However, not everyone chooses your particular life path, nor do they all choose a path I might elect.

The fact is, where the "War on Drugs" is concerned, we have likely taken on too many battles on too many fronts, making the entire endevour unwinnable. In China, drug users and dealers alike are subject to the death penalty. Yet there is still drug use there. So clearly, in a totalitarian state, even the harshest of penalties does not deter people from their chosen vices.

Given the miriad of illicit drugs available today, with ever more potent and dangerous drugs being developped all the time, would it not make sense to choose our battles a little more wisely, and not waste reasources on a plant which posses a relatively low health or societal risk in the grander scheme.

Making marijuana legal will not imply any requirement that you, or anyone else use it. Just as the legal status of alcohol does not establish a requirement for you to drink. People should be allowed to make their own choices, and deal with the consequences of those choices with their own resources. "

Lexme2 wrote on Aug 28, 2009 9:59 AM:

" So southnapa, I guess it is safe to assume you don't drink alcohol? I mean you're not a hypocrit right?
Legalizing will do nothing to increase the number of people that smoke. Those that want to smoke already do.
Those that claim I would change Dr's, etc if I found out the smoked pot. Really? How about if they go wine tasting, that is fine right. Seems hypocritical to me as well.
Napa needs to deal with their meth problem, it is HUGE! "

XMAN wrote on Aug 28, 2009 10:31 AM:

" When I was seven years old I asked my grandfather what marijuana was and he said, "It's loco-weed. If a horse eats it he'll go crazy." He said it like he really knew what he was talking about.

My aunt suffered from asthma and she could go to Levinson's Rexall Pharmacy on First Street and buy special cigarettes to relieve her wheezing. She didn't smoke so it was very unusual to see her smoke. She said it worked and she could breathe better after smoking one of those cigarettes. The smoke had a distinct smell and years later I realized that it had been a compound with marijuana as a principal ingredient. Said medicinal cigarettes are no longer available in any drug store.

I suppose the use of marijuana would depend on who was using it and why. I wouldn't give it to a horse but maybe give it to Aunt Emma to help relieve her wheezing.

As far as recreational use without any restrictions, I would have to oppose that. People shouldn't equate one "bad" thing with another "bad" thing - alcohol, and make it a "good" thng. Any time a substance that alters the mind and its ability to make sound judgements is used by the public it seems such substance should be regulated by law.

It is illegal to drive a car while under the influence of alcohol, drugs or marijuana. That is because the privilege of the individual is not as important as the safety of the many. It never will be. Should a person be allowed to drive down the highway smoking a joint? Now, I ask you. "

thzn wrote on Aug 28, 2009 3:13 PM:

" xman: yes, i do it everyday and have never been pulled over because marijuana does not impair your ability to drive, unless youre a teenage kid who's smoking for the first time... "

Wine nurse wrote on Aug 28, 2009 3:39 PM:

" Well, I am a bit confused, if we are legalizing it for Ca patients there are many FDA approved medications that work already. If we legalize this than what's next crack?

I am pretty sure that it impairs judgment and actions so lets say a group of 18 year olds have had a beer then smoke some pot and go tear up a few Baseball fields, do we blame it on the pot, the kid, or the parents?

Hmm, just doesn't seem like a win win situation to me, does that mean that I might go to an outdoor concert and for free get a contact high?

Maybe we can legalize steroids next, in social use they can be very good for the body, might as well legalize it people do it anyway, right? "

Skip M. wrote on Aug 28, 2009 5:29 PM:

" Wine nurse: Having walked the wild side (perhaps too much) in my twenties, I can tell you from personal experience that the affect marijuana has on a person have no comparison to the impact of crack, meth, heroin, cocain, or ecstacy. I have seen lives totally destroyed by each of those harder drugs. I have never seen anyone damaged so severely by the use of marijuana alone. In fact, from my personal observations, alcohol has a greater potential for long term damage to the body than marijuana presents.

But therein lies the problem with current law. To the average uninitiated observer, all illegal "drugs" are equally damaging in that observer's mind. And having never truley studied the subject with direct observation and analysis, it is difficult for that observer to get an objective view of the matter. Propaganda almost always wins out. "

Skip M. wrote on Aug 28, 2009 5:31 PM:

" XMAN: To your question; "Should a person be allowed to drive down the highway smoking a joint?" I refer to my August 26 post...

"Diving while impaired by anything (alcohol, marijuana, prescription medications, sleep deprivation, ect.) is inherently hazardous to everyone on the road...this should not be condoned regardless of the cause of the impairment." "

XMAN wrote on Aug 28, 2009 7:28 PM:

" Study in Athens, Greece published in the March 19, 2006 issue of Neurology,
the scientific journal of the American Academy of Neurology.

"Long-term marijuana use causes memory, speed of thinking and other cognitive abilities to get worse over time, but cognititive abilities are also affected in short-term pot smokers who use marijuana frequently.

Researchers studying heavy marijuana users (four or more joints per week) in Greece found that frequent marijuana users performed worse than non-users on test of cognitive abilities. Those who had smoked for more than 10 years had more problems with their thinking abilities than those who had used for five to 10 years.

"We found that the longer people used marijuana, the more deterioration they had in these cognitive abilities, especially in the ability to learn and remember new information," said study author Lambros Messinis, PhD, of the Department of Neurology of the University Hospital of Patras in Patras, Greece. "In several areas, their abilities were significant enough to be considered impaired, with more impairment in the longer-term users than the shorter-term users."

(That's just part of the study ... it gets even worse. Space limited here).

Bottom line here is: Should a regular marijuana user be trusted to make any assessment on how much or how little the use of pot affects their judgement?

I would say: Not if their cognitive
abilities of perception have been appreciably diminished.

Those of you who advocate unfettered use of marijuana by others are all potential enablers for those who are co-dependent on weed. I have no respect for the opinion that you hold. "

Skip M. wrote on Aug 28, 2009 10:13 PM:

" XMAN: I am not sure anyone here is saying marijuana consumption has NO detrimental effect. I think the point here is the matter of degree of affect. Incarseration costs, lives lost to gang turf wars, not to mention a few misguided raids where the cops had the wrong address and someone ended up dead, it would seem the cost of the enforcement of current laws regarding marijuana only do not out weigh the savings and additional revenue generation netted by legalization.

If your basis for criminalization is the point that when used to excess, marijuana is harmful, I would completely agree with you. However, that would also mean we need to reinstate prohibition, shut down the wineries, breweries, distilleries, and distribution facilities for all alcohol products. Ban people from drinking water because when consumed in excess, that will kill you too.

The fact is, human kind has sought, and will continue to seek, ways of obtaining altered states of consiouseness and escape ever since the dawn of time. And some of the methods and substances developed in this pursuit are decidedly harmful. But with a drive so deeply rooted in the human experience, I doubt we will see this come to a halt any time soon.

So, do we spread our resources paper thin chasing every vice that comes along, or do we choose our battles and focus on irradicating meth, crack, ecstacy, heroin, and cocain? And don't you think revenues netted from legalization of marijuana could go a long way in combatting these other, truley evil substances?

Ideally, we should all live pure clean lives, eat health foods and get plenty of physical excercise. No one should drink, smoke, have unmarried sex, or pick their nose. Good luck controlling all of that. "

steph wrote on Aug 29, 2009 8:37 AM:

" A lot of FDA approved drugs are very dangerous, misused, highly addictive, and expensive.

Case in point: Oxycontin. And Vicodin/Norco.

I'm beginning to think that marijuana may be a good substitute for many of Oxycontin's (and Vicodin/Norco's) actual uses: pain, and mood stabilization. Marijuana is cheaper and less addictive and may even do a better job for some than Oxycontin/Vicodin/Norco. Less of an overdose risk, too. Less risk of liver damage.

This from a person who really does not like marijuana, and does NOT want her children using marijuana. I don't approve, really. I am of the firm belief that most "medical marijuana" prescriptions are phony--they're for people who want to get high. On the other hand, I'd rather have all the narcotic addicts using pot instead of narcotics.

Did I mention the auto accidents caused by narcotic abuse?

MJ may be the lesser evil. "

Wine nurse wrote on Aug 29, 2009 9:06 AM:

" guess my point was, if we do legalize this, then what's next?

How do we instill in our children that its wrong if its legal? I realize that kids often will smoke and drink regardless .

I am just not OK with the message going out to them is that it is OK, its like buying milk.

I did my experimenting with drugs in my teens and unfortunately in my 20's as well.

Most start with occasional pot then on to the next substance. I am not so worried about the poor fools that get stuck in a life like this, only for the kids who grow up in that environment.

Is everyone who smokes pot bad, of course not, but are they breaking the law, yes....

As a parent of three who are now in college I watched as two of them experimented with pot and alcohol, did it have an effect on them,? yes, moods, judgment, endurance, self esteem ect.

I for one was lucky my daughter said it made her paranoid so she didn't smoke it anymore and my son is now a fireman and prefers to keep his job. My kids are now in there early 20's and live a healthy lifestyle.

We as adults lead by example and I firmly believe most kids will try for the right of passage but they do it for different reasons.

There are enough pressures out there in the world without adding more.

Just doesnt make sence to me. "

squirrlyboy1@yahoo.com wrote on Aug 29, 2009 10:56 AM:

" you have to understand the fact that not all minds are the same. Our brains have a receptor for T.H.C. the masses dont know this because they dont do any research. Marijuana is not for every one just like alcohol but ive never heard one story about a stoned man terrorizing the streets like all the latino gangs down there in Napa! ALWAYS remember we are your fathers, mothers uncles, brothers and sister, lawyers,judges,city officials, law enforcement yes I said law enforcement, and most important one of all most of us are your sick and dying.LEGALIZE MARIJUANA and Napa wont need to tax us the clubs are paying hefty right now and that's a fact. Oakland's dispensary's are paying something like 18% instead of the normal what 6% I think Be smart Napa! We are the majority and will have it either way! "

XMAN wrote on Aug 29, 2009 10:59 AM:

" The following was published this year in a medical journal. It might help to answer my previous question: Should a person be allowed to drive down the highway while smoking a joint?

"Driving after smoking even a small amount of marijuana almost doubles the risk of a fatal highway accident, according to an extensive study of 10,748 drivers involved in fatal crashes between 2001 and 2003.
A study by the French National Institute for Transport and Safety Research published in the British Medical Journal found that seven percent of drivers involved in a fatal highway crash used marijuana.

The researchers estimated that at least 2.5 percent of the 10,748 fatal crashes studied were directly caused by the use of marijuana.

The researchers concluded that the risk of being responsible for a fatal crash increased as the blood concentration of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, increased. Even small amounts of marijuana could double the chance of a driver suffering an accident, researchers said, and larger doses could more than triple the risk."

The study (In Europe) found that 28.6 of the fatal accidents were directly caused by the use of alcohol. That is 4 times the number of marijuana
users so marijuana is not so bad. Right?

Wrong! That hikes the cause of fatal traffic accidents from substance abuse up from 28.6% to a total of 35.6%.

Before deciding on whether or not marijuana should be legalized, shouldn't the pain caused to society by the abuse of marijuana be considered? "

sickonapkins wrote on Aug 29, 2009 4:32 PM:

" XMAN: What about the pain that society has been caused by alcohol for decades. Doing some math from the article you posted of those 10,748 fatal crashes about 215 were DIRECTLY caused by marijuana. Using the 28.6 figure for alcohol related crashes in those same years about 3070 of those crashes were caused by alcohol. Now the other figures I would like to see is the percentage of those crashes that were caused by changing the radio station, being distracted by passengers, cell phones ( probably VERY low since it was 2001-2003), and other reasons. The fact of the matter is people are always going to find ways to kill themselves and others on the road impaired or not. Now I am in NO WAY condoning smoking and driving but I am looking at the statistics objectively which people tend to NEVER do when they post articles to make a point. "

Skip M. wrote on Aug 29, 2009 5:15 PM:

" So, XMAN, since marijuana (non-medical) is currently illegal, do you think that there are no stoned drivers on the road at this very moment?

There is a reason the crime is called "Driving Under the Influence". This gives law enforcement the tools to prosecute a driver under the influence of ANY substance (alcohol, marijuana, prescription medications, and even sleep deprivation). Driving while impaired, regardless of the cause, is a criminal act. "

WorksInNapa wrote on Aug 29, 2009 6:52 PM:

" Just a couple of thoughts: Why does legalized marijuana AND taxes have to go hand to hand. It seems that almost everything HAS to be taxed. If making marijuana use legal would contribute to society in a postive way wouldn't that be enough of a reason?

Another thought: Which will bring in more money - an acre of grapes or an acre of marijuana? "

squirrlyboy1@yahoo.com wrote on Aug 29, 2009 8:17 PM:

" yeah right now find one single fatal car accident that was caused by marijuana ...what a joke there are none! like i said do some research before typing. thats what my point is and also marijuana cant be "abused" because marijuana is not addictive. Anyone who tells you it is, does not know the facts and are lying. And just like alcohol, if you drive stoned its still a D.U.I. Its irresponsible and stupid. I have personally smoked marijuana for 15 years and never once have I driven under the influence; not even alcohol, and I'm 30 years old. Like I said marijuana isn't for everyone. It should be regulated and limited to over 21- just like alcohol. Anyone who's been drunk and can compare that feeling to being stoned is lying...there is no comparison between the two. And on another personal note, marijuana happens to improve both my mental and physical alertness, unlike alcohol. I have tested this on a closed course. My driving skills actually improved. "

WorksInNapa wrote on Aug 29, 2009 10:00 PM:

" squirrlyboy1 - It didn't take too much to find the following:

On December 19, 2007, CHP Officer Anthony Pedeferri was paralyzed and the driver he had stopped was killed by a person "under the influence of marijuana".

In July it was reported that Cleveland Browns wideout Donte Stallworth had marijuana in his system when he struck and killed a man.

This month an Illinois man struck and killed a man and the dog he was walking while under the influence of marijuana.

Also this month in Chicago a teen driving more than 40 mph over the speed limit down the wrong side of the road, high on marijuana killed one and injured others.

A French study in 2005 indicated that people who drive after using marijuana are nearly twice as likely to be involved in a fatal car crash. The study also showed that drivers who tested positive for marijuana were more than three times as likely to be responsible for the fatal car crash.

I would really like to see any studies which indicate that marijuana improves mental and/or physical alertness. Got any scientific references? "

XMAN wrote on Aug 30, 2009 6:48 AM:

" Under the old DUI laws it was convictible if the person were demonstratively appreciably impaired.
Now it's .08 and off to the pokey. About all any lawyer can do is hold the accused person's hand while the judge sentences them.

There are objective chemical analysis tests for marijuana levels of THC and that evidence along with the person's inability to control the vehicle is sufficient proof for conviction of DUI.
Many of the cases of marijuana abuse while driving also involve the use of alcohol along with it. A double whammy for society to cope with.

For those of you who find my views objectionable, much of it comes from the annals of jurisprudence and from medical journals. In fact, I cut and pasted a lot of it directly from those sources.

Do I personally have friends who may use marijuana while socializing. Yes, of course, we all do. Do I get all ballistic with my friends and their use of pot? Not likely but I have seen them drive home when they shoudn't. Do they smoke at my house? No - never.

Long ago I did have a friend who was psychologically addicted to pot. He ruined his career, his wife left him taking the three kids, he was eventually disbarred from law practice and he became a bum. True story.
You can argue all you want that pot is harmless, I'm immune to it. In truth, it probably depends on the individual.

I stand firmly opposed to the legalization of pot and with the one exception of strictly supervised and professionally controlled medicinal use.
That's it. "

Skip M. wrote on Aug 30, 2009 10:04 AM:

" XMAN: While I disagree with your point of view, I do not find your views "objectionable". I simply disagree. This is the entire point of civil debate. We can disagree without becoming objectionable. In fact, I believe many of us who support legalization agree that there are those who do and would use marijuana inappropriately. And most who WOULD use marijuana inappropriately are not hindered by the current legal status of the stuff. In other words, having pot illegal does not stop irresponsible people from toking up and getting behind the wheel. "

onethought wrote on Aug 30, 2009 11:30 AM:

" How much will actually be made from taxing marijuana? Why would you go buy it for personal use if it was legal when you could grow it for free. Are there going to be pot smoking areas because unlike alcohol when you smoke pot it leaves your area. It will be easier for kids to get it, too. Someone needs money to buy it now. If it were legal it would be growing in the yard. I Know a lot of teens smoke pot now but if it were legal more would likely try it. How many kids said they drank but never smoked pot in high school.A lot of people are comparing alcohol to pot but how hard is to grow a pot plant in your room and how hard is it to make alcohol? "

Wine nurse wrote on Aug 30, 2009 12:02 PM:

" Someone mentioned that marijuana is not addictive, the feeling produced from it defiantly can be addictive? There is a difference between psychologically and physically dependent.

Maybe the tourists that come to stay at the Ritz can sit go to the spa and smoke some pot.... "

XMAN wrote on Aug 30, 2009 2:44 PM:

" When I was a teen ager in 1951 we visited family in St. Helens, Oregon.
One morning my uncle loaded his D-6 Caterpillar with a dozer blade onto a truck and took me to a place on the West bank of the Columbia River about 5 miles South of St. Helens. There was a large stand of marijuana on the shallow shores of the river about 100 yards wide and a quarter of a mile long. It had been there for years and the locals didn't know what it was. The sheriff found out and it took my uncle and three other dozers a week to uproot it and haul it for remote burning. The only thing the local people knew back then was they had seen the 1936 movie "Marijuana Madness" and wanted nothing to do with it. How times have changed. People today are into everything and not any happier as a result of it. Today, there are complicated issues that would tax the patience of a saint. If marijuana is ever legalized it is something that you will all have to live with. Not me because I'll be gone to that big reunion in the sky. I see that most of you favor legalization.
Bad enough there are a bunch of dysfunctional alcoholics in our society without adding the legions of folks who will become hooked on grass. Yes, I know - it won't be you. You're too smart to get hooked. But what about the guy next to you? Can he cope with the psychological addiction that is ever-present with the use of marijuana? "

Skip M. wrote on Aug 30, 2009 3:09 PM:

" onethought: Why do people buy vegetables when they can grow those for free?

XMAN: Your comment "The only thing the local people knew back then was they had seen the 1936 movie "Marijuana Madness" and wanted nothing to do with it." speaks to the essence of propaganda. Phsych the people out with an irrational fear and the game is won. "

XMAN wrote on Aug 31, 2009 4:39 AM:

" Follow-up comments: My son, who works in the entertainment industry, corrected me on the title of the movie. It was "Reefer Madness" and designed to scare people. Yes "Skip M.," it was a propaganda film in it's day. Today, it is a cult film and considered to be overstated.

Marijuana does have a legitimate place in a pharmacy when used under the direction and control of a medical doctor. Then, it is a useful drug.

Incidentally, that patch of pot on the banks of the Columbia River was later publicized as the largest growth of wild, uncultivated marijuana ever encountered on the North American continent.

Marijuana contains a chemical that affects brain function.

If you will read the third sentence of the following link it will tell you exactly what that chemical is.

That chemical (THC) is - simply put - a drug.

The smoke is a carcinogen (cancer causing element). It has a higher potential for causing cancer than even tobacco smoke.

It also has the opposite effect as the one caused by taking Viagra.

Are you sure you want to legalize it?

http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html "

Skip M. wrote on Aug 31, 2009 2:05 PM:

" XMAN: Regarding marijuana and it’s alleged “anti-Viagra” effect, clearly you comment from a commonly espoused fallacies. I can tell you, from personal experience, that there are plenty of dads out there to attest that marijuana has not hindered the “Viagra” anatomy. I have three healthy honor students of my own. So if smoking pot in my younger years damaged my “Viagrnism”, there certainly is little evidence of such harm. "

XMAN wrote on Aug 31, 2009 8:41 PM:

" Skip M .....
Didn't click on http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html
....did you?"

Several Medical studies sponsored by the federal government would contradict you. You are talking about one person's individual experience and the study talks about the population in general.

What you seem to be saying is that as one person goes, so goes the world. That does not cognitively compute.

Show me one single legitimately recognized medical study by bonafide researchers that does not support my claim that marijuana is a sex inhibitor for the general population and I will get off this thread forever. "

Skip M. wrote on Aug 31, 2009 9:33 PM:

" XMAN: My following posts are excerpts from an article by Dr. Shelley Narula, and can be found on http://www.steadyhealth.com/articles/Is_Marijuana_A_Sex_Stimulant__a768.html.

“One of the most well known myths surrounding marijuana states that it damages human cell tissue and causes chromosomal breakage. This myth was rejected and the National Academy of Sciences has stated that cannabinoids are neither mutagenic nor carcinogenic.”

“Presently, it is debatable whether marijuana acts as a sex drive stimulant (aphrodisiac) or suppressant. Marijuana affects different people in different ways. Some report an increased libido, while others report an inability to sustain – uh – [Viagrism]. Time and more reliable research might be able to help us sometime in future.”

Rather than cut and paste the entire article, I will let you go read it yourself. The piece is unbiased (if you can read it with an open mind). "

Skip M. wrote on Sep 1, 2009 7:39 AM:

" XMAN: I have seen the www.nida.nih.gov site. I was looking on this thread because I thought someone else (Pharper perhaps) had mentioned it, but this may have been on the story of the Atlas Peak raid. At any rate, the nida site is decidedly anti-marijuana and therefore a biased source, as are most government sites. The simple fact is, government is biased toward maintaining it’s own status quo. As such, government sites are inherently biased and not truly objective sources. "

XMAN wrote on Sep 1, 2009 10:41 AM:

" Skip M. I tried to cut and paste your URL link into my browser and this is all I get so far:
We did not find results for: http://www.steadyhealth.com/articles/Is_Marijuana_A_Sex_Stimulant__a768.html.. Try the suggestions below or type a new query above.

I will re-try using google and also run the name of Dr. Shelley Narula.
I am very interested in any rebuttal you may offer. I also appreciate your comments wholeheartedly. Thank you. "

XMAN wrote on Sep 1, 2009 11:31 AM:

" Skip M. - While "Doctor" Narula holds a "Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery" degree, she is not a medical doctor. She is an excellent writer, as are you, but her treatise does not amount to research. It is basically - her personal opinion based on what she has read about on the research of others.

I found her comments regarding the medicinal effects of marijuana to be very useful, accurate and similar to my own knowledge. Were it not for the stigma set upon marijuana by its illicit use, I believe it could be a very useful drug to relieve pain symptoms in the pharmaceutical field.

On the subject of sexual reaction to marijuana I think Dr. Narula's following comment is realistic.

"Three researchers from the University of Texas suggested that tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, marijuana's active ingredient, may affect male sexual activity in two phases. In animal tests, they found that it first raises the level of testosterone and other sex hormones but later may lower hormone levels to far below normal."

She also stressed that this reaction may vary with individuals. I would agree with that also.

The point is that I believe she does support my original statement that,
generally speaking - it has the "opposite effect as Viagra." Using the qualifier "with most people."

Marijuana smoke is a proven carcinogen. They use it in Vancouver with a vaporizer so they will NOT be exposed to the carcinogenic properties of marijuana smoke.

Legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes only.

Will people continue to use it illegally? Sure. Always have and always will. It's a $100 fine if they get caught. Big deal! "

XMAN wrote on Sep 1, 2009 11:44 AM:

" Skip M. ... Have enjoyed our con-fabs but it does appear that this thread has been reduced to opposing views of just you and me. I'm surprised NVR is still running the dialogue. If we ever meet we can continue the discussion over a toddy for me and ... well, whatever it is that you do for your own relaxation.
Best regards, XMAN "

Skip M. wrote on Sep 1, 2009 12:24 PM:

" XMAN: I too have enjoyed the debate. I always have fun with anyone who can engage in respectful Point-Counter Point discussions. I think everyone involved gains from this type of discussion, regardless of the point of view.

Incidentally, my teen-aged son agrees with you. So if anything, counting on adolescent rebellion to parental views, this may help keep him on the straight and narrow path.

XMAN and Skip M. shake hands and exit the ring. "

GrapeTownResident wrote on Sep 1, 2009 12:57 PM:

" To Steph, yes I agree that marijuana is a drag on work ethic, but so is alcohol. Just because its legalized does not mean that employers have to put up with people coming into work drunk or stoned. And the term "Lazy Stoners" is just a result of the government brain washing everybody in the 70s, 80s and 90s to make you believe that marijuana is bad. The government went to extreme lengths to hide all of the beneficial properties of marijuana. And thats the truth!! "

GrapeTownResident wrote on Sep 1, 2009 1:03 PM:

" marijuana is a remedy, a herb with medicinal properties. I am sure that for every negative affect of marijuana there are 5 positive affects (possibly more). Go ahead... research it. "

GrapeTownResident wrote on Sep 1, 2009 1:24 PM:

" And anyone that says that marijuana has the opposite effect as Viagra does not know what they are talking about. Sounds like a personal problem to me. "

pharper wrote on Sep 1, 2009 6:23 PM:

" GrapeTownResident...okay, what are those benefits? I can name the negative effects, but I just really can't think of any benefits unless it has been prescribed to you for medical reasons, in which case I'm sure that the benefits do outweigh the risks.

It -

a) causes brain damage
b) causes slower reaction times (impairing one's ability to drive or react quickly to stimuli)
c) inhibits brain development in younger people
d) produces cancer-causing smoke and decreases lung capacity
e) contributes to decreased athleticism (perhaps not the correct term - I have friends who used to be, if not competitive, at least very active in the sports of mountain biking, skateboarding, and jogging, who are no longer able to do those things - especially not for the amount of time that they used to - because of their occasional use of marijuana)
f) can have serious detrimental effects on unborn fetuses and children in general who are exposed to it
g) contributes to poor work/school performance
h) is a depressant - i.e., chronic marijuana use has been linked to depression, and causes tiredness and simple laziness

Care to give me five benefits for each of those things I named? "

mominapa wrote on Sep 2, 2009 8:30 AM:

" pharper: I usually agree with you wholeheartedly and admire your youthful integrity and poise, but this time I'm afraid I will have to disagree. You asked for five advantages. Here they are as I see them as has been proven.
1. Hemp is a renewable resource and can be used for many things that we kill trees to facilitate. Clothing, paper, regeneration of growing land and many more.
2. It enhances the creative abilities of artists.
3. Cuts down on drunk driving because most pot smokers are too mellow to drive and usually drive much slower than drunk drivers.
4. Provides a non-refined chemical relaxation.
5. IS NOT ADDICTIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

DRLhun wrote on Sep 2, 2009 12:50 PM:

" Pharper, it would be nice if your information had some basis in fact before you pass it off as such. Let me educate a bit.

a) causes brain damage

No peer-reviewed or in depth studies to show this at all. In fact, all major studies show the opposite. No brain damage is caused by marijuana consumption. A very small handful (two?) of studies claim that marijuana causes brain damage - they all have two things in common. They use a VERY small test-group (6 test subjects in one, 14 in another), the subjects tested are NOT screened for other drug use that may cause brain damage. Note that many other drugs, including alcohol, are well documented to cause brain damage. This would clearly skew the very small data pool, and should always be a qualifier in any serious study. These were not serious studies. I repeat for emphasis - all serious studies show the opposite of what you claim. There are dozens of them look them up online.

b) slower reaction times

Whos arguing that people should drive under the influence? This is a silly argument. I should mention there is a new handheld device by Phillips that can use saliva and see if a driver has ingested marijuana for the last few hours. This will be a key element for our law enforcement.

c) inhibits brain development in younger people

Once again, who wants this to be available to kids - certainly not the folks in favor of regulation and legalization. It is easier for kids to get marijuana from peers than alcohol or cigarettes. Due mainly to the fact that its regulated by age for sale. "

DRLhun wrote on Sep 2, 2009 1:05 PM:

" Pharpers list continued - my appologies.

d) produces cancer-causing smoke

The cancer debate is unlikely. Have a look at the largest study ever done regarding marijuana and cancer. Its from the United States after 30 years of study. I’m sure you will be surprised.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
Besides, marijuana is more than just smoked. Search vaporizers online. Or just cook with it.

e) contributes to decreased athleticism

I think I'll let Michael Phelps field this one. Or Randy Moss. Or any one of the NBA/NFL/MLB/UFC/SUMO athletes who get caught using marijuana every month. Better yet, talk to our very own governor about his most athletic days as Mr. Olympia. They can tell you about "decreased athleticism" and marijuana usage.

f) serious detrimental effects on unborn fetuses

So can hundreds of other things - ranging from cat feces, to gasoline, to sushi. Mothers are given lists of these things that affect their unborn babies and told to avoid them. We don’t outlaw them all, that would be ridiculous.

g) contributes to poor work/school performance
This is personal opinion; I know many people that are not poor workers/students that use marijuana. Please keep opinions out of your "fact" lists.

h) is a depressant + lazyness

More opinions. We all know lazy people, and they all have their excuses. Most of them are depressed. Cause and effect is never clear in these cases. And any study claiming these indirect correlations is sure to note this.

Please note this is not a personal attack on you or your beliefs. It is rather a hope that you educate yourself to strengthen (or even change) your opinion. "

GrapeTownResident wrote on Sep 2, 2009 1:54 PM:

" pharper, yes it is proven that it causes cancer, however in a Costa Rican study, it was found that chronic marijuana smokers who also smoked cigarettes were less likely to develop cancer than cigarette smokers who didn’t use marijuana. Since marijuana (smoking, as well as ingestion by other methods) dilates the alveoli, toxins are more easily eliminated with cannabis use regardless of its method of application. Nicotine, on the other hand, constricts the alveoli, so it is likely that the use of cannabis neutralizes, or even overwhelms the constriction, by its own tendency to dilation ...As an aid for all psychosomatic disease, marijuana can benefit the participant, generally because of its health-restoring effects...
The marijuana experience itself does not miraculously cure. Instead, it allows the body a respite from the tensions of imbalance, while exposing the mental confusion of the mind. The marijuana experience of balance becomes a learned and, over time, somewhat permanent response as the essential human tendency to homeostasis is reawakened and the natural healing process restored. "

GrapeTownResident wrote on Sep 2, 2009 2:17 PM:

" And yes it causes slower reaction times (impairing one's ability to drive or react quickly to stimuli), wich is why it should be (legally) treated as alcohol. "

GrapeTownResident wrote on Sep 2, 2009 2:19 PM:

" If anything I think that marijuana should be legal over alcohol....
Tranquilizers and depressants relax the body and release tension, but the state of mind associated with these drugs is "unconsciousness" whereby we escape rather than resolve our dilemmas.
Alcoholism is an extreme need of both the body and personality periodically to release the nervousness that has accumulated and continues to accumulate to an unbearable degree. It serves the same function for the collective personality for the society, as well A culture in which alcohol and tranquilizers are the prevalent form of release prefers not to witness internal confusion and actually choose to act without conscious participation, maintaining a semi-numb condition.
Studys also prove that even a habitual pot smoker, after 4 to 6 years of quiting the lungs will actually heal themselves, where as if you are an alcoholic your whole life, eventually your liver will fail. And alcohol is highly addictive and also (in some cases) deadly... marijuana is neither.
The fear of marijuana... stems from its limitless potential for treating illness, in that both the pharmaceutical industry and the medical monopoly would lose billions of dollars if marijuana became the non-drug of choice.
For a serious psychosomatic disease such as cancer, the benefits to be derived from marijuana cannot be overstated:
1. The causal element of unconscious (repressed) pain can be ferreted out.
2. The breath can be restored to fullness, thereby eliminating directly the built up toxicity and, at the same time, enjoining balance throughout the whole organism. A depressed system is a weakened system, and since it works holistically, marijuana gives strength where weakness exists, and expansion and relaxation

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it =] "

GrapeTownResident wrote on Sep 2, 2009 2:29 PM:

" Now for some psychological and spiritual benefits
-Marijuana not only balances the body, and enhances our mental processes, it can also help (some of) us to perceive the abiding reality by raising our consciousness.
-It explains the increased creativity reported as a part of the marijuana experience, because when both sides of brain processes are heightened, both types of brain activity are greater. The left brain notices more, while the right brain receives more. This is the unification of logic and intuition. The term "expansion of consciousness" is explained physiologically as a "shifting of brain emphasis from one-sidedness to balance", which fits precisely with the feeling called "high."
-It both stimulates and relaxes, simultaneously, which equates to an unpredictable variation in effect that is solely dependent on the state of its subject. When the system is sluggish, as with natives in warm climates (Africa, India, South America), marijuana has been used extensively and for centuries to energize it.

I can go on if you guys want. "

GrapeTownResident wrote on Sep 2, 2009 3:18 PM:

" I can honestly come up with coutless reasons why legalizing medical marijuana would benifit Napa, but I do not have the time or patience.
If you REALLY want to know more on this topic go to this website http://www.benefitsofmarijuana.com/benefits.php

Truth is A good friend of mine is a marijuana activist and he introduced me to A very interesting book called "An Introduction to the Yoga of Marijuana, by Joan M. Bello". More info about the book on the website I posted above. All of you nae-sayers can really learn alot from this book. "

GrapeTownResident wrote on Sep 2, 2009 3:21 PM:

" For those of you that have the time go ahead and visit this website...
http://www.benefitsofmarijuana.com/benefits.php
What you learn will blow your mind! "

GrapeTownResident wrote on Sep 2, 2009 3:35 PM:

" I can sit here all day and come up with the benifits of marijuana. Truth is A good friend of mine is a marijuana activist and he introduced me to a very interesting book called "An Introduction To The Yoga Of Marijuana, by Joan M. Bello"
Google it!!!!! (since I can't post the website) What you learn will blow your mind!!! "

napavalley35 wrote on Sep 2, 2009 4:19 PM:

" I think there are some people on this blog that are worrying way to much about what other people do. If you are an adult and adhere to "moderation" in all aspects of your life your going to be ok. If you "abuse" anything (alcohol, drugs, eatting, etc.) you can cause harm to yourself and everyone around you. Pot is not the worst thing out there and people busying their time with worrying about pot smokers need to get a life. I would never be so bold to tell anyone they have no right to smoke pot for any reason. You have to moderate your use of intoxicants including pot and alcohol. Im was born and raised in CA. Everyone I know has tried pot, many continue to smoke pot. None of them are on welfare or homeless, they are upper class and upper middle class people. The Pot is Here legalizing it does not change anything but more groups profitting off of it. There is no one I know that chooses to not smoke pot because its illegal, no one cares they will smoke it regardless. "

shareathought wrote on Sep 2, 2009 5:04 PM:

" This site may educate the reader and dispel some of the common fears of use...

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/ "

pharper wrote on Sep 3, 2009 5:10 PM:

" GrapeTownResident - earlier in this thread, someone cited a large study from a university in Greece, I believe, that found that marijuana caused cognitive brain damage even by those who used it lightly.

I'm done with this topic because your arguments don't hold water. I've already given some of my sources; it would take all day for me to cite them all. All you have to do is go to Google and type in "effects of marijuana" to find the bevy of information that lists the countless negative effects pot has, both socially and physically. You can also talk to a doctor - I've talked to my doctor about it before, and she backed up everything I've said.

As for some of my facts being "opinions" - no, actually, they're not, and just because you know a few exceptions doesn't mean it isn't true. Marijuana DOES contribute to laziness and poor work/school performance, as stated in "Marijuana and health: report of a study"
by the Institute of Medicine (U.S.) Division of Health Sciences Policy. You can also find many citations for some of my other facts in there. :) I believe you can even read it in Google Books. "

jimtub wrote on Sep 4, 2009 1:25 PM:

" pharper,
Other factors contributing to fatigue, laziness and/or poor work performance: alcohol, TV, obesity, asthma (fatigue not laziness), internet blogging/surfing. Marijuana was outlawed and inappropriately designated a narcotic for political reasons and to aid Dupont Chemicals in the early 20s. It was a huge cash crop prior to that and actually supported by the US government due to its profound value for cleaner more durable paper production, hemp rope that outperformed nylon rope and for fuel (ethanol). Hemp production was vital for the WWI effort. Per acre, Hemp produces 3 times as much paper as trees and is FAR more renewable AND is far less harmful to the environment in production. Hemp also produces 3 times more ethanol per acre than corn! Let's lose the old tired arguments and wake up!! Legalize it/tax it and significantly reduce crime and corruption, let alone freeing up our prison space for real criminals. "

Skip M. wrote on Sep 4, 2009 4:24 PM:

" Many poles, scientific and otherwise, indicate a general majority of people support legalization.

There are countless studies on the effects of marijuana. The challenge is (as DRLhun points out) far too many "studies" or "Research Projects" are nothing more that a re-hash of pre-existing documentation supporting one point of view or another. Very little is truly unbiased, peer reviewed, long term research projects that involve test group classification and isolation of mitigating factors. This means the results of these studies are dubious (no pun intended) at best.

What this discussion does clearly demonstrate is that the topic of marijuana legalization is one of those emotionally charged topics that cause those who have opinions on the matter to dig in their heels and refuse to hear any other point of view, even when those seemingly opposing view points are actually not so far apart on most matters.

This really is an interesting study in grass roots politics. "

GrapeTownResident wrote on Sep 4, 2009 4:30 PM:

" THANK YOU jimtub, marijuana was not outlawed because of health reasons!!
It was outlawed because both the pharmaceutical industry and the medical monopoly would lose billions! "

GrapeTownResident wrote on Sep 4, 2009 4:32 PM:

" Now according to some people marijuana causes cognitive brain damage, even if smoked a little.

Barack Obama
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Al Gore
Bill Clinton (but I didn't inhale) surree ya didn't..
The Bishop of Monmouth
Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize Winner
Edgar Allen Poe
Goerge Washington (evidence that he grew it and prepared it to smoke)
John F. Kennedy
Thomas Jefferson
Vince Van Gogh
Walt Disney
William Shakespear
Steve Jobs, co-creator of the Apple computer
Newt Grinch, Speaker of the U.S. Senate
Picasso
(just a fraction of bright minds that used marijuana)
So all of these people must have suffered from this form of "brain damage" rite(I'll take my chances). We should all be pretty woried given the The Presiden of the United States and the Governor of California are both up there. HONESTLY.... to what extent does marijuana cause brain damage?!?! " "

GrapeTownResident wrote on Sep 4, 2009 4:51 PM:

" As for my sources that are apparently so unreliable, wether Joan M. Bello has a Ph.D or not, her book is based on the study of Dr. DONALD TASHKIN and other sources. And tests prove everything she said to be true. I know that marijuana doesn't miraculously cure and there are some downsides to marijuana, but the benefits GREATLY outnumber any negative effects, physical and economical. Marijuana in its natural form is one the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. And of course I gotta throw in there that WINE is FAR FAR MORE HARMFUL than marijuana!

Lets forget about our sources for A sec. Take ME for example, I play acoustic guitar, I am a second degree black belt in TaeKwonDo and I compete in tournaments all over Northern California. I work five days a week and pay taxes just like everyone else BUT, i also smoke marijuana! Tell me, does that make me A criminal...... does that make me A lazy stoner...... " "

Lexme2 wrote on Sep 10, 2009 3:33 PM:

" Wine Nurse and others who think it should not be lgealized it appears there is a double standard. Especially for Wine Nurse. You do not have these same concerns for alcohol by your screen name. It is ridiculous that it is still illegal. I say legalize it, tax it and be done with it. Treat it as alcohol. I must say I am impressed that so many here agree with legalization whether they smoke or not. Napa does have some smart citizens. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: