My guidelines for legalizing marijuana

I’m a college student. On a daily basis I hear conversations about getting “hammered,” “wasted,” and “stoned out of my mind.” Even when I was in high school, these things weren’t uncommon, both in people I knew and stories I heard of people I didn’t know. It’s viewed by teenagers as the “healthy cigarette,” or a “safe” way of getting a good buzz. Of course, we all know that’s not true. Research has shown that marijuana does a world of hurt to the teenage brain – not only is it physically addictive, according to teendrugabuse.us, 100,000 teenagers a year are treated for an addiction to marijuana, and show signs and symptoms nearly identical to those of someone experiencing a nicotine withdrawal.

Let’s face it: marijuana is bad for you, especially if you’re a kid. Go ahead and tell me what “good” properties it has, but you can rest assured that I can back up everything I say with solid research. In my opinion, the bad outweighs the good, and frankly I think it’s a sign of immaturity (and a serious lack of creativity) to sit around smoking a joint. But that’s just my opinion.

However.

I’ve recently changed my mind (to some extent) about the legalization of marijuana. I still don’t advocate it; I do think marijuana should ideally remain illegal. There is some irrefutable evidence that speaks for, if not the legalization of pot, then at least the decriminalization. The first is that it has some proven efficacy in treating patients who are terminally ill and/or in a great deal of pain, or undergoing extensive medical treatment. I have no doubt that marijuana is less harmful than an artificial, manufactured pill given to treat pain – it stimulates an appetite (often lost in patients undergoing chemotherapy), reduces pain, helps with depression as a result of treatment or illness, and helps fight nausea, among other things. I wholeheartedly believe that marijuana should be available to those who have a LEGITIMATE medical condition whose symptoms could be lessened by marijuana.

That having been said, I’ve always been sort of a “live and let live person.” I think it’s a stupid decision, but who am I to say that people shouldn’t smoke pot – as long as it doesn’t affect me? The United States screwed up in legalizing a lot of things – cigarettes, for one thing, would not even be considered for legal sale to the public if they were introduced now. It’s a free country, but I sure hate walking through clouds of potentially cancer-causing cigarette smoke. If marijuana is to be legalized, it should be with strict guidelines – guidelines that are ENFORCED. For example:

-- No sale or growth of marijuana permitted for anyone under the age of 21 (as with alcohol, marijuana affects developing minds, and the brain stops growing in one’s mid-20s)

-- No private growth of marijuana for the purpose of selling to other people – if you’re going to grow it, you can’t sell it to other people

-- STRICT monitoring of pharmacies and distributors of marijuana – no sale to minors, monitoring how much is sold, and ensuring that the pot is free of other drugs (because when sold on the streets, marijuana sometimes contains elements of other drugs like cocaine and PCP)

-- Designated smoking areas – ideally, one should only be able to smoke in one’s home, but it is a free country and at least if there are designated areas I’ll know where not to walk

They’re not foolproof, but hopefully with some guidelines, the legalization of marijuana could be a little more palatable for people like me.

90 comment(s)

AB390 wrote on Sep 29, 2009 6:14 AM:

" I agree that children should not use marijuana. However, if adults want to use it as a safer alternative to alcohol, they should be allowed to.

Legalizing marijuana would make it more difficult for teenagers to buy. Today it is easier for teens to buy alcohol than marijuana.

Do your part to legalize marijuana for adults. Visit http://yes390.org "

post-it wrote on Sep 29, 2009 7:46 AM:

" AB390,

My only concern is the law of unintended consequences. Assuming, since it is harder to get alcohol, kids do drugs. If it is harder to get pot, won't they just move on to another easier to get substance? What would that be? in today's market I suspect it would be meth, cocaine..... "

pharper wrote on Sep 29, 2009 10:13 AM:

" AB390, like I said, live and let live, but marijuana is NOT a safer alternative to alcohol. It's certainly no worse than alcohol, but when used by an adult the same way alcohol is, it is DEFINITELY just as harmful. The effects are much the same; however, alcohol in adults does not have the long-term effects on the brain that marijuana does, except in cases of extreme addiction/dependence. "

random name here wrote on Sep 29, 2009 11:56 AM:

" OKay, pharper, let's see your research on the symptoms of PHYSICAL withdrawl from pot. Do you have hallucinations, throw up, night sweats, uncontrollable shaking? Nope. It's psychologically addicting, meaning that there are no physical symtoms when a person stops using. Their mind just keeps telling them that they need it. When I quit as a daily pot smoker 17 years ago I was a little bummed for about a week, but I got over it.

The reason tobacco is legal is because it has a history of helping to build the economy of the young United States. Same with alcohol. Today, mega-corporations control both of them (and our government), so no chance of their banishment. Trust me, as soon as pot is legal and Monsanto Corp gets into the game it's as good as golden.

The people smoking pot now will be the same people smoking if it's legalised. They smoke because they want to. There may be a small influx of new users from legalisation, but nothing significant. When I was a daily pot smoker many years ago I got high because I wanted to. I quit because I wanted to. The marijuana laws were never anything more than an inconvenience.

You're young. You see the world as a ball of moldable clay. Easy to change things for the better. As you get older you'll discover that it's more like a round stone. You need chisels, hard work, and lots of sweat to make even the smallest changes. You're on the right track. "

Napagrrl wrote on Sep 29, 2009 1:01 PM:

" Phoebe, I definitely agree with you on the 21-or-older issue, but I have a couple of questions as far as whether marijuana is as harmful as alcohol. Did your research reveal statistics detailing the rate of motor vehicle accidents while driving under the influence of alcohol versus marijuana? How many innocents are killed by drivers under the influence of pot? And how about things like alcohol-fueled domestic violence, rape and myriad other things, like Kanye West's unfortunate outburst? We don't typically hear of these types of acts done because someone was stoned. Just asking! I have read enough of what you write to believe you have the answers. "

pharper wrote on Sep 29, 2009 3:30 PM:

" Napagrrl, unfortunately there isn't enough information available for me to say whether or not there are more or fewer traffic accidents while under the influence of pot than under that of alcohol. I would venture to guess that since the number of people who get drunk is probably significantly higher than those who use pot, the numbers are about even proportionately. Of course, I can't say that with any definitive knowledge, but that would be my guess, since the immediate effects of marijuana on the body are similar to the effects alcohol has - impaired vision, loss of motor skills, inability to make quick decisions or react quickly to stimuli, etc.

Just because pot isn't a "violent" drug doesn't make it any less dangerous. What about kids whose parents smoke pot in front of them, or pregnant women who smoke? Pot users do stupid things, even if they aren't prone to violence. According to teendrugabuse.us, most teenagers who are into hard drugs like cocaine or heroin start off with pot and then move on to bigger things in order to keep getting their high. If we legalize pot, who is to say the next thing won't be cocaine (92% of the cocaine produced in the world is consumed in the United States).

random name here, just because cigarettes helped build our economy doesn't mean they should EVER have been legalized. With the damage it has been PROVEN that they do, no one nowadays would dream of trying to make cigarettes legal. I don't propose we ban those, I'm just saying - our history of keeping unsafe things from being legally allowed to the public isn't great.

By the way, according to http://www.nida.nih.gov/Published_Articles/Essence.html, marijuana DOES show signs of being physically addicting. "

RFWoodstock wrote on Sep 30, 2009 8:49 AM:

" We believe marijuana should be legalized.
Do you?

Please vote in our poll. Go to http://woodstockuniverse.com/?page=legalize

Thanks.

Peace, love, music, one world,
RFWoodstock
www.woodstockuniverse.com "

Skip M. wrote on Sep 30, 2009 8:52 PM:

" My Dear Ms. Harper: As “random name here” points out, marijuana is NOT physically addictive. In fact, marijuana is about as addictive as a latte. (OK, time to shut down Starbucks!)

I am very pleased and (although I do not personally know you) proud to have read your commentary. I must admit, after reading the first paragraph, I was “loaded for bear” and ready to do intellectual battle with you on this question. But as I was writing this comment, I went back to further read what you had to say, to make sure I countered your every point. As I read, it became clear that you had considered your opinions and weighed them against further data. The result is that you adjusted your ideas in light of more reliable information. This is the mark of wisdom. A wise person recognizes that he or she never has all the facts, and is willing to review his or her assumptions and conclusions based on new information. You go girl!

Respectfully,
Skip M. "

Raven wrote on Oct 3, 2009 10:12 AM:

" well said, skip.... "

Dayadog wrote on Oct 3, 2009 11:09 AM:

" Pharper,
Physical addiction to marijuana does not exist and if it does it is so insignificant that study after study can not definitively say it is. I personally suffered from addiction to opiates after an intestinal surgery. If there is physical addiction it is no where near the level of other drugs like nicotine and caffeine, your body does not experience physical withdrawal symptoms other than brief insomnia for a week or so. "

Dayadog wrote on Oct 3, 2009 11:11 AM:

" Pharper, in regards to the alcohol comment:
Alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs, and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect can lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death. This “thousands times” is actually theoretical, since there has never been a recorded case of marijuana overdose.

The most toxic recreational drugs, such as GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyrate) and heroin, have a lethal dose less than 10 times their typical effective dose. The largest cluster of substances has a lethal dose that is 10 to 20 times the effective dose: These include cocaine, MDMA (methylenedioxymethamphetamine, often called "ecstasy") and alcohol. A less toxic group of substances, requiring 20 to 80 times the effective dose to cause death, include Rohypnol (flunitrazepam or "roofies") and mescaline (peyote cactus). The least physiologically toxic substances, those requiring 100 to 1,000 times the effective dose to cause death, include psilocybin mushrooms and marijuana, when ingested. I've found no published cases in the English language that document deaths from smoked marijuana, so the actual lethal dose is a mystery. My surmise is that smoking marijuana is more risky than eating it but still safer than getting drunk.

Despite the health risks and social costs, consciousness-altering chemicals have been used for centuries in almost all cultures. So it would be unrealistic to expect that all types of recreational drug use will suddenly cease. Self-management of these substances is extremely difficult, yet modern Western societies have not developed positive, socially sanctioned rituals as a means of regulating use of some of the less hazardous recreational drugs. I'd argue that we need to do "

Dayadog wrote on Oct 3, 2009 11:15 AM:

" Pharper, one more study here:
Long-term marijuana use is far less harmful than long-term alcohol use.

There is little evidence, however, that long-term cannabis use causes permanent cognitive impairment, nor is there is any clear cause and effect relationship to explain the psychosocial associations.

There are some physical health risks, particularly the possibility of damage to the airways in cannabis smokers. Overall, by comparison with other drugs used mainly for ‘recreational’ purposes, cannabis could be rated to be a relatively safe drug.

Source: Iversen, Leslie. Current Opinion in Pharmacology. Volume 5, Issue 1, February 2005, Pages 69-72. Long-term effects of exposure to cannabis. University of Oxford, Department of Pharmacology. "

this guy wrote on Oct 3, 2009 8:15 PM:

" Take you mind back to the history books. The Prohibition of 1920-1933, a period that took us from the Roaring 20's to the early years of the Great Depression. What a ride. Might you be familiar with Al Capone? Most gangs and criminals during that time primarily smuggled alcohol, the very social-drug we consume at banquets, parties, and celebrations today. Alcohol poisoning, ulcers, and violent psychological behavior, and alcohol dependency, are the negatives when overconsuming. Tobacco. Not too bad, but then we industrialized them, and injected them with nicotine. Along with 400 other chemicals including rat poison and formaldehyde. At 18, we have the privilege of purchasing a pack of these for 3-4$. I don't need to go into details of the negative side-effects.
But marijuana? It was BANNED because of racial stereotyping in the 1930's. Then the ridiculous propaganda films of the 50's/60's. And now, we're cursed with the image of cannabis consumers as tie-dye wearing hippies who want nothing more than to oppose ____, which you stand for. For too long, it's been this big negative icon aimed to be an icon for the 'dastardly liberal media'. And now, because people are so wishy-washy on the legalization of cannabis, these current generations EXPERIMENT with it. They 'abuse'. Then they feel lied to for finding that it's not the big bad toxi-machine ma and pa told us about.
If you REALLY and TRULY despise cannabis, legalize it. Have a more controlled environment in training your youth about the pro/con of the plant. Don't let Back Alley Bennie do it for you.
They see it's not that bad, or overhyped, they're supervised, and odds are increased they won't run off to experiment in a back alley with laced pot (speed, coke, etc). Just my 2 and a half cents. "

pharper wrote on Oct 4, 2009 4:36 PM:

" I'd like to point out, in light of dayadog and this guy's comments, that just because some other drugs are worse doesn't mean marijuana is bad. If I were to someday have kids, and they were faced with a choice between cocaine and marijuana, of course I'd hope they'd pick marijuana - but that DOESN'T mean I'd want them to smoke marijuana!

Soda isn't good for you - it's sugary and fattening. But it doesn't mean drinking diet soda is any better for you - it's just not any worse.

I don't see merit in legalizing something just because it's the lesser of evils. "

broke new mom wrote on Oct 4, 2009 6:08 PM:

" PHarper:

Just because it is the lesser evil, also doesn't mean it is going to go away.

At least if it is legalized, it can be regulated. As of right now, marijuana and all other controlled substances are not even being controlled.

They are underground. At least if it is legalized, it can truly be a controlled substance and can be monitored and regulated.

What's wrong with that? I mean, if regulated, you won't be able to find pot in schools and prisons anymore!

That's a BIG plus. Isn't it? "

pharper wrote on Oct 4, 2009 7:24 PM:

" doesn't mean marijuana ISN'T bad* That was an unfortunate typo. "

Dayadog wrote on Oct 4, 2009 9:32 PM:

" A mojor reason for the regulating of cannabis is to prevent exposure to other hard rugs like cocaine or meth. Trust me when I tell you that most drug dealers sell more than one kind of drug. This is why you WANT regulation.
This is something that is not talked about much, but the black market is in it for profit and often expose young pot smokers to other hard drugs. "

chronic707 wrote on Oct 6, 2009 4:57 PM:

" why do you guys care if someone smokes a plant?

how does me smoking a herb effect you?

quit wasting your time and energy on the topic of marijuana until your try it. end of story "

pharper wrote on Oct 6, 2009 7:16 PM:

" If there were some kind of evidence that legalizing it would keep pot out of schools, I might be more inclined to say sure, legalize it and tax the heck out of it! But I don't think it'll work that way; I think it'll become even easier for kids to get pot, which is why it has to be STRICTLY monitored. If a kid's parent is allowed to grow it and smoke it, what stops the kid from getting it and bringing it to school? What stops a kid from inviting his friends over and selling it to them?

Chronic707, if trying something were criteria for being able to talk about it, human conversation would cease to exist. I don't have to have smoked marijuana to know the effects and the possible ramifications of legalizing it. And frankly, yes, it DOES affect me when I have to walk through your cloud of smoke, or you crash your car into mine, or my kid hangs out with yours and is exposed to you smoking it. Yes, that DOES affect me.

By the way, marijuana the plant is an herb, but it CONTAINS a powerful drug, otherwise it wouldn't have any effect on you. "

wildflower wrote on Oct 7, 2009 9:38 AM:

" Drugs are drugs. Legal or not.

pharper...I remember in some other threads you were stating "One could not do the talk unless one has done the walk".

Good thing I ignored you completely.

Chronic707...effect is not the same as affect. Just fyi! "

pharper wrote on Oct 7, 2009 10:06 AM:

" wildflower, I don't remember ever having said that, and there aren't many cases in which I would - although there are a few.

I guess I don't understand the point of your post, unless it was to insult me. "

Raven wrote on Oct 7, 2009 12:01 PM:

" so wildlflower what are you saying...one shouldn't use any drugs, even legal (which marijuana is for medicinal purpose in California) to deal with any number of conditions? "

wildflower wrote on Oct 7, 2009 8:10 PM:

" pharper...How could the point of my post be insulting you?
It is merely to support your point that one does not have to have walked the walk to do the talk to prove a valid point, whether it is about marihuana use, abortion/adoption or gay rights. It's based on knowledge, long life personal experiences, an yes, opinion too.

Raven... No.
What I am saying is that there are side effects and restrictions to the use of every 'medication'.
Read the "warnings" on every label. "

Dayadog wrote on Oct 8, 2009 9:38 AM:

" Pharper,
This is what baffles me about people in favor of prohibition. Marijuana is much easier for kids to get than alcohol. If you don't remember that as a skid than you you missed it.
Your inability to deal with a cloud of smoke (where are you walking that this happens?) is no different than my inability to deal with someone smelling bad. You are not getting high when you walk through a cloud. Same issue, you don't like the smell.
Here is your proof of easier access for the kids:
A recent study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University has some startling results about teens and drugs.

http://www.kpvi.com/Global/story.asp?S=11003084 "

pharper wrote on Oct 8, 2009 10:09 AM:

" Yesterday afternoon: my roommate comes home and tells me that as she got off the bus, she walked directly past two young men (presumably my fellow college students) smoking a blunt in broad daylight in the middle of the street. If that happens now, can you imagine when it's legal? Yes, it is a little different than your inability to deal with someone smelling bad; someone's bad smell isn't going to give you a contact high or do any damage. It's not going to affect your children if they walk by. And simply because I've only experienced it once or twice doesn't mean it won't happen once marijuana's legalized in a free-for-all to all the pot smokers out there. That seems pretty irresponsible to me.

Trust me I know exactly how easy it is for kids to get booze, but not from their parents. I know of at least one store in San Francisco which will sell to minors, and otherwise my peers seem to conjure up alcohol in many different ways - older friends with access, older siblings, etc. It is, however, much harder for them to get marijuana, and I think it should stay that way, even if marijuana does become legalized.

wildflower, I guess I misunderstood the part where you said, "good thing I ignored you completely." I guess I still don't know what that means. "

Napagrrl wrote on Oct 8, 2009 7:20 PM:

" Phoebe Harper, Dayadog says, "If you don't remember that as a skid than you you missed it." Hmmm, just how old does s/he think you are?? Just wondering... "

Dayadog wrote on Oct 8, 2009 8:48 PM:

" Pharper,
You can not get high from walking through a cloud of smoke. Ask a probation officer. I worked with that side of the department earlier on. Also, I show you a scientific study that refutes your concern of a child getting marijuana easier. This is happening now. Show me your study. Let's work with each other. "

pharper wrote on Oct 8, 2009 9:31 PM:

" Dayadog - I'd be willing to accept that I can't get high from walking through a cloud of marijuana smoke - HOWEVER. The properties of cigarette smoke and of marijuana smoke are similar - they travel the same way, etc. If secondhand smoke from a cigarette is just as damaging as firsthand, it would follow that the same principle applies to marijuana. I like my brain cells intact, thanks very much, and like I said before - ideally, marijuana would remain illegal, but IF it were to be legalized, it should be under STRICT penalties for smoking outside of designated areas. I shouldn't have to walk through cigarette smoke or marijuana smoke if I choose not to partake in either one. It is not your right or anyone else's to expose me to something that is potentially dangerous for me and children I may have and so on.

As for your study - I agree with what the police representative said. That may be what the "statistics" are showing, but it isn't reality. First of all, 40% of the teens I know don't even smoke pot, let alone have a reason or venue to purchase it. If I wanted to get alcohol right now, it would be ten times easier for me than it would be for me to get marijuana, and that goes for anyone I know of who smokes pot. I realize I'm only speaking from my personal point of view, but I think that counts for something, particularly since your study is the only one of its kind that I can find. "

freeport56 wrote on Oct 9, 2009 2:14 PM:

" There is a legal form of pot on the market and has been for decades before the "medical marijuana" clubs were even thought of.

THC Cough Syrup has been a prescribed form of the female hormone contained within the plant. As everyone on this page seems to be up on their pot, it is what gets you "stoned" when you smoke or consume marijuana.
These so called clubs use the premise that you can buy weed for use in cancer treatment.....etc. Why not be able to buy the already legal form through a pharmacy in small vial increments.

To me the whole pot club thing is just a way to openly distribute. Granted, marijuana has medicinal uses, but it all boils done to the THC contained within the plant. The distilled form is clean simple and can be sold through a pharmacy and accomplishes the same goal. "

Dayadog wrote on Oct 9, 2009 11:45 PM:

" Pharper,
I understand your concerns. I'm not making light of them. I wanted to address two points specifically, you mentioned keeping your brain cells intact and lung safety issues (paraphrasing). I need you to have an open mind here, i am putting 2 links up. One demonstrates how THC promotes neurogenesis in the hippocampus region of the brain and a 2006 UCLA study (largest ever) peer -reviewed that shows no link to marijuana and lung cancer, if anything it has a protective effect according to Dr Tishkin of UCLA a pulmonologist (sp?) of 30 years.
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/25509/version/1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html "

Dayadog wrote on Oct 9, 2009 11:47 PM:

" I could say 100% of the people I know don't do XYZ, Does that mean no one does? Do I have a proper sample size or diverse demographic? Probably not. My demographic most likely will not deviate that far. "

Dayadog wrote on Oct 10, 2009 6:15 AM:

" If we cannot use statistics as a basis for science then what can we trust? How many scientific studies need to be done to prove a point. My understanding of science is that until disproven we should not assume otherwise.
Peer-reviewed study's use statistics. I have a hard time dismissing statistics over my personal point of view. We all have anecdotal evidence, however, if we cannot trust scientific studies than we are relegated to hyperbole. "

random name here wrote on Oct 11, 2009 9:51 AM:

" freeport56:

Your logic is flawed. If what you say were true, then eating a chunk of bitter-sweet chocolate would provide the same comfort and experience as enjoying a warm toasty mug of hot cocoa. Nice try. "

pharper wrote on Oct 12, 2009 2:03 PM:

" random name here: That's not flawed logic. The point of medical marijuana is not so folks can have a good time. It's to ease symptoms, and if taking THC in pill form eases the symptoms in exactly the same way that smoking does, then the pill form is safer - the effects of marijuana affect more than just the user.

Dayadog - I wasn't trying to speak only on an anecdotal basis; I was echoing what the police representative said in the article you showed. That may be what the study said, but it's not what we see on an everyday basis. Those statistics are not what's in evidence to me, and obviously to the police. And frankly, I wouldn't view the word of a bunch of teenagers claiming to get pot and alcohol as the gospel truth. I bet there's a loooooot of room for fudging the truth in there. Then, of course, there's the fact that it's arbitrary. What does "easier" mean?

The bottom line here is not that I am trying to dispute science (rather, point out that there is other, conflicting science and a flaw in some of the logic). My point is that if marijuana is to be legalized, I don't want it affecting me. I have the right to ensure my health and the health of my family, and if we're going to legalize something that jeopardizes that (or has the potential to) then I want to see some very strict regulations.

And by the way - what do you think the likelihood is that ANYONE smokes pot for "neurogenesis," and how many people do you think are actually being benefited by it? The stereotype of pot smokers is a stereotype for a reason. "

BROKE NEW MOM wrote on Oct 12, 2009 4:26 PM:

" PHarper,
You are fussing about all of this marijuana that may or may not affect you and your family if it is legalized, but what about all of the other toxic substances and paraphernalia that are already legal and hardly regulated that can and eventually will have some direct affect on all humans in this country?

Examples: Tobacco, alcohol, guns, refineries that pollute our water and air, oh and lets not forget the pharmaceutical industry.

Oh but its OK for all of those to be around. But golly we better regulate Marijuana QUICK!

In the mean time lets have all of the gang bangers run around with hard drugs, automatic weapons, cigarettes and booze in our neighborhood.

Personally, I would rather walk through a cloud of smoke than get hit by a stray bullet or have to live next to a refinery and get cancer. MMJ is shown to possibly prevent cancer and is Proven to at least reduce its symptoms, but lets build some big pyramid of propaganda against it. Forget that it has medicinal qualities, REGULATE!

That makes total sense. NOT.

By the way, there is no way to regulate something that has been underground for so many years. It's not possible. "

pharper wrote on Oct 12, 2009 4:59 PM:

" I don't think I ever said that gangs, hard drugs, alcohol, or firearms were okay. Did I? Did I ever once imply that they were lesser evils than marijuana?

No, I did not, and by saying that you are clouding the issue. We are talking about marijuana, nothing else. Everything else you mentioned is a separate issues, and NO, I'd rather those things not be around either. But that's not what this column or this discussion is about.

Your ire and sarcasm are not appreciated or relevant here. And just because marijuana may be the lesser of a few evils doesn't mean we should let it slide without giving it a second thought.

And if it's not possible to regulate it, why bother making it legal? "

Skip M. wrote on Oct 12, 2009 8:39 PM:

" Phoebe: Regarding your comment about your roommate seeing some guys “smoking a blunt” in broad daylight; if I am not mistaken, you are going to school in Chico. I would be surprised if while attending school up there that you never encountered such a scenario. Chico is a bit on the artsy liberal side.

Now, if you were in New London, Connecticut, (so conservative the liquor stores close up at 8:00pm, and the sale of alcohol is forbidden on Sunday), I might be surprised by that observation. "

pharper wrote on Oct 12, 2009 10:23 PM:

" I actually have never encountered such a scenario and try to avoid any situation where I might be around people who are smoking or drinking illegally. I don't doubt that it has something to do with the fact that I'm in Chico; however, can you imagine ANY college town if pot became a legal free-for-all?? I'd get my degree online.

As for artsy liberal - not so much. Granted, being a college town probably puts it on the liberal side politically, but it's more down-home country than Clinton-worshipping liberal. We've got about three country stations and two classic rock stations, and a whoooooole lot of good ol' boys. "

alucawanza wrote on Oct 12, 2009 11:44 PM:

" Teenagers are the same everywhere Skip. Is there a college in New London?
BrokeNewMom: You're rationalizing the use of marijuana. It's like saying your kid is o.k. because he just punched a kid because another kid just stabbed a kid. Sorry...both are wrong. "

Skip M. wrote on Oct 13, 2009 5:23 AM:

" Actually, Connecticut College is on the western edge of New London. But the main economic drivers of that region are the Navy (the New London Submarine base is just across the river, in Groton) and fishing.

I would say that if Marijuana were fully legalized, you would be just as likely to see public consumption of pot as you currently see public consumption of alcohol. And if you think kids don’t bring alcohol to school, guess again. I remember several instances of kids bringing booze to school when I was in high school. It was usually vodka, since it has a more subtle aroma. Alcohol always made me nauseous, so I was less inclined to join in (not saying it always stopped me). And as I recall, it was MUCH easier to get pot as a teen than it was to get booze. I am pretty sure that has not changed much.

Right now, pot dealers have nothing to loose, and money to gain by selling to kids. But if pot were legal and regulated like alcohol, just like a liquor store selling to minors faces fines and possible license revocation, so would a pot store. So, under those circumstances, I would bet you would see access to pot by teens reduced. But you will never see this access stopped entirely. Having marijuana illegal certainly has not accomplished this. "

pharper wrote on Oct 13, 2009 10:07 AM:

" I think the problem here is conflicting evidence. Adults keep saying that "it's easier for kids to get pot than alcohol," but frankly I sincerely doubt that and it isn't very realistic. If that were true, kids wouldn't drink as much; they'd get high at parties rather than playing beer pong, and that's not what they do. I don't see hookahs sitting outside every frat house in Chico, I see tables for beer pong and shot pong and whatever else. More people in high school drank than got high, and most people who did get high didn't do it too often because they didn't know when they'd be able to get pot again. I don't doubt that possible for most people to eventually get their hands on marijuana, but it's much, much harder than getting alcohol - most people's parents keep it in the house, for one.

I never in my life heard of anyone at New Tech bringing alcohol to school. EVER. And trust me, if someone had, I'd have heard about in within a few hours - rumors spread like wildfire in a school that small. Two kids once left campus, drank, and came back, but they were severely punished.

Honestly, I think public consumption of alcohol and of marijuana are not similar at all. Plenty of people smoke in public; why would smoking marijuana be any different? "

Skip M. wrote on Oct 13, 2009 12:23 PM:

" Pharper: You said "Plenty of people smoke in public; why would smoking marijuana be any different?" I counter with the point that plenty of people drink soda or bottled water in public, why then don't we have masses of people walking around drinking alcohol?

I cannot count the number of times I have been accosted by someone who had too much to drink. I cannot think of a single time where I had been threatened by someone who was high on pot alone. "

pharper wrote on Oct 13, 2009 1:17 PM:

" Simply not having been threatened by someone high on marijuana doesn't make marijuana any less of a drug. We've already established that it typically doesn't incite rage or violence in a person; that doesn't make it less harmful. Alcohol is illegal to drink in public, unless I'm mistaken (which I could be, but I don't think I am). Why cigarettes aren't illegal to smoke in public, I'll never know, but if they're not, why should marijuana be? It's exactly the same principle, and I'd venture to say that secondhand smoke from cigarettes is at least as harmful as secondhand smoke from marijuana, whereas the effects of soda and those of alcohol are drastically different. "

broke new mom wrote on Oct 13, 2009 5:36 PM:

" PHarper:

Can you prove the harmful effect of second-hand smoke from marijuana? For the sake of discussion? You obviously seem very passionate on this issue.

If you can, please site your sources.

I would be interested to see that.

And sorry if you don't like my opinions in "your" article. Next time, you can just skip over it.

But I am just as worthy of leaving a comment here as any of the rest of the bloggers. If my words offend you, ask Dan to take my comment off the board.

It won't be no skin off my nose!

Have a lovely day. "

iluvchurros wrote on Oct 13, 2009 6:52 PM:

" I was just wondering if anybody notices the image that pot gives to people as well? While I was going to school I would walk by the local 7/11 at lunch only to see at least 13 students smoking pot or cigarettes. Not really the prettiest thing I want to see at lunch, but It was just sad how trashy they looked while smoking it.Even he kids at the local skate park who come in and start smoking don't look the greatest. Now I know not everybody who smokes pot looks like this. I know plenty of people who smoke it and look decent enough to approach. It just makes me wonder what our younger generation will look like when they've started smoking pot. Maybe they're tight pants will have multiple holes in them, but who knows. And no I myself do not smoke pot, I'm not into that type of life style. "

pharper wrote on Oct 13, 2009 9:50 PM:

" broke new mom - I was not trying to insult you or say that your comments are not valid or welcome, I apologize if that's how it came across. All I'm saying is that of course I don't want guns, alcohol, gangs, etc. around my future children (or me) but they aren't pertinent right now. I have some pretty strong opinions about those things too, trust me, but they don't have anything to do with marijuana. If your implication was that these things are worse than marijuana and therefore we shouldn't worry about pot, then I strongly disagree. Perhaps these things CAN be worse, but that doesn't mean we should ignore everything else.

According to Columbia's Go Ask Alice (and various other sources) secondhand marijuana DOES leave enough THC in a person to register on a drug test, though not enough to indicate abuse of the drug. Exposure to marijuana smoke in a smoke-filled car or poorly ventilated room can result in higher levels from secondhand smoke, and according to one urinalysis coordinator I found, a PHYSICAL contact high IS possible, although it is sometimes just a placebo effect.

iluvchurros - I agree. Why would anyone want their children exposed to that, even barring possible physical harm from the secondhand smoke? "

freeport56 wrote on Oct 14, 2009 1:14 PM:

" The current drug testing uses Mass Gas Spectromertry to determine the amount of THC in your system. They can detect down to 50 billionth of a gram.

pharper- we have the right to persue live, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Making law to control our personal habits would be no less than tyranny. That is why smoking cannot be outlawed, it is a personal choice and our right to choose. "

pharper wrote on Oct 14, 2009 1:58 PM:

" That's true, but it's MY right to wlak down the street unmolested by things that could easily be regulated in order to preserve my health. I did NOT make the decision to smoke, so why I should be subject to those who did? If it affects me in any way- their impaired driving, the clouds of smoke I walk by, the lifestyle it presents to my kids, etc. - it becomes something that is NOT their decision to make for me.

Smoke all you want, but if it's going to affect me or mine at all, you can bet you're going to hear about it.

As for the drug test - yes, that's true. A human body has a certain level of THC in it already; however, after being exposed to even secondhand marijuana smoke, those levels increase to an abnormal state. "

freeport56 wrote on Oct 14, 2009 7:04 PM:

" pharper

"As for the drug test - yes, that's true. A human body has a certain level of THC in it already"

WHAT? Y ou need to explain that remark. It is not exactly THC. They are unidentified chemicals call\dubbed "anandamide", stes in motion the same actions in the brain as THC. But unlike cannabis, they is no getting the high sensation.

Thank you, i already know the test is correct. I have had hundreds of employees put throught it for the last 20 years. "

freeport56 wrote on Oct 14, 2009 7:20 PM:

" I guess that means you walk down streets where there are no automobiles? You know each car emits an average of 10lbs per day of exhaust(U.S. Geologic Survey).

"That's true, but it's MY right to wlak down the street unmolested by things that could easily be regulated in order to preserve my health"

While preserving mine as well. "

pharper wrote on Oct 14, 2009 8:36 PM:

" You have the right to smoke. You do not have the right to subject me to the disgusting substances coming from that smoke. In my opinion, it's practically akin to assault. I did not make the decision to inhale toxic chemicals into my body.

This is where it gets tricky, I know, because arguably anything could be potentially dangerous to anyone. But we're talking about what is literally a drug here, and whether or not we should allow people to be able to smoke it freely wherever they choose and thus put MY life at danger. Cars are regulated - you can't park in certain areas or drive drunk or in the opposite lane or if you're under a certain age or unfit to drive due to physical or mental reasons. So why should pot be any different? I don't necessarily want to legalize it, but if we're going to, I'd like to know there are going to be some RULES set in place to protect those of us who DON'T make the choice to commit genocide of our brain cells.

As for my remark - the human body contains traces of THC normally; it's not an unnatural chemical in the body until it reaches levels higher than those normally seen in the body. My point was that secondhand smoke from marijuana DOES physically and visibly affect the body. "

Dayadog wrote on Oct 15, 2009 8:59 AM:

" Pharper,
I think we are missing the big picture here. People are going to jail and being killed because of this prohibition. I don't think that people smoking in public, which is probably not going to be legal, is an issue that takes precedence over Americans going to jail and Mexicans being murdered.
Let's not let minor issues which can be resolved overshadow the real problem. People are having their lives ruined because they want to use a substance that has no direct adverse affect on anyone else. Arrests and murders do directly affect people. "

broke new mom wrote on Oct 15, 2009 6:39 PM:

" Cocaine is a drug, heroin and crack and meth and GHB and rohypnol and gosh even Viagra is a drug.

But for heaven's sake, marijuana is a PLANT. Like tomatoes or thyme or a fern tree.

It is an illegal plant. Unlike other illegal substances, marijuana is not altered in the same way. There are no "chemicals" added to it.

It is only gently coaxed by the grower in simple ways such as light, air, soil, and nutrients.

Quite possibly even safer than some of the nasty pesticides put on the very fruits and vegetables we buy in our local grocery store.

Hmm, wonder why everyone is so afraid of a plant. "

pharper wrote on Oct 15, 2009 9:15 PM:

" Cocaine is a plant too, and heroin was once a plant. Nothing was added to them; they were just refined in a way to extract the drug.

That's not a good argument. Being the "lesser" of a few evils doesn't mean we should just forget about it and let it go. No one's scared of a plant, they're concerned about the DRUG contained in the plant that makes people want to smoke it. It is the DRUG that makes marijuana dangerous, not the fact that it's a plant - making it considerably different from tomatoes or thyme, neither of which contain potentially dangerous drugs. Arsenic comes from a plant too; is that harmless just because it's "natural?"

Just because something isn't synthetic doesn't make it less dangerous. "

pharper wrote on Oct 15, 2009 9:18 PM:

" My apologies; it is cyanide that's made from plants, not arsenic. I was mistaken. "

mominapa wrote on Oct 16, 2009 8:16 AM:

" As of this coming February, I will have been a pot user for forty years. I have found no physical addictive properties to the HERB. I cannot take it with me on vacation so for two weeks every year or so I do not smoke or otherwise ingest marijuana and during that time I rarely even think about it unless someone else brings up the subject. When I was pregnant, I did not smoke nor did I start up again until my child was close to two years old. No withdrawals. I do not drink alcohol and quit cigarettes almost 11 years ago. I never was much of a drinker, but the withdrawals of cigarettes was tough for a long time. I no longer have cravings for that either. After 40 years of experience with this substance, I find myself sort of an expert on what I can do or not do. I am typical of what I am saying. I smoke pot for the very best reason there is - because I like it, but along with that, it does have "accidental" medicinal effects. I say accidental because I do not do it exclusively for medicinal purposes. That is just one benefit. Another reason is that I am an artist and it does help me focus on my art when my mind is whirling on other things. One good side effect when I don't smoke is that I lose weight because I don't get the "ravenous scavengeritis" or "munchies" that pot produces. "

pharper wrote on Oct 16, 2009 11:17 AM:

" "Because I like it" is the WORST reason there is; it's the reason teenagers ignore all the evidence that alcoholl is bad for them and get drunk anyway; it's the reason pedophiles hurt children; it's the reason gangs beat up weaker members. "Because I like it" means that despite all the evidence, despite the facts and the information given to you, you do it anyway simply because you want to. Smoking pot for a long time doesn't make you an expert; does breathing make me an expert on the lungs?

Your single anecdotal experience does not in anyway represent pot as a whole, and frankly I feel sorry for your children if that is what they are exposed to. having a parent who smokes cigarettes would be embarrassing enough; I don't know how I'd feel if my parents smoked pot. "

Skip M. wrote on Oct 17, 2009 6:42 AM:

" Pharper: Mominnapa's take on the subject is far from unique. In fact, Mominnapa's perspective is a pretty good example of the typical pot smoker. And just to be clear, when I say typical pot smoker, I am talking about the person who smokes pot, but is not on any serious illegal drug such as meth, acid (LSD), heroin, or crack.

The fact is, the vast majority of evidence against marijuana is largely propaganda. There has NEVER been a serious direct and controlled study of the effects of marijuana consumption. Every study you can cite in opposition to marijuana usage is based upon anecdotal evidence. And the sources used in these studies are generally tainted by other contributing issues such as; alcohol, tobacco, or hard drugs.

The legal status of marijuana is a political question. Political questions are governed by propaganda and emotion. And given the strength of the negative propaganda surrounding this issue, you can rest assured that marijuana is not likely to be legalized in your lifetime. "

alucawanza wrote on Oct 17, 2009 12:22 PM:

" 40 years! But you're not an addict. You can quit for 2 weeks. I hope you donate your brain to science so the long term effects of pot use can be determined. Wonder who you would have been without the alteration caused by 40 years of consumption. How's your child? Does he/she join you now? "

broke new mom wrote on Oct 18, 2009 12:12 PM:

" PHarper said: " Cocaine is a plant too, and heroin was once a plant. Nothing was added to them; they were just refined in a way to extract the drug.

Hmm, thank you for making my point. They have to be refined, purified and then things added to them to make them ready for "use". That makes them altered by man- just as I said.

Marijuana is not altered. It is simply dried and trimmed- nothing is added to it.

So yes, you are quite mistaken. And by the way- arsenic is a heavy metal.

So- how does cocaine and heroin compare to marijuana? How can anyone call it a drug when it grows out of the ground and virtually nothing has to be done to it?

Maybe it's because the government says it's a drug.

And I totally believe all of the propaganda they tell us.... NOT. "

pharper wrote on Oct 18, 2009 2:01 PM:

" Because it CONTAINS a drug, broke new mom! That's what gets you high; the drug in marijuana is THC, which is what affects a person and gives them the feeling of being high or stoned. Just because it's a plant doesn't make it not a drug! And just because people haven't touched it doesn't make it less of a drug or dilute the drug that's in it. Marijuana is a plant, yes, but a plant that CONTAINS a drug that makes people want to smoke it! By the way, nothing is added to cocaine or heroin; they are pure unless something is accidentally added to them - they just go through levels of extraction. So really, the only thing "man-made" about them is the way the drugs are pulled from the plants that formerly contained them.

Calling marijuana a plant doesn't make it safer or lessen the fact that it is, essentially, a drug, since that's what it's used for. Deadly nightshade isn't altered either, and it's 100 times more dangerous than marijuana. Nature makes things that are dangerous, even untouched by man. Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it's safe.

I already corrected myself about the arsenic; I was wrong. It's cyanide that is contained in various plants. "

alucawanza wrote on Oct 18, 2009 5:48 PM:

" broke new mom
Most of the drugs on the market come from plants...Pot contains THC, a powerful chemical. Penicillin comes from mold. Government says that's a drug too. "

barefoot wrote on Oct 18, 2009 7:43 PM:

" The other day, two guys were unloading a truck next to a fence. One guy was on a forklift, while the other was giving directions. Of course, the guy giving directions caused the forklift to crash into the fence. Both were immediately drug tested. Only the forklift driver was fired because he tested positive. I guess that company only wants to retain the "naturally" stupid people. You can't make this stuff up. "

mominapa wrote on Oct 19, 2009 7:36 AM:

" Phoebe, your response surprised me since you are normally have such an organized mind and read carefully. I never said I was an expert on marijuana, I said I was an expert on what I can and cannot do while using it. My reason for using it IS the best reason because it is the most honest. I don't appreciate the reference to pedophiles in your post. I was being HONEST, not hypocritical and that was what my original post tried to convey. When I started smoking pot in 1970, it was not widely used medicinally, or at least that was not what it was advertised to do. By the way, my children are grown and they have productive and functional lives. My son did a tour in Iraq and my daughter is college educated with a very responsible position with a very large company. They did not suffer for my pot use. And we are very close. Your generation will be one where most of them will be able to say that their parents smoked pot. It is not escapable anymore, Phoebe so either get on board and see the benefits or get out of the way and let it happen. It is a GOOD thing, much as gay marriage and human rights are good things when not abused. I do not believe my liking the effects of pot would be considered abuse since I do not "force" people to use it or even encourage it. I do, however, see the medical benefits and I will still like it. "

freeport56 wrote on Oct 19, 2009 8:21 AM:

" pharper-

Apricot seeds contain cynaide. "

mominapa wrote on Oct 19, 2009 9:41 AM:

" Phoebe, you state that nothing is added to cocaine, that it only goes through degrees of extraction. Have you ever used it or seen it used (in person, not on film)? You are wrong. True, it does go through degrees of extraction, but when it get to street level, several things, including baby laxative are used to "cut" it and make it go further for the dealer. I have seen this done, although I have always been too scared of that drug to ingest it in any way, shape or form. As I have stated, my choice of substance is Marijuana. I have grown it and have mostly bought it from people who have grown it so that the only pot I smoke is untouched by chemicals other than what is contained in it as it grows. It has never been a "gateway" substance for me or for most of the people I know. I don't advocate it for children because of a lack of motivation for some of them. There are always exceptions, but I, personally, will never advocate it for kids. Please research your statements before you make them. "

broke new mom wrote on Oct 19, 2009 12:26 PM:

" Mom in Napa:

Thank you for correcting miss harper.

It is very difficult to demonize something that you have no personal experience with.

Teenagers think they know everything because they heard it from someone else. "

pharper wrote on Oct 19, 2009 1:20 PM:

" You're right, mominapa, I did misread that - but it doesn't change my opinion on it. You are speaking for YOU and you alone. Marijuana isn't the same for everyone and the symptoms that accompany the use of the drug are TYPICAL, not necessarily universal. But we can't base law on the fact that you and perhaps a few people that you know are exceptions to the usual effects of marijuana.

Cocaine is not supposed to be cut; in its purest form it is not cut or laced with anything else - although I don't doubt that just like many unscrupulous dealers of other things (even things that are legal) many drug dealers do cut it to stretch it further.

I don't doubt that you were being honest, which I respect, but your reason is not a good one. Your reason boils down to the fact that even though you know it could be damaging, despite the evidence against it, and despite the fact that it is illegal, and despite the fact that it doesn't affect only you, the overriding reason you have for using it/doing it/smoking it/whatever is that YOU personally feel like it. I'm all for personal choice, but that reason is representative of not only ignorance, but selfishness (I'm using the word "you" as a general reference, not you specifically). Your wants are more important than the bevy of information that suggests that what you want to do is not necessarily a good idea.

I am terrified for the future of this world if most people are able to say their parents smoke pot. I don't think most people smoke pot in general anyway; that has not been my experience, although I could be wrong. "

pharper wrote on Oct 19, 2009 1:41 PM:

" broke new mom - I don't think nor do I pretend that I know everything. I'm well aware that I don't. But I don't just "hear things." I do research, I find studies, I look for expert testimony. The very premise of my original column was that even though I disagree with the legalization of pot, I think that if it were strictly regulated, it might not be so bad.

That doesn't mean I don't also see the danger of it. Disagreeing with you has nothing to do my age or any assumption that I know more. Based on the research I've done and experiences I've had, I've formed my opinion and until or unless I see something that either disproves it or makes me feel otherwise, it's not liable to change. I am perfectly willing to admit when I am wrong or when I've said something out of line, but I don't think I am, and I don't think I have. "

broke new mom wrote on Oct 19, 2009 2:42 PM:

" PHarper:

Get the facts. Become informed and learn the truth.

This is a well-respected and trusted website.

Enlighten yourself!

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

mominapa wrote on Oct 19, 2009 4:01 PM:

" Phoebe, you got one thing right. I AM speaking only for me and I never represented myself otherwise. I think your ignorance comes from age and that as you age you will have experiences that will change your mind on everything, not just this issue. I am not advocating that you or anyone else use marijuana. My point in responding to you and your posts is that you do not have all the information and research will not give you everything you need to know. I agree that drugs are not supposed to be "cut" but you are again naive when you say that cocaine in it's purest form is not cut or laced with anything. I know people who have done coke and in it's purest form, it is probably lethal to people with very little experience. I don't even know why we are discussing cocaine when it actually has nothing to do with anything we are discussing. I hate the idea of coke, meth, crack, rock or whatever you want to call it. I don't do it, wish it was obliterated from the earth and mostly that it not be dumped in the same conversation as cannabis. It is dangerous, lethal and mind numbing. I never have done it and I never will. At my age now, it would probably kill me and I'm not ready to go. I will not die as a result of smoking pot. Someday maybe we will meet. That will be interesting. I thought I knew everything when I was your age too. I KNEW NOTHING. "

pharper wrote on Oct 19, 2009 5:39 PM:

" I don't know how many times I have to say this, but my age has nothing to do with my opinion, and I DON'T think I know everything!

It is not "ignorant" to disagree with the legalization of pot just because you support it. I believe that the facts and evidence I have found outweigh the facts and evidence given by people who support the legalization of pot. That is not naive; it's how everyone forms (or should form) their opinions.

Please stop using my age to "excuse" or dismiss what I am saying. Age has nothing to do with it. "

alucawanza wrote on Oct 19, 2009 5:50 PM:

" mominnapa
We don't use the word "ignorance" when referring to Phoebe. She does her research and is a highly functioning college student. Her posts reflect her maturity and command of material and language. Of course research will give her what she needs to know on a topic. You don't have to go to Egypt to appreciate the wonder of the pyramids. Who cares about pure cocaine or if it's laced or not? That doesn't make Phoebe's opinion and knowledge less valuable. It's really not on topic anyway.
BTW: no one knows what will kill them. No one is ready to go!

The intoxicating effects of pot can easily result in vehicle accidents, misuse of things like knives or powertools, and even stupid accidents like falling off a balcony. Thus, even though the drug is not directly harmful, it can easily indirectly result in grave injury or death.
So the pot may not kill you but a mistake in judgement while under its influence might. Be careful... "

Skip M. wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:13 AM:

" Phoebe started this discussion with a post that lead me to believe she had done her homework on the subject. But as I read through the dialog here, I get the impression that she is more interested in redundant bickering than an honest discussion of facts.

When you dismiss a person’s direct experience and statements of fact with rhetoric and hype, you insult the intelligence of the person you are engaging, and diminish your own credibility. Mominapa and broke new mom both are making statements of fact regarding the typical marijuana consumer. Most marijuana consumers are casual users in similar fashion to most consumers of alcohol.

The problem with the anecdotal research that is abundantly available is that it is based largely on criminal records and surveys. When you conduct a survey regarding an illegal activity, a significant number of potential respondents are going decline to answer or answer falsely out of fear. Research based upon criminal records does not differentiate between someone who is caught with marijuana alone, as oppose to those who are in possession of other legal or illegal substances. I know this based upon research that I have reviewed, as well as my experience working for the Hawaii Department of Public Safety, which has jurisdiction over that state’s prisons and state law and local law enforcement. My department monitored drug treatment facilities, and inmates involved in these facilities.

I also used to be a regular marijuana consumer, because I like it. The only reason I don’t smoke it now it that it is more expensive than I am willing to pay. I am an accomplished software engineer (computer programmer), and hold a bachelor’s degree in business accounting. I picked up computer programming at a time when I smoked marijuana every day. "

mominapa wrote on Oct 20, 2009 8:14 AM:

" "alucawanza" - Never in my wildest dreams do I think Phoebe is anything but the smartest, most intelligent and engaging young woman I have ever "engaged" besides my daughter. They are actually similar. My use of the word "ignorant" was not derogatory, only descriptive. She has never used marijuana so her "research" is not complete. I don't advocate that she use it, but to alter her research to include the positive aspects of this substance. There are plenty to be had but she "ignores" them and that is what makes her "ignorant".

"Skip M", thank you for helping me make my point even better than I could do myself. Everything you said is spot on.

Phoebe, please try to understand that I am not discriminating against you because of your age, but please accept that some of us who have lived a lot (a lot) longer than you might have benefitted from having more life experience if nothing else. Yes, your opinions are indicative of your age and your inexperience and that is not a bad thing, only the fact. You have a lot more years and unfortunately you will never catch up to me, but if we could meet on some other plane where we would have had similar time on earth, you would see and admit that your tender age does color your opinion simply because you have not lived long enough yet. It is like a person with no children saying how much they love children. I would not argue with that, but you cannot know the love you can have for a child until that child is yours, by birth or adoption. Same with any other experience you can have in life. "

orchid1 wrote on Oct 20, 2009 3:16 PM:

" Hahaha

this is the weirdest article
Are you for it or against it
cuz you cant think its harmful and think its good. Medical Cannabis is real and not everyone that smokes Cannabis is a fiend. You are in college with children. People abuse just about everything from chocolate to cocaine. Some people should be prohibited form possessing twinkies or chocolate bars but its absurd to dictate what a mature adult may or may not consume in his own home. For the record Cannabis is one of the most researched plants in the world due to repeated attempts of justify its illegality and contrary to your report the research is overwhelming in steting the safety and medical benefits of cannabis. Can the NVR please hire some peopl that know how to research and article with due diligence. By this poorly crafted article they must be giving away editorial positions like hotcakes . Come on this is not world class commentary this is turining into some highschool kids blog. Next we'll be hearing about how
"Re-bobs spoted on westwood hills"
or
"Bat boy steals mini-cooper"

get some real writers "

Skip M. wrote on Oct 20, 2009 6:25 PM:

" Orchid1: Just to let you know, what you are reading and commenting on is a blog post. NVR is generous enough to provide us this forum to discuss many issues. The writer of this post is young, and she is also intelligent. While we may not agree on some issues, this one in particular, Ms. Harper deserves to be heard and debated in a respectful manner.

Based on your comments regarding the quality of writing in Ms. Harper’s article, I would have expected far fewer grammatical errors in your own comments.

However, I always give credit where it is due. You are correct that the vast majority of unbiased research indicates marijuana is relatively safe. Should everyone go out and spark up a Bogie? Probably not. And the anti marijuana crowd has done an excellent job of producing volumes of propaganda against marijuana. William Randolph Hurst was the driving force in the criminalization of marijuana. While Mr. Hurst is long gone, this is one of his legacies. If supporter of marijuana law reform had the financial resources to throw around today that Mr. Hurst had in his day, legalization at the federal level would be a slam-dunk.

By the way, we did have a discussion
about the latest Rebob attacks only a couple weeks ago. "

winemd wrote on Oct 20, 2009 9:06 PM:

" For the record, I have a lot more life experience than Phoebe. And in this area, I agree with her. I don't in every area, but I don't think that being older automatically means that you are right. So my opinion has no greater weight because I have more life experience. Even if we don't always agree, I appreciate her willingness (so rarely seen) to listen to other positions.

Life experience is useful in forming your opinions, but it is not the only way that people form opinions. Facts come from many sources, not just personal experience. I recognize that my experiences are likely not the same as others on a given subject, so it is hard to compare. We are all different, so I don't base my opinions solely on my own experiences. Would a person who is older and has more life experience who does NOT think that marijuana should be legalized have a more legitimate argument only because they are older? no. "

pharper wrote on Oct 20, 2009 10:29 PM:

" Thank you, winemd and Skip M. Orchid1, I am sorry that you feel that way; I always do my best to write well and check for typos (although I'm well aware that good writing doesn't only mean having perfect syntax).

Mominapa, I know it may not be what you mean, but your post implies that to know what I'm talking about, I should go smoke some pot, and I'm sorry, but I never will. I respect that there is probably some merit to the belief that pot has been "demonized, " but based on what I've seen, there is far more merit to the studies that have been done showing the harm that marijuana does to the human body - particularly the young human body - both directly and indirectly.

Skip M, I'm also sorry that you feel I'm bickering. My posts have not been intended to argue with people, merely to point out why I feel as I do - if pot is to be legalized, and if it is as harmless as people say it is, then I think the least that legislation can do is put some strict regulations on it so that it isn't as troublesome to people like me who are concerned about the possible damage it could do. I know medical marijuana has its benefits, and I know that probably most pot-smokers aren't going to go out and force smoke down the lungs of children and babies. But that doesn't mean I think that pot should just be a legal free-for-all the way cigarettes are.

I hope that makes sense and sounds less petulant. "

Skip M. wrote on Oct 21, 2009 4:48 AM:

" Pharper: Very good! My main point in my last post to you was to call attention to the tone of the debate.

While I support legalization, I agree that restrictions are in order. I would bet most of the other respondents in this discussion who support legalization share my point of view. Dr. Dean Edell is one prominent medical professional who is on record as stating that marijuana has minimal harmful side effects. Dr. Edell also says that the medical benefit to those with wasting and certain ocular conditions outweigh the risks posed by marijuana.

In my own opinion, and it is my opinion, channeling the discussion of marijuana as a medical treatment is a dishonest path to legalization. While the medical benefits are valid, most people know that the “medical” tag is simply a path to the greater objective. So I do not choose to hide behind the poor health of others in my quest for legalization.

Marijuana should be legalized. The same restrictions that apply to alcohol should apply to marijuana. The same tax strategy that applies to alcohol and tobacco should apply to marijuana.

It was once common practice to give cranky children a shot of brandy to make them sleepy. Today, we call that child abuse, and people loose custody of their kids for this. If someone is forcing pot smoke in the face of a child, or feeding them pot brownies, they should face the same penalties as that person dosing a child with brandy. "

mominapa wrote on Oct 21, 2009 7:43 AM:

" Phoebe, thank you again for your response. I have said many times in this thread that I do not advocate the use of marijuana for children or anyone who does not wish to smoke or otherwise ingest it. When I was a cigarette smoker I never advocated that either. My point is that I have been on both sides of this debate. I have been a non pot smoker, obviously before I started and I thought it was the devil weed, etc., but through research much the same as yours and personal experience my opinion is as I have stated. If you do not want to smoke it, good for you, just don't, stick to it and I would applaud your decision. I think we have all stated our opinions and any further exchange is probably anticlimactic now. I am thankful that now we have a choice - you choose your way and I will chose mine and we can all be glad that there is an outlet for people who can be helped by this herb to receive the help they need and not suffer or fear legal retribution. Good day, Phoebe, I've had my say and I've enjoyed our exchange. You are a very likable and intelligent young woman and you will go far. I wish you all the luck in the world and good health that will not force you to become dependent on prescription drugs. "

native74 wrote on Oct 21, 2009 9:09 AM:

" pharper - wow, you are in for an awakening after leaving Napa. I'm no longer surprised at who does or does not smoke pot in this world, let alone small little 'ol Napa.

I also think it has it's place, but I'm not fond of it personally. I think if it were legalized the jobs that need clear headed people will still drug test or more testing will be enforced.

As I was once told on my first job outside of Florida (when suggesting the company should drug test) - "HA! Half or more of management would be out of a job!" And that was only the beginning.

A gateway drug? Just an excuse by those who oppose it. I've never tried anything else and personally have been 'freaked out' when those who were into ectasy or cocaine felt "Free" to dope up in front of me.

I wish you luck in your beliefs, but also hope you keep an open mind on this topic. Who knows, one of your biggest mentors might end up being a closet "pot head." If that were to happen, don't let that shatter your image of them. "

IamBobby wrote on Oct 21, 2009 1:37 PM:

" Ben Harper said/sang:

"Burn One Down"

Let us burn one from end to end,
And pass it over to me my friend.
Burn it long, we'll burn it slow,
To light me up before I go.

If you don't like my fire, then don't come around,
'cause I'm gonna burn one down.
Yes, I'm gonna burn one down.

My choice is what I choose to do,
And if I'm causing no harm, it shouldn't bother you.

Your choice is who you choose to be,
And if you're causin' no harm, then you're alright with me.

If you don't like my fire, then don't come around,
'cause I'm gonna burn one down.
Yes, I'm gonna burn one down.

Herb the gift from the earth,
And what's from the earth is of the greatest worth.
So before you knock it try it first,
Oh, you'll see it's a blessing and not a curse.

If you don't like my fire, then don't come around,
'cause I'm gonna burn one down.
Yes, I'm gonna burn one, oohhh. "

mominapa wrote on Oct 21, 2009 4:02 PM:

" Well said, Native74 "

pharper wrote on Oct 21, 2009 10:16 PM:

" I think my awakening came in Napa, native74, when I realized how "cool" it is to smoke pot and look ridiculous in front of one's peers. I was hardly surprised when I came to Chico and could walk down the street on any given evening and smell pot smoke in the air. "

broke new mom wrote on Oct 23, 2009 12:15 PM:

" PHarper:

I am still interested to see what you thought about the link to the website I posted and its research/ fact value as well as myth busting about marijuana, etc.

Please, let me know either way. "

alucawanza wrote on Oct 23, 2009 4:10 PM:

" orchid1
You can always choose not to visit these sites.
Phoebe is posting to give the views of a young woman attending college. If you are not interested in those views there are a lot of other places and blogs to visit.
I don't believe your post addresses the message but is a critique of the messenger. The topic is very appropriate for these times and has encouraged discussion.
BTW: Rebobs live along Partridge Road. Everyone knows that.... "

freeport56 wrote on Oct 26, 2009 4:58 PM:

" It is funny to read all of this and realize this arguement has been going on since the early 1900's.

There used to be "Mother's Little Helper", a heroin based liquid to quiet children down. Coke gave you a lift from the Cola Nut (high in caffine), and the Cocca Plant (cocaine). Coke had to remove them when they were classed as narcotics in 1906.

My personal favorite reference to marijuana is the movie "Reefer Madness". The anti-marijuana movies is so funny. It used to be the midnight movie at theaters all over L.A. "

whatsgoinon wrote on Nov 24, 2009 8:15 AM:

" wow! everyone knows it was the propaganda of william randolph hearst and dow chemical lobbyist to congress to make mj illegal using scare tactics and false information. .. it took money and power to ilegitimize it and it will take some common sense (which is not very common) and good logic, money and power to legalize it and destigmatize it. funny how it is ok for us to put up with violent abusive fathers drunk on alcohol.... that is served on every corner in public...or parents on "pain killers" all numbed up to some cloud welll above reality. natural pot is taken like medication , a certain amount, privately in homes like other recommendations for poisonous pharmacueticals.... only pill manufactures have to add the ingredients that make your hair fall out and give you taRDIVE KINESIA AND OTHER RIDICULOUS SIDE EFFECTS... NATURAL is the only way to medicate.... in addition to acupuncture, massage, hydrotherapy, hyperbaric healing, omega 3, honey, coq, milk thistle, tea tree, and so on.... this info has been available for thousands of years. it is propaganda and fear that criminalizes it... and mexican drug cartels.... meth is the menace big time...., but as a whole we will come to realize this all too late. "

whatsgoinon wrote on Nov 24, 2009 8:37 AM:

" william randolph hearst's interest was for his access to paper (trees) when hemp is a sustainable resource.... it was a threat to his empire.... hemp makes the best paper and hemp seed has more digestable protein than a porter house steak. it was the lack of information and lack of interest , then fear that allowed the masses to follow this idea that mj and or hemp at any level is so dangerous. but it is actually the answer to many of our criminal and enviromental problems. George Washington himself had fields of marijuana... it was a valued sustainable and very useful crop. good quality clothing has been made from it.... american flags from long ago that have endured were made of hemp.... also it can power industrail plants with the stems and stalks for fuel. the medicinal qualities are countless along without serving more severe problems from side effects. the powers that be want you to assume their ideas without question they want you to be fear based, cow towed and dumbed down so they can keep raping the earth and stuffing themselves with money. "

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: