People who want to do drugs, or have friends who want to do drugs, want to legalize them. Scream "Not Me!!" if you want, this former junkie knows better.
People who do not want to see this country go down the tubes want answers.
We have never had a war on drugs, because we have never enforced the laws that are already on the books that call for confiscation of illegal transactions of large amounts of money, nor have we ever locked up bankers when they were caught laundering drug money. Practices of off shore banking are left unchecked.
This is a political question, not anything else. Why were our crime rates at such low ebbs, when we out produced the world in everything one can imagine? One wage earner per family then, has turned into three per family now.
I seem to hear a superficial question from someone who cant put the joint down, "What has that got to do with anything!!?"
Cant we just stop and think for a minute? What happened in the 60s and 70s? Where did crack come from? Aliens? What was MK Ultra about? How about Tavistock? Does anyone think for a second Ken Kesey was funded by the Government because they just thought it would be neat to watch people go nuts on our streets?
Why was Scott Pierce just turned loose in 1988 after he pled guilty to 1400 counts of laundering money?
Sorry fishjoel, I sort of got off of the reply to you, but please let me borrow your space for just one more minute.
For all of you folks out there who think letting people alone to smoke dope, this leads to stronger stuff. Correct that and you err.
Not only have I researched this, I unlike apparently most of you, have had serious reason. Not only have I been seriously hooked on drugs, but I have a dead brother because of serious illegal drugs. I, my brother, and every one of my friends, swore, we would never do anything but smoke dope! I have done drug counseling where I have seen families torn to pieces with people swearing they only smoke pot, and with obvious evidence of the contrary. [B]MAYBE YOU GUYS NEED TO DO SOME RESEARCH> [B] You ought to be praising fishjoel for standing his ground and keeping his head straight.
(Maybe somebody can actually look at what I am saying instead of insulting my composition)

How many complete scientific journals and meta-analysis's have your read on the subject?

Do you realize that EVERY objective panel, conference, study etc. of US drug policy has recommended against drug prohibition? Did you know that in the 1970's Nixon arranged for a governmental panel to study all the current research concerning marijuana and drug policy and is caught on tape telling the panel leader to not come back with a recommendation other than prohibition? The panel did the reverse and recommended immediate federal decriminalization of marijuana with the possibility of a future regulated marijuana market.

Did you know that Reagan funded fraudulent studies of marijuana that bordered on junk science in which the results/conclusions of these studies have never been successfully replicated today?

Did you know that politicians today still use the fraudulent data from these studies as justification for marijuana prohibition?

Did you know that NIDA, a government agency is the only organization that can do studies using actual plant material and compounds from cannabis, outside of those given special permission to acquire low quality NIDA supplied cannabis? Even then NIDA has to approve the study and guess what any study of cannabis' medical values is strictly forbidden.

There are plenty of people, religious groups and political organizations that don't use drugs, or even support their use but are against prohibition because the plethora of social harms. Drug prohibition is sending our country down the tube. The drug war shreds our constitution, incites gang proliferation of our cities, creates organized crime, funds terrorist groups and totalitarian regimes, fills our prisons with non-violent offenders and to make room; rapists, sex offenders and other violent criminals are sent home early. It is true, a drug offender is going to spend more time in prison than any of the previously mentioned.
Do we live in the same country? I live in a country that seizes property without arrest, evidence or cause due to the War on Drugs. I live in the country that arrests more of its own people both per capita and in raw numbers, then in the entire world. I live in the country where 1 out of every 2 drug arrests are for marijuana a drug far safer than what 60% of the populace uses on a daily basis. I live in a country where the budgets of the ONDCP and the DEA increase regardless if their tactics reap failure or success. Where are you living?
Now you are just rambling.
What does that have to do with anything? I have not smoked in years, yet over 20 million use it regularly and over 3,000 minors with try it for the first time each day. Both according to government data.
You are rambling, please put forth a coherent argument.
There is no pharmacological evidence that the use of cannabis leads to the use of other drugs, period.

Have you read peer reviewed scientific journals and meta-analysis' on the subject? I seriously doubt it.

Marijuana contains over 400 carcinogens. This by the way, is a study that was done last March. "any study of cannabis' medical values is strictly forbidden." I'm rather happy about that. It lets me know that there are still some aspects of the Food and Drug Administration that still function decently.
You can quote data all you want, the studies you are quoting are lacking in fact. Look this one up Psychopharmacology 115: 340, 1994. Look up some Pathological studies. In fact, do your own research instead of the research that other people have told you about. You will find it lacks scientific proof.

"Do you realize that EVERY objective panel, conference, study etc. of US drug policy has recommended against drug prohibition?"
What a reach!

So you do not want to know who Scott Pierce was. Know nothing of the Tavistock Institute. Ignored my experience. Refused to address my statement of why we never lock up drug bankers. Then say that there is no evidence that pot smokers ever go to other drugs. Why do most studies show that 3 out of 4 hard drug users started with pot?
You know, I don't ramble. I will say this, I don't even know you and I can make this statement, I have studied this subject probably far deeper than you. Just because I don't pop off, and choose to use a seemingly different method of discussion, shouldn't give you inspiration to insult me.

Just because you were unable to use drugs responsibly does not mean that there is something wrong with marijuana. The vast VAST majority of people who smoke cannabis do not develop a serious drug problem. In fact, the majority of people who smoke cannabis don't even qualify as "heavy" smokers.

You may have allowed yourself to become addicted to other, more serious drugs, but marijuana didn't cause that, you caused it.

__________________
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine

the whole concept of a gateway is a fallacy. correlation does not equal causation. of course no one is just going to jump straight to crack before trying anything else. pot is a logical first choice because it is a relatively harmless light drug that is generally accepted in our culture. after trying marijuana and realizing that it is perfectly safe (and a hell of a good time to boot), some people will wonder what else they have been lied to about.

most people drink alcohol before they ever try pot but people don't consider that a gateway drug. that's because there's no such thing as a gateway drug. of course, i'm not going to convince you, and whatever attitude you need to take in order to stop using whatever hard drug you were using is fine by me because addiction can be a terrible terrible thing, but don't assume that just because you were unable to use drugs responsibly that others are also unable to do so.

__________________
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine

You know, you do ramble, and I've likely studied this far deeper than you and deal with the sociological/criminal aspects of this issue every night I go to work.

Quite simply, you don't know what you're talking about.

In and of itself, this is indicative of mediocre public policy on the part of republicans. I don't view it much differently than the Vietnam War, as a form of public policy. Official reports of (the same bridge) being destroyed several times, for propaganda purposes was considered routine and necessitated by less efficient command economics.

I consider the artificial wars on abstractions to be a form job creation policy by less effective politicians. The Cold War is over, we have no compelling need to continue the warfare-state economic model of last millennium.

Providing for the general Welfare of the United States is specifically enumerated in our Constitution, for even republicans subscribing to the republican doctrine to understand.

It can also be considered a justification for religious morals (i.e. true witness bearing concerning our supreme law of the land) tests for public office.

Based on a NIDA study that used a ground pulp of budding flowers, leaves, seeds, stalks and stems. Since the vast majority of cannabis users smoke budding flowers and avoid the latter, this study has very little real world relevance to what cannabis users actually encounter. Not to mention that studies done by John Hopkins Institute, Kaiser Permeate, and UCLA have all found that cannabis use, even long term heavy use, is not positively associated to tobacco related cancers of the mouth, head, neck or lungs, in cannabis only smokers. There are no other studies that contradict their findings. You are happy that the US government is setting up roadblocks to scientific advancements?
I have read over 10 peer review scientific journals and meta-analysis' on the subject, I guarantee I am more read on the subject than you.
It is not a reach, it is absolutely true. They did not all go as far to recommend complete legalization, but all said that the drug war should have more focus on treatment and less on prohibition and criminalization.

Looked it up and all I found was blogs with conspiracy theory hogwash. Yes MK-ULTRA was a real CIA program but it is nothing like the conspiracy theorist make it out to be. Your personal experience is anecdotal evidence, it is only one persons experience and has no relevance to a public policy debate. Otherwise I can bring up my positive experiences with cannabis and how it help with my chronic migraines that were so bad they made me black out and how it helped my insomnia, two problems I do not have today, either because I outgrew them or the cannaboids helped the condition. I did not mention this because it is only my experience and I have no proof that my experience could carry on to others. Because the drug war fuels corruption, plus bankers have lots of money and with money comes power. There is no evidence that on a pharmacological basis that cannabis is a "gate-way" drug. Go ahead and show me a study that says otherwise.
I have read over 10 full peer-reviewed scientific journals and meta-analysis' on the subject, I think I can make the claim that I am well read on the subject.

Dave do you realize that it is not a matter of if marijuana will be legalized but when?

I am positive that marijuana is either going to be legalized or the laws are going to be fully decriminalized on the west coast within the decade. Currently six out of ten registered west coast voters are for legalization. Once it gets on a voter ballot it is going to pass by a landslide. The only problem I see is the Feds may try and undermine the law based on out of context interpretations of the interstate commerce clause. To which the state can employ full decriminalization; no charges or fines for the personal possession or cultivation of cannabis. The state does have the power to do this since 99% of drug arrests are at the state and local level.

So when cannabis laws are either completely decriminalized and or legalized, and the sky does not fall, are the prohibitionist going to admit they were wrong?

I am sure we will find out in the following decades.

Marijuana has been used for centuries by many cultures. The details of when marijuana use started in the US are sketchy. The truth is, marijuana did not seem to be a problem until the 60s, when the quality of marijuana started improving and when the hippies made it a part of their culture. For things like cocaine and opium, those were with us in the 1800s. Forms of heroin were put into many "tonics" that were sold to people and many people started becoming dependent on the opium derivatives. This is what prompted the first drug laws in the US.

So, may I ask, what is your point?

You claim you have done the research, but that is difficult to believe considering your stance on the issue. Even many police officers now support the legalization of marijuana.

So, the truth comes out. I have found that a large majority of those who support drug prohibition do so because of personal experiences. These personal experiences have clouded your judgment. The gateway theory to marijuana has been shot down in more recent studies and if there is any truth to the gateway theory, it is because of the prohibition of marijuana which forces users to have to go to drug dealers to buy pot and thus they are exposed to other drugs and the users of other drugs.

I have done over 200 hours of research on marijuana. I have studied the history of marijuana, the Reefer Madness campaign, the Marijuana Tax Act, as well as read dozens of studies on pot, from the gateway theory, to driving under the influence. All of the evidence shows that marijuana is safer than any other illegal drug and is safer than many prescription drugs. Compared to alcohol, it is 1,000 times safer.

Wow, the 400 carcinogens evidence. Wow. So then, there should be evidence that marijuana causes cancer then right? Where is this evidence?

In the largest study ever done, it was shown that marijuana use does not increase the risk of lung cancer. In a study from Madrid, THC was shown to shrink several times of tumors. This study reinforced what was learned in 1974 government story which was only reported in a single newspaper before it was buried. The Madrid study was totally ignored by the US mass media, even though it was published in the journal "Nature."

Feel free to post any studies you have as I would like the chance to show you how they are flawed.

Check these out.......

"The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies."

Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows

People who smoke marijuana do not appear to be at increased risk for developing lung cancer, new research suggests.

While a clear increase in cancer risk was seen among cigarette smokers in the study, no such association was seen for regular cannabis users.

Even very heavy, long-term marijuana users who had smoked more than 22,000 joints over a lifetime seemed to have no greater risk than infrequent marijuana users or nonusers.

The findings surprised the study’s researchers, who expected to see an increase in cancer among people who smoked marijuana regularly in their youth.

“We know that there are as many or more carcinogens and co-carcinogens in marijuana smoke as in cigarettes,” researcher Donald Tashkin, MD, of UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine tells WebMD. “But we did not find any evidence for an increase in cancer risk for even heavy marijuana smoking.” Carcinogens are substances that cause cancer.

Tashkin presented the findings today at The American Thoracic Society’s 102nd International Conference, held in San Diego.

FOXNews.com - Marijuana Does Not Raise Lung Cancer Risk - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News

ost Americans don't know anything about the Madrid discovery. Virtually no major U.S. newspapers carried the story, which ran only once on the AP and UPI news wires, on Feb. 29, 2000.

The ominous part is that this isn't the first time scientists have discovered that THC shrinks tumors. In 1974 researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institute of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice -- lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia.

The DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumor research, according to Jack Herer, who reports on the events in his book, "The Emperor Wears No Clothes." In 1976 President Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research and granted exclusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies, who set out -- unsuccessfully -- to develop synthetic forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the "high."

The Madrid researchers reported in the March issue of "Nature Medicine" that they injected the brains of 45 rats with cancer cells, producing tumors whose presence they confirmed through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). On the 12th day they injected 15 of the rats with THC and 15 with Win-55,212-2 a synthetic compound similar to THC. "All the rats left untreated uniformly died 12-18 days after glioma (brain cancer) cell inoculation ... Cannabinoid (THC)-treated rats survived significantly longer than control rats. THC administration was ineffective in three rats, which died by days 16-18. Nine of the THC-treated rats surpassed the time of death of untreated rats, and survived up to 19-35 days. Moreover, the tumor was completely eradicated in three of the treated rats." The rats treated with Win-55,212-2 showed similar results.

The Spanish researchers, led by Dr. Manuel Guzman of Complutense University, also irrigated healthy rats' brains with large doses of THC for seven days, to test for harmful biochemical or neurological effects. They found none.

Pot Shrinks Tumors; Government Knew in '74 | | AlterNet

THE MADRID researchers had heard of the 1974 government study done by the US, but were unable to find a copy of that study. An ALTERNET reporter located the study and sent a copy to the researchers.

Only one newspaper covered the study back in 1974.......

in the Local section of the Washington Post on August 18, 1974. Under the headline, "Cancer Curb Is Studied," it read in part:

"The active chemical agent in marijuana curbs the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice and may also suppress the immunity reaction that causes rejection of organ transplants, a Medical College of Virginia team has discovered." The researchers "found that THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent."

SO, WHAT CANCERS ARE CAUSED BY MARIJUANA?