C'mon CA, why didn't you pass Prop 19?!

^I don't get it.

Originally Posted by wake77

"because your overall grasp of reasoning and facts is lacking"

I strongly bet to differ. Once you complete Multivariable Calculus (finished that Spring 09), upper-level mathematics moves into less computation and more into mathematical logic and reason. It has actually lead to a character flaw, because I have to look at things logically. For example, if I offer a claim such as, x^2 + x + 41 is prime for any x in the set of positive integers, and you counter "what if x=41", then my claim is false. Well let's apply this to the original argument, like if I say pot has never been shown to cause cancer, and you produce [U]ONE[U] counterexample, then my original statement is invalid. But you have not offered a valid counterexample, so logically my claim is still valid.

"Talk to all the drug rehab facility people."

Considering marijuana is one of the most used drugs in the U.S., I would be reluctant to take the advice from someone that would stand to lose potential clients upon the legalization of pot.

If you believe all Catholics are going to hell, that's fine. I am not going to argue semantics with you.

My point is that you probably have a lot of potential.... at least based on the above, but you haven't figured it out yet...

Jeremy. I can't help you. It is very basic reasoning on the lung cancer portion alone never mind the other effects over ones life (which you don't seem to argue). If one drug has over 3 times the cancer causing agents that the one that does, then it does not need any more proof than that. There is nothing left to prove. After that, it is just usage amount. Can't be any simpler than that. If you want, I can find plenty of studies for you again that show the substances in smoked products that have killed thousands or does marijuana have this magical power to defy human biology? Again, to argue that taking drugs does nothing to you is childish on the very basic level. It may not be the very worst drug, but it is not harmless.

Fair & Balanced...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

Jeremy. I can't help you. It is very basic reasoning on the lung cancer portion alone never mind the other effects over ones life (which you don't seem to argue). If one drug has over 3 times the cancer causing agents that the one that does, then it does not need any more proof than that. There is nothing left to prove. After that, it is just usage amount. Can't be any simpler than that. If you want, I can find plenty of studies for you again that show the substances in smoked products that have killed thousands or does marijuana have this magical power to defy human biology? Again, to argue that taking drugs does nothing to you is childish on the very basic level. It may not be the very worst drug, but it is not harmless.

Actually, it's not as simple as that, but anyone who is intellectually honest can not debate that pot doesn't have any health consequences, that person is a fool...

Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic

In conclusion, while both tobacco and cannabis smoke have similar properties chemically, their pharmacological activities differ greatly. Components of cannabis smoke minimize some carcinogenic pathways whereas tobacco smoke enhances some. Both types of smoke contain carcinogens and particulate matter that promotes inflammatory immune responses that may enhance the carcinogenic effects of the smoke. However, cannabis typically down-regulates immunologically-generated free radical production by promoting a Th2 immune cytokine profile. Furthermore, THC inhibits the enzyme necessary to activate some of the carcinogens found in smoke. In contrast, tobacco smoke increases the likelihood of carcinogenesis by overcoming normal cellular checkpoint protective mechanisms through the activity of respiratory epithelial cell nicotine receptors. Cannabinoids receptors have not been reported in respiratory epithelial cells (in skin they prevent cancer), and hence the DNA damage checkpoint mechanism should remain intact after prolonged cannabis exposure. Furthermore, nicotine promotes tumor angiogenesis whereas cannabis inhibits it. It is possible that as the cannabis-consuming population ages, the long-term consequences of smoking cannabis may become more similar to what is observed with tobacco. However, current knowledge does not suggest that cannabis smoke will have a carcinogenic potential comparable to that resulting from exposure to tobacco smoke.

Actually Sam, I agree with your premise and it is the same as mine that you can not be intellectually honest and say it is harmless. I did find an article similar to what you just posted and it would simple suggest that you may not develop the same type of cancer.

Found this article:

Effects on the HeartWithin a few minutes after smoking marijuana, the heart begins beating more rapidly and the blood pressure drops. Marijuana can cause the heart beat to increase by 20 to 50 beats per minute, and can increase even more if other drugs are used at the same time.Because of the lower blood pressure and higher heart rate, researchers found that users' risk for a heart attack is four times higher within the first hour after smoking marijuana.Effects on the LungsSmoking marijuana, even infrequently, can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, and cause heavy coughing. Scientists have found that regular marijuana smokers can experience the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers do, including: * Daily cough and phlegm production * More frequent acute chest illnesses * Increased risk of lung infections * Obstructed airwaysMarijuana contains more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke and because marijuana smokers usually inhale deeper and hold the smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers, their lungs are exposed to those carcinogenic properties longer.One study found that marijuana smokers were three times more likely to develop cancer of the head or neck than non-smokers. Many researchers believe than smoking marijuana is overall more harmful to the lungs than smoking tobacco.Other Health EffectsResearch indicates that THC impairs the body's immune system from fighting disease, which can cause a wide variety of health problems. One study found that marijuana actually inhibited the disease-preventing actions of key immune cells. Another study found that THC increased the risk of developing bacterial infections and tumors.Effects of Exposure During PregnancySeveral studies have found that children born to mothers who used marijuana during pregnancy exhibit some problems with neurological development. According to those studies, prenatal marijuana exposure can cause: * Altered responses to visual stimuli * Increased tremulousness * Problems with sustained attention and memory * Poor problem-solving skillsA 2002 report by the British Lung Foundation estimated that three to four cannabis cigarettes a day were associated with the same amount of damage to the lungs as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.In 2008 a study was released by the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand suggested that smoking cannabis increased the risk of lung cancer by 5.7 times over non-smokers.A 2009 study found that cannabis use may increase the risk of testicular cancer. In particular, the risk of developing nonseminoma testicular cancer, a more aggressive form of the disease, was increased in current cannabis users and even greater in long-term chronic users.Like all smoke, cannabis smoke contains tars which, unlike cannabinoids themselves, are rich in carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a prime culprit in smoking-related cancers.Other effects are memory problems in heavy, long term users. While it is not considered 'addictive' many long term users who attempt to quit have reported anger problems, loss of sleep, nervousness and irritability much like those who attempt to quit tobacco.Other studies have been done that are often quoted by users that suggest marijuana has NO bad effects what so ever. Those studies are often misquoted or quoted in such a way as to make it look like marijuana use is not dangerous in any way.While marijuana users like to say it does no harm, anyone capable of logical reasoning can not possibly think that inhaling any type of smoke into their bodies can be good for them.

Exercise can raise your heart rate. Grilled red meat contains carcinogens. Going to jail can ruin your life. Sky diving can kill you. Inhaling anything that's burning is obiviously not going to be good for you. Really, what's the point of this?

If we could get health care costs under control then the govt could reward the tobacco companies for saving SS money.

I can see that there are a few people on here that like to have the comfort of the government telling them what they can and cannot do every step of the way backing up their side of the arguements by copying some Google searches.

Hopefully Sam and the others against this prop will start the movement towards making pet dogs illegal. I did a google search and read some studies that said they carry harmful diseases that can spread to their human partners.

John,

I understand what you are saying and you are 100% correct. The original premise is that it has been said in the thread that pot has no ill effects and I called BS. You can not say something that is mind altering and has carcinogins in it, has no ill effects. That is not a truthful statement. Sure, doing it from time to time is not going to kill you. Just like drinking is not going to kill you if you do it occasionally, but to say that alcohol is not dangerous is stupid. Of course it is and thousands a year die from it and countless families are destroyed by it. To ignore that you are inviting similar things into society with pot is ignorance. Just like all things, it is moderation.

Funny you mention that Ryan. San Francisco actually tried to ban pet stores and they did ban toys in meals. It is known as banning happy meals.

Ryan, it is not about the government telling people what to do. Let me ask you, why do we need more substance abuse legalized in society? Do you believe substance abuse actually causes issues in families/ job/ life in general? What is the up side? A good way to look at things is this. What is the upside? Then what is the down side? I don't see any upside to this. I only see downside. People think we are going to get taxes from it? Think again. It will be grown on the side just like it is now because the growers do not want to lose their profit. Then look at the federal law suits we will have to fend off. You will still be fired from work with it in your system. You will have to create departments to regulate and study it. You will then be required to treat anyone who is addicted to it. The cost will be staggering. I don't see upside in this when people pretty much smoke at will right now. I always knew middle school kids that had it on them and now my daughters know of dozens of kids that smoke weed in middle school. If anyone can get it, then it is pretty much legal without all the official departments we have to pay for to properly guard against lawsuits.

Pot, at least in California, is pretty much defacto legal right now. No one really gets busted for it. IF they did, they would not be on a website saying the smoke pot.

The upside is freedom from persecution. That's the upside of doing away with all draconion methods of population control. If you believe everything bad for you that society now legally partcipates in, then there are lots of things that we could make illegal. One of the biggest problems in society today is obesity in our youth. We could make it illegal for a child to be obese. Take away parental rights if their children don't conform to accepted guidelines of weight. Force parents into programs or put them in jail for child endangerment.

Why stop there? How many people on this forum have talked about getting their knees repaired from wakeboarding and wanting to know when they can go out and do it again? See a problem with that? Make all dangerous sports illegal. Limit the hours per day that people can watch TV. That takes away productivity and many people are becoming depressed from couch potato lifestyles.

Get rid of alcohol and tobacco. Tobacco probably tops the list of highly addictive dangerous substances that children have easy access to. They are hooked before they even reach the age of buying them. The thing is that that majority of Americans don't want to live in a society like that. They want the freedom to engage in things that aren't the best for society as a whole, but gives them personal pleasure.

Yes, there are negative issues statistically associated with pot. Just as there are negative issues statistically associated with a lot of legal activities. How many people work jobs that are so stressful that it's is literally killing them with stress? People who are sick and should be on disability to recover, but they physically can work even as their health declines. Is it really an upside to take productive people and severely impact their lives with the legal system if they get caught with pot?

I agree John. In california, they turned it into a simple ticket. If you are stupid enough to get caught in the first place, then it is not a huge deal. It is enough of a fine to get people to put the crap away and to be smarter next time. Even though alcohol is legal, you can not have even a empty can in your car or it is a ticket.

We can go on about obesity of the youth. You can thank the women's lib people for that one. There is no one in the home to allow kids out to play like they should and no supervision. It does not have to be just women at home but look again at what happens with progressive societies. Unintended consequences.

Same with the knees. People want to bitch about healthcare costs but are allowed to do things like that. Of course the costs go up. Mark my words, there will be a time when you will either need special sports insurance or if national healthcare passes, they may cut you off to stop costs. I looked it up and youth sports account for millions of dollars a year emergency room visits. It very well could get banned if people want cheap insurance. Maybe not banned, just not affordable.

You attribute all these things as bad and I can agree with you. They do cost society. Many of them will be so cost prohibitive that they soon will ban themselves. Besides the jail issue which I can agree with, I don't see why you would want to add more especially with the legal things that hurt society. I can't believe people say it is not addictive but yet would risk jail for it?

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

I agree John. In california, they turned it into a simple ticket. If you are stupid enough to get caught in the first place, then it is not a huge deal. It is enough of a fine to get people to put the crap away and to be smarter next time. Even though alcohol is legal, you can not have even a empty can in your car or it is a ticket.

This post is definitely not going to be 100% relevant to the specifics discussed in this thread so far, but I read through and here's my opinion. Note, my opinion. *cough*, Sam and company. This quote above is as far as I think this needs to go, in order to find a money-making solution for the government. Give users a ticket, make them pay a fine, send them on their way. Simple moneymaker for the government. Sure you can argue that money was spent by paying the officer, the gas he used during the stop, etc, but when can't you do that for a topic? In my opinion, anything more than simply making marijuana use a ticketable/fineable offense, is unneccessary. The fact is, this drug is too easily grown on it's own. If the government makes it legal and taxes it, chances are prices from dealers will probably be lower. There goes your government funding from marijuana tax. Not to mention a percentage that will just grow their own weed. It's a subject that needs far too much regulation for legalization to be plausible and worth while. And why would dealers want this legalized? They don't. Prices would go down, and they could lose some business. Ticket/fine marijuana users, and leave it at that. Full legalization and regulation is a waste of gov't time, in my opinion.

As far as health risks of Marijuana, it's definitely not good for you. If you smoke marijuana habitually, you're probably more likely to get cancer and have lung problems. It's as simple as that, it's not rocket science. With that being said, a lot of things cause cancer. A lot of things put your health at risk. My thought is, alcohol is no problem when it's consumed...in moderation. Same thing with marijuana. It's really not a problem....in moderation. Sure there are people that smoke their brain to the point where it's a fried egg in a pan. And thats part of what gives marijuana it's bad rap. But there are also extremely intellectual marijuana users out there as well. I know a kid in my high school that graduated with a 4.0 gpa and went to MIT, and there was hardly a time I saw that kid outside of school when he didn't have a joint in his hand. I was at a friends place, who's parent is a highly-ranked individual for a large company, when my friend said to their parent "You owe me, I got you weed the other night." I was shocked. Point is, there are bad and good users of these controversial substances. And now I'm just rambling, so I'll end it here.

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

I can't believe people say it is not addictive but yet would risk jail for it?

I think people will or would do a lot of things that are illegal without physical addiction being a requirement. I say physical because just about anything can be psychologically addictive, including golf. If golf was made illegal, but you could still play with only a very slight chance of getting caught I'd bet there would be people still playing it.

There's an article in the paper today about a land developer who has been illegally poaching animals on his property for several years. He's facing jail time now. Does anyone believe that he has a physical addiction to poaching animals?

"I can't believe people say it is not addictive but yet would risk jail for it?"

Isn't downloading movies (from piratebay, etc.) illegal? Do you think people are addicted to movies?

I hear what you are saying about these other activities, but, everyone says they know of all these people in prison for pot. I personally don't see that and think that is a made up talking point to a certain degree, but, pot has not been legal for generations. With it never have been legal and supposedly all these people in jail, why would you continue to want to use it when there are legal substances to make you not give a crap.

On the movies, I agree that people are not addicted to movies (maybe getting over is addicting?) but I don't think anyone knows a single person who was busted for it. If more people were busted and there where heavy fines I would guess most people would stop. I know people who stopped downloading free music when they start suing people for it.

Here's a good example of how much trust there is about the information that our govt gives us...

WRT TSA full body scans, the govt says...

Each full body scan produces less than 10 microrem of emission, the equivalent to the exposure each person receives in about 2 minutes of airplane flight at altitude.

http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/03/advanced...radiation.html

But the piloit's unions say...

Both unions are concerned about the effects of repeated exposure to small doses of radiation emitted by the backscatter technology used in some of the Transportation Security Administration's full-body scanners.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/11...ex.html?hpt=T2

It's only 2 minutes of airline flight at altitude. Why don't the pilots and their union believe what the govt says?

To be honest, the take away I get from the second article is they don't like fact they have to go through the screening at all. As you read down the article, they also are concerned about the "enhanced pat down". I think they are using "potential" health risks as a arguing point to keep from having to be screened.

Just to note, rad workers typically are allowed 5 rem a year whole body (your hands and eyes for instance can take more like 15 rem a year). That is 5,000 mrem (milli rem) or 5,000,000 urem (micro rem).

If I was a pilot, I would not want to get radiated every day. That's what I got from the article. Since the alternative is getting patted down, I can see why they argue that they shouldn't be screened.

Prop 19 not passing is just another perfect example of how the "college age" kids love to protest and voice all of the problems with the government and the world but when it comes down to it and they actually have a chance for their voice to made into law, they decide they have something better to do that day. All they had to do was go out and vote. If they all felt so strongly about it, they would have and probably could have gotten enough numbers for it to go through. The kids that actually take the initiative already have done so and gone to a doctor and got their card. They had no reason to go out and vote for a law that suddenly could have gotten their dispenseries shut down by the Feds. I'm sure there was a large percentage of medical marijuana users that went out and voted against the bill. They were simply just protecting themselves knowing that if legalized, the potential repercussions could have gotten everything taken away from
them. If legal, I'm sure more pot would have been found on people in car accidents not because they were neccessarily high at the time but could now legally have it on them instead of keeping it hidden or at home. This would give the feds a great reason to intervene showing that since the legalization, there have been more deadly accidents associated with marijuana and then go on to blame the accidents on marijuana. you then
get these kids parents on dr Phil or oprah saying how marijuana and prop 19 ruined my kids life and boom, all hell would break loose. Dispenseries would be shut down, their employees would be arrested and I'm sure they would nab a few clientele just to make a
statement forcing california to amend the bill and possibly criminalize marijuana in their state. If you think the republicans came
out and voted this time, the number would double to make it illegal all together. Leave everything how it is in
California. let the people who have taken their time to
safely get it get it and let the kids and surf bums keep bitching about their cheap mexican bush weed should have been high grade hydroponics only if the conservatives didn't shut us down again. Maybe if their wetsuits with instructions on how to get a voters registration card instead of a wax comb, they would have gotten what they wanted . And yes, I fully support the use of medical marijuana, but if I lived in Cali, I would have voted NO.

Prop. 19 Goes up in Smoke

Another article on Mises...

@ My man John Anderson and Some One Else

Here's a good example of how much trust there is about the information that our govt gives us...
WRT TSA full body scans

and

enhanced pat down

Some of the folks say "DON'T TOUCH MY JUNK" but I say it is more than just that as I would also include "DON'T CHUNK MY JUNK"
especially if you are thinking about going on the cheap:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCwANvurDQI

Just saying fellas,....

^Geez, man, stay off the drugs!!!

@Jeremy
Ha!
No drugs here other than an occasional aspirin and a few water pills to get my wake on during a drought.
"Don't Chunk my Junk"!!!!!