Page 3 of 5
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:07 pm
by Siberys
Smoking in moderation should help it. The thing is filled with nutrients and such.
Internet sites don't necessarily tell the truth. I've never believed any information from the internet even if it was from CNN.com. So that site won't convince me either.
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:08 pm
by Lasher
@ Athena-
Most drugs on this planet are god-given herbs, right? Does that mean coke should be legal? (Not trying to critisize, btw.
)
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:09 pm
by Athena
Dude, SIB. The Norml website is Legit, bro. I put my account on it. *folds arms*
http://www.norml.com
Lasher. Cocaine is a whole different ballpark, marijuana is a soft drug, and should not be criticized as it is.
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:10 pm
by Magrus
[QUOTE=Athena]Dude, SIB. The Norml website is Legit, bro. I put my account on it. *folds arms*
http://www.norml.com[/QUOTE]
I hate to say it hun, but that statement has nothing in it to change someone's mind about the content of the site.
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:14 pm
by Lasher
@ Athena-
Just making sure... I had just got done watching "Blow" earlier today, and it made me think, you know?
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:18 pm
by Athena
You don't understand?... the information is compiled from organizations around the nation that are into decrim. the stuff. Norml publishes magazines, have fundraisers...
Quoted from the Norml website: "This section can help you locate up-to-date, verifiable and credible information regarding marijuana and marijuana policy."
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:20 pm
by Magrus
I know what the site is, and what the organization is. But, in order to have a discussion, you need to mention facts and material, not state that it's good because you say so.
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:22 pm
by Athena
Material...
IN THE DAYS BEFORE DRUG LAWS
by Dale Gieringer, (Source:Washington Post)
25 Dec 2005
District of Columbia
-------
George F. Will makes an unaccustomed historical error in assuming there were statutes against drug use when the 14th Amendment was passed ["The Abortion Argument We Missed," op-ed, Dec. 1].
In fact, drug laws are a 20th-century invention.
In my grandparents' youth, the right to use drugs was commonly accepted: Opium, morphine and other narcotics were available over the counter. Local laws against Chinese opium smoking began to appear in the late 19th century, but these laws were directed at commercial dens, not private use. Not until the 20th century, when laws against possession began to be enacted, did state laws target drug users.
It is testimony to Americans' lack of historical memory that we assume there were always laws against drugs. In fact, our Victorian ancestors managed perfectly well without them.
DALE GIERINGER
Berkeley, Calif.
The writer is director of the Drug Policy Forum of California and state coordinator for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws .
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake
http://www.mapinc.org/resource/#guides
Pubdate: Sun, 25 Dec 2005
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Page: B06
Copyright: 2005 The Washington Post Company
Contact: letters@washpost.com
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/491
Author: Dale Gieringer
Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n000/a422.html
Cited: Drug Policy Forum of California http://www.drugsense.org/dpfca/
Cited: National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
http://www.norml.org
CHP Standoff Over Medical Marijuana
Friday, December 16, 2005
By Brett Rowland
Hollister - A legal battle erupted in the San Benito County Courthouse Thursday when the county's public defender demanded a court hearing to determine whether the local California Highway Patrol commander broke the law by refusing to return a man's medical marijuana confiscated during an arrest last year.
Public Defender Greg La Forge argued before Superior Court Judge Steven Sanders that Hollister-Gilroy CHP Commander Otto Knorr should return 4 grams of medical marijuana, or face the possibility of being held in contempt of court because a judge had already issued a court order mandating the marijuana be returned.
But Knorr said that while California recognizes marijuana as a medicine under certain instances, the federal government does not. That is why he cannot return the substance CHP officers confiscated from 28-year-old Eugene Popok, a Los Angeles-area resident, during a traffic stop for speeding on Highway 156 in October of 2004, he said.
Popok was charged with driving under the influence of marijuana at the time, and La Forge said the criminal charges against his client have already been settled. La Forge did not know what ailed Popok, who was not present during Thursday's hearing, however the primary cause for medical marijuana is chronic pain.
The case was continued to Jan. 19, at which time La Forge said he will ask Sanders to hold Knorr in contempt of court if the commander fails to hand over the marijuana. A misdemeanor contempt of court charge carries a sentence of up to six months in jail. Knorr said he did not know what he would do if Sanders ordered him to return the marijuana in January.
"I'll cross that bridge when I come to it," he said. "I'm in quite a quandary. I stand very strongly on my ethics and have a responsibility to the people of the state of California, the California Highway Patrol and my officers to uphold the law. If I lose my integrity, I have nothing else to stand for."
La Forge called such reasoning "garbage" and pointed to a federal law that protects law enforcement officers from criminal charges related to enforcing state controlled substance laws. Ethics, he said, should not factor into anyone's decision to follow a state law or court order.
"They are trying to get around the court order by hiding behind a penalty that doesn't exist," he said. "The DA's argument that he is being put between a rock and a hard place is garbage."
The case playing out in San Benito's courtroom is a familiar one to Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. He said similar cases have also been heard in other states.
"It has happened before - usually the local police literally walk across the street and drop it on the steps of the federal courthouse," he said. "It's a very contemporary question. The citizens of California have voted that (marijuana) is a medicine. It would seem malevolent, if not foolhardy, to not return what has been deemed legal."
La Forge believes Knorr's refusal to return the marijuana is in direct conflict with the CHP's policy on medicinal marijuana. Typically, the CHP takes a hands-off approach and will not confiscate the drugs if the person qualifies under state law for possession of medical marijuana, Knorr said. However, since Popok did not notify officers during his arrest that the marijuana was for medical use, it was confiscated.
"The defendant made no claim of medical use during the arrest and was driving under the influence at the time," Knorr said Thursday outside the courthouse. "Our policy allows us not to seize medical marijuana, but it does not allow us to dispense it. That would be a violation of federal law."
The problem, Knorr said, is that state law, prompted by the passage of Proposition 215 in 1996 - which allows people with certain medical ailments to possess small quantities of marijuana with a doctor's recommendation - directly conflicts with a federal law prohibiting the use or distribution of marijuana for any reason.
"We're caught in the middle of both," Knorr said.
But La Forge believes the law is clear, and said the District Attorney "throws the book" at many of his other clients who violate court orders.
"Why is this any different because a guy has a gun and a badge," he said. "It's clearly a double standard."
District Attorney John Sarsfield did not return phone calls for comment on the matter Thursday.
During the hearing, Sanders suggested the marijuana be returned to La Forge, on behalf of his client. But La Forge would not accept, explaining that only police officers are exempt from prosecution for enforcing the state's drug laws.
Although the subject is a touchy one, La Forge believes he'll be successful and based his optimism on a 2002 case in which he was able to get San Benito County Sheriff Curtis Hill to return 11 grams of medical marijuana to another one of his clients. Hill also was unavailable for comment.
Brett Rowland covers education for the Free Lance. He can be reached at 831-637-5566 ext. 330 or browland@freelancenews.com.
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:27 pm
by Fenix
@Fenix: Please read FORUM RULES. - Maharlika
[QUOTE=Siberys]Hmm, my opinion on it. Weed is like Alcohol in a way, yet better.
First, yeah, it does make you do stupid stuff. Oh no, so does alcohol and people have become responsible with that.
However, two major differences-
One, it's a cancer fighting agent. Now how lucky can you get for THAT. We are spending so much to try and cure cancer with radiation, something that could make it worse, but we made Weed illegal because it makes you do stupid crap? What a pity society has become.
Two, it's illegal, but in a lot of cases, is a lot like Alcohol. So, for reason number one to be the MOST CRITICAL part of this, why is it illegal? More importantly, why is IT illegal over somethign that's NOT illegal and causes cancer? How can you compare tobbaco which gives cancer to weed that prevents it, and make WEED illegal?
Gods society is ignorant. There's even an ad on this forum that obviously didn't do it's research. It specifically said Weed is bad for you (not for doing stupid crap, but for your lungs). Umm hello? It's not.
So, I think that Cigarrettes(SP?) should be illegal and Weed should be legal.[/QUOTE]
Weed is a cancer treatment? Nothing has been proven! Ok there's some evidence showing that weed might protect against cancer, but there's also evidence that weed is several times more carcinogenic than tobbacco, and it has like 3x more tar in it than ciggies. Smoking any type of burnt plant residue is incredibly unhealthy. I can't stand smokers blowing their crap in my face in public, and I would go nuts if it was weed (it smells like caught by language filter - Maharlikaanyway).
Also, for *many* people, weed is a stepping stone onto incredibly addictive drugs. Although weed can become addictive to a few people after heavy usage, it is generally non-addictive which is good, but then idiots go on and think that they'll be fine for other drugs, and since weed enhances the effects of other drugs, there'll be a crap load more people taking smack and crack and other caught by language filter - Maharlika
And weed creates many major long term mental problems (paranoia, psychosis). Alcohol doesn't.
Furthermore, at parties when people get high, they're total dickheads.
@ Fenix: Please read forum rules. Profanity isn't allowed, hence your words were censored by the language filter. - Maharlika
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:28 pm
by Lasher
@ Athena-
That's great stuff, but i have to agree with mag. Most people of a different view than yours, mine, or ours can and will consider anything presented by somebody for legalization biased info, no matter how much evidence they have.
Now, if the pope declared it ok, that might be something...
@ Fenix-
Ever heard of Alchoholism? It's a didease that many, many people have. Very long term. My uncle has a story of his dad, who on his deathbed asked his boys to pour a keg of beer on his grave so that, like a pharoah he could take it to his afterlife. Go figure.
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:31 pm
by Magrus
[QUOTE=Fenix]Weed is a cancer treatment? Nothing has been proven! Ok there's some evidence showing that weed might protect against cancer, but there's also evidence that weed is several times more carcinogenic than tobbacco, and it has like 3x more tar in it than ciggies. Smoking any type of burnt plant residue is incredibly unhealthy. I can't stand smokers blowing their crap in my face in public, and I would go nuts if it was weed (it smells like **** anyway).
Also, for *many* people, weed is a stepping stone onto incredibly addictive drugs. Although weed can become addictive to a few people after heavy usage, it is generally non-addictive which is good, but then idiots go on and think that they'll be fine for other drugs, and since weed enhances the effects of other drugs, there'll be a crap load more people taking smack and crack and other ****.
And weed creates many major long term mental problems (paranoia, psychosis). Alcohol doesn't.
Furthermore, at parties when people get high, they're total dickheads.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Lasher]biased info[/QUOTE]
*nods*
@ Fenix, have any proof that it causes paranoia and psychosis, or that moderate, responsible use of marijuana is worse for than smoking cigarettes? Or that it happens to be addictive?
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:35 pm
by Athena
facts...
Why should we decriminalize or legalize marijuana?
As President Jimmy Carter acknowledged: "Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana in private for personal use."
Marijuana prohibition needlessly destroys the lives and careers of literally hundreds of thousands of good, hard-working, productive citizens each year in this country. More than 700,000 Americans were arrested on marijuana charges last year, and more than 5 million Americans have been arrested for marijuana offenses in the past decade. Almost 90 percent of these arrests are for simple possession, not trafficking or sale. This is a misapplication of the criminal sanction that invites government into areas of our private lives that are inappropriate and wastes valuable law enforcement resources that should be focused on serious and violent crime.
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:39 pm
by Lasher
Amen
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:50 pm
by dj_venom
Awww I've arrived late here...
I say decriminalise position of small amounts for personal use, keep up convictions for large amounts/dealing/growing etc.
You can say it is just as dangerous as cigarettes, but there are other factors.
A study of the Swiss Army has shown that just a small use of this for a couple of years, gives a 6 times more likely chance of mental problems.
Also, it is much harder to kick this habit than smoking.
And the reason smoking is around is because it is too late to stop it. Once marijuana is legalised, it will be IMPOSSIBLE to ever ban it again. For this reason, there should be a lot more research carried into the effects of this drug, for if the same had been done for smoking, then that too would have been illegal, and we wouldn't have the large numbers of lung cancer that we have today.
And that's my two cents worth.
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:54 pm
by OneWingedAngel
[QUOTE=Fenix]Also, for *many* people, weed is a stepping stone onto incredibly addictive drugs. Although weed can become addictive to a few people after heavy usage, it is generally non-addictive which is good, but then idiots go on and think that they'll be fine for other drugs.[/QUOTE]
but its not all people, you got to understand. not all weed smokers will say I WANNA TRY COKE, they dont say that. Sometimes they get forced into it by friends, or family. you dont know the reasons WHY they tried it in the first place.
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:12 pm
by Lasher
@DJV-
You're right... you arrived late. Everything I need to say's been said...
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:23 pm
by Athena
California
SUMMARY: Fifty-six percent of voters approved Proposition 215 on November 5, 1996. The law took effect the following day. It removes state-level criminal penalties on the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana by patients who possess a "written or oral recommendation" from their physician that he or she "would benefit from medical marijuana." Patients diagnosed with any debilitating illness where the medical use of marijuana has been "deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician" are afforded legal protection under this act. Conditions typically covered by the law include but are not limited to: arthritis; cachexia; cancer; chronic pain; HIV or AIDS; epilepsy; migraine; and multiple sclerosis. No set limits regarding the amount of marijuana patients may possess and/or cultivate were provided by this act, though the California Legislature adopted guidelines in 2003.
AMENDMENTS: Yes. Senate Bill 420, which was signed into law in October 2003 and took effect on January 1, 2004, imposes statewide guidelines outlining how much medicinal marijuana patients may grow and possess. Under the guidelines, qualified patients and/or their primary caregivers may possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana and/or six mature (or 12 immature) marijuana plants. However, S.B. 420 allows patients to possess larger amounts of marijuana when such quantities are recommended by a physician. The legislation also allows counties and municipalities to approve and/or maintain local ordinances permitting patients to possess larger quantities of medicinal pot than allowed under the new state guidelines.
Senate Bill 420 also mandates the California Department of State Health Services to establish a voluntary medicinal marijuana patient registry, and issue identification cards to qualified patients. To date, however, no such registry has been established.
Senate Bill 420 also grants implied legal protection to the state's medicinal marijuana dispensaries, stating, "Qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients ... who associate within the state of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions."
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:32 pm
by Lasher
I've been considering moving to california, because I have severe arthritis in my left hand(old injury(like, 2 years)), and my friends tell me that it is worth a shot.
Now that we split up, There's not much holding me back....
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:18 pm
by Zelgadis
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:58 pm
by Fenix
[QUOTE=Lasher]
@ Fenix-
Ever heard of Alchoholism? It's a didease that many, many people have. Very long term. My uncle has a story of his dad, who on his deathbed asked his boys to pour a keg of beer on his grave so that, like a pharoah he could take it to his afterlife. Go figure.[/QUOTE]
How is it a disease?? It's like calling an obesity a disease (I know it is called a disease, but wtf??)
A disease is not caused by cravings.
[quote="Magrus]@ Fenix"]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana#Tolerance.2C_withdrawal_and_dreams"]Wikipedia[/url] ftw!! Plus, I know of people who have ended up in Graylands (a mental institute in Perth) after long periods of them abusing marijuana. Plus, doctors advice and research.
Plus I didn't say that marijuana is definately a lot worse than cigerattes. I am not in favour of one more than the other. If I had my way, cigerattes would be illegal too.
As for it being addictive, I said that for a *few* people, heavy doses after long periods of time can result in some addiction. Again, wikipedia ftw.
Edit: [quote="OneWingedAngel]but its not all people"]
I didn't say all people, but people *do* move onto more serious stuff from and because of weed, hence why weed is bad.
If they try it by being 'forced' to by friends or family, then what's the problem? You're not going to suffer its long term effects from two uses, and it's not addictive, so after being 'forced' to try it a couple of times, you'r not going to be dependent on it.