Off Topic · Do you support the legalization of Marijuana? (page 4)
sebstar @ 4/21/2009 5:11 PM
Posted by Bippity10:
I haven't been called an idiot, small minded, uneducated, or a conservative right winger in a while, so I guess I will weigh in on the topic. On a personal level, I dont' use pot. I've tried it once and hated it. I also don't drink often because it messes with my game. I took a toke of my grandfather's pipe 25 years ago and will never smoke because of it. I have a few friends that smoke a lot and each one of them struggling in life. They don't function well, no matter how they say they are and in general I find them annoying. That being said, I think that marijuana should be legal. I do follow the logic that it is no worse than alcohol and tobacco and don't understand why one is illegal and the other is not. Make them all illegal or legalize all three if you ask me.
But I also agree with Nalod. The legalization of marijuana is a complicated issue and there is a lot to it. Are there unintended consequences? Probably.
And for the anti-weed heads in this thread, let me ask you this. Has the prohibition of Marijuana stopped people from smoking it? Has it curbed its use in any substantial way, or has it made our streets even that more dangerous?
Quoted again for emphasis...
Solid post, bip.
[Edited by - sebstar on 04-21-2009 5:14 PM]
nykshaknbake @ 4/21/2009 5:31 PM
Fine LOWER common demoninator, not lowest. ANd yes the legality of it beleive it or not does influence whether people might do pot.
Economically beneficial to legalize? That's the same reasoning why casinos are economically beneficial. Societal damage is not free. Our economy isn't based on tax revenue but rather the productivity of it's people. Tell me what pot does to that. Good for it's people? Are you F^&%^&* ing kidding me? Good for mexican gangsters? They aren't thriving because of pot..unless you want to egalize the other stuff they are thriving on.
Economically beneficial to legalize? That's the same reasoning why casinos are economically beneficial. Societal damage is not free. Our economy isn't based on tax revenue but rather the productivity of it's people. Tell me what pot does to that. Good for it's people? Are you F^&%^&* ing kidding me? Good for mexican gangsters? They aren't thriving because of pot..unless you want to egalize the other stuff they are thriving on.
Posted by BigSm00th:Posted by nykshaknbake:
That's fantastic Bigsmooth. So because alcohol and tabacco are bad lets encourage marijuana? Why stoop to the lower common denominator? I think you should encourage your kids in the future not to smoke or get blitzed. How about that?Posted by BigSm00th:
shakenbake, when i have kids i would much rather prefer them to smoke weed than to drink or smoke cigarettes. its not even a question.
here's an article from today
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norm-stamp...
Alcohol-related traffic accidents claim approximately 14,000 lives each year, down significantly from 20 or 30 years ago (attributed to improved education and enforcement). Figures for THC-related traffic fatalities are elusive, especially since alcohol is almost always present in the blood as well, and since the numbers of "marijuana-only" traffic fatalities are so small. But evidence from studies, including laboratory simulations, feeds the stereotype that those under the influence of canniboids tend to (1) be more aware of their impaired psychomotor skills, and (2) drive well below the speed limit. Those under the influence of alcohol are much more likely to be clueless or defiant about their condition, and to speed up and drive recklessly.
Hundreds of alcohol overdose deaths occur annually. There has never been a single recorded marijuana OD fatality.
"if you legalize marijuana, the others are not far behind." cigarettes and booze already are legal. and some would say that if you legalize it, less people will try it b/c it will have less of an exotic, against the law feel. i highly doubt everybody would just start smoking weed because it was legal.
[Edited by - bigsm00th on 04-20-2009 1:13 PM]
i didn't say i'd encourage, i said i'd prefer it as the lesser of evils. whether they do it or not won't depend on the legality of it.
lowest common denominator? how about less people in jail on nonviolent drug charges? it's a $14 billion market that, rather than grow it, regulate it, and tax it, we import it from mexico (and prop up these billionaire druglord gangsters and their militias) and lock up our own citizens when using it. prohibition of marijuana is bad for america's economy, bad for it's people, and good for mexican gangsters. why do those facts get trumped by "it will ruin our moral fabric".
sebstar @ 4/21/2009 5:52 PM
Whew...NY shakenbake.
For a minute there I thought American's were being locked up by the boatload and people were being killed for a drug that has been proven to be less deleterious than "legal" drugs, with the only beneficiaries being crooked cops, politicians, and our prison industrial complex.
Glad you cleared it up that nobody in America is smoking weed and that legalization is the only thing Americans are waiting on so we can all get doped up.
For a minute there I thought American's were being locked up by the boatload and people were being killed for a drug that has been proven to be less deleterious than "legal" drugs, with the only beneficiaries being crooked cops, politicians, and our prison industrial complex.
Glad you cleared it up that nobody in America is smoking weed and that legalization is the only thing Americans are waiting on so we can all get doped up.
jaydh @ 4/21/2009 6:05 PM
Posted by nykshaknbake:
The reason why some laws are in place is that they prevent self destructive behavior.
Or bring in more revenue.
Posted by nykshaknbake:
Pot doesn't help society in any way and it certainly can hurt. If you legalize it, I guarntee that you are going to have more(even than now) and younger kids smoking it and that will bring the future of thwe community down.
You should tell that to the millionaire parents in places like Fairfield County and Westchester that are probably more successful than most who have never smoked and yet they smoke some of the best stuff.
jaydh @ 4/21/2009 6:07 PM
Ever go to the ivy league schools? Pot heaven. Yea, those are an unsuccessful bunch.
nykshaknbake @ 4/21/2009 6:28 PM
Glad you have things straight. Any questions?
Classic strawman argument. You distort my position and present it as what I said.
Classic strawman argument. You distort my position and present it as what I said.
Posted by sebstar:
Whew...NY shakenbake.
For a minute there I thought American's were being locked up by the boatload and people were being killed for a drug that has been proven to be less deleterious than "legal" drugs, with the only beneficiaries being crooked cops, politicians, and our prison industrial complex.
Glad you cleared it up that nobody in America is smoking weed and that legalization is the only thing Americans are waiting on so we can all get doped up.
nykshaknbake @ 4/21/2009 6:33 PM
No, but I've been to a non-Ivy league school that was pot nirvana. Pot will drag you down. How much is multifactorial. Alot of people who hit the bottle too much are sucessful too. I'm sure it's not helping them. Babe Ruth was one hell of an athelete. Booze and fat didn't help him but he was goood enough to suceed despite them. Imagine what he would've done without them.
Posted by jaydh:
Ever go to the ivy league schools? Pot heaven. Yea, those are an unsuccessful bunch.
sebstar @ 4/21/2009 6:36 PM
Ok, shake. Your position was that legalizing herbal would lead to societal damage. So the natural assumption would be that its prohibition has led to a stable society when it comes to that issue, from your perspective, No?
So then if both have forms of societal damage naturally built in, which position is the better one. The more superior?
So then if both have forms of societal damage naturally built in, which position is the better one. The more superior?
nykshaknbake @ 4/21/2009 7:43 PM
No that is not the natural assumption; if it is it is flawed. That's like saying if you you stand in the rain you get wet but if it's not raining you can't get wet. Having marijuana illegal is the superior one.
Posted by sebstar:
Ok, shake. Your position was that legalizing herbal would lead to societal damage. So the natural assumption would be that its prohibition has led to a stable society when it comes to that issue, from your perspective, No?
So then if both have forms of societal damage naturally built in, which position is the better one. The more superior?
sebstar @ 4/21/2009 8:07 PM
Posted by nykshaknbake:
No that is not the natural assumption; if it is it is flawed. That's like saying if you you stand in the rain you get wet but if it's not raining you can't get wet. Having marijuana illegal is the superior one.
We're missing each other a bit, so I'll start over. Has marijuana prohibition really stopped anyone from getting high? Are the resources that we are draining from this nation and the lives that are being destroyed really worth it just so the moral majority can feel better at night?
Not to mention how many auxiliary benefits can come from its legalization.
nykshaknbake @ 4/22/2009 12:06 AM
Lives being destroyed by not legalizing marijuana? You'll have to substantiate this. I'm not an economicist but I find your claims of economic drain dubious and I feel that is the opposite of what you have stated.
Currently, opposing your stance is the American Academy of Pediatrics
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;113/6/1825.pdf
Additionally it 2 peer reviewed articles, including a meta-analysis say that marijuana is associated with lower economic status and behaviorial problems in neonates.
Marijuana use, adolescent pregnancy, and alteration in newborn behavior: How complex can it get?
Henrietta S. Bada, MD, MPH ⁎
Eric W. Reynolds, MD
Wendy F. Hansen, MD
Departments of Pediatrics and Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Kentucky College of MedicineLexington, Kentucky
* Reprint requests: Henrietta S. Bada, MD, University of Kentucky Medical Center, 800 Rose St, Room MS 477, Lexington, KY 40536
Prenatal marijuana use has effects on fetal physical growth and neurobehavior. In a meta-analysis,[10] prenatal marijuana use <1 times per week did not result in a significant decrease in birth weight, but use >4 times per week was associated with an average of a 131-gram decrease in weight. Other investigators also found a decrease in birth length,[11] but with no decrement in ponderal index.[12] Marijuana use during pregnancy, especially in the first trimester, was associated with shortened gestation. [13] , [14] An average use of marijuana ¡Ý6 times per week was associated with 0.8-week reduction in length of gestation.[13] First trimester use of marijuana also increased the odds of minor physical abnormalities in the newborn.[14]
Prenatal marijuana exposure has been associated with irritability, an increase in body motility, tremors, startles, poor habituation to visual stimuli, abnormal reflexes, and symptoms similar to mild withdrawal. [15] , [16] These findings differed from those of Dreher et al,[17] who found neonates born to marijuana users with higher socioeconomic class had no evident neurobehavioral alterations. Barros et al,[1] in this issue of The Journal, examined newborn infants born to adolescent mothers who used marijuana during pregnancy and compared their findings with non-exposed infants. They found alteration in neurobehavior with the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Network Neurobehavioral Scale (NNNS),[18] an assessment similar to Brazelton¡¯s[19] Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale. The NNNS has been modified to assess neurobehavioral performance of high-risk infants, including those born after in utero drug exposure. Infants exposed to marijuana in utero had higher scores in arousal, lower scores in regulation, and higher scores in excitability than non-exposed infants. After in utero exposure to biological risks from marijuana, the needs of the infant with altered neurobehavior can easily add to the stresses of a substance-using adolescent parent. Furthermore, the neurobehavioral alterations, whether manifestations of withdrawal or toxic effects, may be predictors of long-term effects.[20]
1: Can J Public Health. 2008 May-Jun;99(3):172-7. Links
A meta-analysis of marijuana and alcohol use by socio-economic status in adolescents aged 10-15 years.
Lemstra M, Bennett NR, Neudorf C, Kunst A, Nannapaneni U, Warren LM, Kershaw T, Scott CR.
Population Health Research Unit, Saskatoon Health Region, Saskatoon, SK. mark.lemstra@saskatoonhealthregion.ca
OBJECTIVES: A majority of population-based studies suggest prevalence of drug and alcohol risk behaviour increases during late adolescence to early adulthood. The purpose of this systematic literature review is to clarify if socio-economic status (SES) is a determinant of marijuana and alcohol risk behaviour in adolescents between the ages of 10-15 years. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis to identify published or unpublished papers between January 1, 1980 and February 9, 2007 that reviewed marijuana and alcohol risk behaviour by SES in adolescents aged 10-15 years. SYNTHESIS: We found nine studies that fulfilled our inclusion criteria and passed the methodological quality review. The prevalence of marijuana and alcohol risk behaviour was 22% higher (RR = 1.22; 95% CI 1.14-1.31) in adolescents with low SES in comparison to adolescents with higher SES. Stratification by country of origin revealed that American and New Zealand studies had statistically significant variability in the reported effects as compared to European and UK studies. DISCUSSION: The evidence suggests that low SES has an inverse association with the prevalence of marijuana and alcohol risk behaviour in adolescents between the ages of 10-15 years. Higher rates of marijuana and alcohol risk behaviour among lower SES adolescents may impact emotional development, limit future educational and occupational achievement, and increase the likelihood for adult marijuana and alcohol addiction. CONCLUSION: Lower SES adolescents have higher rates of marijuana and alcohol risk behaviour than higher SES adolescents
Currently, opposing your stance is the American Academy of Pediatrics
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;113/6/1825.pdf
Additionally it 2 peer reviewed articles, including a meta-analysis say that marijuana is associated with lower economic status and behaviorial problems in neonates.
Marijuana use, adolescent pregnancy, and alteration in newborn behavior: How complex can it get?
Henrietta S. Bada, MD, MPH ⁎
Eric W. Reynolds, MD
Wendy F. Hansen, MD
Departments of Pediatrics and Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Kentucky College of MedicineLexington, Kentucky
* Reprint requests: Henrietta S. Bada, MD, University of Kentucky Medical Center, 800 Rose St, Room MS 477, Lexington, KY 40536
Prenatal marijuana use has effects on fetal physical growth and neurobehavior. In a meta-analysis,[10] prenatal marijuana use <1 times per week did not result in a significant decrease in birth weight, but use >4 times per week was associated with an average of a 131-gram decrease in weight. Other investigators also found a decrease in birth length,[11] but with no decrement in ponderal index.[12] Marijuana use during pregnancy, especially in the first trimester, was associated with shortened gestation. [13] , [14] An average use of marijuana ¡Ý6 times per week was associated with 0.8-week reduction in length of gestation.[13] First trimester use of marijuana also increased the odds of minor physical abnormalities in the newborn.[14]
Prenatal marijuana exposure has been associated with irritability, an increase in body motility, tremors, startles, poor habituation to visual stimuli, abnormal reflexes, and symptoms similar to mild withdrawal. [15] , [16] These findings differed from those of Dreher et al,[17] who found neonates born to marijuana users with higher socioeconomic class had no evident neurobehavioral alterations. Barros et al,[1] in this issue of The Journal, examined newborn infants born to adolescent mothers who used marijuana during pregnancy and compared their findings with non-exposed infants. They found alteration in neurobehavior with the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Network Neurobehavioral Scale (NNNS),[18] an assessment similar to Brazelton¡¯s[19] Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale. The NNNS has been modified to assess neurobehavioral performance of high-risk infants, including those born after in utero drug exposure. Infants exposed to marijuana in utero had higher scores in arousal, lower scores in regulation, and higher scores in excitability than non-exposed infants. After in utero exposure to biological risks from marijuana, the needs of the infant with altered neurobehavior can easily add to the stresses of a substance-using adolescent parent. Furthermore, the neurobehavioral alterations, whether manifestations of withdrawal or toxic effects, may be predictors of long-term effects.[20]
1: Can J Public Health. 2008 May-Jun;99(3):172-7. Links
A meta-analysis of marijuana and alcohol use by socio-economic status in adolescents aged 10-15 years.
Lemstra M, Bennett NR, Neudorf C, Kunst A, Nannapaneni U, Warren LM, Kershaw T, Scott CR.
Population Health Research Unit, Saskatoon Health Region, Saskatoon, SK. mark.lemstra@saskatoonhealthregion.ca
OBJECTIVES: A majority of population-based studies suggest prevalence of drug and alcohol risk behaviour increases during late adolescence to early adulthood. The purpose of this systematic literature review is to clarify if socio-economic status (SES) is a determinant of marijuana and alcohol risk behaviour in adolescents between the ages of 10-15 years. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis to identify published or unpublished papers between January 1, 1980 and February 9, 2007 that reviewed marijuana and alcohol risk behaviour by SES in adolescents aged 10-15 years. SYNTHESIS: We found nine studies that fulfilled our inclusion criteria and passed the methodological quality review. The prevalence of marijuana and alcohol risk behaviour was 22% higher (RR = 1.22; 95% CI 1.14-1.31) in adolescents with low SES in comparison to adolescents with higher SES. Stratification by country of origin revealed that American and New Zealand studies had statistically significant variability in the reported effects as compared to European and UK studies. DISCUSSION: The evidence suggests that low SES has an inverse association with the prevalence of marijuana and alcohol risk behaviour in adolescents between the ages of 10-15 years. Higher rates of marijuana and alcohol risk behaviour among lower SES adolescents may impact emotional development, limit future educational and occupational achievement, and increase the likelihood for adult marijuana and alcohol addiction. CONCLUSION: Lower SES adolescents have higher rates of marijuana and alcohol risk behaviour than higher SES adolescents
Posted by sebstar:Posted by nykshaknbake:
No that is not the natural assumption; if it is it is flawed. That's like saying if you you stand in the rain you get wet but if it's not raining you can't get wet. Having marijuana illegal is the superior one.
We're missing each other a bit, so I'll start over. Has marijuana prohibition really stopped anyone from getting high? Are the resources that we are draining from this nation and the lives that are being destroyed really worth it just so the moral majority can feel better at night?
Not to mention how many auxiliary benefits can come from its legalization.
bitty41 @ 4/22/2009 7:52 AM
Posted by nykshaknbake:
Lives being destroyed by not legalizing marijuana? You'll have to substantiate this. I'm not an economicist but I find your claims of economic drain dubious and I feel that is the opposite of what you have stated.
Currently, opposing your stance is the American Academy of Pediatrics
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;113/6/1825.pdf
Additionally it 2 peer reviewed articles, including a meta-analysis say that marijuana is associated with lower economic status and behaviorial problems in neonates.
Marijuana use, adolescent pregnancy, and alteration in newborn behavior: How complex can it get?
Henrietta S. Bada, MD, MPH ⁎
Eric W. Reynolds, MD
Wendy F. Hansen, MD
Departments of Pediatrics and Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Kentucky College of MedicineLexington, Kentucky
* Reprint requests: Henrietta S. Bada, MD, University of Kentucky Medical Center, 800 Rose St, Room MS 477, Lexington, KY 40536
Prenatal marijuana use has effects on fetal physical growth and neurobehavior. In a meta-analysis,[10] prenatal marijuana use <1 times per week did not result in a significant decrease in birth weight, but use >4 times per week was associated with an average of a 131-gram decrease in weight. Other investigators also found a decrease in birth length,[11] but with no decrement in ponderal index.[12] Marijuana use during pregnancy, especially in the first trimester, was associated with shortened gestation. [13] , [14] An average use of marijuana ¡Ý6 times per week was associated with 0.8-week reduction in length of gestation.[13] First trimester use of marijuana also increased the odds of minor physical abnormalities in the newborn.[14]
Prenatal marijuana exposure has been associated with irritability, an increase in body motility, tremors, startles, poor habituation to visual stimuli, abnormal reflexes, and symptoms similar to mild withdrawal. [15] , [16] These findings differed from those of Dreher et al,[17] who found neonates born to marijuana users with higher socioeconomic class had no evident neurobehavioral alterations. Barros et al,[1] in this issue of The Journal, examined newborn infants born to adolescent mothers who used marijuana during pregnancy and compared their findings with non-exposed infants. They found alteration in neurobehavior with the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Network Neurobehavioral Scale (NNNS),[18] an assessment similar to Brazelton¡¯s[19] Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale. The NNNS has been modified to assess neurobehavioral performance of high-risk infants, including those born after in utero drug exposure. Infants exposed to marijuana in utero had higher scores in arousal, lower scores in regulation, and higher scores in excitability than non-exposed infants. After in utero exposure to biological risks from marijuana, the needs of the infant with altered neurobehavior can easily add to the stresses of a substance-using adolescent parent. Furthermore, the neurobehavioral alterations, whether manifestations of withdrawal or toxic effects, may be predictors of long-term effects.[20]
1: Can J Public Health. 2008 May-Jun;99(3):172-7. Links
A meta-analysis of marijuana and alcohol use by socio-economic status in adolescents aged 10-15 years.
Lemstra M, Bennett NR, Neudorf C, Kunst A, Nannapaneni U, Warren LM, Kershaw T, Scott CR.
Population Health Research Unit, Saskatoon Health Region, Saskatoon, SK. mark.lemstra@saskatoonhealthregion.ca
OBJECTIVES: A majority of population-based studies suggest prevalence of drug and alcohol risk behaviour increases during late adolescence to early adulthood. The purpose of this systematic literature review is to clarify if socio-economic status (SES) is a determinant of marijuana and alcohol risk behaviour in adolescents between the ages of 10-15 years. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis to identify published or unpublished papers between January 1, 1980 and February 9, 2007 that reviewed marijuana and alcohol risk behaviour by SES in adolescents aged 10-15 years. SYNTHESIS: We found nine studies that fulfilled our inclusion criteria and passed the methodological quality review. The prevalence of marijuana and alcohol risk behaviour was 22% higher (RR = 1.22; 95% CI 1.14-1.31) in adolescents with low SES in comparison to adolescents with higher SES. Stratification by country of origin revealed that American and New Zealand studies had statistically significant variability in the reported effects as compared to European and UK studies. DISCUSSION: The evidence suggests that low SES has an inverse association with the prevalence of marijuana and alcohol risk behaviour in adolescents between the ages of 10-15 years. Higher rates of marijuana and alcohol risk behaviour among lower SES adolescents may impact emotional development, limit future educational and occupational achievement, and increase the likelihood for adult marijuana and alcohol addiction. CONCLUSION: Lower SES adolescents have higher rates of marijuana and alcohol risk behaviour than higher SES adolescentsPosted by sebstar:Posted by nykshaknbake:
No that is not the natural assumption; if it is it is flawed. That's like saying if you you stand in the rain you get wet but if it's not raining you can't get wet. Having marijuana illegal is the superior one.
We're missing each other a bit, so I'll start over. Has marijuana prohibition really stopped anyone from getting high? Are the resources that we are draining from this nation and the lives that are being destroyed really worth it just so the moral majority can feel better at night?
Not to mention how many auxiliary benefits can come from its legalization.
Are you kidding me! I'm sorry but who in the hell ever advocated for pregnant women or children to smoke Marijuana? Oh it affects the fetus if the mother smokes Marijuana no shyt! Of course the American Academy of Pediatrics would oppose Marijuana use among children LOL
Nalod @ 4/22/2009 9:30 AM
Bitty,
I think the reality is by legalizing marijuana you make it legit, and there for socially acceptable in adults, which adolecents emulate.
I think, again just my opinion is that teenage drinking is a very bad thing and a problem. You have a legal substance that falls into young peoples hands and abused. At the same time by increasing the drinking age to 21 we have driven booze underground and the incidents of college age kids binge abuse and death has increased terribly. I am in favor of it being 18!
Regarding Pot, would we also have another abuse substace proble that would increase?
Of course we are not advocating use in adolecents or pregnant women, but its gonna happen and happen at a higher rate.
To say "they doing it now, so why not legalize it" from an econmic standpoint is very valid and holds a lot of logic. But increased use and abuse in society would have some effect and perhaps that must be addressed.
What demographic uses and abused pot most? What would lower socio ecnomic use patterns might occur?
Lets be ethnic specific here for a moment. Would increased marijuana use amung the black American community have? Hispanic? Asian?
What Ecnomic affect would the loss of sales have on gangs and the black market drug business here and abroad? What would then do to replace lost revenue?
From an economic arguement, I can be on board with legalization. Personally I might engage in the pleasure if offers if I knew what additives and other studies became more available about the effects.
From a social and health standpoint I am really not convinced.
Its complicated.
I think the reality is by legalizing marijuana you make it legit, and there for socially acceptable in adults, which adolecents emulate.
I think, again just my opinion is that teenage drinking is a very bad thing and a problem. You have a legal substance that falls into young peoples hands and abused. At the same time by increasing the drinking age to 21 we have driven booze underground and the incidents of college age kids binge abuse and death has increased terribly. I am in favor of it being 18!
Regarding Pot, would we also have another abuse substace proble that would increase?
Of course we are not advocating use in adolecents or pregnant women, but its gonna happen and happen at a higher rate.
To say "they doing it now, so why not legalize it" from an econmic standpoint is very valid and holds a lot of logic. But increased use and abuse in society would have some effect and perhaps that must be addressed.
What demographic uses and abused pot most? What would lower socio ecnomic use patterns might occur?
Lets be ethnic specific here for a moment. Would increased marijuana use amung the black American community have? Hispanic? Asian?
What Ecnomic affect would the loss of sales have on gangs and the black market drug business here and abroad? What would then do to replace lost revenue?
From an economic arguement, I can be on board with legalization. Personally I might engage in the pleasure if offers if I knew what additives and other studies became more available about the effects.
From a social and health standpoint I am really not convinced.
Its complicated.
BigSm00th @ 4/22/2009 12:22 PM
"But there are big issues here, issues of economy and simple justice, especially on the sentencing side. As Webb pointed out in a cover story in Parade magazine, the U.S. is, by far, the most "criminal" country in the world, with 5% of the world's population and 25% of its prisoners. We spend $68 billion per year on corrections, and one-third of those being corrected are serving time for nonviolent drug crimes. We spend about $150 billion on policing and courts, and 47.5% of all drug arrests are marijuana-related. That is an awful lot of money, most of it nonfederal, that could be spent on better schools or infrastructure — or simply returned to the public."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/...
the Prison Lobby is very powerful, and they have a pretty vested interest in keeping the laws the way they are. Gotta keep those prisons filled. What's more detrimental to a society, locking up otherwise productive citizens, which then keeps separates them from their families, prevents them from raising their kids, prevents them from getting jobs and taking out loans when they get out of jail, or legalizing a drug which is less harmful than alcohol? I smoked weed almost every day when i was at BC and graduated with a 3.5 GPA. i'm a productive member of society, i pay my taxes, i work 50 hours a work running a company with 80 employees -- the prevailing notion that everybody who smokes weed is some deadbeat couch potato who plays mario kart on N64 all day is just not true.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/...
the Prison Lobby is very powerful, and they have a pretty vested interest in keeping the laws the way they are. Gotta keep those prisons filled. What's more detrimental to a society, locking up otherwise productive citizens, which then keeps separates them from their families, prevents them from raising their kids, prevents them from getting jobs and taking out loans when they get out of jail, or legalizing a drug which is less harmful than alcohol? I smoked weed almost every day when i was at BC and graduated with a 3.5 GPA. i'm a productive member of society, i pay my taxes, i work 50 hours a work running a company with 80 employees -- the prevailing notion that everybody who smokes weed is some deadbeat couch potato who plays mario kart on N64 all day is just not true.
Silverfuel @ 4/22/2009 11:28 PM
Posted by Nalod:If you really want to know there is plenty of research available online. My experiences: I live in central jersey and work for one of the biggest hedge funds in NYC. The suburbs and the fidi elite both smoke more weed than you can imagine. Like, twice a day and nonstop on weekends! Its like smoking a cigar to them.
What demographic uses and abused pot most?
I also helped out in political campaigns in Newark, NJ for the mayor. In some of the worst parts of town I met a ton of hard working stand up tax payers who are working their way up in the world. They smoke weed and its not getting in their way! I keep in touch with some of them. They are just as focused now as they were 2 years ago.
What would lower socio ecnomic use patterns might occur?This speaks to how much you know of the issue at hand. Legalizing wouldn't increase use in any significant way! People that want to smoke pot, already smoke pot. The advantage here is it will actually make it easier on cops because they will make less arrests. Our jails not be overcrowded and instead of tax money paying for their lawyers and their prison, the government would be making money off them! Think cigarettes. Cops can concentrate on hardcore criminals.
Lets be ethnic specific here for a moment. Would increased marijuana use amung the black American community have? Hispanic? Asian?
What Ecnomic affect would the loss of sales have on gangs and the black market drug business here and abroad? What would then do to replace lost revenue?What does this mean? As in, you don't want to legalize weed cause you are afraid of what the gangs will sell to make money? So congress should worry about how a law helps criminals before they vote on it? I don't know if I have ever heard a weaker argument against legalization. But i'll humor you.
I don't think any other "illegal substance" has as big a customer base. I think you will see less drug dealers because its harder to sell coc, meth, heroin than it is to sell weed! So gangs that survive will be those that have access to clients that need the hardcore narcotic! So it will be beneficial socially as well. But worrying about what gangs will sell makes no sense!
I dunno Nalod, you don't have a sound argument against legalizing.
Nalod @ 4/22/2009 11:36 PM
Im not arguing, just "discussing".
Your looking to "win", Im looking to discuss.
Im worried that organized crime turns up on other things. You seem to feel they just go away. Is that naive?
Your looking to "win", Im looking to discuss.
Im worried that organized crime turns up on other things. You seem to feel they just go away. Is that naive?
Silverfuel @ 4/23/2009 6:22 AM
Posted by Nalod:its a figure of speech, not something for you to nitpick. you could have tried to prove me wrong instead of judging my agenda! you wanted me to say, "you dont have a sound discussion" instead of "sound argument"? It really doesn't matter if its an argument or discussion. If you dont have anything to say, it will show.
Im not arguing, just "discussing".
Your looking to "win", Im looking to discuss.
Im worried that organized crime turns up on other things. You seem to feel they just go away. Is that naive?You never said organized crime, you said gangs. Organized crime will NEVER go away. Its organized that way you know! They didnt go away after prohibition was repealed but they made a lot less money. Come on Nalod, in this discussion, can you respond to everything else other than organized crime not having anything else to sell? Or maybe, can you tell us what you think will have to gangs, orgnized crime etc when marijuana is legalized?
nykshaknbake @ 4/23/2009 10:49 AM
Did you actually read their statement? Or is it like well they disagree with me and so therfore they must be dishonest or stupid? Being a physician myself, I trust this report and i know they aren't stupid. How about the SES study, bitty?
Posted by bitty41:Posted by nykshaknbake:
Lives being destroyed by not legalizing marijuana? You'll have to substantiate this. I'm not an economicist but I find your claims of economic drain dubious and I feel that is the opposite of what you have stated.
Currently, opposing your stance is the American Academy of Pediatrics
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;113/6/1825.pdf
Additionally it 2 peer reviewed articles, including a meta-analysis say that marijuana is associated with lower economic status and behaviorial problems in neonates.
Marijuana use, adolescent pregnancy, and alteration in newborn behavior: How complex can it get?
Henrietta S. Bada, MD, MPH ⁎
Eric W. Reynolds, MD
Wendy F. Hansen, MD
Departments of Pediatrics and Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Kentucky College of MedicineLexington, Kentucky
* Reprint requests: Henrietta S. Bada, MD, University of Kentucky Medical Center, 800 Rose St, Room MS 477, Lexington, KY 40536
Prenatal marijuana use has effects on fetal physical growth and neurobehavior. In a meta-analysis,[10] prenatal marijuana use <1 times per week did not result in a significant decrease in birth weight, but use >4 times per week was associated with an average of a 131-gram decrease in weight. Other investigators also found a decrease in birth length,[11] but with no decrement in ponderal index.[12] Marijuana use during pregnancy, especially in the first trimester, was associated with shortened gestation. [13] , [14] An average use of marijuana ¡Ý6 times per week was associated with 0.8-week reduction in length of gestation.[13] First trimester use of marijuana also increased the odds of minor physical abnormalities in the newborn.[14]
Prenatal marijuana exposure has been associated with irritability, an increase in body motility, tremors, startles, poor habituation to visual stimuli, abnormal reflexes, and symptoms similar to mild withdrawal. [15] , [16] These findings differed from those of Dreher et al,[17] who found neonates born to marijuana users with higher socioeconomic class had no evident neurobehavioral alterations. Barros et al,[1] in this issue of The Journal, examined newborn infants born to adolescent mothers who used marijuana during pregnancy and compared their findings with non-exposed infants. They found alteration in neurobehavior with the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Network Neurobehavioral Scale (NNNS),[18] an assessment similar to Brazelton¡¯s[19] Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale. The NNNS has been modified to assess neurobehavioral performance of high-risk infants, including those born after in utero drug exposure. Infants exposed to marijuana in utero had higher scores in arousal, lower scores in regulation, and higher scores in excitability than non-exposed infants. After in utero exposure to biological risks from marijuana, the needs of the infant with altered neurobehavior can easily add to the stresses of a substance-using adolescent parent. Furthermore, the neurobehavioral alterations, whether manifestations of withdrawal or toxic effects, may be predictors of long-term effects.[20]
1: Can J Public Health. 2008 May-Jun;99(3):172-7. Links
A meta-analysis of marijuana and alcohol use by socio-economic status in adolescents aged 10-15 years.
Lemstra M, Bennett NR, Neudorf C, Kunst A, Nannapaneni U, Warren LM, Kershaw T, Scott CR.
Population Health Research Unit, Saskatoon Health Region, Saskatoon, SK. mark.lemstra@saskatoonhealthregion.ca
OBJECTIVES: A majority of population-based studies suggest prevalence of drug and alcohol risk behaviour increases during late adolescence to early adulthood. The purpose of this systematic literature review is to clarify if socio-economic status (SES) is a determinant of marijuana and alcohol risk behaviour in adolescents between the ages of 10-15 years. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis to identify published or unpublished papers between January 1, 1980 and February 9, 2007 that reviewed marijuana and alcohol risk behaviour by SES in adolescents aged 10-15 years. SYNTHESIS: We found nine studies that fulfilled our inclusion criteria and passed the methodological quality review. The prevalence of marijuana and alcohol risk behaviour was 22% higher (RR = 1.22; 95% CI 1.14-1.31) in adolescents with low SES in comparison to adolescents with higher SES. Stratification by country of origin revealed that American and New Zealand studies had statistically significant variability in the reported effects as compared to European and UK studies. DISCUSSION: The evidence suggests that low SES has an inverse association with the prevalence of marijuana and alcohol risk behaviour in adolescents between the ages of 10-15 years. Higher rates of marijuana and alcohol risk behaviour among lower SES adolescents may impact emotional development, limit future educational and occupational achievement, and increase the likelihood for adult marijuana and alcohol addiction. CONCLUSION: Lower SES adolescents have higher rates of marijuana and alcohol risk behaviour than higher SES adolescentsPosted by sebstar:Posted by nykshaknbake:
No that is not the natural assumption; if it is it is flawed. That's like saying if you you stand in the rain you get wet but if it's not raining you can't get wet. Having marijuana illegal is the superior one.
We're missing each other a bit, so I'll start over. Has marijuana prohibition really stopped anyone from getting high? Are the resources that we are draining from this nation and the lives that are being destroyed really worth it just so the moral majority can feel better at night?
Not to mention how many auxiliary benefits can come from its legalization.
Are you kidding me! I'm sorry but who in the hell ever advocated for pregnant women or children to smoke Marijuana? Oh it affects the fetus if the mother smokes Marijuana no shyt! Of course the American Academy of Pediatrics would oppose Marijuana use among children LOL
bitty41 @ 4/23/2009 2:45 PM
Did you actually read their statement? Or is it like well they disagree with me and so therfore they must be dishonest or stupid? Being a physician myself, I trust this report and i know they aren't stupid. How about the SES study, bitty?
Now this has become borderline ridiculous. I responded to those studies you cited with the statement that no one on this board nor anyone associated with the Movement to legalize Marijuana would ever suggest that pregnant women or children engage in Marijuana use now do you understand my point?
sebstar @ 4/23/2009 3:10 PM
Is the war on Marijuana working now?? Why dont you Moral Mel's address that?
Are you comfortable with our government pumping so much money into the investigation, persecution, and incarceration of people who smoke such a harmless drug in comparison to harder legal drugs like prescription pills, alcohol, and tobacco?
Are you also comfortable with husbands and mothers being ripped from their family over weed???
Its just insanity, this is just self-righteous dogma. Thats all.
Are you comfortable with our government pumping so much money into the investigation, persecution, and incarceration of people who smoke such a harmless drug in comparison to harder legal drugs like prescription pills, alcohol, and tobacco?
Are you also comfortable with husbands and mothers being ripped from their family over weed???
Its just insanity, this is just self-righteous dogma. Thats all.
Silverfuel @ 4/23/2009 6:59 PM
Posted by sebstar:No its not! What will the gangs do if we legalize marijuana? We have to keep it illegal so they don't sell harder stuff!
Are you comfortable with our government pumping so much money into the investigation, persecution, and incarceration of people who smoke such a harmless drug in comparison to harder legal drugs like prescription pills, alcohol, and tobacco?
Are you also comfortable with husbands and mothers being ripped from their family over weed???
Its just insanity, this is just self-righteous dogma. Thats all.
Page 4 of 5