Making Marijuana Legal

[Leilin]

If it wasn't the majority then the smoking bans wouldn't keep getting more strict.

You know the difference between a ban and a restriction, right? A ban, by definition, cannot get more strict.

Did you know it's illegal to smoke in public parks in most places now? It's illegal to smoke while walking down the street in some places. So, if tobacco smoke is so bad for people who don't smoke, then so is pot smoke, can't have it both ways.

Good thing I'm not advocating having it both ways...

Also: The science doesn't actually back your statements up with your nice little false equivalence there, but it means nothing, again, as I don't advocate it both ways. Other than in situations where the health of a second party is directly impacted, I'm all for people polluting their own lungs as much as they want to.

[KittenAB]

You know the difference between a ban and a restriction, right? A ban, by definition, cannot get more strict.

Good thing I'm not advocating having it both ways...

Also: The science doesn't actually back your statements up with your nice little false equivalence there, but it means nothing, again, as I don't advocate it both ways. Other than in situations where the health of a second party is directly impacted, I'm all for people polluting their own lungs as much as they want to.

Meh ... blame the lawmakers for the wording of "ban" and "restriction" .... as for the science, there is no actual science used to demonstrate any danger in second hand smoke of any kind, it's all based on conjecture and fear. But if you don't care about them legalizing pot, then meh.

[Leilin]

Meh ... blame the lawmakers for the wording of "ban" and "restriction" .... as for the science, there is no actual science used to demonstrate any danger in second hand smoke of any kind, it's all based on conjecture and fear. But if you don't care about them legalizing pot, then meh.

Wrong.

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/RSNA_Secondhand_smoke.pdf

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/short/111/20/2684

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1879386,00.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6195GM20100210

Your definition of "science" and "conjecture" is as accurate as your definition of "ban" but don't let fact get in the way of your statements. You rarely do.

And I do care about legalizing pot. I think it needs to be done. When people are going to prison for an act which has no inherent harm to another human being by its integral nature then there is something seriously wrong.

[KittenAB]

false, wrong, incorrect, and no.

tobacco smoke is so bad for people due to the CHEMICAL MAKE UP of what youre smoking. look at what is inside of cigarettes. " nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide, as well as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT. "

now lets look at what is inside of MEDICAL marijuana (dont bring in back alley statistics from drug lords or something like that, im aware of what they put in it as well, but if it were legalized, a VERY large majority would be regulated or self grown) ..... oh right.... marijuana..... Yes ALL smoke is bad for you, and they shouldnt be smoking in heavily populated areas or near schools or anything like that (as theyre doing with cigarettes). Sure it isnt very healthy for the individual, but i dont think its fair to deny someone their pot, the same way i dont think we should deny children candy on halloween. Is it REALLY a healthy thing to pump kids with bags upon bags of candy? no. Do the kids enjoy it and does it bring a smile to their face? yes. You just regulate he child's intake of candy, or limit how much someone can buy at once, or some such, and it wont be that harmful to the individual.

Smoke itself contains carbon monoxide, anything that burns produces it. Tar is a fancy word for "dust" ... well not that fancy, it's a word for pollutants found in smoke of any sort, the stuff you see is tar, because when it collects it turns into a tarry substance, so pot smoke contains both by a matter of fact. Pot contains THC, which is similar to nicotine in it's effect, just no physical dependency and a higher potency. There is no safe smoke, even the smoke from a fireplace contains many of the chemicals in tobacco smoke and always contains carbon monoxide and tar. The make up of the tar is what varies depending on the substance burnt, most of the chemicals in mass produced tobacco are a result of preservatives required by the FDA, there are more expensive yet less "harmful" preservatives available, but companies that use those have to charge almost twice what others do to cover the increase in cost.

Leilin, that's all still based on statistics, and as we know, statistics are "the third, & worst kind of lie" ....

[KittenAB]

because you seemed to miss this. Point is still more then valid though, cigarette smoke is WORSE then pot smoke. Im not advocating everyone smoking everywhere, but i dont see why you want to make it illegal for people to do something inherently stupid. Should we make jumping off your roof illegal, and arrest anyone who does it or tries it? or let them suffer the consequences of it on their own.

Yes which is why you dont LOGICALLY stick your head in it, or start a fire in the middle of the street and make others breath the smoke, but it shouldnt be ILLEGAL to stick your own head into your fireplace and take a big whiff of smoke. so why should it be illegal to do that but instead of burning logs, youre burning pot?

o.O You missed the point completely. You stated tobacco smoke was "worse" than pot smoke, I showed you that all smoke is dangerous and you focus on that one little aspect. You don't think the FDA would require the same "preservatives" to not be put into pot smoke for commercial sale if it was legal? As I said, the tobacco leaf itself doesn't have all that crap, it's additives that are forced by the FDA (the wonderful babysitters everyone loves) ... the worst tobacco companies ever did was try to make stronger nicotine producing plants ... much the same is done with pot as it is, just for THC. Now, if pot had the exact, and I do mean exact, same restrictions as tobacco, fine. But people don't want that, they want their cake but want to tell other people they can't have any. While true of all subsets of society, it's the reason I shall be against pot being legal ....

[lilJester]

okay ive been around enough stoners in highschool....keep the shit illegal. thats all i really have to say. I'm sorry say what you want about legal things like cigarettes which the government is trying to phase out anyways, but i take a drag off my cig, i dont get the munchies and act like a moron. and man like dude everything like woah......*falls out of chair giggling*

[lilJester]

Ashie...your saying WRONG about pot smoke being bad for those around them, uhm... Okay i am not allergic to hc. but you smoke that crap around me and i will feel like crap. Also, ever heard of gettin stoned second hand? sounds like a joke but ive seen people get a contact high. Also though i said i dont have any THC allergies, i have a friend that IS allergic. Smoke around him, he gets really sick and lets see, had migrains, and vomitted from the crap without having to smoke it himself. So trying to say that its NOT harmful to those around the pothead, is not going to work on me.

[Leilin]

Leilin, that's all still based on statistics, and as we know, statistics are "the third, & worst kind of lie" ....

If you don't believe in science, just say so so we can proceed to take your opinions regarding anything scientific for the nothing that they're plainly worth. Don't pretend it doesn't exist. It makes you look silly.

Also: You've just proven that you didn't actually read the links. Par for the course.

Ashie...your saying WRONG about pot smoke being bad for those around them, uhm... Okay i am not allergic to hc. but you smoke that crap around me and i will feel like crap. Also, ever heard of gettin stoned second hand? sounds like a joke but ive seen people get a contact high. Also though i said i dont have any THC allergies, i have a friend that IS allergic. Smoke around him, he gets really sick and lets see, had migrains, and vomitted from the crap without having to smoke it himself. So trying to say that its NOT harmful to those around the pothead, is not going to work on me.

I completely agree that secondhand pot can be harmful in situations. However it's important to separate situations concerning the drug being roundly harmful to the general public or deadly from situations where the drug is solely harmful because 1 person (the smoker) is inconsiderate, which not all are and one person (the victim) is allergic, which not all (and very few) are. This is not a case of pot smoke being inherently harmful but of one person having an intolerance for it and another person being a jerk and smoking around the former person anyway.

[lilJester]

okay can we safely assume there is at least one ass like me in the crowd that hates the smell of pot because the fact it triggers a migraine thus puts the smokers life in jeopardy?Wall of death at Lamb Of God anyone?

and secondly....contact high. okay people around said stoner get high because of them toking up soooo lets put them behind the wheel shall we?

[Leilin]

okay can we safely assume there is at least one ass like me in the crowd that hates the smell of pot because the fact it triggers a migraine thus puts the smokers life in jeopardy?Wall of death at Lamb Of God anyone?

and secondly....contact high. okay people around said stoner get high because of them toking up soooo lets put them behind the wheel shall we?

So put it under similar rules (modified, probably, but similar) to Alcohol in some areas, so the point where it cannot be done in public or in places not designated for that purpose. Would that be satisfactory?

[KittenAB]

your entire post was about how pot smoke was as terrible if not worse then tobacco. in that same post that i quoted for you, youll see it says "all smoke is bad". i had already conceded that point. As it is right now, all that "extra" stuff ISNT slapped into medical marijuana, which is the only fair comparison to if it were legalized. Yes it is a "guess" as to what theyd do with it, but here in california, it is not required to have all those extra things in them, and if someone grew them at home(with permission to do so in the form of a card of whatever) for personal use, then it WOULD be *fairly pure in comparison*. my point was that pot smoke is NOT as bad as cigarette smoke, and that, as long as it was restricted to the same "no smoking" rules in certain areas, i dont see WHY its a problem.

the only people who do this are those who are NOT smoking "responsibly". thats like saying "ive only been around alcoholics, and they just get drunk and act like idiots, so dont let anyone have any alcohol ever"

No, my post was about how all smoke is "bad" for us, all of it, and that if you want to try to take the "pot smoke isn't as bad" approach then you don't know much about smoke chemically. Sorry to say that you are fooling yourself, but you are. The most dangerous chemicals from cigarettes are put in there because *gasp* people voted to have the government protect them. They are called preservatives, and when you burn a preservative it turns into such dangerous chemicals as formaldehyde. If you had pot enter the commercial industry, the government would require these same exact chemicals be added to it. No one ever looks at why something is really dangerous when they want to attack or defend it. I'm a nicotine addict, I don't complain about people who want to smoke pot, I complain about the hypocrisy around it and tobacco. Here's the best solution for us all, get rid of the FDA ... let cigarette companies sell pure tobacco cigarettes, stop worrying about the junkies and their crap, stop worrying about the potheads, whatever. But meh ... as long as people keep attacking tobacco smoke, potheads get what they deserve to, because most do say "pot smoke is less dangerous than cigarette smoke" ... that's just plain ignorance.

[KittenAB]

youre literally arguing a massive what-if at this point. the best possible example we would have on the market would be medicinal marijuana. yes, after it is legalized there MAY be other laws for other ways to regulate it, but the quickest path from A to B is a straight line. It is simply more reasonable to assume that those who are currently selling pot legally to people with medical cards, would then be able to sell it to anyone. Tacking on "oh and there will be all these extras added in because they did this with tobacco", while yes possible, would not be the most *logical* because they would be a separate, added on issue. If youre going to play "what if" then im going to simply counter with "What if they started putting rat poison in all unhealthy foods to discourage people from eating them". Sure they probably wont, but they might. Yes, youre argument is BASED in logic, and sure they MIGHT impose the same chemical restrictions and such, but a) they are different substances, no matter how "similar", theyre still different. the ONLY available pot on the market does NOT have those restrictions imposed, and such restrictions have not been discussed during the discussions to legalize it to my knowledge. c) pot currently does not add tar to your lungs tobacco does.

"

* Most marijuana smokers smoke the bud, not the leaf, of the plant. The bud contains only 33% as much tar as tobacco.

* Marijuana smokers do not smoke anywhere near as much as tobacco smokers, due to the psychoactive effects of cannabis.

* Not one case of lung cancer has ever been successfully linked to marijuana use.

* Cannabis, unlike tobacco, does not cause any narrowing of the small air passageways in the lungs. " (http://www.lycaeum.org/~sputnik/Drugs/THC/Health/cancer.html)

Again, tar is just another word for "stuff" ... it's not a specific chemical and the more chemicals you add the more tar you get. Tobacco has a lot of chemicals added by law as preservatives, this will naturally increase the amount of tar because those chemicals do not just vanish when smoked. All consumables have to have preservatives added according to the FDA, they force it all to be added, so a commercial product has to have them added EXCEPT when it's a medication. Medications have different laws. So it's not a "what if" it's a "what will happen". The only difference may, and this is a hefty "may", be the type of preservatives they add, which would change the final chemical make up of the tar. More than half the tar of cigarettes is from preservatives, non-filtered. Filtered cigarettes produce the same amount of tar but the smoker does inhale a LOT less of it. Also, no one ever discusses the preservatives added to tobacco when discussing how "bad" it is either, matter of fact preservatives are rarely discussed as a problem because people don't want to live without the FDA. Disband the FDA and you will see a large variety of many products with and without preservatives, but then people would be forced to do the one thing they are too lazy to do, actual research into the chemical properties of what's added to things they consume. Pot would be no different, as I said, nothing is exempt from preservatives when sold commercially except medications, and many of those have them now as well.

[lilJester]

So put it under similar rules (modified, probably, but similar) to Alcohol in some areas, so the point where it cannot be done in public or in places not designated for that purpose. Would that be satisfactory?

yeah i can agree on that. ive seen and been around people that are stoned and tyring to drive. while its funny, i also worry they will smack into someone. They arent as bad as someone who is drunk BUT they are easily distracted.

[lilJester]

Again, tar is just another word for "stuff" ... it's not a specific chemical and the more chemicals you add the more tar you get. Tobacco has a lot of chemicals added by law as preservatives, this will naturally increase the amount of tar because those chemicals do not just vanish when smoked. All consumables have to have preservatives added according to the FDA, they force it all to be added, so a commercial product has to have them added EXCEPT when it's a medication. Medications have different laws. So it's not a "what if" it's a "what will happen". The only difference may, and this is a hefty "may", be the type of preservatives they add, which would change the final chemical make up of the tar. More than half the tar of cigarettes is from preservatives, non-filtered. Filtered cigarettes produce the same amount of tar but the smoker does inhale a LOT less of it. Also, no one ever discusses the preservatives added to tobacco when discussing how "bad" it is either, matter of fact preservatives are rarely discussed as a problem because people don't want to live without the FDA. Disband the FDA and you will see a large variety of many products with and without preservatives, but then people would be forced to do the one thing they are too lazy to do, actual research into the chemical properties of what's added to things they consume. Pot would be no different, as I said, nothing is exempt from preservatives when sold commercially except medications, and many of those have them now as well.

Wait, with all these preservatives out there..... does that mean..... when we di, get buried, and rise again as jesus..i mean as ZOMBIES.... does this mean we won't be all rotting and sickening looking?

[Leilin]

preservatives

This word does not mean what you think it means. You should probably not use it until you've corrected that perception issue.

Here's a clue: There are preservatives in most jelly and in nicotine cigarettes. While the term is correctly applied in both cases, they are completely different things. The fact that they are preservatives has NOTHING to do with what they do when heated to the point of combustion. The SPECIFIC preservatives in SOME nicotine cigarettes have that effect, not preservatives in general (Don't worry, folks who cook with jelly). The preservatives in nicotine cigarettes are NOT added due to government regulation. They are added to increase the shelf-life and mobility of a carton of cigarettes (you know, to preserve it).

Do you ever say ANYTHING that's not based off of silly chain E-mails? I'm not sure whether to invoke Poe's law here or not.

[WallaWalla]

Additives aren't forced into tobacco by the FDA, as there are a number of additive free brands of cigarette and cigar alike. Additives are a proprietary measure that 'improve' the taste and make people hooked to the brand instead of tobacco at large. Doubly confusing is KittenAB's claim that the FDA mandates the addition of preservatives to any consumable product sold in the United States. There are countless organic food products which are sold entirely unadulterated, they simply need to be labeled as such.

I honestly don't see why anybody would be against legalizing it in a manner similar to alcohol. Set up state bureaus which regulate and license people to sell, prohibit use in public, prohibit driving under the influence, and prohibit the sale to minors.

KittenAB, the idea that you think people should be incarcerated because certain elements supporting legalization get your hackles up is baffling.

Ashie...your saying WRONG about pot smoke being bad for those around them, uhm... Okay i am not allergic to hc. but you smoke that crap around me and i will feel like crap. Also, ever heard of gettin stoned second hand? sounds like a joke but ive seen people get a contact high. Also though i said i dont have any THC allergies, i have a friend that IS allergic. Smoke around him, he gets really sick and lets see, had migrains, and vomitted from the crap without having to smoke it himself. So trying to say that its NOT harmful to those around the pothead, is not going to work on me.

An allergic reaction to an inhaled agent is going to result in anaphylaxis, not nausea and a headache. It's more likely that he has a hypersensitivity to the drug.

It's really of no relevance whether or not it harms those around the smoker if you prohibit it's use in public places. People also seem to classically neglect that marijuana can be ingested orally or vaporized, in which case there is no second-hand effect at all.

[KittenAB]

This word does not mean what you think it means. You should probably not use it until you've corrected that perception issue.

Here's a clue: There are preservatives in most jelly and in nicotine cigarettes. While the term is correctly applied in both cases, they are completely different things. The fact that they are preservatives has NOTHING to do with what they do when heated to the point of combustion. The SPECIFIC preservatives in SOME nicotine cigarettes have that effect, not preservatives in general (Don't worry, folks who cook with jelly). The preservatives in nicotine cigarettes are NOT added due to government regulation. They are added to increase the shelf-life and mobility of a carton of cigarettes (you know, to preserve it).

Do you ever say ANYTHING that's not based off of silly chain E-mails? I'm not sure whether to invoke Poe's law here or not.

o.O Um ... do you even read what you respond to or are you just looking for an excuse to say someone is wrong? The FDA does require preservatives, the rest of what the companies put in are additives, usually to alter the flavor when smoked. There are some brands that only add the required preservatives, but they still have to or discard their stock within such a limited time it's on the verge of being ridiculous, which is oddly true of almost every product now. For tobacco such preservatives are not really required to keep the product fresh once it's been sealed, and don't even try to tell anyone that companies enjoy spending more money on things they don't need to add to their products.

[KittenAB]

Wait, with all these preservatives out there..... does that mean..... when we di, get buried, and rise again as jesus..i mean as ZOMBIES.... does this mean we won't be all rotting and sickening looking?

That would be soooooooo freaking awesome!

[WallaWalla]

The FDA does require preservatives[in every consumable item sold in the United States]

Citation?

[lilJester]

That would be soooooooo freaking awesome!

well even if that was so, no wonder they entomb us in cement (at least where i live) when they bury us.

[Leilin]

Citation?

Don't bother. She can't provide it.

Bonus: Here's the federal regulation saying exactly the opposite of what KittenAB's claims are:

FDA regulation on tobacco constituents

I'm sure she'll come up with some enlightening conspiracy theory about how this is just a curtain over our eyes hiding the true government REQUIREMENT of dangerous additives.

[lukeout]

well even if that was so, no wonder they entomb us in cement (at least where i live) when they bury us.

what if you figure out you can dig sideways? or down and around? BUMP BUMP BUMMMMMMM!

Alcohol is more dangerous than weed... Not that i have any proof or anything but I have read and watched a lot of information on marijuana and support the Use of it as Recreational and medical, We should also Grow Hemp for paper and fabric or what have you. I've read that 1 acre of hemp is equal to 4 acres of trees.... I don't know about you but i kinda want to save the trees -go ahead and call me a Tree Huggin Hippy- But Tress Make a lot of the oxygen we need to live so why the hell are we cutting them down? I've also read that the carbon Emission to harvest Hemp is Equal to what Hemp puts in the air. And if we aren't cutting down trees any more then we get more oxygen.. Yay!

[KittenAB]

Don't bother. She can't provide it.

Bonus: Here's the federal regulation saying exactly the opposite of what KittenAB's claims are:

FDA regulation on tobacco constituents

I'm sure she'll come up with some enlightening conspiracy theory about how this is just a curtain over our eyes hiding the true government REQUIREMENT of dangerous additives.

LOL ... okay then, if you don't want to believe what some "nut" behind a keyboard says just because (though you do it all the time anyway ).

From your own link: This guidance document is being distributed for comment purposes only. <- It's not law, it's not even practice, it's "guidance" that they are looking for "comments" on .... seriously, do you really think you can find everything online or that every single detail of everything your government does is going to be public information? Seriously?

[Leilin]

LOL ... okay then, if you don't want to believe what some "nut" behind a keyboard says just because (though you do it all the time anyway ).

You mean "Don't believe the nut behind a keyboard (no quotes necessary) because all fact points to the opposite conclusion? Gosh. Well that's easy. Not believing people who make stuff up is usually a good practice.

From your own link: This guidance document is being distributed for comment purposes only. <- It's not law, it's not even practice, it's "guidance" that they are looking for "comments" on .... seriously, do you really think you can find everything online or that every single detail of everything your government does is going to be public information? Seriously?

Regulation is not "guidance." There can be penalties levied when it is not followed. This is more evidence that you're pretty much pulling this entire conversation out of your nether regions.

But, you know what, let's indulge your insanity for one moment. If it's guidance, why is the government "GUIDING" people to do the EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAY THEY MANDATE!

I look forward to more idiotic commentary from you. I'll bring the popcorn.

[KittenAB]

so what youre saying is, you dont wish to provide any proof to the contrary?

No, what I'm saying is that there's a lot more to this than "let's all blame the companies!" .... I'm so sick of people not taking responsibility for the laws they enacted, then when it bites them in the arse they go crying that we need new laws to punish someone else! Come on, people wanted babysitters like the FDA but here's the thing, EVERYONE is following the FDA's regulations, they don't get into trouble for breaking the regulations, they get in trouble when the regulations are wrong. Why doesn't the FDA get in trouble for it? You put them in charge or let them remain so, everything that kills you in this country is more their fault than anyone else, the companies just do what they are told by them. If the tobacco companies REALLY wanted to kill it's customers with all these additives, then why are they so worried about profit?