Why California should vote No

I don't want to imprison marijuana smokers... you assumed that...

My position is to fine the crap out of them so California could actually make some profit out of them and keep them out of our prisons. I'm for decriminalization of marijuana, but not for legalization. This has been the position I have been advocating on this site for well over a year.

I really don't have time to respond to your entire writing, but I have responded to all these points at some point or another before. It really gets tiresome having to correct the same thing over and over for a year.

If your assertion is that we should fine people for smoking marijuana because it is not healthy, then if you would also assert that we should also make it illegal and fine people for eating McDonald's or Burger King, your message would be more consistent. We should also fine people for taking tylenol for their headaches since it is not good for one's liver.

Well... what the government did do which I supported was force McDonald's and other fast food restaurants, as well as many food companies, to stop using saturated fats when they were cooking their french fries. This was good.

If there was an aspect of Tylenol such as a particular chemical that is affecting the liver... the FDA should force the makers of Tylenol to stop including this chemical in their drug.

(Believe me, if I could tax people extra for eating unhealthy food I would. If unhealthy food was more expensive than it is, than people would probably eat much less potato chips and more carrot sticks. I worked at McDonald's for two years, and after all I've seen, I haven't eaten there for well over 6 years. The only thing I would consider touching is an egg mcmuffin, and even that is in some ways questionable.)

haha thankyou

That's good. The post is not exaggerated, it is a list of facts that are true. It was not intended to change anyone's mind. It was meant to voice the statistics, facts, and viewpoints of those who are against smoking and legalizing marijuana.

Okay... the second one is easy too, so I have time for one more.

This study is contrived and is cooking the numbers by comparing ALL of the FDA approved drugs to one drug by itself, that being marijuana. Of course 279 deaths is going to look small when compared with 11,687. You are comparing only one dangerous drugs to statistics related to the statistics of 20 other dangerous drugs combined over a seven year period.

Marijuana contributed to the death of 279 people, and that's only what was included in this study. To put it into comparison, let's multiply 279 by 20 times so it is at least somewhat more comparable 279*20 = 5580 deaths. Keep in mind that this study was only over a 7 year period. Mine is attesting to deaths over a 30 year period. I'm arguing the long term effects of smoking it.

Freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose. The GOP owns it all don't you get it?

if one of us is chained none of us are free

Ohhh so you're taking the approach that only cool kids smoke dope,and only the losers don't smoke dope... How old are you... 12? You really think that would hurt my feelings?

NOPE!!

Haha, you really proved your point just now.

Im taking the approach that only stupid assholes would vote no at this point. As we all know stupid assholes are not cool.

It just says "usually contains". It doesn't say must contain. It is a necessary vs. sufficient statement argument. It is still carcinogenic the study says, even if you were to ignore the 400 chemicals.

Nope.. this was a long term study on the effects of Marijuana. It was conducted by doctors. This was not a fail. This is proof and testament to your stupidity.

The doctors originally suffocated monkeys with marijuana smoke killing them by not allowing them to breath and said it caused brain damage. So I so believe what your so called "doctors" thought up this time.

yeah and there are OTHER studies that are unbiased and they state that the memory loss/thc residue thing is temporary at worst.

Proof? I mean, was it in the PDF document? If so, I couldn't read that due to something about me and the Acrobat End User Agreement.

XD

It is not biased Jubal... it is quoting medical science. I'm challenging people to face up to the facts.

Wonderful facts that have been bought and paid for by the "war on drugs"...nice one.

No.. The main article is from the Health Science Centre from Manitoba. No war on drugs money has even touched there.

skydiving can be very bad for your health but it's legal.

You think I haven't heard these facts before? The reliability of your facts are questionable because they are taken from a marijuana propaganda site promoting the smoking of marijuana, and in my opinion, the stats are contrived. Marijuana causes cancer, I've just provided three citations that endorse my view, and you can put your propaganda sites in your pipe and smoke it.

If given the opportunity, I can produce several hundred people with over 30 years of smoking experience that would demonstrate otherwise...none of them have had any of the effects your precious Harvard study claims. They are judges, lawyers, doctors, nurses, engineers, architects, grad students...basically from all the positions that require a high degree of brain function...so right there the study goes down the toilet.

That's not a sufficient argument or proof. Charlie Burns lived to be 100 years old and smoked cigars for a good portion of his life. No one would therefore argue that smoking cigars must be healthy.

Maybe all these doctors, lawyers, and judges would be much more effective if they didn't smoke weed?? Maybe they'd live longer too...

It is for no one to decide but them, they are the masters of their domain, and if the government might one day say it is legal does not mean they condone it...and again alcohol is worse because it shrinks your brain, so you could say the same about it but more so.

My reason is valid. Smoking marijuana is no good for you, people have no reason to be smoking it, and it should remain off of store shelves. Go sniff gasoline if you want to get high that badly.

That has to do with prolonged inhaling of any kind of smoke and it's damage to the cillia in the lungs. Eating would avoid that

ok ok... but it's only dangerous if you're a habitual user, an occasional user isn't at much of a risk thru smoking

No it's not...

The link in the article is broken. Kinda like your facts.

I managed to find this on the UCLA site.

Sarafian: Current projects with Dr. Michael Roth and Dr. Don Tashkin focus on toxic mechanisms of marijauana smoke in the lung which may contribute to pulmonary disease, especially lung cancer. These mechanisms include high levels of oxidative stress and impairment of apoptosis pathways. Most studies utilize in vitro experimental models and compare marijuana and tobacco smoke. Studies are also performed on lung cells obtained from volunteer subjects by bronchiolar lavage.

Collaborative studies with Dr. Wayne Grody focuses on DNA damage caused by tobacco and marijuana smoke.

i try my best. plus NORML and Jack Herer educated me.

Well there's your first problem. Jack Herrer is an imbecile pothead who was on his deathbed. Why would you model him? I haven't heard more from him, but for all I know, he could actually be dead by now.

you can be as insulting to Jack as you like, but it does not change the fact that he is RIGHT. i believe his 100,000 dollar challenge to the world to disprove his facts on Marijuana/hemp is still open.

It doesn't say it absolutely has more, it says it MAY contain up to 400 chemicals, but it is still carcinogenic even before these chemicals are even added. Way to pick and choose the wording on how you quote me. You sound like god damn Fox News!

you're the one that put that little gem up for scrutiny.

Harvard Medical School - http://hms.harvard.edu/hms/home.asp

Why thank you for that link... and everyone look at all the other Harvard studies that are on their website stating all the ill effects of this nasty and dirty drug. Here is one examples of dozens listed on their site...

http://webweekly.hms.harvard.edu/archive/pressreleases/bid/0300marijuanaheartatt...

and exactly what experience do you have with cannabis?
are you implying that me, and various other users are utter fools?
i have seen and read of Harvard's experiments, and they are absolutely biased and the results are inconclusive.
what is the control group the experiment? there is NO control group.
what are the various factors, and are the factors monitored correctly? absolutely not.
this experiment goes against the exact principles of an experiment, it does not follow the scientific method, therefore, the results are inconclusive at best.

Harvard is an ultra conservative medical school that frequently supports biased studies in favor of the highest bidder. Science can be bought at Harvard.

yeah but the link says harvard law.

What is law doing studying medical research? You would think all those white top class people would have noticed that.

If you also note... I've also included a Manitoba study where health is completely publicly funded. They came to the same conclusion.

It's not like the entire state of CA (let alone the United States) is ignorant to what they are doing, needing only your benevolent advice and online statistics to guide them to the white light of knowledge which will in-turn push them away from their "pothead" ways and into enlightenment...

You googled it... Come on, you know you did. This mindless rambling of anti-marijuana just reminds me of college when someone is holding up a bible yelling at people to repent in a primitive baptist fashion -- come to find out, he knows next to nothing about the book he's holding.

So any drug user should be asked about there experience, and that will determine if its legal?

P.S. Claiming something doesn't make it true. Your using "death panel" tactics.

No it is for Harvard Medical. HMS=Harvard Medical School.
If you search google for Harvard it will show the link for Harvard Medical

http://hms.harvard.edu/hms/

I think you just accused him of what smokers do all day, sit online and post falsehoods.

good job, taking that out of context!
no, i wasn't asking if he had ever used the drug, i was asking if he had any first hand experience on the drug or its effects on people, IE what did he know about the drug that he didn't hear from ONE online source that he just happened to read and take as true without giving further insight into the subject.

he seems to know very little about cannabis itself other than it's a "nasty and dirty drug"

lol are you going somewhere with that? Or was that it...

So I'm being compared to one of those campus crusades for christ guys eh? A bible basher huh?

If I understood you correctly, you wanna know what first hand experience I have with marijuana? Well it is a major issue where I live. I have a friend in particular who was at the top of his class both socially and academically. He went on to a very prestigious University in a well respected program. He then started having troubles at home, and then I took him to a party with me, he got introduced to marijuana by people who were there, he enjoyed it, and has continued it since.

I visit him and talk to him now, and sometimes he has an appartment, sometimes he lives on the street. He has a very low paying job even though he has the capacity to do much more, but now lacks any motivation to do anything. He sleeps until about 1pm everyday, and feels aweful every morning, usually hacking up green. If he goes a day without weed, he starts getting anxious and starts to figure out how he can get his next joint. He is not even the same person anymore and one can tell that his mind is chemically altered by the pot. It is frustrating to see my friend act this way when he was once very driven. He has also lost a lot of weight, and his general health is visibly deteriorating. (You don't need his doctor's report to notice it). The challenge is that he does not think there is an issue. It is incredibly hard to help someone who doesn't want the help to begin with.

This is the story of many bright youth in my town. It pisses me off. I've also witnessed it in University where people start off well intentioned, and then go down hill academically, socially, and spiritually once they start experimenting with pot. Most drop out by the end of the year.

So I guess the one that verifies my suspicions of the physical effects is his hacking up green in the morning. Green implies infection and cannot be good.

The rest are all emotional psychological problems he now faces. Those are much harder to prove scientifically, so I didn't bother putting much effort towards them in my arguments.

That's unfortunate for your friend and others that you know but all it proves is that he ALLOWED all of that to happen to himself. Cannabis isn't for everyone and I've certainly seen that first hand just as alcohol isn't for everyone (including myself) but it is irresponsible to make sweeping generalizations like the ones you've made. I smoke several times a day, graduated high school 13 out of a class of over 400, have been on the dean's list/held an academic scholarship throughout my college career with a GPA hovering around 3.9 (and none of this is to brag but prove a point AND I am certainly not alone!). I'm a very productive member of society and take a very active role in my own health (including following traditional methods of food preparation) and I take comfort in cannabis' rich history with humanity. Think about how everyday more research surfaces discovering the harm of synthetic medications we so readily take; these are things we won't find out about until 20-30 years later when scientists are finally able to conclude long term studies... and think about how many people had been taking a specific drug in the meantime! And as cannabis is an expectorant (meaning helps CLEAR the lungs of mucus, dust, etc) I'm not surprised that he was hacking up green.

Regardless of the validity of your facts, let's be perfectly clear here - it is not your position to tell others they should not have things that aren't good for them as it is ultimately their decision. I do not tirelessly preach about the dangers of grains that have not been soaked or sprouted because a lot of people don't give a hoot - they want good old white bread and that's their prerogative and obviously NONE OF MY BUSINESS. And honestly, I would be a hell of lot more distrustful of pharmaceuticals and the Standard American Diet as both will take more years off your life than cannabis ever could (even several times over). Why are you right and all of human history wrong? You need a slice of humble pie man.

I am not telling others what to do, just as I don't tell my friend not to smoke pot.

I am giving a voice to reason on this website and for those who are against pot legalization. People are only able to make logical and well founded decisions when they are informed of both sides of the story. That is my intention. Most of the pro marijuana stories on this site are one sided stories, and I'm simply challenging folks to see the other side.

Then when the vote comes, at least people will be able to make a rational decision.

Congratulations on being on the dean's list by the way. I know it takes alot of work and is not an easy accomplishment to come by.

As for the green, there have been some studies that suggest that marijuana does have properties that clean the lungs, but also many other properties that add carcinogens to the lungs. The cleaning properties are only removing some of the damage it is inflicting. In fact, since most joints do not have filters like that of cigarettes, some say they are much worse.

I understand that you're providing an alternative opinion (which is unbelievably important - without alternative viewpoints I wouldn't have come to know that I have complete control over my own health) on cannabis legalization but simply citing potential health risks and some generalizations is not a strong foundation for its continued criminalization. The fact remains that cannabis has been thriving on this earth for thousands of years and our wise ancestors took full advantage of it. Why aren't we?

I appreciate the congratulations but this is my point... Why should I be considered a criminal when that is the furthest thing from the truth? Why should I have to deal with actual, potentially violent criminals because I don't have safe and regulated access to cannabis for medical and recreational use? Added chemicals (which I'm sorry but refuse to believe is legitimate data) would not even be an issue! Even if the data wasn't biased I would assume that the many "added chemicals" present are from fertilizers/possible pesticides used (if a grow operation is large enough, I imagine like all other crops they would try to protect their product from pests) unless of course it had been laced after the fact. And if it actually was laced, it is because it's a criminal's product and the consumer is left completely vulnerable since the majority of recreational cannabis users do not have any clue as to what they're actually smoking/ingesting and from where it came. The wasted money spent policing a relatively harmless drug, wasted lives in prison, cartel violence: all of this only exists because of prohibition. Ultimately, it is not the government's job to try and protect people from themselves but to protect our freedoms!. History is our most valuable resource of knowledge and information and should be used for the progress of mankind, yet we still let history (in this case failed prohibition) repeat itself!

Better to let people decide for themselves if they want to to use cannabis for recreational use. If people are wary about its health risks, don't smoke it! Or, even better, use a vaporizer! Then you would not have to worry about inherent dangers found in all smoke - but if not, at least you'll know you're getting a clean, safe, natural product! At the end of the day, its a flower.

I agree that there are weak minded individuals who allow cannabis to control their lives, but there are more people who do use cannabis who are very productive members of society. I know many university students who use cannabis and are doing very well academically. So your generalizations are just that...generalizations based on a few experiences.

Obviously you have some sort of stake in this. I find it very hard to believe that you would spend so much time on this amount of time on this issue that is indicative of a possibility that you either don't have a life of your own, or you are a paid schill for the Vote No on Prop 19 supporters. Which is it? Don't have a life or paid propaganda spreader?

I'm a teacher. I get my summers off. (Tee hee!!)

pot.... are you sure that your friend isn't doing tweak?
as a matter of fact, are you sure that your friend isn't imaginary, or the situation modified, so you could make a point?
excuse me for being an asshole, but those are NOT the symptoms of Cannabis use

Nope... I was as honest as I could be. I think he may do hashish as of recently, but mostly he only does pot.

That story would be believable if you were talking about crack, but you're talking about weed here. It is not addictive, or at least less addictive than coffee and you never see anyone ruining their lives looking for their next cup of coffee. I went to college with a lot of guys who smoked pot and they have gone on to become very successful. It seems (if your friend is real), he has some real problems and focusing on his marijuana use is a disservice to him. Given the fact that all of the pot smokers I went to college with have all become very successful, it seems either I have superhero friends or that the marijuana itself is not the cause of your friend's problems. If you really want to help him, you'll stop looking down on him for his marijuana use, figure out what his real problem is, and help him deal with it.

I have seen people go downhill because of problems in their family, but I have not seen ANY person who's life went downhill just because of pot, unless you include that one kid I know who got arrested for dealing it, but then that would be the laws against marijuana that were the problem, not the marijuana itself... And through a family member, I knew A LOT of former hardcore drug addicts. I used to have NA (Narcotics Anonymous) meetings at my house (because of my family member)... They have real stories of real hardcore drugs ruining their lives. If they hear someone complaining about marijuana, they get offended because you can't really understand the troubles of a heroine addict if all you knew is marijuana. They would laugh you right out of the meeting if all you had was a marijuana "addiction". In fact, many former hard core drug addicts used marijuana as part of their recovery and still consider themselves clean because they don't view marijuana as even close to being in the same category as heroine, for example.

hashish is pot. It's just the resin, so it's more potent, but it's the same substance.