Pot legalization could save US $13.7 Billion...

[BobD]

They probably couldn't get away with asking about marijuana use on applications/ refusing to hire for that reason, but they could absolutely fire people for showing up to work under the influence (just as they can with alcohol now).



THC is easier to detect and measure than alcohol.



Officially? No, states can't legalize pot while it remains illegal on the federal level due to the Supremacy Clause. Unofficially, they can achieve something close to legalization through various loopholes (medical marijuana, etc.) Many states have already done this.

Thank you Whiskey!

So with alcohol we use a breathalizer test, what would we use for determining THC instantly?

 

[Zwidmanio]

Thank you Whiskey!

So with alcohol we use a breathalizer test, what would we use for determining THC instantly?

I'm not sure if it's entirely accurate to say that THC is easier to measure or detect; certainly not in a DUI context. I'm willing to be educated though.

My understanding is that it's more of an apples to oranges comparison. Alcohol is easier to detect for a DUI, as they have breathalyzers. However, in the long run, it'd be easier to test for marijuana since it stays in the system anywhere from a couple weeks to a few months (depending on where you're getting your information from). This is where it might be easier to detect and measure.

As for a DUI test for marijuana, I wish I could remember where I read a good article about that recently. As some states have been loosening their laws to allow for medical marijuana, issues have been raised in regards to: does driving after using marijuana impair your driving; if so, what should the limit be; and how can you detect that limit?

Some tests have been developed to try and measure the marijuana in a driver's system. I've provided a couple links with some information if you're curious.

DUI BLOG: Identifying and Proving DUI Marijuana (“Stoned Driving”)

New Drug Screening Methods to Detect Impaired Drivers - Total DUI

 

[Irish Houstonian]

A couple of questions for any experts we might have out there.

If pot were made legal, could employers still drug test and refuse to hire people that use it?

Is there a way to determine without a doubt if someone is currently under the influence of pot or just the old fashioned drug tests to determine if they have used it within the last week or so? ....if there isn't, then people like pilots, bus drivers, train engineers, and truck drivers etc. could be stoned at work.

Does a state have the ability to legalize pot? Doesn't it have to be done at the federal level?

The short answer is that employers can refuse to hire/fire anyone on virtually any basis (assuming the employee's at-will*), as long as that basis isn't protected by law (e.g., diability, race, religion, creed, ethnicity or national origin) and provided that they jump through the proper hoops in some circumstances (e.g., the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that you provide an applicant 3 days to contest their denial if based on their credit history/score).

And as it currently stands, even if you're using medical marijuana for treatment of a recognized disability, the states' medical marijuana law heretofore only acts as a sheild against prosecution for possession and creates no affirmative rights -- so your boss can still can you regardles of the reason you're using.

So unless accompanying legislation gave additional protections for marijuana use in the workplace, an employer could fire you upon reasonable suspicion of use, basically carte blanche.

Assuming you're at-will, of course...If you have a written employment contract you have much more leverage. In the employment contract context you want to try and tighten up what constutes termination for "cause" as much as possible. Does it require a "reasonable basis" for suspicion of drug use, or in fact an undisputed failed test showing you used during the employment period? Can make a big deal later on, obviously.

 

[greyhammer90]

Thank you Whiskey!

So with alcohol we use a breathalizer test, what would we use for determining THC instantly?

It would likely be the same as a DUI pullover minus the breathalyzer. You'd get pulled over for reckless driving, swerving, predetermined stop, whatever. If the officer was suspicious you'd be asked to step out of the car and perform a field sobriety test (the officer would be watching your general behavior as well as the test, for testifying) . If you failed that then the you would most likely get detained and probably taken back to the station to be tested by a DRE and get a blood sample. If the blood sample shows THC in your system, even though THC stays in your blood for awhile, then your goose is most likely cooked. (If the DRE sees you in time to determine that you're indeed high, then your goose is definitely cooked. If you don't get to the DRE in time, then they will use the officers testimony and any incriminating video of you acting stoned in or around the squad car against you. On top of the positive for THC you'd most likely get guilty.) This is the way I've heard it's being done in California.

 

[k1ssme1m1r1sh]

Marijuana is fat soluble, which is why it stays in your system for awhile. Urine can only detect that THC is present in your system, it is not scientific enough to tell how long. Whereas with something like cocaine that is not fat soluble, of you get drug tested with a urine test and cocaine is present then the dr can assume you've used the drug within 5 days. Blood tests are better at determining the concentration of THC in your system. The lesser the concentration, the longer it's been since you've smoked. Also, contrary to popular belief, you CANNOT fail a drug test by sitting in close proximity with someone who's smoking pot. You actually have to ingest the drug. We have a lot of teenagers who will submit to drug tests from their parents and swear up and down they never smoked. They get busted every time by the dr.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Marijuana is fat soluble, which is why it stays in your system for awhile. Urine can only detect that THC is present in your system, it is not scientific enough to tell how long. Whereas with something like cocaine that is not fat soluble, of you get drug tested with a urine test and cocaine is present then the dr can assume you've used the drug within 5 days. Blood tests are better at determining the concentration of THC in your system. The lesser the concentration, the longer it's been since you've smoked. Also, contrary to popular belief, you CANNOT fail a drug test by sitting in close proximity with someone who's smoking pot. You actually have to ingest the drug. We have a lot of teenagers who will submit to drug tests from their parents and swear up and down they never smoked. They get busted every time by the dr.

Good points. Another thing that surprised me, that people might want to be aware of, is that in many companies a specimen that is too highly diluted is treated as a straight failure . Regardless of what drugs are found. So plan accordingly.

 

[BobD]

How would they test to see if someone is currently under the influence of marijuana? I was always under the impression that they could only detect if it is in someone's system... where in some cases can show up from weeks ago

Maybe the officer could place a pizza near the person suspected of being high and tell them not to touch it........... haha.

I was under the same impression as you.

 

[BobD]

I'm not sure if it's entirely accurate to say that THC is easier to measure or detect; certainly not in a DUI context. I'm willing to be educated though.

My understanding is that it's more of an apples to oranges comparison. Alcohol is easier to detect for a DUI, as they have breathalyzers. However, in the long run, it'd be easier to test for marijuana since it stays in the system anywhere from a couple weeks to a few months (depending on where you're getting your information from). This is where it might be easier to detect and measure.

As for a DUI test for marijuana, I wish I could remember where I read a good article about that recently. As some states have been loosening their laws to allow for medical marijuana, issues have been raised in regards to: does driving after using marijuana impair your driving; if so, what should the limit be; and how can you detect that limit?

Some tests have been developed to try and measure the marijuana in a driver's system. I've provided a couple links with some information if you're curious.

DUI BLOG: Identifying and Proving DUI Marijuana (“Stoned Driving”)

New Drug Screening Methods to Detect Impaired Drivers - Total DUI

The short answer is that employers can refuse to hire/fire anyone on virtually any basis (assuming the employee's at-will*), as long as that basis isn't protected by law (e.g., diability, race, religion, creed, ethnicity or national origin) and provided that they jump through the proper hoops in some circumstances (e.g., the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that you provide an applicant 3 days to contest their denial if based on their credit history/score).

And as it currently stands, even if you're using medical marijuana for treatment of a recognized disability, the states' medical marijuana law heretofore only acts as a sheild against prosecution for possession and creates no affirmative rights -- so your boss can still can you regardles of the reason you're using.

So unless accompanying legislation gave additional protections for marijuana use in the workplace, an employer could fire you upon reasonable suspicion of use, basically carte blanche.

Assuming you're at-will, of course...If you have a written employment contract you have much more leverage. In the employment contract context you want to try and tighten up what constutes termination for "cause" as much as possible. Does it require a "reasonable basis" for suspicion of drug use, or in fact an undisputed failed test showing you used during the employment period? Can make a big deal later on, obviously.

Marijuana is fat soluble, which is why it stays in your system for awhile. Urine can only detect that THC is present in your system, it is not scientific enough to tell how long. Whereas with something like cocaine that is not fat soluble, of you get drug tested with a urine test and cocaine is present then the dr can assume you've used the drug within 5 days. Blood tests are better at determining the concentration of THC in your system. The lesser the concentration, the longer it's been since you've smoked. Also, contrary to popular belief, you CANNOT fail a drug test by sitting in close proximity with someone who's smoking pot. You actually have to ingest the drug. We have a lot of teenagers who will submit to drug tests from their parents and swear up and down they never smoked. They get busted every time by the dr.

All great info.

 

[greyhammer90]

All great info.

...well alright then.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Maybe the officer could place a pizza near the person suspected of being high and tell them not to touch it........... haha.

I was under the same impression as you.

They best case the cops can build is a combination of an eye-nystagmus test (that thing where the make you look at their pen and see if your eyes follow fluidly versus "bouncing" around), smell, possbily dialated pupils and a blood test that basically shows you've smoked within the last 20-30 days. The nystagmus test has questionable validity re: weed smoking, but it's admissible (unlike the lie detector) and you'd be surprised how much cops will exaggerate the "bouncing" in their reports.

So, obviously, never consent to any sobriety test, under any circustances. If they want to arrest you, you just have to bite the bullet. Without the nystagmus, which itself is imprecise at best, their case totally disintegrates from a scientific perspective, and you're pleading down to reckless driving.

 

[BobD]

It would likely be the same as a DUI pullover minus the breathalyzer. You'd get pulled over for reckless driving, swerving, predetermined stop, whatever. If the officer was suspicious you'd be asked to step out of the car and perform a field sobriety test (the officer would be watching your general behavior as well as the test, for testifying) . If you failed that then the you would most likely get detained and probably taken back to the station to be tested by a DRE and get a blood sample. If the blood sample shows THC in your system, even though THC stays in your blood for awhile, then your goose is most likely cooked. (If the DRE sees you in time to determine that you're indeed high, then your goose is definitely cooked. If you don't get to the DRE in time, then they will use the officers testimony and any incriminating video of you acting stoned in or around the squad car against you. On top of the positive for THC you'd most likely get guilty.) This is the way I've heard it's being done in California.

doesn't it seem like they would need a test that determined the exact level of THC and absolute evidence you were under the influence? People get off the hook for almost anything these days. Are you a police officer greyhammer?

 

[greyhammer90]

doesn't seem like they would need a test that determined the exact level of THC and absolute evidence that you were under the infuence? People get off the hook for almost anything these days. Are you a police officer greyhammer?

No sir. But I don't think people would get off as easy as you think. A police officers word goes a long way in court and if he has filmed you from his squad car failing a sobriety test, plus his testimony, plus a THC in your blood stream... you'd need to have a pretty good explanation for the judge. I agree it's not air tight, but you've got about the same chances as a guy who's over the limit who refuses the breathalyzer in the hope that he's going to sober up enough before they take his blood sample. Not good.

Granted I am an amateur, so I could be wrong.

 

[BobD]

No sir. But I don't think people would get off as easy as you think. A police officers word goes a long way in court and if he has filmed you from his squad car failing a sobriety test, plus his testimony, plus a THC in your blood stream... you'd need to have a pretty good explanation for the judge. I agree it's not air tight, but you've got about the same chances as a guy who's over the limit who refuses the breathalyzer in the hope that he's going to sober up enough before they take his blood sample. Not good.

Granted I am an amateur, so I could be wrong.

Its all great input.

I'm just getting the impression that there isn't a rock solid way to determine someone being under the influence of marijuana.

I don't like the idea of truck drivers, pilots or dudes with launch codes etc. not being able to be monitored or held accountable.

So, I'm still on the vote NO on pot legalization bandwagon.

 

[greyhammer90]

Its all great input.

I'm just getting the impression that there isn't a rock solid way to determine someone being under the influence of marijuana.

I don't like the idea of truck drivers, pilots or dudes with launch codes etc. not being able to be monitored or held accountable.

So, I'm still on the vote NO on pot legalization bandwagon.

Nope, there is no rock solid way. And that's an opinion to have. I personally disagree with it because I think that the pull over procedure in legalized markets is pretty solid, and I have yet to hear of the decriminalized marijuana in California, the Netherlands, or anywhere else causing such a problem. But, I'll give you reps for being open minded, and taking your reasoning beyond, "...Drugs are bad. Mkay?"

 

[In Lou I Trust]

There are saliva tests that can be used on the spot and only take 10 minutes to develop. They look like pregnancy tests. I have no idea just how accurate they are, though.

 

[BobD]

Nope, there is no rock solid way. And that's an opinion to have. I personally disagree with it because I think that the pull over procedure in legalized markets is pretty solid, and I have yet to hear of the decriminalized marijuana in California, the Netherlands, or anywhere else causing such a problem. But, I'll give you reps for being open minded, and taking your reasoning beyond, "...Drugs are bad. Mkay?"

Thanks bud, reps to you too for being open to discussion.

I live in California, somedays I'd swear everyone is stoned.

I'm in favor of anything fun and I've lived a pretty wild life. I think everyone should be able to enjoy the things they want, but nobody has the right to endanger others.

Some people are on the left, some on the right. I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[Irish Fam]

Only thing I can really think of is that the government could control the potency of the marijuana. Dumb it down? I am kind of just thinking out loud here lol

 

[Zwidmanio]

Thanks bud, reps to you too for being open to discussion.

I live in California, somedays I'd swear everyone is stoned.

I'm in favor of anything fun and I've lived a pretty wild life. I think everyone should be able to enjoy the things they want, but nobody has the right to endanger others.

Some people are on the left, some on the right. I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

I agree with this entirely and the idea is the foundation for my beliefs on the subject. As far as I'm concerned, whatever an adult chooses to do with their time and money is nobody else's business - until it starts infringing on somebody else's rights and/or well-being.

I guess we just have a bit of a difference of opinion on the point where some activities become a danger to others though. Or perhaps just what degree of risk is acceptable. Oh well, good conversation regardless.

 

[BobD]

Only thing I can really think of is that the government could control the potency of the marijuana. Dumb it down? I am kind of just thinking out loud here lol

LOL now this is something I could see Congress wanting to be part of....the dumbing down of pot.

They could form committees, hold hearings and then develop a whole new division within the Government. After several billion dollars in studies, deliberation and hearings we'd have:

The FBDM..Federal Bureau of Dumb Marijuana

 

[Buster Bluth]

Only thing I can really think of is that the government could control the potency of the marijuana. Dumb it down? I am kind of just thinking out loud here lol

That's rather impossible to enforce.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...I don't know too much about it, but from what I'd read, K2 is nothing like marijuana despite how it was marketed...

Well, it's basically exactly like marijuana in terms of chemcial reaction on the brain and psychadelic experience, except perhaps more potent and lasts for a shorter period of time (so I'm told). It's a synthesized analogue and metabolite of THC. It's father chemical is a substance JWH-018, which was developed at Clemson as a synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist, acting on the same part as the brain as weed, and designed to to test various animals' mental faculties after long-term marijuana consumption. But ask any regular "smoker" and none will tell you it's as "good" as the real thing, not to mention it tends to be more expensive and doesn't last as long.

It was invented in 2008 and within 2 years it was copied worldwide and there were over 50 different strains of incense sprayed with it and customs was encountering 50 kilo shipments of JWH-018 powder at the ports.

Which of course, leads me to wonder: if Spice is supposedly inferior in quality, more expensive, and possibly harmful and untested, why would people buy it over real weed? The only answer can only be either (a) these consumers don't have the same access to real weed as they do Spice, or (b) they're willing to settle because they're afraid of the legality, or both.

Thus, any case that, at least as far as the U.S. is concerned, legalization and increased availability of marijuana will actually decrease consumption has a very, very tough road to hoe. Because the clear consmer demand for legal cannabinoids says otherwise, as does simple microeconomics (i.e., reduced price = greater quantity demanded).

 

[Buster Bluth]

Thus, any case that, at least as far as the U.S. is concerned, legalization and increased availability of marijuana will actually decrease consumption has a very, very tough road to hoe. Because the clear consmer demand for legal cannabinoids says otherwise, as does simple microeconomics (i.e., reduced price = greater quantity demanded).

That's assuming that the ultimate goal is getting a decrease in usage. For me, it isn't. Alcohol usage probably went up after prohibition ended too. Big freaking whoop.

My ultimate goal for the legalization of marijuana is to stop us form throwing so many people in jail and the widespread acceptance that it is no worse for you than alcohol. We are an alcohol obsessed society, yet we throw cannabis users in jail, for what exactly?! It's nearly ****ing harmless!!

A secondary goal would b to decrease the amount of drug dealers, it would essentially price them out of existence. A suppose a tertiary goal is the tax funds generated.

Being that anyone who wants to get their hands on cannabis can already do so, I have a hard time thinking that Americans will, in droves, become loser potheads. the losers of society are already potheads. The marijuana isn't turning them into lazy and pathetic freakshows, that at the very minimum has been factually established by the millions and millions of people who use(d) marijuana are aren't failures in life.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

There are saliva tests that can be used on the spot and only take 10 minutes to develop. They look like pregnancy tests. I have no idea just how accurate they are, though.

Almost entirely ineffective.

There's not a single reason why marijuana should be illegal really. On a scale of "danger" it's way lower than pretty much every other legal drug, it is crowding prisons with non-violent criminals, it is costing the US money, and the War on Drugs has been a horrible failure.

 

[General Colon Bowel]

Here's an interesting perspective on the subject
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qKgY5eOlhEc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[BobD]

Here is an interesting article I found

Health_Concerns: WHAT ARE THE MEDICAL DANGERS OF MARIJUANA USE?

I must preface these statements with the remark that there is still a great deal of research to be done concerning the effects of marijuana on the health of humans due to the fact that widespread marijuana use has only become prevalent in this country within the last three decades, so the effects of long-term use are just beginning to become apparent. I should also add that in making these observations, I have concentrated on the risks of smoking natural marijuana, since it is the most effective method of ingesting its active cannabinoids.

Marijuana has often been touted as one of the safest recreational substances available. This is perhaps true; many reputable scientific studies support the conclusion that cocaine, heroine, alcohol, and even cigarettes are more dangerous to the user�s health than marijuana. In addition, the celebrated pharmacological properties of cannabis have led thirty-six states to permit its use as a therapeutic drug for, among others, those suffering from AIDS; various painful, incurable and debilitating illnesses; the harmful side effects of cancer chemotherapy, and glaucoma. Additional research is being conducted concerning the use of marijuana on the treatment of anxiety and mental disorders.

Nonetheless, it would be fallacious to conclude that because the chemicals in marijuana have been found to present fewer dangers than some very harmful substances, the medical or recreational use of marijuana is perfectly safe. In a recreational context, marijuana has been shown to affect health, brain function, and memory. And in a medical context, marijuana is like any other powerful prescription drug: it has potentially dangerous side effects, and the decision to use it to treat patients must involve the same balancing test as the one required for chemotherapy or AZT: do the therapeutic effects of the drug outweigh its harmful effects? Though there are many more studies to be done on this issue, current data shows that the answer to this question may not always be "yes."



EFFECTS OF HABITUAL MARIJUANA USE ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM

The most potent argument against the use of marijuana to treat medical disorders is that marijuana may cause the acceleration or aggravation of the very disorders it is being used to treat.

Smoking marijuana regularly (a joint a day) can damage the cells in the bronchial passages which protect the body against inhaled microorganisms and decrease the ability of the immune cells in the lungs to fight off fungi, bacteria, and tumor cells. For patients with already weakened immune systems, this means an increase in the possibility of dangerous pulmonary infections, including pneumonia, which often proves fatal in AIDS patients.

Studies further suggest that marijuana is a general "immunosuppressant" whose degenerative influence extends beyond the respiratory system. Regular smoking has been shown to materially affect the overall ability of the smoker�s body to defend itself against infection by weakening various natural immune mechanisms, including macrophages (a.k.a. "killer cells") and the all-important T-cells. Obviously, this suggests the conclusion, which is well-supported by scientific studies, that the use of marijuana as a medical therapy can and does have a very serious negative effect on patients with pre-existing immune deficits resulting from AIDS, organ transplantation, or cancer chemotherapy, the very conditions for which marijuana has most often been touted and suggested as a treatment. It has also been shown that marijuana use can accelerate the progression of HIV to full-blown AIDS and increase the occurrence of infections and Kaposi�s sarcoma. In addition, patients with weak immune systems will be even less able to defend themselves against the various respiratory cancers and conditions to which consistent marijuana use has been linked, and which are discussed briefly under "Respiratory Illnesses."

In conclusion, it seems that the potential dangers presented by the medical use of marijuana may actually contribute to the dangers of the diseases which it would be used to combat. Therefore, I suggest that marijuana should not be permitted as a therapy, at least until a good deal more conclusive research has been completed concerning its debilitating effect on the immune system.

For more on this topic, please see Donald P. Tashkin, M.D., "Effects of Marijuana on the Lung and Its Immune Defenses," Secretary's Youth Substance Abuse Prevention Intiative: Resource Papers, March 1997, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. Pages 33-51 of this address can be found at the website of the Indiana Prevention Resource Center at Indiana University, located at http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/druginfo/tashkin- marijuana.html.



RESPIRATORY ILLNESSES

The main respiratory consequences of smoking marijuana regularly (one joint a day) are pulmonary infections and respiratory cancer, whose connection to marijuana use has been strongly suggested but not conclusively proven. The effects also include chronic bronchitis, impairment in the function of the smaller air passages, inflammation of the lung, the development of potentially pre-cancerous abnormalities in the bronchial lining and lungs, and, as discussed, a reduction in the capabilities of many defensive mechanisms within the lungs.

Marijuana smoke and cigarette smoke contain many of the same toxins, including one which has been identified as a key factor in the promotion of lung cancer. This toxin is found in the tar phase of both, and it should be noted that one joint has four times more tar than a cigarette, which means that the lungs are exposed four-fold to this toxin and others in the tar. It has been concretely established that smoking cigarettes promotes lung cancer (which causes more than 125,000 deaths in the US every year), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (chronic bronchitis and emphysema) and increased incidence of respiratory tract infections. This implies, but does not establish, that smoking marijuana may lead to some of the same results as smoking cigarettes. It is notable that several reports indicate an unexpectedly large proportion ofmarijuana users among cases of lung cancer and cancers of the oral cavity,pharynx, and larynx. Thus, it appears that the use of marijuana as a medicine has the potential to further harm an already ill patient in the same way that taking up regular cigarette smoking would, particularly in light of the fact that those patients for whom marijuana is recommended are already poorly equipped to fight off these infections and diseases.

For more information, please see the Tashkin website mentioned at the end of the section on immune disorders. See also:

Sarnia Online 21.96.10.html, for information on the link between chemicals contained in marijuana and lung cancer.
http://www.marijuananews.com/latest_research_finds_that_heavy.htm, for an article concerning the link between marijuana and cancer, with commentary


MENTAL HEALTH, BRAIN FUNCTION, AND MEMORY

It has been suggested that marijuana is at the root of many mental disorders, including acute toxic psychosis, panic attacks (one of the very conditions it is being used experimentally to treat), flashbacks, delusions, depersonalization, hallucinations, paranoia, depression, and uncontrollable aggressiveness. Marijuana has long been known to trigger attacks of mental illness, such as bipolar (manic-depressive) psychosis and schizophrenia. This connection with mental illness should make health care providers for terminally ill patients and the patients themselves, who may already be suffering from some form of clinical depression, weigh very carefully the pros and cons of adopting a therapeutic course of marijuana.

In the short term, marijuana use impairs perception, judgment, thinking, memory, and learning; memory defects may persist six weeks after last use. Mental disorders connected with marijuana use merit their own category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV, published by the American Psychiatric Association. These include Cannabis Intoxication (consisting of impaired motor coordination, anxiety, impaired judgment, sensation of slowed time, social withdrawal, and often includes perceptual disturbances; Cannabis Intoxication Delirium (memory deficit, disorientation); Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Delusions; Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Hallucinations; and Cannabis Induced Anxiety Disorder.

In addition, marijuana use has many indirect effects on health. Its effect on coordination, perception, and judgment means that it causes a number of accidents, vehicular and otherwise.

For further information, you may find the following sites helpful:

Sarnia Online, for information on links between marijuana use and mental health risks.
Sarnia Online, for more information on the indirect effects of marijuana on health
http://www.adf.org.au/drughit, the Australian Drug Foundation�s website
http://marijuananews.com/a_safe_ high_.htm, a reprint of New Science magazine�s "Marijuana Special Report: A Safe High?" with commentary
http://marijuananews.com/claim_four.htm, an article about the similarity of long-term marijuana use�s effect on the brain to that of "hard" drugs, with commentary
www.drugs.indiana.edu/publications/iprc/misc/smokescreen.html, for general information on the health risks of marijuana.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Publications| SAMHSA Store, the homepage of the National Clearinghouse on Alcohol and Drug Information, for general information on marijuana.




:

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Almost entirely ineffective.

Sources? I've read different.

 

[RubberSoul]

Legalize it.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I like how that article acts like prescription drugs don't cause ~20,000 deaths annually anyway. Hell you can list off the "side effects" of many pharmaceutical drugs and get the same "damn that sounds rough" reaction.

Report: Prescription Drug Deaths Skyrocket | Fox News

NO ONE is saying it is a healthy exercise. But it is less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol. It is hypocritical to have cigarettes and alcohol legal if marijuana isn't

Also, that article talked about SMOKING marijuana and its effects on the lungs. What if I use a vaporizer? No smoke. What if I eat it via a brownie??! Definitely no smoke.

 

[BeauBenken]

Vaporizers. Healthier and get you higher.

 

[BobD]

I wonder how many people are hoping pot is legalized so the can vaporize it or eat it?