Marijuana legalization backers hand in initiative petitions

[Truthmatters]

I hope this baby passes and gives Cali a huge shot in the arm economically.

 

[Charles Stucker]

typical anti pot propaganda we've all come to expect, false studies and not too bright people buying it without questions

Those of us who have not damaged our brains smoking pot realize that the "pro-pot" studies are the ones which reach erroneous conclusions. Only brain damaged potheads believe the reverse.

 

[Dr Gregg]

typical anti pot propaganda we've all come to expect, false studies and not too bright people buying it without questions

Those of us who have not damaged our brains smoking pot realize that the "pro-pot" studies are the ones which reach erroneous conclusions. Only brain damaged potheads believe the reverse.

I'm a scientist with a PhD in genetics, my brain is working great and I can spot a horrible study when I see one. Maybe you need to smoke some pot, since all you did was copy and paste the link, then just skipped right to their conclusion without critically analyzing the methods for the study. And then instead of trying to refute my pointing out the flaws in their study, you just name call. So that tells me you are the one reaching erroneous conclusions, and are unwilling to argue the actual points.

 

[Charles Stucker]

I'm a scientist with a PhD in genetics,

Easy claim to make.
It falls under the classic logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.
I did read the report. I posted the conclusion as a courtesy to the brain damaged potheads who might have otherwise had trouble finding it.
Your claim of "but habitual use doesn't mean they were stoned when they had the accident" shows how badly your brain functions.
If habitual use increases the incidence of accidents then either
1) They were stoned
or
2) MJ does cause long term degradation
or
3) Both of the above.

Perhaps you should change your used name to Doctor Pothead.

 

[Dr Gregg]

I'm a scientist with a PhD in genetics,

Easy claim to make.
It falls under the classic logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.
I did read the report. I posted the conclusion as a courtesy to the brain damaged potheads who might have otherwise had trouble finding it.
Your claim of "but habitual use doesn't mean they were stoned when they had the accident" shows how badly your brain functions.
If habitual use increases the incidence of accidents then either
1) They were stoned
or
2) MJ does cause long term degradation
or
3) Both of the above.

Perhaps you should change your used name to Doctor Pothead.

keep with the name calling, its really just pointing out your level of intelligence. Plus, you didn't even address the issue with the study, you are just putting in the conclusion, when my criticism is the study is a bad one. Again,maybe you need some pot to increase your brain function.

The study does not mention that the people were stoned at the time of the accident. Two criteria were used, one was smoking 3 hours before driving, and the other was habitual use.

Here's what's mentioned about the 3 hours before driving.
However, after adjustment for these confounders
plus other risky driving at the time of the crash
(sleepiness, blood alcohol concentration, seat-belt use
and travelling speed), the effect of acute marijuana intake
was no longer significant (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.2–3.3)

This study is crap, plain and simple. nobody was tested for whether they were stoned at the time of driving, no blood was taken. So there is no proof that being stoned lead to increased driving.

Plus, the study was done in New Zealand

 

[Luissa]

I'm a scientist with a PhD in genetics,

Easy claim to make.
It falls under the classic logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.
I did read the report. I posted the conclusion as a courtesy to the brain damaged potheads who might have otherwise had trouble finding it.
Your claim of "but habitual use doesn't mean they were stoned when they had the accident" shows how badly your brain functions.
If habitual use increases the incidence of accidents then either
1) They were stoned
or
2) MJ does cause long term degradation
or
3) Both of the above.

Perhaps you should change your used name to Doctor Pothead.

I want to know how Marijuana prevents plague build up in the brain, which slows down alzheimer or dementia, but causes brain damage in others? YOu know nothing about marijuana!

 

[Luissa]

Reason not to make pot legal - it contributes to automobile fatalities.
Do you insist on seeing the statistics?

I insist you show me statistics that say marijuana causes more accidents than alcohol.

Not what I offered to show - as you would realize if you had a functioning brain.

There are two major trends in analysis of Marijuana; those studies performed by researchers determined to show MJ is not bad for you, and those which seek to determine the effects of MJ. The first sort invariable reach the conclusion that MJ is perfectly safe. The second typically finds a reason for alarm. Only brain damaged potheads believe the first sort of studies.

What I would find perfectly acceptable is to have all the MJ addicts go to the same state (or group of states) and stone up there. As long as they are not on the road with me. And as long as I don't have to pay for their increased medicare etc caused by the problems associated with long term MJ use.

Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn't Damage Brain

http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/geninfo/Reuters_062703.pdf


None of the medical tests currently used to detect brain damage in humans have found harm from marijuana, even from long term high-dose use. An early study reported brain damage in rhesus monkeys after six months exposure to high concentrations of marijuana smoke. In a recent, more carefully conducted study, researchers found no evidence of brain abnormality in monkeys that were forced to inhale the equivalent of four to five marijuana cigarettes every day for a year. The claim that marijuana kills brain cells is based on a speculative report dating back a quarter of a century that has never been supported by any scientific study.

Heath, R.G., et al. “Cannabis Sativa: Effects on Brain Function and Ultrastructure in Rhesus Monkeys.” Biological Psychiatry 15 (1980): 657-690.
Ali, S.F., et al. “Chronic Marijuana Smoke Exposure in the Rhesus Monkey IV: Neurochemical Effects and Comparison to Acute and Chronic Exposure to Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in Rats.” Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 40 (1991): 677-82.
Myth: Marijuana Impairs Memory and Cognition. Under the influence of marijuana, people are unable to think rationally and intelligently. Chronic marijuana use causes permanent mental impairment.

Fact: Marijuana produces immediate, temporary changes in thoughts, perceptions, and information processing. The cognitive process most clearly affected by marijuana is short-term memory. In laboratory studies, subjects under the influence of marijuana have no trouble remembering things they learned previously. However, they display diminished capacity to learn and recall new information. This diminishment only lasts for the duration of the intoxication. There is no convincing evidence that heavy long-term marijuana use permanently impairs memory or other cognitive functions.

Wetzel, C.D. et al., “Remote Memory During Marijuana Intoxication,” Psychopharmacology 76 (1982): 278-81.
Deadwyler, S.A. et al., “The Effects of Delta-9-THC on Mechanisms of Learning and Memory.” Neurobiology of Drug Abuse: Learning and Memory. Ed. L. Erinoff. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse 1990. 79-83.
Block, R.I. et al., “Acute Effects of Marijuana on Cognition: Relationships to Chronic Effects and Smoking Techniques.” Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 43 (1992): 907-917.
Myths and Facts About Marijuana

 

[Charles Stucker]

http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/geninfo/Reuters_062703.pdf

Hate to burst your bubble, but this study, which you posted, states

marijuana has only a marginally harmful long term effect on learning and memory.

So even those scientists trying to minimize the results have to agree there ARE harmful effects.
Go figure.
Potheads.

 

[Dr Gregg]

http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/geninfo/Reuters_062703.pdf

Hate to burst your bubble, but this study, which you posted, states

marijuana has only a marginally harmful long term effect on learning and memory.

So even those scientists trying to minimize the results have to agree there ARE harmful effects.
Go figure.
Potheads.

go figure, person totally ignores when he's shown to be wrong and ignorant of the topic, then name calls.

There are tons of things that are marginally harmful that are legal, so its a pretty weak argument to say we should keep it illegal when people are shoving their faces with legal poisons all the time.

 

[blu]

http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/geninfo/Reuters_062703.pdf

Hate to burst your bubble, but this study, which you posted, states

marijuana has only a marginally harmful long term effect on learning and memory.

So even those scientists trying to minimize the results have to agree there ARE harmful effects.
Go figure.
Potheads.

the same can be said for alcohol, tobaco, etc. what is your point

 

[Meister]

I believe that it should be legalized for the simple fact that the court system is filled with these kinds of cases...I don't think they are criminals, and it would be a way to regulate away from the black market.
Having said this, I find it disengenuous for California only to bring this forward for the money that it will reap. They could have done this when Moon Beam was governor in the state.

 

[Some Guy]

Ask any local law enforcement officer about drug prohibition. We are chasing folks down for doing drugs wasting valuable resources all the time as the real criminals are going wild.
Drugs are a HEALTH problem. De criminalize them and we will save billions.
Of course the dope agents will oppose it. Theirs is a growth industry, no pun intended.
The real problem is prescription dope. Ask Rush Limboob.
Anyone that believes the war on drugs is working is a complete fool.

I agree. As long as marijuana use is enforced as rigidly as alcohol, or perhaps a little bit more so (no use in public areas for example), then what's the real problem? No driving while high, no smoking in public (like a lot of public places have now with cigarettes) and no public intoxication and you're pretty well off, IMO. You'd also remove that "danger" element which a lot of young people are attracted to.

 

[Charles Stucker]

http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/geninfo/Reuters_062703.pdf

Hate to burst your bubble, but this study, which you posted, states

marijuana has only a marginally harmful long term effect on learning and memory.

So even those scientists trying to minimize the results have to agree there ARE harmful effects.
Go figure.
Potheads.

the same can be said for alcohol, tobaco, etc. what is your point

That we don't need to ass another harmful substance to the list of those already legal.

By the way - since most pot users begin before they turn 13, does that in itself not say something about the dangers?

 

[Father Time]

Hate to burst your bubble, but this study, which you posted, states

So even those scientists trying to minimize the results have to agree there ARE harmful effects.
Go figure.
Potheads.

the same can be said for alcohol, tobaco, etc. what is your point

That we don't need to ass another harmful substance to the list of those already legal.

By the way - since most pot users begin before they turn 13, does that in itself not say something about the dangers?

No.

Also we need to keep it illegal even less.

 

[blu]

Hate to burst your bubble, but this study, which you posted, states

So even those scientists trying to minimize the results have to agree there ARE harmful effects.
Go figure.
Potheads.

the same can be said for alcohol, tobaco, etc. what is your point

That we don't need to ass another harmful substance to the list of those already legal.

By the way - since most pot users begin before they turn 13, does that in itself not say something about the dangers?

nope.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Hate to burst your bubble, but this study, which you posted, states

So even those scientists trying to minimize the results have to agree there ARE harmful effects.
Go figure.
Potheads.

the same can be said for alcohol, tobaco, etc. what is your point

That we don't need to ass another harmful substance to the list of those already legal.

By the way - since most pot users begin before they turn 13, does that in itself not say something about the dangers?

Your argument seems to support legalization, since if you can buy it at a store legally, no need for black market dealers, who don't play by rules and regulate who gets it. it's easier for kids to get pot and other drugs than it is to get alcohol.

 

[Gadawg73]

Charles must have seen that "Reefer Madness" movie we all saw in the 60s.
Alcohol is the leading cause of death and inuries in auto accidents Charles.
Read you own study in New Zealand Charles. You claim that was "national statistics" Buster.
You have no evidence Charles. I do this for a living. If there was ANY credibility to what you claim the insurancecompanies would be all over it in defense of their clients in civl court. The reefer defense.
Facts are psychomotor impairment are extremely low and short lived Charles. The insurance companies know this as all tests everywhere show this fact. That is why they do not include any reefer toxidity with their defenses, if any.
They do not do it because there is no evidence of it.
Pass a law where driving while stoned is illegal if you want. Driving while getting not enough sleep. Driving while old, whatever.
Recent case I worked a guy was in drag and his wig slipped over his eyes. Pass a law where it is illegal to drive while in drag Charles.
If they do be careful.

 

[Charles Stucker]

If you ever see me driving out on the roads the following will let you know that I am stoned out of my fucking mind.

1. My hands are strategically placed and the traditional "10 and 2" positions.
2. I am driving in the right lane on the interstate
3. I am going 5 mph under the speed limit.
4. I flip my turn signal about 200 meters before I really should.

Here is an excellent example of how hazardous potheads are on the road.
This particular dope
1 - Cannot maintain a safe legal speed
2 - signals erratically because of skewed perception
3 - has his judgment so impaired that he still drives when stoned

As for the "You can't prove pot is involved because the impairment is short lived compared to the time it is detectable in the bloodstream" nonsense, that does not make it safer. It makes it less safe as the potheads can cause any number of fatalities and you cannot be sure the pot caused it because the pothead is certain to lie if questioned.

If you want me to support legalized Pt it would be under the following restrictions
1 Adults only. Anyone providing to kids is a capital offense.
2 Only in government facilities where you cannot leave until the impairment is ended.
3 All medical benefits (medicare, medicaid, etc) are lost for any disease which has a statistical correlation with drug use (lung cancer for example)
4 Users lose the right to vote on any tax or drug related issue.
5 users cannot hold public office at state or federal levels.

Take it or leave it.

 

[Truthmatters]

capitol offense?

your insane.

 

[geauxtohell]

Marijuana legalization backers hand in initiative petitions | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times

Supporters of legalized marijuana announced today that they have gathered about 700,000 signatures for their initiative, virtually guaranteeing voters will see it on the November ballot.

They plan to turn in the petitions today to elections officials in some of the state's major counties, including Los Angeles. Supporters need 433,971 valid signatures to qualify the measure.

The measure’s main proponent, Richard Lee, a highly successful Oakland marijuana entrepreneur, bankrolled a professional signature-gathering effort that was bolstered by volunteers from the state’s hundreds of medical marijuana dispensaries.

“This is a historic first step toward ending cannabis prohibition,” Lee said. “I’ve always believed that cannabis should be taxed and regulated and that our current laws aren’t working.”

The initiative, known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act, would make it legal for anyone 21 and older to possess an ounce of marijuana and grow plants in an area no larger than 25 square feet for personal use. It would also allow cities and counties to permit marijuana to be grown and sold, and to impose taxes on marijuana production and sales.

Here we go. Hopefully the stoners don't forget to vote.

Why was I not told of this? I'm a resident of CA I could've signed this.

Although imagine if this passed, it would make the War on Weed so much more futile if people could legally bring weed to most of the West Coast.

I'd sign it too (in my state, which if the usual trend occurs will be ten years behind California).

It's absurd that MJ is illegal.