Pot use lowers intelligence. This doesn't surprise me at all

[Harry Dresden]

Smoking pot is great. In fact, I think I'm going to go smoke a joint now.

Yea Its a nice buzz, but it definately affects your intelligence.

I went to a party where I smoked pot and when I left I went a laid down in the middle of the road. I was just lucky that no traffic came by, as it was the early hours of the morning.

what else were you doing besides the Pot?.....

 

[MikeK]

In my opinion, some of the conservatives condemning marijuana on this thread are doing so because they think that its use conflicts with values propagated by mainstream, traditional conservatives.

I lean firmly to the right, own my own business (and have done so at a profit to date through this recession) and live in a house on a mortgage: I'm, to all intents and purposes, your archetypal (though often rebellious) right-winger. Except, among other things, I like smoking a bit of weed now and again. I don't play video games or write/perform music after smoking it. Rather I prefer the intellectual freedom it provides and it gives the beer I drink along with it a much more intensive, enjoyable taste. I also love to listen to classical music while I'm stoned, too.

It's blatantly obvious that the forces striving to maintain the illegality of herbal marijuana are those lobbying on behalf of the alcohol industry. Along with the cartels that are responsible for growing powerful marijuana (and paying no tax on their crop), the alcohol industry stands to lose the most if marijuana was legalised.

Without the alcohol industry perpetuating the stigma that weed is the preserve of long-haired losers who are unlikely to achieve anything in the mainstream, people will continue to accept the stereotype circulated by those only interested in profit (they honestly couldn't give a damn about the public's health).

Everything you've said here is true. In addition to the liquor industry being threatened by the prospect of marijuana legalization the pharmaceutical and the prison construction industry (presently the only remaining growth industry in America) are equally concerned. And there are others.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Alcoholics generally say they drive better drunk. In fact, severe alcoholics can give you chapter and verse on how beneficial alcohol is. They are much more intelligent while drunk. Their reaction time is faster and they are much MUCH more clever.

It's that others around them don't agree.

I fully expect potheads to behave exactly the same way. After all, if they knew that they were just idiots and fools, they wouldn't be potheads.

what part of Reefer Madness was your favorite part?....how about the part where the guy took one hit and turned into a madman?.....i bet you thought that was realistic.....

 

[Meister]

Alcoholics generally say they drive better drunk. In fact, severe alcoholics can give you chapter and verse on how beneficial alcohol is. They are much more intelligent while drunk. Their reaction time is faster and they are much MUCH more clever.

It's that others around them don't agree.

I fully expect potheads to behave exactly the same way. After all, if they knew that they were just idiots and fools, they wouldn't be potheads.

what part of Reefer Madness was your favorite part?....how about the part where the guy took one hit and turned into a madman?.....i bet you thought that was realistic.....

Ur, teling mmmme thaat wusnt a dokumtery?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Alcoholics generally say they drive better drunk. In fact, severe alcoholics can give you chapter and verse on how beneficial alcohol is. They are much more intelligent while drunk. Their reaction time is faster and they are much MUCH more clever.

It's that others around them don't agree.

I fully expect potheads to behave exactly the same way. After all, if they knew that they were just idiots and fools, they wouldn't be potheads.

what part of Reefer Madness was your favorite part?....how about the part where the guy took one hit and turned into a madman?.....i bet you thought that was realistic.....

Ur, teling mmmme thaat wusnt a dokumtery?

hey ......you holding out on me?......what the....

 

[Peach]

its use conflicts with values propagated by mainstream, traditional conservatives.
________________________________________________
"Traditional" conservatives had NO PROBLEM with the THREE DUI convictions Bush/Cheney racked p, nor the disorderly conduct (plead down from drunk & disorderly) Bush was busted for. Likewise, Cheney's early morning drinking that led to a man being shot. Obviously, conservatives like drunks, perhaps many hold stock in liquor companies, or the timber industry?*

*The timber industry opposes marijuana legalization/decriminalization because hemp could compete with their products.

 

[The Infidel]

Just think what Steve Jobs could have accomplished without pot and acid.

Who knows! He could have had the intellect of Einstein.

Sorry but the OP is bullsquat...

There are some very stupid people that smoke pot YES, but they were stupid before they ever toked.

If ya don't like the shit... OK, don't use it.
But ya really should stop talking about something you know NOTHING about.

 

[The Infidel]

its use conflicts with values propagated by mainstream, traditional conservatives.
________________________________________________
"Traditional" conservatives had NO PROBLEM with the THREE DUI convictions Bush/Cheney racked p, nor the disorderly conduct (plead down from drunk & disorderly) Bush was busted for. Likewise, Cheney's early morning drinking that led to a man being shot. Obviously, conservatives like drunks, perhaps many hold stock in liquor companies, or the timber industry?*

*The timber industry opposes marijuana legalization/decriminalization because hemp could compete with their products.

 

[Peach]

its use conflicts with values propagated by mainstream, traditional conservatives.
________________________________________________
"Traditional" conservatives had NO PROBLEM with the THREE DUI convictions Bush/Cheney racked p, nor the disorderly conduct (plead down from drunk & disorderly) Bush was busted for. Likewise, Cheney's early morning drinking that led to a man being shot. Obviously, conservatives like drunks, perhaps many hold stock in liquor companies, or the timber industry?*

*The timber industry opposes marijuana legalization/decriminalization because hemp could compete with their products.

Nope, I am familiar with the industry:

Industrial Hemp | Wood Consumption

Thousands of articles on the web about the timber money spent fighting legalization, have someone read some of them to you.

Back to the topic; Clinton's "I didn't inhale" was slimy, but Bush II takes the prize for dirtiest with his response to questions about cocaine use-"I won't say I have, and I won't say I haven't". Odd thing though, a few guys he had lived with were busted for dealing coke, a few weeks AFTER baby Bush moved out of their home.

More on the timber industry and marijuana:

Hemp: An Alternative Fiber for Making Paper

This one FROM those that work in forestry! You lose AGAIN CON.

 

[ABikerSailor]

its use conflicts with values propagated by mainstream, traditional conservatives.
________________________________________________
"Traditional" conservatives had NO PROBLEM with the THREE DUI convictions Bush/Cheney racked p, nor the disorderly conduct (plead down from drunk & disorderly) Bush was busted for. Likewise, Cheney's early morning drinking that led to a man being shot. Obviously, conservatives like drunks, perhaps many hold stock in liquor companies, or the timber industry?*

*The timber industry opposes marijuana legalization/decriminalization because hemp could compete with their products.

Actually, the only reason that it's use "conflicts with values propigated by mainstream, traditional conservatives" gets back to the reason it was made illegal in the first place.

Google an FBI man named Anslinger. While you're at it, Google "Reefer Madness" as well and find out that it was simply a propaganda fear film.

The reason Anslinger made it illegal? Simple.............he was a racist and didn't like Blacks or Hispanics (the 2 main groups of consumers at the time), and he was looking for a legal way to lock up minorities, so he lobbied Congress (with propaganda film) and got cannabis illegal. Oh yeah...............the reason the original punishments were so severe? They believed that white people didn't smoke, but if they did, they deserved to be locked up as well because they were a danger to society.

The conservative values of traditional conservatives on this issue is racism, pure and simple.

Never mind all the good that it can do as paper, cloth, food, used in fiberglass (Corvette is now using hemp fiber fiberglass, and the hemp comes from Canada), as well as biofuel.

Shit................ignore all the help it can do with cancer patients, glaucoma patients, Alzheimer's patients, etc.

If you want to keep marijuana illegal? Admit to being the racist that you are who ignores science and medicine because you're a sheeple that is buying into the lie.

 

[del]

As someone who NEVER used pot, I noticed as I went through the 60s and 70s and 80s, that those who even used harder drugs seemed to keep quick intelligence (somewhat), but those who heavily used pot, just went to DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think it was encapsulated in a conversation my brother had with one of our fast friends who was growing pot in one of his stereo speakers (so his mom would not see it).

"Say Brian, how many joints (they were called joints not blunts back in the day) do you smoke a day?"

"Oh about one a day."

"So how many do you smoke a week?"

"Oh about 10."

My brother laughed, but there's nothing funny really about it. Didn't occur to Brian what was funny.

In the book "Boy Clinton," the author postulated that the reason liberals, especially the 60s hippy generation never learned from their mistakes is because they couldn't. All those years of drug use had rendered their brains encapable of learning from their mistakes and failures.

I also noticed that people like Clinton and Hillary had the emotional maturity of teenagers. The "I didn't inhale" president most certainly did.

Cannabis smoking 'permanently lowers IQ'

Teenagers who regularly smoke cannabis are putting themselves at risk of permanently damaging their intelligence, according to a landmark study.

By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent | Telegraph.co.uk

Researchers found persistent users of the drug, who started smoking it at school, had lower IQ scores as adults.

They were also significantly more likely to have attention and memory problems in later life, than their peers who abstained.

Furthermore, those who started as teenagers and used it heavily, but quit as adults, did not regain their full mental powers, found academics at King’s College London and Duke University in the US.

They looked at data from over 1,000 people from Dunedin in New Zealand, who have been followed through their lives since being born in 1972 or 1973.

Cannabis smoking 'permanently lowers IQ' - Telegraph

Now, this is going to JUST send the pot users into conniption fits. Mostly because all addicts refuse to accept they can't handle their addiction. It's part of the ego and pride.

(And yes, I mean addiction. Pot raises the serotonin in your brain, and it falls later, and you get depressed (the crash). It gets to the point you can't feel happy without the pot. That's an addiction. Yes it is.)

Don't believe me? Look at every drunk driver video. No matter how obviously impaired they are, they refuse to believe they can't drive. It's a matter of ego and pride.

No, different with pot users. They are emotional to the point of not being able to discuss the subject objectively.

How do I know? Because of the STUPID argumements they use to justify their use.

"How would you know how pot affects you? You've never used it."

To which I've always responded: "I don't have to jump off the cliff to know it's a stupid thing to do, I just watch the other moron do it, to know it's a stupid thing to do."

"Well what about alcohol??? How come it's legal?"

To which I respond: "What of it? Are you suggesting getting drunk on alcohol vs. pot is better or worse? Maybe that's why there are some of us who don't do either."

Then there is the really ludicrous argument. "Well, I can smoke pot and drive where I couldn't on alcohol."

Yeah, well the drunk driver thinks he's fine to drive, too!"

Then there is the "medical marijuana" argument. Which amounts to pot heads hiding behind the sick and dying to justify getting stoned.

Which I would liken to a morphine user justifying morphine based on the fact my dying father was prescribed it, when he was dying of cancer, for his pain.

NOT the same thing people. It's still hiding behind the sick and dying to justify getting stoned.

Is anyone going to tell me morphine is "beneficial?" But pot is?

And if you even question this, you are "hard hearted" because of the sick and dying, when most "medical marijuana" users are perfectly fine, and will use any excuse possible to justify getting the pot.

Now let the tirade of of outraged pot heads begin.

They have something in common with libs. They know if people factually discuss the issue, they lose.

So, they HAVE to hide behind the sick and dying, to shut up any real discussion as "hard heated."

Which is what you do when you know the facts aren't on your side. You shut up any discussion of the facts.

you must smoke the shit by the truckload

 

[Peach]

its use conflicts with values propagated by mainstream, traditional conservatives.
________________________________________________
"Traditional" conservatives had NO PROBLEM with the THREE DUI convictions Bush/Cheney racked p, nor the disorderly conduct (plead down from drunk & disorderly) Bush was busted for. Likewise, Cheney's early morning drinking that led to a man being shot. Obviously, conservatives like drunks, perhaps many hold stock in liquor companies, or the timber industry?*

*The timber industry opposes marijuana legalization/decriminalization because hemp could compete with their products.

Actually, the only reason that it's use "conflicts with values propigated by mainstream, traditional conservatives" gets back to the reason it was made illegal in the first place.

Google an FBI man named Anslinger. While you're at it, Google "Reefer Madness" as well and find out that it was simply a propaganda fear film.

The reason Anslinger made it illegal? Simple.............he was a racist and didn't like Blacks or Hispanics (the 2 main groups of consumers at the time), and he was looking for a legal way to lock up minorities, so he lobbied Congress (with propaganda film) and got cannabis illegal. Oh yeah...............the reason the original punishments were so severe? They believed that white people didn't smoke, but if they did, they deserved to be locked up as well because they were a danger to society.

The conservative values of traditional conservatives on this issue is racism, pure and simple.

Never mind all the good that it can do as paper, cloth, food, used in fiberglass (Corvette is now using hemp fiber fiberglass, and the hemp comes from Canada), as well as biofuel.

Shit................ignore all the help it can do with cancer patients, glaucoma patients, Alzheimer's patients, etc.

If you want to keep marijuana illegal? Admit to being the racist that you are who ignores science and medicine because you're a sheeple that is buying into the lie.

Infidel doesn't even know that hemp could take market share from the timber industry; this is way over that CON's head.

 

[uscitizen]

Pot use lowers intelligence. This doesn't surprise me at all

Yep that is why republicans should not smoke pot at all.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Actually Del, your body would make you go to sleep before you could smoke that much.

Interestingly enough, you can't overdose on pot.

 

[freedombecki]

In my opinion, some of the conservatives condemning marijuana on this thread are doing so because they think that its use conflicts with values propagated by mainstream, traditional conservatives.

I lean firmly to the right, own my own business (and have done so at a profit to date through this recession) and live in a house on a mortgage: I'm, to all intents and purposes, your archetypal (though often rebellious) right-winger. Except, among other things, I like smoking a bit of weed now and again. I don't play video games or write/perform music after smoking it. Rather I prefer the intellectual freedom it provides and it gives the beer I drink along with it a much more intensive, enjoyable taste. I also love to listen to classical music while I'm stoned, too.

It's blatantly obvious that the forces striving to maintain the illegality of herbal marijuana are those lobbying on behalf of the alcohol industry. Along with the cartels that are responsible for growing powerful marijuana (and paying no tax on their crop), the alcohol industry stands to lose the most if marijuana was legalised.

Without the alcohol industry perpetuating the stigma that weed is the preserve of long-haired losers who are unlikely to achieve anything in the mainstream, people will continue to accept the stereotype circulated by those only interested in profit (they honestly couldn't give a damn about the public's health).

In my opinion, I put in years of hard work taking chemistry, science, pathophysiology, consumer and administrative health, nutrition, botany, and human anatomy. During those years I was troubled by memories of a family member with early death due to smoking cigarettes and refusal to quit and another whose family fell apart due to alcohol and refusal to quit that resulted in his marriage failure. I had never even seen a marijuana cigarette, but during my studies of several health classes, I learned a little about molecular structure and DNA. In the 80s, we were just learning how things work on a molecular structure in the body. I read more JAMAs in 4 years than most doctors do between patients. I couldn't learn enough, and I was touched by this drug called cannabis and learned that it was a pop culture drug that was getting many times stronger than it was when it was just hemp for rope. To get a buzz, plant breeders noticed that some plants were stronger than others and could give people a bigger buzz than the 60s "hippies" used. Today it's 20 to 60 times that little buzz, and the stronger stuff is starting to worry law enforcement. It was earlier a drug that introduced people to harsher chemicals and was dubbed the "gateway drug." Now, it's much worse in the states, particularly on the left coast, where it is grown, often hidden in remote areas of forest clearings where people are less likely to be apprehended. Some states are allowing its "medicinal use."

Unfortunately, the medical evidence, earlier in its infancy stages of study that the 70s and 80s were, there were some horribly bad cases of societies in Central America where children were introduced to the drug at the same age as American toddlers are weaned. Their medical histories were noted and recorded, and there is absolutely no question that they had severe anomalies in the ability to learn, concentration, and on the other end, little boys' testicles weren't descending at the right time as in non-exposed children. There was some considerable evidence that if a regular smoker started using marijuana, their propensity to get lung cancer was far higher than those who merely smoked. Early studies were just the tip of the iceberg. Now the chemicals in the new cannabis plants are stronger, more hallucinogenic, and they play a role in some automobile accidents that wouldn't have happened if they hadn't used this synergistic compound with small amounts of other mind-altering substances.

I'm no radical, Swagger. My studies frightened me on account of the social acceptance of the product that had a potential to stunt childhood brain and sexual development, not to mention social embarrassment of little boys who never would be normal for their addiction, but in their paradigm, it didn't matter anyway, because they got the "who cares" attitude the chemical propagates in its user to assure its use and therefore its proliferation and propagation by growers. We think of plants as dumb. They are not. They are intelligent beings, and the strategy of hemp is a very chemical pleasantness to the psyche of human beings, but it has a little stigmata: little boys' psychosocial and cognitive development.

I'm not sure about Si Modo's profession, but I think she has a vastly more updated understanding about the issues of marijuana on childhood development and low birth weight it perpetrates in the womb.

I'm not exactly one who goes out to target other people's recreations, but I would like them to never use their shit around kids.

Get it, kinda? I repeat, I'm not out to make people stop doing what they want to do, but I'm a little mama lion who gets real pissed if America's children are neglected and abused by users. Second hand marijuana smoke is like the kid inhaling shit. And it makes me want to scream.

Oh, and preliminary studies showed women's use only. There is absolutely no way in the world we can tell what happens to the male DNA. Also, the infant's "package" might be nice when he's born because his mama abstained, but if mama and daddy reinstate their little pot bashes at home and expose their children into it, I have neglect issues blurring my vision to their abuse of freedom in that child's behalf.

I have a feeling there have been more than one family court judge throw the book at neglectful and abusive parents whose children are introduced to the pleasures of marijuana and invite their friends over to spend the night, which also indoctrinates other children.

So think poorly of me if you wish, I only love children and their well-being is my ever-present love and concern.

 

[ABikerSailor]

In my opinion, some of the conservatives condemning marijuana on this thread are doing so because they think that its use conflicts with values propagated by mainstream, traditional conservatives.

I lean firmly to the right, own my own business (and have done so at a profit to date through this recession) and live in a house on a mortgage: I'm, to all intents and purposes, your archetypal (though often rebellious) right-winger. Except, among other things, I like smoking a bit of weed now and again. I don't play video games or write/perform music after smoking it. Rather I prefer the intellectual freedom it provides and it gives the beer I drink along with it a much more intensive, enjoyable taste. I also love to listen to classical music while I'm stoned, too.

It's blatantly obvious that the forces striving to maintain the illegality of herbal marijuana are those lobbying on behalf of the alcohol industry. Along with the cartels that are responsible for growing powerful marijuana (and paying no tax on their crop), the alcohol industry stands to lose the most if marijuana was legalised.

Without the alcohol industry perpetuating the stigma that weed is the preserve of long-haired losers who are unlikely to achieve anything in the mainstream, people will continue to accept the stereotype circulated by those only interested in profit (they honestly couldn't give a damn about the public's health).

In my opinion, I put in years of hard work taking chemistry, science, pathophysiology, consumer and administrative health, nutrition, botany, and human anatomy. During those years I was troubled by memories of a family member with early death due to smoking cigarettes and refusal to quit and another whose family fell apart due to alcohol and refusal to quit that resulted in his marriage failure. I had never even seen a marijuana cigarette, but during my studies of several health classes, I learned a little about molecular structure and DNA. In the 80s, we were just learning how things work on a molecular structure in the body. I read more JAMAs in 4 years than most doctors do between patients. I couldn't learn enough, and I was touched by this drug called cannabis and learned that it was a pop culture drug that was getting many times stronger than it was when it was just hemp for rope. To get a buzz, plant breeders noticed that some plants were stronger than others and could give people a bigger buzz than the 60s "hippies" used. Today it's 20 to 60 times that little buzz, and the stronger stuff is starting to worry law enforcement. It was earlier a drug that introduced people to harsher chemicals and was dubbed the "gateway drug." Now, it's much worse in the states, particularly on the left coast, where it is grown, often hidden in remote areas of forest clearings where people are less likely to be apprehended. Some states are allowing its "medicinal use."

Unfortunately, the medical evidence, earlier in its infancy stages of study that the 70s and 80s were, there were some horribly bad cases of societies in Central America where children were introduced to the drug at the same age as American toddlers are weaned. Their medical histories were noted and recorded, and there is absolutely no question that they had severe anomalies in the ability to learn, concentration, and on the other end, little boys' testicles weren't descending at the right time as in non-exposed children. There was some considerable evidence that if a regular smoker started using marijuana, their propensity to get lung cancer was far higher than those who merely smoked. Early studies were just the tip of the iceberg. Now the chemicals in the new cannabis plants are stronger, more hallucinogenic, and they play a role in some automobile accidents that wouldn't have happened if they hadn't used this synergistic compound with small amounts of other mind-altering substances.

I'm no radical, Swagger. My studies frightened me on account of the social acceptance of the product that had a potential to stunt childhood brain and sexual development, not to mention social embarrassment of little boys who never would be normal for their addiction, but in their paradigm, it didn't matter anyway, because they got the "who cares" attitude the chemical propagates in its user to assure its use and therefore its proliferation and propagation by growers. We think of plants as dumb. They are not. They are intelligent beings, and the strategy of hemp is a very chemical pleasantness to the psyche of human beings, but it has a little stigmata: little boys' psychosocial and cognitive development.

I'm not sure about Si Modo's profession, but I think she has a vastly more updated understanding about the issues of marijuana on childhood development and low birth weight it perpetrates in the womb.

I'm not exactly one who goes out to target other people's recreations, but I would like them to never use their shit around kids.

Get it, kinda? I repeat, I'm not out to make people stop doing what they want to do, but I'm a little mama lion who gets real pissed if America's children are neglected and abused by users. Second hand marijuana smoke is like the kid inhaling shit. And it makes me want to scream.

Oh, and preliminary studies showed women's use only. There is absolutely no way in the world we can tell what happens to the male DNA. Also, the infant's "package" might be nice when he's born because his mama abstained, but if mama and daddy reinstate their little pot bashes at home and expose their children into it, I have neglect issues blurring my vision to their abuse of freedom in that child's behalf.

I have a feeling there have been more than one family court judge throw the book at neglectful and abusive parents whose children are introduced to the pleasures of marijuana and invite their friends over to spend the night, which also indoctrinates other children.

So think poorly of me if you wish, I only love children and their well-being is my ever-present love and concern.

I don't really think anyone is arguing that children should smoke cannabis. They shouldn't drink alcohol either, because the human brain isn't fully developed until 17-18 yrs old, and for the record, I don't think that anyone under the age of 18 should be allowed to drink either.

However.................................

For the rest of us that are over 21 and able to participate? I say legalize it for everyone, because it's far less harmful than alcohol.

What do I base my opinion on? Because, in the U.S. Navy, I was a Drug and Alcohol Program Advisor from 1996 until 2002, and part of my job required that I have a working knowledge of various common substances that can be found around in town. Additionally, when I went to my first command in 1983? Well, there were 2 people in my division who were definite pot heads, and they didn't drink all that much. Both ended up getting out after that enlistment because they said it was too much work to dodge the newly instituted urine tests, so they got out. Guess what? Working next to those 2 guys who'd gotten stoned the night before was much preferable than working next to the beer sotted drunk who was gonna be useless until 1100 or so.

But, like I said, if you're an adult over the age of 21, you should be able to smoke if you want to.

 

[freedombecki]

No. If you do that, high school children will be users. A 25 year old has it figured out he can get a girl to drop her panties if he gets her stoned. He won't know the little 18-year-old girl he is with, inducing her to enjoy a joint is actually 14 and lied because she wants to seems to be older, and he just wants to get laid.

Just no. And absolutely no.

 

[ABikerSailor]

No. If you do that, high school children will be users. A 25 year old has it figured out he can get a girl to drop her panties if he gets her stoned. He won't know the little 18-year-old girl he is with, inducing her to enjoy a joing is actually 14 and lied because she wants to seems to be older, and he just wants to get laid.

Just no. And absolutely no.

Same thing happens with alcohol you dippy bitch. Whether or not something is legal or illegal doesn't really matter to high school kids, because if they can get it, they will.

BTW............cannabis doesn't make a person lose their inhibitions, as a matter of fact, people who are stoned are generally much more cautious about their surroundings.

Alcohol on the other hand had been proven to lower inhibitions, and can do it with a lot less than cannabis can, which is why when people get drunk they end up doing something they later regret.

Working at a biker bar in Amarillo showed me that by the way, because there was a small area out back for the people to go smoke if they wished. Those that drank? Generally those were the most problems. Those who drank and smoked? Mostly no problems with them until they got drunk. Those who smoked and drank coke only? They left good tips and would help out if problems arose.

Try again.

 

[uscitizen]

Actually Del, your body would make you go to sleep before you could smoke that much.

Interestingly enough, you can't overdose on pot.

But it is fun trying.

 

[Swagger]

In my opinion, some of the conservatives condemning marijuana on this thread are doing so because they think that its use conflicts with values propagated by mainstream, traditional conservatives.

I lean firmly to the right, own my own business (and have done so at a profit to date through this recession) and live in a house on a mortgage: I'm, to all intents and purposes, your archetypal (though often rebellious) right-winger. Except, among other things, I like smoking a bit of weed now and again. I don't play video games or write/perform music after smoking it. Rather I prefer the intellectual freedom it provides and it gives the beer I drink along with it a much more intensive, enjoyable taste. I also love to listen to classical music while I'm stoned, too.

It's blatantly obvious that the forces striving to maintain the illegality of herbal marijuana are those lobbying on behalf of the alcohol industry. Along with the cartels that are responsible for growing powerful marijuana (and paying no tax on their crop), the alcohol industry stands to lose the most if marijuana was legalised.

Without the alcohol industry perpetuating the stigma that weed is the preserve of long-haired losers who are unlikely to achieve anything in the mainstream, people will continue to accept the stereotype circulated by those only interested in profit (they honestly couldn't give a damn about the public's health).

In my opinion, I put in years of hard work taking chemistry, science, pathophysiology, consumer and administrative health, nutrition, botany, and human anatomy. During those years I was troubled by memories of a family member with early death due to smoking cigarettes and refusal to quit and another whose family fell apart due to alcohol and refusal to quit that resulted in his marriage failure. I had never even seen a marijuana cigarette, but during my studies of several health classes, I learned a little about molecular structure and DNA. In the 80s, we were just learning how things work on a molecular structure in the body. I read more JAMAs in 4 years than most doctors do between patients. I couldn't learn enough, and I was touched by this drug called cannabis and learned that it was a pop culture drug that was getting many times stronger than it was when it was just hemp for rope. To get a buzz, plant breeders noticed that some plants were stronger than others and could give people a bigger buzz than the 60s "hippies" used. Today it's 20 to 60 times that little buzz, and the stronger stuff is starting to worry law enforcement. It was earlier a drug that introduced people to harsher chemicals and was dubbed the "gateway drug." Now, it's much worse in the states, particularly on the left coast, where it is grown, often hidden in remote areas of forest clearings where people are less likely to be apprehended. Some states are allowing its "medicinal use."

Unfortunately, the medical evidence, earlier in its infancy stages of study that the 70s and 80s were, there were some horribly bad cases of societies in Central America where children were introduced to the drug at the same age as American toddlers are weaned. Their medical histories were noted and recorded, and there is absolutely no question that they had severe anomalies in the ability to learn, concentration, and on the other end, little boys' testicles weren't descending at the right time as in non-exposed children. There was some considerable evidence that if a regular smoker started using marijuana, their propensity to get lung cancer was far higher than those who merely smoked. Early studies were just the tip of the iceberg. Now the chemicals in the new cannabis plants are stronger, more hallucinogenic, and they play a role in some automobile accidents that wouldn't have happened if they hadn't used this synergistic compound with small amounts of other mind-altering substances.

I'm no radical, Swagger. My studies frightened me on account of the social acceptance of the product that had a potential to stunt childhood brain and sexual development, not to mention social embarrassment of little boys who never would be normal for their addiction, but in their paradigm, it didn't matter anyway, because they got the "who cares" attitude the chemical propagates in its user to assure its use and therefore its proliferation and propagation by growers. We think of plants as dumb. They are not. They are intelligent beings, and the strategy of hemp is a very chemical pleasantness to the psyche of human beings, but it has a little stigmata: little boys' psychosocial and cognitive development.

I'm not sure about Si Modo's profession, but I think she has a vastly more updated understanding about the issues of marijuana on childhood development and low birth weight it perpetrates in the womb.

I'm not exactly one who goes out to target other people's recreations, but I would like them to never use their shit around kids.

Get it, kinda? I repeat, I'm not out to make people stop doing what they want to do, but I'm a little mama lion who gets real pissed if America's children are neglected and abused by users. Second hand marijuana smoke is like the kid inhaling shit. And it makes me want to scream.

Oh, and preliminary studies showed women's use only. There is absolutely no way in the world we can tell what happens to the male DNA. Also, the infant's "package" might be nice when he's born because his mama abstained, but if mama and daddy reinstate their little pot bashes at home and expose their children into it, I have neglect issues blurring my vision to their abuse of freedom in that child's behalf.

I have a feeling there have been more than one family court judge throw the book at neglectful and abusive parents whose children are introduced to the pleasures of marijuana and invite their friends over to spend the night, which also indoctrinates other children.

So think poorly of me if you wish, I only love children and their well-being is my ever-present love and concern.

I appreciate both your concern as a mother and your considered reply. Perhaps I've missed the bit where the effects of marijuana on children have been mentioned, but allow me to make it clear that I don't think anyone below the age of legal responsibility should a) be present among those consuming marijuana (voluntarily or otherwise), or b) encouraged to consume it themselves. Nor do I believe that children should be around drunks or encouraged to get drunk themselves.

I do, however, think that adults who are aware of the potential risks that come with any consumerable (be it drugs, fast food or tobacco), should be allowed to consume marijuana without the law breathing down their necks.