Legalize It! (with Poll)

By: hawkgrrrl
November 30, 2010

In the recent election, many of us voted on whether or not to allow marijuana for medical use in our states.  Time recently published an insightful article about the trend to mainstream marijuana by making it available for medical purposes.  Is it medicine or just an excuse to get high?  What would Nurse Jackie say?

Medicine or Mendacity?  A total of 14 states have legalized marijuana for medical use as well as Washington D.C.  What constitutes medical use?  Many are familiar with the pain and nausea relief properties of marijuana for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.   HIV patients experience similar benefits.  But in pot-legal Colorado, less than 3% of all medical marijuana prescriptions are related to cancer or HIV.  The majority (94%) are for generic “severe pain.”  To me, that sounds like why some people drink alcohol.  And 75% of patients are young men under the age of 40 who look like James Franco (OK, I made that last part up).  But it’s prescribed by a doctor, right?  While that is true (in addition to the bureaucratic hoops people have to jump through, including paying $90 to the state to register), 70% of the patients in the state of Colorado were all prescribed by the same 15 dealers, er, doctors.  Some doctors are even referring teens who complain of chronic pain, and teens are more likely to consider pot a safe medicine than in previous generations.

The medicinal benefits are impossible to ascertain because pot is classified as a Schedule 1 controlled substance, meaning it has “no currently accepted medical use,” and it’s illegal to do field tests on it because of its status as a controlled substance – a catch 22. 

Is it addictive?  Pot is considered addictive to about 10% of regular users, coming in well behind alcohol (addictive to 15%) and cigarettes (32% become addicted).  But this is following the broad definition of addiction currently in vogue, meaning that it can lead to obsessive use (hence, sex addicts).  However, pot’s addictiveness is questionable when considered using a narrower definition.  Unlike cigarettes and alcohol, ceasing to use pot does not cause detrimental physical effects (“withdrawals”).  Pot is a problem for those who are predisposed to mental illness and has been clinically shown to contribute to depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia in some individuals.  Unlike portrayed in the 1950s anti-drug movie Reefer Madness, it does not cause manic piano-playing, maniacal laughter, jitterbugging, or obliviously running down pedestrians with your car.  It may, however, cause you to mistakenly knock on the wrong door repeatedly asking for Dave.

Up in smoke?  To legal stoners who’ve touted pot-smoking as medically beneficial, “Be careful what you ask for.”  The future may render pot obsolete for its medicinal purposes as scientific advances harness the pain-relief properties of THC (what makes pot work) in a soon-to-be-released nasal spray called Sativex.  The caveat is that the nasal spray gives the medical benefit without the high.  Foiled again!

And yet, my own view is that pot is less damaging and more beneficial than either alcohol or cigarettes, but it is unfairly targeted, creating an underground market that benefits lawbreakers and thugs.  Why not simply legalize it outright, while maintaining underage restrictions?  It seems hypocritical to me to prohibit the more benign of the two substances between alchohol and marijuana (to say nothing of cigarettes).

Should marijuana be legalized? (choose the answer that closest matches your view)

  • Yes, just like alcohol and cigarettes, for responsible adults. (72%, 81 Votes)
  • Yes, but only for medical purposes under the direction of a doctor. (15%, 17 Votes)
  • No, there are no medical benefits, and it is addictive. (10%, 11 Votes)
  • No, and other substances that are addictive (e.g. alcohol and cigarettes) should also be illegal. (3%, 4 Votes)

Total Voters: 113

Loading ... Loading ...

What are your thoughts?  Discuss.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

88 Responses to Legalize It! (with Poll)

  1. Coffinberry on November 30, 2010 at 6:09 AM

    I live in one of those states; a grow operation is conducted in the house next door by a “licensed caregiver.” Sometimes somebody is smoking the stuff in the backyard, so we have to close our windows.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  2. Frecklefoot on November 30, 2010 at 6:18 AM

    I know a cancer survivor who used medical marijuana to ward off nausea. She credits it for helping her win her battle with the disease. Now she’s in remission and doesn’t use it anymore. Just like any medical drug, it has it’s benefits and shouldn’t be outlawed across the board just because it can be abused.

    But I don’t think it needs to be or should be legalized as a “recreational” drug. The fewer we have of those, the better, in my opinion. Your judgment after using those just goes out the window, even to determine if you’ve “had too much” to be a danger to the public at large.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  3. Dan on November 30, 2010 at 6:47 AM

    Teach people correct principles and let them govern themselves I say.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 13

  4. Course Correction on November 30, 2010 at 6:55 AM

    Obviously, outlawing marijuana has not kept it from being used recreationally.

    In case you haven’t noticed, we lost the War on Drugs.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 13

  5. AdamF on November 30, 2010 at 7:11 AM

    I agree with CC. The so-called “war on drugs” has only made things worse.

    I had a prof who was a former cop and worked undercover quite a few times in this “war” – he said they all know they aren’t winning, but he (and the other cops) was “just a cowboy” who “thinks it’s fun” going undercover and trying to do something about drugs. I’m no economist, but it seems that has more to do with the problem. I also think that sanctions (such as probation) for nonviolent drive users, who aren’t a threat to safety, are a huge waste of resources.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  6. Frecklefoot on November 30, 2010 at 8:28 AM

    In regards to the War on Drugs, it’s a war of attrition. Just because some (or many) people are still using illegal substances doesn’t mean we universally LOST, for GOOD. It just means we’re not 100% successful yet. And we never may be. But it doesn’t mean it’s not a war worth fighting.

    But, yes, if we taught “people correct principles and let them govern themselves”, it wouldn’t even be a problem.

    @AdamF: What is a “nonviolent drive user”?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  7. AdamF on November 30, 2010 at 8:32 AM

    Lol, a “drive user” is a “drug user” on iPhone autocorrect.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  8. Paul on November 30, 2010 at 8:39 AM

    Ok, shall we legalize murder because some are still committing it?

    Controversial! What do you think? Thumb up 1

  9. hawkgrrrl on November 30, 2010 at 9:01 AM

    8 Paul – the difference with marijuana is that it’s a victimless crime. Murder by definition is not. One could more easily argue that alcohol and cigarettes create non-using victims than you could argue pot does.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 8

  10. Andrew S on November 30, 2010 at 9:23 AM

    Where’s the option for legalizing marijuana and banning alcohol/cigarettes? (Oh wait…Prohibition didn’t work all that well the last time we did it, never mind…)

    I mean, to me it’s pretty clear that our drug policy is not founded on any sort of ideal for keeping people safe or helping society. I mean, even supposing that all the studies about the deleterious effects of marijuana are correct, these effects are still nowhere near as bad as the time-tested, time proven harms of alcohol and tobacco.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  11. Paul on November 30, 2010 at 9:38 AM

    Victimless crime. Hmmm.

    Studies have shown the inhalants from marijuana are more dangerous than those of tobacco.

    Users of marijuana, when under the influence, have dimished capacity to react when driving.

    Particularly among young people, marijuana serves as the gateway to far more dangerous and addictive drugs (including but not limited to alcohol).

    Your argument for legalization seems to be that marijuana is less problematic than other things that are legal.

    That said, I recognize that a kid who seeks marijuana (or any other drug) can easily find it. Sadly I’ve know enough of these kids who have started with marijuana and graduated to heroin or crack. Kids who have done property damage and harmed people as they’ve operated vehicles under the influence. Kids who have lost years of their lives (and in some cases, their very lives) to their addictions.

    Victimless, indeed.

    Controversial! What do you think? Thumb up 2

  12. Jon on November 30, 2010 at 9:41 AM

    My question is where is the choice for legalizing everything without any restrictions?

    Let the people use the shaming principle and let God be our judge. This isn’t one of those laws that our found in the natural laws nor God given laws. Let people do as they will and let others refuse service to them if they will, or refuse employing them. It’s not the position of the government to do these type of things.

    The purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual. This certainly flies in the face of protecting individual rights.

    Another gripe I’ve had with it is why do we legalize cocaine and opiate based drugs and not marijuana. Because it’s all a sham, that’s why.

    God has given us herbs of the field to help cure us and marijuana is no different it is there to help, yes it can be abused but it can work wonders. From my understanding you don’t even need to smoke it to get the medicinal use out of it.

    People that want to ban Mary Jane are the same people that want to ban raw milk and the like. The same reasoning can be used. And for those who don’t know. There is a war on raw foods going on right now too. There is no end of government tyranny.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  13. bbell on November 30, 2010 at 9:42 AM

    I totally oppose the idea of legalizing pot. Every person I know who got into pot ended up really screwed up. Much more so then alchohol users. I even have a relative who was in rehab for a pot addiction.

    The medical stuff is mostly BS. As stated in the OP only 3% are legit users. The rest are stoners trying to avoid getting arrested for their drug habit. Its a BS industry where a few “medical providers” make stuff up so they can sell pot and make cash

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  14. Paul on November 30, 2010 at 9:55 AM

    To #12: What about my right to have safe food? (re: the raw food item you mention)

    And as for protecting individual rights, I suppose if an adult chooses to throw his life away to alcohol or pot or heroin, that’s his business (except of course for the cost to society’s of dealing with the effect of his addiction, such as DUI, working while under the influence, endangering his family and those around him, not to mention his indigent health care at the end of the day).

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  15. Jenkins on November 30, 2010 at 9:59 AM

    Studies seem to show anything you want them to show… You could argue that alcohol is more of a gateway drug than marijuana is.
    It’s important to remember this is not for legalizing marijuana for teenagers in high school to use, this is for adults to use and I think we would all be surprised at how many of our neighbors use it.

    I personally think the taboo against marijuana is silly, we have no problem giving our kids and ourselves anti-depressants and other drugs with horrible side effects all because it is socially acceptable and the government says it is ‘safe’. When a lot of people using those ‘safe’ drugs experience horrible side effects, they could possibly smoke a little pot, get off the meds and feel much better. Of course, I can think of one very big industry that does not like that idea at all (big pharma).

    But leaving the medical arguments aside there is also the fact that people don’t feel it’s wrong and they are going to use it. So why not have their money going to legitimate businesses here in the US rather than drug cartels in Mexico.

    Finally, who are you to tell me what is good for me? If I want to pull out my bong for a couple of hits so I can sleep better or have a relaxing evening with my wife or friends who are you to tell me I can’t? I am not harming anyone and no longer need a babysitter. To say it’s any more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco is preposterous.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  16. Frecklefoot on November 30, 2010 at 10:16 AM

    To #13: Since we’re using nameless individuals we’ve known as evidence: I have several friends who were users. They started in high school, or sometimes sooner. One graduated to harder stuff, but eventually gave the harder stuff up and just stuck with pot. He has a responsible job and grows his own supply (last I heard).

    Another also graduated to harder stuff, and eventually tried to score whatever he could. Because his parents had money, he landed in rehab several times, but always started using again when released. He eventually was killed during a high-speed chase with the police.

    A third started with pot, went to harder stuff briefly, but gave the harder stuff up, and eventually gave up pot as well. Now he rarely even drinks. Is a very successful executive.

    A fourth started with pot, went to harder stuff, but eventually gave it all up and doesn’t do any kind of drugs anymore.

    Four examples, all four went to harder drugs. BUT, in all but one case, they all gave up the harder stuff and only one even stuck with pot. Of course, all these cases are anecdotal. But they demonstrate that not all lives go in the crapper just because one tries or uses pot. Where these people end up is the result of many, MANY choices, not just their attitude towards drug use.

    I still believe marijuana has legit uses and not everyone using it is just trying to dodge the system.

    To #12: No, you don’t have to smoke it to get the benefits. But since most people who need its benefits have nausea, smoking it is the easiest way to ingest it.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  17. Jon on November 30, 2010 at 10:23 AM

    Paul,

    Start thinking with some logic. What are natural rights? Natural rights are God given. Or, if you don’t believe in God, they are universal truths that makes all men (used in the neutered term ladies) equal.

    What are some natural rights that we can all recognize. Here’s one, thou shalt not steal. How about not being a respecter of persons before the law (or customs, if you’re an anarchist).

    What you fetter over is the desire and want of good foods that won’t harm you. This is not a right. Why is it not a right? Because it would require taking someone else’s rights away, making it a so called positive “right” and not a negative right as described here:

    “This tradition identifies two categories of rights, one that is consistent with a free and virtuous society, and another that sows division that, taken to the extreme, threatens civilization itself. The first of these identifies rights that are inherent in the human person and therefore precede governments. Governments cannot grant them. They can only take them away. Sometimes referred to as negative rights, they are only partially enumerated in the U.S. Constitution and especially in its first 10 amendments. These include your rights to your life, liberty, and property.

    Then there are other rights that no one is born with. In order to exercise these rights, individuals become claimants to the wealth and labor of others. Sometimes referred to as positive rights, these rights were not spelled out in the Constitution, which is silent on issues pertaining to education, housing, or even digital television. Nonetheless, the legitimization of these types of rights in the 20th century has contributed to the centralized and overweening welfare and warfare state that the federal government has become today.” -Christopher Westley

    You have the right to use the free market to determine which manufacturer delivers the highest quality food. But you do not have the right to take away my choices in the free market.

    Cato institute has done a study about Portugal that shows that more lax laws has created a populace that has less drug problems. The war on drugs has only made things worse and caused broken families, the highest per capita of jailed population in the world, countless innocents dead (caused by the US government and drug lords), and terrorized families (a militaresque squad breaking into your home at night, oh wait, not your home because you’re not a poor person who is most affected by these raids).

    Cato paper:
    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 4

  18. Martin on November 30, 2010 at 10:42 AM

    I home taught the wife of a guy using prescribed marijuana. His mood swings and irrational behavior got continually worse until the police had to get involved. He quit using, and wallah, his mood control seemed to improve practically overnight.

    Only an anecdote, but since I watched it happen, I’m pretty skeptical of “medical marijuana” I realize other pain prescriptions can do the same thing, but I think marijuana is about as medicinal as alcohol.

    Pot users should just be honest and say “I like pot — who are you to say I can’t do it?” and drop the “medical” lie.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  19. SLK in SF on November 30, 2010 at 11:07 AM

    Oh good grief. I know cancer patients and people with AIDS who feel their lives have been improved (in some cases actually saved) by the use of medical marijuana. That’s good enough for me.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 4

  20. Frecklefoot on November 30, 2010 at 11:20 AM

    I don’t think Marijuana should be used to treat pain. There are other pharmaceuticals that are much better at treating that. Using pot to treat pain is like taking an aspirin to treat profuse bleeding.

    But I do think it’s useful for treating the nausea related to chemotherapy. As of 2010, there is no other drug–natural or synthetic–that is as useful for treating nausea as Marijuana. There may be legit other uses too, but general “pain” isn’t one of them.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  21. Thomas on November 30, 2010 at 11:38 AM

    The “war on drugs” is stupid, just like every other “war” that’s not, like, an actual *war.* As they way, “war is the health of the State.”

    That said, I hate “medical marijuana,” which is overwhelmingly a charade. I would frankly rather see legalization, or decriminalization, than this “medical” nonsense. It’s bad enough that we have a bunch of lazy loopy paranoid stoners, without manufacturing a generation of liars into the bargain.

    Sure, some genuinely sick people report that marijuana eases their symptoms. I’m not aware of any evidence that indicates that smoked marijuana, as opposed to THC in pill form, is superior.

    My brother-in-law and his family have been absolutely devastated in large part by his MJ use, so I’ve got precious little sympathy for users themselves. I’d rather see it decriminalized, but kept at infraction-level illegal, so as to maintain at least something of a stigma against it (and give me a remedy when my neighbor insists on blowing happy smoke over my fence), while at the same time removing the incentive for Drug War aggressions against liberty.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  22. Jon on November 30, 2010 at 11:46 AM

    Thomas,

    Cigarettes have a stigma against them without being illegal (although they do have some burdensome regulations). We need not give government more excuses for power.

    I have to agree that having neighbors smoke is the most annoying thing in the world. I’ve smelled marijuana smoke before (in Durango, Colorado – my aunt had to point it out to me, otherwise I wouldn’t have known) and I don’t think it’s that bad compared to cigarette smoke. Granted I would rather not have to live with either. Living in poorer areas in UT wasn’t much fun, it seemed like they all smoked, and none of them weed.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  23. kuri on November 30, 2010 at 11:51 AM

    “It may, however, cause you to mistakenly knock on the wrong door repeatedly asking for Dave.”

    I think it’s more likely to cause your friend to not recognize your voice through a door.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  24. Mike S on November 30, 2010 at 12:28 PM

    A few comments:

    Marijuana is safer than alcohol. There is a very narrow therapeutic range for alcohol (ie. a blood alcohol level of 0.08% gives an effect, a level of 0.40% may kill you – ie. 5:1). For marijuana, the range is given in the THOUSANDS – ie. you would have to smoke hundreds of joints at once to even come close to a lethal dose. There are no documented cases of overdose in marijuana.

    You cannot physically become addicted to marijuana, unlike alcohol or tobacco. You may be psychologically addicted, but not physically.

    Marijuana can be a gateway drug largely because we make it a gateway drug. By making it illegal, people have to seek it out illegally. When they find that it is fairly benign, they are inclined to seek out other illegal drugs. If it were legal, responsible use could be encouraged, much like is done with alcohol.

    Chronic overuse of marijuana can lead to apathy and other problems. But chronic overuse of alcohol has a whole other host of problems. And chronic overuse of food is a $150 billion dollar a year problem in the US alone. Just because something can be overused is not enough of a reason to ban it.

    Finally, in D&C 89, we are told that we are to use every “herb in the season thereof… with prudence and thanksgiving”. But we’d probably ignore that, just like we ignore the part about “mild barley drinks” being for the good of man, which in JS’s time was beer. :-)

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 12

  25. hawkgrrrl on November 30, 2010 at 12:42 PM

    Life is a gateway drug. Evidence: nobody’s taken drugs yet who wasn’t alive.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  26. Tom on November 30, 2010 at 2:04 PM

    Mike S: thanks for throwing out some rather poignant thoughts. I’m of the same mind.

    I once read/listened to a book a few months/years ago by Michael Pollan called the Botany of Desire. In this book he discussed several plants and the effect they’ve had on mankind – i.e. Tulips and entire economies built on tulip contracts in Europe, Apples and Johnny Appleseed (hint: he wasn’t planting apples so that we could eat them, but rather to make some good old AppleJack), Cannabis and Potatoes. Fascinating book.

    Especially the chapter on Cannabis. His view on Cannabis is what caused me to reassess my own personal viewpoints on the matter. I would highly recommend that book to anyone. I’d actually get the audiobook version if possible, as it is a fascinating listen.

    That being said, our cultural disdain for cannabis/marijuana is linked to the government (largely) and prohibition. Marijuana was criminalized thanks in large part to the new nylon rope industry, though the end of prohibition naturally led to a “need” for thousands of employees and billions of dollars to spend somewhere. Du Pont et al. couldn’t rightly make billions off of nylon rope sales when there was a perfectly natural (and way cheaper) version growing nearly everywhere and which was, ironically, perfectly renewable and unpatentable. It was a business decision first and foremost. Since then, the 3-letter agencies have generally won the war of stigmatizing something that our ancestors rarely thought about, and certainly saw no evil therein.

    James E. Talmadge tried some (hated it), many of the founding father’s grew it and looked forward to the feminized plants. And, pray tell, why did they want the feminine version? That’s for your deduction skills.

    So I think we should be careful when we ascribe “evils” to a plant or herb when our understandings are largely based on skewed cultural assumptions.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  27. Paul on November 30, 2010 at 2:26 PM

    #17: Sorry, I fell asleep during your treatise. I’m not interested in engaging in a debate over natural rights.

    HG, seems you have a lot of folks in your camp to legalize. And ten years ago I would have been there with you. But not today.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  28. dmac on November 30, 2010 at 3:31 PM

    Here in my home state in Australia the police recently conducted raids that netted millions and millions of dollars worth of cannabis. Lots of people asked “Why bother? Its a low grade drug and its not where the big issues are.”

    While this is true, the problem is that the syndicates use the funds from these to plow back into their harder drug trade and importation. The drugs that really DO mess people up. So the raids disrupted the cash flow and also got more info on who was running the syndicates.

    I guess the point is that the funds from sale of cannabis as an illegal substance are going directly back to the coffers of those who traffic harder and seriously life destroying drugs. I’m not dismissing how lives can be damaged by cannabis, but is it really that scary that we need to demonise it and allow it to be controlled by drug barons? I think there are better options.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  29. Rigel Hawthorne on November 30, 2010 at 4:29 PM

    Aren’t we all victims of marijuana users in terms of increasing numbers of non-productive members of society that consume tax funded benefits? Are CEO’s of highly successful organizations marijuana users?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  30. Jon on November 30, 2010 at 4:43 PM

    Paul,

    Yeah, I know, most people don’t like looking into the core issues of problems. That’s why republicans hate Mexicans (or Latinos in general) because they don’t like to look at the core issues, if they did they would have to realize they are wrong and change their opinions. Take my dad in the last election, he wanted advice on what things to vote for but when it came down to it, he voted his pocket book and not what was right or wrong. That’s why democracies suck. Thank goodness we live in a republic, of course it has similar problems.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  31. Andrew S on November 30, 2010 at 5:48 PM

    re 29,

    Rigel,

    I guess a bigger question is: are CEOs of highly successful organizations even productive members of society?

    *ba dum shaaaa*

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  32. ssj on November 30, 2010 at 6:11 PM

    Are CEO’s of highly successful organizations marijuana users?

    How would we even measure this? The research on pot is so limited due to the fact that it is illegal. I’m pretty sure the use of pot is much more common than we tend to think.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  33. Jb on November 30, 2010 at 6:34 PM

    I am an advocate of legalization for 2 reasons. One, Dmac gave an example of pit money going back to illegally bring in the harder stuff. If pot were legal, it could be taxed and controlled simmer to alcohol (cigarettes are taxed but historically have not been controlled). Think of the cash flow for local, state, and federal governments. Instead of the money going back
    To drug lords to bring in more serious drugs the money goes to the public education system, adding in a certain amount of education in terms of proper use. It would be controlled which would make it safer to use and not laced with who knows what chemical.
    The second reason why I think legalization is the way to go is because I don’t truly believe it is a gateway to anything. Is alcohol a gateway to cigarettes? Maybe, but there are generally 2 categories or cigarette smokers one groupwho smokes at any time and the other group who smoke when they drink alcohol. In many states the penalty form drug possession, including pot, is greater than the penalty for violent crimes. I don’t think that is right, but I also don’t think it is wrong for someone to smoke a joint when they want to.
    Are there CEOs who smoke pot and they are successful? I can guarantee you yes. You think zuckerberg doesn’t smoke multiple times a week? He is not the only one and it is not just the young entrepreneurs either. Legalize it.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  34. jjohnsen on November 30, 2010 at 7:57 PM

    Andrew Sullivan has been running a series off and on about being a closeted marijuana smoker. There was a wide variety of people that responded. Dead-enders, policeman, doctors and yes even CEOs. Is it really that shocking that productive members of our society might use a recreational drug like marijuana when so many use recreational drugs like alcohol, tobacco and various prescription drugs and are still successful?

    If it were legal in my state I’d try to get a prescription for my wife as soon as possible. She’s had back pain for seven years since a car accident and nothing the doctor gives her or tries on her seems to help much. Not that I put a lot of faith into marijuana as a way to help her pain, but I’d love to have one more thing for her to try (especially if that one more thing can be baked into a batch of delicious chocolate chip cookies.

    There is no compelling reason to me why is was criminalized in the first place, and no compelling reason to me why it is still illegal.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  35. LDS Anarchist on December 1, 2010 at 1:28 AM

    Considering the evidence that John the Baptist was high on pot when he ordained Joseph and Oliver, I would think that all LDS would embrace its legalization.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  36. Ed on December 1, 2010 at 6:44 AM

    Alcohol isn’t a gateway to hard drugs, because you can’t buy hard drugs at the liquor store. But you can often buy hard drugs from the same guy that sells you marijuana. If marijuana is a gateway drug, and I’m not convinced it is, it is precisely because it’s illegal. I asked an ER physician in our ward if he sees more problems related to alcohol or marijuana. He said there was no comparison, Alcohol is far, far worse.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  37. jjohnsen on December 1, 2010 at 8:27 AM

    Admittedly I have very little experience, but in high school the people that sold pot were my age and didn’t sell anything else, they also sat next to you in English and were student body officers.. The people that sold harder stuff were older and creepier and usually hovered around the outskirts of the school property.

    Our next door neighbor who is a cop says the people they bust with heavier drugs are usually much different than the people they bust selling marijuana.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  38. Beansdude on December 1, 2010 at 8:50 AM

    IMO the issue of Marijuana illustrates the larger problems with our political system and the influence that big money has over our laws. Why on earth should a non-toxic plant that has been used by humans for thousands of years be illegal? Because people somewhere with lots of influence and MONEY wanted/want it that way.

    Pharmaceutical companies can’t get their cut if I grow my own anti-anxiety herbs in the backyard. The private prison industry would stand to lose their biggest pool of offenders (and Billions in revenue) if we released inmates charged with only simple marijuana possession. The oil/nylon and plastics industry would face huge competition from Hemp production, and the list goes on. Last years movie “The Union” is a great documentary on the subject. (and it’s free to stream on netflix!)

    In the words of Katt Williams: “Why is Marijuana is Illegal? Asprin is legal but if you take 13 of them mother —-ers that will be your last headache!”

    Legalize it.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 5

  39. Jon on December 1, 2010 at 10:46 AM

    Beansdude,

    “Why on earth should a non-toxic plant that has been used by humans for thousands of years be illegal?”

    Next thing you know they’ll make air illegal (oh wait, isn’t CO2 part of air?). :) Awesome.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  40. Paul on December 1, 2010 at 11:01 AM

    #39 — don’t worry. According to #17/30 we have no right to clean air anyway…

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  41. Jon on December 1, 2010 at 11:29 AM

    Paul,

    I thought you didn’t want to discuss this. I said I believe in natural rights. Property rights is one of those, and is really a basis for rights. So, yes, clean air would fall under property rights. But banning everything and taxing us to oblivion isn’t how you exercise your rights.

    Do you want some book suggestions so you can understand what natural rights are?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  42. Kalola on December 1, 2010 at 1:04 PM

    Would you use marijuana if it was legal? If not, why not? If yes, why? Is the use of marijuana not included in the WoW?

    It never ceases to amaze me how many members of the church are all for the legalization of pot, yet wouldn’t dare drink a glass of wine or have a cup of coffee.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  43. Starfoxy on December 1, 2010 at 1:18 PM

    It never ceases to amaze me how many members of the church are all for the legalization of pot, yet wouldn’t dare drink a glass of wine or have a cup of coffee.
    Because those same members of the church wouldn’t want to outlaw wine or coffee. Most members of the church can grasp the idea that some things are a bad idea generally, have no desire to partake themselves, yet still see no benefit to criminalization.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 5

  44. Kalola on December 1, 2010 at 1:39 PM

    Starfoxy ~ What I don’t understand is why some members of the church look at coffee as some sort of “devil’s brew” but do not seem opposed to folks smoking pot. When I was a teen, I smoked a joint. I didn’t like the stoned feeling it gave me. And the smell is awful!

    Has anyone who has responded thus far smoked pot? Or have you been around folks smoking pot? What is your personal experience, if any, with pot?

    When I asked DH’s doctor his thoughts on the legalization of pot in California, his response was that he will not prescribe it to his patients. He said very few people truly benefit from its use. He also added that we don’t need people driving stoned when we already have to deal with drunk drivers. Amen.

    I’m very much opposed to the legalization of pot. If there is any medicinal benefit to it, then produce it in pill form without the high.

    And the use of pot is not victimless. Just do a search on the mother who had her friend blow pot smoke in her disabled child’s mouth.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  45. Paul on December 1, 2010 at 1:44 PM

    41 – Oh, Jon, you’re still there.

    I really don’t want to hi-jack the post with a discussion of natural rights. I do understand them, but I’m on a different place on the political spectrum.

    You, however, have asserted that I must be either mentally or logically deficient because I don’t agree with you. I suppose you’re welcome to your opinion, but I don’t recommend it as a marketing technique.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  46. Mike S on December 1, 2010 at 1:50 PM

    #42 Kalola: …Is the use of marijuana not included in the WoW?… It never ceases to amaze me…

    2 comments:

    1) Personal liberty. There are many legal things that people choose not to do for various reasons. Should we outlaw pork because some people don’t eat it on religious grounds? Should we outlaw alcohol? Thinking legalization of marijuana makes sense is different from whether I choose to use it or not. It’s just not imposing MY choice on someone else.

    2) Marijuana is technically NOT in the WofW, unless you consider “herbs…to be used with prudence and thanksgiving”, in which case we SHOULD us it.

    In reality, the WofW means whatever the current leadership of the Church wants it to mean with very little basis in what JS revealed or practiced. According to the original WofW:
    - Meat should be used in winter or times of famine (v13). We basically ignore that these days.
    - Barley should be used for mild drinks (v17), which in JS’s time was beer, which even he drank. We ignore that as well and it has been turned into an absolute prohibition.
    - Wine should be used in sacraments and ordinances (v5), as also revealed in the BofM prayers. JS drank wine. It was also used in temples into the 1900′s. We ignore this as well, and changed the sacrament prayers (which we seem to have to say word-for-word) to reflect prohibition. Wine is now also prohibited.

    So, regarding marijuana. There is nothing in the WofW regarding it. The current Church leaders can make any restriction they wish regarding it, however.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 6

  47. Paul on December 1, 2010 at 1:57 PM

    I would add to #49: In today’s practice, illegal drugs are also forbidden in the Word of Wisdom, so for today, marijuana is excluded.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  48. Starfoxy on December 1, 2010 at 2:27 PM

    What I don’t understand is why some members of the church look at coffee as some sort of “devil’s brew” but do not seem opposed to folks smoking pot.
    There are members of the church who do see coffee as the devil’s brew- in my experience they are not the same group of members who are ‘not opposed to people smoking pot.’
    That said there is a lot of ground in between ‘not opposed’ to people smoking pot, and wanting to send people to jail for it. I actually *am* opposed to people smoking pot. I think it is a very rare case indeed for someone to benefit from smoking marijuana. For some it may be rather benign but for most it is actively bad.

    The thing is, though, I see a lot of wasted time and money put into keeping pot illegal. If someone wants to ruin his life and health by smoking pot in his house, by all means! Go right ahead!

    I would rather pay police officers to protect me from violent criminals instead of pot-heads. I don’t want my tax dollars going to jails to house and guard pot smokers, I would much rather see a new school paid for by the exorbitant taxes that the government could be collecting from pot smokers and pot producers.

    We shouldn’t be wasting our time criminalizing drugs- legalize it and tax them through the nose!

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 4

  49. Beansdude on December 1, 2010 at 3:37 PM

    RE: #46 – Great points Mike.

    RE: #44 – “If there is any medicinal benefit to it, then produce it in pill form without the high.”

    My question to you is, why should I have to pay some pharmaceutical company to make a pill for me when I can grow my own? I can grow my own vegetables without government interference. I can utilize all sorts of natural herbal remedies for my ailments without risking jail time. Why should Cannabis be any different? Just because some people really enjoy the feeling they get from it? Big deal. I love the feeling I get from running – a ‘runner’s high’ if you will. Should running be illegal to because it makes me feel good?

    I agree that people should drive while impaired on any substance – which puts the wellbeing of others directly in harms way. I don’t believe that somebody who unwinds at the end of the day with a bong, a movie, and a bag of chips is directly threatening the safety of anyone.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 5

  50. Beansdude on December 1, 2010 at 3:39 PM

    *that last one should read “should NOT drive while impaired”. Big difference. :)

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  51. Jon on December 1, 2010 at 4:14 PM

    Paul,

    I don’t recall calling you mentally challenged.

    My points on natural rights is that decisions should be made on principle and not whims. Especially if you are advocating violence against others. That’s why I think discussions should get down to brass tacks, they shouldn’t be superficial. If people can’t agree on the principle (or don’t understand principles) of the matter what is the point of discussing the applications?

    If you want to know my political affiliations I used to call myself a conservative republican, but now consider myself an anarcho-capitalist in theory but in practice would be happy with minarchy (more closely aligned to Jefferson, from what I understand).

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  52. Jenkins on December 1, 2010 at 5:35 PM

    44 – I have smoked marijuana, my wife actually bought me a vaporizer for Christmas (best Christmas present ever, by the way!) I am a successful business man, upstanding citizen and occasionally smoke marijuana. You can make of the experience what you want. Historically it has been used in spiritual practices, as well as mushrooms. I personally sometimes smoke it with some friends and enjoy the high and the conversation. Other times it’s nice to just relax after a long day of work. Often I use it in spiritual practice and get a renewed sense of closeness with God. Like I said, you can get what you want from it.

    As far as the doctor saying that very few get medical benefits from it I would ask how he can base that conclusion on anything but biased and unscientific speculation because the reality is there cannot be any scientific studies done on it.

    I don’t doubt that there are cases in which pot is misused and abused like the guy blowing smoke in the mouth of a child. That is a horrible thing to do, but those are the stories that show up in the news. For every one of those people there are hundreds and thousands of users that are like me and you would never suspect that they are closet users.

    Where in the word of wisdom does it say I shouldn’t feel high? It can be scary in the wrong circumstances but I will tell you it is an incredible experience and in the right way can be very edifying (in my opinion). Why should I pay a pharma company to process a natural plant into something else just to avoid the high feeling. There are breeds that give different types of ‘highs’ and some that don’t give you a high. Just because I enjoy it does it mean it’s bad?

    I’ve noticed a lot of the comments and blanket statements come from people that have never actually used marijuana. And like I said, you won’t find a story about me in the newspaper or on the news, it’s way too boring to talk about most pot users, it’s much more sensational and sales better to talk about the exceptions to the rule.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 6

  53. E on December 1, 2010 at 6:10 PM

    I am a doctor, and I believe the circumstances where smoking marijuana would be the most appropriate treatment for any condition have to be extremely limited if they exist at all. I think I can categorically state that I would never prescribe it to someone who was not terminally ill, because it is carcinogenic and causes lung disease. I also see no reason to prescribe it for pain or nausea when several effective drugs (that don’t need to be lighted on fire and inhaled!) are available. The whole campaign to promote “medical” marijuana strikes me as just a way to try to legalize it. I don’t have a strong opinion on legalizing pot, but let’s not pretend that it’s some urgently needed wonder drug.

    Controversial! What do you think? Thumb up 3

  54. hawkgrrrl on December 1, 2010 at 9:32 PM

    Sorry, but E – pot need not be smoked. Many distributors bake it in breads or brownies or put it in candies. And according to a 2006 study on WebMD, pot smoking is not linked to lung cancer: http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer

    This study is not an endorsement to smoke pot as there were other bad effects noted – but lung cancer was just not one that bore out.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 5

  55. SUNNofaB.C.Rich on December 2, 2010 at 8:53 PM

    I’m an occasional recreational pot smoker. I’ve observed that any perceived negative effect potheads have on the rest of mankind pales in comparision to the negative effects some alcoholics or even worse, crackheads have on their fellow human beings. Then there’s the whole prescription drug thing… really, marijuana isn’t that big of a deal.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  56. Aaron L on December 5, 2010 at 6:08 PM

    So I have a sincere question.

    Since Mary Jane is likely not harmful and not addictive (at least not nearly as much as was previously thought) and it is an ‘herb of the field,’ does that make it legit so far as the word of wisdom is concerned? It certainly seems to be the case, even under a modern interpretation.

    Assuming I did so in moderation, could I go to Amsterdam where it is legal and smoke weed to my heart’s content without offending God?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  57. Paul on December 5, 2010 at 7:45 PM

    Why do we assume it is not harmful and not addictive? It is clearly psychologically addictive to habitual users. Further it has long reaching effects on ones mental health. Long term use leads to diminished judgment and paranoia.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  58. Mike S on December 5, 2010 at 8:33 PM

    Paul – Agreed that chronic, heavy, daily, long-term use can lead to those (and other) problems. This is completely different from the occasional recreational use.

    It’s like everything else. Having a glass of wine now and then is ok (and in fact many studies suggest that a glass of red wine each day is actually beneficial) but heavy, daily drinking of alcohol is alcoholism and is obviously bad. Eating a moderate amount of food each day is good (and obviously necessary), but heavy, daily eating leads to obesity which leads to arthritis, diabetes, heart problems, strokes, etc to the tune of $150 billion EXTRA costs to the US healthcare system annually.

    So, like everything else, the health effects of occasional, recreational use of marijuana are likely minimal. Chronic overuse of marijuana, alcohol, and even food are bad. There is a difference.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  59. SUNNofaB.C.Rich on December 7, 2010 at 9:21 PM

    Never seen a person who was “baked” go on a shooting rampage or beat their wife or rape someone or cut someones head off. Seen plenty of that happen in the name of God (even yours…) though.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  60. Jon on December 7, 2010 at 9:37 PM

    SUNNofaB.C.Rich,

    I thought you were hard core into “shooting rampage or beat their wife or rape someone or cut someones head off.” Isn’t that the definition of military occupations? Weren’t you defending WWII and the mass murder of civilians in Japan from the two A-bombs? Leave the military if you don’t want to be part of that. Isn’t this the definition of statism? I agree we shouldn’t have the government telling us what to do when it doesn’t harm anyone.

    If I misunderstood your other comments please forgive my post.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  61. SUNNofaB.C.Rich on December 7, 2010 at 10:32 PM

    Yeah, Jon if you think i’m hardcore into shooting rampages, beating wives, raping people and cutting peoples heads off, you completely misunderstood my posts (on purpose, come on dude, that’s pretty ridiculous.) and know absolutely nothing about me. Don’t for a second mistake me as a pacifist though. Yeah, i’ll defend the U.S. involvement in WWII all day long and unless youre ready to defend the rape of Nanking all day long then that probably isn’t a fight you can take me head on in. (not in the military anymore BTW) Thanks sport, although I must admit smoking a joint with someone usually helps in coming to some sort of reconciliation on issues like this….

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  62. Jon on December 8, 2010 at 12:10 AM

    SUNNofaB.C.Rich,

    I just don’t know how you can defend mass murder by any country especially your own. I’m not a pacifist, I do believe in defending yourself, family, community, country. I just don’t believe in offensive wars and I believe in rules of engagement (like not killing innocent civilians).

    Nanking has nothing to do with US vs Japan from what I read. Two wrongs don’t make a right. The scriptures say the wicked will destroy the wicked, I don’t want to be the wicked. Kimball said that the scriptures say if we are righteous the hearts of our enemies will be softened but when we go around overthrowing governments (since at least the inception of the CIA) and bombing and raping and other horrendous things to other countries I don’t see us being on the right side.

    I’m glad you’re not in the military.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  63. Doug on December 8, 2010 at 1:35 AM

    The main reason I advocate legalization of marijuana (or any substance eaten, drank, smoked, inhaled, injected, suppositoried, etc.) for ADULTS is precisely that part of being an ADULT is decided for oneself how to live (as long as the living doesn’t interfere with someone’s “bag”, or, as my dear departed mama once said, “you may swing your fist as far as you want until you hit my nose”).
    Any arguments about benefits/detriments of marijuana are interesting and useful for the decision of whether to indulge or not, but have no relevance as to WHY legalize it or not. IMO, it’s incumbent on the parties that want it prohibited by law to demonstrate why the Government has an interest that trumps an ADULT’s right to consume whatever he/she wants. Not necessarily to regulate the bad effects of marijuana usage (ergo, full legalization would no more get someone off the hook for driving stoned than for a DUI since 1933 when Prohibition was lifted), but merely WHY override an individual’s right to acquire, possess, consume, and/or sell marijuana.
    Still, current Federal law regarding pot usage in the federal workforce (if you use pot, you can’t work for Uncle Sam) should not be affected by legalization. There is such a thing as reasonable employment standards, and if anything, Uncle Sam can’t damage his already tarnished credibility by allowed federal workers to use marijuana. Just because I want it legalized doesn’t mean that I want it used or encouraged. It’s still an idiotic habit and a waste of health, time, and resources.
    You shoulda seen the look on my HP Group Ldr’s face when he saw my 31-y.o. oil burner (I’ve run that diesel on used tranny fluid and waste fryer oil mixed with biodiesel, wonder how it’d due on hash oil?) with a “Yes on 19″ bumper sticker. Dude ’bout thought that ol’ Doug had gone Faustian!
    HG – don’t tell me…you slipped a tape of Cheech and Chong at a Church dance, right? (“You mean we’re smokin’ dogs#@!, man?”)

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  64. hawkgrrrl on December 8, 2010 at 8:58 AM

    “Just because I want it legalized doesn’t mean that I want it used or encouraged. It’s still an idiotic habit and a waste of health, time, and resources.” Couldn’t agree more.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  65. Jon Miranda on December 8, 2010 at 9:34 AM

    Comment by Starfoxy
    I would rather pay police officers to protect me from violent criminals instead of pot-heads. I don’t want my tax dollars going to jails to house and guard pot smokers, I would much rather see a new school paid for by the exorbitant taxes that the government could be collecting from pot smokers and pot producers.

    Marijuana is a stepping stone to harder drugs. Ever wonder why governments are so reluctant to legalize prostituion? It’s your body, right? Because the crime of prostitution doesn’t stand alone. It brings murder, rape, and a host of other societal ills.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  66. Thomas on December 8, 2010 at 11:19 AM

    “I don’t want my tax dollars going to jails to house and guard pot smokers….”

    They don’t. With exceptions so few as to be virtually irrelevant, you don’t go to jail for simple possession. Even in the rare instances where that’s what the sentence is for, it’s invariably the result of a plea bargain down from something more serious.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  67. hawkgrrrl on December 8, 2010 at 11:26 AM

    Jon Miranda – prove it. On both counts. Prove that decriminalized marijuana leads to harder drugs. Portugal found the opposite to be true. Likewise, I’d like to see you prove that state-regulated prostitution leads to rape and murder. While I’m not a proponent of state-regulated prostitution, all data I’ve seen contradict your claim. Nevada and Singapore both have state-regulated prostitution not linked to violent crimes. Regulation consistently reduces the linkage to violent crimes or harder drugs. You can still not want to legalize for other reasons, but that’s not one that holds water.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  68. Jon Miranda on December 8, 2010 at 12:37 PM

    There is so much evidence out there so where do you begin? We base our studies largely off crimes that are reported but so much crime is out there that is under-reported or not reported at all.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  69. Jon Miranda on December 8, 2010 at 12:46 PM

    Also, there is nothing good or redeeming about prostitution. Assuming this is true, the activity is going to attract the wrong crowd. This is one of the many good reasons why this practice should not be legalized.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  70. hawkgrrrl on December 8, 2010 at 1:43 PM

    “There is so much evidence out there so where do you begin?” With any evidence that legal prostitution increased violent crime vs. illegal prostitution. Or any evidence that legal marijuana led to harder drug use. Countries that have legalized these have not illustrated your points.

    “Also, there is nothing good or redeeming about prostitution.” No argument here. The question is about whether it’s more dangerous and escalates more when it’s legal or illegal. Legalizing it brings it into the light and puts regulation on it.

    “the activity is going to attract the wrong crowd.” Yes, but legalization neither creates the activity (which will exist whether legal or not) or the bad crowd (which is a much worse crowd when the activity is illegal).

    As I said, no one here is arguing for the legalization of prostitution, but your claims are not backed up by any evidence I’ve seen. The core issue isn’t what happens when these activities are illegal (as they generally are today), only what happens when they are legal and regulated.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  71. Jon Miranda on December 8, 2010 at 2:50 PM

    I just don’t society should ever give it to evil by legalizing it therefore making it mainstream. This may sound ridiculous but why not legalize suicide bombings so that they can be taxed and regulated? How about legalizing pedophilia? Wouldn’t it be safer for the children who get assaulted if it was taxed and regulated? How about murder?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  72. SUNNofaB.C.Rich on December 8, 2010 at 7:50 PM

    #62 Jon, then every December 7th I hope you think long and hard about everyone that died at Pearl Harbor, because that’s the cost of the policy of letting them hit you first… You mentioned me “defending WWII” which is a statement that covers tons of stuff… so I could only assume you would be perfectly happy with the rape of Nanking and any other bad stuff the Japanese had planned up to and including? Pearl Harbor… Obviously those guys itching for a fight. So we knocked em all the way back to Japan and we said “give up” they said “yeah but only if…” Boom drop a huge bomb on em… “give up” “Well….” another one… “Ok we give up” Problem solved. (people forget how hard it is sometimes to get the Japanese to give up… Check out Takayama VS. Fujita in Pride F.C. Fujita was choking Takayama out, Takayama wouldn’t tap… he went to sleep…simply wouldnt tap. ) Besides analysis of the cost in human life (Japanese and Allied forces) if we were to invade mainland Japan was insanely higher than the cost in human life of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. and yeah those guys were going to use EVERYONE to try and fight us off, women kids all that.

    on the subject of recreational drug use though, there’s always the old “moderation in all things…” can’t remember who said that…

    comment # 71 yeah that is ridiculous. Can’t imagine why God invented Marijuana then. Check out post # 55 sport… maybe the government should tax and regulate religions (to the extent youre urging for the reefer). Much worse on society than marijuana.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  73. Aaron L on December 8, 2010 at 10:53 PM

    #68 – I was hoping you would have a better answer than that there so much evidence you don’t know where to begin, followed by a failure to cite any of the evidence. Pretty weak sauce man.

    Everything I have read about countries like Amsterdam who legalized pot in the recent past show that usage rates are generally similar to where they were before it was legalized also similar to other like societies where it is illegal, and even show that use decreased among minors. The same holds true for other crime, domestic violence, and other social indicators that you would think would be effected. Again, please post up the overwhelming evidence. I’d love to see it.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  74. Jon Miranda on December 9, 2010 at 5:43 AM

    Aaron:
    I have found with blogs that present evidence to someone just leads them to rationalize it away. I could post link after link after link but what good would it do?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  75. Jon Miranda on December 9, 2010 at 5:43 AM

    presenting

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  76. Jon Miranda on December 9, 2010 at 5:44 AM

    Society has great reason to promote some behaviors and not others.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  77. Aaron L on December 9, 2010 at 7:38 AM

    Jon – would you mind emailing it to me? I honestly want to understand the issue better. I agree that it is human nature to rationalize away things that we don’t already agree with, but that shouldn’t keep us from having an intelligent discussion.

    As with most controversial issues there seems to be a lot of conflicting evidence with this one, at least as far as the addictive or not/harmful or not schools of thought go. The effects on society do seem to be relatively consistent though, at least in the reading that I have done. My email address is aaronlowry@gmail.com. Thanks in advance.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  78. Jon on December 9, 2010 at 10:35 AM

    SUNNofaB.C.Rich,

    “then every December 7th I hope you think long and hard about everyone that died at Pearl Harbor”

    Yes, I do, I think of the horrid president who let that happen, he promised in his campaign not to get us into war and then stoked the Japanese to fight us and then from papers put out because of the FOI act that shows as plain as day that FDR knew the planes were coming and chose to let them bomb Pearl Harbor so we would join the war. Why were all the new air craft carriers out to sea that day? Because he knew what was going to happen, he may have been off by a few days but he knew it was going to happen. This all happened because of the government that loves war.

    “because that’s the cost of the policy of letting them hit you first…”

    Do you not believe the scriptures and what God has told us concerning war?

    “So we knocked em all the way back to Japan and we said “give up” they said “yeah but only if…” Boom drop a huge bomb on em… “give up” “Well….” another one… “Ok we give up” Problem solved.”

    So your a proponent of terrorism?

    “Besides analysis of the cost in human life”

    Analysis during that time was in the 10s of thousands the millions figure was a false figure given to make people feel good about themselves killing thousands of innocent people living in the cities.

    Obviously you love war and lust for blood. I urge you to read the scriptures and read the words of the prophets and stop worshiping the god of steal as mentioned by Kimball in his talk on false gods.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  79. Beansdude on December 10, 2010 at 7:16 PM

    @ 74: “I have found with blogs that present evidence to someone just leads them to rationalize it away”

    Would that be like presenting your opinion as fact despite legitimate evidence to the contrary? Might you fall into that category in this case? Your welcome to your opinion Jon, but lets have some substance with your arguments, instead of rationalizing that your right no matter what.

    “This may sound ridiculous but why not legalize suicide bombings so that they can be taxed and regulated? How about legalizing pedophilia? Wouldn’t it be safer for the children who get assaulted if it was taxed and regulated? How about murder?”

    Yes, it sounds absolutely ridiculous. *eye roll*

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  80. SUNNofaB.C.Rich on December 10, 2010 at 7:54 PM

    Well I guess you don’t know me well enough to know i’m not a Mormon or even terribly religious… In any case, it sounds like you’d be a big proponent of taking preemptive action based on solid intelligence to neutralize threats before they actually hit us. Just kidding… I know youre not. Terrorism? Sure, sport wear that word out until it’s absolutely meaningless…

    and lastly… are YOU telling ME… that invading MAINLAND JAPAN, to force the surrender of the Japanese govt. would only result in… a matter of tens of thousands of casualties??? Dude, are you freaking serious? are you… FREAKING… serious???? Do you know what happened with the Japanese military on some of the islands we fought them on? garrison of 20,000 troops only 1,000 survivors… etc etc etc… The Japanese had like 65 Divisions on the mainland and the civilian auxiliary (armed with like bamboo spears, bow and arrows, and muskets) of around 28 million. Allied forces for the invasion were going to be close to 40 divisions… (Kyushu first then Honshu Nov. 45 and Mar. 46 respectively) Go ahead and do your own calculations based on what happened at Peleliu… of 13,000 Japanese troops only 300 surrendered. I believe the average ratio of Japanese military personnel who surrendered compared to Japanese military personnel killed is around .01 percent for the entire war. Think of that on the larger scale. The Japanese military in 1945 was approx. 6 mil. strong. That doesn’t even take into account allied casualties. and YET… yet. you honestly believe that a fight of that magnitude would only result in a mere “tens of thousands of casualties”??? DUDE. You must be freaking high. In any case Hiroshima/Nagasaki 150-250 thou casualties. Invasion of mainland Japan… would have been in the millions. Absolutely no way anyone who knew even the tiniest smidge about the mentality of the Japanese in WWII and the numbers of forces involved could honestly believe that fight would have only resulted in a mere “tens of thousands of casualties”. That particular view is completely and utterly asinine, ridiculous, childish in it’s simplicity, immature, irresponsible, pathetic, possibly insane, and quite possibly one of the most subversive, bottom dwelling, scum sucking pieces of garbage I have EVER heard the entire year of 2010 so far within the confines of this medium. (furthermore, if I ever met the individual who put forth such an idea, I would roundhouse kick him in the head so hard, his skull would stay positioned in the forward facing position but all of his facial features would rotate 180 degrees and end up on the back of his head – just kidding!) We did them AND us a favor. Digest that for a bit, chief and if you still want to take me on it I will argue this issue all freakin day long dude. I could smoke an entire Chong joint the size of 5 D cell batteries and still have the mentality capacity to understand that that statement is utter and complete (excrement from a male cow)

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  81. adamf on December 10, 2010 at 8:20 PM

    WHOA!!!!

    *nominates for a niblet*

    You had me at roundhouse kick. Shades of Chuck Norris there.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  82. Jon on December 11, 2010 at 11:27 AM

    SUNNofaB.C.Rich,

    I didn’t know you weren’t religious, I just assumed someone commenting on various mormon blogs would be religious (which is not always true, I know). Regardless, I still urge you to accept Christ in your life and denounce war, proclaim peace.

    As for the 10s of thousands figure I’m not the only one that says that, I get it from historians. The 500k plus figure is a statist’s lie that has been perpetuated to make people feel good about themselves killing innocent men, women, children, elderly. Even Truman didn’t want to drop a third because of all the children that were killed.

    The 10s of thousands comes from:
    Barton J. Bernstein, “A Post-War Myth: 500,000 U.S. Lives Saved,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 42, no. 6 (June–July 1986): 38–40; and idem, “Wrong Numbers,” The Independent Monthly (July 1995): 41–44

    I have no idea why you trust government officials after all their lies have been exposed and continue to be exposed. Suit yourself I suppose but the reasons for Iraq have shown to be false and others will too.

    If you want to continue the WWII debate I direct you to the article written here that can better explain with more credentials than me.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico20.html

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  83. SUNNofaB.C.Rich on December 13, 2010 at 8:43 PM

    almost forget to check back on this…

    Anyways… this Bernstein guy is a hysterian not a historian… I described him pretty well earlier. This Lew Crockwell guy just quotes this Bernstein guy. Both of them sniveling weenies. I wouldn’t even roundhouse kick them i’d just make some sudden movement like I was going to hit one of them and they’d both go running off screaming like 12 year old girls. Bernstein and probably you are the kind of guys that are just simply upset that we delivered the finish at a cost of 12 American lives to 150-250 K japanese lives. You think that’s just not fair! If we take out 150-250K of them by gosh you want a good number of us to get taken out too! Well step up then, boy. If we need people to get taken out for fairness you’d make a good candidate. But anyways you as well as this Bernstein guy are apparently both utterly ignorant to the point I brought forward earlier and that is the cost in Japanese lives if we were to invade. I tossed out some casual figures earlier, do some math. Japanese dead would far exceed this “tens of thousands” figure. Total cost in human life if we were to invade Japan would far far exceed the 150-250 figure from Nagasaki/Hiroshima. You sit down and think about that do a little research there bucko.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  84. Jon on December 13, 2010 at 11:34 PM

    SUNNofaB.C.Rich,

    The guys you listen to and read and you are just crazy therefore you are wrong.

    Well, let me know when you want a debate and not a name calling, mud slinging, get us nowhere conversation.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  85. Doug on December 15, 2010 at 2:20 AM

    Re: Morality of using nuclear weapons on Hiroshima/Nagasaki against Japanese (how did we get on THIS tangent?)

    Aircraft used: Six B-29s (three per mission, one to drop the bomb, one camera plane, one instrument plane). Thirty-eight airmen and technicians deployed per mission.

    Estimated Cost of weapons (actual data classified).

    Little Boy: $180 million (1945 dollars, about $2.7 billion in 2010 dollars)
    Fat Man: $24 million (about $360 million in 2010 dollars).
    Comment: include considerable infrastructure investment since recouped by considerable nuclear weapon program.
    Estimated casualties from nuclear attacks: 150K to 246K (depending on how casualties are figured).

    Losses in American manpower: 0
    Losses in American aircraft: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

    Estimated casualties from bombing of Tokyo March 9-10, 1945 (ONE conventional raid using incendiaries):
    81,000 dead, 41,000 injured, 500,000 homeless

    American losses: Aircraft – 14 B-29s
    74 airmen killed, 66 captured

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebombing_of_Tokyo

    It’s a debate over using a weapon more effective in immediate destructiveness and terrorizing the Japanese into abandoning the war effort. If we’d wanted to merely kill Japanese, we already had proven the ability to level their cities with B-29 raids. They had to be convinced that resistance was futile.
    Other factors included the Soviet invasion of Manchuria on August 8, 1945 (a ridiculously lopsided affair wherein the vaunted Kwantung Army was practically massacred by five Soviet armies using 5,500 tanks and 8,000 planes) and the blockade of Japan by the US Navy. Rarely mentioned but certainly no small factor was the sinking of almost every Japanese merchant marine ship by Gato-class subs.
    In short, the Japanese were effectively beaten well before the atomic bombs were used, but they refused to believe it. Indeed, their High Command held out hope that the bloodiness of the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa would give pause to Allied planners about the butcher’s bill for any conventional invasion of Japan (X-Day). It’s doubtful that the American public would have stood for an systematic invasion of Japan that could have sent the KIA count into the hundreds of thousands. Rather, knowing the rather racist attitudes held towards the Japanese, if not the atomic bombs, then more firebombing and even the use of poison gas (especially the recently captured stocks of German nerve gases) were seriously contemplated.

    Therefore, our use of the atomic bombs was reasonable considering the dilemma faced in how to conclude the war.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  86. [...] is another joint post by jmb275 and Hawkgrrrl.  Some of the comments in the post about decriminalizing pot also referenced the possible implications of decriminalizing prostitution, [...]

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  87. Gateway Sins | Wheat and Tares on March 29, 2011 at 3:36 AM

    [...] been a lot of discussion here about marijuana being a “gateway” drug, a fairly minor offense that leads to bigger [...]

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  88. brett on August 28, 2013 at 12:45 PM

    The gateway drug theory is ridiculous. Caffeine was my gateway drug. It made me so anxious I turned to benzodiazepines to calm me down. I used opiates for the headaches the other stuff gave me, and finally found Cannabis as my gateway out of more addictive substances. If used properly, just like sex, medications, food, etc it can greatly benefit those that need it. It’s not for everyone. Don’t believe everything you read or hear. Including this post. I currently don’t use Cannabis. I wish I could. Nothing stifled my debilitating depression and anxiety better. That same depression and anxiety that I witness my mother, father, brother and sister battle everyday. Their “doctor approved” anti-depressants don’t do squat for them. Most actually become more depressed and/or suicidal. I’m just glad other synthetic and more dangerous drugs are legal and have been blessed by the priesthood of Big Pharma who controls the doctors in our country. They sure keep us coming back for more, don’t they?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

Archives

%d bloggers like this: