Posted on 11/09/2007 8:39:20 AM PST by SubGeniusX
By 57-to-43-percent margin, Denver voters have approved a ballot initiative that instructs police to make possession of marijuana in small quantities (less than an ounce) their lowest law enforcement priority. Denverites already had voted to repeal local penalties for possession of less than an ounce, with no noticeable effect on arrests; police just charged pot smokers under state law instead. Citing this history, the Rocky Mountain News says, "once again, the vote likely means nothing." But Mayor John Hickenlooper has promised to appoint a Marijuana Policy Review Panel to decide how the new ordinance should be implemented. Initiative organizer Mason Tvert says:
Although these officials say adult marijuana possession is already a low priority, it could undoubtedly be lower. For example, the City of Seattle, which adopted a very similar lowest law enforcement priority measure in 2003, handled just 125 cases of adult marijuana possession in 2006, whereas Denver -- a city with fewer residents -- handled nearly 1,400.
Tvert also notes that a similar initivative has had a significant impact in Missoula County, Montana, where the local prosecutor has told police to lay off pot smokers.
Why does this culture insist that one more poison should be tollerated or embraced as though there’s no corrosive effect on the community at large?
It pretends increasing the amount of intoxicants in society and encouraging its use is net neutral to productivity, motivation, learning, and traffic safety.
IT IS NOT!
Leave Pot Smokers Alone!
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Somehow I don't find that any more urealistic than the current policy that says they're having a "substantial effect on commerce among the several states."
Axel, my man, how goes it? Did you hear that Big Brother will likely be moved up to the winter because of the writers strike? Check out jokersupdates.com for more info. I’m in the process of filling out my application now.
If I recall, you’re a big Carlos Santana fan. You’re going to tell me with a straight face that you’ve never partaken in the green?
He probably never inhaled.
I have, but what good is smoking pot if the sword of Islam is at your throat?
You gotta have priorities, and pot is not as high on my list as is national security.
The government-funded study was launched under pressure from anti-drug and driving groups, and was an embarassment to the British Ministers who had expected it to support their anti-stoned-driving campaigns.
The British study confirmed the results of a wide variety of research into stoned driving from around the world:
A 1983 study by the US National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) used stoned drivers on simulators, and concluded that the only statistically significant effect associated with marijuana use was slower driving.
A comprehensive 1992 study by the NHTSA found that marijuana is rarely involved in driving accidents, except when combined with alcohol. It concluded that “the THC-only drivers had an [accident] responsibility rate below that of the drug free drivers While the difference was not statistically significant, there was no indication that cannabis by itself was a cause of fatal crashes.” This study was buried for six years and not released until 1998.
Another NHTSA study performed in 1993 dosed Dutch drivers with THC and tested them on real Dutch roads. It concluded that “THC’s adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small.”
A massive 1998 study by the University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia analyzed blood samples from 2,500 accidents, and found that drivers with cannabis in their system were actually slightly less likely to cause accidents than those without.
A University of Toronto study released in March 1999 found that moderate pot users typically refrained from passing cars and drove at a more consistent speed than non-users.
An important consideration when considering the effects of cannabis and driving is whether the smoker is an experienced user. Novice tokers typically experience more difficulty driving than regular users.
The British study also found that tiredness caused 10% of all fatal accidents, compared with 6% for alcohol.
When they came for the drinkers during Prohibition, I did not speak out, as I was not a drinker.
When they came for the employees of the oldest profession in the world, I did not speak out, as I had no interest in purchasing sex.
When they came for the purveyors of what was deemed to be "obscene" or "offensive", I did not speak out, as I was not a fan of entertainers like Lenny Bruce or Howard Stern.
When they came to ban the female mammary gland from TV, I did not speak out, because Brian Boitano told me not to.
When they came for the marijuana smokers, I did not speak out, as I was not a marijuana smoker.
When they came for the steroid users, I did not speak out, as I was not a steroid user.
When they came for the _______ (insert nominally objectionable behavior here), I did not speak out as I was not a _________ (fill in the blank).
When they came for the pornographers, I did not speak out, as I was not a pornographer.
When they came for the people who don't wear seatbelts, I did not speak out, as I always wore my seatbelt.
When they came for the gun owners, I did not speak out, as I was not a gun owner.
When they came for the gamblers, I did not speak out, as I was not a gambler.
When they came for the cigarette smokers, I did not speak out, as I was not a smoker.
When they came for the overweight and the obese, I did not speak out, as I was not overweight or obese.
When they came for the drinkers (again), I did not speak out, as I was not a drinker.
Then they came for me...and there was nobody left to speak out.
Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0002491F-755F-1473-B55F83414B7F0000
The smoke from burning marijuana leaves contains several known carcinogens and the tar it creates contains 50 percent more of some of the chemicals linked to lung cancer than tobacco smoke. A marijuana cigarette also deposits four times as much of that tar as an equivalent tobacco one. Scientists were therefore surprised to learn that a study of more than 2,000 people found no increase in the risk of developing lung cancer for marijuana smokers.
“We expected that we would find that a history of heavy marijuana use—more than 500 to 1,000 uses—would increase the risk of cancer from several years to decades after exposure to marijuana,” explains physician Donald Tashkin of the University of California, Los Angeles, and lead researcher on the project. But looking at residents of Los Angeles County, the scientists found that even those who smoked more than 20,000 joints in their life did not have an increased risk of lung cancer.
The researchers interviewed 611 lung cancer patients and 1,040 healthy controls as well as 601 patients with cancer in the head or neck region under the age of 60 to create the statistical analysis. They found that 80 percent of those with lung cancer and 70 percent of those with other cancers had smoked tobacco while only roughly half of both groups had smoked marijuana. The more tobacco a person smoked, the greater the risk of developing cancer, as other studies have shown.
But after controlling for tobacco, alcohol and other drug use as well as matching patients and controls by age, gender and neighborhood, marijuana did not seem to have an effect, despite its unhealthy aspects. “Marijuana is packed more loosely than tobacco, so there’s less filtration through the rod of the cigarette, so more particles will be inhaled,” Tashkin says. “And marijuana smokers typically smoke differently than tobacco smokers; they hold their breath about four times longer allowing more time for extra fine particles to deposit in the lungs.”
The study does not reveal how marijuana avoids causing cancer. Tashkin speculates that perhaps the THC chemical in marijuana smoke prompts aging cells to die before becoming cancerous.
I hear pot mellows you out from the roid rage effects of steroids. That probably explains why bodybuilders use it.
LOL!!!! Good One, Tick.
What kind of reasoning is THAT?!?!?
If you’ve ever smoked dope you’re somehow obligated to support it’s legalization?
‘medicinal marijuana; is just an excuse for the camel’s nose in the tent. Many of these issues that get on the ballot are funded by ‘legalize all drugs’ types with big bucks, like George Soros.
Yeah, I’m sure those with nausea on chemo really give a damn about the camel’s nose being in the tent.
Would you also support the prohibition of cigarettes?
They already have synthetic/artificial ingredients created from marijuana extract for those who need it for nausea. But it doesn’t get you high, so it isn’t well-liked. Nice try on the sympathy angle, though. It’s what’s always trotted out. Sounds quite similar to ‘it’s for the children.’
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.