Cannabis News Stop the Drug War!
  The Case Against Legalizing Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on May 15, 2002 at 20:43:03 PT
Guest Column By Susan Urbanek Linville 
Source: Herald-Times 

cannabis Several letters have been published in the past few weeks touting the safety and benefits of marijuana use. The authors' implied that definitive scientific evidence exists to support their claims and no additional research is needed to evaluate the impact and long-term effects of marijuana use. Is this truly the case?

Since 1970, more than 10,000 marijuana studies have been conducted. Some were mainly anecdotal, some fell short of the scientific rigor needed to make conclusions, and others were performed under acceptable scientific standards.

It can be difficult for a layperson to evaluate this mass of data, but two recent publications should prove helpful: "Marijuana: What are the Risks?

A Review of the Research Literature for Prevention Practice," Prevention Research Institute, Lexington, Ky., and "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press. This second article has been mentioned as a source establishing the safety of marijuana. All unattributed quotes below are from that source.

Is marijuana safe? Some argue that marijuana is a natural herb with a history of medicinal use, but historic use does not equate safety. Foxglove is a natural herb with a 1,000 year history, once used to treat epilepsy, water retention and cardiac symptoms. But foxglove contains digitoxin, a glycoside that can cause death.

While doses of marijuana are not fatal, long-term use may trigger secondary problems such as cancer, heart attack and accidental death. Marijuana is a plant product that contains more than 400 chemical compounds. When exposed to heat, these compounds react, subjecting the smoker to some 2,000 chemicals including hydrogen cyanide, ammonia, carbon monoxide, acetaldehyde, acetone and phenol as well as carcinogens found in tobacco smoke: benzopyrene, benzoanthracene, benzene and nitrosamine. Benzopyrene, in particular, has been implicated in lung cancer and is known to suppress a gene (P53) that governs cell growth.

It is true that no study has definitively linked marijuana smoking to lung cancer, but this is because a high percentage of marijuana smokers are also tobacco smokers and it is difficult to untangle the two effects. It is interesting to note that MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) and NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) are sponsoring research to develop vaporizers to reduce the amount of tar reaching the marijuana smoker's lungs. Their own literature (the MAPS Bulletin, Summer 1966) states: "marijuana tars are rich in carcinogenic compounds."

While marijuana use may not lead to sudden death in healthy individuals, a typical dose increases heart rate by 20-50 percent and leads to sodium and fluid retention, increasing the risk of heart attack, arrhythmia, chest pain or congestive heart failure for individuals in poor health.

Like alcohol, marijuana impairs the central nervous system. "Cognitive impairment associated with acutely administered marijuana limits the activities that people would be able to do safely and productively. For example, no one under the influence of marijuana or THC should drive a vehicle or operate potentially dangerous equipment." The typical THC dose results in a level of impairment just slightly less than an alcohol blood level of 0.08 percent. If current patterns of alcohol use and drunk driving are indicators of human behavior, legalized marijuana will lead to hundreds of secondary deaths each year.

Proponents of legalizing marijuana often claim medicinal use of cannabinoids as a primary justification. Marijuana, they claim, has been used to reduce nausea, glaucoma, convulsions, spasms, asthma, pain, and promote appetite. However, a closer look at the literature reveals some interesting conclusions. As an anti-nausea drug, "cannabinoids are mildly effective in preventing emesis," though they decrease in effectiveness over time and side effects (intoxication and impairment) are not well tolerated. Marijuana does decrease inner eye pressure, the cause of glaucoma, in normal individuals. "However, the effect is too short lived and requires too high doses and there are too many side effects to recommend lifelong use in the treatment of glaucoma." As an anti-convulsant, marijuana can both reduce and cause convulsions. Clinical studies with Parkinson's, MS and Huntington's patients, have shown little symptom abatement.

Prenatal marijuana use is associated with lower IQ, behavioral, attention and memory problems in offspring. Fortunately, most children recover after about age 6. Should they have to?

Marijuana use has been linked to low white blood cell counts. "A major concern with marijuana smoking in HIV-infected patients is that they might be more vulnerable than other marijuana users to immunosuppressive effects of marijuana or to the exposure of infectious organisms associated with marijuana plant material." Marijuana use has also been found to cause psychotic events in prone individuals and precipitate schizophrenic episodes.

Marijuana is no wonder drug. Like other recreational drugs, it has a variety of associated risks including increased risk of death due to cancer, heart disease and accident. As a drug for the treatment of disease, it is mediocre at best. It would be a refreshing change if proponents for legalizing marijuana would quit hiding behind the "safe drug" and "great medicine" rhetoric and admit the obvious. They want to get high without the fear of being thrown into jail.

Note: This guest column was written by Susan Urbanek Linville, a science writer for the Wonderpage.

Source: Herald-Times, The (IN)
Author: Susan Urbanek Linville
Published: May 15, 2002
Copyright: 2002 The Herald-Times

Related Articles & Web Sites:



Coming Out of the Cannabis Closet

California Cannabis Clubs Organize To Fight Feds

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

Comment #62 posted by FoM on May 18, 2002 at 09:31:19 PT
Can people who use Cannabis ever admit they might be compromising their health?

What is having good heath?

Good health to me means freedom from depression and freedom from pharmaceuticals unless they are absolutely necessary.

Having good health can be a state of mind. We all will have our health compromised by the processed food we eat and what we drink. ( Bill Maher said the other night on PI that a truck driver that hauls Coca Cola must have a HazMat License. The reason why is if it spills the load it is considered toxic waste.) That blew me away but health truly is in our mind. You can grow older and still feel healthy. Natural aging isn't something we can cure. My sisters are 14 and 16 years older then me. My one sister said to me that my older sister's husband is still smoking cigarettes and he should quit. He is 70 years old. I said to her but look at it this way. He has smoked since he was a teenager and if he died today we really can't blame cigarettes and she said your right. It's what we believe good health is. You know what is is!

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #61 posted by Hope on May 18, 2002 at 09:19:16 PT
Her question, my answer.
"And, can we ever get the marijuana user to admit he is compromising his health and may endanger the life of others if they chose to smoke and drive?" I don't know. Some, probably, yes. way. We can make rules...try to make them just and fair (which present drug policy isn't)...but it's just like the horse and the water deal.

I must apologize for writing "War and Peace" here... pun intended.... but there is much to say about something we've only heard one side of for far too long.

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #60 posted by Hope on May 18, 2002 at 09:17:21 PT
I recognize that this is poorly worded, but valid.
Another thing that I have learned since I decided a good citizen, neighbor, parent, Christian, and person of concience would have to be against the War on Drugs type drug policies is that there are allot of folks out there who have "special" agendas besides some of the drug users (I've learned that some users actually don't want it legalized or sometimes just don't care one way or the other!). I've recognized there are many people, besides drug dealers, who depend on the Drug War Gravy Train, as I tend to see it. Some people sell the high tech gadgets, arms, ammunition, and both law enforcement and the law breakers, sometimes. For some people it's a job at the prison or the drug rehab or the drug testing company. For some people it's stock in these industries. For some people it's societal status, rather like being the president of the local garden club or whatever. For some people it's raking in the government grants. For some people, it's because the drug user is not a person...they have been totally demonized in their eyes. For some people it's just that they just flat don't understand what's going on. Oh yes, and for some people, it's getting elected!

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #59 posted by Hope on May 18, 2002 at 09:11:21 PT
about protecting children
I think children must be protected from so called, "recreational use" of their families and regulations put in place to protect them much like the alcohol and tobacco regulations we have in place to protect children. (I say recreational, because there was a case on tv about a child that marijuana helped more than Ritalin and such with behavior disorders and you know children are often prescribed much heftier drugs than marijuana.) Will they still get it, when it is legal for adults? Sure. They get it now. If you had a loved one suffering from the nausea of cancer treatments and no other drug helped and you had finally decided that you had to take the risk to get some marijuana to see if it would, indeed help, who would you go to for help to find it? The sad fact is that most people would have to ask a teenager to help them find it! Teenagers can probably find you someone to get you marijuana more easily than they could buy you a beer.

Drugs are dangerous. Life is dangerous. It is. The best way to deal with any danger is to have it in the light and really know what the situation is. I saw a most interesting, at first, almost confusing, article today.

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #58 posted by Hope on May 18, 2002 at 09:08:11 PT
Also: Will it get worse if marijuana is legalized?
Will it get worse if marijuana is legalized? I tend to think it won't. I'll tell you why. The irresponsible people that will drive while they are impaired...are already doing it. Why would they wait until it's legalized? Surely you realize that the greater percentage of people who will smoke marijuana when it's legal are already smoking it? And, I think, the ones that might, that hadn't before, after it's legal, are more cautious anyway and are unlikely to drive after they smoked it.

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #57 posted by Hope on May 18, 2002 at 09:06:33 PT
A point I have tried to make before to others.
As you can imagine...when I "changed my tune" on the drug situation, I met resistance on every hand. My brother once pointed out to me, with hands waving, "You want to get out there on the Interstate with people on drugs?" He was somewhat taken aback...and had to agree, because he knew it was true, when I said, "I already do! We all do!" My stepfather, who has owned Interstate truck stops for decades before he recently retired, thought it would be an unfathomable idea, until I mentioned the word, "bennys" to him. I have heard about truck drivers taking "bennys"...some sort of stimulant...since I was a child...and I'm fifty three years old. The fact is, the drugged drivers are out there right now and they have been for years.

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #56 posted by Hope on May 18, 2002 at 08:57:35 PT
Indulge me! I worked hard! Some more:
You said, "I also think that users need to face the facts that chronic use of the drug could affect their health."

That's true. I agree. Is there anything, though, that that isn't true about? Yet still, the very worst, and most obvious effect to date, is incarceration, a criminal record, and prison rape. Nothing is fool proof. The very air we breathe is dangerous, sometimes much more so than we realize. The point most cannabis users, I think, are trying to make when they defend their cannabis use, is that, in most of their experience, it has been less detrimental than alcohol, or other intoxicant use. We know that some studies show that there are some benefits sometimes available from moderate alcohol use. There is no reason to believe that cannabis users are just outright lying when they see they perceive some benefit to their cannabis use. Is there? I've noticed that many apparently sane people choose to take, to me, terrible smoking, sky diving, bungee jumping, horseback riding, racing cars, even flying! Not to mention saturated fats and sugar!

"If we legalize marijuana, how are we going to handle the people who abuse the privilege. Alcohol and tobacco are responsible for thousands of deaths per year and allot of suffering. How do we handle the addition of another drug?"

"How are we going to handle the people who abuse the privilege?" I can see using the same principals we use in handling those who abuse the privilege of drinking alcohol. Drinking and driving is not allowed. Smoking marijuana and driving should not be allowed. There are at this time no blood tests, urine tests, etc. that measure the impairment of drug users. We need to develop "impairment level" tests, (which I probably couldn't pass on my best days. To my chagrin, when I close my eyes standing up in church with high heels on, I sometimes sway if I don't rest my hand on the pew in front of me!) Impairment tests could keep the "too sleepy", "too angry", or "too intoxicated" , or "too sick", or "too old" drivers off the road, perhaps to a greater degree.

You said, "Alcohol and tobacco are responsible for thousands of deaths per year and allot of suffering." That's true. We use education and fussing and lecturing and warning and taking keys away and designated drivers and everything we can to reduce the dangers of those situations. The same can be done with marijuana use. When you know someone is impaired from marijuana, you treat them the same way as you treat someone who is impaired from alcohol. We discourage tobacco use...but we don't arrest smokers. We ask them not to smoke in an area we are confined with them in. We expect them to practice a certain amount of courtesy and we have rules about places it can and cannot be used. The same should apply to marijuana.

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #55 posted by Hope on May 18, 2002 at 08:40:23 PT
These two, too.
Sun, 13 Aug 2000 Times, The (UK) Jonathon Carr-Brown


TAKING the high road may not be so dangerous after all. Ministers are set to be embarrassed by government-funded research which shows that driving under the influence of drugs makes motorists more cautious and has a limited impact on their risk of crashing.

In the study, conducted by the Transport Research Laboratory, grade A cannabis specially imported from America was given to 15 regular users. The doped-up drivers were then put through four weeks of tests on driving simulators to gauge reaction times and awareness.

Regular smokers were used because previous tests in America using first-timers resulted in the volunteers falling over and feeling ill. The laboratory found its guinea pigs through what it described as a "snowballing technique" - one known user was asked to find another after being promised anonymity and exemption from prosecution agreed with the Home Office.

Instead of proving that drug-taking while driving increased the risk of accidents, researchers found that the mellowing effects of cannabis made drivers more cautious and so less likely to drive dangerously.

Although the cannabis affected reaction time in regular users, its effects appear to be substantially less dangerous than fatigue or drinking. Research by the Australian Drugs Foundation found that cannabis was the only drug tested that decreased the relative risk of having an accident.

The findings will embarrass ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions ( DETR ) who commissioned the study after pressure from motoring organisations and anti-drug campaigners. Lord Whitty, the transport minister, will receive the report later this month.

Last week police revealed details of new drug-driving tests to be administered by the roadside, which were received with some amusement. They require suspected drug-drivers to stand on one leg, lean back and touch their nose with their eyes closed, and to count to 30 silently with their eyes shut. This is apparently difficult for those on a drug trip.

The advertising company McCann-Erickson has already prepared a television campaign using Pulp's song Sorted for Es and Whizz, the slogan "Never drive on drugs" and the pay-off line "then you come down".

However, if the findings are less than frightening on the effects of marijuana, they may convince ministers to put more money into raising driver awareness of fatigue. Tiredness is now blamed for causing 10% of all fatal accidents, compared with 6% for alcohol and 3% for drugs.

A low-key radio campaign will be launched tomorrow warning drivers to take breaks.

The report's surprising conclusions will not sway organisations such as the RAC, which believes there is incontrovertible evidence that drug-driving is a growing menace. DETR statistics published in January showed a six-fold increase in the number of people found to be driving with drugs in their system after fatal road accidents. The figure jumped from 3% in 1989 to 18%.

Dr Rob Tunbridge, the report's author, refused to reveal his findings before they were published but said: "If you were to ask me to rank them in order of priority, fatigue is the worst killer, followed by alcohol, and drugs follow way behind in third."

Tunbridge admitted that the effect of drugs differed with the individual, the amount taken, the environment they were taken in and the point at which you tested reactions.

Cocaine users are known to be alert drivers when they first take the drug, but then they have a tendency to fall asleep at the wheel. The particular problem with cannabis is that it stays in a person's system for up to 30 hours but its effects wear off within a few hours. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Wed, 31 Oct 2001 Advertiser, The (Australia)


STUDIES had found it impossible to prove cannabis adversely affected driving, an Adelaide University researcher said yesterday.

Professor Jack Maclean, director of the road accident research unit, said, while there was no doubt alcohol affected driving adversely, that was not the case with marijuana.

``It has been impossible to prove marijuana affects driving adversely,'' he told the Australian Driver Fatigue Conference in Sydney.

``There is no doubt marijuana affects performance but it may be it affects it in a favourable way by reducing risk-taking.''

Professor Maclean said a study of blood samples taken by SA hospitals from people injured in road accidents found marijuana was the second most common drug, after alcohol, in the bloodstream.

Those with marijuana in their blood, however, were at fault in less than half of the accidents.

``Alcohol was by far the most common drug and 80 per cent of those with alcohol on board were judged to be responsible ( for accidents ),'' he said.

``The next most common drug, but much less, was marijuana and about 48 per cent of the people with marijuana were judged to have been responsible for their crash.''

He said the lack of proof that marijuana was detrimental to driving was not because of a lack of effort by researchers. ``I can say that there are some quite distinguished researchers who are going through incredible contortions to try and prove that marijuana has to be a problem,'' he said.

Professor Maclean said some researchers also found the risk of crashing while driving at the speed limit in a metropolitan area actually decreased if a driver had been drinking but was under the 0.05 blood alcohol limit.

``Perhaps for some people one or two glasses of alcohol may steady them down,'' he said.

As speed and alcohol concentration rose, however, the risk of accidents rose exponentially.

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #54 posted by Hope on May 18, 2002 at 08:36:13 PT
Also sent this.
Thu, 15 Apr 1999 Summit Daily News (CO) Jane Reuter


SUMMIT COUNTY - In a perfect world, drivers would only share the road with sober people. But, given a choice between driving among those under the influence of alcohol or marijuana, which is the greater evil?

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, drunk drivers pose a far greater threat. The study shows marijuana's adverse effect on drivers is "relatively small" compared to alcohol and even some medicinal drugs.

Conducted by the department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the study concluded that there are many more deadly substances than marijuana.

"Marijuana impairment represents a real, but secondary, safety risk," it reads. "THC is not a profoundly impairing drug. Of the many psychotropic drugs, licit and illicit, that are available and used by people who subsequently drive, marijuana may well be among the least harmful."

The study didn't look into the adverse effects on drivers of marijuana and alcohol taken together.

High Country DUIDs

Summit County police officers say they make a fair number of driving under the influence of drug ( DUID ) arrests; most of those arrested are using marijuana.

"Some people say it makes me drive better because I'm not so hyper," said Sheriff Joe Morales."But it's still an intoxicant, and it's still illegal. It definitely doesn't enhance your awareness."

If a driver is only using drugs and not alcohol, the presence of those substances don't show up on the breath tests typically given to suspected drunk drivers.

"A lot of times, you'll get somebody who looks intoxicated, but on a breath test, it shows all zeros," Morales said. "Then, we have to do a blood or urine test."

"It is difficult to detect," agreed an undercover agent for the Summit County Drug Task Force. "There are certain indicators to look for - the odor in their vehicle or on their person, bloodshot, dilated eyes.

"When driving, they may go too fast or too slow, they may be weaving, or there may be failure to dim bright lights or use turn signals," he added.

Sometimes, he said, an officer becomes suspicious simply because the driver appears unconcerned that he's been pulled over.

The agent said he's never seen an accident he can attribute to marijuana use.

"But again, it's difficult to detect, so if someone was in an accident and high on marijuana and we didn't have any of the indicators, we may never know," he said. "That's the problem."

Silverthorne police Sgt. John Minor said his department has seen an increase in DUID arrests.

"That's mainly because of heightened awareness and heightened levels of training within the officer ranks," he said.

This year, Silverthorne will send an officer to a drug recognition expert school for training specifically on such issues.

Of the DUID arrests made in Silverthorne, marijuana users are the most common violators, Minor said, though methamphetamine abusers are not uncommon.

"But we're certainly seeing a lot more different kinds of drugs," he said. "Heroin seems to be making a comeback.

"There are also certain prescription drugs that you cannot be under the influence of and drive," he pointed out. "They induce drowsiness, lack of awareness, slow down your reaction time - all critical things while you're driving."

Like the drug task force agent, Minor said marijuana's presence is often hard to perceive.

"A lot of times, if they're under the influence of alcohol and narcotics, they just get charged with DUI," he said. "Very rarely do we test for both. It's hard to say, if they're under the influence of alcohol and marijuana, what they're most under the influence of."

Colorado State Patrol trooper Eric Westphal has arrested about 10 people for DUID during his 18 months patrolling the area. All of those people have been using marijuana.

"About a-third of the time, you can smell it," he said. "The rest of the time, it will show up in ( poorly performed ) roadsides, or we'll find a joint or something in the vehicle."

U.S. DOT study

Curiously, the U.S. Department of Transportation study on marijuana and driving shows THC appears to affect drivers in dramatically different ways than alcohol.

"After alcohol, there was a tendency towards faster driving, and after THC, slower," the study shows. "Our city driving study showed that drivers who drank alcohol over-estimated their performance quality, whereas those who smoked marijuana under-estimated it. This evidence suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving, whereas THC encourages greater caution."

Monitors of the study drivers found that their subjects were well aware of THC's affects, and concentrated on compensating for them. But that concentration sometimes came at the expense of other things.

"Less capacity would be left for simultaneously performing another task, such as conversing with passengers, using a car telephone, or handling emergency situations," according to the study.

Another problem the study found occurred when THC-influenced drivers faced routine driving.

"If the driving task is very monotonous and the demand is low, wandering attention may result in negligent monitoring with disastrous results," it read. "( This ) strongly suggests that drivers under the influence of THC would be unusually susceptible to attentional deficits during prolonged and monotonous driving."

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #53 posted by Hope on May 18, 2002 at 08:32:15 PT
Some stuff I sent her.
Marijuana And Actual Driving Performance - U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (DOT HS 808 078), Final Report, November 1993

Marijuana, Alcohol and Actual Driving Performance - U.S. Department of Transportation, National Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 808 939, July 1999 ing%20Study%20--%20DOT%20HS%20808%20939.htm

Cannabis and Road Safety: An Outline of the Research Studies to Examine the Effects of Cannabis on Driving Skills and Actual Driving Performance - Dr G.B. Chesher Department of Pharmacology University of Sydney and National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre University of New South Wales.

HWJ Robbe Marijuana's Effects on Actual Driving Performance

JE Hall Alcohol and Other Drug Use in Commercial Transportation

Drugs and Driving Impairment by Arthur J. McBay

More studies, and articles, many of which may overlap. I apoligize for that ahead of time.

------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- An article from Reuters Newswire Wed, 20 Mar 2002 Reuters (Wire) 2002 Reuters Limited


LONDON, - Motorists who smoke a cannabis joint retain more control behind the wheel than those who drink a glass of wine, a science magazine said on Wednesday.

Research from Britain's Transport Research Laboratory showed drivers found it harder to maintain constant speed and road position after drinking the equivalent of a glass of wine than after smoking a spliff, New Scientist said.

Researchers who used a driving simulator to conduct tests on 15 volunteers found motorists on cannabis tended to drive cautiously, aware of their intoxicated state. But drivers given a combination of cannabis and alcohol performed worst of all.

British doctors last week called for the development of testing devices to deter motorists from driving under the influence of drugs including cannabis, citing a rise in the percentage of Britons killed on the road who tested positive for the drug.

But medical experts recommended the British government reclassify cannabis as a low-risk drug, sparking a debate over its decriminalisation. ------------------ You can find this study by going to clicking on The influence of cannabis on driving and downloading the full study, free, in PDF format. (110 pages!) ----------------------------------------------------------------

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #52 posted by Jose Melendez on May 18, 2002 at 05:28:45 PT:

corrected links: Safer to drive on pot than not.
Comment #3 posted by observer on March 20, 2002 at 18:55:54 PT
Cannabis/Driving Studies

Australia: No Proof Cannabis Put Drivers At Risk (2001)

UK: Cannabis May Make You A Safer Driver (2000)

University Of Toronto Study Shows Marijuana Not A Factor In Driving Accidents (1999)\1999\03\990325110700.htm

Australia: Cannabis Crash Risk Less: Study (1998)

Australia: Study Goes to Pot (1998)

See also:

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #50 posted by dddd on May 18, 2002 at 00:13:14 PT's what Barry Crimmins says:

If Bill Gates doesn't follow through on his threat to remove Microsoft Windows from the market, we have to hope he at least has the decency to withdraw the company's Virus Express e-mail software.

I'd sooner French kiss Typhoid Mary than install Microsoft Outlook or Outlook Express on my computer.

Historical note -- Typhoid Mary probably was not the cause of the typhoid outbreak for which she was blamed but there's no doubt that Outlook is the superhighway of computer viruses.

Nothing says "I hate you" like putting someone's e-mail address in an Outlook/Virus Express address book."

I dont use any Microsoft products....yet.....dddd

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #49 posted by Hope on May 17, 2002 at 23:31:48 PT
WHEW! I did it!
It's so long...I don't know if she'll read it...but I did it!

Thanks everyone!

CorvallisEric, thanks so much for that link to the drug library...I had been there but I just couldn't seem to locate what I needed. Thanks so much.

Dr. Russo, thanks again...I couldn't seem to manage the PubMed site very well but I got names there to make searches of the web with and got quite a bit of information.

I'd post my letter here, but it's a book! Thirteen pages!

dddd and MDG...about the lost data...I use a virus detector...I've used several, right now I'm using McAfee and I use a firewall, sometimes two, but right now, just Zone Alarm. I think, but I'm far from an expert, that it was probably something I install, or uninstall something wrong. It's happened at least three times in my short internet career, only one time, a long time ago, do I think it was caused by a virus. As far as privacy is concerned, I look at the computer like I would talking on a party line where I know the eavesdropper is recording me. As far as stealing data...that's like any other makes me furious...but all I can do is bar the in virus detector and firewall.

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #48 posted by FoM on May 17, 2002 at 22:28:08 PT
Hi dddd and everyone
If you use Internet Explorer they've been saying all day on CNN etc. to download this patch so here is the link. I downloaded it this morning.

Microsoft Security Bulletin MS02-023

15 May 2002 Cumulative Patch for Internet Explorer (Q321232) Originally posted: May 15, 2002


Who should read this bulletin: Customers using Microsoft® Internet Explorer

Impact of vulnerability: Six new vulnerabilities, the most serious of which could allow code of attacker's choice to run.

Maximum Severity Rating: Critical

Recommendation: Consumers using the affected versions of IE should install the patch immediately.

Affected Software:

Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.01
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5
Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #47 posted by dddd on May 17, 2002 at 21:53:51 PT
..lost data????
....losing "everything" on your computer??....that's not good......Hope and MDG,,do you think the lost data was due to something you may have done,,or do you think it's related to that happened while you were online?...I believe that your data can be snooped into,or copied,,but I dont know about data being stolen..??....dddd

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #46 posted by CorvallisEric on May 17, 2002 at 17:47:55 PT
Let's make a clickable link

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #45 posted by CorvallisEric on May 17, 2002 at 17:46:23 PT
Lots of driving studies

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #44 posted by Ethan Russo MD on May 17, 2002 at 16:37:28 PT:

The driving topic has come up repeatedly. Use the Search on the front page, put in driving, and you will see plenty of references and URL's that other C-News denizens have posted.

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #43 posted by FoM on May 17, 2002 at 14:55:22 PT
I haven't lost any data. My only problems is it is very hard to move around C News and the Net. I get really weird emails and I had to block anything with the word verizon in it because whatever verizon is it was sending unreal stuff. I probably have blocked things I'd like to read but email is overwhelming. I barely use it. When I get my new email I don't think I want to let anyone know what it is. Maybe that will stop this nonsense. Me an email have never been compatible but I want back from Eudora to Outlook and it isn't crashing anymore.

PS: I will give out my email to close friends from here. I do need to make it private though.

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #42 posted by Hope on May 17, 2002 at 14:43:58 PT
Dr. Russo
Thank you for the link, but I'm afraid I'm not doing much good with it. I can't seem to find the studies with positive results that I know exist. The only one I could find that said anything positive, sort of was

and it didn't really say much.

I've got many distractions happening around here....but I'm afraid the problem is I just don't know how to use the site!

Perhaps, if it's not too much trouble, you could post some urls that I could use? Ones that are for the studies themselves?

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #41 posted by MDG on May 17, 2002 at 13:40:58 PT
My computer also died a mysterious death.
For some reason, I also lost everything on my computer about a week or so ago. Anyone else have that kind of thing happen recently? Somebody call dddd! He knew this was in the works! The gov is causing visitors to CNews to lose all their data!

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #40 posted by MDG on May 17, 2002 at 13:35:08 PT

She expressed the same concerns to me regarding the drunk drivers, as well as an unusual desire for "people to admit that pot is not some safe, harmless drug" and "what will we do about all the health consequences?" I just assured her that if there were going to be those problems, they'd exist right now since anyone can get whatever they want anyway, and are! I haven't heard back from her since my last message to her, though. I recommended she contact Dr. Russo (hope you don't mind, Dr. Russo!) and get some cannabis study information. I figured anything he could notify her of would be much more clinically based than my explanation of how I used cannabis for my chronic anxiety. Regarding the drunk drivers, I think it is generally impossible for a person who's never smoked to equate cannabis "intoxication" with anything but being drunk because that's all they know, unfortunately. I did point that out to her. If a drunk can't drive, why would crazed pot-smoker be able to?!

At the very least, it's good that these writers respond to complaints!

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #39 posted by Ethan Russo MD on May 17, 2002 at 13:10:00 PT:

Go to this URL:

Plug in the search terms: driving cannabis

and you will see various citations. Hit the links, and you will have entire abstracts.

Best of luck!

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #38 posted by Hope on May 17, 2002 at 13:01:26 PT
No problem! I didn't think you meant me!

By the way. I'm having more trouble than I thought finding actual studies!

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #37 posted by Hope on May 17, 2002 at 12:24:28 PT
Just found
where Ddc posted a bunch of driving info on a newer thread. Will make good use of them! Thanks Ddc!

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #36 posted by Hope on May 17, 2002 at 12:19:34 PT
She replied. Now, I need some help.
First, she said, "I DON'T think that putting people in jail for marijuana use or possession is an effective way to deal with the situation." (She capitalized DON'T.)

I lost everything on my computer a week or two ago, including the studies about driving under the influence. She is very worried about that, partly because she recently lost a close friend, the mother of two small children, to a drunk driver and she apparently thinks mj falls in the same category as alcohol as far as driving is concerned. I'd appreciate the location of the studies if someone has that available.

She also said, "It would be nice if someone like yourself who is pro-legalization but also sees consequences of the drugs use would write another editorial. (Anyone can send the paper an editorial for their guest editorial by the way, just keep the length at about 800 words."

She also asks, "If we legalize marijuana, how are we going to handle the people who abuse the privilege. Alcohol and tobacco are responsible for thousands of deaths per year and allot of suffering. How do we handle the addition of another drug?" and she asks, "And, can we ever get the marijuana user to admit he is compromising his health and may endanger the life of others if they chose to smoke and drive?"

Please, guys, I need all the help, advice, info, and answers that any of you can offer in writing my reply!


[ Post Comment ]

Comment #35 posted by kaptinemo on May 17, 2002 at 06:11:48 PT:

Ain't technology wonderful?
The great physicist and thinker Norbert Weiner coined the phrase 'negative feedback' to describe what happens when a systen is able to regulate itself by getting input that helps it to maintain balance. (As opposed to 'positive' feedback, which causes a system to gyrate out of control with no means of self-regulation and tear itself apart, often with spectacularly dangerous results.)

For too long, media types in this country - like Ms. Linville - have not been receiving any 'negative feedback'. They think everything is just hunky-dory, and the DrugWar is behaving as it should, no need to change anything. While the system tears the country apart. Now she has directly received word that she's been part of the people who've been hurt by her support of the system. (Nothing like a little ammonia under the nose to wake you up, eh?) And she got that 'negative' feedback within hours of her poorly thought out diatribe.

Vive le Internet!

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #34 posted by RavingDave on May 16, 2002 at 22:41:27 PT
OK, I'll Bite
I admit it. I do just want to be free to get high, without the fear of going to jail. Secondarily, I do use cannabis to treat stress, but my main motivation for legalizing marijuana is just that - freedom.

And after all, isn't that what this country is supposed to be about? Did we spark a revolution and flee one repressive regime, only to found another? What's up, America?

Incidentally, the idea that smoking marijuana could cause cancer is speculative at best. To date, as far as I'm aware, there hasn't been a single recorded case of cancer that could definitively be related to marijuana. But don't let facts fly in the face of good, wholesome propaganda!

Oh, and let's not forget the study by the University of Colorado, in the early 70's, which concluded that cannabinoids appeared actually to be effective in eliminating cancerous tumors, rather than causing them. Oops.. another messy fact. Sorry about that.

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #33 posted by MDG on May 16, 2002 at 22:08:36 PT
I just looked at my comment, and it seemed like I was addressing you regarding your letter, but I wasn't; your's was quite excellent.

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #32 posted by MDG on May 16, 2002 at 21:29:55 PT
She replies.

I also wrote to her, and she kindly replied. Of course, she mentioned having "opened a hornet's nest" and that it's "only been one day", being called anything from "bigot to war-monger" taking my insinuation of "science fiction" as a compliment since she's a writer. What's that phrase about "you'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar?" I always try to be as courteous, yet forthright, as possible. I don't think one can really be open-minded if he starts off with what amounts to hate-speech.

If you disagree with me, that's need to accuse me of "sleeping with the enemy". I just know that as soon as you call somebody an asshole, you've pretty much derailed any chance of him listening to you. Just imagine writing to your Congressman and saying, "Hey, douche-bag, why the hell did you vote for that?" and expecting him/her to truly listen.

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #31 posted by Hope on May 16, 2002 at 19:18:18 PT
Thank you. I appreciate the kind and encouraging words. I'll let you guys know if Ms. Linnville replies. The column is posted now over at the Media Awareness Project, so I imagine the Herald and perhaps Ms. Linnville are dealing with a deluge of rebuttals.

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #30 posted by BGreen on May 16, 2002 at 16:37:46 PT
685 words
That's the word count for Hopes' excellent letter, 157 words LESS than the crap they printed.

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #29 posted by FoM on May 16, 2002 at 16:35:39 PT
Hope & Everyone
When there isn't a lot of news to post I get to read more of the comments. Every morning I wake up and wondered what today's news will bring. Recently the news swings from one of hope to one of almost dispair. Isn't it a mind opener when this whole big drug war puzzle starts to make sense? It just is almost overwhelming at times. Sometimes I want to go hide under a rock and most times I wish I could shout LEGALIZE This Fine Herb Now! from a mountain top. They don't understand how important the Cannabis plant is. They don't get it and that makes it so frustrating. Bob Dylan sang Everybody Must Get Stoned. Anyone that is directing our marijuana drug policy should be required to take part in a study just to measure impairment if for no other reason. They then should be questioned on how they feel about different issues and explain why they do what they do. Jack Herer was against the anti war activists until he finally smoked. He then understood why young people were protesting the Vietnam War.

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #28 posted by BGreen on May 16, 2002 at 16:33:18 PT
As a writer I agree that your letter was excellent!

It bothers me, though, that they want to limit your rebuttal to 250 words, when they gave Susan Urbanek Linville 842 words to misquote, miscontextualize, and generally fictionalize in her rambling diatribe.

I'm really proud of my fellow posters. Most of us can research and pick apart these lies in about two minutes. Keep it up!

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #27 posted by Hope on May 16, 2002 at 16:19:08 PT
I sent the letter directly to her,
with this preface: Ms. Linville,

This is the letter that I sent to the Herald concerning your column, The Case Against Legalizing Marijuana. It was too long for them, but I am glad to have discovered your e-mail address and am glad to be able to send my opinion of your column directly to you. I was offended by what I felt was the tone of your column, but perhaps, if you can understand my opinion, which I try to express in my letter to the editor, you will be able to understand why.

(Then the letter exactly as posted here.)

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #26 posted by Hope on May 16, 2002 at 16:02:11 PT
Thanks, dddd
for the nice words about my letter and thanks, Kap, for Ms. Linville's address. I plan to post my comments directly to her.

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #25 posted by freedom fighter on May 16, 2002 at 15:36:25 PT
Is it illegal to grow
foxglove herb? Is it illegal to ingest foxglove?

Apparently not!


[ Post Comment ]

Comment #24 posted by krutch on May 16, 2002 at 14:26:56 PT:

Linville in a Vacuum
Once again we see an anti-drug person crying out from the vacuum. Nobody ever said MJ is completely safe. Twinkies, steaks, and skydiving are not completely safe either, but they are legal. When we compare MJ to legal drugs it is relatively benign, to spite the fact that thousands of studies have been done trying to show that it is dangerous. If we applied the same standards to therapeutic drugs as the anti's want to apply to MJ we would have to take most of them off the market.

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #23 posted by kaptinemo on May 16, 2002 at 12:36:08 PT:

Seeing that her past-time seems to be related
to writing fantasies, perhaps she's having a hard time discerning between reality and her imagination.

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #22 posted by kaptinemo on May 16, 2002 at 12:29:22 PT:

Never mind the papers, guys
Let 'er have it, directly:

There's a link for her email there.

I'm sure she'd like to hear from you :)

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #21 posted by dddd on May 16, 2002 at 11:18:39 PT
..I think your letter to the editor is outstandingly excellent!......Keep on keepin' on.....LoL....dddd

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #20 posted by Hope on May 16, 2002 at 11:11:30 PT
Thank you, Darwin and FoM.
There wasn't much left when I had to cut it down to 250 words, though.

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #19 posted by Darwin on May 16, 2002 at 10:54:09 PT
Beautifully written Hope.
That is the best sum up of the situation I've ever read.

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #18 posted by FoM on May 16, 2002 at 10:42:48 PT
Thank you for sharing your letter. You think so much like I do. You Go Girl!

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #17 posted by Hope on May 16, 2002 at 10:31:42 PT
Drug Warrior's Brain and Conscience Calluses
To the Editor:

In her column entitled The Case Against Legalizing Marijuana, Susan Urbanek Linville spouts numerous "bad" things about marijuana, although she admits, "It is true that no study has definitively linked marijuana smoking to lung cancer," and "The typical THC dose results in a level of impairment just slightly less than an alcohol blood level of 0.08 percent." She also notes "As a drug for the treatment of disease, it is mediocre at best." The fact that it can be used to treat some symptoms of disease for people who can't tolerate the less "mediocre" drugs available would make it very valuable to them, I suspect.

Ms. Linville ends her column by saying, haughtily, "It would be a refreshing change if proponents for legalizing marijuana would quit hiding behind the "safe drug" and "great medicine" rhetoric and admit the obvious. They want to get high without the fear of being thrown into jail."

I am a proponent for the legalization and regulation of drugs, especially marijuana, and I do not "hide" behind the "safe drug" and "great medicine" rhetoric and never have, although I do recognize that safety and medicinal use should be considered. Many of the people who agree with me that it is time for some serious drug policy reform have, in fact, stated the obvious, "People should not be arrested for using a drug that is potentially less harmful than tobacco and alcohol."

Why should they be jailed? Why should we pay to have them jailed? Why should we devote so much of our law enforcement to such a project? Should the users of alcohol and tobacco or perhaps, sugar and caffeine be jailed? Raise your children not to use these substances. Don't use them yourselves. But, for the sake of common decency, stop persecuting and prosecuting those who do. Why are we giving grief to people like Dionne Warwick, Willie Nelson, Dennis Hopper and Woody Harrelson, and our neighbor down the street over what they choose to smoke.or not?

More importantly, Americans, during the prohibition of alcohol, were stunned by the St. Valentine's Day Massacre that took the lives of seven gangsters. Americans were stunned and sick of the death, mayhem, and corruption being caused by prohibition of alcohol. They ended it because they saw the horror that prohibition had wrought. Sadly, Americans today are not so easily stunned or shocked by death and violence. We view it constantly, as "entertainment". It doesn't bother us very much or for very long to read about death, after death, after death, attributable to the prohibition of drugs, including the deaths of complete innocents, mistaken for the "enemy" or just caught in the crossfire.

Our police and the police all over the world have become subject to corruption that did not tempt them without prohibition. Just how much money and how many lives do we have to allow to be taken or ruined to stop people from smoking marijuana? Why do we keep doing it? Why is that famous "one child" more important than all the "children" we have given criminal records, killed, imprisoned or destroyed their families? Is it because a lot of us, not just the drug gangsters, make our living off the back of prohibition? How much is it worth? How many people do we need to put in jail or see die?

Furthermore, why isn't prohibition working? If prohibition was a viable solution shouldn't we be "drug free" by now? Our self-righteous posturing, hypocrisy, and bigotry have led to a moral degradation of society that is an evil masquerading as something good. Prohibition of a substance, ultimately, proves itself to be a terrible mistake and an evil that far outweighs any mere drug use.

Keeping in mind the words of Christ, "It's not what goes into a man that makes him unclean, it's what comes out of his heart that makes him unclean."Who do you think will be in the most trouble on Judgment Day, if there is such a thing? The man who smoked the marijuana or the man who put the man who smoked the marijuana in jail?

(P.S.: They already told me it was too long. The shortened version was only a hiccup of what I felt it necessary to say in response to this column.)

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by DdC on May 16, 2002 at 09:57:10 PT
More Bushit Fascism Sites

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #15 posted by idbsne1 on May 16, 2002 at 08:18:14 PT
"When you're a pinhead it must really hurt to have your head so far up your butt as she has hers"

I'm going to be laughing my a$$ off all week!!!!!

Thanks, man.....


[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by dimebag on May 16, 2002 at 07:46:59 PT
Drug Free America
Wouldn’t a Drug Free America Consist of getting rid of the Demand for all Drugs, not just illegal. Why is it that the War On Drugs is only directed toward Marijuana? Aren’t tobacco and Alcohol Drugs. There is a conspiracy here, and its ugly little head is going to pop up someday and we need to be there to cut it off and put it up for Public Display. How come there are thousands of Beer and Liquor ads that kids see every day but there are no ads that advocate the Benefits of Marijuana. And if people want to say, “we just want it legalized so we don’t have to fear Jail” well, they couldn’t be more right. Who wants to go to jail for harming themselves. This country was founded on good ideas, but now it’s a belief system and to quote the movie “Dogma” its a lot harder to change a belief than an idea. We need better ideas and less beliefs. And if people want beliefs, then so be it, but don’t make those beliefs into Laws that everyone has to follow.

Thank You,


[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by mayan on May 16, 2002 at 05:45:18 PT
Unrelated - Damage Control...
The power elite have finally thrown us a bone...albeit a fake one. They have conceded that they knew "something" so that they don't have to tell us that they knew EVERYTHING. This bone won't satisfy a dog that is starving for the whole truth. They had to throw us something because they were inviting too much speculation with their silence regarding possible foreknowledge of 9/11. This is meant to satisfy & hence, silence the masses. I suppose they will conduct a fake investigation now. They will not address the fact that our air defense was intentionally stood down on that dreadful day.

What U.S. Knew Before 9/11-(5/15/02):

Air Defense Stood Down On 9/11 After ATC Alerts Given:

What Did They Know?

Why Is Bush Blocking An Investigation Of 9/11?

More links:

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by mayan on May 16, 2002 at 04:21:04 PT
My letter...
to the Herald-Times:

Dear Editor(s),

This is in response to Susan Urbanek Linville's column titled "The Case Against Legalizing Marijuana". In the very last sentence she states, "they just want to get high without the fear of being thrown into jail." In a supposedly free society, is it expecting too much to want to remain outside of a cage for simply engaging in a consensual activity which harms nobody else's person or property? Those who would throw other humans in jail for smoking marijuana are the real criminals. Real criminals belong in jail.



[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by BGreen on May 16, 2002 at 00:58:55 PT
Oops! My tribute to FoM. LOL
I should have said:

"Put that in your vaporizer and DON'T smoke it, Ms. Science Writer."

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by BGreen on May 16, 2002 at 00:44:30 PT
It's 1996, not 1966. Now check your other facts!
"Their own literature (the MAPS Bulletin, Summer 1966) states: "marijuana tars are rich in carcinogenic compounds.""

This is what the whole paragraph states:

"Like tobacco, marijuana tars are rich in carcinogenic compounds known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are a prime culprit in smoking-related cancers. However, cannabinoids themselves are not carcinogenic. An obvious way to protect smokers' health is therefore to minimize the content of smoke tars relative to cannabinoids."

In a related article, the same author states:

"The waterpipe study was undertaken as a first step toward marijuana harm reduction. It was motivated by concerns that, like tobacco, marijuana smoking poses hazards to respiratory health, such as increased risks of bronchitis, lung infection, and throat and neck cancers. These hazards are not caused by the psychoactive ingredients in marijuana, but by noxious vapors and solid particles, or tars, in the smoke produced by leaf combustion."

Put that in your vaporizer and smoke it, Ms. Science Writer.

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by E_Johnson on May 16, 2002 at 00:03:59 PT
When you're a pinhead
it must really hurt to have your head so far up your butt as she has hers.

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by Robbie on May 15, 2002 at 22:27:33 PT
10,000 studies?
If THAT were true, then why the hell do all the pols say there's not enough research?!

What's this lady been smokin'?

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by FoM on May 15, 2002 at 21:55:30 PT
Thanks for the compliment but I sure do make mistakes. Oops is one of my favorite expressions around home! LOL!

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by DdC on May 15, 2002 at 21:54:37 PT
The War on Drugs Bush Cheney & Rumsfeld Don't Sell
Another spouting for the chemical korpses...

Organic Cannabis/Tobacco vs Chemical Cigarettes

The Chemical Manipulation of Human Consciousness

The Toxic Alternative to Natural Fiber

Costa Rican Studies tobacco v cannabis

Drug Deaths per year

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by bruce42 on May 15, 2002 at 21:43:56 PT
here's one for ya...
German beer makers are hyping the health benefits of beer:

So. Beer might be good for you, but it can kill you. MJ might be good for you, ans it has less of a chance of killing you... far, far less. The difference between the two? Corporate backing and hence, political support. Just a thought.

I'll go away now

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by BGreen on May 15, 2002 at 21:20:12 PT
FoM, I think you made an error.
The corrected version of the note is:

Note: This guest column was written by Susan Urbanek Linville, a SCIENCE-FICTION writer for the Wonderpage.

Just kidding, FoM, I know you never make mistakes.

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by bruce42 on May 15, 2002 at 21:18:46 PT
blah blah blah
we all could fire up the knives and carve this turkey a new one, but I just wanted to point out one thing that irked above and beyond the rest of this BS.

"It would be a refreshing change if proponents for legalizing marijuana would quit hiding behind the "safe drug" and "great medicine" rhetoric and admit the obvious. They want to get high without the fear of being thrown into jail."

Refreshing? Change? When have legalizers not argued that yes we want to be able to enjoy our drug of choice, which, despite the overblown hoopla in this article, is relatively harmless? When have we not argued that responsible adults should have the ability to do whatever they want to themselves without fear of government intervention? Screw you Susie, obviously you have no clue.

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Dan B on May 15, 2002 at 21:14:22 PT:

The Last Sentence, etc.
"They want to get high without the fear of being thrown into jail."

Nice to see that she finally mentioned the j-word. Ok, let's suppose that everything she says here is correct (I am sure most of us can find plenty with which to take issue, but we are just pretending here). And lets pretend that the only reason why advocates of legalization want marijuana legalized so that they can get high without being thrown in jail. Is that not, in and of itself, a legitimate reason?

Let me put it another way: suppose that everyone who drank alcohol--not just those who get drunk, but everyone with a blood alcohol content of greater than or equal to .08%--was subject to imprisonment, whether they drove their cars or not. Notice that I am ruling out those who manage to drink such small amounts that their blood alcohol levels remain below the standard in most states for "drunk driving." Would not those people who drank relatively moderately have legitimate reason to be angry that they are subject to imprisonment? Yet those same people who drink "a glass or two of wine with dinner" argue that anyone who smokes or otherwise ingests cannabis--nay, even has cannabis in his or her possession--should be held accountable for this unconscionable act, fined heavily, and thrown in jail!

But let's take this a step further: for every side effect associated with cannabis use in government-sponsored research, there are far worse side effects for virtually every drug on the market, whether it requires a prescription or can be sold over the counter at a convenience store. The most deadly drug in the world, tobacco, is sold to anyone over 18 (and to quite a few who are under 18 when the police aren't keeping watch). Should we now start throwing all cigarette smokers in jail? Hell, we don't even throw those who sell cigarettes to minors in jail. When was the last time you heard of a store owner getting hauled off to jail for selling cigarettes to a minor? Usually, they just have their licenses to sell tobacco products suspended, if that. And at least there is such a thing as a license to sell that crap. Cannabis smokers have to buy their products from all manner of shady characters who may or may not offer them much more harmful substances that really can kill a person, and who, by the way, never check for an I.D.

None of Susan Urbanek Linville's arguments are reasons for making cannabis illegal. They might be good things to consider before using cannabis for medical or recreational purposes (of course, one should supplement this information with the rest of the information about cannabis that she conveniently leaves out--especially the convincing data that none of the side effects she mentions are truly serious risks associated with cannabis use). But they do not convince me, and shouldn't convince anyone, that people who use cannabis for whatever reason deserve to spend time behind bars.

Dan B

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by p4me on May 15, 2002 at 21:06:13 PT
Tell him that
Today at pot-tv the Kubbies had a doctor on from Denver talking about marijuana. One thing bad he says is that cannabanoids are natural to the body and the plant kind can save you from brain damage and spinal core injuries. These would be helpful to have in the system for some young and risky person participating in football, skiing, and the other things a young body can do. He doesn't say it but anyone could go to a doctor and say "I want some prevention medicine for head injuries. Whatcha got?" He would have to answer "GW Pharmacueticals has some whole cannabis pills for that but the government has to protect the interest of US pill companies."

Please do not tell Kubby that marijuana is not medicine as his strength is not up enough to handle laughing in your face. Here listen to this doctor at today's show on pot-tv.

The Bill Mayer segment from the 4/20 Norml convention in San Francisco is now number 2 on most popular video. FoM, when you get your satellite and wonder how to test it, you need to see this. It is great. The best thing I have seen all year. I had no medicine but a friend came buy and helped me with my mood. It was a good day because of it. VAAI

[ Post Comment ]

  Post Comment
Name:        Password:


Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:

Return to Main Menu

So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on May 15, 2002 at 20:43:03