cannabisnews.com: Should Marijuana Be Legalized? Yes Should Marijuana Be Legalized? Yes Posted by FoM on April 10, 2001 at 09:40:07 PT By Sara Boettcher Source: Register-Guard For the past 20 years, we have been involved in a complicated, costly and largely ineffective war on drugs.In spite of Just Say No, DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) and the prosecution of drug offenders, drug abuse is still a big, messy and expensive problem. It is a problem best solved with the legalization and regulation of marijuana. Neither the health risks nor the effects of marijuana are more severe than those of alcohol or tobacco. A Johns Hopkins University study published in the May 1999 American Journal of Epidemiology reported "no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users and nonusers of cannabis" in the 1,318 participants studied over a 15-year period.Additionally, marijuana addiction is psychological, not physical, and therefore relatively easy to break."More than 90 percent of people who have ever used the drug have long since quit," says a 1998 special report on marijuana in New Scientist magazine, suggesting that the grasp of cannabis addiction is weak.If marijuana isn't very dangerous, aren't we throwing our money away by pretending that it is? Considering the cost of arrests, trials and incarcerations, busting people for marijuana is expensive.For example, according to the FBI's 1999 Uniform Crime Report, 46 percent of the 1.53 million U.S. drug arrests in 1999 were for marijuana. Of those, 88 percent were for possession alone.If marijuana were legal, money currently spent combatting cannabis could be used in ways that are far more likely to curb abuse: prevention and treatment programs for hard drugs such as heroin and methamphetamine.While prevention is the best way to stop drugs, programs such as Nancy Reagan's Just Say No campaign and DARE have failed.In a study in the August 1999 Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, in which 1,002 individuals experienced either DARE or a standard curriculum in the sixth grade, "few differences were found between the two groups in terms of actual drug use, drug attitudes or self-esteem, and in no case did the DARE group have a more successful outcome than the comparison group" upon re-evaluation at age 20.DARE lacked results because, while it taught kids how to say "no," it didn't make them any more inclined to want to say "no." Prevention programs are more likely to be effective if they give factual knowledge about drug abuse - how it affects the mind, body and life of the user.In addition to preventative measures, money also needs to be channeled into addiction treatment programs, such as counseling and rehabilitation, which help to end the addiction cycle.It is high time we accept the errors in our war on drugs and take measures to correct them. After 20 years of failed policies, enough is enough. Marijuana is not on a par with drugs such as heroin and shouldn't be treated as if it were.With the decriminalization of marijuana, our money and time can be focused on ending real drug-abuse problems. Only then can we hope to lessen the grip of serious drug addiction.Complete Title: The Great Debate: Should Marijuana Be Legalized? Yes: Declare Truce in War on PotSara Boettcher is a senior at Creswell High School. Source: Register-Guard (OR) Author: Sara BoettcherPublished: April 9, 2001Copyright: 2001 The Register-Guard Contact: rgletters guardnet.com Website: http://www.registerguard.com/ Should Marijuana Be Legalized? Nohttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9323.shtmlCannabisNews - Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #30 posted by Corey on April 16, 2001 at 16:50:42 PT: Marijuana legalization How often do you hear about someone dieing in a car accident from being too high to drive? How often do you hear about someone dieing in a car accident from being drunk? Obviously you hear more about alcohol. There are statistics that prove that alcohol is much more dangerous than marijuana. I think that marijuana should be legalized for any use and if not, then alcohol should be illegal for anyone and everyone. [ Post Comment ] Comment #29 posted by the genius on April 13, 2001 at 11:27:27 PT actually... hi, its me again (fact)actually, i figured out that i was a genius (for sure) through various I.Q. tests.I did administer some of them, but I am no less of a professional than the next guy.well maybe literally i am but anyway thanks for posting [ Post Comment ] Comment #28 posted by Rambler on April 12, 2001 at 19:28:25 PT Smart troll genius It would seem as if fact figured out he was a smart genius using thesame method he used to figure out the addictive theory of Marijuana,fromhis own small world.It's not smart for a person to say they are a genius,orsmart.It sounds as if fact is trying to convince himself he's a smart genius.Perhaps you are a smart genius fact,but it just doesnt make you look that way whenyou proclaim it yourself.I do appreciate seeing your comments here.Your somewhat abrasive and outspokenstyle is stimulating.I hope you will continue to speak your mind.You probably arepretty smart,but even if you were stupid,we still love you.Peace [ Post Comment ] Comment #27 posted by observer on April 12, 2001 at 19:11:11 PT Is Marijuana Addictive? - links see: Is Marijuana Addictive? http://www.marijuananews.com/cowan/is_marijuana_addictive.htmRelative Addictiveness of Drugshttp://www.marijuananews.com/marijuananews/cowan/relative_addictiveness_of_drugs_.htmWill Marijuana make me psychic?see:Marijuana Intoxication, Psi and Spiritual Experiences http://www.paradigm-sys.com/cttart/sci-docs/ctt93-mipas.htmlWill Marijuana make me psycho?see:http://www.cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=schizophrenia:-) [ Post Comment ] Comment #26 posted by fact on April 12, 2001 at 18:51:55 PT psychic oh yea, i also have psychic powers, and that's one way i was able to figure that 20% of the american pop. smoke daily.my stats are accurate , im sure, because im just that damn smart. It was crazy....I was only born with an IQ of 138, but now it's soared into the 200's.I am probably the smartest person in the world.....(that's why i can claim that i love weed more than anyone)I am smart enough to know that the statement is true.I am the truth, and I judge the truth.I know what's true and what isnt.I'm a genius....thank you [ Post Comment ] Comment #25 posted by fact on April 12, 2001 at 18:46:52 PT its me again- to- KAP i hate the antis more than you ever could!but then again i love them because im wierd..i may have sounded like an anti, but that's because im a troll. I really do love weed more than anyone, because i understand it more than anyone.no offense, i really am a nice person, but sometimes it's fun to troll around!but seriously, weed IS pyhsically addictive to some people, so it's misleading to state that it causes no physical dependence.Check it out, I will PROVE right now, that marijuana causes physical dependence.I think the guy's name is DAN B, but i was arguing with him about it, and he said my "withdrawls" could have been caused by stress, so i figured it's the same thing you mentioned. (psychosomatic)anyway, it doesnt matter how i got the withdrawls.The POINT is I got them after I stopped smoking the weed, and if i would have never smoked weed in the first place, I would have never gotten the "stress" that it caused to make me get all the physical symptoms (according to the theory of dan. b. and I assume, you too)So, from this info. here, you can see that it is mis-leading to tell someone they won't get physically addicted to weed.Some people do, so it should be stated, since it is the TRUTH. I wouldnt lie about it, I was a smoker that got addicted. It's just like people don't lie when they say the weed helps their diseases. (but the government is acting like they are i guess, cause they claim there's no evidence that weed helps diseases.) I know it helps diseases, and i'm sure a lot of you do too.I have just about every problem that weed helps.I'm bi-polar, I have insomnia, I get depressed, I have cron's disease, and probably ulcerative colitis, who knows, I might even have aids, but all i know is that without weed, I couldn't live.Thanks,Sincerely,ADDICTING FACT [ Post Comment ] Comment #24 posted by kaptinemo on April 12, 2001 at 05:34:52 PT: I am really going to hate myself for this. But it has to be done. Especially when someone makes the mistake of impugning my honesty:"I'm NOT an anti, and never will be, so before you jump to some bizarre conclusion, why don't you realize that there are people out there that just like the TRUTH."Implication: that I am not telling the truth about cannabis. "Please, before spreading that rumor anymore, why don't you learn how to smoke weed the RIGHT way, so you will know its powers!!"Implication: that I am a rumor-monger."Addicting Fact", In several of my posts in response to yours, I have provided a direct link ot a page in the Merck Manual, the #1 Physicians's Refernce for North America regarding drugs and their reactions, that explicitly state, in no uncertain terms, that cannabis use entails no physiological withdrawal symptoms.I will repeat that link again:http://www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual/section15/chapter195/195e.htmI also provided several paragraphs for you to read. Did you go to the link and read the article in it's entirety? Did you even bother to read the paragraphs I provided? You make no mention of them...so I must assume that you have not.Only antis have such a cavalier attitude towards the facts. If you are no anti, kindly prove me wrong...but we've had them in here before, trying to masquerade as one of us...but like a sheep trying to pass for a wolf, they they identify themselves as soon as they open their mouths. Something about going "Baa-aah" and repeating DrugWarrior dogma just always seems to give them away.Every person's psychological approach to the cannabis experience is different. However, certain generalities can be made regarding the physiological, empirically proven, facts. Which do not include the kind of symptoms that you detailed. You have said in other posts that you are sure your 'goods' were not adulterated; but how do you know? What you have described sounds an awful lot like opiate adulteration. For your own peace of mind, I would seek out a Rave where the DanceSafe people are present and have your weed checked for contaminants. And needless to say, find another supplier.BTW, I'm sure you've heard of the word, 'psychosomatic'? several of the good people here have already mentioned this to you (and stole my thunder, dammit! [smile]). Such ilnesses are as real to those so afflicted as anything experienced coutesy of an actual disease or trauma; just look at Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Mental experiences causing physiological reactions. As a scion of a military family, I can tell you that shell-shock is a very real phenomenon, known by Vets long before science put a fancy name on it and declared it a reality. One last thing: "Please, before spreading that rumor anymore, why don't you learn how to smoke weed the RIGHT way, so you will know its powers!!"I can assure you that Lady Cannabia and I have had a very long and good relationship with each other, one borne of respect and knowledge...not of hysterics. And as someone who had submitted a design for the MAPS waterpipe studies years ago (pity the cigarette smoking machine couldn't be adapted to my high-volume, low-venturi-with-frit design, it would have been nice to have some scientific data corroborate the anecdotal information my friends provided) I do indeed know how to do it the 'right way'. [ Post Comment ] Comment #23 posted by Dan B on April 11, 2001 at 22:33:48 PT: MDG . . . You Make An Interesting Point I know you were being facetious, MDG, but at the heart of what you were saying is a truth that bears repeating--namely, that our strength is in our diversity (cliche, I know, but what can I say?).The reason why this site has been so successful is that FoM has allowed us to vocalize our opinions in whatever way seems appropriate to us at the time (I know I'll probably get called on the floor for saying this when I recently asked FoM to censor a homophobe in another thread, but I think there is a big difference between making useful statements about the articles and simply calling names). FoM has been very flexible. In fact, I have seen her censor a message exactly once in the past 1 1/2 years--pretty good record, if you ask me. (Thanks, FoM, by the way!)Sometimes, it is beneficial to play a little good cop/bad cop (pardon the expression) in these threads. Some are more blunt, more edgy perhaps, than others. Some like toemploy as much diplomacy as possible. Others like to mix it up from time to time (I know that I usually try diplomacy, but at times I get so ticked off that I just have to vent. Keeps things interesting).In other words, I appreciate everyone's responses here. I think it's great that we share a variety of styles, yet we're all working toward a common goal. Kaptinemo, I like your stress analogy. No doubt that our collective voices are being heard across the nation and around the globe. Everywhere we look, those cracks are appearing, and I agree with you that it will be only a matter of time before the whole war on drug users comes crashing down upon itself. As long as we keep at it, that is.I, for one, am in this for the long haul.Best,Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #22 posted by MDG on April 11, 2001 at 21:04:21 PT If you need us, Kap'... Dan B and I will talk nicely to him while you tear him a new one. :)Mike... [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by FoM on April 11, 2001 at 20:32:10 PT Information from Stanton Peele's Web Site I found this and maybe it will help figure out what addiction is and is not.What Addiction Is and Is NotThe Impact of Mistaken Notions of AddictionStanton PeeleFellow, The Lindesmith CenterNew York City The addiction concept varies cross-culturally and historically in significant ways. The reification of the addiction concept by addiction "experts" is actually an important window for understanding the nature of addiction in our society. Both proponents of the concept who incorrectly misidentify it as a Platonic ideal and critics who dismiss it because of its irregular and unreliable nature and appearance miss the boat on addiction. How we think about addiction influences how individuals become addicted, since we learn to be addicted through the expectations we develop about specific involvements.http://www.peele.net/lib/mistakennotions.htmlAt this point in history, it is necessary to drive a careful path between the shoals of those who medicalize, biologize, and generally reify the addiction concept, and those who deny its existence. In this article, Stanton clarifies the problems with both extremes in the debate (although those in the "reification" camp are far more dangerous), while laying out exactly where in reality addiction exists, its causes, and why all this matters for understanding and dealing with the malady. My What's New Page [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by addicting fact on April 11, 2001 at 20:10:51 PT kap. im NOT an anti kapitemo,I'm the one who wrote about the drug being addicting.It is and it always will be.I'm NOT an anti, and never will be, so before you jump to some bizarre conclusion, why don't you realize that there are people out there that just like the TRUTH.I'm sick of people like you and the government spreading rumors around about the drug. You say it's non-addictive, while the government has said it can "KILL"Both statements are not true.I am not trying to put pot down in any way, but just to tell the TRUTH about it.I've known that weed is physically additing for years now, and I've been sick of the rumor for a while now.I will always let users know of the addiction they face, but I'm not trying to scare anyone, because weed is gentile, and you shouldn't ever have any effects that are so bad that you consider stopping usage. I mean, I thought I was going to DIE from the withdrawl, but not literally.I was just so sick, puking, and I was so un-confortable that I had to stand on my hands in some wierd position just for the headache to subside for a second , due to excucating unconfortablness.Please, before spreading that rumor anymore, why don't you learn how to smoke weed the RIGHT way, so you will know its powers!! [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by kaptinemo on April 11, 2001 at 18:44:31 PT: Many thanks for the sentiments, Dan But I'd prefer that more people were full of p**s and vinegar. Makes it harder for the US Guv to pull the stunts it does.As to your question: half-facetious, I know...But I do have a possible answer.Ever hear of something called 'turgor'? It's the force which allows a tree root - or even a blade of grass - to eventually buckle a sidewalk, or crack a concrete slab weighing tons. Slow, steady, relentless, unswerving growth of pressure, until...pop! it breaks through.Consider: what we are part of at this moment didn't exist 5 years ago; at least, not in its' present form. And that's because of 'stress'.At the risk of being preachy: Stress an organism too much, it dies. Stress it just enough, and it will adapt. Grow stronger. And finally, be able to shrug off any opposing force.The Free Cannabis movement has been in a nascent phase for a very long time. Like a chrysalis. For the longest time, whenever it rose up just enough, antis were able to kill it...with ridicule.Not any more. For a variety of reasons which space prohibits me from mentioning, all the circumstances (that once existed 30 years ago) are finally falling into place, again, with an added catalyst that no one had forseen - medical necessity. The more intelligent of the antis have realized that. They are starting to take us seriously. They know we're a threat. That's why antis have sent very tentative - and may I say, pusillanimously timid (contemptual spitting sound) - probes here, to "Sh*t & Git" as I put it. Had they thought they could afford to ignore us, we would never have seen the likes of "Mary Friend"/Joyce Nalepka show up here. But show they have. And had their arses so soundly flayed that they rarely come here anymore. They expected to be able to have some fun at the expense of a bunch of whacked-out dopers incapable of stringing a cogent sentence together without interjections like "Wow, man!"...and instead found at least their intellectual equals. At least. And unlike them, we haven't gotten fat, dumb and happy, feeding off of a government trough, forgetting how to really fight when push comes to shove.This is what happens when you stress a subsection of society. Not having learned their lessons from the last time - the Civil Rights Movement - the Powers That Be have once again made a terrible error. The movement is alive, it grows, it reaches out, it connects with others of like mind, it expands, gets stronger with each day. This really spooks the antis, who've ruled largely through the old 'divide and conquer' of pitting one group of possible allies against another. They tried to increase the stress - the DrugWar having entered a paramilitary phase - and the movement responded...just like that tree root. Slow. Steady. Inexorable. First it was only two States. Now it's eight. And more will join, because, like that tree root, this is coming literally from the ground up...Stress. That've given us our share in the past. But they forgot Nietzche's warning about what does not kill me makes me stronger. It's long past time to return the favor. [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by Dan B on April 11, 2001 at 15:43:21 PT: The Great Kaptinemo Love Fest Thanks, kaptinemo, for your quotation from the Merck manual. I believe it was Dr. John P. Morgan who wrote that particular entry, wasn't it? You may be interested in reading comment #40 in thread 9323 (the companion to this article) and the ongoing debate I've been having with WHAT NAME over addiction. I'm doing my best to be diplomatic (yes, I'm still convinced that diplomacy can work in certain situations). I'm curious; what do you think about the assertion that the symptoms attributed to "marijuana withdrawal syndrome" are really just symptoms associated with stress caused by draconian measures that force people into compliance with arbitrary government policies?Anyone?Dan BBy the way, kaptinemo, I appreciate all of your comments here. You've been one a great asset to Cannabis News from the first day I started reading this site regularly (about a year and a half ago, I think), and probably longer than that. [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by kaptinemo on April 11, 2001 at 13:07:02 PT: More from Merck Would you like some more truth to counteract your lie, "Fact"? How about this? Written by doctors, no less."Critics of marijuana cite much scientific data regarding adverse effects, but most of the claims regarding severe biologic impact are unsubstantiated, even among relatively heavy users and in areas intensively investigated, such as immunologic and reproductive function. However, high-dose smokers of marijuana develop pulmonary symptoms (episodes of acute bronchitis, wheezing, coughing, and increased phlegm), and pulmonary function may be altered. This is manifested by large airway changes of unknown significance. Even daily smokers do not develop obstructive airway disease. Pulmonary carcinoma has not (emphasis mine -k.) been reported in persons who smoke only marijuana, possibly because less smoke is inhaled than during cigarette smoking. However, biopsies of bronchial tissue sometimes show precancerous changes, so carcinoma may occur. In a few case-control studies, some tests detected diminished cognitive function in small samples of long-term high-dose users; this finding awaits confirmation. Studies in newborns have not found evidence of fetal harm due to maternal use of cannabis. Decreased fetal weight has been reported, but when all factors (eg, maternal alcohol and tobacco use) are accounted for, the effect on fetal weight disappears. (Delta)-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol is secreted in breast milk. Although no harm to breastfed babies has been shown, breastfeeding mothers, like pregnant women, are advised to avoid using cannabis.Now if you still persist in believing what you do, perhaps I can interest you in a nice bridge I have up in Brooklyn; cash only, please, no checks, and all sales are final. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by kaptinemo on April 11, 2001 at 12:38:36 PT: I'm gettin' damn' tired of cleaning up these t*rds the antis keep dropping in here. Hasn't anyone housebroken them yet?/I>OK,once more unto the breach: "Fact", or whatever your name is, have a look at this:From the Merck Mnual, the #1 Physician's Reference in North America, found in nearly every doctor's library and office:Cannabis (Marijuana) Dependance:Chronic or periodic use of cannabis producing some psychologic dependence but no physical dependence.Any drug that causes euphoria and diminishes anxiety can cause dependence, and cannabis isno exception. However, heavy use and complaints of inability to stop are unusual. Cannabis can be used episodically without evidence of social or psychologic dysfunction. The term dependence probably is misapplied to many users. No withdrawal syndrome occurs when the drug is discontinued, but some heavy users report disrupted sleep and nervousness when they stop.Since I don't expect an anti to believe me, go check out the source if you want:http://www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual/section15/chapter195/195e.htmAs always, the antis sh*t and git, leaving their pathetic little messes behind them. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by fact on April 11, 2001 at 11:53:35 PT addicting weed IS physical(just wanted to correct the error in the report) [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by dddd on April 11, 2001 at 10:35:06 PT all I can say after seeing all this is...."aww gee"....everyone is nicedddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by FoM on April 11, 2001 at 10:23:34 PT We Love Our Kapt! I just had to say that. I've never gotten upset with anything you've written! There now go away and blush! LOL! [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by kaptinemo on April 11, 2001 at 09:55:15 PT: My apologies for my short-sightedness And I add that I should have read your post much more carefully than I did. As someone who knows all-too-well how big of a Devil resides in the details, I should have known better. I bow to your considerable mastery of subtlety. Olive branch extended. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by MDG on April 11, 2001 at 09:30:33 PT: Kap', you got the wrong "fool". The fool to which I referred was Kimmy, not you. Notice I said, "...easy criticism of a fool", not "...by a fool." Also the our righteous selves referred to each of us as adults, myself included. (I thought it was somewhat obvious that I wouldn't have said anything had Joyce Nalepka written the article). I certainly didn't intend to make enemies here, nor get into a ping-pong match like happened way back when "Neil" was on saying FoM should kick everyone off for flaming or prevaricating.I certainly respect the things you have to say, and have for quite some time. However, I certainly don't think it's out of bounds to pause before bringing down the hammer on a foolish Kimmy. As you rightly noted, she has "not been given the armament - the training to think critically - which is so desperately needed to stave off tyranny-through-ignorance". This Sara Boettcher apparently has. With a little luck, Kimmy happened to "debate" Sara, and it has opened her eyes a bit. After all, every wedge starts with a small point.I hope this ties up any loose ends, and clears up any misunderstanding.Regards,Mike... [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by kaptinemo on April 11, 2001 at 08:16:25 PT: Yes...respect Someone once said, "If you don't address a person respectfully, you won't address him effectively." Well said, Mike. Well said. But how about this?Referring to http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread9323.shtml, comment #11.This is why I would caution those of us who might otherwise compare foolish children to our righteous selves to "take it easy". No one asked for an apology from anyone else.Besides, I didn't notice any "Right on!" or "It's good that she saw the light!" responses for the Should Marijuana be Legalized? Yes" article. Just the easy criticism of a fool.(emphasis mine)To whit, I answered:"Someone once wrote that a nation of sheep begets a government of wolves. The DrugWar wolves have had a free run in this country for far too long. And part of the reason for that is that our children have not been given the armament - the training to think critically - which is so desperately needed to stave off tyranny-through-ignorance. Kimmy's statements are a perfect example of this at work. Is it 'foolish' to expect our schools, funded by us, to do a better job? Is it 'arrogance' to demand better?"There was no reply in the previous posting; care to make one now? Anyone who has been here for any length of time knows I choose my words very carefully. They would also know what I suffered at the hands of LEOs, vis-a-vis losing nearly everything worth having. Just for medicinal use.Most of the people who frequent this site have yet to face the awful consequences of being targeted by the Beast. They feel that they can smoke in peace, not be too concerned with being found out, and thus feel themselves somehow immune from what awaits them. This false sense of security is just that: false. I once was amongst the fortunate, falsely-secure-feeling majority out there, until a stupid mistake on someone else's part, in direct contravention of my advice to them, (about keeping records, for God's sake!!! How 'foolish' can you get?!) cost me very dearly indeed. As a result, I tend not to 'suffer fools gladly', anymore. For me, this is anything but an intellectual exercise. It is truly 'war'.I tend to give everyone the benefit of the doubt...until they prove me wrong in doing so. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by MDG on April 10, 2001 at 22:52:13 PT Right on, Dan B! I couldn't agree more. Someone once said, "If you don't address a person respectfully, you won't address him effectively." This is something I've noticed you always seem to do. I think though many of us, here, might disagree on certain miscellaneous items, we all agree that the only logical solution to the horrors of the WoSD, is legalization, especially of cannabis.Regards to everyone who engages in the debate with others here, or anywhere else.Mike... [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Dan B on April 10, 2001 at 22:34:35 PT: Good job, Sara Boettcher! Not all seniors in high school are equipped to step outside the government propaganda long enough to illuminate the truth the way Sara has in this article. Bravo!Many have commented on the companion article to this one, and I have to say I think it is good (1) that they printed both sides of the legalization argument, and (2) that they allowed this exchange of ideas to take place at all. Many have pointed out that today's government education system does little to foster critical thinking skills, and I believe that is correct. It's nice to see that the issue of legalization is even being debated (it wasn't debated in my high school in the "Just Say No" 1980s).I say that it is good to show both sides of the argument because, as Subaru pointed out, the pro-legalization arguments stand up much better than the anti-legalization arguments. Astute students will read both responses and come to the correct conclusion--that marijuana should be legalized, at the very least for medicinal purposes. So, I applaud the efforts of both students. Both are speaking what they believe to be the truth, right or not, and the placement of both articles in the same publication gives readers a good crash course in the basic differences between the propagandistic prohibitionists and the science-based, logical "legalizers."Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by dddd on April 10, 2001 at 20:37:07 PT opinion There is hope,,but I hope it's not the same hope of winnig the lottery.What's your opinion,OPINION? [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by FoM on April 10, 2001 at 19:45:32 PT Hope so Hello Opinions, We sure hope Cannabis will be legalized soon at least medical. I hope you don't mind me asking you not to use capital letters. I have bad vision and it hurts my eyes. I can read normal size fine though. Thank You. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by OPINIONS on April 10, 2001 at 19:37:57 PT OPINIONS HI CAN I GET SOME OPINIONS ON WAETHER OR NOT WEED WILL BE LEGAL WITHIN THE NEXT 10 YEARS.THANK YOU. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by DoPe MaN on April 10, 2001 at 19:08:30 PT LEGALIZE POT i say legalize it damnit everyones getting tired of the governments bullshit. should there be a medical marijauna yes of course. should they legalize it to yes. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by ras james rsifwh on April 10, 2001 at 15:58:06 PT cannabis facts I have never read any mainstream publication that states the simple facts by comparing drug deaths: 400,00 for tobacco: 150,000 for alcohol; zero for cannabis...Is there some sort of secret governmental ban on "The facts! Mam! Nothing but the facts!"?"Say it ain't so Joe!" Our free press are liers and chicken shits. I know one major news paper that knows the facts and refuses to print them...I have sent most of their reporters and all of their editors the back cover of the "Emperors wears no Clothes"...the editor in chief got a certified letter which he signed...but for three years not a peep...just misinformation and disinformation about cannabis sativa.who or what has the power to keep a simple comparison of deaths for each drug or percentage of teens usage.you know something like the following:____________________________________________________________% of teens who have used the following drugs at least once____________________________________________________________Alcohol 80%tobacco 65%marijuana 33%cocaine 3%____________________________________________________________I know the government and the press knows, but what are the correct figures? And why don't they print "the facts" in simple and easy to compare charts? [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by TYLER PORTER on April 10, 2001 at 15:40:36 PT: LEGALIZE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LEGALIZE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LEGALIZE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LEGALIZE IT!!!!!!!LEGALIZE IT!!!SO MUCH GOOD THINGS CAN COME FROM LEGALIZING IT!!!!!!!!!!!!! [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Subaru_Sumeragi on April 10, 2001 at 14:23:05 PT A Comparision Compare the two articles on the Register Guard,one is pro- pot(this one) and the other is anti-pot. Notice that the pro-pot article (this article) is well written and REFERENCED with actual FACTS while the anti-pot one(the one before this one) is pretty much devoid of facts and is based on vague speculation and propaganda. When i was a senior i wasnt a New World Order drone like the person who wrote the anti-pot article,i was exactly like Sara who wrote this article. I know how tuff it is do go through the brainwashing academy (aka school) being fed propaganda and one sided anti drug veiws. This is another fatality in the drug war is that you lose faith in your own educational system! Iam done rambling and i established my point,the pro-pot argumants tend to be sane while the anti-pot arguments are quite ignorant and insane.Subaru_Sumeragi (aka The Stoned Philosopher) [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: