Denver wants weed

[Sionistic]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/02/ ... index.html

DENVER (AP) -- Residents of the Mile High City have voted to legalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana for adults. Authorities, though, said state possession laws will be applied instead.

With 100 percent of precincts reporting early Wednesday, 54 percent, or 56,001 voters, cast ballots for the ordinance, while 46 percent, or 48,632 voters, voted against it.

Under the measure, residents over 21 years old could possess up to an ounce of marijuana.

"We educated voters about the facts that marijuana is less harmful to the user and society than alcohol," said Mason Tvert, campaign organizer for SAFER, or Safer Alternatives For Enjoyable Recreation. "To prohibit adults from making the rational, safer choice to use marijuana is bad public policy."

Bruce Mirken of the Washington-based Marijuana Policy Project said he hoped the approval will launch a national trend toward legalizing a drug whose enforcement he said causes more problems than it cures.

If this news got more attention, it could be a big mid term election issue.

[masteen]

If you decriminilize weed, then how would we keep the negroes locked up? THINK OF THE WHITE CHILDRENS!

[Sylvus]

Where's the outrage? What happened to you pussies? It used to be that mention of decriminalizing marijuana would get people all up in arms about what a horrible drug it was, have you all come to your senses?

Or have we rehashed that argument enough times?

[Lynks]

The only problem I have is the lame argument of marijuana being not as bad as alcohol. That isnt an argument.

To me, thats like saying killing someone in their sleep is better than shooting a guy in the face while he is awake. Just because something isnt as dangerous, or more humane, as something else doesn't make it right.

However, as long as they have restrictions like they do for alcohol (not in public or driving), then I'm all for it.

[Aslanna]

Or have we rehashed that argument enough times?

Sadly I don't think that's possible around here. About anything.

[Siji]

One problem I forsee is law enforcement that's available for alcohol. How do you measure marijuana content in a person? How much is too much? What about laced marijuana?

I'm not against legalizing it, but it does concern me. With alcohol you're affecting yourself when you drink. With a joint, anyone around you is getting a contact high. That's like walking into a bar and getting drunk just standing around people drinking. That's not a good thing.

[Wulfran]

Where is the research? Either for or against? No one seems to be able to produce relevant scientific data. I would have thought the medical community of the Netherlands or some other locale where pot is legal would have studied it by now... or even other concerned countries sponsor some research into it, rather than live under the cloud of anti-hippy hysteria and head-shop mythology that seems to dominate this issue.

[Winnow]

One problem I forsee is law enforcement that's available for alcohol. How do you measure marijuana content in a person? How much is too much? What about laced marijuana?

Anyone driving more than 10 miles under the speed limit while eating snack food would be arrested. That would be the equivalent of failing the alcohol field sobriety test.

[Marbus]

hashed... haha, <slaps knee>

[Bojangels]

What worries me is, where are we supposed to be getting all this weed? Can we grow our own? I think legalizing possession but not giving us a safe place to get it is dangerous. I don’t care one way or the other if people smoke it, I just hope there’s a plan in the works to deal with the other problems that come from it.

[Chidoro]

The real reason this doesn't get passed is because there is no established way Gov't can make money off of it. If posession is legal, than the ability to collect taxes off of selling it is near impossible because it just "grows". There's little to no manufacturing required and little to no public interest from a controlled business standpoint. It can all take place underground whether Gov't controls it or not. Anyone with any clue about drug itself knows that it should just fall under alcohol restrictions (public intoxication/motor vehicle usage/etc.). Who knows, maybe the multiple manufacturers of Oxycodone/APAP or Hydrocodone make sure politicians embrace the "Springboard Drug" argument.

[masteen]

I'm sure there are some smart markerters somewhere who could figure out how to market a common plant. I mean come on, Abercrombie sells $5 t-shirts for $50.

[Sueven]

What about laced marijuana?

Just so you know, this is not really a concern. I'm assuming that you're concerned about other drugs which are difficult to detect being somehow combined with marijuana, because if a user knows that their marijuana is laced, then they're just smoking weed and cocaine (or whatever).

First of all, marijuana comes in the form of a dried plant. To 'lace' it with cocaine or heroin or amphetamines, say, would require you to mix a significant amount of a whitish or brownish powder with dried plant in a way that is undetectable. This is practically impossible. If you put so little on that a user didn't notice it's presence, it's likely that the amount you put on is too negligible to have any effect on the person smoking it. If you put enough of drug number 2 in the marijuana to make smoking it noticeable, it would be readily obvious to the naked eye.

Furthermore, drugs cost money. If you're already selling someone marijuana, why would you try to sneak another, more expensive drug in alongside it without them knowing? That's a terrible business decision, and drug dealers are, in the end, businessmen. Trying to lace weed to get people addicted is also a stupid idea-- they'll quickly find out that it's not real weed they're addicted to next time they smoke it unlaced. It comes down to the following points:

1. It's nearly impossible (practically speaking) to lace marijuana in an undetectable manner.
2. Laced marijuana would cost more for the drug dealer to produce than unlaced marijuana, but he would sell it for the same price. Why would he do this?

I have never in my life seen laced marijuana, nor have I spoken to anyone who has smoked laced marijuana, nor have I spoken to someone who has even seen laced marijuana.

Many other drugs are the same way, by the way. I always hear things like "why would you take LSD-- how do you know the drug dealer didn't put rat poison on that tab?" Well, if a drug dealer is going to sell you fake LSD, why would he put rat poison on the tab? Why wouldn't he put water on the tab, or nothing at all? He wouldn't. And that's why you don't really hear about suburban kids dying due to ingesting rat poison that they thought was LSD-- it doesn't actually happen.

[miir]

The most commonly 'laced' drug is extacy.
They cut the MDMA with meth or coke... higher yield for a lower price.

[Sueven]

Right, plus the kids will actually get high and will buy more from the dealer.

[Pherr the Dorf]

The most commonly 'laced' drug is extacy.
They cut the MDMA with meth or coke... higher yield for a lower price.

Actually that'd be LSD, unless you know a chemist, it's laced with speed

[Keverian FireCry]

I'm not against legalizing it, but it does concern me. With alcohol you're affecting yourself when you drink. With a joint, anyone around you is getting a contact high. That's like walking into a bar and getting drunk just standing around people drinking. That's not a good thing.

From a contact high it would do virtually nothing to you. In fact I've never heard of that happening to anyone. If you are indoors and people are smoking, chances are there will be ventilation as it's required by law. As long as people aren't intentionally blowing it directly in your face while you intentionaly inhale you can't get second-hand high...and if you did it would be lighter than having a beer IMO.

I very rarely smoke cigarettes and I've never gotten a nicotene high from being around someone smoking in doors, out doors, or anywhere...and if you rarely smoke nicotene the high is actually quite obvious and strong for a few mins...stronger than marijuana in some cases, just a much shorter high(or low? ).

[Neost]

With alcohol you're affecting yourself when you drink.

Yeah, the number of people driving under the influence of marijuana kill so many more people than drunks driving....but hey, they only affect themselves.....

[Sionistic]

Arnt people paranoid as fuck when stoned? Arnt they going to be the ones driving 10mph?

[Gonzoie - Luclin]

i actually did my term paper on this last semester. I started out as the "legalize it side" but by the time i was done researching i had more against than for it, so i switched over to "should not be legalized."

From research ive done, it appears there is more factual evidence for the do not legalize side, however, some of the things i uncovered lead me to believe that it should be legalized because in all reality, it itsn't quite as bad as they want you to think.

[Sueven]

Actually that'd be LSD, unless you know a chemist, it's laced with speed

LSD is dirt cheap to produce; far cheaper than speed. You'd be wasting money if you sold someone speed instead of LSD.

[Pherr the Dorf]

Actually that'd be LSD, unless you know a chemist, it's laced with speed

LSD is dirt cheap to produce; far cheaper than speed. You'd be wasting money if you sold someone speed instead of LSD.

Wrong, dead wrong

LSD runs right now well over 5000 a gram, one gram of crys (crystal LSD) makes 100 sheets of 100 hits or 10,000 hits with a current market value of $100,000 if sold as singles or about 60k sold in Bulk. Ever since Leonard got arrested in Wamego Kansas (See US vs Leonard Pickard) with over 90 pounds of crystal the amount of LSD out there plummeted. But even in the old days when it a hit cost $.26 when bought in a book (10 pages of 100 hits) LSD was still cut 95% of the time with speed. Leonards case is a really interesting one that involves the CIA, DEA and Afgan Warlords, you should read up on it.

LSD always has been and always will be the most expensive white powder there is.

[Xyphir]

Since I live in Denver, just thought I'd chime in on this bill. First of all, it means nothing other than the statement that most people think it should be legal. City law does not trump state or federal law, so you can still be busted. I-100 stipulates that 1 oz is legal as long as it's for personal use (i.e. in a single baggie/containter).

This report came out recently about carcinogens in pot vs. tobacco:

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Although both marijuana and tobacco smoke are packed with cancer-causing chemicals, other qualities of marijuana seem to keep it from promoting lung cancer, according to a new report.

ADVERTISEMENT

The difference rests in the often opposing actions of the nicotine in tobacco and the active ingredient, THC, in marijuana, says Dr. Robert Melamede of the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs.

He reviewed the scientific evidence supporting this contention in a recent issue of Harm Reduction Journal.

Whereas nicotine has several effects that promote lung and other types of cancer, THC acts in ways that counter the cancer-causing chemicals in marijuana smoke, Melamede explained in an interview with Reuters Health.

"THC turns down the carcinogenic potential," he said.

For example, lab research indicates that nicotine activates a body enzyme that converts certain chemicals in both tobacco and marijuana smoke into cancer-promoting form. In contrast, studies in mice suggest that THC blocks this enzyme activity.

Another key difference, Melamede said, is in the immune system effects of tobacco and marijuana. Smoke sends irritants into the respiratory system that trigger an immune-regulated inflammatory response, which involves the generation of potentially cell-damaging substances called free radicals. These particles are believed to contribute to a range of diseases, including cancer.

But cannabinoids -- both those found in marijuana and the versions found naturally in the body -- have been shown to dial down this inflammatory response, Melamede explained.

Another difference between tobacco and marijuana smoking, he said, has to do with cells that line the respiratory tract. While these cells have receptors that act as docks for nicotine, similar receptors for THC and other cannabinoids have not been found.

Nicotine, Melamede said, appears to keep these cells from committing "suicide" when they are genetically damaged, by smoking, for instance. When such cells do not kill themselves off, they are free to progress into tumors.

THC, however, does not appear to act this way in the respiratory tract -- though, in the brain, where there are cannabinoid receptors, it may have the beneficial effect of protecting cells from death when they are damaged from an injury or stroke, according to Melamede.

All of this, he said, fits in with population studies that have failed to link marijuana smoking with a higher risk of lung cancer -- though there is evidence that pot users have more respiratory problems, such as chronic cough and frequent respiratory infections.

If marijuana does not promote lung cancer, that could factor into the ongoing debate over so-called medical marijuana. Melamede said he believes "marijuana has loads of medicinal value," for everything from multiple sclerosis, to the chronic pain of arthritis, to nausea caused by cancer treatment.

U.S. government officials, however, maintain that the evidence for medical marijuana is not there. Ten states allow people to use marijuana with a doctor's prescription, but the Supreme Court has ruled that federal law trumps state law.

SOURCE: Harm Reduction Journal, October 18, 2005.

The ironic part is Colorado Springs is a conservative bastion. A similar bill was proposed for Telluride, but they didn't want to become a posterchild for legalization. Their sherrif is openly against the war on drugs, having written a book about the failure of it.

[masteen]

This is one area where the government is blatantly failing to promote the common good. What really pisses me off is how the Fed is abusing its power to keep the states from allowing the will of the people to change policy. Truly disgusting how most politicos are still quoting the bullshit propoganda from "Reefer Madness" era studies that have been 100% debunked.