Did you not read what i was saying? My entire point was that doing any substance everyday is bad..... OBVIOUSLY drinking alchohol everyday at 13 would be absolutely ridiculous but i'm saying that it's so easy to get into a habit of smoking weed every day. No day after effects (as such) or any real come down. How can you even compare the two??

What Conservatives Think about Prop19 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k4zTAe7TGw

This gives me hope.

GLENN BECK 2K12 Thanks for the link.

Yeh, I did, and sorry if I sounded provocative, I didn't mean to be! I was agreeing with you!
I thought you were making the point that smoking weed every day is bad, which you were... and... well... I suppose I wasn't really making any particular point against that besides noting that alcohol would be just as bad in the same situation. And I do think if there weren't the same social stigmas against drinking all day, and beer was around on the streets more, more kids probably would drink all the time. Some do drink all the time. I find post-pot muzziness to be unpleasant, just as a hangover is (not as bad, tho). One can avoid the muzziness if you keep smoking, just as you can have more beer to avoid a hangover....

Sorry! Didn't mean to cause any outrage.

I stopped this foolish health concern debate over cannabis long ago after I went and did the actual, evidential research and discovered how foolish it all truly is.

The first and what I believe to be the greatest outcome of that research, was this small (It's fairly long) article written quite wonderfully by a keen observer:
http://www.druglibrary.o...ial/goode/mjsmokers3.htm

To quote one of my favorite segments,


For anyone wanting the hard facts about it's effects:
http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/hemp/BRAIN.HTM
http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/
http://www.whitman.edu/b...uproj/YoungB/physio.html
http://ajrccm.atsjournal...amp;gca=ajrccm;155/1/141

The plain, simple truth of any debate on marijuana and it's effects on the human body are that it varies immensely from person to person. If you are worried, ask your doctor; there is no shame or consequence in talking with your doctor, everything said is confidential when you visit him/her.

I believe children should not be smoking cannabis. There is a higher risk in young, pre-pubescent, and early to mid teens for developing schizophrenia. Think of a 13 year old smoking, Spice, they are simply to young; mentally and physically not developed enough, despite the differences between being shot into the universe, and being relaxed.

However many reports there may be of marijuana causing schizophrenia, this side of the debate is currently unsupported factually.

Addiction is not physical, as stated in one of the previous links,


It is in all fact, very much possible for an individual to become mentally addicted to marijuana. I have personally experienced this, and the only reason I stopped is because I went broke.

Not to stray from the already off-topic thread, but I began smoking daily again. The main difference was an entirely new perspective on life which is allowing me to experience everything in a well balanced manner. I do not smoke throughout the day, I smoke toward the end of the day. Mostly.

What people need to remember is that it isn't the plant causing the addiction, there is an underlying problem to it that needs to be solved.

This whole thread is silly and off-topic.

yep, anything that people enjoy can be "addicting". It's always up to the individual whether to overindulge or not. Apparently, I hear there is some politician out there now who is against masturbation. Maybe next they'll make wanking illegal because it is potentially addictive.

The candidates name is, Christine O'Donnell. In the 90's she not only was fiercely against masturbation, but showed open support for witch craft. I believe she may have been the same candidate who, during a debate, showed to the judges and audience her lack of understanding for the first amendment of the United States.

Zach Galifianakis smokes pot on Bill Mahr!



Former Mexican President pro-Prop19: http://www.rawstory.com/...galization-may-god-pass/

The whole Prop19 thing is so exciting to me! Any press is good press, they say. I can't wait.

Today's the day Prop 19 is voted upon!!

This will make history in the US and hopefully it spreads furthur

The Seattle Times had a big spread on the elections this morning. On one side, they had four maps of the U.S. each depicting which states were voting on important issues (in this order): Budget issues, marijuana, legislature issues, and election issues.

like I said, I feel sorry for you guys...even humboldt and trinity counties voted no, but I knew they would...you guys will just have to wait till all the older than gen-X generation dies off...

Of course they voted no, they make there money that way. It's hard to change careers... I don't hate them, but rather pity them.

Well those guys prolly didnt vote, most stoners are disillusioned with the system, or cant vote due to felonies, or just too stoned to go out...or wise enough to know it was a crap prop.

Im laughing at you RICH LEE..

I voted today. Looks like a fail. Although we had almost half of the state voting in favor, that's quite a statistic I think.

man it was like 4 counties that voted yes, how do you get half a state outta that?

I meant half of the voters of California...

This is unfortuntae. I can't help but think this particular voting system is flawed. Did they do a majority citizen vote to make it illegal in the first place? No. The sad thing is, how many people walked in there to vote and didn't really care either way whether prop 19 passed? They don't use weed, they have nothing to lose from keeping it illegal, and nothing to gain from having it legal, so what do they care? But what about the 43% or whatever who could potentially have their lives destroyed by the law, due to their pesonal lifestyle choice? The ones who voted no don't care. And how many of the ones who voted no just simply don't have the facts. How many just assume all drugs are bad and by extension, all drug users are bad? How many voted based on "morality" and not liberty in mind?

I think if drugs are ever to become legal, it won't be due to popular opinion, it will be because it is the right thing to do, and eventually it's going to have to be the ones in power who will listen to the FEW voices of reason out there who know that criminalizing innocent users is WRONG, a violation of human rights and personal freedom, as well as potentially religious expression, as in the case of entheogen users. The masses don't care. They just assume drugs are evil thanks to being raised on propaganda like, "this is your brain, this is your brain on drugs" commericials. The masses don't use psychedelics, so why would they care whether this stuff gets legalized or not? But if you happen to be one of the people who could potentially go to jail for your lifestyle choice, then you care a hell of a lot. If it was Christianity that became illegal, then suddenly a lot of people would care whether or not their spirituality is criminalized. The masses don't accept psychedelic use as legitimate spiritual practice. However, I believe the LEGAL argument that criminalizing USERS is a violation of human rights, will eventually win the day.

And the argument that current laws target the wrong people will eventually be realized by those in power. The general public doesn't care. If it was up to the general public, prostitution would probably be illegal in Canada. In fact, it seems most Canadians I talk to are under the impression that prostitution in all forms is illegal in Canada, but it isn't. Non street based prostitution has been decriminalized for a long time in Canada, and recently, all forms of prostitution became legalized. Canada realized that people have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies. The government does not have the right to criminalize prostitutes based on moral grounds. If people morally disagree with prostitution, they don't have to be prostitutes, but that does not make prostitutes criminals. Similarly, if people are against drug use, they don't have to do drugs, but that does not make drug users criminals.

Didnt it pass somewhere in the 70s and wherever it was they just ignored it?

I have a faint memory of a situation like that.

All pot people should unite and take over a state and secede it, by any means necessary. lol

Very disappointing for sure, but it'll be back in 2012 and likely much better funded.

http://www.laweekly.com/...ults-legalize-marijuana/

This is unfortuntae. This post is made more with entheogens in mind, particularly dmt, but applies to cannabis as well. I can't help but think this particular voting system is flawed. Did they do a majority citizen vote to make it illegal in the first place? No. The sad thing is, how many people walked in there to vote and didn't really care either way whether prop 19 passed? They don't use weed, they have nothing to lose from keeping it illegal, and nothing to gain from having it legal, so what do they care? But what about the 43% or whatever who could potentially have their lives destroyed by the law, due to their pesonal lifestyle choice? The ones who voted no don't care. And how many of the ones who voted no just simply don't have the facts. How many just assume all drugs are bad and by extension, all drug users are bad? How many voted based on "morality" and not liberty in mind?

I think if drugs are ever to become legal, it won't be due to popular opinion, it will be because it is the right thing to do, and eventually it's going to have to be the ones in power who will listen to the FEW voices of reason out there who know that criminalizing innocent users is WRONG, a violation of human rights and personal freedom, as well a potential violation of religious expression, as in the case of entheogen users (that's what I am deeply concerned about). The laws will be struck down because someone will have enough sense to realize they aren't working, are wasting huge amounts of money, and worst of all, the law is destroying lives far worse than the drugs are.

The masses don't care. They just assume drugs are evil thanks to being raised on propaganda like, "this is your brain, this is your brain on drugs" commericials. The masses don't use psychedelics, so why would they care whether this stuff gets legalized or not? But if you happen to be one of the people who could potentially go to jail for your lifestyle choice, then you care a hell of a lot. If it was Christianity that became illegal, then suddenly a lot of people would care whether or not their spirituality is criminalized. If you go to jail for a schedule I drug like DMT, how much are you going to care about the economy? You won't have to worry about losing your job to a poor economy because you will not only lose your job to the law, you'll be imprisoned for YEARS and find it very difficult to ever find meaningful employment EVER. If you're in jail it won't make a difference to you whether the economy is booming, or the country is on the brink of destruction. Either way, you would be a prisoner. But if you happen to be a spiritual user, you aren't just going to give up your most sacred spiritual practice because some law says it's illegal for you to practice your spirituality. Anyone with any self respect isn't going to just forget everything they know to be true. In the case of entheogen users, they aren't just going to stop practicing their spirituality because the law says it's illegal to be who you are. The masses don't accept psychedelic use as legitimate spiritual practice. Be that as it may, the masses also do not seem to care whether spiritual users are persecuted and imprisoned. All I'm asking for is to not be potentially jailed for a lifestyle choice which does not harm anyone, and has been tremendously benefitial. The masses don't care, but I believe the LEGAL argument that criminalizing USERS is a violation of human rights, will eventually win the day.

And the argument that current laws target the wrong people will eventually be realized by those in power. The general public doesn't care. If people morally disagree with psychedelic use, they don't have to use them. But that does not make people of a different opinion criminals. What a terrible world it would be if everyone who voted for the party in power was free, but everyone who voted against the current party is determined to be a criminal, punishable up to 10 years in prison! What a world if everyone who voted Republican in 2008 went to jail because they have a different opinion from the popular vote. In Canada, it wasn’t a popularity vote that made prostitution de-criminalized, it was the sense of one reasonable judge who decided that people have the right to choose what to do with their own body. Either that, or they'll just realize that enforcing drug laws costs a hell of a lot of money and there isn't enough benefit to justify the laws current existence.

If there was a vote right now on whether dmt should be legalized, how would that vote go? Would it be legalized? Probably not. Most people wouldn't even know what they're voting on. They'd ask, what's dmt? And then the government would answer, "a schedule 1 drug in the same class as crystal meth, and heroin. Abusers of this drug suffer intense delusional hallucinations. Delusionals are associated with schizophrenia." How would the average person respond, "well jee.... no wonder it's illegal. If it's always been illegal, I don't see any reason why I should vote to make it legal. I'll vote no". These people have no idea what they would be voting on. Nor do they care at all about the potential lives that could be destroyed by the law, which would persecute and imprison anyone caught in possession. Nor could they even fathom the authentic spiritual use of psychedelics. Nor would the average person take a look at any statistics and see that psychedelics have a very low rate of addiction, and are considered relatively physically safe. They wouldn't accept the idea that people who use psychedelic drugs are NOT criminals. They just assume drugs = bad = criminal. The average person wouldn't consider the question of whether a person has the right to subject themselves to such a substance if they choose.... but a policy maker HAS to at least listen to such an argument. A policy maker might have enough sense to realize that if people do not want to take dmt, they don't have to, but that doesn't make one with a different choice a criminal.