world

Latin American leaders question Calif move to legalize marijuana

93 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

93 Comments
Login to comment

Santos said that if Californians approve Proposition 19, it would require reviewing the principles that have long underpinned efforts to combat drugs in Latin America with support from Washington.

Well, it would be about time wouldn't it moron? Those principles have not done you any good. And have a gander at Mexico. A little closer to your Colombia than Cali. Don't know if Santos can read maps though. Either this guy is really dumb, or he profits from cartels and would hate to see legalization undermine them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

City and county governments would decide whether to allow and tax sales of the drug.

Marijuana has been linked to higher rates of mental health problems (particularly schizophrenia), and has all the disadvantages of smoking (increased risk of cancer)) and none of the precautions (filters, etc), plus it has the same public risks (second hand smoke).

It's ironic that at a time when people are griping about smoking tobacco they're proposing to legalise smoking marijuana. Hypocrisy anyone? I suppose it's the old "It is herbal therefore it is good for you" illogic.

I would support it for pain relief in those with incurable conditions who reject conventional treatment and pain relief (e.g. cancer, AIDs, etc), and for the aged however for the general public its a disaster.

If one looks at Africa (where marijuana use has been common for thousands of years) only the elders (those near the end of their productive lives) are allowed to smoke it, and the rationale is that it eases the pains of arthritis, breathing difficulties, etc. Young people were never allowed to consume it.

All in all the free and legal consumption of marijuana is going to cause increased health problems and the tax payer will bear the burden. They talk about taxing it, but since they can have their own "garden" (and marijuana grows like a weed) I don't think that taxation will be effective in recovering the true cost of marijuana consumption.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Marijuana has been linked to higher rates of mental health problems (particularly schizophrenia), and has all the disadvantages of smoking (increased risk of cancer)) and none of the precautions (filters, etc), plus it has the same public risks (second hand smoke).

That is such a bull crap!! It does not cause any mental issues that didn't already existed. No risk of cancer either if it's not mixed with tobacco. I can't say something you burn and inhale can be good for you, but compared to it's nearest cousin tobacco, it's harmless. THis law is not for allowing people to light up in front of other people, it's made to save thousands of innocent people from going to jail for carrying small amount of it. It's way overdue. And about the Africa example, tribes depend on the work of young people, they simply can't just allow them to smoke and enjoy their lives. Pot won't make you wanna work, it will make you want to sit down, relax and enjoy life. I don't think it's good for kids either. It should only be consumed for recreational purpoeses, by adults, when all the work is done and it's time to relax. It's not a drug and shouldn't be put in same basket as dangerous chemical mixes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All in all the free and legal consumption of marijuana is going to cause increased health problems and the tax payer will bear the burden. They talk about taxing it, but since they can have their own "garden" (and marijuana grows like a weed) I don't think that taxation will be effective in recovering the true cost of marijuana consumption.

How about millins of dollars going into pockets of cartels becuase it's illegal. Don't you think making it legal will stop that? Cartels and gangs are only surviving because of illegality of this plant. They just can't make enough money to survive if people could have their own gardens and grew their own plants. And taxing will be very effecitive if the sale of it is controlled. I also believe it will reduce the consumption of chamical drugs. Noone will risk jailtime doing chemical drugs, when they can buy this legally from the corner store. Legalizing pot can and will increase public health, reduce crime, stop the money flow to gangs and cartels and just promote better community than what we have today.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Legalization is the only rational message. If pot is legal, local people will grow and produce it. Then Jose drug lord in Mexico has lost his demand and can no longer charge prime prices for his product. Game over for the pot trade and associated crime.

Sure some will move on to harder drug products, but that demand is already what it is. Lots of people smoke pot, like it or not this is a fact even in Japan. But few will move on to harder drugs just because Jose drug lord needs to up his demand.

So legalize pot and quit wasting money on enforcement. One big problem goes away and the states can tax the product to help fund important projects. Win Win for americans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Damien mj is hardly the main cash cow of drug cartels. It can be grown in peoples back yards and basements for chrissakes! So yeah, keep up the pro-recreational legalisation of pot to support your desire to get high.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HonestDictator. Even if it is not the #1 cash cow, it is certainly a source of big money or the cartels would not bother and the million dollar pot busts we read about would read $100 bust instead.

Just from an enforcement point of view, the shift in resources would be a win for all parties concerned. Except the cartels who lose on plank in their income stream.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BTW I don't smoke and don't plan to. But I hate seeing money wasted when it could instead generate much needed tax revenue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's ironic that at a time when people are griping about smoking tobacco they're proposing to legalise smoking marijuana. Hypocrisy anyone?

I'm too lazy to look it up, and I'm not a pot smoker myself, but I believe there is scientific proof that marijuana is actually less dangerous than regular smoking. It doesn't contain carcinogens or most of the horrible chemicals found in cigarettes (like sulfur, formaldehyde, etc.)

The hypocrisy is so many people saying "don't use drugs" when in fact they do behind the scenes.

I suppose it's the old "It is herbal therefore it is good for you" illogic.

In my experience, pot smokers are just as tenacious and utterly annoying as religious fanatics: they will go on and on ad inifinitum about how wonderful it all is and how people who say it isn't are wrong/evil/full of crap, etc etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"would send a contradictory message from the United States." nope!!! it would send the correct message. It is still the 1930`s I guess. Did you know Portugal has legalized all drugs!!! and drug usage went down!!! and the number of patience in rehab clinics went up!!!! AMAZING!!! open your tiny minds. we can make what ever choice we want to in life. Keep drugs out of kids hands, encourage healthy living, and clinical rehab if you want it. Take the power out of the hands of the drug kin pins.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kujiranikusuki. I agree with you on the role of alchohol. But prohibition taught us that bans just create a new form of deman that crime then steps up to provide.

An idea.

Legalize non-addictive drugs including marijuana. License production and tax it. Tax sales. Tax distribution. Stop spending money on enforcement and retool those funds against more dangerous drugs. Use some of the tax revenue to demystify drugs and to teach kids from a young age about the dangers of drugs. Use other parts of that money to help people break addictions from alcohol and other drugs.

Turn these social problems into social benefits and kill of a lot of the drug crime world in the process.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Americans want to get high on anything, marijuana, cocaine, smoking banana peels you name it. So, if you were Jose or Pablo south of the border, barely surviving growing beans and potatoes, while you know that north of the border, they are starving for good marijuana etc..well you would shift from potatoes to greener crops, right? All of Latin America should just legalize all of the drugs and bring Americans and Europeans into places like Acapulco so they can all have fun in the sun and legally get stoned and tax the consumption, because if California passes this law, I think the rest of the USA will go along and then the rest of the countries in that region. But if we think the mafias will just quietly sit around and only let the Californians enjoy this $$$$??? No way!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The leaders of several Latin American nations on the front line of the battle against drugs said Tuesday that a California ballot measure to legalize marijuana would send a contradictory message from the United States.

he is 100% correct.

i see people offering the same old pro-pot nonsense (not addictive, doesn't cause cancer, ...). to them i say: i prefer a slightly lower quality paper than more potheads. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Americans want to get high on anything,

wrong. druggies want to get high on anything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i'm a square? ohhh, i feel so bad...

that's ok though, they'll forget in about 10 seconds. hey look! chips!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Santos! Apply for a green card.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

they'll forget in about 10 seconds. hey look! chips!!

It's you spouting the nonsense, manfromamerica, as well as tired, pathetic stereotypes.

Pot isn't addictive. It doesn't cause mental problems. It's not a gateway drug. It doesn't lower anyone's sperm count or IQ. It doesn't do any of the baloney I was told it does when I was a kid. It was all just a bunch of lies told by the government, backed up by yellow journalism and biased science.

I could be wrong, but it seems like your reasons for disliking cannabis are based on something other than logic and reason. It seems like you have this wrongheaded image of pot smokers as dirty, lazy and stupid.

But, the reality is that smoking pot is no longer a counter culture activity in America, it's totally mainstream, and any random group of pot smokers will pretty faithfully reflect the general opinions, attitudes and behaviors of the society as a whole.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It’s about time. You ain’t never gonna get rid of it so legalize it, legislate it, tax it. Let’s empty some of those overcrowded jail cells. About time people get off their hypocritical high horses and face some realities – the stuff does as much good as it does harm, kinda like religion and it’s no worse than alcohol, probably better. Unfortunately it’s not going to produce enough tax to help CA financial problems.

Tubes Doobs & Boobs!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

pot smokers as dirty, lazy and stupid.

yes, and not from movie stereotypes but from potsmokers themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It was all just a bunch of lies told by the government, backed up by yellow journalism and biased science.

ohhh, a big conspiracy by the government, police, doctors, scientists, and parents. that's sure a hard one to keep secret.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“How can I tell a farmer in my country that if he grows marijuana, I’ll put him in jail, when in the richest state of the United States it’s legal to produce, traffic and consume the same product?” Santos said

That's a total non-sequitor. It's like saying: How can I make it illegal to access "unsafe" websites in Colombia when in the US there is no state sanctioned censorship?

Oh, wait, Colombia blocks "unsafe" websites anyway.

Nice try --but no. Try again, mr Santos.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The vast majority of people I have met in my life that smoke, are suit wearing, responsible business people. Many with families. Many making six figures.

lol! suuuure... as opposed to the slackers everyone else sees. the heavy pot smokers i've known smoke daily, and may not be chemically addicted but are emotionally and behaviorally addicted, as they can't go a day without smoking. and unfortunately in the end, their jobs, cleanliness and hygiene do suffer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Typical response to any action America takes - - damned if we do, damned if we don't; half the world blaming us for all their problems, the other half expects us to save them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

as opposed to the slackers everyone else sees.

Could it be that the slackers like to be potheads rather than sucessfull people turn into slackers by smoking pot? And who are these everyone else we're talking about? Most people I know are responsible hard working people that think it's their god given right to light up one after a long day at work. I've never seen a hardworking person, who cares about his life, health and wealth, destroyed by pot. Just doesn't happen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just doesn't happen.

that's an absurd statement. and pot is indeed a gateway drug.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Damien15. Truthfully I see more people high on TV that lose motivation for doing anything useful than I see pot heads. Wonder why manfromamerica doesn't see this problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hehe, alcohol is a gateway drug too. Outlawing that went similarly bad :0

0 ( +0 / -0 )

junnama- how is alcohol a gateway drug? please explain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A lot of the people you might misinterpret as slackers are actually very active and aware people. Most of them don't drink or smoke anything that alters their awareness.

exactly, they don't smoke pot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica. Show me one druggie who jumped straight into drugs. Most people wander into drugs after dragging themselves through long periods of partying with alcohol first. Where do you think people first encounter drugs? At alcohol free bible study events? No at parties, bars etc... when they want something a little stronger than booze.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica. Do you actually know anyone who smokes pot?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Would people you know tell you that they smoke pot?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Show me one druggie who jumped straight into drugs. Most people wander into drugs

exactly. alcohol does not lead to harder drugs. pot often does.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Where do you think people first encounter drugs? At alcohol free bible study events? No at parties, bars etc... when they want something a little stronger than booze.

you are supporting everything i've said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Really, alcohol gives a nice high, but once you have that high, why not try other highs? I know a fair few pot smokers. Almost all of them drank first.

Moderator: Readers, no further reference to alcohol please. It is not relevant to this discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Beer and pot go together well. They used to call it a double barrel shotgun when I was growing up..,

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Strangely, some of the most successful people I know smoke pot :|

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Strangely, some of the most successful people I know smoke pot :|

strangely yes. how often? and just because Obama smoked crack it means it's safe for everyone?

regardless, Santos is 100% correct in his statements.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Strangely, some of the most successful people I know smoke pot

Not strange at all, sucessfull people can do it all. Do they deserve to go to jail just because some others are using it unresponsibly?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The only reason pot can be a gateway drug, is because it's available at the same place where they push other dangerous chemical drugs. Making it legal and place it in the corner store will solve that porblem. Pusher's won't be able to push other drugs to innocent pot smokers. Can't you see that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyway, isn't this a state law matter. The federal govt should not be doing anything if I'm correct..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

he only reason pot can be a gateway drug,

yes, it is a gateway drug. and it isn't only sold in back alleys. in california you can buy medical marijuana where they don't sell harder drugs, but you are in denial if you think they are still not abusing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hey, you said it was mainstream, so i must know.

From your comments, you don't seem mainstream to me at all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Recent polls have shown support for Proposition 19 sagging among voters. A survey by the Public Policy Institute of California found that the proposition was backed by 44% of likely voters while almost half said they would vote against it.

even ultra liberal california is waking up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From your comments, you don't seem mainstream to me at all.

ooo, now insults. why can't liberals tolerate other opinions?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyway, isn't this a state law matter. The federal govt should not be doing anything if I'm correct..

LOL! NOW you suddenly believe in states' rights because it's about pot? drug enforcement is a federal concern as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mj is no more harmful then legal drugs and is only creating a culture of violence by keeping it illegal. Maybe the colombians would prefer it stays illegal: they make more money that way :|

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm yanking your chain on state law. Funny to see a con arguing that the fed should over-rule state law :p

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mj is no more harmful then legal drugs

that's a typical pot-smoking cliche with no basis in reality. listening to too much Jello Biafra. for your own good: put down the spoken word.

Maybe the colombians would prefer it stays illegal: they make more money that way :|

colombians are dying fighting the drug traffic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm yanking your chain on state law. Funny to see a con arguing that the fed should over-rule state law :p

yes, shows you don't comprehend states rights at all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, now insults. Why can't conservatives tolerate other points of view? ;)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, now insults. Why can't conservatives tolerate other points of view? ;)

lol! btw - note I didn't insult you, there was no personal comment there. you seem like a genuinely nice person. you just don't comprehend specific arguments.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Haha, that's definitely an insult. Consevatives are so pleasant in person. Why so bad on the net ? Fushigi ;)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh you should know how funny it sounds when people say pot is more harmful than legal drugs. Leaves me in stitches every time :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

just don't comprehend specific arguments.

can you post some examples of these scientific arguments? Any science saying pot is more harmful to health than the tobacco is a science fiction.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ooo, now insults. why can't liberals tolerate other opinions?

becuase the current law is too harsh. growing a plant for personal consumtion should not land you in a jail cell. Anything you do at your home when alone behind the closed curtains is noone else's but your business.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And let me just add, when one of the respected scientists in UK came up and said that cannabiss is totally harmless, Queen has ordered her scientists to come up with reasons that why it's bad for you. They worse point they came up with was that cannabis is usually consumed mixed with tobacco and unfiltered tobacco was worse to your body than anything else. Plus, I know some people that would be dead several times if it was actually bad for health. I know some very old hippies that have been smoking all their lives. Their lungs are much heatier than tobacco smokers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

50-odd posts later and my point has been proven, hahaha

Pot isn't addictive.

So then every single pot smoker right now can quit cold-turkey, right? End of problem!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"NOW you suddenly believe in states' rights because it's about pot?"

I think the Civil War pretty much resolve the definition of State's Rights. Do states have a right to make many decisions, including what to legalize and what not to, sure. That is within state's rights.

Isn't a liberal/conservative question at all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Consevatives are so pleasant in person. Why can't conservatives tolerate other points of view? why can't liberals tolerate other opinions?

LOL - really?

Great. You`ve learned that on one continuum there are liberals and conservatives. When are you going to take the next step in your education, learning that there are liberals and conservatives of all shades within those groups. Generalizations just make you sound uninformed and lazy.

This topic could be though of as pro of con from either view point, depending on what you focus on. And given that there are millions of either group in California, alone... well, you should get the picture by now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The popularity of other drugs wax and wane, but MJ sales are steady and assured. That is why it is a cash cow. That is the very definition of a cash cow. And if it were not such a money maker, we would have illegals growing it in American national parks on behalf of cartels. Unlike every other drug the sell, it requires no complicated processing. No labs. No chemicals.

And like I said, its popularity is not waning. Its not going away. Not ever. No matter how hard you wish. No matter what arguments you make, it has stayed and will stay.

My only problem with Cali legalizing is that the cartels will have time to adapt. Far better the whole country legalize it suddenly and all at once, and watch the bottom fall out of profits. Reeling from that it will be much easier to hit them.

Then, when they are hammered good, worry warts like manfromamerica can talk about making them illegal again. God forbid he think that far ahead though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I know two sisters. One is responsible and the other is not. They were that way growing up, and they stayed that way after smoking pot. The irresponsible one is my mother. I smoked as much pot growing up as your average party goer because of second hand smoke at home AND at parties. I have only toked directly a few times myself, and the last time was several years ago. I was a straight A student all through junior high. I was nearly so through high school. I am very healthy. And I am responsible enough that I am sending money home to my mother to support her. I wonder about my memory, but it seems to be better than my wife's who never smoked in her life.

So why would anyone worry about legalizing MJ? Ignorance, playing Devil's advocate, or raking in the cash thanks to it being illegal. You start talking about legalizing it, and know that your enemies are RJ Reynolds and Anheiser-Busch, and maybe even this fool Santos for the same reason as them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Real tokers wouldn't bother reading the article or the comments. So the argument will be a little to one side.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't see how taking production of the California pot manufacturing base out of the hands of the cartels is going to benefit the cartels.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Meh, I think it really boils down to - the cost of keeping otherwise harmless people in jail for growing weed in their gardens, the cost of the police and courts having to deal with such "offenders" , the loss of tax revenue and the same money ending up not in the governments hands and people devoting their time, effort and cash into producing and selling weed when it could be done more professionally. Personally I am for it and I dont smoke.

So why would anyone worry about legalizing MJ?

Ignorance is right. I like how manfromamerica assumes that if you favour legalisation you are liberal. I am slightly right of centre and I think the goverment shouldnt have too much say in what you smoke in the privacy of your own home. Just dont smoke anything around me at restaurants or on trains.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

why we shouldn't allow MJ to be liberated as this only fuels Militants and Druglords to continue their killings. I think liberation of it will ultimately safe lives. Maybe some politicians in the South America are worried about their earnings rather than their Citizens.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Afro-Americans and Latinos in the US also are annoyed at the racist, disproportionate drug sentences they receive in comparison to whites who are caught with marijuana. Obviously this was deliberate...to disenfranchise a certain segment of the population. This is just one of the many reasons why cannabis should be LEGALIZED. Let the cops do REAL police work and go after DANGEROUS criminals like rapists, child molesters, terrorists et al.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

maxtheitpro at 04:56 AM JST - 28th October. This is just one of the many reasons why cannabis should be LEGALIZED.

Do you really think the U.S. society will be better off if you legalize the cannabis? Heck, there's already more legal alcohol abuse and prescription problem, and with the addition of cannibis as legal, U.S. will have more and more people with long term health problem and mental illness. Who is going to pay for these additional health and mental care?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I do not want to generalize, but most of the pot smokers I have known are fat, yes, fat slobs, just sit their puffing away, calling for pizza because they got the munchies, and now America is facing an epidemic of over weight, obesity, and diabetes problem, so to all of those here who think that smoking, what ever is so great for your health, just keep looking at all the slobs of ANY NATIONALITY who can not live with out their marijuana day and day out, but these slobs will be slobs even if marijuana stays illegal so I guess as Darwin would say, let the slobs kill themselves one puff at a time right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heck, there's already more legal alcohol abuse and prescription problem, and with the addition of cannibis as legal, U.S. will have more and more people with long term health problem and mental illness.

You've got some very incorrect assumptions going on there. For one, cannabis is much, much less harmful to individuals and to society than alcohol. Two, it doesn't cause mental illness and the smoking side of it isn't too dangerous anyway. Of course, we aren't even considering other methods of taking it, like cooking with it or using vaporizers.

I do not want to generalize, but most of the pot smokers I have known are fat, yes, fat slobs

Yes, you did want to generalize, or you wouldn't have. Funny thing about anecdotal evidence like what you are giving us there is it can go both ways. For example, I could say something completely true like 'Very few of the fat slobs I know smoke pot.' or even 'Of all the people I know that smoke pot, most exercise regularly.' Both are true statements.

Of course, none of that matters. The facts are that cannabis is a relatively harmless drug. It's much, much less harmful than other legal drugs, and pharmaceuticals as well. The most harmful thing concerning cannabis is it's illegality and the policy of prohibition. Ending cannabis prohibition will only have positive effects.

Moderator: Readers, once again we remind you that alcohol is not relevant to this discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anything you do at your home when alone behind the closed curtains is noone else's but your business.

building bombs? making meth? planning assassinations? mmmm, not anything when you really think about it for a bit....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Legalization is the most logical option.

Latin American leaders claiming otherwise are just protecting their jobs, because they of all people should understand that the failed approach to drug consumption (plus lax US gun laws) have helped to create the world's most powerful organised-crime syndicates in Latin America.

BOTTOM LINE:

"Drug addiction, like alcoholism & tobacco consumption, is a matter of public health rather than the criminal law."

If California votes in favor of legalization, Latin America would be wise to follow suit (the bottom would anyway fall out of its marijuana business). The drug gangs would still be left with more lucrative cocaine & methamphetamines, but it would become easier to defeat them. Drug-policy reform in the US & Latin America could help tame the drug-related violence associated with illegal drugs.

What the region needs are the following 3 things;

Better police Stricter gun laws in US (renew ban on assault weaps. that lapsed in '04) Legal pot in California

Comments please.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land at 05:31 PM JST - 28th October. The facts are that cannabis is a relatively harmless drug. It's much, much less harmful than other legal drugs, and pharmaceuticals as well.

Sounds like you're Doctor. What About Cancer? Marijuana contains more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke and because marijuana smokers typically inhale deeper and hold the smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers, their lungs are exposed to those carcinogenic properties longer, when smoking. Marijuana smokers were three times more likely to develop cancer of the head or neck than non-smokers. Because marijuana smoke contains three times the amount of tar found in tobacco smoke and 50 percent more carcinogens, it would seem logical to deduce that there is an increased risk of lung cancer for marijuana smokers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, you did want to generalize, or you wouldn't have. Funny thing about anecdotal evidence like what you are giving us there is it can go both ways. For example, I could say something completely true like 'Very few of the fat slobs I know smoke pot.' or even 'Of all the people I know that smoke pot, most exercise regularly.' Both are true statements.

Bingo.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What About Cancer? Marijuana contains more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke and because marijuana smokers typically inhale deeper and hold the smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers, their lungs are exposed to those carcinogenic properties longer, when smoking. Marijuana smokers were three times more likely to develop cancer of the head or neck than non-smokers.

sfjp330 - reference, please.

Because marijuana smoke contains three times the amount of tar found in tobacco smoke and 50 percent more carcinogens, it would seem logical to deduce that there is an increased risk of lung cancer for marijuana smokers.

Your logic appears to be an exercise in confirmation bias (it clearly ignores the difference in the amount of tobacco vs. marijuana smoked, for example). However, if you want to make such a conclusion and want others to accept it, you need to show that your premise is valid to begin with.

Also, if you want to be taken seriously when citing statistics, again, you need to show your hand. Without revealing the research you allude to, we can't know what "three times as likely" means. After all, if it's similar to 1 in 1,000,000 vs. 3 in 1,000,000 then it's pretty safe to disregard anything you try to extrapolate from such an insignificant difference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Didn't check this thread for a few days:

Damien15 at 09:41 AM JST - 27th October That is such a bull crap!! It does not cause any mental issues that didn't already existed.

You're wrong. See Arendt, et. al. (2005), Van Os & Delespaul (2005), Henquet (2007), Murray (2006)... there are literally more than 50 independent studies that I know of in the last 5 years that confirm the link between marijuana use and greatly increased incidents of everything from schizophrenia to depression and anxiety. There are probably a lot more studies, but I don't read every journal.

No risk of cancer either if it's not mixed with tobacco. I can't say something you burn and inhale can be good for you, but compared to it's nearest cousin tobacco, it's harmless.

No. Actually research has shown that the two rates are pretty similar because while tobacco tends to contain more chemicals marijuana is smoked without a filter, and many marijuana smokers mix it with tobacco so they they get the worst of both worlds. The risk for marijuana is a little lower, like riding a unicycle through rush-hour traffic as opposed to riding a unicycle in rush-hour traffic while juggling knives, but to say, "No risk of cancer" is blatantly wrong.

Damien15 at 09:50 AM JST - 27th October How about millins of dollars going into pockets of cartels becuase it's illegal. Don't you think making it legal will stop that?

No, I don't. Unlike you I have more than just an opinion on a hypothetical future. Look at Holland, where marijuana was legal in many locations. The result was that the drug dealers moved into the area offering marijuana (legally) at a low price and subsidising their losses with more hard-core drugs. No country or state exists in a vacuum and one state changing its laws won't change the fact that the drug industry is mostly run by criminals. It would be idiotic to assume that just because California changes its rules this will somehow magically cause all the illegal demand for marijuana to dry up and equally miraculously transform all the criminals running the trade into nice people. Frankly the assumption that a change in California will instantly change the world is myopic in the extreme.

They just can't make enough money to survive if people could have their own gardens and grew their own plants.

I grow my own basil, but I also use quite a bit of it so about once or twice I week I need to pick up some at the market. I would definitely use less basil if it was illegal (it would be a guilty pleasure), and did use a bit less when I had to buy it every time.

This is directly analogous to marijuana, except that marijuana requires a lot more planning than just picking it off the plant and smoking it. It needs to be picked, dried and stored properly. Chance are that demand will exceed supply, and at least some of the time even the most avid gardeners will pop down to buy some.

And of course your assumption removes that most reliable and pervasive of human characteristics, lazyness. Faced with the choice between the hassel of growing, drying and rolling their own joints and popping down to the nearest chap in a dirty overcoat for a pre-rolled baggie of 10 they'll opt for the convenience and speed over the cost if they have the money. While the stereotypical marijuana user might be a broke student there will probably be plenty of professionals with the cash to value convenience over cost.

And taxing will be very effecitive if the sale of it is controlled.

And so we come back to "control". That means policing it, which means you lose out on the savings to law enforcement.

Legalizing pot can and will increase public health, reduce crime, stop the money flow to gangs and cartels and just promote better community than what we have today.

See my comments on mental health and cancer at the top; public health definitely won't increase. Experiences in other countries likewise show that gangs and cartels will likewise continue to flourish and will merely use California as a "gateway" to the rest of the U.S. (just like Holland was used as a gateway to the rest of Europe).

I do however agree with the crime issue, it's hard for people to stand up when they're stoned, never mind rob or rape anyone. ... oh wait, but Holland saw a huge increase in human trafficking and crime in the dope smoking areas. So yeah the smokers won't be criminally active, but the gangs and cartels that come with them will be. So there goes the "lower crime" idea.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sfjp330- sounds like you're the so-called "Doctor" here. ^^

Please take a moment to review the following.

Here is what the former top Doctor of the USA says...

"Former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders calls for legalization of marijuana"

"Marijuana is not addictive -- not physically addictive anyway," Elders added. "Nobody says that marijuana causes violence. As we know alcohol can cause much more aggressiveness. You aren't as likely to hurt someone from using marijuana as you are from using alcohol."

"I think we consume far more dangerous drugs that are legal: cigarette smoking, nicotine and alcohol," Elders told the New York Times on Friday. "I feel they cause much more devastating effects physically. We need to lift the prohibition on marijuana."

Also, look at what Dr Leslie Iversen of Oxford University's Department of Pharmacology, wrote in his book, "The Science of Marijuana."

"There are many "myths" surrounding marijuana use, such as extreme addictiveness, and links with mental illness or infertility are not supported by science.Cannabis is an inherently "safe drug" which does not lead to cancer, infertility, brain damage or mental illness, and is less harmful than asprin."

Please comment.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Sure sounds to me like they are afraid of lost sales revenue (billions$). If we in the USA were to legalize drugs and return control back to the medical profession then drugs dealers would lose all their business and go broke fast. Also the savings in court costs, incarceration, police resources etc would be in the 100's of billions of $ USD. The prohibition most likely has nothing to do with peoples health to begin with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Frungy,

I was going to reply to your long post with the counter evidences I gathered, but Venlo's post above says it all really. There are different people, experts in their fields giving conflicting reports for MJ use. One thing I know for sure is, any scientist or doctor that paid to investigate effects of mj in people are paid to come up with negative results. Anyone reporting possitive effects, or debunking myths are not paid to come up with these results and doing their own investigations. It's a simple plant that's been consumed all throught the history of man, until American's ruined it for the whole world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now't wrong with M.J. Tobacco often is the mixing agent far more deadly, as tobacco is highly addictive. I once had a friend who complained he needed a joint, a non smoker of tobacco, turned out what he needed was the tobacco in the joints he smoked! Who smokes 20+ joints a day? M.J is neither addictive or causes people to be violent, just laugh and be a little silly! Prohibition of this harmless substance that has been used for thousands of years is ridiculous! Skin up!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

building bombs? making meth? planning assassinations? mmmm, not anything when you really think about it for a bit....

So what do you suggest? spying on everyone, all the time? As long as this is not your plan, whatever one does behind closed curtains, can't be anyone else's business.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You're wrong. See Arendt, et. al. (2005), Van Os & Delespaul (2005), Henquet (2007), Murray (2006)... there are literally more than 50 independent studies that I know of in the last 5 years that confirm the link between marijuana use and greatly increased incidents of everything from schizophrenia to depression and anxiety.

I searched about the names you've mentioned, it would have been better to post some links instead. I was only able to to find Henquet. Here's the conclusion of his studies as below.

The observed deleterious effect of cannabis use on the prognosis of patients with psychotic disorder may involve the same mechanism as the observed deleterious effect of cannabis use on the prognosis of individuals with high levels of liability to psychosis.

So it's not causing healthy person to go crazy. You shouldn't do it because you maybe the type with high level of liability to psychosis, but not may people suffer from this. I stand by my statement.

About the cancer, we can argue days about this, there are reports that cannabis prevent cancer. But since we still don't know the cause for cancer in every case, it would be not very meaningful at all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Main reason for the proposition 19 in California is to reduce the state legal cost. The petty cannibis accusation has clogged the court system. All accused defendents has rights and they require legal representation, and most most cases, is represented by Public Defender paid by State of California and the state is having difficulty in increase in cost for petty crimes. This is nothing more than a economic reason and it's wrong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That is such a bull crap!! It does not cause any mental issues that didn't already existed. No risk of cancer either if it's not mixed with tobacco. I can't say something you burn and inhale can be good for you, but compared to it's nearest cousin tobacco, it's harmless

Actually there is evidence that it does cause mental issues, not saying it is confirmed but there is evidence to support that view. Are you kidding me there are several carcinogens in pot, in fact pot smoke contains more cancer causing chemicals than tobacco smoke, however though you can all but pretty much eliminate that risk if you vaporize it rather than smoke it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually there is evidence that it does cause mental issues

From what I understand, as Damien15 stated 3 comments up, the current view is that is that it might cause, in people that are prone to mental disease or have some latent mental problems, mental problems that were already there to manifest earlier than they would have without any cannabis use, but doesn't cause the mental problem itself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

latin american countries don;t want the usa to legalize marijuana as it would cut into their profits substantially. they make much more money having it illegal & smuggling it into usa.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lets just suppose drug X has a NET negative affect on user and society. Make it illegal is supposed to reduce availability and make it appear undesirable. In fact, it often has opposite effect as drug X becomes associated with the heroic underdog, profitable risk taking, you know the rest. Or look at how the drug cartels in Mexico have metastasized, and the pain this brings on the Mexican populace; all funded by American drug sales. So why not legalize drug X and put the onus on the user to find his or her own way to survival fitness? Sounds fair; but actually what could happen is that a legal industry would immediatly grow up aruond drug X, it would be glorified through advertising, and society would pay the price while a few got rich. ALready, many are talking how sales taxes would fill in funding shortfalls for education, etc. That's not good, and its not morally correct. Those receipts should go excluisively to anti-drug X advertising. The anti-smoking campaign proves it can be effective. Dont let illegal drug dealers be replaced by legal drug dealers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From what I understand, as Damien15 stated 3 comments up, the current view is that is that it might cause, in people that are prone to mental disease or have some latent mental problems, mental problems that were already there to manifest earlier than they would have without any cannabis use, but doesn't cause the mental problem itself.

I know that, that is why I said there is evidence, meaning a suggestion not necessarily a fact.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"How can I tell a farmer in my country if he grows marijuana I'll put him in jail, when in the richest state of the United States it's legal to produce, traffic and consume the same product?"

Easy! Mexico is a sovereign state! U.S. laws are not valid in Mexico! Sheesh!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hope the California voters - noted as pretty big stoners - pass this referendum. California will become like Amsterdam, but on a huge scale! Seriously, if this cuts down on the crime associated with the drug ie turf wars and people fighting for control of the market, then it will be a very progressive change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just make this plant legal and regulate it like alcohol. This will be just as big as ending proabition. I hope Japan propaganda will stop the lies about marijuana because people will learn the truth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hope the California voters pass this referendum.

Me too, but from what I'm reading on other sites, support for prop. 19 has dropped to as low as 42% according to the most recent polls. Current opinion is that it will likely lose by a few percentage points.

People are already starting to plan the next movement culminating in another vote in 2012 if this one fails.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

legalize alcohol is more harmful than hard drugs anyway according to BBC

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites