What is Digg?83 Comments
- alapoet, on 03/09/2009, -6/+55Hopefully, the country as a whole can soon muster the political will to change our outdated, counterproductive, and costly marijuana laws.
It's time for a marijuana policy in this country that is based on science and medicine, not on the irrational fears and Reefer Madness mentality of the last century.
How many more lives must be destroyed by these irrational, counterproductive, and costly marijuana laws before we as a people demand change? - CopsSayLegalize, on 03/09/2009, -2/+26You can easily help legalize marijuana in California and other states by joining up with these cops as a citizen supporter: http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com
- Bekey, on 03/09/2009, -2/+20FTA: The country needs a comprehensive policy, not just a wink and a nod.
Yes, I agree. I'm glad this is being discussed openly now, and people are considering this. Being open to discuss these things is the right road to change. - Metavised, on 03/09/2009, -3/+20Popular things do indeed get dugg, thanks for pointing that out.
- maximilen, on 03/09/2009, -4/+17I don't understand the whole Mexico/Latin America pot connection... I mean *****, who wants stale, shwag weed that was smuggled across the border? My kush was grown in right here in Huntington Beach, California with Sublime tracks stimulating its growth!
Other drugs like Coke, opium I understand, but that's not even question for legalization now. - drmangrum, on 03/09/2009, -3/+13This is one example of many where the Federal Government needs to have its claws forcibly removed from the flesh of the States. I think if the Founding Fathers saw what has become of project, they would be livid.
Federal laws should never trump state laws. - EcadSGO, on 03/09/2009, -2/+10I don't smoke marijuana. I put it's use in the same category as any other "social" drug needing regulation, like alcohol. It is, however, my considered opinion that prohibition simply does not work in a free society. It is morally and intellectually repugnant to allow the sale, taxation, and free distribution of alcohol and tobacco, neither of which have any social, medical, or dietary benefit and deny the same legal use of marijuana. Makes no sense.
- Metavised, on 03/09/2009, -1/+8Don't mind captricflies2, he likes to throw around studies hes never read.
If he had read any of them he wouldn't be using them for an argument. I encourage everyone do read them, and you especially EdCenter. Then you could actually read the rest of what the scientists in the studies have said, not just what he likes to quote. - peteyb1313, on 03/09/2009, -2/+9hey don't hijack a marijuana article with illegal immigration talk
- Metavised, on 03/09/2009, -0/+7I don't believe it will be passed, but it not passing isn't the end. It shows everyone that theres a definite need for such things among a great number of the populace. It will take more then one wave to wear down this rock I'm afraid.
You Californians should still be out there writing your representatives and newspapers. No voice is effective by itself and no point is considered when it is said only once. YOU bring about change, not any politician. - EdCenter, on 03/09/2009, -4/+10I'm a college graduate working as an analyst (a la Harold Lee) and here's my take on marijuana:
PROS:
1) People can get sick and die from alcohol consumption. I have not experienced any sickness from marijuana use.
2) Under the influence of THC, people are generally not truculent as they would be under the influence of alcohol. You become mellow after marijuana use.
3) Unlike cigarettes, you do not need multiple sticks of marijuana to get your fix. Sure, some people do need multiple inhalations, but nowhere near as many as cigarettes.
4) Simply put, I don't see how you can justify the sale of alcohol and cigarettes in 7-11 and not marijuana.
5) People can drive under the influence of THC. My friends do it all the time without incident.
CONS:
1) Although not as addictive as cigarettes are alcohol, it is habit-forming. You will enjoy the high and once you try it on a regular basis, it will be difficult to stop.
2) You'll notice after prolonged use that you'll become noticeably more irritable during the day. Not wildly, you won't turn into the Hulk, but you'll just notice your temper being tested more often than usual.
3) You WILL gain weight if you start smoking marijuana regularly. (Just make sure you have healthy food nearby or watch how much you munch and you'll be fine).
4) Your short term memory will slightly deteriorate. The effects of which will be most noticeable in your daily speech. You'll notice yourself stopping midspeech to find the right words more often. - drmangrum, on 03/09/2009, -0/+6Yes, but the intent of that clause has been ( or trying to be) grossly overreached.
When it comes to issues like abortion, drug law, education, roadways, and the life, the State should be the final word. It shouldn't be a federal issue unless a crime in one state carries over into another.
Take murder for example. The federal government doesn't get involved unless the suspect crosses state lines. However, the federal government gets all in State business over the issue of drugs. That just doesn't make sense. - Intercon, on 03/09/2009, -1/+6Get a blog, dude. It's the comments section.
- inactive, on 03/09/2009, -1/+6Pot will be legalized in some form or another in the United States of America in the next 5 years. I bet on it.
- gage006, on 03/09/2009, -0/+5It's not just your opinion that prohibition doesn't work, it's nearly a fact. Basic research on alcohol prohibition that used to exist in this country shows that it only brought alcohol underground. Leading directly to crime and danger. Let people choose.
- drmobutu, on 03/09/2009, -0/+5I could be wrong, but I think most of that mexican schwag ends up being consumed by illegal immigrants...it certainly isn't high enough quality to be sold in medical dispensaries...
- Frankyfan3, on 03/09/2009, -0/+4lol... what's old is new again.
- ExplorerNation, on 03/09/2009, -3/+7For someone who is supposedly anti-pot, you sure like to get your two cents in on every marijuana related thread. Oh, and just about every one of those posts is drenched in ignorance.
- blackturtleus, on 03/09/2009, -2/+6I voted to legalize the medical use of marijuana back in the 1990s. I was deeply offended when the federal government decided to disregard the will of the majority in this state. My feeling is that marijuana should be legalized and enjoy the same status as tobacco and alcohol. Although I have no interest in using marijuana, I do believe that individuals should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not to use it. We really don't need the nanny state running our lives for us!
- Kojangie, on 03/09/2009, -1/+5Something positive about pot?
DIGGDIGGDIGGDIGGDIGGDIGG - Yage2006, on 03/09/2009, -0/+4How about freeing those 100+ people then?
- Metavised, on 03/09/2009, -5/+9Buried for annoying troll spam.
Digg needs a troll secti...nevermind. - Metavised, on 03/09/2009, -1/+5Which website did you copy/paste that from?
- bkrejchi, on 03/09/2009, -0/+4how much?
- flyingclutchman, on 03/10/2009, -0/+3I'm guessing any one that can't afford the good stuff buys the shwag
- daeus, on 03/11/2009, -0/+3Its Class C here in the UK, pretty much smoke where you want.
- youannoyme, on 03/09/2009, -2/+5Because it's totally different than with the booze people are allowed to buy...
A DUI is a DUI. The only people who are going to be stupid enough to drive while high are more or less the same as the ones who are already doing it while drunk. - malex, on 03/09/2009, -2/+5"I'll sure as hell not drive around in that state"
I'm okay with this. - Qbryzan, on 03/09/2009, -1/+4There's just too much meta on digg. People should be discussing things, not discussing the discussion about things, or even discussing that. Down with abstraction, or at least down with talking about it!
- tushyd, on 03/10/2009, -0/+3I would love it, but I doubt it.
- EdCenter, on 03/09/2009, -0/+3Harold from Harold & Kumar. He's an office analyst who graduated from some prestigious school (I went to a prestigious school known to be quite a stoner school).
In any case, this is based on anecdotal evidence (what I've seen in myself and the people around me). I suppose I could run hypothesis test and take my friends as a sample, but then that wouldn't be random sampling. - Metavised, on 03/09/2009, -3/+6Tired troll is tired.
What happened captric, you used to put more effort into it? You used to quote studies and give something near an unbiased opinion. Your trolling was sometimes believable and subtle, but today you've fallen from grace.
Come on man, you can do better. I'm very disappointed in you, son. - Amadeus2490, on 03/10/2009, -0/+3The only way to determine if it's addictive, is to have a large, reputable clinical trial. Until then, anecdotal evidence means nothing.
I've known older people who've smoked a joint EVERY DAY of their lives since they were 18 years old, and they graduated high school, went to college, had a career, got married and had grandchildren. On the other end of the spectrum, i've known many people who had to quit smoking due to it interfering with work, school, relationships etc.
See? What I just said means nothing, because it hasn't been proven. I just pwned myself. - Metavised, on 03/10/2009, -1/+4Ok, the first two of the studies assume that a person is smoking tobacco in combination. The others are assuming you smoke as much marijuana plant matter as a cigarette smoker smokes tobacco. Most people who smoke pot regularly do so about once or twice a day with no set amount, unlike a tobacco smoker who can clear a pack or two of set sized cigarettes.
This is all bypassed by the fact you can eat weed products, vape them, and to some lesser extent use a water pipe. Oh and about your testicular cancer, the scientists even said in their conclusion that there was only a LINK and they could not prove conclusively that it was the cause. I addressed this in another comment I made towards your lunacy.
"It could, however, also be that recreational drug use is simply a marker for affluence, since we know that testicular cancer is traditionally a disease that is more common among the affluent. Or it could be a marker for some other event that comes along with it, that triggers lesions that lead to tumors. So, at this point, it's just not clear to me how exactly the association between marijuana and testicular cancer would work."
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_ ... - HOWLAN, on 03/10/2009, -0/+3Free them all, and everyone else doing time for possession. It's a drain on resources and tax dollars that could be going to more important things like healthcare and education. Legalize and tax the reefer.
- inactive, on 03/11/2009, -0/+2LEAP rocks. Thanks guys, for having the balls to speak out for what's right for this country, even if it's occasionally unpopular in your own community.
- inactive, on 03/11/2009, -0/+2I agree. But I said the same thing in the early '80s, and the tax & spend drug war made just as much sense for the country (ie 0) back then.
- justdont, on 03/09/2009, -3/+5Another common misconception about the varying affects of cannabis. Below is one study of many that basically says " found their reaction time and all other measures of driving performance to be unaffected by the drug. "
Marijuana Has Less Adverse Effect on Driving Than Alcohol, Tiredness, U.K. Study Says
<a class="user" href="http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4270" rel="nofollow">http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4270</a>
Granted this is only one study, it important to point out that researching and studying of the cannabis plant is also illegal in USA. - inactive, on 03/11/2009, -0/+2A President with real balls would...
- drmobutu, on 03/09/2009, -2/+4It was, already, thirteen years ago...where have you been?
- wats1, on 03/10/2009, -0/+2Education not incarceration.
:| - inactive, on 03/11/2009, -0/+2When it changed to that status (my apologies, but I don't know when that was, or how old you were/are) did cannabis use/bad-stuff (especially teenage use, people don't care if adults get stoned!) increase, or decrease, in the UK? Thanks.
- feckineejit, on 03/09/2009, -2/+4driving under the influence of any substance that is mind altering is illegal. So your argument is moot, and retarded.
- jessehadden, on 03/09/2009, -0/+2Well, you're half-right... there is that old supremacy clause... however... the Constitution does not grant the Federal government the authority to enact "Prohibition II" without a Constitutional amendment, which was never sought. So, there is nothing to be supreme about... just a blatant disregard of the Bill of Rights, which quite clearly states that powers not explicitly, Constitutionally granted to the Federal government are reserved to the states, and to the people.
In other words, in lieu of a Constitutional amendment or a state law, smoking pot is up to you. You know, if we lived under the rule of law, and not just a big cluster-*****. - Criminolelawyer, on 03/09/2009, -1/+3I was with you until the should never trump state laws...That certainly is not how the constitution was meant to be interpreted, You should read the Supremacy Clause (Article 6 sec 2) or you can just secede ;)
- Metavised, on 03/09/2009, -0/+2Thank you for that intelligent post.
- inactive, on 03/09/2009, -1/+3I meant all of the 50 states.
- Amadeus2490, on 03/10/2009, -0/+1igg digg digg digg
- Metavised, on 03/10/2009, -0/+1 "It could, however, also be that recreational drug use is simply a marker for affluence, since we know that testicular cancer is traditionally a disease that is more common among the affluent. Or it could be a marker for some other event that comes along with it, that triggers lesions that lead to tumors. So, at this point, it's just not clear to me how exactly the association between marijuana and testicular cancer would work."
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_ ... - inactive, on 03/10/2009, -0/+1Metavised - go down to Columbia and east Hastings in Vancouver BC and tell me about how drug usage is a "marker" for affluence. That is about the funniest thing I have heard all day.
-
Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is