i think marijuana should be decriminalized for everything EXCEPT

private consumption.
it should be made legal for medical use.
it should be legal to grow hemp for rope and clothing and any other manufactured goods.
if you want to smoke it just to get high,it should stay illegal.

What benefit is there to society in its criminalization?

as long as as its potential detrimental affects are labeled just like cigarettes, but if cigs are legal then pot should be too. It's not any worse than cigs.

:rofl:

:spray: Once you start... you just can't stop. It's a vicious cycle... pot, crack, cocaine, meth, heroin, lsd... next thing you know you're knocking off liquor stores and giving guys blow jobs just to be able to buy your next fix.

It keeps the crime control and prison industries busy doing unnecessary work. Jobs, man!

:popcorn:

Great idea.

The most addictive of brain-frying drugs.

I agree that the growth hormones that are added to milk should be banned, but milk itself?



*On edit, :sarcasm:

It's insidious.

Now, Ben and Jerry's New York Chocolate Fudge Chunk is another story altogether.

:evilgrin:

-Hoot

At least I doubt it.

The best the gov.can do is it "leads to harder drugs".

I thought we were listing legal stimulants that are more addictive than pot: cigarettes, booze, chocolate, and coffee (to illustrate the stupidity of pot being illegal). Then JanMichel joined the list of legal stimulants with "milk". I was trying to figure out wtf he was getting at, but apparently he was just being goofy. :)

the ultra religious right and drug company execs who are dying of cancer?

Gee thanks.

Everybody who has smoked pot knows that booze is the way crazier drug. That's the one you get in fights on, end up in bed with wierd people on. That's the one that not only is it dangerous to drive on, but it gives you a false sense of security about your driving skills, unlike pot. If you want to face pot, you need to face booze. And we all know what happened last time government tried to get rid of booze.

What a wonderful idea, the stuff makes you retarded when you smoke it but every other use is very beneficial. This would give the farmers another cash crop, and there are hundreds of uses for it. Put me down as a YES!!

Jiminy chrismas.

and ruin your memory, go ahead..........I don't drink vodka or tequila, just a few beers. If you have children, like I do.....I don't want them smoking anything, weed or tobacco. SO I am not going go down the road of do what I say, not what I do. If you need to get high or drunk (which I don't) you have some kind of hole in your life that needs filled. Some folks are able to fill the hole with things that don't "fuck you up"........

Goodnight.

Maybe we ate it. :smoke: :popcorn: :shrug:

But I've often found people who swallow the propaganda about marijuana without bothering to actually learn the science about it to be, well, rather forgettable.

I've been smoking it very regularly for almost 40 years, and I consistently score over 140 on IQ tests. Just sayin'..........

Herman Hesse
Norman Mailer
Picasso
Modigliani
R. D. Laing
Nietzsche
Winston Churchill

and maybe one or two more creative types....

http://frankdiscussion.netfirms.com/who_celebtokers.html
http://www.veryimportantpotheads.com/main2.htm

All I can say is:

Far out man.

-Hoot

of others on the planet who smoke regularly. :smoke:

Because you have no idea what you are talking about. Pot does not make you "retarded". You drink a fifth of Jack and I'll smoke a lid of weed and we'll see who's retarded at the end.

It's been my personal experience that I actually seem to get a lot more creative ideas when I'm enjoying a little herb.

Alcohol makes you retarded. I've got 40 years experience with both and I can tell you that every dumb thing I've ever done was under the influence of alcohol.

illegal drugs. I want my musicians on drugs. I don't want my pilot on drugs. How do you reconcile this? I don't know.

Booze is legal, but pilots don't fly drunk (anymore).

If we were so sensible as to legalize marijuana, I would hope that the restrictions on it would be similar to the liquor laws - must be 21 to purchase/consume, no "open container/lit jay" in the car, no consumption on the street, okay at home and in licensed business establishments.

I think it should be legal to grow.

just as idiotic as the unreasonable fact that pot is illegal in the first place.

Should we ban alcohol again, which is way less safe than marijuana? Pot should be legal for any use. We need to stop creating criminals.

Why should the government be able to tell me I can get drunk as fuck on alcohol, but I can't smoke a joint? My philosophy is one of "freedom of choice". If you don't want to smoke it, then don't. But do not force your choice onto others. Live and let live - that sort of thing. Smoking pot is a choice, not a crime.

It's inevitable. After we've blown our entire wad in Iraq, America will be a less-prosperous nation, meaning fewer tax dollars to finance the drug "war." Pot will be decriminalized soon, when America is a third-rate economic power.

I've never smoked it. I don't do drugs. I don't drink.

I think marijuana should be fully decriminalized. I think MJ cigs should be sold in packs, right over the counter with proper ID, just like tobacco.

TTFN. :hi:

enforcing the law. I's an industry in itself and forfeiture statues are another financial incentive.

fly overhead every day.

It's no worse than alcohol. It's probably safer and less addictive, for most people, than alcohol. It's just a matter of it being so easy to grow, it would skew profit margins for corporations siphoning part of the alcohol and tobacco market. I'm not even a smoker of it. (I have tried it, but I'm not much of a substance person. Period.) As a matter of fact, I probably would choose not to form close relationships with those who are regular smokers of it for assorted reasons that are personal. Still, I fail to see any argument that impresses me against complete decriminalization for adults.

Why the fuck should a beneficial plant like marijuana be illegal at all?

Why do you support restricting a person's right to control their own body and life if it harms no one else?

I don't like cigarettes - should I support a ban on those, which are far, far, FAR more deadly than marijuana, which has never killed anyone directly?

Of course I shouldn't - I believe in this little thing called "freedom".

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it's not that hard to grow,it's a weed after all...

You just banned private consumption, remember?

It's just a weed, but

*some people can't keep a plant alive no matter what.

*commercial weed would be more varied and sweeter tasting than what most people would produce by throwing a seed in the dirt next to their house. Commercial blueberries are much bigger and plumper than what grew in the woods behind my house in New England.

*it's not hard to brew beer, or for that matter, make juice, but there's still a hopping trade in both beer and juice.

*anyone can grow vegitables, but most of us prefer the convenience of having someone else grow it for us.

I don't see your argument about it being just a weed as valid at all.

give me a pack, I'll pay some excessive tax like on cigs and alcohol, regulated and clean of chemicals and other drugs. I should be free to put whatever I want in my body.

KL

MJ is not a weed

My only issue is that I'd like there to be some kind of test that could be administered to determine if someone who has crashed a car or something like that was high at the time. A kind of pot breathylizer. If there exists such a thing, then let's roll.

incapacity since you never reach that smoking grass, unlike with alcohol there can be no standard.

KL

the pharmaceutical companies would lose a lot of their sales of antidepressants, since pot is a natural one. Can't have that!

Kytril is one of the antiemetics that's often prescribed for chemo patients... and one of the more effective conventional/legal meds. Check out these prices... approx $40/tablet. For those fortunate enough to have medical insurance, this drug typically has the highest copay... if it's even in their formulary.

Brand Name (Generic Name) Dosage - Quantity Price Range
Kytril (granisetron) 1mg - 20 tablet $797.84
Kytril (granisetron) 1mg - 30 tablet $1,230.00
Kytril (granisetron) 1mg - 60 tablet $2,393.52
Kytril (granisetron) 1mg - 90 tablet $3,690.00


Kytril (granisetron) 1mg/ml - 1 vial $181.15 - $213.89

http://www.destinationrx.com/prescriptions/refine.asp?BrandName=Kytril

So smoke all you want...Don't expect to get a job.

on your own time.

Of course, you can't direct air traffic while high, so that's a legitimate reason to test someone's pee. If no one's life is at risk, there's no good reason to compromise a person's privacy.

I've never done illegal drugs in my life, but I think corporations deciding it's okay to test your pee is an invasion of privacy.

I agree with you when you say when no one's life is at risk. But people are more at risk than you can imagine.

If you make ekg equipment, you can't be high. People who make cars can't be high. If you run a gas station you can't be high. If you drive a truck you can't be high. Even if you make food, where cleaniness and safety are an issue you can't be high.

I can see like bead making or musicians can smoke till kingdom come. But people rely on the work that you do.

If you're a bus driver, you can't be sleepy. If you're a surgeon, you can't be over-caffeinated. If you're an air traffic controller, you can't be distracted by your pending divorce.

A piss test only indicates a taste for the weed, not whether you're high on the job. If someone's performance-impaired while working, then yes, they should be pulled.

...and do those things?

I get sleepy so I never do it while working, but it is not uncommon. One toke can you leave pretty fucked up.

On edit: meant to say during lunch.

...using some drugs while on the clock is okay.

You admitted, via your own example, that users feel the effects of alcohol after one drink.

That sounds pretty damn hypocritical.

hahaha. Damn dude.

...you're saying you feel something from drinking: "One drink won't get you drunk during lunch. I get sleepy so I never do it while working, but it is not uncommon."

Too many calories and it felt too heavy to have in the afternoon. I wasn't drunk at all. Beer doesn't quench a thirst that much anyway, Ill have a water or tea.

I never said I was against pot decrimininalization. Check out my post up there, all I said is employers should be able to not hire based on pee tests. They could do what they want, you could do what you want. All I am saying is don't expect a job.


It's freedom all around baby.

Don't you know drugs are EVIL??

but if I smoked pot in Mexico three weeks ago I'm fired. Your company will loose it's best employee.

KL

Shit people are treating me like a narc. I don't fucking care. All I am saying is that if pot is decriminalized employers will start testing more agressively.

what I do outside of work is my business. You should be fired for lack of production, not a New Years eve party that got a little out of hand.

I am just saying look for freedoms on both ends. You have the freedom to smoke, they will have freedom to test more aggresively.

That's all I am saying.

Now maybe you should go back and find out how it got " criminalized in the first place.
And while you're at it , you can also help us figure out why cigarettes and booze a "legal"

Thanks again for your help. All us pot heads are waiting for you answers.....:evilgrin:

examined- What a harebrained idea!

It seems that the price is regulated and fairly standard and fluctuates fairly evenly.

Oh yeah, it should be legal but there are many forces that keep it illegal. The Govt., law enforcement,Pharm Corps, RWingers that aren't on the Libertarian side,Insurance Corps and people that make profits don't want it legal.

Anyone who has indulged themselves with both knows this. Make it legal.

and I don't care what you're prohibiting, the same three groups benefit.

1. Police, who get lots of jobs and promotions and raises. This would include prison guards.

2. Preachers, who get something to rant about. This includes politicians.

3. Smugglers, who get something to smuggle.

never falter or succumb to being human.

Yee-Haw!

You guys are never wrong and should have final say over every life and death situation conceivable.

I love ya' man. Taser me, please!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I merely stated that a post is often a reflection of a poster. If you think his post reflect negatively upon him that is YOUR opinion. I never stated such.

By the way, He knows I am a Police Officer and is bascily trying to insult me. Does not work, but he is trying...

You think the police don't get more money to enforce drug laws? You think that we don't hire more police to enforce them? That we don't hire more prison guards (and promote existing ones to lead them) to incarcerate the people who violated the drug laws?
Number one is true.

Number two is absurd, but that doesn't make it untrue. Politicians run for re-election by being 'strong on law enforcement'; and 'strong against the scourge of drugs'. Preachers (a sub branch of politicians) preach against it, they raise money by invoking it (please give, so we may preach to the criminals and addicts the word of the Lord!).

Number three is a truism. Of course it's correct; people don't smuggle what can be easily bought.

We have had this one several times on DU. Sure, some on here think the Police want drugs to be illegal for some reason. Sure, some on here think that private prisons want people arrest for profit and control legislation.

Been to church lately? I have... I do not recall such things mentioned at all.

To avoid offense, I'll drop preachers, and make catagory 2 politicians.

Tell me, are the churches you've been to run by frothing at the mouth reich wing Paulists? Believe me, they still talk about the evils of fornication, drink, Mary-gee-wana, and education beyond the 3rd grade.

But that's not what Christian churches and thier preachers talk about, so your're right and I'll drop it.

They really do not get fired up over anything. I doubt the Priest would yell if his robes were on fire....

As a reformed Catholic, I sympathize.

(My reason for dropping Catholocism... me and the Pope disagree. He thinks he's always right, and I know he's not.)

of Charity work. They are really helpful around here. The Methodist also...

Cops
Counselors
Dog trainers
Probation officers
Lab techs
Jail guards

Pot busts make a lot of money for the State of Maryland but I'm sure it's different in your state :eyes: Confiscated property often goes directly to the agency making the arrest.

Please don't give me that "police exist solely to protect us" shit. Around my parts, DNR officers walk around campgrounds late at night to see if they can smell campers toking in their tents.

My department takes in only a few million a year and we do better then most. Chump change when it comes to running a department.

Also it does not go directly. There is a long process and the Feds get a cut most of the time.

from the 1980's, so it's out of date. 1/2 the money and assets siezed by a drug bust goes to the arresting organization, and the other half to the Feds...
But the Los Angeles PD weren't giving the Feds thier share.
So, what do you do? Send the LA County Sherrif out to arrest the LAPD?

The prison system is privitized, the value of the business depends on the number of inmates. It is growth industry nr one in the US.

The war on drugs, part 1 - the winners
http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/12490764/

The war on drugs, part 2 - the losers
http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/12493841/

(realplayer broadband and narrowband links in the bar on the right)

Police are not prison guards. They are two different things. Prisons are run by states and have nothing to do with Police agencies.

Also, only a small percentage of prisons are privitized.

which percentage of prisons is privitized?

Iowa Legislative Fiscal Bureau
http://staffweb.legis.state.ia.us/lfb/docs/IssReview/1996/IR403S.PDF

There are only 311 private facilities. This number includes juvenile facilities and local jails. A small percentage of our vast system.
Here is a list if your curious about your area: http://www.flpba.org/private/facilities..htm


As for Police, You stated the OPs number one was correct. Number 1 is the Police. Check...

You've nailed it.

Hope you're well.....

:hi:

here are some Great links that explain it

http://www.jackherer.com/chapters.html read chapter 12,1,15..and 11 which explains that the war of 1812 was about hemp.. the building of the Erie Canal..etc etc..

http://www.naihc.org/


this is the finest reading i have run across in YEARS !!

It's the American dream

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

.

I believe in letting people live thier lives so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else and they don't expect me to join in. I will never use pot but thats my choice and I wont make it for someone else.

I do have a question and I ask this out of sheer ignorance what worries me about marijuana worries me marijuna is as follows. I am just asking for personal information and so please don't feel offended.

Is there such a thing as second marijuna smoke? I was just wondering because to tell you the truth I come from a small town and pretty isolated as is . So I would like more information so I can continue to formulate my opinion. Thank you everyone.

It happens, but it takes a closed environment with a lot in the air. Even then, it's subtle enough that only an experienced user would notice it. Believe it or not, there's usually a short "learning curve" to a marijuana high. I've lost count of the first time users I've seen, sitting there with red eyes and a 90-plus resting pulse rate going, "What? What? I don't feel anything."

Is a contact high than like getting a buzz from paint chips or say lots and i mean lots of insect repellent? Again I am not prejudging anyone I am just trying to gather facts so i can form an opinion. Thanks for the info your starting to nudge me the other way.

Tobacco, that is? The complaints I've heard from nonsmokers in a smoke-filled room are more physical than psychoactive -- choking, burning eyes, the stench, headaches. If a nonsmoker takes a drag however, it'll induce a swoon like the last moments before fainting, accompanied by sudden muscular weakness and loose bowels, a bit of giddiness and a strange clarity that comes with a near cessation of thought. It's a marked difference of quality, moreso than quantity. I'd say the difference is as great between passive and actively consumed marijuana smoke. It's certainly a lot more subtle than the effect from breathing the waft from a aromatic like paint thinner or insecticide.

Thanks for clearing up the misconceptions for me. I will give careful consideration to everything you said and let you know in a day or two. Thanks for letting me know whats going on.
It's seems my only qualm, and I am just being honest mind you, is that its the same as with smoking. You dont do it around kids. That's just my opinion and I dont legislate my opinion. I dont care if adults smoke in the same resturants as me etc and it sounds like thats the same thing with marijuna. I hope were cool and thanks so much for clearing up the rumours and everything in a nice and reasoned manner.. Peace and take care Danny.

We're on the same page. You don't do it around kids. Or around people who don't want to breathe smoke of any sort. That's not unreasonable. (The only place I've ever smoked tobacco for the last couple of decades is behind my house, not in restaurants, not in cars, not in my own house. I've just returned from 13+ years in Japan where possession can get you mondo jail time, so I didn't indulged in the herb. Still haven't. Yet :))

As long as you respect my rights not too. I respect your rights too.
Thanks charlie. See this how adults talk too each other and find information. Mark me down as legalizing it.

No enjoyment allowed unless sanctioned by Big Brother! :eyes:

Now, let me get back to what I was doing...

puff puff give!!

:hippie:

:D

Again, back to what I was doing: Photoshopping and ... I'll finish the master's thesis tomorrow. :rofl:

All But Thesis? Rock on Swamp Rat!! :yourock:

:D

Two months ago I decided to write a thesis and get another degree while I work on the PhD. I'm losing a semester this Fall to thesis work, but perhaps, gaining a chapter or two for the diss. Not that the stats class is out of the way, I can get back to linguistics. :)

You're one degreed mofo, if I may say so. I salute your supreme relaxitude amidst of the rigors of academia! You've got the stuff mister, no fooling :yourock:

"Piled High and Deeper!" :D :rofl:




Thank you for the salute! One right back atcha! :patriot:

Linguistics... That explains alot Swamp Rat :)
I double majored in linguistics & comp sci, and if I had the energy and inclination to get a graduate degree, itd' be in Linguistics I think.

I've done course work and a bit of reading. Right now, I'm reading Robin T. Lakoff - she's BRILLIANT! As for Comp Sci, I took a couple courses on Java (Sun Solaris/UNIX, etc), but I'm more into Sci Fi. :D



Actually, I'm really just a musician, or a bum, depending on if I have a girlfriend or not. :rofl:

Oba!

The scourge of our nation's youth :hi:

:rofl:

The tax revenue would be amazing, not to mention more time gained for law enforcement to go after REAL criminals.

The real issue is why Congress can legislate its use at all. It took an amendment to the Constitution to ban alcohol; why can Congress regulate non interstate cultivation, distribution and use of cannabis without a similar amendment?

The 10th Amendment is still a part of the Supreme Law of Land, is it not? Or do Americans just not care?

In order to have it you have to have a stamp, which, has never been printed. In 1937 the tax was up to $100/Oz.

-Hoot

... as Congress has no power to tax anything that is not a part of interstate or international commerce. States DO have the right to regulate or outright prohibit cannabis (or anything else) within their borders. That's not my question O8)

Check the link above. Now, as to its constitutionality I'm not educated enough to comment.

-Hoot

They do not have the authority except through the usurpation of authority with the connivance of a corrupt judiciary.

Smoking marijuana causes less damage to the body and less risk to the user than getting drunk. There is simply no sane argument against the legalization of recreational marijuana.

We should wait until there is a test that can determine if you're stoned--right now.

Cannabinoids are fat-soluble, which means they soak into you and don't completely come out for quite some time. We used to say "ten days for a one-time use," but with all the advances in drug testing as of late it's probably longer now. And better: if you smoke pot regularly you may never be free of THC.

If we test you for pot using the tests we have now--blood, urine, hair--we'll know if you smoked pot *sometime* within the test's window of detection. Let's say your personal window is 30 days--if you quit smoking weed right now, you won't kick the machine after 30 days of abstinence.

That kind of test would be really cool if you stayed high the entire time you were detectable. You'd save a lot of money on pot, too, and that would be even more cool.

If we had the kind of test the alcohol people have--one that can say "this person is drunk because he has x BAC and if you have x BAC you're drunk" versus "this person had beer with his dinner last Thursday"--we could legalize pot because we'd be able to prosecute you for driving while stoned or fire you for working while stoned.

for medicinal reasons but not for recreation. Why not use marijuana recreationally? True, many people shouldn't drink because alcohol has an adverse effect on them, particularly if they abuse its use. I would assume marijuana can be abused too, but does everyone have to be cut off just because some immature and bafoonish people can't drink or smoke responsibly?

you won't mind if these things are criminalized:

Coffee
Cigarettes
Beer
Liquor
Cough Medicine(Nyquil=good buzz)
Cars
Gasoline
Paint
Super Glue
Whipped Cream(in cans)
Nuclear Energy
Krispy Kremes
Red Meat
Salt
MSG... shall we go on?

You know what? People who don't smoke pot should STFU. I saw a post here saying that smoking pot makes you retarded. Well obviously not smoking pot has some detrimental effects too. Like judging something you know nothing about. You want to believe the government propaganda about pot, go ahead. The rest of us aren't as easily fooled. Guess that makes me a retard huh? :sarcasm:

:smoke:

i.e. disinfection of wounds. You shouldn’t be able to use it for personal use. If you want to drink it to get drunk, it should be illegal.

Now see how silly that sounds.

In a lot of countries (like mine) it is illegal to do anything with it (including buying, selling, growing and trading) except private consumption because that's an strictly personal matter.

on edit: Where is the author of this thread anyway? He only replied to one message out of 70+!

¡Pura vida tuanis!

Estoy echando de menos mis amigos moteados :smoke: allí en San Ramón y Guanacaste. Después de fumar, siempre fuimos nadando, buseando, a comer bocas de ceviche de cambute con una Imperial o Run Centenario... :cry: echando de menos... :cry:

Lá no Brasil é o mesmo. Pode fumar sim problema, na casa propia. É normal! :eyes:

... E as drogas que fabricam aqui no EUA? ... Puta qui pariu! São perigoso... feito do diabo! :mad: :puke:

If consenting adults want to smoke pot, I fail to see how it's any more of the government's business than if they want to drink a glass of wine with dinner. Drive under the influence, neglect your kids, commit a crime- then you are a criminal no matter what substance is behind it.. (and alcohol is responsible for far and away more social carnage than pot, and it's not just because it's legal, either)

I would also ask you this; do you favor spending $40 Billion a year (as we currently do) on a drug war aimed primarilly at pot? Do you favor incarcerating large numbers of non-violent drug offenders, as also we currently do? Do you really believe that turning millions of otherwise law-abiding people into criminals is worth it, where pot is concernd?

private use.
They should be legal as ambulances.
They should be legal for industrial transportation like tractor-trailer transport of manufactured goods.
If you want to drive just for your own personal use, cars should be made illegal.

Just because everybody else should have to live their lives the way I say - same reason that drives marijuana prohibitionists.

The problem is, the "war on drugs" is a moneymaking racket and is used to finance further criminality for further profit.

1. prison profiteering
2. corrupt govt. legislates themselves into a black market monopoly
3. it creates a big slush fund to do even more illegal things with

It doesn't even make sense to bother with "under the influence behavior." If someone does something wrong, the penalties are already there, along with discretion in sentencing. If someone kills people in a car wreck, guess what, they get maximum sentencing for manslaughter already, without new laws to give special status to the drug. If someone drives drunk/high/etc. it's still reckless endangerment. There's no legal loophole, no threat, except to the above racket. People aren't going to do drugs just because they're legal, and they don't stop doing them because they're illegal.

Doing drugs is escapism and chemical masturbation. The former you combat by combatting social injustice, and the latter is discouraged as much as it can be with education.

http://www.naihc.org/

and this one is great..!!
http://www.jackherer.com/chapters.html

read Chapters..12, 1, 15... the one explaning the war of 1812 is great too.. it was over Hemp !!

What?

doesn't make sense

you get to decide how much appetite i have or how much pain i feel

you get to decide if i want some uplift

i have a middle finger to express feelings about that

if not legalized for getting high, it won't be legalized at all, grok, the paperwork and privacy invasion would make it impossible

anyone committing murder or suicide under the influence of marijuana.

I've never even heard of a vehicular homicide being pinned on marijuana use.

Yet alcohol is legal. . .

:shrug:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

response.

:hide:

Mmmmmmmm, Butterfingers.

It should be legal to grow and smoke, no gov. regulations. That would just screw it up. :smoke:

what if i said that i supported strict controls on what kind of car each of us drove, and that it had to meet a minimum efficiency standard, and not be modified at all? oh, and of course not to forget, that we could not drive old cars that did not meet the current federal safety standards for new cars.

you and i enjoy some of the same hobbies, and some different, lets remember that their all about our personal freedom, the last thing we need os to continue the pointless war on marijuana.

oh, and hi(gh)!

:hi:

and if your NOT yorgatron, i don't need to hear how cars have nothing to do with pot, ok? he knows what the fuck i'm talkin about.

:D

Ailments come in all shapes and forms. Who would you be to decide what qualifies for "medicinal"?

It's benefits are not it doubt. Who gives a shit if someone smokes a little in the evening?

Bill Hicks = Truth.

If I were somehow given the choice, and was told I had to criminalize either pot or alcohol, I'd probably choose alcohol.

It's not a "gateway" drug for adults, and even if it was, you need to expect that an adult would be able to control himself.

For kids(teens) though it's a different story. I remember when I was a teen there were a lot of kids who moved on to harder stuff. I hate to deny kids the fun I had when I was a teen, but as I get older I see that you need to tell kids to just wait until they're older to try stuff.

This has become a flame-war.