Ted,
I have all the sources for this blog. send your email address to me and I will send you them. ndevaney@narragansettprevention.org

Nancy:

-- I have all the sources for this blog. send your email address to me and I will
-- send you them.

I share Ted's concern/curiosity. Please post your sources here as addenda to your article. The article does seem to gloss over a few points and adding your sources here would complete the picture.

Thanks.

Nancy, how about you make your sources publicly available instead of making people email you? Is it because the statement " In 1979, after 11 states legalized marijuana.." is a complete lie?

this article is full of false information. the country is waking up. people are getting smarter. marijuana will be legal everywhere in the U.S. soon whether you like it or not.

The only reason we're even talking about this is because society is looking for ways to cut costs and raise revenue. Fewer people in prison for pot possesion save money, and taxes on "legal" pot means revenue. Don't think for a minute that anyone on the pro-pot bandwagon has thought about safety for even a minute. Trying to obfuscate the issue with "teen drinking" makes no sense at all. The only shortsighted view is yours. "Let's legalize it because I used it and I'm fine" is a total failure of an argument. I drank as a teen but don't have a drinking problem so let's lower the drinking age to 10!

Directly? You want to play that game? Marijuana related deaths have been are are still reported as "accidental". your argument of "directly" is nothing more than a word game being played by the pro-legal lobby.

Let me ask you, If I get drunk, and crash my car into a jersey barrier and die. What is the cause of the accident? Alcohol? The jersey barrier? Oh, I know, the car is at fault.

Want to compare smoking cigarettes with pot? Really? 118 carcinogens in smoked marijuana compared to 55 in tobacco.

OldTownie, lets see your sources.
And I challenge you to a contest. You drink alcohol. and drink. and drink. and drink. and keep drinking till you want to vomit. and keep drinking. blackout. keep drinking. You. Will. Die.
Ill smoke. and smoke and smoke and smoke, and the worst thing that will happen to me as I sit glued to my chair is I'm going to want to eat a whole supermarket of food and go to sleep. You are so hilariously out of your league in this argument its laughable.
I understand that if I smoke and wrap my car around a tree ill die. That's how life works. I'd love to argue this point in person so I could see the face of the ignorant sheep spouting drivel at my informed, science and common sense based opinion.

Dear "I Smoked Weed And Didnt Lose My Brain":

-- I'd love to argue this point in person so I could see the face of the ignorant sheep
-- spouting drivel at my informed, science and common sense based opinion.

You seem pretty angry for a pothead. Are you sure that last blunt you fired up wasn't laced with PCP?

Mellow out, dude.

Hey hey LBJ, I'm a norml (see what I did there), relaxed dude, I just happen to get a rise out of ignorance. I do not condone any PCP use, but if thats your cup of tea, do ya thang.

Directly.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/4/e365.full.pdf+html

"This weed gives you a buzz which may be different than getting a booze high." This quote is perfect for this discussion. Why is this plant, which grows from the ground, classified with heroin, cocaine, ecstasy and other felonious narcotics? A high effect, similar to being drunk, minus much of the aggressive, bar fight inducing behavior.
Although the youth of America is potentially at risk, the only way to make a difference is to regulate the product strictly (as with alcohol) and to educate minors on the dangers that are inherent with using a mind altering substance (see: ALCOHOL).

15% of US teens meet the criteria for alcohol abuse. So, we should should legalize pot. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. We did such a great job curtailing teen alcohol abuse, that we should throw another gallon of gasoline on the fire.

OldTownie. Once again, I implore you for your sources. Teens will drink. You admitted to as much in a previous post, BUT say you are "just fine" HA. Obviously, you have no more cards to play in this conversation.
But hey, while were at it, lets legalize hookers, crack, and all Mexicans are immediately citizens.
I have more useful info to write about if I had an equal to converse with, but I can see that resorting to your level of arguing is much, much more effective.

But smoked,
You said I am "so hilariously out of your league", you must know where I'm getting my information from. Someone as "smart" as you doesn't need my help finding information.

Grow up , Junior. Your pot use is showing.

LOOKS LIKE OLD MAN WINTER PUT YOU IN YOUR PLACE JUNIOR.

Does a alcohol user have long term effects from use? Or what about cigarette users?

I second that poop.

poop x3

-In 1979, after 11 states legalized marijuana, the United States saw the highest rates, 51%, of marijuana use in history by teenagers. States with medical marijuana programs had an increase in marijuana use not seen in other states.

Unless I'm just high, pretty sure its still illegal and always has been.

Imagine How Smart I Would Have Been If I Had Never Inhaled.

Ms. Devaney:

With all due respect, are you kidding?

It's a simple matter to follow any of the links you provided above and the two that are widely available have NONE of the information cited in your article.

You said that "In 1979, after 11 states legalized marijuana, the United States saw the highest rates, 51%, of marijuana use in history by teenagers." To support this, you cited the article "Speaking out against legalization,” p47, May 2003 and Foulkes, Imogen, “Ten years on from Needle Park." For those wishing to follow up, the correct link isn't "www.swissinfo.ch"; (as noted above), it is: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Home/Archive/Ten_years_on_from_Needle_Park.html?cid=2517882 .

The problem is, if you read the article, you'll quickly discover that it's not an article about 11 states legalizing marijuana, it's an article about "the ten years since the world’s most infamous haunt for addicts closed in Zurich", Switzerland. Did you think that none of us would check? Did YOU even check?

To support your claim that "after Colorado relaxed their marijuana laws in 2006, drivers who tested positive for marijuana in fatal car crashes doubled between 2006 and 2010", you provided this link: http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/drugged-driving .

Again, if you follow the link and search on "Colorado", "2006", and "crash", you come up with nothing. Nada. Bupkes. Why are you insulting everyone this way?

Continued in Part 2....

....Continued from Part 1.

I tried to Google the article you cited for the last study, but I couldn't find a copy that didn't require me to take out "a subscription to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." Given your track record, I didn't feel like signing up for another disappointment.

And it gets worse.

Earlier today, I tried to learn more about Ms. Devaney's group and points of view, so I took a look at the FAQ page at www.narragansettprevention.org. I noted a few problems with the "facts" presented there as well. For starters, any male who has ever has been to a Red Sox game and consumed 3.75 beers over the course of the game is a "binge drinker" by Ms. Devaney's group's definition. Would everyone here agree with that? I sure as shootin' don't.

I am sure that the 20 individuals who meet once a month in Narragansett to discuss these issues mean well. However, I have to think they don't necessarily concern themselves with facts or science.

The claims made in a Patch article like this might convince the converted but, the problem is, these aren't the people who need to be convinced. Worse, without presenting well-supported facts (or even facts supported by ANYTHING), an article like this simply emboldens those who might disagree.

In fact, I can hear Mr. "I Smoked Weed And Didnt Lose My Brain" licking his chops already...

Damn LBJ, I am sorry I may have misjudged you at first post (tips hat)

And as a follow up LBJ, I have brought this post/article/buttvomit up with the local SSDP chapter. They have drafted a post and submitted it to this esteemed news source, and I hope they will, in unbiased fashion, post it for all to read.

Nice summary by LBJ. Well done......

If there was a LIKE button I would so like that post!

How about political cannabis users...
YOUR CURRENT PRESIDENT Obama
G dub Bush
Bill Clinton
Micheal Bloomburg
Arnold Shwartzenagger
Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Former Prime Minister of Canada
Newt Gingrich
Senator John Kerry
Jesse Ventura
Emperor Shen-Nung
Emperor Liu Chi-nu

I could keep this list going all day long with artists like Picaso and playwrites like Sondhime physicists and other scientists so on and so on and so on.
DON'T Be a SHEEPOLE, educate yourselves.

Yes,,, people who have real world experience.

“[The APHA] encourages research of the therapeutic properties of various cannabinoids and combinations of cannabinoids, and...urges the Administration and Congress to move expeditiously to make cannabis available as a legal medicine.”
American Public Health AssociationOldest and Most Diverse Organization of Public Health Professionals in the World

http://marijuanamajority.com/?id=424

FYI - there are certainly some aspects of human behavior that even a confiremed reprobate such as Hitchens considered criminal. Those, typically, involved forcible coercion of minors. Libertine as he was, he did not condone crimes against another person...

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=hitchens_22_3

I'm with you, JoBobDing!!

LOL!!!! Is that what he told you?
Please tell me you're joking!!!

If smoking weed makes teenage boys gay, then this would help reduce teen pregnancy...lol

Absolutely. The situation in Mexico is dire and it is creeping over our border. Google narcoterrorism. We can either continue sending the money over the border to murderous gangs or we can tax it and allow our own citizens to grow it safely and regulate it. Marijuana is everywhere, just like alcohol- even moreso, as I never saw booze in school but knew several kids who would sell weed in the hallways. As a parent you have to know where your child is and set up the expectations for behavior. Alcohol is a much more dangerous substance by any measure and none of us are lobbying to make it illegal. One other question about the car accidents- was there an actual increase in car accidents themselves, or just the amount of drivers with marijuana in their system? Correlation doesn't equal causation. I'm sure after the popularity of prescriptions for ADD and depression there was an increase of drivers with Ritalin and Prozac in their bloodstream but this is not proof that those substances were the cause of more frequent accidents. I'm not saying I believe marijuana is a healthy, great thing for kids to do. I'm saying the benefits of legalizing it vastly outweigh the risks.

b kcaj:

Was this really necessary?

I'm often among the first to call out Joe Sousa. when he makes some tenuous claim or other. In this case, however, he made a thoughtful post supported by good data. Why attack him as you did? This kind of post should be encouraged, for Joe and everyone else on Patch.

Thanks for the links Joe Sousa. I'll be checking them out.

This is a side issue, but due to my own personal failings, I can't let it rest....

“Nothing optional—from homosexuality to adultery—is ever made punishable unless those who do the prohibiting (and exact the fierce punishments) have a repressed desire to participate."

Hitchens skillfully masked his argument's weak premise with a bit of Shakespeare, but the words "nothing" and "ever" aren't supportable, i.e., how does Hitchens (or anyone) know this with any degree of certainty? To skip ahead to the next line in Lear, I'd have to say that Hitchens is a bit of a cozener himself.

There's another Hitchens quote which applies equally to Nancy Devaney's article, Hitchens' words above, and about 70% of the posts on Patch: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

Far be it for me to claim that Hitchen's was thorough, I felt he could be inaccurate and cover lapses with erudition - yet the central notion remains; the most violent protestations seem to come from people that are no fun at parties.
These tend to be the same people snared in scandals, at a later date.

Puritanism: the haunting fear that somehow, somewhere, someone is happy.
--H. L. Menken

That's the crux of it, Reverend - the amount of money spent on incarceration.

In a country looking to cut expenditures, this is a cheap place to start.

I had wayyyyy more trouble giving up cigarettes than I did giving up marijuana AND alcohol.....combined!

But 1978 was when marijuana daily use peaked, right? So since we are ignoring pesky things like the difference between correlation and causation, wouldn't I be correct in saying that in 1979 after 11 states decriminalized marijuana that daily use with 12th graders actually went down? http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/14/federal-study-finds-teen-marijuana-use-up-binge-drinking-smoking-rates-down/ Daily use is the important number after all, according to you. So you seem to be making a very good case for decriminalization. I'm confused...

This is still a mystery: "Colorado relaxed their marijuana laws in 2006, drivers who tested positive for marijuana in fatal car crashes doubled between 2006 and 2010." You gave this source: http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/drugged-driving No where on that page is Colorado even mentioned. Press Ctrl-F and do a search, Colorado isn't on the page.

So in 92 yearly use was 22%. By 97 it was back up to 38.5%. What happened in those 5 years? http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/mtf/12th/marijuana.htm

You're not really helping your cause coming on here and making things up and then making more things up as references.

Honestly I'm a little disappointed the Patch let this article on here. There should at least be a disclaimer to let people know you are writing a fictional work.

Unofficial surveys say that use of marijuana doubles a man's chance at getting
some recreational use of his testicles.

Put that in your pipe, and smoke it.

My survey is uncited, and fictitious, too.
Cite your source, or it's more vaporware.

Naome,
You can't find UCLA's study? Come on, Oh Queen of the Internet. that's an easy one.

Since when is it my job to do your research? Try this funny little thing called Google. Type in UCLA, and marijuana research and see what comes up.

That may be from some form of Pagan bong abuse....eeww

Not only lazy, but out of touch.

Don't have the stones for it, since your younger days?
What was the hot Ford that year? Edsel? The Flintstone coupe'?

Naome,
So you resort to insulting my work ethic and my age? Wow, you really know how to win an argument, don't you? The only vaporware I see around here is your pseudo intellectualism. Did your Mommy and Daddy tell you that you were the smartest person in the room? They lied.

This is the second incredible, unverifiable, citation-free SWAG you've posted as if
it were common knowledge. If you make an outrageous claim, shifting the burden of proof to your opposition is a logical fallacy. (Your claim is made with weak sauce.)

If you can't defend it, it's not convincing now - is it.

I meant no offense to my elders; I meant only to illustrate that it is difficult when a crank is lecturing on "today's kids" to sort out nostalgia from dementia. It's an honest mistake, made by those of us not drooling on our bibs in a corner.

(We can't hear the voices telling you Obama is an alien, either.)

Here's a thought - I'll stop poking fun at your idiocy and incompetence when you stop insulting our intelligence. M'kay?

Naome,
It would be hard to insult your intelligence as I see no evidence of it in the first place.

You now state that a UCLA Medical Center study is an "outrageous" claim? Really? Never once did I signup to be your pet "fact checker". Nor do I see any value to myself of providing links to said study. If you don't want to look it up, don't.
Your constant attempt at belittling people with your lacking intellect, only shows just how far your delusions of grandeur go. Sorry, but you are not the smartest person in the room. Not even close.

"Nor do I see any value to myself of providing links to said study. If you don't want to look it up, don't. " You are certainly free to post trash, just as I am free to point out the inaccuracies, vagaries, misrepresentations and fabrications posted as fact.

If you're too lazy or inept to make citations, your shifting the burden of proof
to those that challenge baseless assertions as gleaned from email chain letters
and conspiracy sites. It's a common tactic of the most Conservative voices;
make an outrageous claim that covers lots of unspecified ground in an attempt
to force rational people to refute what amounts to a hot mess.

That sort of thing lead to the 2010 election debacle and a country in crisis.

Note that the words "may" and sample size are important distinctions between
definitive causes and extrapolations. Note also that the number of deaths from Testicular cancer in the US - roughly 360 men in America (out of 154M males)
odds of 4 million to 1. Not exactly an epidemic of risky behavior.

Lead, follow or get out of the way Gramps.

Tom are your comments being deleted by Patch or by someone else? If three or more people flag a comment as inappropriate it is automaticly deleted. If you post a comment for or against an issue the other side can censor your comments by having 3 people on their side flag your comment.

Hi Tom - I actually have no idea why your comments aren't showing up on the site. When I go through via my admin account, I can see them all, and they don't seem to be flagged. I'll send in a ticket to our helpdesk.

The best submissions are kept for private reading by the Mods.

:>

OUI is already on the books.

Drug testing for heavy equipment operators is a sensible precaution -
particularly those plying public roads. It's not a private issue, when there
are other people involved.

" In other words, the DEA thinks the American people are the enemy. Imagine that, our own government thinks we are the enemy."

That's a fallacy, affirming the consequent.
This kind of grand, inattentive, sweeping generalization is not logic.

It's the opposite; you're parsing data for support rather than illumination.

It's like saying the ATF knows that gun runners are selling weapons across the border. Registered firearms are being sold to gun runners. These weapons
are used to kill by Mexican gangs.

Therefore, licensed gun owners are supporting Mexican gang wars.

It's just plain lazy.

PS - If you hear a "drone" are you anywhere near the municipal airport?
There must be another yacht race in Newport...

For what it's worth, there is a direct link from poppy-based drugs (heroin) to terrorists. Afghanistan is one of the leading growers of opium-poppies in the world. There are also indirect links to pretty much every other illegal drug. Most of those links are due to the fact that criminals need to interact with other criminals. Specifically, distribution, manufacture, money laundering, etc. are shared between terrorists and South/Central American producers.

Bill, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The DEA has to justify their existence despite their dismal performance. They do this by creating a boogeyman called the terrorist. While illegal drug profits may be used to fund terrorists, the only reason illegal drugs are profitable in the first place is because the government has made them illegal. You don’t see many terrorists buying rifles with the sale of baby aspirin. I actually saw an add that proclaims pirated movies and pirated music support terrorists. Hell, we might as well label banks as terrorist supporters because they pay interest on all the terrorist’s cash deposits. The DEA will NEVER win the war on drugs yet we continue to spend billions every year to fund them fighting a ruse. Decrimalize Pot and Tax it. It’s long overdue.

Tom,
I don't disagre. If, worldwide, all drugs were legal, there would be no need to have an armed militia-style DEA and terrorists wouldn't likely be linked to drugs. I was merely pointing out that there are, in fact, direct and indirect links from drugs to terrorists.

So you would remove personal responsibility from the argument. Let's not send offenders to jail, let's re-educate them. Hmmmm. Ok. Like they do with Domestic abuse, send them to class so they learn the error of their ways. Except the recidivism rate for domestic violence hovers around 60%. So, I'm thinking education doesn't work. Let's just remove all the consequences, then everyone can be happy.

"Except the recidivism rate for domestic violence hovers around 60%."
- OldTownie

This article is about marijuana use. You're making a false equivocation (again).
Conflating usage of a recreational drug with battery is just stupid.

"So, I'm thinking education doesn't work."
Every time you post here, you prove that particular adage.

" Let's just remove all the consequences, then everyone can be happy."
That must really chap your hide, Gramps. The kids are having fun.

It must be difficult to be alive today, and old enough to remember inventing rope.

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
- H. L. Mencken

Ha, that was pretty funny Naome Lixes. Thanks for the laugh. It seems if OldTownie had his way, we would still be throwing virgins into volcanoes. It's this kind of thinking that is bringing the Catholic Church to it's knees (pardon the pun). Out with the old, in with the new. The times (high) are a changin'

It "makes sense" because nothing here "makes sense".....

Stop making sense, Joe.

You're upsetting the balance of the Universe.

Is it possible for you to make a single comment without invoking a straw man?

Is my premise wrong?

Yes. NOBODY is advocating that everyone should be allowed to drive drunk.

No, your advocating the legalization of a controlled substance. Your argument is that it costs too much to enforce prohibition and that marijuana is as safe (or unsafe) as alcohol.

And we all know what a great job, we as a nation, have done in the responsible use of alcohol, right? So let's add another substance for us to abuse. Some studies indicate that the alcohol abuse price tag at close to 250B a year in economic costs in the US. How much do you think legalization will cost? Lost productivity, jobsite injuries, MV accidents...start adding it up. More than 17B? That's last years cost for the "War on Drugs".

You sure do like to quote "studies" :)

Old Townie,
Yes, your premise is wrong. If you are smoking pot…that doesn’t really affect me. But if you’re driving drunk…that can affect/kill me. So, get rid of the pot law and keep the drunk driving law. We’re spending so much money keeping pot illegal. Legalize it and tax it just like alcohol and tobacco so that it’s a revenue source instead of an expenditure.

You know marijuana is already out there, right? People can abuse it and drive high right now.

The idea that because some people will abuse it we should treat everyone like a criminal seems poor at best, no?

What's the cost on people's lives who have a pot conviction on their record and are unemployed or underemployed as a result? What is the cost in lives of people who die in the drug trade? I bet that would add up too.

Depends on your definition of Harmless. Here is JAMA saying that pot has no effects on the lungs and increases lung capacity. http://yourbrainonbliss.com/Blog/?p=1621

Here is JAMA again: http://blog.norml.org/2012/01/10/jama-long-term-exposure-to-cannabis-smoke-is-not-associated-with-adverse-effects-on-pulmonary-function/ “What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect” among marijuana smokers who had lower incidences of cancer compared to non-users."...“Our findings suggest that occasional use of marijuana … may not be associated with adverse consequences on pulmonary function.”

That's the best argument you can make - setting up a false equivocation, again?

You've got all day, with nothing to do, and this is what you post?
Operating Under the Influence is already on the books.

Ok, I'll play.

The US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), stated in an Aug. 28, 2002 press release about SAMHSA's report; "Initiation of Marijuana Use: Trends, Patterns and Implications:"

"A new federal report released today concludes the younger children are when they first use marijuana, the more likely they are to use cocaine and heroin and become dependent on drugs as adults...

Increases in the likelihood of cocaine and heroin use and drug dependence are also apparent for those who initiate use of marijuana at any later age."
Aug. 28, 2002 - Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)

I wonder what the numbers would be if you substituted cigarettes for marijuana. I bet the instances of using harder drugs is even higher among those who smoked cigarettes first. Just saying...

Old Townie uses a 2002 study without significant references to scale or scope -
Sample size? Total numbers? Quantification of "increases"?

(Here's the part where you fluff off any challenge and say - read it yourself.)
Face it - you don't have a dog in the fight and you're bored.

OldTownie, "A new federal report released today..." Have you considered the source? What did you think the federal report was going to say, Pot is ok? All the federal law enforcement agencies would be out of a job. Would you believe it if the federal government told you there are WMD's in Iraq? Ooops, never mind.

It is what it is

10:38 am on Thursday, December 13, 2012

@OldTownie
I didn't really want to weigh in on this but it really bothers me when people take studies and spout them off as fact. Here is just one example of another study proving how biased the claim that "marijuana is a gateway drug" is. If your going to use random studies to back up your arguments you should at least be aware that many studies are biased and those that are published in regard to government/social/economic factors often have an agenda. Science is an evolving field, and studies are just that...studies, they are/can/will be subject to change with a different study from a different angle.
PROBLEMS WITH MARIJUANA GATEWAY THEORY
The marijuana gateway theory suggests that only marijuana use contributes to the subsequent use of other drugs. The research needed to confirm this theory is, unfortunately, an impossibility. Unlike research on animals in a laboratory, human environmental influences cannot be controlled. Therefore any attempt to prove that marijuana use alone will result in a progression to illicit drugs, is doomed from the start. Subjects for this study lacking any previous environmental, social, or cultural influences will never be found. Ultimately, the biopsychosocial perspective limits the viability of the marijuana gateway theory as an accurate approach to understanding marijuana’s effects on illicit drug use.

http://healthpsych.psy.vanderbilt.edu/MARIJUANAGATEWAY.htm

Richard Branson is a NUT, too.

Richard Branson is a billionaire GENIUS nut who is 1/3 Helium.

That doesn't make him wrong about this.

No blood on my hands Albert. Personally, I dont smoke Ganja, but I support those who want to. The blood is on the hands of people that insist Pot should be outlawed, which makes Pot a very lucrative business for bad guys. I hope you can sleep at night.

"It's because it attacks your central nervous system and makes you THINK your hungry." -Albert

Cite your source. That sounds like "truthiness" - something you believe, rather
than something you can prove. There IS a difference.

FYI - The cash crop for Mexican gangs is cocaine, not marijuana.

"Mexico has experienced 10,000 related murders each year for at least the past decade for marijuana deaths related to U.S. demand."

That's sort of the point in ending the prohibition, Genius.
You do remember Al Capone, doncha?
http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/organized_crime1_final.html

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/04/us-strategy-against-mexican-drug-cartels-flawed-and-uncertain

" It should not be legalized and, even if the government legalized it and gave it away for FREE! I would not waste one minute of my time with it."

That's a personal choice, which costs the taxpayer nothing.
Interdiction of marijuana use, sales and cultivation has done what for the taxpayer?

By the way, legalizing alcohol did nothing to stop those who produce it from continuing to make it except they became legal companies not to be raided by feds. You really think druglords are not involved in legal entities just like the mob was and they would not continue to produce. Only difference here would be if it was legal for you to grow it. Which is not discussed either. As with any product that can be sold to the public there will have to be regs for that also. Not as simple as you say to just legalize it.

By the way Moonshine is still illegal most everywhere because of the danger of people who have no regulation oningredients and can kill you if not made right.

Forgot to add that this is also all the problem that would come with each individual drug legalzed if you did as many libertarians say legalize all drugs. All the same problems arise with that. Unless all of these and the many others problems people can think up, it is a legal and social nightmare to me with n answer to many of the problems we can all come up with. Not so simplistic now is it ;-}.

Dear "no".. What planet are you from? What parent will allow guests to even smoke cigarettes in the same room as their baby? What idiots out there would even light up anything with a baby in the room. We have a boat load of laws in place to protect people from second hand smoke and your point is... those don't count?

I don't like the stuff, wouldn't use it, but you don't even come close to making a valid point!!!

Ed I dont know it the rest of the post have come up as they say they are pending. But you missed the point on the homes totally. Just one parent smoking it, There are no laws on pot smoke which is not considered to cause cancer like cigs or cause any other health problem.

Ed you are also missing the point that I am looking at it from legal repercussions not the pot itself but how to regulate it as it obviously would have to be just like alcohol except it is airborn. There lays the rub. You can ignore my opinions on it but the fact remains all of that will have to be addressed at somepoint in the legalization process.

No, I didn't miss your point... We don't need laws against ignorance. If people smoke cigarettes in front of babies, they are already smoking pot in front of them, period. You and I will not stop that. Our culture does breed that and no matter what the laws are, it will be violated. I'm sure that if legalized, laws would be similar to cigarette smoking. Wake up and smeel the coffee, ignorance can't be fixed, no matter how many laws.

You are missing the point ED. You can say you cannot make laws on ignorce but the facts are that we have millions of laws and regulation doing just that. Read a label on almost everything. Have skull and crossbones on bleach. Then on top of that "do not drink" duh. On the Empire State Build the obvservation deck had a sign last time I was there " Do not climb over safety fence injury may result" It was in 5 languages.

Again my point is what at least I feel will happen is those people who think they can legislate stupidity will. They always do. See any self-responsibility around today for the most part. Nothing is anyones fault anymore. Take the Foorball players a week ago. Was it his fault. No it was the gun. Then one of the stupidest things ever said. Bob Costas. "If he did not have a gun they would be alive". No kidding Bob. Duh again.

Also my point is this stuff would be used exactly how my examples are explained. There is no doubt in my mind it will happen. It always does when government/lawyers gets involved and looks for more ways to fleece more money out of citizens. Do you really think none of my examples will happen? You see it in the media every day. Do you know that fed/state/local government agencies in this Country produce 10's of 1,000's of regulations every day in this Country. Blue laws will be back in force all over the place also. May not be right but when is the government very right?

Winner: Ed. "We don't need laws against ignorance". That is so true it hurts. Sorry no regr allia b, your arguments are non sequitur.

Sorry Tom, but they are not arguments or illogical. They are the history of governments involvement in regulating the private citizens in society with the old "for the good of the people". Our history shows this all to be true and it has gotten progressivly worse in recent decades with many freedoms lost. This to will happen with this you can depend on it.

I support Medical pot and really could care less about anyone who smokes it as long as it does not impact me personally. What people do with their lives is thier business as long as they only affect thiers. If you think none of the senario's I posted will not come to pass, then you can not be that old or have forgotten the past.

Pot was declared illegal in I think it was 1939, and the government went on a campaign of terrorto demonize it (wrongly in my opinion). But it worked and is still being used today. The movie "reefer Madness" which I have a copy of ;-} is 2 things. One of the most comical movies ever made and one of the most scarey of propoganda by our government to dupe the populace and deny people the right of free will.

If I thought for one minute, nothing of what I wrote wouyld come to pass through lawyers/government, I would say legalize it totally. But as a pessimist of government intervention I know those senario's will come to pass. I agree you cannot legislate to stop stupidity. If you could our government would be geniuses lol. We all know hey they could screw up a ------ dream ;-} and will.

I agree with that Joe as long as medical pot is regulated properly, what ever that would be. As for some saying gateway. I do not subscribe to that at all. Have know hundreds in my life who never went to anything harder except maybe alcohol. I think the reason for harder drugs is peer pressure more than anything else. The old "hey man your already doing drugs man, come on try this everybody is doing it. It is hard for many of the young to refuse this and well it is their own self-responsibility in doing it. It is very hard to resist in front of your friends. That is just the way it is. No answer to that I think either as everything has been done in my opinion that can be done on education of drugs of anykind. If they are foolish enough to go hard it is on them not socety.

Should add that "decriminalization"does take the perception of getting away with something and defience of the powers that be. This would greatly help the peer pressure I think. If I remember right pot use actually dropped there I think. Take away the stigma and it may become a fad.

b kcaj The Town Clown . We can have a discussion with out your stupid comments . Can you comment with out being stupid?

Nice addition to the conversation there b kcal. Well, maybe not now that I think about it.

The tipping point has finally been reached, under Washington law MJ is LEGAL, thank god it's about time.
I've never understood why MJ is so demonized.
Alcohol.....now there's a dangerous drug.

did you read the whole article? Or just the parts that "bolster" your argument?

"but has remained fairly stable over the most recent three years, with 2011 levels being similar to the 2008 levels"

And to quote Naome....the word ""may" was used an awful lot in it.

Ultimately, for every study that says "no correlation", there is an equal and opposite study that says "yes, there is". Same goes for health effects.

I will admit that direct correlation is difficult to prove. That does not, however, make the research conducted or the conclusions presented invalid. The Pro-legal lobby wants it both ways. Any research that refutes your beliefs is flawed. Any research that bolsters your beliefs, (and they are no more than beliefs) is proof positive that you are right. I am, and have been willing to look at both sides. I am a proponent of MM. I am not, in support of full legalization, but would be willing to support decriminalization.
To answer your question about my background, I have done more analysis than I care to remember over my career. I also fail to understand your line of thought that because someone has not conducted "research" they therefore don't understand them.

Isn't this the same logic/approach which was used for ciggarettes? It was "proven" to be harmful back in the 50s. Then, it was "proven" to be healthy, then harmful, then inconsequential, then harmful, then healthy, etc. I'm sorry, but breathing ash and char and VOCs into your lungs from burning anything is harmful. To suggest that it is inocuous or even beneficial is just idiotic.

That said, I have no issue with people smoking pot just like I have no issue with people smoking cigarettes. You cannot begin to make the argument, though, on the basis of proof of harmful/healthful side effects. It IS harmful but probably no more harmful than unfiltered cigarettes.

True Joe. The problem I see as I statd above is how to determine the length of time before you are not stoned or considered impaired. Will be interesting to see how they can determine that and test for that in the field. For the life of me I cannot figure out how they would since it affects parts of the brain like alcohol does. However determining a level seems impossible right now anyway.

Read the link I posted. There is a case of a guy fired for using medical pot off the job but failing a job drug test. There are other cases listed in it also and still in court.

The company I work for just had a drug "education" meeting and informed everyone that the company policy on marijuana use has not changed. Even if you have a medical marijuana card from the state you will still be fired if you test positive. They said as long as federal law prohibits use the policy will not change.

Quite right Joe. The same will happens with Federal Highway funds the States get, you can bet that will be enforced also. Also none of this will ever succeed as long as it is in the Federal classification with Heroin cocain etc. Federal law trumps State law. Just ask Arizona and every other State that Holder keeps suing when they pass a State law that conflicts with Federal. Though this Administration is very selective in that.

We must also look at the fact that the people have lost so many rights in the last decade because of Government intervention into State rights, why would this be any different? It will not. I agree with Albert that what is coming down the pike makes this pale in comparison. We are headed straight for a show down between the Government and the very fabric of the Republic.

This also is an issue that is or should be very low on the radar with so many other problems this Country is facing with fiscal responsibility and a Government gone mad with destroying the Constitution this Country was Founded on.

Here's an interesting fact Joe-If you do a bit of research, you'll find almost every police and fire department collective bargaining agreement in the state of Rhode Island forbids random drug testing of police officers and firefighters. One drug test before they are hired, and that's it-the union contract forbids any random testing after that.

It would be interesting to see if your buddy Jack Baillargeron had that clause in his contract over at the base.

Tell the truth Albert, you had never heard of Saul Alinsky before Newt Gingrich
demonized his tactics. The same tactics were employed by Newt Gingrich.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/saul_alinsky.html

Karl Marx referred to religion as "The Opiate of the Masses".

We get the government we deserve, true enough. When incredulous people stood on the sidelines while you Tea Party hacks ranted, we had the 2010 debacle.

You haven't got a clue what you're on about, Albert - do you.

Maybe it should be on the school lunch menu. Does anyone here even know an addict?

Wow Stephen here we go again. Just transfer all these comments to that one and save the time and effort lol.

Very well written article by Eric Casey.

Well written? I disagree. I count at least three run-on sentences. ;)

-- Well written? I disagree. I count at least three run-on sentences. ;)

Perhaps "Porstman" should have said "Well written.....considering."

<...long and powerful inhale...>

Because, ya know, it's very difficult to keep track of orderly sentences when you're ... when you're ... when you're in the middle of ... when ... well, ya know.

<...long exhale...>

Typical Joe Sousa-He sees a story where he can villify the unions, and he goes and posts it.

Here's some advice for you Joe-Why don't you go and move to Detroit, seeing that the scumbag legislators there just passed a right to scab law. You and your fellow union hater Jack Baillargeron would love it there.

Richard J. AKA b kcaj is a clear example why you don't want your kids on drugs.

Joe-Who is this "Richard J"? Is it a made up name, or just a figment of your imagination?

I'll never buy a Chrysler again. The UAW just makes lousy vehicles. I know, I own one. It's a piece of crap. My Chrysler has been a nightmare for over five years. My sister just bought a brank new Chevy Equinox (2012) and there are more creaks and sqeeks than an old wooden boat. UAW just makes crap. From now on, it's Honda, or Toyota. My Honda has been trouble free for over 10 years.

It's not unique to Narraganset. The entire country has a teen abuse problem. The common denominator is "Drugs are Illegal". That's why teens do it in the first place. It's considered a form of rebellion against authority. I'm surprised our brilliant politician’s haven’t figured this out yet. Oh, I forgot, they want to get re-elected. Throwing teens in jail for pot seems to guarantee re-election. The problem with this backwards mentality is many teens will be marked for life with a marijuana conviction on their record. They will no longer be allowed to join the military or get a security clearance to work in government or many other jobs. Don’t forget, this could very easily be YOUR teen. Legalize Pot and Tax it.