Gallup first poll to find plurality US support for legalizing weed

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Well YOU'RE no fun at parties.

There is way too much money in the federal eradication efforts. No way will those entrenched interests let the federal government legalize any time soon.

And unfortunately, with Barney Frank retiring, his bill to prohibit enforcement of federal marijuana laws where individuals are following their own state laws will probably die in committee. The conservative's love for state's rights only goes so far.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
There is way too much money in the federal eradication efforts. No way will those entrenched interests let the federal government legalize any time soon.

And unfortunately, with Barney Frank retiring, his bill to prohibit enforcement of federal marijuana laws where individuals are following their own state laws will probably die in committee. The conservative's love for state's rights only goes so far.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Howard Roark would not approve of these government beaurocrat moochers!

Originally posted by Kunsoo
There is way too much money in the federal eradication efforts. No way will those entrenched interests let the federal government legalize any time soon.

And unfortunately, with Barney Frank retiring, his bill to prohibit enforcement of federal marijuana laws where individuals are following their own state laws will probably die in committee. The conservative's love for state's rights only goes so far.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Its apples and oranges as you say because the tobacco is not what causes the cancer.
It is the carcinogens in cigarettes that cause cancer . These are not present in pot.

Originally posted by sh76
We agree (mostly) on this one.

I can see why importation should be a federal issue; but day to day possession and distribution of narcotics should not be a federal issue. The states should deal with it. If Oregon wants to legalize cocaine and meth, the feds should not get involved.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
No, but of the 420 substances within pot, over a hundred of them are proven carcinogens. At least that's what our Sheriff says.

a recent review of studies on the effects of marijuana and tobacco smoke suggests that the cancer-promoting effects of these ingredients is increased by the tobacco in nicotine and reduced by the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) found in cannabis.

Previous studies have shown that THC can inhibit carcinogens in mice, and the report suggests it may have the same protective effect against the carcinogens found in smoke in humans. But researchers warn that even if THC lessens the effects of these cancer-causing ingredients, cannabis smoke remains carcinogenic...............

Research shows that nicotine and THC act on related pathways in the body, but they bind to different receptors to activate these pathways. For example, Melamede says the cells of the lungs are lined with nicotine receptors but do not appear to contain receptors for THC.

He says that may explain why marijuana use has not been linked to lung cancer as cigarette smoking has.

Originally posted by sh76
We agree (mostly) on this one.

I can see why importation should be a federal issue; but day to day possession and distribution of narcotics should not be a federal issue. The states should deal with it. If Oregon wants to legalize cocaine and meth, the feds should not get involved.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
420 ? "four-twenty"? No irony there. 😉

I found a good link on this. in part it states,

a recent review of studies on the effects of marijuana and tobacco smoke suggests that the cancer-promoting effects of these ingredients is increased by the tobacco in nicotine and reduced by the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) found in cannabis.

Previou ...[text shortened]...

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20051017/pot-smoke-less-carcinogenic-than-tobacco

I recently watched "The Union". It is a good film for debunking a lot of the myths about cannabis.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-union-the-business-behind-getting-high/

A stoner walks into an appliance store and asks the owner, "How much for that TV set in the window?" The owner looks at the TV set, then looks at the stoner, and says, "I don't sell stuff to potheads." So the stoner tells the owner he will quit toking and will come back the next week to buy a TV. A week later, the stoner comes back and says, "I quit smoking pot. Now how much for that TV set in the window?" And the owner said, "I told you, I don't sell to potheads!" So the stoner leaves again. Undaunted, the stoner comes back a week later and says, "How much for that TV?" The owner loudly retorts, "I'm not going to tell you again, I DON'T SELL TO POTHEADS!!" The stoner looks back at the owner and says, HOw can you tell I'm a pothead?" The owner looks back and says, "Because that is a microwave!!!

😵

Confucious say, man who stand on toilet high on pot, but man who smoke pot choke on handle.

The pot paradox: An empty bowl needs to be filled, a full bowl needs to be emptied!

Now be honest, how many of you pot heads have studied for days just to pass your drug test so that someone would hire you?