Marijuana may live up to be “the elixir of life” for brain cells

Article : Marijuana may live up to be “the elixir of life” for brain cells
Print this article
Email this article

Stay Updated
News gadget on your Google homepage
Subscribe to a news feed in Google Reader

What a suprising mix of intellegence and idiocy there is in these comments. Some of you would be well worth knowing. We could spark one up and define the meaning of life.
Peace,
Mags

"I agree with 420, helli-notcool is a f*g idot"

helli-cool, you are an f'ing idiot.

hey denise, you are right on about that. it is the drug of choice for selfish a******s that cannot see past their own wants and desires. who gives an damn what the 'native americans' did with it, they still skinned each other alive, tortured members of other tribes, and never found a way to reach immortality. believe what you want, dopeheads, marijuana is for selfish, losers.

Amazing! Just Amazing!

Denise obviously hasnt seen/used meth or cocaine, seeing as those are real addictive drugs. Try doing speed for 3 days and getting off of it.

As for marijuana, It is completely harmless. Yes it is true that it is not for everyone, if someone is easily addicted to things [whether it be drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, sex, or even a hobbie] then they will more than likely have a bitter time getting off of pot. But like the dude below me said, It isnt like the world is ending. you dont act different to anyone else, you just get a little impatient to yourself.. and that is gone up to 3 days of not smoking.

Marijuana should be legal, same sex marriages should be legal. As long as homosexuals and potheads arent f***ing my shit up, then they have every right to do whatever they want.

the gov't is currently sending marijuana users to jail for the same amount of time that drug dealers are sent to jail for having close to 5 ounces of speed and cocaine. This is bullshit. We are not criminals, we are in need of medication. Whats funny is that you can NOT go to jail if you have 28 grams of marijuana, but once it hits 29 then you off to join bubba for years.

And you want to know why this is like this? Because it effects everybody.. The government makes 30 grand and up a year, on each persons head that is in a behaviour institution [where it be jail, prison]. So you think they are going to want to legalize marijuana? no, because they are having too much fun catching all the potheads and sending them to prison. Even though they could make even more money by legalizing marijuana and putting a tax on it because lets face it, who in america doesnt smoke pot? very few, and if you dont smoke pot right now, then you more than likely have earlier in your life.

i say f*** these assholes for making money on everything that this country isnt for.

Heres one for you Dubya Bush Fans, Georgie stopped funding the National Disaster Relief foundation back in 2001... and why? for his war in Iraq. Why is it still not being funded? For his new campaign on "the war on drugs, most specifically marijuana." f***ing douche bag, Its good to get drugs off the streets because i dont want my kids doing them.. but focus on heroin, speed, crack, coke... not marijuana.

Re. Dorothy's post of Wed., 19 Oct 2005:

"I agree with Mike."

Thanks for not mentionning all of my "typo" errors. Sorry for those, folks.


"... When it got too expensive, I quit. No withdrawal."

I can believe you had no withdrawal effects; and or but again, I had some, but they were easy to deal with. For example, if the withdrawal effect happens to be bothersome, then a very easy way for me to deal with it is to simply go do something that is of interest; occupying oneself can help the withdrawal effects to go unnoticed and unnoticeable, although the effects I experienced were always unnoticeable, except to myself. How physicially fit a person is can also make a difference; the more fit, the higher the metabolic rate and the more the body is capable of dealing with, externally as well as internally.

Very minor effect is what it was, and definitely no worse than caffeine withdrawal, which I've also experienced; after having gotten used to, for a while, consuming three or four cups a day and then reducing to one or two cups, I noticed what the effect of minor caffeine withdrawal is like. Headaches are one of the symptoms, if not the most common one, albeit also accompanied by other physiological effects; after all, caffeine is an or like an amphetimine, an "upper", and when people regularly consume such elements, the body develops an accoutumance, a habit, the body more-or-less expecting more of the same every now and then; and if the body's expecting and not receiving, then effects can or not become evident to the person going through this.


"Cigarettes, on the other hand were very difficult to quit."

I had very serious difficulty quitting Big Tobacco cigs of the strong varieties, like full-strength Players and Export A, probably like full-strength American brands that are strong. But have not had a problem with purely natural tobacco.

After learning what I did about the latter difference, I suggested that Big Tobacco shift out of it's additives business, to provide purely natrual tobacco; no amoniacal elements, no turpentine, no hybridised boosting of nicotene, and so on. But $$$ the big issue for Big Corp's.

Purely natural tobacco, consumption of it can have its benefits. North American Indians consumed for hundreds or thousands of years, as a social custom, but had a rule that said moderation was required. That was that, the extent of rule making over consumption of tobacco for them, and they never suffered because of this consumption. And I've known peole who've smoked cigs. much of their lives, are elderly, while others who've passed on and for natural causes were elderly; none of them never having had any problems due to smoking tobacco. None of those people consumed two packs a day, however, and most did not consume even one pack a day, although some did and still weren't bothered. I was bothered only when having chosen to try to quite Players and could not, having become too addicted; but eventually did quit, for given Players were unquittable, I switched to the weakest brand on the store shelves and two months later just up-and-quit, without any withdrawal or "cold turkey" effects whatsoever. It's only later that i came across purely natrual tobcacco and discovered the serious difference.

Why haven't the governments been hammering Big Tobacco, instead of for only people developing cancer after consuming far too much for far too long, also for the many toxic additives? I have not yet once heard or read anything along this vein, only with respect to cancer.

Now, in Quebec, Canada, there's a class action lawsuit against Big Tobacco, with plaintiffs apparently guaranteed, virtually anyway, to get $10,000 compensation each; and they may possibly end up getting more, if they get anything at all. But I again read and hear nothing about all of the toxic additives.

Sure, the Big Tobacco companies placed labelling on their packages, indicating that there were some potentially toxic ingredients and that smoking was hazardous for human health. Now, the first question is if that was true, why did governments allow these corporations to market such products? The governments having "blessed" the sales or sale-ability rendered themselves rather equally culpable. It does not make sense that governments would have allowed continued sales of hazardous substances meant, market- or $-wise, for human consumption, but governments are not being faulted.

The next question is even if those companies placed such labels on their product packaging, they did not say what the hazardous ingredients, there having been no indication that these were not naturally present; only saying hazardous for health and some potentially toxic ingredients. If they had labelled, turpentine (for faster and constant burning), boosted nicotene (for unnatrually assured addiction), amoniacs, and so on, then I doubt that I would have ever smoke more than maybe one or two cigarettes, and may have consume none, given that many other people who were smokers also would not have become consumers,leaving that there would have been far less influence around us.

As important as those toxic [additives] are, they are neglected by apparently every party involved; and they, knowing what I do about purely natural tobacco, are a very critical issue. If I getting into this class action lawsuit, then my basis will highly be this one; it was their fault for not appropriately warning consumers, rather than making it easy for us to believe that the hazard was naturally present, and which it is not.

The Indians consumed only purely natural tobacco, and I've learned from some individuals that smoking can protect against air-borne viruses, or virii (?); against some of them anyway. I'm sure awfully little testing or research has been conducted on this plausibility.

Of course, I would not recommend that people smoke tobacco, but I also will never condemn or even criticise consumption of purely natural tobacco. People smoking any other kind of tobacco, I would just tell them as per above and suggest they switch to either not smoking at all, or to consuming purely natural.

And if people want to smoke a substitute, then there are some, such as the Kiki or Midi (forgetting precisely what the name is) Indian of India alternative, which is made of purely eucalyptus and which contains neither tar nor nicotene; and which have a nice taste. I just don't like the taste of the large ones or format for they're too strong; the smaller ones, though, being quite pleasant as far as taste goes, only being small, short, they don't last long. Tasty though, yes.


"Marijuana will not be legal as long as the liquor and tobacco industries pay off our polititions."

They may possibly play a part in the illegalisation nonsense, but from all I've read so far, Big Pharma. certainly seems to have the greatest interest in illegalisation being maintained. Form some articles of last year, or maybe 2003, perhaps even early this year, and perhaps all three years (having read about this more than once), Big Pharma. has spent hundreds of millions (if not more) of $$$ on lobbying the US federal government to maintain illegalisation of marijuana; meanwhile, I have read nothing of the sort with respect to tobacco and liquor industries. It is also common sense that Big Pharma., being corporate and corporatist as it is, being in the pharamaceutical, medicinal industry would have an interest in whether or not marijuana is legalised or not, for one of the main uses of marijuana is medicinal. Meanwhile, some liquor consumers may diminish quantities of intake, if they begin to consume marijuana, but these people likely will continue to consume liquor, too; most such people anyway. And marijuana, over all of the years of being a consumer and knowing plenty of others, it does not strike me as a substance that people substitute in place of tobacco; not generally anyway. However, when it comes to medical purposes, plenty of drugs Big Pharma. pushes are replaceable with Nature's ownnatural marijuana.


"Question for Denise: Have you ever seen an alcoholic in need of a drink? Or acting "goofy"?"

Drinking and driving, DUI/DWI, provides a very interesting comparison. Studies were performed in the Netherlands over the past few or several years, and the results are supported by Canadian researchers, from U. of Toronto I believe, but may have the wrong U. in mind, here.

DUI when 'I' is due to liquor is proven dangerous; meanwhile, when the 'I' was due to marijuana, no noticeable impairment was detected. Whether a person was totally "straight" or high on marijuana made no difference, no adverse, diminishing difference anyway; and yet, being high can also help to keep people from falling asleep, being as easily distracted, and possibly other matters that can be indeed dangerous when driving.

Now, of course, if an irresponsible, whacky, luny character consumes marijuana and gets behind the wheel of a moving motor vehicle, particularly one that can go fast, then we may find jerk, dangerous driving; however, it's like previously said about what constitutes the actual crime, the deed, or because it was committed while the person was or is high on marijuana; the deed, and the character involved, constitute the problem, not the marijuana and consumption of it.

A responsible consumer can indeed drive very safely, and can be safer than someone who's straight. Such a person definitely is safer than someone who's straight and falling asleep at the wheel, which is as or nearly as dangerous as driving when drunk; yet I've found myself to be a better driver than many so-called straight people.

I know what it's like to fall asleep at the wheel driving 60-65 mph down a highway. Frightening, very; so much I thought I was likely going to have a heart attack, when I awoke finding myself behind the wheel. Very scary, and all the more-so when we factor in that we could have gotten others killed or badly injured; just because we fell asleep driving down a highway. Better to keep that activity for when we're inactive; like safely tucked away in bed or on a sofa, or floor, as long as it's not while operating machinery anyway.

When the many first instances of my falling asleep at the wheel occurred, I had stopped consuming marijuana for a few years and had none with me. I was stuck with being totally straight. Some years later, and after I had started consuming again, I caught myself falling asleep at the wheel and was straight but had some marijuana with me. So, I pulled over to get some air and relax for a few minutes, during which time I toked a little, enough to feel a welcome effect. Then I got back in the car and drove the next several hours without an iota of a problem; not feeling sleepy at all, but instead relaxed, very atuned to the driving I was doing, that is, well concentrated, and so on.

And many of those times I fell asleep at the wheel, it was broad daylight, beautiful weather, clear skies, fogless, etc.; on top of having regularly had my eight hours of sleep every night. But working in a grueling way at software engineering and systems ..., burnout, mentally-fatigue-driving work, well, this took its toll on me, enough that when I got behind the wheel of a car and had to drive more than a couple of hours, say, then falling asleep became a real and too regular factor. (Part of the problem was that I was virtually always alone and had no one to chat with; something that also works to keep us awake at the wheel.)

It is very easy to judge that which we know not; it takes real humility to recognise and admit that we know not all that or there is. If I do not truly understand something, then I am not one to pretend otherwise; however, I found that many people like to pretend that their ignorance is knowledge. That, I only observed in the US, much less so in Canada, but can imagine that it's not unique to the US; not entirely anyway.

It is amazing that people really like to push ignorance as truth. It is also very sad, for them, for they then choose to live their lives based on lies. What a waste of one's own life.

I will not lie to protect my job, especially not when it'd mean impacting the lives of others; if others would not be involved, in terms of being harmed, then I might lie to save my job; guaging based on what moral analysis would result with. But if any others are going to be harmed, then to lie is a NOT affair for me. In such contexts, I prefer the principle of live and let live, real liberty, which requires taking responsibility for one's actions and choices.

Speaking of liberty, in my prior two posts I referred to democracy, but what was most meant is liberty, sane, sound, wholesome liberty. After all, democracy, by itself, does not guarantee that acceptable liberties will be respected; majority rule can be, as the founders of the US Constitution and bill of rights perceived, 'mob rule', where mobs of bigots, ignorants, arrogants, ..., overrule and oppress or repress legitimate liberties of minorities. In that, it's (again) like former PM Jean Chretien said in defending legalisation of same-gendre marriages; in a sound democracy, the majority cannot be blindly adhered to, for minorities have the right to and must be respected. This is why the founders of the US ... and ... were far more for liberty than for democracy, for the latter means majority rule and it obviously can be dangerous to work only according to this order of rule.

I knew there was something I did not like about our democracies and the above is one example; they clobber legitimate liberties; nonsensically, hypocritically, ....

Yet in the US the majority of Americans who've been polled said that they would be for at least legalising marijuana for medical purposes, and the US government does not adhere to even democratic, majority rule in this case; instead ruthlessly working to oppress and/or repress this People's choice.

I'm of course for broader legalisation than for only medical purposes, even if I likely could eventually obtain a legal medical prescription, such as for depression, say. The "thing" is that it should simply never have been made illegal to begin with, and there is nothing wrong with responsibly consuming for recreational reasons.

In reality, this whole topic is a minor matter, except for those who most medically benefit, for there are far graver problems in our world and entirely due to us, i.e., humans; warring, environmental destruction, usury turning the world of us humans into worldwide slavery, and so on. Those are all tremendously graver matters, but I can at least occasionally take some time out to provide my input on this overall topic, too. It's a topic of certain interest to me, just that it's without forgetting that there are far graver issues.

It's mindboggling the number of ways in which we have really messed up this world, for ourselves and other creatures, both. We've done a "bang up" job, seriously wrecking Earth. And it's again very much, extremely because of corrupt and incompetent governments that govern without spine; instead being very malleable and in the wrong ways only, mostly anyway.

As it is, we, in the US, Canada, UK, and surely other so-called democratic countries, have neither real democracy nor real liberty. Give us the liberty we are guaranteed under our laws and we'll then be able to define how sane democracy is to work; always to respect the legitimate rights of minorities, regardless of the size of the opposing majority; to forsake legitimate liberties is to forsake liberty, and to do that, well, there's then no real validity in talking about democracy.

Put me under a just kingship which ensures real liberty, and you won't hear me clammoring on about lack of democracy; although a true philosopher king or queen would ensure democratic rule is respect and applied, as long as it does not contravene against the legitimate liberties any minorities.

People against same-gendre marriage, what's their clammoring all about? It is nonsense. Firstly, most of these people are religious and are members of a, b, c, ..., or z religion and religious institution or church. When government is considering legalising same-gendre marriage, it is not considering what religious institutions will have to switch to, but only what state will permit and a state, civil society way. Hence, religious people really have no rightful say against same-gendre marriage being legalised by state(s), for it is something that will not affect them one way or another, although they might sanely welcome getting a break from all of the noise they have been causing with their nonsensical opposition. We've got totally unjustifiable wars going on, millions or hundreds of millions of people starving, billions in major poverty, and so on, and religious (so-called religious) people can find time to forget about these grave matters, to instead pay attention to matters that really are none of their business and which mean no harm to anyone, who- and what-so-ever.

This Christian will carefully mind the instruction of Jesus of Nazareth, instead of the example given by too many mere human clergy and other religious members; the instruction to not marry church with state but to keep these two entities separate. Church has its purpose while state has its reason for being; very distinct, definitely. Jesus taught and exemplified to be tolerant about matters that can bother us but which are not really of our business and/or which do not represent social harms, injustices; yet many Christians act and speak as if they want to keep reinventing Christian faith, as if Jesus was Wrong and needs to be corrected by us.

All of this, my posts, can seem, perhaps anyway, to have irrelevant points being related to the main topic here, but I perceive and treat them as all relevant. After all, it is only the broader picture, instead of a narrowly scoped one; and only to show the common human characteristics found across all of these different points. Where humans involved, we certainly should expect human characteristics, both good and bad; and then we just have to determine how much of each is present.

Real, truthful history has much we can learn from and profoundly so, but this kind of history is barely taught; much "massaged" history, for it to say what the modifier wants it to say, is what we have; not the truth, in many cases anyway.

Democracy? Everyone's clammoring for it, because we dont' really have it. But I'll take liberty, first; whenever "she" shows up, for whatever while "she" stays. It was not said, "give me democracy or give me death", it was instead [liberty], legitimate liberty; not the illegitimate kind corrupt politicians reign with, for example.


Again, I apologise for all typo. errors. This time verification was performed before submitting, so there should be fewer "typos".

1. i think Denise is a teenager who got her heart broken by a boy who smokes and has made her bitter.

2. the behavior she describes about her "friends" seems to be behavior of "hard" drug use i.e. coke , crack , etc. I never seen or heard of a pot smoker jonesing or cutting or getting violent over pot.

I have smoke for over 15 years , and have some good dry years and didn't go house to house looking for smoke.
I just think she needs to find a new group of people to hang around with.

There you go , not a very articulate or intelligent comment. But an educated one firsthand.

I agree with Mike. I starting smoking in college. I have a masters degree.When it got too expensive, I quit. No withdrawal. Cigarettes, on the other hand were very difficult to quit.Marijuana will not be legalas long as the liquor and tobacco industries pay off our polititions.

Question for Denise: Have you ever seen an alcoholic in need of a drink? Or acting "goofy"?

Denise posted on Oct. 18th, about all she's witnessed, but what she describes is not necessarily physical addiction; it may be psycholigcal, only. Having been a consumer of marijuana since age 14 and now being 48, while having consumed more than en masse during my teen years, 14-19, and into my twenties, til around 23, I know that marijuana is not physically addictive.

What happens in cases like those described by Denise may be instead of physical addiction, an addiction to the high, the relaxing, de-tensing effect. I've also noticed some youths today acting in ways I never did and never would have supported, however, I've also consumed some of the very same pot they had consumed, and it certainly did not cause me to act anything like they did.

Part of the problem for those people may be that they never developed self-discipline worth of note; while they may have superficially appeared to have been well self-disciplined, appearances often can be very deceptive. Perhaps it is because I had some noteworthy measure of self-discipline in my character when I began consuming at age 14, that I never became socially misfit, goofy, ..., when I consumed.

However, while I will say that there is no real physical addiction, it will not be without admitting that if I consume daily for a month or two and then fall "dry" for days, then I won't have withdrawal symptoms, for I certainly do. But those don't last long, only requiring a couple or few days for those effects to wear off and become history, and they never render me dysfunctional.

Part of the problem with people who have observation like those of Denise, though, is that they don't know how to live and let live; wanting too much to decide how every individual one becomes involved with lives out his or her life. It's one thing to care about people, but people also need to be careful to not become dopely addicted to caring; caring must be sanely, or else leave it alone, for capable others to deal with. It's a weakness too many people have, to want to be parent to everyone they believe to be a loved one.

When we live and let live, then people who go through experiences like those described by Denise will either learn and grow up, or they will not; but only they'll be harmed. If they're parents are are negligent towards their children, then this is a problem, but the real problem is not consumption of marijuana; it's the parental negligence which is the problem.

In all my many enough years of being a consumer, I'm sure to have known many more consumers than Denise has, and I never witnessed what she says she has; and I believe that she's indeed truthful about the goofy things those people she knows or knew, or thought she knew did. I don't believe for one second that she's lying, making up those stories, for I've in more recent years witnessed absurd goofiness from young consumers, but nowhere near half of all the young consumers I've met. Most are also functional, maintain jobs, do fine in school, and so on.

We can't know what causes pot consumers to behave so self-detrimentally, not without having known very much about them before they ever consumed; and it may not be necessary to go back that far. When we know people without living with them in close quarters and much in their presence, then it is very easy for appearances to deceive us.

I have not had to go far back into peoples' lives in order to be able to determine that the reason for their lack of being able to remain cool, calm, collected, non-nuisance, ..., is not due to consuming marijuana but because they lack self-discipline to begin with.

And it's outright nonsense to establish a law that bans something for responsible users or consumers, when only a relatively small percentage of users or consumers don't properly handle whatever the matter is. It's infantile to establish laws on such bases, and it's like with the issue of same-gengre marriage, for which former PM Jean Chretien provided an excellent defence in the face of majority Canadian opposition to legalisation. What did he say? He said that in a real, sound democracy, the majority should not always prevail over the minority in question.

All pro-same-gendre marriage people will most surely and blessedly welcome that argument of Jean Chretien; and I'll only add that it applies as much with respect to consumption of marijuana, and even heroin and cocaine, as I said or argued in my prior post, if it gets posted.

One thing I had left out in that prior post is consuming with respect to then driven a motor vehicle. I've driven en masse while high on pot and it even was lifesaving, for it kept me from falling asleep at the wheel out of boredom and fatigue from burn-out software engineering, at which I applied myself in a rather seldom seen way; being a highly energetic worker. However, I've also witnessed some youths relatively new to supposedly more potent pot of today driving like flagrant lunatics, extremely carelessly, imprudently, dangerously, too; and these people really "get under my skin". They are sick, poorly educated, at home and outside of home, taught to be undisciplined, as if they can do whatever they want whenever they want, regardless of putting others in danger.

So, of course conduct, and I did specifically refer to this in the prior post, must be controlled; if people consume and do not remain adequatelly self-disciplined, put other people's lives in danger, or are simply negligent about responsibilities towards others, such as in parenting, then these matters can and should be legally addressed.

On that basis, consumption should only become a legal matter when the consumer is irresponsible; otherwise, law should have no place in our private lives, except for moral law, which is something awfully few governments apply. Some laws are morally sound and arguably necessary, such as regarding murder, rape, driving dangerously, etc.; however, there's also enormous lack of sound morality in governments, and these instances weigh very heavily on society.

I am not father or mother to anyone, and am peer, brother to all, but those who don't wish to be mutually sound peers get little of my personal attention, in my personal life. I can pass on a brotherly suggestion for self-correction, like to develop self-discipline, but if the or a person refuses, then I move on to live my own life. Forcefully, intrusively playing Saviour is not my "bag", except when real injustices are occurring and I can help to put a stop to them; either directly, or by calling in 911, if I'm unable to handle a sitution on my own.

What this requires is autonomous individuality, and of course not totally, for we always need to care about those who really deserve to be cared for. I will always care for the plighted peoples of our world and who have no way to really, effectively defend their rights and dignity; however, when it comes to western yokels, or whatever the proper or right term is, and as long as they are not committing real in justices, if they are only harming their own lives, then my rule is to live and let live, and learn.

My economic status has been "done in" by others, having nothing to do with my abilities and self-application on jobs; it was all because of insatiable greed, usury, and so on, that I was dislocated into being literally beyond only personal bankruptcy, not having had enough left over to be able to afford for whatever benefits are available with formal bankruptcy. Had I been able to afford that, then it would have saved me thousands of dollars worth of accumulations, which were paid for with amply hard work.

I don't have time to care much about people who don't at least make a reasonable effort to be well self-disciplined, .... At most, they'll get a suggestion from me to correct themselves, not for my good but their own; if they choose to not heed, then live and live live, and learn.

When people can't do that, can't imagine it being possible for them, then maybe finding other people to socialise with, people much more fitting personality- or character-wise is [the] solution; find other people to associate with, while wishing those you leave behind good luck, wishing them well, but while not wanting to put up with their nonsensical conduct any longer. It is to simply distance oneself, and people who cannot do this should question themselves about why; why this other addiction. In that case, it's one addict telling another addict, only of a different substance, that he/she is wrong; while both are addicts.

People do get also addicted to sensational feelings, like certain emotions, or when going on wicked, absurd what-ma-call-it park rides, you know, those wicked, absurd, very fast, sensation driving rides in "amusement" parks.

If we want to say that marijuana is addictive, then as minorly so as it may be, we cannot do this without also equally mentionning all of the other addictions people suffer from, variably. Should we outlaw those wicked, adrenaline driving amusement park rides because some people get addicted to sensational feelings? I despise those rides, but would not recommend making them illegal; not unless they become proven to be very dangerous. And some of them are dangerous; there've been some fatal accidents with some such rides. But instead of making those illegal, at most what is required is for owners and operators to make sure that these machines are properly maintained, and for engineers to make sure that they are properly designed, to be safe.

Adrenaline is addictive, if someone experiences rushes of it too often.

People also become addicted to capitalism, greed, usury, warring, with all its bloody murdering and killing, etc., yet these are only illegal on paper; not in reality.

Nope, Denise, you've embarked on the utopia branch of outlook on life. Best for you, in my opinion, is to simply distance yourself from those people; and if you can't manage to do this, then to at least reduce frequency of association. If you don't, then it won't be them who drive you mad, it will be you, for not distancing yourself when it was the sane thing for you to do.

I am not one who's ever really suffered because I distanced myself. It was the sane option and it was followed; "nicely and simply".

And if you try to distance yourself and end up finding those people bugging you, then you can start by simply telling that you're busy with a project or two or more, and you simply lack time. If they don't accept this and persist as bugging you, then you could treat it as harassment and ask legal authorities to place a restriction order on those people.

People who cannot bring themselves to distance from bothersome others need to develop self-discipline and accept that life is not utopia; there are demands place on us in life that require that we take stands, and one is to look after one's own health. People who are not aware of this need to make themselves aware of it, because it is reality for many enough people. It is reality that we cannot get along with everyone we come in contact with, without this meaning that we need to bother ourselves with trying to be their parents. When the others are of adult age or near enough, then live and let live.

Even with younger individuals, I will not take an authoritative position unless it is diplomatic, fair, and therefore combined with real education. Children can learn quickly, if treated with respect; and if we don't respect them, then we are hypocrites to demand that they respect us.

I treat others as peers; no human being anything more than a peer. Some peers are more expertised in their areas of specialisation, sure, and they are therefore superior to me in such specific regards; but while they may gain my respect, they remain peers, fellow human beings, nevertheless. No human is God.

Denise and people like her would greatly benefit from getting to seriously know responsible consumers, before passing a judgement that a law banning consumption for all of us is justified. DO NOT blame me if your friends act like idiots; it being something I've had absolutely nothing to do with.

Next thing we'll find out is that being male is illegal, for too many males are abusive towards their spouses, girlfriends, and children. That's a real problem, that kind of human conduct, but it's not yet illegal to be male. Instead, the specific wrongful doers are the ones who get specifically addressed by law.

psychoticb is dead wrong, what he/she argues is the line of Big Pharma., if anyone. What he/she is saying is that while humans have been able to safely consume marijuana for thousands of years, suddenly we need to have this regulated by corporate interests and, rather inherently, corporatist, corporate-fascist government. NO; if it was safe before, then it is safe today; and anyone who ever suggest "hand it over only to corporations" is either self-interested, or has little real understanding of how our world is working, operating.

Alex says that marijuana is not addictive, and with nearly thirty years as a consumer, I can certainly endorse this [fact], of non-addiction. It is not addictive, and neither would tobacco be, without the corporate-interests hybridising the plant so that it produces an unnaturally [high] amount of nicotene; nicotene being [the] addictive component of tobacco, but low enough in purely natural, Nature's tobacco that it is then NOT addictive; or at most, minorly and easy to deal with.

I know that, for having also been a long consumer of tobacco and having consumed both Big Corp. pre-packaged, and corporate-toxics-contaminated tobacco, and purely natural tobacco, both; and know that I have no trouble with purely natural tobacco, but definitely did with Big. Corp. cigs. That was again not enough for Big Corp., for the Nature's brand of tobacco does not render people addicted, so the consumers of this variety are not major sources of $$$$$$. No, Big Tobacco wanted high-level nicotene, to get people addicted and seriously so; but yet that also was not enough. They also added turpentine, and what was the purpose of this unnaturally present additive? It's so that even if someone lit up a cig. and put it down in an ashtray, it would burn away on its own; natural tobacco, like wood, going out on its own, that is once set afire, unless there's enough oxygen and/or (?) combustible element present to keep the fire going. I often noticed that after lighting up a cig., placing it down, going to do something and then coming back, the cig. had completely burned down by itself; and never noticed that with pure, natural tobacco. And even if a person didn't lay down their cig., just lit it and smoked it completely, the Big Tobacco brands burned up very quickly, compared to purely natural tobacco cigs. Purely natural cigs. last me several times or more longer, than what Big Tobacco cigs. used to provide.

People can easily notice that with all the legislation going on with regards to tobacco, virtually [no] attention has been paid to the distinction between purely natural tobacco products, and those products with plenty of additives. People blame consumption of tobacco as the cause for cancer, but all while neglecting the fact that tobacco has also been consumed for thousands of years, and historically was not a problem. Suddenly, we have Big Tobacco making up tobacco products, according to their secret projects, and heavy consumers of their cig. brands developing cancer. It didn't happen before, but people, anti-smokers, politicians who seek some kind of perverted fame, ..., they do not want to look at the raw facts.

Yet there's also another fact that these people overlook, treat with neglect, and it is that people who consumed Big Tobacco cigs. and developed cancer, well, these were not ordinary consumers; they consumed at least two packages per day, every day of the year, for years; although I've only known of people developing cancer when they consumed three packages and more per day (allowing, here, for the possiblity of two packages a day being potentially enough to cause cancer to develop).

USURY is a VERY old concept, dating from thousands of years ago; it's about time people woke up to reality! That's very much what Big Business and corporatist governments are about, $$$$$, $$$$$, $$$$$$, ever more $$$$$; and only for a relative few. Hey, if we were all equally rich, then there'd be no basis for believing that we're wealthier, more powerfully influential than others; Right! Right! It's an ego-tripping, of rather psychopathic order, problem; a major handicap these people have and apply, to the detriment of MOST of Humanity. They pillage lives and cities and countries with the application of war, but also with major destruction of the world environment; such as with regards to the HUGE open-pit mines around the world (including the present project of clearing mountain tops in the Appalachians in the US), deforestation run madly, and so on. It's not for no reason that the poor of the world cannot get much less expensive medicine a-la generic; it's again and [entirely] about corporate piggery and corporatist governments.

It is all about hell-bent USURY, which of course means the attempt to render virtually all of Humanity into worldwide SLAVERY. Usury has been around for thousands of years, and so has slavery, etc., etc., etc.

A. C. Germann, THANK YOU VERY MUCH for your grand, excellent, welcome HONESTY. Fortunately, the US has LEAP, and I recently read that while the organisation started out with only a hand-full, perhaps a half dozen former and/or active police officers back in, I believe, 2002, it has now grown to around 3,000 members; in only three years. Police, law enforcement, particularly members who've dealt en masse with narcotics, have enough members who know that the drug war is hell-bent bogus nonsense; a Big LIE.

I wish to also express my thanks to all those people who have posted comments based on their personal experiences with health, physical problems, and what value marijuana has had for them. It's not news to me, but all stories of this kind, as well as of the kind of A. C. Germann, are always welcome to read about; because the drug war is hell-bent nonsense, a Big LIE.

Some woman, I believe a woman anyway, wrote that we're all wrong and that her, her fancifully honest and competent, never corrupt government are right; yet, all while all of us provide very clear proof that there is nothing wrong with consuming marijuana. "Wonderful" example of liking to demonstrate that oneself is IGNORANT; not only ignorant but also arrogant, for it is arrogant to pretend that one's ignorance is basis for social law. The only law with respect to ignorance is that all humans are ignorant, and the trick for living soundly as ignorant beings is to keep our ignorance in check; another matter in which it is certainly valid to apply the moral-ACCOUNTING principle of checks and balances.

That kind of attitude, arrogant ignorance, is HYPOCRISY, and if there's one thing Jesus of Nazareth, The Christ, in case the above-referred-to poster is someone who thinks he/she is Christian, well, if there's one thing he despised (and firmly opposed) it is HYPOCRISY. What is hypocrisy, if not arrogant ignorance; or, if you prefer, arrogant application or expression of ignorance; it's what hypocrisy is.

I don't recall the verse, ..., but Jesus was asked about ..., about what people consume, and Jesus replied that it does not matter what enters us, what we consume, but what is important is what comes of or from us; matters like hypocrisy and hegemony, for example.

As far as I am concerned, all natural drugs should never have been illegalised and criminalised, for there are other ways of sanely dealing with problems of addiction; and when consumption renders a particular individual violent, then he/she gets a warning that he/she must cease the violence and, if needed, also the catalysing consumption, or else he/she will be convicted and sentenced to incarceration. But the latter is not a matter of illegalising and criminalising consumption of substances; it's a matter of illegalising and criminalising violent and unjust behaviour; it does not matter what the cause of that conduct is, the conduct has to be illegalised and criminalised, point final. What causes a person to become violent, however, is a matter requiring treatment, medical or psychological treatment; but it is not the crime, the criminal act, which is the violent behaviour.

Someone said that abusively consuming any substance can be unhealthy, and this is true; it's even true with water. Even drinking too much water, make it as pure as you wish it matters not for this reality-based example, can be literally dangerous. This happened with the mother of a guy I once knew, his mother having become what the MDs told the family was "intoxicated" for having drank too much water in too short a period of time. Perhaps she had a fever and just kept drinking, but what ever the cause was, she ended up comatose, passed out, unconscious for three days. This came to the family's attention for she had left to go to be alone for a few days at an apartment the family had in another city, and one of her sons was wanting to check up on her, now and then, daily though, until she returned home. He tried contacting her from the first or second day and on the third day decided to call police for them to go check up on her; for she was never answering phone calls. They found her knocked out on the floor in that apartment and took her to the hospital, where MDs diagnosed the problem.

I didn't get more medical details than that, but have some serious experience with working out, fitness-wise, and read some very good books by Dr Elington Darden, possibly also one by Dr Arthur Jones (Nautilus brand machines). In one of those books it's stated that our physiologies or metabolisms require eloctrolytes in our blood system, and if the level becomes too low, then we begin by having difficulty with concentration, then with physical ability, followed, eventually, by becoming "comatose", at which point we are in need of immediate medical attention, or else we could eventually die. What's the recipe? Salt. People who drink a lot of water need to make sure to include some salt, for it's the salt which produces and thus maintains the electrolytes we NEED.

There's therefore more than only liquor and drugs, for humans to become debilitated, unable to properly function, drive, or even go to the toilet.

Allergies justify illegalisation? Are we going to illegalise bees and/or being around them; what if they come to us, instead of us venturing into one of their nests; are we to then be treated as criminals, just because bees can kill some people who are too allergic? I don't think so! What do such allergic people do? They try to sanely stay away from bees. Same thing with anything else; if allergic, stay away or don't consume, depending on whatever the specific case is.

Same applies for people who happen to lose the ability to concentrate when they consume marijuana; don't consume, or at least not when concentrating is something that needs to be done.

All the reasons in the world are right in front of us, staring us in our faces, about the fact that there is absolutely no valid basis for illegalising marijuana; or any other natural drugs. Heroin addicts can be treated with appropriate health clinics. I have known a few heroin addicts in my lifetime, long ago, and the "thing" was these addicts were not poor and could always ensure that when they needed their "fix" it'd be available. They worked construction and had no problems. No one knew these guys took heroin ever, let alone that they were addicts, for they were [functional] and what they consumed was not stamped on their foreheads. Heroin addiction is a problem for the poor who can't afford their "fixes", and being consumers is usually not something they were born with, with having it in mind. Eventually, they were introduced to it, consumed, and soon became addicts. And those I knew, the non-poor addicts, were [sane] enough to warn me about their experience, that it only took three times for them to become physically addicted; a warning I [heeded], and for which I was and am ever thankful for, for I never desired to be an addict of anything.

I also knew a few people who consumed cocaine, long enough before crack cocaine became known, years before, and they were moderate consumers, fully functional, their consumption being definitely non-evident. The only way to know was to know these people personally and for them to tell you; else, it was never noticeable that they consumed cocaine.

Blood-shot eyes is no reason to illegalise any substance; nor for starting witch hunts. Why do the eyes become bloodshot when people consume marijuana? I beleive it's because blood pressure rises, albeit am not totally sure if this is the reason; it's what I once read and it made sense to me, though. Is high blood pressure a criminal matter, is it a moral one?

It is neither, and laws should not exist unless they are morally sound and justified; else, we have immoral laws, and that renders them automatically criminal laws; for there is no other way to define crime, except through critically sound moral analysis.

But to arrive at this kind of understanding requires being able to perform, on a regular enough basis too, sound introspection; we have to keep ourselves in line, with careful accounting of checks and balances of the not financial, nominal but moral nature. If we do not apply such exercises unto ourselves, we risk easily being HYPOCRITES.

Our world is full of HYPOCRITES, USURERS, warmongers, and so on. It's due time to try to change this world into a sane one, for at least once; but given that humans have failed for the most part throughout human history, I guess that it's a bit dreamy to believe that we are going to finally be able to establish a pervasively sane world. Primitives or primitive-living peoples had and have considerably saner societies, and those of today, in some remote parts of the world, want to make sure that the rest of us so-called civilised people stay out, out, out. They want nothing to do with us; it's as if they can smell what it'd mean for them, to adopt befriending us (in our usually hypocritical, hegemonic, hell-bent ways), the treaty makers who constantly disrespect the treaties agreed to. Yep, such primitives are sure sane to want to keep us out of their lives.

Yet it is of the noble, honourable heart, to always keep on trying to make our world SANE. Those who do not wish to seriously embark on this project, one way or another, are people who will continue to work against it; wittingly and not. They will continue to help to buttress major hypocrisy, hegemony, hell-bent governance, always living in some infantile fantasy that governments and corporations are HONEST entities. There are but relatively few truly honest politicians; as was said thousands of years ago and remains ever verifiably true, today and into the future, "politics is full of hypocrisy", and cowards, greedy, selfish, incompetent, etc.

Of course, "power corrupts" and "absolute power corrupts absolutely" are also ever true. It's not that these have to be true, though; it's that most humans are too morally and intellectually weak to be able to end up being sound, especially when occupying positions of power. Can humans ever possess absolute power, though; well, if we take it only in a purely temporal sense, then I guess we can, but even then examples are likely questionable, at least a little; take G.W. Bush et al, who several years ago and for some years since, have wielded and exercised what can be temporally considered absolute power, but it's a-vanishing, for the base of support is fleeing. If we take it to a truly absolute sense, however, no, no human can ever possess absolute power; no human, absolutely none.

I would absolutely like to be in a top governing position in which I could then rule like a real, true 'philosopher king', for while it'd absolutely be great, it would be only for [empowering] The People; for a true p.k. is wholeheartedly democratic, for, of and by The People, and is replaceable, if ever The People determine that the individual is unfit to serve as king. (The People would decide what their politics are to be and would then select, appoint someone to act in the role of p.k., the top administrator and watchdog; and for as long as the pick is fitting, The People would be able to keep their minds focused on matters other than corrupt and incompetent political representatives. People like G.W. Bush et al certainly would not like to see this kind of kingship form, and would, as usual, work to clobber such a fair and enjoyable form of governance; but while that's true, it's not a reason to refrain from trying to help make our world sane.)

Let's take the hypothetical example that I'm running for the next presidency. What's my most key platform pledge? It is, "you make me president, so that you will then be The President, while I just work at your service, folks; after all, I want to keep my life nice and simple, needing no overcomplications, which is what trying to replace the role of The People is; having no desire to overcomplicate and to surely end up messing up, and badly so, going down in history as a fool, incompetent, or worse. Why would I want to aim to be yet another political failure; instead of dutifully serving The People? There's no reason to desire anything else when in politics, none that is sound anyway. Politics is about Serving, first and foremost dutifully serving the people; and it's also what all government positions should be; regardless if they're political or law enforcement or ... roles; working for government [is] working for The People, in The People's employment.

So far, only the pro-legalisation side is sane, sound, and knowledgeably- or reality-based. Sure we have a bias; it's against immoral laws, hypocrisy, and so on. If I'm going to be biased, then it must be righteously so; not ignorantly, hypocritically, .... Only our side has thousands of years of consumption supporting our arguments; while the other side has only ignorance, hypocrisy, corporate interests, conflict of interest, ..., and, of course, as usual, LIES "going" for them.

Being hell-bent-wise witch-hunted is something marijuana consumers can be variably paranoid about and being paranoid is anxiety; however, it is not fantasy- but reality-based, for the hell-bent witch hunting is real, as is also the innocence in consuming. The anti-legalisation side is very anxious too, but the reasons are unjustifiable, for it's only because they are ignorant and want to arrogantly control, dominate others based on this ignorance and/or lies, and not getting their way makes them anxious people. They fear eventually losing and this drives them mad, quite insane, really.

It is insane to arrogantly apply ignorance! It is also insane to LIE in the way these anti-legalisation people do, as well as is true with regards to being a warmonger, usurer, and so on. There is absolutely nothing sane about such character. They may possibly be reasonably sane in their own individual, private lives, but are insane when it comes to being sound members of society and the world.

What is insanity? It, very simply, is lack of soundness; being of unhealthy mind. Hypocrisy, ..., fit into this kind of insanity; it's all illustrative of infantile desires to rule over others, instead of living like peers. To want to dominate others is to not perceive and treat them as peers, equals, but as subjects for us to do as we wish with; and to basically perceive and treat ourselves as Godlier better. That is insanity, a form or example anyway. There are warmongers, who thirst for shedding blood, to "feed" their insane dreams about it being supposedly fun to murder, pillage, .... There are usurers, who like to exercise placing others into economic slavery. There are ..., and there are domination-mongers, people who for no need of money or other interest feel that they have to dominate others. Others are fame-mongers, insanely.

US Army General (I think he was a general anyway) Sherman who led the last crusade against the great chief Sitting Bull was of the latter domination-mongering, or at the very least fame-mongering, nature. He's quoted as having said that he warred, took ruthless conquest and domination to those American Indians, not for money, ..., but for fame; fame based on bloody ruthless, hell-bent nightmarish, slaughtering conquest, and, then, domination over those attacked but who did not perish.

We can learn a LOT from past history, for understanding what our world today is really like and about. After all, humans have never really changed; except, perhaps, if we go back to humans prior to Homo Sapiens; although am note sure we'd be able to critically find much moral difference or evolution, from the ancestors of our present species, or sub-species, whatever the proper term is. Putting any changes that may have possibly occurred in that sense, during those evolutionary transitions, we have not really changed, not for thousands of years. Politics have been part of our lives for thousands of years, for even the original North American Indians, for example, had their politics; just that they were much less cluttered, convoluted, complicated, exaggerated, .... Religion has been around for thousands of years, while there's also a very long history of church trying to marry with state, as we have much example of today. Philosophy has existed for thousands of years. There were many enough sound people thousands of years ago, as well as unsound ones; only, today, we have too many of the latter kind of social members, and they wield more power, more powerful technology, ....

Usury, hypocrisy, bigotry, hegemony, war- or blood-mongering, domination-mongering, ..., these have all been traits of human societies for thousands of years; only, today, the doers of these orders of human conduct have far more means for carrying out their hell-bent projects. These traits are "only" far more pervasively applied and appliable today. The IMF and WB don't exist for reasons of doing good for our world, but for $$$$$ and the rich and powerful; for all of whom GoodWill is nonsense, although they of course, except exceptionally, will not admit this. But we do not need them to admit it, for actions speak much more than words do, and anyone who pays more attention to words than to actions, actual conduct, is idiot, and either will not perceive [the] reality, or perceives it and simply chooses to go along with it, atrociously, cowardly, ....

If only the anti-legalisation side could come up with more than lies and saying "well, I don't care what you believe, don't care whether you are right or not, for the side I choose to support, right or wrong, is the powerful and ruling one, and that's all, the sole thing I care about". If only they could come up with any really meaningful truths for their positions of anti-legalisation; if only they could. They cannot and never will, though, for thousands of years of human history concretely proves that they are dead wrong and LYING.

People are free to bless, support, protect, defend, ..., LIES, usury, ..., but then we can't live thinking that we will not be opposed, if we choose this way of living; and opposition can potentially become very strong. They know that they will definitely be opposed, as long as there are sane people with enough courage around to stand up and speak out; therefore, they want corrupt powerful governments to work as the Big Bully Machine.

People are free to choose the side of evil versus that of Goodwill, but it's a choice I never ever wish to even come close to making or adopting. There is not a better sword to ever die by than to die by one's own honest, sane, and fair words; and I believe that that is very fitting of when Jesus of Nazareth recommended to be "as cunning as snakes (or vipers ?) while as peaceful as doves"; as well as when he said, "blessed be the peace-makers".

There are a fair number of law enforcement officials who realise that legalisation is the sane way to go, that illegalisation and criminalisation are outright hell-bent nonsense, as well as based on lies, .... Unfortunately, there are also law enforcement officials, and politicians, and big enough time traffickers who have their own self-interests; for some it's bigotry, for others it's childish ignorance, and for yet others it's about $$$$. And the very latter, the $$$ motive, comes in at least two forms: one is because they directly profit from hypocritically dealing with illicit drug trafficking and consumption, like law enforcement become traffickers of the same substances; while others have careers, jobs and all those ential in terms of benefits, who want to maintain these financially comfortable roles. The former know that they're hypocrites, while the latter can live in denial and keep repeating to themselves that what they're doing is not immoral, to the point of eventually believing it; having brainwashed themselves into believing their own lies.

Perhaps half of law enforcement, all categories, is corrupt. I don't know what the percentage is, but there most definitely is a lot of corruption. There are plenty of judges and lawyers who really do make a serious laughing stock of courts of law; real joking matters, although not joking as in the welcome order; it's most definitely unwelcome and needs immediate remediation. The sickness needs to be cured. And there are many enough examples, but I won't bother enumerating, for this is already a long post for a comment.

I'll just say that this article from ET and the sources is very welcome addition. It should not be called for, but it unfortunately is; and given the latter, it's important to keep publishing research results. We should not need research for the point of determining whether or not legalisation should be applied, but the research of the order reported in this article would be important to perform, even if legal- and illegal-isation were not an issue. There's nothing unfortunate about this research; there only is with respect to the fact that we need to deal with the fact that governments have undemocratically, hypocritically, ignorantly, ... made marijuana and other natural substances illegal.

What happens if a person ingests too much aspirin? I don't know, but the result is surely unhealthy. Aspirin can be purchased without prescription and at any quanity a purchaser wishes. That person could go home and swallow bottles of aspirin and end up in a critical condition, maybe even dead. But aspirin, a Big Pharma., Big Corp., product is not illegal. There are other medications people can purchase without prescriptions and which can nevertheless be adverse to health or function, if consumed in to large doses. These meds are not illegal and are purchasable right off the shelf. Children can go in to pharamacies and purchase at least some of these meds, certainly aspirin, cough syrups, some of which need to be taken with caution, and in at least Canada, 222s can be purchased by children, young teens anyway, and so on; or, at least children used to be able to purchase 222s, a potent aspirin alternative that at least some drug consumers like to consume, for they pack enough whallop. These are all legal and purchasable off of the shelf.

There is certainly no way to soundly argue that illegalistion is at all right for marijuana; and I simply apply it ever more broadly, for heroin, opium, morphine (all three from Nature's medicinal poppy plant), cocaine (not crack cocaine but natural, pure cocaine, or at least not "cut" with harmful substances, for reducing potency), and so on.

We'd have far more sustainably sane societies, if we were rid of all the pervasive ignorance, i.e., arrogant ignorance, hypocrisy, hegemony, and so on; those being all things that are counter to evolving to sane, sound societies.

Harmless drug? I guess that would depend on your definition of harmless. besides cigarettes it has got to be the most addictive substance i have ever seen. I have seen friends and family members pacing the floors waiting for some "smoke". I have seen people lose good paying jobs and take incredible risks just to get their next high. I have seen people spend their last five dollars on it when they dont even have food in the house. I have seen countless young people drop out of school and spend all of their free time walking the streets and going house to house asking their friends to fire it up. I have seen them hide the stuff from each other and pretend that they are out. I have seen people cut each other over it and seen the end of friendships because of it. I have seen young men not even look at a girl if they are out trying to find "smoke". its like they lose their desire for the opposite sex and lose their desire to succeed in life. I think marijuana is a hateful, selfish drug that robs its user of a pleasant existence.

I have been smoking pot regularly since freshman year in highschool. After which I started to excel in school academics. I recieved countless schloarships and am in college, on my senior year, with a GPA of 3.60.

I am about to start an internship with a well respected industry, all the while red-eyed.
Thanks pot, for all your help.

I'm 50 yrs. old and started smoking pot when I was 13. I'm not a frequent smoker, though I probably would be if I didn't worry about being busted. I have systemic lupus, fibromyalgia and a few other disorders. I'm absolutely ALLERGIC to ALL pharmaceutical medications. I go into full blown anaphylactic shock when I take ANYTHING that's pharmaceutical. But I'm in pain most of the time. Although I take herbs and supplements which help, marijuana is the only thing that has ever eased the pain, nausea and depression that go along with having muliple illnesses.

Folks, one of the previous commenters, 84 yr. old A.C. Germann, said it best, I think: these are 'draconian' laws. There's more than just Big Pharma involved here. The government knows that if we smoke pot, we'll figure out what they're up to. The so-called 'elite' (draconians) behind the government are very well aware of what this plant can do and what it doesn't do. And this is why, unless there is a major uprising in this country, things aren't likely to change.

As a 21 year old College student, I feel that pot has given me a second chance.

I used to suffer from lack of concentration, general to severe depression, accounting for my insomnia, during my years at elementary and high school. I found it difficult to make it to class, and found myself bored and inattentive when I actually made it. I ended up dropping out of high school in grade 10, with failing grades, assuming I would one day pursue a career in demostic engineering. Little did I know,I was worth much more.

I started smoking pot regularly during the summer of 2001. I soon found that I had a much better chance of going to sleep at a reasonable time if I had a "puff" about an hour before trying to go to sleep. This method worked so well that soon I found myself not thinking about the hour and how much time I had left to fall asleep to get an ample 8 hour rest. I could actuly tell my mind to concentrate on something else, think of a subject and let my new, pot enhanced, narrower track imagination, lead me to sleep.

I soon found it easier to hold a job, as I would be rested enough to wake up for work. This later ked my to join some friends in returning to school.

I remember that I was a bit nerous about smoking before class, as I remembered, not being in control of myself in public, in earlier years when I did not smoke regualrly. Thankfully, one of my friends insisted on going on our first day baked so the teacher woyld assume that we were naturally red eyed. And let me tell you, I finally found the answer to my attention difficulties. I no longer had to doodle in class to stay awake, in fact, I always found class to be so interesting and exciting, that I would actually participate frequently and do excellent on tests. I finally understood english class and math became a logical breeze.

I now am an "A" College student studying my second year of my second College program, and will be recieving my 2nd diploma in December 2007. I am there everyday, red eyed and rearing to go.

I will soon start at a salary, not under $37,000 per year, and within 2 years, be earning over $60,000 per year. To me, this is a far cry from my prior ambitions to hope to snag a rich husband. I feel that I owe my marks, spirits, ambitions and soon my wealth to pot, and feel sorry for the bitter Americans who don't realize that they are depreiving more than just the Mexicans from wealth.

Although, I am aware that pot reacts very differently for a lot of people, rendering some senseless, giggling drones; I would like everyone to consider my true story while considering their opinions of pot decriminalization.

It's not just the rats.

Any good component of marijuana that shows a positive effect on health should be used for medicine. For this reason i would agree on the manufacture of prescription drugs that would help the sickly of the United States. I would also like to say that I understand what the Government is doing right now, for i believe they are to protect us americans from the constant abuse of this recreational drug. Personally i think its sad that a the youth is openly happy about their marijuana abuse, and that they simply dont care about the carcinogens that the joint possesses. This ignorance or plain stupidity is what poisons this world and what has produced the continued legalization of the other damaging products like cigarettes.

Cigarettes were a direct cause of my grandpa's death and seeing the legalization of another "harmful smoke" really hurts my heart. For this reason i will not agree on complete marijuana legalization; our teens are simply too foolish and will abuse this drug like the "soma" in the Brave New World. So for all of you drug users and pot smokers, please find a way not to kill yourselves, it's not worth it.

sincerely

Yo dudes - talk about pot on our show
Read our website and email me

http://www.tonyshlo.com

I have epilepsy and had a right temporal lobectomy (brain surgery) to try and stop the seizures, it did not work I still have seizures and I have been on 7-differrent anti-seizure meds and the only thing that stops the petit mal seizures from going into Grand mal(tonic clonic)seizures is smoking marijuana, I told my doctors at the National Institute of Health (NIH) and at Johns Hopkins Hosp. That marijuana stops my seizures they all said we know but we can not say anything because of these STUPID laws. Government gets way to much money from the pharmaceutical compaines to keep marijuana illeagle, so unless you have a disease that needs a perscription BOYCOTT any other product these compaines make don't buy those hard-on pills smoke a joint. BOYCOTT PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANINES. FREE THE WEED !!

UP-YOURS GEORGE !!! and your a-hole buddy, UP-YOURS ASHCROFT !!!

I am reminded of the old days of alcohol prohibition and its failure!

I write, as a 84 year old former police officer, as a Professor of Criminal Justice for 36 years (California State University, Long Beach), as a cancer survivor (both Lymphoma and Melanoma in remission after chemotherapy), and as a member of the Oregon Medical Marihuana Program.

Much information about marijuana dangers is akin to the pronouncements of alcohol prohibition supporters from 1918 to 1935, which was almost a total failure due to public rejection of those laws. Speakeasies, private clubs, rum-runners, stills, and bootleggers were abundant, coast to coast, and private liquor supplies were common. As was the acquisition of bad habits by guardians of those laws.

While teaching a course "Drug Abuse and the Law" I had both pre-career and working Law Enforcement Agents in my classes. Often, during the 60s I heard the comment that "some law enforcement officers always have the best dope!" from class members who found out that too often the very best marijuana was retained by police agents themselves.

Today, there are thousands of non-violent drug offenders in jails, prisons, reformatories, or on probation or parole, not there because of acts which harmed others, but because of draconian drug laws and the ease of making drug arrests of many ignorant and habituated non-violent people, while many other people maintain private marijuana caches, as was the case during alcohol prohibition. The parallels are obvious: prohibition of alcohol failed -- and when the nation repealed those laws, and bars and private collections became legal, law enforcement turned to more serious dangers to society, and those repressive laws were no more. It is time for our Nation and its Representatives to take the obvious actions that are called for by most thinking citizens. The enforcement of the law, a primary government responsibility, would be relieved of an onerous, and costly burden.

as a musician,
i've known many tokers. some fully functional, and who have probably benifited.
others i think have taken on a tendancy to moodiness and to achieve under their ability.

figure out what a cerain food /drug does, thennm figure out the dosage. Don't try to label as always good/bad.
ept

i started smoking weed when i was under twenty-one (15, to be precise), and i honestly don't feel as if it has affected the way my brain works. i'm not stupid. i have a great memory. i get straight "a"s at school and do well at work. i also know a guy who was diagnosed as schizophrenic when he was thirteen, started smoking weed when he was sixteen and by twenty-one went off his meds and never went back. i don't think that marijuana's necessarily hazardous to pre-twenties brains, as much as it may compound issues that are already there. perhaps chronic use, like smoking every single day, would be harmful on it's own, but anything not done in moderation is harmful.

*steps off soapbox*

Funny

http://www.bearnakedjoe.com/2005/10/report-cannabis-grows-brain-cells.htm

Ivanushka is right, we need this news spread ALL OVER.

We here in the United States are soooo far behind when it comes to "modern" medicine - or should we say Medi-Sin (c)? "Modern" doesn't necessarily have to mean that medicine is chemically created.

We would do well to respect the knowledge of the Chinese and their ancient secrets of natural medicine. Hey, it's been around for thousands of years so they must be doing something right. I often wonder in amazement at some of these less developed countries where the elderly are living beyond 90. And even without doctors of modern Medi-Sin (c)?

The United States will never get far enough past the FDA and the Pharmacists to be considered in the realm of truly "Modern" medicine via natural remedy.

The pocketbooks of Corporate America are lined by bureacracy, red tape and special interest groups and not necessarily for the benefit of the health safety and welfare of the citizens!

Cannabis is not "an addictive weed" and is not hazardous to the human brain. Chronic cannabis abuse during brain development has been 'linked' with schizophrenia among certain individuals.

in light of the new studies on the benefits of marijuana, will it be legalized?

All the talk about MMJ not being real is a load of crap. I personally know 3 people that have had MMJ SAVE their lives. Without it they would have died from symptoms of cancer. If the government of the U.S ever completely gets rid of MMJ clinics they will have alot of lawsuits for wrongful death.

"They got guns, we got plants, who's the criminall?"

"Overgrow the Government

"Free the Plant"

REMEMBER Governator Schwartzenegger was a stoner, too. WE HAVE PROOF THAT IS PART OF PUBLIC RECORDS. Hey Arny, how'd you like losing the lawsuit over MMJ? Sucks, huh?

Please keep researhing IT and publishing it all over the web, but onlyas much as you also state that marijuana is hazardess to the human brain, any human brain that is (an estimated age of) under 21. I learned this from Dr. Dru himself , because honestly I regret starting so young , i really do,but hey I'm all for it.