Our bodies may be regulated by cannabinoids

[steve1633]

http://www.norml.org//index.cfm?Group_ID=7002

That page is an overview of the medicinal benefits that we can attribute to cannabis today. More interestingly though, if you click the link "endocannabinoid regulatory system" in the second paragraph you will find an interesting discussion of a system within our body that uses cannabinoids produced within to regulate pain, hunger and the activity of many of our vital organs.

How much evidence is needed before the government will admit the folly of pot prohibition.

P.S. England reported a serious drop in their cannabis use approximately 3 years after moving to a more liberal marijuana policy. You can find that story on the NORML homepage.

[Lonewolfe2015]

England also removed guns from their people like Liberals want and look at the crime rate and illegal weapons purchasing/owning.

[Ed S]

http://www.norml.org//index.cfm?Group_ID=7002

That page is an overview of the medicinal benefits that we can attribute to cannabis today. More interestingly though, if you click the link "endocannabinoid regulatory system" in the second paragraph you will find an interesting discussion of a system within our body that uses cannabinoids produced within to regulate pain, hunger and the activity of many of our vital organs.

How much evidence is needed before the government will admit the folly of pot prohibition.

P.S. England reported a serious drop in their cannabis use approximately 3 years after moving to a more liberal marijuana policy. You can find that story on the NORML homepage.

Steve if you want obsess about your beloved MJ that is fine. If you want to get lung cancer from smoking it that is fine. Obviously your brain is fried already. Is this all you care about in this world? You want to smoke it smoke it but do us all a favor and shut up about it.

[StormnMormon]

I don't quite understand why you keep using NORML as website for your evidence

It's hardly unbelieveable that a site that promotes marijuana would say that it's good for you, no matter how....stretched, the facts might be.

[flyohiou]

You want to smoke it smoke it but do us all a favor and shut up about it.

we'll shut up about it when we have freedom and equal rights

[Ed S]

You want to smoke it smoke it but do us all a favor and shut up about it.

we'll shut up about it when we have freedom and equal rights

Who is we? To begin with the stuff is illegal and will be for some time to come. You want to smoke, snort or shoot up that is up to you. Write your congressman and senators and ask them to change the laws. The members of the board do not need to hear about your degenerate habits. You made your point, you want dope to be legal, now go away.

[flyohiou]

i have and do write my elected officials. just because people have customs that you do not approve, does not mean that i should not be allowed to voice my opinion. this is america, remember?

i can't believe someone in law enforcement (if you consider mall securit to be law enforcement) has the opinion that people should not be able to exercise their constitutional rights. what laws were you enforcing if not the most basic ones?


i don't like your opinions. maybe you should go away

[Attilathehungry]

Ed,
Guess there's little doubt how you'll vote next month on Amendment 44, Colorado's ballot initiative to legalize possession of up to one ounce of MJ for those 21 and older. It really is the most crackpot MJ proposal offered yet.

In the economy of illegal drugs, demand for legal one-ounce increments of MJ will require the services of the suppliers, who have operated and would continue to operate outside the law, even under Amendment 44.

That’s just the beginning of the conundrums that riddle this poorly worded amendment to Colorado statutes. And its defenders defy logic. They claim that passing an ounce of MJ to someone under 18 still would be illegal as contributing to a delinquency of a minor. OK, fine. But they fail to mention that a 21-year-old could legally pass an ounce of marijuana to a 20-year-old, a 19-year-old, and even an 18-year-old. Last time I checked, 18- and even some 19-year olds were still in high school. In such a case, only the 18-year-old would be breaking the law by selling it to his underclassman, but the opportunity would be there.

While proponents and opponents differ on just how much an ounce of marijuana is, there's no doubt that an ounce of marijuana can make at least 30 joints. That’s low by most evaluation, and the number could be as high as 60. If I'm wrong on the actual number, I'm sure Steve and Fly will tell me based on their vast experience. So if Amendment 44 passes, it could be legal to pass up 60 joints to an 18-year-old who's still in high school. BAD, BAD, BAD IDEA!!

Further, supporters fail to mention that marijuana legalization has failed in at least one other state, Alaska. There, possession of up to four ounces of marijuana was made legal in 1975. A 1988 University of Alaska study found that teenagers in Alaska used marijuana at more than twice the national average. Alaskans re-criminalized the drug in 1990.

Finally, Amendment 44 backers, much like Steve and Fly have, make these bizarre comparisons between MJ and alcohol or fast food. I agree they’re all bad for you. In fact, they make the somewhat valid argument that alcohol is worse. But where they get lost is when they propose "So why not legalize a more mellow drug so that alcoholics can have a safer alternative"?

They need to get real. If the MJ proponents are really that concerned about the effects of alcoholism, Amendment 44 backers should put their money into combating alcoholism, not offering yet another intoxicating substance to the public.

Amendment 44 is not about making society safer. It’s just another twisted effort to weaken state law. Nevada has a similiar ballot initiative that will be voted on next month. Polls in both states indicate both proposals will be soundly defeated.

What are these MJ legalization advocates smoking? Oh, sorry, we already know.

Ed, I have no doubt you'll be casting your vote against 44.

[Ed S]

i can't believe someone in law enforcement (if you consider mall securit to be law enforcement) has the opinion that people should not be able to exercise their constitutional rights. what laws were you enforcing if not the most basic ones?:

You are a jerk off. I spent twenty years in the Philadelphia PD and retired as a detective sergeant. My last three years was supervising a sex crimes unit. I retired in 1980 and spent eighteen years in the casino industry when I retired in 1997 as director of security in an Atlantic City casino.

Using dope is not your constitutional right, to this date it is still against the law and very well should be. People like yourself want to erode the rule of law in the US. Like I said go to your hidey hole and use your dope and remember they don't call it dope for nothing.

Yes Attila I will be voting no on 44 and a host of others, I do think the amendment limiting terms for judges is a good one. We could get rid of some of these activist judges who want to write the laws instead of ruling on them.

[flyohiou]

People like yourself want to erode the rule of law in the US.

so all laws are justified? no law needs amended? if laws are perfect, why do we need congress?

the majority of laws i want to erode are the laws that restrict freedom of choice (as long as you're not hurting anyone)

I spent twenty years in the Philadelphia PD

check out these stupid cops: www.leap.cc

[Attilathehungry]

Yes Attila I will be voting no on 44.

That alone my friend has got to be driving our pro-legalization friends on this board absolutely ape. You--a retired LEO from Philly who's never smoked the crap in his life--get a say in next month's elections and they--with all their vast and proclaimed experience with MJ--don't.

BWAAAAAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!

[flyohiou]

approx 1/3 of americans have smoked marijuana

[Attilathehungry]

approx 1/3 of americans have smoked marijuana

Last time I checked 1/3 < 1/2.

And at least 1/2 would be needed to legalize MJ in any state ballot. Don't you just love democracy?

[flyohiou]

why am i not surprised that went over you head?

if 1/3 of americans have engaged in a non-violent, self-inflicted act, why should it be illegal? are 1/3 of americans really criminals? should 1/3 of america be arrested and/or jailed? are 1/3 of americans dumb or have fried brains?

democracy is great when it does not involve legislating personal choice, equality, and civil rights. there was a time when [practically] 100% of americans thought blacks were unequal. it doesn't make it right.

[Attilathehungry]

why am i not surprised that went over you head?

if 1/3 of americans have engaged in a non-violent, self-inflicted act, why should it be illegal? are 1/3 of americans really criminals? are 1/3 of americans dumb or have fried brains?

democracy is great when it does not involve legislating personal choice, equality, and civil rights. there was a time when [practically] 100% of americans thought blacks were unequal. it doesn't make it right.

So let me taking a wild guess here, fly. If the initiatives in Nevada and Colorado to legalize one ounce are defeated (and polls I've seen indicate that will be the case), then you'll still have a problem with MJ prohibition across the US because the public as far as you're concerned is "legislating personal choice, equality, and civil rights".

Does that pretty much sum up your position?