This is from Mike McConnell, a conservative radio talk show host formerly from WLW (Cincinnati) and WGN (Chicago). Found his facebook post of interest this morning...

Quote:If you had asked me ten years ago if any state would have legalized pot by 2013, I would have bet against it. I would have bet a lot.

One of the main roadblocks I saw was that an awful lot of people would have had to admit that they were awfully wrong about the issue for an awfully, awfully long time. That's where I was wrong.

They still think they're right.

To his credit, President Obama said in an interview over the weekend that he doesn't think pot is any worse than alcohol. I give him credit because I happen to agree but the naysayers are filling the news shows with dire predictions of the fallout to come.

Former congressman Patrick Kennedy serves as exhibit A:
He says the President needs to know that "today's modern, genetically altered marijuana is much higher in THC levels (and) far surpasses the marijuana the President acknowledges smoking when he was young."

Here's where I need a buzzer. ehehehhehheh. Wrong! And if not so what. I'll explain.

I have friends who've smoked pot since their teens and are now in their 50s and 60s. They're successful adults, some of whom run or own companies and raised great kids and I've asked them that very question over the years since it's not a new claim. " Is pot really stronger than it used to be?" All say "No."

They point out that you still run the risk of getting good (strong) pot or bad (light beer) pot. The bad pot isn't as common as it once was but the good pot isn't any stronger than it used to be.

And what if today's pot is stronger? It means people would smoke less of it to get high and arguably, shouldn't that be healthier? I mean, smoking pine needles or oak tree leaves would be pretty unhealthy too so the less you do it, the better off you are. Get Patrick Kennedy on the phone! I need a show or something. We should be working on coming up with stronger pot.

I smoked pot when I was younger and pot smokers look at me strangely when I tell them this - but I never really liked it. I enjoy the social aspect of "taking the edge off." I'm a beer or wine guy and drink very little liquor. I don't feel like I have to "get there" 45 seconds from now but I know enough about pot to know it's not dangerous.

Ask a cop how many times he's had to break up a pot brawl.
They don't happen. How about a domestic violence call fuelled by pot? Same thing. A good source on these stats is LEAP. ( Law Enforcement Against Prohibition)

I'd go one step further that Obama on this one and say, in some ways, pot isn't even as bad as alcohol.

I honestly can't think of any significant way in which alcohol isn't worse than marijuana. If you isolate it's affects on specific organs possible, by claiming pot is worse for you lungs, then I guess you could make an argument but short of that? I'm not sure how anyone would actually argue in good faith that alcohol isn't objectively worse, for the user and society as a whole, than marijuana.

Here is my disagreement:

Quote:I have friends who've smoked pot since their teens and are now in their 50s and 60s. They're successful adults, some of whom run or own companies and raised great kids and I've asked them that very question over the years since it's not a new claim.

While yes, I know people who have been able to use pot and maintain success and prioritizing correctly, I know many more who started in high school and became losers. I never saw alcohol lead to a downward spiral of anyone in high school. Alcohol was only used on weekends at parties while pot was used all day everyday. Once I hit adulthood, the opposite became true. Then again, I don't really know anyone that smokes pot anymore other than the few that made it since the vast majority are not in my social class whereas I know many functional alcoholics.

As far as the strength goes, I don't know what the choom gang smoked, but when I was smoking it, you could get dirt, mid-grade, or "dank". You got what you were willing to pay for. I always got headaches and bad hangovers from the dirt and would have a lot more of it after picking through seeds and stems. In essence, I agree with the authors view that the dank is not any less healthy than the dirt.

(01-22-2014 10:24 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I honestly can't think of any significant way in which alcohol isn't worse than marijuana. If you isolate it's affects on specific organs possible, by claiming pot is worse for you lungs, then I guess you could make an argument but short of that? I'm not sure how anyone would actually argue in good faith that alcohol isn't objectively worse, for the user and society as a whole, than marijuana.

I don't really care about how it is for your health. I am more interested in how it affects a functioning society and how to minimize any negative effects. Since alcohol is already legal, it really isn't a valid comparison. It is what it is. Has it caused problems? Absolutely. That doesn't justify introducing more problems. A better comparison is cocaine. I could actually argue that marijuana is worse for a functioning society than coke (powdered form). I would bet my house that a larger percentage of coke users are well functioning contributors to society than pot users. So the question is, if we are going to legalize pot, why wouldn't we legalize coke?

(01-22-2014 10:24 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I honestly can't think of any significant way in which alcohol isn't worse than marijuana. If you isolate it's affects on specific organs possible, by claiming pot is worse for you lungs, then I guess you could make an argument but short of that? I'm not sure how anyone would actually argue in good faith that alcohol isn't objectively worse, for the user and society as a whole, than marijuana.

I agree with you on this. Society may make it legal but won't necessarily stop companies from prohibiting it.

(01-22-2014 11:47 AM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 10:24 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I honestly can't think of any significant way in which alcohol isn't worse than marijuana. If you isolate it's affects on specific organs possible, by claiming pot is worse for you lungs, then I guess you could make an argument but short of that? I'm not sure how anyone would actually argue in good faith that alcohol isn't objectively worse, for the user and society as a whole, than marijuana.

I agree with you on this. Society may make it legal but won't necessarily stop companies from prohibiting it.

Good point. They will have to be able to come up with a reliable breathalyzer type test for pot. The stuff stays in your system for 2 weeks, and if I am employer, I have no way to determine if it was used or if my employee was under the influence on my time or on his or her time. So yeah, unless a reliable and affordable test is available to determine influence, I'd have to ban it altogether.

The bottom line here is that it came to a point that banning alcohol caused more problems than it stopped. Thus, it became legal even though it is potentially dangerous for some people.

The same is now the case for pot. It has come to the point that bann of pot causes more problem s than it solves. Therefore, many states are considering the alternative.

We can argue for ever about which is more dangerous. That is a non starter.

The issue here is whether or not keeping pot illegal is still a good idea.

I say no.

Sorry...It is out of bounds to compare alcohol and cannabis. The argument can't be framed in this manner. Every authoritarian will tell you so.

(01-22-2014 11:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The bottom line here is that it came to a point that banning alcohol caused more problems than it stopped. Thus, it became legal even though it is potentially dangerous for some people.
The same is now the case for pot. It has come to the point that bann of pot causes more problem s than it solves. Therefore, many states are considering the alternative.
We can argue for ever about which is more dangerous. That is a non starter.
The issue here is whether or not keeping pot illegal is still a good idea.
I say no.

Exactly. Well said.

(01-22-2014 11:47 AM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 10:24 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I honestly can't think of any significant way in which alcohol isn't worse than marijuana. If you isolate it's affects on specific organs possible, by claiming pot is worse for you lungs, then I guess you could make an argument but short of that? I'm not sure how anyone would actually argue in good faith that alcohol isn't objectively worse, for the user and society as a whole, than marijuana.

I agree with you on this. Society may make it legal but won't necessarily stop companies from prohibiting it.

If legalized they will have to allow non psychoactive levels to THC in ones blood stream. They have the right to demand that one is not high on the job and they should be able to test for levels that mean one is under the influence...just like booze. The testing will likely become more and more sophisticated as time goes on.

TAKING A HIT: Anti-drug groups rebuke Obama over marijuana remarks



President Obama is taking a hit from anti-drug groups for downplaying the effects of marijuana use, as some point out his recent comments appear to clash with statements by his own health and law enforcement agencies.

The president, in a recent interview with The New Yorker, likened pot to cigarettes and alcohol.

"As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life. I don't think it is more dangerous than alcohol," Obama said.

He added that smoking marijuana is "not something I encourage" and is "a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy."

But anti-drug and public health organizations have since seized on the remarks, claiming the president is giving a muddy picture of the medical downsides of marijuana.

"His laissez-faire attitude about legalization has drug policy and prevention experts scratching their heads in confusion as to why the President will not give clear guidance on this important issue," The Drug-Free America Foundation said on its website.

"President Obama is surrounded by a myriad of experts who have voiced serious concerns about the harms of marijuana and rejected legalization, so either he is seriously ill-informed about the issue or is completely ignoring warnings from his highly-esteemed advisers."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/...a-remarks/

(01-22-2014 12:26 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  TAKING A HIT: Anti-drug groups rebuke Obama over marijuana remarks



President Obama is taking a hit from anti-drug groups for downplaying the effects of marijuana use, as some point out his recent comments appear to clash with statements by his own health and law enforcement agencies.

The president, in a recent interview with The New Yorker, likened pot to cigarettes and alcohol.

"As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life. I don't think it is more dangerous than alcohol," Obama said.

He added that smoking marijuana is "not something I encourage" and is "a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy."

But anti-drug and public health organizations have since seized on the remarks, claiming the president is giving a muddy picture of the medical downsides of marijuana.

"His laissez-faire attitude about legalization has drug policy and prevention experts scratching their heads in confusion as to why the President will not give clear guidance on this important issue," The Drug-Free America Foundation said on its website.

"President Obama is surrounded by a myriad of experts who have voiced serious concerns about the harms of marijuana and rejected legalization, so either he is seriously ill-informed about the issue or is completely ignoring warnings from his highly-esteemed advisers."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/...a-remarks/

I always wonder how many of these experts actually every smoked cannabis? My bet is almost none. Obama's comments IMO were fine. He spoke from his personal experience in regard to pot being no more dangerous than alcohol. He did not glorify or claim that smoking it was a good idea. Many of us that formerly smoked weed(Myself over 30 years ago) have been saying the same stuff for decades.

(01-22-2014 12:38 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I always wonder how many of these experts actually every smoked cannabis? My bet is almost none. Obama's comments IMO were fine. He spoke from his personal experience in regard to pot being no more dangerous than alcohol. He did not glorify or claim that smoking it was a good idea. Many of us that formerly smoked weed(Myself over 30 years ago) have been saying the same stuff for decades.

Exactly. I feel like some (most?) of these so-called experts that are disputing everything just put stuff out there just made of hot air. This is true on both sides of the debates on a lot of stuff, but especially things like the anti-marijuana debate.

Legal, not legal... it's getting smoked right now in every single county in the US.

The only difference is whether the state gets the money on the front end (taxation) or the back end (Industrial Prison Complex). You choose.

I have not heard a good argument as to why society needs to allow another socially acceptable intoxicant used specifically for recreational drug use. What purpose does getting high serve? Alcohol this and alcohol that, although aesthetically pleasing to some, it is not that good argument. Ignoring that pot use reduces ambition as well as other documented affects, will not advance the argument for social acceptance either. Then not conceding that making pot socially acceptable will increase the number of children using another intoxicant, and its detrimental effects. What's the matter with you people. Is this another "at this point, what difference does it make", argument.

We don't need to live in a nanny state, amiright?

(01-22-2014 04:56 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  I have not heard a good argument as to why society needs to allow another socially acceptable intoxicant used specifically for recreational drug use. What purpose does getting high serve? Alcohol this and alcohol that, although aesthetically pleasing to some, it is not that good argument. Ignoring that pot use reduces ambition as well as other documented affects, will not advance the argument for social acceptance either. Then not conceding that making pot socially acceptable will increase the number of children using another intoxicant, and its detrimental effects. What's the matter with you people. Is this another "at this point, what difference does it make", argument.

Sure, something that the government spends billions on and needlessly ruins peoples lives over, what sort of argument could there be?

Also, please show any evidence towards the claims you make regarding ambition and the vague 'other documented affects(sp)'

(01-22-2014 06:17 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 04:56 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  I have not heard a good argument as to why society needs to allow another socially acceptable intoxicant used specifically for recreational drug use. What purpose does getting high serve? Alcohol this and alcohol that, although aesthetically pleasing to some, it is not that good argument. Ignoring that pot use reduces ambition as well as other documented affects, will not advance the argument for social acceptance either. Then not conceding that making pot socially acceptable will increase the number of children using another intoxicant, and its detrimental effects. What's the matter with you people. Is this another "at this point, what difference does it make", argument.

Sure, something that the government spends billions on and needlessly ruins peoples lives over, what sort of argument could there be?

Also, please show any evidence towards the claims you make regarding ambition and the vague 'other documented affects(sp)'

You are deflecting. Grow up, it is about time you smelled what you are shoveling.

We'll just have to see if Washington and Colorado make money off of it. If they see cold cash, eff opposition.