Bob, what about hemp.? It could be a good thing for the farmers and the textile market.

Ah, so that's what this is really about. Clothing. So Colorado passed the law so they could corner the market on hemp based ski wear? Got it.

Bob, you are an idiot. do some research about how hemp is far more productive than trees for making paper.

alt, I work in the paper industry. Hemp paper is crap.

Keep trying.

I'm with you Bob.

I personally don't know too much about hemp products but I know a few years ago the hemp farmers and experts made their arguements to the state and the law enforcement and doctor experts into the effects of hemp made their arguements and the elected officials rejected the hemp farmers requestsn to grow hemp. Again I'm not too familiar with why we would possibly need hemp but that was attempted already.

Before WWII, most rope was made from hemp;Wisconsin was one of the top hemp producing states. THC levels, in plants that are used for hemp, are not very high(pun intended), but the plants look/appear the same as those used for THC(smoking).

Jay, ixnay.

Bob, don't be so narrow minded and do a little research on marijuana.

There has been a lot of medical research done with marijuana that has some real promise for patients suffering from a multitude of ailments from, but due to the narrow mindedness and limited vision of the government, patients have been made to suffer.

Also if properly regulated and taxed, marijuana would not be as big a drain on the federal budget as the war on it has been...in fact it could probably be profitable for the government through taxation.

I agree. It is proven that MJ causes users to make irrational decisions that put other people in danger. It is proven that MJ leads to a graduate program of using hard drugs. It is proven that the bad smell of MJ is easily detected, causes clean up issues and will induce more people to get "high". It is proven that users will need medical attention that is not affordable. I do not have the statistics but many of those arrested have prior records of other crimes. What good will it do ?

I agree with you Donald 100%.. Marijuana doesn't make people go crazy and want to kill people like drinking does.. You can not die from smoking Marijuana like you could if you were drinking and getting drunk, It only makes you hungry and sometimes tired. It does not have the same effect on everybody for some people it makes them have energy and makes people focus more on things that there doing. If people would really do research on marijuana like I have in school you would learn the pros and cons on doing it. But NOBODY HAS EVER DIED ON MARIJUANA like they have on all the other drugs that are out there. Marijuana is nothing but a plant a plant that is nature it was used for healing back in the days. They just need to tax it and make them like cigarettes!!!!!!!

This is just too funny! I have never gone under the speed limit people who dont do the speed limit when under the influence is first timers.. It doesnt make you lazy either like I have said before it effects everybody differently and I can always remember everything and function on it at work too!!

Bob, you sound really old and iggnorant. Get with the times. http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2012/4/prweb9375729.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2011/12/02/driving-stoned-safer-than-driving-drunk/

Yeah, I'm ignorant.

From the PRWeb report:

“Marijuana users often say that when they are high, they feel like they are driving 80 miles per hour but actually are only going 30 miles per hour,”

....and along with the brilliant conclusion that this makes you a safer driver, because you're driving slower, comes this revelation...

"Recent reports released by them include “How Biking Instead Of Driving Can Help You Save On Auto Insurance,”..."

As for the ABC Report, I'm pretty sure, ridiculous study above aside, driving sober tops them both.

Look, you guys just want to sit on the couch and blow doobs. Fine by me. I honestly don't care. But we've got some more important issues to deal with here that aren't going to benefit from legalizing pot or wasting precious legislative time going through the process of doing so. And, as noted, it's still a federal crime. All legalizing it now would do is complicate crap at the state level.

I don't know anyone who smokes who can't get their hands on pot if they want it.

oh Bob,
you write "I honestly don't care. But we've got some more important issues to deal with," yet you were the very first person to comment on this article.

Hemp paper seems nice to me, and it seemed to work for our Constitution.

Why not regulate it like alcohol and tax it?

alt, I don't care if you smoke it. I don't want to see time wasted on something that's gong to be nothing but a nightmare for the state at this point, due to it still being a federal offense. There's no point in rushing the issue along when we've got much more important things to work on here. So, yes, I don't care if you smoke it but I definitely don't want any time or state expense wasted on legalizing it now. Let other states fight that battle with their tax dollars.

Hemp paper stinks. The paper industry is not clamoring for hemp in order to produce paper. If there was a benefit to using it they would. Stop with the ridiculous arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with why you want it to be legal.

It's not worth the effort or distraction at this point in time. Particularly since you have absolutely no problem obtaining it now.

Nuitari -

Probably not, but we all know the red sisters will...

Edward Willing -

"and they will kill Obamacare."

Absolutely, about the same time they ban alcohol, again...

Do you eat a lot od Doritos too?

Craig, I work with a guy that was suffering from some serious joint pain from a condition his doctor and a couple specialists couldn't pinpoint. He was prescribed a steroid to alleviate the pain, the pain was alleviated, but his big complaint is that the steroids have him munching all the time, and he has put on 25 lbs since being put on steroids.

So, what's worse, having a case of the munchies from smoking marijuana, or having to deal with the side effects from prescription medications that are supposed to be safe, then have to be prescribed another drug to take care of a side effect, that also might have attached side effects? Taking prescription drugs can be a vicious circle of taking one drug to alleviate the side effect/s of another, all leading to the patient having to shell out more money for more prescription drugs or over the counter medications. Then people have to deal with the addiction to prescription drugs, addiction that can be in most cases worse than an addiction to marijuana.

The chemical THC, found in Marijuana can be prescribed in a pill form. No need for secondhand smoke and the dangers associated with that. No need to worry about the pot being enhanced with additional drugs and chemicals. A THC pill would not affect the lungs like a joint will ( which by the way is unfiltered and harder on the lungs than a cigarette ).
I am familiar with serious medical problems, and I am affected substantially. I chose not to take morphine because of the side effects, but this was perceived by my Dr. as a "difficult patient". I take several medications that make me nauseous and sleepy to treat my condition, but I still feel no need to get high.

@Alt Very good points --- especially about waste of law enforcement resources, and all the money we spend in arresting and then putting in prison folks who are doing nothing substantially different than what is done with alcohol --- except that alcohol is much more unhealthy and addictive

I personally know that one law enforecement task force alone in south eastern Wisconsin funds it's entire budget from asset forfeitures taken from people who SELL drugs including marijuana so many costs are covered. Millions of dollars is seized annually from offenders.

OK, so you can't smoke cigarettes anywhere, but it will somehow be alright to spark a joint? Isn't there secondhand smoke issues as well? What about children? The hippocracy is stunning!

@GearHead - where did I say it was OK to spark a joint anywhere?

Maybe you should smoke a joint - might help mellow your attitude!

Marty: Just what the US needs is a bunch of burnouts adding to the 'mellow' population. Do Quest Cards cover Doritos?
Nothing like an employer having to chose from a pool of candiates who have killed off brain cells and may hurt the employee alongside them due to stupidity from drug abuse.

Did your employer approve of you operating the machines while under the influence?

Bob McBride -

"Did your employer approve of you operating the machines while under the influence?"

I don't think Donald D Lyons said he was operating machines "while under the influence."

Keep it real...

The question was for Donald, John. Assuming he isn't currently glued to the Cartoon Network or wandering around outside because locked himself out of the house accidentally, he should be able to answer it on his own.

GearHead - big difference between smoking cigarettes and pot. Cigarettes do not mess with your brain function.

Bob McBride -

I'm not a member of your Waukesha Republican Executive Committee, and you certainly do not control this blog or me; I will respond or not, whenever I think it is appropriate, to any post...

Again, get real here.

Unbundle the undies, John. The question was for Donald. He would know, you wouldn't. Why is that so difficult to understand?

And nobody's suggesting you don't have the right to make pointless responses to questions that weren't directed at you. Two - or maybe three or more times - if you so choose.

Have at it.

Bob McBride -

Donald D Lyons stated, “odd ive been smoking it for over thrity years and never once had an car crash/never drove over the speed limit hit anyone/or thing. i was a machienst for twenty or so years!”

Did Donald say here that he was operating machinery while under the influence? NO!

Can you logically infer that he was operating machinery while under the influence from his statements? NO!

What is it you don’t understand with these two simple sentences?

Your incoherent leap into purely delusional inferences is problematic and somewhat disconcerting, primarily, because it is a motif that constantly replays itself in your posts.

If you don’t understand a few very simple declarative sentences, simply ask for clarification; you’re making me believe that logic and reading comprehension are foreign to Republicans, and you don’t have the luxury of blaming it on marijuana, perhaps we should look at your alcohol use.

Barring that, just be snarky…

Once again, I asked Donald a simple question. He, better than, you would know the answer. As much as I enjoy watching you dig yourself deeper and deeper into your bunker of ridiculousness, it's still his question to answer.

That's three now, John. Do you want to go for four and see if you can hit an aquifer?

Bob McBride -

Again, please answer the question.

"What is it you don’t understand with these two simple sentences?"

Yes, you may engage your obsessive-compulsive disorder and count the number of posts; perhaps you might even graph them at your leisure...

Actually Johnny, Bob asks a valid question. The effects of marijuana lasts for days. While Donald may not consider himself high, he would definitely be operating machinery while impaired.
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/marijuana-use-and-its-effects

And while operating while impaired does not mean you will have an accident, it does increase your chances.

Keep digging, John. You're making a great impression here.

The Anti-Alinsky -

Actually, the question assumes facts not in evidence.

Bob McBride -

I'm here to engage in a lively discussion and share my opinion.

"What is it you don’t understand with these two simple sentences?"

I was a 'machinist' also, never smoked dope- and I spelled it differently than you. Does pot have adverse effects on the lungs? Smoking pot does the same as cigarettes only 1 joint is equal to 20 smokes in tar. Then there is the weight gain and burnout issues.

John Wilson wrote: "The Anti-Alinsky -Actually, the question assumes facts not in evidence."

Here's the facts Johnny:
1) Donald admitted to smoking marijuana for 30 years. Since the effects of marijuana last for several days, are we to assume that Donald only smoked it when he had several days off, and that he stayed at home? I think it is you that is being overly presumptuous.
2) Why doesn't Donald just respond to the question Bob asked, "Did your employer approve of you operating the machines while under the influence?"

The Anti-Alinsky –

Let me see if I have this correct, you read and cite ONE article regarding Marijuana and you are an expert on the effects of the drug. The use, metabolism, accumulated duration of the high, residual effects, so called “impairment”, etc. are all subject to age, weight, use pattern, amount of THC in the Marijuana smoked, physical health, medications you are currently taking and many, many other factors.

I would sincerely question the “effects” last for several days” and the conclusions you have drawn from that questionable statement.

Furthermore, I would sincerely caution anyone from making broad generalizations, unless you are a physician or both a physician and an experienced researcher, based solely on an article. [I will also state that much of the published so-called research on this topic has a decidedly political agenda to it.] They are little more than scare pieces, masquerading as research.

I have been smoking Marijuana since college, as it opens doors for me. I smoke 1 – 2 times per week. At this point, it takes about three hits and I am there. I would defy anyone, with any test matrix to detect any degree of physical, motor or intellectual “impairment.”

Actually, you really do have to begin with a valid premise to reach a logical conclusion.

I once read War and Peace; therefore, I am an expert on all things Russian and French.

You may, of course, assume what you will…

John Wilson wrote: "...I have been smoking Marijuana since college, as it opens doors for me. I smoke 1 – 2 times per week. At this point, it takes about three hits and I am there. I would defy anyone, with any test matrix to detect any degree of physical, motor or intellectual “impairment..."
Actually John, your post pretty much prove you are "impairment"

Pothead Johnny also wrote: "...Let me see if I have this correct, you read and cite ONE article regarding Marijuana and you are an expert on the effects of the drug..."
I've read more than one, i just referenced the best one. So when John Wilson infers something with no reason at all, we should accept that as law. But when someone else puts forth other possibilities, they are clueless.

Johnny also wrote: "...I would sincerely question the “effects” last for several days” and the conclusions you have drawn from that questionable statement...."
I think I will take the research and conclusion of an MD over your drug induced ramblings. I am sure that for every article I have found, or can find, that says marijuana has negatives effects, you can find one that says it isn't. The difference is my articles will be based on research from MDs, while yours will be written by your fellow potheads.

By the way Johnny, Bob asked a simple question which has yet to be answered in any form, including a complete repudiation of the obvious inference.

(The Anti-Alinsky The effects of marijuana lasts for days.) You people are really stupid and dont know nothing about Marijuana I see.. Marijuana doesnt leave side effects for days.. If you smoke too much marijuana in a day you can smoke yourself sober and as soon as you go to sleep the effect of marijuana is gone you wake up sober and if you eat it makes you sober up like it would if you were drinking!!!

Pfffft..
"John Wilson Waiting to Exhale" - coming to a theater near you!

@Stephanie: if pot smoking clears the system after sleeping or eating: why are so many potential employees being turned down for employment after testing positive for THC? (OVER 50% at some places)
If THC is in your bloodstream, you are obviously still under it's effects. (no different than alcohol, coke, meth, etc)

Stephanie wrote: "(The Anti-Alinsky The effects of marijuana lasts for days.) You people are really stupid and dont know nothing about Marijuana I see.. Marijuana doesnt leave side effects for days.. If you smoke too much marijuana in a day you can smoke yourself sober and as soon as you go to sleep the effect of marijuana is gone you wake up sober and if you eat it makes you sober up like it would if you were drinking!!!"

Thank you for the very polite correction Stephanie. I will certainly take the experience of (what I assume) is an occasional user over an MD with research to back it up.

Thanks you again for being soooooooo polite.

Not a big deal but cocaine is actually a schedule II controlled substance. So I would agree that marijuana should not be classified as a sch I while cocaine is a sch II but the reason for this is forms of cocaine are used medically as numbing agents. I'm not saying I think marijuana should be legal but IF it is legalized it should be for medicinal purposes only. And who has ever heard of a controlled substance prescribed by a doctor being grown in someone's backyard and then sold to a private shop to sell? There is absolutely no control over who else has access to the marijuana plants at the grow site or the at the shops. If it will be used medicinally then it should be dispensed through a pharmacy just like any other controlled substance with some control over inventory. Otherwise you might as well just have oxy and morphine pills being sold out of shops on the street with no control too.

Str8shooter –

Actually, Crack Cocaine is listed as a Schedule I Drug; I should have been more specific with that drug. The DEA does play many [politics] with the scheduling of drugs and criminal penalties associated with them. I certainly agree that Marijuana does not belong in the schedule I category.

http://www.tsbp.state.tx.us/consumer/broch2.htm

John I wouldn't be so sure. Not that this really matters too much because I think we both agree marijuana should not be Sch I. I am aware that crack cocaine does face harsher penalties than powder cocaine but per our Wisconsin statute 961.16(2)(b) all cocaine is a Sch II and I'm fairly certain Wisconsin's controlled substances are adopted from the federal controlled substances. I briefly looked at your link and it appears to be some Texas pharmacy list. The pharmacy guidelines don't always match up with the statutes. Again doesn't really change the point of the article but just thought I'd mention it.

Michael, Reefer Madness "educated" my father's generation, which at this point is mostly dead and gone. Anybody around 65 or younger was exposed to Reefer Madness as a novelty cult film that most watched while high.

What I'm saying, specifically, Michael is that, at this point in time, I don't want Wisconsin wasting time and money being one of the test cases that eventually butts head with the federal laws. Let the Colorados and others do that. Let them waste the resources on that. During that period of time you will not be freeing up resources. This is not an issue where it's worth being a trend leader and instigator of change on the federal level. All the pot smokers can still get their pot.

As for the private prison systems, that's just another one of these arguments that suggests everything "wrong" with this country can be traced to profit motive. In other words, the typical lefty fallback for everything.

We've got a few other issues that are more important than legalizing pot at this point in time. If you don't agree, maybe you need to ask why the guy who you just put back in the Whitehouse hasn't come out in favor of it yet. Get on his case.

@ Bob, You know you have been calling me lefty for quite awhile now. It's odd you would call someone who voted for Reagan, Thompson and Bush and as recently as 2010 I supported Neuman. But it's your interpretation .

If America truly wants to head to privatization that is what we will get. But it is more expensive, whether its prison, garbage, snowplowing or education and healthcare.

Jailing sons and daughters, cousins and friends for smoking pot is a bit extreme, don't you agree? That in itself is worth changing law.

And some of the important issues facing Wisconsin may be the reversal of Act 10 and what it will cost us. I know of at least three suits advancing through the system and all of them have sound arguments. As a "liberal", the conservative side of me resents the tax money spent in the courts to satisfy an agenda that will probably be defeated in court. Re: Walker Mil County Executive.

Whether you're a lefty or not, the argument that we don't have have legalized marijuana because of the efforts of the private prison industry follows the typical lefty argument that, if it wasn't for some nefarious profit motive preventing it, everyone would be in agreement over this. That's not the case.

As for one of your other arguments, your suggestion that this would somehow keep drugs out of the hands of kids, in particular, doesn't hold water. Currently, we have kids not only abusing readily obtainable alcohol, but readily obtainable prescription medications as well. We all know where those come from, despite them being, legally, unobtainable by those under the age of majority or w/o the proper prescription.

As for jailing people for pot use, I'd rather we go the route of changing the penalties rather than the law itself at this point. If we become part of a landmark effort to force the issue at the federal level at this point, it's going to end up costing this state a lot more than it would if we waited to see what happens in states like CO.

Once again, we have a guy in office of the President who's an acknowledged past drug user, who has kids who could, presumably, be caught up in the kinds of situations you mention and he's not leading the charge on this. If you voted for him, get on his case. Don't expect a Republican controlled state to take up your cause at this point in time.

ALMOST no one even does prison time for marijuana offenses especially simple possession. Our DA's offices say our prisons are too full for typical marijuana offenders. Look at convicted criminals for any offense...why are 5,6,7,8 and 9 time drunk drivers not in prison? I can't speak for other states but prisons in Wisconsin are definitely not over crowded with marijauna users.

@ Bob, The black market and the crime associated with pot would disappear with regulation. This isn't my opinion. Did I say this was a cause on my behalf ? Didn't mean to. It is never a waste of resources to change with society. The fact that pot is used by all aspects of our society should be worthy of real conversation. Are you ignorant of its effects vs a few Hubers or do you just prefer the Huber. I want to let you in on a secret. Republicans smoke pot too. I do agree with you about reducing the penalties for pot use. At least until we can have a conversation based on facts and science. As far as kids getting their hands on prescription drugs and alcohol, someone would have had to commit a crime and should be incarcerated. When we were underage drinkers we would stop a stranger and give him five bucks to make a purchase for us. Will that behavior continue? Yes.

Michael, I'm not against decriminalizing it. I'm just not all in on being one of the landmark cases involved in the process. I've seen all sorts of arguments here as to why it needs to be decriminalized and most of them are ridiculous or just plain don't hold up when you think them through. What I'm saying is that you're fighting the wrong battle, at the wrong time. Let the stuff in CO and other places play out first. See how the feds, ultimately, react to that. See if there's some movement on the federal level, or none, or whatever and then bring the issue here. This is not an urgent issue that we need to involve ourselves in in a costly (both in terms of time and dollars) fashion at this point in time. We've got more important stuff to work on.

@ Bob, I understand your position. And you are correct that this has to be addressed at the Federal level before we can entertain the liberty of choosing which recreational drug to ingest. I just believe this is an easy, revenue saving, revenue generating fix.

"As far as kids getting their hands on prescription drugs and alcohol, someone would have had to commit a crime and should be incarcerated. "

*************************

I just want to pinpoint this as my example of not thinking it through. It's not a crime to have prescription drugs in your medicine cabinet or liquor in your liquor cabinet. Similarly, if pot were to become legal, it wouldn't be illegal to keep it in the nightstand or dresser or wherever. Legalizing marijuana will not keep it out of the hands of the youngsters, anymore than it keeps booze and pills out of their hands.

As for the cartels and such, they're creative and capable of moving from marijuana to some other substance that will remain illegal while they create a market for that. One substance moves out, another moves in to take it's place.

The only argument that makes sense is that people want to use pot as they are able to use alcohol. The rationalizations and justifications related to supposedly doing away with the nasty side-effects of keeping it illegal are specious for the most part. I'd rather people just be honest about it than attempt to goad others into supporting decriminalization via bad arguments.

Bob McBride –

“It's not a crime to have prescription drugs in your medicine cabinet or liquor in your liquor cabinet.”

It is if you do not have a prescription for them, particularily if they are psychotropic drugs. The same scenario would apply if they found prescription drugs in the trunk or glove compartment of your car during a stop and search. [Although you would probably, only get charged if you were “driving while being black.”]

It is the same “possession” that the police typically use to enforce the gun statute. If you are a convicted felon, you cannot own, possess or use a gun. If the police search your home, and find a gun, you are going to be arrested for possession of a gun.

wish you had voted, especially for Libertarians Gary Johnson (president) and Joe kexel(US Senate), and if you lived in the 1st Congressional District, myself. We all favor turning the issue over to the states, and no federal intrusion into state decisions on it, and decriminalization of marijuana for personal use at least as the beginning stage for states to consider. It' s my body, and I should not have to have government telling me what I can (or cannot) put into my body. Simple case of personal property rights. Also along with that is personal responsibility, and there will still be laws that penalize DUI for booze, pot, coke, etc. Also on use by minors.

Keith, i think Randy's referring to the survey attached to this article, not the election last week.

Bob McBride is correct --I meant I didn't vote in the poll about marijuana legalization. I most certainly DID vote in the recent election, and no, I am not in the 1st Congressional district.

AWD -

My SOUL was just stolen by Marijuana!

I think that's a better critique of white supremacy than marijuana use. Admit you have a problem, AWD, and get some help.

Wilson: If you feel pot is such a good thing and has no effects on the soul, answer me this: Would you allow your teenage daughter to smoke it at a coed sleepover?
Pot doesn't cure any disease, it causes them.

Craig -

I do not believe in what you call a "soul."

And, I don't engage in hypotheticals...

Obviously you do not have a daughter either. Regardless of ones soul or moral character, the question is do you think it would be prudent to allow a teenage girl to be at a coed sleepover while partaking in the magic lettuce?

Craig –

I have 3-absolutely adorable, intelligent, self-sufficient, independent and amazingly creative and humorous grown daughters. But then I am both proud of them and biased. [What you should be asking is how I survived in a household with 4-women!] They all used alcohol in their late teen years; they all smoked some Marijuana on occasion, and one even experimented with LSD. That was/is their total drug use. They all have post-graduate degrees; one has a PhD in physics. They are all successfully married and not living in the USA. One is living in Germany, one is in France and one is in the UK (Great Britain).

Recent scientific knowledge has shown that the human brain is not completely developed until around the age of 25!

Never underestimate the resilience of the human body…

John; Sounds like you did a good job raising your girls, but you never actually answered if you would allow them in a situation where their judgement could be compramized.

Ok, now here is a bit more insight into Tara Morehouse which could've been found by anyone in 2min on CCAP. At least as of 2010 she was on unemployment which we are all paying and may still be. She is currently being sued in a small claims case. Was there any thought that she uses marijuana and snorts percocet (oxycodone a Sch II opiate) and has all her paraphernalia in the car. Very likely she at least had one or both drugs in her system which means she could have been chraged with driving with a restricted controlled substance (OWI). Maybe the officer and courts gave her a break on that. And the marijuana charge was a 2nd or subsequent offense which means she has been convicted of AT LEAST one prior misdemeanor or felony drug charge previously. Base on CCAP records she has been convicted on 3 previous drug charges and the most she ever served was 10 days. Also per CCAP she has been sued a couple other times by financial institutes. I would urge youo to monitor this case and see how much time she gets sentenced to. I hope it is somewhat substantial but I highly doubt that. So do I think this woman is a good place for police resources...absolutely! She is out snorting oxycodone possessing marijuana, previously convicted numerous times for drug charges, doesnt have her financial matters in order, and at least was on unemployment...yes I am tired of paying unemployment for people like this.

Must be nice to have money for recreational drugs while oweing other people money and taking umemployment. Oh and also just noticed she was stopped for not having registered plates on her car. That also irritates me because I renew my registration yearly and obey the laws. Guess a bit more research should've been done into this defendant before choosing her case.

While I do not agree with anything this woman did - unemployment is not the same as welfare. She had to have a job at one time and paid in to the unemployment system to get unemployment. Don't impugn people for being on unemployment and having some financial accounts go into the courts. That can and has happened to the best of us for some pretty legitimate reasons. That said she sounds like a real charmer.

Cricket- Absolutely agree and it's unfortunate when that does happen but my problem comes in when she is engaged in recreational drugs while she is unemployed and owes people money. That's why I added all of those facts in. She obviously has not gotten her financial matters in order over the past 10 years but continues to engage in expensive illegal activity. Dont buy marijuana and oxycodone for 1 week and she can probably pay to register car. That was my issue with her behavior combined with unemployment and other civil lawsuits.

Definitely agree - str8teshooter. I bet she has a really expensive cell phone too.

Expensive for who though?! Ha. It's just the lack of personal responsibility by so many that really irritates me and is bringing this country down.

Str8shooter -

I sure am glad to have the morality and life-style police on this black woman's case; I guess I can sleep well tonight. I'm glad you pointed out much of her past history [CCAP]. More to the point, she was charged with possession of a controlled substance, Marijuana. She was not charged with possession of Percocet, which I will tentatively assume she had a valid prescription. Further, she was also charged with the possession of drug paraphernalia.

Now I am sure, whether she accepts a plea deal or not, that the court, in all its wisdom, will take into account her horrendous failure to pay some bills, collect unemployment and absolutely not live her life according to your standards. Perhaps you might approach the court with a statement on your behalf attesting to your absolute outrage at her behavior. You might even demand that she pay the unemployment compensation back. I am sure the court would welcome your participation.

Cricket -

Actually, she had a free Obamaphone with 5000 free minutes and unlimited data.

@ John- Where does it say anywhere in the article YOU used as an example the woman is black? The article didn't and the CCAP records didn't. Why would you refer to her race now as I don't see how that has anything to do with my opinion? And it's funny you choose the term "morality police" as the history behind creating laws is morality. Society deems what is morally acceptable and creates laws off of what is right and wrong to protect society. There is even a section in Wisconsin statutes titled "morality". I have no interest in this case other than adding other facts you left out. No I don't think the courts should consider her sentence based on her failing to contribute to society but I also don't think it's a bad idea to make her pay back unemployment if she used tax money to buy illegal drugs. She should be sentenced on the fact she has continuously committed similar crimes numerous times throughout her life. And I think assuming she has a script for percocet that she snorts through a straw is reaching. Possible sure, but then she is still not following the law that says you must use it in the manner it's prescribed.

John I believe we were hinting at it possibly being an obama phone. You have no idea how many drug dealers or users are arrested and use their obamaphone to complete drugs deals. Often times they have multiple obamaphones and when asked why they have 2...they say they don't have enough minutes on the first to conduct their sales. No one has a RIGHT to a cellphone but if Im paying taxes to fund other people's cell phones don't you think the taxes I pay should at least pay for mine?!

Str8shooter –

I have seen the woman in court before. In addition, what is “right” today may be deemed “wrong” tomorrow. It was “right” and legal to have “slaves” at one point in time.

You wanting to impose your life-style and morality standards on anyone is why the Republican Party is in such a mess. While I certainly would not agree with her choices, and other behaviors, I recognize that it is not my job or duty to impose my morality or my definition of RESPONSIBILITY upon anyone else. If she broke the law, that’s a legal issue for the courts. I’m not going to comment and diss her, simply because she is not as responsible as I.

You have no evidence to prove she bought Marijuana or Percocet with unemployment money; even if you did, she earned that money and it is simply none of your business regarding what she bought with that money.

I think that logic would dictate that IF the MF Police could have reasonably charged her with illegal possession of Percocet, they would have. The quote from the story regarding her offering up the story that she snorted Percocet, should really tell you all you need to know about what level this woman is functioning.

Off-label uses of drugs, as far as I know are not against the law. The important issue here is that you have a prescription for the drug. If she wants to take her prescription anally that is fine, just not recommended…

For a small government party, it does seem that you want to control many things.

John - I guess I am just confused on why her race was brought up so late in the discussion. Was she a tall woman, short woman, black hair, thin build? Just didn't know why she just went from Tara Morehouse a 40yo woman to a "black woman". I agree what is legal today might not be tomorrow and vice versa. I however believe in following the laws that society has created. If I feel a law needs to be changed I do what the founders of this country meant to be done in changing that. As of right now the majority of the states and still the entire US Govt recognizes marijuana as illegal so I would suggest those that want to use it change the law or move somewhere it is legal. Hopefully that doesn't sound rude but as of right now it is the law. If it becomes legal I'm OK with that but as of today it's illegal. I never said she used her unemployment to buy drugs and also said it was possible she has a script for oxycodone. But IF she used money for illegal drug activity that money is actually subject to forfeiture by the govt so she should pay it back, again "IF" that's what happened although that's not really the issue.

And if you were familiar with the strategies of DA's Offices you would know they tend not to pile on charges so it is very possible they couldve gone the route of taking her blood for possible operating with restricted controlled substance (OWI) or taken the straw to the crime lab to test the powder residue. But they already have a misdemeanor and felony charge on her so what's the point? She will likely get little to no jail tme again because the courts are intelligent enough not to lock someone up for minor possession although she does have multiple prior convictions. The main reason they would have even included the fact she had a straw in the car she uses to snort oxy is called a "read in". The ADA can mention the facts in the criminal complaint at time of charging so those facts can be used for sentencing without actually issuing the charge. As you can see by the short criminal complaint, ADA's do not need to include much info in them so there would be no other reason to include that detail about the oxy.

Str8shooter -

She was sitting down when I seen her and I was in the back of the courtroom, so I could only tell you she was tanned. You prefer black; I am fine with that.

I think the assumption was already made that she was a tanned person, by the Obamaphone comments and the rage against her failure to embrace personal responsibility.

There is that “Civil Disobedience” item that we still have in the Constitution. Further, if you are willing to accept the consequences of your behavior, and I am, I see little downside with my use of Marijuana. On the other hand, if caught, it might be a positive, as I would add to the already staggering statistics regarding Marijuana arrests in the state of Wisconsin. You do, of course, realize that Wisconsin arrests and convicts two times the amount of people than does our sister state of Minnesota.

Someone mentioned earlier on this blog that prisons were not overflowing with people convicted of Marijuana possession or use. That may or may not be true, as some would be siphoned off to local jails or halfway houses. The major other hit is that you now have a criminal record [Felon], which will follow you around forever. Employers like potential employees with a criminal record; they are always writing help wanted ads for this demographic. This black mark virtually kills anyone convicted of Marijuana possession or use.

@ John Wilson -

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! This is what you have to say defending a woman for at least 3 prior drug convictions, 2 more charges, paraphernalia, marijuana, oxy residue, and admission she snorts oxy, all that in the car while she's driving, the DA's office goes easy on her, she has multiple lawsuits against her, she at least was on unemployment, doesn't register her vehicle, and the strictest sentence she has ever had was 10 days....
"She was sitting down when I seen her and I was in the back of the courtroom, so I could only tell you she was tanned. You prefer black; I am fine with that. I think the assumption was already made that she was a tanned person, by the Obamaphone comments and the rage against her failure to embrace personal responsibility."

You incorrectly stated many things I said which are easy to read, and no one ever made mention of the woman's race. No one ever knew her race except for you and YOU are the one that called her "Black". NOW you're saying you could only see she was tanned and not black but YOU said black but are now saying I'm the one that "likes black". I have no idea what her race is and don't care which I made very clear. Either you can't read what even you typed or can't remember but if anyone else is reading this it's definitely sounding like the woman's race is important to you and I find that disgusting. And how does saying someone might have an obamaphone mean they are black? Why would YOU make that assumption?

And yes Wisconsin does have many more drug arrests and convictions than MN which is one state out of the entire country. We have a much bigger drug problem overall than MN so yes we will have more arrests and convictions yet our drug convicts do little to no jail time including the example YOU brought up with this woman after at least 3 convictions has done 10 days. I'm sorry but I'm not taking the responsibility for someone having a criminal record when THEY are the one continuously choosing to commit the crimes. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY...that's on them and not me. If the marijuana law changes then smoke all you want but right now it is illegal. I can't believe how unifnormed you are on your own example, the criminal procedures in Wisconsin, and the schedule of certain drugs. Educate yourself before you speak about certain topics. I'm sorry but you'll have to continue this discussion with someone else that may be as interested in race as much as you are.

Str8shooter –

I am sorry too, as it seems as though you were just beginning to get a full head of steam on your moral indignation; I am really in awe of you, having all the CONTROL, and, of course, all the ANSWERS…

ADA’s sometimes overcharge and sometimes they undercharge, depending on many different factors, including location.

I usually refer to Black people as tanned people; RACE is a SIGNIFICANT factor in everything in America.

Minnesota has an even greater Marijuana problem than Wisconsin and yet, they arrest half as many people as Wisconsin. [For every White person arrested for simple Marijuana possession six Black [tanned] people are arrested for the same offense.]

“In 2010, Wisconsin law enforcement agencies reported 16,111 arrests for simple possession of marijuana, including both adult and juvenile offenders. The same year, Minnesota agencies reported only 7,453.”

“It seems unlikely that differences in marijuana use could account for such a large difference in the arrest rates. Indeed, based on the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, it appears that marijuana use in Minnesota is, if anything, slightly higher than in Wisconsin. So, the differences in arrest rates probably result to a significant degree from differences in police behavior. What drives those differences is not immediately apparent from any data that I have seen.”

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/what-if-wisconsin-arrested-half-many-people-marijuana-possession

I read that article too, John.
I wonder if she smoked pot before she snorted percoset?
Pot is a gateway drug, this is a case that illustrates that point.

Craig -

"Pot is a gateway drug, this is a case that illustrates that point."

I'm sure you FEEL it is; and I'm sure many folks have suggested that to you.

Do you have any facts, data or reputable sources to support that?

Wilson: My source for the information is just my local law enforcement. Of course they are not to be trusted either, because you have indicated that they (police, DA,etc) are your illegal source for your illegal substance use. Not attacking your judgement here at all.

Greg Huegerich -

I think you would find more opposition from Big Pharma on the legalization than you would from the tavern league. There is a tremendous amount of money in this industry, and if politicians can push it in the direction of the pharmaceutical companies, you can bet that they will.

My mother was on Marinol, a synthetic drug with THC when she was dying from cancer and it was somewhat helpful to her; it was not, however, as efficacious as a joint. One wonders how a physician can prescribe Marinol, in Wisconsin, to terminally ill cancer patients, and yet, Wisconsin does not have a Medical Marijuana use law. Of course, there are exceptions for certain medical conditions and for certain physicians.

You need to visualize a frail 92-year old woman, who has fought all her life against all drugs, requesting that her sons procure Marijuana for her so she could eat and be free from pain to really appreciate the Marijuana discussion…

WILSON: Marijuana is not a pain killer! Getting high is an escape from pain, but the pain is still there. Those living with chronic pain can have an escape by getting drunk too. MS patients live with chronic pain, actual phamaceuticals can help this pain by treating the root cause. Telling an MS patient to go catch a buzz so they feel better for an hour is not really helping them.

Craig –

Sorry, but the following source and my own experiences when my mother was dying from Cancer would tend to suggest otherwise…

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120807101232.htm

Wilson:
Ahem. Mea Culpa.
My neuropathic pain is disabling. I have been on treatment with little improvement for years.
I don't know that I would consider giving it a try, I have seen the effects of drug abuse in people close to me.
I can tell you that I feel better when I have had 6-8 beers, but I don't know about the weed. I guess if I felt better but became a lazy ass it wouldn't be worth it.

John, I still would like to know why a THC pill would not do the same thing? I have been to many specialists for MMD, MS, and ALS. Not one has suggested I burn one on occassion to get some relief. What would be the reason for that?

Craig –

My suspicion, based solely on my personal experience and from questioning some of my physicians.

1) Physicians are trained under the most conservative of regimes possible and they are really addicted to taking the most conservative path possible, whatever their political affiliation. This is a general statement, but I think you will find it true. [DO NO HARM!]
2) Medical Marijuana is not legal in Wisconsin, although I do know a few physicians, under a few hospice types of situations, are allowed to prescribe Marinol, a synthetic THC.
3) Real Marijuana, to me, my now dead mother, and a few other people I know, has always been more successful than Marinol in pain management; I suspect a) because of the method of delivery, bypasses the kidneys, liver, etc., and goes directly into the blood stream via the lungs b) because there are over 400 natural ingredients in the real thing, which interact differently when burned, while Marinol is just a synthetic THC, coupled with some binders.
4) This is perhaps the biggest: LIABILITY. Physicians do not want to be viewed, in any sense, as a PUSHER; they could be sued, lose their DEA certification and thus not be able to write scripts or even lose their license to practice medicine. No Dr. House in Wisconsin.
5) Even in special pain management facilities these physicians are really not up to speed on Marijuana and its pain and relaxation properties. Why should they be? It is not an integral part of their daily life.

Craig –

The following 2 sites indicate, I think, why we should not be piling young adults, especially for Marijuana use, into prisons, and perhaps, why we should look at young adult behavior in a different manner than adults.

By the by, Marijuana use does not make you fat or lazy… unless your genetic makeup presupposes you to either of these states, and even then, there are work arounds, such as diet, exercise and keeping both the mind and body as active as you can. I play tons of Chess online to keep my mind nimble and my ego in check.

http://www.academic.marist.edu/mwwatch/fall05/science1.htm

http://www.examiner.com/article/a-child-s-brain-fully-develops-by-age-25

There is nothing like learning to keep you humble and engaged.

John: I have been told our brain begins to lose ability after age 40. If the brain is still developing until age 25, I assume it is not advised to partake in the devil lettuce during the early years.
This leads me to ask when is the right time to smoke?
I am not trying to be a smart ass, seriously I just don't get it.

@DK Are you being derisive about he Esteemed Leaders of WFB for using so much time and effort to keep their village safe from little libraries --- don't you realize that no issue is too trivial to be addressed by the Village Fathers (and Mothers) especially when you consider the kind of folks who would probably utilize such little libraries --- they would be virtual magnets for all kinds of Socialists, Free Thinkers, and yes, probably an inordinate proportion of them would be partakers of the sacred weed !!!

That's what we have Shorewood for. Home of the "little library". If I need free books or want to dump a couple off, it's just a few blocks past the DMZ. I noticed, last time I drove by the one I'm familiar with, that it was looking a little shabby. Plastic sheeting draped over the top, I assume, to keep the weather out.

You guys like little libraries, have a rivalry between folks living east of Oakland and those living West of it, a road paver ticking time bomb and more hairdressers than you can shake a stick at.

We've got empty storefronts, a BID which is MIA and the world's most expensive sewer repair project with a scheduled completion date sometime around the time I re-enter the diaper stage.

About the only thing the two villages have in common is a belief that you can still reasonably expect to find the next day what you left in your unlocked car the night before.

It's pot, kiddos. It's not the end of the damn world. For once, let some other state(s) blow the wad on making a stink in front of the whole nation. That's so last year, here.

Jim Price -

Thanks for the interesting and informative article...

Now the state of Wisconsin will, perhaps, not have to lend its voice to bolster the legalization of Marijuana in the states fight with the federal government. [Not that we would ever see, Walker and the Republican controlled state get on the right side of any issue.] We can just wait until the other states secure the right to have its citizens use Marijuana… then, we can piggyback on all their HARD WORK and FINANCIAL COSTS, and reap a FREEBIE.

Ahh, WISCONSIN… the quintessential WELFARE STATE… [You do the hard work, we get the benefit.] We also allow our citizens to pay all of Walker’s legal expenses from lawsuits and legal shenanigans.

I really do love my state!

thanks for an interesting article and discussion Jim.

SInce there are medical marijuana dispensaries in Washington D.C., an area controlled by the Federal Government, by proxy medical marijuana should be legal and tolerated by the Federal Government across all 50 states.

This is not a public health or safety issue, it is a money issue for the government. They are crunching the numbers to see how they can get the most money in tax revenue. Alcohol is legal, but they are still prosecuting moonshiners, because it is an untaxed product, and the Gov does not like that.

Why not have something to tax? You live in the fantasy world where there is no crumbling infrastructure and other needs.

Having dope illegal certainly costs us money -- enforcement, prisons, etc.

There would a terrific addition to the economy if we would legalize hemp growing.

I understand why you would say that but for me I don't want to legalize something that I don't necessarily think should be just to make money. I posted this up further after you posted this comment but I mentioned how I know of a law enforcement task force in southeastern Wisconsin that is fully funded off of asset forfeitures taken from drug dealers. Millions of dollars a year is seized and marijuana is the largest money maker for drug dealers. So take that away and now law enforcement still needs to investigate the more serious heroin, cocaine, oxy, etc but without the asset forfeitures to fund it. IF marijuana is legalized I think it needs to be for medicinal purposes only and through a pharmacy where it is regulated. Not grown in somone's backyard and then processed by friends of the grower and taken to a shop on the street. As long as it is controlled by DEA like pills it still needs to be regulated to make sure it's going to the people who are supposed to have it. And in that case I just don't know how pharmaceutical companies get taxed.

not my reason for decriminalizing or legalizing it. A side benefit(especially if we junk the income tax in favor of a FairTax at both the federal and state levels), but not the main reason. Personal liberty and personal property rights, along with limiting the power and spending of government at all levels, is what we need to focus on as a society that needs to restore its freedoms. The conservatives(ad much of the GOP) have two major blind spots in their ideology-militarism abroad and moralism at home. Both of which increase government intrusion into our personal lives, and decrease our freedoms in the process. Patriot Act, NDAA, the drug war-all major infringements on our rights which the right has supported heavily over the years. Reasons that make me a Libertarian, and which keep me working on the establishment of a fiscally prudent, socially tolerant alternative to the statist "power parties".

Hmmm... I hear few people – but yes, a few – even in the most anti-tax factions who complain much about the "sin taxes" on tobacco and alcohol. I would think this would be about the same. Things the government, and the people governed, feel obliged to regulate because of their ill effects, ought to be taxed to some extent to make up for the cost of regulating them, and to some extent for the costs to society that we expect to pay for them – health care costs, principally. We all know alcohol and tobacco are legal but incur enormous public and private costs, yet we don't ban them – we regulate and tax them. I would think that a starting point for legalizing marijuana ought to be a mandatory application of marijuana tax revenues toward a.) study of the economic, public health and public safety effects of the new law, to ensure that it is worthwhile; and b.) remediation of any ill effects in those areas, just as some alcohol and tobacco tax money is allocated to the ill effects of those drugs (yep, they're drugs).

@Keith Schmitz

How much revenue did we miss out on by not taxing your illegal substance consumption?

Keith Schmitz has the right idea,but, we should only 'buy-in' on policies that have significant calculated income stream with verifiable math(outside independent auditors) and include constitutional amendments.

Can we eliminate the State income tax(write it into the state constitution) with the THC/pot/hemp tax fund and maybe even refund all sales taxes to in-state residents?

I suspect we might have reached, and possibly exceeded, the logical limits of this discussion.

Wisconsin will follow suit with the states that have legalized medical marijuana. It may take until I am on my death bed, but that is just when I'd like to have a hit.

Certainly, some people think this horse is out of the barn with Washington and Colorado legalizing recreational use. But I think the debate for other states is about a horse apiece. Me, I stick with "the horse I rode in on." And I don't change horses in the middle of the stream.

The fact that such high-profile people can be candid about their marijuana use, yet we're still testing low wage and part-time workers for this substance, and firing them if they have used it in the last several months, is a national disgrace.

***********

That's a business decision made by a private business. Pot being legal or not has nothing to do with that. If a company wishes to have a zero tolerance policy regarding intoxicants being detected in a person's system, it can do so whether the substance is legal or not. The tests aren't mandatory in most cases, the results of tests when given don't lead to mandatory actions on the part of the employer, in most cases.

However, you just re-elected one of the three above. Feel free to get on his case about this "national disgrace".

Bob, you just made some pretty broad statements about workplace drug testing, and I'm skeptical about whether you know what you're talking about.

You should include the observation that a random drug testing policy is a convenient way for a company to fire an employee with cause, when there may not be another legitimate reason for the termination. The effect is that it's easier for the business to fight unemployment compensation claims, and it's harder for the employee to get another job. Thus, as in all things, the harm from marijuana use comes primarily from the fact that it's illegal; not from any negative performance or health effects that accompany its use.

That being said, discriminating in employment for the use of legal products on person's own time is not unheard of (cigarette smoking is the relevant example), but it is controversial. And I'm not aware of any business that requires its employees to refrain from using alcohol during off-hours, even though alcohol is the deadliest drug in the US.

Nothing you've stated counters any of what I've stated. Whether legal or not, employers still can use evidence of intoxicants as a method of removing someone from a position. These are decisions made by employers, not the government and legalization won't change those decisions. If an employer wishes to fight UIC, there are any number of reasons they can use for doing so. You don't fire the person, THEN test for pot, then fight UIC. If your stated reason for firing a person is for violating a substance abuse policy, that's what they're being fired for. It's that simple, regardless of what ulterior motives may or may not be behind the firing.

I've worked for a number of different companies, ranging in size from 20 employees up to around 10,000. I've seen various policies over time, ranging from nothing, to regular testing. I've seen people released immediately for testing positive, I've seen people given warnings, I've seen people offered treatment options. I'm fairly familiar with a variety of policies and how they're utilized.

Once again, it's a false issue for legalization. It's not a "national disgrace". In addition, it appears that we're moving towards legalization. I don't see any point in Wisconsin being on the forefront of this issue, particularly at this point since we haven't seen how the Federal Government is going to react to the decisions in CO and WA. Let someone else fight the battle regarding this non-essential issue. Not on our dime.

And just to add to the above, I've worked in both union and non-union environments and, in my experience, it's been in those union environments where violation of substance policies resulted in the most severe actions being taken. Unions, as well as employers, have concerns regarding the presence of intoxicants in the system and the liabilities they create for companies and their customers. None of that concern has much to do the legal or illegal nature of the intoxicants themselves.

Taoist Crocodile -

Calling Marijuana an “intoxicant” is misleading, disingenuous and certainly extremely inaccurate. Calling Marijuana an intoxicant betrays a stunning amount of ignorance about the subject under discussion, and is utterly meaningless. Marijuana is a psychotropic/psychoactive drug and needs to be clarified as such. Many anti-anxiety drugs are also psychotropic drugs, Valium for instance. Employers who do drug testing also test for these and they are listed under the benzodiazepine family of drugs.

I know a female Administrative Assistant who was terminated because she was using Valium and everyone in the office knew it for years; it was prescribed by a psychiatrist for acute anxiety. She did win her UC case and she won an Unlawful Discharge case, which was ultimately settled out of court. The fact that it was a state agency that did this, and the real cause of her termination was her refusal to sleep with her immediate supervisor had much to do with that.

Glenn Beck used Cocaine for some 15 years and Rush, of course, is a well-known Oxy abuser.

I have not heard anyone mention Marijuana contamination here, as a good cause for making Marijuana both legal and regulated. You really do not know what you are purchasing when you buy Marijuana on the street. Sure, your friends may say it is fine, but you do not know that. I have seen Marijuana laced with heroin, Agent Orange and rat poison.

Bob McBride -

"I don't see any point in Wisconsin being on the forefront of this issue, particularly at this point since we haven't seen how the Federal Government is going to react to the decisions in CO and WA. Let someone else fight the battle regarding this non-essential issue. Not on our dime."

One significant reason would be that the more pressure the states [ in Toto] put on the federal government the more it increases our chances of success in this endeavor, before 2090. You know a solid and unified front. Perhaps you just prefer the divide and conquer method.

Another good reason would be that, over time, not only Wisconsin, but also all states would increase revenues, free up police and DEA resources, and stop destroying the lives of people who only desire to smoke Marijuana, for medical or recreational purposes. Perhaps it would be better if we just left these folks permanently unemployable because they now have a felony on their record.

Perhaps the best reason of all is that this is a fight that needs to be fought!

Did you get your Daddy to buy off or fight the school bully for you too?

Fair enough, Bob; sorry for doubting your experience in this area.

I'm going to bless you all with a prediction that you can profit from:

If all goes well (or reasonably well) in Washington or Colorado, then other states will legalize marijuana. If California does (and I think we can agree that California is extremely likely to), then that's a huge new market with no large industrial producers. You'll then see Altria and RJR lobbying the federal government to remove Marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act, because there's no way they're going to invest in pot farming operations if there's any chance that they'd be the target of an FBI raid.

At that point, the outcome is basically in the bag - the federal government will be successfully lobbied, and all of the southern states where cannabis could be grown on a large scale will be falling over themselves to lure marijuana farms (and, yes, industrial hemp farms). That's one thing that the small medicinal growers are correctly afraid of - once the federal government sanctions pot farms, then the market is going to explode.

Now, go forth and profit from the marijuana boom!

John Wilson
9:00 am on Monday, November 12, 2012

One significant reason would be that the more pressure the states [ in Toto] put on the federal government the more it increases our chances of success in this endeavor, before 2090. You know a solid and unified front. Perhaps you just prefer the divide and conquer method.

*******************

Actually, John, I just don't share your penchant for smoking pot twice a week. Hence, I see no real urgency in regards to this issue nor do I see a need for our state to get involved at a point when doing so could add unnecessary expense related to possible court challenges.

Pretty straight forward. If you still find this confusing, perhaps you might want to reconsider the doors that you claim it opens for you. It's possible it's opening the ones marked EXIT.

Bob McBride -

"...I just don't share your penchant for smoking pot twice a week."

You really do not have to; the fight here is for INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM(S)!

We all know where you are coming from, and it is just unfortunate that the USA has thus far proven incapable of designing and building a rocket ship that goes that far back in time...

John if you're still able to buy your pot illegally often enough to cop a buzz a couple of times a week, I'm not too concerned your individual freedom(s). Let's wait 'til CO and WA take pipe for it, then we'll cruise in in their draft.

This really isn't an important issue. We can wait. You can wait. It's not all about you and your need to toke. You're not worth the extra expense or effort. Frankly, you're beginning to sound more and more like just another stoner.

Bob McBride –

You are correct about one issue; it is not about me. You are incorrect about its importance.

I do not purchase any Marijuana; I have not bought any for over 20-years. My Marijuana is free and because I know many police officers, ADA’s, DA’s and DEA officers, the likelihood of me being compromised in any manner via a legal venue is nonexistent. Most Marijuana users are not in a comparable position.

Hence, it is about the rest of America being able to enjoy the freedom to smoke Marijuana, free from fear of being prosecuted. For me, it is about expanding the freedoms and rights I now take and have, to everyone.

For millions of Americans this is a huge issue, resulting in criminal penalties, carrying a felony conviction around for life, being virtually unemployable.

I understand this is not of any importance to you; you are the typical me, me, me person, who takes no risk and lets the rest of the world do the heavy lifting. I understand; I have worked with takers like you my entire life.

John,

We're talking about smoking pot, here. Not a life and death matter. You know the laws. You choose to break them (and are willing to involve others in your insistence on breaking of them, should that become a necessity) purely out of your own selfish desire to get high. I have no sympathy for you or anyone else who knowingly breaks the law for the sole purpose of satisfying their own, apparently uncontrollable, selfish urge to get stoned. Even your president, a past stoner himself if one is to believe his own words on the matter, doesn't support you in this quest. If he doesn't, why should anyone else?

Bob McBride -

I just wish you would tell us how you really feel about Marijuana users...

Apparently the same way your president does, John. He's not inclined to tackle the issue on your behalf either. Go figure.

Then again, he's probably got his hands full trying to get Diane Feinstein to back off on her threat of subpoenas and testimony from a CIA director whose adulterous activities he wasn't aware of ::cough:: until last Thursday.

Put that in your bong and smoke it.

@ John - I'm calling total BS and am insulted you would imply police officers, ADA's DA's, and DEA "agents" (not officers) would dismiss their oath and allow you to continue in illegal activity. Without being too specific, my occupation falls somewhere in those categories and based on your lack of knowledge of court procedures, DA's offices' practices, terminology, why they do what they do and their ultimate goal with these cases, simple search resources such as CCAP, your many important facts you left out of the woman's case YOU introduced as supporting evidence, the details of her charges, and even the incorrect schedule of a controlled substance which you tried to support with a Texas pharmacy website I'm going out on a limb here and calling BS. You seem to find random websites on the internet to support your facts. I mean who uses a Texas pharmacy website to state a fact related to Wisconsin law? And you call me out as making it about race but then I point out you were the only who did that based on what anyone can read in your comments, you finally admit that and in your opinion almost everything is racially motivated in America. So my question is if your marijuana is free how do you get it? You grow it? (FELONY) Friends give it to you free? (FELONY conspiracy to deliver marijuana or at minimum misdemeanor) Or are you implying you get it from your "friends" in law enforcement and DA's offices?

@ John - I'll admit some employees in these fields are more liberal than others but I would bet the hundreds of employees I personally work with on a daily basis would not jeopardize their careers, ability to support their families, and freedom so you can smoke and get high. Or maybe it's because you are a confidential informant that you know you won't be criminally charged? Regardless of your answers to these questions you have proven consistantly with your inaccurate facts and even contradicting lies from one post to the next that you are uneducated in this area when it comes to anything other than what you read in random articles online. And in regards to people being unable to find jobs because of their drug use leading to arrests...DON'T BREAK THE LAW. It's that simple. Maybe someday marijuana will be legal but today it isn't. Many countries currently allow marijuana use so go there or change the law. I'm not above disobeying a law just because I don't agree with it and neither are you or people who are convicted of crimes. I'm fine sitting back and reading your opinion which you have a right to have but far too many lies, contradicting statements, and lack of knowledge has been shown in many of them.

@ John - And what i just noticed per CCAP records is the woman with a two decade long criminal record in the case you were referring and referred to as "black" and then "tanned" and you only knew this because you saw her in court....well I just noticed that at least per CCAP records she was not even held in custody for the arrest because it was charged as a summons which typicallymeans she hasn't been in court on this case yet. She makes her initial appearance Nov 19th. You weren't specific as to when you saw her in court and I don't want to assume anything but seems to me maybe this is a person you personally know and therefore have reasons to leave out facts when trying to educate us all on The Patch. I apologize to all the readers about my long comment(s) but can only take so much of John's inaccurate statements.

Str8shooter –

It is very sad that you have to further enshrine your ignorance of U.S. drug policy and programs by using curse words; your morality police badge is slipping…

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-28/us-marijuana-supply/50581346/1

Johnny Wilson wrote:"...Bob McBride -You really do not have to; the fight here is for INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM(S)!"

Incredible. When it affects his lifestyle Johnny is more than willing to jump on the personal freedom bandwagon. But when it doesn't, he is more than willing, in fact he is insistent, that the federal government take it over.

Liberal hypocrisy at it's best!

John - We are trying to keep the thread about facts as to the title of the article. I just disproved many of your facts you provided and shown your lack of knowledge. You can't then say im not knowledgable after I proved you aren't. We'll I guess you can but makes you looks foolish without any facts. I never said I was a police officer or had a badge so hopefully thats not what you were referring to. I reread my post and can't see any curse words although that is a constitutional right in general unlike using a controlled substance which is not a RIGHT. Is it infringing in someone's personal life for what some would suggest is to protect others...sure but not a right. And yet you post another newspaper article. Get out in the real world and educate yourself. And IF that article is accurate, OK 4 people in the US can legally possess marijuana from a canceled program they said has no merit. That's what your article reads. You can give your opinion all you want but when you are providing inaccurate facts expect to be called out on it. Good luck

Str8shooter -

"@ John - I'm calling total BS and am insulted you would imply police officers..."

I do believe Bull Shit is a curse word.

Bob McBride –

Don’t you feel relieved now that you have come all the way out?

No more hiding behind that reasonable, rational façade…

CHECKMATE!

John at least no article link this time I appreciate that. Based on many of your comments I felt as if you may have been referring to me being a police officer especially since I disproved many statements you made about the criminal justice system but didn't even say you did so don't assume things. So you can say police officers, DEA agents, ADA's and DA's would allow you to continue committing crimes risking everything without being insulted but I can't ask you if you were referring to me as a police officer when you called me the morality police with a badge? That's a bit contradicting as well. And if rights are so important to you I can't type "BS" but you can type the word out AND have an issue with the govt saying you can't smoke marijuana which isn't even a right? Contradicitng again. Well I think I have proven my case about your facts and statements you provide but I'm sure you'll need to get in the last comment which is fine. So just to repeat my standing on the issue...

...As of today marijuana is a Sch I controlled substance and is illegal. I don't think it should be a Sch I and don't necessarily think it should be legal for many reasons I previously stated. But if it is to be used I guess I'm not against it being used for medicinal purposes requiring a prescription like any other controlled substance. If that is the case it needs to be regulated like other drugs in pharmacies to ensure only people that should have it have easy access to it. There are definitely issues with the legal system but I have pride for this country and believe it is illegal now and needs to be addressed as the country was designed to.

John Wilson
12:44 pm on Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Bob McBride –

Don’t you feel relieved now that you have come all the way out?

No more hiding behind that reasonable, rational façade…

CHECKMATE!

*******************

Checkmate?

I'm guessing this is one of those two days/week your were talking about earlier.

Str8shooter –

Yes, you have proved that you are the very personification of the term, “Morality Police.” [i.e., someone wrapped too tightly, stiff, unyielding, lacking the ability to discern others point of view, Biblically driven, judgmental, uncompromising and rigid, while attempting to force their beliefs upon others.]

You have also demonstrated an amazing amount of “instant amnesia.”

“@ John - I'm calling total BS and am insulted you would imply police officers…”

“I reread my post and can't see any curse words although that is a constitutional right in general unlike using a controlled substance which is not a RIGHT.”

FACTUALLY, you have demonstrated that the DEA does list Cocaine as a Schedule II Drug, while the link I gave you clearly demonstrates that Texas Pharmacies list Cocaine as a Schedule I Drug.

Parenthetically, you do not understand that states do not always rigidly follow the edicts of the federal government; CO and WA in the latest election might have given you a clue.

Other than that, you have engaged in red-herring arguments, assumptions, convoluted logic, mis-characterizations of what I stated, and inferences that would render a psychotic person’s ideation, well, normal.

In addition, this, all in a sadly futile attempt to somehow PROVE that you are morally and intellectually superior. That is so very sad…

Its only "merit" is that it's an activity that an adult in a free society wants to engage in - and that's the only "merit" it needs. The onus is on the person arguing that the government should be preventing that adult from doing it.

A free society should start from a position of allowing all things, and then restricting the ones that are demonstrably more harmful than the prevailing standard (cigarettes and alcohol, in this case). Citizens shouldn't have to petition the government in order to engage in activities that are not more harmful than those that the society currently accepts.

So the prevailing standard would always be expanded as long as there is want?

At what point do we reset the position of "allowing all things", marijuana was legal at some point.

We can stop when Coke and Diet Coke have cocaine. Coke Zero will be the cocaine and sugar free alternative.

Greg, I don't know about you, but I believe in a free society, where adults can do whatever they want with their lives, as long as the harm to others is minimal, mitigated, and in line with prevailing standards.

You seem to be suggesting otherwise, so I guess you think the government should decide what the citizens can do, for reasons other than the effects on other citizens.

And what reasons would those be? Are they religious? Ideological? Determined by the wishes of powerful, economically interested non-state actors? Pray, tell.

Taoist Crocodile -

Perhaps you have missed it; I hope you have not. There is a political party right here in the USA, namely, the GOP, [The Take Away Party] which is dedicated to restricting, inhibiting, abolishing, and taking away whatever human rights and freedoms you may think our Constitution gives to all our citizens. Whether that is by voter suppression, destroying collective bargaining, women’s reproductive health rights, equal marriage rights, or pursuing employment discrimination claims in our state court; its underpinnings reside in the Old Testament and it is pure, completely religious dogma. Under the guise of SELF RESPONSIBILITY, they claim that you may only lead your life, the proper way, if you succumb to what they have chosen for you.

You will never see these folks charging up a hill to fight or spending money for FREEDOM or for your RIGHTS; you will, however, see them fight to the death to take them all away, one by one, to keep you down, and keep them away…

John Wilson wrote: "...the GOP, [The Take Away Party] which is dedicated to restricting, inhibiting, abolishing, and taking away whatever human rights and freedoms you may think our Constitution gives to all our citizens..."

Johnny, perhaps you would be kind enough to put the joint down and elaborate, exactly what human rights and freedoms the GOP is plotting to take away? It would be very interesting since the GOP (and I'll throw in the Tea Partiers) have been fighting for less government and more freedom.

Please enlighten.

I believe in a free society as long as personal responsibility is required with that freedom, but it just isn't the case. There are currently massive costs associated with legal substance abuse and I am not willing to willy-nilly expand those costs on the basis of want. Let's face it, we just ended a battle over who should pay for birth control. Why should we not be expected to pay for your high while we pay for your orgasm.

John Wilson, I guess you forgot about gun control?

Greg,

Personal responsibility is not something that can be legislated. It's a personal virtue. Efforts to legislate personal responsibility, in the case of a behavior that can be engaged in responsibly or irresponsibly, punish the people who exhibit and practice the very virtue that you want to encourage!

For example, if I was someone who used marijuana responsibly (never driving while stoned, not blowing smoke in babies' faces, etc.), making it illegal or increasing the penalties for it would do nothing to support my responsible and moderate ethos.

But, people who support limiting freedoms, as you do, don't actually think that responsible people should be free. They think that responsible people should obey whatever the government tells them to do, because disobeying the government is "irresponsible." They have it completely wrong - irresponsible people should be punished, sure, but only where there's real and provable harm. Just like with alcohol.

Oh, and I don't ask for anyone to pay for my orgasms. On the contrary, I give free orgasms all the time. Just the other day, I gave four orgasms to someone who was in need. Spread the wealth!

Your freedom would include all substances?

Greg -

There is no such thing as gun control... that's GOP "Wishful Thinking", pure delusion...

The Anti-Alinsky –

There are some deep psychological reasons for you picking a moniker with ‘Anti-‘ in it… it does suit you and your party; perhaps this was just a Freudian slip, she had a lot of them, you know.

The operative words are “dedicated to restricting, inhibiting, abolishing, and taking away whatever human rights and freedoms…” some are already gone; some are [WIP] work in progress…

The right to marry whom you love, marriage equality – GONE!
The right to address employment discrimination in state court – GONE!
The right to bargain collectively – GONE!
Voter suppression through laws and illegal actions – WIP
Personhood Amendment cosponsored by Ryan & GOP – WIP
State(s) barriers to abortion and abortion access – WIP
Restricting access to contraception/morning after pill – WIP
GOP agenda to overturn Roe v Wade – WIP
GOP Party plank allows for no exception for abortion – DONE!
Gerrymandering to keep areas Republican – DONE!
No support for decriminalization/legalization of Marijuana – WIP
Defunding Planned Parenthood – WIP

The tip of the Cro-Magnon agenda...

“Smaller government?” Do you realize just how many regulations, regulators, laws; paper work, other people are going to be needed to supervise just ONE fertilized egg through actual live birth?

I have got a very challenging live on-line chess game with a Russian that is far more important to me than attempting to educate closed minds and FUBAR folks… later.

Greg, apply the provable harm test, and that will answer your question.

Educate...what a joke. If you don't take John's viewpoint he takes his ball and goes home. I just glad that his ball is nothing more than lefty talking points.

Tao, I would guess that there is some one, some place, that is using most every drug without harm to others. Is that the only criteria you have to make every drug legal? Does your harm test include future problems or is it only imeadiate harm? These are important considerations, now that we all are paying for others health care.

John, some responses to your marijuana induced ramblings:

"The right to marry whom you love, marriage equality – GONE!"
This hasn't changed. If you are trying to imply gays HAD a right to marry, you are wrong again. I don't want to get into gay marriage here, but your statement is, like most of yours, incorrect.

"The right to address employment discrimination in state court – GONE!"
Again, wrong. Public employee's still have the same laws that protect ALL of us!

The right to bargain collectively – GONE!
Again, unions still exist and they can represent a group as a whole. What is gone are the abuses that developed over time, such as forcing local governments to use bloated union health insurance companies.

"Voter suppression through laws and illegal actions – WIP"
Again, you have yet to prove how someone CAN'T get a photo ID, especially when there is so much in this country you need one for.

"Personhood Amendment cosponsored by Ryan & GOP – WIP"
"Restricting access to contraception/morning after pill – WIP"
"GOP agenda to overturn Roe v Wade – WIP"
"GOP Party plank allows for no exception for abortion – DONE!"
"State(s) barriers to abortion and abortion access – WIP"
"Defunding Planned Parenthood – WIP"
Many of us believe a person's a person, even as a zygote!

"Gerrymandering to keep areas Republican – DONE!"
Get real

"No support for decriminalization/legalization of Marijuana – WIP"
Look what pot has done to you Johnny!

Greg, you need to understand the context, here - alcohol has a low lethal dose, causes countless automotive deaths and other accidents, causes birth defects, causes enormous health problems for a large portion of the population; in short, it has considerably greater negative effects than any illegal drug.

However, it's also consumed worldwide, is part of the global cultural heritage, and the responsible users of the product far outnumber the irresponsible ones, unless you're using some other yardstick (i.e., religious prohibition, according to which all users are hopeless sinners).

I don't buy that the legalization of marijuana will have the kind of negative effects that would lead governments to ban alcohol. And no, I won't feel responsible when some family of four is killed by a stoned driver, just like, as a cell phone user, I don't feel responsible when someone is killed by a texting driver.

Now, if you want to propose banning alcohol, then you are at least making a consistent argument. I say, let the drinkers have their beer, wine and scotch, and let the smokers have their indicas and sattivas. Sure, some of them will go over the top, but that's not a good reason to ban everything.

The Anti-Alinsky -

The right to marry whom you love… marriage equality – GONE!
The "Take Away Party" with DOMA killed that!

The right to address employment discrimination in state court – GONE!
Walker killed that [repeals 2009’s Act 20] now you have to go to federal court to be made whole. [SB 202]
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2012/04/09/242583.htm
http://wtaq.com/news/articles/2012/apr/09/walker-criticized-for-disallowing-sex-discrimination-lawsuits-in-state-court/
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/27/433240/wisconsin-legislature-votes-to-repeal-employment-discrimination-law/

The right to bargain collectively – GONE!
On appeal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/09/14/wis-judge-strikes-down-law-curbing-collective-bargaining-for-public-workers/

Voter suppression through laws and illegal actions – WIP
On appeal. This still does not address the voter abuses in OH, FL, and PA, where early voting was restricted, voting times were collapsed, voters were sent messages to go to the wrong polls and to go there Nov. 7th!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/09/27/8271/

Additionally, if a zygote is a person, perhaps you could find one to share your delusions.

Finally, I do hope that you continue to embrace the "Take Away Party" ideas and initiatives… that guarantees that you folks will never get the White House or the Senate, and the Civil War now consuming your party will finally destroy it…

Tao, The difference between alcohol and other drugs is that alcohol is legal. This is not a conversation about making both illegal or both legal, if it were your arguments may have some merit. In your last post you pointed out the issues with alcohol, my original post stated that marijauna "recreational use has some issues". I do not accept that considering the consequences of legalizing a substance equates to limiting freedoms, we are a country of laws weather you like it or not.

Greg,

Correct, the question is whether to make recreational pot use legal, or not. And again, I think the only important considerations are:

1. - Do enough people enjoy using it, or have no objection, that a legalization drive can be successful? Possibly.
2. - Do the harms of legalizing exceed the currently accepted harms in the case of Alcohol? Certainly not, due to the low lethal dose factor.
3. - Are there harms associated with the current prohibition, that would be removed by legalization? Yes, due to the fact that the greatest personal risks associated with pot use derive solely from the fact that it is a prohibited activity.

Seriously, who can look at the current situation and say that ticketing someone for possession of marijuana is just, in the context of a society that embraces alcohol? What is it about the act, other than the fact that it's currently illegal, that is such a problem?

Do some research. Get a little high! It's an enjoyable way to spend some time, to relieve some stress, and to gain a new appreciation of your favorite foods. You'll have some insights that will probably sound stupid after the fact, you'll see the humor in something that probably isn't all that funny, and then you'll get tired and feel like a nap. You won't throw up, and you won't be hung over the next day (although you'll probably feel a little fuzzy, depending on how much sleep you get). And then you can get on with your life, and nobody will be the worse for it.

I do not think that the lethal dose factor of alcohol has anything to do with anything. People are not dying from a single use, any more than people are dying from the actual speed of a vehicle. It's the crash that kills.
As to #3, I think there are other and greater risks to pot use. Every post for the legalization points out that it is "no worse than alcohol" and your posts detailed some of the problems with alcohol, so to conclude that it is harmless, or even close to harmless, is foolish.
The determination required is, what is acceptable harm and sould it end with marijuana?
Not only is pot a gateway drug to other drug use, it may be a gateway drug to other drug legalization.

Greg -

"Not only is pot a gateway drug to other drug use, it may be a gateway drug to other drug legalization."

Yes, yes, yes! Thanks for not disappointing!

I was waiting for the totally asinine 1970's argument regarding the infamous "slippery slope..."

Milk is a gateway liquid leading to alcohol...

Thank you Dr. John.
"It's true that pot smokers are more likely to use other drugs after trying marijuana. What's not clear is whether smoking pot causes further drug use or if people who start smoking pot are just more likely to try drugs in general."
The statistics don't lie, pot smokers are 2.5 times more likely to use other drugs. I don't know how to read that any different than what it is. I know that the pro-dope people can never find a problem with their drug, there are many that even say it is good for you. They don't call it dope for no reason.

Greg –

“They don't call it dope for no reason."

Do you have the entire book on moronic, over-used, bumper stickers on drugs?

“The statistics don't lie, pot smokers are 2.5 times more likely to use other drugs.”

What statistics?

Where did you get that?

You might start out – if you are going to analyze statistics – and draw far-out conclusions from them, with the difference between causation and correlation. Just get a good understanding of that, and then give me the sources for these statistics.

Thanks...

Johnny, Here's how it works, it does not matter if I provide you sources. You have no ability or intention of doing anything with them, other than insulting people. You argue for legalization of marijuana by citing "the right to address employment discrimination in state court", then you call others morons? You have nothing. You have provided nothing but stupidity to this discussion. Make that into a bumper sticker, and stick it.

"The Results Of The Study

According to the study, 12 percent of the study sample admitted to prescription opioid abuse. Out of this group, 57 percent had used alcohol, 56 percent had smoked cigarettes and 34 percent had used marijuana. Those who used marijuana were 2.5 times more likely to experiment with prescription drugs.

Men were also affected by cigarettes and alcohol, the study showed, but marijuana was the sole precursor in opioid abuse among women. This information indicates that many who start on marijuana not only end up addicted but also wind up with other types of drug addiction issues."

It's a Yale study Published October 11, 2012. Look it up Brainfart.

Greg -

So, you have NOTHING to support your "statistical claims?"

I thought so...

Here is YOUR mature response, complete with YOUR MORON name calling...

Greg
1:00 pm on Tuesday, November 13, 2012
"Resident of O.C. Paul
11:36 am on Tuesday, November 13, 2012

And her we go...more childish rantings."
You sir are a moron!

Do I need to read it to you? And as I stated, it doesn't matter you just want to argue.

I stand by MY mature response. Like you, the guy is a moron that can not have a discussion without insults. I reply in kind to both him and you.

Greg –

That is not an unexpected response from a member of the “Take Away Party.”

Typically, they make some very emotionally driven bat crap crazy statement(s).

When queried to support that bat crap crazy statement(s) with facts, data, sources, they call you names, obfuscate, accuse and ultimately hide.

Sorry, if all you have is emotion to bolster your bat crap crazy statement(s); perhaps you should just go see a psychotherapist; generally, here on the Patch, we require facts, data and sources to support any statement. “Wishful thinking” just does not cut it here…

John, Please review your posts on this topic and get back to me with how things are done "here on Patch". You are not the solution, you are the problem. I find that others here can debate the issue, but not you. Why is that? Did you ever consider that it is you who needs the psychotherapist?

Greg –

IF wanting facts, data and sources to support people who push bat crap crazy statement(s) is a problem, then I guess I am a problem…

I would submit that people who have nothing but emotionalism and “Wishful thinking” to support their position are the problem.

HINT: Do not state incredibly stupid things on the Patch, and then you will not be asked to defend them with facts, data and sources.

It really is that simple…

http://www.narconon-news.org/blog/2012/10/the-truth-about-marijuana-shown-by-new-yale-study/

Now provide sources for all of the statements that you posted in this blog. Not that any of them were on topic.

MMM....
http://www.brown.edu/Facilities/Faculty_Club/take_out.php

Greg –

Read the TOTAL study and please do not pull items out of CONTEXT to try to trick people into believing you have some real case against Marijuana…

“Young men who drank alcohol or smoked cigarettes were 25% more likely to abuse prescription opioids.”

“The study found that, among both men and women, those who had used marijuana were 2.5 times more likely than those their age who abstained to later dabble in prescription drugs. Also, young men who drank alcohol or smoked cigarettes were 25 percent more likely to abuse prescription opioids. However, the study didn't show an association between alcohol or cigarette use in young women and later use of prescription drugs.”

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Yale-study-Marijuana-may-really-be-gateway-drug-3805532.php

“Yale Study: Alcohol’s Gateway Effect Much larger than Marijuana’s “

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/22/yale-study-alcohols-gateway-effect-much-larger-than-marijuanas/

“A teenager who smokes and drinks is more likely to abuse prescription painkillers as a young adult, according to a new Yale study.”

http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2012/09/04/gateway-drugs-linked-to-prescription-drug-abuse/

"This information indicates that many who start on marijuana not only end up addicted but also wind up with other types of drug addiction issues."

This is not an alcohol vs. marijuana discussion.They are seperate issues even though it is the most used argument for legalization.

John, Why don't you just make your case instead of just attacking mine?

DICK STEINBERG -

Well, we could us Paul Ryan's VAT Tax!

Dick brings up a great point. Cigarette tobacco is taxed to high hell, while pipe tobacco is not. Both are from the same plant, it is just a difference in the cut. On July 4th Obama signed a transportation bill that had one sentance calling roll your own ciggy shops manufacturing plants. Thus they were required to add $25 per carton tax.
This put a lot of people out of business.
I roll my own with pipe tobacco at about $15 a carton. Tobacco is not taxed as an agricultural product, so if I buy bulk leaves- it is dirt cheap. I mention the agricultural product because as Dick points out- how do you tax it? Based on current law for tobacco, I could buy several kilos of tobacco without paying tax.

Typical $$andNonsense post. I am not now, nor have I ever been a pot smoker!

Your assumptions and conclusions are WRONG as usual!

You are correct, until you read the blog.
"Two states now permit recreational use, following referendums in Tuesday's election."
The discussion is focused on recreational use, not medical use.

Some of the comments are still childish even when looking at recreational use. MJ would be no worse than alcohol. Alcohol has killed more people than MJ. Besides, I'm not a user, never have been never will be unless medically prescribed, but from what I've heard, someone using MJ is not inclined to drive after using, normally MJ leaves people tired and hungry...so I've heard.

It amazes me that you consider " MJ would be no worse than alcohol" a good argument. It would take a generation of education to resolve some of the issues with alcohol use, yet you are willing to expand the problem based on a few things that you heard.
Don't get me wrong, I am not totally against the recreational use but I think there are issues that need to be addressed prior to legalizing the drug. For example, should the amount of THC be limited? Todays MJ is not the same sheeit that they smoked at Woodstock. What is the legal age of use? Since it is so harmless do we need to have an age limit? Suppliers? Taxing? and so on...

And her we go...more childish rantings.

I knew guys in HS that used, and when they were under the influence of MJ they were some of the mellowest of people I knew. Alcohol on the other hand...I know a lot of people that get belligerent and want to fight when under the influence of alcohol.

Greg,

Yes on the age limit - same age as alcohol.

Limiting THC content? Why, so you have to smoke more of it? It's certainly healthier to take a little hit of some strong stuff, then to take massive rips of some weaker stuff. Remember, the lethal dose is astronomically high, so strength really isn't a concern. And, like alcohol, most people will find their own comfort level, based on personal taste and social acceptability.

Taxation? Yes, tax growers, distributors and retailers. Allow individuals to grow a small amount for personal use; as now, the majority of users will choose to buy rather than grow it.

These are issues that can be approached different ways, but the Washington example is a good one, and we'll be able to see how that plays out. It's not like this is uncharted territory.

Wait-n-see is OK with me. We were the 49th state to have CCW and the opponents were still claiming it was going to be the wild west.
As to limiting the THC, I do not see it as a lethal dose issue as much as a rate of intoxication issue. With a high THC it is hard to limit the effects of use, not everyone would, or should, want to "use" to get toasted (dude).

"Resident of O.C. Paul
11:36 am on Tuesday, November 13, 2012

And her we go...more childish rantings."

You sir are a moron!

Tao, I do not know the ins and outs of the Washington example, so forgive my questions.
Do they address the issue of use around minors? I know that you would prohibit use by age the same as alcohol, but at the same time I have never heard of a contact drunk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Initiative_502

Greg, I didn't see anything in the wikipedia article about use around minors. I personally think it should be treated like cigarettes; the "contact high" is typically thought to be the psychological effect of interacting with stoned people, rather than any physiological effect. Either that, or it's an excuse made by someone who fails a drug test.

Also, keep in mind that, in Wisconsin, minors can be served alcohol in the presence of a guardian, the idea being that parents can be responsible for their own children.

I think that, if a child was shown to be suffering ill effects from exposure to pot smoke, then other statutes (such as child endangerment) would apply. Like I said, though, I think you'd have to go out of your way to expose your child to enough MJ smoke to get them high. Maybe just stick to brownies when the kids are around.

Interesting Wiki.

Really Steve? Are you that clueless?

Not all of us are high enough to believe you have anything to do with medicine. Get real, do you even have a job?

Agreed.

Once again, I'd like to point out that "WPN1488" is a blatant white supremacist.

WPN = White People's Network
14 = the fourteen words: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children."
88 = HH (H is the 8th letter of the alphabet), which stands for "Heil Hitler."

Just so it's clear that anything he has to say is in service of his worthless white supremacist ideology.

What is GWL?

No idea; probably some other stupid neo-nazi thing. They think they're soooooo clever with their acronyms and numerology.

WOW! I sure hope Tao is being facetious, otherwise he has totally lost it.

Anti-Alinsky, get a clue. Educate yourself. Know your local white supremacists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words

They're fat, pathetic, cowardly sacks of garbage, sure, but every once in a while one of them can cause real trouble. Wade Michael Page, enough said.

The point Tao, my cold-blooded, Red Chinese offspring eating friend, is that you read waaaaaaaaay to much into WPN1488 name. And despite his explanation, you still cling to your absurd analysis.

@Neil Why ruin a perfect day by even mentioning Lyle's name? Let us all hope that he just goes away.

I have yet to see any commentary coming from you Neil, or you, Michael, that even approaches the keen awareness and insight that Mr. Ruble brings to the topics in which he chooses to engage. Based on what you have shared to-date, it resonates that you would wish to avoid taking him on in debate. ; )

@Bren I have taken him on on many occasions and have stumped him each time. I even forced him to admit that Obama was not infallible. He is just a partisan hack.

As I wrote, I have yet to see any commentary...

While I find the clumsy attempts at bullying amusing it diminishes the timbre of the greater discourse. Why not join the discussion.

@Bren If he ever presents a strong view point, then I will of course engage in an orderly discussion. He should think before he writes. His brutal comments towards the white race broke the camel's back. If he cannot be responsible for what he says, then he can expect strong rebuttals.

As I wrote, I have yet to see any commentary...

And if we're honest, the "white" race has made its share of mistakes against other peoples...

@Bren In world history all of the races were guilty of atrocities. It certainly is not an exclusively white characteristic.

As for Lyle: you will defend your liberal buddy no matter what the circumstances. Lack of critical thinking if you ask me.

Michael, I wrote, "has made its share." Do not distort my words or intent. And I will definitely step in when I observe immature commentary. I do the same in life. Patch is interesting because it allows many viewpoints to meet and engage. This sort of thing diminishes the tone of the discourse.

@Bren When was the last time you disagreed with Lyle on anything? Someone remarked that you tend to disappear when Lyle goes over the deep end.

The white male article should never have been written. It was meant to incite people, not to engage in discourse as you put it. Hence his half-witted apology piece.

Anyway, you have enough critics to deal with. You are often a target of discourse because you also fail to think before you write.

Michael, Mr. Ruble's articles, even ones that some find provocative, always inspire contemplation. I often find a symmetry that contains/reflects my own views and in such circumstances there is no need to add superfluity to the discourse.

As far as critics, one can never have enough, in my opinion. I want to be challenged. If I am corrected on something that makes me better than I was before. That's the gift that participating on Patch gives to me.

@Bren As I said, you will defend your liberal buddy no matter what the circumstance.

You are a cowardly white supremacist who has been called out on his BS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words

If there's anyone so unfortunate to have their marriage so strewn with racist symbolism as you claim yours is, you think they'd have the sense not to draw attention to it by also being a blatant white supremacist.

My thoughts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ukFAvYP3UU

And seriously, would someone who isn't a white supremacist capitalize the words "White Supremacist," as you have? Are you seriously trying to keep a low profile? Because you're no good at it.

Good call, Bren.

"What're ya gonna do about it, Whitey?"

Taoist, most of the "Whiteys" I know tan in the sun and/or use tanning booths year-round for that "healthy glow." ; )

Stop! Black people do tan and burn from the sun. It is ignorant to pretend there is a genetic immunity to sunburn.

Yes they do, Craig. The point being, the vast majority of my "white" acquaintance works hard and spends money modifying the color of their flesh.

Bren: I am always amazed at how much money people will pay to have their skin tanned. The woman who looked like a football was a perfect example.

Bren -

Yes, they also work on building fuller lips, curly hair, larger breasts and a higher and fuller Gluteus Maximus… much of what Whitey uses, every day, hi-fives, 24/7, fist bumps and numerous hand greetings, etc., all come from the tanned culture and are embraced.

The Weeper of the House is perhaps the main example of the overuse of tanning products…