Pantagraph.com | News | Swim school owner pleads guilty to growing marijuana

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

420 wrote on Mar 1, 2008 3:12 PM:

" OK so I went down to the county health department and picked up a Drug Use and Abuse pamphlet by the AMAA
Alcohol- Alcohol abuse is the number one drug problem in the US (as stated)

So why are we not doing some thing about this nations biggest drug problem? Is it because as the pamphlet states
Thus, there may be some similarity in the reason why an addict shoots heroin, a teenager smokes marijuana, or an executive relaxes with several drinks after work(as stated)
This being the generalized view that a class of people are using certain drugs, and is a result of the view that is based on your economic situation, which allows you an acceptance with your drug usage, yet it is all the same, all different classes of people are abusing drugs all the same. "

I wonder wrote on Mar 1, 2008 12:58 AM:

" how dear kenny would like to live next door to this guy??? LOLThere would probably be no more complaints of cigerette smoke or wood burning smoke from him,, all his problems would be cured, as Ive seen forms of marijuana being given to cancer victims , and now arthritis is claiming to be relieved, I wonder what else this plant can be a cure of? Maybe its one of them things government isnt telling us! aloe is a plant and is used to cure many things is it legal? Maybe cure is the wrong word cause nothing is cured inlife anymore they have to have some way to kill us off to make room. "

racism wrote on Feb 29, 2008 2:58 PM:

" Ah - thanks for clearing that up. Marijuana being illegal is racist against Mexicans. My bad. And you very well know politics uses fear mongering. Back then Americans were told Germans eat their own babies. Fear mongering continues today. Democrats want us to be afraid of being in Iraq, Republican want us to fear Terrorism. PETA, Abortion, and on and on. That is what humans respond to. Hey, even the fear of getting by without being high. None of that has any bearing on the medical realities of using Marijuana. However, I do feel your strongest argument for legalizing it is that to not do so would be racist. Keep it up. "

TO: RE It's A Plant from Gov't Oppressed Mule wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:32 AM:

" You state "You just want want want and have no regard for the remainder of your fellow citizens who actually want to obey the law and be contributing members of society. " What about you? All you do is want and want and want (to keep Marijuanna illegal) and have no regard for the remainde of your fellow citizens who don't want to be considered criminals for using a product PROVEN by the AMA to be less harmful than alcohol. And why do YOU "want want want" to keep marking us as criminals and keep paying taxes to keep us locked up? Because your gov't told you so and you feel the compulsive need to be a "good little robot" and regurgitate the commands your masters told you to say. BREAK FREE. USE YOUR BRAIN. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH! STOP BELIEVING EVERYTHING YOU READ FROM THE GOV'T, 10 YEARS FROM NOW IT'LL BE PROVEN TO HAVE BEEN FULL OF LIES!
"

? wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:00 AM:

" Hmm, it seems the prohibition cheerleaders have grown silent. I was really looking forward to reading their justifications of these disgusting laws that were built on foundations of lies, and racism. "

to Re: It's a plant!! wrote on Feb 29, 2008 12:39 AM:

" No actually, Cannabis is NOT derived from the marijuana plant, it IS the marijuana plant. Hashish is a derivative of cannabis.
to RE: "re: What's your motive? He is not saying any such thing! he is talking about putting a man in prison
"

WOW! Great post Dudes wrote on Feb 28, 2008 6:34 PM:

" Deep thoughts coming from so many, very interesting and entertaining. oh and educating to.....Never knew you only smoke the female plants buds the male plants are duds and everyones name is dude after you smoke. Keep on Keeping on... dudes. "

To: racism wrote on Feb 28, 2008 5:25 PM:

" Wow, way to do some research. Why don't you start with the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Here are some quotes from the FBN (now the DEA) justifying marijuana prohibition (many of these are from the propaganda dossier known as the 'Gore Files'):
"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."
"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"
"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."
"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind." "

TO: Racism from GOM wrote on Feb 28, 2008 5:16 PM:

" No, if you would bother to read (you know, putting words together to form sentences?) you would know that aside from Hearst push to make hemp illegal (so he could profit from logging) Marijuanna was made illegal as a non "rascist" way of removing hispanics from southern states (as the US had just entered the depression and the voters wanted the jobs for Americans). This is well documented and if you bothered to read and take the time to shift truth from the sh** the gov't wants you to believe, you might be aware of this. "

re: racism wrote on Feb 28, 2008 5:14 PM:

" "There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."
- Harry J. Anslinger (Federal Bureau of Narcotics) "

racism wrote on Feb 28, 2008 4:43 PM:

" So Opium is illegal due to racism (Asians)? Cocaine (latin America)? Any Drug that happens to be associated with a people or region? Is the meth crackdown an attack on suburbanites? Aren't you racist to suggest somehow we are oppressing black people by marijuana being illegal? "

liars wrote on Feb 28, 2008 3:09 PM:

" One has to consider why our government blatantly lies to its own citizens, treating us as we are all frightened children. Here is a direct quote from the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in 1935 (now it’s DEA): “Beware! Young and Old – People in All Walks of Life! This (cannabis) may be handed to you by the friendly stranger. It contains the Killer Drug “Marijuana” - A powerful narcotic which lurks Murder! Insanity! Death! Dope peddlers are shrewd! They may have put this drug in the coffee or tea or tobacco cigarette!” It would be funny, except people still believe it. If you go to the DEA website, you’ll find their lies haven’t changed much. "

Chronic User wrote on Feb 28, 2008 11:07 AM:

" Yes read, up, please do. Racism is tha basis of this law no doubt. If you really knew anything about history you would know that. I know an exellent film Illegal Drugs and how they got that way, that NAT GEO and Discovery channel have airred. I even have a copy of it that I would be more than willing to let you see, the truth your self, but then again you believe everything the government tells you. That being said since our gov. says weed is more harmful, I'll switch over to Meth Coke and Herion, after all the government says they are less dangerous. You fool-low(pun intended) what I'm saying.... get a clue, and get real, you are the real problem and people like you who want nothing but control over others. "

re: The users here wrote on Feb 28, 2008 10:57 AM:

" If reasserting valid arguments to closed ears were indicative of memory loss, every politician and media source in the country would be diagnosed with amnesia. Both opponents and proponents of legalization have repeated valid arguments, analyzed each other’s data, and made retorts. And then there are posts like yours, which have no real point at all. The annoying kid who interrupts the teacher to make a joke, but no one laughs. "

Re: 110100100 from Penalties wrote on Feb 28, 2008 10:51 AM:

" Re: number of plants, I am referring to the original story on Happy Splashes months ago. There were around 80 plants here IIRC, this article just mentions 50 because that was the legal cutoff for the plea. Many more than that were found actively growing. And this was an indoor grow, which from the research I've done does not have the male-female problems that outdoor grows have. And as far as the pound (not counting what would have been harvested from all those existing plants), I just cannot take your tomato analogy seriously. Who knows how much this dude was smoking each day, but we're talking hundreds and hundreds of grams here. That's something like 1-2 years' supply at any given time! Nobody grows that many tomatoes just for themselves. "

Re: It's a plant!! wrote on Feb 28, 2008 10:44 AM:

" The plant argument doesn't hold up. Cannabis is derived from the marijuana plant, sure. You know what else? Cocaine and crack are derived from the coca leaf (a plant). Heroin in all its forms is derived from poppies (a plant). And the list goes on and on. The laws are not in place because of what the substance IS, they are in place because of what the substance DOES to the body and our society. Nothing but addiction, destruction, and death, from impaired driving to all sorts of related crimes that go into supporting drug habits. You want it legalized and government controlled? Give me a break! You recreational smokers all are anti-gov't already, I can't believe the words I hear when all of a sudden you WANT the gov't controlling your previous "bud". You just want want want and have no regard for the remainder of your fellow citizens who actually want to obey the law and be contributing members of society. "

to The users here wrote on Feb 28, 2008 10:19 AM:

" LOL your memory is not so great either i guess. You seem to have forgotten why and how it was banned in the first place. you can still read the congressional hearings on it. I suggest you do! Especially if you are not a racist. doubly so if you think green (as in the environment) "

TO: AMA from Gov't Oppressed Mule wrote on Feb 28, 2008 9:27 AM:

" First off, I suggest you do a little more research. They AMA has on five seperate occasions petitioned Congress to legalize marijuanna for medical uses. The prefered method of "absorbing" THC is not smoking. It is, in fact, through digestion or by inhaling a vapor released by a vaporizer (a machine that burns the marijuanna at a low heat, which cuts out the carcinogens). Oh, and by the way cocaine is not a plant. Coca is a plant from which the leaves are dried and condensed and chemically altered to become Cocaine, slightly different than taking a marijuanna plant and smoking it. "

re:re:to: to AMA Quoters wrote on Feb 28, 2008 6:55 AM:

" I retract the last, I did not see the 1972 referecne. "

re:AMA wrote on Feb 28, 2008 6:54 AM:

" I've read the AMA report and the dangers they speak of are no different than that of tobacco or alcohol. Actually, polls show that 33% of the population are for total legalization and 72% said recreational users should be fined, not incarcerated. And for the medical/growing argument, 12 states already have medicinal marijuana laws. Many of these medical users grow in their basements just as Coach Morger did (why should they crawl to yet another drug company when they can make their own?). This of course has infuriates the DEA, who insist they are above state laws and rights and will prosecute whoever they wish. "

The users here wrote on Feb 28, 2008 5:45 AM:

" clearly are in severe denial about their usage contributing to their memory loss. Don't they realize they've made the exact same 2-3 arguments over and over and over and over again in nearly 200 posts? If that's not a clear case of faulty memory, I don't know what is! "

re:to: to AMA Quoters wrote on Feb 27, 2008 9:56 PM:

" It might help your argument if you weren't using data from 40 years ago, but I doubt it. Whatever health risks marijuana may have, they are dwarfed by those of alcohol and marijuana ... and fast food for that matter (see American Obesity Rate - 2008). "

1972 wrote on Feb 27, 2008 9:46 PM:

" Sorry for the confusion. 1972 is only a signature. I will agree the aggregate usage for all age groups combined is about 5-9% and that is many millions. And the great thing about our society is that debates like this are free and open, even without anonymity; but my friend, those 9% will not change any laws in terms of recreational marijuana - especially since individually, those people quickly slide into the 3% group. One root of the medical debate is "where would we grow it?" It can't be commercially grown without endangering the local community. In the end, the marijuana derivatives will be synthesized in labs for medical production. The acids that cause the permanent damage will not be present and the experience will not be the same. Please read the AMA's findings on marijuana usage and don't just assume it's harmless based on hearsay. - 1972 "

To 110100100 wrote on Feb 27, 2008 9:15 PM:

" You are spending way too much time upon this intellectual debate in the spirit of democracy. It's time to move on to the next subject. "

middle of the road dude wrote on Feb 27, 2008 7:32 PM:

" I think the percentage of adults is actually much higher that partake. The only ones that will admit it are the one that feel thay CAN admit it. "

to: to AMA Quoters wrote on Feb 27, 2008 7:11 PM:

" Then perhaps we are on the same page here. I have no problem with a medicine derived from marijuana being prescribed. If it's the best cure for an illness, I'm all for it. Of course there would then be no medical reason to grow it, because the pharmacy would dispense it (As you said, you can't grow it and process it to the necessary form without unreasonable effort). Thus, growing would still purely be for recreation, but without being able to use the cover that it was medicinal like in the above pantagraph story.

In addition, the home grown version of the plant could then remain illegal without depriving our medical needs, (which the AMA, counter to myth, does indeed show to be an unsafe, unhealthy, and destructive recreation). -1972 "

110100100 re AMA wrote on Feb 27, 2008 6:31 PM:

" On the contrary, I think the Govt site shows a significant amount of people do choose to use pot for recreational purposes. Even 2.5% of adults over 35 use, and for younger adults it's 6.8-16%. That's a lot my friend. To put that into perspective, 12.4% of our population are African Americans, and 4.4% are Asian Americans. So these numbers should not be dismissed as small. I agree with some of what you're saying. Any prolonged substance abuse is likely to have negative effects on health and social life. But we have the right to do what we wish with our own bodies. We learned in the 1920's the futility and counter-productivity of prohibitions, and we continue to repeat these mistakes. Here our country is on the verge of a recession and we burden the tax payer with this ridiculous 'war on drugs' rather than regulating and capitalizing on it. Social vices like gambling, drinking, drug use, and prostitution are always frowned upon, but regulation always works better than prohibition. Unless of course we start living like our allies, the Saudis. "

to: To: re AMA (cont.) wrote on Feb 27, 2008 6:24 PM:

" i failed to mention as well that there is in fact no suggestion by the A.M.A., currently and by all modern standards, that cannabis use has any long-term negative effects, and the few possible short-term ones are still hotly debated within the medical and scientific communities themselves. this is with the exception, of course, of any form of carbon-based vapors or smoke known as being carcinogenic. i'd have to add that a hot dog on the grill is also technically carcinogenic, and more so ounce-for-ounce than saffrole oil (from sassafras root), which is completely and totally banned for any use in the U.S.. so something doesn't add up. all educated sources, however, would strongly agree that cannabis is not beneficial for developing youth under approx. 15 years old. so, yes, keep your kids off it, and try to eat it, otherwise, no problems. oh, besides these backwards archaic laws and the billions spent yearly in enforcing them, of course. and, cannabis isn't good for the naturally lazy. they have enough problems getting moving. "

to: To: re AMA wrote on Feb 27, 2008 6:15 PM:

" with all due respect, as you have valid points to make, we can't take your suggested "evidence" as at all accurate if it is in fact from 1972. the world has changed drastically since then in every way, for all intents and purposes. certainly so with drug use and its social implications. in 1972, there were something like 12 major manufacturers of the most genuine real LSD-25, a quality often beyond even the scientific community's standard, flooding the u.s. with the real deal. now, not one is alive or not incarcerated. big difference there. m.d.m.a., for instance, was nearly unheard of to the everyday person, and crack cocaine essentially didn't exist. at that time, most cannabis used was imported, whereas in '96, the head of C.A.M.P. estimated up to 90% used was grown domestically, so on and so forth. "lacing" as well is pretty much unheard of, perhaps it was popular at first, but not at all anymore. same way as how virtually NOONE would sneak acid in peoples drinks anymore, its too rare and expensive to waste. but i would agree with many points you've made, as they are true. "

Think about it wrote on Feb 27, 2008 6:11 PM:

" Does recreational use of marijuana really differ from things like the taking of cold medication, sinus medications, or even aspirin? All those things are taken by people not because they have some life threatening illness, but because it helps them feel better under certain conditions. Marijuana is much the same. "

to: 110100100 wrote on Feb 27, 2008 6:05 PM:

" exactly, you are completely correct. naturally, what you and i would agree on here doesn't prove beyond any doubt that it WASN'T intended for distribution, but that cannot in any way be the complete assumption. to reiterate and paraphrase, a cannabis grower would know that one extremely healthy plant of extremely fine genetics will only yield 2-4 oz., yields beyond that would come at great sacrifice to the quality. and, a true connaisseur always takes quality over quantity, that is the nature of being a connaisseur. also, it will take 3-4 months to grow that 2-4 oz., and that amount could last no more than one month. so, to be able to consistently medicate himself (which is entirely different than a sporadic recreational use) with a certain dosage, 50+ plants is not at all unreasonable, not at all. "

to: AMA quoters wrote on Feb 27, 2008 5:55 PM:

" anyone who is all that experienced and seasoned in cannabis - meaning more the "connaisseur" rather than simply an aged or aging user of anything he can get, not like a 65-year-old feigning for pbr but rather opting for smaller amounts of a fine microbrew as his wisdom would dictate - knows without a doubt that eating it is FAR superior in every single way to smoking it, with the exception that eating it will cost more (though eating it is actually considerably more efficient). the eating of cannabis requires a relatively large amount to start with, the time and skill to cook at all, and the effects are far more potent and longer lasting, which is harder to manage for some folks, depending. so, ultimately, no one actually in the know, and no one using it medically, would really want to smoke it over eating it. but, its so illegal, the prices are completely uncontrolled, so a medical user is essentially FORCED to smoke it if it is to be affordable. of course, legalization would solve that problem, and smoking it would remain in the realm of "party people". "

To: re AMA wrote on Feb 27, 2008 4:36 PM:

" Not at all. I'm attacking it as a recreational drug. Science is able to derive positive compounds from it, like from so many other plants, but that is no defense for claiming it has any positive effects recreationally (in terms of health) or that it is somehow a safe drug. This goes the the legalization of it. Folks try to sell the concept like it's somehow medicinal: that that is 100% incorrect. And too: "It's a plant." So what? Cocaine, Hemlock, and Corn are plants. One doesn't have any bearing on other.

All the studies show relatively few actually smoke pot, most younger people. But it seems very many have a problem with it - in terms of adverse social impact. (Check gov usage stats before you bother to refute this) -1972 "

Its a plant!! wrote on Feb 27, 2008 3:41 PM:

" Marijuana gets a bad rap. Its a plant for goodness sakes. Some of you wouldn't believe some of the people around town that smoke the stuff. Im talking about people in upper management at SF, Verizon, and Mitsubishi, cops, teachers, professors and all kinds of different people (Believe me, Im not exaggerating in the least this is from personal experience being a smoker). I think people who don't somke think that the thugs and trash of this town are the only ones who smoke weed. Wake up people, its a plant! Let people do what they want with it. The only people who have a problem with it are those who have never somked it. I have a good job at a good company and I have a great family. I also smoke almost every day and its never hindered me in my job or in my relationship with my family and friends. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it in my eyes. Smoke on! "

re AMA wrote on Feb 27, 2008 2:58 PM:

" So you failed to beat the medical argument for the drug, now you’re attacking it for the smoke aspect? No problem. My lungs, not yours. End of story. "

110100100 re: Penalties again wrote on Feb 27, 2008 2:30 PM:

" From what I read there were only about 50 plants. It’s easy to jump to conclusions, but if you stop and think about it, it’s completely reasonable to think that this could be for private use. First off, only a very small part of the plants (the bud) gets used; the actual leaves and stems are useless. Secondly, not all of the plants produce buds. These particular plants either develop into male or female, and the male plants produce very little ‘product’ but lots of seeds. Third, it takes 4-6 months to grow these plants to maturity where they can be harvested. So personal use may seem like a stretch, but it’s an even bigger stretch to think this guy was dealing. That pound would be gone inside of a week. It’s like having a garden in your yard. You’re not going to plant just one or two tomato plants; you’re going to plant a lot and may only get so many tomatoes. And it will take less time to eat them than grow them. "

AMA quoters wrote on Feb 27, 2008 1:52 PM:

" Smoke-Free inhalants or dissolving oral medications derived from marijuana extract is what the American Medical Association sometimes recommends for patients with specific serious illnesses. The AMA never recommended smoking pot for any medicinal purpose. The AMA has taken pains to document their findings on the many adverse and permanent effects of smoking marijuana. These conclusions are not hard to locate at AMA sites. To those is this discussion that keep saying smoking is somehow medically acceptable or not destuctive: maybe in your psychedelic dreams. -1972 "

Penalties again wrote on Feb 27, 2008 12:27 PM:

" Silly of me I know, but when I mentioned penalties I was referring to this particular circumstance. I'm not saying a student won't lose their federal loans or an officer can't give tickets instead of arresting. But come on, we're talking about a pound of finished product and almost a hundred plants between the home and the business. Nobody in their right mind (which may not be many of you from the sounds of things) could believe that's all personal use. And as far as the "successful business" you must not have ever set foot inside that swim school. It is an old dilapidated building, largely in disrepair. "

middle of the road dude wrote on Feb 27, 2008 11:49 AM:

" on of the most amusing things about this thread is how the many of the anti pot people regularly say how pot smokers are losers or can not DO anything. Yet they seem to ignore the simple fact this individual was running a successful business. until he was busted for weed.
BTW I am not trying to imply that growing your weed in your place of business is wise. "

To happy wrote on Feb 27, 2008 11:07 AM:

" You left your sweater near the fountain wear you beat up pony boy. "

110100100 re:Happy wrote on Feb 27, 2008 9:10 AM:

" Wow, here we had a few people trying to have an intellectual debate in the spirit of democracy, and in comes some slack jawed yokel to give us a Jr. High opinion. I suppose your foreign policy is ‘nuke em all’ ? "

To: Penalties from Gov't Opp. Mule wrote on Feb 27, 2008 9:04 AM:

" You are partially correct. The police CAN use discretion and just give a ticket for personal possesion, but that doesn't look good on an officer's record, so they usually arrest the person and charge them with several crimes, including intent to distribute even when the amount in question is still at a personal level (an ounce or 2). "

Happy wrote on Feb 27, 2008 7:33 AM:

" Bottom line.....Guilty as charged....Such a loser!!!!! Dude....Wheres my car??? "

middle of the road dude wrote on Feb 26, 2008 9:07 PM:

" To Penalties
Oh you are right to a point. The criminal penalty is not high for first or even second offenses. the real penalty. is much worse! many areas of employment will be no longer available. ANY form of gov. aide for education is instantly gone. No student loans, pell grants. If the person is in school and gets busted for weed. and happens to have a student loan they probably do not have the money to pay it back immediately then the person is in default on their student loan plus expulsion from school. Na i guess your right not much of a penalty "

to: wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:28 PM: wrote on Feb 26, 2008 2:47 PM:

" dood, who is u talkin to?me?this guy?or this other guy?or this lady over here?or the computer?you just yellin at nuthin man. "

to: "to: I was pretty much for legalization... wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:46 PM:

" That's too bad, that you're so freaked out by the poster you are posting at that you completely passed over his or her relatively clear points. I don't know if they've responded to you yet. I don't really know who you're posting at. I don't know that I agree with them 100%. I'd have to talk to them more. But I don't think you can even say you disagree with them, since you didn't confront a single thing they said or is part of the article. And, most of all, why would you go on a site for posting, and make a post, about how somebody shouldn't do things like post on posting sites? That's funny. "

re: RE: "to: I was pretty much for legalization of pot wrote wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:41 PM:

" Eeek, what is this guy talking about? That whole post was utterly pointless, offered nothing to the discussion, was just as angry as whatever weird consistency he's erroneously identifying, and is now laughable in its charges that somehow, I guess every post here is the same person? I've gone over the posts proceeding this one, and can't for the life of me figure out what linear consistency he's suggesting. I, personally, have posted on this a few times. As have clearly several other people. Looking at punctuation, spelling, and general tone, they are clearly several different people, and clearly at many differing times on differing days. It sure appears that some posters likely work days, so they post at night, while others might work nights, so they post during the day. I just can't find consistency thing this guy is ranting about. How weird. "

to: penalties wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:33 PM:

" okay, i understand where youre coming from. i mean, you're right about alot of things there, like small personal amounts of cannabis being relatively "decriminalized" (in b/n, you will not spend a night in jail for less than 2.5 grams, though that is still worlds away from a "large quantity"), and, hate it as i do, it is painfully true that one can connect crime with use of cannabis. but, c'mon, thats a complicated comparison. basicly, the issue is making the assertion that "cannabis use proceeds and creates a criminal life", where the truth is almost always "a criminal life tends to include some cannabis use". there is a massive difference between the two, in practice. its like saying, "since these gang members all wear red, then wearing red must make people join gangs." seriously, that's absurd, but things DO often mistakenly appear that way. just because trees always have birds doesn't mean birds make trees, and so on. you're only looking at likelihood of cannabis use in criminals, not the likelihood of criminals in cannabis users. there really is a major difference, when it comes to law enforcement, and legislation. "

RE: "to: I was pretty much for legalization of pot wrote on Feb 26, 2008 10:32 AM:" wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:28 PM:

" Dude- are you the same angry big mouth who's been posting and arguing here all week long? Get a life! Don't you have a job or go to school? How do you have so much time to hang out here and run your mouth? Jezzus-Krist, enuf with you already! "

to: re wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:23 PM:

" maybe you're right. at the very least, i think its far from "fair", and more importantly far from reasonable, to expect any being that qualifies as "homo sapiens" to be completely free and exempt from aggression, frustration, and anger. i give in all the time, and ironically, so does the so-called "other side" in these debates. sadly, we all allow the nasty attitudes of our debaters to allow us to justify a complete disregard for their opinion. for instance, in this context, i am certainly for decriminalization and complete legalization, with tight control, just like tobacco or alcohol. BUT, the bad attitude of the "other side" shouldn't allow me to just disregard their opinions, and most importantly their experiences. i hope everyone understands that no matter your position, you likely have a point to make, if you can make it correctly, and if others are willing to listen. i, for one, am willing to listen, now. "

Penalties wrote on Feb 26, 2008 11:07 AM:

" for weed possession are not as serious as many of you seem to think. There is almost nobody who is going to get put in prison for possessing a personal amount of marijuana. Unless that crime violated parole or probation from an earlier more serious crime. Even larger amounts of possession usually amount to fines and probation (no jail time), again unless you are talking about a career criminal. Manufacture/delivery is a different story, but even most of those cases will not end in jail time unless it's some major drug conspiracy involving guns and violence. And yes, weed crimes are tied to violence and murders all the time. Legalizing its use would not even begin to touch the black market drug trade, it would just make the drugs more accessible and more rampant on the streets. "

re wrote on Feb 26, 2008 10:45 AM:

" Yes, unfortunately most bitter, angry people I’ve met can’t stand anyone who isn’t as bitter and angry as they are, regardless of the reason. Maybe they got picked last in kick-ball or something, maybe some jock stole their girlfriend. Who knows, something tells me that kind of petty frustration (chip on the shoulder) never really goes away. "

to: middle of the road dude wrote on Feb 26, 2008 10:39 AM:

" well said. it should hold true in an "intelligent" and "enlightened" society (i'm really hoping ours qualifies, perhaps i'm too naive), those that are most credible in a specific area should be the most outspoken and most acknowledged. the american medical association should be the horses mouth on this, not scared and angry soccer moms or ex-hippie-beating conservative hardliners, or even overidealistic sunshine-daydream young liberals. all of these are mostly opinions, and opinions are always relevant, but never absolute. only relative to the person's experience. as you said, the a.m.a. has clearly called for the legalization or decriminalization of cannabis, specifying FOR MEDICAL USE. the anti-legalization crew can't even acknowledge medical science, and that says something. a big something. "

to: I was pretty much for legalization of pot wrote on Feb 26, 2008 10:32 AM:

" and what, in any way shape or form, does anything you asses about the users and supporters of cannabis change about cannabis? your logic is profoundly weak, and frankly, i would NEVER want you on my side. seriously, you'd be a liability to the pro-legalization platform, you clearly don't think for yourself based on objective evidence and logical reasoning, you only take a side based on what a person's character appears to YOU as, and for some reason that has anything to do with the subject of cannabis legalization? okay, people who don't smoke are mean as h*** too, what's your point? christians at every turn look absolutely disgusting, does that mean christianity is untrue? ever considered something like that? c'mon, friend, this is far bigger than just your preference for a person's attitude. "

re: 1010101 wrote on Feb 26, 2008 7:41 AM:

" You'll hopefully also be a cranky old fool when you are 34. If you truly wish to not learn along the way, well then I guess I hope you don't get your wish. "

rere: 1010101 wrote on Feb 26, 2008 6:08 AM:

" Whoops, got them mixed up. either way, you're talkig about 10-20% of the population from 18-34. And these aren't kids, they're adults. Over 18 is an adult, no matter how much you hate them. And 10% of the population is huge, it's larger than certain ethnic and religious groups. “Polls have consistently shown that Americans support marijuana for medicinal purposes: a whopping 80 percent said so in a 2002 Time/ CNN survey. In the same poll, about a third approved total legalization, but 72 percent said recreational users should be fined, not incarcerated.” So it seems the vast majority of the population is tired of your petty prohibition as well. Any way, I tire of this conversation, as it's obvious I'm arguing with one bitter old fool who's opinion is irrelevant. I think your next crusade should target skydivers. Because if there's anything a cranky old fogey should hate, it's people who jump out of planes for no good reason except to entertain themselves and endanger themselves and others with their childish stunts. "

I was pretty much for legalization of pot wrote on Feb 26, 2008 4:33 AM:

" until I logged-on here and read the many completely angry, mean, judgmental and in most cases truly stupid and backwards things that several here who claim their right to legalization are expressing. Now they look nothing but useless, fruitless, unproductive, demanding, criminal element to me. "

re: 1010101 wrote on Feb 25, 2008 8:56 PM:

" That's UNDER 25 years (17 to 25) at 18%. I already said drugs are kids game. Like we are going to change laws for a small segment of KIDS who just want cheap pot. All but a few of those same Kids will very soon be the ones that have the experience to be in the 93% who don't do drugs. Hopefully they won't kill someone along the way. -p "

rere: 1010101 (actually 110100100) wrote on Feb 25, 2008 8:08 PM:

" Good citation. So for the age group 18-25, 10.8% used in the last month, and for 26-34 it's 18.8%. That's nearly 1 out of 5. So I certainly wouldn't consider it abnormal behavior nor would I consider 18.8% of people over 25 to perpetual hippies or college kids. "

to: Man, I must be a real square (cont.) wrote on Feb 25, 2008 7:19 PM:

" frankly, i think many could agree that maybe $50 dropped on a sack of incredibly fragrant tasty head-tickling flowers with no hangover and no negative side effects is money VERY WELL SPENT, considering the complete lack of satisfaction in most people's everyday purchases. what, paying your unnecessarily expensive car payment is just as satisfying? no, its just what other people will give you kudos for. so, uhh, "good dog", i guess? that's all i'm seeing, master/servant, THOUGH YOU ARE MOST DEFINITELY TRYING TO LIVE RIGHT, i imagine your intentions are righteous. that said, i'll opt for a certain amount of less-than-wealthy freedom and substance, which is wealth beyond any you could amass in your bank account. my choices will be between me and Jahova. "

to: Man, I must be a real square wrote on Feb 25, 2008 7:13 PM:

" perhaps the problem is what's often called "living above your means"? meaning, if a massive suv with payments through the roof is what you want, and cant simply be happy with an eight-year-old honda, well, there you go. get the honda, drive just the same, have money for recreation. seriously and honestly, the idea that any amount of recreation without being bill gates himself is somehow "a problem" and proof of a life badly lived is nothing short of absurd. and, upon analysis, almost "unhuman". perhaps a robot, something like the terminator would live that way. what a wonderful thing to aspire to, a mindlessly driven robot. anyways, im not saying any one lifestyle is "wrong", but if you don't like yours, perhaps you could live differently? has it ever struck you that your "obligations" are created by yourself and your demands on yourself? that is a psychological thing, perhaps a spiritual thing, but not anybody else's problem. that is yours and yours alone, just as my use or non use of a relatively inexpensive "drug" is my problem. "

middle of the road dude wrote on Feb 25, 2008 7:05 PM:

" You can contiinue to spout your antiquated propaganda against pot all you want. The thing that does matter is that the 2 largest doctor org.'s both say the laws pertaining to pot need to be changed. Specificying that it should be allowed be used as medicine. "

re: 1010101 wrote on Feb 25, 2008 6:49 PM:

" It's often said there is a correlation between creativity and mind altering drugs - I don't know. Maybe that's why drugs disproportionately appear in art. Hopefully most artists don't need it . You started by saying drugs are normal in the USA, just look at pop art to prove it. According to National Drug clearinghouse Polling, only 6.3% of people 35 and older report using ANY illicit drug in the past year (2001). Younger age groups report slightly higher (pun intended). If you feel "smoking" is normal due to it's portrayal in art, you are not in the real world. We may have a love affair with drugs in art, but so do we with gangsters, cowboys, meteors, minimalism. Now, I'm starting to feel you are an artist, if so then you can't separate art from real life. If you are, realize most VanGoghs are eternal unknowns who brought much pain to their families and friends and care mostly for themselves. Ref:Google "drug use in the USA" 1st hit. -p "

Checking back in again... wrote on Feb 25, 2008 6:42 PM:

" This thread grew TIRED many DAYS ago, but thanks to some of you for keeping it very alive and well! Whoddu thunk there'd be so much to write about suckin' on a fattie! "

110100100 rerere Art wrote on Feb 25, 2008 4:58 PM:

" Wow, first you said “art does not reflect life” then you said “art exaggerates life.” I'm not sure which post you're bashing on, but to dismiss art as some childish waste of time pretty much sums up your entire attitude. Art is probably the most important aspect of who we are. It is what defines us as a species. It's a personification of human emotion, and it takes forms like music, paintings, theater, movies, literature, on and on. That being said, many of the greatest artists in history were the biggest burnouts and drunks. For that matter, some of the greatest scholars, athletes, politicians, and warriors in history were life long drunks and junkies. Some of them died young, some died old, but they lived their lives to the fullest and refused to let the bitter, angry people of the world stand in their way. A straight arrow can blindly squander life as easily as any drunk or stoner. "

110100100 re: Man, I must be a real square wrote on Feb 25, 2008 3:10 PM:

" From your description, I don’t know how you can claim to make a “very decent living,” and have so little disposable income. Then again, it’s doubtful your perception of a decent living is any more accurate than your perception of… well anything you’ve been spamming about on this message board. For that matter, most of the smokers I know are highly educated and make exceptional incomes that allow them to buy boats, SUVs, summer homes, etc. Obviously, not everyone who smokes is successful, nor is everyone who chooses not to smoke unsuccessful. You’re talking about a recreational activity that generally has a very minimal impact on the person’s life, despite the lies you’ve chosen to be a part of. People who overindulge are obviously likely to have problems, just as those who abuse alcohol or fatty foods. But you consistently choose to lump people into one category or the other with no evidence other than your so-called “experience,” which is voided by your anonymity. Perhaps if you spent less time bashing on other people’s life styles (that do not effect you), you’d have time to improve your own. "

wow! wrote on Feb 25, 2008 3:06 PM:

" The comments on this site never cease to amaze me. This town is so very small minded and arrogant to believe that the experiences in this puritan town reflect society at large. Look around you! It would probably be a good idea for those of you who never left McLean County to take a little side trip - marijuana use is accepted in many cultures, is not limited to stupid or economically challenged people, and does not ALWAYS lead to abuse of illegal narcotics.

Get a clue and quit embarrassing this community with your narrow minded views. "

Re: Re: Art wrote on Feb 25, 2008 2:22 PM:

" We are talking movies here. Art Exaggerates Life. It's expresses the furthest possibilities. Those that try to emulate that crash and burn. Don't look to the big screen or celebrities for how to live, pick success models in your own family or community. If you think the movies show the way life really is/should be - you must need rehab. Anytime you read about some joker doing something inspired from a movie, admit it, you think "what a dumb a**." Talk about your sheep. Bottom line, Almost all successfully functioning adults don't do drugs. Are you in the exact same place you were 5 years ago? Where could you be now? What is the $$$ you spend on drugs ultimately used for? What 12 year old do you help employ? Add it up and what could you have used it for if you hadn't wasted it? What example are you setting? "professor" "

TO: Man I must be a real Square wrote on Feb 25, 2008 1:06 PM:

" Buddy- something tells me that these people purchase their drugs FIRST. Before groceries, bills and school lunches for their kids. "

to Gateway Drug? wrote on Feb 25, 2008 12:35 PM:

" i'll bet the ones that smoked pot before going on to bigger and harder things, started with tobacco and alcohol...as kids. "

to: Gateway Drug? wrote on Feb 25, 2008 12:32 PM:

" sorry, no, simply not at all true. not so absolutely and without any exception, as you clearly suggest. you would have to present serious amounts of completely indisputable evidence to so much as even suggest a thing. there is a such thing as "logic", "reason", "scientific process", and so on. in no way shape or form does your suggestion hold up to anything resembling these. "

re: art wrote on Feb 25, 2008 12:30 PM:

" don't argue semantics over this, especially in such an absurd forum as this comment thread. you know d*** well what i mean, and anyone of relative intelligence reading that post would understand as well. i take it you are far from an "artist", or a creative person of any sort, as if you were you would know exactly what i refer to, without any real question or debate. i suppose we could philosophically argue whether "art reflects life" or "life reflects art", but that's neither here nor there. the point is, when humans create, they do so by expressing what they experience, and only that. even the most far-out science fiction is a creative expression of everyday experience. is that good enough for you, professor? "

to: RE: "re: I guess lotsa folks have to rely wrote on Feb 25, 2008 12:25 PM:

" well, honestly, thanks for the nice thoughts, and its cool to see a person acknowledge and enjoy the real qualities in their life (its a reminder, of course, to do so myself), but with all due respect, to suggest any of that happens to me was not at all my intention. what i meant to say, in perhaps a less than radiant and joyful way, was in response to your post, where you suggest cannabis users, for instance, "need a crutch", and go on to suggest a slight sense of condescension towards several other lifestyle choices (whatever other crutches you're referring to), and my point is simply that ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE has just as many of the same "crutches", yourself included. these "crutches" are not a symptom of drug addiction or something, they are a symptom of simply being human. is not even religion a profound crutch, one that often reduces a person to a domesticated lump of helplessness? so, i don't see a point in pointing out one little crutch, when they are everywhere and of so many different types. "

cannibispatchkid wrote on Feb 25, 2008 12:22 PM:

" Most of the anti pot people need to do a little research before posting. The arguments against it have been proven to be mostly false. You are just simply stating PROPAGANDA. Idk about you, but once someone lies to me, that person's credibility is shot. I will probably have a hard time ever believing them again. We have been lied to over and over again about the dangers of marijuana. There is plenty of proof if you just do a little searching, but most sheeple would just rather let someone else tell them about it instead of doing a little research on their own. Wake up. We have been lied to for years, and a lot of you are still spreading those lies by repeating PROPOGANDA as if it's fact. "

Gateway Drug? wrote on Feb 25, 2008 10:38 AM:

" I don't believe that everyone who smokes pot will graduate up to meth and coke or heroin. But I guarantee you one thing- everyone who does meth, coke and heroin first smoked pot. "

Man, I must be a real square, wrote on Feb 25, 2008 10:36 AM:

" living a boring, uncool existence. The life experience that most of the users here describe to me sound like something from the small screen- but it doesn't sound like my own life at all. I make a very decent living- but after I pay my mortgage, pay all my bills, put food in the fridge, give lunch money to my kids and fill up my gas tank, I barely got enuf left for postage stamps. Where does everyone get all this disposable income for expensive drugs? Nope- not my life at all. "

RE: "re: I guess lotsa folks have to rely wrote on Feb 25, 2008 8:00 AM:" wrote on Feb 25, 2008 10:30 AM:

" Wow. I guess I'm really pretty lucky and quite fortunate in this life I've built. Thanks for helping to point that out. And my condolences to you for all these tragic things bogging you down... like having your cell phone AND your car fail you at the same time. Wow. Bummer, dude. "

Art? wrote on Feb 25, 2008 9:39 AM:

" Um - Art does not reflect life. All those movies? Hate to tell you, but they are not real. They are there to provide a story that we do not see in regular life - thus we have to go to the movies to see it. That's why it's ENTERTAINING!

I'm sure you've met lots of "I don't drinkers". On the other hand, most of us have never been offered a doobie.

Somehow, I'll trust the world observations of the person who's mind isn't altered. "

it's funny wrote on Feb 25, 2008 9:34 AM:

" nobody complains about people growing poppies and we know what is made from that plant... "

to: 1010101 wrote on Feb 25, 2008 8:44 AM:

" This has been my experience locally: While in school over half of the people drank, many to fit in. Duh. But as we grew, we left childish ways behind. I am a social drinker (6-10 times a year), I am amazed by the number of people I meet that barley drink or don't at all. They make ME feel like the drunk. The "not at alls" are half of those I meet. People I meet tend to be out of their 20's, have/want kids, are thinking about the future, college funds, designate a driver, etc.. I am not very religious. It seems the drug culture is a big club/support group making themselves feel normal and hoping to get pot cheaper - meanwhile endangering the rest of us everywhere from on the road to by bringing sellers to the community. If 10% of a people are responsible for 90% of a problem - that should be telling to anyone. "

To: Stoner's Wife/Nope wrote on Feb 25, 2008 8:06 AM:

" HEY, WAKE UP!!! did you even read what you wrote? the EXACT SAME applies to you, conversely. if you think "hardly anyone" habitually uses alcohol or drugs, you are seeing this only because you clearly exist in an extremely narrow bubble. look, people, this post is not about whether drug use is "right" or not, it is about the obvious prevalence of drug use for years in everyday american culture, in fact, it is PART of our everyday culture. this is not studio 54, this is not the dead show, this is "regular life". look at all pop culture, for instance. for what its worth, the art that reflects life regularly depicts drug use everywhere, understanding that this is what we see also, understanding that these are in fact accurate depictions of american society. so you're some kinda puritan living in amish-land, that doesn't mean anything about the rest of our lives. "

re: I guess lotsa folks have to rely wrote on Feb 25, 2008 8:00 AM:

" ...he says while obsessively eating to escape, or glued to the television to escape, or would have a nervous breakdown if his cell phone and car broke at once, or obsessively works to avoid nearly-suicidal anxiety about the pointless hopelessness of his empty materialistic life, one where he can only feign dominance over other "bad people" to so much as be able to look at his reflection in the morning, or perhaps demands favors from a girlfriend who secretly cries afterwards, just wanting to be wanted for HER, or typing a post with a cup of coffee in hand after taking your daily prozac, or popping that xanax to help with sleep, and the list goes on and on and on and on.... "

sellasie i wrote on Feb 25, 2008 7:54 AM:

" marijuana, guaranteed to be a gateway drug? what then do you say about the world's millions upon millions of practicing rastafarians? okay, i understand that b/n is literally the worlds cultural abyss, with the average person knowing no more than they're on back yards, but to explain simply: a rasta uses cannabis, often daily, in a "session", which incorporates prayer and scripture study. some rastas trace elements of they're practice back to the hebrew nazarenes, who would not cut they're hair, beards, not eat meat, and abstain completely from alcohol (while the rest of judaism would still use alcohol religiously). a true rasta absolutely WILL NOT use alcohol, cigarettes, any illicit drug, and likely not even prescribed pharmaceuticals, they eat naturally grown vegetables, and SMOKE ALL DAY, EVERY DAY. so, for all of you "black/white, good/evil" hardliners, your painfully oversimplified assessments of all that is are proven wholly impossible. the rasta proves you wrong, plain and simple. "

RE: "to: I'm your doctor wrote on Feb 25, 2008 7:47 AM:

" well, though i don't have legal documentation, what i have posted comes strictly and only from direct experience. absolutely nothing i allude to is said from some abstracted opinion nor from word of mouth from local stoners or something. that post came from me smoking with those people. simple as that. seriously, ITS AS SIMPLE AS THAT. i typed only what i have very directly experienced right here in b/n. if it came down to it, my suggestion would in fact be provable by existing evidence, while all you have is the simple refusal of my claim, which in no way shape or form can be supported by hard evidence, as my DIRECT EXPERIENCE already proves you wrong. meaning, as long as i am right about ONE single person, your position is now completely untrue. for your position to be you, you MUST prove that absolutely every successful and respected person in b/n DOES NOT ever use. one example otherwise, and your position is now bunk. that's essentially logic, understand? and why would you assume i use? so, you just like to assume everything, huh? well, public stupidity isn't so becoming, y'know? "

TO: Stoner's Wife wrote on Feb 25, 2008 7:24 AM:

" Sorry but I have to back up what the prior poster said. I'm 36, pretty cool & hip and I'm about town often. I myself do not smoke, drink or do any drugs. And I'm never around those who do. True, I don't attend bars simply because the whole concept of sitting and drinking just doesn't appeal to me- but I think the poster is correct that like attracts like. On the whole, my sense is the MASSES do not partake. And if much, most or all of your circle does- then clearly the circle you are in is unique. Again- like draws like. "

110100100 Re:To: Stoner's Wife/Nope wrote on Feb 24, 2008 4:15 PM:

" “If it seems most folks do this to you, it because you are drawn together. Most folks are good with a drink less than once a month or never.” Seriously, do you live in Iran? Is the Ayatollah telling you this stuff? You sound like you're not even from this country. "

To: Stoner's Wife/Nope wrote on Feb 24, 2008 1:14 PM:

" Don't you get it? The reason you know "plenty of people who ONLY use alcohol and no other drugs to ruin their lives" as well as the others who do "other really effed up things" is because of the circle of drugs you are a member of.

Honestly, most folks in this world don't know or associate with people who abuse alcohol or do drugs. If it seems most folks do this to you, it because you are drawn together. Most folks are good with a drink less than once a month or never. Ever wonder if you'd have the migraines if you'd never tried drugs?

"

RE: "why" wrote on Feb 23, 2008 5:17 PM:

" Know what? USE IT. shut up about it and stop whining! stay home and don't cross my path with it- don't try and drive my kids' school bus under the influence of it and shut your window so the stomach-turning stench doesn't drift across the alley into my kitchen! Enuf already! "

AND... wrote on Feb 23, 2008 2:43 PM:

" ...I would also like to say that on the medicinal side, I have killer migraines that I get rid of with marijuana when I nothing else works. When they come on, I cannot function and take care of my family. I have been given prescriptions that have warnings like "may cause blain bleeding, heart attack, blood clots... AKA THIS CAN KILL YOU". I'd choose an illegal drug that has no known lethal side effects to a "legal" drug that could cause an anyeurism any day. I want to see my daughter grow into a woman and get old and funny with my husband. If responsible marijuana use makes me giggle and feel good about life rather than paranoid, depressed, delusional and violent like some other drugs might, why not let me use it? "

Nope... wrote on Feb 23, 2008 2:35 PM:

" ...I know plenty of people who ONLY use alcohol and no other drugs to ruin their lives, thakyouverymuch. So there. Saying that marijuana is a "gateway drug" is the ultimate B.S. If you want to place blame, see how many people drank or smoked cigarettes first THEN tried other drugs (I have NEVER used another illegal drug other than marijuana, nor the others I know). And whose to say that there aren't a TON of people who would/do use marijuana responsibly?! You act like because it's "weed" that no one could use it responsibly. If you look at those people who support the reformation laws, they are about using it in a way that's not to damage or harm others; don't drive impaired or sell it to kids or anything stupid like that. "

I guess lotsa folks have to rely wrote on Feb 23, 2008 2:13 PM:

" on one form of drug or another. I don't care to be around anyone who requires it- be it booze, pot or what have you. But nothing's different today- a portion of the population has always had to lean on a CRUTCH of one form or another. Whatever it takes to get you from one sunset to the next, I guess. It'd be cool though of humans could just deal with life without such necessities/dependencies. Casual users for fun? No big deal, I guess- but if you NEED it often- several times a week or gaws forbid, every day? Sheesh! "

To: Married to a stoner wrote on Feb 23, 2008 1:33 PM:

" Yep - I agree - marijuana and those other drugs do go hand in hand (which is what you are actually illustrating). That's why you know so many marijuana users who do all that other nasty stuff. Marijuana is just part of that cycle.

I, on the other hand, know tons off people who drink (all responsibly), and what do you know - none of them seem to have to do crack/cocaine, meth, other really effed up things at all. "

I'm your doctor wrote on Feb 23, 2008 12:42 PM:

" To: to I'm your doctor 2/23 7:37. My diagnosis: You've been smoking too much and too long. Thanks for making my point. "

Married to a stoner wrote on Feb 23, 2008 11:22 AM:

" You know, I can't ever say that I've seen anyone die from marijuana poisoning... In fact, I'm not sure it's even possible. When you "O.D." on weed, you just fall asleep. Alcohol is a known killer, and not just to the person who uses it; in the hands of someone who already has issues, it can be deadly (car accidents, violent crime, etc.) I tell ya what, of all the many many MANY people that use marijuana that I have known in my life, the only ones who seemed to be negatively affected were those who were using some other drug at the same time, i.e. drinking and smoking, using crack/cocaine, meth, other really effed up things that are known to make people go crazy nuts and kill people. "

re:I'm your doctor wrote on Feb 23, 2008 8:36 AM:

" I would expect a doctor to do his job sober. That doesn't mean after work he can't have a beer or joint. And if I had to choose, I'd prefer you were stoned than drunk. "

RE: "to: I'm your doctor wrote on Feb 23, 2008 7:37 AM:" wrote on Feb 23, 2008 8:20 AM:

" I absolutely cannot believe this dude's incredible claims. If he is not the all-time best POSTER-BOY for how pot distorts your thinking, twists your perception and makes one delusional- then I don't know who is. The rest of us can lay down our arguments in this debate- this dude is clearly making our case for us. I just hope he stops before he humiliates himself. "

to: I'm your doctor wrote on Feb 23, 2008 7:37 AM:

" i frankly see no point whatsoever made in your post, firstly and mostly because THEY ALREADY ARE. that, if anything, is one of the greatest points i can make on this subject: that those "potheads" that so many can conveniently and without any real creative thought vilify ARE your emergency workers, they ARE your kids teacher, they ARE the very professional men and women that YOU pay to service you and lead you. they ARE business owners, they ARE powerful local voters, they ARE the very people you are imagining as "the pure few". the fact of the matter is simply USING CANNABIS DOES NOT HARM A HEALTHY PERSONS ABILITIES, in anything, whatsoever. if it does, THEY ARE NOT HEALTHY. if pot use makes you ANY LESS than the most credible and respected person in town, there's something wrong with the PERSON, not the pot. i tell you right now, some of the most respected people in b/n are KNOWN SMOKERS. so, i ask you, what does that change? are they now somehow not what they were previously, though nothing is different besides the loss of your ignorance? i ask you, what is YOUR problem? "

Hey: "For: "to:Human Resources Manager at a major local employer (cont.) wrote on Feb 22, 2008 6:48 PM:" wrote on Feb 23, 2008 2:48 AM:

" Golly... I take it back- i WAS wrong earlier... you really ARE stressed! "

Hey Doc! wrote on Feb 23, 2008 2:46 AM:

" All I can say is, HERE-HERE!

Also- I have one quick question- do folks who dream of pot becoming legal actually ever put down the bong, get out of the house, organize, and make realistic and logical EFFORTS at changing the laws they HATE so- or do they tend to just secret themselves away in their dark and dreary dens ranting, cursing the world (and employers who insist that they show up to job-interviews straight) and WHINING about the unfairness of it all- thus justifying their need for pot to ease the stress of it all? "

I'm your doctor wrote on Feb 22, 2008 9:23 PM:

" To all the tokers out there who are sure they function great high: Would you still see me if I was stoned all the time? What if I was a firefighter, or a cop, or your child's teacher...still ok with you? How about your surgeon or your dentist? Your mother's caregiver in a nursing home? Can we all be high? Is that still good with you? "

Just say NO! wrote on Feb 22, 2008 9:12 PM:

" Drugs = $ pure and simple. The dealers DO NOT CARE "

To Fortune Teller and others wrote on Feb 22, 2008 7:17 PM:

" wow, so you mean to say that smoking marijuana isn't the root of absolutely every unpleasant thing that could ever befall a person that does so? incredible. i would love to believe it, but according to some very self-important and clearly venerable posters here (one in particular), its simply impossible, as he has clearly stated that my smoking pot, though ive never even alluded to it on here, is exactly why my life is less than perfect, which i very much DID allude to on here. we can assume, of course, that conversely, if i didn't smoke, my life would be just fine, using pot being something that i might not even do, so clearly their logic is airtight and untouchable. so, do you live on another planet, or something? i mean, are you a superhuman? if you're telling the truth, than the hateful "let them eat cake" cannibals of wealth and excess would be....WRONG??!! but they have all the money, they look so pretty, they're houses are so big and would burn so brightly! it JUST. CANT. BE!! "

For: wrote on Feb 22, 2008 7:03 PM:

" with all due respect, you have to at least try to entertain this concept: WHY would any of those "pathetic unfortunates" that you are so happy you are not, that you so simply assume "just need to try", actually WANT to live in such misery? why in the world would a person, for instance, trade any healthcare whatsoever to simply not have to go to work? do you seriously think everyone unemployed (or "badly" employed) are living just as well as you, only refusing to work, like its all fun for us? everything you say, though sounding good, reflects an image you have of yourself as being somehow inherently better than many other people, AND THERE YOU GO. clearly, you have the power, to a point. you could give me a job, but clearly haven't. i've probably applied where you work, as i've generally applied everywhere i can as "entry-level". i assure you, there are resume's, and they "look very good" in the technical sense (grammar, layout, font, etc.). but, i haven't already come from privilege, i wasn't ever "given a decent chance", so i wont be hired by you, will i? so, whats your point, at all? "

For: "to:Human Resources Manager at a major local employer (cont.) wrote on Feb 22, 2008 6:48 PM:

" seriously, WHAT IN THE WORLD makes you think i haven't done everything you've said, and MORE, to OVERWHELMING DEGREES??? what in this universe would make you think my saying what i say is ANYTHING besides a mind-bogglingly profound sense of being AT THE END OF MY ROPE? what then, huh? what if i have done absolutely everything you've said, perfectly and to a tee, and i am plainly and clearly in NO DIFFERENT of a situation? because that is simply the case. funny, how nothing you suggest allows for anything beyond that, nothing you say comes from a mind that can even fathom all those regurgitated "answers" you bludgeon me with NOT ACTUALLY WORKING as perfectly as you have to believe they do. please, do me a favor, and talk to ME, not as a god to a beast. or, do yourself a favor, and worry about the plank in your own eye for a second. or, YOU could give ME A JOB!! and all those reasons why you wouldn't are exactly why you are essentially talking to yourself. thanks for playing, though. "

to:Dear: "to:Human Resources Manager at a major local employer asks... wrote on Feb 21, 2008 8:38 PM:" wrote on Feb 22, 2008 6:38 PM:

" you unquestioningly assume that the writer of the post you refer to, the post that suggests you are "stealing your company's time", is me, the one posting in general reference to jobs and the sick absurdity of your claiming to work for the benefit of those you clearly condescend to, and likely (in a more vague and abstract fashion) are a direct reason as to why so many don't have the jobs you so kindly demand that they would have, were they worthwhile human beings, by suggesting that poster is "between jobs". first of all, you make a well-paid idiot of yourself by assuming everything at every turn. second, I AM NOT AT ALL BETWEEN JOBS, and very nearly SLAVE for minimum wage currently. thirdly, even if you dont refer to me, you have no way of knowing that poster is unemployed, besides that vile and disgusting condescention we're now back to. but, as long as your economic status allows you dominance over me, you'll never have to care about your own sick sick self. "

to: RE: "Legal Drugs wrote on Feb 22, 2008 6:14 PM:

" although i did not write the "legal drugs" post, i have been making other posts recently. not that it is directly relevant to the subject, but i have to mention to you that the language, direction, and attitude of your post is truly inspiring, and i mean that in the most practical sense. whether or not you agree with "legal drugs"'s position, which i happen to, you have actually empowered another to better share their opinion. lets assume you don't agree with the position that i do: your better empowering me to express myself more credibly and logically sound doesn't so much threaten your position, as much as it does support the position that could be True. clearly, on these threads, opinions fly like bullets, and somehow very little is actually shared, though alot is said. if only everyone that would argue with me would do so like you, i could learn so much, and have less reason to shout. "

Remember NIU wrote on Feb 22, 2008 2:28 PM:

" You don't see potheads taking guns to their colleges and killing people. You do, however, see ones that stopped taking their LEGAL head meds on their own.

You anti-pot people have pretty short memories for not being potheads. LOL. "

To Fortune Teller and others wrote on Feb 22, 2008 2:02 PM:

" Umm yes pot is mind altering even if you take one big hit. Now if you are smoking shwoo, then it might not do much. But one hit of dank, you mind will be altered. Would you like to come over tonight to find out? *L* But on that note, just because something is mind altering, doesn't mean it's bad. And since I have been smoking daily for 7 years straight, I think I have the right to say it's perfectly fine for me. I make $65,000 a year, have a nice place to live, treat people with respect and have a pretty good job. And I"m happy sober and I'm happy high. Why do I do it then if I"m already a happy person? Well why does a happy person have a few drinks? Too feel just a bit happier! :)

Legalize it!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

middle of the road dude wrote on Feb 22, 2008 10:55 AM:

" to Bloomington GOPer
Sorry to ruin your day but jury nullifacation( THE FINAL check and ballance btw) has been done away with. Jurys are now informed that they have to make their discision based on the law the way it is written and not based on wether they feel that law is just and right. "

Bloomington GOPer wrote on Feb 22, 2008 9:15 AM:

" As a Bloomington Republican and proud parent I can see that what this man was doing was not dangerous and should not be considered a crime. I have seen medical marijuana come to the aid of 2 people in my life when nothing else worked, and yes, they tried everything else first. It's time to seriously revisit our laws on the growing and use of this plant. Mr. Morger should have gone to trial, if this comment board is any indication there would have been a good chance for what's known as "jury nullification" where it is part of every jury member's RIGHT to not convict people based on unjust laws. "

For: "to:Human Resources Manager at a major local employer (cont.) wrote on Feb 21, 2008 5:35 PM:" wrote on Feb 22, 2008 3:21 AM:

" If you refuse to accept blame for your own stumbling-blocks now, then you'll certainly struggle just as much with claiming credit for any accomplishments in the future- and that's a great and deserving thing to deny yourself. If you re-think your approach and alter your attitude and perspective just slightly I would guess you might have a lot to offer a potential employer. But that employer will be far more interested in hearing what you can offer them, versus what YOU demand from THEM. Great things wait for everybody. All we need to know is how best to grab at them. What you're willing to work for will happen. It always does. "

RE: "younster re: RE: "Legal Drugs wrote on Feb 21, 2008 10:28 PM:" wrote on Feb 22, 2008 12:27 AM:

" Clearly pot just isn't working for you. Maybe consider doubling your dosage? "

Dear: "to:Human Resources Manager at a major local employer asks... wrote on Feb 21, 2008 8:38 PM:" wrote on Feb 22, 2008 12:25 AM:

" Wednesdays and Thursdays are my days off. You're quite likely between jobs right now- shall we meet for lunch? "

re: "to:Human Resources Manager at a major local employer asks... wrote on Feb 21, 2008 5:24 PM:" wrote on Feb 22, 2008 12:22 AM:

" Clearly you reveal exactly why it is that you have had many jobs. If you seek to "find an enemy to blame" save yourself much trouble and look no further than the very chair you are seated in. "

younster re: RE: "Legal Drugs wrote on Feb 21, 2008 10:28 PM:

" Because you are completely focused on voicing your irrelevant perspectives and discrediting everyone else's, you forget what this story is about. I use the word “medicine” because this article is about a coach who was arrested for growing pot he claimed was for medicinal use. I work with a person who has rheumatoid arthritis, and she is in constant pain. I use the word “drug” because I feel parents often choose to drug their children rather than raise them. Your tone reeks of intolerance. You are frightened and aggressive towards anything you don't understand or choose to be a part of. Attitudes like yours are as counter-productive as the war on drugs itself. "

to:Human Resources Manager at a major local employer asks... wrote on Feb 21, 2008 8:38 PM:

" I take you work a 9 to 5 job. You entered your blog during business hours. Correct? Therefore your are stealing from your employer correct. Perhaps you might add mitt the theft. Cirri um evidence. "

to:Human Resources Manager at a major local employer (cont.) wrote on Feb 21, 2008 5:35 PM:

" in fact, not once in one post i made did i ever even allude or vaguely suggest i had ever used cannabis, and only inadvertently hint, at the very least, at any use whatsoever in my last post, my retort to your post in which you completely assume my "problem" is pot. that really strikes me, nearly shocks me. again, given what you proudly announce yourself as, there is no wonder WHATSOEVER why "people like me", these painful statistics (intelligent, active, creative, dynamic, passionate...and slaving for peanuts for life), have the trouble we do. you just explained it all. its PEOPLE LIKE YOU that are why i cant get a decent job, its your vile and disgusting prejudice against all people that don't measure up to the standards your father beat into you, its these corporate supremacists, nearly nazis of capitalism. you know what i need? all i need is a chance from SOMEONE LIKE YOU, and that's the last thing i'll ever get, quite clearly. "

RE: "Legal Drugs wrote on Feb 21, 2008 5:00 PM:" wrote on Feb 21, 2008 5:26 PM:

" Not that I disagree with you. In fact, I share similar ideas to many of the bare-bones ideas you bring to light. However the language decisions you made when writing your piece will prevent it from reaching most peoples' ears, causing it to fizzle-out with barely an unheard "poof" rather than the explosive "bang" that you intended. You use far too many trigger words (calling prescription aids "drugs", and calling pot "medicine", for instance) And the manner in which you postured the remainder of your points painted a protrait that appears to put one's private preferred method of fun casual intoxication at a far higher rate of importantace than say, medical marijuana for medicinal uses and prevention of pain. In short, you detroyed your case and lost your credibility by the manner you spoke in and the words you chose. But hey- this is a learning experience... and I understand that. Back to the drawing-board! "

to:Human Resources Manager at a major local employer asks... wrote on Feb 21, 2008 5:24 PM:

" well, nice to see you aren't full of hate for those that work entry level jobs. wonderful. of course, you completely and without question assume i've smoked pot the entire fifteen years mentioned, which speaks volumes about you, and also about why exactly it is so hard for so many perfectly intelligent and relatively motivated people to "get anywhere" in this life. and i would've thought you'd be one of the first to understand that. rather, you perfectly embody the narrow, elitist, self-serving, self-preserving cold and distant "let them eat cake" mentality that i suspect is a massive portion of why i have had so many jobs. if there is an enemy i am to blame, it sure sounds like you'd joyfully march in rank with them. you're surely no friend of mine, and the billions less fortunate than yourself. beautiful, really. "

Legal Drugs wrote on Feb 21, 2008 5:00 PM:

" I love how while watching the news, I see a dramatic anti-drug commercial demonizing marijuana and warning parents about its menacing effects. The next commercial is a proud patriotic beer commercial. The next one is an anti-depressant commercial. You want to bash on drugs, try this one out: Every single school massacre that has happened recently has involved drugs. Legal drugs. These include: Dexadrine, Prozac, Luvox, Effexor, Celexa, and some others. In several of the massacres, the shooter was taking a coctail of these drugs. All perscribed by their doctors, even after the FDA issued a public health advisory, warning of an increased risk of suicide attempts or suicide-related behavior among children and teens taking antidepressants, including Prozac. The doctors and drug tycoons get richer, while lazy parents stuff pills down their spoiled children's' throats, even now. Yet, the person who goes to jail, is a swim coach who decided to grow his own medicine, a drug that's been used for hundreds of years. Indeed, something is wrong with this picture. "

Human Resources Manager at a major local employer asks... wrote on Feb 21, 2008 3:19 PM:

Ads by Yahoo!