Marijuana

[Palehorse]

I havent see any of your  sources that are accredited and validated, You biggest problem is you cannot stand anyone that disagree with you on mj, you sound like a far left liberal that thinks they know what is correct for this country.

You still have not proved what you said 

Where is your accredited and validation of  establishing a valid proof 653 million in annual revenues. ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D:

One more thing Palehorse as you are for prop 19 and your Proponents of legalization claim it will raise "billions" in taxes. But if everyone could legally grow their own, why would anybody pay  the tax. ::D: ::D: ::D:

So it is your "opinion" that the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,  RAND Corporations  Drug Policy Research Center,  the World Health Organization, the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, Canadian Medical Association, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA., Et AL surrounding my sources are all unaccredited?

But a blog IS?!  Do you even understand the meaning of the term accredited? Apparently not!

From CNN Today. . .

"No one's promising that this is going to solve everything economically," said Quintin Mecke, spokesman for Assembly Member Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, who was the lead sponsor on two earlier efforts to legalize marijuana.
Most of the financial benefit would actually come from budget cuts - which means job cuts -- according to a report from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington, D.C. The institute estimates that legalization could add $1.312 billion annually to California's coffers. But the forecast's breakdown calls for a savings of $960 million in law enforcement costs and an additional $352 million in tax revenue.
Jeffrey Miron, a senior lecturer at Harvard University and senior fellow at the Cato Institute who co-authored the study, said the majority of the cost savings would be a result of cuts to law enforcement personnel whose services would no longer be required. And axing police officers, prison guards, prosecutors and judges would hurt the job market, at least initially, he said.
That leaves an estimated $352 million in annual tax revenue, a tally that Miron described as "not irrelevant, but not very consequential." He said it's a welcome bonus for Californians who prefer legalization regardless, but it's not enough to sway those who oppose it. . .



http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/21/news/economy/marijuana_california/index.htm?hpt=T1

And those are conservative numbers from a conservative institution! The reality could be more or less, depending upon the potential growth of the industry!

One more thing Palehorse as you are for prop 19 and your Proponents of legalization claim it will raise "billions" in taxes. But if everyone could legally grow their own, why would anybody pay  the tax.

How many people you see growing their own tobacco???  :confused:

[Palehorse]

And here's an opinion piece from a contributor at CNN: (By Evan Wood)

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/10/21/wood.war.on.drugs/index.html?hpt=C2

Why conservatives should favor legalizing marijuana

CNN) -- If there is one clear emotion emerging before November's U.S. congressional elections, it is that citizens across the political spectrum are worried about government spending and a perceived lack of government accountability regarding where tax dollars are spent.
Oddly, the government's approach to the illegal drug problem -- which has cost U.S. taxpayers more than $2.5 trillion since former President Richard Nixon first declared America's "war on drugs" -- has been largely immune from this concern.
One dramatic exception is California, where Proposition 19, which proposes to "regulate, control and tax cannabis," will be on the statewide ballot on November 2. In California alone, the illegal market for cannabis, or marijuana, has been estimated to be worth about $14 billion per year, and the legalization initiative aims to redirect the flow of these massive profits from violent drug cartels toward government coffers.
Although the full financial impact of legalization cannot be known, cannabis law enforcement in California is estimated to cost taxpayers anywhere between $200 million and $1.9 billion each year, whereas the State Board of Equalization has estimated that taxation could generate $1.4 billion a year in new tax revenue.
As the vote approaches, a clear division in political support for Proposition 19 has emerged, with a recent Reuters-Ipsos poll showing that 54 percent of Democrats support legalization as Republican support sits at 33 percent. This division is curious, given that cannabis prohibition takes its biggest toll on the traditional conservative wish list of fiscal discipline, low crime rates and strong families.
In fact, as detailed in a report published this month by my organization, the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy, research funded by none other than the U.S. government clearly demonstrates the failure of marijuna prohibition. For instance, government reports demonstrate that even as federal funding for anti-drug efforts has increased from $1.5 billion in 1981 to more than $20 billion today, surveillance systems show that marijuana's estimated potency has increased by 145 percent and its price has declined by 58 percent since 1990.
At a 1991 lecture titled "The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise," conservative economist Milton Friedman noted: "There are some general features of a socialist enterprise, whether it's the post office, schools or the war on drugs. The enterprise is inefficient, expensive, very advantageous to a small group of people and harmful to a lot of people."
Friedman, who won the Nobel Prize in 1976 for his achievements in the fields of "consumption analysis," had strong views about the certain failure of the war on drugs, which are shared by most economists who stress that costly efforts to remove the drug supply by building prisons and locking up drug dealers have the perverse effect of making it much more profitable for new drug dealers to get into the market.
This explains why surveillance systems funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health concluded that over the last 30 years, cannabis has remained "almost universally available to American 12th-graders," with between 80 percent and 90 percent saying the drug is "very easy" or "fairly easy" to obtain.
Friedman was also vocal about the unintended consequences of the war on drugs, including the enrichment of organized crime and drug market violence. As he wrote in The New York Times: "The young are not dissuaded by the bullets that fly so freely in disputes between competing drug dealers -- bullets that fly only because dealing drugs is illegal. Al Capone epitomizes our earlier attempt at Prohibition; the Crips and Bloods epitomize this one."
In this context, consider that about 28,000 people have died in drug market violence in Mexico since 2006, when Mexican President Felipe Calderón declared a war on drugs in that country, and that the U.S. government once estimated that Mexican drug trafficking organizations derive 60 percent of their revenue from cannabis exports to the United States.
The war on drugs has also had a devastating impact on families. Primarily as a result of drug law enforcement, one in nine African-American males in the 25-to-29 age group is incarcerated on any given day in the U.S., despite statistics that show ethnic minorities consume illicit drugs at rates comparable to those of other ethnic groups in the U.S.
In California, where the government spends more on prisons than post-secondary education, a recent report estimated that the cannabis possession arrest rate for African-Americans in Los Angeles County is more than 300 percent higher than that for whites. This disparity has emerged despite data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which has consistently shown that young African-Americans are less likely to use cannabis than whites.
In addition to both the racial and budgetary implications of this failed experiment, sociologists and criminologists are decrying the intergenerational effects of these policies on low-income families, as children left behind by incarcerated parents turn to gangs and the cycle continues.
One explanation for the persistently high support for cannabis prohibition is the concern that ending the war on cannabis will result in increased use. Interestingly, comparisons between the U.S. and the Netherlands, where cannabis is de facto legalized, indicate that despite the U.S.'s record rates of anti-drug enforcement expenditures, 42 percent of U.S. adults report that they have used cannabis, which is more than twice as high as that observed in the Netherlands, where only 20 percent report a history of cannabis use.
While some U.S. economists predict that rates of cannabis use could increase in California under legalization, they have generally ignored the potential benefits of the broad range of strict regulatory tools -- including licensing systems for vendors, purchasing controls and sales restrictions -- that have all proved effective at reducing rates of use and related harms of tobacco and alcohol.
As described earlier this month in an article published in the influential British Medical Journal, Robin Room stressed the need for an urgent consideration of the benefits of cannabis regulatory systems, especially given that successful government lobbying by the tobacco and alcohol industries have slowly eroded or eliminated many of these effective regulatory mechanisms in the U.S.
As Friedman said, "If you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel." Recent estimates suggest that national regulation of cannabis in the United States would result in savings of more than $44 billion a year on enforcement expenditures alone.
Conservatives should look at the ongoing legacy of the failed war on drugs, in light of their traditional commitment to stronger families, economies and societies, and reconsider supporting drug policies that only serve to weaken American society.

Evan Wood is the founder of the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy; the director of the Urban Health Program at the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS; and associate professor in the Department of Medicine at the University of British Columbia.

[mr.willy]

And here's an opinion piece from a contributor at CNN: (By Evan Wood)

Heck every body got a opinion just like rear ends.

"There are too many unknowns to be able to come up with a revenue estimate,"

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/21/news/economy/marijuana_california/index.htm?hpt=T1


Come on Jeff oooo I mean  Palehorse your still spinning on the issue

[Palehorse]

Heck every body got a opinion just like rear ends.

So only those opinions that support your perspective are accredited?  ::)

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/21/news/economy/marijuana_california/index.htm?hpt=T1


Come on Jeff oooo I mean  Palehorse your still spinning on the issue

No I'm not spinning, but you are still cherry picking. You take one line from my own source, that is a general statement, and you imply that it eradicates every fact in the piece. . .

Care to list your credentials to support your opinions trumping those of educated, experienced, and qualified experts? Nah. . . I didn't think so. . . ::)

[Palehorse]

So it is your "opinion" that the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,  RAND Corporations  Drug Policy Research Center,  the World Health Organization, the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, Canadian Medical Association, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA., Et AL surrounding my sources are all unaccredited?

But a blog IS?!  Do you even understand the meaning of the term accredited? Apparently not!

. . .

And I am still awaiting your responses to the above. . .

[mr.willy]

Marijuana Withdrawal as Bad as Withdrawal From Cigarettes
Study could potentially help clinicians treat heavy users with related problems

By Eric Vohr
Johns Hopkins Medicine

Research by a group of scientists studying the effects of heavy marijuana use suggests that withdrawal from the use of marijuana is similar to what is experienced by people when they quit smoking cigarettes. Abstinence from each of these drugs appears to cause several common symptoms, such as irritability, anger and trouble sleeping, based on self-reporting in a recent study of 12 heavy users of both marijuana and cigarettes.

"These results indicate that some marijuana users experience withdrawal effects when they try to quit, and that these effects should be considered by clinicians treating people with problems related to heavy marijuana use," said lead investigator Ryan Vandrey, of the Department of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/2008/28jan08/28maryjane.html

Dang and that was Johns Hopkins University

The RAND study also finds that the often-cited claim that marijuana accounts for 60 percent of gross drug export revenues of Mexican drug trafficking organizations is not credible. RAND's exploratory analysis on this point suggests that 15 percent to 26 percent is a more credible range. Given that California accounts for about 14 percent of the nation's marijuana use, this suggests that if marijuana legalization in California only influences the California market, it would have a small effect on drug trafficking organizations — cutting total drug export revenues by perhaps 2 to 4 percent.

http://www.rand.org/news/press/2010/10/12/index.html

Dang and that was RAND.


Here you go Jeff oops I mean Palehorse something extra.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWDb-7vPTX8

Harmful Effects of Marijuana Use on Mental Health Video 01. ONDCP Press Conference: Marijuana and Your Teen's Mental Health. When: 5/3/2005. Sponsor: SAMHSA/ONDCP. Experts Alert Parents About Mental Health Harms of Teens' Marijuana Use. Mental health experts and scientists joined high-ranking government officials to discuss an emerging body of research that identifies clear links between marijuana use and mental health disorders, including depression, suicidal thoughts and schizophrenia. The speakers alerted parents about the connection between marijuana use and their teens' mental health. A couple whose 15-year-old committed suicide also spoke. Released at the event was a compendium of recent research linking marijuana and mental illness; a new SAMHSA report about the correlation between age of first marijuana use and serious mental illness; and an open letter to parents on "Marijuana and Your Teen's Mental Health," signed by 12 of the Nation's leading mental health organizations, which is running in major newspapers and newsweeklies across the country. WHERE: National Press Club. 529 14th St., NW, 13th Floor. Washington, DC 20045. Lisagor Room. WHO: John P. Walters, Director, National Drug Control Policy. Charles G. Curie, Administrator, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; Neil McKeganey, B.A., M.Sc., Ph.D., Professor of Drug Misuse Research and Director, Centre for Drug Misuse Research, Glasgow; University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK. Parents of 15-year-old who committed suicide; Richard Suchinsky, M.D., American Psychiatric Association Council on Addiction; Robert L. DuPont, M.D., President, Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc.; BACKGROUND: In 1998, with the bipartisan support of Congress and the President, the Office of National Drug Control Policy created the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign to educate and empower youth to reject illicit drugs. Public Domain video.

See you tomorrow Jeff oops I mean Palehorse having trouble keeping all the  names straight. ::D:

[mr.willy]

Cannabis is classified under international conventions as a drug with a number of personal and public health problems. It is not a ‗soft drug as some people would have you believe. There is new evidence confirming well-known mental health problems, and some countries with a more liberal policy towards cannabis are reviewing their position. Countries need to take a strong stance towards cannabis abuse.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/marijuana_position_july10.pdf

Can you understand that Palehorse [ classified under international conventions as a drug with a number of personal and public health problems.]

[Palehorse]

http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/2008/28jan08/28maryjane.html

Dang and that was Johns Hopkins University

Eric Vohr
Lecturer
Eric A. Vohr is a member of the media relations staff at Johns Hopkins Medicine's Office of Corporate Communications.

Prior to his appointment at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Vohr taught journalism and English composition at Goucher, Loyola and Villa Julie colleges. He also worked as the city editor at the Carroll County Times in Westminster, Md., as the night editor at the Bennington Banner Newspaper in Bennington, Vt. and as a reporter/editor for the Cambodia Daily Newspaper in Phnom Penh. Vohr has written freelance articles for a number of national magazines and leading newspapers including Ski Magazine, Vermont Magazine, Adventure Cycling Magazine, National Ski Areas Association Magazine, The Washington Post, The Albany Times Union, The Manchester Union Leader and The Virginia Pilot. He has written a syndicated outdoor column and a weekly automobile column.

Vohr received his bachelors of arts degree in creative writing at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash. and his masters degree in creative writing at Johns Hopkins University.

http://web.jhu.edu/Leadership/html/faculty/pcp/vohr.html

What study? Where's the data? Someone with a BA in creative writing and Masters in writing from Johns Hopkins certainly is not qualified to make such statements on his own accord. . . ::)

http://www.rand.org/news/press/2010/10/12/index.html

Dang and that was RAND.

Straw man mr.willy. No one is saying that PROP 19 alone is going to impact the drug cartels in and of itself. . . Except you in your implication made as a means to try to divert attention. . .

Here you go Jeff oops I mean Palehorse something extra.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWDb-7vPTX8

Harmful Effects of Marijuana Use on Mental Health Video 01. ONDCP Press Conference: Marijuana and Your Teen's Mental Health. When: 5/3/2005. Sponsor: SAMHSA/ONDCP. Experts Alert Parents About Mental Health Harms of Teens' Marijuana Use. Mental health experts and scientists joined high-ranking government officials to discuss an emerging body of research that identifies clear links between marijuana use and mental health disorders, including depression, suicidal thoughts and schizophrenia. The speakers alerted parents about the connection between marijuana use and their teens' mental health. A couple whose 15-year-old committed suicide also spoke. Released at the event was a compendium of recent research linking marijuana and mental illness; a new SAMHSA report about the correlation between age of first marijuana use and serious mental illness; and an open letter to parents on "Marijuana and Your Teen's Mental Health," signed by 12 of the Nation's leading mental health organizations, which is running in major newspapers and newsweeklies across the country. WHERE: National Press Club. 529 14th St., NW, 13th Floor. Washington, DC 20045. Lisagor Room. WHO: John P. Walters, Director, National Drug Control Policy. Charles G. Curie, Administrator, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; Neil McKeganey, B.A., M.Sc., Ph.D., Professor of Drug Misuse Research and Director, Centre for Drug Misuse Research, Glasgow; University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK. Parents of 15-year-old who committed suicide; Richard Suchinsky, M.D., American Psychiatric Association Council on Addiction; Robert L. DuPont, M.D., President, Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc.; BACKGROUND: In 1998, with the bipartisan support of Congress and the President, the Office of National Drug Control Policy created the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign to educate and empower youth to reject illicit drugs. Public Domain video.

See you tomorrow Jeff oops I mean Palehorse having trouble keeping all the  names straight. ::D:

Now come on. . . You expect an obviously slanted video from two entities that hold a vested interest in continuing the anti-MJ propaganda campaign, and one initiated by a 1998 white house administration that promoted fear mongering, to hold any weight or credibility with anyone?

You are reaching. . . Don't pull something!

[Palehorse]

http://www.justice.gov/dea/marijuana_position_july10.pdf

Can you understand that Palehorse [ classified under international conventions as a drug with a number of personal and public health problems.]

And can you understand how that decision made decades ago, was erroneous? The result of a fierce propaganda campaign undertaken as a means to placate the fear mongers of society? Those who are undereducated and easily lead like the good bleating sheep they have been made!

[mr.willy]

And can you understand how that decision made decades ago, was erroneous

PROVE THAT IT IS WRONG YOU HAVEN'T YET

Eric A. Vohr is a member of the media relations staff at Johns Hopkins Medicine's Office of Corporate Communication

Where does he get his information from could it be Johns Hopkins Medicine, ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D:

[Palehorse]

PROVE THAT IT IS WRONG YOU HAVEN'T YET

Ummm. Yes. . . I have. You are just too stubborn to accept it, or something. . . I have yet to see one thing from you that disproves or discredits my sources and their findings.

Where does he get his information from could it be Johns Hopkins Medicine, ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D:

That's the whole point willy, where indeed does he get his information? He utilizes nothing more than "say it and it is so" methodology in what is clearly an opinion piece. It provides no data to substantiate his claims. nor links to said data.

Now my sources clearly provide the data and the science behind the executive summaries and conclusions they provide. . .

You have yet to meet that standard with your sources; attempting to rebut science and data with opinion.

So now I ask, who's proven their point, and who is blowing smoke and erecting legions of straw men in an attempt to deflect? 

[mr.willy]

attempting to rebut science and data with opinion.

You just can not face the TRUTH  even with Eric A. Vohr information that he gets from Johns Hopkins Medicine and You are just too stubborn to accept it,and I have prove that some of your sources has more then one opinion on mj and YOU are too too stubborn to accept.

methodology; the analysis of the principles or procedures of inquiry in a particular field

So in your own words you are blowing smoke and erecting legions of straw men in an attempt to deflect of the dangerous effect of  mj, shame on you !!!!!! 

[Palehorse]

You just can not face the TRUTH  even with Eric A. Vohr information that he gets from Johns Hopkins Medicine and You are just too stubborn to accept it,and I have prove that some of your sources has more then one opinion on mj and YOU are too too stubborn to accept.

methodology; the analysis of the principles or procedures of inquiry in a particular field

So in your own words you are blowing smoke and erecting legions of straw men in an attempt to deflect of the dangerous effect of  mj, shame on you !!!!!!

Nice spin job, but not effective at all. . . Want to try again? 

[mr.willy]

Nice spin job

No spin at all, proved my point you are lost and even not talking about mj  ::O: ::O: ::O: ::O:

[Palehorse]

No spin at all, proved my point you are lost and even not talking about mj  ::O: ::O: ::O: ::O:

More spin. . .  from you. BIG surprise. 

from: Palehorse on October 21, 2010, 03:56:32 PM

So it is your "opinion" that the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,  RAND Corporations  Drug Policy Research Center,  the World Health Organization, the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, Canadian Medical Association, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA., Et AL surrounding my sources are all unaccredited?

But a blog IS?!  Do you even understand the meaning of the term accredited? Apparently not!

. . .

And I am still awaiting your responses to the above. . .