• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Awesome Pot Prohibition Article by Seattle Attorney who prosecuted Marc Emery

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2012804422_guest05mckay.html

Marijuana's true potency and why the law should change

By John McKay
Special to The Times
I DON'T smoke pot. And I pretty much think people who do are idiots.

This certainly includes Marc Emery, the self-styled "Prince of Pot" from Canada whom I indicted in 2005 for peddling marijuana seeds to every man, woman and child with an envelope and a stamp. Emery recently pleaded guilty and will be sentenced this month in Seattle, where he faces five years in federal prison. If changing U.S. marijuana policy was ever Emery's goal, the best that can be said is that he took the wrong path.

As Emery's prosecutor and a former federal law-enforcement official, however, I'm not afraid to say out loud what most of my former colleagues know is true: Our marijuana policy is dangerous and wrong and should be changed through the legislative process to better protect the public safety.

Congress has failed to recognize what many already know about our policy of criminal prohibition of marijuana — it has utterly failed. Listed by the U.S. government as a "Schedule One" drug alongside heroin, the demand for marijuana in this country for decades has outpaced the ability of law enforcement to eliminate it. Perhaps this is because millions of Americans smoke pot regularly and international drug cartels, violent gangs and street pushers work hard to reap the profits.

Law-enforcement agencies are simply not capable of interdicting all of this pot and despite some successes have not succeeded in thwarting criminals who traffic and sell marijuana. Brave agents and cops continue to risk their lives in a futile attempt to enforce misguided laws that do not match the realities of our society.

These same agents and cops, along with prosecutors, judges and jailers, know we can't win by arresting all those involved in the massive importation, growth or distribution of marijuana, nor by locking up all the pot smokers. While many have argued the policy is unjust, few have addressed the dangerously potent black market the policy itself has created for exploitation by Mexican and other international drug cartels and gangs. With the proceeds from the U.S. marijuana black market, these criminals distribute dangerous drugs and kill each other (too often along with innocent bystanders) with American-purchased guns.

Our wrongheaded policy on marijuana has also failed to address the true health threat posed by its use. While I suspect nothing good can come to anyone from the chronic ingestion of marijuana smoke, its addictive quality and health risk pale in comparison with other banned drugs such as heroin, cocaine or meth. Informed adult choice, albeit a bad one, may well be preferable to the legal and policy meltdown we have long been suffering over marijuana.

Not only does our policy directly threaten our public safety and rest upon false medical assumptions, but our national laws are now in direct and irreconcilable conflict with state laws, including Washington state. So called "medical" marijuana reaches precious few patients and backdoor potheads mock legitimate medical use by glaucoma and chemotherapy patients. State laws are trumped by federal laws that recognize no such thing as "medicinal" or "personal" use and are no defense to arrests by federal agents and prosecution in federal courts.

So the policy is wrong, the law has failed, the public is endangered, no one in law enforcement is talking about it and precious few policymakers will honestly face the soft-on-crime sound bite in their next elections. What should be done?

• First, we need to honestly and courageously examine the true public-safety danger posed by criminalizing a drug used by millions and millions of Americans who ignore the law. Marijuana prohibition has failed — it's time for a new policy crafted by informed policymakers with the help of those in law enforcement who have risked their lives battling pot-purveying drug cartels and gangs.

• Second, let's talk about marijuana policy responsibly and with an eye toward sound science, not myth. We can start by acknowledging that our 1930s-era marijuana prohibition was overkill from the beginning and should be decoupled from any debate about "legalizing drugs." We should study and disclose the findings of the real health risks of prolonged use, including its influence and effect on juveniles.

• Third, we should give serious consideration to heavy regulation and taxation of the marijuana industry (an industry that is very real and dangerously underground). We should limit pot's content of the active ingredient THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), regulate its sale to adults who are dumb enough to want it and maintain criminal penalties for sales, possession or use by minors, drivers and boaters.

Federal criminal law should give way to regulation, while prohibiting interstate violation of federal laws consistent with this approach. In short, policymakers should strive for a regulatory and criminal scheme like the one guarding that other commodity that failed miserably at prohibition, alcohol.

As my law-enforcement colleagues know well from chasing bootleggers and mobsters, this new regulatory and criminal approach will still require many years of intensive investigation and enforcement before organized criminal elements are driven from the vast marijuana market. DEA and its law-enforcement partners must therefore remain well equipped and staffed to accomplish this task: to protect our families from truly dangerous drugs and to drive drug cartels, gangs and dope dealers from our society.

John McKay is a law professor at Seattle University and the former United States attorney in Seattle.
 
Health risks? What health risks? Show me one study that shows that THC is dangerous. One.
 
Awesome. A law professor now knows what even the dumbest pothead has realized for decades. From the comments:
Gee Mr. McKay, you sure have a way with words. I am a 60 year old idiotic, Vietnam Vet who started an affair with mj while serving almost 2 years in that lovely country. While I appreciate your conversion to sanity I find it somewhat similar to the crook in jail that finds God. You made your living off the backs of the millions of our sons and daughters who were arrested, jailed, fined and forced into drug rehab and now you say you see the light? You almost sound disappointed that busting down our doors using military style tactics just wasn't effective enough to slow our use!

So he comes around to the correct side as soon as he's out of the U.S. Attorney position he could have used to actually DO something about it. Fuck. You.
 
"The only people who are against drugs are people who've never taken drugs, and people who had a shit time on drugs." - Doug Stanhope

Both those groups need to STFU and let people live their lives as they see fit.
 
This is the writing of an idiot...

The cannabis experience has greatly improved my appreciation for art, a subject which I had never much appreciated before. The understanding of the intent of the artist which I can achieve when high sometimes carries over to when I’m down. This is one of many human frontiers which cannabis has helped me traverse. There also have been some art-related insights – I don’t know whether they are true or false, but they were fun to formulate. For example, I have spent some time high looking at the work of the Belgian surrealist Yves Tanguey. Some years later, I emerged from a long swim in the Caribbean and sank exhausted onto a beach formed from the erosion of a nearby coral reef. In idly examining the arcuate pastel-colored coral fragments which made up the beach, I saw before me a vast Tanguey painting. Perhaps Tanguey visited such a beach in his childhood.

A very similar improvement in my appreciation of music has occurred with cannabis. For the first time I have been able to hear the separate parts of a three-part harmony and the richness of the counterpoint. I have since discovered that professional musicians can quite easily keep many separate parts going simultaneously in their heads, but this was the first time for me. Again, the learning experience when high has at least to some extent carried over when I’m down. The enjoyment of food is amplified; tastes and aromas emerge that for some reason we ordinarily seem to be too busy to notice. I am able to give my full attention to the sensation. A potato will have a texture, a body, and taste like that of other potatoes, but much more so. Cannabis also enhances the enjoyment of sex – on the one hand it gives an exquisite sensitivity, but on the other hand it postpones orgasm: in part by distracting me with the profusion of image passing before my eyes. The actual duration of orgasm seems to lengthen greatly, but this may be the usual experience of time expansion which comes with cannabis smoking.

http://marijuana-uses.com/mr-x/

Carl Sagan writing as Mr. X in the 1971 published Marihuana Reconsidered

http://www.amazon.com/Marijuana-Reco...3915461&sr=1-3

I've smoked weed with the editor of this book, Dr. Lester Grinspoon, Associate Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Grinspoon
 
Health risks? What health risks? Show me one study that shows that THC is dangerous. One.

There risk of smoking marijuana isn't in the THC at all, same as tobacco, it's the other shit like tar and certain carcinogens that f's you up. I've read some studies that say THC may inhibit the disease-preventing actions of key immune cells but none of those has been confirmed as far as I know.

*Disclaimer*

Please do not take this as I am against the legalization of marijuana. I am merely stating what I have read.
 
There risk of smoking marijuana isn't in the THC at all, same as tobacco, it's the other shit like tar and certain carcinogens that f's you up. I've read some studies that say THC may inhibit the disease-preventing actions of key immune cells but none of those has been confirmed as far as I know.

*Disclaimer*

Please do not take this as I am against the legalization of marijuana. I am merely stating what I have read.

You can 'smoke' MJ using vapors with a special machine, i wonder if that counteracts that
 
There is only one way to eradicate weed. Saudi Arabia style insta death for even simple possession. Obviously this goes against western mores so in the meantime we are wasting billions building prisons, law enforcement, insurance loses, innocent caught in drug crossfire, turning neighborhoods into no go zones, and income tax evasion. Stupid.
 
You can 'smoke' MJ using vapors with a special machine, i wonder if that counteracts that

The evaporator gives you the most pure THC out of any other way. Much cleaner and less burning on your lungs but much more expensive but it's definitely the best.
 
There risk of smoking marijuana isn't in the THC at all, same as tobacco, it's the other shit like tar and certain carcinogens that f's you up. I've read some studies that say THC may inhibit the disease-preventing actions of key immune cells but none of those has been confirmed as far as I know.

*Disclaimer*

Please do not take this as I am against the legalization of marijuana. I am merely stating what I have read.

A major difference between marijuana and tobacco, however, is that "heavy" pot smokers who smoke bad weed smoke about a joint or so a day and pot smokers who smoke good weed smoke considerably less, while a "heavy" tobacco smoker smokes 20 cigarettes (1 pack) or more a day. This is a major factor in why marijuana use doesn't cause cancer, and why whatever respiratory problems it does are pretty mild.
 
Last edited:
A major difference between marijuana and tobacco, however, is that "heavy" pot smokers who smoke bad weed smoke about a joint or so a day and pot smokers who smoke good weed smoke considerably less, while a "heavy" tobacco smoker smokes 20 cigarettes (1 pack) or more a day. This is a major factor in why marijuana use doesn't cause cancer, and why whatever respiratory problems it does goes are pretty mild.

Oh yea of course. Marijuana smokers won't smoke a joint an hour like tobacco smokers will. Marijuana smokers though do inhale deeper and hold it in longer than tobacco smokers do but since it's so infrequent it's not even comparable.
 
Oh yea of course. Marijuana smokers won't smoke a joint an hour like tobacco smokers will. Marijuana smokers though do inhale deeper and hold it in longer than tobacco smokers do but since it's so infrequent it's not even comparable.

Thing is, when marijuana has become de facto legal, like in the Netherlands and California, the quality of marijuana has increased (the worst kind of weed you can get in Amsterdam is White Widow, which is a good strain) while the weight of a basic retail unit has dropped to 1 gram (the retail unit for good weed is usually 1/8 ounce [3.5 grams], and the retail weed for bad weed varies, but can often be 1/4 or higher). So, legalization leads to smaller purchased and consumed quantities. A heavy user of good weed can definitely keep their use down to 3 or 4 cigarette sized amounts of cannabis a week.
 
There is only one way to eradicate weed. Saudi Arabia style insta death for even simple possession. Obviously this goes against western mores so in the meantime we are wasting billions building prisons, law enforcement, insurance loses, innocent caught in drug crossfire, turning neighborhoods into no go zones, and income tax evasion. Stupid.

Shouldn't you be taking hostages at some cable TV station?
 

Yes, an unsourced website that looks like it was put up by a teenager in 1997. Probably an undergrad at harvard.
Do you really trust whoever put this up? http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_Concerns.html


The least biased link, but it states that no firm evidence exists that marijuana alone (not included with cigarette use) causes cancer. Its claim that marijuana smoke is more dangerous tobacco smoke is contradicted here:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/#tobacco

NIDA is about as credible as the DEA. As in, not.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/302/oops.shtml

A drug testing company? REALLY?

Funny that webmd doesn't provide any citations. It uses the weasel words "many experts believe heavy pot smokers are at increased risk for lung cancer."

Yeah and "many researchers" have found marijuana to not cause cancer. Some have found that it impedes cancer. This article, unlike the webmd one, actually cites these researchers: http://www.alternet.org/drugs/142271/smoking_marijuana_does_not_cause_lung_cancer/?page=entire

Can I get you any more?

Got anything actually worth a damn?
 
Yes, an unsourced website that looks like it was put up by a teenager in 1997. Probably an undergrad at harvard.
Do you really trust whoever put this up? http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_Concerns.html



The least biased link, but it states that no firm evidence exists that marijuana alone (not included with cigarette use) causes cancer. Its claim that marijuana smoke is more dangerous tobacco smoke is contradicted here:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/#tobacco


NIDA is about as credible as the DEA. As in, not.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/302/oops.shtml


A drug testing company? REALLY?


Funny that webmd doesn't provide any citations. It uses the weasel words "many experts believe heavy pot smokers are at increased risk for lung cancer."

Yeah and "many researchers" have found marijuana to not cause cancer. Some have found that it impedes cancer. This article, unlike the webmd one, actually cites these researchers: http://www.alternet.org/drugs/142271/smoking_marijuana_does_not_cause_lung_cancer/?page=entire



Got anything actually worth a damn?

Why would I bother, it's not going to slow down your use. Fact is, it does affect your body, brain, and overall health negatively whether you choose to believe it or not.
 
Back
Top