I use to smoke when I was in high school. I still know quite a few people that do on a regular basis. Believe it or not, it is a real sub culture here in Central Oklahoma. I even know a few people who prefer to "medicate" with it instead of buying depression meds because it's cheaper. I say all that so that you know I have a background in this topic.

I feel there are a lot of factors towards the legalization of marijuana nation wide and in each state. The tobacco companies and alcohol companies are not going to set idly by to let the legalization of marijuana pass on a federal level. If marijuana is of less demand from mexican drug cartels (if you havn't read much about the gangs in mexico as of recent, you need to, one gang is literally clearing house for territory and is killing anyone in there path, be it police, children, rival cartel leaders, federal agents, etc.) than what will they import to the US to fund their organizations?

There are also several levels of policing that go on currently. Places like Eureka Springs, Arkansas have not decriminalized it nor made it legal, but have made it the lowest priority amongst it's police force. Then there are different counties and states that have made medical use okay, but have made the availability of permits more restrictive.

I believe the future legalization across more states will happen, but it will never happen federally and will then, after many decades, will become an obsolete law.

I believe the future legalization across more states will happen, but it will never happen federally and will then, after many decades, will become an obsolete law.

...until we remember why it was made illegal in the first place.

...until we remember why it was made illegal in the first place.
The US paper industry wanted to quash competition from the hemp producers?

...and the pharmaceutical and alcohol industries don't any more competition. It was declared illegal through lobbying efforts and will remain illegal (at the federal level) through lobbying efforts. Just think of it like the Oklahoma liquor laws, they remain in place not because of legitimate ideas but by lobbyists to protect the current, entrenched businesses.

I wonder how many HiPos will now be setting up in the panhandle to catch motorist coming back into the state from colorado with their herbal supplements.

I've lived in Oklahoma for almost 13 years now and i've defended this place and highlighted some of the pros that most outside of the state have no knowledge of. But it's an absolute embarrassement, just how draconian some of the laws here are with regards to marijuana. Sadly, as the rest of the nation is finally starting to realize that Reefer Madness was the worst sort of propaganda that ignorance and fear mongering can produce, Oklahoma just last year passed laws about hash and paraphernalia that show our politicians are still drinking the "dangerous gateway drug" kool-aid.

Having had my home state over run with Yankees and their Yankee attitudes, ideas, and constant complaints about the way things are, i know that an outsiders view is usually one met with a simple and usually deserved, "If you don't like it then go back to where you came from". And i'm all for states rights and state pride in being different from the rest and not changing to please the masses that exist outside your borders. But with that said, cities will dry up and blow away if they dont move forward even if they do so taking baby steps. I'm not a proponent of big changes all at once that upset the masses but please the minority. But it's time to have the discussion at least about medicinal use and to do so with respect for the facts and honesty about why it is that some continue to hold tight to the myths of marijuana that have been proven to be just that.

Possible life sentence for hash, making brownies, using a grinder? Really? Is this 2012?


SECTION 1. AMENDATORY <63> O.S. 2001, Section <2-509>, is amended to read as follows: …

D. Knowingly violating the provisions of subsection B or subsection H of this section is hereby declared, as to the owner, or person in possession of such lands, to be a felony and punishable as such by a fine not to exceed Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) and imprisonment in the State Penitentiary custody of the Department of Corrections for not less than two (2) years nor more than life. The fine provided for in this subsection shall be in addition to other punishments provided by law and shall not be in lieu of other punishment. Any person convicted of a second or subsequent violation of subsection B or subsection H of this section is punishable by a term of imprisonment twice that otherwise authorized and by twice the fine otherwise authorized. Any sentence shall not be subject to statutory provisions for suspended sentences, deferred sentences, or probation, except when the conviction is for a first offense. …

H. Except as authorized by the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, it shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture or attempt to manufacture any controlled dangerous substance by cooking, burning, or extracting and converting or attempting to extract and convert marihuana or marihuana oil into hashish, hashish oil or hashish powder.

These laws exist to keep feeding the drug enforcement mafia. This is regressive economic development. Take OBN for example, and their ridiculous posture against MJ. The drug war keeps a lot of people employed and keeps new toys and generous funding coming in to organizations such as OBN, as well as county sheriff departments, small-town police departments, etc.

This doesn't even take into account the unconstitutional (in my opinion) seizure of private assets by the aforementioned when drugs are involved.

We've created a constituency that is wholly dependent on its funding from draconian drug laws.

...until we remember why it was made illegal in the first place.

And why was that, do tell?

And why was that, do tell?

Lots of reasons are given, but in that list was the problem that far too many people were becoming addicted to substances that altered their state of mind. It was essentially a public health risk, known today as a 'national security' issue. Pot got lumped in with all other addictive substances including alcohol (cigarettes while addictive, don't alter the state of mind) and all were controlled. In a world where 32 oz. Cokes are banned I have to wonder what the motivation is to legalize pot. I hope it isn't to create more dependents or to apply the slippery slope strategy.

I have been against this for years. Probably because I have a couple of children, and the less "legal" opportunities to waste time and effort the better. The recent elections prompted me to re-look the issue.

As with most things, I try to have an open mind and search out folks with differing opinions to see if I am not looking at all sides. Obviously, I avoided the usual suspects (anyone who fits the stereotypical stoner image) and instead, went to people I respect. In this case, I spoke to some law enforcement friends from OKC, Tulsa, and a statewide agency.

All three were in their late forties, with decades of experience in their respective agencies. All three supported the legalization of marijuana, and the highest ranking officer was in favor of expanding that to other illicit drugs.

Their reasoning was based on the resources "wasted" on trying to enforce the laws, the number of people incarcerated for non-violent crimes, and the possible loss of tax revenue. All agreed that there would be second and third order effects, especially with the legalization of other drugs, and that these would need to be addressed and tax dollars would have to be spent in those areas. They figure the money saved on arresting, jailing, and housing recreational users could be shifted to cover down on those other areas.

I think they may have changed my mind, but it will be a long time before it comes to pass in Oklahoma.

I have to wonder what the motivation is to legalize pot. I hope it isn't to create more dependents or to apply the slippery slope strategy.

No one is going to advocate for dependency. The best three arguments for legalization in my opinion are
-cost and ineffectiveness of prohibition
It costs over $40,000/year to incarcerate each prisoner. So with every prisoner we let go free we can afford to hire another public school teacher.

-racial justice
Last year 86% of those who pled guilty to marijuana possession in Chicago (http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/chicago-marijuana-arrest-statistics/Content?oid=4198958) were black males. While they represent only 17% of the population.

-democracy
over 50% of people are in favor of full legalization of marijuana according to the highly trusted Gallup polls
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/11/01/can-colorado-create-a-legal-market-for-marijuana/) (see attachment). Popular support has doubled in the last 17 years from 25% to 50% and can be expected to continue.

Sorry JTF, didn't mean to preach, but I thought someone as knowledgeable on urban issues as you would be more familiar with the legalization arguments..

Totally unrelated story

Exclusive: John McAfee Wanted for Murder (Updated) (http://gizmodo.com/5959812/john-mcafee-wanted-for-murder)

...until we remember why it was made illegal in the first place.

Yeah, like over outrageous racism and groundless corporate fears. No, hemp with all its supposed greatness, won't overwhelm and rule the industrial world. It was a totally different world in 1937 when marijuana was essentially banned. Interesting that the American Medical Association, who did not support it, was not taken seriously. Instead, a researcher who injected marijuana extractions in the brains of 300 dogs and two of them died made a strong impression. These days, the researcher would have been rightfully arrested for mass animal cruelty. The more and more people who find out the ugly facts of what formed the basis that prohibited marijuana, the faster prohibition of it will fall. The disgusting historical mistakes that led to marijuana prohibition must be corrected.

In a world where 32 oz. Cokes are banned I have to wonder what the motivation is to legalize pot. I hope it isn't to create more dependents or to apply the slippery slope strategy.

But in Oklahoma, where people can get sentenced to prison for many years over pot, the laws have created a number of total dependents upon the government. If I'm right, there is little or no leniency given to people who are caught growing pot.

I fully support legalization, but wonder: is there a way to test for it similar to a breathalyzer test? What restrictions would be place on it? Can you operate a motor vehicle or heavy equipment (or perform surgery, etc.) if using? Did Colorado institute a "level" of use? or a sobering period?

I fully support legalization, but wonder: is there a way to test for it similar to a breathalyzer test? What restrictions would be place on it? Can you operate a motor vehicle or heavy equipment (or perform surgery, etc.) if using? Did Colorado institute a "level" of use? or a sobering period?

CO and WA will both have measures in place to determine if a driver is DUI of pot. I think it is a blood test that measures the level of THC. The interesting thing is the fact that its probably easier to tell if someone is drunk rather than high.

legalize for recreational and medicinal use ... sounds a bit like getting stoned and playing doctor.

But in Oklahoma, where people can get sentenced to prison for many years over pot, the laws have created a number of total dependents upon the government. If I'm right, there is little or no leniency given to people who are caught growing pot.

Do you ever wonder why someone would risk years in prison over getting high? Does that seem like a logical well thought out decision, or do you think it is possible that smoking an addictive substance might be clouding their judgment just a bit?

Do you ever wonder why someone would risk years in prison over getting high? Does that seem like a logical well thought out decision, or do you think it is possible that smoking an addictive substance might be clouding their judgment just a bit?

So? Anti marijuana laws are crazy and hypocritical, made in very poor judgment from the past. One is free to grow tobacco in Oklahoma, even though it's been proven smoking it causes lung cancer. Since it's been proven that smoking pot can't cause lung cancer, the ones smoking pot, rather than tobacco, are actually doing something in smarter, better judgment. It's further smarter, considering how cigarettes contain over 1000 chemicals, while joints contain a little over 400 chemicals.

So it's really Oklahoma's insane laws against marijuana, made decades ago are what is cast in clouded judgment, likely drawn up by ignorant legislators while working in a tobacco smoke filled room at the State Capitol.

Marijuana possession, sale, and manufacture are regulated by both state and federal law. In Oklahoma, marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance, which means that it has a high potential for abuse and no generally recognized medical value. (63 Ok. Stat. Ann. § 2-204.) Also, while not covered in this article, it is a crime to drive under the influence of marijuana in Oklahoma.

For information about charges and penalties for driving under the influence of marijuana in Oklahoma, see Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana in Oklahoma.

Marijuana Possession
It is a crime to knowingly or intentionally possess marijuana (including small amounts for personal use) in Oklahoma. In addition to a possible fine, the judge will sentence a defendant to up to a year in jail for a first offense, and between two and ten years in prison for a second or subsequent offense. (63 Ok. Stat. Ann. § 2-401.)

Manufacture and Sales
Manufacturing or selling marijuana (or possessing marijuana with the intent to do so) in Oklahoma is illegal. Penalties vary according to the amount possessed, manufactured, or sold. Penalties may double for sales to a minor, and for violations that take place within 2,000 feet of a school, park or public housing units. (63 Ok. Stat. Ann. § 2-401.)

•Cultivating up to 1,000 plants, or selling up 25 pounds. Penalties include a fine of up to $20,000, between two years and life imprisonment, or both.
•Cultivating 1,000 or more plants. Penalties include a fine of up to $50,000, between 20 years and life imprisonment, or both.
•Selling between 25 and 1,000 pounds. Penalties include a fine of between $25,000 and $100,000, between four years and life imprisonment, or both.
•Selling 1,000 pounds or more. Penalties include a fine of between $100,000 and $500,000, between four years and life imprisonment, or both.
Drug Paraphernalia
It is illegal in Oklahoma to manufacture or sell drug paraphernalia (or possess paraphernalia with the intent to do so). Paraphernalia includes items used in growing, harvesting, processing, selling, storing, or using marijuana. A conviction may be punished with up to a year in jail, and a fine of up to $1,000 for a first offense; up to $5,000 for a second offense; and up to $10,000 for a third or subsequent offense. (63 Ok. Stat. Ann. § 2-101.1.)


Stamp Tax
A stamp tax is a tax imposed on certain types of transactions (such as the transfer of property) that requires a stamp to be purchased and attached either to the item sold or to an instrument documenting the transaction (such as a deed). The federal government imposes stamp taxes on deeds, the issue and transfer of stocks and bonds, and on playing cards.

In Oklahoma, those who buy, transport, or import marijuana into Oklahoma are required to pay a stamp tax and place the stamp (proof of payment) onto the contraband. However, because the possession of marijuana is illegal, people typically don’t pay the stamp tax. When you are convicted for possession, you will also be liable for payment of the unpaid taxes ($3.50 for each gram or portion of a gram). (68 Ok. Stat. Ann. § 450.2.)


The stamp tax bit was especially good for a laugh.

The difference between pot and alcohol use is that if you run to 7-11 and get hit by a DUI driver it's more likely going to happen in the late hours of the evening. Whereas if the driver that hits you is on pot it could just as easily happen at 10 am or 3 pm. Regular pot smokers stay stoned 24-7. I think our roads are dangerous enough without legalizing another gateway to traffic carnage.

The difference between pot and alcohol use is ...

That marijuana doesn't impair motor skills and alcohol does. They say about 20% of drivers on the road are impaired at any given time.. but when was the last time you heard of a stoner causing a fatality crash?

When you also weigh in the factor that marijuana use doesn't go up in places where it is legalized, and the fact that DUI for stoned drivers is still in effect in all states with medical marijuana, you'll see your argument is based on fear, not facts.

One more thing: Employers will always be allowed to drug test employees. And I'm not against drug testing people applying for food stamps, public housing, or medicare. The question is whether the GOVERNMENT should prohibit MATURE RESPONSIBLE adults from consuming marijuana.

marijuana doesn't impair motor skills
If that's been your experience I think you should ask your dealer for a refund.

That marijuana doesn't impair motor skills and alcohol does. They say about 20% of drivers on the road are impaired at any given time.. but when was the last time you heard of a stoner causing a fatality crash?

When you also weigh in the factor that marijuana use doesn't go up in places where it is legalized, and the fact that DUI for stoned drivers is still in effect in all states with medical marijuana, you'll see your argument is based on fear, not facts.

One more thing: Employers will always be allowed to drug test employees. And I'm not against drug testing people applying for food stamps, public housing, or medicare. The question is whether the GOVERNMENT should prohibit MATURE RESPONSIBLE adults from consuming marijuana.

Just a friendly piece of advice... If you want to lobby for the legalization of marijuana, don't include this in your argument. Many other places to start, but this one won't get traction with lawmakers or non-smokers in the populace.

If that's been your experience I think you should ask your dealer for a refund.
Is marijuana funny or deadly? Make up your mind.


Many other places to start, but this one won't get traction with lawmakers or non-smokers in the populace.
I didn't start here. Refer to post #129 for where I started.

If that's been your experience I think you should ask your dealer for a refund.

I don't much care whether someone is pro or con on cannabis ... I laughed, loudly.

I'm old enough to remember this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK3_apgXo00

There are probably more people under the influence and impaired from prescription drugs on the roads at any time than there is marijuana.

There are probably more people under the influence and impaired from prescription drugs on the roads at any time than there is marijuana.

Yes but legalizing pot will compound the problem of impaired drivers.

I doubt it, at least the medical legalization here doesn't seem to have affected DUI much, DUI under prescription drugs is still a larger concern here than medical marijuana. Most people who are willing to drive impaired are going to whether it is legal to buy or not.

stick47, out of curiosity what is your position on the use of cell phones while driving?

There are instances when I answer my cell while driving. I don't answer if it would create a possible risk. FYI I've been driving for 50 years and that includes having an M stamp on my license plus more than a few years of drag racing. (on the track where it's legal)
My level of driving ability is probably not going to improve but I think I'm still far above the average motorist as far as skill level goes.

I was more curious as to whether you thought cell phone use while driving was an inducement for impaired driving and if you think the use of cell phones while driving should be banned? In other words I am trying to figure out if you are just against marijuana or impaired driving.

MJ impairs 100% of the time. You can't compare that to cell phone use. Esp when as I said, maybe only used when level of risk is low.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm not envisioning a floor full of parrot heads singing along to

roll me something fat and strong
inhale a water bong til it feels so wrong
My eyes are burning bad but I don't care
It's 4:20 somewhere




Read more: JIMMY BUFFETT - IT'S FIVE O'CLOCK SOMEWHERE LYRICS (http://www.metrolyrics.com/its-five-oclock-somewhere-lyrics-jimmy-buffett.html#ixzz2CWa9qbLI)

Yes but legalizing pot will compound the problem of impaired drivers.

If you think there isn't people driving around high now, you are crazy. Just because cannabis is made legal doesn't mean that that many more people are going to say, oh weed is legal now I think I am going to start smoking it. Not gonna happen. The sames ones that are smoking it now will be the ones smoking after it is legal. They just won't be criminals any longer under a failed drug war. It's time to have these conversations here in Oklahoma.

"Dear Mom" - YES on 64 ad - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCVc_kLfjMg)

"Dear Dad" - YES on 64 ad - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb0HJR2dTR4)

Sorry but aside from pain relief I just don't see why anyone needs a conscious altering supplement to cope with their life.

Well if you don't like to alter your consciousness don't smoke or drink. But to tell someone else they can't alter their consciousness, if they so desire, is their business and no one else's. As long as they don't hurt anyone else, then it is no one's business but their own.

If you get behind the wheel under the influence you're committing a crime and also jeopardizing public safety. I imagine you disagree with that though.

Just because someone gets high does not mean they are going to go out driving. Just like not all people that drink alcohol are going to get behind the wheel.

Well good luck in passing that job related drug test then. Ya know even if pot is legalized it's still going to seriously limit opportunities for better paying jobs.

oooooh...

Dude..
2893

Well good luck in passing that job related drug test then. Ya know even if pot is legalized it's still going to seriously limit opportunities for better paying jobs.

I've known plenty of people hold off when needing to in order to pass the tests. I also had a boss who enjoyed it every weekend and he was pulling in $1.5M a year in pay. Damn that pot keeping him from getting a better paying job. LOL

Sorry but aside from pain relief I just don't see why anyone needs a conscious altering supplement to cope with their life.

If pot were legal I'd definitely spend the occasional Friday night smoking a blunt, watching a bad action movie and killing a bag of Oreos. Back when I was young, rebellious and didn't have to hold down a well paying job and support a family, I treated pot just like I treat alcohol: Something to unwind with, or to enjoy with friends.

Side note: I've known plenty of people in my career that were regular pot smokers. In an office job, as long as you're not showing up stoned or taking regular drug tests, it really doesn't make a difference.

If you get behind the wheel under the influence you're committing a crime and also jeopardizing public safety.

So the public seems to handle okay over the counter drugs that cause drowsiness. I don't know of any crusade going on to ban sales of them.

Yes but legalizing pot will compound the problem of impaired drivers.

I don't expect to smoke pot just because it becomes legalized, since smoke tends to irritate my throat. I've seen someone turn down smoking a joint before, because he soon needed to drive. So I suspect impaired drivers won't increase by much. Legalizing and regulating pot may make people more responsible in its use.

In theory, if personal consumption were decriminalized, it might well be removed from standard test screenings and tested only on specific events of concern, much like alcohol is today. Not advocating one way or the other, simply noting we don't tend to take punitive actions for use of a legal substance. A person taking Prozac by prescription will pop a positive on a test. Simple use, standing alone, isn't a job killer.

Marijuana use was very popular on college campuses during the Vietnam era. Most of the Vietnam protests were led by college students so Nixon saw them as the enemy. He commissioned a study about what to do about marijuana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Marihuana_and_Drug_Abuse). When he learned that the study recommended marijuana to be decriminalized, he tore it up in pieces. He blamed the legalization movement on the Jews:

You know, it's a funny thing, every one of the bastards
that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the
Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob? What is the matter
with them? I suppose it is because most of them
are psychiatrists.
And the next year saw a dramatic increase in marijuana arrests. That's right, modern marijuana policy is brought to you by the same man who authorized Watergate (illegal espionage), Kent State (4 dead protesters in Ohio), and the Cambodia firebombings (largest American war crime).

If I had my choice I would rather my kids smoke a little pot rather than take up drinking alcohol

If I had my choice, my kids would drink wine or beer at the dinner table and leave the rest alone. More and more studies are showing that kids' brains are affected by pot in detrimental ways that might not affect adults the same way, and let's face it, the pot kids smoke, these days, is much stronger than it was decades ago. I saw nothing good come from teens smoking pot as a guardian ad litem, and plenty just horrible in terms of memory impairment (even when not stoned), lack of motivation, school achievement dropping off, poor social skills and interactions, retarded maturity and addictive personality development. It also allows underlying mental illness to more easily gain a foothold. Excessive drinking is no good, either, but to pretend pot smoking is no big deal for kids, IMO, is dangerous. It is very dangerous for some kids (perhaps not all) but you just don't know which ones will be severely affected.

For that matter, it would worry me more to have my kids running with a bunch of potheads than kids who sneak beer. I say that from purely practical reasons - kids who drink can more easily hide it and if they are drinking, chances are if their parents don't know it, it is more likely because they were fooled. Plenty of good parents with good intentions are fooled by sneaky kids. it means they were fooled - it doesn't mean they aren't making a good effort to set a safe environment.

But kids who smoke have clothes and rooms that reek. Parents of the kids who ignore the smell are liable to be either potheads, themselves, dysfunctional parents who let their kids run wild, or clueless. How many of those parents are going to call the kid's parents and tell them that, although they let their own child smoke, they want to make sure it is okay for the neighbor kid to join in? They won't. They will just look the other way and that sets kids up to end up in a smoking den with no real adult supervision.

Good parents might let their kids drink at a certain age, in moderation, but I can't see good parents throwing open the bar for the neighbor kids to do the same because they'd realize that wouldn't be appropriate. Maybe I was wrong but I let my kids have a short glass of wine or beer with dinner (at home) beginning they were in their mid teens (16 - 17). We treated it as a learning experience and would discuss different types of wine or beer, how it was brewed, moderation, etc. But I can't imagine having one of their friends over and offering them alcohol without their parent's permission. And I wouldn't serve my kids alcohol if we had company because that is something another parent might not feel comfortable with.

Kids sneaking behind the barn to smoke or drink is one thing. It happens. Kids whose families tolerate unsupervised drinking, smoking, etc. and allow other parents' kids to use their home as a safe haven tend to be bad news because there is a break down in boundaries. I wouldn't trust those families to properly keep an eye out for my kid.

Penny, no one is talking about letting kids smoke. The new laws in CO and WA require you to be an adult to have possession.

If I had my choice, my kids would drink wine or beer at the dinner table and leave the rest alone. More and more studies are showing that kids' brains are affected by pot in detrimental ways that might not affect adults the same way, and let's face it, the pot kids smoke, these days, is much stronger than it was decades ago. I saw nothing good come from teens smoking pot as a guardian ad litem, and plenty just horrible in terms of memory impairment (even when not stoned), lack of motivation, school achievement dropping off, poor social skills and interactions, retarded maturity and addictive personality development. It also allows underlying mental illness to more easily gain a foothold. Excessive drinking is no good, either, but to pretend pot smoking is no big deal for kids, IMO, is dangerous. It is very dangerous for some kids (perhaps not all) but you just don't know which ones will be severely affected.

For that matter, it would worry me more to have my kids running with a bunch of potheads than kids who sneak beer. I say that from purely practical reasons - kids who drink can more easily hide it and if they are drinking, chances are if their parents don't know it, it is more likely because they were fooled. Plenty of good parents with good intentions are fooled by sneaky kids. it means they were fooled - it doesn't mean they aren't making a good effort to set a safe environment.

But kids who smoke have clothes and rooms that reek. Parents of the kids who ignore the smell are liable to be either potheads, themselves, dysfunctional parents who let their kids run wild, or clueless. How many of those parents are going to call the kid's parents and tell them that, although they let their own child smoke, they want to make sure it is okay for the neighbor kid to join in? They won't. They will just look the other way and that sets kids up to end up in a smoking den with no real adult supervision.

Good parents might let their kids drink at a certain age, in moderation, but I can't see good parents throwing open the bar for the neighbor kids to do the same because they'd realize that wouldn't be appropriate. Maybe I was wrong but I let my kids have a short glass of wine or beer with dinner (at home) beginning they were in their mid teens (16 - 17). We treated it as a learning experience and would discuss different types of wine or beer, how it was brewed, moderation, etc. But I can't imagine having one of their friends over and offering them alcohol without their parent's permission. And I wouldn't serve my kids alcohol if we had company because that is something another parent might not feel comfortable with.

Kids sneaking behind the barn to smoke or drink is one thing. It happens. Kids whose families tolerate unsupervised drinking, smoking, etc. and allow other parents' kids to use their home as a safe haven tend to be bad news because there is a break down in boundaries. I wouldn't trust those families to properly keep an eye out for my kid.

I did some googling, and found multiple sources that do agree with you on THC concentrations. Interestingly, one of them stated that while potency has gone up, the average amount used has gone down. It's a pro marijuana site, so hardly unbiased, though. I do think the research on TCH's effects on a developing brain is very interesting, but there are studies that show similar problems with alcohol consumption.

To your main point, though, I think that your heart is in the right place. Kids need to be taught how to responsibly handle things like alcohol and drugs. With alcohol, it's easy. Give 'em some beer and wine with dinner. Teach them that it's a regular thing that regular people consume in moderation. My kids can have a glass of wine or a beer when we have a get together, and they see it as normal. Since pot is illegal, I can't exactly share a joint with them like I shared a few beers with my dad when I was a teenager. I suspect that the effects of THC on brain development are more related to habitual, heavy users(We all knew that pothead that was too stoned to remember what day it was...).

Really, as far as bad habits go, I'm not that concerned about my kids drinking or smoking pot with moderation(I do worry about binge drinking, I saw way too much of it when I was in college). I feel that we, their parents, have done our best to educate them on what the effects are, and what the consequences are and what not to do(For the love of god, call us if you're ever too drunk to drive). What really worries me is that one of them will take up smoking. Their mother and I, as well as their dad, smoked for a long time. We managed to quit a few years ago, and their dad managed to quit this year, but I'm worried that the damage is already done and the behavior is already imprinted. Out of all the dumb things that I did as a kid(And there were plenty!), smoking tobacco was easily the stupidest with the longest term effects.

Penny, no one is talking about letting kids smoke. The new laws in CO and WA require you to be an adult to have possession.

Actually, they were talking about kids, onthestrip. My comment was in direct response to the comment just before it.

NoOkie, I think the problem, is often practical. As you say, it is relatively easy to control the amount of alcohol you provide your child and you can easily couple light drinking with education. You always end up having to hope for the best but it helps that few responsible parents are going to serve your child alcohol without your permission. Culturally, that doesn't happen that much.

Pot smoking, not so much and that isn't going to change for quite some time. That might be because of the stigma of smoking and it might be that might change over time, but we aren't nearly there, yet. For every sensible pot smoking adult who would see the benefit of educating their child about pot smoking - and the wrongness of exposing someone else's child to pot without their express permission - there are 100 more that would just look the other way when junior and his buds lit up. And that leads to really dangerous situations. I DON'T want my stoned fifteen year old daughter making decisions about sex and birth control while over at some pothead's unsupervised house in the afternoon anymore than I would want her to make those sorts of decisions when she is drunk. I just don't see any reason to believe that pot is less dangerous in any tangible way for kids than alcohol - they are both dangerous in different ways - and some in common.

If Ganga is "legalized" wouldn't all of the gangstas behind bars for related-activities have to be released and provided with lawyers to sue for wrongful imprisonment?
(FlashForward to Lawyers Office . . . Guy pounding on door . . . "Dave???" . . . "Dave's not here, man . . . i mean mon" . . .)

Penny, I guess my rationality is that the 15 yr old girl would be able to make a more rational decision while being high over being drunk.

NoOkie, I think the problem, is often practical. As you say, it is relatively easy to control the amount of alcohol you provide your child and you can easily couple light drinking with education. You always end up having to hope for the best but it helps that few responsible parents are going to serve your child alcohol without your permission. Culturally, that doesn't happen that much.

Pot smoking, not so much and that isn't going to change for quite some time. That might be because of the stigma of smoking and it might be that might change over time, but we aren't nearly there, yet. For every sensible pot smoking adult who would see the benefit of educating their child about pot smoking - and the wrongness of exposing someone else's child to pot without their express permission - there are 100 more that would just look the other way when junior and his buds lit up. And that leads to really dangerous situations. I DON'T want my stoned fifteen year old daughter making decisions about sex and birth control while over at some pothead's unsupervised house in the afternoon anymore than I would want her to make those sorts of decisions when she is drunk. I just don't see any reason to believe that pot is less dangerous in any tangible way for kids than alcohol - they are both dangerous in different ways - and some in common.

I think the same 100 parents that would ignore a joint would also ignore a bottle of whiskey. I think that's just general irresponsibility and not a unique stoner irresponsibility. I can see where you're coming from though, in that someone that already ignores laws with rather harsh penalties just to get high is probably not going to be a great parent. If it was legalized, those people would still make ****ty parents, but I imagine there would be other casual users that wouldn't be. Personally, I'm with you in the not wanting other parents to allow my children to partake in illegal(or legal, really...), thought-impairing substances without my permission be they alcohol, marijuana or whatever else.

I really think the parental permission side of it is the least dangerous part. It's the kids that they're friends with that have much more influence. I spent a lot of time drunk and stoned in highschool, and it was never with anyone's parents "looking the other way". I knew people that were older and had their own apartments, or just went out to a random field somewhere and had "deep" conversations that involved saying "Dude, wow" a lot.



Penny, I guess my rationality is that the 15 yr old girl would be able to make a more rational decision while being high over being drunk.

I really don't see the difference here. I've been really drunk, and really high and the quality of the decisions that came out of both situations were equally poor.

We managed to quit a few years ago, and their dad managed to quit this year, but I'm worried that the damage is already done and the behavior is already imprinted. Out of all the dumb things that I did as a kid(And there were plenty!), smoking tobacco was easily the stupidest with the longest term effects.Don't worry overmuch about it. I was a heavy smoker for some 40 years, and my wife took it up shortly before our marriage. Our sons all grew up in a home that undoubtedly reeked of stale tobacco smoke -- and as a result they all developed a total revulsion to it! Hopefully, you'll be as lucky...

I did quit, some 25 years ago, but the damage to my body had already been done. I now have an implanted defibrillator, and only 50% lung capacity -- but I knew what I was doing and did it anyway, so I now have no right to complain about the consequences...

Penny, I guess my rationality is that the 15 yr old girl would be able to make a more rational decision while being high over being drunk.

I couldn't disagree, more. In fact, for many, pot acts as an aphrodisiac. I'm just saying...

well . . . i guess it isn't too late to ban--or re-approve?--smoked oysters . . . libido-wise or -stupid . . .
(just out of curiosity . . . is it the oysters themselves or the string of pearls for a necklace that makes oysters famous?)

If Ganga is "legalized" wouldn't all of the gangstas behind bars for related-activities have to be released and provided with lawyers to sue for wrongful imprisonment?
(FlashForward to Lawyers Office . . . Guy pounding on door . . . "Dave???" . . . "Dave's not here, man . . . i mean mon" . . .)

Love the joke at the end. As to the earlier part, in a word ... nope.