Marijuana.com

Lothar121

Pot Measure Approval Would Lack Fed Support
Alyshia Hamm | Daily Sentinel | 10/17/2006

In the upcoming November election, citizens of Colorado will have to make decisions on several very important and controversial issues. One of these issues is Amendment 44.

Amendment 44 would make it legal under state law for a person ages 21 and over to carry up to one ounce of marijuana. This legislation would replace the current law that imposes a fine of $100 for anyone possessing up to one ounce of marijuana.

This subject has been a hot topic of debate since the city of Denver legalized up to an ounce of marijuana within the city limits last November.

One major organization that has expressed opposition to Amendment 44 is Guarding Our Children Against Marijuana, also known as GOCAM. This organization is lead by Beverly Kinard, who has a history in politics including working with Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” anti-drug campaign.

Kinard said she fears the amendment would negatively affect children.

“It has been proven that when we portray marijuana as a dangerous drug, addiction goes down, while when portrayed as a less dangerous drug, addiction goes up,” she said.

Kinard also said she feared for unborn children.

“Moms who smoke marijuana are more likely to have children with behavioral problems and who have an 11 times greater chance of developing leukemia,” she said.

Another organization that is publicly against the amendment is the Drug Enforcement Agency. According its Web site, “Legalization of marijuana, no matter how it begins, will come at the expense of our children and public safety. It will create dependency and treatment issues, and open the door to use of other drugs, impaired health, delinquent behavior, and drugged drivers.”

“This is not the marijuana of the 1970s,” the Web site reads. “Today’s marijuana is far more powerful. Average THC (the intoxicating chemical in marijuana) levels of seized marijuana rose from less than one percent in the mid-1970’s to a national average of over eight percent in 2004.”

While there are many organizations opposed to this issue, there are also several that are in favor of it. One of these is Safe Alternatives for Enjoyable Recreation or SAFER. Mason Tvert, a campaign director for SAFER, makes a case for marijuana being ultimately safer than the already-legalized alcohol.

“What we have are two recreational substances,” he said. “The difference is that alcohol is more addictive and more toxic. It is also associated with aggression and violence, which means it is far more likely to lead to the harm of someone other than the user.

“According to the Centers for Disease Control, approximately 20,000 Americans die annually as the direct result of alcohol consumption. The comparable figure for marijuana is zero,” he said.

To his opponents’ argument, Tvert points out that Amendment 44 has nothing to do with kids.

“If it passes, it will still be illegal for anyone under 21 to possess marijuana, and it will still be a felony to provide a minor with any amount of marijuana,” he said.

The SAFER Web site itself sums up the organization’s beliefs in the statement: “Alcohol use is far more harmful than marijuana use to both the user and to society, and Colorado citizens are fed up with a system that punishes adults for using marijuana while allowing — and often encouraging them — to use alcohol. It is time our government stops driving people to drink and allow them to make the safer choice.”

The ultimate dilemma of this law however, is its direct conflict with federal law. While Colorado governments would be prohibited from punishing the use of limited amounts of marijuana, the federal government could still punish this act.

If this happened, the issue would more than likely fall into a Supreme Court battle, which will either kill the Colorado legislation or overturn federal laws dealing with possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Tvert said what the amendment boils down to is “should the adult possession of up to one ounce of marijuana be legal under state law?”

Voters will answer that question Nov. 7.

Alyshia Hamm is a Fruita Monument High School student writing on election issues for The Daily Sentinel in conjunction with Kids Voting of Mesa County.

 

troublemaker_42

OMG Where are they coming up with this BS? Notice articles like this are quick to spit out these facts, but rarely, if ever, provide the basis for their truthfulness? As long as they get their 2 cents in, the truth be damned, right?

reggie_the_dog

"“Moms who smoke marijuana are more likely to have children with behavioral problems and who have an 11 times greater chance of developing leukemia,” she said."


Where did she get that figure? Out of her ass???? What study shows a link between cannabis use of the mother and leukemia???

Also what study shows that there is a link between marijuana use and behavioral problems???

"Another organization that is publicly against the amendment is the Drug Enforcement Agency. According its Web site, “Legalization of marijuana, no matter how it begins, will come at the expense of our children and public safety. It will create dependency and treatment issues, and open the door to use of other drugs, impaired health, delinquent behavior, and drugged drivers.”"

Lets see, point 1,
I have no children, so why can you take away my freedom to smoke cannabis to protect other peoples' children that I do not even come into contact with?, Also how does the use of cannabis by adults harm children?

point 2, It will not create dependency and treatment issues. It is not physically addictive, and any mental addiction that can happen only affects 10 percent or less of users. Also as far as treatment goes there will be less people forced into treatment for cannabis use, therefore there will be more space for people DEMANDING TREATMENT THEMSELVES.

Point 3 How will this lead to an increase in the use of other drugs??? It would likely lead to a decrease in the use of other drugs, including alcohol.

Point 4 delinquant behavior would not increase, many people currently doing such delinquent things as smoking cannabis, or possessing a bong, would no longer be delinquents. Seeing as about 20% of the population of a given state is a cannabis delinquent, delinquency would threrefor drop by 20%

point 5 How would this increase the ammount of drugged drivers? Are people that now use no drugs, including alcohol, going to go out and start using just because cannabis is legalized? If they are not already using legal alcohol why would they start using cannabis? If anything you may change a situation in which alcohol use and driving would decrease and cannabis use and driving may increase.

“This is not the marijuana of the 1970s,” the Web site reads. “Today’s marijuana is far more powerful. Average THC (the intoxicating chemical in marijuana) levels of seized marijuana rose from less than one percent in the mid-1970’s to a national average of over eight percent in 2004.”


This again, so if 0% to 1% thc was what people smoked in the 70's we can say that panama red had about 0.5% thc, why is it that humans can not get high on 0% to 1% thc weed today if they could 30 years ago? Also what happened to the panama red strain to make its potentcy go from less than one percent to ten percent? Oh wait, it was always around ten percent wasn't it.


Also if 98% of all cannabis eradicated is ditch weed with 1% thc, that would mean that to get 8% thc weed for an average you would need to find cannabis that was 351% thc for the remaining 2% of the cannabis.

98% of cannabis found x 1%thc=98
2% of cannabis found x351%thc=702
98 +702=800
800/100= 8% thc,

so how can cannabis have over 3 and a half times its own weght in THC? That would mean that each gram of non ditch weed cannabis would have 3.51 grams (over an eighth) of THC.

Nugget Lover

Basically when we lie to the public they believe us...we need to continue lying to the public!

godfather

Well it is the crack of marijuana...