So I was reading his recent statements about pot legalization:
"If we want to expand this universe of people that are addicted and abusing drugs, well, you’ll have that chance in November," he said at a news conference. He added, "I don’t think that any state became stronger by being stoned."
I found his statements to be principally incompatible with the state's gun policy, which is beloved by republicans. Don't get me wrong, I totally support gun rights and all that, I just find it odd that politicians who support un-permitted concealed carry laws, un-permitted open carry laws and don't even support a maintaining a gun registry in the state somehow think pot legalization is such a dangerous policy.
Am I the only one that thinks this is empty fear-mongering?
Drugs are bad and cause harm.
Drug laws and prohibition are worse and exponentially increase the harm they cause.
Anybody that knows me, know I'm all for open and concealed carry, even un-permitted. But even I was shocked to see the governor of a state with that sort of policy cry foul on an attempt to legalize pot due to it opening up access. Crazy to me...
I know what you mean. I don't get t either.
It's Reefer Madness thinking.. If some one hasn't progressed beyond 1968, he NEVER will.
How anyone can look at the history and facts concerning prohibition of substances and think it is a solution to any of the ills brought by drug use or find controlling someone's consciousness and body to be anything but immoral is beyond me.
There is no justification for it.
Did you see his comments about free-flowing weed lollipops in high-schools? lol The dude is off his rocker.
But I know I can't be the only one who noticed the age to purchase a firearm (and carry it wherever with no permit) and the age to purchase pot would be the same in the state if the proposition passes... yet this is object that most disturbs the governor. Yeesh, that's tough.
Oh, the irony! The governor cites opiate addiction in his opposition to marijuana legalization. Scrolling down the page to related stories, it seems his biggest ally is an opiate painkiller manufacturer.
Painkiller maker spends $500,000 to keep marijuana illegal in Arizona
PHOENIX — A Chandler firm that could lose business from legalized marijuana is now the largest contributor to a campaign to stop that from happening here.
Reports filed with the Secretary of State’s Office show Insys Therapeutics, whose sole product is an opiate spray to treat pain for cancer patients, gave $500,000 to Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy. That is nearly four times more than the second largest donation of $110,000 from the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry to try to defeat Proposition 205.
Yes, he is fear-mongering. Prohibition has never worked and it isn't working now, in fact, it does more harm than anything.
Listen, just think about it. Really think...
Thought about it.
It's bull crap.
He's a little butthurt today, old-guy-syndrome. He'll live, though. =D
"I don’t think that any state became stronger by being stoned."
Does he think it's going to be mandatory?
But he did make a valid point about the unintended consequence of legalization, which I find wicked amusing as most repubs don't dare utter the words "unintended consequence" in the first place. He obviously realizes that in the wake of pot legalization many will simply opt for other black market items. In this instance, that would be opiates or opioids. Yet he decries the legalization of pot as a whole rather than following this thinking through to the logical end; i.e. complete legalization.
It honestly wouldn't surprise me if he did. lol
I don't recall there being any lack of weed in my high school, sometimes baked into brownies, and it certainly wasn't legal then.
As someone who is very familiar with addicts and addictions, I think he is the one who needs to get his facts straight regarding marijuana as compared to alcohol and other drugs.
You are hard pressed to find a Republican who favors legalizing marijuana, I doubt any would ever embrace complete legalization. Despite their talk of small government and freedom, they want the government to restrict us just as much as the Democrats do...just on different things.
Right??? Me either. Interestingly, alcohol was considerably more difficult to acquire.
What I love is how state governments fight it every step of the way, then try to take credit for the inevitable success. Like what happened in Colorado.
No. I read an article and didn't see anything to take great issue with. What he (according to the article) didn't mention is the possible effects on people's, especially young people's, mental health. It is an established fact now that it definitely causes psychosis, particularly in people with a predisposition for it (genetics). It's a highway to schizophrenia. If someone experiences psychosis after becoming a marijuana user, ceasing use of the drug has no positive effect. The harm is done. I've never used marijuana myself. I have been close to someone who did and was affected in the worse possible way. I'm sorry to know it will happen, and has happened, to others as well. It's not a moral judgement for me.
I call shenanigans! No Ma'am, you couldn't be more wrong on that.
It is not an established fact that pot "causes" psychosis, not even for those who start smoking it at a young age. There are various studies contradicting the distorted conclusions drawn from the study you just mentioned. To such an extent that even Harvard, the institution behind the original study, revisited the question and at great length. As a matter of fact it has been debunked by several legitimate studies, not the least of which was Harvard's own companion study on the long-term effects of pot:
Genetic predisposition is usually the primary cause of mental issues in people with genetic predisposition to mental health issues. How do we know this? Because their own study proved it:
"They concluded: “The results of the current study, both when analyzed using morbid risk and family frequency calculations, suggest that having an increased familial risk for schizophrenia is the underlying basis for schizophrenia in these samples and not the cannabis use. While cannabis may have an effect on the age of onset of schizophrenia it is unlikely to be the cause of illness.”
But wait, there's more, studies have actually found that certain cannibanoids may help in the treatment of psychosis:
"According to a review published in the January 2014 issue of the journal Neuropsychopharmacology: “CBD [cannabidiol] has some potential as an antipsychotic treatment. … Given the high tolerability and superior cost-effectiveness, CBD may prove to be an attractive alternative to current antipsychotic treatment.” Specifically, a 2012 double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial assessing the administration of CBD versus the prescription anti-psychotic drug amisulpride in 42 subjects with schizophrenia and acute paranoia concluded that two substances provided similar levels of improvement, but that cannabidiol did so with far fewer adverse side effects.
Ceasing use of pot has no positive effect because the pot is not cause of the mental health issues, genetic predisposition is. I am sorry for your relative, but the only effect pot had on their condition may have been speeding up and already inevitable onset of the illness. I have used marijuana myself, off and on (but no longer) for years spanning from the time I was a young teen, so I have personal experience with this topic as well.
Alone among 'professional' groups, politicians seem to have no idea that speaking from a position of profound ignorance inevitably reduces the impact of whatever you say.
We can make a joke of politicians for this but we should remember that they speak in this way to attract a certain kind of 'support'. If you think about that for a bit, it becomes obvious that the 'joke' is on all of us and it's a bad one.
I couldn't agree with you more. I have witnessed that tactic in practice so many times and it is truly disheartening.
Hmm - I think quite a lot of them will change their minds when they or their relatives start dying of cancer, or suffering from conditions like glaucoma. Marijuana has so many proven medical uses that the first step for Republicans will be to realise its benefits. Give them long enough to adjust to that idea and experience its benefits - and eventually they'll come around.
It does have some drawbacks. 1. It can predispose an anxious or schizoid person to paranoia. 2. Smoking it is likely to be as damaging to the lungs as tobacco, because of the high tar content - better as a tea or herb in food. 3. It slows down reflexes by half a second, which in driving a car or operating machinery can be enough to be lethal. These are not so much reasons against it as arguments for cautions and conditions.
Research has shown that it has many psycho-active biochemicals. The flowers of Sinsemilla can prevent schizophrenic-psychotic episodes - but any other variety or part of the plant can cause or worsen such attacks.
It may be that we have to think more about the issue.
But in the meantime I see it as the least harmful of all drugs we humans mess around with - certainly less harmful than too much alcohol or coffee.
What? It's true isn't it?