Oregon NORML Honors Growers
This year 25 growers entered the competition by donating strains and 28 patients served as judges. Strains were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 10 for "appearance," "aroma," "taste," "smoothness (is it easy on your lungs?)", "potency (how strong is the strain?)," and "medicinal effect (how well does it work for your individual condition?)." Medicinal effect was given double weight in the scoring.
"Medicinal effect" is given so much weight because that's the current legal excuse for smoking pot. It's also something that is entirely subjective and unprovable.
More than 70 people attended the panels -including 11 lawyers who will pick Up 5.0 hours' worth of continuing-legal-education credits from the state bar.
Why does the Oregon state bar allow lawyers to go to Hempfest and earn legal education credits?
Oregon law will change on January 1, 2006, when Senate Bill 1085 takes effect. (Its author, State Sen. Bill Morrisette, was thanked profusely at NORML's awards dinner.) Patients and caregivers will be allowed to possess a pound and a half of dried herb and to grow six flowering plants and 18 vegetative plants under one foot tall.
Hey, Senator Morrisette, no thank you from the (not drugged out of our minds) citizens of Oregon, we already voted on that idea and we voted NO!
Do we have to wonder why so many kids are using marijuana when this state has awards ceremonies and Senators who advocate for it's use?
Senator Morrisette: representing his constitutents?
11 comments:
Is that your favorite bong in the picture?
There is only one set of arguments sillier than the "legalize" set: It's the pro status quo "maintain the prohibition" argument.
This is hands down the stupidest law on the books, a real "credit" to the christian jihad of a century ago.
The worst part of it is the expense:
1) It's expensive in money - money that could be spent on enforcement of laws prohibiting real live dangerous drugs.
2) It's expensive in time: Cop time, court time, etc. Same downsides.
3) It's expensive in jail space, and jail space is very expensive.
4) It's expensive in veracity. When neophyte users find out the "anti" arguments are pure compost [suitable for growing fine, organic weed] those people are more likely to disregard other warnings.
5) Finally, it's expensive in goodwill. People who would otherwise support public policy dis it, promoting the underground and giving it thousands of more willing participants.
Ignore the stupid people: Legalize weed.
it's hard to take you seriously when you don't take facts seriously. The idea that medicinal effect is subjective and unprovable is patently ridiculous, unless you think that the medicinal effect of ANY pharmaceutical is impossible to determine.
And you need to check your prevalence trends before claiming that "so many kids are using marijuana." Since 1996, recent pot use by 12th graders is DOWN 9%. Among 10th graders it's down 22%, and among 8th graders a whopping 43% since 1996. Your vacuous attempt to link pot smoking and NORML conferences is exposed by that little counterfactual, isn't it?
Pleased to see there are more dissenters around here than I thought.
You can say as many numbers as you want...at least Daniel showed his sources.
I find it humorous what some people consider facts when they don't quote their sources. Most people learn that in high school. Others must have been smoking pot instead of going to class.
We could use that money to enforce our meth problem, true. But then again, we don't really want to do that either do we? I mean, look at the source of the problem. We could stop the influx of meth from Mexico, but that would harm other ideologies.
There's just no way to spin that.
I want to "maintain the prohibition" on drugs like I want to maintain the prohibition on burglary.
Enforcing our laws against property crimes costs money, time, jail space, etc.
Good luck with your "legalize it" campaign.
I see a definite link between a culture that accepts pot use and the number of kids who smoke it. So do most professionals... just not the ones at High Times.
If you're referring to me, tim lewis, that was an oversight, I apologize.
The figures are from the preeminent school-age survey in the nation, UMichigan's Monitoring the Future survey. Figures are from 96 to 2004.
Google the phrase "Monitoring the Future" and you will surely find what I have reproduced.
Daniel, your analogy is odd. Burglary is theft from an individual. How does smoking pot take property from someone else, or harm someone else?
We prohibit burglary to prevent people from stealing from each other. We prohibit people from smoking pot...to prohibit people from smoking pot. Why?
"I want to "maintain the prohibition" on drugs like I want to maintain the prohibition on burglary."
Just out of curiosity, why? Drugs like marijuana are less dangerous in every measurable way than tobacco and probably even some OTC drugs that you don't even need an ID to buy. Who are druggies endangering but themselves?
Ah, sorry, cross-posted with Torrid asking basically the same question.
I'll check it out. Thanks!
We prohibit people from smoking pot...to prohibit people from smoking pot. Why?
Because legalizing it's use would cause an increase in it's use. It's use is bad for you. It harmful from a medical standpoint and harmful from a societal standpoint.
And let's not forget the DUI. There is no test to prove when marijuana was last smoked. People would be able to drive under the influence of pot with almost impunity.
We prohibit smoking crack... to prohibit people from smoking crack.
Drugs like marijuana are less dangerous in every measurable way than tobacco
Not in tar content. And being "less dangerous" than something that kills thousands of people every year isn't much to brag about...
"Because legalizing it's use would cause an increase in it's use. It's use is bad for you. It harmful from a medical standpoint and harmful from a societal standpoint."
Smoking isn't? Drinking isn't?
"And let's not forget the DUI. There is no test to prove when marijuana was last smoked. People would be able to drive under the influence of pot with almost impunity."
Sounds like they are now. Assuming this test doesn't exist, all they have to do is smoke before they leave. (Though the "influence" of marijuana on driving isn't exactly dramatic; I've read a report that said it noticed only a relatively minor, short-term impairment on reflexes. I'll try to find a link.)
"Not in tar content. And being "less dangerous" than something that kills thousands of people every year isn't much to brag about..."
That wasn't just semantics. Tobacco does kill thousands every year. Do you know how many marijuana kills? Eight. Eight in which it is possibly cause of death.
Over eight years.
So yeah. Less dangerous, I think.
Post a Comment