My thanks to JTO for quickly updating information on the Rhode Island situation. One section of the linked article should be repeated here as it demonstrates the depth of support in the Rhode Island legislature for licensing mmj dispensaries to allow qualified patients more immediate access to medicine than they could obtain by growing it themselves: "In late May, the House approved (the mmj dispensary) bill by a 63-to-5 vote. An identical bill ... passed the Senate on June 9 by a vote of 31 to 2." BTW, the RI House voted 67-0 to override the Governor's veto, and the Senate voted 35-3. Rhode Island may provide the model we need to approach President Obama's statement that "...using medical marijuana in the same way, with the same controls, as other drugs prescribed by doctors, I think that's entirely appropriate." Again, thanks to JTO for this quick update.

I like the way JTO is fair and balanced and allows honest, robust debates among it's readers. As Bernie said Thanks JTO.

I would approve it if the drug was put in the hands of the FDA and it had the same controls as every other prescription drug out there. Oh wait a minute, it already does. And the FDA says it is not safe to allow people to self medicate themselves with a mind altering drug, and marijuana is addictive and smoked marijuana leads to lung cancer and other health risks. But keep pushing this stupid drug onto our children, we needed something to replace the tobacco industry, and of course we replace it with something ten times worse. See ya in the obituaries.

Verde, since you seem new around these parts, you should know that here in this corner of the reality-based world (where many of us actually use our real names), it is often useful to cite sources for other readers to check. If the FDA statement you are referring to was the press release they put out several years ago without documentation -- the one that the Institute of Medicine-affiliated scientists who prepared the exhaustive and thoroughly documented National Academy of Science's report, "Marijuana as Medicine", criticized as simply a political diatribe to justify continued flawed federal policy re: mmj -- you must know that THAT FDA statement has been wholly discredited in the reality-based world. If, however, there is another FDA statement you are referring to, please provide us a link. Unless, like yourself, it is more expedient to keep your FDA statements anonymous and without the ability to independently verify them. These days, it isn't easy being "green", is it?

Over 300 chemicals, many carcinogenic, in pot, plus its potential for addiction-- the number one "drug of choice" requiring in-patient treatment at Montgomery's Chemical Addictions Program for over seven years among abusers ages 12 to 35, the documented damage from marijuana to neural activity as reflected so graphically in Dr. Daniel Amen's SPECT (Single Photon Emmission Computed Tomography) brain scans, cautions by CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta, voluminous research by NIDA and others, and so much more-- just how much evidence do you need, Bernie? "Political diatribe?" Does anyone seriously think for even a moment that government-grown, regulated pot with a finite, limited THC content, plus potentially hefty federal and state taxes to boost cost, will replace much more potent (and cheaper) pot smuggled by cartels, or for that matter, grown at home? Medically beneficial? Perhaps legalization proponents should also take up handling of poisonous serpents-- makes just about as much sense. This issue exemplifies the old adage that none are so blind as those who refuse to see. BTW,Bernie, my name is Frank Winkler.

Frank, in addition to vaporizers eliminating CO and tar exposure for medical cannabis users (and mmj tinctures and oral sprays also reducing noxious exposures), the reality-based evidence for the low levels of marijuana hazards is voluminous. To quote DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young: "Nearly all medicines have a toxic, potentially lethal effect, but marijuana is not such a substance. There is no known record (of) a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality.... The record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience ... (and it) is now used daily by enormous numbers of people .... (D)espite this long history ..., there are simply no credible reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death. By contrast, aspirin ... causes hundreds of deaths each year.... (R)esearchers have ... been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.... A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.... Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis, marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care." Judge Young's conclusions have been mirrored by 15,000+ medical journal articles since 1988, and by another DEA judge's review and similar ruling since then. Of course, the DEA continues to ignore all science, and its own judges. Why? "Never argue with a man (or a government agency) whose job (or existance) depends on not being convinced." H.L. Mencken For more on Judge Young's ruling, see http://www.mamas.org/fjudge.htm

Frank, your previous comment required a two-part response (my first here.) In the majority of in-patient and out-patient tx admissions for mj use, the precursor is more often contact with the criminal justice system, not a non-cj-related DSM-IV diagnosis of mj dependence (a label that, nonetheless, is added to the stigma of arrest to justify hefty fees charged to treat many mj users who do not need treatment.) In addition to my previous post, I would refer you to both the IOM's "Marijuana as Medicine" and the recent American College of Physicians' position paper ("Supporting Research into the Therapeutic Role of Marijuana") which further buttress DEA Judge Young's conclusions about marijuana's relative safety. (Here's a link to the ACP report: http://www.acponline.org/acp_news/medmarinews.htm) Finally, there is no reason to believe that medical cannabis produced under government-regulated programs by competent growers would be either less desirable or more expensive than illicit pot. In fact, the model we are working with to re-establish our state's mmj program would price organically grown medical cannabis (provided through pharmacies) at $60/ounce, which is one-fifth the cost of street pot of unknown quality and one-tenth the cost of an equivalent prescription for Marinol (synthetic THC which is much less effective and less palatable than whole-plant cannabis.) In conclusion, I am glad that you are one of the few drug worriers here who does use your name. You are a rarity, as is the mmj user whose negative consequences outweigh her medical benefits.

I never have posted three comments in a row here (and hope never to do so again.) But, Frank, your comment about the potential for cannabis addiction does require this final comment. I published a CSAT-funded study in Wyoming of substance use & dependence among women seeking reproductive health services in public & private women's health clinics. In this group, a comparison of the tobacco and marijuana use/dependence stats is informative. Of women who had ever used tobacco, two-thirds were still using, half met the DSM criteria for lifetime dependence and more than one-third met current dependence criteria. By contrast, of the women who had ever used marijuana, less than one-fourth were still using, less than 10% had ever met DSM lifetime dependence criteria and less than 4% met current dependence criteria. These differences are quite remarkable, particularly in light of the well-documented risks of tobacco use during pregnancy. (I can provide the paper to anyone who emails me: tracevu@bellsouth.net). I do appreciate JTO continuing to be a good place to discuss these issues. Like police officers, it has been hard for substance abuse counselors to relate clinical experiences honestly for fear of appearing "soft" on drugs. That appears to be changing and both society and people in serious need of substance abuse treatment will benefit as a result. Once again, thank you Frank for using your real name here. It's a pleasure to debate these issues with you -- much more pleasant than handling poisonous serpents, and more sensible too.

Bernie, your arguments not withstanding, treatment stats show only too clearly the potential for addiction to pot and need for treatment, which according to Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN, is approximately comparable to alcohol, tobacco and not much below cocaine. Likewise, the neural damage indicated in SPECT scans show clearly the risks and consequences. Regarding weaker government-grown pot, this has been the single largest complaint by those few who do actually receive Federally produced pot by prescription- that it is simply too weak/ low in THC content to satisfy their needs. Regarding the myth that pot has never killed anyone, simply take some time to talk to traffic accident investigators who have personally witnessed the carnage resulting from smoking pot and driving. Finally, the practical problems of regulating and controlling "legal" pot are voluminous, as reflected in numerous reports now eminating from California.

Frank, I agree that Ole Miss pot is inferior ditch-weed so saturated with pesticides & chemicals as to be dangerous. (I know several federal mmj patients who receive that dreck.) However, why would you think that any state-controlled production facilities would do as poor a job as Ole Miss which, BTW, I is intentional since the Ole Miss schwag is the only cannabis "approved" for US clinical research. If the feds intentionally produce inferior cannabis, might that be to adversely impact the results of clinical research using that dirt-weed? (That is a rhetorical question.) I also agree that we can do much better than California, whose program is grafted on the illicit market and relies on illict producers to maintain it. You should study Rhode Island's legislation -- it is worth other states modelling after. Discussions are now underway in a half-dozen other states (including TN) to develop state-controlled and regulated mmj production systems. Even the cj folks I have discussed this with in TN agree that such an approach is the way to go. As far as mj-caused traffic crashes, no test has been developed to gauge mj impairment by drivers (I agree that we need one). Finding cannabis metabolites in traffic victims is not evidence that they were impaired by pot at the time, since those metabolites persist for weeks. I don't want anyone abusing any intoxicant. That has never been an issue with the terminally ill people I have provided cannabis to (free of charge) in the past. It won't be an issue for the 600+ cancer, AIDS, MS and other seriously ill patients that the RI compassion centers will serve.

It might not be an issue for seriously ill patients, but that is precious little consolation for victims of drivers under the influence of pot who have maimed and killed other innocents. LLikewise, a terminally ill patient could probably care less about addictive qualities, but that in no way make the weed any less noxious and high risk for others. Denying it happens in no way refutes the reality of the problem. And say what you will, pot potency will remain a significant issue once regulated by the government, especially given the penchant for growers to produce still stronger pot via selective hybridization, cross-breeding of strains, etc. A quick review og High Times gives clear indication of the constantly growing demand for still stronger pot. And once sold, how is anyone- short of a sophisticated lab test- to determine whether the weed is "legal" or not. But this is just one of many issues legalization presents-- limited space here precludes a detailed summary. Bottom line: legalization is not the solution-- it is the core of a much larger problem.

Watch 1000 ways to die, you get two watch two pot heads that run out of weed and start smoking other plants in their yard trying to find something else to get high on. The ultimately find some poison sumac and smoke it. Quess what happens, They both die! So don't tell me that there are no marijuana related fatalities. Marijuana is addictive and when poor people are addicted and can't afford to maintain their fix, they become the problem of everyone else. Oh, I forgot to tell you my name is Verde.

Feds' Top Pot Researcher Says Marijuana Should Be Legal: (Los Angeles, CA) A U of California researcher who has performed US-govt sponsored studies of mj and lung function for over 30 years says that pot should be legal. In an interview with the McClatchy newspaper chain, Donald Tashkin of the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, said: "t this point, I'd be in favor of (mj) legalization. I wouldn't encourage anybody to smoke any substances. But I don't think it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance. Tobacco smoking causes far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more harm (than mj)." Tashkin said that when he began his work thirty years ago, he "opposed ... legalization because I thought it would lead to increased use and that would lead to increased health effects." However, he now admits that his decades' worth of scientific research revealed an opposite conclusion. In 2006, Tashkin led the largest population case-control study ever to assess the use of marijuana and lung cancer risk. The study, which included more than 2,200 subjects (1,212 cases and 1,040 controls), reported that mj smoking was not positively associated with cancers of the lung or upper aerodigestive tract – even among individuals who reported smoking more than 22,000 joints during their lifetime. "What we found instead was no association and even a suggestion of some protective effect," Tashkin told the newspaper chain, noting that cannabinoids cause "cells to die ... before they age enough to develop mutations that might lead to cancer."

Such revelation and their was no CNN story. Is Tashkin still alive? You should find him and put him on TV. He sounds like a good one to argue your case. Once again, you compare marijuana to alcohol and tobacco, which we want to get rid of also. The point is, why add another intoxicant or problematic drug to our environment. You know very well that if the federal government would got serious about the war on drugs, our society would be better off. The problem was is they declared a war on drugs and didn't hold anyone acountable.

In answer to that tired argument: "why would you want to add another intoxicant to our environment?", I suggest that we promote the idea that users switch from tobacco and alcohol to cannabis which is clearly the healthier choice.