Isn't it amazing that marijuana and other drugs haven't precipitated the demise of humankind over the past several thousand years that they have NOT been illegal. How did we ever make it this far? Mike Gray, in an interesting book titled Drug Crazy, points out that women rarely drank alcohol before prohibition. People rarely smoked marijuana or used other drugs before prohibition. He notes that the addiction rate 100 years ago was about 1%, the same as today and the most effective tool against addiction in the late 19th - early 20th century was the Pure Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that required manufacturers to list ingredients on labels. Once people realized what was in patent medicines (opium, cocaine, laudanum, etc.) they stopped purchasing them. It may take a generation or two but with the "hidden fruit" aspect removed by legalization (or decriminalization) and the decrease in sensationalism in media, addiction would probably return to being a minor medical problem affecting only a very small percentage of the population. Just my opinion.

DrZarkov99 do you have access to any links substantiating the health risks to the pulmonary system? I have often wondered about these risks yet trying obtain facts seems quite difficult. Of course proponents are always declaring that smoking MJ has few health risk factors in comparison to tobacco. We went to the moon hyped on cigarettes and coffee before lung disease set in. It's unlikely we will accomplish much sedated on MJ and alcohol.

There is NOT a lot of consensus: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/26...

No! Legalization is pro-freedom. Decriminalization still allows the state to take your freedom for using drugs, to mandate counseling, to take your gun rights.

LOL! Good one.

I'm reminded of a girl I dated for a short time in college back around 1972.
Once she started to smoke weed, she did not want to do anything or go anywhere.
Of course, I lost all interest in her and moved on. Other fish in the sea . .
.The last thing I heard about her word-of-mouth? She had quit college and been raped by a black drug dealer.

Yes, Carly does a great job of weasling around the topic, and saying exactly what will please her audience while simultaneously giving credence and her approval to the "science" that seeks to defraud everyone to concentrate power in a world government. She is a superb at selling herself, which is how she became CEO at HP, and failed all the shareholders. that is what she promises for the American people.
Power and wealth for Carly; more broken promises for Americans.

Jimmy Carter tried Zero Based budgeting - and budgets went up! These government bureaucrats are no amateurs when it cones to feathering their nests.

Your drugged and dying brain cells have found voice.

This is an example of someone that says what they mean more specifically: Gov. Inslee (WA State) announced to his supporters this week that he’s “writing new rules to cap carbon emissions” because “Republicans in our state legislature refused to act, so now I'm taking executive action.” There are many exceptions one could take to the governor’s strident, partisan e-mail, but I’ll focus on two things here: ....". Now Inslee is the type of politician that we need to fear, that will mandate whatever he knows as the real thing, be damned about the people and their stupid opinions.

I can't recall her support of "War on drugs" but I wonder what Ben Carson's "War on Drugs" Program would be like?

It's interesting about her comments on climate change, how we now disagree on what she said. I heard something completely different. I heard her say, " There is a lot of consensus among scientists that climate change is real, that human activity contributes....". This is not taking a personal position one way or the other to me. I also heard her actually say that it should not be mandated but innovated.... To me this means I have a choice, if I want to put solar cells on my roof I can, if I don't want to, I don't have to. Same goes for healthcare and educating my (grand)children. If the other side only heard her say, "It is real and man-made" would they actually vote for her? You can bet not, they heard every word.

Given that addicts generally don't want help until they've destroyed everything around them, if drugs are legalized, who will address the "health problem" you mention, and under what circumstances?
As the father of an addict, I would prefer execution of anyone who sells illegal drugs. Then kick them in a hole and be done with them. Period. That doesn't mean we have vigilante mobs running around killing people. It means the risks of selling are too high, so the problem dries up.

Marijuana legalization isn't working so well for Colorado. Recreational users don't like paying the high price of regulated, taxed MJ, and the black market is thriving. The cartels are brazenly using Mafia tactics to take over registered distributors. Traffic deaths from marijuana use are rising (probably more than documented, since users also consume alcohol, which is easier to detect). Middle school users are a growing group, and teachers report a drop in student interest.

Treating drug use like alcohol consumption may not be the best way to undo the war on drugs disaster. Licensing users, allowing them to purchase THC capsules and liquids from pharmacies without a prescription, just like cold medicine is one approach, and I'm sure there are others.

What amazes me is that a medical community obsessed with pulmonary health has remained silent with respect to smoking marijuana. The tars in marijuana smoke are as harmful to the lungs as tobacco smoke, and perhaps more carcinogenic. Maybe a vapor delivery system for THC absent the harmful tars would be less potentially harmful. More research on safer delivery systems would be helpful.

I guess if someone kills you, you will only be technically dead. I can accept that.
As to global warming, er, uh, climate change, er, uh, man-caused climate change, you obviously look the other way at the fact that government promotes itself by funding and therefore rewarding "science" that raises alarm and promotes massive government intervention and thus ever larger government. Science isn't the problem; human nature is the problem, which is why we have a Constitution designed to limit its harmful effects.
As to Common Core, I refer you to this, which speaks for itself:

http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/02/6-s...

Unlike the old days, marijuana now comes in various strengths. Some varieties create little effect while others, of equal measure, blank out your weekend.

Yes, but Rand means it. Fiorina just wants to be more powerful than Janet Yellen. Looter.

Fiorina disqualified herself when she chastised Carson for saying Muslims should not be elected President.
What she does not accept is that one can not be a good Muslim and subordinate sharia to the Constitution.

Admitting human activities accelerate climate change? Television makes people perceive the world as being dramatically smaller than it really is. As a result they perceive humans have more influence on the environment and ecology of the planet than they really do. It is easy to look at a landfill and imagine the whole world looks like it. However, that is a mistaken perception or assumption. When one realizes that the entire world's population could gather on Long Island, NY (1400 square miles), it becomes difficult to believe humans could be responsible for affecting the climate of the earth (197 million square miles).