Couldn't agree more. All of the money and resources wasted harassing citizens for cannabis possession and use is just plain ludicrous. As you stated, a majority of citizens in this country are now in favor of legalization. . All the crap we've been fed over the years ("it leads to stronger things") is just that......crap. The opportunity to generate huge revenues as well as millions in savings within government should not be ignored any longer.

LOL

Seriously . . . The authorities would love if everyone spied on their neighbors. I refuse!! If my neighbors want to grow the whacky tobaccy, that's their business, not mine.

The best thing that you can do to stop this erosion of personal freedom and privacy is work to end this prohibition. During alcohol prohibition, citizens were required to spy on their neighbors, or risk a criminal penalty. Please consider supporting NORML or mpp.org. Register to vote and vote for anyone that wants to end this East Germany Stazi mentality.

If you saw my neighbor, you'd have no problem "spying" on her, too!

JUST KIDDING...IT IS A JOKE!!! :)

I like this article, it shows how low our government has sunk in an attempt to preserve "public safety" by criminalizing private behavior.

Snooping neighbors do not need a warrant. Just an end run by LE.

Sargent Stedenko?

Well, with the city having so many financial difficulties, I wouldn't doubt if the police are behind this post. It sure would save them a lot of money if they could get the residents themselves to sneak around finding the law breakers for them.

The police are not behind this post. I asked Det. Gottas for these tips/signs.

So detectives are in no way, shape, or form associated with the police department? Wow . . .

Dude, some tasty waves and a cool buzz. Saves Brooke Shields from drowning. Blows reward money hiring Van Halen to play his birthday party.

I agree, why give the profits to the Mexican Cartels? They clearly don't have the U.S.A.'s best interests in mind. The cartels will ALWAYS have more money than the cops, because taxpayers resist most tax increases to fund more law enforcement; and marijuana users will always pay more for weed, if they have to. Legalize it and force the gun-toting street dealers to get real jobs. Use a weed tax to pay for more law enforcement to solve real crimes.

"You are all being silly with the "spying" angle" Spying on your neighbors and subjecting them to no-knock police raids is hardly "silly". It's serious business; just ask the family of Jose Guerena. Jose Guerana, an Iraq war veteran was gunned down by an AZ SWAT team who was trying to reach their quota of drug raids. No drugs were found. The officers denied paramedics access to their victim and allowed Guerena to bleed to death in front of his 4 year old son. "I don't agree at all that marijuana is harmless drug you all make it out to be" How many Americans died from marijuana ingestion last year; or in the last 5,000 years? Debbie, if it was so "dangerous" surely someone would have died from overdose by now, right? "Marijuana is illegal" obviously, but WHY is it illegal? Is it illegal because it's illegal? Or was it a conspiracy to outlaw industrial hemp? Hint: Anslinger-Mellon-Hearst-DuPont. "I certainly wouldn't want any neighbor of mine growing it " So you would prefer that they buy it from the Mexican cartels that behead thousands and the street dealers that carry guns? Sounds like the Al Capone days! "I sure as heck *would* report it if I observed any of the suspicious behavior listed above. " Of course you would, you feel an unhealthy need to control others' behavior.

Kevin - again, this article has nothing to do with spying, which is the point I was trying to make. And even if it did, a simple report by a neighbor is certainly not enough to trigger the federal warrant necessary for a no-knock raid. (As to your example of Jose Guerena, the story is not nearly as clear-cut a story as you've made it out to be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Guerena_shooting)

As for the danger, your argument only holds water if I accept the premise that the death of the user is the sole measure of danger. As the pieces to which I linked point out, there are many other considerations. (Oh, and people *have* died from it, albeit a small number - only 35 people from 1979-2002 according to the CDC - but not the zero you are implying).

Why is it illegal? Because it's harmful as a drug. It wasn't grown in colonial times for its medicinal properties; it was grown for making rope and fabric. Marijuana has been restricted and regulated for over 150 years. Are you really trying to tell me that a 150+ year old "conspiracy" is the cause of the regulation? (Anslinger didn't come on the regulatory scene until 1930 - 70 years AFTER the first regulations on cannabis began appearing).

We all need to abide by the law, especially when the majority of Americans (as of last November) still agree with that law. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57327004-503544/poll-public-supports-medical-marijuana-but-not-full-pot-legalization/

Debbie, you admit that only 23 people per year die from marijuana, while 480,000 die each year from alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and FDA approved medications. Marijuana is vastly safer than any other drug on the market. The Jose Guerena story IS clear cut. The guy wasn't selling, growing, or possessing marijuana; yet they came crashing in anyway. This tragedy would have been avoided if marijuana was legal. "Are you really trying to tell me that a 150+ year old "conspiracy" is the cause of the regulation?" Yes I am. Marijuana has not been prohibited for "150+" years, only regulated, much in the same way "medical marijuana" is regulated by 17 states and D.C. now. It wasn't even "outlawed" by the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937; just taxed. The Tax Act was ruled unconstitutional in 1969 [Leary v. United States]. Congress repealed the Marijuana Tax Act and passed the Controlled Substances Act. The DEA still makes no distinction between colonial hemp and marijuana, so the Pilgrims grew MARIJUANA. "We still need to abide by the law"? That is wishful thinking. The point is that people DON'T abide by the law. They don't abide by the Florida law that prohibits intimate relations between unmarried consenting adults despite the threat of jail time. Marijuana prohibition is every bit as unenforceable as alcohol prohibition. Your poll link is from 2011. Rasmussen has a poll from this year that has 56% in favor of legalization. 70%+ support medical marijuana.

Right Deb, it's more about informing than spying. The Nazi's were big proponents of informing on friends and family. That's not a model we should be following. Have you ever exceeded a speed limit? TIA

Debbie Schinker, most of us know that individuals who use illegal drugs are going to get high—no matter what, so why do you not prefer they acquire them in stores that check IDs and pay taxes? Gifting the market in narcotics to ruthless criminals, foreign terrorists and corrupt law enforcement officials is seriously compromising our future.

Why do you wish to continue with a policy that has proven itself to be a poison in the veins of our once so proud & free nation? Even if you cannot bear the thought of people using drugs, there is absolutely nothing you, or any government, can do to stop them. We have spent 40 years and trillions of dollars on this dangerous farce; Prohibition will not suddenly and miraculously start showing different results. Do you actually believe you may personally have something to lose If we were to begin basing our drug policy on science & logic instead of ignorance, hate and lies?

Maybe you're a police officer, a prison guard, or a local/national politician. Possibly you're scared of losing employment, overtime pay, the many kickbacks, and those regular fat bribes. But what good will any of that do you once our society has followed Mexico over the dystopian abyss of dismembered bodies, vats of acid, and marauding thugs carrying gold-plated AK-47s with leopard-skinned gunstocks?

Kindly allow us to forgo the next level of your sycophantic prohibition-engendered mayhem.

Prohibition prevents regulation: legalize, regulate, and tax!

Debbie doesn't understand that prohibition prevents regulation. From the 1850's -1937, marijuana was increasingly regulated by mostly fair laws that mandated labeling, prescriptions, etc. From 1937 onward, it has been mostly unregulated, except for medical marijuana states. Can you think of any other market where the users are begging to be taxed and regulated because the current prohibition model is so inconsistent and obviously a failure?

Here are 40000 LEO's who believe what you do. LEAP.cc

She's making it up as we go along. She says it dangerous, BUT DEA Administrative Judge (Hardly a pro legalization person) said;
Drug Quote #016 – DEA Judge Young on marijuana

“Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality…Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death…In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity…In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume…Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.” – DEA Administrative Law Judge, FL Young, 1988

I believe the DEA judge who said it is safer than many common foods. BTW, that was a DEA Commissioned report, which they totaly ignored because it didn't fit their agenda of prohibition.

Right, Debbie and the study showed that moderate use by adults did not affect I.Q.

Legalization would take the profit out of selling marijuana illegally to teenagers.
There is evidence that regulating marijuana does not increase teen use.

Marijuana Usage Down Among Colorado Teens, Up Nationally: Study Shows
"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/07/marijuana-usage-down-in-t_n_1865095.html";

Please offer evidence that the current prohibition on marijuana reduces use rates. My statistics say differently:

Past month marijuana users in the U.S. have increased slightly from 5.8% in 1988 to 6.6% in 2009 (Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Data Archive), despite the war on drugs spending increasing from $9.7 billion in 1990 to $15 billion in 2010 (Source: ONDCP fact sheet 172873).

You may try to use the model of alcohol prohibition to prove your point:

“We find that while alcohol consumption declined sharply at the onset of Prohibition, within several years it rebounded to 60-70 percent of its initial value and did not increase substantially immediately following the repeal of Prohibition. Claims either that consumption during Prohibition increased significantly or that it fell to a small fraction of previous usage can be patently rejected.”

Source: Alcohol Consumption During Prohibition, Jeffrey A. Miron; Jeffrey Zwiebel
The American Economic Review, Vol. 81, No. 2,

Also, please offer an explanation as to why industrial hemp should be categorized by the federal government (schedule I) as more dangerous than cocaine or meth (schedule II). Does industrial hemp make people "stoopid"?

"My main concern is that legalization will mean a big increase in usage."

Got any proof of that? Portugal decriminalized marijuana in 2000, and they have a use rate of 4%, while ours is 14%. In the Netherlands, where they sell marijuana at coffee shops, use rates are 1/2 of ours. Medical marijuana has not increased teen use in Rhode Island or Colorado.

"Then, you will have an increase of people smoking pot while driving"

"Comparing traffic deaths over time in states with and without medical marijuana law changes, the researchers found that fatal car wrecks dropped by 9% in states that legalized medical use."
Source: Medical Marijuana Laws, Traffic Fatalities, and Alcohol Consumption by D. Mark Anderson, Daniel I. Rees (November 2011)

"Its the same as drunk driving. "

..not even close...where do you get this false information? Drunk driving causes 17,000 fatalities per year. Do you have a number for how many Marijuana-only car fatalities we had last year? Studies where the researchers are relying on THC metabolites are invalid.

“At the present time, the evidence to suggest an involvement of cannabis in road crashes is scientifically unproven. REFERENCE: G. Chesher and M. Longo. 2002. “Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving, [but] it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. [However,] this in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk. … Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving.” REFERENCE: Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002. Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in (i) a more cautious driving style; (ii) increased variability in lane position (and headway); and (iii) longer decision times. Whereas these results indicate a 'change' from normal conditions, they do not necessarily reflect 'impairment' in terms of performance effectiveness since few studies report increased accident risk. REFERENCE: UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). 2000. There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks. REFERENCE: M. Bates and T. Blakely. 1999. “Role of cannabis in motor vehicle crashes.” Epidemiologic Reviews 21: 222-232.

Kevin - All your references (save one from 2011) are a decade or more old.

"Kevin - All your references (save one from 2011) are a decade or more old."

So what? Have marijuana consumers, roads, or cars changed that much in 10 years? All of your propaganda (Save one from 2012) is right out of the 1980's 'just say no' playbook.

I have a hard time believing that you believe in science-based standards when you assert "Seems like the last thing that America needs is another product that makes people stoopid and lethargic"

I could not find the word "stoopid" in Webster's New World Medical Dictionary.

You talk about marijuana like it is something that has yet to be invented.

It's already widely used and prohibition has not worked as a form of effective regulation. The proof is that any teenager can get a bag of weed easier than a six pack of beer.

Jeff, marijuana isn't being introduced, it's being legalized. Many tens of millions of people are using it now.

I have no way of verifying whether or not your anecdotal statement is true. Even if I had proof that this happened, anecdotal evidence is worthless unless backed up by scientific studies. Your "Common Sense" is merely an opinion, and we have more than enough opinions in this country.

I never said it was "OK" to drive under the influence of anything, including cough syrup or alcohol. The question is; "what happens when people ignore the rules"?

I was providing evidence to show that your nightmare scenario will not come true, and there is scientific evidence to show that your statement "Its the same as drunk driving." is patently false.

In WA, they now have legalized marijuana and a 5 ng/ml delta blood-THC limit. Please provide evidence that this form of regulation is less desirable than all-out prohibition.

Anyone that drives 5 mph over the speed limit doubles their risk of an accident, but we don't jail them for that. Texting increases the risk by 23X.

The questions are piling up, and you are avoiding them. Can you answer the following:

1) Do you have a number for how many Marijuana-only car fatalities we had last year in the U.S.? Studies where the researchers are relying on the presence of month-old THC metabolites are invalid.

Where are the bodies? Prohibitionists talk about 'risk', but they cannot show me the "piles of dead bodies attributable to marijuana use".

2) Also, please offer an explanation as to why industrial hemp should be categorized by the federal government (schedule I) as more dangerous than cocaine or meth (schedule II). Does the ban violate your notion of 'common sense' or does it not make sense from a scientific perspective?

3) Does industrial hemp make people "stoopid"?

Dev your knowledge of culture and science is overwhelming. Seriously I think millions of parents with children with A.D.D or other disorders would love to give you a piece of their mind.

Potheads in the 60s? LOL people in the 60s were smoking pot, dropping acid, eating whatever kind of pills they could find and sleeping with everything that walked. But yeah it was the pot that screwed them up.

"it’s like playing Russian roulette with 3 in the chamber vs. 1."

Got anything quantitative to back up that statement besides lame opinions and stereotypes? Why didn't civilization collapse in the 5,000 years that it was legal before 1937?

"ALMOST all seem to have kids with A.D.D/behavioral disorders."

Do some research into the lousy GMO-Gluten-Sugar-Caffeine diet that these kids have and get back to us.

"Guess who they voted for"? They voted for tweedle dee instead of tweedle dumb. Remember that both candidates have advocated increased govt spending, universal healthcare, continuing the 'war on some drugs', gun bans, gay marriage, etc. Not much difference between Romney and Obama. Now I know your rant is politically motivated and has nothing to do with science. Sorry that you don't believe in science. The rest of us are moving on.

Castor, I remember the HSBC scandal. The DOJ was quoted as saying that too many jobs were at risk if they shut down the bank for laundering cartel and terrorist money. We have a two tiered justice system where the rich white banksters are allowed to profit and the brown street-level dealers do serious prison time so FJH can comfort himself with the delusion that he is winning the 'war on non-tobacco, non-alcoholic, non-pharma drugs'.

I agree, Castor. The DEA is the most worthless bunch of a-holes on the taxpayer funded welfare dole. I'd love to see them laid off, on the street, eating from trash cans. Most famous drug warriors are festering, oozing hypocrites. Many famous ‘drug warriors’ have been and are guilty of using, smuggling, or pushing drugs. Nixon was addicted to the narcotic Dilantin. Ronald Reagan was a spokesman for Chesterfield cigarettes, the most deadly drug on the planet. Ronnie’s Iran Contra operation was a front for coke smuggling. Nancy Reagan (a child abuser) was addicted to tranquilizers. Bush H. (a Halicion addict) was on the board of Eli Lily, makers of the dangerous and defective Darvocet. Bill Clinton inhaled. Bush W. was an alcoholic that refused to deny doing illegal drugs. Rush Limbaugh was busted for pills. The list goes on and on.

Prohibitionists = Devil Worshippers.

A non-psychoactive component of marijuana, CBD, may be useful in preventing or treating alzheimer's. Anyone caught with this lifesaving chemical contained in a marijuana plant faces jail time by the feds (except for a handful of federal medical marijuana patients). Is the government trying to kill us by denying us this plant? Perhaps it is sweet justice that anti-marijuana crusader Ronald Reagan would have been helped by this plant, but instead died in an alzheimer’s induced stupor?

Source: “Alzheimer's disease; taking the edge off with cannabinoids? “ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190031/

@ James..Prohibitionists are devil worshippers. Here's proof:

Jonathan Magbie was a 27-year-old quadriplegic sentenced by Washington, D.C. Superior Court Jduge Juditch E. Retchin to 10 days in jail for marijuana possession. It was Magbie's first offense. Retchin was well aware of Magbie's condition, that he needed a ventilator to breathe, and that D.C.'s jails weren't equipped to handle him. Even prosecutors in the case asked her not to send him to jail. She did anyway. Once he was admitted, the jail's assistant medical director called Retchin, and begged her to allow Magbie to be sent to a hospital instead. She refused. Magbie soon fell into respiratory distress, and was sent to an emergency room. An incompetent doctor then sent him right back to the jail, where he died hours later.
King describes Magbie's last moments:
Magbie's last night at the D.C. jail could be likened to a night in Guantanamo: He was confined in a room with no means to communicate. Conditions worsened when he was returned [from] the hospital. Carbon dioxide was building up in his bloodstream because, without a ventilator, he wasn't breathing deeply enough.
Magbie, fatigued from fighting to stay alive, drew smaller and smaller breaths and his heart finally gave out.

Mr. Hunt,
IF TRUE
this is prosecutorial malfesance, not Devil worship.
Do you know what Devil Worship means?

@ James
IT'S TRUE
This is devil worship, not prosecutorial malfesance.

Drug warpigs = devil worshippers and enemies of God.

Jose Guerana, an Iraq war veteran was gunned down by an AZ SWAT team who was trying to reach their quota of drug raids. No drugs were found. The officers denied paramedics access to their victim and allowed Guerena to bleed to death in front of his 4 year old son.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2011/11/27/swat-team-shooting-marine-jose-guerena-ortiz-provokes-rage/

Makes sense to me TY

In WA and CO, employers do not have to accomodate marijuana use. I'm not sure if my previous posts are showing up (because I can't see them), but there IS a 'breathalyzer-type' instrument for detecting recent marijuana use that has been developed by Siemens.

Most companies require random drug testing (urinalysis) to detect marijuana use. As for field sobriety tests....they are not required by any law and no one may be compelled to participate. Participation is strictly voluntary, and you always have the right to refuse.

A common misconception. You won't be transported anywhere unless placed under arrest. The law compels you to produce I.D. You do not have to provide anything else nor converse with the police. Just show them you I.D. and say nothing. Decline to participate in any excercises, conversations or questioning. Know your rights.

The law clearly states the use of chemical tests. Physical performance tests (field sobriety test) is not referenced in the ORC. Breathalyzer, yes......but no "and/or" referenced. Read the law accurately and carefully.

Nothing wrong with knowledge. If you live long enough, you tend to pick up on a few things. I research things that apply to me. If it upsets you sensibilities........I just don't care. When I read your comments, I am both curious as to your jealousy and entertained by your false sense of education.

starkey, you are truly a dipstick. what kind of life can you have under the bridge ?