Comments on: Maine Voices: Effort to legalize marijuana is full of smoke and mirrors, Cumberland DA says Tue, 29 Nov 2016 04:02:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: FradyCat5 Sat, 29 Oct 2016 14:08:00 +0000 You seem rather blissful to me.

By: PhilDeBowl Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:07:00 +0000 F’off Troll

By: gadfly371 Fri, 21 Oct 2016 15:00:00 +0000 Don’t want druggie upvotes, thanx!

By: gadfly371 Fri, 21 Oct 2016 14:58:00 +0000 Yeah, stupid. Is this list of “stars” supposed to impress?

By: gadfly371 Fri, 21 Oct 2016 14:56:00 +0000 No. First you’re stupid, then you start using dope.

By: gadfly371 Fri, 21 Oct 2016 14:56:00 +0000 Exactly. Stoners are ignorant!

By: gadfly371 Fri, 21 Oct 2016 14:55:00 +0000 Stoner logic is as twisted as their mind when wasted!

By: gadfly371 Fri, 21 Oct 2016 14:53:00 +0000 “Addiction to TWC does nott exist”. What a lie!

By: gadfly371 Fri, 21 Oct 2016 14:51:00 +0000 And you’re a moron!

By: gadfly371 Fri, 21 Oct 2016 14:51:00 +0000 Cannabis put hair on my chest!

By: snojam Fri, 21 Oct 2016 02:22:00 +0000 Higher THC content means less stress for the lungs. Addiction to THC does not exist. (Except in the minds of prohibitionists). Your theory about content increase is false: if you smoke one joint of 20% THC pot, it won’t be worse than smoking two joints of 10%.

By: FradyCat5 Wed, 19 Oct 2016 16:51:00 +0000 That’s what they always say.

By: DirtyDog Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:41:00 +0000 What a joke of an article. The author should be ashamed: either by their lack of integrity to take money to write such obviously false junk, or, their lack of sense to know what they’re writing is wrong.

By: PhilDeBowl Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:33:00 +0000 Well stated.

By: PhilDeBowl Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:27:00 +0000 Upvoting your own comment is kind of stupid.

By: PhilDeBowl Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:25:00 +0000 In the states that have Re-Legalized Cannabis there is a constant fight against the dark forces of prohibition. The Prohibes in our state legislatures are doing everything they can to undermine the program that they never wanted in the first place, and you’ll have your hands full just keeping the Prohibes from eviscerating the law or making it complicated beyond reason. Good Luck.

By: PhilDeBowl Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:15:00 +0000 One has to wonder what a Legalization law that she agrees with would look like.LOL

By: PhilDeBowl Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:10:00 +0000 This woman is such a F’n liar, she even contradicts her own lies, and SHE is a DA??? WTF.

By: PhilDeBowl Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:04:00 +0000 ” how to interpret words”,,,,,Lawyers Manipulate words,not interpret.
As our famous X pervert in the Oval office Bill Clinton said “it depends on what the meaning of is is”.

By: PhilDeBowl Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:58:00 +0000 Perry’s comment has 9 people who bothered to upvote, you got zip, that should tell you something.

By: PhilDeBowl Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:57:00 +0000 Careful with that stereotyping, I’m almost 72 and me and most of my friends who enjoy the herb know the difference between Cannabis and Hard drugs.

By: PhilDeBowl Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:51:00 +0000 You shouldn’t.

By: JohnB Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:17:00 +0000 I gave a complete point-by-point refutation above.

By: JohnB Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:46:00 +0000 The phenomenon you are describing is dependent on the actual dopamine receptors being damaged by the stimulant.

Obviously, whether that damage occurs depends on both the individuals’ biology and the substance being considered as well as the frequency of use.

Some people who are prone to addiction are more susceptible to such damage, even from typically benign substances such as cannabis, or rather THC.

Other people can take much more powerful substances for years and have relatively little synaptic damage.

The problem with your analysis is that it lumps together substances such as heroin, which almost always causes receptor damage, with substances such as cannabis, which very rarely do.

Tolerance is a very different mechanism and set of chemistry than craving, which is a result of damaged receptors.

By: Neddman Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:08:00 +0000 Yes, for an efficient high. The problem is that as THC content increases, the body comes to expect the higher levels, thus building a tolerance. This is when the addiction starts to form.

This is not unlike alcoholism. Most alcoholics do not start out drinking hard liquor. Most start in their teens with beer, perhaps wine. Over time they add in the higher alcohol content beverages. Quick and efficient.

By: chris1465 Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:24:00 +0000 Wouldn’t accept false arguments? You’re right I wouldn’t. You say that like it’s a bad thing.

By: Gene Auprey Tue, 18 Oct 2016 06:28:00 +0000 The only smoke and mirrors into play here are coming from the DA’s office. He knows that this is just a referendum and that the Legislature will have ample opportunity to fine tune any problems with verbiage before it becomes law. They have done a good job handling the legal medical marijuana, to point where other states look at Maine as an example of a well run system. There is no reason to believe they will do any less of a competent job on legalizing recreational marijuana regulations.

By: snojam Tue, 18 Oct 2016 04:06:00 +0000 More THC % means less woody/leafy matter. Higher percentage doesn’t mean “stronger” THC. It rather means less other matters. Less THC % means more leafy matter to inhale in order to reach an average high.

By: Birchwind Mon, 17 Oct 2016 23:20:00 +0000 It is not the weed, that she claims knowledge, it is the way the proposed law is written.

By: Birchwind Mon, 17 Oct 2016 23:19:00 +0000 It is not the concept she disagree’s with, it is the wording of the law.

By: Birchwind Mon, 17 Oct 2016 23:19:00 +0000 Okay, which one’s and why?

By: Perry Platt Mon, 17 Oct 2016 20:00:00 +0000 I agree with you, Birch, in that the writer has learned well. And has taken that training to deliberately create a piece full of misinformation, cherry-picked data and a couple outright falsehoods.

However, one does not need an advanced education to see through this smoke screen, so I and many others are not the target audience. Rather, this opinion piece is aimed at those who aren’t so good at critical thinking

By: JohnB Mon, 17 Oct 2016 19:48:00 +0000 Slippery slope arguments are, by nature, rhetorical failures.

They are a specific type (category) of logical fallacy.

Beyond that, your slippery slope argument is factually incorrect; the highest percentage of THC in cannabis is found in the cannabis cup contestants, and in the most recent case, the winner clocked in at 31%, WELL above what is typically sold in Colorado.

The previous winners all came in under 28%, and most are in the 20-23% range.

There is no evidence of a 40% strain ever, period.

More to the point is the fact that most cannabis sold in Colorado is much less than 25%, and usually much less than 20%.

Even MORE to the point is that the increase in potency is so often used as a canard in anti-cannabis talking points; the percentage is trotted out as though the mere number in some way makes the product dangerous.

It doesn’t.

I love Woodford Reserve. I love Budweiser.

I don’t drink my bourbon the same way I drink my beer.

By: Neddman Mon, 17 Oct 2016 19:18:00 +0000 A lot of the legal marijuana sold in Colorado contains 30-40% THC. This is neither natural nor healthy. This will put us on a very slippery and scary slope.

By: Delia Ganon Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:59:00 +0000 This is completely false.Cannabis is the real thing. It really
helps people in so many different ways, and as the national outlook on cannabis
changes, I can only hope that more people will have access to good quality,
affordable CBD. As it is right now, many companies source the hemp to extract
CBD from abroad, and that cost is passed on to the consumer. If the US were to
change its restrictions regarding hemp and marijuana agriculture, companies
like would be able
to pass those savings on to consumers while still providing a high quality,
effective product.

By: FradyCat5 Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:40:00 +0000 “older, voters will take these points as fact” because they already think that way. BS like this just confirms their thinking.

By: JohnB Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:40:00 +0000 Well, Birchwind, I and lots of other cannabis reform advocates have more than a dozen years of post-graduate education, and I’m here to tell you Perry is correct; this opinion piece IS “full of deliberate misinterpretations, misrepresentations and a couple outright falsifications.”

By: FradyCat5 Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:38:00 +0000 Some people are stupid, some are not. Has nothing to do with “pot”. I find ignorance makes a person stupid, seeing as the info is out there and the ignorant don’t bother to find it.

By: FradyCat5 Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:34:00 +0000 Pelosi said something like pass the aca then read it, right? The marijuana laws aren’t as long and not that hard to read.

By: FradyCat5 Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:29:00 +0000 Where did she learn anything about cannabis? Certainly not the sources you mentioned. “being fooled” Our Govt has been fooling (lying to) us since day one about cannabis.

By: Youssef Ismail Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:45:00 +0000 Ah, the “big marijuana” boogieman. I’m sorry, but that mythical beast is every bit as real as unicorns. Take a look at the fortune 500, not a single marijuana company listed. Furthermore we already have field sobriety tests, and it is already illegal to drive while intoxicated. We arrest and charge people everyday for driving while stoned on marijuana, prescription pills, and booze. We don’t need a breathalyzer for marijuana anymore than we need one for vicodin. The rest of the “article” is simply too absurd to correct. Legalize it.

By: Pozessed Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:29:00 +0000 You forgot to mention all the judges, lawyers, police, and prisons that would lose out on easy money if pot were legal. I honestly believe the judges and lawyers whose livelihoods depend on marijuana prohibition have more to lose than corporations. Which is a sure sign of legislative corruption in my opinion.

By: Man 4 Freedom Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:22:00 +0000 Stupid like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Sir Richard Branson, Willie Nelson, James Garner, Carl Sagan, Louis Armstrong, Rick Steves, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Josh Howard, Tim Lincecum, Doc Ellis, Bill Walton, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Jennifer Aniston, Matt Damon, Woody Harrelson, Stephen Colbert, Madonna, Barack Obama…

By: Man 4 Freedom Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:22:00 +0000 Just more stupid reefer madness nonsense.

By: Man 4 Freedom Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:16:00 +0000 Some of our lawmakers and politicians are corrupt and answer to the will of big corporations rather than the people they’re elected to serve. If they’re properly informed they know cannabis is safer than booze, pills and tobacco. What scares them is losing the money from big corporations for alcoholic beverages and pharmaceutical drugs currently lining their pockets and keeping them in office.

Figures from the Center for Disease Control on numbers of deaths per year in the USA:

* Prescription Drugs: 237,485 + 5000 traffic fatalities
* Tobacco: 390,323
* Alcohol: 88,013 + 16,000 traffic fatalities
* Cocaine: 4,906
* Heroin: 7,200
* Aspirin: 466
* Acetaminophen (Tylenol): 179
* Marijuana: 0, none, not a single fatal overdose in all medical history and almost no traffic problems.

So, which is safer???? Legalize, regulate and TAX! Vote YES Nov 8th.

By: JohnB Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:58:00 +0000 It is disheartening that this screed is not clearly labeled as opinion rather than news.

Clearly many, especially older, voters will take these points as fact rather than as easily dismissed opinion because it is being presented in a way easily confused with actual news reporting.

So, let’s set the record straight, point-by-point:

• The legislation completely legalizes pot use for kids

While some mental gymnastics by the AG can wind a twisted path to such a conclusion, any lack of clarity in the actual laws is easily remedied by an afternoon session of the legislature to clarify things.

Such action will inevitably occur LONG before any cannabis stores actually open to sell fully legal cannabis.

The whole thing is just a scare tactic, and it fits perfectly with the entire history of cannabis laws, which have been driven by fear-mongering and outright lies since their inception.

I wonder if the AG knows why cannabis was made illegal in the first place?

• The legislation does nothing to protect the public from impaired drivers.

No legislation anywhere has the ability to do this, for precisely the reasons that the author goes on to acknowledge; there is no established correlation between a given amount of THC in the bloodstream (nor indeed even an accurate test) and ACTUAL impairment.

Requiring such is precisely the same kind of catch-22 that currently keeps cannabis a schedule 1 substance in the CSA.

There’s no proof that impairment actually occurs, and there’s no test to try to give that proof in any case.

We may some day have both a test and correlation to some level and actual impairment, but here’s the more important thing to consider; we have spent millions training officers to detect impairment, and have given them wide power to take a driver off the road is they suspect impairment.

The source of that impairment is irrelevant. So the tools to fight impaired driving already exist, even if we don’t have empirical science to quantify it.

Beyond all of that, we have several important points to consider when it comes to cannabis and traffic safety: First, despite cooked-up data by the RMHIDTA, there is zero evidence that legalization leads to a rash of cannabis-impaired drivers on the road.
Second, anyone who is careless enough to consume cannabis and then get right behind the wheel is ALREADY doing so. The laws against cannabis possession can do and have done NOTHING to stop this, so it is ridiculous to forestall cannabis law reform on the canard that somehow doing so will keep cannabis impaired drivers off the road.

• The legislation wreaks havoc on employers. It specifically prohibits an employer from penalizing an employee for using marijuana in a location other than the employer’s property.

I’m perplexed at why this author decided to included the best counter-argument ever against her own argument right in the bullet point, but there it is: “a location other than the employer’s property.”

Employers are just that, employers, not parents, not moral authorities.

We all sell them a certain amount of our time and talents in exchanges for money.

That is the sum total of that relationship, period.

An employer has every right to expect you to show up to work fully capable of providing your end of the bargain.

They have no right, however, to your bodily fluids, nor to any say about what you do on your own time or in your own place.

• This bill gives landlords no rights to impose (and tenants no rights to enjoy) smoke-free policies. The medical marijuana law allows a landlord to restrict smoking on their property if they adopt a 100 percent smoke-free policy.

Do I understand correctly that this author is advocating landlords having the right to allow highly toxic cigarette smoke but prohibit non-toxic cannabis smoke?

That argument has no legitimacy whatsoever; allow poison, but prohibit non-poison?

The bottom line is that landlords have every right – and even a responsibility – to provide entirely smoke-free living spaces.

Asking them to differentiate between one kind of smoke and another is ludicrous and gives them moral authority over what is actually a public health and safety issue, not a moral one.

• This bill gives the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry a mere nine months to set up a huge regulatory bureaucracy…

It is not surprising that this very weak argument is saved for last, since it is so easily dismissed.

Maine has not only five other highly successful examples from which to draw when drafting the particulars, there is also the entire medical cannabis experience as a foundation.

It shouldn’t take more than a few weeks to adapt regulations from another state, let alone nine months.

This author really needs to step up her rhetorical skills if she hopes to actually convince any thinking people to vote against issue 1.

By: JJFW Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:50:00 +0000 Pot makes you stupid.

By: Not Bob Moses Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:31:00 +0000 Lets see what percentage of Cumberland County voters approves Question 1. Then we’ll talk. Come 2018, Anderson ought to receive that many votes against her.

By: gadfly371 Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:29:00 +0000 A good chance it won’t

By: gadfly371 Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:28:00 +0000 A new DA who reflects “our” values. Whose values are our values? Stoner’s values?