Embarrassing Typo on Anti-Legalization Site

Allow me to introduce you to Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana, an apparent front for the opposition to legalization in California. They're kicking things off in style with this grammatically incorrect slogan:

Our children’s future are in your hands…

I wonder if they've printed up any t-shirts yet. Honestly, I'm never sure how far to go in the direction of mocking our opponents for petty stuff like this, but I just couldn’t let this one slide. Even as I write this post, my grammar check is telling me to fix it.

It'll be fun to see how long it takes them to correct this, and while we're waiting, they have a moderated comment section that might be worth attempting to participate in.
Permission to Reprint: This article is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license.
Looking for the easiest way to join the anti-drug war movement? You've found it!

Their name should be "Cartels Against Legal Marijuana"

Because that's who will benefit.

Also cops, christians, corrections..

Make up a bunch of t-shirts with different names to play off.

yeah I just saw their

yeah I just saw their website. Its a bunch of kids! That just shows how stupid they are, they can say all they want but come November they're still not gonna be old enough to vote! lol

Agreed fully

Agreed fully

Have you seen the entire

Have you seen the entire site? Have you seen the crimes they are blaming on Pot? Even the comment section just says to leave a comment on why you're against legalizing it. These are people who genuinely believe "Reefer Madness" was a documentary of the highest standard and quality..

How can any real Christian support cannabis prohibition?

Jesus HATED hypocrisy and it's hard to get more hypocritical than alcohol users telling other folks they can't use cannabis.

Yeah, we might be able to seriously dog them with alternative meanings for CALM like Cartels Against Legalizing Marijuana. Sounds real good to me.

"Sure, marijuana may have

"Sure, marijuana may have never killed anyone as proponents often claim – just as a bottle of whiskey has never killed anyone."

I'll just leave that there.

What???

Do you know how stupid you sound? Alcohol is poison. Pot is a healing herb! End of discussion. You should not drive either way.

Do you know how stupid you

Do you know how stupid you sound? It's a quote from the site.

Really...

I bet a bottle of whisky has killed many people, just as a cheating husband...

Right

I think it happens, every year, that some college freshmen die from alcohol overdose and poisoning. Isn't it strange how these people think? Or do they think at all?

Ridiculous website

So I just checked the website over at CALM, and found that they claim that "Whiskey has never killed someone."

I mean, are they KIDDING? Have they never heard of alcohol poisoning? Or people dying from doing 21 shots?

I mean, come on. Just so weak.

Ha Ha. Their Wordpress theme

Ha Ha. Their Wordpress theme is "Blue Weed".

CALM is pathetic + a calmer country is the last thing they want

If they really want a calmer country, leveling the playing field between cannabis and bad boy alcohol is an obvious step to take. Their name invites ridicule that they won't be able to defend themselves against. I think they are seriously misjudging their ability to foist their lies and distortions on the public.

For example: "In 2005, for every $1 collected in taxes on alcohol and tobacco, almost $14 was spent to repair the vast social damages caused by their use. Legalization will see increased use and increased social damage." This is an argument for banning (or very steeply raising taxes on) alcohol and tobacco. What does this statistic have to do with cannabis? They're trying to use the violence caused by alcohol users to trash cannabis users! We'll see if it flies soon enough.
The statistic they ignore is how much governments are currently spending to repair damage caused by cannabis. Governments are spending (borrowing) plenty to enforce cannabis prohibition but that's not repairing any damage, it's destroying many lives. They're spending some money on drug treatment for cannabis users but most of that is for forced treatment for people who haven't done anything to anybody.

They also say: "The 'medical' marijuana experience has shown that growers and dispensaries sell marijuana on a cash basis and are not paying taxes now even though required."
This is an obvious gross exaggeration. And it shouldn't be that hard to crack down with severe confiscatory penalties on any dispensaries that aren't paying their taxes.
Given the overwhelming support for medical marijuana, their sarcastic use of the term "medical" marijuana seems like a real loser in public opinion, and is a good indication of how extreme and ignorant they are.

It looks like their whole site is full of this kind of nonsense. If this is the best the alcohol supremacists can do....

Web site for

Web site for Anti-legalization is a farce!!! Only interested in one "wrong" point of view.

CALM Website

I just went to the calm website - found 1, count em, 1 comment on the site. . .

So I posted the following rebuttal (let's see if it passes "moderation):

------------------------------------------------------------

“One primary reason is I’m fearful the level of narcotics-related crimes will skyrocket.”

Aside from the fact that Cannabis isn’t a narcotic, “narcotics-related crimes” are ALREADY skyrocketing – in the form of Mexican Cartels growing pot in our National Forests – how can eliminating the Black Market that supports the Cartels be a bad thing?

As for “government-regulated weak strains,” I suppose it will behoove the State to set reasonable standards. . . And the nice thing is, the “standards” already exist, thanks, in part, to the Compassionate Use Act. If the state sets reasonable standards, the low-grade stuff the Cartels grow would fall into the category of “Near Beer.” Problem solved.

If one uses the intelligence the Gods gave them, virtually every point of fear you cling to can be eliminated – easily and at little to no cost.

Let go of your fear – Fear leads to the Dark Side. :)

-----------------------------------------------------

I love using reason and logic to combat fear and ignorance. . .

So Much for CALM "Debate"

No, your reply is not there. Neither will my reply be there. They plainly state that they do not allow discussion of opposing viewpoints--the forum is only for pro-prohibition nonsense. I couldn't help but post a reply myself, but it will not pass the moderator. I hope to high heaven that we in California who want legalization will get out and vote in sufficient numbers to bury these know-nothings once and for all. If anyone else reading this blog is a registered California voter, you know what to do. If you are not a registered voter yet, you had better register and vote in favor of the proposition this November!

Tough moderator

As of 7/2 none no pro-posts have appeared on this site. I posted this just a couple of minutes ago just to keep them busy. Sorry about my own typos.
"I am concerned about the Constitutional propriety of public law enforcement agents using their official positions to endorse any political side in an election. Vote how you want but don’t try to use your position to openly advocate for a particular point of view. Stick with enforcing the law as written and just quietly go vote."

Pretty sure they aren't posting anything we write on their site

I tried. Prohibitionists have never had the slightest interest in open and honest debate on cannabis, or the war on users of selected drugs in general. I'll be surprised if that changes. They just want people to follow their orders, as if America is some crummy little dictatorship, and Americans are sheep.

I know it won't pass the moderator...

...but I left the following comment on their site in reaction to another post...

Respectfully, JH, America's experience with alcohol doesn't support your fears. Adult consumers can choose to purchase 3-12% beer, 6-22% wine, and spirits ranging as high as 90% alcohol. This is a drug for which the window of tolerable toxicity is actually quite small - a single bottle of bourbon, scotch, rum, vodka (approximate 50% alcohol) consumed in a short span is deadly. Yet we as a society have decided that the ills caused by prohibition are worse.

Marijuana on the other hand is not deadly. It's not possible to smoke enough to kill yourself. Yes, "modern marijuana" grown with the benefit of hundreds (maybe thousands) of years of plant genetics has produced strains that have reached 25% and maybe higher levels of THC, but we already know that 100% THC (in pill form) doesn't do anything "worse" than the organic variety. You get high. Ingest a lot and you fall asleep.

Murderous cartels ARE a terrible issue, just like the booze runners of the 20's with their tommy-guns and assassinations. The way we got rid of them was to decide that their ills were worse than the ills of alcohol itself. And we can and should do the same again, this time with marijuana. Ending the prohibition on marijuana would erase the profits the gangs depend on and move those profits into a system that can be regulated just like alcohol.

giggle...

Wonder if they'll post my comment? Wonder if they'll actually allow ANY debate on their forums? As I recall, nothing gets deleted here, except maybe ads. Odd, how those who wish to stomp on other's rights, won't let them speak either.

Intended Distractions?

Drug law reformers should maintain their guard despite the amateur efforts that appear on drug warrior websites.

Even if 98-percent of the opposition is made up of ignorant wackos like CALM, a far more insidious 2-percent can still prove themselves effective in battling reform. 

Giordano

Dude. Is "Blue Weed" really their Wordpress theme?

First off, most of us can do better than to jack someone's free theme. I mean, come on, it'd take them a few hours to build their own.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, I feel a new strain coming on. "Blue Weed": It's the next White Widow.

How can an out-of-stater get paid to help in California???

I'm just curious if any campaigns are hiring yet.

This one is my favorite:

From the CALM Website:

"26.9% of seriously injured drivers test positive for marijuana and 20% of all vehicle crashes are attributed to drugged driving."

What this sounds like: Whoa, like a fifth of all crashes are caused by marijuana??!??! Marijuana seriously injures 26.7% of all drivers!

The ignorance made obvious: 20% of vehicle crashes are caused by "drugged" driving. This means any drug, including meth, heroin, cocaine, barbituates, etc. etc. Now I'm wondering how many crashes are left once you factor all those out and leave only crashes caused by the marijuana user.

Then, once you've whittled their 20% down to this miniscule number, I'm going to ask how many of those few caused the accident. Of this handful of accidents, I'd then ask what we mean by "crash." Do we mean love-tapping a license plate? Or a 15-car pileup? It's totally possible, based on their own information, that marijuana has never been responsible for any significant accidents. We really can't say anything for sure.

The ignorance runs deeper still: Guess what, 26.7% of "seriously injured" drivers tested positive for marijuana! All this means is that 26.7% of people who happened to get into "seriously injurious" accidents did marijuana once. And then, at some point up to four weeks later, they drove. Oh, and we also don't know they caused their respective accidents either. How many of this 26.7% did marijuana three weeks ago, and thus tested positive, but was totally sober when they were seriously injured by a drunk motorist? I don't fucking know. But more importantly, neither does CALM.

For all we know, drunk driving is responsible for every accident here suggested by CALM to be the result of marijuana. This is really classic ignorant propaganda. God, these people are DUMB.... (and by that, I mean ignorant.)

It's possible they're not being dumb, but being demagogues

While they are certainly dense enough to actually not understand the issue, my guess would be that they know perfectly well that testing positive for marijuana (I think it's really testing for chemicals produced during the breakdown of cannabis in the body, not actually for cannabis) says absolutely nothing about whether you were UNDER THE INFLUENCE of cannabis at the time of an accident. But it's a slightly complicated issue to understand, you have to think about it for a few seconds, which makes it too tempting for alcohol supremacist creeps like "CALM" (anti-calm in reality) to pass up. It's going to be up to reformers (and honest news reporting) to help people understand the difference between testing positive for marijuana use at some point in the last week/month and being under the influence of marijuana. One benefit to it, crap like this should undermine their credibility with serious minded people.

Stats wrong?

The last report I saw was from 2007 (NTSB). It stated that of the fatalities, in auto accidents in this country, 38% were due to alcohol and of those 38%, 18% had other drugs in their systems. There was no mention of any drug, alone, having any statistical significance that would lead to them being listed in the report. There were not enough fatal accidents, related to cannabis, or any other drug, to count!

The 26% figure is flat wrong! Just like all the other lies they are trying to spread.

Projection

You are exhibiting the behavior of projection, which is when you accuse someone of doing something that you do yourself. This group wants to represent an anti-legalization point of view. Your website represents a pro-legalization point of view. They want legalization to fail--you want it to pass. That is democracy. They have a right to their arguments, and they are trying to present information which they believe is valid, based on sources of information. You may disagree with their arguments but your side is just as one-sided as theirs is, so you are doing the same thing. Criticizing a grammar error is nit-picking. Regarding traffic accidents and other information on their site, you are exhibiting denial, by denying that marijuana has any negative effects. There's just too much information out there to deny that marijuana has negative effects. If you can't deny, then you minimize by saying that the effect may be slightly harmful, but it is just not all that bad. For example, if it is reported that pot is more potent now than in the past, you will say that is not true, but then you will say, the user will just use less of it. So why are people trying to grow stronger strains? To use less or to get a stronger high? There will certainly be some people who will try to get a stronger high, no matter how much you deny it. Then you will say a stronger high is not dangerous, despite some research that suggests that it is. And the denial goes on and on...

Thanks Freud Jr.

Thank you for trying to educate this population by using a bunch of clinical psychology terms that come from a useless and dying form of psychotherapy (Analytic). It seems that you are interested in the study of psychology. So let me, an ACTUAL psychologist (who smokes marijuana 1-2x per week), educate you. People here are discussing the way in which the opponents twist information and present blatant lies as facts. I don't see how any person here is lying or stretching the truth so they are not "projecting" their flaws on the opponents. As far as I have heard, nobody here is in "denial" about MJ's negative effects on this page, they've only pointed out the misleading nature of the opponent's argument. No single person here has denied that driving while high is dangerous. They've only said that it does not cause nearly as many accidents as these opponents claim. I think everybody here realizes that driving while intoxicated is not safe no matter the substance. When people on this site "minimize" the harm Marijuana causes, in most cases they are citing factual information and arguing against an opponent who is falsely maximizing its' harm. Lastly, with regards to the jumbled mess that makes up your last 5-6 sentences: There have always been varying amounts of THC in different strains of Marijuana. Yes, some cultivators strive to create stronger strains as any other person who enjoys their career and wants to make a superior product would do. Yes, if there is a higher amount of THC, you don't need to smoke as much to get the same effect. Yes, some people will still smoke the same amount and get higher than before. So what? Lastly, NO, higher amounts of THC do not make the drug more dangerous, as it is impossible to ingest enough to overdose. It would make it more dangerous to drive, but not more dangerous to smoke. Stop trying to use outdated psychological terms to belittle people who are making a completely valid argument.

"Stronger" Is Not the Only "Strain"

I think the fact that your comments are posted and our rebuttals to CALM are not says quite a bit about the ethics of the opposing camps here. And the great thing about the latest developments in Cannabis cultivation you refer to is that strains have been bred for a pretty interesting variety of effects--sleepier, more energetic, more or less psychedelic, etc. Think of the joy to be found in a wealth of legal varieties. One can pick and choose intelligently. Look at Cannabis culture in Holland. That's pretty positive, by and large. Alas, there will always be "abusers" of any consciousness-altering substance. I believe, however, an open, legal atmosphere will bring the reasonable and rational breeders and users out of the shadows and into the forefront of imaginative, positive, rewarding cultivation, trade, and use. As far as "research" goes--the facts are still on our side. Sorry.

States are broke, they will legalize, because they smell money!

I am a Bible Christian. We are not recognized by any Church or Government....Thank God! The bible says "GOD gave man every herb bearing seed..." and I will NOT let the humans TAX what GOD gave me. So that they can use the money to promote whatever evil project they want. It cost about $50 an ounce if you buy from street dealers, I grow my own for about .17 cents an ounce (I DO NOT SELL IT). If the FEDs or state yahoos tax it, it will cost $100 to $200 an ounce. The government has run this country into the ground with their money schemes. Just say NO! (To taxation).
Christian-Marijuana.ORG

Where do people get these figures for cost of weed?

To the commenter above - Where in the world do you live that it costs $50 an ounce? Mexico? Because for the past 10 years, during which I've been smoking marijuana, an ounce has always been around 275-300 and of course it fluctuates with the quality level. I've never heard of a $50 ounce even for the worst of the worst weed. A Rand economist released a brief evaluation recently saying that if legalized, Marijuana will not be cheap enough in California for black market dealers to go out of business. In the report, this researcher cited some estimate saying that an ounce usually costs $100 and a pound was somewhere in the low $1000 range. Where the do these people get their info. It costs MUCH more, and if it were legal it would cost MUCH less than it does now. And even if black market dealers were able to lower prices enough to compete, why in the world would people risk their safety and deal with them when they could go to the local 7-11 and pick up their weed for the same price. People are so misinformed it's incredible.

Let's take their stupidity to the next level

Hey so since the moderator quickly deletes any non supportive comments on the CALMCA.org site, I've decided to go a different route. I'm going to leave comments that are so ridiculously against marijuana with the most transparently retarded reasons for being against it. I don't see how they'll be able to tell it is someone ridiculing them, because it will just be an extreme version of their own arguments. Who wants to join me?

For and against

I'll make it easy for anyone who is interested in reading another anti-store on every corner opinion.
This is what I wrote on the Calm-site.
Not here to judge. Only to express an opinion.

I typed in:
Citizens against Medical Marijuana
in my computers search engine
and I only found this site from
the Pro-pot site bashing this site.
That in itself is dissapointing.

Someone from the other site is
reading my every word and getting ready to attack anything that I'm about to say.

This is obviously an issue with people having extrememly strong positions from each side.

I really didn't expect the "Users"
to be so organized and outspoken.
I guess I expected them to be hiding and paranoid.

Should I go on or delete this?

A battle of the wits for the "Users". A battle of moral fiber in our commmunities from the "Just say No-ers".

My point and my position:
I don't like seeing these (HTC +)stores going up all over my city.

I have teenagers that I'm trying
to educate and convince that using
is not the best way.

I am trying to understand the whole prohibiton thing. I have also seen documentaries on Al Capone-era gang violence dealing
in illegal alcohol.

The users can call me a hypocrite all they like. I grew up here (in So. Cal.) in the 60's and 70's.
I got into the pot thing, and had a tuff time getting out.

While most of the teenagers were
at parties having mostly clean,
"honest" fun, I was hiding in the
bushes using.

Since this is such a complex issue, I won't try to win a nobel
prize here with my contribution.

Legal or not, I don't want my kids doing it.
legal or not, I don't want someone using, babysitting my kids.
Legal or not, if my neighbor wants to use it, and if they are respectable and loving, I don't want to be the one saying "Don't use it".

I have used. I don't want to use anymore.
I don't want these stores everywhere.
I don't my kids thinking it's ok.
And have to find out the hard way like I did.

This is just my opinion.
I'm living a Christian life.
I had to steal to support my habit.
I regret things I did in my youth.
I don't want my kids to follow my
painful path.

The users might have a laugh at this.
The Just say no-ers might think
I'm damaged goods and delete this.

I'm just one man, one father,
one neighbor, one friend,
living clear-minded.
Turning 49 years old this week.
Wanting to see a bright future
for myself, my family, my community.

It's difficult to have an open mind to both sides of this.
I am against the stores popping up everywhere.
I'm also against giant billboards
for Gentleman's Clubs.
It's something in our culture that
we as Christians try to ignore
(if I may speak for Christians).

There is good and evil everywhere.
We have to choose.
Our kids have to choose.
Who is to choose what is the good and what is the evil?
Only we ourselves can choose.
Only we as parents can guide
and teach what we believe is the
best way for our children to go.

People are trying to change our world, our culture. It seems to be working for better or worse.
I'm already thinking of pot now as medical marijuana.

When I was using I remember thinking that depressed elderly in nursing homes could benefit from the Med MJ.

Now that I'm a Christian, and not using, but raising a family, I have not thought about it for a positive effect like that. I link
it with my own "fall".

My dad hated it. He thought of it as a hard drug, completely despising it in every way.
And yes, he drank alcohol, and at that time I thought that was
hypocritical.

But I can only draw on my own experience. When I was in middle school I wanted to fit in with the cool kids.
Turns out, they were all turned on. So it seemed.

I went from a kid with a bright future, someone who had achieved
success in sports, from many years of practice and playing
to someone who was getting his head clouded all the time, getting
snubbed and dropping out.

Started stealing to support the habit. Regrets I have to live with for the rest of my life.

It came to the point where I didn't want to do anything but use.

I just don't want my kids to follow in that direction.
I realize that some people can
use and still achieve high goals.
But I believe the vast majority of users follow the drop out
model.

DOES THERE HAVE TO BE BLATANT STORES SELLING IT WITH OBVIOUS SIGNAGE?

Another weak argument on behalf of the pot heads

I saw the CALM website... pretty much a joke... but so is this one.  Are you pot heads serious?  All I hear from you people (yup... "you people") is that absolutely horrible "alcohol kills more people" argument... as if by shifting the focus to some other vice is going to eliminate the long term health ramifications caused by marijuana.

 

I suggest reading a couple of studies that discuss some of marijuana's long term hazards (not to mention social stereotypes, although that is less of a "real" issue).  Face it, pulling any kind of smoke into your lungs will never ever be healthy... sorry. 

 

  1. Franjo Grotenhermen (June 2001). "Harm Reduction Associated with Inhalation and Oral Administration of Cannabis and THC.". Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics 1 (3-4): 133–152. doi:10.1300/J175v01n03_09. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1300/J175v01n03_09
  2. Earleywine M, Barnwell SS (2007). "Decreased Respiratory Symptoms in Cannabis Users Who Vaporize.". Harm Reduction Journal 4: 11. doi:10.1186/1477-7517-4-11. PMID 17437626
  3. Abrams DI, Vizoso HP, Shade SB, Jay C, Kelly ME, Benowitz NL (November 2007). "Vaporization as a Smokeless Cannabis Delivery System: A Pilot Study.". Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 82 (5): 572–578. doi:10.1038/sj.clpt.6100200. PMID 17429350. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17821306
  4. Hazekamp A, Ruhaak R, Zuurman L, van Gerven J, Verpoorte R (June 2006). "Evaluation of a vaporizing device (Volcano) for the pulmonary administration of tetrahydrocannabinol". Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 95 (6): 1308–1317. doi:10.1002/jps.20574
borden's picture

you do realize

You do realize that all of these studies are implicitly based on the idea of marijuana being legal or at least acceptable? An activity for which the power of science ought to be brought to bear to help improve?

I myself am a Baptist and

I myself am a Baptist and it's time to legalize Jah gift to us. Gotta love the KUSH. Many major Christian organizations support Cannabis legalization.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <i> <blockquote> <p> <address> <pre> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <br> <object> <param> <embed> <b>

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Drug War Issues

Criminal JusticeAsset Forfeiture, Collateral Sanctions (College Aid, Drug Taxes, Housing, Welfare), Court Rulings, Drug Courts, Due Process, Felony Disenfranchisement, Incarceration, Policing (2011 Drug War Killings, 2012 Drug War Killings, 2013 Drug War Killings, 2014 Drug War Killings, Arrests, Eradication, Informants, Interdiction, Lowest Priority Policies, Police Corruption, Police Raids, Profiling, Search and Seizure, SWAT/Paramilitarization, Task Forces, Undercover Work), Probation or Parole, Prosecution, Reentry/Rehabilitation, Sentencing (Alternatives to Incarceration, Clemency and Pardon, Crack/Powder Cocaine Disparity, Death Penalty, Decriminalization, Defelonization, Drug Free Zones, Mandatory Minimums, Rockefeller Drug Laws, Sentencing Guidelines)CultureArt, Celebrities, Counter-Culture, Music, Poetry/Literature, Television, TheaterDrug UseParaphernalia, ViolenceIntersecting IssuesCollateral Sanctions (College Aid, Drug Taxes, Housing, Welfare), Violence, Border, Budgets/Taxes/Economics, Business, Civil Rights, Driving, Economics, Education (College Aid), Employment, Environment, Families, Free Speech, Gun Policy, Human Rights, Immigration, Militarization, Money Laundering, Pregnancy, Privacy (Search and Seizure, Drug Testing), Race, Religion, Science, Sports, Women's IssuesMarijuana PolicyGateway Theory, Hemp, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Marijuana Industry, Medical MarijuanaMedicineMedical Marijuana, Science of Drugs, Under-treatment of PainPublic HealthAddiction, Addiction Treatment (Science of Drugs), Drug Education, Drug Prevention, Drug-Related AIDS/HIV or Hepatitis C, Harm Reduction (Methadone & Other Opiate Maintenance, Needle Exchange, Overdose Prevention, Safe Injection Sites)Source and Transit CountriesAndean Drug War, Coca, Hashish, Mexican Drug War, Opium ProductionSpecific DrugsAlcohol, Ayahuasca, Cocaine (Crack Cocaine), Ecstasy, Heroin, Ibogaine, ketamine, Khat, Marijuana (Gateway Theory, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Medical Marijuana, Hashish), Methamphetamine, New Synthetic Drugs (Synthetic Cannabinoids, Synthetic Stimulants), Nicotine, Prescription Opiates (Fentanyl, Oxycontin), Psychedelics (LSD, Mescaline, Peyote, Salvia Divinorum)YouthGrade School, Post-Secondary School, Raves, Secondary School