OMGZ HELP with pot argument

[joush]

i need some help with a solid argument against medical ganga. i can't find one. helpz0rZ!!1!11

[page017]

I thought I heard some radio host (Savage I think) saying that they have a way to separate the medicinal part of the pot from the part that gets you high.

[White]

I thought I heard some radio host (Savage I think) saying that they have a way to separate the medicinal part of the pot from the part that gets you high.

Would you rather pay a crapload of money for a pill form of something you could grow in your garden for cheap?

[BeHereNow]

Marinol is barely effective.
It's like needing Privicide/Nexium and getting tums.

[Oddball]

i need some help with a solid argument against medical ganga. i can't find one. helpz0rZ!!1!11
There aren't any.

Unless you count cutting into the profits for the pharmaceutical-industrial complex and the police state welfare program --AKA the "war" on (some) drugs-- as legitimate arguments.

[The Libertarian Guy]

I thought I heard some radio host (Savage I think) saying that they have a way to separate the medicinal part of the pot from the part that gets you high.

Savage is one of those brainwashed minions who insist marijuana is more dangerous than, say, heroin. Therefore, he has zero cred in my book. I don't care how many college degrees he has... he's an ass.

[Oddball]

I thought I heard some radio host (Savage I think) saying that they have a way to separate the medicinal part of the pot from the part that gets you high.
The medicinal part (that eases nausea and induces "the munchies") IS the part that gets you high. The same thing can be said for pharmaceutical amphetamines, Percodan, Oxycontin, and lots of other FDA approved drugs.

Oh yeah, the FDA and DEA...I forgot...It's all about making the bureaucrats happy.

[joush]

Savage is one of those brainwashed minions who insist marijuana is more dangerous than, say, heroin. Therefore, he has zero cred in my book. I don't care how many college degrees he has... he's an ass.
meh

[joush]

*hi-jacking thread*


i think i have the best sig

lolz

[Kronic Freedom]

i need some help with a solid argument against medical ganga. i can't find one. helpz0rZ!!1!11
There is no argument against it.

What is wrong with marijuana?? It is illegal.

Other than that it is a natural product that produces very few side effects and none that are of any consequence.

Might I suggest reading a book called (of all things) 'The Medical Uses for Marijuana'. It was a book of studies done in Holland in conjunction with the United States. All that is in the book is the findings of the studies. Very scientific, very informative.

One last thought.. if you have to ask for an argument against something.. perhaps you should reconsider your position.

[DeltronZero]

There are no real arguments against...

Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base [Complete Online Book] (http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/marimed/)

[Kronic Freedom]

There are no real arguments against...

Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base [Complete Online Book] (http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/marimed/)
Very good resource. I don't bookmark much.. but this is one I did.

It was voted for by the people of Colorado. I hope the next challenge to reach the SCOTUS has a more favorable outcome....

Or maybe Congress could just instruct the FDA and the DEA to re-classify marijuana and let the States have their say.

[educ8er]

Very good resource. I don't bookmark much.. but this is one I did.

It was voted for by the people of Colorado. I hope the next challenge to reach the SCOTUS has a more favorable outcome....

Or maybe Congress could just instruct the FDA and the DEA to re-classify marijuana and let the States have their say.

I would be willing to bet that you can't find enough votes to legalize this if put on a national agenda. If this were so popular we would see more positions from our Senators and Representatives. Maybe in another life time, but betting not this one...

[Zanger]

I would be willing to bet that you can't find enough votes to legalize this if put on a national agenda. If this were so popular we would see more positions from our Senators and Representatives. Maybe in another life time, but betting not this one...

Yes, that's why it's a statewide campaign for the moment, since our crappy government loves the stupid 2 party system, parties that promote marijuana legalization will never come forth for the win.

Besides, any big-time politican who supported marijuana legalization would be committing suicide.

[campesino]

Yes, that's why it's a statewide campaign for the moment, since our crappy government loves the stupid 2 party system, parties that promote marijuana legalization will never come forth for the win.

Besides, any big-time politican who supported marijuana legalization would be committing suicide.

You're probably right.

Even though I'm a staunch Republican and fiscal conservative, I think all drugs should be legalized. Here's why:

1. It would instantly remove the criminal elements from drugs. Addicts could buy drugs with a prescription at a tiny fraction of what drug dealers charge on the streets. Drug dealers would no longer have a market to peddle their smuggled and high-priced products.

2. Drug users would no longer need to rob, burglarize and mug us to get money to pay for drugs. Our homes and streets would be much safer.

3. The prison population would be reduced by 75 percent.

4. America's silly and untenable "war on drugs" would no longer be necessary.

Disadvantages:

1. It would send a message to kids that drugs are okay. (But it would be the far lesser of the evils.)

2. Since about 30 percent of the nation is unwittingly involved indirectly or directly with the illegal drug industry, it would take billions of dollars out of circulation. We don't need that, particularly not during these economic hard times.



________________________




Comments?

[Zanger]

I whole-heartedly agree, with the addition of one more reason:

People should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they are not hurting anyone else. So if I'm doing drugs -- fine. If mugging people to get money for drugs, or if I'm hurting people while high -- off to the jail cell for you, I hope you like the little 2x2 cells we got you.

[Kronic Freedom]

I would be willing to bet that you can't find enough votes to legalize this if put on a national agenda. If this were so popular we would see more positions from our Senators and Representatives. Maybe in another life time, but betting not this one...
I believe you are wrong. Medical Marijauna has won the vote in 13 States so far.. and by a wide margin. Do you really want this forum to believe that Colorado is more liberal than say.. New York??

I think you are off base on this one.. once people are educated about the medicinal values.. they tend to see no reason to resist.

In the late 1800's there was this same argument over the medicine that came form the willow tree. All the same things were said then about that drug that is being said today about marijuana. That wicked drug.... was aspirin.

[Kronic Freedom]

You're probably right.

Even though I'm a staunch Republican and fiscal conservative, I think all drugs should be legalized. Here's why:

1. It would instantly remove the criminal elements from drugs. Addicts could buy drugs with a prescription at a tiny fraction of what drug dealers charge on the streets. Drug dealers would no longer have a market to peddle their smuggled and high-priced products.

2. Drug users would no longer need to rob, burglarize and mug us to get money to pay for drugs. Our homes and streets would be much safer.

3. The prison population would be reduced by 75 percent.

4. America's silly and untenable "war on drugs" would no longer be necessary.

Disadvantages:

1. It would send a message to kids that drugs are okay. (But it would be the far lesser of the evils.)

2. Since about 30 percent of the nation is unwittingly involved indirectly or directly with the illegal drug industry, it would take billions of dollars out of circulation. We don't need that, particularly not during these economic hard times.



________________________




Comments?
The only thing you missed is the disadvatage of it being possible more people would become addicted.

But then there would be the advantage of being able to spend a small portion of the money saved fighting the war on drugs, and incarcerating the people caught up in it, on rehabilitation.

Plus it would mean a parent would have to parent rather than the schools teaching our kids about drugs.

This Conservative/Traditionalist agrees with you.

[ChloeP]

I agree too. The only part I disagree with (in the case of marijuana) is that it shouldn't require a prescription. People should be able to grow it as an herb in their garden. Why give money to the drug comapanies when you can grow it very cheaply and effectively at home?

[Kronic Freedom]

I agree too. The only part I disagree with (in the case of marijuana) is that it shouldn't require a prescription. People should be able to grow it as an herb in their garden. Why give money to the drug comapanies when you can grow it very cheaply and effectively at home?
True. But one step at a time.

I find it odd to be able to go to a liquor store and by alcohol and cigarettes, which both have been proven unhealthy.. yet I can not buy or grow a natural plant for ANY use that has no real negative.. except it is lillegal.

[ChloeP]

True. But one step at a time.

I find it odd to be able to go to a liquor store and by alcohol and cigarettes, which both have been proven unhealthy.. yet I can not buy or grow a natural plant for ANY use that has no real negative.. except it is lillegal.
I'm thinking the gov't has it all wrong. I mean, think of the money they could rake in, maybe even enough to help out our poor educational system. Just legalize pot, tax it and let the cash flow...

[Oddball]

True. But one step at a time.
One step at a time my hiney.

Just as there's no "ease off it" wing at the Betty Ford clinic, the insane "war" on (some) drugs should be ended immediately as the utter and complete failure it is.

[Kronic Freedom]

One step at a time my hiney.

Just as there's no "ease off it" wing at the Betty Ford clinic, the insane "war" on (some) drugs should be ended immediately as the utter and complete failure it is.
OK. It won't work.

But everyone has their opinion.

[Oddball]

I can live with that!

;)

[Apatriot]

True. But one step at a time.

I find it odd to be able to go to a liquor store and by alcohol and cigarettes, which both have been proven unhealthy.. yet I can not buy or grow a natural plant for ANY use that has no real negative.. except it is lillegal.

Tobacco and alcohol are just as natural as marijuana. Marijuana also causes lung/heart damage, similar to tobacco.

[TLCTugger]

Marijuana also causes lung/heart damage.
Do people chain-smoke weed?

I don't think the typical usage pattern is as destructive to health as a typical cigarette smoker's regimen.

-Ron
PS - what does OMGZ mean?

[Apatriot]

Do people chain-smoke weed?

I don't think the typical usage pattern is as destructive to health as a typical cigarette smoker's regimen.

-Ron
PS - what does OMGZ mean?

I've read that the increased time spent with the lungs full of smoke by marijuana smokers tends to increase the lung damage of it, so that a single joint is probably as destructive as several cigarettes.

I have no idea what OMGZ means....

[Oddball]

I've read that the increased time spent with the lungs full of smoke by marijuana smokers tends to increase the lung damage of it, so that a single joint is probably as destructive as several cigarettes.
Perhaps true, perhaps not. By the same **ahem** token, **snortle** one doesn't need but a few puffs of pot to get the full effect. Nor is it chain-smoked by very many people

[Apatriot]

Perhaps true, perhaps not. By the same **ahem** token, **snortle** one doesn't need but a few puffs of pot to get the full effect. Nor is it chain-smoked by very many people

I'm not saying that's a reason not to legalize it, but just to point out that marijuana isn't the benign safe drug that it's advocates say it is. That's as ludicrous as the calling it the "devil's weed." Everything in the world is bad for you at the wrong dosage......

[Zanger]

OMGZ -- "OMG (oh my god/gosh)," OMGZ is a term used for comical effect that grew out of pluralizing Internet acronyms (like lolz, roflz) to make fun of people who over use the acronyms

[Kronic Freedom]

Tobacco and alcohol are just as natural as marijuana. Marijuana also causes lung/heart damage, similar to tobacco.
That is not true. There are no adverse affects from smoking Marijuana. I challenge you to find me ANY un-biased study (see: not an anti-drug propaganda site). It doesn't exist.

There are 4 side effects to smoking Marijuana. None of them include heart or lung damage, nor do they include damage to the brain or brain cells. All of the PROPAGANDA that is spewed about Marijuana is just that.

There is research to be done before you make false claims, and trust me.. if you have done it, and still believe the way you do.. the facts won't matter. There are plenty of research links on this thread.. and I'm sure like the rest of us you've got a search engine too.

[Apatriot]

That is not true. There are no adverse affects from smoking Marijuana. I challenge you to find me ANY un-biased study (see: not an anti-drug propaganda site). It doesn't exist.

There are 4 side effects to smoking Marijuana. None of them include heart or lung damage, nor do they include damage to the brain or brain cells. All of the PROPAGANDA that is spewed about Marijuana is just that.

There is research to be done before you make false claims, and trust me.. if you have done it, and still believe the way you do.. the facts won't matter. There are plenty of research links on this thread.. and I'm sure like the rest of us you've got a search engine too.

Of course there are adverse affects of smoking marijuana. There is nothing in this world that doesn't cause adverse effects of some kind. Even oxygen can be a poison. To claim that marijuana has no adverse effects is just as ridiculous as calling it the "killer weed." Both are not founded in reality, but in wishful thinking.

Here's a link to a list of different peer-reviewed studies that show adverse effects of marijuana:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=30105

(and that was just on the first page of the google search)

To summarize some of the adverse effects (primarily in heavy users):
1) attention and memory problems
2) lowered IQ
3) lung damage (specifically of the alveoli)

I would add to that one other problem (and this one is anecdotal and just based on the few pot smokers and former pot smokers I know). The majority of pot smokers also smoke cigarettes. I don't buy the pot as a gateway drug to heavier drugs, but I do believe it is a gateway to cigarette smoking. Most younger (younger than 50) cigarette smokers I know were once pretty regular pot smokers.


Anyway, as I said in a previous reply, I don't think those adverse effects are bad enough to shelve the idea of marijuana legalization. I am an agnostic on the issue. I don't object to recreational legalization, but I don't advocate it either. It would solve some problems, create others. I am in favor of medical marijuana, or at the least, more studies should be done of it.

[gdoane]

The reason Marijuana is a Schedule One drug is that it's obviously prone to abuse. Since the Physician is ethically required to "first do no harm" by his Hippocratic Oath, he cannot ethically prescribe a drug of abuse when more effective and less-abusive drugs exist.

Marijuana is always abused. Any drug which is not precisely measured in dosage is being abused. Marijuana, since it is not measured, is being abused and not used medicinally. Anyone who says they want it for medicinal purposes is a damned liar. The cretins don't want to get well, they just want to get stoned.

Any doctor who prescribes Marijuana is risking turning his patient into a burned out sociopath stoner, a fate worse than any disease the doctor might be treating. At least a cancer patient can go to the grave with some pride left, but a stoner has nothing but apathy in what's left of the mind ravaged by a psychotropic habit of getting high.

[Zanger]

The reason Marijuana is a Schedule One drug is that it's obviously prone to abuse. Since the Physician is ethically required to "first do no harm" by his Hippocratic Oath, he cannot ethically prescribe a drug of abuse when more effective and less-abusive drugs exist.

Like Vicadin and Valium? LAWL

Marijuana is always abused. Any drug which is not precisely measured in dosage is being abused. Marijuana, since it is not measured, is being abused and not used medicinally. Anyone who says they want it for medicinal purposes is a damned liar. The cretins don't want to get well, they just want to get stoned.

Say I require it for my South American-adopted pagan religious rituals. What then?

[Oddball]

I'm not saying that's a reason not to legalize it, but just to point out that marijuana isn't the benign safe drug that it's advocates say it is. That's as ludicrous as the calling it the "devil's weed." Everything in the world is bad for you at the wrong dosage......
Also, the useful part of pot can be vaporized with no burned plant matter to create any of the harmful smoke.

[Zanger]

That is not true. There are no adverse affects from smoking Marijuana. I challenge you to find me ANY un-biased study (see: not an anti-drug propaganda site). It doesn't exist.

There are 4 side effects to smoking Marijuana. None of them include heart or lung damage, nor do they include damage to the brain or brain cells. All of the PROPAGANDA that is spewed about Marijuana is just that.

There is research to be done before you make false claims, and trust me.. if you have done it, and still believe the way you do.. the facts won't matter. There are plenty of research links on this thread.. and I'm sure like the rest of us you've got a search engine too.

Actually marijuana does impair thinking ability. My friends who do it regularly -- their grades have been slipping cuz all they do is smoke pot, and then when they're sober they're all absent minded.

But hearsay evidence ain't all what it should be, eh

[Kronic Freedom]

Of course there are adverse affects of smoking marijuana. There is nothing in this world that doesn't cause adverse effects of some kind. Even oxygen can be a poison. To claim that marijuana has no adverse effects is just as ridiculous as calling it the "killer weed." Both are not founded in reality, but in wishful thinking.

Here's a link to a list of different peer-reviewed studies that show adverse effects of marijuana:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=30105

(and that was just on the first page of the google search)

To summarize some of the adverse effects (primarily in heavy users):
1) attention and memory problems
2) lowered IQ
3) lung damage (specifically of the alveoli)

I would add to that one other problem (and this one is anecdotal and just based on the few pot smokers and former pot smokers I know). The majority of pot smokers also smoke cigarettes. I don't buy the pot as a gateway drug to heavier drugs, but I do believe it is a gateway to cigarette smoking. Most younger (younger than 50) cigarette smokers I know were once pretty regular pot smokers.


Anyway, as I said in a previous reply, I don't think those adverse effects are bad enough to shelve the idea of marijuana legalization. I am an agnostic on the issue. I don't object to recreational legalization, but I don't advocate it either. It would solve some problems, create others. I am in favor of medical marijuana, or at the least, more studies should be done of it.
OK I will concede everything we do can have adverse effects, but, I have seen reports off of WebMD that say the opposite about heavy users having brain damage. I have also seen the reports and studies that say there is no evidence Marijuana has the same cancer causing CHEMICALS that cigarettes do.

I do agree though a lot of Marijuana smokers smoke cigarettes. I also suggest a lot of drinkers smoke cigarettes. I also suggest a lot of gamblers smoke cigarettes. Since about 30% of the country smokes cigarettes, I suggest a lot more people smoke cigarettes than should. Doesn't have a point in this debate.

[gdoane]

Like Vicadin and Valium? LAWL

Not at all, because those are measured doses. When you take 40 milligrams in pill form, then that's exactly what you're getting. 40 milligrams. No more and no less. Smoking, you're clueless. You have no idea what the dosage is and you don't care because you're just abusing it to get high. All smoking is abusive. Without an exact measured dosage, it's not medicine. If you can't tell me, within one gram, what the dosage was then I'm not willing to call it a medicine. That's Witch Doctor baloney, is what that is.


Say I require it for my South American-adopted pagan religious rituals. What then?

Then you go to jail, same as if your pagan rituals required you to throw a virgin into a volcano. If your religion requires you to commit murder or take drugs, then you're just too dangerous and despicable to be walking on my streets as a free man.

[Zanger]

Not at all, because those are measured doses. When you take 40 milligrams in pill form, then that's exactly what you're getting. 40 milligrams. No more and no less. Smoking, you're clueless. You have no idea what the dosage is and you don't care because you're just abusing it to get high. All smoking is abusive. Without an exact measured dosage, it's not medicine. If you can't tell me, within one gram, what the dosage was then I'm not willing to call it a medicine. That's Witch Doctor baloney, is what that is.

If it's controlled (measured) then why do people get addicted to it


[/quote]Then you go to jail, same as if your pagan rituals required you to throw a virgin into a volcano. If your religion requires you to commit murder or take drugs, then you're just too dangerous and despicable to be walking on my streets as a free man.[/QUOTE]
I won't be walking your streets. I'll be living in MY house on MY property using MY money to grow MY plants which I use specifically for MY consumption using funds I earned at MY job.

You have NO right to tell me what I can and cannot do.

[Kronic Freedom]

The reason Marijuana is a Schedule One drug is that it's obviously prone to abuse. Since the Physician is ethically required to "first do no harm" by his Hippocratic Oath, he cannot ethically prescribe a drug of abuse when more effective and less-abusive drugs exist.

Marijuana is always abused. Any drug which is not precisely measured in dosage is being abused. Marijuana, since it is not measured, is being abused and not used medicinally. Anyone who says they want it for medicinal purposes is a damned liar. The cretins don't want to get well, they just want to get stoned.

Any doctor who prescribes Marijuana is risking turning his patient into a burned out sociopath stoner, a fate worse than any disease the doctor might be treating. At least a cancer patient can go to the grave with some pride left, but a stoner has nothing but apathy in what's left of the mind ravaged by a psychotropic habit of getting high.
Actually the exact dosage in the Holland/United States studies chronociled in the book 'The Medicinal Uses for Marijuana' is 10- .8 gram joints a day. Approximately a 1/4 ounce of high grade Marijuana.

Your premise is wrong.

Marijuana may have a phsycological addiction to an extent because of the euphoria, but it certainly is not addictive like the only other drug in that classification... Heroin.

[Kronic Freedom]

Actually marijuana does impair thinking ability. My friends who do it regularly -- their grades have been slipping cuz all they do is smoke pot, and then when they're sober they're all absent minded.

But hearsay evidence ain't all what it should be, eh
Let me preface this by saying if your friends are underage I would not encourage their usage. Unless it is prescribed by a doctor and for the benefit of their health they should avoid getting in trouble.

I attribute your friends problems to Marijuana only to the point that your friends are allowed to use it as an excuse. If they smoke Marijauna and say.. play video games is their ability impaired? I doubt it.. it is a matter of personal character to begin with.

[gdoane]

Zanger writes:

If it's controlled (measured) then why do people get addicted to it



Because they have crummy doctors who don't do their jobs properly and are incautious about prescribing drugs to weak-willed people.

I won't be walking your streets. I'll be living in MY house on MY property using MY money to grow MY plants which I use specifically for MY consumption using funds I earned at MY job.

Uh-huh. Right. And this job, do you DRIVE to it? The effects of Marijuana are measurable for 30 days in heavy users. If you're behind the wheel of a car on MY streets then it's MY business. You have NO BUSINESS behind the wheel of an automobile if you've used Marijuana within the last four weeks. You're every bit as bad as a drunk driver at that point.

Uh-huh. Right. Your consumption? Marijuana is INFAMOUS for social consumption i.e. "puff puff pass" which is frankly disgusting that anybody would put their lips on something that had just been in somebody else's mouth. I mean, where's the HYGIENE? I bet they don't wash their hands first either.

Uh-huh. Right. Your property? I own property too, and I have basic obligations to my neighbors. One such obligation is keeping the weeds down because weeds growing in my yard to the point of going to seed will wind up plaguing my neighbors. If I ever get a marijuana weed growing in my yard because some son of a bitch let a seed get on my property, I shall be very put out. I'd be angry, and you wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

You do not live in a black hole. You do not live on an island. The things you do on your property does affect your neighbors. What you flush down your toilet can ruin the sewers. How loud your parties are can make your neighbors miserable. An unkept pool in your back yard can swarm your neighborhood with disease-carrying mosquitoes.

With rights come responsibilities. These are inseperable. A free man who is not also a responsible man will not be free for long.

You have NO right to tell me what I can and cannot do.

The very minute your actions affect my rights, I do have such a right. If you're adding to the blight in my neighborhood, driving down the value of my home, attracting dopers, causing disturbances and being a detrimental influence on where I live, then yeah, I have the right to have you hauled away, tossed in prison and kept away from decent people who really respect the rights of other Americans as equal to their own.

[Oddball]

The effects of Marijuana are measurable for 30 days in heavy users.
Another drug warrior myth. The metabolites from the broken-down THC remain in the fatty tissues of the body, not the THC itself.
The things you do on your property does affect your neighbors.
There you have it: It takes a village.

[gdoane]

Actually the exact dosage in the Holland/United States studies chronociled in the book 'The Medicinal Uses for Marijuana' is 10- .8 gram joints a day. Approximately a 1/4 ounce of high grade Marijuana.

Your premise is wrong.

Not hardly. The dosage is irregular. I don't care if there's a 1/4 ounce of firewood, you've got no idea about how much smoke you'll inhale and you further have no clue how much the lungs will absorb.

The lungs are not a preferred venue for the administration of medicines in cases not directly affecting the lungs. The reason why is obvious: they're unpredictable organs. The body naturally filters what gets to the lungs, and the body will cough if the lungs or throat are irritated.

It's an unreliable method of delivery.


Marijuana may have a phsycological addiction to an extent because of the euphoria, but it certainly is not addictive like the only other drug in that classification... Heroin.

Actually, there are over 100 drugs in Schedule I.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html

[Oddball]

Methinks thou dont protesteth waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much.

[gdoane]

Methinks thou dont protesteth waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much.

Oh, you have NO idea. Some people don't like barking dogs. Some people don't like cats yowling on the fence. I don't like the drugs that ruined my dead brother's short life.

The selling point is that it's a "victimless crime".

I call BS on that on the face of it. Anybody who has lost a loved one to drug abuse won't buy into the "victimless crime" spew.

You don't bury a brother and call it victimless. Like Hell it's not victimless. There's not much on this Earth that can make me cry. I used to think nothing could make me cry. I was wrong. What drugs led my brother to made me cry.

And it made me angry. Angry that there are people who would hold up poison as harmless, angry that there are people who present death as medicine, angry that hedonism takes precedence over common sense and FURIOUS that even in the face of a body count, there are apologists who want to surrender to the drug pushers like what they do is a good deed in their neighborhoods.

[Ipricanprynces]

i need some help with a solid argument against medical ganga. i can't find one. helpz0rZ!!1!11
Why can't kids do their own homework anymore?

[Mike88]

I would be willing to bet that you can't find enough votes to legalize this if put on a national agenda. If this were so popular we would see more positions from our Senators and Representatives. Maybe in another life time, but betting not this one...

I don't think you want to take that bet. In states where medical marijuana laws come up, they usually pass with 65% or better.

[Mike88]

That is not true. There are no adverse affects from smoking Marijuana. I challenge you to find me ANY un-biased study (see: not an anti-drug propaganda site). It doesn't exist.

There are 4 side effects to smoking Marijuana. None of them include heart or lung damage, nor do they include damage to the brain or brain cells. All of the PROPAGANDA that is spewed about Marijuana is just that.

There is research to be done before you make false claims, and trust me.. if you have done it, and still believe the way you do.. the facts won't matter. There are plenty of research links on this thread.. and I'm sure like the rest of us you've got a search engine too.

Here is some excellent research to support this deabte in favor of legalization:

http://www.jackherer.com/comparison.html

[gdoane]

Why can't kids do their own homework anymore?

Because half the kids in America don't have parents telling them to do their homework anymore.

[Apatriot]

Say I require it for my South American-adopted pagan religious rituals. What then?

According to precedent, you'd better go to South America, especially considering that marijuana has an Old World origin (i.e. it was brought to the Americas by Europeans). Rastafarians in the US aren't allowed to smoke it.....

[Apatriot]

OK I will concede everything we do can have adverse effects, but, I have seen reports off of WebMD that say the opposite about heavy users having brain damage. I have also seen the reports and studies that say there is no evidence Marijuana has the same cancer causing CHEMICALS that cigarettes do.

From what I've read, it has different cancer causing CHEMICALS (i.e. carcinogens) than does tobacco, but carcinogens nonetheless.


I do agree though a lot of Marijuana smokers smoke cigarettes. I also suggest a lot of drinkers smoke cigarettes. I also suggest a lot of gamblers smoke cigarettes. Since about 30% of the country smokes cigarettes, I suggest a lot more people smoke cigarettes than should. Doesn't have a point in this debate.


The only debate I'm having is the point that marijuana, while not a killer drug, is also not 100% benign. As I said, it doesn't matter to me if it's legalized or not. I just get irritated with outrageous claims.

[Apatriot]

Actually the exact dosage in the Holland/United States studies chronociled in the book 'The Medicinal Uses for Marijuana' is 10- .8 gram joints a day. Approximately a 1/4 ounce of high grade Marijuana.

Your premise is wrong.

Marijuana may have a phsycological addiction to an extent because of the euphoria, but it certainly is not addictive like the only other drug in that classification... Heroin.
First, gdoane didn't say addicted, he said abused. Two different things.


Do you ever research anything?

There are dozens of Schedule one drugs, not just marijuana and heroin.

They include heroin, marijuana, LSD, Peyote, and Ecstasy.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html

The basic reasons for putting a drug on Schedule 1 are as follows:

A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

That is why, for instance, cocaine is not a schedule I drug, because it is used in treatment.

[page017]

First, I think we can all agree that mecical marijuana and common street usage are two entirely different things. Same with use, and abuse.

Second, With the direction we are going in, I think cigarettes will be outlawed within twenty years. That makes legalizing pot during that same time frame extremely unlikely.

Finally, I think we can all agree, that since this is an education forum, that it is inappropriate and wrong for children under the age of 18 to be using the drug at all.

[Kronic Freedom]

Not hardly. The dosage is irregular. I don't care if there's a 1/4 ounce of firewood, you've got no idea about how much smoke you'll inhale and you further have no clue how much the lungs will absorb.

The lungs are not a preferred venue for the administration of medicines in cases not directly affecting the lungs. The reason why is obvious: they're unpredictable organs. The body naturally filters what gets to the lungs, and the body will cough if the lungs or throat are irritated.

It's an unreliable method of delivery.




Actually, there are over 100 drugs in Schedule I.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html
Any prescription for pain or nasuea usually includes the statement 'as needed' so.. mute point.

Again a drug the level of Oxycotton or Vicadin in the dosage a person like.. say me, would need would render me completely useless. The effects of Marijuana benefit me in every way, and you can not deny my Doctor's evidence of this.

One other thing.. there is no way a person could overdose on Marijuana. It takes the equivalent to 40 POUNDS of Marijuana to cause overdose, so again your premise is wrong.

It is possible there are over 100 drugs in that classification.. I should have said it this way.. "It is hard to believe that Marijuana is classified in the same way AS Heroin." Better?

Please again, show me something that doesn't come from the propaganda machine for the War on Drugs that makes a substantive claim Marijuana is dangerous or unhealthy. This does not exist. The only thing wrong with Marijuana is the fact it is illegal.

[gdoane]

First, I think we can all agree that mecical marijuana and common street usage are two entirely different things. Same with use, and abuse.

There is no use. Only abuse. I don't agree that medical marijuana exists. It's a drug of abuse. It's like saying there's medical beer, medical tobacco, medical chocolate and it's a crock, to be perfectly blunt. Anyone using the term "medical marijuana" is a lying stoner hippy jackass trying to fool decent people with his indecent lies.

Second, With the direction we are going in, I think cigarettes will be outlawed within twenty years. That makes legalizing pot during that same time frame extremely unlikely.

Tobacco abuse has decreased from over 50% of American Adults in 1970 to barely over 20% today. We have the initiative and we can run the Nicotine Abusers into submission. We will start throwing them in jail very soon. They will not be blowing their foul smoke into our air for much longer. We shall soon be rid of the stench of tobacco in America forever! DEATH TO THE WEED! DEATH TO THE WEED! HERBICIDE FOREVER!! HERBICIDE!! HERBICIDE!!! YEEEAAARRRRGGHHHH!!!


Finally, I think we can all agree, that since this is an education forum, that it is inappropriate and wrong for children under the age of 18 to be using the drug at all.

I think what's inappropriate for children is also inappropriate for adults. If it's wrong when you're ten years old then it's still wrong when you're twenty, thirty or forty years old. Wrong does not become right with time.

[Kronic Freedom]

Not hardly. The dosage is irregular. I don't care if there's a 1/4 ounce of firewood, you've got no idea about how much smoke you'll inhale and you further have no clue how much the lungs will absorb.

The lungs are not a preferred venue for the administration of medicines in cases not directly affecting the lungs. The reason why is obvious: they're unpredictable organs. The body naturally filters what gets to the lungs, and the body will cough if the lungs or throat are irritated.

It's an unreliable method of delivery.




Actually, there are over 100 drugs in Schedule I.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html
Look at the list.. you're right, there are over 100 drugs listed, but they apparrently fall under 4 substances. Marijuana, Heroin, Methanphetamine, and Ecstasy. Look at the list.. China White is a good tell for Heroin.. and so on.

Marijuana is NOWHERE the substance the other 3 are, not admitting this would be dishonest.

[Kronic Freedom]

From what I've read, it has different cancer causing CHEMICALS (i.e. carcinogens) than does tobacco, but carcinogens nonetheless.





The only debate I'm having is the point that marijuana, while not a killer drug, is also not 100% benign. As I said, it doesn't matter to me if it's legalized or not. I just get irritated with outrageous claims.
It is possible for anything to cause cancer, with that said.. I have never come across any study the says Marijuana causes cancer.

I am not making outrageous claims. The claims I make are researched through studies that weren't done by the likes of High Times (yes they have their own book of studies), or the people running the War on Drugs. I am using the most sceintific data I could find from sources that held a neutral position.

The Medical Uses for Marijuana a book of studies done in Holland with OUR governments involvement and sites like WebMD. There is plenty of 'middle ground' studies and research done to use for argument without using the extreme.

[traveler]

You're probably right.

Even though I'm a staunch Republican and fiscal conservative, I think all drugs should be legalized. Here's why:

1. It would instantly remove the criminal elements from drugs. Addicts could buy drugs with a prescription at a tiny fraction of what drug dealers charge on the streets. Drug dealers would no longer have a market to peddle their smuggled and high-priced products.

2. Drug users would no longer need to rob, burglarize and mug us to get money to pay for drugs. Our homes and streets would be much safer.

3. The prison population would be reduced by 75 percent.

4. America's silly and untenable "war on drugs" would no longer be necessary.

Disadvantages:

1. It would send a message to kids that drugs are okay. (But it would be the far lesser of the evils.)

2. Since about 30 percent of the nation is unwittingly involved indirectly or directly with the illegal drug industry, it would take billions of dollars out of circulation. We don't need that, particularly not during these economic hard times.
________________________


Comments?I agree with you plus one additional comment. The criminals sanctions which you are removing by legalization should be replaced by civil litigation whenever anyone is sold some which causes significant harm or death. This would be the incentive to stay away products like bathtub gin or adulterated pot, etc....... or Tylenol for that matter.

[TLCTugger]

What drugs led my brother to made me cry.
I'm sorry for your grief.

I've never smoked anything, but I know plenty of people who smoke weed socially and suffer no visible ill-effects. On the other hand, I know a sober recovering alcoholic who got dangerously addicted to nasal spray.

Some people can deal with intoxicants and some can't. There are certainly far more sob stories about cigarettes and alcohol than there are about weed.

Poisoning yourself IS a victimless crime. Failing to rationally educate people about intoxicants or give people some recourse if they've been sold something that is not what it was purported to be; that's criminal.

Entering a national park campground with guns blazing and accidentally shooting a bystander kid in the face while looking for some rogue pot plants is criminal. The war on drugs costs too much in both money and liberty, and yields nothing but grief.

-Ron

[gdoane]

Look at the list.. you're right, there are over 100 drugs listed, but they apparrently fall under 4 substances. Marijuana, Heroin, Methanphetamine, and Ecstasy. Look at the list.. China White is a good tell for Heroin.. and so on.

Marijuana is NOWHERE the substance the other 3 are, not admitting this would be dishonest.

I wouldn't know because I was never the type of damned fool idiot who would dare mess with the dangerous stuff. I rank it right up there with taste testing drain cleaner and playing with pipe bombs for stupid things I never want to do.

Marijuana is illegal because it serves no useful purpose and it targets children because only kids are stupid enough to try the fool stuff. If an adult hasn't smoked tobacco or marijuana by the age of 30, then he'll probably avoid doing something that dumb for the rest of his life.

The FDA says it's dangerous and that's good enough for me. I believe what they say about drain cleaner and I've got no good reason to doubt their word about the evils of marijuana.

[ginshun]

Uh-huh. Right. And this job, do you DRIVE to it? The effects of Marijuana are measurable for 30 days in heavy users. If you're behind the wheel of a car on MY streets then it's MY business. You have NO BUSINESS behind the wheel of an automobile if you've used Marijuana within the last four weeks. You're every bit as bad as a drunk driver at that point.

being able to measure THC in somebodies urin is not the same as them being under the effect of the drug. The only reason it can be measured for that long is because THC is fat soluble, not water salubel like cocaine, alchohol, heroin, etc. Get your facts straight buddy.

If you smoke pot, you are under its effects for a few hours, not weeks. Believe me, I've done a pretty extensive field study of the subject.

[Oddball]

I don't like the drugs that ruined my dead brother's short life.

NOW the truth comes out!!!!!!!! Just like the liberals you claim to oppose, you blame the inanimate object rather than the foolish acts of the individual!!!!!!

A marijuana joint or a hypo full of heroin can no more force themselves into a person's body, than can a .45 pistol load itself, run down the street, and shoot someone.

But I guess PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is only a repub value and talking point when it's convenient for it to be so.

[Marijuana_MyAntiDrug]

Trust your goverment.:razz:

6423413775 (http://cgi.ebay.com/Government-Marijuana-container_W0QQitemZ6423413775QQcategoryZ2312QQrdZ1 QQcmdZViewItem)

[gdoane]

being able to measure THC in somebodies urin is not the same as them being under the effect of the drug. The only reason it can be measured for that long is because THC is fat soluble, not water salubel like cocaine, alchohol, heroin, etc. Get your facts straight buddy.

If you smoke pot, you are under its effects for a few hours, not weeks. Believe me, I've done a pretty extensive field study of the subject.

You cannot properly have an unbiased scientific inquiry by being both the observer and the observee. The last scientist to try that was named Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

Marijuana has lifelong crippling effects. They're called "burnouts" and their brains are so far gone that they'll never be productive citizens again in their lives.

The human brain is not a test tube for chemistry experiments. Psychotropics affect the mind. That's sort of WHY they're called psychotropics.

[gdoane]

NOW the truth comes out!!!!!!!! Just like the liberals you claim to oppose, you blame the inanimate object rather than the foolish acts of the individual!!!!!!

A marijuana joint or a hypo full of heroin can no more force themselves into a person's body, than can a .45 pistol load itself, run down the street, and shoot someone.

But I guess PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is only a repub value and talking point when it's convenient for it to be so.

Marijuana is attractive to children who are too young to consent to such acts. Therefore it's illegal.

[TLCTugger]

Marijuana is attractive to children who are too young to consent to such acts. Therefore it's illegal.
You haven't posed any argument why weed should be treated differently than booze or smokes.

-Ron

[Oddball]

Marijuana is attractive to children who are too young to consent to such acts. Therefore it's illegal.
Sure....hide behind the cheeeeeeeeldren.

Just like the Clintons.

[page017]

You are not doing your cause any good by acting in this manner. And I think we've gotten off point. The issue is medical marijuana. I'm a bit undecided on this issue to be honest, but a few things I've picked up from this conversation.

It does have a medicinal value, I wouldn't disagree with that. But there is a point that smoking it just does not make sense, there needs to be a better way to measure, and ingest it if it's really going to be taken seriously as medicene.

Also, someone argued that it could be grown in the patients own backyard, not costing anything. There's no way I could support it being grown on its own, in any sort of unmonitored way. There's too much potential there for it to be stolen, given to someone else, or otherwise misused.

[Oddball]

Oh , puuulleeeeeeeeeease!!

I know an argument designed to play on peoples' emotions from one rooted in intellectual honesty and reason. On this particular topic --and the "war" on (some) drugs in general-- gdoane uses every intellectually bankrupt, responsibility-shifting, lefty play in the book.

While I may certainly have sympathy and compassion for the untimely loss of a sibling, hiding behind them in order to justify failed gubmint policy is just plain macabre.

[Marijuana_MyAntiDrug]

Proven: Cannabis Is Safe Medicine

Ian Williams Goddard, 1996

http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/html/evidence.html




Main (http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/index.html)
Apothecary (http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/html/apothecary/index.html)
Cannabis Powder (http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/html/Cannabis%20Powder/index.html)
Cannabis Ads (http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/html/CannabisAds/index.html)
Cannabis Tinctures (http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/html/CannabisTinctures/index.html)
Cigarette (http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/html/Cigarette/index.html)
Corn Remedies (http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/html/CornRemedies/index.html)
Cough Syrup (http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/html/CoughSyrup/index.html)
Doctors Bag (http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/html/DoctorsBag/index.html)
Female (http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/html/Female/index.html)
Fluid Extracts (http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/html/FluidExtracts/index.html)
Infant (http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/html/Infant/index.html)
Misc (http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/html/Misc/index.html)
Misc 2 (http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/html/Misc2/index.html)
Prescription (http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/html/Prescription/index.html)
Quack (http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/html/Quack/index.html)
Sedatives (http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/html/Sedatives/index.html)
Veterinary (http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/html/Veterinary/index.html)
Video (http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/html/movies/pcmovie.html)

Links (http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/html/links.html)
Medical History (http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/html/history.html)
Medical Evidence (http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/html/evidence.html)
Curator's Corner (http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/html/CuratorCorner.html)

[page017]

I have another question, in the states where it was declared legal. Who provides it for them and in what form is it provided?

[Marijuana_MyAntiDrug]

I have another question, in the states where it was declared legal. Who provides it for them and in what form is it provided?

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4516

I live in Ca and i grow my own, it's legal under state law only. Depending on where you live you can grow anywhere from 1 to 99 plants for yourself. San Fran is the 99 i live in Santa Clara where it's 9 plants. The medical marijuana i don't use i can sell back to one of these places.
http://potclubs.us/directory/potclubs.ca.php?page=SF

Did you know an ounce of really good marijuana cost more than an ounce of gold?

http://www.hightimes.com/ht/home/content.php?page=thmq_0605


What form is it provided?
You can buy pot,hash,hash oil,kief, pot and hash brownies,pot cookies,olive oil,cannabutter,ice cream and even lasagna. For people who don't like to smoke.


Or find a caregiver who under state law can do this

Who qualifies as a "caregiver?"

Prop. 215 was designed primarily to protect patients from prosecution for medical use of marijuana. However, the new law recognizes that some patients may be in such ill health that a family member or close friend may need to obtain and possess marijuana for that patient. Or, a patient may live with someone who could be subject to criminal or civil charges for the patient's marijuana kept on the same property. In this spirit, so-called "primary caregivers" to medical marijuana patients are also exempted from marijuana charges.
So who is a "primary caregiver?" The Prop. 215 text defines such a person as "the individual designated by the ... [patient] who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health or safety of that person." The fact that a person must have "consistently assumed responsibility" for the patient's welfare could narrow the definition of "primary caregiver" considerably.

Family members, very close friends and roommates of patients will fit under this definition most readily. The best advice at this time is to be conservative in designating a caregiver or in considering yourself to fit under the new law's definition. Ultimately, a judge may have to decide each case on its individual merits.

[page017]

99 plants for one person?! What kind of precautions are in place to make sure it's only used for it's legal use?

[gdoane]

You haven't posed any argument why weed should be treated differently than booze or smokes.

-Ron

I don't believe booze or smokes should be legal either.

[gdoane]

Tom Pain writes:

Sure....hide behind the cheeeeeeeeldren.

Just like the Clintons.

Except in this case it's true. Children do suffer, a double whammy as a matter of fact.

Children are really the only ones stupid enough to smoke anything. Adults who smoke, as a matter of course, started smoking when they were just dumb kids and most want to quit but don't have the willpower to do it.

A stoned adult is not a fit caretaker for a child. Not as a parent, not as a babysitter, and not as a teacher. Guaranteed that a teacher shows up to class stoned that the teacher is fired. Not even a question.

So, children are messed up if they abuse drugs, unable to gain a proper education, or if their caregiver abuses drugs and is unable to aid in the education, upbringing and care of said child.

Frankly, I believe that drugs found in a home where children live should be an automatic DOUBLING of the sentence. That's child endangerment. And I'm not hiding behind children, I want the people who endanger children thrown UNDER the jail. Few things make me truly angry. Endangering a child is among those things.

Oh , puuulleeeeeeeeeease!!

I know an argument designed to play on peoples' emotions from one rooted in intellectual honesty and reason. On this particular topic --and the "war" on (some) drugs in general-- gdoane uses every intellectually bankrupt, responsibility-shifting, lefty play in the book.

While I may certainly have sympathy and compassion for the untimely loss of a sibling, hiding behind them in order to justify failed gubmint policy is just plain macabre.

Who's hiding? Not I. I'm right here.

Tell me:

What disease has Marijuana been shown to cure? Not "treat", I mean CURE. None, right?

What other "medicine" is administered by smoking? None, right?

What sense is there in mixing fire and intoxication? None, right?

The government policy isn't failed. It's just not harsh enough. This is war.

[Oddball]

No it's not.

And if you'd access a mere shard of intellectual honesty, you'd know it.

The book is titled "How to Talk TO a Liberal"....Not LIKE one.

[Marijuana_MyAntiDrug]

99 plants for one person?! What kind of precautions are in place to make sure it's only used for it's legal use?

I can sell it to anyone with a California issued medical marijuana card. If you get caught selling it to someone who does'nt have a card you are subject to these laws.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4525&wtm_view=penalties

[Oddball]

I have another question, in the states where it was declared legal. Who provides it for them and in what form is it provided?
My answer: Who cares?

What business does gubmint, and its bureaucratic minions, have coming between consenting adults and their nonviolent behaviour, let alone their medical decisions??

[gdoane]

No it's not.

And if you'd access a mere shard of intellectual honesty, you'd know it.

The book is titled "How to Talk TO a Liberal"....Not LIKE one.

Could your post possibly be any more devoid of counterpoints? Prolly not. So in order to keep things easy for you, so you don't have to answer any essay questions, I'm going to pose some yes or no questions for your consideration.


Is Marijuana good for you? Yes or No.
Is Marijuana commonly abused to the point of intoxication? Yes or No.
Is Marijuana an unpredictable psychotropic capable of "bad trips"? Yes or No.
Is Marijuana commonly abused as a drug-in-combination? Yes or No.
Is Marijuana abuse capable of causing "burn-out" in abusers? Yes or No.
No, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes is all I want. Five simple questions with five simple answers.

[Oddball]

Who's hiding?
You are. Hiding behind the cheeeeeeldren and your dear, departed brother. Y'oughtta be ashamed.

[Oddball]

Could your post possibly be any more devoid of counterpoints? Prolly not. So in order to keep things easy for you, so you don't have to answer any essay questions, I'm going to pose some yes or no questions for your consideration.


Is Marijuana good for you? Yes or No.
Is Marijuana commonly abused to the point of intoxication? Yes or No.
Is Marijuana an unpredictable psychotropic capable of "bad trips"? Yes or No.
Is Marijuana commonly abused as a drug-in-combination? Yes or No.
Is Marijuana abuse capable of causing "burn-out" in abusers? Yes or No.
No, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes is all I want. Five simple questions with five simple answers.

1) How is that any of your business?

2) Ibid.

3) No.

4) How is that any of your business?

5) Ibid.

[Kronic Freedom]

I wouldn't know because I was never the type of damned fool idiot who would dare mess with the dangerous stuff. I rank it right up there with taste testing drain cleaner and playing with pipe bombs for stupid things I never want to do.

Marijuana is illegal because it serves no useful purpose and it targets children because only kids are stupid enough to try the fool stuff. If an adult hasn't smoked tobacco or marijuana by the age of 30, then he'll probably avoid doing something that dumb for the rest of his life.

The FDA says it's dangerous and that's good enough for me. I believe what they say about drain cleaner and I've got no good reason to doubt their word about the evils of marijuana.
To each his own.. have a nice day. (night.. whatever)

[gdoane]

1) How is that any of your business?



Because drug abusers are insane, or at least seeking to be insane and my safety is compromised when nutcakes are around.



2) Ibid.

Because intoxicated people on my streets are a danger to themselves and to my family, friends, and myself.



3) No.

Marijuana was the drug of choice of Charles Manson.



4) How is that any of your business?

Because I have a right to walk amongst sane people and not chemically altered monsters in human guise. Because Marijuana users are inherently evil people who want to rob me, kill my friends, burn my city to the ground and steal my twinkies.

5) Ibid.

Ask for yes or no, and you don't even have that much concentration left. Thanks for proving my point.

[Oddball]

Because drug abusers are insane, or at least seeking to be insane and my safety is compromised when nutcakes are around.
And your psychology credentials would be??

Because intoxicated people on my streets are a danger to themselves and to my family, friends, and myself.
Same arguement liberals use to demonize guns. You a liberal?

Marijuana was the drug of choice of Charles Manson.
Pot = Manson...THAT'S A HOT ONE!! :)) Long on more demonization, short on substance.

Because I have a right to walk amongst sane people and not chemically altered monsters in human guise. Because Marijuana users are inherently evil people who want to rob me, kill my friends, burn my city to the ground and steal my twinkies.
More bigotry, demonization, and amateur psychological analyses of people you don't even know. If you said the same thing about Jews, you'd be banned.

[gdoane]

Tom Pain writes:

And your psychology credentials would be??

I know crazy when I see crazy. Credentials be damned, I don't need a professional opinion to spot a kook.

Same arguement liberals use to demonize guns. You a liberal?

It's not the same argument. Liberals blame the gun, not the person. I blame the person. For example, when the Exxon Valdez ran aground under Captain Hazelwood, who did the liberals sue? Not Captain Hazelwood. Nope. They sued Exxon, and why? Deep pockets and lack of personal blame, that's why. Go ask some liberals about the Exxon Valdez oil spill. See how many remember the name of the Captain.

More bigotry, demonization, and amateur psychological analyses of people you don't even know. If you said the same thing about Jews, you'd be banned.

You don't understand the difference, do you? Let me try to help you out.

On this board, you can't judge a person by a decision they never made, for example racism isn't allowed because nobody chose their race. However, choices made (like smoking marijuana) are fair game because it was a decision, a choice, something which defines a person's mindset, his judgement and his choices.

Yeah, I'd be banned for antisemitism. I'd ban myself. But this isn't the same thing, this is judging choices made, this is judging people who choose (?) to abuse drugs and I'll say they're wrong. Of course drug abuse is wrong, there's no legitimate argument to be made FOR the abuse of drugs and you'd look ridiculous trying it.

Which is why you attack me and not my message. I'm right. You know it. You can't seriously argue that marijuana abuse is good for anyone, so you poke away at the messenger rather than the message.

[Oddball]

And I get to judge you by the fact that you ...just...can't ...let...go.

Better you than me.

[gdoane]

And I get to judge you by the fact that you ...just...can't ...let...go.

Better you than me.

When we wake up tomorrow, I'll have what I want. Marijuana will still be illegal. A felony in Arizona. I win. I have what I want. Druggies jailed, criminals in prison.

80%, four of five arrests made in America the perp is drunk, stoned or otherwise involved with drugs.

Go ahead and judge me. If you've tried illegal drugs then I'm already proven smarter than you are and possessed of better discretion than you have.

[Oddball]

By nobody's estimation but your own, and those who happen to agree with you. Another veeeeerrrrry leftist attitude.

And if you don't know whether I've done them or not, what makes you any more descreet than I?

[gdoane]

By nobody's estimation but your own, and those who happen to agree with you. Another veeeeerrrrry leftist attitude.

Leftism is marked by a lack of confidence. Clinton, for example, led by the polls. Clinton never enjoyed his own confidence.

I do. I'm good and I know it. At the end of the day, my opinion of myself is the only one which really matters. I rely on no one else. I live alone, I've lived alone in my own house for over a decade answering to nobody and doing what I want, when I want and how I want. I'm independent, rely on nothing or no one, and I'm a fan of rugged individualism. There's nobody on Earth as good at being me as I am.

I usually try to be humble and all that, treating others as equals, but I do have a unique mind. Equal and unique is possible, everyone has their strengths, and you're in one of my strengths. You've slipped into attacking me because frankly, you've got nothing to challenge my points.

I say abusing drugs is a damned stupid thing to do.

You're left with two options. Either you support the brilliance of abusing drugs, or you attack the messenger, i.e. ME.

Gosh, which choice to make?

You're predictable, gotta give ya that.

And if you don't know whether I've done them or not, what makes you any more descreet than I?

I'm not being discreet. I can say, with a straight face, passing a lie detector test, that I've never been so damned stupid as to smoke marijuana. Discreet? I'm not discreet. I've never smoked marijuana and if you have, then that's proof I'm possessed of better judgement than you.

[Oddball]

Leftism is marked by a lack of confidence. Clinton, for example, led by the polls.
It's also marked by a naive, to the point of childish, belief that the laws they favor and support are just, despite overwhelming empirical and objective evidence to the contrary.
At the end of the day, my opinion of myself is the only one which really matters. I rely on no one else. I live alone, I've lived alone in my own house for over a decade answering to nobody and doing what I want, when I want and how I want. I'm independent, rely on nothing or no one, and I'm a fan of rugged individualism. There's nobody on Earth as good at being me as I am..
And those who imbibe in substances that you wouldn't, can't possibly be as right as you. More circular leftist "logic".
I usually try to be humble and all that, treating others as equals...
Yeah, try....But you fail, miserably.
I say abusing drugs is a damned stupid thing to do.
So do I. But I don't walk in the world with the pretense that the decisions I make for my life make me a better man than those who don't make exactly the same choices.
You're left with two options. Either you support the brilliance of abusing drugs, or you attack the messenger, i.e. ME.
Wrong. I have a world's worth of options. And virtually none of them are subject to your approval or disapproval. Your petty opinions are irrelevant to my, or anyone else's, choices. Deal with it.
Gosh, which choice to make?
I choose individual liberty. You, like a big gubmint liberal, choose statism.
You're predictable, gotta give ya that.
Like you're not.

[Supernova]

Leftism is marked by a lack of confidence. Clinton, for example, led by the polls. Clinton never enjoyed his own confidence.

I do. I'm good and I know it. At the end of the day, my opinion of myself is the only one which really matters. I rely on no one else. I live alone, I've lived alone in my own house for over a decade answering to nobody and doing what I want, when I want and how I want. I'm independent, rely on nothing or no one, and I'm a fan of rugged individualism. There's nobody on Earth as good at being me as I am.
I usually try to be humble and all that, treating others as equals, but I do have a unique mind. Equal and unique is possible, everyone has their strengths, and you're in one of my strengths. You've slipped into attacking me because frankly, you've got nothing to challenge my points.

I say abusing drugs is a damned stupid thing to do.

You're left with two options. Either you support the brilliance of abusing drugs, or you attack the messenger, i.e. ME.

Gosh, which choice to make?

You're predictable, gotta give ya that.


I'm not being discreet. I can say, with a straight face, passing a lie detector test, that I've never been so damned stupid as to smoke marijuana. Discreet? I'm not discreet. I've never smoked marijuana and if you have, then that's proof I'm possessed of better judgement than you.
Gdoane,

You'll never convince me your happy being alone. We just weren't meant to be that way.
I know this from experience.

[gdoane]

Tom Pain writes:

It's also marked by a naive, to the point of childish, belief that the laws they favor and support are just, despite overwhelming empirical and objective evidence to the contrary.

There's no evidence that a worthless pathetic stoner burnout is empirically contrary to anything. They're monsters, utterly bizarre beasts who only mildly resemble human beings but in reality are just demons with a soul easily possessed, handed over willingly by a hedonistic owner. 3 of 4 arrests made in the USA are drug or alcohol involved. If you're victimized by a property crime then it's more than half likely that it's a demon druggie who did it.

You have no evidence to the contrary. Drug abusers are responsible for the bulk of evils committed in this world and their hedonism is due to a lack of a proper upbringing from decent parents. They are murderers and thieves, villains without a conscience, and the evil and havok they wreak range from turning our highways into graveyards to turning our schools into tombs.

And those who imbibe in substances that you wouldn't, can't possibly be as right as you. More circular leftist "logic".

You fail to demonstrate how the logic is "leftist". You merely make the statement and walk away from it as though it's correct and proven, but it's not. Nice try but I'm not a druggie and I've got more brain cells left than anybody who has ever been fool enough to puff on a burning weed.

So do I. But I don't walk in the world with the pretense that the decisions I make for my life make me a better man than those who don't make exactly the same choices.

Druggies aren't men. They're hedonistic demons, villains who rob their own minds blind and sacrifice their own souls for a fleeting moment of perceived pleasure.

Wrong. I have a world's worth of options. And virtually none of them are subject to your approval or disapproval. Your petty opinions are irrelevant to my, or anyone else's, choices. Deal with it.



I don't have to deal with anything. If I see you with drugs, then I get to call the cops and THEY will deal with you. I will smile and clap as they haul you off to prison, hopefully to be sentenced to umpteen hundreds of years behind bars to pay for your crimes against humanity. I hate drug abusers and I have no need to tolerate them on the streets of America. Our prisons are too empty for them to not do their part in filling them up.

I choose individual liberty. You, like a big gubmint liberal, choose statism.

Wrong. Liberals don't like prisons. I love them. I want more prisons. I want druggies filling up those prisons. I want them to suffer for their crimes, I want them to be punished for their hedonism and I want them to never walk amongst decent folks like me ever again. I want evil put in a cage. Hedonistic drug abusers are evil. Intrinsically evil people need to be kept away from basically good people.

Marijuana abusers are intrinsically evil. They will go so far to commit a heinous crime that they will seek out a drug dealer, they will give money to a drug dealer, they will transport an illicit controlled substance and they will prepare it for abuse. That's malice and aforethought. That's evil intent and evil preparation. There is no excuse for what they do and I don't want such malicious evil people walking the streets.

The pro-drug crowd bemoans their cohorts in prison. I applaud it. I want more druggies in prison and I want them there longer.

[gdoane]

Gdoane,

You'll never convince me your happy being alone. We just weren't meant to be that way.
I know this from experience.

I own my house, I own my truck, nobody gets on my case and I do what I want to. Living alone may not be for everybody, but I like it because it makes for really short arguments and I win all of them.

I've lived alone for 13 years now. I've got enough experience at living alone as to be unimpressed by whatever experience you're claiming.

[TLCTugger]

99 plants for one person?!
That doesn't seem like a lot to me.

That's saying a plant is about a 4 day supply. Not every plant will flourish, and these plants may not grow in captivity the way they do in Columbia.

-Ron

[page017]

I went searching on my own for some studies that show the other side of the medical marijuana debate. Here's what I found. http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html

Go figure, the stoner research suggests getting stoned, the government research suggests you don't.

[page017]

That doesn't seem like a lot to me.

That's saying a plant is about a 4 day supply. Not every plant will flourish, and these plants may not grow in captivity the way they do in Columbia.

-Ron

Thanks for the info, I did not know that a single plant provided that little, I always thought it was a lot more.

[TLCTugger]

Marijuana was the drug of choice of Charles Manson.

And Hitler liked carrot sticks. So?

-Ron

[Apatriot]

You haven't posed any argument why weed should be treated differently than booze or smokes.

-Ron

Well, knowing Gene from reading his viewpoints, he would probably agree with you. We need to ban booze and smokes (and aspirin) as well.

[TLCTugger]

The pro-drug crowd bemoans their cohorts in prison. I applaud it.
I don't have any cohorts in prison. I've never smoked anything.

Now let me get this straight; you are FOR the government seizing people who are hurting nobody, and for taking away their liberty, and for housing them (and providing their health care) for long periods at the expense of all of us, and for letting their families and businesses languish without them during that incarceration?

-Ron

[TLCTugger]

>> (99 plants!) That's saying a plant is about a 4 day supply. << -Ron
Thanks for the info.
WHOA! I was just guessing.

-Ron

[page017]

I don't have any cohorts in prison. I've never smoked anything.

Now let me get this straight; you are FOR the government seizing people who are hurting nobody, and for taking away their liberty, and for housing them (and providing their health care) for long periods at the expense of all of us, and for letting their families and businesses languish without them during that incarceration?

-Ron

I think the fact that everybody knows you will go to jail for smoking pot, and they continue to do so anyways, is only a point in showing that the drug is powerful. Either that or that jails are too nice to drug users and dealers.

[gdoane]

That doesn't seem like a lot to me.

That's saying a plant is about a 4 day supply. Not every plant will flourish, and these plants may not grow in captivity the way they do in Columbia.

-Ron

Grow in CAPTIVITY??? It's a plant! A WEED! What's it gonna do, ESCAPE with Marlin Perkins hot on it's trail?

[gdoane]

I don't have any cohorts in prison. I've never smoked anything.

Now let me get this straight; you are FOR the government seizing people who are hurting nobody, and for taking away their liberty, and for housing them (and providing their health care) for long periods at the expense of all of us, and for letting their families and businesses languish without them during that incarceration?

-Ron

Marijuana abusers are willing to commit crimes for fun. It's best to incarcerate them before they decide murdering everything that moves is fun, because if they'll risk their own life for fun they'll most certainly kill you or I for fun.

People who will commit a crime for no better reason than having a good time are inherently evil and capable of anything. They are amoral hedonists who will commit murder and act as if killing a man and squishing a bug are the same thing. You can't trust them and they shouldn't walk among decent people.

[TLCTugger]

Marijuana abusers are willing to commit crimes for fun.
You have arbitrarily decided that what they consider fun is a crime.

The gov't could just as easily outlaw guns. Or at least skeet shooting. Would you condemn a conscientious objector who fired a skeet rifle in the backwoods of his own land?

The gov't could as easily decide to bust into your house and throw you in prison for painting a PAINTING of a naked child (without a child to model for it), even if you didn't sell it or even show it to anyone.

Why is it the government's business how it's taxpaying citizens choose to recreate? There are lots of things that few people want to do, but that everyone has a right to do. The right to be an "odd duck" without gov't harrassment was very much in the framers' minds.

-Ron

[TLCTugger]

It's a plant! A WEED! What's it gonna do, ESCAPE?
BIG LAUGHS!

What I meant was that without the ability to let the plants thrive in the open (due to feds policy) legally grown weed might not flourish indoors.

-Ron

[ChloeP]

I'm going back a few pages with this remark, someone asked the questions is marijuana "good" for you, and is there any disease that it "cures". As for the question of cure, many drugs which are legal, only treat they do not cure anything which makes this invalid. As for if it is good for you, a majority of people using MEDICAL marijuana are using it to treat cronic pain, in many cases from a terminal illness SUCH AS cancer. These are people who have no hope, they are simply sitting back and waiting to die. It would seem to me that if they can ease that pain in any way, they should be allowed to do so. Good, then becomes a relative term. Relative to quality of life. I am not refering to your average <30 recreational pot smoker. I'm talking about people who are dying and who wish to ease their suffering. I see nothing at all wrong with that.

[gdoane]

I'm going back a few pages with this remark, someone asked the questions is marijuana "good" for you, and is there any disease that it "cures". As for the question of cure, many drugs which are legal, only treat they do not cure anything which makes this invalid. As for if it is good for you, a majority of people using MEDICAL marijuana are using it to treat cronic pain, in many cases from a terminal illness SUCH AS cancer. These are people who have no hope, they are simply sitting back and waiting to die. It would seem to me that if they can ease that pain in any way, they should be allowed to do so. Good, then becomes a relative term. Relative to quality of life. I am not refering to your average <30 recreational pot smoker. I'm talking about people who are dying and who wish to ease their suffering. I see nothing at all wrong with that.

If easing their suffering means poison on the streets then I say let them suffer. Their feeling good while dying is not worth the death of children in America and the robbery of another citizen's future. I couldn't care less if they could be helped by the demon weed. That's not a good enough reason to unleash Satan on my streets.

[ChloeP]

If easing their suffering means poison on the streets then I say let them suffer. Their feeling good while dying is not worth the death of children in America and the robbery of another citizen's future. I couldn't care less if they could be helped by the demon weed. That's not a good enough reason to unleash Satan on my streets.
I think you are making quite a reach here. I am specifically talking about marijuana which is available by prescription...not street drugs. That is another topic and it is one which can only be remedied by parents who take control of their children's lives and don't leave them for hours on end to entertain themselves.

Did marijuana, specifically, kill your brother? I would be interested in knowing how.

[BeHereNow]

The lethal dose of THC is 100 pounds of pot (dropped on the head from 100 feet).
Some even survive that.

[gdoane]

I think you are making quite a reach here. I am specifically talking about marijuana which is available by prescription...not street drugs. That is another topic and it is one which can only be remedied by parents who take control of their children's lives and don't leave them for hours on end to entertain themselves.

Did marijuana, specifically, kill your brother? I would be interested in knowing how.

I don't care if it's by prescription because any doctor evil enough to prescribe the demon weed shouldn't have a license.

Oh, and my brother? Apathy from getting stoned. He had blood in the toilet every time he went to the bathroom for over a year before he got straight and sober enough to get checked out by a doctor, and by then cancer had eaten his guts up like so many termites taking out a house.

Marijuana causes that sort of apathy. Anybody else goes to the bathroom and sees a toilet full of blood might go to the doctor, but not a stoner.

[ginshun]

Honestly, gdoane, why don't you just go watch Reefer Madness again?

It is quite obvious that you have no knowledge whatesoever of marajuana or its effects on people.


The plain and simple fact is that there are tons of leagal drugs on the maarket right now, that are far more harmful that pot. End of story.

[ginshun]

Oh, and my brother? Apathy from getting stoned. He had blood in the toilet every time he went to the bathroom for over a year before he got straight and sober enough to get checked out by a doctor, and by then cancer had eaten his guts up like so many termites taking out a house.

Marijuana causes that sort of apathy. Anybody else goes to the bathroom and sees a toilet full of blood might go to the doctor, but not a stoner.

Thats a load of crap.

Don't blame pot on your brother being too stupid to go to the doctor when he is ****ing blood.

I know a hell of a lot of stoners, and I don't know any that are so out of touch with reality that they disregard obvous serious medical problems.

[BeHereNow]

Oh, and my brother? Apathy from getting stoned. He had blood in the toilet every time he went to the bathroom for over a year before he got straight and sober enough to get checked out by a doctor, and by then cancer had eaten his guts up like so many termites taking out a house.
Sounds like an alcohol problem to me.
I hear that runs in the family.

[gdoane]

Honestly, gdoane, why don't you just go watch Reefer Madness again?

It's a sad movie and I always get misty watching it. You really feel sorry for those kids.

It is quite obvious that you have no knowledge whatesoever of marajuana or its effects on people.

I don't need any knowledge of it to know it's bad. I don't know the effects of drinking gasoline either but I know it's bad.


The plain and simple fact is that there are tons of leagal drugs on the maarket right now, that are far more harmful that pot. End of story.

That's broken window theory. Just because one window is broken, that's not a logical reason to go around breaking more. If there are other drugs worse than marijuana then the proper answer is to go and outlaw those too.

[tha malcontent™]

Marijuana abusers are willing to commit crimes for fun. It's best to incarcerate them before they decide murdering everything that moves is fun, because if they'll risk their own life for fun they'll most certainly kill you or I for fun.

People who will commit a crime for no better reason than having a good time are inherently evil and capable of anything. They are amoral hedonists who will commit murder and act as if killing a man and squishing a bug are the same thing. You can't trust them and they shouldn't walk among decent people.

This is an Absurd Response for the sake of Sarcasm, correct?...

Did I miss the reports of roving Potheads on Murdering Sprees?...

Most Potheads I know aren't motivated enough to swat a skeeter suckin' blood out of their arm, and are usually to Pacifist to harm anything anyway.

As far as I am Concerned, Pot was Criminalized Dishonestly by Influence from the Timber Industry, and it was done by using Blacks as the Scapegoat.

I am Against Medical Marijuanna because the Synthetics don't require those who are sick to inhale Smoke, but ultimately, Pot should be legal, regulated and taxed...

I have never seen two potheads get into a fist fight, but I have witnessed so many brawls with Drunks that it's really Insanity to deny...

One Question, Gene...

Are you Equally Against Booze?

If you are, then at least I will Concede that you are Consistent.

:)

peace...

[gdoane]

the malcontent writes:

This is an Absurd Response for the sake of Sarcasm, correct?...



Nope. Not correct. Nor is it absurd. Criminals who would commit crimes for fun would do crimes for any lesser reason, and there's not much that ain't a lesser reason.

Did I miss the reports of roving Potheads on Murdering Sprees?...

Nope. Marijuana is typically a "drug in combination" and is rarely, if ever, used alone. For example, most consumption of PCP is done by lacing marijuana cigarettes with the killer drug. They call it "Fry". http://www.oasas.state.ny.us/AdMed/drugs/fry.htm

Of course, when a drunk driver gets killed and he was smoking weed, the alcohol gets blamed. And when somebody on PCP goes nuts and kills a bunch of people, even if he smoked the PCP in from the weed, the PCP gets the blame. Because Marijuana is almost never used by itself, the other drugs that it's a gateway to take the fall.

One Question, Gene...

Are you Equally Against Booze?

I'm against booze and tobacco and refined sugar. People shouldn't be allowed to access things they might like too much. It's bad for them and it leads to hedonism.

[ginshun]

Nope. Marijuana is typically a "drug in combination" and is rarely, if ever, used alone.

Wrong again. Where do you come up with this junk?

Actually never mind, I am pretty sure that you are just making fun now.

I can't imagine anybody actually thinking the way you claim to.

[tha malcontent™]

Nope. Not correct. Nor is it absurd. Criminals who would commit crimes for fun would do crimes for any lesser reason, and there's not much that ain't a lesser reason.


I don't see how this Addressed my point regarding Pot.


Nope. Marijuana is typically a "drug in combination" and is rarely, if ever, used alone. For example, most consumption of PCP is done by lacing marijuana cigarettes with the killer drug. They call it "Fry". http://www.oasas.state.ny.us/AdMed/drugs/fry.htm
(http://www.oasas.state.ny.us/AdMed/drugs/fry.htm)

I agree, most people I know who smoke Pot, also at least Drynk, if not use other Substances... More than not, but there are those I know who only Smoke Pot, but do nothing else, including tobacco.

The problem I have is Consistency in Law, and Booze is worse than Pot, yet it is Legal, and the Reality is, that will not change.

As long as those who use Pot do not Affect me, I have not problem with it being Legalized.

They get behind the Wheel, or have Medical issues, I on point one want them put in Jail, on point two want them to lie in the bed they made.

Of course, when a drunk driver gets killed and he was smoking weed, the alcohol gets blamed. And when somebody on PCP goes nuts and kills a bunch of people, even if he smoked the PCP in from the weed, the PCP gets the blame. Because Marijuana is almost never used by itself, the other drugs that it's a gateway to take the fall.


I agree to a point, but I know too many people who are Functioning, Working Taxpayers who only smoke Pot, and have never had an issue, with work, with the Law, with driving, or with Mass Murder.

I'm against booze and tobacco and refined sugar. People shouldn't be allowed to access things they might like too much. It's bad for them and it leads to hedonism.


This explains everything for me with exception to one thing...

Would you Legislate to make Sugar and Booze Ilegal?

:)

peace...

[gdoane]

tha malcontent writes:

I don't see how this Addressed my point regarding Pot.



If you had a way to identify future criminals, people who would do horrible deeds BEFORE they did their evil, would you do it?

Locking up pot smokers does exactly that. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

THREE OUT OF FOUR CONVICTED JAIL INMATES WERE ALCOHOL OR DRUGS-INVOLVED AT THE TIME OF THEIR CURRENT OFFENSE.

So, if they're using drugs then go ahead and book 'em because even if they haven't committed a crime, they're gonna. 75% of the people locked up did drugs or booze and hey, those are just the ones that got CAUGHT. Nearly half the crimes committed in America go unsolved.

By locking up these villains when they're just caught drunk or stoned in public, massive amounts of crime is averted, the streets are made safer and a lot of people who would be victimized by these slimeballs on dope won't be victimized because the law gets their crooked hides off the streets before they have an opportunity to do the crimes that dopers do.

I agree, most people I know who smoke Pot, also at least Drynk, if not use other Substances... More than not, but there are those I know who only Smoke Pot, but do nothing else, including tobacco.

The problem I have is Consistency in Law, and Booze is worse than Pot, yet it is Legal, and the Reality is, that will not change.

I don't see why it won't change. We had prohibition once, and we can have it again. The big deal that brought about the end of Prohibition was the "St. Valentines Day Massacre" which was no big deal. More people died at Columbine High School than did in any puny old gangland shooting.

As long as those who use Pot do not Affect me, I have not problem with it being Legalized.

They get behind the Wheel, or have Medical issues, I on point one want them put in Jail, on point two want them to lie in the bed they made.

I want them put in jail because I know what kind of people they are and they're crooks. Crooks belong in jail. Why wait for them to do another crime when you know they're going to? Just lock them up for having the dope and prevent the crimes they'll surely otherwise commit.

I agree to a point, but I know too many people who are Functioning, Working Taxpayers who only smoke Pot, and have never had an issue, with work, with the Law, with driving, or with Mass Murder.



I don't know anyone who smokes pot and I intend to keep it that way. I don't associate with such villains. I have more class than to hobknob with such lowbrow putrid little people.

This explains everything for me with exception to one thing...

Would you Legislate to make Sugar and Booze Ilegal?

Of course I would. The more things that are illegal, the sooner the people who are apt to break the law will get locked away and the better our streets will become.

[tha malcontent™]

If you had a way to identify future criminals, people who would do horrible deeds BEFORE they did their evil, would you do it?

Locking up pot smokers does exactly that. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

THREE OUT OF FOUR CONVICTED JAIL INMATES WERE ALCOHOL OR DRUGS-INVOLVED AT THE TIME OF THEIR CURRENT OFFENSE.


Yes, but from that same link:

Half (50%) of convicted jail inmates were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the offense, down from 59% in 1996.

Obviously, 50% were NOT... So Drugs are not the Cause of all Crime, if we Assume they are the Cause of any...

I lean on the Individual on this, because of the Reality that Millions of people Smoke Pot, and do not Commit Crime, with exception of Buying or Selling the Pot, which by the way, are part of the above 50%.

So, if they're using drugs then go ahead and book 'em because even if they haven't committed a crime, they're gonna. 75% of the people locked up did drugs or booze and hey, those are just the ones that got CAUGHT. Nearly half the crimes committed in America go unsolved.


They are Committing a Crime by using/buying Pot already... Forgone Conclusion.

As to your Assertion that they would Commit Further Crime, that's not backed up by the Millions who do not Commit Crime, but use Pot.

By locking up these villains when they're just caught drunk or stoned in public, massive amounts of crime is averted, the streets are made safer and a lot of people who would be victimized by these slimeballs on dope won't be victimized because the law gets their crooked hides off the streets before they have an opportunity to do the crimes that dopers do.


Massive amounts of Jails would be filled with half the Population, Gene.

You Conclusion above would make half the Nation Prison Guards for the other Half.

Simply being Drunk is not only not a Crime, it does not lead to Crime MILLIONS of times a day in this Country.

I don't see why it won't change. We had prohibition once, and we can have it again. The big deal that brought about the end of Prohibition was the "St. Valentines Day Massacre" which was no big deal. More people died at Columbine High School than did in any puny old gangland shooting.


Prohibition in a Free Society is Absurd.

You are Obviously not of the mindset that the Founders were.

Drunks went to Jail during the time of the Founders, and they would have never Considered your Tyranous Solution to the Reality of Man.

You Solution would take the Prison Population from 2 million to 20 million so fast, that Hitler or Stalin would be Impressed.

I want them put in jail because I know what kind of people they are and they're crooks. Crooks belong in jail. Why wait for them to do another crime when you know they're going to? Just lock them up for having the dope and prevent the crimes they'll surely otherwise commit.


Again, Millions of People smoke Pot and are not Committing Crimes outside of Violating the Absurd Laws that made Pot Ilegal.

Furthermore, 10's of Millions are getting Drunk and not Committing Crimes, and your link does not back your Assertion that any more than a small percentage of people who Drynk or Smoke Pot Commit Crime.

And only 50% of the small Percentage who do Commit Crime, do it while Drunk or High on somthing.

Your Theory is Flawed, and shown to be so by your own Source.

I don't know anyone who smokes pot and I intend to keep it that way. I don't associate with such villains. I have more class than to hobknob with such lowbrow putrid little people.


This is part of the problem.

Ignorance of Facts, and staying that Willfully, is not going to help you Progress as a Human.

You know People who Smoke Pot, but they would never tell you, and I can understand why.

Of course I would. The more things that are illegal, the sooner the people who are apt to break the law will get locked away and the better our streets will become.

Wow.

I think I have spent enough time on this.

The Sugar Police might be reading...:rolleyes:

If it ever comes to pass that you Admit that this is some kind of joke, let me in on it.

You really pulled the Libertarian out of me today, and this Federalist wants to say, Thank you!

:)

peace...

[gdoane]

tha malcontent writes:

Yes, but from that same link:

Half (50%) of convicted jail inmates were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the offense, down from 59% in 1996.



Yeah, ain't that amazing? ESPECIALLY when you consider that a lot less than half the people in America are under the influence of drugs or alcohol at any given moment. I'd think 20% would be way up on the high side (pun not intended) so we've got 20% or fewer of the people committing 50% of the crimes.

Obviously, 50% were NOT... So Drugs are not the Cause of all Crime, if we Assume they are the Cause of any...

I lean on the Individual on this, because of the Reality that Millions of people Smoke Pot, and do not Commit Crime, with exception of Buying or Selling the Pot, which by the way, are part of the above 50%.

Buying or selling the pot doesn't make any difference in whether a person is going to be a criminal or not. The whole reason they're buying and selling pot is because it's illegal. If it were legal then they'd just be buying and selling crack cocaine, heroin, cathinone or whatever else would make them money.

They are Committing a Crime by using/buying Pot already... Forgone Conclusion.

As to your Assertion that they would Commit Further Crime, that's not backed up by the Millions who do not Commit Crime, but use Pot.

You seriously think that there are MILLIONS?? There aren't. Only about 1 in 8 prisoners in Federal Prison are there for Marijuana offenses. http://www.mpp.org/arrests/prisoners.html and of those, most are probably plea bargained down from far more serious charges.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

At any given time in America, there are just over 3 Million total citizens who abuse marijuana on a daily basis. That's about 1% of the population. The population of 12th Graders who had ever used marijuana is about 46.1%, or less than half.

92% of people who have tried Marijuana did so before they turned 18. Legalization would not cover them because to be perfectly honest, you know every bit as well as I do that Marijuana will NEVER be legalized for minors. But it's really mostly kiddies that want to abuse it. So legalization would be stupid and would only drop the offenders from 100% down to 92% because the kiddies will still be breaking the law.

Massive amounts of Jails would be filled with half the Population, Gene.



Not true. Marijuana abuse would drop to pre-1965 levels when it was fewer than 5% of the population which had ever suffered the lack of judgement to smoke the demon weed.



You Solution would take the Prison Population from 2 million to 20 million so fast, that Hitler or Stalin would be Impressed.



Hitler and Stalin put people in graves, not in prisons.

[tha malcontent™]

Yeah, ain't that amazing? ESPECIALLY when you consider that a lot less than half the people in America are under the influence of drugs or alcohol at any given moment. I'd think 20% would be way up on the high side (pun not intended) so we've got 20% or fewer of the people committing 50% of the crimes.

50% of 2 million is 1 million... In a country of 300,000,000 people, that is .003% of the Population, and I would bet that at least in in 10 people get high, at least Occassionally, regardless of what they Admit to in Polling.

That's 30,000,000 Americans, if I could bet on it, that smoke Pot.

And of that 1 million in Prison, what percent do you think are in Jail over Specifically Drug relate Charges, as Opposed to Robbing a store while High?

Buying or selling the pot doesn't make any difference in whether a person is going to be a criminal or not. The whole reason they're buying and selling pot is because it's illegal. If it were legal then they'd just be buying and selling crack cocaine, heroin, cathinone or whatever else would make them money.

I don't know how you make that leap.


You seriously think that there are MILLIONS?? There aren't. Only about 1 in 8 prisoners in Federal Prison are there for Marijuana offenses. http://www.mpp.org/arrests/prisoners.html and of those, most are probably plea bargained down from far more serious charges.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

There are Millions of Pot users in this Country, to deny that, is to deny Reality.

The Fact that you don't know anyone who does, Speaks either to your small Social Circle, or your Social Circle's Fear of letting you on the little Secret.

At any given time in America, there are just over 3 Million total citizens who abuse marijuana on a daily basis. That's about 1% of the population. The population of 12th Graders who had ever used marijuana is about 46.1%, or less than half.

3 million on a daily, and 30 million Occasionally.

92% of people who have tried Marijuana did so before they turned 18. Legalization would not cover them because to be perfectly honest, you know every bit as well as I do that Marijuana will NEVER be legalized for minors. But it's really mostly kiddies that want to abuse it. So legalization would be stupid and would only drop the offenders from 100% down to 92% because the kiddies will still be breaking the law.

The Offenders would be no different than with Booze, but we have Established that you would outlaw Sugar, so your Rational Thought Process missed the bus long before this Discussion.


Not true. Marijuana abuse would drop to pre-1965 levels when it was fewer than 5% of the population which had ever suffered the lack of judgement to smoke the demon weed.

Thank the Baby-boom for that Surge in Pot use...

It would only drop by the Percentage that you Imprisoned people, and if you were King, and thank God you are not, that would be about 20 million people in Prison within a Decade.

But you'd feel good about yourself, because they wouldn't be getting High and going to Phish Concerts.


Hitler and Stalin put people in graves, not in prisons.

They also Imprisoned People on Bogus Charges...

But not as Bogus as "Possession of Sugar".

Have a good one, Gene!

:)

peace...

[gdoane]

tha malcontent writes:

50% of 2 million is 1 million... In a country of 300,000,000 people, that is .003% of the Population, and I would bet that at least in in 10 people get high, at least Occassionally, regardless of what they Admit to in Polling.

What the heck are you using to get your math, a Speak-n-Spell? 1 out of 100 is 1%, so 1 out of 300 is 1/3%, or about 0.33%. You're sitting there with probably $2,000 worth of computing equipment at your fingertips, and it would be a lot easier to follow you if you'd learn to use it.

You'd be wrong about 1 in 10 people getting high. Once-per-day abuse is about 2.1 Million people, or 0.7% of the population. There are more gays in America than there are drug abusers. Here, maybe a chart would help you get the picture.

http://www.mindspring.com/~gdoane/_uimages/marijuanabyage.jpg

Notice the bell curve? Notice how when people grow the hell up that they stop getting stoned dropping off rapidly by almost a percentage point per year after the peak at age 19? That's a NIDA chart, by the way. When you get up to my age (41), the bell curve would continue back down under 1% same as it is for under 12 years old.

That's 30,000,000 Americans, if I could bet on it, that smoke Pot.



You'd lose. Only 20% of American adults smoke tobacco. Since only 141 Million Americans are old enough for the labor force, that means there are only about 28 million tobacco users in the USA. And you can't be seriously suggesting that more people abuse marijuana than abuse tobacco.

And of that 1 million in Prison, what percent do you think are in Jail over Specifically Drug relate Charges, as Opposed to Robbing a store while High?



Well that's a good question, and I'd ask you to consider this: cops don't go door to door sniffing the odors from a home. The people who get the attentions of the local constabulary had to do something to catch their eye. So I'd say it's close to 100%. I work with cops all the time, I'm a radio technician and generally, they LIKE me but it still takes me a while to get their attention.

The typical druggie argument is that the pot smoker is in his own living room, watching Spongebob Squarepants reruns on TV and Jackbooted Stormtroopers, magically zeroing in on the burning weed, land a platoon of cops on his roof in a Rambo-style raid which results in him being hauled off to jail in his underpants still clutching his remote control and claiming that if he was watching FOX NEWS CHANNEL they'd have never caught him.

That's a crock. You've gotta screw up and screw up bad to get a cop to slap on the bracelets and read you your rights. I've never been arrested (although I have been in every jail within a hundred miles of here) and the people I've seen who get arrested, they WORKED at it. I know the romantic anti-cop paradigm is a power-mad goon with a badge looking to arrest people going door to door like some kind of demented Jehovah's Witness running around with a paddy wagon and arrest powers, but that is NOT the case.

Nobody is arrested in their own homes without doing something screwed up enough to get attention. These dopers did something. ALL of them.

There are Millions of Pot users in this Country, to deny that, is to deny Reality.

The Fact that you don't know anyone who does, Speaks either to your small Social Circle, or your Social Circle's Fear of letting you on the little Secret.

That may well be true. I work in Public Safety Radio all the time. I helped BUILD four of the current 911 Dispatch centers around the Phoenix metro area. I can't play around with that sorta thing and pass a background check. No way. If I had a drug arrest or a drug history then I'd be useless on any job that involves public safety, encrypted comms with SWAT, TOU, or NARC units, and you can forget about me working with the DEA ever again.

Anybody who knows me will also know that I'd toss them to the wolves rather than risk my security clearances and clean background checks. I like public safety comms. I support the law, I support national security and I'm one of the best radio techs in Arizona with the ability, background and respect for the law to get a serious comm system up and running across local, state, and federal agencies. They trust me, and that trust is well placed. I'll keep that trust.

It would only drop by the Percentage that you Imprisoned people, and if you were King, and thank God you are not, that would be about 20 million people in Prison within a Decade.

But you'd feel good about yourself, because they wouldn't be getting High and going to Phish Concerts.

Phishing is illegal. It's an attempt to gain personal information through spoofing a commercial website via email, ie "We're your BANK and we had a recent attack so to rebuild our data we need you to give us your account number and password."

I would feel better if nobody got high. I have a profound respect for the human mind. It's a complicated thing and to throw chemicals at it is just wrong, so very wrong.

[TLCTugger]

New York Times editorial on the folly of criminalizing marijuana.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/27/opinion/27tierney.html?th&emc=th

I was particularly struck by the sad case of AIDS patient Peter McWilliams, . . .
- - - -
"who said smoking marijuana was the only way to control the nausea brought on by the mix of drugs he took for AIDS and cancer.

He was forced to switch to Marinol after a D.E.A. investigation led to his conviction for violating federal laws against marijuana. In 2000, several weeks before he was to be sentenced, he was found dead in his bathroom. He had choked on his own vomit."
- - - -
He literally died from lack of a simple weed to control his nausea.

How unbelievably evil of our government.

-Ron

[TLCTugger]

I'm against booze and tobacco and refined sugar.
That's interesting. My problem with sugar is the environmentally messy way in which it is harvested. I think we ought to impose high taxes on sugar sourced from polluters.

-Ron

[Oddball]

New York Times editorial on the folly of criminalizing marijuana.
With "friends" like them, who needs enemies!

[TLCTugger]

If you had a way to identify future criminals, people who would do horrible deeds BEFORE they did their evil, would you do it?

(THREE OUT OF FOUR CONVICTED JAIL INMATES WERE ALCOHOL OR DRUGS-INVOLVED AT THE TIME OF THEIR CURRENT OFFENSE.)
Would I do it? OF COURSE NOT!

What kind of fascist freak wants to jail a whole group of people for the crimes of some of its members?

Education and equal opportunity to help people avoid crime, and severe punishment for people who COMMIT crimes (with actual victims) are fine.

-Ron

[TLCTugger]

You'd be wrong about 1 in 10 people getting high
Did they cover bar charts in your grade school?

That looks very much in the neighborhood of 10% that smoke weed occassionally. Certainly a lot more than 1%. I'm really surprised by how FEW people I know who smoke, considering your chart. I guess if I smoked myself, I'd run into more of them.

-Ron

[FatRepublican]

People who are militantly against the legalization of marijuana scare me.

I'm all for freedom of self-destruction in this country.

Legalize marijuana with the same restrictions as alcohol. They have the same effects on people short and long term.

[Marijuana_MyAntiDrug]

SACRAMENTO - The California Highway Patrol has stopped confiscating all medical marijuana during traffic stops, following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that left intact a state law allowing the drug to be used for medicinal purposes.

The policy change was a victory for medical marijuana advocates, namely the Oakland-based Americans for Safe Access, which sued the CHP and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger earlier this year to have the practice stopped.

The group's executive director, Steph Sherer, said it would send a "clear message" that patients' rights need to be protected.

"Our hope is this will ripple around the state," she said.

CHP officers were told in an Aug. 22 bulletin of the new policy, which now allows patients traveling on state highways to have as much as 8 ounces of marijuana if they had a certified user identification card or written approval from a physician.

CHP spokesman Lt. Joe Whiteford, who said patrol officers now "have got their marching orders," noted that law enforcement officials were initially confused about how to interpret a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

In June, the court ruled that users of medical marijuana in a dozen states, including California, are not shielded from federal prosecution. However, the justices did not rule on the state's 1996 law that legalized medical marijuana.

Advocates have long complained that police officers continued to confiscate medical marijuana even after the law took effect. Law enforcement officials, however, had maintained that they would continue the practice until the state issued identification cards for legitimate cannabis users.

California health officials began issuing identification cards earlier this year, but patients have been slow to participate. Only about 180 cards were issued.

Several cities and counties in the state started their own programs. San Francisco, for example, has about 8,000 registered cannabis users.na

[tha malcontent™]

tha malcontent writes:



What the heck are you using to get your math, a Speak-n-Spell? 1 out of 100 is 1%, so 1 out of 300 is 1/3%, or about 0.33%. You're sitting there with probably $2,000 worth of computing equipment at your fingertips, and it would be a lot easier to follow you if you'd learn to use it.

You'd be wrong about 1 in 10 people getting high. Once-per-day abuse is about 2.1 Million people, or 0.7% of the population. There are more gays in America than there are drug abusers. Here, maybe a chart would help you get the picture.

http://www.mindspring.com/~gdoane/_uimages/marijuanabyage.jpg

Notice the bell curve? Notice how when people grow the hell up that they stop getting stoned dropping off rapidly by almost a percentage point per year after the peak at age 19? That's a NIDA chart, by the way. When you get up to my age (41), the bell curve would continue back down under 1% same as it is for under 12 years old.



You'd lose. Only 20% of American adults smoke tobacco. Since only 141 Million Americans are old enough for the labor force, that means there are only about 28 million tobacco users in the USA. And you can't be seriously suggesting that more people abuse marijuana than abuse tobacco.



Well that's a good question, and I'd ask you to consider this: cops don't go door to door sniffing the odors from a home. The people who get the attentions of the local constabulary had to do something to catch their eye. So I'd say it's close to 100%. I work with cops all the time, I'm a radio technician and generally, they LIKE me but it still takes me a while to get their attention.

The typical druggie argument is that the pot smoker is in his own living room, watching Spongebob Squarepants reruns on TV and Jackbooted Stormtroopers, magically zeroing in on the burning weed, land a platoon of cops on his roof in a Rambo-style raid which results in him being hauled off to jail in his underpants still clutching his remote control and claiming that if he was watching FOX NEWS CHANNEL they'd have never caught him.

That's a crock. You've gotta screw up and screw up bad to get a cop to slap on the bracelets and read you your rights. I've never been arrested (although I have been in every jail within a hundred miles of here) and the people I've seen who get arrested, they WORKED at it. I know the romantic anti-cop paradigm is a power-mad goon with a badge looking to arrest people going door to door like some kind of demented Jehovah's Witness running around with a paddy wagon and arrest powers, but that is NOT the case.

Nobody is arrested in their own homes without doing something screwed up enough to get attention. These dopers did something. ALL of them.



That may well be true. I work in Public Safety Radio all the time. I helped BUILD four of the current 911 Dispatch centers around the Phoenix metro area. I can't play around with that sorta thing and pass a background check. No way. If I had a drug arrest or a drug history then I'd be useless on any job that involves public safety, encrypted comms with SWAT, TOU, or NARC units, and you can forget about me working with the DEA ever again.

Anybody who knows me will also know that I'd toss them to the wolves rather than risk my security clearances and clean background checks. I like public safety comms. I support the law, I support national security and I'm one of the best radio techs in Arizona with the ability, background and respect for the law to get a serious comm system up and running across local, state, and federal agencies. They trust me, and that trust is well placed. I'll keep that trust.



Phishing is illegal. It's an attempt to gain personal information through spoofing a commercial website via email, ie "We're your BANK and we had a recent attack so to rebuild our data we need you to give us your account number and password."

I would feel better if nobody got high. I have a profound respect for the human mind. It's a complicated thing and to throw chemicals at it is just wrong, so very wrong.



Yeah, don't know what I was doing with that .003% thing... My head is hurting today, but I am darn sure there was no excuse for it when I posted it.

Did I undstand you earlier, would you Outlaw Surgar, Gene?...

Honestly?

:)

peace...

[gdoane]

Mari wrote:

SACRAMENTO - The California Highway Patrol has stopped confiscating all medical marijuana during traffic stops, following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that left intact a state law allowing the drug to be used for medicinal purposes.

I don't care if it's medicinal or not, that stuff doesn't belong with somebody DRIVING A CAR!!! You drive around these parts with a beer in your hand and see if the cops don't arrest you. They most definitely will and pot shouldn't be any different because it's a known intoxicant.

The policy change was a victory for medical marijuana advocates, namely the Oakland-based Americans for Safe Access, which sued the CHP and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger earlier this year to have the practice stopped.

The group's executive director, Steph Sherer, said it would send a "clear message" that patients' rights need to be protected.



No, MY rights need to be protected from people who are stoned and behind the wheel. Anybody gets a "medical marijuana" prescription should instantly have to surrender their license to drive because if they're so sick that they can't go through their life without being stoned then they are definitely too sick to be driving without being stoned.

They should also lose their children if they have any because children should never be exposed to that toxic smoke, and they should lose any pilots license, boating license or anything else that might negatively impact public safety if done while stoned.

California health officials began issuing identification cards earlier this year, but patients have been slow to participate. Only about 180 cards were issued.

Are these cards matters of public record? Because I'd love to write these jerks and tell them how much I hate what they're doing.

[Marijuana_MyAntiDrug]

"If your president can smoke a joint, if your Congress people can smoke a joint, you mean to tell me a police officer can't smoke the joint when they were in college?"

Hiring criminals to arrest criminals.

The FBI requires its candidates to have no more than 15 uses of marijuana and not within the three years before the application date. The FBI also requires that other drugs, including steroids, not be used more than five times and not within 10 years of the application date.


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lapd29aug29,1,1817676.story?coll=la-headlines-california

[gdoane]

"If your president can smoke a joint, if your Congress people can smoke a joint, you mean to tell me a police officer can't smoke the joint when they were in college?"

That's exactly right. I never smoked a joint and I'm therefore better and smarter than anyone who has. I have standards, and I hold my elected officials and sworn officers to higher standards than I have for myself.

Which basically means I expect them to be perfection personified.

There are some things that you do that crosses a threshold. If you have sex, then you're not a virgin anymore. If you murder somebody, you're a murderer for the rest of your days. If you cheat on your spouse, then you're an adulterer forever. If you're convicted of a felony, then you're a felon from now on until eternity.

And if you smoke marijuana then you're a pothead. Your mind will never return to its natural unadulterated state; your experience will forever modify your personality, your morality and your trustworthyness.

I could never trust anyone who had smoked marijuana. By doing so, they've shown that they're susceptible to temptation and evil, hedonists not to put to fine a point on it, and anybody who will mess up their relationship with their own BRAIN won't think twice about screwing anything else or anybody else over.


Hiring criminals to arrest criminals.

You mean there's no honor among thieves? Wow, there's a news flash. Hey, any means necessary to get crummy pot smokers behind bars is a good idea. I want them in jail. No, check that, I want them thrown UNDER the jail.

It's really not much difference than enlisting the aid of "The Northern Alliance" in Afghanistan to get people we hate to kill other people we hate. The tactic in Koei's "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" is called "Rival Tigers". Get two enemies you despise at each other's throats and laugh as one is defeated and the other is weakened. Then you move on the weakened enemy, defeat him and no enemy is left.

There's nothing wrong with turning evil people against other evil people. Heck, it's amusing when it works.

The FBI requires its candidates to have no more than 15 uses of marijuana and not within the three years before the application date. The FBI also requires that other drugs, including steroids, not be used more than five times and not within 10 years of the application date.

The FBI are Kindergarten Kops. They're not even real law enforcement, they're morons. They're where real cops who have washed out go apply to pretend to be a cop.

What was their last "Big Case"? The DC Sniper, am I right? Dumb jerks placed the assassins in a white van. They were in a blue Chevy Cutlass. Dumb jerks said the assassins were a white middle-aged guy. It was a black teenager. And at the end of the case, it was a truck driver who caught the bastards.

The FBI could not have been more useless if they'd tried. Everything they could have done wrong, they did wrong. Everything they could have gotten wrong, they got wrong.

Cripes, these days, if I were a mass murdering maniac I'd be more afraid of American truck drivers than the pathetic FBI.

It's not surprising that they allow druggies. It's not like they expect their agency to deliver any results.

[ginshun]

It's not surprising that they allow druggies. It's not like they expect their agency to deliver any results.

I am not aware of any place of emplyment on earth that having smoked pot at one time or another disqualifies you from employment. There might be some, but not very meny.

Hell, as a matter of fact, you can smoke on a daily basis and still hold most jobs with no problem.

I am thouroghly conviced that this is all just a joke though, so it really doesn't matter.

[tha malcontent™]

I am thouroghly conviced that this is all just a joke though, so it really doesn't matter.

I Second that Emotion.

:)

peace...

[joush]

lol. i should be smokin' like a bowl a day acording to this. lol

yeah this thread got way out of control.

this was all for US government class, and none of you helped out one bit. i think the tenth should clear things up a bit.




(third)

[gdoane]

I am not aware of any place of emplyment on earth that having smoked pot at one time or another disqualifies you from employment. There might be some, but not very meny.


Anyplace I'm in charge of the hiring of would have that as an instant blacklist item. Anybody who has ever smoked pot would never be able to get me to sign off on their working for me and if I found out about it they'd be fired on the spot with zero notice. It would be "GET OFF MY PROPERTY, POTHEAD" in no uncertain terms.

There are plenty enough people who have never abused illegal drugs that there shouldn't be a problem keeping potheads out of the American workplaces. That's a health and safety issue. Many jobs can't afford distracted workers on the jobsite.

[Sparhawk]

Anyplace I'm in charge of the hiring of would have that as an instant blacklist item. Anybody who has ever smoked pot would never be able to get me to sign off on their working for me and if I found out about it they'd be fired on the spot with zero notice. It would be "GET OFF MY PROPERTY, POTHEAD" in no uncertain terms.

There are plenty enough people who have never abused illegal drugs that there shouldn't be a problem keeping potheads out of the American workplaces. That's a health and safety issue. Many jobs can't afford distracted workers on the jobsite.

When did you give up smoking weed? Only a reformed person takes such an absolute, ridiculous view.

[tha malcontent™]

When did you give up smoking weed? Only a reformed person takes such an absolute, ridiculous view.

Has that Question been asked and answered?...

Gene, did you ever smoke weed in your Life?

:)

peace...

[gdoane]

Has that Question been asked and answered?...

Gene, did you ever smoke weed in your Life?

:)

peace...

No, like over 40% of Americans I've never been that stupid even once in my life.

Other stupid things I've never done:


I've never superglued my nostrils together.
I've never had any part of my body pierced.
Or tattooed.
I've never worn women's underwear.
I've never walked barefoot over hot coals.
I've never slept on a bed made of nails.
I've never bought a European automobile.
Or a Japanese one.
I've never drank the water out of the toilet.
Or washed with it either.
I'm not an idiot. I don't do dumb things.

[Byzantine]

the pro-pot crowds are usual the same ones that block streets and damage property and attack people in anti-war and protests against meetings by important world leaders :rolleyes:

[gdoane]

the pro-pot crowds are usual the same ones that block streets and damage property and attack people in anti-war and protests against meetings by important world leaders :rolleyes:

Or worse:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0830Garfunkel-ON.html
Art Garfunkel charged with marijuana possession


Associated Press
Aug. 30, 2005 07:59 AM

WOODSTOCK, N.Y. - Singer Art Garfunkel, who pleaded guilty last year to pot possession in upstate New York, was charged again Sunday after a marijuana cigarette was allegedly found in the ashtray of his car, state police said.

The 63-year-old Garfunkel, who lives in Manhattan, was charged after being pulled over for failing to stop his vehicle at a stop sign, The Daily Freeman of Kingston reported Tuesday.

Upon approaching Garfunkel's car, a trooper noticed a strong odor of marijuana and a subsequent search turned up a joint in the ashtray, the newspaper reported. He was issued a ticket and is due back in Woodstock Town Court on Sept. 22.

Driving under the influence? Too stoned to realize what you need to do at a stop sign?

Sheer luck is the only reason that creep isn't a murderer and charged as such. Damned potheads don't care about their own life or the lives of their fellow citizens.

[Marijuana_MyAntiDrug]

Or worse:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0830Garfunkel-ON.html
[/font]

Driving under the influence? Too stoned to realize what you need to do at a stop sign?

Sheer luck is the only reason that creep isn't a murderer and charged as such. Damned potheads don't care about their own life or the lives of their fellow citizens.

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving4.shtml

Marijuana And Actual Driving Performance Executive Summary
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
By Robbe HWJ, O'Hanlon JF
November 1993

Conducted by Institute for Human Psychopharmacology University of Limburg Abstract 2A-6211 LS Maastricht -- Netherlands
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590


But THC is not a profoundly impairing drug. It does affect automatic information processing, even after low doses, but not to any great extent after high doses. It apparently affects controlled information processing in a variety of laboratory tests, but not to the extent which is beyond the individual's ability to control when he is motivated and permitted to do so in real driving.

Marijuana's effects on driving performance were compared to those of many other drugs. It was concluded that THC's effects after doses up to 300 mcg / kg never exceed alcohol's at BAC's of 0.08 g %; and were in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs'. Yet THC's effects differ qualitatively from many other drugs, especially alcohol. Evidence from the present and previous studies stronly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the former's users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence. Still one can easily imagine situations where the influence of marijuana smoking might have an exceedingly dangerous effect; i.e., emergency situations which put high demands on the driver's information processing capacity, prolonged monotonous driving, and after THC has been taken with other drugs, especially alcohol

Finally, the relation between driving impairment following marijuana smoking and plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH is discussed. It appears not possible to conclude anything about a driver's impairment on the basis of his / her plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH determined in a single sample.

[tha malcontent™]

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving4.shtml

Marijuana And Actual Driving Performance Executive Summary
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
By Robbe HWJ, O'Hanlon JF
November 1993

Conducted by Institute for Human Psychopharmacology University of Limburg Abstract 2A-6211 LS Maastricht -- Netherlands
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590


But THC is not a profoundly impairing drug. It does affect automatic information processing, even after low doses, but not to any great extent after high doses. It apparently affects controlled information processing in a variety of laboratory tests, but not to the extent which is beyond the individual's ability to control when he is motivated and permitted to do so in real driving.

Marijuana's effects on driving performance were compared to those of many other drugs. It was concluded that THC's effects after doses up to 300 mcg / kg never exceed alcohol's at BAC's of 0.08 g %; and were in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs'. Yet THC's effects differ qualitatively from many other drugs, especially alcohol. Evidence from the present and previous studies stronly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the former's users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence. Still one can easily imagine situations where the influence of marijuana smoking might have an exceedingly dangerous effect; i.e., emergency situations which put high demands on the driver's information processing capacity, prolonged monotonous driving, and after THC has been taken with other drugs, especially alcohol

Finally, the relation between driving impairment following marijuana smoking and plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH is discussed. It appears not possible to conclude anything about a driver's impairment on the basis of his / her plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH determined in a single sample.

Interesting read...

Still don't want people Driving High.

Stay home, watch Reservior Dogs, eat a Totinos, rub one out and go to bed.

:)

peace...

[gdoane]

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving4.shtml

Marijuana And Actual Driving Performance Executive Summary
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
By Robbe HWJ, O'Hanlon JF
November 1993

Conducted by Institute for Human Psychopharmacology University of Limburg Abstract 2A-6211 LS Maastricht -- Netherlands
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590



Let me get this straight... the U.S. Department of Transportation paid a University in the NETHERLANDS for a study? They gave money to communist professors and for what? The promotion of Marxism? Why is our money going to foreign nation's science? So they can make weapons to kill us all?


But THC is not a profoundly impairing drug. It does affect automatic information processing, even after low doses, but not to any great extent after high doses. It apparently affects controlled information processing in a variety of laboratory tests, but not to the extent which is beyond the individual's ability to control when he is motivated and permitted to do so in real driving.

It's so impairing that people can't even drive without it in the ashtrays of their cars.

If you're doing a drug, any drug, while driving, then you are an addict. A total addict. Like that stupid lady who sued McDonalds for untold $Million$ because she had to fix her coffee, CAFFEINE, in a moving vehicle.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that a moving vehicle has inertial forces while stopping, starting and turning. That's why smoking in the car always struck me as a stupid thing to do.

Let me get this straight:
You've got a burning hot ember in your hand, only one hand on the wheel and you're filling your line of vision up with smoke. If the "cherry" drops off the tip then at best you'll have a hole burned in your seat, and at worst you'll catch your pants on fire.

Marijuana's effects on driving performance were compared to those of many other drugs.

You're kidding. There was a study on driving buzzed, drunk or stoned?? Gosh, what part of "Bad Idea" don't they get?

Finally, the relation between driving impairment following marijuana smoking and plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH is discussed. It appears not possible to conclude anything about a driver's impairment on the basis of his / her plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH determined in a single sample.

Do you want a little dose of common sense? Prolly not, but I'll give you some anyway.

Al Gore's son was caught driving under the influence of marijuana. How was he caught? The dummy was driving at night with his headlights off. And that got the attention of the cops, who then found the marijuana which ain't hard because the crap smells like burning moldy socks.

Art Garfunkle was caught driving under the influence of marijuana. How was he caught? He blew right through a stop sign in front of a cop. Then the cop found the marijuana, which ain't hard because the crap smells like burning moldy socks.

It's common sense that cops don't pull over cars being driven right to look for marijuana. A properly driven vehicle obeying the law is not what catches the eye of the lawmen. It's the jerks doing stupid stuff like running stop signs and driving at night with the headlights off.

Have YOU ever driven at night with your headlights off? Have YOU ever ran a stop sign? I haven't. Wouldn't be surprised if someone who has used pot did though because that's apparently a symptom of driving while impaired by a substance. Most drunk drivers, do you know how the cops spot them? It ain't the weaving. It's that they forget to turn on the headlights. The pupils of their eyes get dilated and allow more light in than they're used to, so dark seems pretty bright to them. They don't think they need their headlights on, and oncoming headlights have a tendency to blind them.

Pot does very much the same thing. I can see it in the eyes because their eyes no longer react properly to light. That's how I could tell, without fail, when my younger brother was stoned. His eyes, like mine, were a brilliant sky blue and the pupils against that background is so very obvious that when they're slow to respond, it's across-the-room blatant.

Which is why my dead stoner brother loved the sunglasses. Indoors, outdoors, dark or shine, he'd wear his sunglasses at night just like the song goes.

Hiding.

When you're hiding something, for example the marijuana set does love their sunglasses and Visine, then you KNOW you're doing something wrong. Sunglasses mask the lack of response in the pupils. Visine masks the dilation of blood vessels making the eyes appear Satanically Red.

The Lone Ranger wore a mask and was ridiculous in his reasons for it. Besides, Mr. "Lone" had a sidekick so the whole thing was dumb all around. If you're wearing a mask, you're hiding something. And I don't believe for a moment that if Marijuana were legalized that the masks would come off.

[tha malcontent™]

I have yet to be Convinced that it should be Legal to Drive while High.

Nobody is Advocating for that, are they?

I understand treating it like the Poison that is now sold in Bars Legally, but allowing Stoners to Drive High Legally...

Nope... Wouldn't be Prudent... Gonna have to Veto that Bill.

:)

peace...

[ChloeP]

I have yet to be Convinced that it should be Legal to Drive while High.

Nobody is Advocating for that, are they?

I understand treating it like the Poison that is now sold in Bars Legally, but allowing Stoners to Drive High Legally...

Nope... Wouldn't be Prudent... Gonna have to Veto that Bill.

:)

peace...
Yep, I'm with you. No driving, stay home, the couch is comfier anyway!

[JeffBishop]

The problem is that people test positive for marijuana for days and days after its use. Long after the effects have worn off. Should these people be taken to jail? Certainly not, that's just silly conservative policy.

Jeff

[gdoane]

The problem is that people test positive for marijuana for days and days after its use. Long after the effects have worn off. Should these people be taken to jail? Certainly not, that's just silly conservative policy.

Jeff

If they test positive then obviously the effects haven't worn off. Besides, the effects never do wear off anyway. Pot makes all the people who use it talk like Jeff Spicoli from Fast Times at Ridgemont High and the resulting brain damage makes them think everybody is named "Dude!"

[denverman]

If they test positive then obviously the effects haven't worn off. Besides, the effects never do wear off anyway. Pot makes all the people who use it talk like Jeff Spicoli from Fast Times at Ridgemont High and the resulting brain damage makes them think everybody is named "Dude!"

The THC in marijuana is processed through the body and become metabolites, which are a byproduct of the THC. Therefore, the pot can be detected for weeks, even months in the most extreme cases. However, the effects of the marijuana wear off several hours after smoking it. People who are heavier in weight will hold the metablolites much longer than a light person, since the metablolites are largely stored in fat cells, and will have a longer detection period in drug tests. Also, more intense drugs like heroin and coccaine produce metabolites that leave the body much faster than THC metablolites, which means a coccaine user could get away with passing the test, while a marijuana smoker would still get caught, because of the nature of THC metabolites. This is unfair in my opinion since coccaine and heroin are much worse than marijuana, and marijuana is about the same intensity as alcohol. I read a post farther down about a person under the influence of marijuana running a red light and driving with the headlights off past the cops. A person under the influence of alcohol would do the exact same thing, so in this respect, marijuana is no worse than alcohol. No one should be driving under the influence of any mind altering drug, and I strongly support harsh punishments for any type of DUI conviction, whether it be alcohol, marijuana, or something else.

[gdoane]

The THC in marijuana is processed through the body and become metabolites, which are a byproduct of the THC. Therefore, the pot can be detected for weeks, even months in the most extreme cases.

If it can be detected, then it's a substance in the body. You are what you eat, or so they say, and everything you do, every day has a lasting effect.

I'm 41 years old. Never had a single cavity. I brush every day, I floss and my perfect teeth show the health you get when you care about your health. Decisions about what you do, what drugs you take, those are permanent decisions. Chemicals leave scars.

However, the effects of the marijuana wear off several hours after smoking it. People who are heavier in weight will hold the metablolites much longer than a light person, since the metablolites are largely stored in fat cells, and will have a longer detection period in drug tests.

So what are you trying to say here? That a positive test for Marijuana should be thrown out because the stoner might be testing positive for something he did three weeks ago??

Cops don't pull over cars at random. The driver has to catch their eye, usually by doing something stupid like running a stop sign, driving at night with no headlights or sitting still through a green light. The people busted were too far gone to be driving.


Also, more intense drugs like heroin and coccaine produce metabolites that leave the body much faster than THC metablolites, which means a coccaine user could get away with passing the test, while a marijuana smoker would still get caught, because of the nature of THC metabolites. This is unfair in my opinion since coccaine and heroin are much worse than marijuana, and marijuana is about the same intensity as alcohol.

You're joking, right? You're calling it unfair that some crooks can get away with the crime easier than others? Heroin and Marijuana are both Sked One, there's no legal difference between them. I really don't care which you're caught with. Getting caught with a Sked One drug should be a felony. Just because some people find crimes easier to escape justice from hardly means that any one crook can petition for equality.

I read a post farther down about a person under the influence of marijuana running a red light and driving with the headlights off past the cops. A person under the influence of alcohol would do the exact same thing, so in this respect, marijuana is no worse than alcohol. No one should be driving under the influence of any mind altering drug, and I strongly support harsh punishments for any type of DUI conviction, whether it be alcohol, marijuana, or something else.[/QUOTE]

[Immortal_Technique]

i need some help with a solid argument against medical ganga. i can't find one. helpz0rZ!!1!11

That's because there are none. There is no reason the government should punish pot use for any reason. Putting people in jail for toking is a human rights violation.

[gdoane]

Immortal_Technique writes:

That's because there are none. There is no reason the government should punish pot use for any reason. Putting people in jail for toking is a human rights violation.

No, it's a public safety necessity. Putting people in jail for ANY reason is a violation of *their* rights. But there are reasons for doing it.

Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

If your "freedom" causes me harm, then I'm well within my rights to stop you from harming me.

Drug abusers account for fully 75% of people arrested in this nation. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

I'm not stupid enough to assume that a drug abuser is part of the 25% of the "nice" stoners. I'm not a gambler because I can do math, I understand the odds and l won't take the bet that someone who has used drugs is a decent person. The odds are 3:1 against that. 75% of drug abusers are crooks, people who you don't want to know, people whom you shouldn't give personal information to.

Maybe you're claiming to be the 25% of the "nice" druggies?? Don't care. There's no way to get dope and not commit a crime or support a criminal. There are no innocents. Sell it, buy it, use it, they're all crimes.

[tha malcontent™]

The problem is that people test positive for marijuana for days and days after its use. Long after the effects have worn off. Should these people be taken to jail? Certainly not, that's just silly conservative policy.

Jeff

Pass a Roadside.

That's my Requirement...

Giggle uncontrollably, and your goin' to the Pokey!

:)

peace...

[gdoane]

Pass a Roadside.

That's my Requirement...

Giggle uncontrollably, and your goin' to the Pokey!

:)

peace...

That really doesn't work. The story I linked to in an earlier pose about Art Garfunkel busted on the road with marijuana was just the latest in a string of offenses.

Our "Pokeys" are like Country Clubs. There's no deterrent factor. What I'd do with anybody caught with Marijuana in their car would be I'd take their car to a junkyard and crush it right before their eyes. If it's found in their home then take a wrecking ball to the place and smash it to the ground.

Make them cry. Show them the hate they show us by bringing that poison into our cities, towns and schools. Make the destruction personal and smash their stuff to smithereens. Treat them like the enemy. Maybe then they'll get the idea that there's a war on drugs. They're criminals. Enemies. Villains. Fiends. They should be treated accordingly.

[tha malcontent™]

That really doesn't work. The story I linked to in an earlier pose about Art Garfunkel busted on the road with marijuana was just the latest in a string of offenses.

Our "Pokeys" are like Country Clubs. There's no deterrent factor. What I'd do with anybody caught with Marijuana in their car would be I'd take their car to a junkyard and crush it right before their eyes. If it's found in their home then take a wrecking ball to the place and smash it to the ground.

Make them cry. Show them the hate they show us by bringing that poison into our cities, towns and schools. Make the destruction personal and smash their stuff to smithereens. Treat them like the enemy. Maybe then they'll get the idea that there's a war on drugs. They're criminals. Enemies. Villains. Fiends. They should be treated accordingly.

Spooky!...

You are starting to Concern me, Gene.

:)

peace...

[Immortal_Technique]

Immortal_Technique writes:



No, it's a public safety necessity. Putting people in jail for ANY reason is a violation of *their* rights. But there are reasons for doing it.

Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

If your "freedom" causes me harm, then I'm well within my rights to stop you from harming me.

Drug abusers account for fully 75% of people arrested in this nation. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

I'm not stupid enough to assume that a drug abuser is part of the 25% of the "nice" stoners. I'm not a gambler because I can do math, I understand the odds and l won't take the bet that someone who has used drugs is a decent person. The odds are 3:1 against that. 75% of drug abusers are crooks, people who you don't want to know, people whom you shouldn't give personal information to.

Maybe you're claiming to be the 25% of the "nice" druggies?? Don't care. There's no way to get dope and not commit a crime or support a criminal. There are no innocents. Sell it, buy it, use it, they're all crimes.



Who said I used drugs?

How does person x smoking a joint affect you in any way? It doesn't. Smoking pot won't affect you unless you do it so your analysis is bunk.

How much of a health risk is it? It's less than smoking cigarettes or tobacco. In fact there are only two real health effects that come from smoking pot for a long time. You get ash in the lungs and it isn't good for your brain. If I am a consenting adult, why can't I take those risks but I can risk the same things with cigarettes plus nicotine addiction? Basically I don't see the overwhelming health concern that jusitifies keeping pot illegal.

[gdoane]

Who said I used drugs?

How does person x smoking a joint affect you in any way? It doesn't. Smoking pot won't affect you unless you do it so your analysis is bunk.

If you've never abused illegal drugs then you'd be the first person I ever heard of who was in favor of the IDIOCY of legalization who'd been clean every day of their life.

Smoking pot does affect me. It brings blight into my city. It breeds crime. It brings famine, death, pestilence and war. All four horsemen of the apocolypse ride on the back of marijuana-fueled steeds.

How much of a health risk is it? It's less than smoking cigarettes or tobacco.

That is a straw man. NOBODY says that smoking cigarettes is good. NOBODY!!! You can't find one person on earth who says smoking is good for you. If tobacco were unknown and introduced to the FDA for approval tomorrow, do you think they'd approve it? HECK NO they wouldn't! Tobacco would be just as illegal as marijuana is but unfortunately it became popular before we had a good government in place to outlaw everything bad.

In fact there are only two real health effects that come from smoking pot for a long time. You get ash in the lungs and it isn't good for your brain. If I am a consenting adult, why can't I take those risks but I can risk the same things with cigarettes plus nicotine addiction? Basically I don't see the overwhelming health concern that jusitifies keeping pot illegal.

There's a lot worse health effect than that. It's called CRIME. It's called what people stoop to when they can't hold a job because the dumb jerks are too stoned to fill out an application at Wal*Mart. It's called poverty because the kids going to school stoned out of their gourds don't learn. It's called child neglect because mommy and daddy are too busy puffing on their reefer to notice their child getting suicidal from a total lack of attention.

What place do you suggest for getting stoned?

Home? 2/3 of American homes have children living in them. Stoned people shouldn't be watching kids.

Work? Not if your job involves watching kids, caring for patients, driving, flying or public safety! And that's most jobs.

School? Marijuana is proven to be counterproductive to learning with decreased memory, attention span and ability to concentrate.

There's noplace appropriate for it.

WHO do you suggest should get stoned?

Parents? NO!! Doctors?? NO!!! Nurses? NO!! Airliner Pilots? Oh HELL NO!!! Teachers? NO!! Bus Drivers? Truckers? 911 Dispatchers? NO NO NO NO NO!!!

So pretty much nobody should get stoned.

And it should remain illegal. The penalties should be increased every time someone is caught doing it too.

[Immortal_Technique]

If you've never abused illegal drugs then you'd be the first person I ever heard of who was in favor of the IDIOCY of legalization who'd been clean every day of their life.

Smoking pot does affect me. It brings blight into my city. It breeds crime. It brings famine, death, pestilence and war. All four horsemen of the apocolypse ride on the back of marijuana-fueled steeds.



That is a straw man. NOBODY says that smoking cigarettes is good. NOBODY!!! You can't find one person on earth who says smoking is good for you. If tobacco were unknown and introduced to the FDA for approval tomorrow, do you think they'd approve it? HECK NO they wouldn't! Tobacco would be just as illegal as marijuana is but unfortunately it became popular before we had a good government in place to outlaw everything bad.



There's a lot worse health effect than that. It's called CRIME. It's called what people stoop to when they can't hold a job because the dumb jerks are too stoned to fill out an application at Wal*Mart. It's called poverty because the kids going to school stoned out of their gourds don't learn. It's called child neglect because mommy and daddy are too busy puffing on their reefer to notice their child getting suicidal from a total lack of attention.

What place do you suggest for getting stoned?

Home? 2/3 of American homes have children living in them. Stoned people shouldn't be watching kids.

Work? Not if your job involves watching kids, caring for patients, driving, flying or public safety! And that's most jobs.

School? Marijuana is proven to be counterproductive to learning with decreased memory, attention span and ability to concentrate.

There's noplace appropriate for it.

WHO do you suggest should get stoned?

Parents? NO!! Doctors?? NO!!! Nurses? NO!! Airliner Pilots? Oh HELL NO!!! Teachers? NO!! Bus Drivers? Truckers? 911 Dispatchers? NO NO NO NO NO!!!

So pretty much nobody should get stoned.

And it should remain illegal. The penalties should be increased every time someone is caught doing it too.

Whether or not I have used drugs is irrelevant isn't it?

The four horsemen? hahaha I can't tell if you are seriousy but based on past discussions I have had with you, I think you are. How does it breed crime, famine, pestilince, death, and war? You have to warrant your argument.

It's not a straw man. I am not saying smoking is good for you. I am saying smoking is worse than toking and it is legal. So is drinking. Drinking alcohol is injesting poison, but it's legal. If people smoke so much pot that they can't get jobs, that's their problem not yours, although I doubt anyone smokes that much because where would they get the money without a job? You can't think that all of those things you said happen to EVERYONE who smokes pot, in fact I would say they happen to a small minority.

You can be stoned and look after a kid. I don't recommend it but I don't see why you can't. Pot doesn't affect your judgement like booze so it's possible. You can drive too and be safe. These are all besides the point. The point is that putting people in jail for pot is wrong. They aren't doing anything that warrants suspension of their freedom. Pot smoking shouldn't be encouraged, but it shouldn't be illegal.

[gdoane]

Whether or not I have used drugs is irrelevant isn't it?

No more irrelevant than asking a bank robber if he thinks that armed robbery should be legalized.

The four horsemen? hahaha I can't tell if you are seriousy but based on past discussions I have had with you, I think you are. How does it breed crime, famine, pestilince, death, and war? You have to warrant your argument.

Crime: People who need money for their habit and don't have any legitimate means of getting that money will resort to illegitimate means. And we call that "Crime" around these parts.

Famine: Fertile land in Columbia where people are starving is being used to grow not food, but rather cash crops such as marijuana and cocaine. Afghanistan has the same problem with opium fields and hungry people can't eat poppies.

Death: Earlier in this topic I posted about Art Garfunkel driving while stoned and he blew through a stop sign. http://www.azcentral.com/ent/celeb/articles/0830garfunkel.html
It hardly takes a rocket scientist to know people get killed that way.

War: Columbia grows drugs. It's a hotbed of war. Afghanistan grows drugs too and there's war there. And of course there's the Opium Wars of 19th Century China. You can call drug warlords a lot of things but peaceful isn't among them.

Pestilence: Most pot smokers will admit that there are "burnouts", people with sunken eyes, blank stares and no social abilities or inclinations left. Also, marijuana is often a "Drug in Combination" with marijuana cigarettes dipped in PCP or Embalming Fluid, which idiot stoners use to get a better "trip".

It's not a straw man. I am not saying smoking is good for you. I am saying smoking is worse than toking and it is legal. So is drinking. Drinking alcohol is injesting poison, but it's legal. If people smoke so much pot that they can't get jobs, that's their problem not yours, although I doubt anyone smokes that much because where would they get the money without a job? You can't think that all of those things you said happen to EVERYONE who smokes pot, in fact I would say they happen to a small minority.

Gee, where do people get money without a job? That's easy! Look around New York City and you'll see cars with "No Radio" signs on their dashboard. That's because the people without a job will smash the $200 car window to get ahold of a $50 car radio which they will happily run over to the nearest Pawn Shop to get $5 for it. That's right, the villains will do $250 worth of damage to a parked car for a lousy $5.

You can be stoned and look after a kid. I don't recommend it but I don't see why you can't. Pot doesn't affect your judgement like booze so it's possible. You can drive too and be safe. These are all besides the point. The point is that putting people in jail for pot is wrong. They aren't doing anything that warrants suspension of their freedom. Pot smoking shouldn't be encouraged, but it shouldn't be illegal.

You have got to be out of your mind! What would you do if you found a day care center reeking of pot and the workers there stoned? Would you be taking YOUR kid to that place? I'm thinking most parents would be calling the authorities to get those workers fired and that place put out of business! That scenario doesn't pass the headline test. And DRIVING?? My younger brother drives heavy haulers, 16,000+ pounds in an 18-wheeler and do you know what would happen to his job if he got busted driving that thing stoned? Can you say FIRED?!?!? And his Commercial Driver's License would be gone never to be seen again. And for good reason!!

Yes, pot smoking should be illegal. And pot smokers don't need to be out and about smashing car windows to get their $5 for a smoke.

[lord_selder]

The only thing you missed is the disadvatage of it being possible more people would become addicted.

But then there would be the advantage of being able to spend a small portion of the money saved fighting the war on drugs, and incarcerating the people caught up in it, on rehabilitation.

Plus it would mean a parent would have to parent rather than the schools teaching our kids about drugs.

This Conservative/Traditionalist agrees with you.


Scientific evidence shows no evidence of actual physical addiction resluting from THC...can it be mentally addictive? yep...but so cna ANYTHING...caffiene is worse for you than pot...

[lord_selder]

No more irrelevant than asking a bank robber if he thinks that armed robbery should be legalized.



Crime: People who need money for their habit and don't have any legitimate means of getting that money will resort to illegitimate means. And we call that "Crime" around these parts.

Famine: Fertile land in Columbia where people are starving is being used to grow not food, but rather cash crops such as marijuana and cocaine. Afghanistan has the same problem with opium fields and hungry people can't eat poppies.

Death: Earlier in this topic I posted about Art Garfunkel driving while stoned and he blew through a stop sign. http://www.azcentral.com/ent/celeb/articles/0830garfunkel.html
It hardly takes a rocket scientist to know people get killed that way.

War: Columbia grows drugs. It's a hotbed of war. Afghanistan grows drugs too and there's war there. And of course there's the Opium Wars of 19th Century China. You can call drug warlords a lot of things but peaceful isn't among them.

Pestilence: Most pot smokers will admit that there are "burnouts", people with sunken eyes, blank stares and no social abilities or inclinations left. Also, marijuana is often a "Drug in Combination" with marijuana cigarettes dipped in PCP or Embalming Fluid, which idiot stoners use to get a better "trip".



Gee, where do people get money without a job? That's easy! Look around New York City and you'll see cars with "No Radio" signs on their dashboard. That's because the people without a job will smash the $200 car window to get ahold of a $50 car radio which they will happily run over to the nearest Pawn Shop to get $5 for it. That's right, the villains will do $250 worth of damage to a parked car for a lousy $5.



You have got to be out of your mind! What would you do if you found a day care center reeking of pot and the workers there stoned? Would you be taking YOUR kid to that place? I'm thinking most parents would be calling the authorities to get those workers fired and that place put out of business! That scenario doesn't pass the headline test. And DRIVING?? My younger brother drives heavy haulers, 16,000+ pounds in an 18-wheeler and do you know what would happen to his job if he got busted driving that thing stoned? Can you say FIRED?!?!? And his Commercial Driver's License would be gone never to be seen again. And for good reason!!

Yes, pot smoking should be illegal. And pot smokers don't need to be out and about smashing car windows to get their $5 for a smoke.

EVERYTHING you are posting and saying applies only to over use...aka abuse...the same kind of things can happen from drinking...

[lord_selder]

oh and one lats thing....its not evil "pot addcicts" doing the vandelisism....that is at best an extremely rare situation...people are stealing money for thier crack and heroin and meth addictions.

And none of that gate way BS either please. The entire gateway argument concerning pot is an example of reverse engineering an arument...

This guy uses coke...he once used pot...therefore pot makes you use coke...

How about this instead?

This guy robbed a bank. This guy watched TV...Therefore tv watching makes you rob banks...i think not...thanks...

[Immortal_Technique]

No more irrelevant than asking a bank robber if he thinks that armed robbery should be legalized.



Crime: People who need money for their habit and don't have any legitimate means of getting that money will resort to illegitimate means. And we call that "Crime" around these parts.

Famine: Fertile land in Columbia where people are starving is being used to grow not food, but rather cash crops such as marijuana and cocaine. Afghanistan has the same problem with opium fields and hungry people can't eat poppies.

Death: Earlier in this topic I posted about Art Garfunkel driving while stoned and he blew through a stop sign. http://www.azcentral.com/ent/celeb/articles/0830garfunkel.html
It hardly takes a rocket scientist to know people get killed that way.

War: Columbia grows drugs. It's a hotbed of war. Afghanistan grows drugs too and there's war there. And of course there's the Opium Wars of 19th Century China. You can call drug warlords a lot of things but peaceful isn't among them.

Pestilence: Most pot smokers will admit that there are "burnouts", people with sunken eyes, blank stares and no social abilities or inclinations left. Also, marijuana is often a "Drug in Combination" with marijuana cigarettes dipped in PCP or Embalming Fluid, which idiot stoners use to get a better "trip".



Gee, where do people get money without a job? That's easy! Look around New York City and you'll see cars with "No Radio" signs on their dashboard. That's because the people without a job will smash the $200 car window to get ahold of a $50 car radio which they will happily run over to the nearest Pawn Shop to get $5 for it. That's right, the villains will do $250 worth of damage to a parked car for a lousy $5.



You have got to be out of your mind! What would you do if you found a day care center reeking of pot and the workers there stoned? Would you be taking YOUR kid to that place? I'm thinking most parents would be calling the authorities to get those workers fired and that place put out of business! That scenario doesn't pass the headline test. And DRIVING?? My younger brother drives heavy haulers, 16,000+ pounds in an 18-wheeler and do you know what would happen to his job if he got busted driving that thing stoned? Can you say FIRED?!?!? And his Commercial Driver's License would be gone never to be seen again. And for good reason!!

Yes, pot smoking should be illegal. And pot smokers don't need to be out and about smashing car windows to get their $5 for a smoke.

But it doesn't matter who makes the arguments. Logic and truth exist outside of people, so even if I am a bank robber and I make logical points about why bank robbing should be legal, they are no less valid than if a nun made them.

You have this idea in your head that people smoke pot and get addicted to it and then will do ANYTHING to get high. This is simply not true. Pot less addictive than alcohol or nicotine. No one is going to steal SOLELY for pot.

People aren't starving because there isn't enough food; it's a question of how the existing food is distributed. If they could make money selling food then they would but pot and other drugs make more money.

Pot does not affect your judgement. You can drive safely while high. That's the bottom line. You just have to stay focused and not get sleepy.

Some people take it too far and let the pot take control of their lives, but not the vast majority of pot smokers. You can smoke pot without abusing it.

I wouldn't want people to watch my kids high, but I feel confident that I could do it. It's not something that I want to do, but I know I could. Your brother would get fired if they caught him driving high, and rightfully so. It's not right to drive someone else's property while you are high. Still he could do it safely assuming he stayed up.

I think your biggest problem is that you confuse pot with something like heroin. People won't get so strung out on pot that they will lose all of their morals. It just doesn't happen.

[gdoane]

Immortal_Technique writes:

But it doesn't matter who makes the arguments. Logic and truth exist outside of people, so even if I am a bank robber and I make logical points about why bank robbing should be legal, they are no less valid than if a nun made them.

They are less valid because the source has a vested interest in the outcome beyond logic. It's very much the same as a politician voting for legislation that would benefit himself financially, just as W. Bush is constantly accused of in his secret reasons for the Iraq War. The credibility of the vote is undermined, as well as the credibility of the reasons.

You have this idea in your head that people smoke pot and get addicted to it and then will do ANYTHING to get high. This is simply not true. Pot less addictive than alcohol or nicotine. No one is going to steal SOLELY for pot.

I don't believe alcohol or nicotine should be legal either. Your argument is flawed because it subscribes to "broken window" logic. Your logic is akin to saying that your neighbor's house has a broken window, and since they're not doing anything about the broken window they obviously won't mind two broken windows, or three, or ten. Then when all of your neighbor's windows are broken, your windows will be the next target of "broken window" syndrome. This is how blight begins in a neighborhood and the creep of broken window theory must be opposed.

Alcoholics get quite desperate. Some even resort to drinking rubbing alcohol, Nyquil, cough syrup or anything else they can get ahold of.

Smokers get extremely desperate. I've ridden with a smoker who could not, would not and did not ever go five waking minutes without needing a smoke break. In buildings where smoking is not allowed, smokers here will go out of an air conditioned building and stand in 115° heat just to get a fix off of their ever-present box of coffin nails. You couldn't get me to go out there if the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders were bouncing on trampolines in bikinis and these smoke addicts are so desperate for that disgusting smell that not even the heat of Hell itself deters them.

People will commit crime for pot. How do I know? Because buying it is a crime and they're willing to commit that crime. Anybody willing to commit one crime, especially someone who subscribes to "broken window" fallacy logic, is somebody willing to commit two crimes, three crimes or ten crimes; it just doesn't matter to them.

People aren't starving because there isn't enough food; it's a question of how the existing food is distributed. If they could make money selling food then they would but pot and other drugs make more money.

This logic is so completely bereft of any sense of morality that it's inhuman. Yes indeedy, committing crimes is more profitable for less effort. Robbing banks is easier than getting a job. Selling stolen stuff is easier than making and selling your own product. Pirating music and movies is cheaper than buying it. All of these are logically true, and all that it takes to do those things is a complete and total disregard for a sense of right and wrong.

Pot does not affect your judgement. You can drive safely while high. That's the bottom line. You just have to stay focused and not get sleepy.

Pot definitely does affect your judgement. After all, you've got to have pretty poor judgement to commit a crime in order to buy a weed you intend to burn anyway. You cannot safely drive while high. Marijuana is well known to cause both spatial and temporal distortions in your perception, and if your sense of timing and space are affected then so will your driving be affected. Besides, marijuana is a hallucinogen which causes visual distortions, which is why the pothead tends to like psychedelic color schemes so much.

Some people take it too far and let the pot take control of their lives, but not the vast majority of pot smokers. You can smoke pot without abusing it.

Not possible. The reason why is that the dosage is not measured in any meaningful way and the abuser, like all abusers, smokes with the intention of reaching a "buzz" which is also known as "intoxication". Any substance taken to a point where the victim is intoxicated has been abused.

Main Entry: substance abuse

Function: noun

: excessive use of a drug (as alcohol, narcotics, or cocaine) : use of a drug without medical justification

- substance abuser noun

(Thanks, Webster!)

Use to the point of intoxication, especially solely FOR intoxication, is excessive.

I wouldn't want people to watch my kids high, but I feel confident that I could do it. It's not something that I want to do, but I know I could. Your brother would get fired if they caught him driving high, and rightfully so. It's not right to drive someone else's property while you are high. Still he could do it safely assuming he stayed up.

Since Marijuana impairs judgement, your judgement on the matter while high would be impaired and you would be incapable of reaching that conclusion from an unbiased and unclouded mind. Most drunks think they're okay to drive too, but they're not. You simply CANNOT be the judge of your own level of intoxication. You cannot be both the subject of observation and an objective observer at the same time.

I think your biggest problem is that you confuse pot with something like heroin. People won't get so strung out on pot that they will lose all of their morals. It just doesn't happen.

Actually, heroin has milder effects and less toxicity than marijuana. A heroin addict is only worse off because he's physically addicted to the point of disability if he can't get his next needle in the arm. Heroin would be a better candidate for legalization than marijuana and the legalization of heroin, unlike marijuana, would enable the users at risk for AIDS and Hepatitis from reusing and sharing needles to better avoid that risk. I'm in no way willing to legalize heroin, but I'd legalize heroin before I'd legalize marijuana.

[gdoane]

lord_selder:

EVERYTHING you are posting and saying applies only to over use...aka abuse...the same kind of things can happen from drinking...

Broken window logic. Alcohol abuse is a bad thing. NOBODY is saying that it's a good thing. So your logic is saying that one bad thing is okay, therefore two bad things is also okay. And then blight sets in, the heroin addicts, cocaine addicts, PCP addicts and fans of Marilyn Manson all want their addictions legalized too.

oh and one lats thing....its not evil "pot addcicts" doing the vandelisism....that is at best an extremely rare situation...people are stealing money for thier crack and heroin and meth addictions.

Really? Most pot users are single males under the age of thirty. Care to guess who the vandals doing most of the vandalism are? Single males under the age of thirty. Coincidence? Yeah, right, want some oceanfront property in Arizona? I've got a beachhouse here in Phoenix.

And none of that gate way BS either please. The entire gateway argument concerning pot is an example of reverse engineering an arument...

This guy uses coke...he once used pot...therefore pot makes you use coke...



That is not my argument. My argument is that Marijuana is oft abused as a drug-in-combination. http://www.intheknowzone.com/marijuana/street_names.htm

Marijuana and cocaine combined and smoked are known on the street as:


3750

Banano

Blunt

Caviar

Champagne

Chronic

Cocoa Puff

Crack Back

Diablito (Little Devil in Spanish)

Dirty Joints

Dust

Geek

Gimmie

Gremmies

Hooter

Juice Joint

Jumbos

Lace

Liprimo

Oolies

Primo

Thirty-Eight

Torpedo

Turbo

Wollie

Woolah

Woolas

Woolies

Wooly blunts

Yeola



Oh, but of course I'm supposed to believe that all the fine young potheads would NEVER consider doing such a thing...

[antigone]

And Hitler liked carrot sticks. So?

-Ron
Hitler was a vegitarian, too.

[antigone]

You are correct Gdoane:
"That is not my argument. My argument is that Marijuana is oft abused as a drug-in-combination. http://www.intheknowzone.com/marijuana/street_names.htm"

It is the "entry" drug to the rest of them. We allow this puppy to be legal, our drug issues will only INCREASE and our society will die for it.

[lord_selder]

lord_selder:



Broken window logic. Alcohol abuse is a bad thing. NOBODY is saying that it's a good thing. So your logic is saying that one bad thing is okay, therefore two bad things is also okay. And then blight sets in, the heroin addicts, cocaine addicts, PCP addicts and fans of Marilyn Manson all want their addictions legalized too.



Really? Most pot users are single males under the age of thirty. Care to guess who the vandals doing most of the vandalism are? Single males under the age of thirty. Coincidence? Yeah, right, want some oceanfront property in Arizona? I've got a beachhouse here in Phoenix.



That is not my argument. My argument is that Marijuana is oft abused as a drug-in-combination. http://www.intheknowzone.com/marijuana/street_names.htm

Marijuana and cocaine combined and smoked are known on the street as:


3750

Banano

Blunt

Caviar

Champagne

Chronic

Cocoa Puff

Crack Back

Diablito (Little Devil in Spanish)

Dirty Joints

Dust

Geek

Gimmie

Gremmies

Hooter

Juice Joint

Jumbos

Lace

Liprimo

Oolies

Primo

Thirty-Eight

Torpedo

Turbo

Wollie

Woolah

Woolas

Woolies

Wooly blunts

Yeola



Oh, but of course I'm supposed to believe that all the fine young potheads would NEVER consider doing such a thing...




I am a regular pot smoker carrying a clean criminal history and a 3.88 gpa at college...You can't punish the majority for the actiosn of the minority...thats called totalatarianism

[gdoane]

I am a regular pot smoker carrying a clean criminal history and a 3.88 gpa at college...You can't punish the majority for the actiosn of the minority...thats called totalatarianism

Clean criminal history? So what? If you smoke pot in the USA then you're a criminal. Doesn't matter if you're not caught!! D.B. Cooper wasn't caught either, doesn't mean he's not a hijacker.

Besides, it's not the actions of a minority. Fully 75% of criminals convicted are drug or alcohol involved at the time they committed a crime. 3/4 is not a minority.

If you buy pot then you are doing business with a crook.
If you buy pot then you are supporting a business which pays no taxes.
If you buy pot then you are financing a trade which kills cops both here and abroad.
If you buy pot then you are supporting a trade which relies on polluting schoolkids.

Wow, you're not kidding. You're posting from a college network. That's pretty bold, advocating marijuana on a school's IP. I'm reading your school's Drug Free School Policy now.

Drug Free School Policy
1. Any student, full-time or part-time, of (redacted) who engages in the unlawful or unauthorized sale, possession, use, or distribution of illicit drugs, hallucinogens, controlled substances or alcohol on College property or designated College property or, as any part of the College's activities, is in violation of school policy regarding standards of student conduct.
2. Any such violation by a student as described above will result in disciplinary action up to and including immediate expulsion from the College and referral to appropriate authorities for prosecution.
3. All students are advised that conviction for illegal possession, misuse, sale, manufacture, distribution and related actions with respect to illicit drugs and alcohol under local, state and federal statutes can result in extensive fines, forfeitures of property, and imprisonment.

You might want to check out pages 3 and 4 of your student handbook. You can be tossed out of your school for getting busted, and most Colleges consider their dormitory internet connections to be College property.

So, you think that marijuana and school mix? Really? Seems your school doesn't think so.

[tha malcontent™]

Pot was not made Ilegal under Honest Circumstances, and it should be Reversed as along as Booze is Legal.

:)

peace..

[gdoane]

Pot was not made Ilegal under Honest Circumstances, and it should be Reversed as along as Booze is Legal.

:)

peace..

The politician who commits such an atrocity will be demonized as the most corrupt evil man in American lawmaking.

[tha malcontent™]

The politician who commits such an atrocity will be demonized as the most corrupt evil man in American lawmaking.

A Prediction of your Response to it?...

:)

peace...

[gdoane]

A Prediction of your Response to it?...

:)

peace...

Nope. A matter of fact that there's a stigma about substance abuse as a character flaw. A character flaw like that would be politically suicidal.

Consider that Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton is the only President in recorded history to have tried (but I did not inhale) marijuana and you begin to grasp the scope of the stigma.

Popularity-wise, Bill Clinton was the least popular President of the last 20 years. In the popular vote, he got fewer than Ronald Reagan, fewer than Bush41, fewer than Bush43, fewer than Al Gore and fewer than John Kerry. His character flaws were manifold, and his admission of trying Marijuana was one of them. He was one of the least respected Presidents in American history because he tried Marijuana.

[tha malcontent™]

Nope. A matter of fact that there's a stigma about substance abuse as a character flaw. A character flaw like that would be politically suicidal.

Consider that Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton is the only President in recorded history to have tried (but I did not inhale) marijuana and you begin to grasp the scope of the stigma.

Popularity-wise, Bill Clinton was the least popular President of the last 20 years. In the popular vote, he got fewer than Ronald Reagan, fewer than Bush41, fewer than Bush43, fewer than Al Gore and fewer than John Kerry. His character flaws were manifold, and his admission of trying Marijuana was one of them. He was one of the least respected Presidents in American history because he tried Marijuana.

Algore also Tried Pot...

:)

peace...

[Kronic Freedom]

Algore also Tried Pot...

:)

peace...
George W. Bush was quoted by a long time friend as having used marijuana.. more than tried marijuana. He also used cocaine and was/is an alcoholic.

A man's addictions is only a flaw if he dies with them or because of them. To measure the character of anyone against someone unwilling to turn away from the lifestyle is unfair and basically predjudiced.

But I have found this comes from all quarters on this forum.

[gdoane]

Algore also Tried Pot...

:)

peace...
Yeah, and taking one look at that wooden mug of his I'd say he never recovered.

[Marijuana_MyAntiDrug]

The US Department of Transportation says, "While a positive urine test is solid proof of drug use within the last few days, it cannot be used by itself to prove behavioral impairment . . .". Here, even the federal government agrees urine drug testing does not prove impairment.


http://www.mapinc.org/norml/v05/n1428/a12.htm

[gdoane]

George W. Bush was quoted by a long time friend as having used marijuana.. more than tried marijuana. He also used cocaine and was/is an alcoholic.

W. Bush never admitted to any of that and more than a few "longtime friends" tell tall tales in order to get the attentions of a reporter.

A man's addictions is only a flaw if he dies with them or because of them.

No, it's really not and here's the reason why. It's OKAY to judge a person's character by the choices he makes.

Are deadbeat dads scum? Yup. That's a serious character flaw when you won't even take care of your own kid.

Choices made are what seperates good people from bad people. It's the difference between a villain and a hero. It's the difference between a cop and a robber. Choices are what you will be judged by every day and on Judgement Day.


To measure the character of anyone against someone unwilling to turn away from the lifestyle is unfair and basically predjudiced.

People judge you by the things you do. That's not prejudice at all, that's the proper way to judge whether a person is a hero or villain, a friend or a foe, a good person or a jerk.

[gdoane]

The US Department of Transportation says, "While a positive urine test is solid proof of drug use within the last few days, it cannot be used by itself to prove behavioral impairment . . .". Here, even the federal government agrees urine drug testing does not prove impairment.


http://www.mapinc.org/norml/v05/n1428/a12.htm (http://www.mapinc.org/norml/v05/n1428/a12.htm)

If they get pulled over, that's proof enough that they're impaired. The premise of this is ridiculous. Cops don't do urine tests before they arrest somebody. Have you ever seen a cop take a urine test before an arrest? NO! DOES NOT HAPPEN. What they do is a field sobriety test and if the suspect fails said test, THEN he gets to be arrested, tested and indicted.

I read the arrest warrant for my brother's DUI. It began "I, Officer Bradley, observed the subject exit the truck and fall on his face. Suspecting possible impairment, I administered a field sobriety test which the subject failed, being unable to stand without support. I placed the subject under arrest for suspicion of DUI and transported him to the nearest substation for samples."

Another problem with your premise, besides being ridiculous, is that the pain management requires being "high". So, the medical marijuana driver is doing one of two things. He's driving while "high" or he's driving while in pain. Seems to me that neither one is a very good idea.

[Kronic Freedom]

W. Bush never admitted to any of that and more than a few "longtime friends" tell tall tales in order to get the attentions of a reporter.



No, it's really not and here's the reason why. It's OKAY to judge a person's character by the choices he makes.

Are deadbeat dads scum? Yup. That's a serious character flaw when you won't even take care of your own kid.

Choices made are what seperates good people from bad people. It's the difference between a villain and a hero. It's the difference between a cop and a robber. Choices are what you will be judged by every day and on Judgement Day.




People judge you by the things you do. That's not prejudice at all, that's the proper way to judge whether a person is a hero or villain, a friend or a foe, a good person or a jerk.
Yep.... you're right about that. Some actions can cause one to look like a jerk.

President Bush was quoted in a book as being concerned how to answer the Marijuana question. He also had other dark habits you decry on this thread... yet he was able to work his way out of it and become Govenor of one of the largest states and then President.

Using your logic.. he should have been shunned 30 years ago and never enabled to accomplish these great things. Or is it OK because he came out of it?? Wait no.. he has to be a lowlife because ANYONE (according to you) who uses drugs is completely useless.

Don't deny what Bush did either.. he was man enough to stand up and admit it.. you 'protecting' him is ridiculous.. he was/is a user abuser. No getting around it.

[gdoane]

Yep.... you're right about that. Some actions can cause one to look like a jerk.

No. Not just look like. Timothy McVeigh decided to bomb a building full of people in Oklahoma on April 19th, 1995. He will always be judged by the actions he took that day. And "Jerk" doesn't even begin to describe the villain. He was judged by his actions. And he was sentenced to die for them.

President Bush was quoted in a book as being concerned how to answer the Marijuana question. He also had other dark habits you decry on this thread... yet he was able to work his way out of it and become Govenor of one of the largest states and then President.

Yes, he won some popularity contests, but BARELY. Technically, if the popular vote were the barometer he'd have lost against Al Gore and his performance against John Kerry was only a couple of percentage points, hardly a landslide.

The successes of W. Bush aren't really that great. Defeating "Ma Richards" in Texas? She was plagued by corruption and sleaze. And he stepped right in a window of opportunity. Defeating Al Gore? He didn't if you count the popular vote and the reason Al Gore lost was the baggage of Bill Clinton.


Using your logic.. he should have been shunned 30 years ago and never enabled to accomplish these great things. Or is it OK because he came out of it?? Wait no.. he has to be a lowlife because ANYONE (according to you) who uses drugs is completely useless.

Yep, and W. Bush is completely useless. The man has yet to veto anything, stand up for a principle and flatly tell anybody they're wrong. I really don't like him much. As a conservative, he's about 300 miles to the left of me.

Don't deny what Bush did either.. he was man enough to stand up and admit it.. you 'protecting' him is ridiculous.. he was/is a user abuser. No getting around it.

Bush denies it. He never admitted it. I'd never vote for a person who admitted to using illegal drugs. NEVER. They've made a bad decision once, so I don't want them to be making decisions at all.

[Vaard]

it was made illegal because of its textile properties,.. the drug part was just the scapegoat......

[Vaard]

heh.. george washington used to grow pot.....

in his diary, he even mentions seperating the males from the females... which you only do if you want the buds to smoke.....

[tha malcontent™]

W. Bush never admitted to any of that and more than a few "longtime friends" tell tall tales in order to get the attentions of a reporter.

Actually, there is a tape of Bush (43) Confusing the Question about whether or not he smoked Pot...

Either way, he Drank to point of having to Quit, and you have an Opinion about people who Drink...

Does it hold with the President?

:)

peace...

[BeHereNow]

During the revolutionary war you could pay your taxes with hemp.

[Marijuana_MyAntiDrug]

The Marijuana Conspiracy
THE REAL REASON HEMP IS ILLEGAL

by Doug Yurchey



And I will raise up for them a plant of renown, and they shall be no more consumed with hunger
in the land.


-- Ezekiel 34/29

THE REAL REASON CANNABIS HAS BEEN OUTLAWED HAS NOTHING
TO DO WITH ITS EFFECTS ON THE MIND AND BODY.



MARIJUANA is DANGEROUS. Pot is NOT harmful to the human body or mind. Marijuana does NOT pose a threat to the general public. Marijuana is very much a danger to the oil companies, alcohol, tobacco industries and a large number of chemical corporations. Various big businesses, with plenty of dollars and influence, have suppressed the truth from the people.



The truth is if marijuana was utilized for its vast array of commercial products, it would create an industrial atomic bomb! Entrepreneurs have not been educated on the product potential of pot. The super rich have conspired to spread misinformation about an extremely versatile plant that, if used properly, would ruin their companies.


Where did the word 'marijuana' come from? In the mid 1930s, the M-word was created to tarnish the good image and phenomenal history of the hemp plant...as you will read. The facts cited here, with references, are generally verifiable in the Encyclopedia Britannica which was printed on hemp paper for 150 years:


* All schoolbooks were made from hemp or flax paper until the 1880s; Hemp Paper Reconsidered, Jack Frazier, 1974.


* It was LEGAL TO PAY TAXES WITH HEMP in America from 1631 until the early 1800s; LA Times, Aug. 12, 1981.


* REFUSING TO GROW HEMP in America during the 17th and 18th Centuries WAS AGAINST THE LAW! You could be jailed in Virginia for refusing to grow hemp from 1763 to 1769; Hemp in Colonial Virginia, G. M. Herdon.


* George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers GREW HEMP; Washington and Jefferson Diaries. Jefferson smuggled hemp seeds from China to France then to America.


* Benjamin Franklin owned one of the first paper mills in America and it processed hemp. Also, the War of 1812 was fought over hemp. Napoleon wanted to cut off Moscow's export to England; Emperor Wears No Clothes, Jack Herer.


* For thousands of years, 90% of all ships' sails and rope were made from hemp. The word 'canvas' is Dutch for cannabis; Webster's New World Dictionary.


* 80% of all textiles, fabrics, clothes, linen, drapes, bed sheets, etc. were made from hemp until the 1820s with the introduction of the cotton gin.


* The first Bibles, maps, charts, Betsy Ross's flag, the first drafts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were made from hemp; U.S. Government Archives.


* The first crop grown in many states was hemp. 1850 was a peak year for Kentucky producing 40,000 tons. Hemp was the largest cash crop until the 20th Century; State Archives.


* Oldest known records of hemp farming go back 5000 years in China, although hemp industrialization probably goes back to ancient Egypt.


* Rembrants, Gainsboroughs, Van Goghs as well as most early canvas paintings were principally painted on hemp linen.


* In 1916, the U.S. Government predicted that by the 1940s all paper would come from hemp and that no more trees need to be cut down. Government studies report that 1 acre of hemp equals 4.1 acres of trees. Plans were in the works to implement such programs; Department of Agriculture



* Quality paints and varnishes were made from hemp seed oil until 1937. 58,000 tons of hemp seeds were used in America for paint products in 1935; Sherman Williams Paint Co. testimony before Congress against the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.


* Henry Ford's first Model-T was built to run on hemp gasoline and the CAR ITSELF WAS CONTRUCTED FROM HEMP! On his large estate, Ford was photographed among his hemp fields. The car, 'grown from the soil,' had hemp plastic panels whose impact strength was 10 times stronger than steel; Popular Mechanics, 1941.


* Hemp called 'Billion Dollar Crop.' It was the first time a cash crop had a business potential to exceed a billion dollars; Popular Mechanics, Feb., 1938.


* Mechanical Engineering Magazine (Feb. 1938) published an article entitled 'The Most Profitable and Desirable Crop that Can be Grown.' It stated that if hemp was cultivated using 20th Century technology, it would be the single largest agricultural crop in the U.S. and the rest of the world.


The following information comes directly from the United States Department of Agriculture's 1942 14-minute film encouraging and instructing 'patriotic American farmers' to grow 350,000 acres of hemp each year for the war effort:


'...(When) Grecian temples were new, hemp was already old in the service of mankind. For thousands of years, even then, this plant had been grown for cordage and cloth in China and elsewhere in the East. For centuries prior to about 1850, all the ships that sailed the western seas were rigged with hempen rope and sails. For the sailor, no less than the hangman, hemp was indispensable...

...Now with Philippine and East Indian sources of hemp in the hands of the Japanese...American hemp must meet the needs of our Army and Navy as well as of our industries...

...the Navy's rapidly dwindling reserves. When that is gone, American hemp will go on duty again; hemp for mooring ships; hemp for tow lines; hemp for tackle and gear; hemp for countless naval uses both on ship and shore. Just as in the days when Old Ironsides sailed the seas victorious with her hempen shrouds and hempen sails. Hemp for victory!'


Certified proof from the Library of Congress; found by the research of Jack Herer, refuting claims of other government agencies that the 1942 USDA film 'Hemp for Victory' did not exist.


Hemp cultivation and production do not harm the environment. The USDA Bulletin #404 concluded that hemp produces 4 times as much pulp with at least 4 to 7 times less pollution. From Popular Mechanics, Feb. 1938:


'It has a short growing season...It can be grown in any state...The long roots penetrate and break the soil to leave it in perfect condition for the next year's crop. The dense shock of leaves, 8 to 12 feet above the ground, chokes out weeds.
...hemp, this new crop can add immeasurably to American agriculture and industry.'


In the 1930s, innovations in farm machinery would have caused an industrial revolution when applied to hemp. This single resource could have created millions of new jobs generating thousands of quality products. Hemp, if not made illegal, would have brought America out of the Great Depression.


William Randolph Hearst (Citizen Kane) and the Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division of Kimberly Clark owned vast acreage of timberlands. The Hearst Company supplied most paper products. Patty Hearst's grandfather, a destroyer of nature for his own personal profit, stood to lose billions because of hemp.

In 1937, Dupont patented the processes to make plastics from oil and coal. Dupont's Annual Report urged stockholders to invest in its new petrochemical division. Synthetics such as plastics, cellophane, celluloid, methanol, nylon, rayon, Dacron, etc., could now be made from oil. Natural hemp industrialization would have ruined over 80% of Dupont's business.

[Marijuana_MyAntiDrug]

The rest

THE CONSPIRACY


Andrew Mellon became Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury and Dupont's primary investor. He appointed his future nephew-in-law, Harry J. Anslinger, to head the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.


Secret meetings were held by these financial tycoons. Hemp was declared dangerous and a threat to their billion dollar enterprises. For their dynasties to remain intact, hemp had to go. These men took an obscure Mexican slang word: 'marihuana' and pushed it into the consciousness of America.



MEDIA MANIPULATION


A media blitz of 'yellow journalism' raged in the late 1920s and 1930s. Hearst's newspapers ran stories emphasizing the horrors of marihuana. The menace of marihuana made headlines. Readers learned that it was responsible for everything from car accidents to loose morality.


Films like 'Reefer Madness' (1936), 'Marihuana: Assassin of Youth' (1935) and 'Marihuana: The Devil's Weed' (1936) were propaganda designed by these industrialists to create an enemy. Their purpose was to gain public support so that anti-marihuana laws could be passed.


Examine the following quotes from 'The Burning Question' aka REEFER MADNESS:


a violent narcotic.
acts of shocking violence.
incurable insanity.
soul-destroying effects.
under the influence of the drug he killed his entire family with an ax.
more vicious, more deadly even than these soul-destroying drugs (heroin, cocaine) is the menace of marihuana!
Reefer Madness did not end with the usual 'the end.' The film concluded with these words plastered on the screen: TELL YOUR CHILDREN.


In the 1930s, people were very naive; even to the point of ignorance. The masses were like sheep waiting to be led by the few in power. They did not challenge authority. If the news was in print or on the radio, they believed it had to be true. They told their children and their children grew up to be the parents of the baby-boomers.


On April 14, 1937, the Prohibitive Marihuana Tax Law or the bill that outlawed hemp was directly brought to the House Ways and Means Committee. This committee is the only one that can introduce a bill to the House floor without it being debated by other committees. The Chairman of the Ways and Means, Robert Doughton, was a Dupont supporter. He insured that the bill would pass Congress.


Dr. James Woodward, a physician and attorney, testified too late on behalf of the American Medical Association. He told the committee that the reason the AMA had not denounced the Marihuana Tax Law sooner was that the Association had just discovered that marihuana was hemp.


Few people, at the time, realized that the deadly menace they had been reading about on Hearst's front pages was in fact passive hemp. The AMA understood cannabis to be a MEDICINE found in numerous healing products sold over the last hundred years.


In September of 1937, hemp became illegal. The most useful crop known became a drug and our planet has been suffering ever since.


Congress banned hemp because it was said to be the most violence-causing drug known. Anslinger, head of the Drug Commission for 31 years, promoted the idea that marihuana made users act extremely violent. In the 1950s, under the Communist threat of McCarthyism, Anslinger now said the exact opposite. Marijuana will pacify you so much that soldiers would not want to fight.


Today, our planet is in desperate trouble. Earth is suffocating as large tracts of rain forests disappear. Pollution, poisons and chemicals are killing people. These great problems could be reversed if we industrialized hemp. Natural biomass could provide all of the planet's energy needs that are currently supplied by fossil fuels. We have consumed 80% of our oil and gas reserves. We need a renewable resource. Hemp could be the solution to soaring gas prices.






THE WONDER PLANT


Hemp has a higher quality fiber than wood fiber. Far fewer caustic chemicals are required to make paper from hemp than from trees. Hemp paper does not turn yellow and is very durable. The plant grows quickly to maturity in a season where trees take a lifetime.


ALL PLASTIC PRODUCTS SHOULD BE MADE FROM HEMP SEED OIL. Hempen plastics are biodegradable! Over time, they would break down and not harm the environment. Oil-based plastics, the ones we are very familiar with, help ruin nature; they do not break down and will do great harm in the future. The process to produce the vast array of natural (hempen) plastics will not ruin the rivers as Dupont and other petrochemical companies have done. Ecology does not fit in with the plans of the Oil Industry and the political machine. Hemp products are safe and natural.


MEDICINES SHOULD BE MADE FROM HEMP. We should go back to the days when the AMA supported cannabis cures. 'Medical Marijuana' is given out legally to only a handful of people while the rest of us are forced into a system that relies on chemicals. Pot is only healthy for the human body.


WORLD HUNGER COULD END. A large variety of food products can be generated from hemp. The seeds contain one of the highest sources of protein in nature. ALSO: They have two essential fatty acids that clean your body of cholesterol. These essential fatty acids are not found anywhere else in nature! Consuming pot seeds is the best thing you could do for your body. Eat uncooked hemp seeds.


CLOTHES SHOULD BE MADE FROM HEMP. Hemp clothing is extremely strong and durable over time. You could hand clothing, made from pot, down to your grandchildren. Today, there are American companies that make hemp clothing; usually 50% hemp. Hemp fabrics should be everywhere. Instead, they are almost underground. Superior hemp products are not allowed to advertise on fascist television. Kentucky, once the top hemp producing state, made it ILLEGAL TO WEAR hemp clothing! Can you imagine being thrown into jail for wearing quality jeans?


The world is crazy...but that does not mean you have to join the insanity. Get together. Spread the news. Tell people, and that includes your children, the truth. Use hemp products. Eliminate the word 'marijuana.' Realize the history that created it. Make it politically incorrect to say or print the M-word. Fight against the propaganda (designed to favor the agenda of the super rich) and the ********. Hemp must be utilized in the future. We need a clean energy source to save our planet. INDUSTRIALIZE HEMP!

The liquor, tobacco and oil companies fund more than a million dollars a day to Partnership for a Drug-Free America and other similar agencies. We have all seen their commercials. Now, their motto is: ‘It's more dangerous than we thought.’ Lies from the powerful corporations, that began with Hearst, are still alive and well today.

The brainwashing continues. Now, the commercials say: If you buy a joint, you contribute to murders and gang wars. The latest anti-pot commercials say: If you buy a joint...you are promoting TERRORISM! The new enemy (terrorism) has paved the road to brainwash you any way THEY see fit.

There is only one enemy; the friendly people you pay your taxes to; the war-makers and nature destroyers. With your funding, they are killing the world right in front of your eyes. HALF A MILLION DEATHS EACH YEAR ARE CAUSED BY TOBACCO. HALF A MILLION DEATHS EACH YEAR ARE CAUSED BY ALCOHOL. NO ONE HAS EVER, EVER DIED FROM SMOKING POT!! In the entire history of the human race, not one death can be attributed to cannabis. Our society has outlawed grass but condones the use of the KILLERS: TOBACCO and ALCOHOL. Hemp should be declassified and placed in DRUG stores to relieve stress. Hardening and constriction of the arteries are bad; but hemp usage actually enlarges the arteries...which is a healthy condition. We have been so conditioned to think that: Smoking is harmful. That is NOT the case for passive pot.

Ingesting THC, hemp's active agent, has a positive effect; relieving asthma and glaucoma. A joint tends to alleviate the nausea caused by chemotherapy. You are able to eat on hemp. This is a healthy state of being.


{One personal note: During the pregnancy of my wife, she was having some difficulty gaining weight. We were in the hospital. A nurse called us to one side and said: ‘Off the record, if you smoke pot...you'd get something called the munchies and you’ll gain weight.' I swear that is a true story}.


The stereotype for a pothead is similar to a drunk, bubble-brain. Yet, the truth is one’s creative abilities can be enhanced under its influence. The perception of time slightly slows and one can become more sensitive. You can more appreciate all arts; be closer to nature and generally FEEL more under the influence of cannabis. It is, in fact, the exact opposite state of mind and body as the drunken state. You can be more aware with pot.


The pot plant is an ALIEN plant. There is physical evidence that cannabis is not like any other plant on this planet. One could conclude that it was brought here for the benefit of humanity. Hemp is the ONLY plant where the males appear one way and the females appear very different, physically! No one ever speaks of males and females in regard to the plant kingdom because plants do not show their sexes; except for cannabis. To determine what sex a certain, normal, Earthly plant is: You have to look internally, at its DNA. A male blade of grass (physically) looks exactly like a female blade of grass. The hemp plant has an intense sexuallity. Growers know to kill the males before they fertilize the females. Yes, folks...the most potent pot comes from 'horny females.'


The reason this amazing, very sophisticated, ET plant from the future is illegal has nothing to do with how it physically affects us…..

…POT IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE BILLIONAIRES WANT TO REMAIN BILLIONAIRES!

[Apatriot]

Yawn! Typical conspiracy theory..... And I bet you believe that the oil companies have supressed the carbureutor that gets 200 mpg in a 1957 Cadillac........


Alien plant......

I think somebody smokes too much of what they are advocating.......

[Vaard]

i dont know about that whole alien plant thing....

but the other documented stuff is true.....

the marijuana plant solves some many problems on so many levels that there was no way it could be allowed in a corporate america where they cant control it....

i dont know about a 200mpg carb..... show me one and i will....

but when you can document the different uses of marijuana that is cheaper and safer than its substitutes... and no scientific proof that it is harmful (studies that show beneficial medicinal properties are suppressed)..... then why keep it illegal?

i am not a pot user myself, but the reasons to keep it illegal (lies and profit) are worse than the reasons to not to......

besides, put a tax on it that is 3 times that of cigarettes and you could wipe out most of the current national debt in less than a year....

[tha malcontent™]

Bumpdigity, just in case it was overlooked!...

W. Bush never admitted to any of that and more than a few "longtime friends" tell tall tales in order to get the attentions of a reporter.

Actually, there is a tape of Bush (43) Confusing the Question about whether or not he smoked Pot...

Either way, he Drank to point of having to Quit, and you have an Opinion about people who Drink...

Does it hold with the President?

:)

peace...

[Vaard]

i thought that one of his friends recorded the conversations he had with bush where bush admitted to smoking pot, but refused to answer the question publicly because he didnt want some 10 year old to start smoking......

which is about the dumbest thing i ever heard him say.....

[Apatriot]

i dont know about that whole alien plant thing....

but the other documented stuff is true.....

the marijuana plant solves some many problems on so many levels that there was no way it could be allowed in a corporate america where they cant control it....

i dont know about a 200mpg carb..... show me one and i will....

but when you can document the different uses of marijuana that is cheaper and safer than its substitutes... and no scientific proof that it is harmful (studies that show beneficial medicinal properties are suppressed)..... then why keep it illegal?

i am not a pot user myself, but the reasons to keep it illegal (lies and profit) are worse than the reasons to not to......

besides, put a tax on it that is 3 times that of cigarettes and you could wipe out most of the current national debt in less than a year....

First, I don't care either way if marijuana is legalized. Marijuana legalization would solve some problems and cause others. However, marijuana isn't the safe benign drug that its' advocates claim, nor is it the "killer weed" that ruins lives instantly.

However, if hemp is such a wonderful thing, why aren't other countries (that allow industrial hemp) making a killing out of it? Why aren't they just raking in the benefits? Easy answer--it's not as good as advertized.

[gdoane]

Marijuana_MyAntiDrug writes:
* All schoolbooks were made from hemp or flax paper until the 1880s; Hemp Paper Reconsidered, Jack Frazier, 1974.

Local schools here are giving students laptop PC's instead of schoolbooks. Why? Because the laptops cost less than the books do, online lessons are easier to search, and school books are going the way of the old set of encyclopedias headed for the dump. You gonna make a computer out of stupid worthless and useless hemp? All vehicles had wooden wheels until the 1880's too. Let me know when you get those Oak rims for your car.


* It was LEGAL TO PAY TAXES WITH HEMP in America from 1631 until the early 1800s; LA Times, Aug. 12, 1981.

America didn't exist until 1776. They're morons. They must have been smoking pot while they took their history lessons.


* REFUSING TO GROW HEMP in America during the 17th and 18th Centuries WAS AGAINST THE LAW! You could be jailed in Virginia for refusing to grow hemp from 1763 to 1769; Hemp in Colonial Virginia, G. M. Herdon.

There was no America from 1763 to 1769. Read the date on the Declaration of Independence sometime when your eyes aren't red and puffy from getting befouled by noxious smoke and you might find that America was founded July 4th, 1776.


* George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers GREW HEMP; Washington and Jefferson Diaries. Jefferson smuggled hemp seeds from China to France then to America.

Okay, so now this is even DUMBER. Growing hemp is mandatory but you've got to smuggle in the seeds to do it? Who comes up with this daft rot? Whose mind is SO FAR GONE that they can't even see the illogic in their daft stoner rantings?

And what kind of DUMB justification is that anyway?? Washington and Jefferson owned slaves too! Is that a good idea? Should we bring back slavery because the founding fathers supported it? It's not even worth considering!!


* Benjamin Franklin owned one of the first paper mills in America and it processed hemp. Also, the War of 1812 was fought over hemp. Napoleon wanted to cut off Moscow's export to England; Emperor Wears No Clothes, Jack Herer.

Benjamin Franklin also flew a kite in a lightning storm. Not exactly the most brilliant thing I ever heard tell of. I tell you one thing, just because old Ben Franklin did it you won't be finding my hands flying any kite holding the line with a hanky. I've got a much better developed sense of self-preservation than to risk making http://www.darwinawards.com/

Oh, and Napoleon was hardly brilliant either. Got his butt kicked, as I recall.


* For thousands of years, 90% of all ships' sails and rope were made from hemp. The word 'canvas' is Dutch for cannabis; Webster's New World Dictionary.

That would be due to the fact that nylon hadn't been invented yet. It wouldn't be useful today. You ever pulled on a 4" Hauser mooring line? Guaranteed you won't like it when it's soaked and doubled in weight. By the way, I was in the Navy for eight years. You ain't telling me nothin' about the ropes on ships.


* 80% of all textiles, fabrics, clothes, linen, drapes, bed sheets, etc. were made from hemp until the 1820s with the introduction of the cotton gin.

100% of all milk went without refrigerators until Carl von Linde of Germany invented one in 1876. What's the point here? Should we get rid of the cotton gin and the refrigerator?


* The first Bibles, maps, charts, Betsy Ross's flag, the first drafts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were made from hemp; U.S. Government Archives.

The first computers used cassette tapes for data storage too. Doesn't make them any superior to keep copies of data on.


* The first crop grown in many states was hemp. 1850 was a peak year for Kentucky producing 40,000 tons. Hemp was the largest cash crop until the 20th Century; State Archives.

And the LP Record was the most popular method of selling music until the invention of the CD in the 1980's, so there's no point in this tripe either.


* Oldest known records of hemp farming go back 5000 years in China, although hemp industrialization probably goes back to ancient Egypt.

Yeah, China invented gunpowder too. Funny how the liberals aren't all that excited about that particular invention of theirs.

* Rembrants, Gainsboroughs, Van Goghs as well as most early canvas paintings were principally painted on hemp linen.

Yeah, and didn't Van Gogh cut off his own ear as a gift to a prostitute?? Gosh, there's a role model for the world! Maybe he should have stood a bit further back from the hemp, huh? Doesn't seem like breathing that stuff left his mind right.


* In 1916, the U.S. Government predicted that by the 1940s all paper would come from hemp and that no more trees need to be cut down. Government studies report that 1 acre of hemp equals 4.1 acres of trees. Plans were in the works to implement such programs; Department of Agriculture

In 2005, the State of Arizona had the worst fire season on record with 725,000 acres BURNED. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0826firewrap26.html
Hello, we need the trees cut DOWN please!! USE TREES! They're like the leading source of fuel in a forest fire! We are not cutting down ENOUGH trees!


* Quality paints and varnishes were made from hemp seed oil until 1937. 58,000 tons of hemp seeds were used in America for paint products in 1935; Sherman Williams Paint Co. testimony before Congress against the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.

Paint must have been some pretty bumpy stuff back then. The paint wouldn't work today. Paint is sprayed on. Can't have seeds clogging up the sprayers.



* Henry Ford's first Model-T was built to run on hemp gasoline and the CAR ITSELF WAS CONTRUCTED FROM HEMP! On his large estate, Ford was photographed among his hemp fields. The car, 'grown from the soil,' had hemp plastic panels whose impact strength was 10 times stronger than steel; Popular Mechanics, 1941.

Another load of hooey. Plastic was never made from "hemp". http://www.cbc.ca/kids/general/the-lab/history-of-invention/plastic.html

This is getting ridiculous. It's nothing but a pack of lies put together by a bunch of dumb hippies chanting "puff-puff-pass" and there's not any common sense, truth or believability to be found in it.

[tha malcontent™]

Hey Gene, could I get some Attention to my last post?...

:)

peace...

[gdoane]

Hey Gene, could I get some Attention to my last post?...

:)

peace...

Not that you'd like.

You're assuming that I believe everything about W. Bush is positive, and I don't. Only one other President went through a full term and vetoed nothing. His name was Thomas Jefferson. W. Bush is not showing what I think is ideal leadership. Being a leader and never saying "no" are mutually exclusive. And W. Bush never says "no".

And it's not surprising. A man (using the term loosely) who doesn't say no to drugs won't say no to much else.

Promiscuity is a bad thing. Whether it's sex, drugs or anything else, there's such a thing as being too permissive and W. Bush is being much too promiscuous.

Make me the President and I'd veto EVERYTHING. Absolutely EVERYTHING. The Congress would be the enemy and I'd drop-kick EVERYTHING that gang of stupid lawyer career-politician hacks passed. My message to Congress would be clear: You bunch of pansy beauty contest winning lawyers get NO HELP from me to ravage the American people with your chummy lobbyist lackeys.

W. Bush is not a good President. But he's still a million times better than any Democrat who ever held the office.

[Vaard]

Marijuana_MyAntiDrug writes:

[QUOTE=gdoane]
Local schools here are giving students laptop PC's instead of schoolbooks. Why? Because the laptops cost less than the books do, online lessons are easier to search, and school books are going the way of the old set of encyclopedias headed for the dump. You gonna make a computer out of stupid worthless and useless hemp? All vehicles had wooden wheels until the 1880's too. Let me know when you get those Oak rims for your car.
what does this have to do with anything? his point was that hemp was made for paper, which was superior than tree based paper.... so you bring up computers....



America didn't exist until 1776. They're morons. They must have been smoking pot while they took their history lessons.
oh, i see.. the colonies paid no taxes up to 1776..... i think you need to go back a read a bit of history..... and pay attention to the taxes paid to england.....



There was no America from 1763 to 1769. Read the date on the Declaration of Independence sometime when your eyes aren't red and puffy from getting befouled by noxious smoke and you might find that America was founded July 4th, 1776.
right, prior to july 4, 1776 no one lived in america except indians.....maybe you missed the "colonial virginia" part....


Okay, so now this is even DUMBER. Growing hemp is mandatory but you've got to smuggle in the seeds to do it? Who comes up with this daft rot? Whose mind is SO FAR GONE that they can't even see the illogic in their daft stoner rantings?
he had to smuggle the seeds OUT of china... he didnt smuggle them into america....
nice try picking apart the semantics....


And what kind of DUMB justification is that anyway?? Washington and Jefferson owned slaves too! Is that a good idea? Should we bring back slavery because the founding fathers supported it? It's not even worth considering!!
whats with the deflections.... or do you completely dismiss Washingtons and jeffersons contributions because they had slaves... yeah, lets dismiss EVERYTHING they ever did....



Benjamin Franklin also flew a kite in a lightning storm. Not exactly the most brilliant thing I ever heard tell of. I tell you one thing, just because old Ben Franklin did it you won't be finding my hands flying any kite holding the line with a hanky. I've got a much better developed sense of self-preservation than to risk making http://www.darwinawards.com/

Oh, and Napoleon was hardly brilliant either. Got his butt kicked, as I recall.
and because of that kite flying, he invented the lightning rod....
he also invented bifocals, the Franklin stove, the odometer...
yeah, all the military scholars completely dismiss napoleans military intelligence....


That would be due to the fact that nylon hadn't been invented yet. It wouldn't be useful today. You ever pulled on a 4" Hauser mooring line? Guaranteed you won't like it when it's soaked and doubled in weight. By the way, I was in the Navy for eight years. You ain't telling me nothin' about the ropes on ships.
this one i will give you.... nylon is a superior product for ropes.... but sails made out of hemp are still better than cotton sails....i like how you think we should use a superior produst.. as long as it is not hemp...



100% of all milk went without refrigerators until Carl von Linde of Germany invented one in 1876. What's the point here? Should we get rid of the cotton gin and the refrigerator?
textiles made out of hemp will last 10 times longer than a cotton .... but you think we should stick with cotton textiles because of the invention of the refrigerator? you are the one thats high....



The first computers used cassette tapes for data storage too. Doesn't make them any superior to keep copies of data on.
so you think we should go back to using tapes for data storage? if hemp is a superior product for hard copy storage, why did we switch to paper from trees?



And the LP Record was the most popular method of selling music until the invention of the CD in the 1980's, so there's no point in this tripe either.
deflection..... they were made of hemp because it was the most superior product to use.... still is as far as hard copy storage..... thats like saying we should use vinyl albums instead of CD's....



Yeah, China invented gunpowder too. Funny how the liberals aren't all that excited about that particular invention of theirs.
what does this have to do with anything? your point is that we should disregard the chinese using hemp paper because they invented gunpowder? why the deflection?



Yeah, and didn't Van Gogh cut off his own ear as a gift to a prostitute?? Gosh, there's a role model for the world! Maybe he should have stood a bit further back from the hemp, huh? Doesn't seem like breathing that stuff left his mind right.
what does this have to do with anything? the point is that the canvases were made out of hemp and so you attack the artist? nice try at deflection....



In 2005, the State of Arizona had the worst fire season on record with 725,000 acres BURNED. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0826firewrap26.html
Hello, we need the trees cut DOWN please!! USE TREES! They're like the leading source of fuel in a forest fire! We are not cutting down ENOUGH trees!
hemp paper is alot stronger than tree paper.... no one is saying to stop cutting down trees... cant build a house out of marijuana logs.....


Paint must have been some pretty bumpy stuff back then. The paint wouldn't work today. Paint is sprayed on. Can't have seeds clogging up the sprayers.
so you think they just dumped a bunch of seeds and tried to paint with it? you never head of processing?..... thats like saying that you cant cook with corn oil because it would be bumpy stuff......



Another load of hooey. Plastic was never made from "hemp". http://www.cbc.ca/kids/general/the-lab/history-of-invention/plastic.html
From http://www.nrglink.com/archives/nrgs1196.html
ENERGIES... November 18, 1996

MARIJUANA PLASTICS. Car maker Daimler-Benz may use hemp fibers from the cannabis sativa plant to reinforce weight-and-energy saving plastics used in automobiles. Researchers at the German company have been experimenting since 1991 with alternatives to glass fiber reinforcement such as flax and coconut fibers. The legalization of a newly developed strain of marijuana, low in resins, makes the new composite material possible.

Hemp fibers, long used to make rope, provide stiffer reinforcement in plastic than flax, may be more economical to grow and are environmentally sound as they can be grown without the need for insecticides. Glass fibers are considered an environmental and health concern. Glass-reinforced-plastic, for example, cannot be recycled without creating dangerous glass dust particles which could be inhaled




This is getting ridiculous. It's nothing but a pack of lies put together by a bunch of dumb hippies chanting "puff-puff-pass" and there's not any common sense, truth or believability to be found in it.

you are right, it is ridiculous..... nothing there is a lie, but people just refuse to accept that marijuana was.. and still is.. a superior product compared to the processes used then and now.....

you use condensending remarks that in no way support your side of the argument to devaule the actual facts presented.....

[Vaard]

oh.. marijuana as an alternative fuel source.....

note.. this is not the kind of hemp you can smoke.....

http://www.hemp4fuel.com/nontesters/hemp4fuel/link.html

and

http://www.artistictreasure.com/learnmorecleanair.html

[Apatriot]

oh.. marijuana as an alternative fuel source.....

note.. this is not the kind of hemp you can smoke.....

http://www.hemp4fuel.com/nontesters/hemp4fuel/link.html

and

http://www.artistictreasure.com/learnmorecleanair.html

Then why aren't countries in which hemp is legal making a killing doing this?

[tha malcontent™]

Not that you'd like.

You're assuming that I believe everything about W. Bush is positive, and I don't. Only one other President went through a full term and vetoed nothing. His name was Thomas Jefferson. W. Bush is not showing what I think is ideal leadership. Being a leader and never saying "no" are mutually exclusive. And W. Bush never says "no".

And it's not surprising. A man (using the term loosely) who doesn't say no to drugs won't say no to much else.

Promiscuity is a bad thing. Whether it's sex, drugs or anything else, there's such a thing as being too permissive and W. Bush is being much too promiscuous.

Make me the President and I'd veto EVERYTHING. Absolutely EVERYTHING. The Congress would be the enemy and I'd drop-kick EVERYTHING that gang of stupid lawyer career-politician hacks passed. My message to Congress would be clear: You bunch of pansy beauty contest winning lawyers get NO HELP from me to ravage the American people with your chummy lobbyist lackeys.

W. Bush is not a good President. But he's still a million times better than any Democrat who ever held the office.

So, you would Deny "the People" their Representation?...

Your Hysterical Absolutism would lead to your Justified Impeachment.

As to my question, I was hoping you would Demonize the President as you have others who only simply have "used" Booze or Pot, while Bush (43) is an Admitted Addict...

"Evil" and such... Remember?

I guess I will not be Privy to one of those Rants.

I will simply scroll back and read one of your Previous Tirades, and Assume you Feel the same way about the POTUS.

I Appreciate your Belated response.

:)

peace...

[Vaard]

Then why aren't countries in which hemp is legal making a killing doing this?

because oil companies probably pay them ALOT of money to not develop alternative fuel sources.....

i know.. put the tin hat back on and such.....

but go look at who owns almost all the patents on non-fossil fuel energy sources.....

[Apatriot]

because oil companies probably pay them ALOT of money to not develop alternative fuel sources.....

i know.. put the tin hat back on and such.....

but go look at who owns almost all the patents on non-fossil fuel energy sources.....

Yes, put the tin hat back on.

You make the contention, you prove it. Do you have documentation that hemp farmers in Canada and Europe are being paid off by oil companies not to develop hemp for energy?

The whole idea is ridiculous. If it was worthwhile, the oil companies would be planting hemp......

[gdoane]

you are right, it is ridiculous..... nothing there is a lie, but people just refuse to accept that marijuana was.. and still is.. a superior product compared to the processes used then and now.....

you use condensending remarks that in no way support your side of the argument to devaule the actual facts presented.....

I don't care if it's pure gold and can bring about world peace, solve hunger and save the whales, it's still the devil's own herb. It's evil. And as evil, it must be shunned, denied and destroyed.

As for the condescension, I've never abused the stuff or been around people who do so I've shown infinitely more common sense than anybody who has been damned fool enough to mess with that demon.

An attractive devil will still be luring you to Hell itself.

[gdoane]

because oil companies probably pay them ALOT of money to not develop alternative fuel sources.....

i know.. put the tin hat back on and such.....

but go look at who owns almost all the patents on non-fossil fuel energy sources.....

If you know anything about patent law, you'll know that patents are only good for 15 years. Anything patented before 1990 doesn't enjoy patent protection anymore.

Go ahead and put that tin foil hat back on. Don't try to patent it though. The invention has to be original and the Tin Man from Wizard of Oz already came up with it.

[Marijuana_MyAntiDrug]

State Health Department Studies


In addition to the published research there have been a series of six studies conducted by state health departments under research protocols approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.The focus of these studies, conducted by six state health agencies was the use of marijuana as an anti-emetic for cancer patients. The studies, conducted in California, Georgia, New Mexico, New York, Michigan and Tennessee, compared marijuana to antiemetics available by prescription, including the synthetic THC pill, Marinol. Marijuana was found to be an effective and safe antiemetic in each of the studies and more effective than other drugs for many patients.
Highlights of the Studies

New Mexico: This study involved 250 patients.The study compared marijuana to THC capsules. The research protocol was approved by the FDA in 1978. In order to participate in the research the patient had to be referred by a physician and had to have failed on at least three other antiemetics. Patients were permitted to choose marijuana or the THC pill.

Both objective (e.g., frequency of vomiting, amount of vomiting, muscle biofeedback, blood samples and patient observation) and subjective measures were made to determine the effectiveness of the drug.

The study concluded that marijuana was not only an effective antiemetic but also far superior to the best available conventional drug, Compazine, and clearly superior to synthetic THC pill." The study found that [m]ore than [90] percent of the patients who received marijuana . . . reported significant or total relief from nausea and vomiting." The study found no major adverse side effects. Only three patients reported adverse reactions, none of these reactions involved marijuana alone. The 1984 report concluded . . . the data accumulated over all five years of the program's operation do show that marijuana smoked resulted in a higher percentage of success than does THC ingested."

California: California conducted a series of studies from 1981 through 1989. Annual reports were submitted to the FDA, state legislature and Governor. Each year approximately 90 to 100 patients received marijuana. The California research was described as a Phase III trial."

The study protocol preferred THC pills by making it much easier for patients to enter that portion of the study. Patients who received marijuana had to be over 15 years of age (the THC pill patients had to be over 5 years of age); had to be marijuana experienced, use the drug on an in-patient basis (patients could only use marijuana in the hospital and not take the medicine home) and had to be receiving rarely used and severe forms of chemotherapy. Thus, the design of the study did not favor marijuana.

Even with this built in bias against marijuana, the study consistently found marijuana to be an effective antiemetic. In 1981 the California Research Advisory Panel reported: "Over 74 percent of the cancer patients treated in the program have reported that marijuana is more effective in relieving their nausea and vomiting than any other drug they have tried." In 1982, a 78.9 percent effectiveness rate was found for smoked marijuana. By 1983 the report was conclusory in its findings stating:

The California Program also has met its research objectives. Marijuana has been shown to be effective for many cancer chemotherapy patients, safe dosage levels have been established and a dosage regimen which minimizes undesirable side effects has been devised and tested.
The California Research Advisory Panel continued to review data on marijuana until 1989 with similar results.

Michigan: The Michigan research compared marijuana to Torecan. It involved 165 patients. Upon admission to the program patients were randomized into control groups with some randomized on the conventional antiemetic Torecan and the remainder randomized to marijuana. When failure on the initial randomized drug occurred, patients could elect to crossover to the alternate therapy. This procedure allowed the Michigan Department of Health to evaluate how well patients responded to both drugs and allowed patients to register their preference.

The Michigan study reported 71.1 percent of the patients who received marijuana reported no emesis to moderate nausea. Ninety percent of the patients receiving marijuana elected to remain on marijuana. Only 8 of 83 patients randomized to marijuana chose to alter their mode of antiemetic therapy. This was almost the inverse of patients randomized to Torecan, there more than 90 percent - 22 out of 23 patients - elected to discontinue use of Torecan and switched to marijuana.

Very few serious side effects were found related to marijuana use. The most common side effect was increased appetite - reported by 32.3 percent of patients - this was a positive effect. The most common negative effects were sleepiness, reported by 21 patients and sore throat, reported by 13 patients.

Tennessee: This study involved an evaluation of 27 patients. The patients had all failed on other forms of antiemetic therapy including oral THC. The study found an overall success rate of 90.4 percent for marijuana inhalation therapy. In comparison it found a 66.7 percent success rate for THC capsules. In the under 40 age group, the study found a 100 percent success rate for marijuana inhalation therapy.

The report concludes:

We found both marijuana smoking and THC capsules to be effective anti-emetics. We found an approximate 23 percent higher success rate among those patients administered THC capsules. We found no significant differences in success rates by age group. We found that the major reason for smoking failure was smoking intolerance; while the major reason for THC capsule failure was nausea and vomiting so severe that patient could not retain the capsule.
New York: In describing the purpose of the marijuana research program the New York Department of Health stated: [t]he program is a large-scale (Phase III) cooperative clinical trial . . . ." The central question addressed is [h]ow effective is inhalation marijuana in preventing nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy in patients . . . who have failed to respond to previous antiemetic therapy?"

By 1985, the New York program had extended marijuana therapy to 208 patients through 55 practitioners. Of that, 199 patients were evaluated. These patients had received a total of 6,044 NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes which were provided to patients during 514 treatment episodes.

In percentage terms the results were stunning:

North Shore Hospital reported marijuana was effective at reducing emesis 92.9 percent of the time;
Columbia Memorial Hospital reported efficacy of 89.7 percent;
Upstate Medical Center, St. Joseph's Hospital and Jamestown General Hospital reported 100 percent of the patients smoking marijuana gained significant benefit.
The report concludes: "Patient evaluations have indicated that approximately ninety-three (93) percent of marijuana inhalation treatment episodes are reported to be effective' or highly effective' when compared to other antiemetics." The New York study reports no serious adverse side effects. No patient receiving marijuana required hospitalization or any other form of medical intervention. See, Evaluation of the Antiemetic Properties of Inhalation Marijuana in Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy Treatment," New York Department of Health, Office of Public Health (Annual Reports).

Georgia: The Georgia program evaluated 119 patients. It compared THC to standardized smoking of marijuana and with patient-controlled smoking. To enter the program a patient had to have failed on other antiemetics. Patients were randomized to either patient-controlled smoking of marijuana, standardized smoking of marijuana or THC pills.

The report found that both THC and marijuana were effective in providing antiemetic relief for patients who were previously unresponsive to antiemetics. The rate of success was 73.1 percent. Patient controlled smoking of marijuana was successful in 72.2 percent, standardized smoking was successful in 65.4 percent and THC was effective in 76 percent of the cases. In comparing the reasons for failure between marijuana and THC the report found:

The primary reasons for failure of THC capsules were due to either adverse reaction (6 out of 18) or failure to improve nausea and vomiting (9 out of 18). The primary reason for failure of smoking marijuana were due to smoking intolerance (6 out of 14) or failure to improve the nausea and vomiting (3 out of 14).

[gdoane]

State Health Department Studies





Yeah right. Potheads don't even care enough about life to commit to basic hygiene habits and I'm supposed to buy that they care about cancer patients as their reason for wanting Marijuana legalized.


Marijuana smoke is a carcinogen. If you smoke it, you can GET cancer from it. Giving cancer sticks to cancer patients is so stupid on the face of it that you'd have to be mentally impaired to recommend the practice. Government studies are not the best recommendation at any rate. Those are the guys who said Thalidomide was safe to combat "Morning Sickness" until babies started getting born with no arms and no legs. And I'm supposed to believe them when they say pot is safe? NOT HAPPENING.


Marijuana is disgusting. Even the FANS of the stuff try to mask the DISGUSTING odor with incense, air fresheners, and mints. They wear sunglasses and use eyedrops to hide the DISGUSTING look of red swollen bloodshot eyes from the demon weed.


But only until they're not a burnout. Burnouts don't even bother with that. They'll stink, they'll have their bloodshot eyes and matted hair and they don't care a bit.


I dunno how many joints it takes to become a burnout. Probably just two or three. Don't care. The risk it there, it's obviously harmful and dangerous and I really don't want these Pod People from Invasion of the Bodysnatchers who had their very soul taken over by a dumb plant walking amongst decent people.


If you're a human being and a plant owns your soul, that's beyond pathetic.

[tha malcontent™]

No one should be driving under the influence of any mind altering drug, and I strongly support harsh punishments for any type of DUI conviction, whether it be alcohol, marijuana, or something else.[/QUOTE]

What Punishment, exactly?...

And would you Punish those previously Convicted who are still Living, Equally?

:)

peace...

[Vaard]

i think if it could be proven that pot was the best plant in the history of the world, he would still hate it.....

[Vaard]

i would be interested to see where gdoane gets the idea that pot is a carcinogen....

a government study?

[catchrye]

Thanks for the entertainment folks. I love reading these pot smoking threads because I know eventually gdoane will show up, and lets face it, that guy is a comic genius. Especially the part about being as dangerous as a drunk driver fourty days after smoking, that one gets me everytime.
The best part though, is his timing, waiting until the pro-pot folks have gotten a pretty good one sided conversation going, for a page or two, then BAM, there he is.
Great stuff
keep it up

[Vaard]

heh.. concerning this topic... gdoane has beliefs, but no real facts.....

some people just hate pot because of all the lies that have been told about it......

and i love your sig quote, catch

[Marijuana_MyAntiDrug]

Evidence Debunks Teen Medical Marijuana Scaremongering

Thursday, September 8, 2005

A new study (http://www.mpp.org/pdf/2005TeenUseReport.pdf) shows a decrease in marijuana use among teenagers in states that have enacted medical marijuana laws, refuting the frequent claim that such laws "send the wrong message" to adolescents. The study, authored by Mitch Earleywine, a State University of New York psychology professor, and Karen O'Keefe, a legislative analyst with Marijuana Policy Project, used data from state and federal government-sponsored drug use surveys to compare teen marijuana use before and after the passage of medical marijuana laws. Up until California's medical marijuana law, Proposition 215, was passed in 1996, surveys conducted with 6000 students every two years showed a steady increase in recreational marijuana use. Following the passage of Prop 215 however, the statistics dropped drastically.

In their report, Earleywine and O’Keefe state that "perhaps medical marijuana laws send a very different message than opponents of such laws have suggested: Marijuana is a treatment for serious illness, not a toy, and requires cautious and careful handling.”

The Office of National Drug Control Policy believes that voter-approved medical marijuana laws are “clouding” the message of its anti-drug campaign, which it credits for the overall decline in marijuana use in adolescents. Yet the eight medical marijuana states with before-and-after data have shown a drop in overall marijuana use. Those states are Alaska, Colorado, Hawai’i, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. (Montana and Vermont do not have data available since the 2004 enactment of their medical marijuana laws.)

The numbers speak for themselves; between 1996 and 2004, marijuana use in the last 30 days among high school freshmen dropped 47%, and the number of freshmen who had tried marijuana at least once dropped 35%. The correlation is too obvious to ignore as voters in states across the country begin to recognize the medicinal use of marijuana and that endorsing its medical use does not increase marijuana use in teenagers.

[Marijuana_MyAntiDrug]

I'm in no way willing to legalize heroin, but I'd legalize heroin before I'd legalize marijuana.




Can i use this in my sig line?

[catchrye]

Can i use this in my sig line?

if you don't I will

[gdoane]

Can i use this in my sig line?

No. Siglines are not to be used to attack honored guests of this forum. They're YOUR personalization and are subject to every rule.

[gdoane]

if you don't I will

No. You won't. Siglines to attack a member of the forums is forbidden. Siglines that attack a mod? Let's not go there, please. I don't like banning people. But I can and will in a topic I'm participating in if the offense is instaban class.

It wouldn't be me who bans you for it. I'll abstain. But that won't help you get away with a clearly broken rule.

[gdoane]

What Punishment, exactly?...

And would you Punish those previously Convicted who are still Living, Equally?

:)

peace...[/QUOTE]

Anybody convicted of drunk driving risked wrecking their car (and someone else's too). So do it. Make it so that the car is wrecked. Take the drunk driver, and the car he risked wrecking, to a crusher at a junkyard and crush the car right in front of their face. Smash it into a little cube. Destroy it.

Then take the crushed little cube, hang a sign on it that says "Drunk Driver Convict" and put it in their front yard for all the world to see what he/she did and the price he/she paid.

We need to get shame back into crimes. We need to bring back the stockades and we need to stop giving the criminals the dignity of a place to serve their sentence out of sight and attention of the society they wronged.

We need webcams in every courtroom in America. The trials are required to be speedy and public under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, and what could be more public than the Internet? We need all criminals, not just sex offenders and child molestors, to be in a publically searchable database better than Google.

If I meet somebody for business or pleasure, I want to be able to know if the dummy ever smoked pot so I know what I'm dealing with. The Right of Freedom of Association includes the right to judge people based on the choices they've made. Pot smokers have made some very bad, bad choices and knowing that the person you're dealing with is capable of losing and and all common sense in a heartbeat is some seriously useful information.

[tha malcontent™]

What Punishment, exactly?...

And would you Punish those previously Convicted who are still Living, Equally?

:)

peace...

Anybody convicted of drunk driving risked wrecking their car (and someone else's too). So do it. Make it so that the car is wrecked. Take the drunk driver, and the car he risked wrecking, to a crusher at a junkyard and crush the car right in front of their face. Smash it into a little cube. Destroy it.

Then take the crushed little cube, hang a sign on it that says "Drunk Driver Convict" and put it in their front yard for all the world to see what he/she did and the price he/she paid.

We need to get shame back into crimes. We need to bring back the stockades and we need to stop giving the criminals the dignity of a place to serve their sentence out of sight and attention of the society they wronged.

We need webcams in every courtroom in America. The trials are required to be speedy and public under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, and what could be more public than the Internet? We need all criminals, not just sex offenders and child molestors, to be in a publically searchable database better than Google.

If I meet somebody for business or pleasure, I want to be able to know if the dummy ever smoked pot so I know what I'm dealing with. The Right of Freedom of Association includes the right to judge people based on the choices they've made. Pot smokers have made some very bad, bad choices and knowing that the person you're dealing with is capable of losing and and all common sense in a heartbeat is some seriously useful information.[/QUOTE]

So I will take that as a "Yes", you would Punish those Previously Convicted Equally...

I can't help but to hear Roger Waters, "There's one smoking a Joint, and another with Spots... If I had my way, I'd have all of you SHOT!"...

:)

peace...

[gdoane]

Vaard writes:
i think if it could be proven that pot was the best plant in the history of the world, he would still hate it.....

I think that couldn't be proven. Let's discuss intoxication, is it good or bad? Intoxication is mental impairment. Is mental impairment good or bad? Your brain is an organ in your body. More important than other organs, but still an organ so I ask you, is lung impairment good or bad? Kidney impairment good or bad? Liver impairment good or bad? I think the very existence of Viagra proves that most people agree an impaired organ is a BAD THING.


i would be interested to see where gdoane gets the idea that pot is a carcinogen....

a government study?

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html
Effects on the Lungs

A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers(9). Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

Even infrequent use can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, often accompanied by a heavy cough. Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers do, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, a heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency to obstructed airways(10). Smoking marijuana increases the likelihood of developing cancer of the head or neck, and the more marijuana smoked the greater the increase(11). A study comparing 173 cancer patients and 176 healthy individuals produced strong evidence that marijuana smoking doubled or tripled the risk of these cancers.


It's not rocket science. Your nostrils have hairs in them to intercept and block particles from entering your lungs. The cough reflex is a function, an involuntary function, of the body to get particles out of the throat and lungs. The whole respiratory system is designed around one simple fact: PARTICLES IN THE LUNGS INJURE THEM. And smoke, by the way, is particles.

heh.. concerning this topic... gdoane has beliefs, but no real facts.....

Actually, my strength seems to be common sense, something that people who purposefully get intoxicated whilst damaging both their lungs and their brains seem to lack. I have facts bookmarked to the point I don't even need an internet search engine to find them anymore.

some people just hate pot because of all the lies that have been told about it......

They're not lies. Just because you say they're lies doesn't make it so. You're not proving anything by saying that they're lies. Go ahead and prove the lie above that I just sourced, prove that marijuana is not a carcinogen. You claim that it isn't. You make the RIDICULOUS claim that you can injure your lungs with smoke and not risk cancer. You know as well as I do about "Bongs", using water to cool the smoke because hot smoke is an irritant. Irritation is injury, and injury leads to cancer as a risk factor.

To honestly suggest that throwing chemicals at your own brain in order to impair its function is harmless is ludicrous on its face.

[tha malcontent™]

Respect the Floyd Bumpdigity...

What Punishment, exactly?...

And would you Punish those previously Convicted who are still Living, Equally?

:)

peace...

Anybody convicted of drunk driving risked wrecking their car (and someone else's too). So do it. Make it so that the car is wrecked. Take the drunk driver, and the car he risked wrecking, to a crusher at a junkyard and crush the car right in front of their face. Smash it into a little cube. Destroy it.

Then take the crushed little cube, hang a sign on it that says "Drunk Driver Convict" and put it in their front yard for all the world to see what he/she did and the price he/she paid.

We need to get shame back into crimes. We need to bring back the stockades and we need to stop giving the criminals the dignity of a place to serve their sentence out of sight and attention of the society they wronged.

We need webcams in every courtroom in America. The trials are required to be speedy and public under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, and what could be more public than the Internet? We need all criminals, not just sex offenders and child molestors, to be in a publically searchable database better than Google.

If I meet somebody for business or pleasure, I want to be able to know if the dummy ever smoked pot so I know what I'm dealing with. The Right of Freedom of Association includes the right to judge people based on the choices they've made. Pot smokers have made some very bad, bad choices and knowing that the person you're dealing with is capable of losing and and all common sense in a heartbeat is some seriously useful information.[/QUOTE]

So I will take that as a "Yes", you would Punish those Previously Convicted Equally...

I can't help but to hear Roger Waters, "There's one smoking a Joint, and another with Spots... If I had my way, I'd have all of you SHOT!"...

:)

peace...

[Vaard]

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html



my point was that back in post 208, you said government studies are not the best recommendation than you use a governemnt study to help support your views....

[gdoane]

my point was that back in post 208, you said government studies are not the best recommendation than you use a governemnt study to help support your views....

That's because anybody else studying illegal drugs is, obviously, illegal. It should actually be illegal for the Federales to study them. Once it's illegal then that's all that needs to be known about the drug. There is no useful legal purpose for the drug and that's that.

[BeHereNow]

There is no useful legal purpose for the drug and that's that.Unlike Johnny Walker Red, which of course has many useful purposes. Not as many as Thunderbird perhaps, but hey, if it's legal it's good.

[gdoane]

Unlike Johnny Walker Red, which of course has many useful purposes. Not as many as Thunderbird perhaps, but hey, if it's legal it's good.

I use distilled alcohol in electronics maintenance as a chemical cleaner. It can't be good for you. Get some on your hands and don't wash it off in time, and your affected skin will turn ghoulish white as all moisture and pigment is sucked right out of it.

Besides, that's broken window theory. Alcohol is not good for you. You cannot make that case. It kills germs. It kills bacteria. It's been known to kill people too. This nation had a great idea in prohibition, but they went about it the wrong way. They did it cold turkey without first properly demonizing it and persecuting those who used it.

Tobacco is a fine case of how to kill a substance of abuse. It takes time, but it works. In 1970, slightly over half of American Adults were smokers. Most smokers begin in their teens, because that's the only time in your life that you're really naive enough to try things that are bad for you with the combination of naivete' and feeling of immortality.

Today, now, 35 years later fewer than a quarter of American Adults are smokers and the ones who are get properly ostracized. Kicked out of buildings to do their stenchly deed, forbidden from smoking in buses, planes and trains, faced with restaraunts, stores and businesses that forbid them from lighting up, they're starting to get the idea that we don't like what they're doing. And they're quitting.

Tax initiatives against tobacco always pass because with less than 1/4 of the voters smoking (and of course, smoking isn't allowed at any polling place) the idea of raising taxes on them seems great. Especially to anyone who has ever coughed from the foul smell of a vile noxious toxic smoke lingering around a discourteous smoker. Lighting up in public and farting in public are now treated with equal disdain. Actually, smoking may be worse!

These multi-tiered patient and consistent attacks have changed the entire nation's attitude about smoking in 30 years flat. Even most smokers want to quit. 75% of people who smoke cigarettes want to quit smoking. 8 out of 10 Americans call smoking "Very Harmful" and 6 out of 10 Americans call second-hand smoke "Very Harmful". http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/110/109536.htm?pagenumber=1

Since the attack plan against tobacco was mobilized, tobacco has become illegal to advertise on TV and Radio, the machine dispensers have been relegated to bars (and many bars are now non-smoking), entire cities (City of Tempe, Arizona) have passed laws forbidding smoking in any building which is open to the public, and those bans may be State-wide.

Figuring that the kids who started smoking in their teens back in the 1970's and maybe 1980's are pushing 40, inside of 20 more years we will have successfully and totally killed tobacco use in America. We will be burying the last smoker before the 22nd Century begins.

Fortunately (for me, anyway, as I hate marijuana) it's smoked, it smells even worse than Tobacco does and even if some State is dumb enough to legalize it, there won't be but the two or three places (in your home, in your car, or downwind on the farm) to smoke that garbage because people have been taught to DEMAND their clean and fresh air. If I see a cigarette, I automatically start coughing at the sight of it because the sight of it offends me and my fake coughing offends them right back. It's a simple way to say to smokers of America: I hate what you're doing and I want you to stop it, and do not do it where I can see it, smell it or otherwise know about it.

Marijuana is already beaten. It would run into an even worse stigma than tobacco enjoys because it smell worse and the people who do it are even ruder and more disgusting than the tobacco abusers who used our streets, parks and sidewalks as their personal ashtrays. Every cigarette butt tossed on the ground was another step towards getting America to hate Big Tobacco. And hate them we do.

Marijuana wears an even bigger albatross around its neck. You will never see it legalized in your lifetime. NEVER.

[PaleoPaul]

Marijuana wears an even bigger albatross around its neck. You will never see it legalized in your lifetime. NEVER.
I sure hope not.

[BeHereNow]

gdoane: Besides, that's broken window theory.
No it’s not.
It’s the “what is good for the goose is good for the gander” theory.
It is also the “those who are in power get to chose the vices” theory.
It is also the “If I do it, it is okay, but if you do it, it is wrong” theory.
This nation had a great idea in prohibition, but they went about it the wrong way. They did it cold turkey without first properly demonizing it and persecuting those who used it.Where were you right before prohibition? How do you think they got the law passed? It was demonized and persecuted to high heaven by the women left behind.

You will never see it legalized in your lifetime. NEVER.
Well, of course it is legal in some countries right now.
And in even more it is decriminalized, with stiffer penalties for running a stop sign that caught with a joint.
Yes, between the Reds and the Blues they want to take all freedom and responsibility away from us. One side wants to give it all to the Church and Big Business, and the other side would give it to the Government.
Me, I’m for personal responsibility.
With a little luck we may have a revolution before people are dying to leave this fine country.

[gdoane]

BeHereNow writes (on broken window theory)...

No it’s not.

Wow. What a devastating amount of proof! "No it's not!" I must add that to my repertoire!

Yes, it is. Broken Window Theory is pointing at broken windows to argue that one more broken window is OKAY. Vandals subscribe to that theory. That's why a fence with one bit of graffiti on it will soon have more bits of graffiti on it, and then neighboring fences become targets and before you know it every fence in the neighborhood has had some punks violating it with their obscene scrawls.

This is no different. The argument is that tobacco is okay (it's not, it causes half a million deaths a year) and alcohol is okay (it's not, 20,000 auto accidents a year caused by it) so obviously Marijuana is just as okay. That's broken window theory.

Where were you right before prohibition? How do you think they got the law passed? It was demonized and persecuted to high heaven by the women left behind.

They went too fast. It takes years to foster and foment enough hate against an activity for it to be socially unacceptable. Heck, the Europeans are just now getting around to having their women shave their legs for pity's sake.

Well, of course it is legal in some countries right now.

Nope. Decriminalized. Can't be legal without violating a UN Treaty. The Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 (http://www.unodc.org/pdf/convention_1971_en.pdf) Marijuana is INTERNATIONALLY a Schedule I psychotropic.

Treaties are equal in force to our own Constitution as the Highest Law of the Land. It's beyond legalization. Cannot happen without violating international treaty.

[mrclean]

I'm tuning in late here, but what's an OMGZ?

[gdoane]

I'm tuning in late here, but what's an OMGZ?

It's 733T haxor speak for OMG.

[Marijuana_MyAntiDrug]

You will never see it legalized in your lifetime. NEVER.

http://potclubs.us/content/main.california.php


http://www.drugwarfacts.org/medicalm.htm

Since 1996, ten states have legalized medical marijuana use: AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ME, NV, OR, VT and WA. Eight of the ten did so through the initiative process, Hawaii's law was enacted by the legislature and signed by the governor in 2000, and Vermont's was enacted by the legislature and passed into law without the governor's signature in May 2004.

[gdoane]

http://potclubs.us/content/main.california.php


http://www.drugwarfacts.org/medicalm.htm

Since 1996, ten states have legalized medical marijuana use: AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ME, NV, OR, VT and WA. Eight of the ten did so through the initiative process, Hawaii's law was enacted by the legislature and signed by the governor in 2000, and Vermont's was enacted by the legislature and passed into law without the governor's signature in May 2004.

ROFL!!! NOPE! I live in Arizona. I know exactly what happened. The legislation, strongly backed by millionaire stoner and moron John Sperling, flooded the airwaves with "Oh Boo Hoo I have Cancer and Marijuana is my only relief Oh Boo Hoo" ads meant to tug at heartstrings (nevermind that most damned idiots with cancer did something boneheaded to get it like smoking) and it barely passed at the ballot box.

The Legislation said that if a Doctor gives permission that a patient cannot be prosecuted for having "medical marijuana" (a BS term if ever there was one) and the Arizona legislature, in a Check and Mate move of genius, passed counterlegislation stating that if ANY DOCTOR gives such an EVIL PRESCRIPTION that his license to practice in Arizona is INSTANTLY revoked and the Doctor faces 5000 to 10,000 years in the deepest, darkest, nastiest dungeon we can find to throw the bastard in.

As a result, nobody gets those prescriptions. Neat, huh?

Potheads are idiots. They're easy to outsmart.

[catchrye]

Since the attack plan against tobacco was mobilized, tobacco has become illegal to advertise on TV and Radio, the machine dispensers have been relegated to bars (and many bars are now non-smoking), entire cities (City of Tempe, Arizona) have passed laws forbidding smoking in any building which is open to the public, and those bans may be State-wide.





This is a part that really bothers me. If I own a bar, why can't i let my customers smoke in it? Its not like non-smokers are forced to come in, there aren't kids or sick people or anything else. It is not a hospitol, or even a restaurant. It is a bar, moreover, it is my bar. How can the imperial government possibly justify these bans onto anything but a non-thinking population?

[gdoane]

catchrye writes:

This is a part that really bothers me. If I own a bar, why can't i let my customers smoke in it?

They may be your customers but you do not own their lungs. Businesses are required to take steps to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their customers. For example, a bar is required to pass a health inspection, it is required by fire code to maintain a limit on the number of people in the establishment at any one time, it is required to obtain and maintain a liquor license and to comply with laws regarding minors and alcohol, and it must refuse service to inebriated patrons.

Smoke is well established to be neither healthy or safe. It does not belong in businesses of any sort for any reason.

[tha malcontent™]

"Who let all this Riffraff into the room!?!?"...

:)

peace...

[Gandalf_the_Grey]

Smoke is well established to be neither healthy or safe. It does not belong in businesses of any sort for any reason.

And car exhaust is poisonous. So we should stop driving?

Has anyone ever held a gun to your head and made you walk into an establishment that allows smoking? Forced you to take a job in an enviroment that allows smoking?

Yeah, why don't we just let the federal government crawl into every aspect of our lives. Great plan.

[gdoane]

And car exhaust is poisonous. So we should stop driving?

If you're driving indoors without adequate ventilation, you won't have to worry about it. Dead people don't drive. There's a few stories in the paper every year about somebody running their car in a closed garage. They're ex-drivers.

Has anyone ever held a gun to your head and made you walk into an establishment that allows smoking? Forced you to take a job in an enviroment that allows smoking?

Doesn't matter. It's disgusting, it's uncivil, it's rude and it's crude. It's not something a polite person would ever subject anyone else to and if they have to be told not to befoul the air with their putrid stench then so be it.

Yeah, why don't we just let the federal government crawl into every aspect of our lives. Great plan.

I'm not suggesting that. If you want to smoke in your house, that's fine so long as it's hermetically sealed and there's no chance that an unsuspecting passerby is exposed to so much as one life-threatening poisonous whiff of the toxic gasses emitted by a stinking stogie.

[Gandalf_the_Grey]

If you're driving indoors without adequate ventilation, you won't have to worry about it. Dead people don't drive. There's a few stories in the paper every year about somebody running their car in a closed garage. They're ex-drivers.

You can ventilate an enclosed space quite easily. It's 2005 you know.

Concerning ventilation of car exhaust, are you familiar with temperature inversion?

Doesn't matter. It's disgusting, it's uncivil, it's rude and it's crude. It's not something a polite person would ever subject anyone else to and if they have to be told not to befoul the air with their putrid stench then so be it.

I don't smoke and don't generally hang around smokers. I find it disgusting, but do not feel the government needs to outlaw it in all instances because of my sensitivities.



I'm not suggesting that. If you want to smoke in your house, that's fine so long as it's hermetically sealed and there's no chance that an unsuspecting passerby is exposed to so much as one life-threatening poisonous whiff of the toxic gasses emitted by a stinking stogie.

I think this qualifies as the most assinine thing I've read yet on smoking.

[Marijuana_MyAntiDrug]

They're not lies. Just because you say they're lies doesn't make it so. You're not proving anything by saying that they're lies. Go ahead and prove the lie above that I just sourced, prove that marijuana is not a carcinogen. You claim that it isn't. You make the RIDICULOUS claim that you can injure your lungs with smoke and not risk cancer. You know as well as I do about "Bongs", using water to cool the smoke because hot smoke is an irritant. Irritation is injury, and injury leads to cancer as a risk factor.

To honestly suggest that throwing chemicals at your own brain in order to impair its function is harmless is ludicrous on its face.

Cannabis does not cause cancer, lung disease, or ill health. Recent reports confirm this.

CANNABIS AND CANCER

Go back to the contents page (http://www.ccguide.org.uk/index.php)

CANADA: Pot Doesn't Cause Lung Cancer, Researcher Says (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01.n1045.a03.html): Toronto Star, 12 June 2001

New 126-Page Study, 'NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans-Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F(1) Mice, Gavage Studies' (http://www.mapinc.org/pdxnorml/980117.html#mmu)

BOSTON, Jan. 30, 1997 (UPI) - The U.S. federal government has failed to make public its own 1994 study that undercuts its position that marijuana is carcinogenic - a $2 million study by the National Toxicology Program. The program's deputy director, John Bucher says the study found absolutely no evidence of cancer. In fact, animals that received THC had fewer cancers. Bucher denies his agency had been pressured to shelve the report, saying the delay in making it public was due to a personnel shortage.

The Boston Globe reported on Thursday 30th January 1997 that the study indicates not only that the main ingredient in marijuana, THC, does not cause cancer, but also that it may even protect against malignancies, laboratory tests on animals show.

The report comes on the heels of an editorial in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine that favors the controlled medical use of marijuana, and calls current federal policy misguided, heavy-handed and inhumane.

SO, YOU THOUGHT IT WAS THE TAR THAT CAUSED CANCER

The KAISER PERMANENTE. Prohibition is unhealthy. 1997

Kaiser-Permanente is a large US health-care provider. This study into the effects of long-term smoking of cannabis took 10 years and involved 65,000 people who had received check-ups between 1979 and 1985. The patients were divided into those who had, and those who had not, used cannabis regularly or currently. It was reported that risks associated with cannabis smoking were lower than for tobacco smoking. It also noted that smokers with AIDS had no higher death-rate than non-smokers with AIDS.

The report stated
"Relatively few adverse clinical effects from the chronic use of marijuana have been documented in humans. However, the criminalization of marijuana use may itself be a health hazard, since it may expose the users to violence and criminal activity."
The Kaiser Permanente study - "Marijuana Use and Mortality" April 1997 American Journal of Public Health".

See also: Radioactivity in Tobacco (http://www.webspawwner.com/users/radioactivethreat/)

UCLA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE

An 8-year study at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Medicine, concluded that long-term smokers of cannabis do not experience a greater annual decline in lung functions than non-smokers.
Researchers said:
"Findings from the present long-term follow-up study of heavy, habitual marijuana smokers argue against the concept that the continuing heavy use of marijuana is a significant factor for the development of [chronic lung disease]"
"No difference were noted between even quite heavy marijuana smoking and nonsmoking of marijuana."
Volume 155 of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 1997 (http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/search.shtml)

NATIONAL DRUG AND ALCOHOL RESEARCH CENTRE, AUSTRALIA, January 1997


A study of 268 cannabis smokers who, on average, had smoked for 19 years and 31 non-using partners and family members, concluded that the health of the long-term smokers is virtually no different to that of the general population.
Chief researcher Richard Reilly said "The results seem unremarkable...The exceptional thing was that the respondents were unexceptional."
For more information e-mail Jamnes Danenberg (hempSA@va.com.au)

Source: New Scientist (UK)
Website: http://www.newscientist.com/ (http://www.newscientist.com/)
Pubdate: Sat, 15 Aug 1998
Author: Redford Givens

DOPE VERSUS CANCER

Michael Roth's "preliminary evidence" suggesting that the THC in marijuana may promote a carcinogenic effect (This week, 25 July, p 16) flies in the face of Louis S. Harris's findings in Analgesic and Anti-Tumor Potential of The Cannabinoids (Medical College of Virginia, 1972) that delta-8 THC, delta-9 THC and cannabinol are quite active as anticancer agents.

At the time of Harris's research, no anticancer agent that was much more potent than delta-9 THC existed and no compounds differentiated between tumour and normal cells the way delta-9 THC does. Considering that delta-9 THC alone increased survival in cancerous rats by 36 per cent, it seems very unlikely that THC promotes carcinogenic effects.

THC's known anticarcinogenic properties are probably the reason the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia, has never been able to trace any cancers to marijuana use.

[Racer7391]

Obviously this tread{like all similar treads}has morphed into a "lets just make it legal for everybody"Tread.Gdoane and I have argued this point many times.There is no happy medium.Gdoane swears that his/her brother was killed by pot.I doubt such is really the case{I dont doubt that Gdoane's brother passed away in a drug related incident},the truth might be that his death was caused by use of stronger drugs,which he wouldnt have been exposed to had he been able to buy Pot at the corner store.It might have been related to him using Pot that was mixed with other dangerous subsances which he had no idea of,or it may have been related to him having to deal with the crimial underworld to get a simple drug which he desired.Or maybe it was related to him smoking pot and doing something that needs to be done sober,which is no different then if the same act had been done while under the influance of alcohol.

Here are some very real facts.Alcohol is legal.It is also addictive.It is addictive becuase if you consume alcohol for a brief period,then stop consuming it,you will fel sicker then you did prior to consumption.the fastest way to cure this ill feeling is to consumer more alcohol.
Smoking is legal,it is also addictive.Smoking i addictive because before you ever light up your first cigarette,you will go through life with normal levels of emotion.After consuming your first cigarette,you will feel untypically calm despite the fact that nothing in your surroundings has changed.Shortly after you finish smoking you will begin to feel nervous,andjittery,and you will become more nervous and jitery then you were before you smoked the cigarette.The easiest way to stop this nervousness in the least amount of time is to smoke another cigarette.

Pot is illegal,it is also not addictive.When you begine to smoke pot,you will fel a pleasuable sensation.After you finish smoking you will become hungry,then maybe a litle tired,you will then be returned to your pre smoking state.If you wish to feel the effect of this drug you can use it with little or no consiquence after the desired effect has worn off.Of course it can cause cancer,but so can regualr smoking,as well as alcohol use,as well as french fry grease and chicken wings.anthing can be unhealthy when overconsumed.It is not the Government's job to control how much we eat or smoke.Of course if socialized medicine has it's day,we will all be under the government's thumb since once every tax paying american is paying for your health care you will no longer be able to do as you please with your body.

As for pot making you a degenrate looser,I know of dozens of people who have smoked pot every single day for the last 30 years or more,and yet manage to run very sucessfull professional businesses,Some work for large corporations and excell at what they do.As a matter of fact,I dont know of one person who uses pot exclusivly{and I know many} who lacks for any ambition or control in their life.Now when it comes to alcohol uses,the same cannot be said.Most alcoholics cannot control the need to drink at inappropriate times,and they typically lead themselves into demise because of the evil substance that they are addicted to.But you can buy a bottle of scotch at any corner liquor store and drink you liver into mush at which time my tax dollars or insurance premiums will have to pay to try and save you despite the fact that 9 time out of 10 if you were saved you would return to the same situation as before.So dont rant on me about how bad pot is.

[gdoane]

Cannabis does not cause cancer, lung disease, or ill health. Recent reports confirm this.



Cute. The study says THC does not cause cancer, conveniently sidestepping the FACT that there are hundreds of OTHER substances released in smoke. If it makes you cough, it can kill you. That's just common sense. The reason bad things SMELL bad is because your nose is part of your survival instincts. Bad things stink and the reason they stink is to make you want to avoid it.

Few things smell worse than marijuana. It is one of the foulest smells on earth. It makes a city dump smell like a perfume factory in comparison. It makes moldy gym socks smell relatively like a rose.

The reason it stinks is the same reason any other stinky thing stinks. It's bad for you and it can kill you if you're exposed to it.

[Raoul Duke]

I just have one question. Do you take asprine or anything similar Gene?

[tha malcontent™]

"Get them up Against the Wall... There's one, in spotlight... He don't look right, to me... Get him up Against the Wall..."

:)

peace...

[Racer7391]

And I always kinda liked the skunky odor of opening a fresh bag.Maybe it just brings back fond memories for me.

Maybe you just need to smell fresh home grown weed,not that crap that is cubed at 1000 psi until all the oil is smashed out of the seeds just so that 100 pounds of it can fit into the spare tire of a car driving over the border.One more reason to make it legal.Grow your own,then the criminal underworld{and possibly terrorist} cant make money off of selling it to you.


So the way I see it Gdoane supports terrorist and the mafia:}

Just kidding.

[gdoane]

I just have one question. Do you take asprine or anything similar Gene?

Absolutely not. I hate all drugs and need none. I think W. Bush's prescription drug benefit paid for by tax dollars is the most despicable thing any President has ever done. I do not want any tax money going to any pharmaceutical company and I have a disbelief in the efficacy of medicine anyway. I've taken aspirin as a child and it did NOTHING. I have absolutely no aspirin in my home and there has not been an aspirin in my home for over a decade. I don't want it, I don't need it, I hate it, I think it's a stupid crutch that nobody needs and it's a sign of weakness to look to a pill for help.

Medicine is for wimps. I keep my medicine cabinet manly and tough with nothing in it that could be viewed as a weakness.

[gdoane]

And I always kinda liked the skunky odor of opening a fresh bag.Maybe it just brings back fond memories for me.

Maybe you just need to smell fresh home grown weed,not that crap that is cubed at 1000 psi until all the oil is smashed out of the seeds just so that 100 pounds of it can fit into the spare tire of a car driving over the border.One more reason to make it legal.Grow your own,then the criminal underworld{and possibly terrorist} cant make money off of selling it to you.


So the way I see it Gdoane supports terrorist and the mafia:}

Just kidding.

A terrorist is morally superior to a pothead. At least a terrorist does his crimes for something he believes in. A pothead does his crime for the fun of it.

[MixedRecords]

I never have a problem getting it. I call that being legal. How can it be supporting terrorism if it's grown in America you dumb asses. Oh yeah, the country that claims freedom of speech only if you agree with republicans. You're labeled as supporting terrorism if you can understand that our government has been murdering people for the last 100 years and feel compassionate to them fighting back. Alcohol kills more people than weed ever will and it's legal. Don't forget that weed used to be legal in American history. Research who lobbied against it. They say don't do drugs but call their own pharmaceutical industry the drug industry. Makes a lot of sense. - lol As for the smell, it's the most wonderful odor on the planet. fo sho - detroitrap.com - STREET -

[gdoane]

I never have a problem getting it. I call that being legal.

I have no idea where to get it and if I did, I'd be calling the cops instantly.

How can it be supporting terrorism if it's grown in America you dumb asses.

Not all terrorists are outside of the USA. Terry Nichols. Timothy McVeigh. The Columbine killers. The D.C. Snipers.

Oh yeah, the country that claims freedom of speech only if you agree with republicans.

Democrats are the censors. Tipper Gore and record lyrics. Bill Clinton and the "V-Chip" in all TV's. Joe Lieberman and video game ratings.

You're labeled as supporting terrorism if you can understand that our government has been murdering people for the last 100 years and feel compassionate to them fighting back. Alcohol kills more people than weed ever will and it's legal. Don't forget that weed used to be legal in American history. Research who lobbied against it. They say don't do drugs but call their own pharmaceutical industry the drug industry. Makes a lot of sense. - lol As for the smell, it's the most wonderful odor on the planet. fo sho - detroitrap.com - STREET -

I don't care if it used to be legal, it's not anymore and for good cause. We didn't have the transportation system in place back when it was legal so it was self-limiting.

[Death Star]

http://www.angelfire.com/sk2/bigbluesky/images/PFJudge.jpg

If I had my way, I'd have all of them shot...


Good call, Mal. ;)