Potent Pot

[Kipper]

Here's why pot should be legal.

"Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

If people drive high and kill a dozen people, lock them up. But until then, let them smoke away.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Howard
I'm done here. Arguing with Tabb is a pointless exercise in tolerance.

Okay.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Some Republican members of Congress, meanwhile, urged the court to consider that more than 20,000 people die each year because of drug abuse. A ruling against the government, they said, would help drug traffickers avoid arrest, increase the marijuana supply and send a message that illegal drugs are good.

What the fvck does 20,000 people overdosing on heroin or some other sh|t have to do with marijuana? None of those 20,000 deaths had anything to do with marijuana, especially medicinal pot.

Heaven forbid we send an HONEST message that it's ok to let sick people use a drug that helps them!
What will the CHILDREN think when they realize we've been talking out of our asses about pot this whole time? We don't want to contradict all the lies that pot has no medical value now do we. Think about the CHILDREN! Drugs are baaaad.

The stupidity of these people is beyond belief!

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Some Republican members of Congress, meanwhile, urged the court to consider that more than 20,000 people die each year because of drug abuse. A ruling against the government, they said, would help drug traffickers avoid arrest, increase the marijuana supply and send a message that illegal drugs are good.

What the fvck does 20,000 people overdosing on heroin or some other sh|t have to do with marijuana? None of those 20,000 deaths had anything to do with marijuana, especially medicinal pot.

Heaven forbid we send an HONEST message that it's ok to let sick people use a drug that helps them!
What will the CHILDREN think when they realize we've been talking out of our asses about pot this whole time? We don't want to contradict all the lies that pot has no medical value now do we. Think about the CHILDREN! Drugs are baaaad.

The stupidity of these people is beyond belief!

I am begining to see past the lies, but I still don't see a reason as why it should be legal.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Tabb
I am begining to see past the lies, but I still don't see a reason as why it should be legal.

You just haven't fully realized the negative side effects of prohibiting an act that a large percentage of the population does not regard as immoral or deserving of criminal penalties. In the case of pot the side effects of its prohibition are a lot more harmful to society than its use.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Tabb
I am begining to see past the lies, but I still don't see a reason as why it should be legal.

You just haven't fully realized the negative side effects of prohibiting an act that a large percentage of the population does not regard as immoral or deserving of criminal penalties. In the case of pot the side effects of its prohibition are a lot more harmful to society than its use.

Exactly.

Example: I can go to work and tell my boss how drunk I got the other night, and drove home. However, God forbid I tell my boss I got high after work and stayed home all night playing HL2.

A ruling against the government, they said, would help drug traffickers avoid arrest, increase the marijuana supply and send a message that illegal drugs are good.

Full legalization of marijuana would PREVENT the existence of what we call "drug traffickers," at least in regards to marijuana. Think about it, we remove a large percentage of their profits and revenues, making them weaker. And tax it, it needs to be. Society pays the price already, it's about time it gets something in return.

A pack of 20 "Marlboro Greens" would cost about $1 to make, a tad more than a pack of cigarettes, and could easily be taxed at $22+ per pack. Multiply that $22 by roughly 30 packs per year times roughly 25 million American potheads. That's $16,500,000,000 per year (assuming my math is right). I know some schools that could use that money, I know some teachers that deserve a raise, I know some children that could use some health insurance.

And the sad truth is that $22 a pack, that $16,500,000,000 per year, is not going to teachers, or schools, or children. It goes into the pockets of criminals, gangs, thugs, warlords, people who shoot and kill our policemen and our children, people that ruin our neighborhoods, our cities. And if you think some of our government officials don't have their hands in this $16.5 billion dollars per year, you got to be crazy.
People who sell large amounts of marijuana do NOT want it legalized.

 

[Stunt]

bamacre,

Dont forget the 2million people in US prisons...over 50% on drug related charges. Now i know that hard drugs are included.
But legalization would create tons of jobs and save the government billions.

Any conservative government should support this, following their principles

 

[bamacre]

I am conservative, and a Republican.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

:thumbsup: bamacre.

Another article about the supreme court.

Their attorney, Randy Barnett of Boston, told the justices his clients are law-abiding citizens who need marijuana to survive. "When people are sick and people are suffering and people are dying, they may be willing to run the risk of these long-term harms in order to get the immediate relief, the lifesaving relief that cannabis has demonstrably been able to provide," he said.

Alright they are setting themselves up for failure here I think. It sounds like they are not even objecting to the governments often absurd claims about the harmfulness of pot.

To me they are saying " well yeah this pot is really dangerous but our patients are dying and will risk the horrible effects of marijuana to ease their pain". They should step up and call BS on the governments claims of pot being addictive and in the same league as drugs that people OD on. They should compare the long term harm from a lot of the prescription drugs the two women have to take to marijuana's.

A Bush administration lawyer told the justices they would be encouraging people to use potentially harmful marijuana if they were to side with the women.

"If they're right, then I think their analysis would extend to recreational use of marijuana, as well as medical use of marijuana, and would extend to every state in the nation, not just those states that made it lawful," said Paul Clement, acting solicitor general.

So is the FDA encouraging people to use the very addictive drug oxycodone because its available by prescription? Of course not. Does the fact that dangerous prescription drugs are available mean that its OK for people to use them recreationally? Of course not.

These Bush lawyers are ridiculous.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Tabb
I am begining to see past the lies, but I still don't see a reason as why it should be legal.

You just haven't fully realized the negative side effects of prohibiting an act that a large percentage of the population does not regard as immoral or deserving of criminal penalties. In the case of pot the side effects of its prohibition are a lot more harmful to society than its use.

Exactly.

Example: I can go to work and tell my boss how drunk I got the other night, and drove home. However, God forbid I tell my boss I got high after work and stayed home all night playing HL2.

A ruling against the government, they said, would help drug traffickers avoid arrest, increase the marijuana supply and send a message that illegal drugs are good.

Full legalization of marijuana would PREVENT the existence of what we call "drug traffickers," at least in regards to marijuana. Think about it, we remove a large percentage of their profits and revenues, making them weaker. And tax it, it needs to be. Society pays the price already, it's about time it gets something in return.

A pack of 20 "Marlboro Greens" would cost about $1 to make, a tad more than a pack of cigarettes, and could easily be taxed at $22+ per pack. Multiply that $22 by roughly 30 packs per year times roughly 25 million American potheads. That's $16,500,000,000 per year (assuming my math is right). I know some schools that could use that money, I know some teachers that deserve a raise, I know some children that could use some health insurance.

And the sad truth is that $22 a pack, that $16,500,000,000 per year, is not going to teachers, or schools, or children. It goes into the pockets of criminals, gangs, thugs, warlords, people who shoot and kill our policemen and our children, people that ruin our neighborhoods, our cities. And if you think some of our government officials don't have their hands in this $16.5 billion dollars per year, you got to be crazy.
People who sell large amounts of marijuana do NOT want it legalized.

The only problem is, you haven't really proven to me that there are a bunch of pot head servering rather large setenances. Of course its a burden on the legal system, just like everything else. Now, if you told me there was some guy going to jail for a year because he cough with $100 worth of weed, thats just plain unfair. IMHO, prove to me that the level of alchololism has declined and alcholol abuse has gone down since the prohibition. Prove to me that if we decriminalize/legalize weed we will have more control over who gets it and use will go down.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: hscorpio
:thumbsup: bamacre.

Another article about the supreme court.

Their attorney, Randy Barnett of Boston, told the justices his clients are law-abiding citizens who need marijuana to survive. "When people are sick and people are suffering and people are dying, they may be willing to run the risk of these long-term harms in order to get the immediate relief, the lifesaving relief that cannabis has demonstrably been able to provide," he said.

Alright they are setting themselves up for failure here I think. It sounds like they are not even objecting to the governments often absurd claims about the harmfulness of pot.

To me they are saying " well yeah this pot is really dangerous but our patients are dying and will risk the horrible effects of marijuana to ease their pain". They should step up and call BS on the governments claims of pot being addictive and in the same league as drugs that people OD on. They should compare the long term harm from a lot of the prescription drugs the two women have to take to marijuana's.

A Bush administration lawyer told the justices they would be encouraging people to use potentially harmful marijuana if they were to side with the women.

"If they're right, then I think their analysis would extend to recreational use of marijuana, as well as medical use of marijuana, and would extend to every state in the nation, not just those states that made it lawful," said Paul Clement, acting solicitor general.

So is the FDA encouraging people to use the very addictive drug oxycodone because its available by prescription? Of course not. Does the fact that dangerous prescription drugs are available mean that its OK for people to use them recreationally? Of course not.

These Bush lawyers are ridiculous.

Yes, I am sure these people must have to smoke some weed to survive... The bush lawyers are just as dumb as those wanting to medically legalize it...

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Tabb
I am begining to see past the lies, but I still don't see a reason as why it should be legal.

You just haven't fully realized the negative side effects of prohibiting an act that a large percentage of the population does not regard as immoral or deserving of criminal penalties. In the case of pot the side effects of its prohibition are a lot more harmful to society than its use.

Exactly.

Example: I can go to work and tell my boss how drunk I got the other night, and drove home. However, God forbid I tell my boss I got high after work and stayed home all night playing HL2.

A ruling against the government, they said, would help drug traffickers avoid arrest, increase the marijuana supply and send a message that illegal drugs are good.

Full legalization of marijuana would PREVENT the existence of what we call "drug traffickers," at least in regards to marijuana. Think about it, we remove a large percentage of their profits and revenues, making them weaker. And tax it, it needs to be. Society pays the price already, it's about time it gets something in return.

A pack of 20 "Marlboro Greens" would cost about $1 to make, a tad more than a pack of cigarettes, and could easily be taxed at $22+ per pack. Multiply that $22 by roughly 30 packs per year times roughly 25 million American potheads. That's $16,500,000,000 per year (assuming my math is right). I know some schools that could use that money, I know some teachers that deserve a raise, I know some children that could use some health insurance.

And the sad truth is that $22 a pack, that $16,500,000,000 per year, is not going to teachers, or schools, or children. It goes into the pockets of criminals, gangs, thugs, warlords, people who shoot and kill our policemen and our children, people that ruin our neighborhoods, our cities. And if you think some of our government officials don't have their hands in this $16.5 billion dollars per year, you got to be crazy.
People who sell large amounts of marijuana do NOT want it legalized.

The only problem is, you haven't really proven to me that there are a bunch of pot head servering rather large setenances. Of course its a burden on the legal system, just like everything else. Now, if you told me there was some guy going to jail for a year because he cough with $100 worth of weed, thats just plain unfair. IMHO, prove to me that the level of alchololism has declined and alcholol abuse has gone down since the prohibition. Prove to me that if we decriminalize/legalize weed we will have more control over who gets it and use will go down.

Obviously I cannot prove the system under my scenario would work, but we all have proven the current system doesn't, in fact it is failing miserably.

Really, we have two options. One, keep the current system in place, or two, try something else and see if it works better. If we refuse to try something else, where does that get us? Nowhere.

 

[judasmachine]

$45 dollars a day!?!?! That's like a half ounce every single day.... That kid did have problems.

 

[BBond]

People I know who use medical marijuana vary from around two to three tokes every couple of hours to one joint every couple of hours. A single joint can last an entire day, not excessive by any standard, and they get real relief from pain without having to take prescription narcotics that have severe side effects including addiction.

It's a no-brainer. Legalize it.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Yes, I am sure these people must have to smoke some weed to survive... The bush lawyers are just as dumb as those wanting to medically legalize it...

So you don't believe those two women really get any medical benefit from pot?

How is it dumb to want to allow access to a drug that has proven therapeutic properties?

Lets look at the hypocrisy and stupidity a little closer for a minute.

Marinol is the synthetic form of THC. It is available in pill form and is classified as a schedule III drug.

Schedule III The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II. The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.

Now THC is the main active compound in marijuana. The government says synthetic THC (marinol) has accepted medical uses and is regulated in the same way codeine is. At the same time the government says marijuana has no proven medical uses. Don't you see the glaring hypocrisy and lies here? How can they deny the medical benefits of marijuana while admitting the "pill form" of marijuana does have medical use?

More on marinol

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: hscorpio
Don't you see the glaring hypocrisy and lies here? How can they deny the medical benefits of marijuana while admitting the "pill form" of marijuana does have medical use?

great point.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

This quote from an LA Times story about the Raich vs Ashcroft case is kind of ironic when you think about it:

"Patients who have been misled into believing smoked marijuana provides a safe and effective therapeutic benefit have been misled and exploited by those in the drug legalization movement who know emotional appeals--based on faulty scientific claims--can best achieve their end goals," says Rep. Mark E. Souder (R-Ind.), chair of the House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, who with six other representatives also submitted a brief.

Lets twist it around and see what we get:

Government officials who have been misled into believing smoked marijuana provides NO safe and effective therapeutic benefit have been misled and exploited by those in the Drug War movement who know emotional appeals--based on faulty scientific claims--can best achieve their end goals.

:evil:

 

[judasmachine]

It's all about the money, they are scared even if they let Pfizer or anyone else sell it, they'll be worked around by the black market that is already in place. All about the money.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
It's all about the money, they are scared even if they let Pfizer or anyone else sell it, they'll be worked around by the black market that is already in place. All about the money.

I think it's more of a cultural thing. It's just unthinkable for some people that marijuana, a drug that has always been associated with counter culture movements, can have any legitimate uses.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: judasmachine
It's all about the money, they are scared even if they let Pfizer or anyone else sell it, they'll be worked around by the black market that is already in place. All about the money.

I think it's more of a cultural thing. It's just unthinkable for some people that marijuana, a drug that has always been associated with counter culture movements, can have any legitimate uses.

You may have a point, but I differ in what I think motivates those at the top. (and most at the bottom too)

 

[imported_hscorpio]

I agree that money is a big factor, but in the end it's more of an US vs THEM thing to me.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Tabb
Yes, I am sure these people must have to smoke some weed to survive... The bush lawyers are just as dumb as those wanting to medically legalize it...

So you don't believe those two women really get any medical benefit from pot?

How is it dumb to want to allow access to a drug that has proven therapeutic properties?

Lets look at the hypocrisy and stupidity a little closer for a minute.

Marinol is the synthetic form of THC. It is available in pill form and is classified as a schedule III drug.

Schedule III The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II. The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.

Now THC is the main active compound in marijuana. The government says synthetic THC (marinol) has accepted medical uses and is regulated in the same way codeine is. At the same time the government says marijuana has no proven medical uses. Don't you see the glaring hypocrisy and lies here? How can they deny the medical benefits of marijuana while admitting the "pill form" of marijuana does have medical use?

More on marinol

:thumbsup:

The difference? Marinol is sold by billion-dollar pharmaceutical companies, legalized marijuana won't be.

There are some big guns that have kept the truth about marijuana away from the American public. Pharmaceutical companies are one of those big guns, and the alcohol industry is another. It's too cheap and too effective, they don't like it, there's no money in it for them, just everyone else.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Tabb
Yes, I am sure these people must have to smoke some weed to survive... The bush lawyers are just as dumb as those wanting to medically legalize it...

So you don't believe those two women really get any medical benefit from pot?

How is it dumb to want to allow access to a drug that has proven therapeutic properties?

Lets look at the hypocrisy and stupidity a little closer for a minute.

Marinol is the synthetic form of THC. It is available in pill form and is classified as a schedule III drug.

Schedule III The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II. The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.

Now THC is the main active compound in marijuana. The government says synthetic THC (marinol) has accepted medical uses and is regulated in the same way codeine is. At the same time the government says marijuana has no proven medical uses. Don't you see the glaring hypocrisy and lies here? How can they deny the medical benefits of marijuana while admitting the "pill form" of marijuana does have medical use?

More on marinol

First of all, your not even quoting me properly. Prove to me these WOMEN HAVE TO HAVE WEED TO SURVIVE. The fact is THEY DO NOT.

 

[bamacre]

Tabb,

Why don't you prove the current system is working well enough that it doesn't need to be changed? Good luck on that.

It is obvious there is significant medical usage of marijuana, solely in the fact that many states have already legalized it for medical purposes.

Do I need marijuana to survive? No. I don't need alcohol to survive, nor do I need McDonald's cheeseburgers to survive, either (fyi, I refuse to eat at McDonald's).

Tabb, we just want our right to smoke marijuana in the privacy of our homes, something we have had to do in the dark for years.

It is WE who want to change the system, or lack there of. You and yours seem to just want the same old system, the one that has failed since it's been put in place, the one that is failing as I type, and the one that will continue to fail until change is brought upon it.

The only other thing you are yours want to change is human nature, and that's not possible. Studies showing the unhealthiness of pot aren't going to make people stop smoking it. People, in general, will NEVER stop smoking marijuana.

Tabb, you need to do some growing-up. Get out more, meet more people. You obviously have no earthly idea how many people smoke pot.



EDIT: OH MY GOODNESS, you really live in Fargo, ND ???? Ah, it's all making sense now.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Tabb

First of all, your not even quoting me properly. Prove to me these WOMEN HAVE TO HAVE WEED TO SURVIVE. The fact is THEY DO NOT.

First of all I quoted exactly what you typed, second answer my questions.

Sure these women will survive without pot, but they will be in much more pain and worse off than if they could use pot. These two women and their DOCTORS believe that pot is very successful at easing their suffering and making life more tolerable for them. They have tried/used multiple other drugs, but for them pot is the most effective with the least negative side effects.

What right do you have to say they can't do this? Where did you get your medical degree from?