Potent Pot

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Howard
Tabb, can you prove that marijuana is bad?

Let me try another approach. Tabb, you seem to believe that harmful substances should be illegal, as evidenced by this question:

What is your solution exactly? Why should we legalize something that is bad for us?

Well, because government shouldn't be able to control what you willing do to your own body, especially if it doesn't cost the government any money. Besides, why is alcohol legal? Why is tobacco legal? Why are medicines with potentially harmful side effects legal? They're obviously bad for you, right? By your own logic, they should all be illegal.

I can prove that its bad for your health, thats been done before.

Howard: Well, I'm so glad you proved that it's bad for my health. :roll: Care to try again?

Actually, I will admit that smoking anything harms the body to a certain extent, but I don't believe that there have been any documented cases where somebody has been inflicted with a disease BECAUSE of cannabis. I asked you previously to show me at least one, but either you ignored it, or you couldn't.


Now as for the goverment being able to control you, in our lovely system we are barred from hurting other, including ourselves.

Howard: We are not barred from hurting each other; we are merely punished if we do so in a way that contravenes the laws. But what does this have to do with my point? That government knows best?

If you looked at a recent smoking study, you will find that it does cost society money.

Howard: If I looked at a recent smoking study? Wow, thanks for pointing me out to a few hundred of them. How about that study that suggests that smokers actually save society money by dying earlier? I'm not kidding, either.

Another way to put it: So? What's your point?

The only reason smoking tobacco and Alcholol are illegal is because they are so intergrated with our society.

Howard: I believe you meant that they're "legal" because they're so integrated with our society. What exactly do you mean by that? That they're widely used? So was asbestos, you know, and we got rid of that one pretty easily. But it wasn't so easy when we tried to outlaw alcohol, and I'm sure you know what happened there.

If Alcohol showed just was created today, it would be illegal.

English... do you speak it? Did you mean that if people figured out how to brew, ferment, and distill today, that it would be outlawed? We don't know for sure, but what I DO know is that people would drink alcohol-containing products anyway.

If we weren't stupid idiots back in the day, tobacco would be illegal.

Howard: Ah, two assumptions. How exactly were we stupid idiots back in the day? Because we didn't have studies (or enough conclusive ones, anyway) to show that tobacco was harmful? Again, see the last sentence of the previous point.

Medicienes that have certain benfits are legal, to a certian extent.

Now you're saying medicines "with certain benefits" are partially legal?

As for medical marjiuna, I personally myself have no problem with it.

Good. But why are so many people having trouble getting it?

How many doctors actually ask the terminally ill, did you smoke pot? Do you activilly smoke it up? No, they don't. I would assume someone intelligent as yourself would be able to answer a common-sense question as to why pot is bad for you.

Howard: More and more evasion, eh? Why can you not prove to me that there has been a case... don't feel like typing out the whole thing every time, so I'll just call it a case. Besides, how do you know that doctors don't ask the terminally ill if they smoke pot?

We are barred from hurting each other and ourselves.
I just explained this to you. We're punished, but there's nothing stopping us from doing it.

What do you think people are put in jail for or asylums?
Because they broke the laws, but that doesn't mean it stopped them from doing it, now does it?

Our goverment makes substances like pot for example illegal because it is harmfull to us.
Cyclic reasoning!

Why should we have another harmful drug on the market?
Because the advantages of doing so outweigh the disadvantages. Did you ignore EVERYTHING else I said above?

As for a society that saves money by people dying eariler, I have yet to see one.
I'll try to dig up that study. Besides, just because you haven't thought about it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

I speak English, you understood me.
Then proofread your text before you post, so that there's zero chance of confusion.

Those that promoted Tobacco used their money a leverage to make sure the goverment didnt find out it was actually extremely bad for you. This isn't a assumpition.
You're probably right. I won't argue this point further.

As for medical MJ I don't know why it isn't legal or if it is illegal for medical use. I have no problems with it being used for medical use.
I believe that it is legal in only some states. Here's something to ponder, though of its veracity I'm not certain:

The federal Drug Enforcement Administration is raiding, attacking, and harassing patients and providers, often destroying patients' medicine. The U.S. Department of Justice, meanwhile, is prosecuting individuals who cultivate marijuana solely for the purpose of relieving the pain of others.

In each of these federal cases, legitimate medical marijuana patients and providers have been forced to stand trial gagged by judges who wouldn't allow information about legitimate medical use to reach the jurors. Instead, these defendants have been presented as common drug criminals.

http://www.mpp.org/USA/

As I said, I'm not entirely sure of the truth of that, but I do know that many patients with a legitimate use for medical marijuana are having a difficult time obtaining and using it.

They don't ask, because they are more concerned with treating the patient.
Doctors are concerned with treating ALL patients, or at least according to the Hippocratic oath, they are. But they occasionally do ask patients if they smoke marijuana, and why should the terminally ill be any different?

Please vote in this poll and observe the results.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...8&threadid=1451691


If I am in jail or a Asylum how am I suppose to hurt someone? :|
Listen, buddy, why are you in jail in the first place? Because you hurt somebody, right? Well, how did a prison sentence stop you from committing that crime? ... It didn't! That's my whole point, and we should abandon this argument because it has nothing to do with marijuana anyway.

I never saw those statistics for this "Billion Dollar War on Pot", why should I believe its a failing war?
So do yourself a favor and Google "war on drugs". Be sure to read articles from both sides, and to disdain the propoganda (from both sides).

In my personal opinion, the best arguement for legalization/decriminialization is you can't OD.
What about all the other reasons I listed?

Another good idea would be to fine parents/guardians who sons/daughters that caught with the substance underage.
I wouldn't be opposed to this idea - IF you limit the responsibility of the parents until the children are of majority - but quite a few parents would scream and shout, IMO.

What if I was found gulity of pre-medditating murder and then they lock me up? Did I commit the crime?...
You just said it yourself. The crime was pre-meditating murder.

I asked you, not google.
Fine. I'll go look.

http://www.druglibrary.org/sch...brary/basicfax.htm#q15
Please take a look at points 15, 16, and 17. Note the percentage of people in for drug offenses. If the war's success is measured in how many people it can imprison, you could say it's working.

http://www.reason.com/sullum/020703.shtml
About medical marijuana.

http://www.reason.com/0203/ci.sr.one.shtml
More about medical marijuana.

http://reason.com/links/links080602.shtml
About DARE.

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb012903.shtml
About the historical relationship between violence and drug law.

http://www.reason.com/sullum/032803.shtml
More interesting stuff.

http://reason.com/links/links050302.shtml
Lies, and lies, and lies, and...

http://www.reason.com/0205/ci.js.helping.shtml
45-year sentences for people who grew 5 marijuana plants, and a 93-year sentence for a grower with arthritis and no evidence that he sold any of it.

http://reason.com/sullum/010201.shtml
This one really depresses me.

http://www.lindesmith.org/drugwar/
A plethora of reading for you.

http://www.serendipity.li/wod/floyd.html
"There have been more than one million arrests per year since 1988 for drug violations Over 70 percent of the arrests have been for possession of drugs, not sale or manufacture.""

Apparently, it was copied out of a magazine, and the cited works weren't copied along with it, so take it as you will.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/marijuan.htm
Please take the time to skim through all of this, or read it all, if you wish.


What reason? The war on pot isn't working? Thats a poor arguement, all that means to be is we should increase funding and put more effort into it.
You ever hear of the saying "throwing good money after bad"? Besides, if you actually read what I said, I never directly said that the war on pot wasn't working. You conveniently glossed over all the other points I brought up. Sure, we don't need to legalize THC-containing cannibus yet, but at the very least we could legalize non-psychoactive hemp.

I'd also like to fine parents who's childeren do poorley in school and get in trouble with the law. If they don't like it they can always give their kids to the state.
That's getting to be a bit far afield. Why would you want to do something like that?

 

[RealityTime]

I'd have a hard time giving an opinion on whether pot should be legal or not. I live in Canada btw, and we are very near I believe to de-criminalizing it. I think the distinction between the two is vital to identify and choose between as well. Realize that de-criminalization means it is no longer an offence to use the drug or have it in your possesion, although in many cases it is still illegal to sell and manufacture it; vs legalization which means, it is a legitimate product to use, possess, sell and manufacture. ie. you walk into the variety store and pick up a pack of joints and buy it and pay your taxes (which btw I'm sure would be astronomical tax) I started smoking pot when I was 14, was a regular user at 15 and smoked daily until I was 26. I'm 27 now. It is certainly addictive, physically with many physical symptoms. Don't forget the brain is a physical entity. When u get burnt out, edgy and crabby from the need for a toke, this is a physical symptom of a physical addiction. The mental thing is so strong. I think it is a case by case basis, some people will smoke a joint now and than and its no problem, much like having a few beer can be no problem. Than of course some people will smoke every day and be total burn outs, likewise some people drink too much and are a mess. I think pot though is undeniably a gateway drug, regardless of what others say, if you smoke pot you are much more inclined to try something else as that world is already incorporated into your perception. AND that can be trouble as I know all too well. I quit using hard drugs around 21-22 after just getting too messed up. But it took me another 4 years to quit pot... interesting eh ? As well it was not all that hard to quit when I made up my mind to it, of course most things are easy when you have set your mind to it in earnest. Although I must say I quit smoking cigarettes at the same time. And of course there opens up a whole new can of worms, how can we dare to outlaw or carry on about ANY drug, when the MOST addictive drug on the face of the earth is completely legal. Make no mistake smokers, that coffin nail is harder to quit than heroin, and whats the differnce a drug killing in 5 years or 30 ?. I know it. So before any smoker gets on about any drug legal or not. Quit smoking. Than talk.

 

[LackCash]

I talked to a doctor friend of mine. Many drugs provide the benefit of pot w/out the risks. Sythetic THC has been produced.Pot would not make a significant difference.

 

[BadNewsBears]

Dont make me laugh.

""We investigated...and learned the number of Monroe County teens in treatment for marijuana abuse more than tripled in the past decade."""

And why do you think that is. because Society is fuscking WARPED. In the last 10 years 1 out of every 25 people go to shrinks. Compare that number to the 60's and tell me what you get.... Oh no little johny smoked a joint. Send him to REHAB!!!

GIVE ME A FUCSKING BREAK...

Propagandist data twisting retards.

 

[bigj3347]

The problem is those who are hooked claim they can quit whenever they want. In general, people have developed a nonchalant attitude towards pot, it's almost like tobacco now. People know its bad for you but they don't think that it's dangerously addictive.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Tabb
Weed is actually worse than Tobacco, sorry guys.
Cannabis smoke worse than tobacco smoke

Yes, but how many mary-jane'ers smoke 20 joints a day?

I think Bob marley did if you count how many in this song:





I smoke two joints in the morning
I smoke two joints at night,
I smoke two joints in the afternoon
and it makes me feel alright
I smoke two joints in time of peace
and two in time of war
smoke two joints before I smoke two joints
and then I smoke two more

yeah thats what i do, hey

mama she always told me son you really have it bad
mama she always told me son you do the best you can
then one day I met a man he came to me and said
I work good and I work fine but first take care of him

I smoke two joints in the morning
I smoke two joints at night
I smoke two joints in the video game <------------------They had online gaming in the 70's?
and it mkes me feel alright
I smoke two joints in the time of peace
and two in time of war
I smoke two joints before I smoke two joints
and then I smoke two more


You might start to have a cough after that but lol Marley could still sing all the time.

Light up and lighten up Rip..

and he died of skin cancer which started on his toe.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: RealityTime
... I started smoking pot when I was 14, was a regular user at 15 and smoked daily until I was 26. I'm 27 now. It is certainly addictive, physically with many physical symptoms. Don't forget the brain is a physical entity. When u get burnt out, edgy and crabby from the need for a toke, this is a physical symptom of a physical addiction. The mental thing is so strong.

I'm no addiction expert but I belive you are describing a psychological addiction not a physical one. Did you ever have classic withdrawal symptoms like tremors, vomiting, nausea or appetite loss? I definately think people can become psychologically addicted to pot after years of abuse, but it is not the same kind of addiction as caused by opiates, alcohol, or tobacco.

I think I'm psychologically addicted to iced tea. Seriously I drink a gallon of the stuff in a day or two. I get grumpy if I run out and have to wait very long for the next batch to finish brewing. If I was cut off from my iced tea I would not be in a good mood for a few days. However if I learned it was somehow negatively affecting my life I would have no trouble with never drinking it again.

I think pot though is undeniably a gateway drug, regardless of what others say, if you smoke pot you are much more inclined to try something else as that world is already incorporated into your perception.

I am amazed that people still believe this legacy of reefer maddness that was a total fabrication. Pot is in NO way a gateway drug meaning smoking pot has no effect on your mind/body that makes you want to smoke crack. Do you think tobacco is a gateway drug? I bet most heroin users tried tobacco first but it is stupid to try and make that connection. The only link between pot and heroin is they are both sold by the same people in the same black markets. Do you know where the gateway theory came from? Please stop repeating this gateway nonsense. I think it is one of those false claims that has been repeated so much that people eventually are fooled into accepting it.

I quit using hard drugs around 21-22 after just getting too messed up. But it took me another 4 years to quit pot... interesting eh ?

Not that surprising. Did you want to quit pot for awhile before you stopped or did you decide you wanted to quit and immediately stopped smoking? Maybe the reason you quit the hard stuff is because they were totally fvcking up your body/life and you were on the path to OD and death? If you were addicted to them then maybe it took awhile for you to get clean after you initially decided you wanted to quit? The point I'm getting at is that your pot habit was not as harmful to you as the other drugs and that could be why it was the last one you quit. Statistically I think most pot smokers start in the teens and quit by 30.

As well it was not all that hard to quit when I made up my mind to it,

Thats becasue pot is not physically addicting.

of course most things are easy when you have set your mind to it in earnest. Although I must say I quit smoking cigarettes at the same time.

Somehow I think millions of tobacco addicts hate you. The hallmark of a strong addiction is that it creates such a strong desire that it overides any other desire to quit therefore making it extremely difficult to get clean.

:thumbsup: to being sober now.

 

[RealityTime]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: RealityTime
... I started smoking pot when I was 14, was a regular user at 15 and smoked daily until I was 26. I'm 27 now. It is certainly addictive, physically with many physical symptoms. Don't forget the brain is a physical entity. When u get burnt out, edgy and crabby from the need for a toke, this is a physical symptom of a physical addiction. The mental thing is so strong.

I'm no addiction expert but I belive you are describing a psychological addiction not a physical one. Did you ever have classic withdrawal symptoms like tremors, vomiting, nausea or appetite loss? I definately think people can become psychologically addicted to pot after years of abuse, but it is not the same kind of addiction as caused by opiates, alcohol, or tobacco.

I think I'm psychologically addicted to iced tea. Seriously I drink a gallon of the stuff in a day or two. I get grumpy if I run out and have to wait very long for the next batch to finish brewing. If I was cut off from my iced tea I would not be in a good mood for a few days. However if I learned it was somehow negatively affecting my life I would have no trouble with never drinking it again.

I think pot though is undeniably a gateway drug, regardless of what others say, if you smoke pot you are much more inclined to try something else as that world is already incorporated into your perception.

I am amazed that people still believe this legacy of reefer maddness that was a total fabrication. Pot is in NO way a gateway drug meaning smoking pot has no effect on your mind/body that makes you want to smoke crack. Do you think tobacco is a gateway drug? I bet most heroin users tried tobacco first but it is stupid to try and make that connection. The only link between pot and heroin is they are both sold by the same people in the same black markets. Do you know where the gateway theory came from? Please stop repeating this gateway nonsense. I think it is one of those false claims that has been repeated so much that people eventually are fooled into accepting it.

I quit using hard drugs around 21-22 after just getting too messed up. But it took me another 4 years to quit pot... interesting eh ?

Not that surprising. Did you want to quit pot for awhile before you stopped or did you decide you wanted to quit and immediately stopped smoking? Maybe the reason you quit the hard stuff is because they were totally fvcking up your body/life and you were on the path to OD and death? If you were addicted to them then maybe it took awhile for you to get clean after you initially decided you wanted to quit? The point I'm getting at is that your pot habit was not as harmful to you as the other drugs and that could be why it was the last one you quit. Statistically I think most pot smokers start in the teens and quit by 30.

As well it was not all that hard to quit when I made up my mind to it,

Thats becasue pot is not physically addicting.

of course most things are easy when you have set your mind to it in earnest. Although I must say I quit smoking cigarettes at the same time.

Somehow I think millions of tobacco addicts hate you. The hallmark of a strong addiction is that it creates such a strong desire that it overides any other desire to quit therefore making it extremely difficult to get clean.

:thumbsup: to being sober now.

:beer:

 

[Kntx]

Mitch's habit grew so regular, he estimated he spent $45 on pot each day.

So this kid was smoking like a half O a day!?!?! Damn!! He'd have to be smoking like non-stop all day.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Howard
Tabb, can you prove that marijuana is bad?

Let me try another approach. Tabb, you seem to believe that harmful substances should be illegal, as evidenced by this question:

What is your solution exactly? Why should we legalize something that is bad for us?

Well, because government shouldn't be able to control what you willing do to your own body, especially if it doesn't cost the government any money. Besides, why is alcohol legal? Why is tobacco legal? Why are medicines with potentially harmful side effects legal? They're obviously bad for you, right? By your own logic, they should all be illegal.

I can prove that its bad for your health, thats been done before.

Howard: Well, I'm so glad you proved that it's bad for my health. :roll: Care to try again?

Actually, I will admit that smoking anything harms the body to a certain extent, but I don't believe that there have been any documented cases where somebody has been inflicted with a disease BECAUSE of cannabis. I asked you previously to show me at least one, but either you ignored it, or you couldn't.


Now as for the goverment being able to control you, in our lovely system we are barred from hurting other, including ourselves.

Howard: We are not barred from hurting each other; we are merely punished if we do so in a way that contravenes the laws. But what does this have to do with my point? That government knows best?

If you looked at a recent smoking study, you will find that it does cost society money.

Howard: If I looked at a recent smoking study? Wow, thanks for pointing me out to a few hundred of them. How about that study that suggests that smokers actually save society money by dying earlier? I'm not kidding, either.

Another way to put it: So? What's your point?

The only reason smoking tobacco and Alcholol are illegal is because they are so intergrated with our society.

Howard: I believe you meant that they're "legal" because they're so integrated with our society. What exactly do you mean by that? That they're widely used? So was asbestos, you know, and we got rid of that one pretty easily. But it wasn't so easy when we tried to outlaw alcohol, and I'm sure you know what happened there.

If Alcohol showed just was created today, it would be illegal.

English... do you speak it? Did you mean that if people figured out how to brew, ferment, and distill today, that it would be outlawed? We don't know for sure, but what I DO know is that people would drink alcohol-containing products anyway.

If we weren't stupid idiots back in the day, tobacco would be illegal.

Howard: Ah, two assumptions. How exactly were we stupid idiots back in the day? Because we didn't have studies (or enough conclusive ones, anyway) to show that tobacco was harmful? Again, see the last sentence of the previous point.

Medicienes that have certain benfits are legal, to a certian extent.

Now you're saying medicines "with certain benefits" are partially legal?

As for medical marjiuna, I personally myself have no problem with it.

Good. But why are so many people having trouble getting it?

How many doctors actually ask the terminally ill, did you smoke pot? Do you activilly smoke it up? No, they don't. I would assume someone intelligent as yourself would be able to answer a common-sense question as to why pot is bad for you.

Howard: More and more evasion, eh? Why can you not prove to me that there has been a case... don't feel like typing out the whole thing every time, so I'll just call it a case. Besides, how do you know that doctors don't ask the terminally ill if they smoke pot?

We are barred from hurting each other and ourselves.
I just explained this to you. We're punished, but there's nothing stopping us from doing it.

What do you think people are put in jail for or asylums?
Because they broke the laws, but that doesn't mean it stopped them from doing it, now does it?

Our goverment makes substances like pot for example illegal because it is harmfull to us.
Cyclic reasoning!

Why should we have another harmful drug on the market?
Because the advantages of doing so outweigh the disadvantages. Did you ignore EVERYTHING else I said above?

As for a society that saves money by people dying eariler, I have yet to see one.
I'll try to dig up that study. Besides, just because you haven't thought about it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

I speak English, you understood me.
Then proofread your text before you post, so that there's zero chance of confusion.

Those that promoted Tobacco used their money a leverage to make sure the goverment didnt find out it was actually extremely bad for you. This isn't a assumpition.
You're probably right. I won't argue this point further.

As for medical MJ I don't know why it isn't legal or if it is illegal for medical use. I have no problems with it being used for medical use.
I believe that it is legal in only some states. Here's something to ponder, though of its veracity I'm not certain:

The federal Drug Enforcement Administration is raiding, attacking, and harassing patients and providers, often destroying patients' medicine. The U.S. Department of Justice, meanwhile, is prosecuting individuals who cultivate marijuana solely for the purpose of relieving the pain of others.

In each of these federal cases, legitimate medical marijuana patients and providers have been forced to stand trial gagged by judges who wouldn't allow information about legitimate medical use to reach the jurors. Instead, these defendants have been presented as common drug criminals.

http://www.mpp.org/USA/

As I said, I'm not entirely sure of the truth of that, but I do know that many patients with a legitimate use for medical marijuana are having a difficult time obtaining and using it.

They don't ask, because they are more concerned with treating the patient.
Doctors are concerned with treating ALL patients, or at least according to the Hippocratic oath, they are. But they occasionally do ask patients if they smoke marijuana, and why should the terminally ill be any different?

Please vote in this poll and observe the results.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...8&amp;threadid=1451691


If I am in jail or a Asylum how am I suppose to hurt someone? :|
Listen, buddy, why are you in jail in the first place? Because you hurt somebody, right? Well, how did a prison sentence stop you from committing that crime? ... It didn't! That's my whole point, and we should abandon this argument because it has nothing to do with marijuana anyway.

I never saw those statistics for this "Billion Dollar War on Pot", why should I believe its a failing war?
So do yourself a favor and Google "war on drugs". Be sure to read articles from both sides, and to disdain the propoganda (from both sides).

In my personal opinion, the best arguement for legalization/decriminialization is you can't OD.
What about all the other reasons I listed?

Another good idea would be to fine parents/guardians who sons/daughters that caught with the substance underage.
I wouldn't be opposed to this idea - IF you limit the responsibility of the parents until the children are of majority - but quite a few parents would scream and shout, IMO.

What if I was found gulity of pre-medditating murder and then they lock me up? Did I commit the crime?...
You just said it yourself. The crime was pre-meditating murder.

I asked you, not google.
Fine. I'll go look.

http://www.druglibrary.org/sch...brary/basicfax.htm#q15
Please take a look at points 15, 16, and 17. Note the percentage of people in for drug offenses. If the war's success is measured in how many people it can imprison, you could say it's working.

http://www.reason.com/sullum/020703.shtml
About medical marijuana.

http://www.reason.com/0203/ci.sr.one.shtml
More about medical marijuana.

http://reason.com/links/links080602.shtml
About DARE.

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb012903.shtml
About the historical relationship between violence and drug law.

http://www.reason.com/sullum/032803.shtml
More interesting stuff.

http://reason.com/links/links050302.shtml
Lies, and lies, and lies, and...

http://www.reason.com/0205/ci.js.helping.shtml
45-year sentences for people who grew 5 marijuana plants, and a 93-year sentence for a grower with arthritis and no evidence that he sold any of it.

http://reason.com/sullum/010201.shtml
This one really depresses me.

http://www.lindesmith.org/drugwar/
A plethora of reading for you.

http://www.serendipity.li/wod/floyd.html
"There have been more than one million arrests per year since 1988 for drug violations Over 70 percent of the arrests have been for possession of drugs, not sale or manufacture.""

Apparently, it was copied out of a magazine, and the cited works weren't copied along with it, so take it as you will.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/marijuan.htm
Please take the time to skim through all of this, or read it all, if you wish.


What reason? The war on pot isn't working? Thats a poor arguement, all that means to be is we should increase funding and put more effort into it.
You ever hear of the saying "throwing good money after bad"? Besides, if you actually read what I said, I never directly said that the war on pot wasn't working. You conveniently glossed over all the other points I brought up. Sure, we don't need to legalize THC-containing cannibus yet, but at the very least we could legalize non-psychoactive hemp.

I'd also like to fine parents who's childeren do poorley in school and get in trouble with the law. If they don't like it they can always give their kids to the state.
That's getting to be a bit far afield. Why would you want to do something like that?

First of all, I did ask you and not the following websites. I see nothing in there that makes me want to legalize the drug. Or than we should have reforms to stop it, I have no problems with medical marjiuana. Assuming the other alternatives have been used for pain. Now I have read most of them, would be how much pot is smuggled through our borders each day. Now, you say that THC is a very safe drug, safe compaired to what? As for arrests for Marijuana possesion, you went through the number but not the details. How many of them had a lot of it with them? I don't agree with anything over a year for anything pot related and maybe some fines.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: brxndxn
I'm totally for legalization of pot. I don't give a sh!t if some people think it's bad. Cigarettes are bad, alcohol is bad, guns are bad, etc.. but they're still legal because this is a free country.

Pot is a better painkiller than ANY prescription medications commonly available. And, pot has had more people testing than any other drug. The drug industry hates pot.

1)Why should have have another bad substance legalized?
2)Prove that pot is a better painkiller than any prescription medications.

 

[Regs]

This reminds me of a bad experience when my friend gave me Hydro (soup'ed up pot). I couldn't lift my head out of my toilet for hours. And I mean that literally.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Howard
Tabb, can you prove that marijuana is bad?

Let me try another approach. Tabb, you seem to believe that harmful substances should be illegal, as evidenced by this question:

What is your solution exactly? Why should we legalize something that is bad for us?

Well, because government shouldn't be able to control what you willing do to your own body, especially if it doesn't cost the government any money. Besides, why is alcohol legal? Why is tobacco legal? Why are medicines with potentially harmful side effects legal? They're obviously bad for you, right? By your own logic, they should all be illegal.

I can prove that its bad for your health, thats been done before.

Howard: Well, I'm so glad you proved that it's bad for my health. :roll: Care to try again?

Actually, I will admit that smoking anything harms the body to a certain extent, but I don't believe that there have been any documented cases where somebody has been inflicted with a disease BECAUSE of cannabis. I asked you previously to show me at least one, but either you ignored it, or you couldn't.


Now as for the goverment being able to control you, in our lovely system we are barred from hurting other, including ourselves.

Howard: We are not barred from hurting each other; we are merely punished if we do so in a way that contravenes the laws. But what does this have to do with my point? That government knows best?

If you looked at a recent smoking study, you will find that it does cost society money.

Howard: If I looked at a recent smoking study? Wow, thanks for pointing me out to a few hundred of them. How about that study that suggests that smokers actually save society money by dying earlier? I'm not kidding, either.

Another way to put it: So? What's your point?

The only reason smoking tobacco and Alcholol are illegal is because they are so intergrated with our society.

Howard: I believe you meant that they're "legal" because they're so integrated with our society. What exactly do you mean by that? That they're widely used? So was asbestos, you know, and we got rid of that one pretty easily. But it wasn't so easy when we tried to outlaw alcohol, and I'm sure you know what happened there.

If Alcohol showed just was created today, it would be illegal.

English... do you speak it? Did you mean that if people figured out how to brew, ferment, and distill today, that it would be outlawed? We don't know for sure, but what I DO know is that people would drink alcohol-containing products anyway.

If we weren't stupid idiots back in the day, tobacco would be illegal.

Howard: Ah, two assumptions. How exactly were we stupid idiots back in the day? Because we didn't have studies (or enough conclusive ones, anyway) to show that tobacco was harmful? Again, see the last sentence of the previous point.

Medicienes that have certain benfits are legal, to a certian extent.

Now you're saying medicines "with certain benefits" are partially legal?

As for medical marjiuna, I personally myself have no problem with it.

Good. But why are so many people having trouble getting it?

How many doctors actually ask the terminally ill, did you smoke pot? Do you activilly smoke it up? No, they don't. I would assume someone intelligent as yourself would be able to answer a common-sense question as to why pot is bad for you.

Howard: More and more evasion, eh? Why can you not prove to me that there has been a case... don't feel like typing out the whole thing every time, so I'll just call it a case. Besides, how do you know that doctors don't ask the terminally ill if they smoke pot?

We are barred from hurting each other and ourselves.
I just explained this to you. We're punished, but there's nothing stopping us from doing it.

What do you think people are put in jail for or asylums?
Because they broke the laws, but that doesn't mean it stopped them from doing it, now does it?

Our goverment makes substances like pot for example illegal because it is harmfull to us.
Cyclic reasoning!

Why should we have another harmful drug on the market?
Because the advantages of doing so outweigh the disadvantages. Did you ignore EVERYTHING else I said above?

As for a society that saves money by people dying eariler, I have yet to see one.
I'll try to dig up that study. Besides, just because you haven't thought about it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

I speak English, you understood me.
Then proofread your text before you post, so that there's zero chance of confusion.

Those that promoted Tobacco used their money a leverage to make sure the goverment didnt find out it was actually extremely bad for you. This isn't a assumpition.
You're probably right. I won't argue this point further.

As for medical MJ I don't know why it isn't legal or if it is illegal for medical use. I have no problems with it being used for medical use.
I believe that it is legal in only some states. Here's something to ponder, though of its veracity I'm not certain:

The federal Drug Enforcement Administration is raiding, attacking, and harassing patients and providers, often destroying patients' medicine. The U.S. Department of Justice, meanwhile, is prosecuting individuals who cultivate marijuana solely for the purpose of relieving the pain of others.

In each of these federal cases, legitimate medical marijuana patients and providers have been forced to stand trial gagged by judges who wouldn't allow information about legitimate medical use to reach the jurors. Instead, these defendants have been presented as common drug criminals.

http://www.mpp.org/USA/

As I said, I'm not entirely sure of the truth of that, but I do know that many patients with a legitimate use for medical marijuana are having a difficult time obtaining and using it.

They don't ask, because they are more concerned with treating the patient.
Doctors are concerned with treating ALL patients, or at least according to the Hippocratic oath, they are. But they occasionally do ask patients if they smoke marijuana, and why should the terminally ill be any different?

Please vote in this poll and observe the results.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...8&amp;threadid=1451691


If I am in jail or a Asylum how am I suppose to hurt someone? :|
Listen, buddy, why are you in jail in the first place? Because you hurt somebody, right? Well, how did a prison sentence stop you from committing that crime? ... It didn't! That's my whole point, and we should abandon this argument because it has nothing to do with marijuana anyway.

I never saw those statistics for this "Billion Dollar War on Pot", why should I believe its a failing war?
So do yourself a favor and Google "war on drugs". Be sure to read articles from both sides, and to disdain the propoganda (from both sides).

In my personal opinion, the best arguement for legalization/decriminialization is you can't OD.
What about all the other reasons I listed?

Another good idea would be to fine parents/guardians who sons/daughters that caught with the substance underage.
I wouldn't be opposed to this idea - IF you limit the responsibility of the parents until the children are of majority - but quite a few parents would scream and shout, IMO.

What if I was found gulity of pre-medditating murder and then they lock me up? Did I commit the crime?...
You just said it yourself. The crime was pre-meditating murder.

I asked you, not google.
Fine. I'll go look.

http://www.druglibrary.org/sch...brary/basicfax.htm#q15
Please take a look at points 15, 16, and 17. Note the percentage of people in for drug offenses. If the war's success is measured in how many people it can imprison, you could say it's working.

http://www.reason.com/sullum/020703.shtml
About medical marijuana.

http://www.reason.com/0203/ci.sr.one.shtml
More about medical marijuana.

http://reason.com/links/links080602.shtml
About DARE.

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb012903.shtml
About the historical relationship between violence and drug law.

http://www.reason.com/sullum/032803.shtml
More interesting stuff.

http://reason.com/links/links050302.shtml
Lies, and lies, and lies, and...

http://www.reason.com/0205/ci.js.helping.shtml
45-year sentences for people who grew 5 marijuana plants, and a 93-year sentence for a grower with arthritis and no evidence that he sold any of it.

http://reason.com/sullum/010201.shtml
This one really depresses me.

http://www.lindesmith.org/drugwar/
A plethora of reading for you.

http://www.serendipity.li/wod/floyd.html
"There have been more than one million arrests per year since 1988 for drug violations Over 70 percent of the arrests have been for possession of drugs, not sale or manufacture.""

Apparently, it was copied out of a magazine, and the cited works weren't copied along with it, so take it as you will.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/marijuan.htm
Please take the time to skim through all of this, or read it all, if you wish.


What reason? The war on pot isn't working? Thats a poor arguement, all that means to be is we should increase funding and put more effort into it.
You ever hear of the saying "throwing good money after bad"? Besides, if you actually read what I said, I never directly said that the war on pot wasn't working. You conveniently glossed over all the other points I brought up. Sure, we don't need to legalize THC-containing cannibus yet, but at the very least we could legalize non-psychoactive hemp.

I'd also like to fine parents who's childeren do poorley in school and get in trouble with the law. If they don't like it they can always give their kids to the state.
That's getting to be a bit far afield. Why would you want to do something like that?

First of all, I did ask you and not the following websites.
Well, what do you want me to say about it? You want me to tell you about my direct experience? How about you tell me about yours?

I see nothing in there that makes me want to legalize the drug. Or than we should have reforms to stop it,
Are you serious? And what do you mean by "reforms to stop it"? Stop what? Stop people from using it?

I have no problems with medical marjiuana. Assuming the other alternatives have been used for pain.
Then do you agree with what the government is doing to the people growing it and using it?

Now I have read most of them, would be how much pot is smuggled through our borders each day.
Please re-write that "sentence".

Now, you say that THC is a very safe drug, safe compaired to what?
Safety need not be relative. If something did not harm you in any way whatsoever, I'd consider that absolutely safe. Find me evidence that THC by itself permanently harms the body or causes some sort of illness, disorder, or disease.

As for arrests for Marijuana possesion, you went through the number but not the details. How many of them had a lot of it with them?
So what if somebody had a lot of it? Does that mean they were going to deal it?

I don't agree with anything over a year for anything pot related and maybe some fines.
And yet you don't seem to be batting an eye at federal policy.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Tabb
1)Why should have have another bad substance legalized?

Pot is not intrinsically a bad substance. There is considerable evidence that it has medical applications. The National Institutes of Health says:

The workshop concluded that there are too few scientific studies to determine marijuana's therapeutic utility, but that research is justified into marijuana's use for certain conditions or diseases: pain; neurological and movement disorders; the nausea of patients who are undergoing chemotherapy for cancer; loss of appetite and weight (cachexia) related to AIDS; and glaucoma.

The Department of Health and Human Services says:

Overview: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) supports scientifically valid research to determine whether marijuana offers medical benefits. While some individuals report that marijuana has helped them with the effects of certain diseases, approval of marijuana for medical purposes would require the same level of scientific evidence required for other pharmaceutical products. So far, there has been little scientific evidence that smoked marijuana can serve as a therapeutically useful drug.

They also acknowledge possible health hazards from smoking it. OTOH, many beneficial medicines have potential negative side effects.

2)Prove that pot is a better painkiller than any prescription medications.

It doesn't have to be a "better" pain killer than any prescription medication. Many prescription pain meds are highly addictive. Some cause nausea or other negative side effects, and some only work for some people or for some kinds of pain.

For AIDS and chemo patiencer, one of the benefits of marijuana is that it also increases the patient's appetite. Too bad the governement is so paranoid about another known side effect -- mild euphoria. We wouldn't want any AIDS or cancer patients feeling better, even for a short time, in the middle of their suffering, would we. :roll:

All that is required to consider marijuana for medical purposes is that it works at all for some patients, and that competent medical practitioners can determine which are the most likely to benefit from using it, as opposed to other alternatives.

Nobody is forcing you to use pot. If it's any good, I'll be glad to take yours.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Howard
Tabb, can you prove that marijuana is bad?

Let me try another approach. Tabb, you seem to believe that harmful substances should be illegal, as evidenced by this question:

What is your solution exactly? Why should we legalize something that is bad for us?

Well, because government shouldn't be able to control what you willing do to your own body, especially if it doesn't cost the government any money. Besides, why is alcohol legal? Why is tobacco legal? Why are medicines with potentially harmful side effects legal? They're obviously bad for you, right? By your own logic, they should all be illegal.

I can prove that its bad for your health, thats been done before.

Howard: Well, I'm so glad you proved that it's bad for my health. :roll: Care to try again?

Actually, I will admit that smoking anything harms the body to a certain extent, but I don't believe that there have been any documented cases where somebody has been inflicted with a disease BECAUSE of cannabis. I asked you previously to show me at least one, but either you ignored it, or you couldn't.


Now as for the goverment being able to control you, in our lovely system we are barred from hurting other, including ourselves.

Howard: We are not barred from hurting each other; we are merely punished if we do so in a way that contravenes the laws. But what does this have to do with my point? That government knows best?

If you looked at a recent smoking study, you will find that it does cost society money.

Howard: If I looked at a recent smoking study? Wow, thanks for pointing me out to a few hundred of them. How about that study that suggests that smokers actually save society money by dying earlier? I'm not kidding, either.

Another way to put it: So? What's your point?

The only reason smoking tobacco and Alcholol are illegal is because they are so intergrated with our society.

Howard: I believe you meant that they're "legal" because they're so integrated with our society. What exactly do you mean by that? That they're widely used? So was asbestos, you know, and we got rid of that one pretty easily. But it wasn't so easy when we tried to outlaw alcohol, and I'm sure you know what happened there.

If Alcohol showed just was created today, it would be illegal.

English... do you speak it? Did you mean that if people figured out how to brew, ferment, and distill today, that it would be outlawed? We don't know for sure, but what I DO know is that people would drink alcohol-containing products anyway.

If we weren't stupid idiots back in the day, tobacco would be illegal.

Howard: Ah, two assumptions. How exactly were we stupid idiots back in the day? Because we didn't have studies (or enough conclusive ones, anyway) to show that tobacco was harmful? Again, see the last sentence of the previous point.

Medicienes that have certain benfits are legal, to a certian extent.

Now you're saying medicines "with certain benefits" are partially legal?

As for medical marjiuna, I personally myself have no problem with it.

Good. But why are so many people having trouble getting it?

How many doctors actually ask the terminally ill, did you smoke pot? Do you activilly smoke it up? No, they don't. I would assume someone intelligent as yourself would be able to answer a common-sense question as to why pot is bad for you.

Howard: More and more evasion, eh? Why can you not prove to me that there has been a case... don't feel like typing out the whole thing every time, so I'll just call it a case. Besides, how do you know that doctors don't ask the terminally ill if they smoke pot?

We are barred from hurting each other and ourselves.
I just explained this to you. We're punished, but there's nothing stopping us from doing it.

What do you think people are put in jail for or asylums?
Because they broke the laws, but that doesn't mean it stopped them from doing it, now does it?

Our goverment makes substances like pot for example illegal because it is harmfull to us.
Cyclic reasoning!

Why should we have another harmful drug on the market?
Because the advantages of doing so outweigh the disadvantages. Did you ignore EVERYTHING else I said above?

As for a society that saves money by people dying eariler, I have yet to see one.
I'll try to dig up that study. Besides, just because you haven't thought about it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

I speak English, you understood me.
Then proofread your text before you post, so that there's zero chance of confusion.

Those that promoted Tobacco used their money a leverage to make sure the goverment didnt find out it was actually extremely bad for you. This isn't a assumpition.
You're probably right. I won't argue this point further.

As for medical MJ I don't know why it isn't legal or if it is illegal for medical use. I have no problems with it being used for medical use.
I believe that it is legal in only some states. Here's something to ponder, though of its veracity I'm not certain:

The federal Drug Enforcement Administration is raiding, attacking, and harassing patients and providers, often destroying patients' medicine. The U.S. Department of Justice, meanwhile, is prosecuting individuals who cultivate marijuana solely for the purpose of relieving the pain of others.

In each of these federal cases, legitimate medical marijuana patients and providers have been forced to stand trial gagged by judges who wouldn't allow information about legitimate medical use to reach the jurors. Instead, these defendants have been presented as common drug criminals.

http://www.mpp.org/USA/

As I said, I'm not entirely sure of the truth of that, but I do know that many patients with a legitimate use for medical marijuana are having a difficult time obtaining and using it.

They don't ask, because they are more concerned with treating the patient.
Doctors are concerned with treating ALL patients, or at least according to the Hippocratic oath, they are. But they occasionally do ask patients if they smoke marijuana, and why should the terminally ill be any different?

Please vote in this poll and observe the results.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...8&amp;threadid=1451691


If I am in jail or a Asylum how am I suppose to hurt someone? :|
Listen, buddy, why are you in jail in the first place? Because you hurt somebody, right? Well, how did a prison sentence stop you from committing that crime? ... It didn't! That's my whole point, and we should abandon this argument because it has nothing to do with marijuana anyway.

I never saw those statistics for this "Billion Dollar War on Pot", why should I believe its a failing war?
So do yourself a favor and Google "war on drugs". Be sure to read articles from both sides, and to disdain the propoganda (from both sides).

In my personal opinion, the best arguement for legalization/decriminialization is you can't OD.
What about all the other reasons I listed?

Another good idea would be to fine parents/guardians who sons/daughters that caught with the substance underage.
I wouldn't be opposed to this idea - IF you limit the responsibility of the parents until the children are of majority - but quite a few parents would scream and shout, IMO.

What if I was found gulity of pre-medditating murder and then they lock me up? Did I commit the crime?...
You just said it yourself. The crime was pre-meditating murder.

I asked you, not google.
Fine. I'll go look.

http://www.druglibrary.org/sch...brary/basicfax.htm#q15
Please take a look at points 15, 16, and 17. Note the percentage of people in for drug offenses. If the war's success is measured in how many people it can imprison, you could say it's working.

http://www.reason.com/sullum/020703.shtml
About medical marijuana.

http://www.reason.com/0203/ci.sr.one.shtml
More about medical marijuana.

http://reason.com/links/links080602.shtml
About DARE.

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb012903.shtml
About the historical relationship between violence and drug law.

http://www.reason.com/sullum/032803.shtml
More interesting stuff.

http://reason.com/links/links050302.shtml
Lies, and lies, and lies, and...

http://www.reason.com/0205/ci.js.helping.shtml
45-year sentences for people who grew 5 marijuana plants, and a 93-year sentence for a grower with arthritis and no evidence that he sold any of it.

http://reason.com/sullum/010201.shtml
This one really depresses me.

http://www.lindesmith.org/drugwar/
A plethora of reading for you.

http://www.serendipity.li/wod/floyd.html
"There have been more than one million arrests per year since 1988 for drug violations Over 70 percent of the arrests have been for possession of drugs, not sale or manufacture.""

Apparently, it was copied out of a magazine, and the cited works weren't copied along with it, so take it as you will.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/marijuan.htm
Please take the time to skim through all of this, or read it all, if you wish.


What reason? The war on pot isn't working? Thats a poor arguement, all that means to be is we should increase funding and put more effort into it.
You ever hear of the saying "throwing good money after bad"? Besides, if you actually read what I said, I never directly said that the war on pot wasn't working. You conveniently glossed over all the other points I brought up. Sure, we don't need to legalize THC-containing cannibus yet, but at the very least we could legalize non-psychoactive hemp.

I'd also like to fine parents who's childeren do poorley in school and get in trouble with the law. If they don't like it they can always give their kids to the state.
That's getting to be a bit far afield. Why would you want to do something like that?

First of all, I did ask you and not the following websites.
Well, what do you want me to say about it? You want me to tell you about my direct experience? How about you tell me about yours?

I see nothing in there that makes me want to legalize the drug. Or than we should have reforms to stop it,
Are you serious? And what do you mean by "reforms to stop it"? Stop what? Stop people from using it?

I have no problems with medical marjiuana. Assuming the other alternatives have been used for pain.
Then do you agree with what the government is doing to the people growing it and using it?

Now I have read most of them, would be how much pot is smuggled through our borders each day.
Please re-write that "sentence".

Now, you say that THC is a very safe drug, safe compaired to what?
Safety need not be relative. If something did not harm you in any way whatsoever, I'd consider that absolutely safe. Find me evidence that THC by itself permanently harms the body or causes some sort of illness, disorder, or disease.

As for arrests for Marijuana possesion, you went through the number but not the details. How many of them had a lot of it with them?
So what if somebody had a lot of it? Does that mean they were going to deal it?

I don't agree with anything over a year for anything pot related and maybe some fines.
And yet you don't seem to be batting an eye at federal policy.

I want you to tell me your own solution to the problem. We should have a reform our current war on drugs.

If Marijuana really is as good as they say it is to be a painkiller and pharmasutical(sp?) companies are trying to hide the fact that it really is, then I don't agree with my goverments decision.

What I meet to say was a better statistic would be if the war on drugs is working buy looking at what percentage of weed is cought passing through our borders.

It doens't hurt you, but how many people actually are using vaporizers?...

I am talking about the cases, what are you trying to say? A lot of people do it?

What do you want me to do? Go protest? I can't really do anything about it, nor do I really care enough. What have you done? Show me a case of someone going to jail for possesion of weed or simaller and I'll tell you if I agree with the sentance.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Tabb

What I meet to say was a better statistic would
be if the war on drugs is working buy looking
at what percentage of weed is cought passing through our borders.

Another statement that shows how uninformed you are on this topic.
The so called "new potent pot" is largely grown HERE in the US.
Look at that website (overgrow.com) I linked to multiple times in this
thread to see just how popular and easy growing your own pot is.
Even if all pot was was seized at the borders, there would still be
plenty of homegrown available. Ironically one of the reasons more
pot started being grown in the US was because of the success of
seizures along the mexico border.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Tabb

What I meet to say was a better statistic would
be if the war on drugs is working buy looking
at what percentage of weed is cought passing through our borders.

Another statement that shows how uninformed you are on this topic.
The so called "new potent pot" is largely grown HERE in the US.
Look at that website (overgrow.com) I linked to multiple times in this
thread to see just how popular and easy growing your own pot is.
Even if all pot was was seized at the borders, there would still be
plenty of homegrown available. Ironically one of the reasons more
pot started being grown in the US was because of the success of
seizures along the mexico border.

Okay, what percentage is cought then that is locally distrubuted in the states.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Okay, what percentage is cought then that is locally distrubuted in the states.

When police find pot in a drug bust there is no way for them to determine where
it came from, just like you have no clue where any crop was grown without a
label. Effectiveness of the War on pot can not be determined by seizure rates
since there is no way to know what percentage is being confinscated.

It is better to look at availability of pot. If the war on pot is successful then you
can expect pot to be very hard to obtain.

It is not hard to get pot.

Damn all of those nested quotes have made this thread hard to read.
800x600 res here

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Tabb
Okay, what percentage is cought then that is locally distrubuted in the states.

When police find pot in a drug bust there is no way for them to determine where
it came from, just like you have no clue where any crop was grown without a
label. Effectiveness of the War on pot can not be determined by seizure rates
since there is no way to know what percentage is being confinscated.

It is better to look at availability of pot. If the war on pot is successful then you
can expect pot to be very hard to obtain.

It is not hard to get pot.

Damn all of those nested quotes have made this thread hard to read.
800x600 res here

Well, considering I am in a public high school, lets say its not difficult to find the guy with a huge 1" thick hemp necklace and a huge glass shromie...

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Well, considering I am in a public high school,
lets say its not difficult to find the guy with a
huge 1" thick hemp necklace and a huge glass shromie...

Ahh... that explains a lot .

Right now the only people you probably know that smoke
pot are like Spicolli from the movie Fast times at Ridgemont high.
The stereotypical loser pot heads. Eventually you will meet
normal people who smoke pot too, and dont advertise it
by wearing hemp clothes and acting like Spicolli. There are
tons of successful people that are pot smokers, the problem
is you would never know they smoke pot unless they told you.

 

[Tekime]

I can't take anyone seriously who thinks fighting and debating for keeping pot illegal is a good use of time. How stupid do you have to be to think it's okay that alcohol is legal and available at every corner, but pot is really worth your time to fight against?

I also find it humorous how people seem to think marijuana is used only by teenagers and hippies. I could list a plethora of people, from adults running huge business, to lawyers, to 90 year old grannies who I know smoke weed. Smart people. REALLY smart people. Not ex Dead-heads that smoke an ounce a day and chase it with a handle of vodka. People who enjoy it like a glass of wine or a fine cigar. It's just another vice in life, and it can be used or abused.

I for one don't like my friends getting killed by drunk drivers, and then hearing people whine about pot when literally hundreds of people are dying every day from alcohol. Get your f-ing priorities straight.

I think above all of this though, there is thing called freedom, and I'm sick and tired of seeing people throw it away for their own pointless reasons. Go care about somethign that matters, and stop sticking your nose in everyone's business. Even when it comes to alcohol, and how much hate I have for it, I would never want it illegalized. I don't think irresponsible people should ruin freedom for the rest of us.

Not the most eloquent presentation of my thoughts on the matter, but I'm extrmely busy, and I always get irritated when this subject comes up. It's like hearing someone whine about how their combat boots are going to give them foot pain in twenty years, when there is hostile enemy fire over the hill. Fools.

 

[knyghtbyte]

havnt been able to read the whole thread, am at work, but thought i'd give my Brits view on the subject...

Over the years varieties of pot have become more available that are stronger, but a lot of those were always available, they were naturally growing, not hybrid-grown-in-hydroponics type stuff....they were simply available in lesser quantity as is often the way with nature....

however some of the hybrids like skunk, derban poison, northern lights etc are extremely potent, and really shouldnt be overused, i have seen people end up in hospital from smoking too much of those, mainly from massive sickness (meaning constantly throwing up, dry-wretching till their stomachs contracted too much and created ulcers). Also constant headaches. But those things went away if they stopped smoking for a few months or a year, also im talking about them smoking 1/4oz themselves in a 4 or 5 hour period......
Some people though, their bodies can take that abuse, i know mine did, i smoked for around 13 years (im 27 now) and during that time went from a few j's at a party once or twice a year to smoking whole 1/4oz a day most days, varying quality of green or hash. During this time i smoked cigarettes for aruond 5 years between 16 and 21 years old, started on a few a day, went to 20 a day within 2 years, and when i quit i was on 40 a day normal, if i went clubbing (i live in London) up to 80 that day/nyte. While i was smoking ciggies i had crap health, when i quit (havnt touched an actual cigarette since but obviously used small amounts of tobacco in a joint if strong skunk or hash, but not with weed) i felt a lot better, easier to breathe, better blood pressure everything. (quit smoking at 21, always said i would and i have, dont miss it at all, will never go back to it, easy way to quit, look at a filtertip butt end afer you smoke, now if that doesnt remind you of a used tampon i dont know what will)
Since topping smoking the 'erb last year my normal physical health has been better, mentally im more willing to do things, however my intelligence was never dimmed really, in fact while stoned i actually had better response in certain situations, for instance computer games, my relaxed state gave me elevated levels of performance in hand-eye coordination compared to totally sober. However i do suffer from arthritically linked problems that at my age are a big nuisance, mainly because the pain causes me lack of sleep, alas only medicines that give me relief are Morphine, Ketamin &amp; narcotics like alcohol or cannabis or cocaine based drugs. I dont want to be on any of those long term, the only ones i will use occasionally are alcohol and cannabis....and before you ask yes i have tried alternative medicines such as osteopathy, homeopathy, acupuncture, chinese herbal, etc etc, all to no avail.......
But i felt that i would get more lethargic if i stayed smoking the pot as im an addictive person, meaning if i like/enjoy something i keep doing it. So i gave it up, i dont smoke either pot or ciggies now, have no desire to do so again. I do once in a blue moon bake up some grass in a muffin (or last night a Xmas mince pie and i do drink alcohol, but im english and drinking is something you have to do (bit like in america you have to own a gun cuz its a constitutional right....lol)So to me drinking a few bottles of wine, a dozen or so pints and a quarter bottle of whisky in a week is pretty much normal, my idea of overdrinking is 12 pints of beer in an evening after a bottle of wine with dinner and a few double whiskies.

Summary: In england we get a wide variety of pot from all over the world, we are an international hub that recognizes that, and i mean truly international, people should be able to choose if they want to do it, i personalyl think that legalising it would go a long way to stamping out the crime side of it and the leading to stronger more harmful drugs. Also would put more money into the economy from taxes. The downside is of course it will bring some people in to doing it like tobacco did that maybe wouldnt have tried it if it was illegal, but at least it would have more chance of stopping underage people doing it. I dont really use it anymore, i might once or twice in a year bake it into a cookie or something but im not that interested as the effect isnt quite the same as smoking it (which i will never do again) so i dont want to legalise it for my own reasons. I do despite being a drinker think alcohol and tobacco should if pot is kept illegal be made illegal as well to keep things fair, but that would bring about too much crime and lose too much tax revenue. Just for the record, in England current policy is that pot is 'illegal' as a drug, BUT doesnt carry an arrestable charge if carrying an amount deemed for personal use, it will be confiscated but you will not be taken to the police station. However if you light up, you are being illegal, its a bit like seeds were a few years ago when pot was totally illegal, you can carry seeds, buy and sell seeds, you just cant grow them...lol
anyhow, hope you enjoy the read, passed a nice bit of time at work for me writing all this.....hehe.

EDIT: btw, almost forgot, i said my age but not much else, im an Advertising Executive in a successful Media/News publishing company, i lead a decent life, have many friends who do and dont smoke pot/drink alcohol, and get on well with my family, i only have occasional minor credit card debt attributed to a Hifi passion that i pay off within the interest free period and only gamble by playing fruit machines (like a slot machine, but more based around a board game and hence a lot more fun and less likely to cost you much money, specially once you know how to use them..lol) in the pub.

 

[tweakmm]

Who got that hydro?
Who got that light green?
Who got that Bobby brown?
Who got bin laden weed?

Now that I've gotten that song verse out of my system I have a few points of interest.

First off, from what I understand there was certainly very potent weed in the 60s and 70s although there was a lot of crap from mexico too. When they did the THC tests on the weed from the 70's, it really was weed from the 70's, sitting in a police locker for 20 years. If you know anything about anything you know that lots of things degrade over time and THC is no exception, exposed to oxygen it looses potency steadily, so yes, if you had a bag of grass from the 70s and compared it to a bag of grass today it would be much less potent. Granted, weed being illegal has probably been one of the greatest things for the plant itself as it has forced people to breed better plants and maintain genetic records of the plants, so there are certainly strains of weed today that are much better than strains of old, but it's nothing like the 1000% better statistics that I've seen.

Secondly, the high quality pot of today just means that you have to smoke less to get high. I do not know of many people who smoke pot just to smoke pot, they like to get high, be it a few grams of mexican brick or a quarter of a gram of dank(high potency weed). If one is smoking less then they are doing less damage to their lungs so it's quite possible to argue that the weed of today is safer than weed from the 70s.

 

[BBond]

High Court Appears Hesitant to Endorse Medical Marijuana

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: November 29, 2004

Filed at 12:15 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court appeared hesitant Monday to endorse medical marijuana for patients who have a doctor's recommendation.

Justices are considering whether sick people in 11 states with medical marijuana laws can get around a federal ban on pot.

Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top court lawyer, noted that California allows people with chronic physical and mental health problems to smoke pot and said that potentially many people are subjecting themselves to health dangers.

``Smoked marijuana really doesn't have any future in medicine,'' he said.

Justice Stephen Breyer said supporters of marijuana for the ill should take their fight to federal drug regulators -- before coming to the Supreme Court, and several justices repeatedly referred to America's drug addiction problems.

Dozens of people, some with blankets, camped outside the high court to hear justices debate the issue. Groups such as the Drug Free America Foundation fear a government loss will undermine campaigns against addictive drugs.

The high court heard arguments in the case of Angel Raich, who tried dozens of prescription medicines to ease the pain of a brain tumor and other illnesses before she turned to pot.

Supporters of Raich and another ill woman who filed a lawsuit after her California home was raided by federal agents argue that people with the AIDS virus, cancer and other diseases should be able to grow and use marijuana.

Their attorney, Randy Barnett of Boston, told justices that his clients are law-abiding citizens who need marijuana to survive. Marijuana may have some side effects, he said, but seriously sick people are willing to take the chance.

Besides California, nine other states allow people to use marijuana if their doctors agree: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Arizona also has a law permitting marijuana prescriptions, but no active program.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled against the government in a divided opinion that found federal prosecution of medical marijuana users is unconstitutional if the marijuana is not sold, transported across state lines or used for non-medicinal purposes.

Lawyers for Raich and Diane Monson contend the government has no justification for pursuing ill small-scale users. Raich, an Oakland, Calif., mother of two teenagers, has scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other illnesses. Monson, a 47-year-old accountant who lives near Oroville, Calif., has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard.

The Bush administration argues that Congress has found no accepted medical use of marijuana and needs to be able to eradicate drug trafficking and its social harms.

The Supreme Court ruled three years ago that the government could prosecute distributors of medical marijuana despite their claim that the activity was protected by ``medical necessity.''

Dozens of groups have weighed in on the latest case, which deals with users and is much more sweeping.

Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, conservative states that do not have medical marijuana laws, sided with the marijuana users on grounds that the federal government was trying to butt into state business of providing ``for the health, safety, welfare and morals of their citizens.''

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.

California's 1996 medical marijuana law allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation.

Medical marijuana was an issue in the November elections. Montana voters easily approved a law that shields patients, their doctors and caregivers from arrest and prosecution for medical marijuana. But Oregon rejected a measure that would have dramatically expanded its existing medical marijuana program.

The case is Ashcroft v. Raich, 03-1454.

 

[Howard]

I'm done here. Arguing with Tabb is a pointless exercise in tolerance.