Healthcare, marijuana

[farlex]

Almost any animal with cannabinoid receptors is going to take a liking to the fumes of marijuana. As such, most cultures that have access to marijuana use it for its psychoactive (recreational) properties.

So we must ban it? You're defeating yourself. Anyways it is entirely possible for a culture to not only permit such a liking but to consider it therapeutic. Many Native American tribes in the US were this way.



No qualified doctor is going to prescribe you a drug just so you can "experience consciousness a different way." That's CIA territory for interrogations--not general practice.

Yes no doctor in TODAY'S CULTURE. That's exactly what I said in what you quoted me. I swear I could beat you over the head with it and you'd still look around repeating the same thing.



Exactly why the FDA can't approve it for "medicinal" purposes. It has to be refined down to its core ingredients first and strictly control active ingredients versus inactive ingredients. This results in the drug having a very tight margin of error across the general populous and the problems can be documented for future reference/warning. If they happen once, they are likely to happen again with a manufactured substance.

I was referring to any drug. Physiologically people vary wildly in their reactions to various drugs as well. Prescription drugs are no different. This is why alternatives are offered and they don't say "well this one does it better most of the time so let's just do away w/ all the others."

Did it involve probing by a human? If no, its natural; if yes, its artificial. I'd also throw putting two dogs into a small pen while the female is in heat artificial too. That's effectively the same as selective breeding with plants.

I'm not gonna get into another semantic argument w/ you. It's unimportant.

It pays for itself. Take Japan (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5880.html) and South Korea (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5800.html), for example. We're trading $3+ billion with each of them every month. It doesn't take long for a friendly country to pay off its wartime "debt" through trade. Sony, Samsung, and Toyota are now mainstays in the US economy--would it have happened without the outcome of WWII and the Korean War played out differently?

They'll never pay it back in shiny briefcases or Switzerland bank accounts but it has other, very valuable rewards.

Perhaps? I don't know hard to say. I still doubt that adds up to the "cost" of all wars or even those specific wars if you calculate it the way you attempted to w/ alcohol. I called it false facts b/c your using false methods to obtain "facts."

[FordGT90Concept]

Sum of $2.592 trillion dollars worth of trade between just USA and Japan between 2009 and 1985 averaging $9 billion per month. That much money didn't even exist at the end of WWII.


Iraq (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5050.html) is at about $1 billion per month right now up from about $700 million in 2003 when the war started. That number will climb with time. Right now, they're at about $61 billion in 6 years. Between $1 and $2 trillion were spent on the entirety of the war. 10 to 15 years of growing trade and we should be about even.

[farlex]

Sum of $2.592 trillion dollars worth of trade between just USA and Japan between 2009 and 1985 averaging $9 billion per month. That much money didn't even exist at the end of WWII.


Iraq (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5050.html) is at about $1 billion per month right now up from about $700 million in 2003 when the war started. That number will climb with time. Right now, they're at about $61 billion in 6 years. Between $1 and $2 trillion were spent on the entirety of the war. 10 to 15 years of growing trade and we should be about even.

I guess I'll need to spell this out. You were calculating lives lost (thus potential productivity and earnings by those individuals) into the cost. So what does that method bring the cost of WWII or Iraq to?

[FordGT90Concept]

Throw those in too and it still pays for itself given enough time. That includes deaths, injuries, PTSD, etc. during and as a result of the war. Once the new government is in control, they are no longer our responsibility.

The number stands at 1,339,711 on all sides (some are allied and so are excluded; they served due to a common interest in the region and no payment is expected in return). I do believe compesation for US soldiers is included in the $1-2 trillion figure. Most of the casualties of war on the Iraqi side are swolled by the Iraqi government as part of its rebuilding.

WWII was fought at a loss for pretty much everyone. War repairations were kept to a minimum because that was one of the primary causes of WWII. Only Japan is analogus with Iraq and South Korea. Germany was a mess (east/west with USA, France and UK controlling West).

[farlex]

Throws those in too and it still pays for itself given enough time. That includes deaths, injuries, PTSD, etc. during and as a result of the war. Once the new government is in control, they are no longer our responsibility.

The number stands at 1,339,711 on all sides (some are allied and so are excluded; they served due to a common interest in the region and no payment is expected in return). I do believe compesation for US soldiers is included in the $1-2 trillion figure. Most of the casualties of war on the Iraqi side are swolled by the Iraqi government as part of its rebuilding.

WWII was fought at a loss for pretty much everyone. War repairations were kept to a minimum because most countries were in bad shape. It also isn't analogus with Iraq, South Korea, and Japan because the only country that was occupied was Germany. It was split in two and occupied by opposing forces.

No the $1-2 trillion may include life insurance pay or whatever families get during for the death of their loved ones, but it does not include an estimate for the total amount they would produce. Anyway, what you're basically saying is it's okay b/c in 15 years we'll be even? So we can just go in debt then but it's ok b/c eventually we'll be even? Just b/c we break even in 15 years from trade profit doesn't exactly even the scales from years of violent wars I'd say. Not even close really.

Anyway again the whole math you were doing that spurred this line of argument is what was the problem. Alcohol does not cost $100 million to stay legal. And many of the costs associated with it would be costs that would occur with or without alcohol. Not to mention all the crime that is produced from making it illegal. The costs of making a commodity illegal far outweigh the costs of keeping it legal. Almost always.

[btarunr]

Ok, ok, back to the topic.

[FordGT90Concept]

The costs of making a commodity illegal far outweigh the costs of keeping it legal. Almost always.
There's no evidence to support that theory.

[Wile E]

There's no evidence to support that theory.

No evidence supports your theory either.

You still haven't given a good reason for the govt to be involved in a person's private decision to use drugs, especially considering the majority of those that use them, do so responsibly. I should not be held accountable for the actions of those less responsible while using drugs.

As far as costs of rehab going up if MJ becomes legal, no they wont. MJ is not addictive.

And as far as I'm concerned, the question of needing MJ shouldn't even be an issue. I should be allowed to use it even if I don't need it, I should be allowed to use simply because I want to. I don't believe the govt has any business telling me what I should and shouldn't do, as long as what I am doing doesn't come at the expense of others. Period, plain and simple. Them doing so constitutes them controlling us, not us controlling them as it should be.

Bill Hicks had some things right, "it's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom"

jSH6ofHbeUw

vX1CvW38cHA

J10w3FuCwfQ

[FordGT90Concept]

@Wile E.: Those points have previously been covered--no change.

[Wile E]

@Wile E.: Those points have previously been covered--no change.

Doesn't make them any less right.

[Deusxmachina]

This is going off topic...

Running a stop sign and failure to yield are the greater crimes. If there is substantial proof that you were speeding (e.g. hit a speed trap just before the accident), you may be ticketed for speeding. In which case, a judge would decide who is most to blame and order both sides to pay fines/damages. The person failing to yield, in most cases, will have the greater punishment.


It's not off-topic at all. You posted a link to "alcohol-related" accidents, and I wondered, just like how the NHTSA writes up "speed-related" accidents, if the person above the legal alcohol limit is the one who actually caused the crash. Does it say anywhere on that page? Because I didn't see it.

How can an accident be "alcohol-related" and the statistics used to show the evils of alcohol if the person with the alcohol isn't the cause?

Sum of $2.592 trillion dollars worth of trade between just USA and Japan between 2009 and 1985 averaging $9 billion per month. That much money didn't even exist at the end of WWII.


What's that without inflation, about $15? :p

[FordGT90Concept]

It's not off-topic at all. You posted a link to "alcohol-related" accidents, and I wondered, just like how the NHTSA writes up "speed-related" accidents, if the person above the legal alcohol limit is the one who actually caused the crash. Does it say anywhere on that page? Because I didn't see it.

How can an accident be "alcohol-related" and the statistics used to show the evils of alcohol if the person with the alcohol isn't the cause?
All accidents are "speed-related" unless they involve explosives, boulders, or other things of the sort. It's pretty hard to make a parked car do damage without putting it in motion.

Alcohol-related accidents means that one of the parties operating a vehicle was legally intoxicated at the time of the crash. Fatalities are those caused by said intoxicated drivers be it themselves, passengers, passengers of another vehicle, or pedestrians.

If all parties were sober, there's a very good chance that if the accident happened, it wouldn't have been fatal. 30-32% of all motor vehicle fatalties, annually, involve alcohol.

[farlex]

There's no evidence to support that theory.

Uhm, well I'm not going to try to dig up any, so maybe you're right, I figured it was common sense. If you have something that is actively sought after, allowing that thing to be traded will pretty much necessarily generate less costs and more income than spending to keep it from doing so (which only generates hypothetical income from proposed opportunity cost that doesn't necessarily exist). Even if the thing straight up kills someone directly (which generally drug-related deaths are indirect, making them more about the people and those people would perhaps have died anyway or contributed very little, but hopefully you understand that by now), if there is a demand for that commodity it will cost more to regulate it than to let it be sold freely (which will generally generate revenue). Of course if there's no benefit then hopefully people will stop buying it (although not always, cigarettes fit into this, although there are some short term benefits to them), but if they don't well that's the power of choice. If you need something to make you cozier at night about it you can imagine it pertains to survival of the fittest (I don't think that, but you should). Isn't this basic capitalism? Are you going to start contradicting yourself again?

Purely from a cost standpoint the only way something would cost more to trade than to regulate would be something that has extraordinary cost to produce and very little demand to back it up. In those cases though the market wouldn't exist for it thus it wouldn't be sold.


Alcohol-related accidents means that one of the parties operating a vehicle was legally intoxicated at the time of the crash. Fatalities are those caused by said intoxicated drivers be it themselves, passengers, passengers of another vehicle, or pedestrians.

I wouldn't be so sure. It depends what your source is. Unless you see them explicitly define what they mean by "alcohol-related" or "involve alcohol", I presume they'd collect those stats in whatever way furthers their point. If they are busy demonizing alcohol, I don't think many would have a problem including those below the legal limit, or perhaps even other instances where no one was actually intoxicated at the time (but used heavily or what not). If they were trying to say alcohol a'int that bad (you won't see many proposing drinking and driving be made less strict), then I wouldn't be surprised if they exclude all but those who were overly intoxicated and directly caused a crash. People rarely report things w/o bias.

If all parties were sober, there's a very good chance that if the accident happened, it wouldn't have been fatal. 30-32% of all motor vehicle fatalties, annually, involve alcohol.

That's not true. If all parties were sober, there shouldn't have been an accident. People are idiots with cars what can you do. Have you been in a major city lately? People are maniacs. Remember earlier when I said that the number of people on the road at any given time who are drunk has dropped dramatically over the last couple of decades? Well, guess what, there's more accidents today. Less deadly, but we also have safer cars, more cars, more impatience, ect. No one is going to say driving drunk is a good idea, but people drive terribly anyway. Take away alcohol and you still have significant problems with driving, you just no longer have as much freedom.

[FordGT90Concept]

There's some 6.5 million accidents every year that aren't fatal.


The number of alcohol related fatalties is on the decline. The number of fatalities is relatively constant:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908129.html

[farlex]

There's some 6.5 million accidents every year that aren't fatal.


The number of alcohol related fatalties is on the decline. The number of fatalities is relatively constant:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908129.html

Exactly my point. People will get in crashes and kill themselves regardless. Take away one factor and they'll come up w/ another. It isn't the alcohol that's the problem, it's the people. You don't save lives by banning things, you just have less freedom.

[FordGT90Concept]

How do you know that marijuana hasn't killed in the USA because it is banned?

There's always risks involved with driving. Being drunk and driving or driving on roads that is populated by drunks increases your risk of an accident. The reason why so many alcohol-related accidents prove fatal is because drunks often veer into oncomming traffic resulting in a head-on collision (virtually not survivable at high speeds).

I can't find info on the other 60%+ of deaths but I am fairly certain most of them involve trucks and trains.

Here's a CDC info sheet on impaired driving (may have posted it several pages back):
http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html


Purely from a cost standpoint the only way something would cost more to trade than to regulate would be something that has extraordinary cost to produce and very little demand to back it up. In those cases though the market wouldn't exist for it thus it wouldn't be sold.
Securities weren't properly regulated and, going by shifts in the GDP alone, that resulted in trillions of dollars lost globally. That doesn't include interval values such as the huge cascade of land values hitting rock bottom either.

If you want to talk about economics, the best way to control the drug is to make it dangerous to deal in it. $10 a gram is too affordable. If it were $100 a gram, how many do you think would buy it? Like I said, the DEA isn't doing a very good job. That doesn't mean the job can't be done.

[farlex]

How do you know that marijuana hasn't killed in the USA because it is banned?

There's always risks involved with driving. Being drunk and driving or driving on roads that is populated by drunks increases your risk of an accident. The reason why so many alcohol-related accidents prove fatal is because drunks often veer into oncomming traffic resulting in a head-on collision (virtually not survivable at high speeds).

I can't find info on the other 60%+ of deaths but I am fairly certain most of them involve trucks and trains.

Here's a CDC info sheet on impaired driving (may have posted it several pages back):
http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

What? I'm not sure what you are talking about in the first part and I'm not sure how the rest is a response to what I said. Perhaps for my own peace of mind you can start repeating what I said to let me know you understood, b/c I'm thinking either you don't much of the time or simply choose to ignore it. Anyway I'm not sure what most of that has to do w/ anything.

Securities weren't properly regulated and, going by shifts in the GDP alone, that resulted in trillions of dollars lost globally. That doesn't include interval values such as the huge cascade of land values hitting rock bottom either.

Securities aren't a proper commodity the same way clothes, drugs, and food are (please don't make this semantic, you know what I'm talking about so don't argue wordplay to weasel your way out). Anyway they lost trillions of dollars that they previously made. Time plays an important factor in value w/ inflation and such, but I'd say overall it's safe to say they still come out positive overall.


If you want to talk about economics, the best way to control the drug is to make it dangerous to deal in it. $10 a gram is too affordable. If it were $100 a gram, how many do you think would buy it? Like I said, the DEA isn't doing a very good job. That doesn't mean the job can't be done.

Or just tax it. Uncle Sam gets a penny or 2 for roads and education and people have the freedom of choice. In Georgia gambling (Mega Millions Lottery) funds the HOPE scholarship, so whenever you gamble your sending a good student to school (HOPE allows for students w/ a B average full tuition payment at Georgia Public colleges). That's good economics.

Eradicating drugs can't be done w/o reverting to fascism, that much is obvious. What appears to for some reason be less obvious is whether it should be tried (which considering the first shouldn't really be too hard but hey, blind hatred doesn't care for logic.....).

[Deusxmachina]

All accidents are "speed-related" unless they involve explosives, boulders, or other things of the sort. It's pretty hard to make a parked car do damage without putting it in motion.


Yes, all accidents involving motion may be speed-related, but that's not how they write them up. Perhaps the term "speeding-related" will make the point clearer.

"Too fast for conditions," or "exceeding the posted speed limits." The point was, even if the person who wasn't at fault was exceeding the speed limit, it gets written up as "speeding-related" and goes into all those statistics.

Did those statistics for "alcohol-related" accidents separate the people over the intoxication limit and at fault from the ones who are over the intoxication limit and not at fault? I didn't see it. If it doesn't, then the numbers are kind of worthless. If I'm over the legal limit cruising along, and someone runs a red light and t-bones me, sorry, alcohol should not be considered a factor.

[FordGT90Concept]

Securities aren't a proper commodity the same way clothes, drugs, and food are (please don't make this semantic, you know what I'm talking about so don't argue wordplay to weasel your way out). Anyway they lost trillions of dollars that they previously made. Time plays an important factor in value w/ inflation and such, but I'd say overall it's safe to say they still come out positive overall.
Some do, some don't. Time is a precious commodity in the case of individuals though. We don't live forever. Why I bring that up is that a lot of the baby boomers are in serious trouble right now. They lost some 33% of their retirement savings in that crash and they aren't working anymore so they won't be getting it back unless they start working again. In the case of governments, established governments rarely fall--the individual only has a bearing if it is a dictatoriship.


Or just tax it. Uncle Sam gets a penny or 2 for roads and education and people have the freedom of choice. In Georgia gambling (Mega Millions Lottery) funds the HOPE scholarship, so whenever you gamble your sending a good student to school (HOPE allows for students w/ a B average full tuition payment at Georgia Public colleges). That's good economics.
Take from one hand, stick it in other. How about don't take at all or as little as possible? Drug traffiking is an interestate problem which is why it is in the federal jursidiction to regulate and enforce it. These states that have decriminalized "medicinal" marijuana fail to see the bigger picture. In fact, they could be in large part responsible for the boom in marijuana-related arrests.


Eradicating drugs can't be done w/o reverting to fascism, that much is obvious. What appears to for some reason be less obvious is whether it should be tried (which considering the first shouldn't really be too hard but hey, blind hatred doesn't care for logic.....).
Education is facism? The primary failure is in education. They teach a lot about alcohol and tobacco in schools but most barely even mention marijuana and other Schedule I drugs. I believe that is where the primary failure is; the secondary failure is in policing.


"Too fast for conditions," or "exceeding the posted speed limits." The point was, even if the person who wasn't at fault was exceeding the speed limit, it gets written up as "speeding-related" and goes into all those statistics.
If the charge is incorrect, it is their responsibility to fix it. As such, I think what is on the books is as accurate as you're going to reasonably get.


Did those statistics for "alcohol-related" accidents separate the people over the intoxication limit and at fault from the ones who are over the intoxication limit and not at fault? I didn't see it. If it doesn't, then the numbers are kind of worthless. If I'm over the legal limit cruising along, and someone runs a red light and t-bones me, sorry, alcohol should not be considered a factor.
As previously stated, the intoxicated party is always going to get the blame. They broke the law before the accident even happened.

If you were sober, you stood a better chance at avoiding the accident; moreover, testimony of an intoxicated driver is about as useful as a clown in a war room meeting.

[farlex]

Education is facism? The primary failure is in education. They teach a lot about alcohol and tobacco in schools but most barely even mention marijuana and other Schedule I drugs. I believe that is where the primary failure is; the secondary failure is in policing.


The "education" you would want is indeed fascism. I 100% guarantee a totally unbiased education of drugs and their effects and uses would not fully eradicate drugs. Many would still use them for the reasons I've outlined before, and out of immaturity or what not. I'm not sure what school you went to, but I had plenty of "education" about marijuana, cocaine, what have you before I even reached high school. I was bombarded with classes specifically designed to deal with such a thing. You know what? I still did drugs. Turns out those classes were full of shit. Had they told me the truth, I still would have done them. You don't want education, you want to scare people out into hating something you hate. That's fascism.

[FordGT90Concept]

The "education" you would want is indeed fascism. I 100% guarantee a totally unbiased education of drugs and their effects and uses would not fully eradicate drugs. Many would still use them for the reasons I've outlined before, and out of immaturity or what not. I'm not sure what school you went to, but I had plenty of "education" about marijuana, cocaine, what have you before I even reached high school. I was bombarded with classes specifically designed to deal with such a thing. You know what? I still did drugs. Turns out those classes were full of shit. Had they told me the truth, I still would have done them. You don't want education, you want to scare people out into hating something you hate. That's fascism.
Everything is biased. I can't name one thing off the top of my head that isn't. By your definition, the whole of education is fascist because there is no way to eliminate bias from the authors of text books, to the publishers editing those books before print, to personal bias of teachers, to priority bias of the education system on every level, all the way down to the family and peers. Put bluntly, there will be bias. Which way the bias leans depends on the situation. Just like how you have religious teachers slipping in "Creationist" theories into the evolution teachings, you'll have pot head teachers that will stress to the students not to listen to what the books say. It is impossible to completely eliminate bias.

You were in school when? 1980's? The world has changed since then. There is always a deviant group in any populous that will do what others refuse to. I'm guessing you were part of those deviants.

[farlex]

Everything is biased. I can't name one thing off the top of my head that isn't. By your definition, the whole of education is fascist because there is no way to eliminate bias from the authors of text books, to the publishers editing those books before print, to personal bias of teachers, to priority bias of the education system on every level, all the way down to the family and peers.

You were in school when? 1980's? The world has changed since then. There is always a deviant group in any populous that will do what others refuse to. I'm guessing you were part of those deviants.

I agree everything is biased, and yes I suppose in some ways the educational system of America is fascist (forces beliefs on others). What I mainly mean is if you're not telling people the truth, you're trying to demonize something some value, then that's not going to work for everybody. It may work for some, but those who are a bit more experimental, individualistic, or subversive to peer pressure and rebellious will still seek answers of their own, especially if they suspect you aren't telling the whole truth. I liken what I can imagine you're thinking to some Utopian fiction novel where everyone is "taught" about "evils" of the world (love, excitement, what have you) and the the "deviant" comes to find out these things aren't so bad, and although they can cause suffering in the wrong hands, they offer some enormous rewards. You want everybody to hate drugs as you do, but that is quite unlikely, especially those who actually know about them. True education would probably only lessen your cause.

[Wile E]

Some do, some don't. Time is a precious commodity in the case of individuals though. We don't live forever. Why I bring that up is that a lot of the baby boomers are in serious trouble right now. They lost some 33% of their retirement savings in that crash and they aren't working anymore so they won't be getting it back unless they start working again. In the case of governments, established governments rarely fall--the individual only has a bearing if it is a dictatoriship.



Take from one hand, stick it in other. How about don't take at all or as little as possible? Drug traffiking is an interestate problem which is why it is in the federal jursidiction to regulate and enforce it. These states that have decriminalized "medicinal" marijuana fail to see the bigger picture. In fact, they could be in large part responsible for the boom in marijuana-related arrests.Except that if you legalize MJ, it is no longer trafficking, the govt no longer spends money to stop it, and our jails are no longer filled with people that were arrested just for having or using it. The whole problem goes away overnight. You fail to see the bigger picture, not those states trying to allow MJ to be legalized.

[erocker]

A toke a day keeps the doctor away. Well.. I sure as hell ain't driving to the doctor blazed out of my mind. Anything illeagal that doesn't infrict on anothers well being is indeed an attack on freedom. Too much money involved with the war on drugs, government jobs, lots of them. They aren't going to give up their "war" jobs when they can prevent it.

[FordGT90Concept]

I agree everything is biased, and yes I suppose in some ways the educational system of America is fascist (forces beliefs on others). What I mainly mean is if you're not telling people the truth, you're trying to demonize something some value, then that's not going to work for everybody. It may work for some, but those who are a bit more experimental, individualistic, or subversive to peer pressure and rebellious will still seek answers of their own, especially if they suspect you aren't telling the whole truth. I liken what I can imagine you're thinking to some Utopian fiction novel where everyone is "taught" about "evils" of the world (love, excitement, what have you) and the the "deviant" comes to find out these things aren't so bad, and although they can cause suffering in the wrong hands, they offer some enormous rewards. You want everybody to hate drugs as you do, but that is quite unlikely, especially those who actually know about them. True education would probably only lessen your cause.
Truth? There's no absolute truths (unless you are religious). I can guarentee marijuana (along with other recreational drugs) will always be demonized no matter its legal status.


Except that if you legalize MJ, it is no longer trafficking, the govt no longer spends money to stop it, and our jails are no longer filled with people that were arrested just for having or using it. The whole problem goes away overnight. You fail to see the bigger picture, not those states trying to allow MJ to be legalized.
Marijuana has to pass through other states where marijuana is illegal in order to reach, for instance, Colorado. Colorado, therefore, is encouraging traffiking to occur in nearby states all the way to the border or place where it is illegally grown. Additionally, these states are creating demand and where there is demand, someone is going to fill it. That could easily be linked to marijuana farms in the middle of national parks. The closer the plant is grown to its destination, the less risk involved in transporting it. I blame states that decriminalized it for the recent boom of marijuana related crimes.


A toke a day keeps the doctor away. Well.. I sure as hell ain't driving to the doctor blazed out of my mind. Anything illeagal that doesn't infrict on anothers well being is indeed an attack on freedom. Too much money involved with the war on drugs, government jobs, lots of them. They aren't going to give up their "war" jobs when they can prevent it.
Nothing in life is free. Merely by having a government, you give up most of your freedoms. A government's job is to govern, no? Is the definition of govern not "to rule over by right of authority?"

No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. --Sir Winston Churchill


The US government is the United States largest employer and consumer of goods. Like all employment, people's jobs are decided by those higher up. The higher ups say it is worth fighting which means the lower downs have a steady job. The amount of money spent on the war on drugs is trivial compared to other branches of the government (Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Department of Defense).

Even Obama (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/03/obama-addresses.html) (the highest up) says "I don't think that [legalizing marijuana] is a good strategy to grow our economy."

[farlex]

Truth? There's no absolute truths (unless you are religious). I can guarentee marijuana (along with other recreational drugs) will always be demonized no matter its legal status.

Of course there are no absolute truths, which is exactly what I indicated when I pointed out it's cultural. Generally a good way to get an good representation of something in the classroom is to give scientific facts then in the case of drugs both sides of an opinionated topic.

I can guarantee you you're utterly wrong, which I already showed you. What you consider recreational, may be considered essential or positive in other cultures. Native Americans were some that didn't demonize marijuana in the slightest. Why would they, it's a plant. Yours is the illogical view, one only held recently.


Nothing in life is free. Merely by having a government, you give up most of your freedoms. A government's job is to govern, no? Is the definition of govern not "to rule over by right of authority?"

No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. --Sir Winston Churchill


Except we don't use democracy. The government should be simply a tool used by the people (not to be confused with ruling the people) to prevent anarchy, and in extreme circumstances carry out war. You only want to let the government rule your life when it's convenient to your argument, your true willingness to submit to their control is I would imagine less that total.

[FordGT90Concept]

Generally a good way to get an good representation of something in the classroom is to give scientific facts then in the case of drugs both sides of an opinionated topic.
"Facts" are only as good as the method used to test them. As you said, unrefined drugs effect people differently by a large degree. Just by listing the side effects (loss of motor coordination, memory loss, hunger, paranoia, anxiety, dry mouth, nausea, headache, tremor, increased heart rate, to name a few) listed next to the positives (altered state of concious) on the surface always looks like its biased. Look underneath and you realise almost all drugs have a lengthy list of sideffects and only a few positive primary effects. As such, an "unbiased" approach will make just about all children biased against all forms of drugs.



I can guarantee you you're utterly wrong, which I already showed you. What you consider recreational, may be considered essential or positive in other cultures. Native Americans were some that didn't demonize marijuana in the slightest. Why would they, it's a plant. Yours is the illogical view, one only held recently.
Funny how Native Americans survived thousands of years without it. They may love it now but...I'd rather not get into that discussion because it involves a lot of stereotyping.



Except we don't use democracy. The government should be simply a tool used by the people (not to be confused with ruling the people) to prevent anarchy, and in extreme circumstances carry out war. You only want to let the government rule your life when it's convenient to your argument, your true willingness to submit to their control is I would imagine less that total.
Nor did the United Kingdom when Churchill was alive. We've been over the semantics of "democracy" before (form of government versus describing a situation where people vote on something).

Anarchy...a situation where no government is in control. How does an existing government prevent anarchy? By not allowing control to slip away. Every form of government has that trait inline somewhere be it democracy's belief that your vote counts or the military hand of a dictator.

If history is any indictator (and it always is) humans tend to not function very well without a government. This trend goes all the way back to the nomadic tribes and their alpha males.

Government is bad and so is anarchy so what's that leave us?

[farlex]

Government is bad and so is anarchy so what's that leave us?

With a simple and obvious method. Use government to make sure people don't infringe on others freedoms, outside of that keep personal freedom as strong as possible. Government is only bad when it controls the people, rather than the people controlling it. ;)

[FordGT90Concept]

With a simple and obvious method. Use government to make sure people don't infringe on others freedoms, outside of that keep personal freedom as strong as possible. Government is only bad when it controls the people, rather than the people controlling it. ;)To fulfill that role is to infringe on personal freedoms. Your freedom to smoke tobacco at commercial venues polluted the environment and most states have moved to remove that freedom. Your freedom to smoke marijuana has created a public nuicence in the past and so most states have moved to remove that freedom.

Governments job is to control the people and the people give it the authority to do so (vote, submission, whatever). Once the authority has been given, there is no taking it back without destroying, or leaving the jurisdiction of, said government.


Government basically represent giving up of individual freedoms for security (economic, militaristic, and diplomatic). You can't smoke reefer because it pisses these people off. You can't kill because it pisses these people off. No matter what, only one side gets their way. Governments are simply the manifestation of that mediation by guarenteeing "peaceful" resolution of conflicts--security instead of anarchy. The minds of the majority of individuals, they justify not having their way because they did grant authority to the government to govern them (taking the good with the bad...).

[erocker]

Truth? There's no absolute truths (unless you are religious). I can guarentee marijuana (along with other recreational drugs) will always be demonized no matter its legal status.



Marijuana has to pass through other states where marijuana is illegal in order to reach, for instance, Colorado. Colorado, therefore, is encouraging traffiking to occur in nearby states all the way to the border or place where it is illegally grown. Additionally, these states are creating demand and where there is demand, someone is going to fill it. That could easily be linked to marijuana farms in the middle of national parks. The closer the plant is grown to its destination, the less risk involved in transporting it. I blame states that decriminalized it for the recent boom of marijuana related crimes.



Nothing in life is free. Merely by having a government, you give up most of your freedoms. A government's job is to govern, no? Is the definition of govern not "to rule over by right of authority?"

No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. --Sir Winston Churchill


The US government is the United States largest employer and consumer of goods. Like all employment, people's jobs are decided by those higher up. The higher ups say it is worth fighting which means the lower downs have a steady job. The amount of money spent on the war on drugs is trivial compared to other branches of the government (Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Department of Defense).

Even Obama (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/03/obama-addresses.html) (the highest up) says "I don't think that [legalizing marijuana] is a good strategy to grow our economy."

If that's what you want to believe. Either way, legal or not people are still going to get high and not give two shits about what "their" government says on the matter. Both Obama, and Jimmy Carter were leaning towards legalization until they became President. Makes you wonder what kind of information they got after becoming President to change their minds. Not like I care. Minds of politicians and those who seek power are the equivilent of blind monkey people to me. My world/life/whatever has absolutely no similarities to theirs. They do not represent me regardless of what some status quo says. You are correct, government is not free. As a matter of fact government is getting way too fucking expensive, and I sure in the hell ain't seeing any improvements in service. I want my government to defend my borders and take my trash to the dump... that's about it, and in my mnd that is all government is good for. I'll take care of the rest on my own, I don't need elected parents where I have to give them all my damn money so they can give me some sort of an allowance. Fuck them. I do everything in my power to make sure the government gets as little of my money as possible, especially since I disagree with 90% of the things they are using my money for. "The United States of America" For the corporation, by the lobbyist, buy the politician. Democracy my ass. Republic my ass.

[farlex]

To fulfill that role is to infringe on personal freedoms. Your freedom to smoke tobacco at commercial venues polluted the environment and most states have moved to remove that freedom. Your freedom to smoke marijuana has created a public nuicence in the past and so most states have moved to remove that freedom.

Governments job is to control the people and the people give it the authority to do so (vote, submission, whatever). Once the authority has been given, there is no taking it back without destroying, or leaving the jurisdiction of, said government.


Government basically represent giving up of individual freedoms for security (economic, militaristic, and diplomatic). You can't smoke reefer because it pisses these people off. You can't kill because it pisses these people off. No matter what, only one side gets their way. Governments are simply the manifestation of that mediation by guarenteeing "peaceful" resolution of conflicts--security instead of anarchy. The minds of the majority of individuals, they justify not having their way because they did grant authority to the government to govern them (taking the good with the bad...).

You're complicating things needlessly. Pissing people off is not valid grounds to make something illegal. A balance can be found by simply saying, you can do what you want until it interferes with me doing what I want. Then there's a problem. Until then though, personal freedom can be held in the highest regard unless it's necessary to remove it.

[FordGT90Concept]

I'd say trespassing pisses the owners off which is why it is illegal. Having someone light a cigarette near you pisses non-smokers off--the majority now are non-smokers which is why it is becoming law. Lots of towns have no air brake laws because people got pissed off in dealing with the obnoxious sound. There is a rather lengthy list of things that are now illegal because it pissed enough people off to do something about it. So let me paraphrase your statement:
"Pissing enough people off is grounds to make something illegal."

Marijuana has already passed that threshold. An overwhelming majority don't want it legalized so the majority feels it interferes with their life enough to make an issue out of it. The necessity already exists but, you disagree with that consensus. As with everything: majority rules with rights of the minority. The minority must become the majority for the status quo to change.

[farlex]

Marijuana has already passed that threshold. An overwhelming majority don't want it legalized so the majority feels it interefers with their life enough to make an issue out of it. The necessity already exists but, you disagree with that concensus. As with everything: marjority rules with rights of the minority. The minority must become the majority for the status quo to change.

No it hasn't, personal use in no way infringes on the rights of others, therefore it shouldn't be open for debate. I'd also wager the majority don't in fact believe marijuana is the devil, it's just hatred is more zealous than tolerance thus is sometimes louder. We'll find I'd assume in the next 30 years or so that tolerant crowd will grow louder and louder though, as untrue biases of the past give way to education.

I'd say trespassing pisses the owners off which is why it is illegal. Having someone light a cigarette near you pisses non-smokers off--the majority now are non-smokers which is why it is becoming law. Lots of towns have no air brake laws because people got pissed off in dealing with the obnoxious sound. There is a rather lengthy list of things that are now illegal because it pissed enough people off to do something about it. So let me paraphrase your statement:
"Pissing enough people off is grounds to make something illegal."


Trespassing can scare the land owner in his own home, part of owning property is deciding who comes on it (infringing on rights). Second-hand smoke is detrimental to someone elses health (infringing on rights). The air brake law is stupid.

[FordGT90Concept]

When it comes to drugs, nothing is personal unless you live by yourself. Whether you like it or not, most of those living in the same household as you probably has something negative to say about your habits.

[farlex]

When it comes to drugs, nothing is personal unless you live by yourself. Whether you like it or not, most of those living in the same household as you probably has something negative to say about your habits.

Uhm so what? If they don't like it so be it. As long as it isn't hurting them, there's nothing the law should be able to do about it. Of course if they want to make household rules that's up to them, again the government has no place there. And many people do in fact live by themselves. Often to avoid complications w/ negative/annoying habits of others. Would you call the cops if your roomate was on the computer all day? As long as he wasn't hacking yours you shouldn't. Same applies to drugs. If they aren't hurting you, it's their decision. You choose who you live with you can choose how you approach habits you disapprove of. As erocker said we don't need to pay for government parents.

[FordGT90Concept]

Uhm so what? If they don't like it so be it.
And there's your answer. "Personal freedoms" aren't so personal are they? Right back to cost to society.


As long as it isn't hurting them, there's nothing the law should be able to do about it.
You don't think ignoring them is not hurting them? Most broken homes involve drug abuse.


Of course if they want to make household rules that's up to them, again the government has no place there.
You don't think they are going to the government to help fix your problem because they can't do it themselves? I've seen parents send their kids off to military training just because they can't keep them out of trouble. Even then, some of them get kicked out of the military.


Would you call the cops if your roomate was on the computer all day?
If it were my computer or he is using the computer to commit a crime, it may eventually get to that point, yes. Better than throwing punches/getting abusive and there's nothing like a police uniform to say you're causing problems.


If they aren't hurting you, it's their decision.
A parent that is often high, for instance, can be proven negligent in raising the child. Failing to provide for your family can also be negligent. There's many other scenarios I could run through. Simply put, if you put your drug habit above anything else, you got problems.


As erocker said we don't need to pay for government parents.
The government is carrying out the will of the people.

[farlex]

And there's your answer. "Personal freedoms" aren't so personal are they? Right back to cost to society.

What? Personal freedoms are exactly that, which is why I said if they don't like it so be it. People won't always agree with what I do, personal freedom permits me to not care so long as I'm not hurting them.

You don't think ignoring them is not hurting them? Most broken homes involve drug abuse.

Maybe it is, not in a way punishable by law. There's that magical word "involve" again. Hurting a child's feelings is not against the law. I'm assuming that's the kind of relationship your purporting here.


You don't think they are going to the government to help fix your problem because they can't do it themselves? I've seen parents send their kids off to military training just because they can't keep them out of trouble. Even then, some of them get kicked out of the military.

Again what are you talking about? Are you now proposing a scenario where I'm a reckless child? If the parent wants to send their child to the military so be it. Their choice.

If it were my computer or he is using the computer to commit a crime, it may eventually get to that point, yes. Better than throwing punches/getting abusive and there's nothing like a police uniform to say you're causing problems.

I still don't know what your talking about or whether this is an argument or what. From what I can tell you reaffirmed what I said and said at least it's not violent crime. Sure.

A parent that is often high, for instance, can be proven negligent in raising the child. Failing to provide for your family can also be negligent. There's many other scenarios I could run through. Simply put, if you put your drug habit above anything else, you got problems.

If a parent is negligent, that is infringing on the rights of the child, and the parent just broke the law. Drugs are neither here nor there.

The government is carrying out the will of the people.

That's the point, they don't.

[FordGT90Concept]

Hurting a child's feelings is not against the law.
In some cases, it is. Bullying, for instance.


Again what are you talking about? Are you now proposing a scenario where I'm a reckless child? If the parent wants to send their child to the military so be it. Their choice.
Again, not always. Some judges sentence delinquents to military service. Example:
http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1438906.html (even includes alcohol...)

If you did illegal drugs as a child, I think that would have qualified you as a reckless child.


If a parent is negligent, that is infringing on the rights of the child, and the parent just broke the law. Drugs are neither here nor there.
Does a child not have a right to air that won't make them loopy? Do they also not have a right to a responsible parent? From your previous statements about ignoring members concerns of fellow members of the household, that's a mark of irresponsibility. Drug use and irresponsibility often coincide.


That's the point, they don't.
Government = majority = marijuana illegal

Someone in this thread complained about people with an ounce of marijuana getting arrested--that's demonstration of the government carrying out the will of the people.

[farlex]

In some cases, it is. Bullying, for instance.


No it isn't. Bullying is not against the law. It's against the rules made by school people and parents, not against the law. Hitting another child is.


Again, not always. Some judges sentence delinquents to military service. Example:
http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1438906.html (even includes alcohol...)

That's fine.


If you did drugs without your parents blessing, I think that would have qualified you as a reckless child.

I've done many things without my parent's blessings. My parents were great, but not always right. Once I became aware sufficiently to make my own decisions, I did. I'm still not sure where you're going with this though, it has little to do with it.


Does a child not have a right to air that won't make them loopy? Do they also not have a right to a responsible parent? From your previous statements about ignoring members concerns of fellow members of the household, that's a mark of irresponsibility. Drug use and responsibility often coincide.

Air that won't make them loopy? I already talked about second hand smoke. No they don't have the right to responsible parent, for one b/c that's too vague for two b/c many aren't and it isn't against the law up to a certain point (until it becomes neglect). It would be nice if they would though. And again you assume far too much if you assume a parent that uses drugs is necessarily irresponsible. Many of the parents who use drugs and are irresponsible would be irresponsible without drugs as well.

Government = majority = marijuana illegal

I already talked about this. The reason we have a republic is to avoid majority rule. Besides I'm not convinced the majority agree w/ marijuana being illegal.

You complained before about people with an ounce of marijuana getting arrested--that's demonstration of the government carrying out the will of the people.

No it isn't. It's the will of politicians.

Again you're making this complicated so you can argue. It's very simple. You should have the freedom to do what you want so long as you don't harm somebody's ability to do the same.

[FordGT90Concept]

No it isn't. Bullying is not against the law. It's against the rules made by school people and parents, not against the law. Hitting another child is.
http://pathwayscourses.samhsa.gov/bully/bully_7_pg2.htm

Some states have moved to add "teasing" and "intimidation" into anti-bully law:
http://www.bullypolice.org/wa_law.html

Moreover, if it is taken to court, odds are good that the party being bullied will win so long as there is evidence and a significant enough reason to bring it to court (e.g. psychological damage due to teasing).


And again you assume far too much if you assume a parent that uses drugs is necessarily irresponsible. Many of the parents who use drugs and are irresponsible would be irresponsible without drugs as well.
We've been over that before. Irresponsibility and drug use coincide.


I already talked about this. The reason we have a republic is to avoid majority rule. Besides I'm not convinced the majority agree w/ marijuana being illegal.
Majority always rules; the Constitution has your rights of the minority (freedom of speech, namely).

One of the articles posted on one of the first pages went down the list of states that did decriminalize it and most got it through petition--not a general populous vote. It only got close to being legalized in extremely moderate states. If it is up to the majority, it generally won't happen. Nevermind changing it on the federal level.



You should have the freedom to do what you want so long as you don't harm somebody's ability to do the same.
And you said that you do it even though other people resent the fact you do. Ignorance is bliss. I suggest you listen to what those people say about your habit because they can give you a laundry list of the harm you, personally, are doing better than I can and why you don't deserve that freedom.

[farlex]

http://pathwayscourses.samhsa.gov/bully/bully_7_pg2.htm

Some states have moved to add "teasing" and "intimidation" into anti-bully law:
http://www.bullypolice.org/wa_law.html

Moreover, if it is taken to court, odds are good that the party being bullied will win so long as there is evidence.

Congratulations you found an exception. It has little to do with the main argument.

We've been over that before. Irresponsibility and drug use coincide.

We have, which is why it's perplexing to me that you continue to mention it. Correlation doesn't imply causation.

Majority always rules; the Constitution has your rights of the minority (freedom of speech, namely).

No it doesn't. I'm sure you can think of instances where the majority doesn't agree w/ actions of the government but it still is the rule.

One of the articles posted on one of the first pages went down the list of states that did decriminalize it and most got it through petition--not a general populous vote. It only got close to being legalized in extremely moderate states. If it is up to the majority, it generally won't happen. Nevermind changing it on the federal level.

I'll bet it will in the next 20 years or so.


And you said that you do it even though other people resent the fact you do. Ignorance is bliss. I suggest you listen to what those people say about your habit because they can give you a laundry list of the harm you, personally, are doing better than I can and why you don't deserve that freedom.

Tell me about it. :rolleyes: Do you assume I do drugs currently? Do you feel you are devoid of habits that hurt those around you? When did I say I ignore other people? What habit are you talking about? I just said I can if I did, and it wouldn't be against the law; you're the one who started that line of arguing seemingly w/o reason. I was humoring you. Your arrogance leads to your stubbornness, I'm sure I'm not the only one that has had trouble getting through to you b/c of it.

[FordGT90Concept]

No it doesn't. I'm sure you can think of instances where the majority doesn't agree w/ actions of the government but it still is the rule.
The only actions of the government that can occur without majority rule are that of the executive branch. The Supreme Court and Congress can overrule the executive branch if it is the will of the people to do so. Water Gate and Nixon's near impeachment is an example of this.


This topic is getting old and tired. I will make no further responses to this thread.

[farlex]

The only actions of the government that can occur without majority rule are that of the executive branch. The Supreme Court and Congress can overrule the executive branch if it is the will of the people to do so. Water Gate and Nixon's near impeachment is an example of this.


Oh you mean the majority of the legislature. In the context we were talking before you indicated the majority of the American people. Different things.

[Deusxmachina]

As previously stated, the intoxicated party is always going to get the blame. They broke the law before the accident even happened.

If you were sober, you stood a better chance at avoiding the accident; moreover, testimony of an intoxicated driver is about as useful as a clown in a war room meeting.

That doesn't make any sense. Whether it's speeding through an intersection with the right-of-way, or if it's driving through an intersection while over the legal intoxication limit with the right-of-way, or if it's driving slow and sober with the right-of-way, if you get blindsided and t-boned, there's no way it's your fault and basically no way to avoid it.

...yet these things get written up as "speeding" or "alcohol" related and then people post the data about them on internet forums as if the data has any validity.

I assume you also think someone blowing .09 doing the speed limit and gets rear-ended out of nowhere or maybe head-on'd at a blind hill or curve by someone doing 100mph while texting on their phone should also be listed as an "alcohol-related" accident.

When I was on jury duty for a drunk driving case, the hardest part of the case was deciding if the person who blew over the legal limit was also guilty of failing to control their vehicle. Just because someone is over the legal alcohol limit doesn't necessarily mean they are guilty of failing to control their vehicle. But if such things are written up as they are with speeding, then the data automatically Assumes they are. And that makes for faulty data.

When it comes to drugs, nothing is personal unless you live by yourself. Whether you like it or not, most of those living in the same household as you probably has something negative to say about your habits.

So drugs should be legal if you live by yourself. Fair enough.

If someone wants to help kids, maybe they should make it illegal for parents to sit on their ass watching TV for 40 hours a week instead of spending time with their kids. TV can be addicting and have some very bad effects.

As for "majority rules in government," that can be a slippery thing since MANY times elected representatives will not do the will of the people, (certain aspects and laws in California come to mind), yet the people are the ones who elected those representatives.


And you said that you do it even though other people resent the fact you do. Ignorance is bliss. I suggest you listen to what those people say about your habit because they can give you a laundry list of the harm you, personally, are doing better than I can and why you don't deserve that freedom.

I don't do the stuff, but I think he deserves that freedom.
Ignorance of freedom is the true bliss.
Happiness in Slavery.

This calls for a song!

Don't open your eyes, you won't like what you see
The blind have been blessed with security
Don't open your eyes, take it from me
I have found
You can find
Happiness in Slavery

[Wile E]

Truth? There's no absolute truths (unless you are religious). I can guarentee marijuana (along with other recreational drugs) will always be demonized no matter its legal status.



Marijuana has to pass through other states where marijuana is illegal in order to reach, for instance, Colorado. Colorado, therefore, is encouraging traffiking to occur in nearby states all the way to the border or place where it is illegally grown. Additionally, these states are creating demand and where there is demand, someone is going to fill it. That could easily be linked to marijuana farms in the middle of national parks. The closer the plant is grown to its destination, the less risk involved in transporting it. I blame states that decriminalized it for the recent boom of marijuana related crimes.



Nothing in life is free. Merely by having a government, you give up most of your freedoms. A government's job is to govern, no? Is the definition of govern not "to rule over by right of authority?"

No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. --Sir Winston Churchill


The US government is the United States largest employer and consumer of goods. Like all employment, people's jobs are decided by those higher up. The higher ups say it is worth fighting which means the lower downs have a steady job. The amount of money spent on the war on drugs is trivial compared to other branches of the government (Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Department of Defense).

Even Obama (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/03/obama-addresses.html) (the highest up) says "I don't think that [legalizing marijuana] is a good strategy to grow our economy."

And again, if you make MJ legal, trafficing is no longer a crime, therefore the money spent on trying to prevent it is no longer spent, and can be used somewhere more beneficial.

I'm of the belief that I should be able to do any drugs I see fit, as long as I don't harm others.

You'll likely be surprised to find out that I don't do drugs anyway, out of personal choice. But that choice should have always been mine, not the govt's.

[WhiteLotus]

But where do you draw the line? like meth - which is stupidly addicative. Do you draw the line?

Just chucking it out there, i personally don't really give a toss. Up to the individual, and as long as they are harming NO ONE else but themselves then let them have their needle/joint or whatever.

[btarunr]

There are good drug consumers, and bad ones. The bad ones are so bad off, that they'd sell drugs to others / propagate drug abuse, just so they could get their next fix. Now to control the bad ones good ones have to be deprived of their liberties as well.

[Wile E]

But where do you draw the line? like meth - which is stupidly addicative. Do you draw the line?

Just chucking it out there, i personally don't really give a toss. Up to the individual, and as long as they are harming NO ONE else but themselves then let them have their needle/joint or whatever.

I don't draw the line on drug use. I only draw the line on the actions people take while on drugs.

[farlex]

You should have the freedom to do what you want so long as you don't harm somebody's ability to do the same.


I don't do the stuff, but I think he deserves that freedom.
Ignorance of freedom is the true bliss.
Happiness in Slavery.


A
I'm of the belief that I should be able to do any drugs I see fit, as long as I don't harm others.



Up to the individual, and as long as they are harming NO ONE else but themselves then let them have their needle/joint or whatever.

This is really the crux of the disagreement, the main point of arbitration. Most of us here, and I think it's kind of a default societal viewpoint once one can see things relatively (everyone's experience is different) in a relatively free society, believe that so long as someone isn't forcing harm on another, they should be free to do what they want.

Republicans have devised a way to ignore this sentiment in some situations and stress it in others. You really have to become a republican, become somewhat indoctrinated with the politics, imo to form a belief system where this is no longer true sometimes but critical in others (proponent of the war on drugs opponent of government healthcare/two sides of the same coin). Democrats have also found a way to contradict themselves with this central relativistic idea, they just tend to do it more monetarily (proponents of personal freedom but willing to take money away from some more than others). This sort of cognitive dissonance is typical in the average Republican or Democrat I think, and really just turns politics into a futile preposterous tug-o-war that accomplishes nothing either side striving for.

The quest for freedom is a delicate but clear one shattered and obscured by the stagnate and domineering nature of politics.

[SK-1]

This is a novel idea:(:confused: I'm still trying to figure the ramifications of universal health-care and WHAM...this.:(
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090908/D9AJCL500.html

[farlex]

This would be interesting if it proves a fruitful area of research: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=pot-joins-the-fight-against-alzheim-2008-11-19

[SK-1]

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted yet.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091019/D9BED8500.html

[FordGT90Concept]

It is more for consistency of government than legalization. The feds still have the authority to step in if they see the need to.

[Wile E]

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted yet.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091019/D9BED8500.html

Good. That's a big step in the right direction.

[jmcslob]

It is more for consistency of government than legalization. The feds still have the authority to step in if they see the need to.As it should be, As long as people are legally prescribed it's cool...However My view on that (poop) is still a little different...and it's simple...What people do that do not effect you, is nothing to you, so kindly mind your own fucking business:) It's none of my business if ya like your wife's thumb in ur Bum, Unless you do it in public, then that (poop) becomes problem:p It's quite simple and I do believe that's what Fed's are intending to do here...(ww)That is simply keep it where it's supposed to be (wh)The magic here is if you can follow a paper trail, you get to follow the product,tax the product, and control the product:eek: OMG it makes so much sense, seems someone in the GOVT has some logic, Someone figured out defeat is impossible, where there is a willing want, and decided to Contain it(r)

[erocker]

First off I think my Govenor has a total of 1 brain cell. In amazement that brain cell said something I almost agree with today!

MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Gov. Jim Doyle says he supports legalizing medical marijuana in Wisconsin if a law can be written that restricts its use to people who have a doctor's prescription.

At an appearance in Wausau, Doyle says he has no problem with the use of marijuana to treat severe pain and other medical conditions, if it's prescribed by a doctor.

Doyle's comments come after a decision by the Obama administration not to prosecute users and suppliers of medical marijuana in the 14 states where it's been legalized. The decision is a clear break from the policies of the Bush administration.

The governor says restricting the use of medical marijuana makes no sense when doctors can already prescribe more dangerous drugs like morphine.

[FordGT90Concept]

Personally, I think morphine should not be prescribed in pill form. It should only be administured under observation through drips or shots. It is practically heroin after all.

[erocker]

Personally, I think morphine should not be prescribed in pill form. It should only be administured under observation through drips or shots. It is practically heroin after all.

I agree with that, and many many other pharmeceutical drugs. (poop) Lol poop! (ww)(poop) Magic Poop!

[SK-1]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/10/video-podesta-tax-pot-to-pay-for-health-care.html

This is right up this threads alley...

[jmcslob]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/10/video-podesta-tax-pot-to-pay-for-health-care.html

This is right up this threads alley...
I'VE BEEN SAYING THAT SINCE i WAS TWELVE:D
(wh)(ww)(r)(u)(poop) Wizzards magic Gay unicorn poop

[FordGT90Concept]

Pot wouldn't bring in near enough money to pay for healthcare. Pot isn't going to magically become 8-10% of the GDP that the public option, at bare minimum, would cost.

[jmcslob]

Pot wouldn't bring in near enough money to pay for healthcare. Pot isn't going to magically become 8-10% of the GDP that the public option, at bare minimum, would cost.Absolutely Right there...But every penny counts....:D

[lilkiduno]

Honestly I have not read this entire thread; yes I know same on me! But I do agree that pot, marijuana, cannabis, or whatever you wish to call this “herb.” Yes I did call it an herb. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb Cannabis doesn’t get categorized as a drug in my eyes, because a drug is “a man made substance which altars your brains chemical balance.” I am also a cannabis advocate, as if you could already tell. I believe that cannabis should in fact be legalized. But I also believe that it should have an age restriction for smoking it such as tobacco has. I say smoking it because depending on the way in which you smoke it you can receive three times as much tar than a cigarette. But cannabis in forms such as peanut butter and other food have proven to help children with ADHD and ADD. This is my view on cannabis.
Now for the healthcare reform, I totally disagree with the way they plan on trying to reform it. We Americans have one of the GREATEST health care systems in the WORLD! If not then why would people from other countries come to America to revive an operation? Government ran healthcare doesn’t work look at the countries that already have it, and the waiting period to be seen by a doctor and to revive and operation.
This all together is my personal views.

[T3hPwn3r3r]

The greatest being in the 30s.

The "waiting times" are VERY rare cases, and most of the time are just radical-conservative propaganda. I know plenty of Canadians, Germans, English, and Spanish (in their home countries and outside) who are more than happy with their health care system.

[FordGT90Concept]

They're happy until something major happens (cancer, severe accident, organ failure). That's when the waiting comes in because the government wants to see if you die first...

Socialized medicine is great for cuts and bruises (stuff you should be able to do yourself). The farther away you get from cheap, the longer you're going to have to wait. That's when people from socialized countries go to places (like the USA) where it isn't. No waiting list but it costs a dime.

[jmcslob]

They're happy until something major happens (cancer, severe accident, organ failure). That's when the waiting comes in because the government wants to see if you die first...

Socialized medicine is great for cuts and bruises (stuff you should be able to do yourself). The farther away you get from cheap, the longer you're going to have to wait. That's when people from socialized countries go to places (like the USA) where it isn't. No waiting list but it costs a dime.
Insurance company denials are no worse than waiting for treatment until you die, since at least you have Hope, it's actually worse here since you already no the outcome DENIED....Really it's just a matter of how many we treat..as opposed to How many we simply Deny :D BTW you can spend money in any Country for Treatment not just here...Just because there is a socialized plan doesn't mean there is no pay for the Extreme Medicine...(private Hospitals will still exist)

[FordGT90Concept]

Insurance companies are honest and up front. If they don't want to cover you, they'll flat out say it. If a government doesn't want to cover you, it gets lost in bureaucracy (aka, waiting lists).

[jmcslob]

Insurance companies are honest and up front. If they don't want to cover you, they'll flat out say it. If a government doesn't want to cover you, it gets lost in bureaucracy (aka, waiting lists).
Yeah, but like i said the Govt leaves hope..and most Dr's will tell ya hope is better than acceptance :rolleyes:

[erocker]

Yeah, but like i said the Govt leaves hope..and most Dr's will tell ya hope is better than acceptance :rolleyes:

There is no hope in government. Government just is.

[DaMulta]

Personally, I think morphine should not be prescribed in pill form. It should only be administured under observation through drips or shots. It is practically heroin after all.

I guess you have never had any family that had to have morphine at home. They normally give it too people that is about to die.

[Deusxmachina]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380.html

• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.

On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.

• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.

While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.

[FordGT90Concept]

Why does Uncle Sam keep delagating projects to private organizations besides hiding it from the Freedom of Information Act? Did they not learn a lesson from ACORN?

[Deusxmachina]

"I used to say we should just pass this bill to get the insurance reform, but there isn't any insurance reform left to speak of."
"This is a giant bailout that makes AIG look cheap."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr9yeULzgj8

[FordGT90Concept]

Republicans: pro-insurance reform, anti-public option
Democrats: anti-insurance reform, pro-public option

Said differently...
Republicans: fix current system
Democrats: socialized healthcare

Nothing has changed since circa 1993.

I side with the Republicans because reforming the system, if done right, can cost tax payers nothing where public option will cost a lot and that cost will be recurring annually.

[SK-1]

Said differently...
Republicans: fix current system
Democrats: socialized healthcare

Nothing has changed since circa 1993.

I side with the Republicans because reforming the system, if done right, can cost tax payers nothing where public option will cost a lot and that cost will be recurring annually.

Yup...in a nutshell.

Why replace the engine and tyranny when a plug and filter change will fix it.

[El Fiendo]

I think both should be done. Though the 'fix the current system' should be done first. A mismanaged public healthcare system is just as detrimental as a mismanaged private one. Once your system is fixed and working, then you can start looking at providing basic services for free.

Example
Need a cast? Base model is free, fiberglass cast is discounted but still costs you. This is your 15th trip into the hospital for broken bones this year? You lost your discount at your 5th trip in. It'll come back next year / 2 years etc. It doesn't raise your insurance premiums for this basic coverage

Wouldn't be all that hard to implement little things like that, they probably keep all the information they would require on record already. Instead of paying in full twice, you'd pay a reduced amount of both, or perhaps it'd be included in your insurance payment. Who knows?

I'd personally like to see Canada with both a private and public healthcare system, but our public one is mismanaged so it varies from place to place on quality.

Anyways, /pipedream.

[FordGT90Concept]

Yup...in a nutshell.

Why replace the engine and tyranny when a plug and filter change will fix it.
My thoughts exactly. There are numerous, very specific and very expensive bugs in the current system that, if remedied, could unilaterally fix the healthcare system. The government's only role would be to enforce compliance and assure compliance is sustained in the future. That's a task DHS could take on with funds available from alleviating the stress on medicaid/medicare.

[Deusxmachina]

"The White House and the Senate Democrats are working on a new jobs bill. The White House said this new jobs bill could create twice as many non-existent fake jobs as the last one." -- Jay Leno

"And the Postal Service announced last week the Post Office lost $3.8 billion last year. I've got a good idea. Let's put the government in charge of healthcare! Fantastic idea!" -- Jay Leno

[FordGT90Concept]

Surprising, coming out of Jay Leno. I recall him having a discussion with Rush Limbaugh and Jay Leno came across as being in favor of the "public option." It could be just for laughs and not what he actually believes though.

[SK-1]

Looks like the Democrats are coming to their senses...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30737.html

Howard Dean launched a third day of attacks on the emerging bill, arguing in a Washington Post op-ed that it meets none of his benchmarks for “real reform.”


“[A]s it stands, this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America,” Dean wrote, then took to the airwaves to amplify his case.

[FordGT90Concept]

Howard Dean hasn't come to his senses. He's just screaming and crying because the "public option" is dead. All Democrats hate that except the conservative Democrats that wants a deficit-neutral bill.

[SK-1]

Howard Dean hasn't come to his senses. He's just screaming and crying because the "public option" is dead. All Democrats hate that except the conservative Democrats that wants a deficit-neutral bill.

I guess my title was a bit misleading.

[FordGT90Concept]

56% oppose the healthcare bill, 42% favor. If this passes, it will be the first social bill to pass without public support.

If you compare that to political demographics, that pretty much means all Republicans oppose it, all Independents oppose it, and only Democrats support it. There are a few Independents left that support the bill but only a few percentage points.

[CyberDruid]

Pot is not a drug. It's a plant that humans have cultivated for thousands of years:this is a fact. It's not a wild plant or a weed: it's a cultivated crop. It's seed can be used for food and fuel. It's fiber can be used for textiles and paper. It's flowers can be used for pleasure, relaxation and in some cases as a palliative cure to alleviate such common ills as cramp, indigestion, mild nausea, depression. But primarily cannabis is a gift from God and is mainly helpful in tuning the human mind to appreciate what we so often overlook: that we are one.

Pills and other chemicals passed off as medicine often have the exact opposite effect.

So if you are adamant about making marijuana into some sort of regulated pill controlled by law, the sale of which fattens the coffers of some already hugely rich and powerful company you are on the wrong track.

Marijuana should not be some homogenized, codified substance any more than peyote or mushrooms or the other entheogens used by humans for much the same purpose. It should remain a highly variegated plant cultivated by hand by and for the people that choose to enjoy its many benefits.

Regulation is in my mind nothing short of opression.

Side note: is it really necessary to take every thread off track? Can we stick to the topic of the OP? If I want to watch Fox news I know where I left the remote.

[FordGT90Concept]

Cannabis is a "plant" and a "drug." The drug portion makes the plant illegal to grow.

[Wile E]

Cannabis is a "plant" and a "drug." The drug portion makes the plant illegal to grow.

Which is entirely stupid.

[erocker]

Cannabis is a "plant" and a "drug." The drug portion makes the plant illegal to grow.

Cannabis is a "plant" and a "happy fun time!" The happy fun time portion makes the plant fun to smoke!

They call it a drug, I don't. Whoever "they" is.

[jmcslob]

Cannabis is a "plant" and a "happy fun time!" The happy fun time portion makes the plant fun to smoke!

They call it a drug, I don't. Whoever "they" is.
yeah!:D

I'm allowed to grow it by Local Laws Up to 3 mature and any combination of "developing" plants as long as you are more than 1500' away from a school, It is illegal to grow the same plants By State Law with Intent to Distribute and County Law says Harvesting with intent to distribute is Illegal.

Also Locally you must have more than 7/8 ounces on your person before you get a misdemeanor which carries a $35 fine OR no more than 1/4 pound which is a misdemeanor and a $500 Fine with a no Court option to pay as long as you are more than 1500' away from a school, County....no worries Sheriff's here only act on Outstanding Warrants and State is More than 1/8 ounce carries misdemeanor charges with up to a $500 fine.

[FordGT90Concept]

Cannabis is a "plant" and a "happy fun time!" The happy fun time portion makes the plant fun to smoke!
It's fun to BASE jump off skyscrapers. That doesn't make it legal. It's fun to drive 120 MPH on a highway but, that also doesn't make it legal. Enjoyment is not a qualifier for legality.

[jmcslob]

It's fun to BASE jump off skyscrapers. That doesn't make it legal. It's fun to drive 120 MPH on a highway but, that also doesn't make it legal. Enjoyment is not a qualifier for legality.

If you had a cliff in your back yard or a ten mile flat on your property those things would be perfectly legal to do.. But it's not legal to grow Marijuana in most areas of the country or without a permit.

That's simply not fair

[Wile E]

It's fun to BASE jump off skyscrapers. That doesn't make it legal. It's fun to drive 120 MPH on a highway but, that also doesn't make it legal. Enjoyment is not a qualifier for legality.Just as something having mind altering capabilities is not a qualifier for illegality. That's a 2 way street my friend, and quite frankly, a terrible argument.

[SK-1]

Side note: is it really necessary to take every thread off track? Can we stick to the topic of the OP? If I want to watch Fox news I know where I left the remote.

Every post is, in one way or another, related to healthcare or pot. now get your remote.

[FordGT90Concept]

If you had a cliff in your back yard or a ten mile flat on your property those things would be perfectly legal to do.
I said "skyscraper" for a reason.

Buildings - illegal
Antennas - illegal
Span (bridges) - illegal with two exceptions (Perrine Bridge, Idaho and New River Gorge Bridge, West Virginia)
Earth (cliffs) - legal

You used the only exception of BASE jumping that is legal under most circumstances. "That is simply not fair."


Just as something having mind altering capabilities is not a qualifier for illegality. That's a 2 way street my friend, and quite frankly, a terrible argument.
Caffeine alter the mind by increasing alertness. It is legal because its effects (good and bad) are minor. Codeine, morphine, and cannabis are controlled substances because their effects are major (all cause euphoria and that effect can be habit forming).

"Medical Marijuana" is a joke. The FDA took samples to test for safety of marijuana marketed for "medicinal" purposes. The samples had traces of fecal matter, rat urine, among many other contagions. The FDA can't approve a plant for medical use--the product isn't consistent enough. They can, however, approve drugs manufactured from the active ingredients because the quality, effectiveness, and safety can be guaranteed within tight margins.

[Wile E]

I said "skyscraper" for a reason.

Buildings - illegal
Antennas - illegal
Span (bridges) - illegal with two exceptions (Perrine Bridge, Idaho and New River Gorge Bridge, West Virginia)
Earth (cliffs) - legal

You used the only exception of BASE jumping that is legal under most circumstances. "That is simply not fair."



Caffeine alter the mind by increasing alertness. It is legal because its effects (good and bad) are minor. Codeine, morphine, and cannabis are controlled substances because their effects are major (all cause euphoria and that effect can be habit forming).

"Medical Marijuana" is a joke. The FDA took samples to test for safety of marijuana marketed for "medicinal" purposes. The samples had traces of fecal matter, rat urine, among many other contagions. The FDA can't approve a plant for medical use--the product isn't consistent enough. They can, however, approve drugs manufactured from the active ingredients because the quality, effectiveness, and safety can be guaranteed within tight margins.Controlled is one thing. Outright banned is entirely different.

And everything you consume that comes prepackaged from a factory has fecal matter, rat urine, and a whole slew of other contaminates.

Marijuana doesn't need the consistency that other drugs need because it is not nearly as powerful. If it's too weak, you smoke more, if it's too strong, you smoke less. Pretty easy solution to me.

It's completely non-addictive and non-lethal. There's no reason for it's ban other than the govt has too hard of a time applying taxes to it because it's a plant anyone can grow. It's about money, nothing more.

[FordGT90Concept]

Banned == controlled. The context of a controlled substance (home use, special permits, manufacturing of medicine only, etc.) determines under what contexts it is banned. The company that makes Marinol, for example, has means to legally obtain the active ingredients to produce the drug. Likewise, Coca Cola has an agreement with the Stephan Company to provide a non-psychoactive portion of the coca plant which they use for flavoring of their beverages.


It may have those contagions on the exterior of the packaging and trace amounts inside. The important thing is that if people start getting sick, they can rapidly trace where the source is and fix the problem. That's the role of the FDA and that, coupled with the psychoactive properties of the buds means the FDA won't touch it.


It's not medicinal unless it is consistent.


It was originally banned to hinder the Hippie (counter-culture) movement along with a slew of other drugs.


We've been over all of this before and nothing has changed...

[SK-1]

"Medical Marijuana" is a joke.

Is it really so difficult to conceive of the possibility that this plant, like so many others, exists for a good reason?

You need to back your argument.

Please source this for all of us. I'm sure it will be from some Government run site:rolleyes:
I realize the government spends millions to brainwash ppl like yourself, but these days we have the luxury of the interwebs (and years of government LIES) to reinforce the truth.
I'll source what Doctors and real experts say....AKA facts.;)

All I ask is that you posts some links to teach us all of the medical dangers of the DEVIL WEED marijuana. In return, I'll spend the next week or so, posting legit studies from all over the world proving you wrong...okay?:)

Here is a quote from a peer reviewed study from THE INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE. Link---- http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/01/17/article/should_smoking_marijuana_be_a_medical_option

The most comprehensive review of the possible medical benefits of marijuana remains a book-length report, "Marijuana and Medicine," published in 1999 by the Institute of Medicine . The institute is part of the National Academies, agencies that advise the government on medicine and other sciences.

That report, co-authored by a researcher at Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, examined marijuana use with respect to five areas:
1. Pain, particularly nerve pain experienced by patients with AIDS and other diseases.
2. Nausea and vomiting, often experienced by chemotherapy patients.
3. Wasting syndrome and loss of appetite, often experienced by AIDS and cancer patients.
4. Neurological symptoms, including muscle spasticity and multiple sclerosis.
5. Glaucoma, excessive pressure in the fluid inside the eye. The condition can cause blindness.





Pot is SOOOOOOOOOOO dangerous.:eek: looks like other drugs kill @ a rate of 10,000 to NONE!
http://img.techpowerup.org/100110/Capture112.jpg

New Study Shows Medical Value of Marijuana
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/48322/

[Deusxmachina]

Caffeine alter the mind by increasing alertness. It is legal because its effects (good and bad) are minor.

I personally know two people in their 20s who had to go to the hospital due to drinking too much caffeine.

How many people have OD'd on marijuana again?

Say no to drugs (caffeine), kids!

[FordGT90Concept]

See here (http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html). It cites sources for all information provided. It even quotes your source:
There are also many long-term health consequences of marijuana use. According to the National Institutes of Health, studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.
And again:
Any determination of a drug's valid medical use must be based on the best available science undertaken by medical professionals. The Institute of Medicine conducted a comprehensive study in 1999 to assess the potential health benefits of marijuana and its constituent cannabinoids. The study concluded that smoking marijuana is not recommended for the treatment of any disease condition. In addition, there are more effective medications currently available. For those reasons, the Institute of Medicine concluded that there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication.
And again:
Advocates have promoted the use of marijuana to treat medical conditions such as glaucoma. However, this is a good example of more effective medicines already available. According to the Institute of Medicine, there are six classes of drugs and multiple surgical techniques that are available to treat glaucoma that effectively slow the progression of this disease by reducing high intraocular pressure.
I suggest everyone read that link from top to bottom. It explains everything as to why it remains illegal.



I personally know two people in their 20s who had to go to the hospital due to drinking too much caffeine.

How many people have OD'd on marijuana again?

Say no to drugs (caffeine), kids!
More likely, it wasn't the caffeine, it was the bucket of sugar mixed with the caffeine. You take on too much sugar too quickly and you are going to run into problems.

Marijuana kills through carcinogens, not overdose. Because it is psychoactive, it is also habit forming increasing the risk of contracting cancer. Marinol has no risk of causing cancer which is why it is FDA approved while marijuana is not.

[SK-1]

See here (http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html). It cites sources for all information provided. It even quotes your source:

Seriously?
Is this all you've got? You have to go to the Fox to get me some Chickens???
This will not do.

I said... no lairs allowed Ford. Get me some REAL info from some UNBIASED source.:D

[Deusxmachina]

More likely, it wasn't the caffeine, it was the bucket of sugar mixed with the caffeine. You take on too much sugar too quickly and you are going to run into problems.

The doctors said it was caffeine.

[FordGT90Concept]

Seriously?
Is this all you've got? You have to go to the Fox to get me some Chickens???
This will not do.

I said... no lairs allowed Ford. Get me some REAL info from some UNBIASED source.:D
Read it, the whole thing. They cite their sources including the National Institute of Drug Abuse, Washington Post, Washington Times, Institute of Medicine, New York Times, Mayo Clinic, and the National Transportation Safety Board.

It is real info that looks at the practicality of legalizing it and there simply isn't any. To quote it again:
It's also important to realize that the campaign to allow marijuana to be used as medicine is a tactical maneuver in an overall strategy to completely legalize all drugs. Pro-legalization groups have transformed the debate from decriminalizing drug use to one of compassion and care for people with serious diseases. The New York Times interviewed Ethan Nadelman, Director of the Lindesmith Center, in January 2000. Responding to criticism from former Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey that the medical marijuana issue is a stalking-horse for drug legalization, Mr. Nadelman did not contradict General McCaffrey. "Will it help lead toward marijuana legaization?" Mr. Nadelman said: "I hope so."
There's a crapload of noise (prolegalization of drugs) out there that overrides the science.


Just read it. It explains everything.



The doctors said it was caffeine.
Did they do blood tests do see if his/her insulin was way off?

I'm not saying some people don't suffer from adverse reactions to caffeine. The point is that of the hundreds of millions that frequently consume it, there's only a small portion that have any problems with it. Hence why it is legal. Not to mention, all the foods that contain caffeine naturally (e.g. coffee beans, cocoa beans)



Edit: Here's the PDF of Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base (http://www.medmjscience.org/Media/pdf/marimed.pdf). You (SK-1) cited it as being a "pro-marijuana" document when, in fact, it is the exact opposite. The recommendations say marijuana is a "crude delivery" system (pill form is required) but cannabinoids (including THC) need more research. To quote:
If there is any future for marijuana as a medicine, it lies in its isolated components, the cannabinoids and their synthetic derivatives. Isolated cannabinoids will provide more reliable effects than crude plant mixtures. Therefore, the purpose of clinical trials of smoked marijuana would not be to develop marijuana as a licensed drug, but such trials could be a first step towards the development of rapid-onset, nonsmoked cannabinoid delivery systems.
...meaning marijuana, the plant, must remain illegal but prescription meds derived from the plant (like Marinol) are recommended.


The final recommendation states that Marijuana should not be smoked for longer than six months and all the conditions required before marijuana should even be considered:
RECOMMENDATION 6: Short-term use of smoked marijuana (less than six months) for patients with debilitating symptoms (such as intractable pain or vomiting) must meet the following conditions:
failure of all approved medications to provide relief has been documented;
the symptoms can reasonably be expected to be relieved by rapid-onset cannabinoid drugs;
such treatment is administered under medical supervision in a manner that allows for assessment of treatment effectiveness;
and involves an oversight strategy comparable to an institutional review board process that could provide guidance within 24 hours of a submission by a physician to provide marijuana to a patient for a specified use.
The only way you'd get your marijuana is in a hospital environment.

[jmcslob]

See here (http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html). It cites sources for all information provided. It even quotes your source:

And again:

And again:

I suggest everyone read that link from top to bottom. It explains everything as to why it remains illegal.




More likely, it wasn't the caffeine, it was the bucket of sugar mixed with the caffeine. You take on too much sugar too quickly and you are going to run into problems.

Marijuana kills through carcinogens, not overdose. Because it is psychoactive, it is also habit forming increasing the risk of contracting cancer. Marinol has no risk of causing cancer which is why it is FDA approved while marijuana is not.

I agree that there are several cancer-causing chemicals in Marijuana Which is why DOCTORS prescribe it to be used VIA a VAPO machine which only releases The chemicals you need without the cancer-causing chemicals while leaving the harmful cancer-causing chemicals behind..

A Vapo also allows More control over the dose you take, by changing settings
I use my Vapo at 420F as i found that gives me the desired results without getting me HIGH Other setting can be applied for different ailments such as someone with MS would set it to 500F etc..etc..

[FordGT90Concept]

Vaporizers are a form of self medication no better than the drug itself. The dose is relative to the quality of the weed you got, the quantity you have, and how long you are exposed to the fumes. The fumes still contain the numerous carcinogens native to the plant. None of the above are measured in a self-medicating environment especially when the user is under the influence of a psychoactive drug hence, Marinol and research into other cannabinoids.

[SK-1]

I agree that there are several cancer-causing chemicals in Marijuana
And potentially, just as many Anti-carcinogens.
You wont hear much of this in the mainstream media because, America would fume at the shit they are shoveling into our throats.:)


Lung Cancer.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/marijuana-ingredient-cuts-lung-cancer-growth-spread-18538.html

The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.

WooooooooooooT!!!!(toast)(toast)

"The beauty of this study is that we are showing that a substance of abuse, if used prudently, may offer a new road to therapy against lung cancer," said Anju Preet, Ph.D., a researcher in the Harvard University Division of Experimental Medicine."

Brain tumors.
And what about killing off Cancerous Brain Tumors?
Straight from the American Association for Cancer Research.
“In both patients, VEGF levels in tumor extracts were lower after cannabinoid inoculation,” said Guzmán.

The results, he added, suggest a potential new approach toward the treatment of these otherwise intractable brain tumors.
http://www.aacr.org/home/public--media/aacr-press-releases/press-releases-2004.aspx?d=139

Once againis it really so difficult to conceive of the possibility that this plant, like soooo many others, exists for a good reason?:)

[SK-1]

Vaporizers are a form of self medication no better than the drug itself.
What? I don't speak your crazy moon-language.:p Or, I'm too stoned to understand.


The fumes still contain the numerous carcinogens native to the plant.
I need your independent spectrography lab proof. Serious. Or a link. Besides, Marijuana comes in many forms including drinks, candy bars, potato chips, pills, and the list goes on and on. So to say that Marijuana has damaging effects in general is ridiculous, what may be bad for you to smoke is completely fine for you to ingest.
Scientific studies of cannabis vaporiser usage....
All studies have found the release of harmful constituents dramatically reduced or completely eliminated!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporizer

None of the above are measured in a self-medicating environment
You'd never know unless you smoked pot.

[SK-1]

Read it, the whole thing. They cite their sources including the National Institute of Drug Abuse, Washington Post, Washington Times, Institute of Medicine, New York Times, Mayo Clinic, and the National Transportation Safety Board.


I did. No offence, but I almost chuckled a bit while reading it.'Reefer Madness' 2.0 is what it is. My god...even Consumer Reports disagrees with "facts" you seem to adhere to.
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/health/2008/03/study-marijuana.html
And its all old (10 years plus) and for the most part, debunked. Medicine can leap quantum's from year to year, yet you source this out dated material to support your entire argument? Hmmm. If you were ill, would you use information over a decade old? I'd want the most up to date research.

Some fresh new stuff.
04 Dec 2006...Study says marijuana no gateway drug
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/study-say-marijuana-no-gateway-drug-12116.html

[FordGT90Concept]

Or a link.
Marijuana Smoke Contains Higher Levels Of Certain Toxins Than Tobacco Smoke (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071217110328.htm)
Growing Evidence Of Marijuana Smoke's Potential Dangers (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090805110741.htm)
Cigarette and Marijuana Smoke Hurts Young Lungs (http://family.samhsa.gov/talk/cigarette.aspx)
Calif regulators find pot smoke causes cancer (http://pda.physorg.com/_news164687602.html)
Studies Show Harmful Impacts of Smoking Marijuana (http://www.senaterepublicans.ct.gov/press/boucher/2009/062309.html)
etc.


My god...even Consumer Reports disagrees with "facts" you seem to adhere to.
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/health/2008/03/study-marijuana.html
And again, you fail to read what you post: "Pain relief is emerging as a potential use for marijuana—although one new study published in the journal Anesthesiology found that too strong a dose can actually worsen pain." It later talks about lung damage: "Long-term use of marijuana can expose users to a significant risk of lung damage." Recall that NIH said smoking marijuana should only be done for "less than six months."


Some fresh new stuff.
04 Dec 2006...Study says marijuana no gateway drug
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/study-say-marijuana-no-gateway-drug-12116.html
That study only included tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana where marijuana would be the "gateway drug" to tobacco and/or alcohol. That's some dumbass research there because marijuana, being a controlled substance, qualifies tobacco and alcohol as being gateway drugs to marijuana. Even that is silly because marijuana is a different type of drug altogether. What is known (as per the DoJ site) those that have done hardcore drugs (cocaine, heroin, methaphedamine, etc.) have, at one point, used marijuana making it a gateway drug. Cocaine is 104 times more effective when used in conjunction with marijuana so even those that do hard drugs may also use marijuana in tandem.

Back to the point, that study is a useless one.



And please, stop linking to blogs. Anyone and anything can get published on a blog.

[CyberDruid]

I think you'll find it a lot easier to bash Obama than pot...at least on GN :D

[erocker]

I need some healthcare marijuana today. :( I drank way too much last night and I'm surprised I'm coherent today. I need some damn pot to fix this.(poop)

[jmcslob]

I need some healthcare marijuana today. :( I drank way too much last night and I'm surprised I'm coherent today. I need some damn pot to fix this.(poop)

True that....

Pot is a great Hangover cure...

Helps from feeling sick all day...
Gives you cotton mouth so you drink fluids to rehydrate....

:D

here Ford watch this ( i think I have posted this b4)
a9luNVYlT_E

[FordGT90Concept]

I cannot find any reputable studies that show inhaled fumes from a vaporizer does not contain carcinogens. Yes, vaporizors reduce the toxicity (http://hightimes.com/news/ht_admin/2177) of the fumes but there is no evidence to suggest that they "eliminate" those toxins.

[jmcslob]

And TBH I don't believe that you will ever find a reputable Study in THIS country @least until CA proves that you can control the trafficking of Marijuana While ensuring Taxes are being collected.

They already have but there needs to be a long term positive effect documented.

Honestly this is more about money than it is about a danger to public Health



Oh yeah in the Video he says something about the effects with a Vapo is different from smoking (or eating)
What he means is you don't get stoned..... You get a brief Buzz that lasts about 20 minutes then you simply get relief from whatever ailment..
I do like to smoke it However I generally don't use to get HIGH.....I usually only get high on the weekends

[jmcslob]

And potentially, just as many Anti-carcinogens.
You wont hear much of this in the mainstream media because, America would fume at the shit they are shoveling into our throats.:)


Lung Cancer.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/marijuana-ingredient-cuts-lung-cancer-growth-spread-18538.html

The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.

WooooooooooooT!!!!(toast)(toast)

"The beauty of this study is that we are showing that a substance of abuse, if used prudently, may offer a new road to therapy against lung cancer," said Anju Preet, Ph.D., a researcher in the Harvard University Division of Experimental Medicine."

Brain tumors.
And what about killing off Cancerous Brain Tumors?
Straight from the American Association for Cancer Research.
“In both patients, VEGF levels in tumor extracts were lower after cannabinoid inoculation,” said Guzmán.

The results, he added, suggest a potential new approach toward the treatment of these otherwise intractable brain tumors.
http://www.aacr.org/home/public--media/aacr-press-releases/press-releases-2004.aspx?d=139

Once againis it really so difficult to conceive of the possibility that this plant, like soooo many others, exists for a good reason?:)
TBH the only anti cancer Info I have ever heard is that Marijuana actually cures Several types of SMALL CELL BRAIN CANCER.....

http://article.wn.com/view/2010/01/07/Marijuana_components_fight_brain_cancer/?template=wnamerica%2Fmediumphoto.txt


WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I did not expect to find this!
http://www.thenhf.com/articles/articles_659/articles_659.htm

[erocker]

I want marijuana legal for recreational use. I could care less if it cures cancer (even more of a reason to legalize it) if it actually does. Anyways, not my point.

Why in this country can't we use something called common sense instead of law? The way we are going about it now, just from a recreational use standpoint is "NO, it's wrong and illegal." That just doesn't get it done. We as citizens of the United States have things like freedom, individuality and the understanding that in a free country we have the unalienable rights to make our own decisions ingrained within our beings. Yet the choices of something as trivial as smoking pot or not, is limited to not. Education, not condemnation is the answer. Perhaps we'll have to wait for every tree to be cut down before we turn back to hemp as a reliable and renewable source of product. Perhaps we will have to lock up every pot dealer and user before we realize it's simply not worth this. And what is it worth to keep pot illegal? Billions and billions of dollars controlled by few men who's financial interest is not to have it legal. Barry (fictional name) is a great guy, wife, kids and a good job. Barry though he was helping out a friend by selling him a dime bag. Friend was a cop, Barry goes to prison. Chain of command cop-->government-->corporations that pay for elected officials to run the government. We live in a country that is dictated by corporations. A communal dictatorship.

[jmcslob]

NJ just passed medical Marijuana

I want it leagalized in Ohio NOW!!!
I should not have to drive to Michigan to get my prescription it's a 2 1/5 hour drive

[SK-1]

That study only included tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana where marijuana would be the "gateway drug" to tobacco and/or alcohol.

So your saying that people go from pot to heroin lol

[FordGT90Concept]

Far more likely, if not doing them both at the same time.

[jmcslob]

I no...LOL

People that end up doing crack heroin etc.. would have regardless of what other drugs there are...

[CyberDruid]

If you think Pot is a drug walk into a Narc-Anon meeting and stand up in front of all the recovering addicts and say: "I'm *** and I have an addiction to marijuana" and see if they start laughing or not :D

[FordGT90Concept]

Why would they go to a "Narc-Anon" meeting when they could attend a Marijuana Anonymous (http://www.marijuana-anonymous.org/) meeting?

[jmcslob]

Anybody that thinks Marijuana is addictive needs to Smoke a Doober.....LOL

I'm out Now I'm getting more tomorrow...Northern Lights actually

The thing is next to lower Abdominal Pain That is caused from something else I have no withdraw symptoms..

If I could find something that worked as well as Marijuana I'd use it...

I've tried several treatments, some even showed signs of liver damage in blood work not to mention most of the treatments that modern Medicine could offer me Are addictive or do damage elsewhere and Marinol is somewhat effective but puts me to sleep and makes me Paranoid....

Until Medicine catches up to like 40 million years of evolution I'll just stick to the plant.

I need to keep my wits about throughout the day i can't be doped up on "Modern Medicine" For me it's honestly just that simple.

I honestly cannot understand why Marijuana is illegal...

I was watching Divorce Court and the Judge actually told some dude to quit drinking and start smoking pot.. Seriously.. She said you never hear about potheads getting all upity like people get when they drink they just stay calm and think they're way through things.

And like Erocker said we need common sense not Laws...

We need to punish people for causing Harm.. I honestly don't care if crack was legal....
it's peoples actions that harm others that need punished....

Such as driving while intoxicated=death etc.. etc.. and not smoking pot inside your house watching TV and not harming anyone



Ford have you ever smoked pot?

[DaMulta]

Marijuana is addictive.......took me years to stop, and I still want too smoke it every day.

[CyberDruid]

Anything is addictive if you have an addictive personality bro. Ask Dr. Phil. It's like squeezing the lump from one end to the other in the tube of toothpaste...the lump is still there. It might shift from Homebrew Meth to Nicotine or from Pot to Sex or Online Purchasing or whatever...but the same weird fixated behaviour persists.

I'm addicted to taters and eggs. I have to have them or I won't feel right all day. If I don't get my taters watch out.

[FordGT90Concept]

I've tried several treatments, some even showed signs of liver damage in blood work not to mention most of the treatments that modern Medicine could offer me Are addictive or do damage elsewhere and Marinol is somewhat effective but puts me to sleep and makes me Paranoid....
Which proves more research is needed into the active ingredients of marijuana.


But, that doesn't really matter. There's already drugs on the market that do a better job at treating pain, nausea, appetite control, MS, and glaucoma. A marijuana-derived drug would only supplement existing drugs. Regardless, from the health standpoint, there is no reason to legalize marijuana, the plant.

[Wile E]

Which proves more research is needed into the active ingredients of marijuana.


But, that doesn't really matter. There's already drugs on the market that do a better job at treating pain, nausea, appetite control, MS, and glaucoma. A marijuana-derived drug would only supplement existing drugs. Regardless, from the health standpoint, there is no reason to legalize marijuana, the plant.

Did you even read his post? None of those other drugs worked, and those that did were not better, or had harmful side effects. How exactly does that make them better than pot?

Like said previously, numerous times, there is no reason for pot to be illegal in the first place. Whether or not it's used for medicinal purposes is irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is, you are just too stubborn to realize it's a money issue, not a public health issue.

[FordGT90Concept]

Confirmation bias for two reasons:

1) People who have used marijuana in the past are more likely to ask a doctor to write a prescription for marijuana simply to legalize their use (recreational or otherwise). They do not want the other known-to-be-effective treatments because it makes obtaining marijuana more complicated.

2) Bad doctors (often have used, or use marijuana themselves) who are quick to prescribe a federally illegal drug even though it is not a safe means to treat any condition (as study after study showed).


Like I said previously, marijuana has psychoactive properties. That is the only reason needed to be controlled/restricted.


Money issue for who? Again, let's lay down the facts:
-In 1999, 60% of teen admissions to substance abuse facilities were for marijuana.
-In 1990, Marijuana caused as many motor vehicle accidents as alcohol (12.5%).
-40% of adult males arrested test positive for marijuana.

The drug is costing society a lot of money in the law enforcment, addiction treatment, education, and healthcare departments. In my opinion, we are not spending enough on specifically targeting marijuana use. We especially have to make sure that marijuana is in, and emphasized, in drug abuse classes at schools; moreover, parents must be educated that odds are, their children have at least tried marijuana and it is their duty to bring it up in the drug abuse talk.

[jmcslob]

Did you even read his post? None of those other drugs worked, and those that did were not better, or had harmful side effects. How exactly does that make them better than pot?

Like said previously, numerous times, there is no reason for pot to be illegal in the first place. Whether or not it's used for medicinal purposes is irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is, you are just too stubborn to realize it's a money issue, not a public health issue.
TBH I think it would be easier for him to swallow if there were not people like me that say it has health benefits and instead simply said I just want to smoke it, I prefer it's buzz over Alcohol's, but because people like me say it actually has Health benefits He thinks it's just an addiction talking and cannot except that it's just not that bad in general


"Marijuana @least it's not Crack"

[jmcslob]

Confirmation bias for two reasons:

1) People who have used marijuana in the past are more likely to ask a doctor to write a prescription for marijuana simply to legalize their use (recreational or otherwise). They do not want the other known-to-be-effective treatments because it makes obtaining marijuana more complicated.

2) Bad doctors (often have used, or use marijuana themselves) who are quick to prescribe a federally illegal drug even though it is not a safe means to treat any condition (as study after study showed).


Like I said previously, marijuana has psychoactive properties. That is the only reason needed to be controlled/restricted.


Money issue for who? Again, let's lay down the facts:
-In 1999, 60% of teen admissions to substance abuse facilities were for marijuana.
-In 1990, Marijuana caused as many motor vehicle accidents as alcohol (12.5%).
-40% of adult males arrested test positive for marijuana.

The drug is costing society a lot of money in the law enforcment, addiction treatment, education, and healthcare departments. In my opinion, we are not spending enough on specifically targeting marijuana use. We especially have to make sure that marijuana is in, and emphasized, in drug abuse classes at schools; moreover, parents must be educated that odds are, their children have at least tried marijuana and it is their duty to bring it up in the drug abuse talk.Honestly what percentage of those people were arrested for POT...

The cost of POT related prison terms and lost Taxes not being collected is what he is talking about

EDIT: Pot car accidents are not like Alcohol car Accidents....seriously...

LOL
ok Alcohol you rear end somebody you were going 45mph

LOL pot
you rear end sombody you were going 2mph

[Wile E]

Confirmation bias for two reasons:

1) People who have used marijuana in the past are more likely to ask a doctor to write a prescription for marijuana simply to legalize their use (recreational or otherwise). They do not want the other known-to-be-effective treatments because it makes obtaining marijuana more complicated.

2) Bad doctors (often have used, or use marijuana themselves) who are quick to prescribe a federally illegal drug even though it is not a safe means to treat any condition (as study after study showed).


Like I said previously, marijuana has psychoactive properties. That is the only reason needed to be controlled/restricted.


Money issue for who? Again, let's lay down the facts:
-In 1999, 60% of teen admissions to substance abuse facilities were for marijuana.
-In 1990, Marijuana caused as many motor vehicle accidents as alcohol (12.5%).
-40% of adult males arrested test positive for marijuana.

The drug is costing society a lot of money in the law enforcment, addiction treatment, education, and healthcare departments. In my opinion, we are not spending enough on specifically targeting marijuana use. We especially have to make sure that marijuana is in, and emphasized, in drug abuse classes at schools; moreover, parents must be educated that odds are, their children have at least tried marijuana and it is their duty to bring it up in the drug abuse talk.
It only costs law enforcement money because it is illegal. Take away it's illegality and a major portion of the money spent on preventing it's use is suddenly freed to use elsewhere.

How many of those 60% of teens were forced to go rehab by a judge? And what are the odds the judge had no idea that marijuana is 100% non-addictive in a physical dependency sense?

In 1990? Really? 1990? That's your evidence? And what does it matter anyway? Make marijuana legal, but make it illegal to drive while under the influence, same as alcohol.

And out of those 40% arrested, how many were specifically targeted for suspected drug use? If you make the drugs legal, I'm willing to bet many of those wouldn't have been arrested in the first place, and those that would have been can't be blamed on drug use.

Sorry, you have not yet stated a compelling reason that pot should be illegal, nor have you provided any real, non-biased, non-propaganda evidence. Conditions on use , much like alcohol, are all the regulations that should be on marijuana. The only reason it isn't not legal in that capacity is because the govt can't control people growing it and regulate it's taxation easily, not to mention the money to be had from lobbyists.

[jmcslob]

Where pot is legal it is purchased....

PotHeads can be lazy and quite paranoid that there plants wont make it....

[FordGT90Concept]

A few things...

1) Drug tests can pick up the presence of marijuana 7-30 days (http://www.collegegrad.com/jobsearch/New-Job-Preparation/Drug-Testing-And-Other-Possible-Conditions-Of-Employment/) after it was used.

2) Alcohol can quickly be tested in the field using a breathalyzer. Marijuana, until recently, could only be tested via urine samples. (http://www.drugalcoholtest.com/) Evidence must be forthcoming with criminal felonies and it rarely presents itself without being possession of the plant, drug, or paraphernalia.

3) Again, once you stop fighting (e.g. alcohol) the cost to society skyrockets. It is easy to monetize a law enforcement budget but it is not easy to monetize every facet of effect a psychoactive drug has on society. Some cases are priceless (like absentee parenting).

4) Drug abuse (marijuana included) creates serious academic problems. (http://teenadvice.about.com/od/marijuanause/a/marijana1.htm)

5) Studies are rare for marijuana because it is illegal making it pointless to research. Research that has been conducted had the same conclusions as to why it is illegal in the first place thereby making further research a bad place to spend research dollars (unless you are a pharmaceutical).

6) How is it biased and how is it propaganda? Show me information, from a reputable source, that proves it is biased then. Reliable information on this subject is hard to come by.

7) Where pot is illegal it is purchased. That is the trademark of a drug abuser.

[Wile E]

Sigh. This gets old. You may be content to have your govt tell you what to do with your body, but I am not. You haven't been able to quantify anything you claim via a reliable source. All of your law enforcement examples go out the window if you make marijuana legal. I don't even like or smoke pot. I kinda hate it actually, but I'll be damned if the govt should have the right to tell me not to do it. It's not even a matter of medicinal properties, it's a matter of personal freedom.

And I'd like to see proof that drugs being legal costs more money than enforcing them being illegal. Quite frankly, there is no logic in that statement at all, and I flatly don't believe your claim. The drugs will be used whether legal or not. How is removing the expense or enforcement going to cost us more money, considering the same people that want to do pot are going to do it legal or not? As for absentee parenting, that's not the drug's fault, that's the user's fault. They would likely abuse the drug legal or not. The fact that it is so widespread despite it being illegal is proof enough of that. The acts of a few should not be used against the many.

Points 1, 5, and 7 are nullified with the legalization of marijuana.

As far as point 6, anything affiliated with a govt institution or anti-drug institution is biased. Plain and simple. How about some peer reviewed scientific studies from places that pot is legal?

[DaMulta]

They should just let everything be legal across the board.

9SKFwtgUJHs

The song tells it how it should be.

[FordGT90Concept]

You haven't been able to quantify anything you claim via a reliable source.
Nor have you.


And I'd like to see proof that drugs being legal costs more money than enforcing them being illegal.
Read point #3 again.


The drugs will be used whether legal or not.
There is a vast drop in usage when something is illegal versus when it is not. There are fewer marijuana users than there are those that are on codeine (prescription required). Likewise, there are fewer on codeine than ibuprofen (over the counter). Economics have a lot to do with this as well: because marijuana is illegal, it inflates its value making it expensive--in order for people to feed their habit, they have to pay dearly for it. That pretty much eliminates 20%+ (low/no income) of the population from even buying it. The only way they can get it is from someone else. The fewer the buyers and suppliers, the easier it is to contain.


Points 1, 5, and 7 are nullified with the legalization of marijuana.
#1 and #7 are not nullified.

#1 shows how long THC lingers in the body. For urine tests, it can remain present up to 30 days. For hair tests, it can be detected three years (http://www.concept420.com/how-long-does-marijuana-stay-system.htm) later. Even if marijuana were made illegal, you'd still fail drug tests if you are trying to get a new job.

#2 The economic and social problems from marijuana abuse would remain regardless if marijuana were legal or illegal. You're still going to have kids with crappy grades from drug abuse, you're still going to have interventions, you're still going to have accidents, and you're still going to have people under the influence of marijuana using emergency services (including emergency room visits). History tells us those occurance are likely to increase following legalization.


How about some peer reviewed scientific studies from places that pot is legal?
Find one for me.

[Wile E]

Nor have you.



Read point #3 again.


There is a vast drop in usage when something is illegal versus when it is not. There are fewer marijuana users than there are those that are on codeine (prescription required). Likewise, there are fewer on codeine than ibuprofen (over the counter). Economics have a lot to do with this as well: because marijuana is illegal, it inflates its value making it expensive--in order for people to feed their habit, they have to pay dearly for it. That pretty much eliminates 20%+ (low/no income) of the population from even buying it. The only way they can get it is from someone else. The fewer the buyers and suppliers, the easier it is to contain.



#1 and #7 are not nullified.

#1 shows how long THC lingers in the body. For urine tests, it can remain present up to 30 days. For hair tests, it can be detected three years (http://www.concept420.com/how-long-does-marijuana-stay-system.htm) later. Even if marijuana were made illegal, you'd still fail drug tests if you are trying to get a new job.

#2 The economic and social problems from marijuana abuse would remain regardless if marijuana were legal or illegal. You're still going to have kids with crappy grades from drug abuse, you're still going to have interventions, you're still going to have accidents, and you're still going to have people under the influence of marijuana using emergency services (including emergency room visits). History tells us those occurance are likely to increase following legalization.



Find one for me.I read point 3. It's just wrong. Absentee parenting, and other things of that nature happen whether the drug is legal or not. There is no evidence to suggest that these things increase with legality. On the other hand, there is evidence that suggests law enforcement costs would decline a great deal.

Point 1 is still nullified, as it being in your system is no longer against the law or policy. Employer drug tests don't disqualify you for vicodin being in your system, for example, because it is legal.

Point 7 made no sense to me to begin with. You need to explain that, as I must be misreading it.

As far as number 2, who cares? If you are referring to it for purposes of something along the lines of a DUI check, that's what sobriety tests are for, and if that's inconclusive, they can transport you to the hospital for testing. If it isn't in reference to DUI's, what difference does it make if pot is in your system if you get caught committing a crime?

As an example of how horrible places are that legalized pot, look no further than The Netherlands. Seems to have hurt them a great deal. :rolleyes:

Seriously, your views are archaic and anti personal freedom. Why can't you see this? Why can't you see the govt has no place in our personal lives, so long as what we are doing doesn't hurt others? I should be allowed to do whatever I want to my body, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. If I get high and drive a car, then yeah, I should be punished. If I get high and sit on my couch and relax, nobody should have the right to bother me about it.

[FordGT90Concept]

Point 1 is still nullified, as it being in your system is no longer against the law or policy. Employer drug tests don't disqualify you for vicodin being in your system, for example, because it is legal.
False. Common employement drug tests will detect codeine which are legal (Vicodin contains codeine). Some places will also test for ethanol (alcohol):
http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/testing/testing_info1.shtml


Point 7 made no sense to me to begin with. You need to explain that, as I must be misreading it.
It was a response to jmcslob's "where pot is legal it is purchased." So long as there is demand and supply, it will be purchased legal or not.


If it isn't in reference to DUI's, what difference does it make if pot is in your system if you get caught committing a crime?
The drug may have influenced you in some way to commit the crime.


As an example of how horrible places are that legalized pot, look no further than The Netherlands. Seems to have hurt them a great deal. :rolleyes:
They have 18% of the population of the USA, far less ethnic diversity, and far fewer drivers per capita. There's really no comparison.


Seriously, your views are archaic and anti personal freedom. Why can't you see this? Why can't you see the govt has no place in our personal lives, so long as what we are doing doesn't hurt others? I should be allowed to do whatever I want to my body, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. If I get high and drive a car, then yeah, I should be punished. If I get high and sit on my couch and relax, nobody should have the right to bother me about it.
We've been over that before. If you want to use drugs, Uncle Sam can't stop you but you'll have to suffer the consequences if you are caught.

[Wile E]

False. Common employement drug tests will detect codeine which are legal (Vicodin contains codeine). Some places will also test for ethanol (alcohol):
http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/testing/testing_info1.shtml Oh come on! That's drug testing for driving. Of course it's illegal to drive under the influence of drugs, as it should be. Regular jobs don't test for codeine or hydrocodone.

It was a response to jmcslob's "where pot is legal it is purchased." So long as there is demand and supply, it will be purchased legal or not. Which is true. So what's thenpoint of the comment tho?

The drug may have influenced you in some way to commit the crime.Bullshit. Drugs don't make a person commit crimes unless they were already predisposed to commit crimes. The person is at fault, not the drug. Marijuana especially.

They have 18% of the population of the USA, far less ethnic diversity, and far fewer drivers per capita. There's really no comparison.Doesn't matter, the point still remains.

We've been over that before. If you want to use drugs, Uncle Sam can't stop you but you'll have to suffer the consequences if you are caught.
Uncle sam has no right to punish us for drug use if we aren't hurting anyone. Flat out banning drugs is morally wrong.

[FordGT90Concept]

Oh come on! That's drug testing for driving. Of course it's illegal to drive under the influence of drugs, as it should be. Regular jobs don't test for codeine or hydrocodone.
Depends on your definition of "regular." In the end, it is the employer's decision whether or not to require drug testing to get a job.


Bullshit. Drugs don't make a person commit crimes unless they were already predisposed to commit crimes. The person is at fault, not the drug. Marijuana especially.
"Make" is not the right term, "influence" is. People do things under the influence that they wouldn't do otherwise. The person is at fault for the crime and being under the influence. Prosecuters charge them for both, if possible.


Uncle sam has no right to punish us for drug use if we aren't hurting anyone. Flat out banning drugs is morally wrong.
Only the abuser ever makes that claim. They are in no position to quantify who they are and are not hurting. That's why a third party (family members, intervention groups, authorities, etc.) has to step in--much like social workers into a dysfunctional family.

And seriously, if you aren't hurting someone, how would the authorities ever find out you were using it in your house? Making it illegal means it is harder and more expensive to obtain--why make it easy?

[Wile E]

Depends on your definition of "regular." In the end, it is the employer's decision whether or not to require drug testing to get a job.



"Make" is not the right term, "influence" is. People do things under the influence that they wouldn't do otherwise. The person is at fault for the crime and being under the influence. Prosecuters charge them for both, if possible.



Only the abuser ever makes that claim. They are in no position to quantify who they are and are not hurting. That's why a third party (family members, intervention groups, authorities, etc.) has to step in--much like social workers into a dysfunctional family.

And seriously, if you aren't hurting someone, how would the authorities ever find out you were using it in your house? Making it illegal means it is harder and more expensive to obtain--why make it easy?
I don't use drugs at all, let alone abuse them, yet I still make that claim. I don't even drink. The last time I took a drug, it was prescribed to me from my dentist after I had oral surgery about 6 months ago.

Why make it illegal in the first place? There's no reason for it not to be easy to obtain for a full grown adult. We don't need a nanny govt. telling us whjat to do with our bodies. If you want the govt to tell you what you can and cannot do to yourself, move to a nanny state like the UK. I don't want that here.

This isn't about the drugs at all. Like I said, I don't use them. This is about the govt minding their own business, the way it's meant to be.

[FordGT90Concept]

1) It is a psychoactive drug
2) It is a plant

Name one plant (except salvia, which should be illegal, and tobacco, which is heading towards illegal status) that meets both of those requirements that isn't illegal.


Every behavior that is known to be hazardous is either a criminal offense (reckless endangerment, DWI, etc.) or heavily regulated (standards for working on skyscrapers, requirements for entering a hazardous environment, cleanliness requirements for handling meat, etc.). Why should marijuana be the exception?

Government's business is to protect the interests of majority.


As discovered earlier in this thread, we'll never agree on this subject.

[MT Alex]

Government's business is to protect the interests of majority.

Still banging that old drum, Ford? How many times do we have to go through this? Our government was set up to protect the rights of the individual. Period. Read some primary source history. This doesn't include About.com. Governments who's ideology favored that of majority include the ex Soviet Union and China.

As discovered earlier, we'll never agree on this subject.

[FordGT90Concept]

When the subject isn't rights, sure. When the subject is rights, the majority rules with limitations imposed by the Constitution. The Constitution does not make mention of drug trafficking nor abuse so the majority rules.

When the legalization of marijuana appears on the general election ballot and it wins, then I'll just have to suck it up. Until then, no marijuana for anyone.

[SK-1]

When the legalization of marijuana appears on the general election ballot and it wins, then I'll just have to suck it up. Until then, no marijuana for anyone.

he he baby steps
Puff, Puff, Pass: Ammiano's Pot Bill Clears Assembly Committee

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/01/puff_puff_pass_ammianos_pot_bi.php

[SK-1]

Like I said previously, marijuana has psychoactive properties. That is the only reason needed to be controlled/restricted.


So do Nicotine and Alcohol, yet I can buy both of these proven killers.

More medical marijuana BS

Some more nonsense from doctors.
Victorian doctors want approval to use marijuana for MS sufferers
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/doctors-want-approval-to-use-marijuana-to-help-treat-victorians-suffering-multiple-sclerosis/story-e6frf7l6-1225819634616

Just a useless weed..
Marijuana Compounds Could Beat Back Brain Cancer
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/health/marijuana-compounds-could-beat-back-brain-cancer-173195.html

[FordGT90Concept]

So do Nicotine and Alcohol, yet I can buy both of these proven killers.
They are both restricted. Alcohol can be made from just about anything so it is effectively impossible to ban. Tobacco (which is the primary source of nicotine), on the other hands, (as stated previously) is moving in that direction.

Would an alcohol ban today work? Most likely. The reason why prohibition didn't work is because more cities were controlled by the mob than by elected officials. That isn't the case today so enforcement would be more effective.


http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/01/puff_puff_pass_ammianos_pot_bi.php
That's a committee of only 7 members. It takes a lot more than that to legalize it. We're talking about California as well--they are bankrupt and looking for any excuse to increase/add taxes to make up their 20 billion budget short falls.


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/doctors-want-approval-to-use-marijuana-to-help-treat-victorians-suffering-multiple-sclerosis/story-e6frf7l6-1225819634616

The push to trial a liquid marijuana-based mouth spray to ease the symptoms and pain of MS sufferers is being led by a doctor from the Royal Melbourne Hospital's neurology department.
Not the plant.


http://www.palmbeachpost.com/health/marijuana-compounds-could-beat-back-brain-cancer-173195.html

But the findings shouldn't send patients rushing to buy pot: the levels used in the research appear to be too high to obtain through smoking. And there's no sign yet that the approach works in laboratory animals, let alone people.
Again, we need cannabinoid drugs available and legalized, we don't need to make the plant legal.

[MT Alex]

Would an alcohol ban today work? Most likely. The reason why prohibition didn't work is because more cities were controlled by the mob than by elected officials. That isn't the case today so enforcement would be more effective.

What the? No mob today? Elected officials not swayed by graft today? Wow, have you been imbibing? The ban on drugs has turned out so well, just like prohibition, hasn't it? What country are you living in?

OK, enough rhetorical questions.(toast)

[jmcslob]

So you would be cool with
little Debbie Special Green Brownies but not Buds

I'm smokin a big fatty right now...Cough...Cough...yeah!!!

http://img.techpowerup.org/100117/01-17-10_0242.jpg
bad Bowl picture sorry......(for all intents and purposes it was empty) **cough**BULLSHIT***COUGH

[SK-1]

Not the plant.



Yes it is, and you've contradicted yourself.:p Is a petroleum based product not oil?
Watch the before and after.

XLpJMacS8c8


And whotf cares about the too high to obtain through smoking part???

[SK-1]

Alcohol can be made from just about anything so it is effectively impossible to ban.


Would an alcohol ban today work? Most likely.

I think there's a problem with your drive geometry. Either that or you just smoked a bong.

[FordGT90Concept]

Yes, a conundrum there. Let me clarify: Prohibition didn't work in the early 1900s because put money directly into the pockets of the mafia and other crime bosses through speakeasies. Conditions are different almost 100 years later so prohibition would be met with greater success than it did back then. Would it be effective? Most likely. The question is: how effective? I don't know.



The ban on drugs has turned out so well, just like prohibition, hasn't it?
I think it is going just swell. The market value of illegal drugs alone proves that. The more expensive the drug, the more risky it is to manufacture and distribute.


So you would be cool with
little Debbie Special Green Brownies but not Buds
No, that's just baked marijuana. It isn't the refined, measured active ingredient which qualifies for FDA approval. It is only as consistent as the marijuana that is used.


Yes it is, and you've contradicted yourself.:p Is a petroleum based product not oil?
No, oil is composed of varying lengths of hydrocarbon compounds. The really light stuff (short chains) could be processed into asprin and sold with FDA approval. The heavy stuff (long chains) is sold as lubricant or cracked into smaller chains. Coca leaves, for example, are like oil in your analogy. They are purchased by the Stephen Company whom breaks it down like what refineries do. Stephen Company then sells certain extracts to Coca-Cola for their beverages and other portions go to pharmaceuticals to make drugs.

It is illegal to build a refinery just anywhere, nor is it legal to import coca leaves without explicit approval from the government. You need permits. Marijuana is exactly the same: if you are going to break the weed down into ingredients for domestic use, you need a permit to create the refinery to refine it and approval from the FTC to trade it.

By restricting who can process it is no different than border and airport security. You force the product through choke points which are much easier to regulate.


Watch the before and after.
Again, that only means research is needed. It in no way means people should be lighting up.


And whotf cares about the too high to obtain through smoking part???
It meant they didn't use marijuana. They used a refined product taken via specific method. Something that could be approved by the FDA and sold as a drug.

[jmcslob]

No, that's just baked marijuana. It isn't the refined, measured active ingredient which qualifies for FDA approval. No they can reduce it to a fatty oil and measure Levels precisely just like they do with Cola and tea products

[FordGT90Concept]

Some of what you are missing:
-Safe distribution (the active ingredient won't leak or leech and whether or not it is a biohazard or fire hazard).
-Easy delivery method.
-Delivery method that releases at a rate which most effectively treats the ailment.
-Studies proving the amount of active ingredient given with the prescribed delivery method is effective.
-Studies proving that all the above is safe including a list of side effects.
-A means to mass produce the approved drug with minimal variation from one drug to the next.
-A means to monitor distribution of a given lot number of drugs in case of recall.


Breaking a raw plant down into separate components is only the beginning of obtaining FDA approval.

[jmcslob]

-Delivery* Chocolate...No pun intended CoCoa Butter has a known release rate...Instant
-Studies i'll volunteer I bet SK-1 will too
-Side Effects.. Relaxation,Calmness, Sense of Humor, Becomes caring
-Mass production*Again with the chocolate
-Monitor *Tax stamp like those on Cigs and a standard batch #



CoCoa Butter...1 cup Cocoa butter 1/4 weed heat at 190f 30 minutes you get roughly 1 cup 5.9%thc Butter

[FordGT90Concept]

-Delivery* Chocolate...No pun intended CoCoa Butter has a known release rate...Instant
Instant isn't necessarily good for treating most conditions. If it is safe, you'd want a delayed release so the desired effects of the drug would last 12 hours or more without any severe...


-Side Effects.. Relaxation,Calmness, Sense of Humor, Becomes caring
In your case, those are desired effects. Side effects include threshold for overdose (known safe quantity), cancer through carcinogens, respiration problems, and the whole nine yards (everything potentially caused by the drug must be documented).


-Mass production*Again with the chocolate
Too many calories, as portable as a rapid-release or delayed-release capsule, and decays rapidly. Your brownies also don't have enough active ingredient (THC) to be of any help with most medical conditions. Most likely, THC isn't even the compound in marijuana responsible for anti-carcinogen properties--it is something else. More research is needed.


CoCoa Butter...1 cup Cocoa butter 1/4 weed heat at 190f 30 minutes you get roughly 1 cup 5.9%thc Butter
"Roughly" isn't accurate enough for a prescription. Would a pharmacy carry marijuana brownies? No.

[DaMulta]

A marijuana pharmacy carries brownies in California:p

[MT Alex]

Yes, a conundrum there. Let me clarify: Prohibition didn't work in the early 1900s because put money directly into the pockets of the mafia and other crime bosses through speakeasies. Conditions are different almost 100 years later so prohibition would be met with greater success than it did back then. Would it be effective? Most likely. The question is: how effective? I don't know.

I think it is going just swell. The market value of illegal drugs alone proves that. The more expensive the drug, the more risky it is to manufacture and distribute.

Crime bosses and speak easies would be just as prolific today, not sure why you think they wouldn't. Perhaps because today's tech would allow for greater surveliance? Oh boy, a more efficent police state. What kind of country do you want to live in? Ever thought of moving to China or Iran? Woops, sorry, more rhetorical questions.

The drug war is a lost cause. I live in rural Montana, and could have any drug I wanted within the hour. The market value of the drug benefits the dealers and crime bosses (yes we still have them today) with higher profits and a corner on the market. Just like prohibition. Dealers don't care about risk or prison, they are either released quickly or hold little value on thier lives.

[FordGT90Concept]

Crime bosses and speak easies would be just as prolific today, not sure why you think they wouldn't.
There's only one way to find out.


The market value of the drug benefits the dealers and crime bosses (yes we still have them today) with higher profits and a corner on the market.
The price limits who is elgible to buy.

[DaMulta]

I really wanna smoke a J with you Ford.

[jmcslob]

There's only one way to find out.



The price limits who is elgible to buy.That's why Cocaine is usually done by Ceo's and such...it's more for the Rich

I really wanna smoke a J with you Ford.Me too!



I was wondering what you think happens when you smoke marijuana... Like How do you think it affects people not long term just after they moke.. do you think they see Pink Elephants and such or what

[Wile E]

There's only one way to find out.



The price limits who is elgible to buy.
That's true with all commodities, and has no point or bearing in this discussion. By legalizing it, the price can still be kept high thru taxes, much like cigarettes, and therefore still only available to those that can afford it.

[jmcslob]

I want my State Liquor Store to become a State Head Shop

[jmcslob]

It's OFFICIAL Patients In New Jersey Now HAVE Access to Medical Marijuana

I guess I can say Congrats to the people of NJ that are in severe Pain and Now Qualify For some relief.....

Now you can do it and not be a criminal Congrats...

Must be Nice....

That's 14 states Now...But who's counting....ME

[SK-1]

i'll volunteer I bet SK-1 will too

:cool:

I really wanna smoke a J with you Ford.
Can you imagine...continue below

Me too!
what a group "weed" make XD!!??(all 4 of us, get it? lol)



It's OFFICIAL Patients In New Jersey Now HAVE Access to Medical Marijuana

I guess I can say Congrats to the people of NJ that are in severe Pain and Now Qualify For some relief.....

Now you can do it and not be a criminal Congrats...

Must be Nice....

That's 14 states Now...But who's counting....ME

Damn,poor drug companies are watching their political bribe money go up in smoke:D:D:D


More will follow as now over 80% of people support Medical Marijuana.

That puts our MR. FordGT in the ULTRA minority category....but we still love him.(r)

Big news in Seattle
Seattle's new city attorney to dismiss cases of pot possession
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010808085_marijuana16m.html

[MT Alex]

That puts our MR. FordGT in the ULTRA minority category....but we still love him.(r)

Darn rights we do(r) I'm actually not sure that he's even against it, I think he just likes to debate. It's always a battle of attrition with Ford, it seems as though he never tires of posting to the contrary. Better than not having a opinion, though.

[FordGT90Concept]

Damn,poor drug companies are watching their political bribe money go up in smoke:D:D:D
More like States trying to find another source of revenue and all the bribe money is sent to Congress to stop healthcare "reform" legislation from passing. I'm sure if it were up to the pharmaceuticals, they'd want marijuana federally legalized so they can take control of the trade (namely, buy up all good marijuana growing land and make it near impossible to import).


I'd be the first to admit that a forum post has rarely changed my mind on a subject. Even if I don't post doesn't mean I agree with the opposition. It merely means I got tired of debating the issue and moved on to something else (like Fermi (http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=113084)...getting tired of that too). :p

[jmcslob]

More like States trying to find another source of revenue and all the bribe money is sent to Congress to stop healthcare "reform" legislation from passing. I'm sure if it were up to the pharmaceuticals, they'd want marijuana federally legalized so they can take control of the trade (namely, buy up all good marijuana growing land and make it near impossible to import).


I'd be the first to admit that a forum post has rarely changed my mind on a subject. Even if I don't post doesn't mean I agree with the opposition. It merely means I got tired of debating the issue and moved on to something else (like Fermi (http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=113084)...getting tired of that too). :p
I am with you on Fermi BTW
Gotta admit you make certain Forum discussions interesting;)
And yeah When it's legal I'd like to smoke a Fatty with you:rolleyes:

But I would still like to know what you think High from Marijuana is if any thought is given at all....

and B4 this thread is Done I'll even let you know "what I agree with you on":eek:

[jmcslob]

ULTRA [/B]minority category....but we still love him.(r)

Big news in Seattle
Seattle's new city attorney to dismiss cases of pot possession
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010808085_marijuana16m.html
Nice article Around here Some cities have had to combine jails most use the County Jail Our Local Sheriff Said he would no longer imprison Marijuana only offenders as they do not have the money to house them.

He claims it's from budget shortfalls and must keep Finances Available for Criminals that do harm to the community

[FordGT90Concept]

But I would still like to know what you think High from Marijuana is if any thought is given at all....
High means high--a state of euphoria, relaxation, or otherwise pleasurable. A low is the exact opposite--a state of depression, pain, or otherwise miserable. A low always follows a high but, depending on the drug, some lows are lower than others and some highs are higher than others.


The same thing goes for cities and counties as it does for states: most of them are broke. The bare essentials (trash disposal, electricity, water, communications, basic police, basic fire, and basic health services) take priority over drug raids.

As to specifically Seatle, he got elected on a promise not to prosecute marijuana-only criminals so he is merely upholding a promise. That idea sells well to voters in those parts because that is prime marijuana growing land. Everybody up there probably knows someone in the business. A law was previously past in Seatle making marijuana cases the "lowest priority."

Again, it has no bearing on the standing federal laws.

[jmcslob]

High means high--a state of euphoria, relaxation, or otherwise pleasurable. A low is the exact opposite--a state of depression, pain, or otherwise miserable and some highs are higher than others.


Again, it has no bearing on the standing federal laws.

Sorry chopped the first part down to How I see it

The last part there is what I have a problem with as it does have a bearing on Federal Standings If it didn't Women, Blacks and Non Land Owners could Vote.

And That's the Problem here isn't it?

Seems people everywhere are saying @least make it Legal for Medical use...
or simply to make it legal.

I'm willing to bet If put it to a national Vote, of the people, Marijuana would be Legal.

And as you can see, State by State, Which way the people are Voting.

So is it going to take 26 States for the Federal Govt to act?

I think by population #'s 1 more State would seal the Deal for Majority%

[FordGT90Concept]

Decriminalization of "medicinal marijuana" would fail on a national vote. Legalization of marijuana would fail on a national vote. There's far more people that oppose legalization of marijuana than those that support it. The thing is, most of them don't vote in the special elections in which "medicial marijuana" was decriminalized in states that passed it. The few that strongly support it turn up to the polls with a few that strongly oppose it--the large segment in the middle (which generally opposes it) doesn't vote.

So, if marijuana legalization appeared on the general election ballot, it would fail miserably. If it appeared on a special ballot, it would be close.

Because votes rarely get passed on to a public ballot, it comes down to what it takes to get elected to the House or the Senate. Campaigning on a pro-legalization of marijauna platform is a sure way not to get elected--just look at the how poorly the liberitarian party is doing as proof of that. It will be a very long time (decades) before anything happens on the federal level.

[jmcslob]

There are far more people than you realize that use it That can never let anybody know that they do as it would get them fired etc....etc...

But even if your right
Another cool thing is That patience is a virtue....
and if you don't have any Patience
Smoke a doober...
Cause it's really not IF it's WHEN

[FordGT90Concept]

Cause it's really not IF it's WHEN
I wouldn't say that. There's still more reasons to keep it illegal than make it legal. As time progresses (research on cannabinoids continues) there will be less and less incentive to legalize it because the argument for "medicinal" uses diminishes. Without "medicinal," all that's left is recreational--that's not a winnable argument.

[CyberDruid]

Oh GT is right....far right. SO far right that I can't take him seriously.

This brief prohibition of herb will pass. For thousands of years before this time no one even considered putting laws on plants and their uses. It's a modern dysfunction that I relate to everything that is wrong with Western "Civilization": the almost comic Hubris of the European White Male. The EWM is under the impression that he has the answers for everything and that, of course, his answers are right. All other people should bow to the superior reasoning of EWM. The EWM knows what is best for humanity...and their track record of bringing the planet to the brink of destruction, fouling the water, air and earth should convince anyone how smart the EWM really is :rolleyes:

The almost constant bombardment from the Pharms to buy clearly dangerous chemicals and ingest them despite the horrific potential side effects clearly puts them at the top of the EWM heirarchy. We should listen to them. We should take a harmless plant and extract it and synthesize from it and then repackage it into something that causes rectal bleeding, loss of hair, blurred vision or potential senility...it'll be so much better than just plucking a flower off a plant, drying it in the air and sun and then eating or smoking it. Clearly.

Anyone that thinks Marijuana has no benefit clearly has not tried it, so I would guess they are using conjecture, hearsay, other people's opinions, pseudoscience and anything else they can find to back up their position. That's what people that do not know always do.

Take Christians for instance. 99% of them do not know God. They have been told about God, they read about God, they think about God and form opinions about who God likes and dislikes (lol) but they do not know God. That is the job of the Mystic, the Gnostic, the Seer. Your typical EWM is basically a devolved human who has lost touch with the core reality that has kept this planet healthy and balanced for aeons. He's replaced intuition with programmed education, following the heart with millions of laws, etc etc.

There is no real sense in "sparring" with an EWM because they simply live in denial and will use what they call "logic" to pervert the real truth. The only thing that really seems to matter to the EWM is the exploitation of this planet's resources. Anything that might put us back in connection with Gaia is feared and attacked.

The easiest way to invalidate the argument for the continued prohibition of Marijuana is to look at the EWM's preferred "highs" which are alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine.

These deleterious substances are not just legal they are available at every street corner...in fact they are often cheaper than clean water or a decent bite of food. This in spite of the clear harm they do to our bodies and our relationships with other humans. If the EWM has given these poisons the stamp of approval how can you trust their judgement? Clearly the prohibition is arbitrary, political, and (just like the war on drugs) a convenient way to alienate, disenfranchise and jail a large portion of our society. Jails are big business. If you want to legalize weed you will be fighting the Jails, the Pharms, the Uninformed and Brainwashed, their heads filled with years and years of propaganda.

[FordGT90Concept]

This brief prohibition of herb will pass. For thousands of years before this time no one even considered putting laws on plants and their uses.
The first recorded time marijuana was resticted by a government was in 1378 by Ottoman Emir Soudoun Scheikhouni (http://www.concept420.com/marijuana_cannabis_history_timeline.htm). The closer you get to modern times, the more banning of marijuana becomes commonplace.

Conditions change. When people lived twenty miles from one another, cannabis wasn't a problem. Today, people live mere feet from eachother and one person using cannabis impacts other lives making it a social problem which in turn becomes a governmental problem. "Thousands of years" ago, there was only dictators that only cared about themselves.



Anyone that thinks Marijuana has no benefit clearly has not tried it, so I would guess they are using conjecture, hearsay, other people's opinions, pseudoscience and anything else they can find to back up their position. That's what people that do not know always do.
And by using it, you are biased towards legalization (I'm an addict/it didn't kill me, so make it legal). It works both ways.

[DirectorC]

Fordman, you think very much but you understand very little.

I don't even get into it with rabid antis like you. I'll just let you know that you are wrong, sir.

For example:

Decriminalization of "medicinal marijuana" would fail on a national vote.

O rly? I've been following the trends since I became a smoker in 2003. In 2003, I did research in which I concluded that the rate of Americans who supported the decimalization of Marijuana was rising and that within just a couple of years the number should have reached over 51%. Here we are now with a poll stating 8 in 10 Americans support the legalization of Marijuana for medicinal use. (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/medical-marijuana-abc-news-poll-analysis/story?id=9586503)

Most of the stuff you're spewing is out of thin air. If these guys are the type of stoners who are too lazy to retort with real world facts and figures, then I'm finally here to present you with a challenge.

I can never make you change your mind--I don't even fathom it, because I've had several dozen discussions about this issue with people, and most are difficult to budge--but I can damn well prove you wrong on everything you've said from there being no medicinal uses to legalization failing.

[CyberDruid]

I just don't bother arguing with right wingers. I figure God has reserved a special level of Hell for them and leave it at that.

As you can see when he starts to run out of ammo he resorts to the classic ad hominem attack: you are an addict so therefore your opinion is invalid.

Well not only is that presumptious (presuming that I am an addict) it's classic EWM logic that they know what's best for everyone and that anyone that has a different opinion should either be discounted or (preferably) incarcerated.

[FordGT90Concept]

O rly? I've been following the trends since I became a smoker in 2003. In 2003, I did research in which I concluded that the rate of Americans who supported the decimalization of Marijuana was rising and that within just a couple of years the number should have reached over 51%. Here we are now with a poll stating 8 in 10 Americans support the legalization of Marijuana for medicinal use. (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/medical-marijuana-abc-news-poll-analysis/story?id=9586503)
Then tell me why whenever states do approve decriminalizing marijuana, it is by a very slim margin (always under 60%). 8 in 10 Americans polled support the decriminalization of marijuana doesn't mean 8 in 10 Americans do support the decriminalization of marijuana.


Well not only is that presumptious (presuming that I am an addict) it's classic EWM logic that they know what's best for everyone and that anyone that has a different opinion should either be discounted or (preferably) incarcerated.
FYI, I have not responded to any of your "European White Male" bullshit because it is racist and extremely biased. There's African American males (e.g. Obama) and Chinese white males (leaders of the Chinese Socialist party) also doing the same thing. The human (especially male) lust for power and refusal to acknowledge fault is ingrained in the human psyche.

[Wile E]

I just don't bother arguing with right wingers. I figure God has reserved a special level of Hell for them and leave it at that.

As you can see when he starts to run out of ammo he resorts to the classic ad hominem attack: you are an addict so therefore your opinion is invalid.

Well not only is that presumptious (presuming that I am an addict) it's classic EWM logic that they know what's best for everyone and that anyone that has a different opinion should either be discounted or (preferably) incarcerated.

Not to mention the fact that you can't be a marijuana addict. It's an impossibility, as it's not an addictive substance. Any presumed "addiction" is psychological, not chemical or physical.

And again, I hate pot. I don't smoke. I can't stand the way it makes me feel, but I see no reason to keep it from others if they benefit from it, or even just enjoy it. The lives of other people are not my business, so long as they do no harm to others.

[Wile E]

Then tell me why whenever states do approve decriminalizing marijuana, it is by a very slim margin (always under 60%). 8 in 10 Americans polled support the decriminalization of marijuana doesn't mean 8 in 10 Americans do support the decriminalization of marijuana.



FYI, I have not responded to any of your "European White Male" bullshit because it is racist and extremely biased. There's African American Males (e.g. Obama) and Chinese white males also doing the same thing (leaders of the Chinese Socialist party).Not everyone that supports it will necessarily vote on it either, so it doesn't matter. Both are inaccurate. The precise numbers do not matter, all that matters is the bottom line. It's been voted legal, therefore the majority has agreed on it. Plain and simple.

And I happen to agree with CD's overall take on it, although it's a little more left than I like. The overall point still stands. I am white, btw.

[FordGT90Concept]

Then why hasn't any state passed legalization of marijuana? All states that passed something only managed to decriminalize it for "medicinal" use. They never have enough votes to legalize it.

[farlex]

Then why hasn't any state passed legalization of marijuana? All states that passed something only managed to decriminalize it for "medicinal" use. They never have enough votes to legalize it.

B/c baby steps are easier than mass reform. People rationalize making drugs legal by thinking "well at least it helps someone." Otherwise many are too indoctrinated with bs to legalize something referred to as a drug, even if they are aware it is of little harm and/or believe personal freedom is too important to let the government control a plant. Also, stereotype or not, I have a feeling those who have vested interest in making pot legal are not often the same ones who vote frequently.

[ManDown]

Decriminalization of "medicinal marijuana" would fail on a national vote. Legalization of marijuana would fail on a national vote. There's far more people that oppose legalization of marijuana than those that support it. The thing is, most of them don't vote in the special elections in which "medicial marijuana" was decriminalized in states that passed it. The few that strongly support it turn up to the polls with a few that strongly oppose it--the large segment in the middle (which generally opposes it) doesn't vote.

So, if marijuana legalization appeared on the general election ballot, it would fail miserably. If it appeared on a special ballot, it would be close.

Because votes rarely get passed on to a public ballot, it comes down to what it takes to get elected to the House or the Senate. Campaigning on a pro-legalization of marijauna platform is a sure way not to get elected--just look at the how poorly the liberitarian party is doing as proof of that. It will be a very long time (decades) before anything happens on the federal level.

Explain this. http://www.sphere.com/nation/article/majority-backs-medical-marijuana-but-feds-wont-budge/19324337

[ManDown]

The first recorded time marijuana was resticted by a government was in 1378 by Ottoman Emir Soudoun Scheikhouni (http://www.concept420.com/marijuana_cannabis_history_timeline.htm). The closer you get to modern times, the more banning of marijuana becomes commonplace.

Same can be said for alcohol, But when lots of people support it, its hard to keep it illegal.

Conditions change. When people lived twenty miles from one another, cannabis wasn't a problem. Today, people live mere feet from eachother and one person using cannabis impacts other lives making it a social problem which in turn becomes a governmental problem. "Thousands of years" ago, there was only dictators that only cared about themselves.

How does it impact other lives more differently then anything that we do.

If you really honestly search through here you can find article, some records, history, plus this site is great for getting knowledge on any drugs, plants. It even on some tell you the effects, dosage, pictures you name it. http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/psychoactives.shtml

You know LSD is bad in excess but it the only thing know to stop cluster headaches. other than about 2 oxygen tanks, 3 if very severe.

[jmcslob]

Next to it Being Illegal I don't think Ford Has actually said he is Personally Against Marijuana

-OR-

Maybe he did

But as a pot user I'm just to lazy to read back to find out...

So Ford What are your Personal Feelings on this subject anyway?

Just think If the Real world is like these Forums....

Then your surrounded by Potheads;)

[DirectorC]

Then why hasn't any state passed legalization of marijuana?

Stigma.

[FordGT90Concept]

Also, stereotype or not, I have a feeling those who have vested interest in making pot legal are not often the same ones who vote frequently.
I can agree with that.


Explain this. http://www.sphere.com/nation/article/majority-backs-medical-marijuana-but-feds-wont-budge/19324337
It references the same poll I responded to earlier.


Same can be said for alcohol, But when lots of people support it, its hard to keep it illegal.
That one came up previously. There are numerous reasons why prohibition didn't work (work conditions, WWI, great depression, dust bowl, mafia, corrupt local governments, etc.). Prohibition today may play out differently than it did back then.


Next to it Being Illegal I don't think Ford Has actually said he is Personally Against Marijuana

-OR-

Maybe he did

But as a pot user I'm just to lazy to read back to find out...

So Ford What are your Personal Feelings on this subject anyway?
Marijuana is currently on Schedule I, Marinol is Schedule III.

High potential for abuse: True = Schedule I
Medical uses: Limited = Schedule II
Dependence: Moderate/Low = Schedule III

I believe marijuana should be rescheduled to Schedule II which makes it available for medical research but still keeps it out of the general population's hands.


I believe possession of marijuana should be illegal unless you have a permit (for research or special circumstances like terminal illness) registered with the DEA. You need at least two doctor's prescriptions (personal doctor + social security administration approved) to apply for a permit for personal use. Research centers must report all marijuana acquired, how it was used, and name one contact in the organization to hold accountable for reporting everything to the DEA.

[DirectorC]

A whole ass load of pointless bureaucracy over a little plant. Hilarious.

Not to mention that this was all started by big pharmaceutical companies, paper and cotton and oil companies, all in the name of keeping the most powerful plant on the planet (hemp) out of the people's hands.

... I hereby change 'hilarious' to 'sick'.

[FordGT90Concept]

Investigating further:

In 1992 the DEA Administor denied rescheduling because marijuana does not meet all the following requirements:
The drug's chemistry is known and reproducible;
There are adequate safety studies;
There are adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy;
The drug is accepted by qualified experts; and
The scientific evidence is widely available.

As I brought up previously,there is a lot of "noise" about marijuana but little in the way of scientific studies. This contributes to the last point. All this pro-legalization banter is ultimately making it impossible for the DEA to reschedule marijiuana today.

Not to mention, that same issue rolls into the argument about "high potential for abuse." Paraphrasing the FDA, the large number of inviduals using marijuana and the vast availability of marijuana confirms its high potential for abuse.

This effectively means that, until marijuana use is down, it will not be rescheduled to II from I.


Here are all the steps for rescheduling a drug:
Filing of Petition with DEA
Acceptance of Petition by DEA
Initial Review by DEA
Referral to HHS
Scientific and Medical Evaluation by HHS
HHS Report to DEA
Evaluation of Additional Information by DEA
Publication of DEA Decision
Judicial review by the U.S. Court of Appeals
Public Hearing on Disputed Matters of Fact
Right now, petitions get shot down at step 3.


I think the primary reason why the petitions die so quick is because they want marijuana rescheduled to III or less. That is unreasonable seeing as Marinol (a refined, studied, and prescribed product) is at Schedule III. Marijuana does not qualify.

[DirectorC]

And it's all a load of bullshit.

When the government claims that there are no medicinal uses for Marijuana they're contradicting the findings of their own studies.

That's why the supreme court allowed a handful of the participators of the original US government study on medicinal Marijuana to keep getting their medicinal Marijuana--and they still get it shipped to them in giant tins of pre-rolled joints--made by the US government.

Hilarious (aka 'sick').

It's all bullshit dude. Sorry to break it to ya but those high up politicians are all a bunch of lying assholes. Facing this truth helps me sleep better at night. So does my last toke of the day.

[FordGT90Concept]

Medicinal propertes are only one of three required points it must pass to be reduced from Schedule I.

That's how the Controlled Substances Act works. We're not going to bend the rules just for marijuana.


So many people admiting to using the drug illegally does not help the case to legalize it either. It proves that it has "a high potential for abuse" and not enough is being done to enforce standing laws.


I want the name of that Supreme Court case by the way.

[DirectorC]

I'll do you one better: http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/medical/

[DirectorC]

Also:

LEAP (http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php)

^ The Law Enforcement Against Prohibition website.

Their views (http://leap.cc/cms/index.php?name=Content&pid=2):

COPS SAY LEGALIZE DRUGS!
ASK US WHY
After nearly four decades of fueling the U.S. policy of a war on drugs with over a trillion tax dollars and 37 million arrests for nonviolent drug offenses, our confined population has quadrupled making building prisons the fastest growing industry in the United States. More than 2.2 million of our citizens are currently incarcerated and every year we arrest an additional 1.9 million more guaranteeing those prisons will be bursting at their seams. Every year we choose to continue this war will cost U.S. taxpayers another 69 billion dollars. Despite all the lives we have destroyed and all the money so ill spent, today illicit drugs are cheaper, more potent, and far easier to get than they were 35 years ago at the beginning of the war on drugs. Meanwhile, people continue dying in our streets while drug barons and terrorists continue to grow richer than ever before. We would suggest that this scenario must be the very definition of a failed public policy. This madness must cease!

The stated goals of current U.S.drug policy -- reducing crime, drug addiction, and juvenile drug use -- have not been achieved, even after nearly four decades of a policy of "war on drugs". This policy, fueled by over a trillion of our tax dollars has had little or no effect on the levels of drug addiction among our fellow citizens, but has instead resulted in a tremendous increase in crime and in the numbers of Americans in our prisons and jails. With 4.6% of the world's population, America today has 22.5% of the worlds prisoners. But, after all that time, after all the destroyed lives and after all the wasted resources, prohibited drugs today are cheaper, stronger, and easier to get than they were thirty-five years ago at the beginning of the so-called "war on drugs". With this in mind, we current and former members of law enforcement have created a drug-policy reform movement -- LEAP. We believe that to save lives and lower the rates of disease, crime and addiction. as well as to conserve tax dollars, we must end drug prohibition. LEAP believes that a system of regulation and control of production and distribution will be far more effective and ethical than one of prohibition. We do this in hopes that we in Law Enforcement can regain the public's respect and trust, which have been greatly diminished by our involvement in imposing drug prohibition. Please consider joining us. You don't have to be a cop to join LEAP! Find out more about us by reading some of the articles in our Publications section or by watching and listening to some of our multimedia clips,. You can also read about the men and women who speak for LEAP, and see what we have on the calendar for the near future.

[DirectorC]

More (http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/53) and then some more (http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/54).

And also, my heroes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_ZOwtMvvuM), pt 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbthiYv1hZA), pt 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYvrrHNDTHM).

[FordGT90Concept]

Raich v. Gonzales conclusion: "Congress may ban the use of cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes."

The stated goals of current U.S.drug policy -- reducing crime, drug addiction, and juvenile drug use -- have not been achieved, even after nearly four decades of a policy of "war on drugs".
That only proves the strategy is wrong. It doesn't mean we should legalize everything.


If everyone doing marijuana now changed to heroin, should we legalize that too? Hell no. The law has to draw a line somewhere. It should be more relaxed on marijuana but it should not be legalized.

[Deusxmachina]

So many people admiting to using the drug illegally does not help the case to legalize it either. It proves that it has "a high potential for abuse" and not enough is being done to enforce standing laws.


Use doesn't necessarily mean abuse.

[FordGT90Concept]

It is illegal and people are using it anyway. If that isn't a definition for abuse, what is?

[Deusxmachina]

I drive 66mph in a 65mph speed zone. If 66mph was made legal, will I automatically start driving 100mph?

[FordGT90Concept]

You would probably do 67 mph.

Again, the bar has to be set somewhere. Little good comes from moving it. What comes after marijuana? LSD or MDMA? This is why the process is very strict on rescheduling a drug. There has to be excellent reasons to warrant doing so. Right now, they just aren't there for marijuana. Willful abuse is too widespread and there aren't enough credible studies in support of its medical uses.

[Deusxmachina]

66 or 67, either way, I wouldn't be doing 100mph just because 66mph is legal. The "gateway" argument isn't a linear path since a person's self-preservation and common sense kicks in. If highway speed limits were, oh, about 80mph, I'd never be a speed-limit criminal again. I would be Dudley Do-Right, always following the law. Did my behavior change? Nope. Just now that behavior is legal.

In fact, the times I HAVE gone faster than 80 I likely wouldn't have if 80 was legal. If anything over 65 is illegal ANYWAY, then I may as well do what I want above that because it's all illegal. But if the limit is something with a little more freedom and in my and the rest of the people's comfort and common sense zone, something that doesn't insult my intelligence as a human being, such as let's say 80, then even if I wanted to do 85 on that particular day, I would likely stay within the law.

Marijuana could very well be an anti-gateway drug in that regard -- preventing people from doing the really nasty drugs out there because those are illegal and marijuana is not.

As it is, we have a rather high number of the population in jail and labeled as criminals for basically what amounts to doing 66mph.

And we have someone in this very thread who has told you the good that can come from marijuana. He said other medicine available to him Has Not Worked. I applaud his restraint, since if I was in that much pain and smoking a little was the best thing that helped make every day more bearable, I'd probably be telling those who aren't in that situation and want to take it away from me to fuck off for talking out of their ass.

[CyberDruid]

Worth the watch(nutlick)(u)

sKk0eFiHYpg

[DirectorC]

Nice.

Better:

73PnAymHAHk

[ManDown]

It is illegal and people are using it anyway. If that isn't a definition for abuse, what is?

That's called breaking the law not abuse. Abuse it to keep doing for the "high".

Really the word abuse should stop being used, they consider doing something more than once abuse.

[pantherx12]

The Dutch use marijuana and they're all sick bastards. Health <> sick. So it's the opposite.


Aye but look at the benefits elsewhere, Prisons are pretty much empty there.

That's a pretty awesome benefit.

[ManDown]

Aye but look at the benefits elsewhere, Prisons are pretty much empty there.

That's a pretty awesome benefit.

Something this country needs way less of.

#1 in incarceration in the world. Not something to be proud of.

[DirectorC]

Violent crimes have been dropping steadily since 1993:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/Ncsucr2.gif

And yet somehow the number of inmates is increasing wildly out of control:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/USA._Prisoners_1995_to_2005.gif

This is what subsidizing the prison system and making money out of incarceration does:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/37/Federal_Prisoner_Distribution.png

[jmcslob]

Sadly the Local branch of Kent State University is ending many of it's much needed Degree programs like, Teaching, computer Science and a few more that may have needed to go as there are 6month school programs and they are being replace By Criminal Justice They are even building a new Facility just for it...

You may have noticed the escalating Job Loss Along with the constant commercials for Studies in Criminal Justice WHICH SENDS A SIMPLE MESSAGE..

Your Govt thinks most of you deserve to go to jail!!!

Watch those police raid Tv shows... Reminds me of those USSR Videos they used to show us to scare us and now we live it...Nice Victory to the Cold War ehhh?

Patriot Act...Really lose rights to stay safe? Nanny anyone?
who wins when you give up rights us or terrorists?

I personally don't care what you put into your body IT'S YOUR BODY
But I do Care if you do something to Harm me

Violence is a crime, Violence of Greed, Violence of Force and that's understandable..
It's understandable to be scanned at an airport... and so on and so on

[FordGT90Concept]

66 or 67, either way, I wouldn't be doing 100mph just because 66mph is legal. The "gateway" argument isn't a linear path since a person's self-preservation and common sense kicks in. If highway speed limits were, oh, about 80mph, I'd never be a speed-limit criminal again. I would be Dudley Do-Right, always following the law. Did my behavior change? Nope. Just now that behavior is legal.

In fact, the times I HAVE gone faster than 80 I likely wouldn't have if 80 was legal. If anything over 65 is illegal ANYWAY, then I may as well do what I want above that because it's all illegal. But if the limit is something with a little more freedom and in my and the rest of the people's comfort and common sense zone, something that doesn't insult my intelligence as a human being, such as let's say 80, then even if I wanted to do 85 on that particular day, I would likely stay within the law.
That's very hypocritical: do 85 mph now because it is illegal but not do 85 mph when 80 is legal. It basically means you have a poor disregard for the law so you'll break it whenever it suits you without a second guess.


As it is, we have a rather high number of the population in jail and labeled as criminals for basically what amounts to doing 66mph.
They too have shown a willful disregard for the law. Better they learn their lesson with marijuana than heroin. Prisons are rehibiliation facilities.


And we have someone in this very thread who has told you the good that can come from marijuana. He said other medicine available to him Has Not Worked. I applaud his restraint, since if I was in that much pain and smoking a little was the best thing that helped make every day more bearable, I'd probably be telling those who aren't in that situation and want to take it away from me to fuck off for talking out of their ass.
And again, all medical studies have to balance the good (pain relief) with the bad (carcinogens). As a result, it can only be perscribed when there is no alternative and for periods less than six months in duration.


That's called breaking the law not abuse. Abuse it to keep doing for the "high".

Really the word abuse should stop being used, they consider doing something more than once abuse.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/drug+abuse

the use of a drug for a nontherapeutic effect. Some of the most commonly abused drugs are alcohol; nicotine; marijuana; amphetamines; barbiturates; cocaine; methaqualone; opium alkaloids; synthetic opioids; benzodiazepines, including flunitrazepam (Rohypnol); gamma-hydroxybutyrate; 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, ecstasy); phencyclidine; ketamine; and anabolic steroids. Drug abuse may lead to organ damage, addiction, and disturbed patterns of behavior. Some illicit drugs, such as heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide, and phencyclidine hydrochloride, have no recognized therapeutic effect in humans. Use of these drugs often incurs criminal penalty in addition to the potential for physical, social, and psychologic harm. See also drug addiction.
aka, recreational drug. Marijuana use for recreational use if common if not frequent. Schedule I for you.


Again, I am hearing my own echo. Nothing has changed on this subject and quite frankly, I'm getting bored with it. I may not respond in the future to this thread.

[DirectorC]

They too have shown a willful disregard for the law. Better they learn their lesson with marijuana than heroin.

Prisons are rehibiliation facilities.

... :eek:

You are out of your god damn mind, I'm not reading this shit anymore.

I may not respond in the future to this thread.

OK whew! That would be awesome, coz I hate seeing like 10 posts of your willful ignorance every page.

[Wile E]

Raich v. Gonzales conclusion: "Congress may ban the use of cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes."


That only proves the strategy is wrong. It doesn't mean we should legalize everything.


If everyone doing marijuana now changed to heroin, should we legalize that too? Hell no. The law has to draw a line somewhere. It should be more relaxed on marijuana but it should not be legalized.Sure

Use doesn't necessarily mean abuse.
I agree

You would probably do 67 mph.

Again, the bar has to be set somewhere. Little good comes from moving it. What comes after marijuana? LSD or MDMA? This is why the process is very strict on rescheduling a drug. There has to be excellent reasons to warrant doing so. Right now, they just aren't there for marijuana. Willful abuse is too widespread and there aren't enough credible studies in support of its medical uses.Why not? Sounds good to me.

[pantherx12]

Wow I can't believe someone would even consider comparing heroin.

One of the most harmful addictive drugs vs a one of the least addictive least harmful drugs?

YEAH sure.

Alcohol and Tabacco are worse then Weed by a massive margin.

Both are more addictive and Alcohol causes much more phsycal harm.

Your also more likely to do stupid shit when drunk where as stoned people mostly lazy if they smoke to much, they'll fall asleep or do have a stupid conversation at worst.



Tell you what Fordgt you need to actually research these drugs and their effects, and come to an informed decision based on fact rather then blindly following laws.

Laws are not after all right and wrong.

[DirectorC]

Marijuana is not physically addictive, any 'addiction' is purely psychological. There are no withdrawal symptoms from Marijuana. This is a product shared by NO other drugs (except maybe LSD and shrooms). Even caffeine is physically addictive.

And Ford, you can't tell me that you don't 'abuse' the dark brown bubbly hooch known as cola.

[SK-1]

http://img.techpowerup.org/100218/Capture188.jpg

Uh-oh! This spells trouble for big Pharma. I really cant explain the feeling I'm getting right now. I hear Lucy In The Sky with Diamonds in my head,,,wait thats the radio. This is like a natural high. I just wish I could be in the room when Ford and a few others read this report. Like the part about Vaporizing being better for the lungs than smoking.,... Oh boy goose pimples!
The best part is, this is just about UN-spinnable. $8.7 Million put to good work.
First results in United States in 20 years from clinical trials of smoked cannabis.
http://health.ucsd.edu/news/2010/2-17-medical-marijuana.htm


The actual report.
http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/

[FordGT90Concept]

All that is a summary (poor summaries at that) of a few individual studies. It carries no weight by itself. I see no recommendations in it or anything of merit.

[SK-1]

All that is a summary (poor summaries at that) of a few individual studies. It carries no weight by itself. I see no recommendations in it or anything of merit.

No way you read that fast. You fail. 16 pages in 5 min. Ya know, at least I give you the courtesy of reading your dated anti pot propaganda. The least you could have done is read a 16 page study and 2 links in over 4 or 5 minutes. Your post weight cred lost it a bit there.

[FordGT90Concept]

Most of it is pointless jibberish about political history and mission statements and a whole lot of self-promoting "high-quality" rhetoric I obviously couldn't care less about. All I care is about is studies: 1) What were the stated objectives of the study, 2) how was the study conducted, 3) what are the observations of the study, 4) what is the conclusion of the study, 5) what recommendations are drawn from the conclusions of the study.

The 10 or so studies listed were nothing more than three paragraphs of overview with virtually no details or analysis. Useless.

[SK-1]

Most of it is pointless jibberish about political history and mission statements and a whole lot of self-promoting "high-quality" rhetoric I obviously couldn't care less about. All I care is about is studies: 1) What were the stated objectives of the study, 2) how was the study conducted, 3) what are the observations of the study, 4) what is the conclusion of the study, 5) what recommendations are drawn from the conclusions of the study.

The 10 or so studies listed were nothing more than three paragraphs of overview with virtually no details or analysis. Useless.

And Black is white, while White is Black.

This study really upset you.:p:p Facts kill.

[DirectorC]

Ford is a caffeine junkie. He is always amped out and ready to unleash staggering levels of ignorance.

[FordGT90Concept]

This study really upset you.:p:p Facts kill.
It did upset me because I expected a thoroughly documented text with lots of details and analysis. All I find is an overview that only mentions some findings and doesn't analyze them. I wish it contributed to the discussion but it really doesn't.


Ford is a caffeine junkie. He is always amped out and ready to unleash staggering levels of ignorance.
I haven't had caffeine in a long time.

[SK-1]

It did upset me because I expected a thoroughly documented text with lots of details and analysis. All I find is an overview that only mentions some findings and doesn't analyze them. I wish it contributed to the discussion but it really doesn't.



I haven't had caffeine in a long time.

Okay Evelyn Woodhouse...what ever you say XD
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/health/Study-Proves-Medical-Marijuanas-Benefits-84614232.html

Dr. Igor Grant (neuropsychiatrist) said the research shows marijuana should no longer be classified as a Schedule I drug. "It is not a drug without value," he said.

I just heard the story on the National News.:) Good news spreads fast.

I guess this explains the $500.00 price tag of a Volcano... From the study on page 16
http://img.techpowerup.org/100218/Capture189.jpg
http://img.techpowerup.org/100218/Capture191.jpg
Looks like the Volcano gets her excited:p

[FordGT90Concept]

Okay Evelyn Woodhouse...what ever you say XD
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/health/Study-Proves-Medical-Marijuanas-Benefits-84614232.html
"Even with strong support from medical professionals, pot will remain a hot topic in politics."
Most "medical professionals" oppose "medicinal marijuana." I can't name one doctor (my mother's side of the family is deep in the medical field) in this area that would fight for decriminalization.

[DirectorC]

"Even with strong support from medical professionals, pot will remain a hot topic in politics."
Most "medical professionals" oppose "medicinal marijuana." I can't name one doctor (my mother's side of the family is deep in the medical field) in this area that would fight for decriminalization.

That's because they're not supposed to.

Pharmaceutical companies are where their money is at.

[SK-1]

"Even with strong support from medical professionals, pot will remain a hot topic in politics."
And it should be. It needs more research.
Most "medical professionals" oppose "medicinal marijuana." I can't name one doctor (my mother's side of the family is deep in the medical field) in this area that would fight for decriminalization.
Key words " In this area".

Let me show you the way.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/541/ama_medical_student_section_supports_medical_marij uana
This is 2 years old.
With some 50,000 members, the MSS is the largest and most influential organization of medical students in the US.

The Medical Student Section (MSS) of the American Medical Association (AMA) overwhelmingly endorsed a resolution urging the AMA to support the reclassification of marijuana for medical use at the AMA's annual conference in Chicago earlier this month. The resolution will now go before the AMA House of Delegates for a final vote at its interim meeting in November.

After a lengthy series of whereases detailing scientific support for therapeutic uses of cannabis, the MSS resolved that:
RESOLVED, That our AMA support reclassification of marijuana's status as a Schedule I controlled substance into a more appropriate schedule; and be it further

RESOLVED, That this resolution be forwarded to the House of Delegates at I-08.
Those two organizations join a growing list of medical groupings supporting medical marijuana, including the AIDS Action Council, the Alaska Nurses Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Nurses Association, the American Preventive Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, the California Academy of Family Physicians, the California Medical Association, the California Pharmacists Association, the Connecticut Nurses Association, Cure AIDS Now, the Florida Medical Association, the Los Angeles County AIDS Commission, the Lymphoma Foundation of America, the Medical Society of the State of New York, the National Association for Public Health Policy, the National Association of People with AIDS, the National Nurses Society on Addictions, the New England Journal of Medicine, the New Mexico Medical Society, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the San Francisco Medical Society, the Virginia Nurses Society on Addictions, the Wisconsin Public Health Association, and state nurses associations in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin, according to the medical marijuana education and advocacy group Patients Out of Time.

How about thousands of them.

[DirectorC]

I have to admit that I could picture places like Iowa and Arkansas having medical systems and institutions equivalent to 1980s everywhere else http://tpucdn.com/forums/images/smilies/roll.gif

No offense but middle of nowhere is middle of nowhere.

[FordGT90Concept]

With some 50,000 members, the MSS is the largest and most influential organization of medical students in the US.
There were 788,540 licensed medical doctors in the USA as of 2007. You got a long way to go; moreover, a statement by an organization doesn't mean all members agree with that statement. Hell, most doctors hate the AMA (MSS is an organization under AMA) because they basically worshiped the ground Obama walked on in regards to that whole mess last year.


I have to admit that I could picture places like Iowa and Arkansas having medical systems and institutions equivalent to 1980s everywhere else http://tpucdn.com/forums/images/smilies/roll.gif

No offense but middle of nowhere is middle of nowhere.
The clinic/hospital here is just about 10 years old I think. It is the newest healthcare facility in the area. I think they have close to two dozen doctors.

[DirectorC]

The clinic/hospital here is just about 10 years old I think. It is the newest healthcare facility in the area. I think they have close to two dozen doctors.

You're squashing my sarcasm.

[SK-1]

There were 788,540 licensed medical doctors in the USA as of 2007. You got a long way to go; moreover, a statement by an organization doesn't mean all members agree with that statement.



http://www.mtshastanews.com/news/x215398318/AMA-supports-medical-marijuana-studies-does-not-support-current-state-programs

Well along with the long lost of organizations I already listed.

The AMA. 245,000 members
(MSS) 50,000 members
American College of Physicians (ACP)
second largest physician group in the United States 150,000 members.
They just released a landmark position paper calling for legal protection for medical marijuana.

Lets see a few minutes and Ive found 445,000+.


http://www.mpp.org/news/in-the-news/ACP.html

http://www.mtshastanews.com/news/x215398318/AMA-supports-medical-marijuana-studies-does-not-support-current-state-programs
The American Medical Association has reversed its long standing opposition to medical marijuana as it has recommended in a recent position paper that marijuana be considered for reclassification from a Federal Controlled Substance Act Schedule 1 drug, where it resides with heroin and PCP as having “no currently accepted medical use.”
The AMA is also recommending that physicians be protected from prosecution for recommending marijuana and that further studies be conducted into marijuana's use as medicine.

[FordGT90Concept]

Lets see a few minutes and Ive found 445,000+.
Of which, only those in charge agree. AMA lost a lot of members last year.

[DaMulta]

Ford you wanna get high?

[SK-1]

Of which, only those in charge agree. AMA lost a lot of members last year.

Thats (another) totally subjective statement. Ford, do a door to door poll of each member, report back with something objective and,regain that lost post cred.

[FordGT90Concept]

245,000 members is a 2004 figure. In 2005, MedPage (http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/PracticeManagement/3516) reported only 135,300 "real, practicing physicians" in 2005.

There are no recent figures but it is known they lost a lot of members in 2008-2009 and are not keeping up with the addition of new physicians to the marketplace.

[DirectorC]

Ford, I find your zeal on this issue to be rather suspect. Were you molested by a doobie as a child?

[DaMulta]

Ford you wanna get high?

Wanna get high yet Ford? Maybe on Friday when you have nothing going on?

[BiNGE]

If I had a choice between opiate dependence and short term memory loss I'd choose to keep myself addiction free. Alternatives are an answer, but for the least miserable experience I choose something that doesn't come with the terrible side effects/dependencies associated with pills.

[farlex]

Most of it is pointless jibberish about political history and mission statements and a whole lot of self-promoting "high-quality" rhetoric I obviously couldn't care less about. All I care is about is studies: 1) What were the stated objectives of the study, 2) how was the study conducted, 3) what are the observations of the study, 4) what is the conclusion of the study, 5) what recommendations are drawn from the conclusions of the study.

The 10 or so studies listed were nothing more than three paragraphs of overview with virtually no details or analysis. Useless.

I find it strange that you are suddenly requesting objective data when your viewpoint is derived nearly entirely from a subjective viewpoint that altering one's consciousness is bad and thus should be illegal. We delved into that (painfully I'll add) quite a few pages back. Your pursuing of this objective data is nothing more than a futile attempt at vindicating your subjective viewpoint, and even if you found contradicting data, you would reject it (i.e. above) as nonsense, then throw in your own version of objective date (i.e. a post on the next page about physician's viewpoints on the subject) saying that is valid, when really your own statement is little more than a guess and the research you rejected was actually scientific in nature. Did you catch that? That's confirmation bias again. I know I've already pointed it out, but I'm going to continue to do so b/c you keep doing it. (slap) Perhaps you need a change in perspective eh? :D (toast)

[FordGT90Concept]

Wanna get high yet Ford? Maybe on Friday when you have nothing going on?
I always have many things going on.


I find it strange that you are suddenly requesting objective data when your viewpoint is derived nearly entirely from a subjective viewpoint that altering one's consciousness is bad and thus should be illegal. We delved into that (painfully I'll add) quite a few pages back. Your pursuing of this objective data is nothing more than a futile attempt at vindicating your subjective viewpoint, and even if you found contradicting data, you would reject it (i.e. above) as nonsense, then throw in your own version of objective date (i.e. a post on the next page about physician's viewpoints on the subject) saying that is valid, when really your own statement is little more than a guess and the research you rejected was actually scientific in nature. Did you catch that? That's confirmation bias again. I know I've already pointed it out, but I'm going to continue to do so b/c you keep doing it. (slap) Perhaps you need a change in perspective eh? :D (toast)
I stand by republic process. The republic process made, and has upheld, scheduling marijuana where it is. I have no reason to object those rulings at this time.

I handle everything from a logical perspective: risks versus rewards/pros vs cons. If more information becomes available that alters that balance, I won't hesitate to take a look (as stated previously). Unfortunately, that "study" offers next to nothing so consequently, my opinion remains unchanged.

[farlex]

I stand by republic process. The republic process made, and has upheld, scheduling marijuana where it is. I have no reason to object those rulings at this time.

I handle everything from a logical perspective: risks versus rewards/pros vs cons. If more information becomes available that alters that balance, I won't hesitate to take a look (as stated previously). Unfortunately, that "study" offers next to nothing so consequently, my opinion remains unchanged.

You stand by the republic process when it suits your viewpoint to do so. When it does things like say, bailout large cooperations, you change your tune.

I have little doubt that even presented with the strongest of evidence for the legality of marijuana, you would reject in favor of some other argument grasping at straws attempting to hold up the tent, or cast it off as irrelevant. Logic can be your enemy if it's flawed, as I try to illustrate. If you are desperate for vindication of your views, you will undoubtedly find reason, any reason, to do so. This seems in my experience to be especially true of the most logical and calculating among us.

[FordGT90Concept]

The majority of Congress felt the "bailouts" were necssary. In September, I agreed on the premise that the money was to be used to buy up the bad assets and dissolve them (so the businesses don't sink under their weight). Come October, I discovered that the money was instead given as handouts to "favorite" banks so that they don't go belly up. It had nothing to do with eliminating bad assets and end up just being about buffering balance sheets. Naturally, I disagreed because what was said was different from what was done. I don't like to be lied to.


Evidence that may be the "strongest" to you may be the weakest to me. I've changed my mind numerous times in the past as facts present themselves; I don't see why you think this one issue would be an exception.

Again, I would have no problem with rescheduling marijuana to Schedule II. Equating marijuana to heroin or MDMA is illogical. It falls more in line with pure hydrocodone, pure codeine, morphine, and oxycodone which are Schedule II drugs.

[SK-1]

"I've changed my mind numerous times in the past as facts present themselves; I don't see why you think this one issue would be an exception."

You've stated directly the opposite in a recent post.. . Something to the effect of you have never had your mind changed by a forum post.
So open minded or stubborn?

[FordGT90Concept]

Let me clarify: If I had bad information and a forum post made me dig for answers which proved my information was wrong, my conclusions would change; however, an opinion read on a forum would not change my opinion.

So what is "mind," known facts or derived opinion? Both statements are true.


For example, I used to believe 9/11 was an international terrorist attack; today, I believe evidence points to a domestic terrorist attack.

[SK-1]

For example, I used to believe 9/11 was an international terrorist attack; today, I believe evidence points to a domestic terrorist attack.

Your a Truther?

[Wile E]

Every time Ford posts in this thread, I have to laugh to myself. It's actually pathetic how bad his confirmation bias can be at times. It's so bad, it's actually funny at this point. I can't even take his viewpoints on this seriously anymore.

[jmcslob]

I'm getting High right now...

What are you Doing?

I say Fuck any society that says you can't do something that makes ya better and harms no one.....

I also say the blue Pot is fucking Awesome!!!

So how you doing?

HAHAHA hehe

[FordGT90Concept]

Your a Truther?
I have no use for petty labels. :p


...confirmation bias...
Had I actually cared whether or not marijuana is illegal, that might be true. I don't use/abuse it nor does anyone I know. It's legality, therefore, has zero impact on me unless some third party (like a reckless driver) made it my problem.

As you should know, I love a good debate. That is the only reason why I even look as thread and also the reason why I depart it (when it becomes mostly character slams like it is now).


What are you Doing?
I just stopped playing Mass Effect 2. I'm starting to get mad bored of it. I'll probably go catch up on some DVR recordings (the end of Meet the Press last week--assuming it is in decent condition) and once I get tired of that, either start Sins of a Solar Empire Trinity or S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat, reinstall X3: Terran Conflict, or work on Large Address Aware 2.


So how you doing?
Could be better and could be worse. I'm doing alright.

[SK-1]

I'm getting High right now...

What are you Doing?

I say Fuck any society that says you can't do something that makes ya better and harms no one.....

I also say the blue Pot is fucking Awesome!!!

So how you doing?

HAHAHA hehe

Enjoy some nirvana my brotha:D
jc9uZFU0_AQ

[SK-1]

I have no use for petty labels. :p
So, how you know what the F@CK is in yo cans?



Had I actually cared whether or not marijuana is illegal, that might be true. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt... ;)

As you should know, I love a good debate. That is the only reason why I even look as thread and also the reason why I depart it (when it becomes mostly character slams like it is now).

Oh come on Ford, all good debaters (even mass debaters) have a thick skin...grow some skin.:)

[SK-1]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100222/ap_on_re_us/us_seniors_marijuana
http://img.techpowerup.org/100222/Capture214.jpg

Some quotes from this great article.

"Among them is Perry Parks, 67, of Rockingham, N.C., a retired Army pilot who suffered crippling pain from degenerative disc disease and arthritis. He had tried all sorts of drugs, from Vioxx to epidural steroids, but found little success. About two years ago he turned to marijuana, which he first had tried in college, and was amazed how well it worked for the pain."

"I realized I could get by without the narcotics," Parks said, referring to prescription painkillers. "I am essentially pain free."

Dennis Day, a 61-year-old attorney in Columbus, Ohio, said when he used to get high, he wore dark glasses to disguise his red eyes, feared talking to people on the street and worried about encountering police. With age, he says, any drawbacks to the drug have disappeared.

"My eyes no longer turn red, I no longer get the munchies," Day said. "The primary drawbacks to me now are legal."

The best one:D

Siegel bucks the trend as someone who was well into her 50s before she tried pot for the first time. She can muster only one frustration with the drug.

"I never learned how to roll a joint," she said. "It's just a big nuisance. It's much easier to fill a pipe."

[Polaris573]

I'd like to see a lot of laws pertaining to Marijuana restructured. It's a very useful plant and a lot of it's components have potential uses. Current laws make it extraordinarily difficult for research laboratories to get their hands on plants; severely restricting general research.

[DirectorC]

Siegel walks with a cane and has arthritis in her back and legs. She finds marijuana has helped her sleep better than pills ever did. And she can't figure out why everyone her age isn't sharing a joint, too.

"They're missing a lot of fun and a lot of relief," she said.

Politically, advocates for legalizing marijuana say the number of older users could represent an important shift in their decades-long push to change the laws.

"For the longest time, our political opponents were older Americans who were not familiar with marijuana and had lived through the 'Reefer Madness' mentality and they considered marijuana a very dangerous drug," said Keith Stroup, the founder and lawyer of NORML, a marijuana advocacy group.

"Now, whether they resume the habit of smoking or whether they simply understand that it's no big deal and that it shouldn't be a crime, in large numbers they're on our side of the issue."

Each night, 66-year-old Stroup says he sits down to the evening news, pours himself a glass of wine and rolls a joint. He's used the drug since he was a freshman at Georgetown, but many older adults are revisiting marijuana after years away.

"The kids are grown, they're out of school, you've got time on your hands and frankly it's a time when you can really enjoy marijuana," Stroup said. "Food tastes better, music sounds better, sex is more enjoyable."

66-year-old?! Eeew! Ol dirty bastid...

[FordGT90Concept]

I'd like to see a lot of laws pertaining to Marijuana restructured. It's a very useful plant and a lot of it's components have potential uses. Current laws make it extraordinarily difficult for research laboratories to get their hands on plants; severely restricting general research.
Yup, reschedule to II. All these pro-marijuana groups have to get it in their mind that the DEA will never drop it down to III or lower (nor should they according to their own rules). They should fight for II and once they have II, fight for III. It is rather unlikely it will ever get below II though unless it is a Constitutional amendment approved by the States overriding the federal government (like what was done with Prohibition).

[MT Alex]

It is rather unlikely it will ever get below II though unless it is a Constitutional amendment approved by the States overriding the federal government (like what was done with Prohibition).

Not necessarily true. No amendment would be needed, since none have been passed outlawing pot. The only reason an amendment was needed for prohibition was because one was passed outlawing booze.
Article. [XVIII.]
[Proposed 1917; Ratified 1919; Repealed 1933 (See Amendment XXI, Section 1
Section. 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section. 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress

EDIT:
Article. [XXI.]
[Proposed 1933; Ratified 1933]
Section. 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section. 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

.