legalize weed

[noob3]

seriously when is this going to happen i need to be able to buy weed right now for the money i have which is $9 why can't i go buy a 8.99 bag of pot & like 2 of that be taxes?

wouldn't that help schools and stuff? and the agricultural businesses? i mean goddamn

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You make a compelling argument.

[Pudty]

8.99 bag lol.
WhenI become a drug dealer im definatly going to price like that.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

lol, yeah

[noob3]

yo i am trying to help the farming community guys give the little man a break you know hat i am saying i usually pay like $20 a bag but i just dont have that kind of cash

plus we could use the non bud products to make paper and that would be WAY more paper than trees can produce then we could leave the forests alone for the animals to play in

[KevinTheOmnivore]

4:20 am i right

[Lenor]

4:20 am i right

What about, Hitler's birthday? :lol


Chuck, there are a few states already that have made it legal for farmer's to crop weed, doctor's able to prescribe, and the average Joe to obtain a certain amount freely able to smoke it. You could either move to one of those places, or start a petition in Okla. Keep your finger's crossed.

Hell, here in NY testing on PTSD are being done now; and that is with Ecstasy.

[kahljorn]

i dont think it's legal for anyone to farm weed... hemp maybe... cultivation purposes for thc has limits.

and weed from a cannabis club generally costs the same as weed on the street.

[Lenor]

i don't think it's legal for anyone to farm weed... hemp maybe... cultivation purposes for thc has limits.

and weed from a cannabis club generally costs the same as weed on the street.

Legally you are able to cultivate, the male plant, for cat-nip, hemp, and paper in most states. But the female plant can be grown to produce the THC needed in THC pills, and for a fact I know of the THC patch, that derived from The University of Albany state college in New York, with the help of a good friend of my that recently got his PHD;(yet, that is for medical purposes).

[Miss Modular]

Legalize it, don't criticize it
Legalize it, and i will advertise it

[Lenor]

'lifes a bitch and than you die, thats why we get high cause you never know when your gonna go'

http://www.pot-party.com/marijuan.gif

[kahljorn]

I'm just going to stop trying to communicate intelligently with you :(

BRGABRAGA BRAG BRAG

A FRIEND OF MINE IN ALBANY CUNTFACE GOT HIS HST IN PEEPEE ECONOMICS AND NOW HES FLYING oN POWDER RESERVE GENERIC BAKING SODA AND POWDERED SUGAR SUBSTITUTE.

it's illegal to grow drugs even to this day there's only state laws that say it's ok and even then the federal government still raids cannabis clubs a lot. Having an entire farm of female plants wouldn't happen, and besides that it's practically impossible :(

the word 'hemp' refers to any kind of processing of the cannabis plant for any reason other than drugs.

[Lenor]

I'm just going to stop trying to communicate intelligently with you :(

When did you ever start?

BRGABRAGA BRAG BRAG

A FRIEND OF MINE IN ALBANY CUNTFACE GOT HIS HST IN PEEPEE ECONOMICS AND NOW HES FLYING oN POWDER RESERVE GENERIC BAKING SODA AND POWDERED SUGAR SUBSTITUTE.

yes, that is exactly what I said. If you want proof, I will be glad to send it. I'm proud of my friends that actually do something with their lives.

it's illegal to grow drugs even to this day there's only state laws that say it's ok and even then the federal government still raids cannabis clubs a lot. Having an entire farm of female plants wouldn't happen, and besides that it's practically impossible :(

If you had read what I said correctly, I said MALE plants are legally grown for cat-nip and such.

the word 'hemp' refers to any kind of processing of the cannabis plant for any reason other than drugs.

Hemp is also used as a yarn or cloth, by hippies to make them pretty necklaces and other stuff at those crazy festivals I go too every summer. :|

[Pudty]

Oh man, he busted out the quadruple quote rebuttal.

[Lenor]

Oh man, he busted out the quadruple quote rebuttal.

He? I am FEMALE. >:

[kahljorn]

i dont think it's legal for anyone to farm weed... hemp maybe... cultivation purposes for thc has limits.

Legally you are able to cultivate, the male plant, for cat-nip, hemp, and paper in most states. But the female plant can be grown to produce the THC needed in THC pills, and for a fact I know of the THC patch, that derived from The University of Albany state college in New York, with the help of a good friend of my that recently got his PHD;(yet, that is for medical purposes).

also I'm pretty sure you have to have a license to cultivate hemp for industrial purposes as well...
why would they use pot for cat-nip? Can't they just use cat-nip?

[kahljorn]

I think your problem is that you try so hard to seem knowledgeable and you always want to talk because you want attention; so you just blather and blather and try to impress people instead of actually considering what you are going to say. So, in effect, you end up blathering out shit that isn't even related to itself, and then you don't even use paragraphs to separate your thoughts which makes it even more confusing and retarded looking.

then afterwards you complain people are taking what you said out of context.


PSYCHOLOGIcAL ANALYsis 100%

also i wasn't saying you don't have a friend that worked to develop a THC patch. You misunderstood.

[Lenor]

I think your problem is that you look way too far into everything.

[kahljorn]

that's basically what i was accusing you of except you're nearly blind so you try to look really hard but come up missing some facts and common sense and in the end you look like a frazzled fool because there's no order or meaning to your arguments it's just a bunch of shit thrown together.

MARIJUANA CAN BE CULTIVATED BECAUSE MY FRIEND MAKES THC PATCHES!

What do THC patches have to do with the legality of farmers mass cultivating marijuana?

[Lenor]

You can cultivate such thing's also, in say, perhaps a chemistry lab.

[kahljorn]

Yea, lots of people mass cultivate marijuana in their chemistry labs, along with california oranges and sweet fuzzy peaches!

regardless, you can't "Farm" a chemistry lab.

[Lenor]

Nothing is impossible!

But alright, I really do get what your saying kahl. Maybe I'll hire someone to edit all my post before I post them. k?

Just so you won't be annoyed with the lack of paragraphs and whatever else you seem to get so huffy about. I should be more considerate of other people on the Internet and make sure they can properly read what I am saying.

Because it matter's very fucking much.

Thank you kahl for the revelation and information you have bestowed upon me.

[kahljorn]

mandatory i dont care remark coupled with a the internet isnt important so i dont have to make sense and i dont have to care because you mean nothing to me with a sarcastic comment at the end.


classic justification for being wrong and stupid!

also I wasn't even really focused on your paragraph structure. i was focused on you saying that marijuana is grown by farmers!
marijuana is still illegal to be grown in large quantities!
There's actually a limit like 2 pounds or something!

i think it's because legally you can't produce marijuana for profit so if you do more than that it seems like you have a business!
Otherwise it's more like a "Non-profit" type thing although they do pay pretty decent prices!

[Lenor]

Your no fun.

[kahljorn]

i didn't know this was a for fun thread i mean of COURSE we CAN have fun I just thought we were discussing the law and stuff like that :O :O :O the law isn't FUN.

[Lenor]

It's a thread about chuck's hope's for the legalization of cannabis-sativa sweet mary-jane.

Seriously though, If zomboid and I can come to an agreement to not fight over dumb shit, I think we should be able to stop the unnecessary bantering also.

[kahljorn]

it's only dumb because of you, other than that this is a fairly intelligent conversation we're having.

[Lenor]

Is that sentence a tad contradicting, or is it the alcohol?

[kahljorn]

it probably seems contradictory because you can't see the insult behind it ;o

[Lenor]

Err... you normally insult me, it kinda just all mushes together. :/

[Jixby Phillips]

I love getting blazed dudes, sorry (scratches dick)

[GADZOOKS]

you can't say dick in this section of the board :(

[Jixby Phillips]

its in parenthesies though

[MrAdventure]

KEVIN EUBANKS MARRIES I MOCKERY THREAD

JAY LENO TO BE BEST MAN

[Preechr]

Another nice example of the same kind of political logic Max and I are talking about in another thread. Everybody wants an all-powerful federal government that will do things for us we don't want to do, like buy us lunch and raise our kids and "provide" us with health insurance and ... I could go on forever probably, but when you open up that door, all of a sudden the tools used to build that all-powerful federal Mommy start getting used abusively, such as sending in the feds to bust medical marijuana outlets and customers in states that have passed laws to make such things completely legal.

In this case, the power to do this hinges on a willfully inaccurate interpretation of the "Interstate Commerce Clause" in the Constitution. Here's a completely unbiased link: http://www.answers.com/topic/commerce-clause

Read that and you tell me if you can see how those words could be logically and fairly bent to include what's going on in the states that have adopted medical marijuana provisions.

Here's another one: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." That last little bit is what's called the "General Welfare Clause." http://www.answers.com/topic/general-welfare (a lot more wordy, but interesting if you care)

That clause also has a long history of abusive misinterpretation that props up the federal government's ability to basically get away with whatever it wants. Two very simple amendments to the Constitution could easily clarify the whole mess and most of the problems this country has would be fixed magically overnight... but unfortunately the people of this country would rather use the government guns to get "free" crap without being bothered to earn it for themselves and punish people of whom they don't approve (like potheads.)

Short answer for Noob: Vote Libertarian.

[kahljorn]

that's something even we can relate to!

[Womti]

hey guys we should all get a ton of weed and smoke ourselves to death. or you all can do just that without me. :(

[kahljorn]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b399/lunarpandas/pico.jpg
Beeeautiful purple marijuana, how i love to smoketh thee!

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b399/lunarpandas/pica.jpg

Beaaautiful jar full of weed, promising me highs until the end of the week!

good weed but not as good as usual; usually the nugs are more dense and beautiful it's too bad the picture doesn't really show the crystals very well because it's covered in it but i figured the beautiful purple weed was enough ;o ;o

[Ant10708]

what area you from kahl?

nice nugs

[Lenor]

I think it takes something like 60 pounds of weed to be smoked consistantly to OD on it???

Has anyone heard that before?

[Ant10708]

It is impossible to OD on it.

[Womti]

not true you could at least induce a heart attack I am sure of it
ever smoked like panama red or even hydro
KA-BAM

[Lenor]

www.erowid.org (http://www.erowid.org)
Use of marijuana is relatively safe. There are no confirmed deaths caused by marijuana alone, although deaths can and do result from injuries sustained while intoxicated. When combined with alcohol, cannabis has been shown to reduce driving ability and can contribute to traffic accidents.

Negative Health Effects: A list of health-related references can be found on the Cannabid References Page (http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_journal.shtml#health). A very good introduction to the negative health effects of cannabis is the paper "Adverse Effects of Cannabis" by Hall W, Solowij N published in The Lancet, 1998 (14(352):1611-6). A brief summary of these can be found on the Cannabis Basics Page (http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_basics.shtml#problems).

Some people may experience panic attacks (including extreme feelings of dread, accelerated heart rate, feeling as if they're going to die) from smoking cannabis. [See the Psychedelic Crisis FAQ (http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/faqs/psychedelic_crisis_faq.shtml) for information about such an occurrence.]

Chronic smoking of marijuana can lead to respiratory ailments associated with smoke inhalation. A 1995 study (http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v06n2/06209pip.html) suggests that use of a bong or water pipe does not necessarily lower the overall ratio of particulate matter to THC and may be counterproductive. In other words, it lowers the particulate matter, but it also lowers the amount of THC. For the same effects, a person may have to smoke more...thus raising particulate matter back to a level equal to that inhaled from unfiltered sources (joint or pipe).

Politics & Health: The political climate around cannabis and other recreational psychoactive substances has made it complicated to find balanced opinions about its safety and risks. The Federation of American Scientists has an interesting article (http://fas.org/drugs/issue7.htm#1) on the issue of cannabis-risks and the political motivation on those on both sides of the issue.

[Lenor]

Study: Alcohol, Tobacco Worse Than Pot, Ecstasy


Maria Cheng, Associated Press
March 24, 2007
WCBS-TV

LONDON — New "landmark" research finds that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than some illegal drugs like marijuana or Ecstasy and should be classified as such in legal systems, according to a new British study.
In research published Friday in The Lancet magazine, Professor David Nutt of Britain's Bristol University and colleagues proposed a new framework for the classification of harmful substances, based on the actual risks posed to society. Their ranking listed alcohol and tobacco among the top 10 most dangerous substances.
Nutt and colleagues used three factors to determine the harm associated with any drug: the physical harm to the user, the drug's potential for addiction, and the impact on society of drug use. The researchers asked two groups of experts — psychiatrists specializing in addiction and legal or police officials with scientific or medical expertise — to assign scores to 20 different drugs, including heroin, cocaine, Ecstasy, amphetamines, and LSD.
Nutt and his colleagues then calculated the drugs' overall rankings. In the end, the experts agreed with each other — but not with the existing British classification of dangerous substances.
Heroin and cocaine were ranked most dangerous, followed by barbiturates and street methadone. Alcohol was the fifth-most harmful drug and tobacco the ninth most harmful. Cannabis came in 11th, and near the bottom of the list was Ecstasy.
According to existing British and U.S. drug policy, alcohol and tobacco are legal, while cannabis and Ecstasy are both illegal. Previous reports, including a study from a parliamentary committee last year, have questioned the scientific rationale for Britain's drug classification system.
"The current drug system is ill thought-out and arbitrary," said Nutt, referring to the United Kingdom's practice of assigning drugs to three distinct divisions, ostensibly based on the drugs' potential for harm. "The exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from the Misuse of Drugs Act is, from a scientific perspective, arbitrary," write Nutt and his colleagues in The Lancet.
Tobacco causes 40 percent of all hospital illnesses, while alcohol is blamed for more than half of all visits to hospital emergency rooms. The substances also harm society in other ways, damaging families and occupying police services.
Nutt hopes that the research will provoke debate within the UK and beyond about how drugs — including socially acceptable drugs such as alcohol — should be regulated. While different countries use different markers to classify dangerous drugs, none use a system like the one proposed by Nutt's study, which he hopes could serve as a framework for international authorities.
"This is a landmark paper," said Dr. Leslie Iversen, professor of pharmacology at Oxford University. Iversen was not connected to the research. "It is the first real step towards an evidence-based classification of drugs." He added that based on the paper's results, alcohol and tobacco could not reasonably be excluded.
"The rankings also suggest the need for better regulation of the more harmful drugs that are currently legal, i.e. tobacco and alcohol," wrote Wayne Hall, of the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, in an accompanying Lancet commentary. Hall was not involved with Nutt's paper.
While experts agreed that criminalizing alcohol and tobacco would be challenging, they said that governments should review the penalties imposed for drug abuse and try to make them more reflective of the actual risks and damages involved.
Nutt called for more education so that people were aware of the risks of various drugs. "All drugs are dangerous," he said. "Even the ones people know and love and use every day."

[noob3]

womti does not know what the fuck he is talking about guys

PS kahl nice chunk but get those nasty leeefs off of it

[derrida]

Another nice example of the same kind of political logic Max and I are talking about in another thread. Everybody wants an all-powerful federal government that will do things for us we don't want to do, like buy us lunch and raise our kids and "provide" us with health insurance and ... I could go on forever probably, but when you open up that door, all of a sudden the tools used to build that all-powerful federal Mommy start getting used abusively, such as sending in the feds to bust medical marijuana outlets and customers in states that have passed laws to make such things completely legal.

In this case, the power to do this hinges on a willfully inaccurate interpretation of the "Interstate Commerce Clause" in the Constitution. Here's a completely unbiased link: http://www.answers.com/topic/commerce-clause

Read that and you tell me if you can see how those words could be logically and fairly bent to include what's going on in the states that have adopted medical marijuana provisions.

Here's another one: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." That last little bit is what's called the "General Welfare Clause." http://www.answers.com/topic/general-welfare (a lot more wordy, but interesting if you care)

That clause also has a long history of abusive misinterpretation that props up the federal government's ability to basically get away with whatever it wants. Two very simple amendments to the Constitution could easily clarify the whole mess and most of the problems this country has would be fixed magically overnight... but unfortunately the people of this country would rather use the government guns to get "free" crap without being bothered to earn it for themselves and punish people of whom they don't approve (like potheads.)

Short answer for Noob: Vote Libertarian.

I'm not sure the hoi polloi have much to do with it, unless you're talking about old people, whom you describe pretty well in that last paragraph. I'm pretty much down with declaring old people a threat to freedom and democracy, but they aren't the only threat. For one, where do you think people got their negative perceptions of dope smokers? Earlier in this century alcoholics were basically considered evil people. Now we say that they are victims of a disease. Some very large and powerful bureaucracies have been nourished by the drug war, and they tend to be interested in things other than that of the public.

So you're saying there's an nation-wide pathos at work here, which I can swallow, and I'm saying there's collusion between moneyed interests, which I'm pretty sure you can swallow, but what gets stuck in my craw is the idea that all this "quick fix for undesireables" stuff started with the New Deal when history shows this kind of irrational behavior stretching back 300+ years.

[Preechr]

Sure, it's an old game... but that doesn't make it any less reprehensible. I agree that the War on Some Drugs is entirely about the money involved. Thick-headed morons that think that we could possibly punish drug-users straight... or shame homos straight for that matter... are being used by the Drug Warriors. They are not the cause of the War.

What I am saying is that THIS is Democracy at work. We were not meant to be Rome, for God's sake! The Founding Fathers knew full well how THAT turned out when they were debating the Constitution. America was founded on the principles of a Representative Republic featuring an extremely weak federal government body that was to be tightly constrained in scope and power. The most powerful force in the original America, at least in theory, was the law-abiding, moral individual. In modern America, those guys get thrown under the bus on a daily basis. We traded our Republic for a Nanny State, and Nanny's exist to discipline and constrain you as much as they do to coddle and feed you.

Here's a nice little exercise. I'm gonna give you a CSpan link to a search page. The first video is John Edwards' Town Hall in NH yesterday. Load it up and fast forward to 34:34 to see Little Miss America's Future and her expectations of her Nanny Dream State. She's looking for a Daddy, not a President.

http://12.170.145.161/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=john+edwards&image1.x=21&image1.y=7&image1=Submit

It's not just about the old fogeys anymore, Toto...

[Lenor]

MAKE LOVE NOT WAR, MAN!

When did this thread go from the legalization of weed TO motherfucking C-Span?

We have the power to strike back, yet nobody is doing any good now with new advancement of technology every minute.

[derrida]

It's not just about the old fogeys anymore, Toto...

No, you are right- going down the line we have those "greatest generation" people of the state, their great society hippie progeny, and an enormous alphabet soup cohort saddled with daddy issues plus an extended childhood thanks to the "Everybody goes to college!" mentality.

Still, I'm not totally sold. At the same time people were all about "government is the problem" and all acquiescing to the Welfare Reform Bill, the rhetoric on drugs was firmly in support of three-strikes and zero-tolerance. Why? Why was the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which vastly extended the field of potential convicts to include drug users, passed in 1986 and not 1996? Why is it that in Canada, nanny-state par excellence, the main impedence to wholesale legalization is pressure from the US? (I am most curious about this last question)

[kahljorn]

most industries don't like anything that will cut into their profits, and they will use practically any method to eliminate competition or possible infringements of their finances.

Somebody might want to argue that, but it's true, and it's not very "Free marketish" when an industry can stay at the top because of political lobbying or whatever they do.

While we're discussing weed, why not opium? Opium obviously has medicinal benefits and grows like crazy in almost any garden. It could be effective for minor ailments and pains, rather than having patients relying on vicodin or tylenol or whatever.

Ant, sorry, I didn't see your question. I'm from California.

[Lenor]

There needs to be less emphasis paid out on the 'war on drugs', yet more on the majority of the publics inability to see a doctor.

-Canada has free health insurance for everyone that is a citizen.
-Holland's prime minister (correct me if wrong) put in effect drug laws that are ALMOST non-punishable, but rather one's own choice and ability to seek treatment for addiction at any time.
-Amsterdam has the annual CANNABIS CUP!

Why does the US have to Suck so damn much?

[kahljorn]

*sigh*
do you do that on purpose?

[Preechr]

No, you are right- going down the line we have those "greatest generation" people of the state, their great society hippie progeny, and an enormous alphabet soup cohort saddled with daddy issues plus an extended childhood thanks to the "Everybody goes to college!" mentality.

Still, I'm not totally sold. At the same time people were all about "government is the problem" and all acquiescing to the Welfare Reform Bill, the rhetoric on drugs was firmly in support of three-strikes and zero-tolerance. Why? Why was the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which vastly extended the field of potential convicts to include drug users, passed in 1986 and not 1996? Why is it that in Canada, nanny-state par excellence, the main impedence to wholesale legalization is pressure from the US? (I am most curious about this last question)

It seems you're trying to draw a line between the Democrat version of the WOSD and the Republican version... They are pretty much the same at the national level. Even as the kids these days grow up, the ideological split on the issue will most likely stay mostly similar to what it is now and what it has been for 100 years. I was at a customers house the other day, and there was an episode of Little House on the Prairie on the tube that addressed opium addiction stemming from treatment in the Civil War, so you can tell just by that this has been a problem for a while, right?

Seriously, though, narcotics were only classified and outlawed at the beginning of the last century. In the larger sense, you are correct that this sort of thing has been a tool of governance for basically forever, but only modern government styles have become powerful enough to realize the dream of actually effectively outlawing and profiting from this sort of extensive regulation.

As for our pressure on Canada, I don't see why that's so hard for you to understand. It seems obvious that we are protecting our racket. The War on Some Drugs is big business, yo.

I'd love for this to open up to some real conservatives. There really are some here on the board. El Blanco? IS? I bet there some of you out there with kids that have developed some pretty old fashioned attitudes about drug legalization. Let's hash this out, so to say...

I see a lot of integrity in the pure conservative ideological stance on the issue: There are some mistakes not worth the risk of making. I wonder where the line lies exactly, and who draws it.

Just to put it out there, while I've done drugs before, I don't now and probably won't be. I take Aleve, and that's about it. Mine is what I consider to be another sort of pure ideological stance.

[Lenor]

OH FUCK IN A'

What did I do now? :eek

[noob3]

legalize weed - tax weed - farmers make money - goverment makes money - goverment uses money to promote drug education - less ppl do drugs - goverment stops war on drugs - goverment saves alot of money - goverment actually helps the people out instead of arresting them - happy people

the cigarette tax goes directly to anti cigarette education & thus ppl don't smoke as much this could be applied with drugs guys

vote noob3 for office!!!

[derrida]

It seems you're trying to draw a line between the Democrat version of the WOSD and the Republican version... They are pretty much the same at the national level. Even as the kids these days grow up, the ideological split on the issue will most likely stay mostly similar to what it is now and what it has been for 100 years. I was at a customers house the other day, and there was an episode of Little House on the Prairie on the tube that addressed opium addiction stemming from treatment in the Civil War, so you can tell just by that this has been a problem for a while, right?

Seriously, though, narcotics were only classified and outlawed at the beginning of the last century. In the larger sense, you are correct that this sort of thing has been a tool of governance for basically forever, but only modern government styles have become powerful enough to realize the dream of actually effectively outlawing and profiting from this sort of extensive regulation. They outlawed the regulation? TALK GOOD my man.

As for our pressure on Canada, I don't see why that's so hard for you to understand. It seems obvious that we are protecting our racket. The War on Some Drugs is big business, yo. No, I was more asking about why, under your model, the political climate in Canada strongly favors legalization, despite widespread support for nanny-state type shit.

I'd love for this to open up to some real conservatives. There really are some here on the board. El Blanco? IS? I bet there some of you out there with kids that have developed some pretty old fashioned attitudes about drug legalization. Let's hash this out, so to say...

I see a lot of integrity in the pure conservative ideological stance on the issue: There are some mistakes not worth the risk of making. I wonder where the line lies exactly, and who draws it.

Just to put it out there, while I've done drugs before, I don't now and probably won't be. I take Aleve, and that's about it. Mine is what I consider to be another sort of pure ideological stance.

Personally, I'd rather risk a few more people struggling with drug addiction (or not, considering that for people who can afford a pure supply and don't make dosage errors, heroin is a remarkably safe drug) than to put huge sums of money in the hands of criminals (and the people we pay to arrest, try, and incarcerate those criminals' footsoldiers and couriers). Kind of far from being a pure ideological stance...
_______

[ItalianStereotype]

legalize weed - make purchase or possession of pipes, papers, and bongs a capital offense - be done with stoners and hippies - average IQ in the U.S. increases 50 points.

[noob3]

smoke out of a hooka or a ornamental glass table piece OR A FUCKING HOLLOWED CIGAR (we call those blunts ya hurr)

[MetalMilitia]

People, in general, are far too stupid to be allowed to do anything which could be abused. As such any kind of legalisation probably wouldn't do much more than increase Adult Swim's viewing figures by a few million and reduce the number of people that make it though college.

As for using cannabis taxes to increase education, do you really think that would do anything? They shove cigarette ads in everyone's face hundreds of times a day but yet there are still around 10 million cigarettes sold every minute.

That said I don't think people should be prosecuted for possession of small amounts. Which is pretty much how the law works in the UK.

[kahljorn]

Metalmilitia, i think that's the only redeeming feature of the pharmaceutical industry -- that they can protect us from our own abusive tendencies since they are essentially rationing out drugs.
Pills are still unsafe and easily abusable, though. I'm not sure of the statistics exactly but I'm almost positive there are more deaths and addictions resulting from legal drugs than there are from illegal drugs. Whether that's misleading because there are a lot more people doing legal drugs than illegal drugs.. though :(
I wouldn't be surprised if the rate of addiction and resulting deaths is along the same lines, though.

[MetalMilitia]

In terms of their effect on the body, drugs like alcohol are much more harmful than THC (the active chemical in cannabis). However I think the world is sufficiently fucked up to not need another substance legalised that basically makes you want to sit in front of idiot cartoons and eat junk food.

Don't get me wrong; I used to be a big proponent of cannabis legalisation and I can appreciate many of the benefits its legalisation would afford. But I just don't think English OR American society (especially young people) are responsible enough to be given access to a new, potentially-life-fucking-up, substance.

In my opinion possession laws should be relaxed, but cannabis should never be sold over the counter.

[noob3]

i would much rather be perscriped pills that got me high than to buy weed on a regular basis if i got perscriped some bomb thc pills, that'd be great :o i'm in my first semester of college and i want to quit smoking herb because i am not getting A's or anything and i forget alot of stuf :(

[kahljorn]

yea, I'm barely getting a's in all my classes this year because I'm really lazy, i never study or do anything ;o
luckily im naturally smart so i can still sail through but it's annoying to be at like an 80 something and wonder if you're going to get an a.

[Ninjavenom]

how the fuck can you outlaw nature? Why not outlaw poison ivy? Nobody likes that, either.

[kahljorn]

I think every drug was illegalized for bullshit reasons

like i think opium or something was illegalized because, besides some other reasons, it makes black people rape white people. That's basically what got all the white people to vote it away. Democracies are shit.

MetalMilitia one thing is that do you think alcohol is a better drug for college students? I think that it probably interferes with learning more than THC, but who knows, really.

[derrida]

No man, opium was banned cuz of chinese dudes. Cocaine was blacks, marijuana was mainly mexicans (and also blacks)

[kahljorn]

we should outlaw jimson weed too that shit's dangerous ;o ;o ;o; o ;o ;o ;o ;o ;o ;o ;o ;o ;o ;o ;o ;o o; ;o ;o ;o ;o o; ; ; ;o ;;;o; ; ; ;o ;o

[MetalMilitia]

MetalMilitia one thing is that do you think alcohol is a better drug for college students? I think that it probably interferes with learning more than THC, but who knows, really.

Actually yes. As bas as it is, alcohol probably is better for students. Please allow me to elaborate.

When people smoke weed they will usually do it at any time throughout the day; morning, noon or night. Whereas, people generally only drink in the evenings and on weekends. Once you're stoned it's pretty impossible to get anything done.
Of course if you drank or smoked in equal amounts, alcohol would be worse but I don't think real people do use them in the same way.

There is one exception to this; art students. They can take as many drugs as they want and their work will probably get better.

[Lenor]

Metalmilitia, where in hell are you basing your theory on? For one, weed does not mentally or physically incapacitate you. You may eat a lot more, hence 'freshmen 15'(haha); But your body adjust after awhile and your still truckin on through to class.

Drinking Alcohol on the other-hand in college can be lethal. For example Fraternity Hazing, Pledging is not just a 'every weekend' event, rather an every night one. Sorority's and fraternities have been around for along time and make up a large percent of a college campus.

You could argue that 'Not Everyone lives on campus or wants to become some Delta Kappa Pie member!'. Ok, that is true. But what they do in their home life is not really apart of the 'college experience' and I do not believe to have that much relevance in this discussion.

Name a musician/band that has not done drugs, and I'll show you one that never made it famous.

[MetalMilitia]

I'm basing my theory on the three/four years in which I smoked and did absolutely nothing with my life. Once I quit everything seemed to fall into place and I'm much happier for it.

Saying weed doesn't incapacitate you is rubbish. It makes you forgetful, absent minded and generally stoner-like.

Sure people can damage themselves much more with alcohol and I'm not advocating its use but as I say the different ways people use the two drugs often make alcohol the lesser evil.

Sure, a bunch of great bands take a shit-ton of drugs but does that really mean they should be legal?
I'll be willing to bet a lot of good music was written under the influence of much stronger substances than weed, so should those be legalised too? No.

[Lenor]

Getting older makes you forgetful and absent minded also, we should make that illegal too!

Your basing a theory solely on yourself; thus an accurate study of the other billion's of people in this world, does not one make.

[kahljorn]

Wow I'm actually impressed that lenor understands problems with induction but that's fine she probably learned it in class...

anyway, I agree with metalmilitia. Weed does make you lazy and not want to do anything. Or at least it makes you want to do fun things... but it's not exactly as if alcohol makes you want to sit down to study.
Usually i go to school stoned and such but that's not a big deal. The problem is when i come home and get stoned and dont do any of my homework, or really focus on my reading at all. I don't really think students who drink will be focusing on their reading and writing but i dont really know ;o
all i know is if i didnt smoke weed i probably wouldn't be as lazy and unconcerned so my grade would probably go up 2.5%.

[MetalMilitia]

Getting older makes you forgetful and absent minded also, we should make that illegal too!


A lot of old people die too, Lenor. Should we make drugs which make you die legal just because "OLD PEOPLE DIE ALL THE TIME!"?

Your basing a theory solely on yourself; thus an accurate study of the other billion's of people in this world, does not one make.

Well until you show me YOUR study of the other billions of people in the world, which proves that cannabis will not cause more problems in an already problem-filled society; my own experiences are all I have to go on.

[Lenor]

You can also die from drowning in a teaspoon of water; LET'S IL-LEGALIZE WATER!

There are several studies done already; though not by myself. You can find some on:

www.erowid.org (http://www.erowid.org)

[Ant10708]

Metal: People in college drink at all times of the day just like how stoners smoke.

[kahljorn]

Lenor if you're going to post a link to something can you at least make it a direct link?

Old people die all the time, so does that mean it's okay to viscously murder old people? I mean, they're going to die ANYWAY.

and what about slapping lenor with cocks in the face until her nose bleeds? she's going to get slapped in the face by cocks anyway, and bloody noses are ARTISTIC.

[kahljorn]

there's not really a good reason to keep marijuana illegal I'm pretty sure everyone knows that. Although, I think people becoming lazy and not doing anything is a pretty good reason i guess, but there's a lot of things that will do that, including television, that make it a bad "reason".
it also causes bronchial infections and a few other medical problems, stupposedly, which make it bad.

Personally, I don't see why pot shouldn't be legalized for MEDicAL PURPOSES. It's easy enough to have a decent medical reason that practically anybody can get it, since it can be used for aches and pains a long with depression, migraines and insomnia, everybody in the world has at least one of those. Most medicines used to treat those conditions also have negative effects, although I don't know if laziness is among them for all of them :(
Pretty much one of the central facets of medicine is that any medicine you take can have a negative effect, so you have to weigh the negative against the positive of taking it. Since medicinal marijuana has less negative effects and more positive effects than most pharmaceuticals, it stands to reason that it should be medicinally legal.

You can argue that, but once you start comparing sleeping pills to pot the argument pretty much loses force. I don't think it's possible to argue against marijuana as a medicine, unless you have some super doctor skills and k now something nobody else does :(
plus cannabis clubs are cool because you can buy pot sodas and pot candy and pot honey :(

http://www.canorml.org/news/fedmmjcases.html

i remember kevin posted a thread about that at some point ;/

[Lenor]

Kahl seriously whats with your posting lately? It makes very little if none, sense lately.

[kahljorn]

really? i thought it made extra sense, except the joking parts.