livendive 8 #26 January 24, 2008 Quote Quote If you could get THC without smoking marijuana, then you would be correct - we don't know enough to claim that's a valid reason. And that's exactly what I was saying. People do use THC without smoking marijuana. This thread is worthless without brownies. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 906 #27 January 24, 2008 given the lack of mj research, and the extensive tobacco research....I'm curious to know how mj is much worse? I don't think we have any data to support such a comment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #28 January 24, 2008 QuoteHmm. Do you think that if THC was legalized, but smoking pot was not, it would answer most people's objections to the laws against pot smoking? (or more accurately make people less fucktardish) Probably not. As already mentioned, I doubt that the health issue has much to do with it being illegal anyway. Hmm... And that would be similar to keeping alcohol legal but making it illegal to drink more than what is considered healthy. As it stands right now, it's perfectly legal to drink a fifth of whiskey every day, as long as you're not driving or otherwise interfering with others, and that's probably worse for one's health than smoking pot 24/7. I think that most of the objections to the laws against marijuana have to do with the fact that one drug (alcohol) is being treated differently than another drug (marijuana), when they are both potentially dangerous to our health (or both potentially beneficial to our health, though we know less about marijuana in that area, partially due to its illegal status). I think the point is that if we are going to be allowed to make our own decisions about one, then we should be allowed to make our own decisions about the other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #29 January 24, 2008 Quote This thread is worthless without brownies. http://www.howdesign.com/blog/Dude+Those+Brownies+Look+Good.aspx And brownies are bad for you, ya know? Oh wait, recent studies have shown that chocolate may actually have health benefits, so nevermind, munch away! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
78RATS 0 #30 January 24, 2008 at this point it is all controlled by pharmacutical companies and DC lobbyist. They want you to take some pill. Haven't you been watching your TV. Rat for Life - Fly till I die When them stupid ass bitches ask why Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #31 January 25, 2008 Quote Quote Quote If you could get THC without smoking marijuana, then you would be correct - we don't know enough to claim that's a valid reason. And that's exactly what I was saying. People do use THC without smoking marijuana. This thread is worthless without brownies. Blues, Dave Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 35 #32 January 25, 2008 I still think Skyride, their supporters and USPA's executive committee and lawyers on both sides can lick my white, hairy, ass! "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #33 January 25, 2008 Quote ..explain to me why prohibition of alcohol is a bad idea, but prohibition of marijuana & hashish is a good idea???? Anyone????....... Anyone???............ Bueller????......... Hey, you seem to have 'forgotten' your post, seeing as you haven't replied to any of the replies...Still, it seems that there is strong evidence indicating that the harmful mental effects are much worse than originally thought several years ago. Especially regarding most grass these days in Europe is homegrown and considerably stronger than before. And it makes you forgetful. Man. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #34 January 25, 2008 Quotegiven the lack of mj research, and the extensive tobacco research....I'm curious to know how mj is much worse? I don't think we have any data to support such a comment. There's plenty of research. This has been known for 30 years. I got it from some journal papers (real ones, not think tank BS), which I was pointed to by a freind who was in pharmacology school - 30 years ago. If anything, with improved technology, they have found out it is even worse than they thought it was then. IIRC, MJ smoke has over 200 gas phase toxic compounds - worse than cigs." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #35 January 25, 2008 and it's the government's job to protect us from ourselves. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #36 January 25, 2008 Welcome to nannystate.gov - courtesy of your tax dollars!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 906 #37 January 25, 2008 even our government doesn't agree with that... Medicinal research more research meanwhile, the government ok's pharmaceutic medicines that kill people.... please tell me how to explain this double standard of selective approval of drugs that are deadly over those that are not.I would also prefer to see us use hemp for our paper products over wood pulp...it's more "green" and we could certainly use the trees...deforrestation is not good for any of us! I don't personally smoke (any more ) but I see it as less dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes in many ways. But I'm only going on 46 years of real-life research... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #38 January 25, 2008 Quoteplease tell me how to explain this double standard of selective approval of drugs that are deadly over those that are not. The same reason government does everything else....money.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #39 January 25, 2008 Quote If we legalized marijuana, there'd soon be no room to grow corn. Then how would we satisfy the Dorito needs of pot smokers? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #40 January 25, 2008 > even our government doesn't agree with that... You are confusing two things. One is the pulmonary risk that MJ poses. That's proven. The second is the therapeutic value of THC. That's what that opinion piece discussed, and may well have application for certain diseases. The equivalent in tobacco terms is that smoking will "calm you down" and thus help prevent strokes in people with high blood pressure. And while that may well be true, the negative effects (lung cancer, heart disease) far outweigh the positives. >please tell me how to explain this double standard of selective approval >of drugs that are deadly over those that are not. Marijuana _is_ approved in California for medicinal purposes. >I would also prefer to see us use hemp for our paper products over wood pulp. Agreed, but that's a different issue. Different plant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 906 #41 January 25, 2008 I'm not confusing anything, my response was not addressing anything in particular as pulminary effects weren't mention by the person I replied to. It was a rather generic, blanket statement with no facts regarding "what was known 30 years ago". I agree that the damage is there...but when you compare two individuals that have been smoking over the majority of their lives, the pot head is in better shape, or at least the one's I've seen were..and by far. They weren't coughing up a lung every morning when they tried to get out of bed. Either way, our government continues to restrict MJ research. California can do what they want, but the federal government has said repeatedly they will over ride the state laws regarding this issue. While hemp is a slightly different plant, they are close enough that it's still illegal to grow in this country due to it's relationship to the preferred product...they're both cannabis sativa, aren't they? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #42 January 25, 2008 >but when you compare two individuals that have been smoking >over the majority of their lives, the pot head is in better shape . . . Not if they are smoking the same amount. If the pot smoker smokes a LOT less than the cigarette smoker, then the pot smoker will be in better shape. But that's because he smokes less, not because it's better for him. >They weren't coughing up a lung every morning when they tried to get out of bed. Again, if they smoked as much as a tobacco smoker, they'd be worse. >While hemp is a slightly different plant, they are close enough that it's >still illegal to grow in this country due to it's relationship to the preferred >product. Correct. (Although I think you may be indicating your preferences by saying the plant used as a drug source is the "preferred" one!) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #43 January 25, 2008 Quote Quote If we legalized marijuana, there'd soon be no room to grow corn. Then how would we satisfy the Dorito needs of pot smokers? Grind up and snort dried chiles." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 906 #44 January 25, 2008 Agreed. I didn't even consider the amount they each smoke...personally don't smoke either substance so I hadn't thought of that, simply saw them both as "smokers". What I meant by "preferred" is it seems the populace would prefer the smoking version as opposed to the pulp version. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lastchance 0 #45 January 26, 2008 LAW? LAW? LAW? Oh right. Light Anti-tank Weapon. I may be getting old but I got to see all the cool bands. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #46 January 27, 2008 Interesting question. Unfortunately, as I am not a fucktard, I do not feel qualified to answer your question. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
feuergnom 29 #47 January 27, 2008 if you want to have a look at the "godfather" of "anti-drug"-films go for reefer madness a must see! The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle dudeist skydiver # 666 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waltappel 1 #48 January 28, 2008 Being a fucktard and all, I'll try to answer this one. We live in a culture where "good guys vs. bad guys" is a significant control mechanism. It's one of the few things that motivates us. It's pretty much the only thing that differentiates our form of government from a dictatorship. A dictatorship is a country in which control is wielded by one person or a small group of people who do whatever the fuck they want without regard for what the "common people" think or want or need. That description fits not only the "Axis of Evil" countries, but the US as well. Unlike convention dictatorships, though, our leaders our skilled with the use of smoke and mirrors, though. The whole concept of a dictatorship, as we understand it, is a joke. A dicatorship could not exist without the tacit approval of the majority of its people. In the US, that approval is very unlikely to happen without use of the "good guys vs. bad guys" mechanism. If the leaders want to either diffuse focus away from real problems or simply maintain the status quo, they invoke the concept of "bad guy" to refocus the population by directing that focus toward a common "enemy". Examples are too numerous to mention, but range from the "threats" of witchcraft to communism to drugs to whatever. It's easy to focus people on a common enemy. The prohibition of alcohol didn't work. The people of the US didn't accept it. Marijuana and hashish still work, though less and less it seems. Soooooooooooo, marijuana and hashish prohibition are good ideas because they work. Duh!!! Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DangerRoo 0 #49 January 28, 2008 Quote If we legalized marijuana, there'd soon be no room to grow corn. well as long as they still grow hops and barley (I.C.D#2 VP) ""I'm good with my purple penis straw" ~sky mama Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DangerRoo 0 #50 January 28, 2008 Quote Quote If we legalized marijuana, there'd soon be no room to grow corn. Then how would we satisfy the Dorito needs of pot smokers? oh crap well at least there is still that fake powdered orange cheese they put on them...you could come up with something, you'd be creative by then anyway (I.C.D#2 VP) ""I'm good with my purple penis straw" ~sky mama Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
