DaVinci

I guess you fit into the wanna be stoner group. "According to the California Cannabis Research Medical Group (CCRMG), there are three types of doctor(s) who approve cannabis for medicinal use by patients. (1) Willling specialists, eg those treating patients with cancer and AIDS, (2) Willing general practitioners who recommend the drug for gravely ill patients that other drugs fail to help, and (3) Cannabis specialists, who "are convinced of its relative benignity, and keep abreast of the literature with respect to mechanism-of-action, clinical trials in Europe, etc." Members of the CCRMG fall into group (3) and collectively have issued most of the estimated 50,000 approvals to use cannabis in the state of California since Prop 215 made it legal in November, 1996." Cannabis specialists, who "are convinced of its relative benignity" is a far cry from the other two groups...And yet they have given most of the aprrovals....HMMMMMMMM

For medical MJ or the "everyone must get stoned" crowd? Medical: I have written my Senator. My reasons were simple. If someone has a fatal disease, and there is a chance it will help use them as a part of a study. Allow testing. Testing does not hurt. Stoners: Nothing. I don't care one way or another if it is legalized for fun. In fact I would rather both alcohol and cigarettes become illegal since they cause health issues that people expect me to pay for when they can't. And they hurt your cause for medical MJ. You would be wrong. But don't expect me to support fun MJ, any more than I support cigarettes or beer. And for the same reasons.

Nope.....A swing and a miss. Try reading some "According to the California Cannabis Research Medical Group (CCRMG), there are three types of doctor(s) who approve cannabis for medicinal use by patients. (1) Willling specialists, eg those treating patients with cancer and AIDS, (2) Willing general practitioners who recommend the drug for gravely ill patients that other drugs fail to help, and (3) Cannabis specialists, who "are convinced of its relative benignity, and keep abreast of the literature with respect to mechanism-of-action, clinical trials in Europe, etc." Members of the CCRMG fall into group (3) and collectively have issued most of the estimated 50,000 approvals to use cannabis in the state of California since Prop 215 made it legal in November, 1996." Cannabis specialists, who "are convinced of its relative benignity" is a far cry from the other two groups...And yet they have given most of the aprrovals....HMMMMMMMM

Not really. Smoking it can cause cancer or do you claim that is not true? Two seperate issues. Not being able to show a negative effect (not proven) does not mean it is medicine. It take POSITIVE evidence to prove it is medicine, not "It can't hurt". Then work to outlaw those two. I agree that on the surface MJ seems better than alcohol...But that does not mean it is safe. "I'll take crazy Gov Conspiricy Theories for 100 Alex." This ranks right up there with the Gov has a car that runs on water. If you refuse to try and work within the Gov, expect it to continue to ignore your wishes. Like I said before dich Cheech and Chong as your spokes person and you will get more done.

The FDA will not allow a drug that does not fit two criteria: 1. Safe to use. 2. Accomplishes something of use. MJ has not been shown to be "safe". Smoking it can lead to cancer. And quite frankly no good study has shown what side effects there are. Does the drug have terrible side effects? IMO not really, but I am not the FDA and they do have a job to do and for the most part they do more good than harm. As to the question of "does it accomplish something". Where is the CLINICAL evidence? My Grandmother used to say Chicken Soup was a great healing device....That does not make it true. The thing is even if Chicken soup is not a miracle drug it does not HARM anyone when taking it (Except chickens). Do I "personally" think MJ is safe? I do not think it is any more dangerous than cigarettes. And I think the high is safer than alcohol. BUT that does not mean anything really. You want it to be allowed? Get some evidence that it does good. NOT evidence that it can't hurt.

I have no issue with medical MJ once a NEED is shown. Hell, I have no real issue with fun MJ. Thats easy. There are groups that if medical MJ were legal would write scripts to just about anyone so they could get high. Dr's are not allowed to write scripts so people can get stoned, (yes it happens I know) but the major push for "medical" MJ is not really for medical reasons. It is from guys that want to get stoned and see a way to do it legally. Those people, instead of pushing for MJ to be legal like Alcohol are hurting the medical movements chances. The real medical need folks should be telling the "tokers" to shut the fuck up. They are hurting more than they are helping. So the Gov is not going to allow a drug to be handed out so people can get high. MJ has two battles...BOTH I can agree to, but I don't agree with them being mixed. 1. Medical reasons .But I would like to see real evidence that it is the only option....I honestly find it hard to believe that only POT, not Mariol, not any of the other hundreds of other legal drugs only POT works. 2. Tokers who want to get high. When the tokers back medical uses....Well they do more harm than good. And using terms like "ditch weed" really hurts the medical push.

No I am showing that your made up numbers are nowhere CLOSE to reality. You said 1 good guy to 3 bad guys. But the real numbers are more like 1200 good guys to one bad guy. And that is INCLUDING suicides. So you are spouting numbers and facts you know nothing about. Just like the NRA and KKK bullshit. I don't see you ranting about gang violence in NZ? Skymedic "What is interesting is when I lived and worked in NZ they still had huge amounts of very violent crime...no guns...but instead of shooting each other, the south aucklanders would just pound the snot out of each other with chains, bats, etc...etc...etc. Gangs were rampant when I was there. We flew people almost everyday after getting fucked up by gangs. " So, you claim to be more civilized, but you have violence. And Skymedic has BEEN to NZ so he KNOWS. You have never been to the US yet you act like you know what it is like. You are a US whuffo. You listen to "stories" and then try to make a stand with no real knowledge. Just like when a whuffo tries to stop skydiving since they heard it was dangerous. People in NZ kill people for no good reason. Where is your outrage over that? What are you doing to stop gang violence at home? How do you know? You have never been here. Americas fasination with firearms makes NZ gangs attack other people? Like I said before, you are talking out of your ass. You have never even steped foot in the US yet you think you "know what it is like". For most people life anywhere is the SAME. My day to day life I never even see a gun even though I own them. I never hear a gunshot, don't carry it to go buy milk ect. I also don't get into gang fights with baseball bats. You are the one making Bullshit claims, spouting BS numbers, and insulting a Country you have never visited. Lack of guns does not either...Reference the fact people in NZ die by violence.

Have proof the ratio is 1/3 not 3/1? From the NRA website:"Over 50,000 Certified Instructors now train about 750,000 gun owners a year." 50,000 + 750,000 is 800,000. " In 1994, 44 million Americans owned 192 million firearms, 65 million of which were handguns." http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:WZuRmQdO_E4J:www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf+number+of+guns+bought+each+year+in+the+US&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us 192 Million firearms...65 Million pistols. There are about 38,000 gun related deaths each year. Those include criminal on criminal, accidents, police shootings...ect. "At a rough estimate, about 38,000 Americans die each year of gunshot wounds, almost as many as are killed on the roads. Fewer than half of these deaths are homicides. Together, accidents and suicides account for 54% of firearms deaths."http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Economist_Articles/home-on-the-range.html 65,000,000/38,000= 1710 guns per gun related death. Or 1710/1 Lets just take gun owners...44,000,000/38,000 = 1157. So the number of "saints" like me to gun deaths INCLUDING suicide and police is more like 1157/1 not 1/3 like you claim. Nomally people learn before they criticize. You have never been to the US, yet you claim to know what it is like...That is *just* like a whuffo claiming that skydiving is for idiots. For one, I have actual information what it is like to live in the US....For almost 4 decades. You don't and we are talking about the US. Yes, I have a passport and I have traveled to other countries...Funny thing is I don't think going to England, India, and Mexico, ect, makes me an expert on New Zealand (A place I have never been). YOU have never been here.. YOU don't know what it is like to be here. Maybe if you have actually tasted life with the abundance of guns you would understand where we come from. But you have never even BEEN here...What makes you a better judge of what it is like than a guy that has lived here almost 40 YEARS?!?!?!?! Depends on what I am training for. Self defence...Yes. I fail to see how you think you know more about American culture than a guy that lives here when you have never even stepped foot on US soil That is ego. You are just like a whuffo spouting stats they know nothing about.

Ah, you implied I was a redneck since I don't agree with you. Look if you are going to take shots at people, man up and admit it. But YOU said "I enjoy good ethnic jokes, I'm not a freak about it. Lisa Lamponelli is one of my favorite comics and nothing is sacred with her. Joking from a comedic viewpoint and naming a team are two very different things. One is to be laughed at, and the other shouldn't be laughed at, IMO.....If you can't laugh in a human context at who we are as people....what *do* you laugh at? It's when it becomes pointed and personal (ie;'jackass') that it becomes problematic, don't you agree?" So it seems you are only OK with people and events YOU approve of(normal really)...Anything else is forbidden. So if you find a joke funny then it is OK. But don't expect that everyone should agree with YOUR views only. I never said it was not a racial slur. I asked a question about how many people have to find it offensive before it is considered banned for use. And I take offense at how you explain away other terms that others could find offensive, but hold fast to your opinions and insult anyone that disagrees that only YOUR opinon should count. A perfect example: Some hate "Braves", but you think it is OK, but Redskins is not OK. But you have already mentioned that others do not care about it. You are free to hold on to your personal opinions...and voice them, ect. But you attack people when they do not agree (and then later claim you didn't) and don't pay any attention to anyone elses opinions. Have fun with that, but you should not expect that everyone else should only listen and respect your opinions.

You compared the NRA to the KKK. BIG difference. And they are both true...And no, convicted felons are not allowed to own guns. Not even close to correct. Again, not correct. Then you are making comments about things you don't understand, just like a whuffo. It is not a problem...And I am not complacent. My guns have never killed or comitted a crime. You want to blame the canopy for the hook turn...BAN Velocities and you WILL save lives. You have not even been here and you think you know how it is over here? Sheesh...Hello Whuffo! Again wrong. I have had fun with my guns and they have never killed anything. You make a ton of comments about life in the US and you have never been here...Talk about how dangerous guns are, but have never shot them....See trend? You talk about things you don't know about yet expect your uneducated opinion to count.

Agreed, the problem is that when the issue comes up the tokers wanna get involved and try to help. That actually hurts the cause. Comments like "ditch weed" from the Directors of groups don't help. But that is anicdotal evidence, not clinical. I have friends that swear they skydive better stoned. Just because they say it, does not mean it is true. Drunk Drivers often think they are fine to drive. That is up for debate. IIRC pot is a mix of over 200 chemicals and we still do not know what they all do, or why they do what they do when combined. We don't know what it really does and why. That is a true statement...And I would agree that Pot has less of an addictive nature. But that does not mean it is "safe". The FDA does make plenty of mistakes...I have been given two drugs that later have been yanked back by the FDA. Both caused liver disease. But, that also does not mean they should approve anything "just cause". That kind of approach will just mean it happens more. Now as for terminal patients....I have no issue (heck, I don't have an issue for tokers really). Use them as part of a study IMO. But I don't run things. And wanna bet that if it was legal for terminal cases that the number of terminal cases would suddenly jump? I guess my points are: 1. "It does not seem to hurt" is not a good reason to make the FDA allow it. 2. Tommy Chong types and comments like "Ditch Weed" are not helping. I think the medical group would be wise to try and follow the legal path and get as far away from Cheech and Chong as possible.

I "git" you can't debate a topic with out making attacks on the posters...That's twice you have done it in this thread. YOU are the one on the war path, and when you can't make your point, you "git" emotional and go looking to scalp someone.

If you make it legal, people will smoke it. Smoking it can cause cancer. Do you disagree with any of that? In YOUR example....BTW you seem to know a lot about it....you even mentioned smoking it for ingestion. Now, what method do you think is the most popular method of ingestion of MJ? See the easy correlation between legal pot and cancer issues? Care to discuss the other issue of DUI? Like I said, hell, make it legal and tax it. But hold people accountable for the actions. They take.

You are the one saying evidence and proof is using "weasel terms". If it is so much good, they should be able to show it. Failure to do that is a failure on your argument, not the other sides. How about from other countries? The "Feds" have that much power? And there are studies being done in the US...So, stick that in your pipe and smoke it . Just not many due to the image and some questionable studies. The tokers that claim it is for "medicine" are hurting any real chance at getting it looked at. Again, not my fault. Then you don't know how the FDA works. Maybe you should check it out....Should they just let people do stuff till you find out it is dangerous and kill a few people? The FDA has said it IS dangerous already...The real question is does the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? And can other drugs do a better or safer job? That is what the FDA is doing. Can't debate like an adult so you attack? Nice. I like this part "I've smoked perhaps 3 or 4 cigars in my life. No cigarettes, no dope". Well I have smoked dope...So much for ME being the the "tight one". Of course I never claimed it was for medicine....I did it to see what it was like. And I have said, make it legal and tax it....so stick it in your pipe also. The differences in the numbers of people who smoke daily could also be due to the cost and availability. Again attacks when you can't debate? Hey I also agree with guns, booze, skydiving...ect. My issues are not with the act, but the deeds done. Wanna have a gun? Great. Treat it with respect and don't use it for crimes....We don't have a gun crime problem, we have a crime problem that uses guns. My guns have never comitted a crime. Booze? You wanna drink, GREAT. Don't DUI, or beat your wife. Have fun, but don't do stupid things. Skydiving? I think we all agree that skydiving is OK...So go preach somewhere else. Motorcycles? Like em. Don't own one, but have. Again don't be stupid on them. Freedom. I served in the Infantry. I agree with freedom. Suck on that!

You stated you are OK with YOU owning weapons, but not OTHERS. So your phobia is of OTHERS owning weapons. You flat out said it. It is OK for you, in fact it makes you feel "privileged". But you don't want others to own them. Classic, "It is fine for ME, but not for YOU".

Neither are "Redskins", or "Braves." But it IS heritage. And its clear you only want others to respect the things YOU hold dear. So it is OK as long as "whitey" does not do it? So only through revenge will you have equality?

There is your phobia...YOU are OK to have guns, but not THEM. Why should they not have them just like you? Fear?

Or to Koreans, or.....you get the point. What about "Braves", "Indians", "Cowboys"? So you are OK with some, but not all. See thats the problem you draw the line, "Anything other than what I don't like is OK". You think that if one group dislikes something then it should be fixed...But if another group dislikes it...Well, no big deal? It is all about perspective...You have yours, but it does not seem equal. Kinda like "nigger" is a bad word..UNLESS you are black. The only group that is allowed to be made fun of is whites. If they complain, they must be racists.

I don't think that it will prevent bad guys from doing harm...But if I am armed it may prevent them from doing it to me or someone I care about. It may also limit the amount of damage done as shown by the women being attacked with a knife and a guy with a gun stopping the attack.

So you can catch and punish them for violating them. If their were not laws then you could not stp someone or punish them for doing it. There are laws against it and even with steps taken to reduce the danger it still happens. As does your phobia of anyone having a gun.

Family decides. That would be husband then kids, then parents IMO. So without MJ she dies? Opinion, or fact? If people can prove the MJ is her only option I say let her blaze away...But how about some clinical evidence first?

How about other drugs that exist? Are those the ONLY options? Or they sound like something you cannot provide. And since you cannot provide them you look to attack the idea of asking for them? Like it or not the FDA is NOT going to allow something without a PROVEN MEDICAL NEED, and some PROOF IT WORKS. Otherwise we would have all kinds of "home remedies" out there. And if MJ is the wonder drug that some claim, it should be easy to PROVE it in clinical studies. However, your group has not done that, and with guys leading the drive sounding like wake and bakers [stoner voice]Hey, man....This is ditch weed[/stoner voice], and the best defense you can prove "its relative benignity"...That is not the same thing as it works better than asprin and here is the clincial evidence that shows it works well or better than what is currently available and legal. Like I said before....Show some real clinical trials, and get a spokes person that does not sound like Tommy Chong trying to get baked and give it a run. OR, Admit that you wanna get baked and fight for it based on the fact that Alcohol is allowed, and so is tabacco. I have no real issue with it as long as those who partake don't get behind a wheel, or engage in crime to get it, or sue since it gives them cancer.

Think Tabacco. You can also make your own beer and wine, but most buy it since cigarettes, and booze are easier to buy than make/grow. That is a good point. I would rather think that maybe the reason that it is not legal has to do with the negatives, rather than financial. Maybe I am smokin But really, we had big lawsuits over cancer and smoking. We have DUI issues with Alcohol. We would both of these with MJ as well and I am not sure that that part would be worth the whole.

It does not, but bans do not either.

Did you bother to read my post where I said legalize it? And I have yet to see any proof that it is a medical NEED that cannot be resolved by other drugs that are available. And you never answered my claim that the legalization crowd looks and sounds like they came from woodstock. Common things said: They say, "Whats the harm?"...I say, Show me the benefit that cannot be gotten from any other drug. They say, "It eases suffering"...I say, so does Morphine and maybe crack. Also a ton of RX drugs...Use one of the current legal ones. And there is also an epidemic of RX drug abuse. The result - those truly suffering suffer needlessly. It's really a damn shame, and should be criminal.