DaVinci

OK, but he said "Ditch weed". If he had said "A harsh, low quality, unrefined product containing unacceptedly low levels of THC to achieve a proper dose." He might have show some credability. Right now he looks like a stoner trying to score. And THAT is the problem. Out of 10 people trying to legalize MJ we have: 1 person doing real research into the drug, 3 are trying to use it as alternative medicine for compasionate reasons, but without any real evidence. And 6 are looking to score some quality shit. So the Gov does not support anything but the real research. You want my personal opinion? Legalize it and tax it like everything else. We allow people to drink and smoke tabacco, I don't really see a difference. However, abuse laws would have to be upheld...Drive stoned, and it gets treated like a DUI. Get cancer from smoking it? Too bad, you can't sue anyone. But the majority of the people trying to legalize it sound like they came from a Greatful Dead concert and that is not going to help them get it for "medical reasons".

When did this place become Congress?

NIDA has a contract with the University of Mississippi to grow none to 6.5 ACRES a year. NIDA provides the drug to anyone that has shown a need for FREE. Including 7 individuals. Currently they have about 200,000 cigarettes frozen in storage. The problem is not the availability, it is that some of the studies do not follow the rules to get the drug, or want to have someone else grow it. And statements like this do not help: "Dale Gieringer, California coordinator for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, agrees. "It's unconscionable that they would be giving this marijuana to patients," he said. "It's stale, low-potency ditch weed." Ditch weed?!?!?!? That sounds like a stoner pissed he got some bad smoke, not a director of a study group.

It does....Look up NIDA and University of Mississippi. "Under the current contract with the University of Mississippi for any given year NIDA has the option to grow either 1.5 or 6.5 acres of cannabis, or to not grow any at all, depending on research demand. Generally, 1.5 acres are grown in alternate years. The number of cannabis cigarettes produced from 1.5 acres is about 50,000-60,000, although it can be higher." "NIDA's present policy is to provide cannabis for medical research purposes to either grantees or nongrantees whose research and protocols have scientific merit, providing the research is determined to be an appropriate use of NIDA resources and the principal investigator obtains the necessary licences. " "Presently NIDA absorbs all costs associated with the growth, production and shipping of cannabis, regardless of whether or not the request is from a NIDA-funded investigator."

Highbrow as in "No real discussion"

See I see "Redskins" as taking the spirit of ALL Native Americans, not just one tribe. OK but that raises two questions. 1. What if you find it offensive, but others of your same race do not? Lets say you find "Redskins"offensive, but Another NA does not? Who is right? 2. What is the threshold? One guy out of 1,000? Is that one guy ignored, or does the team drop the name even if ONE guy out of a million does not like it? See the problem is that only the people who complain normally get any attention. The people who have no problem with a name normally do not say anything.

Fits, don't ya think? Only a "madman" would shoot at little kids, or kill people at random for religion.

I think three: 3. Even if you outlaw guns (NY has tough Anti-Gun laws), people who wish to do harm will still get them and use them.

I like these quotes: "The FDA says that "There are alternative FDA-approved medications in existence for treatment of many of the proposed uses of smoked marijuana." "According to the California Cannabis Research Medical Group (CCRMG), there are three types of doctor 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." OK so if there really are other medicines that do the same thing...And I have to think that there are. And that most of the scripts written are from "Cannabis specialists, who "are convinced of its relative benignity".... I tend to think that she should be written other scripts and that if REALLY need, then pot should be written, but not by "Cannabis specialists", who "are convinced of its relative benignity". The "Cannabis specialists" do more harm than good IMO. And if pot is such a wonder drug the FDA should look at it an allow it.

They do not seem to mind since the head dress and outfit was given to the school by a tribe.

Cute but it does not really apply since the rich cannot opt out of paying taxes. It does show how the system is twisted to make anything done seem wrong. Which is why I like the flat percentage. Plus the savings by reducing the IRS.

And when I google "New Zealand KKK" I get: "Ku Klux Klan active in NZ, says former leader" That means...exactly nothing. Just like your links Not defending the KKK in any way, but you make attacks on the NRA like they are the KKK and that is just not true. The second is not the problem. CRIMINALS are the problem and they will get guns anyway. The shootings in NYC were with a RUSSIAN made handgun. Who said we feel the NEED to carry? We have the RIGHT. I don't carry, but I could if I felt like it. Have you even held a gun? Shot it? Got any training? If not you are just like the skydiving whuffo. You have a strong opinion with no information. It would make me safer. But have you ever held or shot a gun?

Well they could, but if you gave everyone 1,000 dollars some would find a reason to complain...."I got TAXED on that! He should have paid the taxes as well!" And if that was the difference between food stamps and not being on food stamps I would agree 100%...But we both know that say 10% of 4G's would not make the difference. And like I said before getting rid of deductions that only "rich" people take would mean they pay more than before. Also the cost savings in reducing the staff of the IRS would save money.

While it would be nice...I doubt it will last. I HOPE it will last, but I doubt it will. Rebel fighters have all the time in the world. They just sit and wait for a target. They can wait a long time.

I find that when people have no argument they attack the person. Like you just did. No I am saying you have no proof there are ties now, but you still make the claim. Yet you judge people all the time...Reference the "redneck" comments above. How much real experience do you have with guns? You said before only seeing them on TV. That means you have no real idea about guns and that makes you like the wuffo that things skydiving is for idiots IMO.

OK, yes they WOULD, but they are just looking to start shit....Kinda like you

I can see it happening. I already use a card for almost everything....Hell, I find it easier to save this way. I pay the bill off in total every mth and I get cash back for using the card. Any other money is invested. It is easy to invest everything else when you know you have "X" in the bank and you owe "Y" this mth. Plus I get a mthly statement that shows me where almost every dollar goes.

Yes, I should have said flat *tax* rate. But I think we should remove almost all deductions (401k/IRA and health savings plans as examples of exceptions) and have a flat % of income. This would still have the rich pay more in total dollars and would remove some of the fancy deductions from them that the lower incomes never take. The IRS could also almost be abolished. Also, no one anywhere could claim that a flat percentage would be unfair.

You like to play with other peoples money....Got it. And only to the rules you consider to be "fair". I consider a flat rate fair no matter how much you make. You think if you make more you should pay more. So I guess you think only your rules should count?

This is one of the dumbest most ignorant things I have ever read from you. Just because you don't agree you label it as bad. Just like some label freestyle as stupid, or even skydiving.

But it is your business how much others give? So I guess it is no ones business how much you give, UNLESS you are considered "rich" then it is everyone business.

I bet if I looked at the clothes you have that you are in fact supporting the exploitation of third world countries.

Might as well ask the families of dead skydivers if loved ones should jump.

Movies I agree. But the TV show was OK. The problem I have with these "fixes" just how ivy was thought to be a great addition to a garden. ***Problems are greater in North America, where trees may be overwhelmed by the ivy to the extent they are killed; this could be because ivy in North America, being introduced, is without the natural pests and diseases that control its vigour in its native areas. A more serious problem is that ivy creates a vigorous, dense, shade-tolerant evergreen groundcover (precisely the characteristics for which it is often cultivated) that can spread over large areas and outcompete native vegetation"

You are missing the entire point. There are two issues. The school not allowing the use of that word, and them doing it anyway. They were told not to and did it anyway. They were punished for *that* action. You can debate the reason they were told no, but that has nothing to do with why they were punished. And THEY could have fought it BEFORE they broke a rule they knew about. So, I am not missing the point. They did something they were told not to do and were punished for it. Now, some other info that makes this whole thing even dumber. So, while I have no problem with these students being suspended for doing what they were told not to do, I do see a problem with how the school decides what is OK.