Potent Pot

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: bamacre
Tabb,

Why don't you prove the current system is working well enough that it doesn't need to be changed? Good luck on that.

It is obvious there is significant medical usage of marijuana, solely in the fact that many states have already legalized it for medical purposes.

Do I need marijuana to survive? No. I don't need alcohol to survive, nor do I need McDonald's cheeseburgers to survive, either (fyi, I refuse to eat at McDonald's).

Tabb, we just want our right to smoke marijuana in the privacy of our homes, something we have had to do in the dark for years.

It is WE who want to change the system, or lack there of. You and yours seem to just want the same old system, the one that has failed since it's been put in place, the one that is failing as I type, and the one that will continue to fail until change is brought upon it.

The only other thing you are yours want to change is human nature, and that's not possible. Studies showing the unhealthiness of pot aren't going to make people stop smoking it. People, in general, will NEVER stop smoking marijuana.

Tabb, you need to do some growing-up. Get out more, meet more people. You obviously have no earthly idea how many people smoke pot.



EDIT: OH MY GOODNESS, you really live in Fargo, ND ???? Ah, it's all making sense now.

I think it is working, I beileve that our laws are keeping a vast majority of weed is kept out of the hands of indiviuals.

If you really want my opinion I think we should fine parents when there childeren are cought with the substance.

Bamacre, you are "CHANGING THE SUBJECT" I am talking about "MEDICAL MARJUNIA" not "CheeseBurgers". I do not believe these indiviuals need to have marijuana to survive. Please, don't get me started on the food industry, they set you up as a kid to be a fatass.

I understand that, but you can do it right now can't you? If you can prove to me if weed was decriminalized/legalized and the responsiblity rate would go up (less people being the sterotypical "Stoner") then I'd be for it. The reason alcholol became legal was because of all the violence and the fact that there are so many people that are abosutely hooked on it for life. If weed did became legal, I really wouldn't care its not like you can OD but its not like its good for you or society.

People wont stop smoking crack either, but then again is EVERYONE shown a study as to what crack does to you? Do you really believe everyone would smoke tobacco if they knew how they would end up?

Yes, I live in Fargo, North Dakota. I am the "ONLY" liberal in the entire state, or should I say independent...

I really wouldn't mind getting high, (not that I haven't been, I stopped a long time ago) with someone thats less the sterotypical "Stoner".
 

marcello

Golden Member
Aug 30, 2004
1,141
0
0
Originally posted by: Tabb
I think it is working, I beileve that our laws are keeping a vast majority of weed is kept out of the hands of indiviuals.

I hope that smiley was for sarcastic effect. If not, I can tell you you're very wrong. In high school it was easier for me to get pot than it was to get booze. If I really wanted to I could have pounds of weed in my possesion in a couple of hours, and I haven't smoked in over a year. It's that easy to find and get

I love smoking, I just can't do it anymore. Please, it needs to be legalized, it hurts no one. Don't believe the bullsh|t propaganda they put on those anti-drug ads on tv. That is all
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: marcello
Originally posted by: Tabb
I think it is working, I beileve that our laws are keeping a vast majority of weed is kept out of the hands of indiviuals.

I hope that smiley was for sarcastic effect. If not, I can tell you you're very wrong. In high school it was easier for me to get pot than it was to get booze. If I really wanted to I could have pounds of weed in my possesion in a couple of hours, and I haven't smoked in over a year. It's that easy to find and get

I love smoking, I just can't do it anymore. Please, it needs to be legalized, it hurts no one. Don't believe the bullsh|t propaganda they put on those anti-drug ads on tv. That is all

In YOUR school it was easier for you to get booze than pot. In any event we aren't discussing how easy it is to get, we are discussing are most people being barred from using the substance due to laws. If most people don't smoke weed because its illegal or bad for you, then its obvisiouly working isnt it?
 

imported_hscorpio

Golden Member
Sep 1, 2004
1,617
0
0
Originally posted by: bamacre

Tabb, we just want our right to smoke marijuana in the privacy of our homes, something we have had to do in the dark for years.

It is WE who want to change the system, or lack there of. You and yours seem to just want the same old system, the one that has failed since it's been put in place, the one that is failing as I type, and the one that will continue to fail until change is brought upon it.

I have to point out that not everyone who argues for marijuana legalization is a marijuana smoker. I have smoked it, but do not anymore and I think it should be legal.
 

imported_hscorpio

Golden Member
Sep 1, 2004
1,617
0
0
Originally posted by: Tabb

In YOUR school it was easier for you to get booze than pot. In any event we aren't discussing how easy it is to get, we are discussing are most people being barred from using the substance due to laws. If most people don't smoke weed because its illegal or bad for you, then its obvisiouly working isnt it?

If it is easy to get then obviously most people are not being barred from using it.

Most people don't smoke weed because they don't want to, the law usually has very little to do with the decision.

Now answer my previous questions please.

 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: hscorpio
Originally posted by: Tabb

First of all, your not even quoting me properly. Prove to me these WOMEN HAVE TO HAVE WEED TO SURVIVE. The fact is THEY DO NOT.

First of all I quoted exactly what you typed, second answer my questions.

Sure these women will survive without pot, but they will be in much more pain and worse off than if they could use pot. These two women and their DOCTORS believe that pot is very successful at easing their suffering and making life more tolerable for them. They have tried/used multiple other drugs, but for them pot is the most effective with the least negative side effects.

What right do you have to say they can't do this? Where did you get your medical degree from?

First of all, its "TWO WOMEN" are you trying to me that two people are going to turn around the laws that we've had for years? Now, synthetic THC has been infact produced. The same stuff found in weed, why can't they use that?
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: hscorpio
Originally posted by: Tabb

In YOUR school it was easier for you to get booze than pot. In any event we aren't discussing how easy it is to get, we are discussing are most people being barred from using the substance due to laws. If most people don't smoke weed because its illegal or bad for you, then its obvisiouly working isnt it?

If it is easy to get then obviously most people are not being barred from using it.

Most people don't smoke weed because they don't want to, the law usually has very little to do with the decision.

Now answer my previous questions please.

Done What is screwed up is drug use is considered a "Criminal" Offense and not a "Civil" Offense. What really matters is the enforcement taking place, which it isn't.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61

There were an estimated 2.6 million new marijuana users in 2001. This number is similar to the numbers of new users each year since 1995, but above the number in 1990 (1.6 million). In 2002, over 14 million Americans age 12 and older used marijuana at least once in the month prior to being surveyed, and 12.2 percent of past year marijuana users used marijuana on 300 or more days in the past 12 months. This translates into 3.1 million people using marijuana on a daily or almost daily basis over a 12-month period(1).

Forty-two percent of youth age 12 or 13 and 24.1 percent age 16 or 17 perceived smoking marijuana once a month as a great risk. Slightly more than half of youth age 12 to 17 indicated that it would be fairly or very easy to obtain marijuana, but only 26.0 percent of 12- or 13-year-olds indicated the same thing. However, 79.0 percent of those age 16 or 17 indicated that it would be fairly or very easy to obtain marijuana(1).

Prohibition is doing a swell job :roll:



The study proves two things...

1. Pot is bad for your health.
2. Prohibition is not working.
 

imported_hscorpio

Golden Member
Sep 1, 2004
1,617
0
0
Originally posted by: Tabb

First of all, its "TWO WOMEN" are you trying to me that two people are going to turn around the laws that we've had for years?

They are just two of many people that find marijuana useful in treating their medical condidtions.
EDIT- Remember that California voters made medical marijuana legal in 1996. These women were abiding by state law but the federal government stuck its nose where it don't belong and arrested them.

These women want marijuana to be prescribed to them legally, the same way they can get a subscription for vicodin. It has proven medical use. It is not right for you to deny them access to this drug based on the fact that the law has said pot has no medical value since 1970. The law is wrong, obviously it does have medical value so we should change the law.

Now, synthetic THC has been infact produced. The same stuff found in weed, why can't they use that?
If you have no problem with them using the synthetic version of THC, then why shouldn't they be able to use the natural version?

Studies have shown that marinol is not as effective as marijuana and patients prefer it over the pill form. When marijuana is smoked the effects are almost instant meaning it is easy to gauge when you've had enough. In pill form the effects don't kick in immediately but take up to an hour. This means its harder to take the right dose. Also whole marijuana has hundreds of other active cannabinoids. Marinol is the synthetic version of just one of those cannabinoids.

Also why should they have to pay 17$ a pill when they can grow pot for free?

Clinical research has also demonstrated similar properties of THC and cannabis with regard to therapeutic effects. This is shown in the data from marijuana research programs on the anti-emetic effects of marijuana in 6 states (Musty & Rossi 2001, see above), where patients who smoked marijuana experienced 70-100% relief from nausea and vomiting, and those who used the THC capsule experienced 76-88% relief. In the study by Abrams et al. (2002) that investigated the interaction of smoked cannabis and Marinol? (THC) with HIV medication, very similar effects were observed with regard to weight gain. The participants had been divided into three groups, with one set smoking marijuana (3.95% THC), another taking oral dronabinol capsules (3x2.5 mg daily), and a third taking oral placebo capsules. Researchers found that those using dronabinol (THC) or marijuana experienced significant increases in caloric intake and gained an average of 3.5 kg (marijuana group) and 3.2 kg. (THC group) compared to 1.3 kg in the placebo group. There was no significant difference between marijuana and THC with regard to side effects and benefits.
Text
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: hscorpio
Originally posted by: Tabb

First of all, its "TWO WOMEN" are you trying to me that two people are going to turn around the laws that we've had for years?

They are just two of many people that find marijuana useful in treating their medical condidtions.
EDIT- Remember that California voters made medical marijuana legal in 1996. These women were abiding by state law but the federal government stuck its nose where it don't belong and arrested them.

These women want marijuana to be prescribed to them legally, the same way they can get a subscription for vicodin. It has proven medical use. It is not right for you to deny them access to this drug based on the fact that the law has said pot has no medical value since 1970. The law is wrong, obviously it does have medical value so we should change the law.

Now, synthetic THC has been infact produced. The same stuff found in weed, why can't they use that?
If you have no problem with them using the synthetic version of THC, then why shouldn't they be able to use the natural version?

Studies have shown that marinol is not as effective as marijuana and patients prefer it over the pill form. When marijuana is smoked the effects are almost instant meaning it is easy to gauge when you've had enough. In pill form the effects don't kick in immediately but take up to an hour. This means its harder to take the right dose. Also whole marijuana has hundreds of other active cannabinoids. Marinol is the synthetic version of just one of those cannabinoids.

Also why should they have to pay 17$ a pill when they can grow pot for free?

Clinical research has also demonstrated similar properties of THC and cannabis with regard to therapeutic effects. This is shown in the data from marijuana research programs on the anti-emetic effects of marijuana in 6 states (Musty & Rossi 2001, see above), where patients who smoked marijuana experienced 70-100% relief from nausea and vomiting, and those who used the THC capsule experienced 76-88% relief. In the study by Abrams et al. (2002) that investigated the interaction of smoked cannabis and Marinol? (THC) with HIV medication, very similar effects were observed with regard to weight gain. The participants had been divided into three groups, with one set smoking marijuana (3.95% THC), another taking oral dronabinol capsules (3x2.5 mg daily), and a third taking oral placebo capsules. Researchers found that those using dronabinol (THC) or marijuana experienced significant increases in caloric intake and gained an average of 3.5 kg (marijuana group) and 3.2 kg. (THC group) compared to 1.3 kg in the placebo group. There was no significant difference between marijuana and THC with regard to side effects and benefits.
Text

In North Dakota Gay Marriage was added to our state consitution in 2004, doesn't mean it was right. The federal goverment has juristiction over state goverments, they removed gay marriage from california didnt they?

It has a medical use, but the fact is there are other drugs WITHOUT the negative side effects that Marjiuana has. That is why they shouldn't use the natural form.

Would you trust me to make my own asprin? Marinol may not be effective but you can have craploads of THC and its "One of the saftest Drugs around"....



"Tetrahydrocannabinol is a very safe drug. Laboratory animals (rats, mice, dogs, monkeys) can tolerate doses of up to 1,000 mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram). This would be equivalent to a 70 kg person swallowing 70 grams of the drug -- about 5,000 times more than is required to produce a high. Despite the widespread illicit use of cannabis there are very few if any instances of people dying from an overdose. In Britain, official government statistics listed five deaths from cannabis in the period 1993-1995 but on closer examination these proved to have been deaths due to inhalation of vomit that could not be directly attributed to cannabis (House of Lords Report, 1998). By comparison with other commonly used recreational drugs these statistics are impressive."

Originally posted by: bamacre

There were an estimated 2.6 million new marijuana users in 2001. This number is similar to the numbers of new users each year since 1995, but above the number in 1990 (1.6 million). In 2002, over 14 million Americans age 12 and older used marijuana at least once in the month prior to being surveyed, and 12.2 percent of past year marijuana users used marijuana on 300 or more days in the past 12 months. This translates into 3.1 million people using marijuana on a daily or almost daily basis over a 12-month period(1).

Forty-two percent of youth age 12 or 13 and 24.1 percent age 16 or 17 perceived smoking marijuana once a month as a great risk. Slightly more than half of youth age 12 to 17 indicated that it would be fairly or very easy to obtain marijuana, but only 26.0 percent of 12- or 13-year-olds indicated the same thing. However, 79.0 percent of those age 16 or 17 indicated that it would be fairly or very easy to obtain marijuana(1).

Prohibition is doing a swell job :roll:



The study proves two things...

1. Pot is bad for your health.
2. Prohibition is not working.

The Prohibition is working, it is ILLEGAL. Are only problem is we suck at enforcing it, I say we start fining parents IMHO.
 

imported_hscorpio

Golden Member
Sep 1, 2004
1,617
0
0

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: hscorpio
Originally posted by: Tabb

First of all, its "TWO WOMEN" are you trying to me that two people are going to turn around the laws that we've had for years?

They are just two of many people that find marijuana useful in treating their medical condidtions.
EDIT- Remember that California voters made medical marijuana legal in 1996. These women were abiding by state law but the federal government stuck its nose where it don't belong and arrested them.

These women want marijuana to be prescribed to them legally, the same way they can get a subscription for vicodin. It has proven medical use. It is not right for you to deny them access to this drug based on the fact that the law has said pot has no medical value since 1970. The law is wrong, obviously it does have medical value so we should change the law.

Now, synthetic THC has been infact produced. The same stuff found in weed, why can't they use that?
If you have no problem with them using the synthetic version of THC, then why shouldn't they be able to use the natural version?

Studies have shown that marinol is not as effective as marijuana and patients prefer it over the pill form. When marijuana is smoked the effects are almost instant meaning it is easy to gauge when you've had enough. In pill form the effects don't kick in immediately but take up to an hour. This means its harder to take the right dose. Also whole marijuana has hundreds of other active cannabinoids. Marinol is the synthetic version of just one of those cannabinoids.

Also why should they have to pay 17$ a pill when they can grow pot for free?

Clinical research has also demonstrated similar properties of THC and cannabis with regard to therapeutic effects. This is shown in the data from marijuana research programs on the anti-emetic effects of marijuana in 6 states (Musty & Rossi 2001, see above), where patients who smoked marijuana experienced 70-100% relief from nausea and vomiting, and those who used the THC capsule experienced 76-88% relief. In the study by Abrams et al. (2002) that investigated the interaction of smoked cannabis and Marinol? (THC) with HIV medication, very similar effects were observed with regard to weight gain. The participants had been divided into three groups, with one set smoking marijuana (3.95% THC), another taking oral dronabinol capsules (3x2.5 mg daily), and a third taking oral placebo capsules. Researchers found that those using dronabinol (THC) or marijuana experienced significant increases in caloric intake and gained an average of 3.5 kg (marijuana group) and 3.2 kg. (THC group) compared to 1.3 kg in the placebo group. There was no significant difference between marijuana and THC with regard to side effects and benefits.
Text

In North Dakota Gay Marriage was added to our state consitution in 2004, doesn't mean it was right. The federal goverment has juristiction over state goverments, they removed gay marriage from california didnt they?

It has a medical use, but the fact is there are other drugs WITHOUT the negative side effects that Marjiuana has. That is why they shouldn't use the natural form.

Would you trust me to make my own asprin? Marinol may not be effective but you can have craploads of THC and its "One of the saftest Drugs around"....



"Tetrahydrocannabinol is a very safe drug. Laboratory animals (rats, mice, dogs, monkeys) can tolerate doses of up to 1,000 mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram). This would be equivalent to a 70 kg person swallowing 70 grams of the drug -- about 5,000 times more than is required to produce a high. Despite the widespread illicit use of cannabis there are very few if any instances of people dying from an overdose. In Britain, official government statistics listed five deaths from cannabis in the period 1993-1995 but on closer examination these proved to have been deaths due to inhalation of vomit that could not be directly attributed to cannabis (House of Lords Report, 1998). By comparison with other commonly used recreational drugs these statistics are impressive."

Originally posted by: bamacre

There were an estimated 2.6 million new marijuana users in 2001. This number is similar to the numbers of new users each year since 1995, but above the number in 1990 (1.6 million). In 2002, over 14 million Americans age 12 and older used marijuana at least once in the month prior to being surveyed, and 12.2 percent of past year marijuana users used marijuana on 300 or more days in the past 12 months. This translates into 3.1 million people using marijuana on a daily or almost daily basis over a 12-month period(1).

Forty-two percent of youth age 12 or 13 and 24.1 percent age 16 or 17 perceived smoking marijuana once a month as a great risk. Slightly more than half of youth age 12 to 17 indicated that it would be fairly or very easy to obtain marijuana, but only 26.0 percent of 12- or 13-year-olds indicated the same thing. However, 79.0 percent of those age 16 or 17 indicated that it would be fairly or very easy to obtain marijuana(1).

Prohibition is doing a swell job :roll:



The study proves two things...

1. Pot is bad for your health.
2. Prohibition is not working.

The Prohibition is working, it is ILLEGAL. Are only problem is we suck at enforcing it, I say we start fining parents IMHO.


Oh yeah, are you going to fine MY parents for MY smoking? HAHA, good luck with that, I'm 28 years old. And my first puff was at age 19.

Tougher laws aren't going to help, you can give that up, unless you want to wave "bye-bye" to the Bill of Rights. I can get pot in 60 minutes, maybe less, any day of the week. In fact after 11pm, and all day on Sunday, it's easier for me to buy weed than a bottle of liquor, MUCH easier.

The fact that we suck at enforcing the laws (and at a cost of BILLIONS of dollars every year at that), is proof prohibition isn't working. Yeah, it keeps it illegal, but it sure as hell doesn't keep it out of the hands of millions of Americans.

You have no idea how much money in taxes WE lose out on every year. It's sad, that money should be going to teachers, to children without health insurance, and to a lot of others that need it. And no, because of people like yourself, that money goes into the hands of drug dealers, criminals, murderers, and street gangs. Pathetic.

People smoke it. Live with it. You cannot change human nature, and you're a fool if you think you can.
 

imported_hscorpio

Golden Member
Sep 1, 2004
1,617
0
0
Originally posted by: Tabb


In North Dakota Gay Marriage was added to our state consitution in 2004, doesn't mean it was right. The federal goverment has juristiction over state goverments, they removed gay marriage from california didnt they?

WTF are you smoking man?
It has a medical use, but the fact is there are other drugs WITHOUT the negative side effects that Marjiuana has. That is why they shouldn't use the natural form.

NO NO NO NO. The reason these people want to use medical marijuana is because IT is the drug that has the least negative side effects for them. Have you checked the warning labels on prescription pain medication lately? You think they don't have negative side effects?

Would you trust me to make my own asprin? Marinol may not be effective but you can have craploads of THC and its "One of the saftest Drugs around"....
I would not trust you to make your own synthetic THC or aspirin as it involves complicated chemical proccesses. However if you want to grow your own willow bark then go for it.

I don't understand how you can agree that THC is a pretty safe drug, but continue to support putting people in prison for the use of marijuana.
The Prohibition is working, it is ILLEGAL.
This sentence makes no sense at all. Are you claiming prohibition is working because... prohibition exists?Perhaps they have not taught you logic and reason at your high school yet?
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: hscorpio
Originally posted by: Tabb


In North Dakota Gay Marriage was added to our state consitution in 2004, doesn't mean it was right. The federal goverment has juristiction over state goverments, they removed gay marriage from california didnt they?

WTF are you smoking man?
It has a medical use, but the fact is there are other drugs WITHOUT the negative side effects that Marjiuana has. That is why they shouldn't use the natural form.

NO NO NO NO. The reason these people want to use medical marijuana is because IT is the drug that has the least negative side effects for them. Have you checked the warning labels on prescription pain medication lately? You think they don't have negative side effects?

Would you trust me to make my own asprin? Marinol may not be effective but you can have craploads of THC and its "One of the saftest Drugs around"....
I would not trust you to make your own synthetic THC or aspirin as it involves complicated chemical proccesses. However if you want to grow your own willow bark then go for it.

I don't understand how you can agree that THC is a pretty safe drug, but continue to support putting people in prison for the use of marijuana.
The Prohibition is working, it is ILLEGAL.
This sentence makes no sense at all. Are you claiming prohibition is working because... prohibition exists?Perhaps they have not taught you logic and reason at your highschool yet?

You don't think gays should get married? I can discuss that to, just give me a private message.

Thats crap, you're telling me native marijuana has less harmfull side effects than synthetic THC! Prove it.

Compared, to most other drugs its realitivly safe. Its pratically impossible to overdose. Thats why I gave the link I gave you. THC itself is not very dangerous at all.

The sentance makes plenty of sense, prohibition is time when a certian item or object is illegal. Is weed illegal? Yes it is, our only problem is we just suck at enforcing our laws. The prohibition is simple time period.

I don't support putting people in prison for smoking weed or distrubution, I support fines and community service.



 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: hscorpio
Originally posted by: Tabb

First of all, its "TWO WOMEN" are you trying to me that two people are going to turn around the laws that we've had for years?

They are just two of many people that find marijuana useful in treating their medical condidtions.
EDIT- Remember that California voters made medical marijuana legal in 1996. These women were abiding by state law but the federal government stuck its nose where it don't belong and arrested them.

These women want marijuana to be prescribed to them legally, the same way they can get a subscription for vicodin. It has proven medical use. It is not right for you to deny them access to this drug based on the fact that the law has said pot has no medical value since 1970. The law is wrong, obviously it does have medical value so we should change the law.

Now, synthetic THC has been infact produced. The same stuff found in weed, why can't they use that?
If you have no problem with them using the synthetic version of THC, then why shouldn't they be able to use the natural version?

Studies have shown that marinol is not as effective as marijuana and patients prefer it over the pill form. When marijuana is smoked the effects are almost instant meaning it is easy to gauge when you've had enough. In pill form the effects don't kick in immediately but take up to an hour. This means its harder to take the right dose. Also whole marijuana has hundreds of other active cannabinoids. Marinol is the synthetic version of just one of those cannabinoids.

Also why should they have to pay 17$ a pill when they can grow pot for free?

Clinical research has also demonstrated similar properties of THC and cannabis with regard to therapeutic effects. This is shown in the data from marijuana research programs on the anti-emetic effects of marijuana in 6 states (Musty & Rossi 2001, see above), where patients who smoked marijuana experienced 70-100% relief from nausea and vomiting, and those who used the THC capsule experienced 76-88% relief. In the study by Abrams et al. (2002) that investigated the interaction of smoked cannabis and Marinol? (THC) with HIV medication, very similar effects were observed with regard to weight gain. The participants had been divided into three groups, with one set smoking marijuana (3.95% THC), another taking oral dronabinol capsules (3x2.5 mg daily), and a third taking oral placebo capsules. Researchers found that those using dronabinol (THC) or marijuana experienced significant increases in caloric intake and gained an average of 3.5 kg (marijuana group) and 3.2 kg. (THC group) compared to 1.3 kg in the placebo group. There was no significant difference between marijuana and THC with regard to side effects and benefits.
Text

In North Dakota Gay Marriage was added to our state consitution in 2004, doesn't mean it was right. The federal goverment has juristiction over state goverments, they removed gay marriage from california didnt they?

It has a medical use, but the fact is there are other drugs WITHOUT the negative side effects that Marjiuana has. That is why they shouldn't use the natural form.

Would you trust me to make my own asprin? Marinol may not be effective but you can have craploads of THC and its "One of the saftest Drugs around"....



"Tetrahydrocannabinol is a very safe drug. Laboratory animals (rats, mice, dogs, monkeys) can tolerate doses of up to 1,000 mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram). This would be equivalent to a 70 kg person swallowing 70 grams of the drug -- about 5,000 times more than is required to produce a high. Despite the widespread illicit use of cannabis there are very few if any instances of people dying from an overdose. In Britain, official government statistics listed five deaths from cannabis in the period 1993-1995 but on closer examination these proved to have been deaths due to inhalation of vomit that could not be directly attributed to cannabis (House of Lords Report, 1998). By comparison with other commonly used recreational drugs these statistics are impressive."

Originally posted by: bamacre

There were an estimated 2.6 million new marijuana users in 2001. This number is similar to the numbers of new users each year since 1995, but above the number in 1990 (1.6 million). In 2002, over 14 million Americans age 12 and older used marijuana at least once in the month prior to being surveyed, and 12.2 percent of past year marijuana users used marijuana on 300 or more days in the past 12 months. This translates into 3.1 million people using marijuana on a daily or almost daily basis over a 12-month period(1).

Forty-two percent of youth age 12 or 13 and 24.1 percent age 16 or 17 perceived smoking marijuana once a month as a great risk. Slightly more than half of youth age 12 to 17 indicated that it would be fairly or very easy to obtain marijuana, but only 26.0 percent of 12- or 13-year-olds indicated the same thing. However, 79.0 percent of those age 16 or 17 indicated that it would be fairly or very easy to obtain marijuana(1).

Prohibition is doing a swell job :roll:



The study proves two things...

1. Pot is bad for your health.
2. Prohibition is not working.

The Prohibition is working, it is ILLEGAL. Are only problem is we suck at enforcing it, I say we start fining parents IMHO.


Oh yeah, are you going to fine MY parents for MY smoking? HAHA, good luck with that, I'm 28 years old. And my first puff was at age 19.

Tougher laws aren't going to help, you can give that up, unless you want to wave "bye-bye" to the Bill of Rights. I can get pot in 60 minutes, maybe less, any day of the week. In fact after 11pm, and all day on Sunday, it's easier for me to buy weed than a bottle of liquor, MUCH easier.

The fact that we suck at enforcing the laws (and at a cost of BILLIONS of dollars every year at that), is proof prohibition isn't working. Yeah, it keeps it illegal, but it sure as hell doesn't keep it out of the hands of millions of Americans.

You have no idea how much money in taxes WE lose out on every year. It's sad, that money should be going to teachers, to children without health insurance, and to a lot of others that need it. And no, because of people like yourself, that money goes into the hands of drug dealers, criminals, murderers, and street gangs. Pathetic.

People smoke it. Live with it. You cannot change human nature, and you're a fool if you think you can.

When did you start smoking weed? More than likely during your younger years. I fully support holding parents resposible when their child has had a consistent problem with drugs. They are not doing their job.

Tougher laws aren't going to help? I am sure some people will always smoke, but I'd beileve the numbers without a doubt would drop considerablely if you started making parents partially responsible.

No, ENFORCEMENT is not working. Prohibition is simply a period in which something is prohibited.

You can't change human nature but you can influnece it. I know we lose tons of money each year, but that doesn't mean it should be legal because of that. I say make the stoners do some community service and pay fines. They didn't really hurt anyone.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: hscorpio
Originally posted by: Tabb
What really matters is the enforcement taking place, which it isn't.

Unfortunately marijuana laws are being enforced much more than you think.

93 years, he got released luckily
15 years
12.5 years
5.5 years
12.5 years
Life! sentence, luckily he got pardoned by Clinton after 10 years
Another LIFE sentence
30 years
6.5 years
10 years
10 years
19.5 years
5 years
20 years
5 years
7 years

Show me there "true" records and offenses then I'll make a decision. Otherwise, I'd more than likely pardon most of them. In any event, the "ENFORCEMENT" isn't working as its so easy to get.
 

imported_hscorpio

Golden Member
Sep 1, 2004
1,617
0
0
Originally posted by: Tabb
You don't think gays should get married? I can discuss that to, just give me a private message.

It has nothing to do with marijuana.

Thats crap, you're telling me native marijuana has less harmfull side effects than synthetic THC! Prove it.

Never told you that. I said whole-marijuana has less side effects than a lot of the legal prescription medications. I already told you why people generally prefer whole marijuana over marinol. They have virtually the same side effects, only the smoke part is more dangerous but then there are vaporizers.

Compared, to most other drugs its realitivly safe. Its pratically impossible to overdose. Thats why I gave the link I gave you. THC itself is not very dangerous at all.
Your preaching to the choir my man. Me and others have been saying this since the beginning of the thread. Glad you finally accepted it.

The sentence makes plenty of sense, prohibition is time when a certian item or object is illegal. Is weed illegal? Yes it is, our only problem is we just suck at enforcing our laws. The prohibition is simple time period.

Prohibition= making something illegal. Does this make any sense:
"Making X illegal works because X is illegal."

And you are mistaken about the laws not being enforced.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
EDIT- Remember that California voters made medical marijuana legal in 1996. These women were abiding by state law but the federal government stuck its nose where it don't belong and arrested them.

I am making a comparrison between california and how the gay marriage issuse was delt with and the medical marijuna issuse. Their nose does belong there.

Never told you that. I said whole-marijuana has less side effects than a lot of the legal prescription medications. I already told you why people generally prefer whole marijuana over marinol. They have virtually the same side effects, only the smoke part is more dangerous but then there are vaporizers.

Use, Marinol then.



Prohibition is defined as the time period as when something is illegal. Not if it the populace is actually practicing its enforcement. How can you say enforcement is working when its just as easy to get as alcholol?


 

imported_hscorpio

Golden Member
Sep 1, 2004
1,617
0
0
Originally posted by: Tabb
EDIT- Remember that California voters made medical marijuana legal in 1996. These women were abiding by state law but the federal government stuck its nose where it don't belong and arrested them.

I am making a comparrison between california and how the gay marriage issuse was delt with and the medical marijuna issuse. Their nose does belong there.
We'll have to see what the supremes decide this summer. I think the CSA should be trumped by state law in the particular case of medical marijuana.

Use, Marinol then.
I'v gone over the reasons why people choose pot over marinol. Why is it ok to get THC in a pill but its not ok to inhale it? Sure the smoke from combustion of organic material is harmful to the lungs, but vaporizers solve that problem. Prove that vaporizing marijuana is more dangerous than popping a marinol pill. Why should a person spend 17$ a pill when they can grow more effective pot in their closet for free?

Prohibition is defined as the time period as when something is illegal.

To prohibit X means you make laws that punish people who use/make/sell X. Prohibition is not a time period. The "era of prohibition" refers to when alcohol was prohibited and you are confusing that definition with the more general definition.

Prohibit From dictionary:
1) To forbid by authority. 2) To prevent from doing something.

Prohibition
1) The act of prohibiting by authority. 2) An order to refrain or stop.

The authority in our case is the government and police.

Not if it the populace is actually practicing its enforcement. How can you say enforcement is working when its just as easy to get as alcholol?

So you admit it is just as easy to get as alcohol, good.
The point is enforcement of marijuana laws will never stop it from being available. To many people disagree with the law and want to use marijuana. The government has been increasing its enforcement efforts since the war on drugs started and look at the results, pot is just as easy to get as alcohol. You should be able to conclude that prohibition of marijuana is not working and will not work.

 

SiliconJon

Senior member
Nov 1, 2004
252
0
0
Nope, anyone one who posseses [only certain] mind-altering substances should be thrown in prison. Because if they posses it, they will use it, or sell it to my children whom I have told a plethora of lies about some drugs for the ends justify the means; or I remained silent on the matter in hopes that ignorance breeds superiority; or I warned them, and they didn't listen, and now they should be brutally punished by the very laws of which I support. If they use it, they will be harming their-self. If they're going to do harm to oneself, then they should be tought a lesson and thrown into prison where they can be corrected; that is what happens, or why else would they call it the "Department of Corrections". After all, prison is good for what ailes ya and results in drug-free behavior upon release from a drug & crime free environment.

/end insanity
/begin spell checker

Yeah, I really see how taking someone from their family, friends, and freedom is a perfect solution to someone who wants to smoke a plant that God gave us. And let's not forget that they can no longer provide a productive life for our society, and in fact are being forced by our government to cost us more than a poor family of four in the "free world". I couldn't think of a more Christian way to celebrate one of God's gifts, even if he did or did not intend us to use it. I think I'll go bang my head against the wall until I conform to such beliefs: I'm told it's the only way to see the light.
 

imported_hscorpio

Golden Member
Sep 1, 2004
1,617
0
0
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: hscorpio
Originally posted by: Tabb
What really matters is the enforcement taking place, which it isn't.

Unfortunately marijuana laws are being enforced much more than you think.

93 years, he got released luckily
15 years
12.5 years
5.5 years
12.5 years
Life! sentence, luckily he got pardoned by Clinton after 10 years
Another LIFE sentence
30 years
6.5 years
10 years
10 years
19.5 years
5 years
20 years
5 years
7 years

Show me there "true" records and offenses then I'll make a decision. Otherwise, I'd more than likely pardon most of them. In any event, the "ENFORCEMENT" isn't working as its so easy to get.

You don't believe those prople are in prison for marijuana offenses?

Come on now... these ridiculous prison sentences are the result of "enforcement". What else do you want to do? Should we just completely throw out the bill of rights and do door to door searches of everyones home looking for drugs? Then what do we do when we find them if your opposed to prison terms. You think fines are going to keep people from smoking pot when the threat of years in prison doesn't.

A pot conviction really screws the rest of your life up, and yet millions of people still risk it and light up. Nothing is worse than prison time, and it is a very real threat to marijuana users.

So how do you propose we increase "enforcement"?



 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
I guess prohibition of alcohol worked fine, until they made it legal, then prohibition failed.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |