free the people free the herb

[Big Fitz]

Heroin is made with poppy, hon. It's from a plant.
Shrooms will give you a high as well...possibly a dangerous one. They come from the ground as well.

Herion is refined from opium. Opium is extracted from certain varieties of poppies. Raw opium contains about 12% morphine. Never really did opium back in the day so I can't comment on it effects

If you find the right shrooms they can give you a LSD like experience. Choose the wrong ones and your insides could turn to mush.

I think they should both be legally avaliable to consenting adults.

Wow, yep. Proved my assessment of you right there.

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm willing to concede this point if I have it codified into law that it is permitted to discriminate against druggies, and bar them from ALL public assistance, financial or material.

You wanna wreck your life, you don't get to do it at my expense OR in my proximity. I want the right to bar you from my property, access to my children, tax money, neigborhood, driving, workplace and government. You can avoid this by choosing to NOT be a dope....head.

Oh, and automatic death penalty for crimes committed for or while on drugs.

Do that and it fucks over all the right people. Drug growers, traffickers and foreign powers while protecting our rights and culls these assholes out of society.

If it was made legal, it would be regualted like smoking and alcohol.

Pols love to make laws and tax shit. It would be like Xmas and the Ramadan feast happening all at the same time.

I wonder if any of the liberals who demand anti-smoking laws be instituted in bars and restaurants will support allowing pot smoking in all public locals.

Immie

I'm a liberal and I strongly disagree with the anti-smkoking laws that regulate private businesses like bars and resturants.

 

[BlindBoo]

They SAY they only want pot. That is never the case. It is a legislative gateway drug to the rest. Oh pot's not so bad. Then Cocaine isn't so bad. Then Speed isn't so bad, then Meth isn't so bad. Then Opiates and Quaaludes aren't so bad...

This is what I'm talking about not being a moral enough nation to handle such things responsibly. Someone will always argue for pushing it too far. BTW, what freedom do I have as a non drug user to not be dosed by their usage when they're smoking it near me? Does their right to be dopes supersede my right to not be one?

If we're going to argue this way, what about MY rights? And yes, I know this is the argument of the anti-smoking lobby, but regardless of their nanny-state nature, it's a valid discussion point.

Classic thought process of the Nanny-Statist.

You obviously haven't the slightest clue as to my stance on the nanny state. Blind is such an appropriate name for you.

I suspect you just want license to be yet another brain damaged, irresponsible stoner hence why you can't stand even a whiff of accountability placed upon you for your actions even if it IS legallized.

Let me ask this then. If it were allowed to legalize Marinol (the pill form of the drug THC found in marijuana in much higher concentrations) but other uses of pot was not, would you be satisfied?

I don't need any more clues about how you justify your Nanny statism philoshopy. It's pretty much in line with all other nanny-statist. I take full responsibility for my actions. I have no experience with Marinol.

 

[BlindBoo]

Heroin is made with poppy, hon. It's from a plant.
Shrooms will give you a high as well...possibly a dangerous one. They come from the ground as well.

Herion is refined from opium. Opium is extracted from certain varieties of poppies. Raw opium contains about 12% morphine. Never really did opium back in the day so I can't comment on it effects

If you find the right shrooms they can give you a LSD like experience. Choose the wrong ones and your insides could turn to mush.

I think they should both be legally avaliable to consenting adults.

Wow, yep. Proved my assessment of you right there.

An assessment by a nanny statist is of little value.

 

[ABikerSailor]

They SAY they only want pot. That is never the case. It is a legislative gateway drug to the rest. Oh pot's not so bad. Then Cocaine isn't so bad. Then Speed isn't so bad, then Meth isn't so bad. Then Opiates and Quaaludes aren't so bad...

This is what I'm talking about not being a moral enough nation to handle such things responsibly. Someone will always argue for pushing it too far. BTW, what freedom do I have as a non drug user to not be dosed by their usage when they're smoking it near me? Does their right to be dopes supersede my right to not be one?

If we're going to argue this way, what about MY rights? And yes, I know this is the argument of the anti-smoking lobby, but regardless of their nanny-state nature, it's a valid discussion point.

Classic thought process of the Nanny-Statist.

You obviously haven't the slightest clue as to my stance on the nanny state. Blind is such an appropriate name for you.

I suspect you just want license to be yet another brain damaged, irresponsible stoner hence why you can't stand even a whiff of accountability placed upon you for your actions even if it IS legallized.

Let me ask this then. If it were allowed to legalize Marinol (the pill form of the drug THC found in marijuana in much higher concentrations) but other uses of pot was not, would you be satisfied?

Actually, Marinol is nothing but pure THC with all the other things removed. Pure THC can have bad side effects such as extreme paranoia and kicking off mental illness.

Smoking the plant itself? Well......all the compounds of the original plant are still there, resulting in a much more mellow relaxed kind of feeling.

Further up the thread, I stated that plants are NOT drugs, they are plants. Refining something until you have just the active ingredient (i.e. cocaine) results in it being classified as a drug, because it was man made.

Cannabis is a natural substance, so yeah.......legalize it.

Besides..........

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CjhFQsfJjo]YouTube - ‪Family Guy 420 Bag of weed Song.wmv‬‏[/ame]

 

[Big Fitz]

Herion is refined from opium. Opium is extracted from certain varieties of poppies. Raw opium contains about 12% morphine. Never really did opium back in the day so I can't comment on it effects

If you find the right shrooms they can give you a LSD like experience. Choose the wrong ones and your insides could turn to mush.

I think they should both be legally avaliable to consenting adults.

Wow, yep. Proved my assessment of you right there.

An assessment by a nanny statist is of little value.

LOL... that's all you got? A kindergarten 'I am rubber you are glue' retort?

Okay, you're waste of my time and bandwidth.

 

[Big Fitz]

Classic thought process of the Nanny-Statist.

You obviously haven't the slightest clue as to my stance on the nanny state. Blind is such an appropriate name for you.

I suspect you just want license to be yet another brain damaged, irresponsible stoner hence why you can't stand even a whiff of accountability placed upon you for your actions even if it IS legallized.

Let me ask this then. If it were allowed to legalize Marinol (the pill form of the drug THC found in marijuana in much higher concentrations) but other uses of pot was not, would you be satisfied?

Actually, Marinol is nothing but pure THC with all the other things removed. Pure THC can have bad side effects such as extreme paranoia and kicking off mental illness.

Smoking the plant itself? Well......all the compounds of the original plant are still there, resulting in a much more mellow relaxed kind of feeling.

Further up the thread, I stated that plants are NOT drugs, they are plants. Refining something until you have just the active ingredient (i.e. cocaine) results in it being classified as a drug, because it was man made.

Cannabis is a natural substance, so yeah.......legalize it.

Besides..........

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CjhFQsfJjo]YouTube - ‪Family Guy 420 Bag of weed Song.wmv‬‏[/ame]

A drug is any chemical compound that has an effect on you regardless of source.

Natural flavor, artificial flavor. They are often the same thing. It's a question of semantics and form of manufacturing that decides which is which.

The major difference between consuming the raw plant and the drug straight is in dosage unless you can prove the 'inert ingredients' have an effect.

But none of this answers the question. If Marinol was made legal for 'entertainment value consumption' just like beer and cigarettes but unprocessed marijuana was not legal for consumption, would you take that compromise?

 

[ABikerSailor]

No. I would not take the compromise for several reasons......

Number one would be the growing issue. It should be like any other plant and you can grow it in your garden for your own personal use.

Second, there have been scientists that have made comparisons in Britian between Marinol and regular smoked cannabis. Guess what they proved? You have a more intense (and more than likely bad) experience on Marinol than you do with regular smoked cannabis.

And third? There's the whole big pharma thing of corporations making obscene money at the expense of the users of the product (which is inferior to plant cannabis).

 

[Big Fitz]

No. I would not take the compromise for several reasons......

Number one would be the growing issue. It should be like any other plant and you can grow it in your garden for your own personal use.

Second, there have been scientists that have made comparisons in Britian between Marinol and regular smoked cannabis. Guess what they proved? You have a more intense (and more than likely bad) experience on Marinol than you do with regular smoked cannabis.

And third? There's the whole big pharma thing of corporations making obscene money at the expense of the users of the product (which is inferior to plant cannabis).

So really, the issue is about creating a consequence free environment for drug users, not about protecting the public from drug violence and government waste in spending.

You're okay with legalized pot being taxed, but then seek to circumvent the taxation and wish to deny private industry of getting in on the act through the pharmaceutical companies.

You realize why this lobby has such a hard time being taken seriously? Because when you break it down, its about condoning irresponsibility, often for the person advocating it.

Lastly you contradict the point that Marinol is a better product when it's the most pure form you can get. I'm sorry, but this holistic argument doesn't hold water.

Just like you can buy concentrations and dosages in other drugs and chemicals, you can do the same with Marinol with much higher accuracy, safety AND prevent accidental dosage of others near by as is always the case with smoking it, OR cooking with it. Not to mention none of the hazards of smoking or ingesting other chemicals in the plant that can cause secondary issues. Marinol is a more responsible choice, so why would you want to NOT use it?

 

[Immanuel]

If it was made legal, it would be regualted like smoking and alcohol.

Pols love to make laws and tax shit. It would be like Xmas and the Ramadan feast happening all at the same time.

I wonder if any of the liberals who demand anti-smoking laws be instituted in bars and restaurants will support allowing pot smoking in all public locals.

Immie

I'm a liberal and I strongly disagree with the anti-smkoking laws that regulate private businesses like bars and resturants.

Yay!

By the way, I am somewhat conservative. I am a non-smoker AND I too strongly disagree with the anti-smoking laws for private businesses and restaurants.

Do you smoke?

Immie

 

[BlindBoo]

I wonder if any of the liberals who demand anti-smoking laws be instituted in bars and restaurants will support allowing pot smoking in all public locals.

Immie

I'm a liberal and I strongly disagree with the anti-smkoking laws that regulate private businesses like bars and resturants.

Yay!

By the way, I am somewhat conservative. I am a non-smoker AND I too strongly disagree with the anti-smoking laws for private businesses and restaurants.

Do you smoke?

Immie

Yes.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm a liberal and I strongly disagree with the anti-smkoking laws that regulate private businesses like bars and resturants.

Yay!

By the way, I am somewhat conservative. I am a non-smoker AND I too strongly disagree with the anti-smoking laws for private businesses and restaurants.

Do you smoke?

Immie

Yes.

Well, I'm still glad to have you on our side of this issue. Wait, maybe since I am the non-smoker, I am the one who has joined your side? Oh well, who cares? The point is that private business owners should have the right to make their own choices in this regard.

Immie

 

[BlindBoo]

No. I would not take the compromise for several reasons......

Number one would be the growing issue. It should be like any other plant and you can grow it in your garden for your own personal use.

Second, there have been scientists that have made comparisons in Britian between Marinol and regular smoked cannabis. Guess what they proved? You have a more intense (and more than likely bad) experience on Marinol than you do with regular smoked cannabis.

And third? There's the whole big pharma thing of corporations making obscene money at the expense of the users of the product (which is inferior to plant cannabis).

So really, the issue is about creating a consequence free environment for drug users, not about protecting the public from drug violence and government waste in spending.

You're okay with legalized pot being taxed, but then seek to circumvent the taxation and wish to deny private industry of getting in on the act through the pharmaceutical companies.

You realize why this lobby has such a hard time being taken seriously? Because when you break it down, its about condoning irresponsibility, often for the person advocating it.

Lastly you contradict the point that Marinol is a better product when it's the most pure form you can get. I'm sorry, but this holistic argument doesn't hold water.

Just like you can buy concentrations and dosages in other drugs and chemicals, you can do the same with Marinol with much higher accuracy, safety AND prevent accidental dosage of others near by as is always the case with smoking it, OR cooking with it. Not to mention none of the hazards of smoking or ingesting other chemicals in the plant that can cause secondary issues. Marinol is a more responsible choice, so why would you want to NOT use it?

Marinol (Dronabinol) 100% pure THC. Proven mainly ineffective. - Grasscity.com Forums

Before Marinol was even allowed in the general market, The National Cancer Institute sent out Marinol for experimental distribution. Reports came back saying that thousands of patients found Marijuana more safe and effective than synthetic-THC. The government ignored the studies and still gave Marinol a green light, it was accepted by the FDA as a Schedule II drug. Marijuana still remaining a Schedule I drug to this day.

 

[Big Fitz]

No. I would not take the compromise for several reasons......

Number one would be the growing issue. It should be like any other plant and you can grow it in your garden for your own personal use.

Second, there have been scientists that have made comparisons in Britian between Marinol and regular smoked cannabis. Guess what they proved? You have a more intense (and more than likely bad) experience on Marinol than you do with regular smoked cannabis.

And third? There's the whole big pharma thing of corporations making obscene money at the expense of the users of the product (which is inferior to plant cannabis).

So really, the issue is about creating a consequence free environment for drug users, not about protecting the public from drug violence and government waste in spending.

You're okay with legalized pot being taxed, but then seek to circumvent the taxation and wish to deny private industry of getting in on the act through the pharmaceutical companies.

You realize why this lobby has such a hard time being taken seriously? Because when you break it down, its about condoning irresponsibility, often for the person advocating it.

Lastly you contradict the point that Marinol is a better product when it's the most pure form you can get. I'm sorry, but this holistic argument doesn't hold water.

Just like you can buy concentrations and dosages in other drugs and chemicals, you can do the same with Marinol with much higher accuracy, safety AND prevent accidental dosage of others near by as is always the case with smoking it, OR cooking with it. Not to mention none of the hazards of smoking or ingesting other chemicals in the plant that can cause secondary issues. Marinol is a more responsible choice, so why would you want to NOT use it?

Marinol (Dronabinol) 100% pure THC. Proven mainly ineffective. - Grasscity.com Forums

Before Marinol was even allowed in the general market, The National Cancer Institute sent out Marinol for experimental distribution. Reports came back saying that thousands of patients found Marijuana more safe and effective than synthetic-THC. The government ignored the studies and still gave Marinol a green light, it was accepted by the FDA as a Schedule II drug. Marijuana still remaining a Schedule I drug to this day.

More safe and effective for WHAT? And you link me to another opinion forum based on drug legalization activism?

And we're not talking about medical use here. That's already been made 'legal' in some states. I only see recreational use being the sticking point. Or are you combatting glaucoma or cancer based nausea or loss of appetite due to AIDS?

I smell a lot of charlatanism in your link.

 

[jellybean]

......Junk Food Industry Struggles to Keep Up With Demand After Legalization of Marijuana

For the most part, I lean toward agreeing that marijuana should be decriminalized. I think my hesitancy simply stems from the fact that it's always been illegal and having worked in law enforcement I've seen that side of the coin. However, alcohol and tobacco are legal and they are both substances that also alter the chemistry of the body and brain. Are they more harmful to the body than pot? No doubt, chronic and excessive use of marijuana (or any substance, for that matter, food included) will cause physical problems. But I believe that both alcohol and tobacco have far more dangerous implications from a medical and lifestyle perspective than does marijuana. I've known many people who, when under the influence of alcohol, become extremely agitated and/or violent, not to mention those who drive drunk and cause damage, injury and death. I don't recall ever seeing anyone under the influence of marijuana who wants to do anything but mellow out, laugh, or snack on Twinkies.

There will always be people with addictive tendencies who when given the chance to legally partake of a little weed will not be able to do so in a manageable and moderate way. The monies currently spent on the arrest, prosecution and incarceration of marijuana users/growers should, if pot is legalized, be spent on treatment of those individuals who develop an addiction. I don't believe that the average person would go hog wild and be stoned all of the time - I can't come to work drunk, so why would I come to work stoned? (Of course, there are people I work with who take a cigarette break every 15 minutes, but that's another thread.......) I don't think that marijuana is highly addictive for the average person, as opposed to crack, meth or heroin. Totally different. But I DO agree that if a person commits a crime while under the influence of ANY substance, whether it's alcohol or drugs, they should receive a much stiffer sentence than if they had been sober.

Then there's the question of who would grow the stuff if it was legal? And who would regulate the price of the product? And how would law enforcement agencies compensate for the millions of government dollars they would lose for their irradication programs? Hmmmm.

 

[BlindBoo]

......Junk Food Industry Struggles to Keep Up With Demand After Legalization of Marijuana

For the most part, I lean toward agreeing that marijuana should be decriminalized. I think my hesitancy simply stems from the fact that it's always been illegal and having worked in law enforcement I've seen that side of the coin. However, alcohol and tobacco are legal and they are both substances that also alter the chemistry of the body and brain. Are they more harmful to the body than pot? No doubt, chronic and excessive use of marijuana (or any substance, for that matter, food included) will cause physical problems. But I believe that both alcohol and tobacco have far more dangerous implications from a medical and lifestyle perspective than does marijuana. I've known many people who, when under the influence of alcohol, become extremely agitated and/or violent, not to mention those who drive drunk and cause damage, injury and death. I don't recall ever seeing anyone under the influence of marijuana who wants to do anything but mellow out, laugh, or snack on Twinkies.

There will always be people with addictive tendencies who when given the chance to legally partake of a little weed will not be able to do so in a manageable and moderate way. The monies currently spent on the arrest, prosecution and incarceration of marijuana users/growers should, if pot is legalized, be spent on treatment of those individuals who develop an addiction. I don't believe that the average person would go hog wild and be stoned all of the time - I can't come to work drunk, so why would I come to work stoned? (Of course, there are people I work with who take a cigarette break every 15 minutes, but that's another thread.......) I don't think that marijuana is highly addictive for the average person, as opposed to crack, meth or heroin. Totally different. But I DO agree that if a person commits a crime while under the influence of ANY substance, whether it's alcohol or drugs, they should receive a much stiffer sentence than if they had been sober.

Then there's the question of who would grow the stuff if it was legal? And who would regulate the price of the product? And how would law enforcement agencies compensate for the millions of government dollars they would lose for their irradication programs? Hmmmm.

Hemp/Cannabis has been cultivated by mankind for millennia.

The Emperor Wears No Clothes

The Book | JackHerer.com

For an excellent historical reference

 

[ABikerSailor]

......Junk Food Industry Struggles to Keep Up With Demand After Legalization of Marijuana

For the most part, I lean toward agreeing that marijuana should be decriminalized. I think my hesitancy simply stems from the fact that it's always been illegal and having worked in law enforcement I've seen that side of the coin. However, alcohol and tobacco are legal and they are both substances that also alter the chemistry of the body and brain. Are they more harmful to the body than pot? No doubt, chronic and excessive use of marijuana (or any substance, for that matter, food included) will cause physical problems. But I believe that both alcohol and tobacco have far more dangerous implications from a medical and lifestyle perspective than does marijuana. I've known many people who, when under the influence of alcohol, become extremely agitated and/or violent, not to mention those who drive drunk and cause damage, injury and death. I don't recall ever seeing anyone under the influence of marijuana who wants to do anything but mellow out, laugh, or snack on Twinkies.

There will always be people with addictive tendencies who when given the chance to legally partake of a little weed will not be able to do so in a manageable and moderate way. The monies currently spent on the arrest, prosecution and incarceration of marijuana users/growers should, if pot is legalized, be spent on treatment of those individuals who develop an addiction. I don't believe that the average person would go hog wild and be stoned all of the time - I can't come to work drunk, so why would I come to work stoned? (Of course, there are people I work with who take a cigarette break every 15 minutes, but that's another thread.......) I don't think that marijuana is highly addictive for the average person, as opposed to crack, meth or heroin. Totally different. But I DO agree that if a person commits a crime while under the influence of ANY substance, whether it's alcohol or drugs, they should receive a much stiffer sentence than if they had been sober.

Then there's the question of who would grow the stuff if it was legal? And who would regulate the price of the product? And how would law enforcement agencies compensate for the millions of government dollars they would lose for their irradication programs? Hmmmm.

First off, cannabis is NOT addictive. Your brain will put you to sleep before you get too much.

Second, the government ALREADY has the framework to allow growing. It's called the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act.

 

[jellybean]

......Junk Food Industry Struggles to Keep Up With Demand After Legalization of Marijuana

For the most part, I lean toward agreeing that marijuana should be decriminalized. I think my hesitancy simply stems from the fact that it's always been illegal and having worked in law enforcement I've seen that side of the coin. However, alcohol and tobacco are legal and they are both substances that also alter the chemistry of the body and brain. Are they more harmful to the body than pot? No doubt, chronic and excessive use of marijuana (or any substance, for that matter, food included) will cause physical problems. But I believe that both alcohol and tobacco have far more dangerous implications from a medical and lifestyle perspective than does marijuana. I've known many people who, when under the influence of alcohol, become extremely agitated and/or violent, not to mention those who drive drunk and cause damage, injury and death. I don't recall ever seeing anyone under the influence of marijuana who wants to do anything but mellow out, laugh, or snack on Twinkies.

There will always be people with addictive tendencies who when given the chance to legally partake of a little weed will not be able to do so in a manageable and moderate way. The monies currently spent on the arrest, prosecution and incarceration of marijuana users/growers should, if pot is legalized, be spent on treatment of those individuals who develop an addiction. I don't believe that the average person would go hog wild and be stoned all of the time - I can't come to work drunk, so why would I come to work stoned? (Of course, there are people I work with who take a cigarette break every 15 minutes, but that's another thread.......) I don't think that marijuana is highly addictive for the average person, as opposed to crack, meth or heroin. Totally different. But I DO agree that if a person commits a crime while under the influence of ANY substance, whether it's alcohol or drugs, they should receive a much stiffer sentence than if they had been sober.

Then there's the question of who would grow the stuff if it was legal? And who would regulate the price of the product? And how would law enforcement agencies compensate for the millions of government dollars they would lose for their irradication programs? Hmmmm.

First off, cannabis is NOT addictive. Your brain will put you to sleep before you get too much.

Second, the government ALREADY has the framework to allow growing. It's called the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act.

I wasn't implying that marijuana itself is addictive. Having worked in drug enforcement, I understand that fact. However, there will always be people who abuse substances - addiction or not.

 

[Conservative]

You said anyone that denies a poll because they don't agree with the contents is an idiot.

Post 19 in the other thread shows a poll where Obama is at 39% approval.

I asked if you agree with the validity of the poll cited in post 19.

You continually refuse to answer.

Why is that?

Do you, or do you not, agree with the validity of the poll cited in post 19, showing Obama at 39% approval?

Everytime I plant the seed he say kill it before it grows.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Not in Muskcogee.