Initiative 502 in Wash St to legalize and regulate weed

[OODA_Loop]

Yeah more fucked up people making shitty life decisions. Just what we need.

Marijuana has been legally available to adults in The Netherlands since 1976 and there have been no negative consequences.

Dutch to ban foreigners from pot shops - CNN

 

[OODA_Loop]

Do you think marijuana is anything like heroin or similar narcotics? If so you should educate yourself because you have a very mistaken impression.

Yes it effects the same Mu receptors as Opiates.

Neuropsychopharmacology - Opioid Antagonism of Cannabinoid Effects: Differences between Marijuana Smokers and Nonmarijuana Smokers

 

[dblack]

502 will get punked in Nov

been around - born Sept 1953

Yeah more fucked up people making shitty life decisions. Just what we need.

 

[Katzndogz]

Washington will just have to find out what Los Angeles has already found out.

 

[Ariux]

As the election closes, the media will be filled with fear-mongering commercials terrifying voters to vote against legalizing weed, cause then they'll all die in car wrecks.

If he state still manages to legalize weed, yes, the feds won't stand for it. They barely tolerate medical pot.

 

[MikeK]

Yeah more fucked up people making shitty life decisions. Just what we need.

Marijuana has been legally available to adults in The Netherlands since 1976 and there have been no negative consequences.

Dutch to ban foreigners from pot shops - CNN

As I said, there have been no negative consequences from the use of marijuana by citizens of The Netherlands. The only problem has been low-level smuggling activity across its borders by foreign visitors, which accounts for this ban. But Dutch citizens continue to have access to marijuana -- because it is harmless!

Too bad the governments complaining about the smuggling from The Netherlands don't wise up and abandon the stupid, troublesome prohibition.

 

[Againsheila]

As the election closes, the media will be filled with fear-mongering commercials terrifying voters to vote against legalizing weed, cause then they'll all die in car wrecks.

If he state still manages to legalize weed, yes, the feds won't stand for it. They barely tolerate medical pot.

The did that with the alcohol thing and it did them no good...Still, you're right, the feds won't stand for it. We might actually go back to making ropes out of <gasp> hemp.

 

[MikeK]

Do you think marijuana is anything like heroin or similar narcotics? If so you should educate yourself because you have a very mistaken impression.

Yes it effects the same Mu receptors as Opiates.

Neuropsychopharmacology - Opioid Antagonism of Cannabinoid Effects: Differences between Marijuana Smokers and Nonmarijuana Smokers

So does chocolate! But if you believe marijuana affects those receptors to anywhere near the same degree as does one bottle of beer, you've allowed yourself to be badly misinformed.

You are in desperate need of education on this topic. The first thing you need to learn is all this Reefer Madness rhetoric and pseudo-science is propaganda funded by several major industries (pharmaceutical, liquor, petrochemical, drug-testing, etc.)

If you'd like to learn the truth I highly recommend this book; Marijuana, The Forbidden Medicine, by Dr. Lester Grinspoon, MD, Ph.D., Professor of Psychiatric Medicine, Harvard Medical School. (Available from Amazon.)

Join with the enlightened. You'll feel better about yourself.

 

[MikeK]

Lib drug -heads like Rick Steves

Rick Steves is a healthy, intelligent, sociable, highly successful man. Give some thought to why you choose to call him a "Lib drug-head." I don't wish to insult or offend you but it does seem rather malicious and utterly pointless, which boils down to just plain stupid.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Do you think marijuana is anything like heroin or similar narcotics? If so you should educate yourself because you have a very mistaken impression.

Yes it effects the same Mu receptors as Opiates.

Neuropsychopharmacology - Opioid Antagonism of Cannabinoid Effects: Differences between Marijuana Smokers and Nonmarijuana Smokers

So does chocolate! But if you believe marijuana affects those receptors to anywhere near the same degree as does one bottle of beer, you've allowed yourself to be badly misinformed.

You are in desperate need of education on this topic. The first thing you need to learn is all this Reefer Madness rhetoric and pseudo-science is propaganda funded by several major industries (pharmaceutical, liquor, petrochemical, drug-testing, etc.)

If you'd like to learn the truth I highly recommend this book; Marijuana, The Forbidden Medicine, by Dr. Lester Grinspoon, MD, Ph.D., Professor of Psychiatric Medicine, Harvard Medical School. (Available from Amazon.)

Join with the enlightened. You'll feel better about yourself.

Theobromine and phenyethylamine found in chocolate are mu antagonists.

Uppers.

 

[MikeK]

Sad thing is, the whole reason pot was outlawed had nothing to do with the drug anyway. It had to do with hemp and ropes.. they outlawed it to get rid of hemp ropes and stop competition for a stupid corporation....

Quite right. The reason behind marijuana prohibition is deeply insidious. The following excerpt is a brief but educational intro to the topic:

(Excerpt)

The Cannabis sativi L plant species is found in abundant supply all over the world, mostly notably in 2 distinct forms: hemp (found all over North America), and marijuana (relegated mostly to Mexico). The primary difference between the 2 plants is the level of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the ingredient that causes the high.

Marijuana contains as much as 20% THC, while hemp contains less than 1%. Hemp was found to have an abundance of extraordinary uses, such as the manufacturing of textiles, rope, paper, clothing, boat sails, animal bedding, garden mulch, fuel, and an assortment of building materials. But it wasn't just versatile, it was usually much stronger and more durable than its counterparts.

Hemp was widely used throughout the American Colonies and States after King James I - the same of the Bible bearing his name - ordered the Colonies in 1611 to begin widely producing it to help bolster the English economy. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both grew hemp. The Declaration of Independence was written on hemp paper. But although this plant was extremely useful, it was also extremely difficult to extract from the stalk, for which process prison labor, and eventually slave labor were employed.

The Emancipation Proclamation, under President Lincoln, abolished slavery in 1865, resulting in a dramatic decrease in the production of hemp products. Hemp was on a temporary, semi-hiatus, until the invention in 1935 of the decordicator, a machine of such revolutionary magnitude as the printing press, the cotton gin, and the combustion engine. The decordicator allowed for the processing of hemp at a production level that could compete with the cotton, wool, wood, and petroleum industries. It could create a higher quality product at a much lower price. Obviously, this was completely unacceptable to the big corporations it was set to compete with, and 4 major players in particular took immediate action: DuPont, Andrew Mellon, William Randolph Hearst, and Harry Anslinger

Mr. DuPont had just gotten a patent in the wood paper pulp industry, and was working on another for nylon and rayon. Had hemp remained legal, DuPont would most likely not have achieved its current standing as the world's second largest chemical company.

Andrew Mellon (of Mellon Bank) was Mr. DuPont's financier. The only two times the DuPont company ever borrowed money from Mellon Bank, Andrew Mellon was the Secretary of the Treasury at the time.

William Randolph Hearst had vast holdings in the wood paper pulp business. He is credited with coining the word "marijuana" to describe the Mexican variation of the cannabis plant that got people so high, then slapping that same label on the hemp variation of cannabis to generate confusion, and then spending ten years trying to convince the American people they were the same evil thing and must be destroyed. (Part of his new found hatred and racism for all things Mexican-related stemmed from the recent confiscation of 8,000,000 acres of Hearst's land in Mexico under Poncho Villa.) Hearst also owned the San Francisco Examiner, a wildly sensationalist publication, and the New York Morning Journal. He used them to run headlines like, "Marijuana Makes Fiends of Boys In 30 Days," "Hasheesh Goads Users To Blood Lust," and "New Dope Lure, Marijuana, Has Many Victims."

(Close)

Why Pot is Illegal

 

[MikeK]

Here are just a few examples of the graphic propaganda used to demonize marijuana in the 30s:

 

[OODA_Loop]

You should sit in the rooms of NA and hear what kicked off a life of drug use for most with their first try of an highjacked limbic system.

But I know you have an answer as to how those people are wrong too.

 

[MikeK]

You should sit in the rooms of NA and hear what kicked off a life of drug use for most with their first try of an highjacked limbic system.

[...]

Okay. Now I understand the reason behind your persistence.

NA, like AA, exists because an extremely small percentage of the population is affected by a condition known to the behavioral profession as the Addictive Personality Syndrome. The Addictive Personality | Psychology Today

As you've stated, some people can take one drink, eat one pot brownie or smoke one joint and experience a craving for more of that substance which increases in intensity with each successive use. While some of these individuals recognize the imminent danger in the early warning signal and never use that substance again, the majority do not -- a circumstance which is attributed to the self-destructive component of the addictive personality.

But when we consider how many millions of Americans enjoy the occasional effect of a few beers or some marijuana and never experience a compulsive craving, the percentage of those who become addicted to alcohol or pot is extremely small. So small that to consider banning either substance because of the tiny percentage of addictions is analogous to banning ice cream and candy because some people get fat from eating it.

 

[OODA_Loop]

But when we consider how many millions of Americans enjoy the occasional effect of a few beers or some marijuana and never experience a compulsive craving, the percentage of those who become addicted to alcohol or pot is extremely small. So small that to consider banning either substance because of the tiny percentage of addictions is analogous to banning ice cream and candy because some people get fat from eating it.

There are 17.6 million Americans adults who abuse alcohol or are alcohol dependent*.

* 2001-2002 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions conducted by the U.S. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Generally more men than women are alcoholic, and alcohol problems are most prevalent among young adults aged 18-29

 

[dblack]

But when we consider how many millions of Americans enjoy the occasional effect of a few beers or some marijuana and never experience a compulsive craving, the percentage of those who become addicted to alcohol or pot is extremely small. So small that to consider banning either substance because of the tiny percentage of addictions is analogous to banning ice cream and candy because some people get fat from eating it.

There are 17.6 million Americans adults who abuse alcohol or are alcohol dependent*.

* 2001-2002 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions conducted by the U.S. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Generally more men than women are alcoholic, and alcohol problems are most prevalent among young adults aged 18-29

... and 72 million Americans are obese. Both are serious problems. But government isn't the answer. I don't want police telling me what I can eat, drink, or smoke - or, in general, how to live.

 

[OODA_Loop]

But government isn't the answer. I don't want police telling me what I can eat, drink, or smoke - or, in general, how to live.

I am certainly a less government guy but also recognize to have any sort of functioning society certain substances such as, but not limited to: Bath Salts, Phencyclidine, Meth Amphetamine, etc., should be restricted in their availability.

We are not talking about protecting an enumerated Constitutional right to get completely fucked up out of your own cognizance.

 

[dblack]

But government isn't the answer. I don't want police telling me what I can eat, drink, or smoke - or, in general, how to live.

I am certainly a less government guy but also recognize to have any sort of functioning society certain substances such as, but not limited to: Bath Salts, Phencyclidine, Meth Amphetamine, etc., should be restricted in their availability.

We are not talking about protecting an enumerated Constitutional right to get completely fucked up out of your own cognizance.

If you want to claim to be a 'less government' guy, you need to understand the Constitution a bit better. It doesn't 'enumerate' our rights - they are limitless. It enumerates the powers of government. And those don't include the power to tell us how 'fucked up' we can get.,

 

[OODA_Loop]

If you want to claim to be a 'less government' guy, you need to understand the Constitution a bit better. It doesn't 'enumerate' our rights - they are limitless. It enumerates the powers of government. And those don't include the power to tell us how 'fucked up' we can get.,

Doesn't give us rights.

It enumerates the protections from the United States. And what it doesn't specifically grant to the US is reserved ot the States or people. These are ultimately enjoyed by the individual as rights.

Being intoxicated and the limits thereof enforced by an authority have certainly stood the adjudicative passage of time. Is there a particular legal precedent you have in mind ?

 

[dblack]

If you want to claim to be a 'less government' guy, you need to understand the Constitution a bit better. It doesn't 'enumerate' our rights - they are limitless. It enumerates the powers of government. And those don't include the power to tell us how 'fucked up' we can get.,

It enumerates the protections from the United States.

No, it doesn't. It 'enumerates' the powers of government. And by omission all other powers are rights of the people. It doesn't grant the federal government the power to dictate our diets, or tell us what we can eat, drink, smoke or otherwise ingest.

Is there a particular legal precedent you have in mind ?

Are you getting in bed with Mr. Case Law?