Log in

View Full Version : Marijuana


Pages : [1] 2 3

shinsukato
December 21st, 2008, 02:03 AM
Pretty much everyone has an opinion on marijuana laws, and very few of them want the laws to stay the same. Whether you want the laws lifted, or the restrictions tightened, what do you have to say on Marijuana laws.

As far as I'm concerned, all victimless crimes should be legal. In the case of marijuana though, it's different. Not only is it victimless, it's nearly completely harmless. A huge number of people smoke regardless of the illegality of it, and the illegal status puts otherwise law abiding people into a difficult scenario.

Marijuana should be legal and regulated, as with alcohol.

rmw
December 21st, 2008, 02:54 AM
Pretty much everyone has an opinion on marijuana laws, and very few of them want the laws to stay the same. Whether you want the laws lifted, or the restrictions tightened, what do you have to say on Marijuana laws.

As far as I'm concerned, all victimless crimes should be legal. In the case of marijuana though, it's different. Not only is it victimless, it's nearly completely harmless. A huge number of people smoke regardless of the illegality of it, and the illegal status puts otherwise law abiding people into a difficult scenario.

Marijuana should be legal and regulated, as with alcohol.

Agreed. While some argue that because marijuana is a mind-altering substance, it needs to be criminalized. However, the same could be said for alcohol, and though there are restrictions on the purchasing and use of alcohol (which aren't followed much of the time anyway), it is legal. Decriminalize the use of marijuana, and apply similar laws to its use as there are with alcohol--such as desiginated places to smoke, penalties while driving stoned, etc.

Sister Faith
December 21st, 2008, 04:02 AM
Decriminalize the use of marijuana, and apply similar laws to its use as there are with alcohol--such as desiginated places to smoke, penalties while driving stoned, etc.

Well said rmw.

It makes no sense to criminalize an (almost:icon_lol:) harmless herb (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KLy150NR_U) while alcohol, which causes more deaths (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLbndJKMtCk), is not. If a substance is going to be criminalized for 'our own good', shouldn't it be the substance that can cause the most harm?
Pot (http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis.shtml) is criminalized for political reasons, not for 'our own good'. Marijuana laws are Sumptuary Laws (http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_law). And that's why it's potential benefits (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywuaGn9G0Bo) are being ignored/buried. :icon_evil:

Tsar Phalanxia
December 21st, 2008, 01:20 PM
Pot (http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis.shtml) is criminalized for political reasons, not for 'our own good'. Marijuana laws are Sumptuary Laws (http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_law). And that's why it's potential benefits (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywuaGn9G0Bo) are being ignored/buried. :icon_evil:

*Applause*

Dr Goofy Mofo
December 21st, 2008, 01:22 PM
I say make everything illegal, get the people good and angry and then maybe they will start to stand up for what is right rather then complain and do nothing.

rmw
December 21st, 2008, 05:21 PM
What disturbs me is in the US, states' rights are considered an important foundation of our country's legal/social system. However, the federal government threatens to crackdown on the citizens who use marijuana for medicinal purposes, in states where such use is legal.

winwun
December 21st, 2008, 05:38 PM
We have too many intoxicants already and certainly do NOT need another one . . .

tagnostic
December 21st, 2008, 05:53 PM
We have too many intoxicants already and certainly do NOT need another one . . .

what's this "we"?
if you've got to many
you should share

rmw
December 21st, 2008, 08:11 PM
We have too many intoxicants already and certainly do NOT need another one . . .

We already have this intoxicant--it's use is illegal, though that's hardly a deterent. However, IMO, it's illegality reeks of hypocrisy when something such as alcohol is perfectly legal (with certain restrictions placed on it, yes). I don't believe marijuana is necessarily "good"--at least when it comes to healthy individuals who smoke it for recreational purposes--but I certainly don't think it's any worse than alcohol.

winwun
December 21st, 2008, 10:40 PM
Maybe the harm to society can be better illustrated if you consider the addition of a "hypothetical" additional 500 intoxicants . . .

If one more isn't bad, then 500 more would not be bad, would it ?

Think how nice it would be if, as we attempt to grub an existence from an already hostile and trigger-happy world, everyone we came across was strung out of their gourd on the "intoxicant" of their choice.

Happy days are here again . . .:icon_rolleyes:

rzm61
December 21st, 2008, 10:56 PM
Everything should be fucking legal. Nobody has any right to say what you can or cannot put in your body.

Sister Faith
December 21st, 2008, 11:06 PM
everyone we came across was strung out of their gourd on the "intoxicant" of their choice.

That's the way it already is in our world today.

Look at the number of alcoholics and drug addicts on the streets of any city on this planet. Why, I bet half your friends are on some type of anti-depressant &/or pain killer and you don't even know it. And something doesn't have to be ingested to be toxic, addictive or harmful to others ie sex, gambling, gaming, internet addictions.

Everyone has a poison. Wouldn't it be a better solution to work towards eliminating the cause of so many people in society feeling they need to turn on and tune out?

Tsar Phalanxia
December 21st, 2008, 11:29 PM
Maybe the harm to society can be better illustrated if you consider the addition of a "hypothetical" additional 500 intoxicants . . .

If one more isn't bad, then 500 more would not be bad, would it ?

Think how nice it would be if, as we attempt to grub an existence from an already hostile and trigger-happy world, everyone we came across was strung out of their gourd on the "intoxicant" of their choice.

Happy days are here again . . .:icon_rolleyes:
Marijuana isn't toxic.
QED.

Everything should be fucking legal. Nobody has any right to say what you can or cannot put in your body.

I disagree. With substances such as cocaine, and heroin, you've got products that have the potential to cause not only the people who use it serious harm, but also other people who have to bear the brunt of healthcare, lost days at work etc. However, the approach should be changed, with an emphasis on the middlemen, not the farmers/drugdealers/users.

rzm61
December 21st, 2008, 11:55 PM
I disagree. With substances such as cocaine, and heroin, you've got products that have the potential to cause not only the people who use it serious harm, but also other people who have to bear the brunt of healthcare, lost days at work etc. However, the approach should be changed, with an emphasis on the middlemen, not the farmers/drugdealers/users.

Eh, shit happens.

The people who want the stronger substances will eventually OD or some shit so think of it as population control.


Because tell me this is meth was legal, would you use it?

rmw
December 22nd, 2008, 12:25 AM
Eh, shit happens.

The people who want the stronger substances will eventually OD or some shit so think of it as population control.


Because tell me this is meth was legal, would you use it?

Sorry, rzm, but darwinism doesn't always weed out the stupid people. What happens when a meth lab explodes? It's not just the junkie exposed to the chemicals used to cook meth--it's the people in the surrounding area, not to mention the hazmat team who comes to clean it up.

Assuming one is growing their own pot, it's not going to explode and cause the neighbors to suffer scarring on their lungs.

Legalizing something doesn't mean everyone will use it. However, legalizing pot carries much less social risk than legalizing meth.

BTW, Tsar, what is your definition of "middlemen"?

winwun
December 22nd, 2008, 12:38 AM
rzm, unfortunately, "eventually" isn't soon enough . . .

What I perceive as desireable is a population that has a work ethic geared toward substantive improvement of the human condition, geared toward being, if you will, profit, rather than overhead, more toward personal responsibility and less toward holding up inanimate objects as the cause of their inability to function.

"The cell phone caused the wreck", or "The gun killed him,", or "The 4-wheeler injured the child".

What I further perceive as helping us to attain dignity is the holding up as idols persons truly deserving, not drug-crazed musicians, or idle vagrants like Thoreau who cursed the very system he depended on for his survival, and ridiculed the very ones who fed, clothed, and gave his worthless ass a place to stay out of the rain.

Unfortunately, the reality is quite the opposite, for the most part, we are supporting drugs and lifestyles that make us weak, sniveling, congenital defects that nature would not allow to live longer than it took the closest predator to put an end to their worthless existence . . .

rzm61
December 22nd, 2008, 12:38 AM
The meth lab would be in a safe controlled environment funded by the government or some company?

rzm61
December 22nd, 2008, 12:41 AM
"The gun killed him,"

That's a bullshit claim.

rmw
December 22nd, 2008, 01:05 AM
The meth lab would be in a safe controlled environment funded by the government or some company?

Hypothetical question then: if pot were to be legalized, who would be allowed to grow it? Individuals for their personal use or large companies to sell to the general populace?

rzm61
December 22nd, 2008, 01:25 AM
Hypothetical question then: if pot were to be legalized, who would be allowed to grow it? Individuals for their personal use or large companies to sell to the general populace?


Fantastic question.
Companies could sell it, however you should be able to grow your own for personal use as well. However with all things, you should get a permit or something. Pay a fee for the year per plant or something and have it too legit to quit.

The Good Reverend Roger
December 22nd, 2008, 03:04 AM
Fucking hippies.

tagnostic
December 22nd, 2008, 10:40 AM
What I perceive as desireable is a population that has a work ethic geared toward substantive improvement of the human condition,

that starts with oneself

geared toward being, if you will, profit, rather than overhead, more toward personal responsibility and less toward holding up inanimate objects as the cause of their inability to function.

you just summed up Ayn Rand in a sentence
:icon_eek:

winwun
December 22nd, 2008, 12:11 PM
Yeah, well, I discovered the Pythagorean theory on my own, too . . .

rzm61
December 22nd, 2008, 12:51 PM
Fucking hippies.

http://bbs.311.com/forums/images/dark_vb/smilies/smileyjackdance.gif

Tsar Phalanxia
December 22nd, 2008, 01:36 PM
Eh, shit happens.

The people who want the stronger substances will eventually OD or some shit so think of it as population control.

That's what I mean when I said it affects people who have minimal contact with said drugs. Of course, it would be best if only the addicts and the suppliers bear the cost of what they're doing to society, but that doesn't even happen with alcohol and tobacco, let alone crack and heroin. An economist would say that "The externalities need to be internalised", so that the polluters pay. But for crack, heroin etc, the cost of internalising those externalities is far greater than any profit than could be made from it.

Because tell me this is meth was legal, would you use it?

I'd rather dump my head in battery acid.

BTW, Tsar, what is your definition of "middlemen"?
The smugglers/the guys running, the heroin trade for example. Punishing the poppy farmers (Although preferably these guys would be given alternatives to poppies to grow) and the guys on the ground selling/using the stuff is pointless; it's like confiscating weapons to control gun crime rather than stopping the production and supply of them.

rmw
December 22nd, 2008, 05:18 PM
Fantastic question.
Companies could sell it, however you should be able to grow your own for personal use as well. However with all things, you should get a permit or something. Pay a fee for the year per plant or something and have it too legit to quit.

So, similar to alcohol? Meaning, you need a license to sell alcohol, but, you can brew your own beer at home and share it with others--just not for profit.

The smugglers/the guys running, the heroin trade for example. Punishing the poppy farmers (Although preferably these guys would be given alternatives to poppies to grow) and the guys on the ground selling/using the stuff is pointless; it's like confiscating weapons to control gun crime rather than stopping the production and supply of them.

That makes sense, however, look at US drug policy:, it's been to punish the farmers of the coca plants or poppies, with little in the way of serious attempts to get farmers to grow an alternate crop. Couple that with the fact that these alternate crops aren't as lucrative as those that can be used to make illegal drugs, you get a losing battle in the "War Against Drugs."

rzm61
December 22nd, 2008, 05:30 PM
So, similar to alcohol? Meaning, you need a license to sell alcohol, but, you can brew your own beer at home and share it with others--just not for profit.


...yeah, pretty much. The government is breaking their own legs by keeping this illegal and not allowing it to tap into the economy. Industrialized hemp could really help the economy get out of the current state it's in.

Well I don't wanna say that, but it would act like a crutch for a little bit that's for sure.

rmw
December 22nd, 2008, 05:35 PM
The government is breaking their own legs by keeping this illegal and not allowing it to tap into the economy.

Agreed. Tax the hell out of it and put the money toward state-funded projects.

Tsar Phalanxia
December 22nd, 2008, 05:36 PM
That makes sense, however, look at US drug policy:, it's been to punish the farmers of the coca plants or poppies, with little in the way of serious attempts to get farmers to grow an alternate crop. Couple that with the fact that these alternate crops aren't as lucrative as those that can be used to make illegal drugs, you get a losing battle in the "War Against Drugs."
Exactly. It seems to be "War Against Impoverished Farmers, Who Face Either Pesticide Aerial Sprays From A Country Thousands Of Miles Away, Or Kneecapping By The Local Mob".
...yeah, pretty much. The government is breaking their own legs by keeping this illegal and not allowing it to tap into the economy. Industrialized hemp could really help the economy get out of the current state it's in.

Well I don't wanna say that, but it would act like a crutch for a little bit that's for sure.
As McCain would say, it's all about job creation.

rzm61
December 22nd, 2008, 06:05 PM
Agreed. Tax the hell out of it and put the money toward state-funded projects.

Eh, yeah you can tax it but not toooo much taxing on it.
I thought I came up with a brilliant idea, but I'm not 100% on it. I think it would work out pretty well though.


As McCain would say, it's all about job creation.

You mean Palin? :icon_lol:

Daruko
December 22nd, 2008, 08:02 PM
Too bad these conversations lead to nowhere.

rzm61
December 22nd, 2008, 08:11 PM
Srsly. :(

Paris Hilton
December 22nd, 2008, 08:16 PM
Too bad these conversations lead to nowhere.
I have to disagree.
Almost all conversations here lead to, and end with a smilie from Lil Kylie.

Tsar Phalanxia
December 22nd, 2008, 08:17 PM
Eh, yeah you can tax it but not toooo much taxing on it.
I thought I came up with a brilliant idea, but I'm not 100% on it. I think it would work out pretty well though.

Why not? We tax cigarettes to the hilt here, to pay for all the damage smoking does.
Too bad these conversations lead to nowhere.
Especially when we could be doing something about it.

rmw
December 22nd, 2008, 08:18 PM
Too bad these conversations lead to nowhere.

While there have been some states that have legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes, I don't foresee it being legalized for recreational use in both the states' and federal government's law books anytime soon. What's most aggravating is I have yet to hear a solid reason for not doing so.

rzm61
December 22nd, 2008, 08:20 PM
Why not? We tax cigarettes to the hilt here, to pay for all the damage smoking does.



Well this wasn't about the taxation it was basically about how to go about selling it and the base price for it.

Again though this was an idea I came up with, so don't put too much stock into it. :icon_lol:

While there have been some states that have legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes, I don't foresee it being legalized for recreational use in both the states' and federal government's law books anytime soon.

As much as I hate admitting it, you're right. It won't be legal at least not in our lifetime.


What's most aggravating is I have yet to hear a solid reason for not doing so.


Politics. That's the only reason.

Tsar Phalanxia
December 22nd, 2008, 08:21 PM
As much as I hate admitting it, you're right. It won't be legal at least not in our lifetime.


Maybe not in America, but maybe in Britain, if we can get the facts out. There isn't such a Christian "Thou shalt not dabble in narcotics" psyche over here.

rzm61
December 22nd, 2008, 08:25 PM
Maybe not in America, but maybe in Britain, if we can get the facts out. There isn't such a Christian "Thou shalt not dabble in narcotics" psyche over here.

It's not just the Christian wing, it's all politics man (which sadly religion plays a lot in the US's politics). This got started way back before anyone on this boards time.

Tsar Phalanxia
December 22nd, 2008, 08:26 PM
I know, but where does most of the lobbying come from?

rzm61
December 22nd, 2008, 08:28 PM
Companies.

Oil companies, clothing companies, paper companies.

All the places that would be hit hard if industrilized hemp was legal.

Tsar Phalanxia
December 22nd, 2008, 08:30 PM
Companies.

Oil companies, clothing companies

Why these guys? Surely it would be cotton farmers. (Cotton has to be one of the dumbest crops ever; it's sucked the Rio Grande dry; literally)

I suppose thaty the lobbying isn't from the Religious Right, but it's sent out from there to appeal to common, "small town" folk.

Daruko
December 22nd, 2008, 08:34 PM
And the propaganda ads are becoming more prominent as well.

About a year ago I saw one where this kid says his big brother died in a marijuana-influenced car accident, and if it wasn't for evil mary jane his brother would be alive.

Then they quoted some statistic that completely neglects the real facts done in that study. I looked it up, and every single person on that death list with marijuana in their system was also drunk. Last time I checked, there wasn't a single documented case of only marijuana influenced deaths.

It's like getting to relive the days of Reefer Madness in the 21st century.

Course the tobacco industry is subject to the same degree of senility. THOSE TOBACCO COMPANY'S ARE OUT TO GET US! THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE! FNORD

rzm61
December 22nd, 2008, 08:37 PM
The lobbying is coming from all sides. That and the people who are in charge have a warped stance on the cannabis plant.

They were taught while growing up that it's as bad as heroin, and it'll feed into other addictions and shit like that.

Nothing but bad publicity for the poor little cannabis plant. And then because of the legality of it, no studies are allowed to be preformed on the plant and it's effects.

And the propaganda ads are becoming more prominent as well.

About a year ago I saw one where this kid says his big brother died in a marijuana-influenced car accident, and if it wasn't for evil mary jane his brother would be alive.

Then they quoted some statistic that completely neglects the real facts done in that study. I looked it up, and every single person on that death list with marijuana in their system was also drunk. Last time I checked, there wasn't a single documented case of only marijuana influenced deaths.

It's like getting to relieve the days of Reefer Madness in the 21st century.

Course the tobacco industry is subject to the same degree of senility. THOSE TOBACCO COMPANY'S ARE OUT TO GET US! THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE! FNORD


The best anti-smoking commercial is by one of my favorite (sarcasm intended) anti-drug/pot groups, Above The Influence.

Anyway, it's the one with the chick and the talking dog. I've never been on or smoked anything that made animals talk, and pretty much the only thing I have to ask after seeing that is, where can I get some? I'd love to sit at home and talk to my cat.

Tsar Phalanxia
December 22nd, 2008, 08:39 PM
And the propaganda ads are becoming more prominent as well.

About a year ago I saw one where this kid says his big brother died in a marijuana-influenced car accident, and if it wasn't for evil mary jane his brother would be alive.

Then they quoted some statistic that completely neglects the real facts done in that study. I looked it up, and every single person on that death list with marijuana in their system was also drunk. Last time I checked, there wasn't a single documented case of only marijuana influenced deaths.

It's like getting to relieve the days of Reefer Madness in the 21st century.

Cunts. I saw one (On a US News Channel stream) about some teenage girl doing weed, and her younger brother "being hurt" by hit, with cigarette burns appearing on his arms. WTFTHOSE TOBACCO COMPANY'S ARE OUT TO GET US! THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE!

Well when you consider the fact that Tobacco companies deliberately market their products to young people in the developing world, you realise that they are actually despicable, evil institutions.

FNORD

I feel uneasy.

Daruko
December 22nd, 2008, 08:48 PM
Yeah, because we all started on the tobacco thinking it was harmless, and perfectly good for us. Sorry, but as someone who has been smoking tobacco for more of my life than I haven't, I think it's ridiculous to act like the tobacco companies are doing something covert and sinister. I knew what I was doing when I was 12, and I know what I'm doing now. It's not because I was subliminally fnord targeted.

And what ad campaigns for kids?! They can't do TV. They can't do Magazines, newspapers, etc... Where are all these evil campaigns? And what if they were? Every year, millions of kids gather around the tv at superbowl time to get bombarded with 20 different top dollar beers ads... what's the difference?

You won't hear me crying that the beer commercials caused my kids to become alcoholics. If it happens before their of age, it's my own damn fault. And if it happens after they're of age... well then it's nobody's frackin business but their own.

Tsar Phalanxia
December 22nd, 2008, 09:03 PM
This a top secret (Srsly!) document by BAT in 1982 detailing they expected the tobacco market to change. They were spot on, and I want in particular to draw your attention to the last page, article 48, detail g
http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/batco/html/4600/4671/index.html
http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/batco/html/4600/4671/otherpages/9.html
The tobacco companies are as bad as arms companies.

Daruko
December 22nd, 2008, 09:09 PM
One word? Come on, Tsar... I know you can do better than that.;)

EDIT: Anyway, I'm not saying these companies are saints. lol
I'm saying it's ridiculous to fight for our rights to smoke or consume what we please, and then
turn around and sue the companies that manufacture and advertise those very products to us.

Ppl will do anything to keep from accepting responsibility for their own actions.
You can't have the freedom to do what you want AND the ability to blame all the consequences on your enablers.
Well, actually you can, but it's idiotic.

rzm61
December 22nd, 2008, 10:08 PM
Yeah, because we all started on the tobacco thinking it was harmless, and perfectly good for us. Sorry, but as someone who has been smoking tobacco for more of my life than I haven't, I think it's ridiculous to act like the tobacco companies are doing something covert and sinister. I knew what I was doing when I was 12, and I know what I'm doing now. It's not because I was subliminally fnord targeted.

And what ad campaigns for kids?! They can't do TV. They can't do Magazines, newspapers, etc... Where are all these evil campaigns? And what if they were? Every year, millions of kids gather around the tv at superbowl time to get bombarded with 20 different top dollar beers ads... what's the difference?

You won't hear me crying that the beer commercials caused my kids to become alcoholics. If it happens before their of age, it's my own damn fault. And if it happens after they're of age... well then it's nobody's frackin business but their own.


OH MY GOOGLE!
YOU SMOKE!

DON'T YOU KNOW THAT COULD POSSIBLY GIVE YOU LUNG CANCER AND/OR EMPHYSEMA!?!?!!!!

Daruko
December 22nd, 2008, 10:29 PM
OH MY GOOGLE!
YOU SMOKE!

DON'T YOU KNOW THAT COULD POSSIBLY GIVE YOU LUNG CANCER AND/OR EMPHYSEMA!?!?!!!!

NO! R U SRS?! DAMN THOSE LYING TOBACCO COMPANIES! THEY TOLD ME IT WAS COOL AND GOOD FOR MY HEALTH WHEN I WAS A KID!

rzm61
December 22nd, 2008, 10:34 PM
I DONT KNOW WHERE YOU GET YOUR INFO DUDE BUT I GET MY SHIT FROM LEGIT COMMERCIALS ON TV THAT ARE MADE BY 20SOMETHING COLLEGE DROPOUTS WHO SMOKE CIGARETTES WHEN THE CAMERAS AREN'T AROUND!

http://sharetv.org/watch/8524451

Tsar Phalanxia
December 22nd, 2008, 10:36 PM
http://elane.stanford.edu/images/exhibits/tobacco/marlboro/mommyyousureenjoybabyseries5L.jpg

Daruko
December 22nd, 2008, 11:08 PM
:icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:

That advertisement roxxors! I hope that's not your next best effort to show evidence for your case, Tsar.

Tsar Phalanxia
December 23rd, 2008, 10:01 AM
Oh, no, I was just replying to Rzm's comment. I'm going up in the shower now, so I'll write a reply once I'm squeaky clean.

winwun
December 23rd, 2008, 11:52 AM
Serious inquiry here . . .

If pot was legalized, what would a pack of cigarettes (pot) the size of the Marlboro's shown sell for ?

Would depend a lot on the levy, but assuming no tax . . .

rzm61
December 23rd, 2008, 12:45 PM
Serious inquiry here . . .

If pot was legalized, what would a pack of cigarettes (pot) the size of the Marlboro's shown sell for ?

Would depend a lot on the levy, but assuming no tax . . .

Glad you asked this.
I've had an idea about this for awhile and it kinda makes sense. Usually you get about 20 cigarettes in a pack. So from there you would get 20 cannabis cigarettes. It would most likely cost less then a dollar to produce them so you could technically sell them for a dollar a cigarette. So that would make a pack 20 bucks (face value no tax or anything). Now, seeing how there are different strains of cannabis and potency can vary you can adjust the price and tax accordingly.


Anyway that was just an idea I've had for awhile. Rip it apart people! :icon_twisted:

Tsar Phalanxia
December 23rd, 2008, 02:39 PM
In theory, you could make a conventional cigarette, and sell it for a profit for a penny.

winwun
December 23rd, 2008, 05:14 PM
I used to smoke, and I quit when the price went up over .20 per pack.

The machines were set to take quarters, and pennies were inserted under the cellophane for your change . . .

I said, "I will never pay .25 for a pack of cigarettes" and I never did/will.

If the cigs were MJ, the government would likely try to grab about 10 bucks, so any ideas as to the revenue this would produce ?

Any additional social costs ?

Would a person smoke as many MJ cigs as a "moderate" smoker did regular tobacco ?

Pardon the questions, but I am SO ignorant about SO many things . . .

rzm61
December 23rd, 2008, 05:23 PM
Would a person smoke as many MJ cigs as a "moderate" smoker did regular tobacco ?

Pardon the questions, but I am SO ignorant about SO many things . . .

They would actually smoke less.
It's a proven fact that cannabis smokers smoke a lot less then tobacco smokers.

rmw
December 23rd, 2008, 06:54 PM
They would actually smoke less.
It's a proven fact that cannabis smokers smoke a lot less then tobacco smokers.

Is that because marijuana is less addictive than tobacco, or because it's much more expensive? Just playing devil's advocate here.

rzm61
December 23rd, 2008, 06:57 PM
Citation please? (Not saying your wrong, but am interested where your info. is coming from.)

Lemme see if I can find it.


I'm sorry that I'm not digging through, but here look through this:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cannabis+smokers+smoke+less+then+tobacco+smokers&aq=f&oq=


I'm running off to break right now, that's why I'm not taking more time and looking for it.


However I wouldn't be shocked if I misread a few things.

Sister Faith
December 26th, 2008, 09:10 PM
If the cigs were MJ, the government would likely try to grab about 10 bucks, so any ideas as to the revenue this would produce?

If the numbers in this article (http://tinyurl.com/ysw6ym) are to be believed, that would make for a hell of a pile of profit for my country at least! :icon_twisted:

Would a person smoke as many MJ cigs as a "moderate" smoker did regular tobacco ?It would all depend on the THC content of the pot. The gov't would probably regulate the THC level like they regulate the alcohol content of beer, or charge more for stronger pot, less cigs to a pack, etc. :icon_evil:

My gov't already regulates the allowed level of THC (http://www.torontohemp.com/hempuses.htm) in the marijuana they cultivate to provide exempted medicinal marijuana patients with pot. That THC level is so low that the patients have been sending it back (http://www.torontohemp.com/news/news245.htm) to the gov't.

With strains such as M-39 being offered on the menu at a much discounted price per gram than one would spend for an inferior, commercial version, it’s no surprise that MMAR (Marijuana Medical Access Regulations) exemptees and non-exempt medical users alike are turning more and more to the TCC (Toronto Compassion Centre) to provide them with the quality product the government flopped. :icon_evil::icon_evil:

rmw
December 26th, 2008, 09:25 PM
I think it would be dumb for the government to go directly into the marijuana business. Like tobacco, alcohol, and pharmaceuticals there are regulations that should be met, and the government takes its share from the profits, but it's private companies who make the actual products. Just let the government collect its share of the revenues and let the experts do the growning and marketing.

Sister Faith
December 26th, 2008, 09:42 PM
Just let the government collect its share of the revenues and let the experts do the growning and marketing.

I agree. My gov't did hire experts to grow the med marijuana they provide exempted patients, so why then put a cap on the one ingredient (THC) that has any medical benefit? It makes no sense. :icon_confused:

rmw
December 26th, 2008, 10:42 PM
I agree. My gov't did hire experts to grow the med marijuana they provide exempted patients, so why then put a cap on the one ingredient (THC) that has any medical benefit? It makes no sense. :icon_confused:

Mmm...because mari-ja-wanna's bad, m'kay. ;) Seriously, I would think the caps on THC limits for medical marijuana probably has to do with the stigma attached to it.

MeTHoD-X
December 27th, 2008, 12:24 PM
As a libertarian It's my opinion that people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their life (no government intervention of any kind). So yes, marijuana should be legal, not just for medical use but for recreational use as well.

Personally I don't smoke pot. It makes me socially paranoid and gives me panic attacks. Crazy stuff. However, if it didn't I'd be all over it.

Alcohol on the other hand...

:)

rzm61
December 27th, 2008, 02:54 PM
Hey MeTHoD, what about pharmacuticals?

tagnostic
December 27th, 2008, 05:30 PM
to quote Dire Straits
"I want my THC"
just took a bong hit
now i want to parody
the whole song
good thing i've got
a beer to keep me
from doing anything.
:icon_eek:
ohh, and there's a woman
on the couch,
anyone know her name?
or why she's crashed on
the couch?

rmw
December 27th, 2008, 06:47 PM
:icon_eek:
ohh, and there's a woman
on the couch,
anyone know her name?
or why she's crashed on
the couch?

Maybe the marijuana has affected your short-term memory, Tag. ;)

Is this a regular occurence, finding strange people passed out on your furniture?

Sister Faith
December 27th, 2008, 07:11 PM
:icon_eek: ohh, and there's a woman
on the couch,
anyone know her name?
or why she's crashed on
the couch?

What a gentleman you are,Tag. :icon_cool:
Most dawgs who find chicks crashed on their couch don't need to know their names. :icon_lol:

rzm61
December 27th, 2008, 07:28 PM
:icon_eek:
ohh, and there's a woman
on the couch,
anyone know her name?
or why she's crashed on
the couch?


Sincerely, the woman on the couch. :icon_lol:

Sister Faith
December 27th, 2008, 07:36 PM
Sincerely, the woman on the couch. :icon_lol:

Hahaha! I wish I had the luxury of crashing on any couch. The turkey doesn't cook itself, the presents don't wrap themselves, the house doesn't clean itself, my work is never done! No rest for the wicked. :icon_twisted:

tagnostic
December 27th, 2008, 11:42 PM
I discovered her name,
she had breakfast with
the roomies at waffle house
and is now sober enough to
drive and is safely at home

and yes, getting coffee in the a.m.
or a beer, is always an adventure
and occaisionally a pleasant suprise

MeTHoD-X
December 28th, 2008, 11:29 AM
Hey MeTHoD, what about pharmacuticals?

Do you mean should pharmaceuticals be deregulated? Yes. In fact, they already are in most parts of the world.

rzm61
December 28th, 2008, 06:01 PM
Do you mean should pharmaceuticals be deregulated? Yes. In fact, they already are in most parts of the world.

Well...more like your position on them.

tagnostic
December 28th, 2008, 06:05 PM
Well...more like your position on them.

if they're suppositories
it can be quite uncomfortable

rzm61
December 28th, 2008, 06:29 PM
:icon_lol:

MeTHoD-X
December 29th, 2008, 11:19 AM
Well...more like your position on them.

My position on pharmaceutical drugs eh?

Well lets see. We don't have a pill to cure AIDS. No pill to cure cancer or diabetes. No. But we've got plenty of drugs to prolong the life of those suffering from said illnesses. I think that's where the money is. Why sell one pill to a customer once when you can sell it to him for life?

Not saying that's necessarily a good thing, it's just how it is.

Regards,
Matt

rzm61
December 29th, 2008, 11:23 AM
Well, Matt.

That response is better then nothing at all. :icon_lol:

You are right though, about them selling the pill to them for life.
Quite disgusting in my opinion.

winwun
December 29th, 2008, 01:41 PM
The promise of AIDS was unfulfilled and thwarted by the pharms as a way to make more you-know-what, and to also create more congenital defects in order that the level of society would be elevated to the point that it will now only take a 10' ladder in order to kiss a snake's ass.

Ah well, more acolytes for The Church Of Google, so "let the good times roll" . . .

Build a man a fire and you warm him for one day, but set him on fire and you warm him for the rest of his life . . .

Kabel
December 31st, 2008, 12:04 AM
My first, and hopefully not last, post on this forum.

I am completely baffled that the use of pot is still illegal.
But what really makes my blood boil, is seeing a commercial telling the world how bad pot is, and then five seconds later, I see a three commercials in a row, about different beer products.

Anyone who doesn't spot the blatant hypocracy in that?

winwun
December 31st, 2008, 12:13 AM
Kabel, it obviously boils down to the social aspects of the delivery system.

Seriously, think about it -- all social get-togethers hinge on the relaxed atmosphere of small talk, right on the edge of "personal space", left hand in pocket, right hand holding at belt-level the glass of whatever intoxicant is preferred, and the noticeable and blatant lack of smoke of any kind.

It just isn't done with smoke -- mirrors, yes -- smoke, no . . .

Hypocracy ? -- No, just a different way of doing things.

Oh, one other important facet of the phenomena is that the MJ crowd is mostly younger, less affluent, and therefore less powerful than the above-mentioned "movers and shakers".

rzm61
December 31st, 2008, 01:00 AM
You should actually look at the world around you.

You might be shocked at what you find.
Tokers range from all walks of life. Not just mostly younger cats.

Daruko
December 31st, 2008, 02:11 AM
You should actually look at the world around you.

You might be shocked at what you find.
Tokers range from all walks of life. Not just mostly younger cats.

TROOF.

If there is any statistical advantage to the younger crowd, I suspect it's because the propaganda has slowwwwwwly been wearing thinner. I mean, you can only propagate bullshit for so long before observation forces you to admit teh smell of it. Then again, reality has demonstrated itself to be quite malleable for a strong/weak willed perception tunnel. I feel that a significant inquiry to this discussion, worth discovering an answer to, is: Why, srsly... WHY, when potsmoking is so prominent (RLY prominent! - who isn't related or doesn't know someone who does it?), and even among those who don't partake, prominently accepted as hardly punishable (at minimum), WHY are we endorsers failing to win the battle? WTF? I think it's a very curious dilemna.

winwun
December 31st, 2008, 03:02 AM
The wrong in a situation is in the perception, not the reality . . .

If something must be hidden, it is inherently wrong, whether practiced by a majority or not . . .

tagnostic
December 31st, 2008, 03:20 AM
The wrong in a situation is in the perception, not the reality . . .

but the perception is/
can become the reality

If something must be hidden, it is inherently wrong, whether practiced by a majority or not . . .but 'why' it must be hidden
is not a question of either
morality or majority
but physical/emotional authority

amusement (http://www.gearfuse.com/aviation-innovation-getting-higher-than-ever-before/)

Daruko
December 31st, 2008, 03:53 AM
The wrong in a situation is in the perception, not the reality . . .

If something must be hidden, it is inherently wrong, whether practiced by a majority or not . . .

"absolute wrong"? 0_o

rzm61
December 31st, 2008, 07:07 AM
If something must be hidden, it is inherently wrong, whether practiced by a majority or not . . .


The only reason why this has to be hidden, is so the prison system isn't crowded with more non-violent drug offenders then it already is.

winwun
December 31st, 2008, 12:00 PM
That a bad situation can be explained, in no way nullifies the reality of the situation.

ie: "It's only a rttlesnake bite," -- "Oh, I see, then does that mean I'm not going to die?"

Daruko
December 31st, 2008, 02:07 PM
If something must be hidden, it is inherently wrong, whether practiced by a majority or not . . .

OH okay! Like the Jews had to hide themselves in the Holocaust, right?

Oh no wait. Wait! Too extreme, right? How about when ppl had to hide their alcohol during the prohibition?

Or how about when christians had to hide their faith, back in the days when they were fed to the lions for entertainment? (-sigh-, those were the days :icon_lol: )

Or how about when blacks had to stay out of the way when schools, workplaces, public transportation and most commercial areas were segregated?

or how about, how about, No nevarmind.. You must be right.

The "law of the land" certainly always represents the inherent "absolute right" and "absolute wrong" of nature. :icon_rolleyes:

Tsar Phalanxia
December 31st, 2008, 02:39 PM
OH NOM NOM NOM - Simba after a particularly tasty Baptist

rzm61
December 31st, 2008, 06:34 PM
That a bad situation can be explained, in no way nullifies the reality of the situation.

ie: "It's only a rttlesnake bite," -- "Oh, I see, then does that mean I'm not going to die?"

WTF?
You must be smoking the bad shit with SS.

winwun
December 31st, 2008, 06:36 PM
No need to go back thousands of years, or even to WW-II, you can see how things that were right a generation ago are now wrong, according to our PC liberal laws, which are the law, whether you agree or not.

Hindsight is no proof that something was wrong or right when it is now the opposite.

Situations and mores change and those are what determines the right or wrong, not the act itself -- It is right to dive off the high board, but only if there is water in the pool.

The situation determines the propriety, not the act, and if you are going to argue the right or wrong, then change the act as it applies to the judgemental situation.

Daruko
December 31st, 2008, 06:48 PM
No need to go back thousands of years, or even to WW-II, you can see how things that were right a generation ago are now wrong, according to our PC liberal laws, which are the law, whether you agree or not.
Which obviously, YUO don't. The troll/fanatic needle just moved a little more to the right (religious fruitcake). Say something outlandish, so I can convince myself you're a troll. Thx.

Hindsight is no proof that something was wrong or right when it is now the opposite.
That's a little more like it. Got anything else?

Situations and mores change and those are what determines the right or wrong, not the act itself -- It is right to dive off the high board, but only if there is water in the pool.
Actually, in your case, it's only right if there is NO water in the pool.

The situation determines the propriety, not the act, and if you are going to argue the right or wrong, then change the act as it applies to the judgemental situation.
Yuo argue that something is "inherently wrong" because it "must be hidden". I didn't say jack about that. I was comparing social acceptance/awareness with current litigation; inquiring into the root cause of their differences.

Also: Yuo make absolutely no sense, and contradict yourself every other post. Joo are getting me hot. :icon_lol:

Tsar Phalanxia
January 1st, 2009, 12:04 AM
WTF?
You must be smoking the bad shit with SS.

Fix'd

rzm61
January 1st, 2009, 12:53 AM
Oh touche.


(....I don't know how to do the e with the accent mark. Sciky, how do you do it on a mac? I don't feel like pestering the Goddess.)

Loki
January 1st, 2009, 01:34 AM
Why ban something just because it makes people stoned?

Sure, stop folks driving (or diving even) on it. Make THC illegal when flying a big sod off 747! No problem here.

Why ban it just because it makes you stoned? The law doesn't (shouldn't) work like that.

Oh no, it makes people giggle! Fuck me - BAN IT!
I've smoked dope for more than 20 years. I still do (I suspect I smoke more weed in a month than ol' rz does in a year)...

I'm a crim me :D - I'm so criminal that I have an LLM and considering Board exams (sadly money says no at the moment)

What is wrong with weed? Look at the law! Look at the reasons for classifications.
Then tell me why cannabis should be a class C (UK). And the Schedule 1 classification in the US is, frankly, idiotic!

Idiotic? It's illegal for one reason - it makes you giddy. That IS NOT a reason under the Misuse of Drugs Act!
I'm up for a legal argument about this btw! (Perhaps not today 'cos I'm ...
erm? Giddy???)

winwun
January 1st, 2009, 11:39 AM
Rzm, is this (é) the e with accent that you want, the one that sounds like a hard a, as in resumé ?

Not sure on the Mac, but there are lots of similarities between the pc and mac, and on the pc you hold down the Alt. key while you punch in the numbers 0233, and the é will come up where the cursor was.

Probably not much help, but good luck . . .

sudikics
January 1st, 2009, 03:10 PM
Oh touche.


(....I don't know how to do the e with the accent mark. Sciky, how do you do it on a mac? I don't feel like pestering the Goddess.)
Hit Option+e, then let go of option, and press e again.

rzm61
January 1st, 2009, 04:58 PM
Awesome, thanks man. :D

Sister Faith
January 2nd, 2009, 12:17 AM
Oh, one other important facet of the phenomena is that the MJ crowd is mostly younger, less affluent, and therefore less powerful than the above-mentioned "movers and shakers".

This is an assumption and an erroneous one. I am of the 'older' pot smoking generation & most of the smokers I know are professionals of some sort including lawyers, politicians, business owners, civil servants, police officers & prison guards to name a few.

I am completely baffled that the use of pot is still illegal.

Here are a few reasons why pot is still illegal:

Getting Rich Off Prohibition (http://drugwarrant.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4149#4149)

“The folks who make their living arresting non-violent drug offenders. According to the ‘No on 5′ website, the California State Sheriff’s Association, the California Narcotics Officers Association, the California Peace Officers Association, the Police Chiefs of California, and the California District Attorneys Association all oppose Prop. 5.

However, even more disturbing is who’s bankrolling the ‘No on 5′ campaign. According to the Drug Policy Alliance, California’s powerful prison guards union has spent close to $2 million dollars to lobby against the passage of Prop. 5. After all, overcrowded prisons — In 2007, California declared a ’state of emergency’ in the prison system because of the lack of bed space — and more prison construction (in lieu of building additional public high schools and state colleges) are a financial windfall for prison guards, even if they spell disaster for everyone else.

So now that you know who’s against Prop. 5, why not examine who is lobbying for it. That list would include the California Nurses Association, California Society of Addiction Medicine, the California League of Women Voters, and the California Academy of Family Physicians.

In short, those who have dedicated their lives to helping others in need are backing Prop. 5, while those who have dedicated their careers to destroying people’s lives (or who promote a product that does) vehemently oppose it. You do the math.”

Asset Seizure - (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91490480)Seized drug assets pad police budgets (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91490480)

“Another county agency, the Kingsville Specialized Crimes and Narcotics Task Force, survives solely on seized cash. Said one neighboring lawman, "They eat what they kill." A review by NPR shows at least three other Texas task forces that also are funded exclusively by confiscated drug assets.”

Drug Cop Lies Sent over 150 to Jail (http://drugwarrant.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1252&sid=80a919250c069dc5f77584a090c5bf86)

“At DEA, our mission is to fight drug trafficking in order to make drug abuse the most expensive, unpleasant, risky, and disreputable form of recreation a person could have.”
-- Donnie Marshall, Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)

Anyone who doesn't spot the blatant hypocrisy in that?
The 'War on Drugs' is full of hypocrisy.:icon_evil:

No Marijuana Possession Law in Ontario, Court Rules -- Cops Vow to Keep Arresting Users Anyway (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/288/nolaw.shtml)

FDA-approved Medical Marijuana Research blocked (http://endingcannabisprohibition.yuku.com/topic/447)

And how's this for hypocrisy. Why are people doing time for marijuana possession allowed to smoke pot in prison? I have heard this from inmates, prison guards, inmate advocates and prison counselors. :icon_confused:

winwun
January 2nd, 2009, 10:49 PM
Like everything else, it's all about money, and the prison guards and the health-care industry are not doing their work for charity.

Like in practically every instance, the preacher and the bootlegger vote the same way on whisky.

Altruism in and for it's own sake cannot exist without the existence of sufficient funds or advantages . . .

rzm61
January 3rd, 2009, 05:26 AM
Like everything else, it's all about money

and politics. :icon_rolleyes:

winwun
January 3rd, 2009, 12:24 PM
Very perceptive, rzm :icon_cool: -- too true, too true . . .:icon_confused:

rzm61
January 4th, 2009, 06:54 AM
I do what I can, my friend.



Man I hate saying that now because of McSame. :\

Tsar Phalanxia
January 4th, 2009, 11:46 AM
McCain was alright, before he went prick.

rzm61
January 4th, 2009, 02:04 PM
No need to go back thousands of years, or even to WW-II,

How about right before the 30's?
When cannabis was legal?


That would be a pretty chillin time.
You know, when times were simple. You could back hand a kid for talking back, and when a lady showing an ankle was considered revealing.

rmw
January 4th, 2009, 03:46 PM
How about right before the 30's?
When cannabis was legal?


That would be a pretty chillin time.
You know, when times were simple. You could back hand a kid for talking back, and when a lady showing an ankle was considered revealing.

Simple, or simple-minded?

winwun
January 4th, 2009, 04:16 PM
How many of you iknow how our favorite soft drink got its name . . .?

Daruko
January 4th, 2009, 05:12 PM
iknow how our favorite soft drink got its name . . .?

QFT :icon_rolleyes:

Tsar Phalanxia
January 4th, 2009, 06:00 PM
Irn-Bru? It's brewed from girders, hence Iron Brew.

Loki
January 4th, 2009, 06:15 PM
How about right before the 30's?
When cannabis was legal?


That would be a pretty chillin time.
You know, when times were simple. You could back hand a kid for talking back, and when a lady showing an ankle was considered revealing.

Ahh - the good old days. Cholera, TB, Smallpox, Flu, child marriage, religious freedom (as long as it was the right religion).

At least women knew their place then! Pregnant and handcuffed to the stove!
Bring back family values! :D


Coca-cola LOL. I remember being told that if you put an asprin (Tylenol) in a can of coke you'd get stoned. It didn't work :(
Have you ever tried snorting Coke? Jesus, those bubbles really burn!

rzm61
January 4th, 2009, 09:00 PM
Have you ever tried snorting Coke? Jesus, those bubbles really burn!

See, I was having troubles with the ice cubes.

rmw
January 4th, 2009, 09:02 PM
Coca-cola LOL. I remember being told that if you put an asprin (Tylenol) in a can of coke you'd get stoned. It didn't work :(
Have you ever tried snorting Coke? Jesus, those bubbles really burn!

Well, which is it? Asprin or Tylenol (acetametaphin-sp?)? Maybe you can get stoned off of one of them, and you used the wrong kind. ;)

Loki
January 4th, 2009, 09:14 PM
Well, which is it? Asprin or Tylenol (acetametaphin-sp?)? Maybe you can get stoned off of one of them, and you used the wrong kind. ;)

Oh right - is Tylenol paracetamol? Sorry - I should have checked first :D

So what do you call asprin? Magic JuJu Pills :icon_razz:

rmw
January 4th, 2009, 09:24 PM
So what do you call asprin? Magic JuJu Pills :icon_razz:

Do people still use aspirin?

Loki
January 4th, 2009, 09:34 PM
Do people still use aspirin?

Some do. Those of us who don't like the hepatotoxicity of acetowhatever prefer the classic willow extract.

And it liberates the cocaine in coca-cola! Don't forget that!

tagnostic
January 4th, 2009, 09:36 PM
codeine
cocaine
comingle

sailor
January 8th, 2009, 08:18 AM
Do people still use aspirin?

I'm an Acetaminophen or Ibuprofen fan myself.

If I do say so myself.

Sister Faith
January 8th, 2009, 04:15 PM
I'm an Acetaminophen or Ibuprofen fan myself.

If I do say so myself.

I use those for fevers, Aspirin for pain.

tagnostic
January 8th, 2009, 09:03 PM
Scotch & aspirin
universal cure:icon_eek:

winwun
January 10th, 2009, 12:42 PM
I've heard that catnip (lamiaceae) can be smoked and is a little like "grass".

Anyone know about it ?

It really does a number on my cats, that's for sure.

I'm not gonna try it, 'cause I get "high" on life and need nothing else, but I was wondering . . .

Loki
January 10th, 2009, 05:08 PM
I've heard that catnip (lamiaceae) can be smoked and is a little like "grass".

Anyone know about it ?

It really does a number on my cats, that's for sure.

I'm not gonna try it, 'cause I get "high" on life and need nothing else, but I was wondering . . .

Sorry, I've never heard of that one but it sounds a bit urban mythy :D
A bit like dried banana skin gets you high.

winwun
January 10th, 2009, 05:36 PM
Again, I haven't tried it, but I heard it was the "strings" inside the banana peel that did it . . .

As you suggested, probably someone blowing "smoke". :D :icon_rolleyes:

Loki
January 10th, 2009, 05:53 PM
Again, I haven't tried it, but I heard it was the "strings" inside the banana peel that did it . . .

Damn! There's always some reason why it doesn't work :D Should have microwaved it, should have baked it ...

As you suggested, probably someone blowing "smoke". :D :icon_rolleyes:

Yeah, it happens :D

tagnostic
January 25th, 2009, 10:15 AM
link (http://www.portlandmercury.com/food/now-were-cooking-with-pot/Content?oid=939376)
:icon_razz:

Daruko
January 25th, 2009, 06:59 PM
link (http://www.portlandmercury.com/food/now-were-cooking-with-pot/Content?oid=939376)
:icon_razz:

Oooh.. some of those, I haven't tried. Thx.

ryooshi
January 25th, 2009, 07:14 PM
Exactly, there is no reason why marijuana should be illegal. It is harmless, as everyone says. I've also been told that one of the only reasons it is illegal is because the government can't put a tax on it. Could be true, ya never know.

rmw
January 25th, 2009, 07:43 PM
Exactly, there is no reason why marijuana should be illegal. It is harmless, as everyone says. I've also been told that one of the only reasons it is illegal is because the government can't put a tax on it. Could be true, ya never know.

The government can't tax marijuana because it's illegal. If the state and federal governments were to legalize it for all users (not just for medicinal purposes), they could put a tax on it. And it's not completely harmless, rather it's no more harmful than tobacco or alcohol.

tagnostic
January 25th, 2009, 07:46 PM
eating at mc d's everyday
is more detrimental to
your health than pot

rmw
January 25th, 2009, 07:53 PM
eating at mc d's everyday
is more detrimental to
your health than pot

Not arguing that point. Just saying that marijuana is not completely harmless. For example, like alcohol, you should not overly partake and then drive. Like I said, it's no worse than booze or tobacco, and there's a hypocrisy for its illegality.

ryooshi
January 25th, 2009, 07:57 PM
And it's not completely harmless, rather it's no more harmful than tobacco or alcohol.

True, but it's not addictive like tobacco is. Some people become "psychologically dependent" on marijuana, but at least it does effect your mind in a way, instead of destroying you like tobacco does, which has no good effects whatsoever.

Daruko
January 25th, 2009, 08:44 PM
Not arguing that point. Just saying that marijuana is not completely harmless. For example, like alcohol, you should not overly partake and then drive. Like I said, it's no worse than booze or tobacco, and there's a hypocrisy for its illegality.
Not to get into a big thing here, but how many documented fatal car accident cases involve ONLY pot in the system? I've seen a few statistics, but mostly they just say if pot was present, without also accounting for alcohol, or if there is an account, it's usually not published with the results. Hmm.. I wonder why.

djura
January 26th, 2009, 10:05 AM
Not arguing that point. Just saying that marijuana is not completely harmless. For example, like alcohol, you should not overly partake and then drive. Like I said, it's no worse than booze or tobacco, and there's a hypocrisy for its illegality.

Most European cigarette brands contain marijuana in small amounts (<1%), but then if you pull 2 packs a day, like I used to, it's bound to have an effect.
Alcohol, same as most intoxicating substances doesn't effect everyone the same way (some people can hold their liqueur, and some just can't). In my experience it's the same with pot, and yes I smoke and drive sometimes.
This works for me, doesn't mean YOU should try it. After all if you have an accident and you have been smoking pot, you'll be in a lot of trouble, whether it's your fault or not.
Another thing - drugs aren't for dumb people. One should not abuse any substance with no measure or control, and same works for pot. Don't smoke 4 joints in a row, it wont be fun for you or people around you.

-EDIT-
btw, check this (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Cannabis-Upgraded-To-Class-B-Drug-Max-Sentence-For-Possession-Rises/Article/200901415210171?lpos=Politics_First_Poilitics_Article_Teaser_Regi_0&lid=ARTICLE_15210171_Cannabis_Upgraded_To_Class_B_Drug%3A_Max_Sentence_For_Posse ssion_Rises) out!

tagnostic
January 26th, 2009, 01:10 PM
that's retarded

rzm61
January 26th, 2009, 01:14 PM
Don't smoke 4 joints in a row, it wont be fun for you or people around you.



Probably cause you'd be asleep! :icon_razz:

Tsar Phalanxia
January 26th, 2009, 01:49 PM
Jason Braham's daughter Lucy was stabbed to death by Oxford University student William Jaggs in 2006.

Jaggs was a known drug-user and in the murder trial which followed it became clear that cannabis had played a major role.

Speaking to Sky News, Mr Brahams said: "Initially the blame was put on crack until it became apparent that cannabis itself could have been the trigger that turned him psychotic or schizophrenic, as was established at the trial.



Umm, [Citation Needed that he wasn't also doing crack]. Of course it's tragic, but that's one isolated incident. That's like saying that we should ban pretzels because President Bush choked on one and nearly died. Also, what about the other hundreds of thousands of crimes caused by alcohol?

The Government have said their decision is based on 'uncertainty' over the impact of stronger varieties of the drug.

A statement from the Home Office said: "Skunk, a much stronger version of the drug, now dominates the UK's cannabis market.

"Skunk has swept other, less potent, forms of cannabis off the market, and now accounts for 81% of cannabis available on our streets, compared to just 30% in 2002."

So what? If a person uis hungry, and he has a selection of either little cakes or big cakes, just because he can eat ten little cakes doesn't mean he'll eat ten big cakes. It's the same with cannabis. Stoners are only going to smoke joints to get X amount of THC, not X amount of joints regardless of the content. If anything, it's better, as people will smoke less, meaning that the harm caused by inhaling plant ash will be reduced.

Several mental health charities believe the reclassification will raise awareness of the links between cannabis use and psychotic illness.

Charity Sane, which gave evidence to the government review, said it knew of hundreds of cases where heavy users of cannabis, particularly skunk, went on to suffer psychotic breakdowns, hallucinations and paranoia.
Alcohol can do the same thing. Christ, even fucking nutmeg can do that. Besides, what about the millions of people who smoke cannabis and don't suffer psychotic breakdowns?


However, campaigners for greater leniency in cannabis laws have warned that the changes will not have the desired effect.

Andy Cornwell, from the Cannabis Education Trust, said: "Prohibition doesn't work, and whether cannabis is in category A, B or C, it'll make virtually no difference to the number of people using it.
Exactly. People don't think "Oh noes, Cannabis is a Class B drug instead of a Class C :O , I better not smoke it. ". It's bowing to media pressure, which is in itself driven by retards who have no knowledge of the facts behind Cannabis.

"That's what ministers are failing to address.

"They are using cannabis as a political football, ignoring the advice of the expert committee and they don't see that prohibition essentially drives the problem underground, makes the problems worse, and does nothing to protect young and vulnerable people."
Exactly. Police time would be better spent addressing the chronic underage drinking problem in the UK.

Tim Hollis, the chief constable of Humberside and the spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers on drugs said: "It does send a clear message to young people that this is a dangerous drug and that if they use cannabis, there is an increased prospect of police taking firm action with regards to offences of possession."

LULZ
Like the police actually give a shit about people who smoke cannabis, and that it sends a "clear message".

tagnostic
January 26th, 2009, 01:53 PM
skunk is antiquated,
but i do smoke the
good stuff,
reggs give me a headache
I like my little one hit bong
on the desk, one hit every
now and then, not like with
regs where ya gotta whip
out a bowl that holds a 1/4
tastes like shit and you might
catch a 'difference'
it keeps my stomache settled
my appetite up
and my mind relaxed

Tsar Phalanxia
January 26th, 2009, 02:03 PM
skunk is antiquated,


Lulz. You should write to Gordon Brown with that :D

rzm61
January 26th, 2009, 02:04 PM
Umm, [Citation Needed that he wasn't also doing crack]. Of course it's tragic, but that's one isolated incident. That's like saying that we should ban pretzels because President Bush choked on one and nearly died. Also, what about the other hundreds of thousands of crimes caused by alcohol?


So what? If a person uis hungry, and he has a selection of either little cakes or big cakes, just because he can eat ten little cakes doesn't mean he'll eat ten big cakes. It's the same with cannabis. Stoners are only going to smoke joints to get X amount of THC, not X amount of joints regardless of the content. If anything, it's better, as people will smoke less, meaning that the harm caused by inhaling plant ash will be reduced.


Alcohol can do the same thing. Christ, even fucking nutmeg can do that. Besides, what about the millions of people who smoke cannabis and don't suffer psychotic breakdowns?


Exactly. People don't think "Oh noes, Cannabis is a Class B drug instead of a Class C :O , I better not smoke it. ". It's bowing to media pressure, which is in itself driven by retards who have no knowledge of the facts behind Cannabis.

Exactly. Police time would be better spent addressing the chronic underage drinking problem in the UK.



LULZ
Like the police actually give a shit about people who smoke cannabis, and that it sends a "clear message".

http://bbs.311.com/forums/images/dark_vb/smilies/clap.gif

Dementis
January 26th, 2009, 02:16 PM
The government could make lots more money by making Marijuana legal and just putting a tax on it (not even that large of one). It would still be cheaper than it is now because you wouldn't be aquiring it through the "black market". Besides, I don't see how it is any worse than smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol. Just have laws on it like those applied to said activities.

rzm61
January 26th, 2009, 02:18 PM
If it came down to the science, cannbis would be legal.

However because it comes down to the politics, this wont be happening. :(

Daruko
January 26th, 2009, 03:43 PM
it keeps my stomache settled
my appetite up
and my mind relaxed
exactly. No activity comes to mind which is beyond it's enhancement capabilities. I can drive, or troubleshoot networks, or take notes in a lecture. Other days/times, it wouldn't be appropriate. It'd throw me off my gamzors. Depends on you, the time of day, what you ate this morning, stress level, natural wiring, etc. Everyone has the right to take control of their own moods and body. If a doctor prescribes it, we'll dose up on morphine, lithium, valium, percoset, all sorts of things, and just walk around... la-dee-da. But I'm not against that either. No more than I'm against a fat person eating whenever/whatever they want. Ultimately, it is your responsibility to effectively control your own inputs. Everyone has the right to feel good and be happy. I think some old farts even wrote some stuff about pursuit of happiness once and made it legal.

djura
January 27th, 2009, 10:14 AM
Besides, I don't see how it is any worse than smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol. Just have laws on it like those applied to said activities.

Goodness, what will these hippies come up with next!?! What, legalize drugs, heavens NO! What's next - no more cruelty to animals? Vegetarian restaurants in every neighborhood? People not fearing one another? What a fucking nightmare!
Cigarettes will give you cancer, so you'll have to pay to get treated, die in the end just the same, only leave your loved ones in depth. LEGAL AND PROFITABLE.
Marijuana will relax you, make you more open to people around you, lower your blood pressure, relive your headache, enhance your seances, and for all we know, if moderately used, probably make you live longer. ILLEGAL

rzm61
January 27th, 2009, 12:45 PM
ILLEGAL

:icon_lol:
Pineapple Express for the win.

winwun
January 27th, 2009, 12:47 PM
Don't forget the afro-dizzy-ackal properties as well . . .:icon_eek:

Daruko
January 27th, 2009, 05:33 PM
:icon_lol:
Pineapple Express for the win.

I just watched that last night. lol

rzm61
January 27th, 2009, 05:46 PM
I just watched that last night. lol

'I thought hurricane season was over.'



What did you think of it? :D

Daruko
January 27th, 2009, 10:21 PM
What did you think of it? :D

Dumb, but funny. The way they did the violence (like w/ Red) was hilarious.
Also a pretty different role for James Franco. I liked it.

rzm61
January 27th, 2009, 10:55 PM
You just got killed by a Daewoo Lanos, motherfucker!

Tsar Phalanxia
January 27th, 2009, 10:57 PM
SEE? Proof that Marijuana is DEADLY DEADLY DEADLY

rzm61
January 27th, 2009, 11:05 PM
There's a fly in the ointment, shits hittin' the fan, the lion will speak!

Sister Faith
January 30th, 2009, 05:10 AM
Holocaust and Cannabis unite to fight Israel elections (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090128/oddities/israel_vote_cannabis_offbeat) :icon_cool:

"Holocaust Survivors and Grown-Up Green Leaf" launched their campaign on Tuesday night under the banner of "The Moral Choice'.

Sister Faith
February 8th, 2009, 07:05 AM
Whiff of change in Washington over US medical marijuana policy

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090207/world/obama_medical_marijuana

"It is no longer federal policy to beat up on hippies," said Kleiman.
Tell that to the DEA.
"Anyone possessing, distributing or cultivating marijuana for any reason is in violation of federal law," Sarah Pullen, a DEA spokeswoman in Los Angeles, said Thursday.
That may be the law, but it contradicts the medical marijuana position of the new president.

Daruko
February 8th, 2009, 08:48 AM
Whiff of change in Washington over US medical marijuana policy

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090207/world/obama_medical_marijuana
woot!

tagnostic
February 8th, 2009, 11:53 AM
I'm self medicating,
just finished a new dispensary
:icon_lol:

Loki
February 8th, 2009, 04:02 PM
Can anyone outside the UK get this video? It was on BBC last this week - Cannabis: The Evil Weed?

It's pretty interesting if you see it in small bits of no more than 8 minutes :D

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00hhmd1

I suppose you could use try a uk proxy if it doesn't work in your country.

tagnostic
February 8th, 2009, 05:21 PM
i think this is one of those subjects
that requires homeschooling;)

Loki
February 9th, 2009, 05:49 PM
i think this is one of those subjects
that requires homeschooling;)

Which bit - the proxy reference or my complete torture of the English language in that last post of mine :D

tagnostic
February 9th, 2009, 05:58 PM
I was refering to the thread title

rmw
February 10th, 2009, 02:17 AM
I think Loki's partaking in a bit of homeschooling. :icon_lol:

tagnostic
February 10th, 2009, 06:46 AM
Either
his text book
is very good
or his study
time is exceptional

Daruko
February 10th, 2009, 07:51 AM
-sigh- If only I could get the study time I deserve. :icon_cry:

Darumaki
February 10th, 2009, 07:58 AM
They should legalize all drugs and make it available over the counter even crack. Let people pay for it and make it cheaper than what it sells on the street, that will put drug dealers out of business.

Hey Bro, want to buy some crack for $5,
$5 ? Shit, I got me some good crack for only 50 cents at 711 store.

tagnostic
February 10th, 2009, 02:00 PM
-sigh- If only I could get the study time I deserve. :icon_cry:

you'd be amazed
at the study aids
i get in tips :icon_eek:

sudikics
February 10th, 2009, 08:58 PM
Interesting.

News article:

Pot use linked to aggressive testicular cancer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7869709.stm)

Now Sister Faith, what happens to you? O_o

tagnostic
February 11th, 2009, 08:05 AM
nothing i haven't been accused of before,

'you are charged with being a Pothead Testicular Cancer, How do you plead?'

I don't plead, I avow it, with pride

djura
February 11th, 2009, 09:05 AM
Pot use linked to aggressive testicular cancer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7869709.stm)


Not sticking your dick in an x-ray machine 4 times a week greatly reduces this risk.

tagnostic
February 11th, 2009, 04:01 PM
Not sticking your dick in an x-ray machine 4 times a week greatly reduces this risk.

that rules out females

Sister Faith
February 11th, 2009, 07:20 PM
Interesting.

News article:

Pot use linked to aggressive testicular cancer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7869709.stm)

Now Sister Faith, what happens to you? O_o

Nothing. My balls are metaphoric. ;)

tagnostic
February 11th, 2009, 07:24 PM
mine are meteoric,
they burn up on re entry

jk

Sister Faith
February 11th, 2009, 07:51 PM
mine are meteoric,
they burn up on re entry

jk

WOOHOO! That's hawt :icon_twisted:

Seriously though. I have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Known risk factors for the cancer include previous injuries to the testicles,None

a family history of the diseaseNone

or suffering from undescended testicles as a young child.I never suffered from undescended testi... wait...OH Nooos! :icon_eek:

djura
February 12th, 2009, 08:47 AM
that rules out females

The point is to rule out ALL risk?

tagnostic
February 12th, 2009, 09:57 AM
undescended testicles?
isn't that a contra dick tion?

Tsar Phalanxia
February 12th, 2009, 02:16 PM
What's the original risk of that kind of cancer? Doubling a small number isn't really much of a double, especially when the money spent fighting pot would be better soent fighting malaria which kills 2,000,000+ every year.

Daruko
February 12th, 2009, 02:45 PM
Wait, I thought the cancer thing was a joke. :\

tagnostic
February 12th, 2009, 02:47 PM
Wait, I thought the cancer thing was a joke. :\

depends on how
you smoke :icon_eek:

ty.mcccxxxvii
February 13th, 2009, 12:46 AM
I live in Seattle, which has what are considered 'progressive' marijuana laws. I'm curious what you all think about the possibility of him becoming the drug czar, since we are on the topic of Marijuana. (AKA Weed, chronic, smoke, pawt, dank, dosia, dro...)

I read some statistic recently, about before the reform of the state policies toward it, that there was 500 annual arrests for possession of an amount suitable for personal use. Its down to 50-60, and there has NOT been a noticeable increase in weed use across any demographics. Hmm.

tagnostic
February 13th, 2009, 12:52 AM
point
and welcome to the forum

tagnostic
February 13th, 2009, 08:53 PM
dbl post i know,
but I just scored
this ain't a 1/4
it's thc turd buds
lovin life & goin
to work....

ty.mcccxxxvii
February 13th, 2009, 09:19 PM
Yum.

I'm from the Evergreen state. Born and bred here. Nuff said really.

Lol one of my friends introduced me to some "schwag" a few months ago..I shed a single tear of migraine. Kansas sucks.

rzm61
February 13th, 2009, 09:27 PM
I wouldn't call them friends then if they are introducing you to schwag.

sudikics
February 13th, 2009, 11:12 PM
So my adolescent issues class is talking about pot.

Just thoguth you should know.

[I can hear rzm screaming "NO! sciki, don't give in to the hype! It's lies! All lies!"]

rzm61
February 13th, 2009, 11:14 PM
I can only imagine what bullshit they spitting at you.

tagnostic
February 14th, 2009, 08:08 AM
"I'm happy, hope your happy too"
David Bowie

Daruko
February 15th, 2009, 08:53 AM
"I'm happy, hope your happy too"
David Bowie
heheh exactly

ty.mcccxxxvii
February 15th, 2009, 09:23 PM
Didn't our new president say something like "ive tried it, and yes I inhaled. A lot. That was the point." ?

tagnostic
February 15th, 2009, 10:02 PM
have another hit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAHODyEpm2w)

rmw
February 15th, 2009, 10:44 PM
Didn't our new president say something like "ive tried it, and yes I inhaled. A lot. That was the point." ?

Well, that definitely puts him one up on Clinton, who said he tried it, but "didn't inhale."

tagnostic
February 15th, 2009, 11:52 PM
He just sucked,
Monica inhaled,
for him

rmw
February 16th, 2009, 12:11 AM
He just sucked,
Monica inhaled,
for him

Well, there was that cigar...

Daruko
February 16th, 2009, 04:07 AM
"Yeah, Inhaled. I inhaled frequently. That was the point." I think this is how it goes. Google/Youtube have it under search query: "inhale obama" :icon_lol:

Tsar Phalanxia
February 16th, 2009, 01:59 PM
So my adolescent issues class is talking about pot.

Just thoguth you should know.

[I can hear rzm screaming "NO! sciki, don't give in to the hype! It's lies! All lies!"]

"NO! sciki, don't give in to the bollocks! It's lies! All lies!

Just say, if it's good enough for our president, it's good enough for me *Patriotic Pose*

Sister Faith
February 16th, 2009, 07:00 PM
I don't think I have to tell you to question everything. Don't just take the results from studies that they are going to throw at you as gospel and swallow them whole.

The studies that link marijuana use with psychotic episodes for instance. What the researchers didn't highlight in their findings was that most of their test subjects had done some kind of hard drug (crack, cocaine, ecstasy, etc) right before smoking or in conjunction with smoking marijuana. Yet, marijuana gets the bad rap here. Why?

And this is the part that really ticks me. The medical profession's 'cure' for marijuana addiction/psychosis is failed anti-depression drugs that have serious side effects such as causing thoughts of suicide. In fact, because of this side effect, it has been noted (only noted :icon_rolleyes:) that anti-depression drugs should not be prescribed to teens because of the skyrocketing rate of teen suicides.

Don't get me started!

Tsar Phalanxia
February 16th, 2009, 09:15 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/feb/16/cannabis-mental-health
RRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGEEEEEE
Thing is, the vast majority of those effects only occur DURING or IMMEDIATELY AFTER smoking Cannabis. Not the long term liver disease, heart disease, brain disease etc from alcohol, and the cancer, heart disease and strokes etc from tobacco, but in the immediate aftermath of a joint. Also, the doubling of schizophrenic illness may sound bad, but how many people actually develop it each year? Not a lot I don't think. And do you think if all those conditions happened to everyone, anyone would actually smoke it? HINT: That's why nobody snorts nutmeg. Besides, what right does the government have to say "You can't smoke that drug, which has a minimal cost to society as a whole and is less dangerous than a pack of peanuts."? That's right, none.

rzm61
February 16th, 2009, 09:22 PM
Don't get me started!


R(s)TFM.


Where are the Google damn buttons?!

Sister Faith
February 16th, 2009, 09:25 PM
R(s)TFM.


Where are the Google damn buttons?!


Lol! Where are the Google damn words?

I don't know what R(s)TFM means.:icon_eek:

Tsar Phalanxia
February 16th, 2009, 09:28 PM
Nobody's talking about my post...

rzm61
February 16th, 2009, 09:37 PM
Lol! Where are the Google damn words?

I don't know what R(s)TFM means.:icon_eek:

RTFM = Read The Fucking Manual

R(s)TFM = Reads The Fucking Manual

:D

Tsar Phalanxia
February 16th, 2009, 09:40 PM
RTFM = Read The Fucking Manual

R(s)TFM = Reads The Fucking Manual

:D

>:[

tagnostic
February 16th, 2009, 09:43 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/feb/16/cannabis-mental-health
RRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGEEEEEE
Thing is, the vast majority of those effects only occur DURING or IMMEDIATELY AFTER smoking Cannabis. Not the long term liver disease, heart disease, brain disease etc from alcohol, and the cancer, heart disease and strokes etc from tobacco, but in the immediate aftermath of a joint. Also, the doubling of schizophrenic illness may sound bad, but how many people actually develop it each year? Not a lot I don't think. And do you think if all those conditions happened to everyone, anyone would actually smoke it? HINT: That's why nobody snorts nutmeg. Besides, what right does the government have to say "You can't smoke that drug, which has a minimal cost to society as a whole and is less dangerous than a pack of peanuts."? That's right, none.

I Kind of like the effects immediately after.
:icon_eek:

Sister Faith
February 16th, 2009, 09:44 PM
Nobody's talking about my post...

I could only find the Talk to Frank commercial. :icon_cry:

But I will say that it's not about whether the gov't has the right to do what they are doing. It's about why they are infringing on societys rights over marijuana use. Are they campaigning against marijuana for the good of our health or are they demonizing it in an effort to keep it illegal as it brings them alot of easy $$$ in the way of Drug Asset seizures?

rzm61
February 16th, 2009, 09:44 PM
>:[

Oh quit your belly aching.

I read it, they don't have that right. However with power and money they have the authority and ability to convince people they have the right, and then lie to them about a plant...that way they can control the masses and jail the free thinkers.

Tsar Phalanxia
February 16th, 2009, 09:46 PM
I Kind of like the effects immediately after.
:icon_eek:

EXACTLY. It's not bad for everyone, otherwise people wouldn't smoke it. And guess what? If you don't like it, then don't smoke it. HURR DURR.
EDIT: And that's why I want to get into politics. To help stop the pricks who get in there purely to leech and prey on the public.
DOUBLE EDIT: Does it actually benefit them? I thought the War on Dung costed billions?

tagnostic
February 16th, 2009, 09:51 PM
Doing a bit of research as we speak,
Keeps my appetite up, settles my stomache,
calms my nerves, i'm not seeing a downside here.
(ok, I am Open to wierd food right now, Peanut Butter
and just about anything is sounding good), but I don't
think that's life threatening to anyone, ooohh bacon, honey
mmmpphh

rzm61
February 16th, 2009, 10:01 PM
EDIT: And that's why I want to get into politics. To help stop the pricks who get in there purely to leech and prey on the public.

You and me both.


DOUBLE EDIT: Does it actually benefit them? I thought the War on Dung costed billions?


They get to jail non violent drug offenders! And the salary of the DEA an all, that's what benifits them, doesn't matter that we are paying tons of money for a failed war. And this is only one of them!

Sister Faith
February 16th, 2009, 10:03 PM
Doing a bit of research as we speak,
Keeps my appetite up, settles my stomache,
calms my nerves, i'm not seeing a downside here.
(ok, I am Open to wierd food right now, Peanut Butter
and just about anything is sounding good), but I don't
think that's life threatening to anyone, ooohh bacon, honey
mmmpphh

Right on. :icon_cool:

Bacon is more dangerous to health than MJ. :icon_evil:

And I've never heard of someone giggling themselves to death, unless they choked on a pretzel. ;)

Forget the honey, Tag, try maple syrup. Mmmmm!

tagnostic
February 16th, 2009, 10:06 PM
we get real honey down here
but the syrup is all "maple flavored"
I've had the real deal, won't settle for less

rzm61
February 16th, 2009, 10:09 PM
Forget the honey, Tag, try maple syrup. Mmmmm!

CANADIAN ALERT!!!! CODE MAPLE! I REPEATE CODE MAPLE!

tagnostic
February 16th, 2009, 10:13 PM
Roflshcuafl
:icon_lol:

Tsar Phalanxia
February 16th, 2009, 10:24 PM
http://bastardlogic.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/cannaba.jpg

Sister Faith
February 16th, 2009, 11:26 PM
:icon_lol: All this talk about food made me run off to make supper. Ham fried up with a little honey garlic sauce (out of syrup :icon_cry:) and caulliflower with melted cheddar cheese.

Anywho, look what I just found (http://www.electricemperor.com/eecdrom/HTML/EMP/12/ECH12_03.HTM#candy). :icon_cool:

tagnostic
February 17th, 2009, 12:47 AM
rofl,
that's too cool
problem these days
is scoring the Hash

Daruko
February 17th, 2009, 03:32 AM
rofl,
that's too cool
problem these days
is scoring the Hash
That's why ya make it. :D

rzm61
February 17th, 2009, 04:19 AM
Trade you some gum for that hash. ;)

tagnostic
February 17th, 2009, 04:58 AM
anyone remember
the old thai sticks
with a gram ball
of opium in the
center?

ty.mcccxxxvii
February 17th, 2009, 05:35 AM
rofl,
that's too cool
problem these days
is scoring the Hash

You have a problem scoring hash? Sad :(

Tag, Thai Sticks? Like a sucker? 1g of opium = a lot?

Dunno, is this thread off topic? Lol.

Daruko
February 17th, 2009, 05:41 AM
Trade you some gum for that hash. ;)
d00d, just buy a well-screened grinder instead. ;)

INSTRUCTIONS:
Sit down "indian style" and chant the 23rd Holy Google Mantra until you are blue.
Then, after you feel sufficiently retarded, consult the Divine One directly.
If your heart is humming and your mind filled with keywords,
Yuo will obtain the sacred ritual of preparation.

rzm61
February 17th, 2009, 06:09 AM
d00d, just buy a well-screened grinder instead. ;)




Word, cause I ran out of that gum a long time ago. :icon_lol:

Daruko
February 17th, 2009, 06:38 AM
Word, cause I ran out of that gum a long time ago. :icon_lol:
THIS gum?
http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll212/darukomakaruto/rzmwomp.jpg

rzm61
February 17th, 2009, 07:20 AM
I don't know what you're talking about. >_>


And when the fuck did I become a cop?

Daruko
February 17th, 2009, 08:43 AM
That was before the "incident". You don't usually have a very good day after we talk about it. How about another time? K, little buddy?

Tsar Phalanxia
February 17th, 2009, 09:02 AM
*Notes that train appears to be leaning off the track. Suggests that the train slows down and everyone get an idea of what the track is*

tagnostic
February 17th, 2009, 12:43 PM
the happy train left the station
i'm onboard
and its on
track

Daruko
February 17th, 2009, 03:41 PM
the happy train left the station
i'm onboard
and its on
track
Amen, brother.

rzm61
February 17th, 2009, 06:01 PM
That was before the "incident". You don't usually have a very good day after we talk about it. How about another time? K, little buddy?

Whatever hippy.

Sister Faith
February 18th, 2009, 06:08 PM
anyone remember
the old thai sticks
with a gram ball
of opium in the
center?

No, I don't remember. :icon_lol:

You'd forget your own name after doing all that...or so I would imagine. ;)
*Qui suis je? Qui suis je??*

Will.
February 18th, 2009, 06:11 PM
Thai Stick?! Acapulco Gold.... Mmmmm... Flakey delight....

Tsar Phalanxia
February 19th, 2009, 11:46 AM
*Qui suis je? Qui suis je??*

I Lol'd, and it's been three years since I studied French :D

Sister Faith
February 19th, 2009, 05:31 PM
I Lol'd, and it's been three years since I studied French :D

It's the only french sentence I can compose correctly after 4 years of fr. immersion classes! Maybe because I repeat it so often? :icon_lol:

Loki
February 19th, 2009, 07:21 PM
anyone remember
the old thai sticks
with a gram ball
of opium in the
center?

I know Thai sticks tag - not seen any for years - but I don't remember the opium ball. Temple Balls though ... :icon_cool:
The only time I did get hold of opiated black (resin) I ended up collapsing in a pub in Barnsley. The 80 mushrooms we each took on the bus didn't help much.
Or the beer.

God, I wish I was 16 again :icon_razz:
(No I don't!)

Tsar Phalanxia
February 19th, 2009, 09:34 PM
God, I wish I was 16 again :icon_razz:
(No I don't!)
No, you really don't; it sucks balls. Much overated and you're surrounded by pretentious "indie" acoustic guitar players who wouldn't know what "independence" or "individuality was if they jumped up and bit them in the arse. Well, either that or scallies.

tagnostic
February 19th, 2009, 10:38 PM
16 is a great age
when your 42

Tsar Phalanxia
February 20th, 2009, 08:59 AM
Especially considering what the world will allegedely be like when I'm 42.

tagnostic
February 20th, 2009, 09:51 AM
ahhh
but after 26 yrs exp
you'll have 16 down to a science

djura
February 20th, 2009, 10:02 AM
16 is an age you learn to appreciate by waiting 16 more years. Personally - 18-22 is the greatest time of live

tagnostic
February 20th, 2009, 10:05 AM
only if your smart enough to live it

djura
February 20th, 2009, 10:10 AM
man, your quick!
please note word "personally"...

tagnostic
February 20th, 2009, 10:19 AM
rofl,
just got through
playing tag with Tsar
keeps you on your toes

Tsar Phalanxia
February 20th, 2009, 10:33 AM
Float like a butterfly
Post like a bee

tagnostic
February 20th, 2009, 10:49 AM
rofl
i gotta get some sleep

winwun
February 20th, 2009, 12:19 PM
at 16, old enough to die, should my country ask,
And it had asked . . .
I was needed to assist in quelling the rattle of musketry
Along the east coast of the Korean peninsula.

A bus, crammed with varieties of humanity
Sped through the rainy night toward an embarkation point
And I was young and alone.

Age is the degree of experience over numbers of years and I was young
A girl, of fewer years, but I think older, held both my hands
And kissed me and I never knew her name.

Tsar Phalanxia
February 20th, 2009, 01:51 PM
wat
no wai did you fight in the Korean War.

tagnostic
February 20th, 2009, 01:56 PM
he did,
was
and it's not over,
last time i checked
it was just a cease fire
I was at
Qun San
Ooh San
&
Camp Casey
in the 70's
and yes
shots are still fired
on rare occasions

djura
February 21st, 2009, 08:18 AM
a few nuclear shots here and there...

tagnostic
February 21st, 2009, 08:20 AM
these days
all my shots
are at the bar

djura
February 21st, 2009, 10:58 AM
Err, that's the kinda "shooting" I really like

tagnostic
February 21st, 2009, 11:06 AM
I've noticed
my aim has
improved,
haven't missed
my mouth in years

djura
February 21st, 2009, 11:40 AM
rofl
you do tequila sunrise at da Cat?

google_is_my_friend
February 21st, 2009, 12:28 PM
the only problem with marijuana is that people will drive really high, and if you use it too much you will have problems with depression. hmmmmm lets think about this for a second.....whats the side effects of alcohol? liver failure, dui's, and ruining ones life by becoming an alcoholic. they have medication for depression, alcohol is WORSE then marijuana! LEGALIZZZE IT ALREADY!!!! hempfest is the shit, i have been to the past 4 of them. once a year in seattle washington.....3 hempfests ago snoop dogg was all high walking around just talking to people with no security guard with him, i met him it was awsome.

tagnostic
February 21st, 2009, 01:30 PM
absolutely, Sunrise is no prob.

i'm more of a gin or scotch type
usually after work it's 2) Gin & Sodas
(Lotsa Gin 12 bubbles)
then right before I leave
it's a bicycle shot
Double Shot of Gin, with 3 drops Roses Lime Juice on top.