Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Marijuana University
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: September 27, 2009 05:26PM
In San Francisco, Oaksterdam University is a trade school for those wanting to get into the medicinal marijuana trade. The founder is advocating the full legalization of weed as he thinks it will cut down on the violence from Mexican drug cartels.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8275794.stm
Will legalizing weed or any drug for that matter cut down on crime and violence?
Blessed are the murderous.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8275794.stm
Will legalizing weed or any drug for that matter cut down on crime and violence?
Blessed are the murderous.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
Czar
()
Date: September 27, 2009 06:50PM
to answer your question, yes.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
Thurston Moore
()
Date: September 27, 2009 11:36PM
I know people can be extremely emotional about drugs and how bad they are, but anyone who stops to consider the violence associated with alcohol prohibition, and the lack thereof now that alcohol is sold legally should know the answer to that question.
When marijauna can be produced by law abiding farmers and sold in law abiding retail stores to law abiding citizens of legal age, very few of those aforementioned parties are going to start turf wars, or kidnap police and court officials, or murder distributors who don't pay on time, or any of those things. It doesn't happen with legal alcohol, it happened with illegal alcohol. It won't happen with legal marijuana, it happens with illegal marijuana.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.
When marijauna can be produced by law abiding farmers and sold in law abiding retail stores to law abiding citizens of legal age, very few of those aforementioned parties are going to start turf wars, or kidnap police and court officials, or murder distributors who don't pay on time, or any of those things. It doesn't happen with legal alcohol, it happened with illegal alcohol. It won't happen with legal marijuana, it happens with illegal marijuana.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: September 27, 2009 11:44PM
Yes, I thought of the Prohibition and the violence it brought. However, alcohol and tobacco is legal, yet the BATF still stays busy....
People that wouldn't have had access to drugs before the hypothetical legalization will become addicted afterwards. If any of these people cannot afford their addiction, they will resort to crime to pay for it.
Blessed are the murderous.
People that wouldn't have had access to drugs before the hypothetical legalization will become addicted afterwards. If any of these people cannot afford their addiction, they will resort to crime to pay for it.
Blessed are the murderous.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
bloody blisters
()
Date: September 28, 2009 12:16AM
addiction to pot is absurd. there may be a psychological addiction to the act of smoking by itself but there is nothing in pot that is addictive or will cause withdrawls
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
Czar
()
Date: September 28, 2009 12:19AM
bloody blisters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> addiction to pot is absurd. there may be a
> psychological addiction to the act of smoking by
> itself but there is nothing in pot that is
> addictive or will cause withdrawls
speaking the truth right there. caffeine is more addictive then weed.
-------------------------------------------------------
> addiction to pot is absurd. there may be a
> psychological addiction to the act of smoking by
> itself but there is nothing in pot that is
> addictive or will cause withdrawls
speaking the truth right there. caffeine is more addictive then weed.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: September 28, 2009 12:23AM
bloody blisters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> addiction to pot is absurd. there may be a
> psychological addiction to the act of smoking by
> itself but there is nothing in pot that is
> addictive or will cause withdrawls
Reading this statement makes me want to put an application in to the DEA.
Blessed are the murderous.
-------------------------------------------------------
> addiction to pot is absurd. there may be a
> psychological addiction to the act of smoking by
> itself but there is nothing in pot that is
> addictive or will cause withdrawls
Reading this statement makes me want to put an application in to the DEA.
Blessed are the murderous.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
bloody blisters
()
Date: September 28, 2009 12:28AM
Czar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bloody blisters Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > addiction to pot is absurd. there may be a
> > psychological addiction to the act of smoking
> by
> > itself but there is nothing in pot that is
> > addictive or will cause withdrawls
>
>
> speaking the truth right there. caffeine is more
> addictive then weed.
+1 i am hooked on the cola and the coffee
-------------------------------------------------------
> bloody blisters Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > addiction to pot is absurd. there may be a
> > psychological addiction to the act of smoking
> by
> > itself but there is nothing in pot that is
> > addictive or will cause withdrawls
>
>
> speaking the truth right there. caffeine is more
> addictive then weed.
+1 i am hooked on the cola and the coffee
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: September 28, 2009 12:30AM
bloody blisters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> +1 i am hooked on porn and jacking off.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> +1 i am hooked on porn and jacking off.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
bloody blisters
()
Date: September 28, 2009 12:32AM
i know its been said many times before, but weed is just a plant, you put a seed in the ground it grows and you harvest the fruit. i feel the same way about coca leaves. as long as it is not processed why the fuck not?
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: September 28, 2009 12:37AM
bloody blisters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i know its been said many times before, but weed
> is just a plant, you put a seed in the ground it
> grows and you harvest the fruit. i feel the same
> way about coca leaves. as long as it is not
> processed why the fuck not?
Maybe you and ffxstoner should hook up.
Blessed are the murderous.
-------------------------------------------------------
> i know its been said many times before, but weed
> is just a plant, you put a seed in the ground it
> grows and you harvest the fruit. i feel the same
> way about coca leaves. as long as it is not
> processed why the fuck not?
Maybe you and ffxstoner should hook up.
Blessed are the murderous.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
bloody blisters
()
Date: September 28, 2009 12:54AM
(TM) is 100% correct
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
Thurston Moore
()
Date: September 28, 2009 12:57AM
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I thought of the Prohibition and the violence
> it brought. However, alcohol and tobacco is legal,
> yet the BATF still stays busy....
Really? Do you actually know how busy they really are, or do you just assume they are?
They also investigate firearms and explosives.
Though the ones I see parking illegally in their POVs around DC don't look all that busy to me. Unless Starbucks is the watershed of guns, explosives, illicit smokes and booze, that is.
> People that wouldn't have had access to drugs
> before the hypothetical legalization will become
> addicted afterwards. If any of these people cannot
> afford their addiction, they will resort to crime
> to pay for it.
Which people wouldn't have had access to drugs before legalization? As far as I know, they aren't checking IDs to make sure you're over a certain age down on NY Ave. They'll sell their shit to anyone.
Besides, that argument is just a scare tactic of the people who have a vested interest in keeping marijuana illegal.
First of all, marijuana has been proven over and over again to be non-addictive. Look up Nixon's study, that he had to suppress because the people he hired to demonize marijuana ended up concluding that it really wasn't that bad at all, in many ways less harmful than alcohol.
But to argue the addiction concept on a broader "drugs" context rather than just with Marijuana...
How many people cannot afford their addiction right now? How did they even get addicted when the law says they can't even have access to it? Whether it's legal or illegal, addiction happens. Legalizing it makes it easier, not harder, for an addict to legally and peacefully obtain the chemical he is addicted to.
Think about all the alcohol addicts out there. How many of them resort to violent crime to "get a fix"?? I'm sure it happens, but not enough to even merit a fear-based campaign against alcohol, and believe me, the teetotallers and temperance folks would love to find another way to demonize alcohol.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I thought of the Prohibition and the violence
> it brought. However, alcohol and tobacco is legal,
> yet the BATF still stays busy....
Really? Do you actually know how busy they really are, or do you just assume they are?
They also investigate firearms and explosives.
Though the ones I see parking illegally in their POVs around DC don't look all that busy to me. Unless Starbucks is the watershed of guns, explosives, illicit smokes and booze, that is.
> People that wouldn't have had access to drugs
> before the hypothetical legalization will become
> addicted afterwards. If any of these people cannot
> afford their addiction, they will resort to crime
> to pay for it.
Which people wouldn't have had access to drugs before legalization? As far as I know, they aren't checking IDs to make sure you're over a certain age down on NY Ave. They'll sell their shit to anyone.
Besides, that argument is just a scare tactic of the people who have a vested interest in keeping marijuana illegal.
First of all, marijuana has been proven over and over again to be non-addictive. Look up Nixon's study, that he had to suppress because the people he hired to demonize marijuana ended up concluding that it really wasn't that bad at all, in many ways less harmful than alcohol.
But to argue the addiction concept on a broader "drugs" context rather than just with Marijuana...
How many people cannot afford their addiction right now? How did they even get addicted when the law says they can't even have access to it? Whether it's legal or illegal, addiction happens. Legalizing it makes it easier, not harder, for an addict to legally and peacefully obtain the chemical he is addicted to.
Think about all the alcohol addicts out there. How many of them resort to violent crime to "get a fix"?? I'm sure it happens, but not enough to even merit a fear-based campaign against alcohol, and believe me, the teetotallers and temperance folks would love to find another way to demonize alcohol.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
Harry Tuttle
()
Date: September 28, 2009 01:03AM
What would cause people to start smoking pot after the hypothetical legalization? If they weren't interested in pot before the legalization, why would they suddenly become interested in it? I believe the answer to be "Marketing". Even if people could become addicted to marijuana, that shouldn't be the only reason to prohibit it.
Both alcohol and tobacco are highly addictive and they are still legal. What do alcohol and tobacco addicts do when they can't afford their next fix?
Besides, if people were allowed to distribute marijuana legally, that would mean more regulations and more competition... That equates to safer product and a cheaper price.
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I thought of the Prohibition and the violence
> it brought. However, alcohol and tobacco is legal,
> yet the BATF still stays busy....
>
> People that wouldn't have had access to drugs
> before the hypothetical legalization will become
> addicted afterwards. If any of these people cannot
> afford their addiction, they will resort to crime
> to pay for it.
Both alcohol and tobacco are highly addictive and they are still legal. What do alcohol and tobacco addicts do when they can't afford their next fix?
Besides, if people were allowed to distribute marijuana legally, that would mean more regulations and more competition... That equates to safer product and a cheaper price.
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I thought of the Prohibition and the violence
> it brought. However, alcohol and tobacco is legal,
> yet the BATF still stays busy....
>
> People that wouldn't have had access to drugs
> before the hypothetical legalization will become
> addicted afterwards. If any of these people cannot
> afford their addiction, they will resort to crime
> to pay for it.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
bloody blisters
()
Date: September 28, 2009 01:05AM
which one more appealing?
or this?
or this?
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: September 28, 2009 01:16AM
Don't you think there are people that want to try out/use drugs, but are afraid of it and never use it because it is illegal? If it became legal, it is safe to say the number of drug addicts would rise sharply.
As far as the addictive properties of weed, let me know if you feel safe flying with a pothead pilot or going into surgery with a pothead surgeon or nurse. People that want drugs legalized have a naive and almost child like view of the world.
Peace and pot man.
Blessed are the murderous.
As far as the addictive properties of weed, let me know if you feel safe flying with a pothead pilot or going into surgery with a pothead surgeon or nurse. People that want drugs legalized have a naive and almost child like view of the world.
Peace and pot man.
Blessed are the murderous.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
Thurston Moore
()
Date: September 28, 2009 01:20AM
Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What would cause people to start smoking pot after
> the hypothetical legalization? If they weren't
> interested in pot before the legalization, why
> would they suddenly become interested in it? I
> believe the answer to be "Marketing". Even if
> people could become addicted to marijuana, that
> shouldn't be the only reason to prohibit it.
>
Marketing can be highly restricted or regulated.
It shouldn't be the only reason to prohibit it. THERE REALLY ARE NO REASONS to prohibit it, all the reasons people cite are emotional, not rational. "think about the children" is really what it all boils down to, but the children have access to it now since illegal salesmen don't care how old you are.
It's the safest substance of intoxication known to man. Alcohol is far more destructive to the body, to the mind, to sanity, to anything.
> Both alcohol and tobacco are highly addictive and
> they are still legal. What do alcohol and tobacco
> addicts do when they can't afford their next fix?
>
They end up on the streets, asking for spare change until they have enough to buy a 40.
> Besides, if people were allowed to distribute
> marijuana legally, that would mean more
> regulations and more competition... That equates
> to safer product and a cheaper price.
>
Just imagine that. People would be free to smoke a joint and relax after work, and wouldn't be bothering anyone, and wouldn't be supporting foreign drug cartels and a police state enforcement regime, and taxes would be paid on the production and trade of it, and ah hell, I see why, everyone likes to live in a crime infested and scary world. I guess it'll never be legalized.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.
-------------------------------------------------------
> What would cause people to start smoking pot after
> the hypothetical legalization? If they weren't
> interested in pot before the legalization, why
> would they suddenly become interested in it? I
> believe the answer to be "Marketing". Even if
> people could become addicted to marijuana, that
> shouldn't be the only reason to prohibit it.
>
Marketing can be highly restricted or regulated.
It shouldn't be the only reason to prohibit it. THERE REALLY ARE NO REASONS to prohibit it, all the reasons people cite are emotional, not rational. "think about the children" is really what it all boils down to, but the children have access to it now since illegal salesmen don't care how old you are.
It's the safest substance of intoxication known to man. Alcohol is far more destructive to the body, to the mind, to sanity, to anything.
> Both alcohol and tobacco are highly addictive and
> they are still legal. What do alcohol and tobacco
> addicts do when they can't afford their next fix?
>
They end up on the streets, asking for spare change until they have enough to buy a 40.
> Besides, if people were allowed to distribute
> marijuana legally, that would mean more
> regulations and more competition... That equates
> to safer product and a cheaper price.
>
Just imagine that. People would be free to smoke a joint and relax after work, and wouldn't be bothering anyone, and wouldn't be supporting foreign drug cartels and a police state enforcement regime, and taxes would be paid on the production and trade of it, and ah hell, I see why, everyone likes to live in a crime infested and scary world. I guess it'll never be legalized.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: September 28, 2009 01:46AM
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't you think there are people that want to try
> out/use drugs, but are afraid of it and never use
> it because it is illegal? If it became legal, it
> is safe to say the number of drug addicts would
> rise sharply.
>
> As far as the addictive properties of weed, let me
> know if you feel safe flying with a pothead pilot
> or going into surgery with a pothead surgeon or
> nurse. People that want drugs legalized have a
> naive and almost child like view of the world.
>
> Peace and pot man.
Just like alcohol, you would have restrictions on its use in conjunction with the workplace. Driving, piloting, etc - all would be covered by "under the influence..." laws, and most employers would be able to regulate your using or being under the influence at the workplace. With pot it's a bit different since it's effects can linger longer than alcohol - but I imagine if they legalized it they would also allow for more structured workplace testing. Like having to take a piss test when you walk in to prove you are clean for your shift.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't you think there are people that want to try
> out/use drugs, but are afraid of it and never use
> it because it is illegal? If it became legal, it
> is safe to say the number of drug addicts would
> rise sharply.
>
> As far as the addictive properties of weed, let me
> know if you feel safe flying with a pothead pilot
> or going into surgery with a pothead surgeon or
> nurse. People that want drugs legalized have a
> naive and almost child like view of the world.
>
> Peace and pot man.
Just like alcohol, you would have restrictions on its use in conjunction with the workplace. Driving, piloting, etc - all would be covered by "under the influence..." laws, and most employers would be able to regulate your using or being under the influence at the workplace. With pot it's a bit different since it's effects can linger longer than alcohol - but I imagine if they legalized it they would also allow for more structured workplace testing. Like having to take a piss test when you walk in to prove you are clean for your shift.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
Harry Tuttle
()
Date: September 28, 2009 01:46AM
Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Marketing can be highly restricted or regulated.
Sure it can, but it isn't. I think marketing is the real evil...
I agree with everything else you said...
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't you think there are people that want to try
> out/use drugs, but are afraid of it and never use
> it because it is illegal?
Maybe, but those are the people who care desperately about what others think (perhaps to a fault)... I think if that type of person ever had a substance abuse problem, it could be easily remedied by a little peer pressure...
> If it became legal, it
> is safe to say the number of drug addicts would
> rise sharply.
Maybe... However, a lot of people, who are interested in marijuana, are under the legal drinking age. If marijuana were legalized, then there would be regulations preventing the sale of marijuana to these people. The rest of the people interested in marijuana wouldn't have to rely on doing business with "criminals" just to experiment with a drug.
>
> As far as the addictive properties of weed, let me
> know if you feel safe flying with a pothead pilot
> or going into surgery with a pothead surgeon or
> nurse.
That's a tough question but it isn't just limited to illegal drugs. Alcohol is legal. Would you feel comfortable with a drunk pilot or surgeon? If I had to choose between a drunk pilot or a high pilot, I'd definitely choose the high pilot...
Since alcohol is legal, a pilot or doctor may admit that they drink. They would almost never admit that they smoked marijuana (due to its illegal status)... If it were legal, they may be more open about the fact that they use it. This would allow the consumer to make a more informed decision on whether they want to use that doctor. Presently, you may have a pothead doctor and never know it... (Oh the horror!)
> People that want drugs legalized have a
> naive and almost child like view of the world.
Please explain further...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2009 01:47AM by Harry Tuttle.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Marketing can be highly restricted or regulated.
Sure it can, but it isn't. I think marketing is the real evil...
I agree with everything else you said...
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't you think there are people that want to try
> out/use drugs, but are afraid of it and never use
> it because it is illegal?
Maybe, but those are the people who care desperately about what others think (perhaps to a fault)... I think if that type of person ever had a substance abuse problem, it could be easily remedied by a little peer pressure...
> If it became legal, it
> is safe to say the number of drug addicts would
> rise sharply.
Maybe... However, a lot of people, who are interested in marijuana, are under the legal drinking age. If marijuana were legalized, then there would be regulations preventing the sale of marijuana to these people. The rest of the people interested in marijuana wouldn't have to rely on doing business with "criminals" just to experiment with a drug.
>
> As far as the addictive properties of weed, let me
> know if you feel safe flying with a pothead pilot
> or going into surgery with a pothead surgeon or
> nurse.
That's a tough question but it isn't just limited to illegal drugs. Alcohol is legal. Would you feel comfortable with a drunk pilot or surgeon? If I had to choose between a drunk pilot or a high pilot, I'd definitely choose the high pilot...
Since alcohol is legal, a pilot or doctor may admit that they drink. They would almost never admit that they smoked marijuana (due to its illegal status)... If it were legal, they may be more open about the fact that they use it. This would allow the consumer to make a more informed decision on whether they want to use that doctor. Presently, you may have a pothead doctor and never know it... (Oh the horror!)
> People that want drugs legalized have a
> naive and almost child like view of the world.
Please explain further...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2009 01:47AM by Harry Tuttle.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: September 28, 2009 01:58AM
Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Please explain further...
Marijuana is a gateway drug, do you really think people will be satisfied with just weed? Next we will have demands to legalize PCP, heroine, meth, etc.
Blessed are the murderous.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Please explain further...
Marijuana is a gateway drug, do you really think people will be satisfied with just weed? Next we will have demands to legalize PCP, heroine, meth, etc.
Blessed are the murderous.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: September 28, 2009 02:02AM
Well, Vince has demanded that.
I don't think you would get mainstream demands for it - again though, you could legalize it similar to alcohol but have it only available via State clinics. Money from taxes would be used for education and rehab programs - hopefully you could make a better case for why drugs = bad when you could video tape countless folks at the clinics.
The libertarian leanings i have make me believe that if you legalize and control the drugs you can significantly reduce violence and crime.
Who knows.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
I don't think you would get mainstream demands for it - again though, you could legalize it similar to alcohol but have it only available via State clinics. Money from taxes would be used for education and rehab programs - hopefully you could make a better case for why drugs = bad when you could video tape countless folks at the clinics.
The libertarian leanings i have make me believe that if you legalize and control the drugs you can significantly reduce violence and crime.
Who knows.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
bloody blisters
()
Date: September 28, 2009 02:04AM
its is people like you that make me sick. you have been brain washed. if anything i would say alcohol is the gateway drug. i remember sneaking sips of my parents wine way before i started smoking pot.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: September 28, 2009 02:05AM
bloody blisters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> its is people like you that make me sick. you have
> been brain washed. if anything i would say alcohol
> is the gateway drug. i remember sneaking sips of
> my parents wine way before i started smoking pot.
Let me know how your job search is going.
Blessed are the murderous.
-------------------------------------------------------
> its is people like you that make me sick. you have
> been brain washed. if anything i would say alcohol
> is the gateway drug. i remember sneaking sips of
> my parents wine way before i started smoking pot.
Let me know how your job search is going.
Blessed are the murderous.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
bloody blisters
()
Date: September 28, 2009 02:07AM
great thank you. how is yours going?
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
Thurston Moore
()
Date: September 28, 2009 02:10AM
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't you think there are people that want to try
> out/use drugs, but are afraid of it and never use
> it because it is illegal? If it became legal, it
> is safe to say the number of drug addicts would
> rise sharply.
>
There you go again, like all the apologists for prohibition, you changed the discussion from marijuana, to "drugs". The all-encompassing evil "drugs".
It is not safe to say that if marijuana became legal the number of drug addicts would rise sharply.
Did the number of drug addicts rise sharply when Alcohol became legal again?
Alcohol is a "drug", don't you know?
> As far as the addictive properties of weed, let me
> know if you feel safe flying with a pothead pilot
> or going into surgery with a pothead surgeon or
> nurse.
You know what, I actually would feel safe. Of course, if they were lightweight teenage dipshits with the giggles and seeing things that weren't there, I'd have a problem. But if they were normal, educated adults with a good buzz to focus them on their task, of course I'd feel comfortable with it.
Fuck, how many pilots, doctors and nurses do you think are taking adderal, or ritalin, or even pain meds and doing their jobs? I know that many nurses are taking, quite openly, vicodin for back pain caused by doing their jobs.
>People that want drugs legalized have a
> naive and almost child like view of the world.
>
Actually, people that fear "drugs" in a discussion about legalizing a specific drug are the ones being naive and have an almost child like view of the world.
The people that discuss, rationally, the legalization of certain, specific drugs because of the harmlessness of that specific drug and the great harm its prohibition causes are being very open minded and mature.
They are not adhering to the fear campaign of a multi-decade effort to rationalize an irrational policy. It is child like to take everything you are told by the "authority figures" as gospel, and to buy into fear tactics.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't you think there are people that want to try
> out/use drugs, but are afraid of it and never use
> it because it is illegal? If it became legal, it
> is safe to say the number of drug addicts would
> rise sharply.
>
There you go again, like all the apologists for prohibition, you changed the discussion from marijuana, to "drugs". The all-encompassing evil "drugs".
It is not safe to say that if marijuana became legal the number of drug addicts would rise sharply.
Did the number of drug addicts rise sharply when Alcohol became legal again?
Alcohol is a "drug", don't you know?
> As far as the addictive properties of weed, let me
> know if you feel safe flying with a pothead pilot
> or going into surgery with a pothead surgeon or
> nurse.
You know what, I actually would feel safe. Of course, if they were lightweight teenage dipshits with the giggles and seeing things that weren't there, I'd have a problem. But if they were normal, educated adults with a good buzz to focus them on their task, of course I'd feel comfortable with it.
Fuck, how many pilots, doctors and nurses do you think are taking adderal, or ritalin, or even pain meds and doing their jobs? I know that many nurses are taking, quite openly, vicodin for back pain caused by doing their jobs.
>People that want drugs legalized have a
> naive and almost child like view of the world.
>
Actually, people that fear "drugs" in a discussion about legalizing a specific drug are the ones being naive and have an almost child like view of the world.
The people that discuss, rationally, the legalization of certain, specific drugs because of the harmlessness of that specific drug and the great harm its prohibition causes are being very open minded and mature.
They are not adhering to the fear campaign of a multi-decade effort to rationalize an irrational policy. It is child like to take everything you are told by the "authority figures" as gospel, and to buy into fear tactics.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: September 28, 2009 02:11AM
bloody blisters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> great thank you. how is yours going?
Well, I left ******** on Thursday, and I start at **** ***** ******** in two weeks.
Blessed are the murderous.
-------------------------------------------------------
> great thank you. how is yours going?
Well, I left ******** on Thursday, and I start at **** ***** ******** in two weeks.
Blessed are the murderous.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: September 28, 2009 02:15AM
Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is child like to take everything you
> are told by the "authority figures" as gospel, and
> to buy into fear tactics.
What would the government gain from all these "fear tactics" towards drugs?
BTW, I'm glad you feel smart being anti-authority.
Blessed are the murderous.
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is child like to take everything you
> are told by the "authority figures" as gospel, and
> to buy into fear tactics.
What would the government gain from all these "fear tactics" towards drugs?
BTW, I'm glad you feel smart being anti-authority.
Blessed are the murderous.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
Harry Tuttle
()
Date: September 28, 2009 02:28AM
I, personally, never tried marijuana until I got really drunk one night... I have to agree with beebee about alcohol being a gateway drug....
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Marijuana is a gateway drug, do you really think
> people will be satisfied with just weed? Next we
> will have demands to legalize PCP, heroine, meth,
> etc.
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Marijuana is a gateway drug, do you really think
> people will be satisfied with just weed? Next we
> will have demands to legalize PCP, heroine, meth,
> etc.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
Thurston Moore
()
Date: September 28, 2009 03:42AM
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thurston Moore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It is child like to take everything you
> > are told by the "authority figures" as gospel,
> and
> > to buy into fear tactics.
>
>
> What would the government gain from all these
> "fear tactics" towards drugs?
>
>
Really? You don't already know this?
See, we live in a land ruled by a document called the constitution. It restricts the government from doing things. We also have people who seek power who would love to do nothing more than abolish the constitution. (this is common throughout the world, and history).
In some countries they usurp power by pitting one tribe against another, or the rich against the poor.
In this country, they create an underclass of "addicts" or "criminals" or "illegal aliens" or "terrorists" or "communists" or whatever works to get people to fear something enough to say "yeah, I love our constitution, but I'm afraid of 'x' or 'y' so it's okay for you to have just a little more power in order to protect me from whatever it is I fear".
Just imagine how many people would lose their jobs, how much federal funding would be lost by state and local law enforcement, how many agency heads would face reduced budgets and a loss of prestige or cache in Washington, and how many private corporations who provide counseling and rehab and security services would lose market value if Marijuana were legalized.
> BTW, I'm glad you feel smart being anti-authority.
I don't "feel smart being anti-authority". I consider anyone who doesn't blindly obey authority without question to be the default of a normally functioning democracy.
That isn't "anti-authority", that is being a rational being first, then a citizen of a country, second.
Why do you think we don't just elect a president and a legislature and then let them decide who replaces them? Why don't we just allow the authorities, the infallible leaders to decide our governance in perpetuity?
I mean, the authority is great. They are good, and noble. We should always trust them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2009 03:52AM by Thurston Moore.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thurston Moore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It is child like to take everything you
> > are told by the "authority figures" as gospel,
> and
> > to buy into fear tactics.
>
>
> What would the government gain from all these
> "fear tactics" towards drugs?
>
>
Really? You don't already know this?
See, we live in a land ruled by a document called the constitution. It restricts the government from doing things. We also have people who seek power who would love to do nothing more than abolish the constitution. (this is common throughout the world, and history).
In some countries they usurp power by pitting one tribe against another, or the rich against the poor.
In this country, they create an underclass of "addicts" or "criminals" or "illegal aliens" or "terrorists" or "communists" or whatever works to get people to fear something enough to say "yeah, I love our constitution, but I'm afraid of 'x' or 'y' so it's okay for you to have just a little more power in order to protect me from whatever it is I fear".
Just imagine how many people would lose their jobs, how much federal funding would be lost by state and local law enforcement, how many agency heads would face reduced budgets and a loss of prestige or cache in Washington, and how many private corporations who provide counseling and rehab and security services would lose market value if Marijuana were legalized.
> BTW, I'm glad you feel smart being anti-authority.
I don't "feel smart being anti-authority". I consider anyone who doesn't blindly obey authority without question to be the default of a normally functioning democracy.
That isn't "anti-authority", that is being a rational being first, then a citizen of a country, second.
Why do you think we don't just elect a president and a legislature and then let them decide who replaces them? Why don't we just allow the authorities, the infallible leaders to decide our governance in perpetuity?
I mean, the authority is great. They are good, and noble. We should always trust them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2009 03:52AM by Thurston Moore.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
bloody blisters
()
Date: September 28, 2009 05:16AM
get high and watch this. or if you dont like to get high just watch.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
ffxstoner
()
Date: September 28, 2009 03:08PM
eesh
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe you and ffxstoner should hook up.
Hey baby. I honestly think weed shouldn't be completely legal it can be a gateway drug for the weak. If we do legalize it the dispensaries still have to get the weed from somewhere. Weed isn't addictive! If you smoke daily for months and then stop you may have some withdrawals such as craving, not sleeping well, tired but it goes away after 2 or 3 days. I do know a few dumbasses who started off doing weed and have moved on to harder stuff.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe you and ffxstoner should hook up.
Hey baby. I honestly think weed shouldn't be completely legal it can be a gateway drug for the weak. If we do legalize it the dispensaries still have to get the weed from somewhere. Weed isn't addictive! If you smoke daily for months and then stop you may have some withdrawals such as craving, not sleeping well, tired but it goes away after 2 or 3 days. I do know a few dumbasses who started off doing weed and have moved on to harder stuff.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: September 28, 2009 03:59PM
ffxstoner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I do know a few dumbasses who
> started off doing weed and have moved on to harder
> stuff.
And that is one of my points. Plenty of people won't stop with marijuana, they will want the next high.
Blessed are the murderous.
-------------------------------------------------------
I do know a few dumbasses who
> started off doing weed and have moved on to harder
> stuff.
And that is one of my points. Plenty of people won't stop with marijuana, they will want the next high.
Blessed are the murderous.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
bloody blisters
()
Date: September 28, 2009 04:01PM
ffxstoner,
which did you try first, acohol or weed?
which did you try first, acohol or weed?
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
ffxstoner
()
Date: September 28, 2009 04:04PM
bloody blisters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ffxstoner,
> which did you try first, acohol or weed?
Ive never tried acohol. So im going to have to say weed.
-------------------------------------------------------
> ffxstoner,
> which did you try first, acohol or weed?
Ive never tried acohol. So im going to have to say weed.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
ffxstoner
()
Date: September 28, 2009 04:07PM
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ffxstoner Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> I do know a few dumbasses who
> > started off doing weed and have moved on to
> harder
> > stuff.
>
>
> And that is one of my points. Plenty of people
> won't stop with marijuana, they will want the next
> high.
I wouldn't say plenty but about 1 in 20. Most get bored of weed after 2 months and just do it on rare occasions.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2009 04:07PM by ffxstoner.
-------------------------------------------------------
> ffxstoner Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> I do know a few dumbasses who
> > started off doing weed and have moved on to
> harder
> > stuff.
>
>
> And that is one of my points. Plenty of people
> won't stop with marijuana, they will want the next
> high.
I wouldn't say plenty but about 1 in 20. Most get bored of weed after 2 months and just do it on rare occasions.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2009 04:07PM by ffxstoner.
Re: Marijuana University
Posted by:
Thurston Moore
()
Date: September 28, 2009 09:22PM
ffxstoner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If we do legalize it the dispensaries still
> have to get the weed from somewhere.
Yeah, they'd make the sale and use legal, but they would prohibit legal production, thus keeping the violent drug cartels in control of production.
Once weed is legal, it will be grown by licensed, taxpaying farmers, growers, and even amateurs and hobbyists.
I could grow enough weed in a walk-in closet to keep myself supplied all year. If it was ever legalized, I would, and I would be happy to pay any tax on it in order to do so.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.
-------------------------------------------------------
> If we do legalize it the dispensaries still
> have to get the weed from somewhere.
Yeah, they'd make the sale and use legal, but they would prohibit legal production, thus keeping the violent drug cartels in control of production.
Once weed is legal, it will be grown by licensed, taxpaying farmers, growers, and even amateurs and hobbyists.
I could grow enough weed in a walk-in closet to keep myself supplied all year. If it was ever legalized, I would, and I would be happy to pay any tax on it in order to do so.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.