ANY argument on why marijuana should be illegal just got proven wrong

[BanginJimmy]

TIt shouldnt be illegal, it is just a plant, it grows naturally. Its been here for the length of the world, like other plants.

Opium comes from a naturally occurring plant also. So by your reasoning all opiates should also be legal.

Its not addictive, its not dangerous, its not as bad as its made it out to be.

Find me ANY proof that MJ is in no way addictive and I can prove otherwise. I will give you a little hint, physical addiction is not the only form of addiction.

[thecrazyone]

Opium comes from a naturally occurring plant also. So by your reasoning all opiates should also be legal.



Find me ANY proof that MJ is in no way addictive and I can prove otherwise. I will give you a little hint, physical addiction is not the only form of addiction.

You REALLY need to watch this movie. sooo ignorant.

There is no inherent chemical in weed that makes it addictive(unlike nicotine) or make you want to to harder drugs.

LOL marijuana is HABIT forming, if you smoke it for years, when you stop one day its goin to be weird and you/re not used toit, but there is no withdrawals which is a big part of addiction. and A LOT less physical symptoms i.e sweating, anxiousness, etc, its not crack for christ sake.

ALSO Did you know, the government gets to say its the most addictive drug solely because most people who get busted for pot choose a drug class over jail, once in that drug class they are a statistic. and since so many people smoke and get caught its the largest statitic.



EDIT: Lets see how someone else can put it into words...

In order to answer this question, we first need a definition of the word, "Addicted". Not too long ago, an addictive subtance was something that, when taken long enough, produced gross phsyiogical changes in the way the body worked, so that normal operation of the body was impossible without that substance being injested. And as the substance must, by definition, form a tolerance, higher and higher dosages (up to a point) were needed. This is the defintion of "additictive" I'm going to use for this explanation. Addictive is not the same as "habituating". Habituatingsubstances, using this definition, are things you crave, may even come to need, but do not create a gross physiological change in the way your body works (trace neurological/neurochemical changes can and do happen but, they're quite minor, and they aren't always substance-related: stroking a pet for instance, can cause such trace effects).

In the cases of alcohol and barbituates, the addiction, in the sense I describe, is very strong. Stopping these drugs suddenly for extreme addictions usually will require hospitalization, additional medication to treat symptoms of withdrawal and, especially, in the case of barbituates, may result in death. Lesser addictions like heroin or opioids can also cause withdrawl syndromes, although not as strongly as ethanol or barbituates, and opiate withdrawal is not fatal (barring the existance of other factors).

The active ingredient in Cannibis sativa is THC (delta 1 tetrahydrocannibinol). THC is active in very low dosages. Therapeutic THC is typically delivered 5mg tid (three times a day). As addiction in the sense I mean it is a gross process, tiny dosages typically don't generate the large-scale physiological changes a true addiction needs to get revved up (neurological yes; physio no). So most people, scientists and street-users, think of marijuana as non-addictive. A recent study at Columbia University offers potentially contradictory evidence, but it's still only one study and not accepted as universal fact at this time. As such, if you say THC is not clinically addictive, most of the world will agree with you.

Can marijuana be habituating? Absolutely -- but not universally. Just as some people definately use Marijuana in a manner that can only be described as a habit, some have used marijuana for years but not in a habitual pattern. While the same can be said for alcohol, it seems that alcoholics really do set up a regular pattern of extensive use that I personally don't see nearly as frequently in marijuana users.

In cases of marijuana habituation, I think the causal factors are obscure. With addictive drugs, we can see clear, obvious, repeatable effects in terms of addiction. With marijuana, we see far less predictable results. And why these results are not as predictable is not clear.

The basic fact is that most marijunana uses (maybe all marijuana users) do not display signs of addiction (as defined above)

TRY ME.

[David88vert]

EDIT: Lets see how other can put it into words...

In order to answer this question, we first need a definition of the word, "Addicted". Not too long ago, an addictive subtance was something that, when taken long enough, produced gross phsyiogical changes in the way the body worked, so that normal operation of the body was impossible without that substance being injested. And as the substance must, by definition, form a tolerance, higher and higher dosages (up to a point) were needed. This is the defintion of "additictive" I'm going to use for this explanation. Addictive is not the same as "habituating". Habituatingsubstances, using this definition, are things you crave, may even come to need, but do not create a gross physiological change in the way your body works (trace neurological/neurochemical changes can and do happen but, they're quite minor, and they aren't always substance-related: stroking a pet for instance, can cause such trace effects).

In the cases of alcohol and barbituates, the addiction, in the sense I describe, is very strong. Stopping these drugs suddenly for extreme addictions usually will require hospitalization, additional medication to treat symptoms of withdrawal and, especially, in the case of barbituates, may result in death. Lesser addictions like heroin or opioids can also cause withdrawl syndromes, although not as strongly as ethanol or barbituates, and opiate withdrawal is not fatal (barring the existance of other factors).

The active ingredient in Cannibis sativa is THC (delta 1 tetrahydrocannibinol). THC is active in very low dosages. Therapeutic THC is typically delivered 5mg tid (three times a day). As addiction in the sense I mean it is a gross process, tiny dosages typically don't generate the large-scale physiological changes a true addiction needs to get revved up (neurological yes; physio no). So most people, scientists and street-users, think of marijuana as non-addictive. A recent study at Columbia University offers potentially contradictory evidence, but it's still only one study and not accepted as universal fact at this time. As such, if you say THC is not clinically addictive, most of the world will agree with you.

Can marijuana be habituating? Absolutely -- but not universally. Just as some people definately use Marijuana in a manner that can only be described as a habit, some have used marijuana for years but not in a habitual pattern. While the same can be said for alcohol, it seems that alcoholics really do set up a regular pattern of extensive use that I personally don't see nearly as frequently in marijuana users.

In cases of marijuana habituation, I think the causal factors are obscure. With addictive drugs, we can see clear, obvious, repeatable effects in terms of addiction. With marijuana, we see far less predictable results. And why these results are not as predictable is not clear.

The basic fact is that most marijunana uses (maybe all marijuana users) do not display signs of addiction (as defined above)

TRY ME.

Nice copy and paste from WikiAnswers.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_marijuana_addictive

WikiAnswers is a much more reputable resource than the Journal of the American Medical Association, right?

The fact is that marijuana dependancy is low, but it does exist.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content...urcetype=HWCIT


And, of course, random people on WikiAnswers are more reliable that the US DOJ, right? The attached image is from the DEA's 2008 report on marijuana in the US. Is shows the rate of dependency in the US.

Here's a suggestion - if you say "try me", have some real documentation from some reliable, established sources first, not random quotes from individuals that have not established their authority on the issue. The person that you quoted as an authority wrote these Wiki Answer's - http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Special:Co...p:ID1262466065 - the majority were about Cinderella - great source.....

[thecrazyone]

Find me ANY proof that MJ is in no way addictive and I can prove otherwise. I will give you a little hint, physical addiction is not the only form of addiction.

Whats funny is if you ask anyone who actually smokes pot, they can tell you its not addicting, its that simple, how do you know so much about something you know nothing about. yea i said it.

[BanginJimmy]

Whats funny is if you ask anyone who actually smokes pot, they can tell you its not addicting, its that simple, how do you know so much about something you know nothing about. yea i said it.

What gives you the impression that I know nothing about it?

And most people that use meth can tell you that they arent addicted either. They just let it consume their life because they like it. Alcoholics typically say they dont have a problem, even when everyone says they do.

http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/marijuana.asp

Read the section about physical effects and under the heading of "Is Marijuana addictive?". You will find exactly what I said. There is no real proof of physical addiction, but there is plenty of evidence to call it psychologically addictive.

[thecrazyone]

The funny part is that you're the pothead - I'm not. LOL. Never have smoked, never needed it - never will.

Have fun changing the law (not) or have fun breaking it.

You tell me that u agree that weed is getting stronger then post a link that diasgrees with you - LOL. You don't have the IQ for me pothead. LOL. The 1st part of YOUR LINK says "Myth: Marijuana Is More Potent Today Than In The Past" - LOL. That means that YOUR LINK is saying that it's a MYTH - LMFAO. Dummy. Ha ha --- then you come back with you're very own "thecrazyone" interpretation of that paragraph which doesn't even make sense. LOL.... it's people like you who prove OTHER people's point so perfectly. LOL.

Call your congressman - see what he can do for ya.

WATCH THE MOVIE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

[JdM_EJ2]

i say all those who smoke should just roll a blunt and spark that hoe...those that dont smoke...do whatever it is you do besides smoke lol

[BABY J]

^^ I never said that it doesn't happen. Maybe you need to learn what "I don't want" means.

[thecrazyone]

^^ I never said that it doesn't happen. Maybe you need to learn what "I don't want" means.

i know who smoke



and i know a guy that designs nuclear equipment that LOVES to smoke, he's rich as ball's and sits in his huge house all day smokin

[PSINXS]

^^ I never said that it doesn't happen. Maybe you need to learn what "I don't want" means.

case in point is what you dont want does not matter. so y bother?

[PSINXS]

arent most addictions psychological anyways? an addiction depends on what a person will allow their mind to tell them.

and my question is this, If you smoke y do u care what a nonsmoker thinks? enjoy yourself.

and if you dont smoke, y do u give a fuck about the people that do? mind your goddamn business. if i am not standing next to you blowing clouds in your face, shut up about what I do on my personal time.
thats like me telling u not to masturbate to porn because I think its wrong. as long as you arent skeeting on my carpet, whack it till it falls off.

Sometimes an opinon should be kept where it started, with yourself.

[BanginJimmy]

arent most addictions psychological anyways? an addiction depends on what a person will allow their mind to tell them.

Not at all. There are actual measurable physical effects that some drugs have that will cause an addict real pain from withdrawal. These are caused by chemical reactions in the brain.

and if you dont smoke, y do u give a fuck about the people that do? mind your goddamn business. if i am not standing next to you blowing clouds in your face, shut up about what I do on my personal time.

When does this end though? What happens with those that commit crimes for the drugs? Dont give me the BS about people dont commit crimes because of weed either.

[PSINXS]

Not at all. There are actual measurable physical effects that some drugs have that will cause an addict real pain from withdrawal. These are caused by chemical reactions in the brain.





When does this end though? What happens with those that commit crimes for the drugs? Dont give me the BS about people dont commit crimes because of weed either.

thats a small number of drugs with PHYSICAL dependency, alcohol being one of them. but we r talking about weed.

Ppl commit crimes for anything! stealing candy, stealing beer, robbing drug dealers for weed or cash or whatever, robbing banks for money.

wow, this place is peachy clean and crime free, weed would just ruin everything wtf are you thinking? crime is and always will be here. whether weed is legal or not.

[BanginJimmy]

wtf are you thinking? crime is and always will be here. whether weed is legal or not.

In that case, the same could be said of meth, coke, and hero. Maybe all of those should be completely legal also.

[seriousb13]

In that case, the same could be said of meth, coke, and hero. Maybe all of those should be completely legal also.

Don't compare weed to meth, coke, and heroin. Weed is no where close in being harmful.

[MachNU]

easy to cure things when it makes the mind forget about them.

[MachNU]

Want a cool thing, go to the main page of the site that copy rights that list that is 6 years old and read this at the very bottom...

Disclaimer

This website is dedicated to patients, caregivers, physicians, health care professionals, families, decision makers, and the general community. We at AAMC hope that the information and links prove educational.

AAMC recognizes that under the Controlled Substances Act, possession, use, distribution, sales, furnishing, cultivation, and transportation of cannabis are Federal offenses despite State Medical Cannabis laws.

Readers should take caution to not violate Federal law. AAMC does not sell or furnish any cannabis products. What we offer is education. Our own experiences, plainly stated, offer the best hope that decision makers will finally end the prohibition of medical cannabis.

AAMC is not responsible for the actions of others including those "linked" in this website. Nor is AAMC responsible for opinions expressed in this website other than to state our policy that dialogue and discussion can only be healthy.

Yours,
Dr. Jay R. Cavanaugh

[David88vert]

This was by far your best argument yet. I have no problem with doctors performing controlled studies of medicinal uses. This last post is an agreement for all in this thread probably. This argument for medical use is best made by the AMA.

Unfortunately, this does not support your true goal and desire - legalization for recreational use. The AMA is not making this argument, so you will have to join a lobbist group, and discuss your support with your local congressional representative if you want that changed.

If you cannot explain why the federal law prohibiting it's recreational use should be overturned, you cannot expect your congressman to write a bill legalizing it.

[thecrazyone]

This was by far your best argument yet. I have no problem with doctors performing controlled studies of medicinal uses. This last post is an agreement for all in this thread probably. This argument for medical use is best made by the AMA.

Unfortunately, this does not support your true goal and desire - legalization for recreational use. The AMA is not making this argument, so you will have to join a lobbist group, and discuss your support with your local congressional representative if you want that changed.

If you cannot explain why the federal law prohibiting it's recreational use should be overturned, you cannot expect your congressman to write a bill legalizing it.

It was completely legal for 100's and 100's of years.

Then as everyone knows it was made illegal by a racist that said cannabis makes immigrants play satanic music and make white woman sleep with blacks.

then re legalized to produce hemp for war.

Now illegal again so certain people can get rich of big Pharma.

I want it to be legal for all reasons, rec and med use, the use of hemp, going green in all means of the word, if it was legal to grow and sell our economy would thrive, mexican cartel would be out of business...whens the last time you heard of someone selling tobacco on the streets, you dont, b/c the gov is in control and has a good(so to speak) system.

and as i have been trying to explain from the beginning of this thread is in this day and time, with everything we know, its unreasonable for it to be illegal.

one last point.....

I've smoked/smoke weed, yes, no surprise there, but thats it, i rarely drink now (did a lot in my teens) and i dont understand how anyone smokes or snorts something that has to be "cooked" over a stove, and has baking soda and who knows what else in it. (i didnt like the "and i bet she started by smoking pot" comment in that crackhead thread.)

You cant argue the fact its natural, and has grown on earth since the beginning of time, it is a seed bearing plant.

i dont know if you are religious but...

Genisis 1:29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

You cant invent a seed.

and yes, hemp seeds and hemp can be made into food. but im sure you get my point.

[David88vert]

It was completely legal for 100's and 100's of years.

Then as everyone knows it was made illegal by a racist that said cannabis makes immigrants play satanic music and make white woman sleep with blacks.

then re legalized to produce hemp for war.

Now illegal again so certain people can get rich of big Pharma.

I want it to be legal for all reasons, rec and med use, the use of hemp, going green in all means of the word, if it was legal to grow and sell our economy would thrive, mexican cartel would be out of business...whens the last time you heard of someone selling tobacco on the streets, you dont, b/c the gov is in control and has a good(so to speak) system.

and as i have been trying to explain from the beginning of this thread is in this day and time, with everything we know, its unreasonable for it to be illegal.

one last point.....

I've smoked/smoke weed, yes, no surprise there, but thats it, i rarely drink now (did a lot in my teens) and i dont understand how anyone smokes or snorts something that has to be "cooked" over a stove, and has baking soda and who knows what else in it. (i didnt like the "and i bet she started by smoking pot" comment in that crackhead thread.)

You cant argue the fact its natural, and has grown on earth since the beginning of time, it is a seed bearing plant.

i dont know if you are religious but...

Genisis 1:29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

You cant invent a seed.

and yes, hemp seeds and hemp can be made into food. but im sure you get my point.

Last I checked, making it illegal took a legislative bill from Congress (Controlled Substances Act of 1970). The other federal prohibition was in 1937, but records as to the testimonies are not as clear on that one. There are lots of conspiracy theories - you can find them on druglibrary.org if you want.

I agree that hemp has many legitimate uses outside of recreational use.

Now, go sell your viewpoint to your local congressman. Have you ever engaged him in any manner on this issue?

[collins]

[alpine_aw11]

I just wish weed wouldn't attract the morons who have PERSONALITY DISORDERS that have caused it to be so hated.

[David88vert]

So, it's ok to smoke as long as it doesn't kill you, right? Psychotic episodes are ok, right?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUST...7:b31203596:z0

[bu villain]

So, it's ok to smoke as long as it doesn't kill you, right? Psychotic episodes are ok, right?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUST...7:b31203596:z0

ABSOLUTELY! The government shouldn't dictate what we do to our own bodies, plain and simple. If I want to eat a burger full of transfat, I should be able to. If a person wants to poison themselves with drugs, that should be their right. If they cause harm to someone else, that's when the government should get involved, not preemptively.

[BanginJimmy]

If a person wants to poison themselves with drugs, that should be their right. If they cause harm to someone else, that's when the government should get involved, not preemptively.

This particular quote just proves how stupid some people are. Heroin should be perfectly legal. They should only bother the hypes after thy kill someone to get their next fix. The dealers shouldnt be bothered as they had nothing to do with the crime.

[bu villain]

This particular quote just proves how stupid some people are. Heroin should be perfectly legal. They should only bother the hypes after thy kill someone to get their next fix. The dealers shouldnt be bothered as they had nothing to do with the crime.

I'm sorry you feel it necessary to call me stupid because I believe in taking personal responsibility. Maybe you do, but I don't need the government being my mommy and telling me what I can eat, drink, or smoke.

Perhaps you can tell me where you think we should draw the line. Poverty causes more crime than any drug, perhaps we should make being poor illegal as well. How do you determine what is "too dangerous" and what is not?

[BanginJimmy]

I'm sorry you feel it necessary to call me stupid because I believe in taking personal responsibility. Maybe you do, but I don't need the government being my mommy and telling me what I can eat, drink, or smoke.

Perhaps you can tell me where you think we should draw the line. Poverty causes more crime than any drug, perhaps we should make being poor illegal as well. How do you determine what is "too dangerous" and what is not?

In this country, poverty is more a result of personal choices than it is of anything else. I personally think the "War on Poverty" is nothing more than a vote buying program that only leads to more poverty.

Back on topic though, have you paid any attention to all of the violence along the US-Mexican border? I draw the line right there. There is no possible medical use for heroin and there never will be. The same is true of meth, cocaine, crack and any other drug. Each and every one of those drugs leads to rampant crime and more poverty.

[preferredduck]

ABSOLUTELY! The government shouldn't dictate what we do to our own bodies, plain and simple. If I want to eat a burger full of transfat, I should be able to. If a person wants to poison themselves with drugs, that should be their right. If they cause harm to someone else, that's when the government should get involved, not preemptively.

some of your statement i can agree with, but there are certain things we all know have bad outcomes and cause crime. this is like religion to me, separate church and state and don't force things down people's throat but honestly certain drugs lead to a high crime rate, but if the gov't wants to do some good more free rehab should be avail, or if someone is a junkie on something make it like overseas where they can come get clean needles and clean stuff from the gov't and ween them off, that would keep crime down because people would be able to go there instead of robbing grandma, good comment jimmy.

[preferredduck]

So, it's ok to smoke as long as it doesn't kill you, right? Psychotic episodes are ok, right?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUST...7:b31203596:z0

actually none of the episodes on here will cause a pot head to go kill someone, and 14% of who, what other things did they do, did he check their parents, relatives, know family history. paranoia was listed and cocaine causes that big time. it may have an affect on some people's chemicals in their heads but so do anti-depressants. those mess you up so bad you have to ween off of them for like 6 mos and people can drop opiate meds without dying vs anti depressants. watch your pharma commercial and side effects for lunesta include poeple sleepdriving and killing someone and hallucinations but they pump that shit out in droves. i remember when that happened actually, a man actually got in his car while sleeping and drove and ran someone over, but it's still legal. so does that count as psychotic or just crazy? i know tons of people who lose their minds while drinking and will fight a lamp, but it's legal and you can drive to a bar and get hammered. so really there are two sides to the coin here and from personal experience sometimes it helps with health issues, alcohol does not help me but herb does. i also think it's funny that several Dr's want to put me on anti depressants for pain, i tell them no thanks i have seen the wrath of that first hand. everything is bad really, i just think herb should not be treated like crack or heroin.

[David88vert]

actually none of the episodes on here will cause a pot head to go kill someone, and 14% of who, what other things did they do, did he check their parents, relatives, know family history. paranoia was listed and cocaine causes that big time. it may have an affect on some people's chemicals in their heads but so do anti-depressants. those mess you up so bad you have to ween off of them for like 6 mos and people can drop opiate meds without dying vs anti depressants. watch your pharma commercial and side effects for lunesta include poeple sleepdriving and killing someone and hallucinations but they pump that shit out in droves. i remember when that happened actually, a man actually got in his car while sleeping and drove and ran someone over, but it's still legal. so does that count as psychotic or just crazy? i know tons of people who lose their minds while drinking and will fight a lamp, but it's legal and you can drive to a bar and get hammered. so really there are two sides to the coin here and from personal experience sometimes it helps with health issues, alcohol does not help me but herb does. i also think it's funny that several Dr's want to put me on anti depressants for pain, i tell them no thanks i have seen the wrath of that first hand. everything is bad really, i just think herb should not be treated like crack or heroin.

You have no idea what the 21 year study found. Either you didn't read it, or you are suffering from psychosis yourself.
This study was not about cocaine, or prescription drugs. It was a study on how marijuana increases the risk of psychosis - massively.

[preferredduck]

You have no idea what the 21 year study found. Either you didn't read it, or you are suffering from psychosis yourself.
This study was not about cocaine, or prescription drugs. It was a study on how marijuana increases the risk of psychosis - massively.

no i read the article but there are some unanswered questions on there for sure. i also said it's a 2 sided coin because the same could be said for anti depressants. i mentioned those to show that it was a 2 sided coin on the debate and i see both sides for sure, no argument there.

[BanginJimmy]

Looking through my reps cause I'm bored out of my mind and came across this thread. I find it quite funny how some people's political leanings move depending on the issue.

Blender is an avid supporter of the govt running our healthcare system, yet in this thread they go on to say how bad the govt is at running anything and that the govt is rarely right, EVEN IN THEIR MEDICAL TESTING.

[Total_Blender]

Blender is an avid supporter of the govt running our healthcare system, yet in this thread they go on to say how bad the govt is at running anything and that the govt is rarely right, EVEN IN THEIR MEDICAL TESTING.

So we should all just swallow party lines hook line and sinker? Lol that seems like a typical repuke response. One could say the same thing about repukes/teabaggers... they say they are against gov't intruding into peoples personal lives but in practice they are all for it when it comes to issues like gay marriage, MJ/MMJ, abortion, etc. To them Lassiez Faire only exists for rich conservative Christian people, and big business.

[BanginJimmy]

So we should all just swallow party lines hook line and sinker?

How is your view that govt should control all health care and your opinion that govt cannot run anything well a party line anything? Those are your opinions.

they say they are against gov't intruding into peoples personal lives but in practice they are all for it when it comes to issues like gay marriage, MJ/MMJ, abortion, etc. To them Lassiez Faire only exists for rich conservative Christian people, and big business.

You mention a couple of the issues that will assure I will never become a republican. I tend to slide a little too far to the center on many social issues. You are right about gay marriage, it is a purely religious sentiment that I have no use for. Show me some proof that the children of gay/lesbian couples are more susceptible to emotional issues related to sexual identity and I might listen, maybe even agree with an ban on g/l couples adopting children, until then shut the fuck up about it. If the carpet munchers and the fudge packers want to get married, I dont see how it can possibly affect anyone else.

MJ I dont agree with you as I think it will lead to more problems. I can definitely see it mass marketed and laced with addictive substances, just like cigs are now. I saw an interview yesterday, but I cant remember who it was. He said he would be for an experimental legalization in a couple of states over a several year period and track useage and crimes committed in relation with it. That will allow everyone, on both sides, to re-evaluate their stance.

I dont agree with abortion as birth control. I dont want to hear the lines about a woman's 'right to choose'., 'woman's reproductive health decisions'. She already made her choice, now she should suffer the consequences of those choices. The question of abortion has nothing to do with health in any way, shape, or form either. Obviously I do agree with the use of abortion in cases of rape, incest, or the health of the mother. I would also concede the use of abortion for girls under the age of 16 but only with their parent's consent.

[Total_Blender]

Where are you getting that I said specifically that the gov't can't run anything well? I just said that they are doing a piss poor job at the "war on drugs," mainly because they are going after small potatoes like MJ and MMJ instead of harder drugs like coke, meth, and heroin.

As far as a "woman's right to choose," you have to realize that no form of birth coltrol is 100% effective. The pill and IUD's are only 98.9% or whatever, condoms can break, etc. Also some people choose not use use b/c for religious reasons and use the rhythm method. Also, pregnancy does involve health risks to some people, and it also requires one to change their lifestyle and follow a strict regimen of pre-natal care, which a woman may not be ready for physically, mentally, or financially. Unwanted pregnancies are just a fact of life and its a woman's right to choose if she wants to commit to a pregnancy

I agree with you that it would be best to try legal MJ is a few states to analyze it and I think thats the way it will happen. California is headed in that direction now, the rest of the West Coast will probably follow and I don't think Obama will be as hard on them as W was. MJ is pretty much legal all over Canada now and the sky hasn't caved there that I'm aware of. The rest of the states will see that MJ is not really as big of a deal as its cracked up to be, some will adopt it but probably not all. And thats cool because we need crappy states like Utah to put the FEMA camps in.

[BanginJimmy]

Where are you getting that I said specifically that the gov't can't run anything well?

Post #53

Because we all know that the government is always right.

You guys kill me... anything about raising taxes 1% is "government tyranny" and "taking our rights," but a substance that probably 80% of Americans will try in their lifetimes and 10% use on a regular basis being illegal with felony consequences is perfectly OK.

Missed this one. 80% of people in this country have stolen something or speed, should those things be legal also?

I just said that they are doing a piss poor job at the "war on drugs," mainly because they are going after small potatoes like MJ and MMJ instead of harder drugs like coke, meth, and heroin.

Actually they go after them all the same, as they should.

As far as a "woman's right to choose," you have to realize that no form of birth coltrol is 100% effective. The pill and IUD's are only 98.9% or whatever, condoms can break, etc. Also some people choose not use use b/c for religious reasons and use the rhythm method.

of course no form of birth control is 100%, that is one of the choices we make when we decide to have sex. There are only 2 ways to guarantee there will be no pregnancy, abstinence and sterilization of 1 or both partners. People that try using the rhythm, pulling out, or no birth control at all, for whatever reason they like to use, are not trying to NOT get pregnant, they are hoping they dont.

Also, pregnancy does involve health risks to some people,

And I have mentioned that abortion is perfectly fine in my mind if the life or even health, aside from normal health concerns associated with pregnancy, are in doubt.

and it also requires one to change their lifestyle and follow a strict regimen of pre-natal care, which a woman may not be ready for physically, mentally, or financially.

I dont care about their lifestyle.

Physically has already been covered under health issues.

Mentally is a slippery slope. I know quite a few women that had mental issues associated with all of the hormones of pregnancy. All were perfectly fine after the baby was born though. I also know one lady who had to be hospitalized after birth because of severe postpartum depression after she showed no signs of distress during the pregnancy. Financially is easy. If you cannot afford the baby put it up for adoption. There is no shortage of couples wanting to adopt newborns. Pass a law, or add to the existing law, that the insurance company of adoptive parents pay for the care of the birth mother. The costs would be the same as if the insured was pregnant anyways.

Unwanted pregnancies are just a fact of life and its a woman's right to choose if she wants to commit to a pregnancy

I agree that unwanted pregnancies are a way of life, 1 of my friends first kid was an unwanted pregnancy, but they did choose when they decided to have sex.

[Total_Blender]

Post #53
x.

This is what I said in post 53:
"Because we all know that the government is always right . "

I'm not surprised you'd take my statements out of context. You wrongly construed that post to mean I was saying that the government "couldn't do anything right". The government gets a lot of stuff right, they also get a lot of stuff wrong. I was commenting on how you so-called "libertarians" all say Gov't should have a limited role and not interfere with people's private decisions, but when the Gov't DOES interfere with people's decisions you all stand up and cheer.

The IA peanut gallery is all skeptical of nearly everything the Gov't does lately, but then when you all argue against MJ/MMJ you say "well the Gov't says its bad, so it must be bad" which is a pretty weak argument for a "libertarian" to make.

[BanginJimmy]

[QUOTE=Total_Blender;39035813]This is what I said in post 53:
"Because we all know that the government is always right . "

I'm not surprised you'd take my statements out of context. You wrongly construed that post to mean I was saying that the government "couldn't do anything right". The government gets a lot of stuff right, they also get a lot of stuff wrong.

And you are taking me out of context also. I pointed that out in the regards to the fact that you want the govt to have complete and total control over your health care.

I was commenting on how you so-called "libertarians" all say Gov't should have a limited role and not interfere with people's private decisions, but when the Gov't DOES interfere with people's decisions you all stand up and cheer.

Name a single time I have done this. You can simply paste the quote to it.

Can you point out where I said I was a libertarian also.

The IA peanut gallery is all skeptical of nearly everything the Gov't does lately, but then when you all argue against MJ/MMJ you say "well the Gov't says its bad, so it must be bad" which is a pretty weak argument for a "libertarian" to make.

First, people are skeptical of govt because our govt is full of crooks that write laws to make sure they are above the law. Second, several people have posted articles from sources other than the govt. The only sources for the use of MMJ are from people that stand to profit from it.

[stillaneon]

-gateway effect
-kills brain cells
-causes cancer
-the drug war
-it makes you stupid
-it causes violence


Thats right folks,this documentary shows you why absolutely ANY argument on why pot should be illegal or stay illegal is pointless and stupid, dont believe me? Watch it!

No one can even come in here bashing, cause it doesn't matter, i KNOW whats right, if you're to ignorant to watch this movie, or even the trailer, than you mean nothing to me, and nothing you say matters.

The is not a stoner movie it is a documentary, with politicians, celebrities, government officials, it has FACTS, archival footage, it shows studies and medical journals all in favor of legalization and WHY!!

>>>>>>The Union: The Business Behind Getting High<<<<<
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1039647/

BC's illegal marijuana trade industry has evolved into a business giant, dubbed by some involved as 'The Union', Commanding upwards of $7 billion Canadian annually. With up to 85% of 'BC Bud' being exported to the United States, the trade has become an international issue. Follow filmmaker Adam Scorgie as he demystifies the underground market and brings to light how an industry can function while remaining illegal. Through growers, police officers, criminologists, economists, doctors, politicians and pop culture icons, Scorgie examines the cause and effect nature of the business - an industry that may be profiting more by being illegal.

The basic point of this documentary is to present the facts about Marijuana. It focuses less on the BC market and more on the reasons why marijuana should be viewed in the same light as alcohol and tobacco. It argues for the legalization of marijuana. The argument is compelling and factual with many legititamate sources. UNLIKE THE IGNORANT STUFF Y'ALL SPEW ON HERE
PLEASE WATCH THE TRAILER,(it opens in your browser) before you post something ignorant.
WMV...
http://www.theunionmovie.com/wmv_large.html
Quicktime....
http://www.theunionmovie.com/quicktime_large.html

WEBSITE
http://www.theunionmovie.com/TheUnionWeb.html

If you want to watch it without downloading, or buying...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...4414651731007#

Now, TRY ME?!?!?! haha, ya'll got nothing!

It can't be taxed and you cannot test for recent uses. Two main reasons right there...

[Total_Blender]

Using the logic most apply when they say MJ can't be taxed, food can't be taxed either... because anyone with 1/2 acre arable land can produce their own and sell it under the table tax free. But 99.9999999% of people who eat food just go to the grocery store and get a buggy full of processed crap.

When was the last time you heard of anyone making their own beer or liquor? Sure, people still do it (and making one's own booze is perfectly legal as long as its not sold) but bootlegging doesn't happen in sufficient numbers or quantities that the missing tax revenue is much for the authorities to worry about. For the work involved in making a batch of hooch its just cheaper and less work to go to the corner store and buy some.

You think some random stoner is gonna be able to grow decent smoke? It takes a lot of skill like telling male and female plants apart at an early stage, harvesting the product at the right time, and drying and curing it properly. Most people who smoke don't even own the land to grow it on even if they knew how to do it.