Legalize Marijuana Movement!

All things outside of Burning Man.
User avatar
Elderberry
Moderator
Posts: 14854
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:00 pm
Burning Since: 2007
Camp Name: Mudskipper Cafe
Location: Palm Springs
Contact:

Post by Elderberry » Thu May 07, 2009 9:02 am

ygmir wrote: good points......I might add, stiff penalties for mis-use, IE:
D.U.I., crimes commited U.I., personal physical abuse, neglect, etc.

and, in a draconain sense, I'd limit public health care funding for abuse (all drugs including alcohol and tobacco) issues.........

If you drink (or whatever) yourself to near death, then, die.............
I agree totally with the first paragraph and the last paragraph (assuming you mean a person has the right to kill themselves by abusing drugs should they so choose). I'm not sure I understand the second.

What do you mean by limiting public health care funding for abuse issues ? Are you just saying you wouldn't fund drug education programs?
In which case I don't agree with that.

JK

I
JK
Image
http://www.mudskippercafe.com
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.
Then I realized that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me

User avatar
Sail Man
Posts: 4523
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:03 am
Burning Since: 2008
Camp Name: Kidsville: Delicious
Location: 20 Minutes into the Future

Post by Sail Man » Thu May 07, 2009 9:37 am

wedeliver wrote:ROYAL OAK, Mich. — Now that Michigan voters have approved medical use of marijuana, one community is considering adding pot-providers to its zoning law.

Officials in the Detroit suburb of Royal Oak propose limiting caregivers who raise medical marijuana to the general business zone. It's mainly along the busy Woodward Avenue thoroughfare and away from the main local shopping district.

City planner Doug Hedges says the proposal is consistent with Royal Oak's treatment of other businesses.

In November, state voters approved a law allowing people to grow marijuana for medical use.

State Community Health Department spokeswoman Geralyn Lasher tells the Detroit Free Press Michigan had issued 96 medical marijuana permits to caregivers by last week.

Image
Theres already been 1 bust of a couple growing etc with a letter from their doc "prescribing" med. marijuana but they didnt have the state id card that at the time was not yet being issued. Seems like they kinda jumped the gun, which while I can sympathize with them, may only add bad publicity to the effort to expand med. marijuana. I'm all for the legalization. Gateway drug my ass! :roll: Alcohol emboldened me to try more shit then pot did! Our govt. is wasting precious time and $ on pot.

And this drug testing is bullshit as well. Come up with a test that tells if I'm high at the moment and I'll be fine with it, but don't harsh my buzz because I smoked a dube on my weekend off work. Testing + 2 weeks after the fact is complete and utter bullshit. What kills me is harder drugs exits the body much quicker then pot.

Image
Excuse me Ma'am, your going to feel a small prick.
_______________________________________

Algorithms never survive the first thirty seconds of patient contact

User avatar
Apollonaris Zeus
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 11:17 am

Post by Apollonaris Zeus » Thu May 07, 2009 9:41 am

ygmir wrote: good points......I might add, stiff penalties for mis-use, IE:
D.U.I., crimes commited U.I., personal physical abuse, neglect, etc.

and, in a draconain sense, I'd limit public health care funding for abuse (all drugs including alcohol and tobacco) issues.........

If you drink (or whatever) yourself to near death, then, die.............
the law and penalties would be the same as for Alcohol, i.e. sale to minors, DUI Blood Levels, etc.

Of course there would be public health care and information paid for though the taxes collected from its sale. There would also be addictive reform programs for those that get out of hand without going to jail unless they broke above penalties.

I never heard of someone smoking themselves to death, but internal bleeding and acidification from a ruptured stomach caused by the munchies is probable.

Decriminalization just leads to possible abuse by Law enforcement and income to the lawyers and the courts. We would still have a black market gangs, drug cartel and all the current related problems.

I rather have a heroin addict working a job, paying his bills (yes, an addict knows the level needed in his body to stop the crave and still function normally. a level that a non-addicted person would space them out on the couch) then in a jail, robbing people to pay for his habit and dealer, dealing, selling their AIDs infected body and buying drugs that are not pharmaceutical with impurities and unknown potency.

Granted Heroin, cocaine and morphine use would be the most controlled and monitored of the recreational drugs- yes, recreational- I personally don’t like or use depressants or even amphetamines but people use them for their own stupid reasons. I believe its still better to allow legally then for it to happen and suffer the consequences of the black market.

But that all depends on the success of legal pot and how people react to its availability.

Remember, we will always have the psychologically dependant personality whether is food, sex, rock and roll, cyberspace games and drugs.

AIIZ

User avatar
ygmir
Posts: 29575
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:36 pm
Burning Since: 2017
Camp Name: qqqq
Location: nevada county

Post by ygmir » Thu May 07, 2009 11:18 am

jkisha wrote:
ygmir wrote: good points......I might add, stiff penalties for mis-use, IE:
D.U.I., crimes commited U.I., personal physical abuse, neglect, etc.

and, in a draconain sense, I'd limit public health care funding for abuse (all drugs including alcohol .) issues.........

If you drink (or whatever) yourself to near death, then, die.............
I agree totally with the first paragraph and the last paragraph (assuming you mean a person has the right to kill themselves by abusing drugs should they so choose). I'm not sure I understand the second.

What do you mean by limiting public health care funding for abuse issues ? Are you just saying you wouldn't fund drug education programs?
In which case I don't agree with that.

JK

I
*note that I should have included food in the abuse category*

nope, I mean, in the second sentence, that, if you get cirrhosis from drinking, lung cancer from smoking, hepatitis from IV drugs, heart disease from overeating.....whatever, and, you don't have private insurance to pay, no public funding for treatment.....rely on charitable organizations or whatever...........

I'm good with educating people to the hazards, it makes moral, ethical, and financial sense......I don't like the recidivism of re-hab programs and jails............or funding thereof......
sure one time to re-hab, but, after that, you're on your own...........

as I implied, I take pretty draconian view of the issues of substance abuse, and, the issues involved, when it comes to burdening others with issues one has created for themselves.........

I think personal responsibility and liability are paramount for society. Along with self reliance.

But, am totally for the freedom of the individual to make those decisions and incur the consequences, if any, and, deal with them, as an individual, not from the "public trough".......
YGMIR

Unabashed Nordic
Pagan

User avatar
Apollonaris Zeus
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 11:17 am

Post by Apollonaris Zeus » Fri May 08, 2009 7:46 am

ygmir wrote:nope, I mean, in the second sentence, that, if you get cirrhosis from drinking, lung cancer from smoking, hepatitis from IV drugs, heart disease from overeating.....whatever, and, you don't have private insurance to pay, no public funding for treatment.....rely on charitable organizations or whatever...........

I'm good with educating people to the hazards, it makes moral, ethical, and financial sense......I don't like the recidivism of re-hab programs and jails............or funding thereof......
sure one time to re-hab, but, after that, you're on your own...........

as I implied, I take pretty draconian view of the issues of substance abuse, and, the issues involved, when it comes to burdening others with issues one has created for themselves.........
should any insurance have to pay for someone's habit irregardless if they have insurance or not!

should you have a heart or liver problem and the private insurance company that holds your policy finds out that you drink, smoke or like getting a good tan while running around the playa. Tells you aren't covered because you abuse yourself!

How would you feel now, ygmir?

I'm draconian to say, Yes, they have a right to protect others on their plan. Many companies have that written in the fine print! Some don't take smokers on their lowest cost plans.

We will have Nationalized Insurance in the near future so everyone will be covered because in the end, ygmir, you will pay for the expense of those that don't have a medical plan right now. And you pay it when it is at its most costly stage. The people that have insurance pay in costs derived from those that can't pay their hospital bills that is added to the overall fees.

But with legalized drugs, people will have cleaner drugs and needles. In the end the costs to society will be less then the several 100 billion dollars going into the war against drugs.

AIIZ

User avatar
ygmir
Posts: 29575
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:36 pm
Burning Since: 2017
Camp Name: qqqq
Location: nevada county

Post by ygmir » Fri May 08, 2009 8:06 am

Apollonaris Zeus wrote:
ygmir wrote:nope, I mean, in the second sentence, that, if you get cirrhosis from drinking, lung cancer from smoking, hepatitis from IV drugs, heart disease from overeating.....whatever, and, you don't have private insurance to pay, no public funding for treatment.....rely on charitable organizations or whatever...........

I'm good with educating people to the hazards, it makes moral, ethical, and financial sense......I don't like the recidivism of re-hab programs and jails............or funding thereof......
sure one time to re-hab, but, after that, you're on your own...........

as I implied, I take pretty draconian view of the issues of substance abuse, and, the issues involved, when it comes to burdening others with issues one has created for themselves.........
should any insurance have to pay for someone's habit irregardless if they have insurance or not!
I'd say that's between your insurance provider and you. you read the fine print, and, if they say they don't cover issues related to substance abuse or whatever, you either pay more to get them to cover it, find another provider that does, or, go without
I just don't like the idea of public funding for those issues


should you have a heart or liver problem and the private insurance company that holds your policy finds out that you drink, smoke or like getting a good tan while running around the playa. Tells you aren't covered because you abuse yourself!
Refer to the above, in blue. find out first.........it's our job as consumers to be informed

How would you feel now, ygmir?
fine, thanks, how about you?

I'm draconian to say, Yes, they have a right to protect others on their plan. Many companies have that written in the fine print! Some don't take smokers on their lowest cost plans.
exactly. you read the fine print, know what is covered. if they choose not to take smokers on their lowest price plans, that "free enterprise", and, if you smoke, and, are informed they won't cover it, well........you gotta make some choices

We will have Nationalized Insurance in the near future so everyone will be covered because in the end, ygmir, you will pay for the expense of those that don't have a medical plan right now. And you pay it when it is at its most costly stage. The people that have insurance pay in costs derived from those that can't pay their hospital bills that is added to the overall fees.
I'm sure your are right about nationalized healthcare. and, that now it's paid by public funding at the highest cost. part of those highest costs, IMHO, is lawyers and lawsuits.........(another subject, sorry)
If healthcare and coverage could be brought into affordable lines, and, reasonable structure, I'm for it..........but, it's gotta be fair....(whatever that means).......not the (probably), pork laden, special interest driven bill that will undoubtedly come from congress


But with legalized drugs, people will have cleaner drugs and needles. In the end the costs to society will be less then the several 100 billion dollars going into the war against drugs.
I agree with the cleaner drugs and such.....
but, IMHO, we should not be burdened with the cost of their poor decisions........or unnecessary wars......

AIIZ
YGMIR

Unabashed Nordic
Pagan

User avatar
Apollonaris Zeus
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 11:17 am

Post by Apollonaris Zeus » Fri May 08, 2009 8:17 pm

Coming sooner then you think to a smoke shop near you

Image

User avatar
ygmir
Posts: 29575
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:36 pm
Burning Since: 2017
Camp Name: qqqq
Location: nevada county

Post by ygmir » Fri May 08, 2009 9:21 pm

I don't smoke it but would like to see that happen........
YGMIR

Unabashed Nordic
Pagan

User avatar
CapSmashy
Posts: 1917
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:29 pm
Burning Since: 2007
Camp Name: Terminal City://404 Village Not Found
Location: Awesome Camp 2.0

Post by CapSmashy » Sat May 09, 2009 6:32 am

ygmir wrote: *note that I should have included food in the abuse category*

nope, I mean, in the second sentence, that, if you get cirrhosis from drinking, lung cancer from smoking, hepatitis from IV drugs, heart disease from overeating.....whatever, and, you don't have private insurance to pay, no public funding for treatment.....rely on charitable organizations or whatever...........
The one major issue pertaining to alcohol and tobacco products is that every time you buy one of these products you are paying taxes to federal and state government that were levied on these products to offset the cost of health related issues to these products.

Now, it is not my problem if the tax revenues generated from my 20 odd years of smoking were not placed in a fund for smoking related illness, the fact remains, I paid taxes that were specifically levied for such purposes.

I would also overwhelmingly support the same types of taxation on junk foods and empty calorie foods.
I think personal responsibility and liability are paramount for society. Along with self reliance.
I am big on personal responsibility myself. I also believe in holding those that tax my lifestyle accountable to the money they have been collecting from me for that where applicable.
Playawaste Raiders cordially invites you to suck it.

User avatar
CapSmashy
Posts: 1917
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:29 pm
Burning Since: 2007
Camp Name: Terminal City://404 Village Not Found
Location: Awesome Camp 2.0

Post by CapSmashy » Sat May 09, 2009 6:40 am

In terms of the prolegalization debate, there are three primary players in the mix that are dead set against it ever becoming legalized.

1. The textile industries. Industrial hemp is cleaner, easier to grow and much easier to process for use in paper products and fabrics. It is pretty much impossible to make quality paper or fabrics on your own right now from the market locked methods in use by the textile industries.

2. Alcohol industry. When given a choice, would you rather intake an intoxicant that is non-addictive and does not leave you with a hangover? I know I do, and that has the alcohol industry worried.

3. Law Enforcement. Local, state and federal law enforcement agencies make a metric fuckton of cash off of grants and authorizations related to the war on drugs and an even larger amount from the personal property auctions related to drug seizures. Law enforcement agencies will be left trying to figure out how to make up for their huge budgetary shortfalls if marijuana is legalized at the federal level. I think they were foolish for making that a staple part of their budget so this is not a big issue for me, but it might impact some of the larger cities when they have to start cutting police officers and other city services because of it.
Playawaste Raiders cordially invites you to suck it.

User avatar
ygmir
Posts: 29575
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:36 pm
Burning Since: 2017
Camp Name: qqqq
Location: nevada county

Post by ygmir » Sat May 09, 2009 6:41 am

CapSmashy wrote:
ygmir wrote: *note that I should have included food in the abuse category*

nope, I mean, in the second sentence, that, if you get cirrhosis from drinking, lung cancer from smoking, hepatitis from IV drugs, heart disease from overeating.....whatever, and, you don't have private insurance to pay, no public funding for treatment.....rely on charitable organizations or whatever...........
The one major issue pertaining to alcohol and tobacco products is that every time you buy one of these products you are paying taxes to federal and state government that were levied on these products to offset the cost of health related issues to these products.

Now, it is not my problem if the tax revenues generated from my 20 odd years of smoking were not placed in a fund for smoking related illness, the fact remains, I paid taxes that were specifically levied for such purposes.

I would also overwhelmingly support the same types of taxation on junk foods and empty calorie foods.
I think personal responsibility and liability are paramount for society. Along with self reliance.
I am big on personal responsibility myself. I also believe in holding those that tax my lifestyle accountable to the money they have been collecting from me for that where applicable.
I didn't know the taxes levied are or were specifically earmarked for health care related to said products.
That would change things, in my mind........I thought the fees were just a way of making more money via "sin tax".

I'm totally with you about holding "politicians" accountable for spending tax money wisely,and, for what it's intended (social security trust fund being put into the general fund is a peeve of mine).........

in politics, it seems they can screw things up, cheat, lie, and no one is "accountable"............
just an "oops, my bad".........."giggle"........and, "we need to raise revenues to off set this problem"
YGMIR

Unabashed Nordic
Pagan

User avatar
CapSmashy
Posts: 1917
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:29 pm
Burning Since: 2007
Camp Name: Terminal City://404 Village Not Found
Location: Awesome Camp 2.0

Post by CapSmashy » Sat May 09, 2009 6:44 am

ygmir wrote:I didn't know the taxes levied are or were specifically earmarked for health care related to said products.
That would change things, in my mind........I thought the fees were just a way of making more money via "sin tax".

I'm totally with you about holding "politicians" accountable for spending tax money wisely,and, for what it's intended (social security trust fund being put into the general fund is a peeve of mine).........

in politics, it seems they can screw things up, cheat, lie, and no one is "accountable"............
just an "oops, my bad".........."giggle"........and, "we need to raise revenues to off set this problem"
That's what they started as and have always been sold as. The latest round of tobacco tax increases is for children's health programs. Federal taxes jumped $0.62 a pack this year and state taxes here in Texas jumped an even dollar with health related funding being the cited reason.
Playawaste Raiders cordially invites you to suck it.

User avatar
ygmir
Posts: 29575
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:36 pm
Burning Since: 2017
Camp Name: qqqq
Location: nevada county

Post by ygmir » Sat May 09, 2009 6:50 am

CapSmashy wrote:
ygmir wrote:I didn't know the taxes levied are or were specifically earmarked for health care related to said products.
That would change things, in my mind........I thought the fees were just a way of making more money via "sin tax".

I'm totally with you about holding "politicians" accountable for spending tax money wisely,and, for what it's intended (social security trust fund being put into the general fund is a peeve of mine).........

in politics, it seems they can screw things up, cheat, lie, and no one is "accountable"............
just an "oops, my bad".........."giggle"........and, "we need to raise revenues to off set this problem"
That's what they started as and have always been sold as. The latest round of tobacco tax increases is for children's health programs. Federal taxes jumped $0.62 a pack this year and state taxes here in Texas jumped an even dollar with health related funding being the cited reason.
good info, thanks.
YGMIR

Unabashed Nordic
Pagan

User avatar
Apollonaris Zeus
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 11:17 am

Post by Apollonaris Zeus » Sat May 09, 2009 9:15 am

Hopefully some of the taxes raised from drugs will go into the Social Security program because you know how lazy pot heads are!

Actually, I'm kidding about the Lazy Pot Heads, but it would be a good idea have some of the money go into the program.

A good school friend of mine and big drug dealing pot head of his time, was one of GWBush's China and S. Asia trade industries advisors. He's nearly a billionaire or was at the height of the Dow. I always joked that he was actually importing Asian grass and hash.

But he's a great example that not everyone that smokes pot is an under achiever. Quite the contrary, they are some of the most innovators I have seen. Especially when it comes to smoking devices, growing, importing and hiding weed.

AIIZ

User avatar
wedeliver
Posts: 1871
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:10 am
Burning Since: 1998
Location: Tionesta, CA
Contact:

Post by wedeliver » Sat May 09, 2009 10:06 am

Genius pot smokers

Carl sagan;

Image
Biographer: Astronomer Carl Sagan Smoked Marijuana
By Scott Andrews — 21 Aug 1999 Associated Press

Carl Sagan, 1934-1996


SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The late astronomer and author, Carl Sagan was a secret but avid marijuana smoker, crediting it with inspiring essays and scientific insight, according to Sagan's biographer.

Using the pseudonym "Mr. X'', Sagan wrote about his pot smoking in an essay published in the 1971 book "Reconsidering Marijuana.'' The book's editor, Lester Grinspoon, recently disclosed the secret to Sagan's biographer, Keay Davidson.

Davidson, a writer for the San Francisco Examiner, revealed the marijuana use in an article published in the newspaper's magazine Sunday. "Carl Sagan: A Life'' is due out in October.

"I find that today a single joint is enough to get me high ... in one movie theater recently I found I could get high just by inhaling the cannabis smoke which permeated the theater,'' wrote Sagan, who authored popular science books such as "Cosmos,'' "Contact,'' and "The Dragons of Eden.''

In the essay, Sagan said marijuana inspired some of his intellectual work.

"I can remember one occasion, taking a shower with my wife while high, in which I had an idea on the origins and invalidities of racism in terms of gaussian distribution curves,'' wrote the former Cornell University professor. "I wrote the curves in soap on the shower wall, and went to write the idea down.

Sagan also wrote that pot enhanced his experience of food, particularly potatoes, music and sex.

Grinspoon, Sagan's closest friend for 30 years, said Sagan's marijuana use is evidence against the notion that marijuana makes people less ambitious.

"He was certainly highly motivated to work, to contribute,'' said Grinspoon, a psychiatry professor at Harvard University.

Grinspoon is an advocate of decriminalizing marijuana.

Ann Druyan, Sagan's former wife, is a director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. The nonprofit group promotes legalization of marijuana.

Sagan died of pneumonia in 1996. He was 62.
I'm a topless shirtcocking yahoo hippie

www.eaglesnestrvpark.com

User avatar
ygmir
Posts: 29575
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:36 pm
Burning Since: 2017
Camp Name: qqqq
Location: nevada county

Post by ygmir » Sat May 09, 2009 6:36 pm

are you making a point, or, just like Sagan?

sorry, I'm kind of dense........
YGMIR

Unabashed Nordic
Pagan

User avatar
Elderberry
Moderator
Posts: 14854
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:00 pm
Burning Since: 2007
Camp Name: Mudskipper Cafe
Location: Palm Springs
Contact:

Post by Elderberry » Sat May 09, 2009 7:23 pm

I liked Sagan and I thought that was an interesting article.

I think it made the point in and of itself.

JK
JK
Image
http://www.mudskippercafe.com
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.
Then I realized that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me

User avatar
Apollonaris Zeus
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 11:17 am

Post by Apollonaris Zeus » Sat May 09, 2009 8:45 pm

ygmir wrote:are you making a point, or, just like Sagan?

sorry, I'm kind of dense........
Sounds like you should lite one up!



I saw an interview on The O'Reilly Factor with John Stossel of 20/20

John tell Bill that he believes that all drugs should be legalized.

Bill replies that if you legalize heroin than you'll have addicts mugging and killing people in the streets.

Which Stossel deadpans back, "We already do!"

Prohibition Spawns Drug Violence
Stop the War on Drugs
Opinion By JOHN STOSSEL
April 27, 2009

Visiting Mexico last week, President Obama said he will fight drug violence: "I will not pretend that this is Mexico's responsibility alone. The demand for these drugs inside the United States is keeping these cartels in business."

In this file photo, federal police carry a box of weapons taken from suspected members of a crime gang allegedly operating on the outskirts of Mexico City after the weapons were shown to the press at the headquarters of Mexico's federal police in Mexico City.
(Dario Lopez-Mills/AP Photo)I don't expect politicians to be sticklers for logic, but this is ridiculous. Americans also have a hefty demand for Mexican beer, but there are no "Mexican beer cartels." When Obama visits France, he doesn't consult with politicians about "wine violence." What's happening on the Mexican border is prohibition-caused violence.

A legal product is produced and traded openly, and is therefore subject to competition and civilizing custom. If two beer distributors have a disagreement or if a liquor retailer fails to pay his wholesaler, the wronged parties can go to court. There's no need to take matters violently into their own hands. As a result, in legal industries the ability to commit mayhem is not a valued skill.

On the other hand, dealers in a prohibited product operate in the black market. Upstanding businesspeople stay away, relinquishing the trade to those without moral scruples. Black-market operators can't resolve disputes in court, so being good at using force provides a competitive advantage.

Politicians gave us prohibition and created the conditions in which violence pays. This doesn't excuse those who commit it, but the fact remains that a legal drug market would be as peaceful as the beer, wine and whiskey markets. When alcohol prohibition, which spawned large-scale organized crime, ended in 1933, there was a brief upsurge in drinking, but America became a more peaceful and less corrupt place.

We should learn from that, but we haven't. American politicians are largely responsible for the atrocities now taking place.

That's not what they want to hear, of course, so they blame others. Their "solution" to increasing violence is to crack down even more on production and distribution of some drugs. This has never worked before, and it won't work now. Black-market profits are abnormally high because of the risk premiums and limited competition, so plenty of people will want to enter the business. Wipe out one cartel, and another is waiting to take its place. The high profit margins leave plenty of cash to bribe judges, cops and border guards. Even in America.

When American politicians scapegoat drug consumers, they bring the court system to a standstill and clog prisons with nonviolent offenders who are stigmatized for life. Minorities bear the brunt of any crackdown.

When will we learn that prohibition doesn't banish a popular product? It merely turns the trade over to thugs. The result is worse for society than if drugs were legal. After decades of the "war on drugs," anyone can still buy most any drug he wishes. Authorities can't even keep drugs out of prisons.

Another aspect of this issue has been overlooked, especially by conservative supporters of the drug war: President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have promised the Mexican government they will stop the southern flow of American guns said to be used by the drug cartels. A war on drugs inevitably becomes a war on guns. Yet conservative Second Amendment advocates refuse to see the connection.

Obama's drug warriors are happy to link the issues. The president says, "More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border, and that's why we're ramping up the number of law enforcement personnel on our border". That 90 percent figure has been repeated many times, but FactCheck.org says it's bogus:

"The figure represents only the percentage of crime guns that have been submitted by Mexican officials and traced by U.S. officials. ... U.S. and Mexican officials both say that Mexico recovers more guns than it submits for tracing ... ."

And FactCheck says Mexico only submits those it already has reason to believe came from the United States.

Once again the politicians show contempt for the truth as well as for freedom.


http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=7414816&page=1

I once spoke to a retired Mafioso. He said that prohibition made him a milionaire.

He's still a millionaire!

AIIZ

User avatar
ygmir
Posts: 29575
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:36 pm
Burning Since: 2017
Camp Name: qqqq
Location: nevada county

Post by ygmir » Sun May 10, 2009 6:24 am

jkisha wrote:I liked Sagan and I thought that was an interesting article.

I think it made the point in and of itself.

JK
ergo my question, (dense as I am), of, "the point"?
I don't ask it in disrespect, I just, other than pointing out things about Sagan himself, don't see it.........

dang, I can be oblivious........"Help me, Mr. Wizard" (Tooter Turtle)


AZ: yeah, I probably should, but, my sinus' get so clogged and irritated, I rarely if ever partake..............
YGMIR

Unabashed Nordic
Pagan

User avatar
Apollonaris Zeus
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 11:17 am

Post by Apollonaris Zeus » Sun May 10, 2009 6:47 am

Try a vaporizer. Its recommended for people with Asma.

User avatar
Oldguy
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 12:22 am
Burning Since: 2005
Location: LiveOak Cal

Post by Oldguy » Sun May 10, 2009 11:59 am

From Wikipedia:

Dronabinol
Synthetic THC is known as dronabinol. It is available as a prescription drug (under the trade name Marinol[51]) in several countries including the United States and Germany. In the United States, Marinol is a Schedule III drug, available by prescription, considered to be non-narcotic and to have a low risk of physical or mental dependence. Efforts to get cannabis rescheduled as analogous to Marinol have not succeeded thus far, though a 2002 petition has been accepted by the DEA. As a result of the rescheduling of Marinol from Schedule II to Schedule III, refills are now permitted for this substance. Marinol has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the treatment of anorexia in AIDS patients, as well as for refractory nausea and vomiting of patients undergoing chemotherapy, which has raised much controversy as to why natural THC is still a schedule I drug.[52]

An analog of dronabinol, nabilone, is available commercially in Canada under the trade name Cesamet, manufactured by Valeant. Cesamet has also received FDA approval and began marketing in the U.S. in 2006; it is a Schedule II drug.

In April 2005, Canadian authorities approved the marketing of Sativex, a mouth spray for multiple sclerosis patients, who can use it to alleviate neuropathic pain and spasticity. Sativex contains tetrahydrocannabinol together with cannabidiol. It is marketed in Canada by GW Pharmaceuticals, being the first cannabis-based prescription drug in the world.


[edit] Comparisons to medical marijuana
Main article: Medical marijuana
Dronabinol is known to produce mild side effects similar to cannabis. Many scientists believe that dronabinol lacks beneficial properties of cannabis,[53][54] which contains more than 60 cannabinoids, including cannabidiol (CBD), thought to be the major anticonvulsant that helps multiple sclerosis patients;[55] and cannabichromene (CBC), an anti-inflammatory which may contribute to the pain-killing effect of cannabis.[56] Others have countered that the effects of all of cannabis's cannabinoids have not been completely studied and are not fully understood.[citation needed]

It takes over one hour for Marinol to reach full systemic effect,[57] compared to minutes for smoked or vaporized cannabis.[58] Some patients accustomed to inhaling just enough cannabis smoke to manage symptoms have complained of too-intense intoxication from Marinol's predetermined dosages. This powerful psychoactive effect, however, has led to recreational use of Marinol.[59] Many patients have said that Marinol produces a more acute psychedelic effect than cannabis, and it has been speculated that this disparity can be explained by the moderating effect of the many non-THC cannabinoids present in cannabis. Mark Kleiman, director of the Drug Policy Analysis Program at UCLA's School of Public Affairs said of Marinol, "It wasn't any fun and made the user feel bad, so it could be approved without any fear that it would penetrate the recreational market, and then used as a club with which to beat back the advocates of whole cannabis as a medicine."[53] United States federal law currently registers dronabinol as a Schedule III controlled substance, but all other cannabis remains Schedule I, except nabilone. Taking a Marinol pill to manage nausea can be ineffective because nausea can cause the pill to be ejected before it is absorbed by the body.

Marinol is also more expensive than medical marijuana, costing for example US$723 for 30 doses at 10 mg online, as of May, 2008.[60]
Image current moon
" Build your wall. we got tunnels. " - George Lopez

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6987
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Post by cowboyangel » Sun May 10, 2009 7:00 pm

Thanks For the Drugs JP MORGAN CHASE!

The Secret Government, the Black Government. Who controls the money controls everything. This article found in http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/ameri ... black_budg... is the best shortened version of a description of the puppet master that I've come across to date. The authors of the report are Katherine Austin Fitts http://solari.com and Chris Sanders http://sandersresearch.com The 9/11 false flag operation was controlled and financed by something. That something had to have far reaching tentacles into the US financial poison brew. This essay attempts to shed some light on how this came about and why the secret government's entrenchment should be a vital concern to 911 Truth activists.

Black Budget? What Black Budget?

At the time of the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in September 2001 according to the Government Accounting Office (GAO), Pentagon had incurred $3.4 trillion of “undocumentable transactions,â€
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

User avatar
Apollonaris Zeus
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 11:17 am

Post by Apollonaris Zeus » Sun May 10, 2009 7:52 pm

my brain hurts!

Another good reason to legalize pot so the masses can be obilivious to the Black Budget!

User avatar
Apollonaris Zeus
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 11:17 am

Post by Apollonaris Zeus » Mon May 11, 2009 8:45 am

I saw an interview on The O'Reilly Factor with John Stossel of 20/20

John tell Bill that he believes that all drugs should be legalized.

Bill replies that if you legalize heroin than you'll have addicts mugging and killing people in the streets.

Which Stossel deadpans back, "We already do!"

Prohibition Spawns Drug Violence
Stop the War on Drugs
Opinion By JOHN STOSSEL
April 27, 2009

Visiting Mexico last week, President Obama said he will fight drug violence: "I will not pretend that this is Mexico's responsibility alone. The demand for these drugs inside the United States is keeping these cartels in business."

In this file photo, federal police carry a box of weapons taken from suspected members of a crime gang allegedly operating on the outskirts of Mexico City after the weapons were shown to the press at the headquarters of Mexico's federal police in Mexico City.
(Dario Lopez-Mills/AP Photo)I don't expect politicians to be sticklers for logic, but this is ridiculous. Americans also have a hefty demand for Mexican beer, but there are no "Mexican beer cartels." When Obama visits France, he doesn't consult with politicians about "wine violence." What's happening on the Mexican border is prohibition-caused violence.

A legal product is produced and traded openly, and is therefore subject to competition and civilizing custom. If two beer distributors have a disagreement or if a liquor retailer fails to pay his wholesaler, the wronged parties can go to court. There's no need to take matters violently into their own hands. As a result, in legal industries the ability to commit mayhem is not a valued skill.

On the other hand, dealers in a prohibited product operate in the black market. Upstanding businesspeople stay away, relinquishing the trade to those without moral scruples. Black-market operators can't resolve disputes in court, so being good at using force provides a competitive advantage.

Politicians gave us prohibition and created the conditions in which violence pays. This doesn't excuse those who commit it, but the fact remains that a legal drug market would be as peaceful as the beer, wine and whiskey markets. When alcohol prohibition, which spawned large-scale organized crime, ended in 1933, there was a brief upsurge in drinking, but America became a more peaceful and less corrupt place.

We should learn from that, but we haven't. American politicians are largely responsible for the atrocities now taking place.

That's not what they want to hear, of course, so they blame others. Their "solution" to increasing violence is to crack down even more on production and distribution of some drugs. This has never worked before, and it won't work now. Black-market profits are abnormally high because of the risk premiums and limited competition, so plenty of people will want to enter the business. Wipe out one cartel, and another is waiting to take its place. The high profit margins leave plenty of cash to bribe judges, cops and border guards. Even in America.

When American politicians scapegoat drug consumers, they bring the court system to a standstill and clog prisons with nonviolent offenders who are stigmatized for life. Minorities bear the brunt of any crackdown.

When will we learn that prohibition doesn't banish a popular product? It merely turns the trade over to thugs. The result is worse for society than if drugs were legal. After decades of the "war on drugs," anyone can still buy most any drug he wishes. Authorities can't even keep drugs out of prisons.

Another aspect of this issue has been overlooked, especially by conservative supporters of the drug war: President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have promised the Mexican government they will stop the southern flow of American guns said to be used by the drug cartels. A war on drugs inevitably becomes a war on guns. Yet conservative Second Amendment advocates refuse to see the connection.

Obama's drug warriors are happy to link the issues. The president says, "More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border, and that's why we're ramping up the number of law enforcement personnel on our border". That 90 percent figure has been repeated many times, but FactCheck.org says it's bogus:

"The figure represents only the percentage of crime guns that have been submitted by Mexican officials and traced by U.S. officials. ... U.S. and Mexican officials both say that Mexico recovers more guns than it submits for tracing ... ."

And FactCheck says Mexico only submits those it already has reason to believe came from the United States.

Once again the politicians show contempt for the truth as well as for freedom.


http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=7414816&page=1

I once spoke to a retired Mafioso. He said that prohibition made him a milionaire.

He's still a millionaire!

AIIZ

User avatar
Apollonaris Zeus
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 11:17 am

Post by Apollonaris Zeus » Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:24 am

Drugs Won the War


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/opini ... .html?_r=1

NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: June 13, 2009
This year marks the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon’s start of the war on drugs, and it now appears that drugs have won.

R. Gil Kerlikowske“We’ve spent a trillion dollars prosecuting the war on drugs,â€

User avatar
Apollonaris Zeus
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 11:17 am

Post by Apollonaris Zeus » Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:34 pm

Anderson Cooper is doing a week long report on legalizing Pot- "America's High".

See ac360.compost your comment

Playa Tom
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:37 pm
Location: susanville, Nataqua Territory

Post by Playa Tom » Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:58 pm

I am absolutely shocked by the number of burners who advocate the legalization of drugs. One would think that possibly a few of them actually use these drugs. Please tell me this is not true.

User avatar
wedeliver
Posts: 1871
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:10 am
Burning Since: 1998
Location: Tionesta, CA
Contact:

Post by wedeliver » Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:08 pm

Playa Tom wrote:I am absolutely shocked by the number of burners who advocate the legalization of drugs. One would think that possibly a few of them actually use these drugs. Please tell me this is not true.

THIS IS NOT TRUE!


(he said please)
I'm a topless shirtcocking yahoo hippie

www.eaglesnestrvpark.com

User avatar
Generic Anonymity
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:03 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Post by Generic Anonymity » Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:43 am

I assume the opposing statement is more true. So, rather than fearing that a few burners actually use these drugs, we can safely assume that a few burners actually don't use these drugs.

User avatar
Apollonaris Zeus
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 11:17 am

Post by Apollonaris Zeus » Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:05 am

Time to End Prohibition for Drugs?
June 17, 2009
To the Editor:

Tim Gough
As a former prosecutor who did his time in the war on drugs (Brooklyn in the golden age of crack, late ’80s, early ’90s), I agree wholeheartedly with Nicholas D. Kristof’s views that the war on drugs is over (“Drugs Won the War,â€

Post Reply

Return to “Open Discussion”