pirana 0 #201 September 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote Addictive or not, withdrawal or not, it is STILL no business of the government what an adult chooses to put into his/her own body. When was the government given permission to be everyone's nanny? Don't you get tired of being such a broken record? The Government DOES have the right to step in when what you put into your body affects in an adverse way the lives of other people. Just bringing the conversation back ON topic. And I would add that all food that causes REALLY smelly farts should be made illegal. I'm not talking your run-of-the-mill fart; I mean those real nasty post Chili & Beer festival sour squirty ones that even the producer can not handle. The impact to others from that kind of thing IS a crime." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #202 September 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Addictive or not, withdrawal or not, it is STILL no business of the government what an adult chooses to put into his/her own body. When was the government given permission to be everyone's nanny? Don't you get tired of being such a broken record? The Government DOES have the right to step in when what you put into your body affects in an adverse way the lives of other people. Just bringing the conversation back ON topic. And I would add that all food that causes REALLY smelly farts should be made illegal. I'm not talking your run-of-the-mill fart; I mean those real nasty post Chili & Beer festival sour squirty ones that even the producer can not handle. The impact to others from that kind of thing IS a crime. Especially on rides to altitude! Those fuckers should get the chair! I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #203 September 8, 2006 QuoteI like your post and that brings me back to my original post about how I have historically been on the fence about this issue. Some people DO smoke a little and don't get completely baked, just a little happy, and only use it sparingly and in complete moderation. I just wonder how "typical" that use is. Yeah, these issues are far from black and white, but mostly because of the mistakes, foibles, and idiocy of a small minority. Then the politicians step in with their vision of what people should be like (usually like them) and ruin everything. Funny that those two groups (the undisciplined abusive minority and the know-it-all politicians) have somehow formed an unknowing coalition that is constantly eroding the freedoms of norml people. For the record, by far the most common element I see causing problems in people's lives is alcohol abuse - and I'm not for making alcohol illegal. So I guess that places me in the camp for not being nannied and preserving freedom at the risk that some are gonna get hurt. (But that is no reason to stop trying to educate or teach moderation)." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #204 September 8, 2006 Quote In recent years, you won't find much of anything published in drug research that does not conclude something harmful. Research literature over the decades, however, is replete with consistent scientific findings contrary to your cited ones. Sorry, it's a too old (and pretty much settled) argument to do the research for you. Get the feeling you're debating with the DEA here? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jshatzkin 0 #205 September 8, 2006 I agree with this post. Alcohol is a very damaging drug as well. I think education for all drugs is key. I think there are a lot of misconceptions and myths about drugs, especially marijuana, that have been highlighted throughout this thread. In the early 80's it was a common misperception and belief that cocaine was a "soft" and harmless drug as well. In the 90's it was a myth and common misperception that MDMA (ecstacy) was harmless as well. The ignorance concerning marijuana is common and widespread. I steered from the legality aspect of this thread as I saw many posts with these common ignorant statements. Hey, education has to start somewhere! I am not completely against legalizing it and regulating it either. That's for the post from Kelpdiver making reference (I am guessing) to me and the DEA??!So yes, we do need the studies, not necessarily for DEA purposes,..but for education purposes.Jen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #206 September 8, 2006 Where's the thread? Where's the thread? WHO STOLE THE THREAD???!!!! Oh, never mind." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #207 September 8, 2006 QuoteWhere's the thread? Where's the thread? WHO STOLE THE THREAD???!!!! Oh, never mind. what... thread... man? I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #208 September 8, 2006 Fun thread all. Gotta go. BS and great weekends to everyone." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #209 September 8, 2006 QuoteFun thread all. Gotta go. BS and great weekends to everyone. You too! Be safe if you're jumpin! Have fun! I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #210 September 8, 2006 QuoteI can argue that point quite well, thanks. B/c during the 6 years I was a therapist I saw it day in and day out. Parents baked, kids living in squalor. True, parents who OCCASIONALLY smoke a bowl can LATER still be excellent parents. The key word in your post was LATER. it's DURING the high that is the problem. Are you speaking of people who use herion or cocaine or meth or people who use only mj? Nearly all of my friends smoke pot. The majority are parents and did very well raising their kids. My father smoked the majority of his life (21 years in the Navy 1951-72, Senior Chief, aviation electrician, St. Louis Post Dispatch 73-2001, special projects (union busting bastard) and maintenance supervisor). We never went without. Never neglected. Quoteparents who are stoned out of their mind CANNOT and DO NOT care for their children properly. I have non idea what "stoned out of their mind" means in relation to mj. Having been around mj my entire life, I have never seen anyone fit the discription on pot. Alcohol, yes. Precription drugs, yes. Other chemical drugs, yes. Just pot, no. You seem to relate mj to drugs such as herion or other extremely powerful narcotics in the sense that the "high" produced is the same. Mj is in class all of its own and should not be considered to be the same as a narcotic, which it is not."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #211 September 8, 2006 Have you ever seen marijuana induced paranoia? Have you ever seen people so zonked on pot that they can't stay awake for long periods of time in order to care for their kids? I've seen both. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #212 September 8, 2006 QuoteAnother interesting study concerning dependence and withdrawal of marijuana: Clicky QuoteThese studies were supported by NIDA grants DA10346, DA03994, DA00343. Considering that these studies were funded by the Federal government it leaves the results open to debate of their validity as the Federal government only funds studies that will show mj in a negative light. Any results other than negative is omitted from the reports that are published. The study you have linked is completey bias and actually says nothing at all. A waste of the taxpayers money."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gkc1436 3 #213 September 8, 2006 just a few questions, have you ever smoked a joint? have you ever had a person who smoked on your plane? if so, how would you know? have you ever jumped with someone who smokes? g Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jshatzkin 0 #214 September 8, 2006 What relevence is there in asking me these questions?Jen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jshatzkin 0 #215 September 8, 2006 Okay, I'll play your game,..I just don't see where you are going with it. Quotehave you ever smoked a joint? Yep Quotehave you ever had a person who smoked on your plane? Not while in the plane Quotehave you ever jumped with someone who smokes? YepJen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #216 September 8, 2006 Quote I think education for all drugs is key. I think there are a lot of misconceptions and myths about drugs, especially marijuana, that have been highlighted throughout this thread. In the early 80's it was a common misperception and belief that cocaine was a "soft" and harmless drug as well. In the 90's it was a myth and common misperception that MDMA (ecstacy) was harmless as well. score lots of irony points here. I hope you're not suggesting that these three drugs are in the same category of risk. And I want to know who these people were in the 80s that saw coke as harmless. OD's were as common (or more so) then than now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jshatzkin 0 #217 September 8, 2006 I am not suggesting that at all- I am only saying that there are common myths about all drugs, and used those particular drugs as examples. And as far as cocaine....when it initially hit the scene, it was considered harmless compared to "harder" drugs of the 70's. As we know, that myth was very quickly dispelled, but nonetheless was prevalent at the introduction of cocaine as a popular drug.Jen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #218 September 9, 2006 QuoteQuote In recent years, you won't find much of anything published in drug research that does not conclude something harmful. Research literature over the decades, however, is replete with consistent scientific findings contrary to your cited ones. Sorry, it's a too old (and pretty much settled) argument to do the research for you. Get the feeling you're debating with the DEA here? Nah, just a well socialized product of current socio-polidtical values. A few decades ago she would have been citing 'Reefer Madness' and people getting high and going blind from staring at the sun. Drug research for the past couple of decades has been financially constrained to "show it's bad or get no grant money." It was under the same didactic whip that prompted the NIH to fund 'research' that concluded that by the year 2000, one in three Americans will be HIV positive.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #219 September 9, 2006 Quote The Government DOES have the right to step in when what you put into your body affects in an adverse way the lives of other people. When. Not before. Whilst before, those around that person should exercise their free will appropriately.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #220 September 9, 2006 Quote Some people DO smoke a little and don't get completely baked, just a little happy, and only use it sparingly and in complete moderation. I just wonder how "typical" that use is. It's very typical.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #221 September 9, 2006 QuoteQuote The Government DOES have the right to step in when what you put into your body affects in an adverse way the lives of other people. When. Not before. Whilst before, those around that person should exercise their free will appropriately. Ok, consider the scenario of the pothead who fires up his bong, smokes a bowl, gets in the car, can hardly drive, smashes into a family van and wipes out all the kids inside. How could they have "exercised their free will appropriately?" Maybe not the best example, since driving under the influence would still be illegal. What about the kids at home who aren't of the age of reason and can't get out of the crib to change their own shitty diapers while mom and dad (if dad's even in the picture) is passed out on the couch, w/ bong water spilled all over themselves? Shouldn't the Gov't try to pre-emptively stop such things from happening, knowing the propensity for their occurance from the use of such substances? I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #222 September 9, 2006 Quote What about the kids at home who aren't of the age of reason and can't get out of the crib to change their own shitty diapers while mom and dad (if dad's even in the picture) is passed out on the couch, w/ bong water spilled all over themselves? More going on there than MJ consumption. Quote Shouldn't the Gov't try to pre-emptively stop such things from happening, knowing the propensity for their occurance from the use of such substances? The whole debate here is whether MJ should be classifed as such substances.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #223 September 9, 2006 QuoteQuote What about the kids at home who aren't of the age of reason and can't get out of the crib to change their own shitty diapers while mom and dad (if dad's even in the picture) is passed out on the couch, w/ bong water spilled all over themselves? More going on there than MJ consumption. Quote Shouldn't the Gov't try to pre-emptively stop such things from happening, knowing the propensity for their occurance from the use of such substances? The whole debate here is whether MJ should be classifed as such substances. As to your first comment, not in this snapshot in time there isn't... mom is baked, dad is baked (if he's there), and baby can't change his own shitty diapers. As to your second comment, I honestly don't know... part of me says yes it should, but part of me says no... I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #224 September 9, 2006 >Ok, consider the scenario of the pothead who fires up his bong, smokes a >bowl, gets in the car, can hardly drive, smashes into a family van and >wipes out all the kids inside. How could they have "exercised their free will >appropriately?" Not much different than someone who (legally) drinks 22 beers and does the same thing. It's not illegal to drink 22 beers, just illegal to drive after you do so. (Heck, at one point they _tried_ to make it illegal to drink beer. Failed miserably, and helped create organized crime in the US.) >What about the kids at home who aren't of the age of reason and >can't get out of the crib to change their own shitty diapers while mom >and dad (if dad's even in the picture) is passed out on the couch, w/ bong >water spilled all over themselves? How is that different than a mom and dad who are passed out after drinking scotch? Or are beating each other to a pulp and ignore the child? Or who are out clubbing while the dog babysits? >Shouldn't the Gov't try to pre-emptively stop such things from happening . . . Perhaps. But close the clubs? Ban alcohol? Again, it's been tried. It didn't work. Much better (IMO) to remove children from parents who cannot/will not care for them. A child is done no favors if a good parent who smokes pot is arrested and hauled away, while the drunk, abusive parent is allowed to stay and raise the child. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #225 September 9, 2006 Quote>Ok, consider the scenario of the pothead who fires up his bong, smokes a >bowl, gets in the car, can hardly drive, smashes into a family van and >wipes out all the kids inside. How could they have "exercised their free will >appropriately?" Not much different than someone who (legally) drinks 22 beers and does the same thing. It's not illegal to drink 22 beers, just illegal to drive after you do so. (Heck, at one point they _tried_ to make it illegal to drink beer. Failed miserably, and helped create organized crime in the US.) >What about the kids at home who aren't of the age of reason and >can't get out of the crib to change their own shitty diapers while mom >and dad (if dad's even in the picture) is passed out on the couch, w/ bong >water spilled all over themselves? How is that different than a mom and dad who are passed out after drinking scotch? Or are beating each other to a pulp and ignore the child? Or who are out clubbing while the dog babysits? >Shouldn't the Gov't try to pre-emptively stop such things from happening . . . Perhaps. But close the clubs? Ban alcohol? Again, it's been tried. It didn't work. Much better (IMO) to remove children from parents who cannot/will not care for them. A child is done no favors if a good parent who smokes pot is arrested and hauled away, while the drunk, abusive parent is allowed to stay and raise the child. You're right bill, there's a horrible duplicity in the system. I don't know what the answer is. I am not convinced that legalizing it is the answer but the arguments against it aren't always that compelling, are they. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites