Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Cannabis

threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 2:42:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
William Randolph Hearsts paper empire, which had hundreds of acres of timber forests, was threatened by the renewable resource of hemp that could be re-grown yearly, unlike timber. In his newspapers, Hearst published many of Harry J. Anslingers (first US drug czar) fabricated stories, aiding the anti-marijuana movement. Hearst was also a newspaper magnate and leading newspaper publisher so he had a very large audience to persuade. This eventually led to its prohibition in the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act.

Some quotes by Anslinger:
"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"
"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

Another powerful anti-marijuana figure was John D Rockefeller. Hemp Ethanol threatened his oil industry. Fords original Model T had plastics made from hemp and was built to run on ethanol.

"There's enough alcohol in one year's yield of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for one hundred years." - Henry Ford
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 2:53:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 2:42:20 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"
"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

Isn't that contradictory?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 2:54:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 2:53:19 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/8/2009 2:42:20 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"
"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

Isn't that contradictory?

It's reefer madness.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 3:13:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 2:42:20 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

By jove! That nearly made me spit out my tea! The sheer audacity of it!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 3:15:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 3:08:56 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
And I forgot to ask everyone: What do you think the legal status of cannabis should be and should it used as a medicine?

I am reluctant for it to be legalised as such because ultimately it is a harmful substance, however I am favour of it being decriminalised. It is not so harmful that people actually be punished for growing, selling, and smoking it privately.

If it has medicinal benefits then yes of course, use it.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 3:22:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 2:42:20 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:


William Randolph Hearsts paper empire, which had hundreds of acres of timber forests, was threatened by the renewable resource of hemp that could be re-grown yearly, unlike timber. In his newspapers, Hearst published many of Harry J. Anslingers (first US drug czar) fabricated stories, aiding the anti-marijuana movement. Hearst was also a newspaper magnate and leading newspaper publisher so he had a very large audience to persuade. This eventually led to its prohibition in the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act.

Some quotes by Anslinger:
"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"
"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

Another powerful anti-marijuana figure was John D Rockefeller. Hemp Ethanol threatened his oil industry. Fords original Model T had plastics made from hemp and was built to run on ethanol.

"There's enough alcohol in one year's yield of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for one hundred years." - Henry Ford

Lol, yeah have you seen the flick "Reefer Madness" and there's another one I can't remember the name of right now, both from the 30's and both full of hilarious anti-pot propaganda.

They seriously say stuff like "unlike opium and cigarettes, marijuana is bad for you."
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 3:24:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 3:08:56 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
And I forgot to ask everyone: What do you think the legal status of cannabis should be and should it used as a medicine?

I think it should be completely legalized, as in regulated by the Government and sold in shops. It is far better for the individual and society than alcohol and any argument for the legal status of alcohol can be applied 100-fold to dope.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 3:30:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 3:08:56 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
And I forgot to ask everyone: What do you think the legal status of cannabis should be and should it used as a medicine?

It *is* used as a medicine. We keep two brands of it in the fridge at the pharmacy. It's used to induce the munchies.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 3:35:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So, you're saying that WR Hearst and the Rockefellers are behind anti-marijuana legislation because hemp threatened their commercial success... Geo? Is that you?

Hemp would never achieve the high production value that timber and oil have, and would have never threatened the commercial empires of those two men. It simply isn't easy to produce, isn't as convenient and isn't as accessible. Look at today's production of hemp - even with all your technology and the wide acceptance and even demand of hemp products in Western society, it can nowhere near compare to production of the usual suspects like timber and oil. It isn't doable and this conspiracy theory is ludicrous.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 3:36:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 3:30:00 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 12/8/2009 3:08:56 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
And I forgot to ask everyone: What do you think the legal status of cannabis should be and should it used as a medicine?

It *is* used as a medicine. We keep two brands of it in the fridge at the pharmacy. It's used to induce the munchies.

Nice one. To be honest, that is about the only medicinal purpose I can see for it, to induce munchies in someone with a disease or something which restricts their appetite. After I got my appendix removed, I didn't eat the entire next day while I was in hospital, got home the next morning and couldn't force food down, smoked a few cones and ate the entire house out lol.

I don't think it's a very good pain-killer, from my personal experience anyways. I've been in pain many a time, smoked a few bongs thinking it would kill the pain and it didn't do sh*t.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 3:41:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hemp would never achieve the high production value that timber and oil have, and would have never threatened the commercial empires of those two men.

I don't understand why not. "Hemp is one of the fastest growing biomasses known, producing up to 25 tonnes of dry matter per hectare per year".

It simply isn't easy to produce,

Why not? It grows quicker than any tree I can think of. It's called weed for a reason... it grows with very little intervention, once planted it will grow fast. No herbicides or pesticides needed either.

isn't as convenient

Why not?
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 3:44:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
isn't as accessible. Look at today's production of hemp - even with all your technology and the wide acceptance and even demand of hemp products in Western society, it can nowhere near compare to production of the usual suspects like timber and oil. It isn't doable and this conspiracy theory is ludicrous.

Wide acceptance of hemp?

"Hemp is illegal to grow in the U.S. under federal law due to its relation to marijuana"

These 'tards refuse to allow the wonder-plant that is hemp to be grown because of its RELATION to marijuana. Mind you, industrial hemp has no THC and can not be turned into marijuana.

If there weren't so many misinformed 'tards running the world, hemp would far surpass other forms of biomass in terms of production.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 3:46:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 3:36:14 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
Nice one. To be honest, that is about the only medicinal purpose I can see for it, to induce munchies in someone with a disease or something which restricts their appetite. After I got my appendix removed, I didn't eat the entire next day while I was in hospital, got home the next morning and couldn't force food down, smoked a few cones and ate the entire house out lol.

I don't think it's a very good pain-killer, from my personal experience anyways. I've been in pain many a time, smoked a few bongs thinking it would kill the pain and it didn't do sh*t.

Since we're talking about the medicnal effects of weed, I need to point out that the idea of using weed for glaucoma is antiquated. It works in a sort of conceptual way, but not realistically. Medicinal marijuana is basically isolated to chemotherapy-related anorexia, AIDS patients and Cancer patients. Also an effective measure of control.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 3:49:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 3:46:46 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 12/8/2009 3:36:14 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
Nice one. To be honest, that is about the only medicinal purpose I can see for it, to induce munchies in someone with a disease or something which restricts their appetite. After I got my appendix removed, I didn't eat the entire next day while I was in hospital, got home the next morning and couldn't force food down, smoked a few cones and ate the entire house out lol.

I don't think it's a very good pain-killer, from my personal experience anyways. I've been in pain many a time, smoked a few bongs thinking it would kill the pain and it didn't do sh*t.

Since we're talking about the medicnal effects of weed, I need to point out that the idea of using weed for glaucoma is antiquated. It works in a sort of conceptual way, but not realistically. Medicinal marijuana is basically isolated to chemotherapy-related anorexia, AIDS patients and Cancer patients.

Do you extract the THC and give it in pill-form or some such? Or do you just give out buds?

Also an effective measure of control.

What does this mean dude?
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 3:54:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 3:49:02 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
Do you extract the THC and give it in pill-form or some such? Or do you just give out buds?

Pure THC :) no buds for you.

Also an effective measure of control.
What does this mean dude?

It means that the computer system checks through your insurance as to whether or not you have cancer or AIDS. If you don't, but you have a doctor's prescription, the cost will be around 10 times the amount you would have to pay for an equivalent amount of actual weed.

It acts as a control measure to ensure that the medication isn't abused >.>
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 4:02:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 3:41:42 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
Why not? (x3)

"Why not" indeed. I never said it wasn't useful, nor productive - I said it wasn't as productive as other sources. Oil and wood are much more readily available than hemp is. Think about it.

If there weren't so many misinformed 'tards running the world, hemp would far surpass other forms of biomass in terms of production.

Law =/= society, especially older laws.

Oh, and yeah, you know there places outside of the US which fall under the term "Western society," right?

"In the UK hemp seed and fibre have been always perfectly legal products. Cultivation for non drug purposes was however completely prohibited from 1928 until circa 1998, when Home Office industrial-purpose licenses became available under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971." - http://en.wikipedia.org...

"CANADA started to license research crops in 1994. In addition to crops for fiber, one seed crop was licensed in 1995. Many acres were planted in 1997. Licenses for commercial agriculture saw thousands of acres planted in 1998. 30,000 acres were planted in 1999. In 2000, due to speculative investing, 12,250 acres were sown. In 2001, 92 farmers grew 3,250 acres. A number of Canadian farmers are now growing organically-certified hemp crops (6,000 acres in 2003 and 8,500 acres in 2004, yielding almost four million pounds of seed)."

"AUSTRALIA began research trials in Tasmania in 1995. Victoria commercial production since1998. New South Wales has research. In 2002, Queensland began production. Western Australia licensed crops in 2004."

"SPAIN has never prohibited hemp, produces rope and textiles, and exports hemp pulp for paper. The Spanish word for hemp is "cañamo."

- http://open.salon.com...

Honestly, for an Australian you're awfully US-centric.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 4:40:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 4:02:49 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/8/2009 3:41:42 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
Why not? (x3)

"Why not" indeed. I never said it wasn't useful, nor productive - I said it wasn't as productive as other sources. Oil and wood are much more readily available than hemp is. Think about it.

Perhaps not as productive, but productive nonetheless, and certainly enough so that it's at least feasible that producers of oil and wood would go to great lengths to see its production halted.

If there weren't so many misinformed 'tards running the world, hemp would far surpass other forms of biomass in terms of production.

Honestly, for an Australian you're awfully US-centric.

We were discussing a theory involving Anslinger, Ford, Rockefeller and Hearst. It had nothing to do with the rest of the Western world, and I shouldn't have said "running the world" I should have said "running the US".

It's also impossible to live in Australia and not be very US-centric in terms of society, culture, politics... the US dictates what happens over here more than any other influence I can think of.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 5:27:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 4:40:25 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
Perhaps not as productive, but productive nonetheless, and certainly enough so that it's at least feasible that producers of oil and wood would go to great lengths to see its production halted.

I'm not so sure. Compare having a hemp operation, all the costs involved, to foresting timber on federally-leased or privately-owned land. Or extracting oil out of the ground, which is easily more treatable than any ethanol feul and cheaper to produce.

We were discussing a theory involving Anslinger, Ford, Rockefeller and Hearst. It had nothing to do with the rest of the Western world, and I shouldn't have said "running the world" I should have said "running the US".

Do you know what a Dipper is? Its a nickname for Canada's New Democrats, which is a paranoid, big-business-is-scary-and-bad, social democratic party. I call ideas like this, "Dippiracy" - an amalgam of "Dipper" and "conspiracy." I hope to let it catch on.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 6:18:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 5:27:33 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/8/2009 4:40:25 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
Perhaps not as productive, but productive nonetheless, and certainly enough so that it's at least feasible that producers of oil and wood would go to great lengths to see its production halted.

I'm not so sure. Compare having a hemp operation, all the costs involved, to foresting timber on federally-leased or privately-owned land. Or extracting oil out of the ground, which is easily more treatable than any ethanol feul and cheaper to produce.

We were discussing a theory involving Anslinger, Ford, Rockefeller and Hearst. It had nothing to do with the rest of the Western world, and I shouldn't have said "running the world" I should have said "running the US".

Do you know what a Dipper is? Its a nickname for Canada's New Democrats, which is a paranoid, big-business-is-scary-and-bad, social democratic party. I call ideas like this, "Dippiracy" - an amalgam of "Dipper" and "conspiracy." I hope to let it catch on.

I don't understand your point here.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 6:30:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 6:18:00 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
I don't understand your point here.

My point is that there are always rumour flying around about how big bad corporate masters stop all competition and production. Sometimes its true, sometimes its not - but its usually all unverifiable. Its simply conjecture built upon third-hand reporting built upon unintentional (or sometimes malicious) cranks of the rumour mill, and somewhere beneath that is the truth. People want excuses as to why this occurred or why this is exists, and they make up reasons for it - see religion.

Oh, and I find social democrats annoying and paranoid. That was another, unrelated point.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 6:52:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Those who say that marijuana should be illegal because it's ultimately harmful can go suck a fat one. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Going to White Castle at 4 in the morning and ordering a 10-sack that you'll down in 5 minutes because you're a fat 350 lb slob is harmful too, but that's not illegal, is it? Bottom line is who cares if it's harmful? Last I checked, adults are responsible for their own actions... and one's person is their own property.

We belong to ourselves; not the State. If we want to smoke pot -- just as we can choose to smoke cigarettes, drink, take aspirin (which could also be harmful), etc. -- it should be our prerogative and nobody elses. If you want to put restrictions about driving or working under the influence, so be it... but to criminalize it is oppressive and disgusting. Shame on us for allowing it. Whether you smoke or not, it's a big F U from the government who feels that it can impede on the personal choices of citizens.

Further, keeping marijuana illegal is a scam! It's considered a Schedule I drug which means it's described as harmful and having "no medicinal value." Are you fugging kidding me?! No medicinal value?! Doctors in a plethora of fields continue to say over and over that pot ABSOLUTELY has medicinal value! Can it be harmful? Sure, just as other prescription drugs can be severely abused and wind up being way MORE harmful (ask Kleptin - he's the pharmacy major). It's nonsense - straight up nonsense that people are hindered from using pot. The thing is, even if medicinal marijuana is legal at the state level so you can obtain it, it's still considered illegal at the federal level meaning you can still get in trouble whether you've got a medical marijuana card or not. It's bogus.

What really gets me though is learning about how much money and time DEA officers and other agents put into cracking down pot growers. Are you serious?! So much tax payer money should NOT be spent on something so frivolous. And further, don't politicians realize that by decriminalizing pot, it would result in this massive reduction of gang related crime? Which, might I add, would add some much needed relief to the criminal justice system in general and our over-crowded and unsustainable prisons.

The U.S. has the most pot related crimes and arrests than any other country and punishes its people more harshly. It's RIDICULOUS. But, yes, of course the politicians realize this. This is a fabulous wedge issue just like abortion, gay marriage and the other issues that politicians don't really give a flying fugg about and just use to distract the public from the real issue: the economy.

Anyway I should probably mention that I'm high as a kite while I'm writing this, but that's besides the point. I am very passionate about this issue. Not only do I think it's criminal that the government via close-minded and judgmental citizens keep people oppressed completely unnecessarily, but I think it's a tragedy that so much negative things continue to happen as a result of these dumb laws which only hurt us all. If the government wanted to tax the hell out of legal pot - fine. It would suck, but it'd be a step in the right direction.

Also, there was this great documentary on National Geographic about pot that I'll post for you guys who are interested in learning more. NG actually had a lot of good documentaries lately; check out the one on LSD too if ya can :)
President of DDO
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 8:40:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 6:52:20 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Those who say that marijuana should be illegal because it's ultimately harmful can go suck a fat one. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Going to White Castle at 4 in the morning and ordering a 10-sack that you'll down in 5 minutes because you're a fat 350 lb slob is harmful too, but that's not illegal, is it? Bottom line is who cares if it's harmful? Last I checked, adults are responsible for their own actions... and one's person is their own property.

We belong to ourselves; not the State. If we want to smoke pot -- just as we can choose to smoke cigarettes, drink, take aspirin (which could also be harmful), etc. -- it should be our prerogative and nobody elses. If you want to put restrictions about driving or working under the influence, so be it... but to criminalize it is oppressive and disgusting. Shame on us for allowing it. Whether you smoke or not, it's a big F U from the government who feels that it can impede on the personal choices of citizens.

Further, keeping marijuana illegal is a scam! It's considered a Schedule I drug which means it's described as harmful and having "no medicinal value." Are you fugging kidding me?! No medicinal value?! Doctors in a plethora of fields continue to say over and over that pot ABSOLUTELY has medicinal value! Can it be harmful? Sure, just as other prescription drugs can be severely abused and wind up being way MORE harmful (ask Kleptin - he's the pharmacy major). It's nonsense - straight up nonsense that people are hindered from using pot. The thing is, even if medicinal marijuana is legal at the state level so you can obtain it, it's still considered illegal at the federal level meaning you can still get in trouble whether you've got a medical marijuana card or not. It's bogus.

What really gets me though is learning about how much money and time DEA officers and other agents put into cracking down pot growers. Are you serious?! So much tax payer money should NOT be spent on something so frivolous. And further, don't politicians realize that by decriminalizing pot, it would result in this massive reduction of gang related crime? Which, might I add, would add some much needed relief to the criminal justice system in general and our over-crowded and unsustainable prisons.

The U.S. has the most pot related crimes and arrests than any other country and punishes its people more harshly. It's RIDICULOUS. But, yes, of course the politicians realize this. This is a fabulous wedge issue just like abortion, gay marriage and the other issues that politicians don't really give a flying fugg about and just use to distract the public from the real issue: the economy.

Anyway I should probably mention that I'm high as a kite while I'm writing this, but that's besides the point. I am very passionate about this issue. Not only do I think it's criminal that the government via close-minded and judgmental citizens keep people oppressed completely unnecessarily, but I think it's a tragedy that so much negative things continue to happen as a result of these dumb laws which only hurt us all. If the government wanted to tax the hell out of legal pot - fine. It would suck, but it'd be a step in the right direction.

Also, there was this great documentary on National Geographic about pot that I'll post for you guys who are interested in learning more. NG actually had a lot of good documentaries lately; check out the one on LSD too if ya can :)



Tell it sister!
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 5:43:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 3:35:24 PM, Volkov wrote:
So, you're saying that WR Hearst and the Rockefellers are behind anti-marijuana legislation because hemp threatened their commercial success... Geo? Is that you?

Hemp would never achieve the high production value that timber and oil have, and would have never threatened the commercial empires of those two men. It simply isn't easy to produce, isn't as convenient and isn't as accessible. Look at today's production of hemp - even with all your technology and the wide acceptance and even demand of hemp products in Western society, it can nowhere near compare to production of the usual suspects like timber and oil. It isn't doable and this conspiracy theory is ludicrous.
Volkov, hemp produces 4 times as much paper per acre than timber and a crop can be grown in 100 days, without expensive fertilizers and pesticides. Hemp paper lasts hundreds of years longer and hemp is one of the strongest natural fibers known to man. The only reason hemps not as accessible is because of its restrictions, in 1937 Popular Science magazine called hemp "The New Billion Dollar Crop."

DuPont also supported criminalization of the production of hemp in the US, fiber was one of its biggest markets at the time. Hemp paper threatened DuPont's monopoly on the necessary chemicals for paper from trees (DuPont patented the processes for creating plastics from coal and oil and a new process for creating paper from wood pulp), and they patented nylon the same year that hemp was made illegal.

Why do you think cannabis prohibition happened?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 7:07:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/9/2009 5:43:28 AM, threelittlebirds wrote:
Why do you think cannabis prohibition happened?

Because big business is evil and wants to keep us from being happy!...

Listen, I'm not saying hemp isn't useful, though I think you're exaggerating quite a bit about its commercial usage. But to honestly suggest that the reason marijuana is banned is because big business wants to keep us down is just so, so, so.. stupid.

As I said, it is conjecture built upon third-hand accounts built upon, and I think this is especially true in your case, malicious intent, with the truth buried beneath it all.
threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 12:15:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/9/2009 7:07:05 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/9/2009 5:43:28 AM, threelittlebirds wrote:
Why do you think cannabis prohibition happened?

Because big business is evil and wants to keep us from being happy!...

Listen, I'm not saying hemp isn't useful, though I think you're exaggerating quite a bit about its commercial usage. But to honestly suggest that the reason marijuana is banned is because big business wants to keep us down is just so, so, so.. stupid.

You're going to criticize me and my ideas and not even give me a better reason why? I'm saying that people with a lot of power abused their power, how is that unlikely or "stupid?" Now you're saying that hemp is productive, then what is your argument? That I'm just paranoid? At least give me some evidence to refute the theory.
As I said, it is conjecture built upon third-hand accounts built upon, and I think this is especially true in your case, malicious intent, with the truth buried beneath it all.
What do you know about how I got my opinions? Nothing, and how the hell is my intent malicious? I want people to be able to enjoy a plant that was taken from them!
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 12:39:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 6:52:20 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Those who say that marijuana should be illegal because it's ultimately harmful can go suck a fat one. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Going to White Castle at 4 in the morning and ordering a 10-sack that you'll down in 5 minutes because you're a fat 350 lb slob is harmful too, but that's not illegal, is it? Bottom line is who cares if it's harmful? Last I checked, adults are responsible for their own actions... and one's person is their own property.

We belong to ourselves; not the State. If we want to smoke pot -- just as we can choose to smoke cigarettes, drink, take aspirin (which could also be harmful), etc. -- it should be our prerogative and nobody elses. If you want to put restrictions about driving or working under the influence, so be it... but to criminalize it is oppressive and disgusting. Shame on us for allowing it. Whether you smoke or not, it's a big F U from the government who feels that it can impede on the personal choices of citizens.

Further, keeping marijuana illegal is a scam! It's considered a Schedule I drug which means it's described as harmful and having "no medicinal value." Are you fugging kidding me?! No medicinal value?! Doctors in a plethora of fields continue to say over and over that pot ABSOLUTELY has medicinal value! Can it be harmful? Sure, just as other prescription drugs can be severely abused and wind up being way MORE harmful (ask Kleptin - he's the pharmacy major). It's nonsense - straight up nonsense that people are hindered from using pot. The thing is, even if medicinal marijuana is legal at the state level so you can obtain it, it's still considered illegal at the federal level meaning you can still get in trouble whether you've got a medical marijuana card or not. It's bogus.

What really gets me though is learning about how much money and time DEA officers and other agents put into cracking down pot growers. Are you serious?! So much tax payer money should NOT be spent on something so frivolous. And further, don't politicians realize that by decriminalizing pot, it would result in this massive reduction of gang related crime? Which, might I add, would add some much needed relief to the criminal justice system in general and our over-crowded and unsustainable prisons.

The U.S. has the most pot related crimes and arrests than any other country and punishes its people more harshly. It's RIDICULOUS. But, yes, of course the politicians realize this. This is a fabulous wedge issue just like abortion, gay marriage and the other issues that politicians don't really give a flying fugg about and just use to distract the public from the real issue: the economy.

Anyway I should probably mention that I'm high as a kite while I'm writing this, but that's besides the point. I am very passionate about this issue. Not only do I think it's criminal that the government via close-minded and judgmental citizens keep people oppressed completely unnecessarily, but I think it's a tragedy that so much negative things continue to happen as a result of these dumb laws which only hurt us all. If the government wanted to tax the hell out of legal pot - fine. It would suck, but it'd be a step in the right direction.

Also, there was this great documentary on National Geographic about pot that I'll post for you guys who are interested in learning more. NG actually had a lot of good documentaries lately; check out the one on LSD too if ya can :)



High five !! no pun intended
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 1:15:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/9/2009 12:15:51 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
You're going to criticize me and my ideas and not even give me a better reason why? I'm saying that people with a lot of power abused their power, how is that unlikely or "stupid?" Now you're saying that hemp is productive, then what is your argument? That I'm just paranoid? At least give me some evidence to refute the theory.

http://www.watgreen.uwaterloo.ca...

University students are full of good ideas, even ones in capitalist societies.

Hemp is a beautiful alternative, but expensive, especially for consumers, which most people know is the driving force behind any product.

The main reason today behind the look into hemp paper as a main staple is because of its great sustainability - but remember that we're talking about very time periods with very different attitudes towards sustainability and the environment. No one back in those days would have bothered to invest in that product in any major sense because timber production, like oil production, was widespread, the technology was successful and available and had a huge market - did hemp? No.

So for what perceivable reason would two commercial giants bother to launch what would be a costly campaign against a plant that wouldn't register as "important" for another several decades?

What do you know about how I got my opinions? Nothing, and how the hell is my intent malicious? I want people to be able to enjoy a plant that was taken from them!

Whats your ideology again? Who are you claiming the conspiracy is from again?

Unless socialists like yourself found a new love for big business and capitalism, I'll make my connections where I see fit.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 2:10:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
1776 Declaration of Independence drafted on Cannabis paper.

1791 President Washington sets duties on Cannabis to encourage domestic industry. Jefferson calls Cannabis "a necessity" and urges farmers to grow Cannabis instead of tobacco.

1841 Dr. W.B. O'Shaunghnessy of Scotland works in India then introduces Cannabis to Western medicine. In the following 50 years hundreds of medical papers are written on the medical benefits of Cannabis

1845 Psychologist and 'inventor' of modern psychopharmacology and psychotimimetic drug treatment, Jacques-Joseph Moreau de Tours documents physical and mental benefits of Cannabis.

1870 Cannabis is listed in the US Pharmacopoeia as a medicine for various ailments.

1890 Queen Victoria's personal physician, Sir Russell Reynolds, prescribes Cannabis for menstrual cramps. He claims in the first issue of The Lancet, that Cannabis "When pure and administered carefully, is one of the of the most valuable medicines we possess"

1895 The Indian Hemp Drug Commission concludes that cannabis has some medical uses, no addictive properties and a number of positive emotional and social benefits.

1910
African-American 'reefer' use reported in jazz clubs of New Orleans, said to be influencing white people. Mexican's reported to be smoking Cannabis in Texas. Newspaper tycoon Randolph Hearst has 800,000 acres of prime Mexican Timberland seized from him by Villa and his men.

1911 Hindus reported to be using 'Gunjah' in San Francisco.

1912 The possibility of putting controls on the use of Cannabis is raised at the first International Opium Conference.

1915 California outlaws Cannabis.

1916 Recognising that timber supplies are finite, USDA Bulletin 404 calls for new program of expansion of Cannabis to replace uses of timber by industry.

1919 Texas outlaws Cannabis.

1925 The 'Panama Canal Zone Report' conducted due to the level of Cannabis use by soldiers in the area concludes that there is no evidence that Cannabis use is habit-forming or deleterious. The report recommends that no action be taken to prevent the use or sale of Cannabis.

1937 Following action by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and a campaign by newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst, a prohibitive tax is put on hemp in the USA, effectively destroying the industry. Anslinger testifies to congress that 'Marijuana' is the most violence causing drug known to Man. The objections by the American Medical Association (The AMA only realised that 'Marijuana' was in fact Cannabis 2 days before the start of hearing) and the National Oil Seed Institute are rejected.

1938 The February edition of US magazine Popular Mechanics (written before the Marijuana Transfer Tax was passed) declares 'Hemp - the New Billion Dollar Crop.'

1941 Cannabis dropped from the American Pharmacopoeia. Popular Mechanics Magazine reveal details of Henry Ford's plastic car made using Cannabis and fuelled from Cannabis. Henry Ford continued to illegally grow Cannabis for some years after the Federal ban, hoping to become independent of the petroleum industry.

1943 Both the US and German governments urge their patriotic farmers to grow hemp for the war effort. The US shows farmers a short film - 'Hemp for Victory' which the government later pretends never existed. The editor of 'Military Journal' states that although some military personnel smoke Cannabis he does not view this as a problem.

1944 New York Mayor LaGuardia's Marijuana commission reports that Cannabis causes no violence at all and cites other positive results. Anslinger responds by denouncing LaGuardia and threatens doctors with prison sentences if they dare carry out independent research on Cannabis.

1945 Newsweek reports that over 100,000 Americans use Cannabis.

1948
Anslinger now declares that using Cannabis causes the user to become peaceful and pacifistic. He also claims that the Communists would use Cannabis to weaken the American's will to fight.

1951 UN bulletin of Narcotic Drugs estimates 200 million Cannabis users worldwide.

1961 Anslinger heads US delegation at UN Drugs Convention. New international restrictions are placed on Cannabis aiming to eliminate its use within 25 years.

1962 Anslinger is sacked by President Kennedy. Kennedy may well have smoked cannabis in the White House.

1968 A Home Office select committee, chaired by Baroness Wootton, looks at the 'cannabis question'. Its report concluded that cannabis was no more harmful than tobacco or alcohol, and recommended that the penalties for all marijuana offences be reduced. Campaign against Cannabis use by US Troops in Vietnam - Soldiers switch to heroin.

1970 Canadian Le Dain report claims that the debate on the non-medical use of Cannabis "has all too often been based on hearsay, myth and ill-informed opinion about the effects of the drug." Marijuana Transfer Tax' declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.

1971 Misuse of Drugs Act lists Cannabis as a Class B drug and bans its medical use despite the recommendation of the Wootton Report that "Preparations of Cannabis and it's derivatives should continue to be available on prescription for purposes of medical treatment and research". President Nixon declares drugs "America's public enemy No. 1".

1972 The White House passes a $1 billion anti-drug bill and Nixon again declares drugs America's public enemy No. 1". The US Government Shafer report voices concern at the level of spending used to stop illicit drug use. From 1969-73 the level of spending rose over 1000 percent.

1973 President Nixon declares "We have turned the corner on drug addiction in America'. Oregon becomes the first state to take steps towards legalisation.

1975 Hundreds of Doctors call on US Government to instigate further research on Cannabis. Supreme Court of Alaska declares that 'right of privacy' protects Cannabis possession in the home. Limit for public possession is set at one ounce.

1976 Ford Administration bans government funding of medical research on Cannabis. Pharmaceutical companies allowed to carry out research on synthetic, man made Cannabis analogues. Ford's chief advisor on drugs, Robert Dupont declares that Cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or tobaeeo and urges for it's decriminalisation.

1978 New Mexico becomes first US state to make Cannabis available for medical use.

1983 US government instructs American Universities and researchers to destroy all 1966-76 Cannabis research work.

1988 In Washington, DEA Judge Francis Young concludes at the end of a lengthy legal process that "Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man". He recommends that medical use of marijuana should be allowed, for certain life- or sense-threatening illnesses. The DEA administrator rejects the ruling. US Senate adds $2.6 Billion to federal anti-drug efforts.

1989 Outgoing president Reagan declares victory in War on Drugs as being a major achievement of his administration. Secretary of State James Baker reports that the global war on narcotics production "is clearly not being won."

1990 The discovery of THC receptors in the human brain is reported in Nature.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 2:14:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Just a couple of dates until my characters ran out. Just sayin'.... :)
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.