With the medicinal benefits of marijuana to combat appetite loss and chronic pain is well established in the minds of a substantial minority of physicians, middle aged persons are now providing marijuana to their elderly parents.
News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.
Login or register to post comments
Watched a documentary called "The Union" the other day about the underground marijuana business in the U.S. and in Canada and about American marijuana policy. It contained a lot of interesting information about how the War on Drugs has been fueled in a large degree by the correctional workers unions. Privately owned prisons are now one of the fastest growing markets in the American economy, and the United States incarcerates an insane (and steadily rising) proportion of its citizens in proportion to other developed countries. It helps when you have a nice stream of drug users coming into your expensive new private prison who would likely benefit much more from mandatory treatment than prison (cocaine, heroin, meth users, etc.) or who were involved in drugs that did not pose a grave health concern to either the user or others (marijuana, most psychoactive drugs, among others).
Long story short, I highly recommend The Union for anyone interested in this issue. Just skip through the inexplicable (and frequent) interviews with former Fear Factor host Joe Rogan, as his points are usually obnoxious and devoid of intelligence. There are other similar annoyances with the movie mostly related to the filmmaker being young and inexperienced, but it does not detract from the important information contained within.
Funny thing about wars against social issues they get mucky as time goes on, but when peace is declared things change dramatically, such as legalizing drugs and drug use goes down. So why doesn’t America do what Portugal did? Because to much money is made by to many people in keeping the American people fearful and the illegal drug trade lucrative.
It’s the same reason why the state of Wisconsin just repealed their good behavior laws, it’s good for business in the private imprisonment trade. Longer sentences mean more prisons are needed. It seems the Walker machine is well on course to blend corporate and social interest into a seamless fascist state. Cut spending? Like most Republicans he’s not about cutting costs but redistributing the wealth from the bottom to the top.
Portugal on the other hand has slashed its associated illegal drug control costs by letting those who want to destroy their lives, to do so without taking the rest of society down with them.
And once again, the benefits of cannabis is a no brainer.
“HOW DARE THOSE PINKO LIBERALS SLANDER ONE OF OUR GREAT JUDGES, DON’T THEY KNOW SHE’S DOING GODS WORK IN GEORGIA BY KEEPING THOSE DRUG ABUSERS BEHIND BARS WHERE THEY BELONG. CUT PUBLIC RADIO FUNDING NOW, BEFORE THEY SPREAD MORE LIES’ – Official GOP souse.
A Brutal Judge driving drug users to use more
And what does a family living off the land and raising good children have happen to them? The FED’s beating them down of course, for growing a dangerous drug like Pot. One of the best stories you will ever listen to.
Act1 “The family that flees together, trees together”
I stand corrected and do apologize for claiming something of you that is not entirely correct and hope you accept in kind. Although you have to admit that the response was somewhat lacking in logical argument and robust in says you.
As a counter point to your amendment proposal, I believe you will find that the Constitution already does grant us the rights to cannabis, under the terms of “Liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
Unfortunately the money powers have seen fit deny those things which could benefit us the most, so that their profits will be the greatest. Robber Barons using ignorance, fear, propaganda and outright lies to herd the population into the coral of conformity, so they will reject a natural solution that provides greater benefits at lower costs.
Corpocracy at its best, profitability at its greatest at the cost of those least able to provide.
Thank you for providing the optimum view that the powers love to have projected upon the American conscience.
The laughable “stoner” persona that is a universal and world wide character in every culture is true in a small percentage of users, those who are usually a dysfunctional individual to begin with.
However the vast majority of users are hard working folks that you meet every day and have no idea of. In fact, you would probably find that some of the most creative and charismatic individuals that you see and know, are the regular users of Cannabis.
As we have mentioned before, some of the greatest creative geniuses have used pot to find that deeper level of creativity and many continue today. But because it is such a taboo issue, subject to ridicule and enforcement harassment, those who use it today remain underground for fear of reprisal.
One recent exception is Lady Gaga, who in this last Sunday’s CBS 60 Minutes, admitted that she smokes when in her creative mode of creating her music. And since she is a “performance” artist, always in outlandish regalia, one could assume it is most of the time.
Although she is part of the Illuminati and promotes the guidance of Lucifer (the illuminator), it is none the less an example of what the power of our physical magnifications can provide, for either positive or negative affects upon society.
As usual you trivialized the most significant point of my post and one that until a few weeks ago I did not even know myself. Which is.
Although there are many many drugs that as you put it, make you, “float right over a couple of feet”, none use the bodies “natural” physiological structures to affect the body. What they do is attack the body through chemical alterations to specific systems and are therefore inherently destructive to those systems.
Cannabis on the other hand is the only drug that plugs “naturally” into the body’s physiological central control system through endocannabinoid’s, providing not only great expansions in creative thought but providing countless medical advantages.
In today’s society, the vast majority of the population is trained to believe that the Medical Industry is a benevolent and caring entity, providing only the best of care. When in fact it is a corrupt and destructive system modeled on the foundations of profitability and chemical pollution that destroys coffers, bodies and the environment.
To this end Pot must be demonized and made laughable, so the minions will continue their lemming ways down the profitable path to the Pharmaceuticals. Because to have people consider natural alternatives is to destroy the very existence of the Pharma Cartel that now dictates our medical treatments. Protocol mandated treatments of symptoms, using destructive drugs that are designed not to cure but create lifetime consumers.
Drug dealers are so creative aren’t they?
I trivialized,,,, as usual? I didn't think I had hardly ever even replied to you, Mr. Penn. Sorry.
(sigh,,,,) I can almost see it now, our destiny, a slight amendment to the Declaration of Independence....
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness",,, AND a few good tokes for all good women, men and any combination of the two. 'v'
The above is the comic strip "Dustin" in today's News-Gazette.
Oh my gosh – where have you been!
A wonderfully written, statistically insightful and thought provoking post that provides us all with a wonderful basis of comparison. THANK YOU!
It certainly beats the usual “you be wrong and bad and left and liberal and I won’t waste my time replying to such silliness.
Hey, I don’t know about anyone else, but just looking at the raw data you provided, I’ll take a 12% drop in prison populations any day. Nationally, how many hundreds of millions of dollars a year is that, which we would not have to pay?
The 83 and 62 percent stats are interesting though. One has to wonder what kind of “criminal” record they had, was it drug related and if so, could they have been “criminal free” if the drug laws were changed?
Whenever we see any kind of stats, especially from the highly lucrative punitive secret society we call “Law Enforcement”, one has to remember the old saying… “There are lies, damn lies and then there’s statistics”.
A great case in point is the nearly 100% traffic incarcerations. How many of those was someone selling a joint to someone, who had bought that little extra for themselves and was busted, who had rolled a bunch of joints for a long trip, had pooled their money with friends to buy in bulk, etc.
Also, we can be assured that many of them, were the guy you’ve known for years who has supplied you and all your friends who finally got caught. A quintessential entrepreneur who plied his trade well, helping fuel the milti-billion dollar underground economy, whose statistical number finally came up.
The 641K number is the most telling of all and you are spot on. How many lives were screwed up, hundreds of millions spent just so the war can go on, against yesterday’s, today’s and tomorrows largest American cash crop.
Come on folks, don’t Bogart your thoughts
What's this? Pot is now downright healthy? We're all biologically predispositioned to it? Hmm. I've heard we're predispositioned to some of the nasty stuff, too, that hooks a person whether he wants to be hooked or not....Oh, that's just neg. propaganda... from those nasty "regressives" with all their purely evil, self-serving motives under the guise of "grandma didn't need to be stoned on dope!"
Let's see now, I wish I'd kept a running tally: Pot brings families together-which presumably is good. ("Jr.! Don't give me any back talk! Here: have a joint, dang it!") It does medical miracles (I forget which) yet it is *only* a "mild euphoriant".(dang-why not a trip to the moon euphoriant?)
And this thread has now determined it is sort of like a healthy vitamin, I suppose it could be called "vitamin P". Anyway, from all this "truth", it would be hard to argue against legalization, huh? Well, go for it. It won't make much difference though, now that we find out pot users are not such a huge part of the penal residents.
You know, here's a definition of euphoria: "a feeling of great happiness or well-being".
Your wise & personal insight into pot has actually opened my eyes to how little I need or have ever needed such a 'token' piece of drug-induced "great happiness or well-being". So, thank you for the enlightenment, but, sorry, I'll pass on vitamin "P". When I'm pedaling on route 150 out to Geno's if I were so full of "great happiness or well-being" I might just find myself on cloud 9 or 10 and float right over a couple of feet in front of all those cars with drivers full of *healthy* pot and then you'd have one less fan......(sniff,,,sniff).....
Yes I agree any reduction in prison population would be good. And actually there is evidence of prison populations declining (though mostly due to economy). According to Prison Count 2010, overall, state prisons have seen a year to year decrease for the first time since 1972 (But 26 states saw decreases while 24 and federal saw increases). But a 12% decrease in prison population may be little overzealous thinking with just the legalization of marijuana. With looking at the stats, I would go out on a limb to say maybe a 6% decrease.... Maybe. Considering a criminal record and most are in for trafficking, many would probably still face criminal issues, with a lot probably moving onto another illicit drug for distribution.
As far as getting prison time for marijuana, I think it may be a little more difficult than you're making it out to be. Lets look at illinois. http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/marijuana-laws-and-penalties/illino...
As far as possession goes, it's a misdemeanor up to 30 grams. That's a lot of pot to be toting around for recreational use. For traffiking, as long as you are not in a school zone, up to 10 grams is still only a misdemeanor and casual delivery without a sale is the same as possession. Though the penalty may state prison time, many times that is pled out along with the fact that (considering criminal background of course) many times [non violent] felonies are pled down to misdemeanor charges. Yes sometimes people are made examples of and sometimes the drug dealer is just your friendly neighborhood hippie. But that doesn't cover up the fact that drugs, including pot is a lucrative business that much of the time involves a lot more. And of course that all doesn't dilute the fact that your non criminal recreational users have to face a potentially detrimental criminal record, and while may not receive prison time, have consequences on our system. Which leads me to...
"it would be hard to argue against legalization, huh? Well, go for it. It won't make much difference though, now that we find out pot users are not such a huge part of the penal residents." Though they may not make up a large percentage of residents in the prison system, they still have a huge impact on the penal system (and the crj system as a whole). Prisons are just a part of it and every conviction whatever the punishment makes an impact. Now granted arrests don't necessarily mean convictions, but these numbers are still very telling. In 2009, a little over half of all drug arrests (possession and sale and manufacturing) were for marijuana. And 45.5% of all arrests (all drug abuse violations, all drugs both for possession and sale) were just for marijuana possession alone. Take a look at the chart at the bottom of the page to see just how much marijuana has an impact compared to other drugs http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/arrests/index.html Now take into consideration that 12.15% of all arrests are for drug offenses which puts it in the number 2 spot of highest arrested offenses (excluding the all other offenses category) just behind property crimes. http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_29.html
You ride your bike on snow routes, I presume.
If you don't like what's on, change the channel...But just don't tell me that I've gotta watch what you watch. I'm sure you'll agree that it's nobody's business what I watch.
One of the most fascinating things for me, is how the hawks always seem to rule, but then I guess when you’re a predator you always get to feed on others.
From our penal system which imprisons more people than any other nation on earth, the denial of health care for those in medical need, to the military which must be funded at all cost, the hawk regressives rule in America today.
Within our political system this predatory belief in brutality and the practice of division, creates a them and us, which allows for draconian laws and bad social constructs. It is a totalitarian belief that if you spare the rod you spoil the child, so that beating them more must be the best and then lock them away if they doth protest.
This Calvinistic practice of damning anyone who thinks outside the cloistered order of the whip, has led us to create a them and us drug culture. A culture where anyone taking the plethora of drugs given by the legal pill pushers that cost us untold billions are ok, while anyone taking anything else must be punished severely.
What else would explain the fact that if you have a lot of pot, it will get you more years behind bars than if you stab and kill someone. But shouldn’t we all be put in prison? Shouldn’t we all be punished severely? Since all our bodies are hardwired to use pot.
Our bodies come with an endocannabinoid system of neuromodulatory lipids and their receptors that help regulate a variety of physiological processes. In short, we have bodies designed and wired to receive cannabis and use its many health benefits in a variety of ways. Benefits denied to us by those who know we don't know better.
But health is not what regressive rule is all about, instead the good becomes the bad and the bad becomes the good. A forever war that is profitable for the enforcement, legal and penal systems, a gold mine for the chemical drug industry and a political bonanza for politicians.
But those nations that have stopped their regression, re-evaluated and then re-proportioned their resources, reap the benefits of their progressive ways.
Not to say that drug offenses are a serious issue when it comes to the percentage in prison (that and the prison system as a whole is another issue to get into that I'll stay away from for the time being), but for pot, legalizing marijuana actually won't impact the prison system and those imprisoned that much. According to the Bureau of Justice (2004) 12.7% of state prisoners and 12.4% of Federal prisoners were serving time for a marijuana-related offense. And to get a better perspective, in state prisons, 83% of all those serving for drug offenses had a prior criminal history (62% with multiple prior convictions). In 2009, of those in federal prison, the cases involving marijuana charges, 97.5% were for traffiking, with the remainder for possession. And according to the Bureau of Justice statistics (1997) 1.6 percent of the state prison population were held for offenses involving just marijuana, while just 0.7 percent were incarcerated with marijuana possession as the only charge. I could go on with statistics, but you get the point.
Though pot itself may not have much effect on prison convictions, it does however for the rest of the criminal justice system. The FBI's uniform report on crime (2001) states of the marijuana violations, 88.6% were for possession only (which broke down to 641,108 people) Those 88.6% most likely will not get prison time, however they still have to run through the court system, tie up prosectors and public defenders and depending on their sentences, continue the charade if they receive probation, adult diversion etc.
When it comes to the comparisons with and citing such countries as the Netherlands, especially the one dimensional ones that only look at one or 2 key pieces like crime rates or prison populations without taking a look at them in the larger scheme of things, is a difficult one for either side whether you oppose legalization or not. There are so many other factors that go into those numbers from social, cultural, economic, government etc. It is a great model in the whole to look at, but not for a comparison with a country that differs on so many levels.
Despite what you might have thought from my above statements, I am for the legalization of marijuana (though with heavy restrictions). I too believe it is just a giant charade that can only benefit the few. I have yet to see much in statistics or studies that show any large benefit for it being illegal. Especially with our current events, I believe we can greatly benefit economically from the legalization and create a vital stem to the economy. Though those are careful waters to tread. It has it's potential to get it's grubby little hands on government and run with it.... Like the cigarette industry ;)
(gotta wonder why the proposed tax increase on cigarettes that would go to funding schools was nixed out of the same bill that raises income taxes hmm)
Wow, a real forum platform and one that the NG would do well to imulate, although after looking at the thread I see no topic mater that falls under this subject.
So what is it about Vermilion County and socio-political forum gadfly’s? Buz and myself are from there and past experience indicates a pool of individuals with a wealth of opinions.
Yes criminals will need to make a living and for those who are hard core they will find another line to exploit. But we do have an excellent social template into what happens when a widely used drug is outlawed and then legalized.
The 18th amendment, which outlawed alcohol in the US was intended to protect our children from the evils of drink (sound familiar?). Its effect was the greatest increase in organized crime and corruption in American history. With massive amounts of tax dollars going to fight an ever loosing battle against the desires of a percentage of the population.
The 21st amendment was passed to protect our children because the boot legers had figured out that using kids to sell hooch, worked well since there were no laws that covered children in such endeavors.
Although organized crime never really went away it was hobbled dramatically and its violence went into remission at a much lower profile. But Lincoln said it best and if his words are core truths, then it is obvious the delima we now face is of our own making.
“Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.” - Abraham Lincoln
I can feel for you about the limited nature of this site, especially in post editing. Sent an email to the powers that be, although it is obvious by the lack of functionality and activity that the NG does not fully endorse this new world nor understand its potential.
As for posting links, you may have a secondary test to fill out in guaranteeing you’re a human instead of a robot. The second proofing screen will sometimes have a testing entry to fill out before it will post your entry.
And on a sad note, your link does not work, could be my old browser but after trying it several times it does seem to be unavailable and I was so looking forward to the information you might be providing.
One of the things you need to be aware of in searching for anti-pot information, is the plethora of tainted studies. One of the first studies to be publicly debunked was the military study back in the 60’s that indicated pot smoking lead to cancers.
After years of FOI (freedom of information) litigation it was revealed that mice were given a THC equivalent to several thousand joints a day. So you always need to figure out who funded the study and whose interests are being represented.
Just remember this: LAW ENFORCEMENT does not want to legalize pot, not that it would cause a spike in crime but quite the opposite. It would decimate their ranks as fewer union members would be needed, lower budgets, reduced hours, lower public profile, etc.
Kicking in doors always looks great on the evening news along with the piles of dope. It’s a great life, good pay and benefits, along with the fact that your job doesn’t even register in the top 15 most dangerous jobs. Who wants to give that up.
There’s a good living being made on both sides of the isle and with the quotas based District Attorney system we have in this country, it will remain that way politically, because somebody’s gotta pay so they and the Sheriff can get re-elected.
To further reduce our ENFORCEMENT costs… the only reason organized crime gets involved in anything is profit, take it away and they go away. http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/medical/alternative/2010-12-08-m...
Just think… if we had made the drug issue a public health issue instead of a criminal justice issue, the trillions of dollars would have returned on our investment to the point that there would be no need for a health care debate.
(sigh) My brilliant post is under "Danville". You can't miss it. And I'm as sure as it'll be cold tomorrow that all the sites I posted you'll dismiss quickly and easily, especially the blatantly biased/tainted. ones. So, if you want to save yourself the trouble, that's perfectly OK.
My opinion is that if pot were legalized, there are plenty of other wars to be waged "for the sake of war" as you imply. As I posted before, criminals have to eat too, ya know.
LAW ENFORCEMENT does not want to legalize pot...
Riiiiight! It's easier busting a pot smoker than tasering a drunk.
Point taken about the generic statement I made about aspirin… however.
“Well, aspirin can be abused by swallowing a few hundred I suppose.”
Like all pharmaceutical drugs, a single dose is potentially life threatening to the right individual who may be allergic to it. Buried in the CDC’s death reports are copious numbers of people who “died” from aspirin and I’m sure they didn’t take a bottle of them.
“I've never been inclined to study such matters in anything other than a causal way, so, I would never consider myself a worthy opponent in such discussions with people who have acquired such knowledge, whether in the classroom or out….”
Pardon? Are you seriously trying to tell us that everything you’ve said is to be dismissed because of ignorance? And, how is it that you believe the “barber shop” commentary trumps factual knowledge and scientific understanding?
I’m sorry but the typical rushdie feign of self intellectual denial does not work in a place of piercing truth such as this thread. Here you are more than welcome to state either perceived beliefs or factual truths, but do not try and discredit our work by a reverse logic that implies our statements are somehow flawed because we may be a minority. It’s a pat Limbaugh/regressive tactic that works well when you control the programming but fails miserably when in open public debate such as here.
“…So I don't think coming up with easily obtained links to support just about any point of view would mean very much.” Ohhhhh but you it would! It would mean everything to us, since the reason why you can’t find any links to support your position is because there aren’t any.
Buz and I have looked for years for documentation to support the plethora of statements you and many others have made, have begged everyone who makes them to support their urban legends with factual data, to no avail.
” And Gilligan, too?” Yes and Gilligan too and let’s not forget Louis Armstrong and many others to numerous to include.
” At this point, the only motivation that I could reluctantly yield to regarding the legalization issue would be for the prospect of eliminating of the criminal element in pot production and distribution.....” DING DING DING DING DING. We have a winner!
Well we can certainly agree on this point. Jump on over to the other side of the view and take a look at what legalizing HEMP production in this country would do.
CO2 capturing on a massive scale, as all the following products would be sequestering.
Building materials nearly as strong as steel yet light as wood.
Car bodies that will bounce off on impact.
Virtually every type of clothing including shoes.
New designs in a huge array of goods because of advanced manufacturing techniques.
Entire new industries to distribute, process and manufacture these raw materials.
An entire makeover of the unsustainable Ag industry that uses more energy to product a gallon of Ethanol than a gallon of Ethanol provides.
A plant that will grow where nothing else will, with huge medical potentials.
“Glad I've never needed the stuff.” You probably have and didn’t know it. So you’re telling us you have never used pharmaceutical drugs of any kind for any illness that may have been either preventable or treatable through a natural herbal remedy?
“Not to rehash, but I still cannot see how a "mild euphoriant" can do such miraculous things medically.” I’ve noticed you’ve made reference to this area several times and would venture to guess that you are not a prescriber to natural herbal remedies for the body. But rely completely on the market-manipulating-profit-based forever synthetic in the environment and health damaging pharmaceutical industry. Am I correct?
“I've read a good deal of info about pot smoke containing higher levels of tar than cigarettes.” Where? We want to find it so bad.
“ I've read it stays in the system for x-mount of time.” As do do all drugs to some degree or another and one reason why crack is so popular, in that you can work those 3 jobs to feed your family and it does not show up on drug tests, unlike the natural pot that can stay in your fat up to 30 days.
“I hear so much about how it "relaxes" one.” For some it relaxes, for others it’s like speed. Ritalin is speed and why you give it to ADD kids, it slows them down for some unknown reason. Every drug is different for every body.
“Should one be driving a two-ton potential weapon/bomb (car) with that stuff in one's system?” NO - they should be driving 3 ton SUV’s and we’d all be safer. Once again the urban myths perpetrated by the money powers that are threatened by the prospects of people finding out the truth, trumps all.
However, there are places in the world were the truth still leaks out from time to time.
When the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) did their workplace study of smokers back in the 60’s, they found them to be more productive, safer, healthier and more well adjusted than non-smokers. This is why there has never been a published workplace study since then, as it would destroy the public manipulation of highly profitable urban legends.
By the way Oliver, I personally appreciate your candor and persistence in this debate as those reading it will be greatly enlightened by the view of perspectives presented here. Just wish there were some others who would join us. As this site is so incredibly lacking in participants, but then so are the features, go figure hu.
“When a clearly defined dogma contradicts a scientific assertion, the latter has to be revised.” – Catholic Encyclopedia, viii 598-607
I'm overwhelmed. To be postured in a defensive mode by BOTH Buzz and Penn is far beyond this novice barbershopper's chair, feigned or not! Until another anti-potter comes forth (IF there are any STILL in existence now) all I can cope with is to toss out a few links I've just found easily.
Well, I've spent a good while here trying to post the links I included--but a message comes up about I've triggered a "spam warning" or something, and the post would not be accepted. I did post without the links and this showed up, obviously.
Once before Rich Lawson commented to my question about editing an initial thread topic (which I found out can not be done.) This time I'd ask, are there link limits in making a post on here?
Oh, and why are the "captcha" words not printed more clearly?
Don't feel lonely, O. When my daughter was in high school, one of her class projects was that she was to be part of a debate team that would argue against the decriminalization of pot. I only knew about this because she complained that, in her research, she could only find specious arguments. I could only shrug my shoulders at her dilemma.
Your 'links?' Pay a researcher enough money to say that the Sun revolves around the Earth and he'll say it.
But honestly, O. I am glad that, recently, you've decided to communicate in a more intelligible manner. Because the former ramblings that you used to make were a bother, more irritating than interesting. I knew that you had the capability for rational thought but assumed that you 'had a bad trip' at some point in your life that had rendered you incomprehensible. I imagined that you taking drugs would haved been a waste of drugs? ;-)
However, I am still a little disturbed by your assertion that Sagan lived less of a life than yourself.
'Oh, and why are the "captcha" words not printed more clearly?'
Cleaned your glasses lately?
Easy on Oliver, guys! I lean pro-pot, though I've never touched it myself, but have never found Oliver to be hostile. He's generally been earnest and respectful in expressing his opinion.
I too have had CAPTCHA issues but I can usually get it after one fail.
Appreciate that, "thechampaignlife".
"However, I am still a little disturbed by your assertion that Sagan lived less of a life than yourself."(Buzorro quote)
This must be my quote to which you replied: "Sorry to hear that he (Sagan) chose to use what ultimately is non-essential to live a full, meaningful and productive life". Not sure how you interpreted that as you did. My point is that pot is not essential as a part for anyone's life. 'Billions and billions' have never touched the stuff...Please don't ask for a link to "prove" that.
(CAPTCHA: nope, dirty glasses/bad eysight not at issue, in fact, I'm probably too particular. Like 'hanging chads', etc; some of those run-together letters are subject to interpretation)
Anyway, the following link will list the links I was trying to post here last night to no avail.
(WARNING: that forum is chock full of my "irritating, bothersome, irrational, incomprehensible" NON-DRUG INDUCED RAMBLINGS!!! IF you are helplessly ADDICTED to reading them, be SURE to have plenty of you-know-what on hand to allow you to COPE. Like, OK?)
Now let's see if this'll post.
"Sorry to hear that he (Sagan) chose to use what ultimately is non-essential to live a full, meaningful and productive life".
It's the word, 'Sorry.'
Are you also 'sorry' that Jesus turned water into wine at his wedding? (Ooops,...we won't go there) A pious person once explained to me that, back in those days, water wasn't always 'safe' to drink, especially if it had been sitting awhile. 'Sorry' pal, that explanation doesn't cut it. If Jesus could turn water into wine, he surely could've rendered 'unsafe' water 'safe.' He clearly wanted more wine...wonder why he preferred wine? Billions of people have lived their whole life without drinking a sip of wine, and 'lived a full, meaningful and productive life.'
Are you getting my drift, O? I'm 'sorry' that you feel 'sorry' that Sagan 'chose' to get high everyday. I think that he was intelligent enough to know that if it was somehow hampering his life that he wouldn't have 'chosen' to do it. He was, after all, one of the most respected scientists of his time. Maybe he knew something that you don't.
Sorry, truly, but I'm not getting a lot of the drift too well. Of course I know Sagan knew things I don't know. All I've been saying is that it is not necessary, it is not a vital need for survival. One cannot eat it to provide necessary nutrition. It is not food which we all must have.
At this point all I can pull out is old cliche about "agreeing to disagree".
Let me assure you, Oliver, that if you knew the history of marihuana the only conclusion that you can come to as to why it is illegal today is because the love of money is the root of all evil.
Marihuana (hemp) made the world go around for hundreds of years because of it's medical uses, textile uses, as an energy source, a source for paper-making, building material, etc. In the early years of our nation, most farmers grew hemp, it was even used as barter in place of money, some colonies even required farmers to grow hemp.
BUT,....harvesting hemp was very labor-intensive, and the retting process was time consuming. Much of the labor was supplied by slaves, pre-Civil War. A Germen inventor introduced a type of cotton gin for hemp to America in the '30's. Mechanics Illustrated featured it on their cover with the headline, 'German decoritator promises Billion dollar boon for American farmers.'
This was the same year that two other issues came up. DuPont had just introduced their first petro-based filament, rayon. Hearst Enterprises had long owned their own timber company and paper-manufacturing facility to supply Hearst with a steady supply of paper for his publishing company. Both companies were well aware of the impact this new invention would have on their profits if farmers could cut their labor costs by 90%.
Prohibition had also been repealed which left a whole lot of G-men out of work. Hearst previously had printed wild stories (yellow journalism) about 'negroes' getting high on cocaine and then wrecking cars or raping white women while under the influence. When the new threat to his profits emerged with the decoritator, he merely altered his stories to say that 'wetbacks' were getting high on marihuana and then wrecking cars and raping white women. This is all that his readers 'knew' about marihuana,...they knew about 'hemp,' but not that the two were the same.
Hearst arranged to have a congressional hearing on the 'marihuana threat' and sent his ex-G-man nephew to testify, he was the only person to testify. The day after the hearing a law was presented to the full House that placed a 'prohibitive tax' on marihuana, the law quickly passed both Houses and signed into law. This was only the second time that a 'prohibitive tax' was passed. The year before, a law was passed that placed a 'prohibitive tax' on machine guns.
So you see, Oliver, once again, a 'war' was declared based on lies. Pot was never a 'threat' to society, but it was a threat to the profits of corporations. It was an easy scapegoat because smoking pot to get high was only done by those on the 'fringe' of society...black musicians, Mexican immigrants, beatniks....those 'type'...
War on Drugs = more drug users
War on Poverty = more poverty
War on Illiteracy = more illiteracy
War on Terror = more terrorists
Am I the only one seeing a 'trend' here?
Ah, Maynard G. Krebs....You mean he was high? And Gilligan, too?
In thinking about this issue in general, I asked the for opinions over on a local forum and got 3 answers about legalizing pot. One was neutral, one was anti because breathing the smoke of pot directly or 2nd hand is as bad as cigarettes, and the 3rd provided this link and said it might make a lot of money for the economy. http://www.illuminati-news.com/marijuana-conspiracy.htm
At this point, the only motivation that I could reluctantly yield to regarding the legalization issue would be for the prospect of eliminating of the criminal element in pot production and distribution.....Yet, criminals have to eat, too, so, legalization might not such happy ending after all. I know it'll be an unfortunate use of money that many people will choose to make over essential things like nutritious food and paying their bills, but, hey, those people probably spend that money now--as evidenced by the cars that pull up to nearby houses, leave the engine to idle and 'visit' for 5 or 10 minutes. Glad I've never needed the stuff.
Actually, the 'opinions' of US citizens don't mean squat in the 'War on (some) Drugs.' Witness the ever-increasing number of states, counties, and municipalities who have voted to 're-legalize' (which, incidently, was what the 'R' originally stood for in NORML) pot for medicinal purposes. In every case, the federal government assured those entities that federal law always supercedes any lower-level government law, and that anyone anywhere in the US who possesses or sells marihuana for any reason would be prosecuted. So much for democracy, eh?
And, yes, taking the criminal element out of the equation would be more than enough reason to re-legalize pot. This was one of the main reasons that Alcohol Prohibition didn't work. Incidentally, the 'possession' of alcohol during Prohibition was not illegal, only the manufacture, transporting and sale was. Making a substance 'illegal' only makes it more expensive to those who wish to use it, which, in turn, will cause unscrupulous people to try and make a quick buck. The vast amount of cash involved will also eventually cause corruption in the areas of law enforcement and the justice system.
Criminals have to eat to? I imagine that that was a tongue-in-cheek observation. Yes?
When I took a local Citizens Police Academy course, the 'drug officer' claimed that he could get off a city bus in any area of town, walk less than three blocks and buy cocaine. We can assume that this is true in the vast majority of towns and cities across our nation. It's my observation that daily transactions involving billions (?) in cash is certainly evidence that major banks are involved in the money laundering involved at some point.
There has also been evidence of involvement of elements in our federal government in the trafficking of drugs. When Clinton held his first press conference as Prez, the infamous Helen Thomas asked him about the going's-on at Mena, Arkansas during his Governorship of that state. Google that sometime.
Of course,as always, it's never the higher-ups (controllers) that are held accountable, only the low-level users and sellers. Always has been, always will be... We the People, in our ignorance, have created a monster that must be constantly fed. And all because of a G_d-given weed that has caused no death in it's thousands of years of use.
No one 'needs' the stuff because it isn't physically addictive, unlike alcohol or nicotine or any of a myriad of other natural and man-made substances.
Repeat: Marihuana is a mild euphoriant that causes no scientifically-proven physical damage.
Did you know that Dr. Carl Sagan was a daily pot smoker? Not at all like the media portrays the typical Beavis & Butthead type, is he?
I have admired Sagan for his Cosmos series. Sorry to hear that he chose to use what ultimately is non-essential to live a full, meaningful and productive life, though. Hope it helped him through his fatal brain tumor ordeal.
Not to rehash, but I still cannot see how a "mild euphoriant" can do such miraculous things medically. Seems like that's calling it no big deal at all and yet the claims make it into a powerful medicine.
Not to rehash, but "no scientifically-proven physical damage"? I've read a good deal of info about pot smoke containing higher levels of tar than cigarettes. I've read it stays in the system for x-mount of time. I hear so much about how it "relaxes" one. Should one be driving a two-ton potential weapon/bomb (car) with that stuff in one's system?
Not to rehash, but the bottom line for Oliver is that he does not yield his brain (what's left of it) to any plant to find some "mild euphoriant" effect. He makes his own musical noise OR listens to Brubeck, among other things. ( go ahead, say that Brubeck is a pothead, that'd be a tough row to hoe)
Would you concede that incarcerating Sagan for 'his choice' to smoke pot would not have benefitted society? Did Sagan live 'less of a fulfilling life' by 'choosing' to get high every day? Is it impossible that someday someone will look back and say, 'Gee, it's really too bad that so many chose to not get high,...They missed out on so much.'
Having never imbibed yourself, then you are unaware that the reason Sagan and some artists (musicians) 'choose' to smoke pot is that one of it's effects is that the user is enabled to 'focus' and 'imagine' variants to established norms,...think outside of the box. Back in the day, J. Edgar 'could tell' when some black jazz musicians were high because of the way they 'bent' their notes instead of just playing the way the sheet music instructed. But the bottom line is that 'Who cares?' Was J. Edgar being harmed in some way by these musicians? What business is it to anyone if an individual 'chooses' to get high?
We already have laws to protect society from people guilty of DUI. If someone gets high, chooses to drive, and wrecks his car,...arrest him/her. If someone 'chooses to get high and run around the neighborhood in the nude,...arrest them for indecent exposure, etc.
Medicinally speaking...yes, I suppose that one could say that Marihuana is not a Miracle Drug. But for the latest info see: http://norml.com/index.cfm?Group_ID=7002 If it was your son, daughter, mother, father, or any loved one who's suffering could be alleviated by a G_d-given herb, rather than by a man-made concoction of foreign chemicals (whose side-effects could be worse than the disease), why shouldn't they have the 'choice?' The pharmaceutical industry is not interested in curing anything, only treating the symptoms. That's where the money is...
And again, just because one has never smoked pot does not mean that those who do live a 'less fulfilling life.' That statement borders on arrogance.
Detailed listing by drug types.
The reference you cite says: ""Each year, use of NSAIDs (Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs) accounts for an estimated 7,600 deaths and 76,000 hospitalizations in the United States." (NSAIDs include aspirin, ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, ketoprofen, and tiaprofenic acid.)"
Well, aspirin can be abused by swallowing a few hundred I suppose. It's legal and relatively cheap, too, so no wonder there are lives lost, including those who od'ed on purpose.
What is remarkable about the pro-pot posters is the paradox (at least to me) of the spin of how *harmless* using it is (Buz called it a mild euphoric) and yet, it is spun to also have *powerful* positive effects for medical purposes that even the powerful drugs can't touch AND it has NO bad side effects. That is to say, it appears pot is all things to all people......So, I hope they're not offended if that can come across to some a little like the old snake oil salesmen.
Penn asked for me to 'document' many of my statements. Well, I'm here more as a "barber shop commenter" rather than a political debater behind a podium with personal knowledge of names, concepts, facts, etc; in order to win self-perceived points. Frankly, I've never been inclined to study such matters in anything other than a causal way, so, I would never consider myself a worthy opponent in such discussions with people who have acquired such knowledge, whether in the classroom or out. So I don't think coming up with easily obtained links to support just about any point of view would mean very much.
I would love for you to provide us with information on many of the statement you have made. You will find that in this debate is a glaring example of how powerful money interests can taint the public’s perception and therefore influence policies.
You can always tell when lies are told by the government, there are no facts to back it up and by repeatedly stating the assumed conclusion it becomes perceived truths. One such lie is the unsafe driver always talked about by law enforcement. Yet the only two studies ever done, showed that tokers had few accidents and were by far more careful drivers than non smokers.
The primary difference between pot and pharmaceuticals is; pot is natural, nearly all pharmaceuticals are chemical synthetics that over time degrade the bodies over all health and flows through to contaminate the environment for thousands of years to come.
That is why the medical industry loves drugs and hates pot because virtually none of them cure but are intended for life long profiteering by “managing” the treatment of your symptoms. Letting people smoke pot would devastate the pharma industry which is one of the largest contributors to politicians.
6000 people die every year from taking aspirin. How many die from pot? NONE.
Meanwhile those pot head Harvardites keep filling our heads with stuff like this.
Please document the statemen: "6000 people die every year from taking aspirin."
And the point?
It obviously brought his family closer together.
Well, family togetherness is nice (well, there are exceptions) However, I need to understand one thing about pot as a medicine. If it is such a medical benefit for people with certain medical conditions, then why should an *otherwise normal, healthy person* be allowed to play around with it anymore than, say, Vicodin? (or any powerful prescription medication)
Medicinally-speaking, pot would not qualify to be labelled a 'powerful prescription medicine.' It's a 'mild euphoriant' that has been used medicinally for thousands of years.
Hemp paper was also used for the first draft of the US Constitution, Abe Lincoln read by a lamp that burned hemp oil, Levi jeans used 'canvas' (cannabis) for it's first jeans, when George Bush was shot down during WWII his parachute lines were made from hemp, as were his bootlaces, and the oil in the boat that rescued him has hemp oil. On and on...
Everyone at once now... 'I didn't know that!"
Still sounds unclear. If it's not a powerful prescription that can far extend the life of a quadreplegic(sic) and alleviate involuntary spasicity(sic) etc; how can it do all these things that, say, a shot of some 'mild euphoriant'(sic) can not?
Quotes from this link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html
"In conclusion, it seems that the potential dangers presented by the medical use of marijuana may actually contribute to the dangers of the diseases which it would be used to combat. Therefore, I suggest that marijuana should not be permitted as a therapy, at least until a good deal more conclusive research has been completed concerning its debilitating effect on the immune system."
"Nonetheless, it would be fallacious to conclude that because the chemicals in marijuana have been found to present fewer dangers than some very harmful substances, the medical or recreational use of marijuana is perfectly safe. In a recreational context, marijuana has been shown to affect health, brain function, and memory. And in a medical context, (((marijuana is like any other powerful prescription drug))): it has potentially dangerous side effects, and the decision to use it to treat patients must involve the same balancing test as the one required for chemotherapy or AZT: do the therapeutic effects of the drug outweigh its harmful effects?"
"Marijuana smoke and cigarette smoke contain many of the same toxins, (((including one which has been identified as a key factor in the promotion of lung cancer))). This toxin is found in the tar phase of both, and it should be noted that one joint has four times more tar than a cigarette, which means that the lungs are exposed four-fold to this toxin and others in the tar."
As for uses of hemp, that's great info. And Coca-Cola once contained cocaine. I used to like coke.
One of my best friends was a quadreplegic as a result of a car accident. His doctors estimated that he would live ten years at the most. He lived with his elderly parents in a rural setting for twenty-five years. His brother was a doctor and recommended that he smoke pot to alleviate the involuntary spasicity that frequently occurred to my friend, as well as keeping his appetite up. His father grew, harvested, and rolled pot for my friend's medicinal use for about twenty-five years.