If Religion was a Drug
Elroy Willis
If religion was a drug, would it be illegal?
Take for example, speaking in tongues. It seems to be caused
by a phenomenon going on in the brain, not by some invisible holy
spirit. Now what if some pill or drug were available which when
taken would render the taker a babbling tongue speaking idiot?
First off one should question why anyone would want to take such
a drug. Well, I can't answer that one, maybe a theist might be better
able to answer this. But if such a drug were available, would it be
available over the counter, by prescription, or illegal?
--
Elroy
e.oupt
I wonder if there would be a low-dose version of the drug for children.
They could make them in different colors and shapes, like 'Flintstone Vitamins'.
But then, this might cause coveting and jealousy; kids might fight over who got the
'Jesus' or the 'John the Baptist', etc.
e.oupt
Cronos02
Religion makes you see things that arn't there
(Jesus, virgin mary,etc.) just like shrooms does.
People enjoying doing it just like any other drug.
It's dangerous to people
It fucks up the mind.
tetrahydrocannabinol
Cronos02 wrote in message <19981101164649...@ng76.aol.com>...
Yes, but It would be totally legal, since religion is such a high profit
industry. Why do you think Alcohol is legal, while marijuana (which is
thousands of times less harmful) is not? It all comes down to money. The
alcohol corporations pay big money to the government officials to keep
marijuana illegal (among other things) since marijuana would be a great
threat to the alcohol industry.
but I digress, religionol would be legal, and probably given to children, to
begin a lifelong dependency and addiction.
-=+tetrahyrocannabinol+=-
tetrahydrocannabinol
Cronos02 wrote in message <19981101194313...@ng-fd1.aol.com>...
|>Yes, but It would be totally legal, since religion is such a high profit
|>industry. Why do you think Alcohol is legal, while marijuana (which is
|>thousands of times less harmful) is not?
|
Yes
Here are a few statistics, I'll let you make the decision on your own...
Alcohol is a factor of half of highway fatalities, half of all arrests, half
of all homicides, and a fourth of all suicides, costing America $15 billion
a year(National 15).
In 1972 the federal government had an extensive research of marijuana and
found that there is no physically addictive traits. Since then all published
medical journals and books make it clear that marijuana is not addicting.
Dr. Jack Henningfield, of the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s Addiction
Research Center, and Dr. Neal Benowits, of University of California, ranked
six drugs, heroine, cocaine, nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, and marijuana, on
their ability to produce psychological dependence. Nicotine was found to be
the most addicting, and marijuana the least addicting. Not only did
marijuana rank as the least addictive, but it also ranked least likely to
get a tolerance, and least likely to show any signs of withdraw after
quitting smoking marijuana(Schlosser 92).
"[Marijuana is] One of the safest therapeutically active substances
known...." (Francis)
Study leader, Dr. Jason White, said that the findings hold worldwide
significance. "[Alcohol] produces the greatest impairment to driving and the
effects of other drugs are very small when compared with [its] effects," he
said. He speculated that marijuana smokers are seldom involved in car
accidents because they "compensate for the impairing effects of the drug.
They are more cautious, less likely to take risks, and drive slower." (Oct
1998 Australian study of randomly selected drivers injured in accidents)
Smoked marijuana contains about the same amount of carcinogens as does an
equivalent amount of tobacco. It should be remembered, however, that a heavy
tobacco smoker consumes much more tobacco than a heavy marijuana smoker
consumes marijuana. This is because smoked tobacco, with a 90% addiction
rate, is the most addictive of all drugs while marijuana is less addictive
than caffeine. Two other factors are important. The first is that
paraphernalia laws directed against marijuana users make it difficult to
smoke safely. These laws make water pipes and bongs, which filter some of
the carcinogens out of the smoke, illegal and, hence, unavailable. The
second is that, if marijuana were legal, it would be more economical to have
cannabis drinks like bhang (a traditional drink in the Middle East) or tea
which are totally non-carcinogenic. This is in stark contrast with
"smokeless" tobacco products like snuff which can cause cancer of the mouth
and throat. When all of these facts are taken together, it can be clearly
seen that the reverse is true: marijuana is much SAFER than tobacco.
http://www.drugtext.org/sub/marmyt1.html
No one has ever died of a marijuana overdose... Animal tests have revealed
that extremely high doses of cannabinoids are needed to have lethal effect.
This has led scientists to conclude that the ratio of the amount of
cannabinoids necessary to get a person intoxicated (i.e., stoned) relative
to the amount necessary to kill them is 1 to 40,000. In other words, to
overdose, you would have to consume 40,000 times as much marijuana as you
needed to get stoned. In contrast, the ratio for alcohol varies between 1 to
4 and 1 to 10. It is easy to see how upwards of 5000 people die from alcohol
overdoses every year and no one EVER dies of marijuana overdoses.
http://www.drugtext.org/sub/marmyt1.html
Prestigious groups such as the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Institute
of Medicine (1982), the Federation of American Scientists (1994), the
Australian Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health (1994), the
American Public Health Association (1995), and the British Medical
Association (1997), as well as New England Journal of Medicine editor Jerome
Kassirer, publicly endorse the medicinal use of marijuana.
http://www.norml.org/medical/index.html
---
National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. Marihuana: a Signal of
Misunderstanding. Washington: GPO, 1972.
Schlosser, Eric. “Reefer Maddness.” Atlantic Monthly Sep. 1994: 84-94.
Drug Enforcement Administration Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young,
1988
---
A couple other stats to which I couldn't get references from...
In over 10,000 years of documented use of marijuana not 1 person has died
from health problems associated to the use of marijuana.
Marijuana has been found to treat or cure many serious diseases. It reduces
nausea and increases the appetite of AIDS infected people, as well as
greatly reducing the nausea of chemotherapy patients. It greatly reduces
seizures in MS patients. Marijuana reduces intraocular pressure (IOP) in
patients suffering from glaucoma, the leading cause of blindness in the
United States.
I have more info and links if your interested... The study of marijuana is
such a multifaceted study, as there is the medical aspect, the therapeutic
aspect, and the political aspect, and often these intertwine.
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
tetrahydrocannabinol
Elroy Willis wrote in message <364c333d....@news.cyberramp.net>...
|I thought it all started with the cotton growers not wanting hemp to
|take away from the demand for cotton.
Yes, manythings begun the tide of prohibition. Dupont sponcered the drive
for prohibition, since they had millions invested in trees for the paper
making industry, they needed to protect their investment (4.1 acres of trees
produces the same amount of paper as 1 acre of hemp, whilehemp requires less
chemical bleaching and processing. not to mention that hemp plants grow to
full maturity in 3 months and can be grown in 49 of the 50 states of the
union) Dupont sponcered news stories (by providing the paper) about
marijuana causing "niggers" to step on white men's shadows, look at white
women twice, cause unspeakable acts of violence, robbery and insanity. This
period was known as reefer madness.
|>The
|>alcohol corporations pay big money to the government officials to keep
|>marijuana illegal (among other things) since marijuana would be a great
|>threat to the alcohol industry.
|
|Is this true? Where did you read this? Some links please.
Of course this is total speculation my my part, but I have yet to come up
with a theory that makes more sence than that. What else besides corrupt
politicians being payed off would cause this new batch of reefer madness in
the 90's. Marijuana is shown to be extremely safer than alcohol, yet alcohol
is legal. Marijuana could be the answer to the depleating rainforests,
starvation, amoung other things, but it's being ignored. What would cause
the FedGov to continue procecuting people in california (who voted for and
passed medical marijuana laws). Sick and dying AIDS patients, MS patients,
cancer patients are being arrested and jailed for taking their medicine. Yet
no one has died from marijuana, while about 1000 people yearly die from
asprin! What besides money could cause this new form of reefer madness
sweeping across DC? (i'm not going to even go into the 11 billion dollars
the FedGov is spending, this year alone to fight the "drug war" a war they
are losing)
|I wonder if there would be a heavy tax associated with the drug, like
|with alcohol and cigarettes, or would it be tax exempt?
It would be distributed mainly at the churches, I'd guess... So i'm saying
it would be tax free.
|On a sidenote, why isn't a warning required to be printed on the bible
|like on cigarettes? "Warning: The material contained within may cause
|severe brain damage", or "Quitting religion now greatly reduces the
|chance of brain seizures".
Good point.
|--
|Elroy
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
Cronos02
Elroy Willis
>Cronos02 wrote in message <19981101164649...@ng76.aol.com>...
>|Whats with the if? It is a drug.
>|
>| Religion makes you see things that arn't there
>|(Jesus, virgin mary,etc.) just like shrooms does.
>|
>| People enjoying doing it just like any other drug.
>|
>| It's dangerous to people
>| It fucks up the mind.
Indeed.
>Yes, but It would be totally legal, since religion is such a high profit
>industry. Why do you think Alcohol is legal, while marijuana (which is
>thousands of times less harmful) is not? It all comes down to money.
I thought it all started with the cotton growers not wanting hemp to
take away from the demand for cotton.
>The
>alcohol corporations pay big money to the government officials to keep
>marijuana illegal (among other things) since marijuana would be a great
>threat to the alcohol industry.
Is this true? Where did you read this? Some links please.
>but I digress, religionol would be legal, and probably given to children, to
>begin a lifelong dependency and addiction.
I wonder if there would be a heavy tax associated with the drug, like
with alcohol and cigarettes, or would it be tax exempt?
On a sidenote, why isn't a warning required to be printed on the bible
like on cigarettes? "Warning: The material contained within may cause
severe brain damage", or "Quitting religion now greatly reduces the
chance of brain seizures".
--
Elroy
Elroy Willis
>Elroy Willis wrote:
>|I thought it all started with the cotton growers not wanting hemp to
>|take away from the demand for cotton.
>Yes, manythings begun the tide of prohibition. Dupont sponcered the drive
>for prohibition, since they had millions invested in trees for the paper
>making industry, they needed to protect their investment (4.1 acres of trees
>produces the same amount of paper as 1 acre of hemp, whilehemp requires less
>chemical bleaching and processing.
I think I remember reading that hemp paper is actually much stronger
and more durable than common wood pulp paper also. It's a multi
purpose plant, and it's a shame it's illegal to grow it in many areas.
More than a shame actually, it's fucking stupid.
>not to mention that hemp plants grow to full maturity in 3 months and can be
>grown in 49 of the 50 states of the union)
Just curious which state it can't be grown in. Alaska? Isn't this
where northern lights comes from?
>Dupont sponcered news stories (by providing the paper) about
>marijuana causing "niggers" to step on white men's shadows, look at white
>women twice, cause unspeakable acts of violence, robbery and insanity. This
>period was known as reefer madness.
I remember watching the old black and white "Reefer Madness" movie a
few years ago. It was a stupid movie, but successful nonetheless in
furthering the ridiculous myths of the harmful effects of cannabis.
>|>The alcohol corporations pay big money to the government officials to keep
>|>marijuana illegal (among other things) since marijuana would be a great
>|>threat to the alcohol industry.
>|Is this true? Where did you read this? Some links please.
>Of course this is total speculation my my part, but I have yet to come up
>with a theory that makes more sence than that. What else besides corrupt
>politicians being payed off would cause this new batch of reefer madness in
>the 90's.
Misinformation and the spreading of false rumors and myths seems to
be the case. I just don't know about the payoffs by alcohol
corporations though. I would need more proof of this.
>Marijuana is shown to be extremely safer than alcohol, yet alcohol
>is legal.
Indeed. And non-addictive as well.
>Marijuana could be the answer to the depleating rainforests,
At least it would provide a better source for paper and even cloth
products. I'm not sure about using it as a building material like
wood is used. Can hemp be processed into plywood type products
which can be used for construction?
>starvation,
Eh? It may be edible, but I don't think it can relieve starvation,
unless you mean as a means to make money by growing it, thereby
providing a means to buy food.
>amoung other things, but it's being ignored. What would cause
>the FedGov to continue procecuting people in california (who voted for and
>passed medical marijuana laws). Sick and dying AIDS patients, MS patients,
>cancer patients are being arrested and jailed for taking their medicine.
The recent events in california are indeed sad news. The government
is way out of line on these decisions, IMO.
>|I wonder if there would be a heavy tax associated with the drug, like
>|with alcohol and cigarettes, or would it be tax exempt?
>It would be distributed mainly at the churches, I'd guess... So i'm saying
>it would be tax free.
>|On a sidenote, why isn't a warning required to be printed on the bible
>|like on cigarettes? "Warning: The material contained within may cause
>|severe brain damage", or "Quitting religion now greatly reduces the
>|chance of brain seizures".
>Good point.
--
Elroy
Isuru #1094
Heh. Look, I agree that marijuana is a relatively safe drug, both for the
individual and
for society. However I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is
"non-addictive". I use the
substance myself, in moderation, and haven't experienced any ill-effects as
a result. However
I have seen one of my friends become an addict (he used to smoke every day
for about a year)
and the effects on his health and mind were evident. There is no point
glorifying cannabis as
some "wonder drug" that can be used excessively without consequence - it is
not.
As for "reefer madness" my experience has shown pot addicts to be quiet,
socially inept, introspective
individuals.
--
Isuru Abeysinghe[INFIDELz] http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/lobby/3142/
Isuru #1094
cannabis in the US.
Although I can't provide any links either, I did hear this for "Quantum" an
educational
science program when it was running the series "Name your Poison" about
drugs.
Cronos02
Incredible. i wonder why those Drug free people at school don't mention this?
Pat Kiewicz
>>starvation,
>
>Eh? It may be edible, but I don't think it can relieve starvation,
>unless you mean as a means to make money by growing it, thereby
>providing a means to buy food.
>
The seeds are high in oil content and can be used as animal feed, certainly.
Chickens might do very well on a diet that contained a good portion of
hemp seed, for example.
--
Pat Kiewicz
a.a #1154
NOTICE!! To hit my personal mailbox, please put the letter 'p' in front of
the 'kiewicz' when replying by e-mail.
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com
<i.get...@hempseed.com> wrote:
>
>Cronos02 wrote in message <19981101194313...@ng-fd1.aol.com>...
>|>Yes, but It would be totally legal, since religion is such a high profit
>|>industry. Why do you think Alcohol is legal, while marijuana (which is
>|>thousands of times less harmful) is not?
>|
>|Marijuana less harmful then Alcohol? are you sure about that?
>
>Yes
>
>Here are a few statistics, I'll let you make the decision on your own...
>
>Alcohol is a factor of half of highway fatalities, half of all arrests, half
>of all homicides, and a fourth of all suicides, costing America $15 billion
>a year(National 15).
>
Those statistics are crap. If someone is sitting on a park bench drunk
and a sleeping behind the wheel driver kills him then it is marked as an
"alcohol related fatality." Anytime anyone (even a passenger) has alcohol
in their system and is involved in a fatality (even if they clearly aren't
at fault) then it is marked as an "alcohol related fatality."
Bill Thacker
Elroy Willis <e...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>If religion was a drug, would it be illegal?
No. In fact, you'd probably be required to take it. Each nation
would issue slightly different flavors, so the people who take
Jehovitin can make fun of (and war on) "those crazy drug-abusers" who
are hooked on Allar. People in the US would have their choice, but
the ones who are addicted to Messianol would be demanding that every
kind in school be force-fed that pill along with their lunch milk.
>Now what if some pill or drug were available which when
>taken would render the taker a babbling tongue speaking idiot?
It's called alcohol. At least, that's what it does to ME. :-)
>First off one should question why anyone would want to take such
>a drug. Well, I can't answer that one, maybe a theist might be better
>able to answer this.
I think we need to turn the question over to a real expert. Any
frat boys reading this? (If you're having it read *to* you, that
counts.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker Atheist #1363 gun...@ds.net
Bill's Rail Buggy Page: http://www.ds.net/~gunner/buggy/buggy.html
VI VI VI: the editor of the beast.
Paul Chefurka
>>Yes, but It would be totally legal, since religion is such a high profit
>>industry. Why do you think Alcohol is legal, while marijuana (which is
>>thousands of times less harmful) is not?
>
>Marijuana less harmful then Alcohol? are you sure about that?
Yup. there have been innumerable studies done over the years in
places like Canada, the Netherlands and the good ole U.S. of A. that
have all ranked marijuana well below alcohol and tobacco in terms of
physical damage and addictive potential. The level of perceptual and
motor impairment is also less with pot than with alcohol, due to the
fact the THC is not a CNS depressant.
Those whose paychecks depend on the War On Drugs (tm) hate these
studies - they induce profound levels of cognitive dissonance :-)
Paul Chefurka
tetrahydrocannabinol
Cronos02 wrote in message <19981102064156...@ng73.aol.com>...
|>Yes
|
|
|Incredible. i wonder why those Drug free people at school don't mention
this?
Because the government is a great propaganda machine.... DARE has been ruled
an utter failure, and waste of money. Years ago when I went through the dare
program They told me how bad all drugs were, and that pot would make me go
insane, or kill me (lies). Well I got up the nerve to try a little pot, and
it was great, I didn't die, I didn't go insane, and I felt like a million
bucks. Then I got to thinking "hrm, what about all those other drugs they
warned me about. Maybe they are lying about them too." Now I didn't get into
much, and what I did, I quit. Besides getting arrested, there are no dangers
from pot. just be careful what you learn, and stay critical of all the
information.
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
tetrahydrocannabinol
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com wrote in message ...
|Those statistics are crap. If someone is sitting on a park bench drunk
|and a sleeping behind the wheel driver kills him then it is marked as an
|"alcohol related fatality." Anytime anyone (even a passenger) has alcohol
|in their system and is involved in a fatality (even if they clearly aren't
|at fault) then it is marked as an "alcohol related fatality."
Knowing the affects of alcohol I hardly thing that those numbers would be
very far off from real fatalities caused by the affects of alcohol. I don't
care if some drunk stumbled onto the highway and got run over, alcohol is
still the cause.
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
tetrahydrocannabinol
Elroy Willis wrote in message <36545e59....@news.cyberramp.net>...
|I think I remember reading that hemp paper is actually much stronger
|and more durable than common wood pulp paper also. It's a multi
|purpose plant, and it's a shame it's illegal to grow it in many areas.
|More than a shame actually, it's fucking stupid.
It's the most versitile plant there is... it literally has thousands of
uses.
|Just curious which state it can't be grown in. Alaska? Isn't this
|where northern lights comes from?
I believe alaska is where it can't be grown, but I'm not sure, I'd have to
find my old copy of "The Emporer's New Clothes"
|I remember watching the old black and white "Reefer Madness" movie a
|few years ago. It was a stupid movie, but successful nonetheless in
|furthering the ridiculous myths of the harmful effects of cannabis.
that is unfortunaty true. I have a link to a Real Audio version of the
entire "Reefer Madness" movie on the web if your intrested.
|Misinformation and the spreading of false rumors and myths seems to
|be the case. I just don't know about the payoffs by alcohol
|corporations though. I would need more proof of this.
Well I have thouaght baout this for a while have have yet to find any other
reason it's still illegal, besides some of the reasons it was made illegal
in the first place. (Lies and bribery) Check
http://www.paston.co.uk/users/webbooks/chronol.html for a marijuana
timeline.
|At least it would provide a better source for paper and even cloth
|products. I'm not sure about using it as a building material like
|wood is used. Can hemp be processed into plywood type products
|which can be used for construction?
not that Im aware of. Unless it can be woven. Hemp plants grow like tall
weeds. It as an all green plant, grows to 8-10 feet tall, and has a stalk
thats about an inch or 2 thick. Hemp is more breathable than cotton, and
hemp produces the strongest rope. And of Course the first draft of the
constitution was written on hemp paper, George Washington and other early
amercian presidents grew it and smoked it...
|Eh? It may be edible, but I don't think it can relieve starvation,
|unless you mean as a means to make money by growing it, thereby
|providing a means to buy food.
I think another post answered this question...
|The recent events in california are indeed sad news. The government
|is way out of line on these decisions, IMO.
Recently the citizens of Washinton DC gathered enough petitions to get
medical marijuana on the ballot for this election. The congress then quickly
passed anti-spending laws on marijuana so that the vote would be counted,
but not count. So even if the people voted to pass measure 59 in DC, it
would not become law. This is just the surface, there is also the 46 million
thats being spent developing a fungus that will ONLY attack the marijuana
and poppy plant. This project sounds like a really bad idea.
|Elroy
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com
Not if the drunk was a rear seat passenger or simply sitting on a park
bench. The alcohol had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the accident, yet
the accident is marked up as being alcohol related.
Since when did you suddenly start trusting war-on-some-drugs propaganda as
gospel?
tetrahydrocannabinol
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com wrote in message ...
|Not if the drunk was a rear seat passenger or simply sitting on a park
|bench. The alcohol had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the accident, yet
|the accident is marked up as being alcohol related.
"Alcohol is a FACTOR"
factor meaning it contributed to the accidents, deaths, etc.
|Since when did you suddenly start trusting war-on-some-drugs propaganda as
|gospel?
Because it makes sense.
Alcohol greatly distorts your perception, making it dangerous to drive (yet
people still do) dangerous to provoke that person (but people still do).
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
Walksalone
<i.get...@hempseed.com> Having stopped their contemplations on the mystery
of life & uttered the following:
>
>Elroy Willis wrote in message <36545e59....@news.cyberramp.net>...
>|I think I remember reading that hemp paper is actually much stronger
>|and more durable than common wood pulp paper also. It's a multi
>|purpose plant, and it's a shame it's illegal to grow it in many areas.
>|More than a shame actually, it's fucking stupid.
>
>
>It's the most versitile plant there is... it literally has thousands of
>uses.
>
>|Just curious which state it can't be grown in. Alaska? Isn't this
>|where northern lights comes from?
>
>
>I believe alaska is where it can't be grown, but I'm not sure, I'd have to
>find my old copy of "The Emporer's New Clothes"
Keep on believing that, then when you pass on, your only misconception will be
a small one. my plants needed training bras, & made maui look meek & tame.
Don't forget that Alaska summers may be short, but sunshine, moisture, 7 rich
soil is the norm for the climate.
Remanent snipped
Two hands working do more than a thousand clasped in prayer
the politically incorrect walksalone at ala net
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com
<i.get...@hempseed.com> wrote:
>
>TheCentralSc...@pobox.com wrote in message ...
>
>|Not if the drunk was a rear seat passenger or simply sitting on a park
>|bench. The alcohol had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the accident, yet
>|the accident is marked up as being alcohol related.
>
>
>"Alcohol is a FACTOR"
How the fuck is alcohol a factor when a sleeping driver rams into a drunk
passed out on a park bench?
>
>factor meaning it contributed to the accidents, deaths, etc.
Do you have reading comprehension difficulties? Three times now I've
given examples where alcohol had absolutely no effect but was erroniously
considered a factor.
>
>|Since when did you suddenly start trusting war-on-some-drugs propaganda as
>|gospel?
>
>Because it makes sense.
>
>Alcohol greatly distorts your perception, making it dangerous to drive (yet
>people still do) dangerous to provoke that person (but people still do).
Strawman.
If the drunk isn't driving then alcohol has NO effect and that alone
renders those statistics as complete bullshit.
tetrahydrocannabinol
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com wrote in message ...
|On Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:44:16 -0600, tetrahydrocannabinol
|<i.get...@hempseed.com> wrote:
|>
|>TheCentralSc...@pobox.com wrote in message ...
|>
|>|Not if the drunk was a rear seat passenger or simply sitting on a park
|>|bench. The alcohol had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the accident, yet
|>|the accident is marked up as being alcohol related.
|>
|>
|>"Alcohol is a FACTOR"
|
|How the fuck is alcohol a factor when a sleeping driver rams into a drunk
|passed out on a park bench?
That was your example
thats my point, If alcohol is really a factor in the percentages I quoted
then someone runing into a drunk, or anything like that would not be counted
in the stats because alcohol was NOT a factor. If you have a better source
of information on death by goverment officials who collect this data, then
please show me the way (the goverment also lists marijuana to have caused 0
deaths due to health reasons.)
|Do you have reading comprehension difficulties? Three times now I've
|given examples where alcohol had absolutely no effect but was erroniously
|considered a factor.
Considered by you. I do not know if they consider that a factor or not. But
this is the only statistic I can find on death and alcohols relationsship to
it. Why are you such a proponet of the goodnees of alcohol?
|>|Since when did you suddenly start trusting war-on-some-drugs propaganda
as
|>|gospel?
|>
|>Because it makes sense.
|>
|>Alcohol greatly distorts your perception, making it dangerous to drive
(yet
|>people still do) dangerous to provoke that person (but people still do).
|
|Strawman.
|
|If the drunk isn't driving then alcohol has NO effect and that alone
|renders those statistics as complete bullshit.
According to you. However you have no idea what their criteria for what
they consider "alcohol is a factor" in death. Neither do I. All I am saying
is that this is the only source of information that I have found on this
subject. I think you will find that most people (besides alcoholics who wont
admit they are alcoholics) will agree that alcohol is a dangerous hurtful
drug. I also use my past experiences in determining the truthfulness of this
survey. My personal experience has taught me that marijuana is a claming
drug, and people are not prone to provocation or violence while using it.
(In an extremely racist small town in TN) I have smoked up with many groups
of people, blacks, whites, low income, high income. We get together, put our
prejudice aside and have a damn blast. On the other hand when I would go to
a club or bar I see fights breaking out ll the time, people talking shit,
getting angry for the smallest things, and then stumbling outside, not being
able to find out how to unlock their car for about 5 minutes, figure it out
and then drive home.
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
tetrahydrocannabinol
tetrahydrocannabinol
Keith Doyle
tetrahydrocannabinol <i.get...@hempseed.com> wrote:
>
>Elroy Willis wrote in message <364c333d....@news.cyberramp.net>...
>
>|>The
>|>alcohol corporations pay big money to the government officials to keep
>|>marijuana illegal (among other things) since marijuana would be a great
>|>threat to the alcohol industry.
>|
>|Is this true? Where did you read this? Some links please.
I don't know if they still "pay big money," but they did contribute to the
"Assassin of Youth" campaign in the-- what was it, 1940s? This evidence
can be found on the original posters for the campaign, some of which still
exist. It's clear that the alcohol and tobacco companies did not want
any competition. Also you might want to look up "Harry Anslinger" and
the proliferation of "patent medicines" after the turn of the century for
some history of the WOD and some of the motivation behind it when it all
started.
--
Keith Doyle
(remove underbars from reply address for e-mail)
--
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point
than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness
of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
-- George Bernard Shaw
Xalan
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com wrote in message ...
|>factor meaning it contributed to the accidents, deaths, etc.
|Do you have reading comprehension difficulties? Three times now I've
|given examples where alcohol had absolutely no effect but was
erroniously
|considered a factor.
If the guy hadn't been drinking he would not have passed out on that
bench and therefore would not have been hit. QED.
Having worked in an emergency dept. I have seen a lot of drink related
fights, accidents, and other injuries. I personally only drink very
rarely. On those few occasions I get drunk, I always take a cab.
There are only a fraction of drug related visits to an emergency dept.
The majority of them only affect the person having taken the drug. The
other few are those nutters who think it is OK to drive on drugs. Even
grass affects your reactions.
||| |||
|||
||| |||Alan #1211
EAC-UK #666 Toxic Waste Disposal Dept.
------------------------------------------------------------------
What about faith?
It's Defective!
It's tattered and it's frayed
What about your Gods?
They're Defective!
They forgot the warranty
------------------------------------------------------------------
Homepage: http://www3.mistral.co.uk/xalan/
------------------------------------------------------------------
tetrahydrocannabinol
Xalan wrote in message <71lf5k$kv4$1...@starburst.uk.insnet.net>...
|There are only a fraction of drug related visits to an emergency dept.
|The majority of them only affect the person having taken the drug. The
|other few are those nutters who think it is OK to drive on drugs. Even
|grass affects your reactions.
Actually, a recent study in Australia concluded that people under the
influence of marijuana were less likely to be injured in an accident than
sober drivers, and MUCH less likely than drivers who had been drinking. The
people conducting the study concluded that people under the affects of
marijuana would compensate for the affects of the drug by being more
careful, and driving slower.
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com
<i.get...@hempseed.com> wrote:
>
>
>Considered by you. I do not know if they consider that a factor or not. But
>this is the only statistic I can find on death and alcohols relationsship to
>it. Why are you such a proponet of the goodnees of alcohol?
Who said I was? I merely pointed out that the statistic was crap. My
source was from the National Motorist Association @
http://www.motorists.com/
I agree with you that alcohol is a million times more deadly than MJ.
However quoting flawed statistics will not get you anywhere.
Did you know that 87.3% of all statistics are made up?
Michel Catudal
>
> If religion was a drug, would it be illegal?
>
Actually religion is a drug.
This is the drug of the poor
... et la drogue des pauvres d'esprit.
meaning also the drugs of the dummies.
pauvre d'esprit means being poor upstairs
A play with words.
--
Tired of Windows' rebootive multitasking?
then try Linux's preemptive multitasking
http://www.netonecom.net/~bbcat/
We have software, food, music, news, search,
history, electronics and genealogy pages.
Elroy Willis
> tetrahydrocannabinol <i.get...@hempseed.com> wrote:
>>TheCentralSc...@pobox.com wrote in message ...
>>|Not if the drunk was a rear seat passenger or simply sitting on a park
>>|bench. The alcohol had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the accident, yet
>>|the accident is marked up as being alcohol related.
>>"Alcohol is a FACTOR"
>How the fuck is alcohol a factor when a sleeping driver rams into a drunk
>passed out on a park bench?
I really wouldn't consider it a factor in such a case. But how often
do such accidents happen? I don't think a few such cases like this
being thrown in would skew the results all that much anyway, if they
are indeed included in the first place.
I think the point in this case is that alcohol causes heaps more
accidents than does cannabis, and I would challenge you to refute
it if you think you can. Or better yet, grab a 12 pack of your
favorite beer, I'll bring my ganja, and we'll have a little go around
the race track obstacle course. How's about it, eh?
--
Elroy
Elroy Willis
>e...@cyberramp.net says...
>>tetrahydrocannabinol wrote:
>>>Elroy Willis wrote:
>>>starvation,
>>Eh? It may be edible, but I don't think it can relieve starvation,
>>unless you mean as a means to make money by growing it, thereby
>>providing a means to buy food.
>The seeds are high in oil content and can be used as animal feed, certainly.
>Chickens might do very well on a diet that contained a good portion of
>hemp seed, for example.
I thought he was talking about human starvation and didn't think of it
as providing a food source for our eventual food, vegetarians excluded
of course.
I remember back in college I had a pet parakeet, and she loved hemp
seeds. I could just shake a bag of seeds and she'd come flying over
to me. That was back when most pot had seeds. Nowadays, she'd be
out of luck. She was also very fond of potato chips. I could rattle
a bad of chips, and she'd come out through the hole she had chewed
in the bamboo cage, and crunch on the chip in my hand. She lived all
4 years through college, but I suspect she had a high cholesterol
level.
Oh yeah, one more thing, kinda gross actually, but she loved eating
dried eye mucus from my roommates dog. No shit, this is really true.
It was a white samoid dog, and she always had little dried up pieces
of stuff around her eyes. We put my parakeet on the dog's head one
time, and she climbed down onto the dogs nose, and proceeded to
eat pieces of the stuff around the dogs eyes. I always kept my hands
clamped around the dogs mouth so my bird wouldn't get scarfed up,
but the dog never really caused a commotion. Heh, weird stuff.
Ah, the old college days, I miss em sometimes.
--
Elroy
Booster
wrote:
>
>If religion was a drug, would it be illegal?
>
>Take for example, speaking in tongues. It seems to be caused
>by a phenomenon going on in the brain, not by some invisible holy
>spirit. Now what if some pill or drug were available which when
>taken would render the taker a babbling tongue speaking idiot?
>
>First off one should question why anyone would want to take such
>a drug. Well, I can't answer that one, maybe a theist might be better
>able to answer this. But if such a drug were available, would it be
>available over the counter, by prescription, or illegal?
I wouldn't worry about it. Religion is more of a placebo then an
actual drug.
Shawn Allen Atheist #383
Boo...@dynasty.net.net <--spam foiler
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_
__|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____
_____|_____|_____|DEFEND_____|_____|_____|
__|_____|_____|____THE____|_____|_____|___
_____|_____|_____|_WALL|_____|_____|_____|
__|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____
Cronos02
Is this part of that 87.3%?
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com
>>Did you know that 87.3% of all statistics are made up?
>
>
>Is this part of that 87.3%?
yup. :-)
Jim McCarthy
wrote:
>
>If religion was a drug, would it be illegal?
>
Yes. It could never pass FDA safety and efficacy tests.
=====================================================
Jim McCarthy
a.a. #1337
BAAWA Page
Religion is for people who can't handle reality
=====================================================
Jim McCarthy
wrote:
What is your confidence interval? Are you 90% certain that 87.3% of
statistics are made up? More? Less? ;->
tetrahydrocannabinol
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227, any and
all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to
a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing
denotes acceptance of these terms.
|Why? Same precautions as mentioned above, and in experienced drivers who
|drive with unconscious competence (as one does with any repeated motor
|skill) the necessary cautions STILL FUNCTION despite being stoned. You
|still stop at red lights, you still give way to other traffic, etc.,
|you're far less likely to experience any distortions caused by 'road
|rage' or other forms of aggression, and you drive slower.
|
|Oh the fucking irony!! :)
No kidding :P
On a side note, I have been able to find early results in 5 out of 7
elections on medical marijuana. ALL results are positive results in that
they are passing the medical marijuana initiatives :)))
|
|Stix
|~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
|"And they laugh like soft, mad children,
|Smug in their willowy cotton brains of infancy."
|~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
tetrahydrocannabinol
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227, any and
all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to
a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing
denotes acceptance of these terms.
Stix wrote in message <364bd601...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
|tetrahydrocannabinol posted the following to alt.atheism:
|
|>Elroy Willis wrote:
|
|<snip>
|
|>|At least it would provide a better source for paper and even cloth
|>|products. I'm not sure about using it as a building material like
|>|wood is used. Can hemp be processed into plywood type products
|>|which can be used for construction?
|
|>not that Im aware of.
|
|Au contraire'. It most certainly CAN be pressed into particle-board type
|products which are, surprise, surprise, SUPERIOR to wood-chip particle
|board.
Could you cite sources for your information? I don't doubt you at all,
marijuana has been shown to be, by for, the most versitile plant known to
man. I had just never hear that before, and had considered myself rather
knowledgable in the ways of the weed :)
|Heh - the USS Constitution (the ship, not the document - although I
|might have fucked up the name since this is from memory) was sailed,
|rigged, and the crew dressed, almost exclusively with hemp. Some sixty
|five tons in all.
I was going to cite that little part of american history, but I wasn't sure
if it was the Constitution. I believe you are corret, however....
|George "I suck the cock of the war on drugs" Bush owes his miserable
|life to the hemp cords and harness of the parachute that stopped him
|from meeting mother Earth at somewhere around 120mph.
|
|That's one particular moment where I wish hemp had failed......
<sigh>
|And, unfortunately, the rest of the world tends to follow the example
|set by the US (and raped into the United Nations thingy by same) so
|whenever your lying government fucks gang bang the humble hemp plant in
|the arse yet again, the rest of the planet tends to line up with their
|pants down while poor MaryJane bites the pillow.......
Fortunatly other countries are getting smart, and starting to look into
legalization, or possible decriminalization of it. The Dutch are doing it,
and quite succesfully, I might add.
|Stix
|*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
|"Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
|*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
"In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be light.'
And there was light. There was still nothing, but you could see it a lot
better."
--Woody Allen
tetrahydrocannabinol
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227, any and
all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to
a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing
denotes acceptance of these terms.
Stix wrote in message <3646c2d9...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
Please note, these are all quotes, not by me, you may check the sources for
validity.
|I beg to differ. Although I'm willing to stand corrected if I'm wrong,
|I've yet to see any credible information that links cannabis to cancer
|or demonstrates that cannabis smoke is carcinogenic. Indeed, I think in
|the above sentence the word 'carcinogens' has mistakenly been used in
|place of 'tar'. While it's certainly true that cannabis smoke has the
|same if not *more* tar than tobacco, the tars are very, very different.
|Tobacco smoke has a radioactive half-life of, IIRC, about 21 years which
|is thought to be responsible for a sizeable chunk of tobacco cancers;
|cannabis does not. Nor does cannabis contain nicotine or the various
|heavy metals and other nasties present in tobacco smoke.
I had always heard that the amount of carcinigens were comparable. Although
I have also heard many studies which add that marijuana has chemicals in it
which provide aid in either healing or preventing some of the damage done by
the smoke.
|Fuck! A *light* cigarette smoker consumes more tobacco than a heavy
|cannabis smoker consumes cannabis! One cigarette contains about twenty
|inhalations of smoke. Twenty inhalations of cannabis smoke would just
|about put your ass to sleep, and even light cigarette smokers consume
|several cigarettes a day. How many tokes (inhalations) per day does even
|the heaviest dope smoker have? I'd wager it's a shitload less than the
|*two hundred* inhalations a ten-cigarette per day smoker sucks into his
|guts, and ten cigarettes a day is NOT heavy smoking.
Exactly. I'd guess a heavy marijuana smoker would smoke about 3 or 4 joints
a day while a heavy cigarette smoker would smoke 10 -15 times that much.
|(an anaesthetist once told me that the human body can deal with six
|cigarettes over a 24 hour period with negligible adverse effects,
|however that was only one anaesthetist's word and I've never bothered to
|confirm it so I don't espouse it as fact).
Thats intresting, I had never heard that before. I'd be intrested in
hearling more about studies on that subject.
|Cannabis is about as addictive as potato crisps. You like them, and you
|prefer to have them, but you don't suffer physical withdrawal if you run
|out of crisps -- unlike caffeine which produces flu-like withdrawal
|symptoms upon sudden cessation.
<nod>
|Agreed health-wise, but not with 'preferable'. The effects of orally
|ingested cannabis are unpredictable, take longer to work, and create a
|lethargy that is absent via inhalation. As a personal side-note, I've
|had one substance overdose in my life which was after ingesting a
|shitload of a rather potent 'bhang lassi' (cannabis milkshake) of my own
|concoction, and FUCK ME DRUNK, WAS THAT UNPLEASANT OR WHAT???
<nod>
|I knew I had nothing to worry about as far as death, physical damage, or
|other medical emergency was concerned, and I knew that it would
|eventually pass and that I had no option but to simply ride it out, but
|the experience sucked buttwater! My brother, on the other hand, had the
|same amount of the lassi, and although he was similarly drug-fucked he
|actually enjoyed the experience. Personally methinks the dose is simply
|too hard to measure or regulate via oral administration, especially
|considering the variety of different effects experienced seemingly
|irrespective of the various amounts consumed. I once ate 25 potent
|cookies and loved it. Another time I ate *three* cookies and spent the
|next four hours teetering on the edge of the bhang lassi nightmare. To
|each their own, certainly, but my general rule of thumb is to avoid oral
|cannabis. :)
Thats intresting. I wonder when someone will do studies on the results of
oraly ingested marijuana and substances with which it is ingested. Do
Brownies, cookies, milkshakes, teas, etc have diffrent effect on absorption
rates and or amounts?
|Ayup. For the average human the toxic dose is estimated at around SEVEN
|POUNDS -- and that's just to get sick! The lethal dose is estimated at
|something staggering like 1,500 *pounds* -- which is simply impossible
|to administer. Perhaps if you were inclined to drink a litre of hash oil
|you might succeed in offing yourself, but otherwise you can pretty well
|forget cannabis as a means of suicide. :)
Unlike tylonol, alcohol, and other easy to get legal drugs
|Viva cannabis prohibition! Yaaaaay!
I can see the little taco bell dog now....
"viva.... memosa!"
|Stix
|~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
|"Legalize Freedom."
|~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Where do you live man, we need to get together and ummm discuss legalization
:)
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
"Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the
exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and
these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or
with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those
whom they oppress."
-Frederick Douglass, African American Abolitionist, 1857
Stix
>If religion was a drug, would it be illegal?
Probably about as illegal as alcohol -- unless it diverted too much
attention away from the 'authority' of Big Brother. Then it'd be placed
on the Schedule 1 list, just like the other drugs that (can) catalyze
the realization that we're NOT merely cogs in the machine.....
>Take for example, speaking in tongues. It seems to be caused
>by a phenomenon going on in the brain, not by some invisible holy
>spirit. Now what if some pill or drug were available which when
>taken would render the taker a babbling tongue speaking idiot?
That question seems to rely on the assumption that prohibition is a
harm-reduction measure. It's not. Prohibition is to do with control and
profit, not with saving or protecting lives.
>First off one should question why anyone would want to take such
>a drug.
<shrug>
Same reason some people like to experience, for example, ego-death with
other substances -- for the sake of the experience. Although, I suspect
a religio-pill would have a HUGE margin of abuse due to people believing
the experience to be real as opposed to induced (same thing happens with
psychedelics - some people forget that the experience isn't real).
> Well, I can't answer that one, maybe a theist might be better
>able to answer this. But if such a drug were available, would it be
>available over the counter, by prescription, or illegal?
Depends which option Big Brother thought would provide them the greatest
gain in terms of profit, power, and popularity.
Prohibition is an immoral hoax. Anyone who supports it is a sucker.
Stix
>Cronos02 wrote:
>|Whats with the if? It is a drug.
>| Religion makes you see things that arn't there
>|(Jesus, virgin mary,etc.) just like shrooms does.
>| People enjoying doing it just like any other drug.
>| It's dangerous to people
>| It fucks up the mind.
Religion, yes. But don't buy into the prohibition-machine's propaganda
about other substances being inherently harmful. There's much more to it
than meets the eye.
>Yes, but It would be totally legal, since religion is such a high profit
>industry.
If it made people believe strongly that the induced religious
experiences were an authority over and above Big Brother, it'd be
slandered from asshole to breakfast-time and banned in a heartbeat. The
mainstream media would be full of misinformation showing only negative
effects, such as loonies who'd taken one too many religio-pills braying
at the moon or whatever. Same 'ol, same 'ol.
> Why do you think Alcohol is legal, while marijuana (which is
>thousands of times less harmful) is not? It all comes down to money.
Money and control.
> The alcohol corporations pay big money to the government officials to keep
>marijuana illegal (among other things) since marijuana would be a great
>threat to the alcohol industry.
Prohibition also creates room for bogus livelihoods - cite the FBN
(Federal Bureau of Narcotics) for example.
As soon as a substance is forced underground a black market arises which
exponentially increases prices (leading to crime) removes all quality
control (leading to impure, uncertain, and often fraudulent versions of
the desired substance), and usually creates an 'information dichotomy'
where people hear information that is either negatively or positively
biased, rather than objective. For would-be users, such misinformation
often results in a gung-ho dismissal of all negative information, an
erroneous acceptance (or rationalization) of the positive information,
ignorant experimentation, and a shitload of unnecessary deaths. For
rhetoric-swallowing suckers, such misinformation often leads to a ride
on the prohibition bandwagon and the demonization of anyone who dares to
speak positively about the substance in question.
Voila! The prohibition machine can then allocate endless funds to the
various anti-whatever agencies they instate, and make a big noise about
'fixing' the problems they themselves have created. Distraught relatives
of loved ones who have died from substance abuse pour emotive fuel into
the propaganda pyre, demanding an end to the senseless waste of life
they believe is the fault of the substance itself, and politicians
springboard off the grief with promises to step-up the fight or bring an
end to the 'drug problem'. Meanwhile prices continue to rise, crime
continues to escalate, dealers grow increasingly violent as they vie for
a more profitable position on the black market ladder, substances become
more and more dangerous as more people are lured into the trade by the
'easy' profits, and users continue to die.
Round and round it goes.
>but I digress, religionol would be legal, and probably given to children, to
>begin a lifelong dependency and addiction.
As long as it had just the right amount of another ingredient
'obeybigbrother-amine' to ensure all users remained unquestioningly
obedient to authority. Otherwise it'd go the same way as peyote,
cannabis, magic mushrooms, LSD, MDMA et al - banned and criminalized.
Stix
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"Question authority."
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Stix
>>Yes, but It would be totally legal, since religion is such a high profit
>>industry. Why do you think Alcohol is legal, while marijuana (which is
>>thousands of times less harmful) is not?
>Marijuana less harmful then Alcohol? are you sure about that?
*Absolutely*. For a start there's no known lethal dose of THC, and THC
metabolites are less toxic than the metabolites produced from the food
you eat. Alcohol, on the other hand, is toxic to every single organ in
the body -- small wonder, considering the body 'sees' no difference
between alcohol and paint thinners.
And here's a hair-curler: Marijuana's natural cannabinoid constituents
appear to exert neuroprotective effects that reliably forestall
permanent nerve damage in lab animals subjected to cerebral stroke and
surgical shock. When fetal rat-brain neurons were infused with highly
corrosive "oxidative" nerve toxins like glutamate and peroxide, then
bathed in marijuana's two most active cannabinoids, THC and CBD
(tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol, respectively), the toxicity of
the nerve poisons was greatly reduced due to antioxidant properties of
THC and CBD.
The antioxidant properties are more powerful than vitamin C and vitamin
E, and since they readily enter the brain after ingestion they may be of
unique importance in preventing damage to the central nervous system.
For example, in cases of concussion or stroke, nerve-cell death is
caused by the release of toxic glutamate in the brain due to an
obstruction of the brain's oxygen supply, but if cannabinoids are
administered within an hour they can prevent cell necrosis by arresting
the action of glutamate in critical nerve-cell receptor sites.
But that's not all. Parkinson's and Alzheimer's syndromes are
oxygen-mediated brain diseases which may be preventatively forestalled
by cannabinoids in the same way -- likewise other oxidative neurological
conditions such as meningitis, arthritis and AIDS-dementia, which
involve an inflammatory body chemical called TNF-a (tumour necrosis
factor alpha), known to be suppressed by cannabinoids.
Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it. :)
Stix
<snip to particular points of interest>
>Smoked marijuana contains about the same amount of carcinogens as does an
>equivalent amount of tobacco.
I beg to differ. Although I'm willing to stand corrected if I'm wrong,
I've yet to see any credible information that links cannabis to cancer
or demonstrates that cannabis smoke is carcinogenic. Indeed, I think in
the above sentence the word 'carcinogens' has mistakenly been used in
place of 'tar'. While it's certainly true that cannabis smoke has the
same if not *more* tar than tobacco, the tars are very, very different.
Tobacco smoke has a radioactive half-life of, IIRC, about 21 years which
is thought to be responsible for a sizeable chunk of tobacco cancers;
cannabis does not. Nor does cannabis contain nicotine or the various
heavy metals and other nasties present in tobacco smoke.
> It should be remembered, however, that a heavy
>tobacco smoker consumes much more tobacco than a heavy marijuana smoker
>consumes marijuana.
Fuck! A *light* cigarette smoker consumes more tobacco than a heavy
cannabis smoker consumes cannabis! One cigarette contains about twenty
inhalations of smoke. Twenty inhalations of cannabis smoke would just
about put your ass to sleep, and even light cigarette smokers consume
several cigarettes a day. How many tokes (inhalations) per day does even
the heaviest dope smoker have? I'd wager it's a shitload less than the
*two hundred* inhalations a ten-cigarette per day smoker sucks into his
guts, and ten cigarettes a day is NOT heavy smoking.
(an anaesthetist once told me that the human body can deal with six
cigarettes over a 24 hour period with negligible adverse effects,
however that was only one anaesthetist's word and I've never bothered to
confirm it so I don't espouse it as fact).
> This is because smoked tobacco, with a 90% addiction
>rate, is the most addictive of all drugs while marijuana is less addictive
>than caffeine.
Cannabis is about as addictive as potato crisps. You like them, and you
prefer to have them, but you don't suffer physical withdrawal if you run
out of crisps -- unlike caffeine which produces flu-like withdrawal
symptoms upon sudden cessation.
>[...] The second is that, if marijuana were legal, it would be more economical to have
>cannabis drinks like bhang (a traditional drink in the Middle East) or tea
>which are totally non-carcinogenic.
Agreed health-wise, but not with 'preferable'. The effects of orally
ingested cannabis are unpredictable, take longer to work, and create a
lethargy that is absent via inhalation. As a personal side-note, I've
had one substance overdose in my life which was after ingesting a
shitload of a rather potent 'bhang lassi' (cannabis milkshake) of my own
concoction, and FUCK ME DRUNK, WAS THAT UNPLEASANT OR WHAT???
I knew I had nothing to worry about as far as death, physical damage, or
other medical emergency was concerned, and I knew that it would
eventually pass and that I had no option but to simply ride it out, but
the experience sucked buttwater! My brother, on the other hand, had the
same amount of the lassi, and although he was similarly drug-fucked he
actually enjoyed the experience. Personally methinks the dose is simply
too hard to measure or regulate via oral administration, especially
considering the variety of different effects experienced seemingly
irrespective of the various amounts consumed. I once ate 25 potent
cookies and loved it. Another time I ate *three* cookies and spent the
next four hours teetering on the edge of the bhang lassi nightmare. To
each their own, certainly, but my general rule of thumb is to avoid oral
cannabis. :)
>No one has ever died of a marijuana overdose... Animal tests have revealed
>that extremely high doses of cannabinoids are needed to have lethal effect.
>This has led scientists to conclude that the ratio of the amount of
>cannabinoids necessary to get a person intoxicated (i.e., stoned) relative
>to the amount necessary to kill them is 1 to 40,000. In other words, to
>overdose, you would have to consume 40,000 times as much marijuana as you
>needed to get stoned.
Ayup. For the average human the toxic dose is estimated at around SEVEN
POUNDS -- and that's just to get sick! The lethal dose is estimated at
something staggering like 1,500 *pounds* -- which is simply impossible
to administer. Perhaps if you were inclined to drink a litre of hash oil
you might succeed in offing yourself, but otherwise you can pretty well
forget cannabis as a means of suicide. :)
> In contrast, the ratio for alcohol varies between 1 to
>4 and 1 to 10. It is easy to see how upwards of 5000 people die from alcohol
>overdoses every year and no one EVER dies of marijuana overdoses.
Let's not forget the plethora of deaths from prescription medications,
and that tobacco kills more than 400,000 Americans annually.
And we haven't even touched on the myriad of non-drug uses of the much
maligned Indian Hemp plant.
Viva cannabis prohibition! Yaaaaay!
<spit>
Stix
>Incredible. i wonder why those Drug free people at school don't mention this?
Because they're either ignorant, or they have an agenda.
JUST SAY NO - to misinformation.
Stix
>Xalan wrote:
>|There are only a fraction of drug related visits to an emergency dept.
>|The majority of them only affect the person having taken the drug. The
>|other few are those nutters who think it is OK to drive on drugs. Even
>|grass affects your reactions.
>Actually, a recent study in Australia concluded that people under the
>influence of marijuana were less likely to be injured in an accident than
>sober drivers, and MUCH less likely than drivers who had been drinking. The
>people conducting the study concluded that people under the affects of
>marijuana would compensate for the affects of the drug by being more
>careful, and driving slower.
Yup. And the less-publicized bit is that stoned drivers tend to be safer
drivers than PEOPLE WHO ARE STONE-COLD SOBER.
Get that?
Why? Same precautions as mentioned above, and in experienced drivers who
drive with unconscious competence (as one does with any repeated motor
skill) the necessary cautions STILL FUNCTION despite being stoned. You
still stop at red lights, you still give way to other traffic, etc.,
you're far less likely to experience any distortions caused by 'road
rage' or other forms of aggression, and you drive slower.
Oh the fucking irony!! :)
Stix
<snip>
>Those whose paychecks depend on the War On Drugs (tm) hate these
>studies - they induce profound levels of cognitive dissonance :-)
Oh it's even worse than that. In the US, no studies into cannabis are
government funded *unless the study is pursuing negative results*.
Stix
>>tetrahydrocannabinol wrote:
>>>starvation,
>>Eh? It may be edible, but I don't think it can relieve starvation,
>>unless you mean as a means to make money by growing it, thereby
>>providing a means to buy food.
>The seeds are high in oil content and can be used as animal feed, certainly.
>Chickens might do very well on a diet that contained a good portion of
>hemp seed, for example.
Hemp seeds are the second most 'complete' vegetable protein source on
the planet, containing eight essential amino acids, and are better for
human consumption than soybeans (which are the first most 'complete')
because their protein potential can be better utilized by the human
body. Coupled with the enormous seed-plant ratio produced when grown
explicitly for seed, the short crop cycle, and that hemp can be grown on
marginal land (with a neat fibre production side market), it can indeed
help alleviate starvation. Why isn't it used?
Why, because it's illegal!
Kinda brings new meaning to 'Reefer Madness' doesn't it?
Stix
>Elroy Willis wrote:
<snip>
>|At least it would provide a better source for paper and even cloth
>|products. I'm not sure about using it as a building material like
>|wood is used. Can hemp be processed into plywood type products
>|which can be used for construction?
>not that Im aware of.
Au contraire'. It most certainly CAN be pressed into particle-board type
products which are, surprise, surprise, SUPERIOR to wood-chip particle
board.
> Unless it can be woven. Hemp plants grow like tall
>weeds. It as an all green plant, grows to 8-10 feet tall, and has a stalk
>thats about an inch or 2 thick. Hemp is more breathable than cotton, and
>hemp produces the strongest rope. And of Course the first draft of the
>constitution was written on hemp paper, George Washington and other early
>amercian presidents grew it and smoked it...
Heh - the USS Constitution (the ship, not the document - although I
might have fucked up the name since this is from memory) was sailed,
rigged, and the crew dressed, almost exclusively with hemp. Some sixty
five tons in all.
George "I suck the cock of the war on drugs" Bush owes his miserable
life to the hemp cords and harness of the parachute that stopped him
from meeting mother Earth at somewhere around 120mph.
That's one particular moment where I wish hemp had failed......
>Recently the citizens of Washinton DC gathered enough petitions to get
>medical marijuana on the ballot for this election. The congress then quickly
>passed anti-spending laws on marijuana so that the vote would be counted,
>but not count. So even if the people voted to pass measure 59 in DC, it
>would not become law. This is just the surface, there is also the 46 million
>thats being spent developing a fungus that will ONLY attack the marijuana
>and poppy plant. This project sounds like a really bad idea.
And, unfortunately, the rest of the world tends to follow the example
set by the US (and raped into the United Nations thingy by same) so
whenever your lying government fucks gang bang the humble hemp plant in
the arse yet again, the rest of the planet tends to line up with their
pants down while poor MaryJane bites the pillow.......
Stix
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: Cronos02 posted the following to alt.atheism:
: >Marijuana less harmful then Alcohol? are you sure about that?
Aw, jeez, Cronos -- *now* you've done it...
[major snippage -- this is what happens when you get Stix started]
--
****************************************************************
Men think epilepsy divine merely because they do not
understand it. But if they called everything divine
which they do not understand, why, there would be no
end of divine things.
- Hippocrates of Cos
****************************************************************
Mr Douglas, Pstychologist
Stix <st...@BAAWA.com.au> wrote in article
<364ad31b...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
Damn, you guys are making me think about growing the stuff!
I will attest to it's high seeding rate, Hemp was grown here (Iowa,
USA) legally during the world war era, for rope manufacturing. The
bloody stuff is still around, growing wild in ditches and any unmowed
fields, despite efforts in the 70's to eradicate it. Now, before you
book a flight to Iowa, I should say that this is not the stuff that
can get you high, but rather, using the stixian rating system, it
should be considered "200 hit shit". But hey, you could reap a ton
in a day, so maybe if you had a reason to tone down your local
variety, you would still be interested.. I would just as soon be rid
of it, it's quite a problem in places.
I wish they would legalize it for growing, even though I've never
used it. It would do much to legitimize the idea of 'freedom to
farm' which is our country's idea of an answer to subsidies.
Would end much of the current 'farm crisis'.
--
#8^D BAAWA Scribe #1
aa1119
Living one's life for what may be after death is like passing
up sex because you want to see the lottery drawing.
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com
>I've yet to see any credible information that links cannabis to cancer
>or demonstrates that cannabis smoke is carcinogenic. Indeed, I think in
>the above sentence the word 'carcinogens' has mistakenly been used in
>place of 'tar'. While it's certainly true that cannabis smoke has the
>same if not *more* tar than tobacco, the tars are very, very different.
>Tobacco smoke has a radioactive half-life of, IIRC, about 21 years which
>is thought to be responsible for a sizeable chunk of tobacco cancers;
>cannabis does not. Nor does cannabis contain nicotine or the various
>heavy metals and other nasties present in tobacco smoke.
>
I read somewhere that researchers had found exactly what gene gets damages
by tobacco and how it causes lunch cancer. They'd also found several
chemical compounds that damaged that gene segment.
Cannabis hasn't this chemical nor is there any correlation between heavy
cannabis smoking and lung cancer.
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com
>I've yet to see any credible information that links cannabis to cancer
>or demonstrates that cannabis smoke is carcinogenic. Indeed, I think in
>the above sentence the word 'carcinogens' has mistakenly been used in
>place of 'tar'. While it's certainly true that cannabis smoke has the
I read somewhere that researchers had found exactly what gene gets damaged
by tobacco and how it causes lung cancer. They'd also found several
chemical compounds in tobacco smoke that damaged that gene segment.
Cronos02
Eric Gunnerson
>Cronos02 posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
>>>Yes, but It would be totally legal, since religion is such a high profit
>>>industry. Why do you think Alcohol is legal, while marijuana (which is
>>>thousands of times less harmful) is not?
>
>
>metabolites are less toxic than the metabolites produced from the food
>you eat. Alcohol, on the other hand, is toxic to every single organ in
>the body -- small wonder, considering the body 'sees' no difference
>between alcohol and paint thinners.
It's really quite interesting to study a bit of the history behind Marijuana
prohibition in the US. It's a wonderful example of "The Big Lie"
In other news, voters in Arizona, Nevada, and Washington state approved
initiatives allowing the medical use of marijuana. The District of Columbia
also had such a referendum, but unfortunately the will of the people means
little in DC, and district officials have kept the results of the vote
secret because congress has forbidden that such a vote take place.
Frank Wustner
(snip stuff about hemp)
> Damn, you guys are making me think about growing the stuff!
It should be grown. It is an extremely useful plant, as Stix and the
others pointed out, and it would create some much-needed competition
for certain other industries.
> I will attest to it's high seeding rate, Hemp was grown here (Iowa,
> USA) legally during the world war era, for rope manufacturing. The
> bloody stuff is still around, growing wild in ditches and any unmowed
> fields, despite efforts in the 70's to eradicate it. Now, before you
> book a flight to Iowa, I should say that this is not the stuff that
> can get you high, but rather, using the stixian rating system, it
> should be considered "200 hit shit". But hey, you could reap a ton
> in a day, so maybe if you had a reason to tone down your local
> variety, you would still be interested.. I would just as soon be rid
> of it, it's quite a problem in places.
> I wish they would legalize it for growing, even though I've never
> used it. It would do much to legitimize the idea of 'freedom to
> farm' which is our country's idea of an answer to subsidies.
> Would end much of the current 'farm crisis'.
This isn't the stuff that is smoked, FYI. The hemp we're talking about
is a relative of the marijuana plant that does not have the intoxicants
that can be found in marijuana. You could smoke hemp continuously for
the rest of you're life and you'd never get stoned.
--
The Deadly Nightshade
http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade
|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|"I, too, believe in fate... |"Ack. Thpppbt." Bill the Cat |
|the fate a man makes for himself." |-----------------------------------|
|Lord Soth | Atheist #119 |
|-----------------------------------| Knight of BAAWA! |
|"Quoth the raven, 'Eat my shorts!'"|-----------------------------------|
|Edgar Allan Bart | niteshade(at)mindspring(dot)com |
|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
tetrahydrocannabinol
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227, any and
all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to
a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing
denotes acceptance of these terms.
Cronos02 wrote in message <19981104154338...@ng76.aol.com>...
|I keep hearing all this good stuff about weed so why the fuck isn't it
legal?
good question. To understand this question you have to look to the events
leading up to it's prohibition in 1937.... Basically, it all boils down to
money and power. Here is a link to a page that could explain it much better
than I could here...
http://www.parascope.com/mx/hempin.htm
and here's the main page, which has a great hemp time line, and other
information, although some of it is a bit outdated....
http://www.parascope.com/articles/0897/cannabisindex.htm
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
I have plenty more links, if you have any interest, tell me what you want to
know about weed, and I can link you too it :) Anything from learning why
drug tests are anti-constitutional, to a recipe for some good brownies ;)
tetrahydrocannabinol
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227, any and
all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to
a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing
denotes acceptance of these terms.
Eric Gunnerson wrote in message <71qhjn$d...@news.dns.microsoft.com>...
Exit poles showed Init 59 in DC winning by 69%
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
Frank Wustner
> I keep hearing all this good stuff about weed so why the fuck isn't it legal?
You have to ask? It all comes down to someone's wallet.
Alcohol industries do NOT want their customers to have the alternative
of marijuana. Their profits would get shafted. So they lobby the govt.
with billion$ to keep marijuana on the restricted list. The govt., not
wanting to lose those billion$, goes along with it and spreads reams of
blatant lies and misinformation about weed to fool the public into going
along with it. In the process, their misinformation industry becomes
worth billion$ in itself, and they want to keep THAT money as well. So
now the govt. ALSO has a strong motivation to keep marijuana on the
restricted list.
Fish
alt.atheism:
[snip]
> I read somewhere that researchers had found exactly what gene gets damages
> by tobacco and how it causes lunch cancer. They'd also found several
> chemical compounds that damaged that gene segment.
> Cannabis hasn't this chemical nor is there any correlation between heavy
> cannabis smoking and lung cancer.
Sorry, not convincing. As much as we would like such news to be
true, we cannot regard it as true until some evidence is offered
in its favor.
Can you find where you read this? Which scientific journal? Can
you provide where/when the study was done and by whom?
Thanks.
--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
Alt.Atheism #623
fi...@infidels.org.god
(remove "god" to reply by email)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"Fools speak because they have to say
something, but a wise man speaks because
he has something to say." -- Confucius
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
tetrahydrocannabinol
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227, any and
all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to
a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing
denotes acceptance of these terms.
Cronos02 wrote in message <19981104205333...@ng128.aol.com>...
|Hey I used to have the recipe for those brownies but I lost it awhile age
give
|me some links.
here's a good one :)
http://www.hyperreal.org/drugs/marijuana/usage/index.html
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
tetrahydrocannabinol
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227, any and
all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to
a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing
denotes acceptance of these terms.
Fish wrote in message ...
|TheCentralSc...@pobox.com posted the following to
|alt.atheism:
|
|[snip]
|
|> I read somewhere that researchers had found exactly what gene gets
damages
|> by tobacco and how it causes lunch cancer. They'd also found several
|> chemical compounds that damaged that gene segment.
|
|> Cannabis hasn't this chemical nor is there any correlation between heavy
|> cannabis smoking and lung cancer.
|
|Sorry, not convincing. As much as we would like such news to be
|true, we cannot regard it as true until some evidence is offered
|in its favor.
|
|Can you find where you read this? Which scientific journal? Can
|you provide where/when the study was done and by whom?
Here is a little snipit from
http://www.health.gov.au/hfs/pubs/drug/cannab2/ch1.htm it's a government
site, but It seems that it's a good report of all scientific studies. I
could not read the whole thing, so if it is found to be biased, please tell
me.
Cellular effects and the immune system
There is reasonably consistent evidence that some cannabinoids, most
especially THC, can produce a variety of cellular changes, such as
alterations to cell metabolism, and DNA synthesis, in vitro (i.e. in
the test tube). There is stronger and more consistent evidence that
cannabis smoke is mutagenic in vitro, and in vivo (i.e. in live
animals), and hence, that it is potentially carcinogenic. If cannabis
smoke is carcinogenic then it is probably for the same reasons that
cigarette smoke is, rather than because it contains cannabinoids.
Hence, if chronic cannabis smoking causes cancer, it is most likely to
develop after long-term exposure at those sites which receive maximum
exposure, namely, the lung and upper aerodigestive tract (see below).
There is reasonably consistent evidence that cannabinoids impair both
the cell-mediated and humoral immune systems in rodents. Humoral
immune suppression is seen in decreased antibody formation responses
to antigens, and decreased lymphocyte response to B-cell mitogens.
Cell-mediated immune suppression is revealed by a reduction in
lymphocyte response to T-cell mitogens. These changes have produced
decreased resistance to infection by a bacteria and a virus. There is
also evidence that the non-cannabinoid components of cannabis smoke
impair the functioning of alveolar macrophages, the first line of the
body's defense system in the lungs. The clinical relevance of these
findings is uncertain, however. The doses required to produce these
effects have generally been very high, and the problem of
extrapolating to the effects of doses used by humans is complicated by
the possibility that tolerance may also develop to such effects.
The limited experimental and clinical evidence in humans is mixed,
with a small number of studies suggesting adverse effects that have
not been replicated by others. At present, there is no conclusive
evidence that consumption of cannabinoids predisposes man to immune
dysfunction, as measured by reduced numbers or impaired functioning of
T-lymphocytes, B-lymphocytes or macrophages, or reduced immunoglobulin
levels. There is suggestive evidence that THC impairs T-lymphocyte
responses to mitogens and allogenic lymphocytes.
The clinical and biological significance of these possible
immunological impairments in chronic cannabis users is uncertain. To
date there has been no epidemiological, or even anecdotal, evidence of
increased rates of disease among chronic heavy cannabis users, such as
was seen among young homosexual men in the early 1980s when the
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome was first recognised. There is one
large prospective study of HIV-positive homosexual men which indicates
that continued cannabis use did not increase the risk of progression
to AIDS. Given the duration of large-scale cannabis use by young
adults in Western societies, the absence of any epidemics of
infectious disease makes it unlikely that cannabis smoking produces
major impairments in the immune system.
It is more difficult to exclude the possibility that chronic heavy
cannabis use produces a minor impairment in immunity. Such an effect
would be manifest in small increases in the rate of occurrence of
common bacterial and viral illnesses among chronic users which could
have escaped detection in the few studies that have attempted to
address the issue. Such an increase could nonetheless be of public
health significance because of the increased expenditure on health
services, and the loss of productivity that it would cause among the
young adults who are the heaviest users of cannabis.
The possibility that cannabinoids may produce minor impairments in the
immune system would also raise doubts about the therapeutic usefulness
of cannabinoids in immunologically compromised patients, such as those
undergoing cancer chemotherapy, or those with AIDS. AIDS patients may
provide one of the best populations in which to detect any such
effects. If it was ethical to conduct clinical trials of cannabinoids
to improve appetite and well-being in AIDS patients, then studies of
the impact of cannabis use on their compromised immune systems would
provide one way of evaluating the seriousness of this concern.
Here is the main page from which i linked this information:
http://www.health.gov.au/hfs/pubs/drug/cannab2/home.htm
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
tetrahydrocannabinol
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227, any and
all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to
a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing
denotes acceptance of these terms.
Cronos02 wrote in message <19981104205551...@ng128.aol.com>...
|>You have to ask? It all comes down to someone's wallet.
|>
|>Alcohol industries do NOT want their customers to have the alternative
|>of marijuana. Their profits would get shafted. So they lobby the govt.
|>with billion$ to keep marijuana on the restricted list. The govt., not
|>wanting to lose those billion$, goes along with it and spreads reams of
|>blatant lies and misinformation about weed to fool the public into going
|>along with it. In the process, their misinformation industry becomes
|>worth billion$ in itself, and they want to keep THAT money as well. So
|>now the govt. ALSO has a strong motivation to keep marijuana on the
|>restricted list.
|
|
|Why not they tax the hell outta of it? Then they could make even more
money.
Well there are a couple reasons, but the ones that stand out are...
1. Pride.
Our government has the hardest time admitting they were wrong. Look how long
it took us to get out of Vietnam. There are other examples of course, but
the fact is that the US started the war on drugs, and then it become global
policy. Now the UN is a large prohibitionist group who keep rule over UN
nations with intimidation and fear tactics. I am guessing that the
bullheaded stupidity and pride of this country will mean that we will be the
last to really realize how foolish prohibition really is.
2. money
If making billions and billions as we are, why change things? Prohibition is
quite a business, and as Frank pointed out, the govt. makes it's money from
several different areas. Also, hundreds of thousands of people's paychecks
depend on the drug war. This is a government that takes care of it's own
before the public.
Marijuana myths and facts...
http://www.drugtext.org/sub/marmyt1.html
This is one of my favorite sites with information on just about every aspect
of marijuana....
http://www.cannabis.com/
And this is my homepage...
http://www.marijuananews.com
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
"If ye value wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in
peace. We seek not your council nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand
that feeds you, May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity
forget ye were our countrymen."
-Samuel Adams
tetrahydrocannabinol
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227, any and
all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to
a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing
denotes acceptance of these terms.
Elroy Willis wrote in message <364e2f88...@news.cyberramp.net>...
|I've thought of this, and I'd be willing to pay a hefty tax, just as I
|do on beer or cigarettes. But this brings up the subject of allowing
|someone to grow cannabis in their home. Is it illegal to grow your
|own tobacco? Is it illegal to brew your own beer in small quantities?
Ahhh but that's the problem. Not too many people would buy it... the more
lazy pot smokers would, but marijuana is exactly what some people call it, a
weed. This meens it can grow anywhere, in poor soil, foul weather and it
grows quickly to boot. Marijuana is the number 1 cash crop in the US, and,
while this might change, closet growers would probably just move their
plants outside once legalized.
|Even with all the recent voting on medical use of cannabis being
|allowed, what is this doing for people who want to grow a plant or
|two in their home, for personal use? Not for medical reasons, but
|for simple personal use, like brewing one's own beer? Making it
|just a misdemeanor for having possession of a certain quantity?
|Well, it beats a felony rap I guess, but I just wonder if the day will
|ever come when people can grow cannabis unrestricted by any
|ridiculous laws. Wish on I suppose.
I think it will come. I dont know if it'll be soon, but i feel it will. The
passage of all these medical marijuana laws are just a start. With them
comes more passages of MM laws, more research, and more of the old lies
debunked. Most importantly, instead of being in the closet, marijuana and
it's users can begin to come out of the closet and the public will be made
more aware of the truth, which I feel will ultimatly lead to legalization.
|--
|Elroy
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
tetrahydrocannabinol
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227, any and
all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to
a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing
denotes acceptance of these terms.
Cronos02 wrote in message <19981104204817...@ng128.aol.com>...
|Well if hemp don't get you stoned why arn't we making shit outta it?
heh you see, hemp has, on average, .03% THC content, while marijuana has
3-20% THC content. Now here's the best part, since they are basically the
same plant, the government bans then both! Like god, the government defies
logic.
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
Frank Wustner
> >This isn't the stuff that is smoked, FYI. The hemp we're talking about
> >is a relative of the marijuana plant that does not have the intoxicants
> >that can be found in marijuana. You could smoke hemp continuously for
> >the rest of you're life and you'd never get stoned.
> Well if hemp don't get you stoned why arn't we making shit outta it?
Because if we did, various indrusties would have to deal with...gasp!...
*competition*!!! So these various industries have lobbied the US govt.
to declare hemp on par with marijuana and have it banned.
Cronos02
Cronos02
>know about weed, and I can link you too it :) Anything from learning why
>drug tests are anti-constitutional, to a recipe for some good brownies ;)
>
>
Hey I used to have the recipe for those brownies but I lost it awhile age give
me some links.
Cronos02
Elroy Willis
I've thought of this, and I'd be willing to pay a hefty tax, just as I
do on beer or cigarettes. But this brings up the subject of allowing
someone to grow cannabis in their home. Is it illegal to grow your
own tobacco? Is it illegal to brew your own beer in small quantities?
Even with all the recent voting on medical use of cannabis being
allowed, what is this doing for people who want to grow a plant or
two in their home, for personal use? Not for medical reasons, but
for simple personal use, like brewing one's own beer? Making it
just a misdemeanor for having possession of a certain quantity?
Well, it beats a felony rap I guess, but I just wonder if the day will
ever come when people can grow cannabis unrestricted by any
ridiculous laws. Wish on I suppose.
--
Elroy
Elroy Willis
>Elroy Willis posted the following to alt.atheism:
>>If religion was a drug, would it be illegal?
>Probably about as illegal as alcohol -- unless it diverted too much
>attention away from the 'authority' of Big Brother. Then it'd be placed
>on the Schedule 1 list, just like the other drugs that (can) catalyze
>the realization that we're NOT merely cogs in the machine.....
>>Take for example, speaking in tongues. It seems to be caused
>>by a phenomenon going on in the brain, not by some invisible holy
>>spirit. Now what if some pill or drug were available which when
>>taken would render the taker a babbling tongue speaking idiot?
>That question seems to rely on the assumption that prohibition is a
>harm-reduction measure. It's not. Prohibition is to do with control and
>profit, not with saving or protecting lives.
In the case of speaking in tongues, how would it be deemed
harmful or not? What do you think the criteria would be?
I was watching a religious show the other night for fun and disgust
value, and the preacher was babbling on and on about the holy spirit
and it being able to allow people to speak in tongues. I started
thinking if some drug could reproduce the effects of this, then
what would be the outcome? A communion wafer mickey?
>>First off one should question why anyone would want to take such
>>a drug.
><shrug>
>Same reason some people like to experience, for example, ego-death with
>other substances -- for the sake of the experience. Although, I suspect
>a religio-pill would have a HUGE margin of abuse due to people believing
>the experience to be real as opposed to induced (same thing happens with
>psychedelics - some people forget that the experience isn't real).
Perhaps those revelation writers were indeed on magic mushrooms.
--
Elroy
maff91
>I keep hearing all this good stuff about weed so why the fuck isn't it legal?
Forbidden fruit is always sweeter. So politicians are doing the
marketing for the drug lords.
*****************************************************
"Science is the true theology" -- Thomas Paine
(as quoted in Emerson: The Mind on Fire page 153)
"The Age of Paine" by Jon Katz
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.05/paine.html
*****************************************************
tetrahydrocannabinol
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227, any and
all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to
a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing
denotes acceptance of these terms.
Cronos, wanna here another scary true government story?
Source USA Today US
Contact edi...@usatoday.com
Website http//www.usatoday.com/news/nfront.htm
Copyright 1998 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Author Gary Fields, USA TODAY
Pubdate Thur, 22 Oct 1998
U.S. MIGHT ENLIST FUNGI IN DRUG WAR
WASHINGTON - U.S. researchers are using genetic engineering to create
strains of fungi that will destroy opium poppies and coca plants, Rep.
Bill McCollum confirmed Wednesday.
They'll receive 23 million to continue research as part of the 500
billion spending bill approved Wednesday in the Senate and signed by
President Clinton. The vote was 65-29.
McCollum, R-Fla., who co-wrote the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination
Act, said the research on the coca and poppy fungi is in the advanced
stages. It is expected to be finished in about a year.
This is something on the cusp of being successful, McCollum said.
The two plants being targeted are processed into highly addictive drugs
Opium poppies into heroin and coca plants into cocaine.
The money also will allow research to begin on a fungus that could be
used to eliminate marijuana plants.
If successful, the Department of Agriculture's research could
dramatically alter eradication efforts. The fungi would kill plants and
prevent new ones.
Currently, anti-drug forces cut down plants and burn fields as one of
the primary eradication methods.
The United States would need permission from other countries to use the
fungi, but McCollum said the concept has support from Bolivia, Colombia
and Peru.
X.B. Yang, a plant pathologist at Iowa State University who works on
creating biological ways of controlling weeds, says certain fungi only
attack specific plants.
He says researchers look for the most aggressive, toxic fungi to attack
menacing plants. They also seek fungi that can be reproduced
industrially.
It is definitely a silver bullet in the drug war, he says.
Researchers are concerned, however, that land treated with the fungi
would be poisoned.
Charles Mazza, a horticulturist at Cornell University, says research
projects such as the eradication project take years. If a project is
rushed, all kinds of things can happen.
"One year a fungus might be promising, and the next year it might leap
over into a corn field. Thats why you do research for years. It has to
be tested every step of the way."
Friday, 23 October 1998
Fungus Eyed As Drug Crop Killer
-------------------------------
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Agricultural scientists are working on a project
that some government officials and members of Congress expect to be the
``silver bullet'' in the prolonged search for a way to eradicate
narcotics plants.
As a bonus, the proponents say the process is environmentally safe and
will harm neither humans nor animals.
Acting without the administration's blessing, Congress approved as part
of the overall budget package $23 million for further research into what
are known as ``mycoherbicides,'' soilborne fungi capable of eradicating
plants that provide the raw material for cocaine, heroin and marijuana.
The Clinton administration is far from unanimous about the innovation.
Skeptics say more testing must be done and that winning the support of
governments of drug-producing South American countries --Colombia, Peru
and Bolivia-- will not be easy. None has been briefed extensively, and
none has taken a public position on the question.
The administration will get to sound out Colombian President Andres
Pastrana next week during a state visit to Washington. The three South
American countries are the only ones worldwide that produce the base
plant for cocaine.
The anti-drug fungi legislation was guided through the Congress chiefly
by Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, and Rep. Bill McCollum, R-Fla. In addition to
mycoherbicide research, the legislation promotes alternative crops to
wean farmers off narcotics plants.
``These micro-organisms have the potential to cripple drug crops before
they are even harvested,'' DeWine said.
McCollum said the new crop eradication technology is much safer than
traditional strategies. ``All of the indications are that this has the
potential for making a big difference in the drug war,'' he said. ``This
could be the silver bullet.''
House Foreign Relations Committee chairman Benjamin Gilman, R-N.Y., said
the technology is ``extremely effective, not costly, doesn't affect the
environment and is a good way of eradicating coca.''
The U.S. government has spent billions of dollars over the years without
much success in trying the slay the drug dragon. The ``just say no''
campaign of the 1980s has been followed by a government-sponsored media
ad blitz warning people of drugs' dangers. Chemical sprays and
interdiction
efforts have been used to cut supply. Still, experts estimate the United
States has 6.7 million drug addicts.
The bureaucratic landscape is littered with ideas billed as solutions to
drugs that always seemed to fall short. At one point, an international
crackdown on money laundering was thought to be the answer. It was not.
Officials believe South American countries can be persuaded to go along
with the program only if farmers have plausible alternatives to
narcotics growing. Chocolate, derived from cacao trees, is being touted
as a promising alternative, because it would be suitable for South
American small farmers, and the global chocolate market is expected to
be tight in coming years.
Experiments being carried out by Agriculture Department scientists focus
on isolating the mycoherbicides that narcotics plants produce naturally.
If, for example, a coca plant is doused with the fungi, it wilts.
Decades must pass before the area is again suitable for growing coca.
In addition, beans, corn or other crops grown nearby are unaffected. The
same technologies can be applied to eradicate plants used for marijuana
and heroin.
Advocates and skeptics agree that the program will go nowhere without
the support of the drug-producing countries.
Unless political groundwork is properly laid, farmers' unions or
environmental groups in the three countries could come out in
opposition, nullifying the possibility of national cooperation.
American officials expect biological warfare charges to fly.
The costs of drug addiction are obvious: 14,218 drug-related deaths in
1995, and the price to society each year is $67 billion, the Office of
National Drug Control Policy estimates.
President Clinton has set a goal of a 50 percent reduction in drug
addiction in 10 years, but advocates of the new crop eradication
technologies believe that goal is too modest.
Copyright 1998 by The Associated Press
the possible implications of this boggle the mind.
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
Gully Foyle
<i.get...@hempseed.com> wrote:
>
>Cronos02 wrote in message <19981101164649...@ng76.aol.com>...
>|Whats with the if? It is a drug.
>|
>| Religion makes you see things that arn't there
>|(Jesus, virgin mary,etc.) just like shrooms does.
>|
>| People enjoying doing it just like any other drug.
>|
>| It's dangerous to people
>|
>| It fucks up the mind.
>
>Yes, but It would be totally legal, since religion is such a high profit
>industry. Why do you think Alcohol is legal, while marijuana (which is
>thousands of times less harmful) is not? It all comes down to money. The
>alcohol corporations pay big money to the government officials to keep
>marijuana illegal (among other things) since marijuana would be a great
>threat to the alcohol industry.
>but I digress, religionol would be legal, and probably given to children, to
>begin a lifelong dependency and addiction.
>
As it is.
XXIII
_________________________________________________________________
To email me remove the Z after the @ in my email address.
_________________________________________________________________
IDIOT, n.
A member of a large and powerful tribe whose
influence in human affairs has always been dominant
and controlling. The Idiot's activity is not confined to
any special field of thought or action, but "pervades
and regulates the whole." He has the last word in
everything; his decision is unappealable. He sets the
fashions and opinion of taste, dictates the limitations
of speech and circumscribes conduct with a
dead-line.
Ambrose Bierce
_________________________________________________________________
Dark Fader
It's the most powerful, influential, AND addictive ever devised by the
'mind' of man!
All of 'mankind';
'Drugged' and beaten into submission!
Fear, power, money, influence, pomp and circumstance!
"Gets" 'em every time!
Prove otherwise!
!
.
Fred Stone
> st...@BAAWA.com.au (Stix) wrote:
>
> >Elroy Willis posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
> >>If religion was a drug, would it be illegal?
>
> >Probably about as illegal as alcohol -- unless it diverted too much
> >attention away from the 'authority' of Big Brother. Then it'd be placed
> >on the Schedule 1 list, just like the other drugs that (can) catalyze
> >the realization that we're NOT merely cogs in the machine.....
>
> >>Take for example, speaking in tongues. It seems to be caused
> >>by a phenomenon going on in the brain, not by some invisible holy
> >>spirit. Now what if some pill or drug were available which when
> >>taken would render the taker a babbling tongue speaking idiot?
>
> >That question seems to rely on the assumption that prohibition is a
> >harm-reduction measure. It's not. Prohibition is to do with control and
> >profit, not with saving or protecting lives.
>
> In the case of speaking in tongues, how would it be deemed
> harmful or not? What do you think the criteria would be?
I can *testify* that speaking in tongues is extremely dangerous to one's
mentalequilibrium. I have several cousins who have "received the gift of the
spirit"
and who qualify for the rubber room.
>
>
> I was watching a religious show the other night for fun and disgust
> value, and the preacher was babbling on and on about the holy spirit
> and it being able to allow people to speak in tongues. I started
> thinking if some drug could reproduce the effects of this, then
> what would be the outcome? A communion wafer mickey?
>
> >>First off one should question why anyone would want to take such
> >>a drug.
>
> ><shrug>
>
> >Same reason some people like to experience, for example, ego-death with
> >other substances -- for the sake of the experience. Although, I suspect
> >a religio-pill would have a HUGE margin of abuse due to people believing
> >the experience to be real as opposed to induced (same thing happens with
> >psychedelics - some people forget that the experience isn't real).
>
> Perhaps those revelation writers were indeed on magic mushrooms.
It has been demonstrated that 40 days of fasting (water only!) will cause
thebody to generate enough acetone to put one into a hallucinatory state.
Standard
shaman initiation process. Mushrooms not needed.
Fred
a.a. number applied for.
>
>
> --
> Elroy
Tom Murray
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com wrote:
>
> I read somewhere that researchers had found exactly what gene gets damages
> by tobacco and how it causes lunch cancer. They'd also found several
> chemical compounds that damaged that gene segment.
>
Do you know if they have found the cause of dinner cancer? I find dinner
cancer much more frightening than lunch cancer!
--
Tom Murray
I believe in what I see
I believe in what I hear
I believe that what I'm feeling
Changes how the world appears
Rush - "TOTEM" - Test For Echo
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com
<iget...@hempseed.com> wrote:
>|
>|> I read somewhere that researchers had found exactly what gene gets damages
>|> by tobacco and how it causes lunch cancer. They'd also found several
>|> chemical compounds that damaged that gene segment.
>|
>|> Cannabis hasn't this chemical nor is there any correlation between heavy
>|> cannabis smoking and lung cancer.
>|
>|Sorry, not convincing. As much as we would like such news to be
>|true, we cannot regard it as true until some evidence is offered
>|in its favor.
I'd read it in the clarinet clari.issues.smoking (or something like that)
newsgroup. My ISP no longer carries clarinet and I couldn't locate the
article. A quick websearch yielded:
---
Newly identified gene mutation linked to lung/colon cancers
Researchers have reported the identification of a gene that is thought to
be crucial to the development of lung and colon cancers, as well as,
possibly, some other cancers. Researchers at the University of Texas
Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas say mutated forms of the PPP2R1B
were found in about 15% of all lung and colon tumors studied and that the
mutations were also found in normal tissues. The PPP2R1B gene, which is
located on chromosome 11, is known to be involved in the removal of
phosphates from protein molecules; mutations in the gene, say
researchers, can lead to uncontrolled cell growth and tumor development
from a buildup of phosphates. Authors say the finding of mutated PPP2R1B
in normal tissue is important in that it suggests the mutation, and thus a
higher risk for some cancer, may be inherited. The findings are in the
journal Science (1998;282:284-287). MedBriefs 10/9/98
http://mediconsult.com/lung/news/index.shtml
--
In any case, there is NO link between pot smoking and lung cancer.
Cigarette smoke is so cancerous that it isn't uncommon for housepets to
come down with lung cancer from second hand smoke.
Cronos02
<<snip>>
Very interesting. That is scary I hate the idea of a plant with so many
possibilties to be eradicated by human ignorance.
Cronos02
>3-20% THC content. Now here's the best part, since they are basically the
>same plant, the government bans then both! Like god, the government defies
>logic.
That cuase there are so many old people in the government we need some young
blood in there to fix this country.
Eric Gunnerson
>cron...@aol.com (Cronos02) wrote:
>
>> I keep hearing all this good stuff about weed so why the fuck isn't it
legal?
>
>
>Alcohol industries do NOT want their customers to have the alternative
>of marijuana. Their profits would get shafted. So they lobby the govt.
>with billion$ to keep marijuana on the restricted list. The govt., not
>wanting to lose those billion$, goes along with it and spreads reams of
>blatant lies and misinformation about weed to fool the public into going
>along with it. In the process, their misinformation industry becomes
>worth billion$ in itself, and they want to keep THAT money as well. So
>now the govt. ALSO has a strong motivation to keep marijuana on the
>restricted list.
Don't forget the drug dealers themselves. It has been suggested that some of
the highest drug dealers make political contributions to those who oppose
legalization. Why?
Because if drugs are legalized, drug dealers may have safer lives (ie less
chance of being arrested/shot/whatever), but they would also lose their
enormous profit margins, and likely their lifestyles. Of course, if they
cared about safe lives, they wouldn't be drug dealers in the first place.
What I find especially hypocritical is the propaganda about different drugs.
Marijuana has been portrayed as "demon weed".
Cocaine *can* kill you the first time you use it (though one would think
that this is primarily a problem because of the vast difference in
potencies).
But so can alcohol, and it probably does so more often.
The epitome of this approach is the D.A.R.E. program, which consists of
indoctrination on the absolute evils of drugs. Here's an excerpt of a
winning essay (off of http:\\www.dare-america.com)
If someone, a student, began to use a drug their grades would start to fall,
They might get caught and sent to jail if the drug was illegal. If they
didn't get caught they would lose their true friends and weaken in physical
activities, yet soon that wouldn't matter. The only time they would ever
have fun was when using the drug.
I'm not advocating encouraging kids to use drugs, but teaching absolutes is
not the way to go; kids are smart, and when they find out they were lied to,
they tend to ignore the whole message.
tetrahydrocannabinol
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227, any and
all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to
a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing
denotes acceptance of these terms.
Cronos02 wrote in message <19981105160153...@ng122.aol.com>...
|>Cronos, wanna here another scary true government story?
|
|
|
|<<snip>>
|
|
|Very interesting. That is scary I hate the idea of a plant with so many
|possibilties to be eradicated by human ignorance.
I hate the idea of a soil-borne bacterium that could potentially wipe out
all plant life on this continent.
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
tetrahydrocannabinol
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227, any and
all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to
a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing
denotes acceptance of these terms.
Cronos02 wrote in message <19981105160421...@ng122.aol.com>...
It's not about age, it's about money, power and corruption. And every member
of the political body in Washington has all 3. Remember, most of the people
in power in office right now are flower children, hippies. I'd bet most of
them have smoked joints, done acid, and possibly more...
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
Elroy Willis
>In article <slrn740svi.bt1.TheC...@edison.chisp.net>,
>TheCentralSc...@pobox.com wrote:
>> I read somewhere that researchers had found exactly what gene gets damages
>> by tobacco and how it causes lunch cancer. They'd also found several
>> chemical compounds that damaged that gene segment.
>Do you know if they have found the cause of dinner cancer? I find dinner
>cancer much more frightening than lunch cancer!
LOL!
--
Elroy
Elroy Willis
>Elroy Willis wrote:
>> st...@BAAWA.com.au (Stix) wrote:
>> >Elroy Willis posted the following to alt.atheism:
>> >>If religion was a drug, would it be illegal?
>> >Probably about as illegal as alcohol -- unless it diverted too much
>> >attention away from the 'authority' of Big Brother. Then it'd be placed
>> >on the Schedule 1 list, just like the other drugs that (can) catalyze
>> >the realization that we're NOT merely cogs in the machine.....
>> >>Take for example, speaking in tongues. It seems to be caused
>> >>by a phenomenon going on in the brain, not by some invisible holy
>> >>spirit. Now what if some pill or drug were available which when
>> >>taken would render the taker a babbling tongue speaking idiot?
>> >That question seems to rely on the assumption that prohibition is a
>> >harm-reduction measure. It's not. Prohibition is to do with control and
>> >profit, not with saving or protecting lives.
>> In the case of speaking in tongues, how would it be deemed
>> harmful or not? What do you think the criteria would be?
>I can *testify* that speaking in tongues is extremely dangerous to one's
>mentalequilibrium. I have several cousins who have "received the gift of the
>spirit" and who qualify for the rubber room.
I've only known one person who could speak in tongues, a friend in
college. The time he demonstrated it was the last time I saw him.
It's a shame cause we were pretty good friends, but he became a
god soaked tongue speaking bleater, and I couldn't deal with it.
>> Perhaps those revelation writers were indeed on magic mushrooms.
>It has been demonstrated that 40 days of fasting (water only!) will cause
>thebody to generate enough acetone to put one into a hallucinatory state.
>Standard shaman initiation process. Mushrooms not needed.
I've heard this explanation before also. Who in their right mind
would fast for 40 days anyway? If hallucinations were what I was
after, I can think of much better ways to achieve them.
--
Elroy
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com
Damn. I thought I canceled that version in time. I must have been
thinking about lunch. (I'm always thinking about food...)
Stix
(apologies for tardy response)
>Stix wrote:
>|[...] Although I'm willing to stand corrected if I'm wrong,
>|I've yet to see any credible information that links cannabis to cancer
>|or demonstrates that cannabis smoke is carcinogenic. Indeed, I think in
>|the above sentence the word 'carcinogens' has mistakenly been used in
>|place of 'tar'. While it's certainly true that cannabis smoke has the
>|same if not *more* tar than tobacco, the tars are very, very different.
>|Tobacco smoke has a radioactive half-life of, IIRC, about 21 years which
>|is thought to be responsible for a sizeable chunk of tobacco cancers;
>|cannabis does not. Nor does cannabis contain nicotine or the various
>|heavy metals and other nasties present in tobacco smoke.
>I had always heard that the amount of carcinigens were comparable.
If that were true, one would expect to see as many cases of cannabis
induced cancer as we see tobacco induced cancer, yet cannabis cancer
patients seem somewhat . . . sparse.
> Although
>I have also heard many studies which add that marijuana has chemicals in it
>which provide aid in either healing or preventing some of the damage done by
>the smoke.
Indeed. Cannabis acts as an expectorant (which explains why you
generally cough after a deep toke) which helps you cough out the crap
left in your lungs by tobacco smoke. Cannabis is also a bronchial
dilator and can treat some cases of asthma. I've personally seen an
asthmatic, who'd forgotten his Ventalin 'puffer', stop an asthma attack
in its tracks by smoking a pipe of buds.
<snip 'bhang lassi' horror story>
>Thats intresting. I wonder when someone will do studies on the results of
>oraly ingested marijuana and substances with which it is ingested. Do
>Brownies, cookies, milkshakes, teas, etc have diffrent effect on absorption
>rates and or amounts?
So it seems. I'd played with milkshakes before but found them to be
somewhat mild and disappointing considering the hour and a half delay
prior to noticing any effect. Hence the strength of the one that floored
me -- heh, oops. But another thing that may have played a hand was that
I added a tablespoon of lecithin to the nightmare brew to better
emulsify the essential oils into the liquids. Although it was a kind of
deep olive green and tasted like a milky mixture of spinach and
chocolate -- which was not exactly pleasant -- it *was* rather creamy
and smooth. :)
>Where do you live man, we need to get together and ummm discuss legalization
>:)
South Australia. :)
Stix
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Stix
>| Stix wrote:
>|>Elroy Willis wrote:
>|>|At least it would provide a better source for paper and even cloth
>|>|products. I'm not sure about using it as a building material like
>|>|wood is used. Can hemp be processed into plywood type products
>|>|which can be used for construction?
>|>not that Im aware of.
>|Au contraire'. It most certainly CAN be pressed into particle-board type
>|products which are, surprise, surprise, SUPERIOR to wood-chip particle
>|board.
>Could you cite sources for your information?
Yes I can, but unfortunately not right now, hence the delay in these
replies. I've semi-recently broken my golden rule of literature and lent
a heap of my cannabis resources to a person whose mother has been
hassling the crap out of him about his cannabis use. She's been
presenting all the old wanker stories -- leads you to harder drugs,
causes brain damage, never leaves your system, cracks chromosomes (dunno
from where the fuck she dragged that nonsense), is addictive, takes
control of your life, yada yada yada -- and while he *does* have
problems, she's blaming the substance rather than the user. She's also
utterly ignorant about the bullshit behind prohibition and since the
'uses of hemp' issue plays a large part in understanding the
demonization of cannabis, my 'friend' also borrowed that information.
It's been about three fucking months now, I'm getting somewhat pissed
about it, and I've made a few attempts via phone calls to have my stuff
returned, hopefully to avoid this irritating christeresque inability to
document the claim(s) I've made. No glory yet, however. :(
> I don't doubt you at all,
Oh shit! Doubt away! I *encourage* rational skepticism, and apart from
when I'm relaying personal observations etc., I don't expect anyone to
believe me on the strength of my word alone. Since I cannot supply a
reference right now (although I'm sure I could if I was prepared to dig
through my seven-year pile of "High Times" issues -- but I'm not) you're
quite within your rights to file the pressed-hemp boards issue in the
'inconclusive' basket, pending substantiation.
In the meantime, you may be able to find a reference yourself. I think I
saw you mention something about owning a copy of Jack Herer's (did you
know he's had a strain of buds named after him?) book, "The Emperor
Wears No Clothes", right? If so, flip to the back of the book and start
thumbing through it backwards. You'll eventually reach an article in the
references section about pressed hemp board, complete with pictures of
the product and, IIRC, some information about trial housing or similar.
>marijuana has been shown to be, by for, the most versitile plant known to
>man. I had just never hear that before, and had considered myself rather
>knowledgable in the ways of the weed :)
Do you ever read "High Times" magazine?
If so, here's something that I think is kinda neat: Guess who won 'Bud
of the Month' and had a letter and bud photo published in April 1991?
Heh - yep, yours truly. :)
>Fortunatly other countries are getting smart, and starting to look into
>legalization, or possible decriminalization of it. The Dutch are doing it,
>and quite succesfully, I might add.
I'm not sure that it's actually legal in Holland, I think it's just
tolerated -- but I'm not certain. The Dutch are very lenient towards
drug use in general, however, preferring harm reduction methods to the
human death toll caused by prohibition.
Stix
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Legalize Freedom."
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Stix
>Damn, you guys are making me think about growing the stuff!
Wait, wait, wait.
Lemme get this straight: you're a Pstychologist, meaning you must have
at least *some* acreage, and you raise pigs, meaning you have an
abundant supply of pigshit, yet you're only *now* >> thinking << about
growing the stuff?
<scratches head>
Ok, time for some audience participation: readers are asked to visualize
one of the Loony Toons characters, after getting stunned by a falling
safe or whatever, shaking his head and making that wobbly face noise as
he gets his shit back together. Ready?
<insert shaking head and wobbly face noise>
Shame on you, Doug! Quickly, right now, get your ass to somewhere that
sells the red compost worms, 'lumbricus rubellis,' or the tiger worms,
'eiseda foetida' (a bait shop will do, but they must be alive), turn
over and aerate the soil in a patch of ground about 5' square, dump a
shitload (literally -- as much as you can) of fairly fresh pigshit
evenly over the area, dump your worms on the shit, water the area
regularly to keep it moist but not saturated (preferably cover the area
with hessian sacks), and then go about your business. Keep adding shit
as the worms convert it to castings (eventually you'll have *millions*
of worms which you can either sell or ignore), shovel out copious
quantities of castings (the excess of which you can sell for profit as
it is the base ingredient of all organic fertilizers), and use the
castings to grow shitloads of cannabis. Hmm. The cannabis bit seems
kinda limp after all the worm talk. Oh well, it seemed like a good idea
when I started rambling . . . . .
>I will attest to it's high seeding rate, Hemp was grown here (Iowa,
>USA) legally during the world war era, for rope manufacturing. The
>bloody stuff is still around, growing wild in ditches and any unmowed
>fields, despite efforts in the 70's to eradicate it.
Commonly known as 'ditchweed'.
> Now, before you
>book a flight to Iowa, I should say that this is not the stuff that
>can get you high, but rather, using the stixian rating system, it
>should be considered "200 hit shit".
It does get you high in a sleepy, almost useless kinda way, and as you
say, it's 200+ hit shit, and more akin to smoking rope than smoking pot.
> But hey, you could reap a ton
>in a day, so maybe if you had a reason to tone down your local
>variety, you would still be interested.. I would just as soon be rid
>of it, it's quite a problem in places.
One can extract the essential oils from a few pounds of ditchweed, then
isomerize the high CBD content into high-rotating THC, and end up with a
rather potent, smokeable product, albeit somewhat more of a hassle to
use than straight cannabis bud. It is, however, an excellent method for
those who use cannabis for medical reasons, partially because the
resulting 'hash oil' can be vapourized and inhaled rather than smoked,
which eliminates the inhalation of burning vegetable matter.
<notices people staring>
Err, ok, ok, here's the obligatory disclaimer:
=========================================================================
DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME, KIDDIES.
Extraction, alteration, and purification of cannabis oils is probably
a felony which, if you get caught by the lying parasites who
masquerade as your benefactors, will get you fucked up in more ways
than one. The author does not advocate breaking any of the
self-ownership-denying crap that passes for laws allegedly to protect
the innocent, and the above information is for informative purposes
only yada yada yada . . . .
=========================================================================
<reads disclaimer>
Shit. It's not much sweeter than my 'aa thread' disclaimer.
Oh well.
>I wish they would legalize it for growing,
I wish they'd get their faces the fuck out of it altogether.
> even though I've never used it.
<tosses Doug a fat spliff>
It'll probably take a few tokes your first time, but go easy or you'll
end up sound asleep. Oh, and have you got anything crunchy on hand?
You're gonna need it. :)
> It would do much to legitimize the idea of 'freedom to
>farm' which is our country's idea of an answer to subsidies.
>Would end much of the current 'farm crisis'.
During one of the wars (first? second? They're all the same to me; death
and carnage) farmers could be *fined* for not growing hemp. See the
video, "Hemp for Victory" for the actual pro-hemp films broadcast at the
time. When crisis called, Uncle Sam cried to Mary Jane for help, then he
raped her again after the war finished, and he still continues to
persecute and jail those who remain friends with the lady.
Charmer, ain't he?
Stix
>"Mr Douglas, Pstychologist" wrote:
>> I wish they would legalize it for growing, even though I've never
>> used it. It would do much to legitimize the idea of 'freedom to
>> farm' which is our country's idea of an answer to subsidies.
>> Would end much of the current 'farm crisis'.
>This isn't the stuff that is smoked, FYI. The hemp we're talking about
>is a relative of the marijuana plant that does not have the intoxicants
>that can be found in marijuana.
Actually, yeah it does -- just in much smaller amounts and in a
different ratio. They're different strains of the same species,
"cannabis sativa," but cannabis for smoking is bred for buds and THC,
whereas cannabis for hemp is bred for height and vigour - and grown
under different conditions. Ditchweed has had no love and care at all,
so it behaves like a weed again -- grow, seed, die. (pointless existence
if ever I've seen one; unlike humans who . . . err . . . never mind).
The reason I use the word 'cannabis' as opposed to 'Indian Hemp' or
'marijuana' is *because* they're all the same plant. 'Marijuana' is the
name given to cannabis sativa (or indica, but that's another story)
that's grown for smoking, and it often causes a false dichotomy that
makes people believe the plants are different.
> You could smoke hemp continuously for
>the rest of you're life and you'd never get stoned.
Perhaps, but only due to the low ratio of THC to vegetable matter. If
you extracted the oils, however, you'd get just as shitfaced as you
would by smoking buds.
While I'm on the subject of potency, the chemical 'colchicine' is used
to induce polyploidy in pistillates and other plants, and it was used on
cannabis to try to eradicate THC production. Problem is, polyploid
cannabis plants turned out to be almost twice or more as potent as the
standard diploid -- oops, back to the drawing board. :)
(yeah, you *can* create your own polyploid strains by treating cannabis
seeds with colchicine, however colchicine is a *deadly* poison, and it's
almost invariably fatal to cannabis seeds or else ineffective.
Apparently if you get one or two viable seeds from a treated batch of
one thousand seeds, you may have been successful. Any more survivors and
it's likely the colchicine treatment didn't take.)
Stix
>>This isn't the stuff that is smoked, FYI. The hemp we're talking about
>>is a relative of the marijuana plant that does not have the intoxicants
>>that can be found in marijuana. You could smoke hemp continuously for
>>the rest of you're life and you'd never get stoned.
>Well if hemp don't get you stoned why arn't we making shit outta it?
Money + Control.
Put 'em together they spell 'prohibition'.
Stix
alt.atheism:
>Stix wrote:
>>I've yet to see any credible information that links cannabis to cancer
>>or demonstrates that cannabis smoke is carcinogenic. Indeed, I think in
>>the above sentence the word 'carcinogens' has mistakenly been used in
>>place of 'tar'. While it's certainly true that cannabis smoke has the
>>same if not *more* tar than tobacco, the tars are very, very different.
>>Tobacco smoke has a radioactive half-life of, IIRC, about 21 years which
>>is thought to be responsible for a sizeable chunk of tobacco cancers;
>>cannabis does not. Nor does cannabis contain nicotine or the various
>>heavy metals and other nasties present in tobacco smoke.
>I read somewhere that researchers had found exactly what gene gets damages
>by tobacco and how it causes lunch cancer. They'd also found several
>chemical compounds that damaged that gene segment.
And apparently it also harms the gene that helps the body detect or heal
from the same cancer, but I'm *far* from knowledgeable on that
particular subject so I'll leave it alone. Fritz is our resident
molecular geneticist who's also involved in cancer research, so he'd be
the man to ask.
>Cannabis hasn't this chemical nor is there any correlation between heavy
>cannabis smoking and lung cancer.
Spot on. :)
Stix
>TheCentralSc...@pobox.com posted the following to
>alt.atheism:
>> I read somewhere that researchers had found exactly what gene gets damages
>> by tobacco and how it causes lunch cancer. They'd also found several
>> chemical compounds that damaged that gene segment.
>> Cannabis hasn't this chemical nor is there any correlation between heavy
>> cannabis smoking and lung cancer.
>Sorry, not convincing. As much as we would like such news to be
>true, we cannot regard it as true until some evidence is offered
>in its favor.
Evidence that cannabis *doesn't* cause lung cancer? Evidence that
there's *no* correlation between heavy cannabis smoking and lung cancer?
How does one go about proving a negative? Isn't the lack of patients
whose cancer is directly attributable to cannabis juxtaposed with the
plethora of patients whose cancer *is* directly attributable to tobacco,
indicative of the benign nature of cannabis?
Besides, the two long term studies conducted on heavy cannabis users,
one study in Costa Rica and one in Jamaica, where the users smoked an
average of sixteen spliffs a day (a spliff is about five average joints)
showed no cancer patients nor any other adverse effects, and indeed
compared to their non pot smoking neighbours the smokers lived longer
and had less stress and, believe it or not, fewer wrinkles.
>Can you find where you read this? Which scientific journal? Can
>you provide where/when the study was done and by whom?
Ordinarily I'd post the above information in a flash, but I don't have
my reference books on hand (read my other whine about it in this thread)
so I have to yell for help to anyone who has a copy of, "The Emperor
Wears No Clothes," -- a fairly common book which contains the
documentation.
Stix
>It's really quite interesting to study a bit of the history behind Marijuana
>prohibition in the US. It's a wonderful example of "The Big Lie"
Yes, it *is* interesting -- but it also drags many more adjectives out
of me, some of which are, 'dishonest,' 'reprehensible,' 'irresponsible,'
'malevolent,' 'immoral,' and, 'maliciously expedient.'
>In other news, voters in Arizona, Nevada, and Washington state approved
>initiatives allowing the medical use of marijuana. The District of Columbia
>also had such a referendum, but unfortunately the will of the people means
>little in DC,
Which, in itself, is just so obviously flat out wrong that there doesn't
seem to anything else to say.
> and district officials have kept the results of the vote
>secret because congress has forbidden that such a vote take place.
<boggle>
A group of 'lawmakers' who were *voted* into their positions by the
people who *voted* to follow a set of guidelines for which they *voted*
to instate pending the outcome of a *vote*, FORBID the people to *vote*
about an issue that affects the very people who *vote* -- and yet these
mirror-kissing 'lawmakers' have the gall to call such bullshit a
democracy. Pfeh. Democracy my ass -- as democratic as China.
Unbelievable. Results of a *vote* kept *secret* (fucking mind boggling
in itself) because such a *vote* has been *forbidden*???
There's no such thing as gravity -- this planet just sucks.
<spit>
Stix.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"Fuck off."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Stix
>Elroy Willis wrote:
>|I've thought of this, and I'd be willing to pay a hefty tax,
Hefty? Tax? Willing?
Fuck that noise. WHY should I pay anybody anything other than the people
directly involved in the production, shipping, marketing et al of
whatever product?
>| just as do on beer or cigarettes.
Huh? You're ok with extortion?
Personally I pay such taxes for the same reason that I breathe, namely,
there's nothing I can do about not doing so.
>| But this brings up the subject of allowing
>|someone to grow cannabis in their home.
I'm afraid I'll never get past this 'allowing' bullshit. Who the fuck is
anyone to give me permission to grow a damn plant?
>| Is it illegal to grow your own tobacco?
Probably. And let's think on that for a moment. You're not allowed (via
threat of persecution) to produce a product for your own consumption,
but you are allowed to *purchase* that very same product for the sole
reason that your purchase provides the means for the fucks who do the
'allowing' to skim some money from the deal.
> Is it illegal to brew your own beer in small quantities?
Not in South Australia. Not illegal, that is.
>Ahhh but that's the problem. Not too many people would buy it... the more
>lazy pot smokers would, but marijuana is exactly what some people call it, a
>weed.
I disagree that it's necessarily laziness. Some people are better at
growing than others, some people have neither the time nor the
inclination to grow their own, and some people have black thumbs instead
of green thumbs -- every plant they touch dies. If someone is good at
growing choice buds and routinely produces primo ganja, people *will*
desire his product. Laissez-faire capitalism - demand creates a market,
the capitalist exploits the market.
> This meens it can grow anywhere, in poor soil, foul weather and it
>grows quickly to boot.
Yeah, but in poor soil with foul weather you generally produce low
yielding, flavourless, five-hit crap.
> Marijuana is the number 1 cash crop in the US, and,
>while this might change, closet growers would probably just move their
>plants outside once legalized.
Yes and no. Nothing beats the sun in terms of quality and quantity of
light (although sulphur bulbs come pretty close), but artificial
lighting provides total control of the environment -- the grower gets to
be mother nature -- and crops can be grown year round without a single
day of 'bad weather'. Ideally, the indoor gardener seeks to mimic ideal
growing conditions, and that's not just for cannabis.
>|Even with all the recent voting on medical use of cannabis being
>|allowed, what is this doing for people who want to grow a plant or
>|two in their home, for personal use? Not for medical reasons, but
>|for simple personal use, like brewing one's own beer? Making it
>|just a misdemeanor for having possession of a certain quantity?
How about making it none of anyone's goddamn business?
Here in South Australia it's already a misdemeanor. If you're busted
with ten plants or less, or IIRC under 100 grams of dried flowers, you
only get an on-the-spot fine (expiation notice) with no recorded
conviction. However that may change because the embarrassing wimp we
call 'prime minister' and his 'rich get richer, poor starve to death
making the rich even richer' Liberal government all get cheerful
chubbies over prohibition and are talking about taking a few giant leaps
backwards.
>|Well, it beats a felony rap I guess,
True, but it still shits me to tears that some schmuck in a uniform gets
to ransack your car, house, or person, steal your stash, your plants, or
your bong or pipe, and you get to pay for the privilege. And for what?
We already *know* that cannabis is about as harmful as lettuce so they
can't even hide behind the bogus smokescreen of 'protecting us from
ourselves' any more. So what's the deal? Switch 'cannabis' with 'roses',
apply the arguments for and against legalization, and see how much sense
you can make out of the whole fucked-up saga.
>| but I just wonder if the day will
>|ever come when people can grow cannabis unrestricted by any
>|ridiculous laws. Wish on I suppose.
I used to believe that the dissolution of cannabis laws was set to
happen *any day now*, but the longer I live the more I'm starting to
believe that cannabis prohibition will *never* end.
I wish Harry Anslinger was alive now. Not out of his grave, mind you,
just alive -- and frantically scratching the lid of his coffin.
>I think it will come.
You'll have to excuse my cynicism here, but I'll believe it when I see
it. When the demon inside me stirred and roused me from the 'cog in the
machine' slumber that's forced on us from the moment we're born,
cannabis prohibition was the first subject to snatch my attention and
make me aware of the foul stench of oppression, and that something about
the whole "you're not allowed to . . ." concept fucking stinks.
As a result, it was the first anti-oppression bandwagon on to which I
jumped, and with the roar of a warrior I charged headlong into battle.
Years later, despite the discrediting of all the misinformation spewed
by the propaganda machine, NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
People *still* parrot discredited crap, people still rot in jail cells
for cannabis 'offenses', people still whine about seeking solutions for
the myriad of problems that utilizing the hemp plant provides, and
cannabis is still illegal.
Just like the fucking god concept. No matter how many times it's shown
to be an irrational load of crap, idiots still believe it.
> I dont know if it'll be soon, but i feel it will.
Oh ye of great faith.
Stix <== cynic. :)
> The passage of all these medical marijuana laws are just a start. With them
>comes more passages of MM laws, more research, and more of the old lies
>debunked.
The old lies have been debunked for at least the last decade (much
longer than that really, but it's a round number and a period of time
for which I can argue from first hand interest in the saga).
> Most importantly, instead of being in the closet, marijuana and
>it's users can begin to come out of the closet and the public will be made
>more aware of the truth, which I feel will ultimatly lead to legalization.
How old are you THC?
I'm not implying that age means jack shit here, I'm just curious.
Stix
>Stix wrote:
>>Elroy Willis posted the following to alt.atheism:
<snippage>
>>>Take for example, speaking in tongues. It seems to be caused
>>>by a phenomenon going on in the brain, not by some invisible holy
>>>spirit. Now what if some pill or drug were available which when
>>>taken would render the taker a babbling tongue speaking idiot?
>>That question seems to rely on the assumption that prohibition is a
>>harm-reduction measure. It's not. Prohibition is to do with control and
>>profit, not with saving or protecting lives.
>In the case of speaking in tongues, how would it be deemed
>harmful or not? What do you think the criteria would be?
It'd probably be erroneously labelled 'not harmful', and unless
BigBrother noticed that glossolalia dribblers were becoming less mindful
of his authority it'd probably remain legal.
>I was watching a religious show the other night for fun and disgust
>value,
Heh - masochist.
> and the preacher was babbling on and on about the holy spirit
>and it being able to allow people to speak in tongues.
Fuck those idiots make me sick. No kidding, sometimes I get pissed
enough at their lies that I really want to punch the lying fucks right
between the eyes.
> I started thinking if some drug could reproduce the effects of this, then
>what would be the outcome? A communion wafer mickey?
<Mr. Mackey>
Don't do drugs, 'cause drugs are bad. N'kay?
</Mr. Mackey>
>>Same reason some people like to experience, for example, ego-death with
>>other substances -- for the sake of the experience. Although, I suspect
>>a religio-pill would have a HUGE margin of abuse due to people believing
>>the experience to be real as opposed to induced (same thing happens with
>>psychedelics - some people forget that the experience isn't real).
>Perhaps those revelation writers were indeed on magic mushrooms.
Perhaps? Ever read Revelation? The nitwit who penned that load of
idiotic hooey was either a total looney or shitfaced on psilocybin.
David J. Devejian
says...
> tetrahydrocannabinol posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
> >Elroy Willis wrote:
>
> >|I've thought of this, and I'd be willing to pay a hefty tax,
>
> Hefty? Tax? Willing?
>
> Fuck that noise. WHY should I pay anybody anything other than the people
> directly involved in the production, shipping, marketing et al of
> whatever product?
>
> >| just as do on beer or cigarettes.
>
> Huh? You're ok with extortion?
>
> Personally I pay such taxes for the same reason that I breathe, namely,
> there's nothing I can do about not doing so.
Tactics Stix, Tactics. If the Gov't thinks it can both control the
trade and make money off the deal, then they are far more likely to
legalize. So let them think we will be happy with a big tax. Show
them how legalization benefits them. Throw the anti-drug crowd a bone
by telling them the revenues from the tax could be used to fund
addiction treatment programs. Get them to legalize, even with big
taxes, and if that involves saying that I will 'willing' pay taxes, so
be it. Once we have a culture used to legalized drugs, then we can
take the next step. Its all a question of tactics and strategy.
:^)
--
regards,
David J. Devejian
widsith <at> panix <dot> com
Niall McAuley
>Yes I can, but unfortunately not right now, hence the delay in these
>replies. I've semi-recently broken my golden rule of literature and lent
>a heap of my cannabis resources to a person whose mother has been
>hassling the crap out of him about his cannabis use.
You lent *books* to a druggie? He's probably rolled them up and
smoked them by now, and rotted his brain in the process so badly
that he forgot you lent them to him!
>It's been about three fucking months now, I'm getting somewhat pissed
>about it, and I've made a few attempts via phone calls to have my stuff
>returned,
See? See? *Proof* that cannabis is *eeeeevil*!
--
Niall #36 [real address ends in se, not es]
Shaun Denney
On Thu, 12 Nov 1998 16:52:56 GMT, st...@BAAWA.com.au (Stix) wrote:
>tetrahydrocannabinol posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
>(apologies for tardy response)
>
>>Stix wrote:
>>|[...] Although I'm willing to stand corrected if I'm wrong,
>>|I've yet to see any credible information that links cannabis to cancer
>>|or demonstrates that cannabis smoke is carcinogenic. Indeed, I think in
>>|the above sentence the word 'carcinogens' has mistakenly been used in
>>|place of 'tar'. While it's certainly true that cannabis smoke has the
>>|same if not *more* tar than tobacco, the tars are very, very different.
>>|Tobacco smoke has a radioactive half-life of, IIRC, about 21 years which
>>|is thought to be responsible for a sizeable chunk of tobacco cancers;
>>|cannabis does not. Nor does cannabis contain nicotine or the various
>>|heavy metals and other nasties present in tobacco smoke.
>>I had always heard that the amount of carcinigens were comparable.
>If that were true, one would expect to see as many cases of cannabis
>induced cancer as we see tobacco induced cancer, yet cannabis cancer
>patients seem somewhat . . . sparse.
Sparse as in virually unknown (IIRC) - apart from the dozy gits who
smoke tobacco as well, but that's their funeral.
That's not to say that cannabis smoke doesn't contain as many
carcinogens - a recent correspondence in 'New Scientist' referred to a
studying which found tumour-suppressing effects of THC in rats, so it
may just be that the THC is counteracting the effects of the
carcinogens.
<snip other reasons why cannabis is better than tobacco>
Cheers
Shaun Denney
a.a.#136
============================
My views, not my employers'
============================