[NORML Weekly News (8/18/04)]
Anonymous
Volume 7
Issue 32
August 18, 2004
The NORML E-Zine is a free weekly compilation of major news items
regarding marijuana policy. Text of archived stories is available on
NORML's website at:
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3442
Donate today to NORML's long-standing efforts to end pot prohibition!
https://secure.norml.org/join/
Sign up for NORML's monthly pledge program today!
https://secure.norml.org/join/pledge.html
Gear up for the upcoming presidential election by purchasing t-shirts,
hats and other products from NORML's new "Politically Thinking" line of
merchandise. Every design is intended to help spread NORML's message and
marijuana smokers to the polls this November. Budget conscious NORML
supporters should check out the new "T-shirts Under $15" section.
http://www.cafeshops.com/norml
####################
TOP STORIES
NORML Foundation
1600 K Street, N.W.
Suite 501
Washington, DC 20006
202-483-5500 (p)
202-483-0057 (f)
www.norml.org
found...@norml.org
*Get Political With New NORML Apparel*
Gear up for the upcoming presidential election by purchasing t-shirts,
hats and other products from NORML's new "Politically Thinking" line of
merchandise. Every design is intended to help spread NORML's message and
marijuana smokers to the polls this November. Budget conscious NORML
supporters should check out the new "T-shirts Under $15" section.
http://www.cafeshops.com/norml
This week's topics include:
* Cannabinoids Restrict Blood Flow To Malignant Tumors,
Study Says
* Pot Patients Require Fewer Meds, Study Says
* 150,000 To Attend Seattle Hempfest 2004 This Weekend
* Tallahassee Pot Possession Initiative Qualifies For
November Ballot
Cannabinoids Restrict Blood Flow To Malignant Tumors, Study Says
Madrid, Spain: Compounds in marijuana inhibit malignant brain tumor
growth in animals and humans, according to clinical findings published
this week in the journal Cancer Research.
Researchers led by Manuel Guzman of Madrid's Complutense University
determined that cannabinoids inhibited the growth of glioma (brain) tumors
in mice and in two human subjects by restricting the tumors' blood supply.
The study is the first to investigate the effects of cannabinoids on
human Gliobastoma multiforme tumor biopsies.
Glioblastoma multiforme, the most aggressive form of glioma, strikes some
7,000 Americans annually, and generally results in death within one to two
years following diagnosis.
Italian researchers had previously shown cannabinoids, including the non
psychoactive compound cannabidiol (CBD), to inhibit the growth of glioma
cells both in vitro (e.g., a petri dish) and in animals in a dose
dependent manner.
In addition, THC has been clinically demonstrated to selectively induced
programmed cell death in brain tumor cells without negatively impacting
the surrounding healthy cells.
In 2000, Guzman and colleagues reported in Nature Medicine that injections
of synthetic THC eradicated malignant gliomas in one-third of treated rats
and prolonged life in another third by six weeks.
"The present findings provide a novel pharmacological target for
cannabinoid based therapies," Guzman said in regards to the most recent
clinical trial.
For more information, please contact Paul Armentano, NORML Senior Policy
Analyst, at (202) 483-5500.
________________________________________
Pot Patients Require Fewer Meds, Study Says
Sydney, New South Wales: Nearly two-thirds of medicinal marijuana
patients report that they have decreased or ceased taking other
prescription medications early due to their use of cannabis, according to
the results of state government survey conducted by the National Drug and
Alcohol Research Centre in Sydney.
Respondents said that they use marijuana to combat symptoms of chronic
pain, muscle spasticity, nausea, and weight loss, as well as to alleviate
side effects of conventional medications.
Seventy percent of those responding to the survey said that they would be
willing to participate in clinical trails examining alternative forms of
medical cannabis, such as a spray or a tablet.
Last month, researchers presenting at the XV International AIDS Conference
in Bangkok, Thailand reported survey data finding that patients who used
medicinal cannabis to combat the side effects of anti-HIV drugs were more
likely to remain on their prescribed drug therapies than those who do not.
For more information, please contact Paul Armentano, NORML Senior Policy
Analyst, at (202) 483-5500.
________________________________________
150,000 To Attend Seattle Hempfest 2004 This Weekend
Seattle, WA: Organizers of the 13th annual Seattle Hempfest are expecting
more than 150,000 attendees at this year's event, to take place this
Saturday and Sunday at Myrtle Edwards Park in downtown Seattle. More than
50 speakers, including NORML Director Keith Stroup and NORML Foundation
head Allen St. Pierre, and 60 bands will participate in the two-day event,
which promises to be one of the largest marijuana policy reform rallies
ever held.
The theme of this year's festival is "Vote Freedom." Over 20
organizations and 150 volunteers will coordinate voter registration drives
during the event. Organizers will also call for the elimination of
criminal penalties for adults who use marijuana responsibly, and for the
legalization of medicinal cannabis for the seriously ill.
Other speakers scheduled to appear at this year's festival include: Ethan
Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance; author and
marijuana grow guru Ed Rosenthal; NORML Associate Director Kris Krane;
Hempfest organizer and NORML board member Dominic Holden; and Marsha
Rosenbaum, director of the San Francisco office of the Drug Policy
Alliance.
For a complete schedule of this year's Seattle Hempfest speakers and
events, please visit: http://www.seattlehempfest.com
________________________________________
Tallahassee Pot Possession Initiative Qualifies For November Ballot
Tallahassee, FL: Organizers of the Tallahassee Practical Law Enforcement
Amendment said this week that city election officials have qualified the
measure November ballot. The measure seeks to amend the Tallahassee city
charter to mandate that local police make the arrest and prosecution of
minor marijuana offenses "the city's lowest law enforcement priority."
Seattle voters passed a similar marijuana deprioritization initiative last
year.
For a complete summary of this fall's pending state and local initiatives,
please visit:
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6172
####################
NORML Media Watch
NORML was featured prominently in several media outlets this week,
including AlterNet, LewRockwell.com and Linton Daily Citizen (IN).
To read these articles or about other NORML media appearances, check out
"NORML in the Media" at:
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5481
Help keep the candle lit by making your commitment to freedom via a
monthly pledge to NORML:
https://secure.norml.org/join/pledge.html
Smoke the Vote!
If you have not already done so, register to vote or
change your voter registration address at:
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5916
####################
--
To live outside the law, you must be honest...
(Absolutely Sweet Marie - Blonde on Blonde - 1966)
Duke
http://www.drugabuse.gov/drugpages/marijuana.html
go graduate from Pot, and do bad Acid for a few years, Heroin is better by
far, see you in Prison, my bitch!
You will never think normal again,
you are frying your brain, and you never really existed,
so kill yourself now, it is easy to do
you already fucked up your life permanently,
Too Bad Loser.
Time to get out of life.
I have forwarded your information to FBI, and Homeland Security
GWBush makes Quayle look like Lincoln
> SCREW OFF DRUGGIES -
What a dumbass. Americans seem completely
incapable of learning from history.
--
Toucan
Be heard. Spread the word.
http://www.YouSaidit.org
An experiment in hypermedia Democracy
Nostradumbass
"GWBush makes Quayle look like Lincoln" <tou...@mailblocks.com> wrote in
message news:lJOdnZq_3v0...@comcast.com...
> "Duke" <du...@invalid.com> wrote
>
> > SCREW OFF DRUGGIES -
>
> What a dumbass. Americans seem completely
> incapable of learning from history.
>
What did you learn from History, or did you forget already?
Minime
"Nostradumbass" <Oi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:2okmcsF...@uni-berlin.de...
Yes, he forgot, and forgot this newsgroup.
Perhaps he'll forget that tree infront of him when he's driving his car too.
GWBush makes Quayle look like Lincoln
> What did you learn from History, or did you forget already?
I learned a lot about this:
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/402.htm
... and if you want to talk about a waste of your tax
dollars, you'd do well to go back and re-learn this
particular lesson well.
Minime
So what........ That was Alcohol probation in the 30's.
Are you saying that because of Repeal of Alcohlol Probition in the 30's,
POT, Heroin, Crack and the rest of the drugs should be legalized for
everybody? Including Glue and Gasoline?
Put down that paper bag! You have had too many tubes this morning.
Your ability to reason is permanently gone. Ask someone else to do it for
you.
You are defiantly addicted, You are just trying to use a "70 year old repeal
of alcohol" to justify you staying stoned, lethargic, impaired and brain
dead all day long.
Just forget excuses and admit that you have to get high every day.
Then ask for you mommy to come take care of you.
DrPostman
wrote:
>
>So what........ That was Alcohol probation in the 30's.
>
>Are you saying that because of Repeal of Alcohlol Probition in the 30's,
>POT, Heroin, Crack and the rest of the drugs should be legalized for
>everybody? Including Glue and Gasoline?
No, just pot. How many people have died from pot poisoning, or
overdosing on pot?
It's an easy answer.
Now, how many people are rotting in jail because they wanted
to smoke some pot?
As far as I know glue and gasoline are available to anyone who
wants them.
--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member
#15-51506-253. AFA-B Official Pollster.
You can email me at: DrJaiMaharajFraud(at)hotmail.com
"Prooves your a idiot!"
- Ferrt displays his brilliance
GWBush makes Quayle look like Lincoln
> So what........ That was Alcohol probation in the 30's.
>
> Are you saying that because of Repeal of Alcohlol Probition in the 30's,
> POT, Heroin, Crack and the rest of the drugs should be legalized for
> everybody? Including Glue and Gasoline?
Last time I checked, anyone can buy glue and/or
gasoline on the open market without fear of reprisal.
Surely, we should make it illegal for people to buy
either, as there's a chance someone might use them
to alter their brain chemistry.
> Put down that paper bag! You have had too many tubes this morning.
> Your ability to reason is permanently gone. Ask someone else to do it for
> you.
>
> You are defiantly addicted, You are just trying to use a "70 year old
repeal
> of alcohol" to justify you staying stoned, lethargic, impaired and brain
> dead all day long.
> Just forget excuses and admit that you have to get high every day.
> Then ask for you mommy to come take care of you.
So, *I* am high or addicted because I see the futility
of drug prohibition? What substance did you use to kill
the brain cells to allow you to spell, or to form a cogent
argument?
Your argument, simple as it is, reminds me of those who
believe that the answer to gun violence is to outlaw gun
possession and ownership. Laws such as these are magic
wands that make everything better, no? Surely you
support making cigarettes illegal, then -- they kill 400K
Americans every year. Nicotine is more addictive than
heroin, and harder to stop using. Alcohol is as addictive as
cocaine -- shouldn't we be supporting its prohibition again?
Come back when you want to argue facts. Thanks.
Greg Mortar
"DrPostman" <Lo...@mysig.foremail> wrote in message
news:t68ci0d7acu0nu75f...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:12:28 -0500, "Minime" <inv...@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >So what........ That was Alcohol probation in the 30's.
> >
> >Are you saying that because of Repeal of Alcohlol Probition in the 30's,
> >POT, Heroin, Crack and the rest of the drugs should be legalized for
> >everybody? Including Glue and Gasoline?
>
>
> No, just pot. How many people have died from pot poisoning, or
> overdosing on pot?
>
How many have run their car off the road, or into a tree, or into another
car, or have accidently killed someone?
>
> It's an easy answer.
>
>
>
> Now, how many people are rotting in jail because they wanted
> to smoke some pot?
Ignorance is no defence with the Law.
What about those people rotting in jail because they wanted to smoke some
Crack?
What about those people that just wanted to make love to little boys?
Moron - go back to your gasoline.
>
>
> As far as I know glue and gasoline are available to anyone who
> wants them.
>
Like you.
Greg Mortar
> "Minime" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote
>
> > So what........ That was Alcohol probation in the 30's.
> >
> > Are you saying that because of Repeal of Alcohlol Probition in the 30's,
> > POT, Heroin, Crack and the rest of the drugs should be legalized for
> > everybody? Including Glue and Gasoline?
>
> Last time I checked, anyone can buy glue and/or
> gasoline on the open market without fear of reprisal.
> Surely, we should make it illegal for people to buy
> either, as there's a chance someone might use them
> to alter their brain chemistry.
>
> > Put down that paper bag! You have had too many tubes this morning.
> > Your ability to reason is permanently gone. Ask someone else to do it
for
> > you.
> >
> > You are defiantly addicted, You are just trying to use a "70 year old
> repeal
> > of alcohol" to justify you staying stoned, lethargic, impaired and brain
> > dead all day long.
> > Just forget excuses and admit that you have to get high every day.
> > Then ask for you mommy to come take care of you.
>
> So, *I* am high or addicted
yes because you look for excuses to continue to get high.
>because I see the futility
> of drug prohibition?
An excuse, you use dude.
>What substance did you use to kill
> the brain cells to allow you to spell, or to form a cogent
> argument?
Try to address the subject, if you can, if not, we understand, you have
lowered your IQ by 30 points being High to a 50.
>
> Your argument, simple as it is, reminds me of those who
> believe that the answer to gun violence
Gun violence, another excuse to light up and some some pot right now?
>is to outlaw gun
> possession and ownership.
What has Guns have to do with Pot? Oh yea Dealers.
>Laws such as these are magic
> wands
Magic Wands? WTF are you trying to talk about?
>that make everything better, no? Surely you
> support making cigarettes illegal, then -- they kill 400K
> Americans every year.
What about POT where you hold it in your lungs as long as possable?
>Nicotine is more addictive than
> heroin, and harder to stop using.
So you want us to stop somking and shoot up heroin.
>Alcohol is as addictive as
> cocaine
That is bullshit, crack-baby.
-- shouldn't we be supporting its prohibition again?
>
> Come back when you want to argue facts. Thanks.
You are so spaced that you think you have "facts", you have urban gossip,
high school hall knowledge.
You are just repeating what other spaced cadets have told you.
You wont be able to smarten up at all until you stop smoking dope and
drugging and drinking, but that is your life.
Why do you think they call it DOPE, dope?
GWBush makes Quayle look like Lincoln
> yes because you look for excuses to continue to get high.
Care to prove that I get high, at all?
> >Laws such as these are magic
> > wands
>
> Magic Wands? WTF are you trying to talk about?
Are you not putting forward the ridiculous assertion
that current drug laws attenuate problems associated
with drug use, rather than augment them?
> So you want us to stop somking and shoot up heroin.
How did you arrive at that leap of cognitive logic?
> That is bullshit, crack-baby.
Go Google up the work of Jack E. Henningfield, of the
National Institute on Drug Abuse, and that of Dr. Neal L.
Benowitz, of the University of California at San Francisco,
and then come back to discuss.
Or just continue making baseless, factless assertions
about matters of which you know very, very little.
Greg Mortar
> "Greg Mortar" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote
>
> > yes because you look for excuses to continue to get high.
>
> Care to prove that I get high, at all?
Why else are you promoting the use of Drugs? For "Academic Reasons"?
>
> > >Laws such as these are magic
> > > wands
> >
> > Magic Wands? WTF are you trying to talk about?
>
> Are you not putting forward the ridiculous assertion
> that current drug laws attenuate problems associated
> with drug use, rather than augment them?
Try to be more direct in your questions. It is a direct view of your
confused thinking.
I hope drug users are locked up and kept off the streets so they don't
steal, don't rob for their next hit, don't cause that traffic accident, and
don't sell that poison to my kids.
>
> > So you want us to stop smoking and shoot up heroin.
>
> How did you arrive at that leap of cognitive logic?
You said Nicotine is more addictive than Heroin. Isn't that your point?
Using "less" additive substances are OK?
>
> and then come back to discuss.
So you are a great expert on Drug addiction and also promote Drug use.
Too bad you don't live in the inner city ravaged by drugs.
Where everyone knows/lives the progression from Pot to Heroin or Crack.
>
> Or just continue making baseless, factless assertions
> about matters of which you know very, very little.
Your lies are completly transparent, doper.
Spin up what ever you want to as an excuse to get high.
Please Aim for that Tree in the fog, it may save somebody else's life.
>
GWBush makes Quayle look like Lincoln
> > Care to prove that I get high, at all?
>
> Why else are you promoting the use of Drugs? For "Academic Reasons"?
Please quote back to me any statement you've
apparently misconstrued as my "promoting the use"
of *anything*, except *facts*, which you seem
unable to do.
> > Are you not putting forward the ridiculous assertion
> > that current drug laws attenuate problems associated
> > with drug use, rather than augment them?
>
> Try to be more direct in your questions. It is a direct view of your
> confused thinking.
Okay, 4th-grade simplicity: You think drug laws do
more good than harm?
> I hope drug users are locked up and kept off the streets so they don't
> steal, don't rob for their next hit, don't cause that traffic accident,
and
> don't sell that poison to my kids.
I understand your caricature of drug use -- it's very
popular. You might want to examine some of the
foundations that shore up your premises, though; to
wit:
1.) Who pays for both violent & non-violent users to
stay in prison?
2.) Doesn't prohibition amount to a government price
support subsidy for illicit substances?
3.) People use drugs, including alcohol. Why would
regulated trade, as opposed to the currently
UNREGULATED trade result in more traffic accidents?
4.) Is it easier for your kids to get drugs in a regulated
market, or an unregulated one?
> You said Nicotine is more addictive than Heroin. Isn't that your point?
> Using "less" additive substances are OK?
No; my point is that if you wish to prohibit substances
on the facts regarding the lethality and addictiveness,
alcohol & tobacco would be at the top of the list for
substances that need to be prohibited.
> So you are a great expert on Drug addiction and also promote Drug use.
Waiting for your quote of my promotional activities.
> Too bad you don't live in the inner city ravaged by drugs.
> Where everyone knows/lives the progression from Pot to Heroin or Crack.
>
> >
> > Or just continue making baseless, factless assertions
> > about matters of which you know very, very little.
>
> Your lies are completly transparent, doper.
>
> Spin up what ever you want to as an excuse to get high.
>
> Please Aim for that Tree in the fog, it may save somebody else's life.
So, you've decided to just make baseless, factless
assertions. Great; good for you.
Adam Weiss
> So what........ That was Alcohol probation in the 30's.
>
> Are you saying that because of Repeal of Alcohlol Probition in the 30's,
> POT, Heroin, Crack and the rest of the drugs should be legalized for
> everybody? Including Glue and Gasoline?
Marijuana yes, the others probably not.
Marijuana is not any more dangerous than alcohol.
Whatever damage pot smoke does to the lungs, cigarettes (legal) do as
bad, and alcohol (legal) does damage to the liver.
Whether you're driving drunk or driving stoned, you're a menace.
Whether you're a drunk or a pothead, you still have trouble keeping a
job, paying the rent, having a happy family life.... The difference
being that the drunk isn't arrested as a matter of course for having
alcohol in the house when the cops show up).
Is marijuana a "gateway drug"? Maybe, but so is alcohol. People start
drinking and it can very easily lead to other things - marijuana one of
them. That marijuana is illegal and alcohol legal doesn't make sense
from this standpoint.
The laws which draw the line between which substances are legal for and
which are not are arbitrary. To me, it doesn't make sense to draw the
line after alcohol but before marijuana. It'd make much more sense to
draw the line on the other side of marijuana.
And by the way. I don't smoke pot.
DrPostman
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>"DrPostman" <Lo...@mysig.foremail> wrote in message
>news:t68ci0d7acu0nu75f...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:12:28 -0500, "Minime" <inv...@invalid.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >So what........ That was Alcohol probation in the 30's.
>> >
>> >Are you saying that because of Repeal of Alcohlol Probition in the 30's,
>> >POT, Heroin, Crack and the rest of the drugs should be legalized for
>> >everybody? Including Glue and Gasoline?
>>
>>
>> No, just pot. How many people have died from pot poisoning, or
>> overdosing on pot?
>>
>
>How many have run their car off the road, or into a tree, or into another
>car, or have accidently killed someone?
There are no statistics for that. However, the records show that
those who have done that when drunk are staggering. No one
wants to do anything about alcohol.
I think that anyone who drives impaired, no matter what the
substance, should be put under the jail.
>
>>
>> It's an easy answer.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now, how many people are rotting in jail because they wanted
>> to smoke some pot?
>
>Ignorance is no defence with the Law.
>What about those people rotting in jail because they wanted to smoke some
>Crack?
Put that strawman back in your pants. I was addressing pot.
>What about those people that just wanted to make love to little boys?
You seem to be addicted to strawman.
>Moron - go back to your gasoline.
I'm actually a recovering addict who will celebrate 17 years in a
couple of weeks, dumbass.
I happen to think that The War On Some Drugs is a stupid waste
of lives and money.
>>
>>
>> As far as I know glue and gasoline are available to anyone who
>> wants them.
>>
>Like you.
>
Haven't had a need for glue, but I do drive. Don't you buy gas?
Greg Mortar
"DrPostman" <Lo...@mysig.foremail> wrote in message
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:39:50 -0500, "Greg Mortar"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"DrPostman" <Lo...@mysig.foremail> wrote in message
> >news:t68ci0d7acu0nu75f...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:12:28 -0500, "Minime" <inv...@invalid.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >So what........ That was Alcohol probation in the 30's.
> >> >
> >> >Are you saying that because of Repeal of Alcohlol Probition in the
30's,
> >> >POT, Heroin, Crack and the rest of the drugs should be legalized for
> >> >everybody? Including Glue and Gasoline?
> >>
> >>
> >> No, just pot. How many people have died from pot poisoning, or
> >> overdosing on pot?
> >>
> >
> >How many have run their car off the road, or into a tree, or into
another
> >car, or have accidently killed someone?
>
> There are no statistics for that. However, the records show that
> those who have done that when drunk are staggering. No one
> wants to do anything about alcohol.
You are avoiding the question, you can't handle the truth.
>
> I think that anyone who drives impaired, no matter what the
> substance, should be put under the jail.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> It's an easy answer.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Now, how many people are rotting in jail because they wanted
> >> to smoke some pot?
> >
> >Ignorance is no defence with the Law.
> >What about those people rotting in jail because they wanted to smoke some
> >Crack?
>
> Put that strawman back in your pants. I was addressing pot.
It is the SAME logic you use to keep using Drugs.
>
>
> >What about those people that just wanted to make love to little boys?
>
> You seem to be addicted to strawman.
>
>
> >Moron - go back to your gasoline.
>
> I'm actually a recovering addict who will celebrate 17 years in a
> couple of weeks, dumbass.
If that was true, then you would not be selling "Drugs are good" on the
internet. If you were in recovery, you would know how dangerious drugs and
alchahol are, avoid them and help keep others sober, but you are not.
Greg Mortar
> "Greg Mortar" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote
>
> > > Care to prove that I get high, at all?
> >
> > Why else are you promoting the use of Drugs? For "Academic Reasons"?
>
> Please quote back to me any statement you've
> apparently misconstrued as my "promoting the use"
> of *anything*, except *facts*, which you seem
> unable to do.
Avoiding the Question again, (your still daized,) Why do you promote the use
of drugs?
>
> > > Are you not putting forward the ridiculous assertion
> > > that current drug laws attenuate problems associated
> > > with drug use, rather than augment them?
> >
> > Try to be more direct in your questions. It is a direct view of your
> > confused thinking.
>
> Okay, 4th-grade simplicity: You think drug laws do
> more good than harm?
The answer is as before
" > > I hope drug users are locked up and kept off the streets so they don't
> > steal, don't rob for their next hit, don't cause that traffic accident,
and
> > don't sell that poison to my kids."
Try to focus on the letters when you read.
>
> I understand your caricature of drug use -- it's very
> popular. You might want to examine some of the
> foundations that shore up your premises, though; to
> wit:
>
> 1.) Who pays for both violent & non-violent users to
> stay in prison?
Who pays is not the Question, the Question is does using Narcotics cause
serious enough problems to put users in Jail? Yes.
> 2.) Doesn't prohibition amount to a government price
> support subsidy for illicit substances?
Not at all, the effects of use are distructive on the individual and
society.
> 3.) People use drugs, including alcohol. Why would
> regulated trade, as opposed to the currently
> UNREGULATED trade result in more traffic accidents?
That is not the Question, it is Does using Narcotics cause imparment of
judgement, and more traffic accidents? Yes.
> 4.) Is it easier for your kids to get drugs in a regulated
> market, or an unregulated one?
I dont want anybody's kids on Drugs like you do, You are promoting ready
access to all drugs. You are a drug dealer arn't you?
>
> > You said Nicotine is more addictive than Heroin. Isn't that your point?
> > Using "less" additive substances are OK?
>
> No; my point is that if you wish to prohibit substances
> on the facts regarding the lethality and addictiveness,
> alcohol & tobacco would be at the top of the list for
> substances that need to be prohibited.
Your attempt to prioritize is an attempt to minimize the effects of
Narcotics and doesn't work.
Sorry but Heroin and Crack are far more addictive.
I can give you a nice warm hit of either and you will be totally addicted in
under 1 fucking minute, and that is anybody.
Dich Shorter
"Adam Weiss" <aw...@blockspam.org> wrote in message
news:41266E3E...@blockspam.org...
I agree with much of what you say.
It is not the substance so much, it is the addicitive pattern, and Alcohol
is the cheapest.
So may that start out on some other substance run low on money, and end up
on alcohol.
Line is drawn on imparment too.
My own preference is much harder stuff, it is too good, pot and alcohol are
crap, but I don't dare use at all.
I've been there, and survived, had many friends that did not. I don't use at
all.
GWBush makes Quayle look like Lincoln
> > > Why else are you promoting the use of Drugs? For "Academic Reasons"?
> >
> > Please quote back to me any statement you've
> > apparently misconstrued as my "promoting the use"
> > of *anything*, except *facts*, which you seem
> > unable to do.
>
> Avoiding the Question again, (your still daized,) Why do you promote the
use
> of drugs?
Given that you've not even attempted to show that
I promote anything of the sort, *plonk*.
Adam Weiss
> "Greg Mortar" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote
>
>
>>>>Why else are you promoting the use of Drugs? For "Academic Reasons"?
>>>
>>>Please quote back to me any statement you've
>>>apparently misconstrued as my "promoting the use"
>>>of *anything*, except *facts*, which you seem
>>>unable to do.
>>
>>Avoiding the Question again, (your still daized,) Why do you promote the
>
> use
>
>>of drugs?
>
>
> Given that you've not even attempted to show that
> I promote anything of the sort, *plonk*.
>
You need to understand that the anti drug camp's thinking is very
simple. Either you support everything the US does in its war on drugs,
or you support the use of drugs. There is no in-between for them. It's
all or nothing.
In the eyes of these drug warmongers there's no room for someone like
yourself, who questions the efficacy of our national drug policy.
GWBush makes Quayle look like Lincoln
> You need to understand that the anti drug camp's thinking is very
> simple. Either you support everything the US does in its war on drugs,
> or you support the use of drugs. There is no in-between for them. It's
> all or nothing.
>
> In the eyes of these drug warmongers there's no room for someone like
> yourself, who questions the efficacy of our national drug policy.
Forgive me for saying so, but this ain't my first
rodeo. I learned long ago there's no point trying to
teach a pig to sing. Still, it's occasionally fun to
watch their illogical, evasive non-responsive non-
arguments implode upon themselves.
For instance, using Greg Mortar's logic, I could ask
why he supports addicting children. When he denies
that he supports such, and demands that I show him
where he ever made such a claim, I could just accuse
him of avoiding the question of why he indeed
supports addicting children.
Smarter monkeys, please.
DrPostman
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>"DrPostman" <Lo...@mysig.foremail> wrote in message
>news:7ntci0t7spclecdf7...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:39:50 -0500, "Greg Mortar"
>> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"DrPostman" <Lo...@mysig.foremail> wrote in message
>> >news:t68ci0d7acu0nu75f...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:12:28 -0500, "Minime" <inv...@invalid.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >So what........ That was Alcohol probation in the 30's.
>> >> >
>> >> >Are you saying that because of Repeal of Alcohlol Probition in the
>30's,
>> >> >POT, Heroin, Crack and the rest of the drugs should be legalized for
>> >> >everybody? Including Glue and Gasoline?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No, just pot. How many people have died from pot poisoning, or
>> >> overdosing on pot?
>> >>
>> >
>> >How many have run their car off the road, or into a tree, or into
>another
>> >car, or have accidently killed someone?
>>
>> There are no statistics for that. However, the records show that
>> those who have done that when drunk are staggering. No one
>> wants to do anything about alcohol.
>
>You are avoiding the question, you can't handle the truth.
The answer is tens of thousands less than those who do the same thing
drunk.
>> I think that anyone who drives impaired, no matter what the
>> substance, should be put under the jail.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> It's an easy answer.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Now, how many people are rotting in jail because they wanted
>> >> to smoke some pot?
>> >
>> >Ignorance is no defence with the Law.
>> >What about those people rotting in jail because they wanted to smoke some
>> >Crack?
>>
>> Put that strawman back in your pants. I was addressing pot.
>
>It is the SAME logic you use to keep using Drugs.
>
You are beginning to convince me that the one who is using is you.
>>
>> >What about those people that just wanted to make love to little boys?
>>
>> You seem to be addicted to strawman.
>>
>>
>> >Moron - go back to your gasoline.
>>
>> I'm actually a recovering addict who will celebrate 17 years in a
>> couple of weeks, dumbass.
>
>If that was true, then you would not be selling "Drugs are good" on the
>internet. If you were in recovery, you would know how dangerious drugs and
>alchahol are, avoid them and help keep others sober, but you are not.
I'm not a hypocrite. I know how dangerous they are for me, but I have
no right to judge what others want to do with their bodies. Me and
the others in my Fellowship are there for those who want recovery,
not for those who need it.
Do you think diabetics should go around warning others about the
dangers of sugar?
>> I happen to think that The War On Some Drugs is a stupid waste
>> of lives and money.
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> As far as I know glue and gasoline are available to anyone who
>> >> wants them.
>> >>
>> >Like you.
>> >
>>
>> Haven't had a need for glue, but I do drive. Don't you buy gas?
Note, no answer.
DrPostman
One of the biggest contributors to the "gateway" notion is that most
dealers of pot also traffic in other and harder drugs. This creates
more exposure and increased temptation.
Dich Shorter
"DrPostman" <Lo...@mysig.foremail> wrote in message
You are attempting to say that because Alcohol is legal, and causes
thousands of deaths, then Pot should be legal and cause thousands of more
driving accidents.
It is the same falty logic You have been using all along, Example: You have
two legs, Degenerate Monkeys have two legs, therfore you are a Degenerate
Monkey.
>
>
>
> >> I think that anyone who drives impaired, no matter what the
> >> substance, should be put under the jail.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> It's an easy answer.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Now, how many people are rotting in jail because they wanted
> >> >> to smoke some pot?
> >> >
> >> >Ignorance is no defence with the Law.
> >> >What about those people rotting in jail because they wanted to smoke
some
> >> >Crack?
> >>
> >> Put that strawman back in your pants. I was addressing pot.
> >
> >It is the SAME logic you use to keep using Drugs.
> >
>
> You are beginning to convince me that the one who is using is you.
Twist and turn, spin around, change the subject, but your question was about
those rotting jail because of smoking Pot, then I asked back well what about
thoes rotting jail because of smokeing Crack? Same Logic, dude.
>
>
> >>
> >> >What about those people that just wanted to make love to little boys?
> >>
> >> You seem to be addicted to strawman.
> >>
> >>
> >> >Moron - go back to your gasoline.
> >>
> >> I'm actually a recovering addict who will celebrate 17 years in a
> >> couple of weeks, dumbass.
> >
> >If that was true, then you would not be selling "Drugs are good" on the
> >internet. If you were in recovery, you would know how dangerious drugs
and
> >alchahol are, avoid them and help keep others sober, but you are not.
>
> I'm not a hypocrite. I know how dangerous they are for me, but I have
> no right to judge what others want to do with their bodies.
Which allows Your justification to "sell" everybody any kind of poizon, Let
a truck run over them, I won't warn them, It is not my fault. But you can
try to prevent, but need to make money, sell pot and other drugs.
>Me and
> the others in my Fellowship are there for those who want recovery,
> not for those who need it.
> Do you think diabetics should go around warning others about the
> dangers of sugar?
Yes, better to be warned, then to find out too late. Any Diabetic will tell
you that.
Dich Shorter
> GWBush makes Quayle look like Lincoln wrote:
> > "Greg Mortar" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote
> >
> >
> >>>>Why else are you promoting the use of Drugs? For "Academic Reasons"?
> >>>
> >>>Please quote back to me any statement you've
> >>>apparently misconstrued as my "promoting the use"
> >>>of *anything*, except *facts*, which you seem
> >>>unable to do.
> >>
> >>Avoiding the Question again, (your still daized,) Why do you promote the
> >
> > use
> >
> >>of drugs?
> >
> >
> > Given that you've not even attempted to show that
> > I promote anything of the sort, *plonk*.
> >
>
> You need to understand that the anti drug camp's thinking is very
> simple. Either you support everything the US does in its war on drugs,
> or you support the use of drugs. There is no in-between for them. It's
> all or nothing.
That is your bullshit. That is what you are saying.
>
> In the eyes of these drug warmongers there's no room for someone like
> yourself, who questions the efficacy of our national drug policy.
Wrong again, If think you are using drugs, I Will turn you in, No problem,
ten you can then look forwared to a secure future with room and board as
some Bucks Bitch. And keep you off My Streets.
GWBush makes Quayle look like Lincoln
> You are attempting to say that because Alcohol is legal, and causes
> thousands of deaths, then Pot should be legal and cause thousands of more
> driving accidents.
>
> It is the same falty logic You have been using all along
The faulty logic is in thinking that there's a single
goddamn person in the USA who has been waiting for
pot to become legal before procuring and partaking of
it.
Dich Shorter
> "Adam Weiss" <aw...@blockspam.org> wrote
>
> > You need to understand that the anti drug camp's thinking is very
> > simple. Either you support everything the US does in its war on drugs,
> > or you support the use of drugs. There is no in-between for them. It's
> > all or nothing.
> >
> > In the eyes of these drug warmongers there's no room for someone like
> > yourself, who questions the efficacy of our national drug policy.
>
> Forgive me for saying so, but this ain't my first
> rodeo. I learned long ago there's no point trying to
> teach a pig to sing. Still, it's occasionally fun to
> watch their illogical, evasive non-responsive non-
> arguments implode upon themselves.
Rodeo Pigs Singing and imploding - OK smoke some more dope, Dope. You'ss
sound smarter to yourself.
>
> For instance, using Greg Mortar's logic, I could ask
> why he supports addicting children. When he denies
> that he supports such, and demands that I show him
> where he ever made such a claim, I could just accuse
> him of avoiding the question of why he indeed
> supports addicting children.
>
> Smarter monkeys, please.
Yes You need a monkey to talk to, that is where your IQ is, about 65.
Aim for that Tree in the Fog, it is your future, and you'll save lives of
others.
Smoke your shit and let others get ahead of you.
GWBush makes Quayle look like Lincoln
> Yes You need a monkey to talk to, that is where your IQ is, about 65.
Why do you support addicting America's children?
Dich Shorter
> "Dich Shorter" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote
>
> > You are attempting to say that because Alcohol is legal, and causes
> > thousands of deaths, then Pot should be legal and cause thousands of
more
> > driving accidents.
> >
> > It is the same falty logic You have been using all along
>
> The faulty logic is in thinking that there's a single
> goddamn person in the USA who has been waiting for
> pot to become legal before procuring and partaking of
> it.
Do you mean scoring a dime bag, rolling some j's and smokeing a few, get a
buzz on?
Too bad when they drive, the slow reactions cause car collisions, and people
get killed.
That is why the Gov will never make it legal.
You'll find the Alcohol penalities in raffic accidents have greatly
increased over the last few years.
GWBush makes Quayle look like Lincoln
> Too bad when they drive, the slow reactions cause car collisions, and
people
> get killed.
And because of laws and men carrying guns and
badges, this simply doesn't happen, as yet. Magical
laws, making altered drivers impossible.
> That is why the Gov will never make it legal.
Why? Because naturally (as in "unaided by alcoholic
dementia, or other substance abuse-related organic
injury") brain-damaged burnouts, such as yourself, think
there's even ONE person just WAITING PATIENTLY for
the legal status of cannabis to switch directions before
they'll ever buy and smoke the shit?
Do you understand what a joke this argument presents?
> You'll find the Alcohol penalities in raffic accidents have greatly
> increased over the last few years.
Gas prices have gone up, too. Has about the same
relevance to the topic at hand.
Dich Shorter
> "Dich Shorter" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote
>
> > Yes You need a monkey to talk to, that is where your IQ is, about 65.
>
> Why do you support addicting America's children?
>
Why do you like having an IQ that is 65? That is not NORML Dude. It is
"lower" than average of the population, perhaps not your friends. That IQ
level of 65 is on the order of Plants, which is what POT does to you,
because it is a plant. No ability to reason left, slow plant like reactions,
alpha waves diminished, an easy victim for others, cause you is stoned.
You may like that, but don' spread your "diminished capacity" drug using to
others so you can feel "safe and comfortable". Go die with the weed your
smoking, it already has week killer in it. No wonder your having problem
responding to this newsgroup, people are sorry for you, and you don't know
it.
GWBush makes Quayle look like Lincoln
> Why do you like having an IQ that is 65?
Why do you support addicting America's children?
Is it easier for your kids (under 21) to get pot,
or to get alcohol?
You support easy access to drugs for children of
any age. Why?
Dich Shorter
> "Dich Shorter" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote
>
> > Too bad when they drive, the slow reactions cause car collisions, and
> people
> > get killed.
>
> And because of laws and men carrying guns and
> badges, this simply doesn't happen, as yet. Magical
> laws, making altered drivers impossible.
Magical - A term that exists in your world to explain things you are
incapable of understanding.
>
> > That is why the Gov will never make it legal.
>
> Why? Because naturally (as in "unaided by alcoholic
> dementia, or other substance abuse-related organic
> injury") brain-damaged burnouts, such as yourself, think
> there's even ONE person just WAITING PATIENTLY for
> the legal status of cannabis to switch directions before
> they'll ever buy and smoke the shit?
You have again lost the point of the argument, which is "if POT was legal,
then there would be thousands of more Dopers, thousands of more traffic
wrecks, thousands more not working too stoned in the streets, Thousands of
more morons bumping around". Even you would get sick of it, think about it.
Go to a McDonalds, and order a hamberger, and the idiots behind the counter
are stoned to the gills, like Bevis and Butthead, "Huh? man..............
dude, ah................................" Stoners are stupid. Slow
thinkers. Brain dead dim wits and easily spotted. What if the Cops were
Stoners too? Except they would have fun kicking you around, without having
to be reasonable.
>
> Do you understand what a joke this argument presents?
>
> > You'll find the Alcohol penalities in raffic accidents have greatly
> > increased over the last few years.
>
> Gas prices have gone up, too. Has about the same
> relevance to the topic at hand.
Gas or Gasoline Prices? The price of your cheap sniffer is higher, which is
relivent to you.
DrPostman
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>You are attempting to say that because Alcohol is legal, and causes
>thousands of deaths, then Pot should be legal and cause thousands of more
>driving accidents.
>
>It is the same falty logic You have been using all along, Example: You have
>two legs, Degenerate Monkeys have two legs, therfore you are a Degenerate
>Monkey.
I am saying that if one is legal then the other should be as well.
You have nothing to back up your claim that "thousands of more
driving accidents" will occur. Driving impaired is a problem that is
unrelated, and involves cell phones, eating, being sleepy, putting
on makeup, watching a video, along with the use of substances
both legal and illegal.
>>
>>
>> >> I think that anyone who drives impaired, no matter what the
>> >> substance, should be put under the jail.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's an easy answer.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Now, how many people are rotting in jail because they wanted
>> >> >> to smoke some pot?
>> >> >
>> >> >Ignorance is no defence with the Law.
>> >> >What about those people rotting in jail because they wanted to smoke
>some
>> >> >Crack?
>> >>
>> >> Put that strawman back in your pants. I was addressing pot.
>> >
>> >It is the SAME logic you use to keep using Drugs.
>> >
>>
>> You are beginning to convince me that the one who is using is you.
>
>Twist and turn, spin around, change the subject, but your question was about
>those rotting jail because of smoking Pot, then I asked back well what about
>thoes rotting jail because of smokeing Crack? Same Logic, dude.
Crack has caused people to do harm to others. When was the last time
you heard of a pot smoker killing someone just because they were high.
Sorry, that dog won't hunt. On top of that, jail has never been a
treatment for addiction. It is just the opposite, exposing drug users
to still more drugs with no treatment.
>> I'm not a hypocrite. I know how dangerous they are for me, but I have
>> no right to judge what others want to do with their bodies.
>
>Which allows Your justification to "sell" everybody any kind of poizon, Let
>a truck run over them, I won't warn them, It is not my fault. But you can
>try to prevent, but need to make money, sell pot and other drugs.
Who said I want to sell drugs? That's nuts, I won't even tend a bar
because I feel like I might be enabling someone's addiction. However,
I don't go protesting bars. That would be silly and a waste of time.
Not everyone who drinks has a problem, just as not everyone who
smokes pot have a problem. Quite a small number do, actually.
And once again you keep lumping pot with other drugs. There is
a vast difference. Unless, of course, you want to be sensible and
include alcohol in that bunch. Any doctor will tell you that alcohol
is a drug.
>>Me and
>> the others in my Fellowship are there for those who want recovery,
>> not for those who need it.
>> Do you think diabetics should go around warning others about the
>> dangers of sugar?
>
>Yes, better to be warned, then to find out too late. Any Diabetic will tell
>you that.
Shows what you know about diabetes. Tell that to Type 1 diabetics,
you dolt.
>> >> I happen to think that The War On Some Drugs is a stupid waste
>> >> of lives and money.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As far as I know glue and gasoline are available to anyone who
>> >> >> wants them.
>> >> >>
>> >> >Like you.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Haven't had a need for glue, but I do drive. Don't you buy gas?
>>
>> Note, no answer.
And the non answers continue
DrPostman
Yet it is still legal to drink. You really don't get it, do you?
DrPostman
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>You have again lost the point of the argument, which is "if POT was legal,
>then there would be thousands of more Dopers, thousands of more traffic
>wrecks, thousands more not working too stoned in the streets, Thousands of
>more morons bumping around". Even you would get sick of it, think about it.
>Go to a McDonalds, and order a hamberger, and the idiots behind the counter
>are stoned to the gills, like Bevis and Butthead, "Huh? man..............
>dude, ah................................" Stoners are stupid. Slow
>thinkers. Brain dead dim wits and easily spotted. What if the Cops were
>Stoners too? Except they would have fun kicking you around, without having
>to be reasonable.
You have absolutely nothing to back up your claim. On top of that,
there already ARE stoned people behind that counter. There are
drunks too, but that doesn't seem to bother you.
GWBush makes Quayle look like Lincoln
> Magical - A term that exists in your world to explain things you are
> incapable of understanding.
If you were serious, instead of a lightweight, you'd
try to explain it to me (and anyone else). It would be
entertaining to witness, I'll surmise.
> You have again lost the point of the argument, which is "if POT was legal,
> then there would be thousands of more Dopers, thousands of more traffic
> wrecks, thousands more not working too stoned in the streets, Thousands of
> more morons bumping around".
So, it IS your contention that there are THOUSANDS
of people, RIGHT NOW who are chomping at the bit,
wanting to smoke pot... but AREN'T, because of laws?
Where do you live? Where do they grow stupid this
potent? I'd like to avoid such a place.
--
Toucan
Be heard. Spread the word.
http://www.YouSaidit.org
Michael
> So, it IS your contention that there are THOUSANDS
> of people, RIGHT NOW who are chomping at the bit,
> wanting to smoke pot... but AREN'T, because of laws?
>
> Where do you live? Where do they grow stupid this
> potent? I'd like to avoid such a place.
>
Pot has killed way less than alcohol and tobacco.
The scheduling of the drugs isn't even logical. Scheduling them via
"redeeming medical value" places safer drugs such as LSD and MDMA (X) in
the most restricted class. You can kill people by selling them
oxycontin, yet LSD manufacturing can net a life sentence.
LSD on blotter is the purest illegal drug there is. If MDMA was
legalized, there would be far less deaths from aldulterant garbage like PMA.
michael
Michael
> Crack has caused people to do harm to others. When was the last time
> you heard of a pot smoker killing someone just because they were high.
> Sorry, that dog won't hunt. On top of that, jail has never been a
> treatment for addiction. It is just the opposite, exposing drug users
> to still more drugs with no treatment.
Cocaine and heroin arguably cause far more cultural damage. Pot, X, and
LSD are far safer. They were simply banned to protect teenagers. LSD
was banned out of fear. Street X is so adulterated, it was easy to ban.
You can still mail order several chemical relatives by the kilogram.
michael
Dich Shortly
"Michael" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:LiPVc.9054$3O3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
dummy - LSD is no more, they simply use strychnine on your blotter. Look up
the effects of strychnine.
With real LSD it to hard to control the dosage, it works different in
different people. Many permanently flip out, others become schizoid, or
paranoid. Have someone terrorize you while on a Trip, and see if you come
back, ever.
People who use X quite a lot become tame and stupid when their not on it.
don't shoot the messenger - check it out yourself.
Dich Shortly
"DrPostman" <Lo...@mysig.foremail> wrote in message
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 15:56:48 -0500, "Dich Shorter"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >You have again lost the point of the argument, which is "if POT was
legal,
> >then there would be thousands of more Dopers, thousands of more traffic
> >wrecks, thousands more not working too stoned in the streets, Thousands
of
> >more morons bumping around". Even you would get sick of it, think about
it.
> >Go to a McDonalds, and order a hamberger, and the idiots behind the
counter
> >are stoned to the gills, like Bevis and Butthead, "Huh? man..............
> >dude, ah................................" Stoners are stupid. Slow
> >thinkers. Brain dead dim wits and easily spotted. What if the Cops were
> >Stoners too? Except they would have fun kicking you around, without
having
> >to be reasonable.
>
> You have absolutely nothing to back up your claim. On top of that,
> there already ARE stoned people behind that counter. There are
> drunks too, but that doesn't seem to bother you.
Well, Let's hope no one here or that we know gets injured, or killed because
they or someone else are high, on whatever.
Dich Shortly
> "Dich Shorter" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote
>
Why do you like having an IQ that is 65? That is not NORML Dude. It is
"lower" than average of the population, perhaps not your friends. That IQ
level of 65 is on the order of Plants, which is what POT does to you,
because it is a plant. No ability to reason left, slow plant like reactions,
alpha waves diminished, an easy victim for others, cause you is stoned.
You may like that, but don' spread your "diminished capacity" drug using to
others so you can feel "safe and comfortable". Go die with the weed your
smoking, it already has week killer in it. No wonder your having problem
responding to this newsgroup, people are sorry for you, and you don't know
it.
> --
> Toucan Drug for Everyone!
Michael
> dummy - LSD is no more, they simply use strychnine on your blotter. Look up
> the effects of strychnine.
Strychnine is not a byproduct of any LSD synthesis whether the precursor
is ergotamine tartrate, lysergic acid, or LSA. Strychnine is bitter at
1 part in 1 million, you'd taste a strong bitterness. LSD is
psychoactive at 25 to 50 mics, and strychinine would not be active in
the doses on a blotter.
Very little can be put on a blotter, fentanyl analogues are subjectively
different, DOB is different and hardly active at that range. LSD
analogues aren't worth bothering with since they are as difficult a
synthesis as LSD.
This is an urban legend from non-chemists.
michael
Michael
> People who use X quite a lot become tame and stupid when their not on it.
>
> don't shoot the messenger - check it out yourself.
Wow, anecdotal evidence. Were these studies on MDMA, or bioassays on
street pills? My comments were limited to MDMA, not adulterants.
michael
Dich Shortly
"DrPostman" <Lo...@mysig.foremail> wrote in message
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 13:02:23 -0500, "Dich Shorter"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>
> >You are attempting to say that because Alcohol is legal, and causes
> >thousands of deaths, then Pot should be legal and cause thousands of more
> >driving accidents.
> >
> >It is the same falty logic You have been using all along, Example: You
have
> >two legs, Degenerate Monkeys have two legs, therfore you are a Degenerate
> >Monkey.
>
> I am saying that if one is legal then the other should be as well.
> You have nothing to back up your claim that "thousands of more
> driving accidents" will occur. Driving impaired is a problem that is
> unrelated, and involves cell phones, eating, being sleepy, putting
> on makeup, watching a video, along with the use of substances
> both legal and illegal.
You live in denial land, so you can keep smoking your dope. It is only you
and your Drugs now. That is all that matters to you. You will never give up
or concide a point in this exchange, because you are addicted. So, just wait
till you hit bottom, probably several years from now. Only then will be able
to see you have an addiction. But not now. You will use any amount of
contorted logic to continue to justify using drugs.
And that is a fact.
>
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> I think that anyone who drives impaired, no matter what the
> >> >> substance, should be put under the jail.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It's an easy answer.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Now, how many people are rotting in jail because they wanted
> >> >> >> to smoke some pot?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Ignorance is no defence with the Law.
> >> >> >What about those people rotting in jail because they wanted to
smoke
> >some
> >> >> >Crack?
> >> >>
> >> >> Put that strawman back in your pants. I was addressing pot.
> >> >
> >> >It is the SAME logic you use to keep using Drugs.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You are beginning to convince me that the one who is using is you.
> >
> >Twist and turn, spin around, change the subject, but your question was
about
> >those rotting jail because of smoking Pot, then I asked back well what
about
> >thoes rotting jail because of smokeing Crack? Same Logic, dude.
>
> Crack has caused people to do harm to others. When was the last time
> you heard of a pot smoker killing someone just because they were high.
A few days ago, a stoner killed a family of 4 with his car by running into
them.
> Sorry, that dog won't hunt. On top of that, jail has never been a
> treatment for addiction. It is just the opposite, exposing drug users
> to still more drugs with no treatment.
Fuck'em -- they are OFF the Street. (I agree with Drug treatment inside and
outside)
> You can email me at: DrJaiMaharajFraud(at)hotmail.com
Is this DrJaiMaharaj? If so you should know better.
Dich Shortly
No, not an urban legend, look it up for real, check it out. It will open
your eyes.
It is not a byproduct, it is a substitute.
Easy to get, cheap, and not that bitter in the right form. Almost all the
same effects as LSD.
DrPostman
What is a fact is that I will celebrate 17 years at the Positive Image
Group of NA at 1399 Airways on September 25th at 6:30pm in Memphis.
We do a hell of a pot luck for birthday night at my homegroup.
You can believe what you want but it doesn't change the points I
brought up. I guess you resort to fantasies when you have nothing
left to support you.
>> Crack has caused people to do harm to others. When was the last time
>> you heard of a pot smoker killing someone just because they were high.
>
>A few days ago, a stoner killed a family of 4 with his car by running into
>them.
And a few days ago someone else caused deaths on the road because
they were watching a video. Same thing happened yesterday because
someone went to sleep at the wheel. This has nothing to do with the
legalization of pot. BTW, that same day, a few days ago, quite a
few more died as a result of alcohol use and continue to die every day
because of alcohol use, but I guess that's not as big a problem to
you.
>> Sorry, that dog won't hunt. On top of that, jail has never been a
>> treatment for addiction. It is just the opposite, exposing drug users
>> to still more drugs with no treatment.
>
>Fuck'em -- they are OFF the Street. (I agree with Drug treatment inside and
>outside)
Well, at least there is that from you. Treatment works better than
warehousing. The War On Some Drugs doesn't provide much in
the way of treatment.
>> You can email me at: DrJaiMaharajFraud(at)hotmail.com
>
>Is this DrJaiMaharaj? If so you should know better.
Nope, he is just another in a long line of kooks who have tried
to netcop me.
--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member
#15-51506-253. AFA-B Official Pollster.
You can email me at: DrJaiMaharajFraud(at)hotmail.com
"Prooves your a idiot!"
wetfinger
>That is why the Gov will never make it legal.
In the words of the late, great Bill Hicks......
"Making something illegal that grows naturally upon this planet just
seems kind of unnatural."
"Thats kind of like telling God he fucked up."
Anonymous
>>>You are avoiding the question, you can't handle the truth.
Hi,
the truth is there is no rational reason for the prohibition of
marijuana possession/use.
driving impaired is a different discussion.
driving impaired by benadryl is documented for example.
--
To live outside the law, you must be honest...
(Absolutely Sweet Marie - Blonde on Blonde - 1966)
Anonymous
I've never advocated the distribution of caffeine or alcohol (both
addictive drugs) to children in either North or South America.
I have advocated medicalization/rescheduling marijuana for medical use
and the legalization/regulation/taxation of recreational marijuana for
adult use (which has nothing to do with driving).
GWBush makes Quayle look like Lincoln wrote:
> "Dich Shorter" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote
>
>
>>Yes You need a monkey to talk to, that is where your IQ is, about 65.
>
>
> Why do you support addicting America's children?
>
--
Anonymous
> Do you mean scoring a dime bag, rolling some j's and smokeing a few, get a
> buzz on?
>
> Too bad when they drive, the slow reactions cause car collisions, and people
> get killed.
Hi,
the funny thing is the stoners drive SLOWER.
they're the ones sitting at the stop sign waiting for it to turn GREEN.
> That is why the Gov will never make it legal.
actually it's just because with a few seeds from canada (sold legally)
or the UK (sold legally) or the netherlands (sold legally) someone can
produce all the cannabis they want TAX FREE in their back yard.
Michael S.
stopped motorcycle. Laughing my head off when the person behind me helped me
pick it up off my leg.
"Anonymous" <any...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:1EsWc.80$0J6...@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
Willielmus de Noers
<nob...@localhost.localdomain>'s Tater Trap opened, and out tumbled:
> nazi-like opinions.
OK, that's it. I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. This thread is over.
--
W. de N.
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."
-- John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), "On Liberty," 1859
Posted by news://news.nb.nu
Anonymouse
> One of the biggest contributors to the "gateway" notion is that most
> dealers of pot also traffic in other and harder drugs. This creates
> more exposure and increased temptation.
Hi,
this has been the dutch experience (they have HALF the cannabis use of
the US BTW).
Seperate "soft drugs" (cannabis) from hard drugs and the problems
largely go away.