Talk of The Villages Florida
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)
-   The Villages, Florida, Political talk (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-political-talk-88/)
-   -   legalizing Pot (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-political-talk-88/legalizing-pot-20517/)

Guest 03-02-2009 12:34 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 191668)
A current doctoral thesis from Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, on the neurobiological effects of early life cannabis exposure, gives support for the cannabis gateway hypothesis in relation to adult opiate abuse. THC exposed rats showed increased motivation for opiate drug use under conditions of stress. However, the cannabis exposure did not correlate to amphetamine use.
Research has shown that cannabis acts to increase heart frequency by as much as 40 beats per minute. A study reported by The American Heart Association in February 2000, concluded that smoking marijuana can precipitate a heart attack in persons with preexisting heart conditions. One hour after smoking marijuana, the likelihood of having a heart attack is four and one-half times greater than if the person had not smoked, according to the research.
An additional health concern is the effect that marijuana smoking has on the lungs. Cannabis smoke carries more tars and other particulate matter than tobacco smoke.
More seriously, marijuana has been linked to the onset or worsening of certain psychiatric conditions, including panic disorder, schizophrenia, and depersonalization disorder. Persons diagnosed with or at risk for these conditions should not use marijuana.
No health hazards or side effects are known in conjunction with the proper administration of designated therapeutic dosages." Smoking the herb, however, "… leads almost at once to euphoric states (pronounced gaiety, laughing fits)," according to the PDR, while "long term usage leads to a clear increase in tolerance for most of the pharmacological effects." The ability to safely operate automobiles and machinery can be impaired for up to eight hours after ingesting the herb. Chronic abuse results in "laryngitis, bronchitis, apathy, psychic decline and disturbances of genital functions," according to the PDR.
Some people may be hypersensitive to marijuana. They may be allergic or hypersensitive to the plant. Chronic sinus fungal infections have been linked to chronic marijuana smoking.
THC Substance abuse A substance derived from the hemp plant Cannabis sativa, the leaves of which are smoked, producing a hallucinogenic effect due to the neurochemical Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol–THC, which has a cognate THC receptor in the brain Immune system THC blocks monocyte maturation Nervous system Impaired motor skills, defective eye tracking and perception; THC receptors are most abundant in the hippocampus, where memory is consolidated, explaining MJ's detrimental effect on memory and least abundant in the brainstem, explaining why death by overdose is unknown with chronic marijuana abuse; heavy use is associated with residual neuropsychological effects, as evidenced by ↑ perseverations on card-sorting, and ↓ learning of lists Respiratory tract MJ is inhaled or 'toked' in a fashion that differs from that of tobacco; in order to maximize THC absorption and elicit the desired 'high.', the subject prolongs inhalation, markedly ↑ carbon monoxide and tar, and thus is possibly more detrimental than tobacco smoke Therapeutic uses MJ is an analgesic, but unusable as such, due to the inseparable hallucinogenic effect; it is of use for 1. Control of N&V in terminal CA–2 antiemetic cannabinoids are
Excellent post. This scientifically supports my position that it isn't healthy to use and unsafe in some (?most) instances. The question or point, however, of the thread was whether the use of it should be decriminalized. Remember, we know alcohol, alcoholism, chronic alcoholic liver disease, the tragic consequences of DUI imparts a huge economic, social, health, personal toll on our nation. At some point the legislators recognized prohibition of its use, sale, manufacture could not be successfully carried out by the Federal gov't. That is the current issue re cannabis.

Guest 03-02-2009 01:04 PM
If I may offer another perspecyive. Pot is compared to
 
alcohol, which as I have just used the word is all encompassing and generic...alcohol!
A more appropriate comparison should be the comparison of alcohol ABUSERS to pot users. This would exclude the masses of us that enjoy beverages with an alcoholic content and varying flavor or function.

Addiction issues. I guess that is a function of the brain of each individual.
To obese people is food an addiction? If yes does it qualify for comparison like alcohol abuse? Pot use? Food abuse (obese/fat!)?

Can drug use in moderation be good for anybody? Scientific conclusions say no.

How about other addictions that lead to death and dismemberment? Like cell phones and driving.

You will see how attitudes about the subject matter shift as one or another includes individuals.....OR NOT!!!

BTK

Guest 03-02-2009 01:25 PM
[QUOTE=SteveZ;191638]I would outlaw pot because....mind-altering substances in the hands of amateurs provides great potential for danger to those in proximity of the substance user.

As best I understand your position, anything that would pose a "Potential" threat to those in proximity should be outlawed.

do you support prohibition of alcohol?

Peanuts? They won't even serve them if anyone on the plane is allergic.

I see good reason to outlaw behavior. It is hard to justify outlawing a substance that may or may not have a direct influence on that behavior.

I am not a pot user but I am also not a nanny stater.

Thank you for your view point.

Yoda

Guest 03-02-2009 02:49 PM
To RSHoffer
 
We spend millions and millions of dollars trying to repair the effects of alcohol and drugs on our society through detox centers, crisis centers and rehabs.and professionals. We should distinguish that alcohol is a "desease". To be classified as a "disease" it must have a) symptoms and b) be predictable. And alcohol and alcoholics falls under this definition. It is unclear that marijuana has ever been identified as a disease and from all of the data I have seen it has not.
I wonder how many that would like to see pot decriminalized have visited a detox center or a crisis center or a rehab. How many have tried to give therapy to someone who is in the last stages of their life because of drug or alcohol usage and abuse. Or have seen the effects on the family.
Having said this I have a hard time understanding why we would want to unload another drug on the already stressed out next generation and set up more detox, rehabs and professionals to handle the influx of abusers. I hear the argument that trying to police it is costing a great deal of money. I believe it is folly to think it will not have to be policed if legal and the costs of treatments will mimic those of the other drug users and health costs will be significantly impacted.
I am not a do gooder and not fanatic on the usage of alcohol but I am practical and am a believer that somewhere all this "lets distort reality" should be controled.

Guest 03-02-2009 03:02 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 191668)
A current doctoral thesis from Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, on the neurobiological effects of early life cannabis exposure, gives support for the cannabis gateway hypothesis in relation to adult opiate abuse. THC exposed rats showed increased motivation for opiate drug use under conditions of stress. However, the cannabis exposure did not correlate to amphetamine use.
Research has shown that cannabis acts to increase heart frequency by as much as 40 beats per minute. A study reported by The American Heart Association in February 2000, concluded that smoking marijuana can precipitate a heart attack in persons with preexisting heart conditions. One hour after smoking marijuana, the likelihood of having a heart attack is four and one-half times greater than if the person had not smoked, according to the research.
An additional health concern is the effect that marijuana smoking has on the lungs. Cannabis smoke carries more tars and other particulate matter than tobacco smoke.
More seriously, marijuana has been linked to the onset or worsening of certain psychiatric conditions, including panic disorder, schizophrenia, and depersonalization disorder. Persons diagnosed with or at risk for these conditions should not use marijuana.
No health hazards or side effects are known in conjunction with the proper administration of designated therapeutic dosages." Smoking the herb, however, "… leads almost at once to euphoric states (pronounced gaiety, laughing fits)," according to the PDR, while "long term usage leads to a clear increase in tolerance for most of the pharmacological effects." The ability to safely operate automobiles and machinery can be impaired for up to eight hours after ingesting the herb. Chronic abuse results in "laryngitis, bronchitis, apathy, psychic decline and disturbances of genital functions," according to the PDR.
Some people may be hypersensitive to marijuana. They may be allergic or hypersensitive to the plant. Chronic sinus fungal infections have been linked to chronic marijuana smoking.
THC Substance abuse A substance derived from the hemp plant Cannabis sativa, the leaves of which are smoked, producing a hallucinogenic effect due to the neurochemical Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol–THC, which has a cognate THC receptor in the brain Immune system THC blocks monocyte maturation Nervous system Impaired motor skills, defective eye tracking and perception; THC receptors are most abundant in the hippocampus, where memory is consolidated, explaining MJ's detrimental effect on memory and least abundant in the brainstem, explaining why death by overdose is unknown with chronic marijuana abuse; heavy use is associated with residual neuropsychological effects, as evidenced by ↑ perseverations on card-sorting, and ↓ learning of lists Respiratory tract MJ is inhaled or 'toked' in a fashion that differs from that of tobacco; in order to maximize THC absorption and elicit the desired 'high.', the subject prolongs inhalation, markedly ↑ carbon monoxide and tar, and thus is possibly more detrimental than tobacco smoke Therapeutic uses MJ is an analgesic, but unusable as such, due to the inseparable hallucinogenic effect; it is of use for 1. Control of N&V in terminal CA–2 antiemetic cannabinoids are

OK. And the point is?

Guest 03-02-2009 03:18 PM
Can't help
 
As the saying goes..I can give you what I believe is the answer but I can't help you understand it.

Guest 03-02-2009 03:26 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 191486)
...and that includes golf carts....

It's a shame that most of the "harmless pot smokers" never get to see the violence involved in the smuggling. Marijuana smuggling along the Southwest border is one of the three main reasons for the internal wars within Mexico involving the drug cartels, the Mexican Army, and the Mexican Police - with the populace caught in the middle. Those US urbanites who think it's "cool" to get a dime bag for party use never see the lives ruined or lost in the "supply" side of the equation - and probably don't give a darn, as long as they can "be cool."
EXACTLY!

The people that are truly the criminals are the foreign countries that import marijuana. Importation of marijuana is a War we will never win. It been a losing battle ever since the War started. How many billions of dollars could our government make in manufacturing and supplying our country with marijuana? How much money and lives would be saved?

Persons against imposing a tax argue that consumers will only grow it themselves therefore marijuana is non taxable. I say BULLSHI*. 90% of Americans don't have the time patience or skill to produce a fine crop of Sensi. It's the same with alcohol. Sure some people will make it themselves but a large majority would rather go somewhere safe and purchase it legally. Seriously who wants to buy Mexican weed that has god knows what pesticide sprayed on it that is probably molded and weak in THC. People need to step aside and actually look at the positive benefits of marijuana and set aside their previous instilled scare tactic beliefs. Research has proved that marijuana is as safe as cup of coffee. So why don't you put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Guest 03-02-2009 03:31 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 191677)
alcohol, which as I have just used the word is all encompassing and generic...alcohol!
A more appropriate comparison should be the comparison of alcohol ABUSERS to pot users. This would exclude the masses of us that enjoy beverages with an alcoholic content and varying flavor or function.

Addiction issues. I guess that is a function of the brain of each individual.
To obese people is food an addiction? If yes does it qualify for comparison like alcohol abuse? Pot use? Food abuse (obese/fat!)?

Can drug use in moderation be good for anybody? Scientific conclusions say no.

How about other addictions that lead to death and dismemberment? Like cell phones and driving.

You will see how attitudes about the subject matter shift as one or another includes individuals.....OR NOT!!!

BTK
ethyl alcohol is a drug, can be used as a general anesthetic (in high enough doses).

Guest 03-02-2009 03:38 PM
[QUOTE=Yoda;191678]
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 191638)
I would outlaw pot because....mind-altering substances in the hands of amateurs provides great potential for danger to those in proximity of the substance user.

As best I understand your position, anything that would pose a "Potential" threat to those in proximity should be outlawed.

do you support prohibition of alcohol?

Peanuts? They won't even serve them if anyone on the plane is allergic.

I see good reason to outlaw behavior. It is hard to justify outlawing a substance that may or may not have a direct influence on that behavior.

I am not a pot user but I am also not a nanny stater.

Thank you for your view point.

Yoda
Most laws restrict behavior where the use of a substance, product, tool, device poses a potential threat to the populace, whether the harm is to the user or to bystanders. That includes, as examples, firearms, fireworks, motor vehicles, most chemicals, and almost all (save those over-the-counter) pharmaceuticals.

Laws get proposed not because of the potential of harm, but of actual experience in same or similar situations. The basis is always the same - the majority are to be protected from the minority who lack the common sense or motivation not to abuse the product to the detriment of others.

We should not need laws to tell us not to do a lot of things, but there is always a segment of the population which anarchistically could care less about others as long as their "fun" is not restricted. It's not being a "nanny state" when there are so many "I don't give a %@$#" people out there who can't do things without negatively affecting others.

We would not need to outlaw or restrict anything if people respected the rights of others as they pursued their own goals. These days there seems to be an "I am the center of the universe, and my pleasure is more important than your right not to be impacted by me" attitude permeating society.

If marijuana has a medical value, then it can and should be controlled, according to the consensus of the best medical minds, and not just a couple of self-serving radical physicians. I would like to think the American Medical Association and state medical boards - who function under scientific discipline rather than wishful desires - would provide professional counsel to the vote-panderers of the legislature as to merits, extent and logic of governmental decisions regarding marijuana in American society.

And again, the ballot box and the legislative process is where laws are changed. "Civil disobedience" is just a sexy way to say "scofflaw," and those who practice "civil disobedience" should be ready to appreciate all the joys and pleasures of being arrested, the booking process, a permanent record (complete expungment really doesn't happen!) and legal costs associated with the experience. That's the minimum, even if found "not guilty."

Guest 03-02-2009 03:43 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 191696)
We spend millions and millions of dollars trying to repair the effects of alcohol and drugs on our society through detox centers, crisis centers and rehabs.and professionals. We should distinguish that alcohol is a "desease". To be classified as a "disease" it must have a) symptoms and b) be predictable. And alcohol and alcoholics falls under this definition. It is unclear that marijuana has ever been identified as a disease and from all of the data I have seen it has not.
I wonder how many that would like to see pot decriminalized have visited a detox center or a crisis center or a rehab. How many have tried to give therapy to someone who is in the last stages of their life because of drug or alcohol usage and abuse. Or have seen the effects on the family.
Having said this I have a hard time understanding why we would want to unload another drug on the already stressed out next generation and set up more detox, rehabs and professionals to handle the influx of abusers. I hear the argument that trying to police it is costing a great deal of money. I believe it is folly to think it will not have to be policed if legal and the costs of treatments will mimic those of the other drug users and health costs will be significantly impacted.
I am not a do gooder and not fanatic on the usage of alcohol but I am practical and am a believer that somewhere all this "lets distort reality" should be controled.
Alcohol use is already "controlled". In fact, in my home state of Pa, you can only buy wine or spirits in "state stores" and beer by the case at "beer distributors". The original question in this very long thread was not about "controlling" its use... it was about decriminalizing it's use...a huge difference. Your point about the devastating effects of alcohol abuse/dependence are right on. I suspect this is one of the reasons prohibition was enacted. I wasn't around for that but I suspect the repeal of prohibition was, in part, due to the realization that it didn't work.

Guest 03-02-2009 04:48 PM
Your Right
 
Your most likely right when it came to Prohibition. As I understand history alcohol had been used and accepted and then revoked. Since it had already been introduced into society and it's effects enjoyed and some strong public economics built on its use it was not something that was going to go away. Even some churches used it for Communion and it was a stable in some countries as it is today.
I would vote against ever decriminalizing pot as I personally don't think we need another mind altering, reality avoidance, expensive investments in detox centers, crisis centers, rehabs and Professionals so someone can light up and be happy to fake out their feelings. I am just one small voice and would wield to the majority.

Guest 03-02-2009 05:12 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 191707)
As the saying goes..I can give you what I believe is the answer but I can't help you understand it.

What is exactly is the point of citing a thesis, which is just that...a thesis...a declaration of what one believes and intends to prove? Not exactly on a par with a double blinded placebo controlled study, or even a meta-analysis (an even easier standard).
Almost all of the above symptoms and hypothesis can be attributed to both alcohol and tobacco smoking.

So it really was an honest question, despite the trite reply. With all due respect I was actually curious.

And yes the thread has really drifted. But in a good way generally I think, lots a varied and interesting opinions. The OP I think was the declaration that somehow the present administration was decreasing the intervention/prosecution on a federal level of marijuana users. That was corrected to say that were not interfering on a federal level with "cannibus clubs" that really are in place for the sick folks that need it.
And to be clear, we are not "unleashing" a new scourge on humanity, I think the debate is how we handle it, it has been and will be around forever. I doubt any of us has the perfect solution, but a lot of intelligent comments here about it.

Guest 03-02-2009 06:02 PM
Drugs, including pot, are outlawed because too many people are benefitting from their being illegal.

These benefits are provided to the people who provide the drugs and the government that purports to want to eliminate them. The benefits to the people who produce and wholesale the drugs are obvious. Equally obvious are the benefits to the street level dealers. In addition to the profits from selling drugs, drug usage provides additional income streams from prostitution and loan sharking.

What we try to ignore is the concurrent benefit to politicians and the police. The drug trade could not go on without their tacit approval in exchange for favors, cash or whatever. The cast of characters is not the same as it was during prohibition, but the payoffs remain.

In addition, the ‘war’ on drugs has produced vast new bereaucracies at all levels of government. First, and most obvious is the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). However, the greatest beneficiary of the prohibition on drugs is the prison industry. Over one-half the inmates of our local, state and national prisons are there because of drug related offenses. Billions go into the construction, maintenance and staffing of the institutions. Billions more go into the rehabilitation and parole system.

A large portion of our current police forces are focused directly on drugs just as they were on booze in the era of prohibition. Legalizing drugs would free up there resources for use elsewhere but would threaten too many incomes on both sides of the law. This is why prohibition lasted so long. Criminals, politicians and police all benefitted. The situation is the same today – our politicians will condemn drug usage and the police will continue to ‘crack down’, all while carefully not noticing their wallets being filled.

Guest 03-02-2009 06:38 PM
this thread was painful to read through because it is filled with so many misconceptions and contorted facts. It reminds me of reefer madness. Winning an argument about pot legalization is like winning the special Olympics. You may win but your still retarded. :shrug:

Guest 03-02-2009 07:32 PM
Thanks
 
I would like to thank everyone who responded and partiicpated in this string of notes. Whether I am right or wrong is not important as it has been in my opinion , a good exchange of ideas and feelings. I found I started to repeat myself so will go on to other things. I do feel the last note was insensitive to the poor suffering children with handicaps which they did not sign up for when they were born.

Guest 03-02-2009 07:50 PM
This discussion...
 
has been much more fun than talking about how we are all going to be thoroughly screwed in the coming NEW DEAL. Don't you think?

Guest 03-02-2009 08:07 PM
Oh the fun of it!
 
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 191787)
has been much more fun than talking about how we are all going to be thoroughly screwed in the coming NEW DEAL. Don't you think?
Remember the Brownies?
And if you've never been to Chinatown in NY and ate pan fried dumplings after the brownies you haven't lived!
Ah the munchies:icon_hungry:

Guest 03-02-2009 10:17 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 191789)
Remember the Brownies?
And if you've never been to Chinatown in NY and ate pan fried dumplings after the brownies you haven't lived!
Ah the munchies:icon_hungry:
Alice B Tokeless brownies of the 60's? That was another era. A simpler time. When love, love was in the air. The days of the flower child. Birth of the pill. (no pun intended) The burning of the bra. Yes my friend, those were the days.

I am sure that we will here from those who had an entirly different take on the 60's.

I had fun. Did you?;)

Guest 03-02-2009 11:34 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 191803)
Alice B Tokeless brownies of the 60's? That was another era. A simpler time. When love, love was in the air. The days of the flower child. Birth of the pill. (no pun intended) The burning of the bra. Yes my friend, those were the days.

I am sure that we will here from those who had an entirly different take on the 60's.

I had fun. Did you?;)
Short shorts, mini skirts and Twiggy eyes, the Beatles, Stones and The Dave Clark Five. What's not to like!
Yes we did have fun:pepper2::pepper2::pepper2:

Guest 03-02-2009 11:52 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 191803)
Alice B Tokeless brownies of the 60's? That was another era. A simpler time. When love, love was in the air. The days of the flower child. Birth of the pill. (no pun intended) The burning of the bra. Yes my friend, those were the days.

I am sure that we will here from those who had an entirly different take on the 60's.

I had fun. Did you?;)
Absolutely.
Peace and Love. :0000000000luvmyhors

Guest 03-03-2009 12:58 AM
Definitely!
 
Except for now -- absolutely the best time! :coolsmiley:

Guest 03-03-2009 04:48 AM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 191825)
Absolutely.
Peace and Love. :0000000000luvmyhors
I am trying not to hate you guys right now. This would be my greatest area of envy...era envy...

I was born in 1962. I would have given my left buckeyenut to see The Doors...or Cream...or Hendrix. Woodstock? I would have been front row center. I love the music of that era and have a huge collection. At 46, I still sing professionally and do Jim Morrison pretty much spot on. I found a video of It's A Beautiful Day on youtube...it was amazing! I have worn that cd out. White Bird...in a golden cage...

I also missed Led Zeppelin and The Who in their prime. I missed it all.

You know what I got? The 80's!

Sweathogs, those ugly clothes and disco! It is hard to look cool when your parents buy you a leisure suit and take you to the Moose Lodge to square dance. You guys are dropping a lid and I get aerobics...:cus:

You get the Strawberry Alarm Clock...The Zombies...Electric Prunes...Cosby, Stills, Nash and Young...Tommy James...The Turtles...Mamas and Papas...Janis!...Pink Floyd...Good Morning, Starshine and Valley of the Dolls.

I got adam ant, Boy George and the sex pistols. All my leaves were not brown and the sky was not gray and that is not fair.

I do have one thing though...I own every episode of The Mod Squad! :evil6:

You had The Godfather...:0000000000luvmyhors

I had Ishtar!

You had H.R.Pufinstuff and damn, dirty apes!

No....I can't do this to myself any longer...good night!

We need to start a music of the 60's and 70's thread now...

oh, I do thank God and the heavens above that I did miss that awful war...God Bless our troops of yesterday and today.

Guest 03-03-2009 05:20 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 191486)
...and that includes golf carts....

It's a shame that most of the "harmless pot smokers" never get to see the violence involved in the smuggling. Marijuana smuggling along the Southwest border is one of the three main reasons for the internal wars within Mexico involving the drug cartels, the Mexican Army, and the Mexican Police - with the populace caught in the middle. Those US urbanites who think it's "cool" to get a dime bag for party use never see the lives ruined or lost in the "supply" side of the equation - and probably don't give a darn, as long as they can "be cool."
Violence is used in the robbing of jewelry stores and banks, also, so let's outlaw diamonds and money!! Watch the movie Blood Diamond, too, and you will see the "supply" side violence of that industry.

Guest 03-03-2009 06:25 PM
so if this is a new villagers club
 
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 191360)
OK, they are stopping raids on the clubs which I think is consistent with my point that they are not going to enforce or control (federal basis) some pot usage (e.g. at the clubs which is a beginning). You can argue small points but the overall fact is that more usage will result from less enforcement's.
If your point is that is OK then so be it and you have a right to your opinion.
As far as getting facts straight lets agree that 2 Therapists with more than 50years of treating drug and alcohol additions will support that pot is a gateway drug and in fact in one case one said that a significant majority of heavy drugs users which were treated started with pot.
Is your mind clearer or more foggy when using drugs, is there a better picture of reality when using than not using, is there more or less crime when more drugs are used? And so on. I also understand that the federal government would turn the control/enforcement over to the states. Again, one less control over usage, (e.g. federal government stopping any single form of enforcement.)
I am not a fanatic on the subject but just believe it is not a plus to any society.
so if this is a new TV club sign me up lol :pepper2:

Guest 03-03-2009 06:43 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 191971)
Violence is used in the robbing of jewelry stores and banks, also, so let's outlaw diamonds and money!! Watch the movie Blood Diamond, too, and you will see the "supply" side violence of that industry.
And that proves what?

If people want to justify their reasons for breaking the law because other laws are also being broken, I can't debate illogic!

In the end it's always a simple thing. If you don't like the laws, see if you can get them changed. If you do, hooray for you. If you don't, your options are obvious.

What a world we have if the policy is, " I obey all the laws I want to, and don't obey those I don't like because they keep me from doing what I want to. "

Guest 03-03-2009 07:34 PM
Woodstock
 
With regards to the person who would have liked to be at Woodstock. Actually the action was in the little town of Bethel outside of Woodstock and it was on farmers field. The field was totally mud, the attendee's were covered with mud, most high and I seriously doubt if they ever remembered where they had been or what they had heard. There was great music playing to a drugged out crowd. Even today if you go to Woodstock on the weekends there are old hippies in the little square and the little booths sell pot pipes and other drug paraphernalia. It is also a town of some wealth with a lot of the citizens spending weekends up from New York City. In fact on Sunday you can watch the bus from NYC pick up the old hippies as they go back to the City.

Guest 03-03-2009 07:41 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 191989)
And that proves what?

If people want to justify their reasons for breaking the law because other laws are also being broken, I can't debate illogic!

In the end it's always a simple thing. If you don't like the laws, see if you can get them changed. If you do, hooray for you. If you don't, your options are obvious.

What a world we have if the policy is, " I obey all the laws I want to, and don't obey those I don't like because they keep me from doing what I want to. "
The statement was about the violence used in the drug cartels, and such, which sounded like a justification for the arguement of upholding drug laws. My point is, that in so many other bizzes, there is violence, also. And look at the damage done without violence, in embzzlement, pyramid schemes, and so many others, doing just as much damage to people, yet, since it is a "white collar" crime, the penalties are not nearly as steep, even though these infractions cause loss of peoples life savings, bizzes, families, and also sometimes life, as people get so distraught and take their own lives. Wether you agree with legalization or not, Holland has such lax drug laws, and per capita, has an incredibly low rate of theft, robberies, and murder. Those are facts. Boils down to me, that I am a proponent of getting federal government out of the people's hair as much as possible, for economic and legal reasons, and leaving it to local towns, counties, and states to make policy for their area, as I believe our constitution was truely meant to be. Is a very good debate, and glad to see this thread has taken the high road, (no pun intended, well, maybe a little) and not got as nasty as so many other topics in the politcal category.

Guest 03-03-2009 09:31 PM
Interesting History
 
Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug.

The actual story shows a much different picture. Those who voted on the legal fate of this plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers. You'll see below that the very first federal vote to prohibit marijuana was based entirely on a documented lie on the floor of the Senate.

If you are interested, from a political point of view, Pot has a very interesting history:

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stori...naIllegal.html

Guest 03-03-2009 10:17 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 192025)
Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug.

The actual story shows a much different picture. Those who voted on the legal fate of this plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers. You'll see below that the very first federal vote to prohibit marijuana was based entirely on a documented lie on the floor of the Senate.

If you are interested, from a political point of view, Pot has a very interesting history:

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stori...naIllegal.html
Kinda like the stimulus package.....

Well, if the Democratic Party Members of Congress want to reverse federal drug laws, (and can get 3 Republicans in the Senate to agree), then the laws change. UNTIL THEN, the law is still the law.

Guest 03-03-2009 10:46 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 192036)
Kinda like the stimulus package.....

Well, if the Democratic Party Members of Congress want to reverse federal drug laws, (and can get 3 Republicans in the Senate to agree), then the laws change. UNTIL THEN, the law is still the law.
You know, don't know about you, but 90 percent of Americans break laws all the time in their own bedrooms. Do you know the local laws about sex in so many places state some normal sexual acts are illegal? And for what, the religious right, which, in case you don't know, are sometimes the biggest breakers of these laws? I agree with you, that, if we don't agree with a law, we have two choices, but, when the laws are so archaic, sometimes, just have to say forget it. And if you have never broken a law, then by all means, cast the first stone.

Guest 03-04-2009 12:24 AM
An Example of the Law of Unintended Consequences
 
The Wall Street Journal has reported that the new Obama policy on marijuana use and regulation will be an 'economic stimulus' for the Mexican drug cartels. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123595140575504953.html

In a side note, legislation legalizing marijuana sales through the state and taxing it are under serious discussion in the CA legislature. This is an attempt to close the budget deficit. This is no minor source of cash. Marijuana is CA'a biggest cash crop as it is for Florida, Kentucky and many other states. Ever get the feeling that the criminalization of marijuana is about as effective as trying to push a rope up an icy hill?

Guest 03-04-2009 02:06 AM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 191994)
With regards to the person who would have liked to be at Woodstock. Actually the action was in the little town of Bethel outside of Woodstock and it was on farmers field. The field was totally mud, the attendee's were covered with mud, most high and I seriously doubt if they ever remembered where they had been or what they had heard. There was great music playing to a drugged out crowd. Even today if you go to Woodstock on the weekends there are old hippies in the little square and the little booths sell pot pipes and other drug paraphernalia. It is also a town of some wealth with a lot of the citizens spending weekends up from New York City. In fact on Sunday you can watch the bus from NYC pick up the old hippies as they go back to the City.
Yeah, that was me. I was attempting to send you all on a trip into the past and add some humor to it...guess I was to tired to succeed. I have seen the movie a half dozen times...it looks like it would have been great for a while...but getting home would have really been awful.

The Woodstock I would like to visit now is in Illinois...where they filmed Groundhog Day with Bill Murray.

Guest 03-04-2009 02:14 AM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 192060)
Yeah, that was me. I was attempting to send you all on a trip into the past and add some humor to it...guess I was to tired to succeed. I have seen the movie a half dozen times...it looks like it would have been great for a while...but getting home would have really been awful.

The Woodstock I would like to visit now is in Illinois...where they filmed Groundhog Day with Bill Murray.
Buckeye, I enjoyed your trip into the past. Even though I'm a Canadian I lived in California during the 1960s. It was truly a fun time with GREAT music.

Guest 03-04-2009 07:57 AM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 192060)
Yeah, that was me. I was attempting to send you all on a trip into the past and add some humor to it...guess I was to tired to succeed. I have seen the movie a half dozen times...it looks like it would have been great for a while...but getting home would have really been awful.

The Woodstock I would like to visit now is in Illinois...where they filmed Groundhog Day with Bill Murray.
You gave me a good laugh as I went down memory lane.
Thanks for the trip! :beer3::coolsmiley::pepper2:

Guest 03-04-2009 09:25 AM
As the saying goes, "if you can remember Woodstock, then you weren't there".

Guest 03-04-2009 09:48 AM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 192039)
You know, don't know about you, but 90 percent of Americans break laws all the time in their own bedrooms. Do you know the local laws about sex in so many places state some normal sexual acts are illegal? And for what, the religious right, which, in case you don't know, are sometimes the biggest breakers of these laws? I agree with you, that, if we don't agree with a law, we have two choices, but, when the laws are so archaic, sometimes, just have to say forget it. And if you have never broken a law, then by all means, cast the first stone.
And who is to say when a law is "archaic?" Are the laws regarding euthanasia archaic? What about the laws on indecent exposure? How about the laws on animal cruelty? And the list goes on.....

You and I can break any law we want, as long as we are ready to endure the result. If you and I aren't ready, and the feeling is "it's okay to break THIS law" without penalty because we in our enlightened status think it's archaic despite the current validity," that's no different than the kid who eats all the cookies in the cookie jar because s/he wants to, despite being told to leave them alone.

Either change the law according to our system of government (if the majority goes along with the desire) or accept the consequences.

It's not a matter of "casting the first stone,' but rather being realistic. Democracy or anarchy - take your pick. The choice really is that simple.

Guest 03-04-2009 09:55 AM
Woodstock
 
I was there and I do remember it. The traffic was a disaster and it was a circus of people out of control. I lived nearby.

Guest 03-05-2009 09:40 AM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 192102)
And who is to say when a law is "archaic?" Are the laws regarding euthanasia archaic? What about the laws on indecent exposure? How about the laws on animal cruelty? And the list goes on.....

You and I can break any law we want, as long as we are ready to endure the result. If you and I aren't ready, and the feeling is "it's okay to break THIS law" without penalty because we in our enlightened status think it's archaic despite the current validity," that's no different than the kid who eats all the cookies in the cookie jar because s/he wants to, despite being told to leave them alone.

Either change the law according to our system of government (if the majority goes along with the desire) or accept the consequences.

It's not a matter of "casting the first stone,' but rather being realistic. Democracy or anarchy - take your pick. The choice really is that simple.
You keep rehashing the point about accepting the consequences. Nobody is talking about that point, our topic was about the legalization, what thoughts were on that. I realize we have to pay consequences if we choose to break laws. But, if you are going to keep talking about laws, come up with a better analogy than a kid sticking his hand in a cookie jar. That isn't a law, that's a rule of the household, by parents or guardians. Huge difference.

Guest 03-05-2009 10:30 AM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 191782)
I would like to thank everyone who responded and partiicpated in this string of notes. Whether I am right or wrong is not important as it has been in my opinion , a good exchange of ideas and feelings. I found I started to repeat myself so will go on to other things. I do feel the last note was insensitive to the poor suffering children with handicaps which they did not sign up for when they were born.
Which note was that?

Guest 03-05-2009 03:41 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 192314)
You keep rehashing the point about accepting the consequences. Nobody is talking about that point, our topic was about the legalization, what thoughts were on that. I realize we have to pay consequences if we choose to break laws. But, if you are going to keep talking about laws, come up with a better analogy than a kid sticking his hand in a cookie jar. That isn't a law, that's a rule of the household, by parents or guardians. Huge difference.
Analogies - they still demonstrate the point.

Okay - Legalizing pot as a recreational substance is a bad idea - just adds another mind-bending substance of unknown long-term effect into the market for no reason other than to have another mind-bending substance in the market - tough to control and there will still be criminals peddling it to kids who don't know any better - health care costs associated with expanded access to pot may or may not be worse than tobacco or booze, and common sense says they need quantification up front. We complain when the department store sells toys which may harm kids, but public sale of pot would be okay?

Okay - Legalizing pot for medicinal purposes may be a reasonable idea, but the conventional medical establishment needs to present the pros-and-cons of that in the same way any other treatment or medicine is - substantive research backed by quantifiable results to include defined regimens establishing the when and how to dispense. Anything less is folly.

How's that?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:18 AM.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.