I was holding against you the inability to understand even high school level American Government conclusions while at the same time accusing me of not understanding it.
I think you're confusing me with someone else. Perhaps Jethro?
I think you're confusing me with someone else. Perhaps Jethro?
mea cupla, bodine accused me of it. yes, it was bodine who was saying that I didn't understand it while at the same time diagreeing with one of it's most basic ideas.
please consider the statement about working since he was 12 to be directed not at you but at Bodine. It's he who appears to have cut class when they were teaching American Government, not you.
Your baseless illogical hypocritical support of drug prohibition damages your limited credibility. You presumably know of the value of individual liberty. You presumably are opposed to arbitrary government control of individuals. And no one can (or tries to) deny that drug Prohibition, the first time we tried it, was one of the biggest policy failures in our country's history. You regularly resort to trying to personalize the legalization argument, as if by claiming that crabby and I just want to do the drugs we want (which we both already do NOW) you can somehow dismiss the volumes of evidence, analysis and opinions that assert the immorality, impracticality, and injustice that come about due to drug prohibition. We are just echoing the arguments that have been advanced by people like George Schultz, William F. Buckley, Mayor Kurt Schmoke, Police Chief Joseph MacNamara, federal judge Robert Sweet, Superior Court Judge James Gray., Rep. Tom Campbell (R), Gov. Gary Johnson (R), Rep. Ron Paul (R), Sheriff Bill Masters, and so on.
To my knowledge about half of the people who are named there have taken time out of their lives to write books oulining their case against the Drug War. Is it because they just want to get high legally?
You don't have to answer that, because it's a complete waste of time to discuss this issue with you. You've provided nothing but baseless assertions and ad hominem attacks to "support" your "case".
THX,
Why are you so hung up on this illegal/legal thing? What is that supposed to imply or prove? Is alcohol not harmful because it's legal? Is marijuana more harmful than alcohol simply by virtue of the fact that it's illegal? Would the facts about marijuana change if it became legal? Was alcohol a fundamentally different substance during Prohibition?
Illegal drugs are not illegal because of rational reasons. They are illegal because of political reasons. Many millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent specifically with the intent of proving to taxpayers that the war on drugs is sensible and justified. Every single day I watch TV nowadays, I see another of these efforts (created by the government prohibitionists, funded by the taxpayers) to sell us on the prohibitionist model. In that context, what does it mean that the majority of Americans oppose ending it? Government officials intentionally engaged in an extensive disinformation campaign in order to "persuade" Americans about the supposed evils of marijuana. The outraged opposition of the AMA at the committe hearing to prohibit pot was explicitly misrepresented by the committee to the people who made the final vote. To paraphrase, the AMA guy said "What, are you folks crazy? Cannabis is one of the most useful and least harmful drugs in the pharmacopeia. Prohibiting it would be completely foolish and harmful." When asked before the vote what the AMA guy had said, the committee rep said, in effect, "He's all for it."
After almost two years of considering evidence about the reclassification of marijuana, an Administrative Law Judge for the DEAruled as follows (excerpts):
Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care."
In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume.
and the following chain:
10. Another common medical way to determine drug safety is called the therapeutic ratio. This ratio defines the difference between a therapeutically effective dose and a dose which is capable of inducing adverse effects.
11. A commonly used over-the-counter product like aspirin has a therapeutic ratio of around 1:20. Two aspirins are the recommended dose for adult patients. Twenty times this dose, forty aspirins, may cause a lethal reaction in some patients, and will almost certainly cause gross injury to the digestive system, including extensive internal bleeding.
12. The therapeutic ratio for prescribed drugs is commonly around 1:10 or lower. Valium, a commonly used prescriptive drug, may cause very serious biological damage if patients use ten times the recommended (therapeutic) dose.
13. There are, of course, prescriptive drugs which have much lower therapeutic ratios. Many of the drugs used to treat patients with cancer, glaucoma and multiple sclerosis are highly toxic. The therapeutic ratio of some of the drugs used in antineoplastic therapies, for example, are regarded as extremely toxic poisons with therapeutic ratios that may fall below 1:1.5. These drugs also have very low LD-50 ratios and can result in toxic, even lethal reactions, while being properly employed.
14. By contrast, marijuana's therapeutic ratio, like its LD-50, is impossible to quantify because it is so high.
and...
18. There have been occasional instances of panic reaction in patients who have smoked marijuana. These have occurred in cannabis-naive persons, usually older persons, who are extremely anxious over the forthcom-ing chemotherapy and troubled over the illegality of their having obtained the cannabis. Such persons have responded to simple person-to-person communication with a doctor and have sustained no long term mental or physical damage. If cannabis could be legally obtained, and administered in an open, medically-supervised ses-sion rather than surreptitiously, the few instances of such adverse reaction doubtless would be reduced in number and severity.
19. Other reported side effects of cannabis have been minimal. Sedation often results. Sometimes mild euphoria is experienced. Short periods of increased pulse rate and of dizziness are occasionally experienced. Cannabis should not be used by persons anxious or de-pressed or psychotic or with certain other health prob-lems. Physicians could readily screen out such patients if cannabis were being employed as an agent under medical supervision.
The evidence in this record clearly shows that cannabis has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress from great numbers of very ill people, and do-ing so with safety under medical supervision. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record.
Let me guess, you're a big drug user, aren't ya Crabby?
Is not productive nor debate. It's an irrelevant dig -- at best, a distraction; at worst, a cowardly cop-out. Combined with your implied superiority (because the drugs you do are
<fanfare, drumroll> LEGAL
<"oooh! aaaah! ohhhh!">), it makes for a pretty sad pro-prohibition case, if that's what it's supposed to be. If it's just meant to be anti-drug-user mudslinging, then it's pretty weak on that count too. It disappoints but doesn't surprise me that jethro would resort to such tactics. I thought you were appreciably different.
crab:
This WebQuest will give you the opportunity to discover how Our Federal Government is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Just because some high school teacher quotes Abe Lincoln doesn't put rules for people in the Constitution. I find it stunning in fact that you are relying on a public high school history resource as a reference on the Constitution. That's such a flawed reference point that I could spend hours compiling evidence to discredit it. Go look for yourself -- find one of those studies on how well American high school students score on basic history tests. I'd bet money that if you surveyed high school students, the vast majority of them would say that "of the people, by the people, for the people" comes from the Constitution. That's not evidence of the fact that it actually does come from there -- it's just evidence that there's a lot of ignorant mofos out there either learning poorly or being misinformed.
THX again,
crab: but the taking of a drug does no harm to anyone except the person taking the drug THX: Ask the child of a drunk or drug addict if that's the case.
Why not ask the child of a workaholic? Or the child of a military family? Or the child of a traveling salesman? Or a Prozac parent? Or the child of a spacey and distracted, just generally bad parent? Or the child of a parent that's not strict enough? Or too strict? Or not loving enough? Or not encouraging enough? Aren't all of those behaviors also potentially harmful to children? Should we work to snuff out the origins of such behaviors? Like work, and military service, and insensitivity? Do you think we should ban alcohol to prevent drunk parents?
There are already laws protecting children from neglect, abuse, and egregious maltreatment. Drug use -- and more to the point, drug legality -- does not explicitly or necessarily lead to child abuse or neglect. When it comes to pot, it can be said that use does not even generally lead to abuse or neglect of children. Literally millions of children are being raised by pot smoking parents -- teachers, doctors, lawyers, judges, cops...all sorts of people -- with no adverse effects other than the fact that their parents could be unjustly taken away from them for no good reason.
If you're taking drugs, your judgment and inhibitions are altered, are they not? If they are in this state, are they going to stop themselves from getting in a car to drive, or carry a loaded weapon? Probably not if their judgment is impaired.
"They" who? How on earth are you able to make a generalization like that about the 100+ million people (in America alone) who have taken mind-altering drugs in their lifetime? I know lots and lots of people who won't drive if they are impaired. I know dozens of people who know not to drive after drinking, no matter how much they've drunk. I've been so drunk that I couldn't speak clearly, stand steadily, or see straight, and yet I still knew I shouldn't drive. Just like I know I shouldn't kill people. Even back in my heyday of pot use, my judgment on not killing people never wavered even a small amount. Impairing judgment ("Oh, wow, it's only been five minutes! Dude, it seemed like an hour!") is one thing. Doing things you know you shouldn't do ("Hey, maybe I should go drive heavy machinery around at high speeds while my functioning is impaired!") is a much higher bar to clear.
Keeping millions of people from sitting home altering their minds to no one's detriment is not justified in order to (theoretically but not actually) keep a few thousand people from doing harmful acts that are already illegal in their own right.
Banning the use of a drug would only be justified if said use inherently caused an act of harm against another party. That can not be said about any of the currently illegal drugs.
If you're concerned about acts of harm, then I would think you would want to devote police resources to preventing and prosecuting those acts, instead of wasting their time chasing after people for changing their minds.
"There have been occasional instances of panic reaction in patients who have smoked marijuana. These have occurred in cannabis-naive persons, usually older persons, who are extremely anxious over the forthcom-ing chemotherapy and troubled over the illegality of their having obtained the cannabis."
Or the inability to get the snakes out of their hair.
Was alcohol a fundamentally different substance during Prohibition?
in some cases it was. people made it in bathtubs and it was even more of a problem.
I'd bet money that if you surveyed high school students, the vast majority of them would say that "of the people, by the people, for the people" comes from the Constitution. That's not evidence of the fact that it actually does come from there -- it's just evidence that there's a lot of ignorant mofos out there either learning poorly or being misinformed.
I'm not saying that it's from the Constitution. I'm saying that it shows that the intent of having a government, and therefore having a set of rules for it, is to create something of, by and for the People. I'm not trying to say that the Constituition is the people, I'm trying to say that it's the People's rules for governing....it's by the People, of the People and for the People. It's ours...our government, and our government is us.
I only cited basic high school text because it's such a basic idea.
"There have been occasional instances of panic reaction in patients who have smoked marijuana. These have occurred in cannabis-naive persons, usually older persons, who are extremely anxious over the forthcom-ing chemotherapy and troubled over the illegality of their having obtained the cannabis."
Or the inability to get the snakes out of their hair.
Hey, way to diffuse the fact that a judge from the DEA basically asserted that prohibition of pot is causing cancer chemotherapy unnecessary distress! That's fucking hilarious! Hooo-boy, what a knee slapper! I just love to mock those cancer patients. Fucking dirty hippies.
I'm not saying that it's from the Constitution. I'm saying that it shows that the intent of having a government, and therefore having a set of rules for it, is to create something of, by and for the People.
Right, and unfortunately you're using a quote from the U.S. president who arguably abused the Consitution more than any other in order to support your case. A guy who basically ruled the government in a tyrannical manner. Among his beliefs, Abe believed that the Constitution justified refusing independence to states that wished it, even though four score+ years earlier the founding fathers fought a war for exactly that right. He suppressed freedom of the press, commerce, assembly, and dissent; he abandoned due process and most of the requirements set forth by the Bill of Rights. In short, he stomped all over the Constitution and then took a dump on it.
So I should see him as a credible interpretor of the Constitution? Thanks, but no thanks. I'll pass.
Stop joking about gross injustices that cause the sickest people in our country to endure unnecessary pain and suffering, and I'll be glad to chill out. At least about that.
you're using a quote from the U.S. president who arguably abused the Consitution more than any other in order to support your case. A guy who basically ruled the government in a tyrannical manner. Among his beliefs, Abe believed...
I think Abe was just paraphrasing the "We The People" declaration of intent that is the preamble to the document...correctly.
Lance, yes, I am superior to someone who breaks the law just so they can get high.
I don't care enough about this subject to discuss it much further unless you really want me to. I have a feeling neither of us is going to change the others mind.
I will say, I see nothing wrong with medical use of marijuana, but that's a whole different monster.
Oh please, there's other drugs for pain other than smoking a bowl.
I'm not the paraplegics (and their doctors) who make this assertion. You'd have to talk to them. Although apparently you don't need to, because you are able to make a blanket judgment which overrules the opinions of licensed medical practitioners.
Muscles paralyzed by spinal cord injury (SCI) experience involuntary spasms and suffer intractable pains. Such paralysis cannot be cured, but its symptoms and complications can be medicated. Thus many paraplegics routinely pop five different pills daily, some quadriplegics 10 types, and no telling how many of each.
For spasms, there are tranquilizers such as baclofen, Dantrium, and Valium. Some side effects: liver failure, insomnia, and addiction. For chronic pain, there are narcotics such as codeine, morphine, and Demerol. Some side effects: constipation, sedation, and addiction. Paras and quads would be walking zombies, if they could walk.
...
I learned that marijuana relaxes SCI spasms more effectively than do tranquilizers and relieves SCI pains more safely than do narcotics. And it is the one medication that treats both the spasms and the pains.
Your baseless illogical hypocritical support of drug prohibition damages your limited credibility...
Go ahead call my position baseless or hypocritical or whatever. You may not like it all I can say is tough s***. My position however, isn't baseless or hypocritical. I believe that if certain drugs are made legal it will cause more problems. They will be easier to get and there will less reason for people to avoid them. Many will then ruin their lives and then they will have be carried, for those that don't kill themselves, along on the backs of those that have been responsible.
I have no clue why you accuse my position of being hypocritical. That accusation is not based on any facts, at least none that you have enumerated. I believe that the law, at least at the state level, has the legitmate power to prohibit the possession and use of drugs. I believe it to be the correct thing to do. As for my credibility all I can say is I am here mainly for entertainment purposes. I don't give a rat's ass if you think I am credible.
You regularly resort to trying to personalize the legalization argument, as if by claiming that crabby and I just want to do the drugs we want (which we both already do NOW) you can somehow dismiss the volumes of evidence, analysis and opinions that assert the immorality, impracticality, and injustice that come about due to drug prohibition.
Yes I know a lot of people go ahead and use drugs illegally. In my opinion they are part of the problem. I believe that legalizing certain drugs would be immoral and irresponsible. As for justice, if you break the law you should pay the price.
I suffered dozens of severe injuries in the crash, including 25 orthopedic fractures and massive skull fractures which severely crippled several cranial nerves. Two months after the crash I lay in bed a crumpled mass of pain. My IV fed me up to 10 milligrams of morphine every 7 minutes, 24 hours a day, but still I had trouble sleeping because the pain was so intense. I was told that I was not going to recover mobility and that I would spend the rest of my life connected to a medical facility. I could barely speak due to the nerve damage to my voice and throat. The constant pain in my eyes was excruciating. I was given morphine and other narcotics which incapacitated me, but did not reduce the pain in my eyes. Swallowing was a challenge which often resulted in choking and coughing fits lasting many minutes. As the weeks went by I began to suspect that the medications I was given were actually contributing to my neurological impairments by inhibiting concentration and depressing neurological responses. In addition, I was painfully aware that narcotics had a disastrous effect on my intestines.
One day I was visited by an outpatient who had AIDS. He told me a little about the medical uses of marihuana and he gave me a joint. I waited till late at night when the nurses were busy elsewhere. I smoked the joint in secret and my heart raced so much I feared that I might burst the scars of my recent surgery. But then the contraband was gone, the scent was dissipated, and outraged nurses still had not discovered me, so my heart rate slowed to a comfortable purr. I felt relaxed and at ease, but not stupefied. I could still sense the deep scars of my damaged nerves, but I was somehow mentally distanced from the pain in a way that morphine did not offer. I slept that night more soundly than I had since the crash.
I left the primary hospital as soon as I could talk my doctors into releasing me. I returned to my hometown and became an outpatient at a facility there. I continued to use narcotics and other pain medications prescribed by my doctors, but over the months and years I gradually replaced several prescription medicines with the use of cannabis. Nearly all of the drugs I had been given by doctors seemed to depress my mind and body, and the addictive quality of narcotics created numerous unpleasant psychological effects. Unlike narcotics, cannabis use imparted positive mental and physical stimulation, called euphoria, that encouraged my rapid recovery.
With the use of cannabis replacing sensory-depressive narcotics, I found myself recovering far beyond the expectations of my first 27 doctors. Five years after the crash I took some college courses and then began to work again. By the time I was well enough to maintain a full time carpentry job I was smoking hundreds of dollars worth of cannabis per month.
I see absolutely nothing immoral about keeping certain drugs illegal. I wonder how anyone can twist things around enough to believe that it is. Could it be the lingering effects of the drugs?
I believe that if certain drugs are made legal it will cause more problems. They will be easier to get
no they won't, they will be more difficult to get because they can be controlled better.
and there will less reason for people to avoid them
there will be less reason, that's for sure.
In truth, there will be the same (and real) reasons to avoid them. Because the only thing that makes drugs really attractive is that you can make so much money with it if it's illegal.
(long detailed story about having a serious spinal injury followed by years of operations and prescription drug treatments, then...)
I decided to conduct an informal experiment by reducing my intake of Valium and increasing my use of marihuana. I discovered that either smoking or eating marihuana dramatically reduced the chronic pain and spasticity in my lower back and legs. I realized that it was relaxing the large back muscles. As the spasticity deceased, so did the gnawing pain. To my great surprise, marihuana was providing far better relief than the dozens of pharmaceutically prepared drugs prescribed by my physicians.
I was able to greatly reduce, then eliminate, Valium and other powerful drugs from my medical routine. A small amount of marihuana, used daily, provided me with greater control of the spasticity and pain. And when I take marihuana I remain functional. Instead of constantly feeling "doped-up" and "out of it," I can lead a fairly normal life. My whole body feels more relaxed. I’m more limber, more active, and more able to get around the house, go outside, and visit with friends. I am no longer withdrawn and distant. Marihuana also permits me to get a nearly full night’s sleep. Before taking marihuana I had been using powerful sedatives to sleep, but I was constantly waking up because of pain or spasms. Just a small amount of marihuana before bedtime allows me to sleep soundly and wake up feeling rested.
It bothers me that marihuana is illegal, but the only alternative is constant, uncontrollable spasticity and pain, so the choice is simple.
Perhaps you should inform yourself about how cannabis is the only wise and effective treatment for pain for lots and lots of people.
For starters, go here ( http://www.rxmarihuana.com/search.htm) and type the word "pain" in as a search. Or, just hang on to your false view that pot prohibition isn't preventing thousands of seriously injured and ill people from using the only reasonably effective treatment available.
jethro,
Why is it easier for high school students to get pot than booze?
I believe that if certain drugs are made legal it will cause more problems. They will be easier to get
no they won't, they will be more difficult to get because they can be controlled better.
That has got to be one of the most ignorant statements you have made.
and there will less reason for people to avoid them
there will be less reason, that's for sure.
In truth, there will be the same (and real) reasons to avoid them. Because the only thing that makes drugs really attractive is that you can make so much money with it if it's illegal.
See my comment above. If they aren't so attractive why do you want to do them? If the drugs aren't in demand how can anyone make money on them?
It would be easier for people to get drugs such as cocaine, heroin or any other illegal drug if they were legal. Common sense tells you that because 1) there would be no risk of the drug getting confiscated by the authorities, 2) More people will be willing to produce the items if there is no risk of jail and 3) because there is less risk of loss the items will be cheaper.
they have taken as big if not a bigger-risk of harming someone else, than the same person would if they had shared a joint with a couple of friends and then drove home.
I disagree. Unlike Clinton, when I tried it, I inhaled and I was much more impaired from smoking pot than I ever was from drinking.
I was holding against you the inability to understand even high school level American Government conclusions while at the same time accusing me of not understanding it.
I think you're confusing me with someone else. Perhaps Jethro?
mea cupla, bodine accused me of it. yes, it was bodine who was saying that I didn't understand it while at the same time diagreeing with one of it's most basic ideas.
please consider the statement about working since he was 12 to be directed not at you but at Bodine. It's he who appears to have cut class when they were teaching American Government, not you.
Your baseless illogical hypocritical support of drug prohibition damages your limited credibility. You presumably know of the value of individual liberty. You presumably are opposed to arbitrary government control of individuals. And no one can (or tries to) deny that drug Prohibition, the first time we tried it, was one of the biggest policy failures in our country's history. You regularly resort to trying to personalize the legalization argument, as if by claiming that crabby and I just want to do the drugs we want (which we both already do NOW) you can somehow dismiss the volumes of evidence, analysis and opinions that assert the immorality, impracticality, and injustice that come about due to drug prohibition. We are just echoing the arguments that have been advanced by people like George Schultz, William F. Buckley, Mayor Kurt Schmoke, Police Chief Joseph MacNamara, federal judge Robert Sweet, Superior Court Judge James Gray., Rep. Tom Campbell (R), Gov. Gary Johnson (R), Rep. Ron Paul (R), Sheriff Bill Masters, and so on.
To my knowledge about half of the people who are named there have taken time out of their lives to write books oulining their case against the Drug War. Is it because they just want to get high legally?
You don't have to answer that, because it's a complete waste of time to discuss this issue with you. You've provided nothing but baseless assertions and ad hominem attacks to "support" your "case".
THX,
Why are you so hung up on this illegal/legal thing? What is that supposed to imply or prove? Is alcohol not harmful because it's legal? Is marijuana more harmful than alcohol simply by virtue of the fact that it's illegal? Would the facts about marijuana change if it became legal? Was alcohol a fundamentally different substance during Prohibition?
Illegal drugs are not illegal because of rational reasons. They are illegal because of political reasons. Many millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent specifically with the intent of proving to taxpayers that the war on drugs is sensible and justified. Every single day I watch TV nowadays, I see another of these efforts (created by the government prohibitionists, funded by the taxpayers) to sell us on the prohibitionist model. In that context, what does it mean that the majority of Americans oppose ending it? Government officials intentionally engaged in an extensive disinformation campaign in order to "persuade" Americans about the supposed evils of marijuana. The outraged opposition of the AMA at the committe hearing to prohibit pot was explicitly misrepresented by the committee to the people who made the final vote. To paraphrase, the AMA guy said "What, are you folks crazy? Cannabis is one of the most useful and least harmful drugs in the pharmacopeia. Prohibiting it would be completely foolish and harmful." When asked before the vote what the AMA guy had said, the committee rep said, in effect, "He's all for it."
After almost two years of considering evidence about the reclassification of marijuana, an Administrative Law Judge for the DEAruled as follows (excerpts):
and the following chain:
and...
http://www.fcda.org/judge.young.htm
This, THX:
Is not productive nor debate. It's an irrelevant dig -- at best, a distraction; at worst, a cowardly cop-out. Combined with your implied superiority (because the drugs you do are
<fanfare, drumroll> LEGAL
<"oooh! aaaah! ohhhh!">), it makes for a pretty sad pro-prohibition case, if that's what it's supposed to be. If it's just meant to be anti-drug-user mudslinging, then it's pretty weak on that count too. It disappoints but doesn't surprise me that jethro would resort to such tactics. I thought you were appreciably different.
crab:
Just because some high school teacher quotes Abe Lincoln doesn't put rules for people in the Constitution. I find it stunning in fact that you are relying on a public high school history resource as a reference on the Constitution. That's such a flawed reference point that I could spend hours compiling evidence to discredit it. Go look for yourself -- find one of those studies on how well American high school students score on basic history tests. I'd bet money that if you surveyed high school students, the vast majority of them would say that "of the people, by the people, for the people" comes from the Constitution. That's not evidence of the fact that it actually does come from there -- it's just evidence that there's a lot of ignorant mofos out there either learning poorly or being misinformed.
THX again,
Why not ask the child of a workaholic? Or the child of a military family? Or the child of a traveling salesman? Or a Prozac parent? Or the child of a spacey and distracted, just generally bad parent? Or the child of a parent that's not strict enough? Or too strict? Or not loving enough? Or not encouraging enough? Aren't all of those behaviors also potentially harmful to children? Should we work to snuff out the origins of such behaviors? Like work, and military service, and insensitivity? Do you think we should ban alcohol to prevent drunk parents?
There are already laws protecting children from neglect, abuse, and egregious maltreatment. Drug use -- and more to the point, drug legality -- does not explicitly or necessarily lead to child abuse or neglect. When it comes to pot, it can be said that use does not even generally lead to abuse or neglect of children. Literally millions of children are being raised by pot smoking parents -- teachers, doctors, lawyers, judges, cops...all sorts of people -- with no adverse effects other than the fact that their parents could be unjustly taken away from them for no good reason.
"They" who? How on earth are you able to make a generalization like that about the 100+ million people (in America alone) who have taken mind-altering drugs in their lifetime? I know lots and lots of people who won't drive if they are impaired. I know dozens of people who know not to drive after drinking, no matter how much they've drunk. I've been so drunk that I couldn't speak clearly, stand steadily, or see straight, and yet I still knew I shouldn't drive. Just like I know I shouldn't kill people. Even back in my heyday of pot use, my judgment on not killing people never wavered even a small amount. Impairing judgment ("Oh, wow, it's only been five minutes! Dude, it seemed like an hour!") is one thing. Doing things you know you shouldn't do ("Hey, maybe I should go drive heavy machinery around at high speeds while my functioning is impaired!") is a much higher bar to clear.
Keeping millions of people from sitting home altering their minds to no one's detriment is not justified in order to (theoretically but not actually) keep a few thousand people from doing harmful acts that are already illegal in their own right.
Banning the use of a drug would only be justified if said use inherently caused an act of harm against another party. That can not be said about any of the currently illegal drugs.
If you're concerned about acts of harm, then I would think you would want to devote police resources to preventing and prosecuting those acts, instead of wasting their time chasing after people for changing their minds.
"There have been occasional instances of panic reaction in patients who have smoked marijuana. These have occurred in cannabis-naive persons, usually older persons, who are extremely anxious over the forthcom-ing chemotherapy and troubled over the illegality of their having obtained the cannabis."
Or the inability to get the snakes out of their hair.
in some cases it was. people made it in bathtubs and it was even more of a problem.
I'm not saying that it's from the Constitution. I'm saying that it shows that the intent of having a government, and therefore having a set of rules for it, is to create something of, by and for the People. I'm not trying to say that the Constituition is the people, I'm trying to say that it's the People's rules for governing....it's by the People, of the People and for the People. It's ours...our government, and our government is us.
I only cited basic high school text because it's such a basic idea.
Hey, way to diffuse the fact that a judge from the DEA basically asserted that prohibition of pot is causing cancer chemotherapy unnecessary distress! That's fucking hilarious! Hooo-boy, what a knee slapper! I just love to mock those cancer patients. Fucking dirty hippies.
Chill out, Lance.
Right, and unfortunately you're using a quote from the U.S. president who arguably abused the Consitution more than any other in order to support your case. A guy who basically ruled the government in a tyrannical manner. Among his beliefs, Abe believed that the Constitution justified refusing independence to states that wished it, even though four score+ years earlier the founding fathers fought a war for exactly that right. He suppressed freedom of the press, commerce, assembly, and dissent; he abandoned due process and most of the requirements set forth by the Bill of Rights. In short, he stomped all over the Constitution and then took a dump on it.
So I should see him as a credible interpretor of the Constitution? Thanks, but no thanks. I'll pass.
Stop joking about gross injustices that cause the sickest people in our country to endure unnecessary pain and suffering, and I'll be glad to chill out. At least about that.
Q. Why was the paraplegic screaming in pain?
A. Because he was denied the only effective medicine!
(ba-bum-tssssh!)
Q. What's worse than wasting syndrome?
A. Wasting syndrome while in jail!
(ba-bum-tssssh!)
Q. What did one cancer patient say to the other cancer patient?
A. I sure wish I could get some pot, to provide some minor relief from my miserable march toward death.
(ba-bum-tssssh!)
I think Abe was just paraphrasing the "We The People" declaration of intent that is the preamble to the document...correctly.
Lance Brown 3/25/03 1:00pm
Lance, yes, I am superior to someone who breaks the law just so they can get high.
I don't care enough about this subject to discuss it much further unless you really want me to. I have a feeling neither of us is going to change the others mind.
I will say, I see nothing wrong with medical use of marijuana, but that's a whole different monster.
Lance Brown 3/25/03 1:32pm
Oh please, there's other drugs for pain other than smoking a bowl.
no, you should see it as a credible and correct interpretation, because it is.
Q. What did the heroin junkie say to the crackhead?
A. I really want to go get treatment, but I'm afraid I'll get thrown in jail if I do.
(ba-bum-tssssh!)
Q. What's a high-level coke dealer's favorite thing in the whole wide world?
A. The War on Drugs, because it keeps his profits high!
(ba-bum-tssssh!)
Q. Why was pot made illegal?
A. To keep it out of the hands of lazy Mexicans and white-daughter-rapin' negroes!
(ba-bum-tssssh!)
A. To get the recently disempowered prohibitionists back in power!
(ba-bum-tssssh!)
A. To suppress the competition for the paper, fiber, oil, and synthetics industries!
(ba-bum-tssssh!)
I'm not the paraplegics (and their doctors) who make this assertion. You'd have to talk to them. Although apparently you don't need to, because you are able to make a blanket judgment which overrules the opinions of licensed medical practitioners.
http://www.rxmarihuana.com/Braunstein.htm
Muscles paralyzed by spinal cord injury (SCI) experience involuntary spasms and suffer intractable pains. Such paralysis cannot be cured, but its symptoms and complications can be medicated. Thus many paraplegics routinely pop five different pills daily, some quadriplegics 10 types, and no telling how many of each.
For spasms, there are tranquilizers such as baclofen, Dantrium, and Valium. Some side effects: liver failure, insomnia, and addiction. For chronic pain, there are narcotics such as codeine, morphine, and Demerol. Some side effects: constipation, sedation, and addiction. Paras and quads would be walking zombies, if they could walk.
...
I learned that marijuana relaxes SCI spasms more effectively than do tranquilizers and relieves SCI pains more safely than do narcotics. And it is the one medication that treats both the spasms and the pains.
Jethro,
Your baseless illogical hypocritical support of drug prohibition damages your limited credibility...
Go ahead call my position baseless or hypocritical or whatever. You may not like it all I can say is tough s***. My position however, isn't baseless or hypocritical. I believe that if certain drugs are made legal it will cause more problems. They will be easier to get and there will less reason for people to avoid them. Many will then ruin their lives and then they will have be carried, for those that don't kill themselves, along on the backs of those that have been responsible.
I have no clue why you accuse my position of being hypocritical. That accusation is not based on any facts, at least none that you have enumerated. I believe that the law, at least at the state level, has the legitmate power to prohibit the possession and use of drugs. I believe it to be the correct thing to do. As for my credibility all I can say is I am here mainly for entertainment purposes. I don't give a rat's ass if you think I am credible.
besides, I don't think that telling someone who is is ill and suicidal that they are also criminals is going to help matters any
You regularly resort to trying to personalize the legalization argument, as if by claiming that crabby and I just want to do the drugs we want (which we both already do NOW) you can somehow dismiss the volumes of evidence, analysis and opinions that assert the immorality, impracticality, and injustice that come about due to drug prohibition.
Yes I know a lot of people go ahead and use drugs illegally. In my opinion they are part of the problem. I believe that legalizing certain drugs would be immoral and irresponsible. As for justice, if you break the law you should pay the price.
http://www.rxmarihuana.com/martinez.htm
I suffered dozens of severe injuries in the crash, including 25 orthopedic fractures and massive skull fractures which severely crippled several cranial nerves. Two months after the crash I lay in bed a crumpled mass of pain. My IV fed me up to 10 milligrams of morphine every 7 minutes, 24 hours a day, but still I had trouble sleeping because the pain was so intense. I was told that I was not going to recover mobility and that I would spend the rest of my life connected to a medical facility. I could barely speak due to the nerve damage to my voice and throat. The constant pain in my eyes was excruciating. I was given morphine and other narcotics which incapacitated me, but did not reduce the pain in my eyes. Swallowing was a challenge which often resulted in choking and coughing fits lasting many minutes. As the weeks went by I began to suspect that the medications I was given were actually contributing to my neurological impairments by inhibiting concentration and depressing neurological responses. In addition, I was painfully aware that narcotics had a disastrous effect on my intestines.
One day I was visited by an outpatient who had AIDS. He told me a little about the medical uses of marihuana and he gave me a joint. I waited till late at night when the nurses were busy elsewhere. I smoked the joint in secret and my heart raced so much I feared that I might burst the scars of my recent surgery. But then the contraband was gone, the scent was dissipated, and outraged nurses still had not discovered me, so my heart rate slowed to a comfortable purr. I felt relaxed and at ease, but not stupefied. I could still sense the deep scars of my damaged nerves, but I was somehow mentally distanced from the pain in a way that morphine did not offer. I slept that night more soundly than I had since the crash.
I left the primary hospital as soon as I could talk my doctors into releasing me. I returned to my hometown and became an outpatient at a facility there. I continued to use narcotics and other pain medications prescribed by my doctors, but over the months and years I gradually replaced several prescription medicines with the use of cannabis. Nearly all of the drugs I had been given by doctors seemed to depress my mind and body, and the addictive quality of narcotics created numerous unpleasant psychological effects. Unlike narcotics, cannabis use imparted positive mental and physical stimulation, called euphoria, that encouraged my rapid recovery.
With the use of cannabis replacing sensory-depressive narcotics, I found myself recovering far beyond the expectations of my first 27 doctors. Five years after the crash I took some college courses and then began to work again. By the time I was well enough to maintain a full time carpentry job I was smoking hundreds of dollars worth of cannabis per month.
I see absolutely nothing immoral about keeping certain drugs illegal. I wonder how anyone can twist things around enough to believe that it is. Could it be the lingering effects of the drugs?
no they won't, they will be more difficult to get because they can be controlled better.
there will be less reason, that's for sure.
In truth, there will be the same (and real) reasons to avoid them. Because the only thing that makes drugs really attractive is that you can make so much money with it if it's illegal.
http://www.rxmarihuana.com/Sutton.htm
(long detailed story about having a serious spinal injury followed by years of operations and prescription drug treatments, then...)
I decided to conduct an informal experiment by reducing my intake of Valium and increasing my use of marihuana. I discovered that either smoking or eating marihuana dramatically reduced the chronic pain and spasticity in my lower back and legs. I realized that it was relaxing the large back muscles. As the spasticity deceased, so did the gnawing pain. To my great surprise, marihuana was providing far better relief than the dozens of pharmaceutically prepared drugs prescribed by my physicians.
I was able to greatly reduce, then eliminate, Valium and other powerful drugs from my medical routine. A small amount of marihuana, used daily, provided me with greater control of the spasticity and pain. And when I take marihuana I remain functional. Instead of constantly feeling "doped-up" and "out of it," I can lead a fairly normal life. My whole body feels more relaxed. I’m more limber, more active, and more able to get around the house, go outside, and visit with friends. I am no longer withdrawn and distant. Marihuana also permits me to get a nearly full night’s sleep. Before taking marihuana I had been using powerful sedatives to sleep, but I was constantly waking up because of pain or spasms. Just a small amount of marihuana before bedtime allows me to sleep soundly and wake up feeling rested.
It bothers me that marihuana is illegal, but the only alternative is constant, uncontrollable spasticity and pain, so the choice is simple.
part of what problem?
Perhaps you should inform yourself about how cannabis is the only wise and effective treatment for pain for lots and lots of people.
For starters, go here ( http://www.rxmarihuana.com/search.htm) and type the word "pain" in as a search. Or, just hang on to your false view that pot prohibition isn't preventing thousands of seriously injured and ill people from using the only reasonably effective treatment available.
jethro,
Why is it easier for high school students to get pot than booze?
I believe that if certain drugs are made legal it will cause more problems. They will be easier to get
no they won't, they will be more difficult to get because they can be controlled better.
That has got to be one of the most ignorant statements you have made.
and there will less reason for people to avoid them
there will be less reason, that's for sure.
In truth, there will be the same (and real) reasons to avoid them. Because the only thing that makes drugs really attractive is that you can make so much money with it if it's illegal.
See my comment above. If they aren't so attractive why do you want to do them? If the drugs aren't in demand how can anyone make money on them?
Why is it easier for high school students to get pot than booze?
I don't know that it is.
why is that
you don't believe that getting pot is as easy for a 16 year old kid as getting a fifth of Everclear?
when you create a black market by banning something, you make it more difficult to control.
that's just it, you don't know
I don't know that it is.
then its been a long time since you've been in a high school, jethro.
I know when I was in high school it was easier to get booze. You people are making a statement that it is EASIER to get pot. Where is the data?
It would be easier for people to get drugs such as cocaine, heroin or any other illegal drug if they were legal. Common sense tells you that because 1) there would be no risk of the drug getting confiscated by the authorities, 2) More people will be willing to produce the items if there is no risk of jail and 3) because there is less risk of loss the items will be cheaper.
the voice of experience, perhaps. its been all of 8 years since i've been in high school. i was offered pot a lot more than i was offered booze.
Lance, FWIW I'm not so much against legalizing marijuana as I am such drugs as cocaine, crack, heroine... especially for medical purposes.
Ares,
I was offered pot and booze equally.
I graduated H.S. in 1986.
well, either times have been changing a lot, or i wasn't in the right places at the right times. :)
Well, this was in Springfield MO, which is a whole different world.
:-)
they have taken as big if not a bigger-risk of harming someone else, than the same person would if they had shared a joint with a couple of friends and then drove home.
I disagree. Unlike Clinton, when I tried it, I inhaled and I was much more impaired from smoking pot than I ever was from drinking.
then don't try to drive a car
but don't put people in jail just because you can't handle your drugs
but don't put people in jail just because you can't handle your drugs
Can you handle your drugs? Is that what you're saying?
Do you drive when you're high, Crabby?
Anyway, I've never put anyone in jail.
Nope, that's not true. I had the guy that was trying to break into my house arrested.
btw, I'm pretty sure the guy was high on something.
"then don't try to drive a car"
Stay home and call C-Span and rant about how persecuted you are because you can't smoke legal pot.
It's prevented you from doing things, like growing up, and realizing that since some things are against the law, it's not a good idea to do them.
I drive when I am not impaired, regardless of if I've taken Glucophage. I have a great driving record.
it hasn't prevented peope from doing anything. it just creates crime where there otherwise is none. people do drugs all the time.
real scientific study you did there.
if he was, that would make you a victim of not the drugs, but the laws against them.
if he was, that would make you a victim of not the drugs, but the laws against them.
I love your logic.
Anyway, I didn't give the guy a urine test, but I can say with 99% accuracy he was high.
Yeah right, smoking pot doesn't impair you any more than a few beers.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out when someone is high.
And no, I did not get caught. I was over 18 and out of my parents the house when I first tried it.
"Yeah right, smoking pot doesn't impair you any more than a few beers."
I'd say you're less impaired smoking pot.
I'd rather be a passenger in a car with a guy that's had two beers than with a guy that's smoked a joint.
Cocaine killed Minnesota pro wrestler, medical examiner says
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/5486926.htm
that would make you....a criminal
welcome to the club
if you support the law, why did you break it?
and what terrible thing did it do to society by you breaking it?
Maybe he's a criminal who's willing to live the consequences instead of whining to change the rules.