Drug-free world?

[hmmnmm]

---------

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Might interest you to know Marijuanna became illegal about the dime Dupont developed nylon. It's interesting to note most rope at the time was constructed of hemp and most rope now is constructed of nylon.

There is no reason for keeping Marijuanna illegal. None whatsoever. No study, not funded by the US governemnt, has ever found any hazard of the drug that even comes close to the hazards of tobacco or Alcohol.

PCP and cocaine are different stories.

 

[arienette]

Might interest you to know Marijuanna became illegal about the dime Dupont developed nylon. It's interesting to note most rope at the time was constructed of hemp and most rope now is constructed of nylon.

There is no reason for keeping Marijuanna illegal. None whatsoever. No study, not funded by the US governemnt, has ever found any hazard of the drug that even comes close to the hazards of tobacco or Alcohol.

PCP and cocaine are different stories.

Tobacco and alcohol kill people and as for Marijuanna, there is not one case, not one, where someone died of smoking too much pot. I've been a smoker for years, so has many people I've known and where it is addicting, it does cost a pretty penny, and yes, it really does make some brain cells go away and never come back, there are so many people that get insanely stimulated by it - such as myself. I smoke, and I paint and write and go on a art spree. I'm not sure where I'm going with this.

Anyway, if the government did make it legal now (which they won't, but if they did) it would be chaos, same as outlawing the right to bear arms. There would be so much pot smoking everywhere, people would start killing each other (more so than now) over drugs...But cocaine, heroine, etc. should definitely stay outlawed. They kill people.

 

[hmmnmm]

--------

 

[arienette]

well, I, nor few people with any clear-thinking would argue the dangers of these harder substances - seen a number of beautiful people and minds turn into needless casualties, myself...
I also agree that the short-term effects would be momentary chaos/mayhem, but I wonder if over time things would settle down.
But these hemp farmers, or would-be farmers, it seems that recreational marijuana is not what they're after, they're just hoping to raise a crop that will sustain their economy, keep them on the land, and (nodding to Dupont reference) considering ways to severe our dependence on oil from afar, from often near-belligerent sources.

Hey, arienette, I just got lost too - and I'm stone sober and all.

I'm sober, kinda...Pot hangover, yes they do happen and yes, they are pretty bad on the memory. You type and type and all of a sudden think "Hey, what the fuck am I talking about?"

 

[R. Richard]

There is no reason for keeping Marijuanna illegal. None whatsoever. No study, not funded by the US governemnt, has ever found any hazard of the drug that even comes close to the hazards of tobacco or Alcohol.

PCP and cocaine are different stories.

Actualy, smoking marijuana is worse than smoking tobacco. I have read that the tars and such are much worse from marijuana than from tobacco. However, people who smoke tobacco may smoke packs per day. Most people who smoke marijuana smoke a cigarette [or spliff] or two a day.

 

[Liar]

Actualy, smoking marijuana is worse than smoking tobacco. I have read that the tars and such are much worse from marijuana than from tobacco. However, people who smoke tobacco may smoke packs per day. Most people who smoke marijuana smoke a cigarette [or spliff] or two a day.

Just a guess, but could this be because it's illagal, and therefore there is no industrial quality standard to a spliff? Cigarette manufacturers have some kind of obligation to at least limit the filth you inhale, because of the legal and pucblic attention. If pot became legit, I suppose the same might happen there.

That being said, this is industrial hemp we're talking about. It's a different plant. You'd need to smoke a fucking forest of it to get even a little mellow. Banning it is purely silly, even if you (no, not you, rr) think maurijana is Satans toenal clippings.

 

[Guest]

.....

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Just a guess, but could this be because it's illagal, and therefore there is no industrial quality standard to a spliff? Cigarette manufacturers have some kind of obligation to at least limit the filth you inhale, because of the legal and pucblic attention. If pot became legit, I suppose the same might happen there.

That's exactly it. Illegal pot is often adulterated, soaked in sugar water to make it heavier, and stepped on in various ways because it's illegal after all.

The people who have the biggest interest in keeping it illegal are, of course, the drug barons, who gives millions of dollars to anti-drug campaigns and politicians. Legalization would put them out of business.

It is quite literally impossible to get any government funding for marijuana research anymore, and has been for years. All the studies the giovernment funded said that the stuff was relatively harmless, which was not what they wanted to hear, and so they pulled their funding.

This is puritanism, pure and simple--the philosphy that says that if it's pleasurable, it must be ipso facto bad for you and made illegal.

 

[WindWarrior]

Pot, mushrooms, and prostitution, for that matter, are all legal in Holland. I've been to Amsterdam, and I never saw any desperate addicts who need their fix or else they go insane. In fact, the only stoned people I saw were tourists.

I think Amsterdam serves as a fairly good example of how legalizing drugs is NOT going to destroy all of society. In fact, legalizing drugs would put the drug dealers out of business. Why go to them when you can buy it safely, and legally in a coffee shop?

I smoke the occassional joint - for relaxation, for creativity, for allowing myself to "let go", for a variety of reasons. I'm responsible about it, and don't ever drive or operate heavy machinery when stoned.

Bottom line is - I think the government really has no right to decide what I can do in the privacy of my own home, in the privacy of my own life. If I choose to smoke pot, have mushroom omelets, then so be it. It's none of the president's business. And it certainly isn't going to cause the downfall of society as we now know it.

 

[amicus]

Colleen Thomas]Might interest you to know Marijuanna became illegal about the dime Dupont developed nylon. It's interesting to note most rope at the time was constructed of hemp and most rope now is constructed of nylon.

There is no reason for keeping Marijuanna illegal. None whatsoever. No study, not funded by the US governemnt, has ever found any hazard of the drug that even comes close to the hazards of tobacco or Alcohol.

PCP and cocaine are different stories.

[/I]

~~~~~~~~~~~``


This is the sort of argument the 'usual suspects' present as a case against the market place and industry in general and not worthy of you at all. Especially since it is specious and made with no reference to dates, fact or association. Guilt by association simply because 'Dupont' is a large corporation. Shame on you.

Secondly, on such a 'progressive' site as this, one would expect at least a few perverts to question the governments right to control what you smoke, inject or ingest.

I see nothing in the Constitution of the United States that permits the government to control any substance for any reason.

A population kept permanently immature by 'big brother' who keeps all the perceived, 'dangerous things' out of its hands, will never grow up.

Becoming psychologically mature is having the right to make all choices and enjoying the rewards or suffering the consequences of the choices made.

The failure of the 'drug war', the lives destroyed by the DEA, the ATF, et al, the expense, the overflowing jail cells, should one day, maybe, clue someone in.

But I doubt it.

Silly, silly, people...


amicus...

 

[Wildcard Ky]

I think the only reason pot is illegal is because the government would lose billions of dollars annually.

People would begin to immediately grow their own dope. The government wouldn't be able to tax it. It doesn't require the manufacturing, processing and distribution base that things like alcohol and tobacco do. There would be way too many small time growers for the feds to ever keep up with, therefore they wouldn't be able to effectively tax it. Nor would they be able to tax the income of the growers/sellers.

Secondly, if everyone starts smoking tax free dope, alcohol sales will drop. That equals more lost tax revenue.

It's not about the morality of pot, it's about tax money.

 

[Boxlicker101]

That's exactly it. Illegal pot is often adulterated, soaked in sugar water to make it heavier, and stepped on in various ways because it's illegal after all.

The people who have the biggest interest in keeping it illegal are, of course, the drug barons, who gives millions of dollars to anti-drug campaigns and politicians. Legalization would put them out of business.

It is quite literally impossible to get any government funding for marijuana research anymore, and has been for years. All the studies the giovernment funded said that the stuff was relatively harmless, which was not what they wanted to hear, and so they pulled their funding.

This is puritanism, pure and simple--the philosphy that says that if it's pleasurable, it must be ipso facto bad for you and made illegal.

I have to agree that drug dealers would fight against legalization of grass because they would lose so much. It's actually cheap and easy to grow if you don't have to worry about being busted.

Liquor distilleries would also fight it because it would be such tough competition against them. Instead of a couple of slugs of booze, people would unwind with a joint.

Churches, etc. would also fight against it because they would consider it to be a sin, much like they now talk of booze. The only people who would benefit from it would be most ordinary people.

added bemusedly: Do you realize that we are all in agreement with Amicus!

 

[amicus]

{added bemusedly: Do you realize that we are all in agreement with Amicus!}

Someone wanna tell me how to add that to my sigline...it be priceless.


a bemused amicus...

 

[cloudy]

{added bemusedly: Do you realize that we are all in agreement with Amicus!}

Someone wanna tell me how to add that to my sigline...it be priceless.


a bemused amicus...

click on the control panel link at the top of the page.

then click on the "edit signature" link on the left hand side of your screen, and a box will pop up much like the one used to post in.

Just paste it in there, and then click on "save signature" and you're good to go.

'ello, ami.....I know you want me.

 

[amicus]

Ohhh, I do, I do!

 

[Pure]

i think all might agree with amicus on pot laws only.

i heard several posters call for laws against cocaine. will someone explain why?

here, I go most of the way with ami, in that except for extremely toxic substances, and extremely explosive ones, you should be able to buy any chemical you want and put it into your body, any orifice or area, with the instrument of your choice (I am assuming you are not an airplane pilot on duty, etc.).

PS to hmmnmm:

According to your fantasy would my mom have to give up her Ambien too?

 

[amicus]

Pure, you offer a reasonable position, for a change. It is a great temptation to restrict such 'toxic and explosive' things, as you suggest, but that is not the function of our government.

I would like my own Ouzi, RPG's and Cemtex, just in case the government decided to trample upon my rights and force me to revolt.

An armed public is the best defense against tyranny, and I do not fancy government having all the best weapons.

Some tend to overlook or forget that "We The People" is the primary reason we chose a government. We do not exist at its pleasure, the government exists at our pleasure; we pay for it and direct it, not the other way around.

Laissez Faire....'let them alone...'

works for me...


amicus...

 

[hmmnmm]

-------

 

[Liar]

here, I go most of the way with ami, in that except for extremely toxic substances, and extremely explosive ones, you should be able to buy any chemical you want and put it into your body, any orifice or area, with the instrument of your choice (I am assuming you are not an airplane pilot on duty, etc.).

I'll let you do that, when you sign off your right to health care, to employment, to insurance and other society functions. Even if you pay for the healthcare out of your own pocket, you are taking up the doctor' valueable time with your own stupidity, when they could be saving the lives of people who deserve it.

If you knowingly abuse your body and brain, take the consequences headfirst, no padding.

 

[Lisa Denton]

I think the government seriously should consider legalizing pot. It wouldn't create chaos, it would eliminate everything we all agree may be wrong with it.

If it were regulated like alcohol, no heavy smoking and driving, that would eliminate fears that it slows reflexes.

If it were regulated like tobacco, like with production standards, and filters to lower the tar and other health hazards, wouldn't companies compete to create the least hazardous to your health, but with a mellow high, smoke. No one grows tobacco in thier backyard (or at least no one I know) because it is legal, and made much better by the large tobacco companies.

It would astronomically lower the cost, decrease the health hazards, and give federal and local governments the ability to enforce laws concerning it. Just like alcohol and cigarettes, show adult I.D. and use the product safely.

Why would it lower revenues from alcohol, if someone wanted to smoke a couple rather than drink a couple, if it were taxed just like alcohol?

How many teenagers try it just because its illegal?

Wouldn't law enforcement enter a new arena in fighting illegal drug use if pot were taken out of the illegal picture?

Just so you know, I used to smoke pot, found it relaxing, but stopped just because of its illegal aspect, and ties to crime and danger. I haven't smoked any for several years.

JUST MY OPINION.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

[/I]

~~~~~~~~~~~``


This is the sort of argument the 'usual suspects' present as a case against the market place and industry in general and not worthy of you at all. Especially since it is specious and made with no reference to dates, fact or association. Guilt by association simply because 'Dupont' is a large corporation. Shame on you.

Secondly, on such a 'progressive' site as this, one would expect at least a few perverts to question the governments right to control what you smoke, inject or ingest.

I see nothing in the Constitution of the United States that permits the government to control any substance for any reason.

A population kept permanently immature by 'big brother' who keeps all the perceived, 'dangerous things' out of its hands, will never grow up.

Becoming psychologically mature is having the right to make all choices and enjoying the rewards or suffering the consequences of the choices made.

The failure of the 'drug war', the lives destroyed by the DEA, the ATF, et al, the expense, the overflowing jail cells, should one day, maybe, clue someone in.

But I doubt it.

Silly, silly, people...


amicus...

I make the reference because I got it from a college chemistry professor. Who provided the information you request. That was college. For all intents and purposes, a lifetime ago. It was proven, to my satisfaction then. If you can disprove it, by all means, I'm open to that. If not, then I am going to continue to believe it. Proving it to you, would be far more work than I am willing to do, in the full knowledge you wouldn't care what I presented anyway. I suspect you haven't the time or inclination to disprove it, but if you can, I'll cease to make the point.

While you are checking your copy of the constitution, look up the neccessary and proper clause. Then reference it to the federal controlled substances statues. They have been upheld by judicial review as neccessary and proper. You may reference that back to the responsibility of government to protect members of society. Take any person, add a quantity of PCP, and you will have a borderline psychotic. Some drugs, because of their effects need to be regulated. PCP is one that needs to be banned. It isn't about personal choice, because once you take it, you become a danger to your fellows. An active peril, as opposed to the passive kind like a sleepy, stoned or drunk driver.

Actually, I should thank you. I went back and checked a few of the pertient facts.

marijuanna: First taxed in 1937 after a popular mechanics article predicted the hemp industry would become amulti billion dollar industry within 20 years, making large inroads into the pulp and paper making fields.

Banned in 38, the same year Dupont came out with nylon and patented a papermaking process using wood ships.

Unbaned, without fanfare, during the war years, when the US was cut off from traditional suppliers of manilla for making rope such as Japan & the Phillipenes.

Rebanned after an extensive campaign by the newspapers of J.P hearts's in which it was linked, without any support to anything from insanity and vilolence to opim abuse. J.P. Hearst, incidentaly of course, was given a liscence to use Dupont's wood chip paper making patent at a very reasonable rate.

You may not see causality. I do. I can't prove it, if you can prove it isn't there, I'm all ears. Otherwise, it will be up to the others in this forum to decide for themselves.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I think the only reason pot is illegal is because the government would lose billions of dollars annually.

People would begin to immediately grow their own dope. The government wouldn't be able to tax it. It doesn't require the manufacturing, processing and distribution base that things like alcohol and tobacco do. There would be way too many small time growers for the feds to ever keep up with, therefore they wouldn't be able to effectively tax it. Nor would they be able to tax the income of the growers/sellers.

Secondly, if everyone starts smoking tax free dope, alcohol sales will drop. That equals more lost tax revenue.

It's not about the morality of pot, it's about tax money.

I don't know, WC. Maybe some people would grow their own, just like maybe they could grow their own tabacco and vegetables and brew their own beer and wine, but I don't think many would. Besides, you giive American industry a shot at the cultivation and packaging of marijuana and you'd see some product out there that would just blow your socks off. For all their faults, American corporations know how to manufacture a quality product that almost always leaves home-made in the dust.

I can imagine what Philip Morris or DeKalb could do with marijuana--low tar, high resin, metholated or plain, filtered and king-sized, 20 for $5.00, $4.80 of which is tax.... You'd generate a lot more tax revenue than you'd lose.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Well, it sounds like my posting would be just about redundant. Even amicus disagrees with his own party on this one. Damn!

 

[amicus]

Colleen Thomas]I make the reference because I got it from a college chemistry professor. Who provided the information you request. That was college. For all intents and purposes, a lifetime ago. It was proven, to my satisfaction then. If you can disprove it, by all means, I'm open to that. If not, then I am going to continue to believe it. Proving it to you, would be far more work than I am willing to do, in the full knowledge you wouldn't care what I presented anyway. I suspect you haven't the time or inclination to disprove it, but if you can, I'll cease to make the point.

While you are checking your copy of the constitution, look up the neccessary and proper clause. Then reference it to the federal controlled substances statues. They have been upheld by judicial review as neccessary and proper. You may reference that back to the responsibility of government to protect members of society. Take any person, add a quantity of PCP, and you will have a borderline psychotic. Some drugs, because of their effects need to be regulated. PCP is one that needs to be banned. It isn't about personal choice, because once you take it, you become a danger to your fellows. An active peril, as opposed to the passive kind like a sleepy, stoned or drunk driver.

Actually, I should thank you. I went back and checked a few of the pertient facts.

marijuanna: First taxed in 1937 after a popular mechanics article predicted the hemp industry would become amulti billion dollar industry within 20 years, making large inroads into the pulp and paper making fields.

Banned in 38, the same year Dupont came out with nylon and patented a papermaking process using wood ships.

Unbaned, without fanfare, during the war years, when the US was cut off from traditional suppliers of manilla for making rope such as Japan & the Phillipenes.

Rebanned after an extensive campaign by the newspapers of J.P hearts's in which it was linked, without any support to anything from insanity and vilolence to opim abuse. J.P. Hearst, incidentaly of course, was given a liscence to use Dupont's wood chip paper making patent at a very reasonable rate.

You may not see causality. I do. I can't prove it, if you can prove it isn't there, I'm all ears. Otherwise, it will be up to the others in this forum to decide for themselves.

[/I]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You are quite correct Cloudy, I am really not interested in whether Dupont exercised political pressure to ban hemp growing.

My question was more of a rhetorical once, concerning the right of government, under the constitution to 'ban' certain substances.

You justify the intervention under the 'welfare' clause as so many do when individual rights are sacrificed for the perceived 'general good of the people'.

I tend always to oppose that viewpoint as it restricts and limits my options to exercise my own individual prerogatives.

amicus...