Message boards :
Politics :
Uruguay to legalize and sell cannabis
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Misfit Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0 |
|
Bob DeWoody Send message Joined: 9 May 10 Posts: 3387 Credit: 4,182,900 RAC: 10 |
Something that should have been done a long time ago everywhere else. Bob DeWoody My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events. |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
Something that should have been done a long time ago everywhere else. Chronic smokin' liberal hippies ... makes me sick. |
Bob DeWoody Send message Joined: 9 May 10 Posts: 3387 Credit: 4,182,900 RAC: 10 |
Oh, how little you know Sarge. Nobody has ever thought of me as a liberal hippie. And I can't afford to smoke enough pot to be labelled as a chronic smoker. I don't know you personally but I'd be curious to know whether you are a consumer of alcohol and if so how much? Bob DeWoody My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30651 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Legal drugs for all. Just declare yourself, sign the DNR. Then anything you want. Congress can then sin tax it up the ying yang. |
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
One can hope the folks at a hospital have a clue about advanced directives. I suspect they would if they were told that any expenditures in violation of an advance directive is neither billable nor transferable as an overall cost to be built into the rate structure. Legal drugs for all. Just declare yourself, sign the DNR. Then anything you want. Congress can then sin tax it up the ying yang. |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
Oh, how little you know Sarge. Nobody has ever thought of me as a liberal hippie. And I can't afford to smoke enough pot to be labelled as a chronic smoker. I don't know you personally but I'd be curious to know whether you are a consumer of alcohol and if so how much? Oh, how much I know. Chronic is slang for weed. Too bad you missed the sarcasm. It's ok for the well-to-do to smoke it, but not for the lower class. Remember, it'll be a gateway drug for them, sending in them into wild rages! Guess your high school was one of the few that lacked the cliques, jocks, preps and heads? (Heads = potheads.) Except the jocks were smoking it, too. Such irony. Again, you missed the sarcasm. As for my ccnsumption of weed: none. EVER. Alcohol? Prolly far less than you and the average person. |
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0 |
Well that disqualifies you for the office of President -- disqualifies Romney too, but that's another story <smile>
|
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
Oh, how little you know Sarge. Nobody has ever thought of me as a liberal hippie. And I can't afford to smoke enough pot to be labelled as a chronic smoker. I don't know you personally but I'd be curious to know whether you are a consumer of alcohol and if so how much? For further elaboration: what's the best estimate of the true percentage of those who use marijuana that do not also drink alcohol and smoke Philip Morris' tobacco cigarettes? I will bet it is close to 0%. So, it might be a good idea to drop the false di/trichotomy. |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
Legal drugs for all. Just declare yourself, sign the DNR. Then anything you want. Congress can then sin tax it up the ying yang. Sure, the sin tax will sound great to a lot of us. Except that you probably really do not want to be around the chronic users of the chronic. Right? At best, they might serve as a source for jokes, regarding their lack of self-control. At worst, we'll find out that when they drive impaired, they'll cause accidents, too. Then, despite the money raked in from the sin tax and the libertarian point of view, when one of those accidents draws you or a relative, loved one or friend in as collateral damage, then you'll be screaming. |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
Well that disqualifies you for the office of President -- disqualifies Romney too, but that's another story <smile> But surely Richard & Ronald abstained? Maybe even Jimmy and GHW? |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
LOL. I finished that last post just before 4:20. But, of course, you'll claim to not know the significance of that number/time of day, either, right? |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30651 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
At worst, we'll find out that when they drive impaired, they'll cause accidents, too. Apparently you are so ignorant as to think that isn't going on today. I bet you believe everyone obeys the law all the time. That no one would ever cheat on their taxes. That no one would ever drive one mile per hour over the speed limit. That no one would ever drink and drive. Show me some data. Several states made pot legal recently, did they suddenly have an epidemic of new car crashes? |
Ex: "Socialist" Send message Joined: 12 Mar 12 Posts: 3433 Credit: 2,616,158 RAC: 2 |
Oh, how little you know Sarge. Nobody has ever thought of me as a liberal hippie. And I can't afford to smoke enough pot to be labelled as a chronic smoker. I don't know you personally but I'd be curious to know whether you are a consumer of alcohol and if so how much? Oh boy I'm trying not to get dragged into this one here. a) I don't think marijuana smokers can be classified as 100% drinkers and smokers. I think people of all lifestyles and walks of life are equally as likely to have "partaken". b) Gary: I think it's ridiculous that you think someone who has "partaken" should have to sign a DNR. Really? If that's the case then I'd argue everyone who wants to have a beer better be signing the same damn DNR. c) Taxation is fine. The government loves making sin tax, and from what I understand it's huge money for them. Why would they not want another thing to tax? d) Countries where marijuana sale is legal have no higher incidence of hard drug addiction or crime than countries where it is illegal. e) States where it is legal do not seem to be reporting any trend of problems stemming from the sale and use of marijuana f) I personally believe alcohol is a far greater threat to public health. FAR greater. #resist |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30651 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
b) Gary: I think it's ridiculous that you think someone who has "partaken" should have to sign a DNR. Really? If that's the case then I'd argue everyone who wants to have a beer better be signing the same damn DNR. I believe there is a misunderstanding here. Not just weed. Heroin, oxycontin, morphine, cocaine, crack, ice, angel dust, E, LSD, mushrooms, GHB, etc. I said any drug. Got a prescription? no DNR needed. Medical weed is a different discussion. I believe a significant fraction of those who would abuse these drugs if they were freely available would be persons who could never afford the medical care that their abuse would be expected to cost society. Advanced life support is very costly. A fair trade off, make it legal, pure and available, but society isn't going to save you when you OD or wrap your car around a telephone pole. |
Ex: "Socialist" Send message Joined: 12 Mar 12 Posts: 3433 Credit: 2,616,158 RAC: 2 |
Ok, perhaps... But I don't think the hard stuff should be legal. Many of those drugs listed are highly toxic, addictive, and detrimental to life, and shouldn't be available by any means. Prescriptions however should be allowed for anything a doctor says should be taken. But as far as classifications, I don't think marijuana falls in any category worse than alcohol and cigarettes. If they taxed it and regulated it like everything else, I would think there would be less crime because you'd be taking power away from criminals and drug lords. Could be a good thing. I could care less either way. I don't even smoke cigarettes, and in my state they are taxed so high it's a waste of money, I assume it would be the same with anything else the government taxed and regulated. #resist |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
Apparently you are so ignorant Don't worry, Gary, I won't red X you, even after a clear flame, even though you threatened me with a red X after you perceived I had flamed you, via saying you "would not quote" but responded to the post. as to think that isn't going on today. I bet you believe everyone obeys the law all the time. That no one would ever cheat on their taxes. That no one would ever drive one mile per hour over the speed limit. That no one would ever drink and drive. Speaking of evidence, show me one bit of evidence anything I said in this post or any other post suggested I think this. You're not talking to Guy. Show me some data. Several states made pot legal recently, did they suddenly have an epidemic of new car crashes? As I understand it, they made medicinal marijuana legal. As I do not use it or any other form of it, I do not go following the details entirely. Who is it you worry will wrap their car around a telephone pole will be? (Really, I do not think you worry. There's no evidence for it. Which is strange, considering someone else could be pulled in as collateral damage.) You know, I really like the phrase, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary ... " (proof?). But: 1) Seems you and several others have plenty of time on your hands, with well over 10 posts a day. So, why don't you fill some of that time looking up the data for me? Let me know if I am right or wrong. Besides, I do not think mu suggestion is THAT extraordinary. 2) Here's a place to start. Or, use google if you prefer. You might find this one interesting. Oh, sorry, you still thought you were talking to Guy, and weren't expecting a single shred of evidence? Ex: I am hypothesizing based on having known many people who use, from different walks of life, from across the USA, and do make use of 2 or all 3. Let's do a little additional hypothesizing, followed by perhaps some ... oops ... evidence! The additional thought is this, following Bob DeWoody's comment about cost. So, alcohol and tobacco are easier to obtain, due to legality and cost? Then perhaps people will have 2 or all 3 present when the marijuana is present. Now, consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_smoking. As of 2012, there is still no conclusive correlation between the effects of cannabis smoke and an increased incidence of lung cancer in humans. There are difficulties in finding and studying subjects who have only been exposed to cannabis smoke as many subjects tend to smoke or are exposed to tobacco smoke concurrently. (Emphasis added.) Granted, that quote is followed by "citation needed". But certainly, due to legality, it will indeed be difficult to find subjects to study. And someone else is suggesting concurrent use. Given the concern about driving while impaired, from alcohol or other items: Bob DeWoody, I walk home, 1.3 miles. And even with my low tolerance, an average of 2 pints isn't that much. Particularly when metabolized over 2-3 hours. I would likely not even be there for that if I was not there for the music. Once or twice a week. |
rob smith Send message Joined: 7 Mar 03 Posts: 22202 Credit: 416,307,556 RAC: 380 |
In a recent conversation with a thorasic surgeon the subject drifted onto various forms of lung irritant and toxin that might lead to lung cancer. He said, and I can only repeat what he said, that he is seeing an increase in lung cancer among younger people, and that this tends to be among younger people who have been active cannabis users. His hypothesis is that because they tend to inhale more deeply, and hold the smoke in their lungs for longer the tars have longer to deposit on the lung surface deeper in the lung. He says these tars are the prime cause of lung cancer, and are just as, if not more, prevalent in cannabis smoke as tobacco smoke. I admit this is just the word of one surgeon working an inner-city hospital, so is far from scientific in its nature. Bob Smith Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society) Somewhere in the (un)known Universe? |
kittyman Send message Joined: 9 Jul 00 Posts: 51468 Credit: 1,018,363,574 RAC: 1,004 |
In a recent conversation with a thorasic surgeon the subject drifted onto various forms of lung irritant and toxin that might lead to lung cancer. He said, and I can only repeat what he said, that he is seeing an increase in lung cancer among younger people, and that this tends to be among younger people who have been active cannabis users. His hypothesis is that because they tend to inhale more deeply, and hold the smoke in their lungs for longer the tars have longer to deposit on the lung surface deeper in the lung. He says these tars are the prime cause of lung cancer, and are just as, if not more, prevalent in cannabis smoke as tobacco smoke. I have read the same. More than once. I guess if ya gotta go, you better hope they hand out joints in the hospital ward. "Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30651 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
2) Here's a place to start. Or, use google if you prefer. You might find this one interesting. About the non-evidence I expected. Again, show evidence that legal will increase the rate of accidents. There are places where it is legal, got data? Now as to "medical" marijuana, in quotes for a reason, I know you haven't followed it. Seems it has gotten rid of the street corner dealer. He now has a boutique shop with boutique pot. The "doctor's" office is next door. Everyone gets a prescription. It is all a charade to make it legal. Where that happened, is there data indicating an increase in marijuana related traffic accidents? |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.