|
On April 24 2011 08:06 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 07:40 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 24 2011 06:53 Thorakh wrote:On April 24 2011 06:50 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 24 2011 05:43 Thorakh wrote:On April 24 2011 04:51 Deja Thoris wrote:On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote:
Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case? Following your line of logic we should criminalise normal cigarettes, alcohol and junk food since some are addictive and all have adverse health effects when not used in moderation. I can just see the headlines. "Man pleads guilty of cheeseburger posession, gets 20 years" I am indeed for criminalising alcohol and ciggarettes as they are both extremely dangerous, not only towards the person using them, but also to other people. But I'm also not stupid and I realise that that is never going to happen. Cheeseburgers do not have any adverse effects on people other than the person eating one. I guess marijuana doesn't either, but you kinda misunderstood my post since I meant to ask if there are any negative longterm effects of weed (which would kinda vote against the use of weed, although when it doesn't adversely affect people other than the one using it, I'm not against legalising it). Ah... people like you... can't comprehend in the slightest your train of thought. But that might stem from me having a more libertarian (although, moderate, which is kinda an oxymoron in itself) mindset. Criminalize those things because of their potential for harm (what exactly is a cigarettes potential for harm by the way?)... haha oh man. Yeah man, fuck me for wanting to criminalize (nonessential) things that are extremely dangerous to other people. I'm such a stupid person! I don't even understand how you can be against criminalizing alcohol and ciggarettes (or at least limiting ciggarettes to specific places so all the smokers can go kill each other with lung cancer). Cigarettes are extremely dangerous? Please. It's called personal freedom, and the ability to enjoy yourself. There's a reason alcohol is such a highly demanded substance. Because 1% of the population that uses it is dangerous, you want to criminalize it for the other 99%? Reason it's in demand? Because it makes life exponentially more fun. I'm sorry but if you need toxic chemicals to make your life exponentionally more fun, I wouldn't want your life. Not to mention the toxic chemicals are also a danger to people around you. Drunk driving, drunk aggression, effect of having a smoker in your life, extreme stench of ciggarettes. Granted, ciggarettes are a lesser evil than alcohol to other people. Also, if even only 1% of people drinking alcohol results in deaths or severe injuries that's a major fucking reason to criminalize alcohol. I'm all for freedom, unless it results in the harming of others. On the topic of marijuana, if it (as some posters in this thread pointed out, thanks) is not even dangerous to the person using it then this law is retarded. EDIT: Some people interpret me wrong, stuff that hurts yourself and others is bad. Marijuana evidently is not.
Haha this is what I call the 'wet blanket' response, you can't fathom altering your mental state so it automatically makes you more superior than the rest of the population... however I ask you just to think of the mere mortals who do imbibe, they won't stop if it is illegal. America tried it once and it didn't work, when prohibition was in full swing there was more speakeasy's in NYC than there currently is liquor stores in america right now.
It truly doesn't matter what you ban because you believe it is bad for people, no one will stop just because it is illegal. Think about it, you can score drugs in prison... if there is one place on earth you should be able to eliminate the supply of a substance it should be there. There is just no way a government can effectively limit supply of any substance that has demand to it, they just hand markets directly to gangs and cartels and the most violent people of said markets. Banning any substance is just stupid. The religous right who care about the 'family' or the liberals who want to friggin nanny everyone to death don't do shit but give power to criminals and put addicts behind bars.
|
The whole drug debate needs to framed as hating Mexicans who profit from drugs instead of focusing on the fact that weed isn't actually bad for you, as it's quite obvious that no one cares. I'm confident if CA changed the dialogue from "weed is safe" to "weed gives money to brown people" pot would be legal in a week.
Until then it's up to the NE states to be all reasonable and beat CA to recreational laws.
|
It says the making of Hashish, so converting of Marijuna to this is what gives you this new big sentence?
|
On April 24 2011 09:29 CiscoKid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 08:06 Thorakh wrote:On April 24 2011 07:40 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 24 2011 06:53 Thorakh wrote:On April 24 2011 06:50 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 24 2011 05:43 Thorakh wrote:On April 24 2011 04:51 Deja Thoris wrote:On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote:
Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case? Following your line of logic we should criminalise normal cigarettes, alcohol and junk food since some are addictive and all have adverse health effects when not used in moderation. I can just see the headlines. "Man pleads guilty of cheeseburger posession, gets 20 years" I am indeed for criminalising alcohol and ciggarettes as they are both extremely dangerous, not only towards the person using them, but also to other people. But I'm also not stupid and I realise that that is never going to happen. Cheeseburgers do not have any adverse effects on people other than the person eating one. I guess marijuana doesn't either, but you kinda misunderstood my post since I meant to ask if there are any negative longterm effects of weed (which would kinda vote against the use of weed, although when it doesn't adversely affect people other than the one using it, I'm not against legalising it). Ah... people like you... can't comprehend in the slightest your train of thought. But that might stem from me having a more libertarian (although, moderate, which is kinda an oxymoron in itself) mindset. Criminalize those things because of their potential for harm (what exactly is a cigarettes potential for harm by the way?)... haha oh man. Yeah man, fuck me for wanting to criminalize (nonessential) things that are extremely dangerous to other people. I'm such a stupid person! I don't even understand how you can be against criminalizing alcohol and ciggarettes (or at least limiting ciggarettes to specific places so all the smokers can go kill each other with lung cancer). Cigarettes are extremely dangerous? Please. It's called personal freedom, and the ability to enjoy yourself. There's a reason alcohol is such a highly demanded substance. Because 1% of the population that uses it is dangerous, you want to criminalize it for the other 99%? Reason it's in demand? Because it makes life exponentially more fun. I'm sorry but if you need toxic chemicals to make your life exponentionally more fun, I wouldn't want your life. Not to mention the toxic chemicals are also a danger to people around you. Drunk driving, drunk aggression, effect of having a smoker in your life, extreme stench of ciggarettes. Granted, ciggarettes are a lesser evil than alcohol to other people. Also, if even only 1% of people drinking alcohol results in deaths or severe injuries that's a major fucking reason to criminalize alcohol. I'm all for freedom, unless it results in the harming of others. On the topic of marijuana, if it (as some posters in this thread pointed out, thanks) is not even dangerous to the person using it then this law is retarded. EDIT: Some people interpret me wrong, stuff that hurts yourself and others is bad. Marijuana evidently is not. Haha this is what I call the 'wet blanket' response, you can't fathom altering your mental state so it automatically makes you more superior than the rest of the population... however I ask you just to think of the mere mortals who do imbibe, they won't stop if it is illegal. America tried it once and it didn't work, when prohibition was in full swing there was more speakeasy's in NYC than there currently is liquor stores in america right now. It truly doesn't matter what you ban because you believe it is bad for people, no one will stop just because it is illegal. Think about it, you can score drugs in prison... if there is one place on earth you should be able to eliminate the supply of a substance it should be there. There is just no way a government can effectively limit supply of any substance that has demand to it, they just hand markets directly to gangs and cartels and the most violent people of said markets. Banning any substance is just stupid. The religous right who care about the 'family' or the liberals who want to friggin nanny everyone to death don't do shit but give power to criminals and put addicts behind bars.
I'm not gona lie that whole argument about pot being just like the alcholoh proabition is the dumbest idea I've ever heard.
and you've obviously never been to minnisota we've got a liquor store in pretty much every town sometimes 2 in the bigger ones.
|
On April 24 2011 09:43 Lucidx wrote:
It says the making of Hashish, so converting of Marijuna to this is what gives you this new big sentence?
Correct.
|
it is Oklahoma... one of the few states that could actually get this to pass... not too surprised
still seems harsh though
i wonder if a repeal will happen?
|
In my city and detroit there have been house explosions lately because of the butane used in the conversion process. Explosions can send brick walls flying randomly so I understand the need to crack down. Life in prison is a maximum, prolly more of a show than anything
|
On April 24 2011 10:27 MiniRoman wrote:
In my city and detroit there have been house explosions lately because of the butane used in the conversion process. Explosions can send brick walls flying randomly so I understand the need to crack down. Life in prison is a maximum, prolly more of a show than anything
butane?explosions? from making hashish?
what kind of hash are they making lol
you sure its not meth or crack
the best hash is the bubble bag method using ice and filters
and or/pressing keif crystals together
|
On April 24 2011 10:44 malady wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 10:27 MiniRoman wrote:
In my city and detroit there have been house explosions lately because of the butane used in the conversion process. Explosions can send brick walls flying randomly so I understand the need to crack down. Life in prison is a maximum, prolly more of a show than anything butane?explosions? from making hashish? what kind of hash are they making lol you sure its not meth or crack the best hash is the bubble bag method using ice and filters and or/pressing keif crystals together
Yeah some people use a butane method, but an h2o system is fine anyway, I never understood it but I could just be uninformed.
|
they could of been trying to extract the thc and or make an extract of oil ^^
its a possibility i guess
wouldn't surprise me with the stupidity of some people today
|
I am absolutely against the legalization of marijuana in the United States, but this is absurdity. Maybe a maximum of 2 years in prison, but even that is a bit much for a first offense. Life is prison is total and complete blasphemy.
|
I generally think laws against marijuana are too lenient, but this is going a bit far. And this is coming from a person who hates smoking in all forms.
|
On April 24 2011 03:46 Sufficiency wrote:
Seriously. If you can't fight them, join them. Why go against the general trend?
I do believe 420 should be taxed and legal, but I doubt how economically feasible is it to tax it. There is already a huge underground market for it; should you tax it, it's probably going to cost more than the current price, giving little incentives for people to buy.
The same reason we didn't have Al Capone's after the prohibition of alcohol was repealed
|
I like this law, 2 years to life is abit over the top, but i definitely like goverments taking a more aggressive stance against drugs.
|
On April 24 2011 03:53 ampson wrote:
This could work. I sure wouldn't do it when people are getting 2 years and a 50k fine for it. Hopefully, less hash would be created, less people get in trouble, and maybe other states can follow suit. Or it could be legalized. But this is a good idea, current penalties are just not working.
What.....This a "Good idea"...What...i ..what...maybe if they were talking about oh lets say Cocaine..or like idk Heroine? Maybe I could agree with that, saying that this law is a GOOD IDEA, for HASH!!!??? WHAT. Are you fucking stupid? One Million Dollars for keeping FIVE people who make HASH in jail for TEN YEARS (2 years TO LIFE, which from my understanding is 15-35 years before they can get parole...and even then they might not get out) so let's see here, let's suppose that 25 hash dealers are arrested and all of them are given the "Life" sentence, 56$ a day x365=20,440
multiply THAT by 25 people 22440x25= 561000 PER YEAR, and if they all get say 35 years 561000x35=19635000. Whose going to pay all of that? You are, in taxes. Now this is all theoretical, and my math maybe a little bit off, but anybody with half a fucking brain can see this is probably the stupidest drug law that's ever been passed.
|
On April 24 2011 11:17 Finskie wrote:
I like this law, 2 years to life is abit over the top, but i definitely like goverments taking a more aggressive stance against drugs.
Butttttttt they're not.
Alcohol, caffine, cigarettes, etc.
I'm sure you do one of those drugs, stop trying to infringe on others rights.
|
On April 24 2011 11:52 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 11:17 Finskie wrote:
I like this law, 2 years to life is abit over the top, but i definitely like goverments taking a more aggressive stance against drugs. Butttttttt they're not. Alcohol, caffine, cigarettes, etc. I'm sure you do one of those drugs, stop trying to infringe on others rights.
Well, at least he's not infringing on anyones right to smoke weed!
|
On April 24 2011 04:46 Kurr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 04:21 N3rV[Green] wrote:
Speaking of that, those Depression medications, antacid medications, nausea medications, Honestly just think back to the last commercial you saw for some type of medication on TV. Think about that loooooong list of things that can go wrong if you take that medication. Ya you remember those.
Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, sore _____, allergic reactions (some of which can be life threatening), uncontrolled muscle spasms, (for depression suicidal thoughts or tendencies is ALWAYS listed, and that pisses me the fuck off. Giving a depressed person something that will not make them happier, but push them a little closer to actually doing something....even if that something is just killing themself. It doesn't matter, society just needs them to do SOMETHING right?)
The list goes on and on, with DEATH mentioned at least once every commercial.
Sickens me.
Pharmaceuticals companies have to protect themselves which is why they list those side effects. Usually, there are 2-3 common side effects (IE they happen in around 10% of people or slightly more or less) which are for example nausea and diarrhea with most antibiotics. When they give you the medication, pharmacists have an obligation to warn you about the side effects and what to do if they occur to you. Rarely are these side effects very significant. Then, there are side effects that happened in around 1-3% of people, also some minor effects (headaches for example). Major side effects (for example uncontrolled muscle spasms) are always rare (because if they weren't the medication would be taken off the market or never have made it there if the side effect was discovered before it was published) and pharmacists/doctors also have a duty to warn patients and follow up on people at risk to develop these effects. As far as allergic reactions go, it is written on literally every medication. Every time you put a foreign substance in your body, there is a chance of your body rejecting it. Previous allergic reactions (penicillin allergy for example is common) are kept in patient files and people are warned of what to look for towards these reactions to make sure they take the proper action if they suffer them (ambulance if you have trouble breathing, stopping the antibiotic and seeing the doctor if they develop a rash). You didn't address it, but for pain killers or medication that can be addicting, pharmacists also follow very closely the medication refill dates to keep people in check and will not serve such medication in advance. Patients that are thought to be abusive of them are followed closely (we have people in our pharmacy that we only serve 1 day at a time for example because of abuse). Overall, your attacks on medication are unfounded. It is a very different from just giving you medication and telling you to get out. Pharmacists have a responsibility to assure correct treatment for patients, notice interactions (so that patients are subjected to the least amount of side effects possible, although this can be an impossible task when patients have several diseases and take several different medication) and follow up on patients when they refill their medication to be sure they are responding well to the treatment. This is why you can't compare medication gotten in a pharmacy to substances acquired on the side of the street.
I would say actually that you can compare substances acquired in pharmacies to "stree-drugs" how many people in America, or in Canada for that matter commit substance abuse each day? are you going to tell me that Marijuana is more dangerous then prescription painkillerrs? are you honestly going to say that there are not people out there that get these "controlled" substances "before there refill dates" ??? Do You honestly believe that? how many vicodin does it take to overdose? how many tylonal 3's does it take to overdose? what about oxycoitn? How many people die from a "Marijuana overdose"? i'll give youa hint it starts with the letter Z and ends with O
|
They're crowding up the prisons with people who aren't even violent...This is completely ridiculous.
|
On April 24 2011 11:07 NotGood- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 03:46 Sufficiency wrote:
Seriously. If you can't fight them, join them. Why go against the general trend?
I do believe 420 should be taxed and legal, but I doubt how economically feasible is it to tax it. There is already a huge underground market for it; should you tax it, it's probably going to cost more than the current price, giving little incentives for people to buy. The same reason we didn't have Al Capone's after the prohibition of alcohol was repealed
because we didn't already have a vast network of distilleries and distributors already in place before prohibition?
its 100% not worth it the medical and social costs associated with the wider useage of it would vastly overshadow the meager ammount that we'd get with it already being sold and will continue being sold though underground channels to drug cartels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
