Cannabis Sativa
 

OK, I live in Northern California. Cannabis is legal. Is it OK to discuss cannabis on this website?

its not legal in Warwick.... can I even talk to you about it?


AHHHH theres a knock at the door.....


its the cops.... they are on to me...

I know that we aren't supposed to talk about politics in general, and that's the big thing with weed isn't it? If you're wanting to ask how to grow it, there are better sites than macosxhints ;), just a guess.

I agree that there are way better venues than this one to discuss topics such as this. Google is your friend.

I have learned all my Mac and OSX skills while researching (example) the effects of Cannabis...

:) ..

For people who do that kind of resseach.. Amybe this piece of hardware may be of some interest... lolll
http://www.thermaltake.com/2005/acce...24O3/a2324.htm

Its a cooling system for your computer at the same time as an air filter :D

LOL, I sure wan't coming here in hopes of finding cultivating tips. I was just curious as to the other's opinions in here.

I sometimes feel like I'm out of touch being in a place as liberal as Northern California.

Here it's legal if you have a written or verbal recommendation from a doctor. The verbal recommendation might require your doctor coming into court, thankfully I don't know how that works.

I'm glad I asked before I started discussing it. I guess it's true that it might quickly turn into a political/moral/religous debate. I'll just stop now :D

Hmm...very true. And in that vein I won't add much, but I do want to point one thing out. Marijuana is a controlled substance no matter how you look at it, whether it's completely illegal or controlled by doctors. If it's a prescription drug where you are then you're question (honestly) should have the same effect as me asking "hey guys, what's your opinion on codine?" People may find it more or less effective (I don't like heavy medications, period), but if it's a prescription drug, and you're honestly taking it for prescription purposes, then no one can legally fault you.

I hope that wasn't to political, but I'd hate for fat elvis to feel "out of touch".

No need to fear, Fat Elvis, it’s the other 49 1/2 states that are out of touch. Northern California is the place to be. :) And, no, I’m not thinking of the cannabis legislation...

Off topic, but I once read the following on a restroom wall: "Reality is for those who can’t handle drugs."

Best restroom wall one I've seen:

"What are you looking at ? The joke is between your legs !"

Obviously posted in a Mens bathroom... (Yes I know I'm off topic loll)

Bog Graffiti
 

UK, mid seventies....

Someone published a photographic collection of graffiti in public bogs in London and by far the best one was an extremely ornate sign that had been carefully painted on the wall inside a mens stall - in the same style as the London street name plates:

"All turds weighing more than 14 pounds must be lowered by hand"
By order.





.

The cannabis problem is more one of social acceptance than a medical issue.

Pretty much any serious scientific study concludes that both alcohol and tobacco are both more addictive and do far greater damage than cannabis.

If cannabis prohibition was really about public health, there is a serious logic problem. Politically, the depenalisation debate moves far too slow in my opinion.

Exactly and let's not forget the tax take that our wonderful governing bodies make out of baccy and booze.

Most of these drugs are only now illegal because the UK and the USA lost control of the supples early last century.

Take a look at the USMC battle honours one day.

The expression "born with a silver spoon in his mouth" does not refer to baby food.
Cheers

Gavin

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the above phase is making an allusion to drug use. That is incorrect - here's an excerpt from the 1894 Dictionary of Phrase and Fable:
The phrase was apparently first used in a 1712 translation of Cervantes' "Don Quixote" (1615).

On the other hand, Ann Richards' 1988 quip that George Bush (Senior) was "born with a silver foot in his mouth" was referring to something else.

Marijuana use (especially among young people) does impair learning and maturation. So does alcohol, but TCH (the active ingredient in marijuana) is fat soluble and stays in the body a long time, where, in the brain (especially nerve synapses) it slowly impairs mental functioning and memory. It's also a "gateway drug," in that people who use marijuana are more likely to begin using "harder drugs" like cocaine and meth.

Alcohol and tobacco might be more addictive, but the "greater damage" aspect is highly debatable, unless one is referring to numbers of people whose lives have been seriously damaged by both. Cannabis smoke has large amounts of carcinogens -- more than tobacco in some strains. The "logic problem," here, is really in using alcohol and tobacco legalization to justify Cannabis legalization. There are obvious public health issues with alcohol and tobacco, only the discovery of such came about after the drugs were legal. Prohibition demonstrated that it's impossible to "put the toothpaste back in the tube" once it's been squeezed out, which is a further justification for keeping marijuana illegal, imo. If it were legal, more people would use it,, and the culture would experience more of its detrimental effects than we do now.

That said, I don't think people ought to go to jail or have their lives ruined for possession of small amounts of marijuana. And, again, I do make a distinction between its detrimental effects on young people and adults (who are by no means completely immune).

Old drug counselor here who also came up through the 60s. ;) I think the discussion is OK if it can be kept focused on health issues and not deteriorate into a political flame-fest.

Just yesterday I was listening to a radio program where they were interviewing a couple who had to flee to Canada so the man could continue to use marijuana to control his cancer. The canabinol actually reduced the cancer cells themselves, beside providing pain relief. Meanwhile the state of CA wants to put him in jail for growing his own weed, regardless of the prescription and the law.

Nobody has ever overdosed on weed and died. Nobody gets in fights after smoking weed (except maybe over a Twinkie). I just don't understand why anyone cares who smokes it, save for kids, as with any other potential harm.

If we could get past that illogical fear, we could start looking at its health benefits. I mean, look around at all the useful drugs that originated in nature. While I don't believe in a deity, I do believe that things evolved in harmony and somewhat of a state of co-dependence. In the high mountains of South America, the natives chew on coca leaf to get past altitude-related problems. We all know that willow bark stops pain and became aspirin today. Look at the lives saved by bread mold. I have to wonder what benefits, like the remission of adrenal cancer noted above, we could see from the logical use of marijuana.

And I would have to agree. I don't think people should necessarily be cultivating it themselves, just like many other prescription drugs. But I think it's incorrect to assume that the only use for marijuana is to 'get high'.

As for mental retardation and what not, I understand the concern, but try and look at it from a medical perspective. Do you want to be slightly retarded mentally, or would you rather die of cancer? (assuming the above story is true) I would prefer to be a little dumber, personally. And it's not like people don't already make these decisions. Most people who undergo major surgeries have to deal with Morphine addictions afterwards, but it sure beats dealing with the pains of an open heart surgery without meds.

Plus, if we could be allowed to effectively study the uses of marijuana in a laboratory settting, perhaps we can reduce the effects of the TCH and just use the parts that are helpful.

I also will say, that if you're going to use the association argument, it's important to recognize that alcohol and tobacco have quite a few far reaching effects. Would you rather be around a stoner or a hard core drunk? Which is more violent? And second hand smoke from tobacco is far worse than marijuana (from what I've seen, though I'm not sure.) It's important to not just consider the physical effects, but also the social effects and the ensuing psychological effects.

As for it being a gateway drug, we can say the same things about alchohol and tobacco, both of which are legal in most countries. In America the main reason Marijuana is a gateway drug is because the people you buy it from usually have connections, and can get you the harder stuff. Plus, it's a part of the 'rebel drug culture', so you get to meet all sorts of druggies when you're taking Marijuana. If Marijuana was legal that would be dropped. Your supplier wouldn't have any connection to the criminal world, and you can't ask the guy at CircleK if he has some meth in the back (...usually) now can you?

My take: If we've decided that alcohol and tobacco are a 'reasonable risk' then we should allow marijuana as well. If you don't think that Marijuana is a reasonable risk, I think you should be up for a ban of alcohol and tobacco as well. Because, frankly, all three drugs seems to be in the same class.

Separate from that, I hope we can all recognize that Marijuana in a laboratory setting is a perfectly rational thing to study. I mean, people study Ebola, Aids and other such deadly things in labs, why not Marijuana? There may be a cure there we would all appreciate.

Alcohol and tobacco are not reasonable risks; we just happen to be "stuck" with them. If they were just discovered and up for approval (for social, recreational use), they would most surely be outlawed. The cost society pays for use and abuse of these drugs is astronomical if you consider the cancer, heart disease, addictions and other debilitating illnesses. Then there are deaths from drunk driving -- around 20,000 or so in the U.S. alone each year. Carnage, really! Having more potheads driving around under the influence would only make things worse. As I mentioned above, using alcohol and tobacco legalization to justify marijuana legalization (for recreational social use -- not medical applications) makes no sense when you consider the track record of those drugs.

Couldn't agree more, that argument is kind of dead in the water as all three substances are in the same boat. I'll abstain from judging if they should be illegal, but I think they should all be treated the same.

Edit: Used to say a lot more, but realized I was being redundant and Phil had just said what I was going to say.

I posted earlier in this thread. The controversy over marijuana is very political and I and somewhat surprised that the mods have let it go so far, considering we are 'discouraged' from discussing things like cracking RPC in DVDs. I have invested over 17 years of my life researching marijuana. The example quote above will give a reference list to work off. Jokes aside, we have a NIDA (an arm of NIH) grant for this and are world leaders in the field. In particular we have followed the offspring of mothers who smoked marijuana during pregnancy and while there are definitely statistical effects attributable to marijuana, the scores for the marijuana affect subject are noit outside norms expected of unexposed children. There are also effects due to cigarettes....

It concerns me that marijuana is held to higher standards than are the product of the pharmaceutical industry. Consider carefully the recent revalations about approved arthritis (strokes, heart attacks) medications and SSRI antidepressant medications (elavated suicide rates).

Many claim medical benefits from marijuana use. I published a review (Lancet, Oct '93) of the book Marihuana, the forbidden medicine. Despite the threat of sanctions by the state, rational people literally risk everything because they perceive the plant helps them.....

I think that the main issue with medical marijuana is that the pharmaceutical companies cannot brooke legality of a plant which helps people but that anyone can grow for FREE....

The justification is that this is a country based on liberty, not stopping people pre-emptively from doing something that might cause harm. Punish the actions and actual results, not what "might" happen. Liberty has a price.

The ridiculous cost of prescriptions could be mitigated if people made it themselves... If I ever need something, I buy it in Mexico for a fraction of the price or I order it on the Internet from various other countries.

But this is another issue with demonizing weed...the drug manufacturers are afraid to get involved. The only "manufactured" weed is from the government, and by all accounts, it's basically worthless.

Back to your point though; would you rather pay $30/day to buy weed or spend $4 in lighting and supplies to make your own?

Devils Advocate--

The only hole is see in your argument is that many would argue the bad effects have been seen, especially after the 60's, so we are reacting to a known danger. Your logic would seem to infer that it's okay to let people drive at 150 mph until they hit something, then we can punish them. Despite the fact that we have prior knowledge of the dangers of driving that fast.

It also defeats the purpose of the justice system. I hope, though I know it's not always the case, that the point of the justice system is to prevent wrongs from happening. We can debate 'wrong' all day, but the fact still remains. If we decide it is wrong I'd hope we would try to keep it from happening in the first place rather than punishing people after the fact. Of course at this point I really want to start a huge dialogue on education, and how it's the only true way to remedy the problem entirely...

End Devils Advocacy.

Please allow me to get back to my grass roots again...

I would like Marijuana to be studied to find it's medicinal purposes. At that point we will be able to decide how it can best be used. Until then it's not really worth anyones time to debate whether or not people should be allowed to grow the medicine themselves.

There are many 'over the counter' medications and 'home remedies' that are perfectly legal, and for good reason, we're pretty certain they won't cause any trouble if used as directed. At the same time many drugs, like penicillin, are not given out without a prescription, and even other drugs you can't get unless you are under the care of an anastethiologist (bad spelling, sorry). It all depends on the situation.

And with Marijuana it's just to hard to tell where it fits in this scheme at this moment in time. But I would guess that handing the seeds out would lead to bunches of them getting thrown into the market at large. Thus allowing basically anyone to grow it who wanted to.

I want to reiterate, I'm abstaining from judging whether or not marijuana is or is not a good thing for recreational use. If I said anything that inferred this earlier I apologize, I misspoke. But I fervently believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't directly harm someone else's basic rights. That statement is purposefully vague, and has to be applied one situation at a time. In this situation...I honestly just don't know.

That's a good point, Carlos, and I agree in principle. Only when you know in advance what the statistical likelihood of "harm" is likely to be, you can reasonably consider preventive policies with the common good in mind, as Zalister has noted.

I view the medical issue as separate from that of social recreational use. By all means, let's not restrict research on the former, but let's also evaluate it using the same criteria we use for other pharmaceuticals.

There is absolutly no evidence that THC ingestion creates physiological changes in the human body that would in any way make one more likely to ingest other addictive substances. There is, however, plenty of clear evidence that putting THC containing substances in the same class as methamphetamines is entirely counter-productive when trying to teach kids about the risks. The black-and-white, dualistic message we send out, that "legal drugs are good and illegal drugs are bad", would seem to be based not on meeting the needs of society, but rather based on meeting the needs of the pharmacuetical industry and the market.

A quick personal example: during his last few years, my partner suffered terribly from peripheral neuropathy (secondary to HIV disease/AZT mega-dose treatment) and chronic pain syndrome. He was taken across the spectrum of presciption pain-control medications, to the point of even being treated with methadone. Now just think about that for a second. It was legal for them to addict him to methadone (truly one of the nastiest drugs there is, far more side-affects and harder to get off of than heroin!) which gave very little effective relief, while it remained essentially illegal for me to aquire/transport/administer the marijuana that DID help. And this was in Mendocino County, among the very first in California to implement prop 215 - the California Medical Marijuana initiative, the feds and the state police remained ever-vigilant in their efforts to stop it's implementation.

THC ingestion was also the ONLY effective treatment for his chronic wasting syndrome.

It is very difficult to seperate the recreational use issue from the medicinal use issue, primarily because many of the same "misconceptions" are used in the arguments against both of them.

None of what I've said is intended as any kind of personal attack on the motivations of any of the previous posters. I am thrilled that we seem to be able to have a thoughtfull discussion, amongst people with possibly-differing viewpoints, and continue on in a civil manner. This is a wonderfull thing!

:)

LOL, can you imagine that?

"Hello America! We have a new product that will make you confident, speak louder than normal, and think that all your jokes are hilarious. It will last hours, perhaps all night.

The price is within everyone's budget, however the real price is paid the next morning. You will be dehydrated, depressed, nauseous.

Other possible side effects include calling ex-girlfriends, fighting the biggest guy in the bar, smoking Pall Mall's even if you don't like tobacco.

Long-term effects include cirrocis of the liver, weight gain, over-all bad body odor, and has strong addictive qualities. Many deaths have also been linked to the use and actions encouraged by alchohol during and after consumption."

Hayne, this is overtly political! I’m going to report this to the moderators!!
Oh, umm...

:p :D

Re: Getting high on the Trans-Canadian Highway
 

Minor pedantic point, Phil:

TCH stands for Trans-Canadian Highway -- which reportedly offers drivers and passengers a pretty good natural high.

The active ingredient in Cannabis is THC, tetrahydrocannabinol.

Both according to Wikipedia, which also points out that synthetic THC, dronabinol, is a prescription drug available in numerous countries, including the USofA. It’s sold as Marinol, manufactured by Unimed Pharmaceuticals, and actually approved by the FDA.

Carlos, regarding weed-smokers who fight over Twinkies: Marinol is prescribed as an appetite stimulant. ;)


Elatedly yours,
ArcticStones

THC - oops! I knew that. ;)

I think you must have done a little too much LDS at Berkeley back in the sixties...

No, I never did a Latter Day Saint (LDS). :D But I have had Catholic and Jewish girlfriends. And, um, I went to drab UC Davis; never had the pleasure of hallucinogenically colourful UC Berkeley.

But I can’t speak for Phil... ;)

No LDS, but I do much enjoy MacXOS Hints. :D

Everything can be bad if abused. Look at the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide, which is literally everywhere you look. Since it's odorless and colorless, you might not even know. It's in food, in the air, in your body--guarantee you have some in your body. DHMO has been linked to millions of deaths throughout history, and currently is one of our top killers. It is widely reported that two tablespoons of DHMO is enough to kill someone. Prolonged exposure causes tissue damage, and is always found in pre-cancerous tumors and lesions. Of course, dihydrogen monoxide is a vital part of other drugs like marijuana, cocaine, alcohol, etc. We must ban it.

What're you talking about?
;)

Hayne, I can tell from your post that you have been imbibing some recently.
Carlos, you’re absolutely right!

In fact, every single year known to doctors, several athletes die of overdosing on dihydrogen monoxide -- commonly written H2O. In addition, some adolescents and adults who purportedly die of Ecstacy, have instead died of water poisoning. E has the opposite effect of a diuretic. They’re blaming the wrong substance!

:D

Exactly. The whole "gateway drug" theory smacks of statistics abuse to me. It's mistaking correlation with causation. Look at it this way: someone who uses any drug has at some point made a decision that they value the drug experience more than they fear the risks involved. Since marijuana is the most readily available, socially acceptable, and affordable illegal drug, it's likely to have been one of the first drugs they tried. This doesn't mean that marijuana led them to the other drugs - it just happens to have been along the way.

You might find that drinkers and smokers, when compared to non-drinkers and non-smokers, would show a higher incidence of illegal drug use. It wouldn't be because alcohol and tobacco are 'gateway drugs' - and I bet if a study indicating that ever became public, the alcohol and tobacco industries would very quickly mount a campaign to educate the public on the difference between correlation and causation.

Besides, we all know that when one first tries marijuana, he does NOT suddenly gain an interest in cocaine and heroin - he instead becomes obsessed with lava lamps, Pink Floyd albums, potato chips, and cookies. :p

That explains those sales figures!

I thought Pink Floyd was an LSD thing! Oh, by the way, nice Star Trek reference back there. My family always found the reference rather funny, go fig.

[QUOTE=ShavenYak]Exactly. The whole "gateway drug" theory smacks of statistics abuse to me. It's mistaking correlation with causation. Look at it this way: someone who uses any drug has at some point made a decision that they value the drug experience more than they fear the risks involved. . . /QUOTE]

Right, and that's how we understood it when I was in the field of drug counseling. It wasn't so much that THC made one long for other drugs, but that those who used pot were more likely to encounter people using other illegal drugs than those who used only alchohol and tobacco. We rarely encountered someone addicted to, say, cocaine, who hadn't also first smoked pot. It was about people wanting to get high looking for other kinds of experiences.

I realize that one of the arguments for legalizing pot is that it would remove users from having to turn to the "street" and its illegal drug peddlars, and that's a strong argument. It has to be weighed against the possible (and probable) negative consequences to the community, however, and that's an ongoing discussion.

Somewhere in all this, I think we're asking the wrong questions. Pushing for yet more ways to legally distort our emotions and perceptions doesn't seem a a very worthy cause, imo.

I completely agree both on the bogosity of the "gateway" argument and the fact that +any+ drug use probably should not be encouraged.

But if you look around in other cultures, magic mushrooms, cannabis and all sorts of other drugs are being used since time immemorial.

Unless we give up the idea that the justification for drug restrictions are public health concerns, depenalising cannabis makes a lot more sense than keeping the abuse of alcohol, tobacco and junk food legal...

I look at is as a way to increase the police attention given to real crimes, with victims, and to stop ruining lives over something that is either harmless or just self-harming. If people hurt others because of drug use, that's another story, but the drug use itself isn't the problem. If cops weren't arresting people for "possession," then they could be working on actual crimes committed by anyone--not just drug users.

If people hurt others because of drug use, that's another story, but the drug use itself isn't the problem.

Read that slowly, Carlos, and think about what you actually said. ;)

I tried it a few times, but didn't get your point. I don't understand. Are you saying all drug use is a problem?

marijuana isn't exactly a big distorter of reality or perception. Hallucination is rare, if not impossible with only marijuana. It does not have any of the effect that LSD, mushrooms, ecstacy, or others commonly do.

No one has ever jumped off a rooftop whilst high on weed, cause they thought they could fly. If anything it encourages birkenstocks and passive, non-violent protests.

The reason I think it should be legalized is for the chemo patients, and others with serious illness. The current situation however black-lists doctors who prescribe it, and makes it difficult to aquire.

Why not dispense it where all the other medicine is? The hospital, or local drug store? They don't need to setup big outfits, which allow you to purchase up to 8-ounces at a time. IMO, that's way over the line.

I have a relative who is recovering from AIDS. One of the side effects of the 18+ pills per day is numb legs, and shooting pain when not numb. Marijuana happens to help him a lot. I cannot deliver any to him due to the fear of being busted with a large amount of green in my car. He cannot get it due to the area he lives and his health.

The small amount of bad weed can cause is far less than the benefits it provides.

The natural benefits are incredible as well. Help is used in many beauty products. Can be used in place of wood for some applications. Reduces the number of trees to be cut down for paper.

I think the argument is that often times when you take drugs you are inadvertantly hurting somone else. And while that's true, I think it's a bad argument.

Example, everytime I don't do so well in school I'm hurting any who a)might have future business dealings with me b) might be my employeer c)may be a current or future member of my family, etc etc. But I don't think it would be right to legally require that I get good grades or face 20 years of jail time.

Granted, it's not a perfect example. But CAlvarez's original point is that if what you are doing doesn't directly affect someone (and I would add, doesn't directly significantly violate someone elses basic human rights) then you should be allowed to do it.

The police forces of the world do get bogged down in pointless cases every now and then, and take man power away from cases that (in my opinion) it would be better to put man power towards. It would be nice if they could stop babysitting us and be allowed to spend more time on the criminals who are doing things to destroy our basic human rights.

Fat Elvis - Hemp is an entirely seperate issue. Hemp is made from plants that aren't nearly as potent, and really can't be smoked at all, unlike the pot we have been discussing. It's a plant in the same family, as I recall, but not the exact same plant.

I only bring this up because I'm a big supporter of using hemp, and it suffers from an unfair negative perception. Hemp is so superior to cotton in terms of feel and durability it's ridiculous. It's also easiar to grow and takes up less nutrients from the soil. It's far easiar to produce, and you can make more money per acre from it. And hemp requires fewer pesticides, anothe major eviromental plus. I really wish people would realize marijuana and hemp aren't really the same thing so that America could finnaly start growing such a valuable plant.

It sounded like you were saying that if people hurt others because of drug use, that's a problem, but the drug use that brought about the hurt was not. Sort of like when people say the alcoholic's drinking isn't the problem, but the behavior that results from it. Well . . . :rolleyes:

fat elvis, I've stated several times that I'm all for medicinal applications of marijuana. That's quite different from the social, recreational use that many are also pushing for.

The problem is the damage, not why it happened. I'm no more damaged if I'm rear-ended by a drunk (happened to me) than if I'm rear-ended by a perfectly sober idiot (happened also).

There's a big difference between being "for drug use" and being against making such use a criminal act. I don't want to do drugs, but I don't want to waste money and manpower on jailing those who do.

Yeah, the two (hemp, marijuana) are very different...however I feel that if marijuana were legalized, the stigma that hemp inherits from it would disappear.

Hemp is a wonder product that has been held down by those silly cotton commercials, and people who think it'll lead to crack houses on the corner.

...and the patchouli oil it's bathed in, isn't helping the cause either.

Of course, you're much more likely to be rear-ended by the former, so it's kind of disingenuous to discount that factor.

Patchouli oil? Why would that make it harder? I just googled it, and it seems perfectly legal...

And I agree with you in a way, legalizing marijuana might lessen the stigma on hemp. But I'm not sure. I remember when I was in HighSchool everyone use to use Binaca to freshen their breath. But it developed a stigma when someone realized there was alcohol in it. The reason? Alchohol is against the religion of most of the people in my area, even though it is legal to buy and consume. Thus, since legalizing marijuana won't change what it is in most peoples mind, I don't think legalizing marijuana will remove all that much of the stigma. It's best to separate the two as much as possible.

I just checked Britannica to make sure I wasn't off base. I found out that Hemp and Marijuana do come from the same plant (don't I feel dumb). The Hemp is the fibers in the plant, and the THC is present in all portions of the plant, but apparently is only strong enough in the resin in the male part of the flower to make you high.

Of course you can cultivate Cannabis Sativa so that the THC is in lower quantities and posses no risk of being used as a drug. But then again, if you can get seeds from one of those plants you could, theoretically, use a few generations to cultivate back to a plant that has a very strong concentration of THC.

But I seem to remember that when I lived in Arizona a lot of people talked about how hemp grew in the wild (it was cultivated in Arizona for rope during WWII if memory serves). But it apparently isn't strong enough to do anything for you. So I'm guessing that the particular version of Cannibus Sativa that they used for making those ropes wasn't all that strong. Of course, this is only a rumor...

I just hope we get to a point where we can use Hemp for textiles again. It really is rather useful, the article in Britannica pointed that out as well, and backed up most of my previous claims.

Patchouli oil is the trade mark smell of the hippies, and rather pungent. i was just poking fun at their trademark aroma.

Hemp in textiles is making slow progress. On Haight Street you can buy just about anything made from hemp.

You bring up a good point about it growing in the wild. It flourishes in wet places, like Northern California and Vermont. The cool thing about the plant is that it can grow almost anywhere...Arizona being a great example. Arizona and British Colombia have very different climates.

p.s. Don't feel bad about not knowing they two products came from the same place. I just learned last week what the "hair of the dog" meant.

p.p.s. For those that don't, it means drinking in the morning to wash away a hangover.

I disagree. I think morons are a much bigger problem. And there are lots of other impairments that people may have. Hell, for years I was probably a hazard as I was sugar-impaired, before I figured out I'm diabetic. Eating too much carbohydrates makes me feel like I've had a few beers.

However, my point is simply that we should punish the actual result, not what "might happen if..."

But you didn't choose to be diabetic.

I chose to eat sugar, and chose to drive afterward.

Funny thing is though, sugar not only makes me tired and slow, it makes it so my mind can't really comprehend that it has happened. If I'm drinking, I know exactly how impaired I am, but sugar is sneaky. I've learned now what my limits and blood sugar levels are, but it wasn't obvious like with alcohol.

Yet my point remains. If you want to jail someone for driving while intoxicated (on anything) and causing an accident, that's fair enough. Of course, causing an accident while stupid should be treated the same too. Punishing a victimless crime like possession or doing it at home makes no sense to me.

I didn't say "morons" weren't a problem, only that you're more likely to act and drive like one if you drink alcohol. There's inconstestable evidence that alcohol impairs driving ability, so I'm not sure why you're using such strained logic to try to minimize this fact.

Same goes for pot. It affects one's reaction time.
- http://www.psychologytoday.com/condi...marijuana.html

There is a public safety issue at stake, here.

It's been my experience that discussions sometimes turn more vitriolic when the participants aren't understanding each other - even on relatively straightforward issues.

So let me step in here as moderator and point out that the main point that CAlvarez has been trying to get across is behaviour AAA should not be illegal just because when combined with BBB, it causes societal harm.
AAA = alcohol consumption
BBB = driving

I.e. if a drunk falls over in a forest, does society bear the wound?

.
Leaving aside Cannabis for a moment, I think that synthetic drugs are the real societal evil in terms of damage.

Many recently developed synthetic drugs seem designed specifically to cause addiction. The trend is for such drugs to be offered/pushed to younger and younger people That, of course, makes great economic sense for the producers and pushers.

Likewise, I have heard convincing claims that some of the additives that the tobacco industry has the foresight to let smokers inhale, are even more addictive than nicotine. Of cours that is difficult to control, as there is no way the tobacco industry will accept being forced to reveal its secret recipes that add "flavour and aroma" etc – nor is there much chance of the current powers-that-be forcing them to do so.

When it comes to drugs, it is a pity that so many armies and resistance movements use drug production and trafficking as a major means of financing their organizations. That in addition to the various crime syndicates.

* * *

Personally, I believe it is socially irresponsible to get behind the wheel of a car when one has imbibed alcohol, smoked weed or has taken certain prescription drugs. Or for that matter behaving like an ******* behind a wheel -- which happens when that bubble of steal bloats the ego and aggression of a moron. (ref. Carlos)

* * *

Returning to Cannabis for a moment... I would argue that it is not a drug. And I think it is a real problem when an overfocus consumes too much police time. I think there are far better uses for these law enforcement resources, such as removing from active service the upper echelons of chains that deal in hard drugs.
Clearly Cannabis should be allowed for certain limited medical purposes. How can anyone fail to be swayed by stories such as Retcynnm’s? If you were a decision maker, would you honestly say: "No, your partner can’t have this treatment even though it eases their ailments."
I don’t, however, have a clear-cut opion when it comes to full legalisation...


With best regards,
ArcticStones


PS. Speaking strictly for myself, I haven’t had a desire to smoke in many years. (I’m not knocking anybody else’s choices here.) The experiences that I have had meditating have been for more potent than my experience with weed or other substances.

I'm not hearing it that way, hayne, but even if that's what's intended, I still think that because AAA combined with BBB causes social harm, then that harm justifies considering how reducing such harm could come about. In the case of alcohol, we're stuck with it, but social harm has been reduced by raising the drinking age and increating the legal consequences of drunk driving. These legal restrictions have made a difference, saving thousands of lives and countless injuries each year. Perhaps something similar could be done for pot as well if it were legalized? The present course has been to discourage the use of it through making it illegal . . . maybe not the best approach, I'll grant you, but it's difficult to understand how accidents resulting from CCC (cannabis use) plus BBB would be reduced if pot were legal.

Actually that has increased at least one social cost. The DOJ stats show a sharp rise in teens stealing alcohol from stores. In interviews, teens say that since they can't buy it, they steal it. Stealing is pretty safe since punishments are lenient, and extremely few are ever caught anyway.

As we have proven in the past, prohibition increases criminal activity.

Hayne had it dead right as far as what I was trying to get across. Further I would be for very harsh punishments for ACTUALLY DOING HARM and not for punishing an action with no victim. I realize that you believe that pre-emptive laws are better for society. I look at it from a level of the principles of liberty. This is a basic difference in our philosophies which we are unlikely to agree on. I value liberty and small government over the promise of a little more safety. My parents did too, and it is why my dad slaved away for four and a half years so we'd be allowed to leave Cuba. That gives me a very strong perspective on liberty.

There's very little crime in Cuba, BTW. It's dealt with harshly. Unfortunately, "crime" includes speaking against the government, and that put my uncle in prison for 15 years.

It also might be worth pointing out that driving under the influence of marijuana is pretty far removed from the original point of this conversation. It's hard to argue that legalizing marijuana would be good for the safety of other drivers.

But, there could be other advantages. We have only mentioned two. People would be able to easily access it if they feel they need it for medical reasons. And also, legalizing it would make the social aspect of it being a 'gateway drug' mostly disappear. Meaning, since you don't know a drug dealer, and other druggies, with connections to the underworld, it would be harder to find access to harder drugs.

I think it's really important that if we're going to continue have an intelligent discussion on the matter that we consider all aspects of it's legalization and not get stuck on a particular issue that seems to have no benefit.

Indeed, if lifted to a political level, extreme pre-emptive thinking can become very ugly -- regardless of what "colour" ideology we are talking about. To me that is anathema. And it is an intellectual perversion.

All too easily, it can degenerate into: "Do unto others, before they do unto you."

--------------

Zalister, just saw your last post. My apologies if you deem me off-topic.

It is a bit, though it is wells stated :).

I hope we can keep this thread on topic, it would be a waste for it to wash into political generalities...

.
...but I would like to make an addtional point.

There are numerous societies that use substances (or music) that induce altered states of consciousness. The Huichol Indians with peyote, for one. As far as I know, "drug problems" caused by said substances are virtually unheard of amongst such peoples.

I have a theory: There, the substances are taken only during particular ceremonies, and there are experienced "guides" who help the participator integrate what they experience during their altered state of consciousness.

Only rarely is this the case for perception-altering substances taken for recreational purposes in "modern" society. Quite the contrary, it is striking that we lack traditions for integrating such experiences! I think in some respect this lack of sensory/experiential integration may often be more damaging than the physiological effects.

What recourse, then? To re-imbibe the substance? (Mind you, I’m not thinking of Cannabis here.) All too often the result is an experiential schism. And in tragically many cases, addiction or severe mental problems.

That said, there is great value in breaking through our "bubble of consensus reality", if only for glimpse. One of my university professors argued that that should be mandatory. But I don’t believe that it has to be drug induced.


With best regards,
ArcticStones

Carlos, apologies if I misconstrued your points. It sounded like you were saying that the harmful behavior of (some) drug users is a problem, with which I agree, but that you weren't connecting the drug use to the harmful behavior. It would be great if we could have the one (drug use) without the other (harmful behavior), but that's not been the way things shake out.

I'm pretty much a social libertarian with no interest in pre-emptively controling anyone or anything needlessly. But freedom is a tricky thing to define, as one person's freedom ends where anothers' begins. E.g., one person's right to smoke comes up against anothers' right to smoke-free air. So you have to weigh these and see what kinds of compromises can be negotiated. Same goes for drinking alcohol and smoking pot. It would be great if people who did so didn't get on the road to drive, but they do (partly because the drugs impair their judgment), and even if they are punished for doing so, lots of innocent people get creamed. Everyone's right to a highway free from drunk drivers is therefore jeopardized not only by the fact that some people abuse substances, but that their right to use them in the first place increases the incidences of abuse. So that issue has to be on the table in the interest of considering the rights people have to safe highways.

Nevertheless, fewer lives have been lost on the highways since the drinking age was raised, and that's not merely a correlation, imo. Is the good of several hundreds of lives saved each year a higher value than more teenagers getting busted for purchasing alcohol illegally? I think so.

----

Arctic, one interesting thing that's come out about alcohol is that the older a culture, the less incidences of abuse you'll find -- most likely because the genetic factors associated with alcoholism have been "selected out." The Jewish race has a very low incidence of alcholism, while your home country of Norway is higher than the Jews, but much lower than in the U.S. Native Americans apparently didn't have alcohol in their cultures, and the incidence of alcoholism among this is very high. All neither here nor there re. Cannabis, but there might be some genetic factors at work there as well (re. how one deals with THC).

I think your distinction between using chemicals in the service of religious and other social rituals with a guide has merit as well. That's quite different from the kind of social recreational use that we find in many cultures.

Aldous Huxley, Alan Watts and many others from the 50s and 60s held that view about LSD. Problem is, it's not at all clear whether what they were glimpsing was indeed a "higher realm," or only a consequences of scrambled brain impulses. Still, it was an "alternative reality."

In this case (my post), I am not making any claim of experiencing a higher realm. That is a separate worthwhile discussion. I merely point out that:

In other words, for anyone who is attempting to learn and walk a conscious path in life -- striving to be awake -- I think it is important to realize that we don’t live in reality! Instead, we are trapped in an artificial construct, a consensus reality into which we have become initiated at an early age. We filter and organize perception in a way that is highly selective, and which separates us from more comprehensive possibilities.

A glimpse is enough to realize this. But as I added:

Quite the contrary! What I have experienced by other means, certainly makes my substance-induced experiences pale by comparison. Furthermore, in terms of natural experiences, I think that our physiological and psychological organism by and large "protects" us from that for which we are not ready. When we imbibe substances outside a guided or socio-religious context (which we lack!), we risk short-circuiting these safeguards.

.
One more point: Do I believe that certain substances can be a door-opener to a "higher realm"? Yes, I do. But the perception-altering chemistry is just an aid; many other factors come into play, one of which is the "guiding" that I referred to.

Meditation, similarly, can just as easily result in an involuntary submersion into forgotten mental refuse. For many of us, that can be an extremely uncomfortable and traumatic experience. For that very reason Patanjali (a writer who lived 1600-1800 years ago), amongst others, warns of the dangers of certain techniques.

It is obvious that similar warnings are called for when it comes to perception-altering drugs.

But I have never heard of anyone really "flipping out" on weed. (Unless you consider the munchies or horniness to be flipping out.) I have, however, witnessed shockingly many episodes with alcohol intoxication.

I have known at least half a dozen people who have "flipped out" after marijuana use. Smoking dope is a really bad idea for anyone with a latent psychosis. It may be argued that there was an underlying mental illness to begin with but I have seen it too many times to take any connection lightly.

TBH I dont think weed is the drug we need to be concerned about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MDRPrDteY0&feature=user

EWWWW

Just needed to add…

legal precedence has established that federal law supercedes state law wherever they conflict.

The legalization of Marijuana in California is a sort of case of legal limbo. It won’t *really* be okay until the rest of the US catches up and it becomes part of federal law.

As far as the health effects here is a recent study in the composition of marijuana smoke;

A Comparison of Mainstream and Sidestream Marijuana and Tobacco Cigarette Smoke

That's not always true. Study the 10th amendment and the cases surrounding it. Also note the part of the Constitution where it delineates the limited privileges granted to the federal government.

The federal government has encroached on states' rights by using the commerce clause of the Constitution. The clause was intended to cede control to the federal government for things that directly affect interstate commerce. However it's been twisted around a bit to also include things that have traveled in interstate commerce in the past, even just parts of something greater. Selling home-grown marijuana, which has not crossed state lines, even under this expanded definition, should not be federal jurisdiction. However it hasn't gone to a high enough court yet to see the results.

The Supreme Court, in earlier decisions in various other completely unrelated cases, has essentially stated that the 9th and 10th amendments have less validity than the others (if that's even possible, but I won't go there).

For all practical purposes, the 9th and 10th amendments have been freely ignored by the executive and legislative branches of government and, with not too many exceptions, have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Even so-called "strict constructionists" have been loath to strictly construct them.

Skimming through this thread, I recall that as a kid in a New York City high school, pot was always painted as the beginning of a slippery slope to a heroin addiction because whomever you bought it from was inevitably going to escalate your habit by offering samples of better stuff.

What I found interesting about that warning was that if pot had not been illegal, that wouldn't have been a problem -- users would buy it in a store. Funny how laws often have precisely the opposite effects to those intended -- selling drugs is big buisiness now, just as bootlegging was during prohibition.