<strong>I'm pretty sure several pharmaceutical companies have a product with non-trivial amounts of THC, the active chemical in marijuana.</strong><hr></blockquote>
do you know which company(ies)? or the name of the product(s)? (by the way, Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta9-THC, or sometimes D-THC) is the main pshychoactive ingredient, Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is how it is stored in the body.)
i'm pretty sure that you are wrong about this though, because the federal government still classifies marijuana as a schedule I drug, and therefore cannot be produced and/or sold legally. there is a push to make it a schedule II, but it hasn't yet been successful. and, after reading a bit, it seems that doctors can actually lose their license if they prescribe marij, so i was wrong about that part. doctor's can recommend its use though.
I may have said this early in the history of this thread.
But I am still shocked whenever I think tht people actually spend time in jail for Marijuana . . . what stupidity . . .what wrong-headed misguided unnecessary etc.....etc....
i've found that the drug issue transcends ideological boundaries. you're just as likely to find an anti big government staunch republican that suppots marijuana legalization as you are to find left-leaning stoners and pot-heads.
Paul, I didn't realize you had so many posts. Somehow you manage to stay in the shadows despite being so prolific. We have the same computer as well: PB G4 667 DVI w/ AirPort. I'm in the living room right now.
<strong>Paul, I didn't realize you had so many posts. Somehow you manage to stay in the shadows despite being so prolific. We have the same computer as well: PB G4 667 DVI w/ AirPort. I'm in the living room right now.
Before most of this forum is rightly consigned to it's well deserved doom, I'd like to comment on some of the rhetoric I see emerging from the pro weed camp.
It seems weed is being marketed as the new general health tonic of the millenium, the smokers ginseng, if you will. And it most certainly is not healthy, it may dull pain and assist chronic suffering or palliation, but that doesn't mean it's good for you. It may be rather benign too, like alcohol, but that doesn't make it health food, which seems to be what some people falsely believe about it. It rather reminds me of pre-war tabacco ads extoling the virtues of smoking -- good or your memory, virility, longevity etc etc... ridiculous, and a bit of that has been re-hashed (OH look, I made funny funny again!) regarding Marijuana.
None of this, of course, means it should be criminal, just me picking on a another herbalists fallacy.
Well, I'm glad this got bumped, cause I missed it the first time around.
A little infomation I would like to add about the ill effects on society of the Prohibition of a drug that has millions of recreational users:
1. When I was in High School 20 years ago and began my rebellious phase, it was MUCH easier to get pot than it was to get alchohol, since you didn't have to prove you were 21 to get the school dealer to sell you a joint for a dollar.
2. If pot was legal, I most likely would have never tried coke or shrooms. The source for those drugs was the same dealer that I would have never spent my time or money with if I could have gone in the local store and bought a pack of legal joints. Furthermore, there is the thought process that, "geez, all that propeganda about how bad pot is was obviously bull$hit - heck, they are probably lying about cocaine as well, so I think I'll give it a try".
"Gateway drug" MY ASS - the gateway is the illegality!
Forcing millions of people to be lawbreakers because of their use of ONE drug not only creates a gateway to other, more harmful drugs (by forcing them to obtain their supply from the black market), but also creates a disrespect for the government, its laws, and their enforcement. That is very likely a greater danger to society than all the stoned drivers put together!
Lastly, have you ever noticed how nearly ALL news reports use the term "drug" in a generic way? They talk of "drug use" and "drug arrests", etc. , but never say "marijuana possession" or "cocaine possession" or "heroin possession".
By saying "drug possession" instead, they serve to lump all illegal drugs into one category, and to give the impression to the average american (sheep) that marijuana, cocaine, and heroin use are all on the same level. FUD indeed!
An acre of hemp can produce more paper than an acre of trees. Plus it's renewable, rather quickly, unlike trees. The seeds can produce oil as well, that can be refined enough to create jet fuel. I don't care about smoking the stuff. I don't care if you do, or if I don't.
It bothers me to no end though that a paper baron from the North West (who's name eludes me at the moment) was one of the biggest factors in getting congress to make hemp illegal simply because it was competition.
The fact that it was used to make rope has become kind of a joke, but it's a useful plant. Easier to grow than cotton, less detrimental to grow than tobacco. It does have some medicinal purposes, enough so that a substitute pill was created and can be bought with a perscription. But, even without smoking it, or using it as a medicine, the plant has enough purpose on the planet that the USA is truly ass-backwards for keeping it illegal.
If my memory serves me well, the U.S. Constitution is written on hemp paper.
As a textile and paper source, I think it may have very real environmental benefits worth exploring. We could probably seed a variety with so little THC that you'd have to smoke a field to get stoned.
<strong>As a textile and paper source, I think it may have very real environmental benefits worth exploring. We could probably seed a variety with so little THC that you'd have to smoke a field to get stoned.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hemp. You'd have to smoke enough hemp equal to the size of a telephone pole to get stoned.
hell, just legalize tit to get the smokers to shut the hell up.
i can't stand the stuff 'cause it smells like sh!t. it violates one of my personal rules for hygiene: i should not be able to SMELL YOU from six feet away for ANY REASON.
i probably have some bias too since some of the biggest asswipes i have ever known smoked up all the time.
<strong>FormerLurker's a pothead too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And this comes from someone who thinks that being drunk and being stoned provide the same level of impairment. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
On this subject, your opinion means as much to me as the lunkhead PC user who has never touched a Mac talking about how much better Windows is.
Hopefully, as you get older (and hopefully wiser), you will realize that when it comes to something you know little or nothing about, it is best to keep your mouth shut and appear a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.
Comments
<strong>I'm pretty sure several pharmaceutical companies have a product with non-trivial amounts of THC, the active chemical in marijuana.</strong><hr></blockquote>
do you know which company(ies)? or the name of the product(s)? (by the way, Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta9-THC, or sometimes D-THC) is the main pshychoactive ingredient, Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is how it is stored in the body.)
i'm pretty sure that you are wrong about this though, because the federal government still classifies marijuana as a schedule I drug, and therefore cannot be produced and/or sold legally. there is a push to make it a schedule II, but it hasn't yet been successful. and, after reading a bit, it seems that doctors can actually lose their license if they prescribe marij, so i was wrong about that part. doctor's can recommend its use though.
[ 08-22-2002: Message edited by: thuh Freak ]</p>
<strong>bump (i'd like to see this thread kept)</strong><hr></blockquote>
i wouldn't mind it living on as well.
viva la marijuana.
<strong>kill it and hopefully these pot-heads will go away too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
you can't git red of me that easily, nazi.
But I am still shocked whenever I think tht people actually spend time in jail for Marijuana . . . what stupidity . . .what wrong-headed misguided unnecessary etc.....etc....
<strong>kill it and hopefully these pot-heads will go away too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not a pot-head...
I just think it should be legal...
hey.. arn't you a liberal?
[ 12-23-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
<strong>Paul, I didn't realize you had so many posts. Somehow you manage to stay in the shadows despite being so prolific. We have the same computer as well: PB G4 667 DVI w/ AirPort. I'm in the living room right now.
[ 12-23-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
it goes deeper then that...
we have the same initials
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
edit: also my posts are over a longer period of time (2X i believe) then your posts...
-Paul Joseph Santora
[ 12-24-2002: Message edited by: Paul ]</p>
It seems weed is being marketed as the new general health tonic of the millenium, the smokers ginseng, if you will. And it most certainly is not healthy, it may dull pain and assist chronic suffering or palliation, but that doesn't mean it's good for you. It may be rather benign too, like alcohol, but that doesn't make it health food, which seems to be what some people falsely believe about it. It rather reminds me of pre-war tabacco ads extoling the virtues of smoking -- good or your memory, virility, longevity etc etc... ridiculous, and a bit of that has been re-hashed (OH look, I made funny funny again!) regarding Marijuana.
None of this, of course, means it should be criminal, just me picking on a another herbalists fallacy.
A little infomation I would like to add about the ill effects on society of the Prohibition of a drug that has millions of recreational users:
1. When I was in High School 20 years ago and began my rebellious phase, it was MUCH easier to get pot than it was to get alchohol, since you didn't have to prove you were 21 to get the school dealer to sell you a joint for a dollar.
2. If pot was legal, I most likely would have never tried coke or shrooms. The source for those drugs was the same dealer that I would have never spent my time or money with if I could have gone in the local store and bought a pack of legal joints. Furthermore, there is the thought process that, "geez, all that propeganda about how bad pot is was obviously bull$hit - heck, they are probably lying about cocaine as well, so I think I'll give it a try".
"Gateway drug" MY ASS - the gateway is the illegality!
Forcing millions of people to be lawbreakers because of their use of ONE drug not only creates a gateway to other, more harmful drugs (by forcing them to obtain their supply from the black market), but also creates a disrespect for the government, its laws, and their enforcement. That is very likely a greater danger to society than all the stoned drivers put together!
Lastly, have you ever noticed how nearly ALL news reports use the term "drug" in a generic way? They talk of "drug use" and "drug arrests", etc. , but never say "marijuana possession" or "cocaine possession" or "heroin possession".
By saying "drug possession" instead, they serve to lump all illegal drugs into one category, and to give the impression to the average american (sheep) that marijuana, cocaine, and heroin use are all on the same level. FUD indeed!
It bothers me to no end though that a paper baron from the North West (who's name eludes me at the moment) was one of the biggest factors in getting congress to make hemp illegal simply because it was competition.
The fact that it was used to make rope has become kind of a joke, but it's a useful plant. Easier to grow than cotton, less detrimental to grow than tobacco. It does have some medicinal purposes, enough so that a substitute pill was created and can be bought with a perscription. But, even without smoking it, or using it as a medicine, the plant has enough purpose on the planet that the USA is truly ass-backwards for keeping it illegal.
If my memory serves me well, the U.S. Constitution is written on hemp paper.
<strong>As a textile and paper source, I think it may have very real environmental benefits worth exploring. We could probably seed a variety with so little THC that you'd have to smoke a field to get stoned.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hemp. You'd have to smoke enough hemp equal to the size of a telephone pole to get stoned.
i can't stand the stuff 'cause it smells like sh!t. it violates one of my personal rules for hygiene: i should not be able to SMELL YOU from six feet away for ANY REASON.
i probably have some bias too since some of the biggest asswipes i have ever known smoked up all the time.
<strong>FormerLurker's a pothead too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And this comes from someone who thinks that being drunk and being stoned provide the same level of impairment. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
On this subject, your opinion means as much to me as the lunkhead PC user who has never touched a Mac talking about how much better Windows is.
Hopefully, as you get older (and hopefully wiser), you will realize that when it comes to something you know little or nothing about, it is best to keep your mouth shut and appear a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.