RE: War on Drugs. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

camille65 -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/21/2007 6:59:51 AM)

Marijuana CAN be laced yes. However it is almost always done at the user level. Take a look around and you will find that far too many consumable items are what could be called laced without being done at the consumer level. Additives in food, thankies China for toxic toothpaste and lead paint on toys.
I just spent a couple of hours doing some online research on laced marijuana to satisfy my own mind. What I learned, I already knew. Nearly all laced weed is done at the user level. Nearly all, which means that it has happened from the dealer or grower level which gives root to the paranoia of all street weed being laced.
The funny bit was when I used 'laced marijuana' as my search criteria, most of the sites I got back were about people making brownies, candy etc from pot. It was hard to find any real data on 'bad' laced weed, even going to NIH and WHO.
So some of the things said do have a touch of reality, but it has been blown out of proportion and used as argument against marijuana usage. My own worry about laced weed isn't about PCP but actually about possible chemical use while the plant was growing. I've smoked and known those that smoke for 30 years and honestly have never met anyone who bought laced weed. If they wanted it laced they did it themselves. At this point, most marijuana is so potent that it doesn't need laced.
Buy local, buy hydroponic... support your state! Hah.

http://www.nerdshit.com/wordpress/?p=2179  (just an interesting private site)
http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/marijuana.asp
(FROM CESAR, CENTER FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE RESEARCH)Uni of Maryland.
LACED MARIJUANA
One of the dangers of smoking marijuana is the possibility that it has been laced with another, more dangerous substance such as cocaine, crack, PCP, or even embalming fluid. Dealers have been known to sell joints, blunts, or cigarettes dipped in embalming fluid and laced with PCP. Though reports of laced marijuana are infrequent, and most lacing of marijuana is done at user-level, it is important to remember that with unregulated drugs such as marijuana, the user has no way of knowing what other types of substances have been added.
When individual users lace marijuana, they may sprinkle powdered cocaine or crack into a joint or blunt, combining the stimulant effects of cocaine with the depressant and hallucinogenic effects of cannabis. This can be very dangerous, especially for a person with not tolerance to cocaine. Users have also been known to snowcap bowlfuls of marijuana with powdered opium or heroin, in addition to cocaine and crack. Again, combining other drugs with marijuana can be extremely dangerous.
AND ABOUT THE 'GATEWAY DRUG EFFECT'
However, a majority of marijuana users studied (63%) did not progress to the use of other illicit drugs. There is still no conclusive evidence that marijuana is, in fact, a gateway drug, though it is clear that most illicit drug users have experimented with marijuana at some point in time. Although marijuana may not necessarily be a "gateway drug" for all users, its use constitutes engagement in risky behavior and may set a pattern for future behavior.
REEFER MADNESS!!!
The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 placed control of the Cannabis plant into the hands of the federal government, which released very exaggerated portrayals of marijuana's effects (i.e., "Reefer Madness") and made the drug illegal. These stories, paired with the ban on private use, kept marijuana use fairly uncommon until the 1960's.



Mercnbeth -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/21/2007 8:14:17 AM)

Hope you don't consider quoting your own words as "insulting".
quote:

Velvetears: i am not a liar.
No - But you've established by your words, you ARE a hypocrite...
quote:

Velvetears: What i won't do is take a substance to alter my emotional/mental state of mind.

i rarely have a drink when i am out as well. 
...albeit a "rare" hypocrite. An example of rationalization of the sanctimonious.

Combined with backpedeling...
quote:

i also said i was in the field of rehabilitation - i didn't specify in what capacity and i don't plan to.
First you bring up your "rehabilitation" profession as a qualifier for your "one true way" perspective, now you back away from it. Why does it matter? If you are a food service worker in a rehabilitation clinic it does matter. I doubted your credibility from the first. Any clinician or professional wouldn't have needed referenced to know as FACT there has never been an overdose from marijuana.

You have to make a case because of what can happen or what is POTENTIALLY added to what it purchased. But you only focus on marijuana. When you take a coke from someone at a party it has the same POTENTIAL of being laced with something as does marijuana you take from someone. Anyone in your vast circle of addicts, family and friends, must know that. NOT asking from a source that in the past has used, offered, sold, or recommended laced product; is complicit in the act. They shouldn't be able to claim "they didn't know". They didn't WANT to know - it takes an enabler to believe that nonsense. Being accused of blindness regarding this issues isn't the same as being called a liar. Something are true whether you believe them or not.

We were with a circle of friends yesterday. No - to our knowledge at least, beth was the only "pot-head" among us. Their background ranged from business owners to their adult children, some students. When we related your representation and story about the proliferation of "laced pot" they laughed. Was it available - sure. Could they get it or take it by "accident"? No - but as one of the group said; "They'd sure say that to their parents, the cops, and any other 'authority'; hoping they'd believe them!"

The blind support for you industry is understandable. Believing their agenda based propaganda is necessary. Choosing to avoid words within the reports your site such as; "can be", "may be", "sometimes"; speaks to your agenda. Blindness to your friends and family is also understandable. You get laced pot because you desire it. You take it because you want to. You know it is there the same way you know someone spiked your coke with rum - it tastes different, it smells different, it costs more. Again -somethings are true whether you believe them or not.



velvetears -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/21/2007 8:54:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Hope you don't consider quoting your own words as "insulting".
quote:

Velvetears: i am not a liar.
No - But you've established by your words, you ARE a hypocrite...
quote:

Velvetears: What i won't do is take a substance to alter my emotional/mental state of mind.

i rarely have a drink when i am out as well. 
...albeit a "rare" hypocrite. An example of rationalization of the sanctimonious.


First a liar now a hypocrit... what next merc?  Have i called you or beth names or attacked you?  This is a message board - if you don't like what i post move along.  It's noble that you defend pot smoking in honor of your slave, but rather overkill i think.  By the way the supreme court recently overuled pot smoking being legal for medicinal purposes and people can be arrested even in states where it was made legal now (i believe they mentioned 11 states)- so be careful.

i don't use drugs or drink as a means to alter my mental state (get high). That drink i have is in the context of celebration, most of the time i don't even finish it.  i see no hypocracy in that... you are grasping at straws my friend there. 


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Combined with backpedeling...
quote:

i also said i was in the field of rehabilitation - i didn't specify in what capacity and i don't plan to.
First you bring up your "rehabilitation" profession as a qualifier for your "one true way" perspective, now you back away from it. Why does it matter? If you are a food service worker in a rehabilitation clinic it does matter. I doubted your credibility from the first. Any clinician or professional wouldn't have needed referenced to know as FACT there has never been an overdose from marijuana.


Let me correct your assumption. If you remember correctly i was being told i was inconsistent and there was no possible way i could be telling the truth unless i was "hanging out with druggies".  i than asked if you had considered a third option - that i worked in the field of rehabilitation. Personally i don't prefer to discuss my personal life, and that is my right. But don't go back and try to make it seem like i brough it up as some huge qualifier i was making. It was said in defense of being called a liar by people not able to consider other options. If you read my posts carefull (doubtful) you would learn through them i am not a cafeteria worker, as i have made references to contact with psychiatrists on my clients behalf. i don't owe you or anyone on this board details of my personal life. And i also said most of my pov has been established way before entering this field.  i never made claim to being an expert, in fact i said "hardly" when a sarcastic remark was tosssed my way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
You have to make a case because of what can happen or what is POTENTIALLY added to what it purchased. But you only focus on marijuana. When you take a coke from someone at a party it has the same POTENTIAL of being laced with something as does marijuana you take from someone. Anyone in your vast circle of addicts, family and friends, must know that. NOT asking from a source that in the past has used, offered, sold, or recommended laced product; is complicit in the act. They shouldn't be able to claim "they didn't know". They didn't WANT to know - it takes an enabler to believe that nonsense. Being accused of blindness regarding this issues isn't the same as being called a liar. Something are true whether you believe them or not.

We were with a circle of friends yesterday. No - to our knowledge at least, beth was the only "pot-head" among us. Their background ranged from business owners to their adult children, some students. When we related your representation and story about the proliferation of "laced pot" they laughed. Was it available - sure. Could they get it or take it by "accident"? No - but as one of the group said; "They'd sure say that to their parents, the cops, and any other 'authority'; hoping they'd believe them!"

The blind support for you industry is understandable. Believing their agenda based propaganda is necessary. Choosing to avoid words within the reports your site such as; "can be", "may be", "sometimes"; speaks to your agenda. Blindness to your friends and family is also understandable. You get laced pot because you desire it. You take it because you want to. You know it is there the same way you know someone spiked your coke with rum - it tastes different, it smells different, it costs more. Again -somethings are true whether you believe them or not.


Is it so hard for you to fathom that we live 3000 miles apart and perhaps there are diffferences east coast vs west coast?  Or that i deal with a whole different socio econmic group than you do? Many factors to contemplate for the different experiences and information we each have.  i wish you peace and hope your venomous attacks don't poison you one day. 



Mercnbeth -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/21/2007 9:20:54 AM)

quote:

First a liar now a hypocrit... what next merc?  Have i called you or beth names or attacked you?  This is a message board - if you don't like what i post move along.  It's noble that you defend pot smoking in honor of your slave, but rather overkill i think.  By the way the supreme court recently overuled pot smoking being legal for medicinal purposes and people can be arrested even in states where it was made legal now (i believe they mentioned 11 states)- so be careful.

i don't use drugs or drink as a means to alter my mental state (get high). That drink i have is in the context of celebration, most of the time i don't even finish it.  i see no hypocracy in that... you are grasping at straws my friend there.
The position of hypocrisy is a statement of fact. You must subscribe to the same logic since you represent one example as a universal truth. My example is one of the same. Expect you would find that insulting, what other choice is there?

My posts don't have an agenda of "defending beth". Do your's speak to defending your "junkie brother", daughter, or your rehabilitating addict associates and friends? My position represents what I believe. I don't see any hypocrisy or defensiveness in them, if you do - please point it out. That wouldn't be an "attack" or an "insult". It would be a challenge that, if I couldn't meet, would/could alter my position. I welcome the opportunity to go through the process.

Should I be influenced or concerned by your reference regarding the Supreme Court? Can you not defend you position in any other manner? Much of what you represent you desire in a relationship can be interpreted as "illegal" by the Supreme Court. I thought we were talking about the "war on drugs" not a battle being fought within it. You provide more evidence that the "war" is lost with every post. You point to a logical blanket legalization with FDA monitored production and supervised distribution. 

Answer the direct question; since legalization and regulation would address your "additive" concerns, do you support legalization?



velvetears -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/21/2007 9:42:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

My posts don't have an agenda of "defending beth". Do your's speak to defending your "junkie brother", daughter, or your rehabilitating addict associates and friends? My position represents what I believe. I don't see any hypocrisy or defensiveness in them, if you do - please point it out.


As has mine.  But i am a hypocrit for my beliefs or because i have a drink during the holidays [8|]  You like to pick and post - clever tactic when wanting to isolate and make something appear there that wasn't - in your way of thinking trying to discredit people so the point of their words is lost.  my posts speak for themselves - my pov is my own and i have found sites to back it up.  i have people in my real life who share this pov.  i seek to understand and learn, share what i know because i truly care about youth, their direction in life, what options they make are very critical and they should be FULLY informed - not just fed propaganda from pot smoking adults who want to defend their choice. 


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Should I be influenced or concerned by your reference regarding the Supreme Court? Can you not defend you position in any other manner? Much of what you represent you desire in a relationship can be interpreted as "illegal" by the Supreme Court. I thought we were talking about the "war on drugs" not a battle being fought within it. You provide more evidence that the "war" is lost with every post. You point to a logical blanket legalization with FDA monitored production and supervised distribution. 

Answer the direct question; since legalization and regulation would address your "additive" concerns, do you support legalization?


Telling you about the Supreme Court decision wasn't in defense of my position, it was said because you or beth - cannot remember now, said pot smoking was legal in your state for medicinal purposes. i wanted to correct a wrong assumption you had.   You wouldn't want to mislead anyone now would you [;)]

i prefer to keep that opinion to myself - should pot be legalized. 



Mercnbeth -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/21/2007 10:42:13 AM)

quote:

But i am a hypocrit for my beliefs or because i have a drink during the holidays [8|] 
As you say. What else can it be?  
quote:

You like to pick and post
Similar to the "pick and post" of "stories" supporting your position? -
quote:

clever tactic when wanting to isolate and make something appear there that wasn't
Not a "tactic", only seen as one if it points to an argument's weakness as it does in this case. Where is your contrary argument? -
quote:

in your way of thinking trying to discredit people so the point of their words is lost.  my posts speak for themselves -
Actually it is the exact opposite. Restating your words, especially when they are contradictory provides discredit or credibility. 
quote:

i prefer to keep that opinion to myself - should pot be legalized.
Yes, you'd hate to be cornered by your own hypocrisy. You are already on record acknowledging "beneficial" use which would be pro legalization. Yet its illegality provides customers for you industry, propping up the hypocrisy of the "law" supporting the drug and liqueur industries.

As I've stated on any number of subjects, supporting liberty and the freedom of choice is only "honorable" when it puts you in a fight regarding something that you are personally in opposition. Trust me - those diametrically opposed thought happen to me daily, but better to support equality and freedom of choice in ALL cases than be cornered into a position that only supports the ones in which you believe.



velvetears -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/21/2007 10:54:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Yet its illegality provides customers for you industry, propping up the hypocrisy of the "law" supporting the drug and liqueur industries.



Not quite.  What provides "customers" for me is people believing the propaganda that pot smoking is not harmful and in fact is beneficial. They are being denied the chance of making an informed choice and pay for it dearly with years spent wasting away in further drug abuse or mental hospitals.  i gave you links you ignore them.  You will find links supporting pot and links anti pot.  i make my decisions by reading, combined with my own life experiences. 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Restating your words, especially when they are contradictory provides discredit or credibility.

Then you discredited yourself when you led people to think pot smoking was legal in CA.



farglebargle -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/21/2007 10:57:07 AM)

Your clients aren't fucked up because they're smoking pot. They're fucked up because they're poor junkies without being able to get health-insurance to pick up the cost of their opiate addiction.




Mercnbeth -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/21/2007 11:08:27 AM)

quote:

What provides "customers" for me is people believing the propaganda that pot smoking is not harmful and in fact is beneficial. They are being denied the chance of making an informed choice and pay for it dearly with years spent wasting away in further drug abuse or mental hospitals.  i gave you links you ignore them. 
But then its you who won't answer the question regarding the legality, isn't it, not me. The unwillingness to take a public stand allows hypocrisy to exist. Who is denying the informed choice, you who require an "additive" to be included in the discussion of detrimental effects, or someone who has a more pragmatic position of knowledgeable consent? Supporting the fear minded propaganda of  "starter drugs" or "it's all laced" dooms us all to self fulling prophecy.

quote:

Then you discredited yourself when you led people to think pot smoking was legal in CA
Now who's grasping at straws? No reference to "legality" outside of California jurisdiction by California enforcement was provided. Try an argument not used by your industry - you know one based upon truth.



velvetears -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/21/2007 11:51:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
But then its you who won't answer the question regarding the legality, isn't it, not me. The unwillingness to take a public stand allows hypocrisy to exist.


Let me get this straight, if i don't share my pov i automatically become a hypocrit.  i think my stand is pretty obvious from my words posted. you haven't answered plenty of my questions - guess your a hypocrit as well [8|]
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
quote:

velvetears
Then you discredited yourself when you led people to think pot smoking was legal in CA
Now who's grasping at straws? No reference to "legality" outside of California jurisdiction by California enforcement was provided. Try an argument not used by your industry - you know one based upon truth.

i saved the link but unfortunately it didn't save to my bookmark properly.  If i could google it so easily so can you. i don't have the time now to search, if i run across it again i will post it. 



velvetears -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/21/2007 11:58:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Your clients aren't fucked up because they're smoking pot. They're fucked up because they're poor junkies without being able to get health-insurance to pick up the cost of their opiate addiction.


my clients don't smoke pot or engage in drug abuse anymore.  If they relapse they are out, and they know it.  As i said before they are way past that phase, i get them beyond "i need help with my addiction" phase.   They have insurance, medicaid - pays better for addiction/rehab programs then private insurance, for your information. 



Mercnbeth -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/21/2007 7:12:50 PM)

quote:

Let me get this straight, if i don't share my pov i automatically become a hypocrit.  i think my stand is pretty obvious from my words posted. you haven't answered plenty of my questions - guess your a hypocrit as well [8|]
No - hypocrisy is more basic than that - doing one thing and participating in a contrary activity. You isolate it by saying its infrequent. I'll stipulate that you then are infrequently hypocritical. How do make the people around you aware of the infrequent times? 

Please give one "unanswered" question and we'll be happy to correct the over sighted omission. You, on the other hand, hide behind an unspoken opinion and an unspoken job. Hiding, hypocrisy, lies; the distinction is in your perspective not mine. Similar to needing to point to an additive for a reason to advocate the keeping pot illegal; that must make sense to you on some level that you keep to yourself too.

Have no idea what link you're looking to google. Medical prescriptions for marijuana are so legal in CA the doctors advertise on billboards.

Obviously the "war on drugs" is over - lost. More drugs, more variety of drugs and now a rehap industry that needs to be kept in business. More evidence? The insurance industry, and Medicaid tax dollars joining in to pay for the industry. Having that annuity in place, there is no hope or expectation for a rational alternative program of legalization. I expect our children's children will still be "fighting". It is good for the drug companies and liqueur/beer manufactures to have people on the front lines fighting on their behalf.



thompsonx -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/21/2007 8:36:29 PM)

velvetears:
You might want to actually read what the supreme court actually said about medical marijuana and those states who have legalized it.  The wording is somewhat different than what you have indicated.
There is ample clinical evidence to indicate that the federal governments position is less than valid.
thompson



Sunao -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/21/2007 11:22:37 PM)

I found another reason that pot should become legalized. Its only a theory though but I could see it working. I've read earlier on this thread that one acre of pot can make as much oxygen as 4 acres of tress well I think I found a reason for eco warriors to either hate or love pot. http://verticalfarm.com. One city block full of pot would more then likely be the same as half the oxygen a rainforest puts out.  I know I'm switching the topic but for the past couple of pages its been a back and forth thing between Mercnbeth and Velvettears. Also Velvettears my friend is currently using the rehab centers to stay away from jail. Also that person first used Meth before he used marijuanna but before that he smoked cigs and drank a little everynow and then. I wonder why no one says that tobacco is the gateway drug.



Action -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/22/2007 12:01:32 AM)

All I have to say is READ up before making a desicion on pot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:20drugs.gif Is a great example of something the average person usualy dosn't know about pot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_%28drug%29 Take it all in people, and there are alot of new canadian studies as of 2006 that rule out alot of previously thought health concerns becuase they couldn't seperate tobacco from the testing in the 80's. Now they can, have even found THC might not just stop cancer growth but kill it.





Mercnbeth -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/22/2007 8:23:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunao

I found another reason that pot should become legalized. Its only a theory though but I could see it working. I've read earlier on this thread that one acre of pot can make as much oxygen as 4 acres of tress well I think I found a reason for eco warriors to either hate or love pot. http://verticalfarm.com. One city block full of pot would more then likely be the same as half the oxygen a rainforest puts out.  I know I'm switching the topic but for the past couple of pages its been a back and forth thing between Mercnbeth and Velvettears. Also Velvettears my friend is currently using the rehab centers to stay away from jail. Also that person first used Meth before he used marijuanna but before that he smoked cigs and drank a little everynow and then. I wonder why no one says that tobacco is the gateway drug.


it really isn't that big of a switch for topics because those who wish to grow hemp are facing the same dilemma...recently, our Governator vetoe'd an industrial hemp bill for the second year in a row, expressing concern that the measure would violate federal law and interfere with the ability of law enforcement to carry on marijuana eradication.
quote:

According to a 2005 Congressional Resource Service (CRS) report, the United States is the only developed nation that fails to cultivate industrial hemp as an economic crop. Hemp is a distinct variety of the plant species cannabis sativa that contains only minute (less than 1%) amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. Farmers worldwide grow hemp commercially for fiber, seed, and oil for use in a variety of industrial and consumer products, including food and clothing.http://canorml.org/


and since we are discussing the "War on Drugs", here's an interesting page that clocks how much money has been wasted so far(in 2003 it was being wasted at a rate of $600.00 per second):

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

many researchers agree with you as far as the alleged "Gateway Myth" that certain folks in positions of authority and their fearmongering cohorts pass around. consider this:

quote:

"There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs."

"The Institute of Medicine's 1999 report on marijuana explained that marijuana has been mistaken for a gateway drug in the past because "Patterns in progression of drug use from adolescence to adulthood are strikingly regular. Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs have used marijuana first. In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana -- usually before they are of legal age."

Source: Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A Benson, Jr., "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999).

quote:

"A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association on cannabis and its possible role as a gateway drug found that "While covariates differed between equations, early regular use of tobacco and alcohol emerged as the 2 factors most consistently associated with later illicit drug use and abuse/dependence. While early regular alcohol use did not emerge as a significant independent predictor of alcohol dependence, this finding should be treated with considerable caution, as our study did not provide an optimal strategy for assessing the effects of early alcohol use."

Source: Lynskey, Michael T., PhD, et al., "Escalation of Drug Use in Early-Onset Cannabis Users vs Co-twin Controls," Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 289 No. 4, January 22/29, 2003, online at http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v289n4/rfull/joc21156.html, last accessed Jan. 31, 2003.

quote:

"The World Health Organization's investigation into the gateway effect of marijuana stated emphatically that the theory that marijuana use by adolescents leads to heroin use is the least likely of all hypotheses."

"The World Health Organization noted the effects of prohibition in its March 1998 study, when it stated that 'exposure to other drugs when purchasing cannabis on the black market, increases the opportunity to use other illicit drugs.' "

Source: Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use, August 28, 1995 (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, March 1998).




velvetears -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/22/2007 9:36:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

You, on the other hand, hide behind an unspoken opinion and an unspoken job. Hiding, hypocrisy, lies; the distinction is in your perspective not mine. Similar to needing to point to an additive for a reason to advocate the keeping pot illegal; that must make sense to you on some level that you keep to yourself too.


my opinion, if you care to read is all over this board, clear for any to see.  i gave links for those who wish to read them. Although i don't have to speak about my job, i have, that is there too.  i don't see you backing up your opinions with referencing your job, i wouldn't expect it either - whatever you did for a living.  As i said many times before, my opinions came way before the job, i don't need that to back anything up. i was called a liar regarding earlier posts and i cleared it up mentioning my job.  Here they go: 
quote:

kc692
Not that I care in the least, but you contradict yourself, sweets......you do not "hang out" with potheads per your words, then said something about "every time pot heads gather"....so do you hang out with groups of them, or are you making up what groups of them say?  Curious minds really dont give a shit either way, but thought I would ask.......


quote:

Mercnbeth
Either you are hanging out with "pot heads" who ask "hey is there pcp in this stuff?" to have that reference point or you are just making stuff up. Which is it? There was no assumption - that were your representation.


My reply to you was:

quote:

velvetears

Interesting the assumptions being made - did you consider a third option?   i work in the field of rehabilitation.  Thanks anyway for implying i am a lier.


You logic is interesting.  If you are against "drugs" having even a drink for social purposes makes you a hypocrit - seems like weak logic to me.  There is a vast difference between the cultural use of alcohol and drug use (yes even alcohol).  By your logic then if you are a hunter and use your hunting gun to kill a human being - your a hypocrit.  No shades of grey in your world is there, mine has many.  Or i could say - your not a hunter, but have a hunting rifle go off in your hands and you accidentally kill an animal, makes you a hunter.  Intent of action doesn't seem to make any difference to you. 

The additives would not be the reason i would want to keep pot illegal.  That would be a silly argument as even if it were to be made legal pre 21 yr olds would not have access to it. They are my main concern. They would still have to buy it on the streets - hence leave themselves vulnerable to whatever the street dealer wanted to cut it with. 

Alcohol is here to stay. i don't like it, i have seen it ruin lives and watching an alcoholic go through delerium tremors is not a pretty site. i read a statistic once that said 1 in 5 people on the roads is under the influence, they didn't speficy on what. i don't want to share the road with people under any influence, why add more or make it easier.   The use of alcohol is ingrained in our culture - that will never go away.  Because alcohol is legal is no argument to then add another  substance to the market that people will use and abuse to get high with.  One that we suspect might promote psychosis.  One that causes respiratory problems, possibly lung cancer?  Making it legal won't stop pre 21 yr olds and it just sends a message to them that it's ok to use a substance to get high. What other purpose does pot have if not to get high, besides the one of relieveing pain, which to me is ok, although i have recently read some about that as well so i am not so convinced on that either.  How many will abuse that method of getting pot - at the expense of insurance dollars?

At any rate.... those are my pov, opinions etc.  You have yours merc.  i don't see either one of us changing anytime soon.




velvetears -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/22/2007 9:43:16 AM)

You can interpret "gateway" two ways - actual pot use leads to more potent drug use, or you start in the drug culture that way and end up with simply more opportunities for harder drugs (opportunity)



velvetears -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/22/2007 9:58:56 AM)

Someting that's been said that bothered me and is worth mentioning.  Someone made reference to addicts or junkies having "weak genes" and then there were reference to the effect of them overdosing and weeding the gene pool - don't remember the exact words.  It's obvious when you read that that the person has not been touched personally by the ravages of addiction.  They probably feel superior when they toke away that they aren;t like "them", they must be stronger, etc.  Maybe they don't have a genetic predisposition, they should count themselves very fortunate.  i don't think people realize the hurtfulness of those words to others who have had it touch their lives. The agony, guilt, trauma, suffering it brings a parent when a child is lost to drugs... then to hear others imply the world is better off with this weak gened child overdosing and making the gene pool better.  Those words hurt me, my child is more then an addiction, she's beautiful, talented, resourceful, compassionate, intelligent, kind and loving..... who happens to have been dealt a genetic predisposition for addiction.  That these genes more then likely come from me is heartbreaking as a mother.  i know this is a message board but sometimes people should think before they so callously post. 



Mercnbeth -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/22/2007 10:14:17 AM)

Velvet,

What happened to fleshing out the accusation of unanswered questions?

You made your job an issue when you brought it up, now you back away. You implied "expertise". Now you are saying, or at least the references you gave say, your expertise is anecdotal with no scientific basis in fact. Even your reference to additives has a qualifier of "sometimes", "maybe" and "can". Contray to your original position - quoted word for word; "here in NY it's laced with all kinds of crap." 
quote:

By your logic then if you are a hunter and use your hunting gun to kill a human being - your a hypocrit. 
No VT, you aren't a hypocrite in that case you are a murderer. I'm slow - you'll have to flesh out the hypocrisy of your example. I don't see it.

quote:

One that we suspect might promote psychosis. 
You and your industry suspect this because all the scientific studies regarding the other fear propaganda have failed to produce the desired result. They are running out of weapons in their lost war. You need to believe that to be able to go to work every day, but don't expect everyone else to drink the Kool-Aid; you never know what's been added to it.

My job? I'm in financing - I don't finance any drug related enterprise that I am aware of, however if requested, I'd consider it on its merit as any other credit decision I make.
quote:

Because alcohol is legal is no argument to then add another  substance to the market that people will use and abuse to get high with. 
Now you are changing the parameters of the example. I didn't say alcohol was an example of substance that people used to get high. I used it as an example of hypocrisy. Using one, even "on occasion" and prohibiting and being on a soapbox for banning the other is on its face hypocritical. Add cirrhosis, and the other detrimental effects of alcohol that don't exist with marijuana and you have a condition of a dangerous hypocrisy. Supporting the "culture" of hypocrisy and the industries of hypocrisy, isn't for me.

quote:

What other purpose does pot have if not to get high, besides the one of relieveing pain, which to me is ok,
How magnanimous of you! But of course you had to add; "...although i have recently read some about that as well so i am not so convinced on that either." Believing something anecdotal you read that you agree with and doubting scientific results on the study of pain management is, if nothing else, an illustration of your consistency and a symptom of a closed mind.  To date there is a lack of ANY scientific correlation to marijuana use and lung cancer. Enough people believed, and enough scientific evidence supported the change in the law to make marijuana legal for pain management in CA and many other States. Guess what? In CA it is also being prescribed for those UNDER 18, quite frequently I should add. Is your preference drug of choice for the under 18 crowd Ritalin okay because it's universally "legal"? No examples of that being "abused" or "used to get high"; is there?

quote:

At any rate.... those are my pov, opinions etc.  You have yours merc.  i don't see either one of us changing anytime soon.
That is a shame and perhaps the most disheartening think you've posted. It also points to a major difference between us. If you made a argument or factual representation, the possibility of change did and does exist in me.



Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875