RE: War on Drugs. (Full Version)

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



Message

farglebargle -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/29/2007 9:32:31 AM)

quote:

How would the authorities control our highways and test for those driving while under the influence. A breathalizer at least gives you a specific reading and if you are above it your butt goes to jail, your licence is yanked and you pay a hefty fine. This does prevent a lot of people from drinking and driving. How will pot heads be prevented from smoking and driving?


Actually, breathalizers are being dismissed from testimony because their computer software isn't available for inspection by the defense, and therefore cannot be cross-examined in any meaningful way.

That aside, the NYC Vehicle and Traffic law thoroughly covers operating while ability is impaired for any reason.



velvetears -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/29/2007 9:38:14 AM)

camille if i had the time and inclination i could probably find sites that link pot use and car accidents.  i imagine it depends wholly on the amount of pot you smoke - how high you get.  As for never smoking pot - you are correct i won't. Lot's of people smoke pot, i may not agree with their choice but i judge people on other merits besides their smoking pot or not.  Though i generaly don't associate with people who are in a continual altered state (from whatever substance) simply because they are not in the same reality as me, theirs is artificial and anything said and done in that state cannot be relied upon, it isn't genuine, it's influenced by the substance. Been there and done that too many years to want to tolerate that kind of life ever again. 



Mercnbeth -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/29/2007 9:39:16 AM)

quote:

The pot heads
The name calling doesn't help your hypocritical position. "Pot heads" such as:
(Link takes you to the story - Many - like you, only used it in their youth or only currently use it for infrequent "celebrations")

If you want to find more references of "pot heads":
  • Two pages of Celebrity stoners from Cannabis Culture Magazine No 1 and No 2.
  • Very Important Pot Heads has a game for you to play.

    quote:

    Welcome to the club then - i have answered questions if you care to read. i won't repeat myself.  You want to portray me as such, getting people on the defensive is a tactic used as a ploy to divert attention.  i won't play your game.  If you care to actually read my posts, the answers are there.   i asked you several questions in my very  last post - i see no answers - so if i am a hypocrite for not answering - so are you my friend, so are you. 
    You must be very ashamed and insecure because you don't like to state them. On this same page someone asks again. With less effort than the quoted response you gave you could have cut and pasted your clear and confident position. Better to keep it a secret? 

    quote:

    How will pot heads be prevented from smoking and driving?  No one will answer that question because they can't. Simple as that.
    The same way they do for your infrequent drug of choice alcohol; "simple as that".

    quote:

    How would the authorities control our highways and test for those driving while under the influence.
    It seems you switched your argument from one of "most pot is laced" to enforcement. You should then be working toward a similar test not supporting lies and hypocrisy.

    You are on record of spying and reporting neighbors. They should do the same to you. Assuming you are less hypocritical regarding your personal life, when they report loud cries coming from your home and/or the sound of leather against flesh and the cops show up you have no problem with that? Your husband/partner has no influence on their actions, since in most States you can't be complicit with your "attacker".

    You know seen with your logic, a mother's breast milk is a "stepping stone" to alcoholism.

    quote:

    they have a vested interest in spreading their "rhetoric" that it is harmless.
    Care to provide that "vested interest"?

    Your agenda is dangerous and you vested interest is much easier to ascertain. You either support the hypocrisy you work for, or you would have to quit. I have that assumption because you do not provide any other alternative and the reality of the world is in diametric opposition to your dogma.



    • velvetears -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/29/2007 9:41:41 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: farglebargle

    quote:

    How would the authorities control our highways and test for those driving while under the influence. A breathalizer at least gives you a specific reading and if you are above it your butt goes to jail, your licence is yanked and you pay a hefty fine. This does prevent a lot of people from drinking and driving. How will pot heads be prevented from smoking and driving?


    Actually, breathalizers are being dismissed from testimony because their computer software isn't available for inspection by the defense, and therefore cannot be cross-examined in any meaningful way.

    That aside, the NYC Vehicle and Traffic law thoroughly covers operating while ability is impaired for any reason.



    Yes i am sure they are as lawyers are most clever in defending people and getting them off on technicalities. That doesn't surprise me at all.

    i would be most interested in reading about these NYC laws that thoroughly cover operating while impared. i know when puled over one can get a DWI and a DUI - DUI is, i think, a lesser offense. Please post the link if you will.



    Mercnbeth -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/29/2007 9:52:45 AM)

    quote:

    Lot's of people smoke pot, i may not agree with their choice but i judge people on other merits besides their smoking pot or not.
    So, you are here to "judge" based upon your standards, finding all facts in opposition irrelevant and unworthy of response; no surprise.



    farglebargle -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/29/2007 9:54:12 AM)

    Do you really believe due process, specifically cross examining your accuser to be, "technicalities"?

    Here is the first Google response for "NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law"

    http://www.safeny.com/alco-vt.htm#sec1192

    § 1192. Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

    1. Driving while ability impaired. No person shall operate a motor vehicle while the person's ability to operate such motor vehicle is impaired by the consumption of alcohol.

    2. Driving while intoxicated; per se. No person shall operate a motor vehicle while such person has .08 of one per centum or more by weight of alcohol in the person's blood as shown by chemical analysis of such person's blood, breath, urine or saliva, made pursuant to the provisions of section eleven hundred ninety-four of this article.

    2-a. Aggravated driving while intoxicated; per se. No person shall operate a motor vehicle while such person has .18 grams or more by weight of alcohol in such person's blood as shown by chemical analysis of such person's blood, breath, urine or saliva made pursuant to the provisions of section eleven hundred ninety-four of this article.

    3. Driving while intoxicated. No person shall operate a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition.

    4. Driving while ability impaired by drugs. No person shall operate a motor vehicle while the person's ability to operate such a motor vehicle is impaired by the use of a drug as defined in this chapter.

    4-a. Driving while ability impaired by the combined influence of drugs or of alcohol and any drug or drugs. No person shall operate a motor vehicle while the person's ability to operate such motor vehicle is impaired by the combined influence of drugs or of alcohol and any drug or drugs.

    That page doesn't have a copy of 1194, so here's that section's particulars.

    http://law.onecle.com/new-york/vehicle-and-traffic/VAT01194_1194.html

    § 1194. Arrest and testing.

    1. Arrest and field testing.
    (a) Arrest.
    Notwithstanding the provisions of section 140.10 of the criminal procedure law, a police officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person, in case of a violation of subdivision one of section eleven hundred ninety-two of this article, if such violation is coupled with an accident or collision in which such person is involved, which in fact has been committed, though not in the police officer's presence, when the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the violation was committed by such person.
    (b) Field testing.
    Every person operating a motor vehicle which has been involved in an accident or which is operated in violation of any of
    the provisions of this chapter shall, at the request of a police officer, submit to a breath test to be administered by the police officer. If such test indicates that such operator has consumed alcohol, the police officer may request such operator to submit to a chemical test in the manner set forth in subdivision two of this section.
    2. Chemical tests.
    (a) When authorized.
    Any person who operates a motor vehicle in this state shall be deemed to have given consent to a chemical test of one or more of the following: breath, blood, urine, or saliva, for the purpose of determining the alcoholic and/or drug content of the blood provided that such test is administered by or at the direction of a police officer with respect to a chemical test of breath, urine or saliva or, with respect to a chemical test of blood, at the direction of a police officer:
    (1) having reasonable grounds to believe such person to have been operating in violation of any subdivision of section eleven hundred ninety-two of this article and within two hours after such person has been placed under arrest for any such violation; or having reasonable grounds to believe such person to have been operating in violation of section eleven hundred ninety-two-a of this article and within two hours after the stop of such person for any such violation,
    (2) within two hours after a breath test, as provided in paragraph (b) of subdivision one of this section, indicates that alcohol has been consumed by such person and in accordance with the rules and regulations established by the police force of which the officer is a member;
    (3) for the purposes of this paragraph, "reasonable grounds" to believe that a person has been operating a motor vehicle after having consumed alcohol in violation of section eleven hundred ninety-two-a of this article shall be determined by viewing the totality of circumstances surrounding the incident which, when taken together,
    indicate that the operator was driving in violation of such subdivision.
    Such circumstances may include any visible or behavioral indication of alcohol consumption by the operator, the existence of an open container containing or having contained an alcoholic beverage in or around the vehicle driven by the operator, or any other evidence surrounding the circumstances of the incident which indicates that the operator has been operating a motor vehicle after having consumed alcohol at the time of the incident; or
    (4) notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no person under the age of twenty-one shall be arrested for an alleged violation of section eleven hundred ninety-two-a of this article.
    However, a person under the age of twenty-one for whom a chemical test is authorized pursuant to this paragraph may be temporarily detained by the police solely for the purpose of requesting or administering such
    chemical test whenever a rrest without a warrant for a petty offense would be authorized in accordance with the provisions of section 140.10 of the criminal procedure law or paragraph (a) of subdivision one of this section.
    ..

    There's more, but that should cover the basics.



    velvetears -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/29/2007 10:01:20 AM)

    quote:

    Mercnbeth
    The name calling doesn't help your hypocritical position. "Pot heads"


    i didn't take offense at the term junkie why take offense at pot head - if i offended you in it's usage i aplogize.  Didn't know you were that sensitive. 
    You mentione in the end "you will find it's use in the bible" - you don't find it  hypocritical to go around threads generally disparaging the bible and church but now conveniently make reference to it to make your argument stronger? 

    Even pot heads refer to themselves as such lol.... i don't say it as an insult nor did i think pot users took it as such.

    quote:

    Mercnbeth
    You must be very ashamed and insecure because you don't like to state them. On this same page someone asks again. With less effort than the quoted response you gave you could have cut and pasted your clear and confident position. Better to keep it a secret?


    Hardly merc, just someone who doesn't feel the need to be anyones marionette. The answers are there - go back and read them, many i answered several times. i will not entertain that anymore.  i have  been very verbose in this thread.  i have stated my pov, my character has been attacked, i have been called names.... bring it on, you won't shut me up [;)]
    quote:

    Mercnbeth
    The same way they do for your infrequent drug of choice alcohol; "simple as that".


    They have a breathalizer for pot - oh please do enlighten me

    quote:

    Mercnbeth
    It seems you switched your argument from one of "most pot is laced" to enforcement.


    No merc you haven't been reading - mine was never "one argument" that just proves to me you haven't been paying attention to my posts. You are more interested in prostelytising and hearing yourself roar, putting me down as a hypocrit rather then actually hearing my pov.

    quote:

    Mercnbeth
    You are on record of spying and reporting neighbors

    Again you twist words. Did i say they were neighbors? Get more information before you make assinine assumptions.  These "neighors" were drug dealers from the bronx whose sole intention was getting kids hooked on crack. i am proud to say i had a hand in running them out of the place in town they were dealing from - very proud indeed! How about i gve them your address and they can set up shop in your backyard? 

    quote:

    Mercnbeth
    Your agenda is dangerous and you vested interest is much easier to ascertain. You either support the hypocrisy you work for, or you would have to quit.


    i will say it again - i had my pov wayyyyyyyy before the job. i will support it longgggggggg after i move on to another one. i don't plan on keeping this one that long - it fell into my lap in a sense, i hope to make success in the profession i was trained for - nothing related to rehabilitation.  i do enjoy it though and respect the people trying to help others and make a difference in their lives. They don't get compensated nearly enough - their hearts have to be in it to stay. 





    velvetears -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/29/2007 10:04:23 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

    quote:

    Lot's of people smoke pot, i may not agree with their choice but i judge people on other merits besides their smoking pot or not.
    So, you are here to "judge" based upon your standards, finding all facts in opposition irrelevant and unworthy of response; no surprise.

    Twist away merc.... everyone judges others, or we would allow anyone to enter into our lives. If you say you never judge - you are the biggest hippocrit of all.  Judeg in the way i used it did not mean condemn - you know that you're just trying to twist the meaning of my words.



    camille65 -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/29/2007 10:18:38 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: velvetears

    camille if i had the time and inclination i could probably find sites that link pot use and car accidents.  i imagine it depends wholly on the amount of pot you smoke - how high you get.  As for never smoking pot - you are correct i won't. Lot's of people smoke pot, i may not agree with their choice but i judge people on other merits besides their smoking pot or not.  Though i generaly don't associate with people who are in a continual altered state (from whatever substance) simply because they are not in the same reality as me, theirs is artificial and anything said and done in that state cannot be relied upon, it isn't genuine, it's influenced by the substance. Been there and done that too many years to want to tolerate that kind of life ever again. 


    Odd that you didn't have the inclination to do your own search on this, especially in light of the importance you are placing upon pot smoking and driving..
    No one is asking you to tolerate or have drugs as a part of your world. But your world is not everyones world. I just wish you could somehow set aside your emotions and look at all of this analytically. You demand answers on things then when answered it still isn't good enough information in your mind.
    I'm not trying to change your mind or drag you into a world of drugs and debauchery. I am just trying to show you proof that not everything you think is right. But.. its like you just don't want to see it, you just want to keep what you believe to be truth no matter what.

    You said quality is the problem, some of us said that legalizing it would take care of that problem. The gateway issue, links and information was given to you. Then you leapt to another facet and so on. Jeez I don't even know why I continue to show you alternative thoughts on this cuz I think you are totally locked onto you POV and are not interested in anything contrary to it.

    So I'm going to sit on my hands and try my utmost to stop trying. I have this stubborn tendancy tho...[&:]



    Mercnbeth -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/29/2007 10:21:50 AM)

    quote:

    i didn't take offense at the term junkie why take offense at pot head - if i offended you in it's usage i aplogize.  Didn't know you were that sensitive. 
    You mentione in the end "you will find it's use in the bible" - you don't find it  hypocritical to go around threads generally disparaging the bible and church but now conveniently make reference to it to make your argument stronger? 
    VT,
    The value judgment provided was all yours. No offense taken or considered by a reference to "pot head" especially considering the source. Besides - I'd welcome comparison to most if not all the names mentioned. Care to provide a list of fellow hypocrites?

    The biblical reference was with you and other "religious" folks in mind; providing a reference you can relate too that also happens (coincidently?) to be filled with hypocrisy.

    quote:

    They have a breathalizer for pot - oh please do enlighten me
    Comprehension not being your forte, my quote was - "It seems you switched your argument from one of "most pot is laced" to enforcement. You should then be working toward a similar test not supporting lies and hypocrisy."
    quote:

    Again you twist words. Did i say they were neighbors? Get more information before you make assinine assumptions. 
    This is a direct quote;
    "I have done drug surveillance in my area".

    Requiring an understanding only you have of the distinction between "area" and "neighborhood". I guess I "twisted" your words. You only spy and report on people in your area - NOT in your neighborhood. Glad we cleared that up!

    Now you seek to report on any not buying into the lies from your industry and the alcohol and drug industries. I take it back, the comparison to what was acceptable in Nazi society is relevant today. Disagreement should be grounds for arrest. You ARE a good Nazi for the drug, alcohol, and rehabilitation industries.

    quote:

    Judeg in the way i used it did not mean condemn - you know that you're just trying to twist the meaning of my words.
    It must be a very difficult life to lead running away from your own words almost as quickly as you post them.

    I say once again to the OP - Herein is the answer to you "war" question concerning marijuana. Here is the vanguard of hypocrisy. No answers - no consistency - no clarity. ALWAYS everyone else "twists" or "doesn't understand" all for the best intent and with admirable motives. Don't let the reality of failure compromise the rhetoric.

    Not one reason or fact on the original question specific to marijuana. Twelve pages back a representation that "most pot is laced". On the 13th page that argument abandoned for one of "enforcement".

    Sunao, keep asking the questions, require focus, and don't be diverted by stories of doom. Keep the mirror held up and don't accept the warped reflection skewed by hypocrisy.



    camille65 -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/29/2007 10:31:34 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

    Sunao, keep asking the questions, require focus, and don't be diverted by stories of doom. Keep the mirror held up and don't accept the warped reflection skewed by hypocrisy.


    Doooooooood! Is that like um, yanno the funhouse mirrors? Man I remember once after smoking some blazin thai stick gettin lost in one of them there funhouses. Spent hours walkin around in a drug haze tryin to bang my way out of there. Doooooood good times had by all!
    *had to, just had to post that in hopes of a smile somewhere in this damned [truly damned] thread. Not a true tale btw for those unable to sense sarcasm.*
    PEACE OUT DUDES



    philosophy -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/29/2007 10:32:22 AM)

    ...i'm still waiting for you to answer my question regarding the efficacy of prohibition. It didn't work for alcohol, why do you believe it works for pot?
    Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.



    Mercnbeth -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/29/2007 10:47:33 AM)

    quote:

    Doooooood good times had by all!

    camille,
    It's "Duuuuuuuuude!".

    Understandable seeing you are from Michigan. [;)] It took about a year before it started to show up in my conversational vocabulary when I moved out here. It has now replaced by NJ "Yo!" In fact sometimes I use them both, like speaking to my son this morning; "Yo dude - take out the garbage!" [8D]

    There is no "damnation" in this thread. There would be with silent acceptance in the face of hypocrisy. It won't happen, in this case where beth's medical situation makes it personal, or in the situation of cigarette smokers where my advocacy for personal choice and freedom has no personal relevance.

    I wonder what would happen if the tobacco and alcohol lobbyists and lawyers didn't have the power and ability to dictate laws and regulations to perpetuate their industry monopolies. Without the support of those hypocrites who rationalize those industry positions and who elect bought and paid for legislative facilitators, would the power to choose return to the people? I work every day toward that goal.



    HottLicks -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/29/2007 11:03:02 AM)

    Mercnbeth,

    Zachary Taylor was my fifth great grand father.  I am related to many you named and I haven't read that they smoked pot.  I am not challenging you... lol... not at all... I just want to know where I can find this! lol  Maybe it is in the gene's [hehe] no excuse in my opinion... just a funny slanted tid bit of research of which many researches are guilty of.  Want to prove  a point... you will find research to prove it... somewhere.  What I look at is who is behind the research and what agenda might all parties have.

    I don't trust the AMA, drug companies and the like.  Somewhere someone profits by it all.  Then later after damage is done... we find things approved deadly.  After everyone makes their buck or their point.

    We need to take personal responsibility and reason for ourselves what is best for us.  What gets me in all this research is that other factors are not always considered.  In accidents... was the music up loud... did they have a fight with someone... etc.  In genetic's... maybe there are more than one gene involved... maybe something not genetic and an illness.  Who the heck knows for sure anything when research is so lacking?

    The medical community fought me on many stands I took against certain medications I said were dangerous.  I was full of poop according to them.  Then a couple years later when people were dying... I was paranoid.  Go figure.  I'm the bad guy... I am crazy... but I will keep my own counsel and reasoning... they can keep their research unless all avenues are traveled.

    Anyway if you can direct me to where I can find this information... my family would be very thankful.  We love finding out the truth in history and not that crud we often find in history books in school.  I love how ZT just died in office... when we had so much going on, that people would want him dead for.  He didn't just die in office.  He was murdered.  Digging up a body from that long ago, sure doesn't prove a whole lot to me... but then I could be high or laced with something... oh yeah... I haven't smoked... damn the lack of sleep!



    Mercnbeth -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/29/2007 11:18:38 AM)

    H. L.

    Glad to provide some information concerning your ancestor. I love reading history but it is important to take it in context. Historical references are good for amusement as well as relevance. In this case it appears to reflect your ancestor's military days. Clicking on the name takes you to the referenced source. 

    The hotlink reference provided this insight:
    quote:

    Dr. Burke, president of the American Historical Reference Society and a consultant for the Smithsonian Institute, counted seven early presidents as cannabis smokers: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce. "Early letters from our founding fathers refer to the pleasures of hemp smoking," said Burke. Pierce, Taylor and Jackson, all military men, smoked it with their troops. Cannabis was twice as popular among American soldiers in the Mexican War as in Vietnam: Pierce wrote to his family that it was "about the only good thing" about that war.


    Burke's research:
    quote:

    Burke asserted that Washington & Jefferson were said to exchange smoking blends as personal gifts. Washington reportedly preferred a pipe full of "the leaves of hemp" to alcohol, & wrote in his diaries that he enjoyed the fragrance of hemp flowers. Madison once remarked that hemp gave him insight to create a new & democratic nation. Monroe, creator of the Monroe Doctrine, began smoking it as Ambassador to France & continued to the age of 73. Burke. "Pot & Presidents." in Green Egg. CA. June 21, 1975


    You need to go to the library or find on-line the information from the source book "Pot & Presidents".



    Mercnbeth -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/29/2007 11:29:14 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: camille65

    ...So I'm going to sit on my hands and try my utmost to stop trying. I have this stubborn tendancy tho...[&:]


    this slave agrees with you camille...sometimes folk become incapable of accepting old ideas as being wrong, especially when presented with new information.  thumbs up for trying!!!
     
    late 1980's, when endocannibanoid receptors were discovered in the brain, it opened up possibilities for a whole new field of synthetics to be made with applications to everything from eating disorders and social anxiety to the reduction/elimination of tumors and seizures.
     
    one little problem with that miracle drug, though.  in it's natural form, there are millions of self-righteous who would not only deny someone access to something that improves their quality of life, but who also support the racist federal doctrine that one should be sent to prison for at least a year if found in the posession of ONE marijuana cigarette, for ANY reason.
     
    those who ignore recent research studies and belittle the rights of the individual to have their doctor recommended, state government supported choice of medicine, insult anecdotal evidence from users (not junkies) and would wish others be imprisoned or suffer instead of use marijuana(note: not suffer FROM marijuana use, big difference) appear to this slave to be any or all of the following:
     
    a.  sadistic
    b. racist
    c. overcompensating for their own personal guilt by projecting prohibition for everyone.
    d. protecting their assets.
    e.  unwilling/unable to read/comprehend the source materials presented.
    f.  some sort of religious fundie that deems medications and or reality-altering as some sort of earth worship and evil.
     
    their pov is duly noted and this slave believes them incapable of rational analysis/debate of the War on Drugs, specifically on marijuana, due to one or all a-f.
     



    MercTech -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/29/2007 11:48:25 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: farglebargle

    Actually, breathalizers are being dismissed from testimony because their computer software isn't available for inspection by the defense, and therefore cannot be cross-examined in any meaningful way.

    That aside, the NYC Vehicle and Traffic law thoroughly covers operating while ability is impaired for any reason.



    Interesting.  It sounds like someone needs to send the D.A. office back to 9th grade science class or something.  A breathalyzer is just an overpriced explosive gas detector.    There is no "software" to be examined but the provenance records on the calibration of the machine and the provenance of the use results would have to be available and in order to stand up to legal review.  All a breathalyzer measures is the amount of burnable vapor in the breath and assumes it is from imbibed alchohol.  There was an interesting court case of a "fire breather" being busted for driving under the influence and proving to a jury he was busted for having gasoline breath from his act.  Wash your mouth with listerine and do a breathalyzer within around 15 minutes and you can blow a level that shows you are comatose.  <The experienment worked.  The things that you do to stay awake on the late shift when stuck on military police duty.  Polygraphs can be fun to play with too.>

    I always fround it ironic that America's "drug problem" dated from shortly after the repeal of the Volstead Act (prohibition of Alchohol).  All those law enforcement personell that were hired to keep us from drinking had to have something to do to justify their jobs.

    Overdose on Marijauna... it can happen.  Especially, if a person is allergic and didn't realize it.  A small percentage of the population gets an anaphalactic reaction to marijauna.  Instead of just the hoarse speach for a few minutes, the throat can close up stopping the airway.  Not a nice thing to happen.  (Note, I take benedryl to concerts in case I get downwind of tokers.)

    I've always thought that, perhaps, marijauna is a gateway drug because you have to associate with stupid addicted lowlife suppliers that have in their best interests getting you hooked on more lucrative hard drugs. 

    The doofus that buys a pound, keeps a quarter for himself, and steps on the rest before selling to get his money back is particularly dangerous for adding whatever is at hand to your pot.

    I think my great grandfathe's quote about booze might apply to pot, "If it ain't bottled in bond; don't drink it lest you made it yourself."

    Stefan



    Mercnbeth -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/29/2007 12:13:54 PM)

    quote:

    Overdose on Marijauna... it can happen.  Especially, if a person is allergic and didn't realize it.  A small percentage of the population gets an anaphalactic reaction to marijauna.  Instead of just the hoarse speach for a few minutes, the throat can close up stopping the airway. 

    Stefan,
    Although an allergic reaction is very different than an overdose you make a legitimate point. In fact it is a point that reflects my beth's condition and reason for using marijuana as an alternative pain medication. she is very allergic to aspirin and its derivatives. It also is another point toward that reconciles with legalization and controlled distribution. The medical doctor prescribing it to beth considered allergic reaction. A universal standard of a Doctor's prescription should insure that possibility wouldn't occur.

    However, once again we get into a situation of trying to eliminate all risk in all activities and choice. I seem to recall that some people also have the same reaction to alcohol in its many forms. I can't tolerate any charcoal filtered liqueur. Yet a bartender isn't required to verify or take a medical history before providing a drink. Unless you support the adopted policy taken by many schools where peanuts and peanut butter are no longer allowed as lunches because 1 child out of 100,000 has a peanut allergy; self responsibility should not be totally legislated out of our lives.
    {Disclaimer - the 100,000 - 1 peanut allergy number was a 'guess-timate'. I didn't look up the statistical reports. However it points to the rule addressing the exception instead of the common; similar to the lacing of pot.}

    quote:

    I think my great grandfathe's quote about booze might apply to pot, "If it ain't bottled in bond; don't drink it lest you made it yourself."

    Stefan,
    A very reasonable attitude and consistent with the desired goal of many.



    HottLicks -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/29/2007 12:23:49 PM)

    Because I am allergic to many priscription medications my doctor believed it was safest for me to use pot.  It is the safest thing for me and the only thing that helps me.  Do I like the high?  Hell no!  I do however like to eat and sleep and ease pain and use it dosed as a medication.  I taught my um's that it was a medication and any medication needs to be considered dangerous if used improperly.  I use it as well as any other medication I can still take, with caution. 

    I have been in the lower and higher economic area's all over the US and have only ran into laced anythings when I heard of it all through young people. 

    Do I like being a criminal to do what I need to survive?  Because I surely would die if I couldn't eat or sleep... from something...  I was 78 pounds from being unable to eat from chemo like nausia... up sleepless for five days at a stretch... somewhere... somehow... I could have died.  Sure they could put me in the hospital hooked to IV... or they could dose me with some plant and keep me at home, not driving or taking risks, to care for what I must do in a day.  No, I don't like being a criminal... but then they would have to catch me.  Good luck on that.  I will continue to medicate to survive and have some quality to life, criminal or not.

    I am for the responsible use of this medication.  Research... some is worthy... some is foolhardy... But being sound of mind, I will make my own conclusions and decisions based on my situation in life.  As long as I am not harming anyone, who's business is it?  I mean... the illegal parts?... Guess what... some sexual acts are illegal and some accidents caused by sexual acts... does that mean even our former president isn't going to ask for a BJ?  Personal reasoning of sound mind and accountability for self is our only protection or assurance in my opinion.



    HottLicks -> RE: War on Drugs. (10/29/2007 12:35:51 PM)

    Mercnbeth,

    Thank you so much for the quick response!  I will surely be googling today!

    James Madison was a relative and had the same symptoms I have.  He spent nights unable to sleep, awake and writing the constitution.  I am glad he had some comforts and his work didn't seem to be hindered, but enhanced even though he was ill with some unknown disease [at the time] and smoked. [smile]  What I find interesting is that many who have the right to argue both sides of this point, don't realize they have that right because of persons who could have actually been high [lol] when they served to give them the rights. [What does that say about some research?]

    Thank you for the info... and some new interest to check into... I guess my medicating doesn't harm my interest levels, my ability to research and conclude reasonable conclusions... of course that would be determined I am sure by those who don't know me and would perfere to go on hard research that says I must be an idiot if I medicate.

    Cheers!



    Page: <<   < prev  10 11 12 [13] 14   next >   >>

    Valid CSS!




    Collarchat.com © 2025
    Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
    0.0625