|
FrostedFlake -> RE: Uruguay legalises marijuana (8/2/2013 2:31:29 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Politesub53
A general question.
Where do you draw the line with weed ? At what strength do you consider it safe ? The stuff on sale today in the UK is more potent than that of the 80s, let alone the sixties, super strength Skunk is stronger still. Skunk has been shown to cuase several issues affecting mentla health, such as paranoia and an effect on short term memory. Studies in the UK have proved this beyond doubt.
My question is, does anything go, or should a line be drawn regards super strength weed.
I don't think you were answered properly. So I'll give it a shot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashish
Hash is concentrated Marijuana. Hash oil is concentrated hash. Perhaps 90% THC, and its' chemical cousins. You dip a needle into the oil and touch it to the Titanium Nail of your vaporizer. The nail is at just the right temperature to vaporize the oil without burning it. You, or if you'd rather not, I... draw the vapor of unburned hash into our lungs and hold it for a moment. Then of course, we hack several times. (Here is the answer to your question) IF, upon reflection I/you/we are not quite stoned enough, we can do it again. IF, upon reflection, we are, then we can... not.
The line you refer to is best placed between the two IFs. Whatever the THC content might be.
The thing you seem to be overlooking is that, unlike beer for example, THC makes itself clear right away about just how much you have had and about whether more would be better. So, anything goes, if the question is how much THC percentage is ok. In fact, the medical reason for limiting THC would have to first get around the fact that less THC % automatically means more ash and tar or in the case of the vaporizer, more 'foreign matter' will be encountered in the process of getting stoned. More crap in the lungs is worse than less crap in the lungs. The route around that unsubtle fact relies on deception. Lying to accomplish a policy goal is a job for a politician, not a doctor. And that's where we have been since Prohibition was Ripped Bodily Out Of The Constitution.
Hat tip to Termy.
Why was a constitutional amendment required to prohibit alcohol? Once you have decided what you think about that, why was a constitutional amendment NOT required to prohibit marijuana? Let's not even think about the fact that marijuana was well known and used for a wide variety of common ailments by the American medical community before it was prohibited by an ill informed Congress, but was called by a different name. And that the unfamiliar Mexican name 'marijuana' was used to avoid tipping the doctors off that hemp was being outlawed... They changed the name, to get around the doctors, this is lie #1. This goes to the point of what the status quo ante actually is. Hint : the status quo ante is NOT big government handing little guy what big government thinks it's not too risky for little guy to have.
Here is a handy example, I have in my time owned about twenty guns, and fired them about 100,000 times. Twice, I actually killed something. Intentionally. The Constitution mentions my guns, but not hunting. Instead, it speaks of 'keeping and bearing arms'. Keeping and bearing arms is also sometimes called soldiering. This might seem off topic, but, once you have thought it through, it will be plain it is not. "Government derives its' just powers from the consent of the governed." That consent may be withdrawn. And in the case of marijuana, that is slowly happening.
http://www.csdp.org/publicservice/anslinger.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger
Did I cover everything? Dang that short term memory loss!
Oh, Yeah! Almost forgot!
Reefer Madness : 1936
|
|
|
|
