killer weed!
-
The question of "Where are the victims?" has been answered, you just don't accept the answer. But I am still waiting for someone, anyone, to answer my question of "Why?". So far all I have gotten is mockery and excuses of how the current laws are bad, not why people want to fry their brains use drugs.
[
](http://www.canucks.com)"You're obviously a superstar." - Christian Graus about me - 12 Feb '03 "Obviously ??? You're definitely a superstar!!!" mYkel - 21 Jun '04 Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
PJ Arends wrote: The question of "Where are the victims?" has been answered no. i asked about my specific case. where is the victim in my case ? (and before you answer, let me assure you - it's not me) PJ Arends wrote: But I am still waiting for someone, anyone, to answer my question of "Why?". the answer is: people want to because they enjoy it. it's as simple as that. Software | Cleek
-
KaЯl wrote: It is more than time to stop the hypocrisy and to face the problems caused by prohibition. Totally agreed. KaЯl wrote: You can dream for centuries, it will never happen. Like for alcohol, and for the same reasons. And it begs the question - why wouldn't any sane society legalise it, make a profit on it, and spend the money advertising ways to help people give up. A bit like tobacco is today. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: why wouldn't any sane society legalise it, make a profit on it, and spend the money advertising ways to help people give up Absolutely. And the only reason I've found why it doesn't happen this way is that our leaders/governing parties are involved in the business and get their percentage :suss:
Собой остаться дольше...
-
PJ Arends wrote: The question of "Where are the victims?" has been answered no. i asked about my specific case. where is the victim in my case ? (and before you answer, let me assure you - it's not me) PJ Arends wrote: But I am still waiting for someone, anyone, to answer my question of "Why?". the answer is: people want to because they enjoy it. it's as simple as that. Software | Cleek
Chris Losinger wrote: where is the victim in my case ? 1) Studies have shown that a single use [insert your favorite recreational drug here] can cause mutations in your germ cells which affect the DNA of your sperm which affect your children. Of course, you may not have any children. Yet. 2) Let's deal with something a little more concrete. Drugs are currently illegal. The victims are the people that are exploited in the production, transportation, and sales of these illegal drugs. The victims are people that suffer as a result of the money you spent buying your drugs (and please, let's not use the "I grow my own excuse"). You want to see victims of the drug industry, funded by your money? Why don't you visit Columbia? This is the reality, based on the current state of affairs. Can you honestly tell me your drug use (past, present, or future) does not in some small way contribute to those victims? And for pete's sakes, let's not get into "well, what about all that cheap Chinese manufactured clothes you buy at Walmart and all the child victims who manufacture it" analogies. Yes, they are victims too. More victims doesn't make the victims go away, does it? Chris Losinger wrote: let me assure you - it's not me) hehe. How can you be so sure? Now, before y'all think I'm sitting on my high horse, I'm not. I just think the "victimless" argument is a lot of crap. Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C# MyXaml MyXaml Blog Hunt The Wumpus RealDevs.Net
-
Just another pro-weed article by another junkie with a Phd. I dream of the day when goverments do not have to spend money on anti-drug law enforcement because the market for the garbage has dried up. I have only one question for the pro-weed crowd, WHY?!?
[
](http://www.canucks.com)"You're obviously a superstar." - Christian Graus about me - 12 Feb '03 "Obviously ??? You're definitely a superstar!!!" mYkel - 21 Jun '04 Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
While I no longer smoke any weed, I have friends that use it on a daily basis since it is the only drug that allows them to live with the continual pain of arthritis. Unfortunately no medical insurance coverage here in Canada will assist in the legal purchase of marijuana for arthritis pain control. However I do believe some provide coverage for use for other ailments. Oh and I still enjoy a cigar now and then, and my fist is usually sorrounding a can of Molson's on the weekends. :) Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] I think people should be required to have an operator's permit to use the internet. John Simmons
-
Chris Losinger wrote: where is the victim in my case ? 1) Studies have shown that a single use [insert your favorite recreational drug here] can cause mutations in your germ cells which affect the DNA of your sperm which affect your children. Of course, you may not have any children. Yet. 2) Let's deal with something a little more concrete. Drugs are currently illegal. The victims are the people that are exploited in the production, transportation, and sales of these illegal drugs. The victims are people that suffer as a result of the money you spent buying your drugs (and please, let's not use the "I grow my own excuse"). You want to see victims of the drug industry, funded by your money? Why don't you visit Columbia? This is the reality, based on the current state of affairs. Can you honestly tell me your drug use (past, present, or future) does not in some small way contribute to those victims? And for pete's sakes, let's not get into "well, what about all that cheap Chinese manufactured clothes you buy at Walmart and all the child victims who manufacture it" analogies. Yes, they are victims too. More victims doesn't make the victims go away, does it? Chris Losinger wrote: let me assure you - it's not me) hehe. How can you be so sure? Now, before y'all think I'm sitting on my high horse, I'm not. I just think the "victimless" argument is a lot of crap. Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C# MyXaml MyXaml Blog Hunt The Wumpus RealDevs.Net
Marc Clifton wrote: Can you honestly tell me your drug use (past, present, or future) does not in some small way contribute to those victims? legalizing it would go a long way to fixing that particular problem - if that's what troubles you. Marc Clifton wrote: The victims are the people that are exploited in the production, transportation, and sales of these illegal drugs. yes, because they are forced to take extraordinary risks to evade law enforcement. the illegality pushes down supply much more than it pushes down demand (people are willing to break a law they don't respect), thus raising the price and the stakes. again, legalizing it would likely ease this problem. Marc Clifton wrote: funded by your money? be careful. i've already said multiple times that i don't use the stuff. i haven't spent any money on illegal drugs (unless you count a couple of Cuban cigars i bought in Bermuda a few years ago) in probably 15 years. Marc Clifton wrote: How can you be so sure? because i know what someone who's wrecked their life on drugs looks like. and that's not me. Marc Clifton wrote: More victims doesn't make the victims go away, does it? no it doesn't. but it does demonstrate that you're being hypocritical in claiming the victims of one industry make it horrible while saying we shouldn't even bring up the victims of another much larger industry. without question, many people in thrid-world countries suffer while supplying what first-world customers demand. that's a much bigger problem. but if people growing pot in Thailand are victims, then so are people sewing sneakers for WalMart in slave-labor camps in China. Marc Clifton wrote: Studies have shown that a single use [insert your favorite recreational drug here] can cause mutations in your germ cells which affect the DNA of your sperm which affect your children. "insert your favorite recreational drug here" ? that statement simply can't be true for all values. Software | Cleek
-
Marc Clifton wrote: Can you honestly tell me your drug use (past, present, or future) does not in some small way contribute to those victims? legalizing it would go a long way to fixing that particular problem - if that's what troubles you. Marc Clifton wrote: The victims are the people that are exploited in the production, transportation, and sales of these illegal drugs. yes, because they are forced to take extraordinary risks to evade law enforcement. the illegality pushes down supply much more than it pushes down demand (people are willing to break a law they don't respect), thus raising the price and the stakes. again, legalizing it would likely ease this problem. Marc Clifton wrote: funded by your money? be careful. i've already said multiple times that i don't use the stuff. i haven't spent any money on illegal drugs (unless you count a couple of Cuban cigars i bought in Bermuda a few years ago) in probably 15 years. Marc Clifton wrote: How can you be so sure? because i know what someone who's wrecked their life on drugs looks like. and that's not me. Marc Clifton wrote: More victims doesn't make the victims go away, does it? no it doesn't. but it does demonstrate that you're being hypocritical in claiming the victims of one industry make it horrible while saying we shouldn't even bring up the victims of another much larger industry. without question, many people in thrid-world countries suffer while supplying what first-world customers demand. that's a much bigger problem. but if people growing pot in Thailand are victims, then so are people sewing sneakers for WalMart in slave-labor camps in China. Marc Clifton wrote: Studies have shown that a single use [insert your favorite recreational drug here] can cause mutations in your germ cells which affect the DNA of your sperm which affect your children. "insert your favorite recreational drug here" ? that statement simply can't be true for all values. Software | Cleek
Yes, yes. Legalization would change things. But that's not now. I see no point in discussing "what if" scenarios as some sort of a response to the issue of "who are the victims". It detracts from the issue as it is with the present laws. Stick to the point of "who are the victims", please. Chris Losinger wrote: yes, because they are forced to take extraordinary risks to evade law enforcement. That's pretty narrow minded. Drug cartels have a lot of influence over the lives of completely innocent people. People who wish their governments would do something about the cartels. If anything, drug enforcement wastes millions (if not billions) of tax payer dollars every year, which could be better spent. And let's not get into the "it should be legalized" issue AGAIN. You asked "who are the victims". I answered. Chris Losinger wrote: i've already said multiple times that i don't use the stuff and you also wrote: i've taken drugs. now tell me, where are the victims? so, what is this, a question of past vs. present? OK, fine. Money you spent 15 years ago. Whatever. Chris Losinger wrote: because i know what someone who's wrecked their life on drugs looks like. and that's not me. Yeah, well, "looks and be deceptive, but distinctions are real" (Peter Gabriel). Come on, Chris, I expect better of you. If someone can "control" their substance abuse so that there is no outward visible signs, does that mean there's no inner damage going on? Chris Losinger wrote: but it does demonstrate that you're being hypocritical in claiming the victims of one industry make it horrible while saying we shouldn't even bring up the victims of another much larger industry. Let's stick to the subject. "Who are the victims of drug use?" You wanted that answered. I was merely heading off at the pass the lame counter arguments that I often hear. Chris Losinger wrote: that statement simply can't be true for all values. Two things: From the studies I've read in reputable scientific journals, the answer is yes, it can be true. Second, understanding of how drugs affect the human body is so unknown, that what we do know is just the tip of the iceberg. But as these things are discovered, the damaging effects continue to stack up, even for one time usage. Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C# MyXaml
-
Just another pro-weed article by another junkie with a Phd. I dream of the day when goverments do not have to spend money on anti-drug law enforcement because the market for the garbage has dried up. I have only one question for the pro-weed crowd, WHY?!?
[
](http://www.canucks.com)"You're obviously a superstar." - Christian Graus about me - 12 Feb '03 "Obviously ??? You're definitely a superstar!!!" mYkel - 21 Jun '04 Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
-
Yes, yes. Legalization would change things. But that's not now. I see no point in discussing "what if" scenarios as some sort of a response to the issue of "who are the victims". It detracts from the issue as it is with the present laws. Stick to the point of "who are the victims", please. Chris Losinger wrote: yes, because they are forced to take extraordinary risks to evade law enforcement. That's pretty narrow minded. Drug cartels have a lot of influence over the lives of completely innocent people. People who wish their governments would do something about the cartels. If anything, drug enforcement wastes millions (if not billions) of tax payer dollars every year, which could be better spent. And let's not get into the "it should be legalized" issue AGAIN. You asked "who are the victims". I answered. Chris Losinger wrote: i've already said multiple times that i don't use the stuff and you also wrote: i've taken drugs. now tell me, where are the victims? so, what is this, a question of past vs. present? OK, fine. Money you spent 15 years ago. Whatever. Chris Losinger wrote: because i know what someone who's wrecked their life on drugs looks like. and that's not me. Yeah, well, "looks and be deceptive, but distinctions are real" (Peter Gabriel). Come on, Chris, I expect better of you. If someone can "control" their substance abuse so that there is no outward visible signs, does that mean there's no inner damage going on? Chris Losinger wrote: but it does demonstrate that you're being hypocritical in claiming the victims of one industry make it horrible while saying we shouldn't even bring up the victims of another much larger industry. Let's stick to the subject. "Who are the victims of drug use?" You wanted that answered. I was merely heading off at the pass the lame counter arguments that I often hear. Chris Losinger wrote: that statement simply can't be true for all values. Two things: From the studies I've read in reputable scientific journals, the answer is yes, it can be true. Second, understanding of how drugs affect the human body is so unknown, that what we do know is just the tip of the iceberg. But as these things are discovered, the damaging effects continue to stack up, even for one time usage. Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C# MyXaml
Marc Clifton wrote: Let's stick to the subject. "Who are the victims of drug use?" You wanted that answered. I was merely heading off at the pass the lame counter arguments that I often hear. these third-world peasants aren't victims of drug use. they are victims of drug production. and, if we're talking about pot, there's a good chance that it came from Canada, or from rural America (in fact, there's a 100% chance i often knew who grew it, personally). Marc Clifton wrote: From the studies I've read in reputable scientific journals, the answer is yes, it can be true. cite? Marc Clifton wrote: But as these things are discovered, the damaging effects continue to stack up, even for one time usage. i'm not convinced it's meaningful. eating grilled meat has been shown to likely cause cancer. should i stop grilling? not a chance. i'd rather enjoy my life than live in irrational fear of miniscule probablities. Software | Cleek
-
PJ Arends wrote: So you are saying that you would have no problem with your daughter getting high on marijuana every night, slowly frying her brains to the point she can't function. That would be quite a nightmare, but allthough the prime responsibility is hers, I am arrogant enough to believe that I can make a difference too. But I don't think the state should have any say in this other than running campaigns, because there is absolutely no countries that has an effective ban on those drugs, quite contrary it seems that the countries implementing the hardest restrictions are those that enjoys a greater problem with drug related crimes. PJ Arends wrote: Heck, why stop at pot, kids are doing crystal meth, so we might as well legalize that too. Why stop the restrictions with Marijuana then?, we could ban alcohol and smoking too, the effect on the public health would actually be visible if it was possible to implement. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
jan larsen wrote: we could ban alcohol and smoking to That would be fine with me too. jan larsen wrote: if it was possible to implement There in lies the problem.
[
](http://www.canucks.com)"You're obviously a superstar." - Christian Graus about me - 12 Feb '03 "Obviously ??? You're definitely a superstar!!!" mYkel - 21 Jun '04 Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
-
Christian Graus wrote: these laws do not reflect common sense is a reflection on politians who are scared to lose the votes of the uninformed. That is one argument that I really get sick of hearing. The notion that political success is predicated upon pandering to the politically "uninformed" (and therefore that it is in the vested interest of politicians to keep people "uninformed" so that they can be more easily controlled.) That is such an arrogant, elitist attitude. "Oh, if only everyone else were as smart as me, they would all vote the way I vote." What a pile of horse shit. First, I would argue that it is preferable to be uninformed than it is to be disinformed. Most people I know who consider themselves educated and therefore "informed" are more likely than not to have simply bought into one line or another of propaganda and are therefore disinformed and vote accordingly. The so-called "uninformed" (i.e., those not mindlessly accepting of the same propaganda as the disinformed) generally are those who depend on a broader range of life experiences than a single strain of disinformation to base their pollitical judgements on. Most drug related laws do not exist because of an uninformed rabble freightened into submission by pandering politicians. They exist because the typical voter wisely understands that no society is infinitely adaptable to every bad habit and vice that those most predisposed to reject prevailing social mores set around dreaming up. For better or worse, we expect a bit of restraint from those we share our civilization with and we expect our democratically elected officials to respect our concerns. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
-
joshfl wrote: simple question PJ. Have you ever used Marijuana? Simple answer. No. I saw the effect it was having on the people around me who were using, and it was not a pretty sight. And besides, the stink the stuff gives off is a major turn off for me X|
[
](http://www.canucks.com)"You're obviously a superstar." - Christian Graus about me - 12 Feb '03 "Obviously ??? You're definitely a superstar!!!" mYkel - 21 Jun '04 Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
-
So you are saying that you would have no problem with your daughter getting high on marijuana every night, slowly frying her brains to the point she can't function. Heck, why stop at pot, kids are doing crystal meth, so we might as well legalize that too. That way the goverment can make money off it, can set quality standards so that the meth is pure, not laced with crap. It only kills those dumb enough to over do it, but that is their problem, right? The same can be said for any drug. Legalize them all! It's the law that's the problem, not the drugs. We as a civil society have a responsibility to look after the weak among us. And it is better to stop them from hurting themselves in the first place, rather then picking them up after they have hit rock bottom. We will never have 100% success, but we still have to try. Laws are not there to stop people from having fun, they are there to stop people from hurting themselves and others. I would have thought that you, as a Christian, would realize that. Seems that common sense is not so common after all:sigh:
[
](http://www.canucks.com)"You're obviously a superstar." - Christian Graus about me - 12 Feb '03 "Obviously ??? You're definitely a superstar!!!" mYkel - 21 Jun '04 Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
PJ Arends wrote: We as a civil society have a responsibility to look after the weak among us. And it is better to stop them from hurting themselves in the first place, rather then picking them up after they have hit rock bottom. We will never have 100% success, but we still have to try. In a word - bullshit. many years ago, back when just having 1 joint could get you 5-10 years in the pen, I was attending a pretty well known school out on the left coast. Back in those halcyon days there was some fine dope around campus - I mean fine. I was holding down 2 jobs and carrying 15 hours and was known, from time to time, to imbibe rather freely and it was in basically the same spirit as a keg party. From my circle of friends there at that time several are at NASA and two are at JPL. One is a fellow at Cal Tech. In other words - it did not rot our brains - make us into zombies - stifle our intellectual curiousity. I am not saying its a good thing - because I don't believe it is - but its not as bad as the propaganda would lead you to believe. In all things moderation serves to describe things very well. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
Marc Clifton wrote: Let's stick to the subject. "Who are the victims of drug use?" You wanted that answered. I was merely heading off at the pass the lame counter arguments that I often hear. these third-world peasants aren't victims of drug use. they are victims of drug production. and, if we're talking about pot, there's a good chance that it came from Canada, or from rural America (in fact, there's a 100% chance i often knew who grew it, personally). Marc Clifton wrote: From the studies I've read in reputable scientific journals, the answer is yes, it can be true. cite? Marc Clifton wrote: But as these things are discovered, the damaging effects continue to stack up, even for one time usage. i'm not convinced it's meaningful. eating grilled meat has been shown to likely cause cancer. should i stop grilling? not a chance. i'd rather enjoy my life than live in irrational fear of miniscule probablities. Software | Cleek
Chris Losinger wrote: cite? Ah yes, the inevitable "who's the source" challenge. :-D Since reading through medical journals is incomprehensible and generally not very interesting to me, I've been subscribing to this magazine for the last 15 years or so: http://www.sciencenews.org/[^] It's a weekly publication, relatively ad free (*cough*, *cough*) and takes the heavy journals and puts them into somewhat more comprehensible form, covering medicine, physics, chemistry, psychology, etc. Chris Losinger wrote: i'm not convinced it's meaningful. Agreed. But stuff that can potentially effect the DNA of my children even minutely is somewhat of a different moral responsibility than grilling meat. :-D Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C# MyXaml MyXaml Blog Hunt The Wumpus RealDevs.Net
-
Marc Clifton wrote: Let's stick to the subject. "Who are the victims of drug use?" You wanted that answered. I was merely heading off at the pass the lame counter arguments that I often hear. these third-world peasants aren't victims of drug use. they are victims of drug production. and, if we're talking about pot, there's a good chance that it came from Canada, or from rural America (in fact, there's a 100% chance i often knew who grew it, personally). Marc Clifton wrote: From the studies I've read in reputable scientific journals, the answer is yes, it can be true. cite? Marc Clifton wrote: But as these things are discovered, the damaging effects continue to stack up, even for one time usage. i'm not convinced it's meaningful. eating grilled meat has been shown to likely cause cancer. should i stop grilling? not a chance. i'd rather enjoy my life than live in irrational fear of miniscule probablities. Software | Cleek
Chris Losinger wrote: these third-world peasants aren't victims of drug use. they are victims of drug production. ROTF! And, erm, use and production aren't related??? Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C# MyXaml MyXaml Blog Hunt The Wumpus RealDevs.Net
-
Chris Losinger wrote: these third-world peasants aren't victims of drug use. they are victims of drug production. ROTF! And, erm, use and production aren't related??? Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C# MyXaml MyXaml Blog Hunt The Wumpus RealDevs.Net
drugs can be produced without creating victims (Phizer does it all the time, as does Purdue Pharma, Miller and RJ Reynolds); even illegal drugs can be made without creating victims: pot does not require its producer and distributor to live in fear and poverty in order to have the desired effect on the user; a person can grow it in any patch of dirt, without putting themselves under the thumb of organized crime. and regardless of how it's produced, i was asking about the victims created by its use (and specifically, my use). because yes, i know (believe me, i know) for some people drugs will wreck their personal lives, their family, their job, everything. none of that happened when i did it. Software | Cleek
-
I`m SO there wrote: You're an idiot hmmm... You don't know me, yet you call me an idiot. I don't think you are an idiot, just a hot head who reacts negatively to anyone who has a different opinion than you do. It is something you should work on. These forums are for friendly discussion, not for name calling. We all try to get along here so that we can share our knowledge and opinions. Name calling has no part in that. You are new here on CP, but you will learn.
[
](http://www.canucks.com)"You're obviously a superstar." - Christian Graus about me - 12 Feb '03 "Obviously ??? You're definitely a superstar!!!" mYkel - 21 Jun '04 Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
Chris Losinger wrote: i've taken drugs PJ Arends wrote: Now that explains a lot. That there sounds like some mighty nice discussin'. It sounds to me like you reacted quite negatively towards Chris because his opinion on this subject differs from yours. I was pointing out that reacting negatively (like you did, then I did on purpose) gets us nowhere. You completely missed the point. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2
-
I`m SO there wrote: You're an idiot hmmm... You don't know me, yet you call me an idiot. I don't think you are an idiot, just a hot head who reacts negatively to anyone who has a different opinion than you do. It is something you should work on. These forums are for friendly discussion, not for name calling. We all try to get along here so that we can share our knowledge and opinions. Name calling has no part in that. You are new here on CP, but you will learn.
[
](http://www.canucks.com)"You're obviously a superstar." - Christian Graus about me - 12 Feb '03 "Obviously ??? You're definitely a superstar!!!" mYkel - 21 Jun '04 Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
...and I'm not new here. I've been reading these discussions and participating occasionally for over 2 years. I started a fresh account because I felt like it. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2
-
Chris Losinger wrote: i've taken drugs PJ Arends wrote: Now that explains a lot. That there sounds like some mighty nice discussin'. It sounds to me like you reacted quite negatively towards Chris because his opinion on this subject differs from yours. I was pointing out that reacting negatively (like you did, then I did on purpose) gets us nowhere. You completely missed the point. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2
Oh, go get as sense of humour
[
](http://www.canucks.com)"You're obviously a superstar." - Christian Graus about me - 12 Feb '03 "Obviously ??? You're definitely a superstar!!!" mYkel - 21 Jun '04 Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
-
...and I'm not new here. I've been reading these discussions and participating occasionally for over 2 years. I started a fresh account because I felt like it. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2
-
Oh, go get as sense of humour
[
](http://www.canucks.com)"You're obviously a superstar." - Christian Graus about me - 12 Feb '03 "Obviously ??? You're definitely a superstar!!!" mYkel - 21 Jun '04 Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
I think it's you who needs to get a sense of humor. Inserting a nice "friendly" attack in the middle of a serious discussion, without indication that it's a joke, doesn't indicate a good sense of humor to me. Do you really think anyone thought you were joking? Anyways, I'm outta here. I gotta go pick up a sense of humor. Hopefully I can get one as good as yours! :P;) see, it's a joke! I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2