Blissninnies Strike Again - new ban!

Our cities are warzones because of the prohibition of drugs. The WOD has evicerated the Fourth Amendment to the point that the mere mention of drugs in a SW affidavit will get you a rubberstamped approval.
The affect has trickled down to lawful gun owners who are easily targeted because govt can't stop the violence associated with the prohibited drug trade. Yes, we the sheep are easier to control than the drug traffikers. It gives the policy makers warm fuzzies thinking they've done something. Don't forget the US goobermint has played a role in drug traffiking when it has suited their purpose. That big SWAT operation in Panama kicked off only because our man Noriega's drug traffiking no longer suited our purpose.
Do I condone drug use? No. I'm a certified DARE officer who has put effort into educating young people on the dangers of drug abuse. But I'm a realist enough to see that what we're doing isn't working. It didn't work for prohibition, it won't work now.
 
Last edited:
'Ummmm yeah, if you assume that all extacy on the market is made to exacting conditions in a lab with the same controls as any perscription drug.'

That hasn't anything to do with the prohbition, does it? About to the same degree that the rise in alcohol deaths during the first Prohibition had to do with it? :rolleyes:

I would also like to note that my sister died from an impure drug dose, so yes, I know a little bit about such things.
 
IIRC, Hemp oil is a seed product, produced by pressing the grain. THC is produced only in one species of the hemp family, and is secreted as a resinous sap from the leaves. I don't think hemp oil has any THC in it. I remember from the museum in Amsterdam, that it's supposed to be lots better for cooking than olive oil. No bad cholesterol, high smoke point, good flavor etc. Good lubricating properties too, and you can finish wood with it. Fascinating plants, hemp. Lots of uses. Too bad you can get high off of it too. For what it's worth, we already have laws against doing things under the influence that would hurt others. I'm not sure it's worth the effort to keep that one plant illegal. Seems like another Prohibition. Flame suit on. :D
 
Britannica said:
Cannabis,
plant genus belonging to the family Cannabaceae of the nettle order (Urticales). The genus comprises one species, hemp (; C. sativa), a stout, aromatic, erect annual herb that originated in Central Asia and is now cultivated widely in the North Temperate Zone. A tall, canelike variety is raised for the production of hemp fibre, while the female plant of a short, branchier variety is prized as the more abundant source of marijuana .


Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
Click to expand...

So no, there's only one species of it.
 
Micro, you are a marvel of consistency!


You consistently consider yourself an expert on things about which you know only the popular mantra.


HINT: Research the history.
 
I always look at the "pro-hemp" argument with extreme skepticism. The people who feel a need to enumerate all of the benefits of hemp, real or exaggerated, are the same ones who turn around and tell you in detail how great it is to smoke marijuana.

Now, is their position that hemp-farming is beneficial because hemp makes the best rope, the strongest fabrics, the most flavorful cooking oil, the slickest lubrication, the least polluting auto fuel, can cure cancer, end world hunger and do your taxes OR because they want to sit around getting high, eating potato chips and watching Gilligan's Island reruns?

I tend to listen to arguments that do not include the ingestion of reality-shifting substances as a "benefit" to society. The pro-hemp lobby would do a lot better convincing America about their wunder-crop if they weren't stoned while advocating it...
 
Regarding Councilman Tom LaBonge and the LACC ban on Silly String;
this is so ludicrous and pathetic as to be beyond the pale.
I really must stop reading this crap, I am starting to loose my faith in mankind.

cheers, ab
 
I always look at the "pro-hemp" argument with extreme skepticism. The people who feel a need to enumerate all of the benefits of hemp, real or exaggerated, are the same ones who turn around and tell you in detail how great it is to smoke marijuana.
Click to expand...
You know what? I'd be happy to legalize pot if only to get the stupid hippies to shut up about how it's the most useful and versatile plant ever.
 
I tend to listen to arguments that do not include the ingestion of reality-shifting substances as a "benefit" to society. The pro-hemp lobby would do a lot better convincing America about their wunder-crop if they weren't stoned while advocating it...
Click to expand...

FWIW: I don't smoke, drink, or sniff.


Here's some questions for you re: drugs, useful or not.

Does my body belong to me? If yes, do I, as a free, responsible individual, have the natural/God-given, inalienable right to abuse it as I see fit by hamburgers, marijuana, cigarettes, or the Atkins diet?

Do you know that the cost of enforcing the drug prohibition is about 200 billion dollars a year in America alone?

mosquito_l.jpg
 
The problem with legalizing drugs has nothing to do with respecting anyone's "god"-given right to abuse their own body. The problem lies in the fact that people on drugs tend to affect the society around them. Want to get on a plane piloted by a man who's been on a three-day meth bender? Or do you want your children driven to school by a pot-toking burnout? How about a crack addict patrolling the streets in a squad car?

We've got enough trouble with people abusing alcohol, and subsequently, being responsible for the death or injury of innocents, so what possible benefit could society receive with an influx of more mind-altering substances? And you think health insurance is expensive now, try introducing more dangerous drugs into the mainstream; our emergency rooms and hospital beds will be teeming with overdosers. And that's not even taking into the account the long-term effects, of which, despite the protestations of the pro-drug crowd, are indeed many.. Heroin, Coke, MDMA, Meth -- the only purpose they serve is to bring temporary relief to weak people who either refuse to or are incapable of dealing with the pressures of reality.

And if you want to get really abstract, you mentioned a person's "god"-given right to abuse their body, yes? Well, according to Christian philosophy, drug abuse falls under the "Thou shall not kill" statute, the violation of being a mortal sin. In fact, no major monotheistic religion either advocates or permits drug use. I think the gods are OK with Silly String, though.....
 
In fact, no major monotheistic religion either advocates or permits drug use.
Click to expand...

Actually, cannabis was used in the First Temple. Further, the Old Testament claims that getting monstrously drunk, 'so that he won't know right from wrong and left from right' is a mizva at least on one Jewish holiday.

(Aside: Ain't it good to be an agnostic Jew? :) )

Want to get on a plane piloted by a man who's been on a three-day meth bender?
Click to expand...

You don't think there's a reason they don't let drunk pilots aboard planes?
And I ask again, why is there no blood in the streets in Switzerland?
Also, legalizing drugs doesn't mean more people will necessarily smoke/use them. Look at how low the number of 'stoners' is in Holland compared to the US of A.

P.S.


Want to get on a plane piloted by a man who's been on a three-day meth bender?
Click to expand...

"During Vietnam both the Air Force and Navy made amphetamines available to aviators. Intermittently since Vietnam up through Desert Storm the Air Force has used both amphetamines and sedatives in selected aircraft for specific missions."

Source: "Performance Maintenance During Continuous Flight Operations: A Guide For Flight Surgeons," NAVMED P-6410, Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center, Jan. 1, 2000, p. 8, available online through the Virtual Naval Hospital of the University of Iowa, at http://www.vnh.org/PerformMaint/, last accessed Jan. 2, 2003.

"Following Desert Storm an anonymous survey of deployed fighter pilots was completed. 464 surveys were returned (43%). For Desert Storm: 57% used stimulants at some time (17% routinely, 58% occasionally, 25% only once). Within individual units, usage varied from 3% to 96%, with higher usage in units tasked for sustained combat patrol (CAP) missions. Sixty one percent of those who used stimulants reported them essential to mission accomplishment.

Source: "Performance Maintenance During Continuous Flight Operations: A Guide For Flight Surgeons," NAVMED P-6410, Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center, Jan. 1, 2000, p. 11, available online through the Virtual Naval Hospital of the http://www.vnh.org/PerformMaint/, last accessed Jan. 2, 2003.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top