Sorry Ms. Raich, the drug war is more important than your life

Put quite simply, the usurpation of power by the Federal government. That should be enough to get any thinking Americans dander all in a fluff
!

How true,

It should but folks become so conditioned to losing rights in the name of safety and for the betterment of us all or so we are told, that they take it. So far it seems if one stands he stands alone and is made an example of till no one else whats to be in his shoes.
Unlike the folks of a little over 200 years ago this is our government not a foreign entity and freedoms or the loss of haven't quite reached such a awful state as then. Also like the tree of gun freedom I keep harping on, the loss of freedoms and the taking of more power by the powers that be come one chip at a time.
Hope that simpleton explanation is understood.

I for one feel it is/will be a snow ball effect and as time moves forward it will increasingly move faster in the wrong direction. Isn't that what has happened in the past? and man today is no different than man of yesteryear.
 
I for one feel it is/will be a snow ball effect and as time moves forward it will increasingly move faster in the wrong direction.

Fortunately for you and me, we have things like message boards. Ain't nothing gonna slip under the radar when everyone can find out about it within minutes. Like that article that some other member posted - we don't have to wait on the NRA or ____ to do the heavy lifting anymore. Enough of us can cry foul, and totally destroy someone's carreer and future if we disliked that person enough. Nobody's safe - not even those in our own ranks; not even old hunters from Wyoming.

As soon as Feinstein or Boxer really start pushing on HR1022, or if the media really starts making a big deal, I assure you that overnight, everyone will know about the CCW permits that Feinstein and Boxer carry. CCW permits from Cali, no less.

And some other poster brought this up. Drugs can be bad. And so can guns. We expect to be trusted with our guns, so does the analogy apply to a joint or two on the side? (not to be mixed together, of course, your accuracy would go hell).
 
(not to be mixed together, of course, your accuracy would go hell).

That could be debated... The best squeeze is a relaxed squeeze. And focus--uh-uh-UHM! That could make one box of shells last all afternoon! Your concentration might go to hell though. I could see it now...

"WOW! That orange dot is, like--HUGE! Whoa..."
(insert several minutes or maybe half an hour while hypnotized by the cool orange spot that looks like it's the size of a manhole cover...)

BANG!!

"Whoa, what was that? Oh yah, nevermind. Hey, there's a black spot on the orange spot now! Cool... Pass me the chips while I check out that new black spot..." :D

Yah--I know :D Amazing what late-night imagination can do...
 
And focus--uh-uh-UHM!

Touche. You win this round. But what about etiquette? Smokers can be slobs.

"I swear, I thought I checked the action to make sure there was nothing chambered! I musta been munchin' on some Doritos or something man. Whoa look! The blood patterns are making all sorts of trippy swirly patterns, dude!"

On a related note, back when I *inhaled*, I noticed that it improved my driving. Unlike what the state-sanctioned commercials on tv said. And then one day, I had to go find myself a job. So no more dabbling for me.
 
I don't believe the government will allow "home brew" marijuana. If they legalize it, they will regulate it to the point that only drug companies will be able distribute it and the home growers will still be arrested for doing such. Much like if you tried to make "home brew" codeine for your consumption.

State governments which have allowed medical use have not smothered growers with regulations, and planting a codeine seed will probably not yield a satisfactory result, but planting a cannabis seed probably will. Growing cannabis is much less complicated than making beer or wine (neither of which is all that hard), and people do those things all the time.
 
To all the "right to self medicate" or "do whatever you want with drugs in your own home":

You go buy yourself an aircraft (bear with me, I know they're expensive). Have someone just getting high as a kite do extensive maintenance on it and you personally take off in it AS SOON as the aircraft is finished being airworthy. By the way, no parachutes, of course. You don't have them on an airline, so no safety nets or hypetheticals.

Call it what you will. Talk big all you want. But, you and I KNOW that no one has a hair on their a$$ to trust a mechanics' work being under the influence of drugs.

So we let our aircraft mechanics jabber away on a cell phone while they do their work. Anyone read any studies on how this affects concentraction in traffic? Bet it's not much different from the effects on concentration during work of any kind.

How bout we outlaw having a fight with your wife over the cell phone because someone might do it while maintaining aircraft?
 
The fact that MM hasn't been studied nearly enough for FDA approval renders that statement valueless. What it's interactions with other medications, or even other mega-dose vitamins or minerals will be, is unknown. While the effects may be benign health-wise, they may render the pain-relief null and void. If there is a discussion, let's keep it on an even field.
Because research continues to be blocked. Still, much research has been done here and overseas. The US Government even conducted its own research and to this day still supplies one of its patients with a canister of joints to smoke.
 
No, the post was full of "it is easy to find and public record". You are just trying to use the tired internet tactic of "show me every little piece of cut and paste info you can find (whichI[sic] will probably deny also) or I will invalidate your whole argument with a shrug, a glib statement and a true lack of interest in learning the truth." This tactic is so old and so sad. It is just a way for people to say "unless you can beat me over the head with information I am too intellectually lazy to look it up and unwilling to let go of my own ignorance unless forced to do so." It so much easier to deny, deny, deny than it is to defend your own side ofthe[sic] argument.

Hardly, but the same can be said for your tired old tactic of "you're just too lazy to find what I believe must be out there, it just HAS to be." I'm really not interested in attempting to find information that you have already found. So, I ask for the location. I don't need cut and paste, just the web site, and the important info's location. There's nothing glib about that, unless, of course, you don't have it.

Could you also see where I've taken a side in this argument? I have simply pointed out errors in the logic used, on both sides. While I believe that MM must be studied further, and that the various locales that it is grown in yield different results. Some aren't as good at relieving pain as others. As has been repeatedly brought up by both camps, medications affect people differently. You wouldn't want to give someone a medication that was less effective, would you? The fact that various strains of Marijuana are different is the same thing, like it or not. Not only that, but prople with terminal illnesses would be far better served with the use of Heroin as a pain-killer than either marijuana or morphine, as Heroin, in the proper doses, does the analgesic without dimming the mind, as the other two are wont to do.

Because research continues to be blocked. Still, much research has been done here and overseas. The US Government even conducted its own research and to this day still supplies one of its patients with a canister of joints to smoke.

That's merely stating what I said, not replying. The governments research wasn't into analgesic effects, nor interactions with other classes of drugs. There actually hasn't been much in the manner of FDA studies (as a class of study) done outside of this country, especially not recently.

We can rant and rave all day about the supposed advantages of marijuana, but the truth of the matter is inescapable. There has been little research done about the drug, or it's interactions, or anaphylactic properties. There has been practically zero work done on the advantages and disadvantages of a particular strain of marijuana over another. Until these questions can be answered, marijuana lies in the realm of the Superdrug that has been developed, but is hidden away by the "Drug Companies".
 
That's merely stating what I said, not replying. The governments research wasn't into analgesic effects, nor interactions with other classes of drugs. There actually hasn't been much in the manner of FDA studies (as a class of study) done outside of this country, especially not recently.

We can rant and rave all day about the supposed advantages of marijuana, but the truth of the matter is inescapable. There has been little research done about the drug, or it's interactions, or anaphylactic properties. There has been practically zero work done on the advantages and disadvantages of a particular strain of marijuana over another. Until these questions can be answered, marijuana lies in the realm of the Superdrug that has been developed, but is hidden away by the "Drug Companies".

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/medpaper.htm
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/ctptoc.htm
http://www.medmjscience.org/Pages/science/pierson.bhtml (bad coding but the study can still be looked up)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_marijuana#Citations_of_modern_medical_reports_on_cannabis
 
Redworm, the study involving the military admits that it was for the purpose of using TCH as a disabling agent, sir. The Wikipedia is a summation of quotes for and against it's use. The first study is a history, and doesn't actually present any study results. The study done by California is relevant as far as it goes. Thank you for supplying it. I may be able to reference even more info through it.

However, it wasn't a study based on FDA criterion. We will simply have to have that before utilization on a Federally-approved level becomes possible. You will also note that the oral, as well as inhalable, doses were laboratory prepared, and of medical grade cannabis. I'm fairly certain that this is considerably more therapeutic than the local doobie.:)
 
The Wikipedia is a summation of quotes for and against it's use.
No, the wikipedia link pointed to a section of medical reports.

However, it wasn't a study based on FDA criterion.
So what? The FDA is not the end-all be-all of certification. There are plenty of things the FDA has approved that are horrible to the human body. There are plenty of perfectly safe substances that various other organizations have accepted and have been approved in other nations but not by the FDA.

Just because something isn't FDA approved does not mean it's bad for you and just because something is FDA approved does not mean it's good for you.

That being said, numerous studies have been made on on this stuff for medicinal and other purposes. There is very little danger. I do agree that more study would be great but it's not an unknown substance that was recently discovered. People have been using it for thousands of years.

"Medical grade marijuana" is about a descriptive a term as "assault weapons". Yes, the local doobie will probably be as therapeutic as that supplied by a lab because potheads can be damn good horticulturalists.
 
"So we let our aircraft mechanics jabber away on a cell phone while they do their work. Anyone read any studies on how this affects concentraction in traffic? Bet it's not much different from the effects on concentration during work of any kind."

"How bout we outlaw having a fight with your wife over the cell phone because someone might do it while maintaining aircraft?"

My employer doesn't allow work to be performed while on a personal phone call. Do others? I'm sure they do. But, two wrongs don't make a right.

Besides, talking on a phone is a momentary distraction. Stop work. Get done with conversation. Back up three steps. Continue work.

High on marijuana? Let's see...Constant altered state of mind...Did I just do this? Or that? Back up, uhh, I don't know where...I think step 11...What's the torque value? :rolleyes:

Back to my original "irrelevent and illogical rant" question. (For the record, not ranting just asking a simple question due to the fact it has been an issue in the industry). Would you fly in an airplane after a mechanic was under the influence of marijuana?

And, again, back to my other statement. People that want to make it a "right" advocate a seed to be planted(no pun) to expand onto dangerous ground.

When it all comes down to it:

1. I see people spending more time on legalizing marijuana than on other way more important issues.
2. I think the vast majority just want it to be legalized so they can just get high. Period.
 
Tuttle8,

Can you not see the completely illogical leap from marijuana being used for medical reasons or even recreational reason to a "worst case scenerio" like the one you put forth?

What you are doing is like saying "we cannot allow allergy medicine to be sold becase what if someone takes it while driving a bus full of nuns and orphans down a winding road and they get drowsy and drive off the cliff killing all on board?"

Anything can be taken to a "worst case" extreme. If extremes are your only argument then you really don't have one.
 
Besides, talking on a phone is a momentary distraction. Stop work. Get done with conversation. Back up three steps. Continue work.

High on marijuana? Let's see...Constant altered state of mind...Did I just do this? Or that? Back up, uhh, I don't know where...I think step 11...What's the torque value?

Back to my original "irrelevent and illogical rant" question. (For the record, not ranting just asking a simple question due to the fact it has been an issue in the industry). Would you fly in an airplane after a mechanic was under the influence of marijuana?

Is anybody suggesting that we actually allow airplane mechanics to work while high? Or do you think we'd probably try to keep them from doing so (possibly with stiff legal penalties) just like we prohibit them from working while drunk?

When it all comes down to it:

1. I see people spending more time on legalizing marijuana than on other way more important issues.
2. I think the vast majority just want it to be legalized so they can just get high. Period.

1. Such as what? Firearms rights? Believe it or not, to many people this is just as much an infringement of our civil liberties (and an unreasonable expansion of federal power) as many gun laws.
2. Much the same way a lot of people wanted prohibition to end just so they could get drunk. Your point? Expansion of federal power is a good thing, as long as it's something you don't want to do?
 
Would you fly in an airplane after a mechanic was under the influence of marijuana?

Is prohibition protecting us from stoned mechanics?

Is the idea behind the question that mechanics can't find illegal weed, or that they would suddenly take up getting stoned for work if it were legal? Or is there some other idea behind the question?
 
"Tuttle8,

Can you not see the completely illogical leap from marijuana being used for medical reasons or even recreational reason to a "worst case scenerio" like the one you put forth?

What you are doing is like saying "we cannot allow allergy medicine to be sold becase what if someone takes it while driving a bus full of nuns and orphans down a winding road and they get drowsy and drive off the cliff killing all on board?"

Anything can be taken to a "worst case" extreme. If extremes are your only argument then you really don't have one."

There is no illogical leap from use for "recreational reason". Seems like it's bad enough when a drunk driver gets behind the wheel...And don't tell me that a "pot smoker doesn't" or it's not any worse...

I didn't know a pot smoker that doesn't get high everytime he uses. An allergy med may have a side effect. It's not that I wouldn't allow the med to be sold, only the driver take the med first and see if he reacts to it. A very illogical leap of example to me...
 
". Such as what? Firearms rights? Believe it or not, to many people this is just as much an infringement of our civil liberties (and an unreasonable expansion of federal power) as many gun laws.
2. Much the same way a lot of people wanted prohibition to end just so they could get drunk. Your point? Expansion of federal power is a good thing, as long as it's something you don't want to do?"

1.Yes, firearms rights. That is your take on the Constitution. Self medication, right? Pretty darn vague. RKBA? Pretty darn clear...

2. My point is people are too irresponsible as it is and a government that allows drunk drivers off with a slap on the wrist while parents still don't get their child back. Yep, people are going to do it anyway...so let's just make it legal and the problem will disappear...:rolleyes:
 
"Tuttle8,

Can you not see the completely illogical leap from marijuana being used for medical reasons or even recreational reason to a "worst case scenerio" like the one you put forth?

What you are doing is like saying "we cannot allow allergy medicine to be sold becase what if someone takes it while driving a bus full of nuns and orphans down a winding road and they get drowsy and drive off the cliff killing all on board?"

Anything can be taken to a "worst case" extreme. If extremes are your only argument then you really don't have one."

There is no illogical leap from use for "recreational reason". Seems like it's bad enough when a drunk driver gets behind the wheel...And don't tell me that a "pot smoker doesn't" or it's not any worse...

I didn't know a pot smoker that doesn't get high everytime he uses. An allergy med may have a side effect. It's not that I wouldn't allow the med to be sold, only the driver take the med first and see if he reacts to it. A very illogical leap of example to me...

Nobody is claiming that pot smokers don't...but do you mind explaining how it's worse? How recreational marijuana use couldn't simply be regulated much the same way alcohol use is now?

I mean you talk about stoned airplane mechanics, but you fail to explain how A) this is any different than alcohol and B) this doesn't already happen due to other medications. I mean, once you consider the availability of alcohol as well as the excessive effect on work performance many over-the-counter medications (such as Benadryl) routinely have I just don't know where you're getting this idea that if legalization were to happen suddenly airplane mechanics everywhere would be lighting up on their lunch breaks and jets would be falling from the sky.
 
"Is the idea behind the question that mechanics can't find illegal weed, or that they would suddenly take up getting stoned for work if it were legal? Or is there some other idea behind the question?"

My true idea, if you are asking in earnest...

If smoking pot should be a "right to self medicate", and all the arguement that it doesn't have the adverse effects, so to speak, as some posters have claimed, then would you simply climb aboard?

The simple answer in anybody's logical mind that noone has the humility to say outright is, NO. Maybe because I made a valid point against legalizing a product that immediately alters the mind, and stays that way for a prolonged period of time and nobody wants to lose ground by agreeing with me. Mechanic gets high at home, just like the law allows. A few minutes later, gets in his car and goes to work....

People want to legalize it for "medicinal purposes only", and I think it will get chipped away to the point like our right to bear arms is nothing like it used to be.
 
1.Yes, firearms rights. That is your take on the Constitution. Self medication, right? Pretty darn vague. RKBA? Pretty darn clear...

2. My point is people are too irresponsible as it is and a government that allows drunk drivers off with a slap on the wrist while parents still don't get their child back. Yep, people are going to do it anyway...so let's just make it legal and the problem will disappear...

1. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments aren't much less clear than the Second...it's just that the interstate commerce clause has been so horribly abused as to render them obsolete. Also, RKBA isn't as clear as you think it is, unless you have the Teacher's Edition of the Constitution where "arms," "bear," and "infringe" are clearly defined. I see nothing in the text saying you can own a magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle with flash suppressor and pistol grip. You can argue "RKBA, RKBA!" all day, but the text of the Constitution doesn't support you anymore than it supports my right to grow my own marijuana in my backyard (or at the least my state's right to allow me to). Oddly I favor a liberal interpretation on both issues, which is to say I'm a fan of the Ninth and Tenth in addition to the Second. The other seven are pretty groovy, too.

2. Is anybody suggesting making drinking and driving (or driving while high) legal? I'm all for much stiffer penalties for both, regardless of what's legal to consume and what's not. What are you even getting at?
 
Back
Top