PDA

View Full Version : Marijuana



Pages : [1] 2

LivingDeadDoll
February 24th, 2005, 05:16 PM
So what are everyones views on marijuana, politics, and the bible?
Do you think it should be legal?
Do you support medicinal use?
Recreational use?
Do you think marijuana is mentioned/used in the bible?
Do you think it is wrong all together?
And please elaborate on your view...

PureX
February 24th, 2005, 05:51 PM
I suppose it should be treated the way we treat alcohol use. There isn't really much difference between them, functionally.

cattyfan
February 24th, 2005, 06:07 PM
according to studies, caffeine has a more physiologically damaging effect on the body (especially the brain) than either marijuana or alcohol.

Thia
February 24th, 2005, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by cattyfan

according to studies, caffeine has a more physiologically damaging effect on the body (especially the brain) than either marijuana or alcohol.

(Pouring Diet Coke down drain....)

Alcohol can be such a bad thing - it ruins relationships, careers, you name it. Marijuana, on the other hand, just seems to make people zone out. My brother-in-law, a doctor, smoked marijuana while undergoing chemo for his cancer and it helped him overcome his nausea and perk up his appetite a tad. Don't know of any Biblical implications regarding pot, though!

LivingDeadDoll
February 24th, 2005, 06:28 PM
My husband has multiple sclerosis and he uses it for relief of many syptoms both physical and psychological. He chooses this method of symptom control over injecting a bunch of chemicals into his body every week. Marijuana treats many many things and has little to no side effects compared to the chemicals that are pushed upon us at every doctor visit. Not only would it benefit us medicinally to be legalized but it would in turn bring in billions of dollars in revenue. Many things would be bettered by legalizing it.


And i agree with the statement that it should be treated the way we treat alcohol use. Atleast that is the best way i can think of to go about the legalization.

I must say that i am extremely curious about marijuana use and what the bible has to say, if anyone is knowledgable in this area please comment on that effect...

BillyBob
February 24th, 2005, 06:41 PM
I don't have a problem with marijuana being decriminalized, but most recreational drugs are extremely detrimental to society.

Ninjashadow
February 24th, 2005, 06:49 PM
I think that marijuana is a gateway drug, but isn't anyworse than achohol as far as the effects go. I agree with PureX in that if marijuana were to be legalized, it should have the same laws as alcohol.

BillyBob
February 24th, 2005, 06:52 PM
Yes, as much as I hate to admit it, I also agree with PureX. Fortunately, he has me on IGNORE so he'll never know! :banana:

Ninjashadow
February 24th, 2005, 06:55 PM
Really, though, what's the difference between being stoned on marijuana and being drunk on hard liquor?

LivingDeadDoll
February 24th, 2005, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by ninjashadow

I think that marijuana is a gateway drug, but isn't anyworse than achohol as far as the effects go. I agree with PureX in that if marijuana were to be legalized, it should have the same laws as alcohol.

I don't think that the people who see marijuana as a gateway drug would feel the same if it were legal. I have read on more than one occasion and happen to agree that if they start having drug testing in schools that children would be more apt to do a drug that flushes out of their system more quickly than marijuana does, say for instance...heroin. I think the same goes for drug testing for jobs also. So, i feel that while it is illegal it is posing more of a harm than of it were not. I have much more basis for my beliefs but i am keeping it short and to the point.

LivingDeadDoll
February 24th, 2005, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by ninjashadow

Really, though, what's the difference between being stoned on marijuana and being drunk on hard liquor?

A really bad hangover:chuckle:

Ninjashadow
February 24th, 2005, 07:04 PM
Well, yes, this is true.

As far as my feelings on being a gateway drug, I think that if it were legalized, the government can crack down on the harsher stuff and not spend a lot of time on mary jane.

billwald
February 24th, 2005, 07:15 PM
I think that milk is a gateway drug.

The difference between MJ and booze is that MJ doesn't incite to violence.

Most street cops including myself think that MJ should be legalized.

drRansom
February 24th, 2005, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by Thia

(Pouring Diet Coke down drain....)


That's a great idea! Aspartame is actually an extremely poisonous sweetener. Nasty stuff...

LivingDeadDoll
February 24th, 2005, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by billwald
Most street cops including myself think that MJ should be legalized.

Yeah, that's the funny thing about it, most people do want it to be legalized. I think the reason why it hasn't been is because they can't decide which way it would profit them more monitarily.
Darn Anslinger!

Ninjashadow
February 24th, 2005, 07:59 PM
If marijuana is legalized, small town cops won't be able to plant it on teenagers and arrest them for it. You know, since that's basically all there is for them to do. ;)

billwald
February 24th, 2005, 08:07 PM
If your local police are committing perjury then you and your fellow citizens should do something about it. You live in the Confereracy?

Ninjashadow
February 24th, 2005, 08:09 PM
I was joking about small town cops and how they don't have much to do.

drRansom
February 24th, 2005, 08:11 PM
Recently I stumbled upon this site:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/browne/browne32.html

Here's an exerpt:


The Drug Crisis
by Harry Browne

Few people are aware that before World War I, a 9-year-old girl could walk into a drug store and buy heroin.

That's right – heroin. She didn't need a doctor's prescription or a note from her parents. She could buy it right off the shelf. Bayer and other large drug companies sold heroin as a pain-reliever and sedative in measured doses – just the way aspirin is sold today. Cocaine, opium, and marijuana were readily available as well. No Drug Enforcement Agency, no undercover cops, no "Parents – the Anti-Drug" commercials. Just people going about their own business is whatever way they chose.

Pretty compelling info.

Also in the site is a link to the University of Buffalo's Addiction Research Unit where they posted labels and ads from the 19th & 20th centuries showing the ingredients of many of todays banned psychotropic substances.

http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/preprohibition.htm

LivingDeadDoll
February 24th, 2005, 08:15 PM
drRansom-

What do you conclude from that excerpt?

drRansom
February 24th, 2005, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll

drRansom-

What do you conclude from that excerpt?

I simply posted the excerpt to pique interest. Do you mean what do I think of the article as a whole?

I pretty much think Harry Browne hit it on the head. I have to agree with him. Before these various psychotropes were outlawed, America didn't have a massive drug problem. You have a war on drugs; drug abuse escalates. War on crime; crime escalates. War on poverty; more poverty. And in a similar vein, we have a war on terror today; we're only going to see more terror.

Lighthouse
February 24th, 2005, 11:59 PM
I can't say that the Bible says anything about it, but I see no problem withe the legalization for medicinal purposes.

As far as the alcohol thing goes, I think the age should be lowered to 18. If they can vote, and die for the country, they should be allowed to drink.

firechyld
February 25th, 2005, 12:15 AM
Dr ransom:

I read that article, and I couldn't agree with you more. So many of the problems surrounding drug culture can be directly sourced to the "war on drugs".

lighthouse:


As far as the alcohol thing goes, I think the age should be lowered to 18. If they can vote, and die for the country, they should be allowed to drink.

The legal drinking age down here is 18, and has been for a very long time. It's the age you become an adult, and receive all the rights and responsibilities associated with that label.

Most people I've spoken to about it find the staggering of the age of adulthood in the US rather odd.

elohiym
February 25th, 2005, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll

I must say that i am extremely curious about marijuana use and what the bible has to say, if anyone is knowledgable in this area please comment on that effect... God created the hemp plant, along with every "herb yielding seed after his kind..." According to God, the hemp was good.

Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

God instructed man to use the herbs as food. He gave those herbs to mankind to be consumed, and put no restrictions on how the herbs could be used.

Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat (food).

God gave the herbs "for the service of man."

Psalms 104:14 He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth.

Paul talks about doctrines of devils, one of which was commanding to abstain from certain foods. A command to abstain from hemp would clearly be a doctrine of devils, as hemp was created, like all herbs, to be received with thanksgiving. Note Paul's choice of words, and how it ties into Genesis.

1 Timothy 4:1-5 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats (foods), which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature (created thing) of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Finally, Jesus states that nothing one puts in their mouth defiles them...

Mark 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.

Mr Jack
February 25th, 2005, 04:25 AM
Wow. I never expected the folks round here to be so balanced on this issue.

If I ran the world marijuana would be legal, and taxed, like alcohol. Although it is harmful if taken in large quantities and can trigger psychosis in those already susceptible, for the vast majority of people who take, or have taken it, doing a little dope is a pleasant and harmless experience.

I don't believe there's any evidence of marijuana as a gateway drug. In Britain today something like 45% of 18-25 year olds have tried marijuana on one or more occasions. The number that have taken anything else is far smaller.

Granite
February 25th, 2005, 07:15 AM
Puff away, but all things in moderation.

BillyBob
February 25th, 2005, 07:17 AM
Try telling that to a crack head.

On Fire
February 25th, 2005, 07:28 AM
I know a crack head. He's in jail for the 5th or 6th time. His life is in ruins. He's also a believer.

LivingDeadDoll
February 25th, 2005, 07:56 AM
elohiym - thank you for that bible realated post, my curiosity was killing me.

Mr Jack - even though i am new here, i must say i was unsure of how everyone would react to this issue myself. i too was surprised that everyone has the veiws that they do.

drRansom - I have to say i have not thought about what you said before, but i have to agree. Pressure on an issue does seem to cause the issue to grow.

lighthouse - yes the age of 18 does come with so many other responsibilities, one would think that drinking would be included on the list along side defending our country. If you did a poll of highschool kids i am quite sure you would find that most of them do drink already on occassion.



So is everyone familiar with how marijuana became illegal in the first place? It's almost amusing.

Mr. 5020
February 25th, 2005, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

If they can vote, and die for the country, they should be allowed to drink. These have what to do with one another?

One Eyed Jack
February 25th, 2005, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll
So is everyone familiar with how marijuana became illegal in the first place? It's almost amusing.

Reefer Madness?

LivingDeadDoll
February 25th, 2005, 08:26 AM
One would think that if your are deemed "responsible" enough to defend you country or have a say in who its leaders are (not that voting really matters he he), that they would also think you were responsible enough to handle alcohol. I hate to think that they would trust a group of young men overseas with guns and explosives, and trust that they do as they are given responsibility to do, if they don't even trust that they have enough common sense to drink responsibly. Sounds a little messed up to me, unless you think that maybe responsibility isn't the issue behind the age for legal consumption of alcohol. I mean, maybe i am missing their point all together. But i assume that responsibility is the issue.

One Eyed Jack
February 25th, 2005, 08:30 AM
I think underaged military personnel are allowed to drink on base.

LivingDeadDoll
February 25th, 2005, 08:30 AM
one eyed jack - do you know where the whole "reefer madness" thing came from?

( My favorite little oldie is the one where the man and woman are smoking dope and someone knocks on the door, the guy goes to open it and a man walks in, the guy who has been smoking dope looks at him and says " i know what you want...you want to kill me" and then proceeds to blugeon him. Like weed makes you psycho and violent or something. that one is SO funny to me, have you ever seen anyone that has just smoked a joint even have the motivation to answer the door much less bludgeon a person to death! lol)

LivingDeadDoll
February 25th, 2005, 08:37 AM
Harry Anslinger "Father of the Drug War, he was the first Commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Narcotics when Hoover was president. I'll find a good link to some info, i could explain it but it would take forever as i am a bit longwinded on the subject. But if you ever have the opportunity, you should see the movie called "Grass"
it is very educational about the prohibition and Anslinger and Reefer Madness" and it shows how many TRILLIONS of dollars we spend each year because marijuana is illegal. It's full of information. It's narrated by Woody Harrelson. Well worth a movie rental fee or even if you buy it, it's worth every penny. (or you could download it)

Granite
February 25th, 2005, 08:40 AM
Two words: Hearst, and hemp.

Ninjashadow
February 25th, 2005, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Two words: Hearst, and hemp.


Hearst and hemp is three words.

Granite
February 25th, 2005, 08:50 AM
Hearst. Hemp.

Hopefully everyone's happy now.

Ninjashadow
February 25th, 2005, 08:51 AM
Thanks grankite. You made my day.

Turbo
February 25th, 2005, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by elohiym

God created the hemp plant, along with every "herb yielding seed after his kind..." According to God, the hemp was good.

Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

God instructed man to use the herbs as food. He gave those herbs to mankind to be consumed, and put no restrictions on how the herbs could be used.

Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat (food).

God gave the herbs "for the service of man."

Psalms 104:14 He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth.

Paul talks about doctrines of devils, one of which was commanding to abstain from certain foods. A command to abstain from hemp would clearly be a doctrine of devils, as hemp was created, like all herbs, to be received with thanksgiving. Note Paul's choice of words, and how it ties into Genesis.

1 Timothy 4:1-5 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats (foods), which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature (created thing) of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Finally, Jesus states that nothing one puts in their mouth defiles them...

Mark 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. Likewise, one could could wrongly use these verses to justify drunkeness.

Granite
February 25th, 2005, 09:04 AM
Except that scripture clearly condemns drunkenness, and is silent re drug use.

One Eyed Jack
February 25th, 2005, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll

one eyed jack - do you know where the whole "reefer madness" thing came from?

I'm not sure.


( My favorite little oldie is the one where the man and woman are smoking dope and someone knocks on the door, the guy goes to open it and a man walks in, the guy who has been smoking dope looks at him and says " i know what you want...you want to kill me" and then proceeds to blugeon him. Like weed makes you psycho and violent or something. that one is SO funny to me, have you ever seen anyone that has just smoked a joint even have the motivation to answer the door much less bludgeon a person to death! lol)

Well, I've seen people motivated enough to answer the door anyway. As for bludgeoning someone to death, it seems to me that drunks tend to be a lot more violent than potheads.

One Eyed Jack
February 25th, 2005, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Except that scripture clearly condemns drunkenness, and is silent re drug use.

As long as you don't consider alcohol a drug. I think the condemnation of drunkenness can be extended to pretty much any inebriating substance.

Granite
February 25th, 2005, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

As long as you don't consider alcohol a drug. I think the condemnation of drunkenness can be extended to pretty much any inebriating substance.

Well, narcotics were known in biblical times--I mean, shrooms and the reefer have been around since mankind--yet the Bible does not address their use (or abuse) once. Alcohol is specified, and drunkenness explicitly condemned.

I would say that if booze is considered a drug, narcotics use could be defended biblically only because drinking in the right circumstance for the right reason is encouraged.

the Sibbie
February 25th, 2005, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

As long as you don't consider alcohol a drug. I think the condemnation of drunkenness can be extended to pretty much any inebriating substance. I agree with that. The only thing about legalizing marijuana would be that it would become like cigarettes. People could smoke it in the smoking sections of restaurants and it might be the smoke of choice in bars. How would you know how much you can smoke before you are considered inebriated? Wouldn't the second-hand smoke effect everyone else around, too? I have a hard enough time putting up with cigarette smoke at a nearby table at a restaurant or even being near the smoking section.

LivingDeadDoll
February 25th, 2005, 09:26 AM
Where i love you can no longer smoke in a place that serves food. That rung a lot of bells around here!

the Sibbie
February 25th, 2005, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll

Where i love you can no longer smoke in a place that serves food. That rung a lot of bells around here! Where you love? :eek:

LivingDeadDoll
February 25th, 2005, 09:31 AM
ok, if you were up all night with an infant you might not function so well yourself at nine in the morning! lol

where i live..

the Sibbie
February 25th, 2005, 09:33 AM
;)

PureX
February 25th, 2005, 10:05 AM
Or maybe it's the POT!!!!

*hehehe*

LivingDeadDoll
February 25th, 2005, 10:08 AM
he he he.....maybe so....

no, actually i do smoke it, but only at night when the kids are in bed, i have to many children to be slowed down like that!:chuckle:

Granite
February 25th, 2005, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll

So what are everyones views on marijuana, politics, and the bible?
Do you think it should be legal?
Do you support medicinal use?
Recreational use?
Do you think marijuana is mentioned/used in the bible?
Do you think it is wrong all together?
And please elaborate on your view...

Legalize the whole she-bang.

Done it a few times; it's all right but not my poison of choice (prefer beer).

Recreational, medicinal, whatever...you want to get your cats high with secondhand, knock yourself out.

That I know of it's not mentioned explicitly in the Bible, maybe I've missed something though.

It's wrong when abused--I know plenty of people who can handle a joint here or there or even every day, and others who've gone so completely overboard that smoking bud has dominated their life and flushed it.

Gerald
February 25th, 2005, 11:09 AM
Tried it about 20 years ago, found it to be terribly over-rated, and haven't touched it since.

On Fire
February 25th, 2005, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Gerald

Tried it about 20 years ago, found it to be terribly over-rated, and haven't touched it since. Stoner.

Gerald
February 25th, 2005, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by On Fire
Stoner. The same way one shot of whiskey every three months or so makes you a drunk, right...?

We can't all be the Paragon of Virtue™ that you are... :chuckle:

On Fire
February 25th, 2005, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Gerald
We can't all be the Paragon of Virtue™ that you are... :chuckle: Dare to Dream™.

Gerald
February 25th, 2005, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by On Fire
Dare to Dream™. Never! :p

Besides, you're about as much a Paragon of Virtue™ as Caligula.

BillyBob
February 25th, 2005, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

Tried it about 20 years ago, found it to be terribly over-rated, and haven't touched it since.

Kindness?

Gerald
February 25th, 2005, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob
Kindness? No, you ignominious poltroon, you beer-addled oaf!!

I'm not talking about that, as you are well aware if you've followed this thread with any attentiveness whatsovever!

(Like my Charles Emerson Winchester impression...?) :chuckle:

BillyBob
February 25th, 2005, 04:39 PM
'Poltroon'? :chuckle:

Flipper
February 25th, 2005, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Hearst. Hemp.

Hopefully everyone's happy now.

That was six words. You made it worse.

BillyBob
February 25th, 2005, 05:01 PM
:doh:

LivingDeadDoll
February 25th, 2005, 05:16 PM
So i guess that the bible really doesn't have a lot to say on the subject except that God gave us plants for our use. Strange how such a major topic of our time is not even really a discussed point in the bible. Maybe that's because there wasn't a reason to touch on the subject since it isn't a big deal like people today make it out to be. I wonder if i will live to see the legalization of it?

Ninjashadow
February 25th, 2005, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

No, you ignominious poltroon, you beer-addled oaf!!

I'm not talking about that, as you are well aware if you've followed this thread with any attentiveness whatsovever!

(Like my Charles Emerson Winchester impression...?) :chuckle:

It's always great when you can get a M*A*S*H reference into a post.

the Sibbie
February 25th, 2005, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by elohiym

God created the hemp plant, along with every "herb yielding seed after his kind..." According to God, the hemp was good.

Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

God instructed man to use the herbs as food. He gave those herbs to mankind to be consumed, and put no restrictions on how the herbs could be used.

Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat (food).

God gave the herbs "for the service of man."

Psalms 104:14 He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth.

Paul talks about doctrines of devils, one of which was commanding to abstain from certain foods. A command to abstain from hemp would clearly be a doctrine of devils, as hemp was created, like all herbs, to be received with thanksgiving. Note Paul's choice of words, and how it ties into Genesis.

1 Timothy 4:1-5 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats (foods), which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature (created thing) of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Finally, Jesus states that nothing one puts in their mouth defiles them...

Mark 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. So every poisonous plant is also good for food?

LivingDeadDoll
February 25th, 2005, 09:02 PM
poisonous?

the Sibbie
February 25th, 2005, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll

poisonous? What? Did I spell it wrong or something?

elohiym
February 26th, 2005, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

Likewise, one could could wrongly use these verses to justify drunkeness.

Luke 7:33-35 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! But wisdom is justified of all her children.

1 Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

Lighthouse
February 26th, 2005, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by Mr. 5020

These have what to do with one another?
Don't ask stupid questions.:nono:

Or did you mean to ask what they had to do with marijuana?;)

Lighthouse
February 26th, 2005, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

I think underaged military personnel are allowed to drink on base.
Actually they can drink anywhere. As long as they present their Military ID.

elohiym
February 26th, 2005, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by the Sibbie

So every poisonous plant is also good for food?

Do you really need to stretch it that far? I'm sure the first time a human ate some marijuana, she found it more pleasant than the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good evil, or poison oak.

Every herb is given to mankind, whether it be poisonous or not. God said they were all good in Genesis. Both primitive and modern man create medicines, in part, from the toxins in herbs.

Lighthouse
February 26th, 2005, 01:19 AM
God created everything good, but it has become corrupted. So the usage of those verses to say that every plant is okay for consumption isn't a good one.

Turbo
February 26th, 2005, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by elohiym

Luke 7:33-35 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! But wisdom is justified of all her children.

1 Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Your point?

Servo
February 26th, 2005, 09:33 AM
I know it is possible to have a beer or a glass of wine and not be drunk. But is it possible to smoke a joint and not get high?

Turbo
February 26th, 2005, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by Shimei

I know it is possible to have a beer or a glass of wine and not be drunk. But is it possible to smoke a joint and not get high? Or, does anyone smoke it without the intention of getting high?

Vision
February 26th, 2005, 09:39 AM
^ No.
People I know take one hit and they're cool. That stuff hits it right where it (gray) matters

LivingDeadDoll
February 26th, 2005, 09:57 AM
There are other ways of ingesting marijuana aside from smoking it. And some people who use it medicinally need it's healing effects but don't wish for that "high" that you get from smoking it. So i would say that, yes, some people do ingest it without the intention of getting "high".

Servo
February 26th, 2005, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Vision

^ No.
People I know take one hit and they're cool. That stuff hits it right where it (gray) matters

So you are saying that people YOU know pass a joint or a bong around and just take one hit and they are done. One hit and we'll call it an evening. Sure they do.

Servo
February 26th, 2005, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll

There are other ways of ingesting marijuana aside from smoking it. And some people who use it medicinally need it's healing effects but don't wish for that "high" that you get from smoking it. So i would say that, yes, some people do ingest it without the intention of getting "high".

Medical use aside.

So you know people who "ingest" marijuana to not get high?

Turbo
February 26th, 2005, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll

There are other ways of ingesting marijuana aside from smoking it. And some people who use it medicinally need it's healing effects but don't wish for that "high" that you get from smoking it. So i would say that, yes, some people do ingest it without the intention of getting "high". Do you smoke it with the intention of getting high?

Crow
February 26th, 2005, 10:17 AM
I've known people who smoked marijuana for cancer pain. Apparantly it works, and counteracts some of the effects of chemotherapy as well.

Most people can get "high" to some degree from conventional pain medications. But people who take such things for severe pain aren't taking them to get high--it's a side effect.

LivingDeadDoll
February 26th, 2005, 11:31 AM
Medicinal use aside, no, i do not know anyone who smokes marijuana without intention to get high. Do i intend to get high when i smoke it. That depends, recreationally, of course i do. I like it for it's calming effects. However if i smoke it because i think that it will benefit me medically at the time, then no, i do not always intend to get high. Like i said before, i do not like to do it during the day, only after the kids are asleep. But i do have stomach problems, back problems, stress issues, possibly fibromyalgia or some other neurological problem, and if i happen to use it during the daytime hours i try to take a puff or two to help my physical situation but i do NOT intend to get high at those times. Honestly, i do not always care for the "high" feeling that it gives me, but i like knowing that i have a way to release my tension at the end of the day without having to take a drink or take a pill, both of which have side effects not only during use but afterward too. Now, i realize that marijuana has "side effects" also but let's just say that i prefer to use something non-addictive. Also like i said before my husband uses it for his multiple sclerosis and at the end of the day he has a lot of symptoms of his disease that flare up and the marijuana really helps, so we do it together at night so that we have "our time" together too, he hates doing it alone and it benefits my stress level so it's a win win for us.

LivingDeadDoll
February 26th, 2005, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Crow
Most people can get "high" to some degree from conventional pain medications. But people who take such things for severe pain aren't taking them to get high--it's a side effect.

I think that was a very good point. :thumb:

the Sibbie
February 26th, 2005, 06:49 PM
LivingDeadDoll,
Do you think the medicinal benefits outweigh the risks of lung cancer?


Btw, do you nurse your infant?

LivingDeadDoll
February 26th, 2005, 07:01 PM
No, i do not nurse my infant any longer, and i did not smoke when i did. And in some cases i say that the benefits MOST DEFINETLY outweigh the risks. If you watched your loved one go through periods where they shook so uncontrollably that they could barely talk much less walk, or their muscles tighten up so hard that you could just about knock on them, or if you watched them go into a coma-like state where they could not even communicate, or they bled from their eyes, or were in so much pain from muscles spacticity that they curled up and cried and screamed, or if they were in a wheelchair, then you might think the same. maybe you can identify, maybe not. but lung cancer is the least of our concerns right now, and even neurologists and pain management doctors have said the same. My husband spent all of christmas morning in the bed, never even got to see the children open their presents. He has a horrible disease that eats away at his brain and body, lung cancer is NOT at the top of our list of concerns.:cry:

the Sibbie
February 26th, 2005, 07:13 PM
That is really sad and I'm sorry for the kind of pain and challenges your husband has to endure. :nono: Sounds like some sort of autoimmune disease. I just hope you don't smoke in the house where the smoke could drift into your childrens' bedrooms. It definitely couldn't be healthy for young, developing brains and bodies.

LivingDeadDoll
February 26th, 2005, 07:24 PM
He has multiple sclerosis, atleast that's the closest thing they can come up with. And of course i do not smoke in my house. My children have no idea, and not because i think it's wrong for them to know, becasue i do not like being dishonest about such a thing, but they are young still, and it's sad but i feel forced into raising my children by someone else's standards out of fear. Fear that if my children were to mention something at school and then they come and arrest me or something crazy! Which makes it equally hard for my husband to be able to get the relief he sometimes needs. Because we have to be so careful. I bet people understand my reason for supporting lagalization now. lol

Mr Jack
February 28th, 2005, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by Shimei
So you know people who "ingest" marijuana to not get high?

Define "to get high"?

I, and various people I know, have taken and do take marijuana with the intention of reaching a level of intoxication equivalent to having a couple of pints of strong beer - i.e. a little merry, so you can feel the effects but they are not having a significant impairing effect on your judgement.

Granite
February 28th, 2005, 06:55 AM
Bottomline, opposition to weed comes from those who fear what they don't understand...or are afraid of people thinking on their own.

Mr Jack
February 28th, 2005, 07:13 AM
That's not entirely fair, Granite, most people I know who are strongly anti-weed have worked in the mental health industry and dealt with people who's lives have been damn near destroyed by Hash.

Granite
February 28th, 2005, 07:14 AM
Hash and weed being in the ballpark but not quite the same...

Mr Jack
February 28th, 2005, 07:19 AM
I use them as synonyms. They're all the same drug.

Granite
February 28th, 2005, 07:21 AM
Maybe fundamentally, but from what I've heard the effect hash vs. weed has is dramatic. Never tried hash myself.

Mr Jack
February 28th, 2005, 07:26 AM
Not really. It depends more on what weed you're growing, than how it's processed. Hash does tend to be more concentrate, but some of the more recent types of marijuana will get you high just as swiftly if not more so. I imagine most people simply vary the amount they take according to how strong it is.

Granite
February 28th, 2005, 07:30 AM
Gotcha. Cool stuff...learn something new every day!:cool:

Gerald
February 28th, 2005, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse
God created everything good, but it has become corrupted.One wonders what things like mosquitos and poison ivy were like before they became "corrupted"... :think:

Granite
February 28th, 2005, 09:48 AM
The list goes on and on...snake venom, saber tooth tigers, cockroaches...

Poly
February 28th, 2005, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll

But i do have stomach problems, back problems, stress issues, possibly fibromyalgia or some other neurological problem

Have you been medically diagnosed with all these problems or are they conclusions that you have come to on your own?


Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll
but i like knowing that i have a way to release my tension at the end of the day without having to take a drink or take a pill, both of which have side effects not only during use but afterward too. Now, i realize that marijuana has "side effects" also but let's just say that i prefer to use something non-addictive.

And how is it that you know for sure that marijuana is not addictive? I ask this because we had some friends a few years back who smoked it. When we found out, we confronted them they were quick to tell us how non-addictive it was and how other things are much worse. She said they used it for stress issues. After a while, she confided in me that it really was getting out of control. She stopped for a while (or so she says) but said that he would always say that he was going to buy just one more "bag" and that's it. But that was never it. She called several times crying, wanting help because his use of it and refusal to stop was ruining their family. When we told her what she should do, we'd end up not hearing from her for a long time. If we called to check on them, she was quick to say that everything was ok. She didn't really want to talk but seemed to want to get off the phone as quickly as possilbe. And then lo and behold she'd call again out of the blue complaining about it. I told her that it bothered me that she did this. Come to find out, she hadn't exactly quit either and I'm sure it was her guilt that kept her from keeping in contact. If it's not addictive then why would her husband promise to stop yet doesn't and why would she deliberately go back to the very thing that she said is destroying her family?


Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll
Also like i said before my husband uses it for his multiple sclerosis and at the end of the day he has a lot of symptoms of his disease that flare up and the marijuana really helps, so we do it together at night so that we have "our time" together too, he hates doing it alone and it benefits my stress level so it's a win win for us.

Why is he opposed to the many drugs that are offered for this disease? Surely if he suffers this much, the doctor can give him something for symptom relief. I'm also curious as to why his symptoms seem to be so bad at the end of the day? Symptoms of this can flare up at different times. I wonder because with you saying so that you can have "your time" together and that he hates doing it alone, I sense that there's more than going on than just smoking it for "medicinal purposes".


Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll
My children have no idea, and not because i think it's wrong for them to know, becasue i do not like being dishonest about such a thing, but they are young still, and it's sad but i feel forced into raising my children by someone else's standards out of fear.

Do you plan on telling them when they're older? And if so, what if when they get older and aren't feeling well, they opt for drugs and feel they can justify it because this is what they witnessed from their parents as children?

Mr Jack
February 28th, 2005, 10:39 AM
And how is it that you know for sure that marijuana is not addictive?

Marijuana is not physiologically addictive (I say this with some certainity since I know some people who spent about a decade researching the effects of marijuana). This doesn't mean that folks can't get into problem relations with it, however. Plenty of folks manage to destroy their lives with unhealthy obsessions without any physiological addiction at all.

BillyBob
February 28th, 2005, 10:43 AM
A person can become addicted to almost anything.

BillyBob
February 28th, 2005, 10:43 AM
[Like posting on message boards] :noid:

Granite
February 28th, 2005, 10:53 AM
:chuckle:

Gotta have my fix...

LivingDeadDoll
February 28th, 2005, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Poly

Have you been medically diagnosed with all these problems or are they conclusions that you have come to on your own?

Medically diagnosed.


And how is it that you know for sure that marijuana is not addictive? I ask this because we had some friends a few years back who smoked it. When we found out, we confronted them they were quick to tell us how non-addictive it was and how other things are much worse. She said they used it for stress issues. After a while, she confided in me that it really was getting out of control. She stopped for a while (or so she says) but said that he would always say that he was going to buy just one more "bag" and that's it. But that was never it. She called several times crying, wanting help because his use of it and refusal to stop was ruining their family. When we told her what she should do, we'd end up not hearing from her for a long time. If we called to check on them, she was quick to say that everything was ok. She didn't really want to talk but seemed to want to get off the phone as quickly as possilbe. And then lo and behold she'd call again out of the blue complaining about it. I told her that it bothered me that she did this. Come to find out, she hadn't exactly quit either and I'm sure it was her guilt that kept her from keeping in contact. If it's not addictive then why would her husband promise to stop yet doesn't and why would she deliberately go back to the very thing that she said is destroying her family?

How can you know that it IS addictive? studies tend to lean toward the fact that it is not addictive. You can't base you belief on a couple of people you knew. Most people that have a "problem" with marijuana do not actually have a problem with the marijuana itself, it's more like a kind of dependency/ inability to cope type issue and if it weren't marijuana, it would be something else they had an addiction to.

Why is he opposed to the many drugs that are offered for this disease? Surely if he suffers this much, the doctor can give him something for symptom relief. I'm also curious as to why his symptoms seem to be so bad at the end of the day? Symptoms of this can flare up at different times. I wonder because with you saying so that you can have "your time" together and that he hates doing it alone, I sense that there's more than going on than just smoking it for "medicinal purposes".

Well, firstly, he is allergic to many of them, secondly if you have had any experience with these type drugs the side and long term effects are horrible and management of pain through medication that is chemical is noramlly addictive in a big way, and long term use of such can have many many ill effects both physically and psychologically that far outweigh any ill effects that can come from smoking marijuana. AND all of my husband Dr's are well aware of the fact that he uses marijuana and even agree. Studies have been done that show that just like chemotherapy patients benefit from marijuana so do MS patients. And his symptoms are worse at the end of the day because that's just how a full day of working effects him, no two MS patients are alike in symptoms or reaaction to management of.
And i never said that our sole reason for using it was medicinal, just like some people have a few drinks after dinner to wind down, that is our choice of how to "wind-down" at the end of the day. And since he can't drink, this is what we do.

Do you plan on telling them when they're older? And if so, what if when they get older and aren't feeling well, they opt for drugs and feel they can justify it because this is what they witnessed from their parents as children?

Yes most certainly i will tell them. And if they choose to do the same for management of physical symptoms then i would much rather that than them fill their bodies with a bunch of chemicals. You say "drugs" but i am only talking about marijuana. And like i said , they have witnessed no such thing, i will tell them about it when they are considerably older and i feel that they have the mental capacity to evaluate the situation for themselves and then make a decision based on what they feel is right.

LivingDeadDoll
February 28th, 2005, 11:08 AM
sorry i haven't quite figured out the multiple quote within a single reply thing yet :o I'm doing good to even be able to find the time to get my comments in between all the construction on my house from the furricane and my teething baby!!:(

Poly
February 28th, 2005, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll

sorry i haven't quite figured out the multiple quote within a single reply thing yet :o


I either put [ quote ] [ /quote ] (no spaces in the brackets, of course) around the different parts of the post that I want to address or I have 2 windows open, one where I hit the "quote", erase everything in the quote that I'm not addressing at the time and then copy it to the other window.

LivingDeadDoll
February 28th, 2005, 11:17 AM
thank-you :)

the Sibbie
February 28th, 2005, 11:22 AM
You just gotta know the code.

Words...blah, blah (Except the proper word to use is "quote" not "quotation"). The chunk of text you want to separate has to have this code around each chunk. Likewise to make something bold you have to use Word, except replace "bold" with just "b". The slash indicates that you want to end that code.

the Sibbie
February 28th, 2005, 11:23 AM
Ooops! I guess Poly beat me to it!! :eek:

Turbo
February 28th, 2005, 11:59 AM
LivingDeadDoll, here is some more instruction on vB Code (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/misc.php?s=&action=bbcode).

Knight
February 28th, 2005, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll

So what are everyones views on marijuana, politics, and the bible?
Do you think it should be legal?The Bible and politics should remain legal.

Do you support medicinal use?
Recreational use? Both politics and the Bible are great for medicinal uses.


:freak:

Granite
February 28th, 2005, 12:42 PM
'Cause I got high, 'cause I got high, because I got high...:devil:

Poly
February 28th, 2005, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Knight


Both politics and the Bible are great for medicinal uses.


:freak:

I find a good truthsmack upside the head to be very relaxing. :cloud9:

That's some great medicine right there! :thumb:

LivingDeadDoll
February 28th, 2005, 01:33 PM
http://www.ccjrc.org/pdf/peopleofcolor.pdf

http://www.harrisschool.uchicago.edu/Research/faculty_projects/incarcerated_mothers/lalonde_incarceratedwomen.pdf

http://www.idph.state.il.us/public/respect/african_american_fs.htm

http://www.prometheism.net/articles/dukerace.html

http://www.innocentinprison.org/information/usa.html

I had a minute to get a few of those links, if you want links on anything specific that i referred to please let me know, i would be glad to oblige. More to come shortly.

BillyBob
February 28th, 2005, 01:35 PM
Yeah, but you posted them in the wrong thread. :doh:

Poly
February 28th, 2005, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll

http://www.ccjrc.org/pdf/peopleofcolor.pdf

http://www.harrisschool.uchicago.edu/Research/faculty_projects/incarcerated_mothers/lalonde_incarceratedwomen.pdf

http://www.idph.state.il.us/public/respect/african_american_fs.htm

http://www.prometheism.net/articles/dukerace.html

http://www.innocentinprison.org/information/usa.html

I had a minute to get a few of those links, if you want links on anything specific that i referred to please let me know, i would be glad to oblige. More to come shortly.

I think you meant to post these links in the "racism" thread.

Knight
February 28th, 2005, 01:37 PM
Dude... pass the bong....

LivingDeadDoll
February 28th, 2005, 01:40 PM
poly - yes i did, sorry 'bout that, anyone know how i can move it? If i copy and paste will it still be an active link?

Poly
February 28th, 2005, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Knight

Dude... pass the bong....

:shut:

BillyBob
February 28th, 2005, 01:43 PM
I hate PDF's.

Poly
February 28th, 2005, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

I hate PDF's.

I know what you mean.

LivingDeadDoll
February 28th, 2005, 01:47 PM
sorry

Poly
February 28th, 2005, 01:49 PM
LDD, I realize that you're just figuring things out around here like the "quote" features and that you have your hands full with your little ones but whenever you get the chance, I'd appreciate it if you'd respond to my other questions and comments in post #98.

Turbo
February 28th, 2005, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll

poly - yes i did, sorry 'bout that, anyone know how i can move it? If i copy and paste will it still be an active link? If you just copy and paste the text from your post, the third link will get messed up because of the ellipsis. But if you click the "quote" link on that post and copy the links from there, they'll all work.

LivingDeadDoll
February 28th, 2005, 02:24 PM
Poly -m look at post # 103, i believe i answered them there i just screwed it all up (imagine that). I answered them but they are in the quote box. If i missed one let me know. Sorry for all the confusion, i really am. i think i'll stick to posting after the kids are in bed so that i don't get everything so screwed up.

Servo
February 28th, 2005, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Mr Jack

Define "to get high"?

I, and various people I know, have taken and do take marijuana with the intention of reaching a level of intoxication equivalent to having a couple of pints of strong beer - i.e. a little merry, so you can feel the effects but they are not having a significant impairing effect on your judgement.

I define "high" as when your faculties are affected, your judgment and response time impaired.

Servo
February 28th, 2005, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Mr Jack

That's not entirely fair, Granite, most people I know who are strongly anti-weed have worked in the mental health industry and dealt with people who's lives have been damn near destroyed by Hash.

A person I know who had smoked weed for many years has little to no short term memory.

LivingDeadDoll
February 28th, 2005, 02:52 PM
If you were to compare a person who used marijuana for their ailments to a person who treated their symptoms with pills, i would think that the person using pills, over a period of years, would have far worse effects than short term memory loss.

Poly
February 28th, 2005, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll

Poly -m look at post # 103, i believe i answered them there i just screwed it all up (imagine that). I answered them but they are in the quote box. If i missed one let me know. Sorry for all the confusion, i really am. i think i'll stick to posting after the kids are in bed so that i don't get everything so screwed up.

Actually, you only addressed my last question. I was hoping you'd respond to the rest of it as well. I'll post it again.




Originally posted by Poly


Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll

But i do have stomach problems, back problems, stress issues, possibly fibromyalgia or some other neurological problem


Have you been medically diagnosed with all these problems or are they conclusions that you have come to on your own?

Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll

but i like knowing that i have a way to release my tension at the end of the day without having to take a drink or take a pill, both of which have side effects not only during use but afterward too. Now, i realize that marijuana has "side effects" also but let's just say that i prefer to use something non-addictive.

And how is it that you know for sure that marijuana is not addictive? I ask this because we had some friends a few years back who smoked it. When we found out, we confronted them they were quick to tell us how non-addictive it was and how other things are much worse. She said they used it for stress issues. After a while, she confided in me that it really was getting out of control. She stopped for a while (or so she says) but said that he would always say that he was going to buy just one more "bag" and that's it. But that was never it. She called several times crying, wanting help because his use of it and refusal to stop was ruining their family. When we told her what she should do, we'd end up not hearing from her for a long time. If we called to check on them, she was quick to say that everything was ok. She didn't really want to talk but seemed to want to get off the phone as quickly as possilbe. And then lo and behold she'd call again out of the blue complaining about it. I told her that it bothered me that she did this. Come to find out, she hadn't exactly quit either and I'm sure it was her guilt that kept her from keeping in contact. If it's not addictive then why would her husband promise to stop yet doesn't and why would she deliberately go back to the very thing that she said is destroying her family?


Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll
Also like i said before my husband uses it for his multiple sclerosis and at the end of the day he has a lot of symptoms of his disease that flare up and the marijuana really helps, so we do it together at night so that we have "our time" together too, he hates doing it alone and it benefits my stress level so it's a win win for us.


Why is he opposed to the many drugs that are offered for this disease? Surely if he suffers this much, the doctor can give him something for symptom relief. I'm also curious as to why his symptoms seem to be so bad at the end of the day? Symptoms of this can flare up at different times. I wonder because with you saying so that you can have "your time" together and that he hates doing it alone, I sense that there's more than going on than just smoking it for "medicinal purposes".

HerodionRomulus
February 28th, 2005, 02:54 PM
Let me share a true story which may shed some light on this discussion.

In the early 70's my bro-in-law worked for 2 years for BP on the North Slope. There was nowhere to go and nothing to do, this was before video games and satellite tv.
The workers were split about 50/50 between those who drank alcohol and those who smoked pot.

The drinkers would get loud and boisterous and often end up fighting.
The smokers would go off by themselves and not be seen or heard from until the next morning when they would go back to work.
The drinkers were often miserable due to hangovers, the smokers seems to show little adverse effects.

HerodionRomulus
February 28th, 2005, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Shimei

I define "high" as when your faculties are affected, your judgment and response time impaired.

And this happens even with only one beer.

But most perfer to do it with 6. :chuckle:

LivingDeadDoll
February 28th, 2005, 03:03 PM
poly, i can see the answers to all of your ?'s on my cpu, i suppose something messed up, i will post them again...

Poly
February 28th, 2005, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll

poly, i can see the answers to all of your ?'s on my cpu, i suppose something messed up, i will post them again...

Ok, nevermind. I see them in the quote box.

LivingDeadDoll
February 28th, 2005, 03:07 PM
Have you been medically diagnosed with all these problems or are they conclusions that you have come to on your own?

-Medically diagnosed. (with more things than mentioned before i might add.)


And how is it that you know for sure that marijuana is not addictive? If it's not addictive then why would her husband promise to stop yet doesn't and why would she deliberately go back to the very thing that she said is destroying her family?

-How can you know that it IS addictive? studies tend to lean toward the fact that it is not addictive. You can't base you belief on a couple of people you knew. Most people that have a "problem" with marijuana do not actually have a problem with the marijuana itself, it's more like a kind of dependency/ inability to cope type issue and if it weren't marijuana, it would be something else they had an addiction to.

Why is he opposed to the many drugs that are offered for this disease? . I'm also curious as to why his symptoms seem to be so bad at the end of the day? Symptoms of this can flare up at different times. I wonder because with you saying so that you can have "your time" together and that he hates doing it alone, I sense that there's more than going on than just smoking it for "medicinal purposes".

-Well, firstly, he is allergic to many of them, secondly if you have had any experience with these type drugs the side and long term effects are horrible and management of pain through medication that is chemical is noramlly addictive in a big way, and long term use of such can have many many ill effects both physically and psychologically that far outweigh any ill effects that can come from smoking marijuana. AND all of my husband Dr's are well aware of the fact that he uses marijuana and even agree. Studies have been done that show that just like chemotherapy patients benefit from marijuana so do MS patients. And his symptoms are worse at the end of the day because that's just how a full day of working effects him, no two MS patients are alike in symptoms or reaaction to management of.
And i never said that our sole reason for using it was medicinal, just like some people have a few drinks after dinner to wind down, that is our choice of how to "wind-down" at the end of the day. And since he can't drink, this is what we do.

Do you plan on telling them when they're older? And if so, what if when they get older and aren't feeling well, they opt for drugs and feel they can justify it because this is what they witnessed from their parents as children?




-Yes most certainly i will tell them. And if they choose to do the same for management of physical symptoms then i would much rather that than them fill their bodies with a bunch of chemicals. You say "drugs" but i am only talking about marijuana. And like i said , they have witnessed no such thing, i will tell them about it when they are considerably older and i feel that they have the mental capacity to evaluate the situation for themselves and then make a decision based on what they feel is right.

billwald
February 28th, 2005, 03:17 PM
God finished creating new stuff on the 6th day thus MJ and poppies were in the Garden. "A weed is a flower growing in the wrong place."

Servo
February 28th, 2005, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

And this happens even with only one beer.



You can get DRUNK after one beer?

billwald
February 28th, 2005, 03:18 PM
More people destroying their lives with fatburgers and french fries than with hash.

Granite
February 28th, 2005, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

Let me share a true story which may shed some light on this discussion.

In the early 70's my bro-in-law worked for 2 years for BP on the North Slope. There was nowhere to go and nothing to do, this was before video games and satellite tv.
The workers were split about 50/50 between those who drank alcohol and those who smoked pot.

The drinkers would get loud and boisterous and often end up fighting.
The smokers would go off by themselves and not be seen or heard from until the next morning when they would go back to work.
The drinkers were often miserable due to hangovers, the smokers seems to show little adverse effects.

I've seen the same thing.

Poly
February 28th, 2005, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll


-Medically diagnosed. (with more things than mentioned before i might add.)

And your doctors are ok with you smoking it for your illnesses?

Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll
-How can you know that it IS addictive? studies tend to lean toward the fact that it is not addictive. You can't base you belief on a couple of people you knew. Most people that have a "problem" with marijuana do not actually have a problem with the marijuana itself, it's more like a kind of dependency/ inability to cope type issue and if it weren't marijuana, it would be something else they had an addiction to
You're kind of mixing words here. I do agree that dependancy is the ultimate problem but there is a "problem" with marijuana if people with dependancy issues end up resorting to it. Do they want to smoke tea or bananas? No, because there is something in the pot that they want and desire. And yes, if it weren't marijuana it would be another addictive substance.






Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll

-Well, firstly, he is allergic to many of them, secondly if you have had any experience with these type drugs the side and long term effects are horrible and management of pain through medication that is chemical is noramlly addictive in a big way, and long term use of such can have many many ill effects both physically and psychologically that far outweigh any ill effects that can come from smoking marijuana. AND all of my husband Dr's are well aware of the fact that he uses marijuana and even agree.
So he's taken everything that the doctors prescribe for the management of MS, has had bad reactions to all of them, and has every one of his doctors' blessing in his using marijuana instead?


Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll
And i never said that our sole reason for using it was medicinal, just like some people have a few drinks after dinner to wind down, that is our choice of how to "wind-down" at the end of the day. And since he can't drink, this is what we do.

I'm just curious, where do you draw the line? If a person said that they did cocaine and this was their choice of how to "wind-down" at the end of the day, would you have a problem with that?

Granite
February 28th, 2005, 04:19 PM
I have a hard time believing someone would use coke to "wind down," but anything's possible...

LivingDeadDoll
February 28th, 2005, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by Poly

And your doctors are ok with you smoking it for your illnesses?

You're kind of mixing words here. I do agree that dependancy is the ultimate problem but there is a "problem" with marijuana if people with dependancy issues end up resorting to it. Do they want to smoke tea or bananas? No, because there is something in the pot that they want and desire. And yes, if it weren't marijuana it would be another addictive substance.






So he's taken everything that the doctors prescribe for the management of MS, has had bad reactions to all of them, and has every one of his doctors' blessing in his using marijuana instead?



I'm just curious, where do you draw the line? If a person said that they did cocaine and this was their choice of how to "wind-down" at the end of the day, would you have a problem with that?

My doctors and my husbands Dr.'s do understand and acknowledge the fact that marijuana is far less harmful than chemical substances, yes they are fine with that.

And yes he has tried every type of medication that is available for his disease (there really aren't that many) Studies show that marijuana is helpful to those with MS. (you may look it up for yourself it is all over the internet and it is fact not assumption)

And i think it is absurd to class marijuana with other drugs, marijuana can be grown and used as is, there are no chemical processes and it isn't killing people by the hundreds every day. (like alcohol, heroin, cocaine, exctasy, meth) andjust so you know marijuana IS where i draw the line. Marijuana is a plant.

You don't see them contemplating legalizing cocaine or heroin do you? No, just marijuana. Why? because of it's many helpful qualities, because it is natural, because so many cancer and MS patients are benefiting from the use of it for many other reasons as well.

Thia
February 28th, 2005, 05:40 PM
I have rheumatoid arthritis - not a disease for the faint of heart, believe me. I take chemo once a week and inject myself with Humira once every other week. The pain is managed by tramadol, but if anyone fired up a spliff in front of me, I probably wouldn't pass it up - I must admit. The drugs I take have lots of side effects, yes. BUT, they've also stopped the progression of my disease as well as curtailed the inflammation. Has your husband tried Avonex or interferon? Initial reactions to these powerful drugs are disconcerting, but do wane in about six weeks. Your hubby needs to stop his disease's progressison - and then he can smoke jamba all he wants. Pot helps with symptoms, but doesn't cure anything (physical, that is!) Best of luck to you both.

LivingDeadDoll
February 28th, 2005, 05:41 PM
http://www.msnbc.com/comics/daily.asp?sfile=bo050228&vts=22820051257

i think this is appropriate to the discussion..lol

HerodionRomulus
March 1st, 2005, 10:44 AM
Several people have stated that pot should be treated like alcohol: regulated and taxed.
I disagree.

Why create yet another massive bureaucracy? Why generate even more taxes out of our pockets?

Legalize possession, legalize cultivate of small quanitites but make buying and selling illegal.
This keeps the government and organized crime out of it.

IIRC, this is or was the situation in Alaska. You could grow your own, just couldn't sell it.

So if you want a few pots of pot growing on your balcony or a small plot in your garden next to the basil and other herbs---fine.

HerodionRomulus
March 1st, 2005, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll

http://www.msnbc.com/comics/daily.asp?sfile=bo050228&vts=22820051257

i think this is appropriate to the discussion..lol



:chuckle: :bannana:

Granite
March 1st, 2005, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

Several people have stated that pot should be treated like alcohol: regulated and taxed.
I disagree.

Why create yet another massive bureaucracy? Why generate even more taxes out of our pockets?

Legalize possession, legalize cultivate of small quanitites but make buying and selling illegal.
This keeps the government and organized crime out of it.

IIRC, this is or was the situation in Alaska. You could grow your own, just couldn't sell it.

So if you want a few pots of pot growing on your balcony or a small plot in your garden next to the basil and other herbs---fine.

Wait, wait. If buying and selling is still illegal organized crime will STILL own a big chunk of the market.

HerodionRomulus
March 1st, 2005, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Wait, wait. If buying and selling is still illegal organized crime will STILL own a big chunk of the market.

Possibly. Good point. :confused:

Maybe selling/buying over a certain quantity. That is, you can sell your black thumb neighbor a minor quantity, say less than an ounce?

Poly
March 1st, 2005, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by LivingDeadDoll

http://www.msnbc.com/comics/daily.asp?sfile=bo050228&vts=22820051257

i think this is appropriate to the discussion..lol

I don't. I think it's crap. And I think you're full of crap if you think that people don't see through the supposed "justification" of your drug use. I think you hang yourself with your own words. I feel sorry for your kids. I think you're lying to yourself and they are the ones who are going to have to pay.

Granite
March 1st, 2005, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

Possibly. Good point. :confused:

Maybe selling/buying over a certain quantity. That is, you can sell your black thumb neighbor a minor quantity, say less than an ounce?

Less than an ounce? C'mon, man. Take the teeth out of the gangsters and let er rip.

Art Deco
March 2nd, 2005, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Less than an ounce? C'mon, man. Take the teeth out of the gangsters and let er rip. No wonder you mental retards can't think, the THC you ingested so willingly has destroyed that part of our brain that processes logical thinking. All you have left is that part of your brain that generates and responds to emotion. How do you feel about that? :noid:

Servo
March 2nd, 2005, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

No wonder you mental retards can't think, the THC you ingested so willingly has destroyed that part of our brain that processes logical thinking. All you have left is that part of your brain that generates and responds to emotion. How do you feel about that? :noid:

:crackup:

Granite
March 3rd, 2005, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco

No wonder you mental retards can't think, the THC you ingested so willingly has destroyed that part of our brain that processes logical thinking. All you have left is that part of your brain that generates and responds to emotion. How do you feel about that? :noid:

Art, what in the heck are you talking about? If you think you're talking to a pot head, I've probably smoked it all of half a dozen times. It's not my poison of choice (booze is). Really wish a thug like you would learn to look before you leap.

Art Deco
March 3rd, 2005, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Art, what in the heck are you talking about? If you think you're talking to a pot head, I've probably smoked it all of half a dozen times. It's not my poison of choice (booze is). Really wish a thug like you would learn to look before you leap. Listen tiger, how much you smoke is your business, (only you know for sure) but the issue is not your use, but legalization which you obviously endorse.

This plague, has grown since the 60's due to the tolerance of the general population. Tolerance kills cultures... :doh:

BillyBob
March 3rd, 2005, 07:36 AM
But isn't freedom also part of our culture?

Granite
March 3rd, 2005, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Listen tiger, how much you smoke is your business, (only you know for sure) but the issue is not your use, but legalization which you obviously endorse.

This plague, has grown since the 60's due to the tolerance of the general population. Tolerance kills cultures... :doh:

A "plague" is the last thing pot is, and this is just more of the same propaganda that's been used to demonize it since at least the Twenties.

Thia
March 3rd, 2005, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

A "plague" is the last thing pot is, and this is just more of the same propaganda that's been used to demonize it since at least the Twenties.

The real drug plagues are methamphetimine and heroin. Meth tweakers are the biggest losers around and a real plague on society. But, that's fodder for another thread.

Granite
March 3rd, 2005, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Thia

The real drug plagues are methamphetimine and heroin. Meth tweakers are the biggest losers around and a real plague on society. But, that's fodder for another thread.

What people don't realize--at least the shivering Puritans who want to stomp out weed use--is that it's possible to be a fully functional and productive member of society and still smoke pot. The whole idea of a glass-eyed pothead who doesn't stir till noon time is a stereotype (the first stereotype was that reefer made you go insane and especially turned Negro males into psychotic rapists with a taste for white women; what a coincidence). But it's an effective one, and the mass media's been going along for the ride since Hearst figured out hemp would cost him money.

What a racket.

Thia
March 3rd, 2005, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

What people don't realize--at least the shivering Puritans who want to stomp out weed use--is that it's possible to be a fully functional and productive member of society and still smoke pot. The whole idea of a glass-eyed pothead who doesn't stir till noon time is a stereotype (the first stereotype was that reefer made you go insane and especially turned Negro males into psychotic rapists with a taste for white women; what a coincidence). But it's an effective one, and the mass media's been going along for the ride since Hearst figured out hemp would cost him money.

What a racket.

It is! And, as mentioned previously, I believe, booze certainly causes a lot more problems for society than weed does. Weed makes people 'contemplative' (hee hee) and booze makes some people, er, overly-social let's say (and even overly anti-social!). I told my son when he came of age that I couldn't stop him from substance abuse (when he joined a fraternity at UCSB - argh!) but to remember that with pot and liquor, you at least have the power to say 'no' after you've had enough. Hard drugs don't allow such control - once it goes down your throat or into your nose, you're at the drug's mercy. Scary. ( PS: I do not condone drug use; I was simply stating my view. My son's father worked dope for the PD and would freak if he knew his son was doing drugs!)

HerodionRomulus
March 3rd, 2005, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Tolerance kills cultures... :doh:

Ah....just like Torquemada tolerated the Moriscos and Marranos into extinction.
Just like you would cheerfully tolerate into oblivion those who do not goosestep along with your sanctimonious, un-loving and erroneous opinions.

"God is Love" "Love one another"

Art Deco
March 3rd, 2005, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

A "plague" is the last thing pot is, and this is just more of the same propaganda that's been used to demonize it since at least the Twenties. For a guy who has a passing interest in weed you sure don't hesitate to rush to its defense. Me thinks you protest too much... :think:

Art Deco
March 3rd, 2005, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

Ah....just like Torquemada tolerated the Moriscos and Marranos into extinction.
Just like you would cheerfully tolerate into oblivion those who do not goosestep along with your sanctimonious, un-loving and erroneous opinions.

"God is Love" "Love one another" Atheists love to quote the Bible...They find it's a useful tool to bludgeon hapless wimpy Christians into silence on cultural issues. It doesn't work with me you God hating Christophobic hypocrite. :angel:

Servo
March 3rd, 2005, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

For a guy who has a passing interest in weed you sure don't hesitate to rush to its defense. Me thinks you protest too much... :think:

He just lost his bong, along with his memory.

Dude, where is it?

SOTK
March 3rd, 2005, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by PureX

I suppose it should be treated the way we treat alcohol use. There isn't really much difference between them, functionally.

:up:

I have never used the stuff and am not interested in it at all, however, it aggravates me to no end when fellow Christians or non-believers justify the over use of alcohol and demonize the use of marijuana.

Yes, I realize one is legal and the other is not, however, both cause chemical changes within the psyche of humans. Personally, I feel alcohol, as a drug, can be more harmful than marijuana. Alcohol plays more of a factor in domestic violence, auto accidents, and divorce than marijuana. I don't want to necessarily come off like I am saying that alcohol shouldn't be consumed. I'm just pointing out what I see as a glaring point of justification. I find it interesting that the drug which is legal we have more problems with, socially, than the other. Also, it frustrates me when some Christians totally accept the use of alcohol as being fine yet rebuke the use of marijuana.

I don't know....food for thought I guess.

Granite
March 4th, 2005, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco

For a guy who has a passing interest in weed you sure don't hesitate to rush to its defense. Me thinks you protest too much... :think:

To me the issue's self-evident: it grows in the GROUND, for crying out loud. And I've read enough to know that the "war on drugs" is just a show piece, and that grass has been subjected to hack attacks since the Twenties. It's the last hold over from Prohibition.

Art Deco
March 4th, 2005, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

To me the issue's self-evident: it grows in the GROUND, for crying out loud. And I've read enough to know that the "war on drugs" is just a show piece, and that grass has been subjected to hack attacks since the Twenties. It's the last hold over from Prohibition. "It grows in the ground." Ah, an appeal to nature. How touchy feely...:doh: So does the mushroom the "deadly nightshade" which I understand is extremely poisonous. Your Secular Humanist Libertine World View is front and center for all to see. You're a great poster boy for Secular Humanism... :help:

Granite
March 4th, 2005, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco

"It grows in the ground." Ah, an appeal to nature. How touchy feely...:doh: So does the mushroom the "deadly nightshade" which I understand is extremely poisonous. Your Secular Humanist Libertine World View is front and center for all to see. You're a great poster boy for Secular Humanism... :help:

Art, once again you're not reading, or paying attention, and you're rushing to judgment. This is a plant that makes you feel better, has medicinal value, and has been used and enjoyed by mankind for thousands of years. What, exactly, are people so afraid of?

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by granite1010
What, exactly, are people so afraid of?

We're afraid of the government legalizing pot so the masses are too stoned to notice [or care] what the evil, self serving politicians are doing.

Ninjashadow
March 4th, 2005, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

To me the issue's self-evident: it grows in the GROUND, for crying out loud. And I've read enough to know that the "war on drugs" is just a show piece, and that grass has been subjected to hack attacks since the Twenties. It's the last hold over from Prohibition.

Have you ever heard of Western Water Hemlock? It's the most poisonous plant in North America and it grows in the ground.

Granite
March 4th, 2005, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by ninjashadow

Have you ever heard of Western Water Hemlock? It's the most poisonous plant in North America and it grows in the ground.

And like Deco you ignore the point I made: marijuana has medicinal and beneficial value.

To Billy's point: people can be completely straight and sober and STILL be disinterested or too callous to really give a hoot in hell what the parliament of whores happens to be up to. Politicians have been able to bone us before without the help of weed.

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 08:25 AM
I was making a joke.

My opinion is that Marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol and maybe even less harmful in some ways.

I think it desreves the same restrictions that alcohol does as well as the same availability and legality.

However, I am a bit apprehensive that legalizing marijuana may be a step toward legalizing other, more harmful drugs. Where do we draw the line? What scale do we use to determine what intoxicants should be legal and which shouldn't?

Ninjashadow
March 4th, 2005, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

And like Deco you ignore the point I made: marijuana has medicinal and beneficial value.

To Billy's point: people can be completely straight and sober and STILL be disinterested or too callous to really give a hoot in hell what the parliament of whores happens to be up to. Politicians have been able to bone us before without the help of weed.

I agree with you on that point and if you read my posts towards the beginning of this thread you'd see what I mean. What I'm saying, however, is that the "it grows in the ground, it must be good," argument falls short because poisonous plants grow in the ground.

Besides, pot and alcohol are very similar, except that pot has a good side. I don't think that if pot were legalized you'd have everyone just sitting around stoned. Alcohol is legal and you don't have everyone sitting around drunk, do you? I think that there should be specific regulations on pot such as an age limit and a DUIC (Drving under the influence of cannabis).

Ninjashadow
March 4th, 2005, 08:31 AM
Alcohol is a drug, in the same category with pot, heroin, etc. I think the line should be drawn at pot. Marijuana has many medicinal aspects and such, but you don't find that it cocaine or ecstacy.

Granite
March 4th, 2005, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob

I was making a joke.

My opinion is that Marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol and maybe even less harmful in some ways.

I think it desreves the same restrictions that alcohol does as well as the same availability and legality.

However, I am a bit apprehensive that legalizing marijuana may be a step toward legalizing other, more harmful drugs. Where do we draw the line? What scale do we use to determine what intoxicants should be legal and which shouldn't?

Ah. Word.:cool:

As far as the scale goes...frankly, I say just open the flood gates. For one it would end this fraudulent and abusive "war on drugs," so called. For another it would take the teeth out of cartels and cripple them. Would more non-users experiment out of curiosity? Yeah, probably. But the lion's share of people snorting or shooting up would be people who were getting high in the first place.

I think over time gradually legalizing this stuff will probably become inevitable. I don't like the idea of coke or heroin being popularly available--I'd say the most people can handle legally, these days, is pot. Start there, anyway.

Granite
March 4th, 2005, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by ninjashadow

I agree with you on that point and if you read my posts towards the beginning of this thread you'd see what I mean. What I'm saying, however, is that the "it grows in the ground, it must be good," argument falls short because poisonous plants grow in the ground.

Besides, pot and alcohol are very similar, except that pot has a good side. I don't think that if pot were legalized you'd have everyone just sitting around stoned. Alcohol is legal and you don't have everyone sitting around drunk, do you? I think that there should be specific regulations on pot such as an age limit and a DUIC (Drving under the influence of cannabis).

Exactly. When you hit twenty-one you can buy booze, a handgun, and a joint might as well be on the list.

Pot's been legal in Amsterdam for quite some time and based on what I've heard from several friends going over there, the majority of people who wander around stoned are American tourists who think they just showed up in heaven.:D

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by ninjashadow

Besides, pot and alcohol are very similar, except that pot has a good side.

Alcohol has as many positive medicinal qualities as marijuana, probably more.


I think that there should be specific regulations on pot such as an age limit and a DUIC (Drving under the influence of cannabis).

How would you do a roadside sobriety test for pot intoxication? What level of 'stoned' would be acceptable?

Ninjashadow
March 4th, 2005, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob

Alcohol has as many positive medicinal qualities as marijuana, probably more.



How would you do a roadside sobriety test for pot intoxication? What level of 'stoned' would be acceptable?

I wasn't thinking of heart issues. But you'd be right.

I really don't know. I'm sure they could develope something like they did for alcohol. For alcohol in IL its .08, so I'm sure the powers that be could find an acceptable version for pot.

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 08:41 AM
I don't think that THC is present in a persons exhalents like alcohol is.

Ninjashadow
March 4th, 2005, 08:43 AM
Probably not, but the breathalizer hasn't been around for that long. I know that there are urine tests that can be administered and get the resulsts in three minutes, so perhaps that could be a solution.

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by ninjashadow

Probably not, but the breathalizer hasn't been around for that long. I know that there are urine tests that can be administered and get the resulsts in three minutes, so perhaps that could be a solution.

Oh yeah, I can see a cop asking a stoner to piss into a container right there on the side of the road. :rolleyes:

Besides, THC stays in a persons system for weeks, long after the effects have worn off.

Ninjashadow
March 4th, 2005, 08:48 AM
It was just a thought. I'm sure there is something they could come up with.

Ninjashadow
March 4th, 2005, 08:49 AM
I don't know a lot about pot, I've never smoked it once in my life, but I still have an opinion on it.

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by ninjashadow

It was just a thought. I'm sure there is something they could come up with.


What if they can't?

Ninjashadow
March 4th, 2005, 08:49 AM
I'm sure they can.

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 08:50 AM
What if they can't?

Ninjashadow
March 4th, 2005, 08:52 AM
They can. They should be able to tell how long the THC has been in the system and a piss test would be probable cause to arrest.

Delmar
March 4th, 2005, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by ninjashadow

Probably not, but the breathalizer hasn't been around for that long. I know that there are urine tests that can be administered and get the resulsts in three minutes, so perhaps that could be a solution. A cop once told me that MJ would never be legal untill they devolop a simple non evasive road side test for it. Made sense to me.

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by ninjashadow

They can.

A roadside test?


They should be able to tell how long the THC has been in the system and a piss test would be probable cause to arrest.

How will a cop administer a piss test to a female on the side of a road?

Ninjashadow
March 4th, 2005, 08:57 AM
I'm sure they're working on it then and it's only a matter of time before they develope it.

Ninjashadow
March 4th, 2005, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob

A roadside test?



How will a cop administer a piss test to a female on the side of a road?

It shows up in the blood, too.

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by ninjashadow

It shows up in the blood, too.

Ah, so you want cops to start jabbing needles into people on the side of the road? Do you think the cops want to do that?

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 09:02 AM
Here is some info... it's not looking so good for a reliable roadside test.

http://www.idmu.co.uk/drugtestcan.htm

Poly
March 4th, 2005, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob

I was making a joke.

My opinion is that Marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol and maybe even less harmful in some ways.

I think it desreves the same restrictions that alcohol does as well as the same availability and legality.

However, I am a bit apprehensive that legalizing marijuana may be a step toward legalizing other, more harmful drugs. Where do we draw the line? What scale do we use to determine what intoxicants should be legal and which shouldn't?

Great point, BillyBob. It's called using a little common sense.

Yes, alchohol is legal and can be safe if it's not abused. Just because it can be used safely (which seems to be a big argument for legalizing pot) doesn't mean that it always is. While some people can have a drink every now and then with no problem there's something about it that causes others to throw responsibility, rationality and safety of oneself and others out the window. We already have enough problems with this "drug". Why would we want to legalize something else that would only cause these same kind of problems? So now one will say, "well, pot is legal and I'm handling it ok and X drug isn't really that much worse than pot so what could it hurt? In fact, I can still think pretty clearly when I take X drug and it helps with my stress and pain so I think it should be legal". There will be no stop to what people want legalized. But it's one's like granite who could care less about how it might effect others just as long as he is ok with it. After all, we all know that how granite thinks and how he would handle it if it were legalized is all that really matters.

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Poly

Why would we want to legalize something else that would only cause these same kind of problems? So now one will say, "well, pot is legal and I'm handling it ok and X drug isn't really that much worse than pot so what could it hurt? In fact, I can still think pretty clearly when I take X drug and it helps with my stress and pain so I think it should be legal". There will be no stop to what people want legalized.

Those are good points, Poly.

I am usually decided on issues, but I cannot seem to reconcile a solid position on this one.

On one hand, I think it would be wrong for the feds to legalize drugs. They have an obligation to secure the safety of its citizens and I don't think condoning drug use fits that description. Many crimes are commited while under the influence of drugs and they certainly are not healthy for it's users. Pot isn't so bad, but cocain and heroin almost always lead to severe addiction. How can the government responsibly condone such recreational drug usage?

On the other hand, it seems absurd to me that the prisons are filled with people whose only crime was to sell something that other people wanted to buy. I have the same 'feeling' about the illegality of prostitution. It seems to violate the concept of freedom that is part of our culture and heritage.

I don't know if I'll ever resolve this indecision.......

Servo
March 4th, 2005, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Poly

Great point, BillyBob. It's called using a little common sense.

Yes, alchohol is legal and can be safe if it's not abused. Just because it can be used safely (which seems to be a big argument for legalizing pot) doesn't mean that it always is. While some people can have a drink every now and then with no problem there's something about it that causes others to throw responsibility, rationality and safety of oneself and others out the window. We already have enough problems with this "drug". Why would we want to legalize something else that would only cause these same kind of problems? So now one will say, "well, pot is legal and I'm handling it ok and X drug isn't really that much worse than pot so what could it hurt? In fact, I can still think pretty clearly when I take X drug and it helps with my stress and pain so I think it should be legal". There will be no stop to what people want legalized. But it's one's like granite who could care less about how it might effect others just as long as he is ok with it. After all, we all know that how granite thinks and how he would handle it if it were legalized is all that really matters.

Again, it is know that someone can have a few beers and not get drunk. Is it know that someone can smoke a joint and not get high? The argument of taking just one or two hits and then quitting, I just don't buy. Also, one or two hits probably would get most people high.

Granite
March 4th, 2005, 10:33 AM
Different strokes. Some people's tolerance for booze is greater than others, same thing with weed. A couple of hits might make you mellow, on the other hand you might not even feel it. It also is greatly effected by the quality of grass you're smoking (and that really goes for any booze or narcotic out there).

Delmar
March 4th, 2005, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Different strokes. Some people's tolerance for booze is greater than others, same thing with weed. A couple of hits might make you mellow, on the other hand you might not even feel it. It also is greatly effected by the quality of grass you're smoking (and that really goes for any booze or narcotic out there). The quality of wine is not usually determined by how drunk it makes you!

Granite
March 4th, 2005, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by deardelmar

The quality of wine is not usually determined by how drunk it makes you!

True, but we were talking more, shall we say, blue collar past times...

:devil:

Soulman
March 4th, 2005, 12:59 PM
Drunk and "high" are not equivalent.

BillyBob, I'm a little surprised at you. Don't think we've ever chatted, but you always struck me as a "Libertine," limited government kind of guy. Where does it say that the government's job is to regulate what we put into our bodies? Lotta stuff out there that's "dangerous" and potentially not "good" for you -- like "dangerous books," hang-gliding, or fooling around with a married woman. Addicts, like the poor, will always be with us. Historically, 2-3 percent of drug users become "addicts." This says as much about human nature as it does about drugs. Should all "firearms" be confiscated because 2-3 percent of "gun users" use them irresponsibly? Government is never the answser.

You mentioned drug users commit crimes while high on drugs. No doubt. But most crimes are commited by drug users in order to feed a drug habit made more desperate by the inflated street prices of "illegal" drugs. It would be less expensive, and more humane, to simply GIVE the 2-3 percent of addicts their drugs, than arrest and warehouse them, as we're doing now. This doesn't address the ethical issues of drug use, or why people use drugs, but as a practical matter it reduces the likelihood of an addict knocking you over the head for your Timex whenever he needs a fix. The "moral high ground" of the Christian Right and the government's War on People is killing us.

Ninjashadow
March 4th, 2005, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

Ah, so you want cops to start jabbing needles into people on the side of the road? Do you think the cops want to do that?

If they are trained to do it and told to do it.

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Soulman

Drunk and "high" are not equivalent.

BillyBob, I'm a little surprised at you. Don't think we've ever chatted, but you always struck me as a "Libertine," limited government kind of guy.

Perhaps you missed this part of my post:


Originally posted by BillyBob


On the other hand, it seems absurd to me that the prisons are filled with people whose only crime was to sell something that other people wanted to buy. I have the same 'feeling' about the illegality of prostitution. It seems to violate the concept of freedom that is part of our culture.



Where does it say that the government's job is to regulate what we put into our bodies? Lotta stuff out there that's "dangerous" and potentially not "good" for you -- like "dangerous books," hang-gliding, or fooling around with a married woman.

Those are all very different from one another. If the libs have their way, they will regulate more of them.



Addicts, like the poor, will always be with us. Historically, 2-3 percent of drug users become "addicts."

Now, I don't know where you get that number, but I promise you that more than 2-3 percent of crack users become addicted to the stuff.


This says as much about human nature as it does about drugs. Should all "firearms" be confiscated because 2-3 percent of "gun users" use them irresponsibly? Government is never the answser.

You keep comparing things that are not analogous to drugs.



You mentioned drug users commit crimes while high on drugs. No doubt. But most crimes are commited by drug users in order to feed a drug habit made more desperate by the inflated street prices of "illegal" drugs.

It's not that simple. A crack addict has no money, so even if crack cost one quarter of it's current price a crack addict will still commit crimes to obtain his drug. [I don't think I ever said that drug users comit crimes when high, although it certainly happens]



It would be less expensive, and more humane, to simply GIVE the 2-3 percent of addicts their drugs, than arrest and warehouse them, as we're doing now.

What else should we 'give away'? Food? Clothing? A house? Furniture? New Carpeting? A Car? Gasoline? An Air Conditioner?

It isn't the job of the government to supply people with anything. Besides, the government would then be condoning and contributing to addiction. That is absolutely unacceptable.

Your point about arresting drug users simply for possesion is a good one, I agree that it seems to be heavy handed.


This doesn't address the ethical issues of drug use, or why people use drugs, but as a practical matter it reduces the likelihood of an addict knocking you over the head for your Timex whenever he needs a fix.

That's why I carry a gun which, by the way, is specified in the Constitution as my right. There is nothing in there about me having a right to government sponsored crack.

But really, are you actually suggesting that the government freely distribute dangerous drugs to any person who asks for them? Drugs that can readily kill a person?


The "moral high ground" of the Christian Right and the government's War on People is killing us.

How so?

Delmar
March 4th, 2005, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by ninjashadow

If they are trained to do it and told to do it. won't happen

Ninjashadow
March 4th, 2005, 01:58 PM
Probably not. I'm just saying there are ways to do it. In fact, all cops need is probably cause. If they smell pot on someone, they have the right to arrest them and then have the person tested.

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by ninjashadow

If they are trained to do it and told to do it.

You gotta be kidding???? :confused:

One of the biggest fears that cops have is contracting HIV from suspects, especially drug users. The last thing they want to do is be messing around with someones blood on the side of the road. Also, they will be open for all sorts of lawsuits if they start jabbing people, especially if it wasn't warranted.

No, they will have to come up with a different test. Did you read the article I linked to? It seems that a saliva test is the closest thing they have currently, but it doesn't look very reliable.

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by ninjashadow

Probably not. I'm just saying there are ways to do it. In fact, all cops need is probably cause. If they smell pot on someone, they have the right to arrest them and then have the person tested.

What if that person tests negative? I don't want to give cops [nazis] any more authority than they already have.

Ninjashadow
March 4th, 2005, 02:48 PM
Then the suspect is released.

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 02:51 PM
Do you find that acceptable?

Ninjashadow
March 4th, 2005, 02:54 PM
Not really, but if they are trained to smell pot and they think they smell pot, then there's a good chance that this is pot somewhere in the vehicle.

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 03:00 PM
Ah, well pot in the vehicle is something different than a cop [nazi] arresting someone just because he thinks they smell like marijuana.

Besides, we are discussing a scenario where pot is legal but driving stoned [to a certain yet undertimed degree] is not.

Ninjashadow
March 4th, 2005, 03:01 PM
I really don't know what they could do, but I'm sure they'll come up with something, whether it's fair or not.

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 03:19 PM
If it's unfair, should we protest?

Shouldn't we refuse to co operate with Barney and stand up for our rights and freedoms?

Ninjashadow
March 4th, 2005, 03:20 PM
Of course we should, but that hasn't kept them with coming up with unfair laws. It might change those laws, but they just come up with new unfair laws.

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 03:22 PM
So? Does that mean we should give up and just go along with them?

Ninjashadow
March 4th, 2005, 03:23 PM
I'm not saying that nor I have I implied that. What I AM saying is that merely protesting doesn't work, one of us needs to become one of them (in name only) to change the system.

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 03:26 PM
You could contact the ACLU ahead of time, go out of your way to get pulled over after hanging out with someone who was smoking pot so you smelled like a Rastafarian, refuse to co operate with the cop [nazi] and test the law in court after he arrests you falsely.

Ninjashadow
March 4th, 2005, 03:27 PM
I suppose, but you can probably get more done as a Senator than you could doing that. Or not.

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 03:30 PM
I'd rather see more citizens standing up for their rights and become civily disobedient more often.

Ninjashadow
March 4th, 2005, 03:45 PM
Like Martin Luther Kind Jr.? Peaceful resistance?

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 04:23 PM
No, more like: 'I've had it with this crap! I will not co operate and willingly allow you to take away my freedom any longer!'

Then, of course, you barricade yourself in your house with a full arsenal and make ready.

Gerald
March 4th, 2005, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco
Atheists love to quote the Bible...They find it's a useful tool to bludgeon hapless wimpy Christians into silence on cultural issues.My experience has been that a shovel handle is far more effective.

It doesn't work with me you God hating Christophobic hypocrite. :angel: But a shovel handle handle would...

Gerald
March 4th, 2005, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

No, more like: 'I've had it with this crap! I will not co operate and willingly allow you to take away my freedom any longer!'

Then, of course, you barricade yourself in your house with a full arsenal and make ready. Then the cops take out you and your house with a tank.

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

Then the cops take out you and your house with a tank.

Ah, memories of Waco.

One Eyed Jack
March 4th, 2005, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

Here is some info... it's not looking so good for a reliable roadside test.

http://www.idmu.co.uk/drugtestcan.htm

Why can't they just have the person walk in a straight line, tilt his head back, close his eyes, and touch his nose, and perhaps recite the alphabet backwards -- the way they used to do before they had the breathalizer test?

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 06:30 PM
Does pot mess up your sensibilities that way? I seem to remember being able to 'function' rather well while stoned. [I haven't smoked pot in over 20 years, so I may be wrong about my recolection]

One Eyed Jack
March 4th, 2005, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

Does pot mess up your sensibilities that way? I seem to remember being able to 'function' rather well while stoned. [I haven't smoked pot in over 20 years, so I may be wrong about my recolection]

I guess it can if you smoke enough. But if you can pass the roadside sobriety test you should be okay to drive. At least, that's the way I see it.

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 06:41 PM
That's a good point! :up:

Ninjashadow
March 4th, 2005, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

No, more like: 'I've had it with this crap! I will not co operate and willingly allow you to take away my freedom any longer!'

Then, of course, you barricade yourself in your house with a full arsenal and make ready.

Ruby Ridge?

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 07:29 PM
Sure. The feds were found guilty.

Art Deco
March 4th, 2005, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

But isn't freedom also part of our culture? Freedom for what, smoking dope? :confused:

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Freedom for what, smoking dope? :confused:

Freedom in general.

Art Deco
March 4th, 2005, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by Thia

The real drug plagues are methamphetimine and heroin. Meth tweakers are the biggest losers around and a real plague on society. But, that's fodder for another thread. Where did they start the drug habit..." The gateway drug...pot. :doh:

Art Deco
March 4th, 2005, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

What people don't realize--at least the shivering Puritans who want to stomp out weed use--is that it's possible to be a fully functional and productive member of society and still smoke pot. The whole idea of a glass-eyed pothead who doesn't stir till noon time is a stereotype (the first stereotype was that reefer made you go insane and especially turned Negro males into psychotic rapists with a taste for white women; what a coincidence). But it's an effective one, and the mass media's been going along for the ride since Hearst figured out hemp would cost him money.

What a racket. The problem lies in the fact that you think you're fully functional...Pot smokers are the scum of the earth...:madmad:

Art Deco
March 4th, 2005, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Art, once again you're not reading, or paying attention, and you're rushing to judgment. This is a plant that makes you feel better, has medicinal value, and has been used and enjoyed by mankind for thousands of years. What, exactly, are people so afraid of? People like you who think this mind altering drug is harmless. You're sick dude... :doh:

Art Deco
March 4th, 2005, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

We're afraid of the government legalizing pot so the masses are too stoned to notice [or care] what the evil, self serving politicians are doing. That's just for starters...:madmad:

Art Deco
March 4th, 2005, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

And like Deco you ignore the point I made: marijuana has medicinal and beneficial value.

To Billy's point: people can be completely straight and sober and STILL be disinterested or too callous to really give a hoot in hell what the parliament of whores happens to be up to. Politicians have been able to bone us before without the help of weed. Weed is merely a symptom of the culture that glorifies getting stoned..."Let's party dude." Brain dead SOBs that mock the culture and votes Democrat on the off chance they may legalize pot... They're a waste of skin.:mad:

Art Deco
March 4th, 2005, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

I was making a joke.

My opinion is that Marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol and maybe even less harmful in some ways.

I think it desreves the same restrictions that alcohol does as well as the same availability and legality.

However, I am a bit apprehensive that legalizing marijuana may be a step toward legalizing other, more harmful drugs. Where do we draw the line? What scale do we use to determine what intoxicants should be legal and which shouldn't?

What, a patriot giving pot a free pass...?:help:

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

What, a patriot giving pot a free pass...?:help:

Not at all, Art. I realize there has been a lot of posting at this thread today and you are getting caught up. My stance is that pot is probably not a big deal as far as drugs go, but if we legalize pot we are probably opening a bigger can of worms. Also, I do not think that it is culturally advantagious for the US Government to promote drug use by legalizing pot.

I am truly at a crossroads with this issue, but I would prefer to err in favor of safety, which means keeping pot illegal.

I admit, I still have a problem with imprisoning Americans for selling a bag of dried weeds.....

Art Deco
March 4th, 2005, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by deardelmar

A cop once told me that MJ would never be legal untill they devolop a simple non evasive road side test for it. Made sense to me. Just ask a pot head three questions: 1. Who won the last presidential election? 2. Who is the Vice President? 3. What's the name of the Ocean off the Pacific coast of California?

That's a simple roadside test that these jerks couldn't pass with que cards... :doh:

BillyBob
March 4th, 2005, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Just ask a pot head three questions: 1. Who won the last presidential election? 2. Who is the Vice President? 3. What's the name of the Ocean off the Pacific coast of California?

That's a simple roadside test that these jerks couldn't pass with que cards... :doh:

Most dems couldn't pass that test! They would say that Kerry won the election but Bush somehow stole it. :doh:

Art Deco
March 4th, 2005, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

Not at all, Art. I realize there has been a lot of posting at this thread today and you are getting caught up. My stance is that pot is probably not a big deal as far as drugs go, but if we legalize pot we are probably opening a bigger can of worms. Also, I do not think that it is culturally advantagious for the US Government to promote drug use by legalizing pot.

I am truly at a crossroads with this issue, but I would prefer to err in favor of safety, which means keeping pot illegal.

I admit, I still have a problem with imprisoning Americans for selling a bag of dried weeds..... BillyBob, watching these drugged out scum bags tear up America since the 60's only fuels my fire of utter contempt. :madmad:

We should have had hundreds of KENT States,where the national guard finally got even with these drugged out pro NVA maggots. I despise dopers and those who support them. John Kerry and Jane Fonda shared some weed at their anti American demonstrations that cost Americans lives and limbs in Viet Nam. Anyone that sells dope should be shot by firing squad and charge the parents for the ammo. :mad:

Art Deco
March 4th, 2005, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

My experience has been that a shovel handle is far more effective.
But a shovel handle handle would... Bring it Buster... :thumb:

Art Deco
March 4th, 2005, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Why can't they just have the person walk in a straight line, tilt his head back, close his eyes, and touch his nose, and perhaps recite the alphabet backwards -- the way they used to do before they had the breathalizer test? That's to easy..How about some thumb screws and cattle prods... with the accompanying question they can all relate to: How do you feel about that? :mad:

Granite
March 4th, 2005, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

The problem lies in the fact that you think you're fully functional...Pot smokers are the scum of the earth...:madmad:

Art, no offense, but you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Get out more.

Granite
March 4th, 2005, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Weed is merely a symptom of the culture that glorifies getting stoned..."Let's party dude." Brain dead SOBs that mock the culture and votes Democrat on the off chance they may legalize pot... They're a waste of skin.:mad:

What's wrong with having a good time? Puritans and other goose steppers like you seem to have a real problem lightening up, which may be part of your sexually-repressed, skull-crushing issue.

Art, from the sounds of it you have next to zero exposure to actual people who enjoy cannabis from time to time, and for a self-professing Christian have offered no biblical argument for its illegalization.

You're a dying breed, you're angry, and you're scared.

Too bad, so sad.

Thia
March 4th, 2005, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

The problem lies in the fact that you think you're fully functional...Pot smokers are the scum of the earth...:madmad:

I say, what? Try the tweakers,the meth users, my good man. They are truly the scum of the earth.

Art Deco
March 5th, 2005, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by Thia

I say, what? Try the tweakers,the meth users, my good man. They are truly the scum of the earth. I will not deny that meth users are entitled to the term, scum. Meth users are pot smokers who have lost all self control. Pot is certainly the gateway drug for the stupid ignorant fools of society. The moral midgets and cultural nihilists that hate God and all He stands for. These are the pond scum of society. Most of them are emotional cripples that are naturally attracted to the insanity of the anti-God Secular Humanist Democrat Party.


"Let's Party Dude." :Servent:... :dunce:... :Party:... :dizzy:

Art Deco
March 5th, 2005, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

What's wrong with having a good time? Puritans and other goose steppers like you seem to have a real problem lightening up, which may be part of your sexually-repressed, skull-crushing issue. LOL, Puritans, :D Now that you're out of the closet we can see what you really stand for. Those that hate God love the Culture of Death and moral decay. John Kerry and Howard Dean are your role models, gutter rats that have no social redeeming value who have risen to the top of the septic tank Secular Humanist Dmocrat Political Party.

Posted by granite1010:
Art, from the sounds of it you have next to zero exposure to actual people who enjoy cannabis from time to time, and for a self-professing Christian have offered no biblical argument for its illegalization. Yeah right, 23 years in the Navy Seabees with two tours in VietNam, and I haven't been around pot smokers? :doh: I need to offer a pot smoking anti-God mocker Biblical support for outlawing of Pot? :nono:

Posted by Granite1010:
You're a dying breed, you're angry, and you're scared.Too bad, so sad. I am a dying breed. A God fearing American that has watched his beloved country trashed by God hating pot smoking nihilists. I am angry, watching the Christian Church run into the ground by gutless wimps in panty hose behind the pulpits, and the feminization of the Church. The Chuch has grown King Size ovaries over the last fifty years...Yeah, I'm angry the Church has ODd on sugar and the salt was poured out on the ground.


Scared? Two out of three aint bad for a pot smoker, I'll give you that. :nono: Scared I'm not. I fear no man. I fear God. Man can only kill the body, God can kill the body and then send the wretch to a lake of fire for eternity.:shocked:

Granite
March 5th, 2005, 09:50 AM
"LOL, Puritans, Now that you're out of the closet we can see what you really stand for. Those that hate God love the Culture of Death and moral decay. John Kerry and Howard Dean are your role models, gutter rats that have no social redeeming value who have risen to the top of the septic tank Secular Humanist Dmocrat Political Party."

:yawn:

Art, I'm a pro-life low-tax live free or die libertarian, so get a clue. Look before your leap, as I've enjoined you to do more than once...the last people on my list of role models are a pruned-up lib from Mass (a state which gets zero respect in NH, so you know) and a screeching no-talent rabblerouser. Try try again.

Actually, if we just want to look at politicians who I'd consider admirable--there are some, believe it or not--Cleveland and Coolidge would make my immediate short list.

"I need to offer a pot smoking anti-God mocker Biblical support for outlawing of Pot?"

I've done weed, what...ah, yes. Five fingers on my hand. That'd be about it. The anti-God part I take issue with, considering I'm agnostic on the whole deal. Moreover, not even offering anything but a knee-jerk subjective opinion is fine, but at least go out a limb and explain why as a Christian you're opposed to the stuff. Might help clarify things. Till then you can comfort yourself with this BS don't-throw-pearls-before-swine routine, but that's intellectually dishonest. Not to mention lazy.

"I am a dying breed. A God fearing American that has watched his beloved country trashed by God hating pot smoking nihilists."

Pot's the last thing you should sweat about. If anything it takes the edge off. Now, bankers and the establishment and the oligarchs, that's your problem.

By the way, your misogyny's just getting more and more apparent.

Art Deco
March 5th, 2005, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

"LOL, Puritans, Now that you're out of the closet we can see what you really stand for. Those that hate God love the Culture of Death and moral decay. John Kerry and Howard Dean are your role models, gutter rats that have no social redeeming value who have risen to the top of the septic tank Secular Humanist Dmocrat Political Party."

:yawn:

Art, I'm a pro-life low-tax live free or die libertarian, so get a clue. Look before your leap, as I've enjoined you to do more than once...the last people on my list of role models are a pruned-up lib from Mass (a state which gets zero respect in NH, so you know) and a screeching no-talent rabblerouser. Try try again.

Actually, if we just want to look at politicians who I'd consider admirable--there are some, believe it or not--Cleveland and Coolidge would make my immediate short list. That would be Grover and Calvin?


"I need to offer a pot smoking anti-God mocker Biblical support for outlawing of Pot?"

I've done weed, what...ah, yes. Five fingers on my hand. That'd be about it. The anti-God part I take issue with, considering I'm agnostic on the whole deal. Moreover, not even offering anything but a knee-jerk subjective opinion is fine, but at least go out a limb and explain why as a Christian you're opposed to the stuff. Might help clarify things. Till then you can comfort yourself with this BS don't-throw-pearls-before-swine routine, but that's intellectually dishonest. Not to mention lazy.

Posted by Granite1010:
"I am a dying breed. A God fearing American that has watched his beloved country trashed by God hating pot smoking nihilists."

Pot's the last thing you should sweat about. If anything it takes the edge off. Now, bankers and the establishment and the oligarchs, that's your problem. Yeah it's all part of God's curse on this nation.

Posted by Granite1010:
By the way, your misogyny's just getting more and more apparent. I don't hate women, I respect women, my wife can attest to that. Your feminst side is showing Granite. You sound like Phil Donahue...LOL :chuckle:

Granite
March 5th, 2005, 08:20 PM
Gee, Art. I don't know. What OTHER presidents shared those surnames? Is this the Christian version of "being witty"? Because it's referred to usually as "playing dumb," which is not the same thing.

So you "respect" women, you just don't think the child carriers should vote. Gotcha.:rolleyes:

What a sad pack of sexually-repressed goosesteppers you people can be. No humor, no lightness, no joy, no spontaneity. Certainly no freedom. No curiosity...no exploration. No intellectual wonder. No investigation, nothing. Here's Christianspeak: if I don't understand it, get rid of it. Burn a library. Keep women from voting, much less thinking on their own. Make sure sex is described as evil, dirty, and vile. Make sure people can't drink.

And you wonder why people are turned off to the grind of the gospel.

Art Deco
March 6th, 2005, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Gee, Art. I don't know. What OTHER presidents shared those surnames? Is this the Christian version of "being witty"? Because it's referred to usually as "playing dumb," which is not the same thing. I thought you were being witty, in your understated Northeastern droll manner.


Posted by Granite1010:
What a sad pack of sexually-repressed goosesteppers you people can be. No humor, no lightness, no joy, no spontaneity. Certainly no freedom. No curiosity...no exploration. No intellectual wonder. No investigation, nothing. Here's Christianspeak: if I don't understand it, get rid of it. Burn a library. Keep women from voting, much less thinking on their own. Make sure sex is described as evil, dirty, and vile. Make sure people can't drink.And you wonder why people are turned off to the grind of the gospel. Your mis-representation of the Christian walk is typical of Christophobes like you. I would expect nothing less... :doh:

BillyBob
March 6th, 2005, 08:55 AM
Wow, you guys are really going at it!

:box: