Flare Sci-Fi Forums: The Pot. Discuss.

This is topic The Pot. Discuss. in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/671.html

Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

I've spent most of the day reading this book this book . I must say it's an education. I've learnt more history today than I would have in weeks of school.

I would like to know what the other members of this forum think about this subject. I would be surprised if there were a significant fraction of the members against cannabis here. Why then, is it illegal? What kind of farcical parody of democracy are we living in?

(Although I'm from Ireland it doesn't really matter as it's illegal pretty much everywhere except Holland and Belgium)

------------------
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen"
Samuel Adams

[This message has been edited by Gurgeh (edited May 02, 2001).]

Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :

Well, let me put it to you this way. Try it and find out for yourself.

------------------
Re: Russia in WWII

"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

But they don't NEED to try it. Mom, Pop, Pastor Bob and the Republicans all say it's bad!

------------------
Phasers

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Who here would take an Orion pirate named Bob seriously? I know I wouldn't.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
***
Card-Carrying Member of the Flare APAO
***
"I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" - Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 23, 1994.

Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

Daryus said:

quote:
Well, let me put it to you this way. Try it and find out for yourself.

Exactly what is this supposed to mean? I have tried it. You seem to imply that, having tried it, it should be clear to me why it is illegal. I still don't see why it should be illegal, Daryus. Actually, it is pretty clear to me that it shouldn't be illegal.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

It should be illegal. So should ethanol and nicotine. And everything else that annoys me. Like spiders. Outlaw spiders. I can't stand them... *shudder*

What were we talking about?

------------------
"Although, from what I understand, having travelled around the Mid-west quite a bit, apparently Jesus is coming, so I guess the choice now is we should decide whether we should spit or swallow."
-Maynard James Keenan

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Your enemy's you and your couch is your life, mota boy.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"There are also the diphthongs ae and oe, with no English counterparts; Tolkien actually suggests substituting ai and oi if you don't care about such details...but anyone reading this document probably does care about the details." - Sindarin information

Posted by Gaseous Anomaly (Member # 114) on :

Why does ganj bother you, Tim? Specifics.

------------------
At that point, McDonald fired his gun three times in the air to emphasize his point. The crowd, estimated at 350,000, loudly cheered the new candidate.

"Let me make this clear: I am the law! I am your ruler! And you will have fries with that, motherf*cker!"

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

I think his last sentence sums it up well.

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

You gotta problem with weed? Talk to the weed man!

------------------
"Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"

-Nimrod 16/4/2001

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

I refuse to talk to weed. And drugs are baed.
Having good judgement does not mean taking juuust enough drugs so as not to get addicted, good judgement means not taking them at all.

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

I don't know. I'm reconsidering my judgement on this issue.

Didja know Carl Sagan smoked it?

Personally, I think that it's not much more harmful than alcohol.

Then again, I think people who drive drunk should be punished a lot more harshly than they are.

Okay, you can use the stuff, provided you do it in moderation, alone, far from any heavy machinery. Or we'll kill you.

------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited May 04, 2001).]

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

The thing is, the contacts you have to get the drug probably have other merchandise as well, and wouldn't be sad if you became a bigger customer.

It's more common for marijuana smokers to move on to other drugs than it is for alcoholics.

All the other stuff that's become famous, like GHB, really scares me. I mean, if you can be encouraged to at least try heroin or amphetamine once, it's not a huge step towards other drugs. And stuff like GHB can make you OD without warning, the symptoms can be very subtle.
There are lots of kids, in sweden too, that have just gone into seizure and died after taking their regular sip, not even an increased dosage.

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

If anything, marijuana kills your ambition.

Every single last smoker-of-weed that I have ever met, was either dropping out of college, didn't care to get into college(or anything else for that matter) or was a 7th-year senior.

When your mind is your biggest asset, why take something that will fuck with it?

------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." J. Richmond

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

's true, the people I knew who smoked it and were still successful didn't smoke it with anything that could have been considered regularity... I mean like once or twice a year or so. Not daily or even weekly. Enough time for the body to recover.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

By why do something harmful, even that infrequently, if you don't have to? That like saying "Sure, I stab myself repeatedly in the abdomen w/ an ice pick. But only once or twice a year. The body heals in between."...

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

I don't know. Why do people eat hamburgers? Or pizza? They're not exactly health foods, either.

Humans LIKE doing things that aren't good for them. It's like I said... they're all insane.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Gurgeh: Daryus wasn't implying that you should take it to find out why is should be kept illegal. I think he was making a point that almost no-one here will have tried it, and yet they will still denounce it as being evil.

Strangely, at university, no-one that I hang around with takes it. Also strangely, none of them smoke. I can't say that I want to complain about it. The thing is, none of them are really against it, but they just can't be arsed, when they can just as easily drink alcohol. Besides, none of them like smoking tobacco, so they are not likely to smoke pot.

------------------
You know, when Comedy Central asked us to do a Thanksgiving episode, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Boy, I'd like to have sex with Jennifer Aniston."
-Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I'm with Rob. Do pot all you want. Eliminate stupidity from the gene pool. But if you endanger other people while doing it, we shoot you.

------------------
"How do you define fool?"
"I don't attempt it. I wait for demonstrations. They inevitably surpass my imagination."
- CJ Cherryh, Invader

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

So, when, for example, a future President of the U.S. drives drunk, he should be dragged from his car and shot ... ?

Interesting conflict, there.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Well, since I believe that everyone's entitled to ONE screw up, provided nobody else gets hurt, I'd say you can only shoot them on the second offense.

And of COURSE after the trial.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :

JeffKardde, so was that last point an argument for or against? I can't quite figure it out

------------------
"The Guide says that there is an art to flying...or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." - Life, the Universe and Everything

Posted by Obese Penguin (Member # 271) on :

*comes out of the wood work*

Hey , its been a while since i've posted but i've been looming in the shadows for a while and this topic baited me out of my foxhole

They say Marijauna is a "gateway" drug , in that it introduces you to the subculture of drug abuse , i believe Nimrod said somthing about the contacts you need to get to obtain marijauna often have other products which arnt so harmless , he is totally correct. But if anything that is a HUGE reason to legalize weed , if you legalize and regulate it , you do away with the criminal element around it.

I mean what danger of encountering set backs if you could go to your local pharmacy and buy Government regulated safe stuff?

You do away with not only the criminal element but the risk of purchasing some kind of laced material and other dangers.

BTW , Marijuana isnt totally illeagal its a "regulated substance" in that you have to obtain a Federal government issued licence to have it on your person. Under the Harrison Narcotics act if you have the licence its perfectly legal to have it. Of course the Government doesnt issue the licence.

If anything , the Goverment itself is to blame for the criminal element around Marijuana. Back in the early to mid 1900's the US had a huge Cocaine/herion abuse problem , so in their efforts to establish the first clear narcotics laws they lumped Marijuana in with the REAL DRUG PROBLEM , Cocaine , Herion and the other hard drugs.

My Thoughts can be summed up in the words or Dana Carvey

"Legalize it , tax the shit out of it , and build schools for my kids"

Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :

I like this Dana..very smart.

------------------
Re: Russia in WWII

"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.

Posted by USS Vanguard (Member # 130) on :

Ah yes, but wasn't mr. Carvy refering to prostitution...but that's a different topic completely...

------------------
Signatures are for losers

Posted by Obese Penguin (Member # 271) on :

Yeah , But that quote works on so many levels !

------------------
The Kiwi Wars are over... The forces of the Kiwi Order have prevailed and the galaxy is now safe for Kiwi Kind!
Jupiter Station , Starfleet Research & Development

Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :

So you supposedly knowledgeable people, enlighten me: does smoking marijuana damage your brain and respiratory system? And if so, to what extent?

What I'm trying to get at here, is that everything we do damages our body. Eating, drinking, breathing, thinking, anything we do wears us down. By the time you hit fifty, if not before, your bodily systems are already beginning to degrade.

So, the question is, to what extent do we wish to damage ourselves? How fast do we want to speed up the process? Some will say that anything in moderation is good, and thus not cause sufficient damage to be a problem. Well, I don't believe in that. Eating cream puffs in moderation is okay, but I mean, try drinking a little bit of HCl. Or breathing in a few particles of asbestos. Or standing next to a bucket of radioactive plutonium for a few minutes. Not good for you. Even in moderation.

I'm not sure if marijuana fits into that category. But, if the damage caused to one's brain while smoking it is considerable, then I think it might. I put regular cigarettes into that category because of the cumulative damage it does to the lungs.

But, I mean, if you want to limit YOUR abilities and damage YOUR body and end YOUR life a little bit earlier, I can't say anything about it now can I?

------------------
"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism."

-Eleanor Arroway, "Contact" by Carl Sagan

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Ahhh, but was it his only offense? Or the only one he admitted to ...

Posted by Obese Penguin (Member # 271) on :

USDA Sponsered studies show Marijuana does NOT kill brain cells in normal doses.

People seem to always draw some sort of connection between Cigerretes and Marijuana , but people forget , Cigerettes are almost all poisons and other synthetic chemical additives , where as a marijuana joint if rolled with pure stuff is almost 100 percent natural with the exception of the Rolling paper.

Also the same study proves that lung damage is minimal with marijuana use.

Theres a book published by some USDA scientists called "Myths and Facts of Marijuana" or somthing like that the exact title escapes me now. But the book is very informative and does away with alot of the misconceptions of Marijuana.

------------------
The Kiwi Wars are over... The forces of the Kiwi Order have prevailed and the galaxy is now safe for Kiwi Kind!
Jupiter Station , Starfleet Research & Development

Posted by Obese Penguin (Member # 271) on :

LMAO , i just noticed how old my Signiture is , i really should take that site down... LOL

------------------
The Kiwi Wars are over... The forces of the Kiwi Order have prevailed and the galaxy is now safe for Kiwi Kind!
Jupiter Station , Starfleet Research & Development

Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :

A lot of herbal remedies are also 100% natural, yet can be highly dangerous because they are not required to pass the rigorous testing and study procedures of the FDA that are applied to other drugs. I don't trust or take any of them.

What I'm saying is that because something is "natural" does not automatically make it safe or good for human consumption. I will again revert to plutonium. 100% natural. Good for you? Nooo. Neither is 12 molar hydrochloric acid, which is an ionic compound of two pure elements in an aqueous solution. can't get more natural than that.

I still say that breathing in lungfuls of smoke isn't really going to help out your respiratory system very much, regardless of whether or not the burning substance is "natural" or "unprocessed".

By the way, how does this "study" define "minimal" in terms of lung damage? And, what is the "normal" dosage for marijuana? I would also like to point out that the USDA or some association thereof published a study saying that a boxful of rasberries a day prevents cancer.

Yeah. Right.

The Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration have very different goals, I think.

------------------
"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism."

-Eleanor Arroway, "Contact" by Carl Sagan

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Assume for a moment that marijuana would be completely legal. Would you get in a taxi with a puffing driver? Would you get on a train in the same situation?

And what about passive smoking? Pregnant women, serving in bars and restaurants with 30% weed smokers?

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

I think it's dumb. I sure as hell won't do it. But, really, as far as other people are concerned, I'll quote Ebenezer Scrooge: "If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population." Not that they die too often, but you get the point. Let people do their own stupid things, and bear their own consequences.

However, I think it should only be legal for people to do while locked away somewhere, where they can't affect the rest of us.

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

<cough>Marijuana is more carcinogenic than tobacco.</cough>

------------------
"And as it is, it is cheaper than drinking."
-DT on arguing with Omega, April 30

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Are you sure? I didn't think so, but maybe you're right. Maybe people just don't tend to get cancer from it because they tend to smoke it less than tobacco...

Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :

well yeah, considering that weed is that much more expensive then smokes.

------------------
What is the difference between a terriorist and your girlfriend?
- With terrorist, there is a chance of negotiation.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Well, not if they keep raising taxes on cigarettes. Which, of course, they should. :-)

------------------
Lister: "Cat, what are you doing?"
Cat: "I'm courting."
Lister: "Courting who?"
Cat: "Whoever shows up!"
-Red Dwarf, "Me�"

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I thought taxes were bad? (Even when they might discourage people from killing themselves)

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Not if they are spent on better things, like kindergartens, hospitals and such.

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

"Assume for a moment that marijuana would be completely legal. Would you get in a taxi with a puffing driver?"

Er, of course not. But then, I wouldn't get in a tazi with a driver who's drinking a pint of bitter.

"And what about passive smoking? Pregnant women, serving in bars and restaurants with 30% weed smokers?"

Now, don't bars and restaurants often have these crazy areas we call "non-smoking sections"? Wouldn't that almost certainly apply to pot as well?

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Won't mean a thing on a busy saturday night, especially for the people working there.

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Liam: Maybe it's different where you are, but I've never seen a place w/ smoking and non-smoking sections where the two areas don't share the same air. There aren't actually walls separating the two sections. Smoke just wafts right from one to the other...

------------------
Lister: "Cat, what are you doing?"
Cat: "I'm courting."
Lister: "Courting who?"
Cat: "Whoever shows up!"
-Red Dwarf, "Me�"

Posted by Obese Penguin (Member # 271) on :

Well as for the high taxi driver comment , I think Most people as with drinking will be grown up enough to keep away from heavy equipment and public situations , of course theres always gona be the few assholes who feel they have to endanger other peoples lives , as with alcohol.

I think that if Marijuana was to be legalized there would definatly need to be some sort of rock hard regulation.

I smoke from time to time and everyone i know doesnt like to be out and about while high, you all seem to forget weed isnt a "party drug" its more of a chill out and lay down experiance.

Also , a pack of Malboros is what? 3 dollers US? I dunno im not interested in Cigerettes , worst habit possible if you ask me.

Well just for your info , the average nickel bag of weed is 5 dollers a Nickel is enough for id say 2 - 3 people depending on what kind of smokers your dealing with.

Cancer , well compare smoking one or two joint a day to 2 1/2 packs of Poison Sticks?

As for the tax issue , i wouldnt mind paying a bit extra if the cash is going where it needs to go.

Taxes arent bad , If paying the gov a peice of my pay check keeps my roads paved , my neighborhood safe and my kids educated , i have no problems with that.

I guess my arguement is , Legalize it , but first conduct some indepth studies into how to keep some control on it.

I guess the best way is to start issueing those Marijuana sells licences to trusted drug companies. If you give teh average smoker a choice between going to his local pharmacy and buying Phizer Brand or going to Joe Cokehead on the corner and being potentialy laced stuff and the pharmacy will win.

I guess the problem that might come up there is Phizer or some other company putting some kind of addictive substance in their weed.

Again , Government regulation is the key.

I'm done rambling on

------------------
The Kiwi Wars are over... The forces of the Kiwi Order have prevailed and the galaxy is now safe for Kiwi Kind!
Jupiter Station , Starfleet Research & Development

Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :

I think I must live in a blessed state. I believe it is illegal to smoke in public areas in New York. You never walk into a restaurant and smell cigarette smoke. Everyone is always smoking outside. Same for any other public building. I like it.

------------------
"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism."

-Eleanor Arroway, "Contact" by Carl Sagan

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Smoking outside should be illegal, too. Even if one spends time in a non-smoking building, one still has to walk through all the smokers when one leaves the building.

------------------
Lister: "Cat, what are you doing?"
Cat: "I'm courting."
Lister: "Courting who?"
Cat: "Whoever shows up!"
-Red Dwarf, "Me�"

Posted by Obese Penguin (Member # 271) on :

yes and driving in LA should be illegal too because you have to breathe in the smog everytime you leave your house.

Face it guys , smoking is here to stay i mean really i agree its an ugly thing and really shouldnt be allowed in public but its to late to start ripping smokers of their rights , i agree smoking in a public building where your forced to breathe recirculated cigerrete smoke should be illegal , but if we start ripping people of their right to smoke outside , whats next?

I mean put yourself in their shoes , for example lets say you have a really nice and expensive car that doesnt and one day they make it illegal for you to drive it because someone is forced to breathe in the exhaust at some point.

People are becoming to prissy about things in America latley , everyone is just searching for some reason to piss and moan about ssomething , I'm guilty of it to , i just finding something to piss and moan about that doesnt really have any effect on you.

Is it just me or do I always make these long drawn out posts where a short one would have expressed the same idea ? Imagine me in a conversation LOL

Anyway , what im saying is , Smoking should be prohibited in public buildings , but once your outside its a free world. The Outside is the smokers last resort.

------------------
"You dont win a war by dieing for your country , you win by making they other poor bastard die for his" - General Patton

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

I believe that there is a small community back east that has done such a thing. It has banned smoking in all public places to include out of doors within the specified area.

As a former smoker (8 September 2000 was the day I quit) I rather think that goes beyond what is necessary to insure the health of those non-smokers who had to incounter us.

------------------
I'll kill you, you bloated museum of treachery!
~ C. Montgomery Burns

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited May 07, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

To Read More About Jay's Fight With The Cancer Stick, CLICK HERE!!!!!

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

LOL!

That thread was back in '99...and on that occasion, I did give in to the call and went back to the weed not of this thread. However, on 8 September 2000, I quit for good and have not had one in the intervening 9 months.

Work has been a big pile of suck the last few weeks and MAN I WANT ONE BAD!!! But no, I shant give in to the weed not of this thread for I have quit for good.

It's tough-diddily-uff sometimes, but I smoke no more. It's a good feeling.

------------------
I'll kill you, you bloated museum of treachery!
~ C. Montgomery Burns

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited May 08, 2001).]

Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

I can readily accept people's reservations about pot, but really, bringing up something like getting into a taxi with the driver smoking is a bit irrelevant. If it's legalized there are obviously going to be restrictions on its use, and rightly so. Let's put that aside for awhile.

The main issue is whether it should be legal at all. The point has been raised of its effect on health. I'd be the first to admit that inhaling smoke, of any form, can't be good for you, but AFAIK marijuana smoke doesn't contain many toxins like tar etc.
In terms of its effect on the brain, it is psychoactive, and with overuse sure, it can make you a bit dumb, but in reasonable doses the effects are not serious. Loss of ambition can be a symptom, with overuse, but a person can choose not to smoke pot just as they can choose not to drink alcohol.

Basically what I'm getting at is whether the benign (IMO) effects above justify making the plant illegal. The book www.growmedicine.com/index3.htm I linked to earlier has lots of facts about marijuana that most people don't know, so I really recommend people to read it before making up their minds. Marijuana has benefits too, such as increased appetite, and can help with many medical disorders. Not to mention the fact that it is enjoyable, without very serious consequences.

Despite the fact the everyone agrees that the effects aren't destructive in comparison to cigarettes & booze, the bottom line is: If you grow or smoke pot you are liable to be thrown in prison on trumped up charges. Even those against smoking pot should be able to see that this kind of law is in need of review.

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

"AFAIK marijuana smoke doesn't contain many toxins like tar etc."

From the NIDA:

"The amount of tar inhaled by marijuana smokers and the level of carbon monoxide absorbed are three to five times greater than among tobacco smokers. This may be due to the marijuana users' inhaling more deeply and holding the smoke in the lungs and because marijuana smoke is unfiltered."

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

". Marijuana has benefits too, such as increased appetite,"

That's the first time I've ever heard of 'the munchies' being a beneficial side effect. And if increased appetite means you just suck down more pizza and burgers, that's not a health benefit. better than 60% of the US is overweight anyway.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

"People are becoming to prissy about things in America latley , everyone is just searching for some reason to piss and moan about ssomething , I'm guilty of it to , i just finding something to piss and moan about that doesnt really have any effect on you."

How does it not "have any effect on [me]"? If you started coughing up a lung every time you inhale near an immediately-practicing smoker, you'd want them all to drop dead, too.

------------------
Lister: "Cat, what are you doing?"
Cat: "I'm courting."
Lister: "Courting who?"
Cat: "Whoever shows up!"
-Red Dwarf, "Me�"

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Some medical treatments such as chemotherapy decrease appetite; therefore, use of marijuana has the beneficial affect of inceasing lost appetite.

And besides, I thought you conservatives would be falling all over yourselves speaking up for individual choice when it comes to marijuana and the like. The government has no business limiting what people do and all that.

------------------
I'll kill you, you bloated museum of treachery!
~ C. Montgomery Burns

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited May 09, 2001).]

Posted by Obese Penguin (Member # 271) on :

Who makes a habit gravitating towards smokers while walking down a street?

I mean , if i'm walking down the street and some guy is puffing on his cigerette i usually steer clear of his smoke screen not run right through it. Its his right to smoke , you dont HAVE to walk through his smoke feild if your in an outside area. Of course if your inside its another matter all together , there your being FORCED to endure the person.

On the health benefits of Marijuana , the active ingrediant in weed is THC , and THC is very good for people with cateracts(SP) , its also helpful as a setative and painkiller for cancer patients.

------------------
"You dont win a war by dieing for your country , you win by making they other poor bastard die for his" - General Patton

[This message has been edited by Dhunter (edited May 09, 2001).]

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

No, no, government has no right to limit our economic activities. Our personal lives are fair game.

------------------
OH NO< THE OLD MAN WALKS HIS GREEN DOG THAT SHOTS PINBALLS!~!!!
--
Jeff K
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet" and nothing at all will happen.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Jay: At my school, crowds of people hang around the doors of the buildings, smoking. I can't go into the building to get to class, or come out of the building afterward, w/o walking through their atmospheric atrocities...

------------------
Lister: "Cat, what are you doing?"
Cat: "I'm courting."
Lister: "Courting who?"
Cat: "Whoever shows up!"
-Red Dwarf, "Me�"

Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :

It's not illegal where I live (guess what: the Netherlands).

Soft-drugs are legal here, and it has allegedly reduced crime rates (except for the illegal exportation to our neighbour countries).

------------------
"Fuck L Ron Hubbard and fuck all his clones.
Fuck all those gun-toting
hip gangster wannabes."
-Tool, Ænima

---
Titan Fleet Yards - Harry Doddema's Star Trek Site

Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

Frank: I stand corrected on the tar issue. I don't dispute the info about concentration, learning etc. mentioned on that site. However, it is fairly clear from that site that they are biased against pot and I personally wouldn't take everything they say as strict unexaggerated truth.

Also, even taking the lung damage into account, is this reason enough to make it illegal? Bear in mind that marijuana can be eaten too; if legalized, the government could always declare smoking of hemp as an ill-advised use of the substance. Eg. I could break up some coal and smoke it, and I'm sure that wouldn't be too good for my lungs, but smoking of coal is an ill-advised use of the substance.

Increase in appetite is a good thing. As Jay mentioned, chemotherapy and wasting conditions can cause a lack of appetite. If some Americans (or indeed, people from other countries) are fat, it's generally because they are lazy, unexcercised, uneducated about basic nutrition, and undisciplined in their lifestyle, and legalizing marijuana will not change this.

Sol: I know that remark about our personal lives as being fair game was a probably a joke, but just in case it wasn't, I have to ask, should our personal lives be fair game to the government? (I mean this in issues where people are not adversely affecting the others in the population.)
------------------
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen"
Samuel Adams

[This message has been edited by Gurgeh (edited May 11, 2001).]

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Coal smoker, huh? Grasping for straws, are we?

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by Gaseous Anomaly (Member # 114) on :

Why, Nimrod? Have ya a few lines we can bang back, eh?

------------------
At that point, McDonald fired his gun three times in the air to emphasize his point. The crowd, estimated at 350,000, loudly cheered the new candidate.

"Let me make this clear: I am the law! I am your ruler! And you will have fries with that, motherf*cker!"

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

I was just amused about the comparison. Inhaling coal is bad, yes, and so is smoking. Didn't quite help Gurgeh's case.

Gurgeh: "Also, even taking the lung damage into account, is this reason enough to make it illegal?"

Here you advocate that lung damage isn't reason enough. Because that's the impression you sent out when you said that.
Then you back down on that point and retreat to "well, we can always eat it instead, and not smoke it".
So now you agree that lung damage is reason enough to make it illegal? Make up your mind!

"If people are fat, it's generally because they are lazy, unexcercised, uneducated about basic nutrition, and undisciplined in their lifestyle, and legalizing marijuana will not change this."

So why legalize it then, if it won't change the overweight bit? You just gave up your weight loss argument.
You are burning your own ships, what is this?

Gaseous Anomaly: "we" can bang back???
I haven't seen you adding to this discussion.

------------------
Don't kill me, I'm charming!

Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

Nimrod: You seem to have misunderstood one or two things in my post. I read back over my post and tried to see where something I said might have led to confusion. What I was saying seems pretty clear to me, but let me attempt to clarify:

Inhaling coal is bad, yes, and so is smoking. Coal is legal, marijuana isn't. All I was trying to do with this ( admittedly rather facile ) comparison was to eliminate the smoking factor from the reasons against legalising marijuana. You don't have to smoke coal, you don't have to smoke marijuana.

Which is where the eating comes into it. You can eat marijuana, and not smoke it. This is not, as you imply, to say that lung damage from smoking is reason enough to ban it, and that I'm backing down on what I said before. Here I mean that for those who are concerned about the lung damage, they can eat it instead. For those who aren't worried about it, they can smoke it. What I'm saying, exactly, is that someone who wants to use lung damage as an argument against the legalisation hasn't really got a leg to stand on.

About the obesity issue: My remark that obesity in society would not be affected by legalization of marijuana does not in any way militate against my argument for legalization. Your reasoning for saying

quote:
So why legalize it then, if it won't change the overweight bit? You just gave up your weight loss argument.

is badly flawed, I'm afraid. This is because I am not arguing that marijuana should be legalized in order to reduce obesity, but that it should be legalized because of other reasons. My statement that obesity would not be affected by smoking pot was in response to a post by First of Two, where the point was made that the increased appetite would make people overweight.

Now that all that explaining is out of the way, I'll try to address another issue.

I would suggest that there be an age requirement for the use of marijuana, for the reasons of concentration, ambition etc mentioned previously, so that at the minimum age, an adult could make an informed decision as to whether to smoke/eat marijuana products. One might argue about people being able to get marijuana before reaching the required age. However, this is more of a problem in our (with the exception of Holland and Belgium) current situation (where marijuana distribution is illegal, and thus unregulated), than it would be if marijuana was legal and regulated.

[This message has been edited by Gurgeh (edited May 15, 2001).]

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

I had a hash yogurt once. I sat there and giggled for half an hour. 8)

------------------
Phasers

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Some people pride themselves on the most inane things...

------------------
Lister: "Drop dead, Rimmer."
Rimmer: "Already have done."
Lister: "Encore."
-Red Dwarf, "Kryten"

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

Like being a part-time librarian?

------------------
Phasers

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

That not inane. Intentionally spending half-an-hour as the equivalent of a mental reject... that's inane...

------------------
Lister: "Drop dead, Rimmer."
Rimmer: "Already have done."
Lister: "Encore."
-Red Dwarf, "Kryten"

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I've never spent half an hour imitating you, TSN, whatever do you speak of -- ?

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
***
Card-Carrying Member of the Flare APAO
***
"I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" - Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 23, 1994.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Eh? What are you talking about? You weren't stoned when you typed that, were you? *L*

------------------
Lister: "Drop dead, Rimmer."
Rimmer: "Already have done."
Lister: "Encore."
-Red Dwarf, "Kryten"

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

Again, we come back to the most commmon argument that's been proposed in this thread: "don't knock it if you haven't tried it."

People are morons. If they want to be stupid, let 'em. Why muddy the gene pool? Plenty of people mamage to smoke pot without turning into criminal drug-ravaged sex-maniacal fiends.

I've done a fair amount of hash, and on the whole I can take it or leave it. It made me feel nice, it's had some interesting effects on my sex life (but I've been told not to talk about that here), but on the whole I'd sooner have a nice bottle of wine. Or some cocaine. 8)

------------------
Phasers

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

To quote the eternal response to "I can always quit whenever I want"... Suure you can!

Well, as long as you mamage to keep it from affecting your spelling.

------------------
"Babies haven't any hair;
old men's heads are just as bare;
between the cradle and the grave
lies a haircut and a shave."

Samuel Hoffenstein

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

LOL, you guys need to chill about weed, download Weed Man, by Jerky boys on napster and have some laughs.

------------------
It never stops, when my mama ask me will I change
I tell her yeah, but it's clear I'll always be the same
Until the end of time
- Tupac Shakur, Untill the End of Time

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

What an interesting theory... Does it apply to everything? Such as, don't knock suicide 'til you've tried it...

------------------
"Adults Do Not Teach By Examples, But By Word Scams That Brainwash And Indoctrinate Their Children's Malleable Minds, Destroying Youth. Rote Education Corrupts Childhood, Forcing Children To Become Adults."
-Gene Ray

Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

Obviously not, TSN. I mean, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Remarks like that do nothing to progress a discussion.

Nimrod: When Vogon Poet said he could "take it or leave it" when referring to hash, I think he was referring to his affinity for the substance, and not dependence, as you seem to have interpreted it. Despite what NIDA http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/marijuana.html say I don't think anyone could say that marijuana is physically addictive with any credibility, even for long term use. Which is a damn sight more than can be said for alcohol and tobacco.

Although I haven't seen many arguments here against legalisation ( and all the valid arguments have been addressed and given consideration ), there still seem to be one or two people here "against" cannabis, without a reason that I find satisfactory.

I can understand how being brought up in an environment where people lump cannabis in with hard drugs can tend to bias someones opinion. And besides, if something is illegal, it usually is bad. However, my argument is that cannabis is an exception. Banning it was a mistake.

I don't expect those against legalisation to just reverse their opinion because of my arguments, after all, the adversarial situation often formed in a debate hinders more than aids this, but I would appreciate if those individuals would come up with solid arguments instead of muddying the waters. Arguments like the effect of cannabis on learning and concentration, its effect on health, these are the kind of solid arguments I'm talking about. Most of the points have been exhausted on this topic, it seems, so at this stage I think it can be left to everyone to make up their own mind. Here are some links:

http://www.marijuana-hemp.com/cin/facts/
http://www.growmedicine.com/index3.htm
http://www.cannabis.com/faqs/

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

Thanks Jernau. Nimmychops' post left me a little confused myself; truth is, dope doesn't do a lot for me. There are very few occasions when it can be said to have enhanced the experience of what I was doing at the time. And as for Timothy, he has this habit of making these little digs at many of my posts; just ignore him, that's what I do. 8)

------------------
Phasers

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Dope doesn't do a lot for you? So you spend money on getting an effect that can be rivaled by eating chocolate?

I was kidding in my previous post, I don't presume to know your cannabis addiction limit. I'm sure there are many people that don't get addicted to it.
I'm one of them, because I won't use it.

It's like this; the only way I could try weed would be at a party or at the music festival I'll be going to in three weeks. I was offered some last year but didn't take it.

And you see, if I do start to smoke at parties, then I'd want to smoke at every party with the same atmosphere/mood. Then maybe I'd want to start bying my own weed, and then I'm there. BANG!
And I'll only know that I'm addicted if I stop taking it for a while. And if I have enough money, enough friends and enough parties then I won't need to stop smoking it. Until I get children and have to stop, only suddenly I don't want to.
And I'll lose the respect of my parents, my family, my non-drug friends and subsequently myself (well, the self respect is what goes first, actually).

------------------
"Babies haven't any hair;
old men's heads are just as bare;
between the cradle and the grave
lies a haircut and a shave."

Samuel Hoffenstein

[This message has been edited by Nimrod (edited May 18, 2001).]

Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

VP: Grass is a lot better than hash. I know hash is about all you can get in these parts, and that's why I'm so irked at cannabis being illegal.

Nimrod: I can understand your apprehension about getting into smoking pot regularly after having done it once. But to allay your concerns, think of the amount of middle-aged people around who more than likely used to smoke pot, and stopped as their responsibilities (to their children, work etc.) took over.

On the subject of self-respect, I personally have lost more self-respect the few times I got drunk and acted like a complete f*cking lunatic, getting sick etc. than I ever could by getting high.

But for the issue at hand, ie. legalisation, the situation isn't really changed. You have access to weed, as you say at parties, concerts etc. despite the fact that cannabis is illegal, and you exercise your choice not to smoke it, which is fine. If it were to be legalised, your access to cannabis would perhaps be easier, and you would probably have more exposure to it, but you could still choose not to smoke it. If you are determined enough not to smoke when you have access to it now, I'm sure you would manage to refuse it if it were legal. We all have the choice NOT to smoke grass if it's legal, but many of us don't have the choice TO smoke it when it's illegal.

[This message has been edited by Gurgeh (edited May 18, 2001).]

Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

Another point that I didn't notice until now was that The_Tom mentioned that marijuana is more carcinogenic than tobacco. From what I've read, and I've read quite a lot on this subject, this isn't true. There was study carried out on about 350 people by a guy called Zhang indicating a higher rate of cancer (neck & head) in marijuana users than in non-users. However, another study carried out on 65,000 people, the Kaiser study, confirmed that there was a lower incidence of cancer among marijuana users. http://www.marijuana-hemp.com/cin/facts/cancer.shtml
There are many studies on animals indicating that marijuana can reduce the onset of cancer.

But again, we come back to the crucial point. If you doubt the studies, if you don't want to smoke it, you don't have to. If the politicians would just legalise it and stop testing the poor animals.....

[This message has been edited by Gurgeh (edited May 18, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

You wanna get high? Put a plastic bag over your head. Leave it there for a while. Pretty soon, you get all lightheaded and dizzy and feel like you might pass out. You may even experience altered states of consciousness.

Not addictive, less dangerous to others, and less carcinogenic, than marijuana OR tobacco, and you can do it and do it until you drop, and you can stop anytime you like.

Everybody who wants to legalize that horribly smelly crap should try this at least several dozen times.

Tie that bag off tightly, now, y'hear? Or you won't get the full effect!

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

"Obviously not, TSN. I mean, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Remarks like that do nothing to progress a discussion.

I beg to differ. My point is perfectly valid. The phrase "don't knock it 'til you've tried it" is not universally applicable.

First: Ah, yes, the wonders of oxygen deprivation... A couple of times, when I couldn't sleep, I tried covering my head up w/ the blanket, so I'd get less oxygen, and fall asleep. It didn't work, but it sure does make you feel funny after a while... *L*

[This message has been edited by TSN (edited May 18, 2001).]

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

The NIDA says that marijuana is psychologically, not physically, addicting.

Mota!

Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :

Gah! You people! WHY do you want to legalize the stuff in the first place? Does it MATTER whether or not we already have alcohol and tabbacco legalized? Does it MATTER that it's not any worse than the aforementioned substances? NO IT DOESN'T. Just because we have two bad things doesn't mean that we should go and add a third to the list.

Because major world powers have nuclear weaponry, does that mean that we should authorize the use and development of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction as well? No. It is a similar situation to this.

Just because we have two bad things and aren't willing to ban them doesn't mean that we should say "what the heck?" and add something else.

If we were to legalize marijuana, A LOT more people would use it. It would become a viable market. Prices for the stuff would drop, and everyone would be going to school stoned. I don't care whatever studies you have that say so on and so forth. The percentage of people using the substance would increase because heck, it could be sold in supermarkets, and predictably, the number of people ABUSING the drug would also increase. People would become at the very least psychologically dependent and perhaps move on to more harmful drugs.

And do we REALLY want people high, in an altered state of mind, while they're working, or driving, or doing anything? As someone already pointed out, ther are other ways of achieving the same result without using drugs. Look at all those religious folks who had "visions."

------------------
"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism."

-Eleanor Arroway, "Contact" by Carl Sagan

Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :

It really great that you chaps can quote the great sources and comment on how evil this stuff is. Now, please raise your hand if you have tried weed, or if you have been around people at parties, homes or anywhere else that are on weed. Outline your extensive experience with the substance, and show us (if you would be so kind) the basis for your opinions.

------------------
Re: Russia in WWII

"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

"If we were to legalize marijuana, A LOT more people would use it."

Prove it.

"Prices for the stuff would drop, and everyone would be going to school stoned."

Prove it.

"I don't care whatever studies you have that say so on and so forth."

Oh, I see. Well, carry on then. Purple elephant monkey trouser effect.

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

Why can't you guys and weed, just get along, what'd it ever do to you?

------------------
It never stops, when my mama ask me will I change
I tell her yeah, but it's clear I'll always be the same
Until the end of time
- Tupac Shakur, Untill the End of Time

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

I don't smoke the pot drug, for teh same reason that I don't smoke the tobacco drug. It makes me cough. And it smells a bit. And my attempts at smoking already caused me enough embarrassement (No-one told me you have to breathe IN while lighting a cigarette. People were laughing. I cried). But I'm not a fan of the student mellow "woo, dude"-ness. I prefer the "Yay! They're playing the new S Club 7 Song! I MUST JUMP UP AND DOWN!"-ness of really bad clubs.

What was my point again?

Oh yeah. Legalise it if you want. But limit it in the same way that smoking is limited. As tim has pointed out, smoking DOES affect the people next to you. And for some people, that's not pleasent. Alcohol doesn't. Unless you're standing in the middle of a pub. But who would stand in the middle of a pub complaining about people drinking? EH? EH?

I'm still for draginning Tim and Simon over here and taking them out. (To clubs. not for dinner and a show.) Because Simon would be brilliantly funny, and tim would see that, yes, there are people who use alcohol for fun, who don't turn into raging maniacs who want to drive cars over small puppies. And Parklife is a great drunk song.

Monkeys!

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

"We drink and we sing and we drink and we die! We haaave nooo heads, we haaave nooo heads!!!"

------------------
"Babies haven't any hair;
old men's heads are just as bare;
between the cradle and the grave
lies a haircut and a shave."

Samuel Hoffenstein

Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

Daniel, the thing is, I don't see marijuana as a bad thing. I think that the fact that it is illegal is a bad thing. It's a ridiculous situation that if someone grows the plant for their own use that they're flung into the nearest prison. I have argued extensively on this thread, posting links to information on cannabis. It is my opinion that anyone who is fully informed on the cannabis plant, all of its uses and benefits, how and why it was banned, will be unable to deny that it should be legalised. The "points" you have raised have already been addressed.

Cannabis is, as well as having recreational properties, an extremely viable agricultural plant. Its plant fibres are much more suitable for paper production than tree fibres, so much less chemical processing is required. The fibres from cannabis can also be made into fabrics that are much more durable than cotton. Also, unlike trees and cotton plants, the leaves of the cannabis plant fall to the ground before the stalks are harvested, so much of the plant matter rots and returns nutrients to the soil. The use of hemp would be much more sustainable in terms of the environment for these industries.

Visit the links and inform yourself, otherwise I'll just have to clog the thread with this information, and I don't think anyone wants that.
http://www.cannabis.com/faqs/
This site also gives reasons why marijuana was banned that I guarantee will surprise you.

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Well, paper made from hemp would be like papyrus, and cloth made from it would be as coarse as burlap. Whether this is any good is up to you...

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

I think anyone forced to use hemp toilet paper would soon take the Klingon Empire/Tribble attitude towards cannabis. . .

------------------
Phasers

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

"unlike trees and cotton plants, the leaves of the cannabis plant fall to the ground before the stalks are harvested,"

Trees don't shed their leaves??? Just WHAT has the guy who wrote your information been smoking, anyway?

The truth is, regardless of all the papers written and all the arguments used for legalization, the PRIME motivator behind the movement for canabbis legalization is simply people who want to get high without getting in trouble.

Unfortunately, the movement is probably NEVER going to lose that stigma, which is the main reason that nobody takes it seriously. Because if you took all the weed-smokers out of the lobby, it would essentially evaporate.

Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

When trees are cut down for paper, the whole tree is cut down, trunk, branches, leaves. The whole lot is processed later, taking more biological matter from the site. (Although more recent logging machines are able to strip the branches from the trunk). You also get more fibre per unit area from cannabis than trees.

They can make paper from cannabis which is just as good as that from trees, AND with a lot less treatment AND it lasts longer because there is less acid in it.
The fabric from cannabis is a bit more coarse than cotton, but there are techniques to make it softer. The main benefit is to the environment as the cannabis plant is more resistant to pests and doesn't need as much pesticide.

"Environmentally, hemp is a better crop to grow than cotton, especially the way cotton is grown nowadays. In the United States, the cotton crop uses half of the total pesticides. (Yes, you heard right, one half of the pesticides used in the entire U.S. are used on cotton.) Cotton is a soil damaging crop and needs a lot of fertilizer."

quote:
Unfortunately, the movement is probably NEVER going to lose that stigma, which is the main reason that nobody takes it seriously.

Well where I come from the main reason is that the democracy is more of a gerontocracy, appealing to the older people for votes. So any attempt to legalize it would be political suicide.

I admit that people want it legalised so they can smoke (or eat) cannabis without getting into trouble, but let me ask you this. Why should they get into trouble for smoking it? And I mean thrown-in-prison trouble.

Some of you may be inclined to give the answer "because it's illegal, it must be bad", but perhaps you should question the ability of an ageing bureaucrat to decide whether you can take a relatively harmless drug.

[This message has been edited by Gurgeh (edited May 21, 2001).]

Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :

I must admit, I have not yet had a chance to read the article you so kindly linked me to, but I had to make a response. First, I apologize for my rather rash and un-thought-out comments. There is SOME merit to them though, which I hope you recognize.

Okay. Please define "relatively harmless." And please don't refer me back to the article. I will read it, I promise. But relatively harmless compared to what? Or With what other substances do you consider relatively harmless? Something I would call relatively harmless is tylenol taken in the correct dosages. I would never call marijuana relatively harmless. Correct dosages or not. Smoking and alcohol are DEFINITELY not relatively harmless. So...?

------------------
"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism."

-Eleanor Arroway, "Contact" by Carl Sagan

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

They say it should be legalized because it has so many uses other than as a drug. So let's legalize it for everything but use as a drug. That should make them happy, right? *L*

------------------
"Even the colors are pompous!"
-a friend of mine, looking at a Lexus brochure

Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

Okay, "relatively harmless" means harmless in comparison with alcohol and tobacco, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it's not addictive, which to me is a huge factor. Secondly it is far less damaging to health. Although this is obvious in the case of alcohol, it is not so obvious in the case of tobacco. Smoke from tobacco cigarettes paralyses the hairs in the trachea and bronchioles, reducing the capacity of the lungs to expel the toxins. In the states, cigarette smoke contains a lot of radioactive material, with ionising radiation that is extremely damaging to the lungs.

Cannabis has never been known to kill anyone, whereas up to 1000 people in the US die from aspirin every year, so I guess marijuana is relatively harmless in comparison with that as well. The surgeon-general's list of fatalities caused by various substances is actually quite interesting.

TSN, by mentioning the other uses of cannabis I was merely lending weight to an already solid argument.

[This message has been edited by Gurgeh (edited May 22, 2001).]

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Well if cannabis is supposed to act as chemotherapy as well then it's kind of ironic that Bob Marley died of cancer.

------------------
"Babies haven't any hair;
old men's heads are just as bare;
between the cradle and the grave
lies a haircut and a shave."

Samuel Hoffenstein

Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

quote:
if cannabis is supposed to act as chemotherapy

You see, no one here claimed that marijuana acted as chemotherapy. Marijuana improves appetite, which helps people deal with the effects of chemotherapy ,ie nausea. So no, it is not ironic that Bob Marley died of cancer. He was advised to get surgery to remove the tumour but he wouldn't lose the dreads. (That's what I heard, anyway).

Here's a 1988 Surgeon General report on fatalities from various substances:
http://www.marijuana-hemp.com/cin/facts/dangers.shtml
------------------
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen"
Samuel Adams

[This message has been edited by Gurgeh (edited May 22, 2001).]

Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :

That WAS a very interesting list, but I didn't say aspirin. I said Tylenol. Aspirin and Tylenol as I'm sure you know are two COMPLETELY different substances, and I made a clause of "in correct dosages." I'm sure that the list of fatalities with aspirin was made up more of accidental and intentional overdoses and ingestion by young children than fatal reactions to the drug. So, absolutely NO-ONE has ever died using marijuana. I find that interesting.

------------------
"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism."

-Eleanor Arroway, "Contact" by Carl Sagan

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

To quote Nate Dogg: Hope you ready for the next episode
HeyyyeyyyeEYEYyyyEYYYY....
.... smoke weed everday!

------------------
It never stops, when my mama ask me will I change
I tell her yeah, but it's clear I'll always be the same
Until the end of time
- Tupac Shakur, Untill the End of Time

Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

The thing about marijuana is, you automatically stop smoking it when you feel its effects, there's some weird name for the process. The toxicity of marijuana is 40,000:1, ie. you've to take 40,000 times the typical dosage of marijuana to die from it. Perhaps if you ate a huge rock of hash there could be damage, but that's not very likely to happen.

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

Pleas watch "Half Baked" it's a very funny movie, and it's all about the Wonderfull World of Weed
(where do you think they got the WWW thing from

)

------------------
It never stops, when my mama ask me will I change
I tell her yeah, but it's clear I'll always be the same
Until the end of time
- Tupac Shakur, Untill the End of Time

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

>"So, absolutely NO-ONE has ever died using marijuana. I find that interesting."

Well, there WAS that guy who crashed the Amtrak train a while back while happy on the weed. I think he died. I know some people did...

And the buncha folks who tried other, worse drugs because they could 'handle' pot, and then those other drugs killed them...

And then, of course, a lot of the 'stoners' are just about as good as dead, anyway, except that because they live entirely on the dole, they're a bigger drag on the rest of us than dead folks are.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

"Well, there WAS that guy who crashed the Amtrak train a while back while happy on the weed. I think he died. I know some people did..."

Which would have been illegal whether or not pot was legalised.

"And the buncha folks who tried other, worse drugs because they could 'handle' pot, and then those other drugs killed them..."

Ah yes, the "small drugs make you take bad stuff" thing. You know, I've managed to drink for about 4 years now, and for some reason, I still don't want to take heroin. Maybe I'm just doing it wrong.

"And then, of course, a lot of the 'stoners' are just about as good as dead, anyway, except that because they live entirely on the dole, they're a bigger drag on the rest of us than dead folks are."

Drag = funny pun. 'stoners' = group of people whose problems are not related to cannabis, and who would find other ways of wasting their lives with or without it. Still, nice argument, the "they make us pay money! Join me, and we can crush them, and be rich enough to buy four horses!" thing.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Liam: You do realize the difference between 'a buncha' and 'all,' don't you?

And you'll still have to explain to me why I should be paying for other people's poor choices. If a guy scrubs his brain cells out with booze, or pot, or being punched in the head, that's HIS doing. Why should MY money go to pay for HIS upkeep, when it could be going to pay for MINE?

See, that's a question much on the minds of us borderline people who make just a little too much to benefit from government support programs, but just enough to pay the taxes that support them.

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

quote:
Well, there WAS that guy who crashed the Amtrak train a while back while happy on the weed. I think he died. I know some people did...

There are probably a lot more Amtrak drivers who've crashed trains because they were drunk. Or had a heart attack at the wheel because they smoked 80 cigarettes a day. See also lorries, cars, boats, planes, Space Shuttles (probably). . . To ignore all those deaths, yet point at one very unusual incidence as utterly condemning the drug in question, is - is, hmm, words fail me. . . totally absurd?

------------------
"If Morden is afraid of green penguins, and Draal is shown to have
access to them, a speculation would be that Draal will use them
against Morden in the future. However if Draal only has a purple
moose, saying that he could use it against Morden would be a story
idea."

- rastb5m FAQ

Phasers

Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on :

Here are some facts for the Medical Science Journal and Encyclopedia I was reading here at school.
"...each Marijuana joint is as harmful as about five tobacco cigarettes, and when a joint is smoked, more than 2,000 chemicals are absorbed by the lungs. In addition, this drug has proven detrimental effects on memory and it hinders learning. Habitual use of marijuana leads to the likelihood that the pot smoker will be attracted to harder drugs; more then 78% of pot smokers world wide eventually 'move on' to harder drugs."

Basically, the Pot-addict (oh, and btw, it is addictive.) has a lesser and lesser effect when Marijuana is smoked, so the amount is upped each time. This eventually causes the user to move onto more damaging drugs.

Marijuana also imbalances seritonin, dopamine, and other chemicals in the brain, which could result in loss in judgment but has not been proven. It does however reduce reaction time, and limits attention span.

Its very sad that, even if I show these pot smokers at my school this information, they deny it. They are so addicted to it they swear to it, they create a delusion in themselves that tells them they know more then years of scientific research. Ive heard some pretty stupid things, like "At least I�m not smoking cigarettes" and such. But the real kicker is pot smokers refuse to learn the damaging effects of their 'sub-culture'.

That being said, I believe it should remain illegal here in the states, cigarettes should also be banned here. I believe they will be within the next 20 years. I will then be happy when I don�t have to wait for a bus or stand in line for something and smell that god awful stench of smoke, entering my lungs and killing me (even worse then the smoker itself).

Wes

------------------
Wes Button � [email protected]
TechFX Studios � The United Federation Uplink �
------------------
I don't like Wesley Crusher.

[This message has been edited by Wes1701E (edited May 25, 2001).]

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

Yes, well, sometimes I feel as if your spelling mistakes are taking years off my life, but I'm not trying to make you illegal.

- rastb5m FAQ

Phasers

Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on :

What spelling errors?

------------------
Wes Button � [email protected]
TechFX Studios � The United Federation Uplink �
------------------
I don't like Wesley Crusher.

Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on :

j/k, btw

------------------
Wes Button � [email protected]
TechFX Studios � The United Federation Uplink �
------------------
I don't like Wesley Crusher.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

"There are probably a lot more Amtrak drivers who've crashed trains because they were drunk. Or had a heart attack at the wheel because they smoked 80 cigarettes a day."

And we need to get rid of those, too. What's your point? :-)

------------------
"Even the colors are pompous!"
-a friend of mine, looking at a Lexus brochure

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Vogon indeed said: "Yes, well, sometimes I feel as if your spelling mistakes are taking years off my life, but I'm not trying to make you illegal."

Couldn't you just have said "You got a point there" like that rabbit punch reflected anyway?

------------------
"Babies haven't any hair;
old men's heads are just as bare;
between the cradle and the grave
lies a haircut and a shave."

Samuel Hoffenstein

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Actually, he could have argued with Wes, but he probably realised that he'd have more fun hitting his face with a hammer, and deceided to make a joke.

"more then 78% of pot smokers world wide eventually 'move on' to harder drugs."

And I submit to you, sir, that these people would end up taking hard drugs anyway. The pot is not making them move onto heroin. Something screwy within themselves is making them take it.

If you take drugs to make up for something missing in your life (for example, if you drink to hide the pain of being fat and ginger), then yes, that's bad, evil, and you will end up injecting heroin directly into your eyes. However, if you're a normal, happy person, who doesn't have violent women killing tendancies, then pot, alcohol, and theme parks are fine and lovely things.

"Basically, the Pot-addict (oh, and btw, it is addictive..."

I'm glad you're here to tell us these things.

"...has a lesser and lesser effect when Marijuana is smoked, so the amount is upped each time. This eventually causes the user to move onto more damaging drugs."

Yes. Was this in your scientific journal? And does it apply to all drugs? Cause if so, we'd better stop those hay fever sufferers from gettting "high" on their anti-histamines, before they end up on the crack-cocaine express.

Posted by Wes1701E (Member # 212) on :

"...The pot is not making them move onto heroin. Something screwy within themselves is making them take it."

Not really, pot is known as a "gateway" drug. The user becomes so dependant on the high they receive from the drug that it starts to loose its effect, leaving the option of taking other more serious drugs seem more appealing. This was from a psychological study done in the 80's and 90's, I know this from a health class I took two years ago. The 78% number is factual.

"Yes. Was this in your scientific journal? And does it apply to all drugs? Cause if so, we'd better stop those hay fever sufferers from getting "high" on their anti-histamines, before they end up on the crack-cocaine express."

Not all drugs are gateway drugs.

Posted by Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

The stuff you're posting is propaganda that goes against 90% of the information out there. Practically every source I've ever read says you don't develop a resistance to THC.

It's all very well for you to say "Pot does this" and "Pot does that" but at the end of the day, if you'd ever tried it, you'd know how harmless it is. I'm not for a second suggesting that you should try it, that's your choice (well actually it's the governments choice, not yours), but you can't really preach about it without some understanding of it. (I'm assuming you have never smoked pot).

Posted by Nimrod (Member # 205) on :

So it comes down to this. What you're actually saying to everyone at this forum is "you should try pot and then come to me and talk about it so that we can maybe get it easier in the future, if we can persuade the bigwigs."

Say someone, perhaps a kid reading this thread, goes to a party and starts puffing (after being inspired by you) and then gets addicted (kids these days are under a lot of pressure, needs relaxing, yeah...) then gets shot by their local supplier for not paying for the last three fixes, you're nothing but a, excuse the word, fucking pimp that wants to spread a drug. That's what your dandy, thoroughly researched debate will add up too.

This happened to two kids in a school a mile from where I grew up, in SWEDEN!! Gunned down at the restrooms. For some cash (Apparently the murderers said the victims didn't "respect" them by paying).

But hey, they were responsible for their own actions, isn't that right? Cause and effect, you know? No biggie.

Well, don't worry, boy, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Posted by Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

*Looks at Nimrod's post*

*Looks at own previous post*

Well, Nimrod, you obviously didn't read my post, did you? No, just the parts you needed to portray me as a drug-pushing pimp. To quote myself

quote:
I'm not for a second suggesting that you should try it (pot)

Now how does this translate to

quote:
What you're actually saying to everyone at this forum is "you should try pot and ...etc. etc."

You don't know me, you know nothing about me, your attempts to vilify me show your contempt for rationality.

Would those two kids have been gunned down if marijuana was legal? I don't think so, because then they could have grown it or gotten it from a friend, instead of dealing with vicious criminals.

And just because someone does something regularly, it doesn't mean they're addicted to it. I personally haven't smoked pot in about 5 months. Funnily enough, despite what you and Wes say about it being addictive, I didn't have any cravings or withdrawl symptoms. A piece of advice: get your bloody facts right.

Your attempts to load my conscience with guilt due to the actions of other people, and your insinuations disgust me. However, an apology would be acceptable.

[ May 28, 2001: Message edited by: Gurgeh ]

Posted by Nimrod (Member # 205) on :

Ok, I admit I used too much gunpowder there, for that I'm sorry. But come on, your comment on free will notwithstanding, you do hope that as many of us as possible will try it, if only to form an opinion. And I think that's a bad move, is all.
You can't judge or foresee other people's reactions to said drug by comparing it to your own experiences. We're all unique.

Besides, and I know there are oh such a precious few that believe in this dream, I think that the production and selling of cigarettes and other nicotine products will have been severely downsized by 2030 to 2050. It simply doesn't work in the long run.

And if marijuana is only half as toxic and addictive as cigarretes it's simply not a good move to legalize, it kind of defeats the purpose of the whole anti-drug campaign, it sends the wrong message.

Posted by JeffKardde (Member # 411) on :

I got high one night. I was lethargic for most of the next day, and don't remember working that night (the night after I'd smoked) at all -- made close to $200, tho, so maybe I should do it more often ... BUT!

I was very lethargic. Sat at my computer all day in my boxers. And, like I said, work was just a blur.

So, I tried marijuanika, can't say I cared for it. Won't do it again.

And that's my two cents.

Although, guys, before you knock something, you might want to try it. I really hate people who say, "only losers drink beer! It tastes like piss!" and then admit that, no, they have not, in fact, ever drinken a beer.

Sheeesh.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

I wrote something funny here once (I assume). The next day though, some kid thought he'd be the big man, and tried to be funny at school. He upset the wrong person, and he ended up being kicked in the face by an angry person (angry at himself, no doubt).

So, I think the message is don't copy anyone, ever.

Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :

quote:
You can't really preach about it without some understanding of it.

Okay, so should we all stop saying that nuclear warheads are bad just because we haven't had firsthand experience with them? But if I go out and build one and blow it up, THEN I could preach about the evils of nuclear warheads. But of course, that's entirely illegal, and who knows, I might hurt someone in the process, so you wouldn't for a minute suggest that I actually do it. Just that I should have firsthand experience before talking about it. Yup. That makes sense.

I mean, who knows? The government might have falsified and spread data on their harmful side effects, and nuclear warheads are actually as safe as apple pie. Nuclear wind? Ha! Radioactivity? Says who?

Look. You can't say that marijuana is completely harmless, and I don't think that you are, but again, should we legalize marijuana JUST BECAUSE other more potent drugs are legal? What sort of logic leads you to that conclusion?

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Aha! Marijuana equals nuclear weapons. Of course! It all makes sense now.

Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :

Dontcha just love it when people exaggerate to make a point?

I know it may seem extremely farfetched, but bear with me. I do this to provoke thought, not to be annoying. We'll see how successful I am.

I was previously speaking on an individual basis, but think about it on an international scale. What right do powerful nations like the US have to restrict the use of nuclear weaponry by other "underdeveloped" or "inexperienced" nations that want to use them? Because we say that they're bad? Don't these other nations have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they should use these weapons?

Posted by Isn't Infinity *G* (Member # 531) on :

I have a really good friend named Daniel, and he beleives in weed more than Omega beleives in god (which sounds hard to beleive, but it is true) and it kinda freaks me everytime I see someone with the exact same name say something against it. This has nothing to do with nething, but I said it anyways

Posted by Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

Okay, I have to say that while I see what you're trying to do, comparing marijuana to nuclear weapons is annoying. This is because at the end of the day, while there are similarities with what's being discussed, the similarities are tenuous and don't really hold much water. The use of nuclear weapons has cataclysmic consequences for millions of people, and cannot really be considered in the same light as a recreational drug in terms of a once-off use.

I can see why some people would get annoyed if I suggested that one needs to have tried marijuana to understand that it's harmless. If you're operating on the premise that marijuana is a dangerous, addictive substance, then this opinion is understandable. The thing is, from what I've read (and smoked), I don't think it's dangerous and addictive.

[ May 29, 2001: Message edited by: Gurgeh ]

Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :

Oops. Sorry to annoy you. Just for clarification, even though you've probably said it before and I missed it, do you think that it isn't addictive physically, psychologically, or both?

And not to piss you off any more than you already are, because you've probably had another long day, but, I don't believe in the "recreationalism" of health damaging drugs. Even ones that aren't REALLY all that harmful.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

So you're in favor of banning caffiene, then?

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

"I have a really good friend named Daniel, and he beleives in weed more than Omega beleives in god"

I have met very few people who don't actually believe in weed. And those people are still traumatised by their recent discovery of the non-existence of Father Christmas.

For what it's worth, I don't believe in legs. They are obviously an evil made up thing, and are responsible for almost all the evils in the world. If people stopped believing in legs, then we'd have had a few less wars.

But I digress.

It isn't addictive pysiologically. Read any paper without a bias, since I'm far too lazy to find one to quote myself.

As for it being psychologically addictive...isn't anything you like psychologically addictive to some degree? I eat chips. I like chips. I want to eat more chips. Good Lord! I'm an addict. I must go to chips anonymous.

[ May 30, 2001: Message edited by: PsyLiam ]

Posted by Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

My official position is that marijuana is not physically addictive, but may be psychologically addictive for some people. As PsyLiam mentioned, I suppose anything pleasurable has the potential to become psychologically addictive for certain people.

In response to "I don't believe in the "recreationalism" of health damaging drugs. Even ones that aren't REALLY all that harmful.", first of all I respect that opinion. My own thoughts on that issue are different however, and I'll explain, although I know I'm at risk of being flamed over it.

You see, it depends on your philosophy. I think life should be enjoyable, because this is the only life we have. Now, we have already established, in my view, that cannabis is not a dangerous drug, used responsibly of course. Apart from the fact that the health consequences are not serious, I think the main thing going for it is that it's not addictive. The fact that some ageing, old-fashioned bureaucrat has a right to stop me partaking in an enjoyable activity that doesn't damage anyone else, ie. to take enjoyment out of my finite life without a proper reason, is quite infuriating.

I doubt this is an angle from which many of you have viewed the issue, but it's the way I feel.

Posted by Isn't Infinity *G* (Member # 531) on :

Liam, please, please don't be such a dick. Can you try, huh?
You know damn well what I meant, but you're having too much fun with what it 'could' mean. I have said time and again, that if there is one thing that absolutely enrages me, it's this, so please, don't do it, m'kay?

Posted by Jeff Kardde (Member # 411) on :

Keep it up, Liam!

Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :

Sol System: No, I'm not in favor of banning caffeine. However I generally abstain from drinking anything with caffeine IN it, coffees, teas, sodas, etc. Anyways, caffeine is probably more addictive than marijuana.

Gurgeh: I entirely understand your opinion and I respect that. I am just on the opposite side of the line.

On a lighter note, I would personally enjoy building large starships in space. But since I have not the financial backing, or the technical training, or the rights according to antiquated treaties from the 1970s (besides the fact that I'm still in high school) I can't. This infuriates me too. Perhaps I can change things by the time I'm working for NASA.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

quote:
cannabis is not a dangerous drug, used responsibly of course.

NOTHING used responsibly is dangerous. Even arsenic has its uses. (anybody else here read about the new anti-cancer drug whose active ingredient is arsenic? Can I have some more of it in my water, please?) Flourine is a poison, too, but in small doses it helps your teeth.

The problem is that the folks who want to legalize cannabis have generally NOT demonstrated the great heights of their ability to behave responsibly.

[ May 31, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]

Posted by Isn't Infinity *G* (Member # 531) on :

Jeff? What is that supposed to mean?

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

That's his way of telling you to gain control of your offensensitivity.

Translated: If this discussion with people you've never met, and likely never will, deeply offends you on a personal level... you need to take a nice hot bath with a dry martini.

Posted by Isn't Infinity *G* (Member # 531) on :

That's not what I was saying. I was stating that what I hate most is when someone turns my own words around into something completely pointless while choosing to forego the obvious point implied and makes a derogatory joke at my account.
People that make these kinds of statements are people that are incapable of sustaining an argument on a proffessional level and have deep flaws in their logic so they resort to personal assaults in order to shield themselves.

Posted by Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

quote:
NOTHING used responsibly is dangerous.

By the same token, anything used irresponsibly is dangerous. Practically everything around us has some improper use. Looking around me I see a stapler, which I think you'll agree can be used irresponsibly. Mouse cord, markers, scissors, bin bag, they can all be dangerous. If we can handle the responsibility of being around these objects, surely we can do so for marijuana. Of course we'll always have exceptions.

quote:
The problem is that the folks who want to legalize cannabis have generally NOT demonstrated the great heights of their ability to behave responsibly.

I think you have to go out of your way to do something dangerous with marijuana (driving while in any inebriated state, of course, is anathema), and if you're going to go out of your way to be irresponsible, then I think there's not much anyone can do to stop you doing so, with marijuana or anything else.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

I didn't say dangerous, I said irresponsible. Doing anything illegal (while it's still illegal) for your own self-aggrandizement is generally demonstrating irresponsibility.

Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :

quote:
The problem is that the folks who want to legalize cannabis have generally NOT demonstrated the great heights of their ability to behave responsibly.

Which once more is an absurd generalisation. Not everyone calling for the legalisation of cannabis is a stoner (or whatever the correct term is. . . pothead?) or even uses the stuff. And as for the people who have, define irresponsible. Are they irresponsible for smoking this currently-illegal substance, full stop? Or are you saying that everyone who smokes it immediately does irresponsible things?

And, again, there are plenty of other people who consistently behave irresponsibly while under the influence of other, currently-legal substances yet who are generally able to appear to be trustworthy, responsible members of society.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

DUH! The statement ITSELF admits to being a generalization! That's what "Generally" MEANS, ye daft gowk!

Admittedly, there are a few idealists who actually have economics and the use of hemp fibers and such as their goals... but I'm cynical enough to have figured out (sheer observation) that they're not REALLY in the majority.

Posted by Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

I think the opponents of legalisation sometimes attach a stigma to those who use cannabis simply on the grounds that it is illegal, without ever considering the fact that the law might be wrong, or even unjust. Laws are subject to review.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

"I was stating that what I hate most is when someone turns my own words around into something completely pointless while choosing to forego the obvious point implied and makes a derogatory joke at my account. People that make these kinds of statements are people that are incapable of sustaining an argument on a proffessional level and have deep flaws in their logic so they resort to personal assaults in order to shield themselves."

Oooh, handbags.

Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :

quote:
I think the opponents of legalisation sometimes attach a stigma to those who use cannabis simply on the grounds that it is illegal, without ever considering the fact that the law might be wrong, or even unjust. Laws are subject to review.

Well, I believe (notice the clause I believe) that the general response to people breaking the law clandestinely in such a manner makes the federal government, against which you are opposed, want to increase efforts against the lawbreakers. Lobbying or protesting gets much different results. Possibly the changing or reviewing of the law.

I don't feel that politicians or the average citizen make an effort to read into statistics like that. If they see more and more people using marijuana illegally, they will simply think more action against this illegal use is necessary. They will not think, "Oh, since so many people want to use this illegal substance, the fact that it is illegal might be in error."

However, if you staged massive protests, say, gathering all those who use marijuana illegally in front of the capitol building, the politicians and public might think, "Oh, a significant portion of the population is against the illegal nature of marijuana. Let's think about this."

I guess what I'm trying to say is, well of course such a stigma will be attached. A law is subject to review, but won't be unless the public shows in a very public display what they care about. The method of demonstration against a law will significantly change the way the law and demonstrators are viewed. So don't argue by your lonesome and smoke in dark alleys if you want this to change. Band together! Lobby! Work valiantly for your cause!

Boy this was a confusing post. If it makes no sense, ignore it. I'm tired.

Posted by Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :

Don't worry, it makes perfect sense. It's just that I'm not the type of person to march on the streets in protest. But I agree it probably would be the most effective way to get a political debate going. Maybe some day when I'm older and more secure and have nothing better to do I'll try organising something like that. Then again I could well be living in another country by that stage (Holland, Belgium or Jamaica, here I come!!).