Yup, but I can't imagine a world where we only eat weed. Of course maybe that is how it all started. I know I have ate some crazy things after cathing a good buzz, and I can only imagine where people came up with the idea to eat some of the shit we call food. Remember that Family Guy episode where Peter smokes some ganja with Bill Clinton, and Clinto tells him, "Hey Peter, you see that pig in that field...we could eat that pig". I guess it might have started like that.
LOL that was a funny episode! "Peter, that pig could be like in our stomaches in like 3 seconds, and then, and then we could do other stuff!"
The Simpson's, Family Guy and Futurama I don't think there is anyother reason to watch TV, I'll watch them all day every day.
Lol, yeah they are funny, but Two and a Half Men come on after the Simpsons(for me) and that is pretty funny. (Giggty gitty goo!)
Yeah we all get it, our government is filled with retards, I don't know how the hell they graduated Universities and shit. I am yet to hear a valid point out of anyone anywhere saying why marijuana should not be legal.
It's not that it's full of retards, it's full of greedy people. A good majority understand the overall societal benefits. However, they also understand the amount of control and money that is kept in their hands due to the current laws. Socially it alienates a large percentage of the population from a large percentage of the population. I mean, I personally don't have many friends that don't smoke pot. In terms of good points... Money from pot supports gangs and lots of generally foul people. These people only make the money off of it because, just like the mafia with alcohol during prohibition days, it's illegal but there's a demand so it's handled by mostly shady people. Honestly I luckily only have one or two friends I trust to go to but in my time I've met to messed up dealers. Do you ever see people running underground alcohol and tobacco rings? NOOOO! People may buy them for people under-age more often then lots of people like to admit BUT it's still harder for people under-age to get them then most illegal drugs. When I was 15 it was easier for me to get bud than cigs any day of the week. At school it was even easier. Compare the amount of money the A.T.F., Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, spends controlling the things legal but regulated to what the D.E.A. spends TRYING AND FAILING to control the illegal things and it becomes quickly apparent at just how much we're standing to save. Not to mention being able to tax it, the amount of non-violent pot offenders let out of prison and jail thus saving 60,000 dollars a year per person. That's around 30-40% of the prison population last I checked...don't hold me on that though. Then again, if you want to know where the government REALLY stands on the issue of drugs just look into the CIA trafficking cocain into the US on government planes. They don't want to stop the war on drugs, which is truely a war on a large portion of humanity, they want to fuel the fire. Drug users are the new target of a too powerful government that needs an enemy. In terms of laws the government has passed every major law that Nazi Germany passed right before they started collecting people en-mass. Torture laws, presidential over-rides, spying bills, being allowed to read everything you write in e-mail and what-not. Believe it or not Germany was a lot like America back in the 30's. Lots of wealth, lots of liberal groups, including feminists and gays. They started making lists, lists of where jews lived, lists of who owned what guns, and lists of people they simply didn't "trust." Currently, there are over 1 million americans on the "suspected terrorist high-fly-risk" threat list. If on these lists you get searched, thuroughly, every time you board an airplane. Now tell me how on earth there are 1 million suspected terrorists in america? I know my history and I know my a good lot of current politics and when this sort of shit happens somebody takes the fall...and the government has been making enemies of drug users for all too many a decade. Food for thought...
A couple more points that would help is that if Marijuana was legal then this would free up funding for the War on Drugs to fight other hardcore drug trade such as cocaine, acid etc. Also that if marijuana was legalized, hardcore drug usage would not be as prevalent. If they ask you to explain tell them something like this: Marijuana is said to be a gateway drug, but in reality marijuana is no more of a gateway drug then NyQuill is. The only difference is NyQuill is sold in a controlled situation. The pharmacist or cashier gets the same paycheck every week. He does not care if you buy one bottle or two because he is getting paid the same way. The drug dealer on the other hand is paid by commissions. He realizes that your only going to smoke so much herb at a time. Since marijuana gets you just as high each time you smoke it your not having to buy more and more and more. So the drug dealer wants to maximize his profits. How does he do this? He introduces you to harder drugs which are addictive and need to be chased to get that high like the first time, such as crack, heroin, meth, etc. If marijuana was sold in a regulated environment people would not be exposed to those harder drugs because the cashier would not be allowed nor have the need to expose you to hardcore drugs such as ketamine, dmt, Ecstasy, etc. Then say something like: It's not a gateway drug it's a gateway situation which we are needlessly and perversely forcing our fellow American's into (substitute your nation if not American). If someone else said any of this my appologies.
That's great man, that's how I try to teach people man, gotta be responsible with your herb man. It's the irresponsible people that ruin it for everyone else, but the government needs to stop enforcing this over 70 year old reefer madness mindset they have. We need a serious reform man.
We voted in the dumbest man ever into to white house. this dumb ass doesn't even know why marijuana illegalized in the first place. He doesn't think that it would help the economy at all to decimalize marijuana. He doesn't think it would create jobs and treats what the some people consider a valid issue to be some kind of joke. thanks obama you fucking hippocrate. What you dont belive me look for yourself: Search
Well, it's apparent to most that legalizing marijuana will help the economy. IIRC, 10$ billion dollars would be pumped into the economy if pot was legal. But the same could be said for legalizing any drug. There would be a 80$ billion dollars gained to the U.S. economy if ALL drugs are legal. We can't look at it too much financially, since that would doom pro-legalization people. (Such as myself ) Indian Toker and ¿Кактебязовут? made excellent points, and here's some more facts/points. Every year hundreds die from eating peanuts. Yet in all of human history, NO known cases of such as an allergic food reaction to weed has been documented. As of studies of the 1990's; coffee is the MOST medically harmful drug consumed by American's on a wide basis. Peanuts and coffee already sound pretty damn bad. Also, many studies is showing weed with anti-cancer properties. Inhaling it cancels these benefits quite a bit, but consumed it does seem to have some anti-cancer properties. The cancer threat politicians mention, is the threat that exists from smoking anything. Anything you burn creates carsogenic chemicals. (well, any biomass) HOWEVER no one smokes 2 packs of joints a day. And that fact alone drops it down to far safer than cigs. (Not to mention the lack of added chemicals) . THEN, add to that you can use vaporizers and water bubblers to remove most to all of the carcongenic dangers. I read a study that was done in the UK, that showed that stoned drivers were actually safer drivers then non-stoned.... it had to do with the greater level of attention and caution being applied. Though being stoned creates some depth perception and reflexes problems.
Hahaha not ignorant, they know these points. The problem is the government is ran nearly as a business because of the pull lobbyist from major corporations have. So it's not that their ignorant, their just wrong. On a level of the laws and of common morality. They are ran by the "all mighty dollar" instead of the ideas our fathers died for. Though in all honesty they were just as warped and hypocritical, but what are you going to do about the nature of man, you know. I guess we could stand up, but how are you going to get a nation of mtv raised apathetic asses to stand up for something they don't care about.
Don't flame a man for playing politics. Flame yourself, me and the rest of this nation for letting the government run us, instead of us running ourselves.
Well... This is my first time blogging on this site and this thread caught my eye... I wrote a short essay on the subject: Marijuna Legalization
[quote name='Captain Cannabi']Okay, stick with me, I have lots of info to share. ANNUAL AMERICAN DEATHS CAUSED BY DRUGS TOBACCO ........................ 400,000 ALCOHOL ........................ 100,000 ALL LEGAL DRUGS ................ 20,000 ALL ILLEGAL DRUGS .............. 15,000 CAFFEINE ....................... 2,000 ASPIRIN ........................ 500 MARIJUANA ....................o __________________________________________________________________________ if caffeine has that high of a death rate then shudnt starbucks be closed instead of having so many of those shudnt their bee like a weedy mcjoints? t
The state of California saved nearly $1 billion dollars from 1976 to 1985 by decriminalizing the personal possession of one ounce of marijuana, according to a study of the state justice department budget. REFERENCE: M. Aldrich and T. Mikuriya. 1988. Savings in California marijuana law enforcement costs attributable to the Moscone Act of 1976. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20: 75-81. so is it still decriminalized in california?
Normal (The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) offers these talking points regarding the decriminalization of marijuana: Decriminalizing marijuana frees up police resources to deal with more serious crimes. Far more harm is caused by the criminal prohibition of marijuana than by the use of marijuana itself. Decriminalization does not lead to greater marijuana use. Criminal laws prohibiting marijuana possession do not deter marijuana use. voiture simulation de credit immobilier en ligne - Simulation credit immobilier en ligne. L’Internet a rendu encore plus facile d’obtenir de l’aide pour trouver le credit immobilier.
One country has decriminilaized ALL DRUGS in 2001 (Portugal) and the only reason they didn't legalize them was the same reason it won't happen until the motherland USA lets it happen...here's the study of the results to drug use in Portugal as a result...ironically the study is by a policy institute in Washington. Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies | Glenn Greenwald | Cato Institute: White Paper Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies by Glenn Greenwald On July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal took effect that decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Under the new legal framework, all drugs were "decriminalized," not "legalized." Thus, drug possession for personal use and drug usage itself are still legally prohibited, but violations of those prohibitions are deemed to be exclusively administrative violations and are removed completely from the criminal realm. Drug trafficking continues to be prosecuted as a criminal offense. While other states in the European Union have developed various forms of de facto decriminalization - whereby substances perceived to be less serious (such as cannabis) rarely lead to criminal prosecution - Portugal remains the only EU member state with a law explicitly declaring drugs to be "decriminalized." Because more than seven years have now elapsed since enactment of Portugal's decriminalization system, there are ample data enabling its effects to be assessed. Notably, decriminalization has become increasingly popular in Portugal since 2001. Except for some far-right politicians, very few domestic political factions are agitating for a repeal of the 2001 law. And while there is a widespread perception that bureaucratic changes need to be made to Portugal's decriminalization framework to make it more efficient and effective, there is no real debate about whether drugs should once again be criminalized. More significantly, none of the nightmare scenarios touted by preenactment decriminalization opponents - from rampant increases in drug usage among the young to the transformation of Lisbon into a haven for "drug tourists" - has occurred. The political consensus in favor of decriminalization is unsurprising in light of the relevant empirical data. Those data indicate that decriminalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal, which, in numerous categories, are now among the lowest in the EU, particularly when compared with states with stringent criminalization regimes. Although postdecriminalization usage rates have remained roughly the same or even decreased slightly when compared with other EU states, drug-related pathologies - such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage - have decreased dramatically. Drug policy experts attribute those positive trends to the enhanced ability of the Portuguese government to offer treatment programs to its citizens - enhancements made possible, for numerous reasons, by decriminalization. This report will begin with an examination of the Portuguese decriminalization framework as set forth in law and in terms of how it functions in practice. Also examined is the political climate in Portugal both pre- and postdecriminalization with regard to drug policy, and the impetus that led that nation to adopt decriminalization. Glenn Greenwald is a constitutional lawyer and a contributing writer at Salon. He has authored several books, including A Tragic Legacy (2007) and How Would a Patriot Act?</EM> (2006).</EM> The report then assesses Portuguese drug policy in the context of the EU's approach to drugs. The varying legal frameworks, as well as the overall trend toward liberalization, are examined to enable a meaningful comparative assessment between Portuguese data and data from other EU states. The report also sets forth the data concerning drug-related trends in Portugal both pre- and postdecriminalization. The effects of decriminalization in Portugal are examined both in absolute terms and in comparisons with other states that continue to criminalize drugs, particularly within the EU. The data show that, judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalization framework has been a resounding success. Within this success lie self-evident lessons that should guide drug policy debates around the world.