[Landos Mustache]

http://www.truthbox.org//index.php?o...3&Itemid=2

Some really interesting points.

Not saying I agree or disagree with all of it but I do believe having it illegal when alcohol does more harm is a waste of time, money and resources.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

http://www.truthbox.org//index.php?o...3&Itemid=2

Some really interesting points.

Not saying I agree or disagree with all of it but I do believe having it illegal when alcohol does more harm is a waste of time, money and resources.

Yeah, my views on this have kind of changed recently. Three shots of Everclear will do immeasurably more damage than three joints. I guess I'm just not really in favor of anything taken for fun to alter your thinking.

[Railroader]

Why am I not surprised that this same link is the 6th story down from the top on digg.com?

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Yeah, my views on this have kind of changed recently. Three shots of Everclear will do immeasurably more damage than three joints. I guess I'm just not really in favor of anything taken for fun to alter your thinking.

The story is more about HEMP not getting high. Hemp is grown without any THC in it.

[Ghoser777]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Why am I not surprised that this same link is the 6th story down from the top on digg.com?

Thanks for sharing.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

http://www.truthbox.org//index.php?o...3&Itemid=2

Some really interesting points.

Not saying I agree or disagree with all of it but I do believe having it illegal when alcohol does more harm is a waste of time, money and resources.

I'm tired of that argument.

Let's look at it a little closer.

On the basis that MJ is less harmful than alcohol, which is legal, then we should make MJ legal, too.

Introducing another intoxicating substance to the world.

Why wouldn't that prompt scientists in R&D labs all over the world to go on a frantic search in their laboratories for new intoxicating substances that aren't as harmful as alcohol?

Why, there could be hundreds of new pills, pipe mixtures and potions to sip, snort, smoke or inject and all of them would be less chemically or biologically harmful than booze.

Lovely.

Is that what you really need? Is that what your family really needs for you to do? Will that get you the best grades? Will it help you think better? Will it make you a better, safer driver? Is that how your employer will recognize and reward you? For being high most the time, or for choosing the coolest intoxicant? Will more women want you to sire their children? Will it make you a better breadwinner? A better parent? A smarter, more aware or more understanding or responsible or sympathetic spouse?

Your argument only makes sense if there were a debate in Congress on WHICH intoxicant should be made legal.

It seems I get into these debates with those who cite money as the reason a worthwhile endeavor should be abandoned and with usually the same folks who cite money as the reason something unhealthy should be allowed.

We don't NEED another legal way to get high. We need ways to prevent America's brain power from being fried any more than it is!

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

I'm tired of that argument.

Let's look at it a little closer.

On the basis that MJ is less harmful than alcohol, which is legal, then we should make MJ legal, too.

Introducing another intoxicating substance to the world.

Why wouldn't that prompt scientists in R&D labs all over the world to go on a frantic search in their laboratories for new intoxicating substances that aren't as harmful as alcohol?

Why, there could be hundreds of new pills, pipe mixtures and potions to sip, snort, smoke or inject and all of them would be less chemically or biologically harmful than booze.

Lovely.

Is that what you really need? Is that what your family really needs for you to do? Will that get you the best grades? Will it help you think better? Will it make you a better, safer driver? Is that how your employer will recognize and reward you? For being high most the time, or for choosing the coolest intoxicant? Will more women want you to sire their children? Will it make you a better breadwinner? A better parent? A smarter, more aware or more understanding or responsible or sympathetic spouse?

Your argument only makes sense if there were a debate in Congress on WHICH intoxicant should be made legal.

It seems I get into these debates with those who cite money as the reason a worthwhile endeavor should be abandoned and with usually the same folks who cite money as the reason something unhealthy should be allowed.

We don't NEED another legal way to get high. We need ways to prevent America's brain power from being fried any more than it is!

So much for freedom, eh?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Why am I not surprised that this same link is the 6th story down from the top on digg.com?

Why do you still think we care?

Personally I think the article sucks though. Hemp products are already legal.

[tooki]

Um, I don't think it's the government's place to be deciding which substances we choose to intoxicate ourselves with on our own time. (I say this as someone who only indulges in alcohol, and that in moderation.)

Regardless, it's indisputable that the cost and side effects of the war on drugs far exceed the direct negative impact of soft drugs themselves. Most of the direct dangers of soft drugs are from impurities and overdosing, both of which are the result of black market products whose composition is unreliable. The crime aspect of drugs isn't from drugs themselves, it comes from them being a black-market product. If they were legalized, the purity and dosing could be controlled, and the black drug market would disappear (well, it would move on to some other illegal product).

No rational analysis can result in a decision to keep the substances banned. It's purely an emotional and moral debate.

tooki

[Chuckit]

Overdosing isn't even really a danger with marijuana — you're in about as much danger of ODing on orange juice.

The article is actually about hemp, though, which is even less rational to oppose.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Is that what you really need? Is that what your family really needs for you to do? Will that get you the best grades? Will it help you think better? Will it make you a better, safer driver? Is that how your employer will recognize and reward you? For being high most the time, or for choosing the coolest intoxicant? Will more women want you to sire their children? Will it make you a better breadwinner? A better parent? A smarter, more aware or more understanding or responsible or sympathetic spouse?

And which average teenagers are concerned with any of this (besides the siring children point)? I think the problem is that generally people just don't care.

[Dakar]

His argument is like the argument that video games are bad for kids. Before that it was TV or comic books...

If I kid wants to do nothing, he'll find a way. It's not the options that make a person worthless, its the decisions.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by tooki

Um, I don't think it's the government's place to be deciding which substances we choose to intoxicate ourselves with on our own time. (I say this as someone who only indulges in alcohol, and that in moderation.)

Regardless, it's indisputable that the cost and side effects of the war on drugs far exceed the direct negative impact of soft drugs themselves. Most of the direct dangers of soft drugs are from impurities and overdosing, both of which are the result of black market products whose composition is unreliable. The crime aspect of drugs isn't from drugs themselves, it comes from them being a black-market product. If they were legalized, the purity and dosing could be controlled, and the black drug market would disappear (well, it would move on to some other illegal product).

No rational analysis can result in a decision to keep the substances banned. It's purely an emotional and moral debate.

tooki

Show me an intoxicating substance which enhances brain function and increases someone's ability to perform physical or mental tasks better than without the substance and which has no deleterious health or mood or behavioral affects and I'll agree that that substance should be made legal.

[starman]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

I'm tired of that argument.

Let's look at it a little closer.

On the basis that MJ is less harmful than alcohol, which is legal, then we should make MJ legal, too.

Introducing another intoxicating substance to the world.

Why wouldn't that prompt scientists in R&D labs all over the world to go on a frantic search in their laboratories for new intoxicating substances that aren't as harmful as alcohol?

Why, there could be hundreds of new pills, pipe mixtures and potions to sip, snort, smoke or inject and all of them would be less chemically or biologically harmful than booze.

Lovely.

Is that what you really need? Is that what your family really needs for you to do? Will that get you the best grades? Will it help you think better? Will it make you a better, safer driver? Is that how your employer will recognize and reward you? For being high most the time, or for choosing the coolest intoxicant? Will more women want you to sire their children? Will it make you a better breadwinner? A better parent? A smarter, more aware or more understanding or responsible or sympathetic spouse?

Your argument only makes sense if there were a debate in Congress on WHICH intoxicant should be made legal.

It seems I get into these debates with those who cite money as the reason a worthwhile endeavor should be abandoned and with usually the same folks who cite money as the reason something unhealthy should be allowed.

We don't NEED another legal way to get high. We need ways to prevent America's brain power from being fried any more than it is!

Thanks for telling me what I can do on my own time...

You know I might not do pot (and never did), but I'll be damned if someone tells someone else what to do with their time.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Show me an intoxicating substance which enhances brain function and increases someone's ability to perform physical or mental tasks better than without the substance and which has no deleterious health or mood or behavioral affects and I'll agree that that substance should be made legal.

There is just about nothing that has zero side effects. That doesn't mean that, used properly, it can't have positive effects that outweigh the negative ones.

Smoking a little pot now and then is something that relaxes many people, and has no appreciable negative side effects. Overdoing it is bad, but almost anything can be overdone.

tooki

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by tooki

There is just about nothing that has zero side effects. That doesn't mean that, used properly, it can't have positive effects that outweigh the negative ones.

There is no legal drug on the market that doesn't have some sort of downside. Nothing.

[hadocon]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

I'm tired of that argument.

Let's look at it a little closer.

On the basis that MJ is less harmful than alcohol, which is legal, then we should make MJ legal, too.

Introducing another intoxicating substance to the world.

Why wouldn't that prompt scientists in R&D labs all over the world to go on a frantic search in their laboratories for new intoxicating substances that aren't as harmful as alcohol?

Why, there could be hundreds of new pills, pipe mixtures and potions to sip, snort, smoke or inject and all of them would be less chemically or biologically harmful than booze.

Lovely.

Is that what you really need? Is that what your family really needs for you to do? Will that get you the best grades? Will it help you think better? Will it make you a better, safer driver? Is that how your employer will recognize and reward you? For being high most the time, or for choosing the coolest intoxicant? Will more women want you to sire their children? Will it make you a better breadwinner? A better parent? A smarter, more aware or more understanding or responsible or sympathetic spouse?

Your argument only makes sense if there were a debate in Congress on WHICH intoxicant should be made legal.

It seems I get into these debates with those who cite money as the reason a worthwhile endeavor should be abandoned and with usually the same folks who cite money as the reason something unhealthy should be allowed.

We don't NEED another legal way to get high. We need ways to prevent America's brain power from being fried any more than it is!

What I need is people like you deciding for me what I do with my body. If I am considering smoking a joint or drinking a beer I'm clearly in need to some guidance and a helping hand to get me back on track to working hard and buying lots of goods to keep this economy booming! My bad. Sometimes I forget that the real important thing in life is consistentaly maintaining an uninfluenced mind (good thing TV never has any effect on people, luckily all that jazz about TV inducing viewers into a certain brain state is erroneous).

What I really need to do is get back on track and not buy any dope so I can save up for a new car so I can drive to work. Man... I need to go to church.

P.S. Take a look at your music collection. how many of those artists are dope smokers or booze drinkers? 90%? (unless you are into Xtian rawk). Quite a few famous thinkers routinely ingested drugs - not necessarily to make them smarter, but rather to allow them to have a new way of seeing. IMHO the biggest limitation on people is themselves. People often sell themselves short - they don't allow themselves to imagine. No one says that dope or whatever drug makes them smarter - what it does do is expand the types of experiences that you can have. It's not for everyone, that's for sure - but the simple fact is that poeple have smoked dope for millenia - something as trivial and synthetic and transient as a man made "law" is never going to stop the use of marijuana/drugs.

Has anyone in here ever tried antihistamines? Out of all the drugs I have tried antihistamines (which are legal) have screwed me up the most.

PP.SS there is a class of drugs that is actively researched in Europe and North America - they are called Nootropics. These drugs are designed to aid those with cognitive disabilities (Altzheimers, Downs Syndrome etc.) to have a better chance at performing closer to what is considered average. The drug Nootropil/Pricetam is a controversial drug that some beleive increases cognitive ability in cognitively disabled - as well as normal people, making them so-called "better than well". It works by literally increasing the bandwidth between brain hemispheres by affecting the corpus collosum (the bus that connects our hemispheres, which btw is naturally wider in females).

It is commonly understood that caffeine and nicotine temporarily increase a person's cognitive abilities through combinations of increasing attention and concentration. It is often argued that marijuana allows for better focusing of attention in a similar way - however it does also include temporary memory loss.

Another way to increase human cognitive ability is trans-cranial-magnetic-stimulation. basically a very strong magnet is placed on the head which affects the brain's electrochemistry. A recent study showed that one can temporarily induce autistic-savant like counting abilities in non autistic people: Link.

All said - there are many ways to affect one's brain - all have side effects. Who cares what the mechanism is that we use to affect OUR OWN brains.

There are other more important issues (especially in the USA) to argue about. Perhaps we should talk about how America spends more than 2x on military than the rest of the world combined! Imagine what would happen if they spend that cash on education - imagine how powerful a population of 350 million very well educated people would be? It would be like Canada or Netherlands - but with much more effect and power. Both Canada and Netherlands are puny and really have little clout in international affiair, yet Canadians and Netherlanders are some of the most highly educated in the world (and education is practically free) - two countries that allow dope (and a lot more) to flow freely - maybe that's why they have had the opportnity to worry about what is really important.

Personally I enjoy drugs. I use them recreationally, and I sometimes try new drugs - but I do draw the line. Have I been affected by them? Yes. Is it all positive? No. Are there positives? yes. Is it currently my choice and no one elses? yes. Am I successful? yes. Started 2 of my own biusinesses, one of which is involved in interactive advertising at the FIFA world cup, and I get paid very well thank you. I can honestly say that most of the time I spent working on that business I was high as a kite. Did it make me work better? Who knows - that's not the issue. Did I enjoy myself? yes.

Lets take a look at TV penetration vs. dope penetration, and time spent per week involved in those activities... That's farked (I'll let you research it for yourself)!

I'm never going to convice you and you are noever going to convince me. So what's the point of this thread? Just a chance to air opinions... Nothing morre than that.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

There is no legal drug on the market that doesn't have some sort of downside. Nothing.

There are few legal drugs — or ingestible substances of any sort — that don't have a downside. Marijuana is probably one of the less harmful things out there (and I'm counting normal food like steaks and ice cream).

[Landos Mustache]

As a designer I have smoked pot and my creative blocks just melt away. It definitely helps with creativity and concentration. And these are not just designs that look good for people that are high.

I don't do drugs every time I need to design but from time to time I am grateful for it.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

There are few legal drugs — or ingestible substances of any sort — that don't have a downside. Marijuana is probably one of the less harmful things out there (and I'm counting normal food like steaks and ice cream).

That's pretty much what I said but ya.

Some people drink tons of jolt cola's to perk up or stay awake and that is noway safe or healthy yet it is legal.

[Chuckit]

Yeah, I was just pointing out that even food has the "It has negative effects!" thing going against it.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777

Thanks for sharing.

You're welcome!

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Why do you still think we care?

My post is just as valid as the OP's post. As valid as your post.

I am simply pointing out that I saw it on Digg. Does that bother you?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader

I am simply pointing out that I saw it on Digg.

And they are simply observing that they don't care if you saw it on Digg.

I like how there are no implications or subtext to statements these days.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by starman

Thanks for telling me what I can do on my own time...

You know I might not do pot (and never did), but I'll be damned if someone tells someone else what to do with their time.

Oh come on! You are rebelling against what in my post?

I'm saying there should be no further impairment of America's thinking powers or else they might misinterpret plainly written posts in favor of leaving the marijuana law the way it is.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by tooki

There is just about nothing that has zero side effects. That doesn't mean that, used properly, it can't have positive effects that outweigh the negative ones.

Smoking a little pot now and then is something that relaxes many people, and has no appreciable negative side effects. Overdoing it is bad, but almost anything can be overdone.

tooki

Show me an intoxicating substance which enhances brain function and increases someone's ability to perform physical or mental tasks better than without the substance and which has no deleterious health or mood or behavioral affects and I'll agree that that substance should be made legal.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Dakar

So much for freedom, eh?

Just as much as you had before my post. If you get high I'll blame the mis-interpretation on that. If not then just general fuzziness. You don't have to disclose which it is.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

There is no legal drug on the market that doesn't have some sort of downside. Nothing.

So which disease or malady would you cite as the reason for your MEDICINAL use of the Marijane?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

http://www.truthbox.org//index.php?o...3&Itemid=2

Some really interesting points.

The guy who made that page is a wacko, given that he wrote stuff like this:

WORLD HUNGER COULD END. A large variety of food products can be generated from hemp. The seeds contain one of the highest sources of protein in nature. ALSO: They have two essential fatty acids that clean your body of cholesterol. These essential fatty acids are not found anywhere else in nature! Consuming pot seeds is the best thing you could do for your body. Eat uncooked hemp seeds.

That's said, I agree that drug laws are in need of liberalization. Sending people to jail for pot possession causes more social problems, not less.

Originally Posted by starman

Thanks for telling me what I can do on my own time...

abe's only goal at the MacNN P/L is to tell people how to life their life.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

So which disease or malady would you cite as the reason for your MEDICINAL use of the Marijane?

There are myriad documented uses for it, generally to relieve pain or discomfort: chemotherapy (to improve appetite and reduce nausea) is a really good example.

The fact that Marinol (prescription THC, basically) exists proves that marijuana contains at least one useful compound. It's widely suspected that many more of the compounds it contains have medical uses.

tooki

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by hadocon

What I need is people like you deciding for me what I do with my body. If I am considering smoking a joint or drinking a beer I'm clearly in need to some guidance and a helping hand to get me back on track to working hard and buying lots of goods to keep this economy booming! My bad. Sometimes I forget that the real important thing in life is consistentaly maintaining an uninfluenced mind (good thing TV never has any effect on people, luckily all that jazz about TV inducing viewers into a certain brain state is erroneous).

What I really need to do is get back on track and not buy any dope so I can save up for a new car so I can drive to work. Man... I need to go to church.

P.S. Take a look at your music collection. how many of those artists are dope smokers or booze drinkers? 90%? (unless you are into Xtian rawk). Quite a few famous thinkers routinely ingested drugs - not necessarily to make them smarter, but rather to allow them to have a new way of seeing. IMHO the biggest limitation on people is themselves. People often sell themselves short - they don't allow themselves to imagine. No one says that dope or whatever drug makes them smarter - what it does do is expand the types of experiences that you can have. It's not for everyone, that's for sure - but the simple fact is that poeple have smoked dope for millenia - something as trivial and synthetic and transient as a man made "law" is never going to stop the use of marijuana/drugs.

Has anyone in here ever tried antihistamines? Out of all the drugs I have tried antihistamines (which are legal) have screwed me up the most.

PP.SS there is a class of drugs that is actively researched in Europe and North America - they are called Nootropics. These drugs are designed to aid those with cognitive disabilities (Altzheimers, Downs Syndrome etc.) to have a better chance at performing closer to what is considered average. The drug Nootropil/Pricetam is a controversial drug that some beleive increases cognitive ability in cognitively disabled - as well as normal people, making them so-called "better than well". It works by literally increasing the bandwidth between brain hemispheres by affecting the corpus collosum (the bus that connects our hemispheres, which btw is naturally wider in females).

It is commonly understood that caffeine and nicotine temporarily increase a person's cognitive abilities through combinations of increasing attention and concentration. It is often argued that marijuana allows for better focusing of attention in a similar way - however it does also include temporary memory loss.

Another way to increase human cognitive ability is trans-cranial-magnetic-stimulation. basically a very strong magnet is placed on the head which affects the brain's electrochemistry. A recent study showed that one can temporarily induce autistic-savant like counting abilities in non autistic people: Link.

All said - there are many ways to affect one's brain - all have side effects. Who cares what the mechanism is that we use to affect OUR OWN brains.

There are other more important issues (especially in the USA) to argue about. Perhaps we should talk about how America spends more than 2x on military than the rest of the world combined! Imagine what would happen if they spend that cash on education - imagine how powerful a population of 350 million very well educated people would be? It would be like Canada or Netherlands - but with much more effect and power. Both Canada and Netherlands are puny and really have little clout in international affiair, yet Canadians and Netherlanders are some of the most highly educated in the world (and education is practically free) - two countries that allow dope (and a lot more) to flow freely - maybe that's why they have had the opportnity to worry about what is really important.

Personally I enjoy drugs. I use them recreationally, and I sometimes try new drugs - but I do draw the line. Have I been affected by them? Yes. Is it all positive? No. Are there positives? yes. Is it currently my choice and no one elses? yes. Am I successful? yes. Started 2 of my own biusinesses, one of which is involved in interactive advertising at the FIFA world cup, and I get paid very well thank you. I can honestly say that most of the time I spent working on that business I was high as a kite. Did it make me work better? Who knows - that's not the issue. Did I enjoy myself? yes.

Lets take a look at TV penetration vs. dope penetration, and time spent per week involved in those activities... That's farked (I'll let you research it for yourself)!

I'm never going to convice you and you are noever going to convince me. So what's the point of this thread? Just a chance to air opinions... Nothing morre than that.

People like me? People like ME??? Ok, I'll serve as your sounding board. Go ahead get it off your chest. But I must remind you I'm only advocating what now exists. And that was decided by the people in your own town or state or by the majority of America. But like I said I'll hear your argument.

Most of America is not tokin up and producing the next Dark Side of The Moon, ok? And any other creative or scientific geniuses who got high likely did so IN SPITE of their herb, not because of it. And wouldn't you say it's better to do it without a crutch?

And you are right about TV. I think that should be the next thread.

And just because some people are going to always break the law to get high doesn't mean that the law shouldn't exist. Because people murder others does that mean murder should be legal?

I'm glad you are functional and happy.

I still think there's no reason to legalize any more intoxicants.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

As a designer I have smoked pot and my creative blocks just melt away. It definitely helps with creativity and concentration. And these are not just designs that look good for people that are high.

I don't do drugs every time I need to design but from time to time I am grateful for it.

So, would that be like Viagra for the brain?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

There are few legal drugs — or ingestible substances of any sort — that don't have a downside. Marijuana is probably one of the less harmful things out there (and I'm counting normal food like steaks and ice cream).

So, are you arguing that we should make some of those substances illegal, too?

Hmm...I'm thinking. I'm thinking.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

That's pretty much what I said but ya.

Some people drink tons of jolt cola's to perk up or stay awake and that is noway safe or healthy yet it is legal.

You remind me of the Dan Ackroyd character on SNL, Irwin Mainway. He was a sunglass wearing shady salesman shyster type of business owner who made OBVIOUSLY dangerous toys like, "Bag of Glass" and when confronted with his shamefully bad products he went to hilarious extremes to defend his practices.

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/76/76jconsumerprobe.phtml

Consumer Probe

Consumer Reporter.....Candice Bergen
Irwin Mainway.....Dan Aykroyd

Consumer Reporter: Good evening, and welcome to the holiday edition of "Consumer Probe". Our topic tonight is unsafe toys for children. For instance, this little bow and arrow set. [ holds up ] Pull the rubber suctions off, and the arrows become deadly missiles.

[ cut to full shot, showing Irwin Mainway seated to Joan's right ]

We have with us tonight, Mr. Irwin Mainway, President of Mainway Toys. Uh, Mr. Mainway, your company manufactures the following so-called harmless playthings: Pretty Peggy Ear-Piercing Set, Mr. Skin-Grafter, General Tron's Secret Police Confession Kit, and Doggie Dentist. And what about this innocent rubber doll, which you market under the name Johnny Switchblade? [ holds up doll ] Press his head, and two sharp knives spring from his arms. [ demonstrates ] Mr. Mainway, I'm afraid this is, by no means, a very safe toy.

Irwin Mainway: Okay, Miss, I wanna correct you, alright. The full name of this product, as it appears in stores all over the county, is Johnny Switchblade: Adventure Punk. I mean, nothing goes wrong.. little girls buy 'em, you know, they play games, they make up stories, nobody gets hurt. I mean, so Barbie takes a knife once in a while, or Ken gets cut. You know, there's no harm in that. I mean, as far as I can see, you know?

Consumer Reporter: Alright. Fine. Fine. Well, we'd like to show you another one of Mr. Mainway's products. It retails for $1.98, and it's called Bag O' Glass. [ holds up bag of glass ] Mr. Mainway, this is simply a bag of jagged, dangerous, glass bits.

Irwin Mainway: Yeah, right, it's you know, it's glass, it's broken glass, you know? It sells very well, as a matter of fact, you know? It's just broken glass, you know?

Consumer Reporter: [ laughs ] I don't understand. I mean, children could seriously cut themselves on any one of these pieces!

Irwin Mainway: Yeah, well, look - you know, the average kid, he picks up, you know, broken glass anywhere, you know? The beach, the street, garbage cans, parking lots, all over the place in any big city. We're just packaging what the kids want! I mean, it's a creative toy, you know? If you hold this up, you know, you see colors, every color of the rainbow! I mean, it teaches him about light refraction, you know? Prisms, and that stuff! You know what I mean?

Consumer Reporter: So, you don't feel that this product is dangerous?

Irwin Mainway: No! Look, we put a label on every bag that says, "Kid! Be careful - broken glass!" I mean, we sell a lot of products in the "Bag O'" line.. like Bag O' Glass, Bag O' Nails, Bag O' Bugs, Bag O' Vipers, Bag O' Sulfuric Acid. They're decent toys, you know what I mean?

Consumer Reporter: Well, I guess we could say that all of your toys are really unsafe and should rightfully be banned from the market. I guess I would just like to know what happened to the good ol' teddy bear.

Irwin Mainway: Hold on a minute, sister. I mean, we make a teddy bear. It's right here. [ picks up giant teddy bear ] It's got a nice little feature here, you see? I'll hold it up here. We call it a Teddy Chainsaw Bear. [ revs chainsaw in teddy bear's stomach ] I mean, a kid plays with saws, he can cut logs with it, you know what I mean.

Consumer Reporter: Well, this is certainly a very sad situation. One of the precious joys of Christmas warped by a ruthless profiteer like yourself.

Irwin Mainway: Well, that's just your opinion, you know what I mean?

Consumer Reporter: Well, I just don't understand why you can't make harmelss toys like these alphabet blocks. [ points to blocks ]

Irwin Mainway: C'mon, this is harmless? Alright, okay, you call this harmless? [ holds block in hand ] I mean.. [ plays with block and fakes injury ] Aagghh!! I got a splinter in here, look at that! This is wood! This is unsanded wood, it's rough!

Consumer Reporter: Alright, that's enough of this ridiculous display. [ holds toy phone ] Here is another creative toy, safe enough for a baby!

Irwin Mainway: [ grabs phone ] You say it's safe, I mean, look at this cord.. the kid is on the phone - "Hello? Hello?" - then.. [ twists cord around his neck, screams, and falls backward in chair ] You know what I mean? It's an example! You see my point, a dangerous toy like that?

Consumer Reporter: Well, let's try this one. What about this little foam play ball? I mean, even you, Mr. Mainway, can't find anything dangerous about this. Huh?

Irwin Mainway: [ takes ball, bounces it on table, then shoves it in his throat and feigns choking ]

Consumer Reporter: That's all the time we have for "Consumer Probe" this week.

[ show fades black ]

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

So, would that be like Viagra for the brain?

Bingo.

I know other people in the creative field that do the same.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

And which average teenagers are concerned with any of this (besides the siring children point)? I think the problem is that generally people just don't care.

And kids SHOULDN'T be concerned with any of this. If it's illegal then that draws a suitably clear line in the sand that this is not something kids (or anyone for that matter) should mess with.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Dakar

His argument is like the argument that video games are bad for kids. Before that it was TV or comic books...

If I kid wants to do nothing, he'll find a way. It's not the options that make a person worthless, its the decisions.

Remove the supply or availability and you limit the person's options. Limit the options and you limit the decisions.

Illegality limits the supply.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

The guy who made that page is a wacko, given that he wrote stuff like this:


That's said, I agree that drug laws are in need of liberalization. Sending people to jail for pot possession causes more social problems, not less.


abe's only goal at the MacNN P/L is to tell people how to life their life.

I'm not sure the social problems we MIGHT alleviate would offset the new problems of people driving while high and working while high and etc.

AN ASIDE TO ALL OF YOU WHO KNOW MY POSTING STYLE AND CONTENT: When someone says something you KNOW to be false doesn't that forever taint whatever you read from that person?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by tooki

There are myriad documented uses for it, generally to relieve pain or discomfort: chemotherapy (to improve appetite and reduce nausea) is a really good example.

The fact that Marinol (prescription THC, basically) exists proves that marijuana contains at least one useful compound. It's widely suspected that many more of the compounds it contains have medical uses.

tooki

Thanks for that. I am aware that MJ has some medicinal uses and asked the respondent to cite his particular condition.

Don't wish to be indiscrete so I'll just ASSUME your ailment(s) is included in the answer, above.

[tooki]

I don't use marijuana, recreationally or for an ailment. I am simply an outside observer who sees the idiocy of keeping it illegal.

tooki

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Just as much as you had before my post.

Who cares? Doesn't make it right.

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

If you get high I'll blame the mis-interpretation on that. If not then just general fuzziness. You don't have to disclose which it is.

You're the fuzzy one. I didn't claim you had changed our level of freedom. Merely that you supported its limitation. Thanks for playing, though.

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Remove the supply or availability and you limit the person's options. Limit the options and you limit the decisions.

Illegality limits the supply.

That has zero to do with my statement.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by tooki

Um, I don't think it's the government's place to be deciding which substances we choose to intoxicate ourselves with on our own time. (I say this as someone who only indulges in alcohol, and that in moderation.)

Regardless, it's indisputable that the cost and side effects of the war on drugs far exceed the direct negative impact of soft drugs themselves. Most of the direct dangers of soft drugs are from impurities and overdosing, both of which are the result of black market products whose composition is unreliable. The crime aspect of drugs isn't from drugs themselves, it comes from them being a black-market product. If they were legalized, the purity and dosing could be controlled, and the black drug market would disappear (well, it would move on to some other illegal product).

No rational analysis can result in a decision to keep the substances banned. It's purely an emotional and moral debate.

tooki

I would only add that the way we currently handle our drug situation in this country actually WORSENS the problem by a large degree, rather than control it.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

I still think there's no reason to legalize any more intoxicants.

There is a HUGE reason that is escaping you…freedom of personal choice. Who are YOU or those bloated bureaucrats to tell someone what they can do to their body or brain? The illegality of certain acts like driving under the influence of drugs is one thing as it serves to protect the innocent from the idiots, but criminalizing the substance itself not only is a violation of our personal right to do what we wish with our own body, prohibition does not work…period.

Putting people behind bars for such things as possessing pot not only makes the drug problem itself worse by putting the type of sensitive people who gravitate to drugs in what is essentially a school for drug use, it creates resentment and hatred of the police and the justice system because the accused does not feel he has done anything wrong, because he hasn't.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by tooki

I don't use marijuana, recreationally or for an ailment. I am simply an outside observer who sees the idiocy of keeping it illegal.

tooki

I haven't used pot in years either. I have before, though, and I know it didn't have any horrible, crippling effects on me. I am much less against pot smoking than I am against, say, fatty steaks.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by smacintush

There is a HUGE reason that is escaping you…freedom of personal choice. Who are YOU or those bloated bureaucrats to tell someone what they can do to their body or brain? The illegality of certain acts like driving under the influence of drugs is one thing as it serves to protect the innocent from the idiots, but criminalizing the substance itself not only is a violation of our personal right to do what we wish with our own body, prohibition does not work…period.

Putting people behind bars for such things as possessing pot not only makes the drug problem itself worse by putting the type of sensitive people who gravitate to drugs in what is essentially a school for drug use, it creates resentment and hatred of the police and the justice system because the accused does not feel he has done anything wrong, because he hasn't.

They tell me I can't drive as fast as I want. They tell me I can't pay for a car in all cash unless I fill out some stupid forms. They tell me I can't fly below a certain height nor can I fly in certain areas. They tell me I can't use steroids to bulk up. They tell me I have to have utilities hooked up to my house even though I successfully live off the grid. They tell me I can't buy a gun in certain cities.

There are ALL KINDS of prohibitions placed on us all the time. This is just one of them. One we've managed to live with for a looooooong time. I don't think pot should be a "go to jail" kind of crime but there should be a requirement that offenders go to court to have some kind of penalty levied on them. Community service, sobriety classes, fines. Something. But not jail.

Yet, since the laws and the penalties are what they are it behooves the sensitive soul who gravitates to pot to be aware that he might have to go to prison and if that's his choice, then so be it.

Although, once again, I'm in favor of lowering the level of offense to one which doesn't involve imprisonment UNLESS he or she is doing something else which would make the crime more serious, like driving while smoking the pot.

That person should do time because they are endangering society directly.

[tooki]

That's where you're wrong. Someone smoking pot in their home isn't endangering society in any way. Should people drive intoxicated? Of course not. Should they go to work intoxicated? Maybe not. Depends on the job. But that's a slightly different issue.

The point is that people shouldn't be doing anything that is hazardous to others (driving, operating machinery, etc) when impaired. The source of the impairment should be irrelevant: intoxication, fatigue, distraction, or old age. Someone being a dangerous driver because they're old makes them no less a menace to society than a drunk driver. The fact that the drunk driver chose to be drunk is irrelevant: the relevant decision was whether to drive or not.

Oh, and I don't care if impaired people harm themselves. That's Darwinism at work. That's why I only support seat belt laws for kids. I think that an adult who chooses to not buckle up is fine; if they die, so much the better for humanity. The only thing I'd want to prevent is for stupid people to harm others.

tooki

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by tooki

That's where you're wrong. Someone smoking pot in their home isn't endangering society in any way. Should people drive intoxicated? Of course not. Should they go to work intoxicated? Maybe not. Depends on the job. But that's a slightly different issue.

The point is that people shouldn't be doing anything that is hazardous to others (driving, operating machinery, etc) when impaired. The source of the impairment should be irrelevant: intoxication, fatigue, distraction, or old age. Someone being a dangerous driver because they're old makes them no less a menace to society than a drunk driver. The fact that the drunk driver chose to be drunk is irrelevant: the relevant decision was whether to drive or not.

Oh, and I don't care if impaired people harm themselves. That's Darwinism at work. That's why I only support seat belt laws for kids. I think that an adult who chooses to not buckle up is fine; if they die, so much the better for humanity. The only thing I'd want to prevent is for stupid people to harm others.

tooki

As you rightly call it an IMPAIRMENT, I don't think we need it available as a legal impairment. I think we as a society are sufficiently impaired, already. And just like old folks DO have their driving privileges revoked when they become a menace or a hazard, so must pot smokers be made to understand that this is not a good thing for society on the whole. And as such if you (in the hypothetical - yes, I know you abstain) choose to do the pot that you are violating the wishes of society.

You do it knowing that we do not approve and that there is a good reason for our disapproval.

There are dozens of ways to relax and expand one's mind and enhance one's creativity. There are many ways to become legally impaired.

Do we really need another?

And to the rest of your post where you profess not to care, I call BS. (In a polite way, of course!)

[sek929]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Remove the supply or availability and you limit the person's options. Limit the options and you limit the decisions.

Illegality limits the supply.

Bulls**t, the average teenager is more able to get weed then get alchohol underage. The fact that is illegal has not just made pot popular, it has made it a phenomenon.

Make it legal and it is sold in stores that card people for age, smart right?

[sek929]

BTW Tooki, I think you've officially smacked down abe, where's that image???

[sek929]

Let me tell you, at one point or another pretty much every single person I have ever known has smoked pot.

My sister (makes 60K a year in an Architecture firm), my father, my mother (she was valadictorian of her H.S.) my friends, their friends, kids that were smart as hell (and still are)....these are people with degrees and new cars and pay taxes.

Abe, can you honestly tell me thaat if one of these people got pulled over with an 1/8th on them then they would deserve to go to jail? Can you seriously say that with a strait face?

[tooki]

I'm not gonna bother responding to him, Abe completely ignored my point, because he doesn't want to. Drug politics have nothing to do with logic or cost-benefit analysis, nor any consideration of rights. It's all about supposed morality, and there's no argument that can be made to counter that.

And for the record, I really don't care if stupid people kill themselves (and only themselves).

tooki