The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Dr. Sanjay Gupta Changes Mind on Weed » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next]
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20552 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 16:56, Al Angello wrote:
Lobo
You are pulling this horse by the tail, I am a big fan of the United States of America. You are the one who ties the president into every one of your posts.

As far as Danny and I are concerned we have been disagreeing with each other for years, and if he started smoking pot I would probably start dipping snuff, or doing jello shots. LOL


You are an Obama fanboy.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 15:41, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 12:33, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 10:32, Al Angello wrote:
Danny
How does it feel to be on the wrong side of history?


Same as he has always been. He's gonna pulling a Jenny Mcarthy and dig his heels in deeper.

What are the two of you babbling about?

What side of history am I on?

Where did I take a position on POT EVER?

I have said that there are people in the world who probably spend WAY too much time high
Probably a couple on this thread judging from some posts.
I have said it won't put the cartels out of business, and it won't. Show me economic data to the contrary.

I have said you shouldn't show up to kiddie parties after being high and juggling for them. Is THAT the wrong side of history?


It could have been a mistyping, or could have been a post directly above, or below hours which I mixed up, but in one of the other recent threads "Should Pot be Legal," I BELIEVE I saw you post a one word post, "no."

Like I said, very likely could be my mistake.

As for the cartels, how well were the bootleggers doing after prohibition?

Obviously marijuana is not their only income, but it's a large portion. The war on drugs in the states is largely the war on marijuana.
Decriminalizing it in america would be a HUGE hit to the cartels.
Decriminalizing ALL drugs would all but wipe them out.
Treat them all like tomatoes.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20552 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
This is from your vast economics education? Perhaps your vast law enforcement experience? No it is you spouting crap you agree with from an anarchist web page.

And it is absolutely your mistake. One of a large and growing number you make during the assumptions you constantly make.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 16:53, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 13:09, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 12:32, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 10:26, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 10:22, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 10:13, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 08:39, Russell Davidson wrote:
To all those in opposition - you don't know what you're talking about. End of story, no argument.


Oh well. When faced with evidence of this strength, all my questions are answered.

Whew. I thought there may have been methodological or statistical questions unanswered. But this settles it.


If you want that then you need only look at two things; alcohol prohibition, and Portugal.


Depends on what the question is, eh?

Gupta's claim is that there is solid scientific evidence for the efficacy of the medical use of marijuana. Prohibition and Portugal are absolutely irrelevant to the discussion.


Then you already know there is evidence for the medical argument. Portugal and the patently obvious failure, and murderous nature of prohibition, are entirely relevant to the larger discussion; they're also still relevant to the medical discussion as prohibition is why there is still the ongoing insanely ignorant debate on the medical issue.
In america, marijuana is still listed as more dangerous then cocaine, and as having no medical use.


I know that there is evidence. I am not competent to evaluate the strength of the evidence nor to comment on its clinical application. I suspect you aren't either. Out of curiosity, where is the official "more dangerous" list ?


"Schedule I

Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:

heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote

Schedule II

Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, less abuse potential than Schedule I drugs, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are:

cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin"

http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml


Ah. You are referring to the US Controlled Substance Act. The quoted material is not part of the act. I see that someone has slyly put in the "Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules"--which does not appear in the text of the Act, so far as I can see.

Where does your excerpted matter come from?

For the record, here is how the Act actually establishes the schedules:

Quote:
(1) Schedule I. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
(2) Schedule II. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.
(3) Schedule III. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.
(4) Schedule IV. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
(5) Schedule V. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 17:07, Dannydoyle wrote:
This is from your vast economics education? Perhaps your vast law enforcement experience? No it is you spouting crap you agree with from an anarchist web page.

And it is absolutely your mistake. One of a large and growing number you make during the assumptions you constantly make.


No, it comes from learning from history, and objective observation of reality, and yes, a pretty decent economic education.
Once again, you simply cannot focus on the actual discussion without mudslinging, and lying. None of this has come from any "anarchist" webpages.
Seriously, what the **** is wrong with you?
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 17:28, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 16:53, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 13:09, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 12:32, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 10:26, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 10:22, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 10:13, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 08:39, Russell Davidson wrote:
To all those in opposition - you don't know what you're talking about. End of story, no argument.


Oh well. When faced with evidence of this strength, all my questions are answered.

Whew. I thought there may have been methodological or statistical questions unanswered. But this settles it.


If you want that then you need only look at two things; alcohol prohibition, and Portugal.


Depends on what the question is, eh?

Gupta's claim is that there is solid scientific evidence for the efficacy of the medical use of marijuana. Prohibition and Portugal are absolutely irrelevant to the discussion.


Then you already know there is evidence for the medical argument. Portugal and the patently obvious failure, and murderous nature of prohibition, are entirely relevant to the larger discussion; they're also still relevant to the medical discussion as prohibition is why there is still the ongoing insanely ignorant debate on the medical issue.
In america, marijuana is still listed as more dangerous then cocaine, and as having no medical use.


I know that there is evidence. I am not competent to evaluate the strength of the evidence nor to comment on its clinical application. I suspect you aren't either. Out of curiosity, where is the official "more dangerous" list ?


"Schedule I

Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:

heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote

Schedule II

Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, less abuse potential than Schedule I drugs, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are:

cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin"

http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml


Ah. You are referring to the US Controlled Substance Act. The quoted material is not part of the act. I see that someone has slyly put in the "Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules"--which does not appear in the text of the Act, so far as I can see.

Where does your excerpted matter come from?

For the record, here is how the Act actually establishes the schedules:

Quote:
(1) Schedule I. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
(2) Schedule II. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.
(3) Schedule III. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.
(4) Schedule IV. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
(5) Schedule V. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.



The excerpted material came from the link I provided, the one to the united states department of "justice." More specifically, the drug enforcement agency's subsection of the site. That good enough a source for the way the federal government actually views marajuana?
http://www.justice.gov/dea/index.shtml
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 17:39, gdw wrote:


The excerpted material came from the link I provided, the one to the united states department of "justice." More specifically, the drug enforcement agency's subsection of the site. That good enough a source for the way the federal government actually views marajuana?
http://www.justice.gov/dea/index.shtml


Sorry, I missed that. So it's a lay summary of the act, and contains words and sentiments not in the act.

I am amused both by your placing scare quotes around justice--you're not 15--and your sarcastic "that good enough..." Notice also that you are misreading the source. You wrote "In america, marijuana is still listed as more dangerous then cocaine, and as having no medical use" which is a complete misrepresentation of the summary. What is generally true of schedule 1 and schedule 2 drugs is not necessarily true of any pairwise comparison of individuals in the two groups. (e.g. Swedes are taller than Japanese; it doesn't follow that every Swede is taller than every Japanese.)

Don't forget what you and I were discussing. Russell Davidson arrogantly stated "To all those in opposition - you don't know what you're talking about. End of story, no argument" and you appeared to support him with "If you want that then you need only look at two things; alcohol prohibition, and Portugal".

Your comment still has no bearing on the appropriate status of marijuana as a medical substance.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27136 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Getting marijuana to market as a "product" would involve some interesting testing, studies and clinical trials. What's the ED50 compared to the LD50 for what uses? Will malpractice insurance cover the risks? Will insurance plans pay for it? Ve$ted intere$t$ wan to know.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 15:54, Al Angello wrote:
You know I think that we should hold Lobo's feet to the fire on his latest teabonics episode.

No need for any arson! You know everyone is entitled to my opinion. But I'm not sure what you mean by the latest tea bionics episode. I agree with everybody here on some stuff - including both you and Robert Smith. Heck, I even agreed with Chance about some things. More specifically, I agree with you that pot should be legal.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Magic.J.Manuel
View Profile
Special user
I have danced upon
667 Posts

Profile of Magic.J.Manuel
If Hemp was legal we could buy the Mexican weed and turn it into BioFuel, hemp-diesel is much more doable than switch grass or algae.

If we took the billions spend on interdiction, incarceration, and lost taxes, we could fund true help for the people addicted to alcohol, prescriptions and pot.

If for one second you think that any kid can not get pot today then you are living with your head in the sand.
Pot has been widely available since I went to high school in the seventies and everyone knows the kids who can get it.
It should be regulated like alcohol.

So why keep fighting a war on drugs that was lost long before it started, and why not actually use the resource?
Nothing would get done at all, if man waited so long that no one could find fault with it.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 18:01, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 17:39, gdw wrote:


The excerpted material came from the link I provided, the one to the united states department of "justice." More specifically, the drug enforcement agency's subsection of the site. That good enough a source for the way the federal government actually views marajuana?
http://www.justice.gov/dea/index.shtml


Sorry, I missed that. So it's a lay summary of the act, and contains words and sentiments not in the act.

I am amused both by your placing scare quotes around justice--you're not 15--and your sarcastic "that good enough..." Notice also that you are misreading the source. You wrote "In america, marijuana is still listed as more dangerous then cocaine, and as having no medical use" which is a complete misrepresentation of the summary. What is generally true of schedule 1 and schedule 2 drugs is not necessarily true of any pairwise comparison of individuals in the two groups. (e.g. Swedes are taller than Japanese; it doesn't follow that every Swede is taller than every Japanese.)

Don't forget what you and I were discussing. Russell Davidson arrogantly stated "To all those in opposition - you don't know what you're talking about. End of story, no argument" and you appeared to support him with "If you want that then you need only look at two things; alcohol prohibition, and Portugal".

Your comment still has no bearing on the appropriate status of marijuana as a medical substance.


Good points. Though I stand by the quotes around "justice." There is nothing about that system that is geared towards justice.
Yes, a touch of hyperbole with "nothing," but there is certainly dang close to nothing.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
ShirtlessKirk
View Profile
Loyal user
236 Posts

Profile of ShirtlessKirk
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 18:52, Magic.J.Manuel wrote:
If Hemp was legal we could buy the Mexican weed and turn it into BioFuel, hemp-diesel is much more doable than switch grass or algae.

If we took the billions spend on interdiction, incarceration, and lost taxes, we could fund true help for the people addicted to alcohol, prescriptions and pot.

If for one second you think that any kid can not get pot today then you are living with your head in the sand.
Pot has been widely available since I went to high school in the seventies and everyone knows the kids who can get it.
It should be regulated like alcohol.






So why keep fighting a war on drugs that was lost long before it started, and why not actually use the resource?





Not just pot. All drugs. If someone wants to get high on a regular basis that's their problem. It's a futile battle fighting the drug war. You have as much chance of stopping people from getting high as you do stopping them from having sex. With all drugs being available for cheaper prices you would put many of these cartels almost completely out of business. They can't compete with a widely available drug that doesn't have inflated prices because of the illegality of it. Will people get addicted, yes. That's their choice. The freedom to ruin your life is as important as the freedom to improve your lot in life.
Magic.J.Manuel
View Profile
Special user
I have danced upon
667 Posts

Profile of Magic.J.Manuel
No, only Cannabis is not the same as all drugs. It has significant industrial uses, and can be used as safely as alcohol.

Many of the scheduled drugs will develop an physiological addiction while pot is only habitual like alcohol and nicotine. I do not believe that people intentionally choose to get addicted, and the people who are prone to addiction can be helped. Ex-pot users like Pres. Obama do not have any lasting effects and can still be effective members of society. It is Holder's point that we spend way too much on nonviolent crimes, over 30% of DEA's budget. And there is no positive results.
Nothing would get done at all, if man waited so long that no one could find fault with it.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 19:46, ShirtlessKirk wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 18:52, Magic.J.Manuel wrote:
If Hemp was legal we could buy the Mexican weed and turn it into BioFuel, hemp-diesel is much more doable than switch grass or algae.

If we took the billions spend on interdiction, incarceration, and lost taxes, we could fund true help for the people addicted to alcohol, prescriptions and pot.

If for one second you think that any kid can not get pot today then you are living with your head in the sand.
Pot has been widely available since I went to high school in the seventies and everyone knows the kids who can get it.
It should be regulated like alcohol.






So why keep fighting a war on drugs that was lost long before it started, and why not actually use the resource?





Not just pot. All drugs. If someone wants to get high on a regular basis that's their problem. It's a futile battle fighting the drug war. You have as much chance of stopping people from getting high as you do stopping them from having sex. With all drugs being available for cheaper prices you would put many of these cartels almost completely out of business. They can't compete with a widely available drug that doesn't have inflated prices because of the illegality of it. Will people get addicted, yes. That's their choice. The freedom to ruin your life is as important as the freedom to improve your lot in life.


YES! Exactly. It's been proven in Portugal already, and with alcohol prohibition before that.
Speaking of alcohol prohibition, why did the need to make a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol, but not to make marajuana and the like illegal?
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
imgic
View Profile
Inner circle
Moved to Seattle to see
1195 Posts

Profile of imgic
No private clubs running yet in Colorado. Legislature still finalizing details and taxation. But as of now pretty much all DAs and police chiefs have stopped arresting and prosecuting for under an ounce. Medical use has been here long time. Pretty easy to find a doctor, tell them about back pain(real or not) and get a script.

Only bad part I was too late to get a Friti-Lay franchise...
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
ShirtlessKirk
View Profile
Loyal user
236 Posts

Profile of ShirtlessKirk
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 20:13, Magic.J.Manuel wrote:
No, only Cannabis is not the same as all drugs. It has significant industrial uses, and can be used as safely as alcohol.

Many of the scheduled drugs will develop an physiological addiction while pot is only habitual like alcohol and nicotine. I do not believe that people intentionally choose to get addicted, and the people who are prone to addiction can be helped. Ex-pot users like Pres. Obama do not have any lasting effects and can still be effective members of society. It is Holder's point that we spend way too much on nonviolent crimes, over 30% of DEA's budget. And there is no positive results.




The whole argument of any drugs being illegal is absurd (especially weed). You can't and shouldn't stop people from harming themselves if that is their choice. Its pathetic, mommy government deciding whats good for you or society. It's irrelevant whether a drug has a medical/industrial use or not. The government has no business telling people what they can and can't do to their own bodies. Should they regulate what food we should eat, what to drink, how much sun exposure is ok? I can't respect any person or group who doesn't respect an individuals right to decide what they can and can't do to their own body. If you don't want to do drugs don't, if you want to drink yourself into an early grave go ahead. If you want to wake and bake that's your business. The moment you have someone else making those choices for you, you are no longer a free person you are a subject.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 22:21, ShirtlessKirk wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-12 20:13, Magic.J.Manuel wrote:
No, only Cannabis is not the same as all drugs. It has significant industrial uses, and can be used as safely as alcohol.

Many of the scheduled drugs will develop an physiological addiction while pot is only habitual like alcohol and nicotine. I do not believe that people intentionally choose to get addicted, and the people who are prone to addiction can be helped. Ex-pot users like Pres. Obama do not have any lasting effects and can still be effective members of society. It is Holder's point that we spend way too much on nonviolent crimes, over 30% of DEA's budget. And there is no positive results.




The whole argument of any drugs being illegal is absurd (especially weed). You can't and shouldn't stop people from harming themselves if that is their choice. Its pathetic, mommy government deciding whats good for you or society. It's irrelevant whether a drug has a medical/industrial use or not. The government has no business telling people what they can and can't do to their own bodies. Should they regulate what food we should eat, what to drink, how much sun exposure is ok? I can't respect any person or group who doesn't respect an individuals right to decide what they can and can't do to their own body. If you don't want to do drugs don't, if you want to drink yourself into an early grave go ahead. If you want to wake and bake that's your business. The moment you have someone else making those choices for you, you are no longer a free person you are a subject.


Precisely.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Russell Davidson
View Profile
Inner circle
Hampshire, England
1106 Posts

Profile of Russell Davidson
I wonder how many of you who disagree about the wonderful properties of said plant will then go home & have a drink of alcohol?

Ooh, drink & cigarettes, good taxable drugs. Nothing wrong with those huh?
irossall
View Profile
Special user
Snohomish, Washington
529 Posts

Profile of irossall
Quote:
On 2013-08-13 04:54, Russell Davidson wrote:
I wonder how many of you who disagree about the wonderful properties of said plant will then go home & have a drink of alcohol?

Ooh, drink & cigarettes, good taxable drugs. Nothing wrong with those huh?


Alcohol and cigarettes are LEGAL and the Government has deemed them much safer and better for us than Marijuana. Too many people have died under the influence of Marijuana. Alcohol and cigarettes are much safer and far fewer deaths are associated with their use.
If you want to get yourself educated about the true horror's of Marijuana use I suggest you watch "Reefer Madness" and "Marijuana, Assasin of Youth". These two educational films were part of my drug education, both in school and in my basic training at Lackland Air Force base.
For those who may not know, Marijuana is THE gateway drug to heroin use. Just what we need, a bunch of junkies breaking into our homes and killing us in our sleep in order to pay for their addiction.
Iven Smile
Give the gift of Life, Be an Organ Donor.
Al Angello
View Profile
Eternal Order
Collegeville, Pa. USA
11047 Posts

Profile of Al Angello
Danny
Democrats have much to be proud of, and you have nothing but contempt for our many victories. Get used to it because the balance of power has tipped for the forseeable future. Perhaps it is time for you to light up and release your anger.
Al Angello The Comic Juggler/Magician
http://www.juggleral.com
http://home.comcast.net/~juggleral/
"Footprints on your ceiling are almost gone"
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Dr. Sanjay Gupta Changes Mind on Weed » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.3 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL