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

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?

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

(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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?