The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Legalize It! Options
morkelkey
Posted: Monday, July 6, 2009 3:53:07 AM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 7/6/2009
Posts: 2
Location: India
I haven't heard of a single case where that's happened so I think the approach of either Decrim or legalize it and do nothing would both work.


Glow in Dark Wristband
risadr
Posted: Monday, July 6, 2009 10:27:30 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/16/2009
Posts: 1,155
Neurons: 3,545
Location: PA, United States
morkelkey wrote:
I haven't heard of a single case where that's happened so I think the approach of either Decrim or legalize it and do nothing would both work.


How would it work to continue to do nothing? I think that it would be of a benefit to legalize marijuana if only for the reason that, by making it legal, legal resources that are being squandered in the "War Against Drugs" that could be better applied in other ways.

Thoughts?


It's like a book elegantly bound, but in a language that you can't read just yet. "I Will Possess Your Heart," Death Cab for Cutie
Rhondish
Posted: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 9:25:37 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/20/2009
Posts: 256
Neurons: 787
Location: NH - United States
I am surprised that no one, since it appears the majority is pro-legalization, has mentioned the use of Hemp. So here is an interesting essay on one of the reasons Marajuana was made illegal. The entire article is available here

http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0199/et0199s11.html

Hemp as public enemy #1
Hemp was the first plant known to have been domestically cultivated. The oldest relic of human history is hemp fabric dated to 8,000 BC from ancient Mesopotamia, an area in present-day Turkey. It has been grown as long as recorded history for food, fuel, fiber, and for another legitimate use, which is not even discussed here for the sake of brevity medicine. So, with all these uses and benefits, why is cannabis cultivation illegal in the United States today? Here is a brief history of cannabis prohibition:

Hemp was a primary source of paper, textile, and cordage fiber for thousands of years until just after the turn of the 20th century. It was at this time that companies like DuPont first developed chemicals that enabled trees to be processed into paper.

DuPont's chemicals made wood pulp paper cheaper than paper made from annual crops like hemp. At the same time Wm. Randolph Hearst, the owner of the largest newspaper chain in the United States, backed by Mellon Bank, invested significant capital in timberland and wood paper mills to produce his newsprint using DuPont's chemicals.

DuPont also developed nylon fiber as a direct competitor to hemp in the textile and cordage industries. Nylon was even billed as synthetic hemp.

DuPont was also manufacturing chemical pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers useful in the cotton industry, another hemp competitor.

Mellon Bank, owned by U.S. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, was also DuPont's primary financier. Mellon's niece was married to Harry Anslinger, deputy commissioner of the federal government's alcohol prohibition campaign. After the repeal of Prohibition, Anslinger and his entire federal bureau were out of a job. But Treasurer Mellon didn't let that happen. Andrew Mellon single-handedly created a new government bureaucracy, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, to keep his family and friends employed. And then he unapologetically appointed his own niece's husband, Harry Anslinger, as head of the new multimillion dollar bureaucracy.

At the same time, a machine was developed that was to hemp what the cotton gin was to cotton: it allowed hemp's long, tough fiber to be mass processed efficiently and economically for the first time. Popular Mechanics, in February 1937, predicted hemp would be the world's first "Billion Dollar Crop" that would support thousands of jobs and provide a vast array of consumer products from dynamite to plastics.

This potential rejuvenation of hemp was a major threat to Secretary Mellon's friends and business associates, especially Randolph Hearst with his wood paper industry and Lammont DuPont with his petrochemical and synthetic fiber conglomerates. After all, hemp farmers wouldn't need DuPont's chemicals to grow their hemp because the crop is self-sufficient. The hemp-based ethanol fuel that was mentioned in the Popular Mechanics' article probably didn't sit too well with the oil companies of the time. They also couldn't have been too thrilled to learn that this same plant produced high-strength plastics without a petroleum base. The hemp-based plastics developed at the time were stronger and lighter than steel, which we can imagine wasn't the best news for the steel industry.

In addition, the growing pharmaceutical companies were producing synthetic drugs to replace natural medicines. Hemp extract was used for thousands of years to effectively treat everything from epileptic fits to rheumatoid arthritis. Chances are, hemp's resurgence wasn't good news for these drug companies either.

What we see is that the potential revival of the hemp industry was a threat to almost all the corporate giants of the time, and Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon was at the top of this food chain.

So Commissioner Anslinger, Mellon's appointee, begins researching rumors that immigrants from Mexico are smoking the flowers of the hemp plant. Racism was rampant at the time, and there was a government movement to curb the number of immigrants crossing the U.S. border at Mexico. Anslinger plugged into the racist sentiment, and began referring to the "hemp" that Americans knew cannabis to be, as "marijuana," the Mexican slang word for the plant. He labeled it as a "narcotic" even though cannabis flowers cannot cause narcosis, and spread exaggerated stories and outright lies that Mexicans and blacks became violent and disrespectful to whites when they smoked the "evil menace marijuana."

This slander of cannabis was all just fine for Anslinger's friends, the Mellons, the DuPonts, and the Hearsts. In fact, Hearst's newspapers picked up on the propaganda and fueled the fire by publishing hundreds of lurid stories about people raping and murdering while under the influence of marijuana. The sensationalism sold lots of newspapers, and the people of the country actually based their opinions on this one-sided information. Of course the stories never mentioned the hemp that people used everyday as rope, paper, medicine, and more. The stories always referred to cannabis by the Mexican slang word, marijuana.

With the moral and prohibitive fervor of the time duly stirred, Anslinger took his show to Congress. At the proceedings of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, Anslinger didn't mention that marijuana was hemp. And because anti-marijuana propaganda didn't mention that basic fact, hemp industries found out almost too late about the effort to criminalize cannabis cultivation. Testimony was heard from the full gamut of hemp companies and advocates, from birdseed suppliers to cordage manufacturers, from farmers to physicians, all touting hemp's importance in American history and the many industrial, agricultural, medicinal, and economic benefits of cannabis. Only after their testimony, was the wording of the bill changed to allow for the continued legal cultivation of industrial hemp. Anslinger even backed off on hemp prohibition in a very cunning maneuver.

After the Act was passed, Anslinger single-handedly usurped congressional power by mandating hemp prohibition. He justified his action by saying that his agents couldn't tell the difference between industrial hemp and marijuana in the field, so hemp cultivation made enforcement of marijuana prohibition impossible. This unconstitutional usurpation of congressional law is still in effect today as the Department of Justice and the DEA still cling to Anslinger's unjust and unjustifiable prohibition on domestic hemp cultivation.




Rhondish
Posted: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 9:37:09 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/20/2009
Posts: 256
Neurons: 787
Location: NH - United States
fred wrote:
I know that someone who drinks alot can be physically and emotionally dangerous, sober.
This media will not allow me to go into more detail.


Hi Fred,

As someone who has been sober for years, I have discovered this and I support your statement. People who tend to be nasty drunk, are just as nasty sober. Alcohol amplifies it all, good traits and bad. Once you remove inhibitions, watch out.

As far as dope smokers, I see them mellow out or fall asleep, lots of folks who are first getting sober try 'marajuana maintenance'. I do not support this because most of these folks end up drinking again, BUT the weed turns them down a notch instead of up.
Luftmarque
Posted: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 9:56:16 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/17/2009
Posts: 3,120
Neurons: 30,222
Location: Pau, Aquitaine, France
Rhondish wrote:
I am surprised that no one, since it appears the majority is pro-legalization, has mentioned the use of Hemp. So here is an interesting essay on one of the reasons Marijuana was made illegal. The entire article is available here

http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0199/et0199s11.html

Ah, follow the money! I should have known.

}- Luftmarque لوفتمارك -{ Le doute n'est pas une condition agréable, mais la certitude est absurde.—Voltaire
risadr
Posted: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 11:09:30 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/16/2009
Posts: 1,155
Neurons: 3,545
Location: PA, United States
Rhondish wrote:
I am surprised that no one, since it appears the majority is pro-legalization, has mentioned the use of Hemp. So here is an interesting essay on one of the reasons Marajuana was made illegal. The entire article is available here

http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0199/et0199s11.html


Kind of makes you wonder why, if all of this evidence of nepotism is available, something hasn't been done to overturn the unjust actions of that administration...


It's like a book elegantly bound, but in a language that you can't read just yet. "I Will Possess Your Heart," Death Cab for Cutie
fred
Posted: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 11:20:27 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2009
Posts: 1,475
Neurons: 4,457
Location: United States
Let's get rolling on the Hemp bandwagon!

"Supposin' I was to go to work and learn how to... to read writin'. Well, how'd I know that the feller that... that wrote the writin' was a writin' the writin' right? See it could be that he wrote the writin' all wrong. Here I'd be just a readin' wrong writin', don't ya see? You probably been doin' it your whole life, just a readin' wrong writin' and not even knowin‘ it." Festus
Luftmarque
Posted: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 4:51:45 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/17/2009
Posts: 3,120
Neurons: 30,222
Location: Pau, Aquitaine, France
fred wrote:
Let's get rolling on the Hemp bandwagon!

Is that anything like the cannabus? (from a Mr. Show episode)

}- Luftmarque لوفتمارك -{ Le doute n'est pas une condition agréable, mais la certitude est absurde.—Voltaire
amandade
Posted: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 6:41:58 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 7/8/2009
Posts: 3
Neurons: 9
Location: United States
Pretty good topic all around, I think. Personally, and I don't think Risa asked for me to put my opinion here because it would surprise anyone, but, I'm all for pot being legal. There's a number of reasons really, and most of them have been stated already throughout this thread.

First and foremost, what harm does it do, really? In my opinion, none. Cigarettes can give you cancer and a whole slew of other problems. Alcohol, makes the right kind of person a beligerent piece of trash, that does idiotic things, like getting behind the wheel of their car and going for a drive. Pot doesn't make you beligerent, or as far as I know give you cancer or emphysema. It may give you a powerful case of the giggles, but I hardly see that as being detrimental to society as a whole.
risadr
Posted: Thursday, July 9, 2009 1:07:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/16/2009
Posts: 1,155
Neurons: 3,545
Location: PA, United States
amandade wrote:
Pretty good topic all around, I think. Personally, and I don't think Risa asked for me to put my opinion here because it would surprise anyone, but, I'm all for pot being legal. There's a number of reasons really, and most of them have been stated already throughout this thread.

First and foremost, what harm does it do, really? In my opinion, none. Cigarettes can give you cancer and a whole slew of other problems. Alcohol, makes the right kind of person a belligerent piece of trash, that does idiotic things, like getting behind the wheel of their car and going for a drive. Pot doesn't make you belligerent, or as far as I know give you cancer or emphysema. It may give you a powerful case of the giggles, but I hardly see that as being detrimental to society as a whole.


I know that I haven't expressed my opinions on this matter explicitly, but that's because I'm trying to play devil's advocate a little bit...

That said, how can you say that marijuana is "safer" medically speaking? I understand that some studies have been done, but the findings have been inconclusive. Also, tobacco is currently regulated by the FDA, marijuana isn't. Tobacco, itself, isn't what causes cancer - it's the chemical additives in cigarettes and smokeless tobacco that cause cancer. So, what's to say that a few months/years/etc. after the legalization of marijuana that it won't have been commercialized to such a point that chemical additives are being used, leading to the assertion that "smoking pot causes cancer"?

I know how I actually feel about the legalization of marijuana (and I know that you do, too, Amanda), I'm just saying...


It's like a book elegantly bound, but in a language that you can't read just yet. "I Will Possess Your Heart," Death Cab for Cutie
Luftmarque
Posted: Thursday, July 9, 2009 1:25:35 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/17/2009
Posts: 3,120
Neurons: 30,222
Location: Pau, Aquitaine, France
I thought I remembered reading somewhere that smoking marijuana is connected with lung cancer. That would make sense. So I Googled it, but found this instead, which seems to indicate that grass is a potent anti-cancer drug. One more reason for me to apply for my Colorado Medical Marijuana Permit!

}- Luftmarque لوفتمارك -{ Le doute n'est pas une condition agréable, mais la certitude est absurde.—Voltaire
fred
Posted: Thursday, July 9, 2009 2:36:22 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2009
Posts: 1,475
Neurons: 4,457
Location: United States
Luftmarque wrote:
I thought I remembered reading somewhere that smoking marijuana is connected with lung cancer. That would make sense. So I Googled it, but found this instead, which seems to indicate that grass is a potent anti-cancer drug. One more reason for me to apply for my Colorado Medical Marijuana Permit!


I hope you're OK!



"Supposin' I was to go to work and learn how to... to read writin'. Well, how'd I know that the feller that... that wrote the writin' was a writin' the writin' right? See it could be that he wrote the writin' all wrong. Here I'd be just a readin' wrong writin', don't ya see? You probably been doin' it your whole life, just a readin' wrong writin' and not even knowin‘ it." Festus
Luftmarque
Posted: Thursday, July 9, 2009 2:45:06 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/17/2009
Posts: 3,120
Neurons: 30,222
Location: Pau, Aquitaine, France
fred wrote:
Luftmarque wrote:
I thought I remembered reading somewhere that smoking marijuana is connected with lung cancer. That would make sense. So I Googled it, but found this instead, which seems to indicate that grass is a potent anti-cancer drug. One more reason for me to apply for my Colorado Medical Marijuana Permit!

I hope you're OK!

Oh yeah, no current problems! I'm just thinking in terms of preventive medicine. Whistle

}- Luftmarque لوفتمارك -{ Le doute n'est pas une condition agréable, mais la certitude est absurde.—Voltaire
amandade
Posted: Thursday, July 9, 2009 11:06:45 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 7/8/2009
Posts: 3
Neurons: 9
Location: United States
risadr wrote:
amandade wrote:
Pretty good topic all around, I think. Personally, and I don't think Risa asked for me to put my opinion here because it would surprise anyone, but, I'm all for pot being legal. There's a number of reasons really, and most of them have been stated already throughout this thread.

First and foremost, what harm does it do, really? In my opinion, none. Cigarettes can give you cancer and a whole slew of other problems. Alcohol, makes the right kind of person a belligerent piece of trash, that does idiotic things, like getting behind the wheel of their car and going for a drive. Pot doesn't make you belligerent, or as far as I know give you cancer or emphysema. It may give you a powerful case of the giggles, but I hardly see that as being detrimental to society as a whole.


I know that I haven't expressed my opinions on this matter explicitly, but that's because I'm trying to play devil's advocate a little bit...

That said, how can you say that marijuana is "safer" medically speaking? I understand that some studies have been done, but the findings have been inconclusive. Also, tobacco is currently regulated by the FDA, marijuana isn't. Tobacco, itself, isn't what causes cancer - it's the chemical additives in cigarettes and smokeless tobacco that cause cancer. So, what's to say that a few months/years/etc. after the legalization of marijuana that it won't have been commercialized to such a point that chemical additives are being used, leading to the assertion that "smoking pot causes cancer"?

I know how I actually feel about the legalization of marijuana (and I know that you do, too, Amanda), I'm just saying...


You make a decent argument, Bibi. There's a very big chance that if and when marijuana became legal that tabacco companies could jump on it and do the same thing they did with tabacco. But I don't think that should stop it from being legal. There are too many benefits from THC, from a medical stand point,which I could give some firsthand experience on, but it's a long story so I won't, lol. Not to mention,as I've said already, it's probably one of the least harmful recreational drugs that are out there. If it were legal, I know I wouldn't bother smoking cigarettes anymore.

Personally, I think the positive outweighs the negative in this particular situation. There are things that -could- happen, but we won't really know until it got to that point. Speculation is great and all, and so is playing devil's advocate, because it brings interesting points to light, but the "what if's" you're mentioning isn't really enough, in my eyes, to agree with not making marijuana legal.

Now, lets actually hear your views on the issue, Bibi. Yes, I know them already, but not everyone else here does.
risadr
Posted: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 1:46:43 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/16/2009
Posts: 1,155
Neurons: 3,545
Location: PA, United States
I'm interested, Mark. You mentioned the medical benefits of marijuana, and I know that medical marijuana has been legalized in California (and is on its way to legalization in several other states). I haven't had the opportunity to read much on the subject, would it be possible for you to enlighten me, a little bit, as to the medical benefits? Aside from the pain relief/muscle relaxant and appetite stimulant properties of THC -- my mother was prescribed THC capsules when she was undergoing treatment for her cancer, before she was placed on palliative care.

It's like a book elegantly bound, but in a language that you can't read just yet. "I Will Possess Your Heart," Death Cab for Cutie
E-RPM SOFT COM
Posted: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 2:23:11 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/11/2009
Posts: 1
Neurons: 3
Location: Republic of Moldova
Except for the smell I have nothing against marijuana.I am sure it will improve after it is legalized and ready to go public





E-RPM SOFT COM
336-793-0285
risadr
Posted: Thursday, August 13, 2009 10:59:28 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/16/2009
Posts: 1,155
Neurons: 3,545
Location: PA, United States
E-RPM SOFT COM wrote:
Except for the smell I have nothing against marijuana.I am sure it will improve after it is legalized and ready to go public





How will the smell of the smoke improve, just because it's been legalized?

It's like a book elegantly bound, but in a language that you can't read just yet. "I Will Possess Your Heart," Death Cab for Cutie
fred
Posted: Friday, August 14, 2009 12:12:24 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2009
Posts: 1,475
Neurons: 4,457
Location: United States


Smoker's lung on left, Non Smokers lung on right.

Hey, black is the in color, right?




"Supposin' I was to go to work and learn how to... to read writin'. Well, how'd I know that the feller that... that wrote the writin' was a writin' the writin' right? See it could be that he wrote the writin' all wrong. Here I'd be just a readin' wrong writin', don't ya see? You probably been doin' it your whole life, just a readin' wrong writin' and not even knowin‘ it." Festus
Epiphileon
Posted: Friday, August 14, 2009 12:19:57 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,056
Neurons: 83,949
Fred those look like organic Bota bags.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
witchcraft
Posted: Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:34:33 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/6/2009
Posts: 386
Location: Tasmania Australia
fred wrote:


Smoker's lung on left, Non Smokers lung on right.

Hey, black is the in color, right?




Those pulmonary specimens gross me out.

Love love love love co-co-nuts!, I I I I Island~~! Xo!!
risadr
Posted: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:19:49 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/16/2009
Posts: 1,155
Neurons: 3,545
Location: PA, United States
Those pulmonary specimens probably illustrate the ill effects of smoking TOBACCO. I don't even want to think about what my mother's lungs looked like when she passed away from lung cancer in early 2007.

That said, I don't think that any research has been done to show a link between smoking marijuana and the same...um, situation(?) occurring in ones lungs.

Thoughts? Information? Anyone?

I'm still curious as to how the positive/negative medical influences of marijuana color everyone's opinions about legalization. I mean, isn't alcohol proven to be dangerous and even, in some cases, deadly? At yet, still, it's legal. Why the double standard, especially when the stigma on marijuana and hemp has made it so that so little research can be performed?

It's like a book elegantly bound, but in a language that you can't read just yet. "I Will Possess Your Heart," Death Cab for Cutie
fred
Posted: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 11:03:53 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2009
Posts: 1,475
Neurons: 4,457
Location: United States
risadr wrote:
Those pulmonary specimens probably illustrate the ill effects of smoking TOBACCO. I don't even want to think about what my mother's lungs looked like when she passed away from lung cancer in early 2007.

That said, I don't think that any research has been done to show a link between smoking marijuana and the same...um, situation(?) occurring in ones lungs.

Thoughts? Information? Anyone?

I'm still curious as to how the positive/negative medical influences of marijuana color everyone's opinions about legalization. I mean, isn't alcohol proven to be dangerous and even, in some cases, deadly? At yet, still, it's legal. Why the double standard, especially when the stigma on marijuana and hemp has made it so that so little research can be performed?





"From: Institute of Medicine, Marijuana and Health, Washington,D.C.
National Academy Press, 1988

"The smoke from any burning plant contains hundreds of chemicals that may have biological effects . . ."

"Cannabis smoke is similar to tobacco smoke in that it is a mixture of very small particles and a gas-vapor phase. Both the particulate and vapor phases contain many identified and probably some still unidentified constituents that, based on clinical experience with tobacco smoke, must be assumed to be potentially harmful. The amounts of some materials in tobacco cigarete and marijuana cigarette smoke are compared in Table 3. Toxic substances, such as carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, and nitrosamines occur in similar concentrations in tobacco and marijuana smoke; so do the amounts of particulate material known collectively as "tars"." (pg 15)

[Editorial comment by Jon Gettman: The cancer risk in the most part comes from the smoke, not from the cannabinoids. This is an artifact of the delivery system, not the drug (it comes from burning the plant material, not the cannabinoids). As many of you know, THC has a lower vaporization temperature than the plant material it is contained in, and as Lester Grinspoos and others often point out, a vaporizer could be designed to vaporize the cannabinoids without burning the plant material and producing smoke filled with tars and other particulate matter. Also, the composition of the plant and its smoke has been known since the 1970's, and this didn't prevent Leo Hollister and the National Academy of Sciences from noting that marijuana has therapeutic potential.]"

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_info3.shtml




"Supposin' I was to go to work and learn how to... to read writin'. Well, how'd I know that the feller that... that wrote the writin' was a writin' the writin' right? See it could be that he wrote the writin' all wrong. Here I'd be just a readin' wrong writin', don't ya see? You probably been doin' it your whole life, just a readin' wrong writin' and not even knowin‘ it." Festus
Epiphileon
Posted: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 11:33:08 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,056
Neurons: 83,949
The problem of the burning plant byproducts has been solved. One can now purchase electric, thermocouple, controlled pipes that raise the bowl temperature to the exact temperature at which THC vaporizes. This temperature is well below the spontaneous ignition level of the plant matter.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
fred
Posted: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 10:33:20 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2009
Posts: 1,475
Neurons: 4,457
Location: United States
Epiphileon wrote:
The problem of the burning plant byproducts has been solved. One can now purchase electric, thermocouple, controlled pipes that raise the bowl temperature to the exact temperature at which THC vaporizes. This temperature is well below the spontaneous ignition level of the plant matter.


I am far from the camp of users. From my experience 90% of users Smoke it. That seems like half of their fun. But what do I know. sipping tea, sipping tea, sipping tea

"Supposin' I was to go to work and learn how to... to read writin'. Well, how'd I know that the feller that... that wrote the writin' was a writin' the writin' right? See it could be that he wrote the writin' all wrong. Here I'd be just a readin' wrong writin', don't ya see? You probably been doin' it your whole life, just a readin' wrong writin' and not even knowin‘ it." Festus
risadr
Posted: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 11:51:44 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/16/2009
Posts: 1,155
Neurons: 3,545
Location: PA, United States
Epiphileon wrote:
The problem of the burning plant byproducts has been solved. One can now purchase electric, thermocouple, controlled pipes that raise the bowl temperature to the exact temperature at which THC vaporizes. This temperature is well below the spontaneous ignition level of the plant matter.


Is this for real? If it is, I know some people who might be interested... lol

fred wrote:
I am far from the camp of users. From my experience 90% of users Smoke it. That seems like half of their fun. But what do I know.


You've apparently got more knowledge than I do, fred.

It's like a book elegantly bound, but in a language that you can't read just yet. "I Will Possess Your Heart," Death Cab for Cutie
fred
Posted: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 2:14:18 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2009
Posts: 1,475
Neurons: 4,457
Location: United States
risadr wrote:
Epiphileon wrote:
The problem of the burning plant byproducts has been solved. One can now purchase electric, thermocouple, controlled pipes that raise the bowl temperature to the exact temperature at which THC vaporizes. This temperature is well below the spontaneous ignition level of the plant matter.


Is this for real? If it is, I know some people who might be interested... lol

fred wrote:
I am far from the camp of users. From my experience 90% of users Smoke it. That seems like half of their fun. But what do I know.


You've apparently got more knowledge than I do, fred.


My info was gathered at college parties, so it may not be valid.



"Supposin' I was to go to work and learn how to... to read writin'. Well, how'd I know that the feller that... that wrote the writin' was a writin' the writin' right? See it could be that he wrote the writin' all wrong. Here I'd be just a readin' wrong writin', don't ya see? You probably been doin' it your whole life, just a readin' wrong writin' and not even knowin‘ it." Festus
risadr
Posted: Monday, August 24, 2009 11:53:56 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/16/2009
Posts: 1,155
Neurons: 3,545
Location: PA, United States
It's still more than I've got, fred. I've always been kind of a "goody-goody," and I never managed to glean any kind of real social knowledge on the subject. Everything I know has come from textbooks or political discussions.

It's like a book elegantly bound, but in a language that you can't read just yet. "I Will Possess Your Heart," Death Cab for Cutie
Epiphileon
Posted: Monday, August 24, 2009 1:14:07 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,056
Neurons: 83,949
risadr wrote:
Epiphileon wrote:
The problem of the burning plant byproducts has been solved. One can now purchase electric, thermocouple, controlled pipes that raise the bowl temperature to the exact temperature at which THC vaporizes. This temperature is well below the spontaneous ignition level of the plant matter.


Is this for real? If it is, I know some people who might be interested... lol


yes it is for real, the original plant material is left completely unscathed, looking like it did before being put in the device. Which raises problems for the pot smoking community, how do you know the weed your buying has any THC in it anymore?




Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
risadr
Posted: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 12:03:43 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/16/2009
Posts: 1,155
Neurons: 3,545
Location: PA, United States
That's seriously one of the coolest things I've seen... If there's no way of knowing, though, the same people I thought might be interested may not be interested after all. lol

It's like a book elegantly bound, but in a language that you can't read just yet. "I Will Possess Your Heart," Death Cab for Cutie
NinjaMonkee
Posted: Monday, October 19, 2009 12:46:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/17/2009
Posts: 281
Neurons: 768
Location: CA. USA
With so many people that are pro marijuana legalization, why has it not happened already? Doesn't the goverment and general public see the advantages to it, or are they all brainwashed into thinking marijuana is a drug and drugs are evil?

My beef strong.
Galad
Posted: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 2:51:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2009
Posts: 2,582
Neurons: 10,532
Location: Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Only read through about half of the posts in this thread, but the statement "Weed will open the gateway to more dangerous drugs" has always bothered me.

I contend that Alcohol has already done that! It allows anyone to walk into a store and experience an altered state; once you've experienced that one, you're out looking for a new high. So to me, that argument is null.

Sick

The Law often allows what Honor Forbids- Bernard-Joseph Saurin
member
Posted: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 7:10:58 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/23/2009
Posts: 85
Neurons: 259
well, IMHO, legalizing marijuana would be the gravest mistake in the name of public rights after arms rights.
risadr
Posted: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:40:45 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/16/2009
Posts: 1,155
Neurons: 3,545
Location: PA, United States
Can I ask why you feel that way, member? Again, I know that I haven't stated my position on the subject outright, but that's because I'm interested in hearing both sides of the argument. It appears that we're a relatively liberal community of posters, here, who seem more interested in seeing marijuana legalized that not, so I'm interested in hearing the opposite point of view. If you could please, would you mind elaborating on your stance and the reasoning behind it?

It's like a book elegantly bound, but in a language that you can't read just yet. "I Will Possess Your Heart," Death Cab for Cutie
Raparee
Posted: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 11:20:47 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/17/2009
Posts: 1,231
Neurons: 18,102
Bumping this discussion up again cause I noticed Colorado is going to start taxing medical marijuana soon. I'm all for it! In fact, just get it over with - legalize nationwide and tax the hell out of it.

Hemp is one of the greatest weeds ever because it is entirely multipurpose. Cloth, fabric, and fibers (better than cotton after processing and uses less pesticides, etc., before processing - not to mention, easy to grow - it's a weed!); milk (I like hemp milk) and seeds/nuts/whatever they are; paper (less bleaching needed than wood pulp and saves thousands of trees - in fact, why we don't use kudzu for paper and paper products blows my mind); and just multiple other uses, including, yes, pot in all its various druggy uses (which, I might add, I've actually never used and could not identify the smell of it if you paid me, though I heard it's sweet?).

From a medical standpoint, I've seen the effects it can have on chemo patients and anything that can make someone with end-stage cancer feel a bit better and a bit hungrier/able to keep food down is okay in my books. My mother had to go through my brother's friend to procure it, but I know damn well it made her quality of life better for a few short months.

Are there going to be addicts? Sure, there are now. Just like there are alcoholics and tobacco smokers. But we tax the hell out of them too. I know if I want some rum, I have to go the local ABC store and that gets taxed. Yes, there could be an uptick in users if legalized, but I imagine those who want to try it already have. I, personally, have no desire to try it. So legalizing it for me has no impact there. Since right now, due to the lack of over-processing, marijuana is less dangerous than tobacco, I'm all for it being legalized. My only problem is that second-hand smoke. Someone drinking next to me can't make me drunk and someone smoking next to me can't make me crave nicotine (they can ruin my lungs, however), but someone smoking pot next to me could potentially get me high.

For those worried about dopers behind the wheel and the lack of ease of detecting it, well, most dopers are hardly good about hiding this (read too many police reports on this, trust me) and if they did legalize it, they would boost the tech to make a legal (read: questionably safe) limit just as they do for alcohol. In the meantime, we'd have a major cash crop in multiple fields (literally!).

As for it being a "gateway" drug, I have to disagree. If you're going to try a harder drug, you could just as easily start out with alcohol, and that's already legal. Not to mention, most dopers are far more mellow and calm whereas alcoholics can run the gamut from mellow/depressed to psychotic rages. I've never heard of a doper in a rage.

And I'm sure the snack industry would gain a serious boon. ;)

PS - Also, in legalizing this, they could free up TONS of LEO resources. I would much rather my taxpayer dollars be used for going after child molesters than marijuana grows.


A closed mind is like a closed book - nothing can be gained if either remains closed.
risadr
Posted: Friday, November 20, 2009 12:06:43 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/16/2009
Posts: 1,155
Neurons: 3,545
Location: PA, United States
Well said, Raparee. Applause

It's like a book elegantly bound, but in a language that you can't read just yet. "I Will Possess Your Heart," Death Cab for Cutie
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.