who supports marijuana rights?

Post Reply New Topic

"If I was gonna legalize a drug it would not have been alcohol. There's other and better drugs for you...I not only think marijuana should be legalized--I think it should be mandatory. I'm a hardliner. Think about it: you're at a concert, and someone tries to start a fight. Are they drunk or stoned? That's right, they're drunk. You can't start a fight when you're stoned. 'Hey, buddy.' 'Hey, what?' 'Hey.' 'Hey.'...If you think drugs are bad and no one should ever use them, then do me this favor: take all your records and CDs and burn them, 'cause the musicians who made that music? Real f****n'' high on drugs. S***, the Beatles were so high they let Ringo sing a couple tunes. 'Come on down to the mike, John. Ringo's got this great song about 'we all live in a yellow tambourine' or something. John? John? All right, bring the mics up to the ceiling--we'll sing from the clouds.' They were high, they made great music--drugs had a positive effect. Shall I walk you through it again?"--Bill Hicks (from memory)

R.I.P., Bill.

I would care because these corporations would deliver an inferior product with almost no potency or taste to the public while making millions of dollars. I would hate to have to buy my pot from a company like Phillip Morris. The quality of the pot available today comes from years of selective breeding by the old-school enthusiasts. The big corporations would drive these people out of business by flooding the market with their low grade stuff. After awhile that's all there will be around.

Under the present system, years of old-school selective breeding has been lost forever - From the 70's skunk no1 & the Haze famously survived, but other once legendary strains have been lost forever.

The situation you describe of low grade commercial rubbish flooding the market is, to some extent thats happenning right now under prohibition anyway! Most dealers in the UK sell commercial cash-crop strains, bred for yield over quality, and intensively grown with harmful chemicals. I actually go to the trouble of refining a lot of the stuff i buy, to reduce my exposure to chemical residues and harmful molds & bacteria (caused by poor storage).

Under full legalization you would not 'have' to buy your pot from anyone. There will always be a fine selection available from hobbyists keeping the old-school traditions alive, because they were never driven by profit to start with.

Depends on what you mean by full legalization. If the government gets involved and starts taxing it like tobacco, I think the corporations would take over. I'm sure there are a few people who still grow their own tobacco but most people who smoke the stuff buy commercial cigarettes. What if the government says pot is 100% legal but you must buy it from the government or a company so that it can be taxed? Remember the government wants to tax sales of everything.

tobacco isnt really a fair comparison. Tobacco smokers are hard-drug addicts, most of them dont really care too much about what theyre smoking exactly as long as they get their fix. Tobacco varies only in flavour, it all has an identical drug effect afaik, whereas cannabis has a wide spectrum of different effects. Lastly, tobacco users tend to consume vast quantities of material, as the initial effects of nicotine lasts for only a very short duration, therefore it is impractical for most users to strive for self-sufficiency.

Yet all that is really besides the point, because the fact remains that if the tobacco-junkies wanted to grow their own, they are free to do so (albeit under certain local restrictions). Whether they can actually be bothered to do so is irrelevant.

Something that can only be purchased from government sanctioned vendors is not '100% legal'

In the UK for years the most common type of cannabis was 'soap-bar' moroccan hash.

5% cannabis resin, the rest a nasty cocktail of pollutants and additives. Often it reeked of disinfectant, motor oil etc. Cut with pharaceutical drugs like ketamine, antihistamines, barbiturates, chloropromazine. Coloured with instant coffee, held together with industrial adhesives and beeswax. Some reports showde it to contain even worse substances like the potent carcinogen tuolene (sp?)

An entire generation grew up thinking that 'soap-bar' was real cannabis, because thats all that was ever available. God knows how much damage we unknowingly inflicted on ourselves. Even if you got weed, there is still the risk of bacteria, potentially fatal molds, organophosphates and other industrial poisons.

There is absolutely no way a regulated industry could ever produce something as evil as soap-bar. For that i would gladly pay a little tax.

Last edited by psych on 26 Jan 2006, 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Cut the drugs out, mmmky?!

Thats why there is such thing as BC Bud.
It is refined and is about 10 times stronger then normal marrijuanna.

I heard of some old hippies who kept trying the same stuff they made at home, because they thought they did it best. When they tried genetically modified grass, they loved it.

I believe in giving people the choice to seek out specialised weed vendors (i also think alcohol shouldnt be served in supermarkets either). I do believe that people should know the risks and that they are more likely to slow down in the brain department or develop psychosis, particularly if taken in high doses regularly. Of course some people smoke it all their lives without significant problems arising but some people smoke ciggarettes all their lives and live to an old age without getting as much as a cold but that doesnt mean that it isnt a harmful drug overall.

Are you sure? I think 'genetically modified' cannabis is a media myth. Strength is misleading because it has completely different effects. Also, if you use the same type of weed all the time you build up a tolerance, so switching to something else (even if its weaker) will feel like its actually stronger.

In the UK press the '10*stronger than the 60s' claim is often used in 'psychosis' scare stories. Its thought that the laboratory analysis from the 60s was performed on stale grass that had degraded after many years in police storage. The strongest possible varieties would be around 20% if grown intensively indoors. Traditional outdoors crops have probably not changed much in centuries, its possible your traditional outdoor mexican stuff is only 2%, but that would be a very low figure imo.

You can easily refine any type of weed whatsoever into 60%+ ice-hash, but then it wouldnt be weed anymore. I do that sometimes - buy 7grams and refine it into 1gram. Although its become 7* stronger, it still has exactly the same effect, which is good or bad depending on your preference.

Allright, time to go into personal.
It is better because you cough less as well.
It is sweeter and maybe a tinch bit more addictive.
Still not nearly as addictive as alcohol or cigarettes.
The media doesn't capitulate on this at all, (not where I live).

They have overdramatized a rumour where meth was combined with weed.
That is a risk that will be eliminated with legalized canibus.

I think that what little damage might be caused by smoking the weed is inconsequential and does not lead to lung cancer. Smoking tobacco incapacitates the lungs rather quickly and a lot of people smoke marijuana to increase breathing capacity, successfully.

There isn't enough there to excuse the prohibition.

What is enough?

If you use a good vapourizer, you get all the anti-cancer benefits without any lung damage. (you are inhaling mist not toxic smoke)
Also, you use less and get an improved clearer buzz - perfect for medi users.

Even if you smoke, the stronger more refined your product is, the less volume you need to smoke. With bubble hash a tiny lump the size of a grain of rice can represent a poweful dose.

I have read otherwise for vaporizers, whats the slang term again?
We are talking about inhaling C02 canisters right?

There is always eating.
mmm marijuanna bread

I don't think that they really believe any of the excuses that they use. We would have a better excuse for banning the use of petroleum products. The damage that they cause to users is pretty nasty and the wars over petroleum have been horrible, making the drug wars look sort of weak by comparison.

It seems to be a fact that the so-called straights think they see a situation then they throw far too much at it.

I don't know what's enough, but the fights against the use of marijuana and other drugs have caused far more damage than leaving the situations alone would have.