who supports marijuana rights?

Post Reply New Topic

I think your thinking of something else. Vapourizing is simply heating something without a naked flame until it turns into steam, but not creating enough heat so that it combusts.

The simplest vapourizer is 'hot knifes' heating up a pair of kitchen knifes then squashing gear between them whilst inhaling the resultant steam through a funnel. However, i wouldnt recommend this crude technique because the level of heat is unregulated and might injure (burn) your airways.

There are various overpriced commercial products on the market, which work to varying degrees. I made one myself in the 90's with a soldiering iron*,dimmer switch and glass jar. Not very efficient but it did just work.

*brand new - otherwise you get lead poisoning!

hell making marijuana legal, no way. what we need to do to progress is make more drugs illegal. i would make cigarettes illegal altogether same with drugs. don't make any drugs legal, we don't need our society getting high when they get home. getting stoned is not a means of coping as some others have said, i think it is just a way of escaping reality and not facing problems. I am 17 and i have never and will never do any drugs, i was surprised to see the results, are like lots of aspies potheads or ex potheads gosh, you dont need drugs, i have little respect for people that could say they have even done drugs just once and quit, let alone habitually.

I have not taken the time to read everyone’s post here. I have already thought about this issue in great depth.

1. This substance should be kept illegal. Due to the properties and possibility of children or teens getting it, it does cause a grave societal harm.

2. Just like people that do not have a prescription for a pharmaceuticals that can be abused, the health and wellness properties of this do in fact help the individual. For a great variety of things. I believe to say it should be legalized is the same as saying every pharmaceutical should be available to others without prescription, doctors exist for a reason.

3. More strict guidelines need to be put forth for current patients, as to assure that like those that get medications from doctors are not reselling it. There should be no mercy in the law for those who sell it period.

4. I believe a psychological damage is happening to those suffering and are prescribed this medicine. When federal government desires to not protect them given there right as voted in by California voters. Folks, people have voted, going against a vote is going against the law, you cant do it.

5. This medicine is not of the devil, however I understand the evils of it in abuse. I understand criminals with weapons, with criminal histories and possible future criminal acts due indeed sell this but there are harsher drugs which are far more dangerous.

-----------------

Alternative View

Freedom is freedom, there should be no limits to freedom.

Marijuana should be banned for recreational use because it is unhealthy, it is typically not good for people or for their character, and because society has an obligation to look out for the welfare of its people even at the cost of their freedom. Nobody has or should give the freedom to be an idiot.

Legalizing marijuana although it may make economic sense forgets about the fact that society is also based on moral values. If we make things legal even though heavily taxed then in effect we are supporting them even though they may be wrong for society.

I agree that we should try to make more drugs illegal, alcohol and smoking have both shown themselves to be bad for individuals and cause much pain and misery.

I have no problem with medicines so long as those are controlled and not abused. I do realize that the original reasons for banning these drugs may not have been noble but that is no reason for us to forget the modern reasons for banning them. Petroleum is not even comparable to marijuana and only a fool would make a comparison between a good that is necessary for the workings of modern society and our economy and a drug that the majority of society can function well without. There is more 1000 times more harm in banning oil than in banning marijuana.

The drug war was not initiated by concerned people as a public safety measure. It was part of a deliberate plan to frighten people into giving up their rights and a large part their own judgement and control over their lives. It also royally screwed over numerous of our WWI veterans, including a number of those who later were machine-gunned in Washington D.C. for demanding payment of the pensions that their government promised them, you know the government that supposedly has the most integrity in the world. The original bans on opiates in the U.S. were implemented by first closing the clinics that treated the veterans of WWI for addiction to morphine and heroin. The original bans on marijuana were inspired by racial bigotry. This really hasn't changed.

With what little respect is due to the people who would repeat all of the anti-drug propaganda without applying the slightest real thought, and who like this kind of stuff because they get off on damaging other people's lives, whether firsthand or by proxy, I have to say that a lot of deception has been involved, is still involved, and the real pushers of this drug war program know very well that they are damaging society badly. That's why they do it. A damaged society bleeds. These bloodsuckers live on this blood and are pretty good at converting it to cash. In some ways it is a lot like planting seeds and harvesting the results, which may well explain why most of the anti-drug rhetoric so resembles fresh fertilizer.

In fact, just about the marijuna vs petroleum thing, it has been known for a long time that very large quantities of fuel can be extracted from the seeds of the hemp plant using very simple technology and no energy expended to convert it to other forms. The seeds are easy to crush. 25 or more barrels of usable diesel fuel can be extracted from one acre of soil at a very low expenditure of fuel.

And "awesome", your "moral values" get a lot of people killed over stupid stuff like someone drawing cartoons. They're not worth lives and they keep taking lives by the thousands. "Moral values" are among the greatest threats to society that exist. There are those who would not hesitate to drop hundred megaton nukes to resolve moral disputes.

How were the original bans on marijuana inspired by racial bigotry? I'm not doubting you, just asking you to explain.

And have you been reading William Burroughs? Your post vaguely reminds me of the start of Naked Lunch. But maybe I'm mistaken, because that book made little impression on me; I read about ten pages before deciding it was a pile of s*** and giving up.

Burroughs is hard to read and I haven't managed it. The things I mentioned come from books like "Reefer Madness" and the often updated "The Emperor Wears no Clothes." The facts about what they did to veterans are your basic American history.

Hmm... you really need a check box for "medicinal use only".

Remnant

Joined: Nov 02, 2005
Posts: 218


New postPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:08 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
And "awesome", your "moral values" get a lot of people killed over stupid stuff like someone drawing cartoons. They're not worth lives and they keep taking lives by the thousands. "Moral values" are among the greatest threats to society that exist. There are those who would not hesitate to drop hundred megaton nukes to resolve moral disputes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Going up against morals with clear bias of the mentality is incorrect. Without morals, ethics and just common respects for others humanity would degenerate. You cannot judge a whole for the acts of a part, mr.

It is both illogical and discriminatory to conclude that persons of morals are the reason for destruction, as it would be true that those who lack morals are demonic and or evil.

If you desire to lump up human personality traits and say it is of fault so broadly, it simply shows how incorrect it is logically.

Religion is not morals all the time, nor is good deed just as the one of different moral that differs from a majority cannot be judged by or in comparison to extro-spectively the larger group of differing morals.

Morals can be standardized, they can be part of a proclaimed doctrine such as in cults, but ethical and moral thought is also very personal. The blunder politically in this micro-scale, is the attack upon moral and the judgments in comparison.

Subjectivism

Though even what is not known could in fact be an element of thought fictionally (false fact, delusion), not fact so it is the source of the possibility of delusional thinking in belief of the If's. However that is the thought paradigm of non-rational subjective and conspiracy type of false fact beliefs.
Nathan

Last edited by sc on 05 Feb 2006, 10:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.

One thing is that there is nothing wrong with moral standards. A republic needs to have a moral population to keep it going correctly, an idea from the very founding of America. Morality is responsible for noble acts that are performed by people, it is for the good of the nation that we try to maintain morality because without it we no longer have patriots and important societal institutions such as marriage and the like collapse. If the artist had any decency or intelligence he would not have made those cartoon mocking a group of people that currently have a great feeling of being misfits within society.(We are talking about the anti-Islamic cartoons in Europe, right?) I do not condone the death threats and such but I do understand why this would happen. I do not believe in murdering for vengeance, I believe in justice as carried out by the state. Moral values are not the greatest threat to society, far from it in fact and it is not morality that causes these people to die either, that is only your perverted conception of a reality that exists because of a perversion of certain institutions. If you are talking about the murder of the Jews by suicide bombers then that is probably something brought on by the removal of the Palestinians and the backwards nature of the Middle East as Jews and Muslims have gotten along in the past. Anyway, I can continue to debate the virtues of virtue and its positive effect upon society including charity, patriotism, loyalty and so on and so forth.

Who really profits off of the drug war? You speak of bloodsuckers but really, I mean working for the government is not where the big profits come from. You almost seem to think that people are just doing this to be evil which sounds completely stupid. How do people profit off of the drug war? Where is this evil cabal that knows very well that they are damaging society badly? Bah! The big supporters of marijuana are stoners and libertarian economists who don't fully understand that a price should not be placed upon some things.

Well, I really don't have a problem with using marijuana as paper, clothing, fuel or medicine so long as it is not used for recreational purposes. If it is useful for anything non-recreational drug then I have no problem. My problem is with the recreational drug which is probably the thing that you would prefer to have anyway.

Whether you think that you are saying it or not, you are saying that you would let families freeze to death before allowing hemp to be grown for use as fuel before such time as people stop using it as a recreational drug.

Morality is deadly. "Though shalt not suffer a witch to live" is a moral that is responsible for the deaths of millions. It was also moral to kill all those Jews and perform many other forms of ethnic cleansing. It was also wrong, but it was moral by the measures of those who decided what was moral. Generally, if you have a belief system that requires you to do bad things to people, like jailing people over marijuana use, and this belief system prevents you from seeing a simple fact, like jailing people over marijuana use is a lot worse than the original "crime", then you have a moral belief system that is destructive and wrong.

Throughout human history "morals" are always relative to the observer. Imperial Rome would be considered so immoral, so decadent by modern American standards that it would make liberal countries of today look like fascist police states. We're talking about a society that enjoyed watching humans be eaten alive for entertainment, and let's not forget how much the Romans loved their wine fueled week long orgies. What's amazing is that this morally corrupt, completely indecent country controlled most of the known world for longer than America has been around. So there goes the morality=national strength argument.

And the "war on drugs" is just as stupid as the "war on terror". A giant money pit and an excuse to flex our military muscle while exerting our control and government style on other countries.

You want to know how to bankrupt the Columbian drug cartels overnight? Legalize cocaine, marijuana and heroin. Combine that with a domestic production of said drugs, safely and under government control, and a robust treatment and rehabilitation program and you still end up saving more money than with the dead end "war on drugs" idea.

Do you think that more people would start smoking marijuana if it was legal tomorrow? All the people that want to smoke it are already doing it despite it being illegal anyway, at least if it's legal the government gets a slice of that pie, and you remove the criminal element that is the basis for most of the laws any way.

And I'm not a libertarian anarcho-capitalist! I'm a Democratic Socialist!

Actually Rome is a good support for the whole morality = national strength thing because the strengths of the Roman character were what made their society strong however their immorality was their weakness as Romans were plagued by corruption and in some instances Roman leaders would sell out their people for money. Rome also suffered from many mad emperors and was not always known for its political stability and really it eventually fell into civil war and was defeated by all the people it tried to oppress. Also, Rome fell to Christianity which is probably due to the emptiness in their morally weak and hedonistic culture. The known world at the time was rather small and only included Europe, and parts of Africa and Asia, the world has obviously grown a lot bigger since Rome and America and Rome cannot really be compared as empires due to the fact that we exist in a larger and faster paced world than Rome and America has not existed for a very long period of time.

Also, even though morals may be subjective according to your point of view moral consistency is a strength as well as morals that are used to avoid activities that are generally harmful. The morals that we use are relatively successful in guiding our actions and considering that the whole idea of soldiers looting a town and getting all of the goodies is dead, we need some morality to guide our armed forces and the like.

The war on terror is an expression of our feelings to the middle-east and the invasion of Iraq may simply be due to Bush trying to beat his father. I think that the war of terror will work out in the end though, Iraq has had elections and even though Iraq is a state simply formed for political expedience and oil and was only created after WW1 when we broke up the Ottoman Empire. I do hope and think that we will have a success in the end though, the only problem is whether or not we break the bank doing so.

My problem is not with the cartels it is with the people in our country, I don't like the cartels either but I care more about Americans. Legalizing cocaine is easily one of the stupidest ideas I have heard. Cocaine is one of the most addictive and dangerous drugs that exists and legalizing it would expose people to a greater threat and probably a massive increase in crime as crack addicts often steal stuff to support their habit. I would never support legalizing the worst drugs on the planet for recreational use, it is like legalizing murder just so that we would not have to imprison serial killers.

More people would try marijuana if it were legal and more people would keep on using marijuana if it were legal. The legality of marijuana undoubtedly has an effect on public opinion and even though changes would not happen overnight they would happen. I honestly consider marijuana to be bad and to have the government endorse it would not magically decrease the amount of users.

Well, I don't like democratic socialists either. I tend to be mildly capitalistic and even more moralistic.

Well, I don't see how I am saying that but if you say so then yes. Besides, how am I letting families freeze to death? Fireplaces use logs, my power comes from nuclear facilities and many other places use solar power, wind power, and hydroelectric. Heck, I have never even heard anything about hemp power being cheaper than petroleum because no other crop has beaten petroleum and also there is labor costs and the cost of fertile land.

Well, in the end your morality thinks that other moralities are wrong. Wrong is a subjective term and I am not necessarily disputing its use I just realize that in order to use it one must have a moral belief that opposes it. Ultimately, you believe your morality is superior to other existing ones and oppose them non-violently. Technically though logically there is nothing wrong with anything you have mentioned though, massive killing is something that engendered massive support for the Nazis and was the basis of their political campaign, I don't support the massive killing though because it is morally wrong. Also, the whole thing is that in order to solve the original crime harsh measures have to be used, it is like spanking a child for stealing a cookie and lying to you about it. That is also a small crime but a message must be sent. Of course, we could possibly make the cost to society less by making prisoners work so if we did that then the cost of the war on drugs would go down immensely.

Rome still existed as a stable sovereign entity for hundreds of years with morals that would be considered deplorable by today's standards. They were like that for nearly the entire span of their existence, so the "bad-morals" could not have been the only factor in Rome's ultimate collapse (the biggest was over-expansion and those no-good Christians coming in and spoiling all the fun )

I guess it comes down to the slippery slope argument.

What I am saying, is that we can be strong as a nation AND do all the things that seem counter to traditional conservative morals. We CAN have it both ways.

But hey, I can't stop you from subscribing to any set of beliefs, no matter what I think of them.

"Awesome", the paternalism that you advocate sucks really really bad.