Guest M_P Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 On Mar 27, 3:15 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 28, 6:59 am, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 27, 2:35 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 28, 3:40 am, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 26, 10:37 pm, bobbie sellers <bl...@california.com> wrote: > > > > > WellDone wrote: > > > > > > M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote in > > > > > > <28e343d5-ad00-486d-aaa7-3b619aa29...@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>: > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > >> Which is why it is so good to see one of the brightest minds in > > > > > >> Congress offer some sanity. > > > > > >> Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts said in a statement yesterday that > > > > > >> he will introduce legislation to remove federal penalties for the > > > > > >> personal use of marijuana. > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > Barney Frank is NOT "one of the brightest minds in Congress". > > > > > > The man is a twit. Simply reprehensible. > > > > > > Whether or not Barney Frank is admirable depends not on your > > > > > POV but on how well he looks after the interests of his constituency. > > > > > His electorate probably is largely in agreement with his aims. > > > > > > And removing cannabis from the status of illegal drug is something that > > > > > would save immense amounts of money for the American > > > > > taxpayer which is good thing in this period of severe inflationary > > > > > pressures. > > > > > > <http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/costs/costs05.htm> > > > > > You don't have to like Barney Frank (I don't) to realize he's on the > > > > right side of this issue. Marijuana criminalization, like Prohibition > > > > before it, does more harm than good and should be ended as Prohibition > > > > wisely was. > > > > Yes, although I'd go further, and allow controlled supply through > > > regulated suppliers, in ways that are similar to the regulatory > > > rubrics associated with the supply of alcohol. There should be proper > > > labelling based on analysis of actual samples of a batch, proper > > > weights etc. > > > > People ought to be able to grow at home too. > > > Amen to all that! It's the only way to take the profits out of > > criminal hands > > And likewise to effect consumer protection against batches grown that > could be harmful, produce unanticipated negative side-effects. That > protection is the main advantage that regulated suppliers will have > over freelance dealers. > > Once the regulatory regime is completely in place, those attempting to > compete commercially outside the regime should be few in number and > easy to disrupt. Or simply easy for the consumer to distinguish from sellers who are certified to have uncontaminated goods of known potency. Quote
Guest Pete nospam Zakel Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 In article <6ed296a6-cb67-4aa4-a80f-f3e7fb54855c@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Fran <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> writes: >On Mar 28, 9:52=A0am, John Graeme <jdgra...@my-deja.com> wrote: >> A prescription shouldn't be needed for either marijuana or narcotics. >> What a person puts into his or her own body is no one else's business >Unless of course, use of the substance has implications for the safe >operation of equipment in a workplace, the roads etc. Equally, it >should not be a defence to a crime or a tort that one's judgement was >affected by a substance that one freely used, unless one can argue >that the harms resulting could not have been foreseen prior to use. So you are effectively saying that antihistamines, cough medications and alcoholic beverages should all require a prescription, since all have implications for safe operation of equipment. I disagree. I feel the only drug that should require a prescription is one whose use or overuse has consequences for others not involved. The only class of medications that fit that as far as I know are antibiotics, since overuse creates resistant organisms. -Pete Zakel (phz@seeheader.nospam) "When a thing is funny, search it carefully for a hidden truth." -George Bernard Shaw Quote
Guest littleoleme Posted March 29, 2008 Posted March 29, 2008 "M_P" <m_p@rocketmail.com> wrote in message news:6052ebac-2f84-483b-be7e-412f9a8519f1@13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 27, 3:15 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 28, 6:59 am, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 27, 2:35 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 28, 3:40 am, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 26, 10:37 pm, bobbie sellers <bl...@california.com> wrote: > > > > > > WellDone wrote: > > > > > > > M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote in > > > > > > > <28e343d5-ad00-486d-aaa7-3b619aa29...@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>: > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > >> Which is why it is so good to see one of the brightest minds in > > > > > > >> Congress offer some sanity. > > > > > > >> Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts said in a statement yesterday that > > > > > > >> he will introduce legislation to remove federal penalties for the > > > > > > >> personal use of marijuana. > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > Barney Frank is NOT "one of the brightest minds in Congress". > > > > > > > The man is a twit. Simply reprehensible. > > > > > > > > Whether or not Barney Frank is admirable depends not on your > > > > > > POV but on how well he looks after the interests of his constituency. > > > > > > His electorate probably is largely in agreement with his aims. > > > > > > > > And removing cannabis from the status of illegal drug is something that > > > > > > would save immense amounts of money for the American > > > > > > taxpayer which is good thing in this period of severe inflationary > > > > > > pressures. > > > > > > > > <http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/costs/costs05.htm> > > > > > > > You don't have to like Barney Frank (I don't) to realize he's on the > > > > > right side of this issue. Marijuana criminalization, like Prohibition > > > > > before it, does more harm than good and should be ended as Prohibition > > > > > wisely was. > > > > > > Yes, although I'd go further, and allow controlled supply through > > > > regulated suppliers, in ways that are similar to the regulatory > > > > rubrics associated with the supply of alcohol. There should be proper > > > > labelling based on analysis of actual samples of a batch, proper > > > > weights etc. You would be wasting your time and the government already knows this. Pot is so easy to grow there would be NO WAY to regulate it. Hence, no way to tax it. Therefore the government, which gets plenty of cash from alcohol and tobacco revenue, would never allow it to become legal in any way, shape, or form, and the alcohol and tobacco lobbyists would be buying off the politicians to keep it that way. If you tried to outlaw folks from doing it themselves and force them to buy from a regulated source than you would be back to square one. > > > > People ought to be able to grow at home too. > > > > > Amen to all that! It's the only way to take the profits out of > > > criminal hands > > > > And likewise to effect consumer protection against batches grown that > > could be harmful, produce unanticipated negative side-effects. That > > protection is the main advantage that regulated suppliers will have > > over freelance dealers. > > > > Once the regulatory regime is completely in place, those attempting to > > compete commercially outside the regime should be few in number and > > easy to disrupt. I don't think so. Why should anyone buy something when they can grow it for next to nothing. And it is not hard to grow, it is a weed for cripes' sake! There would be no middle man. Believe it, if pot were legal it would be pouring out of the people's ears. There would be so much of it, it would be free. People would have to give it away to get rid of it. Everybody would be stoned, for free (sounds like a Jimi Hendrix tune). > Or simply easy for the consumer to distinguish from sellers who are > certified to have uncontaminated goods of known potency. Quote
Guest Pete nospam Zakel Posted March 29, 2008 Posted March 29, 2008 In article <43017$47ed79f3$40970a51$5423@EVERESTKC.NET> "littleoleme" <none@ya.com> writes: >I don't think so. Why should anyone buy something when they can grow it for >next to nothing. Same reason people buy tomatoes when they can grow them for next to nothing. Convenience. -Pete Zakel (phz@seeheader.nospam) "Said Juliet To Romeo If you don't shave Go homeo" -Burma Shave Quote
Guest John Graeme Posted March 29, 2008 Posted March 29, 2008 On Mar 28, 7:10 pm, "littleoleme" <n...@ya.com> wrote: > "M_P" <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > >> Which is why it is so good to see one of the brightest minds > in > > > > > > > >> Congress offer some sanity. > > > > > > > >> Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts said in a statement > yesterday that > > > > > > > >> he will introduce legislation to remove federal penalties for > the > > > > > > > >> personal use of marijuana. > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > Barney Frank is NOT "one of the brightest minds in Congress". > > > > > > > > The man is a twit. Simply reprehensible. > > > > > > > > Whether or not Barney Frank is admirable depends not on > your > > > > > > > POV but on how well he looks after the interests of his > constituency. > > > > > > > His electorate probably is largely in agreement with his aims. > > > > > > > > And removing cannabis from the status of illegal drug is > something that > > > > > > > would save immense amounts of money for the American > > > > > > > taxpayer which is good thing in this period of severe > inflationary > > > > > > > pressures. > > <http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/costs/costs05.htm> > > > > > > > > > You don't have to like Barney Frank (I don't) to realize he's on > the > > > > > > right side of this issue. Marijuana criminalization, like > Prohibition > > > > > > before it, does more harm than good and should be ended as > Prohibition > > > > > > wisely was. > > > > > > Yes, although I'd go further, and allow controlled supply through > > > > > regulated suppliers, in ways that are similar to the regulatory > > > > > rubrics associated with the supply of alcohol. There should be > proper > > > > > labelling based on analysis of actual samples of a batch, proper > > > > > weights etc. > > You would be wasting your time and the government already knows this. > Pot is so easy to grow there would be NO WAY to regulate it. > Hence, no way to tax it. .... > I don't think so. Why should anyone buy something when they can grow it for > next to nothing. And it is not hard to grow, it is a weed for cripes' sake! > There would be no middle man.... It's not that simple to grow and process good marijuana. It's not easy to reliably grow anything. Why don't people make their own wine or beer instead of paying all the taxes and markups for commercial products? Fermenting grapes isn't that hard--it occurs naturally. For that matter, why do people routinely pay exhorbitant prices for fast food when they can prepare something themselves more nutritious at a fraction of the price? Quote
Guest John Graeme Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 On Mar 30, 12:46 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 29, 6:25 am, px...@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel) wrote: >> In article <6ed296a6-cb67-4aa4-a80f-f3e7fb548...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> writes: > > > >On Mar 28, 9:52=A0am, John Graeme <jdgra...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > >> A prescription shouldn't be needed for either marijuana or narcotics. > > >> What a person puts into his or her own body is no one else's business > > >Unless of course, use of the substance has implications for the safe > > >operation of equipment in a workplace, the roads etc. Equally, it > > >should not be a defence to a crime or a tort that one's judgement was > > >affected by a substance that one freely used, unless one can argue > > >that the harms resulting could not have been foreseen prior to use. > > > So you are effectively saying that antihistamines, cough medications and > > alcoholic beverages should all require a prescription, since all have > > implications for safe operation of equipment. > > Not at all. One should have warning labels on dope that adivse them > not to use within X hours of operating equipment where fine or gross > motor coordination or spatial judgement is required. > > > I disagree. > > > I feel the only drug that should require a prescription is one whose use or > > overuse has consequences for others not involved. The only class of > > medications that fit that as far as I know are antibiotics, since overuse > > creates resistant organisms. > > I think it's well established that driving a car under the influence > of THC or CBD or LSD or di-ethyl morphine etc leads to impaired > judgement, reflexes and perception. That is not entirely true. For example, whether a person's driving ability will be significantly affected by a narcotic depends on the dose of the narcotic, the tolerance of the person taking it, and other factors. Chronic pain patients often take narcotics and continue to function normally; indeed they may NOT be able to function normally without their meds. But that is irrelevant to the point in any case: Even if a drug affects driving ability, that is not an inherent effect of the drug. You are ADDING an additional activity. All it would suggest is that the person not drive while under the influence of the drug, similarly to alcohol. Quote
Guest M_P Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 On Mar 28, 6:30 pm, Rightwinghank <rightwingh...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 28, 2:40 pm, M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 28, 1:15 pm, POW <georgewsp...@humboldt1.com> wrote: > > > In article > > > <0f0fbaf7-50c5-4229-b945-afec56801...@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > > M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 27, 5:12 pm, px...@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel) wrote: > > > > > In article > > > > > <d9d37d24-cfdc-42a2-a3bb-06959d983...@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com> M_P > > > > > <m...@rocketmail.com> writes: > > > > > >Well, marijuana isn't "harmless" (hardly anything is), and narcotics > > > > > >don't always lead to addiction ... but if doctors can prescribe > > > > > >narcotics they should be allowed to prescribe marijuana, without a > > > > > >doubt. > > > > > > Marijuana is far less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, or even aspirin. > > > > > There > > > > > are quite a few things one can purchase OTC that are far more harmful than > > > > > cannabis. > > > > > > There's no reason cannabis purchases should require a prescription. > > > > > I agree with everything you've said here (none of which contradicts > > > > what I said). > > > > One thing about Pot that threatens the establishment. Too many who have > > > "inhaled" start to think outside the box. > > > The control freaks would rather dull you down. like alcohol does. > > > Is it the pot itself ... or the discovery that the Reefer Madness the > > establishment peddles is a pack of lies? > > Mary Jane will never be legal.... > > The government can never tax something you can grow in your own > backyard. > > No money to be made by them. Wrong ... tomatoes can be grown in one's own backyard, yet they are sold and taxed. > Now lets talk about Cigs and beer....25,000 killed each year by drunk > drivers... > love > hank Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.