On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:59:14 -0800, T wrote:

On 03/04/2015 03:38 PM, Oren wrote:
Visit your local farm+garden section on Craislist. You can buy female
clones for pot, other things I never heard of. Like "wax".
You can get delivery, etc., but I think cops are also doing stings.

Best thing we could do it to legalize hemp. Its pollen
ruins pot

Hemp IS pot. And the best cannabis never sees pollen. You
clone the female plant.
But I agree, hemp make excellent fiber (Levis were made from
it, best jeans ever), and it's also good for recovering tired soil.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

wrote:

I think the bottom line on pot legalization is there is already a
thriving underground marketplace and taking it out of the shadows is
better than leaving it in the hands of a criminal enterprise. I think
I would have to weigh the costs of legalization against the costs of
trying to fight a losing battle against the illegal marketplace,
We already have history to demonstrate this.
Was prohibition preferable to having legal alcohol?

Agreed. It would also hurt the Mexican cartels, they get 1/2 of their money
from weed. Tax it here, and increase state revenues.

wrote:

On Wed, 4 Mar 2015 10:37:22 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 1:11:59 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2015 09:18:55 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

Before you jump on the statistic, you would have to balance it against
how many people were actually tested before the legalization.

Again, I't not jumping on any one statistic. All I said was that
before legalizing marijuana in more states, it would be a good idea
to wait a few years and see what happens where it's already been done.
And I gave one example of a study regarding auto fatalities that
suggests reason to be concerned.

That study was done at the University of Colorado School of Medicine
and published in a peer reviewed journal. I don't see any reason to
believe they had an axe to grind. The data they used, both from CO
and the other comparison states seems to be readily available from the
states and NHTSA. While it's possible something changed in the
measurement methods, they would be very dishonest if they didn't cite that.


I can think of a number of reasons why they might shade the truth.

The medical industry is well paid to promote the drugs made by the
companies that bribe them for one thing.


Read the study. No one is promoting any drug, legal or otherwise.



I worked with databases for years and I understand you can take any
database and create a biased view from it, whether it is intentional
or not

So, like I said, then let's just throw out all studies. Nothing has
relevance because something, somewhere *might* be tainted.


Perhaps the missing number is simply how many people tested clean from
any given drug, not simply a lack of any result at all implying the
test was not done.
Then you would actually need the level, since THC will show up it
trace amounts for weeks since the last use.

Whatever was or wasn't there was apparently measured the same before
and after legalization of marijuana. They used publically available
records.



I agree this may be a danger but I am not sure it is more of a danger
than alcohol or the pervasive use of prescription drugs, legal or
illegal.

OK, I never said or implied that it was more or less of a danger
than alcohol or anything else either. But I see a couple of people
here who took issue with what I posted saying exactly that, ie that
they *know* that pot is not a risk factor with traffic accidents.



Statistics assembled from databases that were not
specifically designed to measure this may be viewed as suspect on
their face.

All kinds of studies are done all the time from data that wasn't
specifically designed to measure what they were looking for. If
you pull data from a database to find out how many black people died
between 1950 and 1960, good chance the database was never designed
with that specific intent to begin with. It doesn't mean the data
isn't valid.




I think the bottom line on pot legalization is there is already a
thriving underground marketplace and taking it out of the shadows is
better than leaving it in the hands of a criminal enterprise. I think
I would have to weigh the costs of legalization against the costs of
trying to fight a losing battle against the illegal marketplace,
We already have history to demonstrate this.
Was prohibition preferable to having legal alcohol?

Again, you seem to be under the misconception that I'm here arguing
against legalizing marijuana. I never said any such thing. All I
said was that it's probably a good idea to wait maybe 5 years so
we can evaluate what happens in the states that have legalized it,
legalizing it in more places. It wouldn't be the first time that
some change in the law or other govt action had unintended consequences
that were unforeseen.


The bottom line is you don't assume anything based on one study


There are statistics out there that opiate related OD's have decreased by 50%
in pot legal states.

T wrote:

On 03/04/2015 10:11 AM, wrote:
The medical industry is well paid to promote the drugs made by the
companies that bribe them for one thing.

Some while back I saw the statistics of illegal drug
related deaths versus legal designer opiates from
the drug/medical industry. The later dwarfed the
former. And not by a little either.


I just mentioned that before reading your post. I saw those stats too. It was
a margin of 50%+ decrease in opiate OD's.

On 03/05/2015 09:00 AM, G. Morgan wrote:
T wrote:

On 03/04/2015 10:11 AM, wrote:
The medical industry is well paid to promote the drugs made by the
companies that bribe them for one thing.

Some while back I saw the statistics of illegal drug
related deaths versus legal designer opiates from
the drug/medical industry. The later dwarfed the
former. And not by a little either.


I just mentioned that before reading your post. I saw those stats too. It was
a margin of 50%+ decrease in opiate OD's.

The medical types push worse, more addictive stuff than
any pusher on the street and kill far more. Some
of the Allopath's (medical doctor's) "designer" opiates
addict on one use!

On 03/05/2015 08:55 AM, G. Morgan wrote:
wrote:

I think the bottom line on pot legalization is there is already a
thriving underground marketplace and taking it out of the shadows is
better than leaving it in the hands of a criminal enterprise. I think
I would have to weigh the costs of legalization against the costs of
trying to fight a losing battle against the illegal marketplace,
We already have history to demonstrate this.
Was prohibition preferable to having legal alcohol?

Agreed. It would also hurt the Mexican cartels, they get 1/2 of their money
from weed. Tax it here, and increase state revenues.

Hi G.,

We, meaning customers in the States, have turned Mexico
into a criminal toilet! I don't know if you have met a
lot of Mexicans (from Mexico) but they are some of the
nicest people on the face of the earth. They do not
deserve what has happened to their country.

And when this crap becomes legal, the trend is towards
weaker and more safer versions. For instance, "Diet Beer".
(The marketing weasels changed the name to "lite beer"
when no "real man" would buy it under the "diet" label).

-T

On 03/05/2015 05:54 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:59:14 -0800, T wrote:

On 03/04/2015 03:38 PM, Oren wrote:
Visit your local farm+garden section on Craislist. You can buy female
clones for pot, other things I never heard of. Like "wax".
You can get delivery, etc., but I think cops are also doing stings.

Best thing we could do it to legalize hemp. Its pollen
ruins pot

Hemp IS pot.

Hi Shadow,

Same family as pot but is doesn't make you high.

And the best cannabis never sees pollen. You
clone the female plant.

And you have to keep hemp away from any pollinating hemp.

But I agree, hemp make excellent fiber (Levis were made from
it, best jeans ever),

Loved Levis before they closed their manufacturing and
became a "broker" only.

and it's also good for recovering tired soil.

And takes 1/3 the water to grow as (diabetes inducing) wheat.
The seeds are edible too.

-T

If you liked Levis, try "All American Clothing Company":
http://www.allamericanclothing.com/m...sa/AA101D.html

On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:55:12 -0600, G. Morgan
wrote:

wrote:

I think the bottom line on pot legalization is there is already a
thriving underground marketplace and taking it out of the shadows is
better than leaving it in the hands of a criminal enterprise. I think
I would have to weigh the costs of legalization against the costs of
trying to fight a losing battle against the illegal marketplace,
We already have history to demonstrate this.
Was prohibition preferable to having legal alcohol?

Agreed. It would also hurt the Mexican cartels, they get 1/2 of their money
from weed. Tax it here, and increase state revenues.


It should NOT be a Schedule I controlled substance - included with:

1 Opioids
2 Opium derivatives
3 Hallucinogenic or psychedelic substances
4 Depressants
5 Stimulant
6 Cannabimimetic agents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_I_drugs_%28US%29

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:55:12 -0600, G. Morgan
wrote:

wrote:

I think the bottom line on pot legalization is there is already a
thriving underground marketplace and taking it out of the shadows is
better than leaving it in the hands of a criminal enterprise. I think
I would have to weigh the costs of legalization against the costs of
trying to fight a losing battle against the illegal marketplace,
We already have history to demonstrate this.
Was prohibition preferable to having legal alcohol?

Agreed. It would also hurt the Mexican cartels, they get 1/2 of their
money
from weed. Tax it here, and increase state revenues.


It should NOT be a Schedule I controlled substance - included with:

1 Opioids
2 Opium derivatives
3 Hallucinogenic or psychedelic substances
4 Depressants
5 Stimulant
6 Cannabimimetic agents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_I_drugs_%28US%29

We should also not take on the responsibility for those who misuse it. Just
let the chips fall where they may. (true not just for weed).

T wrote:

On 03/05/2015 09:00 AM, G. Morgan wrote:
T wrote:

On 03/04/2015 10:11 AM, wrote:
The medical industry is well paid to promote the drugs made by the
companies that bribe them for one thing.

Some while back I saw the statistics of illegal drug
related deaths versus legal designer opiates from
the drug/medical industry. The later dwarfed the
former. And not by a little either.


I just mentioned that before reading your post. I saw those stats too. It was
a margin of 50%+ decrease in opiate OD's.

The medical types push worse, more addictive stuff than
any pusher on the street and kill far more. Some
of the Allopath's (medical doctor's) "designer" opiates
addict on one use!


Some of the drugs for pain are very addictive, I know that first-hand. I
don't know of one that addicts on one use though. Anyone that takes for
example Norco (10/325) 10 mg of Hydrocodone 325 mg of Tylenol for a 2 week
period will be "dependant" on the synthetic opiate. There is a difference
between dependence,addiction, and Pseudo-addiction. Look up Pseudo-addiction
if you don't know about it - it's an interesting phenomenon.

T wrote:

Hi G.,

We, meaning customers in the States, have turned Mexico
into a criminal toilet! I don't know if you have met a
lot of Mexicans (from Mexico)

I live in Houston, yeah I've met toms of them.

but they are some of the
nicest people on the face of the earth. They do not
deserve what has happened to their country.

The ones I met were hard workers and very nice. And that country is a
******** now. I think there is still a travel advisory for Americans going
there. If we decriminalize pot, half of their money goes away.

On the other hand, since the DEA is on doctors like stink on ****, they are
too scared to prescribe pain meds to legitimate chronic pain sufferers. I've
read (just a few days ago) that the Mexican cartels are now slinging more
heroin over here now. That's for two reasons; one - the legislation of pot in
many states is hurting their pot business, two - more pain patients are buying
heroin in lieu of the pain meds they can't get anymore.

And when this crap becomes legal, the trend is towards
weaker and more safer versions. For instance, "Diet Beer".
(The marketing weasels changed the name to "lite beer"
when no "real man" would buy it under the "diet" label).

I prefer my weed strong! If you want "weaker" it's already out there in the
form of "Mexican commercial", full of sticks,stems, and seeds.

On 03/05/2015 09:37 AM, Reggie wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:55:12 -0600, G. Morgan
wrote:

wrote:

I think the bottom line on pot legalization is there is already a
thriving underground marketplace and taking it out of the shadows is
better than leaving it in the hands of a criminal enterprise. I think
I would have to weigh the costs of legalization against the costs of
trying to fight a losing battle against the illegal marketplace,
We already have history to demonstrate this.
Was prohibition preferable to having legal alcohol?

Agreed. It would also hurt the Mexican cartels, they get 1/2 of their
money
from weed. Tax it here, and increase state revenues.


It should NOT be a Schedule I controlled substance - included with:

1 Opioids
2 Opium derivatives
3 Hallucinogenic or psychedelic substances
4 Depressants
5 Stimulant
6 Cannabimimetic agents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_I_drugs_%28US%29

We should also not take on the responsibility for those who misuse it. Just
let the chips fall where they may. (true not just for weed).

I agree with both of you.

I would add that I am a total believer that your behavior
when under the influence should be regulated. No driving
under the influence; no second hand smoke for others to
breath, especially your kids; no feeding it to minors;
employers should have every right to make you pee in a
bottle; no writing this newsgroup under the influence;
no listening to Pink Floyd in public; no indiscriminate
use of the word "Dude!" in public while intoxicated.

On 03/05/2015 10:42 AM, G. Morgan wrote:
I prefer my weed strong! If you want "weaker" it's already out there in the
form of "Mexican commercial", full of sticks,stems, and seeds.

Don't forget that bricks are held together with horse s---.

And be respectful of those around you that don't use
drugs, legal or otherwise.

On 03/05/2015 10:32 AM, G. Morgan wrote:
T wrote:

On 03/05/2015 09:00 AM, G. Morgan wrote:
T wrote:

On 03/04/2015 10:11 AM, wrote:
The medical industry is well paid to promote the drugs made by the
companies that bribe them for one thing.

Some while back I saw the statistics of illegal drug
related deaths versus legal designer opiates from
the drug/medical industry. The later dwarfed the
former. And not by a little either.


I just mentioned that before reading your post. I saw those stats too. It was
a margin of 50%+ decrease in opiate OD's.

The medical types push worse, more addictive stuff than
any pusher on the street and kill far more. Some
of the Allopath's (medical doctor's) "designer" opiates
addict on one use!


Some of the drugs for pain are very addictive, I know that first-hand. I
don't know of one that addicts on one use though.

oxycodone

Anyone that takes for
example Norco (10/325) 10 mg of Hydrocodone 325 mg of Tylenol for a 2 week
period will be "dependant" on the synthetic opiate.

Some folks never do; some it is instant

Be careful with Tylenol: the legal dose and the liver
damage dose are too close for comport.

There is a difference
between dependence,addiction, and Pseudo-addiction. Look up Pseudo-addiction
if you don't know about it - it's an interesting phenomenon.

When I broke my arms years ago, they handed me designer opiates
like they were candy. I never take anything from an allopath
without first looking it up. I was freaked out that they would
hand anything like that out! I refused to take them and just
got use to the pain. I turned them all into hazardous medical
waste.

On 03/05/2015 10:42 AM, G. Morgan wrote:
And when this crap becomes legal, the trend is towards
weaker and more safer versions. For instance, "Diet Beer".
(The marketing weasels changed the name to "lite beer"
when no "real man" would buy it under the "diet" label).

I prefer my weed strong!

"tends" is the weasel word. Some folk drink whiskey
and do not care for Diet Beer.

On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:22:37 -0800, T wrote:

On 03/05/2015 05:54 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:59:14 -0800, T wrote:

On 03/04/2015 03:38 PM, Oren wrote:
Visit your local farm+garden section on Craislist. You can buy female
clones for pot, other things I never heard of. Like "wax".
You can get delivery, etc., but I think cops are also doing stings.

Best thing we could do it to legalize hemp. Its pollen
ruins pot

Hemp IS pot.

Hi Shadow,

Same family as pot but is doesn't make you high.

Same species, took 30 years to breed it to have low yields of
THC, probably take as long to get them back.
Also, when grown for fiber, are seeded very close together, so
they get little sun and produce long fibers and hardly any resin.
Give me some hemp seeds and I could probably make them useful
in 5 years or so....
[]'s

And the best cannabis never sees pollen. You
clone the female plant.

And you have to keep hemp away from any pollinating hemp.

But I agree, hemp make excellent fiber (Levis were made from
it, best jeans ever),

Loved Levis before they closed their manufacturing and
became a "broker" only.

and it's also good for recovering tired soil.

And takes 1/3 the water to grow as (diabetes inducing) wheat.
The seeds are edible too.

Yep. Produce fine oil.

-T

If you liked Levis, try "All American Clothing Company":
http://www.allamericanclothing.com/m...sa/AA101D.html

Levis are now made in Brazil - and they are cheap. Probably
made in other slave-labor places too.
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

trader_4 wrote:

Baloney. Over the past few decades there have been many initiatives,
new lower limits for DWI, more aggressive enforcement, DWI checkpoints
on highways, tougher sentences,
devices to prevent those convicted of DWI from starting their cars, etc.
And it's worked. The number of fatalities from drunk drivers has been
cut in half over the last few decades.

You have your panties in a twist over drivers who use marijuana getting into
accidents while stating that over a few decades more awareness and
enforcement has halved the fatalities caused by drunk drivers. Interesting.
So, how many fatalities are caused by drunk drivers versus stoned drivers?

I don't have a dog in the fight but I always get a whiff of hypocrisy when
someone demonizes marijuana without doing the same for alcohol, which has
destroyed more lives and families. Of course, the ban on alcohol worked out
so well...

trader_4 wrote:

And you don't think it's likely that being both drunk and high on pot
together could make you more likely to have a car crash? Good grief.

How about a nice oxycontin or xanax buzz? Good, legal drugs prescribed by an
AMA certified physician. You're surronded by a drug culture and you pick one
of the least harmful ones to rail agaisnt.

On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 8:43:24 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
trader_4 wrote:

Baloney. Over the past few decades there have been many initiatives,
new lower limits for DWI, more aggressive enforcement, DWI checkpoints
on highways, tougher sentences,
devices to prevent those convicted of DWI from starting their cars, etc.
And it's worked. The number of fatalities from drunk drivers has been
cut in half over the last few decades.

You have your panties in a twist over drivers who use marijuana getting into
accidents while stating that over a few decades more awareness and
enforcement has halved the fatalities caused by drunk drivers. Interesting.
So, how many fatalities are caused by drunk drivers versus stoned drivers?


That isn't the issue. Because one is worse, doesn't mean you should
ignore the other. And again, you're twisting what I've said.
I only said that I think it's a good idea to wait a few years to see
what happens in states that have already legalized pot. And that the
study showing the number of auto fatalities where the drivers had used
pot had doubled in Colorado was an example of why I think it's a good idea.
There could be other caused for concern showing up too. And other benefits.
This wouldn't be the first time that some govt action had unforseen
consequences.



I don't have a dog in the fight but I always get a whiff of hypocrisy when
someone demonizes marijuana without doing the same for alcohol, which has
destroyed more lives and families. Of course, the ban on alcohol worked out
so well...

Who's demonizing marijuana? Good grief. Suggesting that it's a good
idea to wait a few years and see what happens is so unreasonable? And
I thought the discussion was about marijuana specifically, not alcohol.
If you were going to change the laws on legality of alcohol in a major
way, say lower the drinking age back to 18, I'd say it would also be a
good idea to see what happens in 3 states for a few years, before doing
it in the whole country.

wrote in message
...

stuff snipped

Before you jump on the statistic, you would have to balance it against
how many people were actually tested before the legalization.

Yes, and that's just one detail you'd have to check for the statistics to
have any meaning.

I've been reading just about every *legitimate* study I can find on the net
and before anyone could seriously make the claim that pot doubled the number
of fatal accidents you'd have to do an awful lot of analysis to control for
other factors (which I have found no evidence of in the "doubled"
statistic).

Around DC the nearly 2 solid months of icy streets have boosted the traffic
accident rate sky high as bad road conditions might be expected to do. From
what I read, Colorado's been hit even worse with icy weather. You would
also have to examine *each* accident to determine who was at fault. Even if
you were high on pot, if you got rear-ended by a truck whose driver was high
on meth or sleep-deprived that would show in some statistics as "another
marijuana-related fatality" even though pot probably had nothing to do with
the accident. It's very clear from some of the anti-pot studies that
they'll stretch the statistics to the breaking point and include such
accidents as proof of impairment.

When studies control for those sorts of variables (age, road conditions,
other drug use, who's at fault, vehicle conditions, etc), they point to pot
being a very small (or non-existent) factor in vehicle fatalities. But it
sure makes good headlines for those who only skim the surface and then claim
"the sky is falling."

One of the favorite "junk science" claims made about pot is that it's a
gateway drug and leads people to harder drugs.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publication...a-gateway-drug

However, most people who use marijuana do not go on to use other, "harder"
substances.

But it's a myth that refuses to die.

Many important studies that have exonerated pot as an accident causing agent
were done in driving simulators under precise conditions with known levels
of THC - not merely tests that indicate that someone has smoked it in the
last 30 days as many of these "street statistics" imply.

I'll bet that any new product like an energy drink or a "hamburger of the
month" at McDonalds released in the area recently would show up similarly at
an elevated rate in the blood of fatal accident victims causing some people
to insist the new Russian dressing on this month's special "Free the
Ukraine" burger caused the fatalities. What was it Stormie was saying about
reasoning power? (-:

It's funny how the people insisting we go slow, do some more studies on pot
take exactly the opposite position on something THEY want even thought it
has a high disaster potential - like the XL pipeline. Then the story
becomes "got to have it now, cut through all the laws, pass special
legislation, put an end to all the studies and do it RIGHT NOW.

(-: It's simple hypocrisy and it's quite amusing to watch people who were
so anti "nanny-state" come out wearing their grandma's cooking apron and
support hose when it's something they're against.

Bake me a brownie, Granny!

--
Bobby G.

On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 10:02:34 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 06:07:45 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

If you were going to change the laws on legality of alcohol in a major
way, say lower the drinking age back to 18, I'd say it would also be a
good idea to see what happens in 3 states for a few years, before doing
it in the whole country.

Before the MADD craze, it was 18 in several places, including New York
for liquor and DC for beer and wine only. I don't remember any
horrible consequences in either place.

I guess it depends on your definition of horrible consequences. I
don't recall the newspapers being full of 18 year old traffic fatalities
either. But there are statistics that show the fatality/accident rate
of young drivers decreased following the lowering of the limit. Whether
it's enough to justify the 18 limit, IDK. I also have to wonder about
what would happen now, in a far more permissive, anything goes environment.
But maybe the tougher DWI enforcement makes up for that, IDK. One thing
for sure, I do see a lot of teen drivers getting killed here in all kinds
of wrecks, without alcohol, even on the way to school in the morning.
The biggest argument I see for lowering it to 18 is that if you're considered
an adult, can vote, be drafted, etc, it's hard to justify that you shouldn't
have the right to drink.

On 2015-03-06, wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 06:07:45 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

good idea to see what happens in 3 states for a few years, before doing
it in the whole country.

Holy crap!! We've been watching this train wreck for almost 2/3rds of
a century! How much more eyeball time is neccessary before yer brain
changes to common-sense mode?

Cannabis use has only grown, in that time, despite insanely criminal
sentencing practices that guarantee that privately owned prisons are
kept full to capacity. It's quite simple, really. What with all the
increasing dividends for private prison stocks and all those property
forfeitures, pot busts are simply good business.

Before the MADD craze.......

The law enforcement community has since learned "the MADD craze" is
also good business. They don't give a good gottdamn if you die in a
drunken driving accident, as long as they can squeeze the perps for
every dime. In fact, the sale of alcohol has INCREASED since the
"MADD craze", business and govt knocking down most roadblocks.

I do believe cannabis will prevail. It's much too big, now, to jes
shove it back under the rug, like before. Huge businesses have
already invested in pot. Phillip Morris Tobacco has purchased
thousands of acres of land in the Emerald Triangle. The US Govt has a
patent on medical marijuana. Some European pharmas have already made
viable meds from cannabis. Its medical properties have been
confirmed by more than a few credible experts.

It's also about our govt's creds. They have none, anymore. Who
actually believes a species of plant is so evil that we must be
protected from it by our leaders? The same govt that has also taken
out a patent on said offending vegetable? Something is rotten in our
halls.

nb

On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 07:50:37 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 10:02:34 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 06:07:45 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

If you were going to change the laws on legality of alcohol in a major
way, say lower the drinking age back to 18, I'd say it would also be a
good idea to see what happens in 3 states for a few years, before doing
it in the whole country.

Before the MADD craze, it was 18 in several places, including New York
for liquor and DC for beer and wine only. I don't remember any
horrible consequences in either place.

I guess it depends on your definition of horrible consequences. I
don't recall the newspapers being full of 18 year old traffic fatalities
either.

Bad for business. They also didn't put lung cancer statistics
on the front page.
As to accidents, I managed to crawl back alive from the one I
caused. But, OTOH I was only 18, and drunk.
Hardly responsible for my actions ...
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

"G. Morgan" wrote in message

stuff snipped

I just mentioned that before reading your post. I saw those stats too.
It was
a margin of 50%+ decrease in opiate OD's.

Sadly many pain clinics now test for THC even in states where medical
marijuana is legal and threaten to drop the patient unless they stop using
THC. That's abominable on many levels, including the doctors acting as
pseudo drug enforcement agents - what a violation of patient trust. My wife
has a friend who lost both legs to an IED in Tikrit who tried everything
imaginable to stop his phantom pain (his feet hurt very badly even though he
no longer HAD feet) and he was forced to give up something that was legal in
his state because of a conflict with Federal laws. His Congressman has been
pushing hard to end that particular injustice but it's been a fruitless
fight so far. )-:

The medical types push worse, more addictive stuff than
any pusher on the street and kill far more. Some
of the Allopath's (medical doctor's) "designer" opiates
addict on one use!

Some of the drugs for pain are very addictive, I know that first-hand. I
don't know of one that addicts on one use though. Anyone that takes for
example Norco (10/325) 10 mg of Hydrocodone 325 mg of Tylenol for a 2 week
period will be "dependant" on the synthetic opiate. There is a difference
between dependence,addiction, and Pseudo-addiction. Look up
Pseudo-addiction
if you don't know about it - it's an interesting phenomenon.

I don't know of "one use" addictors either but then again I had never heard
of "pseudo-addiction" so I am willing to believe there's such a thing -
especially with some of the very long-acting pain meds.

Thanks for the info on pseudo-addiction. I've seen it but never knew what
to call it:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2710565

A case is presented of a 17-year-old with leukemia, pneumonia and
chest-wall pain. Inadequate treatment of the patient's pain led to
behavioral changes similar to those seen with idiopathic opioid psychologic
dependence (addiction). The term pseudoaddiction is introduced to describe
the iatrogenic syndrome of abnormal behavior developing as a direct
consequence of inadequate pain management. The natural history of
pseudoaddiction includes progression through 3 characteristic phases
including: (1) inadequate prescription of analgesics to meet the primary
pain stimulus, (2) escalation of analgesic demands by the patient associated
with behavioral changes to convince others of the pain's severity, and (3) a
crisis of mistrust between the patient and the health care team. Treatment
strategies include establishing trust between the patient and the health
care team and providing appropriate and timely analgesics to control the
patient's level of pain.

Did you know that at the beginning of each year, the DEA decides the
quantity of pain meds can be manufacturer in the US? That's one hell of a
crystal ball. I found that out when we couldn't find a pharmacy to fill my
mom's pain med prescription for her lung cancer in late December of the year
before she died. What BS.

--
Bobby G.

"G. Morgan" wrote in message

On the other hand, since the DEA is on doctors like stink on ****, they
are
too scared to prescribe pain meds to legitimate chronic pain sufferers.
I've
read (just a few days ago) that the Mexican cartels are now slinging more
heroin over here now. That's for two reasons; one - the legislation of pot
in
many states is hurting their pot business, two - more pain patients are
buying
heroin in lieu of the pain meds they can't get anymore.

I've read that there's one area in Mexico that runs most of the "delivery"
service for heroin in the US. They use teenagers with burner phones and
beater cars to hang out in the parking lots of drug treatment centers to
sell heroin like delivery pizza. If caught, they usually have very little
product on them and if their cars and phones are seized, they lose very
little money. As teenagers, they are tried as juveniles. How smart is it
to push people out of monitored opiate use into the arms of criminals who
use the profits to further their criminal enterprises? More nanny-state BS.

What really troubles me is that respected medical journals like the NEJM
have found that wherever they crack down on doctors prescribing what they
think are too many pain meds, the heroin use skyrockets. Econ 101 - if you
can't get butter, you buy margarine.

When they tightened the border after 9/11, the cartels sent "growers" into
the US National parks to grow their weed on this side of the border. For
every tall wall, there's someone with a taller ladder.

And when this crap becomes legal, the trend is towards
weaker and more safer versions. For instance, "Diet Beer".
(The marketing weasels changed the name to "lite beer"
when no "real man" would buy it under the "diet" label).

I prefer my weed strong! If you want "weaker" it's already out there in
the
form of "Mexican commercial", full of sticks,stems, and seeds.

What's that old song? I guess Wiki knows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acapulco_gold

The Devin The Dude's song "Gotta Be Me" mentions "No stems, no seeds, that
you don't need - Acapulco Gold is.. Mad Ass Weed".

--
Bobby G.

stuff snipped

It should NOT be a Schedule I controlled substance - included with:

1 Opioids
2 Opium derivatives
3 Hallucinogenic or psychedelic substances
4 Depressants
5 Stimulant
6 Cannabimimetic agents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_I_drugs_%28US%29

That list is not properly described by the OP. There are many drugs in
those overall classes that are NOT schedule 1 drugs like oxycodone,
Adderall, Valium, etc. You have to drill down into each category to find
which of the various *forms* of those major classes are within Schedule 1.
Lots of the variations were designed to escape regulation so the list is
very detailed and contains things that look like legal Schedule 2 drugs
(highly controlled) but aren't. IIRC, cocaine is not totally illegal
because it's used as an anesthetic for eye surgery.

For example, under Opiods there are many, many illegal ones, including a
variant of weaponized Fentanyl that the Russkies used to sedate (and kill)
the terrorists who took over the Moscow Opera House.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_...hostage_crisis

an FSB-made aerosol version of 3-methylfentanyl known as Kolokol-1, an
artificial, powerful opium-like substance. Government officials still treat
its contents as a state secret.

The drugs listed below )from the above cited Wikipedia URL) are the opiods
that ARE Schedule 1 but there are plenty that are schedule 2 and IIRC, even
schedule 3 (although I think those are about to be or have been bumped up
like Vicodin - formerly able to be faxed or called in but now requiring a
hand-carried prescription):

9815 Acetyl-alpha-methylfentanyl
(N-[1-(1-methyl-2-phenethyl)-4-piperidinyl]-N-phenylacetamide) 9601
Acetylmethadol 9602 Allylprodine 9603 Alphacetylmethadol (except
levo-alphacetylmethadol also known as levo-alpha-acetylmethadol,
levomethadyl acetate, or LAAM) 9604 Alphameprodine 9605 Alphamethadol 9814
Alpha-methylfentanyl (N-[1-(alpha-methyl-beta-phenyl)ethyl-4-piperidyl]
propionanilide; 1-(1-methyl-2-phenylethyl)-4-(N-propanilido) piperidine)
9832 Alpha-methylthiofentanyl (N-[1-methyl-2-(2-thienyl)ethyl-4-
piperidinyl]-N-phenylpropanamide) 9606 Benzethidine 9607 Betacetylmethadol
9830 Beta-hydroxyfentanyl (N-[1-(2-hydroxy-2-phenethyl)-4-
piperidinyl]-N-phenylpropanamide) 9831 Beta-hydroxy-3-methylfentanyl (other
name: N-[1-(2-hydroxy-2-
phenethyl)-3-methyl-4-piperidinyl]-N-phenylpropanamide 9608 Betameprodine
9609 Betamethadol 9611 Betaprodine 9612 Clonitazene 9613 Dextromoramide 9615
Diampromide 9616 Diethylthiambutene 9168 Difenoxin 9617 Dimenoxadol 9618
Dimepheptanol 9619 Dimethylthiambutene 9621 Dioxaphetyl butyrate 9622
Dipipanone 9623 Ethylmethylthiambutene 9624 Etonitazene 9625 Etoxeridine
9626 Furethidine 9627 Hydroxypethidine 9628 Ketobemidone 9629 Levomoramide
9631 Levophenacylmorphan 9813 3-Methylfentanyl
(N-[3-methyl-1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidyl]-N-phenylpropanamide) 9833
3-methylthiofentanyl
(N-[(3-methyl-1-(2-thienyl)ethyl-4-piperidinyl]-N-phenylpropanamide) 9632
Morpheridine 9661 MPPP (1-methyl-4-phenyl-4-propionoxypiperidine) 9633
Noracymethadol 9634 Norlevorphanol 9635 Normethadone 9636 Norpipanone 9812
Para-fluorofentanyl (N-(4-fluorophenyl)-N-[1-(2-phenethyl)-4-piperidinyl]
propanamide 9663 PEPAP (1-(-2-phenethyl)-4-phenyl-4-acetoxypiperidine 9637
Phenadoxone 9638 Phenampromide 9647 Phenomorphan 9641 Phenoperidine 9642
Piritramide 9643 Proheptazine 9644 Properidine 9649 Propiram 9645
Racemoramide 9835 Thiofentanyl
(N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-thienyl)ethyl-4-piperidinyl]-propanamide 9750 Tilidine
9646 Trimeperidine

We should also not take on the responsibility for those who misuse it.
Just
let the chips fall where they may. (true not just for weed).

I guess I have some mixed feelings about that. I certainly believe that
it's wrong to classify pot with a substance like the Russkie's weaponized
Fentanyl. It's 4,000 times more powerful than morphine and killed a lot of
hostages AND terrorists when it was deployed. Some drugs are just so damn
dangerous that it's in society's interest to control them. However the law
loses respect when pot gets lumped in with something like heroin or
Kolokol-1:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolokol-1

Upon inhalation or exposure through the skin, Kolokol-1 takes effect
within one to three seconds, rendering the subject unconscious for two to
six hours.

One to three seconds. Geez is that a powerful drug! As I understand it,
the place where Putin makes the stuff has the highest rate of fentanyl
addiction in the world because workers can smuggle out a year's supply in
the cap of a pen.

The problem is that terrorists now know that the Spetznaz is likely to
disperse the drug so they've prepared by gearing up in the same suits that
Walter White and Jessie Pinkman wore in "Breaking Bad." For every tall
wall, there's someone with a taller ladder.

--
Bobby G.

On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 10:02:27 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 06:07:45 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

If you were going to change the laws on legality of alcohol in a major
way, say lower the drinking age back to 18, I'd say it would also be a
good idea to see what happens in 3 states for a few years, before doing
it in the whole country.

Before the MADD craze, it was 18 in several places, including New York
for liquor and DC for beer and wine only. I don't remember any
horrible consequences in either place.

Maybe no reports from DAMM: _ Drunks Against Mad Mothers_

"Shadow" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Mar 2015 06:27:49 -0800 (PST), bob_villa
wrote:

Oh, and for the record, polls show the number of Americans who want
marijuana legalized is about evenly split, 50-50.

50% of people have IQ's below 100. It's a daunting fact, but
they are the ones that vote against legalizing it..... and their votes
are worth as much as an Einstein's.
If you ask them why it should not be decriminalized, their
usual and "logical" answer is "because it's illegal". Can't argue with
that.

The WashPost just ran a survey that said 80% of the people asked (in a
survey about GMOs) said that food containing DNA should all be labeled.
That says it all. With all the misinformation about THC that's been put
forth in the last few decades, it's no wonder the vox populi is vacuous.

--
Bobby G.

On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 8:04:20 AM UTC-6, trader_4 wrote:

Talk about junk science, it's not the science that's junk, it's what
*you're* trying to pull. One study is not definitive. An example of what
you deliberately left out from your own reference:

"The Li study estimated the increased risk of crsh involvement for
drivers using marijuana at 1.83 times that of drug free drivers..."

Trader/Chet you are a case study in hypocrisy. You accuse me of citing a
single study (when I've cited more than half a dozen in various posts and
there are dozens more to go). Then you accuse me deleting information when
it's EXACTLY what YOU did by failing to note in the article you just cited
what YOU left out, namely (in caps):

The Li study estimated the increased risk of crash involvement for drivers
using marijuana at 1.83 times that of drug-free drivers, WHILE THE ROMANO
STUDY FOUND NO INCREASED RISK OF CRASH INVOLVEMENT for those drivers testing
positive for THC (the main psychoactive substance in marijuana).

Yes, read it again. NO INCREASED RISK.

It's YOU who cites one study (of many in the NHSTA report)

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti...Crash_Risk.pdf

Then you delete the information that contradicts that one study you cite in
the very same SENTENCE and then try to bash me? Gawd almighty, what
hypocrisy. Lots of chutzpah but no sale, Chetsky.

Face it, you're a fraud and it seems just about everybody knows it. From
time to time I like to point out just how MUCH of a fraud you are. Thanks
for giving me the opportunity with an incontrovertible example of how
dishonestly YOU operate. It's priceless. Now back you go into the kill file
of rude and intellectually bankrupt partisan hacks who love to accuse others
of what they do themselves. Life's too short deal with such mendacious
mealymouthing and misdirection.

FWIW, the NHTSA study I cited goes on to say this about both the Li and
Romano studies: "However, current limitations in the FARS dataset do not
allow calculation of unbiased, reliable and valid estimates of the risk of
crash involvement that results from drug use." Translation: such studies
are "junk science" because they lack critical data. Like your claims. Your
reading comprehension seems suspect if you missed that gem about the data
you quoted as proof of something meaningful.

The FARS comment backs up what I (and others who unlike you can apparently
understand statistics) have said. I've cited numerous other studies that
fail to measure the amount of THC in the blood and report only its presence.
No valid data can be obtained from such reports since THC lasts 30 days in
the blood well below intoxicating levels. The temporal proximity of drug
use to an accident can't be determined from such data. That alone explains
away your favorite junk statistic and it seems everyone but you knows it.
Wise up, wise guy, you aren't going to get away with such BS tactics. Not
as long as anybody quotes your con-artist claptrap and I see it, anyway..

Maybe we should give you the title of AHR's Chief Junk Scientist. Face it,
you couldn't lie straight in bed.

--
Bobby G.

P.S. I should start tagging these ploys of yours as "CLASSIC TRADER BS" so I
can find them more easily in Google when you need to be reminded of what a
hypocrite you are. You accuse me of deleting things when you delete the
last half of the very sentence you quoted in your pathetic attempt to make
me look bad. Oops! Boomerang! Just classic Chet aka Trader! You made my
day. I'll be smiling for the rest of the night.

On 3/6/2015 8:02 AM, wrote:
Before the MADD craze, it was 18 in several places, including New York
for liquor and DC for beer and wine only. I don't remember any
horrible consequences in either place.

There might have been a little attrition in the Vermont kids who came
over to the NY roadhouses. The bars closed at 3AM so you had plenty of
time to tie a good drunk on before driving home on the mountain roads.

On 3/6/2015 10:33 AM, trader_4 wrote:
We've only been watching legalized pot for just a few years.
What are you afraid of finding out in the next 3 years or so?

It's not like pot was invented 3 years ago like some designer drug. I
have a fond memory of being followed by a NYS Trooper and my '60
Plymouth didn't have a working speedometer. I didn't have a clue what my
speed was. I made it through the field interview okay though he was
curious about why I attached my plate with thumb screws. That was about
1966.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
bob_villa

stuff snipped

So much for being gracious...I "feel" bad now that I'm not forgiven!
Waaaa!

Look at the upside; you won't be endlessly reminded that "Libs are not
even able to get their attributions right. Good grief."
Or maybe you will anyway. Sacr? bleu!

Fat chance of Trader trimming his insult sails. It's what he lives for.
What he fails to understand is that I have been a registered Republican for
40 years. I'm just not his kind of "junk science all libs are loons"
Republican. I know that you have to govern from the center, whether R or D.
I'd bet him $500 that my registration is *still* as a Republican and that I
both knew and voted for Bob Dole, but I am sure he would welsh when it came
time to pay up.

He's also probably OTR and meaner than usual because his favorite son, Chris
Christie is getting pummeled (did I say "pummeled?" I meant to say
"horsefu&ed"):again in the press for cheaping out on the Exxon pollution
settlement that was valued at over $8B but Christie settled for well under
$1B:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...b89_story.html


http://www.businessinsider.com/r-new...ent-nyt-2015-3

New Jersey officials are livid with Chris Christie's office over an
'appalling and disturbing' settlement with Exxon

and because he got his ass kicked by a REPUBLICAN judge for welshing on his
promises regarding the New Jersey pension lawsuit.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf...payment .html

In a significant blow to Gov. Chris Christie, a state judge ruled today
that the governor broke a law he signed by cutting $1.57 billion from a
promised payment from the pension system for public employees this year, and
must now work with state lawmakers to restore the money.

I guess welshers stick together. I think Trader's dreams for a "native son"
of New Jersey to get to the Whitehouse are thoroughly dashed. It's the
shi+house for Christie, not the Whitehouse. His popularity figures in
"Joisey" are crashing.

http://www.businessinsider.com/chris...-rating-2015-3

A new Fairleigh Dickinson University PublicMind poll released Tuesday
shows only 35% of New Jersey voters approve of Christie's performance
compared with 51% who disapprove

http://www.businessinsider.com/chris...x-break-2015-3

Chris Christie's new tax break might just be 'smoke and mirrors' Christie
touts the 2% property tax cap he and lawmakers enacted in 2010. Just this
week on his monthly radio call-in show he praised the law. But in reality,
because of exemptions, rates climb above the cap.

Then there's the clean bill that had to go to Congress to avoid a veto, the
FCC voting against what Trader wanted - what's a Tea Partier to do except
cry in their beer?

As the recently deceased Lesley Gore might say: "You would cry too if it
happened to you."

BTW, I smoked pot for a few days to make my commute more tolerable.
I had to really watch it so I didn't slow down too much. I noticed my
reaction time was greatly lessened, so I stopped using it.

Of course, the slower you go, the less important quick reactions are. (-:
Compared to drunk driving, stoned driving is pretty damn safe as a number of
studies have shown. Legitimate studies, with controlled factors and not
just numbers scraped off a database with little corroborating data. I've
read that all the gains we've made in the area of drunk driving have been
lost to texting drivers. Which is probably yet *another* factor that must
be considered when making claims like stoned drivers are involved in twice
as many fatalities as before legalization.

Threw away most of a $20 bag.

Pot hasn't cost $20 since 1970, dedushka. So they tell me. (0:

People will react differently to using pot, and of course there are
different strengths, similar to alcohol.

I'd rather face a stoned driver than a drunk driver coming at me from the
other lane because as you and many studies have noted, the stoned driver is
probably going pretty slowly.

Shouldn't be driving with any "high."

That's an interesting question. An alcoholic or a heroin addict is probably
slightly safer as a driver if they are not in withdrawal.

Stoned driving enforcement is going to need a cheap "impairment" test that
can accurately determine how impaired the stoned driver is when tested.
Right now that's a missing piece of the puzzle which makes statistics about
fatalities caused by stoned driving pretty damn difficult to compile. Some
studies have actually measured the amount of THC in the blood stream of
accident victims but many do not.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
"For each of 2,500 injured drivers presenting to a hospital, a blood sample
was collected for later analysis.

There was a clear relationship between alcohol and culpability. . In
contrast, there was no significant increase in culpability for cannabinoids
alone. While a relatively large number of injured drivers tested positive
for cannabinoids, culpability rates were no higher than those for the drug
free group. This is consistent with other findings."

REFERENCE: Logan, M.C., Hunter, C.E., Lokan, R.J., White, J.M., & White,
M.A. (2000). The Prevalence of Alcohol, Cannabinoids, Benzodiazepines and
Stimulants Amongst Injured Drivers and Their Role in Driver Culpability:
Part II: The Relationship Between Drug Prevalence and Drug Concentration,
and Driver Culpability. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 623-32.

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

"Blood specimens were collected from a sample of 1,882 drivers from 7
states, during 14 months in the years 1990 and 1991. The sample comprised
operators of passenger cars, trucks, and motorcycles who died within 4 hours
of their crash.

.. While cannabinoids were detected in 7 percent of the drivers, the
psychoactive agent THC was found in only 4 percent. . The THC-only drivers
had a responsibility rate below that of the drugfree drivers. . While the
difference was not statistically significant, there was no indication that
cannabis by itself was a cause of fatal crashes."

REFERENCE: K. Terhune. 1992. The incidence and role of drugs in fatally
injured drivers. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 808 065.

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

Vic, your testimony about your awareness of your own impairment under THC
jibes with many studies I've read. Conversely, many drunkards believe that
they are in no way impaired when they are red-faced drunk and well above the
legal limit.

What's easier to determine are relative levels of impairment using driving
simulator tests and those fairly consistently show some impairment, but far
less than alcohol or even texting. And if anyone tells you simulators don't
count, ask them about 9/11.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
.. Evidence of impairment from the consumption of cannabis has been reported
by studies using laboratory tests, driving simulators and on-road
observation. ... Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving
behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in
(i) a more cautious driving style; (ii) increased variability in lane
position (and headway); and (iii) longer decision times. Whereas these
results indicate a 'change' from normal conditions, they do not necessarily
reflect 'impairment' in terms of performance effectiveness since few studies
report increased accident risk.

REFERENCE: UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road
Safety Division). 2000. Cannabis and Driving: A Review of the Literature and
Commentary. Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.

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

Seems once again to jibe with your experience and my assumption that you
were not involved in a fatal accident while driving stoned and are writing
to us from the hereafter. (-: Of course I probably don't have to note that
none of these studies confirms the alarmist statistics that Trader's
slinging, but that's what happens if you're the Chief Junk Scientist of AHR.
You sling junk.

--
Bobby G.

On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 19:46:33 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Shadow" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 4 Mar 2015 06:27:49 -0800 (PST), bob_villa
wrote:

Oh, and for the record, polls show the number of Americans who want
marijuana legalized is about evenly split, 50-50.

50% of people have IQ's below 100. It's a daunting fact, but
they are the ones that vote against legalizing it..... and their votes
are worth as much as an Einstein's.
If you ask them why it should not be decriminalized, their
usual and "logical" answer is "because it's illegal". Can't argue with
that.

The WashPost just ran a survey that said 80% of the people asked (in a
survey about GMOs) said that food containing DNA should all be labeled.
That says it all. With all the misinformation about THC that's been put
forth in the last few decades, it's no wonder the vox populi is vacuous.

They made Margareth Thatcher put "does not contain DNA***" on
fish fingers, which due to de-regulamentation, were legally made of
wood celulose.
[]'s

*** actually, a dumbed-down version of that. I think it was
"does not contain fish". There was also one for the chicken, which
contained no traces of chicken.
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

In article ,
rbowman wrote:

On 3/6/2015 8:02 AM, wrote:
Before the MADD craze, it was 18 in several places, including New York
for liquor and DC for beer and wine only. I don't remember any
horrible consequences in either place.

There might have been a little attrition in the Vermont kids who came
over to the NY roadhouses. The bars closed at 3AM so you had plenty of
time to tie a good drunk on before driving home on the mountain roads.

There was also a well-know killer tree on US 30 that leaped out at
Indiana kids coming back from Ohio.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 8:17:28 AM UTC-6, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 9:40:06 PM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:

Of course you want to send me to the kill file, because you can't
stand the truth. You really are an idiot. Even your fellow lib thinks
you're an idiot for trying to compare legalizing pot to the XL pipeline.
He attacked me, thinking I was the one who brought it up.
It's as lame as it gets. Let's recap, shall we? All I said was that
it would be a good idea to wait a few years to see what happens in states
where pot has been legalized. And I showed an example of a study that
gives reason for looking more, ie the study in CO that shows the drivers
who had used pot in fatal accidents doubled to 10%. Is that soooo radical?
Good grief. It's a very reasonable, very moderate position. But once again,
it shows where the real problems for not being able to compromise, to get
things done, is. It's with extremist loons like you.

You know, repeating yourself makes you come-off as an anal retentive, psycho? You've said your piece...leave it the **** alone for **** sake!

On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 10:37:58 AM UTC-5, bob_villa wrote:
On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 8:17:28 AM UTC-6, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 9:40:06 PM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:

Of course you want to send me to the kill file, because you can't
stand the truth. You really are an idiot. Even your fellow lib thinks
you're an idiot for trying to compare legalizing pot to the XL pipeline.
He attacked me, thinking I was the one who brought it up.
It's as lame as it gets. Let's recap, shall we? All I said was that
it would be a good idea to wait a few years to see what happens in states
where pot has been legalized. And I showed an example of a study that
gives reason for looking more, ie the study in CO that shows the drivers
who had used pot in fatal accidents doubled to 10%. Is that soooo radical?
Good grief. It's a very reasonable, very moderate position. But once again,
it shows where the real problems for not being able to compromise, to get
things done, is. It's with extremist loons like you.

You know, repeating yourself makes you come-off as an anal retentive, psycho? You've said your piece...leave it the **** alone for **** sake!

Of course the same can be said for you, Shadow, and especially Robert Green,
who just spewed all over the place. For the record, my initial post, that
some of you found soooooo extreme and controversial, was that before taking
more steps to legalize pot, it would be a good idea to see the results for
a few years in the states where it's already been done. My god, how
extreme!

On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 9:46:36 AM UTC-6, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 10:37:58 AM UTC-5, bob_villa wrote:
On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 8:17:28 AM UTC-6, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 9:40:06 PM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:

Of course you want to send me to the kill file, because you can't
stand the truth. You really are an idiot. Even your fellow lib thinks
you're an idiot for trying to compare legalizing pot to the XL pipeline.
He attacked me, thinking I was the one who brought it up.
It's as lame as it gets. Let's recap, shall we? All I said was that
it would be a good idea to wait a few years to see what happens in states
where pot has been legalized. And I showed an example of a study that
gives reason for looking more, ie the study in CO that shows the drivers
who had used pot in fatal accidents doubled to 10%. Is that soooo radical?
Good grief. It's a very reasonable, very moderate position. But once again,
it shows where the real problems for not being able to compromise, to get
things done, is. It's with extremist loons like you.

You know, repeating yourself makes you come-off as an anal retentive, psycho? You've said your piece...leave it the **** alone for **** sake!

Of course the same can be said for you, Shadow, and especially Robert Green,
who just spewed all over the place. For the record, my initial post, that
some of you found soooooo extreme and controversial, was that before taking
more steps to legalize pot, it would be a good idea to see the results for
a few years in the states where it's already been done. My god, how
extreme!
Of course the same can be said for you, Shadow, and especially Robert Green,
who just spewed all over the place. For the record, my initial post, that
some of you found soooooo extreme and controversial, was that before taking
more steps to legalize pot, it would be a good idea to see the results for
a few years in the states where it's already been done. My god, how
extreme!
Of course the same can be said for you, Shadow, and especially Robert Green,
who just spewed all over the place. For the record, my initial post, that
some of you found soooooo extreme and controversial, was that before taking
more steps to legalize pot, it would be a good idea to see the results for
a few years in the states where it's already been done. My god, how
extreme!
Of course the same can be said for you, Shadow, and especially Robert Green,
who just spewed all over the place. For the record, my initial post, that
some of you found soooooo extreme and controversial, was that before taking
more steps to legalize pot, it would be a good idea to see the results for
a few years in the states where it's already been done. My god, how
extreme!
Of course the same can be said for you, Shadow, and especially Robert Green,
who just spewed all over the place. For the record, my initial post, that
some of you found soooooo extreme and controversial, was that before taking
more steps to legalize pot, it would be a good idea to see the results for
a few years in the states where it's already been done. My god, how
extreme!
Of course the same can be said for you, Shadow, and especially Robert Green,
who just spewed all over the place. For the record, my initial post, that
some of you found soooooo extreme and controversial, was that before taking
more steps to legalize pot, it would be a good idea to see the results for
a few years in the states where it's already been done. My god, how
extreme!
Of course the same can be said for you, Shadow, and especially Robert Green,
who just spewed all over the place. For the record, my initial post, that
some of you found soooooo extreme and controversial, was that before taking
more steps to legalize pot, it would be a good idea to see the results for
a few years in the states where it's already been done. My god, how
extreme!
Of course the same can be said for you, Shadow, and especially Robert Green,
who just spewed all over the place. For the record, my initial post, that
some of you found soooooo extreme and controversial, was that before taking
more steps to legalize pot, it would be a good idea to see the results for
a few years in the states where it's already been done. My god, how
extreme!
Of course the same can be said for you, Shadow, and especially Robert Green,
who just spewed all over the place. For the record, my initial post, that
some of you found soooooo extreme and controversial, was that before taking
more steps to legalize pot, it would be a good idea to see the results for
a few years in the states where it's already been done. My god, how
extreme!
Of course the same can be said for you, Shadow, and especially Robert Green,
who just spewed all over the place. For the record, my initial post, that
some of you found soooooo extreme and controversial, was that before taking
more steps to legalize pot, it would be a good idea to see the results for
a few years in the states where it's already been done. My god, how
extreme!
Of course the same can be said for you, Shadow, and especially Robert Green,
who just spewed all over the place. For the record, my initial post, that
some of you found soooooo extreme and controversial, was that before taking
more steps to legalize pot, it would be a good idea to see the results for
a few years in the states where it's already been done. My god, how
extreme!

"Feel" better?

On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 07:46:33 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

Of course the same can be said for you, Shadow, and especially Robert Green,
who just spewed all over the place. For the record, my initial post, that
some of you found soooooo extreme and controversial, was that before taking
more steps to legalize pot, it would be a good idea to see the results for
a few years in the states where it's already been done. My god, how
extreme!

It's pretty extreme to jail people and ruin lives and then
suddenly you realize you were wrong all along.
How do you make it up to someone who was knifed or raped(and
got AIDS) in a jail she/he should never have been in, in the first
place. How do you explain that to the families. "Well, he's dead
because he used a harmless substance"
Please don't use the "it's against the law" argument. We save
that for the lower IQs.
It would be a fantastic idea to make possession of pot
something you pay a fine for, and does not go on a criminal record. I
know pot is far more harmless than breaking the speed limit, so maybe
the fine could be a little smaller. But a fine, no more, until it's
proved to be harmless beyond all doubt.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On 03/07/2015 08:54 AM, Shadow wrote:
It would be a fantastic idea to make possession of pot
something you pay a fine for, and does not go on a criminal record. I
know pot is far more harmless than breaking the speed limit, so maybe
the fine could be a little smaller. But a fine, no more, until it's
proved to be harmless beyond all doubt.

Here is an idea. Just pay sales tax on it.

Drug abuse (that includes alcohol) is stupid.
It is stupider try to force other not to.

On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 13:14:02 -0800, T wrote:

On 03/07/2015 08:54 AM, Shadow wrote:
It would be a fantastic idea to make possession of pot
something you pay a fine for, and does not go on a criminal record. I
know pot is far more harmless than breaking the speed limit, so maybe
the fine could be a little smaller. But a fine, no more, until it's
proved to be harmless beyond all doubt.

Here is an idea. Just pay sales tax on it.

Where's the fun in that ? Got to make it sound like
punishment. A 5 dollar fine. Pronto. Ouch, that's gotta hurt.

Drug abuse (that includes alcohol) is stupid.
It is stupider try to force other not to.

Not stupider, impossible.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012