What I don't understand is why is selling seeds an offense? You can easily buy magic mushroom spores online, because the spores contain a little or no traces of psilocybin. Wouldn't marijuana seeds fall into this category? There can't be any real amount of THC or other cannabinoids in the seeds. And I have yet to find ANY pot smoker who smokes seeds intentionally.

>> ^turboj0e:
that is some shitty looking weed


Back then though, that was considered "high-grade" as the newsmister says. My dad was probably the same age as I am right now, back then.. I remember him telling me he used to be able to get a 'nickle-bag' - 5 bucks for a nice handful. But weed has evolved since then, so much more THC these days. Sweet, sweet THC...

The main cause of all cancers caused by smoke, whether it be tobacco or opium, is not some secret chemical contained only in mass in a single species (like nicotine for tobacco, morphine for opium, and thc for MJ) but rather it is the main body of smoke. This may come from ANY species in the plantea kingodom.

The burning of any kind of cellulose (the material that makes up the cell wall of almost every cell in every plant ever) creates a tremendous amount of tar and other carcinogeons which will inhabit the smoke of ANY plant you ever try to roll up (like maple leaf or lawn grass). Everything said by the expert is totally accurate and everything said by MSNBullshitBC as fake as the last girl I fucked. Peace

>> ^gorillaman:
You'll notice at no point do either of them talk about human rights or freedom. They're discussing the most efficient way to run a slave camp. Cohen, everybody's hero, feels we should be allowed any form of recreation that doesn't impact our productivity; while Mueller is concerned that a little freedom now will lead to an expectation of more in the future. That's what the gateway theory is really saying, that people who understand it's their right to put THC into their own body if they choose also understand it's their right to do the same with other substances.

Good job reading between the lines, although, Mueller's fears are unfounded and backward. Right now as it stands, since a lot of drugs are illegal, somebody who were to try marijuana and realize it's not dangerous might assume the same of other drugs. If we were to be honest and classify drugs properly, people might take heed in the government's decision to make certain one's illegal.

Also, I've done many drugs and been a slave to none (except for maybe alcohol). However, I will never try heroine, crack, or meth (minus the synthesis of the substance in ecstasy). I don't want those monkeys on my back. That is my own decision. Law has never been a factor when considering which drugs to use and which to not use.

You'll notice at no point do either of them talk about human rights or freedom. They're discussing the most efficient way to run a slave camp. Cohen, everybody's hero, feels we should be allowed any form of recreation that doesn't impact our productivity; while Mueller is concerned that a little freedom now will lead to an expectation of more in the future. That's what the gateway theory is really saying, that people who understand it's their right to put THC into their own body if they choose also understand it's their right to do the same with other substances.

is it my turn to toss in?
good.
lets take mr walters point by point.
1.he is from the hudson institute-(neo-con think tank)deduct 50 points right there.
2.taxable income questionable?ok,i agree here.there is no actual data as of yet.
3.weed is the number ONE reason for drug treatment.
what?where is the former drug czar getting his numbers?
the number ONE abused and treated addictive drug is legal prescription painkillers.even if we used illegal drugs, pot is fourth.(data from A.M.A)
4.weed is responsible for violence and deaths among dealers.
no..its creating a black market that leads to violence and deaths.
its not like a drug dealer can go to the authorities and bitch about another dealer creeping into his turf.this is just bad logic.you can apply the same sentence and just add:coke dealers,pimps,gambling,fights...
when you create a black market,the only way those who RUN that black market can protect their investment is usually through violence,which may lead to deaths,sometimes innocent.
5.mr walters keeps using the term "drugs".
while not wrong,its not entirely accurate."drugs" is an umbrella term which includes ALL drugs i.e :coke,meth,x,heroin etc.
to conflate these very dissimilar narcotics is dishonest and misleading.
6.again mr walters conflates "drugs" with violent behavior.
"many of the arrests found weed on the person"
and?using circular logic to make a point is still circular logic.
so if i got arrested with a playboy in my possesion that would mean im a sexual deviant?thats just weak.
6.marijuana dependency?
first off,doesnt exist.at least not in the way mr walters is portraying it.
THC is fat soluble,which means it takes at LEAST 3 weeks for HALF the THC to leave your body.you have to smoke a tremendous amount,consistently for a very long time to feel any adverse affects if you stop smoking.even then the effects are mild.
7.0.3% is the population percentage in jail for possesion of weed..
thats an outright lie.
that figure is way higher,some as low as 20% and as high as 65%(couldnt get a solid number)but considering that private jails are now the number 9th largest lobby,and are the biggest funders of keeping weed illegal.
well..you tell me what that looks like.
8.more conflation about number of people who use "drugs".
the fact is,a certain amount of the population will use drugs.
its predictable and steady.this number coincides with weed smokers.
i believe the number is 23%,but im not sure and forgot the studies name.
but its around there.

one final note.
some have mentioned it here already,and i totally agree.
if you do something in your own home,harm noone,not even yourself.
how can it be deemed illegal?
even the constitution backs up the dissilution of this ill-thought,inane,archaic and totally useless law.
the man who demonized weed was a man named henry anslinger.
who used the "demon weed" for political purposes,and he did a damn fine job of it.
that was in the late 30's and early 40's.
time to huck this piece of irrelevant legislation out the door.
thank you..and good night.

Three things from a stoner:

1) If the weed is stronger, that means you smoke less of it.

2) There are many varieties of low- to moderate-grade weed still available, and it's easier to find that product when it is legalized and when the THC ratio is clearly displayed.

3) DEA agents really don't give a shit about anything but their jobs, which exist only because drugs are illegal.

>> ^Psychologic:
I wonder how they would test whether you're driving "under the influence". They can check for metabolites, but I wonder if there is a good way to test for active THC in the blood.
Either way, I hope it passes. People will use it whether it is legal or not, but it would be nice to stop clogging the prisons with, and taking the money of, non-violent weed smokers. Taxes > Fines.


In 1990, the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reported that 12.8% of those involved in fatal truck accidents showed signs of cannabis use in postmortem examination. However, that statistic is an unreliable indicator of the effects of cannabis on driving performance in a majority of those cases. A much larger NTSB study published in 1988 found that those drivers using only cannabis accounted for 2.2% of fatal accidents. That report concluded, “THC plays a relatively minor role in fatal traffic accidents as compared with alcohol.” - whole article, http://www.cannabismd.net/psychomotor-skills/

>> ^Psychologic:
I wonder how they would test whether you're driving "under the influence". They can check for metabolites, but I wonder if there is a good way to test for active THC in the blood.


Where I'm from, you can be charged with impaired driving for a number of reasons. For example, if you blow under the legal limit, you can still get a DUI if you were too intoxicated to drive safely.
Depending where you are, this policy is already used most places for driving under the influence of marijuana.

I wonder how they would test whether you're driving "under the influence". They can check for metabolites, but I wonder if there is a good way to test for active THC in the blood.

Either way, I hope it passes. People will use it whether it is legal or not, but it would be nice to stop clogging the prisons with, and taking the money of, non-violent weed smokers. Taxes > Fines.

>> ^Schattdaddy:
An even bigger scandal than this is the 4 sumo wrestlers who were arrested and kicked out of the sport for tesing positive for THC. Combine a Japanese sport which is steeped in Shinto religion and a a bit of weed, now that is a scandal.


The irony here is that THC intoxication from primitive Shinto ritual offerings is probably what prompted the invention of sumo wrestling in the first place some millenia ago. I mean come on, look at the size of these guys! What do you think made them that way?

An even bigger scandal than this is the 4 sumo wrestlers who were arrested and kicked out of the sport for tesing positive for THC. Combine a Japanese sport which is steeped in Shinto religion and a a bit of weed, now that is a scandal.

>> ^Xaielao:
Since when is Pot addictive? Last I knew THC had zero chance of forming a chemical addiction.


As addiction is becoming better understood, there is an increasing gap between "addiction" and "physical dependence". The more recent definition of addiction is "anything that someone continues to do despite negative consequences". People can become "addicted" to any action, such as gambling, video games, or even checking e-mail. It is a psychological issue, not a chemical one (well, not directly chemical at least).

People can become addicted to marijuana without the presence of physical dependence. People become addicted to World of Warcraft as well. The old definition of addiction included physical dependence, but that was because of a lack of understanding on the subject.

Of course substances that cause a high degree of physical dependence (ex- meth) can lead to rapid habituation. Physical dependence can certainly lead to addiction, but it is not a requisite.






Edit: As an aside, it is also worth noting that many psychedelics (lsd, psilocybin, etc) actually diminish the possibility of habituation. They cause a very rapid tolerance, meaning that taking the same amount two days in a row could lead to only half the effect on the second day. This tolerance also disappears quickly, so after 5-7 days you have no tolerance at all. This basically means that taking these substances on a daily basis quickly leads to them having no effect, though they could still be enjoyed on a "weekly" basis.

Since when is Pot addictive? Last I knew THC had zero chance of forming a chemical addiction.

Heh. I wonder if you could use this to blow up an air mattress and the THC would stay in suspension. You could go camping and, as usual, the mattress would be partially deflated in the morning... but you wouldn't fucking care!