meh i have blazed up for over 14 years now, top quality smoke to, no effects here and i have never snorted, bomb or jacked anything ever...i barely drink and its still illegal in england! The only things it has effected is i am now a logic thinker....
@saintgaving From holland here, it's funny the statistics here. legalizing weed stops people from getting into contact with shady dealers who also sell hard drugs and thans to that we have a lot less people who get addicted to hard drugsand extra tax income ofcourse, less spent prosecuting etc...
@kjevo hey i appreiciate what your country has done....and visited many times now and will do again next month :)
Its also great to see a country benefiting from relaxing the law, in the financial sense. To which it seems like it being spent wisely. To me it looks like you have got a good thing on the go in holland so respect to that.
Statistics are fact so people who try to ignore fact are ignorant, fact is built by knowledge, which a lot of countries still dont have.
pot isnt addictive. i dont realy support pot being legal, but i do think its somthing that people shud calm down about. its to much money and energy on both sides put into a flower that wen u smoke it it makes u lazy and want chips. idk just my oppinion
"The world is a comedy to those who think, and a tragedy to those who feel" - Joe Rogan. the people that know the truth about this current political and legal structure know what it is going to have to happen for legalization. Until then keep smoking that holy herb, praise JAH.
Hay -- In the Province of Ontario Canada About 50 lbs per bale Sold for 3.00 per in the late 90's It takes heavy equipment to harvest it and bale it Marijuana ............ how much do you think 50 lbs of the stuff would cost ? Its high in price because its illegal ..... and keep in mind Hay needs heavy equipment to harvest and Marijuana requires a pair of friggin scissors Either gangs control it or government does Clearly the gov and gang formed a partnership and gov knows better than to fiddle
@WeAskThePeople ya sure so we have junkies used pot and other hard drugs in the parks and streets so young children can find the needles and shit, human litter terribly and that is just garbage imagine what the litter would be if junkies were allowed to use out in the open
@TeaJay83 ... hi , that is what's happenning now ,,, look into the Swiss model . where they give junk away free to addicts in injecting rooms.. clean , controlled known grades of stuff.. the outcome of such an strategy was to completely stifle illegal sales in that area it was trialled. , the addicts had safe place to deal with their addiction with doctors & medical help on site. with consultation & social workers there to help... what happened, ?
@TeaJay83 drug use & deaths along with crime went plummeted.. because there was no market for drug dealers...soon after this trial ..the Swiss government implemented this strategy across the country in all main cities.. a brilliant policy that works so well, that the Danish government didn't even do a trial , they just copied the same idea. please find out & do a search .
So why did they get a random hobo off the street and start asking him questions about stuff he isn't an expert on? If they're going to call him a bishop they should ask him questions about the theological reprecussions of it.
my argument is very simple biology, the human lungs are not ment to proces smoke of any kind, we breath oxygen, nitrogen and a few other traces gasses in air and smoke is bad for the lungs it bad enough we are making the air we breath slowly toxic now we burn things and inhale the smaoking and cause more long term damage, untill we evovole the ablitity to breath smoke it is will be bad for us
@TeaJay83 except the only large scale clinical study of the health effects of marijuana (conducted by UCLA) showed a NEGATIVE correlation between marijuana use and cancer rates which completely contradicted the original assumptions of the experiment that there would be at least a small positive correlation between cancer rates and marijuana use. Anyways, yours sounds like an argument for why more scientific research should be done. We don't ban things THEN check to see if the science backs it up
marijuana has gotten stronger... but not because the plant itself is stronger, but these damn bastards lace it. . . they put other drugs in it when they smoke it. i'm not a smoker but i seen people trip the fuck out when they smoke some new shit. they later realized that it had cocaine, LSD or some other drug. i hate smoking but legalize that shit. i'm not gonna smoke cause it's legal. fuck it
@arsenalskate123 You can't smoke LSD for one. Also, it does not benefit dealers to lace marijuana, you will only be getting more drugs for less money and they end up losing money. You can have a psychedelic trip complete with sound hallucinations, open eye visual distortion and closed eye visuals (i've seen spirals and shit) because of high THC to low CBD ratio cannabis. THC is the psychedelic substance and CBD is psychoactive but not psychedelic and cuts down on the psychdelic effects of THC.
that's very true. i guess i was thinking about the situation i was in. my friend-friend's put some shit in it. crack/cocaine. and i didn't know and i took one hit and it fucked me up. lol
just legalize it already damnit. i gotta watch my ass because im a "criminal" just because i want a buzz without having to gulp down disgusting tasting alcohol. potheads are only criminals because they are made criminals. just like if alcohol were made illegal everyone that drinks would become a criminal over night. make it legal and get rid of the black market. create pot farms and you create jobs that will have a HUGE userbase....
I'm moving to California at the end of this month. I'll register to vote as soon as I can and I'll be more than happy to vote for any measure in support of decriminalization.
@LiberalViewer Well, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health 2006-2009, sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administrations, marijuana use increased during the 2006-2009 time period from 14.8 million to 16.7 million. Yet, all other illicit drug use dropped from 5.6 million to 5.1 million, in that 3 year time period. If marijuana were a true gateway drug, then why would we see an increase in pot use, but a decrease in others? Pot = Exit Drug :P
I hate to use this cliché, but correlation != causation. Isn't it just as possible the 500,000 people died? I can pretty much guarantee you that no one moves from crack cocaine to marijuana.
@TheAdmiralPancake Aren't all of the gateway arguments, both pro and con, related to correlation vs causation? Well, the British Journal of Psychiatry would have to disagree with you. Since, in their study, in a small sample of the study group, they found a decent portion of illicit drug users who never used marijuana. Thus, marijuana is not always necessary for the progression to other illicit drug use.
That makes no logical sense. If p is using marijuana and q is using cocaine, I said if p, then q. You disproved the converse of that. You proved if q, then p is false. However, the converse is not the same as the original statement. I made no claim that most cocaine users used marijuana first, only that many marijuana users move on to cocaine. You did not address my point, you addressed something else I didn't say.
@TheAdmiralPancake What doesn't make logical sense, in your opinion? According to the Institute of Medicine's report, "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base", some people start off with alcohol and tobacco before using weed. Thus, weed is rarely the first "gateway" drug to be used. The majority of cannabis users don't become cocaine users. In fact, according to Natural Neuroscience Journal 2011 and the Psychoactive Drugs Journal 1999, cannabis helps people exit their cocaine use.
Marijuana is A gateway drug. Alcohol and tobacco are others. Also, the word some is important. Does that mean some people start with marijuana and then move to alcohol?
The vast majority of tobacco users don't get cancer. Tobacco is still dangerous. It's a significant minority that do get cancer. A significant minority of marijuana users move on to other drugs. The fact that most people are safe doesn't matter when the consequences are so severe for a third of people.
@TheAdmiralPancake 3) It varies. The majority uses alcohol and tobacco before marijuana use, according to the Institute of Medicine. Actually, a decent portion of tobacco users do get cancer. Many people die each year due to tobacco-induced lung cancer, but marijuana's cannabinoids significantly mitiagates the cancer risk to a significant degree. Still, you must extract these cannabinoids and consume them if one does have cancer. They can work better without the hindrance of carcinogens.
Once again, if cannabis does help people stop using cocaine. it's the lesser of two evils. They move from a cocaine addict to a marijuana addict. Neither is ideal. If that is true, then it should still be administrated by a trained professional. I'm fairly sure most cocaine addicts are not trained medical professionals and should not be allowed to try to treat themselves.
@TheAdmiralPancake Marijuana addiction is usually psychological, according to the Prescrire International Journal 2011. The cannabinoids stick around in our adipose tissue for 2 weeks to a month. They are excreted slowly, so the plasma concentrations don't experience rapid declines. However, opiates and nicotine barely stick around in our fat cells for long. As a result for the fast excretion of opiates and nicotine, rapid declines of plasma levels occur that precipitates severe drug cravings.
Who cares if it's psychological or physical? It's addictive, and that's bad. Besides, usually doesn't matter. Alcohol isn't usually addictive. A significant minority do experience physical addiction. It not being addictive USUALLY is far different from it not being addictive.
@TheAdmiralPancake If it's psychological, then anybody could quit if they set their mind to it. Alcohol is very addictive, actually. Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that alcohol is more addictive than marijuana and caffeine.
@TheAdmiralPancake 2) Since you mentioned crack/cocaine, people do use crack/cocaine before using marijuana. According to the Cannabis Therapeutics Journal 2002, Jamaican women either use crack/cocaine, or marijuana. They also noted that many crack/cocaine using women found marijuana to be an effective therapy for attenuating their crack/cocaine addiction. Now, where is the journal that states that people were abducted by aliens? I'll wait.
I never said they didn't use cocaine before using marijuana. I just doubt marijuana can help get off hard drugs. Even if it can, it should be administered by a qualified professional in a rehab facility. If it isn't, the person will end up addicted to marijuana, which is just the lesser of two evils. That means it gets you high enough you don't have to think about withdrawal. You're still getting high, which is still bad.
Really? These numbers came from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administrations, the same organization that is against marijuana legalization. Why would they conjure up numbers? Even if those other 500,000 users died, we still failed to see an increase of other illicit drug use to accompany the marked increase of cannabis use.
They didn't conjure them up. They're valid numbers. Your interpretation is wrong. There are any number of possible reasons for what you observed. You have not, cannot, and will never be able to do the proper statistical analysis to figure out what was actually going on. You don't have enough information. You used two numbers! My sixth-grade science fair project had more complex statistics than that to make a far less significant conclusion than the one you're jumping to.
I can figure out what didn't go on, the majority of marijuana users did not use other illicit drugs, or else the use of all other illicit drugs would've gone up, not down.
@TheAdmiralPancake 3) I have quite a bit of info, actually. The World Health Organization, the Institute of Medicine, SAMSHA's own records, et cetera all have proven that marijuana, by itself, is not a gateway drug.
There are plenty of studies to go against those. I won't bother linking. Just go on Wiki, you'll find plenty just as reliable. All I know is that your numbers don't prove that it isn't a gateway drug. I don't know whether or not it's a gateway drug. Based on the numbers you gave, you don't, either.
@TheAdmiralPancake If you can find over 300 journals, dated 21st century, then let me know :)
There are more studies proving that the positives outweighs the negatives, and that's a fact. I'll send all of my links to you, since I've already sent them on here via private message.
Alright. By my name, it's obvious I smoke marijuana. I'm not going to freak out over this. This is truth, straight from the heart: Jails are absolutely filled with drug related offenders. The DEA/the "war" on drugs eats up hundreds of millions a year that is completely unnecessary. Legalization has been proven (coke in parts of south america) to completely slash drug related crime rates. Also, it is effectively taxable and could be, even with menial taxation, a huge source of federal income.
New Breathalyzer-equivalent device for Marijuana. Don't EVER let anyone argue again that marijuana should be illegal because there's no way to test drivers to see if they're high: w w w (dot) onlinepot (d0t) org/medical/breathalizer.htm
You stupid or something? A police officer doesn't even need any sort of test. Even the breathalyzer is unnecessary. If a cop says that you look drunk or high, that's enough to arrest you.
@TheAdmiralPancake No shit dumbass, this is just to refute people when they say "marijuana can't be legalized because there's no breathalyzer to test for it. Well they're wrong.
@TheAdmiralPancake Yes, peace officers have discretion. But A) statistically, cannabis related motor vehicle accidents remain virtually non existant and B) alcohol related motor vehicle accidents remain rampant. Why are you not supporting alcohol prohibition? How much more carnage on our roads must we endure before we smarten up and return alcohol prohibition? The constitution works if followed strictly. Read it. Spelling, check, grammer, check, sarcasm, check, spam, don't know, don't think so?
Cannabis (Sativa, Indica, Ruderalis) The tree of life. The burning bush. A Divine Gift. Perpetual energy sourse ... YES. Feed the world ... YES. Clothe the world ... YES. House the world ... YES. HEAL the world ... YES. But oh, someone might get "high" ... oh dear me ... Deaths from overdose ... none.
Prohibition (of ANY substance) is futile, immature and incapable of achieving its stated objectives. Now if we could only prohibit stupidity ... but that sounds futile as well ....
If we don't learn from history, it'll repeat itself ... guess some have stupidly forgotten alcohol prohibition and its abismal failure.
Alcohol prohibition didn't work because alcohol use was already commonplace. Alcohol was never an underground. Also, alcohol prohibition was enacted for entirely different reasons. It was supposed to hurt the Germans and destroy the saloons, both of which it did. I would say it was successful.
Alcohol (or any substance used for recreational/spiritual/medical purposes) prohibition didn't/doesn't will never work because you can't legislate morality.
Interesting reading up on the german twist. I would argue those are not the sole nor are they commonly known motives, propagandized at the time, which enacted prohibition. There were many factors to the enactment. I care not the cause in this case, one can point to many, just the effect; and it is bad.
You can't legislate morality? What are you talking about? We do it all the time! The law is designed to impose a level of morality to keep people safe. You can't force people to have good morals, but you can force them to follow moral guidelines. We legislate recreational, spiritual, and medical activities to keep people safe.
@TheAdmiralPancake For you to legislate your idea of morality on me or anyone else is futile, corrupt and unrighteous. Which is what you should have gotten from the statement: "You can't legilate morality". Your idea of keeping me safe for my own good .... there are many negative words to describe those ideas ... i'll keep them to myself. But yes, "we" do, do it all the time. I don't force anyone to smoke, drink, eat, why should anyone force me to not?
besides, ... other negative effects, ... increase in burden on the legal, judicial and penal systems. Irrigardless of cause .. the effects are negative and the cause is futile/insane. imho, end ALL prohibition globally, and let's get on with it. Speaking of cannabis alone, it's fuel, food, clothing, shelter ... all superior btw. AND medicine, ... pat#6630507 if you will.
Every crime burdens those systems. While I agree the cost is a downside, I also think those people are there because they're criminals. A drug dealer is a drug dealer. They're involved in crime, and should be punished.
I frequently use hemp ropes. They're perfectly legal. You can use hemp for fuel, food, clothing, shelter, and even medicine in many states. The patent you keep quoting is perfectly legal. Smoking marijuana is not accepted a medicine, but that is.
@TheAdmiralPancake Crimes need victims. Where's the victim? Where is the mass cannabis (hemp) production? Where is the cannabis based ethenol? 500Gal/acre? Where is the victim?
@TheAdmiralPancake Thousands of teenagers are addicted to alcohol. The arguments posed so far scream of demagoguery. To think no one has been shot, stabbed or beaten because of alcohol is simply rubbish. You should certainly be in support of alcohol prohibition else your stance is hypocritical and carries no validity. So what say you? Stop dodging and simply reply with a "YES" or "NO, no explanations, yes or no, do you support alcohol and tobacco prohibition? no spelling or grammer complaints ..
@TheAdmiralPancake LOL, thankfully I don't need your permission to respond. Don't ya just love freedom? I can respond 80 time 80 if I so choose. However, I'm just givng you the opportunity to give your stance some credibility. You seem to be too concerned with my spelling and grammar while avoiding giving that needed credibility. Once again, do you support alcohol and tobacco prohibition? Yes or no and why.
Finally then, ignore if you wish, but it would be of extreme hypocrisy for you to support the prohibition of cannabis and not support the prohibition of alcohol and tobacco as well. There, the argument in a nutshell. It's only your credibility on the line.
To paraphrase Ron Paul: You don't want to run my life. You don't know how to run my life. It's not your job to run my life. You have no authorization to run my life.
I will respond as concisely as possible. People don't get shot over tobacco. When most people drink something alcoholic, they drink it for the taste. When literally anyone smokes marijuana, it's to get high.
Tobacco does not get you high. Alcohol gets you drunk, but that's a side effect. Marijuana's sole purpose is to get you high. There is a large criminal underworld around marijuana that does not exist around alcohol or tobacco.
1. “..don't get shot over tobacco” - If this is its only redeeming value, you should support tobacco prohibition.
2. “Most people drink for the taste.” - Surely the carnage on the roads would dispute that, not to mention the harm to the family – for credibility, you should support alcohol prohibition as well.
3. What's wrong with “getting high”?
4. The “criminal underworld” exists because of prohibition: It would thankfully welcome alcohol and tobacco as a new revenue stream.
Tobacco doesn't have the same criminal world as marijuana. Also, it does not get you high. It's far, far safer than marijuana.
And the carnage on the roads is illegal. Those who drink to get drunk wind up in jail or rehab, almost universally, the same as people who use marijuana.
Getting high makes you make stupid choices. You lose your ability to think for a period of time. What's wrong with getting high is the huge amount of violence that occurs while people are high.
The government doesn't want to run your life. I'm fairly sure everyone wants you to have complete freedom. However, many people can't handle it, so they have to make laws.
They do know how to do it better than you. They banned marijuana. I can guarantee you that if you took the government's advice and stopped smoking, you would be happier, healthier, and more successful.
The Constitution allows for laws to be made. That's what you oppose: a specific law.
..what's the deal anyway? You're using adult words, quite clearly, to publicly convey immature tyrannical ideals. Is it intentional? Are you working on a thesis paper? “Antagonism in 500 Characters or Less”. Freedom is black or white man. All or nothing. Yes, free to do as we wish, whatever we wish, with 2 main caveats: 1. don't harm anyone or their possessions, which includes their productivity and 2. All “for personal profit” activities depleting a public resource, will be regulated.
I know, as does Ron Paul: morality cannot be regulated. It is futile, insane and more importantly, immature and immoral to continue to attempt to. Prohibition causes more harm than it cures. Even with his abhorrence for heroin, Ron would still abolish the “law's” prohibiting its use. He knows those “law's” are unconstitutional and don't make you any safer.
@TheAdmiralPancake ok ive read over your comments and have concluded that you infact are a troll, you dont prove anything by backing it up with facts you just simply state something, but as if it were 100% fact, how does getting high put everyone in danger? and please show me thsi major health risks compared to those of tobacco and alcohol. ps i want ACTUAL sited studies no bullshit
Thank you for posting there. I now know for a fact that observer is a sock puppet and I should disregard anything and everything he says.
The fact is that I don't have to link to information. Everything I am saying is logically obvious to literally anyone with half a brain. Being high takes away your ability to make intelligent decisions. That is dangerous for you and those around you. If you think otherwise, I have no clue what you think "high" means.
@TheAdmiralPancake lol your speaking as if the high you get from marijuana is some mind altering drug that causes violence to out break the moment you smoke it. the fact is with no infromation to back up your claims, all they are is claims. have you ever met someone who was high on weed? the last thing they want to do is cause violence, dammage property, etc theyre way to lazy to put the effort in. Maybe you should go back to the early 20th century were you belong.
Derp. Did you read what I wrote? They wouldn't cause violence, but that doesn't mean they're not dangerous. It is a mind-altering drug! While it MAY not cause violence (it can, actually, but fairly rarely, and don't ask me to cite that since It's not important), it's still dangerous. If someone is high, he's more likely to get behind the wheel because he doesn't have the sense to realize he'll crash. Then he does crash and kill someone.
@TheAdmiralPancake it is mind altering but your making it out to be some super drug that alters reality completely ( ie: causes halucinations), again please provide some backing to your claims (ie: if someone is high theyre more likely to get behind the wheel), so? does that mean we should make alcohol illegal again?im certain the number of deaths caused by drunk driving are far higher than those caused by drivers under the influence of marijuana.
Ya know @ELEMENTSFAN666, I would have loved to see the Admiral in the Stanford Prison experiment. BTW, look into what Dr. Rob Melamede describes as a BLiP's and FLiP's. There's vid's on here. Very interesting description I would apply to the Admiral. Certainly a BLiP and not worthy of attention. Good luck with this Admiral turkey if you bite. Sorry, I'm not usually into slinging pejoratives … I can't seem to control myself so I'll be responsible and hand off the baton. See ya .. it's 420.
I've already explained all of this to your sock puppet. You are going around in circles. Marijuana is dangerous. There is no valid study that disagrees with me. It's dangerous mentally and physically. It damages relationships, your health, and puts other in danger. All of those statements are fact. There is no valid evidence to support another view.
It is bad to smoke. You can claim it's your right or it will stop crime to legalize it, but you have no other valid points.
*According to the Prescrire International Journal 2011, the marked increase of cannabis use in Austrailia was not accompanied by an increased incidence of schizophrenia.
*According to the Harm Reduction Journal 2005, tobacco smoke is more carcinogenic than marijuana smoke. Since, the nicotine enhances the AKT pathways, which leads to survival of a cancer cell. Yet, the cannabinoids in pot suppress the AKT pathways. We shall talk later.
I was definitely talking about the schizophrenia, not one of the things marijuana actually causes.
Suppressing a vital protein so your body cannot make enough of it sure does stop cancer! In fact, if we had no AKT, there would be no cancer at all, since everyone would be dead. Reducing AKT levels can help treat certain types of cancers, however I think it's hardly responsible to try to kill the AKT before it's a problem. No doctor would do that. You're less qualified than a doctor.
@TheAdmiralPancake Carcinogens cause mutation, and in those mutated cells, the AKT pathways are constantly stimulated. The cannabinoids stimulates the CB receptors on a cancerous cell's surface, even cancer cells. However, acording to the Biological Chemistry Journal 2002, the main difference between these two types of cells, is that our normal cells have a vast kinase checkpoint system that provides safeguards to THC-induced apoptosis, but cancers lack these checkpoints.
Not all cancers are affected by cannabinoids. Besides, chemotherapy does the exact same thing: kills cancer. Do you think everyone should take chemo as a preventative measure? Of course not! The same thing that makes it effective against dance also makes it effective at killing you. Marijuana does the same. If it can cure cancer, it should be administered by a qualified professional in order to mitigate side effects, not by a 17-year-old kid who wants to get high.
@TheAdmiralPancake True, not all cancers are affected by THC, depending on the amount of CB receptors, of course. However, CBD affects all cancers, because CBD kills cancer cells without having to be dependent on the CB receptors. Well, according to the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics Journal 2009, chemotherapy raises the oxidative stress levels and may also kill cancer cells. Cannabinoids do not induce cell death in normal cells, because of the kinase checkpoints.
I would like to read these studies. You seem to be dramatically oversimplifying the results. What I do know is that you should not be trying to treat your own cancer using marijuana! If it does work, doctors are the only people qualified to administer it. I have no problem with saying marijuana has medical benefits. That could be true. That's an argument for doctors being allowed to prescribe it, not allowing it on the streets. Giving doctors more leeway when prescribing isn't the issue
@TheAdmiralPancake 2) Which journals would you like to read, then? I would be ecstatic if marijuana use was legalized for medicinal purposes only, actually.
I suggest we find some other way to continue this discussion if you want to. Right now, our responses are getting completely jumbled and I can't tell what either of us is saying. Also, the 500 character limit and weird formatting makes it hard to formulate a response. If you want to continue, please respond via private message.
Also, you're oversimplifying the way cancer works. Believe me, if getting rid of AKT was the one cure for cancer, cancer would be cured. It's far more complex than you seem to understand (I don't understand, either, since I'm just a layman at medicine). In the brief research I just did, I have concluded that the commonly accepted use of AKT in cancer treatment is far more complex than just "KILL IT WITH FIRE!!! OR WEED!!!".
Even if it is that simple, you aren't qualified enough to know
@TheAdmiralPancake It is more complex. THC doesn't always suppress the AKT pathways. However, they can induce cell death in a cancer cell that lacks the various kinases through other mechanisms. Such as, upregulating the p8 protein to trigger an ER stress-related response, induce ceramide by actiavting the ceramide synthesis de novo pathway that will directly activate the MAPK pathway that automatically causes cell death, and by inducing ceramide that arrests the cell cycle of cancer cells.
Irrelevant. Even if it cures all cancer, always, it still should only be in a doctor's hands. It has dangerous side effects that only a doctor is qualified to handle and, as I said, I don't have a problem with giving doctors more leeway if there are valid medical applications. What I do know is that the drug dealer on the corner is not a pharmacist. I doubt many people use marijuana for valid medical reasons. It's an excuse to get high. It's a narcotic, not medicine!
@TheAdmiralPancake As I have said, sir, I would be ecstatic if marijuana use was legalized for medicinal purposes. We are in agreement with that, and medicinal use is all that I care for.
@TheAdmiralPancake 2) Google Patent number 6630507. It states that the cannabinoids are antioxidants and neuroprotectants. According to the European Respiratory Journal 2009, CBD(the anti-psychotic chemical compound in marijuana) was compared with amisulpride in treatment for schizophrenics. They both treated the schizophrenics of an almost exact magnitude, but CBD didn't have as many side effects.
Pot is a medicine, and a narcotic(Derived from the greek word, "narkos", to induce sleep).
That's something I really don't understand. Some people want marijuana to be available to anyone, without a prescription. If it's a valid medicine, couldn't you campaign for it to be available with a prescription or campaign for grants for further research? That seems to be the correct way to handle a medicine. If you really think it should be legalized because it has medical uses. ask for it to be treated as a medicine. Asking for free availability makes you sound like a pothead.
@TheAdmiralPancake Not only have I said that I'm only for medicinal use, but I never said that I was for free avaliability. I wish to make it to where only patients who need it can use it legally. Recreational use is not my top priority, but medicinal is.
Kill was a poor choice of words. I meant that suppressing them all willy-nilly without a medical license is irresponsible. Do you really think suppressing a vital protein without a medical degree or any clue what consequences it might have is responsible?
@TheAdmiralPancake Sigh* Read post 2) again, mate. Our normal cells have kinase checkpoints to prevent these apoptotic actions, but cancer cells do not.
I had no need to read your post again seeing as I already know at least that much, even though I'm not an expert by any means. I know you're not, either. That's why I leave it to the experts, who do NOT accept smoking weed all the time as a healthy way of preventing cancer. Even if it does prevent cancer, it's too dangerous to use without a doctor's orders.
Go get cancer. Ask your doctor if you can have weed to treat it. If he's any good, he'd say no, since it doesn't work.
@TheAdmiralPancake I've presented to you the facts provided by the experts. According to the Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Journal 2007, vaporization of weed would be a safer alternative. By the way, you must extract the cannabinoids, heat them so that the cannabinoids are released, and then consume them via an inhaler or food to get the direct anti-tumor affect on a cancer. We have clinical studies that have proven that the cannabinoids kills cancer cells, but not the healthy cells.
@TheAdmiralPancake 2) Dr. Robert Melamede PhD, Dr. Donald Abrams MD, Raphael Mechoulam (whom I believe has retired) and many others know about what the cannabinoids that aren't accompanied by carcinogens can do to cancer.
Please do not respond unless you have some points other than the ones I listed above. I already understand why you think it's your right to smoke and why you think it will combat crime to legalize it and, while I disagree, you have nothing to add to my understanding. Everything else you said flies in the face of established science and logic. Unless you have some other point, do not respond.
6. The Constitution allows itself to be amended and provides the government with the right to make laws. Outlawing laws would be more unconstitutional than making them.
Google that, too! I can go and buy hemp stalks, leaves, pretty much anything, as long as it doesn't get you high. Do you really think any random person should be allowed to buy marijuana to just make things for himself? It's dangerous and needs to be regulated. If there was an oil well on my property, should I be allowed to tap it in order to make my own gas? Of course not! It wouldn't be safe!
Everything is regulated. Hemp can be used, but it's regulated, as it should be.
@TheAdmiralPancake Shame ... character limitations make it hard to elaborate but ... if I can do it myself, leave me alone ... all the power to me ... go regulate someone elses morality. I can't help it if you can't refine oil into gas but if I can ... leave me alone.
"Every crime burdens those systems" – and allowing peace officers to focus on keeping the peace rather than regulating moral behavior, they could do a really good job at what their job really is: keeping the peace.
Look it up in just about any dictionary. It will list it as "nonstandard", "incorrect", or even tell you to never use it again, like my Merriam-Webste, which lists it as incorrect and recommends several correct alternatives.
Another baseless, ironic posting from the LiberalVeiwer. If anyone is using the "Straw man" argument, it is the LV. The LV states that "being black doesn't give him the authority..." which of course is not an argument that Bishop Allen made (is the LV a racist?). California law states that possession of up to an ounce is an infraction and is punishable by a $100.00 fine and no jail (like a traffic ticket)
It is the dealers and growers that do most of the hard time.
@ELEMENTSFAN666 But like a traffic ticket, you still only pay a fine for less than an ounce, they do not incarcerate you. The LiberalVeiwer is full of shit.
Pot is not the gateway drug. Alcohol and Tobacco are. How many people do you know try Marijuana before Alcohol or cigarettes? The ONLY difference, Alcohol and Tobacco have lobbyists fighting for their cause. Alcohol has been proven to be more dangerous than pot.
Slowly, people ARE starting to realize what Fox and other media outlets are all about... It's time for the News to be News again. 3 part solution: 1. Every channel must provide a 1 hour News program WITHOUT COMMERCIALS. 2. News programs should not be rated by any Ratings system. 3. All News Channels live by the same rules, but are "Pay TV" for revenues as opposed to advertising.
looks like crack has really taken a toll on bishop ron allens ability to put sentences together...
GetAFuckinClue 1 hour ago
"the brown haired guy who's not steve doocy" lol
Aminoalkylation 2 weeks ago in playlist Fox News Bias
meh i have blazed up for over 14 years now, top quality smoke to, no effects here and i have never snorted, bomb or jacked anything ever...i barely drink and its still illegal in england! The only things it has effected is i am now a logic thinker....
saintgaving 2 weeks ago
@saintgaving From holland here, it's funny the statistics here. legalizing weed stops people from getting into contact with shady dealers who also sell hard drugs and thans to that we have a lot less people who get addicted to hard drugsand extra tax income ofcourse, less spent prosecuting etc...
kjevo 1 week ago
@kjevo hey i appreiciate what your country has done....and visited many times now and will do again next month :)
Its also great to see a country benefiting from relaxing the law, in the financial sense. To which it seems like it being spent wisely. To me it looks like you have got a good thing on the go in holland so respect to that.
Statistics are fact so people who try to ignore fact are ignorant, fact is built by knowledge, which a lot of countries still dont have.
saintgaving 1 week ago
pot isnt addictive. i dont realy support pot being legal, but i do think its somthing that people shud calm down about. its to much money and energy on both sides put into a flower that wen u smoke it it makes u lazy and want chips. idk just my oppinion
puppyluvxo1 3 weeks ago
"The world is a comedy to those who think, and a tragedy to those who feel" - Joe Rogan. the people that know the truth about this current political and legal structure know what it is going to have to happen for legalization. Until then keep smoking that holy herb, praise JAH.
tunney101 3 weeks ago
I normally disagree with you. I have come to dislike you. However, I appreciate your input on this issue. Thank you
KuhEssen 3 weeks ago
I think it's really messed up that the government can tell people what they can and can't do to their own bodies.
funslides669 1 month ago
oh the media...they always play dirty pool!
DispensariesTV 1 month ago
Hay -- In the Province of Ontario Canada About 50 lbs per bale Sold for 3.00 per in the late 90's It takes heavy equipment to harvest it and bale it Marijuana ............ how much do you think 50 lbs of the stuff would cost ? Its high in price because its illegal ..... and keep in mind Hay needs heavy equipment to harvest and Marijuana requires a pair of friggin scissors Either gangs control it or government does Clearly the gov and gang formed a partnership and gov knows better than to fiddle
troutfish70 2 months ago
BULLSHIT
TheDreadhead85 2 months ago
@TheDreadhead85 What is?
FreeThinkingGamers 1 month ago in playlist More videos from LiberalViewer
Who's spreading misinformation, myths and rumors?
BOTH!
Pro-legalization people and anti-legalization people both pick and chose from the facts, and present them as they like!
Just fucking legalize it and let the stoners get stoned already. Why should other people care?
But please, both of you. Stop lying your asses off
WlatPziupp 2 months ago
does any1 notice, the youtibe video within the youtube video even tho its playing, its still on the 0:00 . on topic: fuck the goverment
imthetank3 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
international NARCOTIC DRUGS act 1961 .. that is USA LEGACY of IGNORANCE
no regulations , no taxes , no prisons , no DEA SWAT raids.
VOTE>>>>>>>>>>NO PROHIBITION <<<<<<<<<<<<VOTE
NO GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION ! ? nick off OBAMA. !
FREEDOM & HUMAN RIGHTS. No compromise.
GO the TOMATO MODEL. ... free to GROW & USE as we DECIDE..
USA government is full of IDEOLOGICAL MORALIST FUNDAMENTALIST morons.
power corrupts , money perverts , religions are blinkered.
WeAskThePeople 4 months ago
@WeAskThePeople ya sure so we have junkies used pot and other hard drugs in the parks and streets so young children can find the needles and shit, human litter terribly and that is just garbage imagine what the litter would be if junkies were allowed to use out in the open
TeaJay83 2 months ago
@TeaJay83 ... hi , that is what's happenning now ,,, look into the Swiss model . where they give junk away free to addicts in injecting rooms.. clean , controlled known grades of stuff.. the outcome of such an strategy was to completely stifle illegal sales in that area it was trialled. , the addicts had safe place to deal with their addiction with doctors & medical help on site. with consultation & social workers there to help... what happened, ?
WeAskThePeople 2 months ago
@TeaJay83 drug use & deaths along with crime went plummeted.. because there was no market for drug dealers...soon after this trial ..the Swiss government implemented this strategy across the country in all main cities.. a brilliant policy that works so well, that the Danish government didn't even do a trial , they just copied the same idea. please find out & do a search .
WeAskThePeople 2 months ago
reuters.com/article/2010/10/25/us-swiss-drugs-idUSTRE69O3VI20101025
WeAskThePeople 2 months ago
So why did they get a random hobo off the street and start asking him questions about stuff he isn't an expert on? If they're going to call him a bishop they should ask him questions about the theological reprecussions of it.
crazyinsane500 4 months ago
Thanks for the video. I used it for a school assignment. :)
newcastle1919 4 months ago
its my body and mind, fuck the "MAN", free country my ass
doxis22 4 months ago
Dude you are awesome! Finally someone tailing a look at Fox and gathering the facts that these idiots completely forget about. Thank you!
CrazyCaylen 5 months ago
FUCK FOX NEWS
myaccountbrad 5 months ago
my argument is very simple biology, the human lungs are not ment to proces smoke of any kind, we breath oxygen, nitrogen and a few other traces gasses in air and smoke is bad for the lungs it bad enough we are making the air we breath slowly toxic now we burn things and inhale the smaoking and cause more long term damage, untill we evovole the ablitity to breath smoke it is will be bad for us
TeaJay83 5 months ago
ever heard of a vaporizer?
0507rob 5 months ago
@TeaJay83 If you're so concerned about the health of the general public, why not lobby against fast food?
Also You can vaporize or eat it..
Ostrasize 5 months ago
@TeaJay83
Regardless, they are my lungs to do with as I see fit, not your's, and not my government's.
cptorangutang2 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@TeaJay83
Regardless, they are my lungs to do with as I see fit, not your's, and not my government's.
cptorangutang2 5 months ago
@TeaJay83 We aren't designed to drink milk or eat bread either.
Elle7491 4 months ago
@TeaJay83 except the only large scale clinical study of the health effects of marijuana (conducted by UCLA) showed a NEGATIVE correlation between marijuana use and cancer rates which completely contradicted the original assumptions of the experiment that there would be at least a small positive correlation between cancer rates and marijuana use. Anyways, yours sounds like an argument for why more scientific research should be done. We don't ban things THEN check to see if the science backs it up
durhamdf 4 months ago
@TeaJay83 Following that logic we should not have alcohol or ciggarettes.
amoungthefree 2 months ago
marijuana has gotten stronger... but not because the plant itself is stronger, but these damn bastards lace it. . . they put other drugs in it when they smoke it. i'm not a smoker but i seen people trip the fuck out when they smoke some new shit. they later realized that it had cocaine, LSD or some other drug. i hate smoking but legalize that shit. i'm not gonna smoke cause it's legal. fuck it
arsenalskate123 6 months ago
@arsenalskate123 You can't smoke LSD for one. Also, it does not benefit dealers to lace marijuana, you will only be getting more drugs for less money and they end up losing money. You can have a psychedelic trip complete with sound hallucinations, open eye visual distortion and closed eye visuals (i've seen spirals and shit) because of high THC to low CBD ratio cannabis. THC is the psychedelic substance and CBD is psychoactive but not psychedelic and cuts down on the psychdelic effects of THC.
annoythefish 5 months ago
@annoythefish
that's very true. i guess i was thinking about the situation i was in. my friend-friend's put some shit in it. crack/cocaine. and i didn't know and i took one hit and it fucked me up. lol
arsenalskate123 4 months ago
i don't think it anything should be illegal unless you are harming or potentially harming someone else.
MrSoleyn 6 months ago
just legalize it already damnit. i gotta watch my ass because im a "criminal" just because i want a buzz without having to gulp down disgusting tasting alcohol. potheads are only criminals because they are made criminals. just like if alcohol were made illegal everyone that drinks would become a criminal over night. make it legal and get rid of the black market. create pot farms and you create jobs that will have a HUGE userbase....
itsuyo211 6 months ago 2
plz legalize weed, shrooms and coca leafes(NOT COCAINE!!!) btw im dutch
Fpslover237 6 months ago
@Fpslover237 If I remember right coca leafs aren't illegal in the US.
kokofan50 4 months ago
I would be interested in finding out how many Drug Addicts got started with Cigarettes, Caffeine, and ALCOHOL? I would guess ALL OF THEM.
blueboyblue 6 months ago
"The THC in pot today... is so high..."
*giggles*
BlameZenyatta 6 months ago
Shoulda watched the video entirely before posting. The bishop is a complete uncle tom.
13ig13oss2 6 months ago
I love how they label the reverend a former addict and not a man of the cloth. Good ole fox news for you.
13ig13oss2 6 months ago
I'm moving to California at the end of this month. I'll register to vote as soon as I can and I'll be more than happy to vote for any measure in support of decriminalization.
zEropoint68 7 months ago
That's what "narcotic" truly means.
zekdom 7 months ago
Comment removed
zekdom 7 months ago
According*
zekdom 7 months ago
@LiberalViewer Well, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health 2006-2009, sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administrations, marijuana use increased during the 2006-2009 time period from 14.8 million to 16.7 million. Yet, all other illicit drug use dropped from 5.6 million to 5.1 million, in that 3 year time period. If marijuana were a true gateway drug, then why would we see an increase in pot use, but a decrease in others? Pot = Exit Drug :P
zekdom 7 months ago
@zekdom
I hate to use this cliché, but correlation != causation. Isn't it just as possible the 500,000 people died? I can pretty much guarantee you that no one moves from crack cocaine to marijuana.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake Aren't all of the gateway arguments, both pro and con, related to correlation vs causation? Well, the British Journal of Psychiatry would have to disagree with you. Since, in their study, in a small sample of the study group, they found a decent portion of illicit drug users who never used marijuana. Thus, marijuana is not always necessary for the progression to other illicit drug use.
zekdom 7 months ago
Respond to this video...
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake I now have some business to attend to. So, have a great weekend, and thank you for the debate : )
zekdom 7 months ago
@zekdom
That makes no logical sense. If p is using marijuana and q is using cocaine, I said if p, then q. You disproved the converse of that. You proved if q, then p is false. However, the converse is not the same as the original statement. I made no claim that most cocaine users used marijuana first, only that many marijuana users move on to cocaine. You did not address my point, you addressed something else I didn't say.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake What doesn't make logical sense, in your opinion? According to the Institute of Medicine's report, "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base", some people start off with alcohol and tobacco before using weed. Thus, weed is rarely the first "gateway" drug to be used. The majority of cannabis users don't become cocaine users. In fact, according to Natural Neuroscience Journal 2011 and the Psychoactive Drugs Journal 1999, cannabis helps people exit their cocaine use.
zekdom 7 months ago
@zekdom
Marijuana is A gateway drug. Alcohol and tobacco are others. Also, the word some is important. Does that mean some people start with marijuana and then move to alcohol?
The vast majority of tobacco users don't get cancer. Tobacco is still dangerous. It's a significant minority that do get cancer. A significant minority of marijuana users move on to other drugs. The fact that most people are safe doesn't matter when the consequences are so severe for a third of people.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake 3) It varies. The majority uses alcohol and tobacco before marijuana use, according to the Institute of Medicine. Actually, a decent portion of tobacco users do get cancer. Many people die each year due to tobacco-induced lung cancer, but marijuana's cannabinoids significantly mitiagates the cancer risk to a significant degree. Still, you must extract these cannabinoids and consume them if one does have cancer. They can work better without the hindrance of carcinogens.
zekdom 7 months ago
@zekdom
Once again, if cannabis does help people stop using cocaine. it's the lesser of two evils. They move from a cocaine addict to a marijuana addict. Neither is ideal. If that is true, then it should still be administrated by a trained professional. I'm fairly sure most cocaine addicts are not trained medical professionals and should not be allowed to try to treat themselves.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake Marijuana addiction is usually psychological, according to the Prescrire International Journal 2011. The cannabinoids stick around in our adipose tissue for 2 weeks to a month. They are excreted slowly, so the plasma concentrations don't experience rapid declines. However, opiates and nicotine barely stick around in our fat cells for long. As a result for the fast excretion of opiates and nicotine, rapid declines of plasma levels occur that precipitates severe drug cravings.
zekdom 7 months ago
@zekdom
Who cares if it's psychological or physical? It's addictive, and that's bad. Besides, usually doesn't matter. Alcohol isn't usually addictive. A significant minority do experience physical addiction. It not being addictive USUALLY is far different from it not being addictive.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake If it's psychological, then anybody could quit if they set their mind to it. Alcohol is very addictive, actually. Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that alcohol is more addictive than marijuana and caffeine.
zekdom 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake 2) Is it also possible that they exited their hard drug use using marijuana?
zekdom 7 months ago
@zekdom
Of course! It's also possible they were abducted by aliens. Those numbers mean nothing.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake 2) Since you mentioned crack/cocaine, people do use crack/cocaine before using marijuana. According to the Cannabis Therapeutics Journal 2002, Jamaican women either use crack/cocaine, or marijuana. They also noted that many crack/cocaine using women found marijuana to be an effective therapy for attenuating their crack/cocaine addiction. Now, where is the journal that states that people were abducted by aliens? I'll wait.
zekdom 7 months ago
@zekdom
I never said they didn't use cocaine before using marijuana. I just doubt marijuana can help get off hard drugs. Even if it can, it should be administered by a qualified professional in a rehab facility. If it isn't, the person will end up addicted to marijuana, which is just the lesser of two evils. That means it gets you high enough you don't have to think about withdrawal. You're still getting high, which is still bad.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake 4) "Those numbers mean nothing"
Really? These numbers came from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administrations, the same organization that is against marijuana legalization. Why would they conjure up numbers? Even if those other 500,000 users died, we still failed to see an increase of other illicit drug use to accompany the marked increase of cannabis use.
zekdom 7 months ago
@zekdom
They didn't conjure them up. They're valid numbers. Your interpretation is wrong. There are any number of possible reasons for what you observed. You have not, cannot, and will never be able to do the proper statistical analysis to figure out what was actually going on. You don't have enough information. You used two numbers! My sixth-grade science fair project had more complex statistics than that to make a far less significant conclusion than the one you're jumping to.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake 2) *Activating
I can figure out what didn't go on, the majority of marijuana users did not use other illicit drugs, or else the use of all other illicit drugs would've gone up, not down.
zekdom 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake 3) I have quite a bit of info, actually. The World Health Organization, the Institute of Medicine, SAMSHA's own records, et cetera all have proven that marijuana, by itself, is not a gateway drug.
zekdom 7 months ago
@zekdom
There are plenty of studies to go against those. I won't bother linking. Just go on Wiki, you'll find plenty just as reliable. All I know is that your numbers don't prove that it isn't a gateway drug. I don't know whether or not it's a gateway drug. Based on the numbers you gave, you don't, either.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake If you can find over 300 journals, dated 21st century, then let me know :)
There are more studies proving that the positives outweighs the negatives, and that's a fact. I'll send all of my links to you, since I've already sent them on here via private message.
zekdom 7 months ago
Alright. By my name, it's obvious I smoke marijuana. I'm not going to freak out over this. This is truth, straight from the heart: Jails are absolutely filled with drug related offenders. The DEA/the "war" on drugs eats up hundreds of millions a year that is completely unnecessary. Legalization has been proven (coke in parts of south america) to completely slash drug related crime rates. Also, it is effectively taxable and could be, even with menial taxation, a huge source of federal income.
TheGreatStonedOne 7 months ago
New Breathalyzer-equivalent device for Marijuana. Don't EVER let anyone argue again that marijuana should be illegal because there's no way to test drivers to see if they're high: w w w (dot) onlinepot (d0t) org/medical/breathalizer.htm
LighterOfDewbies 7 months ago
@LighterOfDewbies
You stupid or something? A police officer doesn't even need any sort of test. Even the breathalyzer is unnecessary. If a cop says that you look drunk or high, that's enough to arrest you.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake No shit dumbass, this is just to refute people when they say "marijuana can't be legalized because there's no breathalyzer to test for it. Well they're wrong.
LighterOfDewbies 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake Yes, peace officers have discretion. But A) statistically, cannabis related motor vehicle accidents remain virtually non existant and B) alcohol related motor vehicle accidents remain rampant. Why are you not supporting alcohol prohibition? How much more carnage on our roads must we endure before we smarten up and return alcohol prohibition? The constitution works if followed strictly. Read it. Spelling, check, grammer, check, sarcasm, check, spam, don't know, don't think so?
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
Comment removed
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
Fuckin liberal..get over it...fox is conservative...you have stewart and bill mahr and nbc, get over it
metalrave 7 months ago
Prohibition (of ANY substance) is futile, immature and incapable of achieving its stated objectives. Now if we could only prohibit stupidity ... but that sounds futile as well ....
If we don't learn from history, it'll repeat itself ... guess some have stupidly forgotten alcohol prohibition and its abismal failure.
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
@Independent0bserver
Alcohol prohibition didn't work because alcohol use was already commonplace. Alcohol was never an underground. Also, alcohol prohibition was enacted for entirely different reasons. It was supposed to hurt the Germans and destroy the saloons, both of which it did. I would say it was successful.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake
Alcohol (or any substance used for recreational/spiritual/medical purposes) prohibition didn't/doesn't will never work because you can't legislate morality.
Interesting reading up on the german twist. I would argue those are not the sole nor are they commonly known motives, propagandized at the time, which enacted prohibition. There were many factors to the enactment. I care not the cause in this case, one can point to many, just the effect; and it is bad.
pat#6630507.
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
@Independent0bserver
You can't legislate morality? What are you talking about? We do it all the time! The law is designed to impose a level of morality to keep people safe. You can't force people to have good morals, but you can force them to follow moral guidelines. We legislate recreational, spiritual, and medical activities to keep people safe.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake For you to legislate your idea of morality on me or anyone else is futile, corrupt and unrighteous. Which is what you should have gotten from the statement: "You can't legilate morality". Your idea of keeping me safe for my own good .... there are many negative words to describe those ideas ... i'll keep them to myself. But yes, "we" do, do it all the time. I don't force anyone to smoke, drink, eat, why should anyone force me to not?
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake
besides, ... other negative effects, ... increase in burden on the legal, judicial and penal systems. Irrigardless of cause .. the effects are negative and the cause is futile/insane. imho, end ALL prohibition globally, and let's get on with it. Speaking of cannabis alone, it's fuel, food, clothing, shelter ... all superior btw. AND medicine, ... pat#6630507 if you will.
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
@Independent0bserver
Every crime burdens those systems. While I agree the cost is a downside, I also think those people are there because they're criminals. A drug dealer is a drug dealer. They're involved in crime, and should be punished.
I frequently use hemp ropes. They're perfectly legal. You can use hemp for fuel, food, clothing, shelter, and even medicine in many states. The patent you keep quoting is perfectly legal. Smoking marijuana is not accepted a medicine, but that is.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake Crimes need victims. Where's the victim? Where is the mass cannabis (hemp) production? Where is the cannabis based ethenol? 500Gal/acre? Where is the victim?
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
@Independent0bserver
The thousands of teenagers addicted to the drug, for starters. Also, the people shot, stabbed, and beaten over it.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake Thousands of teenagers are addicted to alcohol. The arguments posed so far scream of demagoguery. To think no one has been shot, stabbed or beaten because of alcohol is simply rubbish. You should certainly be in support of alcohol prohibition else your stance is hypocritical and carries no validity. So what say you? Stop dodging and simply reply with a "YES" or "NO, no explanations, yes or no, do you support alcohol and tobacco prohibition? no spelling or grammer complaints ..
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
@Independent0bserver
You posted eight times in a row twice now. Stop it. Do not respond. Ever.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake LOL, thankfully I don't need your permission to respond. Don't ya just love freedom? I can respond 80 time 80 if I so choose. However, I'm just givng you the opportunity to give your stance some credibility. You seem to be too concerned with my spelling and grammar while avoiding giving that needed credibility. Once again, do you support alcohol and tobacco prohibition? Yes or no and why.
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
@Independent0bserver
I do love freedom. I can choose to ignore your idiotic arguments and pseudo-English henceforth.
Also, your name has been added to my spam filter.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake lol, thanks for the notice, sniff, sniff.
Finally then, ignore if you wish, but it would be of extreme hypocrisy for you to support the prohibition of cannabis and not support the prohibition of alcohol and tobacco as well. There, the argument in a nutshell. It's only your credibility on the line.
To paraphrase Ron Paul: You don't want to run my life. You don't know how to run my life. It's not your job to run my life. You have no authorization to run my life.
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
@Independent0bserver
I will respond as concisely as possible. People don't get shot over tobacco. When most people drink something alcoholic, they drink it for the taste. When literally anyone smokes marijuana, it's to get high.
Tobacco does not get you high. Alcohol gets you drunk, but that's a side effect. Marijuana's sole purpose is to get you high. There is a large criminal underworld around marijuana that does not exist around alcohol or tobacco.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake
1. “..don't get shot over tobacco” - If this is its only redeeming value, you should support tobacco prohibition.
2. “Most people drink for the taste.” - Surely the carnage on the roads would dispute that, not to mention the harm to the family – for credibility, you should support alcohol prohibition as well.
3. What's wrong with “getting high”?
4. The “criminal underworld” exists because of prohibition: It would thankfully welcome alcohol and tobacco as a new revenue stream.
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
@Independent0bserver
Tobacco doesn't have the same criminal world as marijuana. Also, it does not get you high. It's far, far safer than marijuana.
And the carnage on the roads is illegal. Those who drink to get drunk wind up in jail or rehab, almost universally, the same as people who use marijuana.
Getting high makes you make stupid choices. You lose your ability to think for a period of time. What's wrong with getting high is the huge amount of violence that occurs while people are high.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheAdmiralPancake
1. "Tobacco doesn't have the same criminal world..." - It would if prohibited.
3. “..safer than marijuana.” - Science doesn't support you.
4. “.. carnage on the roads is illegal.” - Yet it still happens.
5. “Those who drink to get drunk ..." - So why treat the two differently?
6. “Getting high ... stupid choices.” - And alcohol make you a genius?
7. “You lose your ability to think..” - lol, are you "high"?
8. “What's wrong with getting high ...” - That is a silly premise.
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
@Independent0bserver
The government doesn't want to run your life, but they know how to run it far better than you do, it is their job, and they have authorization.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake
ROTFLMAO, the mind that came up with those words does not comprehend the concept of freedom and deserves no respect from those who do.
1.”The government doesn't want to run your life” - oh yes "they" do, “they” are filled with men and women with your bizarre concept of freedom.
2.”but they know how to run it far better than you do” - wow, I'm speachless.
3.“it is their job” - not according to “the constitution”.
4.“and they have authorization” – ditto.
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
@Independent0bserver
The government doesn't want to run your life. I'm fairly sure everyone wants you to have complete freedom. However, many people can't handle it, so they have to make laws.
They do know how to do it better than you. They banned marijuana. I can guarantee you that if you took the government's advice and stopped smoking, you would be happier, healthier, and more successful.
The Constitution allows for laws to be made. That's what you oppose: a specific law.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
Comment removed
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake
1. “..government doesn't want.." - then why the “laws” attempting to?
2. “..wants you to have complete freedom.” - You don't seem to.
3. “..can't handle it..so they..make laws.” - Statutes and Laws are different.
4. “..do it better than you.” - Another good one.
5. “..advice and stopped smoking,..” - So there is no such thing as a responsible cannabis smoker?
6. “..laws to be made..a specific law” - any “law” expanding the scope of the constitution is unconstitutional.
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
@Independent0bserver
1. The laws are there because they're necessary, not because they're wanter.
2. I want you to be free, but people who put getting high over my safety don't deserve absolute freedom.
3. Don't argue semantics with me. You'd lose. There is no practical difference.
4. I would tell you to stop smoking, which is better than you are doing.
5. There is no such thing, correct. Getting high puts everyone in danger and has major health risks.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake
1."..because the're necessary,.." - why? we're going in circles. I call 'demagoguery' anyway.
2."..I want you to be free" - I am free brother, I know who I am.
3."..Don't agrue semantics.." - Guess you don't know who you are yet.
4."..I would tell you.." - that's the thing, I didn't ask anyone to.
5. .... seriously man, I gotta continue this one on another response ..... this is too funny.
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
..what's the deal anyway? You're using adult words, quite clearly, to publicly convey immature tyrannical ideals. Is it intentional? Are you working on a thesis paper? “Antagonism in 500 Characters or Less”. Freedom is black or white man. All or nothing. Yes, free to do as we wish, whatever we wish, with 2 main caveats: 1. don't harm anyone or their possessions, which includes their productivity and 2. All “for personal profit” activities depleting a public resource, will be regulated.
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
I know, as does Ron Paul: morality cannot be regulated. It is futile, insane and more importantly, immature and immoral to continue to attempt to. Prohibition causes more harm than it cures. Even with his abhorrence for heroin, Ron would still abolish the “law's” prohibiting its use. He knows those “law's” are unconstitutional and don't make you any safer.
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake ok ive read over your comments and have concluded that you infact are a troll, you dont prove anything by backing it up with facts you just simply state something, but as if it were 100% fact, how does getting high put everyone in danger? and please show me thsi major health risks compared to those of tobacco and alcohol. ps i want ACTUAL sited studies no bullshit
ELEMENTSFAN666 7 months ago
@ELEMENTSFAN666
Thank you for posting there. I now know for a fact that observer is a sock puppet and I should disregard anything and everything he says.
The fact is that I don't have to link to information. Everything I am saying is logically obvious to literally anyone with half a brain. Being high takes away your ability to make intelligent decisions. That is dangerous for you and those around you. If you think otherwise, I have no clue what you think "high" means.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake lol your speaking as if the high you get from marijuana is some mind altering drug that causes violence to out break the moment you smoke it. the fact is with no infromation to back up your claims, all they are is claims. have you ever met someone who was high on weed? the last thing they want to do is cause violence, dammage property, etc theyre way to lazy to put the effort in. Maybe you should go back to the early 20th century were you belong.
ELEMENTSFAN666 7 months ago
@ELEMENTSFAN666
Derp. Did you read what I wrote? They wouldn't cause violence, but that doesn't mean they're not dangerous. It is a mind-altering drug! While it MAY not cause violence (it can, actually, but fairly rarely, and don't ask me to cite that since It's not important), it's still dangerous. If someone is high, he's more likely to get behind the wheel because he doesn't have the sense to realize he'll crash. Then he does crash and kill someone.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake it is mind altering but your making it out to be some super drug that alters reality completely ( ie: causes halucinations), again please provide some backing to your claims (ie: if someone is high theyre more likely to get behind the wheel), so? does that mean we should make alcohol illegal again?im certain the number of deaths caused by drunk driving are far higher than those caused by drivers under the influence of marijuana.
ELEMENTSFAN666 7 months ago
@ELEMENTSFAN666 So sad.
I believe the Admiral would have enjoyed being one of the nazi's who were "legally" authorized to kill Jew's - Jew's cause cancer you know?
Like a "peace" officer void of morality, who gets off on driving their knee into the neck of someone.
If what the Admiral calls "logic", is "logic", then I'm in the wrong universe.
The Admiral's claims of "understanding" are laughable.
His words are self evidently foolish.
I'm done, too much hyperbole and demagoguery.
Good luck.
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
Ya know @ELEMENTSFAN666, I would have loved to see the Admiral in the Stanford Prison experiment. BTW, look into what Dr. Rob Melamede describes as a BLiP's and FLiP's. There's vid's on here. Very interesting description I would apply to the Admiral. Certainly a BLiP and not worthy of attention. Good luck with this Admiral turkey if you bite. Sorry, I'm not usually into slinging pejoratives … I can't seem to control myself so I'll be responsible and hand off the baton. See ya .. it's 420.
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
@Independent0bserver
Once again, you're quoting one of your pet doctors or politicians rather than an actually reliable resource. A BLiP is not a real thing.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@ELEMENTSFAN666
I've already explained all of this to your sock puppet. You are going around in circles. Marijuana is dangerous. There is no valid study that disagrees with me. It's dangerous mentally and physically. It damages relationships, your health, and puts other in danger. All of those statements are fact. There is no valid evidence to support another view.
It is bad to smoke. You can claim it's your right or it will stop crime to legalize it, but you have no other valid points.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake Here's the established science:
*According to the Prescrire International Journal 2011, the marked increase of cannabis use in Austrailia was not accompanied by an increased incidence of schizophrenia.
*According to the Harm Reduction Journal 2005, tobacco smoke is more carcinogenic than marijuana smoke. Since, the nicotine enhances the AKT pathways, which leads to survival of a cancer cell. Yet, the cannabinoids in pot suppress the AKT pathways. We shall talk later.
zekdom 7 months ago
@zekdom
I was definitely talking about the schizophrenia, not one of the things marijuana actually causes.
Suppressing a vital protein so your body cannot make enough of it sure does stop cancer! In fact, if we had no AKT, there would be no cancer at all, since everyone would be dead. Reducing AKT levels can help treat certain types of cancers, however I think it's hardly responsible to try to kill the AKT before it's a problem. No doctor would do that. You're less qualified than a doctor.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake Carcinogens cause mutation, and in those mutated cells, the AKT pathways are constantly stimulated. The cannabinoids stimulates the CB receptors on a cancerous cell's surface, even cancer cells. However, acording to the Biological Chemistry Journal 2002, the main difference between these two types of cells, is that our normal cells have a vast kinase checkpoint system that provides safeguards to THC-induced apoptosis, but cancers lack these checkpoints.
zekdom 7 months ago
@zekdom
Not all cancers are affected by cannabinoids. Besides, chemotherapy does the exact same thing: kills cancer. Do you think everyone should take chemo as a preventative measure? Of course not! The same thing that makes it effective against dance also makes it effective at killing you. Marijuana does the same. If it can cure cancer, it should be administered by a qualified professional in order to mitigate side effects, not by a 17-year-old kid who wants to get high.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake True, not all cancers are affected by THC, depending on the amount of CB receptors, of course. However, CBD affects all cancers, because CBD kills cancer cells without having to be dependent on the CB receptors. Well, according to the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics Journal 2009, chemotherapy raises the oxidative stress levels and may also kill cancer cells. Cannabinoids do not induce cell death in normal cells, because of the kinase checkpoints.
zekdom 7 months ago
@zekdom
I would like to read these studies. You seem to be dramatically oversimplifying the results. What I do know is that you should not be trying to treat your own cancer using marijuana! If it does work, doctors are the only people qualified to administer it. I have no problem with saying marijuana has medical benefits. That could be true. That's an argument for doctors being allowed to prescribe it, not allowing it on the streets. Giving doctors more leeway when prescribing isn't the issue
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake 2) Which journals would you like to read, then? I would be ecstatic if marijuana use was legalized for medicinal purposes only, actually.
zekdom 7 months ago
@zekdom
I suggest we find some other way to continue this discussion if you want to. Right now, our responses are getting completely jumbled and I can't tell what either of us is saying. Also, the 500 character limit and weird formatting makes it hard to formulate a response. If you want to continue, please respond via private message.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@zekdom
Also, you're oversimplifying the way cancer works. Believe me, if getting rid of AKT was the one cure for cancer, cancer would be cured. It's far more complex than you seem to understand (I don't understand, either, since I'm just a layman at medicine). In the brief research I just did, I have concluded that the commonly accepted use of AKT in cancer treatment is far more complex than just "KILL IT WITH FIRE!!! OR WEED!!!".
Even if it is that simple, you aren't qualified enough to know
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake It is more complex. THC doesn't always suppress the AKT pathways. However, they can induce cell death in a cancer cell that lacks the various kinases through other mechanisms. Such as, upregulating the p8 protein to trigger an ER stress-related response, induce ceramide by actiavting the ceramide synthesis de novo pathway that will directly activate the MAPK pathway that automatically causes cell death, and by inducing ceramide that arrests the cell cycle of cancer cells.
zekdom 7 months ago
@zekdom
Irrelevant. Even if it cures all cancer, always, it still should only be in a doctor's hands. It has dangerous side effects that only a doctor is qualified to handle and, as I said, I don't have a problem with giving doctors more leeway if there are valid medical applications. What I do know is that the drug dealer on the corner is not a pharmacist. I doubt many people use marijuana for valid medical reasons. It's an excuse to get high. It's a narcotic, not medicine!
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheAdmiralPancake As I have said, sir, I would be ecstatic if marijuana use was legalized for medicinal purposes. We are in agreement with that, and medicinal use is all that I care for.
zekdom 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake 2) Google Patent number 6630507. It states that the cannabinoids are antioxidants and neuroprotectants. According to the European Respiratory Journal 2009, CBD(the anti-psychotic chemical compound in marijuana) was compared with amisulpride in treatment for schizophrenics. They both treated the schizophrenics of an almost exact magnitude, but CBD didn't have as many side effects.
Pot is a medicine, and a narcotic(Derived from the greek word, "narkos", to induce sleep).
zekdom 7 months ago
@zekdom
That's something I really don't understand. Some people want marijuana to be available to anyone, without a prescription. If it's a valid medicine, couldn't you campaign for it to be available with a prescription or campaign for grants for further research? That seems to be the correct way to handle a medicine. If you really think it should be legalized because it has medical uses. ask for it to be treated as a medicine. Asking for free availability makes you sound like a pothead.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake Not only have I said that I'm only for medicinal use, but I never said that I was for free avaliability. I wish to make it to where only patients who need it can use it legally. Recreational use is not my top priority, but medicinal is.
zekdom 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake 3) The cannabinoids don't kill the AKTs, they suppress them temporarily.
zekdom 7 months ago
@zekdom
Kill was a poor choice of words. I meant that suppressing them all willy-nilly without a medical license is irresponsible. Do you really think suppressing a vital protein without a medical degree or any clue what consequences it might have is responsible?
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake Sigh* Read post 2) again, mate. Our normal cells have kinase checkpoints to prevent these apoptotic actions, but cancer cells do not.
zekdom 7 months ago
@zekdom
I had no need to read your post again seeing as I already know at least that much, even though I'm not an expert by any means. I know you're not, either. That's why I leave it to the experts, who do NOT accept smoking weed all the time as a healthy way of preventing cancer. Even if it does prevent cancer, it's too dangerous to use without a doctor's orders.
Go get cancer. Ask your doctor if you can have weed to treat it. If he's any good, he'd say no, since it doesn't work.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake I've presented to you the facts provided by the experts. According to the Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Journal 2007, vaporization of weed would be a safer alternative. By the way, you must extract the cannabinoids, heat them so that the cannabinoids are released, and then consume them via an inhaler or food to get the direct anti-tumor affect on a cancer. We have clinical studies that have proven that the cannabinoids kills cancer cells, but not the healthy cells.
zekdom 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake 2) Dr. Robert Melamede PhD, Dr. Donald Abrams MD, Raphael Mechoulam (whom I believe has retired) and many others know about what the cannabinoids that aren't accompanied by carcinogens can do to cancer.
zekdom 7 months ago
@ELEMENTSFAN666
Please do not respond unless you have some points other than the ones I listed above. I already understand why you think it's your right to smoke and why you think it will combat crime to legalize it and, while I disagree, you have nothing to add to my understanding. Everything else you said flies in the face of established science and logic. Unless you have some other point, do not respond.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
Comment removed
zekdom 7 months ago
@Independent0bserver
6. The Constitution allows itself to be amended and provides the government with the right to make laws. Outlawing laws would be more unconstitutional than making them.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake so how does one procure the raw materials to make this substance for himself?
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
@Independent0bserver
Google that, too! I can go and buy hemp stalks, leaves, pretty much anything, as long as it doesn't get you high. Do you really think any random person should be allowed to buy marijuana to just make things for himself? It's dangerous and needs to be regulated. If there was an oil well on my property, should I be allowed to tap it in order to make my own gas? Of course not! It wouldn't be safe!
Everything is regulated. Hemp can be used, but it's regulated, as it should be.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake Shame ... character limitations make it hard to elaborate but ... if I can do it myself, leave me alone ... all the power to me ... go regulate someone elses morality. I can't help it if you can't refine oil into gas but if I can ... leave me alone.
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake
"Every crime burdens those systems" – and allowing peace officers to focus on keeping the peace rather than regulating moral behavior, they could do a really good job at what their job really is: keeping the peace.
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
@Independent0bserver
Also, irregardless is not a word. If it were a word, you misspelled it.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake Yes there is and that's how i spell it.
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
@Independent0bserver
Look it up in just about any dictionary. It will list it as "nonstandard", "incorrect", or even tell you to never use it again, like my Merriam-Webste, which lists it as incorrect and recommends several correct alternatives.
TheAdmiralPancake 7 months ago
@TheAdmiralPancake
Cannabis wasn't "underground" ... ???
If anything, bring back alcohol prohibition !!!
Independent0bserver 7 months ago
lol "manufactoring"
AdvancedTraceur 7 months ago
lol, growers arent drug lords. theyre poor compared to meth cookers.
AdvancedTraceur 7 months ago
Another baseless, ironic posting from the LiberalVeiwer. If anyone is using the "Straw man" argument, it is the LV. The LV states that "being black doesn't give him the authority..." which of course is not an argument that Bishop Allen made (is the LV a racist?). California law states that possession of up to an ounce is an infraction and is punishable by a $100.00 fine and no jail (like a traffic ticket)
It is the dealers and growers that do most of the hard time.
bluegsp 7 months ago
@bluegsp thats for their first offence.
ELEMENTSFAN666 7 months ago
@ELEMENTSFAN666 But like a traffic ticket, you still only pay a fine for less than an ounce, they do not incarcerate you. The LiberalVeiwer is full of shit.
bluegsp 7 months ago
The black guy is like daffy duck if he was human.
GUNS4MIKE1234 7 months ago
(sarcasm mode on) i lean to believe fox news as i always do cause they are so balanced (sarcasm mode off)
sickone86 7 months ago
its not because of discrimination that more blacks go into prison for drugs. its because more blacks use drugs
unfad1ng 8 months ago
Pot is not the gateway drug. Alcohol and Tobacco are. How many people do you know try Marijuana before Alcohol or cigarettes? The ONLY difference, Alcohol and Tobacco have lobbyists fighting for their cause. Alcohol has been proven to be more dangerous than pot.
Bawbster1 8 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
Comment removed
RETERFgb 8 months ago
@Bawbster1 I did....just sayin
smokinmud 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Slowly, people ARE starting to realize what Fox and other media outlets are all about... It's time for the News to be News again. 3 part solution: 1. Every channel must provide a 1 hour News program WITHOUT COMMERCIALS. 2. News programs should not be rated by any Ratings system. 3. All News Channels live by the same rules, but are "Pay TV" for revenues as opposed to advertising.
Bawbster1 8 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
Did any one else notice the chart was from 2004?
Pk5779 8 months ago
DRUG LEE GOW LIE ZURRZ
brady8196 8 months ago
did the bishop say, "the disportionate of arrest"? correct me if i am wrong, but i believe he was trying to sound smarter than he is.
thomaskemper1967 8 months ago 2