More Discussion on Marijuana (Merged with Skeete thread discussion)

[Buck Nasty]

not sure... how's the pay?

It really depends on the babysitter, what she looks like, and her willingness to pose for pictures.

 

[lvbuckeye]

It really depends on the babysitter, what she looks like, and her willingness to pose for pictures.

hmm... well, she has a couple kids of her own, is not much to look at, and frankly i'm not too sure you would want pics... great herb, though...

 

[lvbuckeye]

Canada.

while it is true that many Americans' vision of manifest destiny involved taking over Canada as well as Mexico, and while Toronto was ransacked by US forces during the War of 1812, Canada was not the reason for the conflict. it was a secondary, or tertiary objective at best.

 

[BuckWrestler141]

If you live by their rules your whole life, then who's life have you really lead?

The rules in our society have lead to a level of success; that allows for people to have the opportunity to act out the freedoms they wish. People benefit from the rules in place more then they're hurt by them. You can't please everyone, but there are other places to live if you weigh out the options and decide that the rules in place are restricting your beliefs too much.

Notice i'm not against people being against certain rules, and playing the role of an activists in effort to change them... I just don't agree with the quote above.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

The rules in our society have lead to a level of success; that allows for people to have the opportunity to act out the freedoms they wish.

Too sweeping, I think. While I get your overall point, we don't have the opportunity to act out our freedoms as we wish. We get to act out some limited "agreed upon" freedom, which to some is more than enough, and to other not nearly enough.

The problem I have, an in particular to the pot question is, the polls I've seen on the issue have always indicated people are in favor of legal weed. I don't have those polls at the ready, but I recall something upwards of 3/4 of the population are in favor of legal weed, and yet.... illegal.

 

[lvbuckeye]

The rules in our society have lead to a level of success; that allows for people to have the opportunity to act out the freedoms they wish. People benefit from the rules in place more then they're hurt by them. You can't please everyone, but there are other places to live if you weigh out the options and decide that the rules in place are restricting your beliefs too much.

Notice i'm not against people being against certain rules, and playing the role of an activists in effort to change them... I just don't agree with the quote above.

the rules in our society have allowed the power brokers to have a country which possesses a mere 5% of the world's population consume 25% of the world's energy supply. energy companies account for 80% of the trade on the stock market. these energy companies, along with the huge defense contractors, and their subsequent lobbies, run our government. DuPont is still the #1 munitions manufacturer, thanks in part to the monopoly that was secured in the 1930s and '40s. Dupont's principle financier is the Mellon Bank in Philadelphia. i wonder who runs the Mellon Bank...?

is it more helpful for our society to be nearly completely dependent on fossil fuels for our energy, and for the companies whose interest is vested in the fossil fuel industry to basically run our government, and whom flat out DO NOT want any competiton, specifically competition that would render the fossil fuel market obsolete; or is it more helpful to use a renewable plant resource which is readily available, but just so happens to get you high when you smoke it?

 

[BayBuck]

That is pure Dragnet - Joe Friday stuff BB. There is not a drug dealer that is smart enough to up-sell drug users. It is pure demand and supply.

The users demand and the dealers supply. It isn't part of any clandestine strategy.

Generally drug abusers and/or addicts move to harder and harder stuff on their own accord because they crave to get higher.

It isn't that planned out or sinister.

Point being, is that laws have no effect on drug abusers in the same way that gun laws have no effect on criminals. People with chemical issues will get drugs laws be damned.

That is pure Reefer Madness propaganda stuff Fols. True, nearly all decisions to "move on up" to a harder-core drug are made solely by the user (though you seem to be dismissing the truly predatory dealers out there), but it's not because of the nature of marijuana itself. Weed smokers are generally content (that could their defining word right there) to stick with just bud, but it's the nature of the illegal drugs market that exposes them to those harder drugs in the first place. People who have never used cocaine don't just seek it out on a whim--it finds them when they are looking for something else, and seeing as they are already inclined to break the law it's really only a baby step over to the next "Schedule I substance".

 

[BuckWrestler141]

LV, if you read my post I clearly said I don't have an issue with advocates that challenge current laws that are in place. What I said, is that I don't buy into the mindset of

"If you live by their rules your whole life, then who's life have you really lead?"

I see nothing from this mindset that could produce a great country.

 

[lvbuckeye]

LV, if you read my post I clearly said I don't have an issue with advocates that challenge current laws that are in place. What I said, is that I don't buy into the mindset of

"If you live by their rules your whole life, then who's life have you really lead?"

I see nothing from this mindset that could produce a great country.

gotcha... i guess given my bent towards being a seeker of knowledge, and a drive to learn for myself, i would tend to agree with that statement. i do not neccesarily consider myself to be a leader- and maybe that humility makes me more qualified to be one, but i damn sure am not a blind follower... when i want to learn about something- which is often, and over a very diverse number of subjects, i seek out the information. i think that if one merely follows the rules without stopping to consider WHY they are the rules, and the motivation behind the making of those rules, then that person has short-changed themself, and, by their own inactions, have sold themself to mental slavery. i question everything. i challenge everything. does that metality make me a rebel? or merely one who wishes to know?

during the Dark Ages, the Roman Catholic Church forbade all except the very few from learning to read or to possess books, even the Bible, on pain of death. did following those rules make those times better? did following those rules make for any great countries in medieval Europe? or did the better times come when Martin Luther broke from those rules and posted his 95 Theses on the door of that church? conversly, during the Dark Ages, the Islamic lands experienced a great enlightenment, and much knowledge and prosperity. the great libraries in Cordoba in the 12th century contained thousands and THOUSANDS of volumes, while the greatest library in Christian Europe at that time consisted of a mere eighteen books. you tell me which society was greater: the one that routinely executed as a heretic anyone who questioned the rank and file, or the one that continually questioned everything, and wrote down all that they learned?

a hunger for more knowledge is what motivates me... "ask and you shall receive," "knock and the door will open," you know, that type of thing.

*waits for Thump's smart-ass comment*

 

[buckeyegrad]

not weed. hemp. essentially, Britain was running an embargo of French ports. Napoleon made a treaty with Russia- then and now the world's largest producer of industrial hemp- in which Russia would not sell hemp to Britain. since virtually EVERY British warship was outfitted with canvas sails made from hemp, and ropes and riggings made from hemp, they were in desperate need of the hemp to help their war efforts. Napoleon's attempt to invade Russia was with the intent to halt this hemp sales. the results were disastrous. the aforementioned treaty which disallowed the sale of Russian hemp to the British was part of the peace treaty which Napoleon signed after that conflict. while the Unbited States' stance in the situation was to remain neutral, U.S. merchant ships were coerced by British naval vessels into buying hemp from the Russians and selling it to the British. when Napoleon protested this activity to the U.S. government- who sided with the French- and the US agreed to halt this action, Britian declared war on the U.S...

I'm not even sure why I am responding to this obvious rewrite of history, I guess I'm a sucker for the truth.

The War of 1812 was not over hemp. To suggest such is absurd.

There were four primary reasons for the war. First, due the need for servants on the Royal Navy's warships to fight against Napoleon's fleets, the British would impress American seamen into service. Second, the British were still occupying forts in the Great Lakes region they had promised to forfeit in the Treaty of Versailles back in 1783. In addition to occupying these forts on US soil, they were aiding the Native Americans, like Tecumseh, in their fight against the US government. Third, the idea of Manifest Destiny was taking shape in America and the excuse to invade Canada because of war provided such an opportunity for expansion. And fourth, hundreds of American merchant ships had been seized by the British due to their Embargo on France.

All of these issues were seized upon by the War Hawks in Congress, lead by Henry Clay. In 1811, they began to demand a declaration of War, which they achieved in June of 1812....that's right, the United States declared war on Great Britain, not the other way around as asserted. In fact, it would have been absurd for Britain to purposefully enter into a war with us at the time that would divert resources from their war against Napoleonic France. Many historians believe French diplomacy in the United States had an influence on American sentiments because Napoleon wanted such a diversion of British resources.

 

[buckeyegrad]

I just finished reading the Treaty of Ghent....strange that there is no mention of hemp in the document...at least it would be strange if this was the cause of the war.

 

[stxbuck]

not weed. hemp. essentially, Britain was running an embargo of French ports. Napoleon made a treaty with Russia- then and now the world's largest producer of industrial hemp- in which Russia would not sell hemp to Britain. since virtually EVERY British warship was outfitted with canvas sails made from hemp, and ropes and riggings made from hemp, they were in desperate need of the hemp to help their war efforts. Napoleon's attempt to invade Russia was with the intent to halt this hemp sales. the results were disastrous. the aforementioned treaty which disallowed the sale of Russian hemp to the British was part of the peace treaty which Napoleon signed after that conflict. while the Unbited States' stance in the situation was to remain neutral, U.S. merchant ships were coerced by British naval vessels into buying hemp from the Russians and selling it to the British. when Napoleon protested this activity to the U.S. government- who sided with the French- and the US agreed to halt this action, Britian declared war on the U.S...

I have never read this in any history of the War of 1812-which is not to say this didn't play a role. I do know it was caused by A-impressment/kidnapping of American sailors by the British and B-British support of the Indians on the western frontier.

 

[lvbuckeye]

I have never read this in any history of the War of 1812-which is not to say this didn't play a role. I do know it was caused by A-impressment/kidnapping of American sailors by the British and B-British support of the Indians on the western frontier.

for what reason were the American sailors needed by the British? why the inpressment/kidnapping? any ideas? i'm not the most eloquent of people, but i think i named a fairly good reason... do you have an alternative? i'm not disagreeing with what you said, i was just wondering if you had ever heard otherwise...

grad: it wasn't the Treaty of Ghent, it was the Treaty of Tilset in 1807, which ended the Franco-Prussian War. the Treaty of Tilset cut off all trade between Britian and Russia. sorry, i was a little hazy on the order of the events. Russia's #1 agricultural export at that time was hemp. hemp was used to make the canvas (the very word "canvas" is a derivative of the word cannabis.) sails, ropes, riggings, etc. that any given warship in that period had. each ship was outfitted with anywhere from 25 to 50 tons of hemp products at any given time.

By this time, Russia’s largest agricultural export is hemp, which supplied sails and rigging for American, Canadian, and European ships. France had more than 800,000 acres of hemp under cultivation. Each country has to make sure they have their own supply because, during wartime, hemp supplies are often cut off to punish the enemy.

link

 

[Folanator]

That is pure Reefer Madness propaganda stuff Fols. True, nearly all decisions to "move on up" to a harder-core drug are made solely by the user (though you seem to be dismissing the truly predatory dealers out there), but it's not because of the nature of marijuana itself. Weed smokers are generally content (that could their defining word right there) to stick with just bud, but it's the nature of the illegal drugs market that exposes them to those harder drugs in the first place. People who have never used cocaine don't just seek it out on a whim--it finds them when they are looking for something else, and seeing as they are already inclined to break the law it's really only a baby step over to the next "Schedule I substance".

Ok fine line here, shades of grey. Not sure we are that far apart. I am sure that there are dealers that move people to harder stuff or even "sample" to create demand. But I doubt it is the norm.

But the bigger question I have is why the fuck did you ding me for my comment? We all have POV but what exactly did I say that gave you the need to give me rubies? Fuck that smilely face, he has a knife in the other hand. Douchbag.

 

[BayBuck]

Ok fine line here, shades of grey. Not sure we are that far apart. I am sure that there are dealers that move people to harder stuff or even "sample" to create demand. But I doubt it is the norm.

But the bigger question I have is why the fuck did you ding me for my comment? We all have POV but what exactly did I say that gave you the need to give me rubies? Fuck that smilely face, he has a knife in the other hand. Douchbag.

That's "douchebag", Joe Friday. [no smiley]