They've layed a foundation for government
control on lies.

---------------------------------------------
The evidence assembled by the Beckley
commission left it in no doubt that
cannabis damages the health of heavy users,
especially those who start as teenagers.
Such users are at increased risk of suffering
from psychosis, and lung and heart disorders.
---------------------------------------------

Bullshit, bullsit, and I need more info.

Psychosis: Bullshit, disproven. The only
thing the studies showed was if you were
borderline, it might push you over early.
It was gonna happen anyway.


Lung: Bullshit. THC has a beneficial effect
on the lungs. The key is to cut down everything
else. Start with good pot, harvested and cured
correctly to minimise leftover fertilizer.
Then use a water pipe, get rid of most
particulate matter and any water soluable
chemicals. Finally, use high potency weed
so you spend less time holding your lungs
in an expanded way, which can cause problems
if done too much.

Heart: If this is the recent COPD study, bullshit
again. They have done studies on people who
smoked many joints a day for years. They fail
on the water pipe and quality issue.

These people want to limit potency, package
it like smokes, control it like alcohol,
and price it to limit consumption.

It will be slightly less damaging than tobacco
when they are done, but nothing I would want.

I agree that it should be treated as alcohol
from many aspects. Keep kids away, don't drive,
if it affects your work don't do it, or if your
company has a zero tolerance policy for alcohol,
it should apply as well. DURING WORKING HOURS!

But if prescribed for pain, then the job should
give the same accomodation they would for someone
on narcotics, no more, no less.

People should be able to grow their own for
personal consumption just like people can make
their own home brew. And then give it to their
friends in the same way.

If they start selling it, it should have the same
penalty as someone selling shots of vodka on the
single dose, or many cases of booze at the higher
level. This is a tax issue, not a moral one.

No.

I said keep kids away. Even if I don't believe their bullshit on reefer madness, I am quite aware of the various effects, pro and con, and it doesn't make sense for adolescents to screw around with their brain chemistry. Let it settle down and make adult decisions as adults.


Use does not equal cause. And it is just as likely that people with mental problems are isolated, in both physical and mental pain, and might find some relief while using. For some people, it is enjoyable at many different levels, and it certainly is good for social lubrication.

That was a political weasel statement.

What harm do you know it causes? Feel free to compared to your booze. Either allow it to be treated the same, based on harm reduction (gets people out of jail, cuts organised crime, will generate billions in tax income, has killed JUST a couple people in a millenia), or tell me how you'd feel if we were in worldwide alcohol prohibition.

You've managed to pick one of the stereotypical laughing points when dealing with your culture.

You probably know what a kid is, at least legally and mostly medically, because I suspect you haven't been sharing a drink with your kid. I could be wrong of course.

So pick an age, and move on. Don't bother telling me they are all individual. Either you are part of the society or not, and if you are, then this particular rule is for society to decide, not the parents. Of course, if you want to push it, and keep them children forever, that's up to you (and the land/society you live in). Have at it.

One more time.

While their level of hysterical bullshit cannot be believed, at least by those of us who have read almost every study that was published in the last 20 years (and investigated the funding sources), there is ALWAYS a danger with screwing around with your head. The question is how much of a danger, how many people is it likely to effect, and what is the personal downside for the individual should it not go their preferred way, and is the risk worth it.

I'm too lazy to document and pull them apart for you, and let's face it, you'd discount it and pull what you want, just like most of us do anyway. It'll be he said/she said. So that why I'm asking about your personal viewpoints, which you don't seem to state (maybe I missed it).

A classic adult decision. At least over here.

For some odd reason you feel it's ok to ignore your drug of choice, even though there is no question of the death and misery it is directly involved in. Accidents, death, disease, violence, overdoses, millions of people who currently acknowledge being addicted to it, many millions more on the edge, not aware or caring.

I'm not saying you as a culture, but you personally in this discussion. Maybe you feel it is a distraction from the point. Or maybe you've had enough alcohol for enough time over your life that you don't understand the point.

I know a 29 year old women, a youngish office worker, junior management / clerical responsibility. She's a blackout dinker. Gets a bit drunk on the 3rd or 4th drink, and then nothing. She wakes up the next morning with no memories. Of course, everyone else is happy to tell her how she was the life of the party.

It doesn't seem to affect her work, she's enjoying herself (for now), but she's probably doomed. 10 more years of this and the Korsakoffs will set in.

She's one of millions in this stage. I've spent enough time dealing with AA, NA, rehabs, and the people involved to be very sure of the widespread effect of booze. And how trivial the effects of pot are compared to it.

So we outlaw booze, bring back prohibition, and deal with all of that because some people can't handle it? A LOT of some people it seems. And their poor reaction to it costs society big, both directly in immediate harm (accidents that hurt other people are pretty damn common, just ask MADD) and indirectly (long term family unit failure, very common).

Well? Is this merely a distraction to the discussion or a cornerstone issue, where certain people in society tell others what they can do, even when the COMPARATIVE harm is TRIVIAL compared to the alternative legal substance that is the norm for use.

I've even been to a school and gave an anti-drug and alcohol speech. I got a standing ovation when I told a room full of Catholic high school students that you don't need drugs to party, they can go out and get laid without them. The nuns were not amused.

My actions match my words.

Pick an age and actually discuss a point, rather than vague maybes, funded by people with an anti-pot viewpoint.

You want to screw around and rehash the juvenile point forever, (as ash would say: THINK OF THE CHEEEEELDRUN!), go ahead. But it's kind of obvious you are avoiding the issues.

The nanny stater bailed.
Maybe he's just busy.