Should cannibis be considered legal.

[kiwi_2005]

As far back as the Egyptians in the Pharoah days or earlier they were all using this drug. Cannibis is classed as a Class C drug which is not considered high poriety compared to Heroin, Cocaine, P, etc. Why is cannibis still looked at in most countries as an illegal drug - Alcohol is far worse. I would rather be put in a room full of cannibis smokers than a room full of drunks - guess which room would have the fights. In the 1940's they use to have cannibis here in NZ as a medicine for Glacoma and Arthritis, my grandmother use to get a doctors perscription go down to the pharmist and get her monthly dose of cannibis for her arthritis. She would then go home and add it to her cooking. Every photo of my grandma the picture shows her with a smile a mile wide, i now know why. She was stoned! :rotfl:
African fishermen take cannibis for nightfishing it makes them see better in the dark:o ? Scientist have even discovered that cannibis reverses the effect of lung cancer for those that are tobbacco smokers. Infact tobbacco is far worse than cannibis health wise, yet thats legal.
Isn't amsterdam the capital of dopecity in the world? Whats the crime rate over there i bet its low. Alcohol in our country is the cause of alot of wasted lifes - car accidents while under the influence of alcohol, violent attacks on strangers because of drunkeness, broken relationships, dependency, it is by far worse than cannibis yet is legal here & in most parts of the world.:|\\

I realise this subject on drugs might be sensitive to some. no offense intended.

[Ducimus]

http://www.vistalites.com/downloads/zcc2.jpg
"Yeah man, they should like, leaglize Mary Ja wanna man. I mean like.. that way, i could go down to the liquior store and pick up a few roach's like a bottle of JD. I mean that way, id probably spend less money, cuz you know.. the dude on the corner, he like charges up the ass cuz he might get bust'ed in ****, you know? So like, if the legalized mary ja wanna i could get my buzz for cheaper. So like... yah thats medical right! I need my medicine esse!"

[VipertheSniper]

http://www.vistalites.com/downloads/zcc2.jpg
"Yeah man, they should like, leaglize Mary Ja wanna man. I mean like.. that way, i could go down to the liquior store and pick up a few roach's like a bottle of JD. I mean that way, id probably spend less money, cuz you know.. the dude on the corner, he like charges up the ass cuz he might get bust'ed in ****, you know? So like, if the legalized mary ja wanna i could get my buzz for cheaper. So like... yah thats medical right! I need my medicine esse!"

Cheech & Chong... really need to get their movies, Cheech Marin is a brilliant comedian.

[Etienne]

I would rather be put in a room full of cannibis smokers than a room full of drunks - guess which room would have the fights..

You don't know the same stoners I know. They get violent.

Scientist have even discovered that cannibis reverses the effect of lung cancer for those that are tobbacco smokers. Infact tobbacco is far worse than cannibis health wise, yet thats legal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4350642.stm

Studies range from claiming that cannabis is far, far worse than tobacco, to saying that it's harmless. So the jury is still out.

Cannabis' usefuleness in fighting glaucoma and other eye disease is currently being questionned, as well.

Isn't amsterdam the capital of dopecity in the world? Whats the crime rate over there i bet its low. .

That's not a very strong argument :) Beside, you'd have to adjust the statistics to take into account the non-criminality of certain acts pertaining to drugs.

Alcohol in our country is the cause of alot of wasted lifes - car accidents while under the influence of alcohol, violent attacks on strangers because of drunkeness, broken relationships, dependency, it is by far worse than cannibis yet is legal here & in most parts of the world.:|\\

The consumption of cannabis can also cause all of these problems. And don't come out saying cannabis isn't addictive. It might not be as bad as coke or heroin, but it's addictive none the less.

[kiwi_2005]

http://www.vistalites.com/downloads/zcc2.jpg
"Yeah man, they should like, leaglize Mary Ja wanna man. I mean like.. that way, i could go down to the liquior store and pick up a few roach's like a bottle of JD. I mean that way, id probably spend less money, cuz you know.. the dude on the corner, he like charges up the ass cuz he might get bust'ed in ****, you know? So like, if the legalized mary ja wanna i could get my buzz for cheaper. So like... yah thats medical right! I need my medicine esse!"

:arrgh!:

"Cheech and Chong" use to love listening to there tapes, the one "Daves not home man" or "Jimmy" are a crack up. There movies were silly but good for a laugh. What happen to these guys you never here from them now.

[kiwi_2005]

I would rather be put in a room full of cannibis smokers than a room full of drunks - guess which room would have the fights..

You don't know the same stoners I know. They get violent.



Cannibis smokers "only" meaning they only smoke cannibis they don't mix there smoking with "other" drugs or alcohol, are not violent. Those that do can be. I bet the ones you know mix cannibis with other substances thats why they're violent.

[Etienne]

I would rather be put in a room full of cannibis smokers than a room full of drunks - guess which room would have the fights..

You don't know the same stoners I know. They get violent.



Cannibis smokers "only" meaning they only smoke cannibis they don't mix there smoking with "other" drugs or alcohol, are not violent. Those that do can be. I bet the ones you know mix cannibis with other substances thats why they're violent.

Nope. Just pot. Well, with some tobacco, and I guess there might have been rolling paper or bong water involved.

It doesn't happen all the time, and usually not during the high. It's afterward that you have to be careful around some stoners. Especially long time users.

[Skybird]

Don't mix it! Use it pure, and without any thinner! I must say I would be dissapointed when not becoming violent after having had a pound of Cannabis, or two! :arrgh!:

[VipertheSniper]

"Cheech and Chong" use to love listening to there tapes, the one "Daves not home man" or "Jimmy" are a crack up. There movies were silly but good for a laugh. What happen to these guys you never here from them now.

Cheech Marin played in From Dusk till Dawn and Nash Bridges, look him up at imdb.

[mog]

Might as well legalise it so it can be regulated and taxed, since it is so prevalent anyway. When I was under 18 and at high school it was easier and cheaper to buy marijuana than alcohol.

[Torpedo Fodder]

I don't see why not; Just regulate and tax it like alcohol and tobbaco. If those are legal, I don't see why cannabis shouldn't be. Hard drugs like cocaine and heroin should stay illegal though.

[SUBMAN1]

Someone posted they have seen a violent Pot smoker. I haven't seen them. They all seem passed out and sleeping. Probably why i never bothered to try it.

-S

[August]

Nope. Just pot. Well, with some tobacco, and I guess there might have been rolling paper or bong water involved.

It doesn't happen all the time, and usually not during the high. It's afterward that you have to be careful around some stoners. Especially long time users.

Some violent people smoke pot. That does not mean that pot is what makes them violent. You said it yourself, after they come down is when you have to be careful.

So one has to ask, does pot make them violent or would they be even more violent without it? Seems to me it's the latter.

[Ishmael]

The only danger of marijuana is...getting busted.

[Iceman]

To outlaw a thing before it is truly understood is ignorance at it's best....When my wifes brother was in his final stages of cancer it was the only thing that would give him an apetite to eat then even liquid morphine did not help in the end....some poor people in the mines of Mexico or south America somewhere make so little money they buy a bag of coca leaves with the days wages so they can go back in the mines to work without eating then earn enough to buy another bag of leaves and food for there familes...chewing on coca leaves...and just last nite I watched the famers in Afghanastan crying while there fields of poppys were plowed under and they all were asked the question if next yr would they replant and ALL said they would...money to feed there familes.

Genesis
[29] And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
[30] And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Everything was made for us to use for our betterment...along with responsibility.

[Skybird]

As long as alocohol, tobacco, refined white sugar are free and people are not educated in understanding what hyperglycamic carbohydrates are and what the difference between good and bad fats is, banning Cannabis is like chasing a house cat, while you leave the tiger under your bed untouched. It is simply idiotic. All these things, each for itself, cause far more costs in the health sector, more desease, more deaths and more shortening of life expectancy, than Cannabis. Banning it while accepting even greater dangers and consequences from other stuff is hypocrisy. The risk remains that Cannabis is an introduction for the user to harder drugs later on. That is the only valid argument, imo. As long as it does not come to something like the British opium war on china, yes, do not dramatize Cannabis.

Maybe they should tax it. If the state generates income from Cannabis, like he does from selling tobacco and alcohol (drugs that kill), he may find it more acceptable to allow it ? :smug:

[The Avon Lady]

Genesis
[29] And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
[30] And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
"For meat"? :nope:

The original word in both verses is "le'ochla", from the word "ochel", meaning "food" or "eating". So that the verse is saying these things are "for food" or "for eating."

The biblical word for "meat" or "flesh" is "bassar". This can first be seen in Genesis 2:23(turn the page ;) ), when Adam commented on the creation of Eve:

And man said, "This time, it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh ("bassar mi'bsarri"). This one shall be called ishah (woman) because this one was taken from ish (man)."

This usage is consistant throughout the Torah.

Class dismissed! :know:

[joea]

Genesis
[29] And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
[30] And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
"For meat"? :nope:

The original word in both verses is "le'ochla", from the word "ochel", meaning "food" or "eating". So that the verse is saying these things are "for food" or "for eating."

The biblical word for "meat" or "flesh" is "bassar". This can first be seen in Genesis 2:23(turn the page ;) ), when Adam commented on the creation of Eve:

And man said, "This time, it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh ("bassar mi'bsarri"). This one shall be called ishah (woman) because this one was taken from ish (man)."

This usage is consistant throughout the Torah.

Class dismissed! :know:

I'm betting iceman used the KGV of the bible. I know some Greek scholars (Greek Orthodox) question its translation of the Greek of the New Testament. OTOH, meat in the english of the time was used as synonym for "food."

On topic, really see no reason not to legalise cannibis, I want my space cake.:arrgh!: Joke, don't use the stuff, but as I use alcohol and caffeine both of which have negative effects see no reason not to allow it.

[The Avon Lady]

I'm betting iceman used the KGV of the bible.
I took that as a given.

[kiwi_2005]

Cannibis & watercress boiled with meat and spices makes a great meal :D :cool:

[JJ]

Yes, why not.

I think the argument Skybird mentioned, that cannabis would be introduction to drugs later on, is valid only when one has to aqcuire it by illegal means. If you use homegrown or buy it from your local supermarket there's really no reason for you to suddenly get in touch with criminals/orginized crime and the channels they use to get drugs. What comes to the addictions.. it isn't any more addictive than alcohol. I have consumed rather large amounts of alcohol yet I've failed to have any urges whatsoever to proceed to "harder" poisons.. Thinners, aftershaves, windshield cleaners or whatever substances them bums do when they need a fix. Getting yourself addicted to some substance, be it pot, alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea or oranges is a psychological thing. Other people have lower treshold to get hooked than others. And of course the way you use it plays a role too. If you smoke weed like you take beer.. maybe get completely wasted once, twice a month and grab a one or two during the week just to enjoy it and couple more on other weekends you don't get any more addicted than you do with the beers.

And on a related note.. didn't the problem with overcrowded prisons in US have much to do with the fact that most of the inmates are actually people caught possessing/smoking weed?

[August]

The risk remains that Cannabis is an introduction for the user to harder drugs later on. That is the only valid argument, imo.

I pretty much agree with your post except for this part. One could make the same argument about tobacco and alcohol since a great majority of drug users also use one or both of them. If pot has a part in this i'd say it is more its illegality that puts people into a culture outside of the law where these things can be found.

[Skybird]

It is a psychological problem of the young. They are adventurous, they want to try out things. If the already have access to Cannabis, then they may be tempted to think that it is no big step forward to try any kind of hard drugs next. In fact this fear is what the police is supporting by it's experience, and statistics. If you drink a beer, you do not autimatically think: "cocain next, please!". It is a big step from beer to cocain. But if you use Cannabis, you may think that that step is far less a big step. The effects of tobacco, and alcohol do not compare to that of cocain, heroin, or LSD. Nowever, that selling these is wanted business by the state is pervers, I agree. But in the mane, the argument of cannabis as an entrance-drug is about psychology, not about biochemistry of the consumer.

[The Avon Lady]

I've got an idea that will make everyone happy.

Decafienated cannibis! :yep:

[August]

It is a psychological problem of the young. They are adventurous, they want to try out things. If the already have access to Cannabis, then they may be tempted to think that it is no big step forward to try any kind of hard drugs next. In fact this fear is what the police is supporting by it's experience, and statistics. If you drink a beer, you do not autimatically think: "cocain next, please!". It is a big step from beer to cocain. But if you use Cannabis, you may think that that step is far less a big step. The effects of tobacco, and alcohol do not compare to that of cocain, heroin, or LSD. Nowever, that selling these is wanted business by the state is pervers, I agree. But in the mane, the argument of cannabis as an entrance-drug is about psychology, not about biochemistry of the consumer.

That ties in with my illegality argument. Pot and heroin are both illegal. Both drugs the authorities tell people, will mess them up. Somebody tries a joint and doesn't die therefore they tend not to believe the warnings about the other.

[Skybird]

Yes. A good thing maybe would be an age barrier. In Germany, beer and cigarettes are free at age 16, which is a bad joke, imo. Advertising psychologists know all to well that if they have not been successful in turning a poerson into an addictive by the age of around 20 years, after that the probablity that they ever can turn him into an addicitove falls by over 80%. The teenagers of age 12-20 are the most vulnerable ones, they are easy to influence and therefore they are under heavy fire from the advertisement industry. I personally would like to see it like in many US states, no alcohol and cigarettes under the age of 21, driving licence with 17 or 18, but no driving alone without parents before the age of 21 or 22. But that is impossible in Germany.

[kiwi_2005]

It is a psychological problem of the young. They are adventurous, they want to try out things. If the already have access to Cannabis, then they may be tempted to think that it is no big step forward to try any kind of hard drugs next. In fact this fear is what the police is supporting by it's experience, and statistics. If you drink a beer, you do not autimatically think: "cocain next, please!". It is a big step from beer to cocain. But if you use Cannabis, you may think that that step is far less a big step. The effects of tobacco, and alcohol do not compare to that of cocain, heroin, or LSD. Nowever, that selling these is wanted business by the state is pervers, I agree. But in the mane, the argument of cannabis as an entrance-drug is about psychology, not about biochemistry of the consumer.

Your quite right.
I dont smoke cannibis i eat it, :) I add it to my cooking, when i cook a stew i'll add abit to the pot, or baking a cake, banana cake with a bit of cannibis goes well. Never smoked it. Yet im not some big hippy drug induce junkie. I have never tried heroin cocaine or LSD, i dont walk around stoned out of my head im just me, can still have a conversation can still drive a car, still work, go out, meet ppl etc., nothings abnormal. My age group (42 years old here) we are all users, we all got families, we are not ex crims, or deal in the drug. I have stuck to cannibis all my life since my early 20's and never had the urge to try something harder. plus i dont use it everyday i can go without it for months and not crave for it, its more like a very old red wine something to have on a special occasion.
Yet today i hear about young ppl abusing drugs like its something they can try and forget. What they dont know is they are dealing with a double edge sword here. To many young ppl today try cannibis but then move onto the harder stuff. This is not the way to treat cannibis, (or more importantly themselves!) its a herb that needs to be respected not abused. Next thing you know these ppl have given up dope and moved onto this crap drug going around called P, i think Crack is the word for it in the USA. People from all professions smoke/eat which ever way suits them use this drug, (cannibis) lawyers,judges, cops, teachers, parents, social workers, some of the ppl i know that use it have professions where if found out would hit the front page of the local paper! I also see its now considered old fashion to use cannibis, (which in a way is a good thing) my sons dont use cannibis, they like there beer with there mates but are not users, its like only old ppl take that ;) lol. So much fear has been about this that it has a bad label to it, everyone sits in the safety of there homes hoping they are not going to get busted. Its should be legalise to allow a user to have not more than 3 plants per household - if they have more than 3 then they are considered dealers and face the law. NZ is not too far away from making this a reality.... or maybe thats just wishful thinking :p

[The Avon Lady]

Kiwi, in all seriousness, you once mentioned that you have lapses of depression, is that correct?

Is there any known effect, whether good or bad, between depression and the use of cannabis?

[kiwi_2005]

Kiwi, in all seriousness, you once mentioned that you have lapses of depression, is that correct?

Is there any known effect, whether good or bad, between depression and the use of cannabis?

Yes i suffered depression for a couple of months im okay now, depression wasn't cause by cannibis i know this, if any drug would cause depression alcohol would be the closest. My depression was cause from a death of a family member - my mother. Although the doctors reckon it was triggered by a car accident i had 3 yrs or so back, an accident i did not cause i might add, was slammed into the rear by a driver while parked! Anyways i think they got that wrong my mum had died of cancer approx a yr before and it took me along time to get over it - we were very close not only that but i watched her died of stomach cancer. Which made it worse. I think it just took me along time to get over her death. Now ive accepted that shes gone and dont suffer from depression because of it.

[The Avon Lady]

The best of happiness in life to you, Kiwi.

[Drebbel]

Should cannibis be considered legal.

It Already IS !!! :D

And our country is still alive and most of our nabour countries still talking to us. It also gave us a great new high quality export product :D

[kiwi_2005]

Thankyou Avon - kind words :yep: . And Drebbel you dutch are so lucky:D

[Bertgang]

My ok for medical use of cannabis, if really useful for some special situation, I just don't know if what it's often said about that is true or noth.

To add more confusion, and maybe a suggestion for some of us :D , I once heard another interesting thing.

As it seems, cannabis could be useful for sex too: men too fast in making love could have their speed reduced by a good smoke.

Out of that, I see an important difference between alcohol and cannabis: the first one is sometimes used as a drug, but most of time it's just an increased pleasure when eating food (at least, for me); the second is just fit to have a sort of silly happiness, or to feel so fun something really stupid.
Nothing against idiot smiles, unless shown by drivers.

[Skybird]

I dont smoke cannibis i eat it, :) I add it to my cooking, when i cook a stew i'll add abit to the pot, or baking a cake, banana cake with a bit of cannibis goes well. I see. Your usual weired and mysterious topics are excused, then. :lol:

[Sailor Steve]

"Cheech and Chong" use to love listening to there tapes, the one "Daves not home man" or "Jimmy" are a crack up. There movies were silly but good for a laugh. What happen to these guys you never here from them now.

Cheech Marin played in From Dusk till Dawn and Nash Bridges, look him up at imdb.
He was also in Desperado and Once Upon A Time In Mexico and a bunch of other movies and TV shows:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001507/

Tommy Chong? Not quite as much, but still working steadily:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001045/




Oh, and my vote on MJ. As a white, conservative (well, sort of) Christian (well, sort of), I say a resounding YES! I have yet to see any harm greater than that from alcohol, and America is supposed to be about freedom.

[Iku-turso]

Should cannibis be considered legal.

It Already IS !!! :D

And our country is still alive and most of our nabour countries still talking to us. It also gave us a great new high quality export product :D

:o Huh,i first read that thread was "Should cannibals be considered legal...and i dont even smoke tobacco.

[Ducimus]

All im going to say, is i have a rabid disgust and hatred of narcotics. Half of my heriditary family has a history of drug and alcohol abuse and their all either dead, at the bottom of lifes dredges, or trying to recover from it.

Ive seen people destroy their lives for ****ing drugs, just so they can get their next fix. My girlfriend used to have a serious problem with it as well. Ive seen how it effects people first hand. She's still trying to recover finicially, (5 YEARS LATER, STILL TRYING TO RECOVER FINANCIALLY), from all the damn pay day loans she took out so she could buy more drugs. I gave her a second chance and she cleaned up her act. Only now she has an alcohol problem. Oh yeah, lets replace one addition with another. If i didnt feel anything for her id have left years ago, but the alcohol is becoming a problem now. I wont marry her so long as she has addiction issues. If she toch's any drugs again ill drop her like a brick and wont look back and she knows it.

Naturally, i dont think legalizing pot is a good idea. You want to start to destroy your own life, fine, but leave others out of it with self serving poltiical agendas. leagalize marjuana indeed, F that!

[August]

All im going to say, is i have a rabid disgust and hatred of narcotics. Half of my heriditary family has a history of drug and alcohol abuse and their all either dead, at the bottom of lifes dredges, or trying to recover from it.

Ive seen people destroy their lives for ****ing drugs, just so they can get their next fix. My girlfriend used to have a serious problem with it as well. Ive seen how it effects people first hand. She's still trying to recover finicially, (5 YEARS LATER, STILL TRYING TO RECOVER FINANCIALLY), from all the damn pay day loans she took out so she could buy more drugs. I gave her a second chance and she cleaned up her act. Only now she has an alcohol problem. Oh yeah, lets replace one addition with another. If i didnt feel anything for her id have left years ago, but the alcohol is becoming a problem now. I wont marry her so long as she has addiction issues. If she toch's any drugs again ill drop her like a brick and wont look back and she knows it.

Naturally, i dont think legalizing pot is a good idea. You want to start to destroy your own life, fine, but leave others out of it with self serving poltiical agendas. leagalize marjuana indeed, F that!

Anyone that can't handle their drug use shouldn't use them regardless of their legality, but, IMO lumping every drug in to one governmental "don't do or else" basket like you are doing causes way more drug abuse than it prevents.

You cannot legislate morality.

[Ducimus]

Theres no moral legisation involved. They are qutie simply bad for your health, they deteriorte human beings- you become a hazard to everyoen around you, and it's usage should not be condoned by making them legal.

If you want to make Pot legal, may as well make driving under the influence legal as well. Pot leads to other ****, its the gateway drug, you have to draw a line somewhere.

[August]

Theres no moral legisation involved. They are qutie simply bad for your health, they deteriorte human beings- you become a hazard to everyoen around you, and it's usage should not be condoned by making them legal.

If you want to make Pot legal, may as well make driving under the influence legal as well. Pot leads to other ****, its the gateway drug, you have to draw a line somewhere.

Bull. We manage to have legal alcohol without legalizing driving under the influence. Two totally separate issues.

As for pot being a "gateway" drug, more bull. I know potheads that have never even tried another drug and i know coke users who have never tried pot. According to you neither should exist but they do.

If you're going to ban something you had better have the facts on your side and you (actually "they" the government) don't.

[Ducimus]

Whats bull**** is the whole "make pot legal" crusade. The entire thing is a self serving bull**** story. Drugie's will do anything to get their next hit. They don't care where, or how. Making pot legal, is a potheads dream. Medical reasons? Horse****! If you went to the right people im sure you can produce stuides that say theres a valid medical reasons for cocain, LSD, Heroin, or anything else you might want to snort, swallow, inject or inhale.

Making Pot, or ANY other illiceit narcotic legal is saying, "its ok to do drugs!". And even IF there is a medical reason for pot, that doesnt justify making it legal. Theres plenty of anethisia and painkillers that is used in the medical field that is just as mood altering and habit forming, and they arent legal to own on the street.

If your looking for a debate, you wont find it with me. The answer will always be, NO, i dont care what self serving bull**** story you hatch.

[August]

Whats bull**** is the whole "make pot legal" crusade. The entire thing is a self serving bull**** story. Drugie's will do anything to get their next hit. They don't care where, or how. Making pot legal, is a potheads dream. Medical reasons? Horse****! If you went to the right people im sure you can produce stuides that say theres a valid medical reasons for cocain, LSD, Heroin, or anything else you might want to snort, swallow, inject or inhale.

Making Pot, or ANY other illiceit narcotic legal is saying, "its ok to do drugs!". And even IF there is a medical reason for pot, that doesnt justify making it legal. Theres plenty of anethisia and painkillers that is used in the medical field that is just as mood altering and habit forming, and they arent legal to own on the street.

If your looking for a debate, you wont find it with me. The answer will always be, NO, i dont care what self serving bull**** story you hatch.

Whatever. You're doctor, lawyer, government regulator, judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one. Hopefully someday people like you will be consigned to the dustbins of history like the inquisitors and witch hunters of old.

In spite of what you want to believe, Marijuana is not a narcotic. It is a naturally growing plant that has been used by man for thousands of years for everything from a mild anti-depressant to an appetite enhancer. Putting it into the same classification with a real man made narcotic like crack cocaine only tells people that your artifical definitions are not to be believed. Hence my original point.

[LoBlo]

The truth is that cannibis is probably just another psychoactive substance used for by people for a mood effect just as some use alcohol or even caffeine. The problem is that whenever a psychoactive substance is released to a society, there will be some that will use is responsibly (just like alcohol) and some that will abuse it, even becoming emotionally dependent on it (instead of relying on inherent coping mechanisms).

Putting it out there to use will garantee that a portion of the populaiton will have problems controlling their use. They will go to work stoned, operate heavy machinery while under the influence (not a good idea), decide that they want to go on a drive while high as a kite, or go for a stroll in a public area acting inappropriately because they are stoned. Just like alcohol actually...

So a society will have to weigh the monetary cost savings of not having to worry about the resources needed to ban it, versus the monetary and societal cost of having to deal with those persons that will abuse it. My personal opinion is keep it illegal.

[Iceman]

Genesis
[29] And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
[30] And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
"For meat"? :nope:

The original word in both verses is "le'ochla", from the word "ochel", meaning "food" or "eating". So that the verse is saying these things are "for food" or "for eating."

The biblical word for "meat" or "flesh" is "bassar". This can first be seen in Genesis 2:23(turn the page ;) ), when Adam commented on the creation of Eve:

And man said, "This time, it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh ("bassar mi'bsarri"). This one shall be called ishah (woman) because this one was taken from ish (man)."

This usage is consistant throughout the Torah.

Class dismissed! :know:

Uh class back in...this is why Jews are where Jews are today...you strain at the knat and swallow the camel....you attempt to hold to every letter of the law and in turn ensalve everyone as you are ensalved to it....Faith is what makes everything on this earth pure and fit for good use...if you want to eat pot...smoke pot, snort pot, or whatever. Please do not try to bind me by the same chains you are bound by Avon Lady.

This earth and every last thing on it was a gift for our use please do not try to attach conditions because there was only ONE...do not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil....smoke me if you got em.

But please continue in your own intrepretations of the law of life as you see fit.

Class re-dismissed...

[LoBlo]

In spite of what you want to believe, Marijuana is not a narcotic. It is a naturally growing plant that has been used by man for thousands of years for everything from a mild anti-depressant to an appetite enhancer. Putting it into the same classification with a real man made narcotic like crack cocaine only tells people that your artifical definitions are not to be believed. Hence my original point.

You guys are misusing the term "narcotic". In medical terms a narcotic is a class of analgesics that reduces pain and is often abused for its sedative effects. Another name for them is opioids, such as morphine, dilaudid, codeine, or heroin. Crack, speed, and marijuana are not "narcotics".

Its also important to realize that many pyschoactive substances are found in nature. Your own body produces opium-like hormones secreted by your nervous system to induce nervous system effects. Exogenous opium is dervided from naturally occuring plants to produce drugs like heroin.

Crack itself is a derivative of cocaine, which itself is procured from a naturally occuring plant.

So the argument that marijuana is naturally occuring thus such be legal is pretty weak and baseless.

[August]

Crack itself is a derivative of cocaine, which itself is procured from a naturally occuring plant.
The key word here being a "derivative". A substance that is extracted, chemically separated, processed and concentrated far beyond the potential effects of the humble coca leaf it started out as. THC or "angel dust" would be the same thing when compared to pot.

The cost/benefit of marijuana to society that you mention is completely subjective depending on whose numbers you want to use. I've read estimates as high as a full third of adult Americans are what would be considered at least occasional users of pot. Not the bottom third mind but evenly distributed throughout all levels of society and totally indistinguishable from their non (or other) using fellow citizens. You'll rarely hear about them or see them included in offical government cost analysis because they aren't usually dumb or unlucky enough to let their use be exposed and their lives ruined because of it.

Besides the certainly plausible arguments that the government makes too much money and power off pot remaining illegal, I say where is the concept of personal responsibility anymore? If a person operates a vehicle under the influence of any drug, legal or otherwise, that impairs their judgement or ability as a driver then that is wrong and they should be punished if caught. End of story, especially if they endanger or hurt someone.

However, taking the extra step and saying "no you can't do this for any reason, even in a responsible manner in the privacy of your own home" just because some idiot couldn't handle his basic civic responsibility not to act like an irresponsible a$$ that endangers his fellow citizens, is not what i would consider a free society available to anyone that can use them win a responsible manner.

Worst of all such mass punishment is applied with no rhyme or reason, certainly not as long as tobacco and especially alcohol remain legal.

[kiwi_2005]

Whats bull**** is the whole "make pot legal" crusade. The entire thing is a self serving bull**** story. Drugie's will do anything to get their next hit. They don't care where, or how. Making pot legal, is a potheads dream. Medical reasons? Horse****! If you went to the right people im sure you can produce stuides that say theres a valid medical reasons for cocain, LSD, Heroin, or anything else you might want to snort, swallow, inject or inhale.

Making Pot, or ANY other illiceit narcotic legal is saying, "its ok to do drugs!". And even IF there is a medical reason for pot, that doesnt justify making it legal. Theres plenty of anethisia and painkillers that is used in the medical field that is just as mood altering and habit forming, and they arent legal to own on the street.

If your looking for a debate, you wont find it with me. The answer will always be, NO, i dont care what self serving bull**** story you hatch.

:rotfl: its not drug, its a herb, like a tobbacco plant. I dont see it as a drug. One of the best reasons to legalise cannibis is this: To put the gangs/dealers out of bussiness, they make millions per yr with cannibis, they will sell to a 8 yr old as long as they got the cash to payup. They kill, have drug wars all over a herb that has been around and respected since the begining of time. Civilizations before modern man came around freely distrubuted this herb, they didn't make gold or silver from it, it was just like another herb spice to them. But today greedy men see that they can make millions out of this. If its legalised those who wish to use it would be allowed to grow there own, and dealers would be out of pocket or move onto some other. In harvest season (Jan - April) over here blardy dealers make between, 500,000 to 1 million in 4 months. Then they sit around on there fat ass and wait till next harvest and repeat. What im saying is if someone wants to smoke/eat it then they should be allowed to grow it which they do anyways but without the worry of being busted. Yet the only ones with big grins on there faces are the dope dealers. Thanks to the laws.

I mean if its that bad then how come Amsterdam and certain states of other countries have legalise it. Have they all killed themsleves off or gone and jumped of the nearest cliff through madness? Man, the fear of a little herb called Cannibis. Tobbacco is more dangerous to your health.

[The Avon Lady]

Uh class back in...this is why Jews are where Jews are today...
Which is where? No complaints here.
you strain at the knat and swallow the camel....
So?

Though mind you, camel isn't kosher. Then again, neither are gnats. :stare:
you attempt to hold to every letter of the law and in turn ensalve everyone as you are ensalved to it....
This was just a language lesson.

As for the Torah's laws and our "servitude" to them, it's a great thing. Both Moses, David and many more were called by G-d "Avdi" - "my servant." It's an honor.

But hey! Who's forcing you?
Faith is what makes everything on this earth pure and fit for good use...if you want to eat pot...smoke pot, snort pot, or whatever. Please do not try to bind me by the same chains you are bound by Avon Lady.
Seems like my language lesson has gone to pot. :dead:
This earth and every last thing on it was a gift for our use please do not try to attach conditions because there was only ONE...do not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil....smoke me if you got em.
I'll have whatever he's drinking/smoking! :p
But please continue in your own intrepretations of the law of life as you see fit.
Absolute - Ly :rock:

[Bertgang]

:rotfl: its not drug, its a herb, like a tobbacco plant. I dont see it as a drug. One of the best reasons to legalise cannibis is this: To put the gangs/dealers out of bussiness, they make millions per yr with cannibis...

That's exactly the official point of wiew of some italian politicians (mostly, left wing oriented) when supporting the legalistion of cannabis (still outlaw here).

I see that as an extreme and false semplification of the problem as, if some crime becomes less profitable, criminals simply move to a different illegal businness.
We also could legalise the murder, hoping that falling prices will have a dissuasive effect for professional killers, but I doubt that it could work fine...

As said by someone other, the real problem with any psychoactive substance isn't the price, but the impact on the society.
A moderate, responsible, use hasn't relevant effects, but too much people is ready to make everything in the wrong way when drunken, smoked, sniffed, filled with any sort of substance fit to change his mood or brain.

The sad side in this matter is that the usual "substance oriented" legislation can't have a decisive effect on the long run.
New drugs often appear, and aren't illegal until properly classyfied; moreover, even diffused things like glue or fuel are sometimes used as drugs (maybe the worst ones), and it's impossible to make them illegal.

On my point of wiew, the society needs a totally "effect oriented" approach, but won't be easy to set it properly.

[Deamon]

The risk remains that Cannabis is an introduction for the user to harder drugs later on. That is the only valid argument, imo. As long as it does not come to something like the British opium war on china, yes, do not dramatize Cannabis.
I'm woundering how valid even this is. Are there any hard figures on this ?

EDIT: But as others have maybe already mentioned the danger to get on more hard drugs comes more from the criminal environment from where you have to by it. Interesting is that hamp is prohibited almost all around the world. There are strong indications that this happened becose of businessual reasons and not becose it's a dangerous drug. Did you guys know that a bio diesel can be won from hamp for engines ad stuff ?

It's incredebly what all can be made from this plant. This plant is a blessing for the human kind. And in a context of a naval warfare forum, all the seafaring wouldn't be possible without it at least till the steel hawsers were introduced in the modern time.

Maybe they should tax it. If the state generates income from Cannabis, like he does from selling tobacco and alcohol (drugs that kill), he may find it more acceptable to allow it ? :smug:
:lol: :yep:
A good moment to exploit the double morale of the government.

Deamon

[Deamon]

Is there any known effect, whether good or bad, between depression and the use of cannabis?
Yes it's being used as an antidepressiva since ages :lol:

[Gorduz]

If we had the choice to legalize ]either alcohol or cannabis today, the choice would be cannabis. It would probably cause less problems than alcohol, but the problem is that the alcohol allready is here. Legalizing cannabis would just be adding one more bad thing to our society. It's not like people would stop using alcohol, alcohol is such a big part of our culture (especially here in Norway) that I don't think cannabis would have an impact on the consument.

[Deamon]

Legalizing cannabis would just be adding one more bad thing to our society.

Legalizing = adding ?

I think it's already added since thousends of years. It was ever a part of the human sociaty. Legalizing would be rather just an admition of it, IMHO.

Deamon

[Fish]

Although canabis is free to use here, the main problem for the future is alcohol. Many youngsters are all weekends drunk as Cooter Brown.
When looking at France ( most strict policy ) and The Netherlands ( most liberal) you see more users in France, both canabis and heroine. Also kids in Australia, England and Danmark in that order use more canabis.

For the record, I don't use, and I don't know people in my surrounding using canabis. It's not so every one here is high all the time.

[scandium]

I don't smoke pot but, but I am in favour of legalizing it. Here's why:

1. It is not physically addictive. This has something to do with the way the body metabolizes THC, but no matter how often you smoke pot the body never becomes dependent on it like it can with alcohol, tobacco, or heroin (all of which are extremely hard to kick, not the least of reasons being because of the physiological addiction). The "addictive aspect" that is attributed to pot lies solely in the fact that like anything that else that is enjoyed, the mind naturally wishes to experience the sensation again. The biochemicals, mainly endorphins, produced from sex and even exercise work in the same fashion and these activities are about as addictive for the same reasons; I would argue smoking pot is safer than sex has become, along with some "extreme sports" that are very hazardous but regularly engaged in for the "rush" they produce.

2. It is crime only because it has been criminalized; the act of smoking pot victimizes nobody. Decriminalize it and you will therefore see an immediate reduction in crime.

3. Decriminalizing it would place the distribution into the hands of government rather than the black market; this puts money into the regular economy rather than the underground economy where it can be taxed by the government and thus produce revenue that can be used to fund things beneficial to society (police, fire departments, education, etc) instead of into the hands of drug dealers.

4. It would eliminate the illicit traffic in pot and associated crime in the same way the elimination of prohibition killed the illicit traffic in alcohol and crimes associated with its distribution.

5. From points (3) and (4) we see a net gain to society in that decriminalizing pot, which people are smoking no matter what the law on it says, can generate tax dollars rather than wasting them to combat a non-problem to no effect, with ontold amounts being spent on the policing, courts, and prisons that could be freed up to be spent elsewhere.

6. Lastly, is policing the crminal offence of pot and underground distribution necessitated by its status as an "illicit" drug a rational use of police forces that are often overworked just dealing with real crimes? You know, rape, murder, child porn, assualts, burglaries, robberies, etc. And given the nature of our prisons, is it beneficial to incarcerate people for pot possession/trafficing whereby they go in for a victimless crime and come out stigmatized and experts on commiting real crimes through the school of higher criminal education that is our criminal system?

[Skybird]

Point 1, I worked in a psychiatric clinic once. I know that both doctors and psychotherapists would strongly disagree with the opinion that the psychological habit of wanting to reapeat joyful experiences with smoking pot are as harmless as you make it appear, not to mention to say it is "safer than sex today". You can fall victim to psychological addictiveness as well. In fact this often is the greater problkem in therapy. A pure chimcal-dependant addictiveness you can heal with a decontamination procedures, in a longer process or - some cionsider it to be even better - a 24-48 crash-decontamination under anaestehtization or artificial coma. After the the physical dependence is gone - the tendency to want to follow the habit again for it felt so well (well=avoiding unpleasant symptoms of craving) remains.

[scandium]

Point 1, I worked in a psychiatric clinic once. I know that both doctors and psychotherapists would strongly disagree with the opinion that the psychological habit of wanting to reapeat joyful experiences with smoking pot are as harmless as you make it appear, not to mention to say it is "safer than sex today". You can fall victim to psychological addictiveness as well
You can also fall victim to the gestapo like tactics that are associate with the war on drugs. Case in point: a police helicopter spotted a crop of marijuana plants growing in someone's backyard. A warrant was then issued to raid the home on this suspicious that illegal drugs were being produced on the premises, and in the raid the unarmed homeowner was shot and killed. All of this would be bad enough but for one additional factor: it wasn't marijuana plants the guy was growing, he just happened to be a run of the mill joe with an interest in gardening.

I don't just see the supposed dangers of this drug which seem to serve only to drive the production and distribution underground (criminalizing pot is about as effective as prohibition, and alcohol has many dangers associated with it to both the individual and society that pot does not); my position on it, I giess you could say, is that its the criminalization of the drug that is detrimental to society, and not the drug itself.

[LoBlo]

Crack itself is a derivative of cocaine, which itself is procured from a naturally occuring plant.
The key word here being a "derivative". A substance that is extracted, chemically separated, processed and concentrated far beyond the potential effects of the humble coca leaf it started out as. THC or "angel dust" would be the same thing when compared to pot.

Angel dust is phencyclinide (also known as PCP) not marijauna. And there is nothing natural about rolling a substance up and lighting it on fire in order to inhale the fumes through lung parenchyma. Its as artificial a process as any, and one thats man invented as a method of expediting the absorption of the compounds into systemic circulation to produce the desired effect.

How much or less a chemical needs processing is not a valid argument to the utilization of said chemical for pyschological effects.

Besides the certainly plausible arguments that the government makes too much money and power off pot remaining illegal, I say where is the concept of personal responsibility anymore? If a person operates a vehicle under the influence of any drug, legal or otherwise, that impairs their judgement or ability as a driver then that is wrong and they should be punished if caught. End of story, especially if they endanger or hurt someone.

A lot of codes and laws are enacted not because responsible people would hurt themselves, but to prevent the actions of the irresponsible. Why make seatbelts required for driving? If a person wants to not wear a seatbelt and get himself/herself injured unneccesarily then thats just their fault.... right? No, because in the end-analysis of its effect on a society, not wearing seatbelts represents a drain and nothing more than a drain on that society with no benifits to it. Why require building codes? If a person builds a house and its built like crap and falls on him then that's just his/her fault. Or if a person buys that house and its collapses on them its there fault for not checking the houses construction quality right? No, because faulty construction is a detriment to that society and will represent a drain on safey and livelyhood.

The total impact of a substance on society as a whole, not just those that use it responsibly but those that will use it irresponsibly must be viewed as well as the effects on a society and whether there is any counterbalancing benefit

EDIT: wording and clarity

[LoBlo]

Point 1, I worked in a psychiatric clinic once. I know that both doctors and psychotherapists would strongly disagree with the opinion that the psychological habit of wanting to reapeat joyful experiences with smoking pot are as harmless as you make it appear, not to mention to say it is "safer than sex today". You can fall victim to psychological addictiveness as well
You can also fall victim to the gestapo like tactics that are associate with the war on drugs. Case in point: a police helicopter spotted a crop of marijuana plants growing in someone's backyard. A warrant was then issued to raid the home on this suspicious that illegal drugs were being produced on the premises, and in the raid the unarmed homeowner was shot and killed. All of this would be bad enough but for one additional factor: it wasn't marijuana plants the guy was growing, he just happened to be a run of the mill joe with an interest in gardening.

I don't just see the supposed dangers of this drug which seem to serve only to drive the production and distribution underground (criminalizing pot is about as effective as prohibition, and alcohol has many dangers associated with it to both the individual and society that pot does not); my position on it, I giess you could say, is that its the criminalization of the drug that is detrimental to society, and not the drug itself.

That's a pretty weak argument... if that's what it was at all. And Skybird has a point. I'll be graduating with my M.D. next spring. We see alot of addiction/dependence around here, everyday actually. In psychiatric terms substance abuse is not as cut and dry as to whether or not a chemical is "addictive", but also entails whether or not a person developes an emotional dependence on the substance, feeling they need it to feel better, or that life isn't as good without their said chemical. Also factored into that is the judgement of the user and what's said person feels is responsible and unresponsible. Substance abuse is a complicated subject and one that really has no good answers. However, introducing just one more substance into a society to be used for its pyschoactive effects is just that... one more substance to be used by some without detriment, and used by others with detriment, and all the problems entailed.

[Rockstar]

Legalize cannibals?!! Are you people farking nuts?

[August]

Angel dust is phencyclinide (also known as PCP) not marijauna.

Sorry you're correct. It's been nearly 30 years since i've heard of anyone using THC

And there is nothing natural about rolling a substance up and lighting it on fire in order to inhale the fumes through lung parenchyma. Its as artificial a process as any and one thats a man-made method of expediting the absorption of the compounds into systemic circulation to produce the desired effect.

I'd submit it's a heckuva lot more natural than extracting the active ingredients in a laboratory, then processing and concentrating it into a powder that is hundreds of times more powerful than the plant leaf it came from. Nor is smoking the only method for injesting it.

How much or less a chemical needs processing is not a valid argument to the utilization of said chemical for pyschological effects.

Well i disagree. How many coca leaves would have to be eaten to produce heart failure compared to purified cocaine in powdered form? How many glasses of wine would one have to drink compared to 100% pure alcohol to produce alcohol poisoning?

The total impact of a substance on society as a whole, not just those that use it responsibly but those that will use it irresponsibly must be viewed as well as the effects on a society and whether there is any counterbalancing benefit

So what you're saying is the potential damaging effects of irresponsible alcohol drinking is outweighed by it's counterbalancing benefit and that's why it remains legal in most countries?

Really, other than the false idea that the use of marijuana somehow turns a productive member of society overnight into an irresponsible drug fiend who will take any substance in order to get his or her "fix" (ie the "gateway drug" argument) what exactly is the overbalancing effect that legalizing it would have? Does its use make people violent? No it doesn't. If anything it inhibits violence, whereas violence induced by the use of alcohol is a well established fact. Does it cause a deadly disease? Maybe, there's recently been research evidence to the contrary but in any case it's certainly less dangerous than legal tobacco. What else?

It seems to me all that is left is "the message" that legalizing it would send, but what kind of message is sent by allowing more dangerous substances like alcohol and tobacco to remain legal? Inconsistancy for one. Hidden agendas for another. Distrust in the fairness and objectivity of ones government for a third and more.

On the other hand, like Scandium mentions, the cost of making gangsters rich and powerful, creating entire new classes of criminals, ruining innocent lives because of overzealous police activity, the billions of dollars lost investigating, prosecuting and jaiingl users without regard for their ability to use it responsibly and relinquishing any ability to regulate, tax and control a substance like marijuana, is an enormous drain on society.

How much more effective would anti drug efforts be if they could be concentrated on truely dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin without being wasted on pot interdiction? How many violent criminals, rapists, murderers, etc will have to be released from prison because mandatory sentencing laws force the authorities to make room for the convicted pot smoker?

Marijuana prohibition has been a significant drain on society since it's inception and for all that effort and money it is still as prevalent, if not more so, as it was before it was first made illegal.

All I think people are saying here is the "war" on pot is just not worth it.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Marijuana not being legalized because of safety reasons is hypocritical. Alcohol and tobacco are far more addicting and kill more people than marijuana ever will. If people are supposedly responsible enough to use alcohol I don't see a problem with marijuana. Presently, the laws are not very strictly enforced anyways. Most people I know who were caught with pot on them simply had it taken away or their paraphernalia destroyed and a short lecture from the cop. As to the gateway drug argument, there is truth in it. But keep in mind that the same logic that damns marijuana as a gateway drug could also be used to classify caffeine as a gateway drug.

PD

[Skybird]

Point 1, I worked in a psychiatric clinic once. I know that both doctors and psychotherapists would strongly disagree with the opinion that the psychological habit of wanting to reapeat joyful experiences with smoking pot are as harmless as you make it appear, not to mention to say it is "safer than sex today". You can fall victim to psychological addictiveness as well
You can also fall victim to the gestapo like tactics that are associate with the war on drugs. Case in point: a police helicopter spotted a crop of marijuana plants growing in someone's backyard. A warrant was then issued to raid the home on this suspicious that illegal drugs were being produced on the premises, and in the raid the unarmed homeowner was shot and killed. All of this would be bad enough but for one additional factor: it wasn't marijuana plants the guy was growing, he just happened to be a run of the mill joe with an interest in gardening.

I don't just see the supposed dangers of this drug which seem to serve only to drive the production and distribution underground (criminalizing pot is about as effective as prohibition, and alcohol has many dangers associated with it to both the individual and society that pot does not); my position on it, I giess you could say, is that its the criminalization of the drug that is detrimental to society, and not the drug itself.
Gestapo-tactics. :dead: Political concerns :dead: You're a number, really. Okay, contact the LKH Osnabrück and the Städtische Kliniken Osnabrück. Ask for Prof Weig, the medical director of the first, tell him I send you (he will remember me, believe me) and discuss your strange stuff with him. It is solid clinical argument I gave you, which is of concern to professionals probaly not only in weired strange Germany, but in hospitals around the world. And you come with some politically motivateded nonsens again. I simply know it better - by my and other medical and therapeutical professional's experience. That simple. It was part of my job, you know. :nope:

[August]

Point 1, I worked in a psychiatric clinic once. I know that both doctors and psychotherapists would strongly disagree with the opinion that the psychological habit of wanting to reapeat joyful experiences with smoking pot are as harmless as you make it appear, not to mention to say it is "safer than sex today". You can fall victim to psychological addictiveness as well
You can also fall victim to the gestapo like tactics that are associate with the war on drugs. Case in point: a police helicopter spotted a crop of marijuana plants growing in someone's backyard. A warrant was then issued to raid the home on this suspicious that illegal drugs were being produced on the premises, and in the raid the unarmed homeowner was shot and killed. All of this would be bad enough but for one additional factor: it wasn't marijuana plants the guy was growing, he just happened to be a run of the mill joe with an interest in gardening.

I don't just see the supposed dangers of this drug which seem to serve only to drive the production and distribution underground (criminalizing pot is about as effective as prohibition, and alcohol has many dangers associated with it to both the individual and society that pot does not); my position on it, I giess you could say, is that its the criminalization of the drug that is detrimental to society, and not the drug itself. Gestapo-tactics. :dead: Political concerns :dead: You're a number, really. Okay, contact the LKH Osnabrück and the Städtische Kliniken Osnabrück. Ask for Prof Weig, the medical director of the first, tell him I send you (he will remember me, believe me) and discuss your strange stuff with him. It is solid clinical argument I gave you, which is of concern to professionals probaly not only in weired strange Germany, but in hospitals around the world. And you come with some politically motivateded nonsens again. I simply know it better - by my and other medical and therapeutical professional's experience. That simple. It was part of my job, you know. :nope:

Sky, I don't think he was disagreeing with you, just pointing out another aspect of the "war on drugs".

[kiwi_2005]

Some really good replies here subsimmers, even those that are against legisation i respect your views. Keep it up, good reading.:D