Pot for homework?

[AssassinFromHell]

Aye, parents are getting too damned creative nowadays. :rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/12/pot.mom.ap/index.html

Thats right. Mommy said good job for homework, now light up your mary jane and get smokin, you little pot smoker you.

[TheWalkingDude]

She ought to be thrown in jail

[Exatreides]

as long as it works...

[DjfunkmasterG]

Great story Assassin. I would rep ya, but I got spread my seed a little more first! Catch ya on the next one.

[LouCipherr]

That's ok Dj, I rep'd him for ya.. :D good post.

Interesting article - I wish that was my mom, 'cause I had to buy all my own smoke and still do to this day, dammit! :lol: :D

[Angry312]

Maybe its the times that changed, but I slacked off, I used to get popped upside the head. I guess my 3.8 GPA could have been improved if I had just started smoking pot in high school. Golly. Really missed out on that one, huh?

She's a criminal; right, wrong or indifferent, if you dole out drugs -- you're commiting a crime. Doesn't sound like a lot of 'wiggle room' on that one to me.

If it were legal, this wouldn't be a footnote, let alone a headline.

It is piss-poor parenting to find no other recourse in motivating your child to at least moderate success in school without resorting to chemical interference.

Feh.

:evil: Angry312; "... save it for college, like everyone else." :evil:

[Adrenochrome]

I think 13 is way to young to start toking it up.
Legalize it and put an age on it like liqour and ciggies.

and I will also crank this song up along with my morning coffee and morning bowl.:D (wake and bake;))

ladies and gentlemen, Peter Tosh:
http://www.gregsgrooves.com/imagess-z/tosh_legalize.jpg

Legalize it - don't criticize it
Legalize it and i will advertise it

Some call it tampee
Some call it the weed
Some call it Marijuana
Some of them call it Ganja

Legalize it - don't criticize it
Legalize it and i will advertise it

Singer smoke it
And players of instruments too
Legalize it, yeah, yeah
That's the best thing you can do
Doctors smoke it
Nurses smoke it
Judges smoke it
Even the lawyers too

Legalize it - don't criticize it
Legalize it and i will advertise it

It's good for the flu
It's good for asthma
Good for tuberculosis
Even umara composis

Legalize it - don't criticize it
Legalize it and i will advertise it

Bird eat it
And they leave it
Fowls eat it
Goats love to play with it

[Philly_SWAT]

Here is my take on the whole pot issue. The main complaint about it that I hear is that it is a "gateway drug". This means that they have done studies of drug users of all types, discovered that many of them tried pot first and then "moved on" to other drugs, thus proving that using pot is a "gateway", that once opened, will lead you to other, more dangerous drugs. I agree with the fact that it is a gateway drug, but not for the reasons that the "experts" say it is. It is not a gateway in the sense that somehow it magically encourages you to do other drugs, it is a gateway in the sense that someone who has heard all kinds of nagative things about pot, such as "you cant stop, you will steal from your parents for money to buy it, you wont do good in school, you will perform poorly at work, etc" and then tries pot finds out that all of those things are not true. From there, it is logically to assume that if everything you heard about pot was a lie, then so must be the things you heard about coke, herion, etc. If the truth was told about pot, then it would not be a "gateway". The fault lies with the lies told about marijuana, not the herb itself.

[LouCipherr]

True. Marijuana itself is not a gateway drug - your dealer and friends are. When you show up at your dealers house looking for smoke and he says "well, no pot today, but I have some coke and some E" well, then you figure "screw it" and try one of his other wares - or it happens like in the example Philly just made. The drug itself is not the gateway.

The thing that pisses me off the most about marijuana and the US is that it has been PROVEN to not be a hazard (if you want studies, I will gladly post them), but yet since the government has been lying to us for decades about how dangerous it is (which is pure bullsh*t) they will never ever under any circumstances legalize it in the US for recreational use for adults. That would mean the gov't would have to come out and admit they lied to us about it all these years. That will never happen.

Not that that's anything new for the US gov't. (lying about sh*t), i'm just sayin'...

LC

[Adrenochrome]

The thing that pisses me off the most about marijuana and the US is that it has been PROVEN to not be a hazard (if you want studies, I will gladly post them), but yet since the government has been lying to us for decades about how dangerous it is (which is pure bullsh*t) they will never ever under any circumstances legalize it in the US for recreational use for adults. That would mean the gov't would have to come out and admit they lied to us about it all these years. That will never happen.

Not that that's anything new for the US gov't. (lying about sh*t), i'm just sayin'...

LC

My girlfriend's father is a doctor. We pass it every Sunday dinner.

[LouCipherr]

See? Even f*ckin' doctors know.. :D

[bassman]

There's this GREAT documentary out there called "GRASS" that chronicles the history of Marijuana in the United States and how the Government just can't handle it. It goes right along with Lou's statement.

I would suggest it to anyone. It's a very well made, funny, and informative documentary(narrated by Woody Haralson). You can probably find it in the documentary isle of your local Blockbuster....that's where I discovered it.

[Cody]

im on probation for it...do i pass my drug tests? yup. do i still smoke? yup.

the man doesnt get me down

[darth los]

In all likelyhood the kid was either smoking it anyway before his mom made it an incentive or was gonna try it real soon on his own. The article even said he his friends were 17 and 18 years old. Surely if he saw them do it he would try it also. At least the mom used it to motivate him when it came to school work. The ones that should be arrested are the mothers who have kids simply to collect a welfare check. These broads are never around and it's usually the grandma or some other relatives who end up raising the child.

[Angry312]

IT. IS. A. CRIME.

Under current legislation, in the state they were in, the mother was breaking the law. She was not bending a law. Misinterpretation was not the issue; a breach of the social compact which says, "I, as a citizen, hereby agree to hold these laws as necessary and just, through obedience and compliance, pledge my allegiance to a state of order and justice."

Or...

"I, as a self-absorbed criminal, pledge to be entirely motivated to follow whatever laws I wish, when it so suits me, as I see fit. I perform my own course of action not as a rebel or anti-authoritarian spokesperson, but as a person in breach of the laws."

If we're skipping laws we find an inconvinience, it is now acceptable to brutalize, molest, harm or otherwise render inert anything and anyone we wish, so long as we claim, "Hey, I followed *most* of the laws, right?"

Don't like the laws?
Get the **** out of the country.
Or, alternately, change them by using the system in place.

Never met a pothead with enough patience to grasp this simple, easy concept.

It is not romantic to flaunt defiance of the law; it is a criminal action. Those behaving so should be treated as such -- criminals.

I am one-hundred percent for a society in which all people obey and comply with law, the social compact and adherence to the basic tenets of being able to trust your neighbor to do likewise.

In that regard, I am about as alone as it gets.

Do I think marijuana smoking is 'that bad'?
No.
Do I support the current sentencing of offenders for drug violations?
No.
Do I believe it should be legalized?
No, but I understand why it should be.
Do I vote on the issue, whenever it comes up in legislation?
Yes.
How do I vote?
None of your ****ing business.

I refuse, flat-out and consistently, to give credit to a criminal.

Thusly, I can be legitimately outraged when I see someone escaping due process and justice; from a celebrity walking away from a DUI conviction with a slap on the wrist, to a drug dealer out on bail while someone involved in less-serious crimes rots in jail, to business people involved in the worst of all crimes able to simply spend their 'sentence' in a golf club retreat of a prison.

Anything less than adherence to the law is accepting that some crimes are 'not crimes' -- either you believe in it, or you accept its failure as a system.

/rant

:evil: Angry312; "... what, the kid can't wait for college?" :evil:

[bassman]

IT. IS. A. CRIME.

Under current legislation, in the state they were in, the mother was breaking the law. She was not bending a law. Misinterpretation was not the issue; a breach of the social compact which says, "I, as a citizen, hereby agree to hold these laws as necessary and just, through obedience and compliance, pledge my allegiance to a state of order and justice."

Or...

"I, as a self-absorbed criminal, pledge to be entirely motivated to follow whatever laws I wish, when it so suits me, as I see fit. I perform my own course of action not as a rebel or anti-authoritarian spokesperson, but as a person in breach of the laws."

If we're skipping laws we find an inconvinience, it is now acceptable to brutalize, molest, harm or otherwise render inert anything and anyone we wish, so long as we claim, "Hey, I followed *most* of the laws, right?"

Don't like the laws?
Get the **** out of the country.
Or, alternately, change them by using the system in place.

Never met a pothead with enough patience to grasp this simple, easy concept.

It is not romantic to flaunt defiance of the law; it is a criminal action. Those behaving so should be treated as such -- criminals.

I am one-hundred percent for a society in which all people obey and comply with law, the social compact and adherence to the basic tenets of being able to trust your neighbor to do likewise.

In that regard, I am about as alone as it gets.

Do I think marijuana smoking is 'that bad'?
No.
Do I support the current sentencing of offenders for drug violations?
No.
Do I believe it should be legalized?
No, but I understand why it should be.
Do I vote on the issue, whenever it comes up in legislation?
Yes.
How do I vote?
None of your ****ing business.

I refuse, flat-out and consistently, to give credit to a criminal.

Thusly, I can be legitimately outraged when I see someone escaping due process and justice; from a celebrity walking away from a DUI conviction with a slap on the wrist, to a drug dealer out on bail while someone involved in less-serious crimes rots in jail, to business people involved in the worst of all crimes able to simply spend their 'sentence' in a golf club retreat of a prison.

Anything less than adherence to the law is accepting that some crimes are 'not crimes' -- either you believe in it, or you accept its failure as a system.

/rant

:evil: Angry312; "... what, the kid can't wait for college?" :evil:

Damn....you're passionate on the subject, dude.

Question, though. Totally forgetting about the article that started this thread.....do you consider it a crime for someone to use it in the privacy of their own home WITHOUT selling or giving to anyone else?


How do I vote?
None of your ****ing business.
:lol:
:thumbsup:

[Angry312]

PRivacy does not limit the amount of participants who are breaking the law, just potential witnesses.

Child pornography is done in private.
Your thoughts on that?

:evil: Angry312; "Break a Law Indoors... You're Still Breaking a Law." :evil:

[bassman]

PRivacy does not limit the amount of participants who are breaking the law, just potential witnesses.

Child pornography is done in private.
Your thoughts on that?

:evil: Angry312; "Break a Law Indoors... You're Still Breaking a Law." :evil:


Excellent point.

But Child porn is a bit more severe, wouldn't you agree? That's kind of like harming someone else(the child) by participating. With smoking Marijuana in privacy it can harm no one but the private user. Still illegal....but doesn't effect anyone else in anyway. Well, you might order a pizza and the delivery guy shows up...but that's it.:p

I just feel that if it's done in privacy, not driving, and no one around to have to put up with the smell or whatever....it's no big deal.

To quote some lyrics from one of my favorite bands:

"Do what thou wilt should be the whole of the law, until you violate the rights of another.......respect the space of your sister and your brother" - 311

[Angry312]

I hold in contempt those who do not believe in a society of adherence to law.

I do not believe in legal 'wiggle room'.

I enjoy seeing criminals taken from the streets in handcuffs, their subsequent incarceration and re-introduction to society, now more aware of their grievous mistake on the theory they were above the law's scope and reach.

Every criminal from the street is one more who is not adding to the problem.

Illegal drugs are sold by drug dealers.
Drug dealers have 'turf issues'.
They resolve them with firearms.

My childhood was surrounded by gangs, selling drugs and shooting one another. They were not engaged in civilized debate on the issue. They were discharging firearms in proximity to schools, homes and places of business.

How would you recommend that people live, if the dealers begin shooting each other over the harmless herb of so many songs and poems?

I would recommend contacting the authorities to see them removed from the environment wherein they are endangering the lives of the community they live in, as they are non-participants in the society of law and order.

Too often as a worker I have had to cover for my co-workers 'smoke breaks' and sit through their diatribes about how I'm 'too uptight' on the topic. Whilst I was earning the entirety of my paycheck, they were skimming off of my labor. While my roommates have stank up the house, I found legal means to provide entertainment and relaxation, often through vastly more creative endeavors.

Anything popular is not necessarily right, and anything right is not likely to be popular.

:evil: Angry312; "Legal Retribution: My Anti-Drug." :evil:

[bassman]

About your dealers/gangs thing: IF it could be marketed, taxed,and sold legally by the government, this would no longer be an issue with marijuana. Then it would just be the meth addicts killing each other off.....and that's not a bad thing.:p


But I see what you're saying and I understand.
Everyone has their own views....

[Angry312]

If tomorrow, for whatever reason, Twinkies were outlawed, we'd have about nine hours before we saw them on street corners, new markets brought up and supply lines drawn out. Given that Twinkies are (thankfully) legal, we do not have gangsters popping rounds over the territorial disputes of a Hostess product nature.

It would also take roughly nine hours after that for the first of many, many popular figures to speak out about outlawing Twinkies, how good eating a Twinkie in the comfort of your own home is and why it is immoral and corrupt to believe Twinkies are bad, with studies to match the viewpoint.

... and if they were illegal, I would stop eating them. Not that I do eat them, mind you, well.. like once a season, tops.

It's a small habit.
I can quit when I want.
It doesn't hurt anyone.

:evil: Angry312; Twinkies: LEGALIZE IT, MON. :evil:

[Adrenochrome]

If tomorrow, for whatever reason, Twinkies were outlawed, we'd have about nine hours before we saw them on street corners, new markets brought up and supply lines drawn out. Given that Twinkies are (thankfully) legal, we do not have gangsters popping rounds over the territorial disputes of a Hostess product nature.

It would also take roughly nine hours after that for the first of many, many popular figures to speak out about outlawing Twinkies, how good eating a Twinkie in the comfort of your own home is and why it is immoral and corrupt to believe Twinkies are bad, with studies to match the viewpoint.

... and if they were illegal, I would stop eating them. Not that I do eat them, mind you, well.. like once a season, tops.

It's a small habit.
I can quit when I want.
It doesn't hurt anyone.

:evil: Angry312; Twinkies: LEGALIZE IT, MON. :evil:

so, you are anti weed because it's illegal? that's the only reason?

[bassman]

If tomorrow, for whatever reason, Twinkies were outlawed, we'd have about nine hours before we saw them on street corners, new markets brought up and supply lines drawn out. Given that Twinkies are (thankfully) legal, we do not have gangsters popping rounds over the territorial disputes of a Hostess product nature.

It would also take roughly nine hours after that for the first of many, many popular figures to speak out about outlawing Twinkies, how good eating a Twinkie in the comfort of your own home is and why it is immoral and corrupt to believe Twinkies are bad, with studies to match the viewpoint.

... and if they were illegal, I would stop eating them. Not that I do eat them, mind you, well.. like once a season, tops.

It's a small habit.
I can quit when I want.
It doesn't hurt anyone.

:evil: Angry312; Twinkies: LEGALIZE IT, MON. :evil:

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Funny stuff, man.


"Tell him about the twinkie"

"What about the twinkie?!?"

[Angry312]

I hold true the idea that if an action can not be measurably proven to harm the well-being or immediate potential of another being, that action is illegal through an abuse of the system. Given I understand the nature of the debate's origin, I accept that it is, essentially, harmless, by scientific endeavors by what I consider to be impartial sources.

Quite frankly, if I ran into William Randolph Hearst through some temporal glitch, I'd criminalize myself long enough to issue him a savage beating with a tire iron and a bag of golf balls.

:evil: Angry312; "... So, Twinkies are still cool, right?" :evil:

[Adrenochrome]

:evil: Angry312; "... So, Twinkies are still cool, right?" :evil:

Twinkies are cool (if full of sugared lard) but, you're a little weird. Cool.
:D


peace

[twistbud]

Weed is a seed that comes from the ground
If god didn't want it here it wouldn't be around
So for all those people who don't get high
STFU and give it a try! :bored: <---thats one baked ass smiley :p

[DjfunkmasterG]

If tomorrow, for whatever reason, Twinkies were outlawed, we'd have about nine hours before we saw them on street corners, new markets brought up and supply lines drawn out. Given that Twinkies are (thankfully) legal, we do not have gangsters popping rounds over the territorial disputes of a Hostess product nature.

It would also take roughly nine hours after that for the first of many, many popular figures to speak out about outlawing Twinkies, how good eating a Twinkie in the comfort of your own home is and why it is immoral and corrupt to believe Twinkies are bad, with studies to match the viewpoint.

... and if they were illegal, I would stop eating them. Not that I do eat them, mind you, well.. like once a season, tops.

It's a small habit.
I can quit when I want.
It doesn't hurt anyone.

:evil: Angry312; Twinkies: LEGALIZE IT, MON. :evil:

So now we are comparing Weed to twinkies... WTF? I mean if you think weed smokers are out their shooting up the hood you must be out of your goddamn mind son. The weed smokers are at home sitting on their PC's jamming music and editing movies. :D

[Angry312]

Weed is a seed that comes from the ground
If god didn't want it here it wouldn't be around
So for all those people who don't get high
STFU and give it a try! :bored: <---thats one baked ass smiley :p

"God" also made these plants, y'know.. from like... seeds and stuff. So, they can't be like ... bad.

Foxglove.
Hemlock.
Mayapple.
Nightshade.
Toxicodendron.
Fly agaric mushroom.
Amanita pantherina.

"God" also makes these delicious and nutritious snacks:
Cyanide.
Asbestos.
Mercury.

Bad logic.
No Twinkie.

:evil: Angry312; "... God's pretty unselective about fun stuff." :evil:


So now we are comparing Weed to twinkies... WTF? I mean if you think weed smokers are out their shooting up the hood you must be out of your goddamn mind son. The weed smokers are at home sitting on their PC's jamming music and editing movies. :D

I spoke of dealers. You know, the non-existent criminal element involved in the majority of marijuana trafficking? Those phantom figures who, by all reasonable accounts, are figments of a diseased mind?

Y'know... *them*.

:evil: Angry312; Sane, Rational, Sober. :evil:

[LouCipherr]

Never met a pothead with enough patience to grasp this simple, easy concept.

I understand it, I just don't give a flying f*ck.

My question is: who is the government to tell me what I can and can't ingest into my body? If i'm not hurting anyone (and the potheads are known as a violent bunch, aren't they?) then get the f*ck out of my business, plain and simple.



Illegal drugs are sold by drug dealers.
Drug dealers have 'turf issues'.
They resolve them with firearms.


Hmmm, ooooooook. So, you tell me - when was the last time you EVER heard of someone who sold or smoked marijuana toting a gun and "protecting their tuff" on the street? When was the last time you heard of someone killing another over a joint? a dime bag? a friggin' pound of weed? Didn't think so. Cry "crime on the streets due to drug dealers" all you want, but the marijuana smokers are at home, in front of the tv, fingers orange from eating too many cheetoh's and not hurting a goddamn soul.

I understand what you're saying about criminals and drugs, but the 'violent crime' committed in these turf wars and drug wars are NOT a bunch of stoned potheads. They're people involved in meth, coke, heorin, etc.

Pot doesn't lead to criminal activity, it leads to carpentry. "hey, here's an apple - let's make a bong out of it!" Woooo, we're a scary bunch. Might wanna get all of us off the streets.

People need to stop worrying about how 'dangerous' marijuana is and start worrying about people committing REAL crimes that affect other peoples lives. While you're filling up your jail with people who smoke pot, murderers, rapists and child molesters roam the streets.

I've never heard of someone smoking a joint and slamming their car into a family of six in a minivan, but yet alcohol is leagal, and how many deaths are there annually from drinking & driving?

In the context of the story, the kid was too young, but I think we've moved off that topic and more into the legality of marijuana itself.

[Angry312]

There are incredibly high dollar values involved in marijuana; having been to Humboldt County (for a variety of reasons) I've seen the fields, protected by gun-toting crews. Landmines strung in the fields.

PEACEFUL HIPPIES.

I've seen cruise-bys in Los Angeles and Florida by Jamaican posses. They deal crack, but in the 1980's, it was guns and weed.

RELAX.

Try this one on for size: if weed is peaceful, serene and majestic, why -- praytell -- is it protected by armed guards, booby traps and the like?

NON VIOLENCE.

I see.
Nerf mines.
Rubber punji sticks.
Posses packing water pistols.

Thank you for clarifying this.

Must be an odd world, I guess. I always thought that drugs, being a source of high-end financial gain, attracted a criminal element, who often protect their investment from interlopers with threats and practices of violence.

Huh.

Weird.

:evil: Angry312; "... Nerf mines: My Anti-Drug." :evil:

[twistbud]

"God" also made these plants, y'know.. from like... seeds and stuff. So, they can't be like ... bad.

Foxglove.
Hemlock.
Mayapple.
Nightshade.
Toxicodendron.
Fly agaric mushroom.
Amanita pantherina.

"God" also makes these delicious and nutritious snacks:
Cyanide.
Asbestos.
Mercury.

Bad logic.
No Twinkie.



It's was just a silly little poem. :rolleyes: Brb, I'm gonna go twist up an Asbestos doobie.

[LouCipherr]

Must be an odd world, I guess. I always thought that drugs, being a source of high-end financial gain, attracted a criminal element, who often protect their investment from interlopers with threats and practices of violence.

They do when you're talking high-dollar drug trade. Marijuana is the cheapest stuff on the market compared to it's counter-parts. If you think people are killing each other over pot on the streets, you're out of your mind. I can understand protecting a huge crop, but the amount of those compared to the miles and miles of fields of high-dollar coca plants and opium poppies is about 10000 to 1.

...and as far as booby-trapping crops - sh*t, there's razor-wire running around even tomato gardens and yards in this world - your point is what?

My brother protects his house by having at least 5 loaded shotguns scattered around his house - and he doesn't smoke pot, so is he any more or less of a threat than a hippy with a hackey-sack? Why shouldn't we throw his ass in jail? he's not hurting anyone now (just like a pot smoker), but he's a gun-toting person who when threatened wouldn't hesitate to react - so shouldn't he be put in jail because of his potential to hurt someone - which is what you're telling me all pot smokers are - potential threats.

Just because something is "illegal" doesn't mean that it should be. Not only that, if marijuana was legal, all this "violence" you speak of would disappear now wouldn't it?

[Angry312]

There are those who support drug laws; those who detract from them; and there are those who will suffer from them.

In 1996, Eugene Oregon, I was walking my wife to work, graveyard shift. We approached a police cordon, and asked an officer what was going on, it turns out that a local dealer, minor to bit-level, had been stabbed in the throat while in the middle of a deal for $7 worth of weed. Said dealer walked into the hospital, half a block away, pointed to his throat then dropped dead on the spot. His killer was never apprehended, nor was the crime investigated fully.

I would say that was a case in which his life could have been saved by the direct removal of the applicable drug laws. Thusly, he is dead, the law's still there and it is not an isolated incident.

Marijuana comes into circulation in many forms; the vast majority is shipped in from large farms, some with peaceful fencing measures and others like prisons. It comes across the borders in all directions and flies out in just as many.

I find it an upsetting idea that a crop whose intention, by most accounts, is harmless and safe, is protected by a siege mentality. That it is prized above all other drugs as being clean and pure, and that all other substances are evil, wicked and wrong. That sort of belief is called 'fanaticism' and is generally viewed as 'crazy talk'. Tomato rights advocates have a better lobby, I guess, as there aren't many people shooting and stabbing each other over rights to deal them. Well, if they are, its probably one of the more unreported crimes, if you think about it.

There are many things which we want to do; the restraint we give against it is what keeps our civilization flowing. Pot is giving in to those ideas. Alcohol is giving in those ideas. Anything misused, used against the current legislation or used for the wrong reason diminishes the value of the argument for it, against it and involving it. People become fed up, angry or even violent, trying to make their point as clear as possible.

So, I'll summate my final statement with the ideas I find the least offensive, most direct and clearest in nature, as I did not intend to engage in a flame war, debate on the social compact's faults or the personal choices of the board's population at large. Thusly, here they are:

I believe in following law.
I believe we need changes in the drug laws.
I believe people lack the patience to wait them out.

:evil: Angry312; Laws Are Meant To Be Obeyed. :evil:

[LouCipherr]

I believe in following law.
I believe we need changes in the drug laws.
I believe people lack the patience to wait them out.


1) I agree to a certain extent, unless the laws have zero merit.
2) I agree 100%
3) I also agree 100%

I know examples can be made out of single cases of crimes being committed over pot - and I'm not saying that they don't completely, but I'm measuring the number of pot-committed crimes against other-drug related crimes. You're talking a HUGE HUGE difference.

But to each his own. ;) I'm going to go roll a fatty.. :p

LC

[DjfunkmasterG]

You all need to stop http://enderzero.net/smilies/argue.gif

and

http://enderzero.net/smilies/smokin.gif


Then
http://enderzero.net/smilies/banana.gif

and stop


http://enderzero.net/smilies/wall.gif

[LouCipherr]

http://enderzero.net/smilies/duuuuh.gif

[MaximusIncredulous]

...the government has been lying to us for decades about how dangerous it is (which is pure bullsh*t)...

They're waiting until the pharmacos create sythesized versions and charge an arm and a leg for it, then the gov will legalize the synth version. That's what the War on Drugs is all about baby.

[LouCipherr]

That's true, it's all about money. I mean, seriously, since the "war on drugs" was started, does anybody notice a decrease in drug traffic? Hell no, if there was, the bozos waging the "war on drugs" would be losing money. We can't have that now can we?

It's all a crock of sh*t... but living in the US, i'm used to it from our gov't.

LC

[DjfunkmasterG]

LEGALIZE PERCOCET, COMBUNOX, and BLUE BLURS (Valium) FOR OVER THE COUNTER CONSUMPTION! F**K Weed, I like my pills. :D

[LouCipherr]

Although I love your idea there Dj (especially the blue blurs - V's for everyone!) but you do realize the others - combunox and percs - are opiates? with one of the highest addiction potentials? There is no physical addition to THC, but there sure is to those.. as much as i'd like to see it, you'd have to be on drugs to suggest that.. waaaait a second... NEVERMIND! :lol: :lol: :lol: