White House Response to The New York Times Editorial Board's Call for Federal Marijuana Legalization

SmokeyDan

SmokeyDan

Well-Known Member
bird mcbride said:
No person has a physical dependance with weed. People can live without it. There truly aren't any withdrawl symtoms.
If anything weed will stop a person from making any rash decisions.
Click to expand...
First of all, that is untrue. Weed has mild withdrawal symptoms. Insomnia and irritability are symptoms of weed withdrawal.

It isn't that weed has no physical dependency, it is just that it's symptoms are really mild.



All physical dependence is, in a nut shell, is that our body becomes dependent on the chemical we take (we make a chemical internally that is very similar to weeds chemicals, that's why it gets us high. Our brain has receptors weed works in because our body produces a chemical just like it) when we get it from weed, natural internal production stops.


As a result, when we stop taking weed, our body no longer has the ability to produce that chemical, it's been shut off. It takes some time to start producing it again.


Secondly, you're making the mistake of equating chemical dependence with addiction. They are NOT the same thing.
 
bird mcbride

bird mcbride

Well-Known Member
There are many reasons why people have o back out of what life has to offer.
I quit my $2500 dollar a week job 14 years ago because the powers that be decided to label me as a crack cocaine gun running gorrila pimp that operates a charlie manson style murderous gang. If I challenge these allegations I have been advised that I'll never see my kids again. If it goes unchallenged it's considered fact.
Does this guy you're using as an example have kids in canada? If so who knows how his life is being twisted behind the scenes.
I keep two lawyers on figuring out reasons for adjournments. It's a lose lose situation in which I have been force to abandon everything if me and their mother want to continue seeing our children.
These labels make a normal life impossible.
 
H.M. Murdoch

H.M. Murdoch

Well-Known Member
People who choose to smoke MJ make a conscious choice; and each is a personal choice. I myself turned down a good job offer last year that included a 15% raise and a $10,000 signing bonus because that company randomly tests for drugs (not just a pre-employment drug test, but randomly thereafter as well).

But I have a good job that pays well, I'm happy, and I'm not about to give up MJ for a bit of extra money. That would be kinda like selling out who I am for a place in the Establishment.

I smoke once every day; just before dinner at about 7:30PM. I've done this for many years. However, when I go on business trips, I abstain from MJ with no problems. For up to 2 weeks.
 
R

reasonevangelist

Well-Known Member
SmokeyDan said:
Ricky Williams fought his ejection from the NFL, and later when (I presume he started to run out of money) he cleaned up in an effort to come back.

I'm also a big fan of college football. Many student athletes have given up scholarships and many had a viable future in the NFL, and all because they couldn't stop preferred smoking pot.

I'm making no judgment on the good or bad side of this. But they know that smoking pot will cost them their place on the team and jeopardize their future income potential. These are football players. They want to play. They also want to smoke pot. Under current rules and law they cannot do both.

Does it sound rational or irrational that so many young athletes give up scholarship opportunities and possible professional careers to smoke weed?

That is highly irrational. And i suspect it's more of a compulsion to smoke than a rational decision to pass up a free education for playing a game they love and a chance to get big bucks later on.
Click to expand...

It's not "irrational" if someone values quality of life more than excess money.
 
bird mcbride

bird mcbride

Well-Known Member
Believe me if the government knew everything they'd know I'm not that shit.
No need to be paranoid:)
The real problem is the government doesn't know everything.
 
G

god1

Well-Known Member
SmokeyDan said:
First of all, that is untrue. Weed has mild withdrawal symptoms. Insomnia and irritability are symptoms of weed withdrawal.

It isn't that weed has no physical dependency, it is just that it's symptoms are really mild.



All physical dependence is, in a nut shell, is that our body becomes dependent on the chemical we take (we make a chemical internally that is very similar to weeds chemicals, that's why it gets us high. Our brain has receptors weed works in because our body produces a chemical just like it) when we get it from weed, natural internal production stops.


As a result, when we stop taking weed, our body no longer has the ability to produce that chemical, it's been shut off. It takes some time to start producing it again.


Secondly, you're making the mistake of equating chemical dependence with addiction. They are NOT the same thing.
Click to expand...


This is rich, “potheads” debating the definition of “marijuana addiction” ---- fucking “potheads”!

Suggestion, switch gears and discuss something much more useful; Legalization vs MMJ. Doer is correct; legalization will have a big impact of MMJ legislation. A good civil discussion would be useful.

Legalization is all about money. Don't be fooled, nobody gives a fuck about the rights of a bunch of potheads, but they like the smell of that money!
 
SmokeyDan

SmokeyDan

Well-Known Member
reasonevangelist said:
It's not "irrational" if someone values quality of life more than excess money.
Click to expand...
Excess money? Ricky Williams and most of these other athletic super stars aren't smart enough or talented enough at anything else to earn money.

I had classes with football and basketball players at my SEC university. I'm sure some of them couldn't even write their own name. They run fast and can catch. That's all they're good at. People worship them for it. They get an ego.

My point, very few members of the University of Alabama's football team would be in college if not for football.

Their choice is excess money or very little money. NFL or minimum wage work.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
SmokeyDan said:
Excess money? Ricky Williams and most of these other athletic super stars aren't smart enough or talented enough at anything else to earn money.

I had classes with football and basketball players at my SEC university. I'm sure some of them couldn't even write their own name. They run fast and can catch. That's all they're good at. People worship them for it. They get an ego.

My point, very few members of the University of Alabama's football team would be in college if not for football.

Their choice is excess money or very little money. NFL or minimum wage work.
Click to expand...
You really want us to believe you went to college...BOY STOP
 
TheMan13

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
In 1970 Congress placed marijuana wrongfully onto the Schedule I list by force based clearly on the racist propaganda of Harry Anlslinger endorsed by Richard Nixon, NOT the facts of the matter nor the clearly written law they aimed to exploited. Any questions?

Placement and removal of a Scheduled Controlled Substance under the law is the responsibility of the U.S. Attorney General, NOT the force of Congress. Yet, not one AG in the 44 years since has even considered righting this wrong, but rather unapologetically built the Empire of militarized Federal enforcement agencies and the raid & seize lawfare we know of today.

How is it that AG Eric Holder gets away with ignoring his responsibility under the law, the Civil Rights violation Congress' 1970 forced placement clearly was and the fact that marijuana is NOT a Schedule I Controlled substance anymore than alcohol or tobacco?

Under 21 U.S.C. § 812b, drugs must meet three criteria in order to be placed in Schedule I:
  • The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
  • The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
  • There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

How do we stop the damage to our society posed by this racketeering of lawyers in clear violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (1970)? I doubt these two facts of history are unassociated in design and we would need to reunite them if integrity is ever to be returned to our "Justice System". But how to police the police when they have the "discretion" and ability to simply not :confused: Our Founding Fathers sadly never considered the threat of lawfare such as "Regulatory Capture" being bought and sold on the "Free Market" and corrupting our democracy free from established checks and balances :(
 
Last edited:
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
View attachment 3218628

dont you feel good that The Brahmin In Cheif is using your tax dollars to fund this bullshit and to pay his lying, sack of shit mouthpieces to repeat his absurd beliefs?

Choomboy has decided that "Drugs are bad, MMM'kay!" and is using our own money to push his propaganda down our throats.

apparently when Barry Seotoro smokes weed, thats OK, cuz he is so strong willed and wise, he can handle it, but the rest of us are too weak to restrain ourselves.

he really does think he is better than the rest of us.
Click to expand...

:dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce:
 
SmokeyDan

SmokeyDan

Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE= "londonfog, post: 10756521, member: 118767"]You really want us to believe you went to college...BOY STOP[/QUOTE]
I don't much care what you believe.
 
R

reasonevangelist

Well-Known Member
SmokeyDan said:
Excess money? Ricky Williams and most of these other athletic super stars aren't smart enough or talented enough at anything else to earn money.

I had classes with football and basketball players at my SEC university. I'm sure some of them couldn't even write their own name. They run fast and can catch. That's all they're good at. People worship them for it. They get an ego.

My point, very few members of the University of Alabama's football team would be in college if not for football.

Their choice is excess money or very little money. NFL or minimum wage work.
Click to expand...
A hard day's honest work plus a bowl or two when you get home, versus living in football prison camp (look it up, those guys have very little freedom during the season) and getting smashed repeatedly by violent men who get paid millions of dollars to neutralize your performance during a game... and if you don't win all the accolades every year, people publicly shame you for being "terrible," while your entire life is built around supporting a giant facade distraction from the real issues.

I can certainly see how some people might choose the former over the latter. Plus, weed doesn't risk paralysis or brain trauma from concussions (the damage from which, ironically enough, can be mitigated with cannabis).

"Because their only option to achieve affluence is professional sports" is kind of a bad argument against cannabis, IMO. And maybe it's not just my opinion.

You could apply "slippery slope" to that argument, and suggest that everyone who isn't born rich or exceptionally physically attractive, should join the military, because that's their only real chance at achieving financial security, from middle age and beyond. So let's legislate mandatory military service for all citizens, excepting those lucky enough to be born affluent and/or beautiful.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
reasonevangelist said:
A hard day's honest work plus a bowl or two when you get home, versus living in football prison camp (look it up, those guys have very little freedom during the season) and getting smashed repeatedly by violent men who get paid millions of dollars to neutralize your performance during a game... and if you don't win all the accolades every year, people publicly shame you for being "terrible," while your entire life is built around supporting a giant facade distraction from the real issues.

I can certainly see how some people might choose the former over the latter. Plus, weed doesn't risk paralysis or brain trauma from concussions (the damage from which, ironically enough, can be mitigated with cannabis).

"Because their only option to achieve affluence is professional sports" is kind of a bad argument against cannabis, IMO. And maybe it's not just my opinion.

You could apply "slippery slope" to that argument, and suggest that everyone who isn't born rich or exceptionally physically attractive, should join the military, because that's their only real chance at achieving financial security, from middle age and beyond. So let's legislate mandatory military service for all citizens, excepting those lucky enough to be born affluent and/or beautiful.
Click to expand...
We used to have that. They called it "the draft".
 
R

reasonevangelist

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
We used to have that. They called it "the draft".
Click to expand...
draft and compulsory service are slightly different animals...

draft is supposed to be used for "emergencies," whereas compulsory service is "everyone ships off at a certain age, regardless" (minus the cited exceptions, of course).


edit: i wouldn't have a problem with enlisting, if i didn't think my government was going to exploit me by sending me to foreign lands to murder brown people for control of their resources, under the guise of "spreading democracy and freedom."

Although i personally would have been rejected due to the physical issues i had already accumulated before i turned 18. I did fill out my registration card though. You know, just in case.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
View attachment 3218628

dont you feel good that The Brahmin In Cheif is using your tax dollars to fund this bullshit and to pay his lying, sack of shit mouthpieces to repeat his absurd beliefs?

Choomboy has decided that "Drugs are bad, MMM'kay!" and is using our own money to push his propaganda down our throats.

apparently when Barry Seotoro smokes weed, thats OK, cuz he is so strong willed and wise, he can handle it, but the rest of us are too weak to restrain ourselves.

he really does think he is better than the rest of us.
Click to expand...
Hold on... So 66.5% of teens will die from reefer overdoses?

I'd have thought that wouldve made the news...

My thought on the OP? I can unravel their "logic" with one sentence.

Barrack, you speak like you'd be introducing a "new substance" onto the market, its already here, nigga.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
TheMan13 said:
In 1970 Congress placed marijuana wrongfully onto the Schedule I list by force based clearly on the racist propaganda of Harry Anlslinger endorsed by Richard Nixon, NOT the facts of the matter nor the clearly written law they aimed to exploited. Any questions?

Placement and removal of a Scheduled Controlled Substance under the law is the responsibility of the U.S. Attorney General, NOT the force of Congress. Yet, not one AG in the 44 years since has even considered righting this wrong, but rather unapologetically built the Empire of militarized Federal enforcement agencies and the raid & seize lawfare we know of today.

How is it that AG Eric Holder gets away with ignoring his responsibility under the law, the Civil Rights violation Congress' 1970 forced placement clearly was and the fact that marijuana is NOT a Schedule I Controlled substance anymore than alcohol or tobacco?

Under 21 U.S.C. § 812b, drugs must meet three criteria in order to be placed in Schedule I:
  • The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
  • The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
  • There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

How do we stop the damage to our society posed by this racketeering of lawyers in clear violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (1970)? I doubt these two facts of history are unassociated in design and we would need to reunite them if integrity is ever to be returned to our "Justice System". But how to police the police when they have the "discretion" and ability to simply not :confused: Our Founding Fathers sadly never considered the threat of lawfare such as "Regulatory Capture" being bought and sold on the "Free Market" and corrupting our democracy free from established checks and balances :(
Click to expand...
You're accepting the legitimacy of the system by saying it doesn't belong in schedule 1.

The scheduling system itself is faulty and even if it did work, cannabis shouldn't be scheduled at all, period.
 
bird mcbride

bird mcbride

Well-Known Member
I was in the army. We got popped but not caught directly smoking mj in the officers mess. They took us up in one of those duel prop hellicoptors and tried to dump us into the minas basin at 100ft.
Canada has moved mj to schedule 2, but on the other hand patients had to give up their grow-ops.
 
R

reasonevangelist

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
You're accepting the legitimacy of the system by saying it doesn't belong in schedule 1.

The scheduling system itself is faulty and even if it did work, cannabis shouldn't be scheduled at all, period.
Click to expand...
Yep. This is the biggest trick that people fall for without realizing: accepting the asserted legitimacy of an illegitimate system which uses an invalid basis as the foundation of its "legitimized authority."

It's the same thing as when "creationists" insist on challenging atheists "prove god doesn't exist!"

Burden of proof rests upon the claimant. All those involved in manufacturing cannabis prohibition, have never satisfied the requirement of sufficiently justifying their claims that it is "dangerous." Furthermore, they have acted destructively toward many people who have not provoked it, as if they are not obligated to substantiate their own claim.

By accepting their challenge: "prove it isn't dangerous!" you are accepting their invalid and unsubstantiated assertion, as the starting point for the debate, when in fact, the starting point is, was, and remains, their STILL unjustified (and unjustifiable) claim of "dangerous."

They demand disproof, while ignoring their own requirement of substantiating evidence for their still invalid claims.

They never proved it was dangerous enough, to satisfy the requirements of authorizing themselves to threaten and commit violence against people who are fully capable of safely using a plant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top