Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There is absolutely a battle going on more intense that at any other

time in this countries medical/pharma industry. How so many refuse to

understand the consequences of our blind trust to this behemoth is

beyond me. Is it out of fear? is it out of someone thinking they are doing

the "responsible" thing? Is it a mindset that promotes the blind acceptance

of whatever pharma concoction or potion a doctor offers should be taken

because they "know best?

 

Alternative therapies on average are far more effective and less threatening

than what big pharma can offer, and because of this...hospitals and doctors

are losing business, as well as the pharma complex. That is the bottom line

and responsible medicine went out the window many years ago for the sake

of increased profit. Now we see death rates rising, people becoming sicker,

while under care of their doctors, and yet so few pay attention to this.

 

Alternative therapies are curing disease, the medical establishment is NOT

interested in cures, only in repeat customers, that is a fact, and one that

cannot continue to be overlooked just because big pharma pays off politicians

and the agencies responsible for keeping a watch on the pharma complex.

FDA is complicit and has been for decades in the growth and harm that

big pharma has played a part in, and the FDA budget is dependant upon

the pharma complex...conflict of interest?

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is absolutely a battle going on more intense that at any other

time in this countries medical/pharma industry. How so many refuse to

understand the consequences of our blind trust to this behemoth is

beyond me. Is it out of fear? is it out of someone thinking they are doing

the "responsible" thing? Is it a mindset that promotes the blind acceptance

of whatever pharma concoction or potion a doctor offers should be taken

because they "know best?

 

Alternative therapies on average are far more effective and less threatening

than what big pharma can offer, and because of this...hospitals and doctors

are losing business, as well as the pharma complex. That is the bottom line

and responsible medicine went out the window many years ago for the sake

of increased profit. Now we see death rates rising, people becoming sicker,

while under care of their doctors, and yet so few pay attention to this.

 

Alternative therapies are curing disease, the medical establishment is NOT

interested in cures, only in repeat customers, that is a fact, and one that

cannot continue to be overlooked just because big pharma pays off politicians

and the agencies responsible for keeping a watch on the pharma complex.

FDA is complicit and has been for decades in the growth and harm that

big pharma has played a part in, and the FDA budget is dependant upon

the pharma complex...conflict of interest?

 

All very true Jim...in fact this battle is going on globally...

 

There is a battle between controls that countries currently have to implement measures for the safety of their citizens and the illegal controls (private international corporate courts) that big pharma is trying implement to protect their profits...a huge part of TPP and TTIPP that they are currently pushing to be "fast tracked" through our congress.  People had better start paying attention to this...just sayin...

 

EU drops controls on dangerous chemicals after TTIP pressure from US – report     EU proposals to regulate hormone-damaging chemicals linked to cancer, fertility problems and diabetes were allegedly dropped following pressure from US trade officials amid talks on the controversial Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim, I don't take any drugs but coffee (that I know of).  My statement is related to those drugs to put you to sleep through surgery, for pain related to the surgery, or those meds to prevent infection.  My wife is a diabetic and takes an occasional pill for control, but most of it is controlled by diet.  I have bouts with vertigo and take an something to contain that when it gets out of control about once ever 10 years.  

 

My advise is still sound, "The only use of a drug should be under the supervision of doctors in hospitals."  I'll stick with it.  Try having a heart transplant or bypass surgery without the use of anesthetics. It is ridiculous to think that one could!  And, it does not matter how healthy a lifestyle one lives, they still may face have a problem to "face the knife."   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

METH

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

MARYJANE 

 

 

Before

 

 
 
After
 
 
 
 
OK  I pick Maryjane.
Just saying

 

Exactly. One is made from chemical like sulfuric acid and red phosphorus, and the other grows in your garden, just like mint, parsley, or basil. I rest my case. Thx Dog

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

RV ME - concur - pretty much. The deaths in CO have been from ingesting too much contained in the edible products. Not from smoking to my knowledge.

I read a few articles, and it seems one guy shot his wife, and I read he was on other drugs, one guy was high and fell off a balcony, and another shot and killed himself. What I take away from this is: with the 1st guy, I believe the other drugs were far more likely to affect him in an aggressive manor. The second fella who died, didn't die from the marijuana, he died from hitting the pavement. The last guy who killed himself, didn't die from the pot, he died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. The 1st and 3rd individuals clearly had psychological issues, in which the marijuana may or may not have played a part, and should have been seeking help, or at the very least talking to someone about it instead of self-medicating. The 2nd guy falling from the balcony could have done the same thing drunk on alcohol, or a sober as a judge, sometimes accident just happen. While all three are tragic, still, no one has ever died from a marijuana overdose.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything that you take that steals your brain should never be considered as an option.  Alcohol, Marijuana, or any other drug that we create.........

 

 

Jim, I don't take any drugs but coffee

 

 

 

...... grows in your garden, just like mint, parsley, or basil.....

 

 

Nelg,

I mean no offense, and hope you do not take this the wrong way, but by your own words your drug of choice is caffeine.  I am not saying this in a negative way, just stating the facts as per your post. 

 

Caffeine is a central nervous system stimulant and classified as a psychoactive drug.  It is the world’s most widely consumed psychoactive drug, but unlike many other psychoactive substances it is legal and unregulated (also not stigmatized), but none the less it is still a drug.  It affects areas of the brain that produce pleasure.  Heavy users will exhibit symptoms of withdraw if denied the drug.  If extracted in its pure form, a tablespoon would be lethal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine

 

The effects of caffeine are similar to results when ingesting the coca leaf (another God created naturally occurring stimulant) in that there is a boost of energy and stamina.  Many people in Central & South America make tea from these leaves and the drug is then consumed just like caffeine.  But since the coca plant has been stigmatized by the human produced cocaine, I am guessing that you would not look favorably on the consumption of coca products even though it is actually no different than the coffee you drink and may actually be better in that there is no long term addiction or withdraw symptoms if  use is discontinued.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca

 

 

Marijuana is another naturally occurring God created plant that contains the psychoactive drug (mistakenly classified as a narcotic by our government for incarceration purposes) Tetrahydrocannabinol or THC Even though it differs from the above in that it instead of stimulating the person consuming it, the person is more relaxed and euphoric.  Historically, THC has been consumed about as long as caffeine, but in the early 20th century it was stigmatized by the federal government and made illegal (under false pretenses).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_%28drug%29

 

 

Part of the stigmatization of marijuana was to try to convince the public that THC consumption would have a myriad of horrible side effects and health consequences.  It has been suggested that marijuana use will alter a persons DNA, result in infertility, destroy brain cells, and the recent claim of stunting growth by 4”.  These claims have been made since before I was born and in all my years that is all these are, CLAIMS.  No proof or studies have been produced to back these claims, so in my mind they are no more valid than the claims made by the global warming crowd.

 

All of the drugs I mentioned are naturally occurring, created by God not man.  Again, I point these things out not to offend you, but to demonstrate that the stigmatization of some drugs has most defiantly had the desired effect on you that was intended.  However, since your drug of choice has not been stigmatized, you do not even view it as a drug.  So I ask that you think about this and that you do not negatively view those whose drug of choice differs from yours.

RV ME

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
A Different Libertarian Take on Glenn Beck’s Drug Debate

 

Alasdair Denvil

 

 

Glenn Beck on May 21 dedicated his three-hour radio program to a debate on drug policy, as he tries to square his libertarian leanings with the fact that drug use can do (harm that he’s seen first-hand in his own past). While the debate focused on the legalization of marijuana, it touched on a discussion of general drug legalization.

 

Beck was joined on-air by Jacob Sullum of Reason (arguing for legalization) and Robert White (co-author with Bill Bennet of “Going to Pot,” a book against legalization).

 

Without knowledge, drug legalization looks less like freedom, and more like Russian roulette.

 

As a group, they covered the territory you’d expect to hear: on the one hand, whether it’s marijuana or heroin or alcohol, drugs can have a horrible effect on the promise and productivity of otherwise wonderful people; on the other hand, many of us believe in autonomy, self-rule, and people making (and fixing) their own mistakes in line with John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle:

 

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

 

Mill’s harm principle has become a standard expression of libertarianism, and while I’ve got a strong affection for it, I’ve sometimes wondered if it has all the answers. At the very least, I wonder if libertarianism could take a different view of personal freedom that might bring it toward a different policy on drugs.

 

For instance, think about the libertarian stance on education.

 

Libertarians are usually described as being in favor of choice in education and school voucher. But these policies still involve a lot of government intervention – taxpayers with no kids fund the education of someone else’s children, and government still regulates what sorts of things private schools must teach – and you’ll find many libertarians who argue there should ultimately be no public schools, no government vouchers for private schools, and no mandate that children receive an education.

 

In other words, education isn’t compulsory, kids don’t have to go to school. If they do go to school, there’s no government regulations about what they have to learn with respect to reading or writing, math and basic science, U.S. history or the Constitution, and so forth. And whatever school they go to, you, the parents, pay for it. Or maybe you tell your kids to pay for it themselves – after all, it’s their education, not yours – so let them take out a loan and helpfully advise them to choose a lucrative career path that will pay it off.

 

And this is where I, and a lot of other people, worry that libertarianism leads to the wrong conclusion. Maybe even a conclusion that isn’t good for liberty.

Is somebody really free if they’re unable to read and write, and therefore unable to access the wealth of learning that we’ve accumulated over the centuries; if they can’t do simple arithmetic, and don’t understand basic scientific facts (such as that the Earth revolves around the Sun, that infections are caused by tiny bacteria and viruses); if they don’t understand the history of how their country came to be, how it resulted from a myriad of discussions about political philosophy, human rights and responsibilities?

 

Without a certain minimum education, aren’t you just being set up to freely make stupid decisions? Won’t completely free-market education result in parents making decisions for their kids that will result in them dying, dying before they have a chance to learn to be free, or before they’re even born?

 

Maybe libertarianism should be reformulated, not as a theory about rights, but about consequences. That is, maybe libertarians should be pushing for government that results in the greatest amount of liberty, even if that sometimes means state intervention. For instance, government should demand that kids get an education in the name of creating more people who are truly free down the road.

 

Likewise, getting back to drug policy, I would argue that people are more free when they’re informed about drugs. That’s why, as part of our compulsory education, we instruct children about what kinds of drugs there are – stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens – along with how dangerous they tend to be. That’s because, with some narcotics, taking them the first time can result in you taking a path that you’re then not free to step away from, either because of addiction or death.

 

Perhaps people should be free to choose whether to take the risk of using drugs. And maybe the rest of us should be free to let them face the consequences of that choice alone. But shouldn’t it be mandatory that people be informed about what decision it is that they’re making? If someone thinks drugs are no different from bubble gum, how is it anything other than a matter of luck – not liberty or self-rule – determining whether they have a bad history with drugs?

 

I understand the danger of paternal decisions by government, whether they result in greater liberty or not (remember Justina Pelletier?). What else do we require parents or individuals to do and learn in the name of greater liberty? Do we demand that they learn calculus and a second language? Lose weight? Use hand sanitizer?

 

But, at the same time, you have to know what it is you’re potentially getting into when you take cocaine or heroin. You have to know that you might be making a choice that results in an addiction that you can never (or not easily) choose to undo.

 

Without that knowledge, drug legalization looks a lot less like freedom, and a lot more like Russian roulette.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pot stays in your fat tissue for days to months after your last hit.  There is no measuring ability to tell if someone is under the influence or not.  It does affect a person's cognitive ability and rational thinking.  It is often laced with other drugs.  If you doubt this your are as naive as Obutt is about the radical Islamic threat.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pot stays in your fat tissue for days to months after your last hit.  There is no measuring ability to tell if someone is under the influence or not.  It does affect a person's cognitive ability and rational thinking.  It is often laced with other drugs.  If you doubt this your are as naive as Obutt is about the radical Islamic threat.

 Often laced with drugs? Where do you come up with this crap? Yea maybe if you buy it off some corner thug...IT GROWS OUT OF THE EARTH.

Did you bother to read ANY of the proceeding comments packed with links and information?

And as far as Obama is concerned, he is just another corporate puppet as was Bush, Clinton and Bush's daddy were. The only Islamic threat is the one the govt created to frighten people like yourself in to backing another corporate war.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having worked in the field for around 10 years yes it is laced.  I do not care what pro pot people may say to defend it.  Besides, even 'growing from the ground' anything you put on it such as fertilizer also goes into the plant.  Everything on it is in it.  I also do not give a rat's butt print who smoked it or when.  If you wonder how it can be used as a weapon asked some of the guy from Nam who were smoking it that they got from the dinks.  It was laced with other drugs.  If I listened to my government regarding the ISIS threat I would be believing in unicorns.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife and I grow all of our tomatoes, peppers, and garden herbs in the same earth my friend uses. Myself I'm not a pot smoker, but prefer a beer or a cocktail, and I will admit, booze has done WAY more damage to Americans and the world than pot EVER will.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nelg,

 

 

I mean no offense, and hope you do not take this the wrong way, but by your own words your drug of choice is caffeine.  I am not saying this in a negative way, just stating the facts as per your post. 

 

Caffeine is a central nervous system stimulant and classified as a psychoactive drug.  It is the world’s most widely consumed psychoactive drug, but unlike many other psychoactive substances it is legal and unregulated (also not stigmatized), but none the less it is still a drug.  It affects areas of the brain that produce pleasure.  Heavy users will exhibit symptoms of withdraw if denied the drug.  If extracted in its pure form, a tablespoon would be lethal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine

 

The effects of caffeine are similar to results when ingesting the coca leaf (another God created naturally occurring stimulant) in that there is a boost of energy and stamina.  Many people in Central & South America make tea from these leaves and the drug is then consumed just like caffeine.  But since the coca plant has been stigmatized by the human produced cocaine, I am guessing that you would not look favorably on the consumption of coca products even though it is actually no different than the coffee you drink and may actually be better in that there is no long term addiction or withdraw symptoms if  use is discontinued.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca

 

 

Marijuana is another naturally occurring God created plant that contains the psychoactive drug (mistakenly classified as a narcotic by our government for incarceration purposes) Tetrahydrocannabinol or THC Even though it differs from the above in that it instead of stimulating the person consuming it, the person is more relaxed and euphoric.  Historically, THC has been consumed about as long as caffeine, but in the early 20th century it was stigmatized by the federal government and made illegal (under false pretenses).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_%28drug%29

 

 

Part of the stigmatization of marijuana was to try to convince the public that THC consumption would have a myriad of horrible side effects and health consequences.  It has been suggested that marijuana use will alter a persons DNA, result in infertility, destroy brain cells, and the recent claim of stunting growth by 4”.  These claims have been made since before I was born and in all my years that is all these are, CLAIMS.  No proof or studies have been produced to back these claims, so in my mind they are no more valid than the claims made by the global warming crowd.

 

All of the drugs I mentioned are naturally occurring, created by God not man.  Again, I point these things out not to offend you, but to demonstrate that the stigmatization of some drugs has most defiantly had the desired effect on you that was intended.  However, since your drug of choice has not been stigmatized, you do not even view it as a drug.  So I ask that you think about this and that you do not negatively view those whose drug of choice differs from yours.

RV ME

 

_____________________________

RV, I take no offense.  However, there is no way that a couple of cups of coffee can even be compared to a couple of snorts of any drug, or even a couple of drinks of alcohol.  Concentration of  substances: sugar, honey, and a number of other foods can be bad for you.  A barrel of apples can do a lot of damage to your digestive system, but who is stupid enough to try an eat a barrel?  Too much sugar can damage the brain (http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2012/04/01/what-eating-too-much-sugar-does-to-your-brain/), or if one eat 15 tbsp. of honey a day, it will cause gastric problems such as stomach cramps, bloating and diarrhea (http://www.livestrong.com/article/410468-side-effects-of-eating-too-much-honey/) yet it has been used for medicine for centuries .   The point is, too much of anything in the food change causes some type of problem.  

Drugs like cocaine,  marijuana, and a host of other drugs cannot be compared to a couple of cups of coffee; now can it?   I'm all for living healthy, but not to the point of obsessing about it.  Drugs are totally a different matter.  Take one sniff, joint, or hit and see what happens.  Do you think coffee would do that?  I don't think so.  

Now, I think I will go out on the deck and have a nice glass of iced tea while I enjoy a peanut-butter and honey sandwich.  :eyebrows: 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pot stays in your fat tissue for days to months after your last hit.  There is no measuring ability to tell if someone is under the influence or not.  It does affect a person's cognitive ability and rational thinking.  It is often laced with other drugs.  If you doubt this your are as naive as Obutt is about the radical Islamic threat.

All true in some cases! Thanks Bohica. People (and governments) do terrible things. And not everyone has the skills or set up to grow their own. Perhaps this makes a good argument for regulation and quality control? :shrug: Isn't it natural to assume that everyone who chooses to imbibe, smoke or otherwise ingest anything, wants to know it's safe(ish)? To me, this would be the best reason to legalize... QUALITY CONTROL and accountability...

IN THE 1980′S THE DIRECTOR OF THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION ADMITTED TO USING A POISON NAMED “PARAQUAT” ON MARIJUANA CROPS, POTENTIALLY HARMFUL FOR DRUG USERS AND THE ENTIRE SURROUNDING ECOSYSTEM.

By JG Vibes

Yesterday i published an article on the history of prohibition, discussing how the US Government added poison to industrial alcohol to discourage consumption. People continued to drink it, so the government added more and they killed 10,000 people.

Many of our readers sent in emails and made comments informing us that a similar case occurred in the past few decades, where the government poisoned marijuana crops with a chemical named “Paraquat”. This was admitted by the DEA as reported by the New York Times:

The director of the Drug Enforcement Administration said today that the Government would use the herbicide paraquat and two others in a stepped-up campaign to eradicate domestically grown marijuana.The use of paraquat, banned from national forests in 1983 because of environmental concerns, was announced by the director, John C. Lawn, at a news conference.

A drug agency spokesman, Cornelius Dougherty, subsequently said that, in light of a 1983 ruling by Federal Judge June Green, paraquat would be sprayed for marijuana eradication on private land, not on public property. The other two herbicides cited by Mr. Lawn, 2,4D and glyphosate, are not involved in the ruling and could be used on public lands, a spokesman said.

Jay Feldman, coordinator of the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides, said: ”The other two chemicals don’t have the same restrictions, but while that may be complying with the letter of the law, it is violating the principles that protect national lands to ensure the protection of wildlife habitats and recreation areas.”

Paraquat, which is used in agriculture to clear fields before planting and after harvest, is an acid that can produce severe lung damage in humans if ingested. However, The government statement completed in July 1985 and found that ”there is a slight risk that heavy smokers of marijuana could be affected by paraquat-sprayed marijuana.” Totally downplaying the dangers that this chemical could have to humans.

As I have discussed over this past week in relation to the drug war, in the black market one of the major drawbacks is that there is no accountability among the people selling the drug. Since anyone can get kidnapped and thrown in a cage for even dealing with the stuff, it really doesn’t make sense for people to be plastering their names and logos all over the drugs.

In this age of corporate mercantilism logos and branding may seem like a really tacky idea, but when looking at the black market we can see the value in such things. Someone who is selling a product with their name on it, is going to go through far greater lengths to ensure the quality of their product, as opposed to someone who would remain anonymous.

This anonymity creates an incentive for people to be dishonest with what they sell. This could lead to rip offs, or downright contamination of the drug with unwanted harmful substances. This is why there was bathtub gin that would make you go blind if your drank it during alcohol prohibition. This is also the reason why some of the harder street drugs today are cut with toxic chemicals that increase the chance of overdose ten fold.

https://www.intellihub.com/us-gov-admitted-to-spraying-paraquat-poison-on-marijuana-in-1980s/

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I mean no offense, and hope you do not take this the wrong way, but by your own words your drug of choice is caffeine.  I am not saying this in a negative way, just stating the facts as per your post. 

 

Caffeine is a central nervous system stimulant and classified as a psychoactive drug.  It is the world’s most widely consumed psychoactive drug, but unlike many other psychoactive substances it is legal and unregulated (also not stigmatized), but none the less it is still a drug.  It affects areas of the brain that produce pleasure.  Heavy users will exhibit symptoms of withdraw if denied the drug.  If extracted in its pure form, a tablespoon would be lethal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine

 

The effects of caffeine are similar to results when ingesting the coca leaf (another God created naturally occurring stimulant) in that there is a boost of energy and stamina.  Many people in Central & South America make tea from these leaves and the drug is then consumed just like caffeine.  But since the coca plant has been stigmatized by the human produced cocaine, I am guessing that you would not look favorably on the consumption of coca products even though it is actually no different than the coffee you drink and may actually be better in that there is no long term addiction or withdraw symptoms if  use is discontinued.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca

 

 

Marijuana is another naturally occurring God created plant that contains the psychoactive drug (mistakenly classified as a narcotic by our government for incarceration purposes) Tetrahydrocannabinol or THC Even though it differs from the above in that it instead of stimulating the person consuming it, the person is more relaxed and euphoric.  Historically, THC has been consumed about as long as caffeine, but in the early 20th century it was stigmatized by the federal government and made illegal (under false pretenses).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_%28drug%29

 

 

Part of the stigmatization of marijuana was to try to convince the public that THC consumption would have a myriad of horrible side effects and health consequences.  It has been suggested that marijuana use will alter a persons DNA, result in infertility, destroy brain cells, and the recent claim of stunting growth by 4”.  These claims have been made since before I was born and in all my years that is all these are, CLAIMS.  No proof or studies have been produced to back these claims, so in my mind they are no more valid than the claims made by the global warming crowd.

 

All of the drugs I mentioned are naturally occurring, created by God not man.  Again, I point these things out not to offend you, but to demonstrate that the stigmatization of some drugs has most defiantly had the desired effect on you that was intended.  However, since your drug of choice has not been stigmatized, you do not even view it as a drug.  So I ask that you think about this and that you do not negatively view those whose drug of choice differs from yours.

RV ME

 

_____________________________

RV, I take no offense.  However, there is no way that a couple of cups of coffee can even be compared to a couple of snorts of any drug, or even a couple of drinks of alcohol.  Concentration of  substances: sugar, honey, and a number of other foods can be bad for you.  A barrel of apples can do a lot of damage to your digestive system, but who is stupid enough to try an eat a barrel?  Too much sugar can damage the brain (http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2012/04/01/what-eating-too-much-sugar-does-to-your-brain/), or if one eat 15 tbsp. of honey a day, it will cause gastric problems such as stomach cramps, bloating and diarrhea (http://www.livestrong.com/article/410468-side-effects-of-eating-too-much-honey/) yet it has been used for medicine for centuries .   The point is, too much of anything in the food change causes some type of problem.  

Drugs like cocaine,  marijuana, and a host of other drugs cannot be compared to a couple of cups of coffee; now can it?   I'm all for living healthy, but not to the point of obsessing about it.  Drugs are totally a different matter.  Take one sniff, joint, or hit and see what happens.  Do you think coffee would do that?  I don't think so.  

Now, I think I will go out on the deck and have a nice glass of iced tea while I enjoy a peanut-butter and honey sandwich.  :eyebrows: 

 

 

I believe that you missed my point or I did not verbalize it clearly.  I do indeed make the comparisons between the natural drug caffeine in your coffee and the natural (not refined) drug cocaine and THC in their respective plants.  I believe the coca comparison is precisely the same as coffee in that if a tea is made from boiling the coca leaf it would have the exact same effect (and lack of side effects) as the coffee you drink.  The THC comparison is the same except the effect of the drug is not the same as the other two, which are stimulants. I will grant that smoking marijuana will have long term consequences just by the fact that you are smoking, but that is because of the delivery of the drug not the drug itself.  I used the example of the concentrated caffeine to compare to the refined form of powered cocaine and the eatable items containing some unknown form of THC that are being marketed today.  This would be similar to your 15 tbsp of honey. 

 

As with debating my brother on this subject, I believe you and I will have to agree we will never convince the other on our point of view.  Not a problem here, and as it is time for my afternoon coffee I will lift my mug to you and wish you a very nice rest of the day. :peace:

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is really dificult to find very many who actually will discuss any negatives regarding pot.  I have found a few here but not many.  Usually those who are really pro pot are REALLY pro pot and so are like classic liberals who are wonderfully open minded until you disagree with them and then they are worse than hyper conservative religious fanatics who are just plain evil and mean.  I have found that for some of the vets I know that pot helps calm them down where nothing else will work.  But I also know that people who say you cannot get hooked on it are just blowing smoke (no pun intended) and are lying through their teeth.  Anyone who says it cannot have negative consequences are equally lying to protect their habit.  If it is used as a medicine then it can be abused like medicine.  If it is to be used as medicine then use it like medicine and not just because you have stumped your toe.  I have found that most pro pot people really do not care about facts, discussion, or reality.  They just want their pot.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds correct in theory, Nelg... but unrealistic in practice. I wonder what percentage of humans reach for comfort in any form, of a body or mind-altering substance. I'm guessing it's pretty high (no pun intended) and would be higher with legal access.

BTW... Jim1cor13 will be around soon to school you on the evils of the pharmaceutical industry! ;):lol:

It is not a theory.  Morality is real, personal, consistent, and vital to the individuals well being.  Percentages don't mean anything.  The rest of the world may violate their mind and destroy the cognitive ability, but that does not determine or make it correct or morally right.  Why would it be unrealistic in practice??  

I find comfort in the relationship I have with my family, loved ones, and mostly Jesus Christ.  I would not have the power on my own to stand against the temptation of drug use.  However, through the power that Christ's Spirit provides and walking after the Spirit's leading, I can and do overcome those temptations.  To try and do it on ones own is not really smart and extremely dangerous.  I tried it on my own and it does not work. The only thing that gives me the power to overcome the fleshly mind is having the mind of Christ through the Spirit of God. 

But you are correct.  This is the way the world and the flesh think.  If you have a problem, look for the nearest bar.  If you "want to get away," reach for the drugs.  In fact, in the world's thinking the only way to have a "party" or to "have fun" is if you have drugs, alcohol, and sex.  Nothing is "fun" unless you have those elements.  Most think it is "sheik" and "mature" to have such a party time.  It isn't, but that is the way the flesh gets the person to thinking.  It is called having a "fleshly mind."

Drugs, stimulants, or even sexual temptations were overcome when I became a child of God.  That might sound pompous to the mind of the flesh, but not to those with a spiritual mind-set.  

It doesn't matter how many laws are passed making it legal to sell or grow a substance.  It does not mean that it is morally right to take, sell, or grow drugs.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a theory.  Morality is real, personal, consistent, and vital to the individuals well being.  Percentages don't mean anything.  The rest of the world may violate their mind and destroy the cognitive ability, but that does not determine or make it correct or morally right.  Why would it be unrealistic in practice??  

I find comfort in the relationship I have with my family, loved ones, and mostly Jesus Christ.  I would not have the power on my own to stand against the temptation of drug use.  However, through the power that Christ's Spirit provides and walking after the Spirit's leading, I can and do overcome those temptations.  To try and do it on ones own is not really smart and extremely dangerous.  I tried it on my own and it does not work. The only thing that gives me the power to overcome the fleshly mind is having the mind of Christ through the Spirit of God. 

But you are correct.  This is the way the world and the flesh think.  If you have a problem, look for the nearest bar.  If you "want to get away," reach for the drugs.  In fact, in the world's thinking the only way to have a "party" or to "have fun" is if you have drugs, alcohol, and sex.  Nothing is "fun" unless you have those elements.  Most think it is "sheik" and "mature" to have such a party time.  It isn't, but that is the way the flesh gets the person to thinking.  It is called having a "fleshly mind."

Drugs, stimulants, or even sexual temptations were overcome when I became a child of God.  That might sound pompous to the mind of the flesh, but not to those with a spiritual mind-set.  

It doesn't matter how many laws are passed making it legal to sell or grow a substance.  It does not mean that it is morally right to take, sell, or grow drugs.

Oh... so it's not a legal but a 'moral' issue.

I don't know, Nelg... I admire your personal resolve but I think it's very 'human' to use God-given substances to ease 'discomfort' and enjoy recreationally. Free will has cost us all plenty!

People use for many reasons. I think we can agree that doctor supervised drug use (not abuse) is generally acceptable. Some 'self-medicate' to ease pain or discomfort. And then there are the 'recreational' users of drugs and alcohol... looking for a way to relax and/or just make everything a little more interesting! As with all good things, it's the abusers who give a lasting bad impressions... escape artists looking to check out of reality.

I commend you for reaching the pinnacle of righteous Christian thought and behavior! :) I'm certain it takes much discipline and faith to hold true to your beliefs in this oh so secular world. I'm a sinner. I see my "fleshy mind" as a gift from God... BECAUSE he loves me, He has provided ways to enhance my experience here on Earth! I exercise my free will responsibly and within the bounds of moderation (and marriage).

Would I be a better person if I had never enjoyed a few adult beverages? Absolutely not, my friend! "Beer is proof that God loves us!" ~Benjamin Franklin. Jesus could have turned water into 'pure' water but he turned it into wine! It's a choice... and for some, indeed it is a slippery slope.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The states which have legalized it has realized it was the dumbest thing they did.  There is no means by which a police officer can test to see if you are under the influence of weed because with it staying in the body for as long as it does it does not reflect current usage.  So for those who just like to get high off of the weed there is no recourse for good people who might be killed because of some idiot who wanted to drive impared.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The states which have legalized it has realized it was the dumbest thing they did.  There is no means by which a police officer can test to see if you are under the influence of weed because with it staying in the body for as long as it does it does not reflect current usage.  So for those who just like to get high off of the weed there is no recourse for good people who might be killed because of some idiot who wanted to drive impared.  

Okay... I feel ya! And I don't disagree but I also think it opens up a loophole for the police to search someone if they even suspect impairment or think they've 'caught a whiff' of pot. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before a test is developed to detect 'current usage' (like a breathalyzer or saliva sample). Are there laws on the books in those states concerning DWH (driving while high)? Is it possible to enforce?

Another problem I see is for employers. Many companies require a clean drug test to be hired, not to mention safely perform the job. How can an employer be assured that their company policy isn't outweighed by the state's legislative policy? I would hope not... but again, is it possible to enforce? Does it set us up for a whole new class of 'unemployable' (can't pass a drug test) that will be legally 'entitled' to 'benefits'? Will employers be forced to relax their policy only to risk liability of a 'wake&bake' employee? I assume the kid making my latte is stoned but the guy who's supposed to be tightening my lug nuts better not be! Very glad I don't own a business in Colorado or Washington State!

Perhaps marijuana legalization is just another way to divide us... make the police more intrusive because some people can't wait till they get home to get their buzz on, force employers to hire from an ever-decreasing pool of qualified, sober workers and putting additional burdens on the taxpayers to sort it all out!

Thanks obama! ;)

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh... so it's not a legal but a 'moral' issue.

I don't know, Nelg... I admire your personal resolve but I think it's very 'human' to use God-given substances to ease 'discomfort' and enjoy recreationally. Free will has cost us all plenty!

People use for many reasons. I think we can agree that doctor supervised drug use (not abuse) is generally acceptable. Some 'self-medicate' to ease pain or discomfort. And then there are the 'recreational' users of drugs and alcohol... looking for a way to relax and/or just make everything a little more interesting! As with all good things, it's the abusers who give a lasting bad impressions... escape artists looking to check out of reality.

I commend you for reaching the pinnacle of righteous Christian thought and behavior! :) I'm certain it takes much discipline and faith to hold true to your beliefs in this oh so secular world. I'm a sinner. I see my "fleshy mind" as a gift from God... BECAUSE he loves me, He has provided ways to enhance my experience here on Earth! I exercise my free will responsibly and within the bounds of moderation (and marriage).

Would I be a better person if I had never enjoyed a few adult beverages? Absolutely not, my friend! "Beer is proof that God loves us!" ~Benjamin Franklin. Jesus could have turned water into 'pure' water but he turned it into wine! It's a choice... and for some, indeed it is a slippery slope.

Yes, it is a moral issue.  There are many "legal" issues that it is immoral to do them aka. same sex marriage issue, abortion, etc.  Yes, I believe these things are immoral and against the revealed will of God.  The same holds true with abusive use of drugs.  

The "fleshly mind" is not a gift from God to be abused.  The fleshly mind can and should be controlled by the individual.  Desires "of the flesh" have their place but not when uncontrolled.  Discipline by the individual to know how and when these desires are to be used is an important element.  Desires to have physical intimacy with another person is good and right inside of marriage; they are sinful and wrong outside of marriage.  Eating and drinking is good, but doing either to the excess is wrong.  

My guide is always the instruction from the Spirit through the Word of God, and the power to do what He wants is my submission to His leading and direction.  If you don't mind a suggestion, read through Romans, chapter 6 through 8.  It is interesting and God reveals the difference between the "mind of the Spirit" and the "mind of the fleshy."  

When I started living the Christian life, it was hard.  I had many things that I needed to "put to death," which were all working against my relationship with God.  Now it is much, much easier and is totally more rewarding.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Testing the Rocker Badge!

  • Live Exchange Rate

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.