|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,069
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,069 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
The US is a reactive society for the most part, not a proactive one. It's only when something becomes a GLARING and DANGEROUS problem do we react and it's something that DRIVES me up the wall...
Hey but when we do finally react the whole world gets pissed at us and somehow makese the problem our fault. :-/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 53
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 53 |
WOW! This has got to be the most intelligent debate over this subject that i have ever witnessed. I hope big brother is watching this. I choose not to smoke anything. I have tried cigarettes, cigars and pot. The most appealing to me was cigars. But alas... I am one of those people who have to carry an inhailer almost everywhere i go. For me, smoking=russian rolett. (yes, I know my spellings off)
But like i mentoned ealier i've known some very successful smokers. I honestly do believe it comes down to a genetic issue of who's addicatble and who's not. On the other side of my aquantances, for awhile (anybody ever hear of the now defunt Phil's Hobbies in Farmers Branch/Carrollton) I had the pleaser of keeping company with an FBI agent, a mailman cop (whatever they're called) and basicly several deferent Police officers from several different agencies. So when i hear of someone "growing" it in their back yard, I am amused because i have heard first hand of the methods used to find it. But yes, it is a waste of our national resorces to fight it, it is (in my opinion)a waste of personal resorces as well to buy it, but so are alot of other things we all love, Oh well. Legalize it - Tax it, then use that money to educate people, then someday, like cigarette usage, the demand will reduce.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
Originally posted by DimitriPopov:
Hey but when we do finally react the whole world gets pissed at us and somehow makese the problem our fault. :-/
can always count on the peanut gallery to throw in a useless comment. 
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 8,143
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 8,143 |
16 pages...just.........let............the..............thread............go...........awayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,069
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,069 |
Originally posted by BP:
Originally posted by DimitriPopov:
Hey but when we do finally react the whole world gets pissed at us and somehow makese the problem our fault. :-/
can always count on the peanut gallery to throw in a useless comment.
Where were you when people bring up the President or the US in general in threads where they are not the topic? Selective critisizm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 271
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 271 |
Originally posted by Manch-VegasSVT:
Hemp comes from the male marijuana plant which contains no THC(untraceable amount- not enough to get high)- only the female plants -bud- and produce THC.
Actually the industrial hemp used to make fibers and hemp oils is another member of the family that marijuana belongs to, if i remember correctly there are only three closely related plants in this family ( hemp, marijuana, and hops ).
Hemp and marijuana are not readily interchangable in their uses either, the marijuana plant doesn't make fibers that are as high in quality as it's cousin hemp and hemp makes only trace amounts of THC but grows taller and reedier than most MJ plants thereby making excellent for fiber production.
Originally posted by ZetecNinja:
16 pages...just.........let............the..............thread............go...........awayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Ninja, to you i say we are having a civil, enlightening and intresting discussion and there really haven't been any serious flame wars in 16 page ( which is probably a record all its own) so if you aren't interested in the subject please don't fill up even more space with these comments that donot add intellectually to the subject at hand.
1996 Zetec MTX
NO Mods it's only a matter of money now though.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 8,143
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 8,143 |
I intellectually told you to let the thread go...  but ok fine, I'll sit back and watch...page 40,41...97,98 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,397
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,397 |
Reasons why MJ will never be legalized:  MJ Commercial advertising:  Targeted munchy advertising for pot smokers: 
Formerly known as Sneaku
I MISS MY BABY!!!
'00 Blk CSVT #1087/2150 built 12/23/99
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5
Newbie
|
|
Newbie
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
And how many more times were the votes going to be recounted using how many different factors? Every trick in the book was pulled to scrap enough votes up for Gore. They would have kept counting until they GOT the result they wanted, not the one that was PRODUCED via the election...
Just the opposite occured, the Bush team threw up roadblocks at every turn to stop any and all recounts because they preferred the initial count, which was within the margin of error for the voting machines. Recounts were mandated by Florida law, which was interpreted by a Bush political ally appointed by his brother. Yet, Bush was the one who filed suit to stop the recounts.
This is not about who won, but about how they did it, hence the remaining questionable legitimacy of the election. Again, I can't see how any unbiased person wouldn't want a full and fair counting of all votes, but it was the Supreme Court that stopped just that.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Get specific. Which issue? Blanket statements don't tell anyone much of anything.
What, the President lying to his citizens on matters of state is ok in general?
Originally posted by JaTo:
As a government and society, the US is just coming out of denial that smoking and drinking in most cases is BAD for you, especially the overindulgence of such. You ACTUALLY think that pot, a known narcotic that is rountinely delivered through smoking and is known to serve as a springboard drug is going to be legalized?
The 'gateway' argument has been dead for awhile, I don't think you can find a legitimate study to prop up its corpse. So there is no justification for keeping a safer 'drug' illegal. And it is happening state by state, the laws will catch up with society, which is putting its money where its mouth is, literally. It is similar to when the highway speed limits were increased to match the reality of people's driving habits. It is silly to put people in jail for smoking pot.
Originally posted by JaTo:
And here I thought it was a balance of supply and demand that was the basis behind pricing. Silly me.
The drug war doesn't make the cost of doing business higher??
Originally posted by JaTo:
ABSOLUTELY. The US pays attention to known issues that are most pressing and most impactful. NO ONE 20 years ago (10?maybe to an extent) could have predicted the dollar amount, impact and scale of terrorist operations, so it doesn't matter what you or I contend on this point. Deal with the facts; not if's, could's and should's.
1983 was the Beirut embassy and marine barracks bombings. That should have gotten people's attention, we've been at war since then but our side didn't know it. 1993 was the first attempt on the WTC. Al-Qaeda should have been on everyone's mind since then.
We pay people full-time, night and day, 24/7 to keep informed about, and counter, threats to the U.S. They dropped the ball prior to 9-11 by not informing the public of the real threat of terrorism, I would say, in part because of the wasteful focus on the so-called "drug war."
Originally posted by JaTo:
I challenge you to find a study that says anything different than the FACT that drug use has EXPLODED in the last 30 years. It may be leveling off now in certain segments, but that wasn't the case a couple of decades back. Given the threat that copious amounts of illicit narcotics have been pouring through our borders, yes.
Exploding drug use in the face of all the wasted money on the "drug war," seems like a failed policy to me.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Perhaps because drugs have claimed more lives than Al-Qaeda has BY FAR and the fact that no major US incursions had taken place by then. The squeakiest wheel gets the most grease.
I'd like to see the statistics of death by alcohol and tobacco compared to all illict drugs. I think the former would greatly outweigh the latter. So then where is the threat you mention?
Originally posted by JaTo:
Really? So, tell me what immense natural resourse the US is interested about in Columbia, apart from the cocoa trade? Their oil production is in decline and the coffe industry is getting it's head turned up on end because of the cheap crap coming out of SE Asia (Vietnam of all places). Pray tell what "foreign policy" we are pursuing in Columbia, if it's not trying to cripple the drug trade....
U.S. foreign policy is really an extension of its domestic policy: "What's good for GM is good for America." Exchange 'country X' for 'America' and there you go.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,069
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,069 |
Originally posted by Silver Ghost:
Originally posted by JaTo:
And how many more times were the votes going to be recounted using how many different factors? Every trick in the book was pulled to scrap enough votes up for Gore. They would have kept counting until they GOT the result they wanted, not the one that was PRODUCED via the election...
Just the opposite occured, the Bush team threw up roadblocks at every turn to stop any and all recounts because they preferred the initial count, which was within the margin of error for the voting machines. Recounts were mandated by Florida law, which was interpreted by a Bush political ally appointed by his brother. Yet, Bush was the one who filed suit to stop the recounts.
This is not about who won, but about how they did it, hence the remaining questionable legitimacy of the election. Again, I can't see how any unbiased person wouldn't want a full and fair counting of all votes, but it was the Supreme Court that stopped just that.
Post up a news report that proves this.
Originally posted by Silver Ghost:
Originally posted by JaTo:
Get specific. Which issue? Blanket statements don't tell anyone much of anything.
What, the President lying to his citizens on matters of state is ok in general?
Its impossible to defeat your bogus claim unless you give specific examples. Tearing that HUGE statement down could take hours.
Originally posted by Silver Ghost:
Originally posted by JaTo:
ABSOLUTELY. The US pays attention to known issues that are most pressing and most impactful. NO ONE 20 years ago (10?maybe to an extent) could have predicted the dollar amount, impact and scale of terrorist operations, so it doesn't matter what you or I contend on this point. Deal with the facts; not if's, could's and should's.
1983 was the Beirut embassy and marine barracks bombings. That should have gotten people's attention, we've been at war since then but our side didn't know it. 1993 was the first attempt on the WTC. Al-Qaeda should have been on everyone's mind since then.
We pay people full-time, night and day, 24/7 to keep informed about, and counter, threats to the U.S. They dropped the ball prior to 9-11 by not informing the public of the real threat of terrorism, I would say, in part because of the wasteful focus on the so-called "drug war."
They stopped crying wolf because the public wasnt interested , the public didnt want to think about it or believe it. Its about what the people want to hear.
Originally posted by Silver Ghost:
Originally posted by JaTo:
Perhaps because drugs have claimed more lives than Al-Qaeda has BY FAR and the fact that no major US incursions had taken place by then. The squeakiest wheel gets the most grease.
I'd like to see the statistics of death by alcohol and tobacco compared to all illict drugs. I think the former would greatly outweigh the latter. So then where is the threat you mention?
First you have to consider the HUGE amount of people that use alcohol and tobacco compared to illicit drugs. That would certainly narrow the gap. Plus you have to include deaths from drug dealers and cartels , including from the production countries (Columbia). Gap narrowing..
Originally posted by Silver Ghost:
Originally posted by JaTo:
Really? So, tell me what immense natural resourse the US is interested about in Columbia, apart from the cocoa trade? Their oil production is in decline and the coffe industry is getting it's head turned up on end because of the cheap crap coming out of SE Asia (Vietnam of all places). Pray tell what "foreign policy" we are pursuing in Columbia, if it's not trying to cripple the drug trade....
U.S. foreign policy is really an extension of its domestic policy: "What's good for GM is good for America." Exchange 'country X' for 'America' and there you go.
This just made no sense..
|
|
|
|
|
