chcr
Too cute for words
If they want to make it legal, do so. Just stop with the
Jeez!!!! Stop saying shit I agree with. It's confusing.
Medicinal marijuana
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
- Status
Jeez!!!! Stop saying shit I agree with. It's confusing.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
The script allows you to not get busted by the local PD.
Those who get it without a doctors note will be treated as criminals. Those who get it with a doctors note for common maladies like stress need to learn what stress really is & get treated like criminals.
It's a backdoor way to legalizing pot. If they want to make it legal, do so. Just stop with the
Even with the scrip, you can't just light up anywhere.
It might give you a get out of jail card for smoking in your own home, but then again, cops aren't likely to try and bust you in your own home for pot use...
Sale, perhaps..growing opps certainly, but minor possession and consumption in your living-room. Not likely...much bigger fish to fry out there!
Similar to the consumption of alcohol. It's OK in bars and restaurants and in your own home...but try sitting on a street corner swigging back a 40oz bottle of Gin and see where the legality of alcohol will get you, eh
Prop 215
They can light up anywhere (well, anywhere that smoking is allowed).
However, the feds can still bust 'em, per a federal court case.
However, the point of this thread wsan't to argue the merits of pot use (I'm all for laughing at the stupid stoners). It was to show the ridiculous nature of attempting to supercede federal law by popular vote. The initial arguments about its humanitarian useage was structured around the promise that it was not a get high for free card. That's all it's been.
If you want to legalize any drug...ask the FDA to authorize it & Congress to legalize it.
They can light up anywhere (well, anywhere that smoking is allowed).
However, the feds can still bust 'em, per a federal court case.
However, the point of this thread wsan't to argue the merits of pot use (I'm all for laughing at the stupid stoners). It was to show the ridiculous nature of attempting to supercede federal law by popular vote. The initial arguments about its humanitarian useage was structured around the promise that it was not a get high for free card. That's all it's been.
If you want to legalize any drug...ask the FDA to authorize it & Congress to legalize it.
Inkara1
Well-Known Member
/me does Pepto-Bismol dance
Nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea! Hey, Pepto-Bismol!
spike
New Member
The bit you quoted wasn't a question. It has a period at the end.
The question was "what's your point". Apparently you don't have one.
Making any drug available to treat sick people will result in more scrip abuse. So, you want make all prescription medicine illegal?
I'm sorry. You are correct. That is a period. As to what you said, your point is valid. Bet ya didn't mean it to be.
spike
New Member
Maybe they do know what stress is already? If it works I don't see why they should be treated like criminals anymore than someone getting a prescription for Valium for stress.
Why don't you just mind your own problems?
The point is marijuana is used effectively to treat far more serious health concerns than stress and there's no reason not to make every treatment option available to sick people.
People get their panties all up in a wad over medical marijuana but don't even bat an eye at prescription morphine which is WAY more addictive. It's social stigma and personal hang ups which have no place encroaching on treatment for illness.
Stress is a western world malady. It's part of life. It needs no cure. Valium is overkill for workin' hard, playin' hard.
See, in you hurry to jump to conclusions, you assume that I am against marijuana. You would be wrong. I'm against the hypocrisy surrounding it.
Name one.
Name one.
See, in you hurry to jump to conclusions, you assume that I am against marijuana. You would be wrong. I'm against the hypocrisy surrounding it.
spike
New Member
Wrong.
Stress that continues without relief can lead to a condition called distress -- a negative stress reaction. Distress can lead to physical symptoms including headaches, upset stomach, elevated blood pressure, chest pain, and problems sleeping. Research suggests that stress also can bring on or worsen certain symptoms or diseases.
Stress also becomes harmful when people use alcohol, tobacco, or drugs to try to relieve their stress. Unfortunately, instead of relieving the stress and returning the body to a relaxed state, these substances tend to keep the body in a stressed state and cause more problems. Consider the following:
-Forty-three percent of all adults suffer adverse health effects from stress.
Seventy-five to 90% of all doctor's office visits are for stress-related ailments and complaints.
-Stress can play a part in problems such as headaches, high blood pressure, heart problems, diabetes, skin conditions, asthma, or arthritis in addition to depression and anxiety.
-The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) declared stress a hazard of the workplace. Stress costs American industry more than $300 billion annually.
-The lifetime prevalence of an emotional disorder is more than 50%, often due to chronic, untreated stress reactions.
http://www.webmd.com/content/pages/7/1674_52147.htm
Glaucoma.
Punch in "medical marijuana uses" in your favorite search engine and get a little informed on a bunch more.
The only hypocrisy you've shown so far is your criticism of medical medical marijuana which you don't apply towards other drugs.
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
Somebody just wants to get high.
BeardofPants
New Member
Coca-Cola was named back in 1885 for its two "medicinal" ingredients: extract of coca leaves and kola nuts. Just how much cocaine was originally in the formulation is hard to determine, but the drink undeniably contained some cocaine in its early days. Frederick Allen describes the public attitude towards cocaine that existed as Coca-Cola's developers worked on perfecting their formula in 1891:
Allen also explains that cocaine continued to be an ingredient in the syrup in order to protect the trade name "Coca-Cola":
But neither could Candler take the simple step of eliminating the fluid extract of coca leaves from the formula. Candler believed that his product's name had to be descriptive, and that he must have at least some by-product of the coca leaf in the syrup (along with some kola) to protect his right to the name Coca-Cola. Protecting the name was critical. Candler had no patent on the syrup itself. Anyone could make an imitation. But no one could put the label "Coca-Cola" on an imitation so long as Candler owned the name. The name was the thing of real value, and the registered trademark was its only safeguard. Coca leaves had to stay in the syrup.
How much cocaine was in that "mere trace" is impossible to say, but we do know that by 1902 it was as little as 1/400 of a grain of cocaine per ounce of syrup. Coca-Cola didn't become completely cocaine-free until 1929, but there was scarcely any of the drug left in the drink by then:
So, yes, at one time there was cocaine in Coca-Cola. But before you're tempted to run off claiming Coca-Cola turned generations of drinkers into dope addicts, consider the following: back in 1885 it was far from uncommon to use cocaine in patent medicines (which is what Coca-Cola was originally marketed as) and other medical potions. When it first became general knowledge that cocaine could be harmful, the backroom chemists who comprised Coca-Cola at the time (long before it became the huge company we now know) did everything they could with the technology they had available at the time to remove every trace of cocaine from the beverage. What was left behind (until the technology improved enough for it all to be removed) wasn't enough to give a fly a buzz.
snopes.com
The first stirrings of a national debate had begun over the negative aspects of cocaine, and manufacturers were growing defensive over charges that use of their products might lead to "cocainism" or the "cocaine habit". The full-throated fury against cocaine was still a few years off, and Candler and Robinson were anxious to continue promoting the supposed benefits of the coca leaf, but there was no reason to risk putting more than a tiny bit of coca extract in their syrup. They cut the amount to a mere trace.
Allen also explains that cocaine continued to be an ingredient in the syrup in order to protect the trade name "Coca-Cola":
But neither could Candler take the simple step of eliminating the fluid extract of coca leaves from the formula. Candler believed that his product's name had to be descriptive, and that he must have at least some by-product of the coca leaf in the syrup (along with some kola) to protect his right to the name Coca-Cola. Protecting the name was critical. Candler had no patent on the syrup itself. Anyone could make an imitation. But no one could put the label "Coca-Cola" on an imitation so long as Candler owned the name. The name was the thing of real value, and the registered trademark was its only safeguard. Coca leaves had to stay in the syrup.
How much cocaine was in that "mere trace" is impossible to say, but we do know that by 1902 it was as little as 1/400 of a grain of cocaine per ounce of syrup. Coca-Cola didn't become completely cocaine-free until 1929, but there was scarcely any of the drug left in the drink by then:
By Heath's calculation, the amount of ecgonine [an alkaloid in the coca leaf that could be synthesized to create cocaine] was infinitesimal: no more than one part in 50 million. In an entire year's supply of 25-odd million gallons of Coca-Cola syrup, Heath figured, there might be six-hundredths of an ounce of cocaine.
So, yes, at one time there was cocaine in Coca-Cola. But before you're tempted to run off claiming Coca-Cola turned generations of drinkers into dope addicts, consider the following: back in 1885 it was far from uncommon to use cocaine in patent medicines (which is what Coca-Cola was originally marketed as) and other medical potions. When it first became general knowledge that cocaine could be harmful, the backroom chemists who comprised Coca-Cola at the time (long before it became the huge company we now know) did everything they could with the technology they had available at the time to remove every trace of cocaine from the beverage. What was left behind (until the technology improved enough for it all to be removed) wasn't enough to give a fly a buzz.
snopes.com
spike
New Member
spike
New Member
When are you going to try to make one?
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
Did I call you by name?
And until you have proof of a crime you might want to read the AUP.
- Status