Legalizing Weed

[pittbulll]

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Boy has this thread come around full circle in dumbness.[/quote]

True, but not for the reasons you think.

No solid reasoning s has been put forth for its continued prohibition other than “if it is legalized more people will use it”. Literally every other position has been irrelevant, misguided or just false.

Must be true what they say - in addition to inspiring paranoia (i.e., see above, “even the American Cancer Society is part of the conspiracy, man!”), it causes short-term memory loss, as evidenced by your statement.

You want to improve your chances of legalization? Stop pretending like every concern or attack on your precious, precious herb is based on illusion or bad faith. You act like pot - a drug - is as healthy as a turkey sandwich on wheat with a side of fish oil. It ain’t - and doctors (real ones, not internet fake ones) are raising concerns.

No one is going to take you seriously as long as you pretend like there is no valid criticism of a recreational drug. Seriously - your approach actually hurts your goal of legalization because you look like an irrational zealot as opposed to a reasonable advocate.[/quote]

Seriously, what in the fuck are you talking about? I have never taken the position that there is no harm in pot. Of course it can be harmful when abused like a million other things. Of course there are valid criticisms as far as children using, abusing, etc. but really Zeb’s point about the obvious conclusion of legality equaling greater access is really the only for sure criticism. Especially easily to point to harmful effects if it is smoked. I have only gone about refuting weak correlation studies (like the one you touted) and taken the counter argument position to show that yes, there are actually positive health studies that have been conducted on it.

[/quote]

While abusing pot may not be a healthy function you will have to point out the unhealthy aspect. There are probably amillion people in America that smoke pot . Show me the bad effects

[Pigeonkak]

I am not really in a morally better position than anyone to denounce the USE of weed, and I’m yet to see significant research demonstrating scientific evidence that it is any more harmful than the excess of carbs we are already enjoying in our daily lives, or for that matter crossing the street.

However I personally do not support the legalisation of weed. But that is because I do not agree with the general assumption that legalising the substance will simply take away the business motivation of criminal syndicates. In fact, and this is supported by more than one international law enforcement agency, legalising weed may actually legitimise one of the largest profit producing markets of criminal syndicates operating across the globe. I think it is naive of lobbyists to argue that Mexican cartels will just wither against the newly introduced free trade of legal weed. Why would that be the case, when they perform so successfully in spite of weeds prohibition? The sale of marijuana is an essential cash flow inducer, and it allows larger criminal syndicates to escalate their operations. The possibility that cartels will simply undercut the retail price of legal weed is very likely, and it may even force the cartels to infiltrate the US in greater number to create money laundering and weed selling fronts in order to do business.

The debate about things like I-502 is a based on a purely American model, that I consider full of idealisms but little real pragmatism. There is a host of other syndicates operating on very similar models to the cartels and they are tapping into other methods of profit generation that are not being affected by either prohibition or legalisation.

But I have to repeat, I am not really against legalising pot for the typical health scare reasons. Society consumes at greater cost to life much worse products, like tobacco, alcohol and McDonald’s.

[pittbulll]

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:
I am not really in a morally better position than anyone to denounce the USE of weed, and I’m yet to see significant research demonstrating scientific evidence that it is any more harmful than the excess of carbs we are already enjoying in our daily lives, or for that matter crossing the street.

However I personally do not support the legalisation of weed. But that is because I do not agree with the general assumption that legalising the substance will simply take away the business motivation of criminal syndicates. In fact, and this is supported by more than one international law enforcement agency, legalising weed may actually legitimise one of the largest profit producing markets of criminal syndicates operating across the globe. I think it is naive of lobbyists to argue that Mexican cartels will just wither against the newly introduced free trade of legal weed. Why would that be the case, when they perform so successfully in spite of weeds prohibition? The sale of marijuana is an essential cash flow inducer, and it allows larger criminal syndicates to escalate their operations. The possibility that cartels will simply undercut the retail price of legal weed is very likely, and it may even force the cartels to infiltrate the US in greater number to create money laundering and weed selling fronts in order to do business.

The debate about things like I-502 is a based on a purely American model, that I consider full of idealisms but little real pragmatism. There is a host of other syndicates operating on very similar models to the cartels and they are tapping into other methods of profit generation that are not being affected by either prohibition or legalisation.

But I have to repeat, I am not really against legalising pot for the typical health scare reasons. Society consumes at greater cost to life much worse products, like tobacco, alcohol and McDonald’s.

[/quote]

In my opinion weed would have no value if it were like it was in the 30s just growing in every ditch beside every field . As long as it price is inflated it will have the potential for extreme profit . Today that weed rivals gold in price

[lanchefan1]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Boy has this thread come around full circle in dumbness.[/quote]

True, but not for the reasons you think.

No solid reasoning s has been put forth for its continued prohibition other than “if it is legalized more people will use it”. Literally every other position has been irrelevant, misguided or just false.

Must be true what they say - in addition to inspiring paranoia (i.e., see above, “even the American Cancer Society is part of the conspiracy, man!”), it causes short-term memory loss, as evidenced by your statement.

You want to improve your chances of legalization? Stop pretending like every concern or attack on your precious, precious herb is based on illusion or bad faith. You act like pot - a drug - is as healthy as a turkey sandwich on wheat with a side of fish oil. It ain’t - and doctors (real ones, not internet fake ones) are raising concerns.

No one is going to take you seriously as long as you pretend like there is no valid criticism of a recreational drug. Seriously - your approach actually hurts your goal of legalization because you look like an irrational zealot as opposed to a reasonable advocate.[/quote]

Seriously, what in the fuck are you talking about? I have never taken the position that there is no harm in pot. Of course it can be harmful when abused like a million other things. Of course there are valid criticisms as far as children using, abusing, etc. but really Zeb’s point about the obvious conclusion of legality equaling greater access is really the only for sure criticism. Especially easily to point to harmful effects if it is smoked. I have only gone about refuting weak correlation studies (like the one you touted) and taken the counter argument position to show that yes, there are actually positive health studies that have been conducted on it.

[/quote]

While abusing pot may not be a healthy function you will have to point out the unhealthy aspect. There are probably amillion people in America that smoke pot . Show me the bad effects
[/quote]

And we have now come full circle back to page one.

[pittbulll]

Marijuana Legalization: Frank Crushes George Will

[Pigeonkak]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:
I am not really in a morally better position than anyone to denounce the USE of weed, and I’m yet to see significant research demonstrating scientific evidence that it is any more harmful than the excess of carbs we are already enjoying in our daily lives, or for that matter crossing the street.

However I personally do not support the legalisation of weed. But that is because I do not agree with the general assumption that legalising the substance will simply take away the business motivation of criminal syndicates. In fact, and this is supported by more than one international law enforcement agency, legalising weed may actually legitimise one of the largest profit producing markets of criminal syndicates operating across the globe. I think it is naive of lobbyists to argue that Mexican cartels will just wither against the newly introduced free trade of legal weed. Why would that be the case, when they perform so successfully in spite of weeds prohibition? The sale of marijuana is an essential cash flow inducer, and it allows larger criminal syndicates to escalate their operations. The possibility that cartels will simply undercut the retail price of legal weed is very likely, and it may even force the cartels to infiltrate the US in greater number to create money laundering and weed selling fronts in order to do business.

The debate about things like I-502 is a based on a purely American model, that I consider full of idealisms but little real pragmatism. There is a host of other syndicates operating on very similar models to the cartels and they are tapping into other methods of profit generation that are not being affected by either prohibition or legalisation.

But I have to repeat, I am not really against legalising pot for the typical health scare reasons. Society consumes at greater cost to life much worse products, like tobacco, alcohol and McDonald’s.

[/quote]

In my opinion weed would have no value if it were like it was in the 30s just growing in every ditch beside every field . As long as it price is inflated it will have the potential for extreme profit . Today that weed rivals gold in price
[/quote]

But that’s also kinda naive Pitbull. When it is legalised, and I say WHEN on purpose, it wont just be growing in ditches like before industry realised what a commodity it is. I envisage a situation more akin to how coffee is traded. It should be heavily regulated, but there will still be a distinction between “fair trade” weed not influenced by criminal syndicates, and weed grown and sold using criminal fronts, unfair labour practices etc.

[Fletch1986]

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:
I am not really in a morally better position than anyone to denounce the USE of weed, and I’m yet to see significant research demonstrating scientific evidence that it is any more harmful than the excess of carbs we are already enjoying in our daily lives, or for that matter crossing the street.

However I personally do not support the legalisation of weed. But that is because I do not agree with the general assumption that legalising the substance will simply take away the business motivation of criminal syndicates. In fact, and this is supported by more than one international law enforcement agency, legalising weed may actually legitimise one of the largest profit producing markets of criminal syndicates operating across the globe. I think it is naive of lobbyists to argue that Mexican cartels will just wither against the newly introduced free trade of legal weed. Why would that be the case, when they perform so successfully in spite of weeds prohibition? The sale of marijuana is an essential cash flow inducer, and it allows larger criminal syndicates to escalate their operations. The possibility that cartels will simply undercut the retail price of legal weed is very likely, and it may even force the cartels to infiltrate the US in greater number to create money laundering and weed selling fronts in order to do business.

The debate about things like I-502 is a based on a purely American model, that I consider full of idealisms but little real pragmatism. There is a host of other syndicates operating on very similar models to the cartels and they are tapping into other methods of profit generation that are not being affected by either prohibition or legalisation.

But I have to repeat, I am not really against legalising pot for the typical health scare reasons. Society consumes at greater cost to life much worse products, like tobacco, alcohol and McDonald’s.

[/quote]

In my opinion weed would have no value if it were like it was in the 30s just growing in every ditch beside every field . As long as it price is inflated it will have the potential for extreme profit . Today that weed rivals gold in price
[/quote]

But that’s also kinda naive Pitbull. When it is legalised, and I say WHEN on purpose, it wont just be growing in ditches like before industry realised what a commodity it is. I envisage a situation more akin to how coffee is traded. It should be heavily regulated, but there will still be a distinction between “fair trade” weed not influenced by criminal syndicates, and weed grown and sold using criminal fronts, unfair labour practices etc. [/quote]

Going back to coffee for a second. I’ve noticed that the ‘withdrawal’ is no worse than that of coffee. Very similar effects too.

[csulli]

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Going back to coffee for a second. I’ve noticed that the ‘withdrawal’ is no worse than that of coffee. Very similar effects too. [/quote]

That’s odd, because marijuana isn’t chemically addictive, whereas caffeine actually is! Marijuana can be habituating, but not technically addictive.

It’s a fine line to some people. Sugar and weed are not chemically addictive. Things like cigarettes, harder drugs, and even caffeine a little bit are chemically/physically addictive.

[Professor_X]

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Going back to coffee for a second. I’ve noticed that the ‘withdrawal’ is no worse than that of coffee. Very similar effects too. [/quote]

That’s odd, because marijuana isn’t chemically addictive, whereas caffeine actually is! Marijuana can be habituating, but not technically addictive.

It’s a fine line to some people. Sugar and weed are not chemically addictive. Things like cigarettes, harder drugs, and even caffeine a little bit are chemically/physically addictive.[/quote]

This is true…but if someone is smoking to go to sleep at night, they will find “insomnia” on their list of “side effects”.

The same would go for Benadryl.

Anything can be psychologically addicting. That is what they think some of us are to the gym anyway.

[UtahLama]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Going back to coffee for a second. I’ve noticed that the ‘withdrawal’ is no worse than that of coffee. Very similar effects too. [/quote]

That’s odd, because marijuana isn’t chemically addictive, whereas caffeine actually is! Marijuana can be habituating, but not technically addictive.

It’s a fine line to some people. Sugar and weed are not chemically addictive. Things like cigarettes, harder drugs, and even caffeine a little bit are chemically/physically addictive.[/quote]

This is true…but if someone is smoking to go to sleep at night, they will find “insomnia” on their list of “side effects”.

The same would go for Benadryl.

Anything can be psychologically addicting. That is what they think some of us are to the gym anyway. [/quote]

Good points.

I don’t smoke pot anymore (drug tests for work) but I would like to see it legalized strictly for the monetary savings and profits for local/state/federal governments.

The thought of not being able to go to the gym is one of the worst things I can think of…the gym is absolutly addicting.

[storey420]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Boy has this thread come around full circle in dumbness.[/quote]

True, but not for the reasons you think.

No solid reasoning s has been put forth for its continued prohibition other than “if it is legalized more people will use it”. Literally every other position has been irrelevant, misguided or just false.

Must be true what they say - in addition to inspiring paranoia (i.e., see above, “even the American Cancer Society is part of the conspiracy, man!”), it causes short-term memory loss, as evidenced by your statement.

You want to improve your chances of legalization? Stop pretending like every concern or attack on your precious, precious herb is based on illusion or bad faith. You act like pot - a drug - is as healthy as a turkey sandwich on wheat with a side of fish oil. It ain’t - and doctors (real ones, not internet fake ones) are raising concerns.

No one is going to take you seriously as long as you pretend like there is no valid criticism of a recreational drug. Seriously - your approach actually hurts your goal of legalization because you look like an irrational zealot as opposed to a reasonable advocate.[/quote]

Seriously, what in the fuck are you talking about? I have never taken the position that there is no harm in pot. Of course it can be harmful when abused like a million other things. Of course there are valid criticisms as far as children using, abusing, etc. but really Zeb’s point about the obvious conclusion of legality equaling greater access is really the only for sure criticism. Especially easily to point to harmful effects if it is smoked. I have only gone about refuting weak correlation studies (like the one you touted) and taken the counter argument position to show that yes, there are actually positive health studies that have been conducted on it.

[/quote]

While abusing pot may not be a healthy function you will have to point out the unhealthy aspect. There are probably amillion people in America that smoke pot . Show me the bad effects
[/quote]

Really? Are you being serious here? Really? Have you read anything on this thread besides what you’ve posted? I’m not even sure if this dignifies a response

[xXSeraphimXx]

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Going back to coffee for a second. I’ve noticed that the ‘withdrawal’ is no worse than that of coffee. Very similar effects too. [/quote]

That’s odd, because marijuana isn’t chemically addictive, whereas caffeine actually is! Marijuana can be habituating, but not technically addictive.

It’s a fine line to some people. Sugar and weed are not chemically addictive. Things like cigarettes, harder drugs, and even caffeine a little bit are chemically/physically addictive.[/quote]

This is true…but if someone is smoking to go to sleep at night, they will find “insomnia” on their list of “side effects”.

The same would go for Benadryl.

Anything can be psychologically addicting. That is what they think some of us are to the gym anyway. [/quote]

Good points.

I don’t smoke pot anymore (drug tests for work) but I would like to see it legalized strictly for the monetary savings and profits for local/state/federal governments.

The thought of not being able to go to the gym is one of the worst things I can think of…the gym is absolutly addicting.
[/quote]

I do not see how it will make money. As I have stated many times, in California where medical Marijuana is legal most still prefer to buy from the street due to prices. Dispensaries can be 2-3x as expensive.

[UtahLama]

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Going back to coffee for a second. I’ve noticed that the ‘withdrawal’ is no worse than that of coffee. Very similar effects too. [/quote]

That’s odd, because marijuana isn’t chemically addictive, whereas caffeine actually is! Marijuana can be habituating, but not technically addictive.

It’s a fine line to some people. Sugar and weed are not chemically addictive. Things like cigarettes, harder drugs, and even caffeine a little bit are chemically/physically addictive.[/quote]

This is true…but if someone is smoking to go to sleep at night, they will find “insomnia” on their list of “side effects”.

The same would go for Benadryl.

Anything can be psychologically addicting. That is what they think some of us are to the gym anyway. [/quote]

Good points.

I don’t smoke pot anymore (drug tests for work) but I would like to see it legalized strictly for the monetary savings and profits for local/state/federal governments.

The thought of not being able to go to the gym is one of the worst things I can think of…the gym is absolutly addicting.
[/quote]

I do not see how it will make money. As I have stated many times, in California where medical Marijuana is legal most still prefer to buy from the street due to prices. Dispensaries can be 2-3x as expensive.
[/quote]

Think of the man hours, jail cells, court time that it takes to have a war on marijuana…think if how that money could be better stent.

Chasing drugs with real impact on society (meth, coke, heroin, bath salts)…or pouring those billions into programs to help society.

There is no reason for somebody to be locked up in prison for decades for pot, WE DON’T HAVE THE MONEY.

[conservativedog]

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Who cares if your neigbor screws his dog? Right? It doesn’t effect you so what’s the difference?

[/quote]

If you can’t see the difference between screwing a dog and smoking weed then you have major issues to work through.

I don’t get high personally but it doesn’t matter to me if others do because it is none of my business. Technically it’s not my business if they have sex with animals either. Why do you want to control the lives of others?
james
[/quote]

I want to control the distance between us and that would be the general reason for wanting to know what’s going on.

[Professor_X]

[quote]conservativedog wrote:

I want to control the distance between us and that would be the general reason for wanting to know what’s going on.
[/quote]

LOL at “conservatives” who are OK with Big Brother…as long as he is helping them keep all of “those people” away.

[browndisaster]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]conservativedog wrote:

I want to control the distance between us and that would be the general reason for wanting to know what’s going on.
[/quote]

LOL at “conservatives” who are OK with Big Brother…as long as he is helping them keep all of “those people” away.[/quote]
hahahaha, but obama is a socialist!!!

[browndisaster]

I don’t get why people so butthurt about marijuana…people are not getting killed from it and do not go into prostitution for it.

I haven’t smoked it in a while but if I ever do I will for sure get a medical card. In some states you essentially can grow it in your backyard in a small greenhouse. It’s not too different from the oregano, basil, and summer savory I harvest and cure every year. Right now it’s ridiculous that people are going to jail for this and that we’re empowering a drug cartel in the south.

[pittbulll]

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Boy has this thread come around full circle in dumbness.[/quote]

True, but not for the reasons you think.

No solid reasoning s has been put forth for its continued prohibition other than “if it is legalized more people will use it”. Literally every other position has been irrelevant, misguided or just false.

Must be true what they say - in addition to inspiring paranoia (i.e., see above, “even the American Cancer Society is part of the conspiracy, man!”), it causes short-term memory loss, as evidenced by your statement.

You want to improve your chances of legalization? Stop pretending like every concern or attack on your precious, precious herb is based on illusion or bad faith. You act like pot - a drug - is as healthy as a turkey sandwich on wheat with a side of fish oil. It ain’t - and doctors (real ones, not internet fake ones) are raising concerns.

No one is going to take you seriously as long as you pretend like there is no valid criticism of a recreational drug. Seriously - your approach actually hurts your goal of legalization because you look like an irrational zealot as opposed to a reasonable advocate.[/quote]

Seriously, what in the fuck are you talking about? I have never taken the position that there is no harm in pot. Of course it can be harmful when abused like a million other things. Of course there are valid criticisms as far as children using, abusing, etc. but really Zeb’s point about the obvious conclusion of legality equaling greater access is really the only for sure criticism. Especially easily to point to harmful effects if it is smoked. I have only gone about refuting weak correlation studies (like the one you touted) and taken the counter argument position to show that yes, there are actually positive health studies that have been conducted on it.

[/quote]

While abusing pot may not be a healthy function you will have to point out the unhealthy aspect. There are probably amillion people in America that smoke pot . Show me the bad effects
[/quote]

Really? Are you being serious here? Really? Have you read anything on this thread besides what you’ve posted? I’m not even sure if this dignifies a response[/quote]

Yeah , I really am serious and yes I read I believe every post on this thread . I don’t give a fuck whether you think it dignifies an response or not

I can show you many that have problems from alcohol , heroin, cocaine even prescription drugs . Please show me some one with problems from smoking pot

[Professor_X]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Boy has this thread come around full circle in dumbness.[/quote]

True, but not for the reasons you think.

No solid reasoning s has been put forth for its continued prohibition other than “if it is legalized more people will use it”. Literally every other position has been irrelevant, misguided or just false.

Must be true what they say - in addition to inspiring paranoia (i.e., see above, “even the American Cancer Society is part of the conspiracy, man!”), it causes short-term memory loss, as evidenced by your statement.

You want to improve your chances of legalization? Stop pretending like every concern or attack on your precious, precious herb is based on illusion or bad faith. You act like pot - a drug - is as healthy as a turkey sandwich on wheat with a side of fish oil. It ain’t - and doctors (real ones, not internet fake ones) are raising concerns.

No one is going to take you seriously as long as you pretend like there is no valid criticism of a recreational drug. Seriously - your approach actually hurts your goal of legalization because you look like an irrational zealot as opposed to a reasonable advocate.[/quote]

Seriously, what in the fuck are you talking about? I have never taken the position that there is no harm in pot. Of course it can be harmful when abused like a million other things. Of course there are valid criticisms as far as children using, abusing, etc. but really Zeb’s point about the obvious conclusion of legality equaling greater access is really the only for sure criticism. Especially easily to point to harmful effects if it is smoked. I have only gone about refuting weak correlation studies (like the one you touted) and taken the counter argument position to show that yes, there are actually positive health studies that have been conducted on it.

[/quote]

While abusing pot may not be a healthy function you will have to point out the unhealthy aspect. There are probably amillion people in America that smoke pot . Show me the bad effects
[/quote]

Really? Are you being serious here? Really? Have you read anything on this thread besides what you’ve posted? I’m not even sure if this dignifies a response[/quote]

Yeah , I really am serious and yes I read I believe every post on this thread . I don’t give a fuck whether you think it dignifies an response or not

I can show you many that have problems from alcohol , heroin, cocaine even prescription drugs . Please show me some one with problems from smoking pot
[/quote]

I agree with this. Most of the negatives are related to the use of alcohol and other drugs. “Potential risks” is not the same as “commonly seen or’clinical’ risks”.

I would say, yes, that dignifies a response.

[pittbulll]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Boy has this thread come around full circle in dumbness.[/quote]

True, but not for the reasons you think.

No solid reasoning s has been put forth for its continued prohibition other than “if it is legalized more people will use it”. Literally every other position has been irrelevant, misguided or just false.

Must be true what they say - in addition to inspiring paranoia (i.e., see above, “even the American Cancer Society is part of the conspiracy, man!”), it causes short-term memory loss, as evidenced by your statement.

You want to improve your chances of legalization? Stop pretending like every concern or attack on your precious, precious herb is based on illusion or bad faith. You act like pot - a drug - is as healthy as a turkey sandwich on wheat with a side of fish oil. It ain’t - and doctors (real ones, not internet fake ones) are raising concerns.

No one is going to take you seriously as long as you pretend like there is no valid criticism of a recreational drug. Seriously - your approach actually hurts your goal of legalization because you look like an irrational zealot as opposed to a reasonable advocate.[/quote]

Seriously, what in the fuck are you talking about? I have never taken the position that there is no harm in pot. Of course it can be harmful when abused like a million other things. Of course there are valid criticisms as far as children using, abusing, etc. but really Zeb’s point about the obvious conclusion of legality equaling greater access is really the only for sure criticism. Especially easily to point to harmful effects if it is smoked. I have only gone about refuting weak correlation studies (like the one you touted) and taken the counter argument position to show that yes, there are actually positive health studies that have been conducted on it.

[/quote]

While abusing pot may not be a healthy function you will have to point out the unhealthy aspect. There are probably amillion people in America that smoke pot . Show me the bad effects
[/quote]

Really? Are you being serious here? Really? Have you read anything on this thread besides what you’ve posted? I’m not even sure if this dignifies a response[/quote]

Yeah , I really am serious and yes I read I believe every post on this thread . I don’t give a fuck whether you think it dignifies an response or not

I can show you many that have problems from alcohol , heroin, cocaine even prescription drugs . Please show me some one with problems from smoking pot
[/quote]

I agree with this. Most of the negatives are related to the use of alcohol and other drugs. “Potential risks” is not the same as “commonly seen or’clinical’ risks”.

I would say, yes, that dignifies a response.[/quote]

Thanks < I do how ever feel that you are not part of the Circle Jerk society so you have no clout here