[quote]WMD wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
I bet WMD is hot. Anybody else?
I am a delicate desert flower.[/quote]
Delicate? Hmmm…
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Zeb:
In our exchange you never mentioned anything about “teen drinking” programs in relation to the - as you say - possibilties…[/quote]
I think they could be a good idea depending on specifics.
I certainly agree!
It’s in my nature never to give up. If there is just cause to fight then (and there is) you simply “retool” your program and continue on. I think that not enough money is being spent on education for starters. I also think we need to go to the source and stop the flow into the country. Punishing teens for smoking a joint is not how we win the war.
Are you talking about all drugs? If so I think that is an extrememly dangerous idea. You might have less gang violence (you might not as they move into other areas of crime to justify thier existance). But you will have more people taking drugs…not good.
I would not say that it’s “irrational.” I don’t think we will turn into a nation of zombies either. However, I do think that we would be suffering from many more problems than we have now: Traffic accidents and fatalities; rising insurance costs; rising medical costs; perhaps more suicides…very difficult to actually list all of the pain which would come from legalizing all drugs. I think it would develop into a very serious problem over time.
Ha ha…“my rigid view?” I simply want to keep the laws which are on the books regarding drugs. Perhaps increase education…That’s pretty wild huh? And strengthen our ability to stop the drug flow into America.
Also, please name these places which have legalized all drugs over a long period of time and have had no problems. I am not aware of any. The Netharlands is certainly not one as I proved in an early post.
I agree there is no evidence to support aliens have visited earth. However, there is plenty of evidence to support drug use being very dangerous to the human body (depending on the drug) over a period of time. And no one can dispute the social/financial ills that come with a society which uses and abuses certain drugs!
[quote]However, University Professors, former government agents, and foreign political leaders have written books dealing with massive government scandals including drug trafficking.
The Politics of Heroin - Alfred C. McCoy (North Eastern Uni. Professor)
Profits of War - Ari Ben Menashe (former Mossad agent)
Called to Serve - Col. James Gritz[/quote]
Yes, and many more books have been written on the evils of drug usage, just a few:
“Drugs The Evil Addiction” by Beena Menon
“The Drink And Drug Evil In India”
by Badur-ul-Hassan Khan Sabri
“Marijuana Drug Dangers” by Gary L. Somdahl
“Drug evil in Kansas” This is a special report which speaks to the fact that Prohibition does not invite use of drugs as proven by statement from state, county and city health officials.
[quote]If you only listen to U.S. corporate mass media then that is all you know. And that my friend IS Propaganda! So therfore…
[/quote]
Propaganda? Perhaps there is some on both sides, there always is. However, I don’t need 500 studies to prove to me that legalizing all drugs, as I think you are suggesting is a horrible idea. I don’t think encouraging people to consume mind altering drugs is conducive to a healthy society.
In fact, that is a far cry from where this thread began: Should pot be made legal (or decriminalized)?
[quote]alphuris wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Please name one specific thing that I stated that says that my way “of doing things is superior to anyone elses.”
Chins?
[/quote]
Ha ha…
Perhaps because of the huge crops that are still grown in Afghanistan?
zeb,
we might not agree on the philosophical aspects of legalizing weed, but maybe we could agree that the war on weed is lost?
You seem to be operating under the assumption that weed is somehow smuggled into your country like cocaine or heroine is.
However, weed is much more like ecstasy, it is produced right under your nose in the US of A.
If you have 1 HPS lamp you can grow 1lbs of high quality weed every 3 months. One such lamp needs around 750 watts to operate, so there is no real problem running 10-20 of them in an appartment right next to you and you wouldn?t even notice it.
I could go on, but the book you want to read is “marijuana indoors”. It is a little bit outdated but it is still the old testament of indoor growing.
http://howtogrowmarijuana.com/how-to-grow-marijuana-indoors.htm
[quote]orion wrote:
zeb,
we might not agree on the philosophical aspects of legalizing weed, but maybe we could agree that the war on weed is lost?[/quote]
I don’t deny that it is not in good shape. However, “lost” might not be the right word as that implies an end.
No not at all. I think you might be refering to a previous post where we were discussing the legalization of ALL drugs. I am aware that weed can be “home grown.”
Hey…you know a lot about how weed is grown. Did you read a book or is this from personal experience? Just curious…
personal experience 
No reason not to tell you, the austrian police has other problems, like, fighting crime. Well, at least in Vienna.
You can even buy the seeds and the plants legally, for example here:
www.perfect-world.at/
and here
www.headshop.at/
The only thing you are not allowed to do is to make them grow buds.
That law has probably saved Austria from the state of anarchy the netherlands are currently in.
However, I am expecting turf-wars, shoot-outs and general moral decline any second now.
Zeb,
I hate sounding like a broken record but damn Zeb, for the third time, how do you (as a conservative I assume you are also a strict constructionist; correct me if I am wrong) justify federal drug laws in light of the 10th Amendment? From a plain reading of the text of the Constitution, and keeping the Founder’s original intent in mind, where do you see the federal govt given the power to regulate drug use?
How can a female plant not bud? Or do they only sell male plants?
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Zeb,
I hate sounding like a broken record but damn Zeb, for the third time, how do you (as a conservative I assume you are also a strict constructionist; correct me if I am wrong) justify federal drug laws in light of the 10th Amendment? From a plain reading of the text of the Constitution, and keeping the Founder’s original intent in mind, where do you see the federal govt given the power to regulate drug use? [/quote]
As you know each state determines the specific “drug laws.” As in the case of New York and the
“Rockefeller Drug Laws.” These are some of the more stringent drug laws in the US. Other states such as Oregon are quite a bit more liberal when it comes to Marijuana usage. So you see each state can determine their own laws.
The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding
of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the
people.
[quote]mindeffer01 wrote:
How can a female plant not bud? Or do they only sell male plants?
[/quote]
If you grow them under artificial light you can keep them in the growing stage indefinitely (ok, only for 2-3 years then they die). They need 12 hours of darkness every 24 hours to start to bud. That is because it makes them believe that autumn comes.
They probably would sell you male plants, but apparently nobody wants them. Maybe female plants are much prettier?
The no-bud rule is a very simplified version of austrian law anyway. What you are really not allowed to do is separating the buds from the plants with the intent to produce weed. That allows for some interesting wiggle-room in front of a court.
I understand the induction of a bud cycle. Its even dificult for them to not bud. I used to grow a good bit myself. Thats why it seemed a bit ludacris to have plants that don’t bud, unless they are male.
Recently, I’ve channeled my green thumb toward gardening. I cut and cloned about a dozen sweet genovese basil and a dozen greek basil this year. I’ve gotten about a dozen nice 1 to 2 inch buds per plant for the past 5 weeks.
I’m actualy thinking about doing it again next year on a larger scale and taking the yield down to the grocers, or selling it to a few resturants.
I also believe that marijuana prohibition teaches a very powerful lesson to kids:
Laws can be incredibly stupid and are not made by infallible beings, and that it is sometimes ok to break them.
All in all, an important lesson to learn.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Zeb,
I hate sounding like a broken record but damn Zeb, for the third time, how do you (as a conservative I assume you are also a strict constructionist; correct me if I am wrong) justify federal drug laws in light of the 10th Amendment? From a plain reading of the text of the Constitution, and keeping the Founder’s original intent in mind, where do you see the federal govt given the power to regulate drug use?
As you know each state determines the specific “drug laws.” As in the case of New York and the
“Rockefeller Drug Laws.” These are some of the more stringent drug laws in the US. Other states such as Oregon are quite a bit more liberal when it comes to Marijuana usage. So you see each state can determine their own laws.
The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding
of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the
people.
[/quote]
Zeb, again, Im not talking about state drug laws. I am talking about federal drug laws. I never said anything about state drug laws overstepping their Constitutional boundaries. It is federal drug laws passed in direct opposition to state laws that I have a real problem with. For instance, the federal govt recently stated that those protected under California’s medical marijuana laws would still be subject to federal prosecution. Why in god’s name would I quote the 10th if I was refering to state laws (not to mention my frquent use of the word “federal”)?Now that you have summarized the 10th, apply it to FEDERAL DRUG LAWS. After all, the DEA doesnt enforce state drug laws…it enforces laws like The Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.
The 10th amendment is an interesting issue. How is it that the Feds can bust and openly arrest the citizens of California for growing cannabis licensed by the state that they live in. There’s a serious disparity brewing there.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
The 10th amendment is an interesting issue. How is it that the Feds can bust and openly arrest the citizens of California for growing cannabis licensed by the state that they live in. There’s a serious disparity brewing there.[/quote]
That’s exactly what Im trying to get Zeb to answer. It seems that some Conservatives are all for a strict reading of the Constitution…except when it stands in the way of their social agenda.
[quote]mindeffer01 wrote:
How can a female plant not bud? Or do they only sell male plants?
[/quote]
If you remove all the male plants the female will produce flower upon flower with no seeds expensive stuff
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153721,00.html
Apparently, there are things “they” don’t want us to know.
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Gregus wrote:
The 10th amendment is an interesting issue. How is it that the Feds can bust and openly arrest the citizens of California for growing cannabis licensed by the state that they live in. There’s a serious disparity brewing there.
That’s exactly what Im trying to get Zeb to answer. It seems that some Conservatives are all for a strict reading of the Constitution…except when it stands in the way of their social agenda.[/quote]
Very true. Conservatives are all for strict construction, states rights, and individual liberties. Unless the action in question is a ‘sin’. Then, forget about it.
How do they justify making any drug illigal? Crack, roids, weed, speed, lsd, angel dust, meth, etc.
NO DRUG EFFECTS ANYONE BUT THE USER! Therefor, they should have the choice to use it.
Note- No, I dont do any of the drugs listed above.