Speaking of legal pot

[DoneThatToo]

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/30/frank.marijuana/index.html)

". . . unfairly affect African-Americans, said Frank . . "

They use this line twice yet never explain it. Can anybody shed some light on how this is so??

[Produce man]

Interesting...**bump**

[Tripe Face]

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/30/frank.marijuana/index.html)

". . . unfairly affect African-Americans, said Frank . . "

They use this line twice yet never explain it. Can anybody shed some light on how this is so??

Although African Americans comprise only 12.2 percent of the population and 13 percent of drug users, they make up 38 percent of those arrested for drug offenses and 59 percent of those convicted of drug offenses causing critics to call the war on drugs the "New Jim Crow." The higher arrest rates for African Americans and Latinos do not reflect a higher abuse rate in these communities but rather a law enforcement emphasis on inner city areas where drug use and sales are more likely to take place in open-air drug markets where treatment resources are scarce.

[22]

Not trying to argue with you here Tripe, but how in the world would we know the per cent of drug users in America. And then know, of that per cent, what per cent is African American. How could one collect that data accuratly?

[Tripe Face]

Not trying to argue with you here Tripe, but how in the world would we know the per cent of drug users in America. And then know, of that per cent, what per cent is African American. How could one collect that data accuratly?

Da Guberment.

It's from the white house office of National Drug control policy

[22]

Da Guberment.

It's from the white house office of National Drug control policy

Oh.. da guberment. I think they make stuff up.

[buckpasser]

Oh.. da guberment. I think they make stuff up.

Yes.

Yes they do.

[Mr. Rugen]

How are you supposed to buy pot if you have to buy it from someone that's not selling it for profit? Isn't that un-American?

[Sultanosurf]

Think of the freakin' tax revenue the guvmit (Us) is missin' out on.

And after having covered enough full-fledged Colonel Kilgore paramilitary attacks on whatever poor Mexican is minding the store, it sure seems like those resources could be focused somewhere else...

http://wc.arizona.edu/papers/95/10/04_2_i.gif

"But sir, that's CHARLIE'S Point"

[Produce man]

Yes.

Yes they do.Unless the liberals are in charge, right?

[Fire Hydrogant]

From the article:
"Smoked marijuana has not withstood the rigors of science -- it is not medicine and it is not safe," the DEA states on its Web site.
That's the same crock the DEA has been spewing for years. MJ is about a hundred times safer than almost any other substance out there, legal or illegal. If the rationale for outlawing something is that it's "unsafe", why does alcohol still get to be legal?

[The Mockingbird]

Not trying to argue with you here Tripe, but how in the world would we know the per cent of drug users in America. And then know, of that per cent, what per cent is African American. How could one collect that data accuratly?

The same could be argued about TV ratings. Nice demographics last book, by the way.

[FD2BLK]

If the rationale for outlawing something is that it's "unsafe", why does alcohol still get to be legal?

Because the alcohol industry donates a lot of money to our politicians.

The pot lobby just keeps forgetting.

[The Mockingbird]

Alcohol is legal for two reasons:

1) The majority of people want it to be legal.

2) Enforcing its illegality causes more harm than good to society.


This is the same argument that people who want to legalize marijuana are using.

Are they right? Probably.

[FadeToBlack]

Because the alcohol industry donates a lot of money to our politicians.

The pot lobby never keeps forgetting.


Oh my gosh I just spewed coffee through my nose....

[The Thrill]

From the article:

That's the same crock the DEA has been spewing for years. MJ is about a hundred times safer than almost any other substance out there, legal or illegal. If the rationale for outlawing something is that it's "unsafe", why does alcohol still get to be legal?

I thought pot smoke carries way more carcinogens than tobacco smoke.

Am I wrong?

[Produce man]

I thought pot smoke carries way more carcinogens than tobacco smoke.

Am I wrong?Good question. I used to think so, but I've been hearing lately that cigarettes are much worse than we've been led to believe.

(if that's possible)

[Mr. Rugen]

It's a 100% proven scientific fact that cigarettes cause massive gayness of the homosexual kind.

[east coast producer]

Not trying to argue with you here Tripe, but how in the world would we know the per cent of drug users in America. And then know, of that per cent, what per cent is African American. How could one collect that data accuratly?

I'm on drugs RIGHT NOW and I'm lovin' it!

Wooooooooweeeeeeeee!!

[east coast producer]

It's a 100% proven scientific fact that cigarettes cause massive gayness of the homosexual kind.

So THAT'S why TVMatt mainlines nicotine!!

[Zeke]

I thought pot smoke carries way more carcinogens than tobacco smoke.
That is correct. However, the quantities used (tobacco vs. cannabis) by the average smoker differ greatly, mostly because cannabis is not habit forming. There are also cleaner methods of ingesting THC from cannabis, such as eating it in food, or by using a vaporizer.

[Sultanosurf]

Well, isn't it hard to be definitive on anything with marijuana, since research has been so sketchy? Researchers can't really do recognized work, since they're limited by the government on obtaining permits and pot.

Even overseas research has been pretty lean.

Smoking anything presents problems, but you'd have to think the medical benefits outweigh the negatives with marijuana or THC, so they ought to be able to package it in capsule form. It's hard to imagine that any side-effects could outweigh the numerous other medications you hear advertised with forty seconds of disclaimers.

Although the commercials could be pretty funny...

[Zeke]

Well, isn't it hard to be definitive on anything with marijuana, since research has been so sketchy? Researchers can't really do recognized work, since they're limited by the government on obtaining permits and pot.

Even overseas research has been pretty lean.

Not so. Several governments through history, starting in the late 1800s and on (including our own, most notibly during the Nixon administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Marihuana_and_Drug_Abuse)) have spent quite a lot of money to conduct very extensive research on cannabis' potential medicinal uses. In the end, positive results of this research has continuously been drowned out by repeatitive propaganda that's been running since the days of Harry J. Anslinger. Fortunately, state after state have rejected this and have established their own legislative acceptance of medical marijuana, despite the continuing illegality of it on the Federal level.

Smoking anything presents problems, but you'd have to think the medical benefits outweigh the negatives with marijuana or THC, so they ought to be able to package it in capsule form. It's hard to imagine that any side-effects could outweigh the numerous other medications you hear advertised with forty seconds of disclaimers. You are referring to Marinol, a THC pill that has been used by some cancer patients. Many of them complain about its intense side effects, as the pill contains a high concentration of THC and little else that is found naturally in cannabis. There is still a lot yet to be learned about what is found in the plant, as there are a couple hundred additional compounds that we don't yet really know the individual effects of. But we do know that they more or less compliment each other and produce the best comfort for patients, as opposed to syntheticly based alternatives.