Marijuana

Ricky Houy said:
Well, if you grow your own plant that is true.

In Mexico they use illgeal pestisides, and chemicals to make it stronger.

Certain types of marijuana also have cocaine in them. It is added by dealers to make it appear to have crystals on it. Now however some plants do have crystals, most of them don't. Like Hydro, most of the time the crystals you see on it are cocaine, and we all know how bad cocaine is

if you know where it is coming from (or if you trust the source) then you know what you're getting. and most of the time you can tell if anything is added. cocaine is added usually as a mix, they don't really throw it in there arbitrarily because cocaine is so much more expensive by weight. most of the time the crystals you see are not cocaine, as the marijuana plant does a very good job of producing dewlike resin that appears crystalline. this is filled with a lot of the chemicals in marijuana that get you high, thats why the more cystals it has is usually associated to how good the strain of marijuana it is.

and besides, everyone knows that the best weed comes from BC or Amsterdam. Or California for that matter. :m:
 
spuriousmonkey said:
In the netherlands you don't go to a drugsdealer for a joint. So your reasoning is invalid.
i really can't argue the point because i don't have any statistics from the netherlands.
but it is safe to say even though hemp is legal there
there are people being arrested for doing harder drugs. and the majority started with marijuana.
 
Neildo said:
And yes, marijuana was banned because hemp has so many useful qualities from herbal rememdies, to making paper, to making clothes, to making rope, has highly nutritious seeds, etc, etc. It's an all-in-one plant and it's why our founding fathers used to grow it and said every patriotic American should grow that wonderful plant. Too bad most people are brainwashed fools.

- N

I'm not entirely sure I'm reading this right. Are you saying that marijuana was banned BECAUSE it has so many uses? That since it has so many different positive uses for mankind, then it must be banned?

Please let me know if I'm reading this right, because it seems just a tad far-fetched to me. I say this because, if that was the case, then why are we able to cut down trees? Take water from the ocean?

Why stop at marijuana?
 
because the oil companies didnt want their market share diminishing
 
kenworth said:
because the oil companies didnt want their market share diminishing


I believe there is truth to this accusation. Though I doubt it is/was just oil companies.

Why else would they (DEA) have fought a bill that would have allowed Colorado farmers to grow industrial hemp? There are cultivars that have virtually NO drug value, but the DEA told them plainly that they would fight them with whatever they had, should the bill pass.

It didn't pass.

Look at the federal drug enforcement goons versus the state of California over medical marijuana. Look at the cases of terminally ill, very ill, persons, being imprisoned for growing or purchasing what their own state's laws say is legal.

Just a year or two ago, a giant shipment of hemp seeds was stopped by agents from coming across the Canadian border. The reason? Foods made from hemp seeds give false positives on those blessed drug tests!
 
drug tests unfairly discriminate against marijuana
you can smoke a joint today and test positive 3 weeks later
the only drug that i am aware of that does that.

cocaine, lsd, alcohol all of those are out of your system in 3 days or less
 
leopold99 said:
there are people being arrested for doing harder drugs. and the majority started with marijuana.


What's this CRAP about "harder" drugs?

Are you aware of the statistics? Cigarettes and alcohol kill WAY WAY WAY MORE people every year than cocaine, crack, heroin, meth, and all those others combined!

This "hard" drug/"soft" drug shite is a ruse! Do you know how many people die from TYLENOL every year???

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=11017

And that's only acetaminophen!
 
The actual story behind the legislature passed against marijuana is quite surprising. According to Jack Herer, author of The Emperor Wears No Clothes and an expert on the "hemp conspiracy," the acts bringing about the demise of hemp were part of a large conspiracy involving DuPont, Harry J. Anslinger, commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, and many other influential industrial leaders such as William Randolph Hearst and Andrew Mellon. Herer notes that the Marijuana Tax Act, which passed in 1937, coincidentally occurred just as the decoricator machine was invented. With this invention, hemp would have been able to take over competing industries almost instantaneously. According to Popular Mechanics, "10,000 acres devoted to hemp will produce as much paper as 40,000 acres of average [forest] pulp land." William Hearst owned enormous timber acreage, land best suited for conventional pulp, so his interest in preventing the growth of hemp can be easily explained. Competition from hemp would have easily driven the Hearst paper-manufacturing company out of business and significantly lowered the value of his land. Herer even suggests popularizing the term "marijuana" was a strategy Hearst used in order to create fear in the American public. "The first step in creating hysteria was to introduce the element of fear of the unknown by using a word that no one had ever heard of before... 'marijuana'" (ibid).

DuPont's involvment in the anti-hemp campaign can also be explained with great ease. At this time, DuPont was patenting a new sulfuric acid process for producing wood-pulp paper. "According to the company's own records, wood-pulp products ultimately accounted for more than 80% of all DuPont's railroad car loadings for the next 50 years" (ibid). Indeed it should be noted that "two years before the prohibitive hemp tax in 1937, DuPont developed a new synthetic fiber, nylon, which was an ideal substitute for hemp rope" (Hartsell). The year after the tax was passed DuPont came out with rayon, which would have been unable to compete with the strength of hemp fiber or its economical process of manufacturing. "DuPont's point man was none other than Harry Anslinger...who was appointed to the FBN by Treasury Secretary Andrew MEllon, who was also chairman of the Mellon Bank, DuPont's chief financial backer. Anslinger's relationship to Mellon wasn't just political, he was also married to Mellon's niece" (Hartsell). It doesn't take much to draw a connection between DuPont, Anslinger, and Mellon, and it's obvious that all of these groups, including Hearst, had strong motivation to prevent the growth of the hemp industry.

The reasoning behind DuPont, Anslinger, and Hearst was not for any moral or health related issues. They fought to prevent the growth of this new industry so they wouldn't go bankrupt. In fact, the American Medical Association tried to argue for the medical benefits of hemp. Marijuana is actually less dangerous than alcohol, cigarettes, and even most over-the-counter medicines or prescriptions. According to Francis J. Young, the DEA's administrative judge, "nearly all medicines have toxicm, potentially letal affects, but marijuana is not such a substance...Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care" (DEA Docket No. 86-22, 57). It is illogical then, for marijuana to be illegal in the United States when "alcohol poisoning is a significant cause of death in this country" and "approximately 400,000 premature deaths are attributed to cigarettes annually." Dr. Roger Pertwee, SEcretary of the International Cannabis Research Society states that as a recreational drug, "Marijuana compares favourably to nicotine, alcohol, and even caffeine." Under extreme amounts of alcohol a person will experience an "inability to stand or walk without help, stupor and near unconsciousness, lack of comprehension of what is seen or heard, shock, and breathing and heartbeat may stop." Even though these effects occur only under insane amounts of alcohol consumption, (.2-.5 BAL) the fact is smoking extreme amounts of marijuana will do nothing more than put you to sleep, whereas drinking excessive amounts of alcohol will kill you.

Cut and pasted without the kind permission of Erowid
 
Giambattista said:
What's this CRAP about "harder" drugs?

Are you aware of the statistics? Cigarettes and alcohol kill WAY WAY WAY MORE people every year than cocaine, crack, heroin, meth, and all those others combined!
if you read my posts you wouldn't be biteing my head off
 
leopold99 said:
drug tests unfairly discriminate against marijuana
you can smoke a joint today and test positive 3 weeks later
the only drug that i am aware of that does that.

cocaine, lsd, alcohol all of those are out of your system in 3 days or less


Because they measure a fat-soluble metabolite (THC-carboxylic acid), and NOT the normal THC or its major water-soluble byproduct.

You're very correct. It IS unfair, and I believe it is the one chemical that is responsible for the majority of positive identifications in urine analysises (or whatever the test may be). I could be wrong.
 
tablariddim said:
the fact is smoking extreme amounts of marijuana will do nothing more than put you to sleep, whereas drinking excessive amounts of alcohol will kill you.
i will agree with your post, not just this qoute but with all of it

but the drug statistics of the netherlands is still missing
those statistics will, in my opinion, prove that marijuana leads to other drugs
 
The unfortunate truth, is that drug dealers haunt the streets of Amsterdam wherever there are marijuana cafes.
 
leopold99 said:
if you read my posts you wouldn't be biteing my head off

Like a monkey?

HEEY BEEEEECCCCHHHH!!!!!!!

Sorry if it looked like that! I actually wasn't attacking you, just a certain idea you seemed to be talkin. Just tryin to make things clear, baby! No harm intended!

Carry on, peacefully of course... ;)
 
leopold99 said:
i will agree with your post, not just this qoute but with all of it

but the drug statistics of the netherlands is still missing
those statistics will, in my opinion, prove that marijuana leads to other drugs

To be honest, all of the people I know who have done the "harder" drugs were all cigarette smokers at an early age, and/or are heavy smokers in THIS age.

I believe that perhaps it is ANY high that can lead to the search for OTHER highs.

Sound kosher?
 
But that's just MY observation. Though I'm sure there is data that will tend to show that trend.
 
tablariddim said:
The unfortunate truth, is that drug dealers haunt the streets of Amsterdam wherever there are marijuana cafes.
no, the unfortunate truth is people are abusers and marijuana is a relatively mild drug
both of those together accounts for marijuana leading to other drugs
 
leopold99 said:
i will agree with your post, not just this qoute but with all of it

but the drug statistics of the netherlands is still missing
those statistics will, in my opinion, prove that marijuana leads to other drugs


"The number of opiate addicts in the Netherlands - between 26,000 and 30,000 - is stable, and low compared to other EU countries (2.6 per 1,000 inhabitants in the Netherlands; 4.3 per 1,000 inhabitants in France; and 6.7 per 1,000 inhabitants in the United Kingdom)."


Shouldn't that be higher if cannabis leads to hard drugs?


Regarding drug use among young people aged 12-18, in 2002 the Trimbos Institute reported that "The use of illegal drugs is still low among this age group. Cannabis scores highest, but the use of hard drugs and synthetic drugs is almost non-existent in this age group and deaths and overdoses are rare. Cannabis use increased steeply from 1988 to 1996, but lifetime and last month prevalence stabilised afterwards (until 1999) at 19% and 15%. Boys are more frequent users than girls. The first experimental drugs for young people are predominantly tobacco and alcohol. This pattern remained stable over the last five years or even tended to decrease. Young alcohol users also use cannabis and tobacco more frequently."

Note the last sentence: young alcohol users. and what has been said earlier in this thread: people start with tabacco and alcohol.

The ratio of drug-related deaths in The Netherlands is the lowest in Europe. h, q

Violent crime rates in The Netherlands are much lower than in the US,q as is the rate of transmission of HIV/AIDS through injection drug use. q

Drug policy in the Netherlands is based on minimizing risk and reducing harm. That is why the use of cannabis (marijuana and hashish) is tolerated, as is the private personal cultivation of cannabis, and the sale of cannabis through coffee shops. b

What do you want in your society? Cracking down on drugs and putting people in jail or making society as civilized as possible? It is a question you have to ask?

"Differences in the prevalence of drug use are influenced by a variety of factors in each country. As countries with more liberal drug policies (such as the Netherlands) and those with a more restricted approach (such as Sweden) have not very different prevalence rates, the impact of national drug policies (more liberal versus more restrictive approaches) on the prevalence of drug use and especially problem drug use remains unclear. However, comprehensive national drug policies are of high importance in reducing adverse consequences of problem drug use such as HIV infections, hepatitis B and C and overdose deaths."

If there is not much difference regarding the nature of drug policy isn't it then better to concentrate on the wellbeing of the citizens. Apparently a tougher policy doesn't lead to less drug use. But it can lead to more health and social problems.


http://www.drugwarfacts.org/internat.htm#netherlands
 
Last edited:
spuriousmonkey said:
The first experimental drugs for young people are predominantly tobacco and alcohol. This pattern remained stable over the last five years or even tended to decrease. Young alcohol users also use cannabis and tobacco more frequently."[/I]

Well, perhaps my hunch had some meat on its bones. :eek: :m: :p
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Drug policy in the Netherlands is based on minimizing risk and reducing harm. That is why the use of cannabis (marijuana and hashish) is tolerated, as is the private personal cultivation of cannabis, and the sale of cannabis through coffee shops. b

What do you want in your society? Cracking down on drugs and putting people in jail or making society as civilized as possible? It is a question you have to ask?

Amen. Amon-Ra.

I believe I have read the exact opposite in Drug Enforcement Administration propaganda.

I SWEAR I remember reading some outrageous unemployment rate for the Netherlands, in one of those anti-drug rants. Anyone heard something similar?
 
Back
Top