420?
Moderator: Community Team
Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
-
warmonger1981
- Posts: 2554
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:29 pm
- Location: ST.PAUL
Re: 420?
Smokin that weed feeling fine. Got me a 40 and a fat ass dime.
-
WheezKalifa
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 3:49 pm
Re: 420?
Big big fan of god's favorite plant. Don't really see any more or ethical problems with it either, considering its decriminalized status where I live.
-
_sabotage_
- Posts: 1250
- Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am
- Gender: Male
Re: 420?
Alcohol related offenses, were at 2.5 million arrests for 2002. Among these, roughly 1 M for DUI, and half million for each of liquor law violations, disorderly conduct and drunkenness.
The worst drug depends on your perspective. Which harms the most families? Which is in itself deadliest? Which harms national interests? Which results in the greatest oppression? Which debilitates the user the most?
Alcohol by number of deaths would be deadliest, but those drugs which are more likely to cause instant death would be those that can cause overdose, such as heroin or coke. All highly addictive drugs from prescription drugs to narcotics will take the user from the golden mean of moderation, influence their activities towards obtaining the drugs and maintaining the addiction. Individuals respond differently to drugs, making the addictive properties different by person. Each individual has different resources which allow them to fulfill their addictions in varying methods. For example, a heroin addicted screenwriter for Alf would have enough income to service their addiction and would be able to maintain their job while the addiction rages through them. A crackhead from a poor neighborhood would have different resources at their disposal, usually socially repugnant means.
Marijuana is a weed, and requires little or no processing, causes minor addiction and no provable health risks. Servicing a weed habit or addiction could be done by planting seeds and tending to the plants occasionally until they mature.
This isn't feasible for most drugs. They have more finicky growing conditions, more processing and generally create health problems beyond simple addiction.
Based on this, cannabis is the easiest to produce without hazard, while other drugs are trickier and still hazardous. The hazards associated with drugs, first, maintaining the addiction, second, affording a safe dosage, third, dealing with their inherent health risks, are all exasperated by their illegality.
When drugs are illegal, the cost rises for individuals, families and society. The profits go to the black market, the price is increased, the quality lacks standardization, associated health risks are kept hidden and have no taxation to support them. I can provide clear examples of each of these if you wish. But the worst drug to me, is pitting the government against the people and increasing all risks associated with drugs.
The worst drug depends on your perspective. Which harms the most families? Which is in itself deadliest? Which harms national interests? Which results in the greatest oppression? Which debilitates the user the most?
Alcohol by number of deaths would be deadliest, but those drugs which are more likely to cause instant death would be those that can cause overdose, such as heroin or coke. All highly addictive drugs from prescription drugs to narcotics will take the user from the golden mean of moderation, influence their activities towards obtaining the drugs and maintaining the addiction. Individuals respond differently to drugs, making the addictive properties different by person. Each individual has different resources which allow them to fulfill their addictions in varying methods. For example, a heroin addicted screenwriter for Alf would have enough income to service their addiction and would be able to maintain their job while the addiction rages through them. A crackhead from a poor neighborhood would have different resources at their disposal, usually socially repugnant means.
Marijuana is a weed, and requires little or no processing, causes minor addiction and no provable health risks. Servicing a weed habit or addiction could be done by planting seeds and tending to the plants occasionally until they mature.
This isn't feasible for most drugs. They have more finicky growing conditions, more processing and generally create health problems beyond simple addiction.
Based on this, cannabis is the easiest to produce without hazard, while other drugs are trickier and still hazardous. The hazards associated with drugs, first, maintaining the addiction, second, affording a safe dosage, third, dealing with their inherent health risks, are all exasperated by their illegality.
When drugs are illegal, the cost rises for individuals, families and society. The profits go to the black market, the price is increased, the quality lacks standardization, associated health risks are kept hidden and have no taxation to support them. I can provide clear examples of each of these if you wish. But the worst drug to me, is pitting the government against the people and increasing all risks associated with drugs.
-
whitestazn88
- Posts: 3128
- Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:59 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: behind you
- Contact:
Re: 420?
Any pot smokers, contact me with your name, address, and phone number. I promise I'll send you a free ounce of the dopest dope I've ever smoked, if you are willing to send me back $100 if after you smoke it and love it/sell it. Promise.
-
whitestazn88
- Posts: 3128
- Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:59 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: behind you
- Contact:
Re: 420?
I am not a member of the FBI, DEA, ATF, or any police force. Promise.
-
warmonger1981
- Posts: 2554
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:29 pm
- Location: ST.PAUL
Re: 420?
Come over to my place we will have a smoke fest. Nothing but the finest chronic coming out of super bongs and steamrollers. Its a fucking buffet around here.
Re: 420?
warmonger1981 wrote:Come over to my place we will have a smoke fest. Nothing but the finest chronic coming out of super bongs and steamrollers. Its a fucking buffet around here.
Used to have a two footer, a zong ( had a cool bend in it and stuff), a one footer with a dragon on the side of it, 3 regular old bowls, and a rhino bowl. I miss those things. I would collect just the pieces, but its illegal to posses them, which pisses me off cause they look cool if nothing else.
-
whitestazn88
- Posts: 3128
- Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:59 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: behind you
- Contact:
Re: 420?
new guy1 wrote:warmonger1981 wrote:Come over to my place we will have a smoke fest. Nothing but the finest chronic coming out of super bongs and steamrollers. Its a fucking buffet around here.
Used to have a two footer, a zong ( had a cool bend in it and stuff), a one footer with a dragon on the side of it, 3 regular old bowls, and a rhino bowl. I miss those things. I would collect just the pieces, but its illegal to posses them, which pisses me off cause they look cool if nothing else.
Where are you located? I'm pretty sure it's legal to keep any kind of tobacco pipe, just not drug paraphernalia.
-
_sabotage_
- Posts: 1250
- Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am
- Gender: Male
Re: 420?
Tell that to Tommy Chong.
Re: 420?
whitestazn88 wrote:new guy1 wrote:warmonger1981 wrote:Come over to my place we will have a smoke fest. Nothing but the finest chronic coming out of super bongs and steamrollers. Its a fucking buffet around here.
Used to have a two footer, a zong ( had a cool bend in it and stuff), a one footer with a dragon on the side of it, 3 regular old bowls, and a rhino bowl. I miss those things. I would collect just the pieces, but its illegal to posses them, which pisses me off cause they look cool if nothing else.
Where are you located? I'm pretty sure it's legal to keep any kind of tobacco pipe, just not drug paraphernalia.
North Carolina. Apparently, its okay to buy one, but illegal to possess it. Thats just what Ive heard, but I kept mine hidden anyways, so it didnt matter to me
-
warmonger1981
- Posts: 2554
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:29 pm
- Location: ST.PAUL
Re: 420?
I don't acknowledge the law. Never have probably never will. Minnesota baby. Please believe it!
Re: 420?
In The Netherlands they are trying to be stricter, but at the same time the big cities are making plans for legalizing it completely so they can coordinate the growth of marihuana. The THC-levels in the weed are sky-rocketing in Holland, so they want to grow it themselves to make sure there is a certain THC-level maintained. Sounds good to me.
Also, we're dealing with some rubbish that you need a "weedpass" (the literal name) to buy weed, if a coffeeshop is located near our borders with Belgium and Germany. There are so many "tourists" from those countries that come here to buy weed, but they can't anymore, because they aren't registered by the coffeeshop. You can imagine how the illegal street sales have multiplied in quantity in just a few weeks.
Our government should rethink the entire policy. It doesn't need to be stricter if they control it in a reasonable way.
As for criminals, I don't think Holland is a very criminal country because weed is sort of legal. I think that point is totally irrelevant.
Also, we're dealing with some rubbish that you need a "weedpass" (the literal name) to buy weed, if a coffeeshop is located near our borders with Belgium and Germany. There are so many "tourists" from those countries that come here to buy weed, but they can't anymore, because they aren't registered by the coffeeshop. You can imagine how the illegal street sales have multiplied in quantity in just a few weeks.
Our government should rethink the entire policy. It doesn't need to be stricter if they control it in a reasonable way.
As for criminals, I don't think Holland is a very criminal country because weed is sort of legal. I think that point is totally irrelevant.
-
BigBallinStalin
- Posts: 5151
- Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
- Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
- Contact:
Re: 420?
JBlombier wrote:In The Netherlands they are trying to be stricter, but at the same time the big cities are making plans for legalizing it completely so they can coordinate the growth of marihuana. The THC-levels in the weed are sky-rocketing in Holland, so they want to grow it themselves to make sure there is a certain THC-level maintained. Sounds good to me.
Wait, so the cities are in charge of production?
Why have the cities maintain THC-levels? Why not let various sellers produce a variety of products at different THC-levels, and then let the prices sort it out?
JBlombier wrote:Also, we're dealing with some rubbish that you need a "weedpass" (the literal name) to buy weed, if a coffeeshop is located near our borders with Belgium and Germany. There are so many "tourists" from those countries that come here to buy weed, but they can't anymore, because they aren't registered by the coffeeshop. You can imagine how the illegal street sales have multiplied in quantity in just a few weeks.
Our government should rethink the entire policy. It doesn't need to be stricter if they control it in a reasonable way.
I'd expect it to become stricter, more wasteful, and less competitive because democratic government isn't all that reasonable.
-
_sabotage_
- Posts: 1250
- Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am
- Gender: Male
Re: 420?
Agree with BBS. I should add something along the devils advocate lines with what he says, but I can't be bothered and it wouldn't be very productive.
Re: 420?
The cities are not in charge of production. I said they are making plans to create a new policy and if they all work together they have a bigger chance of getting it through parliament. Their point is to not let sellers have a say in this, because they would want the THC-levels to be as high as possible.
-
BigBallinStalin
- Posts: 5151
- Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
- Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
- Contact:
Re: 420?
JBlombier wrote:The cities are not in charge of production. I said they are making plans to create a new policy and if they all work together they have a bigger chance of getting it through parliament. Their point is to not let sellers have a say in this, because they would want the THC-levels to be as high as possible.
Many characteristics, including THC-levels, will correspond to the price which a particular MJ product can demand.... so the products would be available at various prices, thus various THC-levels. It largely depends on consumer preferences.
So, why not 'let markets work'? Pass laws (if necessary) which enable free competition and free pricing, and the problem would be resolved over time.
(I don't see why the cities are necessary for preventing high THC-levels, and I don't see how all sellers could sustain the highest THC-levels because there would be groups of buyers demanding lower THC-levels).