Dwayne Bowe arrested for speeding and Marijuana possession

[larryo]

Hey manxman what is "skunk"?

 

[manxman2601]

Hey manxman what is "skunk"?

And Lord knows why you'd want to smoke one.

 

[larryo]

And Lord knows why you'd want to smoke one.

Just wondering since you used the term on the last page.

 

[manxman2601]

Just wondering since you used the term on the last page.

I know what it is, at least broadly, but I don't play gotcha' games.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Hey manxman what is "skunk"?

that sticky ickyyyy

 

[Galeb]

that sticky ickyyyy

Um, he said "skunk", with a "u".

 

[chicowalker]

As a criminal justice major in both undergrad and grad school, a former drug user/experimenter, and someone who has lost a close family member to a drug overdose, I tend to agree with you on some levels...

BUT

The reality is that marijuana should be DECRIMINALIZED not outright legalized. One shouldn't have a "record" that prevents them from getting a job 20 years later when they're caught with 25 bucks worth of pot in their late teens/early 20's, and taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for overcrowded/re-building of jails either. It's basically unfair to everyone involved. In some instances, people with mental illness and social anxiety issues; along with outright addiction problems, need to be treated in a more intense fashion. That would be something that I would like to see, and something that would also cut down on the prison/jail rates and save everyone money.

The downside and main concern is that marijuana is indeed a "gateway drug," meaning that it will almost always lead one to experiment with other substances that are more dangerous. The percentages of those who experiment with pot definitely back this up. That is a big worry and can actually be deadly once teens start using prescription pills, cocaine, heroin, etc. And as much as some will roll their eyes at this thought, it happens...in every town, every single day of our lives. Once you legalize marijuana, other windows with substances come into question, and it becomes socially acceptable on a much wider level.

Another concern is that the tar and resin found in marijuana is indeed very dangerous, as the levels amount to that of a cigarette x about 15-20 for the average sized joint. In all reality it isn't entirely "harmless," although I do hear your concerns with the laws being too harsh. That would be something that I would agree with entirely, and is exactly why I firmly agree with decriminalization but not outright legalization. You may feel differently, which makes it one of the more controversial subjects in today's society.

I agree with some of this, though that decriminalization versus legalization seems like splitting hairs to me.

Yes, marijuana can help result in harm. my point is that the government's role isn't to eliminate all hazardous behavior among us citizens, and our laws should as much as possible be consistent.

If you disagree with that, fine, but if you agree, then all of this should be discussed in the context of cigarettes, alcohol, etc. (For ex, the claim re pot being a gateway drug applies, imo, even moreso to cigarettes and alcohol. And I do think that labeling of the one but not the others has produced a stigma among many people that is simply uninformed.)

And btw, I believe that dangers such as tar should be made known to potential users, just as with cigarettes. Of course, there are uses that wouldn't produce tar, like vaporizers and ingestion (though ingestion can probably lead to issues that don't tend to arise with smoking).

 

[chicowalker]

I'm philosophically libertarian and conservative as a result of experience and pragmatism. I agree it's a contradiction but one which I navigate reasonably well. It boils down too enforced change usually resulting in negative effects and therefore things should be left as they are.



This is where we disagree. I think that legalising cannabis could be extremely harmful to others for a number of reasons.



This we'll agree on. And yes I am conflicted on this issue. Which is why the still illegal but largely decriminalised is a compromise I find fairly reasonable.





When you find where I said it was "evil", you will let me know won't you?



But they also have to be pragmatic. And how far would you take this ideological position of yours? Do you legalise cannabis but keep skunk illegal? How about Ecstasy and acid. By your definitions, they should all be legalised. How about Coke, heroin and meth? They all fit the definition of limited laws, govt not interfering in our lives, only harming the user. And that is the logical extension of your argument. If alcohol is legal then cannabis should be too. If cannabis is legal then skunk should be too. Etc, etc.

My belief is rather than start down the slippery slope, this is a less harmful place to fight the battle (and bear in mind I'm in the UK where cannabis use is largely decriminalised).By and large, there is little to prohibit you or anyone else using in your own home. And I'm absolutely fine with that. What you do their is your business. But there is still enough of a prohibition that it tends to keep use in the home, it gives people pause before starting and it doesn't become a culturally accepted norm in all quarters of society. That might change in the future but that doesn't mean I should give up the fight in the present.

Weed doesn't hurt others. That's a fact. It can combine with other behaviors to harm others, but it's those behaviors that should be illegal. (Smoking in living room - legal; smoking in living room and driving car - illegal)

You didn't say that weed was "evil," I was exaggerating in reference to your earlier post about a glass of wine with lunch being OK -- but it was a post that clearly implied a difference between the two and was snarky in tone, without any clear reason. (Post #30 -- where you dismiss the notions that alcohol is worse for you than weed and that alcohol is more of a gateway drug than weed.)

As for other drugs, I have no idea what skunk is -- but in general I think slippery slope arguments are pretty weak arguments. We're not talking about heroin, coke, etc., we're talking about weed. But if you want to talk about those, my guess is that the conversation will be short, because my answer is that I don't know much about them and I'm not arguing that they should be legal. I am certainly open to arguments that they should be, and unlike many people who oppose marijuana, I'm not going to argue that they must remain illegal simply because of my own mistaken beliefs about the drugs.

 

[manxman2601]

Weed doesn't hurt others. That's a fact. It can combine with other behaviors to harm others, but it's those behaviors that should be illegal. (Smoking in living room - legal; smoking in living room and driving car - illegal)

You didn't say that weed was "evil," I was exaggerating in reference to your earlier post about a glass of wine with lunch being OK -- but it was a post that clearly implied a difference between the two and was snarky in tone, without any clear reason. (Post #30 -- where you dismiss the notions that alcohol is worse for you than weed and that alcohol is more of a gateway drug than weed.)

As for other drugs, I have no idea what skunk is -- but in general I think slippery slope arguments are pretty weak arguments. We're not talking about heroin, coke, etc., we're talking about weed. But if you want to talk about those, my guess is that the conversation will be short, because my answer is that I don't know much about them and I'm not arguing that they should be legal. I am certainly open to arguments that they should be, and unlike many people who oppose marijuana, I'm not going to argue that they must remain illegal simply because of my own mistaken beliefs about the drugs.

Fair enough.

 

[larryo]

I know what it is, at least broadly, but I don't play gotcha' games.

Gotcha games? Yeah you got the wrong guy.

Just trying to understand your post.

 

[manxman2601]

Gotcha games? Yeah you got the wrong guy.

Just trying to understand your post.

Ok apologies. Skunk is a stronger form of cannabis stemming from cultivated hybrids. It's reportedly more dangerous but also more intense for the user (supposedly).

Skunk Cannabis: Top 10 Facts About The Drug

 

[chicowalker]

Ok apologies. Skunk is a stronger form of cannabis stemming from cultivated hybrids. It's reportedly more dangerous but also more intense for the user (supposedly).

Skunk Cannabis: Top 10 Facts About The Drug

Never heard of this, but the article did bring to mind a couple other benefits that I've seen result from weed's semi-legalization in California. (Legal for "medical" purposes -- and virtually anything qualifies as a medical purpose. and can be grown/sold by collectives, or something, but you don't actually have to do anything to buy from these coops.)

And not looking to debate further, really, just throwing it out for consideration.

I had a license for a year or 2, partly curiosity, partly so I could buy easily. And what I witnessed was a safe method of purchase and very high quality product. people in the store were knowledgeable, could talk about the effects (there are 2 main strains, apparently, with markedly different effects for users), strength, etc. no buying froma guy on the street (which I had never done), no buying from a friend of a friend of a friend (which I had done occasionally) -- in other words, far more accountability and higher quality.

This parallels what I'd imagine happened post-prohibition. Decrease in criminal activity, improvements in quality of product / product safety.

The product can be taxed (at least to cover regulatory costs). and standards can be put in place, which I think would be especially useful for edible products (because it's much harder to monitor how much you're taking in and the effects)

 

[larryo]

Heh manxman when you have a couple of hours to kill check out "The Union" on You Tube.

 

[supafly]

Marijuana a "Gateway" Drug? Scientists Call Theory Half-Baked - HealthPop - CBS News

I doubt legalizing marijuana would have an impact on the number of people that go on to ruin their lives with drugs. The people that are at risk of such behavior are not letting laws get in their way right now. The people that would start smoking once they aren't forced to jump through hoops, break laws, and/or deal with shady characters are highly unlikely to go "Wow this smoking pot thing kicks ass; I should try meth!!!".

Like I said--it's a very controversial debate, and I recognize and respect both sides.

Right or wrong, the concern and thinking is that the more it is accepted, the higher the number of people who will smoke it who may not have previously, had it not been legalized. If every teen/college student in America were forced to go to underground methods to obtain cigarettes and alcohol, the numbers are going to go down a bit. That would seem to be a very reasonable assumption. As I said, the concern isn't that it's going to suddenly go from trying pot to being hooked on meth, but it's the eventual and progressive pattern with smaller stops in between.

In other words--ask yourself this question: Are you going to go from NOTHING to crystal meth, as per your example? I hardly think so. Most people aren't going to suddenly start with crystal meth, but many will end up there from trying pot, and that's why it's considered to be a "gateway drug." Most teens/college students don't go from experimenting with beer or cigarettes and end up on crystal meth, or else beer and cigarettes would be considered the gateway drug.

I'm all for allowing adults to make their own decisions, and I think throwing people in jail for pot possession is practically absurd--but I'm just stating where and why the concern comes from, whether that is "right" or "wrong."

 

[supafly]

Never heard of this, but the article did bring to mind a couple other benefits that I've seen result from weed's semi-legalization in California. (Legal for "medical" purposes -- and virtually anything qualifies as a medical purpose. and can be grown/sold by collectives, or something, but you don't actually have to do anything to buy from these coops.)

And not looking to debate further, really, just throwing it out for consideration.

I had a license for a year or 2, partly curiosity, partly so I could buy easily. And what I witnessed was a safe method of purchase and very high quality product. people in the store were knowledgeable, could talk about the effects (there are 2 main strains, apparently, with markedly different effects for users), strength, etc. no buying froma guy on the street (which I had never done), no buying from a friend of a friend of a friend (which I had done occasionally) -- in other words, far more accountability and higher quality.

This parallels what I'd imagine happened post-prohibition. Decrease in criminal activity, improvements in quality of product / product safety.

The product can be taxed (at least to cover regulatory costs). and standards can be put in place, which I think would be especially useful for edible products (because it's much harder to monitor how much you're taking in and the effects)

I find your stance to be not only reasonable, but well thought out. Your presentation alone helps your case in my opinion. It's good to hear from someone who is knowledgeable about their stance.

As I said, I'm all for allowing adults to make their own decisions and I would love to see taxpayer costs come down, along with seeing incarceration rates decrease (from the horrible choice of mandatory minimums re: marijuana). That is why I'm for decriminalization rather than legalization. I can't stand to see people thrown in jail for smoking/possessing pot. I think it's ridiculous. On top of that, I have seen many people who "grow up" to change their lives around and yet they are unable to get a good job from their 20 yr old pot charge--despite the fact that they have worked hard and gained a proper education. That is why I am all for decriminalization. It should be treated as a minor, summary offense that can be taken care of with a fine. It shouldn't be a misdemeanor that goes on your record, where you need to be placed in the "system," and can be facing jail time.

The reason why I don't agree with outright legalization is spelled out in the post above this one in my last response. We'll have to see how it plays out over the next 10-15-20 yrs.

 

[Joker]

http://buckleup*****.com/health/alcohol-related-deaths-compared-to-marijuana-deaths/




Alcohol related deaths compared to Marijuana deaths…

Annual deaths related to firearms in the United States: 29,000. Annual deaths related to prescription drugs: 32,000. Annual deaths related to alcohol: 85,000. Related to tobacco: 435,000. Marijuana? 0. Not a single case of death ever recorded in the United States, or even the world has been attributed to the use of marijuana. But there must be a reason for it’s prohibition and criminalization, correct?

One thing that most people believe is that marijuana kills brain cells, which is in fact, a myth. The original basis of this claim was a report that, upon postmortem examinations, structural changes in several brain regions were found in two rhesus monkeys exposed to THC. Because these changes primarily involved the hippocampus, a cortical brain region known to play an important role in learning and memory, this finding suggested possible negative consequences for human marijuana users. In the most recently published study, rhesus monkeys were exposed through face-mask inhalation to the smoke equivalent of four to five joints per day for one year. When sacrificed seven months later, there was no observed alteration of hippocampal architecture, cell size, cell number, or synaptic configuration.

Although it may not have deaths related to it, it must have some unhealthy attributes to it though, right? Again, wrong. Tetrahydrocannabinol is a very safe drug. Laboratory animals (rats, mice, dogs, monkeys) can tolerate doses of up to 1,000 mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram). This would be equivalent to a 70 kg person swallowing 70 grams of the drug about 5,000 times more than is required to produce a high. Despite the widespread illicit use of cannabis there are very few if any instances of people dying from an overdose. In Britain, official government statistics listed five deaths from cannabis in the period 1993-1995 but on closer examination these proved to have been deaths due to inhalation of vomit that could not be directly attributed to cannabis (House of Lords Report, 1998). By comparison with other commonly used recreational drugs these statistics are impressive.

It's these strains!!!! They're MURDERING PEOPLE!!! THIS pot is BAD!!!! This NEW kind!!! I'm not going to argue any other kind that I used to argue to HORRIBLY DISFIGURE PEOPLES LIVES for my own selfish ends..no...NOW I'll scream THIS latest TOTAL BULLSHYT printed by "Huffington Post"!!!! Marijuana is EVIL!!!! I just KNOW it is because that's what I've been told by these people who hate it and have an AGENDA for keeping it illegal!!!! WATCH OUT!!! It's a trap!!!

Koch Brothers | 2012 The Awakening

"4.) Pharmaceutical Corporations: Like the sin industries listed above, pharmaceutical interests would like to keep marijuana illegal so American don’t have the option of cheap medical alternatives to their products. Howard Wooldridge, a retired police officer who now lobbies the government to relax marijuana prohibition laws, told Republic Report that next to police unions, the “second biggest opponent on Capitol Hill is big PhRMA” because marijuana can replace “everything from Advil to Vicodin and other expensive pills.”

"this skunk type is EVIL!!! It's a killer!!!! Murdering innocent victims... BAD ...REAL BAD!!!!!!!"

Please go out to your local pub tonight and do something about this marijauna menace...it's always raining over there so tonight is probably perfect...drink a few litres of Bass Ale, swill down ten shots of Glenfiddich, jump in your Jaguar and speed off down Surrey Lane...be on the lookout for these "skunk users" disguised as trees and when you see one , swerve hard directly into him at 100 mph. Do your part to rid the world off the evil "skunk" menace. Friggin moron.

 

[Froob]

Never heard of this, but the article did bring to mind a couple other benefits that I've seen result from weed's semi-legalization in California. (Legal for "medical" purposes -- and virtually anything qualifies as a medical purpose. and can be grown/sold by collectives, or something, but you don't actually have to do anything to buy from these coops.)

And not looking to debate further, really, just throwing it out for consideration.

I had a license for a year or 2, partly curiosity, partly so I could buy easily. And what I witnessed was a safe method of purchase and very high quality product. people in the store were knowledgeable, could talk about the effects (there are 2 main strains, apparently, with markedly different effects for users), strength, etc. no buying froma guy on the street (which I had never done), no buying from a friend of a friend of a friend (which I had done occasionally) -- in other words, far more accountability and higher quality.

This parallels what I'd imagine happened post-prohibition. Decrease in criminal activity, improvements in quality of product / product safety.

The product can be taxed (at least to cover regulatory costs). and standards can be put in place, which I think would be especially useful for edible products (because it's much harder to monitor how much you're taking in and the effects)

Just makes too much sense not to happen. Unfortunately for me, it makes no difference because I don't see the military budging anytime soon.

 

[larryo]

First they want cannabis legal next thing you know they'll be asking for hash.

 

[Joker]

First they want cannabis legal next thing you know they'll be asking for hash.

I remember the same d!ckhead argument about hashish back in the early 70's..."super powerful!!!!! murders going way up because of hash intoxication!! BAD BAD BAD!!!"...ridiculous on its face, this actually was official policy for a number of years. Of course hashish is just the exact same pollen that's on leaf marijuana with the exact same effect on the user. The artificial hysteria though kept everyones' minds and eyes off the introduction of preposterously dangerous LEGALLY manufactured drugs like Quaalude.

Hashish gathered in Asia is culled from Asian marijuana, cannabis INDICA. Of course, what is the strain of marijuana that is being bellowed about and hysterically deemed "dangerous"? "SKUNK WEED!!!!!" aka cannabis indica...once again, used for over TEN THOUSAND YEARS IN THE FAR EAST. Documented. That doesn't seem to stop blind sheep blinded by the constant far right flow of disinformation, misinformation and outright LIES from continuing to bleat out these paranoid delusions of theirs.

 

[Tunescribe]

I remember the same d!ckhead argument about hashish back in the early 70's..."super powerful!!!!! murders going way up because of hash intoxication!! BAD BAD BAD!!!"...ridiculous on its face, this actually was official policy for a number of years. Of course hashish is just the exact same pollen that's on leaf marijuana with the exact same effect on the user. The artificial hysteria though kept everyones' minds and eyes off the introduction of preposterously dangerous LEGALLY manufactured drugs like Quaalude.

Hashish gathered in Asia is culled from Asian marijuana, cannabis INDICA. Of course, what is the strain of marijuana that is being bellowed about and hysterically deemed "dangerous"? "SKUNK WEED!!!!!" aka cannabis indica...once again, used for over TEN THOUSAND YEARS IN THE FAR EAST. Documented. That doesn't seem to stop blind sheep blinded by the constant far right flow of disinformation, misinformation and outright LIES from continuing to bleat out these paranoid delusions of theirs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------