General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Quinine
 
I hold my cognitive liberties in the highest regard. The ability to control what chemicals affect your own brain is a fundamental right, laws be damned.
__________________
Careful! Magic shiitake radiation has the power to warp time and space, and I'm not just whistling dixie here.
Old 08-12-2005, 04:46 PM Quinine is offline  
Reply With Quote
#151  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Crass
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Morrison
I hope you're not really nieve enough to beleive you can ever teach each member of society of how to be responsible. Are people educated now on alcohol, over the counter medicines, etc? The government does not have a right to prevent me from doing what I want with my body. Your mistake is in assuming that your desire for a "responsible" society somehow takes precidence over what I do privatley in my own home.

Yes, but when your drug usage goes awhol and starts to affect others, then your rights are no longer valid, because you are infringing on someone else's freedom. Now, I assume you are a responsible drug user, I've seen you around here and read some of your trip reports, so your opinion is probably a little biased. I'm also saying that the gov't needs to stop shoving D.A.R.E. propoganda down twelve year olds throats in an attempt to scare them out of even looking at drugs without crying.

I'm just speaking for the cases where uneducated, yet intrigued, persons are indulging in drug use of which they know nothing about. It could be that they found some acid in their parents drawer or whatever, maybe their grandma liked to do H every once in a while who knows? There are exceptions to every scenario. And, you'll have to agree with me that 95% of today's youth does not have any sense of responsibility whatsoever. Now suppose a kid does find a bunch of acid in his mom's drawer and freaks the hell out, has a bad trip, gets in the car and tries to get to the hospital (you know how irrational you can get while fucking cranked on psychoactives, he wouldn't even think to just chill and phone 9-11 and let them sedate him, he'd be freaked to shit!). Ok, now on the way to the hospital, he gets in an accident due to his intoxication, he kills two people in the other car. That is not cool, at all. It's also not too far from what would happen if you had lots of people irresponsibly and uneducatedly (lol, words?) running around doing the vast amount of drugs they would have at their disposal if they were legal and could just go down to the gas station and buy some....

Honestly, until people can get properly educated on drugs, and take responsibility for their actions while on drugs, I think the way the system is now is OK. Or at least, we could have a commune where people could be distributed drugs under the circumstances that they had to do it within the confines of the commune, and ensured that they didn't go nuts and had a controlled trip and fully understood the drug(s). I still stand by the fact that they should properly educate kids on drug effects, however, but legalizing EVERYTHING all at once is definitely not the answer. But I fully do agree with you that the current state of drug prohibition is an infringement on your freedoms, I just don't know how to remedy it without giving drugs an even worse reputation (because if you legalized everything, people would abuse the hell out of them all).
__________________
ohi
Old 08-12-2005, 09:27 PM Crass is offline  
Reply With Quote
#152  

keer sucking gewk
RETARDRETARDRETARDRETARDRETARDRETARDGAYTARD
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney
if youre worried about your kid getting addicted to things, never give him soda, video games, let him watch tv, eat candy, play sports, read books, etc. all of those are pleasurable in the way that you want to do them...and if you dont do things you get BORED. thats as much addiction as he would face.

how the hell is candy, sports, books, soda going to harm my child?

are you retarded, if he were addicted to marijuana, he could possibly go driving and kill himself, or maybe even commit crimes for money to get his drugs... and once he sees how amazing marijuana is, he will go get OTHER drugs that are worse!!!

p.s.... im not a parent, im just speaking hypothetically heer
Old 08-12-2005, 10:09 PM keer sucking gewk is offline  
Reply With Quote
#153  

010100111001
Roy L Lennigan of the DEA
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by keer sucking gewk
how the hell is candy, sports, books, soda going to harm my child?

he was saying that marijuana is addictive in the same way that eating candy or playing sports is. its only psychological; some people are less prone to it than others and vice versa.

Quote:
Originally Posted by keer sucking gewk
are you retarded, if he were addicted to marijuana, he could possibly go driving and kill himself, or maybe even commit crimes for money to get his drugs... and once he sees how amazing marijuana is, he will go get OTHER drugs that are worse!!!

p.s.... im not a parent, im just speaking hypothetically heer

its a good thing you're not a parent. if the kid is stupid enough to actually do shit like that, he probably wont need weed to start doing it in the first place. smoking pot would just be a result of that. most kids start doing drugs because they're around friends that do it. most kids act like they do because of the friends they hang out with. that and their parenting. if you don't want your kid committing crimes or doing stupid shit, don't raise him like a sheltered dumbass. the child is only the result of the parenting.

why the fuck do people blame a fucking plant for their problems?
Old 08-12-2005, 11:42 PM 010100111001 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#154  

Escaped Gorilla Genitals
Jim Morrison
Hey, Jim <3 ules, You didn't deserve this because you can't guess numbers but anyways BREAK ON TH
 
Escaped Gorilla Genitals's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crass
Yes, but when your drug usage goes awhol and starts to affect others, then your rights are no longer valid, because you are infringing on someone else's freedom. Now, I assume you are a responsible drug user, I've seen you around here and read some of your trip reports, so your opinion is probably a little biased. I'm also saying that the gov't needs to stop shoving D.A.R.E. propoganda down twelve year olds throats in an attempt to scare them out of even looking at drugs without crying.
How is this different from alcohol usage except getting drunk is legal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crass
'm just speaking for the cases where uneducated, yet intrigued, persons are indulging in drug use of which they know nothing about. It could be that they found some acid in their parents drawer or whatever, maybe their grandma liked to do H every once in a while who knows? There are exceptions to every scenario. And, you'll have to agree with me that 95% of today's youth does not have any sense of responsibility whatsoever. Now suppose a kid does find a bunch of acid in his mom's drawer and freaks the hell out, has a bad trip, gets in the car and tries to get to the hospital (you know how irrational you can get while fucking cranked on psychoactives, he wouldn't even think to just chill and phone 9-11 and let them sedate him, he'd be freaked to shit!). Ok, now on the way to the hospital, he gets in an accident due to his intoxication, he kills two people in the other car. That is not cool, at all. It's also not too far from what would happen if you had lots of people irresponsibly and uneducatedly (lol, words?) running around doing the vast amount of drugs they would have at their disposal if they were legal and could just go down to the gas station and buy some....
You mean like kids that find their parents liqour cabinets? The government should not put childrens welfare ahead of my rights and some kid finding their parents drug stash isnt any more my problem than a kid finding their parents colt. Acid isnt anything like weed either so I dont see why you used that as an example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crass
Honestly, until people can get properly educated on drugs, and take responsibility for their actions while on drugs, I think the way the system is now is OK. Or at least, we could have a commune where people could be distributed drugs under the circumstances that they had to do it within the confines of the commune, and ensured that they didn't go nuts and had a controlled trip and fully understood the drug(s). I still stand by the fact that they should properly educate kids on drug effects, however, but legalizing EVERYTHING all at once is definitely not the answer. But I fully do agree with you that the current state of drug prohibition is an infringement on your freedoms, I just don't know how to remedy it without giving drugs an even worse reputation (because if you legalized everything, people would abuse the hell out of them all).
Yeah its an ok system that allows people suffering in prison, getting raped and infected with AIDS because they grew some marjuana plants. Maybe legalizing everything at once is extreme but waiting for people to become properly educated about drugs and take responsibility for their actions is never going to happen[I]. In a perfect world people would not be abusive alcoholics and bad drivers wouldent be issued licenceses. Drug education does have an important place in the schools, but a drug education program that focuses on all drugs(alcohol, otc medicines, etc) not just weed.
Old 08-13-2005, 06:18 PM Escaped Gorilla Genitals is offline  
Reply With Quote
#155  

Escaped Gorilla Genitals
Jim Morrison
Hey, Jim <3 ules, You didn't deserve this because you can't guess numbers but anyways BREAK ON TH
 
Escaped Gorilla Genitals's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by keer sucking gewk
how the hell is candy, sports, books, soda going to harm my child?

are you retarded, if he were addicted to marijuana, he could possibly go driving and kill himself, or maybe even commit crimes for money to get his drugs... and once he sees how amazing marijuana is, he will go get OTHER drugs that are worse!!!

p.s.... im not a parent, im just speaking hypothetically heer
The most adverse affect marjuana has is making people lazy. Alcohol is a far more harmful drug than weed imo, thats from experience with alcohol and a wide range of drugs.I like how people who have no experience with a drug like to lecture others on its affects.
Old 08-13-2005, 06:21 PM Escaped Gorilla Genitals is offline  
Reply With Quote
#156  

Crass
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Morrison
How is this different from alcohol usage except getting drunk is legal?
alcohol is dangerous I agree, but psychedelics can fully make you believe things that are figments of your imagination. This especially becomes dangerous in large amounts and when in contact with people you don't know. I agree that alcohol can make you do dangerous things, but drugs find a way to get to your head. I'm not patronizing alcohol at all (I don't even condone drinking among my circle of friends and never drink myself), but I mean, think of what COULD POTENTIALLY happen if millions of people a week were taking large doses of Datura...... I think, personally, it would have far worse results in murder, suicide, theft, car accidents, etc.

Quote:
You mean like kids that find their parents liqour cabinets? The government should not put childrens welfare ahead of my rights and some kid finding their parents drug stash isnt any more my problem than a kid finding their parents colt. Acid isnt anything like weed either so I dont see why you used that as an example.
I agree, weed is fine. But you said ALL drugs should be legalized, and I don't agree with that, but weed is better to partake in than alcohol for sure.

Quote:
Yeah its an ok system that allows people suffering in prison, getting raped and infected with AIDS because they grew some marjuana plants. Maybe legalizing everything at once is extreme but waiting for people to become properly educated about drugs and take responsibility for their actions is never going to happen[I]. In a perfect world people would not be abusive alcoholics and bad drivers wouldent be issued licenceses. Drug education does have an important place in the schools, but a drug education program that focuses on all drugs(alcohol, otc medicines, etc) not just weed.
I'm sorry, you must forgive me, I am from Canada and our laws do not send us to jail . Just a mere fine for anything under a quarter of weed IIRC. And even at that, cops are pretty lax especially in BC . I also agree that drug education should include ALL drugs, OTCs, alcohol, current "illegal" drugs, even drugs that are unkown of by the gov't (salvia, datura, etc).
__________________
ohi
Old 08-13-2005, 09:59 PM Crass is offline  
Reply With Quote
#157  

electric!sheep
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crass
...I mean, think of what COULD POTENTIALLY happen if millions of people a week were taking large doses of Datura...... I think, personally, it would have far worse results in murder, suicide, theft, car accidents, etc.

Psst...datura is 100% legal, and always has been.
Old 08-13-2005, 10:05 PM electric!sheep is offline  
Reply With Quote
#158  

Crass
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by electric!sheep
Psst...datura is 100% legal, and always has been.

....I know that
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crass
even drugs that are unkown of by the gov't (salvia, datura, etc).

I'm just saying if we legalized and educated on EVERY drug, then lots more people would know about it, and probably want to give it a try...
__________________
ohi
Old 08-14-2005, 12:55 AM Crass is offline  
Reply With Quote
#159  

gg
Kato
 
gg's Avatar
 
hy∑poc∑ri∑sy (hĭ-pŏk'rĭ-sē ) pronunciation

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

Because we all know that politicians believe in the laws they enact when said laws affect those close to them


http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4440
Quote:
Politicians' Children's Encounters with Marijuana Prohibition

Randall Todd Cunningham

The son of Duke "Death Penalty for Drug Kingpins" Cunningham (R-CA) was convicted for possession of 400 pounds of marijuana. In court, the congressman cried and pleaded for mercy, explaining that his son "has a good heart. He works hard. He's expressed to me he wants to go back to school." While out on bail, the hard working son tested positive for cocaine three times; when an officer tried to apprehend him following the third positive test, Randy hurled himself out a window and broke his leg. Still, the congressman--who has denounced Clinton's "soft-on-crime liberal judges" and railed against "reduced mandatory-minimum sentences for drug trafficking"--won for his son the mercy denied so many others. Randy got 30 months--half the federal "mandatory" minimum sentence.

Source: Mother Jones, May/June 2000

Morgan Grams (21), son of Senator Rod Grams (R-MN). "was stopped in July in a borrowed rental vehicle after his father called the Anoka County sheriff for help finding his son. A deputy found 10 bags of marijuana and the beer cans in the Isuzu Rodeo,"

Source: Associated Press 1/12/00.

Grams had been previously jailed twice on drug-related offenses. Chief Deputy Peter Beberg "found Grams driving a sport utility truck with 10 bags of marijuana inside-an unspecified amount. A 17-year-old passenger was charged with possession of nine of the bags and later spent time at a juvenile detention center. The 10th bag was found under Gram's seat, according to a report by deputy Todd Diegnau,"

Source: Associated Press 11/14/99.

Sara Kenney (19), daughter of New York Lt. Governor Mary Donohue (R), was stopped for speeding when troopers spotted marijuana in the vehicle. Kenny wad charged for speeding and possession of less than 25 grams.

Source: Associated Press 8/26/98

Richard Riley, Jr., son of Education Secretary Richard Riley (D), was sentenced to six months' house arrest in June of 1993 for conspiring to sell up to 25 grams of cocaine and 100 grams of marijuana in South Carolina. The initial charges carried a penalty of ten years to life in prison. Riley's light sentence allowed him to continue his work at an environmental consulting firm.

Source: James Bovard, "Prison Sentences of the Politically Connected," Playboy; July 1999.

Gayle Rosten, daughter of former House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL), was charged with possession of 29 grams of cocaine with intent to deliver in June of 1990. Rosten, facing up to 15 years in prison, plead guilty to a lesser charge and received three years probation and 20 hours of public service, paid a fine of $2800, and forfeited the car in which the cocaine was found. Three years later, Rosten was found with a gram of cocaine in her possession. In violation of her probation, Rosten could have faced up to three years in prison. However, the charge was dismissed by one judge, then reinstated after Rosten was indicted by a county grand jury. On April 12, 1994 Cook County Circuit Judge Michael Toomin ruled that the search of Rosten had been illegal. Ironically, Judge Toomin ruled that the packets of cocaine were admissible evidence against the two passengers that supposedly "dropped" the packets in Rosten's car.

Source: James Bovard, Playboy; July 1999

Cindy McCain, wife of former Presidential candidate John McCain (R-AZ), "admitted stealing Percocet and Vicodin from the American Voluntary Medical Team, an organization that aids Third World countries. Percocet and Vicodin are schedule 2 drugs, in the same legal category as opium. Each pill theft carries a penalty of one year in prison and a monetary fine." However, McCain did not face prosecution. She was allowed to enter a pretrial diversion program and escaped with no blemish to her record.

Source: James Bovard, Playboy; July 1999


<snip>
Old 08-14-2005, 03:30 AM gg is offline  
Reply With Quote
#160  

gg
Kato
 
gg's Avatar
 
Marijuana prohibition is also a tool of convenience used to put more minorities in jail. These laws, combined with the average American idiot's understanding of their fourth amendment rights, makes easy targets out of people who the police want to target.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5328

Although only 1% more blacks use marijuana than whites, they are arrested for simple possession at a rate 2.13 times higher.
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5328#table1

Quote:
# The black arrest rate for all drug offenses is four times the arrest rate for whites;
# The black arrest rate for marijuana offenses is 2.5 times the arrest rate for whites;
# When controlling for drug use levels the black arrest rate for marijuana possession is 2.27 times higher than the white arrest rate;
# When controlling for drug use levels the black arrest rate for all drug possession offenses is 2.89 times higher than the white arrest rate;
# The disparity between black and white arrests rates for marijuana increased between 1991, when the black arrest rate was 2.13 times higher, and 1995 when the black arrest rate was 2.56 higher nationally than for white;
# Black arrest rates for marijuana are over twice the white arrest rate in over 2/3 of metropolitan area counties;
# Black arrest rates for other drug offenses are over twice the white arrest rate in over 4/5 of metropolitan area counties;
# Black arrest rates are generally lower in jurisdictions with large black populations, but regardless of the level of the black arrest rate for any drug offense it is typically twice or greater than the white rate for the same crime in the same jurisdiction;
# The disparity between black and white arrest rates for drug offenses increases with the severity of the offense;
Old 08-14-2005, 03:37 AM gg is offline  
Reply With Quote
#161  

gg
Kato
 
gg's Avatar
 
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4411


Quote:
The societal costs of propagandizing against marijuana and marijuana law reform, funding anti-marijuana 'science', interdicting marijuana, eradicating domestically grown marijuana and industrial hemp, law enforcement, prosecuting and incarcerating marijuana smokers costs U.S. taxpayers in excess of $12 billion annually.
Don't we have better things to spend that $12 billion on....like tracking sex offenders, and arresting violent criminals? Why are we paroling violent criminals and thieves out of overcrowded prisons to make room for more marijuana users?

What a complete and utter waste of public funds. Gee, I feel so much safer that marijuana smokers are behind bars....forget about all the rapists, murderers, and thieves

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Carter
Penalties against a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marijuana in private for personal use. The National Commission on Marijuana and Abuse concluded years ago that marijuana use should be decriminalized, and I believe it is time to implement those basic recommendations.

Therefore, I support legislation amending federal law to eliminate all Federal criminal penalties for the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana.

Our schools are suffering, our country is in debt, and yet we prosecute a valuable revenue source? What sense does that make?

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4426
Quote:
We shall estimate the size of the commercial cannabis market by posing two price scenarios. (1) Given a $.50 excise tax and a minimum price of $1 per joint, we will assume that home growing absorbs 20% of consumption (that is, one-third of the consumption of multiple daily smokers), leaving a commercial demand of 12 - 24 million joints per day. This works out to about $2.2 to $4.4 billion per year in tax revenues. (2) Given a $1 excise tax and a price over $2 per joint, we assume commercial consumption would be cut by 40% to 9 - 18 million joints, yielding $3.2 to $6.4 billion per year. We conclude that revenues from cannabis excise taxes might range from $2.2 to $6.4 billion per year. This is comparable to the revenues currently raised through the federal tax on alcohol ($8 billion) and cigarettes ($5 billion).
By comparison, in the Netherlands, a nation of 15 million people, total domestic sales of soft drugs have been estimated at under 1 billion guilder, or $500 million.22 Extrapolating this to the U.S. population, one arrives at total retail sales of about $8 billion. If one-half of this went to taxes, one would get $4 billion per year.
Similarly, in Bengal, with a population of 50 million, the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission reported total tax revenues from ganja of 24 million rupees in the year 1892-3, or about $10 million (1892 dollars).23 Extrapolated fivefold to the current U.S. population, this would work out to $700 million in 1992 currency. The tax on ganja was about 8 rupees per kilo in Bengal, or just $.04 per joint in current dollars.24 Were the tax increased tenfold to the level we have proposed, revenues would presumably increase to $7 billion, minus a substantial amount due to decreased demand from higher prices.
In addition to excise taxes, states could impose sales taxes on cannabis. Unlike excise taxes, sales taxes would be proportional to final retail price, including the added markup for premium brands. Just like alcohol, it can be expected that marijuana would often be sold for substantially more than its minimum price: in a hotel bar, a good sinsemilla joint might well go for $5. Assuming average retail prices of $ 1.50 - $2.50 per joint, and sales taxes between 4% and 6%, the total revenues raised might range from $200 million to $1.3 billion.

Finally, the legalization of cannabis would also permit the agriculture of hemp, a versatile source of fiber, protein, biomass and oil, which was once one of Americaís top crops. Hemp production might well rival that of other leading crops such as cotton or soy beans, which are currently on the order of $ 6 - 10 billion per year.

On the other side of the ledger, legalization would save the considerable economic and social costs of the current criminal prohibition system. Current federal drug enforcement programs run at $13 billion per year. State and local programs are probably of similar or greater magnitude: in California, the Legislative Analystís Office estimated the cost of state drug enforcement programs at around $640 million per year in 1989-90, plus perhaps twice as much more in local expenditures.26 A sizable chunk of these costs involve cannabis, which accounts for 30% of drug arrests nationwide. Legalization of cannabis would also divert demand from other drugs, resulting in further savings. If legalization reduced current narcotics enforcement costs by one-third to one-fourth, it might save $6 - $9 billion per year.
The economic benefits of marijuana legalization are summarized in Table 2. The total direct savings to government in taxes and enforcement come to some $8 - $16 billion per year. These figures are somewhat lower than those sometimes bandied about in public discourse, as both legalizers and prohibitionists have a tendency to make consumption estimates that are in our opinion inflated. Nonetheless, the benefits of legalization seem both substantial and undeniable, and deserve to be taken seriously.
This is just the economic benefit as calculated by current rates of usage. Imagine what the potential revenue from cannabis could be if the illegality and stigma were removed. Imagine what potential revenue could be gained by an expanding hemp industry.


http://www.thehia.org/faqs/faq7.htm
Quote:
Cannabis Hemp really can provide all the basic necessities of life: food, shelter, clothing and medicine. It has been said that "anything made from a hydrocarbon can be made from a carbohydrate." Hemp is the cousin of marijuana. They are from the same plant -Cannabis sativa L. There are over 1,000 strains of Cannabis Hemp bred for various uses. The term, "Hemp" refers to the industrial use of the stalk and seed. Cannabis or "marijuana" refers to the smoking or ingesting of the flowers and leaves.

Psychoactivity requires high levels of THC -TetraHydraCannibinol. Cannabis contains 5%-10% THC. Industrial hemp contains only .3%-1.5% THC, yet has a higher concentration of Cannabidiol, or CBD, which maintains an inverse relationship with THC and tends to moderate its effects.

The plant itself is easy to grow in temperate as well as tropical climates, and requires the usual amount of fertilizer and water, but no pesticides nor herbicides. A hemp crop is usually harvested in 100-120 days after reaching a height of 4-15 feet, depending on the variety. At that point one can make it into whatever suits their needs.

FOOD
The hempseed is the only source of food from the hemp plant. It is not really a seed, but an achene -a nut covered with a hard shell. Hempseed is used for people and animal food, and industrial use. Whole hempseeds imported to the United States or Canada must be sterilized to prevent sprouting. This is not the case in Europe where fresh seeds are used. Shelled hempseeds are the latest technological advance.

Whole Seed
The whole seed contains roughly 25% protein, 30% carbohydrates, 15% insoluble fiber, Carotene, phosphorous, potassium, magnesium, sulfur, calcium, iron and zinc, as well as vitamins E, C, B1, B2, B3, B6. Hempseed is one of the best source of Essential Fatty Acids with a perfect 3:1 ratio of Omega-6 Linoleic Acid and Omega-3 Linolenic Acid, good for strengthening the immune system. It is also a source of Gamma Linoleic Acid (GLA) which is otherwise available only from specialty oils like evening primrose oil or borage oils. Whole seeds are made into: snack bars, cookies, and porridge, or they may be roasted and consumed alone or in a trail mix, or brewed with coffee or beer. Wild and domestic birds love hempseeds too.

Shelled Seed
Removing the outer coating of the hempseed produces a wonderful nut that is being used in many different food applications, including snack bars, cookies, nutbutter, chips, pasta, tortillas, and hummus. The flavor is nutty and can be used as a topping on just about anything. It can be roasted with spices or just eaten raw.

Seed Oil
Hempseed is 30% oil, and is low in saturated fats. Hempseed oil is good for lowering cholesterol levels and strengthening cardiovascular systems. The oil has a pleasantly nutty flavor. Among the foods hempseed oil is made into are: sauces, butter, salad dressings, condiments and pesto. Processing of hempseed oil starts with drying the seeds to prevent sprouting. The seeds are then pressed and bottled immediately under oxygen-free conditions. Hempseed oil is fragile and should be kept refrigerated in dark, air tight containers.

Seed Meal and Presscake
The meat of the seed is also highly nutritious and versatile as a seed 'meal" and may be made into hemp milk and cheese, non-dairy ice cream, burgers, and anything else one might conceive of. Left over from pressing the oil is the 'presscake" -high in amino acids, which can be crushed for animal feed or pulverized for flour to make breads, pastas or pancakes.

Throughout history, hemp has provided a nourishing food supply to many cultures around the world. In Asia, roasted hempseed is eaten as a snack, like popcorn. In Russia, hemp butter was used as a condiment by the peasant folk. In Poland, seeds are used for holiday sweets. Hempseed was eaten by Australians during two famines in the nineteenth century. The most famous hempseed consumer is Buddha himself, who ate them during his fast of enlightenment.

Body Care
One of the fastest growing market sectors for hempseed oil is body care products. The phenomenal essential fatty acid content of hemp oil makes it ideal as a topical ingredient in both leave-on and rinse-off bodycare products. The EFA's help soothe and restore skin in lotions and creams, and give excellent emolliency and smooth after-feel to lotions, lipbalms, conditioners, shampoos, soaps and shaving products.

Non Food Uses:
Other non-food uses for hempseed oil are: lamp lighting, printing, lubrication, and household detergents, stain removers, varnishes, resins and paints. In this area, hempseed oil is similar to linseed oil.

FIBER
One of the most valuable parts of the hemp plant is the fiber, commonly referred to as "bast," meaning that it grows as a stalk from the ground. Other fibers such as sisal, manila hemp and jute are mistakenly referred to as hemp, yet only Cannabis sativa is considered "true hemp." Among the characteristics of hemp fiber are its superior strength and durability, and its resistance to rot, attributes that made hemp integral to the shipping industry. The strong, woody bast fiber is extracted from the stalk by a process known as decortication. Hemp fiber contains a low amount of lignin, the organic glue that binds plant cells, which allows for environmentally friendly bleaching without the use of chlorine. In composite form, hemp is twice as strong as wood. All products made with hemp fiber are biodegradable.

Long Fiber
Extracted from the bark of the stalk, this type of fiber is called "long" because it stretches the entire length of the plant. The length of the fiber enhances the strength and durability of the finished goods. Hemp can grow to 15 feet or more, making it excellent for textile production. Hemp is most similar to flax, the fiber of linen products. By contrast, cotton fibers are approximately 1-2 cm in length and are prone to faster wear. Hemp fiber also has insulative qualities that allow clothing wearers to stay cool in summer and warm in the winter. It also provides UV protection. Long hemp fiber is used in twine, cordage, textiles, paper, webbing and household goods.

Short Fiber
The short fibers, or 'tow," are the secondary hemp fibers. While not as strong as the long fibers, the tow is still superior to many other fibers. Tow is extracted from the long fibers during a process called 'hackling," a method of combing and separating the fiber from hurd. Short fibers are used to make textiles, non-woven matting, paper, caulking, auto bodies, building materials and household goods.

As long ago as 450 BC the Scythians and Thracians made hemp linens. The Chinese first used hemp for paper making in 100 AD. Hempen sails, caulking and rigging launched a thousand ships during the Age of discovery in the 15th Century. The American Declaration of Independence was drafted, not signed, on hemp paper.

Core
Also known as hurds or shives, the core is the woody material found in the center of the hemp stalk. It is rich in cellulose, a carbohydrate that can be made into paper, packaging and building materials, as well as plastic composites for making skate boards and auto bodies and interior parts such as door panels and luggage racks.

FUEL
Hemp biomass as a source of fuel is the most under-exploited use of hemp, due to the fact that is economically unfeasible at this time. Hemp stalks can be used in the generation of energy through a process called 'chemurgy" which is a cross between chemicals and energy. The hemp stalk can be converted to a charcoal-like substance through a process called pyrolysis, and used for power generation and to produce industrial feed stocks. Auto giant Henry Ford was a pioneer in the pyrolysis process, and operated a biomass pyrolytic plant at Iron Mountain in Northern Michigan.

Hemp as an auto fuel is another potential use. Almost any biomass material can be converted to create methanol or ethanol, and these fuels burn cleanly with less carbon monoxide and higher octane. In fact, the diesel engine was invented to burn fuel from agricultural waste yet ended up burning unrefined petroleum. Hempseed oil can also be refined to produce a type of hemp biofuel. Woody Harrelson just toured with a diesel bus run on hemp biofuel, and a hempcar is touring this summer, demonstrating the environmental benefits of biofuels.

What reason, other than ignorance and fear, do we have to continue the war against hemp? Why not legalize and commercialize a product which can benefit humanity in so many ways?
Old 08-14-2005, 03:47 AM gg is offline  
Reply With Quote
#162  

gg
Kato
 
gg's Avatar
 
Medical marijuana is a very effective theraputic agent in helping sick patients improve their quality of life. Users use medical marijuana for reasons other than just euphoria and enjoyment; medical marijuana is valuable tool that should be available to doctors. Marijuana has been proven effective at treating (As reported by the IOM [Institute of Medicine]):
  • Experimentally Induced Acute Pain
  • Surgical Acute Pain
  • Chronic Pain
  • Migraine Headaches
  • Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting
  • Wasting Syndrome in HIV-Infected Patients
  • Malnutrition (Appetite Loss) in Cancer Patients
  • Anorexia Nervosa
  • Muscle Spasticity
  • Multiple Sclerosis
  • Spinal Cord Injury
  • Dystonia
  • Huntington's Disease
  • Parkinson's Disease
  • Tourette's Syndrome
  • Epilepsy
  • Alzheimer's Disease
  • Glaucoma

All these benefits to medical marijuana have been discovered amid a research climate incredibly hostile to marijuana. Imagine what other horrible diseases might have a cannabis-based treatment if only research were allowed to continue in a scientific manner.


http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/marimed/ch4.html
Quote:
For the most part, the logical categories for the medical use of marijuana are not based on particular diseases but on symptoms--such as nausea, appetite loss, or chronic pain--each of which can be caused by various diseases or even by treatments for diseases. This chapter is therefore organized by symptoms rather than by diseases. There are eight sections. The first section explains clinical trials, the following five deal with specific symptoms and conditions, and the last two summarize the medical benefits of marijuana and cannabinoids. The five sections on symptoms and conditions are as follows: pain, nausea and vomiting, wasting syndrome and appetite stimulation, neurological symptoms (including muscle spasticity), and glaucoma.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) study team received reports of more than 30 different medical uses of marijuana, more than could be carefully reviewed in a report of this length; even more uses are reported elsewhere.62,63 For most of the infrequently mentioned medical uses of marijuana there are only a few anecdotal reports. This report reviews only the most prominent symptoms that are reportedly relieved by marijuana. However, many of those diseases not reviewed here share common symptoms, such as pain, nausea and vomiting, and muscle spasms, which might be relieved by cannabinoid drugs.

But don't take my word for it, I'm not an expert. In addition, you shouldn't take the word of marijuana activists, since many of them just want looser controls on marijuana.

Instead, take the opinions of expert professional organizations on the benefits of medical marijuana.
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3389
Quote:
American Cancer Society
American Medical Association
British Medical Journal
California Medical Association
California Society on Addiction Medicine
Congress of Nursing Practice
Gay and Lesbian Medical Association
Jamaican National Commission on Ganja
National Institutes of Health (NIH) Workshop on the Medical Utility of Marijuana
Texas Medical Association
Vermont Medical Society
Wisconsin State Medical Society
AIDS Action Council
AIDS Treatment News
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Medical Student Association
American Nurses Association
American Preventive Medical Association
American Public Health Association
American Society of Addiction Medicine
Arthritis Research Campaign (United Kingdom)
Australian Medical Association (New South Wales) Limited
Australian National Task Force on Cannabis
Belgian Ministry of Health
British House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology
British House of Lords Select Committee On Science and Technology (Second Report)
British Medical Association
Canadian AIDS Society
Canadian Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs
Dr. Dean Edell (surgeon and nationally syndicated radio host)
French Ministry of Health
Health Canada
Kaiser Permanente
Lymphoma Foundation of America
The Montel Williams MS Foundation
Multiple Sclerosis Society (Canada)
The Multiple Sclerosis Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences Institute Of Medicine (IOM)
National Association for Public Health Policy
National Nurses Society on Addictions
Netherlands Ministry of Health
New England Journal of Medicine
New South Wales (Australia) Parliamentary Working Party on the Use of Cannabis for Medical Purposes
Dr. Andrew Weil (nationally recognized professor of internal medicine and founder of the National Integrative Medicine Council)
Alaska Nurses Association
Being Alive: People With HIV/AIDS Action Committee (San Diego, CA)
California Academy of Family Physicians
California Nurses Association
California Pharmacists Association
Colorado Nurses Association
Connecticut Nurses Association
Florida Governor's Red Ribbon Panel on AIDS
Florida Medical Association
Hawaii Nurses Association
Illinois Nurses Association
Life Extension Foundation
Medical Society of the State of New York
Mississippi Nurses Association
New Jersey State Nurses Association
New Mexico Medical Society
New Mexico Nurses Association
New York County Medical Society
New York State Nurses Association
North Carolina Nurses Association
Rhode Island Medical Society
Rhode Island State Nurses Association
San Francisco Mayor's Summit on AIDS and HIV
San Francisco Medical Society
Vermont Medical Marijuana Study Committee
Virginia Nurses Association
Whitman-Walker Clinic (Washington, DC)
Wisconsin Nurses Association
AIDS Action Council
AIDS Foundation of Chicago
AIDS National Interfaith Network (Washington, DC)
AIDS Project Arizona
AIDS Project Los Angeles
Being Alive: People with HIV/AIDS Action Committee (San Diego, CA)
Boulder County AIDS Project (Boulder, CO)
Colorado AIDS Project
Center for AIDS Services (Oakland, CA)
Health Force: Women and Men Against AIDS (New York, NY)
Latino Commission on AIDS
Mobilization Against AIDS (San Francisco, CA)
Mothers Voices to End AIDS (New York, NY)
National Latina/o Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual And Transgender Association
National Native American AIDS Prevention Center
Northwest AIDS Foundation
People of Color Against AIDS Network (Seattle, WA)
San Francisco AIDS Foundation
Whitman-Walker Clinic (Washington, DC)
Addiction Treatment Alternatives
AIDS Treatment Initiatives (Atlanta, GA)
American Public Health Association
American Preventive Medical Association
Bay Area Physicians for Human Rights (San Francisco, CA)
California Legislative Council for Older Americans
California Nurses Association
California Pharmacists Association
Embrace Life (Santa Cruz, CA)
Gay and Lesbian Medical Association
Hawaii Nurses Association
Hepatitis C Action and Advisory Coalition
Life Extension Foundation
Maine AIDS Alliance
Minnesota Nurses Association
Mississippi Nurses Association
National Association of People with AIDS
National Association for Public Health Policy
National Women's Health Network
Nebraska AIDS Project
New Mexico Nurses Association
New York City AIDS Housing Network
New York State Nurses Association Ohio Patient Network Okaloosa AIDS Support and Information Services (Fort Walton, FL)
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Oregon
San Francisco AIDS Foundation
Virginia Nurses Association
Wisconsin Nurses Association
Furthermore, the assault on medical marijuana is not the will of the American people, but rather, that of a few anti-marijuana zealots. Why do we let these policymakers deny a plant of medical value to so many sick people in direct opposition to so much of the American public?

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3392
Quote:
72 percent of respondents agreed with the statement, "Adults should be allowed to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if a physician recommends it."
POLL: AARP
DATE: November 2004
Sample Size: 1,706

80 percent of respondents supported allowing adults to "legally use marijuana for medical purposes."
POLL: Time Magazine/CNN Poll
DATE: October 2002
Sample Size: 1,007

70 percent of respondents answered affirmatively to the question, "Should the use of medical marijuana be allowed?"
POLL: Center for Substance Abuse Research
DATE: January 2002
Sample Size: N/A

73 percent of respondents supported allowing doctors "to prescribe marijuana."
POLL: Pew Research Center Poll
DATE: March 2001
Sample Size: 1,513

73 percent of respondents said they "would vote for making marijuana legally available for doctors to prescribe."
POLL: Gallup
DATE: March 1999
Sample size: 1,018

60 percent of respondents supported allowing physicians to prescribe medical marijuana.
POLL: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)
DATE: March 1998
Sample size: N/A

62 percent of respondents favored legalizing marijuana "strictly for medical use."
POLL: Luntz Research Poll
DATE: September 1997
Sample size: 1,444

66 percent of Independent voters said "doctors should be allowed to prescribe small amounts of marijuana for patients suffering serious illnesses."
64 percent of Democrat voters said "doctors should be allowed to prescribe small amounts of marijuana for patients suffering serious illnesses."
57 percent of Republican voters said "doctors should be allowed to prescribe small amounts of marijuana for patients suffering serious illnesses."
POLL: CBS News telephone poll
DATE: June 1997
Sample size: N/A

74 percent of respondents agreed "people who find that marijuana is effective for their medical condition should be able to use it legally."
POLL: Family Research Council
DATE: June 1997
Sample size: 1,000

69 percent of respondents favored "legalizing [the] medical use of marijuana."
POLL: ABC News/Discovery News Poll
DATE: May 1997
Sample size: 517

68 percent of respondents said the federal government should not punish doctors who prescribe marijuana. 60 percent of respondents said doctors should "be able to prescribe marijuana."
POLL: Lake Research Poll
DATE: February 1997
Sample size: 1,002

85 percent of respondents favored "making marijuana legally available for medical uses where it has been proven effective for treating a problem."
POLL: ACLU Topline Poll
DATE: November 1995
Sample size: 1,001

Last edited by g; 08-14-2005 at 05:55 PM..
Old 08-14-2005, 04:06 AM gg is offline  
Reply With Quote
#163  

gg
Kato
 
gg's Avatar
 
The criminal status of marijuana is just plain bad for society, with all the costs of enforcement, and lost benefits from medical marijuana, industrial hemp, and potential commercialization (taxes and created jobs).

Furthermore, legalization is not likely to begin an epidemic of marijuana abuse. With the current set of laws, and the relative ease of any individual using marijuana in a single instance without being caught, little actual deterrence is achieved among those with a desire to use marijuana. The main deterrents to marijuana use are its cost, and its social stigma.

Legalization will not touch off a wave of abuse.
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3383
Quote:
"The available evidence suggests that removal of the prohibition against possession itself (decriminalization) does not increase cannabis use. ... This prohibition inflicts harms directly and is costly. Unless it can be shown that the removal of criminal penalties will increase use of other harmful drugs, ... it is difficult to see what society gains."
- Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes. British Journal of Psychiatry. February 2001.

Since 1973, 12 state legislatures -- Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Oregon -- have enacted versions of marijuana decriminalization. In each of these states, marijuana users no longer face jail time (nor in most cases, arrest or criminal records) for the possession or use of small amounts of marijuana. Internationally, many states and nations have enacted similar policies.

"In sum, there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use." - National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine (IOM). 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C., 102.

"The Law Revision Commission has examined laws from other states that have reduced penalties for small amounts of marijuana and the impact of those laws in those states. ... Studies of [those] states found (1) expenses for arrest and prosecution of marijuana possession offenses were significantly reduced, (2) any increase in the use of marijuana in those states was less that increased use in those states that did not decrease their penalties and the largest proportionate increase occurred in those states with the most severe penalties, and (3) reducing the penalties for marijuana has virtually no effect on either choice or frequency of the use of alcohol or illegal 'harder' drugs such as cocaine."
- Connecticut Law Review Commission. 1997. Drug Policy in Connecticut and Strategy Options: Report to the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly. State Capitol: Hartford.

"There is no strong evidence that decriminalization affects either the choice or frequency of use of drugs, either legal (alcohol) or illegal (marijuana and cocaine)." - C. Thies and C. Register. 1993. Decriminalization of Marijuana and the Demand for Alcohol, Marijuana and Cocaine. The Social Sciences Journal 30: 385-399.

"In contrast with marijuana use, rates of other illicit drug use among ER [emergency room] patients were substantially higher in states that did not decriminalize marijuana use. The lack of decriminalization might have encouraged greater use of drugs that are even more dangerous than marijuana."
- K. Model. 1993. The effect of marijuana decriminalization on hospital emergency room episodes: 1975-1978. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88: 737-747, as cited by the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine in Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. [6]

"The available evidence indicates that the decriminalization of marijuana possession had little or no impact on rates of use. Although rates of marijuana use increased in those U.S. states [that] reduced maximum penalties for possession to a fine, the prevalence of use increased at similar or higher rates in those states [that] retained more severe penalties. There were also no discernible impacts on the health care systems. On the other hand, the so-called 'decriminalization' measures did result in substantial savings in the criminal justice system."
- E. Single. 1989. The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization: An Update. Journal of Public Health 10: 456-466.

"Overall, the preponderance of the evidence which we have gathered and examined points to the conclusion that decriminalization has had virtually no effect either on the marijuana use or on related attitudes and beliefs about marijuana use among American young people. The data show no evidence of any increase, relative to the control states, in the proportion of the age group who ever tried marijuana. In fact, both groups of experimental states showed a small, cumulative net decline in annual prevalence after decriminalization."
- L. Johnson et al. 1981. Marijuana Decriminalization: The Impact on Youth 1975-1980. Monitoring the Future, Occasional Paper Series, paper 13, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan: Ann Arbor.

"Consumption appears to be unaffected, or affected only minimally by decriminalization, and most people believe that it has had little impact. Further, decriminalization has proven to be administratively and economically advantageous for state law enforcement efforts."
- D. Maloff. 1981. Review of the effects of decriminalization of marijuana. Contemporary Drug Problems Fall: 307-322.

"Levels of use tended to be higher in the decriminalization states both before and after the changes in law. [S]tates which moderated penalties after 1974 (essentially a group of decriminalization states) did indeed experience an increase in rates of marijuana use, among both adolescents (age 12-17) and adults (18 or older). However, the increase in marijuana use was even greater in other states and the largest proportionate increase occurred in those states with the most severe penalties."
- W. Saveland and D. Bray. 1980. American Trends in Cannabis Use Among States with Different Changing Legal Regimes. Bureau of Tobacco Control and Biometrics, Health and Welfare: Ottawa, as cited by E. Single in The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization: an Update.

"The reduction in penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use does not appear to have been a factor in people's decision to use or not use the drug."
- California State Office of Narcotics and Drug Abuse. 1977. A First Report on the Impact of California's New Marijuana Law. State Capitol: Sacramento.

"The number of [hospital] admissions directly due to marijuana use decreased from ... 1970 to ... 1975. In the same time, the number of admissions for drug abuse of all types, except alcohol, [also] decreased. ... The following conclusion seem[s] warranted: medically significant problems from the use of marijuana have decreased coincident with decriminalizing marijuana."
- P. Blachly. 1976. Effects of Decriminalization of Marijuana in Oregon. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 282: 405-415.

"Data collected at four points in time in Ann Arbor [Michigan] and the control communities (which underwent no change in marijuana penalties) indicated that marijuana use was not affected by the change in law [to decriminalization.]"
- R. Stuart et al. 1976. Penalty for the Possession of Marijuana: An Analysis of Some of its Concomitants. Contemporary Drug Problems 5: 553, as cited by E. Single in The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization: an Update.

"The Dutch experience, together with those of a few other countries with more modest policy changes, provides a moderately good empirical case that removal of criminal prohibitions on cannabis possession (decriminalization) will not increase the prevalence of marijuana or any other illicit drug; the argument for decriminalization is thus strong."
- R. MacCoun and P. Reuter. 2001. Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes. British Journal of Psychiatry 178: 123-128.

"Fear of apprehension, fear of being imprisoned, the cost of cannabis or the difficulty in obtaining cannabis do not appear to exert a strong influence on decisions about cannabis consumption. ... Those factors may limit cannabis use among frequent cannabis users, but there is no evidence, as of yet, to support this conjecture."
- D. Weatherburn and C. Jones. 2001. Does prohibition deter cannabis use? New South Wales (Australia) Bureau of Crime Statistics: Sydney.

"The available data indicate that decriminalization measures substantially reduced enforcement costs, yet had little or no impact on rates of use in the United States. In the South Australian community, none of the studies have found an impact in cannabis use which is attributable to the introduction of the Cannabis Expiation Scheme [decriminalization.]"
- E. Single et al. 2000. The Impact of Cannabis Decriminalisation in Australia and the United States. Journal of Public Health Policy 21: 157-186.

"There is no evidence to date that the CEN [decriminalization] system ... Has increased levels of regular cannabis use, or rates of experimentation among young adults. These results are broadly in accord with our earlier analysis of trends in cannabis use in Australia. ...They are also consistent with the results of similar analyses in the United States and the Netherlands."
- N. Donnelly et al. 1999. Effects of the Cannabis Expiation Notice Scheme on Levels and Patterns of Cannabis Use in South Australia: Evidence from the National Drug Strategy Household Surveys 1985-1995 (Report commissioned for the National Drug Strategy Committee). Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra, Australia.

"The different laws which govern the use and sale of marijuana do not appear to have resulted in substantially different outcomes if we view those outcomes solely in terms of consumption patterns."
- Australian Institute of Criminology, and the New South Wales Department of Politics 1997. Marijuana in Australia, patterns and attitudes. Monograph Series No. 31, Looking Glass Press (Public Affairs): Canberra, Australia.

"While the Dutch case and other analogies have flaws, they appear to converge in suggesting that reductions in criminal penalties have limited effects on drug use, at least for marijuana." - R. MacCoun and P. Reuter. 1997. Interpreting Dutch cannabis policy: Reasoning by analogy in the legalization debate. Science 278: 47-52.

"General deterrence, or the impact of the threat of legal sanction on the cannabis use of the population at large, has been assessed in large scale surveys. These studies have compared jurisdictions in the USA and Australia where penalties have been reduced with those where they have not, and rates of use have been unaffected. ... Since no deterrent impact was found, this research illustrates a high-cost, low-benefit policy in action. Therefore, if any penalty is awarded, it should be a consistent minimum one. ... The greatest impact on reducing the harmful individual consequences of criminalization would be achieved by eliminating or greatly reducing the numbers of cannabis criminals processed in the first place."
- P. Erickson and B. Fischer. 1997. Canadian cannabis policy: The impact of criminalization, the current reality and future policies. In: L. Bollinger (Ed.) Cannabis Science: From Prohibition to Human Right. Peter Lang, Frankfurt, Germany. 227-242.

"There does not appear to be a consistent pattern between arrest rates and [marijuana] prevalence rates in the [United States] general population. ... Following precipitous increases, marijuana use began decreasing in the late 1970s, during a period of relative stability in arrest rates. The general deterrence effects of the law (i.e., arrest practices), are not apparent based on the intercorrelations of the measures presented here."
- L. Harrison et al. 1995. Marijuana Policy and Prevalance. [15] In: P. Cohen and A. Sas (Eds.) Cannabisbeleid in Duitsland, Frankrijk en de Verenigde Staten. University of Amsterdam: Amsterdam. 248-253.

"The evidence is accumulating ... that liberalization does not increase cannabis use [and] that the total prohibition approach is costly [and] ineffective as a general deterrent."
- L. Atkinson and D. McDonald. 1995. Cannabis, the Law and Social Impacts in Australia. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 48.

"It has been demonstrated that the more or less free sale of [marijuana] for personal use in the Netherlands has not given rise to levels of use significantly higher than in countries which pursue a highly repressive policy."
- Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. 1995. Drugs: Policy in the Netherlands: Continuity and Change. The Hague.

"It is clear ... that the introduction of the CEN scheme [decriminalization] in South Australia has not produced a major increase in rates of cannabis use in South Australia by comparison with changes occurring elsewhere in Australia. ... It is not possible to attribute the moderate increases in cannabis use rates in South Australia to the removal of criminal penalties for small-scale cannabis offenses in that state."
- N. Donnelly et al. 1995. The effects of partial decriminalization on cannabis use in South Australia, 1985 to 1993. Australian Journal of Public Health 19: 281-287.

"The available evidence suggests that those jurisdictions which have decriminalized personal cannabis use have not experienced any dramatic increase in prevalence of use." - National Drug and Alcohol Research Center. 1994. Patterns of cannabis use in Australia. Monograph Series No. 27, Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra, Australia.

"It appears clear that there is no firm basis for concluding that the introduction of the Cannabis Expiation Notice System in South Australia in 1987 has had any detrimental effect in terms of leading to increased levels of cannabis use in the Southern Australian community. ... In the context of a society which is increasingly well informed about the risks associated with drug use in general, a move toward more lenient laws for small scale cannabis offenses, such as the CEN [decriminalization] system, will not lead to increased cannabis use."
- Drug and Alcohol Services Council of South Australia, Monitoring, Evaluation and Research Unit. 1991. The Effects of Cannabis Legalization in South Australia on Levels of Cannabis Use. DASC Press: Parkside, Australia.
Old 08-14-2005, 04:11 AM gg is offline  
Reply With Quote
#164  

gg
Kato
 
gg's Avatar
 
Marijuana is not a hard drug, or an addictive drug. Just like alcohol, tens of millions of adults use cannabis for its intoxicating and relaxing properties. In addition, many of these people use marijuana with friends in a social setting, in a manner that hurts no one.

Just like the alcohol prohibition, marijuana prohibition is just bad public policy.

Why do we not learn from our mistakes? Why can we not apply the same logic that ended alcohol prohibition to end marijuana prohibition?

Those for ending marijuana prohibition are not just drug-addicted stoners. Countless millions of professionals and other law abiding citizens, even non-users, wish to see this drug decriminalized.


For those of you who have not yet learned how ineffective prohibitions against the public's will are, I invite you to read a study by the CATO institure, a reputable public policy think tank.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html
Quote:
National prohibition of alcohol (1920-33)--the "noble experiment"--was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure

The lessons of Prohibition remain important today. They apply not only to the debate over the war on drugs but also to the mounting efforts to drastically reduce access to alcohol and tobacco and to such issues as censorship and bans on insider trading, abortion, and gambling.[1]

Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition. Those results are documented from a variety of sources, most of which, ironically, are the work of supporters of Prohibition--most economists and social scientists supported it. Their findings make the case against Prohibition that much stronger.[2]

It was hoped that Prohibition would eliminate corrupting influences in society; instead, Prohibition itself be- came a major source of corruption. Everyone from major politicians to the cop on the beat took bribes from bootleggers, moonshiners, crime bosses, and owners of speakeasies. The Bureau of Prohibition was particularly susceptible and had to be reorganized to reduce corruption. According to Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Lincoln C. Andrews, "conspiracies are nation wide in extent, in great numbers, organized, well-financed, and cleverly conducted."[52] De- spite additional resources and reorganization, corruption continued within the bureau. Commissioner of Prohibition Henry Anderson concluded that "the fruitless efforts at enforcement are creating public disregard not only for this law but for all laws. Public corruption through the purchase of official protection for this illegal traffic is widespread and notorious. The courts are cluttered with prohibition cases to an extent which seriously affects the entire administration of justice."[53]

Prohibition not only created the Bureau of Prohibition, it gave rise to a dramatic increase in the size and power of other government agencies as well. Between 1920 and 1930 employment at the Customs Service increased 45 percent, and the service's annual budget increased 123 percent. Personnel of the Coast Guard increased 188 percent during the 1920s, and its budget increased more than 500 percent between 1915 and 1932. Those increases were primarily due to the Coast Guard's and the Customs Service's role in enforcing Prohibition.[54]

Prohibition, which failed to improve health and virtue in America, can afford some invaluable lessons. First, it can provide some perspective on the current crisis in drug prohibition--a 75-year effort that is increasingly viewed as a failure.

Repeal of Prohibition dramatically reduced crime, including organized crime, and corruption. Jobs were created, and new voluntary efforts, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, which was begun in 1934, succeeded in helping alcoholics. Those lessons can be applied to the current crisis in drug prohibition and the problems of drug abuse. Second, the lessons of Prohibition should be used to curb the urge to prohibit. Neoprohibition of alcohol and prohibition of tobacco would result in more crime, corruption, and dangerous products and increased government control over the average citizen's life. Finally, Prohibition provides a general lesson that society can no more be successfully engineered in the United States than in the Soviet Union.

Prohibition was supposed to be an economic and moral bonanza. Prisons and poorhouses were to be emptied, taxes cut, and social problems eliminated. Productivity was to skyrocket and absenteeism disappear. The economy was to enter a never-ending boom. That utopian outlook was shattered by the stock market crash of 1929. Prohibition did not improve productivity or reduce absenteeism.[55] In contrast, private regulation of employees' drinking improved productivity, reduced absenteeism, and reduced industrial accidents wherever it was tried before, during, and after Prohibition.[56]

In summary, Prohibition did not achieve its goals. Instead, it added to the problems it was intended to solve and supplanted other ways of addressing problems. The only beneficiaries of Prohibition were bootleggers, crime bosses, and the forces of big government. Carroll Wooddy concluded that the "Eighteenth Amendment . . . contributed substantially to the growth of government and of government costs in this period [1915-32]."[57]

In the aftermath of Prohibition, economist Ludwig von Mises wrote, "Once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments."[58] The repeal of all prohibition of voluntary exchange is as important to the restoration of liberty now as its enactment was to the cause of big government in the Progressive Era.
And since many of you have the attention span of fourth grade students, let me summarize visually:

Per Capita Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages (Gallons of Pure Alcohol) 1910-1929.


Total Expenditure on Distilled Spirts as a Percentage of Total Alcohol Sales (1890-1960)


Homicide Rate: 1910-44


Addictive Properties of Various Substances




Wait, so where is this supposed risk of marijuana dependence? It doesn't exist. Currently legal drugs are a far greater threat to public health than is marijuana.


Murder in America


Prohibitions cost lives.......are more murders really worth keeping marijuana illegal?

Risks of Death




Wait, so where is this killer drug that we were all warned about? As I look at the statistics, it would appear that things sold legally to adults are far more deadly than a substance we keep illegal at great public costs. Marijuana users are hardly a risk to themselves or others, and this prohibition is pointless.



USA vs. Netherlands Marijuana Usage Statistics



Once again, what we have here is an ineffective prohibition. Prohibition does not eliminate use, and legalization does not cause abuse. Period.



Unpopular prohibitions are ineffecive, and costly, both in terms of private dollars, taxpayer dollars, and lives.

Last edited by g; 08-14-2005 at 04:35 AM..
Old 08-14-2005, 04:22 AM gg is offline  
Reply With Quote
#165  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:18 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.