Questions on Decriminalization/Legalization movement

[Circle_Breaker]

Okay sparky

Consuming a great amount of alcohol to get drunk requires effort, whereas smoking pot to get high doesn't require much effort at all. Would you agree with that assessment?

yea the guy sitting there watching the Lakers with a 6 pack is really putting forth a great effort to get drunk.....Rock you know absolutely nothing about the Pot world.....why dont you go get Katz and Thantos and you guys go rent "Reefer Madness".....im sure you 3 will think its the most factual documentary ever produced......

What's harder to do for someone who isn't an experienced drinker or smoker, drink a six pack or smoke a joint or blunt?

Drink a six pack. It would probably take an inexperienced smoker about 2 or 3 hours to roll a blunt.

 

[Pogo]

Okay sparky

Consuming a great amount of alcohol to get drunk requires effort, whereas smoking pot to get high doesn't require much effort at all. Would you agree with that assessment?

yea the guy sitting there watching the Lakers with a 6 pack is really putting forth a great effort to get drunk.....Rock you know absolutely nothing about the Pot world.....why dont you go get Katz and Thantos and you guys go rent "Reefer Madness".....im sure you 3 will think its the most factual documentary ever produced......

What's harder to do for someone who isn't an experienced drinker or smoker, drink a six pack or smoke a joint or blunt?

Neither drinking nor smoking is "hard". What's your point? Your claim was that it was addictive, not that it's "easy" or "hard". This post makes no sense, dood.

 

[Rocko]

yea the guy sitting there watching the Lakers with a 6 pack is really putting forth a great effort to get drunk.....Rock you know absolutely nothing about the Pot world.....why dont you go get Katz and Thantos and you guys go rent "Reefer Madness".....im sure you 3 will think its the most factual documentary ever produced......

What's harder to do for someone who isn't an experienced drinker or smoker, drink a six pack or smoke a joint or blunt?

Drink a six pack. It would probably take an inexperienced smoker about 2 or 3 hours to roll a blunt.

Didn't say anything about rolling, sparky, did I?

 

[KevinWestern]

Consuming a great amount of alcohol to get drunk requires effort, whereas smoking pot to get high doesn't require much effort at all. Would you agree with that assessment?

Don’t mean this in a rude way but you’re showing your ignorance on this particular subject, Rocko. If someone were to smoke semi-regularly, it is NOT easy to get high, especially if you get the common mid/low grade stuff.

This is EXACTLY like alcohol. A person who drinks regularly might require a great deal of effort to get drunk, but for a 120 lb female who has one drink every now and then would get plastered after 2 glasses of whiskey.

They’re exactly the same; quite trying to make silly differentiations.

 

[Rocko]

yea the guy sitting there watching the Lakers with a 6 pack is really putting forth a great effort to get drunk.....Rock you know absolutely nothing about the Pot world.....why dont you go get Katz and Thantos and you guys go rent "Reefer Madness".....im sure you 3 will think its the most factual documentary ever produced......

What's harder to do for someone who isn't an experienced drinker or smoker, drink a six pack or smoke a joint or blunt?

Neither drinking nor smoking is "hard". What's your point? Your claim was that it was addictive, not that it's "easy" or "hard". This post makes no sense, dood.

No consuming large amounts of alcohol is physically channeling for most. I'm 6"2, 225 and I'm not a regular drinker, but I have socially drank in the past, and I would have a hard time drinking a six pack by myself. The point is, sparky, because in smoking it's easier to get high then it is to get drunk, chances are if you smoke you do it more often, compared to the average person who drinks alcohol. Basically the average smoker is likely to be a pothead and the average drinker isn't necessarily likely to be a drunk.

Of course reasoning, I see, is difficult with you.

 

[Rocko]

Consuming a great amount of alcohol to get drunk requires effort, whereas smoking pot to get high doesn't require much effort at all. Would you agree with that assessment?

Don’t mean this in a rude way but you’re showing your ignorance on this particular subject, Rocko. If someone were to smoke semi-regularly, it is NOT easy to get high, especially if you get the common mid/low grade stuff.

This is EXACTLY like alcohol. A person who drinks regularly might require a great deal of effort to get drunk, but for a 120 lb female who has one drink every now and then would get plastered after 2 glasses of whiskey.

They’re exactly the same; quite trying to make silly differentiations.

I realize it's harder to get high for experienced pot users. That's why they always need more - they're trying to chase the high they used to get when they first started.

 

[KevinWestern]

No consuming large amounts of alcohol is physically channeling for most. I'm 6"2, 225 and I'm not a regular drinker, but I have socially drank in the past, and I would have a hard time drinking a six pack by myself. The point is, sparky, because in smoking it's easier to get high then it is to get drunk, chances are if you smoke you do it more often, compared to the average person who drinks alcohol. Basically the average smoker is likely to be a pothead and the average drinker isn't necessarily likely to be a drunk.

Of course reasoning, I see, is difficult with you.

Rocko - you’re the one being unreasonable here. If I were to smoke maybe every other night after work, maybe a hit to relax (nothing but a body-buzz), am I a “pot head”?

 

[Rocko]

No consuming large amounts of alcohol is physically channeling for most. I'm 6"2, 225 and I'm not a regular drinker, but I have socially drank in the past, and I would have a hard time drinking a six pack by myself. The point is, sparky, because in smoking it's easier to get high then it is to get drunk, chances are if you smoke you do it more often, compared to the average person who drinks alcohol. Basically the average smoker is likely to be a pothead and the average drinker isn't necessarily likely to be a drunk.

Of course reasoning, I see, is difficult with you.

Rocko - you’re the one being unreasonable here. If I were to smoke maybe every other night after work, maybe a hit to relax (nothing but a body-buzz), am I a “pot head”?

Every other night? That is a lot of getting high, my friend. I'm not sure if I would call you a pothead, but those are a lot of brain cells you'd be burning. Don't you think that would be bad for for someone to do?

 

[Pogo]

What's harder to do for someone who isn't an experienced drinker or smoker, drink a six pack or smoke a joint or blunt?

Neither drinking nor smoking is "hard". What's your point? Your claim was that it was addictive, not that it's "easy" or "hard". This post makes no sense, dood.

No consuming large amounts of alcohol is physically channeling for most. I'm 6"2, 225 and I'm not a regular drinker, but I have socially drank in the past, and I would have a hard time drinking a six pack by myself. The point is, sparky, because in smoking it's easier to get high then it is to get drunk, chances are if you smoke you do it more often, compared to the average person who drinks alcohol. Basically the average smoker is likely to be a pothead and the average drinker isn't necessarily likely to be a drunk.

Of course reasoning, I see, is difficult with you.

There's no logic in that. None whatsoever. I promise you, nobody sitting down to either a drink or a smoke takes a moment to think, "now, how hard is this going to be?". Wacko.

Further, "chances are if you smoke you do it more often" is a complete non sequitur. You don't smoke because it's X degree of easy or hard; you do it for the intended level of high. Same with drinking; if you drink for the buzz (I don't, but if one does) and you want a bigger buzz, then you drink a stronger beer or you go to a harder liquor.

You actually believe that people drink or smoke based on what level of effort is going to go into it? That's the most wacko thing I've heard all day.

 

[Pogo]

No consuming large amounts of alcohol is physically channeling for most. I'm 6"2, 225 and I'm not a regular drinker, but I have socially drank in the past, and I would have a hard time drinking a six pack by myself. The point is, sparky, because in smoking it's easier to get high then it is to get drunk, chances are if you smoke you do it more often, compared to the average person who drinks alcohol. Basically the average smoker is likely to be a pothead and the average drinker isn't necessarily likely to be a drunk.

Of course reasoning, I see, is difficult with you.

Rocko - you’re the one being unreasonable here. If I were to smoke maybe every other night after work, maybe a hit to relax (nothing but a body-buzz), am I a “pot head”?

Every other night? That is a lot of getting high, my friend. I'm not sure if I would call you a pothead, but those are a lot of brain cells you'd be burning. Don't you think that would be bad for for someone to do?

Once again... like the rest of your bullshit... where are your links?

 

[Rocko]

Rocko - you’re the one being unreasonable here. If I were to smoke maybe every other night after work, maybe a hit to relax (nothing but a body-buzz), am I a “pot head”?

Every other night? That is a lot of getting high, my friend. I'm not sure if I would call you a pothead, but those are a lot of brain cells you'd be burning. Don't you think that would be bad for for someone to do?

Once again... like the rest of your bullshit... where are your links?

So smoking weed doesn't kill brain cells?? That's a new one. Not as bad a legalizing pot won WWII, but in the same category of outrageous.

 

[Rocko]

Neither drinking nor smoking is "hard". What's your point? Your claim was that it was addictive, not that it's "easy" or "hard". This post makes no sense, dood.

No consuming large amounts of alcohol is physically channeling for most. I'm 6"2, 225 and I'm not a regular drinker, but I have socially drank in the past, and I would have a hard time drinking a six pack by myself. The point is, sparky, because in smoking it's easier to get high then it is to get drunk, chances are if you smoke you do it more often, compared to the average person who drinks alcohol. Basically the average smoker is likely to be a pothead and the average drinker isn't necessarily likely to be a drunk.

Of course reasoning, I see, is difficult with you.

There's no logic in that. None whatsoever. I promise you, nobody sitting down to either a drink or a smoke takes a moment to think, "now, how hard is this going to be?". Wacko.

Further, "chances are if you smoke you do it more often" is a complete non sequitur. You don't smoke because it's X degree of easy or hard; you do it for the intended level of high. Same with drinking; if you drink for the buzz (I don't, but if one does) and you want a bigger buzz, then you drink a stronger beer or you go to a harder liquor.

You actually believe that people drink or smoke based on what level of effort is going to go into it? That's the most wacko thing I've heard all day.

It's easier to get high than it is to get drunk. Why can't you at least acknowledge that?

 

[KevinWestern]

I realize it's harder to get high for experienced pot users. That's why they always need more - they're trying to chase the high they used to get when they first started.

Do you say that about alcohol drinkers? That they're always "chasing" the first drunk?

I think that's a generalization, Rocko. I'm perfectly content and not "chasing" anything.

 

[Pogo]

Every other night? That is a lot of getting high, my friend. I'm not sure if I would call you a pothead, but those are a lot of brain cells you'd be burning. Don't you think that would be bad for for someone to do?

Once again... like the rest of your bullshit... where are your links?

So smoking weed doesn't kill brain cells?? That's a new one. Not as bad a legalizing pot won WWII, but in the same category of outrageous.

No, and while we're at it it doesn't cause birth defects, Globner's Disease or the heartbreak of psoriasis either. Nor is it addictive.

This is the real world, Sparkeroo. Things don't suddenly jump up and become fact just because you post them on the internets.

 

[Pogo]

No consuming large amounts of alcohol is physically channeling for most. I'm 6"2, 225 and I'm not a regular drinker, but I have socially drank in the past, and I would have a hard time drinking a six pack by myself. The point is, sparky, because in smoking it's easier to get high then it is to get drunk, chances are if you smoke you do it more often, compared to the average person who drinks alcohol. Basically the average smoker is likely to be a pothead and the average drinker isn't necessarily likely to be a drunk.

Of course reasoning, I see, is difficult with you.

There's no logic in that. None whatsoever. I promise you, nobody sitting down to either a drink or a smoke takes a moment to think, "now, how hard is this going to be?". Wacko.

Further, "chances are if you smoke you do it more often" is a complete non sequitur. You don't smoke because it's X degree of easy or hard; you do it for the intended level of high. Same with drinking; if you drink for the buzz (I don't, but if one does) and you want a bigger buzz, then you drink a stronger beer or you go to a harder liquor.

You actually believe that people drink or smoke based on what level of effort is going to go into it? That's the most wacko thing I've heard all day.

It's easier to get high than it is to get drunk. Why can't you at least acknowledge that?

Neither one is "work". Neither one is a challenge. You have a complete non sequitur here.
You don't do anything to get intoxicated. The body does that automatically.

I mean... DUH.

 

[KevinWestern]

It's easier to get high than it is to get drunk. Why can't you at least acknowledge that?

It really depends, lol, Rocko.

Drinking a fruit punch with everclear is not hard.

 

[KevinWestern]

Every other night? That is a lot of getting high, my friend. I'm not sure if I would call you a pothead, but those are a lot of brain cells you'd be burning. Don't you think that would be bad for for someone to do?

Many people drink a beer or wine every single night. I find it to be no different, because it isn't.

 

[KNB]

Every other night? That is a lot of getting high, my friend. I'm not sure if I would call you a pothead, but those are a lot of brain cells you'd be burning. Don't you think that would be bad for for someone to do?

Once again... like the rest of your bullshit... where are your links?

So smoking weed doesn't kill brain cells?? That's a new one. Not as bad a legalizing pot won WWII, but in the same category of outrageous.

Yeah, it's SO outrageous to learn facts and history.

No, smoking marijuana does not kill brain cells.

In response to many negative claims against marijuana use, Morgan and Zimmer (1991) compiled existing literature and data into a single document in order to discredit what they felt were widespread myths about the drug.

One of these myths was that marijuana damages brain cells, and that this damage causes memory loss, cognitive impairment, and learning difficulties. They report that this claim is based on a study by Heath et. al (1980), in which structural changes in several regions of the brain were found in two rhesus monkeys exposed to THC, the active chemical in marijuana. These changes occurred primarily in the hippocampus, the area of the brain known to play an important role in learning and memory, which suggested that exposure to THC in humans would yield similar negative results.

However, according to Morgan and Zimmer, in order to achieve these damaging results, doses of up to 200 times the psychoactive dose in humans would have to be given. Even studies in which subjects were given 100 times the human dose failed to cause any structural impairment of the brain. Additionally, in a more recent study of rhesus monkeys by Slikker et. al (1992), in which the monkeys were exposed to the equivalent of 4-5 joints per day through face-mask inhalation for an entire year, seven months later there was no observed change in hippocampal structure, cell size, cell number, or synaptic configuration. As a result of these studies, Morgan and Zimmer concluded that the claim that marijuana causes physiological damage to brain cells is incorrect.
Does Marijuana Damage Brain Cells?

Yes, "Marihuana" helped America win World War II. What does this say?:

https://archive.org/details/Hemp_for_victory_1942_FIXED

Producer of what? Marihuana. You're welcome.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Consuming a great amount of alcohol to get drunk requires effort, whereas smoking pot to get high doesn't require much effort at all. Would you agree with that assessment?

Don’t mean this in a rude way but you’re showing your ignorance on this particular subject, Rocko. If someone were to smoke semi-regularly, it is NOT easy to get high, especially if you get the common mid/low grade stuff.

This is EXACTLY like alcohol. A person who drinks regularly might require a great deal of effort to get drunk, but for a 120 lb female who has one drink every now and then would get plastered after 2 glasses of whiskey.

They’re exactly the same; quite trying to make silly differentiations.

I realize it's harder to get high for experienced pot users. That's why they always need more - they're trying to chase the high they used to get when they first started.

Actually, here yet again you show your ignorance. Yes, the THC cannabinoid will stay in the body for UP TO (not past) 30 days, but that depends a great deal on your body fat percentage, as THC tends to be stored in the fat cells, meaning someone with a high body fat percentage might end up having it show up 25 days later, but a person with a low body fat percentage might be clean a week after stopping. And yes, if you smoke on a regular basis, it can build up in your system, requiring you to smoke a bit more, but..............if you stop smoking for a week, and then light up a joint? It's almost like getting high for the first time because your body has flushed out most of what you'd smoked before stopping.

As far as requiring a great deal of effort to get drunk? Really? Ever been to the birthday party bar crawl for a person who just turned 21? Ever been to a college frat party? In those 2 instances it is very possible for the new drinker to drink enough to reach alcohol poisoning in just one night.

Where did I get all this knowledge? Well, for the last 8 years of my Navy career, I was a Drug and Alcohol Program Advisor (DAPA), and it was my job to know the effects of various substances on the human body as well as how to recognize someone who was having troubles with said substances, so I could do a command review on them to determine if they needed to be referred to detox or not.

Additionally, it was Prohibition that gave rise to the bootleggers, and then the Mafia, because alcohol was illegal and that gave rise to a huge black market. After Prohibition was repealed? Bootleggers who used to make a great deal of money were now SOL because everyone was able to distill spirits. If marijuana was made legal (like it is in CO and WA), there would be jobs provided for those that wish to grow it, distribute it and sell it, and the black market would be GREATLY reduced. Granted, there are still people who like to make moonshine, but those people are few and far between, and their product is comparable in cost to what the price is of alcohol bought in a store. Same thing would happen with cannabis if it was made legal, because then those who were in the shadows would now be able to be open about their trade, reducing greatly those illegal distributors.

I mean really..................how many people on this board buy moonshine from a bootlegger on a regular basis? Me? I've only had moonshine around 3 times in my life, and that was while I was living in Montana, and I turn 50 this year.

If people were able to buy cannabis legally, they would go to the legal dealers (where they would know the product they were buying was what they were getting), rather than go to someone who is an illicit dealer who may have their product mixed with something else.

Matter of fact....................people would also be able to grow their own for personal consumption, much like people do today when they make their own wine or beer. You can make it for yourself, you just can't sell it without getting the appropriate licenses and paying the appropriate taxes.

Tell ya what..................do yourself a favor and rent the documentary "Grass" as narrated by Woody Harrelson, and then cross check their facts for yourself.

You'll find that you've been buying the same racist bullshit that Anslinger started in 1939.

 

[Disir]

Banks Financing Mexico Gangs Admitted in Wells Fargo Deal - Bloomberg

HSBC, accused of financial dealings linked to terrorists and drug cartels, heads to Senate subcommittee - latimes.com

How a big US bank laundered billions from Mexico's murderous drug gangs | World news | The Observer

International banks have aided Mexican drug gangs - Los Angeles Times

^^^^Those guys wear suits.


The Pueblo Chieftain | Street dealer: High taxes will send weed users

I'm well aware of major bank dealings w/ drug dealers. But my question was does Budweiser (or whatever major alcohol producer) hire twelve year olds with guns, or cut off the heads of rivals, etc?

The point being, does the legal alcohol business generate the same levels of VIOLENCE in the US as the illegal drug trade?

.

Do the bankers pull the trigger?