It's official - California's gone to pot.

Only someone completely daft would think breaking federal law falls under the heading of "personal life."

Reply to
Tom Del Rosso
Loading thread data ...

I guess it had to be non-GMO or they wouldn't smoke it.

I think it should be legal to spray the smoker with skunk piss.

It was no worse than most incense but I never liked that either. But for that matter, in the Christmas season the supermarket put out so much potpourri it gagged me.

They might not be addicted in the technical sense of the word, but if they are that desperate for the high it sure looks like addiction.

But then again I've never understood how anyone can breath any smoke. When I was five I overheard two neighbors talking about how they were both trying to quit smoking. I knew I would never smoke.

Reply to
Tom Del Rosso

The first four words nailed it completely.

Reply to
krw

n
l
o
t
,
.
,
e
g
"
r

Not of lot of what gets posted here makes sense to krw, but his idea of "ma king sense" is best translated as "agreeing with what krw believes", and he does seem to habour more right-wing delusions than most of our regular pos ters, while totally lacking any capacity to think them through.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

It's called US right-wing politics, and the Tea Party peddles it.

John Larkin is an addict, but doesn't realise that he is mainlining the stuff.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Gang-related crime and poisonings went up. The damage due to alcohol consumption did NOT go way down. Best case, a law and its enforcement should improve the quality of life.

Rampant illegal business opportunities didn't improve lives. Toxic consumables don't improve lives. Incarceration didn't improve lives.

Reply to
whit3rd

Not true. Alcoholism went down.

Yet you want to legalize even more of them.

See above.

Reply to
krw

This Jeff Sessions guy has been smoking some really bad weed !

Reply to
boB

? what does that mean?

By two-thirds vote of responsible adults who SAW the results of prohibition, the amendment was repealed. If you have some statistics relating to alcoholism, divulge. Know, too, recognizable harm included deaths due to folk drinking... alcohol substitutes and admixtures.

Reply to
whit3rd

You are stupid. So, you believe the "22 times better than in the seventies" horseshit line. Do you also think that we did not go to the moon?

Cannabis is the most benign inebriant mankind has ever had, and the idiots of the wolrd all line up to tell us all how bad it is.

The "export" claim is likely false as well. At least legally. There is no transferrance from one state to another legal state that I am aware of so any taking place would be a definite criminal act.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Bahahahahahaha!

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Been saying that for decades, you blind as a bat stupid f*ck.

Schedule one positioning precludes any research on the subject and then the bastards sit around talking about clinical trials and proofs of efficacy, when we are not allowed to generate them.

The solution is to simply remove cannabis from schedule one classification. That has always been the solution.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

formatting link

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

It wasn't a problem in the seventies. You cannot manufacture one now, and that "22 times stronger" bullshit won't do it either.

It is proven to NOT be a hinderance and alcohol was proven to be one.

Wake the f*ck up.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Pure bullshit.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

There are certainly a range of cannabis varieties that are far more potent than older breeds, with much more of the active chemicals per gram of plant leaf. I don't have numbers on hand - certainly 10 times differences does not seem unreasonable to me.

However, whether it is true or not is irrelevant - especially so when discussing /legal/ cannabis. If the drug you buy now is ten times as potent as the drug you bought previously, then you simply use one tenth as much and get exactly the same effect (both intended effects, and side-effects).

The risk of drug varieties that are more potent than they used to be is that it is easy to overdose. This is a big, serious problem with many drug types.

But if you buy /legal/, /regulated/ drugs then it is not nearly the same kind of problem. It should say on the packet how strong it is, and what dosage you should take. Marijuana comes in a great range of types, with real and imaginary differences in characteristics such as strength, taste, suitable usage (mixing with tobacco, smoking pure, water pipes, etc.), and the effects of the "high".

It is a different world from buying a little packet of dried leafs from some guy in a pub and not knowing if it is pure high-strength marijuana or a bunch of weeds from his back garden.

Reply to
David Brown

Are you too stoned to research it yourself?

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

Druggies really do believe the crap they spew.

Reply to
krw

You've always been wrong, AlwaysWrong.

Reply to
krw

If you can't understand something that simple, there's no point in discussing anything further.

Reply to
krw

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.