Do you want to see one caused by Cannabis? Here ya go.
He looks pretty good, doesn't he? That's the before picture. The police have the "After" pictures, but won't release them to the public.
Posted on 02/15/2015 7:32:34 PM PST by MeshugeMikey
Do you want to see one caused by Cannabis? Here ya go.
He looks pretty good, doesn't he? That's the before picture. The police have the "After" pictures, but won't release them to the public.
Alright. So here’s the problem with the anti-meth crap.
Meth is created when two amphetamine molecules are bonded with one carbon. In order for a person to feel the effects of meth, their bodies must first break that carbon bond. Then they are getting regular amphetamines.
That’s it. That’s meth.
ADHD medications are amphetamines. The only difference between meth and regular amphetamines is that the amphetamine doesn’t have to be broken down to be absorbed first.
It’s the same damn chemical.
The question arises: If it’s so terrible, then why are we giving this drug to soldiers, pilots, toddlers and school children?
Why did we give it to housewives in the 80’s and 90’s as a weight loss drug? How did our grandmothers and mothers take it (en mass) in the 50’s and 60’s as ‘pep’ pills without a problem?
All drugs have side effects. But I cannot understand why the side effects of a chemical is considered ‘bad’ when a person takes it by choice and are nonexistent when prescribed for a small child. It is the same damn chemical.
So, when you rant about meth heads, why aren’t you ranting about the 10% of our children who are addicted to the same drug? Why aren’t our grandmothers and mothers wrecks from taking it back in the day? Why aren’t our soldiers, pilots, and long-haul truckers washed out from drugs when they were given them for years?
I was a puritanical army wife when I was prescribed amphetamines in the early 90’s. I took them for years, along with most of the other women on our block. It gave us some energy, helped control our appetites... and that was it.
My (very religious anti-drug) grandmother took them and had all of my aunts on them to give them energy and to ‘keep them pretty’ back in the 50’s. Great teeth. No issues. Nobody got addicted.
When did somebody decide that it was bad?
If meth is a terrible as the billboards say, then we have got to get serious about prescribing amphetamines to children.
And your naivete and denial is tedious. It's a big world out there, sorry to upset you with it. Weed has its downside, but as things go its extraordinarily mild. If you want to ignore its utterly massive historical use around the world, that's your business, but don't get upset if you try dragging Jesus and Reagan in discussions where you're going to get your feelings hurt. Jesus served wine according to the scriptural uses of it - not recreationally. Are you actually saying on any given day he sat around with his disciples passing a bottle?! And are you saying it didn't exist in the Holy Land if he didn't use it at the Last Supper? What insanity! And if Reagan - movie star Hollywood Ronald Reagan - ever tried weed, newsflash: it wouldn't be a surprise, and it wouldn't be while President, either.
There, are your ridiculous straw-men arguments satisfied, or are you going to dream up another absurd combination question.
If your views on drugs becomes dominant, we will have a "Saudi" government over here. Anarchy always leads to totalitarianism.
You said ‘dope’.
Be specific.
You are all for precision until you are called down about it yourselves.
I'm not addressing who we are and our history. I'm pointing out that our Founding Fathers grew weed and tobacco and we know they dried and smoked tobacco and nothing says they didn't do the same thing with weed.
But I understand your panic. Because if the Founders smoked weed and created the Constitution, the planet would crack in half.
First, if America was a cannabis using bunch of pot heads in the 1700s led by the founders and heroes of this nation, then they would use the product freely, and with familiarity, they would grow great pot and make and use hashish, they would sell it, party with with, write about it, there would have been a booming pot trade and pot shops, and pot would be immensely popular in America and and for centuries, with no break from then until now.
Instead there is zero reason to think that your lies are anything but lies.
Well see here, this is how you tell when someone is not really familiar with an issue that they have decided to wade in on. "Conflating Freedom " and I have been hammering about the post civil war drug addiction topic for quite a long time, and during that period I have posted excerpts from the Military doctors on the topic and their procedures and methodologies in issuing drugs to their patients. It was pretty much the go-to treatment for all wounded when quantities of the drugs were available.
If I run across it again, and if the topic is still going, i'll post a link, but i'm not going to make a concerted effort to look for one at this point. I think this discussion is winding down anyways.
Most telling of all, the people in charge of the Drug War put forth those figures without your caveats, which would have been beneficial to their argument.
The government is not terribly competent at anything it does, but it is a necessary component of any civilized nation.
Jesus made wine for a party. They discussed wine and routinely drank wine, alcohol was normal and routine, a part of the diet, he would never use, or supply, pot.
Nor did Reagan.
And how do you know this is the only reason for separating male and female plants? Just because it is the only MODERN reason, does not mean it was a valid reason back in 1790.
I suspect if any of them had smoked it, we would certainly have heard about it. We know Washington distilled Whiskey, but we have nothing regarding any weed he toked.
In any event, the point is that alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana, and that is clearly born out by statistics
And which is completely irrelevant to the topic BECAUSE ONE BAD THING DOES NOT JUSTIFY ANOTHER.
Should we have Bestiality because we allow Homosexuality? Do we have to be fair to the other bad things because we tolerate one of them?
How you can argue that weed is dangerous for adults because it negatively affects childhood development, while simultaneously protecting, of all things, alcohol, is beyond me.
I see that it is. For some reason you seem to believe that if we put up with 85,000 deaths per year from Alcohol, then why should we complain about deaths and disasters caused by marijuana?
Again, it's like saying "Because they are doing something bad, *I* ought to be allowed to do something bad too!"
A fallacious child's argument, but one which Libertarians cannot help themselves from advancing.
No. We have no moral obligation to be "fair" to weed because we tolerate the misery and death caused by alcohol. (and that caused by Tobacco.)
Do you actually have a worthwhile point, or are you just going to do this hand waving and posturing thing?
The child was in a DRUG HOUSE. The Parents put that child in that DRUG HOUSE. Whether or not the Parents themselves have been charged with a drug crime is neither here nor there. One does not normally go into a DRUG HOUSE unless one is somehow involved in Drugs, either as a user or a dealer.
The problem with your scenario is that you’re assuming pot was as strong then as it is now. The last 30 years have seen an explosion of weed strength by deliberate cultivation using modern techniques. What if the Founders had better things to do do, because weed grew like a weed and everyone had it and besides, they liked it mild?
They didn’t talk about their plethora of vegetables either - way more varieties than we have now. But they had them. People don’t talk about ordinary things. Their cultivation topic of the day was tobacco. Maybe they liked their weed as it was. But they did in fact grow it, and have it, and tend it as one would for smoking - ie Washington writing about separating the sexes of the plants.
Obviously they weren’t “pot heads,” because they didn’t let it wreck their mental acuity. But that, in turn, would mean that they used their mental acuity to smoke the right amount simply to relax, and not go overboard. As well, look up someday how much alcohol it was common for people to drink back then - way, way more than now. Yet no one calls them drunks, because by the way they lived their lives, they proved they were no such things. Same with weed, then.
He actually said 'dope smoking' 3 times, including this lead in to the picture =>
Oh, and here is another example of what dope smoking does to someone.
You caught him with his hand in the cookie jar.
Your opinion is noted.
The way you people deliberately go out of your way to misunderstand something, or try to present it as something differently than intended, is in fact, "splitting hairs." (when it is not deliberate distortion and lying.)
At no time did I suggest that any accused drug dealer would not get a trial. If it so happens that someone accused of being a drug dealer is found to be innocent, then they would not be executed because they are not a drug dealer.
I know this is complicated for you, but bear with me.
This act of NOT executing NON DRUG DEALERS is consistent with what I had said previously. At no time did I suggest skipping the "fair trial" part of the normal process.
Your insistence that it cannot possibly do so because "it's the same chemical used by mothers and grandmothers everywhere to give them more energy..." is just wrong.
You remind me of Reagan's statement that "An economist is someone who sees something that works in practice and wonders if it would work in theory."
Meth destroys skin and teeth. Crack does too, but it takes a lot longer than Meth.
Why create a lie for something that never existed?
Why try to create a fake history for our nation, why attack early America and our founding fathers?
Americans were not pot users and it’s leaders and heroes pot users, and then we suddenly quit using it and forgot that we all had been using it, growing it and partying with it and selling it, real life doesn’t work that way.
In all honesty, you fantasize, and create drug lies, like someone who is drug addled.
It’s history, not opinion.
Jesus was even accused of being a drunk, by someone trying to imply that he drank too much.
Be specific.
This topic is one big iceberg. It's all connected together with the real danger lying just under the surface.
You may have noticed "Conflating Freedom" responding to my posts. He has stated categorically that he is in favor of legalizing all drugs because the philosophical theory underpinning his ideology is that people have a right to use whatever drugs they want.
Much of our beliefs come from our foundational principles, and if you adhere to the principle that people have a right to do whatever drug they like, then you can make no arguments for stopping them from using really horrible drugs.
Marijuana is just the "foot in the door" drug. It is the Camel's nose in the Tent" drug. It is the "Civil Rights" argument of the Gay Mafia drug.
It is the attempt to establish drug usage as normal and a right, then to move the goal posts again later when it is acceptable to do so.
Marijuana is Germany invading the Sudetenland. If we do not stop them there when the cost in blood and treasure will be relatively small, we will be forced to stop them later at the Battle of the Bulge, after 20 million people have been killed... or we might not even be able to stop them and the forces of evil will win and continue dealing death as far into the future as the eye can see.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.