My best advice for you has been around for decades now and advocated by conservatives. Being you found yourself on a conservative site advocating recreational drug use, I offer this message for your personal consumption.
Posted on 03/04/2005 10:44:14 AM PST by MisterRepublican
WASHINGTON - The admission rate for those who seek treatment for marijuana use nearly tripled between 1992 and 2002, according to the latest data compiled by the federal government.
The numbers released Friday reflect a growing use of marijuana in the 1990s and an increase in the potency of marijuana, said Tom Riley, a spokesman for the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy.
"This report makes clear what people in the public health community have known for years, which is marijuana is a much more dangerous drug than many Americans realize," Riley said. "This report is a wake up call for parents that marijuana is not a soft drug. It's a much bigger part of the addiction problem than is generally understood."
The study on treatment rates was conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which estimated that 41 states experienced an increase in the number of people who sought treatment for marijuana use during the decade studied.
(Excerpt) Read more at fortwayne.com ...
My best advice for you has been around for decades now and advocated by conservatives. Being you found yourself on a conservative site advocating recreational drug use, I offer this message for your personal consumption.
Exactly. Criminals will always be there to profit from that fact, and you have offered no solutions which have not already failed.
My best advice for you has been around for decades now and advocated by conservatives. Being you found yourself on a conservative site advocating recreational drug use,
Even if you're getting hammered in open debate, like A CA Guy is on this thread, it's still not Kosher to resort to falsehoods.
I'll answer again ... An amendment was not required for alcohol.
"An amendment to the Constitution obviously appealed to temperance reformers more than a federal statute banning liquor. A simple congressional majority could adopt a statute but, with the shift of a relatively few votes, could likewise topple one. Drys feared that an ordinary law would be in constant danger of being overturned owing to pressure from liquor industry interests or the growing population of liquor-using immigrants. A constitutional amendment, on the other hand, though more difficult to achieve, would be impervious to change. Their reform would not only have been adopted, the Anti-Saloon League reasoned, but would be protected from future human weakness and backsliding.
-- druglibrary.org
Not generally addictive? What does that mean?
Well, other countrys have done things like cut hands off cane people and those criminals stopped.
They do worse to people outside of America, here we stay safer by putting them in jail off the street for distributing or dealing.
I guess you make a good argument for jailing more people though.
Yeah, that really stopped the black market in drugs:
"Iran has executed more than 10,000 narcotics traffickers in the last decade;"
--www.payvand.com/news/04/mar/1012.htm
"Iran has the highest proportion of heroin addicts in the world and a growing Aids problem."
--news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/3791889.stm
This is acceptable to you in this case? You don't think such things should be reserved to the states? Where does it end? Where do you draw your line? Why then have states at all? Why not rule by central control in all issues? Just "munchies" for thought.
It means that most users will not become addicted. It is not addicitive in the sense that cocaine or heroin are. But some people will become addicted to it just as some become so obsessed with it that it ruins their lives. But sex is not generally considered addictive.
Hey all you pot smokers, if you CAN quit smoking pot, why don't you? You'd have more money. Why don't you quit, if it's not addictive?
Marijuana is not physically addictive like ciggarettes or heroin. Habitual users can have a psychological dependence though.
Hey all you pot smokers, if you CAN quit smoking pot, why don't you? You'd have more money. Why don't you quit, if it's not addictive?
...........................................................
A lot of people do quit jsut to prove they can. Tobacco is far more addictive and far more legal. Should tobacco and booze be illegal? They are proven to be damaging to health.
Here's a good question for YOU...if we're not supposed to rape women, why do men have a penis?!
You're logic is fatally flawed...
Wrong. In one of the parables, the man who had his debt forgiven, but then refused to forgive the debt of a man who owed him money, was thrown into prison...
Why don't YOU quit?
Actually I hvae not smoked anything since I left University.
It is a hundred times harder to stop smoking cigarettes.
Do you support the prohibition of Alcohol and tobacco?
Yes.
...no wonder DU is shrinking in membership every day...
I am glad you said that. I respect the position of total prohibition much more than selective prohibiton on social stigmatised things, it is far less hypocritic. Personally I am happy for the booze, tobacco and pot to be carefully kept legal. I support drug laws for anything harder than these.
LOL!
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.