Posted on 08/06/2006 6:04:24 AM PDT by Wolfie
Reefer is Worth Getting Mad About
Vienna -- Supporters of the legalization of cannabis would have us believe that it is a gentle, harmless substance that gives you little more than a sense of mellow euphoria.
Sellers of the world's most popular illicit drug know better. Trawl through websites offering cannabis seeds for sale and you will find brand names such as Armageddon, AK-47 and White Widow. "This will put you in pieces, then reduce you to rubble -- maybe quicksand if you go too far," one seller boasts. This is much closer to the truth.
In Canada, as in most parts of the world, cannabis is by far the drug of choice. An estimated 4 per cent of the world's adult population -- that's about 162 million people -- consume cannabis at least once a year, more than all other illicit drugs combined.
Does that matter? I firmly believe it does, because the cannabis now in circulation (like Canada's BC Bud) is many times more powerful than the weed that today's aging baby boomers smoked in college. The characteristics of cannabis are no longer that different from those of other plant-based drugs, such as cocaine and heroin.
Evidence of the damage to mental health caused by cannabis use -- from loss of concentration to paranoia, aggressiveness and outright psychosis -- is mounting and cannot be ignored. Emergency room admissions involving cannabis are rising, as is demand for rehabilitation treatment. These health problems are increasingly being seen in young people.
North America is the world's largest cannabis market and most of its cannabis is homegrown. The U.S. market alone has been valued at more than $10-billion. As Canadians are starting to discover, a market that size inevitably attracts organized crime. So cannabis is a security threat as well as a health risk.
Amid all the libertarian talk about the right of the individual to engage in dangerous practices, provided no one else gets hurt, certain key facts are easily forgotten.
Firstly, cannabis is a dangerous drug, not just to the individuals who use it. People who drive under the influence of cannabis put others at risk. Would even the most ardent supporter of legalization want to fly in an aircraft whose pilot used cannabis?
Secondly, drug control works. More than a century of universally accepted restrictions on heroin and cocaine have prevented what would otherwise have been a pandemic. Global levels of drug addiction -- think of the opium dens of the 19th century -- have dropped dramatically in the past 100 years. In the past 10 years or so, they have remained stable.
Cannabis is the weakest link in the international effort to contain the global drugs problem. In theory, it's a controlled substance. In practice, it's running rampant. It grows under the most varied conditions in many countries, a high-yielding plant that can be grown indoors. This makes supply control difficult.
But we can tackle demand, particularly among the young. That need not mean sending them to jail. Young people caught in possession of cannabis could be treated in much the same way as those arrested for drunk driving: fined, required to attend classes on the dangers of drug use and threatened with loss of their driving licence for repeat offences. Prison would be a last resort. Schools and universities should apply zero tolerance.
National policies on cannabis vary and sometimes change from one year to the next. The experience of countries that were more tolerant of cannabis use is ambiguous and not persuasive. The distinction between "soft" and "hard" drugs is, at best, artificial, especially with such a damaging psycho-active substance as modern-day cannabis. Even some advocates of cannabis as a "soft" drug are now reconsidering as they observe the devastating health consequences of abuse.
Canada was a pioneer in introducing systematic anti-smoking policies, which are now being copied around the world. Their success demonstrates that preventive measures can help to change attitudes. Similar policies are needed to prevent cannabis use getting completely out of control.
Let's draw the right conclusions. Cannabis is dangerous. We ignore it at our peril.
Antonio Maria Costa is executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
Yeah so? YEAH SO? Your arrogance is limitless.
You say: And your answer would be let's end the war on drugs right since obviously "it's not working".
No, sir. My answer would be let's end the so-called war on (some) drugs because innocent Americans are being murdered by adrenaline-crazed stormtroopers hiding behind badges. In your extreme arrogance please resist the temptation to "answer" for me. You see, I tend to think before I post, unlike your deranged rantings.
You say: How about the war on cancer, a very personal battle to me, in the past five years my family has lost three members to cancer, should we stop battling it?
If local, state, or federal government agents begin routinely killing innocent Americans under the guise of "cancer research" I say let's live with the cancer.
You say: Or how about the war on crime, it would seem that the criminals are winning,
As usual you are wrong. If you remove "drug crime" (ie-possession, manufacturing, and sale) and examine property crimes and violent crime you will find that overall crime is declining in most of the country. I am aware you are unable to perform any research unassisted, so here is a link to back up the claim: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#Crime
You say: The battle for civil rights is far from over, and racists continue to victimize members of our society, perhaps we can do nothing to stop it and should quit trying and just let people be what they want to be??
Yes, sir. The gov't should most certainly "let people be what they want to be". I challenge you for specific examples of what the gov has done to improve race relations. I'll be waiting.
You say: The War on poverty, some people will always be poor, should we just abandon them to their own devices, let them be?
You believe it is a function of government to rescue or save people from poverty? May I suggest seventh-grade civics classes to you?
You say: ...Apply that strategery to the war on terror...
You would compare the American government prosecuting a war openly declared against America and the freedoms, morals, and values she represents to a war declared BY the American government against her own citizens and their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Have you been drinking?
As to your final argument, I grow weary of your pomposity. This is at least the second time you have accused me of using/abusing drugs. I resent your personal attacks and deny the charges.
If you don't tone done your rhetoric and ad-hominem attacks I will get nasty with you and trust me, you don't have a prayer. You are ill-equipped for informed debate and I predict you will fare even worse in an all-out flame war.
You are no conservative. You are a statist lemming. Follow the other liberty haters into the demise of this republic. I oppose you.
You should rethink your position. Will you be so supportive of the WOsD when your loved one's name is on this list?
Cheryl Lynn Noel.
January 21, 2005—MD
Baltimore County, Maryland police descend on a home in the Dundalk neighborhood at around 5 a.m. on a narcotics warrant. They deploy a flashbang grenade, then quickly subdue the first-floor occupants -- a man and two young adults.
When officers enter the second-floor bedroom of Cheryl Llynn Noel, they break open the door to find the middle-aged woman in her bed, frightened, and pointing a handgun at them. One officer fires three times. Noel dies at the scene.
Friends and acquaintances described Noel as "a wonderful person," who ran a Bible study group on her lunch breaks. One man collected 200 signatures from friends, neighbors, and coworkers vouching for her character.
Officers conducted the raid after finding marijuana seeds in the Noels' garbage can.
Alberta Spruill.
May 16, 2003—NY
On May 16, 2003, a dozen New York City police officers storm an apartment building in Harlem on a no-knock warrant. They're acting on a tip from a confidential informant, who told them a convicted felon was dealing drugs and guns from the sixth floor.
There is no felon. The only resident in the building is Alberta Spruill, described by friends as a "devout churchgoer." Before entering the apartment, police deploy a flashbang grenade. The blinding, deafening explosion stuns the 57 year-old city worker, who then slips into cardiac arrest. She dies two hours later.
A police investigation would later find that the drug dealer the raid team was looking for had been arrested days earlier. He couldn't possibly have been at Spruill's apartment because he was in custody. The officers who conducted the raid did no investigation to corroborate the informant's tip. A police source told the New York Daily News that the informant in the Spruill case had offered police tips on several occasions, none of which had led to an arrest. His record was so poor, in fact, that he was due to be dropped from the city's informant list.
Nevertheless, his tip on the ex-con in Spruill's building was taken to the Manhattan district attorney's office, who approved of the application for a no-knock entry. It was then taken to a judge, who issued the warrant resulting in Spruill's death. From tip to raid, the entire "investigation" and execution were over in a matter of hours.
Spruill's death triggered an outpouring of outrage and emotion in New York and inspired dozens of victims of botched drug raids, previously afraid to tell their stories, to come forward.
Still, the number of real, tangible reforms to result from the raid were few. Though the number of no-knocks in New York has by most indications declined, there's still no real oversight or transparency in how they're granted and carried out. And victims of botched raids still have no real recourse, other than to hope the media gets hold of their story.
Jose Colon.
April 19, 2002—NY
On April 19, 2002, police prepare to conduct a heavily-armed late-night drug raid (it includes a helicopter) on a home in Bellport, New York. As four paramilitary unit officers rush across the front lawn, 19 year-old Jose Colon emerges from the targeted house.
According to the police account of the raid, as officers approach, one of them trips over a tree root, then falls forward, into the lead officer, causing his gun to accidentally discharge three times. One of the three bullets hits Colon in the side of the head, killing him.
Police say they screamed at Colon to "get down" as they approached, though two witnesses told a local newscast that, (a) their screams were inaudible over the sound of the helicopter, and (b) the officers appeared to be frozen before the shooting -- no one tripped. One of the witnesses later recanted his story after speaking with police.
Colon was never suspected of buying or selling drugs. Police proceeded with the raid, and seized eight ounces of marijuana. A subsequent investigation found no criminal wrongdoing on the part of police. The family of Colon -- who had no criminal record and was months away from becoming the first member of his family to earn a bachelor's degree -- is pursuing a lawsuit.
Tony Martinez.
December 20, 2001—TX
On December 20, 2001, police in Travis County, Texas storm a mobile home on a no-knock drug warrant.
19-year-old Tony Martinez, nephew of the man named in the warrant, is asleep on the couch at the time of the raid. Martinez was never suspected of any crime. When Martinez rises from the couch as police break into the home, deputy Derek Hill shoots Martinez in the chest, killing him. Martinez is unarmed.
A grand jury later declined to indict Hill in the shooting. The shooting occurred less than a mile from the spot of a botched drug raid that cost Deputy Keith Ruiz his life. Hill was also on that raid. The same Travis County paramilitary unit would later erroneously raid a woman's home after mistaking ragweed for marijuana plants.
John Adams.
October 4, 2000—TN
On October 4, 2000 at about 10 p.m., police in Lebanon, Tennessee raid the home of 64-year-old John Adams on a drug warrant. In what Lebanon Police Chief Billy Weeks would later say was a "severe, costly mistake," police indentify the wrong house.
According to Adams' wife, police don't identify themselves after knocking on the couple's door. When she refuses to let them in, they break down the door, and handcuff her. Adams meets the police in another room with a sawed-off shotgun. Police open fire, and shoot Adams dead.
One officer would later be fired after the incident, and several others suspended, but no criminal charges would ever come of the raid. Adams' widow eventually won a $400,000 settlement from the city.
Lynette Gayle Jackson.
September 22, 2000—GA
On September 22, 2000, police in Riverdale, Georgia shoot and kill Lynette Gayle Jackson in an early morning, no-knock drug raid.
Less than a month earlier, Jackson had been at home when burglars broke into the house. She escaped out a window and called the police while the intruders ransacked her home. When police arrived to answer the burglary call, they found a small bag of cocaine in the bedroom that belonged to Jackson's boyfriend. While the quantity of cocaine wasn't sufficient to press charges, police began a subsequent investigation of Jackson's boyfriend leading to the September no-knock raid.
As that raid transpired, Jackson, believing she was being robbed again, was holding a gun in her bedroom as the SWAT team entered. Her maintenance man later told reporters she had been frightened by the previous burglary. Jackson had asked him to install new locks, security bars on her windows, and a motion-detecting security light. The man told the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, "I think she was scared and she probably thought it was another break-in."
Alberto Sepulveda.
September 13, 2000—CA
Early in the morning on September 13, 2000, agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FBI, and the Stanislaus County, California drug enforcement agency conduct raids on 14 homes in and around Modesto, California after a 19-month investigation.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the DEA and FBI asked that local SWAT teams enter each home unannounced to secure the area ahead of federal agents, who would then come to serve the warrants and search for evidence. Federal agents warn the SWAT teams that the targets of the warrants, including Alberto Sepulveda's father Moises, should be considered armed and dangerous.
After police forcibly enter the Sepulveda home, Alberto, his father, his mother, his sister, and his brother are ordered to lie face down on the floor with arms outstretched. Half a minute after the raid begins, the shotgun officer David Hawn has trained on Alberto's head discharges, instantly killing the eleven-year-old boy.
No drugs or weapons are found in the home.
The Los Angeles Times later reports that when Modesto police asked federal investigators if there were any children present in the Sepulveda home, they replied, "not aware of any." There were three.
A subsequent internal investigation by the Modesto Police Department found that federal intelligence evidence against Moises Sepulveda -- who had no previous criminal record -- was "minimal." In 2002 he pled guilty to the last charge remaining against him as a result of the investigation -- using a telephone to distribute marijuana. The city of Modesto and the federal government later settled a lawsuit brought by the Sepulvedas for the death of their son for $3 million.
At first, Modesto Police Chief Roy Wasden seemed to be moved by Sepulveda's death toward genuine reform. "What are we gaining by serving these drug warrants?" Wasden is quoted as asking in the Modesto Bee. "We ought to be saying, 'It's not worth the risk. We're not going to put our officers and community at risk anymore.'"
Unfortunately, as part of the settlement with the Sepulvedas, while Modesto announced several reforms in the way its SWAT team would carry out drug raids, there was no mention of discontinuing the use of paramilitary units to conduct no-knock or knock-and-announce warrants on nonviolent drug offenders.
Ismael Mena.
September 29, 1999—CO
On September 29, 1999, a Denver SWAT team executes a no-knock drug raid on the home of Ismael Mena, a Mexican immigrant and father of seven.
Mena, believing he is being robbed, confronts the SWAT team with a gun. Police say they fired the eight shots that killed Mena only after Mena ignored repeated warnings to drop his weapon. Mena's family says police never announced themselves, and fired at the man shortly after entry.
The police later discover they've raided the wrong home, based on bad information from an informant. They find no drugs in Mena's house, nor are any later found in his system.
In 2000, a special prosecutor's investigation into the Mena shooting would find no wrongdoing on the part of the SWAT team. A separate internal affairs investigation also cleared the SWAT team of wrongdoing, but did find that the officer who prepared the search warrant for Mena's home had falsified information.
As the shooting gained traction in the media, Denver city officials began to portray Mena as a Mexican criminal refugee wanted for murder (Mena had shot a man in Mexico in self-defense, but was cleared of any wrongdoing), in what critics called a "blame the victim" strategy. Members of the police department also later started a "Spy file" on a citizens' organization agitating for a more thorough investigation of Mena's death. The intelligence unit that kept the files on Mena's supporters was the head of the SWAT team that conducted the raid on Mena's home.
Weeks later, new details began to emerge about the Mena case that called the special prosecutor's conclusions into question. Mena's family eventually hired a former FBI agent named James Kearney to conduct a private investigation into the shooting. Kearney became convinced that Denver police shot Mena without provocation, and planted the gun to cover up the botched raid. Kearney found evidence not uncovered by previous investigations, including two slugs in the floor of Mena's apartment that suggest the raid didn't happen as the SWAT team claims it did.
In 2000, Mena's family finally settled with the city of Denver for $400,000.
Since the Mena shooting, the city of Denver has settled a $1.3 million lawsuit after police shot and killed a developmentally disabled teenager, and face another suit in which police raiding a home in search of a domestic violence suspect shot and killed a man (not the suspect) in bed when they mistook the soda can in his hand for a gun.
In one final, bizarre twist to the Mena case, it was revealed months after the raid that Colorado Rockies second baseman Mike Lansing was permitted to ride along with the SWAT team on the raid ending in Mena's death. Media inquiries later discovered that it's fairly common for members of the Denver baseball team to accompany police on SWAT raids, despite the raids' volatile nature.
Mario Paz.
August 9, 1999—CA
On August 9, 1999, 20 police officers from the El Monte, California SWAT team conduct a late-night raid on the home of 65-year-old Mario Paz. By the end of the raid, Paz is shot in the back by police, and killed.
The police version of events changes several times over the next few weeks. Police first say Paz was armed. They next say he wasn't armed, but was reaching for a gun. Their final account is that Paz was reaching not for a gun, but to open a drawer where a gun was located.
Paz was unarmed when he was shot. Police would later reveal that they had conducted the raid after finding the Paz address on the driver's license, vehicle registration, and an old cell phone bill of suspected drug dealer Marcos Beltran Lizarraga (charges against Lizarraga were subsequently dropped, in part because a videotape of the search of his home turned up blank).
The Paz family explained that Lizarraga had lived next to them in the 1980s, and had convinced Mario Paz to let him receive mail at their residence after he moved. Three weeks after the raid, the El Monte Police Department announced that they had no evidence that anyone in the Paz family was involved in any illicit drug activity, nor did the SWAT team have any reason to think so on the night Paz was shot.
During the raid, police seized more than $10,000 in cash, and announced plans to claim the money for themselves via asset forfeiture laws. Police backed off those plans when the Paz family demonstrated proof that the money was their life savings.
Shortly after the Paz shooting made headlines, El Monte police conducted another raid on the home of an immigrant family. According to a subsequent lawsuit, police confronted Rosa Felix on September 22, 1999. They told her that they knew her family was trafficking drugs, that they had information that she knew Paz, and that unless she gave them incriminating information about Paz, they would handcuff her, arrest her, and take away her children. Felix refused, insisting her only interaction with Paz was from buying used cars from him. No charges were ever filed against Felix.
In October 2001 the officer who shot Paz was exonerated in investigations by both the Department of Justice and the Los Angeles Police Department. A county prosecutor insisted that Officer George Hopkins "acted lawfully in self-defense" during the raid.
In 2002, the city of El Monte settled with the Paz family for $3 million. The city also agreed to 13 conditions put forth by the family, mostly reforms in the way it carries out search warrants and deploys its SWAT team.
Even in agreeing to the settlement, however, many city officials insisted the police did nothing wrong. "We don't view it as whether we were liable for his death," said city attorney Clarke Moseley. "We believe the family was involved [in narcotics trafficking] to some extent."
No member of the Paz family was ever charged with a crime.
Stacy Renae Walker
August 5, 1999—TN
Police in Lexington, Tennessee force entry into the home of Stacie Renae Walker on a drug raid in August 1999. The raid is based on a tip from a "concerned citizen," who claims to have seen methamphetamine and marijuana inside.
Once inside, Deputy Tim Crowe, who has been on the police force for only a week, shoots Renae in the back of the head, killing her. Police would later say Crowe's gun fired when he "tripped."
Police found no drugs or weapons in the home, and later conceded that the entire raid was "a terrible mistake."
Walker's family was later awarded a $100,000 settlement.
Catherine Capps and James Cates.
May 6, 1999—NC
In May of 1999, police in Durham, North Carolina storm the home of 73-year-old Catherine Capps. Also in the house at the time was Capps' friend, 71-year-old James Cates.
Police say they obtained a warrant for the home after a confidential informant claims to have bought crack cocaine from the residence. According to her family, Capps -- the only resident in the house -- had poor vision, was deaf, and "could not even cook an egg without being extremely out of breath."
When police raid the home, they order Cates to stand. Hobbled by a war wound and frightened, Cates stumbles at the order, and falls into a police officer. Sgt. L.C. Smith apparently mistakes Cates' stumble as a lunge for the officer's pistol. Smith responds by punching the elderly man twice in the face.
Cates isn't permitted to use the bathroom during the search, causing him to urinate on himself. Both Cates and Capps are also strip-searched. No drugs are found in the home or on Capps' or Cates' person.
Capps later died from health maladies her family says she incurred during the raid. Police continued to insist they had the correct residence. The only reason Capps was never charged with selling crack cocaine to the informant was that, according to prosecutors, trying her would have required them to release the informant's name.
Subsequent investigations conducted by the Durham Police Department, the FBI, and the local district attorney found no wrongdoing on the part of police.
About six months prior to the Capps-Cates raid, the city of Durham had set up a citizens' review board, in part due to community complaints about other allegations of excessive force on the part of police. But like similar review boards in other parts of the country, proceedings were often conducted in secret, complainants weren't given access to witnesses or evidence, and laws regarding search warrants kept vital information sealed.
When Capps' family attempted to file a complaint with the review board, the board instituted a new rule denying a hearing to any complainant who had sought financial compensation from the city prior to the complaint, and applied the rule retroactively.
Though neither Capps nor her family had asked for any compensation, Cates had, which the review board said was justification for them to refuse to even listen to a complaint about the raid. After complaints from local activist groups, the board relented.
Willie Heard.
February 13, 1999—KS
Police in Osawatomie, Kansas conduct a 1:30 a.m. raid on the home of 46-year-old Willie Heard. Police say they announced themselves, though Heard's daughter, who was home at the time, told the Topeka Capital-Journal, "[A]ll I heard them say was 'Get down! Freeze!'"
Heard awoke, and met officers in his bedroom with a .22-caliber rifle, where one officer opened fire, and shot him dead.
Though the search warrant was for crack cocaine and related paraphernalia, police found only the burnt remnants of an herb that couldn't be tested. If it had been marijuana, it would have barely been enough for two cigarettes.
Prosecutors declined to press charges against the police who conducted the raid. In 2001, Heard's family won a $3.5 million settlement from Miami County and the cities of Osawatomie and Paola. The lawsuit contended that police had targeted the wrong home. At least one member of the SWAT team later apologized to Heard's family for their mistakes.
Christie Green.
December 15, 1998—VA
In December 1998, police in Richmond, Virginia conduct a paramilitary drug raid on an apartment suspected of drug activity. During the raid, Sgt. George Ingram fires a "breaching round" shotgun shell -- intended to blow the locks off of doors -- into the door leading to the apartment's kitchen. Ingram fires five rounds, one of which goes through the door and strikes 18-year-old Christie Green in the chest. Green later dies from her injuries.
Green didn't live at the apartment, and police concede they had no reason to believe she was involved in any drug activity, nor that she knew any was going on in the apartment. Green's family sued both the city of Richmond and the manufacturer of the round, which is designed to dissolve on impact. In 2002, a circuit court jury found that the manufacturer of the round wasn't liable for Green's death. Then, in 2004, a judge in Richmond found that the officer who fired the round wasn't liable, either. Meaning that an innocent woman was killed in a botched raid, and no one was assigned responsibility.
In March 2005, the Virginia State Supreme Court reinstated the case against the city and the officer, ruling that a jury, not a judge, should make the determination of liability. In January 2006, a jury found Officer Ingram grossly negligent in the raid, and awarded the Green family $1.5 million in damages.
Edward C. Reed.
October 22, 1998—VA
The Virginia Beach, Virginia SWAT team shoots Edward C. Reed, a husband, father, and church deacon 12 times, killing him.
Reed was working as a security guard at The Professional Club.
The 3 a.m. raid was carried out under a warrant for the suspicion of gambling. According to police, as they approached the tinted car where Reed was working security and identified themselves, Reed refused to drop his handgun. Reed's family insists that the police version of events is unlikely, given that Reed was a security guard.
More likely, they say, Reed mistakenly believed the raiding officers were attempting to rob the club, particularly given that the club had been robbed months earlier.
Police concede that Reed's last words were, "Why did you shoot me? I was reading a book." An attorney for Reed's family questioned why police would deploy a SWAT team to execute a warrant on a gambling operation. Prosecutors later declined to press felony charges against club owner Darrin Hyman for shooting at the SWAT team, agreeing that Hyman had reason to believe the police were criminal intruders.
Fine. But unless these abusers switch from the violence-inducing alcohol to marijuana, spousal abuse will not decrease. Surely you can agree with that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes - I agree with that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, is there any evidence whatsoever that alcohol drinkers will switch to marijuana? I've seen none.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My wife (who after the age of 40 had become an alcoholic and used to threaten to turn me in to the police for me using cannabis) now practices alcohol abstinence and occasionally partakes of the cannabis herb. I have many friends who seem to have alcoholic tendencies - yet temper their alcohol problem with cannabis use.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ad was a lie.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my humble opinion - more cannabis use will result in less alcohol and other more dangerous substance use - with - a natural result of less domestic and other violence.
Next time you post, put the cannabis down. Your posts are 12' outside the page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the heads up! Maybe some people's text size is set too large. I really thought FR software would perform auto word wrap. I guess any one can be wrong.
Nope, I don't care whether you're a pothead or not.
No matter how bleak the world situation, no matter how much intrigue, death and turmoil aroudn us, you can always count on Oprah Winfred and the "we've lost the WOD" folks to interject a sense of meaninglessness back into reality.
I've seen nothing to convince me that the legalization of cannabis would result in a decrease in the consumption of alcohol.
Actually, I've seen reports of just the opposite -- those who are problem drinkers, when presented with cannabis, will drink AND smoke pot, a nasty combination.
Social drinkers (the vast majority) are not interested in getting high. And who wants to suddenly take up smoking -- especially nowadays?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you provide support for this remark?
Oh - BTW - My wife and I were passing the bong around last night. She had a glass of tea and I had a 12 oz. beer. When we got up this morning - she was telling me that I was "awesome in bed last night".
One couple - a bong - one beer - and left completely out of the multi million dollar war against cannabis users. I'm sure that somewhere in town, there were several citizens that, because they don't have the solid cannabis connections that I do, were sitting around, having several alcoholic beverages, and not nearly so awesome in bed and not feeling nearly as good as I do this morning.
Oh - BTW - I think I made a new joke last night - I had lit a stick of incense and it didn't really smell that great. I asked my wife - "is that incense or a fireworks lighter?"
Should read "multi billion dollar war against cannabis users."
The estimated annual cost to society of drug abuse is $160 billion.
That it's a nasty combination? Or reports that people do both instead of choosing just one?
"My wife and I were passing the bong around last night. She had a glass of tea and I had a 12 oz. beer. When we got up this morning - she was telling me that I was "awesome in bed last night"."
Hmmmm. My wife told me the same thing this morning, and we both had Diet Cokes last night.
But you're not married to Morgan Fairchild like he is!
So, we have maybe a dozen mistakes in 12 million arrests. The lottery has better odds.
Should read "multi billion dollar war against cannabis drug users."
But you'll prolly be HAPPY rubble, unless something else has been added, always a major worry because this stuff exists out of the oversight of regulators who can keep that from happening to, say, coffee or tobacco.
Weed is pretty much self limiting. When was the last time you heard of somebody chain smoking pot.
In 1960 only 6% of 18-25 year olds were estimated to have ever used marijuana. By 2003 46% of all High School seniors had smoked pot.
The promoters of the harmless drug use myth must be delighted.
No no no, you purposely misread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah - Well since this thread about "reefer" - how much is the "cost to society" of cannabis use - and what is the "cost to society" because of the war against those who enjoy the relatively harmless euphoric effects of cannabis?
One factor that goes often unmentioned is that of the wedge that is driven into our society because the U.N. induces the U.S. governments to fight a war against it's own citizens.
When was the last time you heard of somebody chain smoking pot.
When was the last time you heard of somebody concentrating the nicotine levels in their tobacco?
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.