Skip to comments.
Denver Pot Issue Passes By Thin Margin
Denver Post ^
| Nov. 2, 2005
Posted on 11/02/2005 7:03:16 AM PST by Wolfie
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320, 321-339 last
To: Mojave
"hemp" as the DEA uses the term is not marijuanaWrong. Your own source stated that parts of the plant were acceptable for "hemp products" and some were not.
The plant is only partially marijuana by the DEA definitions, so I am right. If you're going to play word games, at least play them with some skill.
321
posted on
12/03/2005 11:12:00 AM PST
by
Know your rights
(The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
To: Mojave
disorderly conduct and driving laws JUST HAPPENED to increase upon the advent of Prohibition.No, Prohibition caused them. Pay attention.
322
posted on
12/03/2005 11:20:48 AM PST
by
Know your rights
(The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
To: Know your rights
Prohibition caused them. Like magic. But it didn't cause any enforcement.
A mountain of assertions...
323
posted on
12/03/2005 11:22:39 AM PST
by
Mojave
To: Know your rights
The plant is only partially marijuana by the DEA definitions, so I am right. No, it refutes your assertion. You're trying to be a little bit pregnant.
324
posted on
12/03/2005 11:26:24 AM PST
by
Mojave
To: Mojave
Prohibition caused them.Like magic.
No, through a causal mechanism I have already explained.
But it didn't cause any enforcement.
Your theory is for additional enforcement of laws that predated Prohibition ... a theory there is no obvious reason to find plausible.
What do you hope to accomplish with your misstatements?
325
posted on
12/04/2005 7:37:56 AM PST
by
Know your rights
(The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
To: Mojave
The DEA's position is that "hemp" is portions of the cannabis plant that are excluded from the CSA definition of marijuana ... so "hemp" as the DEA uses the term is not marijuana. Your foolish word games won't blind anyone to this obvious truth.
326
posted on
12/04/2005 7:40:42 AM PST
by
Know your rights
(The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
To: Know your rights
through a causal mechanism I have already explained. Begging is hardly an explanation.
additional enforcement of laws that predated Prohibition
Give the so-called dates.
327
posted on
12/04/2005 10:52:14 AM PST
by
Mojave
To: Know your rights
The DEA's position is that "hemp" is portions of the cannabis plant that are excluded from the CSA definition of marijuana ... Legally permitted "hemp products", for purposes of a specific act.
Take your failure like a man. Or whatever you are.
328
posted on
12/04/2005 10:55:10 AM PST
by
Mojave
To: Mojave
Begging is hardly an explanation.Windbaggery is hardly a refutation.
Give the so-called dates.
The passage I quoted says arrests increased by certain percentages after Prohibition passed, which means there were arrests prior to Prohibition, which means the laws predated Prohibition. QED.
I still wonder what you hopt to accomplish with your silly games.
329
posted on
12/04/2005 1:51:09 PM PST
by
Know your rights
(The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
To: Mojave
Legally permitted "hemp products", for purposes of a specific act.So you're claiming that the CSA may have excluded psychoactive portions of the cannabis plant from its definition of marijuana? Any reason we shuld think that likely?
330
posted on
12/04/2005 1:53:59 PM PST
by
Know your rights
(The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
To: Know your rights
Windbaggery is hardly a refutation. An admission?
331
posted on
12/04/2005 1:55:44 PM PST
by
Mojave
To: Know your rights
So you're claiming that the CSA may have excluded psychoactive portions of the cannabis plant from its definition of marijuana? So you're inventing strawmen?
332
posted on
12/04/2005 2:00:26 PM PST
by
Mojave
To: Mojave
I'm trying to make sense of your blather. But if you're not trying to communicate, I'll leave you to jabber in peace.
333
posted on
12/04/2005 2:23:06 PM PST
by
Know your rights
(The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
To: Know your rights
You can handle both sides of the debate. Just keep inventing arguments to attribute to me.
334
posted on
12/04/2005 2:25:53 PM PST
by
Mojave
To: billorites
Mayor John HickenlooperI hope John doesn't get mixed up with the other Hickenlooper on the ballot.
Denver is an interesting city. Wall to wall libs, old hippies and SUV's as far as the eye can see.
335
posted on
12/04/2005 2:33:36 PM PST
by
lawnguy
(Give me some of your tots!!!)
To: Mojave
I'm done trying to make sense of your blather. Until you try to communicate, I'll leave you to jabber in peace.
336
posted on
12/04/2005 2:44:02 PM PST
by
Know your rights
(The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
To: Know your rights
337
posted on
12/04/2005 3:10:34 PM PST
by
Mojave
To: Know your rights
Is it your opinion that drinkers during Prohibition did not for some reason respond to this incentive.People did (and do) drink as much as they wanted. They didn't purchase enough for a couple of weeks, then suddenly get scared and drink it all down at once.
And that link you provided - interesting, but where is the information about how these figures were compiled so that we can know that the information on increased consumption and spending is accurate? And how do we know that prohibition was the factor which caused increased crime, e.g. homocides?
By the way, in reading the link you provided, it seems clear to me that arrests for drunk driving and disorderly conduct went up because enforcement went up, not because the use of alcohol increased.
338
posted on
12/05/2005 9:52:37 AM PST
by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: MEGoody
They didn't purchase enough for a couple of weeks, then suddenly get scared and drink it all down at once.Nor do users of currently illegal drugs ... but like drinkers during Prohibition they use a substantial dose as quickly as they can.
And that link you provided - interesting, but where is the information about how these figures were compiled so that we can know that the information on increased consumption and spending is accurate?
I've met my burden of proof; you want to challenge my sources, that's YOUR homework.
And how do we know that prohibition was the factor which caused increased crime, e.g. homocides?
Where is the more plausible alternative explanation?
By the way, in reading the link you provided, it seems clear to me that arrests for drunk driving and disorderly conduct went up because enforcement went up
It's "clear" to you even though it says nothing of the sort ... typical WOD 'logic.'
339
posted on
12/06/2005 2:57:54 PM PST
by
Know your rights
(The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320, 321-339 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson