Denver Pot Issue Passes By Thin Margin

Denver Post ^ | Nov. 2, 2005

[Know your rights]

"hemp" as the DEA uses the term is not marijuana

Wrong. 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.

[Know your rights]

disorderly conduct and driving laws JUST HAPPENED to increase upon the advent of Prohibition.

No, Prohibition caused them. Pay attention.

[Mojave]

Prohibition caused them.

Like magic. But it didn't cause any enforcement.

A mountain of assertions...

[Mojave]

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.

[Know your rights]

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?

[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 ... so "hemp" as the DEA uses the term is not marijuana. Your foolish word games won't blind anyone to this obvious truth.

[Mojave]

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.

[Mojave]

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.

[Know your rights]

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.

[Know your rights]

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?

[Mojave]

Windbaggery is hardly a refutation.

An admission?

[Mojave]

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?

[Know your rights]

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.

[Mojave]

You can handle both sides of the debate. Just keep inventing arguments to attribute to me.

[lawnguy]

Mayor John Hickenlooper

I 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.

[Know your rights]

I'm done trying to make sense of your blather. Until you try to communicate, I'll leave you to jabber in peace.

[Mojave]

Poor you.

[MEGoody]

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.

[Know your rights]

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.'