# Vermont Senate Passes Ski Area Bailout



## Abominable (Feb 25, 2016)

http://tinyurl.com/zp4t252


----------



## benski (Feb 25, 2016)

Abominable said:


> http://tinyurl.com/zp4t252



That is an article about marijuana legalization in VT.


----------



## Whitey (Feb 25, 2016)

benski said:


> That is an article about marijuana legalization in VT.



That would probably be considered a VT ski area bailout.    Also a cookie makers subsidy, a grant to the manufacturers of Mountain Dew, a financial transfer to the makers of Doritos, and an outright handout to both Ben and Jerry.


----------



## benski (Feb 25, 2016)

Whitey said:


> That would probably be considered a VT ski area bailout.    Also a cookie makers subsidy, a grant to the manufacturers of Mountain Dew, a financial transfer to the makers of Doritos, and an outright handout to both Ben and Jerry.



I don't see how skiing and weeds are complements. Maybe you could argue weed could draw more people to VT to go skiing. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Whitey (Feb 26, 2016)

benski said:


> I don't see how skiing and weeds are complements.



Scotty - Can you help Ben out with this one?


----------



## Harvey (Feb 26, 2016)

I couldn't find any info on a ski area bailout. Were you kidding or is that happening?


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 26, 2016)

Harvey said:


> I couldn't find any info on a ski area bailout. Were you kidding or is that happening?



He was joking about the pot bill


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Harvey (Feb 26, 2016)

Apologies for being a clueless dork.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 26, 2016)

Harvey said:


> Apologies for being a clueless dork.



I dont think many people "got" it.  I still dont.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 26, 2016)

I read it as it will be a boost to VTs tourism and the additional taxes revenues could mitigate some of the lost revenue from a lousy ski season like this one.

I believe Colorado was on track to take in over $100M in tax revenue from marijuana.


----------



## NYDB (Feb 26, 2016)

Wait....marijuana isn't already legal in VT?


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 26, 2016)

If this bill becomes law, the most annoying thing will be the New Hampshire state trooper permanently stationed at the border on I-93.  I'm going to have to be real careful with my speed.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 26, 2016)

NY DirtBag said:


> Wait....marijuana isn't already legal in VT?



It might as well be.  No where that I've lived on the east coast is it as socially acceptable


----------



## Abominable (Feb 26, 2016)

Yeah, saw the headline and was making a joke, lame as it might be.

Although you'd figure, if all other things were equal, it might sway a few people to choose VT over the Dacks for a weekend trip.


----------



## JimG. (Feb 26, 2016)

Lol


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 26, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> I believe Colorado was on track to take in over $100M in tax revenue from marijuana.



They already have.   Problem is, they haven't hit the rosy & explosive financial predictions some expected, and it does come with a cost.  Typical government, set the bar sky high to get something passed, then set the bar low once it's passed, then claim you "exceed expectations" with the actual figures.     And once other states legalize, the CO tax figures and economic benefit will surely decline, because it's estimated that a lot of the money is actually coming from.........believe it or not........ "marijuana tourism".


----------



## Edd (Feb 26, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> .........believe it or not........ "marijuana tourism".



Believe it.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 26, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> They already have.   Problem is, they haven't hit the rosy & explosive financial predictions some expected, and it does come with a cost.    And once other states legalize, the CO tax figures and economic benefit will surely decline, because it's estimated that a lot of the money is actually coming from.........believe it or not........ "marijuana tourism".



I'm sure tax revenues will go down some when other states legalize, but not as much as you might think.  I see as time marches on and MJ becomes near as socially acceptable as drinking, use rates will go up.   Far more benefits from MJ than alcohol.  Much safer as well.  So the mj industry will steal a lot of business from alcohol.  Probably from big pharmaceutical too.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 26, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm sure tax revenues will go down some when other states legalize, but *not as much as you might think.  I see as time marches on and MJ becomes near as socially acceptable as drinking, use rates will go up*.



How much can user rates go up?  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't know many people dying to smoke marijuana who don't simply because it's not legal.  It's already about the simplest "illegal" thing to find. 

 Plus, once we dramatically increase supply, the price of marijuana will go down (rejoice Scotty!), and perhaps by quite a bit.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 26, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> How much can user rates go up?  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't know many people dying to smoke marijuana who don't simply because it's not legal.  It's already about the simplest "illegal" thing to find.
> 
> Plus, once we dramatically increase supply, the price of marijuana will go down (rejoice Scotty!), and perhaps by quite a bit.



Prices have not gone down in Colorado from what I've heard. 

There are still massive amounts of people, especially outside the Northeast that view marijuana the same way they view cocaine.  I was shocked to find this out when I moved to Ohio.  Those same people drink a ton of booze.  These same people are unaware of edible options to avoid the harms of smoking.  Once more states legalize and the "reefer madness" propaganda wears off, I bet there will be double the population of users as there is today.


----------



## ScottySkis (Feb 26, 2016)

Abominable said:


> Yeah, saw the headline and was making a joke, lame as it might be.
> 
> Although you'd figure, if all other things were equal, it might sway a few people to choose VT over the Dacks for a weekend trip.


Absolutely +420

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 26, 2016)

Prices in Colorado have definitely leveled off. Last year in breckenridge top shelf 1/8s were $50-70, this year they were $35-50. In Denver there is so much competition that they are literally giving it away, $10 grams, freebies for customer loyalty. It's a wonderful new world and I hope the Vermont house doesn't kill this in its tracks. Shumlin is all for it. It's a cash cow and brings a shit ton of black market activity into the taxable market.

fwiw, pot travel was a factor in my Quebec v Vermont decision this week. It does matter to lots of people. 

pot, skiing, and the grateful dead are all good buddies. they all are great alone but also complement each other wonderfully


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 26, 2016)

At least in the beginning, with VTs proximity to such a huge population of people, I bet there will be a massive challenge meeting demand.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 26, 2016)

The way the bill is written, only 30 dispensaries would be allowed and also limited number of grow licenses and no homegrown. I get not wanting to subvert the legal supply chain, but come on, license people to be able to keep a few plants at home. I'd think it would eventually evolve to allow homegrown. Home brewing was illegal once too. So yea, demand would be crazy at first.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Feb 26, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> There are still massive amounts of people, especially outside the Northeast that view marijuana the same way they view cocaine.  I was shocked to find this out when I moved to Ohio.  Those same people drink a ton of booze.  These same people are unaware of edible options to avoid the harms of smoking.  Once more states legalize and the "reefer madness" propaganda wears off, I bet there will be double the population of users as there is today.



I've never used MJ as I hate smoking stuff. That being said, I'm all for legalization since I think imprisoning people for something so benign is absurd.
Then there is the anti-MJ crowd that watches way too much Faux News and grew up with Reefer Madness. My wife's 70yo step-father is in that boat. He is completely convinced legalizing MJ is going to ruin this state as it tears families apart, increases crime, and puts people in the hospital, as well as turning everyone that tries MJ into a heroin addict (since you know MJ is a HUGE gateway drug). 

I just have to shake my head as I try to keep trying to tell him that it sounds like he is describing all of the side effects of Alcohol (I know more people that have tried hard drugs while drunk rather than high).  IMHO the major "Gateway" component of MJ is the illegal part that puts people in close contact with shady people that do that stuff.


----------



## freeski (Feb 26, 2016)

Looks like Vermont will be first in the NE. NH will follow once it realizes how much tax and tourist dollars they are loosing, but it will take years. Agree with Boston and NY next door VT will cash in.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 26, 2016)

Read an article this week about increased hospital visits for marijuana effects this year in Colorado, especially among out of state patients. Observations - more people are likely to seek medical assistance than before because now it's not illegal and there is no fear of arrest at hospital; lots of noobs with no experience who dont know their limits and aren't familiar with the effects; edibles can fuck you up pretty fierce and if you don't know what's happening, that's scary

It's still one of the most benign and harmless "drugs" in history

Last week at loon I asked some ~17 year olds in the gondola if they minded if I burnt a bowl. They said they minded. First time 17 year old boys have ever answered that question in the negative. Usually they're jazzed that I'm gonna share. Squares.


----------



## freeski (Feb 26, 2016)

There is no excuse for the 17 year olds rude behavior.


----------



## Domeskier (Feb 26, 2016)

I would imagine that most politicians would be all for the legalization of substances that rendered their constituents sedated, apathetic and easily manipulated.  Granted, most of my opinions are based on negative stereotypes that I learn from TV.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 26, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> At least in the beginning, with VTs proximity to such a huge population of people, I bet there will be a massive challenge meeting demand.



 I think it will be chaos.   Vermont isn't prepared to handle....well..... pretty much anything if we're being honest....let alone something of this magnitude.



KustyTheKlown said:


> Read an article this week about increased hospital visits for marijuana effects this year in Colorado, especially among out of state patients.



There have been a lot of problems with legal MJ in CO, which is what I meant by it coming with a cost.  Some folks who supported legalized marijuana in CO are now against it / wished they didn't legalize it.  It will be interesting to see what the financial offset is to the $125M in tax it brings in.  The reality is, legalized drugs simply are not the financial boom that drug supporters claim they are, once all the extraneous crap that always pops up is factored in.



from_the_NEK said:


> the major "Gateway" component of MJ is the illegal part that puts people in close contact with shady people that do that stuff.



Whatever it is, there is a correlation.  And it's not surprising.  I think it's quite logical to think someone might dabble with a drug low on the chart, and then decide to move up the chart in terms of harm.   This is obvious.  I dont even understand why pro MJ people take offense to this.  Most people who are hard core 1/5 of Jack a day alcoholics started with cheap watered down beer.  Not that dissimilar a concept.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 26, 2016)

Yeah, except anyone who goes to the hospital because they're too high on pot is just a jackass. Wait it out and eat less next time ("overdoses" are almost always from edibles, and there is no such thing as a fatal overdose)


----------



## Edd (Feb 26, 2016)

Domeskier said:


> I would imagine that most politicians would be all for the legalization of substances that rendered their constituents sedated, apathetic and easily manipulated.



You'd think that, but if you're being lobbied by industries such as alcohol, pharmaceutical, and private prisons, you might be inclined to keep it illegal for as long as possible.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 26, 2016)

I also take issue with marijuana creating an unmotivated and apathetic populace. Thats a pretty lousy old stereotype. Truth is tons of people smoke pot, have jobs and careers and families and responsibilities and are good engaged citizens. I know I've read some studies that have confirmed that people who dabble in drugs tend to be more open minded and intellectually curious than those who maintain a hardline personal prohibition.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 26, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> I think it will be chaos.   Vermont isn't prepared to handle....well..... pretty much anything if we're being honest....let alone something of this magnitude.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Disagree on chaos.  VT embraces and grows cottage industry businesses just fine. Look how quickly and easily breweries are opening all over the state.  The main delay will simply be the linear time it takes to get the crop growing.  That's several months

Regarding costs to society surrounding legalization, I don't think there's anyone denying it.  Sure there are costs, but such is the case with alcohol to an exponentially higher degree. Vastly more dangerous product.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Feb 26, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Whatever it is, there is a correlation.  And it's not surprising.  I think it's quite logical to think someone might dabble with a drug low on the chart, and then decide to move up the chart in terms of harm.   This is obvious.  I dont even understand why pro MJ people take offense to this.  Most people who are hard core 1/5 of Jack a day alcoholics started with cheap watered down beer.  Not that dissimilar a concept.


That is why I said "*major *gateway component". Of course there is always going to be a minor amount of users that look for something stronger no matter what they are doing. They way my step father in-law talks, it is as if EVERYONE who touches MJ is going to go looking for hard core drugs soon after they lay down the bong.

Analogy time: Some skiers aren't happy skiing groomers, so they go into the trees. Some component of those skiers aren't happy skiing trees so they start dropping cliffs, next thing you know they are ski BASE jumping ;-).


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 26, 2016)

I've plateaued at dropping cliffs, the cocaine of skiing. Would never base ski, the heroin of skiing.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Feb 26, 2016)

KustyTheKlown said:


> Yeah, except anyone who goes to the hospital because they're too high on pot is just a jackass. Wait it out and eat less next time ("overdoses" are almost always from edibles, and there is no such thing as a fatal overdose)



An acquaintance of mine who is around 60 did this two weeks ago. He hadn't tried MJ since one time in high school. He kept eating a bunch of edibles since he didn't feel anything. Then it all hit him at once. He couldn't feel his legs, couldn't walk, and ALMOST called an ambulance. I wasn't there, but it is funny to hear him tell the story.


----------



## Edd (Feb 26, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> I think it will be chaos.   Vermont isn't prepared to handle....well..... pretty much anything if we're being honest....let alone something of this magnitude.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's not clear to me what kind of financial offset would counter $125M in tax revenue that would justify making it illegal again. As DHS stated, booze is so much more destructive than pot, they barely belong in the same discussion. Seriously. Ask cops and doctors who they'd rather deal with: a drunk or a stoner. It'll be a stoner every time. That may be why you perceive offense from pro MJ people. Relatively speaking, it's a harmless substance. If you don't understand that, then you're showing ignorance about marijuana, which I don't mean offensively. 

And there's the state of NH, doling out the booze in stores while keeping MJ illegal for some reason? Don't ask the lawmakers why, they won't have an answer that makes any sense at all.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 26, 2016)

We can't have nice things because Jesus and the children


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 26, 2016)

KustyTheKlown said:


> I also take issue with marijuana creating an unmotivated and apathetic populace. *Thats a pretty lousy old stereotype*.



Actually it's pretty conclusively proven fact in terms of long-term, chronic (no pun intended) users, with statistically significant data.   Also proven to decreases language skills and has a memory impact.    Again, this isn't casual once a month users, but frequent users.  

And metabolically speaking, you cant have it both ways - you cant claim marijuana has XYZ all sorts of fantastic pharmacological effects and benefits for humans, and then pretend it's impossible that those same activated cannabinoid receptors in the brain perhaps couldn't lead to some negative effects as well. Same with legal drugs.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 26, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Actually it's pretty conclusively proven fact in terms of long-term, chronic (no pun intended) users, with statistically significant data.   Also proven to decreases language skills and has a memory impact.    Again, this isn't casual once a month users, but frequent users.



Conclusively proven fact. Lol

Show me unbiased data; not a Pfizer sponsored study.

Does it affect some negatively in those ways? Absolutely.  Same with alcohol.  All depends on the individual.  You can't have "conclusive proven facts" when the results vary by individual.  Science doesn't work that way.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 26, 2016)

The harmful effects compared to chronic alcohol use are benign. Bottom line, weed will never kill you or make you chronically ill, and it's connection to lung cancer is tenuous at best. And I suspect the studies you reference are dubiously funded by interested parties, and flies in the face of many peoples' personal experience.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 26, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Show me unbiased data; not a Pfizer sponsored study.



I'm gathering you don't realize how incredibly easy this would be for me to do?    It's not like I didn't used to do this for a living.




KustyTheKlown said:


> The harmful effects compared to chronic alcohol use are benign.



But that's not what you said.  It was a "comparison" statement.

You simply implied that all that.....bad stuff.... from long-term MJ use was merely a "stereotype" (your word).


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 26, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> I'm gathering you don't realize how incredibly easy this would be for me to do?    It's not like I didn't used to do this for a livin).



 Then provide your sources.


----------



## C-Rex (Feb 26, 2016)

My biggest problem with MJ legalization arguments is that they miss the point, and that is:  We shouldn't need a million good reasons to legalize it.  It shouldn't be ILLEGAL in the first place.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 26, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Then provide your sources.



From what decade?  

*The 1970s?*
American Journal of Psychiatry


> RHEA L. DORNBUSH,  MAX FINK, and  ALFRED M. FREEDMANAbstract
> 
> 
> The  effect of high and low doses of marijuana on behavioral and  physiological responses was studied in male medical school volunteers.  Short-term memory, reaction time, EEG, and heart rate were significantly  affected by the higher dose; time estimation and blood sugar were not  differentially affected by either dose.



*The 1980s?*
Miller, Loren L.; Branconnier, Roland J.


> ABSTRACT - The effects of cannabinoids on memory processes are similar to those  found following administration of antimuscarinic drugs and in  neurological patients suffering from deficits in limbic cholinergic  functioning. Cannabinoids have been found to selectively act on the  limbic system, modulating the activity of cholinergic neurons in the  septal-hippocampal pathway.




*The 1990s?
T*he Medical Journal of Australia*
Nahas G  ,      Latour C*



> ABSTRACT - The pathophysiological effects of marijuana smoke and its constituent cannabinoids were reported first from in-vitro and in-vivo experimental studies. Marijuana smoke is mutagenic in the Ames test and in tissue culture and cannabinoids inhibit biosynthesis of macromolecules. In animals, marijuana or delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol  (THC), the intoxicating material it contains, produces symptoms of  neurobehavioural toxicity, disrupts all phases of gonadal or  reproductive function, and is fetotoxic. Smoking marijuana can lead to symptoms of airway obstruction as well as squamous metaplasia. Clinical manifestations of pathophysiology due to marijuana smoking are now being reported. These include: long-term impairment of memory in adolescents; prolonged impairment of psychomotor performance; a sixfold increase in the incidence of schizophrenia; cancer of mouth, jaw, tongue and lung in 19-30 year olds; fetotoxicity; and non-lymphoblastic leukemia in children of marijuana-smoking mothers.




*The 2000s?*

Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior



Robert I Block[SUP]a[/SUP][SUP], [/SUP][SUP], [/SUP], 
Daniel S O'Leary 



> Memory-related blood flow in marijuana users, relative to control  subjects, showed decreases in prefrontal cortex, increases in  memory-relevant regions of cerebellum, and altered lateralization in  hippocampus. Marijuana users differed most in brain activity related to  episodic memory encoding. In learning a word list to criterion over  multiple trials, marijuana users, relative to control subjects, required  means of 2.7 more presentations during initial learning and 3.1 more  presentations during subsequent relearning. In single-trial recall,  marijuana users appeared to rely more on short-term memory, recalling  23% more than control subjects from the end of a list, but 19% less from  the middle. These findings indicate altered memory-related brain  function in marijuana users.



*How about this month?  February 2016?*  Printed by the "Jesus and the children" zealots at far-right (sarcasm)Cambride University.

Psychological Medicine

T. Schoeler, J. Kambeitz, I. Behlke, R. Murray and S. Bhattacharyya




> Results. We found that cannabis use was associated with significantly (_p_ ≤ 0.05) impaired global (_d_ = 0.27) and prospective memory (_d_ = 0.61), verbal immediate (_d_ = 0.40) and delayed (_d_ = 0.36) recall as well as visual recognition (_d_ = 0.41) in healthy individuals, but a better global memory (_d_ = −0.11), visual immediate recall (_d_ = −0.73) and recognition (_d_  = −0.42) in patients. Lower depression scores and younger age appeared  to attenuate the effects of cannabis on memory. Cannabis-using patients  had lower levels of depression and were younger compared with non-using  patients, whilst healthy cannabis-users had higher depression scores  than age-matched non-users. Longer duration of abstinence from cannabis  reduced the effects on memory in healthy and patient users.





This took less than 10 minutes.    Net/net - drugs are bad. MMmmmkay....


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 26, 2016)

We should debate what temperature h20 boils at next.


----------



## mbedle (Feb 26, 2016)

I got a really nice contact high on the gondola this morning at Stowe!!!! lol


----------



## Edd (Feb 26, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> We should debate what temperature h20 boils at next.



Are you advocating for keeping it illegal?  If the answer is yes, than I'm assuming you feel the same about booze.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 26, 2016)

Seriously. It's grasping at straws. The harm is so inconsequential in a world that actively promotes alcohol and cigarette consumption.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 26, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> We should debate what temperature h20 boils at next.



Oh, I'm sure you're the world's foremost expert on water boiling. 
We already know you are Rhodes Scholar on economics, finance, politics, weather, apparently drugs now too.  How do we know? You tell us regularly.

All of the studies paint with too wide a brush.  You can find countless studies showing the same conclusions on alcohol use. Kusty is right.  The stereotypes are tired and inaccurate.  I personally know plenty Doctors, lawyers, college professors, CEOs, people from all walks of life who participate regularly and exhibit none of your "conclusively proven facts."

Alcohol is a drug too. A legal one that's worse for society than marijuana.

Mmmmmkaayyyy.........


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 26, 2016)

Lawyer here. 15 year daily pot smoker.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 26, 2016)

mbedle said:


> I got a really nice contact high on the gondola this morning at Stowe!!!! lol



That's crazy rude, and has happened to me before on several occasions too.  Another, me, me, me, me, me, thing.



Edd said:


> *Are you advocating for keeping it illegal?  *If the answer is yes, than I'm assuming you feel the same about booze.



I think it should be illegal some places and legal other places (i.e. I think it should be a state's rights issue).


----------



## Jcb890 (Feb 26, 2016)

Not sure if it has been mentioned, but I would have to imagine (no data for or against this) that a lot of the reason that marijuana is a gateway drug is that people need to go to someone who may dabble in more than just marijuana.  When said dealer runs low/out of marijuana, they may offer something else, or even if it is just laying around at said person's house, said user may be curious.  Making it legal and having people go to dispensaries removes this.  You're not going to some shady guy who may try and sell you something else or may lace what you're buying with something, etc.

So, in my opinion, legalizing it and selling it under supervision, as in CO, makes it less of a gateway drug than it is now.

Of course, you'll still have those that progress from marijuana to other drugs like some do with alcohol (from crappy beer to pounding hard liquor), but I think it would be lessened overall.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 26, 2016)

If a person wants to smoke on a chairlift or gondola, they should ask the other riders if they mind, and if they mind, the smoker shouldn't smoke. If someone lights up without asking, it's discourteous. If you just sat there stewing about it, you probably should have asked them politely to not smoke on the chair with you. Just be a human being about it.

"States right" sure, but it needs to be federally descheduled so that states truly have the green light to do as they please, and we can end this archaic prohibition against real medical research.


----------



## Jcb890 (Feb 26, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> That's crazy rude, and has happened to me before on several occasions too.  Another, me, me, me, me, me, thing.
> 
> I think it should be illegal some places and legal other places (i.e. I think it should be a state's rights issue).



While I don't agree with your overall stance and opinion on some of this thread, these 2 comments are spot-on, IMO.

Smokers should not be smoking in an enclosed gondola with people they do not know without first asking if they are okay with it.  I feel the same about cigarettes.  Not much you can do if you get in a gondola that someone previously smoked in, but that's different.  I agree it is rude to just light it up, regardless of those sharing a space (gondola) with you.

As far as different by states - this could work.  Many different states have different laws for alcohol - some states have a limit on the ABV (alcohol %) in a beer or liquor.  Something similar could probably be done for marijuana, but it would probably be more along the lines of it just being flat-out recreationally legal vs. illegal in some places, which would be OK too.


----------



## Jcb890 (Feb 26, 2016)

KustyTheKlown said:


> If a person wants to smoke on a chairlift or gondola, they should ask the other riders if they mind, and if they mind, the smoker shouldn't smoke. If someone lights up without asking, it's discourteous. If you just sat there stewing about it, you probably should have asked them politely to not smoke on the chair with you. Just be a human being about it.
> 
> "States right" sure, but it needs to be federally descheduled so that states truly have the green light to do as they please, and we can end this archaic prohibition against real medical research.



Yup.

I'm not a skier, but I'd enjoy sharing a chair/gondola with you some time.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 26, 2016)

Again, it needs to be taken off the controlled substance list at a federal level before states can truly legitimately make the decision for themselves. Right now we have a sympathetic justice department. But if one of these right wing lunatics wins, that could change in a heartbeat


----------



## Edd (Feb 26, 2016)

KustyTheKlown said:


> But if one of these right wing lunatics wins, that could change in a heartbeat



Christie blew my mind when he was spouting off about going after legal weed. I was like "Why in the world would you waste your time....?" He sounded insane. 

I wouldn't worry too hard about any of them winning. It's like watching a slow motion train wreck.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 26, 2016)

Yep, feels good to be on the right side of history for EVERYTHING.


----------



## Jcb890 (Feb 26, 2016)

I don't have the #'s, but didn't CO make so much in taxes that they actually paid people back money from it?


----------



## JimG. (Feb 26, 2016)

KustyTheKlown said:


> Yeah, except anyone who goes to the hospital because they're too high on pot is just a jackass. Wait it out and eat less next time ("overdoses" are almost always from edibles, and there is no such thing as a fatal overdose)



My first experience with edibles was many years ago on a night time train ride from Amsterdam to Paris when I was in college. Chopped a gram of black hash into some spaghetti. Definitely overdid it a bit but the worst thing that happened to me was that I filled out a French crossword in English. And I didn't sleep a wink. But walking through a fairly empty Paris at 6am the next morning was pretty cool.


----------



## DoublePlanker (Feb 26, 2016)

Some real medical research would be nice.  I just can't see how long term usage would not have an adverse affect on a person.

If people want to partake in private, I have no issue.  As pain medicine, probably a lot better than opioids.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 26, 2016)

I don't find much of a pain relief effect. The big medical benefits in my opinion is as an appetite stimulant for chemo/aids patients, and as a dream suppressant for ptsd. my dreams are fucky if I don't smoke. If I had been to war and seen some shit, I'd surely like to quiet my brain at night to sleep. Overall tho, I think medical is a Trojan horse and we'd be better served to stop the California bullshit and go full bore towards rec legal. Tea and herbal remedies have medical properties, but you don't need a prescription to buy earl grey and ginseng


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 26, 2016)

Edd said:


> I wouldn't worry too hard about any of them winning. It's like watching a slow motion train wreck.



Current polling suggests three of the four Republican challengers would defeat Clinton, the only Republican who Clinton defeats is the one who's leading.


----------



## chuckstah (Feb 26, 2016)

Jcb890 said:


> I don't have the #'s, but didn't CO make so much in taxes that they actually paid people back money from it?



Nice timing on the post:grin:


----------



## Edd (Feb 26, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Current polling suggests three of the four Republican challengers would defeat Clinton, the only Republican who Clinton defeats is the one who's leading.



*Edd sticks head in sand and prays Trump wins the nomination*


----------



## ScottySkis (Feb 26, 2016)

Bernie or Nothing will change. Trump made his money from his family. His parents ran getto trump apartments in Brooklyn back in day my mom lived their

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## bdfreetuna (Feb 26, 2016)

Marxism is not the answer for a Constitutional Republic. There's a reason this country is exceptional, even in difficult times, and that ain't it.

As an independent voter I observe that GOP participation is up 30% vs 2008 and Dem participation is down by the same amount. I'm personally not concerned about a Democrat winning. I'm only concerned that Trump will be the GOP ticket.

Waiting for Cruz and Rubio to team up.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 26, 2016)

I'd like to remind folks that we have no politics rule on AZ.  

Let's keep on subject.  No one cares who others are voting for


----------



## ScottySkis (Feb 26, 2016)

https://medicalmarijuana411.com/wat...&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetworkSince 1974 studies have shown that cannabis has anti-tumor effects. The results of the 1974 study, reported in an Aug. 18, 1974, Washington Post newspaper feature, were that cannabis’s component, THC, “slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent.” In 1975 an article in the Journal of the National cancer institute titled “Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids,” they reported that

Lewis lung adenocarcinoma growth was retarded by the oral administrati
Some interest has arisen from a conversation of mine with a stimulating individual on the subject of cannibus, himp, marijuana, or simply weed, and so I wish to summerize my report for ease of reading.

For most of human history, marijuana has been completely legal. It’s not a recently discovered plant, nor is it a long-standing law.

Marijuana is illegal do to Racism, Fear Protection of Corporate Profits, Yellow Journalism, Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or Corrupt Legislators, Personal Career Advancement and Greed. The way it was done was with secret hearings, and word play as well as manipulation of medical studies. The AMA had made a report that had nothing to do with himp, yet Harry Anslinger, not Al something as I told my friend, attempted to make it appear that the American Medical Association was behind Anslinger. However, Dr. William C. Woodard, Legislative Council of the AMA, Cleared up the confusion yet to no avail. The wording used by the bureau was using the term marijuana in the legislation and not publicizing it as a bill about cannabis or hemp. At this point, marijuana (or marihuana) was a sensationalist word used to refer to Mexicans smoking a drug and had not been connected in most people’s minds to the existing cannabis/hemp plant. Thus, many who had legitimate reasons to oppose the bill weren’t even aware of it.

The main people resonsible for the illeagalization of himp are: William Randolph Hearst and Harry J. Anslinger.

Anslinger was an extremely ambitious man, and he recognized the Bureau of Narcotics as an amazing career opportunity.  He immediately realized that opiates and cocaine wouldn’t be enough to help build his agency, so he latched on to marijuana and started to work on making it illegal at the federal level. Anslinger immediately drew upon the themes of racism and violence to draw national attention to the problem he wanted to create. He also used the Newspaper printed by Randolph to spew things like: 

“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use."

"This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."

"You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother."

"Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

 William Randolf Hearst owner of a huge chain of newspapers had lots of reasons to help. First, he hated Mexicans. Second, he had invested heavily in the timber industry and didn’t want to see the development of hemp paper.  Third, he had lost 800,000 acres of timberland to Pancho Villa, a reason why he hated Mexicans.

Some examples from the San Francisco Examiner, the paper owned by Hearst are:

“By the tons it is coming into this country — the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any of its cruel and devastating forms…. Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. Hasheesh makes a murderer who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him….”

“Marihuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days — Hashish goads users to bloodlust.”

And other nationwide columns…

“Users of marijuana become STIMULATED as they inhale the drug and are LIKELY TO DO ANYTHING. Most crimes of violence in this section, especially in country districts are laid to users of that drug.”

“Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug, that nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her victim’s life in Los Angeles?… THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this country today are committed by DOPE SLAVES — that is a matter of cold record.” (Which Is untrue according to AMA)

 “Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men’s shadows and look at a white woman twice.”

Hearst and Anslinger were then supported by Dupont chemical company and various pharmaceutical companies in the effort to outlaw cannabis. Dupont had patented nylon, and wanted hemp removed as competition. The pharmaceutical companies could neither identify nor standardize cannabis dosages, and besides, with cannabis, folks could grow their own medicine and not have to purchase it from large companies.

And that was basically it. Yellow journalism won over medical science.

The committee passed the legislation on. And on the floor of the house, the entire discussion was:

Member from upstate New York: “Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?”

Speaker Rayburn: “I don’t know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it’s a narcotic of some kind.”

“Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?”

Member on the committee jumps up and says: “Their Doctor Wentworth[sic] came down here. They support this bill 100 percent.”

And on the basis of that lie, on August 2, 1937, marijuana became illegal at the federal level.

The entire coverage in the New York Times: “President Roosevelt signed today a bill to curb traffic in the narcotic, marihuana, through heavy taxes on transactions.”


----------



## JimG. (Feb 26, 2016)

Go Scotty!


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 26, 2016)

+1


----------



## Edd (Feb 26, 2016)

Great post, indeed. A law borne of ignorance and bigotry. Awesome.  Explains a lot.


----------



## ironhippy (Feb 26, 2016)

KustyTheKlown said:


> my dreams are fucky if I don't smoke



from what I "hear", this is a problem (or benefit in your case), chronic use suppresses REM sleep and if you stop, the REM sleep comes back in a fury.

I know of someone who quit and it took 6+months for their sleeping to get back near normal, until then they were waking up every 20 - 40 minutes all night, every night. Dream, wake up, go back to sleep, Dream, wake up.. all night for six months. It's exhausting.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 26, 2016)

Edd said:


> *Edd sticks head in sand and prays Trump wins the nomination*



You should.   There's a reason both the DNC and the media are trying to nudge him over the finish line.




deadheadskier said:


> +1



So I see that whole, caring about "non-biased sources" thing works in unidirectional fashion!



ironhippy said:


> from what I "hear", this is a problem (or benefit in your case), chronic use suppresses REM sleep and if you stop, the REM sleep comes back in a fury.
> 
> *I know of someone who quit and it took 6+months for their sleeping to get back near normal*, until then they were waking up every 20 - 40 minutes all night, every night. Dream, wake up, go back to sleep, Dream, wake up.. all night for six months. It's exhausting.



Well, if you want to put a sliver of a silver lining on things, a lot of the pot research concludes that many of the harmful effects can be reversed or at least diminished from peak harm if you quit.  Though how many people honestly quit?  Most of my friends "grew out of it" so to speak, but the ones who didn't use it often.  I don't think they'll ever quit.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 26, 2016)

And you continue to slam MJ while ignoring the fact that Alcohol is far more of a problem in society.  

Are you consistent in thinking alcohol legality should be a state decision as well?  

Somehow I doubt it


And you are completely ignorant if you don't get the racism behind MJ prohibition.


----------



## WoodCore (Feb 26, 2016)

ironhippy said:


> from what I "hear" chronic use suppresses REM sleep and if you stop, the REM sleep comes back in a fury.
> 
> I know of someone who quit and it took 6+months for their sleeping to get back near normal, until then they were waking up every 20 - 40 minutes all night, every night. Dream, wake up, go back to sleep, Dream, wake up.. all night for six months. It's exhausting.



Yup!


----------



## Edd (Feb 26, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> You should.   There's a reason both the DNC and the media are trying to nudge him over the finish line.



I agree. It's probably to insure the least crazy candidate wins. Or, they could elect whoever you want to win.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 26, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> And *you continue to slam MJ while ignoring the fact that Alcohol is far more of a problem *in society.



Actually, point of fact, I never addressed alcohol in this marijuana thread.

 As a rule, I try to avoid Strawman arguments in discussions.

  But if you'd like to start an "Alcohol thread", I'd be happy to discuss it.



deadheadskier said:


> *Are you consistent in thinking alcohol legality should be a state decision as well?*  Somehow I doubt it



Sure!   You doubt incorrectly.

That's a slam-dunk 50-0, but I'm all for it if you can find 50 politicians who would like to immediately end their careers.




deadheadskier said:


> And *you are completely ignorant if you don't get the racism behind MJ prohibition*.



You should advocate for the de-legalization of golf and classical music if you feel so strongly.


----------



## Edd (Feb 26, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Actually, point of fact, I never addressed alcohol in this marijuana.



Why not? It's entirely pertinent, utterly connected. To ignore it would be gross intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## steamboat1 (Feb 26, 2016)

There's a reason they call it dope.


----------



## Los (Feb 26, 2016)

Any adult who thinks that legalizing marijuana is an important issue needs to grow up. The world is crumbling around us and you're spending time passionately fighting for your right to get stoned? Absolutely pathetic. I don't care if it's legal and I don't care if it's illegal. It's not important either way.


----------



## Edd (Feb 26, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> There's a reason they call it dope.



Please elaborate, as I presume you're completely sober?


----------



## Edd (Feb 26, 2016)

Los said:


> Any adult who thinks that legalizing marijuana is an important issue needs to grow up.



I'm glad you think the issue is unimportant. Presumably, you think jailing poor people for possession is unimportant. Thanks for weighing in.


----------



## steamboat1 (Feb 26, 2016)

Edd said:


> I'm glad you think the issue is unimportant. Presumably, you think jailing poor people for possession is unimportant. Thanks for weighing in.



Possession of less than an ounce is a misdemeanor in most states. Just a fine, no jail time.


----------



## Los (Feb 26, 2016)

Edd said:


> I'm glad you think the issue is unimportant. Presumably, you think jailing poor people for possession is unimportant. Thanks for weighing in.



If a person is in possession of something that is illegal, that is their choice. There are about 3 million better ways to help poor people if that's what you're really concerned about. 

I can't believe the right to get stoned has been become a major political issue. It's just another symptom of American decadence. We were a great nation once...


----------



## steamboat1 (Feb 26, 2016)

Edd said:


> Please elaborate, as I presume you're completely sober?



Like WOW man


----------



## Edd (Feb 26, 2016)

Los said:


> I can't believe the right to get stoned has been become a major political issue. It's just another symptom of American decadence. We were a great nation once...



I guess it's over now.  Bummer. Oh, pot.


----------



## Los (Feb 26, 2016)

Edd said:


> I guess it's over now.  Bummer. Oh, pot.



Exactly.


----------



## Edd (Feb 27, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> Possession of less than an ounce is a misdemeanor in most states. Just a fine, no jail time.



Thanks for the correction. Good news, I assume we'd agree.


----------



## Edd (Feb 27, 2016)

Los said:


> Exactly.



Oh, you're choosing to be dense. I understand. To explain, the right to get stoned isn't the issue. What IS the issue, is the right to not have charges pressed against you for something so harmless. What's unfortunate for the poor, is that they can't afford lawyers like perhaps you or I can. The entire exercise benefits zero people and costs us tax dollars.


----------



## steamboat1 (Feb 27, 2016)

Edd said:


> Oh, you're choosing to be dense. I understand. To explain, the right to get stoned isn't the issue. What IS the issue, is the right to not have charges pressed against you for something so harmless. What's unfortunate for the poor, is that they can't afford lawyers like perhaps you or I can. The entire exercise benefits zero people and costs us tax dollars.



Just a fine, same as an open container of alcohol. Talk about dense.


----------



## Los (Feb 27, 2016)

Edd said:


> Oh, you're choosing to be dense. I understand. To explain, the right to get stoned isn't the issue. What IS the issue, is the right to not have charges pressed against you for something so harmless. What's unfortunate for the poor, is that they can't afford lawyers like perhaps you or I can. The entire exercise benefits zero people and costs us tax dollars.



I'm choosing to be dense? What? Edit: It's my opinion that this is all about the right to get to stoned. I understand that you would not characterize the issue that way. 

As for poor people, THAT is a strawman. I didn't read every single post of this 10 page thread, but I don't recall seeing anything about poor people until you responded to my post on page 9. 

And I couldn't afford a lawyer if my life depended on it. So go fuck yourself for presuming you know anything about me.


----------



## Edd (Feb 27, 2016)

Los said:


> I'm choosing to be dense? What? Edit: It's my opinion that this is all about the right to get to stoned. I understand that you would not characterize that way.
> 
> As for poor people, THAT is a strawman. I didn't read every single post of this 10 page thread, but I don't recall seeing anything about poor people until you responded to my post on page 9.
> 
> And I couldn't afford a lawyer if my life depended on it. So go fuck yourself for presuming you know anything about me.



I don't recall seeing anything about American decadence until post #87, when you sadly referred to it. Poor people aren't a straw man, in this discussion. They're the point. Using pot illegality as an excuse, they get fined and jailed much quicker than folks with means. To sum up, again, it's pointless because it does so little harm, relatively speaking.

Forgive me for assuming you could afford a lawyer? It was your lack of sympathy that led me to believe that. My bad.


----------



## ScottySkis (Feb 27, 2016)

day, 21 October 2015
Lies, Damn Lies and Government Statistics



UPDATE 23rd Oct: Home Affairs Select Committee Findings just published: HERE
I wonder if the Government will read, listen and respond!



Besides the fact that Psychoactive Substances Bill is one of the worst pieces of attempted legislation since the Misuse of Drugs Act in 1971 as currently;
Psychoactive is not defined in a way which will satisfy the scientists or the courts
No one is exactly sure which things are legal and which things are not
No one has a clue how police are going to detect or enforce this
The second reading of the Psychoactive Substances Bill in the House of Commons was an eye opening demonstration of how our Government carefully select and accept evidence in support of their actions (or inactions) whilst omitting, ignoring or dismissing evidence that challenges them. Policy driven evidence over evidence driven policy.

NB: The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) (An Expert body who advise the government on drug misuse) strongly recommended the word "novel" be used so as to help with the definition of psychoactive. As they have with most of the ACMD's advice, the Government have chosen to ignore it. 

There are 2 main pieces of data acting as drivers for and underpinning this bill:
129 People Lost their lives to a legal high in 2014
Republic of Ireland Implementation is a success as hospital admissions have reduced
Let's have a closer look at this data:

129 People Lost their lives to a legal high in 2014

In the opening words the owner of this Bill, Mike Penning MP, The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice stated; "Last year 129 people lost their lives in this country because of what they thought was a legal, safe high”

This figure has been taken from the following two documents:
Office Of National Statistics Deaths drug poisoning in Eng and Wales - 69 Deaths
National Records of Scotland - Drug Related Deaths - 60 deaths

Looking more closely at how these figures were reached tells a rather different story:

"Deaths were included where the underlying cause was drug related and one or more new psychoactive substances were mentioned on the death certificate."

So if a person dies with cocaine, alcohol AND a "legal high" in their system, this will be counted. It is merely an association. It is neither a cause, nor a reason.

Then if we look at how "new psychoactive substance" is defined:

"Some of the more common NPS include synthetic cannabinoids (Eg: "spice"), GHB and its precursor GBL, piperazines, cathinones (Eg: mephedrone, benzofurans), and more recently, prescription-type drugs (Eg: benzodiazepine analogues)
Most of these substances are now controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971)." 

This Bill seeks to ban all currently legal and harmful new psychoactive substances and as such should not count substances that are currently controlled, whether that be through regulation (Prescription medications, Tobacco, Caffeine and Alcohol) or through the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) (Cocaine, cannabis, heroin, and those recently added above). No further legislation is required for these.

In fact, only 18 of the 129 deaths in England Scotland and Wales involved substances not already controlled within the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971). Of those 18, there was only a single incident where a "legal high" was the only drug mentioned on the death certificate and as there is no autopsy information we do not know if there were any underlying conditions which could have played a part in that death.

So in terms of the headline figure for deaths in England, Scotland and Wales in 2014 that can be reasonably attributed to legal highs is a qualified 1 and not 129 that is being used to justify the need to act quickly. Many organisations, including the ACMD have tried to highlight this to the government on several occasions without success.  

Republic of Ireland Implementation is working

"There were 102 head shops in Ireland at the time [of implementation], according to the Irish police force, and they have now “virtually disappeared”. The number of clients attending drug treatment services had declined: 368 people received treatment for problems in 2011 and that number fell to 220 in 2012"

Ok, Headshops have certainly disappeared, the drugs, however, have not. The treatment figures have been provided by the NPS Expert Panel Review. No one quite understands why the government chose not to engage with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to provide this expertise on the misuse of some new drugs and instead set up a special hand-picked new panel of other "experts", on whose findings this bill was drawn up.

However, according to the The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA); The EMCDDA exists to provide the EU and its Member States with a factual overview of European drug problems and a solid evidence base to support the drugs debate. Today it offers policymakers the data they need for drawing up informed drug laws and strategies. Its data is used frequently and is quoted in government briefings and the NPS Expert Panel Review documents

"Use of NPS amongst young people (aged 16-24) in Ireland is today the highest in the EU , and has increased since the 2010 ban, from reported lifetime use of 16% in 2011 to 22% in 2014, with reports of a shift to street and online markets" - Source Data HERE

"In Poland where a similar blanket ban was implemented there was initially a rapid decrease in the number of reported ‘legal-high related poisonings’. However, three years after the ban the number of poisonings reports had increased above pre-ban levels, with reports of a shift to street and online markets" - Source Data HERE

To use the "success" of Republic of Ireland as a reason to support this bill is at the very best, irresponsible and rather stupid and at worst, dishonest, which will result in the deaths of many more young people in this country as it has in others.

The Reading of The Bill

So both pieces of data underpinning this bill are fundamentally inaccurate. One might reasonably expect that our Parliamentary process would highlight and address these concerns before the bill could pass - Surely that is what our representatives and commons readings and debates are for, yes?

Well, Monday's Reading of the bill was all the evidence you will ever need to work out the answer to that question:

After Government spokesman, Mike Penning MP completely ignored the initial attempt by Caroline Lucas to raise such concerns, Norman Lamb was the next to try;  “Does he not have any concern that if the effect of the legislation is to hand the entire industry over to organised crime, we may end up with unintended consequences?”

Mike Penning's answer was as short as it was utterly wrong; “It has not happened elsewhere; it did not happen in the Republic of Ireland”

Caroline then tries again;“Why has the lifetime prevalence of the use of novel psychoactive substances among young people there increased from 16% to 22% in the past three years and would it not have been sensible to have done an impact assessment of the situation in Ireland before pressing ahead with the Bill?”

Mike's response is disrespectful, dismissive and irresponsible. He shows no interest whatsoever in the evidence that the bill might do more harm; “The answer is no, because I do not want any more deaths, which will happen if we hold back now and wait for more studies, for more this and for more that.” 

Especially on the basis on 1 questionable death per year if you are not going to accept the evidence of increase in use and harm being presented to you, then taking a little more time to properly understand and confirm the true impact of this bill on the Republic of Ireland before implementing in the UK would surely be the prudent and intelligent path. It might just save some lives.

When Caroline pressed the point once again,  Mike, once again refused to answer or even discuss the data being presented and resorted to a personal insult; “She has a piece of paper in front of her that says that we are all wrong and that she is right....as usual, I am afraid that she is wrong.”

No Mike, she has brought pertinent and compelling evidence to the house which says that this Bill might cause more harm and damage people’s lives and health, and you are dismissing it without any consideration. 

Somewhat ironically, he adds; “At the end of the day, what are we sent to this House to do? It is to protect people, and that is what we will do this evening!”

Long serving Paul Flynn (LAB) asked him about the “ban on khat?”,adding “ The reports are that its use continues, but it has gone underground and become more expensive."

Mike, once again, completely ignored that and all other questions and continued quoting his own unestablished facts and a few anecdotes of harm. He made the point that he knows best as he has been to the Republic of Ireland and "spoken to police and chemists" He appears to be implying that anecdotal conversations are worth more than evidence. Obviously if the opposition to the bill were to produce anecdotal evidence, it would be laughed out of the House. 

Lyn Brown (LAB) took the floor in support of the Bill and re-quoted the same figures as the government had, a number of similar questions were asked trying the other side of the House for a response;

When Paul Flynn repeated the EMCDDA data Lyn did concede that; “it is too early to make a long-term judgement on the success of the Irish model” which is rather odd, being that this bill she is supporting actually makes exactly that judgement.

Norman Lamb asked her; “In Poland, where the same approach is being applied, the number of poisonings has gone up dramatically since the ban came in from 562 cases in 2010 to 1,600 in the first 10 months of 2014. Does that not give her cause to pause in supporting the Bill?

It obviously didn't as she dismissed it as being incomparable to the UK and the Republic of Ireland.

When Norman Lamb repeated the evidence from the EMCDDA on the Republic of Ireland added in the Polish Official Report and added a reference to the Home Office's own International Comparators Report then asked;“Does that not cause the Government to stop and think about the implications of passing the Bill?”, John Mann MP jumped up to intervene, and whilst completely ignoring the other quoted sources, attempted to discredit the EMCDDA and its data. Whilst he was literally yelling about the lack of credibility of the evidence being presented, Norman added; “The Government have not carried out any risk analysis of what happened in Ireland since it introduced a ban, but surely that is exactly what they ought to have done.”

John didn't have an answer to that and so sat down for a while before it was his speech during which he belittled and insulted all those opposing the bill and stated that Norman Lamb had “struggled to evidence his case tonight because the evidence is not there” stating that only "academic" sources were valid, then goes on to describe a number of anecdotes from his local constituency to evidence his own points and justifying the last 45 years of drug policy.

Our government have shown utter contempt for evidence based policy, have shown absolutely no compassion or intelligence and have shown that no matter how compelling evidence is, if it is against their policy they will dismiss or ignore it, no matter how many people might be harmed as a result. 

Whilst many people maybe rather unmoved by this particular subject matter, I would suggest that if the government are prepared to misguide the public with inaccurate statistics and will use policy to drive the evidence in this manner on this subject, imagine how far they might go on something you find really important?


Jeremy Hunt 'misrepresented weekend deaths data'

Jon Liebling – Political Director of United Patients Alliance
Join us/Follow Us/Like Us/Help Us.
Facebook Twitter YouTube Instagram Website

Jon


----------



## steamboat1 (Feb 27, 2016)

Edd said:


> I don't recall seeing anything about American decadence until post #87, when you sadly referred to it.* Poor people aren't a straw man, in this discussion. They're the point. Using pot illegality as an excuse, they get fined and jailed much quicker than folks with means. *To sum up, again, it's pointless because it does so little harm, relatively speaking.
> 
> Forgive me for assuming you could afford a lawyer? It was your lack of sympathy that led me to believe that. My bad.


Not true, you'll get fined or jailed just as quickly for possession of drugs or DWI just as quickly no matter your means.


----------



## Los (Feb 27, 2016)

Edd said:


> I don't recall seeing anything about American decadence until post #87, when you sadly referred to it. Poor people aren't a straw man, in this discussion. They're the point. Using pot illegality as an excuse, they get fined and jailed much quicker than folks with means. To sum up, again, it's pointless because it does so little harm, relatively speaking.



For the record, that may be your point, but you didn't bring it up until page 9 and I don't believe anyone else focused on it. 

I'm done. It doesn't matter anyway. It will soon be legal in all 50 states. At least then I won't have to hear self righteous bullshit about needing to legalize marijuana in order to help poor people.


----------



## steamboat1 (Feb 27, 2016)

Los said:


> For the record, that may be your point, but you didn't bring it up until page 9 and I don't believe anyone else focused on it.
> 
> I'm done. It doesn't matter anyway. It will soon be legal in all 50 states. At least then I won't have to hear self righteous bullshit about needing to legalize marijuana in order to help poor people.




http://www.care2.com/causes/people-on-welfare-less-likely-to-do-drugs-than-those-with-jobs.html


----------



## ScottySkis (Feb 27, 2016)

http://norml.org/library/truth-report
The NORML Truth Report
Get the PDF Version of this Document

NORML's response to the ONDCP (updated)
ONDCP's open letter (PDF)
Email Congress
Write the Drug Czar
Your Government Is Lying To You (Again) About Marijuana - An Updated Refutation of the Drug Czar's "Open Letter to America's Prosecutors"



Introduction

In 2003, NORML published a comprehensive report entitled, "Your Government Is Lying To You (Again) About Marijuana: A Refutation Of The Drug Czar's 'Open Letter To America's Prosecutors.'"

NORML's report publicly addresses an ‘open letter' to America's prosecutors (dated November 1, 2002) from the White House's Scott Burns, Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs for the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). In the letter, Burns insisted, "Nationwide, no drug matches the threat posed by marijuana," and urged law enforcement officials to "aggressively prosecute" marijuana violators. The ONDCP's letter, filled with half-truths and outright lies regarding marijuana's alleged dangers, purposely misrepresented the available research in an attempt to justify federal and state policies that result in the arrest of more than 650,000 Americans annually on minor marijuana possession charges.

Since then, the White House's anti-marijuana propaganda campaign has continued to take on an increasingly alarmist and extremist tone, arguably crossing over any reasonable line of probity. The Bush Administration's latest rhetoric does not qualify as mere exaggeration; they are flat-out lying to the American public about marijuana.

As a result, NORML has updated and greatly expanded our 2003 report. Like our initial paper, the "2005 NORML Truth Report" relies on the federal government's own science, data, and statistics to rebut the Drug Czar's lies and propaganda.

NORML believes there is nothing to be gained by exaggerating claims of marijuana's harms. On the contrary, by overstating marijuana's potential risk, America's policy-makers and law enforcement community undermine their credibility and ability to effectively educate the public of the legitimate harms associated with more dangerous drugs. In addition, exaggerating the dangers associated with the responsible use of marijuana results in the needless arrest of hundreds of thousands of good, productive citizens each year in this country. We cannot remain silent and permit this taxpayer-funded propaganda to occur without a challenge, and we encourage all concerned citizens to refer to this report for the truth and science regarding marijuana and marijuana policy.

It's time to begin an honest public education campaign about the minimal risks presented by marijuana. Let's allow science, not rhetoric, to dictate America's public policy regarding marijuana. As you will see, the facts speak for themselves.

ALLEGATION #1 - "There is a serious drug problem in this country."
ALLEGATION #2 - "Nationwide, no drug matches the threat posed by marijuana."
ALLEGATION #3 - "60 percent of teenagers in treatment have a primary marijuana diagnosis. This means that the addiction to marijuana by our youth exceeds their addiction rates for alcohol, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, ecstasy and all other drugs combined."
ALLEGATION #4 - "We may never rid this country of every crack pipe or marijuana plant. However, research proves that we have made substantial success in reducing drug use in this country."
ALLEGATION #5 - "The truth is that marijuana is not harmless."
ALLEGATION #6 - "As a factor in emergency room visits, marijuana has risen 176 percent since 1994, and now surpasses heroin."
ALLEGATION #7 - "Smoked marijuana leads to changes in the brain similar to those caused by the use of cocaine and heroin."
ALLEGATION #8 - "One recent study involving a roadside check of reckless drivers (not impaired by alcohol) showed that 45 percent tested positive for marijuana."
ALLEGATION #9 - "The truth is that marijuana is addictive. … Marijuana users have an addiction rate of about 10%, and of the 5.6 million drug users who are suffering from illegal drug dependence or abuse, 62 percent are dependent on or abusing marijuana."
ALLEGATION #10 - "Average THC levels rose from less than 1% in the late 1970s to more than 7% in 2001, and sinsemilla potency increased from 6% to 13%, and now reach as high as 33%"
ALLEGATION #11 - "The truth is that marijuana and violence are linked."
ALLEGATION #12 - "The truth is that we aren't imprisoning individuals for just ‘smoking a joint.' … Nationwide, the percentage of those in prison for marijuana possession as their most serious offense is less than half of one percent (0.46%), and those generally involved exceptional circumstances."
ALLEGATION #13 - "The truth is that marijuana is a gateway drug. … People who used marijuana are 8 times more likely to have used cocaine, 15 times more likely to have used heroin, and 5 times more likely to develop a need for treatment of abuse or dependence on ANY drug."
ALLEGATION #14 - "The truth is that marijuana legalization would be a nightmare in America. After Dutch coffee shops started selling marijuana in small quantities, use of the drug nearly tripled … between 1984 and 1996. While our nation's cocaine consumption has decreased by 80 percent over the past 15 years, Europe's has increased … and the Dutch government has started to reconsider its policy."
ALLEGATION #15 - "The truth is that marijuana is not a medicine, and no credible research suggest that it is."
Allen St. Pierre
Executive Director
NORML
Washington, DC
July 21, 2005
director@norml.org

This updated report is written, once again, by NORML Senior Policy Analyst Paul Armentano with research provided by NORML Intern Paul Varnado (Duke University).

Important and timely reports such as this are only made possible when concerned citizens become inv


----------



## Edd (Feb 27, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> Not true, you'll get fined or jailed just as quickly for possession of drugs or DWI just as quickly no matter your means.



But how long will you stay in jail? How good will your defense be? That will depend upon your means.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 27, 2016)

Los said:


> Any adult who thinks that legalizing marijuana is an important issue needs to grow up. The world is crumbling around us and you're spending time passionately fighting for your right to get stoned? Absolutely pathetic.



That's another way to look at it.  It's somewhere between 484 and 838 on the "issues that matter" list, yet you get a lot of morons who act like it's the Manhattan Project, circa 1942.



steamboat1 said:


> http://www.care2.com/causes/people-on-welfare-less-likely-to-do-drugs-than-those-with-jobs.html



This article notes that drug testing of people on Welfare is a net $$$$ maker for the government.


----------



## ironhippy (Feb 27, 2016)

Los said:


> Any adult who thinks that legalizing marijuana is an important issue needs to grow up. The world is crumbling around us and you're spending time passionately fighting for your right to get stoned? Absolutely pathetic. I don't care if it's legal and I don't care if it's illegal. It's not important either way.



But it is important to spend your time arguing on an internet message board dedicated to skiing?

I wouldn't spend too much time judging how others spend their free time.


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 27, 2016)

I've stayed out of this discussion, but I did want to clear up a major misconception.  In Vermont, NOBODY is going to jail for personal use of marijuana.  And I mean NOBODY.  That is a complete straw man argument.

There are some people in jail who have been convicted of marijuana possession.  But they are in jail for something much more serious.  Legalization advocates look at the fact that they were also convicted of possession, and make the assumption that they are in jail because of the possession.  (e.g., by ignoring an armed robbery conviction)  Nothing could be farther from the truth, at least in Vermont.

And to further erode this straw man argument, personal possession is now the equivalent of a traffic ticket.  Jail is not even an option.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 27, 2016)

Good article summing up some of the societal costs and other issues with prohibition

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/2...stice-of-marijuana-arrests.html?referer=&_r=0


----------



## SkiFanE (Feb 27, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Conclusively proven fact. Lol
> 
> Show me unbiased data; not a Pfizer sponsored study.
> 
> Does it affect some negatively in those ways? Absolutely.  Same with alcohol.  All depends on the individual.  You can't have "conclusive proven facts" when the results vary by individual.  Science doesn't work that way.



My job gives me the opportunity to read hospital medical charts. You just made me realize - in over 25 years I've never read one that had a diagnosis of "cannabis consumption", "chronic cannabitus" or "cannabis overdose". But the number of alcohol induced XYZ and obesity (likely due to McDs and twinkies) are prevalent. Lately I've had dealings with the Bariatric Surgery charts. The illnesses and surgeries that we taxpayers pay for this healthcare (b/c most people are paid by govt) blows away any other social costs of MJ. If we are all so concerned about societies health - do statistical analysis on what makes people sick - not based on some idiotic reefer madness scare. And yeah - MJ is cutting into Pharm bottom line - tis a shame.


----------



## Los (Feb 27, 2016)

ironhippy said:


> But it is important to spend your time arguing on an internet message board dedicated to skiing?
> 
> I wouldn't spend too much time judging how others spend their free time.



Touché. In my defense, I had four kids in bed, it was late Friday night, and I couldn't sleep. 

But yeah, reading a book would have been a more productive use of time.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 27, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> I've stayed out of this discussion, but *I did want to clear up a major misconception.  In Vermont, NOBODY is going to jail for personal use of marijuana.  And I mean NOBODY.  That is a complete straw man argument.*



It's a mostly a fake argument, and not just in Vermont, but everywhere.  There is a political entity that attempts to further this false belief, and attach "racism" to it, but the reality is very few people "go to jail" for little amounts of pot.  

 When they do, there's often additional charges (carrying an illegal handgun, etc...) to the MJ, but people who are intentionally trying to misconstrue the statistics to further this false belief as a weaponized political issue, will count this as a "jail for MJ" data point, which completely ignores the real reason they were sent to the clink.


----------



## steamboat1 (Feb 27, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> http://www.care2.com/causes/people-on-welfare-less-likely-to-do-drugs-than-those-with-jobs.html





BenedictGomez said:


> This article notes that drug testing of people on Welfare is a net $$$$ maker for the government.


Reading comprehension problem?

From the article: _"Now, Florida lawmakers are standing by their decision, despite the fact  that it’s costing the state far more money to actually do the testing  than it is saving in not providing benefits"._

​


----------



## steamboat1 (Feb 27, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> I've stayed out of this discussion, but I did want to clear up a major misconception.  In Vermont, NOBODY is going to jail for personal use of marijuana.  And I mean NOBODY.  That is a complete straw man argument.
> 
> And to further erode this straw man argument, personal possession is now the equivalent of a traffic ticket.  Jail is not even an option.



For possession of less than an ounce there's no jail time & just a fine. For possession of more than an ounce or selling any amount there most certainly can be jail time.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/marijuana-laws-and-penalties/Vermont.htm


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 27, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> For possession of less than an ounce there's no jail time & just a fine. For possession of more than an ounce or selling any amount there most certainly can be jail time.
> 
> http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/marijuana-laws-and-penalties/Vermont.htm



That is exactly what I said. In Vermont, there is no potential of jail time for possession of an amount of marijuana consistent with personal use. And for possession of more than 1 ounce, do not confuse a possibility with a probability.


.


----------



## steamboat1 (Feb 27, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> Possession of less than an ounce is a misdemeanor in most states. Just a fine, no jail time.





VTKilarney said:


> That is exactly what I said. In Vermont, there is no potential of jail time for possession of an amount of marijuana consistent with personal use. And for possession of more than 1 ounce, do not confuse a possibility with a probability.
> 
> 
> .




Think I said pretty much the same thing several pages back.


----------



## jaybird (Feb 27, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> Reading comprehension problem?
> 
> From the article: _"Now, Florida lawmakers are standing by their decision, despite the fact  that it’s costing the state far more money to actually do the testing  than it is saving in not providing benefits"._
> 
> ​



Nice catch by Steamboat 

We see it time and again...
Gomes knows nothing about everything.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 27, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> *Reading comprehension problem?*
> 
> From the article: _"Now, Florida lawmakers are standing by their decision, despite the fact  that it’s costing the state far more money to actually do the testing  than it is saving in not providing benefits"._
> 
> ​



Not at all.  

I actually looked into the data linked from the page you referenced to see the actual figures.  Put another way, I wasn't lazy. 



> *Net savings to the state —  $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month’s  worth of rejected applicants.  Over 12 months, the money saved on all  rejected applicants would add up  to $40,800-$98,400* for the cash  assistance program that state analysts  have predicted will cost $178  million this fiscal year.



In the grand scheme of things, admittedly that's such little savings, that it's essentially a wash.   But it should make you wonder why the author you linked either lied or misinterpreted the math given the article clickthrough notes exactly the opposite.


----------



## prsboogie (Feb 27, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> I bet there will be double the population of users as there is today.



Double the number who admit to using.  Geez people don't pay attention now, can't wait!!!


----------



## steamboat1 (Feb 27, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Not at all.
> 
> I actually looked into the data linked from the page you referenced to see the actual figures.  Put another way, I wasn't lazy.
> 
> ...




http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

_"Because  the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be  reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was  $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the  people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.
_
_As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said"._


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Feb 27, 2016)

That makes no sense. So the state reimburses an average of $30 for the test, IF THE TESTEE PASSES, yet it is costing them more than they are saving by not paying the people that don't pass the test, at all? I'd imagine the benefits are much more than $30...


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 27, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> _As a result, the testing* cost the government an extra $45,780*, he said"._



So with updated data it goes from a very slight gain to a very slight loss.  

Okay.  Same thing though.   

 It's completely disingenuous to just leave it as,_ "this is costing money"_ with absolutely no context around it, which is clearly what the author intended to do, which is not shocking since liberals absolutely _hate _this.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 27, 2016)

MEtoVTSkier said:


> That makes no sense. So the state reimburses an average of $30 for the test, IF THE TESTEE PASSES, yet it is costing them more than they are saving by not paying the people that don't pass the test, at all? I'd imagine the benefits are much more than $30...



No, it's definitely mathematically possible since they're not getting a ton of fails.   And if this only cost $46k for an entire year (and in some years will likely make a small sum since it's pretty much breakeven), I'd say that's a rare case of taxpayer money fantastically well-spent.


----------



## steamboat1 (Feb 27, 2016)

MEtoVTSkier said:


> That makes no sense. So the state reimburses an average of $30 for the test, IF THE TESTEE PASSES, yet it is costing them more than they are saving by not paying the people that don't pass the test, at all? I'd imagine the benefits are much more than $30...



Only 2.6% of people either didn't pass the test or refused to take it.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Feb 27, 2016)

> I'd say that's a rare case of taxpayer money fantastically well-spent.



I agree, even though all shapes and forms of government need to drastically cut spending, if it is keeping the users of the program clean, it's a fairly small price to pay.


----------



## ScottySkis (Feb 27, 2016)

MEtoVTSkier said:


> I agree, even though all shapes and forms of government need to drastically cut spending, if it is keeping the users of the program clean, it's a fairly small price to pay.


Except mostly people who use Cannibus are faikd the test. It take up to 30/days for Cannibus to clear someone system. Almost all other narcotics are out of some one system in less then 3 days.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 28, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> Only 2.6% of people either didn't pass the test or refused to take it.



Fraud is often an issue with these types of programs.   Are they monitoring who actually pees in the cup?  

EDIT: I see that they 2.6% does not include people who refused to be tested.


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 28, 2016)

This supports my suspicion that welfare recipients do not use drugs at a drastically lower rate than the overall population:
http://www.saprp.org/pm_keyResFind.cfm

I'm not saying that I support denial of welfare benefits due to drug use.  I'm just saying that the data may not reflect reality due to test manipulation or failure to include refusals.  


.


----------



## steamboat1 (Feb 28, 2016)

http://drugrecognition.com/Use Statistics.htm


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 28, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> EDIT: I see that they 2.6% does not include people who refused to be tested.



Don't you think you can logically conclude that a high percentage of the refusers are people who would fail the test?


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 28, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Don't you think you can logically conclude that a high percentage of the refusers are people who would fail the test?



Sounds logical to me.


.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 28, 2016)

Define high percentage?  How would one even make an estimate?


----------



## steamboat1 (Feb 28, 2016)

In the case of FL. even if you add in the 40 people who refused to take the test it still only comes out to 3.5% who failed.


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 28, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> In the case of FL. even if you add in the 40 people who refused to take the test it still only comes out to 3.5% who failed.



This is where it gets confusing.  Other sources say 1,600 did not submit tests.  

The only thing I know for sure is that people are spinning the data no matter which way they lean.

Reliable data suggests that welfare recipients use drugs at a rate that is consistent with non welfare recipients.  Some studies show slightly less, some studies show slightly more.  I don't see why Florida would be an aberration, which suggests that there is something happening underneath the data.


----------



## steamboat1 (Feb 28, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> This is where it gets confusing.  Other sources say 1,600 did not submit tests.



If that were the case then over 40% failed. Do you believe that?


----------



## Tin (Feb 28, 2016)

I'm amazed this discussion is still happening. Just goes to show you can make numbers show whatever you want depending on your view.


----------



## steamboat1 (Feb 28, 2016)

MEtoVTSkier said:


> I agree, even though all shapes and forms of government need to drastically cut spending, if it is keeping the users of the program clean, it's a fairly small price to pay.


As Scotty pointed out the majority of those who failed the test was because of marijuana. They don't test for alcohol although they should. Here in NYC people who work on the Staten Island Ferry are randomly tested for both drugs & alcohol. I'm not sure if the same applies for other transit workers. They will lose their jobs if they test positive for either.


----------



## steamboat1 (Feb 28, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> Reliable data suggests that welfare recipients use drugs at a rate that is consistent with non welfare recipients.  Some studies show slightly less, some studies show slightly more.*  I don't see why Florida would be an aberration*, which suggests that there is something happening underneath the data.


Florida is not an aberration though. All 7 states that have drug tested welfare recipients had similar results. Florida is not included in these results since they no longer test welfare recipients.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/26/3624447/tanf-drug-testing-states/


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 28, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> Florida is not an aberration though. All 7 states that have drug tested welfare recipients had similar results. Florida is not included in these results since they no longer test welfare recipients.
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/26/3624447/tanf-drug-testing-states/



Did you read that article?  Several states get their figure from a self-reporting questionnaire.  As I said, neither side should be cocky about the quality of the data.  


.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 28, 2016)

Tin said:


> I'm amazed this discussion is still happening. *Just goes to show you can make numbers show whatever you want depending on your view. *



Especially when your "source" is Thinkprogress = LULZ.

Didnt even bother clicking the link, but I'm 100% sure the conclusion was against testing welfare recipients.

It's akin to asking Mark Levin what he thinks about gay marriage and then acting "surprised" that you find he's against it.



VTKilarney said:


> Did you read that article?  *Several states get their figure from a self-reporting questionnaire*.



Shhhh.....  you're not supposed to be intelligent enough to understand the statistical implication of that fact, you're just supposed to blindly accept their ideological conclusion that this is a failure.


----------



## ScottySkis (Feb 28, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> It's a mostly a fake argument, and not just in Vermont, but everywhere.  There is a political entity that attempts to further this false belief, and attach "racism" to it, but the reality is very few people "go to jail" for little amounts of pot.
> 
> When they do, there's often additional charges (carrying an illegal handgun, etc...) to the MJ, but people who are intentionally trying to misconstrue the statistics to further this false belief as a weaponized political issue, will count this as a "jail for MJ" data point, which completely ignores the real reason they were sent to the clink.


h


http://reason.com/archives/2012/02/08/new-yorks-illegal-pot-crackdown
http://marijuana-arrests.com/scandals-nypd.html


----------



## Tin (Feb 28, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Especially when your "source" is Thinkprogress = LULZ.
> 
> Didnt even bother clicking the link, but I'm 100% sure the conclusion was against testing welfare recipients.
> 
> It's akin to asking Mark Levin what he thinks about gay marriage and then acting "surprised" that you find he's against it.




It works in both directions. :wink:


----------



## ScottySkis (Feb 28, 2016)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/t/story?id=95475&page=1#.UFxiia51iUN

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
Man shoot and killed drug raid at wrong house. How much does cost in money death of inconent people this shit is crazy and out of hand.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 28, 2016)

Tin said:


> It works in both directions. :wink:



Yes, that's why I used the specific example that I did.


----------



## Los (Feb 29, 2016)

ScottySkis said:


> http://abcnews.go.com/US/t/story?id=95475&page=1#.UFxiia51iUN
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
> Man shoot and killed drug raid at wrong house. How much does cost in money death of inconent people this shit is crazy and out of hand.



Oh please. If you purchase your drugs illegally then you're part of the problem since you're helping to create a market for criminals to serve. If you really cared about innocent people being shot, you'd stop purchasing drugs on the black market. But that's not what you really care about. You really just want to get stoned and you feel you have a God-given right to do so. That's fine. Just be honest about it. Stop hiding behind "poor people" and crime stories. 

(procrastinating yet again on a Monday morning.... see? we all have our issues and problems...)


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 29, 2016)

there are some bigoted backwards ass conservatards on this site.

so, drugs should be illegal because they are illegal?

yes, the racial aspect of marijuana enforcement is mostly a non-issue on a personal level for the posters of this board, as skiers skew overwhelmingly white. but to ignore the clear class and racial issues in marijuana enforcement is insane. you really just want to be a racist backwards prick and feel you have a god given right to do so. that's fine. just be honest about it.

and if a generally harmless and certainly non-fatal plant with therapeutic value were legalized and available for purchase in legitimate businesses with a hefty sales tax, then pot smokers wouldn't have to resort to patronizing "criminals" and we wouldnt waste millions (billions?) on enforcement that does zero in terms of deterrence. the drug war is a fucking sham and waste of your and my money, especially with regards to marijuana enforcement.

do you hate gay people and women as much as you hate poor and dark people?


----------



## Jcb890 (Feb 29, 2016)

chuckstah said:


> Nice timing on the post:grin:



I didn't even notice.  Awesome :lol:


----------



## Los (Feb 29, 2016)

KustyTheKlown said:


> there are some bigoted backwards ass conservatards on this site.
> 
> yes, the racial aspect of marijuana enforcement is mostly a non-issue on a personal level for the posters of this board, as skiers skew overwhelmingly white. but to ignore the clear class and racial issues in marijuana enforcement is insane. you really just want to be a racist backwards prick and feel you have a god given right to do so. that's fine. just be honest about it.



What? 

Are you the guy who proudly announced that you're an attorney and a pot smoker? Was that supposed to be impressive? Every other person I know is an attorney, including me. Almost anyone can find an accredited law school that will accept them, and among those almost anyone can find a state bar to pass. It's not impressive at all that you're an attorney. It's sad that you think it is. I wasn't going to comment on THAT ridiculous post until I saw the one from just now. 

I was also going to let your other post go where you proudly announced that you wanted to (illegally) smoke a bowl on the gondola at Loon but some "lame" underage kids objected. Wow. Seriously? That is so offensive on so many levels. My kids aren't that old yet, but if I was the father of those kids, I would have hunted you down and beat the living shit out of you. What the fuck is wrong with you?? It's really demented that you thought that was ok. But the icing on the cake is that you're an officer of the court. I hope to God that you're caught one day and that you're disbarred. That would be one less scumbag attorney in practice. Get yourself stoned silly in your own home if you like. On a gondola with underage kids? And you're a FUCKING ATTORNEY? 

You fucking low-life scumbag.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 29, 2016)

lol. calm down conservatard.

"do you guys mind if i smoke a bowl?"
"yes, we mind"
"okay, cool, i won't smoke a bowl"

you know? a polite interaction between human beings. these kids were easily 16-17. i didn't offer your 10 year old heroin.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 29, 2016)

Los said:


> Oh please. If you purchase your drugs illegally then you're part of the problem since you're helping to create a market for criminals to serve. If you really cared about innocent people being shot, you'd stop purchasing drugs on the black market. But that's not what you really care about. You really just want to get stoned and you feel you have a God-given right to do so. That's fine. Just be honest about it. Stop hiding behind "poor people" and crime stories.
> 
> (procrastinating yet again on a Monday morning.... see? we all have our issues and problems...)



He actually partakes both for recreational use and medicinal.  

Not cool to be so judgmental without knowing who you are talking to and their individual circumstances.

My wife uses primarily for medicinal purposes as well.  She has gastro issues where a little puff takes care of it better than any chemical some scientist made up.  Trust me, we tried to go the legal route.  Been to no fewer then a half dozen specialists, had plenty of endoscopic studies, CT-scans and gone through ridiculous discomfort on many different medications with horrific side effects.  Yet, one small puff a few times a day from a natural product of the earth(not "getting stoned") and she is completely fine.  I personally no longer smoke due to employment restrictions, but I have to go black market and be a "criminal" to provide her with the relief she needs.  You think I enjoy taking that risk of purchase and transport?  You think Scotty does?

Now, unfortunately her condition isn't approved by the ignorant and arrogant politicians in Concord. Even if it was, NH can't get its shit together for proper distribution.

So before you start casting judgment on others, why don't you take the time to learn about their individual circumstances.  You don't know Scottys situation, mine and I'm sure numerous others who participate in this forum.


----------



## Los (Feb 29, 2016)

KustyTheKlown said:


> lol. calm down conservatard.
> 
> "do you guys mind if i smoke a bowl?"
> "yes, we mind"
> ...



You are out of your mind if you think that was ok. Yeah, you could have been even more of an irresponsible asshole and just smoked up without even asking them. Congratulations. But the fact that you thought it was even ok to ask... Wow. 16-17 year old kids you say? Holy shit. Again, what the fuck is wrong with you? PLEASE keep doing irresponsible bone-headed things like this. You are bound to get caught and get disbarred. So PLEASE keep acting like a complete fucking irresponsible self centered jerk-off. One less scumbag attorney will be a net positive for everyone... 

Now go smoke a bowl and chase some ambulances. Get to work stoner! 

PS - Good, good, good for those kids. Their parents should be very proud. I wonder if at their age I might have been intimidated by someone much older than me and said yes.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 29, 2016)

calm down conservatard


----------



## Jcb890 (Feb 29, 2016)

Los said:


> You are out of your mind if you think that was ok. Yeah, you could have been even more of an irresponsible asshole and just smoked up without even asking them. Congratulations. But the fact that you thought it was even ok to ask... Wow. 16-17 year old kids you say? Holy shit. Again, what the fuck is wrong with you? PLEASE keep doing irresponsible bone-headed things like this. You are bound to get caught and get disbarred. So PLEASE keep acting like a complete fucking irresponsible self centered jerk-off. One less scumbag attorney will be a net positive for everyone...
> 
> Now go smoke a bowl and chase some ambulances. Get to work stoner!
> 
> PS - Good, good, good for those kids. Their parents should be very proud. I wonder if at their age I might have been intimidated by someone much older than me and said yes.



You do realize these kids also could have been 18 also, right?  When you're 30+ years old, most people "look 16 or 17", yet they may actually be 18, 19, 20 or even 21.  Perhaps Klusty should have carded them also.

I'm not even going to bother getting involved in the rest of this pissing match you guys have going on.

My wife deals with chronic migraines.  She has been to many doctors and clinics and been hospitalized at times before.  Her options boil down to very few because she also has a chronic kidney disease which limits the medicines she can take.

So, her options are to take an opiod - which doesn't actually do anything for the pain or discomfort, only makes you not care about it - and the side effects are terrible.  Or, she can use something more natural.  Her options range from taking medicine which makes her feel even worse when it wears off (brings back the migraine, often times even worse or can bring on its own migraine) and repeated use which can lead to slurring of words and some trouble speaking... which is embarrassing and tough to deal with.  Or... she can use MJ when she needs it.

Opiods are terrible.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 29, 2016)

I'm a migraine sufferer. About 5x a year I get a massive one, auras, numbness, vomiting, the works. Smoking helps a little but I find if I take my prescription barbiturate (fiorinol I think) within 20 minutes of visual auras, I knock it from full blown migraine to mildly annoying headache.

I've heard some very interesting things about microdosing LSD or psilocybin for more chronic migraine sufferers than me, and for cluster headache sufferers


----------



## Los (Feb 29, 2016)

Jcb890 said:


> You do realize these kids also could have been 18 also, right?  When you're 30+ years old, most people "look 16 or 17", yet they may actually be 18, 19, 20 or even 21.  Perhaps Klusty should have carded them also.



Wow, that's a breathtakingly solid argument. You and Krusty must have been law school classmates. "But your honor, they COULD have been 18, 19, 20, or heck, even 21 year olds! What was I supposed to do, CARD THEM?!?!??!" Good luck with that one. I'm sure Krusty's state disciplinary board will be sympathetic as well.  

But in all seriousness, in choosing not to get involved with the pissing match you showed both restraint and wisdom. Traits that Krusty and I severely lack. 

To all those who feel they need marijuana for medicinal purposes, isn't that legal now in most states? If not, it surely will be soon. Nevertheless, it remains the case that if you're purchasing on the black market, you're still contributing to criminality. That's not a judgment, that's a fact.

(Edit: "bar" to "board" - my bad)


----------



## Los (Feb 29, 2016)

KustyTheKlown said:


> I'm a migraine sufferer. About 5x a year I get a massive one, auras, numbness, vomiting, the works. Smoking helps a little but I find if I take my prescription barbiturate (fiorinol I think) within 20 minutes of visual auras, I knock it from full blown migraine to mildly annoying headache.
> 
> I've heard some very interesting things about microdosing LSD or psilocybin for more chronic migraine sufferers than me, and for cluster headache sufferers



Guess you were suffering a migraine attack on the gondola at Loon?


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 29, 2016)

I attended an Emergency Nurses conference recently where one the topics was microdosing Ketamine as an opiate alternative.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 29, 2016)

The conversation is about making it legal so that an extremely common recreational substance with proven medical benefits is available without having to support a criminal market. Are you really that dense? The fact that something is illegal means you cannot support legalization and the regulation and taxation that comes along with that? That's asinine. And no, most medical users in the east are shit out of luck. Most state medical programs in the east are extremely restrictive with not enough doctors or distribution centers for patients to meaningfully benefit. You're a jerk.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 29, 2016)

Ketamine has also been shown to work some wonders on depression patients. K is a weird ass substance


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 29, 2016)

Just a point of fact.  There is already prescription THC.  The commercial name for the drug is Marinol.  The approved uses of the drug are limited, but I just wanted to point out that there is a legal option already.

Marijuana advocates don't argue for expanded use of Marinol.  If they are so confident of the effectiveness of marijuana for medical uses, why would they want to avoid subjecting these claims to FDA analysis?


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 29, 2016)

I don't think anyone is saying that marijuana shouldn't be fully evaluated scientifically by the federal government. It should. It should be taken out of schedule 1 so that there can be free unfettered medical research performed. but my position has always been that medical legalization is a bit of a Trojan horse and that full recreational legalization should be the main focus, and that California's program did a bit of a disservice to everyone because it's so widely abused by people without dire medical need. It's should be like many other herbal supplements which have some medical benefits and which don't require a prescription to purchase


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 29, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> Just a point of fact.  There is already prescription THC.  The commercial name for the drug is Marinol.  The approved uses of the drug are limited, but I just wanted to point out that there is a legal option already.



So, after trying at least a dozen different prescription drugs with horrific side effects, you think my wife is eager to hop right in and try something else that's synthetic?  Who knows what it's cut with.    

There's a plant, it grows in the ground, she uses it at home without bothering anyone.  It works.  This activity she not be illegal.  It's really that simple.


----------



## Los (Feb 29, 2016)

KustyTheKlown said:


> The conversation is about making it legal so that an extremely common recreational substance with proven medical benefits is available without having to support a criminal market. Are you really that dense? The fact that something is illegal means you cannot support legalization and the regulation and taxation that comes along with that? That's asinine. And no, most medical users in the east are shit out of luck. Most state medical programs in the east are extremely restrictive with not enough doctors or distribution centers for patients to meaningfully benefit. You're a jerk.



Ok guy. I support medical marijuana but I could care less about legalizing it for recreational use. There are at least hundreds if not thousands of issues that are more important. Go ahead and legalize it, I could care less. Or not. Either way is fine with me because it's not important. My view is just that most people are more interested in getting high than they are in helping the poor since there are, likewise, hundreds if not thousands of things you could do to REALLY help the poor, if that's what you were actually interested in doing. 

However, what I DO care about is your unimaginably irresponsible personal behavior. Among other insane aspects to it, you BLAMED the KIDS for not allowing you to engage in an illegal activity!!! WHO IS THE JERK???? 

When you have a moment, please provide me with your state bar identification numbers.

(edit - "just" and "please")


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 29, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> There's a plant, it grows in the ground, she uses it at home without bothering anyone.  It works.  This activity she not be illegal.  It's really that simple.



and anyone who says otherwise will, in the next ~10 years, be proven to have been on the wrong side of history


----------



## Jully (Feb 29, 2016)

KustyTheKlown said:


> but my position has always been that medical legalization is a bit of a Trojan horse and that full recreational legalization should be the main focus.
> 
> It's should be like many other herbal supplements which have some medical benefits and which don't require a prescription to purchase





deadheadskier said:


> There's a plant, it grows in the ground, she uses it at home without bothering anyone.  It works.  This activity she not be illegal.  It's really that simple.



Putting it in the realm of a herbal supplement is a very reasonable argument I think. It certainly fits in with DHS's argument about the problems with synthetic drugs and prescriptions and the like. The medical argument has a lot right with it, and there are proven benefits for medical marijuana, but there are also some overstatements and sketchy research (on both sides). Going for full recreational use does eliminate the medical naysayers argument and you stop supporting the criminal market.


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 29, 2016)

KustyTheKlown said:


> but my position has always been that medical legalization is a bit of a Trojan horse and that full recreational legalization should be the main focus


Well said.



deadheadskier said:


> So, after trying at least a dozen different prescription drugs with horrific side effects, you think my wife is eager to hop right in and try something else that's synthetic?  Who knows what it's cut with.
> 
> There's a plant, it grows in the ground, she uses it at home without bothering anyone.  It works.  This activity she not be illegal.  It's really that simple.


The "natural" argument is not at all persuasive.  Arsenic is a natural substance.  So is the botulinum toxin.  You can't, therefore, say that marijuana is better than Marinol merely because it is "natural" rather than synthetic.  A study comparing the effectiveness would be persuasive, and perhaps such a study exists.

Again, full disclosure: This is not an issue that I care deeply about.  I don't smoke marijuana, but I don't care if anyone else smokes it as long as they are not exposing me to it and they are not getting behind a wheel or engaging in other such behavior.  I just see a lot of false claims being made.  Kusty is correct when he says that the focus should be on whether or not recreational use should be legal or not.  Most of the other claims on a macro-level are riddled with hyperbole and/or inaccuracy.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 29, 2016)

calm down man. you're getting really worked up over nothing. your crazy is showing.


----------



## Jully (Feb 29, 2016)

KustyTheKlown said:


> and anyone who says otherwise will, in the next ~10 years, be proven to have been on the wrong side of history



Already the public opinion of marijuana has changed so much. The original government safety warning things from the 70s were quite something...


----------



## Los (Feb 29, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> Was this comment directed at me?????  I was agreeing with you!



No, me. Krusty is upset that I'm calling him out on his illegal, irresponsible behavior knowing that he would get disbarred if his real identity were known.


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 29, 2016)

Jully said:


> Already the public opinion of marijuana has changed so much. The original government safety warning things from the 70s were quite something...



The reality is that it will be legal, or effectively legal, in most of the blue states within our lifetimes.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 29, 2016)

I talked about smoking pot with people certainly old enough to drive and possibly old enough to vote. That's it. I asked a question, I got an answer, and everyone went about their day. I then made a tongue in cheek comment on an Internet message board calling them squares. Calm the fuck down. "Hey New York bar, this guy I've never met made an anonymous comment about not smoking pot on a ski lift! The horror!"


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 29, 2016)

The argument for synthetic is not at all persuasive either.  Something in nature exists that is safe and works perfectly fine.  Why should people be forced to instead use something synthesized in a lab where a pharmaceutical company, doctor and the government all make a profit off of?  Makes zero sense

I'll also add it's insanely expensive to buy both black market or legal MJ.   Quite frankly, I could be growing the stuff for her for pennies on the dollar for what I spend.  

This is not something the government should be trying to prevent.  Even the VT bill doesn't go far enough IMO because it doesn't allow for personal growth.  For about $30 a month in supplies and energy costs, I could produce more than enough for what she needs. We wouldn't be bothering anyone.  Instead, I have to participate in illegal activity and spend five times as much out of pocket.  Can you understand why prohibition might piss me off?


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 29, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> The argument for synthetic is not at all persuasive either.  Something in nature exists that is safe and works perfectly fine.  Why should people be forced to instead use something synthesized in a lab where a pharmaceutical company, doctor and the government all make a profit off of?  Makes zero sense


I didn't say it was.  I merely said that in order to determine whether one was better than the other an actual study would be persuasive rather than anecdotal evidence.  If naturally cultivated THC works better than synthetic THC, then by all means Marinol should be replaced with a natural product.

Having said that, I still maintain that on a macro-level there is a massive amount of hyperbole regarding the medical effectiveness of marijuana.  (I'm not saying that there is hyperbole in your situation.)


----------



## Domeskier (Feb 29, 2016)

Los said:


> No, me. Krusty is upset that I'm calling him out on his illegal, irresponsible behavior knowing that he would get disbarred if his real identity were known.



The real reason he should be disbarred is that he apparently skis 60+ days a year while practicing in NYC.  What's the deal with that!!!:grin:


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 29, 2016)

40. 60 would be impossible for me. I put a lot of miles on the car.


----------



## Los (Feb 29, 2016)

KustyTheKlown said:


> I talked about smoking pot with people certainly old enough to drive and possibly old enough to vote. That's it. I asked a question, I got an answer, and everyone went about their day. I then made a tongue in cheek comment on an Internet message board calling them squares. Calm the fuck down. "Hey New York bar, this guy I've never met made an anonymous comment about not smoking pot on a ski lift! The horror!"



I told myself that I was done, but then you keep making laughable arguments to defend your behavior. This is really pathetic. Do you actually have clients? You're probably going to find yourself slapped with a malpractice suit if you're not disbarred first. Your career is clearly a ticking time bomb.


----------



## Domeskier (Feb 29, 2016)

KustyTheKlown said:


> 40. 60 would be impossible for me. I put a lot of miles on the car.



Nice.


----------



## freeski (Feb 29, 2016)

Los: I hope you get bone cancer. In NH you do not automatically get disbarred for pot.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 29, 2016)

woah dude easy

It's one thing to have differing opinions, it's another to wish cancer on someone.  I know you're basically joking, but we've all been affected by cancer in our lives.  Let's leave that nasty disease out of this.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 29, 2016)

lol

i work in house thankfully. i hated law firm/private practice.


----------



## Jcb890 (Feb 29, 2016)

Los said:


> Wow, that's a breathtakingly solid argument. You and Krusty must have been law school classmates. "But your honor, they COULD have been 18, 19, 20, or heck, even 21 year olds! What was I supposed to do, CARD THEM?!?!??!" Good luck with that one. I'm sure Krusty's state disciplinary board will be sympathetic as well.
> 
> But in all seriousness, in choosing not to get involved with the pissing match you showed both restraint and wisdom. Traits that Krusty and I severely lack.
> 
> ...



Its not an argument.  I'm just saying that odds are probably pretty good the "kids" in question could have been 18 year olds.  Either way, he asked, didn't seem to be an asshole to them or about it in general and in my opinion, generally did the right thing.  If he wants to smoke, it doesn't bother me, nor does it harm me.

Supposedly medical marijuana is legal in MA.  I couldn't tell you where or how to get it or get it prescribed.  Then you still have the stigma of it being federally illegal and in order to get legal medical marijuana, your name and information is then entered and stored in a system, which nobody knows who has access to this.  Who knows if potential employers may be able to see that information?  MJ is still seen as illegal in terms of drug screening for jobs also, so someone who partakes in medical marijuana is not going to be able to get certain clearances and may not even be eligible to apply for other jobs due to pre-employment screening.

Another aspect is doctors and testing.  Like Klusty said, marijuana testing *NEEDS* to be done.  Nobody that is a proponent of marijuana in any form is against testing... from what I have heard/read at least.  Everyone and everything I have heard or read about, people want more testing, want strict laws and guidelines.  I'm all for testing and finding out exactly what or how it is good or bad for us.

Also, you talk about having more important things to do with/for those in need.  Yes, this issue is not life or death for the majority of people.  However, what you are completely dismissing is the positives that legalizing for recreation will bring.  Once legalized and taxed, this will be a cash cow for the government.  Colorado collected so much extra money in taxes that people were actually given money back.  I don't have the #'s, but they brought in a ton of new revenue from it.  All of that money collected in taxes can be used for good - programs for the needy, drug abuse programs, etc.  It is *BILLIONS* of dollars in money that was not there before.  You then also eliminate the black/grey market also because the government and corporations easily have the money and infrastructure to produce and sell the product so that there is no room for illegal activity in the market.  If your average consumer can purchase said product which is the same quality or higher from a legal and viable store/shop, they are not going to go searching for Shady Joe to sell him something else, coming from someone illegally which may be a lesser quality than a possible mass-produced government option.


----------



## Jcb890 (Feb 29, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> woah dude easy
> 
> It's one thing to have differing opinions, it's another to wish cancer on someone.  I know you're basically joking, but we've all been affected by cancer in our lives.  Let's leave that nasty disease out of this.



Yikes!  Everyone should take a step back and relax.  This an important situation to some, but certainly not life or death for the vast majority.


----------



## Jcb890 (Feb 29, 2016)

Los said:


> I told myself that I was done, but then you keep making laughable arguments to defend your behavior. This is really pathetic. Do you actually have clients? You're probably going to find yourself slapped with a malpractice suit if you're not disbarred first. Your career is clearly a ticking time bomb.



Los, i realize you have a stance and are hard-lined on it.  That is completely fine.

However, what has he done that's so bad?  There's probably plenty of lawyers who partake, many of whom have much bigger and more important things on the line than KustyTheKlown (no offense meant).  You never know.  As much as you hate it, he did the right thing in asking if it was OK and then not doing it when he received a response that it was not OK.  In the end, his profession, career, etc. doesn't really matter for this situation, but feel free to keep thinking that lawyers are some super-humans better than everyone else just because they deal with the law.


----------



## Los (Feb 29, 2016)

freeski said:


> Los: I hope you get bone cancer.



Ouch. I wouldn't wish that on anyone especially someone that I don't know. 

I got started with Krusty because he accused me of hating poor people, "dark" people, women, and gays. On top of making his jackass post about his ridiculous behavior on the gondola at Loon.

Anyway, I wish nothing but the best for you and everyone else on this board. Even Krusty (after his inevitable disbarment, that is).


----------



## Los (Feb 29, 2016)

Jcb890 said:


> Los, i realize you have a stance and are hard-lined on it.  That is completely fine.
> 
> However, what has he done that's so bad?  There's probably plenty of lawyers who partake, many of whom have much bigger and more important things on the line than KustyTheKlown (no offense meant).  You never know.  As much as you hate it, he did the right thing in asking if it was OK and then not doing it when he received a response that it was not OK.  In the end, his profession, career, etc. doesn't really matter for this situation, but feel free to keep thinking that lawyers are some super-humans better than everyone else just because they deal with the law.



We'll have to respectfully agree to disagree. Which I'm happy to do. 

Krusty on the other hand is incapable of that. If you disagree with him it's because you hate poor people, "dark" people, women and gays.


----------



## freeski (Feb 29, 2016)

One of the reasons legalization/medical has evolved so quickly is many of the lawyers have become activists. Very shocking to see one that is okay with the status quo especially in the state of NH. I think you should be disbarred for throwing the word around. The world would be a much better place without the pro drug war lawyers.


----------



## Los (Feb 29, 2016)

freeski said:


> One of the reasons legalization/medical has evolved so quickly is many of the lawyers have become activists. Very shocking to see one that is okay with the status quo especially in the state of NH. I think you should be disbarred for throwing the word around. The world would be a much better place without the pro drug war lawyers.



Every sentence in this post is absurd, and I think the poster knows it. So I'm not going to take the bait. I'm out! 

Hope you have a great day freeski!


----------



## steamboat1 (Feb 29, 2016)

Los said:


> Krusty on the other hand is incapable of that. If you disagree with him it's because you hate poor people, "dark" people, women and gays.



That's what libtards do.


----------



## freeski (Feb 29, 2016)

When lawyers are more concerned with the law, "it's illegal" than what is just society looses. The war on drugs is one of the greatest injustices in terms of money wasted and freedom lost, yet some still defend it.


----------



## steamboat1 (Feb 29, 2016)

freeski said:


> When lawyers are more concerned with the law, "it's illegal" than what is just society looses. The war on drugs is one of the greatest injustices in terms of money wasted and freedom lost, yet some still defend it.



Maybe in the case of marijuana but not with harder more addictive drugs.


----------

