(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/j1_zpsac067741.png)
Uruguay is set to become the first country in the world to legalize the sale of marijuana at a market price of US$1 a gram. The bill is expected to pass through the senate in November, bringing the $40 million industry under state control.
The legislation was passed through the lower house earlier this year in August and backed by President Jose Mujica's government. The measure is part of an initiative to combat the illegal drugs trade in Latin America and curtail cartel violence, which has decimated parts of the region.
Lawmakers have agreed at an initial price of $1 per gram of the drug, a price that aims to compete with the illegal market value, which currently stands at around $1.40 for a gram.
National Drug Board chief Jose Calzada told Uruguayan newspaper El Pais that bringing the industry under state control "will provide a safe place to buy, a good quality product and moreover will sell at a standard price."
He assured that one gram is enough for "one large joint and three slimmer ones," stating the first legal marijuana crop should hit the market in the middle of 2014.
The legislation stipulates a number of conditions that will govern the sale of the drug. Uruguayan citizens will be required to register in a private database to be able to purchase marijuana and will be restricted to 40 grams each per month.
Moreover, citizens will legally be allowed to cultivate six marijuana plants per head or band together and organize a club of up to 45 members with the possibility of growing 99 plants.
The Uruguayan state will also offer advice to marijuana users on the drug's consumption.
"As well as smoking marijuana in a cigarette, you can also vaporize it - which is much less harmful - or consume it in food like brownies," said Calzada.
There are still a number of details to finalize in the Uruguayan bill to legalize marijuana. At present no money has been allocated to finance the new director for the Institute for the Regulation and Control of Cannabis.
The initiative has also hit upon opposition politicians who released a poll over the summer that claimed that 60 per cent of the country's population was against the idea.
The National Drug Board estimates that there are around 120,000 marijuana users in Uruguay from a population of 3.3 million. Consumer groups estimate that the figure as higher, putting the number of users at around 200,000.
The board has also calculated that about 20 hectares will be needed in order to satisfy demand. As part of the initiative, the Uruguayan government will give licenses to private businesses, which will be allowed to cultivate on state-controlled land.
Source
http://rt.com/news/uruguay-legalizes-marijuana-dollar-530/
I'm moving to Uruguay - $1 a gram :o
I'm paying £10 per gram on the UK black market!!!!
Awesome title BTW aha.
Quote from: Sinny on October 22, 2013, 12:18:59 PM
I'm moving to Uruguay - $1 a gram :o
I'm paying £10 per gram on the UK black market!!!!
Awesome title BTW aha.
Ha Ha Sinny :D
Theres talk of California doing the same in 2016.. Its gonna happen sooner or later what with all the legal highs flying around.
Why dont they just tax the stuff and take it out of the black market.
Its going to be a long haul for the uk though with the old bbc mentality
and the tories.
One day Sinny.
Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on October 22, 2013, 12:27:52 PM
Why dont they just tax the stuff and take it out of the black market.
Answer $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, Simple. More money to make while black.
Hum 1 ounce = 28.34 grams. Way back on the way back machine of life an ounce used to cost 20 bucks. Inflation due to politics...? I know, I am old...
Quote from: deuem on October 22, 2013, 01:04:29 PM
Answer $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, Simple. More money to make while black.
Hum 1 ounce = 28.34 grams. Way back on the way back machine of life an ounce used to cost 20 bucks. Inflation due to politics...? I know, I am old...
This will date me...I can remember $10 oz. We called them "lids".
The reason weed is not legal in Calif. is because at the last election the growers banded together to defeat the measure. The reason: they make more money on the black market than if legal. They didn't even try to hide this fact,
And, yes, eventually the ordinary person, "us" the people will get it our way...Maybe next election. Course, then there is the great state of Texas...sigh...I really should move back to Spokane, Wa.
The thing is now with autoflowering plants its so easy to grow yourself.
No special lights needed just a window sill and a bit of patience.
Thats gotta be the way forward.
Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on October 22, 2013, 03:10:20 PM
The thing is now with autoflowering plants its so easy to grow yourself.
No special lights needed just a window sill and a bit of patience.
Thats gotta be the way forward.
Post me some of these @Autoflowering' plants ;D
Quote from: Sinny on October 22, 2013, 03:59:02 PM
Post me some of these @Autoflowering' plants ;D
You should give it a go Sinny its a doddle. Ive got a little white widow on my south facing window sill at the mo. I keep the pot really small to keep the plant small and inconspicuous. Its actually the size of a baked bean tin. No lights, just tap water and wait. Great fun.
Quote from: Sinny on October 22, 2013, 12:18:59 PM
I'm moving to Uruguay - $1 a gram :o
I'm paying £10 per gram on the UK black market!!!!
Awesome title BTW aha.
Ah but is it skunk or is it cabbage .... that is the question ... ;D
One Dollar a gram sounds like cabbage low grade .... Ten Quid gets you one gram of Stinky Super Skunk.
Pricing should be in accordance with strength just like booze .... then Flavor .... then Quantity .... I expect this will become the case naturally in Uruguay as the market develops just like any other product.
C..
Quote from: Anthra on October 22, 2013, 02:11:48 PM
This will date me...I can remember $10 oz. We called them "lids".
Heh. When I was in college, it was $10 a lid...
Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on October 22, 2013, 11:39:48 AM
The legislation stipulates a number of conditions that will govern the sale of the drug. Uruguayan citizens will be required to register in a private database to be able to purchase marijuana and will be restricted to 40 grams each per month.
As I wrote about this before, if getting rid of the dealers is the goal, they should not cap consumption per month. I knew people in Nimbin who would smoke 40 grams in ten to fourteen days, let alone a month. I could only afford five grams per fortnight, and I had to mix that heavily with other herbs to make it last, and I was only smoking about four joints per week, most of the time.
If I have my way, when I am going to smoke, I will ideally want one gram a night, in two joints spaced out over 4-6 hours. When I smoke, I don't do so to get stoned out of my mind, but for marijuana's soothing and overall positive effect on my mood, which I will still notice for close to the next two days after smoking. A heavy smoker could fairly easily go through five grams in a weekend, without two much trouble. That is only 10 medium sized joints.
So if they cap it at 40 grams a month, they are still going to have dealers, for heavy smokers at least. Still, it's a major step in the right direction.
Quote from: deuem on October 22, 2013, 01:04:29 PM
Answer $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, Simple. More money to make while black.
Hum 1 ounce = 28.34 grams. Way back on the way back machine of life an ounce used to cost 20 bucks. Inflation due to politics...? I know, I am old...
An ounce in Nimbin now would be $200 AUD, and here in Victoria is $320. Victoria is one of the most repressive drug jurisdictions on the planet, so the extra money is mostly hazard pay. The government are silly making things so strict, though; there was lethal violence around my place in Sunbury, with people getting stabbed and shot, and it was all over weed, from what I heard.
Criminalisation is not the way to deal with drugs. I am not saying that every drug should be in the hands of anyone, no. I still think LSD should be only available to over 18s, and heroin, cocaine, and speed ideally should not be used by anyone, because all they really do is either kill people, or in the case of speed, make people violent. Still, people are going to take them.
Quote from: Amaterasu on October 22, 2013, 06:07:53 PM
Heh. When I was in college, it was $10 a lid...
Yep...college dayz...Would visit Haight street in San Francisco. Dinosaurs roamed the land then ya know :)
Yes, I seem to recall... LOL!
I was in LA at the time.
$1.00 per gram...
GMO product laced with pesticides :D
Enjoy :P
Question... can you post while high? or will Pegasus become deserted :P
Why would someone want to leave Peggy?
You silly billy. :)
Quote from: zorgon on October 22, 2013, 08:32:08 PM
Question... can you post while high? or will Pegasus become deserted :P
Yes, absolutely!
sinny the seed co is in yalls country.only order stealth or the seeds will not grow.auto flower is fine but you got to keep buying their seed.thats why i buy regular and cull the males.my fav co is marijuana seeds nl.always good price and reliable.no games.auto flower is twice the price of reg.
I live in Holland, remember?
1 gram of anything they grow over here, taken at once, will blow your head off :o
Dutch weed has been classed as a 'class A drug' in the U.K. 8)
You ever see that documentary where this kid had a nervous disease (similar to Stephen Hawking) who is confined to a wheelchair....
Once a month, he takes an Ectsasy pill, with parental consent, & he jumps out of his wheelcchair, walks, talks, moves, like the rest of us ;D
Then the drugs wear off & he turns into a cabbage again.
Really sad to watch............
Doctors are still trying to discover why that particular drug works the way it does, most of them shun it simply because it's 'illegal' yet they know very little about it, for that very same reason.
A lesson to us all: Study the product, before you buy it 8) 8)
Quoteauthor=zorgon
Question... can you post while high? or will Pegasus become deserted :P
It will continue exactly as it is now... :c)
And if they legalise it according to strength, I'm quids in, I can get ten joints to a gram and make a gram last two days. And that so called dank skunk is NOTHING compared to a half decent hashish when it comes to quality of high and flavour..
(So it is said)
FB.
A lot of issues on this general subject have been discussed here before. There are multiple "public cancers" associated with recreational drugs, and there is not an acceptable "cure" for any of them. But in the end, any real success must be with actions that address the ranking "cancers" (problems).
In my opinion, "half-assed" addressing any aspect of this very real problem, will result similarly with "half-assed" results!!!
Take this as a for instance: The illegal organized drug trafficking is absolutely a NUMBER 1 PHYSICAL CANCER ON THE BUTT OF THIS WORLD!! This cancer will not be successfully addressed by simply charging a slightly lower "competitive price" for the marijuana, such as is the noted action by Uruguay - ie "Lawmakers have agreed at an initial price of $1 per gram of the drug, a price that aims to compete with the illegal market value, which currently stands at around $1.40 for a gram". The real price to the public must be at a very very low level to drive/force the illegals totally out of business.
Sure, low priced drugs may squeeze out the illegal traffickers, but this drug balloon can stretch out to cheap drugs, making it easier for the public buy and use, even with more people using - yep, an already existing cancer to deal with in new ways that can produce significant reductions in users.
ETC! ETC! ETC!
Much needs to be done relative to all such drugs, and it needs to be done in a way that successfully addresses every aspect of the problem(s). :)
militias were strong because of alcohol tax.then the gov caim in and taxed it.militias died.to much money in black markets.and legal ones when it comes to weed.uraquays dollar gram would flood the market and take the profit out of it.as far as i can see.this is the best way.heaven on earth.only they arent going far enough.they are only growing twenty hectars.that is not enough to flood the market and hold at that level for a year.
On the medical use, I've seem little mention here. In just this last year the primary reason for smoking, for me anyway, has shifted somewhat. I still enjoy it for recreational purpose, and of course for its "focus" enhancement properties, but, I've come to appreciate what are in reality it more important properties.
Weed lowers my blood sugar, and at the same time seems to be controlling blood insulin levels.
It helps to regulate intra-ocular pressure; helping to preserve my crappy eye sight.
It helps to regulate blood pressure.
It appears to suppress the onset of Alzheimer's and may prevent it.
It helps to make arthritis tolerable.
The whole idea of though of "government weed" reminds me of my college days and "Pakistani Hash" complete with "Government seal"...
Had for a while an ounce; about 3 inch "puck" with Pakistan government sear embossed in it.
Quote from: rdunk on October 23, 2013, 12:59:48 AM
A lot of issues on this general subject have been discussed here before. There are multiple "public cancers" associated with recreational drugs, and there is not an acceptable "cure" for any of them. But in the end, any real success must be with actions that address the ranking "cancers" (problems).
What cancers are these? The only problems *I* see are the ones created by prohibition:
- Turf wars
- Adulterated product
- Police corruption
- People who cause no problems but are caught possessing thrown out of functional contribution into prison, destroying families, and lives
- Pushing to children
- Police in "war zones"
- Disenfranchisement
- Distrust of police (before the drug war We had friendly neighborhood cops - now We have pigs)
- Vast amounts spent on incarceration (to the profit of the prison industrial complex profiteers)
QuoteIn my opinion, "half-assed" addressing any aspect of this very real problem, will result similarly with "half-assed" results!!!
Take this as a for instance: The illegal organized drug trafficking is absolutely a NUMBER 1 PHYSICAL CANCER ON THE BUTT OF THIS WORLD!! This cancer will not be successfully addressed by simply charging a slightly lower "competitive price" for the marijuana, such as is the noted action by Uruguay - ie "Lawmakers have agreed at an initial price of $1 per gram of the drug, a price that aims to compete with the illegal market value, which currently stands at around $1.40 for a gram". The real price to the public must be at a very very low level to drive/force the illegals totally out of business.
Sure, low priced drugs may squeeze out the illegal traffickers, but this drug balloon can stretch out to cheap drugs, making it easier for the public buy and use, even with more people using - yep, an already existing cancer to deal with in new ways that can produce significant reductions in users.
What "already existing cancer?" Using drugs? Before the drug war, maybe .01% chose hard drugs - that increased dramatically after the "war" was declared. The cannabis users are NOT a problem. Period.
QuoteETC! ETC! ETC!
Much needs to be done relative to all such drugs, and it needs to be done in a way that successfully addresses every aspect of the problem(s). :)
Define the problem(s) beyond prohibition...
Amy that post was a hunka hunka burnin love girl.
Have some smokey gold :).
Quote from: Amaterasu on October 23, 2013, 07:18:52 PM
What cancers are these? The only problems *I* see are the ones created by prohibition:
Most of those problems were removed in Portugal when possession of drugs was decriminalized. Users are not arrested, they are sent to social services, where they are presented with the option of getting treatment or not, drug sellers are arrested, as selling is still a crime.
When I think about it, I haven't seen someone with that typical drug addict look in my town for some three years.
Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on October 23, 2013, 09:19:25 PM
Amy that post was a hunka hunka burnin love girl.
Have some smokey gold :).
Thanks, Elvis! Another gold that I know why I got it!
Sadly, My gold total is no longer gross. [grin]
I thought anyone not high already, would understand what the cancers relative to drugs are - it is all of the problems you want to drum up relative to the recreational drugs, for both users and non-users.
"Gazillions" of robberies of non-users (and users) occur each year, by people hooked on whatever, trying to find money for that next hit. That is a huge huge cancer!
Then after being hooked long enough on some of them, then it is off to the hospitals and psyco wards, with families trying to get help for their addict relatives. Actually, there are "industries" devoted to trying to help those who are unable to help themselves. Huge cancer!
Gang and mob related cancers!
Huge waste of law enforcement resources at every level, including incarceration - huge cancer.
People killed and injured in accidents related to recreational drug use.
The extreme and unknowable wast of financial resources for just the use of drugs - huge cancer!
And on and on ad infinitum! And whether anyone admits to it or not, drug use can be worse for a user than most any real cancer, because drugs deal directly with the brain!! And that is where it all starts, and in many cases that is where it ends, for the user
I saw first hand the law enforcement/drug user cancesr several years ago, while serving on a county grand jury for six months. Probably 75% of the "business" conducted by the grand jury was drug related.
So, Rdunk you've never used drugs, nor do you have any friends who do then?
Apart from alcohol, cigarettes, tranquillisers etc, which aren't really "drugs" are they?
So you are talking about ILLEGAL drugs, must be.
That would be stuff like ecstasy and cannabis, then. Shall we go and get some facts about which destroys more lives?
Cannabis toxicity no known fatal dose. Alcohol toxicity well known to kill directly and indirectly many many thousands of people per year.
Ecstasy toxicity 10 deaths in the eight years when it was REALLY popular, shall we compare its safety to any drug you'd care to find in the chemists? Especially when you factor in the completely unregulated doses, strengths and consistencies of the street drug plus the lack of qualifications on behalf of the administering non-physicians.
Drugs are a classic example of complete bullshit being accepted as fact by an ignorant public, and where the acquisition of sufficient facts and experience to refute the lies is and illegal act in and of itself.
The "cancer" you speak of in the main is caused by the illegality and ignorance and not the substance itself I think you will find.
FB.
pot is like UFOs, everything you have been told is a lie.
The Alcohol companies lobbied DC to get it off the market because they were going to lose BIG money. Big Booze won. Pot died. It went black. Pot is natural, Booze is man made.
I have lost many friends to booze. None to pot.
Now I haven't even seen it in almost 30 years and you go straight to jail here for having any but it is mother natures little helper. Booze kills.......
The Ecstacy here kills also. People make it and get it wrong. Would not touch it with a 100 meter pole. But I have seen it at the younger people discos. I think I am too old to even think about it now. But I will say that when I was young it was legal and I saw no problems. People want what is not and they go after it.....
Quote from: rdunk on October 24, 2013, 12:53:38 AM
"Gazillions" of robberies of non-users (and users) occur each year, by people hooked on whatever, trying to find money for that next hit. That is a huge huge cancer!
Which would stop if its available legally at a fair price :D
QuoteThen after being hooked long enough on some of them, then it is off to the hospitals and psyco wards, with families trying to get help for their addict relatives. Actually, there are "industries" devoted to trying to help those who are unable to help themselves. Huge cancer!
I know two friends hooked on prescription pain killers, I know one person that is hooked on cutting themselves... but there would be a LOT less people hooked on those recreational drugs if we made it legal and eliminated the pushers
QuoteGang and mob related cancers!
Gangs and mobs only hold sway when there is a big black market Capone and buddies came about because of Prohibition... faded away when booze was legal again
Gags and mobs exist because of the demand for supply and there is a lot of money in that demand
QuoteHuge waste of law enforcement resources at every level, including incarceration - huge cancer.
True BILLIONS spent on the war on drugs, jails filled with people possessing a small amount of weed while defense lawyers get rich and private jails get rich. Make it legal, no need for all that wasted law enforcement :D
People killed and injured in accidents related to recreational drug use.
QuoteAnd on and on ad infinitum! And whether anyone admits to it or not, drug use can be worse for a user than most any real cancer, because drugs deal directly with the brain!! And that is where it all starts, and in many cases that is where it ends, for the user
I have seen as much damage dome from people obsessed with religion. Religion is a drug for millions and many of those fanatics also turn violent
QuoteI saw first hand the law enforcement/drug user cancesr several years ago, while serving on a county grand jury for six months. Probably 75% of the "business" conducted by the grand jury was drug related.
Well legalization and control will eliminate most of that. People will tend towards the legal drugs if available and they will be taxable.
The problem is that the Government makes 10 times as much money off the illegal drugs as they would if they were legal. Where do you think all those trillions of dollars the DoD spends comes from? There are not enough tax payers in the USA to account for it
Opium fields Afghanistan with US Soldier(http://www.novini.bg/uploads/news_pictures/2013-06/orig/golqmo-kolichestvo-opium-zadyrjaha-v-pakistan-127853.jpg)
Quote Opium production in Afghanistan has been on the rise since U.S. occupation started in 2001. Based on UNODC data, there has been more opium poppy cultivation in each of the past four growing seasons (2004–2007) than in any one year during Taliban rule. Also, more land is now used for opium in Afghanistan than for coca cultivation in Latin America. In 2007, 92% of the non-pharmaceutical-grade opiates on the world market originated in Afghanistan. This amounts to an export value of about $4 billion, with a quarter being earned by opium farmers and the rest going to district officials, insurgents, warlords, and drug traffickers. In the seven years (1994–2000) prior to a Taliban opium ban, the Afghan farmers' share of gross income from opium was divided among 200,000 families. In addition to opiates, Afghanistan is also the largest producer of cannabis (mostly as hashish) in the world
The Talibans BANNED opium so why is production on an annual INCREASE since we sent our troups there?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan
CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the USDon't forget THIS one...
QuoteThe involvement of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in cocaine trafficking in Central America during the Reagan Administration as part of the Contra war in Nicaragua has been the subject of several official and journalistic investigations since the mid-1980s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_Contras_cocaine_trafficking_in_the_US
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4JNnbtN2nxA/UDLrQs3Tc0I/AAAAAAAALTg/ntcrtlMyOic/s640/Bill+Clinton+mena+drugs+bush.jpg)
Quote from: rdunk on October 24, 2013, 12:53:38 AM
I thought anyone not high already, would understand what the cancers relative to drugs are - it is all of the problems you want to drum up relative to the recreational drugs, for both users and non-users.
"Gazillions" of robberies of non-users (and users) occur each year, by people hooked on whatever, trying to find money for that next hit. That is a huge huge cancer!
Rdunk...do you think perhaps that you could attempt to refrain from being so completely and disastrously
wrong about literally every opinion you express?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0psJhQHk_GI
Quote from: deuem on October 24, 2013, 01:54:21 AM
I have lost many friends to booze. None to pot.
Typical American Pot Smokers... :P
(https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/q71/1382393_601105676597888_473743844_n.jpg)
Quote from: rdunk on October 24, 2013, 12:53:38 AM
"Gazillions" of robberies of non-users (and users) occur each year, by people hooked on whatever, trying to find money for that next hit. That is a huge huge cancer!
The small (but many) crimes related to drug use were reduced after drug use become legal in Portugal.
QuoteThen after being hooked long enough on some of them, then it is off to the hospitals and psyco wards, with families trying to get help for their addict relatives. Actually, there are "industries" devoted to trying to help those who are unable to help themselves. Huge cancer!
That was one of the reasons they changed the laws here, it's less expensive to help the people that want to stop using drugs than trying to rehabilitate those already hooked.
QuoteHuge waste of law enforcement resources at every level, including incarceration - huge cancer.
I think it was something like 60% of all inmates in Portugal were there for crimes related to drug use.
QuotePeople killed and injured in accidents related to recreational drug use.
That's something that the promoters of recreational drug use avoid talking about. Yes, marijuana may not be toxic as alcohol, but someone under their influence is not in the full use of their body as they would be, so accidents happen.
Quote from: petrus4 on October 24, 2013, 02:24:29 AM
Rdunk...do you think perhaps that you could attempt to refrain from being so completely and disastrously wrong about literally every opinion you express?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0psJhQHk_GI
I didn't say anything wrong in my last post. Most any 5th grader would know that! :) Of course, I don't know what you are "suggesting" that is in your opinion "wrong". Everything I said is basically fact of current circumstance, except I choose to use the word "cancer", relative to speaking about the people problems associated with the use of recreational drugs.
No fruitbat, I have never even tried any recreational drugs/hard drugs, as I learned better than to do that early in life. But, I have personally witnessed its results in others, coming and going. Yes, I would "lay a dime on you",or anyone else, that I suspected of breaking the law, because the use of all drugs has a domino affect that must remain intolerable, until the laws are changed!
With that said, I have also said in other threads here, that what is being done about drugs "ain't work'in", and paradigm changes are needed. Making some of the drugs cheap and legal (which I am for) would solve many of the noted/related "cancer" issues. In addition, that likely might become a means of population control, until people can become sufficiently educated to know drugs are not a good thing for the human body! :)
Certainly any of the countries who have already made such paradigm changes should be source data examples for the U.S. and others in formulating plans for change.
ArMaP, it sounds as if Portugal has made significant progress with the people, in making these changes!! That is good!!
Quote from: zorgon on October 24, 2013, 02:25:27 AM
Typical American Pot Smokers... :P
(https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/q71/1382393_601105676597888_473743844_n.jpg)
Yea, you got it....Guy with skate board "Did I open that door, wooow dude, you can fly"
I bet if you had 2 armies facing each other ready to kill and then a ref blew his whistle and said "Stop, you guys have to smoke this ton of green stuff before you fight" After an hour there would be no fight, they would all be singing songs and asking where the cooks are. Now, do that same senerio with booze and only the last man will be standing. Booze makes many angry people turn into animals that like to fight while the green stuff clams them down. Next war, drop joints, not bombs. Everyone is happy.
About the crimes, there are crimes here and none of them are drug related that I know of. Crime has to do with a person wanting more than they can afford. The green stuff went from 10USD to 300USD. Bring it back down and people will be able to afford it with out crimes. I never heard of anyone doing a B&E to buy a pack of smokes.
It is all a lie to keep big money in their pockets and not yours. They created the drug wars, not the hippies. The hippies were to busy finding a 7-11. No one I knew went from Pot to harder drugs looking for a better high. Many of the users went straight to other drugs because they did not smoke at the time also because they had other problems like hooked on meds and they ran out.
Lies, all lies....................
(http://i1312.photobucket.com/albums/t522/robomont/dunce_cap_zps74b1acdc.jpg)
Quote from: petrus4 on October 24, 2013, 02:24:29 AM
Rdunk...do you think perhaps that you could attempt to refrain from being so completely and disastrously wrong about literally every opinion you express?
Petrus -
Do you think you could provide a cogent argument as to why you think rdunk is wrong?
If you can provide logical points and defend them, then do so.
Your comment comes with nothing to back it up, just a snarky opinion.
It only demonstrates how ill mannered and ill bred your behavior is.
At least rdunk manages to operate and express his opinions in forums without being a total dick.
We expect as much from ALL members.
Bravo 51.
Quote from: A51Watcher on October 24, 2013, 05:16:32 AM
Do you think you could provide a cogent argument as to why you think rdunk is wrong?
The video itself does. It is a documentary about a man, Rick Simpson, who has used hemp oil to cure numerous different forms of cancer.
QuoteIf you can provide logical points and defend them, then do so.
I do this on a regular basis, as attested to by several of the other members here.
this issue has politicized so much over the last seventy five years that its hard to have a decent conversation.i straddle both sides of the fence.i have a brother who is always strung out on something and im usually high on pot myself.the older generation is cose minded due to the continual brainwashing of how alcohol makes one manly while all other forms of entertainment are stupid.just shows how well corporations can influence a whole generation into being robots of obedience.imho the country is not decending into chaos but is finding its real center.
we see the same similar situation with ufos.the egyptians had the tech wrapped up in mystery and religion.so did the vimanas.now the usa a hundred years later is using corporations to hide the tech and pay people to distort the truth.while the sheep blindly follow along.snitching to their slave masters.it is this blind obedience that is the true downfall of a country.as it blocks out common sense.
Rdunk, If I read your reply correctly you suggest that you would be willing to report your pot smoking neighbour to the federales.
Now, If that pot smoking neighbour was me in the 90's, here's how constructive your actions would have been.
I was holding down a job which required me to leave the house at 07:30, and drive 75 miles to work to arrive for 09:00. I would work a ten hour day and drive back home returning at around 21:00. Then I would relieve my poor partner who had been looking after our child and after a brief bit of "daddy time" then I would put her to bed. I would sit down then, and relax with a pipe or two.
Suddenly, the front door flies off it's hinges and the special bastard squad acting upon your infornmation would burst in, and search the house, before carrying me off be charged. The long term consequences would have been that I would have effectively become instantly unemployable, putting my family onto state benefits. My employer would have lost a productive and hard working employee, and I would have entered the criminal justice system. Being the way I am , I would have taken to a life of crime rather than endure endless unemployment, and YOU, matey, would have some serious retribution coming your way...
As it is there's already one twat out there who owes his continued existence to my pot habit. He burned my house/boat (because he is a psycho, and I was unlucky) and the police did F.A. about it. Topping him would definitely do society a favour as well as evening the score, and on my pot free days, my thoughts do go that way..
Pot keeps my viciousness in check, and feeds my conscience, and I like it that way. So should you!
Fortunately, I have always had better neighbours than you. Long may it continue.
FB.
I know people will tell me that I should just leave this alone, but I need to say something else, here.
A51, I know you have a vendetta against me. I know you think that I am an irredeemably hateful individual. So I am going to ask you to do something for me, if you are willing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0psJhQHk_GI
I want you to go and watch the above film, from beginning to end, and then come back and tell me, that as someone who is trying to promote that type of information here, in response to rdunk's claim that marijuana actually causes cancer, I am a hateful person.
What rdunk said hit a nerve. I will admit it. It hurt. Marijuana should not still be illegal, AT ALL. I read on a daily basis about people with any number of different medical conditions who are helped by it, and it is still only illegal purely on the basis of the sorts of lies and misconceptions which were quoted here. If you don't believe that, I can find you any number of cases.
Misinformation about marijuana hurts me, because despite how it might appear to many of you, I care about people. If I did not, then our impending, at least potential extinction as a species would not be upsetting me anywhere near as much as it does. If you are trying to understand why I seem to be in such a bad mood all the time, then that is the answer; I am in a state of almost continual grief, and despair.
I am not expecting to change A51's opinion of me, even though this is addressed to him. He made up his mind about me a long time ago. I know, however, that there are people here who are sympathetic towards me, and will hear this.
Also, rdunk, if you are willing to change your own opinion about marijuana, then I do genuinely apologise. Please, however, attempt to discover some of the facts.
A persons side in any debate is not the relevant point.
The manner in which you conduct yourself IS.
Is THAT clear enough for ya?
See ya in 2 weeks.
Quote from: petrus4 on October 24, 2013, 03:03:09 PM
in response to rdunk's claim that marijuana actually causes cancer,
Smoke causes cancer. Most smoke does. Tobacco, barbecue and also cannabis. It isn't the actual cannabis but smoke.
Taken orally, cannabis is not known to be carcinogenic. However, if you smoke too much of it, in my experience you get very little done and eat too much. The resulting gain in weight causes heart disease and an increased risk of stroke among other things.
Looks like a few days off and I missed some action again. Will I lose the will to live if I read this entire thread?
Quote from: Pimander on October 24, 2013, 03:56:09 PM
Looks like a few days off and I missed some action again. Will I lose the will to live if I read this entire thread?
Don't bother, it's a rehash of decades old arguements and the human desire to disconnect from reality to a more enjoyable fleeting delusion of reality.
Diesel smoke kills more than any other kind but you will not hear that from the cancer screamers.
Quote from: rdunk on October 24, 2013, 12:53:38 AM
I thought anyone not high already, would understand what the cancers relative to drugs are - it is all of the problems you want to drum up relative to the recreational drugs, for both users and non-users.
Like I said, I see problems, alright, all of which relate to prohibition.
Quote"Gazillions" of robberies of non-users (and users) occur each year, by people hooked on whatever, trying to find money for that next hit. That is a huge huge cancer!
Yeah, and it has to do with prohibition. If drugs were readily available and not "controlled," they would be vastly cheaper, and few if any would need to rob Others for Their drugs.
QuoteThen after being hooked long enough on some of them, then it is off to the hospitals and psyco wards, with families trying to get help for their addict relatives. Actually, there are "industries" devoted to trying to help those who are unable to help themselves. Huge cancer!
I can hardly call this a "cancer." For one, it affects maybe .05% of the population. For another, it is NOT growing - not in terms of percentages. And the "industries" are there because They see a profit. Yes, profit motive IS a cancer.
QuoteGang and mob related cancers!
Yeah. 100% prohibition linked. One hundred percent!
QuoteHuge waste of law enforcement resources at every level, including incarceration - huge cancer.
Yeah. 100% prohibition linked. One hundred percent! If some drugs were not "illegal," there would be NO "law enforcement" involved, NO incarceration.
QuotePeople killed and injured in accidents related to recreational drug use.
ROFL! The People who are in accidents from drugs other than alcohol is about 1% of the accidents caused by drugs - alcohol is 99% of them. I don't think THIS is a problem of any great proportion.
QuoteThe extreme and unknowable wast of financial resources for just the use of drugs - huge cancer!
Um... So buying alcohol is a waste? Maybe. But what is it to YOU what anOther spends Their money on? There are LOTS of things People spend money on that *I* think are a "waste," but it's THEIR money and I therefore cannot judge. Hardly a "cancer." What harm?
QuoteAnd on and on ad infinitum! And whether anyone admits to it or not, drug use can be worse for a user than most any real cancer, because drugs deal directly with the brain!! And that is where it all starts, and in many cases that is where it ends, for the user
On and on? So far You have brought up mostly "cancer" symptoms related to prohibition, or non-problems that are YOUR issue with wanting to control what Others do. Purely value judgments.
As for affecting the brain... In many cases the "drug" used is endogenous to the Human system (e.g., DMT) or We have specific receptors READY AND WAITING for input (e.g., cannabis). And to eschew anything that affects the brain means to cease eating.
QuoteI saw first hand the law enforcement/drug user cancesr several years ago, while serving on a county grand jury for six months. Probably 75% of the "business" conducted by the grand jury was drug related.
Uh, yeah. Because of prohibition. What would You have been concerning Yourself with if drugs were NOT "illegal?"
So... Can You come up with any problems that are not prohibition related or personal value judgments?
Quote from: rdunk on October 24, 2013, 02:59:39 AM
... until people can become sufficiently educated to know drugs are not a good thing for the human body! :)
WHA???? That is why We have DMT in Our system... That is why We have cannabinoid receptors all ready to go...
No, love. Drugs can be good things. Natural drugs.
Do You take any pharmaceuticals? Now THERE's a batch of useless "drugs."
Quote from: WarToad on October 24, 2013, 04:13:41 PM
Don't bother, it's a rehash of decades old arguements and the human desire to disconnect from reality to a more enjoyable fleeting delusion of reality.
OK, I'll give this thread a miss. My original profession was pharmacologist and these threads drive me potty. Excuse the pun. :P
Quote from: Pimander on October 24, 2013, 05:25:54 PM
OK, I'll give this thread a miss. My original profession was pharmacologist and these threads drive me potty. Excuse the pun. :P
I'm a medical underwriter, so... yea. /FistBump
;D ;D ;D
Just to correct obvious misunderstandings of what I have said in this:
I never said nor implied that "drugs cause cancer"! My use of the word "cancer" was symbolism to all of the associated problems of every kind that are prevalent with the use of recreational drugs. These problems are like "cancers" as there is no real known cure of the human element of these cancerous problems.
My main point to begin with was relative to Uruguay's intention to be "price competitive" with the drug cartels. That will not take out the drug cartels! To start to fix this problem, the cost for these "now legal" drugs must take drugs and the drug cartels completely out of the "black market".
Making all of these drugs "legal" is the only way to fix this thing. If some people want to destroy their lives with it fine, as long as there is no outward effect on the public. If there is, THEN incarcerate for the civil offense, not for the drugs. Blaming the drugs is like blaming the Guns. That is the way it is with alcohol today. If you get drunk and kill somebody, then there are laws that deal with such offenses.
Stupid is as stupid does. Whether it is alcohol, marijuana, or the hard stuff, controlled personal responsibility goes away with the addiction, as the addiction takes control. And it is in the human element areas wherein drug legalization will present the most difficult problems. In making drugs legal, addiction will be ugly, and must be firmly dealt with, for this paradigm change to be the success intended. Addiction results must be harshly dealt with, IMO.
The word, recreational drug(s) with an "S" on drug has been used here alot.
Where is the line in the sand if there is one. If one goes legal, will they all? Should they be legal or held back?
Will cocane, smack or LSD be on the store shelf right next to the pot ? Like beer is to whisky.
Quote from: deuem on October 24, 2013, 05:46:22 PM
The word, recreational drug(s) with an "S" on drug has been used here alot.
Where is the line in the sand if there is one. If one goes legal, will they all?
Indeed.
I know that all natural
drugs have a purpose in life, I understand that
cannabis has good medicinal properties etc...
and that pharma is not the answer to everything,
personally I avoid all pharma drugs as much as possible....
However....one thought crosses my mind; folks who are too into
their "recreation" and cant be bothered to work to earn
a living, or even provide enough food for themselves....
Who is going to take care of them, who will pay?
Who is going to pay for their food, housing,
for that matter are we going to end up
paying for their "recreation" also?
:o
I suppose as it already is, those who work. Yeah,
the "stupid" ones who are slaves to the system.
;D
Those slaves who are working so hard they have
little time for recreation period let alone
time to "recreate" using "recreational drugs".
Quote from: rdunk on October 24, 2013, 05:44:49 PM
;D ;D ;D
Just to correct obvious misunderstandings of what I have said in this:
I never said nor implied that "drugs cause cancer"! My use of the word "cancer" was symbolism to all of the associated problems of every kind that are prevalent with the use of recreational drugs. These problems are like "cancers" as there is no real known cure of the human element of these cancerous problems.
I grasped that You were using it metaphorically...and surely one thing cancer does is grow out of control, so I thought maybe You believed in the idea that if it was not "illegal," soon EVERYONE would be choosing to alter perspective - growing like...cancer. In fact, virtually everyOne who would use substances if they were "legal" is ALREADY using "illegally."
QuoteMy main point to begin with was relative to Uruguay's intention to be "price competitive" with the drug cartels. That will not take out the drug cartels! To start to fix this problem, the cost for these "now legal" drugs must take drugs and the drug cartels completely out of the "black market".
Making all of these drugs "legal" is the only way to fix this thing. If some people want to destroy their lives with it fine, as long as there is no outward effect on the public. If there is, THEN incarcerate for the civil offense, not for the drugs. Blaming the drugs is like blaming the Guns. That is the way it is with alcohol today. If you get drunk and kill somebody, then there are laws that deal with such offenses.
My point too. [smile] And I might add: If some people want to explore Consciousness with it is fine, as long as there is no outward effect on the public. Eh?
The exploration of Consciousness as: BAD, is a value judgment. With very few exceptions, such explorations are not harmful to the explorer when the substance used is pure. Adulteration is a prohibition problem.
QuoteStupid is as stupid does. Whether it is alcohol, marijuana, or the hard stuff, controlled personal responsibility goes away with the addiction, as the addiction takes control.
Why is cannabis in this list? There is no addiction - though some who have placed negative value judgment on exploring Consciousness would claim "psychological" addiction, the truth is that the stress being relieved with cannabis is usually still there when not using, so the desire to Self-treat remains. REALLY poor analysis to call that "addiction."
QuoteAnd it is in the human element areas wherein drug legalization will present the most difficult problems. In making drugs legal, addiction will be ugly, and must be firmly dealt with, for this paradigm change to be the success intended. Addiction results must be harshly dealt with, IMO.
Let Me ask... If One can get cheap, pure substances, where is the issue with "addiction?" And why is it Our "responsibility" to "harshly deal" with ANYONE?
Just because YOU have placed a negative value judgment on exploring Consciousness (Where in that book of Yours does it say that such exploration is "BAD?") does not follow that there is any INHERENT issue.
I say We legalize, and offer help to Those who ASK for it. With kindness, concern, love. "Harshness" is best left for any devils to mete out.
Quote from: burntheships on October 24, 2013, 06:03:07 PM
Indeed.
I know that all natural
drugs have a purpose in life, I understand that
cannabis has good medicinal properties etc...
and that pharma is not the answer to everything,
personally I avoid all pharma drugs as much as possible....
However....one thought crosses my mind; folks who are too into
their "recreation" and cant be bothered to work to earn
a living, or even provide enough food for themselves....
Who is going to take care of them, who will pay?
Who is going to pay for their food, housing,
for that matter are we going to end up
paying for their "recreation" also?
:o
I suppose as it already is, those who work. Yeah,
the "stupid" ones who are slaves to the system.
;D
Those slaves who are working so hard they have
little time for recreation period let alone
time to "recreate" using "recreational drugs".
Solution: Get rid of the need for money. Also, 99% of "potheads" work as lawyers, doctors, researchers, store managers, clerks, accountants, insurance salesPeople, foresters, politicians, barristas, day laborers, architects, physicists, movie producers, writers, actors, farmers, programmers, ad infinitum. That is... IF They can find a job in this economy.
OK, i'm not finished reading all the posts, but;
QuoteIf I did not, then our impending, at least potential extinction as a species would not be upsetting me anywhere near as much as it does. If you are trying to understand why I seem to be in such a bad mood all the time, then that is the answer; I am in a state of almost continual grief, and despair
Therin lies the answer to something that was bugging me.
Dispair often leads to anger, which i read in the last few posts.
Light up a 'spliff' & chill out, man ;)
We are all in the same boat, if we're gonna die, then we will die.
Trying to inform 5 billion peeps of their impending doom is a BIG job, and no one person, group, or nation is enough. All we can do is inform
enough people to ensure some continuance of our species after the crash.
I am convinced that there are enough peeps around who know this. Everybody is making plans, some for themselves, and others for the whole world....
I agree with Zorgon, his posts were by far the most accurate IMO.
Let me tell you something, i live in the most densely poulated country on Earth, over 16 milion peeps stuffed into an area not much bigger than Yorkshire.
We have a lot of immigrants, & a lot of unemployed youth etc etc so yes we have problems.
We also have legalised soft drugs.
Because of this, the actual crime rate is quite low when looked at from the drug angle.
Most of the serious crimes here are due to hard drugs, maffia wars religious
nutters fanatics etc..
{however that's about to change for the worse, they want to limit the sale of drugs to
only Dutch citizens, if they do that all hell will break loose, it's all the immigrants & tourists that keep this (semi-legal) industry going ;D without them, we wouldn't have a drugs industry at all, LOL}
Lately we have had the same kind of incidents the USA has had, like shootings in schools, peeps waving AK's in shopping malls etc.
None of these had anything to do with (soft) drugs, you will always get psycho's, drugs or not.
Drugs like Coke, Crack, Alcohol, Anabolic steroids etc are all known to turn normally placid peeps into agressive nutters, i've seen it, i've read up on it.
And i will close with the same thing i posted on ATS, when they tried to slam me for even
talking about the subject;
"How are you going to solve this problem, if you cannot talk about it openly?"
Now, can we please get back to the essence of this thread &
debate in a clear, civilised & logical manner because this is a big issue, and i like reading peeps opinions on it.
I don't like reading peoples opinions of each other :P
Can we get back on topic, and please read links etc they may be useful to your
argument debate, and no more rattles being thrown out of prams.... ::P
On the Cancer issue, statisticaly, 1 in 5 of us will snuff it from the Big C whether we smoke or not, i lost freinds & relatives (as i'm sure you all have) and the never smoked, or drank, in a lot of cases.
High frequency radiation like cellphones, PC's, microwaves, sat-navs, you name it, HAVE been linked to cancer in about 60% of the cases, and chemicals in most of the others, stuff like Toluene & TFE..with a bit of leeway for the accuracy of those reports.
Your office is far more likely to kill you than the fag you smoke outside :P
Cancer rate 1 in 5??
It was already 1 in 3 pre-fukushima...
Some say it's a fifty-fifty deal now.
And lets just consider cancer from fags for a second. Does anyone not think that the connection between cancer and fags would have been made in the early days of medicine, when they were doing all that anatomy work? It's bleeding OBVIOUS if someone dies of lung cancer, particularly if you disassemble the body and take a look, which they have been doing for centuries now.
Cancer from fags I am told is because tobacco has an affiliation for a radioactive element that was released during the early days of nuclear testing. Unfortunately I cannot remember the elements name... I have researched the issue a bit though by reading old medical texts on gutenburg, and it does appear that cancer was really rare pre-1945. Wonder what we did in '45...
FB.
"In November, Colorado voted to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. Currently, only Colorado residents can purchase marijuana in the state. But they may open it up to nonresidents too.
The new state slogan is 'Come for the legal marijuana, stay because you forgot to leave.'" –Jimmy Kimmel
That's funny! A great slogan ;D
Oh sure, the cancer rate from radiation is going to skyrocket because of Fukush**ma, it is already, and if the readings are correct they are already 6-8 times above the norm in the U.S. and 3-4 times in Europe.
The lightest radioactive element i can think of is Radium, FB but i will have to jog my memory on the chemistry of it all.
From what i've seen at the chemical factories, they make some very lethal stuff there, most of which ends up in our homes in one form or another.
Plastics were another invention from the 40's so were refrigerants......
And we are worried that if someone smokes some herbs he's going to destroy society?
::)
Quote from: Fruitbat on October 24, 2013, 09:43:03 PM
Cancer rate 1 in 5??
It was already 1 in 3 pre-fukushima...
Some say it's a fifty-fifty deal now.
And lets just consider cancer from fags for a second. Does anyone not think that the connection between cancer and fags would have been made in the early days of medicine, when they were doing all that anatomy work? It's bleeding OBVIOUS if someone dies of lung cancer, particularly if you disassemble the body and take a look, which they have been doing for centuries now.
Cancer from fags I am told is because tobacco has an affiliation for a radioactive element that was released during the early days of nuclear testing. Unfortunately I cannot remember the elements name... I have researched the issue a bit though by reading old medical texts on gutenburg, and it does appear that cancer was really rare pre-1945. Wonder what we did in '45...
FB.
Buried deep in the ATS archives is a thread that points out a few things about tobacco:
1. It was used as medicine
2. It had no association with cancer until the 1950's
3. In 1945 They exploded the Trinity device
4. 5-10 years later, People were seeing skin and lung cancers
5. The military industrial complex did not want Their tests blamed
6. The sun did not cause cancer until the 1950's
7. A campaign was launched to demonize tobacco and the sun as the causes of these cancers
8. Since then:
a. Tobacco must be grown with radioactive "fertilizer" (by "law")
b. Tobacco is often steeped in carcinogens
c. Fiberglass (!) filters were added
9. All told, One might think there is a vested interest in keeping a myth alive.
EDIT:
10. No test on pure, organic tobacco has ever linked it to cancer. Ever.
I'm remembering now why I really enjoyed your posts when I first came here, Amy.
There are some corkers in this thread...
Fb.
How about the "myth" that weed smokers become giggling Zombies that cannot focus on reality?
::)
Quote from: burntheships on October 24, 2013, 09:54:26 PM
The new state slogan is 'Come for the legal marijuana, stay because you forgot to leave.'" –Jimmy Kimmel
AH! My point :P
Ive only had giggly pot once in the last ten years.seed dealers call it old school.its a cross between colombian and hawaiian.low thc but fun for all.
I read somewhere that they used asbestos before going to fiberglass.i actually met the guy who invented the filter used these days.its made from cellulose from pine trees.we use to trout fish together.he worked at tennessee eastman as head of the chemistry engineering dept.
Quote from: zorgon on October 24, 2013, 10:40:50 PM
How about the "myth" that weed smokers become giggling Zombies that cannot focus on reality?
That's exactly what it is: A Myth!
While it may be true that weed affects short term memory to some degree, it has been my experience that it tends to improve focus, and enhance reality. I can get more technical work done when I'm stoned than when I'm not; as you remember, I'm a software engineer / architect.
Then again; back in the 70's when we were busy inventing this technology; Silicon Valley "ran" on Coke and Weed. I knew many engineers from Intel who partook...
Google and microsoft dont drugtest.hmm?
Hey All
I guess I will give my 2 cents worth on this thread.
When I was younger I was a pot head. I was able to keep a ful time job ect. 18 years ago I took a job that has random drug test so I quit so I could support my family. No with draws ect.
I did not partake for over 10 years after that. I am 1/4th american indian. About 8 years ago a friend that is 3/4 talked to me about rituals in the modern way.
It worked this way. He said make a list of things that are very import thing that is in your life that you want to evaluate.
We planed a day and went into the woods and built a sweat lodge. In the end he did his indian thing and we sweated and smoked a joint and talked. It inabled me to see where I was and where I wanted to go.
So to make this short to this day 2 times a year I build a lodge to evaluate my life situation
Bless
Back
Quote from: Amaterasu on October 24, 2013, 05:12:37 PM
ROFL! The People who are in accidents from drugs other than alcohol is about 1% of the accidents caused by drugs - alcohol is 99% of them. I don't think THIS is a problem of any great proportion.
Do you have any real data or is this one of those cases where people pick a random number that suites their needs? :)
Quote from: Amaterasu on October 24, 2013, 05:21:49 PM
WHA???? That is why We have DMT in Our system... That is why We have cannabinoid receptors all ready to go...
The problem is the amount. We also have arsenic in our system, but if we take more than some amount we die.
Quote from: deuem on October 24, 2013, 05:46:22 PM
The word, recreational drug(s) with an "S" on drug has been used here alot.
Where is the line in the sand if there is one. If one goes legal, will they all? Should they be legal or held back?
Will cocane, smack or LSD be on the store shelf right next to the pot ? Like beer is to whisky.
In Portugal there aren't any legal (besides the ones that can be bought in a pharmacy) drugs, but the use of any drug is not a crime.
Quote from: Amaterasu on October 24, 2013, 10:21:27 PM
6. The sun did not cause cancer until the 1950's
Really? ???
Quote from: robomont on October 25, 2013, 12:42:48 AM
Google and microsoft dont drugtest.hmm?
Last I checked (long ago) Microsoft was not a "drug free workplace", don't know about Google.
But, then again, Microsoft is in Washington State; its legal there.
Google is in Calif. very tolerant, though not legal.
Well then there should be total chaos in the streets of portugal.
Thats what most of our police chiefs say will happen in america if drugs were legal.
It must be so difficult to get anything done in your country with all the zombie drug addicts everywhere.
Quote from: Amaterasu on October 24, 2013, 05:12:37 PM
ROFL! The People who are in accidents from drugs other than alcohol is about 1% of the accidents caused by drugs - alcohol is 99% of them. I don't think THIS is a problem of any great proportion.
Statements like this remind me 99% of the statistics on the internet are BS made up on the cuff as a fallasy arguement ... (yours appears to be a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization) though quite honestly, you just pulled a BS number from Nibiru knows where.) ...to support something you have an emotional investment in and the truthful numbers would be damaging to your reality.
Alcohol is a problem, no doubt. Absolutely. Since it's mass production. But to minimize other drugs to "1%" in 2013 is intellectulally dishonest at the least, or just rationalizing personal behavior otherwise. You need not reply unless you can support and cite that 99%/1% figure you threw out. I work in the medical community. You cannot. I see the train wrecks daily.
QuoteROFL! The People who are in accidents from drugs other than alcohol is about 1% of the accidents caused by drugs - alcohol is 99% of them. I don't think THIS is a problem of any great proportion.
QuoteDo you have any real data or is this one of those cases where people pick a random number that suites their needs? (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
That number of 1% I think would be high here [pun intended] I have never heard of a drug accident yet. It would be all over the news. Drunk driving yes. This they have a problem with. Now you go straight to jail, big fine and no driving for 5 years.
You can get as drunk as you want but must be driven home or take a taxi. If there are any drugs here at all they must be well hidden. I know X is in some of the discos but never seen or smelt anything else. The question comes up about the rights of people that are not taking these drugs.
Should there be any laws to protect them. For instance I don't think I want my surgeon or pilot high as a kite nor do I want him drunk as a skunk. Do I still have those rights when it is legal? Pilots have a 12 hour rule. No drinking 12 hours before flying. In some jobs it might not matter, does it matter in any?
Deuem
I was trying to stay out of this but....
UV radiation can cause DNA mutations which can cause cancer.
Now I am reading that tobacco smoke causing cancer is just a conspiracy involving tobacco companies deliberately poisoning their customers using radioactive fertilisers. Really? The government is involved in an evil plot to make us think smoking is bad for you? If they were involved in a conspiracy to poison you with tobacco they would also tell you it is bad for you? OMG & WTF. ::)
The notion that Cannabis causes you to be focused and helps work is also complete nonsense. It may make you enjoy being at work more but it does not make people more productive and if it did then factories would tolerate and encourage smoking which they do not. The reason Cannabis use was allowed to take hold was to pacify the masses, not to make hippies productive. LOL
I can see it now, the RAF trying to formulate ways of making pilots focus on dangerous missions. "So then chaps, I've just had a report back from Pimander's lab. They tested 39 different drugs to see which ones enhance pilot performance when operations are of extreme national security importance. They reckon if we get the pilots stoned on Weed the Russians will sh1t themselves when they see the results."
Sometimes I think I'm going mad. Then I read stuff like this and know the truth. :o
Just FYI relative to this discussion: (this was posted in response to a question on yahoo)
Ryder3 answered 11 months ago
Well I do have some interesting stats that are true. dont know if this will help you.
Comorbid mental illnesses — Comorbid mood and anxiety disorders occur frequently in patients with cannabis use disorders. A US study found that mood disorders occur in 61 percent of those with cannabis dependence and 36 percent of those with cannabis abuse. Anxiety disorders occur in 46 percent of those with cannabis dependence and 25 percent of those with cannabis abuse. The most prevalent comorbid disorders are major depressive disorder, mania, specific phobias, and generalized anxiety disorder.
In addition, cannabis use occurs more frequently in patients with mental illness compared to the general population. The prevalence of cannabis use disorders among patients with specific illnesses is
Schizophrenia - 31 percent
Mania - 30 percent
Dysthymia - 22 percent
Hypomania - 21 percent
Major depression - 16 percent
Panic disorder with agoraphobia - 26 percent
Generalized anxiety disorder - 19 percent
Another fun fact:
Marijuana — The carcinogenicity of marijuana smoking is less studied than that of tobacco smoking. Several reports have documented histologic and molecular changes in the bronchial epithelium of marijuana smokers that are similar to the metaplastic premalignant alterations that are seen among tobacco smokers.
Users of these drugs are probably at increased risk for lung cancer, although the magnitude of risk has not been well quantified. The absolute risk of lung cancer that a given individual accrues likely relates to the magnitude and duration of drug use, the amount of adulterants coingested, and whether exposure to concomitant carcinogens (such as tobacco smoke) is present. In a case-control study, the risk of lung cancer increased 8 percent for each joint-year of marijuana smoking after adjusting for cigarette smoking. In comparison, the risk of lung cancer increased 7 percent for each pack-year of cigarette smoking after adjusting for marijuana smoking.
So the answer is that there just isn't enough research. But yes it causes lung cancer just the same as smoking.
Source(s):
uptodate.com
And the nanny state thanks you for your due diligence.
Quote from: Pimander on October 25, 2013, 03:07:46 AM
I was trying to stay out of this but....
UV radiation can cause DNA mutations which can cause cancer.
Now I am reading that tobacco smoke causing cancer is just a conspiracy involving tobacco companies deliberately poisoning their customers using radioactive fertilisers. Really? The government is involved in an evil plot to make us think smoking is bad for you? If they were involved in a conspiracy to poison you with tobacco they would also tell you it is bad for you? OMG & WTF. ::)
There is a "law" that says tobacco must be grown with the radioactive "fertilizer," and They thrive on controversy, do remember. Divide & and that. Another reason They want to eliminate tobacco is that it seems it counters the effects of fluoride....
Quote from: WarToad on October 25, 2013, 02:46:43 AM
Statements like this remind me 99% of the statistics on the internet are BS made up on the cuff as a fallasy arguement ... (yours appears to be a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization) though quite honestly, you just pulled a BS number from Nibiru knows where.) ...to support something you have an emotional investment in and the truthful numbers would be damaging to your reality.
Mea culpa. I cannot find a breakdown of drugs found in traffic fatalities to give specifics.
Quote from: rdunk on October 25, 2013, 04:04:42 AM
Just FYI relative to this discussion: (this was posted in response to a question on yahoo)
Ryder3 answered 11 months ago
Well I do have some interesting stats that are true. dont know if this will help you.
Comorbid mental illnesses — Comorbid mood and anxiety disorders occur frequently in patients with cannabis use disorders. A US study found that mood disorders occur in 61 percent of those with cannabis dependence and 36 percent of those with cannabis abuse. Anxiety disorders occur in 46 percent of those with cannabis dependence and 25 percent of those with cannabis abuse. The most prevalent comorbid disorders are major depressive disorder, mania, specific phobias, and generalized anxiety disorder.
In addition, cannabis use occurs more frequently in patients with mental illness compared to the general population. The prevalence of cannabis use disorders among patients with specific illnesses is
Schizophrenia - 31 percent
Mania - 30 percent
Dysthymia - 22 percent
Hypomania - 21 percent
Major depression - 16 percent
Panic disorder with agoraphobia - 26 percent
Generalized anxiety disorder - 19 percent
Another fun fact:
Marijuana — The carcinogenicity of marijuana smoking is less studied than that of tobacco smoking. Several reports have documented histologic and molecular changes in the bronchial epithelium of marijuana smokers that are similar to the metaplastic premalignant alterations that are seen among tobacco smokers.
Users of these drugs are probably at increased risk for lung cancer, although the magnitude of risk has not been well quantified. The absolute risk of lung cancer that a given individual accrues likely relates to the magnitude and duration of drug use, the amount of adulterants coingested, and whether exposure to concomitant carcinogens (such as tobacco smoke) is present. In a case-control study, the risk of lung cancer increased 8 percent for each joint-year of marijuana smoking after adjusting for cigarette smoking. In comparison, the risk of lung cancer increased 7 percent for each pack-year of cigarette smoking after adjusting for marijuana smoking.
So the answer is that there just isn't enough research. But yes it causes lung cancer just the same as smoking.
Source(s):
uptodate.com
Hahahahaha. Sorry, rdunk, but You have some mighty disinfo there.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/marijuana-lung-cancer_n_3474960.html
http://blog.norml.org/2013/06/19/study-cannabis-smoking-not-associated-with-increased-lung-cancer-risk-or-other-serious-pulmonary-complications/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/10/study-smoking-marijuana-not-linked-with-lung-damage/
And while We're at it, who came up with "Comorbid mental illnesses," and why is it being looked as if cannabis use is the "symptom" and not the medication?
Yeah, People who Self-medicate will have higher likelihood of having a reason to Self-medicate.
When i saw huffpo.i laughed.you can add daily beast to that list too.about as much truth as the onion.nowadays if you want real news there is drudge.aj.and blacklisted news.
Just today blacklisted had a report out on british scientist curing cancer using thc.
You would think our members would be up to date on real news agencies.we filter them so much everyday its obvious their agendas at this point.
Quote from: robomont on October 25, 2013, 02:27:19 AM
Well then there should be total chaos in the streets of portugal.
Thats what most of our police chiefs say will happen in america if drugs were legal.
Just a correction, drugs are not legal in Portugal, the personal use of drugs was decriminalized, just that.
Quote from: Amaterasu on October 25, 2013, 06:04:10 AM
There is a "law" that says tobacco must be grown with the radioactive "fertilizer,"
What does the law actually say? That all tobacco has to be grown in the USA and subject to a US law insisting on the use of radioactive fertiliser?
What isotope are they poisoning smokers with? Don't forget that although phosphorus can be radioactive, that the isotope used in fertiliser isn't harmful.
Amaterasu
Quotewhy is it being looked as if cannabis use is the "symptom" and not the medication?
Bazinga.
From anxiety, eating disorders, to stress - weed is my cure - not my problem ;D
Quote from: Sinny on October 25, 2013, 02:55:29 PM
From anxiety, eating disorders, to stress - weed is my cure - not my problem ;D
The problem is that dependence on a drug for any problem is not a good long term solution.
If you rely on Cannabis to relieve anxiety, for appetite stimulation or whatever, then your body increasingly needs more and more of the drug for that purpose as the body resists its effects. The more you develop resistance, the more the symptoms like anxiety increase when you do not take the drug and the problem just gradually gets worse.
There is nothing unique about Cannabis in this regard. This is true of nearly all drugs.
Would you like me to edit out what you just posted in public. I used to be a PCS rep and have seen cases of people being disciplined for bringing the dept into disrepute for posting stuff like that. THINK!
ETA: Stick to moderate use and there is no problem. Large doses every day of a drug - unless it is essential - are not a good thing.
Back in the50s when we were mining u ore.we had giant piles of leftover dirt.the gov conned the tobacco farmers to take it.as oakridge is in the heart of tobacco country.the gov hustled it to them because it was high in phosphorus.
If i remember the story correctly.
Quote from: Pimander on October 25, 2013, 03:15:31 PM
The problem is that dependence on a drug for any problem is not a good long term solution.
If you rely on Cannabis to relieve anxiety, for appetite stimulation or whatever, then your body increasingly needs more and more of the drug for that purpose as the body resists its effects. The more you develop resistance, the more the symptoms like anxiety increase when you do not take the drug and the problem just gradually gets worse.
There is nothing unique about Cannabis in this regard. This is true of nearly all drugs.
Would you like me to edit out what you just posted in public. I used to be a PCS rep and have seen cases of people being disciplined for bringing the dept into disrepute for posting stuff like that. THINK!
ETA: Stick to moderate use and there is no problem. Large doses every day of a drug - unless it is essential - are not a good thing.
Unless Zorg has an issue with the post it can remain.
In regards to 'reliance'/'dependancy' I depend on nothing apart from my access to Water and Oxygen.
I can't afford to be dependant on anything, because nothing is permanent, whether that be people, subtances, or matierial items.
You call canabis a drug - like it's not a plant :o ::)
If I were to seek 'medical' treatment for all of the above, I would be on chemical pharma's - far more potent and addictive than cannabis.
Why does the constant and consistant use of Prozac not garner all this demonised attention?
In regards to devolping 'resistance' that'll never happen. I can't smoke before 9pm as I'm usually working, and once you haven't smoked for 10 hours, any old plant might just get you high, alternatively, there are endless amounts of breeds you could muck about with.
I've been smoking the same dose for 5 years....where is this 'out of control spiral' some people seem to percieve?
Weed
is helping me in my
long term solutions as it allows me to think more freely and with creativity, it is only whilst stoned I would ever like to return to the notion of where my negative emotions and physical ailments originate.
As always, mind of matter, What you think you will become, and all that lot...
If other peeps can't handle their addictions, that's their issue - not mine :P
Ive never been too good at moderation.
(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/weed2_zps39a0413f.png)
Thats not me by the way....... Im more James Dean but with massive arms and much better hair :P
Right now the deamon is statins.my friend girl had her head fugged up.her bf got her off them but it was almost as bad as beating heroin.
Now the fda wants to rescedule oxy.rush limbals favorite candy.i know personally know folks that use meth as pain relief.bad back.
The term pain management is a joke.i know of nobody that can successfully manage severe pain.any pharma drug may get rid of the pain for a while but it always ends up they run out of meds because it takes more each time.pot is the only drug i know of that isnt that way.but it helps if the patient can switch between varieties of pot so his tolerence is kept low.
Sinny,
Drug: a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.
Any xenobiotic substance is a drug if it has a physiological effect. That includes plants. It is a plant as well as a drug. Most drugs are plants or plant derived.
If you take the same dose forever, some of the effects will lessen over time. I'm not a fascist. There's no harm in taking drugs in moderation and if you like it then go ahead.
If you work for the DWP then I'd remove the above as you can be dismissed for misconduct if you are identified by your picture. Just friendly advice from a fellow Civil Servant which you are free to ignore. That is one of the reasons why personal data is best kept private on forums.
Quote from: robomont on October 25, 2013, 03:40:19 PM
Back in the50s when we were mining u ore.we had giant piles of leftover dirt.the gov conned the tobacco farmers to take it.as oakridge is in the heart of tobacco country.the gov hustled it to them because it was high in phosphorus.
If i remember the story correctly.
I can believe that. Not all phosphorus fertilisers are radioactive today. I think that it can be a beta emitter but only certain isotopes.
Is conning the same as a law? If there really is a law insisting that tobacco be contaminated with radioactive phosphorus then I I do want to see it. I'll be contacting lawyers with advice on how to sue the US government in the very near future if that is the case.
Quote from: robomont on October 25, 2013, 05:03:53 PM
The term pain management is a joke.i know of nobody that can successfully manage severe pain.any pharma drug may get rid of the pain for a while but it always ends up they run out of meds because it takes more each time.
Exactly. This is true of nearly all drugs.
Quotepot is the only drug i know of that isnt that way.but it helps if the patient can switch between varieties of pot so his tolerence is kept low.
If you switch from DHC to THC rich varieties that can work. you have to know which are which though.
Did you just ask me to compromise my freedom of speech?
If I was afraid of the law, I wouldn't post ANYTHING.
Quote from: Sinny on October 25, 2013, 06:19:27 PM
Did you just ask me to compromise my freedom of speech?
It isn't the law I'm worried about it is your employer. I asked because you are free to leave it there if you wish. As I say, I have represented people who have been disciplined for similar but it's your job. I was just trying to help.
Are you pretending to have your freedom limited? ::)
QuoteIf I was afraid of the law, I wouldn't post ANYTHING.
Your employer is not the law. The ordinary police are next to useless, I wouldn't worry about them. A jealous or vindictive colleague is a different matter altogether. See your PM. :)
PM received, and appreciated.
Sorry, I'll just always take the offensive where my morals, ethics, rights, and freedoms are concerned.
I decided quite a awhile back that no one, or anything will compromise those even if it was a personal sacrifice.
I'm an open UKIP supporter admist the biggest EU profitier in the UK.
A bit of front can get you a long way. :)
Be careful of political opponents mate. Knives and backs are never too far apart in politics - I should know.
If you change your mind, I'll edit those posts any time you ask. It's your call. :)
Quote from: Pimander on October 25, 2013, 03:15:31 PM
The problem is that dependence on a drug for any problem is not a good long term solution.
If you rely on Cannabis to relieve anxiety, for appetite stimulation or whatever, then your body increasingly needs more and more of the drug for that purpose as the body resists its effects. The more you develop resistance, the more the symptoms like anxiety increase when you do not take the drug and the problem just gradually gets worse.
While it is true of many drugs, I have NEVER had cannabis show signs of "need[ing] more and more of the drug for that purpose as the body resists its effects." Ever. Where do You get this from?
QuoteThere is nothing unique about Cannabis in this regard. This is true of nearly all drugs.
I contest that. Just sayin'.
Im w amy on above statement.
As far as it being law back in the 50s.it wouldnt surprise me but i dont know of it as law.but i think ive heard that law statement before.maybe a state law that never got enforced much .the usa is fugged when it comes to laws.we have fed laws.state laws.county laws.city laws.jurisdiction laws.and common law.so basically we are all a bunch of criminals that get taxed unevenly due to corruption at all levels.as i pissed off most of the local cops and judges.i get singled out when i go to town.if i have my phone or show my face to a camera.im stalked by law the entire time im in town.but because its a small hick town .i manage.i get at least two cop plane flyovers a year.one in spring and one in fall.thirteen straight years.i almost always wear camo no matter where i go.in town or out in country.i had a state trooper and a county both give me tickets in less then a month.one for no insurance while driving to insurance office and then one for no blinker in the fountry with no one around but a cop in the bushes.i told that one i would charge him and the the trooper and judge with stalking if this continued.the last cop didnt even have a name tag.i now get revenge by means that cant be mentioned.but it actually is comforting seeing my results from afar.those that say revenge isnt fun.havent learned how to do it properly.i still have lots more planned.looooool.
Quote from: robomont on October 26, 2013, 04:42:46 AM
Im w amy on above statement.
As far as it being law back in the 50s.it wouldnt surprise me but i dont know of it as law.but i think ive heard that law statement before.maybe a state law that never got enforced much .the usa is fugged when it comes to laws.we have fed laws.state laws.county laws.city laws.jurisdiction laws.and common law...
About that, long time investment, well worth the watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK6matfk0jc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjLmJHvscEo
Quote from: Pimander on October 25, 2013, 05:34:55 PM
Drug: a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.
Any xenobiotic substance is a drug if it has a physiological effect. That includes plants. It is a plant as well as a drug. Most drugs are plants or plant derived.
The problem is that dependence on a drug for any problem is not a good long term solution.
I have a heart condition that requires me to take a certain substance every day, if I don't I will soon have cardiac problems that could result in death.
I presume that this substance and the reasons don't apply in your view on drugs. By the way, smoking weed helps to control by blood pressure and other factors that contribute to my (any your) cardiac health.
Quote from: Amaterasu on October 26, 2013, 04:09:48 AM
While it is true of many drugs, I have NEVER had cannabis show signs of "need[ing] more and more of the drug for that purpose as the body resists its effects." Ever. Where do You get this from?
Observing people I know who smoke.
Quote from: Anthra on October 26, 2013, 05:53:24 AM
I have a heart condition that requires me to take a certain substance every day, if I don't I will soon have cardiac problems that could result in death.
I presume that this substance and the reasons don't apply in your view on drugs.
My view on drugs is take them if you like them but know the risks and don't be delusional and think that there are not side effects, especially to smoking. In particular you should use them if they are useful. I am a pharmacologist (first degree, I do "other things" now) not an idiot or a fascist. That does not change the fact that you develop drug resistance over time.
QuoteBy the way, smoking weed helps to control by blood pressure and other factors that contribute to my (any your) cardiac health.
There are better ways to control your blood pressure. Regular exercise, reducing salt consum[tion, lowering your calorie intake and taking hawthorne berry tincture are all more effective.
I'd suggest smoking weed is more useful if you want to write music than it is useful for reducing hypertension. ;D
It should be up to the individual whether they smoke weed. What I object to is pretending that one particular drug is harmless when smoking DOES CAUSE CANCER.
ETA: So what is this law saying all tobacco has to be grown using radioactive fertiliser?
Hi Pim,
Do you have any stats on the deaths caused by pharmacy drugs every year vs. pot deaths? Pharmacy would need to include all doctor given prescriptions. The direct pot deaths from "Pot Cancer" can not include people who also smoked cigarettes.
I have had at least 3 good friends die from pharmacy drugs, including a very close family member. I have never heard of any one kicking the bucket from pot smoke. Now I don't get out much and I would be the first to say that I am naive on the death rates but it sounds like you might have a handle on it. If so, can you share?
One nice thing here is that most anti-biotics are OTC and cheep to buy. To get a drug like amoxicillin in the US you have to pay a doctor 50 bucks for an office visit then another $25 or more for the pharmacy. Here they cost about 4 bucks for 10 pills.
Deuem, with respect, I'm not going to waste endless hours on this thread. Yes, people die from taking pharmaceuticals. There is a lot wrong with big pharma too. I was just trying to point out that it is nonsense to say that Cannabis is not harmful if you smoke it.
Anyone found that law yet?
Ok Pim, thanks for responding, I would not even know where to start wuth that research. I imagine smoking anything over a period of time is harmful to some extent. Deuem
Quote from: Pimander on October 26, 2013, 02:17:21 PM
Observing people I know who smoke.
Well, I have known MANY MANY Who smoke - and there is NOT any evidence *I* have seen that this is true. I have noted that there is a point after which additional medication does nothing more, and it is a waste to smoke at that point. One may presume that is when the receptors are saturated.
Beyond that... Nope. Never seen any that have said, "Wow. I only needed 3 tokes, and now I need ten..." Never ever.
QuoteMy view on drugs is take them if you like them but know the risks and don't be delusional and think that there are not side effects, especially to smoking. In particular you should use them if they are useful. I am a pharmacologist (first degree, I do "other things" now) not an idiot or a fascist. That does not change the fact that you develop drug resistance over time.
There are better ways to control your blood pressure. Regular exercise, reducing salt consum[tion, lowering your calorie intake and taking hawthorne berry tincture are all more effective.
I'd suggest smoking weed is more useful if you want to write music than it is useful for reducing hypertension. ;D
It should be up to the individual whether they smoke weed. What I object to is pretending that one particular drug is harmless when smoking DOES CAUSE CANCER.
ETA: So what is this law saying all tobacco has to be grown using radioactive fertiliser?
Still looking for a "law" - will admit I had heard that but failed to track it down. Mea culpa.
From: http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/radioactive-tobacco.2012-07-15
QuoteRadioactive tobacco
by David Malmo-Levine (02 Jan, 2002)
It's not tobacco's tar which kills, but the radiation!
Cannabis is often compared to tobacco, with the damage caused by smoking tobacco given as a reason to prohibit use of cannabis. Yet most of the harms caused by tobacco use are due not to tar, but to the use of radioactive fertilizers. Surprisingly, radiation seems to be the most dangerous and important factor behind tobacco lung damage.
Radioactive fertilizer
It's a well established but little known fact that commercially grown tobacco is contaminated with radiation. The major source of this radiation is phosphate fertilizer.1 The big tobacco companies all use chemical phosphate fertilizer, which is high in radioactive metals, year after year on the same soil. These metals build up in the soil, attach themselves to the resinous tobacco leaf and ride tobacco trichomes in tobacco smoke, gathering in small "hot spots" in the small-air passageways of the lungs.2 Tobacco is especially effective at absorbing radioactive elements from phosphate fertilizers, and also from naturally occurring radiation in the soil, air, and water.3
To grow what the tobacco industry calls "more flavorful" tobacco, US farmers use high-phosphate fertilizers. The phosphate is taken from a rock mineral, apatite, that is ground into powder, dissolved in acid and further processed. Apatite rock also contains radium, and the radioactive elements lead 210 and polonium 210. The radioactivity of common chemical fertilizer can be verified with a Geiger-Mueller counter and an open sack of everyday 13-13-13 type of fertilizer (or any other chemical fertilizer high in phosphate content).4
Conservative estimates put the level of radiation absorbed by a pack-and-a-half a day smoker at the equivalent of 300 chest X-rays every year.5 The Office of Radiation, Chemical & Biological Safety at Michigan State University reports that the radiation level for the same smoker was as high as 800 chest X-rays per year.6 Another report argues that a typical nicotine user might be getting the equivalent of almost 22,000 chest X-rays per year.7
US Surgeon General C Everett Koop stated on national television in 1990 that tobacco radiation is probably responsible for 90% of tobacco-related cancer.8 Dr RT Ravenholt, former director of World Health Surveys at the Centers for Disease Control, has stated that "Americans are exposed to far more radiation from tobacco smoke than from any other source."9
Researchers have induced cancer in animal test subjects that inhaled polonium 210, but were unable to cause cancer through the inhalation of any of the non-radioactive chemical carcinogens found in tobacco.10 The most potent non-radioactive chemical, benzopyrene, exists in cigarettes in amounts sufficient to account for only 1% of the cancer found in smokers.9
Smoke screen
Surprisingly, the US National Cancer Institute, with an annual budget of $500 million, has no active grants for research on radiation as a cause of lung cancer.1
Tobacco smoking has been popular for centuries,11 but lung cancer rates have only increased significantly after the 1930's.12 In 1930 the lung cancer death rate for white US males was 3.8 per 100,000 people. By 1956 the rate had increased almost tenfold, to 31 per 100,000.13 Between 1938 and 1960, the level of polonium 210 in American tobacco tripled, commensurate with the increased use of chemical fertilizers.14
Publicly available internal memos of tobacco giant Philip Morris indicate that the tobacco corporation was well aware of radiation contamination in 1974, and that they had means to remove polonium from tobacco in 1980, by using ammonium phosphate as a fertilizer, instead of calcium phosphate. One memo describes switching to ammonium phosphate as a "valid but expensive point."15
Attorney Amos Hausner, son of the prosecutor who sent Nazi Adolf Eichmann to the gallows, is using these memos as evidence to fight the biggest lawsuit in Israel's history, to make one Israeli and six US tobacco companies pay up to $8 billion for allegedly poisoning Israelis with radioactive cigarettes.16
Organic solutions
The radioactive elements in phosphate fertilizers also make their way into our food and drink. Many food products, especially nuts, fruits, and leafy plants like tobacco absorb radioactive elements from the soil, and concentrate them within themselves.17
The fluorosilicic acid used to make the "fluoridated water" most of us get from our taps is made from various fluorine gases captured in pollution scrubbers during the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers. This fluoride solution put into our water for "strong teeth" also contains radioactive elements from the phosphate extraction.18
Although eating and drinking radioactive products is not beneficial, the most harmful and direct way to consume these elements is through smoking them.19
The unnecessary radiation delivered from soil-damaging, synthetic chemical fertilizers can easily be reduced through the use of alternative phosphate sources including organic fertilizers.20 In one test, an organic fertilizer appeared to emit less alpha radiation than a chemical fertilizer.21 More tests are needed to confirm this vital bit of harm-reduction information.
Organic fertilizers such as organic vegetable compost, animal manure, wood ash and seaweed have proven to be sustainable and non-harmful to microbes, worms, farmers and eaters or smokers. Chemical phosphates may seem like a bargain compared to natural phosphorous, until you factor in the health and environmental costs.
Tobacco smokers can also use this information to avoid radioactive brands of tobacco. American Spirit is one of a few companies that offers an organic line of cigarettes, and organic cigars are also available from a few companies. You can also grow your own tobacco, which is surprisingly easy and fun.
References
1. Winters, TH and Franza, JR. 'Radioactivity in Cigarette Smoke,' New England Journal of Medicine, 1982. 306(6): 364-365, web
2. Edward A Martell, PhD. 'Letter to the Editor,' New England Journal of Medicine, 1982. 307(5): 309-313, web
3. Ponte, Lowell. 'Radioactivity: The New-Found Danger in Cigarettes,' Reader's Digest, March 1986. pp. 123-127.
4. Kilthau, GF. 'Cancer risk in relation to radioactivity in tobacco,' Radiologic Technology, Vol 67, January 11, 1996, web
5. Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene. Website, 2001, web
6. Office of Environmental Health and Safety, Utah State University. 'Cigarettes are a Major Source of Radiation Exposure,' Safety Line, Issue 33, Fall 1996, web
7. Nursing & Allied Healthweek, 1996,
8. Herer, Jack. The Emperor Wears No Clothes, 11th edition, 1998. p. 110, web
9. Litwak, Mark. 'Would You Still Rather Fight Than Switch?' Whole Life Times, April/May, 1985. pp 11, web
10. Yuille, CL; Berke, HL; Hull, T. 'Lung cancer following Pb210 inhalation in rats.' Radiation Res, 1967. 31:760-774.
11. Borio, Gene. Tobacco Timeline. Website, 2001, web
12. Taylor, Peter. The Smoke Ring. Pantheon Books, NY, 1984. pp. 2-3, web
13. Smith, Lendon, MD. 'There Ought to Be a Law,' Chiroweb.com, November 20, 1992, web
14. Marmorstein, J. 'Lung cancer: is the increasing incidence due to radioactive polonium in cigarettes?' South Medical Journal, February 1986. 79(2):145-50, web
15. Phillip Morris internal memo, April 2 1980. Available online at www.pmdocs.com, web
16. Goldin, Megan. "'Radioactive' cigarettes cited in Israeli lawsuit." Reuters, June 23, 2000.
17. Health Physics Society, 'Naturally occuring radioactive materials factsheet,' 1997. see also: Watters, RL. Hansen, WR. 'The hazards implication of the transfer of unsupported 210 Po from alkaline soil to plants,' Health Physics Journal, April 1970. 18(4):409-13, web and web
18. Glasser, George. 'Fluoride and the phosphate connection.' Earth Island Journal, earthisland.org, web
19. Watson, AP. 'Polonium-210 and Lead-210 in Food and Tobacco Products: A Review of Parameters and an Estimate of Potential Exposure and Dose.' Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1983. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research.
20. Burnett, William; Schultz, Michael; Hull, Carter. 'Behavior of Radionuclides During Ammonocarbonation of Phosphogypsum.' Florida State University, Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. March, 1995, web
21. Hornby, Paul, Dr. Personal communication, 2001.
Also...
From: http://www.acsa2000.net/HealthAlert/lungcancer.html
QuoteEver wonder why the Cancer Rate among Smokers was so much higher than the threat posed by Carcinogens in Cigarettes? According to Robert Martin (his article is below) the Polonium 210, a highly bioactive, radiogenic agent, is being steadily deposited in minute quantities in your lungs as you smoke. The Polonium 210 deposited in the average "pack a day" smoker, which has a half life of 158+ days (that means half of it's mass is converted into lead, and the radioactive emissions are delivered directly to your lungs), delivers enough radiation as it decays; to be equal to the amount of radiation you'd get if you had between 300 and 8000 Chest X-Rays per year.
According to Mr. Martin and other experts:
The Polonium decays gradually (1/2 of its mass per 158 days) into Lead (which is also a poisonous toxin and carcinogen). The Polonium comes from the Calcium Phosphate based fertilizer, Tobacco plants love it (because Polonium is metabolized like Calcium by the Plants, the confuses it for one of the nutrients the needs). That amount of Polonium 210 is enough to cause your Lungs to become riddled with Tumors over 2 to 6 decades, depending upon your susceptibility to the mutations in your tissues all the radioactivity being delivered to your Lungs will ultimately lead to. And it effects almost 90% of all smokers, at least those who by their mid life to elder years, have not already succumbed to heart disease, stroke, mouth and gum cancers, emphysema and other Tobacco related diseases.
150,000 American's die each year of Lung Cancer (Tobacco linked illnesses are the #1 killer in our country, by the way). Globally, between 700 and 800,000 people die annually of Lung Cancer. Smoking is considered its #1 cause. And yet, Tobacco could be grown in ammonium-phosphate based or Organic fertilizers, ELIMINATING most of the toxic radioactive substance (Polonium 210) which is generally not found in such fertilizer. It has been estimated that such could reduce Cancers among Tobacco Smokers by as much as nearly 85-95% !! That is because for Cancer to occur, changes that lead to it need to take place in the biophysiology of an otherwise healthy person, so that the normal immunities to cancer development are defeated. Like "elevating the noise" in a noisy room, Polonium 210 radiation exposure appears to elevate the amount of toxic-factors in the cells of the Lungs at the molecular level, causing changes and damage that could lead to very severe Cancers, changes that allow other carcinogenic effects of smoking and lifestyle to take root, leading to vastly higher probability of all out Lung Cancer in the Smoker.
So, why aren't the Tobacco Growing and Brokering Companies quickly moving to remedy this problem? It has been suggested that this is because, once you eliminated the vast number of cancers made possible by the constant exposure in Smoker's Lungs to radioactive Polonium 210, deposited in minute quantities over the decades in all active and passive smokers' lungs, then the Cigarette Companies would resultantly be responsible for the remaining thousands upon thousands of lung cancer cases that were caused just by Tobacco smoke's own potentially health hazardous, carcinogenic elements! Can you imagine the audacity of the Tobacco Brokers who, knowing this, hide their own responsibility for some of the Cancer by ignoring the methods of their Tobacco Growers who use calcium phosphate based fertilizer, in order to avoid legal culpability by skewing the statistical correlation? One set of responsibility hidden behind equal degrees of negligence, leading to such murderous consequences? Astonishing and frightening, isn't it?
Could it be that the Tobacco Brokering Companies and the Cigarette Manufacturers, through negligence or premeditated conspiracy with the Tobacco Growers, thereby ultimately responsible for the small doses of Radiation delivered to their customers in every breath they take in when smoking their products? Are they thereby knowingly responsible for the murder of millions of people every decade, all in order to attempt to reduce their own direct legal liability for the lung and throat cancers Cigarette Smoking has been allegedly more directly causing thousands from the tar and ash? They've known since 1963, according to Mr. Martin, that the use of cheap calcium phosphate based fertilizers by the Tobacco growers in the past 50 years has changed Tobacco into a progressive radiation delivery vehicle that may be the single most overwhelming contributor to Lung Cancer over the course of the life of a Smoker by virtue of "across the threshold" mutation of Lung tissue into a fertile bed for massive tumorous growths (as evidenced by the unusually degenerated state of the Lungs when removed post mortem from a Lung Cancer sufferer, go to any medical library and take a look at smoker's cancer ridden Lungs, if you don't believe this!) But the Tobacco Industry has done nothing at all to change that. Why?
We even asked the world's largest Tobacco products producer, and ended up being funneled off to a technology company to answer our question, by their Customer Service Department, which technology company had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with tobacco in any way.
That company, Phillip Morris, was singled out in Israel for a lawsuit by one of the leading Legal experts in that tiny country, by the son of the prosecutor who brought many Nazi's to justice in Nurenburg, Germany, after the end of WWII. Amos Hausner sued Phillip Morris in June 2000 for "poisoning Israelis with radioactive Tobacco" citing memos that Phillip Morris knew about the Polonium contamination due to calcium phosphate fertilizer, but did not convince any of the Tobacco Growers who supplied it, to switch to Polonium 210 free fertilizer, thereby leading to 10,000 deaths among Israelis every year. An article in the Middle East Times conveys the gravity of this situation more clearly: click here.
In the USA, with almost 20 times the death rate, it has been estimated that Lung Cancer kills about 500 people every day of the week 365 days per year, on the average. Recently, on 9/11/2002, in the horrific World Trade Center disaster, some 3000 people were reported killed when Al Qaeda / Osamma Bin Laden Terrorists, flew four jet liners into the Trade Centers and the Pentagon, killing many, many innocent people, firemen, policemen, Ems workers and government officials.
While the comparisons are between entirely different circumstances, and no one is attempting to minimize either of them, just for the sake of magnitude, were one to compare the losses in that National Tragedy to the losses to Lung Cancer each year, one would have to fly 200 Jetliners into 50 Trade Centers, and the Pentagon, every year indefinitely, just to have the same number of deaths as Lung Cancer is causing. The notion is staggering.
Any expert in Radiation and its consequences, can tell you that the constant exposure to decaying Polonium 210 and Radon gasses found in Cigarette Smoke is ultimately going to be fatal in 90% of the cases of long term exposure that a lifetime of smoking brings about. We asked the United States Nuclear Regulatory Agency's top scientists who not only confirmed that the radioactivity and the Polonium 210 was found in Tobacco. And our interviews with experts in cancer have brought us to conclude that this factor has to be responsible for the vast, vast majority of the Lung Cancer among lifelong Smokers? What could possibly justify the position of the Tobacco Industry to allow this situation to continue?
From: http://www.hempworld.com/HempPharm/articles/why_cigs_kill.html
QuoteTobacco crops grown in the United States are fertilized by law with phosphates rich in radium 226. In addition, many soils have a natural radium 226 content. Radium 226 breaks down into two long lived 'daughter' elements -- lead 210 and polonium 210. These radioactive particles become airborne, and attach themselves to the fine hairs on tobacco leaves.
Still looking for the law.
Amy, everyone who smokes weed knows that a newbie can't handle as much as a hard-core smoker. The reason is you develop tolerance to something you imbibe regularly.
Are you saying you have not observed that? :o
Although i have no idea what this thread is about and only saw the last post about comparing a newbie and an oldie regarding a toke.
I might suggest people refrain from caffein for ONE week... You will be suprised how much that Does effect you :O
Quote from: Pimander on October 26, 2013, 02:17:21 PM
I'd suggest smoking weed is more useful if you want to write music than it is useful for reducing hypertension. ;D
It should be up to the individual whether they smoke weed. What I object to is pretending that one particular drug is harmless when smoking DOES CAUSE CANCER.
I would suggest that writing music while stoned is far more effective, especially over the short term, than any drug. The high and the music will provide a far more natural way to reduce tension than any drug does by altering the way your heart beats (as mine does).
No argument on whether smoking is harmful or not; it is. Inhaling any kind of smoke is harmful on a rather basic level. But, it is currently the preferred method. Eating it takes longer to get high, and provides less immediate control over the intensity.
I've been thinking that doing a thing like they have done with nicotine might be better. Retain immediate control, reduce risk.
Quote from: Pimander on October 26, 2013, 06:36:11 PM
Amy, everyone who smokes weed knows that a newbie can't handle as much as a hard-core smoker. The reason is you develop tolerance to something you imbibe regularly.
Are you saying you have not observed that? :o
Yes, there is an adjustment period (do not drive until You know how this medicine affects You). Beyond that, though, there is no further "degradation" of experience. Unlike things like oxycontin and other such substances, which DO degrade in experience, and there is no point at which that degradation stops, the cannabis experience reaches a point at which a given amount will do the same as it did yesterday or a week or a month ago.
Quote from: Somamech on October 26, 2013, 06:55:19 PM
I might suggest people refrain from caffein for ONE week... You will be suprised how much that Does effect you :O
I did that once. By the end of the week, the withdrawal headache was so severe that I literally walked into walls thinking I was headed through a door. I was MISERABLE!
Finally had one cup of coffee - the headache went away and I felt fine. OK, I thought, maintenance level.
I drink vastly less coffee now than I did before THAT experience...but I doubt I will willingly give it up. (Besides, My morning cup is the only treat I allow Myself. It is My special elixir of life.)
Quote from: Anthra on October 26, 2013, 07:00:27 PM
I've been thinking that doing a thing like they have done with nicotine might be better. Retain immediate control, reduce risk.
Tempting. You can even use the leaves and stems to get oil which many smokers throw out here (just smoke buds).
They would come down heavily on me though with my training.
Quote from: deuem on October 26, 2013, 02:41:11 PM
Do you have any stats on the deaths caused by pharmacy drugs every year vs. pot deaths? Pharmacy would need to include all doctor given prescriptions. The direct pot deaths from "Pot Cancer" can not include people who also smoked cigarettes.
From: http://archive.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/
QuoteMany people die from alcohol use. Nobody dies from marijuana use. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that more than 37,000 annual U.S. deaths, including more than 1,400 in Colorado, are attributed to alcohol use alone (i.e. this figure does not include accidental deaths). On the other hand, the CDC does not even have a category for deaths caused by the use of marijuana.
People die from alcohol overdoses. There has never been a fatal marijuana overdose. The official publication of the Scientific Research Society, American Scientist, reported that alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect could lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands of times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death. This "thousands of times" is actually theoretical, since there has never been a case of an individual dying from a marijuana overdose. Meanwhile, according to the CDC, hundreds of alcohol overdose deaths occur the United States each year.
The health-related costs associated with alcohol use far exceed those for marijuana use. Health-related costs for alcohol consumers are eight times greater than those for marijuana consumers, according to an assessment recently published in the British Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal. More specifically, the annual cost of alcohol consumption is $165 per user, compared to just $20 per user for marijuana. This should not come as a surprise given the vast amount of research that shows alcohol poses far more – and more significant – health problems than marijuana.
Alcohol use damages the brain. Marijuana use does not. Despite the myths we've heard throughout our lives about marijuana killing brain cells, it turns out that a growing number of studies seem to indicate that marijuana actually has neuroprotective properties. This means that it works to protect brain cells from harm. For example, one recent study found that teens who used marijuana as well as alcohol suffered significantly less damage to the white matter in their brains. Of course, what is beyond question is that alcohol damages brain cells.
Alcohol use is linked to cancer. Marijuana use is not. Alcohol use is associated with a wide variety of cancers, including cancers of the esophagus, stomach, colon, lungs, pancreas, liver and prostate. Marijuana use has not been conclusively associated with any form of cancer. In fact, one study recently contradicted the long-time government claim that marijuana use is associated with head and neck cancers. It found that marijuana use actually reduced the likelihood of head and neck cancers. If you are concerned about marijuana being associated with lung cancer, you may be interested in the results of the largest case-controlled study ever conducted to investigate the respiratory effects of marijuana smoking and cigarette smoking. Released in 2006, the study, conducted by Dr. Donald Tashkin at the University of California at Los Angeles, found that marijuana smoking was not associated with an increased risk of developing lung cancer. Surprisingly, the researchers found that people who smoked marijuana actually had lower incidences of cancer compared to non-users of the drug.
Alcohol is more addictive than marijuana. Addiction researchers have consistently reported that marijuana is far less addictive than alcohol based on a number of factors. In particular, alcohol use can result in significant and potentially fatal physical withdrawal, whereas marijuana has not been found to produce any symptoms of physical withdrawal. Those who use alcohol are also much more likely to develop dependence and build tolerance.
Alcohol use increases the risk of injury to the consumer. Marijuana use does not. Many people who have consumed alcohol or know others who have consumed alcohol would not be surprised to hear that it greatly increases the risk of serious injury. Research published this year in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, found that 36 percent of hospitalized assaults and 21 percent of all injuries are attributable to alcohol use by the injured person. Meanwhile, the American Journal of Emergency Medicine reported that lifetime use of marijuana is rarely associated with emergency room visits. According to the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, this is because: "Cannabis differs from alcohol ... in one major respect. It does not seem to increase risk-taking behavior. This means that cannabis rarely contributes to violence either to others or to oneself, whereas alcohol use is a major factor in deliberate self-harm, domestic accidents and violence." Interestingly enough, some research has even shown that marijuana use has been associated with a decreased risk of injury.
Point is: NO ONE has dies from cannabis. Period.
From: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death#sthash.v3bc9OEm.dpbs (Sorry this is so diff. to read. It is in a table there & I don't have the patience to format here.)
Quote(Annual Causes of Death, By Cause)
Cause of death (Data from 2010 unless otherwise noted) Number
All Causes 2,468,435
Diseases of Heart 780,213
Malignant Neoplasms [Cancer] 574,743
Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases 138,080
Cerebrovascular Diseases 129,476
Accidents (Unintentional Injuries) [Total] 120,859
Motor Vehicle Accidents [subset of Total Accidents] 35,332
Alzheimer's Disease 83,494
Diabetes Mellitus 69,071
Nephritis, Nephrotic Syndrome and Nephrosis 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia 50,097
Drug-Induced Deaths1 40,393
Intentional Self-Harm (Suicide) 38,364
Septicemia 34,812
Chronic Liver Disease and Cirrhosis 31,903
Firearm Injuries 31,672
Essential Hypertension and Hypertensive Renal Disease 26,634
Alcohol-Induced Deaths 25,692
Parkinson's Disease 22,032
Pneumonitis Due to Solids and Liquids 17,011
Homicide 16,259
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) 8,369
Viral hepatitis 7,564
All Illicit Drugs Combined (2000)2 17,0002
Cannabis (Marijuana)3 0
2010 Drug Overdose Mortality Data In Detail as Reported By Paulozzi et al.4
Drug Overdose Total 38,329
Pharmaceutical Drugs 22,134
Pharmaceutical Opioid Analgesics 16,651
- See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death#sthash.v3bc9OEm.dpuf
Quote from: Amaterasu on October 26, 2013, 06:24:07 PM
From: http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/radioactive-tobacco.2012-07-15
I suppose you noticed that, although that link points to a University of California, Berkeley, the text is a post from an anonymous poster to a forum on that Berkeley site, and, apparently, based on information from a site from the same of your next post.
Why, thank You, ArMaP. So it does; so You're right. [smile]
Does anyone know of any case of death by tobacco overdose? :)
Quote from: Somamech on October 26, 2013, 06:55:19 PM
I might suggest people refrain from caffein for ONE week... You will be suprised how much that Does effect you :O
It would kill me....
Quote from: Somamech on October 26, 2013, 06:55:19 PM
I might suggest people refrain from caffein for ONE week... You will be suprised how much that Does effect you :O
I don't drink coffee. :)
Gave you gold amy for that levine article.he has been on the pot scene for a long time and i never saw that article before.good job.
QuoteThe notion that Cannabis causes you to be focused and helps work is also complete nonsense. It may make you enjoy being at work more but it does not make people more productive and if it did then factories would tolerate and encourage smoking which they do not. The reason Cannabis use was allowed to take hold was to pacify the masses, not to make hippies productive. LOL
Bill Gates, Richard branson etc, etc, and think of all those pop stars...
"unproductive hippies"?
You do know the Beatles did their best numbers on LSD, right?
And of course, different drugs affect different peeps in different ways, there is no way to generalise that fact, mates ::)
QuoteI can see it now, the RAF trying to formulate ways of making pilots focus on dangerous missions. "So then chaps, I've just had a report back from Pimander's lab. They tested 39 different drugs to see which ones enhance pilot performance when operations are of extreme national security importance. They reckon if we get the pilots stoned on Weed the Russians will sh1t themselves when they see the results."
No, they were addicted to
BEER, as every good Englishman is :P
That's why they created the Spitfire XXX (http://spitfiresite.com/2012/01/modification-xxx-beer-carrying-spitfires.html)
8) ???
Hi Sinny, sorry i just zapped your post, now on page 8 ;D
What a cool thread!
ETA:
QuoteIf the Spitfire flew high enough, the cold air at altitude would even refresh the beer, making it ready for consumption upon arrival.
Are we english smart, or what?
;D
QuoteAll Illicit Drugs Combined (2000)2 17,0002
Cannabis (Marijuana)3 0
2010 Drug Overdose Mortality Data In Detail as Reported By Paulozzi et al.4
Drug Overdose Total 38,329
Pharmaceutical Drugs 22,134
Pharmaceutical Opioid Analgesics 16,651
That answers my question 100%, Thanks Amy........
No Coffee, Dead Deuem, Not a happy camper..And it is not very easy to get here. They all drink tea.
I think if you took away tea and rice you would have 1.3 million people in a rage...
Most welcome. It is (or should be) common knowledge amongst cannabis activists that the plant has only killed when made into rope and used to hang someOne.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/inventors_group/images/ODD/image22.gif)
Quote from: Amaterasu on October 27, 2013, 03:10:04 AM
Most welcome. It is (or should be) common knowledge amongst cannabis activists that the plant has only killed when made into rope and used to hang someOne.
Yea baby.
Perfectly Excellent and a greeny gold colour :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiwIhwsZ_9k
Quote from: PlaysWithMachines on October 26, 2013, 10:28:54 PM
And of course, different drugs affect different peeps in different ways, there is no way to generalise that fact, mates ::)
The only guy I know that smokes marijuana (a designer) didn't make anything worth being kept after smoking.
i came up with a way to cut down on flyash pollution thats used in all the coal fired power plants in the nation.i got almost no compensation for it.i came up with way to label wire strands in mining equipment that was still being used a year after i left the company.so the above statement isn't always true.
Did he design anything worth keeping before smoking or was he just a terrible designer and dad owned the company? Nothing will stop a good designer. When your in the groove, your golden, Out of it, go take a walk. clear the head or fill the head, what ever it takes...I think you either have the design gene or not....
deuem
(http://i1312.photobucket.com/albums/t522/robomont/2013-10-27233224_zpse1035037.jpg)i totally agree deuem .
Here's a water pipe filter that i invented using a ball point pen stainless steel spring.easy to clean.easy to make.more efficient air intake .last longer than normal stainless screen .easier to remove from bowl.burns product more efficiently.
That design gene is also very subject related within your brain. I have tried to design stuff outside my gene pool and Oh boy do they suck. Stay in my pool and I can swim with the sharks. I can see by your latest invention that your pool must have a lot of green stuff floating on top. You go Robo!!!!
Now, how do you take that to the industrial level, other things must need filters that can be quick changed and work better. Step it up a knotch......
Deuem
I never thought about stepping it up.but as i ponder .i can't really think of any other applications for it.i have thought of mass marketing it but its so simple.why would people buy it when they can make it so simply.
Quote from: Amaterasu on October 27, 2013, 03:10:04 AM
Most welcome. It is (or should be) common knowledge amongst cannabis activists that the plant has only killed when made into rope and used to hang someOne.
How about the guy who was high on a forklift and dropped a huge crate killing a husband and wife at a Las Vegas convention? Yeah he didn't die, but his lack of concentration killed innocent non smokers :P
Quote from: deuem on October 28, 2013, 03:21:19 AM
Did he design anything worth keeping before smoking or was he just a terrible designer and dad owned the company?
He did made things worth keeping when he didn't smoke, otherwise I wouldn't have added the "after smoking" part. And not only the things were worthless he was always stopping in the middle of the work, working probably half the time he did when he didn't smoke.
Quote from: zorgon on October 28, 2013, 09:18:35 AM
How about the guy who was high on a forklift and dropped a huge crate killing a husband and wife at a Las Vegas convention? Yeah he didn't die, but his lack of concentration killed innocent non smokers :P
Yes, Operating heavy equipment is a no/no. Drunk, high or drugs you should be responsible for your actions. There will be rules coming out just like booze has. I know I don't want a surgeon working on me that is high as a kite but if I go to a rock concert and the band is puffed up it might make it better. The people need to vote on what they want to rule this.........
even if he was not high he would be criminaly neglagent.maybe the guy was just stupid and shouldnt have been allowed on it.i have met people like that.
Quote from: deuem on October 28, 2013, 09:29:35 AM
Yes, Operating heavy equipment is a no/no. Drunk, high or drugs you should be responsible for your actions. There will be rules coming out just like booze has.
In Portugal, in the same way there's a limit for the amount of alcohol in the blood, there's a limit for drugs.
QuoteI know I don't want a surgeon working on me that is high as a kite but if I go to a rock concert and the band is puffed up it might make it better.
My younger sister was manager of several bands and she never met a musician that was better when on drugs, they may be worse or as good as without drugs.
Next time I see Da Weasel, Boss AC or Sam the Kid I'll have to ask them what they do prior to going on stage.
Quote from: ArMaP on October 28, 2013, 01:55:57 PM
My younger sister was manager of several bands and she never met a musician that was better when on drugs, they may be worse or as good as without drugs.
Indeed. She must not have ever worked with Jimi Hendrix, or Janus, or the "Dead", the "Airplane"...this list goes on for a long while. One of the most successful Rock bands of all time used to be serious "druggies", they obviously changed a bit...they are still alive. Though not all of their drug habits have changed all that much...
Then there are the people I work with, at least as far as technology goes. My business partner was once my dealer, he grew, and it was better than the "commercial" growers I knew at the time. That was 20 years ago, today he pays for my services in part with weed. He is still a smoker but not grower. Course now he has to go out and meet with prospective clients, understand their needs and translate that into a web application, and help define the software needs for the app. Then I smoke the paycheck he gave me and deliver his software. We have a very major global insurance broker that is our client, and just added another some lesser insurance Co. to our list.
So, I gotta say; some people can smoke the stuff, and others should use it only for partying. It is entirely on the individual. By the way; my software degrades when I NOT high.
Quote from: deuem on October 28, 2013, 02:52:26 PM
Next time I see Da Weasel, Boss AC or Sam the Kid I'll have to ask them what they do prior to going on stage.
Oh come on man!
Like any good musician the "talk to Jack by the Northern Lights" ;)
(drink whiskey and smoke dank bud)
Anthra, are you looking for employees?
I will say that for myself, I generally cannot work as efficiently when stoned as when not stoned.
I won't go near an aeroplane, or a customer when I am high, it's not fair to me or them.
But there ARE some situations where my overall performance is enhanced, even taking into account the well known effects of weed, because of the nature of the experience. I generally prefer work that pays enough for me to be able to chill out in the evening, rather than, lolling about off my box all day, but when such work is not available, then I'd rather be high and thinking than empty headed and being programmed by the TV.
I had a salutary lesson about work and being stoned when I was eighteen, when I was learning about the effects of pot, I decided for some ungodly reason that it would be a good idea to eat some on my lunchbreak. (I was working as a machinist on a press) The after noon started out happy and jolly, but as the intensity of the experience grew so did my fear of discovery.
I resolved to "keep my head down and just work".
As it happened by the end of the afternoon I had achieved two very unusual things.
1. I had made a staggering amount of product, for me, several days worth of normal output, IN ONE AFTERNOON!!
2. I'd made em all wrong, and my employer gave me such a bollocking... :c)
FB.
For those of you in the UK (who I recall reading something about earlier on in this thread...)
You do know its legal to buy seed's for said plant in the UK? Cultivation is NOT LEGAL though. Make of that what you will!
Search out the legallity of purchasing seeds from the UK :D
Quote from: zorgon on October 28, 2013, 09:18:35 AM
How about the guy who was high drunk on a forklift and dropped a huge crate killing a husband and wife at a Las Vegas convention? Yeah he didn't die, but his lack of concentration killed innocent non smokers non drinkers :P
Is the answer bring back prohibition??
What a stimulating conversation -
I can relate to Fruity's closing story aha :D
Lush,
I remember a mate of mine was drumming on a cheesy cruise ship.
I think it was probably a great laugh on those boats.
Anyway him and his mate had just scored some resin.
They had a quarter each from one of the cooks or whatever.
They had just got back to the cabin when the ships security started bang on the door shouting to open up etc.
My mate and his cohort shat themselves and decided to neck the evidence.
The next thing he new it was the following evening and the door was being broken in.
Apparently the pair of them were found hiding under the table!
Elvis.
Quote from: robomont on October 28, 2013, 10:54:06 AM
maybe the guy was just stupid and shouldn't have been allowed on it.i have met people like that.
True stupid is as stupid does... but many Teamsters smoke it then mount up... the convention setup floor is a hazard zone :P
My point was that just because pot supporters say no fatalities related to the drug is a lie :P
Pretty sure in the next few years it will be at least decriminalized in most states... and once that happens you will see a hoard of people getting high before things settle into a routine :P
But one thing I will say, from meeting people that are smokers of the wacky tabacky... ALL of them have no drive to want to do much. But then... the ones most promoting legalizing this stuff are already there :P
Just keep yer smoke outta my face :P I don't need lung cancer :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O4foIyoka4
Cough yer lungs out BABY :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km5spufisrs
Quote from: robomont on October 28, 2013, 04:50:26 AM
(http://i1312.photobucket.com/albums/t522/robomont/2013-10-27233224_zpse1035037.jpg)i totally agree deuem .
Here's a water pipe filter that i invented using a ball point pen stainless steel spring.easy to clean.easy to make.more efficient air intake .last longer than normal stainless screen .easier to remove from bowl.burns product more efficiently.
Nice!
Quote from: zorgon on October 28, 2013, 09:18:35 AM
How about the guy who was high on a forklift and dropped a huge crate killing a husband and wife at a Las Vegas convention? Yeah he didn't die, but his lack of concentration killed innocent non smokers :P
Can You prove He would have done better "sober?" Is it possible He was hung over? Were there any other drugs used? I have to believe that there is more here than: He smoked pot and that caused the accident.
Quote from: dreb13 on October 28, 2013, 04:16:18 PM
Is the answer bring back prohibition??
Gold for You.
Quote from: Amaterasu on October 28, 2013, 08:55:09 PM
I have to believe that there is more here than: He smoked pot and that caused the accident.
Of course you believe that :P Your on a mission :D
But even legalized yer still gonna need
MONEY to get some :P
When I was novice and very much learning how the drug affected Me, I went to a friend's house at lunch and We partook.
I was a teller back then, and though I was sure that I would be out of balance by hundreds of dollars at the end of the day, I found I was out 2 cents, breaking My "balanced to the penny" record of over three months.
Thought i'd go all hippy on you, but for some reason my avatar keeps getting stretched, it should look like this;
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/inventors_group/images/ODD/storm3c.JPG)
...This is an 8-colour 'mandelbrot set' i ran on the Amiga many, many years ago, it's all based on naturally occurring algorithms (except for the smiley in the middle of course :P )
Yes i chose the colours but didn't know how it would turn out.....
heck i forgot most of this.. ::)..... :-X
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=3404.0 (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=3404.0)
The New Hippy Busters :P
(https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/q84/s720x720/1377472_10201726394654842_1301946763_n.jpg)
Quote from: Anthra on October 28, 2013, 02:54:43 PM
She must not have ever worked with Jimi Hendrix, or Janus, or the "Dead", the "Airplane"...this list goes on for a long while.
Considering that she was born in 1972 it was a little difficult to be manager of all those. :)
And I agree, each person is a different case, I think the problem is with the ones doing what other people do without knowing if their reaction is the same or not, they just see some reason for doing it and do not see that it doesn't in the same way with them.
Quote from: deuem on October 28, 2013, 02:52:26 PM
Next time I see Da Weasel, Boss AC or Sam the Kid I'll have to ask them what they do prior to going on stage.
Da Weasel are from my home town and my sister knows them. They ended in 2010. I don't know if they smoke any thing before going on stage, but even if they do it doesn't mean that it makes them better.
As far as i can make out, the music industry runs on pot, Hollywood runs on Coke, & Wall street runs on Amphetamines :D
Did i miss anything?
You may be on to something pwm.
Quote from: PlaysWithMachines on October 29, 2013, 10:18:46 AM
As far as i can make out, the music industry runs on pot, Hollywood runs on Coke, & Wall street runs on Amphetamines :D
Did i miss anything?
Yeah, the medical profession, runs everyone else on all the other really nasty drugs...
FB!
Darn yes, i forgot about THEM ;D
Ibuprofen was one of the worst, made me sick for days!
Sod that, i don't even take Aspirin anymore :P, just a cup of tea & a cigarette & ignore the pain, LOL
ETA: Just a shot of alcohol now & then, to cleanse the system ;)
Quote from: Amaterasu on October 25, 2013, 06:14:40 AM
.. and why is it being looked as if cannabis use is the "symptom" and not the medication?
Because the reality is that the majority of people that are supporting the legalization are only using 'medicinal purposes' as a banner... when all they care about is getting high and escaping from reality :P
And I bet that holds for several here too :D
But you can always move to Uruguay :D
Uruguay First To Fully Legalize MarijuanaQuoteOn July 31st 2013 Uruguay's lower house successfully passed a marijuana legalization bill. Setting Uruguay in position to become the first country that will legally regulate the production, distribution and sale of marijuana.
http://www.exposingthetruth.co/uruguay-first-legalize-marijuana/#axzz2jNypFr9t
As much as i smoke.its not about escaping reality as much as accepting reality.otherwise drinking coffee could also be escaping reality.a person who drinks coffee is escaping the reality of not having any.we have gotten so use to having luxeries like coffeee that to not have it here in america would probably be closer to social chaos than cutting off weed to americans.i would propose that smoking pot is closer to the reality that humans have been living with for thousands of years than the prohibition reality the gov would like us to live in.
If we go by the research of all the health benefits of cannabis.like its nutritional and medicinal .it almost looks like drug testing is actually a way to slowly kill somebody.so that they are overworked and crippled relying on doctors until your short life is over and the gov doesnt have to pay out benefits for fourty years.
If im correct.only hemp seed has all the nutrients a human needs.no other plant other than flax seed even comes close.could it be that our creator actually designed us that way but humans have tried to disrupt the true perfect diet of longevity.
Quote from: robomont on November 01, 2013, 12:18:32 PM
If im correct.only hemp seed has all the nutrients a human needs.
No you're incorrect. Potatoes do.
Quoteno other plant other than flax seed even comes close.
No, potatoes do. :P
Quotecould it be that our creator actually designed us that way but humans have tried to disrupt the true perfect diet of longevity.
No it couldn't be. That's just wishful thinking.
Basically, Cannabis smoking is linked to 8 types of cancer. It does have benefits too. It isn't a miracle any more than anything else.
The way I see it is this. As soon as you are born you are dying. Most things have pros and cons. Cannabis does too. Smoke it if you like but don't pretend it is something it isn't. It has some benefits but it isn't different to other herbs in that respect.
Quote from: zorgon on November 01, 2013, 09:54:16 AM
Because the reality is that the majority of people that are supporting the legalization are only using 'medicinal purposes' as a banner... when all they care about is getting high and escaping from reality :P
And I bet that holds for several here too :D
But you can always move to Uruguay
Ya know, when I first started smoking weed, I thought it would be great for it to be legal, but, alas, that wasn't happenin'
Then they started the "medical" stick; I thought maybe some day I will "need" for medical reasons. Well...that day came, I now smoke as much for medical reasons as recreational ones. The thing is, I don't much like pharmaceutical weed as I do just plain ole "dirt weed", and its not the cost differences. Medical grade weed is far too potent for my "needs"; since I also use is as much as a "development tool" as I do for recreation, I kind of need it to NOT put me to sleep straight away.
So, yep I support the outright legalization. But you need to understand; it has never been about "escaping reality", I'm not even sure "how" One could escape reality when high on weed...reality is always there and weed don't make it go away...period
Nope, will be no moving to Uruguay; no need to...I'll just go back to Washington State (unless Texas follow soon :)
Hell: Uruguay and Washington should get together...import / export opportunity here...and it legal.
Quote from: Fruitbat on October 29, 2013, 01:02:57 PM
Yeah, the medical profession, runs everyone else on all the other really nasty drugs...
FB!
How about THIS old cure?
(http://file1.npage.de/006690/51/bilder/alc_best_2.jpg)
For some ereason I have a urge to smoke a potato, hey they are legal here...
Pim, what part of the potato are you talking about ? Potatoes have nice flowers, but I don't know if there are potato seeds. Never saw one. Maybe the flowers drop them. But the good old potato can be cooked many thousands of ways. I eat too many of them..
Since it is a starch, I guss you can make things like glue and paper also.
Deuem
Quote from: zorgon on November 01, 2013, 09:54:16 AM
Because the reality is that the majority of people that are supporting the legalization are only using 'medicinal purposes' as a banner... when all they care about is getting high and escaping from reality :P
Ahahahaha! z, THAT is malarkey. Those that "just want to get high" are treating stress - a medical application. And "getting high" is NOT = to escaping reality.
QuoteAnd I bet that holds for several here too :D
Yeah, a number of Us use it for stress relief, and many other medical uses.
QuoteBut you can always move to Uruguay :D
No need, I think.
Quote from: Pimander on November 01, 2013, 12:50:22 PM
Basically, Cannabis smoking is linked to 8 types of cancer.
You will provide links to the studies that offer the methodology to support this claim? I have kept a keen eye out and found many such claims cannot be actually supported.
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 03, 2013, 05:30:22 AM
Ahahahaha! z, THAT is malarkey. Those that "just want to get high" are treating stress
stress relief = escaping reality
::)
Suffering is not having stress relief.so you propose people should suffer.or only use what the nanny state approves.
I tore my knee up one day and the stuff the hospital had me on only made me sleepy.my friend smoked a j with me when i got out.the pain was tolerable then.life is generally stressful and i dont think we should have a stress tax when its usually the gov thats stressing us out.because the weed calms us down.our cortisol levels should be lower .thus less chance of cancer.and overall longer life.that doesnt even include all the other benefits.
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 03, 2013, 05:43:57 AM
You will provide links to the studies that offer the methodology to support this claim? I have kept a keen eye out and found many such claims cannot be actually supported.
I don't mean to be rude but either you understand pharmacology or you don't. You either accept that scientists who have studied the subject properly know more than you do or you don't. In your case you only accept what scientists say when it suits you so it is pointless wasting my years of training debating with you about it.
A simple literature search provides a ridiculous number of papers which support my position. In my opinion you are
delusional about the effects of Cannabis which is, surprise surprise - a condition associated with Cannabis consumption.
In the words of Isaac Newton when he was mocked by Edmund Halley for his interest in the subject of Astrology, "With respect [mam], I have studied the subject and you have not."
QuoteResults Duration since first cannabis use was associated with all 3 psychosis-related outcomes. For those with duration since first cannabis use of 6 or more years, there was a significantly increased risk of (1) nonaffective psychosis (adjusted odds ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.5), (2) being in the highest quartile of Peters et al Delusions Inventory score (adjusted odds ratio, 4.2; 95% confidence interval, 4.2-5.8), and (3) hallucinations (adjusted odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-4.1). Within sibling pairs, duration since first cannabis use and higher scores on the Peters et al Delusions Inventory remained significantly associated.
Conclusions Early cannabis use is associated with psychosis-related outcomes in young adults. The use of sibling pairs reduces the likelihood that unmeasured confounding explains these findings. This study provides further support for the hypothesis that early cannabis use is a risk-modifying factor for psychosis-related outcomes in young adults.Published online March 1, 2010 (doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.6).
Association Between Cannabis Use and Psychosis-Related Outcomes Using Sibling Pair Analysis in a Cohort of Young Adults (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=77011;topic=5546.165)
Or perhaps the evil pharmacologists are persecuting smokers? ::)
QuoteConclusions
Using a state of the art assessment, the study adds to findings of an association of persecutory ideation with cannabis use.
Keywords: Persecutory ideation; Paranoia; Delusions; Cannabis
Persecutory ideation and a history of cannabis use (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920996413003083)
Of course I have not really selected the best studies and those quotes were not intended to convince you of anything and I have no intention of wasting hours of my life in a pointless debate. I quoted those parts that amused me. :) You are happy in your delusion that increased risk of cancer is not real when you smoke. You're wrong.
Quote from: Pimander on November 03, 2013, 03:05:20 PM
I don't mean to be rude but either you understand pharmacology or you don't. You either accept that scientists who have studied the subject properly know more than you do or you don't. In your case you only accept what scientists say when it suits you so it is pointless wasting my years of training debating with you about it.
I am rather unaccepting as well, and while I don't have an education specifically in pharmacology, I do have a great deal of knowledge and experience in data analysis. Oh yeah, with Pot as well (some 45+ years). So if its all the same to y'all; I'll just be trusting my own "take" on the data.
Quote
A simple literature search provides a ridiculous number of papers which support my position. In my opinion you are delusional about the effects of Cannabis which is, surprise surprise - a condition associated with Cannabis consumption.{/quote]
This is rather typical; call the pot head wrong, simply because he smokes. It is well known that people who have NEVER smoked pot know little to nothing about the effects, despite how many studies they have participated in, or authored.
Quote
In the words of Isaac Newton when he was mocked by Edmund Halley for his interest in the subject of Astrology, "With respect [mam], I have studied the subject and you have not."
Us smokers can evoke that as well, and perhaps with a bit more authority.
Quote
Of course I have not really selected the best studies and those quotes were not intended to convince you of anything and I have no intention of wasting hours of my life in a pointless debate. I quoted those parts that amused me. :) You are happy in your delusion that increased risk of cancer is not real when you smoke. You're wrong.
Yet you have not addressed the issues of Cancer being related to pot smoking. I would one of the first to scream that smoking anything is bad, and can lead to cancer. And, you are right to get in the face of anyone who thinks that smoking weed is completely save...it isn't.
But, to defend our position with these psychological piles of crap is nearly the same as not bothering to address the issues at all. Psychology has little to do with cancer. Further, the worst issues with weed is that it affects the young mind much differently than an old one; the affect is typically only a short term memory issue, except in those already predisposed to some sort of psychological issue. And, in those cases, it is very likely helpful in the majority of instances.
Further many of the psychological affects are greatly over shadowed by the positive effects that help in cancer related treatment, AIDS, and a growing variety of other ailments, not to mention the relaxing / stress relieving properties. Its effect on general pain, eye health, effects on diabetes, cardiac issues, Alzheimer's, ... this list is growing daily.
All in all it would seem that the positive effects (medical and other wise) far outweigh the negative.
Quote from: zorgon on November 03, 2013, 06:21:56 AM
stress relief = escaping reality
::)
::)
Or a logical choice in a complex world that developed a LOT faster than Humanity; biologically, We are not yet fully adapted to it - yet, if ever. A short and brutal life is a higher likelihood, with some probability of a snap happening, if some form of re-creation is not achieved.
The most logical thing to do would be to seek to encourage a remedy such as cannabis is proving to be.
You have such knee-jerk propaganda responses, z.
Quote from: Pimander on November 03, 2013, 03:05:20 PM
I don't mean to be rude but either you understand pharmacology or you don't. You either accept that scientists who have studied the subject properly know more than you do or you don't. In your case you only accept what scientists say when it suits you so it is pointless wasting my years of training debating with you about it.
A simple literature search provides a ridiculous number of papers which support my position. In my opinion you are delusional about the effects of Cannabis which is, surprise surprise - a condition associated with Cannabis consumption.
In the words of Isaac Newton when he was mocked by Edmund Halley for his interest in the subject of Astrology, "With respect [mam], I have studied the subject and you have not."
Association Between Cannabis Use and Psychosis-Related Outcomes Using Sibling Pair Analysis in a Cohort of Young Adults (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=77011;topic=5546.165)
Or perhaps the evil pharmacologists are persecuting smokers? ::)
Persecutory ideation and a history of cannabis use (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920996413003083)
Of course I have not really selected the best studies and those quotes were not intended to convince you of anything and I have no intention of wasting hours of my life in a pointless debate. I quoted those parts that amused me. :) You are happy in your delusion that increased risk of cancer is not real when you smoke. You're wrong.
[smile] All I did was ask for data, Pim. Why so defensive?
If You want, I can get studies that support its ability to FIGHT cancer. Quid pro quo?
And adding to this, I'll throw in studies that could NOT link it to cancer...
I find it to mostly be a generational thing.the brainwashing was pretty hard core.no offence zorgon.you of all people i would have thought to be more open minded on the subject.i didnt personally become aware until i was about 21 even though i had smoked a few times.peer pressure.once i started regular use.the answer was clear.the worlds better off when robopuff is high.my family can vouch for that.
Quote from: robomont on November 04, 2013, 01:06:09 AM
the worlds better off when robopuff is high.my family can vouch for that.
I doubt the world changes. :)
PS: many people say the same thing about drinking.
Quote from: robomont on November 04, 2013, 01:06:09 AM
no offence zorgon.you of all people i would have thought to be more open minded on the subject.
What makes you think I am not open minded? Just because I have different views on it?
::)
Lungs were never created to contain SMOKE :P
OPIUM has given us some really useful drugs that really help people with pain...
But SMOKING it....
(http://neurobonkers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/chinese-opium-smokers.jpg)
...didn't work out to good for the Chinese :P
(http://static.environmentalgraffiti.com/sites/default/files/images/11Javajpg)
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/history/news-incredible-images-19th-century-opium-dens
Logical fallacy, z. Opium and cannabis are not at all the same, in effect, in method of obtaining usable states of substance, in biological function, etc.
Trying to justify views of cannabis based on the "horrors" of opium is truly disingenuous.
Funny you bring up poppies.just ordered afgan poppy seeds and also ordered blue lotus seeds.
Well at least SHE has ABUNDANCE
(https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/603125_10151955912658914_1627828168_n.jpg)
Will she share?
::)
Quote from: robomont on November 04, 2013, 04:35:33 AM
Funny you bring up poppies.just ordered afgan poppy seeds and also ordered blue lotus seeds.
Checking the Merchandise :D(https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/USopium6.png)
Quote from: zorgon on November 04, 2013, 04:40:51 AM
Well at least SHE has ABUNDANCE
(https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/603125_10151955912658914_1627828168_n.jpg)
Will she share?
::)
Everybody wants some...
Help deuem out here, How much do you think she is holding in final product as far as weight goes and current stree value. I have no idea and would like to put a number around that photo.
By the photo, I would guess there are no thorns on these plants......Must be nice and soft..
Puffy, is like a days supply for you ? lol
D
(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/ReeferMadnessPoster_zpsb72fb6fe.jpg)
(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/images_zps2944b41d.jpg)
:o ::)
Once its stripped off the plant.my guess about 8lbs wet.one lbs dry.bud should be about an ounce.if its seedless and trimmed bud about 400$.looks like alot but after stripping etc.not alot there.cops exagerate lbs and profit .i smoke leaf but market doesnt want leaf.only buds.thats why hydro is the money maker because buds grow bigger w hydro.but flavor is mostly bland compared w organic.
Actually about two weeks supply.
Quote from: robomont on November 04, 2013, 09:23:29 AM
Once its stripped off the plant.
I suppose "stripped" is the right word for that photo. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on November 04, 2013, 07:56:41 PM
I suppose "stripped" is the right word for that photo. :)
'au naturel' would be better :P
Quote from: ArMaP on November 04, 2013, 08:56:39 PM
Naturally. :)
"Abundance" accurately describes the leaf, but it is only wishful thinking for the '"au naturel"! :))
Quote from: rdunk on November 04, 2013, 09:27:11 PM
"Abundance" accurately describes the leaf, but it is only wishful thinking for the '"au naturel"! :))
Naturally. :)
Quote from: rdunk on November 04, 2013, 09:27:11 PM
"Abundance" accurately describes the leaf, but it is only wishful thinking for the '"au naturel"! :))
Rdunk - What
IS that in your avatar? lol
I think its a mars photo but im not sure.
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 03, 2013, 11:50:37 PM
If You want, I can get studies that support its ability to FIGHT cancer. Quid pro quo?
That would depend on the tumour type but it will help in some types. The problem is it causes some - including lung cancer.
Cancer is not one disease really, it is a type of disease. Any drug can inhibit or promote tumour growth depending on the type of cells and mutations in them.
Quote from: zorgon on November 04, 2013, 04:40:51 AM
Well at least SHE has ABUNDANCE
(https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/603125_10151955912658914_1627828168_n.jpg)
Will she share?
::)
Nice Bush ;D
(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/alien00065_zpsb00116c8.gif)
Quote from: Pimander on November 07, 2013, 12:04:01 PM
That would depend on the tumour type but it will help in some types. The problem is it causes some - including lung cancer.
Cancer is not one disease really, it is a type of disease. Any drug can inhibit or promote tumour growth depending on the type of cells and mutations in them.
I seem to recall linking somewhere here on Peggy to several studies that showed that there was no connection between cannabis smoking and lung cancer. All I have seen that "connects" it is an analysis of the chemicals that are present in the very hot smoke (and that degrade to harmless when cooled below a given temperature - achieved in far less time than it takes to get the smoke 1/4 inch from ignition point) and extrapolation that these hot chemicals would cause cancer...
That is why I asked You for the info. I haven't found it.
From a conersation in admin.
Quote from: PlaysWithMachines on October 31, 2013, 06:10:15 PM
is there any evidence that smoking pure weed does cause it?
In a word - yes.
QuoteIn total, 79 cases of lung cancer and 324 controls were included in the study. The risk of lung cancer increased 8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2–15) for each joint-yr of cannabis smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking, and 7% (95% CI 5–9) for each pack-yr of cigarette smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cannabis smoking. The highest tertile of cannabis use was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (relative risk 5.7 (95% CI 1.5–21.6)), after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking.
In conclusion, the results of the present study indicate that long-term cannabis use increases the risk of lung cancer in young adults
http://www.ersj.org.uk/content/31/2/280.full
Well, They sure had to poke and prod with results from other studies (of who knows how much bias) to conclude this. I'm not saying it isn't valid, but I can make a case of its not going past some reasonable doubt.
I will say that studies of much larger groups, controlled for cigs and all, show no such connection. Who to believe, who to believe?
My Doctor once asked me, "Deuem what do you think is making you sick?", I said "Living"
Funny ;D ;D
Oh well, you're damned if you do, & damned if you don't..... ::)
At least you would die happy :P
Denver Police Use Nose Telescope To Enforce Marijuana Odour Ordinance
(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/nasal_2734051b-300x187_zps02b72784.jpg)
It has been said before, but right now I need to repeat it! the truth is stranger than fiction.
Police in Denver Colorado have started to use a device called a olfactometer (or "nasal ranger"). A $1,500 nose telescope that can measure the concentration of cannabis in the air. To literally sniff out people smoking cannabis.
The device has been employed to enforce an "odour ordinance" that comes with a $2,000 fine for anyone found guilty of polluting the air with the smell of marijuana.
there is a more high tech version of the Nasal ranger that will also records both the concentration and GPS coordinates of where the marijuana smell originated. This higher end model comes at a cost of $3,500.
Sound like something out of a science fiction story? I think anyone who has watched the cartoon Futurama, would recognize the device!
Where this strange story begins to make sense, is when you realize that Colorado is the first state in America to finalize the rules for recreational marijuana businesses (after legalization of recreational marijuana use). Which are set to start opening in January.
The city of Denver has passed an ordinance, with fine. To attempt to cash in cannabis smokers, using a type of "environmental concern".
Quite simply the greed of a state (of any level) can make your jaw drop more than anything else on this planet!
(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/0006_zps63c05c1c.gif)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10448756/Police-use-nose-telescope-for-cannabis-odour-mapping.html
http://canadianawareness.org/2013/11/denver-police-use-nose-telescope-to-enforce-marijuana-odour-ordinance/
What will they come up with next, Butt sniffing robotic dogs to see if you ate at McDonalds?
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/LMAOgiff.gif) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/LMAOgiff.gif.html)
Deuem
(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/lolly_zpsda1c2150.gif)
LOP
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/LOP.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/LOP.jpg.html)