Author Topic: Rick Sanctorum (Read 16631 times)

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #30 on:** May 21, 2011, 10:34:18 AM »

PFT, sorry but those studies are not very impressive. People have been saying for years how dangerous of a drug it is. I don't appreciate you trying to paint it as an almost harmless drug, roscoe does the same thing (only to a more extreme level) and it is really irritating. To say that it is useful for treating pain and some medical conditions is a load of crock. Vitamin D3 is MUCH more affective for treating and/or preventing numerous things, including cancer, the flu, heart-related medical conditions, etc. And the government REFUSES to tell people about this vitamin, instead they promote their extremlely harmful shots which actually CAN cause cancer and numerous other ilnesses and medical conditions.

I'll be happy to post sources that show just how affective D3 is. I gaurantee it is 50x more affective than marijuana could ever hope to be. The research you provided is laughable at best, it provides no concrete evidence to back it up. And how do I know D3 is so affective? For starters, I had bumps on my hands that I had for years that suddenly went away when I started taking D3. Do you have any evidence that MJ can do that? No, the doctors who say it should be used to treat pain are idiots who don't know what they're talking about.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #31 on:** May 21, 2011, 12:47:39 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

PFT, sorry but those studies are not very impressive. People have been saying for years how dangerous of a drug it is. I don't appreciate you trying to paint it as an almost harmless drug, roscoe does the same thing (only to a more extreme level) and it is really irritating. To say that it is useful for treating pain and some medical conditions is a load of crock. Vitamin D3 is MUCH more affective for treating and/or preventing numerous things, including cancer, the flu, heart-related medical conditions, etc. And the government REFUSES to tell people about this vitamin, instead they promote their extremlely harmful shots which actually CAN cause cancer and numerous other ilnesses and medical conditions.

I'll be happy to post sources that show just how affective D3 is. I gaurantee it is 50x more affective than marijuana could ever hope to be. The research you provided is laughable at best, it provides no concrete evidence to back it up. And how do I know D3 is so affective? For starters, I had bumps on my hands that I had for years that suddenly went away when I started taking D3. Do you have any evidence that MJ can do that? No, the doctors who say it should be used to treat pain are idiots who don't know what they're talking about.

See, I'm totally not going to disagree with you here. The government makes vitamin manufacturers (through the BIG PHARMA CONTROLLED FDA) that they have to put a disclosure, "This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA to treat, prevent, or cure disease," when STUDY AFTER STUDY PROVES that they DO all these things.

And we want to continue to criminalize the weed? Do you see how this is totally contradictory?

There's no disagreement that the FDA is corrupt, but the DEA, the ATF, and the CIA, and the FBI are ALL INVOLVED in the trafficking, and making LOADS of money, and using it themselves.

Want some examples? Here's a case where the POLICE PLANTED DRUGS IN THIS LADY'S BELONGINGS, and now they're BUSTED and she is free. How many times has THIS happened to others and they're still rotting in prison for it? This lady lost 3 YEARS OF HER LIFE because of them. 33 PEOPLE SAT PRISON SENTENCES BECAUSE OF THESE COPS PLANTING DRUGS ON THESE PEOPLE. And they're recommending PROBATION for these cops?!?!?! The pictures and the stories are here.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20110518_11_A1_CUTLIN579643

Hillary Clinton made a telling statement regarding the "war on drugs." I'll let you listen to it. This needs to be de-criminalized NOW.

In an interview with Mexican television, she said that the United States can't legalize drugs "because there is just too much money in it."

Apparently, Clinton doesn't understand that there's so much money to be made selling illegal drugs precisely because drugs are illegal.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #32 on:** May 21, 2011, 03:39:11 PM »

That's not exactly in line with what I was saying. It doesn't matter if vitamin manufacturers will say on thier products "This hasn't been aprroved by the FDA". It doesn't change the fact that D3 is far more affective in treating and/or preventing ilnesses than shots or marijuana could ever hope to be. The government will of course monopolize the vitamin industry, pretty soon they'll start selling their own vitamins which will contain all sorts of junk in them. Bottom line is that D3 is good to prevent cancer and such medical conditions, MJ does nothing but rot a person's brain. I gaurantee you that if I started using MJ daily I wouldn't be capable of thinking straight.

herbert · « **Reply #33 on:** May 21, 2011, 04:28:01 PM »

i knew a pothead once who was incrediably lazy. he looked like a stumpier version of hulk hogan. i wasnt even very good friends with him but he came up to me one day and asked me to pee in a cup so he could get a job at the casino. i guess i was the only person he knew who wasnt on some drug.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #34 on:** May 21, 2011, 09:45:14 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

That's not exactly in line with what I was saying. It doesn't matter if vitamin manufacturers will say on thier products "This hasn't been aprroved by the FDA". It doesn't change the fact that D3 is far more affective in treating and/or preventing ilnesses than shots or marijuana could ever hope to be. The government will of course monopolize the vitamin industry, pretty soon they'll start selling their own vitamins which will contain all sorts of junk in them. Bottom line is that D3 is good to prevent cancer and such medical conditions, MJ does nothing but rot a person's brain. I gaurantee you that if I started using MJ daily I wouldn't be capable of thinking straight.

Still doesn't mean it should be illegal. Perhaps you don't trust yourself to be smoking the weed, but I'm sure a lot of Native Americans, and Mexicans have no problem doing that, and can do it responsibly. Goes back to my point that a substance, in and of itself, is not bad. It should be de-criminalized, just like alcohol.

I'm sure a lot of Native Americans that are addicted to alcohol, and have the tendency to get drunk easily, would be thrilled if alcohol were illegal. Does that mean it should be because THEY can't handle it? NO! Same goes for ANY substance.

It all goes back to personal responsibility. A doctor gives you a bottle of pills considered to be a dangerous drug, you have a CHOICE to take more than what you should. If you consume too much of it, you can't go back and blame the doctor for giving you those pills can you? Just like the weed. If you smoke it, then you should be accountable for your actions. Don't blame it on the weed. Blame yourself, and suffer the consequences.

So sick of people continually blaming a substance for their problems.

If you get behind the wheel of a car and are high on LEGAL drugs, you get thrown in prison for that. If you get behind a wheel of a car, and you are drunk, you get thrown in prison or hit with a very stiff penalty (at least here you do.) Should be the same thing with people smoking it. If you get behind the wheel of a car, it should be considered an OWI (operating while intoxicated) and you should be thrown in jail. But if you're IN YOUR OWN HOUSE, SMOKING IT, AND NOT HURTING ANYONE, WHY should you get thrown in prison for that? Goes back, again, to a substance, in and of itself, is not bad.

Darcy · « **Reply #35 on:** May 22, 2011, 02:29:00 PM »

I found this. All cannabis is NOT the same.

Quote

Marijuana typically is high in THC (delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol) -- the compound responsible for the plant’s notorious psychoactive effect -- and low in CBD (cannabidiol) content. Both THC and CBD are known as cannabinoids, which interact with your body in a unique way I’ll describe later.

What’s interesting, however, is that CBD has been shown to block the effect of THC in the nervous system. So, marijuana plants are typically high in THC and low in CBD, which maximizes their psychoactive effects.

Hemp, on the other hand, is typically high in CBD and low in THC, as it is bred to maximize its fiber, seeds and oil, the items for which it is most commonly used. For more information on the difference between hemp and marijuana, there is a comprehensive article on the topic from the North American Industrial Hemp Council (NAIHC).

from Dr. Merola you have to google and find it on his site.

disclaimer: I don't advocate for this (yet) but I do read Dr. Mercola.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #36 on:** May 22, 2011, 03:25:38 PM »

PFT, why make pot legal just because there are people out there who would it responsibly? And quite frankly, it would be darn-near impossible to smoke pot and not become addicted to it at some point. Alcohol can atleast be used in moderation and it does not affect the brain or one's actions as long as too much is not consumed. Until you can present me with one heck of an argument that weed should be made legal, I will continue to hold it as a dangerous drug that should be illegal.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #37 on:** May 22, 2011, 05:03:10 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

PFT, why make pot legal just because there are people out there who would it responsibly? And quite frankly, it would be darn-near impossible to smoke pot and not become addicted to it at some point. Alcohol can atleast be used in moderation and it does not affect the brain or one's actions as long as too much is not consumed. Until you can present me with one heck of an argument that weed should be made legal, I will continue to hold it as a dangerous drug that should be illegal.

Um, for the same reason we legalize alcohol. You seem to be telling me that you're not close to an alcoholic. Well, if you were, you would see why SOME people think it would be an AWESOME idea to make it illegal. Seriously. It messes up your mind more than you think, if you do it in excess. Some people CANNOT NOT do it in excess, because they become ADDICTED. The same thing can happen with pretty much ANY substance. Even caffeine!

(Letting you know that this is not racist for me to say) There are certain races of people that SHOULD NOT EVER DRINK ALCOHOL. EVER. Did you know that in parts of Alaska that ALCOHOL IS ILLEGAL among some of the Eskimos up there because they become HORRIBLY ADDICTED AND AGGRESSIVE on it? Go look it up! Yet, they can have the weed in their house and smoke it, and that's just fine.

You can say anything is dangerous. My argument stands: A substance, in and of itself, is NOT BAD.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #38 on:** May 22, 2011, 05:18:45 PM »

History of Alcohol control in the state of Alaska.

http://www.dps.state.ak.us/abc/history.aspx

1959 - Present

The First Alaska State Legislature creates a three member Alcoholic Beverage Control Board appointed by the Governor.
The alcoholic beverage laws that are adopted are based on the Territorial liquor laws.

1970 - the Board is increased to five members. By 1978 there has been so many amendments to the alcoholic beverage laws that they are contradictory and in many cases unenforceable. Even the Board's staff often doesn't understand them.

1979 the Alaska Legislature adopts a comprehensive revision of the alcoholic beverage laws. Provisions allowing communities to prohibit sale or sale and importation of alcoholic beverages are included.

1986 the law is amended to allow communities to prohibit possession by local option election.

1995 Barrow is the largest city in Alaska to ban possession of Alcoholic beverages.

In 1975, Alaska removed all penalties for possession of cannabis under 28.349 grams (one ounce) in one's residence or home. Sale of less than 28.349 grams is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and up to a $5,000 fine; at the time, in most states sale of less than 28.349 grams was a felony offense.

With the 1975 Ravin v. State decision, the Alaska Supreme Court declared the state's anti-drug law unconstitutional with respect to possession of small amounts of cannabis, holding that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution of Alaska outweighed the state's interest in banning the drug. Ravin continues to be followed since the Alaska constitution has not been amended to prohibit, or permit the prohibition of, less than 28.349 grams of cannabis, an anti-cannabis initiative passed in 1990 and an anti-cannabis piece of legislation passed in 2006 remain inoperative. This allows possession of fewer than 25 plants in one's residence or home. The sale or delivery of marijuana is still considered a crime.

But they have STRICT CONTROL of alcohol, and there is SEVERE BOOTLEGGING going on there, to the point that the Natives are locked up for ALCOHOL crimes more than they are for anything else, and it's tied to the VIOLENT CRIME RATE, and not associated with the weed. Hmm... that's a pretty strong argument.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #39 on:** May 22, 2011, 07:44:58 PM »

PFT, I have already agreed that a substance in itself is not bad. I can see exactly why one would want to make alcohol illegal. But there's always going to be some form of it that people will use to get drunk off of (like wine, which you can't make illegal). Weed is just one substance, make that illegal and problem solved except for those who illegally buy it or whatever.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #40 on:** May 22, 2011, 08:04:21 PM »

People wouldn't illegally buy it if it were LEGAL.

:alcohol:

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #41 on:** May 22, 2011, 08:07:15 PM »

But then even more people would get high on junk.

:alcohol:

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #42 on:** May 23, 2011, 12:00:30 AM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

But then even more people would get high on junk.

:alcohol:

You basically are saying that you think you should be able to police other people's bad behavior because you don't like it.

I don't like when people I know that have a DRINKING problem keep doing it, but I can't police their behavior one way or another. THEY are going to have to be accountable to God for it. All I can do is warn them that drinking in excess is sinful. Making it illegal will make the problem WORSE. That's the real argument here.

It's the same thing with weed. We'd empty out prisons of people that are NON VIOLENT offenders, and put more resources towards people that are actually DANGEROUS, instead of lightening their sentences.

You do understand these "mandatory sentencing laws" for drugs are PROBLEMATIC, and are causing people that commit REAL crimes to get off leniently because the prisons are FULL of people serving using drug sentences, while the traffickers are allowed to run rampant, with no charges lodged against them, while the BATF, the FBI, and other agencies are actually WANTING the drugs to come here to have excuses to lock more people up and fill prisons.

Curious, did you ever watch that docuмentary I linked?

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #43 on:** May 23, 2011, 09:19:26 PM »

PFT, saying we shouldn't "police other people who smoke pot" is like saying we shouldn't police those who speed or who rob banks. Same concept, basically. And sorry, but I don't remember you posting a link.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #44 on:** May 23, 2011, 09:40:27 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

PFT, saying we shouldn't "police other people who smoke pot" is like saying we shouldn't police those who speed or who rob banks. Same concept, basically. And sorry, but I don't remember you posting a link.

Wrong. Those who exceed the speed limit could be putting people in danger. There are laws on the books to stop people from speeding with a car, especially in school zones because children tend to run out in the street and could get hit. That's in the best interest of the public. People that do not go by the law, get points against their license, and get it revoked if they continually drive IRRESPONSIBLY. They are not OUTLAWING CARS because they can hit people.

Those who rob banks are STEALING: taking something that doesn't belong to them. We're not outlawing banks (we SHOULD!) because people could rob them or especially because the people running them commit the MORTAL SIN of usury. We're not outlawing guns because people use them to rob banks. We're not outlawing water pistols because someone can hide them in their coat and pretend they have a gun when they rob a bank.

So no, it's not the same concept at ALL. Not at all the same concept.

Weed is a substance, that can be used responsibly, or abused. Just like guns are an object that can be used to hunt, or used to kill someone. A type of baseball bat has been OUTLAWED in New York because (LORD FORBID!) http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/03/15/new-york-city-bans-aluminum-baseball-bats/ people use them to kill people. They've outlawed firearms in Chicago because of all the murders (and now, only the COPS AND ROBBERS have the guns and the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS ARE DEFENSELESS) but SMARTLY, the Supreme Court DISMISSED that law as UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Here's the link to the video.