Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

EHHHHHH.

That's there's no deaths attributed to it simply isn't true.


People die from beathing. There's simply nothing that doesn't killing someone.

It seems pretty evident SOME people have died from it...but an extremely small number.

Okay some people may have allergic reactions or this chat may be total propaganda I don't know where it came from, I do know that no one has ever overdosed from marijuana

I've taken 3 tests I've gotten 144,122,138

The first one was an actual Iq test the other two were the ones you take online.

Personaly I don't think you can measure ones intelligence with a test I mean I scored 144

Lets look at the facts on the issue
deaths caused by marijuana:0
Percentage of marijuana related arrests in the US:44%
money spent on drug war annually: 49billion
money spent to house 1 prisoner for 1 year: $20000

Drug laws& policies
Federal grant money can not go to anyone convicted of possession of a controlled substance(any other crime is alright though)
It is a federal felony to possess a firearm while in possession of any amount of a controlled substance.
Many states have tax stamp acts on marijuana, the supreme court has ruled that these laws do not go against the 5th amendment(though they clearly do)
Hemp aka Cannabis L. Sativa is outlawed on the fed. level as well as in most states (you can apply for a fed permit but no one has been granted one)

Weird facts
According toTIME42% of Americans have tried pot(that's lower than I would have thought)
George Washington grew Cannabis Sativa Indica (marijuana) there is also documentation that he had the male plants pulled from his fieldlinklink
According to Hem; American History revisitedSmoking marijuana may have been very common in the colonial US
According to Wikipedia12% of aAmericans smoked marijuana in the year 2005

At 10/20/08 12:35 AM, thedude27 wrote: yeah but it makes you lazy as hell and thats all people end up doing for fun is getting high. plus its a gateway drug and usually leads to people doing other things, dont try to say it dosent because ive seen it happen in my family.
its illeagal for a reason and it will stay illeagal because theres way too many people against it than for it and untill you can get massive movements and protest together it will stay illeagal. I mean MASSIVE movements. it would have to be bigger than the hippies.

Okay the whole Gateway drug is bullshit did that person in your family do weed before tobacco,Alcohol,Caffeine all those drugs are used more commenly than marijuana and most marijuana users use those drugs first.

The gateway drug theory goes something like this
Since people do hard drugs started doing more common soft drugs soft drugs lead to hard drug use.

The truth is marijuana is just more common yes most people who do hard drugs smoked weed first but most also went to church & school does that lead to hard drugs to?

Most pot heads do not regularly do hard drugs and most don't even do harder drugs.

At 10/20/08 01:11 AM, dySWN wrote:

At 10/19/08 11:43 PM, altanese-mistress wrote: Decriminalized? Yes.
Legalized? No.

I'm not entirely sure I see the difference.

Decriminalized means no criminal penalty typically with misdemeanor amounts

You know we don't have any regulation on illegal drugs which means that for me when I was under 18 I could always get weed; getting alcohol and cigarettes that was difficult.

Why? dealers don't check IDs.

I'm semi Libertarian the issues that I don't agree with are
Welfare I don't believe we should have NO welfare but we should not give someone enough to live comfortably for sure.
well I think that's about it. Huh I never realized how close I was.
But we libertarians are the true liberals we don't want the government in our business, we don't want high taxes, we don't want gun control, & we want a small government that does not control our lives.

At 10/19/08 11:27 PM, Not-God wrote: It's mostly not the drug they're trying to prevent, it's the lifestyle it promotes.

What life style?
Pot smokers are everywhere, in every facet of our society so quit with the "lifestyle" argument.

Sorry LEAP must have changed their URL here is their new onehttp://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

At 10/19/08 10:37 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

supposedly it doesn't work the first time.

if this is true i would love to know the explanation.

Some people don't get high the first time I don't know why the best "stoner theory" I've heard is your just not used to it.
Cannabis Sativa Indica is probably the weirdest plant on the planet.

At 10/19/08 10:34 PM, poxpower wrote: I dunno, I've tried it once alone. It was cookies and they were really strong ( so the other people who had some said ) and it really didn't do much for me. I gave pot a fair chance. Blah.

Do you mean it was in cookies? If you eat it you have to eat A LOT to get high. (some people have told me they don't get high if they eat it)

The DEATH skit in The Meaning of Life

At 10/19/08 08:29 PM, patm1313 wrote:

At 10/19/08 07:17 PM, JohnnyWang wrote:

At 10/19/08 07:11 PM, patm1313 wrote: Weed will die out if it's legalized. It will be more expensive to make than to sell, as there will be 5x more growers. And with these new growers, the quality will decrease because they have no clue what the fuck their doing.

Like how the quality of alcohol dropped after the prohobition got revoked?

If weed stays popular enough for cultures to be developed, then it will probably be better than before legalization. But it's gonna discourage a lot of high-tech growing and going to incourage low-tech growing until then.

Basically once weed is legalized:
Having a hemp plant in your room near the sun and watering it = Good
Professional hydroponic growing with regulated C02, temp, and light = Bad

Thus, weed quality will decrease.

Okay your an idiot, how would quality decrease? AND why would you grow weed in a closet when you could use a sealed greenhouse? Seariusly what the hell are you talking about?

At 10/19/08 08:13 PM, Yamor wrote: If pot became legal I think the quality of this country would dip ever further.

What's your reasoning behind this?

At 10/19/08 04:54 PM, Timmy wrote: I refuse to register.

The jury selection pool is taken from the registered voters list.

You shouldn't duck jury duty Think would you prefer to be judged by 12 people who couldn't get out of jury duty? Seriously don't duck jury duty consider it an opportunity to do some good in the world and get paid for it.

At 10/19/08 07:57 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 10/19/08 07:31 PM, kraor024 wrote:

I didn't use this as an argument that it should be banned for this reason - I was merely stating that an increase in marijuana use (from legalization or other factors) should theoretically correlate with an increase in DUIs, however small that increase may be.

That is unlikely in my opinion, If I remember correctly alcohol consumption didn't rise after prohibition ended.(it did before it ended though)

Before someone brings up the people who have been charged with DWAI(or vehicular manslaughter)
for testing positive for weed those test can show canabinoids for weeks or even months after the person has smoked.

In any event, you didn't really address the question - if the officer has no cause to suspect some form of intoxication, then why is he pulling you over for it in the first place?

How about racial/economic profiling I drive the wrong car in the wrong neighborhood the Christmas lights come on pretty quick, or when I hang out with certain races I get stopped quit a bit, plus sometimes a cop will just pull you over for no reason, it is illegal but since when do cops obey the law?

Also, some commas would do you good.

I know my grammer is horrible.

Some states like Georgia for example have laws stating that if a trucker gets into an accident and someone dies in that accident and they test positive they get vehicular manslaughter.(their is one famous instance of this were the guy who died had a heart attack and caused the wreck, the trucker was something like the 38th vehicle in a 39car pileup and he is serving ten years for manslaughter)

The reasoning behind that is that intoxication, in terms of many crimes, serves as an aggravating factor, regardless of the source of intoxication. The only times when this is not the case are when the intoxication is unintentional (as in the case being drugged by another, making it a mitigating factor instead), or when the intoxication is so extreme as to prevent the formation of intent.

The problem is these laws don't really protect anyone they are used to deter behavior that the Gov. does not approve of it just regardless of the reason for the law if men who are clearly innocent go to jail for it it am against it.

In the case of what appears to be impaired driving, a driver may opt for a breath or blood test at the station instead. In you're friend's case, the latter part sounds more like standard plea-bargaining to get an easy guilty plea as opposed to trying to make an example out of him - no offense, but he was an idiot for not taking the offer when the judge was giving him the chance.

Actually it was the DA, as a law major you should know that and it was not a plea bargain they did not ask him to plead guilty they asked him to sign a document that would state that he was high (effectively a confession for DWAI),They also did not ask him to plead guilty to any other charge only to intoxication they would still try him for the other charges, you are right this is standard for people who test positive,as for the alternative testing I don't know of a state that uses marijauna breathalizers (they are considered inacuret) we do have the right to request a blood test but he would still have tested positive & unfortunitly the 4th & 5th amendment does not apply to drug users.

As for him being an idiot maybe, but he preferred not to lie just to further their cause and get himself reduced charges ,This is called PRIDE I wish more people had it.

At 10/19/08 06:14 PM, JohnnyWang wrote:

At 10/19/08 06:11 PM, ChickenReaper wrote: If marijuana is legalized people will stop shooting eachother over it like prohibition

Do people shoot eachother over weed?

sarcasm, off course. Because no, no they don't.

No but they do OVER MONEY!

At 10/19/08 07:11 PM, patm1313 wrote: Weed will die out if it's legalized. It will be more expensive to make than to sell, as there will be 5x more growers. And with these new growers, the quality will decrease because they have no clue what the fuck their doing.

I've heard this argument before it is bullshit weed would be cheaper to grow legally and considering how many people know how to grow now I doubt that the knowledge will be lost.
In case you forgot we live in a Capitalism(with a Capital C) companies will grow it and be forced to compete with each other they would have to sell it for cheaper or the would have to sell a better product this does not change no matter what the product is.

At 10/19/08 07:42 PM, dySWN wrote:

I don't really like that line of argumentation. After all, people who want to commit theft will do it anyways, but if we legalized it we would all be worse off. This seems like an argument against deterrence as a crime prevention model more than an argument about marijuana itself.

The point is simple, it is a consensual crime everyone hurt by smoking marijuana is willing to be hurt the other crimes caused by the marijuana black market would see great reduction if it were legal.

I'm not really strongly opinionated on this part of the debate. I have beef with people who try to use medical use as a reason why we should legalize it, but aside from my personal disapproval of the lifestyle it engenders I'm not sure what the government should do about recreational use - on the one hand I am a social conservative, but on the other hand I'm all for government not intervening in personal matters, so in the end I'm torn.

May I ask what lifestyle I know potheads in prettymuch every walk of life?

If you even read the full article you would see they even admit that smoking marijuana is not the healthiest form of taking the drug (proposing the oil made from it usually used in cooking as a much safer alternative).

Okay...?

I believe the point there is as an illegal drug you can not afford to eat marijuana to get high if it were legal you could afford to and that would be much healthier.

The usage of Marijuana has outlived every great Empire of man, it's foolish to think that we could ever stop it and to think that we need to.

They problem with drug prohibition is it only causes more crime people know about drugs, the cat is out of the bag so as long as people live people will try to alter their consciousness & as long as it is illegal their will be people to make a profit in it and no legal way to solve business disputes so violent crime goes up.

I would like you to check out LEAP Law Enforcement Against Prohibition just to hear what those who fight the war on drugs say

At 10/19/08 06:36 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 10/19/08 06:30 PM, kraor024 wrote:
The problem with that argument is THC has no hallucinogenic qualities(in a normal brain)that is an old myth, it was classified as a hallucinogen because it does not qualify as anything else.

Well, no. If you think about it, the moniker also applies to substances that simply alter perceptions. Being stoned doesn't have to be a full-on acid trip to apply.

While you are correct that marijuana does impair driving ability it is minimal and most drivers are aware of there impairment the major problem is someone basically has difficulty staying in the center of the lane. (I know drivers who have been sober for there whole lives that can't do that)
And the minor problem is that you have a slowed reaction time (about the equivalent of being 5years older)
lnklinklink
Since you sell alcohol you should also know that once again by this reasoning alcohol should be illegal if someone gets in an accident stoned then its their fault not the herbs how would you like it if I blamed alcohol for every drunk driving death (I blame the drunk driver he chose to drive impaired and that's what happened, the alcohol didn't drive drunk the man did).

Before someone brings up the people who have been charged with DWAI(or vehicular manslaughter)
for testing positive for weed those test can show canabinoids for weeks or even months after the person has smoked.

How does one get arrested for a DUI in the first place without giving the arresting officer reason to suspect intoxication?

IF you are arrested you will be made to take an Urine Analysis(UA) if arrested for any reason(warrants for instance) and you will be charged & if you get into an accident and someone is injured or dies you will be arrested and regardless of weather or not you were high you test positive you will be charged (a buddy of mine got 3years &7 on probation for V. manslaughter,the police report read Accidental death due to Vehicular Malfunction ,he smoked the day before, and they offered to drop half the charges if he signed a statement saying he was high, he repeatedly told them he wasn't and that he smoked the day before he was told "the effects marijuana can last for several days") (they clearly wanted an example and since he wouldn't lie for their stats he got made an example another way)

Some states like Georgia for example have laws stating that if a trucker gets into an accident and someone dies in that accident and they test positive they get vehicular manslaughter.(their is one famous instance of this were the guy who died had a heart attack and caused the wreck, the trucker was something like the 38th vehicle in a 39car pileup and he is serving ten years for manslaughter)

At 10/19/08 05:59 PM, dySWN wrote:

Then you should be against smoking while driving not smoking period, why not outlaw alcohol while your at it?

Because studies have demonstrated that certain forms of mild drinking can actually be beneficial for otherwise healthy individuals.

From wikilink provided(I've read this article before,dude)
"A two-year study in which rats and mice were force-fed tetrahydrocannabinol dissolved in corn oil showed reduced body mass, enhanced survival rates, and decreased tumor incidences in several sites, ...... "
see the same can be said for marijuana (it has also been shown to regenerate nerves in the brain which means it may prevent Alzheimers even treat it)(it is also been shown to be an anti-depressant)

By the by I have never seen a study that indicates reduced driving ability I've also never seen someone to high to drive safely either.

THC is a psychoactive drug that can have mildly hallucinogenic qualities

:As such, it seems natural to assume that, with one's perceptions altered by THC, one would not be as save a driver during or immediately after smoking marijuana. Maybe studies don't bear that out, but it would also seem to make sense that people are less inclined to drive after smoking because the drug tends to make you sort of lazy, skewing the percentages somewhat.

The problem with that argument is THC has no hallucinogenic qualities(in a normal brain)that is an old myth, it was classified as a hallucinogen because it does not qualify as anything else.
Before someone brings up the people who have been charged with DWAI(or vehicular manslaughter)
for testing positive for weed those test can show canabinoids for weeks or even months after the person has smoked.

you'd be suprized at how many poisones (can't spell) have medicinal value hemlock (not recommended) can be used as an analgesic for instance.

At 10/19/08 05:01 PM, AndOutComeTheWolves1 wrote: I say i can disprove god (its pretty simple actually)

I am not religious can I hear your proof?

Isn't there a dozen or so threads on this subject?

At 10/19/08 05:42 PM, dySWN wrote: I honestly don't think that marijuana should be legalized. The synthetic isolates of cannabis are more effective overall for treating medical conditions than the raw drug itself, and I would imagine that there would be a meteoric increase in DUIs simply from people lighting up behind the wheel should the drug ever be legalized.

Then you should be against smoking while driving not smoking period, why not outlaw alcohol while your at it?

By the by I have never seen a study that indicates reduced driving ability I've also never seen someone to high to drive safely either.

That is a very interesting theory, you do need a little more explanation though and If I may make a suggestion flip it up side down that will make it much easier to read.

Are you intending to publish?

do you mean"Ego" in the common use sense or psychological sense?

At 10/19/08 12:15 PM, Korriken wrote:

how is it anti homosexual? just because it mentions raping someone of the same gender is a reason to consider the person a likely repeat offender? Gimme a break. This is like saying a white college fund is racist.

That's sarcasm right?
(God please let it be sarcasm)

It's sr-71 dude it says that at the beginning of the video and yes they do exist, they are the ones who originally did 1985.

At 10/19/08 04:46 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: It's a throwback to times when glasses were really expensive, and also related to the stereotype that people with glasses are weak.

Glasses still are really expensive, mine are 5 years old I can't afford a new pair.

That god appears in the pledge of allegiance/currency supports Christianity is kinda true but it does not say the "god of Abraham" & most people do believe in a god of some kind.

Truthfully I think that Fundamentalist religion is what you truly hate & the blind following of religious leaders. I must say if I'm correct I'm with you, The weirdest thing is as a child if I went to a church other than my own(my pastor was of the 2 undeniable facts about god school of thought) I would hear passages from the bible quote mined to support whatever the Priest's personal views were.
To this day I am shocked when I see a sign outside a church that says something like "Aids is Gods vengeance on homosexuals" like god chose to punish one group of people with a disease that can infect anyone.(honestly why would you worship a deity like that?Hell would be better than being an asshole's bitch for all eternity )

You know one of the best religious movies is "The Life of Brian" in it Brian keeps trying to tell his followers that they have to stop following people ,they have to figure it out for themselves.

I do like that you point out the flaw in Atheist/theist thinking that neither school of thought makes real sense. And even though it has all been said before you do use real points & you're not arguing the existence of god(that will always end with the words "prove it")