Surprise: Colombia admits high-level military corruption

[Shawnski]

Cocaine smugglers and leftist rebels have infiltrated senior levels of the Colombian army, impeding efforts at defeating the guerrillas and fighting drugs, Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos said on Monday.

Yeah... OK... gotcha..

Really? Tell me it isn't so. Next thing you will say is that Paris isn't a virgin.

This alone isn't thread worthy. However the parallels of the BC bud versus Columbian cocaine did come to mind.

Both are multi-billion dollar industries ruled by illegal entities (to put it mildly.) They each face public negative scrutiny in general from the laws of the land of most countries in the world. Opium poppies could be considered a third in line of "natural" drug sources.

So in Canada, we have recently been noticed for our high pot consumption vis-a-vis the rest of the world. Many have sought out that it should be legalized, with some well though out arguments such as a reduction in gang violence and reduced cost of product.

I wonder how that overlaps the situation in Columbia, where the cocoa bean rules. (Columbian pot USED to be the cat's arse.... 25 years ago...)

Several questions to all on CP (praise Bingo, long live TSN jihads...points North and gives the finger, in Sutter we trust)....

Could you legitimize pot here, but not cocaine from there? What differentiates the two in you mind?

If you could go down to Costco and get a 500 gram bottle of cocaine for $69.95, would you be more inclined to use it?

Would you be willing to do so if your health care costs went up 1% per purchase? (Which your employer might be footing and notice.)

Would it be worth the saving of lives all around if there were no restrictions? Or would it cost more lives in the long run via health care, productivity and other issues like perhaps higher insurance claims? How would it impact gang violence? Would people be herded to other created substances like meth by those that seek profits?

What other questions come to mind?

Bottom line, if legalization of pot is OK, why stop there?

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Yeah... OK... gotcha..

Really? Tell me it isn't so. Next thing you will say is that Paris isn't a virgin.

This alone isn't thread worthy. However the parallels of the BC bud versus Columbian cocaine did come to mind.

Both are multi-billion dollar industries ruled by illegal entities (to put it mildly.) They each face public negative scrutiny in general from the laws of the land of most countries in the world. Opium poppies could be considered a third in line of "natural" drug sources.

So in Canada, we have recently been noticed for our high pot consumption vis-a-vis the rest of the world. Many have sought out that it should be legalized, with some well though out arguments such as a reduction in gang violence and reduced cost of product.

I wonder how that overlaps the situation in Columbia, where the cocoa bean rules. (Columbian pot USED to be the cat's arse.... 25 years ago...)

Several questions to all on CP (praise Bingo, long live TSN jihads...points North and gives the finger, in Sutter we trust)....

Could you legitimize pot here, but not cocaine from there? What differentiates the two in you mind?

If you could go down to Costco and get a 500 gram bottle of cocaine for $69.95, would you be more inclined to use it?

Would you be willing to do so if your health care costs went up 1% per purchase? (Which your employer might be footing and notice.)

Would it be worth the saving of lives all around if there were no restrictions? Or would it cost more lives in the long run via health care, productivity and other issues like perhaps higher insurance claims? How would it impact gang violence? Would people be herded to other created substances like meth by those that seek profits?

What other questions come to mind?

Bottom line, if legalization of pot is OK, why stop there?

one is an extremely addictive substance that has killed and ruined the lives of millions of people around the world, and another simply gives you a case of the munchies. and when you look at the effects of alcohol and tobacco, both legal substances with many more deaths attributed to them than cocaine, it's hard to come up with an argument as to why pot shouldn't be legal

[Temporary_User]

I don't do either, but I have done a lil research on marijuana and it's benefits. both marijuana and hemp.
I am all for legalization.

They're both illegal. that is the only similiarity between the two.

[cgy2london]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Yeah... OK... gotcha..

Really? Tell me it isn't so. Next thing you will say is that Paris isn't a virgin.

This alone isn't thread worthy. However the parallels of the BC bud versus Columbian cocaine did come to mind.

Both are multi-billion dollar industries ruled by illegal entities (to put it mildly.) They each face public negative scrutiny in general from the laws of the land of most countries in the world. Opium poppies could be considered a third in line of "natural" drug sources.

So in Canada, we have recently been noticed for our high pot consumption vis-a-vis the rest of the world. Many have sought out that it should be legalized, with some well though out arguments such as a reduction in gang violence and reduced cost of product.

I wonder how that overlaps the situation in Columbia, where the cocoa bean rules. (Columbian pot USED to be the cat's arse.... 25 years ago...)

Several questions to all on CP (praise Bingo, long live TSN jihads...points North and gives the finger, in Sutter we trust)....

Could you legitimize pot here, but not cocaine from there? What differentiates the two in you mind?

If you could go down to Costco and get a 500 gram bottle of cocaine for $69.95, would you be more inclined to use it?

Would you be willing to do so if your health care costs went up 1% per purchase? (Which your employer might be footing and notice.)

Would it be worth the saving of lives all around if there were no restrictions? Or would it cost more lives in the long run via health care, productivity and other issues like perhaps higher insurance claims? How would it impact gang violence? Would people be herded to other created substances like meth by those that seek profits?

What other questions come to mind?

Bottom line, if legalization of pot is OK, why stop there?

one allows you 2 spend 2 much money at 711 or dq watch any movie, and then finally get tired and pass out

the other is extremly addictive. It also presents the oppertunity to kill youself, if two much is taken. The same cant be said for the other one.

[octothorp]

I don't really see a strong parrellel between the two. Legalizing marijuana may lead to a moderate slippery-slope effect, but cocaine is at the absolute bottom of the hill. Use the most commonly available carcogenic substances available today as a benchmark: cigarettes. If a new drug is going to be less addictive and less harmful than cigarettes, I have no problem with its legalization. The science seems to indicate that this is the case: that pot is less addictive and less toxic than cigarettes. Although there's so much propaganda on both sides of the debate that it's difficult to determine scientific fact.

Speaking of cigarettes, I'd be very interested to know where big tobacco stands on the debate. Do they see the possibility of legalized marijuana as a dangerous new competitor, or do they see it as a potential new product that they can co-opt? It would be pretty easy for them to come up with a nicotine-marijuana hybrid product that would have all the dubious sex appeal of pot but the addictive qualities of cigarettes. Right now, marijuana is viewed as this quaint little hippie cottage industry by its proponents, but it won't stay that way once it becomes legal.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Comparing the two side by side is like comparing auto fuel to rocket fuel. Not even in the same class. Like someone else said, I can't say I have ever heard of anyone smoking up and getting into a car crash or going home and beating/shooting his family.

Can't compare the two at all really.

[Azure]

I wouldn't call coke the bottom of the hill...pretty close though. A very dangerous drug, that will hopefully never be legalized.

[Shawnski]

Being an old fart that lived through the 80s, doing more than should ever be revealed on an internet message board, I will simply say this.... so far, the replies about the "addiction" level of cocaine are very over stated, let alone stupid.

It is/was socially addictive moreso than physically addictive like marijuana IMO and as recognized thoughout my "community".

Cocaine got you laid, joints didn't.

I never had a problem walking away from the cocaine lifestyle. But I had one heck of a battle walking away from pot.

That was many, many moons ago, from someone who lived to excess way too often and still lived.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

It is/was socially addictive moreso than physically addictive like marijuana IMO and as recognized thoughout my "community".

That's how I would classify it. I know it only really ever comes up in my circle of friends if a bunch of them have been drinking. I've tried it a a few times and have never had a problem walking away. That being said, I've also never been that captivated by it.

On the other hand, I just had a friend go to rehab after she almost lost her job. She had a habit of going on week long benders and missing work. Watching her do this though made me realize that it's more about self-control and knowing when to shut 'er down for a night. If you don't have self-control, you shouldn't be touching any sort of addictive substance. I do find it rather telling that alcohol is usually the catalyst for these kinds of things, yet people want to label pot as a gateway drug.

I'm pretty well a Libertarian, so I do think most things should be legalized, as long as you're only endangering yourself. There are not a lot of positive things to say about cocaine, but I think, like anything else, if it's not done to excessive levels, the person will generally come out fine on the other end.

[Salt Water Cowboy #10]

I've never heard of anyone cooking down pot and smoking it, well ok , I have , but these people aren't a threat to others. I mean nobody would steal, rob or break into anothers house to get another fix of pot.

Also , I never heard of someone smoking a joint and then saying "lets go get some coke". A person would more likely have a drink or two and come up with that idea. And booze is legal. And booze is a gateway drug moreso than pot.

Both have their addictive qualities (pot and coke) , but its very hard to compare the two. I could understand the legalization of Marajuana, but, I don't think cocaine would be a good idea. The negatives outway the positives.

Legal or not poeple will get their hands on either. And the coke seems like it has more serious problems linked to it and the use of it.

[FlamingLonghorn]

They just released a major study conducting by a bunch of universities that people who smoke pot are 50% more likely to develop schizophrenia.

[badnarik]

I would buy coke at the store if i could. You end up with some problems either way, but I think a personal responsibility solution would be better than the 'war on drugs'.

[Salt Water Cowboy #10]

Originally Posted by Sowa

They just released a major study conducting by a bunch of universities that people who smoke pot are 50% more likely to develop schizophrenia.

Thats a scary stat. I'm sure it applies to the excessive user. But, what do they say about Coke? 50% more likely to develope chronic depression? 50% more likely to smoke crack? I'm sure there are many issued developed from excessive use of coke.

To me, one seems way more dangerous to society than the other. I'm not saying either should be legal. But if both were legal, I'd be a little worried about my Son or Daughter trying one over the other, on their 18th birthday.

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by badnarik

I would buy coke at the store if i could.

Me too... as a novelty? For a big party? I think drugs could be sold the same way cigarettes are. Just because they are available doesn't mean you have to buy them. Just because I can buy something doesn't mean I do. As other posters have stated, it's all about self-control.

[Salt Water Cowboy #10]

I guess that would leave it up to parents to teach their kids about self control. That may be a problem for some...\

I do agree though. We shouldn't be punished for trying different substances/drugs. Only punished for the resulting actions if they are deemed dangerous to others/society.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Sowa

They just released a major study conducting by a bunch of universities that people who smoke pot are 50% more likely to develop schizophrenia.

I`ve seen a couple studies that have suggested a link between marijuana and various forms of psychosis, but they also suggest that heavy alcohol consumption is a far greater predictor of psychosis. But either way, the studies suggest that the real risk with Cannabis is for those who consume it while their brain is still developing. Significant consumption at the age of 15 can triple the likelihood of schizophrenia later in life. However, significant consumption at the age of 25 is unlikely to produce an increase in risk of psychosis. Like alcohol, the long-term effects on the brain are magnified for younger consumers.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Sowa

They just released a major study conducting by a bunch of universities that people who smoke pot are 50% more likely to develop schizophrenia.

Beat me to it...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19980923/

The new review suggests that even infrequent use could raise the small but real risk of this serious mental illness by 40 percent.

The scientists found a more disturbing outlook for “heavy users” of pot, those who used it daily or weekly: Their risk for psychosis jumped to a range of 50 percent to 200 percent.

And a new one today:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20052489/

London - Smoking one cannabis joint is as harmful to a person’s lungs as having up to five cigarettes, according to research published on Tuesday.

The study found only those who smoked tobacco suffered from the crippling lung disease emphysema, but cannabis use stopped the lungs working properly.

(Edit: MSNBC links were used because they were the first ones I found. I'm sure that other more "suitable" links could also be found elsewhere)

[Salt Water Cowboy #10]

[quote=calculoso;957470]Beat me to it...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19980923/





And a new one today:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20052489/



Are you willing to take the "risk"? I know there are doctors, lawyers etc. that are willing. But most of them are smart enough not to smoke cigs. dig up some good stuff about coke, cigs and booze too.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Salt Water Cowboy #10

Are you willing to take the "risk"? I know there are doctors, lawyers etc. that are willing. But most of them are smart enough not to smoke cigs. dig up some good stuff about coke, cigs and booze too.

We all know that coke, cigs, and booze have side effects. This isn't about them.

Years ago plenty of people were "willing" to take the cigarette "risk"... you know.. before a lot of the lung cancer (etc) side effects were known.

Marijuana is commonly thought to be "risk-free".. something that is now starting to be thought isn't the case.

[REDVAN]

Everything has risks, but unless you an absolute IDIOT then you know not to do that sort of thing to excess for your whole life. I know there's an argument of addiction and dependancy, but there's also an issue of willpower etc.

I still think everything should be legal if you are over 18. Frick, make it 21 who cares, but the point is that if you want to try something you should be allowed to. Doesn't mean because it is available that you have to try it.