Surprise: Colombia admits high-level military corruption

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by octothorp

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.

They aren't lobbying for it, but if it happens, they will be the first and largest player in that market.

As for the rest of the thread...

Just like i don't think you should be able to go down to the drug store and get marijuana, I don't think you should be able to go down to the drug store and get cocaine. However, if you wanted to do cocaine, or felt like you had a legitimate reason for using it, I don't understand why an arrangement similar to viagra can't be worked out.

I don't see much appeal in the drug, but a physician metered/monitored cocaine habit doesn't seem like such a horrible alternative to the system we have in place now. I don't think it will make the drug any more attractive than it is now, probably less so.

Either way, 'Plan Colombia' is someone's version of a sick joke.

Here's a nice little reading list about columbia:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...m?ItemID=12697
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...m?ItemID=12727
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...m?ItemID=11863
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/a...2/us.colombia/

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by calculoso

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.

Hardly.

Relative scare articles make their way into the wires every time some nation decides to take a fresh look at their drug laws. 'Leads to Pyschosis', 'Pot now 150% stronger!' 'Pot Leads to Pregnant Teens'.These articles never amount to anything other than closely worded sentences about the 'dangers', followed by a short contextualized remark about how other legal substances are far more dangerous.

It doesn't take a genius to assume a filter-less product that is incinerated and then inhaled will do damage to ones lungs. The difference is the lack of additive carcinogens and radioactive fertilizer found in commercial tobacco agriculture. One leads to mild lung irritation that stops when you stop doing the abusive behaviour, and the other leads to heightened risk of all types of cancers and diseases.

[Salt Water Cowboy #10]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Hardly.

Relative scare articles make their way into the wires every time some nation decides to take a fresh look at their drug laws. 'Leads to Pyschosis', 'Pot now 150% stronger!' 'Pot Leads to Pregnant Teens'.These articles never amount to anything other than closely worded sentences about the 'dangers', followed by a short contextualized remark about how other legal substances are far more dangerous.

It doesn't take a genius to assume a filter-less product that is incinerated and then inhaled will do damage to ones lungs. The difference is the lack of additive carcinogens and radioactive fertilizer found in commercial tobacco agriculture. One leads to mild lung irritation that stops when you stop doing the abusive behaviour, and the other leads to heightened risk of all types of cancers and diseases.

"SCARE TACTICS"!!! whew, for a minute I was getting worried. Must be because I'm stoned as a petrified lizard and constantly paraniod!!

I can't believe anything coming from american media these days.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Salt Water Cowboy #10

"SCARE TACTICS"!!! whew, for a minute I was getting worried. Must be because I'm stoned as a petrified lizard and constantly paraniod!!

I can't believe anything coming from american media these days.

ya... especially since these studies are coming from England...

[Salt Water Cowboy #10]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Beat me to it...

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





And a new one today:

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





(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)

didn't you post this...?
I'm pretty sure MSNBC is american. And besides, Reuters page has many links to CNN. Either way what are you getting at? All drugs are ok except Pot?

I'm done.

[Salt Water Cowboy #10]

Originally Posted by calculoso

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.

Risk free? what the heck is risk free these days? Taking Tylenol isn't risk free. The point is, is that people should have a choice as to which "risk" they want to take, and yes the more "facts" we know about each the better.

now I'm really done.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Salt Water Cowboy #10

didn't you post this...?
I'm pretty sure MSNBC is american. And besides, Reuters page has many links to CNN. Either way what are you getting at? All drugs are ok except Pot?

I'm done.

The study was conducted at a British University with the story being taken from the AP via London. So it was actually a UK media source that they took the story off the wire from. (MSNBC link).

[Salt Water Cowboy #10]

I guess I've gotten this thread off topic. The location of the study isn't that relevent to the topic. Pot has risks. Should we as a society treat all drugs, ie. Pot, booze, cigs, cocaine, etc. the same, by which educating the public about "facts", and let individuals make the choice on thier own?

[CaramonLS]

No, especially not when it would significantly increase my chances of getting attacked by some meth addict. Self control/education with Meth? Good luck with that one.

The only way to keep yourself safe is to make sure nobody goes near garbage like that.

[Salt Water Cowboy #10]

and we're doing a great job of that now? I know to stay away and so do you. I would never want such a thing legalized. It kills people, and I've never heard of a casual meth smoker. People that smoke it will smoke it regarless of the laws. We need to stop the producers of the drug. I think you are missing what I'm saying. A little common sense would tell you that society doesn't need drug addicts that cause society a threat. And the way the laws are now, they aren't protecting anyone anyway. I think you'd be at the same risk of being attacked by a meth head if it were legal or not.

Who doesn't know that meth is dangerous and addictive etc? I would never smoke anything out of a lightbulb

[Flames89]

Right now in most major Canadian cities, with the right connections, you can get weed or coke delivered to you faster than a pizza. I am sure if the demand for other drugs were there, they would be just as easy too. People don't demand as much meth and other amphetimines b/c they are too harsh and are horrible for you (relatively).

Coke has been overblown. It is easier to get addicted to cigarettes 10fold, granted they don't ruin your life, but booze will.

Weed on the other hand really, really should be legal. I may or may not have endulged (this is a public forum here), but had I in my past, I wouldn't smoke much at all these days. Why? Not because it isn't always around. It is b/c I, hypothetically, just don't like it as much.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Flames89

Right now in most major Canadian cities, with the right connections, you can get weed or coke delivered to you faster than a pizza. I am sure if the demand for other drugs were there, they would be just as easy too. People don't demand as much meth and other amphetimines b/c they are too harsh and are horrible for you (relatively).

Coke has been overblown. It is easier to get addicted to cigarettes 10fold, granted they don't ruin your life, but booze will.

Weed on the other hand really, really should be legal. I may or may not have endulged (this is a public forum here), but had I in my past, I wouldn't smoke much at all these days. Why? Not because it isn't always around. It is b/c I, hypothetically, just don't like it as much.

not meant to derail, just a caveat.

Meth is far more prominent than most people in Canada believe. In rural areas, especially in high-income and border sections of the country, Meth use is amazingly wide-spread.