California Voters Reject Bid to Legalize Marijuana

Misanthrope

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This is exactly the sort of fuzzy logic and misconception that saw cannabis smokers and growers vote against a law that would have legalised their industry and possibly commenced a wave of prohibition repeal across America and elsewhere.

Does the State legislature 'mismanage' the alcohol or tobacco industries? No. They simply tax and regulate them.

This was a classic coalition of fools - from grannies scared that nurses would turn up to work stoned to hypocritical boomers voting down what they themselves engaged in (while still expecting their pensions and benefits to be paid out of an empty budget) to idiot users and dealers who'd rather be illegal than pay some tax.

Of course, a lot of the particularly baked off-the-grid libertarian hippies up in the hills don't like paying tax. That's understandable, but Cali needs the revenue badly.

Meanwhile, thousands die annually south of the Rio Grande as drug cartels fight to control the flow of drugs to El Norte.

The rejection of Prop 19 merely ensures the cartels continue and so do the deaths.

As a wise man once said, there is no drug problem in Latin America, there is a United States problem. That problem is destined to continue, thanks to this vote.

There's nothing fuzzy about the logic.I grow a sizeable amount of weed and it supplements my income as well as getting me stoned for free.It's an economic decision and if it was lining your pocket you wouldn't see it as fuzzy.Under regulation I not only have to pay yet more state tax, but now have to inform the IRS of gains from a federally illegal activity.Furthermore I will be subjected to stipulations, standards and fees.The standards of the industry are fine right now.If someone tries to sell you any of the Mexican garbage you tell them f88k off because you can get top grade stuff everywhere.Under legalisation,smalller growers like me would be crushed by "Wal Mart" scale operations, perhaps even going to a Fed Pen in the process.

State legislature has let Alcohol and Tobacco away with murder.Cigarettes are a foul,compromised and contaminated product.If you ever grow your own tobacco you'll realise this.
Most of the alcohol sold is low grade piss with not standards for brewing.


People dying in the Rio Grande is not because of this.Are you insane?You think potheads in Cali are the root cause of Mexican gang warfare?Cartels?You've been watching FOX News or something,have you?
Those beasts are mixed up in just about everything but weed.


I'm delighted it failed.The people have spoken.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Johro wrote: »

Homeopathic remedies though, whether you believe they work or not, don't do harm.

That isn't entirely true. A lot more harm has been done by people taking homeopathic pills instead of going to the doctor than people taking legal highs.

Misanthrope

Johro wrote: »

Homeopathic remedies though, whether you believe they work or not, don't do harm.

It is not a belief that they don't work.It is a fact.

They harm your wallet.I know one poor woman who spends a fortune on that snake oil BS. She thinks it works when really it's just her immune system doing what it's supposed to.Homeopathy is a pseudoscientific rendering of age old superstition, which is itself borne of ignorance or stupidity.

I do agree though that drinking or applying water with a 1/10,000,000,000 chance of containing a single molecule of purported active ingredient, can't do you any harm.

Paying attention in science class would do no harm either.

ScumLord

Johro wrote: »

Homeopathic remedies though, whether you believe they work or not, don't do harm.

Well surely if it's possible for the placebo effects of homoeopathic remedies to cure people it could also cause harm in much the same way. Maybe.

Misanthrope wrote: »

The standards of the industry are fine right now.

Says who? The fact is the weed being breed out there is moving further and further away from being weed with benefits towards a stronger and stronger drug. I don't think it's particularly good, the medical benefits of cannabis are not just down to THC content, there are other chemicals that are beneficial as anti cancerous and anti psychotic but their content is reduced when THC content goes up. There's a reason we have upper limits on alcohol content.

TPD

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

heh heh ...looks like the voters in the Golden state have a bit of sense eh:D


Why work your hole off to support a coterie of stoners and useless gimps who contribute nothing and take everything.

Bit of turpitude in the squats and ghettos when the jerks who ride the free wave of John Q Taxpayer to the limit, realise that the game is up.


Well done Cali voters, you guys got sense.;)

:P If American taxes were even to go towards healthcare, which they don't, this bill would have meant that the 'useless gimps' would be contributing by paying tax on the marijuana.

tolosenc

Maybe they are intelligent over there, after all.

Misanthrope

ScumLord wrote: »

Well surely if it's possible for the placebo effects of homoeopathic remedies to cure people it could also cause harm in much the same way. Maybe.

Says who? The fact is the weed being breed out there is moving further and further away from being weed with benefits towards a stronger and stronger drug. I don't think it's particularly good, the medical benefits of cannabis are not just down to THC content, there are other chemicals that are beneficial as anti cancerous and anti psychotic but their content is reduced when THC content goes up. There's a reason we have upper limits on alcohol content.

Says me.I'm a stringent Independent Quality Assessor for product emanating predominantly from Cali and BC.Obviously there arises the occasional issue but virtually all the time the product is premium grade.
I haven't sent anything back in years.

Then there's my own product.As organic as it gets, molasses and Bat Guano fed,water purged,dried and cured.Never had one complaint.It doesn't get any purer than how I do it.

As soon as the crooks in government get their hands on the weed industry standards will be at best like those of alcohol and tobacco and that's not good enough.

As for it being a stronger and stronger drug.Well, I've smoked the strongest weed strains on the planet and lots of them.I've smoked almost a 1/4 ounce of White Widow today.I'm doing fine thank you.Weed is like tea.Some like it weak as water and some like it strong.It can't kill you.Do you understand this fact?It is not possible to die from poisoning by the active ingredients of marijuana.

The fact that you alluded to the old Stronger n stronger argument suggests to me that you are not very experienced in this field.

Pace2008

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

heh heh ...looks like the voters in the Golden state have a bit of sense eh:D


Why work your hole off to support a coterie of stoners and useless gimps who contribute nothing and take everything.

Bit of turpitude in the squats and ghettos when the jerks who ride the free wave of John Q Taxpayer to the limit, realise that the game is up.


Well done Cali voters, you guys got sense.;)

This piece of Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V you're so fond of was badly misinformed in the cesspit that was our most recent headshop thread, and is quite literally nonsense when you're talking about the issue in the USA.

Manic Moran

Misanthrope wrote: »

I've smoked almost a 1/4 ounce of White Widow today. I'm doing fine thank you.

Of course you think you're doing fine. You're on drugs!

NTM

Sticky_Fingers

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

heh heh ...looks like the voters in the Golden state have a bit of sense eh:D


Why work your hole off to support a coterie of stoners and useless gimps who contribute nothing and take everything.

Bit of turpitude in the squats and ghettos when the jerks who ride the free wave of John Q Taxpayer to the limit, realise that the game is up.


Well done Cali voters, you guys got sense.;)

Did you even think about the issue or did you just bash your fists against the keyboard in impotent rage because you have a warped perception of cannabis users. Legalistion means loads of tax moola that currently is going into the black market. Legalisation means reduction in law enforcement costs and a redeployment of forces to tackle real crime, you know the ones with real victims and sh%t. Legalisation means the freeing up of the courts and the reduction in prison population so that places there are reserved for those who deserve them, not some gormless kid who was unlucky enough to get caught with a bag of dried plant matter.

I want some of whatever your on, it seems like great craic.

Manic Moran

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Legalisation means reduction in law enforcement costs and a redeployment of forces to tackle real crime, you know the ones with real victims and sh%t. Legalisation means the freeing up of the courts and the reduction in prison population so that places there are reserved for those who deserve them, not some gormless kid who was unlucky enough to get caught with a bag of dried plant matter.

This argument need not apply in the US. Under the current system, the Feds tend to leave the drug users alone as the drug is at least restricted within California, and can legally only be given to residents with appropriate documentation. If turned into a free-for-all, there would be greater need for Federal activities in the Federal courts and law enforcement agencies in order to reduce the effect in other States where it remains illegal.

Gormless kids who break a law, even if it only is for getting caught with a bag of dried plant matter, have still broken a duly extant law of the land. I may think a number of California laws are stupid, but I comply with them and guess what, I've not had any negative reactions from law enforcement yet.

NTM

Sticky_Fingers

Manic Moran wrote: »

This argument need not apply in the US. Under the current system, the Feds tend to leave the drug users alone as the drug is at least restricted within California, and can legally only be given to residents with appropriate documentation.

Are you differentiating between the response of the federal government and that of the local police forces? While I would expect the Feds to not really concern themselves with the small beans like users the local police would. While I understand it is possible to obtain cannabis for medical purposes the fact that someone who just likes to smoke can be arrested, charged and convicted seems a little harsh to me.

Manic Moran wrote: »

If turned into a free-for-all, there would be greater need for Federal activities in the Federal courts and law enforcement agencies in order to reduce the effect in other States where it remains illegal.

I would be of the opinion that the federal government has no right to dictate drug policy over the individual states. I accept that this belief may be overly simplistic and naive (I am thousands of mile away from the states after all and only have a outsiders perspective on the situation) but the federal war on drugs has been nothing but an unmitigated disaster and perhaps its time for them to change tack and let the states decide what is best for themselves.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Gormless kids who break a law, even if it only is for getting caught with a bag of dried plant matter, have still broken a duly extant law of the land. I may think a number of California laws are stupid, but I comply with them and guess what, I've not had any negative reactions from law enforcement yet.

Yes he broke the law but can you say hand on heart that you never crossed that line? I have broken the law, I have used drugs in the past and will very occasionally use them in the future but law breaking has always occurred in the privacy of my own home. If I was ever caught I would be charged and convicted for a crime that has not had any affect on anyone but myself. Like the philosophical argument about the tree in the woods, if a prohibited act is carried and no one but you is ever aware of it has a crime been committed?

Cavehill Red

Some intriguing stuff here. Let's go through this slowly:

Misanthrope wrote: »

Says me.I'm a stringent Independent Quality Assessor for product emanating predominantly from Cali and BC.

An 'independent quality assessor for product'? In an illegal market, that's all but meaningless. To what standards do you assess? Are you ISO accredited? No. Precisely. This is BS.

Misanthrope wrote: »

Obviously there arises the occasional issue but virtually all the time the product is premium grade.
I haven't sent anything back in years.

Again, intriguing. Haven't sent anything back could mean, 'I get great weed' or 'I'm terrified they'll kill me.' Again, that illegal market thing.

Misanthrope wrote: »

Then there's my own product.As organic as it gets, molasses and Bat Guano fed,water purged,dried and cured.Never had one complaint.It doesn't get any purer than how I do it.

Depends on what you mean by 'pure.' It's a meaningless word. A plant is a pure plant however it's grown.
I bet you grow indoors under lights. Outdoor growing would be more natural.

Misanthrope wrote: »

As soon as the crooks in government get their hands on the weed industry standards will be at best like those of alcohol and tobacco and that's not good enough.

I can only speak about the alcohol industry, but I think the US regulates it incredibly well. There are responsible and policeable age levels for use and sales. There are stringent, inspected controls on everything from ingredients to production to distribution to sale.

They respect the market and facilitate capacity from big multi-national piss-brewers AND craft micro-brewers and distillers. They even facilitate home distillation. I only wish we had a similar regulatory environment here.

Misanthrope wrote: »

As for it being a stronger and stronger drug.Well, I've smoked the strongest weed strains on the planet and lots of them.I've smoked almost a 1/4 ounce of White Widow today.

That's not very smart. You erode your arguments by suggesting that a quarter ounce is in any shape or form a sensible daily intake.

Misanthrope wrote: »

I'm doing fine thank you.Weed is like tea.Some like it weak as water and some like it strong.It can't kill you.Do you understand this fact?It is not possible to die from poisoning by the active ingredients of marijuana.

True. But it does no one any good to pretend weed is utterly benign. You can die from the tars and toxins in the smoke by way of lung cancer very easily.

Misanthrope wrote: »

The fact that you alluded to the old Stronger n stronger argument suggests to me that you are not very experienced in this field.

I think we can forgive him that. After all, weed is very illegal here.

Nevertheless, the old CIA ratings of modern strains versus Seventies Mexican ditchweed notwithstanding, there's no doubt that growers primarily in Holland in the Eighties and Nineties worked hard to develop more potent, stronger highs.

This primarily has taken the shape of increased indica genetics, to boost the 'couchlock' body stone effect, rather than the more ethereal head high effect for which sativa strains are known. As a result, pure sativa strains are not very common anymore, though friends in Holland tell me they are making a comeback.

I think when people who smoked in the Sixties and Seventies talk about weed being stronger now (rather than the dismissable statements from prohibitionist spokespeople) they anecdotally are referring to this movement towards indica-cross genetics and a heavier body stone.

There are dozens of cannabinoids in cannabis, and the effect of many of them are not well known. Very few growers do a spectrum analysis of their strains for cannabinoids other than CBD or THC. Do you?

And even among those who do, almost nothing is known about the psychoactive effects of the minor cannabinoids. Yet in many modern strains, the proportion of minor cannabinoids can be seen to be increasing, when they are full-spectrum analysed.

Certainly when we saw the fake weed here in Ireland in headshops (which was pot pourri sprayed with synthetic minor cannabinoids minus THC or CBD), many users complained about negative effects, and there were media-reported cases (possibly sensationalised) of psychological damage.

I've a friend who is a commercial grower in Holland and we have discussed his work a few times. That's where my knowledge in this area comes from.

I don't mean to disrespect you in any way by bringing these elements into the discussion. I just find it very counterintuitive why you would have rejected the right to become fully legal.

My friend in Holland appreciates the fact that he is underwritten by legislation, primarily because he believes the regulatory regime keeps many of his business rivals more honest than they might otherwise be.

Misanthrope

An 'independent quality assessor for product'? In an illegal market, that's all but meaningless. To what standards do you assess? Are you ISO accredited? No. Precisely. This is BS.

That was a joke.It means I use a lot of weed

Again, intriguing. Haven't sent anything back could mean, 'I get great weed' or 'I'm terrified they'll kill me.' Again, that illegal market thing.

The business is a lot more civilised than you seem to think.I mostly only deal with educated respectable folk.One or two famous people even.

Depends on what you mean by 'pure.' It's a meaningless word. A plant is a pure plant however it's grown.
I bet you grow indoors under lights. Outdoor growing would be more natural.

I do both.Indoor is a real pain in the ass and only worth it if you have proper equipment and space.

I can only speak about the alcohol industry, but I think the US regulates it incredibly well. There are responsible and policeable age levels for use and sales. There are stringent, inspected controls on everything from ingredients to production to distribution to sale.

Their regulation is designed around profit, not their customers well being.Due to pressure from activist groups they have been forced to tighten up in a number of ways.

They respect the market and facilitate capacity from big multi-national piss-brewers AND craft micro-brewers and distillers. They even facilitate home distillation. I only wish we had a similar regulatory environment here.

They do have some great micro brews and craft beers and I'm all for home brewing.But this is a tiny market sector.The majority of beer sold in the US is Bud Light type piss.

That's not very smart. You erode your arguments by suggesting that a quarter ounce is in any shape or form a sensible daily intake.

I wasn't suggesting it was a sensible daily intake.I was merely pointing out that a 1/4 oz was about what I had smoked today.That's my decision.I'm a big boy.I can handle it.I wouldn't recommend that dosage to anyone else because it'd be none of my business.

True. But it does no one any good to pretend weed is utterly benign. You can die from the tars and toxins in the smoke by way of lung cancer very easily.

This is often claimed but never backed up by an uncompromised study.It's funny how all these flawed small studies' findings are perpetuated long after they are exposed.Yet nobody ever wants to bring up the Shafer Report commissioned by Nixon at great expense which produced massively different findings.

"There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana and in a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased risk of lung cancer. Unlike heavy tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana smokers exhibit no obstruction of the lung's small airway. That indicates that people will not develop emphysema from smoking marijuana.

• Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. “Legalization: Panacea or Pandora’s Box.” New York. (1995): 36.

• Turner, Carlton E. The Marijuana Controversy. Rockville: American Council for Drug Education, 1981.

• Nahas, Gabriel G. and Nicholas A. Pace. Letter. “Marijuana as Chemotherapy Aid Poses Hazards.” New York Times 4 December 1993: A20.

• Inaba, Darryl S. and William E. Cohen. Uppers, Downers, All-Arounders: Physical and Mental Effects of Psychoactive Drugs. 2nd ed. Ashland: CNS Productions, 1995. 174.

"

I think we can forgive him that. After all, weed is very illegal here.

Hardly an excuse

Nevertheless, the old CIA ratings of modern strains versus Seventies Mexican ditchweed notwithstanding, there's no doubt that growers primarily in Holland in the Eighties and Nineties worked hard to develop more potent, stronger highs.

This primarily has taken the shape of increased indica genetics, to boost the 'couchlock' body stone effect, rather than the more ethereal head high effect for which sativa strains are known. As a result, pure sativa strains are not very common anymore, though friends in Holland tell me they are making a comeback.

I think when people who smoked in the Sixties and Seventies talk about weed being stronger now (rather than the dismissable statements from prohibitionist spokespeople) they anecdotally are referring to this movement towards indica-cross genetics and a heavier body stone.

I'm not too worried about the likelihood of finding weed that'll be too much for me.Anyway I generally stick to half a dozen different strains because I know what I like.

There are dozens of cannabinoids in cannabis, and the effect of many of them are not well known. Very few growers do a spectrum analysis of their strains for cannabinoids other than CBD or THC. Do you?

I haven't cultivated my own strain though I've dreamed of it.Skibbereen Green sounds nice doesn't it.Generally,my lungs, tastebuds and brain do the analysis.Your buddies are playing at Superbowl level by the sound of things.I'm more like one of the cheerleaders.My aim is to grow quality weed in sufficient abundance to smoke some and sell some.

And even among those who do, almost nothing is known about the psychoactive effects of the minor cannabinoids. Yet in many modern strains, the proportion of minor cannabinoids can be seen to be increasing, when they are full-spectrum analysed.

Again that is information I care not to know unless I am stepping up to that level.Much as I love weed I don't think I could go that far.

Certainly when we saw the fake weed here in Ireland in headshops (which was pot pourri sprayed with synthetic minor cannabinoids minus THC or CBD), many users complained about negative effects, and there were media-reported cases (possibly sensationalised) of psychological damage.

Jwh 18 or some ****e like that.Stimulates CB2 brain receptors.There it's similarity to THC ends.It is a brutally crude attempt at replicating THC and fails to understand the unique bio-chemical significance of the THC molecule.Anyone who smokes that instead of weed obviously never liked weed very much in the first instance.

I don't mean to disrespect you in any way by bringing these elements into the discussion. I just find it very counterintuitive why you would have rejected the right to become fully legal.

The only reason I'm against it is personal economics.It's not that I resent paying tax on what I make from it.It's that I'm afraid I will be prevented from continuing with what I have done for years harming no-one,selling to friends 99% of the time.Friends of friends the rest.It's a pleasant aspect of my life that brings me together with some good people.I trade weed for things they do and make sometimes.My mechanic takes weed as payment as readily as cash.I give my clippings to this amazing chef who uses it for his creations and I get amazing stuff in return from him.We're like the ICA for cryin out loud.Suddenly having to go to a newsagent to get my weed the way Philip Morris(or similar type of corp.) decides it's going to be, would be no replacement for what I have.

Otherwise legalise the **** out of it.

My friend in Holland appreciates the fact that he is underwritten by legislation, primarily because he believes the regulatory regime keeps many of his business rivals more honest than they might otherwise be

He is in an R&D hotbed there.Counterfeiting is a big problem with propriety strains.I could start a site selling bags of shwag seed as OG Kush and probably get away with it at least for a while.It is good that they have regulation there.They need it for what they are doing.

For what I am doing which is basically buying seed from Amsterdam and growing it to smoke and sell within a group of friends, no regulation is required.If I set up a public outlet and started selling it to random members of the public then some sort of validation would be preferable.My name on the lease of said outlet should be enough to make me behave.Maybe some spot testing for nasty fertilisers,though last time I checked nasty ferts are not illegal and are sprayed liberally along with weed killer and pesticide on most of the "fresh'" food you buy.

When you look at how the pharmaceutical industry is regulated it doesn't bode well for weed.For example the FDA think the benefits of Vioxx (rofecoxib) outweigh the principal risk of the drug which is death, at a rate that far exceeds anything that could be deemed safe.
And everyone danced along, despite the fact that it was initially banned by the same organisation.

I look at the existing models for possible legalisation and I'm not filled with hope for a better alternative to what I've got.Most stoners are happy with things as they are.Sure they express annoyance at not being able to walk down the street blazing.That's a small price to pay for the great weed culture that exists already.

Duff Man Jr.

Misanthrope wrote: »

There's no problem getting weed in Cali as it stands.This is great news for growers.They're going to go on making a decent living off their efforts.If anything,voting against Prop 19 is the liberal choice.Why surrender their industry to the State who will mismanage it like they do everything else.

Lol it would have been great news for Al Capone if alcohol prohibition never ender too:rolleyes:

Manic Moran

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Are you differentiating between the response of the federal government and that of the local police forces? While I would expect the Feds to not really concern themselves with the small beans like users the local police would.

Yes. If the substance were decriminalised in California, then the local law enforcement agencies would have no grounds to go about detaining anyone. However, the fact that it was decriminalised in CA would have no bearing on the fact that Federally it's not legal, and the Federal agencies have their own laws to enforce.

The Feds don't much care if a small user in CA or Washington or wherever has any pot. This is evidenced by their stance on medical marijuana. A sortof "Yeah, we know it's illegal, but it's not really affecting interState transactions much, which is our bailiwick." The current regimen tends to result in legitimate users staying within their State boundaries, and ditto the substance. A more free-for-all sort of environment, however, would result in much more opportunity for inter-State effects.

While I understand it is possible to obtain cannabis for medical purposes the fact that someone who just likes to smoke can be arrested, charged and convicted seems a little harsh to me.

Well, you can say that about any of a number of laws. Is it a little harsh to be arrested, charged and convicted for giving a pint to a 20-year-old?

I would be of the opinion that the federal government has no right to dictate drug policy over the individual states. I accept that this belief may be overly simplistic and naive (I am thousands of mile away from the states after all and only have a outsiders perspective on the situation)

It's also inaccurate. It's been to the Supreme Court, and it's settled law.

but the federal war on drugs has been nothing but an unmitigated disaster and perhaps its time for them to change tack and let the states decide what is best for themselves.

The problem is that the States don't exist within a vacuum. As long as there is traffic between the States, the Feds can have oversight of it. If most of the States don't want traffic in drugs, the Feds will enforce that.

Yes he broke the law but can you say hand on heart that you never crossed that line?

I've never complained about getting pulled over or having my car towed either.

NTM

FlutterinBantam

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Did you even think about the issue or did you just bash your fists against the keyboard in impotent rage because you have a warped perception of cannabis users. Legalistion means loads of tax moola that currently is going into the black market. Legalisation means reduction in law enforcement costs and a redeployment of forces to tackle real crime, you know the ones with real victims and sh%t. Legalisation means the freeing up of the courts and the reduction in prison population so that places there are reserved for those who deserve them, not some gormless kid who was unlucky enough to get caught with a bag of dried plant matter.

I want some of whatever your on, it seems like great craic.

Sure I did buddy,hadn't you noticed.:rolleyes:

Just open the gates eh, that's your solution.

Forget about the long term consequences, like shambling morons who are unemployable and state dependent, burgeoning like mushrooms and dissipating state resources like crazy.

Tax revenue is not the answer pal, productivity is where it's at.

Not much productivity from a bunch of stoners shambling around sucking spliffs and leeching off the productive end of society.

get a grip pal.:rolleyes:

Pace2008

Aye, one only needs to look at the bastion of sloth that is Canada to see the devastating effect freely available cannabis has on society.

mikom

Pace2008 wrote: »

Aye, one only needs to look at the bastion of sloth that is Canada to see the devastating effect freely available cannabis has on society.

Spot on.
Remind again what their economy is like compared to ours..........

Johro

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That isn't entirely true. A lot more harm has been done by people taking homeopathic pills instead of going to the doctor than people taking legal highs.

I'm sorry, but that's just bollocks. I said Homeopathic remedies don't do harm. And they don't. No side effects, no overdoses. If people want to self-medicate with homeopathic tablets rather than go to a doctor when they have a serious condition that's their lookout. That doesn't make Homeopathy harmful. A qualified homeopath would refer such a patient to a GP.

Misanthrope

Duff Man Jr. wrote: »

Lol it would have been great news for Al Capone if alcohol prohibition never ender too:rolleyes:

That's alcohol.Not even vaguely similar to cannabis.There are no Al Capones in the weed business.In fact most of the latter day Capone types seem to be involved in cocaine and waste management oh and eh "Construction".Weed is not their turf.It could be if they wanted it to I guess.But they seem more interested in other things.Oh did I mention 'Prostatooshun".Yeah that too.

I just can't picture a bunch of wiseguys having time for business with chilled out stoners.Different worlds.

Johro

Misanthrope wrote: »

It is not a belief that they don't work.It is a fact.

They harm your wallet.I know one poor woman who spends a fortune on that snake oil BS. She thinks it works when really it's just her immune system doing what it's supposed to.Homeopathy is a pseudoscientific rendering of age old superstition, which is itself borne of ignorance or stupidity.

I do agree though that drinking or applying water with a 1/10,000,000,000 chance of containing a single molecule of purported active ingredient, can't do you any harm.

Paying attention in science class would do no harm either.

If you actually researched homeopathy a bit, you'd know that stimulating your immune system is exactly what it does. Yes, the active ingredient particular to a remedy is diluted so much that you'll have serious trouble finding it in the final solution that gets made into tinctures or tablets, but the essence is still there. It's what stimulates the immune system to act, and works on the idea of treating like with like. If you have an allergy to strawberries, and you go see an allergist, he/she will tell you to eat a crate of strawberries. (Slight exaggeration). A homeopath would in principle do the same thing but with a tiny tiny tiny dose of the ingredient in the strawberry that causes you problems, which triggers your immune system into action. Simplified, but that's basically it.
As for the 'Paying attention in science class would do no harm either' bit, less of the sarcasm please, I'm not stupid.;)

Johro

Went a little off topic there. On topic, I used to smoke quite a bit of weed. Not so much now, just the odd time when I have a few mates round, and then not always. I grow it myself, it's nice stuff, and it does me fine. I don't sell the stuff, it's for my own use and for sharing with friends.
As for illegality, I'm not harming anyone, and if I did get caught with what I have I would most likely be fined as I don't supply.
I don't care about, or for, the 'business'.
The business can f#ck off.

Misanthrope

If you have an allergy to strawberries, and you go see an allergist, he/she will tell you to eat a crate of strawberries. (Slight exaggeration). A homeopath would in principle do the same thing but with a tiny tiny tiny dose of the ingredient in the strawberry that causes you problems, which triggers your immune system into action

Firstly,I really don't think anyone with a medical degree is going to prescribe strawberries for a strawberry allergy.What about a peanut allergy?A packet of peanuts???

Simplified, but that's basically it.

The premise of homeopathy is based on that of vaccination.It is pseudoscience.The idea of the weakened dose works with some viruses but to extend it to allergy treatment or other ailments is a crazy leap.

How does a homeopathic headache treatment work then, given that headache can be induced by a multitude of factors both chemical and physical and even psychological.Explain how homeopathy covers them all, or even more than one .What does it discern to be the root cause?

As for the 'Paying attention in science class would do no harm either' bit, less of the sarcasm please, I'm not stupid.

I wasn't calling you stupid.

Have you ever heard of Avogadro's constant?

Wompa1

I'm in California at the moment. Alot of weed all over the place it seems! It's noticable in how people act and the waft of it in the air around alot of streets. Seemed plentiful in Vegas too

HavingCrack

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Sure I did buddy,hadn't you noticed.:rolleyes:

Just open the gates eh, that's your solution.

Forget about the long term consequences, like shambling morons who are unemployable and state dependent, burgeoning like mushrooms and dissipating state resources like crazy.

Tax revenue is not the answer pal, productivity is where it's at.

Not much productivity from a bunch of stoners shambling around sucking spliffs and leeching off the productive end of society.

get a grip pal.:rolleyes:

I really hope you're just ripping the piss. If you really believe what you're saying I find it sad that you have such an ill informed view of the world.

Johro

Misanthrope wrote: »

Firstly,I really don't think anyone with a medical degree is going to prescribe strawberries for a strawberry allergy.What about a peanut allergy?A packet of peanuts???

The premise of homeopathy is based on that of vaccination.It is pseudoscience.The idea of the weakened dose works with some viruses but to extend it to allergy treatment or other ailments is a crazy leap.

How does a homeopathic headache treatment work then, given that headache can be induced by a multitude of factors both chemical and physical and even psychological.Explain how homeopathy covers them all, or even more than one .What does it discern to be the root cause?



I wasn't calling you stupid.

Have you ever heard of Avogadro's constant?

A packets of peanuts? Lol. I did say simplified. Also, homeopaths have a very different take on allergies, and things like skin rashes, hives/eczema etc.
I'm not asking you to take my word for it, I don't really care if you do or don't. All I said was it's not harmful. If you really wanted answers to those questions you could read a book on the subject, it's not why I'm here.
Miranda Castro's 'Complete Homeopathic Handbook' explains the works, with each remedy outlined with it's physical and mental/emotional symptom repertory. It would answer all your questions. For anyone who's interested that is.
For my part, whether you believe it works or not doesn't really bother me. I don't like to bad-mouth alternative health treatments, I believe different things work for different people and I'm not an expert in any of them.
As for the Avogadro's constant, as far as I know it's about chemical quantities, don't know that much about it. But hey, there's always Google. You've already pissed on my 'high' anyway:D

Misanthrope

Johro wrote: »

You've already pissed on my 'high' anyway:D

Sorry.I just fear that people are being taken advantage of.

Misanthrope

It just occurred to me how ironic it would have been for the politicians who kept weed illegal this long, to suddenly turn to the "slacker" marijuana culture as a harbour from the storm they helped create.

Maybe they were afraid it would become the backbone of the state economy and it's people might become too politically powerful.It would be extremely messy if they ended having to assassinate Governor Chong or Senators B-Real and Harrelson.

Maybe the threat of a Cannabinocracy was simply too great.So they like totally like rigged the vote dude,when is the vote anyway,has that already happened or did I just dream it?

Calibos

Johro, post your Homeopathy spiel on Jref, the skeptics or biology, chemistry or medicine fora here on boards and educate yourself. Homeopathy is pure unadulterated nonsense.

That said, I don't agree with everything misanthrope said. I thought our very own dwarf drug kingpin John Gilligan made most of his money from weed. afaik a significant proportion of the mexican drug cartels money comes from weed. Sure didn't they just unearth a tunnel under the border to San Diego with a few hundred tonnes of the stuff.