Legalized!@!!@@@!@@°°°•°°°°°!!!!

[Teddy KGB]

44 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Also: If there is dependancy, it's abuse.  I am not a teetotaler, but take a look @ alcohol.  Most people who drink regularly have a dependance... It may be small, but a dependancy.

 

Same will happen with the sweet bud...

 

Again, to each their own.  Admit it, there is a lotta down side to a doped up society.

 

Yea, Colorado really fell apart ??‍♂️

 

All those new schools and raises for educators and first responders will wreak havoc soon.   

 

 

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

1 minute ago, Teddy KGB said:

 

Yea, Colorado really fell apart ??‍♂️

 

All those new schools and raises for educators and first responders will wreak havoc soon.   

 

 

 

Give it time.

 

While all the parents are stoned. 

 

Do you even think before you post.

 

But oooo shiny schools... It takes parenting, preferably, not doped up, drunk, or other dependency issues to avoid educational wastelands.

 

Yeah... Gonna need first responders, that's a good thing.

[PromoTheRobot]

1 hour ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Also: If there is dependancy, it's abuse.  I am not a teetotaler, but take a look @ alcohol.  Most people who drink regularly have a dependance... It may be small, but a dependancy.

 

Same will happen with the sweet bud...

 

Again, to each their own.  Admit it, there is a lotta down side to a doped up society.

 

I respect your feelings but some of your thoughts on weed are straight out of Nancy Regan and 'Just Say No.'  Marijuana is on Schedule 1 for racial and political reasons, not because it's a dangerous or harmful substance.

[Teddy KGB]

1 hour ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Give it time.

 

While all the parents are stoned. 

 

Do you even think before you post.

 

But oooo shiny schools... It takes parenting, preferably, not doped up, drunk, or other dependency issues to avoid educational wastelands.

 

Yeah... Gonna need first responders, that's a good thing.

 

Delusional Storyteller ????

 

Those “chill” parents in 800,000 dollar homes really need advice from you ??‍♂️

 

 

Edited July 1, 2018 by Teddy KGB

[RochesterRob]

24 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

I respect your feelings but some of your thoughts on weed are straight out of Nancy Regan and 'Just Say No.'  Marijuana is on Schedule 1 for racial and political reasons, not because it's a dangerous or harmful substance.

  Beefing about MJ being on schedule 1 for racial and political reasons is straight out of the Democratic Party playbook.  I would say that there are far far more pot users in terms of numbers with white Caucasian people.  The man is trying to take away all your rights including blowing a fart in public.  Damn Republicans!

[PromoTheRobot]

5 hours ago, RochesterRob said:

  Beefing about MJ being on schedule 1 for racial and political reasons is straight out of the Democratic Party playbook.  I would say that there are far far more pot users in terms of numbers with white Caucasian people.  The man is trying to take away all your rights including blowing a fart in public.  Damn Republicans!

 

Well, why is it on Schedule 1 then?

 

Also I'm fully aware of the old hippie pot farmers of Humboldt County. You must not know much about the history of pot in America if you took my comment that way.

Edited July 2, 2018 by PromoTheRobot

[RochesterRob]

12 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

Well, why is it on Schedule 1 then?

 

Also I'm fully aware of the old hippie pot farmers of Humboldt County. You must not know much about the history of pot in America if you took my comment that way.

  Why is it on schedule 1 then?  At the time it was determined that there was no practical use for MJ.  That was a function of the testing of the time which no doubt lacked money to test for various uses either by neglect or design.  I could easily see neglect as no doubt at the time the federal government saw the future of medicine in the hands of Zeneca, Bayer, etc. so they saw no need to really investigate pot.  Less a conspiracy to eradicate it and more taking the path of least resistance.  

 

  I still doubt the intent of racial harassment at least on the legislative level.  As of 2015 there were 197,000,000 Americans that identified themselves as white and 40,000,000 Americans that identified themselves as black.  That means that the white population outpaces the black population by a factor of nearly 5.  Is the rate of addiction constant between blacks and whites?  No doubt variations exist based on environment among other factors.  One might assume that addiction rates are higher among blacks if peripheral observations take them in that direction but at the same time it is extremely fair to admit evidence of white addiction if a person surveyed a given location such as the Rust Belt, upper Mid-West, and Appalachia to name a few locales and their observations led them to that conclusion.  What I would doubt is black addiction at near 100 percent and white addiction at 20 percent which would put overall numbers at near equal at approximately 40M.  What is far more likely is the usage is far higher than 20 percent in the white population and far far lower than 100 percent in the black population.  Let's arbitrarily select rates of 40 percent for whites which I suspect is on the low side and 55 percent for blacks which is a little above half of the population and most likely still does not reflect what is actually occurring in black communities.  The actual numbers based on those assumptions would put white users at nearly 80 million nation wide and black users at 22 million.  If you buy the argument that the legal and prison systems are an economic engine then you only care about bodies with pulses which would be easier to obtain in the white population the bodies to fill the courts and the prisons.  Are there unintended consequences on the enforcement end?  Most likely so with perhaps manpower hours used to investigate drug crime much higher in black communities.  Is there a coordinated effort between law enforcement agencies that promotes increased prosecution of blacks versus white I doubt.  Is there over zealousness in terms of enforcement in black communities?  Most likely so but don't know if we can accumulate the information to determine to what degree and if the rate is constant over the US.  

Edited July 2, 2018 by RochesterRob

[PromoTheRobot]

1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:

  Why is it on schedule 1 then?  At the time it was determined that there was no practical use for MJ.  That was a function of the testing of the time which no doubt lacked money to test for various uses either by neglect or design.  I could easily see neglect as no doubt at the time the federal government saw the future of medicine in the hands of Zeneca, Bayer, etc. so they saw no need to really investigate pot.  Less a conspiracy to eradicate it and more taking the path of least resistance.  

 

  I still doubt the intent of racial harassment at least on the legislative level.  As of 2015 there were 197,000,000 Americans that identified themselves as white and 40,000,000 Americans that identified themselves as black.  That means that the white population outpaces the black population by a factor of nearly 5.  Is the rate of addiction constant between blacks and whites?  No doubt variations exist based on environment among other factors.  One might assume that addiction rates are higher among blacks if peripheral observations take them in that direction but at the same time it is extremely fair to admit evidence of white addiction if a person surveyed a given location such as the Rust Belt, upper Mid-West, and Appalachia to name a few locales and their observations led them to that conclusion.  What I would doubt is black addiction at near 100 percent and white addiction at 20 percent which would put overall numbers at near equal at approximately 40M.  What is far more likely is the usage is far higher than 20 percent in the white population and far far lower than 100 percent in the black population.  Let's arbitrarily select rates of 40 percent for whites which I suspect is on the low side and 55 percent for blacks which is a little above half of the population and most likely still does not reflect what is actually occurring in black communities.  The actual numbers based on those assumptions would put white users at nearly 80 million nation wide and black users at 22 million.  If you buy the argument that the legal and prison systems are an economic engine then you only care about bodies with pulses which would be easier to obtain in the white population the bodies to fill the courts and the prisons.  Are there unintended consequences on the enforcement end?  Most likely so with perhaps manpower hours used to investigate drug crime much higher in black communities.  Is there a coordinated effort between law enforcement agencies that promotes increased prosecution of blacks versus white I doubt.  Is there over zealousness in terms of enforcement in black communities?  Most likely so but don't know if we can accumulate the information to determine to what degree and if the rate is constant over the US.  

 

The racial aspect I was referring to was the fact that pot was popular among Hispanics and Blacks in the 20's and 30's. The fear among white Americans was that this "race drug" would catch on with white youth. That was where "Reefer Madness" was born.

 

The political aspect came from the anti-war protests of the 60s. Nixon could not arrest protesters for demonstrating. But many of the college-age kids smoked weed. So pot went onto Schedule 1 so Nixon had a hammer to use on war protestors.

[RochesterRob]

32 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

The racial aspect I was referring to was the fact that pot was popular among Hispanics and Blacks in the 20's and 30's. The fear among white Americans was that this "race drug" would catch on with white youth. That was where "Reefer Madness" was born.

 

The political aspect came from the anti-war protests of the 60s. Nixon could not arrest protesters for demonstrating. But many of the college-age kids smoked weed. So pot went onto Schedule 1 so Nixon had a hammer to use on war protestors.

  Both of your statements are more assertions than known facts.  Maybe pot was big in certain minority communities but that does not that they were in all of them.  Your statement about Nixon fits his character and one of his objectives but that is far from a smoking gun and to my knowledge nobody from the FDA has come forward with stories of direct Nixon interference decades after his administration.

 

  Anyways on both statements we are many decades after those respective times.  I am more concerned as to how things are today.  Criticism today is that drug laws are rooted in economic policies to benefit a white majority and I was pointing out the flaw in that theory.  Bringing in minority drug offenders might be a land office business in Erie and Monroe Counties but the police and judicial systems in Cattaraugus, Allegany, Wyoming, Livingston, Steuben, etc. counties are skimping by on thin rations of those types of criminals.  

[ExiledInIllinois]

Wow... RochesterRob spoiling the pothead utopia. Buzzkill.  Killjoy... Gotta wreck automatic for the people...

 

And PTR... Don't think you didn't cut me to the quick with that Nancy Reagan quip.  I am still reeling... ?

 

Oh... Teddy can go play with your pitbull... Perfect fit for the lifestyle.  Make sure it doesn't maul a baby when you're stoned and chillin' because you forgot to shut the fence gate.  ?

 

 

Of course I jest, most make great choices... Recreate the right way

 ?

[teef]

i just can't wait until it's legal.  i mean...never in my life would i go to work high, but once it's legal, my reasoning and logic will suddenly change, and i'll smoke morning, noon and night.  

Edited July 2, 2018 by teef

[PromoTheRobot]

1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:

  Both of your statements are more assertions than known facts.  Maybe pot was big in certain minority communities but that does not that they were in all of them.  Your statement about Nixon fits his character and one of his objectives but that is far from a smoking gun and to my knowledge nobody from the FDA has come forward with stories of direct Nixon interference decades after his administration.

 

  Anyways on both statements we are many decades after those respective times.  I am more concerned as to how things are today.  Criticism today is that drug laws are rooted in economic policies to benefit a white majority and I was pointing out the flaw in that theory.  Bringing in minority drug offenders might be a land office business in Erie and Monroe Counties but the police and judicial systems in Cattaraugus, Allegany, Wyoming, Livingston, Steuben, etc. counties are skimping by on thin rations of those types of criminals.  

 

I never made the assertions you brought up. If anything, pot is still illegal because it is. Politicians, law enforcement, etc. are just too set in the status quo.  

 

But trust me, it will be fully legal in a few years because of the money...the one drug no one can get enough of.  When John Boehner is lobbying for the largest marijuana company in the country, you know the train ain't stopping.  

Edited July 2, 2018 by PromoTheRobot

[RochesterRob]

3 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

I never made the assertions you brought up. If anything, pot is still illegal because it is. Politicians, law enforcement, etc. are just too set in the status quo.  

 

But trust me, it will be fully legal in a few years because of the money...the one drug no one can get enough of.  When John Boehner is lobbying for the largest marijuana company in the country, you know the train ain't stopping.  

  I'm not overly concerned and it means more food at the trough for guys like me that will not get weighed down by dependency.  I'm not going to fight a hopeless battle and at the same time Darwin will take care off the ones that can't puff and function at the same time.  I enjoy discussing it on venues such as this one and appreciate what others have to say even if they do not share my viewpoint.  Peace Bro.

3 hours ago, teef said:

i just can't wait until it's legal.  i mean...never in my life would i go to work high, but once it's legal, my reasoning and logic will suddenly change, and i'll smoke morning, noon and night.  

  Do what you want to do.  I for one am not advocating kicking in your door or playing big brother.  

[Augie]

5 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said:

 

Arent you a fat guy who works for the government? 

 

Sorry your life is so boring that you have to spend your time judging people. 

 

Enjoy the Midwest, redneck

 

See anything funny about what you did there?    ?

 

 

I won’t get too deep in this issue, but it IS interesting that it was a schedule 1 drug back when you couldn’t always be sure you didn’t just buy something from the spice aisle. These days it’s a totally different ball game. But I don’t want to get into anything people want to do on their own time that doesn't hurt anyone else. Now, are there potential downsides....of course. 

[RochesterRob]

22 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

See anything funny about what you did there?    ?

 

 

I won’t get too deep in this issue, but it IS interesting that it was a schedule 1 drug back when you couldn’t always be sure you didn’t just buy something from the spice aisle. These days it’s a totally different ball game. But I don’t want to get into anything people want to do on their own time that doesn't hurt anyone else. Now, are there potential downsides....of course. 

  Yeah, like incoherent statements.  PTR : Pot is still illegal because it is.  Politicians are too set in the status quo.  Boehner (a politician) lobbying for the largest MJ company.  Asserts that pot was very popular amongst Hispanics and Blacks during the 1920's and 30's.  Asserts that Richard Nixon personally oversaw the schedule 1 process for MJ.  Then denies that he made either statement.  Was there anything close to a scientific study about MJ habits back generations ago?  Did somebody spill the beans about Richard Nixon looking over all shoulders at the FDA?

Edited July 2, 2018 by RochesterRob

[stony]

It'll be nice to stop having the unmarked envelops from California delivered to my house.  

[BUFFALOKIE]

9 hours ago, RochesterRob said:

  Why is it on schedule 1 then?  At the time it was determined that there was no practical use for MJ.  That was a function of the testing of the time which no doubt lacked money to test for various uses either by neglect or design.  I could easily see neglect as no doubt at the time the federal government saw the future of medicine in the hands of Zeneca, Bayer, etc. so they saw no need to really investigate pot.  Less a conspiracy to eradicate it and more taking the path of least resistance.  

 

  I still doubt the intent of racial harassment at least on the legislative level.  As of 2015 there were 197,000,000 Americans that identified themselves as white and 40,000,000 Americans that identified themselves as black.  That means that the white population outpaces the black population by a factor of nearly 5.  Is the rate of addiction constant between blacks and whites?  No doubt variations exist based on environment among other factors.  One might assume that addiction rates are higher among blacks if peripheral observations take them in that direction but at the same time it is extremely fair to admit evidence of white addiction if a person surveyed a given location such as the Rust Belt, upper Mid-West, and Appalachia to name a few locales and their observations led them to that conclusion.  What I would doubt is black addiction at near 100 percent and white addiction at 20 percent which would put overall numbers at near equal at approximately 40M.  What is far more likely is the usage is far higher than 20 percent in the white population and far far lower than 100 percent in the black population.  Let's arbitrarily select rates of 40 percent for whites which I suspect is on the low side and 55 percent for blacks which is a little above half of the population and most likely still does not reflect what is actually occurring in black communities.  The actual numbers based on those assumptions would put white users at nearly 80 million nation wide and black users at 22 million.  If you buy the argument that the legal and prison systems are an economic engine then you only care about bodies with pulses which would be easier to obtain in the white population the bodies to fill the courts and the prisons.  Are there unintended consequences on the enforcement end?  Most likely so with perhaps manpower hours used to investigate drug crime much higher in black communities.  Is there a coordinated effort between law enforcement agencies that promotes increased prosecution of blacks versus white I doubt.  Is there over zealousness in terms of enforcement in black communities?  Most likely so but don't know if we can accumulate the information to determine to what degree and if the rate is constant over the US.  

You wanna know how I know you smoke pot?

[ExiledInIllinois]

4 hours ago, Augie said:

 

See anything funny about what you did there?    ?

 

 

I won’t get too deep in this issue, but it IS interesting that it was a schedule 1 drug back when you couldn’t always be sure you didn’t just buy something from the spice aisle. These days it’s a totally different ball game. But I don’t want to get into anything people want to do on their own time that doesn't hurt anyone else. Now, are there potential downsides....of course. 

Hemp is still growing wild in many parts all over the Midwest.  It was a pretty big industry.   I think people knew what they were getting and where to find it free.

 

The quality of the wild stuff of course is terrible... But back in the day when fields were cultivated for the industry (hemp was used for rigging during the age of sail), probably much better quality.