Puritanical U.S. has Mixed Messages for Teens
POSTED BY: firefloozysuzie
UPDATED: Saturday, April 8, 2006 20:30
VIEWED: 5317
PAGE 4 of 5
Quote:I guess she's getting the new ones (100,000 mile/50 yr warrantee).
Originally posted by firefloozysuzie:
Has that girl's mother ever checked into what the expected lifespan of those implants will be?
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No. That would be federalist. “Complete subjugation of states rights and authority to the Federal Government,” as you say, would be called Centralism, NOT federalism. Lincoln was not a centralist; he was a federalist. A federal government is one in which a central government presides over constituent semi-autonomous governments.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
That would be ANTI-Federalist, Finn.
Federalists, like Lincoln and others, wanted complete subjugation of states rights and authority to the Federal Government - that's WHY they called em Federalists.
I really wish some of ya would crack a history textbook open once in a while....
Maybe those history books would make a little more sense to you if you cracked open a dictionary once in a while.
Federalism. The distribution of power in an organization (as a government) between a central authority and the constituent units -- compare CENTRALISM
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/federalism
Centralism . The concentration of power and control in the central authority of an organization (as a political or educational system) -- compare FEDERALISM
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/centralism
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I read your post, though I’m not sure what to think of it. Are you misinterpreting the author or did the author of this text book actually state unqualifiedly that marijuana has no known toxicity? Either way it is a bit of an eyebrow raising statement. Why would the author of a textbook on botany suggest, unqualifiedly, that marijuana has no toxicity? Aspirin and Acetaminophen have a known toxicity, hell even water has a toxicity. You can die from drinking too much water, but not from too much marijuana? Maybe the authors point was to claim that we don’t actually know the actual concentration at which marijuana causes death or adverse health effects, though I find it remarkable, to say that least, that this author can find no information on that. In fact I’ve read of health risks associated with marijuana use that runs the gambit from depression to cancer and heart disease, yet none of these studies made into this textbook? A textbook on botany with a whole chapter on marijuana can’t find any room to discuss in more detail the toxicity of marijuana? I don’t guess it would surprise me. Whoever this author is he probably doesn’t have any better credentials then Sigmund Freud, and some of the things Freud said about cocaine are just as full of flowery nonsense.
Originally posted by firefloozysuzie:
Please reread my post. I'm quoting an ethnobotany textbook here, not a pro-legalization tract.
Though, it does sort of argue my point.
However the legalization issue was something I added, mostly because of the remark my friend made a few days ago, which I found strange, and it seemed timely to comment on it in this thread. It wasn't my intent to define you as pro-legalization.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn:
This is what I'm talking about. Canabis is toxic. THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) is the main active ingredient of Canabis, with a lethal dose of between 50 and 86g for a human adult.
So you know it does have a toxicity.
Canabis does have detrimental effects, I've seen and experienced them first hand and I have to say I'm not impressed by the knowledge of someone who read a chapter of a book written a quarter of a century ago once.
Argue whether it should be legal or not fine but don't do it based on how it's the only non-toxic safe drug, because your wrong.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Though Marijuana can have some pretty nasty and drastic effects on some people that they'll have to deal with for the rest of their lives.
So can plenty of prescription drugs. Or cigarettes. Or legally obtainable alcohol. Or fattening or otherwise unhealthy food, for that matter. In the pantheon of dangerous substances, pot is pretty far down the list. Should everything that might be harmful if indulged in improperly or to excess be made illegal?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Try reading my posts Geezer, yeah, does that sound like a fun game?
I didn't say it should be illegal did I, in fact I stated quite clearly that I believed the opposite. Missed that didn't you, that would be because you didn't read my posts before replying 
.
My rebuke was aimed at the "Canabis is completely safe and never causes any problems ever" argument, something your own post kinda supports.
Oh and one last thing, the major substance that causes problems in cigarettes is Tar. There's more tar in Cannabis than there is in Tobacco, cannabis also contains more carcinogens than Tobacco. Wouldn't you say that Cannabis is at least at about the same position as Tobacco on your list?
Quote:
Should everything that might be harmful if indulged in improperly or to excess be made illegal?
You don't have to indulge in Cannabis improperly or to excess to experience problems.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
While it is true that cannabis is in the class of hallucinogens it is relatively mild stuff. But some is spiked with more powerful hallucinogens or other drugs.
Personally, I think most drugs including alcohol and tobacco - but with some exceptions - should be legal and standardized, and sold by the government in drab buildings in drab containers. No ads, no glamour, and no big money involved.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue:
I have to agree. In fact there are some much stronger Hallucinagens that are legal, for instance Salvia Divinorum. But it's not completely safe, anymore than Tobacco was back when doctors were recomending people to smoke.
Thing is Cannabis has been cultivated to be hundreds of times stronger than it used to be during the sixties and seventies, we don't know what the long term effects could be of these newer strains.
But anyway I really didn't mean to spark off a major debate, so I'll leave it there.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Most natural drugs in their native form and in their native culture are reasonably innocuous. Coca leaves, qat (pronounced chaht), cannabis, even poppy seeds. My BIL (from rural eastern Europe) talks of how they used to eat poppyseed paste with noodles at night because it helped everyone sleep even if they were hungry and in pain from hard physical work.
Ethanol naturally occurs at about 3% by volume, and while I'm sure there are plenty of alcoholics who got their start on beer, people tend to graduate to more purified forms to get a better buzz. And there are plenty of businesses more than willing to make what they can, advertize it, and sell as much as possible for $$.
If you look at Afghanistan (considered by many to have quickly become a failed narco-state), it was an area where poppy naturally grew. But serious in-country addiction didn't become an issue until it became a billion dollar business controlled by warlords and lenders.
If you get the money out of the equation the problem becomes simpler - as simple as individual addiction can be anyway.
AKA as 'adult child of an alcoholic"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Try reading my posts Geezer, yeah, does that sound like a fun game?
I didn't say it should be illegal did I, in fact I stated quite clearly that I believed the opposite. Missed that didn't you, that would be because you didn't read my posts before replying
I was just responding to:
"Argue whether it should be legal or not fine but don't do it based on how it's the only non-toxic safe drug, because your wrong."
Quote:
My rebuke was aimed at the "Canabis is completely safe and never causes any problems ever" argument, something your own post kinda supports.
Not really. I agreed in my post that other substances can have, as you stated "nasty and drastic effects" like pot, but that pot is less damaging, based on general observation of usage vs. bad effects.
Quote:
Oh and one last thing, the major substance that causes problems in cigarettes is Tar. There's more tar in Cannabis than there is in Tobacco, cannabis also contains more carcinogens than Tobacco. Wouldn't you say that Cannabis is at least at about the same position as Tobacco on your list?
Pot may have more tar but is (generally) consumed less frequently and in less volume than cigs. I'd have to do some research to determine which way the cancer risk actually goes.
Quote:
You don't have to indulge in Cannabis improperly or to excess to experience problems.
Never heard that. Please let me have a reference.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME