i just had to post this...

[X]

http://www.daytondailynews.com/l/content/shared-gen/ap/High_Tech/EU_Switzerland_Dope_Farmers.html

Swiss police find a marijuana field while using Google earth.

i lol'd.


you know what to do, discuss.

 

[lilEmber]

I have no idea why this stuff is illegal, if anything cannabis should be legal and tobacco illegal. But what ever, also I'd have to get more information than Google Earth for a warrant/to give a warrant. I'm hoping their attorney can defend them and at least reduce any fines, it's bullshit that this stuff is still illegal.

 

[ramsay_baggins]

:lol:

Haha, awesome XD

 

[X]

make sure you dont do anything illegal in your backyard, google just might see it 0.0

 

[â„¢-Daley Leungsangnam475-â„¢]

google is watching you yiff :|

 

[ToeClaws]

I have no idea why this stuff is illegal, if anything cannabis should be legal and tobacco illegal. But what ever, also I'd have to get more information than Google Earth for a warrant/to give a warrant. I'm hoping their attorney can defend them and at least reduce any fines, it's bullshit that this stuff is still illegal.

Simple: Pharmaceutical companies. Legalizing it would mean a huge loss of money going to pain killers, anti-stress medication and other things that people would no longer require. Many politicians (who are often quite rich people) own large stakes in these companies. The Bush family, for example, has millions in pharmaceutical corporations.

But there's even more still. Hemp in general could be used as a raw resource replacement for trees in the production of paper and fibres, and even used in the production of clothing. It's extremely durable (insect and disease resistant), grows just about anywhere, and matures quickly. Yet again, industries that are well entrenched into these categories help fight against it's complete legalization because they know it will hurt their bottom line.

Quite often, great ideas or changes don't happen because of money being dangled like a carrot in front of a politicians eyes.

 

[CAThulu]

Personally, i am leery about pot being legalized. If the governement gets their hands on it as they did with tobacco, then they'll put additives in it for 'flavour', 'preservatives', and to get you addicted to it.

But I wholeheartedly agree with TC about the pharmeceutical companies wanting to keep their monopoly on painkillers and sedatives. Especially since the stuff they peddle to the masses is far more harmful to your system then what marijuana will do if you're not abusing it.

 

[lilEmber]

Simple: Pharmaceutical companies. Legalizing it would mean a huge loss of money going to pain killers, anti-stress medication and other things that people would no longer require. Many politicians (who are often quite rich people) own large stakes in these companies. The Bush family, for example, has millions in pharmaceutical corporations.

But there's even more still. Hemp in general could be used as a raw resource replacement for trees in the production of paper and fibres, and even used in the production of clothing. It's extremely durable (insect and disease resistant), grows just about anywhere, and matures quickly. Yet again, industries that are well entrenched into these categories help fight against it's complete legalization because they know it will hurt their bottom line.

Quite often, great ideas or changes don't happen because of money being dangled like a carrot in front of a politicians eyes.

Yeah, I know; it's the most robust material, ever. From dynamite to paper.

 

[Teracat]

Very funny, but the paranoid conspiracy theorist in me is totally freaking out.

 

[Hanazawa]

if you actually RTFA, the plot was discovered while police were investigating a drug ring. this isn't a case of personal use.

 

[Satoshi]

shit.

 

[lilEmber]

if you actually RTFA, the plot was discovered while police were investigating a drug ring. this isn't a case of personal use.

And how do people get it for personal use, because it's illegal?

 

[Irreverent]

The Bush family, for example, has millions in pharmaceutical corporations.

And its not limited to our cousins south of the boarder. The Liberal Party of Canada.....brought to you by Apotex....and maybe Biovale too. We were never able to follow the money

Hemp in general could be used as a raw resource replacement for trees in the production of paper and fibres, and even used in the production of clothing. It's extremely durable (insect and disease resistant), grows just about anywhere, and matures quickly. Yet again, industries that are well entrenched into these categories help fight against it's complete legalization because they know it will hurt their bottom line.

But is it really a money thing? I was under the impression that hemp was still more hindered by THC laws than by industry recalcitrance. I mean, inexpensive raw material, whose waste product can be used to make heat/power has got to be attractive to industry.

 

[ceacar99]

I have no idea why this stuff is illegal, if anything cannabis should be legal and tobacco illegal. But what ever, also I'd have to get more information than Google Earth for a warrant/to give a warrant. I'm hoping their attorney can defend them and at least reduce any fines, it's bullshit that this stuff is still illegal.

lol, the culture i am surrounded in. "no pot isnt bad for you man.... only tobacco is. tobacco is the evil that spreads cancer around the world". completely ignoring SCIENTIFIC facts that inhaling pot can cause damage to ones system apart from their mental condition. go figure, smoke can harm your system.... wait isnt that what is the primary killer in a fire?

Smoked marijuana contains about the same amount of carcinogens as does an equivalent amount of tobacco.

and that quote is from a generally pro pot webpage. as it says though you dont inhale nearly as much pot normally as many people do tobacco which actually greatly reduces its negative effects.

now i just went on that lil rant because before you also said "and it has less negative effects then caffeine" which is clearly bullshit spewed from just someone who just wants to enjoy the substance and has no scientific fact.

Simple: Pharmaceutical companies. Legalizing it would mean a huge loss of money going to pain killers, anti-stress medication and other things that people would no longer require. Many politicians (who are often quite rich people) own large stakes in these companies. The Bush family, for example, has millions in pharmaceutical corporations.

But there's even more still. Hemp in general could be used as a raw resource replacement for trees in the production of paper and fibres, and even used in the production of clothing. It's extremely durable (insect and disease resistant), grows just about anywhere, and matures quickly. Yet again, industries that are well entrenched into these categories help fight against it's complete legalization because they know it will hurt their bottom line.

actually its more of a holdover from a bygone era where we even experimented with prohibition of alcohol. truth is compared to many illicit drugs out there the effects of pot are quite minimal. my personal chief concern with it isnt necessarily people getting stupid high off it, but rather the amount of negative effect it has on ones learning ability for as much as two weeks. not too much of a problem in adults in the job market, but can be a problem with students. and of course just like alcohol it can destroy people's lives.

 

[lilEmber]

lol, the culture i am surrounded in. "no pot isnt bad for you man.... only tobacco is. tobacco is the evil that spreads cancer around the world". completely ignoring SCIENTIFIC facts that inhaling pot can cause damage to ones system apart from their mental condition. go figure, smoke can harm your system.... wait isnt that what is the primary killer in a fire?

Cannabis causes no mental issues, in fact it fixes a ton of them.

and that quote is from a generally pro pot webpage. as it says though you dont inhale nearly as much pot normally as many people do tobacco which actually greatly reduces its negative effects.

Oh, you may wish to continue reading your own quote.

It should be remembered, however, that a heavy tobacco smoker consumes much more tobacco than a heavy marijuana smoker consumes marijuana. This is because smoked tobacco, with a 90% addiction rate, is the most addictive of all drugs while marijuana is less addictive than caffeine. Two other factors are important. The first is that paraphernalia laws directed against marijuana users make it difficult to smoke safely. These laws make water pipes and bongs, which filter some of the carcinogens out of the smoke, illegal and, hence, unavailable. The second is that, if marijuana were legal, it would be more economical to have cannabis drinks like bhang (a traditional drink in the Middle East) or tea which are totally non-carcinogenic. This is in stark contrast with "smokeless" tobacco products like snuff which can cause cancer of the mouth and throat. When all of these facts are taken together, it can be clearly seen that the reverse is true: marijuana is much SAFER than tobacco.

Also, TAR and CARBON you know, the substances created when burning anything, are carcinogenics. You get the -exact- same negative effects from cannabis as from grass. If you eat the stuff, you get none.

now i just went on that lil rant because before you also said "and it has less negative effects then caffeine" which is clearly bullshit spewed from just someone who just wants to enjoy the substance and has no scientific fact.

Says the guy I've proved wrong before, and I will again.

If I were to use that exact same source you did, I'd win right now. But, I myself don't even think it's valid enough, so I will go ahead and find us another one real quick but I will also toss in that same source for some quotes while I look.

The most celebrated study that claims to show brain damage is the rhesus monkey study of Dr. Robert Heath, done in the late 1970s. This study was reviewed by a distinguished panel of scientists sponsored by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences. Their results were published under the title, Marijuana and Health in 1982. Heath's work was sharply criticized for its insufficient sample size (only four monkeys), its failure to control experimental bias, and the misidentification of normal monkey brain structure as "damaged". Actual studies of human populations of marijuana users have shown no evidence of brain damage. For example, two studies from 1977, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) showed no evidence of brain damage in heavy users of marijuana. That same year, the American Medical Association (AMA) officially came out in favor of decriminalizing marijuana. That's not the sort of thing you'd expect if the AMA thought marijuana damaged the brain.

Marijuana impairs short-term memory
This is true but misleading. Any impairment of short-term memory disappears when one is no longer under the influence of marijuana. Often, the short-term memory effect is paired with a reference to Dr. Heath's poor rhesus monkeys to imply that the condition is permanent.

No one has ever died of a marijuana overdose

This is true.

Here we are:

Cannabis is considered to be a 'soft' drug by most people and, apart perhaps from the mistaken belief that it will lead to 'hard' drug use, it is seen by many as a fairly benign drug. However, this does not mean that the use of cannabis entails no health-risks.

It has been argued that cannabis smoke contains carcinogenic substances. The British Lung Foundation recently reported that smoking 3 cannabis 'joints' was equivalent to 20 cigarettes. When cannabis is smoked mixed with tobacco, the problems associated with tobacco smoking also become relevant. Cannabis smoking is also believed by some experts to be associated with conditions such as bronchitis. The point here is that as soon as you start to burn something and inhale that smoke a range of health risks are created. Evidence to cannabis's relative harm in this respect (compared to say cigarettes) is as yet contradictory.

Some experts believe that cannabis use must also be seen as involving some risk of dependence. It is clear however that while some individuals may suffer from problems not dissimilar in many ways to a dependence syndrome, for the majority of users dependence is not an outcome and as such cannabis would not normatively be understood as a drug of addiction. In considering this issue, it is important to understand that dependence must be seen within the context of the drug in question, the individual in question and their social context. Dependence is, therefore, a relationship and is not simply a property of any given substance. Some drugs (heroin, cocaine, alcohol, tobacco) are more addictive than others - cannabis is less so.

One further issue pertaining to cannabis and the question of harm, relates to individuals with mental health issues. Although the evidence is not conclusive, some research has suggested that cannabis can stimulate mental health disorders such as schizophrenia. Put briefly, any 'mind altering substances' may involve additional problems for those with mental health problems.

And these are just meh:
http://www.medboardwatch.com/marijuana-myths-marijuana-facts.htm
http://www.medicalcannabis.com/marijuana_myths.htm#1
http://www.ukcia.org/culture/effects/myths.php#brain

Despite what you may think, it doesn't contain any carcinogens, at all. Burning it creates Tar (2.5 times the amount of tobacco to be exact) and carbon, and they are in fact carcinogens, but not potent ones. The burnt part of your burger/steak etc is carbon, which is a carcinogen. That smoke from burning wood is carbon and tar, but you won't get cancer from it.

And my personal favorite, The Union Movie.

Here it is on youtube, in parts 1-11.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

If for some reason you do not believe anything said in this movie, their home site has source information in it, as well you can email them about questions for further proof. This movie has won many, many awards and is a BBC documentary.

 

[ceacar99]

1: never claimed it causes brain damage. so that quote doesnt stick to my arguement
2: i never said ANYTHING about short term memory, i said ability to learn. so more of that doesnt stick to me.

3: that page does indeed have some inacuracies. i used it simply because the normal pot head would say "your using a government website for information, of course they are going to say that it does bla bla!!!!!" so i used a source that demonstrated that it DOES have negative effects but is still "pro pot". now here is the spam of quotes generally talking about it effecting one's ability to learn(but not necessarily memory).

One study also found that long-term use reduces the ability to organize and integrate complex information.

Students who smoke marijuana heavily may be limiting their ability to learn, according to a NIDA-funded study. The study found that college students who used marijuana regularly had impaired skills related to attention, memory, and learning 24 hours after they had last used the drug. The finding supports the results of previous NIDA-funded research that reported that adults who were chronic heavy marijuana users showed residual impairment in cognitive abilities a day after they had last used marijuana.

"Now we know that for students who smoke marijuana heavily, the ability to learn is affected not just while they are high, but for at least a day after,"

Regular heavy marijuana use compromises the ability to learn and remember information primarily by impairing the ability to focus, sustain, and shift attention, says Dr. Harrison Pope, Jr., of McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts, who directed the recent study. Noting that the actual ability to recall information remains relatively unaffected, Dr. Pope says, "If you could get heavy users to learn an item, then they could remember it; the problem was getting them to learn it in the first place."

A vast amount of scientific research has shown that heavy marijuana use negatively affects smokers' learning abilities and social skills, causing problems in their daily lives and compounding their existing problems.

A fact not last to marijuana advocates who argue of governmental propaganda and the propagation of myth, something that government have in the past been guilty of, and some would argue remain guilty of to this day. This is unfortunate, as there are enough legitimate risks of marijuana usage to give weight to arguments against its use, without resorting to half truths and myth.

Compromise the ability to learn and remember information, making it more likely to fall behind the norm on developing intellectual, job and social skills.

Many people who use cannabis heavily for a long time have problems with short-term memory, concentration and abstract thinking. Most of these problems disappear after a few weeks without drugs, but some last for years.

Students who smoke marijuana get lower grades and are less likely to graduate from high school, compared to their non-smoking peers. In a recent study, researchers compared marijuana-smoking and non-smoking 12th-graders’ scores on standardized tests of verbal and mathematical skills. Although all of the students had scored equally well in 4th grade, the marijuana smokers’ scores were significantly lower in 12th grade.

A study of 129 college students found that, for heavy users of marijuana (those who smoked the drug at least 27 of the preceding 30 days), critical skills related to attention, memory, and learning were significantly impaired even after they had not used the drug for at least 24 hours. The heavy marijuana users in the study had more trouble sustaining and shifting their attention and in registering, organizing, and using information than did the study participants who had used marijuana no more than 3 of the previous 30 days. As a result, someone who smokes marijuana once daily may be functioning at a reduced intellectual level all of the time.

Impaired memory and ability to learn

aaaaaand wait. my point is supported by YOUR sources as well...

However, they display diminished capacity to learn and recall new information.

point well proven. pot damages students. the problem is the more common it is the more is going to wind up in school. we cant stop high school kids from smoking tobacco because its everywhere. pot is the same situation, the problem there though is that even though it is illegal in most cases we are loosing the battle to control that substance. that loosing war in itself is because of a lot of reasons. one of them being the culture we live in believing that it has no negative effects what so ever and that its better then smoking tobacco.

further, 99% of the sources viewed also discussed health problems arising from cannabis. usually heart issues while under the influence, occasionally mentioning chances of cancer and discussing lung health and "smoker's cough". as i said, smoking causes some serious negative effects. i havent researched much of eating it so i'm not getting into that arguement just yet.

 

[capthavoc123]

You know, I get that pot is not as bad as tobacco (in some ways, not in every way). But that doesn't make it good, either.

I'm not for legalizing anything already illegal that has negative effects on people's health.

 

[Wolf-Bone]

You know, I get that pot is not as bad as tobacco (in some ways, not in every way). But that doesn't make it good, either.

I'm not for legalizing anything already illegal that has negative effects on people's health.

It's not about what you want. It's about what inalienable rights a human being has to go along with that omnipresent "personal responsibility" they're supposed to have.

 

[capthavoc123]

It's not about what you want. It's about what inalienable rights a human being has to go along with that omnipresent "personal responsibility" they're supposed to have.

Which is why minors have the absolute right to do anything they want, correct?

 

[beyondspecies]

We should get rid of all the laws and do whatever the hell we want. That will solve all our problems.

 

[Wolf-Bone]

Which is why minors have the absolute right to do anything they want, correct?

minors don't count. But I wasn't talking about them.

 

[capthavoc123]

We should get rid of all the laws and do whatever the hell we want. That will solve all our problems.

I really hope you're joking.

It's about what inalienable rights a human being has to go along with that omnipresent "personal responsibility" they're supposed to have.

minors don't count. But I wasn't talking about them.

So now minors aren't human beings?

Please start making more sense.

 

[beyondspecies]

I really hope you're joking.

Of course I'm joking. But now you made me all serious.

 

[Wolf-Bone]

Holy shit, I am, literally, arguing on the internet with Stephen Colbert.

 

[Foxxy Brown]

lol