ATG
Banned
+5,233|6500|Global Command
Keeping pot illegal is both ignorant and destructive and deadly.

But lets keep subsidizing corn ethanol, it keeps farmers happy.


America is stupid.
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6513|Texas - Bigger than France

ATG wrote:

Keeping pot illegal is both ignorant and destructive and deadly.

But lets keep subsidizing corn ethanol, it keeps farmers happy.


America is stupid.
This is prolly a really dumb question, but can't you just grow corn instead of pot?
TheDarkRaven
ATG's First Disciple
+263|6595|Birmingham, UK

Pug wrote:

ATG wrote:

Keeping pot illegal is both ignorant and destructive and deadly.

But lets keep subsidizing corn ethanol, it keeps farmers happy.


America is stupid.
This is prolly a really dumb question, but can't you just grow corn instead of pot?
See:

TheDarkRaven wrote:

And this is why I'm a pescetarian!
I'll eat fish - being careful to not eat overfished species - and vegetables, but not meat. Meat is such an inefficient way to produce food when you can feed dozens more people on the crops you feed the animals rather than the one person who can be fed on, say, a cow. If you stop eating meat, you're doing a lot of good, but people are extremely reluctant to give up the choice and I can sympathise. I love steaks and other meat - I won't say I used to because I still do, but they're just not viable (in my mind) to be eaten now - but I just can't bring myself to eat them still and I know how hard it may seem to you to give it up, but in my experienced it's actually very easy.
Bio-fuels are terrible because they will never be a viable source of fuel production given the vast amount of land needed to produce enough fuel - indeed, it's actually impossible to fuel the planet on solely bio-fuels - and so they might as well just not be used at all and that money and research spent on that being put into alternative and - more importantly - viable fuel sources for the future.
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6513|Texas - Bigger than France

TheDarkRaven wrote:

Pug wrote:

ATG wrote:

Keeping pot illegal is both ignorant and destructive and deadly.

But lets keep subsidizing corn ethanol, it keeps farmers happy.


America is stupid.
This is prolly a really dumb question, but can't you just grow corn instead of pot?
See:

TheDarkRaven wrote:

And this is why I'm a pescetarian!
I'll eat fish - being careful to not eat overfished species - and vegetables, but not meat. Meat is such an inefficient way to produce food when you can feed dozens more people on the crops you feed the animals rather than the one person who can be fed on, say, a cow. If you stop eating meat, you're doing a lot of good, but people are extremely reluctant to give up the choice and I can sympathise. I love steaks and other meat - I won't say I used to because I still do, but they're just not viable (in my mind) to be eaten now - but I just can't bring myself to eat them still and I know how hard it may seem to you to give it up, but in my experienced it's actually very easy.
Bio-fuels are terrible because they will never be a viable source of fuel production given the vast amount of land needed to produce enough fuel - indeed, it's actually impossible to fuel the planet on solely bio-fuels - and so they might as well just not be used at all and that money and research spent on that being put into alternative and - more importantly - viable fuel sources for the future.
Right, see my earlier post before the one you quoted.  Ps. "being careful to not eat overfished species"...you are deluding yourself if you think the fish industry is not without it's own skeletons.
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6737|Cambridge (UK)

mikkel wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

mikkel wrote:


You said that before. You were wrong then, too, and you couldn't tell me why you feel that you were right, apparently.

Drinking coffee does not lead to use of hard drugs. That is because drinking coffee, sociologically, has absolutely nothing to do with drug abuse at all.

Smoking marihuana can, and in all likelihood and according to all statistics that you've provided, does lead to use of harder drugs. That is because smoking marihuana, sociologically, has everything to do with drug abuse, just like the use of harder drugs.

What you're saying is essentially the same as saying that a history of drinking beer for the sake of getting drunk could in no way inspire a habit of drinking hard liquors for the sake of getting drunk, simply because eating a cake containing alcohol  for the sake of flavouring won't bring about an onset of alcoholism.

People get high. People want to get higher. You're saying that wanting to get higher has nothing to do with getting high. I think we've established that your credibility in responding to my sociological argument is precisely nil, and it doesn't look to be improving.
As I've already stated, it's not the same as saying drinking doesn't lead to hard liquor use, because cannabis affects the brain in a TOTALLY different way to heroin, other opiates, speed, or even alcohol.

People that want a cannabis high use cannabis. People that want an opiate high use opiates. People that want an alcohol high use alcohol. And people that want a caffeine high drink coffee.
Are you actively trying to make a fool of yourself? We're talking about the SOCIOLOGY, not the PHARMACOLOGY. It really doesn't matter how it affects the brain.

Your own statistics establish a clear correlation between cannabis use and the use of harder drugs. You feel that it has nothing to do with the physiological or pharmacological aspects of the drug. What I'm talking about is the SOCIOLOGICAL aspects of getting high for the sake of getting high, and cannabis shares this with harder drugs, just like beer shares the sociological aspects of drinking for the sake of getting drunk with hard liquor.

You've done absolutely nothing to disprove that the sociological correlation accounts for the statistical correlation, the cause of which still seems to elude you.

So what we're back to is you saying that despite that most any aspect of life deals with progressive experiences, recreational drug use doesn't. For some reason that you don't seem aware of yourself.
You're trying to argue the so called sociological aspects. I'm pointing out that the epidemiological evidence shows that the sociological argument is just bullshit.

It absolutely 100% depends on the effect they have on the brain of the user.

The reason beer shares so called 'sociological' factors with hard liquor is that pharmacologically they are the SAME DRUG and have the SAME EFFECT on the user, hence the user moves from one to the other, again, the sociological aspects are just bullshit.

Cannabis is NOT THE SAME DRUG to heroin and has a DIFFERENT EFFECT on the user - hence the so called 'sociological' argument is even more of a crock full of bullshit than for alcohol.

Can you provide any epidemiological evidence for the so called 'gateway' effect?
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6737|Cambridge (UK)

konfusion wrote:

Weed DOES affect you quite largely - a study was done on pilots in flight simulators, and 24 hours after they got high they were still experiencing up to 15m deviations from the middle of the runway (norm is around 2-3m)

Also, again @Scorpion: HIV leads to AIDS - I think that was the analogy, was it not?
1. As I told lowing, I have never stated that weed is harmless.
2. mikkel was trying to argue the 'gateway' argument - that cannabis use leads to harder drug use, however, as is the case with HIV and AIDS, this is simply not the case. As I have already stated you can be HIV positive and never develop AIDS, and you can develop AIDS without ever being HIV positive. HIV only increases your chances of developing AIDS.
TheDarkRaven
ATG's First Disciple
+263|6595|Birmingham, UK

Pug wrote:

TheDarkRaven wrote:

Pug wrote:


This is prolly a really dumb question, but can't you just grow corn instead of pot?
See:

TheDarkRaven wrote:

And this is why I'm a pescetarian!
I'll eat fish - being careful to not eat overfished species - and vegetables, but not meat. Meat is such an inefficient way to produce food when you can feed dozens more people on the crops you feed the animals rather than the one person who can be fed on, say, a cow. If you stop eating meat, you're doing a lot of good, but people are extremely reluctant to give up the choice and I can sympathise. I love steaks and other meat - I won't say I used to because I still do, but they're just not viable (in my mind) to be eaten now - but I just can't bring myself to eat them still and I know how hard it may seem to you to give it up, but in my experienced it's actually very easy.
Bio-fuels are terrible because they will never be a viable source of fuel production given the vast amount of land needed to produce enough fuel - indeed, it's actually impossible to fuel the planet on solely bio-fuels - and so they might as well just not be used at all and that money and research spent on that being put into alternative and - more importantly - viable fuel sources for the future.
Right, see my earlier post before the one you quoted.  Ps. "being careful to not eat overfished species"...you are deluding yourself if you think the fish industry is not without it's own skeletons.
I'm not saying it doesn't, but damn, at least it's not as inefficient as meat and, if done correctly, can support all fish species well.
BVC
Member
+325|6666
Out of curiosity, does anybody know the efficiency of fish farms compared with crops and land-animal meat?
LOG
dain bramaged
+51|6092|Punta Gorda,Florida
interesting no one commented on what normal said yrs ago if they would legalize pot and taxed it in 3 yrs it would wipe out the national debit and put that amount in the bank in 5 yrs. in 10 yrs it would wipe out the need for any type of fedral income tax,highway tax etc.
use the stalks and hemp to make biofuel. hell they use hemp for  so many things why not bio fuel. that would kill 2 birds with one stone,but thats to easy.

why wont they, simple if they did that what would happen to the war on drugs and all the money the govt wastes supposedly spends to combat it.its better for the govt to keep this game of pot being banned and being able to keep pocketing money that they are scammming off the taxpayer.
its funny they cut the amount of time you get for crack and how many people get hooked on it and commit crimes like robbery and murder to get their fix. but they wont even talk about a reduction in time for pot.
you ever see someone all highed up wanting to kill or rob for more weed? i never have and ive been a smoker for 30+ yrs.  but ive seen 20-30 crack heads in my time do some unthinkable stuff to get high.
you learn the true meaning of life when you see houses and cars blow by like leaves on a windy day.
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6365|The Gem Saloon

lowing wrote:

Parker wrote:

lowing wrote:


Nothing like the proud and defiant drug addict to set the record straight.
proud, defiant AND successful lowing.
get it the fuck right.
I do not give a fuck how much you make, you are a drug addict. The Enron Executives were successful as well. do you think they have respect?

Drug dealers, and Britney Spears and Paris Hilton make more than I do, what is your point?
well, you tell me im a "drug addict", yet i function just fine, and contribute more to society than most people. the drug addicts i have ever had any interaction with cant even manage their lives enough to have a roof over their heads. but this will lead us to that gray area regarding addictions, and based off what you have already said, im sure you have your narrow mind already made up about that.

i really dont make that much money, but thank you....in fact, come to think of it, i make MUCH less than all those people you listed.
i think your views on success may be slightly skewed. as far as im concerned, none of the people you listed are successful.

its sad that you measure success only in financial gains, but it explains a lot about you as a person.


also, your "respect" is about as valuable to me as these little karma points.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6572|132 and Bush

No one starts with crack..lol
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6365|The Gem Saloon

Kmarion wrote:

No one starts with crack..lol
agreed, but saying that is pretty much saying that people arent able to deal with controlled substances being made available to them.

cue the booze argument.
{M5}Sniper3
Typical white person.
+389|6731|San Antonio, Texas

Parker wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

No one starts with crack..lol
agreed, but saying that is pretty much saying that people arent able to deal with controlled substances being made available to them.

cue the booze argument.
Yeah, well this goes back to my first statement:

{M5}Sniper3 wrote:

I think that Marijuana should be legalised, regulated like alcohol, and taxed like tobacco.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6572|132 and Bush

Parker wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

No one starts with crack..lol
agreed, but saying that is pretty much saying that people arent able to deal with controlled substances being made available to them.

cue the booze argument.
It's what's being insinuated none-the-less.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6365|The Gem Saloon

Kmarion wrote:

Parker wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

No one starts with crack..lol
agreed, but saying that is pretty much saying that people arent able to deal with controlled substances being made available to them.

cue the booze argument.
It's what's being insinuated none-the-less.
then ya, pot is less harmful than booze, blah blah blah blah some shit that NORML said blah blah blah.

id love to see it happen, though i dont think it will in my lifetime.
i dont really like the whole "potheads are drug addicts" mentality, cause i have seen too many cases where it just doesnt ring true.

gateway drug, yep. but no more so than alcohol.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6500|Global Command
The impact on society from alcohol is  waaaaaaaaaaay worse than that of marijuana.
They have had less luck with keeping it away from people than they did with booze during prohibition and the ONLY reason it is illegal is because there are citizens and corporations getting rich off the incarceration of users, the confiscation property and perhaps even importing it with the backroom approval of the people within federal government.

There's a word for that kind of government; a cleptocracy.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6572|132 and Bush

ATG wrote:

The impact on society from alcohol is  waaaaaaaaaaay worse than that of marijuana.
Of course. It has also has a lot to do with it being readily available. This statement would have merit if you could back it up with numbers that show the same amount of people smoke Marijuana. My personal experience agrees with you, but if society on the whole turned into a bunch of potheads I wouldn't be so sure. At least not with absolute certainty.

ATG wrote:

They have had less luck with keeping it away from people than they did with booze during prohibition and the ONLY reason it is illegal is because there are citizens and corporations getting rich off the incarceration of users, the confiscation property and perhaps even importing it with the backroom approval of the people within federal government.

There's a word for that kind of government; a cleptocracy.
What corporations are getting rich of incarcerating users? I'm curious. If the government wanted to make money off of this they would levy a tax on it. (As mentioned 100 times before in every legalize Marijuana debate)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6500|Global Command

Kmarion wrote:

ATG wrote:

The impact on society from alcohol is  waaaaaaaaaaay worse than that of marijuana.
Of course. It has also has a lot to do with it being readily available. This statement would have merit if you could back it up with numbers that show the same amount of people smoke Marijuana. My personal experience agrees with you, but if society on the whole turned into a bunch of potheads I wouldn't be so sure. At least not with absolute certainty.

ATG wrote:

They have had less luck with keeping it away from people than they did with booze during prohibition and the ONLY reason it is illegal is because there are citizens and corporations getting rich off the incarceration of users, the confiscation property and perhaps even importing it with the backroom approval of the people within federal government.

There's a word for that kind of government; a cleptocracy.
What corporations are getting rich of incarcerating users? I'm curious. If the government wanted to make money off of this they would levy a tax on it. (As mentioned 100 times before in every legalize Marijuana debate)
Of the 39252 fatal accidents in the U.S. 2005, the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) for the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration registered only 17 fatal traffic accidents with marijuana use alone as an exacerbating factor, compared with over 111,000 fatal accidents caused by alcohol alone.

Of the persons who were killed in traffic crashes in 2004, 39 percent died in alcohol-related crashes. Nine percent of the injured persons received their injuries in alcohol-related crashes. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/DidYouKnow.aspx

Researchers say about 2.5% of the fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana compared with nearly 29% attributable to alcohol.
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news … -car-crash

It should be a crime to drive stoned. But the evidence is over whelming that we are fighting the wrong fight.


Here is but one of many private corporations running prisons;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction … of_America



I wonder how many senators would freak out if they couldn't have their gin and prescription drugs?

https://i28.tinypic.com/33le81w.jpg
mikkel
Member
+383|6572

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

As I've already stated, it's not the same as saying drinking doesn't lead to hard liquor use, because cannabis affects the brain in a TOTALLY different way to heroin, other opiates, speed, or even alcohol.

People that want a cannabis high use cannabis. People that want an opiate high use opiates. People that want an alcohol high use alcohol. And people that want a caffeine high drink coffee.
Are you actively trying to make a fool of yourself? We're talking about the SOCIOLOGY, not the PHARMACOLOGY. It really doesn't matter how it affects the brain.

Your own statistics establish a clear correlation between cannabis use and the use of harder drugs. You feel that it has nothing to do with the physiological or pharmacological aspects of the drug. What I'm talking about is the SOCIOLOGICAL aspects of getting high for the sake of getting high, and cannabis shares this with harder drugs, just like beer shares the sociological aspects of drinking for the sake of getting drunk with hard liquor.

You've done absolutely nothing to disprove that the sociological correlation accounts for the statistical correlation, the cause of which still seems to elude you.

So what we're back to is you saying that despite that most any aspect of life deals with progressive experiences, recreational drug use doesn't. For some reason that you don't seem aware of yourself.
You're trying to argue the so called sociological aspects. I'm pointing out that the epidemiological evidence shows that the sociological argument is just bullshit.

It absolutely 100% depends on the effect they have on the brain of the user.

The reason beer shares so called 'sociological' factors with hard liquor is that pharmacologically they are the SAME DRUG and have the SAME EFFECT on the user, hence the user moves from one to the other, again, the sociological aspects are just bullshit.

Cannabis is NOT THE SAME DRUG to heroin and has a DIFFERENT EFFECT on the user - hence the so called 'sociological' argument is even more of a crock full of bullshit than for alcohol.

Can you provide any epidemiological evidence for the so called 'gateway' effect?
So can you point out exactly what epidemiological evidence of yours say getting high has nothing to do with wanting to look for a bigger high? You're saying that it "absolutely 100% depends on the effect they have on the brain of the user", but you have a very clear statistical correlation between the use of cannabis and the progression to harder drugs that you're unable to account for, and you're more than willing to ignore and diminish this. That sounds more like denial than an objective analysis to me.

Cannabis is a different drug than other drugs. Obviously. Cannabis does, however, serve the same purpose as the consumption of many other harder drugs does. It gets you high. If you think that you can disprove the sociological aspects of recreational drug use by saying that two drugs aren't the same, therefore no correlation exists, then you simply do not understand what it means.

People get high to get high. If they can get high off of cannabis, and are told that they can get higher off of cocaine, some will try cocaine. It's as simple as that. It has to do with wanting to get high, not the way the drug gets you high.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-04-13 22:39:59)

ATG
Banned
+5,233|6500|Global Command

mikkel wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

mikkel wrote:


Are you actively trying to make a fool of yourself? We're talking about the SOCIOLOGY, not the PHARMACOLOGY. It really doesn't matter how it affects the brain.

Your own statistics establish a clear correlation between cannabis use and the use of harder drugs. You feel that it has nothing to do with the physiological or pharmacological aspects of the drug. What I'm talking about is the SOCIOLOGICAL aspects of getting high for the sake of getting high, and cannabis shares this with harder drugs, just like beer shares the sociological aspects of drinking for the sake of getting drunk with hard liquor.

You've done absolutely nothing to disprove that the sociological correlation accounts for the statistical correlation, the cause of which still seems to elude you.

So what we're back to is you saying that despite that most any aspect of life deals with progressive experiences, recreational drug use doesn't. For some reason that you don't seem aware of yourself.
You're trying to argue the so called sociological aspects. I'm pointing out that the epidemiological evidence shows that the sociological argument is just bullshit.

It absolutely 100% depends on the effect they have on the brain of the user.

The reason beer shares so called 'sociological' factors with hard liquor is that pharmacologically they are the SAME DRUG and have the SAME EFFECT on the user, hence the user moves from one to the other, again, the sociological aspects are just bullshit.

Cannabis is NOT THE SAME DRUG to heroin and has a DIFFERENT EFFECT on the user - hence the so called 'sociological' argument is even more of a crock full of bullshit than for alcohol.

Can you provide any epidemiological evidence for the so called 'gateway' effect?
So can you point out exactly what epidemiological evidence of yours say getting high has nothing to do with wanting to look for a bigger high? You're saying that it "absolutely 100% depends on the effect they have on the brain of the user", but you have a very clear statistical correlation between the use of cannabis and the progression to harder drugs that you're unable to account for, and you're more than willing to ignore and diminish this. That sounds more like denial than an objective analysis to me.

Cannabis is a different drug than other drugs. Obviously. Cannabis does, however, serve the same purpose as the consumption of many other harder drugs does. It gets you high. If you think that you can disprove the sociological aspects of recreational drug use by saying that two drugs aren't the same, therefore no correlation exists, then you simply do not understand what it means.

People get high to get high. If they can get high off of cannabis, and are told that they can get higher off of cocaine, some will try cocaine. It's as simple as that. It has to do with wanting to get high, not the way the drug gets you high.
In my life I have snorted coke, smoked coke, snorted speed, taken speed pills, taken acid, taken shrooms.

I currently have an issue with alcohol but do not do any of the above.
Yes, I smoke pot, so shoot me. To me a joint is to as some a cigarette except I don't get tense and freak out when I can't afford it or it's not polite to be smoking. With the skyrocketing price of gold, pot is no longer more almost as expensive. Imagine all that money going to benefit our society instead of Mexican drug cartels and Canadian pot farms?
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6572|132 and Bush

ATG wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

ATG wrote:

The impact on society from alcohol is  waaaaaaaaaaay worse than that of marijuana.
Of course. It has also has a lot to do with it being readily available. This statement would have merit if you could back it up with numbers that show the same amount of people smoke Marijuana. My personal experience agrees with you, but if society on the whole turned into a bunch of potheads I wouldn't be so sure. At least not with absolute certainty.

ATG wrote:

They have had less luck with keeping it away from people than they did with booze during prohibition and the ONLY reason it is illegal is because there are citizens and corporations getting rich off the incarceration of users, the confiscation property and perhaps even importing it with the backroom approval of the people within federal government.

There's a word for that kind of government; a cleptocracy.
What corporations are getting rich of incarcerating users? I'm curious. If the government wanted to make money off of this they would levy a tax on it. (As mentioned 100 times before in every legalize Marijuana debate)
Of the 39252 fatal accidents in the U.S. 2005, the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) for the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration registered only 17 fatal traffic accidents with marijuana use alone as an exacerbating factor, compared with over 111,000 fatal accidents caused by alcohol alone.

Of the persons who were killed in traffic crashes in 2004, 39 percent died in alcohol-related crashes. Nine percent of the injured persons received their injuries in alcohol-related crashes. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/DidYouKnow.aspx

Researchers say about 2.5% of the fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana compared with nearly 29% attributable to alcohol.
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news … -car-crash

It should be a crime to drive stoned. But the evidence is over whelming that we are fighting the wrong fight.

Here is but one of many private corporations running prisons;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction … of_America

I wonder how many senators would freak out if they couldn't have their gin and prescription drugs?

http://i28.tinypic.com/33le81w.jpg
Wow you totally misunderstood what I was saying as far as numbers. That or you just don't comprehend ratio's per population that use each substance. Of course the bottom line numbers are much higher. My contention is the number of people who drink alcohol completely dwarfs the amount of Marijuanna users.

As far as Corrections Corporation of America. They probably do a better job. Stay out of jail, it's not as tough as your making it out to be.

It should be a crime to drive stoned.
It is.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6500|Global Command

Kmarion wrote:

ATG wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

ATG wrote:

The impact on society from alcohol is  waaaaaaaaaaay worse than that of marijuana.
Of course. It has also has a lot to do with it being readily available. This statement would have merit if you could back it up with numbers that show the same amount of people smoke Marijuana. My personal experience agrees with you, but if society on the whole turned into a bunch of potheads I wouldn't be so sure. At least not with absolute certainty.


What corporations are getting rich of incarcerating users? I'm curious. If the government wanted to make money off of this they would levy a tax on it. (As mentioned 100 times before in every legalize Marijuana debate)
Of the 39252 fatal accidents in the U.S. 2005, the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) for the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration registered only 17 fatal traffic accidents with marijuana use alone as an exacerbating factor, compared with over 111,000 fatal accidents caused by alcohol alone.

Of the persons who were killed in traffic crashes in 2004, 39 percent died in alcohol-related crashes. Nine percent of the injured persons received their injuries in alcohol-related crashes. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/DidYouKnow.aspx

Researchers say about 2.5% of the fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana compared with nearly 29% attributable to alcohol.
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news … -car-crash

It should be a crime to drive stoned. But the evidence is over whelming that we are fighting the wrong fight.

Here is but one of many private corporations running prisons;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction … of_America

I wonder how many senators would freak out if they couldn't have their gin and prescription drugs?

http://i28.tinypic.com/33le81w.jpg
Wow you totally misunderstood what I was saying as far as numbers. That or you just don't comprehend ratio's per population that use each substance. Of course the bottom line numbers are much higher. My contention is the number of people who drink alcohol completely dwarfs the amount of Marijuanna users.

As far as Corrections Corporation of America. They probably do a better job. Stay out of jail, it's not as tough as your making it out to be.

It should be a crime to drive stoned.
It is.
Oh, I was smoking when I read your post and got confused.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6572|132 and Bush

I wouldn't say they are doing extraordinary.. http://qc.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=CXW&t=my

You actually peaked my interest.. I'm banking on you ATG, cmon.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6365|The Gem Saloon
its not hard to stay out of jail, you just need the money to pay it off.

last year i was picked up for having a dugout (smoking device and holder) with a small amount of weed in it (less than a gram).
now, i could have just told them where it was in the car, but it had been awhile since i was picked up, and i wanted to press my luck. the officer knew the game. he could smell it, he told me he could smell it and i just played dumb. didnt bug me, i had been in a lot worse situations, and wasnt really stressing if he would find it or not....more of a pain in the ass type thing.
so, anyway, he finds it and we have some laughs...like i said, he knew the game, and he knew i wasnt a threat. since i wanted to hide it, they took me in to process me. it took all of 45 minutes....30 in a holding cell and 15 to do paperwork shit.
got let go, went outside and smoked a cigarette with the arresting officer. not once did he talk to me like i had done a damn thing wrong, and in fact took one of my business cards. when i was done, i walked next door and got my car out of impound for $40 (money for the towing company).
went to court a month later, stood in front of the judge for literally 15 seconds. the prosecutor recommended $300 total fines, and the judge was just like "nah, $400."
i lol'd as i was writing the check.

it truly is an industry.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6500|Global Command

Kmarion wrote:

I wouldn't say they are doing extraordinary.. http://qc.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=CXW&t=my

You actually peaked my interest.. I'm banking on you ATG, cmon.
I should get a commission.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard