El Guapo 8 Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Isn't that what methadone is? Not that it's a great solution (because it's not a great substance), but it is the placeholder for such a solution, isn't it?Exactly.Methadone - HeroinMarinol - MarijuanaMDMA - EctacyAmphetamine - Methamphetamine Link to post Share on other sites
Jeepster80125 0 Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Well a democracy that runs today is largely a representative one. We elect politicians and then let them get on with making what they believe to be the best decisions. If every politician we elect was solely an empty head that represented his constituencies views entirely, then I don't think we would be quite where we are today at all. Not to mention that it is virtually impossible for a MP (or House rep in your case) to get an accurate picture of exactly what the public are thinking on most issues. You are correct in a democracy, but again, we are not a democracy. As a representative republic we elect leaders who are expected to do more than "follow", and are expected to be better than the collective population.With Congress approval ratings below 20%, are people in office really wanted?Also,BALLCOCK. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Exactly.Methadone - HeroinMarinol - MarijuanaMDMA - EctacyAmphetamine - MethamphetamineHmmm, no. Got to clear up a few things here. First, methadone doesn't qualify as what hblask described because it is addictive on its own. Marinol is THC (tetrahydrocannibinol), one of the active ingredients in marijuana. So it's not really an alternative, its just the main active ingredient. MDMA == ecstasy. Ecstasy is just the street name of MDMA (Methylenedioxymethamphetamine). Methamphetamine is amphetamine with a methyl group added, which makes it more addictive and dangerous than regular amphetamine. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted November 4, 2008 Author Share Posted November 4, 2008 Hmmm, no. Got to clear up a few things here. First, methadone doesn't qualify as what hblask described because it is addictive on its own. Marinol is THC (tetrahydrocannibinol), one of the active ingredients in marijuana. So it's not really an alternative, its just the main active ingredient. MDMA == ecstasy. Ecstasy is just the street name of MDMA (Methylenedioxymethamphetamine). Methamphetamine is amphetamine with a methyl group added, which makes it more addictive and dangerous than regular amphetamine.Thanks, I was and still am extremely confused at what senor guapo was talking about. Methadone addiction though does have some advantages over heroin addiction, which is why I said it was the placeholder for a better "cure." Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Hmmm, no. Got to clear up a few things here. First, methadone doesn't qualify as what hblask described because it is addictive on its own. Marinol is THC (tetrahydrocannibinol), one of the active ingredients in marijuana. So it's not really an alternative, its just the main active ingredient. MDMA == ecstasy. Ecstasy is just the street name of MDMA (Methylenedioxymethamphetamine). Methamphetamine is amphetamine with a methyl group added, which makes it more addictive and dangerous than regular amphetamine.I know all that. I was trying to equate that there are legal versions of most illegal drugs. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 I know all that. I was trying to equate that there are legal versions of most illegal drugs.OK, I can sort of see what you were getting at now... if by legal you mean can be prescribed by a doctor, then your first column works, all except ecstasy, and in the 2nd column methamphetamine can be prescribed as well as regular amphetamine.Sorry to be nitpicky. Here's how the breakdown looks:Schedule I (no accepted medical use)heroinMDMAmarijuanaSchedule II (has a medical use)methadonemarinolamphetaminemethamphetamineThe federal drug scheduling system is a total mess. The fact that MDMA and cannibis are schedule I, while meth, cocaine, and PCP are schedule II is ridiculous. Add in that alcohol and tobacco are unscheduled given their potential for abuse and dependency and you have total absurdity. Link to post Share on other sites
copernicus 0 Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 I know some people headed straight for DQ after that thread. Think twice before reacting similarly to this one! Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted November 5, 2008 Author Share Posted November 5, 2008 For whatever reason I thought this had no chance of passing. Right now though it has nearly a 2-1 lead with 22% reporting. I dunno which 22% really, but it certainly is doing well.The income tax removal law got laughed down (currently 70% voting no). Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted November 5, 2008 Author Share Posted November 5, 2008 The Boston Globe has predicted that this initiative has passed. 53% reporting and it has 65% in favor.EDIT:http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_...ion_2_setu.html Link to post Share on other sites
dapokerbum 0 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 The Boston Globe has predicted that this initiative has passed. 53% reporting and it has 65% in favor.EDIT:http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_...ion_2_setu.html Yay! Now if only a few more states and maybe even the govn't got behind this we could start to turn the corner on this rediculous drug war Link to post Share on other sites
RealMagnetic 0 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Hey! So it passed??? Man I saw a pig fly yesterday too and my life is now complete, lol.what does the new law say? What is the status on marijuana? Link to post Share on other sites
copernicus 0 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Hey! So it passed??? Man I saw a pig fly yesterday too and my life is now complete, lol.what does the new law say? What is the status on marijuana?Possession of 1 ounce or less is legal. Possession of more than 1 ounce is a felony. Possess more than 1 ounce within 3 blocks of a school and you can be shot on sight. Possess 50 plants or more in Hyannisport and youre a national hero. Link to post Share on other sites
Mercury69 3 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Far too much $$$ and effort has been spent trying to defame marijuana. Concentrate on the meth, crack and xtasy labs. Seriously, stop wasting your time trying to arrest people who are only concerned about what flavor of Ben and Jerry's they're going to eat while watching a Star Trek re-run. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted November 6, 2008 Author Share Posted November 6, 2008 Possession of 1 ounce or less is legal. Possession of more than 1 ounce is a felony. Possess more than 1 ounce within 3 blocks of a school and you can be shot on sight. Possess 50 plants or more in Hyannisport and youre a national hero.Heh. Just to clear it up a little bit, possession of 1 ounce or less is not actually legal, but it is now a civil offense rather than a criminal one. Like getting a parking ticket. The punishment is confiscation and a $100 fine, and if you are under 18 it also comes with mandatory drug counseling or something. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Heh. Just to clear it up a little bit, possession of 1 ounce or less is not actually legal, but it is now a civil offense rather than a criminal one. Like getting a parking ticket. The punishment is confiscation and a $100 fine, and if you are under 18 it also comes with mandatory drug counseling or something.One of my favorite things about smoking dope was how many pot heads fancied themselves to be sidewalk lawyers.Full understanding of search and seizure laws, etc.It'll be funny when the feds come in and the pot head starts his litany of the new Mass legislation and the feds laugh. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 One of my favorite things about smoking dope was how many pot heads fancied themselves to be sidewalk lawyers.Full understanding of search and seizure laws, etc.It'll be funny when the feds come in and the pot head starts his litany of the new Mass legislation and the feds laugh.As this movement grows, one of two things will happen. One, the feds will give up on their stupidity, and leave the states alone, ortwo, some state will bring out the national guard and tell the feds "we'll take care of this our way".Hopefully, the first. Link to post Share on other sites
copernicus 0 Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 two, some state will bring out the national guard and tell the feds "we'll take care of this our way".the depth of your imagination knows no bounds Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 One of my favorite things about smoking dope was how many pot heads fancied themselves to be sidewalk lawyers.Full understanding of search and seizure laws, etc.It'll be funny when the feds come in and the pot head starts his litany of the new Mass legislation and the feds laugh.California has proven that for the most part the Feds have better things to do. Do you really think this should be an FBI priority? Cracking down on potheads?Federal courts, by the way, are known to take search and seizure laws pretty seriously (unless the alleged criminal is not American, then screw 'em). Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 California has proven that for the most part the Feds have better things to do. Do you really think this should be an FBI priority? Cracking down on potheads?Federal courts, by the way, are known to take search and seizure laws pretty seriously (unless the alleged criminal is not American, then screw 'em).Actually the California situation has proven that the feds won't just let this go. The DEA has staged periodic raids and shutdowns of the medical marijuana distributors in California. Here's a recent one; all the Santa Barbara co-ops were shut down in september. According to NORML, over 100 people/groups have been federally charged in marijuana cases in California. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Stupid cancer patients, wanting to get relief from their symptoms. Jail is too good for them, they should be tortured and killed. Oh wait...... Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Actually the California situation has proven that the feds won't just let this go. The DEA has staged periodic raids and shutdowns of the medical marijuana distributors in California. Here's a recent one; all the Santa Barbara co-ops were shut down in september. According to NORML, over 100 people/groups have been federally charged in marijuana cases in California.periodic is a long way from cracking down. They just let them know who is boss from time to time. And since only the DEA has the time and inclination to do this nonsense, the more states that decriminalize (contrary to backward Federal Laws) the more resources the DEA will have to expend to "combat the menace of medical marijuana." Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,353 Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 One of my favorite things about smoking dope was how many pot heads fancied themselves to be sidewalk lawyers.Full understanding of search and seizure laws, etc.It'll be funny when the feds come in and the pot head starts his litany of the new Mass legislation and the feds laugh.yeah, I don't really see the DEA spending too much time and money on shaking down hippies for their quarter bags anytime soon. Under an oz has never been federal jurisdiction to begin with. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Stupid cancer patients, wanting to get relief from their symptoms. Jail is too good for them, they should be tortured and killed. Oh wait......Yea, I agree, cancer patients need to inhale burning weed in order to deal with the cancer they often got from...smoking a burning weed? Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,353 Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Yea, I agree, cancer patients need to inhale burning weed in order to deal with the cancer they often got from...smoking a burning weed?I'll have you know that my family has a long history of glaucoma, and since it has a strong hereditary link, I just consider it preventative medicine. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Yea, I agree, cancer patients need to inhale burning weed in order to deal with the cancer they often got from...smoking a burning weed?I know you're trying to be funny, but you're smarter than this. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now