Justice for Cali MJ grower

[tnitsuj]

I think Ashcroft is guilty of playing fast and loose with the constitution, but to blame him for enforcing federal laws vigorously is assinine.


LISTEN CAREFULLY: Marijuana is illegal!!!!!!!!!! MKAY!!!

F$%^% DOPERS. Move to freaking Canada if you want to smoke dope.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
I think Ashcroft is guilty of playing fast and loose with the constitution, but to blame him for enforcing federal laws vigorously is assinine.


LISTEN CAREFULLY: Marijuana is illegal!!!!!!!!!! MKAY!!!

F$%^% DOPERS. Move to freaking Canada if you want to smoke dope.

Blaming him for vigorously enforcing laws selectively isn't assinine, is it?

And if you don't like the LAW in 9 states perhaps you should stay out of them, you and Ashcroft, instead of telling your fellow Americans to move to Canada (where, by the way cannabis is de-criminalized - not legal).

What the hell makes you think you have the right to tell "free" people where to live?

Maybe you're the one who should move.................................to China. I hear there is plenty of oppression there. Your cup of tea it would seem. (Wonder when Bush will decide to effect a regime change in China. They are at least as bad as Hussein).

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

There is no terrorist like the one who thinks he's conqured a vice. I used to be an asshole and smoked marajuana, but one day in a fit of self loathing I gave it up. All you scumbags can do the same. Users are just a bunch of assholes like I (used to be), riiiiiiiight, used to be. But not any more. Now I'm cool. I keep myself dead every day. Now I know. I climed out of the sewer into a straight jacket, You listen to me.

Its okay if you address me directly, Moonbeam, by including some attribution to my post. I won't bite.

Its not as though I'm a recovering substance abuser who is on a crusade, I smoked pot recreationally more than habitually. Although like a recovering substance abuser, I can spot from a mile away the deceptive rationalizations employed by current substance abusers, such as your little speil above.

I'm no less of an asshole now than I was when I smoked pot, thank you.

As far as being 'dead' because I am sober, well that's the sorta thing I'm sure I would have said when I was too high to understand just how dead are those who resort to drugs as a crutch.

Resort to drugs as a crutch. Why this insane focus on marijuana? What about drugs like alcohol? Much more dangerous than pot. If the AG is so hell bent on "protecting the American public from dangerous drugs" why is alcohol legal. Let's have a theocracy dictate to us what we can and cannot do. Maybe we can start killing liqour store owners like the do in Iraq, Iran and other nations where strict muslim law is enforced. Except ours will be strict Christian law.

When will prohibition be reinstituted? I'm sure Ashcroft would love to play Elliot Ness. He can dress up and carry a tommy gun and everything. I'm sure he'd get quite a thrill out of it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

There were people in CA state clinics being treated for pain sitting in wheelchairs arrested for using what is a legal drug for that purpose in that state. Would they be better off on Percocet or some other addictive narcotic?

Sure, pain, stress, allergies, headaches, stubbed toes, slivers, cuz my parents suck, it helps me think better.

I wonder how medical supply companies do on wheelchair rentals when the medical marijuana folks are in town for a photo op?

And this should matter why?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: tcsenter

There is no terrorist like the one who thinks he's conqured a vice. I used to be an asshole and smoked marajuana, but one day in a fit of self loathing I gave it up. All you scumbags can do the same. Users are just a bunch of assholes like I (used to be), riiiiiiiight, used to be. But not any more. Now I'm cool. I keep myself dead every day. Now I know. I climed out of the sewer into a straight jacket, You listen to me.

Its okay if you address me directly, Moonbeam, by including some attribution to my post. I won't bite.

Its not as though I'm a recovering substance abuser who is on a crusade, I smoked pot recreationally more than habitually. Although like a recovering substance abuser, I can spot from a mile away the deceptive rationalizations employed by current substance abusers, such as your little speil above.

I'm no less of an asshole now than I was when I smoked pot, thank you.

As far as being 'dead' because I am sober, well that's the sorta thing I'm sure I would have said when I was too high to understand just how dead are those who resort to drugs as a crutch.

Resort to drugs as a crutch. Why this insane focus on marijuana? What about drugs like alcohol? Much more dangerous than pot. If the AG is so hell bent on "protecting the American public from dangerous drugs" why is alcohol legal. Let's have a theocracy dictate to us what we can and cannot do. Maybe we can start killing liqour store owners like the do in Iraq, Iran and other nations where strict muslim law is enforced. Except ours will be strict Christian law.

When will prohibition be reinstituted? I'm sure Ashcroft would love to play Elliot Ness. He can dress up and carry a tommy gun and everything. I'm sure he'd get quite a thrill out of it.

Just because something that is "wrong" isn't as "wrong" as something else doesn't mean that the first "wrong" should go unpunished.

BOBDN - I'm actually agreeing with you on the stance of MJ, but your inane blame game makes it hard for people like me to agree with you.
Asscroft sucks - we agree
MJ should be de-criminalized - we agree(i'm assuming )
blaming Asscroft for enforcing the law - we don't

Blame the law, not the enforcer.

CkG

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: tcsenter

There were people in CA state clinics being treated for pain sitting in wheelchairs arrested for using what is a legal drug for that purpose in that state. Would they be better off on Percocet or some other addictive narcotic?

Sure, pain, stress, allergies, headaches, stubbed toes, slivers, cuz my parents suck, it helps me think better.

I wonder how medical supply companies do on wheelchair rentals when the medical marijuana folks are in town for a photo op?

And this should matter why?

It doesn't matter.

Maybe he's so dishonest - he expects everyone else is as well.

There are no doubt people who would take advantage of the situation. There are people who will take advantage of any situation.

They should not make us forget that there are people who are legitimately in chronic pain. And these are the people who were easy targets for Ashcroft and the thugs he sent in to arrest them. People in wheelchairs and doctors trying to help them.

They should have the means necessary to relieve their pain. Suffering isn't good for the soul. It is torture.

BaliBabyDoc posted this yesterday:

Despite it's relatively meager population, SF has a significant number of AIDS patients. UCSF is in the top 5 for AIDS research. We've used anabolic steroids, antidepressants, Marinol (synthetic THC analogue), estrogen, and a myriad of other agents as supportive care for AIDS patients. For these medication regimens; outcomes range from somewhat positive to abject failure . . . but the majority with access to MJ . . . stay on the MJ and improve.

I know this to be true. I can't understand anyone jaded enough to joke about it. Must be very young or suffered arrested development in high school. I have heard people who listen to Howard Stern or Fox news constantly sometimes develop this attitude problem. Or I could be totally wrong and tcsenter actually believes everyone is faking symptoms and every man woman and child on the planet is really in perfect health.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

There is no terrorist like the one who thinks he's conqured a vice. I used to be an asshole and smoked marajuana, but one day in a fit of self loathing I gave it up. All you scumbags can do the same. Users are just a bunch of assholes like I (used to be), riiiiiiiight, used to be. But not any more. Now I'm cool. I keep myself dead every day. Now I know. I climed out of the sewer into a straight jacket, You listen to me.

Its okay if you address me directly, Moonbeam, by including some attribution to my post. I won't bite.

Its not as though I'm a recovering substance abuser who is on a crusade, I smoked pot recreationally more than habitually. Although like a recovering substance abuser, I can spot from a mile away the deceptive rationalizations employed by current substance abusers, such as your little speil above.

I'm no less of an asshole now than I was when I smoked pot, thank you.

As far as being 'dead' because I am sober, well that's the sorta thing I'm sure I would have said when I was too high to understand just how dead are those who resort to drugs as a crutch.

Given the context is illegal drugs I'll assume all your comments refer to illegal drugs and not Rx or othe legal drugs. If, however, you change context to include all drugs please advise.

 

[BOBDN]

Just because something that is "wrong" isn't as "wrong" as something else doesn't mean that the first "wrong" should go unpunished.

BOBDN - I'm actually agreeing with you on the stance of MJ, but your inane blame game makes it hard for people like me to agree with you.
Asscroft sucks - we agree
MJ should be de-criminalized - we agree(i'm assuming )
blaming Asscroft for enforcing the law - we don't

Blame the law, not the enforcer.

CkG

No one was enforcing these "laws" until Bush and the AG he appointed - Ashcroft - showed up. Blaming the enforcer is perfectly acceptable when the enforcer is selectively applying the law and counter to the laws of a state - when the enforcer is our own version of the religious fundamentalists we don't want taking over Muslim nations. Why are our religious zealots OK and theirs not? What is the difference?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Just because something that is "wrong" isn't as "wrong" as something else doesn't mean that the first "wrong" should go unpunished.

BOBDN - I'm actually agreeing with you on the stance of MJ, but your inane blame game makes it hard for people like me to agree with you.
Asscroft sucks - we agree
MJ should be de-criminalized - we agree(i'm assuming )
blaming Asscroft for enforcing the law - we don't

Blame the law, not the enforcer.

CkG

No one was enforcing these "laws" until Bush and the AG he appointed - Ashcroft - showed up. Blaming the enforcer is perfectly acceptable when the enforcer is selectively applying the law and counter to the laws of a state - when the enforcer is our own version of the religious fundamentalists we don't want taking over Muslim nations. Why are our religious zealots OK and theirs not? What is the difference?

The difference is that the LAW is the LAW, if the AG is overstepping his bounds by enforcing an "illegal" Federal law, then the courts need to deal with that. The court in this case did realize that (so it seems) and did it's best to limit the damage. I don't defend Asscroft against cries of facism since I think the guy is bad for personal freedoms, but in this case - the Law has been Law a long time even if Remo didn't enforce it.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Blame the law, not the enforcer.
----------------------------------------------
Only a moron enforces bad law. We have bad law because politicians are cowards and fear being accused of supporting drugs if they vote to change it. We are stuck in the middle of a huge mess with no way out in sight. Massive civil disobedience and explicit intention not to vote for politicians that support the psychotic war on drugs may be the only salvation. Drugs and terrorism, fear fear fear, art the tools politicians use to get elected.

Tcsenter, I liked your answer to my post.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Just because something that is "wrong" isn't as "wrong" as something else doesn't mean that the first "wrong" should go unpunished.

BOBDN - I'm actually agreeing with you on the stance of MJ, but your inane blame game makes it hard for people like me to agree with you.
Asscroft sucks - we agree
MJ should be de-criminalized - we agree(i'm assuming )
blaming Asscroft for enforcing the law - we don't

Blame the law, not the enforcer.

CkG

No one was enforcing these "laws" until Bush and the AG he appointed - Ashcroft - showed up. Blaming the enforcer is perfectly acceptable when the enforcer is selectively applying the law and counter to the laws of a state - when the enforcer is our own version of the religious fundamentalists we don't want taking over Muslim nations. Why are our religious zealots OK and theirs not? What is the difference?

The difference is that the LAW is the LAW, if the AG is overstepping his bounds by enforcing an "illegal" Federal law, then the courts need to deal with that. The court in this case did realize that (so it seems) and did it's best to limit the damage. I don't defend Asscroft against cries of facism since I think the guy is bad for personal freedoms, but in this case - the Law has been Law a long time even if Remo didn't enforce it.

CkG

So if Ashcroft started breaking down doors and enforcing sodomy and adultury laws (i don't think feds have laws about this, but just for the sake of argument), you'd have no problem with Ashcroft doing it?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Just because something that is "wrong" isn't as "wrong" as something else doesn't mean that the first "wrong" should go unpunished.

BOBDN - I'm actually agreeing with you on the stance of MJ, but your inane blame game makes it hard for people like me to agree with you.
Asscroft sucks - we agree
MJ should be de-criminalized - we agree(i'm assuming )
blaming Asscroft for enforcing the law - we don't

Blame the law, not the enforcer.

CkG

No one was enforcing these "laws" until Bush and the AG he appointed - Ashcroft - showed up. Blaming the enforcer is perfectly acceptable when the enforcer is selectively applying the law and counter to the laws of a state - when the enforcer is our own version of the religious fundamentalists we don't want taking over Muslim nations. Why are our religious zealots OK and theirs not? What is the difference?

The difference is that the LAW is the LAW, if the AG is overstepping his bounds by enforcing an "illegal" Federal law, then the courts need to deal with that. The court in this case did realize that (so it seems) and did it's best to limit the damage. I don't defend Asscroft against cries of facism since I think the guy is bad for personal freedoms, but in this case - the Law has been Law a long time even if Remo didn't enforce it.

CkG

So if Ashcroft started breaking down doors and enforcing sodomy and adultury laws (i don't think feds have laws about this, but just for the sake of argument), you'd have no problem with Ashcroft doing it?

Nope, not with Asscroft. With the law - yes.

We don't get to pick and choose which laws to not follow without facing the consequences. I'd love to go home and torch a fatty, and I used to in my "youth". I now have a family and 2 kids and I didn't feel it is worth the legal risk to myself or my family for me to continue breaking the law(not to mention having to deal with my wife's wrath )

Asscroft can't enforce things that aren't LAW

CkG

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Ashcroft only tried to prohibit doctors from promoting marijuana under these wildly liberalized state regulations which allowed MJ for any reason so long as a physician had 'deemed' it palliative, from ingrown toenails to terminal cancer.

The majority of drugs used in America are prescribed for a purpose OTHER than their FDA-approved clinical indications. The government allows the practice b/c the true utility of a drug is quite amorphous until millions of doses are used. States CANNOT guide the use of medications b/c they lack the regulatory authority and expertise. The feds (other than FDA/FTC) have the same shortcoming. Pfizer (through its most recent acquisition Parke-Davis) showered the nations' physicians with tales of how effective Neurontin could be for conditions ranging from bipolar disorder to diabetic neuropathy. It was BS but it allowed Parke-Davis to collect over $1B in sales for a drug that was being prescribed for something other than seizure (it's approved use) 80% of the time!

From a medical standpoint, many doctors shy away from MJ b/c it isn't standardized like typical prescription drugs, you have to smoke it, and patients assume a certain degree of risk (and personal expense) in the procurement process. All of these factors exist on top of the typical issues of medication use . . . so prescribing MJ MUST be liberally legislated b/c it's the only way any doctor would consider it.

Personally if 100 potheads have an easier time getting a fix so 1 person can have a better quality of life (terminal patient NOT their dealer) . . . what's the problem? Seems like law enforcement would have an easier time b/c many of the ill societal sequelae to drug use would be avoided when people use Cannabis Clubs instead of street dealers.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Just because something that is "wrong" isn't as "wrong" as something else doesn't mean that the first "wrong" should go unpunished.

BOBDN - I'm actually agreeing with you on the stance of MJ, but your inane blame game makes it hard for people like me to agree with you.
Asscroft sucks - we agree
MJ should be de-criminalized - we agree(i'm assuming )
blaming Asscroft for enforcing the law - we don't

Blame the law, not the enforcer.

CkG

No one was enforcing these "laws" until Bush and the AG he appointed - Ashcroft - showed up. Blaming the enforcer is perfectly acceptable when the enforcer is selectively applying the law and counter to the laws of a state - when the enforcer is our own version of the religious fundamentalists we don't want taking over Muslim nations. Why are our religious zealots OK and theirs not? What is the difference?

The difference is that the LAW is the LAW, if the AG is overstepping his bounds by enforcing an "illegal" Federal law, then the courts need to deal with that. The court in this case did realize that (so it seems) and did it's best to limit the damage. I don't defend Asscroft against cries of facism since I think the guy is bad for personal freedoms, but in this case - the Law has been Law a long time even if Remo didn't enforce it.

CkG

So if Ashcroft started breaking down doors and enforcing sodomy and adultury laws (i don't think feds have laws about this, but just for the sake of argument), you'd have no problem with Ashcroft doing it?

Nope, not with Asscroft. With the law - yes.

We don't get to pick and choose which laws to not follow without facing the consequences. I'd love to go home and torch a fatty, and I used to in my "youth". I now have a family and 2 kids and I didn't feel it is worth the legal risk to myself or my family for me to continue breaking the law(not to mention having to deal with my wife's wrath )

Asscroft can't enforce things that aren't LAW

CkG

The flaw in your logic is, almost EVERYTHING is against some law somewhere. Jaywalking, using profanity, going 56 in a 55, spitting in public, mispelling words - you name it and there is either a law specifically against it, or a catch-all law that can be used to cover it. Law enforcement chooses what they make an effort to enforce, it's entirely at their discretion, and when they spend it going after what are in essence non-criminals who happen to breaking some law, especially when it's at the expense of resources going to go after real deviant criminals, they are not serving the public, they are at best putting the public they are supposed to be protecting at risk, and at worst flat out attacking them.

 

[alzan]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Is that paragraph relevant to the story, or is it just there for the people against legalizing MJ to be able to say "damn hippee potheads". It seems like it's sole purpose is to discredit the people that supported him as nothing more than potheads. Oh well..

I would say the paragraph is there to show the medical marijuana movement for precisely what it is: a bunch of potheads exploiting the suffering of others to legitimize pot.

Ever been to a medical marijuana rally? Its like 200 young healthy potheads fighting over who's gonna get their picture taken with the one or two sick people in a wheelchair. You get comments like "So dude, I need pot because I like have allergies. What is your marijuana needing medication condition?" (giggle giggle)

PUHLEEZE!

Wow! That's really astute. So there's no benefit to smoking pot for people with glaucoma, or people undergoing chemotherapy Fascinating. And as soon as I stop yawning, I'll tell you how fascinating it is.

Alzan

 

[tcsenter]

From a medical standpoint, many doctors shy away from MJ b/c it isn't standardized like typical prescription drugs, you have to smoke it, and patients assume a certain degree of risk (and personal expense) in the procurement process. All of these factors exist on top of the typical issues of medication use . . . so prescribing MJ MUST be liberally legislated b/c it's the only way any doctor would consider it.

MJ is a schedule I controlled substance as is sodium oxybate (GHB).

Sodium oxybate, also prohibited by federal law like MJ, but given a last minute exemption for narcolepsy research and possible treatment, was recently approved for the treatment of cataplexy in those with narcolepsy (such as myself). I stand to benefit from the availability of sodium oxybate (if I could afford it and I cannot).

I do not believe that making sodium oxybate available for people such as myself should invariably make it any more easy for 100 GHB abusers to get it.

Watch the federal response if several states should start to 'legalize' GHB - or any scheduled I controlled substance for that matter - in violation of federal law for purposes not permitted or recognized by the DEA or the FDA.

 

[Moonbeam]

The use of medicinal and psychotropic plants is older than humanity. It is very likely bound up with the evolutionary expansion of our brain, religion, language, and culture. Anybody that doesn't think God is a trip is probably on one. The attempt of some people to regulate the psychic frontiers of others is a product of fear that others will sail into the realm of demons and bring them back with them. It is the dead fearing life, the fear that somebody will escape from prison and it won't be them. Fear and mistrust are the inevitable results of self hate. Nobody deserves to live, especially nobody else. A primary feature of human existence is that those who are psychically the sickest wish the greatest evil on everybody else. We can't help but want everybody to suffer like we do.

 

[Michael]

The Federal law on MJ is just like the decision to not recognize same sex marriages even if one state starts to. This is more than a state level decision.

If the US Congress decides to seriously debate this and legalize it, then OK. The States that opened the door were all too cowardly to do it other than as "medical". That wasn't the intent, it was just a smoke screen.

There is a lot of premature ejaculation by pothead posters in this thread. He was convicted. The judge wrote in the sentencing that he could understand the confusion the defendant felt - he could prove he honestly thought it was legal. So the punishment is small but a warning to others in the same position - they're now on notice.

I'm somewhat neutral towards legalizing pot. I think that the effects and dangers are grossly understated by people who want it fully legalized. However, alcohol and cigarettes are also legal and they're not good for you either (and both a drugs).

Michael

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

A little off topic but who cares . . . I SOOOO love the internet. I consider myself a legal drug expert but my lack of personal experience leaves me ignorant of quite a few issues when it comes to the fun stuff . . . until I tripped over this site.

They cover everything from absinthe to Viagra . . . I haven't checked all their claims but this is certainly the best written/researched source of legal/illegal drug information I've ever seen on the Web. It needs to be updated (references tend to be quite old) but anybody considering the use of illegal substances should definitely read it . . . for the rest it is at least far more interesting (and balanced) than information from the Office of National Drug Control Policy or the DEA.

What the GOP really thinks of MJ?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

There is a lot of premature ejaculation by pothead posters in this thread. He was convicted. The judge wrote in the sentencing that he could understand the confusion the defendant felt - he could prove he honestly thought it was legal. So the punishment is small but a warning to others in the same position - they're now on notice.

I guess we need to reform our justice system as well b/c Rosenthal walked outside of the Federal Building and gave the American justice system a great big FU . . .

Twenty minutes after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer let him off Wednesday with a $1,000 fine and a day's jail sentence for marijuana growing, a red-faced Rosenthal denounced the judge, calling him corrupt and demanding his resignation.

Then he went on to undermine the medicinal marijuana defense that his lawyers and supporters had so carefully constructed for him.

``The federal government makes no distinction between medical marijuana and any other kind of marijuana,'' he said before a crowd of supporters in a parking lot across the street from the federal building in San Francisco. ``They're right. All marijuana should be legal!"

Drugwar.com

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Just because something that is "wrong" isn't as "wrong" as something else doesn't mean that the first "wrong" should go unpunished.

BOBDN - I'm actually agreeing with you on the stance of MJ, but your inane blame game makes it hard for people like me to agree with you.
Asscroft sucks - we agree
MJ should be de-criminalized - we agree(i'm assuming )
blaming Asscroft for enforcing the law - we don't

Blame the law, not the enforcer.

CkG

No one was enforcing these "laws" until Bush and the AG he appointed - Ashcroft - showed up. Blaming the enforcer is perfectly acceptable when the enforcer is selectively applying the law and counter to the laws of a state - when the enforcer is our own version of the religious fundamentalists we don't want taking over Muslim nations. Why are our religious zealots OK and theirs not? What is the difference?

The difference is that the LAW is the LAW, if the AG is overstepping his bounds by enforcing an "illegal" Federal law, then the courts need to deal with that. The court in this case did realize that (so it seems) and did it's best to limit the damage. I don't defend Asscroft against cries of facism since I think the guy is bad for personal freedoms, but in this case - the Law has been Law a long time even if Remo didn't enforce it.

CkG

So if Ashcroft started breaking down doors and enforcing sodomy and adultury laws (i don't think feds have laws about this, but just for the sake of argument), you'd have no problem with Ashcroft doing it?

Nope, not with Asscroft. With the law - yes.

We don't get to pick and choose which laws to not follow without facing the consequences. I'd love to go home and torch a fatty, and I used to in my "youth". I now have a family and 2 kids and I didn't feel it is worth the legal risk to myself or my family for me to continue breaking the law(not to mention having to deal with my wife's wrath )

Asscroft can't enforce things that aren't LAW

CkG

The flaw in your logic is, almost EVERYTHING is against some law somewhere. Jaywalking, using profanity, going 56 in a 55, spitting in public, mispelling words - you name it and there is either a law specifically against it, or a catch-all law that can be used to cover it. Law enforcement chooses what they make an effort to enforce, it's entirely at their discretion, and when they spend it going after what are in essence non-criminals who happen to breaking some law, especially when it's at the expense of resources going to go after real deviant criminals, they are not serving the public, they are at best putting the public they are supposed to be protecting at risk, and at worst flat out attacking them.

That isn't a "flaw", people that break the law are taking a calculated risk(whether conscious or not) as to if they'll be caught and/or proscecuted. Just because the law isn't always enforced doesn't mean it can't be enforced. Does your logic hold up when you get pulled over for speeding? "well the other guy was going faster" - the cop will just laugh at you.

The law is the law whether you choose to follow it or they(cops, feds, whatever) choose to enforce it. You break the law, be prepared to be held accountable.

CkG

 

[tcsenter]

They cover everything from absinthe to Viagra . . . I haven't checked all their claims but this is certainly the best written/researched source of legal/illegal drug information I've ever seen on the Web.

I'm sorta partial to The Good Drug Guide and The Hedonistic Imperative myself.

You can get lost there for hours and not realize the time has passed. I don't understand how some people can write so prolifically. Where do they find the time?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The Good Drug Guide is interesting and certainly more up to date but somebody needs to reformat that bad boy . . . it reads like something I might write.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The Good Drug Guide is interesting and certainly more up to date but somebody needs to reformat that bad boy . . . it reads like something I might write.

I think the quirky and unintuitive flow of the website is by some deliberate design by the author. What the motivation or intended goal might be, I haven't been able to gather.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYThat isn't a "flaw", people that break the law are taking a calculated risk(whether conscious or not) as to if they'll be caught and/or proscecuted. Just because the law isn't always enforced doesn't mean it can't be enforced. Does your logic hold up when you get pulled over for speeding? "well the other guy was going faster" - the cop will just laugh at you.

The law is the law whether you choose to follow it or they(cops, feds, whatever) choose to enforce it. You break the law, be prepared to be held accountable.

CkG

You aren't looking at the reality of the situation. There are finite resources to law enforcement. When they are used to catch lesser criminals, they are doing a disservice to the public they are supposed to be serving. Extreme example: at one end of the street a man is jaywalking, at the other a man is gunning folks down. There's one cop in the middle, and he decides to ticket the jaywalker and lets the gunman run off. Does the jaywalker deserve a ticket? Maybe. Has the cop put the public at greater risk by going after the lesser criminal? Absolutely. They are supposed to protect and serve for the safety of the public, not selectively enforce based on convenience, generating revenue, etc.