Page 1 of 1

I'll just post this and let you decide.

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:25 am
by yesman90125
somebody alerted me to this article via myspace
so I read it and found it thought provoking
I am not advocating the use of marijuana
I am just posting the arguments for and against it
we'll just cast this out there and see who wants to take a bite.

Reefer Madness, Courtesy of Senator Tom Harkin

<SMALL>March 3rd, 2008 By: Ron Fisher, NORML Outreach Coordinator</SMALL>
Here at NORML we are used to seeing some hysterical, unfounded claims made about the ills of cannabis. However, even we were shocked when a supporter from Iowa sent us Senator Tom Harkin’s (D, IA) raging, reefer madness-esque reply to his note asking him to justify why medicinal cannabis is still illegal after the second largest medical association in the country, the American College of Physicians, publicly backed rescheduling of cannabis and the protection of patients who use it for medicinal purposes. Here’s the highlights of the reply he received (full text here):

[INDENT]Dear XXXX:
Thank you for contacting me. I am always glad to hear from you.
Marijuana is often the drug singled out for legalization. However, marijuana is not the recreational drug that many believe it to be. In a study completed by the Drug Abuse Warning Network, the number of marijuana related emergencies has nearly reached the level of cocaine related emergencies. As this statistic indicates, marijuana use often has fatal consequences.
I was deeply troubled when I learned of another recent study which found that nearly one-third of all eighth graders had tried marijuana. As the father of two daughters, it greatly disturbs me that children are exposed to drugs at such a young age. I am concerned that legalization of this drug will only increase the number of children who gain access to its harmful effects.
The victims of the drug war are many - the small child whose parents are so addicted to illegal drugs that they sell everything including perhaps their own children to obtain a fix; the police officer’s family which must now learn to cope with the loss of their loved one as a result of a violent drug bust gone awry. These are the people I think of when I say that drugs pose a significant threat to the security of this nation.
Legalizing drugs is equivalent to declaring surrender in the war on drugs. However we may differ in tactics, I am hopeful that we can work together to fight drugs in our communities and to make Iowa drug free.
Again, thanks for sharing your views with me. Please don’t hesitate to let me know how you feel on any issue that concerns you.
Sincerely,
Tom Harkin
United States Senator
[/INDENT](Emphases mine)
Okay, so setting aside the fact that Senator Harkin’s response pertains to legalization of marijuana, and NOT medical cannabis as the constituent asked about, let’s deconstruct some of the myths propagated in this letter.
1. “The number of marijuana related emergencies has nearly reached the level of cocaine related emergencies. As this statistic indicates, marijuana use often has fatal consequences.”
This is an untruth propagated by the drug czar’s minions. The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) collects its data on ‘marijuana related emergencies’ by noting every single time someone tells their doctor that they use marijuana. So if I were to accidentally break my leg and go to the ER, and my doctor asked if I use any drugs and I say I occasionally smoke marijuana (as I should, as we should all be honest with our physicians), then this would be a ‘marijuana related emergency,’ even if I hadn’t smoked in weeks.
And fatal? Please! As Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School Lester Grinspoon wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “There is no known case of a lethal overdose; on the basis of animal models, the ratio of lethal to effective dose is estimated as 40,000 to 1. By comparision, the ratio is…between 4 and 10 to 1 for ethanol (alcohol).” Additionally, a 1994 report by the Australian National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre found that “There are no recorded cases of fatalities attributable to cannabis, and the extrapolated lethal dose from animal studies cannot be achieved by recreational users.”
2. “I was deeply troubled when I learned of another recent study which found that nearly one-third of all eighth graders had tried marijuana.”
I do not doubt that marijuana is easier to obtain for minors than alcohol, which troubles NORML as well. But this problem is precisely why prohibition is a terrible policy-there is no incentive at all for suppliers to keep their product out of the hands of children. This is in stark contrast to alcohol, whose vendors must protect their valuable liquor licenses (often costing around $100,000) by ensuring they do not sell to minors. You didn’t think they did it out of the kindness of their own heart, did you? In a regulated market, government can incentivize suppliers in this way. On the black market, we leave kids out in the cold-and the prohibitionists point to us and say, “What about the children?” Which brings us to…
3. “The victims of the drug war are many - the small child whose parents are so addicted to illegal drugs that they sell everything including perhaps their own children to obtain a fix; the police officer’s family which must now learn to cope with the loss of their loved one as a result of a violent drug bust gone awry.”
Classic drug war rhetoric-let’s avoid serious policy discussion and instead flee to hyperbolic appeals to emotion, without serious examination of how these nightmare scenarios are facilitated by current policy. First, marijuana is less addictive than current legal drugs, according to the Institute of Medicine, let alone illicit drugs one might associate with the type of dependency described above.
While marijuana generally is not associated with the same level of violence that other illicit drugs are, there is no doubt that there have been fatal incidents (some involving law enforcement) involving marijuana. The tragic aspect of this fact is that given marijuana’s proven relative safety and lower addiction rates compared with legal drugs, the prohibitionist policy towards it-sustained by the same kind of rhetoric that Senator Harkin uses-has contributed more to the violence than any other factor. Indeed, when one looks at the alcohol industry today, there is no violent crime in the production and shipment of their goods; yet were one to see the same industry in the 1920s during alcohol prohibition, one might have seen other Senators making the same empty arguments about alcohol.
If you’d like to tell Senator Harkin to start basing his marijuana policies on science and not fearmongering, feel free to contact him here.

Re: I'll just post this and let you decide.

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:42 pm
by N2yes
I'll just say make it legal ( for those over 18 ), tax it and get rid of the national debt. Quick fix but an incredibly easy one. As long as cigarettes are legal with all their known adverse health effects, it's pretty hypocritical.
Oh, btw, I've only wanted to jump out of a really tall building once when I was under the cannabis influence. ; )

Re: I'll just post this and let you decide.

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:18 pm
by yesman90125
N2yes wrote:I'll just say make it legal ( for those over 18 ), tax it and get rid of the national debt. Quick fix but an incredibly easy one. As long as cigarettes are legal with all their known adverse health effects, it's pretty hypocritical.
Oh, btw, I've only wanted to jump out of a really tall building once when I was under the cannabis influence. ; )

I never wanted to jump out of a window but I certinly didn't feel like cleaning my room very much i was allways listening to music
I know-very subversive stuff lol
Legal would be fine with me
I am a card carrying member of N.O.R.M.L even though I dont(or at least havn't for a while) smoke anymore. I still think legal,taxed, better economy(over 18) all equls one.
Wierd that one of the prime supporters of this Idea was William F Buckly Jr. inventor of "Conservative" thought.

Don't you know there's no way out;
Your pain's your own,
And the more we scream and shout
The more we feel alone.
I can feel my anger rising-
Am I to blame?
And I'm not gonna keep it inside me.
Do you feel the same?

I wanna love, I wanna give,
I want to find another way to live.
Another shout, another cry,
And the walls come tumbling down.
And I'm calling you.<!-- main content end -->

Re: I'll just post this and let you decide.

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:55 pm
by tardistraveler
N2yes wrote:I'll just say make it legal ( for those over 18 ), tax it and get rid of the national debt. Quick fix but an incredibly easy one. As long as cigarettes are legal with all their known adverse health effects, it's pretty hypocritical.
Oh, btw, I've only wanted to jump out of a really tall building once when I was under the cannabis influence. ; )


Yep, legalize it, tax it . . . government gets THEIR cut to ease debt, and think of all the prisoners we can let out who are serving time for dealing marijuana!

Sounds like a plan . . .

I never wanted to harm myself under the influence . . . for me personally the main adverse effect was just wanting to EAT too much!

However, there were a few times when it seemed being stoned exacerbated existing anxiety, and I'd have a panic attack under the influence. This is part of the reason I no longer use it . . .

Still think it should be legal though . . . in many respects it's less harmful than alcohol.

Re: I'll just post this and let you decide.

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:02 pm
by yesman90125
tardistraveler wrote:However, there were a few times when it seemed being stoned exacerbated existing anxiety, and I'd have a panic attack under the influence. This is part of the reason I no longer use it . . .


ohh God me too
I just got off the Xanex primarily because I quit the weed
not good for people with anxiety disorders
highly not reccomended that anybody that has anxiety/panic attacks to ever add canabis to the equation.
now I dont have those attacks anymore and taking a few hits sounds nice
but when I seriously consider it I start to have a flash of that anxiety and think better not
alcohol turns me into a freak I completely get sick , act like I'm in love with the world, then puke
I also had terrible trouble with ciggarettes that was a hard one to kick
stopping a fairly heavy use of pot was easy I had absolutely no adverse effects from stopping a long and heavy marijuanna use
allways after work -never drove and never went to work stoned.a single day in my life. but when I got home it was actually a pretty nice relaxer
for many years and a great social thing too. 90% of my closest friends still occasionally smoke weed. all of them are VERY responsible people that have held their jobs very long and have raised great kids.even my brother who was a federal international DEA agent thinks Pot is harmless
he'd still be in the DEA if he didn't develop Eye problems (macular degeneration) he basicly was going after south american cocaine cartels
and cocaine smugglers-I think the Cali cartel still has a price on his head.but you can't shoot people very well on those covert missions if you can't see your gun-sights and use your night vision scopes. that dude has some stories about government corruption. and he's the one that turned me onto pot in 6th grade. thanks bro ;)

Re: I'll just post this and let you decide.

Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:57 am
by yesman90125
hmmmmm? the Upper michigan border isn't that far away from where I live- I am officially a chronic Pain patient. hmmmm.......
well now if we can get Wisconsin Illinois and Minnesota to go for this
I bet if put to a refferendum this would pass in almost all of the country-my doctor told me half of the country smokes pot
I wonder if his facts are correct i dont see many people speaking out against this, except the Feds. medical use and social use are a rather fine line though.


Lansing, MI:State election officials this week approved a measure for the November 2008 electoral ballot that seeks to legalize the possession and use of cannabis for qualified patients.
Sponsored by the Michigan Coalition for Compassionate Care, the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act would amend state law to allow authorized patients to use cannabis therapeutically under a doctor's supervision. Backers of the plan gathered over 300,000 signatures from Michigan voters to place the measure on the upcoming ballot.
Under Michigan law, state lawmakers may preemptively enact the measure, but are unlikely to do so.
Since 2004, five Michigan cities – Ann Arbor, Detroit, Ferndale, Flint, and Traverse City – have each enacted municipal initiatives endorsing the medical use of marijuana.
If enacted by the voters, Michigan will become the thirteenth state since 1996 to authorize the legal use of medical cannabis, and the ninth state to do so by voter initiative.
For more information, please visit the Michigan Coalition for Compassionate Care at: http://stoparrestingpatients.org.

ok lets just call this the should certin drugs be legalized thread

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:22 pm
by yesman90125
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=450 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=4 cellPadding=0 align=right border=1><TBODY><TR><TD>Image</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Cary Grant, who took LSD more than sixty times under the therapeutic auspices of <NOBR>Dr. Mortimer</NOBR> Hartmann and then <NOBR>Dr. Oscar</NOBR> Janiger, had this to say about his treatment in 1959:
"All my life, I've been searching for peace of mind. I'd explored yoga and hypnotism and made several attempts at mysticism. Nothing really seemed to give me what I wanted until this treatment." "I have been born again. I have been through a psychiatric experience which has completely changed me. I was horrendous. I had to face things about myself which I never admitted, which I didn't know were there. Now I know that I hurt every woman I ever loved. I was an utter fake, a self-opinionated bore, a know-all who knew very little. I found I was hiding behind all kinds of defenses, hypocrisies and vanities. I had to get rid of them layer by layer. The moment when your conscious meets your subconscious is a hell of a wrench. With me there came a day when I saw the light." I don't know about you, but personally I think that's just beautiful!
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Re: ok lets just call this the should certin drugs be legalized thread

Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:54 pm
by Roan's Lady
yesman90125 wrote:<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="450"><tbody><tr><td><table align="right" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="4"><tbody><tr><td>Image</td></tr></tbody></table>Cary Grant, who took LSD more than sixty times under the therapeutic auspices of <nobr>Dr. Mortimer</nobr> Hartmann and then <nobr>Dr. Oscar</nobr> Janiger, had this to say about his treatment in 1959:
"All my life, I've been searching for peace of mind. I'd explored yoga and hypnotism and made several attempts at mysticism. Nothing really seemed to give me what I wanted until this treatment." "I have been born again. I have been through a psychiatric experience which has completely changed me. I was horrendous. I had to face things about myself which I never admitted, which I didn't know were there. Now I know that I hurt every woman I ever loved. I was an utter fake, a self-opinionated bore, a know-all who knew very little. I found I was hiding behind all kinds of defenses, hypocrisies and vanities. I had to get rid of them layer by layer. The moment when your conscious meets your subconscious is a hell of a wrench. With me there came a day when I saw the light." I don't know about you, but personally I think that's just beautiful!
</td></tr></tbody></table>


Well, that's nice, but -
I've come to similar realizations about myself without the necessity for drugs. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
It takes a real letting-go of one's ego, but it's possible.
I think the key is living an honest and introspective life all along, so it doesn't take the introduction of a drug to acquaint you (or re-acquaint you) with self-awareness and act as a catalyst for changing oneself. Shouldn't be necessary.

Re: ok lets just call this the should certin drugs be legalized thread

Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:37 pm
by yesman90125
Roan's Lady wrote:Well, that's nice, but -
I've come to similar realizations about myself without the necessity for drugs. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
It takes a real letting-go of one's ego, but it's possible.
I think the key is living an honest and introspective life all along, so it doesn't take the introduction of a drug to acquaint you (or re-acquaint you) with self-awareness and act as a catalyst for changing oneself. Shouldn't be necessary.

Point Taken! and agreed,however, I think Cary Grant is Still Mr. Cool!
just a little example of the responsable medicale application of certin chemicals Dr.Albert Hofman (the inventor of LSD) said that Timothy learys Radical use of his "Problem Child" was rather irresponsible-HOWEVER HE WAS FULLY BEHIND THE CLINICAL APPLICATIONS under strict supervision of Psyciatrists and psycoclogists for the use of these chemicals in certin circumstances- there are heavy amounts of reasearch between 1928 and 1967 of "Cures" for many psycological disorders and
Alcoholism among other problems-Oscar Janniger,(the Dr who worked with Cary grant) was and still is considered one of the leaders in the field of research With Lysergic Acid Diethylymide #25 Janniger had outstanding
results with patients at almost a 90% success rate- the patients usually only were exposed to LSD25 a few times to obtain positive results and did not continue with the use of the drug while 80% of them still reported 20-30 years later (with Drug and alcohol free lives) that they experienced no further examples of the physialogical or psyciatric problems that they saught treatment for under Janniger.Hoffman himself(now 101 years old)still looks back fondly to his reaserch,synthesis and experiments with LSD25 he also had "Cured"patients from alcoholism and a variety of Psycological disorders with the association of several Psycologists.
Hoffman accidently discovered the chemical by touching some mold on Wheat Germ samples and began to feel the effects as he rode his bicycle home from his lab (now fondly remembered and celebrated by some as Bicycle day April15th) hoffman imediatly realized thet there was something very special and potentially groundbreaking about this particular medicine and speant a long time synthesizing the mold samples into what he would later refer to as Lysergic Acid Diethylymide #25 one of the earlier synthesises is still commenly used to ease the pain of child birth among woman Hoffman is credited for many revolutionary medical treatments but none as well known as LSD #25 he refferes to it as his problem child because despite the thereputic values the drug was widely used by young people in the 1960s who were refered to as counter culter or anti establishment which led to demonization by the establishment or government and law enforcement officials thus stopping the responsible and clinical evaluations of the drug and putting it into the hands of more unusual and radical elemants such as Dr Leary and my personal friend and spiritual advisor Dr, Alpert(Ram Das) it was DR. Alpert himself who explained and convinced me that this unfolding of the spirit could be obtained without the use of chemicals and what we have come to refer to here in yestalk as "Shortcuts" and he and you are quite Right(Dr. Alpert also introduced me to my Spiritual brother Krishna Das(Jeff Kagel) who led me to my Guru)-none of this ,however can underscore the potential of LSD to change unhealthy thought patterns into very heathy and quit respectable ones especially when carefuly administered by someone experienced and prepared to act as a guide with clinical Psyciatric experience-regardless many are coming to the same conclusions without any guide whatsoever
and of couse on the other hand some are just behaving like drunken fools. which is no new thing in our society and a blot on the medical and socialogical potential of some Psycoactive drugs. or even the responsible
recreational use by some-also quit common albeit underground because of the legal ramifications.my main point is that some of these chemicals can be put to use effectively and used responsibly and should be used medically rather than demonized unfairly by those who have little or no understanding of the potential value for society at large and psyciatric patients especially-with regards to marijuanna the Point is clear over 18 and not driving within 8 hours of consumption make it legal tax it control it like alcohol and balence the budget in a year- you will find little or no increase in use and it will be less predominant than it is today among children with incentives for distributers to NOT SELL to minors and STIFF penalties if they do-the hipocracy of Cannibis laws contrasted to Alcohol and Tobacco laws is almost comical-no-it is comical
and does nothing to deter use. recent statistics by the us government indicate thet 44 percent of the population has used pot and thet 20 million people admit to regular use-this statistic is obviously not correct because many people wont admit to their use because of fear of the law.
just some factual backround to support the argument-again I don't nessisarily think regular drug use is a great thing on the other hand I dont find that Pot smokers or for that matter occasional trippers are a very dangerous lot-most recognised reaserch would seem to support my beliefs. I dont smoke pot, dont drink, dont smoke cigs, and dont use LSD,
but I have had enough experience with all these things to be coming from an informed position which I am fully ready to back up with scientific studies and personal examples.
Now.....if somebody offered me a little taste of a mushroom I'm not entirely sure how I would react.but I think it is likely I would eat it under the right circumstances...perhaps that's a personal weakness that still needs to be overcome-I dont claim enlightenment -YET-but definatly know I am on the path-anything else spills over into religion and politics
and will be posted appropriatly in those places. ;)

"drugs and stuff"

Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:03 pm
by yesman90125
Roan's Lady wrote:Well, that's nice, but -
I've come to similar realizations about myself without the necessity for drugs. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
It takes a real letting-go of one's ego, but it's possible.
I think the key is living an honest and introspective life all along, so it doesn't take the introduction of a drug to acquaint you (or re-acquaint you) with self-awareness and act as a catalyst for changing oneself. Shouldn't be necessary.

on another note,Amy-I'd love to hear your theological and political beliefs I know you have expressed interest in both but have been very diplomaticly neutral
A sign of a good administrator to be sure but I think as we peel the layers of the onion that is "Roan's Lady" we will find someone with a very well thought out and very powerfull stance on things
I would love to explore that someday with you
I know that with respect to your position here at Yestalk that you can't allways be exactly who you are inside but the points where you peek out of that administrative role are really quite enlightening and I think would be facinating to have a serious debate with someone as intellectially accomplished and spiritually mature as I believe you to be.
regardless of what you want to do KUDOS. I definatly get you!
despite our small disagreements I think your a fine Lady.

Re: "drugs and stuff"

Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:50 pm
by Roan's Lady
yesman90125 wrote:on another note,Amy-I'd love to hear your theological and political beliefs I know you have expressed interest in both but have been very diplomaticly neutral
A sign of a good administrator to be sure but I think as we peel the layers of the onion that is "Roan's Lady" we will find someone with a very well thought out and very powerfull stance on things
I would love to explore that someday with you
I know that with respect to your position here at Yestalk that you can't allways be exactly who you are inside but the points where you peek out of that administrative role are really quite enlightening and I think would be facinating to have a serious debate with someone as intellectially accomplished and spiritually mature as I believe you to be.
regardless of what you want to do KUDOS. I definatly get you!
despite our small disagreements I think your a fine Lady.


I don't shout my own religion or politics.
If an issue comes up that I feel strongly about, I'm sure I reveal either my religion or politics (or both) simply by how I respond to that issue.
For example, if your grandmother falls ill, I won't say that I will pray for her - or that my faith leads me to believe in God, just as _____ does. But if you ask me if I will be celebrating Passover, I will say Yes. Does that make me a "sort of" Jew? I don't know. And I don't feel like getting into the hows, whys and whats of that.
I can say I'm against our military involvement in Iraq, but that doesn't make me a Democrat - and I can say that illegal immigrants have it too easy and English should, without a doubt, be this country's official language - and that doesn't make me a Republican. Does it? I'm inclined to vote Democrat, primarily because this would make it less likely that my son is called to war. Does that make me selfish, noncommittal, narrow-minded? Maybe. When it comes to religion and politics, people tend to compartmentalize each other, and I'm not interested in doing it or having it done unto me. Nothing is black and white - but a lot of people don't get that. Therefore, I tend to leave it alone. And out here, on the internet? Words get roasted while the insides are still pink - if you know what I mean.

Chris, thanks for the nice words about me - but the key to me isn't in the peeling of my layers - it's just watching them fall away when they're ready to do so.

Re: "drugs and stuff"

Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:40 pm
by yesman90125
Roan's Lady wrote:I don't shout my own religion or politics.
If an issue comes up that I feel strongly about, I'm sure I reveal either my religion or politics (or both) simply by how I respond to that issue.
For example, if your grandmother falls ill, I won't say that I will pray for her - or that my faith leads me to believe in God, just as _____ does. But if you ask me if I will be celebrating Passover, I will say Yes. Does that make me a "sort of" Jew? I don't know. And I don't feel like getting into the hows, whys and whats of that.
I can say I'm against our military involvement in Iraq, but that doesn't make me a Democrat - and I can say that illegal immigrants have it too easy and English should, without a doubt, be this country's official language - and that doesn't make me a Republican. Does it? I'm inclined to vote Democrat, primarily because this would make it less likely that my son is called to war. Does that make me selfish, noncommittal, narrow-minded? Maybe. When it comes to religion and politics, people tend to compartmentalize each other, and I'm not interested in doing it or having it done unto me. Nothing is black and white - but a lot of people don't get that. Therefore, I tend to leave it alone. And out here, on the internet? Words get roasted while the insides are still pink - if you know what I mean.

Chris, thanks for the nice words about me - but the key to me isn't in the peeling of my layers - it's just watching them fall away when they're ready to do so.

Cool!

Re: "drugs and stuff"

Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:09 am
by yesman90125
Roan's Lady wrote:I don't shout my own religion or politics.
If an issue comes up that I feel strongly about, I'm sure I reveal either my religion or politics (or both) simply by how I respond to that issue.
For example, if your grandmother falls ill, I won't say that I will pray for her - or that my faith leads me to believe in God, just as _____ does. But if you ask me if I will be celebrating Passover, I will say Yes. Does that make me a "sort of" Jew? I don't know. And I don't feel like getting into the hows, whys and whats of that.
I can say I'm against our military involvement in Iraq, but that doesn't make me a Democrat - and I can say that illegal immigrants have it too easy and English should, without a doubt, be this country's official language - and that doesn't make me a Republican. Does it? I'm inclined to vote Democrat, primarily because this would make it less likely that my son is called to war. Does that make me selfish, noncommittal, narrow-minded? Maybe. When it comes to religion and politics, people tend to compartmentalize each other, and I'm not interested in doing it or having it done unto me. Nothing is black and white - but a lot of people don't get that. Therefore, I tend to leave it alone. And out here, on the internet? Words get roasted while the insides are still pink - if you know what I mean.

Chris, thanks for the nice words about me - but the key to me isn't in the peeling of my layers - it's just watching them fall away when they're ready to do so.


actually very cool-from a purely internet capacity I have seen many sides of you and it has allways been fully constructive
we can only view or get to know others from the words they use and therefore-the internet is a fine outlet -of course a long post would only take up about a 2 minute conversation but its what we have to work with.
I could see not wanting to have your kids go to war (though I think a Draft is highly unlikely and would not be supported by American voters at all) I have voted libertarian/republican/and damocrat all for various reasons all with what I felt was in the best interest of my self and my loved ones -I dont find that narrow minded at all-I'd call it open minded-it's what we are supposed to do-elect the candidate thet best represents our views-I have tremendious respect for anyone that will stand up and be counted and make their views known and defend them for whatever reason-sure there is a tendancy to compartmentalize people based on religious and political beliefs- I think thats silly too
my religion and my politics are often in conflict with any attempt to compartmentalize myself -I loosely identify myself as a judaeo/christian/hindu/self realizationist and as a social Liberal /Fiscal conservative/libertarian/contitutionalist. I certinly cant be put to fit in any of those catagories traditionally which I suppose makes me some sort of radical wierdo-in 1978 Jim Morrison jumped into my head and he's still there-I hear that you can take pills these days to get Jim out-but I think life would be much less interesting without him despite whatever handicaps having Jim Morrison in my head have caused me. the Morrison in me is an anarchist and loves disorder and chaos as well as a great deal of dark humor-now the only difference is that along side of Jim, Krishna has found a home in my head to its quite crowded and I fully admit to some sort of psycological disorders happily I/we all live together in reletive peace-but you never know whom your really gonna get Me-Morrison or Krishna-but as I allways like to say "it goes up , down, around and around, but it all equals one" I just enjoy the ride.
Imagine your my family for a moment and Ive stayed up all night long loosening all the lightbulbs in the house and placing playing cards all over the floor neatly arranged every other one upside down
you just have to shake your head and say yup thats chris allright.
life is allways interesting to me and sometimes freaking people out is sort of a good time for me-I am easilly amused and easillly interested in what others are saying and doing-my self I too am in flux and layers will drop away or re-form as time goes by but inside I am relitively unchanged and allways have been. i cant count out the influece of psycedelic thought but can certinly see where that is very odd and may seem to be without purpose to many.

I report,You decide

Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 3:46 am
by yesman90125
London, United Kingdom:Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced plans this week to reclassify cannabis as a Class B drug under British law. If the change is approved by Parliament, it would increase the penalties for minor pot possession from a verbal warning (under current policy) to up to five years in jail.
Smith's recommendation contradicts the findings of Britain's Advisory Panel on the Misuse of Drugs, which issued a report this week calling for cannabis to remain classified as a Class C 'soft' drug. The panel determined that pot lacks the health risks of other Class B drugs such as amphetamines and barbiturates, and concluded that use of the drug is unlikely to cause mental illnesses such as schizophrenia.
"The evidence for the existence of an association between frequency of cannabis use and the development of psychosis is, on the available evidence, weak," the Panel found. "The council does not advise the reclassification of cannabis products to Class B; it recommends they remain within Class C."
It is the third time in six years the Advisory Panel has recommended to Parliament that cannabis be classified as a Class C drug, a category that includes anabolic steroids and Valium.
Since taking office last June, Prime Minister Gordon Brown (Labour) has consistently pushed for increasing British pot penalties, claiming that marijuana's use can be fatal. "[T]he cannabis on the streets is now of a lethal quality and we really have got to send out a message to young people," Brown stated last week. "[T]his is not acceptable."
Parliament downgraded cannabis possession to a non-arrestable offense in 2004. Since then, marijuana use by young people age 16 to 24 has fallen approximately 20 percent. According the statistics published by the British Home Office last year, only eight percent of Britons now report using cannabis, the lowest percentage ever recorded by the agency.
Home Office statistics also indicate that police seizures of cannabis have increased since 2004, though the total number of Britons arrested for pot-related violations has fallen.
A spokesperson for the Association of Police Officers told the UK Guardian newspaper that police would continue to issue verbal warnings to most minor pot offenders – regardless of whether Parliament eventually reclassifies cannabis.

Boston, MA:A Boston judge will rule on Monday whether to allow evidence to be presented at a pre-trial hearing regarding the constitutionality of the state's marijuana prohibition laws. The legal challenge, launched by NORML Legal Counsel Keith Stroup and High Times Magazine Associate Publisher Rick Cusick, argues that scientific and epidemiological evidence affirming the relative safety of marijuana does not support a criminal ban on the drug's possession and use.
Stroup and Cusick, who are expected to acknowledge at trial that they were sharing a joint when arrested at the 2007 Boston Freedom Rally, are prepared to call numerous experts – including Dr. Lester Grinspoon (Harvard Medical School), Richard Bonnie, Esq. (University of Virginia Law School), Dr. Jeffrey Miron (Harvard University), and Dr. Keith Saunders (Northeastern University) – if their request for an evidentiary hearing is granted.
The defendants and their counsel will appear at trial in Boston Municipal Court, courtroom 10, at 9:00 AM, Monday, May 12.