Arrested for weed

[Thief]

I used the word suspect because the anally retentive on this site pick at words and then accuse you of manipulating reality, in order o justify some agenda.

Agenda is the point of this thread....my agenda?...yours?...the government's?.....

I am not accusing you of this, I am just explaining why my language was tempered. I would have said "pretty sure", if we were in conversation.


Regarding the second half of the statement "I think everyone would know it to be true, as common knowledge." is making an assumption that because something is true, it will become common knowledge, but I am sure you can think of plenty of things which are not known by many.

How about the everyday use by millions would indicate a livable and sustainable practice?

So research is still being carried out because...

And the research going on is quite broad.
Using hemp as medicinal has been known for a long time.

Using hemp as a poison won't work.
If there was a toxin strong enough to use, someone would have extracted that item by now, and put a patent on it.

As for the people that can't seem to cope?.....
I'm not surprised.
They couldn't cope in the first place (no doubt)...
and the use of hemp failed to take away their problems.
Of course it didn't.
Are they now more depressed than ever?...of course they are.
Are they boo hooing to the doctor for relief?...of course they are.
Was hemp to blame............not likely.

 

[cablescavenger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cablescavenger
I used the word suspect because the anally retentive on this site pick at words and then accuse you of manipulating reality, in order o justify some agenda.

Agenda is the point of this thread....my agenda?...yours?...the government's?.....

I am not accusing you of this, I am just explaining why my language was tempered. I would have said "pretty sure", if we were in conversation.


Regarding the second half of the statement "I think everyone would know it to be true, as common knowledge." is making an assumption that because something is true, it will become common knowledge, but I am sure you can think of plenty of things which are not known by many.

How about the everyday use by millions would indicate a livable and sustainable practice?

So research is still being carried out because...

a) I have no agenda. I have been invited to make a comment on a post with an agenda item to be discussed. I could give a toss what people throw down their necks, or whether it is legalised, as I will not be using it anyway.
b) I am not sure what your second point is. The opening Post was that marijuana is less dangerous than caffeine. I dispute that entirely. The number of people that smoke it is irrelevant to my point that it has high enough correlation with mental health for me to deem it high risk.
If you are suggesting that millions smoke it and that is proof that marijuana is safe, then you have completely ignored the link I sent you suggesting that it wasn't. That however does not surprise me, because people who smoke marijuana in a country where it is illegal to do so are taking a high risk strategy, because their cost benefit analysis allows them to do so. That same risk strategy also allows them to ignore any health costs and focus on their goal of smoking the drug for the high.

And the research going on is quite broad. You and I both know this isn't true.
Using hemp as medicinal has been known for a long time. So has witchcraft, age is irrelevant to the argument. There are plenty of illegal drugs being used in medicine, so it is not just the fact that it is an illegal drug which prevents it being used for medicinal purposes. It has to have cost benefits and be safer than that which is already being used.

If there was a toxin strong enough to use, someone would have extracted that item by now, and put a patent on it. There are plenty of medicines that are much stronger than cannabis.

As for the people that can't seem to cope?.....
I'm not surprised.
They couldn't cope in the first place (no doubt)...
and the use of hemp failed to take away their problems.
Of course it didn't.
Are they now more depressed than ever?...of course they are.
Are they boo hooing to the doctor for relief?...of course they are.
Was hemp to blame............not likely. __________________
First you are told.... 'this is this...and that is that'.
Then someone else will come along and say...'No it ain't'.
This is incoherent, but if you are suggesting I am incapable of making my mind up without absorbing propaganda and regurgitating it, then you are mistaken.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The problem with legalisation of marijuana, is that if it was legalised you are exposing the population to risk of psychotic illness, and I suspect the vast majority of users would not be seeking a medical solution, but a substance abuse solution, thereby increasing the risk.

Do you have any idea how many people smoke pot? Just a look through the main stream music and hollywood will produce a multitude of heavy to moderate smokers. Willy Nelson, Bob Marley, Ozzy Osbourne, Phil Anselmo, Polly Shore, Kevin Smith, Broken Lizard, and the list goes on and on and on. And consider all the white collar workers that smoke pot, the legions of college students that smoke pot, the people who smoke it for religious reasons, the people who smoke it recreationally, and so on. If there was any real risk of "psychotic illness" then the effects would be very widespread and very well known.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

Are you trying to say you feel obligated to obey every unjust law ever written?

I would say, yes. Otherwise, you open the door to lawlessness as people only obey the laws with which they agree.

If you, and I mean the collective you, don't agree with a law, then petition the government to CHANGE it. If you violate the law while it still is the law, then know that you subject yourself to meeting police officers.

Blame rests on the shoulders of those who uphold draconian anti-drug laws, not drug users.

People are entitled to their opinions, but this is one of the most ridiculous statements I've read in some time that it borders on sheer stupidity. At best, it reflects the maturity of an 8 year old who wants what he wants, to hell with everyone else, and is unwilling to accept responsibility for his actions.

 

[not nom]

I would say, yes. Otherwise, you open the door to lawlessness as people only obey the laws with which they agree.

yeah, and you also close the door to lawful genocide and whatnot. I'd say it's a wash.

 

[Mathematician]

I would say, yes. Otherwise, you open the door to lawlessness as people only obey the laws with which they agree.

If you, and I mean the collective you, don't agree with a law, then petition the government to CHANGE it. If you violate the law while it still is the law, then know that you subject yourself to meeting police officers.
People are entitled to their opinions, but this is one of the most ridiculous statements I've read in some time that it borders on sheer stupidity. At best, it reflects the maturity of an 8 year old who wants what he wants, to hell with everyone else, and is unwilling to accept responsibility for his actions.

If you criminalize an otherwise peaceful market, you bring about violence. It's really a simple concept. We don't see "booze wars" anymore because prohibitionists lost.

I don't smoke weed so I'm not really sure how your analogy holds.

Your line of reasoning would judge MLK and other civil rights leaders as lawless hooligans. Not a philosophy I want to follow.

 

[Thief]

Quote:
This is incoherent, but if you are suggesting I am incapable of making my mind up without absorbing propaganda and regurgitating it, then you are mistaken.

Your quoting techniques will make it difficult for a third party to follow what you are trying to say.

My being incoherent?...not at all.

I've been doing this for a long time, and I am well rehearsed.
You seem new the topic.

You actually think conformity to a law that never should have been passed...is the solution to the casual everyday use?
( you think this practice will go away?)


Most participants here, and I dare say, most people at large, know very well, the law is something less than it should have been.
It should be repealed.
Jailed offenders released.

 

[Thief]

Do you have any idea how many people smoke pot? Just a look through the main stream music and hollywood will produce a multitude of heavy to moderate smokers. Willy Nelson, Bob Marley, Ozzy Osbourne, Phil Anselmo, Polly Shore, Kevin Smith, Broken Lizard, and the list goes on and on and on. And consider all the white collar workers that smoke pot, the legions of college students that smoke pot, the people who smoke it for religious reasons, the people who smoke it recreationally, and so on. If there was any real risk of "psychotic illness" then the effects would be very widespread and very well known.

Thank you..with frubals.

 

[Two-bit guru]

Given you place a higher value on the age of a cure, rather than it's effectiveness at actually curing anything, then perhaps we should replace of all modern day cures with magic and exorcism.

I was pointing out a fact.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your line of reasoning would judge MLK and other civil rights leaders as lawless hooligans. Not a philosophy I want to follow.

Very well said. You can also add to your list Rosa Parks, the Stonewall Incident, Susan B. Anthony and other feminist activists, all while saying notorious acts like the Trail of Tears were justified, and people should have carried out the infamous orders without question because it was the law.

 

[gnomon]

WARNING!!!

WARNING!!!

The first two videos in this post contain graphic and objectionable footage. In the first the police open fire and you can hear the dogs who are shot by the police. In the third a man is shot by police. There is no audio and the footage is at a fair distance such that you do not see the actual gunshot.








[youtube][youtube]RbwSwvUaRqc[/youtube]
Columbia Mo SWAT Raid 2/11/2010. Cops Shoot Pets With Children Present - YouTube[youtube]

Police had a search warrant. They conducted the raid eight days after obtaining the search warrant. How many hours did they spend investigating the location of the raid beforehand? Zero. They claimed investigative work because they say that their information stated that a child was not in the house. Idiots. What did they find? A small amount of pot.

Was this raid necessary? No. If they were interested in arresting Mr. Whitworth they could have picked him up off the street. Did you know he was charged with minor possession of a controlled substance and child endangerment. Child endangerment?! No officer was reprimanded for child endangerment for immediately using lethal force in the house for no god damn reason.

[youtube][youtube]eaM_LzHsQoU[/youtube]
INDEPENDENT LENS | TULIA, TEXAS | Trailer | PBS - YouTube[youtube]

A small town in which only blacks were targeted for selling cocaine, were rounded up and essentially conned into signing plea deals all thanks to the efforts of one law enforcement officer who created this situation based on false pretenses. An officer who had been fired from his previous law enforcement career.

[youtube][youtube]MTOY-6Nm1_M[/youtube]
Police Shoot and Kill Unarmed Man in Custody on the Ground - YouTube[youtube]

In this video you see Kenneth Walker get shot in the back of the head. He died. This was in my State. Walker and the others were pulled over due to suspicion that they had left a known drug house. They didn't. No one in that vehicle was a drug dealer. The police officer who fired the shot was at first taken off the force but if I recall correctly he was later allowed back into law enforcement. No warrants. No evidence. An innocent man is dead.

[youtube][youtube]1OPv_1YpqWQ[/youtube]
Cheye Calvo explores the money behind SWAT raids - YouTube[youtube]

Mayor of Berwyn Heights has his house raided after a box of marijuana, sent by someone else and was supposed to be picked up by a carrier in mid transit, makes it to his house. The way this works is that someone ships the box to an address, could be yours, and someone working with the individual at the post office or whichever parcel service is handling the delivery is supposed to obtain the box at one transit point before the box actually arrives to that address. The person whose address is on the box is not part of this type of criminal activity. They shot and killed Calvo's two dogs. His family was in the house when the officers opened fire.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1MBrUMauak[youtube]

Norm Stamper, former Seattle police chief during the '99 Seattle riots and who resigned after his departments response, now calling for an end to the drug war. Stamper actually wants to push legalization further than I want to.

I've read estimates that SWAT and paramilitary style raids have increased tenfold or more since the 1980's. From an average of 4,000/year in the mid 80's to 40,000 to 50,000 per year over the last few years. Yet, crime has gone down. Law enforcement tactics designed to handle known criminals who have barricaded themselves, hostage situations or other similar and extreme situations are now used for drug investigations, gambling busts and even....get this....a raid on a man's home because his ex-wife had unpaid student loans. Armed agents even raided a Gibson guitar factory over the Lacey act. Rosewood from Madagascar. Such a threat to society.

The concept to be free in one's person and home as well as the freedom of private property have been thrown away in the drug war. With estimates of 150+ raids every day in this nation with the danger of innocent civilians or police officers being injured or killed in their own home we have a serious civil rights problem in this nation.

A coworker actually asked me what the 4th Amendment was today. I told her it's nonexistent.

 

[cablescavenger]

Your quoting techniques will make it difficult for a third party to follow what you are trying to say.

lol, that is rich. In fact you created a whole bunch of work for me, just so I could reply. You placed some of your responses in my quote boxes, which forced me to copy the boxes into my post (so I could refer to your responses), and colour them so that it was clear which were yours and which were mine.

My being incoherent?...not at all.

I was not referring to the entire thread, just this fragmented rubbish below, which you wrote,:

As for the people that can't seem to cope?.....
I'm not surprised.
They couldn't cope in the first place (no doubt)...
and the use of hemp failed to take away their problems.
Of course it didn't.
Are they now more depressed than ever?...of course they are.
Are they boo hooing to the doctor for relief?...of course they are.
Was hemp to blame............not likely. __________________
First you are told.... 'this is this...and that is that'.
Then someone else will come along and say...'No it ain't'.

I've been doing this for a long time, and I am well rehearsed.
You seem new the topic.

New to the topic of cannabis? Get real. I know plenty, which is why I have stepped in to the argument, and why I can stand toe to toe with people who think they know it all because they do a fiver a day while sitting on their playstation.

You actually think conformity to a law that never should have been passed...is the solution to the casual everyday use?
( you think this practice will go away?)

OK wiseguy, when did I say that?
As you appear to have control of my voice perhaps you should shove your arm up my backside and work my mouth and eyes as well. I said nothing of the sort. My very first post on the matter had this to say:

I am not for criminalising the young, but I am not for releasing cannabis into the community either. I am not sure what the answer is, but legalisation is not it.

I still stand by that.

Just because a bunch of people want to play Russian Roulette with their mental health doesn't mean everyone should. You play with your own mind, if you are that clever, but leave the minds of the innocent to develop out of harms way, without risk.

Most participants here, and I dare say, most people at large, know very well, the law is something less than it should have been.
It should be repealed.
Jailed offenders released.

Regarding the law being repealed, I don't think it should be.
Regarding jailed offenders, do they jail people for cannabis use where you are? or just the dealers, who I have no sympathy for?

 

[Thief]

lol, that is rich. In fact you created a whole bunch of work for me, just so I could reply. You placed some of your responses in my quote boxes, which forced me to copy the boxes into my post (so I could refer to your responses), and colour them so that it was clear which were yours and which were mine.

Try focusing your thoughts instead.

I was not referring to the entire thread, just this fragmented rubbish below, which you wrote,:

And in fragments, you're not getting the idea.

New to the topic of cannabis? Get real. I know plenty, which is why I have stepped in to the argument, and why I can stand toe to toe with people who think they know it all because they do a fiver a day while sitting on their playstation.

A poor assumption on your part.

OK wiseguy, when did I say that?
As you appear to have control of my voice perhaps you should shove your arm up my backside and work my mouth and eyes as well. I said nothing of the sort. My very first post on the matter had this to say:

And I won't wait for you to move to the better idea.
Try an open mind.


Just because a bunch of people want to play Russian Roulette with their mental health doesn't mean everyone should. You play with your own mind, if you are that clever, but leave the minds of the innocent to develop out of harms way, without risk.

And here, you are assuming users are pushers.
Not fair.

Regarding the law being repealed, I don't think it should be.
Regarding jailed offenders, do they jail people for cannabis use where you are? or just the dealers, who I have no sympathy for?

No jail for anyone.
It should be decriminalized....the law revoked.
You don't have a rebuttal to support the law.
You just think you do.

You're not very good at this.

 

[cablescavenger]

I was pointing out a fact.

So was I You obviously do not get irony.

 

[cablescavenger]

No jail for anyone.
It should be decriminalized....the law revoked.
You don't have a rebuttal to support the law.
You just think you do.

You're not very good at this.

I have an informed opinion, not a fly-by-night set of assumptions built up over our short exchange. I have provided plenty of rebuttal, but I can only lead a horse to water, I cannot make it drink.

Perhaps it would help if I pointed out some of my rebuttal points raised so far:

1. Medicinal - Drugs are common in medicine, cannabis is not. Ergo for medicinal purposes it is not a suitable product to displace existing medicines. Either because of cost or benefit.
2. Criminalisation - I do not believe young people should be criminalised for trying it, after all curiosity is difficult to stifle, and policing it costs a fortune; but I do believe dealers should be tackled to get it off the streets.
3. Legalisation - Cannabis is not safe enough to put in general usage for mental health reasons, we have not discussed social reasons, and people driving round with spliffs in their mouths.
4. Environment - Children deserve to grow up in an environment where mind altering drugs is not the norm in society.
5. Mental Health Risk - I have first hand knowledge of the mental health links
6. Mental Health Risk - There is a plethora of information that appraises cannabis and mental health issues, suggesting a high correlation between cannabis and various forms of mental health problems.
7. Risk - You say it is low risk because many people smoke it without harm, and would know if it was bad. I say that people are not that well informed, and that people who smoke cannabis in countries where it is illegal are risk takers, and therefore likely en masse to ignore the risks of taking cannabis and focus on the perceived benefits, so the number of smokers is not a barometer of safety.

and your arguments to my points:

1. Medicinal - It has health benefits
2. Criminalisation - Everyone in jail because of cannabis should be released because they should never have been there in the first place.
3. Legalisation - cannabis should be legalised, the law should never have been bought in and should be repealed (though you give no good reason why?)
4. Environment - It should be available to everyone
5. Mental health risk - There is none and this is all Propaganda - A propaganda film made in the 30's still applies today which prevents you from absorbing any new information.
6. Risk - No risk because millions of casual users smoke it, and if it was bad they would know.

Your approach is more Liaise-Faire than mine. I take a precautionary approach.

Do I want a load of youngsters to have criminal convictions? No I do not. Perhaps on the spot fines, but criminal convictions affect a child's future, and I would not want to see that happen; dealers should have no protection.

It is important to err on the side of caution when looking at these issues, and be sure of science before unleashing it on an entire nation. As long as there is doubt then you should err on the side of caution.

I think it is obvious we are not going to agree because I have already determined what my outcome would be, and you yours.

That is my opinion, and you do not have the argument to change it.

 

[cablescavenger]

Do you have any idea how many people smoke pot? Just a look through the main stream music and hollywood will produce a multitude of heavy to moderate smokers. Willy Nelson, Bob Marley, Ozzy Osbourne, Phil Anselmo, Polly Shore, Kevin Smith, Broken Lizard, and the list goes on and on and on. And consider all the white collar workers that smoke pot, the legions of college students that smoke pot, the people who smoke it for religious reasons, the people who smoke it recreationally, and so on.

No sorry, I did not realise it was that widespread, I have been living in a box under the staircase, but now you mention it, I find it staggering.

Do you know how many people don't smoke pot? I think you will find if it is a number you are trying to establish, then I win.

Numbers do not make an argument, they make a statistic. You can have statistical arguments if they are combined in order to establish a trend, but you are just trying to establish a lot of people smoke pot by naming half a dozen of them.

If there was any real risk of "psychotic illness" then the effects would be very widespread and very well known.

I understand your point, but it is a mistake to believe that because a fact is true everyone would know that. It does not follow that :
a) everyone knows it and...
b) everyone will act on it

For instance; here is a fact:

Cooking meat at high temperature creates carcinogens.

By your logic if we went to a barbeque everyone would know this fact, know the level of risk they were being exposed to, have measured that risk, and determined whether they want to subject their children and themselves to that level of exposure.

By my logic, there might be one or two at the party that know the fact and take the necessary decision on eating the food, but the majority will quite unwittingly subject themselves and their children to a mouthful of potentially harmful agents.

On top of that one cannot assume that even if everyone knew that it was harmful they would not do it. If that was the case cigarettes and alcohol would be a thing of the past.

 

[gnomon]

It's a cost-benefit analysis.

The question is whether or not the laws and the enforcement of the laws regarding the current illicit substances create more problems and cause more problems than the substances themselves. There must also be recognition that throughout the entirely of human history practically every culture has engaged in the use of these substances. That leads to the next question is whether or not it is even possible to diminish, let alone end, the use of these substances.

It is my opinion that the costs of the "drug war" have heavily outweighed the benefits of this war. In this case new options need to be explored such as legalization or decriminalization of certain substances and a change in law enforcement tactics.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you know how many people don't smoke pot? I think you will find if it is a number you are trying to establish, then I win.

Sure, I know lots of people who don't smoke. A few are allergic to it, some just don't care for the way it makes them feel, and some don't because it's illegal. But the fact still remains that there are so many people who live in the public eye that smoke pot that if there was any real mental health risks we'd be seeing far more bad behavior from celebrities over pot than we do alcohol, cocaine, or crack. But we don't. Actually some of them like Willie Nelson and Snoop Dogg are almost quite literally stoned all the time. The Broken Lizard crew smokes alot. Black Sabbath, and many more, made songs about how much they love pot. One musician that many regard as one of the greatest guitarist ever, Dimebag Darrel, took his stage name from a pot reference, Polly Shore and Steven Baldwin are VERY stoned in several scenes in the movie Biodome, and honestly I could go on and on for hours about the musicians and actors alone that smoke pot. And that is not including personal accounts on people I know that smoke.

On top of that one cannot assume that even if everyone knew that it was harmful they would not do it. If that was the case cigarettes and alcohol would be a thing of the past.

Except for damn near everyone knows cigarettes are bad, and most people know that alcohol is bad when abused.

Numbers do not make an argument, they make a statistic. You can have statistical arguments if they are combined in order to establish a trend, but you are just trying to establish a lot of people smoke pot by naming half a dozen of them.

Pot smoking is a trend. Some do it because they like it, some to it to conform, some to to emulate, some do it just because it's illegal. Actually places that have decriminalized or legalized have seen a decrease in the amount of people who use it. A decrease in property damage also usually follows.
But there are just so many people that smoke pot that if it really caused any problems it would look more like crack or meth. Those drugs do cause problems, the damage is very apparent, and the drugs themselves have ruined lives and families. The only disruptive part of pot is the fact it's illegal and being caught with it has far worse consequences than rape does.
The only thing to back your case is a study that shows people with mental illnesses are more likely to smoke pot, but it does not cause the illness itself. Sensationalized media tried to say the study showed marijuana use causes mental illness, but the study clearly outlines that it does not, and further research is needed to look into it's appeal to those with a mental illness.

It is my opinion that the costs of the "drug war" have heavily outweighed the benefits of this war. In this case new options need to be explored such as legalization or decriminalization of certain substances and a change in law enforcement tactics.

I'd personally rather see law enforcement getting rapist, murderers, thieves, and other violent criminals off the streets than watch them search a car looking for pot. And there is also that the "war on drugs" is simply unwinable, and drug use will never end. Better to legalize and ride a wave of new tax revenue and job markets, save the tax payers money on emptied jail spaces, and focus on rehabilitating addicts instead of criminalizing and demonizing them.

 

[cablescavenger]

But the fact still remains that there are so many people who live in the public eye that smoke pot that if there was any real mental health risks we'd be seeing far more bad behavior from celebrities over pot than we do alcohol, cocaine, or crack. But we don't.

I am not convinced mad equals bad. People with mental health problems are more likely to abuse and kill themselves than they are to hurt someone else. I have not looked that up by the way, but I am sure if you want me to I can find something to back it up.

Actually some of them like Willie Nelson and Snoop Dogg are almost quite literally stoned all the time. The Broken Lizard crew smokes alot. Black Sabbath, and many more, made songs about how much they love pot. One musician that many regard as one of the greatest guitarist ever, Dimebag Darrel, took his stage name from a pot reference, Polly Shore and Steven Baldwin are VERY stoned in several scenes in the movie Biodome, and honestly I could go on and on for hours about the musicians and actors alone that smoke pot. And that is not including personal accounts on people I know that smoke.

I am not disputing that a lot of people smoke cannabis.

Except for damn near everyone knows cigarettes are bad, and most people know that alcohol is bad when abused.

I would agree with that too, these are well established and well advertised facts, but not all facts are. The dangers of Alcohol and cigarettes were heavily advertised because of teh economic cost to the govt. It was a cost benefit decision. That level of advertising is difficult to justify with cannabis given that there are many more harmful drugs being abused.

Pot smoking is a trend. Some do it because they like it, some to it to conform, some to to emulate, some do it just because it's illegal. Actually places that have decriminalized or legalized have seen a decrease in the amount of people who use it. A decrease in property damage also usually follows.
But there are just so many people that smoke pot that if it really caused any problems it would look more like crack or meth. Those drugs do cause problems, the damage is very apparent, and the drugs themselves have ruined lives and families. The only disruptive part of pot is the fact it's illegal and being caught with it has far worse consequences than rape does.

I agree a lot of people smoke pot, but that does mean it is harmless, which is where we appear to lock horns.

I also agree that the other drugs are much worse, and ruin lives.

I know fully functioning adults that smoke pot on a daily basis, some of whom have had disturbing, but luckily short lived experiences. My concern is that one day they may not be so lucky, and as a father and grandfather I would err on the side of caution every time. If you had this conversation with me 20 years back, I might have taken a different view. Who knows?

The only thing to back your case is a study that shows people with mental illnesses are more likely to smoke pot, but it does not cause the illness itself. Sensationalized media tried to say the study showed marijuana use causes mental illness, but the study clearly outlines that it does not, and further research is needed to look into it's appeal to those with a mental illness.

I agree. I have not claimed any different.

I'd personally rather see law enforcement getting rapist, murderers, thieves, and other violent criminals off the streets than watch them search a car looking for pot. And there is also that the "war on drugs" is simply unwinable, and drug use will never end.

I agree here too, not for needless criminalisation of the young and curious.

Better to legalize and ride a wave of new tax revenue and job markets, save the tax payers money on emptied jail spaces, and focus on rehabilitating addicts instead of criminalizing and demonizing them.

I think we have done my views to death on this one

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I know fully functioning adults that smoke pot on a daily basis, some of whom have had disturbing, but luckily short lived experiences. My concern is that one day they may not be so lucky, and as a father and grandfather I would err on the side of caution every time. If you had this conversation with me 20 years back, I might have taken a different view. Who knows?

I wonder, are these disturbing experiences you speak of the result of marijuana that was laced with a foreign substance? Alot of people do mix stuff with their pot, and quite frequently to less than desirable results.