Just The Facts 420 support the cause! This is my online petition I created to re-legalize Marijuana (it was legal before 1938), and contains some interesting and important facts. Please read, sign (if you agree), and pass it to a friend in need. Every vote counts @ http://www.petitiononline.com/facts420/petition.html

A well presented distortion of facts. What one is not being told here is that there are different types of hemp, and what the author falsely ascribes to Marijuana are comon characteristics of those other types of hemp.

I'm in. Tis kindof silly to outlaw a naturally-occuring thing, particularly a virtually harmless one.

What adjective might be used here to modify the word ignorance which is the content of Leper's post?

The claim that Marijuana is harmless is either a deliberate lie or it springs from ignorance of the properties of the "weed". The chemical make-up of the plant is most definitely a threat to one's physical, mental, and emotional health.

Some of the stuff in cigarettes are "naturally-occuring thing"

Just look at the basic fact of anything but clean air going into your lungs is harmfull. Smoke, be it from a joint, cig, camp fire and so on isn't good for you.

I can see pot being legal for medical reasons. I was on some heavy duty pain pills last year. The side affects from them were pretty nasty. If I had the option of smoking pot for pain I would have thought about it. Not sure if I would because I have a child in the house. I wouldn't want her around the second hand smoke.

I would like to see someone do a 10 year study on the affects of pot. Things I read say, "Could, can and will cause" I haven't read anything that says someone knows 100% for sure of the good or bad affects.

hey you deleted my post!

Tent,

You can use the word "ignorance" to describe my post, but I'll apply the word "oblivious" to yours. The word "virtually" is placed before harmless for a reason. Everyone I've known who has smoked pot (and there's quite a few) has never suffered any harmful side effects or hurt anyone. I'm not denying you'll probably be able to cite a few isolated instances where pot has "harmed" someone. But the fact is that alcohol is much, much more harmful, and if you think alcohol should be legal, you have no business trying to outlaw marijuana.

Not to mention, I'll dismiss any argument that prioritizes personal health over personal freedom; people should have a choice to live an unhealthy/unsafe lifestyle if thats what makes them happy. (Basically, you will have to convince me that an act such as smoking marijuana is harming people other than the actor)

Related,

Um, cigarettes are legal. And I'm not saying ALL naturally-occuring things should be legal. For instance, possessing a vial of small pox certainly seems worth outlawing. I just don't think marijuana plants alone pose any threat to our society.

Leper,

I saw the "virtually harmless" wording. Perhaps in your zeal for the using of shitty qualifiers so common to the scum-sucking Liberals, you forgot to buy and use a dictionary.

virtually adv: almost entirely: for all practical purposes<unnoticed, i.e., unknown.

harmless adj: free from harm, liability, or loss: lacking the capacity to injure.

It appears to me that you try to modify an adjective with an adverb. My dear old english teacher would have slit your throat for such carelessness. But since I too am prone to such mistakes I chose not to point out your error.

Seems that you are unaware of the substance called THC that is the primary intoxicant in the hemp (Marijuana) plant. This particulr resin has been proven in lab experiments to be debilitating to nearly all physical and mental functions of the human.

Your argument that Marijuana ought to be legal because it is a naturally growing plant is BS. Did you never consider the origin of cocaine and herion? Ought they too to be legal?

Tent,

Lol, for someone so concerned with ignorance, you sure demonstrate quite a bit of your own. Adverbs can modify adjectives as well as verbs. I don't know where your English teacher learned English, but I've never heard of that complaint....and I've taken graduate level writing courses.

Yes, I did use virtually the way I intended; I think the harm caused by marijuana is so minor as to be insignificant, especially when compared to alcohol. Let's see if you answer this question (You seem to make a deliberate effort to dodge questions): Do you think marijuana is worse than alcohol?

"Did you never consider the origin of cocaine and herion? Ought they too to be legal?"

Yes, I have. I think the plants should be legal. The drugs themselves? I'm not completely decided. I'm leaning toward the legalization of cocaine. If someone wants to hurt themselves for pleasure purposes, I think they should be allowed to (as long as the government doesn't subsidize their resulting problems).

Leper,

A creative writing course, huh? You should ask that your money be returned.

Its not that an adverb can't modify an adjective, it is the definitions of the word that are lacking in meaning and lead to confusion. An Adjective and a noun would have served better to express what it is that you are attempting to get across.

Finally, I see no point in further discussing a matter with one who lacks a sense moral duty.

Tent-

First off, you demonstrate more of your obliviousness when you say "creative writing course." Where did you get "creative"? From my dealings with you so far, I would guess you're applying one of your typically erroneous and preconceived (Uh oh! An adverb modifying an adjective! I hope you're not confused!) judgements to me.

Second, If you can't figure out what "virtually harmless" means, that's your problem not mine.

Third, If anyone lacks moral duty, it's you. While you neglect to say what my "duty" is, I'll tell you what yours should be. Your duty is to grant people the freedom to act as they please as long as their actions don't pose a significant threat to the public. Clearly, you have no regard for this duty.

National Institute on Drug Abuse

http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm

or...

The Anti-Drug

http://www.theantidrug.com/drug_info/drugs_marijuana.html

On the other side...

Marijuana Policy Project

http://www.mpp.org/harmful.html

Personally, I think that you should be able to go ahead and harm yourself if you want to, just don't harm other people. Don't drive after smoking it, don't smoke it if you have kids living in your home, only do it in a private residence.

I agree wholeheartedly, Borg. Have you seen this ad campaign where a couple of kids smoking marijuana accidently fire a handgun and implicitly hurt themselves? It's such a misallocation of ad money. Of all the deviant behavior people could campaign against, they choose to campaign against some ridiculously miniscule possibility that could just as easily justify the outlawing of guns.

I pose the question, if someone gets beat to death with a candlestick, do we outlaw candlesticks? It's the sort of question present-day society would actually consider. Apparently, people refuse to assume any responsibility for their own careless, stupid, or malicious conduct any more. So much so, that they blame whatever mechanisms they use in achieving their harmful ends.

There's another one which shows a group of guys smoking marijuana in a car going through a drive-through, and they end up running over a little girl riding a bicycle. That same idea could be used as an anti-car ad, too. Or an anti-alcohol ad, as alcohol does the same thing. Or even an anti-eating food in the car ad!

Legalize Mary Jane, tax the crap out of it, perhaps worse than the cigarette/alcohol tax, and let's use that money for something good.

We already spend a lot of resources fighting MJ. We aren't going to be able to beat the MJ users, we might as well make some money off of them and at the same time put some gangs and smugglers out of business.

I'd like to see the US agricultural industry get seriously into the cultivation of merrywanna. Let's get some 'brand name' experts behind the manufacture and sale. Volume increases, quality improves, prices go down.
Why should every day tax paying, voting, citizens who are otherwise productive members of society be turned into criminals? And why are the penalties for posession of mj often worse than driving intoxicated and taking out a Suburban full of nuns?

My favorite anti-drug commercial is the one with the two kids and the gun. THe kids are in his dads study smoking the indo-chronic and the kid shoots his friend. Hmm? Like Borg pointed out with the fastfood one this ad couls be more of aanti-gun commercial or anti-idotparent commercial. Considering the gun wasn't just in the desk it was loaded and cocked ready to fire. The slogan should have been Guns don't kill people weed kills people. Its an ignorant attack on the least harmeless of drugs. Or drugs used for non-medical reasons. I think there aren't enough cases involved in recklessness envoked by weed. I don't think people smoking weed are motivated enough tobe wreckless. Honestly there is nothing wrong with it at all. And generally people are starting to accept this. Legalize get on with our lives is what I say. All those who appose it are doing so just to do it. If you don't smoke we aren't asking you to. It wouldn't affect you in anyway so why worry about it.

I'm not worried about facts on how it is not harmless or how it is medicinal and helps people. I'll agree with that but I don't think its the main issue with the drug. just take a look. Gotta head to work don't hjave time to explain

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

There's another one which shows a group of guys smoking marijuana in a car going through a drive-through, and they end up running over a little girl riding a bicycle. That same idea could be used as an anti-car ad, too. Or an anti-alcohol ad, as alcohol does the same thing. Or even an anti-eating food in the car ad!

I saw that commercial & thought the same thing - that it was a dumb commercial. The only message it had was don't drive stoned. By the logic of that commercial beer would be illegal

There is another one where it is a couple checking a pregnacy test & you think it is for them, then it pans back to a young girl who is the one that is pregnant. Again - dumb commercial - smoking pot will get you pregnant - again much more likely to happen by getting drunk.

Oh yeah, forgot about the pregnancy one! I'd like to hear how much money is being invested in this ad campaign? I'm guessing multi-millions. That's just sick to me. They could fund every problem allegedly caused by marajuana and have some cash left to blow at Vegas with that money.