In the '70s... "there were high-level conversations about adding marijuana to tobacco, creating a line of marijuana cigarettes, and being ready to jump in and market this."Want legal marijuana? Write to the President:
As recently as 1993, when it looked like France was poised to legalize marijuana, Philip Morris trademarked the name "Marley." But when the estate of Bob Marley complained, the company claimed it had nothing to do with the reggae singer.
"Philip Morris said, 'No no, it could be any kind of Marley,... like Jacob Marley, the cheap, cantankerous teetotaler from A Christmas Carol.'"...
November 25, 2012
"Now that legal pot is here, will cigarette companies dust off their old plans for mass commercialization?"
NPR explores the coming of legal marijuana:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
129 comments:
Food stamps and reefers!!
YaHOO!!
I don't see why tobacco companies wouldn't get involved with selling cigs with reefer in them.
It's not Marley, but Morley.
It's madness...madness I say.
It is really funny. Pot has the very same health hazards as cigarettes, yet smoking pot is becoming socially acceptable while smoking cigarettes is becoming taboo?
Smoking pot every day is dumb and unhealthy. Smoking it a few times per year is stress reducing. If it was legal, I would smoke it a couple times per year if the kids were spending the night at grandma's house.
In response to your question, to be blunt, why not?
Could Clinton Cookies be far behind?
It is really funny. Pot has the very same health hazards as cigarettes, yet smoking pot is becoming socially acceptable while smoking cigarettes is becoming taboo?
Not to mention, you can get a contact high (in addition to all the other negative effects) being around people that smoke pot.
PVB says:
It is really funny. Pot has the very same health hazards as cigarettes, yet smoking pot is becoming socially acceptable while smoking cigarettes is becoming taboo?
Cigarettes are health hazards if you inhale the smoke but all 2nd and 3rd-hand effects are imaginary and unproven.
Truth be known, inhalation of any smoke can cause lung damage because of PM-10′s (small solid particles that can penetrate the lungs), so inhaling less smoke is better. However, THC, the main constituent of cannabis, has (are you ready for this?) anti-cancer properties.
Mixing weed and tobacco would bastardize them both. Keep them separate.
I have the feeling if it becomes legal everywhere it's just something else our inept government will screw up.
There's a big difference between the decriminalization movement in the 70's and the legalization movement now. Back in the 70's, many states made possession of pot a felony and people did serious time for trivial amounts.
As a 17-year old in California in 1974, I was caught with a couple of joints just before the law for possession of a small amount was to be no longer a felony. Luckily the cop on the scene was a decent guy. He referred to the upcoming change in the law and said it wouldn't be fair to arrest us just before the change.
Lots of other young people were not as lucky as I was and did jail time or spent lots of money on attorney fees for possession of a couple of joints.
"It is really funny. Pot has the very same health hazards as cigarettes, yet smoking pot is becoming socially acceptable while smoking cigarettes is becoming taboo?"
That's pure nonsense. There is no link to any cancer cases with pot smoking and the amount of smoke a cigarette smoker inhales is many times greater than even the most ardent pothead will ingest.
Can you imagine one person smoking 20 or 40 joints the same size as a cigarette every day?
On the other hand the second most carcinogenic substance in common consumption is alcohol yet I'd be willing to venture that most of the anti pot warriors here are drinkers.
As madAsHell notes, the new bread and circuses.
PETER V. BELLA said...
It is really funny. Pot has the very same health hazards as cigarettes, yet smoking pot is becoming socially acceptable while smoking cigarettes is becoming taboo?
Actually, it's worse. The effects of marijuana in terms of cancer, etc., are more intense and tobacco doesn't damage your chromosomes.
I don't thing people are necessarily smoking pot as cigarettes. Rolled in paper is not the norm for that, I don't think. The place nearby employs a chef (who showed me his levain) and sells quite a lot of regular food, chiefly sweets. Plus people vaporize now. Volcanos and such.
If we are going over the cliff, why not pretend we are flying.
edutcher said...
Actually, it's worse. The effects of marijuana in terms of cancer, etc., are more intense and tobacco doesn't damage your chromosomes.
Most users won't believe it. Back when I was a tobacco user I had plenty of stoner types tell me that my tobacco wasn't healthy, but thier marijuana was.
I see it's Science Day at Althouse.
The Left is anti smoking but pro marijuana - this obviously makes complete sense to them.
Either way the lawyers will be happy.
I hope the cigarette companies file against the States who "accepted" money from their lawsuits yet saw it reasonable to legalize pot smoking.
The Chai Chai is anti-individual rights but pro social-rights.
Is it impossible for a conservative to understand the difference between what you put in your own body and what you intrude onto others with? Should the lungs now be recognized as fetus-bearing organs, or something?
Will the hardcore users really embrace neatly constructed corporate reefer? Seems from my recollection from college the rituals of preparation were as important as the high. Etiquette and traditions die hard, they're ingrained in the drug culture regardless of what's consumed.
For me, back in the 1970's, Natty Dread was a gateway album.
"Is it impossible for a conservative to understand..." - Ritmo
No, not for a fiscally conservative Libertarian.
The pro-reefer crowd is celebrating now, but wait till the regulations start, every taxing and licensing entity get involved. Not to mention the farm workers' union and corporate farms. Cigarettes were once 25 cents a pack in my life time and producing them has gotten cheaper.
"Is it impossible for a conservative to understand the difference between what you put in your own body and what you intrude onto others with? Should the lungs now be recognized as fetus-bearing organs, or something?"
I still can't wrap my head around forcing restaurant and bar owners to enforce a smoking ban to their economic detriment.
No one forces non smokers to go into a smoking establishment. Will these same restaurant and bar owners be legally compelled to allow pot smokers to partake?
The same logic that requires "Health care for all" must apply.....(softly) except for the unborn, or botched abortions, or the elderly (death panels).
No, not for a fiscally conservative Libertarian.
Are you one of those guys who thinks you're in charge of the Republican party's agenda, while they keep hoodwinking you and making it clear as day to everyone else that you're not?
O Ritmo Segundo said...
The Chai Chai is anti-individual rights but pro social-rights.
Is it impossible for a conservative to understand the difference between what you put in your own body and what you intrude onto others with? Should the lungs now be recognized as fetus-bearing organs, or something?
You should open up more and have those mental cartoons in color.
What a maroon.
I still can't wrap my head around forcing restaurant and bar owners to enforce a smoking ban to their economic detriment.
Well, hey. Laws against murder work to the hellacious economic detriment of hit men and bodyguards. So the argument works that way, as well.
In any event, there is a difference between banning something outright and just banning the intrusion of it onto other people. No marijuana legislation is aimed at forcing abstainers to become high off the fumes of their smoke. It's a separate issue. If you are so open to the rights of individuals to smoke tobacco and of individual establishments to have publicly available smoking venues, then you'd probably not grind your axe on this one as the principle is the same.
The irony of pot rehabilitating big tobacco.
Joe Camel never had it so good.
Sine the penalties for growing and distributing marijuana are equal to or more severe than moonshine I don't see any downside to continue growing unless the market drives the price down. Even then the home industry for self use isn't going to change.
I sincerely doubt it is going to be the revenue boon that the legislators want it to be.
"Officer, I was not driving drunk, the guy next to me in the bar was smoking pot."
"Son, I'll check out your story with the waitress back at the station."
"The waitress?"
"We had to bring her in for serving a patron who had been drinking some coffee, the whole combining caffeine and alcohol is illegal you know..."
"....then you'd probably not grind your axe on this one as the principle is the same."
"I'm under arrest for prostitution? Are you crazy?"
"Did he or did he not buy you dinner and take you to a movie?"
O Ritmo wrote:
Well, hey. Laws against murder work to the hellacious economic detriment of hit men and bodyguards. So the argument works that way, as well.
The two aren't analagous. Cigarettes are legal products. Killing someone for money isn't.
Like the sun coming up every day, Ritmo coming into an Althouse thread and starting off with insulting everyone.
A feline says what?
No just the stupid people, Alex.
Like jr, for instance - who starts with the premise that laws are a fixed entity, democracy and rights are a lost cause, and that what is legal should be legal and what is illegal should be illegal.
Ritmo - to you everyone here who isn't a leftist = stupid.
We all know what you are.
O Ritmo wrote:
Is it impossible for a conservative to understand the difference between what you put in your own body and what you intrude onto others with? Should the lungs now be recognized as fetus-bearing organs, or something?
So should we make cars illegal?
SCOTUS says that eminent domain in order to improve the economic well-being of a jurisdiction is constitutional. Ergo, jr will defend it on ethical grounds.
See? Some people need others to define what is moral and right for them. They argue for government action and then, unsurprisingly, make it clear that they cannot determine what is in their own best interest.
We all know what you are.
Yup. I'm the one who thinks for himself and figures, to hell with all the stupid and non-leftist people here who are offended by that.
O Ritmo wrote:
Like jr, for instance - who starts with the premise that laws are a fixed entity, democracy and rights are a lost cause, and that what is legal should be legal and what is illegal should be illegal.
You're reading an awful lot into my statement. Did I say the laws are a fixed entity? or that democracy and rights are a lost cause?
Considering smokers are losing rights, it sounds more like you being the one suggesting that democracy and in particular rights are a lost cauase (i.e. the right to smoke). I didn't say anything of the kind, so suggesting I did is stupid on your part, but you might want to look at your own statement again to see that you are in fact arguing the anti rights position.
As to what is legal should be legal and waht is illegal should be illegal. Er, that would have to be done on a case by case basis. Big sodas in new york should probalby be legal. Bath salts should probably not be legal.
O Ritmo wrote:
See? Some people need others to define what is moral and right for them. They argue for government action and then, unsurprisingly, make it clear that they cannot determine what is in their own best interest.
what do you think I'm advoacting here, and what are you advocating here?
Ritmo - don't you care that everyone here thinks of you as a total ass?
Pot calling Kent black
Smokers are not "losing rights". That is ridiculous. There is no right to impose on others. There is no right to stick the health care of their bad habits on society. You confuse a right to impose with a right to do what you want to yourself.
As far as the way smoking tobacco is socialized or zoned, that's the one point where there is a legitimate value judgment being made by the same jurisdictions that can ban other nuisances being imposed onto others. Some private establishments should be able to allow for the aggregate nuisance of self-induced lung cancer victims just like they should be allowed to give license to other venues for dangerously stupid and pointless group activity. Like monster truck rallies. Or crowdsourced, audience-participating MMA wrestling. Whatever floats your boat. But to conflate that with an individual right just shows that you don't trust yourself to make that distinction and need the government to endorse codes describing what you should or should not do. Weak.
Alex - you keep running the internet popularity contest. I'll worry about making cogent arguments regarding deliberately controversial topics. It's what the host is looking for, in case that escaped your notice.
Are you the same Alex who used to go by the W. Bush avatar and claimed to be a libertarian?
I'll worry about making cogent arguments regarding deliberately controversial topics
LOL.
I switched to the Microsoft logo because that pisses off liberals just as much.
O Ritmo wrote:
Smokers are not "losing rights". That is ridiculous. There is no right to impose on others. There is no right to stick the health care of their bad habits on society. You confuse a right to impose with a right to do what you want to yourself.
I don't think you've thought your objection through very clearly. In additon to not knowing what I"m arguing I don't even think you know what YOU'RE arguing.
I assume the "LOL" is the Moby's way of advertising the fact that he's not sure of whether winning a popularity contest is more important to him than making a decent argument.
The Microsoft logo is supposed to piss off liberals? So says the Moby Dick.
jr - you seem hopelessly, irredeemably confused. Have a cigarette and clear your mind, or something. Cheers.
Inga - liberals are in love with Apple and thus have to hate Microsoft. That's just the way it is. Apple is "cool and hip", Microsoft is your dad's Oldsmobile.
"Smokers are not "losing rights". That is ridiculous. There is no right to impose on others. There is no right to stick the health care of their bad habits on society."
Ha, ha, ha, ha! Just what do you think Obama care does?
liberals are in love with Apple and thus have to hate Microsoft. That's just the way it is.
This attempt at social analysis has all the penetrating insight of a nursery rhyme.
What does shibboleth rhyme with? Anything?
Jr. misses Crack in a big way. You can thank Shouting Thomas and his race baiting of Crack and insulting Crack's father for Cracks absence, my opinion anyway, unless Crack comes back and corrects me.
This could get very interesting for liberal democrats.
They have two constituencies being threatened.
People Against the Tobacco Way and the Decriminalisation people who would have a hard time turning down tobacco money.
I love it.
Alex, I own an iPad and a desktop with IE on it, I'm all confused.
Ha, ha, ha, ha! Just what do you think Obama care does?
I dunno. What do you think it does? I mean, I've heard all sorts of things, but taxing the vice to pay for its socialized costs is not a bad thing. Economists call this "internalizing the externality".
But of course, conservatives would love for us to subsidize the cost of a tanning salon and of smoking. They believe in socialized losses and privatized gains. Obama, OTOH, probably understands that taxing those things helps reduce the burden of their costs onto US. Yes, what a tragedy. Woe unto the crony capitalist.
Thank you for thanking me, Inga.
It's always good to be remembered. There is no such thing as bad PR.
No problem Tommy, anytime.
I am the evil old white man, at your service, Inga.
I vote for legalizing the pot.
Grow your own.
I don't care who sells it, but you don't know what you're inhaling unless you grew it yourself or know the guy who grew it.
Not that that has always stopped me.
I was never convinced that the American left was really against tobacco.
What I thought, was that the left wanted to impose a massive tax on tobacco, in the guise of a lawsuit settlement, with 70% of the money going to the government, and 30% going to the trial lawyers, who in turn promised to shovel 20% of their share back to Democrats as a kickback/finders fee.
"I've heard all sorts of things, but taxing the vice to pay for its socialized costs is not a bad thing."
When the Government takes the risk mitigation and assessment out of the insurance business the insurance business as we know it no longer exists, it becomes an entitlement.
From you statement I conclude that the "vice" to which you are speaking is life itself - if you are alive you will be taxed.
Of course ones' risky personal life choices no longer have negative "insurance" costs (drug use/abuse, unprotected sex, alcoholism, smoking, obesity, etc...). The Gov must protect us from ourselves to keep costs down! Mandatory weight loss programs for all! Those 16 OZ soft drinks are illegal! Prohibition for all - oops, tried that already!
They'd want to drench it in menthol.
NPR & its socialist thinking talking heads are totally unqualified to discuss for profit ideas.
When the Government takes the risk mitigation and assessment out of the insurance business the insurance business as we know it no longer exists, it becomes an entitlement.
Oh, ok.
So you think the costs of providing smoking-related catastrophic care (heart attacks, stroke and lung cancer) are obscure, un-knowable, unfathomable to all, least of all, to the government! That's quite the trial balloon theory to float.
Fascinating way to argue for a government so incompetent that only Republicans could be running it.
In the real world, we know these costs. I think they call it "math". And no, it won't kill you.
Ritmo, you do math?
You're kidding, right?
O Ritmo wrote:
Smokers are not "losing rights". That is ridiculous. There is no right to impose on others. There is no right to stick the health care of their bad habits on society. You confuse a right to impose with a right to do what you want to yourself.
When you say there is no right to impose on ohters, who are you talking about, individuals or govt? In the case of govt, it certainly can impose on others. if something is illegal then a law was imposed on others that curtails behavior. Then the question becomes do I agree with the law. And for the life of me, I don't know if you're trying to argue the libertarian position or the anti libertarian position. You seem like you are arguing both at the same time in your mad rush to assault the conservatives.
As to whether there is a right to stick the health care of their bad habits onto society, the problem with this is that, that is an extremely broad statement that can frankly mean almost anything. But if there is a legal product, like say Twinkies, and you can eat a Twinkie, and TWinkies make you fat if you eat enough of them, and if you eat a lot of Twinkies you might get diabetes, aren't you then basically sticking the health care of your bad habits onto society?
If it's legal to eat Twinkies, then yes you can impose your bad health care habits onto society. Though in many cases, you can't. (You still can, but you don't have the right to do so).
Society COULD make Twinkies illegal, on the premise that they are making people fat, and therefore to try to offset the costs of healthcare for the long term use of Twinkies, and to protect the public. Only that would be a question that would have to be answered individually.
Sure politicians could pass a law, but do I agree with that law or not.
In many cases I WOULD actually. But in many cases I would not. In the case of cigarettes, I would argue that they are legal products therfore you have a right to use them. If they were illegal you wouldn't have a right to use them.
And while they are legal, I would argue that businesses should have a right to allow people to smoke in them. I'm assuming you are making the case that cigarettes are bad because you have a right to put stuff in your body but not to put your smoke into other peoples bodies.
To me the second hand smoke argument is based on bogus science. Cancer is caused through long exposure to cigarettes. Second hand smoke, while bothersome is exposure only when you are in a restaurant, or a place that allows smoke. IT's an impossibility for scientists to dtermine that that smoke caused a disease. Why not the smog you breathed in? Why not the car exhaust? The only way you can show your exposure levels is anecdotally.You can't prove that such levels CAUSE anything, any more than you can prove that breathing in car exhaust DIDN'T cause the cancer instead.
However, lets assume for the sake of argument that we want to help people by not having them exposed to second hand smoke. That doesn't answer the question about people who don't mind being exposed to second hand smoke. What's wrong with a bar that describes itself as a smoking bar, where all the people going into the bar go into it knowing that other people will be smoking as well. In that scenario there is no imposing on others, since all people are going in knowing that others will smoke. If they are ok with it, why wouldn't you be?
And by the way, this is coming from someone who can't stand smoking! I've never smoked a day in my life, and am very sensitive to cigarettes. So I'm not standing up for MY right to smoke.
But Im not protected from your car exhaust if you drive by me while I'm walking down the street. Aren't you imposing your car exhaust on my lungs? What's the difference?
Grow your own.
Thats what she said.
Cultivate your garden.
"So you think the costs of providing smoking-related catastrophic care (heart attacks, stroke and lung cancer) are obscure, un-knowable, unfathomable to all, least of all, to the government! That's quite the trial balloon theory to float."
No. I also think that as a non-smoker I shouldn't have to pay for a policy that includes that risk factor in the computation, nor should I have to subsidize for others to smoke, use drugs, etc...
Funny, that is the same argument that the Catholics are making. They think that they shouldn't have to pay for birth control or abortion for their employees because those practices are counter to the beliefs of the Catholic faith.
Once we get the government into the business of doing math, then all hell will break loose. Unlike the Republican party, they might not realize that deficits are revenue-neutral. Shocking! Horrifying! Mystifying!
Inga wrote
Jr. misses Crack in a big way. You can thank Shouting Thomas and his race baiting of Crack and insulting Crack's father for Cracks absence, my opinion anyway, unless Crack comes back and corrects me.
Crack had no problem baiting others, particularly mormons and insinuating some awful things about people based on his own bigotry and paranoia.
WHile I certainly wouldnt be one to say race baiting is ok, and am not sure that Shouting Thomas in fact did so, if you live by the sword, don't get all outraged if you die by it.
I shouldn't have to pay for a policy that includes that risk factor in the computation, nor should I have to subsidize for others to smoke...
This is an internally incoherent sentence. Either the smoker self-subsidizes or the entire population does. Only Republicans argue for socializing the costs that result from refusing to tax the behavior.
Oh, and the old lesbian Tommy has joined and jr has become an endless coma of ranting. Time to get outside!
O Ritmo wrote:
Once we get the government into the business of doing math, then all hell will break loose. Unlike the Republican party, they might not realize that deficits are revenue-neutral. Shocking! Horrifying! Mystifying!
OH how I wish the dems would acquaint themselves with basic math. Oh how I wish.
O Ritmo wrote:
This is an internally incoherent sentence. Either the smoker self-subsidizes or the entire population does. Only Republicans argue for socializing the costs that result from refusing to tax the behavior.
Smokers don't pay taxes on cigarettes?
Smokers don't pay taxes on cigarettes?
They do. They should probably pay enough to cover the costs of treating their vice. But you have your fellow Republicans bobbling into this thread and coming up with strange ideas, such as that smokers only use private insurance, or that smokers will raise the costs of better coverage, or some other strange premise.
What's the racism gambit on pot?
Inga's been going at it tangentially. Ritmo has not yet worked his noggin into a knot plotting out the racism quotient of the pot legalization conundrum.
Come on, guys!
Do your stuff. Let's get some racism going!
NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...
Actually, it's worse. The effects of marijuana in terms of cancer, etc., are more intense and tobacco doesn't damage your chromosomes.
Most users won't believe it. Back when I was a tobacco user I had plenty of stoner types tell me that my tobacco wasn't healthy, but thier marijuana was.
My info comes mostly from The Blonde, she of 43 years' nursing experience, including 5 in oncology.
"They do. They should probably pay enough to cover the costs of treating their vice. But you have your fellow Republicans bobbling into this thread and coming up with strange ideas, such as that smokers only use private insurance, or that smokers will raise the costs of better coverage, or some other strange premise."
Interesting, I reviewed this thread and didn't find anyone making that argument.
I will note that as a non-smoker I currently pay less for my medical insurance than if I was a smoker.
Sadly with Obama care I will no longer get to make my own insurance decisions as HHS will step in and establish the 'minimum' health insurance policy requirements. I wonder how many men will take advantage of the mandatory mammogram coverage?
I don't care what any study says, it does not pass the smell test to state that marijuana smoking will not harm the lungs. A few joints per week will probably be less damaging than 20 cigs a day, but c'mon...lungs are not meant to be coated with sludgy smoke, regardless of the source.
FTR I'm in favor of de-criminalization but will not be partaking personally.
O Ritmo Segundo wrote:
They do. They should probably pay enough to cover the costs of treating their vice. But you have your fellow Republicans bobbling into this thread and coming up with strange ideas, such as that smokers only use private insurance, or that smokers will raise the costs of better coverage, or some other strange premise
We pay for our insurance, and we pay for our treatment. And we pay taxes on things we buy already.
And you seem to be arguing four things simultanously many of which are contradictory. Are you arguing for legalization of everything but increasing the taxation of eerytying, or are you arguing that society can impose restrictions on various products.
We have to smoke it so that you can find out what is in it...
RigelDog wrote:
I don't care what any study says, it does not pass the smell test to state that marijuana smoking will not harm the lungs. A few joints per week will probably be less damaging than 20 cigs a day, but c'mon...lungs are not meant to be coated with sludgy smoke, regardless of the source.
Here's the problem with the whole debate. You don't smoke a cigarette and then get cancer. It's a gradual process that occurs over years. With that in mind, how can you assign blame to one thing that is the cause of your illness. I"m sure smoking is bad for your lungs (which is why I don't smoke) but there is no way you will know the other things you may or may not have breathed into your lungs over the course of your life that can also have contriubted to your cancer or emphsyma. Would a non smoker who was constantly breathing in car exhaust not get cancer? Similarly with a Twinkie. What is the "Cost" of that Twinkie.
IF I had Twinkies in my past and get Diabetes, I can't blame "The Twinkie" because how many other things might i Have ingested that might have also contriubted to my illness. Maybe I drank a lot of Orange Juice, wihcih has a ton of corn syrup and only ate an occasional Twinkie. Since all things contain sugar, what particular product led to my illness? or did any product? Maybe it wasn't the Twinkies at all, but the starches. Maybe then I need to blame Rague and CHef Boyardee.
Granted if you are poisoned by something, or die immediately after ingesting it, that's one thing, but all the big diseases are actual lifestyle diseases, not caused by one specific thing but living your life.
Let's get some racism going!
Sorry to let Tommy, the dirty old lesbian hag, down. (But a proudly white one!) But the only racism angle I can find in this is that jr seems to be of an inferior race. Chai chai, however, does have it going for him that a minimum is the same thing as no flexibility, and one supposes, no maximum. So there's another inferior attempt at argumentation right there.
Don't know if he's of an inferior race, though. Some bad apples are just that. And he's more coherent than jr.
Does Shouting Tommy speak for all old white lesbian hags? Or just herself? If so, they must be a very humiliated bunch.
Shouting Tomasina.
liberals are in love with Apple and thus have to hate Microsoft. That's just the way it is.
THis is LARGELY true, but not completely true. For a long time if you watched a movie, the good guys used macs and the bad guys used PC's (Not 100% of the time, but enough to notice a pattern). ANd if you watch the Apple commercials where one guy played the PC and the other guy played the Mac the PC guy was this stuffed shirt and the Mac Guy was cool. LIberals are "cool" and conservatives are evil or at the very least stuffed shirts. Thus the commercial reflected a lot about how many view PC's and Macs and liberals and PCs.
THe mac guy was most definitely a liberal. and the PC guy was most definitely a conservative. It was even reflected in their dress. PC guy wore a suit and was dealing wiht outdated notions, whereas the Mac guy dressed like a teenager, wearing casual clothes and even had some of the smugness of liberals. PC guy just didn't get it, and the Mac guy was emlightened. (Though in truth, didn't everybody like the PC guy better? The PC guy was insecure and outmoded, but lovable, the mac guy was all enlightened but came across like a boring douche).
But anyway, as much as this may be true there are just as many exceptions.
For example, Rush Limbaugh is a big Mac guy and he's no lib. I prefer Macs to PC's and I tend, these days at any rate, to vote republican.
Old white lesbian hags are people, too, Ritmo!
We can even have babies now!
O Ritmo,
I actually believe you think there are inferior races. Which is completley untrue. There are only inferior people. And you are one of them.
Of all the people who could have lived but were aborted, its tragic that you saw the light of day instead.
Tobacco smoking is no different than slow suicide. Also, since smokers have a much higher incidence of periodontal disease and the pathogens are transmittable they can cause dental pain and suffering without second hand smoke.
While the amount of pot smoke inhaled is small, the pot these days is much more potent than back in the day of the boomers. Hoping your about to be born child doesn't have a genetic deformity because of your damaged chromosomes is not a happy time.
It is possible to drink alcohol throughout a lifetime without ill effects. Not so with tobacco or weed. Legalization is a very bad idea.
Ever heard of fetal alcohol syndrome Elliot?
Elliot A wrote:
It is possible to drink alcohol throughout a lifetime without ill effects. Not so with tobacco or weed. Legalization is a very bad idea.
A lot of people with cirhossis of the liver would say ohterwise.
(note, that was no me saying that legalizing pot is theferore a good idea, only that the drugs we do have legalized are not without their problems.)
@jr I was just explaining why alcohol legality has a rational basis. Abuse of anything can damage your body.
@ Inga- A rational person does not drink during pregnancy. I am talking about the person who keeps consumption to a couple of wine glasses or beers a week and maybe a martini or frozen pina colada every so often.
True enough Elliot. But to categorically state that one can drink alcohol throughout a lifetime without ill effects, doesn't take that into consideration. Glad you refined your statement.
In my town, Belmont CA, it's illegal to smoke inside ones own apartment. I may have to start attending city council meetings, with popcorn in hand.
Crack has a new girlfriend and that is why he is not around.
He finally got off the internets and got himself some pootie-tang.
O-tay!
Pot is for weaklings and suckers and it should be legalized so they can kill themselves slowly.
It's a win/win.
Baron - you need pot more then anyone. You Christofascists all have a stick up your ass.
Dude you should stop projecting.
What you like to do on your own time is your business.
Expecting anyone to change their opinion during an internet discussion is a fools errand as some folks are online to support a particular agenda or cause.
So how does one discover the strength of their argument? The best arguments will not be refuted directly by those with differing opinions, they will be deliberately misinterpreted, ignored, or twisted into a false summary to state something else. Straw men fight valiant battles in comment threads!
Satisfaction can be found between the lines or in what is not written or challenged. Those with agenda's are also quick to place labels on their "opposition" and to categorize them with or without any supporting evidence.
Let me elaborate on my own comment. Belmont banned smoking in multi-unit apartment buildings (I.e.essentially all of them) . The stated rationale was the second hand smoke risk in other apartments in the building, due to the mixing of air.
Belmont is about 30 miles S of SF, which is probably a contributing factor to our local politics.
Elliott should spend time in an Emergency department. (A little bit of empiricism would help the entire crowd here, actually). While there is no documented case of death by marijuana toxicity, and tobacco kills only after years of inhaling the crap (as well as the formaldehyde and ammonia that the industry adds to it), alcohol is the only one of the bunch that can and does kill you directly and immediately.
And then there are all the cases of alcohol withdrawal and bleeding esophageal varices. Plus, liver cancer, head and neck tumors, brain cancer (all cancers, really). To state that alcohol is devoid of the sort of disease that other recreational drugs are is really to just say something because one wants to make a case that they not only have no evidence for, but that anyone else has overwhelming evidence against.
College campuses can regularly attest to the direct deaths.
Cirrhosis?
I've seen an esophageal variceal hemmorhage. It's pretty horrific.
Social Cost? If all the taxes on that 25 cent pack of cigarettes 50 years ago had been put in to a fund for smokers' healthcare there would be a surplus today. At $6 a pack today smokers are paying their way. Add that to early death rates for smokers it's a win win.
Even alcohol withdrawal can kill, if that wasn't clear.
O Ritmo wrote:
Cirrhosis?
You got me, spell checker. :)
While it is true that alcohol can kill you if you drink too much of it, the same can be said for water.If you ate too much food you could die too, even if it was healthy to begin with.
(not to discount all the other things said about alcohol by Ritmo)
dilutional hyponatremia is very dangerous!
Ok. This thread is starting to wear itself thin. We should go off-topic. Apropos of nothing, I decided that I had no interest in anything fried or restaurant prepared tonight and got a chunk of a Chilean Sea Bass filet. I know, this makes me a bad environmentalist. But resource depletion should at least come at a price, and I paid heftily for mine. I guess I was just so surprised to see it at the market after years of its removal from menus and groceries that I broke down and figured, what the hell.
Anyway, 18 minutes and 350 degrees F later, I enjoyed quite the delicacy. Perhaps in my lifetime, this must be like looking back on what it would have been like to have enjoyed a mastodon. But you've got to respect a fish that can simmer in its own juicy fat. I was worried I wouldn't have the right sauce, but a touch of some sort of Thai marinade was all it took. That, and some lime juice and seasoning before grilling.
Mmmmm.
On a related note, weed is more aromatic than processed tobacco or alcohol. The tobacco that aficionados put into pipes is all well and good, but unfortunately none of the dry smoke douchebags are really all that into it. That's how you can tell it's more habit than enjoyable pastime. That, and the fact that they don't mind standing outside in freezing weather to take their vaunted smoke breaks.
Junkies.
Sorry - broiling, not grilling.
I was thinking about that tonight - the way Burger King tried to get you to think that they had invented some kind of amazing fire-based process in the 1980s, with their campaign of "The Flame-Broiled Whopper".
I was reminded of when Ali G tried to get someone he interviewed to admit that abortion couldn't be all that bad, because, 1) He hadn't had one, (surely someone should try something before bashing it), and 2) Ali had been like totally anti-Burger King before he tried the Flame Broiled Whopper.
Fatty fish is very good for you, all those omega 3s, mmmm mmmm, good.
Patagonian toothfish, Chilean Sea Bass is the marketing name for obvious reasons. Bon A petite.
Oh I know. And not only is the name less suave, but have you seen a picture of what those ugly suckers look like? Still, their flesh is divine.
We will have to find a way some day to raise them as livestock. They're just too damn good and must be spared the impending great oceanic die-off. I don't care how nasty and artificial the process becomes (actually, I do - exaggerating a bit here) but we must find a way to manufacture them in perpetuity, if need be. In hermetically sealed factories below the dead and dying earth. Or maybe a Jurassic Park scenario of such scale as to encompass trans-Pacific breeding patterns.
They are just that good.
"Are you one of those guys who thinks you're in charge of the Republican party's agenda..." - Ritmo
What makes you think I approve of their agenda?
You seem to specialize in baseless assumptions, among other logical fallacies.
Maybe not so harmless after all -- looks as if the suspected link between marijuana use and schizophrenia may be real:
For cannabis it is the "tobacco moment". The long-suspected link between consuming cannabis and developing schizophrenia has been repeatedly confirmed by recent studies. Observers say that for cannabis the present moment is similar to that half a century ago when scientific proof of a connection between smoking tobacco and cancer became so strong that no serious doctor or scientist could deny it.
Ritmo
Wasn't badmouthing the fish. They are tasty.
No, they won't, because the federal government will smash them flat if they try it. Conspiracy, RICO, drug kingpin laws, asset forfeiture . . . any cigarette company that tried to get into marijuana would be annihilated.
The DEA might have difficulty policing users and home growers. Anybody trying the business will learn they're engaging in outlawed interstate commerce.
Mctriumph said: Will the hardcore users really embrace neatly constructed corporate reefer? Seems from my recollection from college the rituals of preparation were as important as the high. Etiquette and traditions die hard, they're ingrained in the drug culture regardless of what's consumed.
The "hardcore" users will buy packaged "raw" pot, then.
Just like tobacco smokers can buy loose leaf for cigarette construction or pipe smoking.
(On the other topic, who the shit cares if it's "unhealthy"?
The State's job isn't to keep you from doing "unhealthy" things.
[Especially when what's "unhealthy" changes every 5 or 10 years; eggs have always been horribly bad for you... no, wait, very good for you.]
I have as little tolerance for that as for the marijuana enthusiasts who claim "it's totally absolutely safe and even cures the cancer!!" - it isn't and it doesn't.
And you know what? That doesn't matter. You don't need that pseudo-justification. Nor do you need to say "but YOUR habit is filthy and deadly!" to support your preferred drug.
Jesus Christ, people. Grow up about it.)
As a host you might be thinking of how you can surprise your guest at event. There are so many event organizers out there for this task and it is a must to impress clients.
chicago corporate event venue
In my opinion these tobacco guys shouldn't go into this business. First of all, they already earned enough and gave us a lot of bad stuff back; cancer. Mind you, I am a smoker.
Secondly, I think there is a more important issue. They don't have the right mindset in order to help medicinal patients. People tend to forget what weed means for the people who really need medical marijuana.
Most people think that marijuana is only about getting stoned.
I am working with medical marijuana users as we see what these active ingredients within marijuana mean to them.
They only want the active ingredients in the cleanest way possible; not getting stoned and without combustion.
Just two weeks ago we brought a volcano vaporizer to a terminal patient.
This guy couldn't walk anymore; too much pain and ordinary medicine couldn't kill the pain anymore.
After vaping all of a sudden, this guy stood up and was walking within his house.
His wife couldn't believe what she was seeing.
We gave this vaporizer so that they could use it a bit longer.
2 days later we got a phone call that they have had dinner in town!. She was extatic!.
Unfortunately, this man died 2 weeks later.
But my point is, too many people are only talking about getting stoned. We tend to forget that this is a medicine for many people. We should make a stand for them, not the stoners.
So, keep the tobacco people out of this business, please!.
#vaporizerblogger:
Wow, what a story!. I know this is a fact with vaporizers and medical marijuana.
The other day I heard a similar story while I was travelling with tandarts rja fiereg. He told me a story of a HIV infected person.
She doesn't even want to live without her medical marijuana. Mind you, she is a buddist and you're not supposed to use any kind of drugs. She really tries whatever she can in order to avoid the feeling of getting high.
That's a side effect she doesn't like, but due to the fact that she is using this medicine (which it is for her, she doesn't require 5 kinds of normal medicine.
Can you imagine what kind of relief this is for her and her already very weakened physical condition?
So I am totally with you: Legalize it and keep the tobacco guys out of this business, please.
Post a Comment