Why are the real conspiracies ignored?

[BnW]

The hemp thing is not all that difficult to understand. There are large pharmaceutical companies with an interest in making sure that something that has medicinal value and people can grow in their own backyards remains illegal. I'm not sure if that qualifies as a "conspiracy" but blocking the legalization of pot by drug companies is going on and it is happening openly and notoriously.

As a side note, 20+ years ago when I was in college there was a group that went around talking about hemp and the value of it as a cash crop. They talked about the ease of growing it, how it could be used as paper and reduce the number of trees we cut down, they went on about how the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution were both written on parchments made from hemp, and they discussed the medicinal values of it. It was a very well reasoned argument. The problem was every single one of these people looked exactly like the type of person you would expect to advocate for the legalization of hemp. I thought that kind of hurt their credibility some.

[Vosur]

(09-07-2012 07:58 AM)BnW Wrote:  The problem was every single one of these people looked exactly like the
type of person you would expect to advocate for the legalization of
hemp. I thought that kind of hurt their credibility some.

Did they look likes this guy?


Other than that, I agree. There aren't many rational arguments supporting the criminalization of weed. After all, it's less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes, both which are available to any adult citizen. It can even help treat certain diseases, whereas alcohol is a cytotoxin and nicotin causes cancer.

[Logica Humano]

(09-07-2012 12:59 PM)Vosur Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 07:58 AM)BnW Wrote:  The problem was every single one of these people looked exactly like the
type of person you would expect to advocate for the legalization of
hemp. I thought that kind of hurt their credibility some.

Did they look likes this guy?


Other than that, I agree. There aren't many rational arguments supporting the criminalization of weed. After all, it's less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes, both which are available to any adult citizen. It can even help treat certain diseases, whereas alcohol is a cytotoxin and nicotin causes cancer.

Lol. It is a picture of Jesus.

[houseofcantor]

So they manipulate shit, tank the economy, and then say, now's not the time to point fingers, cause we need to work together cause the economy's tanked.

[Chas]

(09-07-2012 12:59 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Other than that, I agree. There aren't many rational arguments supporting the criminalization of weed. After all, it's less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes, both which are available to any adult citizen. It can even help treat certain diseases, whereas alcohol is a cytotoxin and nicotin causes cancer.

It is useful in reducing symptoms of disease and treatment, not in treating the disease. Big difference.

[houseofcantor]

(15-07-2012 07:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 12:59 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Other than that, I agree. There aren't many rational arguments supporting the criminalization of weed. After all, it's less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes, both which are available to any adult citizen. It can even help treat certain diseases, whereas alcohol is a cytotoxin and nicotin causes cancer.

It is useful in reducing symptoms of disease and treatment, not in treating the disease. Big difference.

The disease is that we're all addicted to desire. Ya got the desire to live, you're on the road to hell. Muah-ha-ha ha ha. Ho.

[Vosur]

(15-07-2012 07:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 12:59 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Other than that, I agree. There aren't many rational arguments supporting the criminalization of weed. After all, it's less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes, both which are available to any adult citizen. It can even help treat certain diseases, whereas alcohol is a cytotoxin and nicotin causes cancer.

It is useful in reducing symptoms of disease and treatment, not in treating the disease. Big difference.

Isn't reducing the symptoms of a disease the same as treating it? I think I'm not familiar with the scientific definition of these words.

Anyway, that was definetly terse, but not deadly enough.

[Chas]

(15-07-2012 09:58 AM)Vosur Wrote:  

(15-07-2012 07:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  It is useful in reducing symptoms of disease and treatment, not in treating the disease. Big difference.

Isn't reducing the symptoms of a disease the same as treating it? I think I'm not familiar with the scientific definition of these words.

Anyway, that was definetly terse, but not deadly enough.

It was deadly - you're just too dumb to fall down dead.

Seriously, though, treating the symptoms is not treating the disease.
For instance, I have a broken leg; I am given narcotics to treat the pain - a symptom; it does nothing to treat the problem - the fracture.

[bemore]

[Vosur]

(15-07-2012 10:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  Seriously, though, treating the symptoms is not treating the disease.
For instance, I have a broken leg; I am given narcotics to treat the pain - a symptom; it does nothing to treat the problem - the fracture.

I can see what you mean, thanks for the clarification.