Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gone to Pot?
ScienceNOW Daily News ^ | 6 July 2006 | Mary Beckman

Posted on 07/08/2006 2:48:58 AM PDT by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 last
To: A CA Guy
"Research has shown that a person can safely drink up to 10 liters of water a day. That would equal 10 one-liter bottles of water."

I wasn't sure about your number, so I double-checked it on my calculator. You were right.

What I'd like to know is how many 10-liter bottles can a person safely drink?

81 posted on 07/09/2006 6:31:35 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; winston2
winston2:
The constitution does not guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it.

paulsen:
You are free to pursue your goal of seeking legislation that legalizes the use of marijuana.

We should all pursue the goal of restoring rights unconstitutionally criminalized by those who prohibit them, people like paulsen.

82 posted on 07/09/2006 6:39:45 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"Research has shown that a person can safely drink up to 10 liters of water a day. That would equal 10 one-liter bottles of water."= a ca gal

I wasn't sure about your number, so I double-checked it on my calculator. You were right.

IWhat I'd like to know is how many 10-liter bottles can a person safely drink? - rp

You guys sure are humg up swatting at gnats. In the meantime, the crows are carrying everything shiny away!

83 posted on 07/09/2006 8:50:37 AM PDT by pageonetoo (You'll spot their posts soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"I claim that the ingestion of a naturally occurring plant is one of the "pursuits of happiness"(winston2) The constitution does not guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it.

The Constitution did claim to protect our rights - not suppress them.

You are free to pursue your goal of seeking legislation that legalizes the use of marijuana.

How generous of you!

Do you think the colonists should have sought legislation from England to approve their Boston Tea Party?

84 posted on 07/09/2006 10:12:35 AM PDT by winston2 (In matters of necessity let there be unity, in matters of doubt liberty, and in all things charity:-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"I wonder what those numbers would be if "nicotine cigarettes" were substituted for "weed"."
And if they were nearly the same, then what?

Well obviously, more research dollars would be needed, since tobacco would be a "gateway drug" as well.

85 posted on 07/10/2006 4:45:27 PM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Why would you conclude that? She only mentioned alcohol and tobacco.

I didn't quote her, but another portion of the article about pleasure receptors (which AFAIK every drug stimulates) in support of my statement ... so why are you misleadingly asking about what she said?

So, do you concede that marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco are gateway drugs?

If this research is correct, some portion of the "gateway effect" of marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco is neurochemical. What of it?

86 posted on 07/16/2006 10:52:43 AM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: All; MotleyGirl70; hole_n_one; RedBloodedAmerican

Really Funny Stuffhttp://www.transbuddha.com/mediaHolder.php?id=908


87 posted on 07/16/2006 10:56:44 AM PDT by cmsgop ( President Mahmud Ahmadinejad Must Purify Himself in The Waters of Lake Minnetonka)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Well, then, when they start stealing enough to pay for Big H, they are no longer protected by poverty.

So your "argument" is that poverty protects druggies from hard drugs ... except when it doesn't. Very persuasive.

88 posted on 07/16/2006 10:59:59 AM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
Well, you have your druggies who aren't thieves, and then you have your druggies who are thieves.

Are there different kinds?

89 posted on 07/16/2006 3:41:51 PM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
you have your druggies who aren't thieves, and then you have your druggies who are thieves.

Your point being ...?

90 posted on 07/16/2006 7:56:01 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights

That being a druggy involves choices that may have moral consequences.


91 posted on 07/16/2006 7:58:15 PM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Also true for many categories other than "druggy."
92 posted on 07/16/2006 8:04:07 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson