Marijuana Fight Envelops Fisherman's Wharf (San Fran)

The New York Times from Drudge ^ | July 3, 2006 | JESSE McKINLEY

[Know your rights]

In the 60's and 70's the libertarians advocated legalizing drugs with the caveat that intoxicant use is never a mitigating factor for the defendant in legal or civil cases. In fact recreational drug use proves intent since users intentionally impair their own judgment.

Advocating legalized drug use without underscoring this responsibility for users

Who so advocates? I'm all in favor of legalization, and of barring intoxicant use as a mitigating factor.

[Know your rights]

For the safety of others, we ban recreational drugs.

Wrong ... the recreational drug alcohol is legal.

[Know your rights]

Who was it that said, "Make it legal and the price will drop dramatically"?

The relevant question is: Who was it that said, "Make it legal only by prescription/recommendation and the price will drop dramatically"? Answer: nobody. You WODdies beat straw men because you have no argument against your real opponents. Sad, very sad.

[Know your rights]

The FDA figured pot was a dangerous drug for recreation

Nonsense ... it's considerably less dangerous than the legal recreational drug alcohol.

[tacticalogic]

I think the company might be sued to hell and back because if you are offering a product with lots of caffeine and sugar to the point it wreaks havoc with your system it's going to get noticed with the lawyers. If they sell it in two liter bottles, that probably will be seen in court some day.

And we'll have yet another well intentioned paving stone for the road to hell. You should check out Sweden. They've got this business of controlling everything you do for the "greater good" down pretty well. You should do a little research and see what it is you're wishing for.

[Central Scrutiniser]

How many people have died overdosing on marijuana?

hmmmm?

[robertpaulsen]

It is a mess. I think the federal government is just biding their time, waiting for the dopers to screw themselves. And they are. They're acting like kids in a candy store.

Now the public is starting to respond. Personally, I'm in favor of letting them wallow in their own stink for another couple years. They voted for it. They believed the lies.

[muir_redwoods]

You prefer societal control to freedom. I am worthy of freedom. Sorry about you but, like me, you've probably made the correct self-assessment

[vikzilla]

The FDA figured pot was a dangerous drug for recreation and too weak for most medical uses

What kind of a circle jerk goes on in that tiny little mind of yours?

[A CA Guy]

Already discussed, read back. That argument failed miserably being both are so different.

[A CA Guy]

It's too powerful and abused for over the counter use.

[A CA Guy]

There is nothing to brag about pot and there are already major restrictions on alcohol.
Many behaviors with alcohol can land you in jail.

[No2much3]

The FDA does not allow Vitamin C injections for cancer treatment even though there are many studies which show it is more effective with less side affects than chemo. These Vitamin C treatments are available in other countries but not in the US unless you are willing to go outside the "mainstream Medical Industry". Why is that?

Just follow the money!
Vitamin C treatment $300 per week.
Chemo Treatments $10,000 per week.

JMO

[A CA Guy]

I don't totally disagree with you, but they can avert all the court stuff probably by prominently displaying the dangers of their product where the person ordering can read it.

The other poster said it had heavy sugar and caffeine in it and many people could be surprised if they knew that.

I think the answer to that is knowledge, not lawsuits.

[A CA Guy]

I prefer societal control over anarchy, YES!

[A CA Guy]

I prefer societal control over anarchy, YES!

[A CA Guy]

What kind of a circle jerk goes on in that tiny little mind of yours?

The same government regulations that would stop glue and paint thinner sniffing also looked at pot and saw it was more trouble than it was ever worth and it is on the "JUST SAY NO" list. Just because you may want recreational drugs legal doesn't negate the bans on it.

[A CA Guy]

Where are the statistics of the recoveries with vitamin c treatment and who did the studies?

I lost a mom to cancer and drove her for many years to the City of Hope trying to save her life. We heard all the alternative treatments out there and we heard there were no results to speak of.
They do often give Chemo because it has done fairly well at killing cancer before the patient these days.
Then they place people for five years on a pill called Tamoxifen which either buys you five years of life or when in remission is used the first five years to keep you that way.
The most recent research is with gene therapy targeting the tumor by starving the blood supply to just it.
That is the current future and goal of cancer at this time.
Might be conquered within ten years in most forms.

[muir_redwoods]

I believe my position is closer to that of the Founders than yours is. I prefer their company to that of statist, control freak, drug warriors.

Sorry about your choice but some will always prefer ordering others about to freedom

[No2much3]

If they were getting high at home with kids, of course if they were watching the kids then Children's Services would need to remove the kids from the home as an unsafe environment.

I have to assume you also include those dads who spend Sundays watch football on TV and drinking a six-pack of beer. They are drunk and not able to legally operate a car, but is it ok for them to have custody of their children?

Where is the difference?