M_P wrote:
> On Apr 14, 4:52 pm, Archy Feet <scho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> M_P wrote:
>>> On Apr 14, 5:02 am, Archy Feet <scho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> M_P wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 8, 6:41 pm, Cla...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Claude) wrote:
>>>>>> In article
<a494c9a1-4105-46a8-8640-7aa57f44f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>>>> dohduh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(sobriquet) wrote:
>>>>>>> This is demonization of THC, as if cannabis users are only
>>>>>>> interested
>>>>>>> in maximum THC content. To the degree that it is true, it's
>>>>>>> primarily
>>>>>>> a cause of prohibition,
>>>>>> No I do not think that is right in fact if you checked back in this
newsgroup you
>>>>>> can see comments by people wanting, using, appreciating stronger
forms of cannabis.
>>>>>> It is NOT a product of regulation it is product of demand, more
money can be made
>>>>>> from it BECAUSE there is demand.
>>>>> And as sobriquet said, the demand is fueled by prohibition. (Thanks
to
>>>>> prohibition, there is no "regulation" of cannabis.)
>>>> But why should people want 'stronger and stronger Cannabis'?
>>> So they can reach their desired level of stonedness with less smoke
>>> inhalation, perhaps?
>> If smoking is the problem then the answer is to look at
>> other methods of ingesting THC.
>
> *AN* answer is to look at other methods of ingesting THC. Another
> answer is to get stronger cannabis.
I know which would do the least damage
|
