On Apr 15, 1:23=A0pm, Squiggles <Squigg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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
fo=
rms of cannabis.
> >>>>>> It is NOT a product of regulation it is product of demand, more
mon=
ey 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
Your sole concern may be damage; others may have different priorities.
|
