M_P wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2:45 pm, Epson Salts <e...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> M_P wrote:
>>> On Apr 15, 5:04 pm, Epson Salts <e...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> M_P wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 15, 1:23 pm, 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 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
>>>>> Your sole concern may be damage; others may have different
priorities.
>>>> I can now see why it is so hard to get get Cannabis legalised with
your
>>>> attitude.
>>> Damage minimization is an argument in favor of legalization, which
>>> would make it easier for methods of ingestion to be investigated and
>>> improved wrt damage, as well as for product strength to be reliably
>>> known and for contaminants to be effectively minimized.
>> IF the THC was absolutely pure it would still
>> give off carbon into the lungs when smoked.
>
> What does that have to do with whether it should be legalized? Should
> bacon double cheeseburgers be banned because they clog the arteries?
Just the same as the dangers of Tobacco were not
known when it appeared in the UK. There is every chance for
legalised Cannabis to start off with a fresh slate and for known
dangers to be addressed before it is made legal. To this end
the dangers of smoking THC can be removed.
I suspect that the HABIT and RITUAL of skinning up
is what you are really defending. This is why nicotine
patches don't work.
|
