On Apr 17, 11:05 am, Sally Beenwell <Beenw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> M_P wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 6:00 am, Sally Beenwell <Beenw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> > How? Are you proposing that ingesting cannabis through means other
> > than smoking should be legalized but smoking it remain illegal? How
> > could that be effectively enforced?
>
> I doubt that it can but the argument is ridiculous as Cannabis
> being illegal so is valid.
Please rephrase that as a sentence.
|
