It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Regenmacher
You have obviously confused me with someone else, considering I am a Swiss national, don't drink, smoke or make up excuses to cripple myself and waste my potential.
You have chosen to be a slave.
I have chosen freedom from dependencies.
You lose...
Originally posted by Regenmacher
Your are incapable of addressing the damage you have done to your's and mankind's potential when your in a drug dependent state of mind. That's like asking an insane person to diagnose himself. Non sequitur!
Originally posted by Regenmacher
The system wants you to be a drughead, your are easier to control, manage and no threat to the power structure.
Uh-huh and I am Lord Byron too. Go fool yourself, I am not blind.
Their study showed that cannabinoids inhibited genes needed for the production of vascular growth factor (VEGF) in laboratory mice with glioma brain tumors and two patients with late-stage glioblastoma multiforme, a form of brain cancer.
my.webmd.com...
The term medical marijuana took on dramatic new meaning in February, 2000 when researchers in Madrid announced they had destroyed incurable brain tumors in rats by injecting them with THC, the active ingredient in cannabis.
The Madrid study marks only the second time that THC has been administered to tumor-bearing animals; the first was a Virginia investigation 26 years ago. In both studies, the THC shrank or destroyed tumors in a majority of the test subjects.
Most Americans don't know anything about the Madrid discovery. Virtually no major U.S. newspapers carried the story, which ran only once on the AP and UPI news wires, on Feb. 29, 2000.
The ominous part is that this isn't the first time scientists have discovered that THC shrinks tumors. In 1974 researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institute of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice -- lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia.
www.alternet.org...
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Regen
Your attitude wouldn't get you very far in real life. Certainly not in a free and democratic worls anyhow. Your attitudes would have made you very popular in certain German fringe groups just before the outset of WW2. They shared your opinions down the line, those..hmm..groups.
Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Well then tell me why the "system" is not actually pushing these substances on peoples as opposed to doing everything in their power to make sure that people do NOT indulge?
Originally posted by Regenmacher
Btw, I love to play advocatus diaboli.
Originally posted by Regenmacher
Use starts towards abuse, don't use and there never a risk of abuse.
And I know that you don't know.
Originally posted by Regenmacher
Ahh yeah right, you counsel and adocvate drug use for inmates. That must look nice in your 201 file, ehh?
[edit on 18-9-2005 by Regenmacher]
Originally posted by intrepid
Your further baiting is noted.
Originally posted by Regenmacher
My argument is flawed if you think one step doesn't start the journey...but that's not reality is it. Linear progression to an event is.
start------------use----------------abuse----------------jail
[edit on 18-9-2005 by Regenmacher]
Originally posted by Regenmacher
Originally posted by intrepid
Your further baiting is noted.
Maybe you should concentrate on not being vague and define why you advocate marijuana use?
Originally posted by FredT
Heads Up
Since the first message did not take I will repeat it here (and if further violations persist, I will take stronger action so please pay attention)
While this is certainly an intersting topic and worth of debate here on ATS I need to remind all participants that discussion of drug use is not allowed in the forums per the Terms and Conditions of the site;
16.) Discussion of illegal activities such as drug use, drug paraphernalia, hacking, etc. are strictly forbidden.
So on that note, please do not interject your personal use or those you know within the context of this debate.
Thanks
FredT
Originally posted by Regenmacher
FredT (moderator) gave a warning to refresher on the rules in this thread here
Originally posted by intrepid
Originally posted by Regenmacher
My argument is flawed if you think one step doesn't start the journey...but that's not reality is it. Linear progression to an event is.
start------------use----------------abuse----------------jail
[edit on 18-9-2005 by Regenmacher]
Just caught your edit. OK, by using your logic there should be a WHOLE LOTTA JOBS availlable in the States. Seems like almost half of the country has smoked weed:
www.findarticles.com...
Damn, I should move to the States, job security with 150,000,000 people in jail.
BTW, I didn't say that I advocate drug use, I said counsel.
Originally posted by intrepid
Your contention is that if you start, it's abuse. Well, if that's a fact then half of America would be addicted, further with your logic, they would be in jail. NOT REALITY!
I contend that there's a HUGE difference between use and abuse.
I don't see much difference since the former promotes the later.and it's highly subjective what constitutes abuse. They are but a few grams apart.
No No, my contention is if you start it "can" lead to abuse, so why start?
I have seen little actual thought towards risk/reward factors in people that decide step over the line and decide to commit a felony in view of a moments pleasure. Same could be said for unprotected sex.
Smoke one joint, roll dice and may get hard time = nuts
(yeah the laws are nuts too, but they aren't changing anytime soon)
Originally posted by Regenmacher
Originally posted by intrepid
Your contention is that if you start, it's abuse. Well, if that's a fact then half of America would be addicted, further with your logic, they would be in jail. NOT REALITY!
I contend that there's a HUGE difference between use and abuse.
I don't see much difference since the former promotes the later and it's highly subjective what constitutes abuse. They are but a few grams apart and depending on the chemical one use gets you hooked for abuse.