So what if it sucks? It's still prescribed for something, and therefore the drug rather obviously has at least one medical use.

9/8/2006 5:16:51 PM

Gamecat wins this thread.

Although, the roles of the medical-industrial complex as well as intellectual property law need to be explained more.

pharmacracy vs. medical autonomy is the real issue here...

9/10/2006 1:35:02 PM

Oh great, looks like Brian paid his internet bill.

9/10/2006 2:12:41 PM

Quote :

"weed is healthy for you"

9/10/2006 7:36:40 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "bgmims: Therefore, tended ditchweed should be included in the illegal category and not the "wild, natually growing waste of time destroying" category." You seem to be ignoring the fact that the weed was growing wild before it was discovered and "tended.""

Gamecat, you know I didn't overlook that. What I said was that the ditchweed that was "tended" was tended because people thought they could smoke it and get high or sell it and make money from an illegal activity. Untended ditchweed, on the other hand, is simply growing undisturbed by man and that is fine. Once you tend it, you're engaged in an illegal act, whether or not you're smart enough to tend it to increase its potency and THC. Its the same for mushrooms. They are growing wild before someone picks them for sale or use and that is when the illegal act is committed.

9/11/2006 6:59:48 AM

Point is it wasn't illegally planted, just illegally tended. Intent was behind the plants people find tended in greenhouses and basements from day one, but not the ditchweed people discover and manicure themselves. If anything that belongs in its own category, not either of the other two.

Quote :

"Although, the roles of the medical-industrial complex as well as intellectual property law need to be explained more."

The floor is yours hempster.

9/11/2006 1:15:13 PM

I would be okay with putting it in a third category. However, as even you admit, it was illegally tended. Therefore destroying it should count in the category for destruction of illegal marijuana if its going to be in one of the two.

A third category would be acceptable, though.

9/11/2006 1:26:36 PM

Well, not really. I don't really think you're arguing against the idea of a separate category at all. But if you want to be technical, by that logic it all belongs in one category: Illegal weed destroyed. It's all illegal--tended or untended. That's why it's all destroyed when discovered.

The point in separating categories is to illustrate more clearly what is being destroyed. Since we're funding the resources, we're entitled to know exactly what they're being used to do here.

[Edited on September 11, 2006 at 1:46 PM. Reason : ...]

9/11/2006 1:40:07 PM

No doubt Gamecat, but I think the way it is categorized now is at least easy to skew in interpretations. Here we have this article that says "we waste our money destroying naturally growing weed, man" and then doesn't bother to tell us how much of the naturally growing weed was tended with illegal intentions and how much is just simply naturally growing that we found. If the split is 90/10 in favor of naturally growing on its own, then I'd say "yeah, that sounds wasteful" but if its 90/10 in favor of the tended stuff then I think we can't say "we're wasting our money" just because the imbecile growing it doesn't know he can't get high on it.

9/11/2006 4:14:29 PM

ehehe, this story's funny.

"98% of the stuff we're smoking is shwag."

9/11/2006 5:01:46 PM

9/11/2006 7:51:21 PM

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7040

9/19/2006 1:49:22 PM

^^^ So we're both arguing for more and clearer disclosure. Fundamentally, you and I seem to agree on ideas of that matter more often than not. Pretty cool shit.

9/19/2006 2:47:24 PM