[bubblehead]

I think the time has come for God's creation to be legal.

Genesis 1:29. This verse will show us God's intent for all seed-bearing plants, which includes marijuana

Genesis 1:29. Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you."

Marijuana is a plant and yield seed and can be eaten.


Gay are legal and plants are not!

[James Dewitt]

Originally Posted by bubbledin

I think the time has come for God's creation to be legal.

Genesis 1:29. This verse will show us God's intent for all seed-bearing plants, which includes marijuana

Genesis 1:29. Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you."

Marijuana is a plant and yield seed and can be eaten.


Gay are legal and plants are not!

Marijuana makes you go Homer! Its a fact! Your body is a temple, you should not defile a temple by doing drugs, especially ones that make you go homer!
1 Corinthians 6:19

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

[bubblehead]

Originally Posted by James Dewitt

Marijuana makes you go Homer! Its a fact! Your body is a temple, you should not defile a temple by doing drugs, especially ones that make you go homer!
1 Corinthians 6:19

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

Genesis 1:29. Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you."

Marijuana is a plant? Check
Marijuana is a plant that yields seed? Check
Marijuana is on the surface of earth? Check

Who are you to contradict the word of God? He said that all the plants yielding seed shall be food. Because you claim that its not ok, it isnt?

You are against God's word?

[Pastor Ezekiel]

So then why don't you go smoke some poison oak?

God doesn't want us to be dope addicts.

[James Dewitt]

Originally Posted by bubbledin

Genesis 1:29. Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you."

Marijuana is a plant? Check
Marijuana is a plant that yields seed? Check
Marijuana is on the surface of earth? Check

Who are you to contradict the word of God? He said that all the plants yielding seed shall be food. Because you claim that its not ok, it isnt?

You are against God's word?

Nightshade , poison Ivy check.... are you going to smoke them too?
why stop there, lawn clippings, leaves from trees. Or do you just want to get high and escape the reality that you are a hell bound sinner? Why not try some of that Opium stuff its a damn plant too!

[bubblehead]

Originally Posted by Pastor Ezekiel

So then why don't you go smoke some poison oak?

God doesn't want us to be dope addicts.

Weed is not addictive.
Jesus turned water into wine. Drank wine his whole life. Alcool is addictive and more dangerous than marijuana, kills people while weed doesn't.

Everything in moderation

[James Dewitt]

Originally Posted by bubbledin

Everything in moderation

Is that what you say when your Homersexural boy is having his way with your back side? Oh its ok if I only do it once in a while! Enjoy Hell!

[bubblehead]

Originally Posted by James Dewitt

Is that what you say when your Homersexural boy is having his way with your back side? Oh its ok if I only do it once in a while! Enjoy Hell!

No, you enjoy Hell.
You don't believe in the Holy words of God.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Originally Posted by bubblehead

No, you enjoy Hell.
You don't believe in the Holy words of God.

Where does the Bible say to take drugs?

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Originally Posted by bubblehead

No, you enjoy Hell.
You don't believe in the Holy words of God.

Eat some poison oak. OR don't you believe in the Holy Word of God?

By the way, I assume you EAT marijuana, and do not smoke it. There is no place in the Bible where God says to smoke plants.

[Phebe Carlyle]

Hello Mr bubblehead and may I say, how apt a name.

Of course God made many a plant. I suppose by your logic then, things like thorns and thistle should be consumed as well by all?

As Rev Rodimer so wonderfully pointed out, God made herbs for certain types to eat, which he makes clear in Genesis 3:18

Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

This however was the punishment to Adam and Eve after Eve went against God.

For verification please see:

Genesis 3:17-24

17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

20And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

21Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.


Such herbs are CURSED, so therefore not to be consumed in ANY way by his beloved.

So as such, your drugy-hippy stupid argument is moot! By you consuming it just shows you are a follower of satan and you will go to hell!

YIC

Mrs Phebe Dewitt

[Jo Freddie]

Marijuana's true potency and why the law should change

So the policy is wrong, the law has failed, the public is endangered, no one in law enforcement is talking about it and precious few policymakers will honestly face the soft-on-crime sound bite in their next elections. What should be done?
• First, we need to honestly and courageously examine the true public-safety danger posed by criminalizing a drug used by millions and millions of Americans who ignore the law. Marijuana prohibition has failed — it's time for a new policy crafted by informed policymakers with the help of those in law enforcement who have risked their lives battling pot-purveying drug cartels and gangs.
• Second, let's talk about marijuana policy responsibly and with an eye toward sound science, not myth. We can start by acknowledging that our 1930s-era marijuana prohibition was overkill from the beginning and should be decoupled from any debate about "legalizing drugs." We should study and disclose the findings of the real health risks of prolonged use, including its influence and effect on juveniles.
• Third, we should give serious consideration to heavy regulation and taxation of the marijuana industry (an industry that is very real and dangerously underground). We should limit pot's content of the active ingredient THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), regulate its sale to adults who are dumb enough to want it and maintain criminal penalties for sales, possession or use by minors, drivers and boaters.
Federal criminal law should give way to regulation, while prohibiting interstate violation of federal laws consistent with this approach. In short, policymakers should strive for a regulatory and criminal scheme like the one guarding that other commodity that failed miserably at prohibition, alcohol.

[Phebe Carlyle]

Originally Posted by Jo Freddie

Marijuana's true potency and why the law should change

Hmmph... Well well well... here is Jo Freddie..posting propaganda...how unusual. The fact the article promotes "eye towards sound science" just PROVES how ludicrous it all is!

Look, whatever "evidence" stupid scientists find means nothing and does not take away from the fact that it is the HERB OF SINNERS and is against GOD!!

YIC

Mrs Phebe Dewitt.

[Jo Freddie]

Originally Posted by Mrs. Phebe Dewitt

Hmmph... Well well well... here is Jo Freddie..posting propaganda...how unusual. The fact the article promotes "eye towards sound science" just PROVES how ludicrous it all is!

Look, whatever "evidence" stupid scientists find means nothing and does not take away from the fact that it is the HERB OF SINNERS and is against GOD!!

YIC

Mrs Phebe Dewitt.

How does the article start? let me remind you:

I DON'T smoke pot. And I pretty much think people who do are idiots.

The whole point is prohibition does not work, treat it as a social & health issue and you will get much better results.

[Phebe Carlyle]

Originally Posted by Jo Freddie

How does the article start? let me remind you:

The whole point is prohibition does not work, treat it as a social & health issue and you will get much better results.

I don't care how it starts! The fact that the propagandist wants science to come into it, just shows how stupid the article is!

YIC

Mrs Phebe Dewitt.

[Shela Tansper]

I've had many a Dopehead, Coke Fiend and Crackhead come in for counseling and they are the hardest to work with and the biggest liars and i must admit i fell for their lies in the beginning. Then i started to notice the same people who had come in and promised to let us help them by placing them on courses were on the streets begging for money under the pretense it's for food when it's really for their next fix.

I know i shouldn't say this in my profession but these people are beyond saving and anyone who believes dope doesn't lead to harder drugs is on the slippery slope to oblivion.

Romans 3:13
Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the POISON of asps [is] under their lips:

[Jo Freddie]

Drug use has resulted in social and personal degeneration. Diminished health, reduced earnings and moral degradation are some of the things drug users suffer from. Illegal drugs promote crime, spread AIDS, worsen poverty, corrupt lawful authorities and wear away society's moral fabric. The costs and benefits of drug prohibition are considered. It is concluded that a free market policy for drugs is more superior than drug prohibition. The social costs of drug prohibition exceeds its benefits.

More and more ordinary people, elected officials, newspaper columnists, economists, doctors, judges and even the Surgeon General of the United States are concluding that the effects of our drug control policy are at least as harmful as the effects of drugs themselves.

After decades of criminal prohibition and intensive law enforcement efforts to rid the country of illegal drugs, violent traffickers still endanger life in our cities, a steady stream of drug offenders still pours into our jails and prisons, and tons of cocaine, heroin and marijuana still cross our borders unimpeded.

Criminal prohibition, the centerpiece of U.S. drug policy, has failed miserably. Since 1981, tax dollars to the tune of $150 billion have been spent trying to prevent Columbian cocaine, Burmese heroin and Jamaican marijuana from penetrating our borders. Yet the evidence is that for every ton seized, hundreds more get through. Hundreds of thousands of otherwise law abiding people have been arrested and jailed for drug possession. Between 1968 and 1992, the annual number of drug-related arrests increased from 200,000 to over 1.2 million. One-third of those were marijuana arrests, most for mere possession.

The best evidence of prohibition's failure is the government's current war on drugs. This war, instead of employing a strategy of prevention, research, education and social programs designed to address problems such as permanent poverty, long term unemployment and deteriorating living conditions in our inner cities, has employed a strategy of law enforcement. While this military approach continues to devour billions of tax dollars and sends tens of thousands of people to prison, illegal drug trafficking thrives, violence escalates and drug abuse continues to debilitate lives. Compounding these problems is the largely unchecked spread of the AIDS virus among drug-users, their sexual partners and their offspring.

Those who benefit the most from prohibition are organized crime barons, who derive an estimated $10 to $50 billion a year from the illegal drug trade. Indeed, the criminal drug laws protect drug traffickers from taxation, regulation and quality control. Those laws also support artificially high prices and assure that commercial disputes among drug dealers and their customers will be settled not in courts of law, but with automatic weapons in the streets.

Drug prohibition promises a healthier society by denying people the opportunity to become drug users and, possibly, addicts. The reality of prohibition belies that promise.

No quality control. When drugs are illegal, the government cannot enact standards of quality, purity or potency. Consequently, street drugs are often contaminated or extremely potent, causing disease and sometimes death to those who use them.

Dirty needles. Unsterilized needles are known to transmit HIV among intravenous drug users. Yet drug users share needles because laws prohibiting possession of drug paraphernalia have made needles a scarce commodity. These laws, then, actually promote epidemic disease and death. In New York City, more than 60 percent of intravenous drug users are HIV positive. By contrast, the figure is less than one percent in Liverpool, England, where clean needles are easily available.

Scarce treatment resources. The allocation of vast sums of money to law enforcement diminishes the funds available for drug education, preventive social programs and treatment. As crack use rose during the late 1980s, millions of dollars were spent on street-level drug enforcement and on jailing tens of thousands of low level offenders, while only a handful of public drug treatment slots were created. An especially needy group -- low-income pregnant women who abused crack -- often had no place to go at all because Medicaid would not reimburse providers. Instead, the government prosecuted and jailed such women without regard to the negative consequences for their children.

Drug prohibition has not only failed to curb or reduce the harmful effects of drug use, it has created other serious social problems.

Caught in the crossfire. In the same way that alcohol prohibition fueled violent gangsterism in the 1920s, today's drug prohibition has spawned a culture of drive-by shootings and other gun-related crimes. And just as most of the 1920s violence was not committed by people who were drunk, most of the drug-related violence today is not committed by people who are high on drugs. The killings, then and now, are based on rivalries: Al Capone ordered the executions of rival bootleggers, and drug dealers kill their rivals today. A 1989 government study of all 193 "cocaine-related" homicides in New York City found that 87 percent grew out of rivalries and disagreements related to doing business in an illegal market. In only one case was the perpetrator actually under the influence of cocaine.

A Nation of Jailers. The "lock 'em up" mentality of the war on drugs has burdened our criminal justice system to the breaking point. Today, drug-law enforcement consumes more than half of all police resources nationwide, resources that could be better spent fighting violent crimes like rape, assault and robbery.

The recent steep climb in our incarceration rate has made the U.S. the world's leading jailer, with a prison population that now exceeds one million people, compared to approximately 200,000 in 1970. Nonviolent drug offenders make up 58 percent of the federal prison population, a population that is extremely costly to maintain. In 1990, the states alone paid $12 billion, or $16,000 per prisoner. While drug imprisonments are a leading cause of rising local tax burdens, they have neither stopped the sale and use of drugs nor enhanced public safety.

Inner city communities suffer most from both the problem of drug abuse and the consequences of drug prohibition.

Although the rates of drug use among white and non-white Americans are similar, African Americans and other racial minorities are arrested and imprisoned at higher rates. For example, according to government estimates only 12 percent of drug users are black, but nearly 40 percent of those arrested for drug offenses are black. Nationwide, one-quarter of all young African American men are under some form of criminal justice supervision, mostly for drug offenses. This phenomenon has had a devastating social impact in minority communities. Moreover, the abuse of drugs, including alcohol, has more dire consequences in impoverished communities where good treatment programs are least available.

Finally, turf battles and commercial disputes among competing drug enterprises, as well as police responses to those conflicts, occur disproportionately in poor communities, making our inner cities war zones and their residents the war's primary casualties.

While it is impossible to predict exactly how drug use patterns would change under a system of regulated manufacture and distribution, the iron rules of prohibition are that 1) illegal markets are controlled by producers, not consumers, and 2) prohibition fosters the sale and consumption of more potent and dangerous forms of drugs.
During alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, bootleggers marketed small bottles of 100-plus proof liquor because they were easier to conceal than were large, unwieldy kegs of beer. The result: Consumption of beer and wine went down while consumption of hard hard liquor went up. Similarly, contemporary drug smugglers' preference for powdered cocaine over bulky, pungent coca leaves encourages use of the most potent and dangerous cocaine products. In contrast, under legal conditions, consumers -- most of whom do not wish to harm themselves -- play a role in determining the potency of marketed products, as indicated by the popularity of today's light beers, wine coolers and decaffeinated coffees.Once alcohol prohibition was repealed, consumption increased somewhat, but the rate of liver cirrhosis went down because people tended to choose beer and wine over the more potent, distilled spirits previously promoted by bootleggers. So, even though the number of drinkers went up, the health risks of drinking went down. The same dynamic would most likely occur with drug legalization: some increase in drug use, but a decrease in drug abuse.
Another factor to consider is the lure of forbidden fruit. For young people, who are often attracted to taboos, legal drugs might be less tempting than they are now. That has been the experience of The Netherlands: After the Dutch government decriminalized marijuana in 1976, allowing it to be sold and consumed openly in small amounts, usage steadily declined -- particularly among teenagers and young adults. Prior to decriminalization, 10 percent of Dutch 17- and 18-year-olds used marijuana. By 1985, that figure had dropped to 6.5 percent.
Would drugs be more available once prohibition is repealed? It is hard to imagine drugs being more available than they are today. Despite efforts to stem their flow, drugs are accessible to anyone who wants them. In a recent government-sponsored survey of high school seniors, 55 percent said it would be "easy" for them to obtain cocaine, and 85 percent said it would be "easy" for them to obtain marijuana. In our inner-cities, access to drugs is especially easy, and the risk of arrest has proven to have a negligible deterrent effect. What would change under decriminalization is not so much drug availability as the conditions under which drugs would be available. Without prohibition, providing help to drug abusers who wanted to kick their habits would be easier because the money now being squandered on law enforcement could be used for preventive social programs and treatment.



Some people, hearing the words "drug legalization," imagine pushers on street corners passing out cocaine to anyone -- even children. But that is what exists today under prohibition. Consider the legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco: Their potency, time and place of sale and purchasing age limits are set by law. Similarly, warning labels are required on medicinal drugs, and some of these are available by prescription only.

After federal alcohol prohibition was repealed, each state developed its own system for regulating the distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages. The same could occur with currently illegal drugs. For example, states could create different regulations for marijuana, heroin and cocaine.

Ending prohibition is not a panacea. It will not by itself end drug abuse or eliminate violence. Nor will it bring about the social and economic revitalization of our inner cities. However, ending prohibition would bring one very significant benefit: It would sever the connection between drugs and crime that today blights so many lives and communities. In the long run, ending prohibition could foster the redirection of public resources toward social development, legitimate economic opportunities and effective treatment, thus enhancing the safety, health and well-being of the entire society.

[James Dewitt]

@ Pasta Boy. Hog wash!

[Higgins]

*sigh* I never thought I would say this but I agree with Jo Freddie. I think we, as a country, need to look again at the war on drugs and see if it is actually working. While I do not condone the use of drugs, it is my firm belief that God gave us free-will and that we ought to be able to exercise our free-will independent of a government which tries to restrict it. Now I need to say again, I am not saying everyone should use drugs, but that option ought to be legally open to individuals who wish to do so. Besides, one of the cornerstones of our way of life is that the government ought not to impede on our individual rights of autonomy (e.g. freedom of speech, religion, right to bear arms, etc.) which includes our own bodies. Regardless if it is legalized or not, the desire and will to continue worshiping God will still be there for the true believers.

[Jo Freddie]

Originally Posted by James Dewitt

@ Pasta Boy. Hog wash!

What benefit does prohibition give to society?

I put it to you that the ONLY people that benefit from prohibition are the criminal elements behind the manufacture and distribution of prohibited substances.

The cost to society on the other hand is HUGE.