Truly don't mean to be persnickety rabbit.......and I promise I totally understand your point in principal.........but......

Kids drink even though alcohol is legal in America (albeit NOT for minors).......and kids smoke pot even though it is illegal in America! I've always been of the opinion that the more you try to take something away from someone....the more they want it! Take sexuality for example! If one is brought up to think it a "dirty" experience..........they try to experience it and hide the discovery of it.....(ex. Playboy mags. under the mattress). There are much worse examples...but you get my gist!

My motto....don't make everything so taboo....and we'll not have the secrecy of trying to discover it!

__________________
Minds are like parachutes. They only work when they are open.

~Thomas Dewar~

The US culture?
There's only one now?

__________________
I want to know everything
I want to be everywhere
I want to fuck everyone in the world
I want to do something that matters

I'd have to agree with Belial on this, I did my english paper on this very subject, and i found some intresting fact, pot has NO chemical addiction what so ever, and it is one of the safest drugs out there, it has amazing healing properties, and is competly impossible to overdose on, if i remember correctly one would need to smoke 3 pounds in the span of thirty seconds to even have the chance, and seeing as thats not really humanly possible, whats so wrong with it? Every kid will expirment no matter what, i did and i know plently of others that have as well, its not dangerous, and i personally will agree to let my kids try it if they so desired (when i have children anyways) i know way back when people with schizophrenia and other mental diseases were thought to bahave they way they did because of marajuana effect, including fighting and other violent behaviour, and i was later proved that the effects of pot are competly the opposite, so whats really all that bad about a few laid back, happy people? I dont see anything wrong with it, but then, that is my personal opinion.

Well, excessive apathy or relaxation can be bad...but the extent to which this happens is only a function of excessive use anyway. Even then, those effects aren't that bad..and even if they were, if we were all potheads, we'd be too high to care

More Hicks:
"The only thing they say is pot might lower sperm count....good! There's too many fuckin' people in the world!"

__________________
I want to know everything
I want to be everywhere
I want to fuck everyone in the world
I want to do something that matters

I know I can't drive drunk or stoned. I am aware of my limitations unfortunately self control/awareness is not everyone's forte and until they develop something to detect MJ in an "on the road tox screen of sorts" I say it's not safe. I could give a shit what people do in their homes but if they endanger lives by driving it's a public safety issue.

__________________

The practice of putting women on pedestals began to die out when it was discovered that they could give orders better from there.~ Betty Grable

If I wanted your opinion, I'd remove the duct tape and ask you for it.~ Me
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
One man's dream is another man's nightmare~~~~> §¤ Lilith ¤§
~>My Scribbles<~
==>Gone Shopping<== ~Just a Quickie~ *~A Celebration Vacation~* ~Surprises~ Sleeping With the Window Open
What Did You Do Today? Self Defense Class ~Short Sweet Snippets~ § Summer Spin § Story Challenge Submission Pajamas

Legal by doctors prescription. To come with the same warning labels many other drugs do: 'Do not drive while taking', 'May cause sleepiness', etc.

It is helpful for a number of medical issues, MS, chemo., glocoma, etc. The latest finding is that it may benifit Parkinsons people. Why deny a person a drug that may help them.

And to lighten the mood, a story about our prime minister:

Chretien jokes about trying pot
Canadian Press
Saturday, October 04, 2003

WINNIPEG -- It's an unlikely retirement scenario for Prime Minister Jean Chretien: he's at his lakeside cottage, sipping tea with his wife Aline - and smoking a big fat joint.

The 69-year-old prime minister has never smoked marijuana, he says, but he joked in an interview this week he might be willing to give it a try once it's decriminalized. Chretien made the joke in an Ottawa interview with the Winnipeg Free Press published in Friday's paper.

Chretien was asked how it felt to have bills for decriminalizing marijuana and legalizing same-sex marriages as the exclamation points to his lengthy political career.

"I don't know what is marijuana," Chretien replied.

"Perhaps I will try it when it will no longer be criminal. I will have my money for my fine and a joint in the other hand."

-----

You have to understand that the quote "I don't know what is marijuana" is a Chretien-ism. The pundits have joked that he can't speak either official language well. I'd love to have a speech file to play you!

Can we go back again?

Court makes pot possession illegal again
Ontario judges tell Ottawa it has duty to provide medical marijuana to the ill

CANADIAN PRESS

The Ontario Court of Appeal has struck down provisions of the federal government's medicinal marijuana program, reinstating in the process the prohibition against possession of small amounts of pot.

The decision released today struck down what it called unconstitutional provisions of the federal Marijuana Medical Access Regulations that govern the growth and distribution of the drug for medicinal purposes.

Those provisions restricted licensed growers of medical marijuana from receiving compensation for their product, from growing the drug for more than one qualified patient and from pooling resources with other licensed producers.

But not only does the ruling eliminate those provisions of the program that were considered unconstitutional, it also reinstates the pot-possession laws that were effectively suspended in Ontario late last year.

"This narrow remedy would create a constitutionally valid medical exemption, making marijuana prohibition ... immediately constitutionally valid and of full force and effect and removing any uncertainty concerning the validity of the prohibition," said a synopsis of the ruling issued by the court.

The ruling agreed with a lower court ruling in January that found the regulations were unfair because they forced those who qualified under the program to either grow their own pot or buy it on the black market.

"Many of these individuals are not only seriously ill, they are also significantly physically handicapped and therefore cannot possibly grow their own marijuana," the synopsis said.

"A scheme that authorizes possession of marijuana by seriously ill individuals but which drives some of them to the black market ... undermines the rule of law and fails to create a constitutionally valid medical exemption to the criminal prohibition against marijuana."

The January ruling, by Ontario Court Justice Sidney Lederman, left marijuana possession laws across Canada in tatters, because it effectively rendered marijuana prohibition in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act of no force and effect.

Lederman gave the government a July 9 deadline to either fix the regulations or supply the pot itself. The government then instituted an interim policy where it supplies pot at set prices to approved users.

The government appealed the ruling, saying it shouldn't be forced to provide a legal source of marijuana.

The initial lawsuit was launched by seven Canadians with various medical conditions, along with their caregiver, who demanded the federal government provide a safe and reliable source of medical marijuana.

Earlier this year, Ontario's laws against marijuana possession were thrown into question after a judge ruled that possessing less than 30 grams of pot is no longer against the law in the province.

So who were the other six?

























LOL~ (Looks like somebody scored some good herb. )

__________________

Belial,

If one may reasonable refer to "French culture", "German culture", or "Italian culture", then yes, one can indeed say the American culture.

In general, if there exists a set of shared behaviors, or if there exists a perception of a set of shared behaviors, and if those behaviors are - correctly or incorrectly - also generally associated with a nation, then those behaviors can be referred to as being part of that nation's culture.

For example, "guns" and "America" are very commonly closely associated among Europeans.

__________________
Eudaimonia