reuters [nklr]

[Juan Carlos Ibarra]

> > The drug companies were hoping to recoup 'research costs' in the US > and Europe. It isn't likely to happen without a bunch of nighttime > low-level aircraft flying across the border at the same time. > > Fireball >

I just read in The Sciences mag that no serious attempt is being made to find a vaccine against AIDS because the profit lies in drugs that deal with the disease rather than prevent it. Another factor is that in "rich" countries the ilness is "not that bad" However in Africa there are countries in which 30% or more of the adults are infected...that's right 30% or more. Three out of ten parents, teachers, mechanics and motrcycle riders will die because of it and because they have no money to be an interesting segment of the drug market. Capitalism sure has very dark sides to it. Juan

[Juan Carlos Ibarra]

Laws used to be the set of rules to ensure conviviality. Over time, many of them have become tools for repression. Modern law assumes that you can actually ban something and make it go away immediately. Modern law makers do not understand shit of human nature. Less repressing laws and much more investment in the development of intelligence among the population is far more effective. Any intelligent being will get mortally bored in a class room and will feel an urge to discover what lies beyond... no wonder a lot of bright kids do drugs...Other kids cannot see any conection between what they are being tought and true life (this happens becaue THERE IS NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER) so they evade doing drugs...other young men are abused by every person they meet...so they continue to abuse themselves... The law will not solve this, not in the US not in Mexico nor Colombia. We need to change or viewpoint regarding what we are as human beings, it is imperative that we trully understand our nature instead of repressing it with moralist rules that are derived from fear and poor judgement. In any case, I bet any of us who really wanted a joint could gete within a couple of days, you might even get to try some of the dope they use in the White House or El Palacio de Gobierno...it depends on your connections... Life is a beutiful frail thing, abusing is silly...show this to your kids...teach by example. Don't teach them to abhore drugs, teach them to love life... Juan

[ED]

Great post Juan, I believe modern law makers DO understand human nature very well, and they know how to further there own personal agenda's very well, based on their abibility to understand human nature. That frightens me. Unfortunately, most of them are not using this understanding to actually help people, they use it to further there own agendas, whatever that may be. And I think they may believe they are serving the public, but somehow it gets twisted and ugly. Others are just blatantly furthering there own careers without regard for others. What bothers me about this whole medical marijuan thing, is when the public speaks, and votes to approve something like medical marijauna use, and then the lawmakers ignore the wishes of the people and keep trying to pursue a failed war on marijuana use. How about we do some real research on the subject, treat it like any other potentially useful drug, and meanwhile, let the people that need it, or think they need it have it? Just me 3 cents, Ed

--- In DSN_klr650@y..., "Juan Carlos Ibarra" wrote: > Laws used to be the set of rules to ensure conviviality. Over time, many of > them have become tools for repression. Modern law assumes that you can > actually ban something and make it go away immediately. Modern law makers do > not understand shit of human nature. Less repressing laws and much more > investment in the development of intelligence among the population is far > more effective. Any intelligent being will get mortally bored in a class > room and will feel an urge to discover what lies beyond... no wonder a lot > of bright kids do drugs...Other kids cannot see any conection between what > they are being tought and true life (this happens becaue THERE IS NO > CONNECTION WHATSOEVER) so they evade doing drugs...other young men are > abused by every person they meet...so they continue to abuse themselves... > > The law will not solve this, not in the US not in Mexico nor Colombia. > > We need to change or viewpoint regarding what we are as human beings, it is > imperative that we trully understand our nature instead of repressing it > with moralist rules that are derived from fear and poor judgement. > > In any case, I bet any of us who really wanted a joint could gete within a > couple of days, you might even get to try some of the dope they use in the > White House or El Palacio de Gobierno...it depends on your connections... > > Life is a beutiful frail thing, abusing is silly...show this to your > kids...teach by example. Don't teach them to abhore drugs, teach them to > love life... > > Juan

[Jason Lutz - ISDX]

I don't mean to sound like a stiff, and I do not mean to create any type of ruckus. But... I would not ride with anyone under the influence of THC, and I would not ride with anyone in possession of Marijuana. I don't think anyone on this list has any type of debilitating disease enough to smoke marijuana. Diseased people don't usually ride KLR's. So one could conclude that this support for medical marijuana is a front to allow recreational drugs. Those people hanging out in front of the Supreme Court looked like they came straight from a Grateful Dead concert, not from the hospital. I would be for the legal use of marijuana, if you could test someone to see if they are under the influence. (Like a breath test.) But as far as I know, you can only tell if they have THC in their blood, not able to determine "when" that person had toked up. So, how will I be assured my airline Captain smoked up two days before the flight, or two hours? (Besides smelling like a skunk.) If this technology came out, I would be all for the legalization. If people want to sit around dazed and confused, go for it. Heck, I drink beer get buzzed many o' time! Jason '98 KLR650 Phoenix, AZ

[Dan Oaks]

Jason Lutz - ISDX wrote:

> I don't mean to sound like a stiff, and I do not mean to create any type of > ruckus. > > But... > > I would not ride with anyone under the influence of THC, and I would not > ride with anyone in possession of Marijuana.

bierdo: Neither would I (knowingly)

> > > I don't think anyone on this list has any type of debilitating disease > enough to smoke marijuana. Diseased people don't usually ride KLR's. So > one could conclude that this support for medical marijuana is a front to > allow recreational drugs. Those people hanging out in front of the Supreme > Court looked like they came straight from a Grateful Dead concert, not from > the hospital.

bierdo: I tend to agree, but don't really think either of us are in a place to make a judgment like this.

> > > I would be for the legal use of marijuana, if you could test someone to see > if they are under the influence. (Like a breath test.) But as far as I > know, you can only tell if they have THC in their blood, not able to > determine "when" that person had toked up. > > So, how will I be assured my airline Captain smoked up two days before the > flight, or two hours? (Besides smelling like a skunk.)

bierdo: What makes you think you have any assurance of that now?

> > > If this technology came out, I would be all for the legalization. If people > want to sit around dazed and confused, go for it. Heck, I drink beer get > buzzed many o' time!

bierdo: The rant pertained to the medical use of marijuana. I make no judgment one way or the other on recreational usage. I am for changing laws, not breaking them.

> > > Jason > '98 KLR650 > Phoenix, AZ

Some interesting feedback generated by this rant. Obviously more intelligence here than in the Court systems and Congress combined. -- bierdo

[geoffluttrell@yahoo.com]

Hello Jason, Where so you get your info? Diseased people don't ride KLR's, so medical pot is a front? That is quite a leap of logic. I had cancer. When I was sick, my doctors would prescribe a wide range of pills, xanax, valium, to try to ease my discomfort. Included was marinol, a synthetic THC. The problem with marinol is that you take it orally, which is pretty difficult when you are throwing up every couple of minutes. Having also used drugs recreationally (way back in the day), I saw pot as a viable option, as I needed the drug that was already prescribed, only in a different form. I had to try to find smokeable THC so that I could eat. I risked arrest, and felt ashamed of the fact that I was helping myself. This is the stigma that society has given pot. I think the reason the protestors look like hippies is that they see through the illusion of "pot is bad". I hope they will develop a "breath-test" for all the prescription uppers and downers so we can fly in peace. Until then I guess we can hope that America's politicians will come to thier senses, legalize it, and move on. It is inevitable. Take care, Geoff

--- In DSN_klr650@y..., Jason Lutz - ISDX wrote: > I don't mean to sound like a stiff, and I do not mean to create any type of > ruckus. > > But... > > I would not ride with anyone under the influence of THC, and I would not > ride with anyone in possession of Marijuana. > > I don't think anyone on this list has any type of debilitating disease > enough to smoke marijuana. Diseased people don't usually ride KLR's. So > one could conclude that this support for medical marijuana is a front to > allow recreational drugs. Those people hanging out in front of the Supreme > Court looked like they came straight from a Grateful Dead concert, not from > the hospital. > > I would be for the legal use of marijuana, if you could test someone to see > if they are under the influence. (Like a breath test.) But as far as I > know, you can only tell if they have THC in their blood, not able to > determine "when" that person had toked up. > > So, how will I be assured my airline Captain smoked up two days before the > flight, or two hours? (Besides smelling like a skunk.) > > If this technology came out, I would be all for the legalization. If people > want to sit around dazed and confused, go for it. Heck, I drink beer get > buzzed many o' time! > > Jason > '98 KLR650 > Phoenix, AZ

[Dan Barney]

Got to say man - this line about this support being a "front" for recreational drugs is a good distance off the mark, and, (speaking personally and professionally) smacks of the same ignorance that created the problem. -In my real life I am a counselor for a fairly large hospice, the very few patients we have that require a THC product are in desperate need: if they could swallow they could take marinol, etc. as recommended by idiots everywhere - but the nausea and inability to swallow are often the primary problem. These folks make Dachau look like a health club - and to suggest that they are really only after anything "recreational" leaves little doubt that the mind that suggested it closed off a long time ago. Although, it will do fine in many small towns and Washington DC. -Alternatively, as a relatively healthy person, my support is based on knowledge and a great deal of personal experience with the terminally ill - not from any desire to use - -Your assumptions are unfounded and unwelcome.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jason Lutz - ISDX" To: DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 10:58 AM Subject: [DSN_klr650] Re: No Medical Marijuana NKLR > I don't mean to sound like a stiff, and I do not mean to create any type of > ruckus. > > But... > > I would not ride with anyone under the influence of THC, and I would not > ride with anyone in possession of Marijuana. > > I don't think anyone on this list has any type of debilitating disease > enough to smoke marijuana. Diseased people don't usually ride KLR's. So > one could conclude that this support for medical marijuana is a front to > allow recreational drugs. Those people hanging out in front of the Supreme > Court looked like they came straight from a Grateful Dead concert, not from > the hospital. > > I would be for the legal use of marijuana, if you could test someone to see > if they are under the influence. (Like a breath test.) But as far as I > know, you can only tell if they have THC in their blood, not able to > determine "when" that person had toked up. > > So, how will I be assured my airline Captain smoked up two days before the > flight, or two hours? (Besides smelling like a skunk.) > > If this technology came out, I would be all for the legalization. If people > want to sit around dazed and confused, go for it. Heck, I drink beer get > buzzed many o' time! > > Jason > '98 KLR650 > Phoenix, AZ > > Visit the KLR650 archives at > http://www.listquest.com/lq/search.html?ln=klr650 > > Post message: DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com > Subscribe: DSN_klr650-subscribe@yahoogroups.com > Unsubscribe: DSN_klr650-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > List owner: DSN_klr650-owner@yahoogroups.com > > Support Dual Sport News by subscribing at: > http://www.dualsportnews.com > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >

[Jason Lutz - ISDX]

- "Got to say man - this line about this support being a "front" for recreational drugs is a good distance off the mark, and, (speaking personally and professionally) smacks of the same ignorance that created the problem." Well this is my opinion plain and simple. It is up to you how you feel about it. If you believe it is ignorant, that is for you. I believe it is obvious. Kinda like these pot heads always pushing materials made from hemp. You know they say, "You can't get high from it." I don't disagree, but why are they so caught up trying to legalize hemp for fabric? Because that is just a first step in complete legalization. Do you trust doctors to apply common sense when giving prescriptions? Or will the illness depend on your check book? Kinda like Phen Phen being prescribed to skinny teenagers. - "Your assumptions are unfounded and unwelcome." So you do not believe this subject is open for discussion and opinion? Is this your idea of the answer?

[geoffluttrell@yahoo.com]

Hello Jason, "why are they so caught up trying to legalize hemp for fabric? Because that is just a first step in complete legalization." First off, hemp is a incredible renewable resource. You can make fabric finer than silk, the oil has many uses, paper can be made, and it grows much faster than the trees it would take for the same amount of goods. Second, what's the problem with legalization? Take care, Geoff

--- In DSN_klr650@y..., Jason Lutz - ISDX wrote: > - "Got to say man - this line about this support being a "front" for > recreational drugs is a good distance off the mark, and, (speaking > personally and professionally) smacks of the same ignorance that created the > problem." > > Well this is my opinion plain and simple. It is up to you how you feel > about it. If you believe it is ignorant, that is for you. I believe it is > obvious. Kinda like these pot heads always pushing materials made from > hemp. You know they say, "You can't get high from it." I don't disagree, > but why are they so caught up trying to legalize hemp for fabric? Because > that is just a first step in complete legalization. > > Do you trust doctors to apply common sense when giving prescriptions? Or > will the illness depend on your check book? Kinda like Phen Phen being > prescribed to skinny teenagers. > > - "Your assumptions are unfounded and unwelcome." > > So you do not believe this subject is open for discussion and opinion? Is > this your idea of the answer?

[Dan Oaks]

Here, Here! -- bierdo geoffluttrell@... wrote:

> Hello Jason, > > Where so you get your info? Diseased people don't ride KLR's, so > medical pot is a front? That is quite a leap of logic. I had > cancer. When I was sick, my doctors would prescribe a wide range of > pills, xanax, valium, to try to ease my discomfort. Included was > marinol, a synthetic THC. The problem with marinol is that you take > it orally, which is pretty difficult when you are throwing up every > couple of minutes. Having also used drugs recreationally (way back > in the day), I saw pot as a viable option, as I needed the drug that > was already prescribed, only in a different form. I had to try to > find smokeable THC so that I could eat. I risked arrest, and felt > ashamed of the fact that I was helping myself. This is the stigma > that society has given pot. I think the reason the protestors look > like hippies is that they see through the illusion of "pot is bad". > I hope they will develop a "breath-test" for all the prescription > uppers and downers so we can fly in peace. Until then I guess we can > hope that America's politicians will come to thier senses, legalize > it, and move on. It is inevitable. > > Take care, > > Geoff > > --- In DSN_klr650@y..., Jason Lutz - ISDX wrote: > > I don't mean to sound like a stiff, and I do not mean to create any > type of > > ruckus. > > > > But... > > > > I would not ride with anyone under the influence of THC, and I > would not > > ride with anyone in possession of Marijuana. > > > > I don't think anyone on this list has any type of debilitating > disease > > enough to smoke marijuana. Diseased people don't usually ride > KLR's. So > > one could conclude that this support for medical marijuana is a > front to > > allow recreational drugs. Those people hanging out in front of the > Supreme > > Court looked like they came straight from a Grateful Dead concert, > not from > > the hospital. > > > > I would be for the legal use of marijuana, if you could test > someone to see > > if they are under the influence. (Like a breath test.) But as far > as I > > know, you can only tell if they have THC in their blood, not able to > > determine "when" that person had toked up. > > > > So, how will I be assured my airline Captain smoked up two days > before the > > flight, or two hours? (Besides smelling like a skunk.) > > > > If this technology came out, I would be all for the legalization. > If people > > want to sit around dazed and confused, go for it. Heck, I drink > beer get > > buzzed many o' time! > > > > Jason > > '98 KLR650 > > Phoenix, AZ >