Hey all, have any of you ever had to deal with those people who just give MJ a really bad name? I mean, isnt MJ supposed to be used for peace and such, and just plain old chillin? The people who im talking about are the people who try to rip you off when you try to get a sack, or who skimp you hella when you get a sack. Is it just me, or do these kinds of people give MJ a really bad name? Everyone around where i live are all about the money, and they make more illin than chillin. I wish there were more people who would smoke each other out, and everyone would be equal, and wouldnt squabble over bag weight or any such thing as that. I think that hippies need to come back, cuz at least they were for peace, not war. Any one agree?
its not them man. there just doin bussiness like corporations do bussiness. its the DEA who gave pot its bad name and its them who continue to infect childrens minds with thier sick & sadistic beliefs that pot is an evil drug that will tear up your family, hurt your freinds, make you live on the street, catch aids and eventually die.
i listen to the hippie music but wouldn't call myself one at the concerts that's all there is hippies tryin to rip people off anyway they can buy sellin fake drugs. i just trust one freind/dealer who never rips me off and always got kind buds.
Ofcourse pot is an evil drug! I dont know who you guys can smoke it!!! Haven't you seen the DEA's adverts from the 50's? Pot makes you think you can fly!
Pot Top Weed Deew Ganja Ajnag Reefer Refeer Dope epod Mary Jane Enaj yram Marijuana anaujiram Marhuana anauhram Bong gnob pipe epip Hookah Hakooh
DEA?? why does it always have to be the damn DEA there's no DEA in any other countries??? and its still got a bad image and **** maybe its GOD!!!
No, its definitly the DEA's fault. They cause the majority of problems in this world. Its all down to them and their mates!
kennedy spoke of legalizing pot and not getting involved in vietnam with lyndon johnson as his VP. then Kennedy was killed, johnson took over, we entered vietnam and the dea was founded? id say johnson is the devil. good thing hes dead. he's the only liberal i know that thinks using military force to push americas foriegn policies is a good idea. isnt that kinda contradicting? im surprised no one ever arrested johnson for murder. which kennedy also got shot in his kitchen just before he was about to re-open JFK's case? RFK i think? forgot. oh well, lets smoke some more maybe ill remember!
God isnt the reason, he's the one who put the plant on the planet! So i think the DEA and the government is the devil then!
Sylent- You would probably know this one: Wasn't the "War on Drugs" started by Tricky Dicky? Not sure...
your right useless, richard nixon used drugs and drug addicts to get re-elected. i dug up a text document i had on this. im gona copy it here for you all to read cuz it explains it better than my stoned ass would! it even shows how tony blair later copied nixons idea to work for him. As we are coming up to a general election, one in which the drugs/crime link will play its part, it's perhaps worth going back in history to look at other elections in which telling porkies about drugs and crime helped political parties to win office. Our first example shows how linking drugs and crime helped an American President get re-elected and stay in office. The President in question was Richard Nixon (himself no stranger to excessive drinking and prescription drug abuse) and the time was back in the late 1960s early 1970s. Nixon (or 'Tricky Dicky' as he was known) won the 1968 election on the back of a law and order campaign. When he got in, he found that the President actually didn't control law enforcement anywhere except Washington DC itself. What he did control, however, was the Federal budget, the cash in other words. Faced with a further election in 1972 and rising crime rates, he gave his staff (many of them to become Watergate conspirators and inmates of Federal prisons) the task of finding a solution (real or imaginary) to street crime. What they came up with was a moral panic about drugs, heroin in particular. What followed were stacks of Government cash to fight a "war on drugs". Nixon's henchmen started by manufacturing an 'epidemic'. In 1971, the Nixon administration claimed that addicts were responsible for $18 billion of property crime a year. Whereas the total for all US property crime was in fact $1.3 billion a year. Okay. Having multiplied the figure for property crime then the next trick was to grossly inflate the number of addicts. Official statistics showed that there were around 68,000 US addicts. With a bit of jiggery-pokery these figures were reworked to give a figure first of 315,000, then a figure of 599,000. A tenfold increase in junkie numbers in two years! As in Britain, other politicians and the American media swallowed this **** without a murmur. Then came the real masterstroke. A couple of years after Nixon’s re-election, the boys at the White House reworked the figures again to show a decrease in the figures to 150,000. A decrease which was hailed as the evidence for the success of the war on drugs!1 Our second example, comes from our old friends Tony and Jack, back in the early 1990s when they were setting out to win power from the Tories. In 1994 Tony Blair was Shadow Home Secretary and just getting started in the drugs cause crime game. Addict crime, he once told Parliament, made up 70% of the total of property crime "in some areas". Some time later he stated that addicts were responsible for 50% of all recorded property crime2 . Even John Major’s Tory Government found that hard to swallow. So they commissioned the then Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence to both estimate the costs of addict property crime and how much of the overall property crime figure this represented. The ISDD found that giving a soundly based answer to the question was made extremely difficult by incomplete research data and the very dodgy and mistaken assumptions about these questions that were floating about then. After surveying the British and the international literature, the best they could come up with was a figure (for the early 1990s) of between £58 million and £864 million each year. Equivalent to between 1% and 21% of the annual cost of acquisitive crime reported to the police in 1992. Roughly up to one-fifth of recorded property crime then. Whether it was 1% or 21% or somewhere in the middle (or anywhere else for that matter) the ISDD simply couldn’t say3. These estimates appeared in the Tory’s national drug strategy.4 Well that wasn’t good enough for Tony and Jack. Even the top of the range estimate of up to one-fifth was nowhere near Tony’s 50%. By now Tony was Leader of New Labour and Jack had got Tony’s job as Shadow Home Secretary and an election was coming! So, in 1996, Jack returned to the debate in a paper called Breaking the Vicious Circle: Labour’s Proposals to Tackle Drug Related Crime. One piece of research the ISDD had used was a study of 279 male heroin addicts admitted to methadone maintenance programmes in Southern California between 1978 and 1980. 160 were Chicano and 119 white5 . In this study, the addicts surveyed all said they earned 48% (almost half) of their income from property crime. A figure higher than any other research study in America or Europe had found and one the ISDD thought owed more to the way the study was designed than how Californian addicts raised money. Indeed, the ISDD suggested that the "simplistic" methods used in this study would be one reason for dumping it, but to calculate a full range it was included. Jack had no such problems with this study and promptly built it into his calculations. Using this (and various other inflated assumptions) Jack got the figure to £1.318 billion annually6 . Roughly a third of the supposed annual property crime figure for that period in the 1990s and by then everyone had forgotten Tony’s earlier statements completely. Well done Jack! Champagne all round! New Labour won the election and that is how we got stuck with the now impossible to argue with ‘fact’ that addicts are responsible for around one-third of recorded property crime.
