[Someone Else]

The ratio between Americans and everybody else is, if I had to pull it out of my ass, probably 1:3 or 1:4 on this forum so I have a good idea as to what the response will be. I'm doing a paper which is mostly focusing on it, and I still don't know half as much as I'd like to about the reform and as such I don't have much of an opinion on it. Thankfully, having no opinion on it helps my paper, but I digress.

In an extremely tight nutshell that leaves out a good deal of the details because I'm informed like that, the good thing about the reform is that it'll provide healthcare insurance to all Americans if they want it. While it will be very expensive to start with, it'll hopefully reduce medical costs in the long run. It'll cost around 100 billion a year over ten years, but IIRC that's about the same cost as the war in Iraq and we're going to begin withdrawing troops in a little over a year. In order to help pay for this, wealthy people will see an increase in their taxes.

So uh... discuss. Do you like the reform?

[ThankMeLater]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_r...e_United_States

not to spam; don't really know or care about youse guys's health care, but that's a massive wall of text on the recent health care reform debate, so i'm sure you'll find some shit about it.

[Caael]

Yeah I like it. Discuss it heavily in my economics class and i'm a huyge advocate in favour of it. 15% of Americans have no insurance at all and, and a huge number I think around 45 million were underinsured. That's a pretty large percentage of the total population.

The only substantiated argument from those against it (ie arguements that aren't 'obama is comyunst!11') is that the doctors under the health service would get less pay, and that taxes would have to be raised. The tax increase would be negligable, and because it's income tax (as far as I'm aware, dont know too much about US economy), everything over a certain income bracket is taxed.

For example, say the income tax bracket is anybody earning over 50,000 gets a 25% tax on everything earned over 50,000. This means that somebody earning 60,000 would still get 57,500 of that money. I dont know about you but that's not a huge proportion as some people seem to think. The increases to pay for the health service would be absolutely miniscule.

As for doctors getting paid less, it's purely contextual and as far as I'm aware, theres no solid evidence to prove this. If somebody could argue otherwise, I'd be happy to debate this.

[Golden Legacy]

I'm fairly passionate about this issue myself. By far the most immediate need is to end the practice by health insurance companies to deny coverage based on previous history or "pre-existing conditions". Effective monopolizing by companies allows annual premiums to increase while giving them the leeway of not paying for people's healthcare when they actually need it most.

The most important clarification to bring up is that the debate in the US largely centers around healthcare coverage (i.e. how healthcare is paid for, instead of who or what 'provides' the actual doctor-patient care).

With that said, the most substantial and cost-containing mechanism - a Medicare-for-all public option - may or not be included in the final bill. It would be unfortunate if it wasn't... there is plenty of other worthwhile legislation though, including an insurance exchange to select from, allowing children to stay on their parents' plans until age 25, tax credits for small businesses to purchase healthcare, ending discrimination based on "high risk demographics" such as females and minorities... plenty of good stuff.

[Someone Else]

I've already turned in my paper. I'm pretty confident that I'll get a decent score on it despite still feeling like I have no grasp on the reform, but considering that it's still debated I guess I can't beat myself up for it too much.

During my research, one thing that I discovered that the repubs liked to bring up is that Obama's reform would "threaten private insurance", any thoughts on that?

[Golden Legacy]

"Threatened" in what way, and why?

[Someone Else]

Specifically I got the quote from this ad, courtesy of the RNC.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=eH8pOnxcKyA

My paper was intended to be a response to that ad, which was pretty easy to do as the ethos for it was pretty non-existent. For the record, I could've been on the ad's side if I wanted to, but it basically sets up a bunch of pins for me to just bowl down.

I suppose they're basically worried that government-run healthcare would take business away from private health insurance companies, as the reform would bring healthcare options for those that are uninsured.

[Golden Legacy]

Which naturally overlooks the fact that those who currently have coverage will be allowed to keep it. The scope of the healthcare reform is meant primarily for the uninsured and the under-insured, with limitations on some of the worst acts committed by insurance corporations against anyone. They're the largest industry that does not have any meaningful anti-trust legislation or regulations on tactics to maximize profit and minimize actual care provided.

There is an ounce of truth in that if a Medicare-for-all option is established, insurance companies would now have to compete against against public coverage, which would be available for anyone (including those who could not ordinarily afford it). In order for health insurance companies to maintain themselves, they would, yes, have to scale back their costs and provide actual affordable coverage for a chance. They would have to stop denying people coverage based on bullshit claims and would stop the ever-increasing premiums, the loopholes and contractual limitations. This is what competition will do to the industry, meaning they would have to adapt and start being fair to their customers to have a chance.

And if it means they will no longer have $10 billion annual profits, ahh, so be it. I can't find myself crying for them.

[Toasty]

The reason people are worried about the private insurance companies being driven out of business, isn't because the think the government will force people into the public option. It's because they're afraid that since the public option is cheaper, people will go for that instead; even if it provides worse coverage.

Also, traditionally speaking, most doctors tend to dislike dealing with medicare, since they have to jump through a ridiculous number of hoops to get anything done. Medicare also doesn't cover as many medicines iirc, leading the doctors to try and find a way around it so they can get their patient the right medicine.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Mar 12 2010, 09:35 PM, said:

The reason people are worried about the private insurance companies being driven out of business, isn't because the think the government will force people into the public option. It's because they're afraid that since the public option is cheaper, people will go for that instead; even if it provides worse coverage.

You're half right here. Having a public option, such as building on the already existing Medicare/Medicaid systems and extending that coverage to anyone, would challenge the profit-driven corporations as they currently are. A public option would force insurance companies to stop their increasing premiums, the thousands of dollars middle and lower-class families pay (for less care), and they would have to start providing more affordable options for their clients.

It would generate competition in an industry that right now is practically free to set its own standards, with barely any limits on how expensive procedures are, or anything to prevent them from dropping coverage when people need it most, or inflating premiums arbitrarily, or for denying coverage because of previous medical history or race and gender.

Quote

Also, traditionally speaking, most doctors tend to dislike dealing with medicare, since they have to jump through a ridiculous number of hoops to get anything done. Medicare also doesn't cover as many medicines iirc, leading the doctors to try and find a way around it so they can get their patient the right medicine.

This is, again, somewhat true. Medicare provides plans that are administered together with certain insurance companies or HMOs. Most medicines are covered, but plans do vary and there are exceptions where this comes out of pocket... this became an issue when it became increasingly privatized in 2006. There is enough of an overlap with Medicaid where it can account for those situations, however.

On that note, it is a well-regarded issue that doctors often over-prescribe medications and procedures, and this has more to do with the fear of malpractice lawsuits. This is not isolated to any one method of health coverage - the possibility of being sued causes doctors to take the 'safe route' in providing their care, mandating unnecessary tests and medicine, which inflates the prices heavily.

Malpractice reform, which is necessary for the entire industry as a whole, is definitely an issue that is required.

[Toasty]

I think there should be more limits (assuming there are any) on what exactly you can sue for when it comes to malpractice suits.

I mean, I understand that there are some bad doctors out there, or that some good ones slip up, and I think that the affected people should be compensated. But if malpractice suits are over used, we get put in the situation we're in now. Increased costs due to excessive safety precautions.

The main thing I'm worried about with healthcare reform, though, is that the doctor's wages could be cut down. Even if it's just by a little, I think it's unacceptable. Doctors wages have been seeing a steady decline in the past decade, and the cost and time that you'd need to invest to become one hasn't changed. If anything, it's increased.

And now I'm hearing something about the government taking over responsibility for student loans. Which would be an absolute nightmare, to be honest.

[Golden Legacy]

I agree entirely about malpractice reform. It's obscene that doctors have to insure themselves in the hundreds of thousands of dollars at times to avoid the damage from lawsuits. That is something that is deeper than just healthcare though, as certainly lawsuits are filed widely and often outrageously. A shift in perception/culture is what is needed in that regard.

Do you have any data to back up that doctor's wages will be decreased?

And government "taking over" responsibility for student loans is not even remotely true. What's proposed is an expansion of already available federal scholarships, loans, and grants, including more subsidized Stafford Loans and providing more Pell Grants. As a college student, I cannot understate how much these have helped me personally and thousands of others.

[Toasty]

What I've come to understand, is that no more private money will be available for scholarships, as all of it will be run through the government. Worse yet, this is being put into the healthcare bill, which isn't supposed to have anything to do with education.

It would be great if we could have a line item veto, but we don't. So completely irrelevant pieces of legislation (which could be harmful to America) can get passed just for the sake of passing a bill which is perceived as being a necessity.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Mar 21 2010, 09:18 PM, said:

What I've come to understand, is that no more private money will be available for scholarships, as all of it will be run through the government. Worse yet, this is being put into the healthcare bill, which isn't supposed to have anything to do with education.

Let's add in a few details.

Allow me: currently, there are federal funds, scholarships, loans, and grants all available. Federal loans are given by the government and distributed by private lenders.

I have such a loan. Let's call the lender Citibank. The loan I have from Citibank is actually funded by the government, but the manner of it being allocated and actually dispersed to my account to be used is handled by Citibank, which acts as a middleman, a merchant, an intermediate, whatever you want to call it.

Now, it was possible for me to have gone to Citibank DIRECTLY and get a loan (any loan) from them DIRECTLY, with THEIR money. They can, still do, and will still continue to offer their own corporate loans, independent of the government.

What the student loan overhaul does is SEPARATE the government loans from any merchant or middleman, to cut costs. These were -already- federal funds to begin with, but now they will be withheld and will not have to go through with a middleman to distribute them (there is presumably some sort of agreement between the interaction of federal funds and the private corporate lenders, with fees being paid to the corporate lenders in exchange for them handling the distribution of loans).

By separating the two, the estimate is that approximately $90 billion that would normally be lost on fees to corporate lenders will be freed up, to be channeled back into providing grants. PRIVATE LENDERS CAN AND STILL DO OFFER LOANS. The only difference is the manner in which federal funds are given out.

tl;dr Federal fund allocation different. Private loans still available. Grants doubled. Scholarships remain. The march towards Marxism continues.

Quote

It would be great if we could have a line item veto, but we don't. So completely irrelevant pieces of legislation (which could be harmful to America) can get passed just for the sake of passing a bill which is perceived as being a necessity.

I agree.

[Caael]

Well, go US. 7 votes, close call.

[Toasty]

Actually, it was 4 votes, since if four of the dems who voted yes had voted no, it wouldn't have passed.

Gosh dangit. At least the republicans now stand a good chance of winning next election.

[Golden Legacy]

That depends. Midterm elections generally do go favorably for the opposing party (i.e. Republicans against Clinton in 1994, every midterm election in the 20th century), but if you mean the next presidential election, then that is not something anyone can say for certain (i.e. Clinton's large reelection in 1996, every other president that's been reelected since FDR in 1936).

[Someone Else]

I decided that I'm in favor for this reform so... woot!

Anyway, I think Toasty means Obama being elected for another term. Which I think is still too early to tell, though if I had to go on a gut instinct I'd say it looks doubtful.

[Golden Legacy]

I have mixed feelings on this reform. The fight for true healthcare will not end until there is a true universal healthcare system, a Medicare-for-all public option, and/or an insurance industry that is entirely non-profit. Along the lines of the Scandinavian model, Japan, or Germany/France.

However, in the sense that this is still the most powerful overhaul of healthcare in the US in a century - presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon, and Clinton all tried and failed - in the sense that this is the most powerful piece of social legislation since LBJ's passing of Medicare, Medicaid, and the civil rights legislation, in the sense that this *finally* brings such fundamental reforms to the insurance industry and finally gives a chance for the tens of millions uninsured and underinsured and so many others, this is a monumental achievement.

This bill is not the end, and it could have been so much more had it not been scaled back... but it's a start, a fantastic start and something to build on for the future. Great stuff!

[Toasty]

GL, all the healthcare bill is, is a huge power grab. The government now has more control than ever, and they sure do intend on doing a lot more with it.

I don't think you have any idea what's in store for America in the near future.

Someone Else, on Mar 22 2010, 09:44 PM, said:

I decided that I'm in favor for this reform so... woot!

Anyway, I think Toasty means Obama being elected for another term. Which I think is still too early to tell, though if I had to go on a gut instinct I'd say it looks doubtful.

No, I'm talking about the midterm congressional elections.

[My Best Wishes]

So this is basically just brought America up to speed with the rest of the world, with the kind of healthcare countries like Australia provide? And that's bad how Toasty.

I saw Sicko, and despite Michael Moore being very biased, USA's healthcare system looked...inadequate. Guy has to decide between saving the tips of his middle and ring finger because he can only afford to reattach one? That's broken.

[Nosferatu]

Toasty, on Mar 22 2010, 11:55 PM, said:

GL, all the healthcare bill is, is a huge power grab. The government now has more control than ever, and they sure do intend on doing a lot more with it.

I have a hard time believing you care about the government having more power to do with you what they will.

My Best Wishes, on Mar 23 2010, 01:48 AM, said:

So this is basically just brought America up to speed with the rest of the world, with the kind of healthcare countries like Australia provide? And that's bad how Toasty.

Durr he's a friggin' moron.

In all seriousness, good for you USA. You may actually not be a joke by the end of this decade.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Mar 23 2010, 02:55 AM, said:

GL, all the healthcare bill is, is a huge power grab. The government now has more control than ever, and they sure do intend on doing a lot more with it.

Uhh... except for the fact that there isn't a public option? Except for the fact that the insurance, profit-driven industry is still the basis of US healthcare? Except for the fact that now, millions of people who don't have insurance now have a fighting chance, and that insurance companies are banned from dropping coverage when children get sick, or raising premiums arbitrarily, or forcing people with disabilities to pay more? Except that now, 80-85% of all insurance profits have to be funneled back into providing actual care, and not CEO bonuses or stocks?

P.S. This bill is very similar to the one Richard Nixon, a Republican, proposed four decades ago.

This bill is very similar to the Republican plan that was offered as an alternative to Clinton's more universal system.

This bill is very similar to the one Mitt Romney, a Republican, created in Massachusetts.

My Best Wishes, on Mar 23 2010, 04:48 AM, said:

So this is basically just brought America up to speed with the rest of the world, with the kind of healthcare countries like Australia provide? And that's bad how Toasty.

Not yet... not by a longshot. But it's definitely the beginning towards getting there. The US is still the only developed nation in the world without a universal system for all... but this bill lays the foundation for it and gets us on our way.

In the meanwhile, you still reserve the right to poke fun at us.

[Caael]

Toasty, on Mar 23 2010, 07:55 AM, said:

GL, all the healthcare bill is, is a huge power grab. The government now has more control than ever, and they sure do intend on doing a lot more with it.

Because every country with a nationalised health service are totalitarian regimes.

[TheEnglishman]

Caael, on Mar 23 2010, 08:03 PM, said:

Because every country with a nationalised health service are totalitarian regimes.

So that's why I've been seeing those giant posters of Gordon Brown...

[Toasty]

Caael, on Mar 23 2010, 01:03 PM, said:

Because every country with a nationalised health service are totalitarian regimes.

You really like to jump to conclusions.

What you all don't seem to realize, is exactly what else got put into the bill, that doesn't even have anything to do with healthcare.


If any of you had read the bill, you wouldn't be so happy about this.


I'm not gonna bother debating this anymore, since I lack the patience to keep up with what I can easily see would be ahead of me. So have fun with you crappy public option that very few doctors are going to want to put up with.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, honest question: have you read the bill?

[Toasty]

I've got the .PDF floating around somewhere on my computer, and yes, I have read parts of the bill. I'll admit I haven't read it all, but that's obviously due to it's ridiculous size, and my busy schedule (and relatively short attention span).

[Ironsight]

Isn't it, like, 2,000 pages long or something?

[Toasty]

Something like that. There's a reason why so few people out there really know what's in the bill (including most of the senators and representatives of the house).

[Golden Legacy]

That's right, we all need to follow in your example and be as well-informed as you are.


P.S. Point to the exact provision, wording, heading, and/or line in the bill that establishes a public option. Search if you have to. (You're not going to find it, because there exists no such thing. This bill does not create a public option. You are absolutely lying.)

[Toasty]

I never said it created a public option GL. Point to me where I said that.

What I'm saying, is that it gives the government more control than it should ever have. Establishing a public option certainly isn't the only way to do that.

And honestly, I'd suggest getting a copy of the PDF yourself so you can skim through it at the least. I'm not a robot, so it's not like I can recall the specific line on the spot. And due to the size of the thing (and reasons I stated earlier), it's not likely that I'd be able to even give that line to you in any reasonable amount of time.


Also GL, I'd expect that you'd be better informed than I am, since I haven't really been watching the news all that often as of late. Save for the night before last when congress was voting on the bill.

[Nosferatu]

Caael, on Mar 23 2010, 01:03 PM, said:

Because every country with a nationalised health service are totalitarian regimes.

Toasty, on Mar 23 2010, 09:12 PM, said:

You really like to jump to conclusions.

You appear to be missing the ability to detect sarcasm.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Mar 24 2010, 12:12 AM, said:

I'm not gonna bother debating this anymore, since I lack the patience to keep up with what I can easily see would be ahead of me. So have fun with you crappy public option that very few doctors are going to want to put up with.

You made it quite clear here that you thought a public option was being created. It is not being created. As someone who has been following the passage of the healthcare bill (including with my own PDF files, thank you very much), I remember when the public option was included. Had the entire bill been nothing but a 1-page expansion of Medicare as a public option for everyone, that alone would have fulfilled the goal of having reform. It was removed early on as one of the early concessions made to Republicans in the hope of gaining their votes, a very stupid attempt. This bill has been repeatedly scaled back, scaled down, and had some of its most effective provisions removed. I'm crossing my fingers in the hopes that, down the line, a public option can be reintroduced, which would complete the goal of reform towards universal healthcare.

And your, "what I'm saying, is that it gives the government more control than it should ever have", is not a claim that you have legitimately backed up. You have not demonstrated in any capacity how this true, why it would be true, and what would result from it. You've taken the classic fearmongering point used against such legislation - whether it was Social Security in the 1930s, Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, with false cries of "GOVERNMENT! SOCIALISM! MARXISM! COMMUNISM!" - and pretend to make that a cohesive argument.

Instead of randomly providing wishy-washy, exaggerated rhetoric, point to an example of a provision in the bill. Let's debate a specific here. An actual specific, not a vague and unsubstantiated claim.

[Nosferatu]

Golden Legacy, on Mar 23 2010, 10:32 PM, said:

tl;dr correct

Toasty, all you're doing is taking the same bullshit goddamn stance that every uneduacted Ameri**** is taking. "OH NO IT ISN'T EXACTLY WHAT AMERICA IS. IT MUST BE COMMUNIST-SOCIALISM." You know, the good 90% or so fucking percent of people in the USA that don't even know any specifics ABOUT the damn bill. I don't even live in the fucking USA, and I couldn't care less about your politics, but I understand what the fucking bill is to a good point. Your cries of "FUCK YEAH USA" mean nothing in an actual debate. And yes, I'm paraphrasing your god damn retardism because if you can't be fucked to actually know anything about the bill you're arguing against you don't fucking deserve to be taken seriously in a debate.

Just off the record, but on topic of retarded Americans, does anyone in the USA know what the fucking definitions of/ differences between socialism and communism are? Or is Toasty a good example of your average dumb American?

[Toasty]

And now you're talking like a Progressive. "They're not smart enough to think for themselves, so we'll do all the thinking for them. They'll surely be better off in the end!"

I'd also appreciate it if you quit blowing my stance out of proportion. Just because I'm more grounded in reality than you are, doesn't mean I'm a fanatical conservative.

As far as "not knowing about the bill," I know a hell of a lot more than you do. Though it doesn't really matter what I say it's going to do, because you'll just accuse me of being biased without even reading the bill yourself so you yourself actually get an unbiased look at it instead of trusting everything your far-left media sources spout out of their gaping assholes.

Also take note about how I'm actually making relevant points here, instead of calling names (which you apparently seem to think is a great way of debating people).

As for your question, socialism is a philosophy, and communism is a form of government and economy all wrapped up into one. Socialism is very similar to marxism, which teaches that you should "Take from those according to their ability, and give to those according to their need." Which sounds all fine and dandy until you step back and realize that it's referring to forced redistribution of wealth.

Golden Legacy, on Mar 23 2010, 10:32 PM, said:

You made it quite clear here that you thought a public option was being created. It is not being created. As someone who has been following the passage of the healthcare bill (including with my own PDF files, thank you very much), I remember when the public option was included. Had the entire bill been nothing but a 1-page expansion of Medicare as a public option for everyone, that alone would have fulfilled the goal of having reform. It was removed early on as one of the early concessions made to Republicans in the hope of gaining their votes, a very stupid attempt. This bill has been repeatedly scaled back, scaled down, and had some of its most effective provisions removed. I'm crossing my fingers in the hopes that, down the line, a public option can be reintroduced, which would complete the goal of reform towards universal healthcare.

And your, "what I'm saying, is that it gives the government more control than it should ever have", is not a claim that you have legitimately backed up. You have not demonstrated in any capacity how this true, why it would be true, and what would result from it. You've taken the classic fearmongering point used against such legislation - whether it was Social Security in the 1930s, Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, with false cries of "GOVERNMENT! SOCIALISM! MARXISM! COMMUNISM!" - and pretend to make that a cohesive argument.

Instead of randomly providing wishy-washy, exaggerated rhetoric, point to an example of a provision in the bill. Let's debate a specific here. An actual specific, not a vague and unsubstantiated claim.

Sorry, I apologize. Let me change that "Public Option" to "Healthcare Bill"

Also, I don't see how you get off saying it's been scaled back, when clearly, it's only grown more and more grotesque over time.

As far as my claims go, I'm telling you to go read some of the bill for yourself. I have better things to do with my time than skim through a 2000 page document to find the piece of text that backs my claims.


To be perfectly honest, I really think you should all go read up on the Soviet Union, the terms they used, the propaganda they used (all translated into english, obviously) , and the effects the Soviet Government's decisions had on the economy. I think you'll be surprised at how similar the terms they used are to what Obama and his supporters have been using.


Now really, I'm going to stay away from this topic. I've got a crapload of work to do. I trust that some of you will be intelligent enough to read up on what you so fervently support.

[My Best Wishes]

Toasty's and GL's conversation is kinda going over my head seeing as I'm all isolated down here at the bottom of the world, but has anyone else seen Sicko?

[Legolastom]

Toasty I try to see things from your point of view, I really do try... but you do realise you are comparing Obama to the soviet union?

[Golden Legacy]

My Best Wishes, on Mar 24 2010, 02:46 AM, said:

Toasty's and GL's conversation is kinda going over my head seeing as I'm all isolated down here at the bottom of the world, but has anyone else seen Sicko?

I've seen it.

Toasty, on Mar 24 2010, 02:44 AM, said:

As far as "not knowing about the bill," I know a hell of a lot more than you do. Though it doesn't really matter what I say it's going to do, because you'll just accuse me of being biased without even reading the bill yourself so you yourself actually get an unbiased look at it instead of trusting everything your far-left media sources spout out of their gaping assholes.

Word for word, a Glenn Beck fan.

"DA LIBURAL MEDIA WONT TELL U THE TRUTH. TRUST FOX NEWS AND THE BIBLE. PROGRESSIVES ARE THE CANCER OF AMERICA."

Quote

Also, I don't see how you get off saying it's been scaled back, when clearly, it's only grown more and more grotesque over time.

You just confirmed for me you have no idea what you're talking about. The original bill was far larger in scope and provided a greater breadth of universal care. The final bill dropped the public option, incorporated 200 amendments suggested by Republicans, limited the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid to the poor and elderly, and delayed some reforms against insurance companies by a few years.

Quote

As far as my claims go, I'm telling you to go read some of the bill for yourself. I have better things to do with my time than skim through a 2000 page document to find the piece of text that backs my claims.

And what if I have read through it? What if I have read or skimmed through a few hundred pages of the bill, read on the major provisions elsewhere? For someone who hates having assumptions made about him...

Quote

To be perfectly honest, I really think you should all go read up on the Soviet Union, the terms they used, the propaganda they used (all translated into english, obviously) , and the effects the Soviet Government's decisions had on the economy. I think you'll be surprised at how similar the terms they used are to what Obama and his supporters have been using.

That's Comrade Obama to you, Comrade.

[Caael]

Toasty, on Mar 24 2010, 07:44 AM, said:

To be perfectly honest, I really think you should all go read up on the Soviet Union, the terms they used, the propaganda they used (all translated into english, obviously) , and the effects the Soviet Government's decisions had on the economy. I think you'll be surprised at how similar the terms they used are to what Obama and his supporters have been using.

Now that you mention it...


http://i44.tinypic.com/19bdoh.jpg

I do KIND of see a connection

[Nosferatu]

@Toasty: I've only been watching the topic this whole time. GL is right, you're an idiot and I don't like being nice. If you're going to say you know all about the bill go right ahead and sum the whole thing up.

Toasty, on Mar 23 2010, 11:44 PM, said:

As far as my claims go, I'm telling you to go read some of the bill for yourself. I have better things to do with my time than skim through a 2000 page document to find the piece of text that backs my claims.
To be perfectly honest, I really think you should all go read up on the Soviet Union, the terms they used, the propaganda they used (all translated into english, obviously) , and the effects the Soviet Government's decisions had on the economy.

In the same post you tell us you can't be fucked to go back and look at something and then you tell us to go back and look at shit?

Yeah I'll get right on that, Captain Dumbass.

Edit: Just because I found it during my morningly rounds, An Open Letter to Conservatives.

[My Best Wishes]

Golden Legacy, on Mar 25 2010, 02:30 AM, said:

I've seen it.

Was it accurate?

[Saturos S.]

Though I don't know the specifics of the healthcare reform in the US and from what I gather it's lost quite a lot of it's effectiveness due to the fact they need a consensus, in essential I still think it's a good thing.

All people have a right to have basic things like education, food&drink and in this case healthcare and if those people can't provide it for themselves, it's more than natural that the government lends a hand. It says a lot about the USA that it takes this much effort to convince people that everyone should have access to these basic needs just because that means "the government has too much power." The government has the bloody power to declare wars without even a good reason but when giving their own citizens healthcare it's met with such dissent.

Over here in a national newspaper there's a weekly column called "Typical for America" which illustrates incidents in the USA which seem so absurd over here, but are so normal over there. I'll try and look up a few examples later but I've never seen a country so patriotic and self-aggronising yet so divided at the same time.

[Sea of Time]

My Best Wishes, on Mar 25 2010, 12:21 AM, said:

Was it accurate?

Speaking from the POV of a Canadian, it was (for the most part) accurate. Yes, it's Michael Moore and he takes liberties in his rhetorical creation of the truth, but he hit the nail on the head when it came to European countries having better health care.

And since I haven't read the entire health care bill like GL and Toasty, they're over my head too, and I wanted to talk about what every conservative or half-way right wing American is worried about: universal health care (AKA SOCIALISM).

Canada is not a socialist country. In fact, our "conservative" government is in power right now, and they're only slightly more liberal than the Republican party (though with the pandering to Tea Party Patriots, the Republicans soil themselves further to the right every day).

Yet we have universal health care.

FACT: We do wait longer to get a doctor than you would in the U.S. under regular circumstances. Which is understandable, since HEALTH CARE IS FREE.

And yes, FACT: HEALTH CARE IS FREE.

If what you're doing to yourself isn't cosmetic or for some "higher purpose" then you will get covered by public insurance.

Now I recognize that the U.S. is a huge nation and complete universal health care might not be the best idea. But come on, the changes they've made are only positive. They're not killing seniors. They're giving them more options. They're saving the country huge money in the long run. And since when does America love private corporations? The insurance people are a bunch of assholes, and it's about time somebody tried to stop them. ISN'T THAT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS THERE FOR?

Oh and by the way. If I hear one more person complain about raised taxes in America, I will punch a baby. Because JUST LAST YEAR Obama CUT TAXES TO 95% OF AMERICANS. So unless you own CitiCorp, your taxes are lower now then they were in 2008.

And that's my two cents. Insert conservative bullshit response here.

[Caael]

Sea of Time, on Mar 29 2010, 08:33 PM, said:

Speaking from the POV of a Canadian, it was (for the most part) accurate. Yes, it's Michael Moore and he takes liberties in his rhetorical creation of the truth, but he hit the nail on the head when it came to European countries having better health care.

And since I haven't read the entire health care bill like GL and Toasty, they're over my head too, and I wanted to talk about what every conservative or half-way right wing American is worried about: universal health care (AKA SOCIALISM).

Canada is not a socialist country. In fact, our "conservative" government is in power right now, and they're only slightly more liberal than the Republican party (though with the pandering to Tea Party Patriots, the Republicans soil themselves further to the right every day).

Yet we have universal health care.

FACT: We do wait longer to get a doctor than you would in the U.S. under regular circumstances. Which is understandable, since HEALTH CARE IS FREE.

And yes, FACT: HEALTH CARE IS FREE.

If what you're doing to yourself isn't cosmetic or for some "higher purpose" then you will get covered by public insurance.

Now I recognize that the U.S. is a huge nation and complete universal health care might not be the best idea. But come on, the changes they've made are only positive. They're not killing seniors. They're giving them more options. They're saving the country huge money in the long run. And since when does America love private corporations? The insurance people are a bunch of assholes, and it's about time somebody tried to stop them. ISN'T THAT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS THERE FOR?

Oh and by the way. If I hear one more person complain about raised taxes in America, I will punch a baby. Because JUST LAST YEAR Obama CUT TAXES TO 95% OF AMERICANS. So unless you own CitiCorp, your taxes are lower now then they were in 2008.

And that's my two cents. Insert conservative bullshit response here.

I <3 u

[Golden Legacy]

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/082/6/f/The_End_of_America_by_humon.jpg

[My Best Wishes]

Man Australia looks cool in its Aussie flag and tan.

[Toasty]

I like how America is made out to be all big and tough in appearance, and the other countries look like some hippie stoners from the 70's.

[Caael]

Toasty...words cannot describe how embarassed you make me feel to be part of the human race.

[Legolastom]

Toasty, on Mar 30 2010, 08:54 PM, said:

I like how America is made out to be all big and tough in appearance, and the other countries look like some hippie stoners from the 70's.

The fuck kind of stoners have you seen?

[ThankMeLater]

yea, toasty, you're fucking retarded. the only one that looks like a stoner is Australia.

[Toasty]

Legolastom, on Mar 30 2010, 02:14 PM, said:

The fuck kind of stoners have you seen?

The kind from the 70's. Like Bill Clinton and Al Gore. I'm pretty sure Nanci Pelosi was there too. But that was a long time ago. It's kind of hard to remember.

[ThankMeLater]

HA, i did an essay that started with clinton and gore's past weed use. either way, your perception of what a stoner looks like is way off.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Mar 30 2010, 06:10 PM, said:

The kind from the 70's. Like Bill Clinton and Al Gore. I'm pretty sure Nanci Pelosi was there too. But that was a long time ago. It's kind of hard to remember.

Oh heavens no! Not weed, ANYTHING but weed.

We all need to be Mr. Family Values like you!

[ThankMeLater]

HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEE'SSSSSS JOHNNY!

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Mar 30 2010, 04:01 PM, said:

Oh heavens no! Not weed, ANYTHING but weed.

We all need to be Mr. Family Values like you!

Actually you should. And no, I don't mean be like Newt, I mean be like a responsible human being who doesn't spend time and money on things that aren't productive and either make him tired and lazy, or really hungry.

[Golden Legacy]

And just to clarify, that includes those who cheat on their wife while recovering from cancer, Republican or Democrat, yes? That includes those who try to sexually appeal to underage boys, and gay sex and use of crystal meth by self-proclaimed God-fearing Evangelicals?

I want to ensure that there is no ounce of hypocrisy here.

[Toasty]

Yes, actually. It does.

[Golden Legacy]

I'm glad we agree.

[Mallick]

Toasty, on Mar 30 2010, 04:28 PM, said:

Actually you should. And no, I don't mean be like Newt, I mean be like a responsible human being who doesn't spend time and money on things that aren't productive and either make him tired and lazy, or really hungry.

The best part about this, aside from the stereotypical "ranger bob told me drugs are bad in school" side effects is that you claim that marijuana is counter productive. That in itself is counter-intuitive. Do you know how many actors, singer/song writers (many of which changed music forever and/or have been named the best) smoke weed as use of inspiration? How many people smoke weed just to relieve a bit of stress? To get through working a shitty paying 9-5 while they make their way through school? Smoke to make these fucking boring classes interesting in the first place? How many have to smoke a bowl just to deal with young white catholic boys who think homosexuality is an act against god despite the fact the bible says this in the exact same place that lists kosher laws? Do you know how inconclusive marijuana studies are? How readily able you can get a medical marijuana card from the U.S. Government? If this drug was really so terrible why would it be dispensed by your government so readily? Why would it be legal to smoke marijuana on stage if it was considered part of your act? Do you know how many viable uses marijuana and hemp has in your day to day life? KASJGlajgklagjlas I have no idea what I'm saying I would probably be able to hold a more intelligent argument if I still smoked weed that shit makes you smarter mannnnnnnnnnnn. :D

[ThankMeLater]

fact, maijuana is illegal, not because of it's harmfull effects, but because of hemp's cheaper-and-more-cost-effective-than-timber paper. however, many politicians, most notably william hearst, had large investments in the timber industry, and hemp replacing timber meant financial ruin. they decided to run a smear campaign, saying that weed was the devils drug, and that it made you go crazy to kill your neighbour. weed's not illegal because it's harmful, it's illegal because of very greedy politicians. yaaaay for government!

[Sea of Time]

This literally has nothing to do with health care reform.

[Golden Legacy]

Healthcare reform ---> Marxism ---> Canada ---> weed.

[Toasty]

SoT, it's like dating your 2nd cousin twice removed. It's alllllll good.

Mike Babcock, on Mar 30 2010, 06:22 PM, said:

The best part about this, aside from the stereotypical "ranger bob told me drugs are bad in school" side effects is that you claim that marijuana is counter productive. That in itself is counter-intuitive. Do you know how many actors, singer/song writers (many of which changed music forever and/or have been named the best) smoke weed as use of inspiration? How many people smoke weed just to relieve a bit of stress? To get through working a shitty paying 9-5 while they make their way through school? Smoke to make these fucking boring classes interesting in the first place? How many have to smoke a bowl just to deal with young white catholic boys who think homosexuality is an act against god despite the fact the bible says this in the exact same place that lists kosher laws? Do you know how inconclusive marijuana studies are? How readily able you can get a medical marijuana card from the U.S. Government? If this drug was really so terrible why would it be dispensed by your government so readily? Why would it be legal to smoke marijuana on stage if it was considered part of your act? Do you know how many viable uses marijuana and hemp has in your day to day life? KASJGlajgklagjlas I have no idea what I'm saying I would probably be able to hold a more intelligent argument if I still smoked weed that shit makes you smarter mannnnnnnnnnnn. :D

Point is, there's better ways to relieve stress, and there's better ways of getting inspiration. And you don't have to spend money on weed to get either.

And Skidz, I've seen what weed does to people first hand. I once convinced a friend if mine who was high, that he jumped through a portal in a Fred Meyer's bathroom and was teleported into the future.
Weed may not be proven to cause permanent damage of any sorts, so I'll believe that part to be true, but I certainly don't think that any sort of drug that alters the mind in any way is good for the body. And yes, that includes even over the counter drugs like Benedril, but Benedril has at least been put through clinical trials and has been approved by the FDA. That said, I still prefer not to use drugs of any kind, because almost all the time, they'll fix one problem and cause another. Heck, you can damage your stomach or liver or something by taking Tylenol too often (not even by OD'ing) if I remember correctly.

I'll still take meds when I'm sick, because usually the problems that they cause aren't as bad as the ones they fix, but I still prefer to stay away from them. And no, I'm not some kind of nature freak who's against modern medicine, I just don't like messing with my body's chemistry unless I have to.

[My Best Wishes]

How about the fact that weed turns people Schizophrenic and suicidal? I personally am/was friends with two people that that happened to, one is six feet under right now.

Yea I get it, it doesn't happen to everyone, I got some mates who tried it and they're sweet. Just like how my aunt and uncle, mum (used to), mates, teachers, co-workers drink, but they don't all cheat on and bash their wife's and kids, like my granddad did.

Use whatever rational you what, whatever logical tower of Babel, it's harmful to your bodies, that much is fact.

[Mallick]

Toasty, on Mar 30 2010, 09:48 PM, said:

SoT, it's like dating your 2nd cousin twice removed. It's alllllll good.



Point is, there's better ways to relieve stress, and there's better ways of getting inspiration. And you don't have to spend money on weed to get either.

There may be better ways to relieve stress, but it's not the same thing for every person. I know people who will run for miles upon miles as an effective way to relieve stress. I know people who enjoy painting or working with animals to relieve stress. Some people just don't have the time nor passion to do anything like this and turn to weed or alcohol. Personally, I'd rather go with thc. And wtf, I know of no better ways of finding inspiration. Please name a few inspirational activities/whatever that cannot be heightened by marijuana.

Toasty, on Mar 30 2010, 09:48 PM, said:

And Skidz, I've seen what weed does to people first hand. I once convinced a friend if mine who was high, that he jumped through a portal in a Fred Meyer's bathroom and was teleported into the future.

Your "first hand observations" have never served you well in the past, and right here is perfect evidence why. You've got to be either making it up, surrounding yourself with fucking idiots, be a moron yourself or any mix of the above. If you truly convinced your friend of this, he had to have been on some sort of hallucinogen because unless you've already got serious mental problems, you're not going to be tricked into believing this because you're high on marijuana. My only other theory is that he was playing along because when under the effects of THC, trivial shit like this is just funny.

Toasty, on Mar 30 2010, 09:48 PM, said:

Weed may not be proven to cause permanent damage of any sorts, so I'll believe that part to be true, but I certainly don't think that any sort of drug that alters the mind in any way is good for the body. And yes, that includes even over the counter drugs like Benedril, but Benedril has at least been put through clinical trials and has been approved by the FDA. That said, I still prefer not to use drugs of any kind, because almost all the time, they'll fix one problem and cause another. Heck, you can damage your stomach or liver or something by taking Tylenol too often (not even by OD'ing) if I remember correctly.

You can die from ODing on Tylenol 3, yeah. Overuse of plenty of drugs cause complications in your later years, of course. But this is a completely seperate matter. We aren't talking about overuse of marijuana, we're talking about use of it in general. If you were to take this argument you made and use it for nearly anything else, it would make you look plain silly.

Toasty, on Mar 30 2010, 09:48 PM, said:

I'll still take meds when I'm sick, because usually the problems that they cause aren't as bad as the ones they fix, but I still prefer to stay away from them. And no, I'm not some kind of nature freak who's against modern medicine, I just don't like messing with my body's chemistry unless I have to.

I'm down with that, and I respect your choice and I'd like to throw the idea out there that there are probably some marijuana enthusiasts with similar views. To a lot of people, living a stressful, unenjoyable life is worse than *possibly* facing health problems down the road and/or becoming schizophrenic if they've already got underlying mental issues.

My Best Wishes, on Mar 31 2010, 12:20 AM, said:

Use whatever rational you what, whatever logical tower of Babel, it's harmful to your bodies, that much is fact.

Sure, I'll agree with you that it potentially is. That's why I've quit smoking - I've had my fun, and I don't see myself going back to it any time soon. This doesn't change my belief that people who are against the habitual smoking of marijuana have severly flawed views.

ThankMeLater, on Mar 30 2010, 06:33 PM, said:

fact, maijuana is illegal, not because of it's harmfull effects, but because of hemp's cheaper-and-more-cost-effective-than-timber paper. however, many politicians, most notably william hearst, had large investments in the timber industry, and hemp replacing timber meant financial ruin. they decided to run a smear campaign, saying that weed was the devils drug, and that it made you go crazy to kill your neighbour. weed's not illegal because it's harmful, it's illegal because of very greedy politicians. yaaaay for government!

This amongst other things. I think I've pointed out before that at one point, while America was still under the reign of G-Wash, it was mandatory for farmers to grow a certain amount of MJ. Shit must have been so cash.

[ThankMeLater]

Two studies from 1977, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) showed no evidence of brain damage in heavy users of marijuana. That same year, the American Medical Association (AMA) officially came out in favor of decriminalizing marijuana. That is not the sort of thing you'd expect if the AMA thought marijuana damaged the brain.

It's not good for the body, no smoke is, but has healing effects, and isn't entirely bad for the body either.

and ya, if you're friend was really tricked into believe you, he was either full of shit, or on something else. like PDM said, you observations here have completely and entirely failed you.

[Toasty]

I'll admit that there's a possibility that the weed was tainted or something. It's not like I saw him buy it or anything, but I know he smoked weed, and I know for a fact that he honestly believed what I was telling him.

Mike Babcock, on Mar 31 2010, 02:44 AM, said:

There may be better ways to relieve stress, but it's not the same thing for every person. I know people who will run for miles upon miles as an effective way to relieve stress. I know people who enjoy painting or working with animals to relieve stress. Some people just don't have the time nor passion to do anything like this and turn to weed or alcohol. Personally, I'd rather go with thc. And wtf, I know of no better ways of finding inspiration. Please name a few inspirational activities/whatever that cannot be heightened by marijuana.

When I need inspiration for something related to technology, I'll go read articles about technology I can barely understand, because it forces me to think differently. When I need inspiration for music, I'll go mess around on my piano until I hear something interesting and I'll elaborate on it, or I'll listen to music that has the same sound I'm going for. If I need a drum beat for it, I start beatboxing to it, and then I'll play what I come up with on my drumset and elaborate from there. Sometimes I just lie down and let my mind wander.

If someone feels they need weed for inspiration, then they're not good at finding avenues for inspiration.

Mike Babcock, on Mar 31 2010, 02:44 AM, said:

Your "first hand observations" have never served you well in the past, and right here is perfect evidence why. You've got to be either making it up, surrounding yourself with fucking idiots, be a moron yourself or any mix of the above. If you truly convinced your friend of this, he had to have been on some sort of hallucinogen because unless you've already got serious mental problems, you're not going to be tricked into believing this because you're high on marijuana. My only other theory is that he was playing along because when under the effects of THC, trivial shit like this is just funny.

[see response at beginning of post]

Mike Babcock, on Mar 31 2010, 02:44 AM, said:

You can die from ODing on Tylenol 3, yeah. Overuse of plenty of drugs cause complications in your later years, of course. But this is a completely seperate matter. We aren't talking about overuse of marijuana, we're talking about use of it in general. If you were to take this argument you made and use it for nearly anything else, it would make you look plain silly.

I wasn't talking about OD'ing. Didn't you read what I put in parentheses right after my point about Tylenol? Just using the prescribed dosage on a daily basis (not overusing, like just taking one more pill than prescribed) can run the risk of causing damage to your stomach (or liver, can't remember which). That said, I haven't heard of people having problems with it when taking it every now and then.

As for marijuana, what constitutes over use? As far as I know, there's no "recommended dosage" for weed. Because of that, one person's idea of causal use could be entirely different from someone else's.

Mike Babcock, on Mar 31 2010, 02:44 AM, said:

I'm down with that, and I respect your choice and I'd like to throw the idea out there that there are probably some marijuana enthusiasts with similar views. To a lot of people, living a stressful, unenjoyable life is worse than *possibly* facing health problems down the road and/or becoming schizophrenic if they've already got underlying mental issues.

You know, there's a simple, proven-to-be-safe way of relieving stress. It's called dropping everything and relaxing. I myself may take that idea to the extreme, since I rarely do any of my homework, but because of it, I wouldn't even remotely call myself a stressed person.

Also, from what I understand, in the cases where weed makes you tired and lazy, it effectively causes you to do the same thing. Go figure.

Mike Babcock, on Mar 31 2010, 02:44 AM, said:

Sure, I'll agree with you that it potentially is. That's why I've quit smoking - I've had my fun, and I don't see myself going back to it any time soon. This doesn't change my belief that people who are against the habitual smoking of marijuana have severly flawed views.

Casual smoking is bad enough, but habitual? Don't even get me started. Lord help you if you're smoking weed, or doing any kind of drug out of habit. Once it becomes habit, it becomes substance abuse.

Mike Babcock, on Mar 31 2010, 02:44 AM, said:

This amongst other things. I think I've pointed out before that at one point, while America was still under the reign of G-Wash, it was mandatory for farmers to grow a certain amount of MJ. Shit must have been so cash.

I'd like to see proof of that.

[ThankMeLater]

"Make the most of the Indian hemp seed,
and sow it everywhere!"

-- George Washington

Note to the gardener at Mount Vernon, 1794
"The Writings of George Washington"
Volume 33, page 270 (Library of Congress)


(George Washington, first president of the United States of America, grew cannabis on Mount Vernon, his plantation, for about 30 years. He may have used the Indian hemp to treat his chronic tooth aches.)
http://www.taima.org/en/quotes.htm


Indian hemp

1: source of e.g. bhang and hashish as well as fiber [syn: Indian hemp, Cannabis indica]

2: valuable fiber plant of East Indies now widespread in
cultivation [syn: kenaf, kanaf, deccan hemp, bimli,
bimli hemp, Indian hemp, Bombay hemp, Hibiscus
cannabinus]

3: Canadian dogbane yielding a tough fiber used as cordage by
native Americans; used in folk medicine for pain or
inflammation in joints [syn: Indian hemp, rheumatism, Apocynum cannabinum]


In India, it is common to make a highly concentrated form of Indian (India) hemp, by rubbing the flowers over a fine screen and collecting the potent resin that falls though it. The resin is usually then compressed into "bricks".


Most informed cannabis activists know that George Washington grew non-psychoactive fiber hemp (Europian hemp), but what many don't know is that he loved the same hemp me and you smoke and eat today (Indian (India) hemp) even more.


"What was done with the seed saved from the India Hemp last summer? It ought, all of it, to have been sewn again; that not only a stock of seed sufficient for my own purposes might have been raised, but to have disseminated the seed to others; as it is more valuable than the common Hemp."

George Washington
Writings of Washington, Vol. 35, pg. 72

In the above quote concerning seeds notice that George Washington refers to his crop as India Hemp instead of Indian hemp as he does in some others.

Indian hemp is used to refer to both Cannabis Indica, and Dogbane, a plant barely resembling hemp and not even apart of the Cannabis family.

However, India hemp is used to refer exclusively to Cannabis Indica!

From Jack Herer:

Cannabis Sativa L.

Also known as: Hemp, cannabis hemp, Indian (India) hemp, true hemp, muggles, weed, pot, marijuana, reefer, grass, ganja, bhang, "the kind," dagga, herb, etc., all names for exactly the same plant!

Or, as the following hemp historian puts it:

http://www.rexresear...st/hhist2~1.htm

A History of Hemp

by

Robert A. Nelson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 2

Hemp in America

George Washington may well have cultivated some cannabis for medicinal and occasional recreational purposes.

Both he and Thomas Jefferson (who quite disliked tobacco) are known to have exchanged gifts of smoking mixtures.

In the 1790's, Washington also began to cultivate "India Hemp", the resinous variety developed in India.

Cannabis at that time had several names, such as "common hemp" (C. sativa, cultivated for fiber and seeds), and "India hemp" (C. indica, grown for fiber and resin).

The latter is not to be confused with "Indian hemp"(Apocynum cannabinum, dogbane), used by native Americans. The modern term "Indian hemp" is applied to jute, which is not related to Cannabis sativa.

Jute was not introduced to America until much later.

Washington's concern about India Hemp is illustrated in these excerpts from letters to his overseer Pearce:

"Let particular care be taken of the India Hempseed, and as much good ground allotted for its reception next year as is competent to Sow..." [5 Nov. 1796].

Modern day translation:

"Don't mess up my Indica crop, and plant as many Indicas as you can fit on my property without over crowding."

George was truly a lover of Indian (India) hemp (Cannabis Indica).

If you have any doubt left that George Washington grew and smoked Cannabis Indica please let me know about it, and I will provide even more proof.


"I wouldn't miss the hemp harvest at Mount Vernon for all the tea in China."
- to Ben Franklin in France during fundraising for the American Revolution according to Dr. Burke, President of the American Historical Reference Society and consultant to the Smithsonian Institution.

I bet you didn't miss that harvest George.

I wish I could have helped you harvest it.


May you rest in peace.


How did my country (America), liberated by a Cannabis Indica grower and breeder, end up leading the world in cannabis prohibition?


A heavily armed DEA SWAT team. Abandoning this "mission" is not an option for them until another peaceful, productive cannabis cultivator is kidnapped, stripped of all his belongings, and finally enslaved. Who knows, maybe they will even prosecute his family members who are in the house as well!

-----------------------------------------------------

not only did he grow hemp himself (i can'd find any mandatory laws, but the man himself, fact, grew hemp), but he also grew marijuana.

[Toasty]

Sorry, I misunderstood your post as referencing to Bush for some reason.

I can believe that George Washington would do that, but they hardly knew anything about it's effects back then.

[Ironsight]

George Washington also owned slaves, didn't he?

[ThankMeLater]

and half the shit they "know" about it's effects now are bullshit. let me lay out some facts for you

-marijuana does not cause lung cancer. actually, about the only cancer you can get from smoking marijuana is mouth, which you can aqquire from any smoke inhalation

-marijuana does not cause permanent brain damage. in all unbiased studies, paitents brain functions were entirely normal after a maximum, read maximum, of 6 months without it.

-almost every single leader of that fine country of yours has smoked marijuana. Bush was a cokehead/alcoholic, and Obama has tried coke

-marijuana does not even remotely limit the sex drive, or decrese the sperm count

-marijuana is not 40% stronger now than in the 60's. the truth is, the thc count has only really increased by 2-5%. the main study that this theory was based on was entirely unreliable, testing bricks of mexican schwagg (for the uneducated like yourself:

schwagg = http://www.scienceclarified.com/images/uesc_06_img0353.jpg

and hydro = http://www.icmag.com/gallery/data/500/5321Godzuki_hydro_cola.JPG) that had been kept locked up for so long, the thc count dropped to subsmokable levels of about 0.2-0.5%. Because of this, when they tested really nice homegrown hydro (see above) in the 80's, the thc count appeared to skyrocket to 18-20%. When, in really, it only jumped from about 16%.

[My Best Wishes]

Imagine if you put all that knowledge, drive and talent to a positive application.

[ThankMeLater]

thanks brah.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/y2revt