Moontanman

When I was a teenager I made my own wine, it's not difficult. Legalization and growing your own doesn't mean it's legal for everyone. Only adults and I really don't see underage smokers jumping fences to get some pot in huge numbers. You can't just grab it up and smoke it to start with. It has to be dried and that takes several days. On top of that the possibility of the same punishment for smoking pot underage as you have for alcohol should prevent some from smoking. Loosing your drivers license or being unable to get one if caught until you are 21 can be a powerful incentive. Sadly it's not enforced for alcohol the way it should be either. Police have a tendency to let the kids be kids unless they are really out of hand. I'm not sure if this is a good thing or not. I drank when I was underage and the age was 18. I didn't get into trouble but a lot of kids did. My son is in Germany right now and he says the age of drinking is 15 for beer over there. They seem to survive the teenage drinkers, i wonder why we can't? Be that as it may, enforcing laws against teenage use is no harder nor is using it any worse than alcohol, I really don't see this as a deal breaker.

I'd like to see such a list, I doubt it would be as believable as the list of reasons to legalize it.

I am a chronic pain patient. Several collapsed vertebrae in my neck have caused me more pain in the last twelve years than I can describe. I spent ten years taking strong opiates for the pain and lost almost ten years of my life. I remember very little of those ten years other than the opiates didn't work as they were supposed to and i almost died from their effects. I found that MJ takes the edge off the pain and make it more tolerable with little or no side effects. MJ doesn't stop working after a few weeks of use, it doesn't make the pain go away, nothing will do that, but it allows it to be tolerable and allows me to live my life. My doctor told me if he found MJ in my urine tests he would turn me over the authorities and have my benefits stopped and leave me destitute. So i quit, but I refused to go back on opiates. Now I hurt all the time, it keeps me from being active. keeps me from having a life but at least I'm conscious all the time. MJ doesn't kill people, there is no OD level for MJ. It's not physically addictive. Opiate based pain relievers kill people every day and are extremely addictive sometimes even when taken according to a doctors prescriptions. Both alcohol and tobaccos can kill you from over does, children are especially vulnerable to tobacco poisoning. Alcohol poisoning happens all the time hospitals treat people fro it every day, some don't make it. I cannot conceive of a reason why I should have to endure extreme pain most all the time simply due to MJ being something the government cannot allow to be legal simply because they cannot admit to being wrong about it. Is it good fro you, no I'm sure it isn't, is it the demon weed the gov says it is, Absolutely not. If you believe all the propaganda from the government then i cannot reach you but think about the people who could benefit from medicinal MJ next time you are asked to vote or give your opinion before you simply repeat what you have been told to think.

ParanoiA, are you insinuating something?

Maybe I should have been more exact, you can shoot them if they are stealing your personal property. personally i wouldn't do that anyway. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Please do, BTW just because you edit out a few cuss words doesn't mean they don't get sent to me!

No what i am saying is no matter how you use it MJ cannot kill you, there is no OD level. Both alcohol and tobacco has and does kill people by simply using too much of it. Children are especially vulnerable to tobacco. Now this is totally wrong, no studies have ever shown that MJ users are more likely to commit violent crimes due to their use of MJ. If anything the studies show the opposite. Categorizing a MJ user as an addict is an extreme if not totally false use of that term. MJ users have never been shown to commit crimes due to the influence if MJ or the lack of it.

Not much, no. Exactly where did you go through this? What era? The worst abuse of our governments power I've seen has been in the last eight years. Our military has resources no civilian or group of civilians can hope to be much more than a irritant much less match. I see no reason to think we could need such a force, if we do then it's too late.

Do you honestly think that an armed contingent of civilians could oppose our government? You would have to have the same resources as our government to even think of such a thing, not likely. I have a 12 guage marine magnum for home defense and a 9mm Smith and Wesson for personol defense. I grew up with and around guns, had my own since i was 10 years old. I have no fear but a healthy respect for guns. i was taught how and when to use a gun from practically the day i began to walk. A bunch of civilians running around with assault rifles is not a good thing.

Alcohol can kill you out right, many people are treated for alcohol poisoning every year. MJ cannot kill you out right, it can cause you to have bad judgment and do something stupid but alcohol is much worse at that than MJ. I honestly cannot see how anyone could say alcohol and tobacco should be legal and MJ should be illegal.

Well i can see the humor in most situations and while shooting some one isn't really humorous the idea of paper work is, I've heard cops use the same humor, sorry for copying them. Texas Three not, none did. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I have to say assault riffles have nothing to do with self defense, at least under any conceivable normal circumstances. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Basically I am too old to go that route.

Where do you get this from? This is BS, total and complete. No, this is not true, it is usually pretty much decided by the police, if the police recommend it the district attorney can investigate but if you have followed the rules then you are safe. Now that is a possiblity, but none the less I'd rather be sued for killing him than my family have to bury me. That's possible but not here This is true in some states and it should be that way, shooting some one who is trying to get away or having the opportunity to get away and not doing so is wrong. Fuzzier in some states than others but if you pull your weapon for any reason other than a threat you believe is serious then you are in trouble and should be. Obviously I would do that whether it was required or not. Yes this is true and if that is possible why did you pull your gun to start with? Personally i don't agree with that, if you can retreat you should, killing someone is something you don't want to carry around for the rest of your life. If possible I would retreat no matter if I had to under law or not. If you are in fear of your life and if the person keeps coming after you pull your gun then you can shoot the aggressor. Having said that, if I had a chance to retreat no gun would ever be pulled to start with. Pulling your gun means you are in real danger, not just taking verbal abuse by some asshole. Now if the person tries to actually strike me or has a weapon then he had better be willing to retreat or to allow me to do so, if not then he is dead, yes I said dead, i do not shoot to wound. I don't know about where you live but around here the rules are specific but if you follow them you don't even a legal review much less a trail. You seem to be fixated on shooting some one who is not really a threat, of course you can't do that but the rules are quite clear, if you are in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm you can defend your self with deadly force. Yes there are some caveats, like allowing the person to retreat or retreating your self if possible but by the time a gun is pulled the possibility of those scenarios should be gone. Pulling a gun when you could retreat is stupid, shooting some one who retreats when you pull your gun is stupid and makes you a murderer.

I was being sarcastic, don't you have a sense of humor? Not true in my state, if i am armed and I am acosted I can defend my self after giving fair warning. You are wrong. BS Again BS In some states you can kill to defend property, no fear of death or injury is required, you can actually kill someone simply because you caught them stealing. Now personally i wouldn't kill to protect property but I would to protect life and limb. If you think that shooting some who is threating you with bodily harm, after a warning, you can't just pull a gun and shoot, will land you in jail you are misinformed. It's complex but one thing for sure if I was really in fear of my life the other guy would die. I honestly have never seen anyone go to court much less jail if they follow the rules.

That's the problem! If you are listening to the stuff they play in public places! I would go mad if made to listen to that stuff longer than 30 minutes. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I don't think so, it doesn't me. I like music that is somewhere between real heavy metal and softer style rock. i like a lot of the ballads sung by the heavy metal guys and gals, Heart, Scorpions, Led Zeppelin, ELO, Dire Straits, Kansas, Eagles, Little River Band, The Fabulous Thunderbirds. I know, I'm an old guy but I like a lot of the new stuff too, my son makes CD's for me and I usually don't know who the music is being played by. A good strong song can leave you feeling vitalized and refreshed, a slow ballad can leave feeling good as well. Of course there are other schools of thought and other music, at least I heard there was some other stuff some people enjoy and they call it music>

Don't be an asshole Doc, I never suggested such a thing, I said severely threatened, a kid throwing rocks is not a sever threat. I know the law, evidently better than you, drawing a weapon can only be done if you are in fear of your life or sever bodily harm. a punk that threatens to kick my ass is not threat unless I can't get away. You have to equate your response with the threat. If were to draw my gun and the threat didn't go away then we would be in the realm of what to do, allowing someone to take your gun and shoot you with it kinda negate the idea of carrying a gun doesn't it? So if I had to pull my gun it would only be if I was really willing to shoot. Scare tactics are for bull shit artists. Very few people ever know i am armed and that's the way i like it.

I never suggested pulling a gun for shits and giggles, that's a very good way to loose your permit, but if threatened severely I would pull mine, I don't see a reason to wait until I'm bleeding on the ground.

Where I live you can conceal carry a pistol to deal with a personal attack. Most aggressive assholes will hesitate to hassle someone they think can shoot them. Aggression is easy when you think the person you are hassling is helpless. Most people around here keep their pistols in their cars most of the time but I'm not adverse to taking it with me where ever I go, I wouldn't want to shoot anyone, lots of paper work involved, but if faced with the prospect of taking an ass whipping or pulling my gun i would pull my gun. Anyone who doesn't back down from a pistol probably needs to be shot. Of course I live where the legal defense of "he needed killin" is a viable defense in court. ;)On the bright side the number of people who actually get shot by citizens with pistol permits is almost nonexistent.

Agreed, a nuclear rocket with a solid core can easily give an ISP of 900 twice that of the best chemical rockets. No amount of tweaking the design of rocket nozzles will ever give us an ISP even close to that. A gaseous core nuclear reactor can give us an ISP of 5000 more than 10 times as much as the best chemical rockets. Yes I think nuclear will be the way to go once we get the superstitious fear of nuclear out of our social mind set. see this link http://www.nuclearspace.com/Liberty_ship_menupg.aspx

While I think there is reason to think they were exclusively freshwater I will wait until I read the book you cited before I argue any further. I have burnt the Internet up looking for info and all I could get was a few tantalizing clues and generalizations. I see no reason to continue with out more information. I'll continue to search and read the book.

Again Archegosaurus was a freshwater form not marine. Neither are reptiles, or mammals but they evolved forms that were marine. What's your point? Why would the distribution of fish have anything to do with the distribution of amphibians? I have already said that lobe finned fishes were marine and freshwater but amphibians evolved from the freshwater versions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcopterygii Archegosaurus were freshwater forms, they were associated with freshwater deposits not marine. BTW I will be the first to admit this is an extremely difficult thing to nail down, I'm betting that very little real information exists on the overall ecology of these animals.

Ok, I know enough about fishes to know about osmotic pressure and even freshwater fish benefit from the addition of a small amount of salt, it lessens the stress of capture. But I still disagree with the contention that tetra pods had to be able to swim and or live in the oceans for them to have populated the Earth. The fossil record doesn't show any oceanic amphibians even thought they've been around longer than other tetra pods. Even dinosaurs didn't return to the ocean but they were world wide in distribution so the idea that Pangaean deserts would've required amphibians to colonize the oceans isn't worth it's salt

While I'm not a rocket scientist is do know one:D I do agree that improvements will always be possible but at some point you come up against the idea of diminishing returns. The real problem with rocket engines isn't the design of the engine it's the fuel. The theoretical limit of current rocket fuels is an ISP of about 450 http://www.nuclearspace.com/Liberty_ship_pg6.aspx http://www.nuclearspace.com/Liberty_ship_pg7.aspx Ok, now the main engines of the space shuttle have an ISP of about 450. That is pretty close to the limit of chemical fuels, you can get a tiny bit better by using something like liquid Florine but besides being a very dangerous chemical the exhaust is not very nice either. Liquid Hydrogen and oxygen only produce water vapor. So not matter how good you make a chemical rocket engine it has a limit as to how much energy you can get out of the fuel, IE an ISP of about 450.

While I will have to read the book to understand your argument completely I wonder why you think migration due to long distance would be a problem. A species of salamander could migrate long distances over millions of years taking advantage of changing climate patterns. We would think the idea of a fish migrating across the Sahara Desert would be impossible but just a few thousands years ago what we know as a desert was a lush area with rivers and lakes and lots of rain. A fish could well have migrated over that area then. I am quite sure that Pangaea had changing climate patterns as well and over a geologic time span an animal could well have migrated all over it while speciating along the way. No need to swim and oceans or migrate across burning sands.

Where do you get that Archegosaurus lived in the ocean? It is described as living in freshwater ponds that were subject to drying up and Archegosaurus was able to wiggle over land to a new pond. No mention of marine existence. Do you think it might have been possible for tetrapods to have migrated over Pangaea before it broke apart?

This is true my logic did faultier there but I did say I had no idea if amphibians had ever adapted to the sea or not. fossils seem to indicate they didn't. The plain fact is not many land animals have ever adapted back to the oceans. Yes I know whales, Plesiosaurs, turtles, seals but not many compared to the number of land animals. Paradoxically dinosaurs never adapted to marine life. If any amphibians did go back to sea they are all extinct now and left little or no fossil evidence. Evidently it's hard jump and thin skinned amphibians seem to be somewhat less than preadapted to marine conditions. As far as the global distribution drifting continents would seem to explain that pretty neatly.

Ok guys, there are no marine amphibians because they developed from bony fishes, Bony fishes evolved in fresh water, not marine. The skeleton of freshwater fishes evolved from fishes with no bones much like sharks, they migrated to fresh water to lay their eggs. the calcium was concentrated in their skeletons so they wouldn't loose it when they entered freshwater. Calcium is important to all animals far beyond the need for bones. The cartilage bony fish that concentrated calcium were preadapted to life in freshwater. True bony fishes developed in freshwater and later returned to the sea. Amphibians evolved from a group of bony fishes called lobe finned fishes that may have only survived in freshwater due to the highly succesful Placoderms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placoderms I honestly cannot say if amphibians ever returned to the sea or not but they evolved in freshwater from freshwater fishes. the coelacanth probably evolved from a lobe finned fish who's lineage never left the ocean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth http://www.lookd.com/fish/evolution.html Tetrapods evolved from freshwater lobe finned fishes, the fishes you see in the rivers and oceans today are not the direct ancestors of us, Only the coelacanth and some lung fishes remain from those lobe finned fishes. the coelacanth is not a direct ancestor either but it is closely related. http://www.devoniantimes.org/who/pages/lobe-fins.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobe-finned_fish