I think Spain is gonna loose in the Last 16 game. their group is too easy, and when they play a competent Ivory Coast team (my prediction) they are gonna lose.

Group C is definitely the weakest group; England and USA got sooo lucky with the draw.

and Ireland are abunch of babies.... Refs are never 100% on calls during any game; a handball is no more cheating then taking someone out from behind who had a break away or a dive in the box that draws a PK. its part of the sport...

> Toothache911 wrote:

> Well stated Ouro. And how was xtreme not staying on topic....? He brought up medicinal marijuana in other countries and showed how it decreased usage of the drug because of reverse psychology. Think of Prohibition. Alcohol is banned and as thus cartels rise and more people get the urge to drink. Think of it like the dont-touch-the-big-red-button approach. If you're banned from touching it, then damn you'll want to just out of curiousity or inner rebellion.

And like Ouro stated before, its seriously not that harmful. Potheads are known for being lazy, but so are people who watch a lot of TV (sober or not). My point being, its not that detrimental to society and it can help people a lot more practically than other drugs. Why not

he  made two arguments for making pot legal, not making it only medicinal. and he stated several facts abotu what states/countries have what laws regarding it... the only arguments he provided were offtopic...

apparently staying ontopic is too difficult for extreme...

> Morbo the Annihilator wrote:

> 1. Creation of a "new" industry
2. Junk food sales would increase
3. Drug dealers will be removed

#3 is important

There will still be a drug problem, but crime and
more specifically organised crime will drop.

this thread is about medicinal pot, is that too complex for you to follow? please stay on topic...

> Morbo the Annihilator wrote:

> I've never seen someone die from smoking too much weed.
MANY people have died from drinking too much alcohol...

Either ban alcohol and smokes, or unban weed. Saying that one
is more harmful then another is irrelevant since alcohol will still
kill more people, harmful or not.

In fact, both alcohol and weed have medically improving properties. What
enhancing properties does smokes have?

there are more harmful things that people can legally obtain. but just because legal things can be more dangerous, isnt a reason in itself to legalize it. The last thing any of us should want would be another widely used, harmful drug. we dont need another alcohol or tobacco. While medicinally it is sometimes a good option, i dont think the mild benefits it can have compared to other drugs justifies the risk of increased abuse of the product outside of medicinal use legalizing it would have.

> Toothache911 wrote:

> For another thing, pot does in fact NOT have twice the amount of recognized cancer causing toxins. Please source that because if that came out during one of the 1920 weed reports, its been proven false. Besides, weed is a plant and ciggarettes have tobacco that is mixed with many of the harmful carcinogens. To say that weed is worse than ciggarettes is a blatent misconception.

No way we can pay off our naiton debt that quickly, obviously. But it certainly can help. Besides, since we're talking about medicinal marijuana and not recreational, its odd to assume everyone in the nation is going to be widely addicted (as with alcohol and tobacco).

Politicians lose much from the industry because marijuana and its hemp product can run some industries to the ground. For example, hemp fiber wood is twice as pliable and strong as normal wood, and decomposes in a landfill in 30 or so days. If this product became widely produced, it would run many forresting industries into the red. (and it made the top 100 inventions of all time)

In no way am i saying weed is good for you. But in comparison to drugs already sold under perscriptions, and compared to alcohol and ciggarettes, weed is a diamond in the rough. Its been painted harshly for a long, long time, but studies are finally coming out proving many of the 1920 studies wrong.

i said pot SMOKE has twice the amount... ingestion such as special brownies are probably much less harmful....
http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm and its source is National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1984.

California probably has the most liberal pot laws in the country and we know how [moo] they are economically.... it is unlikely it will have any significant effect on the economy...

if pot was an industry, the money politicians would loose from other industries because of the pot industry would most likely be replaced by the pot industry...

i have already addressed the point of it not being as bad as other prescriptions...there are more harmful things that people can legally obtain. but just because legal things can be more dangerous, isnt a reason in itself to legalize it. The last thing any of us should want would be another widely used, harmful drug. we dont need another alcohol or tobacco. While medicinally it is sometimes a good option, i dont think the mild benefits it can have compared to other drugs justifies the risk of increased abuse of the product outside of medicinal use legalizing it would have.

> Nolio wrote:

> > *claps*

its common sense... unfortunately common sense is becoming a very rare thing now a days...

there are more harmful things that people can legally obtain. but just because legal things can be more dangerous, isnt a reason in itself to legalize it. The last thing any of us should want would be another widely used, harmful drug. we dont need another alcohol or tobacco. While medicinally it is sometimes a good option, i dont think the mild benefits it can have compared to other drugs justifies the risk of increased abuse of the product outside of medicinal use that legalizing it would have.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

has gdp at 14.4 tril

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2079rank.html

has total external debt as under 14 tril, so under 100%...

http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/crisis-explained-one-chart-debt-gdp/11570#comment-12461

says total debt (i guess internal and external) is 360% of gdp... and is the most up to date source i've found... far from your 680%...

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

61      United States     
37.50
   
2008 est.

looks pretty reasonable to me...  imo, info from someone who's job is to accurately find out the percent of gdp nation's debt posses is more reliable then someone who's job is to write entertaining articles... a large government organization is also under alot more scrutiny for accuracy then some magazines most people have never heard of...

it would be political suicide for multiple reasons. 1 because wars not on our soil is going to be unpopular for his base of support no matter the circumstances 2 because we just had 2 unpopular wars, a 3rd would be even less popular. 3 because he has already drastically increased government spending which has been unpopular, increasing government spending even more would make him look even worse. 4 because his anti-war stance is probably the only thing the public favors him over the opposing party. ect.