Stuart,
Crack is the most destructive drug that I have ever seen. I've seen
people quit alcohol, pot, heroin and even cigarettes, but I've only seen
people pause in their crack addiction while they were institutionalized.
In jail, the crack-hookers only look something like normal if they've
been incarcerated for four or five months. Otherwise, they weigh about 95
pounds and lost the weight so fast that they have "flap tits" -- empty skin
hanging there. If they've been smoking crack for a substantial time, they
are losing their teeth and walk with an exaggerated, artificial stride
because their motor control becomes impaired. They don't quit; they die.
Whatever else one says about pot, it doesn't kill people.
Crack, on the other hand, is like full blown AIDS. It's someone
wasting away and waiting to die a degrading death.
Dan

Dan McGown <dmcgown@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:VaGdnYZvb8cSR-XenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> Stuart,
> Crack is the most destructive drug that I have ever seen. I've seen
> people quit alcohol, pot, heroin and even cigarettes, but I've only seen
> people pause in their crack addiction while they were institutionalized.
> In jail, the crack-hookers only look something like normal if they've
> been incarcerated for four or five months. Otherwise, they weigh about 95
> pounds and lost the weight so fast that they have "flap tits" -- empty
skin
> hanging there. If they've been smoking crack for a substantial time, they
> are losing their teeth and walk with an exaggerated, artificial stride
> because their motor control becomes impaired. They don't quit; they die.
> Whatever else one says about pot, it doesn't kill people.
> Crack, on the other hand, is like full blown AIDS. It's someone
> wasting away and waiting to die a degrading death.
> Dan

All quite true Dan, except but pot kills too. Smoking "a" cigarette is
unlikely to kill either. Pot kills slowly and its way more carcinogenic.
Addiction to crack comes far quicker. Both create varying degrees of
psychological dependence mainly. Crack is more acutely addictive, but after
a time, it doesn't work as well as tolerance is created. Pot, as you know
takes longer to get addicted to, or I would rather use the term
"psychological dependence".
Pot addictions can last for many years, whereas most crack addicts are
either dead, or off the stuff in two or three years.

Don't ask me how I know this. I can't tell you. In part due to close
personal experiences. People do quit crack. I did.

stuart wrote:
> Ken <nospam@nowhere.org> wrote in message
> news:e66dnfm6eqEUseXenZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>>Robert McGregor wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"stuart" <fred@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>news:kjUdf.122674$yS6.109529@clgrps12...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gosh, I almost forgot the references. Peer-reviewed research
>>>>mostly.I am
>>>>sure they would entertain your learned queries. And to think I dug
>>>>these up
>>>>in less than three minutes. Where is your enquiring mind Ken? Do
>>>>you read
>>>>stuff, or just proclaim, like Virt?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Stuart, given your past proclamations, it's a sign of progress you
>>>brought that proclaiming business up.
>>>
>>>Were *you* to have actually read that stuff, instead of just
>>>proclaiming, surely you could actually post documented scientific
>>>proof regarding marijuana use, instead of that plethora of
>>>speculative "research" pertaining to drug abuse.
>>>
>>>Ironically, even the first (and subsequently, naturally, only) one of
>>>those links I checked http://tinyurl.com/alwj7 propagates such utter
>>>bullshit it would have given Mitch Kapor, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs,
>>>The Woz, Bill Gates, Stephen Ballmer, Paul Allen, John Gilmore, (and
>>>most developers of the computer the entire ten of you Stuarts are
>>>using) a bloody good chuckle http://tinyurl.com/basog
>>>
>>>Bob
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Bob,
>>
>>As much as we've disagreed on various topics, I'm curious if you can
>>explain to me why I feel somehow like a "marijuana pusher" in
>>challenging a whole lot of silly, baseless attacks on what is, all
>>things considered, a _relatively_ innocuous illegal drug. This isn't
>>crack cocaine, methamphetamine or PHP we are talking about here. I
>>don't even smoke and for all practical purposes never even been a
>>marijuana smoker.
>
>
> Actually, the difference in harm between pot and crack is mainly in its
> street price. It's easier to get rid of a crack habit than to stop smoking
> pot. The pot high also lasts for hours at a time as it is an oil soluable
> drug. Much more subtly damaging. Anyone who labels pot as a "relatively
> innocuous" drug is kidding themselves and probably not smoked any recently.
> The newer strains are 20X more potent than when you were a teenager in the
> 50's Ken.
>
>
>
>
>>Ken Ragge
>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>
>
>
I disagree so so so much with you.

stuart wrote:

>Dan McGown <dmcgown@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>news:VaGdnYZvb8cSR-XenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>
>
>>Stuart,
>> Crack is the most destructive drug that I have ever seen. I've seen
>>people quit alcohol, pot, heroin and even cigarettes, but I've only seen
>>people pause in their crack addiction while they were institutionalized.
>> In jail, the crack-hookers only look something like normal if they've
>>been incarcerated for four or five months. Otherwise, they weigh about 95
>>pounds and lost the weight so fast that they have "flap tits" -- empty
>>
>>
>skin
>
>
>>hanging there. If they've been smoking crack for a substantial time, they
>>are losing their teeth and walk with an exaggerated, artificial stride
>>because their motor control becomes impaired. They don't quit; they die.
>> Whatever else one says about pot, it doesn't kill people.
>> Crack, on the other hand, is like full blown AIDS. It's someone
>>wasting away and waiting to die a degrading death.
>> Dan
>>
>>
>
>All quite true Dan, except but pot kills too. Smoking "a" cigarette is
>unlikely to kill either. Pot kills slowly and its way more carcinogenic.
>Addiction to crack comes far quicker. Both create varying degrees of
>psychological dependence mainly. Crack is more acutely addictive, but after
>a time, it doesn't work as well as tolerance is created. Pot, as you know
>takes longer to get addicted to, or I would rather use the term
>"psychological dependence".
>Pot addictions can last for many years, whereas most crack addicts are
>either dead, or off the stuff in two or three years.
>
>Don't ask me how I know this. I can't tell you. In part due to close
>personal experiences. People do quit crack. I did.
>
>
>
>
Bob,

Maybe you have a point. Maybe caffeine is worse than both, because
unlike crack where people usually die or quit quickly, and marijuana
where there is no clear evidence they ever die and sometimes they smoke
for years and years, coffee drinkers almost never quit and believe they
have no reason to since they never die from coffee in spite of the fact
that not only does every cup of coffee have a cup and a half of
carcinogens, but caffeine itself is an insecticide. How insidious
caffeine is. LOL.

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com

stuart wrote:

>Dan McGown <dmcgown@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>news:VaGdnYZvb8cSR-XenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>
>
>>Stuart,
>> Crack is the most destructive drug that I have ever seen. I've seen
>>people quit alcohol, pot, heroin and even cigarettes, but I've only seen
>>people pause in their crack addiction while they were institutionalized.
>> In jail, the crack-hookers only look something like normal if they've
>>been incarcerated for four or five months. Otherwise, they weigh about 95
>>pounds and lost the weight so fast that they have "flap tits" -- empty
>>
>>
>skin
>
>
>>hanging there. If they've been smoking crack for a substantial time, they
>>are losing their teeth and walk with an exaggerated, artificial stride
>>because their motor control becomes impaired. They don't quit; they die.
>> Whatever else one says about pot, it doesn't kill people.
>> Crack, on the other hand, is like full blown AIDS. It's someone
>>wasting away and waiting to die a degrading death.
>> Dan
>>
>>
>
>All quite true Dan, except but pot kills too. Smoking "a" cigarette is
>unlikely to kill either. Pot kills slowly and its way more carcinogenic.
>Addiction to crack comes far quicker. Both create varying degrees of
>psychological dependence mainly. Crack is more acutely addictive, but after
>a time, it doesn't work as well as tolerance is created. Pot, as you know
>takes longer to get addicted to, or I would rather use the term
>"psychological dependence".
>Pot addictions can last for many years, whereas most crack addicts are
>either dead, or off the stuff in two or three years.
>
>Don't ask me how I know this. I can't tell you. In part due to close
>personal experiences. People do quit crack. I did.
>
>
>
>
Stuart,

I just looked up "carcinogens coffee" on google. I followed that with
"mutagens coffee." You might be interested to know that not only coffee
causes birth defects (contains mutagens) but so do cranberries, sweet
potatoes, mushrooms and nuts.

Here is a brief list of foods and the poisons they contain:

Don't let "rodent carcinogen" fool you. Substances are tested on
rodents to find out if they are carcinogenic because it is illegal to
test such dangerous chemicals on people.

*CHEMICAL*
*WHERE IS IT?*
*WHAT IS IT?*
ACETALDEHYDE Apples, tomatoes Mutagen and potent rodent carcinogen
AFLATOXIN Nuts Mutagen, potent rodent carcinogen, human carcinogen
ALLYL ISOTHIOCYANATE Arugula, broccoli, mustard Mutagen, rodent
carcinogen
ANILINE Carrots Rodent carcinogen
BENZALDEHYDE Apples, coffee, tomatoes Rodent carcinogen
BENZENE Coffee Rodent carcinogen
BENZO(A)PYRENE Bread, coffee, pumpkin pie, rolls, tea Mutagen and
rodent carcinogen
BENZOFURAN Coffee Rodent carcinogen
BENZYL ACETATE Jasmine tea Rodent carcinogen
CAFFEIC ACID Apples, carrots, celery, coffee, pears, grapes, lettuce,
mangos, potatoes Rodent carcinogen
CATECHOL Coffee Rodent carcinogen
D-LIMONENE Black pepper, mango Rodent carcinogen
1,2,5,6-DIBENZ(A)ANTHRACENE Coffee Rodent carcinogen
ESTRAGOLE Apples, basil Rodent carcinogen
ETHYL ALCOHOL Bread, red wine, rolls, tomatoes Rodent and human
carcinogen
ETHYL BENZENE Coffee Rodent carcinogen
ETHYL CARBAMATE Bread, rolls, red wine Mutagen and rodent carcinogen
FURAN AND FURAN DERIVATIVES Bread, onions, celery, mushrooms, sweet
potatoes, rolls, cranberry sauce, coffee Many are mutagens
FURFURAL Bread, coffee, nuts, rolls, sweet potatoes Furan derivative
and rodent carcinogen
HETEROCYCLIC AMINES Roast beef, turkey Mutagens and rodent carcinogens
HYDRAZINES Mushrooms Mutagens and rodent carcinogens
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE Coffee, tomatoes Mutagen and rodent carcinogen
HYDROQUINONE Coffee Rodent carcinogen
METHYLGLYOXAL Coffee, red wine Mutagen and rodent carcinogen
PSORALENS Celery, parsley Mutagens, rodent and human carcinogens
QUERCETIN GLYCOSIDES Apples, onions, tea, tomatoes Mutagens and rodent
carcinogens
SAFROLE Nutmeg in apple and pumpkin pies, black pepper Rodent carcinogen
SYMPHYTINE Comfrey tea Rodent carcinogen


And Safeway is allowed to sell all these poisons openly!!!!!

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com

Bryan wrote:

> stuart wrote:
>
>> Ken <nospam@nowhere.org> wrote in message
>> news:e66dnfm6eqEUseXenZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>
>>> Robert McGregor wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "stuart" <fred@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:kjUdf.122674$yS6.109529@clgrps12...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Gosh, I almost forgot the references. Peer-reviewed research
>>>>> mostly.I am
>>>>> sure they would entertain your learned queries. And to think I dug
>>>>> these up
>>>>> in less than three minutes. Where is your enquiring mind Ken? Do
>>>>> you read
>>>>> stuff, or just proclaim, like Virt?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stuart, given your past proclamations, it's a sign of progress you
>>>> brought that proclaiming business up.
>>>>
>>>> Were *you* to have actually read that stuff, instead of just
>>>> proclaiming, surely you could actually post documented scientific
>>>> proof regarding marijuana use, instead of that plethora of
>>>> speculative "research" pertaining to drug abuse.
>>>>
>>>> Ironically, even the first (and subsequently, naturally, only) one of
>>>> those links I checked http://tinyurl.com/alwj7 propagates such utter
>>>> bullshit it would have given Mitch Kapor, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs,
>>>> The Woz, Bill Gates, Stephen Ballmer, Paul Allen, John Gilmore, (and
>>>> most developers of the computer the entire ten of you Stuarts are
>>>> using) a bloody good chuckle http://tinyurl.com/basog
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bob,
>>>
>>> As much as we've disagreed on various topics, I'm curious if you can
>>> explain to me why I feel somehow like a "marijuana pusher" in
>>> challenging a whole lot of silly, baseless attacks on what is, all
>>> things considered, a _relatively_ innocuous illegal drug. This isn't
>>> crack cocaine, methamphetamine or PHP we are talking about here. I
>>> don't even smoke and for all practical purposes never even been a
>>> marijuana smoker.
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, the difference in harm between pot and crack is mainly in its
>> street price. It's easier to get rid of a crack habit than to stop
>> smoking
>> pot. The pot high also lasts for hours at a time as it is an oil
>> soluable
>> drug. Much more subtly damaging. Anyone who labels pot as a "relatively
>> innocuous" drug is kidding themselves and probably not smoked any
>> recently.
>> The newer strains are 20X more potent than when you were a teenager
>> in the
>> 50's Ken.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ken Ragge
>>> http://www.morerevealed.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
> I disagree so so so much with you.

Bryan,

If I was a bit more sensitive I'd most take issue with him saying I was
a teenager in the 50s. While I do remember the Dobie Gillis show and
the front page of the paper showing Casto's tanks rolling through Cuba,
I was hardly a teenager. Although I suppose I must admit that on that
one he was the closest to right of anything he said in his post, even if
he was a decade off. :-)

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 21:35:51 -0800, Ken <nospam@nowhere.org> wrote:

<snip>
>While I am far from convinced of any overwhelming harm caused by
>marijuana and have little interest in investing the weeks to actually
>read the studies _and_ what other scientists have to say about the
>particular studies, I'd really like to see you post some
>_methodologically sound_ studies showning AA effective vs. no treatment
>or any other treatment. Now that is something I would not mind spending
>time on.
>
>Of course, I'm not holding my breath. Such has never been produced
>yet. This is not to say you can't quote some nonsense from the NIAAA or
>NCADD that claims such, but I mean actual studies.
>
>Ken Ragge
>http://www.morerevealed.com
>
>>
>

Why are you so intersted in studies?

You are of the opinion AA or NA don't work, so why waste your time
with studies?

AA or NA only works for the people that are interested in that type of
program so what does it matter to you?

The objective is to get clean and sober isn't it?

Do you sell cars on the side?

Regards






Daveb

DaveB wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 21:35:51 -0800, Ken <nospam@nowhere.org> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>>While I am far from convinced of any overwhelming harm caused by
>>marijuana and have little interest in investing the weeks to actually
>>read the studies _and_ what other scientists have to say about the
>>particular studies, I'd really like to see you post some
>>_methodologically sound_ studies showning AA effective vs. no treatment
>>or any other treatment. Now that is something I would not mind spending
>>time on.
>>
>>Of course, I'm not holding my breath. Such has never been produced
>>yet. This is not to say you can't quote some nonsense from the NIAAA or
>>NCADD that claims such, but I mean actual studies.
>>
>>Ken Ragge
>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>Why are you so intersted in studies?
>
>You are of the opinion AA or NA don't work, so why waste your time
>with studies?
>
>AA or NA only works for the people that are interested in that type of
>program so what does it matter to you?
>
>The objective is to get clean and sober isn't it?
>
>Do you sell cars on the side?
>
>Regards
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Daveb
>
>
Dave,

Spoken like a true fan of snake oil.

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com

Ken <nospam@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:S8WdnUid4pAQfuXenZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> stuart wrote:
>
> >Dan McGown <dmcgown@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> >news:VaGdnYZvb8cSR-XenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> >
> >
> >>Stuart,
> >> Crack is the most destructive drug that I have ever seen. I've
seen
> >>people quit alcohol, pot, heroin and even cigarettes, but I've only seen
> >>people pause in their crack addiction while they were institutionalized.
> >> In jail, the crack-hookers only look something like normal if
they've
> >>been incarcerated for four or five months. Otherwise, they weigh about
95
> >>pounds and lost the weight so fast that they have "flap tits" -- empty
> >>
> >>
> >skin
> >
> >
> >>hanging there. If they've been smoking crack for a substantial time,
they
> >>are losing their teeth and walk with an exaggerated, artificial stride
> >>because their motor control becomes impaired. They don't quit; they
die.
> >> Whatever else one says about pot, it doesn't kill people.
> >> Crack, on the other hand, is like full blown AIDS. It's someone
> >>wasting away and waiting to die a degrading death.
> >> Dan
> >>
> >>
> >
> >All quite true Dan, except but pot kills too. Smoking "a" cigarette is
> >unlikely to kill either. Pot kills slowly and its way more carcinogenic.
> >Addiction to crack comes far quicker. Both create varying degrees of
> >psychological dependence mainly. Crack is more acutely addictive, but
after
> >a time, it doesn't work as well as tolerance is created. Pot, as you know
> >takes longer to get addicted to, or I would rather use the term
> >"psychological dependence".
> >Pot addictions can last for many years, whereas most crack addicts are
> >either dead, or off the stuff in two or three years.
> >
> >Don't ask me how I know this. I can't tell you. In part due to close
> >personal experiences. People do quit crack. I did.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Stuart,
>
> I just looked up "carcinogens coffee" on google. I followed that with
> "mutagens coffee." You might be interested to know that not only coffee
> causes birth defects (contains mutagens) but so do cranberries, sweet
> potatoes, mushrooms and nuts.
>
> Here is a brief list of foods and the poisons they contain:
>
> Don't let "rodent carcinogen" fool you. Substances are tested on
> rodents to find out if they are carcinogenic because it is illegal to
> test such dangerous chemicals on people.
>
> *CHEMICAL*
> *WHERE IS IT?*
> *WHAT IS IT?*
> ACETALDEHYDE Apples, tomatoes Mutagen and potent rodent carcinogen
> AFLATOXIN Nuts Mutagen, potent rodent carcinogen, human carcinogen
> ALLYL ISOTHIOCYANATE Arugula, broccoli, mustard Mutagen, rodent
> carcinogen
> ANILINE Carrots Rodent carcinogen
> BENZALDEHYDE Apples, coffee, tomatoes Rodent carcinogen
> BENZENE Coffee Rodent carcinogen
> BENZO(A)PYRENE Bread, coffee, pumpkin pie, rolls, tea Mutagen and
> rodent carcinogen
> BENZOFURAN Coffee Rodent carcinogen
> BENZYL ACETATE Jasmine tea Rodent carcinogen
> CAFFEIC ACID Apples, carrots, celery, coffee, pears, grapes, lettuce,
> mangos, potatoes Rodent carcinogen
> CATECHOL Coffee Rodent carcinogen
> D-LIMONENE Black pepper, mango Rodent carcinogen
> 1,2,5,6-DIBENZ(A)ANTHRACENE Coffee Rodent carcinogen
> ESTRAGOLE Apples, basil Rodent carcinogen
> ETHYL ALCOHOL Bread, red wine, rolls, tomatoes Rodent and human
> carcinogen
> ETHYL BENZENE Coffee Rodent carcinogen
> ETHYL CARBAMATE Bread, rolls, red wine Mutagen and rodent carcinogen
> FURAN AND FURAN DERIVATIVES Bread, onions, celery, mushrooms, sweet
> potatoes, rolls, cranberry sauce, coffee Many are mutagens
> FURFURAL Bread, coffee, nuts, rolls, sweet potatoes Furan derivative
> and rodent carcinogen
> HETEROCYCLIC AMINES Roast beef, turkey Mutagens and rodent carcinogens
> HYDRAZINES Mushrooms Mutagens and rodent carcinogens
> HYDROGEN PEROXIDE Coffee, tomatoes Mutagen and rodent carcinogen
> HYDROQUINONE Coffee Rodent carcinogen
> METHYLGLYOXAL Coffee, red wine Mutagen and rodent carcinogen
> PSORALENS Celery, parsley Mutagens, rodent and human carcinogens
> QUERCETIN GLYCOSIDES Apples, onions, tea, tomatoes Mutagens and rodent
> carcinogens
> SAFROLE Nutmeg in apple and pumpkin pies, black pepper Rodent carcinogen
> SYMPHYTINE Comfrey tea Rodent carcinogen
>
>
> And Safeway is allowed to sell all these poisons openly!!!!!

In relatively trivial doses. However, if one gets addicted to any of the
above foods and consumes signifigant daily amounts of any particular item,
the probability of developing problems goes up...


>
> Ken Ragge
> http://www.morerevealed.com

"stuart" <fred@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:O25ef.143119$Io.124559@clgrps13...
> Don't ask me how I know this. I can't tell you.

Stuart, you're a clown, even when you don't purport to be, although
this time you forgot your hilarious, "trust me!"

Perhaps, given your multiple personality confusion, you aren't yet
game to say, "trust we"

Bob