So, I guess you're one of those fools who bought into the "any marijuana use is automatically abuse" propoganda? The same has been said about alcohol. Yet the case of alcohol, the bible specifically endorses it's use. Nothing in the bible indicates marijuana is any different. The message the bible gives is one of moderation - not abstinence. Moderate marijuana use is not abuse. Smoking until you can't get the lighter aligned with the bowl, all day, everyday, is abuse. The fact is, the vast majority of marijuana users use it in moderation. The abusers are just much more obvious.

Coffee contains oils that will solute THC. Back when Hash was available I used to put some in my coffee. Warm it first so it's "fluffed" and it will dissolve in hot coffee. You get the stimulant quality of caffiene without getting the jitters, and the relaxing quality of pot without the laziness.

Let's not forget that the hemp flax breaking machine (which revolutionized hemp production the same way Whitney's Cotton Gin did the cotton industry) was also patented in 1937, making hemp much more economically viable than it was previously, much more so than wood pulp or petro-plastics.

Statistically, over 60% of all Americans over the age of 18 have used marijuana at least once. In almost every state that has had a legalization referendum it has passed. The reason politicians haven't made a platform on legalization are two-fold:

1. It doesn't have a big enough impact. People are far more concerned about the economy, terrorism, etc, and being pro-marijuana won't provide a significant increase in votes.

2. Running for office is expensive, and politicians depend on donations from Oil and Pharma companies. These companies have a vested interest in keeping marijuana illegal, and aren't going to donate money to anyone who comes out in favor of legalization.

Your supposition is erroneous. There is no evidence that marijuana use causes mental disorders, but there is a lot of evidence that people who have mental disorders are more likely to use drugs. In other words, the pot didn't make them crazy - they were already crazy and smoked pot in an attempt to self-medicate the problem. Numerous studies have shown that marijuana can mitigate the effects of a variety of mental disorders, so the pot probably kept them out of the nuthouse longer than they would have without it. http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

When I was growing up there was a guy who routinely drove home drunk, about a 10 mile trip. He drove slowly, and would pull over and stop whenever he saw a car coming in either direction. The cops just ignored it, he was no danger to anyone. Mind you, this is a small rural community - that wouldn't fly anywhere there was more traffic. Of course, things are different now, and there's no way he'd get away with it.

It depends on the person. I have passed urine tests with only 3 days of abstinence, and no "cleaners" even though I was a heavy (all day, every day) user. Much depends on the amount of body fat, and other metabolic factors.

Many people are convicted of OWI (or DUI, whatever your state calls it) without a breath/blood test. Failure to pass a "roadside sobriety" test IS admissible in court. Most cops these days have been trained on the Horizontal Astigmatism Test (that's the one where the cop says "hold your head straight and follow my pen/finger/flashlight with your eyes). The HAT can detect a wide variety of drugs, legal and otherwise, and even show which type of drug you are on. When performed by a trained officer, and video taped, this is admissible in every state. Currently, in most areas, simply having marijuana and a means to smoke it (a pipe, papers, etc) in the vehicle is sufficient to garner a conviction.

Every point in your argument except the first points out that "it has been suggested" but no-one has every been able to prove any of it with any - even purely statistical - evidence. Who's suggesting these things? Your article doesn't say. I'll make a suggestion myself - these OPINIONS are "suggested" by the people who sponsored the study and want marijuana to remain illegal. With as much money as the government and pharma companies have put into proving marijuana is hazardous, if those dangers actually existed they would have been proven. There have been many studies showing marijuana can be used in effective treatment regimes to help treat Bi-Polar disorder, schizophrenia, some forms of autism, ADHD, and quite a few other mental disorders. There has never been ANY evidence that marijuana use alone causes any of the disorders you listed. Here's a clue - when a study says "it has been suggested" it means "this is what our sponsors wanted us to prove, but our findings didn't substantiate that whatsoever." Also, some of the commonly prescribed medications for those disorders have adverse interactions with marijuana, and using them together is worse than using nothing at all. Many of the studies that claim marijuana is detrimental are conducted with patients using those medications also, in conjunction with marijuana, but only marijuana is listed as a cause for the adverse reaction. My primary source for this is my housemate, a degreed pharmacologist. A simple google search will turn up a plethora of sources that verify the rest of the information I've provided.

It could be that the guy was just a slacker/idiot, and marijuana had nothing to do with it. You have absolutely no way of knowing if him being stoned was the cause of the problem, or just another symptom. That being said, in my experience, excessive consumption and intoxication at work can cause problems at work. However, the vast majority of users don't smoke to that level of excess, especially before/at work. Excessive use of caffeine can cause just as many serious work problems, and many people routinely get wired before and at work.

There is no state (in the USA) where it is legal to grow or manufacture hemp. Even manufacturing with raw hemp is illegal. While hemp goods (clothing, paper, twine for hippie jewelry, etc) are legal, they are manufactured outside the US, and imported as "finished products". Even if a particular state legalizes hemp production (or medical marijuana) it still violates Federal statutes, and the feds have repeatedly shown that they WILL prosecute. Licensed medical marijuana repositories in CA are routinely raided, and staff arrested and prosecuted.

Actually, the counterweight (which, unlike the article states, is farther out than Geostationary,) would pull any slack out of the cable with centrifugal force. Read up on space elevators - they require no added energy to stay in place. The only energy needed is to move the payloads.

Sure it's fair to ask them to re-invent the wheel. If I want to write photo editing software I can't just include Photoshop code - I have to write my own. That's the way commercial software works, why should OSS be any different? If you want to use OSS or commercial code you must respect the property rights of the people who wrote it. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, releasing code under the GPL does NOT mean relinquishing your property rights to that code. In fact, the intention of the GPL is to prevent someone else from usurping the developers property rights.

To expect to be able to use someone else's GPL code in a commercial app you create is selfish. Why should you make a profit from selling the fruit of another's labor?

If you want to use parts of Photoshop code in your own app, you have to negotiate with Adobe. They may be willing to license their code to you, or they may not. If they do, you can expect them to want something out of the deal.

If you want to use GPL code in your app, you have to negotiate with the developer (or other copyright holder) of that code. They may be willing to dual license their code, or they may not. If they do, you can expect them to want something out of the deal.

I fail to see any real difference.

Tommy