Bitcoin Forum

I would like to Donate some Bitcoins to the www.gzdefensefund.com but they only accept Paypal. There is no Email address to ask them to accept Bitcoins so what can I do about it?

...

(facepalm)

Might not be the best idea given that the Zimmermans lied in court about how much was in the PayPal fund in order to get his bond reduced.  Bitcoin could do without being thought of as the means by which Zimmerman was able to flee the country.

So the guy is caught on record committing perjury, stalked and murdered a child, and even if he was innocent of everything is too dumb to not make himself look guilty as fuck (he is), and you still want to give him money?


You sir, are a saint who will receive the highest reward in Aryan Heaven

I'll pass, thanks.

That's a pretty massive misunderstanding of what happened.  Zimmerman was trying to get the police there to handle the situation, you don't call the police right before you "stalk and murder" someone.  Like it or not, the truth is Martin attacked him and Zimmerman defended himself from having his head slammed into the concrete.

The problem here is with the law, it should not be legal for private citizens to carry firearms like that.  A tazer or pepper spray is a perfectly reasonable form of self defense, they should leave the guns out of the equation and then this never would have happened.  Here in England the police don't even need to carry guns and they still manage to do their jobs.

Wife lied, GZ was not in a position to know. Fleeing the country, convicted of a pre-crime, brilliant. So Bitcoin would enable criminality, but Cash or Paypal won't.  ::)


He did not lie about money at all, his wife did. You've convicted already, brilliant! I know 16 year olds with more bodies than most war veterans. Yes I want to give him money, the state has unlimited resources and being poor limits your ability to a good defense.

If you're walking down the street at night and this guy begins to haunt you without any reason, and possibly showing a gun, of course you defend, Trayvon acted in self defense and was killed ...

Glad this worked for you. I'll definitely think about buying this after I donate to GZ.

http://www.trans4mind.com/RV/a_RV_Package_Web.jpg

That isn't what happened.  Zimmerman was walking away and Martin approached him from behind before violently breaking his nose and slamming his head into the concrete multiple times while Zimmerman screamed.  

Even if your version was true, I disagree that "of course" you should fight in that situation.  Do you know what happens when you bring your fists to a gun fight?

Well, it worked out for Martin like that usually will.  It's a much better bet to run away, hide, and call the police.  If Martin was thinking more clearly (Read:  Not on a dangerous, mind altering illegal drug at the time (http://www.metro.us/newyork/national/article/1143413--autopsy-trayvon-martin-had-thc-in-his-system-the-night-he-was-shot)) he probably would have realized attacking Zimmerman was not a good idea.  Drugs and guns caused this tragedy, and it's just another example of why people should not be allowed to have access to them.

People will find reasons to kill each other whether drugs and guns are available or not.

You could nominate it for the Bitcoin100. It would most assuredly be rejected though.


The distorted values and aberrant behavior caused by a sick society built on the foundations of a false authority and imaginary economy allow these episodes to occur.

Transcript of 911 call

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

Clearly says that Trayvon ran away and he was chasing ...

EDIT:
Now if you go with a few drinks and ends with a shot in the chest just to deal with an aggressor, is your fault for drinking? No sir, no alcohol or  guns, is a man who shoots and kills him.

You can hear him stop running before he hangs up.  He was walking back to meet the police.

What happens when the call ends is not clear, what is clear is that from the beginning the only one with an attitude threatening and harassing and clear position of superiority is Zimmerman

I will not continue posting here, it makes me angry and this is not a chat. Is a Bitcoin forum and is the only thing I want to read here
I never should have started

What is clear from the call is that he is scared Martin might be planning to rob houses, was on drugs (he was right), and was approaching his car with something in his hands (Zimemrman clearly thought he was armed.)

Zimmerman was afraid of Martin, the only reason he followed after him to guide the police was the false sense of security brought on by having a firearm in his possession.  When the 9/11 operator tells him he doesn't have to follow, he says okay, and it is clear he has stopped running as he continues to talk without sounds of footsteps or heavy breathing and he makes it clear he doesn't even see Martin anymore, which is an obvious sign he wasn't following him at the time.

911 operator:

"Are you following him?"

Zimmerman:

"Yeah."

911 Operator:

"OK, we don't need you to do that."

He was told not to pursue him thus he should be charged with and convicted of Murder.

Let the court decide whether or not the he's guilty. Everything else is just mad and wild speculation.

You missed the part where Zimmerman replies "OK" and stops following him, so I'm glad you won't be on the jury.

I've already donated to Zimmerman but I'd be happy to donate more

Just PM me with how much you want to donate and we can make a deal. This allows me to buy more btc anyway. I can send you a copy of my reciept etc after I make the paypal donation.

The 'drugs' in Trayvon's body were trace amount of marijuana, low enough that there was no way he was high at the time.


On the other hand, in Zimmerman's statement to EMTs he claimed to be taking two at the time, and Zimmerman's own doctor said he was also prescribed (though not necessarily under the effects of at the time, save maybe withdrawals) Adderall.


So, one person tested as 'high awhile ago, but not now' and the other told EMTs he had drugs in his system right then.


Zimmerman's paranoia caused him to murder a child, since he is the only one still definitively claiming that he was 'surprise attacked' and he is also a compulsive liar currently being charged with perjury, I'd say his words hold no value.

What he posted and the events that the girlfriend claimed to have heard seem to match up and go opposed to Zimmerman's bizarre story about a scared young boy suddenly turning into Aggressive  Violent Ninja Negro and jumping and beating him so badly that EMTs didn't think he needed to go to a hospital.

I'm glad you won't be on the jury, because you are a nutcase jumping through hoops to believe the wild and changing stories of a habitual liar with a history of aggression trying to avoid a murder 2 charge.

He followed an unarmed kid on public property, and ended up shooting and killing him. Stand Your Ground laws be damned, that isn't right and he should be made liable for his actions. At the very least there should be a trial so it can be decided by people who know the facts.


Being a pothead and going to the store to buy skittles isn't something you kill people over.

The disgusting thing is that the Zimmerman defenders don't want this to go to trial, because they either know he is guilty as all hell or have bought into this whole narrative that the feds or media or something and prosecuting an 'innocent' man because of some conspiracy about gun rights or race wars or something.

Stand Your Ground laws are bullshit anyways because whenever there is a body, there should at least be a trial. If the shooter was actually acting in self defense, the jury should be able to see it.

If any of what Zimmerman told the police, who were on the scene in minutes since he had called them (strange thing to do before a murder), has changed from the night it happened until now I'm not aware of it.  Could you link me anything that shows he has changed his story?

There is a lot of second hand stuff from his father and others that has been confused, but none of what Zimmerman has said to the police has changed or been proven wrong as far as I am aware. There are pictures of the injuries to his head, and if his doctors say his nose wasn't broken that probably would have been publicly known by now.  I don't think you should be trying to diagnose someone based on pictures when you don't know what you are talking about.  Same thing with the drug test thing.  You are the one making convoluted defenses.    He was on drugs, he even had his lighter with him at the time (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-05-17/news/31753474_1_medical-report-gated-community-autopsy-report) obviously because he needed it.

Even if that wasn't true, the fact is Marijuana can cause long term damage to the mind, it seems quite possible that this contributed to Martin's poor choices.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html



Believe me, I know all about how bad drugs like that can be.  Psychiatrists are downright criminal, and it would be a better world if people stopped trusting them, but it doesn't look to me like Adderall played a role in this.  Zimmerman was right to be suspicious about how Martin was looking at the houses.  He had been caught with stolen property (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html) before and he could have been planning to rob again.  Zimmerman was also right that Martin was on drugs.  It wasn't paranoia, Zimemrman seemed to be diagnosing the situation very clearly. 

I definitely want this to go to trial, but it doesn't look like there will be a conviction.


If you get high and break somebody's nose and slam their head into the concrete while they scream, they have a right to defend themselves.  As I mentioned earlier I don't believe in private gun ownership so I agree killing someone is not the right choice when there are non-lethal methods of personal defense such as pepper spray or a taser.  Or, Martin could have called the police or ran home if he was really scared, but instead he chose to confront Zimmerman from behind and severely injure him.

Could you link where he is quoted as claiming any of this?  I believe you are confusing second or third hand accounts for what Zimmerman has actually said, I'm not aware of anything that conflicts with what he told the police.


It certainly appears they lied about money, but that does not have any bearing on what actually happened the night Trayvon attacked him.


The medical evidence is what it is, you are again making convoluted arguments to try and deny the facts.  The pictures clearly show the injuries Zimmerman sustained.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/George_Zimmerman_back_of_head.jpg
http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_ssh.jpg

And the autopsy showed that Martin's hands showed signs of the struggle. 


Cite the quote.


See the pictures, and note that:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2145059/Trayvon-Martin-killing-George-Zimmerman-treated-broken-nose-cuts-head.html#ixzz1xeodCoTJ

Sorry, he really was attacked, the evidence is very clear.  You are starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist here when you just straight up deny the facts of the case.

This is a really lame thread. You guys already decided he's guilty and not guilty before we even have a trial.

It is clear that donate money to the murderer of a child is a despicable act.
There are thousands of people really innocent,that never pulled the trigger, incarcerated, for which no one has lifted a finger and now come these "good samaritans" to support this guy?
Sucks

Should lose all faith in humanity  see how people are willing to donate thousands of dollars to defend the murderer of your son / brother / grandson...

ill donate a few where do I send the coin?

What is lame about this thread is that it's even a thread. Seriously, it has nothing to do with bitcoin. It's like saying "Who's donating to the guy who beats his wife thread?" his legal guilt is irrelevant. He shot and killed the kid- no one disputes that, and if he doesn't have money he will get a public defendant.

Save your bitcoin for bailing out Bitcoin projects that are being crushed by the likes of Apple (Bitpak for example) and supporting the economy. Zimmerman probably couldn't give a flying pig f... about Bitcoin.

We only have Zimmerman's word for that, and he has been proven a liar already.

At the time?  THC stays in your system for up to two months.  Half the population probably has some THC in their system.

No, there are other sources that show Martin was attacking a helpless Zimmerman.  Even Martin's father didn't believe it was his son screaming and witnesses confirm he was beating Zimmerman.  It is shocking to me that people who have not followed this case at all think they have enough information to come to an informed conclusion.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/cops-witnesses-back-george-zimmermans-version/story?id=16371852#.T9jG-bX8TF9


He had his lighter on him for a reason, he was clearly on drugs at the time of the attack as Zimmerman quickly determined thanks to Martin's strange behavior.  It's bizzare how people just want to ignore such a major part of this story, most likely because there is an agenda among some to falsely claim Marijuana is safe, but here we have it leading to the death of a child and all people want to do is protect their obscene belief that this drug be made more available everywhere.

That's a load of crap. Trayvon's father said he couldn't identify the voice. It is shocking as some people believe a liar.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/07/video-eyewitness-to-the-trayvon-martin-shooting-speaks-out/?iref=obinsite

On March 29, 2012, an eyewitness referred to as a male said that he saw two men on the ground scuffling, then heard the shooting, and saw Zimmerman walk away with no blood on him.[124][125] The witness later appeared on CNN AC360 referred to as a female, giving more details on her account. She pointed out that she heard an argument between a younger and an older voice. The whole time she witnessed the incident the scuffling happened on the grass. She said that the larger man, who walked away after the gunshot, was on top, and that it was too dark to see blood on his face.[126]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Sanford_Police_arrival_and_initial_investigation

Mary Cutcher and her roommate, Selma Mora Lamilla, appeared on AC 360 and Cutcher stated that she believes "there was no punching, no hitting going on at the time, no wrestling" just prior to the shooting, but admitted that she neither saw the shooting nor the preceding altercation.[119][120][121] Cutcher and her roommate heard the pair in their backyard and a "very young voice" whining, with no sounds of a fight. They heard a gunshot; the crying stopped immediately, and they saw Zimmerman on his knees straddling Martin on the ground.[119][121] Mary Cutcher phoned police after the fatal shooting and said the black man was standing over another man, although Trayvon Martin was already dead.[122] According to the Orlando Sentinel article, "Police spokesman Sgt. Dave Morgenstern [on March 15] issued a statement disputing Cutcher's version of events, calling her statements to WFTV "inconsistent with her sworn testimony to police."[123] However, Cutcher and her roommate maintain that their account of the incident to the police did not agree with Zimmerman's, and they demanded the police retract that incorrect statement.[120]

It's shocking to me how easily people like you jump to conclusions.  (He had a lighter on him, so he must have just taken drugs!)  Luckily, I base my conclusions on facts alone.

He had a lighter on him, and he tested positive for the drugs.  It's not jumping to conclusions to accept these facts, you are simply jumping frantically away from the factual conclusion you wish wasn't true.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-17/zimmerman-trayvon-shooting-report/55046944/1


His father has since changed his story on this now, but that is hardly inspiring trust, is it?


Yeah, great witness you have there.  Folks who actually saw it disagree with her account, as due the clear facts that Zimmerman was injured.

Witnesses split 50-50, and don't remember anything of value. Until they actually testify it's irrelevant. Drugs are irrelevant.

But that Zimmerman lied to the judge is very relevant. That's pretty much the only fact we have right now. That's a huge victory for the prosecutor.

Now you are jumping to conclusions about what I'm thinking?   :-\

No, we have plenty of other facts, like Zimmerman's medical report and the photos of his injury, that clearly call into question the statements of anyone who said Martin was not beating Zimmerman.

These are open to interpretation. They prove nothing so far. All facts are sealed at this moment.

This case will be mostly based on finding lies in Zimmerman's testimony.

Zimmerman's report holds little weight since it came from a 'personal doctor' and not a court or police appointed examiner, while the EMTs found no injuries that warranted a hospital visit.

You don't necessarily need a hospital visit for these injuries, but they are plenty severe enough to show he was being beaten. 

"NUH-UH, THE DOCTOR IS A LIAR!" is not exactly an argument I can refute, but it's also not one that I think should be taken seriously either.  Doctors aren't likely to lie and put their entire career and freedom at risk just to help one random patient get out of a murder charge. 


Criminal mastermind Zimmerman has convinced his neighbors and doctors to lie to cover up his murder!  And then he convinced the police to photoshop up the images that clearly show the injuries! 

http://www.delawareliberal.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/medium-dr-evil-1.jpg

Let me join this WTF thread.  

WTF!  

1) Somebody smart enough to find this forum and be interested in bitcoins thinks drug prohibition could help limit violence.  

Wow.  Just wow.  There's proof positive that somebody can be smart in one area and stone dumb in another.  Either that, or somebody has a secret agenda.  


2)  "We have chosen to use PayPal to collect donations because they offer secure transactions, they have a strong reputation for online monetary transactions, and they are a trusted third-party."

Wow.  Looks like GZ is going to have a tough time if his legal defense fund can jump to this kind of conclusion.  Either that, or somebody has a secret agenda.  


3)  A real answer for the OP, assuming this is not about spreading FUD:   Use coinopault.  Send money to whomever you like.  

Why the fuck did you guys have to start ANOTHER thread? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=76129.0

Can this please be moved to off-topic, it isn't in any way related to Bitcoin Discussion, as much as OP would like it to be.

You need to open your mind to the truth.  Take a look at a nation like Singapore with strong drug enforcement and law enforcement in general...violent crime is extremely rare.  When you let people poison their minds with addictive junk, it's not a shock that they end up violent or criminal.

Looks like a lot of people here have fallen into the MSM's trap.

Other people have been shot today. This is no different.

So the EMT report and the pictures of him without black eyes mean nothing, but an ABC news interview with an anonymous neighbor does?

Also Florida is pretty much the place to go if you are an unethical doctor looking to make bank off your lack of morals.

Drugs are fun and I havent killed anyone yet, no harm no foul

The autopsy showed he had used drugs. And he was suspended from school for drugs. That is not why he was shot though. He was shot for attempting to murder someone. Yes. Pounding someones head against the pavement is attempted murder.
If anyone tried to do that to me they would be dead in seconds. If you disagree, then what should one do while having your head smashed in?

You really should not to try and overrule what the doctors he saw say happened if you don't understand that bruises don't always appear instantly.  What the EMS saw was consistent with what Zimmerman said happened, that he had been beaten on the face and had his head slammed into the concrete, which is also consistent with what his neighbor saw the next day.  Or hey, maybe ABC made up the story from the neighbor. The conspiracy grows!

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-05-18/justice/justice_florida-teen-shooting_1_witness-interview-person/4?_s=PM:JUSTICE


So you are accusing a random doctor of lying to cover up a murder for money, with zero evidence, fantastic.  You have a preconceived notion that Zimmerman is guilty and are just saying whatever is necessary for it to be true, no matter how ridiculous, even though the facts say you are wrong.  

You know he is mixed right?  That is all.   I am too far from the facts to have an opinion.

Yeah, this is the whole narrative pushed by Fox as a way to downplay all the institutional racism against black people in this country. His heritage doesn't matter as much as the fact that he felt he was a law enforcer stopping a suspicious black person. The people defending him are mostly doing so for one of two reasons: they feel gun rights are under attack, or they are more willing to believe, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, that a black child walking home from the store decided to attack and violently beat someone than the notion that Zimmerman's tendency to profile blacks caused him to initiate and quickly escalate a confrontation that ended in him shooting a child.



Also, as an aside, there were links to Zimmerman's myspace posted awhile back with him making derogatory comments about mexicans, so while it isn't particularly relevant it shows that he certainly seemed to think of himself as more 'white'

yahoo news (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/george-zimmerman-myspace-page-trayvon-martin-shooter-called-180717152.html)



IN OTHER NEWS - might wanna hold off on your donations until a little more evidence comes out, a judge has ordered that nearly all the evidence, includes photos of the crime scene, Trayvon's full autopsy and Zimmerman's multiple statements to police be unsealed to the public in 15 days

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/judge-orders-george-zimmermans-statements-trayvon-martins-autopsy

I expect that a non-trivial amount of Zimmerman supporters would have been just fine with it if he'd used their donations to flee the country.  This is a situation where people on both sides are firmly convinced that justice won't be done.

It's so weird how you have to twist the facts to come up with anything to defend your position.  Martin is several inches bigger than Zimmerman, was under the influence of mind altering drugs, and the evidence shows he was beating Zimmerman physically during their fight.  The story is slightly more complex than "a black child walking home from the store".  You have not been able to produce any evidence to the contrary.  You simply make incorrect claims (like that Zimmerman changed his story) and when asked for a cite you ignore the request.  (Because you are wrong)

Or you insist it's some conspiracy, everybody is lying about the injury and all the witnesses that actually saw Martin on top are lying and ABC is lying and the doctor is lying and the police are lying and the autopsy is lying...or maybe it's time to actually accept the narrative you have for this crime is wrong?

So, can you let us know what evidence you are using to justify your claim that Zimmerman profiled black men?

As for gun rights, I think I've been pretty clear where I stand on that.  Gun control is the solution to this problem of black men (and everyone else) being shot, for self defense or as part of crimes or random acts,  we need to take guns off the streets and out of the hands of the police as well.

I did not realize what a storm this would create here. I was basically asking if people knew how to get in touch with those running the website, lawyers, trust funders, what ever, that's all. meh.

The autopsy report stated Martin was 5 feet, 11 inches and weighed 158 pounds.
Zimmerman's height is shown as 5'7" and his weight at 200 pounds

Zimmerman is heavier then Martin by good 40 pounds. That's a big advantage. Martin was a skinny dude. FAIL.

Now about drugs, Zimmerman was under drugs - Adderall and Temazepam. Both of them are known to cause violent behavior, depression, irritability. FAIL.

Witnesses split 50/50 about who was screaming and who was on top of who.

Pot doesn't cause people to become more violent. Duh.





 

Nah, I'll pass on this one too. My coins go to a more deserving charity. I would rather donate to my poor doggy's titbit fund then to him.

The relative sizes aren't really that important since we know Martin was winning the fight anyway, the weight obviously wasn't a concern.  The point was the imagery brought up of "Zimmerman v. a child" does not at all match up with him confronting a nearly six foot tall, intoxicated, violent individual who broke his nose and slammed his head into the concrete.  If you really think Zimmerman is guilty, you should not have to resort to trying to manipulate the imagery.


Yes, this has been brought up several times before.  I don't trust psychiatrists with their brain poisons either, but there is a reason the FDA has approved these drugs but not the illegal marijuana Martin was abusing.  It's would be much better if all of us kept our minds free and clear of this junk, but it will take some work to undo the scientific wrongs that have been done in the mental health field.

  Anyway, as bad as those prescribed drugs are, marijuana is much, much worse.  Further, there is no evidence these drugs were altering Zimmerman's behavior, instead of acting out aggression he called the police to handle the matter, something he would not do if he was planning a murder. Martin never called for help, he was looking for a confrontation because the drugs in his system were interfering with rational thought.

It's a tragedy people are blaming Zimmerman when the real blame is with the society that fails to properly educate our youths about the dangers of these drugs. Education can make a world of difference.

The program described in this study should be way more common.  It should be in every school, it simply works.

http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/3/1/8





The evidence makes it very clear what happened.  The only injuries aside from the gunshot Martin suffered were to his knuckles, and Zimmerman's injuries were to his face and the back of his head as it was slammed into the concrete.  Even Martin's own father said it was not Trayvon screaming until he changed his story.  Every witness who actually had eyes on the event says Trayvon was on top.

BTW learn the difference between 1nd and 2nd degree murders, you're confused. May be you should take less drugs or booze? Alcohol is a lot worse drug than THC... Morphine is FDA approved too and so THC. But you can't really buy them OTC.

http://www.thc.me/1497/news/marinol-fda-aprroved-thc-pill

Of course there is an evidence of drugs altering Zimmerman's behavior, he stalked and killed a man. Why would a normal person do that?!




LOL... You said every witness? It's 50/50, I counted 3 witnesses disputing Zimmerman's story....

On March 29, 2012, an eyewitness referred to as a male said that he saw two men on the ground scuffling, then heard the shooting, and saw Zimmerman walk away with no blood on him.[125][126] The witness later appeared on CNN AC360 referred to as a female, giving more details on her account. She pointed out that she heard an argument between a younger and an older voice. The whole time she witnessed the incident the scuffling happened on the grass. She said that the larger man, who walked away after the gunshot, was on top, and that it was too dark to see blood on his face

Big fail again.

Wait, I'm failing because you came up a witness with two different genders in two different accounts? That didn't see the blood that was clearly visible in the pictures? LOL. This is getting beyond sad.
-
THC as marinol is approved in limited applications, but marijuana is a dangerous cocktail of chemicals beyond THC which the FDA has never, ever approved.

These are news as reported. Here is a video:
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/07/video-eyewitness-to-the-trayvon-martin-shooting-speaks-out/?iref=obinsite


Travon was supposed to be 6'3, but he was only 5'11.

So did you know THC was approved by FDA? So here goes your an another theory about pot. FAIL.

Give it a break already.  There is NO test to check if one is under the influence of marijuana.  That FACT is the reason pot isn't legal in Canada yet - no way to stop people from driving high cause you can't test for it.

All they know is that he smoked pot within the last 2 months.  One stays under the influence for only a few hours.

Educate yourself - you are looking like a fool.

Hi, I'm not from Canada, I'm from Clearwater, Florida originally, much closer to the scene of the crime than Canada.  Do you know how we test for THC in DUI cases in Florida?  Exactly how it was done in this case.  He tested positive, and he had a lighter on him to make it clear he was getting high that night, and the pointless violent assault he leveled on Zimmerman is just another data point.

If he was clear and sober, he never would have done this, he would have done the sensible thing and returned home and/or called the police.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGiBycxRNL4&feature=related

The medical evidence is clear, smoking pot can make you violent and alters your thinking process, making you paranoid and disturbed.


http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2006/02/01/Study-Link-between-marijuana-aggression/UPI-28721138819619/#ixzz1xnfl72Wq

People who deny the dangers of Marijuana are exactly like those who deny the global warming science.  Just because you wish something was true doesn't mean it is, you have to actually look at the science.

That smacks of a study that couldn't be damned to actually do proper research. Fucking hell, there are so many variables that they conveniently ignored, it's totally laughable to look at the "study" and use it for evidence.

Additionally, you conveniently left out this quote from the same article:
(Emphasis mine)

So even if you do take the article at face value, it is still making a case for legalization.

No offense, but everything you just said is complete horse shit. Fucking liberals.

how did this thread go from donating btc to legalizing marijuana? *scratches head*

I dunno man. I have know a lot of weed smokers and I never seen it do anything but make them tired, hungry, and silly.  Much more likely to give an awkward but sincere hug than throw a punch.  If you want to get violent try tequila. That stuff makes me want to fight sometimes.  

Part of the reason people want to find something wrong with a drug is mindset, IMO. They just cant accept that one can get high and enjoy it without repercussions. It's like women saying they like sex or someone else saying they don't believe in God. People who believe others should behave like they do seem to hate when others are happy to live outside of the rules.  

Just responding to Rarity's bunk "evidence" that drugs are bad, mmmmkay.

Nah, I've already talked about Singapore, very stringent drug enforcement and very low rates of violence.  The author of the study there was just stating an opinion in that quote.

Your ability to refute a scientific study with "NUH-UH, THE SCIENTISTS ARE DUMMYS!" is as I said before, pretty much the same as global warming denialism.  You can argue any point that way, but there is no reason to take you seriously when you do.

Experts agree that the link is valid.


http://www.theantidrug.com/drug_info/drug-info-marijuana-and-teens.asp



http://www.justthinktwice.com/factsfiction/fiction_marijuana_is_harmless.html


The fact is, the increase in aggressive behavior isn't even the only concern that could have contributed to Martin's violence, it can precipitate psychosis (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/02/11/133615747/researchers-link-marijuana-and-earlier-onset-of-psychosis) or panic attacks (http://www.healthyplace.com/anxiety-panic/articles/link-between-marijuana-use-and-panic-and-anxiety/) which could have easily led to Martin misinterpreting Zimmerman's benign intentions.

It's a disgrace that we allow children to have access to addictive poisons like this.

LOL. Comparing a city vs a country thats 100x times larger. Wow, genius. Correlation isn't causation. Singapore doesn't allow guns, so may be that's why lower crime rate? (it was proven many times that well being of people in the country relates to crime, Singapore is in top 3 of the world highest PPP). Weapons or drugs has absolutely fucking nothing to do with it. Zimmerman would be in jail in Singapore for possessing a gun.



You can't overdose on pot, ecstasy or LCD. You can quiet easily die from alcohol, a 1L bottle of Vodka would do the trick. In 2009 no people died from canabis, over 20000 died from alcohol.

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

Zimmerman was also on controlled substances... Schedule II and Schedule IV. So yea, here goes your an another FAIL theory.

^ I have already discussed Zimmerman's use of dangerous psychiatric poisons as well multiple times in this thread.  There does not appear to be any evidence that they contributed to any negative actions (because Zimmerman did not perform any such actions beyond not having access to a non-lethal weapon such as pepper spray or a taser to handle his attacker), but I agree with you that it is a disgrace that doctors are allowed to subject people to that form of "treatment".  


When it works in one city it can work in others.


I agree the prohibition on guns also contributes, and that should be the way it is in the US too.


You don't overdose, but the panic attacks and other mental effects can lead to your death in other ways.  

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051201/marijuana-raises-risk-of-fatal-car-crash

Alcohol should also be illegal.   The gun violence involved in prohibition was why it became a violent and unsustainable mess, once we take the guns away it is an achievable goal to prohibit it.

You can also overdose on many other substances, like Dihydrogen Monoxide.. It should be illegal also.

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html#VIOLENCE

Substances that are necessary to sustain life should not be prohibited, even if they can have negative side effects.  Substances that are only used for fun are not in the same category, they aren't worth sacrificing your life or the lives of our children for.


https://i.imgur.com/efzQl.png

It's really time that died. Only really stupid people fall for it and I don't like being reminded of just how many really stupid people there are in the world.

LOL. But its totally true that you can overdose on water :-) People died.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication#Notable_cases

Sport drinks FTW.

Hmm..  how would you recommend I open my mind?  Eh?  Shouldn't that be illegal in your view?

Can you think of some places with even stronger spending on "drug and law enforcement"  ?  How do the records on violence compare ?   Don't you think Singapore would be safer still if all drug related criminality was instantly gone and replaced with rational policy ?  

Can you think of other ways to entice people to become criminal?  How about, by giving billions of dollars a year in business only to criminals?  Encouraging corruption at the highest levels of law enforcement and government?  Eliminating the rule of law for transactions that affect millions of people?  

How about putting 2% of the population in jail so they can learn the ropes?  

Seriously folks, if you're not on board with this one you are part of the problem.    

Religious leaders,  Police officers     http://www.leap.cc/
Economists,  everyone except drug cartel leaders and corrupt politicians agree:  prohibition causes violence and criminality.   Its proven historically, logically, and once again the only reason one might disagree is if one is taking money from drug cartels and related corruption..  even then, your argument is still wrong in the long term.  

Drugs are too dangerous to be left to the hands of criminals.  

Remember it is you and your children who will be shot at, jailed, and robbed, by corruption that you enable when you apologize for it with fake arguments of do-goodery and vain hopes of short term profits from your corruption.  


In other news, you should probably also study what are the most addictive substances and most common mind-poisoning behaviors.  

There are many paths to personal growth.  Philosophy, artistic pursuits, sports, education, helping your fellow man, there is really an amazing amount of things you can do that don't involve poisoning yourself.  For me the key has been spirituality and I think that can be a great path towards helping you get there, it teaches you to "know how to know".  It taught me that I am a spiritual being and that my abilities extended well beyond what I had thought which helped me in my career and in personal relationships.


Nobody can be entirely safe, but Singapore's very rational policy has made it one of the safest places in the world.  America should follow suit with some of their strict policies on crime.


The law doesn't give money to criminals or rob people to get a fix, addicted drug users do.  The law doesn't violently engage in the drug trade, the distributors do that.  It is a false choice to suggest prohibition can not be achieved, as Singapore makes very clear.  It is inhumane to stop trying to protect addicts and children from drugs that kill them just because it is hard.  The government is a force of good, and it should protect us when it can.

Should we legalize child pornography just because stamping it out would require eliminating violent organized criminal elements?  Of course not, we have to protect the victims.  The same applies to drugs.


We should surely reform our prison system so that they are not such a bad place, but that is not an excuse to legalize dangerous activities that kill people.


...are overwhelmingly opposed to legalization, regardless of any token examples you can find.


This is an argument for more law enforcement, not less.

I totally agree!  Sports, artisic, education, study of foreign languages, religion, history, reading...  All very important, but none so satisfying as helping the fellow man.    I wonder what makes you think I poison myself?  Do you think I eat mcdonalds or drink mountain dew?  Or maybe watch commercial TV?   I don't. 


Maybe I am not familiar with the details of policies of Singapore.  I know however that USA spends more than anyone on drug prohibition and jails more than any country (per capita and total).  The totally predictable result is an increase in violence, corruption, and criminality.  This is not arguable.   


http://www.economist.com/node/13237193

The trade in illegal drugs is billions of dollar annually.  Do you disagree?  You are now claiming you think this money should go straight into the hands of criminals.  You suggest here we should protect adults and children from drugs.  Protection means regulation, not prohibition.   Prohibition is the opposite of protection.  Remember it is because drugs can be so dangerous that they must be taken out of the hands of criminals and treated rationally.     


Dangerous activities like gun ownership?  Driving cars?  Waging wars?  Taking prescription drugs?  All these things kill far far more people than any overdoses of illegal drugs. 

Seriously, you think I should be able to buy Draino but not cocaine? 

You think that nicotine is OK to buy but ganja means a cop can take your house? 

You think a playground pusher is better than a state regulated store?

You think that gang violence and corruption is better than regulated markets? 

Might want to work on that spiritual enlightenment a bit.  You'd be surprised, not all police and religious officials are corrupt.   

Not to thread hijack further, but you really need to read some more studies from a range of sources, Rarity.  The FDA and DARE are not enough to educate one about drugs.

Most all the articles I find online talking about Marijuana and aggression didn't seem to actually have sources or only sources one study.

The ones that did seem to actually present some form of science were talking about withdrawal symptoms.  Zimmerman clearly wasn't going through withdrawal if your argument is that he was high at the time of the alleged murder. And carrying a lighter does not mean you are high.

The first article I found (http://www.idmu.co.uk/canagr.htm) with an actual list of sources ends with "The preponderance of scientific evidence does suggest cannabis may have a role in reducing aggressive behaviour, and the drug is certainly perceived to do so by a large number of cannabis users."

I'm also curious what you think about articles like this one from mothering.com (clearly not a pro-pot site).  While it doen't have to do with aggression, it presents evidence that marijuana does not have the effects that an organization like the FDA would lead you to believe.

http://mothering.com/pregnancy-birth/use-of-marijuana-during-pregnancy

There are around 30 sources from varying authors at the end of the article.

Only trusting what the FDA says and ignoring the rest of the scientific world is clearly limiting.  The FDA has been wrong about many things.

I really hope you are a troll and don't actually believe that prohibition would have worked if only we had also banned guns.

Okay, so Singapore doesn't have drugs and their violence is low.  Great.  How do you explain all of the countries/places with legalized/decriminalized drugs and low violence, especially ones that are more similar to the United States than Singapore is? I think that Netherlands handles drugs in a much more sane way than Singapore.  I'm not saying that there isn't a link between drugs and crime.  I'm saying that it isn't a simple of forumla of people + drugs = violence.

Seeing drugs as only poison is keeping your mind closed.

I'm glad you are optimistic about governments.  I wouldn't say they are a force for good though. Instead, I would say they should be a force of good.

Comparing Child Porn and Marijuana use is asinine.  Smoking pot does not hurt others.  Abducting children so you can sell them as sex objects does.

Have you heard of leap? They aren't just a "token example"

http://copssaylegalizedrugs.com/ or http://www.leap.cc/

http://www.leap.cc/partner-organizations/

Spending a lot isn't necessarily a sign of doing things right or not.  America spends more on healthcare than other countries, more than it would under a socialized system that would work better.


No, I am arguing that we should arrest the criminals and punish them harshly.  The trade in human trafficking and child pornography generates a lot of revenue too.  Guess we should have legal brothels for children too!  


There is no safe, rational way to use dangerous recreational drugs.  You are doing harm to your body and mind and walking a path that leads to addiction for temporary fun.



Chemicals that do not have recreational uses or are otherwise necessary for daily life should not be banned, no.  Addictive recreational drug sessions are not necessary in any way.


No, nicotine should definitely be prohibited as well, but it isn't close to as harmful to the body as marijuana is.


In Pennsylvania they have state run liquor stores.  Children still drink alcohol, adults still die from it too.  State run stores are not solutions to the drug problem.


I think gang violence will be much less of a problem once we take away their guns and drugs.


Of course they aren't corrupt, which is why they don't support allowing the people they are supposed to be serving to poison themselves.


The sources I have cited are the views of government and law enforcement experts based on knowledge of the range of available studies .  I'm sure they would be happy to be wrong on this and be able to focus on other problems, but they aren't.  You can find a minority of scientists who might disagree with the studies, but the denialists try that same trick of pointing to outliers instead of the scientific consensus, which is that marijuana is dangerous.


Martin tested positive for drugs and had the appropriate paraphernalia with him.  I know you wish he wasn't high but he was.  You have to accept reality instead of denying it.  High or in withdraw, the marijuana is what caused his violent decisions in regards to Zimmerman.  I will not accept that a good kid like Martin just randomly decided to attack someone.  He would not have done it if he was thinking clearly and he would not have been acting strangely and suspiciously when Zimmerman saw him.  


The article lists some studies that say precisely the opposite.


And part of what it ended with, which you chose not to post of course was:


This sounds like precisely what happened to Martin.  I think it's wise to trust government experts more than some random site with a pot leaf logo and an agenda.


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/aristotles-child/201111/the-truth-about-marijuana-and-pregnancy

I think you will find the bulk of doctors agree more with the FDA.


...and I think you do to, and would not actually dose a baby with Marijuana because it would be "harmless", I would hope.


Of course it would have.  It was a hallmark accomplishment of the progressive movement and only failed because of the violence.  Without the guns, it never would have been repealed.


The guns are a big part of the equation.  They are restricted to only hunters and collectors in the Netherlands which limits the potential for violence significantly.  Even the Netherlands realizes that their policy simply doesn't work.  They are closing down coffee shops (http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2011/09/too_close_to_schools_58_cannab.php), banning tourists (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/benelux/120501/dutch-cannabis-coffee-shops-begin-closing-doors-tourists) from them, and reclassifying Marijuana as a hard drug. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15225270)  They tried the policy of believing the fantasy of safe marijuana, and of course it failed.  They also banned psychedelic mushrooms (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/3441105/Magic-mushrooms-banned-in-Netherlands.html), another product people also often claim is safe but in fact ends up killing people.


Drugs harm the addicted users and the family members who love them, it is a lie to say it is a victimless crime.

Wow Rarity way to answer back. I can tell you don't do drugs. A stoner would have just said "F this" and taken a big hit.

I'm not "wishing he wasn't high." I'm questioning that someone who was possibly high on marijuana at the time attacked BECAUSE HE WAS HIGH and not for some other reason.

Exactly.  Studies have shown both effects.  But do you know what "preponderance" means?

Just because a tiny fraction of the population may have adverse effects to a substance doesn't mean we should make it illegal for everyone or call it poison for everyone.  There is so far no proof that it was the marijuana that caused a violent outburst.  Let's wait for the courts to decide who attacked who before we jump to blaming pot.

I don't see a single source listed.  Find some actual research. There are over 30 articles referenced by that mothering article.

Maybe the bulk of doctors in the USA.  However, your link doesn't link to a bulk of doctors and their research; it doesn't link to anything.

You also didn't respond to this list of groups that disagree with you. http://www.leap.cc/partner-organizations/

I guess we simply disagree here.  I can't think of any instances of prohibition working well in the west.  Prohibition has historically always led to a black market where criminals are in control and once-law abiding citizens are forced to become criminals just to have a drink.

I'll agree that addiction can harm other people beyond the addicted.  I don't at all believe it is anywhere near the damage caused by CP.

You are lumping all drugs into one category (poison) and assuming that they all lead to addiction and abuse.  This is foolish and close minded.

There is no reason for a clear thinking person to have attacked Zimmerman like Martin did, it makes no sense.


Yes, and most experts seem to disagree that the preponderance of the evidence shows Marijuana to be safe, regardless of your ability to find one person on a website with a pot leaf logo to say otherwise.


There are many other adverse effects of marijuana, including but not limited to:

http://www.acde.org/common/Marijana.htm


There is no reason to allow people to use such a dangerous substance, when the only reason is for pursuit of a deceptive and addictive pleasure.  


Listing a lot of sources doesn't make somebody right.  Most experts who have actually looked at the studies agree on the dangers.


http://www.narconon.org/drug-information/marijuana-pot.html


http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana-abuse/can-marijuana-use-during-pregnancy-harm-baby


http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancyhealth/illegaldrugs.html



http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.73.10.1161


http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198903233201203


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17137892


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070524145037.htm


http://www.pregnancy-info.net/marijuana_and_pregnancy.html

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=1012&sid=20737065

...and you think it is safe for a developing fetus?   Even NORML, while trying as hard as possible to whitewash away the dangers of pot, states that they would not recommend a pregnant woman smokes it.

http://norml.org/library/health-reports/item/norml-s-marijuana-health-mythology

They believe it is irresponsible (http://norml.org/marijuana/personal/item/principles-of-responsible-use?category_id=729) to expose children to pot.  You are way out on a limb with this stuff.


People are the same wherever they are from.  It is a tragedy that you can never wipe out drug use entirely, but like Singapore you can drastically reduce it and still have a society low in violent crime.


Addiction certainly can, and does.  Both things ruin lives, and neither should be tolerated.  

http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/actionlocal/story/Mom-accused-of-selling-child-for-drugs/Oh3xpbghgU69BQsRyVXKQw.cspx



Well, I don't think we have talked much about drugs beyond Marijuana, which is certainly addictive so I'm not sure what your point is.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana-abuse/marijuana-addictive

As you said, providing sources doesn't mean you are right.  Thank you for providing some.  You claim my source is invalid because there is a pot leaf on it, but then you link to a bunch of gov sites that only present tiny pieces of the study to present.  The government that has spent billions on the war on the drugs has no bias, right? lol.

I want to see the actual studies. Not (solely American) blogs and government sites. At least not all of the studies are American.  Luckily, your links do provide enough to find abstracts for most of the actual data.

Your first link does not link to any actual studies.

The second link contains 2 studies.  However I don't see how either study actually proves your point.

http://cong35.sifweb.org/congresso_abs_view.php?id=163 is only testing one chemical that is in marijuana and ends with "These data confirm previous findings (Haller et al., 2009) by showing that, in adult rats, FAAH inhibition affects emotional reactivity under high stressful circumstances. Our findings suggest that selective indirect cannabinoid agonists could represent a potential target to treat social dysfunctions in neurodevelopmental diseases and could protect against the anxiogenic effects of stressful stimuli at adulthood."

So being high has an affect on reactions? No shit... However their affect could be used to TREAT SOCIAL DYSFUNCTIONS.  This means that this chemical works AGAINST anxiety. The exact opposite of increased aggression or anything like that.  That is a positive thing, not a negative.  The rats were more communicative with eachother.  I don't think rat's amount of communication when subjected to one of the myriad of chemicals in pot is a very good basis for understanding the affects of pot on a person.

The second study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18791865) is covered in far better detail in the mothering.com article than in the article you linked.

I fail to see how this study proves your point about marijuana.  However, if you are pregnant, it is pretty clear that you shouldn't do heroin or cocaine.  I highly recommend you actually read the mothering.com article as it goes through all of these numbers.

Your next link (http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancyhealth/illegaldrugs.html) has no scientific evidence, but it does say "Studies of marijuana in pregnancy are inconclusive"

You must not have actually read this abstract (http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.73.10.1161) (Thanks for linking directly to an abstract, though).


This one (http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198903233201203) looks to be actually on your side.  I already linked to it though, it is mentioned in the mothering.com article.  There clearly needs to be more research done as there are contradictory studies.

Well I have to go now, but I've gone through half your articles and all but one of them have the scientists on my side, not yours.

I'll link to the actual abstracts (if there are any) of the rest of the studies instead of some blogger/government opinions of the study.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5828/1212

http://media.bonnint.net/slc/2499/249928/24992851.pdf

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=307&issue=2&page=173

And yes.  NORML recommends mothers don't smoke. I'm not recommending they do either.  I'm just saying that it likely does not have any long term deleterious effects. How am I way out on a limb?

But anyways, these tangents are pointless. You think alcohol should be illegal.  There is no point in continuing.  We clearly disagree on what "freedom" means.

Pot clearly destroys lungs:

http://www.popcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/phelpsmarijuana-500x666.jpg

No, there is no bias.  The government comes to these conclusions by hiring experts to study the drugs in question and the available research, and every country on the planet, even the very few ones with some form of legalization, do not think it is a good idea to expose children to marijuana.  You are not an expert on these matters, so I'm not particularly inclined to trust your judgement of what the studies show over theirs.


If it means the freedom to poison yourself to death with drugs, yeah we don't need that one.


If you do not understand that anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything, I really don't trust your ability to interpret scientific data better than expert scientists.

The only experts are the users, the rest are frauds.

Did you not read all of the studies that YOU linked? You don't have to trust my judgement. Just read the abstracts and you will see that you are wrong.  I was just making it easy by bolding all the parts for you that clearly disprove your view.

Do you not understand what "treat social dysfunctions" or "only the effect of cocaine" or "not statistically significant" mean? I didn't think those terms required having a doctorate.

EDIT: You really didn't read the actual sources of what you linked, did you?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5828/1212 is an abstract that is very academic.  However it is referenced by an abstract that is worded less technically and has more real world applications.


"Promising strategy."  Now that sounds dangerous...

Now http://media.bonnint.net/slc/2499/249928/24992851.pdf does have some information that looks dangerous.  However it is only testing "marijuana cigarettes."  What about vaporizers?  That does not release any of the carcinogens or tar because nothing is burned.  Seems silly to outlaw something based on only one way of partaking, especially while tobacco is legal.

The conclusion of your last article requires no scientific knowledge to validate and is clearly not on your side.

Once again, the highly qualified experts who have considered these studies do not agree with your views on them and do not support smoking drugs during pregnancy.  I have already linked to such experts explaining this.  I trust the views of the experts on these matters far more than your ability to interpret the studies.

When the unbiased experts and even pro-marijuana organizations like NORML agree, it's safe to say they aren't wrong.

http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/recent-research-on-medical-marijuana

I'm way past the pregnancy article, dude.  I just wanted to know what you thought about it.  I didn't say it was scripture passed down from the almighty father.

Please go back and read the abstracts and/or conclusions THAT YOU LINKED and then come back.

I am not a scientific expert or a medical doctor, and I would not presume to overrule the scientific consensus of experts based on reading a few abstracts any more than I would doubt the consensus on global warming and evolution. 

So you will accept others' misinterpretations just because you can't be bothered to do you own research? Sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Leave science to the experts, or you end up with people who think the earth is 6000 years old, or that aliens are visiting us, that vaccines are unsafe, and every other ridiculous thing.  You are not better at interpreting the studies than they are, it is an illusion.

What a stunningly apropos self-diagnosis of yourself, Rarity. Now would you please address my question above?

I don't understand how you can claim my argument is invalid when I am quoting the scientists who did the research while you are quoting random government websites that have hard to find links to the research.

You don't need to be a scientists to understand "Occasional and low cumulative marijuana use was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function."

There is zero chance I am misinterpreting that.

Probably not, but what the unbiased experts do is keep reading instead of snipping out only the parts that support their agenda.  Someone who is arguing the opposite point from you might snip out instead:


...which is why it is best to leave interpreting studies to the experts.

They also weigh all the available relevant studies instead of only considering the ones that support their views, and the overwhelming weight of the research shows that marijuana is dangerous and addictive which is why the government and drug treatment experts write what they do. 

Not probably not. There is ZERO chance that is being misinterpreted.  Maybe those scientist's data is wrong and so their conculsion is wrong.  But I am 100% guaranteed that I am not (even without being called an expert) misinterpreting their conclusion.

I literally just copy/pasted the conclusion as written by the original scientists.

Heavy use of ANYTHING is dangerous.  They use the terms CAUTION and MODERATION, not abstinence. You see that right?

EDIT: I wasted my "leet" post on this :(

If you take it to mean that marijuana use is safe, you are definitely misinterpreting it.  It was a lie of omission. 

The reason addiction is a problem is that it short circuits people's ability to moderate their use.  If you just smoked a few cigarettes you would be perfectly fine, but they are still rightfully regarded as a deadly product.  Marijuana can also lead to poor decision making and paranoia and aggressive tendencies that led to Martin attacking Zimmerman, even one use is dangerous and the only benefit is short term fun that you can find in healthy activities instead.

Lie of omission? What?

I don't take this one study alone to mean marijuana use is safe.  I take it to mean that scientists are trying to figure it out and so far according to all but ONE of the studies linked here (that now both of us have at least read the abstract of), moderate use is not dangerous.  According to some of the secondary sources that you directly linked to that reference the actual science, marijuana is dangerous.  However those people making the claims ARE NOT THE EXPERTS.  The scientists who published the articles are the experts.

I still say that one man being potentially killed because of being high when AT LEAST 1/3 of the country has smoked pot is a fringe case at best and not worthy of prohibition.  Most of California and the 10 (I think) other states with medicinal marijuana would be full of kids being shot on their walk home from 7/11 otherwise.

Not only that, but it has not been proven at all by the courts. It looks to me that the pot is just as likely to have caused this tragedy as the skittles in his hand or the hoodie on his back.

You are alleging that Martin attacked Zimmerman.  I have yet to see proof of this. This is something that the courts have not said.

But Hey! Look at that! Back on topic (kinda)! We did it Rarity!

The scientific consensus of the experts is that marijuana poses considerable health risks.  You are the one claiming it is safe, not them.  You can't cherry pick lines from studies and say that means the experts agree with you when they are clearly saying otherwise.  Every time I point to such experts, you claim they don't count, so I'm not sure why I should continue to do so, but here you go:

http://www.narconon.org/drug-information/marijuana-faq.html


http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/Issues/Vol%203%20Issue%202/Review%20of%20the%20Research.pdf


Looking at all the evidence leads to the conclusion that some of the users will have their lives severely disrupted by the drug.  Recreational use is not worth the cost of sacrificing the lives of some of the users and the harm it will do to their families.

You will note that what the experts conclude about potential damage to the heart is that more studied is needed because they are not confident it is safe.  What you do with a study is cherry pick out a line and say it means marijuana should be legal.  Nope, the experts have their concerns because they also look at the parts of the study that you want to ignore.

There are just too many potential dangers and no medical benefits to allowing recreational pot use.  

You haven't been pointing to the experts.  You've been pointing to people who are pointing to the experts.

You accuse me of cherry picking, and yet you glossed over the abstract.


I'm not sure how you jump to the conclusion that your opinion is the scientific consensus when the article you are quoting says there is not one (at least as of 2007).  There is a lot of contradictory evidence on both sides.

I'm not saying that kids should smoke and then go to school.  I'm not saying that expecting mothers should smoke a blunt all day every day. I've never said pot has zero negative effects.  I'm saying prohibition is stupid.  Especially prohibition of something that is requiring a lot of studies to find negative effects that have yet to be conclusive and likely only apply to a small minority of the population.

I'd be willing to bet there are far more people with deadly food allergies than people that will violently assault someone when under the effects of marijuana or "marijuana withdrawal."

It's pretty clear that tobacco causes lung cancer and alcohol destroys livers, but the studies about pot mostly all say that more investigation is required.  It also seems like more of the studies are testing single chemicals on rats rather than looking at the affects of the whole drug on people.

Only one of the sourced abstracts mentions anything about aggressive behavior (which is what got us on this tangent in the first place).  It is titled "preliminary findings suggest a mechanism for cannabis-induced violence" and is a preliminary study with only five subjects and no control group.

Guys this is getting really off topic, the question is what is the best way to donate to Zimmerman's defense fund? (Not that I think he isn't guilty, which he is...)

Did you dry your piss and smoke it? WTF...

Here in parts of America everyone carries a gun. I would be very unwise for a cop to do their job unarmed. Of course since we are all armed we don't really need them much.

P.S. I would not donate to GZ as I think he was trying to get away with taking his paypal donations.

Exactly my point thanks.  Putting 3 million people in jail as political prisoners (thats what you call it when there is no victim) makes things worse as you say, and costs a lot.  The people who suffer are often the children and families as you point out.   

I can see people have ganged up on you here so I'll cut it short.  You said at one point you like to help your fellow man.  And yet you are also saying we should arrest people for consensual adult behavior, in which no victim has come forth to complain, and punish them harshly.  Don't you see the contradiction?  Do you see two satisfied people who have done business together with no complaints and this reminds you of child porn or murder?  I hope not. 

You seem to have the need to point out that drugs are dangerous.  That is -my- point.  Of course they are.  Too dangerous to leave in the hands of criminals.  Prohibition makes them still more dangerous and eliminates our ability to regulate, put age limits, quality limits, volume limits, etc. 

Do you really want to help your fellow man, or would you rather see your fellow man locked up, families broken up, and corrupt politicians and drug dealers running your prison? 

   

 

I started another topic on the drug war in an attempt to help this thread stay on track.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=87810.0

Cheers.

Zimmerman didn't need a cop - he just judged and murdered that boy on his own.

It's very sad to see how many people will just believe everything Ryan Julison wants them to believe without doing any research or fact-checking on their own.

Thanks.  I didn't intend to go so far off topic.  I just can't stand when someone presents a truck load of evidence and then don't actually read it and a bunch of it ends up supporting the other sides argument.

Rarity, I thought you said you were in Florida? I guess that must have been someone else.

mlawrence, you don't know Zimmerman didn't need a cop! Both sides of this debate need to start using words like "allegedly"


Back on Topic:

Does anyone know if the money hidden by Zimmerman and/or his wife was the money donated to the defense fund?  Did anyone here donate to it? How do you feel about your money being hidden instead of being used to actually defend him in court (if that is in fact the case)?

The study, by experts, is looking at the evidence to find the consensus.  They conclude there are considerable risks, like all the other experts do.  As I said, any time I point to the experts views on the studies you go "NUH UH THEY AREN'T EXPERTS!" so this is entirely pointless.  You think you know better than the scientists, you are making a faith based argument it is impossible to debate.


The scientists disagree with you, and state there are considerable risks to using this drug.  Your opinion is not a substitute for scientific fact.


Food is necessary to sustain life.  People who are allergic to a food product simply avoid it, as milk and eggs are not addictive drugs like Marijuana.  This is what separates the two products.  As for your "bet", I think we should stick with what the scientists say, that there are considerable risks to using the drug, instead of your opinions.


And yet the experts say there are considerable risks. 


Pretty much any look at all the studies leads to the conclusion that pot can cause paranoia and panic attacks, which can easily make someone make aggressive bad decisions about someone who has no ill intent towards them.


It's common knowledge dude, even outside England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom


Right, which is why we need to get rid of those guns first. I'm okay with waiting on that to stop having the cops carry them.


Exactly, it's better to put users in mandatory inpatient treatment programs.  You can save some money over imprisonment and have a better chance of not having to arrest them again.  The distributors though, should definitely be in jail.  They are knowingly harming the addicts for profit and it can't be tolerated.  Even places like the Netherlands don't tolerate the trafficking.


I don't believe helping someone to solve their drug problem is punishing them, addiction is not a consensual behavior.  It's a compulsion brought on by a poison, and it harms the children and other family members of the addicts as well as the addicts themselves.


I see one person who has exploited another person by selling them an addictive product that will compel them to by more even if they want to stop.  Addicts routinely end up selling their bodies to get more drugs, the connection between sexual exploitation and drug abuse is real and scary.

http://baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/bn9/2012/5/25/pinellas_sheriff_tee.html


Legalization has still left us with 75,000 deaths a year from Alcohol (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/#.T9uCLrX8TF8) and 443,000 yearly from cigarettes (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/health/attrdeaths/) so I'm not exactly impressed with your claims that legalization is going to solve anything. 

Selling to the underage is rampant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_consumption_by_youth_in_the_United_States

Underage drinking is a major public health problem. (http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/underage-drinking.htm)


I said I'm originally from Clearwater, my work took me to England.


Pure denialism, the scientists who have looked at the bulk of the evidence have identified considerable risk.  Cherry picking out lines from studies does not change that.

Those are amazing statistics. Not trolling but something should be done to reduce those deaths, I honestly don't know what and don't believe in banning things.

It gets even worse when you consider the addicts that are still living, but in misery while blowing a significant amount of money on their addiction and/or living with associated diseases.  Or think about all the alcoholics who have endangered everyone by drunk driving, or even killed people.  Or those who lost their job and relationships due to their addiction. 

Imagine if heroin addicts (and impressionable kids and teenagers) had to see professional ads for heroin, see it in the stores, see people using it openly.  It's not a recipe for getting people off it.

Move your comments about drugs to other topic please!

Thanks for your replies.  It is helpful to hear the mindset from somebody who truly believes in prohibition as a potential help to society (I take that at face value).

So often the prohibitionists are the ones motivated by corruption, short term personal wealth, or fear, and represent the height of hyposcrisy, and so such a voice as you present is unusual so thanks again for your posts.

As you probably know from the history of drug prohibition, it is usually created as a policy for other political ends, e.g. prison investors who want more customers, cocaine dealers who want competition eliminated and profits increased, foreign invaders who wish to imprison certain segments of the population and control markets, as a mean to eliminate competing medicines or raw materials, etc. etc.  

Your point about previous prohibitions and decriminalizations is well taken: while anecdotal evidence may be overwhelming to suggest that lifting prohibition immediately decreases violence and benefits society immensely these are not controlled experiments, and harm from the prohibited substances was not eliminated.  One cannot point to this as "proof".

Consider instead a purchase you have made in the last few days.  Now imagine that I claim this contains "poison" and suggest that you be arrested, comparing your purchase to murder or child porn.  Ridiculous?  Yes.  Angry?  Yes.  Guess what.  It doesn't matter.  My argument that the plastic, the carbon released, the addictive nature of the behavior it spawns, might be right or wrong, but in the end it doesn't matter because when the police come to your house they don't care if the plastic was really bad, or even if you really made that purchase!  

You may think it is OK that they go after the nicotine users, rip apart their families, and steal their posessions, because you are not a nicotine user.  But in the end, when you or your children are facing uniformed young men with weapons, your cries that you are "not a user" will be treated the same way as cries of women in who said "we are not witches" or germans who said "we are not jews".  They will be ignored, and then you will join the again increasingly large segment of society who are victims of fascism.  And you will be able to do nothing, because you didn't stand up against it when you had the chance.  

Best of luck to you -    


  

I think it's amazingly hyperbolic to compare police officers trying to save people from addiction to Nazis. It's also very historically off base, alcohol prohibition was a policy of progressives and advocates for women's rights, for example, not of fascists or similar right wing groups.  They famously met in German beer halls.  Concern for the well being of our fellow men is a hallmark of the left.


I don't really agree with this at all.  I am not aware of any prohibitions that have been created by prison investors, as private prisons themselves are a relatively new concept.  Or by cocaine dealers or pharmaceutical/material companies fearing competition.  Foreign invaders have been more likely to promote addiction as a tool of oppression, see the opium wars as an example where the British used the opium trade to their advantage creating an outbreak of addiction for the Chinese to deal with.  Or consider the role of alcohol in the American triangle trade --  Molasses from the Caribbean to make rum in New England, rum to Africa to buy slaves, slaves to the Caribbean to grow sugar, sugar and molasses to make rum in New England...A cycle of oppression powered by alcohol.

It looks like we should have kept our off topic drug conversation going on here since no one seem to care about the OP.

Paranoia is a driver of aggressive behavior.  It seems clear Martin's drug induced paranoia and aggression are what led to his attack on Zimmerman, who just wanted to get the police in to handle the situation.  If he had reacted shyly instead of attacking, you might have a point.

Allergic reactions to milk are a minority experience, but when they start puking you don't throw up your hands and blame something else.


Zimmerman did not react aggressively however, he was calling the police to the scene before he was attacked.  As for the potholes, large enough ones that "block the road" as he stated, are indeed a public danger.  That is not at all strange and was likely before he was even on these drugs.

As I said, many times before in this thread which is all just a rehash now, I am aware psychiatric drugs are dangerous poisons and I hope Zimmerman gets off them, but there is no evidence they played any role in this incident.  He was a part of the neighborhood watch, calling the police are what they are supposed to do, and what he was doing when Martin attacked him.  If the police considered him a nuisance caller, they can fine people to get them to stop abusing the system.  They obviously did not feel this was the case.

Does not compute.

Defending a white racist murderer? Whats next? A childrape help fund to aid the church?

FTFY

Not that I think race has to do with this, but w/e


I still want an answer to my question that is actually on topic.

Is walking around at night illegal?
Is following someone illegal?
Is assault illegal?

This has always been about who threw the first punch.

And what about the adequatness of means used? Ok, even IF someone punched someone in the head - does that legitimate for murder? Well, ok, guess in the USA it really IS about who threw the first punch.. in a culture not so adapted to weapon use the question would rather be: was the use of deadly force appropiate?

*edited to sound less arrogant*

This story has only been about propaganda and agendas every since it broke on the national news. The truth and the facts of what happened were the first casualties of the media campaign.

Good points. The judge may differ, but in my opinion if TM was banging GZ's head against the pavement he can reasonably consider his life in danger and use deadly force. He could not shoot him for a punch, but who threw the first punch is critical because you can fight back with punches and those things tend to escalate.

Then another matter arises: How to shoot someone if your head is banged upon the pavement? If you are in mortal danger due to a melee fight you shouldnt be able anymore to take a weapon, aim and shoot. So if you are in a melee fight and your life is in mortal danger, then most obviously you will die or beat down your opponent in the very same melee. If your opponent releases you you are no longer in mortal danger or if you finally beat down the opponent you arent in mortal danger anymore either.
Thats the point about mortal danger: Either you die or you win automatically. No need to shoot someone in the back (metaphorically). (all IMHO)

Finally some logic. Do we know how many shots hit TM, and where they were located?

For example, someone who is getting their head banged on the pavement is not going to be able to aim accurately enough to kill on the first shot with a bullet to the head. He could however do some body damage.

I have linked the scientific experts who say aggression is a side effect, I'm not going to rehash all that.  It's been done, you can't make it untrue via repitition.  What we have is the knowledge that Martin attacked and that he was on illegal drugs without doctor supervision as Zimmerman was, we don't need to guess who puked, we can see Zimmerman's injuries and the witness accounts.  We can see that he was trying to get the police on the scene.  We don't have to guess.


Well that's an interesting opinion and all, but the experts say the facts disagree.  Some people are sedated, but since we know Martin instead violently attacked someone it is clear that was not his reaction to the drug.

http://ncpic.org.au/ncpic/publications/factsheets/article/cannabis-and-aggression




I am happy to say I have not.  Early intervention through a drug education program (http://www.narconon.org/drug-prevention/) taught me to avoid the pitfalls of dangerous, unnecessary products.  I have a fulfilling career, happy family, and a fun and stimulating life without having to resort to poisoning and endangering myself with drugs.


I am not relying on my own interpretations?  I don't want to rehash the thread, but I'm not a scientists I don't go over the studies myself.  Experts in government and medicine are the ones I am citing.  They have reviewed the information and concluded this drug poses significant risks of addiction and disease.

Growing up in Florida I had friends who used every drug out there, and I've been around them all my life.  You know what I learned?  I'm not the one missing out, they are.  Drug users waste their money and their health and their relationships in pursuit of a terribly unfufilling, zombified state of numbness and stupidity.  I'd rather stay on the bridge to freedom and clarity.


You are naive and sad, we do see it, it does work that way.


Violent criminals use drugs, and marijuana is their most favorite.  Marijuana is also a gateway to the other drugs.  

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-27-arrestees_N.htm


Yes, I am getting my information from well informed experts, not pop culture and stoner legend, which seems to be your source.


Freedom to be ruled by addictive, dangerous drugs is no freedom at all.


Had he been considered a nuisance caller, they would have fined him and made him stop calling.  They did not.  They are the experts on what calls are appropriate to be taking in their own system.  The pothole thing was one call in 2005, and you're convicting him for murder over it?  Now THAT is a scary authoritarian thought.


You don't convict someone based on past behavior.  You convict them based on what actually happened.  What happened is that Zimmerman tried to call the police to help and was attacked, had his nose broken, and his head slammed into concrete.  It doesn't matter if you find he did something in the past, or if Martin said something the other side didn't like on Facebook.  

Yeah, I don't know how many shots or to where? I seriously doubt that any aiming went on. Defensive gunfights are dirty messy affairs, nothing like the sanitized and heroic stuff you see on TV. If there is only one gun involved then you don't have a gunfight, you have a fight over a gun. There is no aiming you just try to point that barrel at any part of the assailant and blow it off. Generally the shock of being shot will take the fight out of an attacker and allow follow up shots.
Gun owners serious about defense practice gun retention and firing offhand from the floor. The time to come up with a plan about how you will fight if you have been shot first is not during a gunfight.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/342834/20120518/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-shot-evidence-photos.htm



Precisely what happened.  One defensive shot to the body was all.

Just because it was a defensive shot doesn't mean Zimmerman isn't the one who provoked the fight, hence the second degree murder charges.

This topic isn't about that though.  It's about the defense fund.  Can we please stay on topic? I want to know if anyone actually donated to Zimmerman and if they are upset that their money was hidden and not used for his actual defense.

He was waiting for the police he called to the scene, not provoking fights.  The charges are obviously not going to result in a conviction, charging him is appropriate in such a controversial case where someone has lost their life, but in the end justice will do what is also appropriate and find him not-guilty. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/21/us-usa-florida-trayvon-idUSBRE85K04320120621

Additional press: http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/21/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html

EDIT: Includes video of Zimmerman himself walking through the neighborhood and discussing the incident.

So he has ADHD and was under drugs, and has a bad memory.

Here is Zimmerman's complete reenactment video.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/06/21/watch-video-shows-george-zimmerman-reenacting-fight-with-trayvon-martin/

That one is a tiny bit biased i would suppose..