<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_23_0019219</id>
	<title>US Open Government Initiative Enters Phase Three</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1245768780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:circletimessquare.gmail@com" rel="nofollow">circletimessquare</a> writes <i>"The Obama administration <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/">opened a discussion forum</a> in January of this year which has become an electronic suggestion box. It is now entering stage three, following brainstorm and discussion phases: the draft phase, in which the top subject matter is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/technology/internet/23records.html">codified into suggestions for the government</a>. 'Ultimately, the visitors advanced more than 3,900 ideas, which in turn spawned 11,000 comments that received 210,000 thumb votes. The result? Three of the top 10 most popular ideas called for legalizing marijuana, and two featured conspiracy theories about Mr. Obama's true place of birth.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>circletimessquare writes " The Obama administration opened a discussion forum in January of this year which has become an electronic suggestion box .
It is now entering stage three , following brainstorm and discussion phases : the draft phase , in which the top subject matter is codified into suggestions for the government .
'Ultimately , the visitors advanced more than 3,900 ideas , which in turn spawned 11,000 comments that received 210,000 thumb votes .
The result ?
Three of the top 10 most popular ideas called for legalizing marijuana , and two featured conspiracy theories about Mr. Obama 's true place of birth .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>circletimessquare writes "The Obama administration opened a discussion forum in January of this year which has become an electronic suggestion box.
It is now entering stage three, following brainstorm and discussion phases: the draft phase, in which the top subject matter is codified into suggestions for the government.
'Ultimately, the visitors advanced more than 3,900 ideas, which in turn spawned 11,000 comments that received 210,000 thumb votes.
The result?
Three of the top 10 most popular ideas called for legalizing marijuana, and two featured conspiracy theories about Mr. Obama's true place of birth.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436313</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>testadicazzo</author>
	<datestamp>1245751920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it disgusting that the author of the NYT piece lumped cannabils legalisation together with UFO and the Obama birth-certificate conspiracy.  </p><p>Whether or not you feel that marijuana should be legalized, the subject is a legitimate subject for political discourse, and there's overwhelming evidence that:
</p><ul>
<li> <a href="http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/" title="drugpolicy.org"> Marijuana is significantly less harmful than the two legal recreational drugs (alcohol and tobacco)<nobr> <wbr></nobr></a> [drugpolicy.org].</li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical\_cannabis" title="wikipedia.org"> Marijuana has many potential medical applications, including promoting neuron growth, preventing alzheimers, diabetes, treating cancer and HIV, and of course multiple scleroris</a> [wikipedia.org].</li><li> <a href="http://www.leap.cc/" title="www.leap.cc"> Like alcohol prohibition, cannabis prohibition is harmful to society. </a> [www.leap.cc] </li></ul><p>
I personally hold that the evidence overwhelmingly supports decriminalizing Cannabis, implementing a system something like in the Netherlands, but I can understand that less informed, more indoctrinated souls might not be convinced.  However no sane, rational, honest person can look at the evidence and claim that this is not a subject which needs to be considered.
</p><p>
Lumping cannabis legalisation together with UFO conspiracies and the Obama birth conspiracy shows that the author is either:  ignorant and misinformed, dissembling for a perceived career boost, or simply irrational.   My guess is he's a victim of the years of propaganda and lies dissembled by the Nancy Reagan and her spiritual children, but it's equally likely that he's pandering to socially-conservative reader base or editor.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it disgusting that the author of the NYT piece lumped cannabils legalisation together with UFO and the Obama birth-certificate conspiracy .
Whether or not you feel that marijuana should be legalized , the subject is a legitimate subject for political discourse , and there 's overwhelming evidence that : Marijuana is significantly less harmful than the two legal recreational drugs ( alcohol and tobacco ) [ drugpolicy.org ] .
Marijuana has many potential medical applications , including promoting neuron growth , preventing alzheimers , diabetes , treating cancer and HIV , and of course multiple scleroris [ wikipedia.org ] .
Like alcohol prohibition , cannabis prohibition is harmful to society .
[ www.leap.cc ] I personally hold that the evidence overwhelmingly supports decriminalizing Cannabis , implementing a system something like in the Netherlands , but I can understand that less informed , more indoctrinated souls might not be convinced .
However no sane , rational , honest person can look at the evidence and claim that this is not a subject which needs to be considered .
Lumping cannabis legalisation together with UFO conspiracies and the Obama birth conspiracy shows that the author is either : ignorant and misinformed , dissembling for a perceived career boost , or simply irrational .
My guess is he 's a victim of the years of propaganda and lies dissembled by the Nancy Reagan and her spiritual children , but it 's equally likely that he 's pandering to socially-conservative reader base or editor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it disgusting that the author of the NYT piece lumped cannabils legalisation together with UFO and the Obama birth-certificate conspiracy.
Whether or not you feel that marijuana should be legalized, the subject is a legitimate subject for political discourse, and there's overwhelming evidence that:

  Marijuana is significantly less harmful than the two legal recreational drugs (alcohol and tobacco)  [drugpolicy.org].
Marijuana has many potential medical applications, including promoting neuron growth, preventing alzheimers, diabetes, treating cancer and HIV, and of course multiple scleroris [wikipedia.org].
Like alcohol prohibition, cannabis prohibition is harmful to society.
[www.leap.cc] 
I personally hold that the evidence overwhelmingly supports decriminalizing Cannabis, implementing a system something like in the Netherlands, but I can understand that less informed, more indoctrinated souls might not be convinced.
However no sane, rational, honest person can look at the evidence and claim that this is not a subject which needs to be considered.
Lumping cannabis legalisation together with UFO conspiracies and the Obama birth conspiracy shows that the author is either:  ignorant and misinformed, dissembling for a perceived career boost, or simply irrational.
My guess is he's a victim of the years of propaganda and lies dissembled by the Nancy Reagan and her spiritual children, but it's equally likely that he's pandering to socially-conservative reader base or editor.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28450933</id>
	<title>Re:Why are people so difficult?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245847620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The irony of this is, twofold:  One, this is the administration that that had added a huge increase to tobacco taxes, and these people think that the government is actually going to legalize marijuana?  Hah hah hah!  Good one.</p> </div><p>Well, if they legalized marijuana, they could TAX IT (which falls in line with what they did with tobacco)!  So, I don't see how the increase in tobacco taxes in itself demonstrates the government's unwillingness to legalize it (yes, there are other reasons that the gubmint wants to keep it illegal).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Two, it's just sad that our country's main concern is legalizing some drug that's major benefit is to get people high.  While marijuana has a lot of medical uses, and banning it is pointless, it's just pathetic that nobody cares about inflation, an overzealous foreign policy, the sick demented system of child "protection" services ruined to scam parents and ruin the family, the court system being a guilty-until-proven-innocent fiasco where the court orders you to prove your innocence and you have to pay for court costs, drugs tests, psych exams, and etc. to prove your innocence, and freedom from censorship.  Nope, us Americans gotta have our weed!  Gotta get high so we won't have any other problems to worry about, just pretend they don't exist with a nice pipe in front of us.</p> </div><p>Well, you yourself stated "banning it is pointless", so that's at least a start.  I don't think people are ignoring other issues as much as it is that this particular issue is just so freaking easy to resolve.  Just, um, stop making it illegal, then they can tax it as much as tobacco (never mind other uses of hemp).  Other issues aren't so cut and dried - how the fuck do we get rid of a 14 trillion dollar debt?  We'd have to tax each individual in our country $500,000 and apply all of it to our debt to get rid of it - not an easy problem to solve.  Corruption in our judicial system creating the guilty-until-proven-innocent fiasco you mentioned?  How the fuck do we fix that?   Is the fix as easy as it is for the mary j?  Hell no - and we'd all disagree as to where to begin.  I think it's more a low hanging fruit issue - it's easy to fix right now (yes, given that enough in this country feel it's stupid to keep it illegal), this very second - then we can hunker down for all the harder issues.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I guess there is also a third point of irony: Weed stupifies you, you'd think the government would favor deregulating it so they could tax it to the sky's limit and get more money off of you that way, while having a bunch of people too high to care about the other rights the government keeps taking away.</p></div><p>
We can agree there - it's strange the government doesn't want to give us something that would pacify us and reduce our chances of revolting.  I guess the religious right and the industries that keep making money thanks to not having hemp to compete with are just that powerful.  Oh - and no, I'm not a dope smoker.  I just don't see the need to keep it illegal in light of our stance on alcohol and tobacco.  No, this issue is not the most important issue, but it has such an easy fix.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The irony of this is , twofold : One , this is the administration that that had added a huge increase to tobacco taxes , and these people think that the government is actually going to legalize marijuana ?
Hah hah hah !
Good one .
Well , if they legalized marijuana , they could TAX IT ( which falls in line with what they did with tobacco ) !
So , I do n't see how the increase in tobacco taxes in itself demonstrates the government 's unwillingness to legalize it ( yes , there are other reasons that the gubmint wants to keep it illegal ) .Two , it 's just sad that our country 's main concern is legalizing some drug that 's major benefit is to get people high .
While marijuana has a lot of medical uses , and banning it is pointless , it 's just pathetic that nobody cares about inflation , an overzealous foreign policy , the sick demented system of child " protection " services ruined to scam parents and ruin the family , the court system being a guilty-until-proven-innocent fiasco where the court orders you to prove your innocence and you have to pay for court costs , drugs tests , psych exams , and etc .
to prove your innocence , and freedom from censorship .
Nope , us Americans got ta have our weed !
Got ta get high so we wo n't have any other problems to worry about , just pretend they do n't exist with a nice pipe in front of us .
Well , you yourself stated " banning it is pointless " , so that 's at least a start .
I do n't think people are ignoring other issues as much as it is that this particular issue is just so freaking easy to resolve .
Just , um , stop making it illegal , then they can tax it as much as tobacco ( never mind other uses of hemp ) .
Other issues are n't so cut and dried - how the fuck do we get rid of a 14 trillion dollar debt ?
We 'd have to tax each individual in our country $ 500,000 and apply all of it to our debt to get rid of it - not an easy problem to solve .
Corruption in our judicial system creating the guilty-until-proven-innocent fiasco you mentioned ?
How the fuck do we fix that ?
Is the fix as easy as it is for the mary j ?
Hell no - and we 'd all disagree as to where to begin .
I think it 's more a low hanging fruit issue - it 's easy to fix right now ( yes , given that enough in this country feel it 's stupid to keep it illegal ) , this very second - then we can hunker down for all the harder issues.I guess there is also a third point of irony : Weed stupifies you , you 'd think the government would favor deregulating it so they could tax it to the sky 's limit and get more money off of you that way , while having a bunch of people too high to care about the other rights the government keeps taking away .
We can agree there - it 's strange the government does n't want to give us something that would pacify us and reduce our chances of revolting .
I guess the religious right and the industries that keep making money thanks to not having hemp to compete with are just that powerful .
Oh - and no , I 'm not a dope smoker .
I just do n't see the need to keep it illegal in light of our stance on alcohol and tobacco .
No , this issue is not the most important issue , but it has such an easy fix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The irony of this is, twofold:  One, this is the administration that that had added a huge increase to tobacco taxes, and these people think that the government is actually going to legalize marijuana?
Hah hah hah!
Good one.
Well, if they legalized marijuana, they could TAX IT (which falls in line with what they did with tobacco)!
So, I don't see how the increase in tobacco taxes in itself demonstrates the government's unwillingness to legalize it (yes, there are other reasons that the gubmint wants to keep it illegal).Two, it's just sad that our country's main concern is legalizing some drug that's major benefit is to get people high.
While marijuana has a lot of medical uses, and banning it is pointless, it's just pathetic that nobody cares about inflation, an overzealous foreign policy, the sick demented system of child "protection" services ruined to scam parents and ruin the family, the court system being a guilty-until-proven-innocent fiasco where the court orders you to prove your innocence and you have to pay for court costs, drugs tests, psych exams, and etc.
to prove your innocence, and freedom from censorship.
Nope, us Americans gotta have our weed!
Gotta get high so we won't have any other problems to worry about, just pretend they don't exist with a nice pipe in front of us.
Well, you yourself stated "banning it is pointless", so that's at least a start.
I don't think people are ignoring other issues as much as it is that this particular issue is just so freaking easy to resolve.
Just, um, stop making it illegal, then they can tax it as much as tobacco (never mind other uses of hemp).
Other issues aren't so cut and dried - how the fuck do we get rid of a 14 trillion dollar debt?
We'd have to tax each individual in our country $500,000 and apply all of it to our debt to get rid of it - not an easy problem to solve.
Corruption in our judicial system creating the guilty-until-proven-innocent fiasco you mentioned?
How the fuck do we fix that?
Is the fix as easy as it is for the mary j?
Hell no - and we'd all disagree as to where to begin.
I think it's more a low hanging fruit issue - it's easy to fix right now (yes, given that enough in this country feel it's stupid to keep it illegal), this very second - then we can hunker down for all the harder issues.I guess there is also a third point of irony: Weed stupifies you, you'd think the government would favor deregulating it so they could tax it to the sky's limit and get more money off of you that way, while having a bunch of people too high to care about the other rights the government keeps taking away.
We can agree there - it's strange the government doesn't want to give us something that would pacify us and reduce our chances of revolting.
I guess the religious right and the industries that keep making money thanks to not having hemp to compete with are just that powerful.
Oh - and no, I'm not a dope smoker.
I just don't see the need to keep it illegal in light of our stance on alcohol and tobacco.
No, this issue is not the most important issue, but it has such an easy fix.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434915</id>
	<title>Re:Health Care/Social Plan To Fix Everything...</title>
	<author>TheRealMindChild</author>
	<datestamp>1245693720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope a drunk hillbilly runs you off the road, you lose some limbs, a kidney, get a pin in your hip, and end up with 200k of medical bills and the inability to ever get out of your chair and do another bit of work to earn your pay for the rest of your life. Then when you get wheeled out of the hospital, I'd love to see the look on your face and reality sets in... that 200k was just for your stay... You have a lifetime of expensive medical needs... you will never have a job to pay for it all... there will never be enough charity to pay it all... and it wasn't your fault. At that moment, I will spit in your face. You deserve no less, sir.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope a drunk hillbilly runs you off the road , you lose some limbs , a kidney , get a pin in your hip , and end up with 200k of medical bills and the inability to ever get out of your chair and do another bit of work to earn your pay for the rest of your life .
Then when you get wheeled out of the hospital , I 'd love to see the look on your face and reality sets in... that 200k was just for your stay... You have a lifetime of expensive medical needs... you will never have a job to pay for it all... there will never be enough charity to pay it all... and it was n't your fault .
At that moment , I will spit in your face .
You deserve no less , sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope a drunk hillbilly runs you off the road, you lose some limbs, a kidney, get a pin in your hip, and end up with 200k of medical bills and the inability to ever get out of your chair and do another bit of work to earn your pay for the rest of your life.
Then when you get wheeled out of the hospital, I'd love to see the look on your face and reality sets in... that 200k was just for your stay... You have a lifetime of expensive medical needs... you will never have a job to pay for it all... there will never be enough charity to pay it all... and it wasn't your fault.
At that moment, I will spit in your face.
You deserve no less, sir.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435109</id>
	<title>take all of your concerns with marijuana</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1245695460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>add a few more, real and imagined</p><p>and marijuana is still less harmful than alcohol and nicotine. do you really want to stack the health effects of marijuana you list against the health effects of nicotine or alcohol?</p><p>and so its not logically coherent to have nicotine and alcohol legal, and thc illegal. ban all three, or legalize all three. that's the only logically coherent position. a sound pharmacological understanding of the relative effects of the three drugs leads to the inevitable conclusion that making one of the three illegal is arbitrary, and really nothing more than a racist historical artifact from when marijuana was a scary loco weed that mexicans used. the frontier judge's daddy meanwhile was a proper german or irish drunk: familiarity. therefore, legality. no other good reason exists for marijuana's illegality than historical xenophobia. certainly not pharmacological science</p><p>i can see meth permanently banned and the DEA waging war on that drug forever. same with cocaine, same with heroin. the addictiveness of these drugs is off the charts, combined with long term incapacitation (unlike nicotine, which is extremely addictive, but doesn't incapacitate). you can't work. you can't have a relationship. you can take meth, cocaine, and heroin and turn someone who would otherwise have a productive life into a zombie that forsakes the difficulties of your average relationship and your average job in order to feed a need</p><p>but marijuana? its lightweight</p><p>please. this isn't about legalization of all drugs, just marijuana. and please don't suggest legalizing marijuana means we have legalize far, far worse substances. that's like saying allowing gay marriage means we will have to legalize bestiality and necrophilia. fear mongering bullshit</p><p>just legalize marijuana already. keep the hardcore substances banned. its simple pharmacological common sense</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>add a few more , real and imaginedand marijuana is still less harmful than alcohol and nicotine .
do you really want to stack the health effects of marijuana you list against the health effects of nicotine or alcohol ? and so its not logically coherent to have nicotine and alcohol legal , and thc illegal .
ban all three , or legalize all three .
that 's the only logically coherent position .
a sound pharmacological understanding of the relative effects of the three drugs leads to the inevitable conclusion that making one of the three illegal is arbitrary , and really nothing more than a racist historical artifact from when marijuana was a scary loco weed that mexicans used .
the frontier judge 's daddy meanwhile was a proper german or irish drunk : familiarity .
therefore , legality .
no other good reason exists for marijuana 's illegality than historical xenophobia .
certainly not pharmacological sciencei can see meth permanently banned and the DEA waging war on that drug forever .
same with cocaine , same with heroin .
the addictiveness of these drugs is off the charts , combined with long term incapacitation ( unlike nicotine , which is extremely addictive , but does n't incapacitate ) .
you ca n't work .
you ca n't have a relationship .
you can take meth , cocaine , and heroin and turn someone who would otherwise have a productive life into a zombie that forsakes the difficulties of your average relationship and your average job in order to feed a needbut marijuana ?
its lightweightplease .
this is n't about legalization of all drugs , just marijuana .
and please do n't suggest legalizing marijuana means we have legalize far , far worse substances .
that 's like saying allowing gay marriage means we will have to legalize bestiality and necrophilia .
fear mongering bullshitjust legalize marijuana already .
keep the hardcore substances banned .
its simple pharmacological common sense</tokentext>
<sentencetext>add a few more, real and imaginedand marijuana is still less harmful than alcohol and nicotine.
do you really want to stack the health effects of marijuana you list against the health effects of nicotine or alcohol?and so its not logically coherent to have nicotine and alcohol legal, and thc illegal.
ban all three, or legalize all three.
that's the only logically coherent position.
a sound pharmacological understanding of the relative effects of the three drugs leads to the inevitable conclusion that making one of the three illegal is arbitrary, and really nothing more than a racist historical artifact from when marijuana was a scary loco weed that mexicans used.
the frontier judge's daddy meanwhile was a proper german or irish drunk: familiarity.
therefore, legality.
no other good reason exists for marijuana's illegality than historical xenophobia.
certainly not pharmacological sciencei can see meth permanently banned and the DEA waging war on that drug forever.
same with cocaine, same with heroin.
the addictiveness of these drugs is off the charts, combined with long term incapacitation (unlike nicotine, which is extremely addictive, but doesn't incapacitate).
you can't work.
you can't have a relationship.
you can take meth, cocaine, and heroin and turn someone who would otherwise have a productive life into a zombie that forsakes the difficulties of your average relationship and your average job in order to feed a needbut marijuana?
its lightweightplease.
this isn't about legalization of all drugs, just marijuana.
and please don't suggest legalizing marijuana means we have legalize far, far worse substances.
that's like saying allowing gay marriage means we will have to legalize bestiality and necrophilia.
fear mongering bullshitjust legalize marijuana already.
keep the hardcore substances banned.
its simple pharmacological common sense</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435007</id>
	<title>Addiction sucks</title>
	<author>JacobSteelsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1245694620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a person with an addictive personality, I have to say it's my opinion that legalizing all drugs is a very bad idea unless the government is willing to pump a steady stream of unlimited drugs into the population for free...all drugs. If not, then the war on drugs, the war on addiction really, will still need to be fought. The people who cause problems for everyone else with their drug use will still be looking for a high.<br> <br>

That being said, I'm not completely against marijuana legalization, although it won't be the panacea many make it out to be. You won't be able to grow it, after all, you cannot make your own liquor. The government can't tax something you grow easily. And, in my first-hand experience there are definitely affects of long term use yet to be realized.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a person with an addictive personality , I have to say it 's my opinion that legalizing all drugs is a very bad idea unless the government is willing to pump a steady stream of unlimited drugs into the population for free...all drugs .
If not , then the war on drugs , the war on addiction really , will still need to be fought .
The people who cause problems for everyone else with their drug use will still be looking for a high .
That being said , I 'm not completely against marijuana legalization , although it wo n't be the panacea many make it out to be .
You wo n't be able to grow it , after all , you can not make your own liquor .
The government ca n't tax something you grow easily .
And , in my first-hand experience there are definitely affects of long term use yet to be realized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a person with an addictive personality, I have to say it's my opinion that legalizing all drugs is a very bad idea unless the government is willing to pump a steady stream of unlimited drugs into the population for free...all drugs.
If not, then the war on drugs, the war on addiction really, will still need to be fought.
The people who cause problems for everyone else with their drug use will still be looking for a high.
That being said, I'm not completely against marijuana legalization, although it won't be the panacea many make it out to be.
You won't be able to grow it, after all, you cannot make your own liquor.
The government can't tax something you grow easily.
And, in my first-hand experience there are definitely affects of long term use yet to be realized.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28438655</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1245771120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I, for one, think that our cops are smart enough to learn how to do a simple field test.</p> </div><p>Are you suggesting that cops should try to smoke any plants to determine what they are?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , think that our cops are smart enough to learn how to do a simple field test .
Are you suggesting that cops should try to smoke any plants to determine what they are ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, think that our cops are smart enough to learn how to do a simple field test.
Are you suggesting that cops should try to smoke any plants to determine what they are?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28439205</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>bmacs27</author>
	<datestamp>1245773340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How many people do you know that are chugging 80 proof whiskey during the work day?  Hopefully they don't operate any heavy machinery...  I think we can trust people to keep their habits in check.  Where we can't, it's a medical problem, not a criminal problem.
<br> <br>
Honestly, I probably know more people that "<a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=robotrip" title="urbandictionary.com" rel="nofollow">robotrip</a> [urbandictionary.com]" than I know people that get loaded at work.
<br> <br>
Now I don't understand the logic of your last statement, NO NO NO to public funded rehab, but YES YES YES to public funded incarceration?  Or were you hoping they would pay for their own incarceration?  The question is, what is the least expensive way to regulate drug use, yes?  Do you suppose the perp is more likely to pay back his public debt rotting in jail, or when he's back to work payin' taxes after a short rehab stint?
<br> <br>
Frankly, I wouldn't support legalization of every drug.  Just marijuana for the time being, and it should be legislated as though it's alcohol.  Crack is a problem.  So is heroin.  So is a veritable cornucopia of pharmacological substances.  Pot, frankly, helps people unwind, and reduces tendencies towards things like violence.  It is far less addictive than other abused substances, with nicotine likely topping the list.
<br> <br>
I'm perfectly happy to accept your anarchic state if you are prepared to take personal responsibility for your carbon footprint, acquisition of resource trade agreements with foreign nations, and the subsequent security requirements therein.  I'll see your welfare, and raise you a defense budget.  We've got bigger problems than potheads blowing off their jobs flipping burgers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many people do you know that are chugging 80 proof whiskey during the work day ?
Hopefully they do n't operate any heavy machinery... I think we can trust people to keep their habits in check .
Where we ca n't , it 's a medical problem , not a criminal problem .
Honestly , I probably know more people that " robotrip [ urbandictionary.com ] " than I know people that get loaded at work .
Now I do n't understand the logic of your last statement , NO NO NO to public funded rehab , but YES YES YES to public funded incarceration ?
Or were you hoping they would pay for their own incarceration ?
The question is , what is the least expensive way to regulate drug use , yes ?
Do you suppose the perp is more likely to pay back his public debt rotting in jail , or when he 's back to work payin ' taxes after a short rehab stint ?
Frankly , I would n't support legalization of every drug .
Just marijuana for the time being , and it should be legislated as though it 's alcohol .
Crack is a problem .
So is heroin .
So is a veritable cornucopia of pharmacological substances .
Pot , frankly , helps people unwind , and reduces tendencies towards things like violence .
It is far less addictive than other abused substances , with nicotine likely topping the list .
I 'm perfectly happy to accept your anarchic state if you are prepared to take personal responsibility for your carbon footprint , acquisition of resource trade agreements with foreign nations , and the subsequent security requirements therein .
I 'll see your welfare , and raise you a defense budget .
We 've got bigger problems than potheads blowing off their jobs flipping burgers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many people do you know that are chugging 80 proof whiskey during the work day?
Hopefully they don't operate any heavy machinery...  I think we can trust people to keep their habits in check.
Where we can't, it's a medical problem, not a criminal problem.
Honestly, I probably know more people that "robotrip [urbandictionary.com]" than I know people that get loaded at work.
Now I don't understand the logic of your last statement, NO NO NO to public funded rehab, but YES YES YES to public funded incarceration?
Or were you hoping they would pay for their own incarceration?
The question is, what is the least expensive way to regulate drug use, yes?
Do you suppose the perp is more likely to pay back his public debt rotting in jail, or when he's back to work payin' taxes after a short rehab stint?
Frankly, I wouldn't support legalization of every drug.
Just marijuana for the time being, and it should be legislated as though it's alcohol.
Crack is a problem.
So is heroin.
So is a veritable cornucopia of pharmacological substances.
Pot, frankly, helps people unwind, and reduces tendencies towards things like violence.
It is far less addictive than other abused substances, with nicotine likely topping the list.
I'm perfectly happy to accept your anarchic state if you are prepared to take personal responsibility for your carbon footprint, acquisition of resource trade agreements with foreign nations, and the subsequent security requirements therein.
I'll see your welfare, and raise you a defense budget.
We've got bigger problems than potheads blowing off their jobs flipping burgers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435847</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245789360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We already do tax marijuana: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937\_Marihuana\_Tax\_Act" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937\_Marihuana\_Tax\_Act</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We already do tax marijuana : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937 \ _Marihuana \ _Tax \ _Act [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already do tax marijuana: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937\_Marihuana\_Tax\_Act [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435349</id>
	<title>Re:Health Care/Social Plan To Fix Everything...</title>
	<author>DiSKiLLeR</author>
	<datestamp>1245697980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. Everyone is entitled to as much healthcare and medical treatment as they can afford<br>2. Get hurt or sick and need money for treatment? That's what insurance is for. You can buy insurance from a private company. (Advice: might want to get that on your house and car too while you're at it)<br>3. Oh you don't have insurance? Well I guess that was pretty stupid of you not to get insurance, eh?<br>4. If you're too poor to pay for insurance or too stupid to buy it before you get sick, well then you can always go to a private charity or a church or something and maybe they'll help you out.<br>5. If they don't help you out, well then... guess it was really dumb not to get insurance?</p></div><p>Well, no, that's what insurance is for in a Third World Country (which the United States now is...) I don't care what its GDP is, the high level of people living in absolute poverty, the unemployment rate, the homelessness everywhere, the USA is now a Third World Country, period.</p><p>In a First World Country you have Public Health Care for all citizens.</p><p>You also get unemployment benefits.</p><p>There are many great First World Countries out there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Everyone is entitled to as much healthcare and medical treatment as they can afford2 .
Get hurt or sick and need money for treatment ?
That 's what insurance is for .
You can buy insurance from a private company .
( Advice : might want to get that on your house and car too while you 're at it ) 3 .
Oh you do n't have insurance ?
Well I guess that was pretty stupid of you not to get insurance , eh ? 4 .
If you 're too poor to pay for insurance or too stupid to buy it before you get sick , well then you can always go to a private charity or a church or something and maybe they 'll help you out.5 .
If they do n't help you out , well then... guess it was really dumb not to get insurance ? Well , no , that 's what insurance is for in a Third World Country ( which the United States now is... ) I do n't care what its GDP is , the high level of people living in absolute poverty , the unemployment rate , the homelessness everywhere , the USA is now a Third World Country , period.In a First World Country you have Public Health Care for all citizens.You also get unemployment benefits.There are many great First World Countries out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Everyone is entitled to as much healthcare and medical treatment as they can afford2.
Get hurt or sick and need money for treatment?
That's what insurance is for.
You can buy insurance from a private company.
(Advice: might want to get that on your house and car too while you're at it)3.
Oh you don't have insurance?
Well I guess that was pretty stupid of you not to get insurance, eh?4.
If you're too poor to pay for insurance or too stupid to buy it before you get sick, well then you can always go to a private charity or a church or something and maybe they'll help you out.5.
If they don't help you out, well then... guess it was really dumb not to get insurance?Well, no, that's what insurance is for in a Third World Country (which the United States now is...) I don't care what its GDP is, the high level of people living in absolute poverty, the unemployment rate, the homelessness everywhere, the USA is now a Third World Country, period.In a First World Country you have Public Health Care for all citizens.You also get unemployment benefits.There are many great First World Countries out there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434663</id>
	<title>Health Care/Social Plan To Fix Everything...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245691440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like to propose a health care plan that will result in enormous savings to the government and also finally result in a FAIR healthcare system:
<br> <br>

1.   Everyone is entitled to as much healthcare and medical treatment as they can afford<br>
2.   Get hurt or sick and need money for treatment?   That's what insurance is for.   You can buy insurance from a private company.  (Advice:  might want to get that on your house and car too while you're at it)<br>
3.   Oh you don't have insurance?   Well I guess that was pretty stupid of you not to get insurance, eh?<br>
4.   If you're too poor to pay for insurance or too stupid to buy it before you get sick, well then you can always go to a private charity or a church or something and maybe they'll help you out.<br>
5.   If they don't help you out, well then... guess it was really dumb not to get insurance?<br>
6.   If it was simply an issue of not being able to afford it, well then:   perhaps you should have made more money.  You should have studied harder in school, you should have found better employment.  If you couldn't, then you should have been more enterprising.  You shield have been more competitive.   Instead of sitting in your trailer drinking beer and playing the lottery maybe you should have been trying to start a buisiness or learn something useful.   Maybe you should have spent less time watching TV and gone to night school or something.   If you're not smart enough to do well in the work force, not ambitious and savvy enough to go into buisiness for yourself, not hard working enough to get ahead, not clever enough to market yourself, not studious enough to learn some skills and too lazy to do these, then is it my job to pay you for being dumb and lazy?   No it's not.<br> <br>
<br> <br>
And furthermore...
If you can't afford your cardiac bypass, you probably should have thought about that when you were sitting on your fat ass eating fast food.  And if you can't afford the chemo for your lung cancer then you probably shouldn't have taken up smoking, eh?   Expect me to pay for it?   Sorry...
<br> <br>
<br> <br>
Finally...
<br>
Lost your retirement?  Lost your savings?   Guess you should have listened to that whole "diversify your portfolio" stuff.   That whole risk management thing where you're supposed to keep enough money to get by in a CD or some other secure vehicle is really kinda important.  If you were too stupid to do that sorry.. tough luck</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to propose a health care plan that will result in enormous savings to the government and also finally result in a FAIR healthcare system : 1 .
Everyone is entitled to as much healthcare and medical treatment as they can afford 2 .
Get hurt or sick and need money for treatment ?
That 's what insurance is for .
You can buy insurance from a private company .
( Advice : might want to get that on your house and car too while you 're at it ) 3 .
Oh you do n't have insurance ?
Well I guess that was pretty stupid of you not to get insurance , eh ?
4. If you 're too poor to pay for insurance or too stupid to buy it before you get sick , well then you can always go to a private charity or a church or something and maybe they 'll help you out .
5. If they do n't help you out , well then... guess it was really dumb not to get insurance ?
6. If it was simply an issue of not being able to afford it , well then : perhaps you should have made more money .
You should have studied harder in school , you should have found better employment .
If you could n't , then you should have been more enterprising .
You shield have been more competitive .
Instead of sitting in your trailer drinking beer and playing the lottery maybe you should have been trying to start a buisiness or learn something useful .
Maybe you should have spent less time watching TV and gone to night school or something .
If you 're not smart enough to do well in the work force , not ambitious and savvy enough to go into buisiness for yourself , not hard working enough to get ahead , not clever enough to market yourself , not studious enough to learn some skills and too lazy to do these , then is it my job to pay you for being dumb and lazy ?
No it 's not .
And furthermore.. . If you ca n't afford your cardiac bypass , you probably should have thought about that when you were sitting on your fat ass eating fast food .
And if you ca n't afford the chemo for your lung cancer then you probably should n't have taken up smoking , eh ?
Expect me to pay for it ?
Sorry.. . Finally.. . Lost your retirement ?
Lost your savings ?
Guess you should have listened to that whole " diversify your portfolio " stuff .
That whole risk management thing where you 're supposed to keep enough money to get by in a CD or some other secure vehicle is really kinda important .
If you were too stupid to do that sorry.. tough luck</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to propose a health care plan that will result in enormous savings to the government and also finally result in a FAIR healthcare system:
 

1.
Everyone is entitled to as much healthcare and medical treatment as they can afford
2.
Get hurt or sick and need money for treatment?
That's what insurance is for.
You can buy insurance from a private company.
(Advice:  might want to get that on your house and car too while you're at it)
3.
Oh you don't have insurance?
Well I guess that was pretty stupid of you not to get insurance, eh?
4.   If you're too poor to pay for insurance or too stupid to buy it before you get sick, well then you can always go to a private charity or a church or something and maybe they'll help you out.
5.   If they don't help you out, well then... guess it was really dumb not to get insurance?
6.   If it was simply an issue of not being able to afford it, well then:   perhaps you should have made more money.
You should have studied harder in school, you should have found better employment.
If you couldn't, then you should have been more enterprising.
You shield have been more competitive.
Instead of sitting in your trailer drinking beer and playing the lottery maybe you should have been trying to start a buisiness or learn something useful.
Maybe you should have spent less time watching TV and gone to night school or something.
If you're not smart enough to do well in the work force, not ambitious and savvy enough to go into buisiness for yourself, not hard working enough to get ahead, not clever enough to market yourself, not studious enough to learn some skills and too lazy to do these, then is it my job to pay you for being dumb and lazy?
No it's not.
And furthermore...
If you can't afford your cardiac bypass, you probably should have thought about that when you were sitting on your fat ass eating fast food.
And if you can't afford the chemo for your lung cancer then you probably shouldn't have taken up smoking, eh?
Expect me to pay for it?
Sorry...
 
 
Finally...

Lost your retirement?
Lost your savings?
Guess you should have listened to that whole "diversify your portfolio" stuff.
That whole risk management thing where you're supposed to keep enough money to get by in a CD or some other secure vehicle is really kinda important.
If you were too stupid to do that sorry.. tough luck</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435791</id>
	<title>Re:Health Care/Social Plan To Fix Everything...</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1245788640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Starting a comment off with bigoted slurs against rural people is hardly the way to win people over.  But here it is, marked +5 insightful no less.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Starting a comment off with bigoted slurs against rural people is hardly the way to win people over .
But here it is , marked + 5 insightful no less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Starting a comment off with bigoted slurs against rural people is hardly the way to win people over.
But here it is, marked +5 insightful no less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437213</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>maztuhblastah</author>
	<datestamp>1245762660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Holy hell, someone modded you Insightful.</p><p>Wow.</p><p>That's alright, I shouldn't blame you.  You're probably just one of the DARE generation.  Just so as to avoid misleading others, let's spend some time and fix your post:</p><ul> <li> <i>"Enhanced cancer risk"</i>  I got some bad news.  A 2000+ UCLA study <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729\_pf.html" title="washingtonpost.com">concluded that you're full of shit.</a> [washingtonpost.com] </li><li> <i>"Decrease in testosterone levels and lower sperm counts for men"/"Increase in testosterone levels for women and increased risk of infertility".</i>  Funny, but I couldn't seem to find any long term, controlled studies across large groups that proved either of these points.</li><li> <i>"Diminished or extinguished sexual pleasure"</i> - Clearly you've never fucked whilst stoned.  Anyone who has will tell you how laughably wrong this claim is.  And even if it were true, so?  A vast array of things can affect one's sexual pleasure.</li><li> <i>Psychological dependence requiring more of the drug to get the same effect</i>.  I was about to post and point out that people don't tend to develop a tolerance to any of the cannabinoids in marijuana, but then I realized you said "psychological".  Well come on... People can develop a psychological addiction to anything -- surely you've seen the articles about people who play WoW or Starcraft obsessively.  Somehow I don't think that anyone's advocating a DEA crackdown on Blizzard....</li><li> <i>Sleepiness</i>  Indeed.  Marijuana is a useful, safe, non-addictive medication for treating insomnia.  Oh.  You meant that as a bad thing?  Well consider this: reading "Catcher in the Rye" is still legal, and I'll be damned if I didn't sleep like a baby throughout most of middle-school English.</li><li> <i>Difficulty keeping track of time, impaired or reduced short-term memory</i>  When under the influence of larger doses, yes.  It wears off though, and as far as we can tell, the effect isn't permanent.</li><li> <i>Reduced ability to perform tasks requiring concentration and coordination,such as driving a car</i>.  Yes, when under the influence, your coordination is impaired (although to a lesser extent than alcohol.)  Driving under the influence is a bad idea, but I don't see how that's a strike against marijuana.</li><li> <i>Increased heart rate/Potential cardiac dangers for those with preexisting heart disease</i>  If only this were mentioned in some authoritative government study.  Oh wait.  It has been.  <i>Acute Effects of Marihuana</i> by the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse talks about the cardiovascular effects of marijuana.  Their findings?  That while the drug causes an increase of +10 to +40 BPM over baseline, but poses no significant acute danger to users' cardiovascular health. Translation: it raises your pulse rate, but it's not dangerous.</li><li> <i>Bloodshot eyes</i>  Completely harmless.</li><li> <i>Dry mouth and throat</i>  Probably due to the presence of CB1 and CB2 receptors in the salivarly glands.  THC's a CB1 agonist, and there are most certainly some (at least partial) CB2 agonists in marijuana.  And (in case you haven't spotted the pattern yet) this too is harmless.</li><li> <i>Decreased social inhibitions</i>  Highly dependent on the individual.</li><li> <i>Paranoia, hallucinations</i>  In very high doses, yes.  For patients with a pre-existing history of mental illness, marijuana use is probably a bad idea.  In healthy people, there appears to be absolutely no risk of long-term psychological damage.</li><li> <i>Impaired or reduced short-term memory</i>  You... er... you listed this earlier in your post.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</li><li> <i>Impaired or reduced comprehension</i> (and other similar claims.)  True, but highly-dose dependent.</li><li> <i>Psychological dependence</i>  See above.  Executive summary: same goes for everything.</li><li> <i>Intense anxiety or panic attacks</i>  Some people experience these when they smoke too much.  This is highly user and dose dependent though, and listing</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy hell , someone modded you Insightful.Wow.That 's alright , I should n't blame you .
You 're probably just one of the DARE generation .
Just so as to avoid misleading others , let 's spend some time and fix your post : " Enhanced cancer risk " I got some bad news .
A 2000 + UCLA study concluded that you 're full of shit .
[ washingtonpost.com ] " Decrease in testosterone levels and lower sperm counts for men " / " Increase in testosterone levels for women and increased risk of infertility " .
Funny , but I could n't seem to find any long term , controlled studies across large groups that proved either of these points .
" Diminished or extinguished sexual pleasure " - Clearly you 've never fucked whilst stoned .
Anyone who has will tell you how laughably wrong this claim is .
And even if it were true , so ?
A vast array of things can affect one 's sexual pleasure .
Psychological dependence requiring more of the drug to get the same effect .
I was about to post and point out that people do n't tend to develop a tolerance to any of the cannabinoids in marijuana , but then I realized you said " psychological " .
Well come on... People can develop a psychological addiction to anything -- surely you 've seen the articles about people who play WoW or Starcraft obsessively .
Somehow I do n't think that anyone 's advocating a DEA crackdown on Blizzard.... Sleepiness Indeed .
Marijuana is a useful , safe , non-addictive medication for treating insomnia .
Oh. You meant that as a bad thing ?
Well consider this : reading " Catcher in the Rye " is still legal , and I 'll be damned if I did n't sleep like a baby throughout most of middle-school English .
Difficulty keeping track of time , impaired or reduced short-term memory When under the influence of larger doses , yes .
It wears off though , and as far as we can tell , the effect is n't permanent .
Reduced ability to perform tasks requiring concentration and coordination,such as driving a car .
Yes , when under the influence , your coordination is impaired ( although to a lesser extent than alcohol .
) Driving under the influence is a bad idea , but I do n't see how that 's a strike against marijuana .
Increased heart rate/Potential cardiac dangers for those with preexisting heart disease If only this were mentioned in some authoritative government study .
Oh wait .
It has been .
Acute Effects of Marihuana by the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse talks about the cardiovascular effects of marijuana .
Their findings ?
That while the drug causes an increase of + 10 to + 40 BPM over baseline , but poses no significant acute danger to users ' cardiovascular health .
Translation : it raises your pulse rate , but it 's not dangerous .
Bloodshot eyes Completely harmless .
Dry mouth and throat Probably due to the presence of CB1 and CB2 receptors in the salivarly glands .
THC 's a CB1 agonist , and there are most certainly some ( at least partial ) CB2 agonists in marijuana .
And ( in case you have n't spotted the pattern yet ) this too is harmless .
Decreased social inhibitions Highly dependent on the individual .
Paranoia , hallucinations In very high doses , yes .
For patients with a pre-existing history of mental illness , marijuana use is probably a bad idea .
In healthy people , there appears to be absolutely no risk of long-term psychological damage .
Impaired or reduced short-term memory You... er... you listed this earlier in your post .
: ) Impaired or reduced comprehension ( and other similar claims .
) True , but highly-dose dependent .
Psychological dependence See above .
Executive summary : same goes for everything .
Intense anxiety or panic attacks Some people experience these when they smoke too much .
This is highly user and dose dependent though , and listing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy hell, someone modded you Insightful.Wow.That's alright, I shouldn't blame you.
You're probably just one of the DARE generation.
Just so as to avoid misleading others, let's spend some time and fix your post:  "Enhanced cancer risk"  I got some bad news.
A 2000+ UCLA study concluded that you're full of shit.
[washingtonpost.com]  "Decrease in testosterone levels and lower sperm counts for men"/"Increase in testosterone levels for women and increased risk of infertility".
Funny, but I couldn't seem to find any long term, controlled studies across large groups that proved either of these points.
"Diminished or extinguished sexual pleasure" - Clearly you've never fucked whilst stoned.
Anyone who has will tell you how laughably wrong this claim is.
And even if it were true, so?
A vast array of things can affect one's sexual pleasure.
Psychological dependence requiring more of the drug to get the same effect.
I was about to post and point out that people don't tend to develop a tolerance to any of the cannabinoids in marijuana, but then I realized you said "psychological".
Well come on... People can develop a psychological addiction to anything -- surely you've seen the articles about people who play WoW or Starcraft obsessively.
Somehow I don't think that anyone's advocating a DEA crackdown on Blizzard.... Sleepiness  Indeed.
Marijuana is a useful, safe, non-addictive medication for treating insomnia.
Oh.  You meant that as a bad thing?
Well consider this: reading "Catcher in the Rye" is still legal, and I'll be damned if I didn't sleep like a baby throughout most of middle-school English.
Difficulty keeping track of time, impaired or reduced short-term memory  When under the influence of larger doses, yes.
It wears off though, and as far as we can tell, the effect isn't permanent.
Reduced ability to perform tasks requiring concentration and coordination,such as driving a car.
Yes, when under the influence, your coordination is impaired (although to a lesser extent than alcohol.
)  Driving under the influence is a bad idea, but I don't see how that's a strike against marijuana.
Increased heart rate/Potential cardiac dangers for those with preexisting heart disease  If only this were mentioned in some authoritative government study.
Oh wait.
It has been.
Acute Effects of Marihuana by the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse talks about the cardiovascular effects of marijuana.
Their findings?
That while the drug causes an increase of +10 to +40 BPM over baseline, but poses no significant acute danger to users' cardiovascular health.
Translation: it raises your pulse rate, but it's not dangerous.
Bloodshot eyes  Completely harmless.
Dry mouth and throat  Probably due to the presence of CB1 and CB2 receptors in the salivarly glands.
THC's a CB1 agonist, and there are most certainly some (at least partial) CB2 agonists in marijuana.
And (in case you haven't spotted the pattern yet) this too is harmless.
Decreased social inhibitions  Highly dependent on the individual.
Paranoia, hallucinations  In very high doses, yes.
For patients with a pre-existing history of mental illness, marijuana use is probably a bad idea.
In healthy people, there appears to be absolutely no risk of long-term psychological damage.
Impaired or reduced short-term memory  You... er... you listed this earlier in your post.
:) Impaired or reduced comprehension (and other similar claims.
)  True, but highly-dose dependent.
Psychological dependence  See above.
Executive summary: same goes for everything.
Intense anxiety or panic attacks  Some people experience these when they smoke too much.
This is highly user and dose dependent though, and listing</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437377</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1245763860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I, for one, think that our cops are smart enough to learn how to do a simple field test.</p></div><p>Oh, I think the cops know exactly how to do a simple field test:<br>
&nbsp; 1. Smoke some of it.<br>
&nbsp; 2. Are they high? If so, it's pot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , think that our cops are smart enough to learn how to do a simple field test.Oh , I think the cops know exactly how to do a simple field test :   1 .
Smoke some of it .
  2 .
Are they high ?
If so , it 's pot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, think that our cops are smart enough to learn how to do a simple field test.Oh, I think the cops know exactly how to do a simple field test:
  1.
Smoke some of it.
  2.
Are they high?
If so, it's pot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437511</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>MrNightShift</author>
	<datestamp>1245765000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every citizen of the United States should feel personally insulted by President Obama.  He holds the top most elected position, and even he doesn't listen to the voice of the people. The number one request from the people of the United States of America was for the legalization of marijuana. President Obama's response was to laugh at the request of the people that elected him to office.  His response, in my opinion, tells me that in our Presidents mind, what the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES want does NOT matter in the eyes of our government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every citizen of the United States should feel personally insulted by President Obama .
He holds the top most elected position , and even he does n't listen to the voice of the people .
The number one request from the people of the United States of America was for the legalization of marijuana .
President Obama 's response was to laugh at the request of the people that elected him to office .
His response , in my opinion , tells me that in our Presidents mind , what the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES want does NOT matter in the eyes of our government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every citizen of the United States should feel personally insulted by President Obama.
He holds the top most elected position, and even he doesn't listen to the voice of the people.
The number one request from the people of the United States of America was for the legalization of marijuana.
President Obama's response was to laugh at the request of the people that elected him to office.
His response, in my opinion, tells me that in our Presidents mind, what the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES want does NOT matter in the eyes of our government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435577</id>
	<title>Re:Health Care/Social Plan To Fix Everything...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245700020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course you're describing exactly the system that the US has already. How <i>clever</i> of you.</p><p>Except you've omitted one tiny fact: the US system costs the US government (and thus US taxpayers) approximately <b>4 TIMES MORE</b> per citizen than socialized systems, and the quality of care is <b>demonstrably lower</b>.</p><p>You don't do socialized medicine because it's kinder to poor people (although it is)
<br>You don't do socialized medicine because it creates a healthier and more productive population (although it does)
<br>You don't do socialized medicine because it removes the profit motive (i.e. denial of care) from the healthcare equation (although it helps to do this)</p><p>You do socialized medicine <b>because it's cheaper</b>.</p><p>Anyone who tells you that socialized medicine is more expensive, and/or will lead to a poorer standard of care, either works for a US insurance company, or is willfully ignoring <i>all</i> the evidence from <i>every other</i> industrialized 1st world country, or, like you I suspect, is just a fsckwit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course you 're describing exactly the system that the US has already .
How clever of you.Except you 've omitted one tiny fact : the US system costs the US government ( and thus US taxpayers ) approximately 4 TIMES MORE per citizen than socialized systems , and the quality of care is demonstrably lower.You do n't do socialized medicine because it 's kinder to poor people ( although it is ) You do n't do socialized medicine because it creates a healthier and more productive population ( although it does ) You do n't do socialized medicine because it removes the profit motive ( i.e .
denial of care ) from the healthcare equation ( although it helps to do this ) You do socialized medicine because it 's cheaper.Anyone who tells you that socialized medicine is more expensive , and/or will lead to a poorer standard of care , either works for a US insurance company , or is willfully ignoring all the evidence from every other industrialized 1st world country , or , like you I suspect , is just a fsckwit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course you're describing exactly the system that the US has already.
How clever of you.Except you've omitted one tiny fact: the US system costs the US government (and thus US taxpayers) approximately 4 TIMES MORE per citizen than socialized systems, and the quality of care is demonstrably lower.You don't do socialized medicine because it's kinder to poor people (although it is)
You don't do socialized medicine because it creates a healthier and more productive population (although it does)
You don't do socialized medicine because it removes the profit motive (i.e.
denial of care) from the healthcare equation (although it helps to do this)You do socialized medicine because it's cheaper.Anyone who tells you that socialized medicine is more expensive, and/or will lead to a poorer standard of care, either works for a US insurance company, or is willfully ignoring all the evidence from every other industrialized 1st world country, or, like you I suspect, is just a fsckwit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434277</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1245688620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is no way you can argue for marijuana to not be legalized by a purely financial standpoint.</p></div><p>The evidence strongly suggests that regular use of marijuana impairs short-term memory, amongst other things. It continues to effect the person for days or weeks, unlike many other kinds of drugs. I'm not good enough with statistics to venture a guess on the impact on productivity at a societal level, but I'm confident it would dwarf the DEA's budget. Are you really that sure that the tax revenue and private sector profits would outweigh that loss?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no way you can argue for marijuana to not be legalized by a purely financial standpoint.The evidence strongly suggests that regular use of marijuana impairs short-term memory , amongst other things .
It continues to effect the person for days or weeks , unlike many other kinds of drugs .
I 'm not good enough with statistics to venture a guess on the impact on productivity at a societal level , but I 'm confident it would dwarf the DEA 's budget .
Are you really that sure that the tax revenue and private sector profits would outweigh that loss ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no way you can argue for marijuana to not be legalized by a purely financial standpoint.The evidence strongly suggests that regular use of marijuana impairs short-term memory, amongst other things.
It continues to effect the person for days or weeks, unlike many other kinds of drugs.
I'm not good enough with statistics to venture a guess on the impact on productivity at a societal level, but I'm confident it would dwarf the DEA's budget.
Are you really that sure that the tax revenue and private sector profits would outweigh that loss?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437343</id>
	<title>Re:Lol Democracy</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1245763620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other words:<br>This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words : This whole thing is wildly inaccurate .
Rounding errors , ballot stuffers , dynamic IPs , firewalls .
If you 're using these numbers to do anything important , you 're insane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words:This whole thing is wildly inaccurate.
Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls.
If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28438673</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>Lillebo</author>
	<datestamp>1245771240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But the point still stands that weed makes folks do irrational things that can't be explained without assuming addiction.</p></div><p>[citation needed]

Please refrain from spitting personal opinions you can't back up with scientific data onto this site. There is no evidence that weed alters a person's basic personality structure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis\_(drug)#Effects) - and if you define "irrational" as being willing to break the law, you need to reconsider your usage of the word.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the point still stands that weed makes folks do irrational things that ca n't be explained without assuming addiction .
[ citation needed ] Please refrain from spitting personal opinions you ca n't back up with scientific data onto this site .
There is no evidence that weed alters a person 's basic personality structure ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis \ _ ( drug ) # Effects ) - and if you define " irrational " as being willing to break the law , you need to reconsider your usage of the word .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the point still stands that weed makes folks do irrational things that can't be explained without assuming addiction.
[citation needed]

Please refrain from spitting personal opinions you can't back up with scientific data onto this site.
There is no evidence that weed alters a person's basic personality structure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis\_(drug)#Effects) - and if you define "irrational" as being willing to break the law, you need to reconsider your usage of the word.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28439731</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>rpillala</author>
	<datestamp>1245775080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, a better argument as regards the police is that drug busts that only get the low level operators are ineffective law enforcement.  Police don't want to spend all their time catching the same handful of guys and having them let off because they're juveniles or because they know the rules just well enough to keep ahead.  I'm not police, but I really believe they could be doing better, more socially beneficial work if they didn't have to re-enact <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus" title="wikipedia.org">the myth of Sisyphus</a> [wikipedia.org] every day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , a better argument as regards the police is that drug busts that only get the low level operators are ineffective law enforcement .
Police do n't want to spend all their time catching the same handful of guys and having them let off because they 're juveniles or because they know the rules just well enough to keep ahead .
I 'm not police , but I really believe they could be doing better , more socially beneficial work if they did n't have to re-enact the myth of Sisyphus [ wikipedia.org ] every day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, a better argument as regards the police is that drug busts that only get the low level operators are ineffective law enforcement.
Police don't want to spend all their time catching the same handful of guys and having them let off because they're juveniles or because they know the rules just well enough to keep ahead.
I'm not police, but I really believe they could be doing better, more socially beneficial work if they didn't have to re-enact the myth of Sisyphus [wikipedia.org] every day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435715</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245787920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a friend that smokes pot everyday and isn't in a psychiatric hospital. See? Anecdotes are fun!</p><p>Unfortunately, they don't fair well along the lines of 'proof'.  Unless of course you already have an opinion that you are heavily invested in... then you can just grasp for whatever anyone says that supports your view.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a friend that smokes pot everyday and is n't in a psychiatric hospital .
See ? Anecdotes are fun ! Unfortunately , they do n't fair well along the lines of 'proof' .
Unless of course you already have an opinion that you are heavily invested in... then you can just grasp for whatever anyone says that supports your view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a friend that smokes pot everyday and isn't in a psychiatric hospital.
See? Anecdotes are fun!Unfortunately, they don't fair well along the lines of 'proof'.
Unless of course you already have an opinion that you are heavily invested in... then you can just grasp for whatever anyone says that supports your view.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434159</id>
	<title>Re:Lol Democracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245688080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm fairly certain they're still ignoring the issue that the most people <b>who participated in this poll and who are in all likelyhood are not representative of the voting public</b>were interested in changing, legalization of marijuana.</p></div><p>Fixed that for you.</p><p>An online poll conducted like this is going to be ridiculously skewed.  Even if no one cheated, voting hundreds of times for their own "legalize pot" suggestions, the demographic here is going to be much MUCH younger than the average voting population.  No age restrictions.  And half the people who posted on there probably sent a link to all their friends and posted it on like-minded forums.  Those people who are really REALLY opposed to legalization are also less likely to participate in this.  Likewise, a lot of those people most in favor of legalization don't vote or can't vote yet.</p><p>I think it's more likely this was actually a way of getting younger voters interested in government.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm fairly certain they 're still ignoring the issue that the most people who participated in this poll and who are in all likelyhood are not representative of the voting publicwere interested in changing , legalization of marijuana.Fixed that for you.An online poll conducted like this is going to be ridiculously skewed .
Even if no one cheated , voting hundreds of times for their own " legalize pot " suggestions , the demographic here is going to be much MUCH younger than the average voting population .
No age restrictions .
And half the people who posted on there probably sent a link to all their friends and posted it on like-minded forums .
Those people who are really REALLY opposed to legalization are also less likely to participate in this .
Likewise , a lot of those people most in favor of legalization do n't vote or ca n't vote yet.I think it 's more likely this was actually a way of getting younger voters interested in government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm fairly certain they're still ignoring the issue that the most people who participated in this poll and who are in all likelyhood are not representative of the voting publicwere interested in changing, legalization of marijuana.Fixed that for you.An online poll conducted like this is going to be ridiculously skewed.
Even if no one cheated, voting hundreds of times for their own "legalize pot" suggestions, the demographic here is going to be much MUCH younger than the average voting population.
No age restrictions.
And half the people who posted on there probably sent a link to all their friends and posted it on like-minded forums.
Those people who are really REALLY opposed to legalization are also less likely to participate in this.
Likewise, a lot of those people most in favor of legalization don't vote or can't vote yet.I think it's more likely this was actually a way of getting younger voters interested in government.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28450767</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>metaforest</author>
	<datestamp>1245844920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You legalize marijuana and you can cut down on the number of arrests made, cut down on the number of cops</i></p><p>Stop right there and think....</p><p>Do you really think that the Criminal Justice System wants to scale back?   Those are American Jobs representing billions of dollars is revenue...</p><p>Do you really want to put 30\% of the cops on the streets today out of work?</p><p>What about their families?</p><p>Think about the children!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You legalize marijuana and you can cut down on the number of arrests made , cut down on the number of copsStop right there and think....Do you really think that the Criminal Justice System wants to scale back ?
Those are American Jobs representing billions of dollars is revenue...Do you really want to put 30 \ % of the cops on the streets today out of work ? What about their families ? Think about the children !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You legalize marijuana and you can cut down on the number of arrests made, cut down on the number of copsStop right there and think....Do you really think that the Criminal Justice System wants to scale back?
Those are American Jobs representing billions of dollars is revenue...Do you really want to put 30\% of the cops on the streets today out of work?What about their families?Think about the children!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436091</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245749040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't mislead people with your Scientology website either.</p><p>I'm pretty sure your friend smoked pot to keep the voices from taking him away from us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't mislead people with your Scientology website either.I 'm pretty sure your friend smoked pot to keep the voices from taking him away from us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't mislead people with your Scientology website either.I'm pretty sure your friend smoked pot to keep the voices from taking him away from us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28440517</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>theverylastperson</author>
	<datestamp>1245778320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Awesome. So I assume anyone eating fast food shouldn't qualify for welfare, or anyone who drinks alcohol.<br> <br>
Or anyone who doesn't follow your approved lifestyle. I mean, think about all the joggers with knee injuries. Our tax dollars might be used to repair their self inflicted injury due to their life style choice.<br> <br>
Where does this logic end and who gets to decide what life style is correct?<br> <br>Right now in Iran there are hundreds of thousands of people revolting from an oppressive state where morality and life styles have been dictated by the government. I understand your position, I don't honestly want to pay for problems that people create for themselves, but that is the price we pay to live in a Free Country that has progressive social reforms.<br> <br>
I'm sorry, but we DO live in a FREE COUNTRY, the only thing holding us back is our perception that we don't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Awesome .
So I assume anyone eating fast food should n't qualify for welfare , or anyone who drinks alcohol .
Or anyone who does n't follow your approved lifestyle .
I mean , think about all the joggers with knee injuries .
Our tax dollars might be used to repair their self inflicted injury due to their life style choice .
Where does this logic end and who gets to decide what life style is correct ?
Right now in Iran there are hundreds of thousands of people revolting from an oppressive state where morality and life styles have been dictated by the government .
I understand your position , I do n't honestly want to pay for problems that people create for themselves , but that is the price we pay to live in a Free Country that has progressive social reforms .
I 'm sorry , but we DO live in a FREE COUNTRY , the only thing holding us back is our perception that we do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Awesome.
So I assume anyone eating fast food shouldn't qualify for welfare, or anyone who drinks alcohol.
Or anyone who doesn't follow your approved lifestyle.
I mean, think about all the joggers with knee injuries.
Our tax dollars might be used to repair their self inflicted injury due to their life style choice.
Where does this logic end and who gets to decide what life style is correct?
Right now in Iran there are hundreds of thousands of people revolting from an oppressive state where morality and life styles have been dictated by the government.
I understand your position, I don't honestly want to pay for problems that people create for themselves, but that is the price we pay to live in a Free Country that has progressive social reforms.
I'm sorry, but we DO live in a FREE COUNTRY, the only thing holding us back is our perception that we don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28446181</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245755100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yes the fact booze is legal again goes a long way to account for the fact most people have more sense than to chug 20 proof Nyquil when 80 proof whiskey is equally available and is a lot cheaper per ounce.</p></div></blockquote><p>I doubt the poster was talking about the alcohol content in cough syrup when he brought it up. Rather, he was probably talking about dextromathorphin or other chemicals commonly found in cough syrups. Most cough syrups contain a mild emetic to prevent you from using too much of the product. But some of the cheap brands are just dextromathorphin and a syrup flavoring. Chugging two of those bottles can cause fairly intense hallucinations.</p><p>So the OP was correct that most cough syrups contain an ingredient that is more addictive than pot but was also somewhat disingenuous in calling cough syrup more addictive than pot since the recommended dosage is well below what you'd need to be addicted.</p><p>As to your point about drug users forgoing welfare and rehab and other public services, I'd argue that while that might be a nice pie-in-the-sky libertarian philosophy, there's a more practical reasoning for legalizing all drugs. Firstly, by legalizing them you lower the costs and allow legitimate businesses to produce them. The resulting increase in quality means that drug use becomes safer and there are fewer ER visits. And without the high costs of the black market, there's less drug related crime. And not just the violent dealer-related crime, there's also the addicts that steal car stereos and the like to support their habits. And the public also saves money on law enforcement and prisons. And to top it off, sin taxes make the government a lot of revenue. If the taxes were set at the time of legalization, the public would still see a net price decrease and would willingly accept the taxes rather than realizing how much the taxes would cost them (i.e. when a pack of cigarettes used to cost $1 and all the new taxes have pushed it up to $5, people see the taxes and resent them more. But when marijuana used to cost $100/ounce, a $10 pack of marijuana cigarettes seems cheap in comparison, even though the taxes are almost double those on cigarettes.)</p><p>All-in-all, legalizing everything would cost those of us who don't use drugs a lot less than we're currently paying. And the elimination of the black market would actually make it harder for children to obtain them. Alcohol, cigarettes and prescription drugs are actually harder to come by for children than the illegal drugs...still not hard, but harder. People need to realize just how much money they're paying to prevent others from using drugs. Once you wrap your head around that, things like the amount that would need to be paid for rehab and other medical services related to drug use would seem small by comparison.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes the fact booze is legal again goes a long way to account for the fact most people have more sense than to chug 20 proof Nyquil when 80 proof whiskey is equally available and is a lot cheaper per ounce.I doubt the poster was talking about the alcohol content in cough syrup when he brought it up .
Rather , he was probably talking about dextromathorphin or other chemicals commonly found in cough syrups .
Most cough syrups contain a mild emetic to prevent you from using too much of the product .
But some of the cheap brands are just dextromathorphin and a syrup flavoring .
Chugging two of those bottles can cause fairly intense hallucinations.So the OP was correct that most cough syrups contain an ingredient that is more addictive than pot but was also somewhat disingenuous in calling cough syrup more addictive than pot since the recommended dosage is well below what you 'd need to be addicted.As to your point about drug users forgoing welfare and rehab and other public services , I 'd argue that while that might be a nice pie-in-the-sky libertarian philosophy , there 's a more practical reasoning for legalizing all drugs .
Firstly , by legalizing them you lower the costs and allow legitimate businesses to produce them .
The resulting increase in quality means that drug use becomes safer and there are fewer ER visits .
And without the high costs of the black market , there 's less drug related crime .
And not just the violent dealer-related crime , there 's also the addicts that steal car stereos and the like to support their habits .
And the public also saves money on law enforcement and prisons .
And to top it off , sin taxes make the government a lot of revenue .
If the taxes were set at the time of legalization , the public would still see a net price decrease and would willingly accept the taxes rather than realizing how much the taxes would cost them ( i.e .
when a pack of cigarettes used to cost $ 1 and all the new taxes have pushed it up to $ 5 , people see the taxes and resent them more .
But when marijuana used to cost $ 100/ounce , a $ 10 pack of marijuana cigarettes seems cheap in comparison , even though the taxes are almost double those on cigarettes .
) All-in-all , legalizing everything would cost those of us who do n't use drugs a lot less than we 're currently paying .
And the elimination of the black market would actually make it harder for children to obtain them .
Alcohol , cigarettes and prescription drugs are actually harder to come by for children than the illegal drugs...still not hard , but harder .
People need to realize just how much money they 're paying to prevent others from using drugs .
Once you wrap your head around that , things like the amount that would need to be paid for rehab and other medical services related to drug use would seem small by comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes the fact booze is legal again goes a long way to account for the fact most people have more sense than to chug 20 proof Nyquil when 80 proof whiskey is equally available and is a lot cheaper per ounce.I doubt the poster was talking about the alcohol content in cough syrup when he brought it up.
Rather, he was probably talking about dextromathorphin or other chemicals commonly found in cough syrups.
Most cough syrups contain a mild emetic to prevent you from using too much of the product.
But some of the cheap brands are just dextromathorphin and a syrup flavoring.
Chugging two of those bottles can cause fairly intense hallucinations.So the OP was correct that most cough syrups contain an ingredient that is more addictive than pot but was also somewhat disingenuous in calling cough syrup more addictive than pot since the recommended dosage is well below what you'd need to be addicted.As to your point about drug users forgoing welfare and rehab and other public services, I'd argue that while that might be a nice pie-in-the-sky libertarian philosophy, there's a more practical reasoning for legalizing all drugs.
Firstly, by legalizing them you lower the costs and allow legitimate businesses to produce them.
The resulting increase in quality means that drug use becomes safer and there are fewer ER visits.
And without the high costs of the black market, there's less drug related crime.
And not just the violent dealer-related crime, there's also the addicts that steal car stereos and the like to support their habits.
And the public also saves money on law enforcement and prisons.
And to top it off, sin taxes make the government a lot of revenue.
If the taxes were set at the time of legalization, the public would still see a net price decrease and would willingly accept the taxes rather than realizing how much the taxes would cost them (i.e.
when a pack of cigarettes used to cost $1 and all the new taxes have pushed it up to $5, people see the taxes and resent them more.
But when marijuana used to cost $100/ounce, a $10 pack of marijuana cigarettes seems cheap in comparison, even though the taxes are almost double those on cigarettes.
)All-in-all, legalizing everything would cost those of us who don't use drugs a lot less than we're currently paying.
And the elimination of the black market would actually make it harder for children to obtain them.
Alcohol, cigarettes and prescription drugs are actually harder to come by for children than the illegal drugs...still not hard, but harder.
People need to realize just how much money they're paying to prevent others from using drugs.
Once you wrap your head around that, things like the amount that would need to be paid for rehab and other medical services related to drug use would seem small by comparison.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434233</id>
	<title>I believe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245688440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm one of those alien believer nutjobs.</p><p>Okay, I don't think of myself as a nutjob, but who does right?</p><p>I think however, when discussing an 'Open Government' and how to be an open goverment, it shouldn't really be suprising that people were asking for information that if it exists (If, just because I think 'they are out there' doesn't mean I think they've puttered around watching our dumb asses unless theres some form of intragalatic 'Simple Life' we're in) is probably classified to absolutely all hell and back or simply gets destroyed.</p><p>Do I think the goverment has UFO info? Yes, it does, but its probably something like 'Pilot reported seeing lights in the sky' or 'We haven't seen shit Mr President, there is nothing out there that we've found'.</p><p>I highly doubt they are hiding a bunch of stuff, its just too long and too hard to do it on a global scale without more 'proof' slipping out.</p><p>With all that said, isn't this kind of request more in tune with what the point of the website was than say all the legalize it posts or other random crap?  I mean, requesting info on things that the goverment won't tell us about is kind of the point of the site right?  So these 'nutjobs' really are using the site for what its for, which most of the people who posted things that would be considered intelligent on other topics utterly missed the point.  It was a place to discuss gaining access to information about UFOs, JFK conspiracies as well as actual important things that matter in transparency.</p><p>You can make fun of the 'nutjobs', I will too, some of the theories you hear about fringe topics are just so insane you can't help but break out into uncontrollable laughter when you hear them.</p><p>I just feel its important to note that at least they were on topic to some extent.  The should have been discussing how to add transparency and openness in general, not basically use it as a public submission for for FOIA requests.</p><p>Oh and for the record, just freaking legalize it and save everyone the time and effort, if nothing else maybe we'll stop being it brought up at the slightest excuse<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm one of those alien believer nutjobs.Okay , I do n't think of myself as a nutjob , but who does right ? I think however , when discussing an 'Open Government ' and how to be an open goverment , it should n't really be suprising that people were asking for information that if it exists ( If , just because I think 'they are out there ' does n't mean I think they 've puttered around watching our dumb asses unless theres some form of intragalatic 'Simple Life ' we 're in ) is probably classified to absolutely all hell and back or simply gets destroyed.Do I think the goverment has UFO info ?
Yes , it does , but its probably something like 'Pilot reported seeing lights in the sky ' or 'We have n't seen shit Mr President , there is nothing out there that we 've found'.I highly doubt they are hiding a bunch of stuff , its just too long and too hard to do it on a global scale without more 'proof ' slipping out.With all that said , is n't this kind of request more in tune with what the point of the website was than say all the legalize it posts or other random crap ?
I mean , requesting info on things that the goverment wo n't tell us about is kind of the point of the site right ?
So these 'nutjobs ' really are using the site for what its for , which most of the people who posted things that would be considered intelligent on other topics utterly missed the point .
It was a place to discuss gaining access to information about UFOs , JFK conspiracies as well as actual important things that matter in transparency.You can make fun of the 'nutjobs ' , I will too , some of the theories you hear about fringe topics are just so insane you ca n't help but break out into uncontrollable laughter when you hear them.I just feel its important to note that at least they were on topic to some extent .
The should have been discussing how to add transparency and openness in general , not basically use it as a public submission for for FOIA requests.Oh and for the record , just freaking legalize it and save everyone the time and effort , if nothing else maybe we 'll stop being it brought up at the slightest excuse : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm one of those alien believer nutjobs.Okay, I don't think of myself as a nutjob, but who does right?I think however, when discussing an 'Open Government' and how to be an open goverment, it shouldn't really be suprising that people were asking for information that if it exists (If, just because I think 'they are out there' doesn't mean I think they've puttered around watching our dumb asses unless theres some form of intragalatic 'Simple Life' we're in) is probably classified to absolutely all hell and back or simply gets destroyed.Do I think the goverment has UFO info?
Yes, it does, but its probably something like 'Pilot reported seeing lights in the sky' or 'We haven't seen shit Mr President, there is nothing out there that we've found'.I highly doubt they are hiding a bunch of stuff, its just too long and too hard to do it on a global scale without more 'proof' slipping out.With all that said, isn't this kind of request more in tune with what the point of the website was than say all the legalize it posts or other random crap?
I mean, requesting info on things that the goverment won't tell us about is kind of the point of the site right?
So these 'nutjobs' really are using the site for what its for, which most of the people who posted things that would be considered intelligent on other topics utterly missed the point.
It was a place to discuss gaining access to information about UFOs, JFK conspiracies as well as actual important things that matter in transparency.You can make fun of the 'nutjobs', I will too, some of the theories you hear about fringe topics are just so insane you can't help but break out into uncontrollable laughter when you hear them.I just feel its important to note that at least they were on topic to some extent.
The should have been discussing how to add transparency and openness in general, not basically use it as a public submission for for FOIA requests.Oh and for the record, just freaking legalize it and save everyone the time and effort, if nothing else maybe we'll stop being it brought up at the slightest excuse :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436299</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245751800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.overcompensating.com/posts/20090303.html" title="overcompensating.com" rel="nofollow">Oh, that's your solution to everything.</a> [overcompensating.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , that 's your solution to everything .
[ overcompensating.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, that's your solution to everything.
[overcompensating.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28439847</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>Uniquitous</author>
	<datestamp>1245775680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course, legalizing any of the highly profitable black market drugs would mean bucking the lobbying efforts of one of the USA's major industries, and one of the very few that enjoys freedom from paying any taxes on its profits. So I don't expect this to happen soon or without great effort.</p></div><p>Oh, you just HAD to bring the churches into this...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , legalizing any of the highly profitable black market drugs would mean bucking the lobbying efforts of one of the USA 's major industries , and one of the very few that enjoys freedom from paying any taxes on its profits .
So I do n't expect this to happen soon or without great effort.Oh , you just HAD to bring the churches into this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, legalizing any of the highly profitable black market drugs would mean bucking the lobbying efforts of one of the USA's major industries, and one of the very few that enjoys freedom from paying any taxes on its profits.
So I don't expect this to happen soon or without great effort.Oh, you just HAD to bring the churches into this...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434539</id>
	<title>If the site worked, it would be more useful</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1245690420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The non-static pages on the site, which was outsourced to "mixedink.com", just produce an endless busy icon, with the word "thinking".  OK, bad vendor choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The non-static pages on the site , which was outsourced to " mixedink.com " , just produce an endless busy icon , with the word " thinking " .
OK , bad vendor choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The non-static pages on the site, which was outsourced to "mixedink.com", just produce an endless busy icon, with the word "thinking".
OK, bad vendor choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435155</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245695940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; it is less addictive than most cough syrups.</p><p>There are good arguments for legalization but idiots like you spewing stuff that doesn't pass the most basic smell test aren't helping your cause.</p><p>Ok, survey says 6\% of the US population uses a product that is illegal and has enough enforcement that it accounts for a fair percentage of inmates in prison.  They are willing to deal with the criminal underworld to get the stuff, pay black market prices and risk jail, loss of their job in many cases, etc.  What percentage of the population is chugging Nyquil?</p><p>Yes the fact booze is legal again goes a long way to account for the fact most people have more sense than to chug 20 proof Nyquil when 80 proof whiskey is equally available and is a lot cheaper per ounce.  But the point still stands that weed makes folks do irrational things that can't be explained without assuming addiction.  A lot more addiction than cough syrup.</p><p>So now lets put on our thinking caps and examine a world after legalization.  That 6\% would double overnite just from people who would use but fear what a conviction would do to their career.  Then again from people who would use if they didn't have to deal with the criminal underground.  Smokers, for all their other problems (and second hand smoke kicks me square in the NUTS.  I hate smokers!) can be productive members of society.  Before we chased em all outdoors they didn't even take too much (if any) of a productivity hit.  Not sure what would happen if a quarter if the population was baked out of their heads.  And unsure on such an important question is bad.</p><p>Personally I'd favor legalization of EVERY drug on one condition.  That anyone wanting such full liberty signed a statement taking full responsibility for the consequences.  That means no welfare, no public funded trips to rehab, nothing.  They could buy any insurance they wanted on the private market, but not a dime of the taxpayer's funds.  Because total liberty is incompatible with a welfare state.  That is my big objection to legalization, it would be great in a Free country but we don't live in one of those anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; it is less addictive than most cough syrups.There are good arguments for legalization but idiots like you spewing stuff that does n't pass the most basic smell test are n't helping your cause.Ok , survey says 6 \ % of the US population uses a product that is illegal and has enough enforcement that it accounts for a fair percentage of inmates in prison .
They are willing to deal with the criminal underworld to get the stuff , pay black market prices and risk jail , loss of their job in many cases , etc .
What percentage of the population is chugging Nyquil ? Yes the fact booze is legal again goes a long way to account for the fact most people have more sense than to chug 20 proof Nyquil when 80 proof whiskey is equally available and is a lot cheaper per ounce .
But the point still stands that weed makes folks do irrational things that ca n't be explained without assuming addiction .
A lot more addiction than cough syrup.So now lets put on our thinking caps and examine a world after legalization .
That 6 \ % would double overnite just from people who would use but fear what a conviction would do to their career .
Then again from people who would use if they did n't have to deal with the criminal underground .
Smokers , for all their other problems ( and second hand smoke kicks me square in the NUTS .
I hate smokers !
) can be productive members of society .
Before we chased em all outdoors they did n't even take too much ( if any ) of a productivity hit .
Not sure what would happen if a quarter if the population was baked out of their heads .
And unsure on such an important question is bad.Personally I 'd favor legalization of EVERY drug on one condition .
That anyone wanting such full liberty signed a statement taking full responsibility for the consequences .
That means no welfare , no public funded trips to rehab , nothing .
They could buy any insurance they wanted on the private market , but not a dime of the taxpayer 's funds .
Because total liberty is incompatible with a welfare state .
That is my big objection to legalization , it would be great in a Free country but we do n't live in one of those anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; it is less addictive than most cough syrups.There are good arguments for legalization but idiots like you spewing stuff that doesn't pass the most basic smell test aren't helping your cause.Ok, survey says 6\% of the US population uses a product that is illegal and has enough enforcement that it accounts for a fair percentage of inmates in prison.
They are willing to deal with the criminal underworld to get the stuff, pay black market prices and risk jail, loss of their job in many cases, etc.
What percentage of the population is chugging Nyquil?Yes the fact booze is legal again goes a long way to account for the fact most people have more sense than to chug 20 proof Nyquil when 80 proof whiskey is equally available and is a lot cheaper per ounce.
But the point still stands that weed makes folks do irrational things that can't be explained without assuming addiction.
A lot more addiction than cough syrup.So now lets put on our thinking caps and examine a world after legalization.
That 6\% would double overnite just from people who would use but fear what a conviction would do to their career.
Then again from people who would use if they didn't have to deal with the criminal underground.
Smokers, for all their other problems (and second hand smoke kicks me square in the NUTS.
I hate smokers!
) can be productive members of society.
Before we chased em all outdoors they didn't even take too much (if any) of a productivity hit.
Not sure what would happen if a quarter if the population was baked out of their heads.
And unsure on such an important question is bad.Personally I'd favor legalization of EVERY drug on one condition.
That anyone wanting such full liberty signed a statement taking full responsibility for the consequences.
That means no welfare, no public funded trips to rehab, nothing.
They could buy any insurance they wanted on the private market, but not a dime of the taxpayer's funds.
Because total liberty is incompatible with a welfare state.
That is my big objection to legalization, it would be great in a Free country but we don't live in one of those anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435347</id>
	<title>Re:Lol Democracy</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1245697980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's all very true, but it is also true the legalization is one of those issues that gets brushed aside as not worthy of serious people. You can bet that the top 10 issues related to Iraq or Iran or Health Care are regarded as serious.</p><p>The ability to categorize opposing opinions as unworthy of serious attention is a powerful weapon of the old media (the saying was, it didn't tell you how to think, but<br>it did a good job of telling you what to think about). I suspect that that will become impossible under the new media.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all very true , but it is also true the legalization is one of those issues that gets brushed aside as not worthy of serious people .
You can bet that the top 10 issues related to Iraq or Iran or Health Care are regarded as serious.The ability to categorize opposing opinions as unworthy of serious attention is a powerful weapon of the old media ( the saying was , it did n't tell you how to think , butit did a good job of telling you what to think about ) .
I suspect that that will become impossible under the new media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all very true, but it is also true the legalization is one of those issues that gets brushed aside as not worthy of serious people.
You can bet that the top 10 issues related to Iraq or Iran or Health Care are regarded as serious.The ability to categorize opposing opinions as unworthy of serious attention is a powerful weapon of the old media (the saying was, it didn't tell you how to think, butit did a good job of telling you what to think about).
I suspect that that will become impossible under the new media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435711</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245787860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>        * Enhanced cancer risk</p><p>You are the first to say this, never seen a documented report proving this.</p><p>
        * Decrease in testosterone levels and lower sperm counts for men</p><p>No interest in kids</p><p>
        * Increase in testosterone levels for women and increased risk of infertility</p><p>No interest in kids, hasn't changed my GF at all.  We have both been smoking more then half our lives.</p><p>
        * Diminished or extinguished sexual pleasure</p><p>Never happened, we have been smoking it for a very long time and this has \_never\_ been a problem.  In fact, I have never heard anyone complain about it.</p><p>
        * Psychological dependence requiring more of the drug to get the same effect</p><p>Total BS.  There are times, kinda random that I take one hit and get really stoned.  Other times it takes half a bowl.  This has never increased in all the years I have smoked.</p><p>
        * Sleepiness</p><p>Never had a problem with this.  In fact, this is part of the reason I have it prescribed to me.  Without it, for a few years I had a lot of trouble sleeping.  Try sleeping 1 hour a night for a year.  You will be a zombie.  Pot is hands down the most natural thing for this.  NOTHING you can make in a lab can compete with this.</p><p>
        * Difficulty keeping track of time, impaired or reduced short-term memory</p><p>Eh, the short term memory is only a here and there thing.  It takes some getting used to.  Just gotta get a habit of looking at the time all a lot.</p><p>
        * Reduced ability to perform tasks requiring concentration and coordination, such as driving a car</p><p>This I might agree with.  I personally have trouble driving while stoned, but know plenty of others who drive just fine and you would never know the difference.</p><p>
        * Increased heart rate</p><p>I don't believe this for a second, I have been to the doctor a few times while stoned and they never mentioned anything about increased pulse.</p><p>
        * Potential cardiac dangers for those with preexisting heart disease</p><p>Maybe, never heard this before.</p><p>
        * Bloodshot eyes</p><p>How is this a problem ?</p><p>
        * Dry mouth and throat</p><p>How is this a problem ?</p><p>
        * Decreased social inhibitions</p><p>Totally the opposite.  My GF takes it for social anxiety, it works very well.</p><p>
        * Paranoia, hallucinations</p><p>If you were always fearing that you would get arrested for something so silly, you would be paranoid as well. You are full of shit on the hallucinations.</p><p>
        * Impaired or reduced short-term memory</p><p>Wow, isn't it ironic to list this twice ?!</p><p>
        * Impaired or reduced comprehension</p><p>See, what you don't understand is that there are many different methods of smoking it and different strain of plants.  Each one of those effects you very different.  I can very easily focus on work using my vaporizer.  Which, I also want to point out is the most healthy way to "smoke it".  You could also put it in a cake.  Its a very different type of high, more of a body then mind high.</p><p>
        * Altered motivation and cognition, making the acquisition of new information difficult</p><p>Again, never been a problem.  You need to make some adjustments in how you do things to prev</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* Enhanced cancer riskYou are the first to say this , never seen a documented report proving this .
* Decrease in testosterone levels and lower sperm counts for menNo interest in kids * Increase in testosterone levels for women and increased risk of infertilityNo interest in kids , has n't changed my GF at all .
We have both been smoking more then half our lives .
* Diminished or extinguished sexual pleasureNever happened , we have been smoking it for a very long time and this has \ _never \ _ been a problem .
In fact , I have never heard anyone complain about it .
* Psychological dependence requiring more of the drug to get the same effectTotal BS .
There are times , kinda random that I take one hit and get really stoned .
Other times it takes half a bowl .
This has never increased in all the years I have smoked .
* SleepinessNever had a problem with this .
In fact , this is part of the reason I have it prescribed to me .
Without it , for a few years I had a lot of trouble sleeping .
Try sleeping 1 hour a night for a year .
You will be a zombie .
Pot is hands down the most natural thing for this .
NOTHING you can make in a lab can compete with this .
* Difficulty keeping track of time , impaired or reduced short-term memoryEh , the short term memory is only a here and there thing .
It takes some getting used to .
Just got ta get a habit of looking at the time all a lot .
* Reduced ability to perform tasks requiring concentration and coordination , such as driving a carThis I might agree with .
I personally have trouble driving while stoned , but know plenty of others who drive just fine and you would never know the difference .
* Increased heart rateI do n't believe this for a second , I have been to the doctor a few times while stoned and they never mentioned anything about increased pulse .
* Potential cardiac dangers for those with preexisting heart diseaseMaybe , never heard this before .
* Bloodshot eyesHow is this a problem ?
* Dry mouth and throatHow is this a problem ?
* Decreased social inhibitionsTotally the opposite .
My GF takes it for social anxiety , it works very well .
* Paranoia , hallucinationsIf you were always fearing that you would get arrested for something so silly , you would be paranoid as well .
You are full of shit on the hallucinations .
* Impaired or reduced short-term memoryWow , is n't it ironic to list this twice ? !
* Impaired or reduced comprehensionSee , what you do n't understand is that there are many different methods of smoking it and different strain of plants .
Each one of those effects you very different .
I can very easily focus on work using my vaporizer .
Which , I also want to point out is the most healthy way to " smoke it " .
You could also put it in a cake .
Its a very different type of high , more of a body then mind high .
* Altered motivation and cognition , making the acquisition of new information difficultAgain , never been a problem .
You need to make some adjustments in how you do things to prev</tokentext>
<sentencetext>        * Enhanced cancer riskYou are the first to say this, never seen a documented report proving this.
* Decrease in testosterone levels and lower sperm counts for menNo interest in kids
        * Increase in testosterone levels for women and increased risk of infertilityNo interest in kids, hasn't changed my GF at all.
We have both been smoking more then half our lives.
* Diminished or extinguished sexual pleasureNever happened, we have been smoking it for a very long time and this has \_never\_ been a problem.
In fact, I have never heard anyone complain about it.
* Psychological dependence requiring more of the drug to get the same effectTotal BS.
There are times, kinda random that I take one hit and get really stoned.
Other times it takes half a bowl.
This has never increased in all the years I have smoked.
* SleepinessNever had a problem with this.
In fact, this is part of the reason I have it prescribed to me.
Without it, for a few years I had a lot of trouble sleeping.
Try sleeping 1 hour a night for a year.
You will be a zombie.
Pot is hands down the most natural thing for this.
NOTHING you can make in a lab can compete with this.
* Difficulty keeping track of time, impaired or reduced short-term memoryEh, the short term memory is only a here and there thing.
It takes some getting used to.
Just gotta get a habit of looking at the time all a lot.
* Reduced ability to perform tasks requiring concentration and coordination, such as driving a carThis I might agree with.
I personally have trouble driving while stoned, but know plenty of others who drive just fine and you would never know the difference.
* Increased heart rateI don't believe this for a second, I have been to the doctor a few times while stoned and they never mentioned anything about increased pulse.
* Potential cardiac dangers for those with preexisting heart diseaseMaybe, never heard this before.
* Bloodshot eyesHow is this a problem ?
* Dry mouth and throatHow is this a problem ?
* Decreased social inhibitionsTotally the opposite.
My GF takes it for social anxiety, it works very well.
* Paranoia, hallucinationsIf you were always fearing that you would get arrested for something so silly, you would be paranoid as well.
You are full of shit on the hallucinations.
* Impaired or reduced short-term memoryWow, isn't it ironic to list this twice ?!
* Impaired or reduced comprehensionSee, what you don't understand is that there are many different methods of smoking it and different strain of plants.
Each one of those effects you very different.
I can very easily focus on work using my vaporizer.
Which, I also want to point out is the most healthy way to "smoke it".
You could also put it in a cake.
Its a very different type of high, more of a body then mind high.
* Altered motivation and cognition, making the acquisition of new information difficultAgain, never been a problem.
You need to make some adjustments in how you do things to prev</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435507</id>
	<title>true morality</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1245699300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is not empty pronouncements followed with "or else!"</p><p>any moron can say "don't conceive a child you didn't mean to!" "don't get addicted to nicotine!" "don't gamble all your money away!" "don't not have health insurance!"</p><p>"you did?"</p><p>"oh well!"</p><p>any idiot can say these things</p><p>but this is not morality</p><p>a true moral compass is what your policy is about people who cross these thresholds of bad behavior</p><p>beware social policies that are more cruel than the the supposed "crime" someone committed. some people actually believe in a "morality" that makes society implicitly more immoral than those who do immoral acts. some supposed vanguard of "morality" proscribe punishments worse than the "crime" they are punishing. a true moral society always punishes people less than the magnitude of their crime. crime feeds crime. so if you are exceptionally harsh relative to the crime someone committed, you are actually pumping more cruelty into the system. thereby breeding more crime</p><p>for example: "you don't have health insurance and you broke your arm? oh well! sucks to be you!"</p><p>you don't want society to have a common fund for such people? ok</p><p>but what your ignorant ass doesn't realize is that not paying to have the uninsured guy have his armed fix costs society a hell of a lot more. if the guy is the sole breadwinner int he family, now you have a family starves, that can't afford to educate its children resulting in people with no marketable skills, that forces people to turn to crime in desperation to feed themselves, to become beggars. this is a hell of a lot more expensive than just fixing the uninsured guys arm</p><p>but i know people like you. out of your ignorant blind selfishness for not agreeing to a common fund to fix the guys arms, you'll look down your nose at him as he is forced to therefore beg in the street, unemployable</p><p>there's a lot of blind ignorant types like you in the world. and your selfish ignorance costs society a hell of a lot more than the uninsured, that's for sure</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is not empty pronouncements followed with " or else !
" any moron can say " do n't conceive a child you did n't mean to !
" " do n't get addicted to nicotine !
" " do n't gamble all your money away !
" " do n't not have health insurance !
" " you did ?
" " oh well !
" any idiot can say these thingsbut this is not moralitya true moral compass is what your policy is about people who cross these thresholds of bad behaviorbeware social policies that are more cruel than the the supposed " crime " someone committed .
some people actually believe in a " morality " that makes society implicitly more immoral than those who do immoral acts .
some supposed vanguard of " morality " proscribe punishments worse than the " crime " they are punishing .
a true moral society always punishes people less than the magnitude of their crime .
crime feeds crime .
so if you are exceptionally harsh relative to the crime someone committed , you are actually pumping more cruelty into the system .
thereby breeding more crimefor example : " you do n't have health insurance and you broke your arm ?
oh well !
sucks to be you !
" you do n't want society to have a common fund for such people ?
okbut what your ignorant ass does n't realize is that not paying to have the uninsured guy have his armed fix costs society a hell of a lot more .
if the guy is the sole breadwinner int he family , now you have a family starves , that ca n't afford to educate its children resulting in people with no marketable skills , that forces people to turn to crime in desperation to feed themselves , to become beggars .
this is a hell of a lot more expensive than just fixing the uninsured guys armbut i know people like you .
out of your ignorant blind selfishness for not agreeing to a common fund to fix the guys arms , you 'll look down your nose at him as he is forced to therefore beg in the street , unemployablethere 's a lot of blind ignorant types like you in the world .
and your selfish ignorance costs society a hell of a lot more than the uninsured , that 's for sure</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is not empty pronouncements followed with "or else!
"any moron can say "don't conceive a child you didn't mean to!
" "don't get addicted to nicotine!
" "don't gamble all your money away!
" "don't not have health insurance!
""you did?
""oh well!
"any idiot can say these thingsbut this is not moralitya true moral compass is what your policy is about people who cross these thresholds of bad behaviorbeware social policies that are more cruel than the the supposed "crime" someone committed.
some people actually believe in a "morality" that makes society implicitly more immoral than those who do immoral acts.
some supposed vanguard of "morality" proscribe punishments worse than the "crime" they are punishing.
a true moral society always punishes people less than the magnitude of their crime.
crime feeds crime.
so if you are exceptionally harsh relative to the crime someone committed, you are actually pumping more cruelty into the system.
thereby breeding more crimefor example: "you don't have health insurance and you broke your arm?
oh well!
sucks to be you!
"you don't want society to have a common fund for such people?
okbut what your ignorant ass doesn't realize is that not paying to have the uninsured guy have his armed fix costs society a hell of a lot more.
if the guy is the sole breadwinner int he family, now you have a family starves, that can't afford to educate its children resulting in people with no marketable skills, that forces people to turn to crime in desperation to feed themselves, to become beggars.
this is a hell of a lot more expensive than just fixing the uninsured guys armbut i know people like you.
out of your ignorant blind selfishness for not agreeing to a common fund to fix the guys arms, you'll look down your nose at him as he is forced to therefore beg in the street, unemployablethere's a lot of blind ignorant types like you in the world.
and your selfish ignorance costs society a hell of a lot more than the uninsured, that's for sure</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28490435</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1246026120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'Over all you're likely correct, but keep in mind that until there's a good understanding of how it actually works in the body and what the effects of various strengths of plant have, it's premature to talk about that sort of step. That's not to say that a reasonable balanced couldn't be struck, but more to say that our method of refusing to regulate herbal supplements is probably not a good idea either.'</p><p>You have stepped over a very slippery slope. A very substantial amount of documented and conclusive evidence should be required before usurping an individual's right to do what he wishes with his body.</p><p>The assumption should not be that everyone should need permission from big brother to touch anything big brother hasn't deemed safe for him is arrogant and presumptuous.</p><p>In this case however, we are talking about a well clinically studied substance in addition to thousands of years of safe use. Granted the DEA has done their best to prevent anyone from doing research that doesn't assume negative properties from marijuana but even with that slant and lots of people looking for reasons to damn marijuana they simply haven't been able to turn up much.</p><p>On the other hand with nothing but a grass roots campaign to find its benefits one could stand and evangelize its uses and properties for hours without mentioning anything that is even disputed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Over all you 're likely correct , but keep in mind that until there 's a good understanding of how it actually works in the body and what the effects of various strengths of plant have , it 's premature to talk about that sort of step .
That 's not to say that a reasonable balanced could n't be struck , but more to say that our method of refusing to regulate herbal supplements is probably not a good idea either .
'You have stepped over a very slippery slope .
A very substantial amount of documented and conclusive evidence should be required before usurping an individual 's right to do what he wishes with his body.The assumption should not be that everyone should need permission from big brother to touch anything big brother has n't deemed safe for him is arrogant and presumptuous.In this case however , we are talking about a well clinically studied substance in addition to thousands of years of safe use .
Granted the DEA has done their best to prevent anyone from doing research that does n't assume negative properties from marijuana but even with that slant and lots of people looking for reasons to damn marijuana they simply have n't been able to turn up much.On the other hand with nothing but a grass roots campaign to find its benefits one could stand and evangelize its uses and properties for hours without mentioning anything that is even disputed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Over all you're likely correct, but keep in mind that until there's a good understanding of how it actually works in the body and what the effects of various strengths of plant have, it's premature to talk about that sort of step.
That's not to say that a reasonable balanced couldn't be struck, but more to say that our method of refusing to regulate herbal supplements is probably not a good idea either.
'You have stepped over a very slippery slope.
A very substantial amount of documented and conclusive evidence should be required before usurping an individual's right to do what he wishes with his body.The assumption should not be that everyone should need permission from big brother to touch anything big brother hasn't deemed safe for him is arrogant and presumptuous.In this case however, we are talking about a well clinically studied substance in addition to thousands of years of safe use.
Granted the DEA has done their best to prevent anyone from doing research that doesn't assume negative properties from marijuana but even with that slant and lots of people looking for reasons to damn marijuana they simply haven't been able to turn up much.On the other hand with nothing but a grass roots campaign to find its benefits one could stand and evangelize its uses and properties for hours without mentioning anything that is even disputed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435793</id>
	<title>Re:Health Care/Social Plan To Fix Everything...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245788640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, you're a douche.</p><p>Seriously. Douche.</p><p>What happens to the guy who spent 20 years paying his insurance costs while working for a single company, never getting sick a day of those 20 years, then you suddenly get laid off due to downsizing? Losing your insurance benefits, you walk out frustrated with your box of crap off your desk and you get hit by a bus. Damn son, you shoulda had insurance.</p><p>Or how about that single mother of 2 who works 2 jobs and has to decide between insurance and having a house, getting utilities, and feeding her kids. Too bad her husband died in Iraq and her family passed away from congenital heart disease and cancer. But you know, it's all her fault.</p><p>Your incessant whine about how people are stupid for not having insurance or should "have more money" as if cash can just appear out of nowhere is ridiculous. You say people should go to night school to earn more money. Do you realize that night school costs money and, I dunno, some vital resource called sleep?</p><p>Jesus. I thought I was an arrogant, selfish son of a bitch and then I read this shit. But hey, let's let the company set their own costs so that a simple checkup costs me $200. Perfectly legit since only people who deserve to be healthy can pay for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you 're a douche.Seriously .
Douche.What happens to the guy who spent 20 years paying his insurance costs while working for a single company , never getting sick a day of those 20 years , then you suddenly get laid off due to downsizing ?
Losing your insurance benefits , you walk out frustrated with your box of crap off your desk and you get hit by a bus .
Damn son , you shoulda had insurance.Or how about that single mother of 2 who works 2 jobs and has to decide between insurance and having a house , getting utilities , and feeding her kids .
Too bad her husband died in Iraq and her family passed away from congenital heart disease and cancer .
But you know , it 's all her fault.Your incessant whine about how people are stupid for not having insurance or should " have more money " as if cash can just appear out of nowhere is ridiculous .
You say people should go to night school to earn more money .
Do you realize that night school costs money and , I dunno , some vital resource called sleep ? Jesus .
I thought I was an arrogant , selfish son of a bitch and then I read this shit .
But hey , let 's let the company set their own costs so that a simple checkup costs me $ 200 .
Perfectly legit since only people who deserve to be healthy can pay for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you're a douche.Seriously.
Douche.What happens to the guy who spent 20 years paying his insurance costs while working for a single company, never getting sick a day of those 20 years, then you suddenly get laid off due to downsizing?
Losing your insurance benefits, you walk out frustrated with your box of crap off your desk and you get hit by a bus.
Damn son, you shoulda had insurance.Or how about that single mother of 2 who works 2 jobs and has to decide between insurance and having a house, getting utilities, and feeding her kids.
Too bad her husband died in Iraq and her family passed away from congenital heart disease and cancer.
But you know, it's all her fault.Your incessant whine about how people are stupid for not having insurance or should "have more money" as if cash can just appear out of nowhere is ridiculous.
You say people should go to night school to earn more money.
Do you realize that night school costs money and, I dunno, some vital resource called sleep?Jesus.
I thought I was an arrogant, selfish son of a bitch and then I read this shit.
But hey, let's let the company set their own costs so that a simple checkup costs me $200.
Perfectly legit since only people who deserve to be healthy can pay for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434185</id>
	<title>Yes we can!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245688200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember that time when Obama said he would vote against the FISA bill, and then he changed his mind and voted in favor of it?  Now THAT is change we can believe in (because it actually happened)!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember that time when Obama said he would vote against the FISA bill , and then he changed his mind and voted in favor of it ?
Now THAT is change we can believe in ( because it actually happened ) !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember that time when Obama said he would vote against the FISA bill, and then he changed his mind and voted in favor of it?
Now THAT is change we can believe in (because it actually happened)!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437523</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245765180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Marijuana is a fairly safe herbal supplement with thousands of years of demonstrated safe use. By even the most exaggerated accounts it is less addictive than most cough syrups. The known side effects are less severe and occur with less frequency than over the counter medications like say Aspirin and many other herbal supplements.</p><p>any real statistics to back that up? i assume not, just like all you liberal wacko's spouting out stuff with no support... if what you say is really true great! but i suspect it's not! whose compiling a list of known side effects of mary jane and just how frequently do people have "severe side effects" from aspirin, which reputable source did you glean that info from?</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Marijuana is a fairly safe herbal supplement with thousands of years of demonstrated safe use .
By even the most exaggerated accounts it is less addictive than most cough syrups .
The known side effects are less severe and occur with less frequency than over the counter medications like say Aspirin and many other herbal supplements.any real statistics to back that up ?
i assume not , just like all you liberal wacko 's spouting out stuff with no support... if what you say is really true great !
but i suspect it 's not !
whose compiling a list of known side effects of mary jane and just how frequently do people have " severe side effects " from aspirin , which reputable source did you glean that info from ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Marijuana is a fairly safe herbal supplement with thousands of years of demonstrated safe use.
By even the most exaggerated accounts it is less addictive than most cough syrups.
The known side effects are less severe and occur with less frequency than over the counter medications like say Aspirin and many other herbal supplements.any real statistics to back that up?
i assume not, just like all you liberal wacko's spouting out stuff with no support... if what you say is really true great!
but i suspect it's not!
whose compiling a list of known side effects of mary jane and just how frequently do people have "severe side effects" from aspirin, which reputable source did you glean that info from?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433813</id>
	<title>Lol Democracy</title>
	<author>AnonGCB</author>
	<datestamp>1245686100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm fairly certain they're still ignoring the issue that the most people were interested in changing, legalization of marijuana.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm fairly certain they 're still ignoring the issue that the most people were interested in changing , legalization of marijuana .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm fairly certain they're still ignoring the issue that the most people were interested in changing, legalization of marijuana.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433981</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245687120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting how you find no connection between our nation's financial problems and the massive amounts spent on law enforcement and incarceration for marijuana related crimes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting how you find no connection between our nation 's financial problems and the massive amounts spent on law enforcement and incarceration for marijuana related crimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting how you find no connection between our nation's financial problems and the massive amounts spent on law enforcement and incarceration for marijuana related crimes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436069</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>fishbowl</author>
	<datestamp>1245748740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Legalize it, then it can be taxed and regulated.</p><p>That's nothing compared to the value of slave labor that can be derived from the prison-industrial complex.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Legalize it , then it can be taxed and regulated.That 's nothing compared to the value of slave labor that can be derived from the prison-industrial complex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Legalize it, then it can be taxed and regulated.That's nothing compared to the value of slave labor that can be derived from the prison-industrial complex.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436879</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>sanosuke001</author>
	<datestamp>1245758880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And legalizing all drugs would allow people feel safe when seeking treatment instead of fearing that they'd be prosecuted. I'm also a firm believer that Health and Safety is a State Right. I'd just assume get rid of the FDA and DEA entirely. But that's another topic... however, another reason why the US gov't shouldn't make drugs illegal; they have no right to do so. (Not that rights ever stopped them before)</htmltext>
<tokenext>And legalizing all drugs would allow people feel safe when seeking treatment instead of fearing that they 'd be prosecuted .
I 'm also a firm believer that Health and Safety is a State Right .
I 'd just assume get rid of the FDA and DEA entirely .
But that 's another topic... however , another reason why the US gov't should n't make drugs illegal ; they have no right to do so .
( Not that rights ever stopped them before )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And legalizing all drugs would allow people feel safe when seeking treatment instead of fearing that they'd be prosecuted.
I'm also a firm believer that Health and Safety is a State Right.
I'd just assume get rid of the FDA and DEA entirely.
But that's another topic... however, another reason why the US gov't shouldn't make drugs illegal; they have no right to do so.
(Not that rights ever stopped them before)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434571</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>Phil06</author>
	<datestamp>1245690720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Marijuana makes you stupid, and it makes you write exceedingly inane song lyrics. We need less of this in America.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Marijuana makes you stupid , and it makes you write exceedingly inane song lyrics .
We need less of this in America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Marijuana makes you stupid, and it makes you write exceedingly inane song lyrics.
We need less of this in America.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434473</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>BlueBoxSW.com</author>
	<datestamp>1245689940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would just like to point out that Narconon runs the web site you pulled this info from. According to Wikipedia:</p><p>Narconon is an in-patient rehabilitation program for drug abusers in several dozen treatment centers worldwide, chiefly in the United States and western Europe. Each Narconon center is independently owned and operated under a license from ABLE International, a Scientology-related entity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would just like to point out that Narconon runs the web site you pulled this info from .
According to Wikipedia : Narconon is an in-patient rehabilitation program for drug abusers in several dozen treatment centers worldwide , chiefly in the United States and western Europe .
Each Narconon center is independently owned and operated under a license from ABLE International , a Scientology-related entity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would just like to point out that Narconon runs the web site you pulled this info from.
According to Wikipedia:Narconon is an in-patient rehabilitation program for drug abusers in several dozen treatment centers worldwide, chiefly in the United States and western Europe.
Each Narconon center is independently owned and operated under a license from ABLE International, a Scientology-related entity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28439967</id>
	<title>SOMEONE ELSE WHO UNDERSTANDS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245776220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow...  This says it ALL:</p><blockquote><div><p>That anyone wanting such full liberty signed a statement taking full responsibility for the consequences. That means no welfare, no public funded trips to rehab, nothing. They could buy any insurance they wanted on the private market, but not a dime of the taxpayer's funds. <b>Because total liberty is incompatible with a welfare state.</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>Thank you for explaining to all the socialist control freaks out there that liberty is about personal choice AND RESPONSIBILITY.  It is not about reckless abandonment and hedonism... It is simply about allowing one to choose their own life and everythign about it, but at the same time making the individual responsible for their choices.  The converse of liberty is the government controlling your personal life so that you don't need to take responsibility.... "it's not his fault, he couldn't have known better because the shroud of government was protecting him."  Blah.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow... This says it ALL : That anyone wanting such full liberty signed a statement taking full responsibility for the consequences .
That means no welfare , no public funded trips to rehab , nothing .
They could buy any insurance they wanted on the private market , but not a dime of the taxpayer 's funds .
Because total liberty is incompatible with a welfare state .
Thank you for explaining to all the socialist control freaks out there that liberty is about personal choice AND RESPONSIBILITY .
It is not about reckless abandonment and hedonism... It is simply about allowing one to choose their own life and everythign about it , but at the same time making the individual responsible for their choices .
The converse of liberty is the government controlling your personal life so that you do n't need to take responsibility.... " it 's not his fault , he could n't have known better because the shroud of government was protecting him .
" Blah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow...  This says it ALL:That anyone wanting such full liberty signed a statement taking full responsibility for the consequences.
That means no welfare, no public funded trips to rehab, nothing.
They could buy any insurance they wanted on the private market, but not a dime of the taxpayer's funds.
Because total liberty is incompatible with a welfare state.
Thank you for explaining to all the socialist control freaks out there that liberty is about personal choice AND RESPONSIBILITY.
It is not about reckless abandonment and hedonism... It is simply about allowing one to choose their own life and everythign about it, but at the same time making the individual responsible for their choices.
The converse of liberty is the government controlling your personal life so that you don't need to take responsibility.... "it's not his fault, he couldn't have known better because the shroud of government was protecting him.
"  Blah.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436199</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>tgzuke</author>
	<datestamp>1245750480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Calling it an herbal supplement seems disingenuous. Just because it grows in nature doesn't make it safe, nor smart to leave unregulated. Coca leaves, opium poppies, tobacco, a psilocybin mushrooms are not, by common usage, herbal remedies, and by extension, neither is marijuana. Herbal supplements face less stringent requirements because they are not drugs, nor are they (in general) precursors to drugs.

I'm all for legalization, but I am also for measures of control and regulation, the same as tobacco and alcohol consumption. THC is a drug, one that significantly impairs judgment, and it deserves more respect than comparing it with placebos like Ginkgo biloba and echinacea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Calling it an herbal supplement seems disingenuous .
Just because it grows in nature does n't make it safe , nor smart to leave unregulated .
Coca leaves , opium poppies , tobacco , a psilocybin mushrooms are not , by common usage , herbal remedies , and by extension , neither is marijuana .
Herbal supplements face less stringent requirements because they are not drugs , nor are they ( in general ) precursors to drugs .
I 'm all for legalization , but I am also for measures of control and regulation , the same as tobacco and alcohol consumption .
THC is a drug , one that significantly impairs judgment , and it deserves more respect than comparing it with placebos like Ginkgo biloba and echinacea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Calling it an herbal supplement seems disingenuous.
Just because it grows in nature doesn't make it safe, nor smart to leave unregulated.
Coca leaves, opium poppies, tobacco, a psilocybin mushrooms are not, by common usage, herbal remedies, and by extension, neither is marijuana.
Herbal supplements face less stringent requirements because they are not drugs, nor are they (in general) precursors to drugs.
I'm all for legalization, but I am also for measures of control and regulation, the same as tobacco and alcohol consumption.
THC is a drug, one that significantly impairs judgment, and it deserves more respect than comparing it with placebos like Ginkgo biloba and echinacea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28445039</id>
	<title>Re:Second hand smoke?</title>
	<author>An ominous Cow art</author>
	<datestamp>1245750600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, too, am all for legalizing pot for the reasons people have talked about here, but I personally don't want to be exposed to it.</p><p>I have never used the stuff, and don't know anyone who does, so I'm not clear on how much 'second-hand' smoke it would take to affect someone.  In any case, I don't want to be exposed to tobacco or pot smoke at all- it's annoying, and I hate, well, stinking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , too , am all for legalizing pot for the reasons people have talked about here , but I personally do n't want to be exposed to it.I have never used the stuff , and do n't know anyone who does , so I 'm not clear on how much 'second-hand ' smoke it would take to affect someone .
In any case , I do n't want to be exposed to tobacco or pot smoke at all- it 's annoying , and I hate , well , stinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, too, am all for legalizing pot for the reasons people have talked about here, but I personally don't want to be exposed to it.I have never used the stuff, and don't know anyone who does, so I'm not clear on how much 'second-hand' smoke it would take to affect someone.
In any case, I don't want to be exposed to tobacco or pot smoke at all- it's annoying, and I hate, well, stinking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434231</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245688380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p> And for some reason marijuana is an important issue? Are you kidding me? I don't see how it could possibly be more relevant than any of the issues I already listed. If we could solve all of them, then I would be comfortable with our national government looking into this "marijuana issue" (whatever the hell the issue is). But until then I don't see why it merits the time of our government.</p></div><p>Lets see... You legalize marijuana and you can cut down on the number of arrests made, cut down on the number of cops, when you legalize it you would also allow for new industries to thrive, tax dollars to collect, Assuming even only a moderate increase of marijuana consumption as a part of it being legalized, you open up an entire new industry, more jobs, less spending for the government, more freedom and more revenue.</p><p>There is no way you can argue for marijuana to not be legalized by a purely financial standpoint. Plus, legalizing it will cut costs, and spend less time looking at the issue rather than the more time you are foolishly suggesting.</p></div><p>Don't kid yourself... for every cop job that is saved, 3 bureaucratic jobs each at 3 times a cops salary will be created in Washington to regulate this new industry you speak of.</p><p>I personally don't care whether pot is legal or not, but the only benefit I see with officially legalizing it is to stop hearing all the pot heads spew off all their reasons as to why pot should be legal (no matter how illogical the argument is)..... I guess that reason by itself is to support the cause.</p><p>At the same time, though, I think there are more pressing issues to waste time debating.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And for some reason marijuana is an important issue ?
Are you kidding me ?
I do n't see how it could possibly be more relevant than any of the issues I already listed .
If we could solve all of them , then I would be comfortable with our national government looking into this " marijuana issue " ( whatever the hell the issue is ) .
But until then I do n't see why it merits the time of our government.Lets see... You legalize marijuana and you can cut down on the number of arrests made , cut down on the number of cops , when you legalize it you would also allow for new industries to thrive , tax dollars to collect , Assuming even only a moderate increase of marijuana consumption as a part of it being legalized , you open up an entire new industry , more jobs , less spending for the government , more freedom and more revenue.There is no way you can argue for marijuana to not be legalized by a purely financial standpoint .
Plus , legalizing it will cut costs , and spend less time looking at the issue rather than the more time you are foolishly suggesting.Do n't kid yourself... for every cop job that is saved , 3 bureaucratic jobs each at 3 times a cops salary will be created in Washington to regulate this new industry you speak of.I personally do n't care whether pot is legal or not , but the only benefit I see with officially legalizing it is to stop hearing all the pot heads spew off all their reasons as to why pot should be legal ( no matter how illogical the argument is ) ..... I guess that reason by itself is to support the cause.At the same time , though , I think there are more pressing issues to waste time debating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> And for some reason marijuana is an important issue?
Are you kidding me?
I don't see how it could possibly be more relevant than any of the issues I already listed.
If we could solve all of them, then I would be comfortable with our national government looking into this "marijuana issue" (whatever the hell the issue is).
But until then I don't see why it merits the time of our government.Lets see... You legalize marijuana and you can cut down on the number of arrests made, cut down on the number of cops, when you legalize it you would also allow for new industries to thrive, tax dollars to collect, Assuming even only a moderate increase of marijuana consumption as a part of it being legalized, you open up an entire new industry, more jobs, less spending for the government, more freedom and more revenue.There is no way you can argue for marijuana to not be legalized by a purely financial standpoint.
Plus, legalizing it will cut costs, and spend less time looking at the issue rather than the more time you are foolishly suggesting.Don't kid yourself... for every cop job that is saved, 3 bureaucratic jobs each at 3 times a cops salary will be created in Washington to regulate this new industry you speak of.I personally don't care whether pot is legal or not, but the only benefit I see with officially legalizing it is to stop hearing all the pot heads spew off all their reasons as to why pot should be legal (no matter how illogical the argument is)..... I guess that reason by itself is to support the cause.At the same time, though, I think there are more pressing issues to waste time debating.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28472185</id>
	<title>Legalize it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245923820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just legalize it already. It's insulting to treat the American people like children - this is a freedom that we were born with and no governing body has the right to take away a personal choice such as this.</p><p>Alcohol and cigs are much worse for your mind and body so don't even try to say marijuana should be illegal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just legalize it already .
It 's insulting to treat the American people like children - this is a freedom that we were born with and no governing body has the right to take away a personal choice such as this.Alcohol and cigs are much worse for your mind and body so do n't even try to say marijuana should be illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just legalize it already.
It's insulting to treat the American people like children - this is a freedom that we were born with and no governing body has the right to take away a personal choice such as this.Alcohol and cigs are much worse for your mind and body so don't even try to say marijuana should be illegal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434245</id>
	<title>Pot dumbs you down!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245688500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used pot so I know.</p><p>It dumbs down people who use it.</p><p>I stopped early, once I realized what it was doing to me and how I was going around and trying to convince everybody it wasn't a problem.</p><p>Pot is to humans, like catnip is to cats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used pot so I know.It dumbs down people who use it.I stopped early , once I realized what it was doing to me and how I was going around and trying to convince everybody it was n't a problem.Pot is to humans , like catnip is to cats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used pot so I know.It dumbs down people who use it.I stopped early, once I realized what it was doing to me and how I was going around and trying to convince everybody it wasn't a problem.Pot is to humans, like catnip is to cats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435417</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245698520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Check out Michael Crichton's seminars on science and pop culture/media. Its hilarious how many times things can go from "bad for you" to "good for you" and back again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out Michael Crichton 's seminars on science and pop culture/media .
Its hilarious how many times things can go from " bad for you " to " good for you " and back again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out Michael Crichton's seminars on science and pop culture/media.
Its hilarious how many times things can go from "bad for you" to "good for you" and back again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435583</id>
	<title>Re:Health Care/Social Plan To Fix Everything...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245700140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd just throw in the towel. That I survived at all was a fluke. Since none of that gives me any right to make demands on others for my healthcare, and I can't take care of myself, there is only one graceful thing left to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd just throw in the towel .
That I survived at all was a fluke .
Since none of that gives me any right to make demands on others for my healthcare , and I ca n't take care of myself , there is only one graceful thing left to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd just throw in the towel.
That I survived at all was a fluke.
Since none of that gives me any right to make demands on others for my healthcare, and I can't take care of myself, there is only one graceful thing left to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435943</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1245790380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>But the point still stands that weed makes folks do irrational things that can't be explained without assuming addiction. </i>
</p><p>Recent events have shown that file sharing will likely get you into similar amounts of trouble.  What percentage of people do you think are happy to grab a few songs off The Pirate Bay ?  Are they irrational as well ?
</p><p> <i>Not sure what would happen if a quarter if the population was baked out of their heads.</i>
</p><p>This is what's called a non-sequitur.
</p><p> <i>Personally I'd favor legalization of EVERY drug on one condition. That anyone wanting such full liberty signed a statement taking full responsibility for the consequences. That means no welfare, no public funded trips to rehab, nothing. They could buy any insurance they wanted on the private market, but not a dime of the taxpayer's funds. <b>Because total liberty is incompatible with a welfare state.</b> That is my big objection to legalization, it would be great in a Free country but we don't live in one of those anymore.</i>
</p><p>Your argument is is a straw man.  You don't support of welfare in the first place, you're just emphasising that lack of support as weak support for your moralising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the point still stands that weed makes folks do irrational things that ca n't be explained without assuming addiction .
Recent events have shown that file sharing will likely get you into similar amounts of trouble .
What percentage of people do you think are happy to grab a few songs off The Pirate Bay ?
Are they irrational as well ?
Not sure what would happen if a quarter if the population was baked out of their heads .
This is what 's called a non-sequitur .
Personally I 'd favor legalization of EVERY drug on one condition .
That anyone wanting such full liberty signed a statement taking full responsibility for the consequences .
That means no welfare , no public funded trips to rehab , nothing .
They could buy any insurance they wanted on the private market , but not a dime of the taxpayer 's funds .
Because total liberty is incompatible with a welfare state .
That is my big objection to legalization , it would be great in a Free country but we do n't live in one of those anymore .
Your argument is is a straw man .
You do n't support of welfare in the first place , you 're just emphasising that lack of support as weak support for your moralising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> But the point still stands that weed makes folks do irrational things that can't be explained without assuming addiction.
Recent events have shown that file sharing will likely get you into similar amounts of trouble.
What percentage of people do you think are happy to grab a few songs off The Pirate Bay ?
Are they irrational as well ?
Not sure what would happen if a quarter if the population was baked out of their heads.
This is what's called a non-sequitur.
Personally I'd favor legalization of EVERY drug on one condition.
That anyone wanting such full liberty signed a statement taking full responsibility for the consequences.
That means no welfare, no public funded trips to rehab, nothing.
They could buy any insurance they wanted on the private market, but not a dime of the taxpayer's funds.
Because total liberty is incompatible with a welfare state.
That is my big objection to legalization, it would be great in a Free country but we don't live in one of those anymore.
Your argument is is a straw man.
You don't support of welfare in the first place, you're just emphasising that lack of support as weak support for your moralising.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28455531</id>
	<title>Re:take all of your concerns with marijuana</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245869400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>i can see meth permanently banned and the DEA waging war on that drug forever. same with cocaine, same with heroin.</i></p><p>Then you don't believe an adult should have the right to screw up their live any way they see fit? If that's what you believe, then you should also outlaw skydiving, bungee jumping, and racing cars at the race track. Also having more than <i>n</i> children, owning any type of firearm or dangerous tool... see where that leads?</p><p><i>combined with long term incapacitation (unlike nicotine, which is extremely addictive, but doesn't incapacitate). </i></p><p>Tell that to the woman in my office that carries an oxygen bottle around with her.</p><p><i>that's like saying allowing gay marriage means we will have to legalize bestiality and necrophilia.</i></p><p>How about polygamy? If I want to marry two women, whose business is it but our own?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i can see meth permanently banned and the DEA waging war on that drug forever .
same with cocaine , same with heroin.Then you do n't believe an adult should have the right to screw up their live any way they see fit ?
If that 's what you believe , then you should also outlaw skydiving , bungee jumping , and racing cars at the race track .
Also having more than n children , owning any type of firearm or dangerous tool... see where that leads ? combined with long term incapacitation ( unlike nicotine , which is extremely addictive , but does n't incapacitate ) .
Tell that to the woman in my office that carries an oxygen bottle around with her.that 's like saying allowing gay marriage means we will have to legalize bestiality and necrophilia.How about polygamy ?
If I want to marry two women , whose business is it but our own ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i can see meth permanently banned and the DEA waging war on that drug forever.
same with cocaine, same with heroin.Then you don't believe an adult should have the right to screw up their live any way they see fit?
If that's what you believe, then you should also outlaw skydiving, bungee jumping, and racing cars at the race track.
Also having more than n children, owning any type of firearm or dangerous tool... see where that leads?combined with long term incapacitation (unlike nicotine, which is extremely addictive, but doesn't incapacitate).
Tell that to the woman in my office that carries an oxygen bottle around with her.that's like saying allowing gay marriage means we will have to legalize bestiality and necrophilia.How about polygamy?
If I want to marry two women, whose business is it but our own?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28456151</id>
	<title>Re:Addiction sucks</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245871440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You won't be able to grow it, after all, you cannot make your own liquor. The government can't tax something you grow easily.</i></p><p>You can make your own beer and wine, yet billions of gallons of both are produced annually. Most folks won't go to the trouble of growing their own weed if they can get an ounce at the liquor store for ten bucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You wo n't be able to grow it , after all , you can not make your own liquor .
The government ca n't tax something you grow easily.You can make your own beer and wine , yet billions of gallons of both are produced annually .
Most folks wo n't go to the trouble of growing their own weed if they can get an ounce at the liquor store for ten bucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You won't be able to grow it, after all, you cannot make your own liquor.
The government can't tax something you grow easily.You can make your own beer and wine, yet billions of gallons of both are produced annually.
Most folks won't go to the trouble of growing their own weed if they can get an ounce at the liquor store for ten bucks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245687360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Says who?</p><p>Typical Marijuana Side Effects:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Enhanced cancer risk<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Decrease in testosterone levels and lower sperm counts for men<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Increase in testosterone levels for women and increased risk of infertility<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Diminished or extinguished sexual pleasure<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Psychological dependence requiring more of the drug to get the same effect<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Sleepiness<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Difficulty keeping track of time, impaired or reduced short-term memory<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Reduced ability to perform tasks requiring concentration and coordination,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; such as driving a car<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Increased heart rate<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Potential cardiac dangers for those with preexisting heart disease<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Bloodshot eyes<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Dry mouth and throat<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Decreased social inhibitions<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Paranoia, hallucinations<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Impaired or reduced short-term memory<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Impaired or reduced comprehension<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Altered motivation and cognition, making the acquisition of new information difficult<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Paranoia<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Psychological dependence<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Impairments in learning and memory, perception, and judgment - difficulty<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; speaking, listening effectively, thinking, retaining knowledge, problem solving,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; and forming concepts<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Intense anxiety or panic attacks</p><p>reference:<br>http://www.marijuana-addiction.info/side-effects.htm</p><p>btw: I have a friend that used to smoke pot every single day. He is now in a psychiatric hospital with a severe psychosis and paranoia.<br>If you want to fsck up your brain, do it alone. Don't mislead other people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Says who ? Typical Marijuana Side Effects :         * Enhanced cancer risk         * Decrease in testosterone levels and lower sperm counts for men         * Increase in testosterone levels for women and increased risk of infertility         * Diminished or extinguished sexual pleasure         * Psychological dependence requiring more of the drug to get the same effect         * Sleepiness         * Difficulty keeping track of time , impaired or reduced short-term memory         * Reduced ability to perform tasks requiring concentration and coordination ,             such as driving a car         * Increased heart rate         * Potential cardiac dangers for those with preexisting heart disease         * Bloodshot eyes         * Dry mouth and throat         * Decreased social inhibitions         * Paranoia , hallucinations         * Impaired or reduced short-term memory         * Impaired or reduced comprehension         * Altered motivation and cognition , making the acquisition of new information difficult         * Paranoia         * Psychological dependence         * Impairments in learning and memory , perception , and judgment - difficulty             speaking , listening effectively , thinking , retaining knowledge , problem solving ,             and forming concepts         * Intense anxiety or panic attacksreference : http : //www.marijuana-addiction.info/side-effects.htmbtw : I have a friend that used to smoke pot every single day .
He is now in a psychiatric hospital with a severe psychosis and paranoia.If you want to fsck up your brain , do it alone .
Do n't mislead other people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Says who?Typical Marijuana Side Effects:
        * Enhanced cancer risk
        * Decrease in testosterone levels and lower sperm counts for men
        * Increase in testosterone levels for women and increased risk of infertility
        * Diminished or extinguished sexual pleasure
        * Psychological dependence requiring more of the drug to get the same effect
        * Sleepiness
        * Difficulty keeping track of time, impaired or reduced short-term memory
        * Reduced ability to perform tasks requiring concentration and coordination,
            such as driving a car
        * Increased heart rate
        * Potential cardiac dangers for those with preexisting heart disease
        * Bloodshot eyes
        * Dry mouth and throat
        * Decreased social inhibitions
        * Paranoia, hallucinations
        * Impaired or reduced short-term memory
        * Impaired or reduced comprehension
        * Altered motivation and cognition, making the acquisition of new information difficult
        * Paranoia
        * Psychological dependence
        * Impairments in learning and memory, perception, and judgment - difficulty
            speaking, listening effectively, thinking, retaining knowledge, problem solving,
            and forming concepts
        * Intense anxiety or panic attacksreference:http://www.marijuana-addiction.info/side-effects.htmbtw: I have a friend that used to smoke pot every single day.
He is now in a psychiatric hospital with a severe psychosis and paranoia.If you want to fsck up your brain, do it alone.
Don't mislead other people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434067</id>
	<title>With all those problems</title>
	<author>Chuck Chunder</author>
	<datestamp>1245687540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not surprising people want to get get high.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not surprising people want to get get high .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not surprising people want to get get high.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437643</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>Ikonoclasm</author>
	<datestamp>1245765840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, you can thank the other textile industries back in the early 1900s for outlawing hemp. They (rightly) saw that hemp would prove serious competition to them, so they pushed hard to have marijuana, which also happened to have a non-psychotropic variety known as hemp, outlawed because it caused people to go insane! The whole irrational hatred of marijuana is a direct result of cotton farmers and textile manufacturers not wanting to compete with hemp. And you thought the RIAA and MPAA were evil?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you can thank the other textile industries back in the early 1900s for outlawing hemp .
They ( rightly ) saw that hemp would prove serious competition to them , so they pushed hard to have marijuana , which also happened to have a non-psychotropic variety known as hemp , outlawed because it caused people to go insane !
The whole irrational hatred of marijuana is a direct result of cotton farmers and textile manufacturers not wanting to compete with hemp .
And you thought the RIAA and MPAA were evil ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you can thank the other textile industries back in the early 1900s for outlawing hemp.
They (rightly) saw that hemp would prove serious competition to them, so they pushed hard to have marijuana, which also happened to have a non-psychotropic variety known as hemp, outlawed because it caused people to go insane!
The whole irrational hatred of marijuana is a direct result of cotton farmers and textile manufacturers not wanting to compete with hemp.
And you thought the RIAA and MPAA were evil?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434175</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1245688140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have this sneaking suspicion that <i>arresting</i> pot users consumes more of the time of our government than <i>not arresting</i> them would....<br> <br>

Further, for a fair few pot smokers, the state is probably a greater immediate threat to their peace and security than any foreign power is likely to be. Not a giant shock that they'd be against that.<br> <br>

And, last but hardly least, depriving people of their liberty(and from time to time their lives) without <i>quite</i> compelling justification just isn't ethical. Stopping doing whatever unethical thing one is doing is a pretty high priority(unfortunately, that particular standard gives us a damn long list of high priorities...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have this sneaking suspicion that arresting pot users consumes more of the time of our government than not arresting them would... . Further , for a fair few pot smokers , the state is probably a greater immediate threat to their peace and security than any foreign power is likely to be .
Not a giant shock that they 'd be against that .
And , last but hardly least , depriving people of their liberty ( and from time to time their lives ) without quite compelling justification just is n't ethical .
Stopping doing whatever unethical thing one is doing is a pretty high priority ( unfortunately , that particular standard gives us a damn long list of high priorities... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have this sneaking suspicion that arresting pot users consumes more of the time of our government than not arresting them would.... 

Further, for a fair few pot smokers, the state is probably a greater immediate threat to their peace and security than any foreign power is likely to be.
Not a giant shock that they'd be against that.
And, last but hardly least, depriving people of their liberty(and from time to time their lives) without quite compelling justification just isn't ethical.
Stopping doing whatever unethical thing one is doing is a pretty high priority(unfortunately, that particular standard gives us a damn long list of high priorities...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434843</id>
	<title>Open Government Dialog vote: convert US to metric</title>
	<author>thisisauniqueid</author>
	<datestamp>1245693000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Try voting for something worthwhile on OGD: <a href="http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/5814-4049" title="ideascale.com" rel="nofollow">http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/5814-4049</a> [ideascale.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try voting for something worthwhile on OGD : http : //opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/5814-4049 [ ideascale.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try voting for something worthwhile on OGD: http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/5814-4049 [ideascale.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436613</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>totallyarb</author>
	<datestamp>1245755640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Typical Alcohol Side Effects:</p><p>Most of yours...</p><p><div class="quote"><ul>
<li>Enhanced cancer risk</li><li>Diminished or extinguished sexual pleasure</li><li>Psychological dependence requiring more of the drug to get the same effect</li><li>Sleepiness</li><li>Difficulty keeping track of time, impaired or reduced short-term memory</li><li>Reduced ability to perform tasks requiring concentration and coordination, such as driving a car</li><li>Increased heart rate</li><li>Potential cardiac dangers for those with preexisting heart disease</li><li>Decreased social inhibitions</li><li>Paranoia, hallucinations</li><li>Impaired or reduced short-term memory</li><li>Impaired or reduced comprehension</li><li>Altered motivation and cognition, making the acquisition of new information difficult</li><li>Paranoia</li><li>Psychological dependence</li><li>Impairments in learning and memory, perception, and judgment - difficulty speaking, listening effectively, thinking, retaining knowledge, problem solving, and forming concepts</li><li>Intense anxiety or panic attacks</li></ul></div><p>Plus...</p><ul>
<li>Risk of liver disease</li><li>Increased agression and irritability</li><li>Dizziness</li><li>Vomiting</li><li>Chemical dependence</li><li>Depressed immune system</li><li>Weight gain</li></ul><p>According to <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext" title="thelancet.com">the Lancet</a> [thelancet.com] journal (simplified graph on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational\_scale\_to\_assess\_the\_harm\_of\_drugs\_(mean\_physical\_harm\_and\_mean\_dependence).svg" title="wikipedia.org">Wiki</a> [wikipedia.org]), alcohol is both more addictive and more dangerous than cannabis. If adults can be trusted with booze, they should be trusted with weed.</p><p>I'm sorry about your friend, I really am, but I can tell you a thousand stories of lives ruined by alcohol and tobacco, two products that are medically more dangerous but legally more available. If you want to learn from your friend's example and never smoke weed, good for you. But you don't have the right to make that decision for me, or for any other adult.</p><p>If a man is not free to chose wrongly and irresponsibly, he is not free at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Typical Alcohol Side Effects : Most of yours.. . Enhanced cancer riskDiminished or extinguished sexual pleasurePsychological dependence requiring more of the drug to get the same effectSleepinessDifficulty keeping track of time , impaired or reduced short-term memoryReduced ability to perform tasks requiring concentration and coordination , such as driving a carIncreased heart ratePotential cardiac dangers for those with preexisting heart diseaseDecreased social inhibitionsParanoia , hallucinationsImpaired or reduced short-term memoryImpaired or reduced comprehensionAltered motivation and cognition , making the acquisition of new information difficultParanoiaPsychological dependenceImpairments in learning and memory , perception , and judgment - difficulty speaking , listening effectively , thinking , retaining knowledge , problem solving , and forming conceptsIntense anxiety or panic attacksPlus.. . Risk of liver diseaseIncreased agression and irritabilityDizzinessVomitingChemical dependenceDepressed immune systemWeight gainAccording to the Lancet [ thelancet.com ] journal ( simplified graph on the Wiki [ wikipedia.org ] ) , alcohol is both more addictive and more dangerous than cannabis .
If adults can be trusted with booze , they should be trusted with weed.I 'm sorry about your friend , I really am , but I can tell you a thousand stories of lives ruined by alcohol and tobacco , two products that are medically more dangerous but legally more available .
If you want to learn from your friend 's example and never smoke weed , good for you .
But you do n't have the right to make that decision for me , or for any other adult.If a man is not free to chose wrongly and irresponsibly , he is not free at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typical Alcohol Side Effects:Most of yours...
Enhanced cancer riskDiminished or extinguished sexual pleasurePsychological dependence requiring more of the drug to get the same effectSleepinessDifficulty keeping track of time, impaired or reduced short-term memoryReduced ability to perform tasks requiring concentration and coordination, such as driving a carIncreased heart ratePotential cardiac dangers for those with preexisting heart diseaseDecreased social inhibitionsParanoia, hallucinationsImpaired or reduced short-term memoryImpaired or reduced comprehensionAltered motivation and cognition, making the acquisition of new information difficultParanoiaPsychological dependenceImpairments in learning and memory, perception, and judgment - difficulty speaking, listening effectively, thinking, retaining knowledge, problem solving, and forming conceptsIntense anxiety or panic attacksPlus...
Risk of liver diseaseIncreased agression and irritabilityDizzinessVomitingChemical dependenceDepressed immune systemWeight gainAccording to the Lancet [thelancet.com] journal (simplified graph on the Wiki [wikipedia.org]), alcohol is both more addictive and more dangerous than cannabis.
If adults can be trusted with booze, they should be trusted with weed.I'm sorry about your friend, I really am, but I can tell you a thousand stories of lives ruined by alcohol and tobacco, two products that are medically more dangerous but legally more available.
If you want to learn from your friend's example and never smoke weed, good for you.
But you don't have the right to make that decision for me, or for any other adult.If a man is not free to chose wrongly and irresponsibly, he is not free at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28442747</id>
	<title>Re:I believe</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1245786000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>(If, just because I think 'they are out there' doesn't mean I think they've puttered around watching our dumb asses unless theres some form of intragalatic 'Simple Life' we're in)</i></p><p>Then you're not a nutjob.  Given the size of the universe, it's nutty to think that there *isn't* life out there somewhere.  On the same token however, given the size of the universe it's nutty to think they have visited us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( If , just because I think 'they are out there ' does n't mean I think they 've puttered around watching our dumb asses unless theres some form of intragalatic 'Simple Life ' we 're in ) Then you 're not a nutjob .
Given the size of the universe , it 's nutty to think that there * is n't * life out there somewhere .
On the same token however , given the size of the universe it 's nutty to think they have visited us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(If, just because I think 'they are out there' doesn't mean I think they've puttered around watching our dumb asses unless theres some form of intragalatic 'Simple Life' we're in)Then you're not a nutjob.
Given the size of the universe, it's nutty to think that there *isn't* life out there somewhere.
On the same token however, given the size of the universe it's nutty to think they have visited us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28454093</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245864600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They are willing to deal with the criminal underworld to get the stuff</i></p><p>Wrong. Most pot smokers buy it from their friends. Much if not most is home grown.</p><p><i>What percentage of the population is chugging Nyquil?</i></p><p>That statement is just plain stupid and ignores the GPs context. Why would anyone chug Nyquil when you can get whiskey a whole lot cheaper?</p><p><i>So now lets put on our thinking caps and examine a world after legalization. That 6\% would double overnite just from people who would use but fear what a conviction would do to their career.</i></p><p>That's also incorrect. Before alcohol was outlawed (according to my grandmother, who was actually alive then), women didn't drink - at least in public. Saloons were a man's place. During prohibition that changed -- speakeasies replaced the salloons, and they were gender-neutral places. Drinking doubled because women started drinking, not because of legalization but as a result of prohibition.</p><p><i>Not sure what would happen if a quarter if the population was baked out of their heads</i></p><p>What percentage of the adult population drinks? How many do so at work?</p><p><i>That means no welfare</i></p><p>First, unlike alcohol, cocaine, or heroin, people DON'T go on welfare because they smoke pot. Most construction workers in the US are pot smokers. Secondly, welfare (AFDC) was eliminated in the US in 1996.</p><p><i>They could buy any insurance they wanted on the private market, but not a dime of the taxpayer's funds.</i></p><p>Since there are no known adverse health effects from marijuana, that statement is totally illogical and irrational.</p><p><i>I have 200 slashdot freaks!</i></p><p>As your reasoning abilities are so limited, I'm not surprised.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are willing to deal with the criminal underworld to get the stuffWrong .
Most pot smokers buy it from their friends .
Much if not most is home grown.What percentage of the population is chugging Nyquil ? That statement is just plain stupid and ignores the GPs context .
Why would anyone chug Nyquil when you can get whiskey a whole lot cheaper ? So now lets put on our thinking caps and examine a world after legalization .
That 6 \ % would double overnite just from people who would use but fear what a conviction would do to their career.That 's also incorrect .
Before alcohol was outlawed ( according to my grandmother , who was actually alive then ) , women did n't drink - at least in public .
Saloons were a man 's place .
During prohibition that changed -- speakeasies replaced the salloons , and they were gender-neutral places .
Drinking doubled because women started drinking , not because of legalization but as a result of prohibition.Not sure what would happen if a quarter if the population was baked out of their headsWhat percentage of the adult population drinks ?
How many do so at work ? That means no welfareFirst , unlike alcohol , cocaine , or heroin , people DO N'T go on welfare because they smoke pot .
Most construction workers in the US are pot smokers .
Secondly , welfare ( AFDC ) was eliminated in the US in 1996.They could buy any insurance they wanted on the private market , but not a dime of the taxpayer 's funds.Since there are no known adverse health effects from marijuana , that statement is totally illogical and irrational.I have 200 slashdot freaks ! As your reasoning abilities are so limited , I 'm not surprised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are willing to deal with the criminal underworld to get the stuffWrong.
Most pot smokers buy it from their friends.
Much if not most is home grown.What percentage of the population is chugging Nyquil?That statement is just plain stupid and ignores the GPs context.
Why would anyone chug Nyquil when you can get whiskey a whole lot cheaper?So now lets put on our thinking caps and examine a world after legalization.
That 6\% would double overnite just from people who would use but fear what a conviction would do to their career.That's also incorrect.
Before alcohol was outlawed (according to my grandmother, who was actually alive then), women didn't drink - at least in public.
Saloons were a man's place.
During prohibition that changed -- speakeasies replaced the salloons, and they were gender-neutral places.
Drinking doubled because women started drinking, not because of legalization but as a result of prohibition.Not sure what would happen if a quarter if the population was baked out of their headsWhat percentage of the adult population drinks?
How many do so at work?That means no welfareFirst, unlike alcohol, cocaine, or heroin, people DON'T go on welfare because they smoke pot.
Most construction workers in the US are pot smokers.
Secondly, welfare (AFDC) was eliminated in the US in 1996.They could buy any insurance they wanted on the private market, but not a dime of the taxpayer's funds.Since there are no known adverse health effects from marijuana, that statement is totally illogical and irrational.I have 200 slashdot freaks!As your reasoning abilities are so limited, I'm not surprised.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434933</id>
	<title>Re:Health Care/Social Plan To Fix Everything...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1245693840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, I'll bite.</p><p>I agree if you don't have car insurance and your car gets smashed up, too bad.  I shouldn't have to carry insurance for your car either, you protect your car, I'll protect mine.  That is fair.  Doesn't work well, but I'm for it.  You'd have to make it legal to shoot random idiot drivers on the spot as well but hey, thats not a bad idea either.</p><p>I'm all for taking warning labels off of places that common sense should do, like lawn mowers that tell you not to pick them up and use them as hedge trimmers.</p><p>However, I do have a problem with the idea of that doctors can not help people.  Take the whole hypocratic oath out of the process so we can realize these people aren't there to help us, they are there to make money.  Stop allowing companies to use government funded medical research to produce patented products. Basically make the entire medical industry normal citizens instead of giving them special perks (including a higher status level in society) for 'helping people' because thats not what they are doing.  Allow me some actual form of retribution or way to actually punish them if any form of malice occurs, malpractice insurance is basically a get out of jail card.</p><p>Of course, we'd probably end up with a lot fewer doctors if treated them like we treat our garbage men, car mechanics and IT people wouldn't we?</p><p>Yes.  I do expect you to pay for it, if it is something that a majority of our country thinks we should do.  Thats the reality of living in a civilized society, the majority rules, regardless of what you want, sorry.  In many ways if done right it really is easier and cheaper for everyone if we all do it together.  Corruption ensure thats practically impossible, but thats true with pretty much any system, people are corrupt.</p><p>As for financials, again I agree.</p><p>Lost a bunch of money?  Too fucking bad.  I shouldn't be bailing your dumb ass, our your company out.  The company I work for isn't getting bonuses for running its business worse than a grade school lemonade stand.  To go along with that however, I damn sure expect a way that I came make the bastards who lost the money pay for what they've done.  $50k can literally make or break most families in America.  Give them 50k and they can make a few intelligent choices and live nicely regardless of just about any existing financial situation.  Take 50k away from most Americans and they'll be in such a sorry financial state that they can not function.  These guys lost billions.  Do you know how many chunks of 50k we're talking about.   Do you realize how many families that equates too?  That have been ruined?  They suffer, and I'm not allowed to torture these bastards to the point of death, heal them, repeat 50k times and finally execute them in public, with all the other people that do this sort of work in the front row?  I'd almost expect you to throw in their families as well, just to ensure that they can no longer harm the gene pool in any conceivable way.</p><p>Of course, you wouldn't expect people to actually be able to hold you truly accountable in your life, would you?  Your employer never let you make a mistake?  How much cheaper is your health insurance because your employer subsidizes a portion of it?</p><p>I realize how you feel and what you're saying, but do you realize what the implications of what you are saying actually are?  Is your life truly so perfect that you are impervious to harm and will never need a little help after something mind numbingly unexpected happened?  I really don't want things to be 'fair' as life without society would dictate, it would seem to me to be a very difficult life and probably wouldn't really leave me much time to bullshit with trolls on slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , I 'll bite.I agree if you do n't have car insurance and your car gets smashed up , too bad .
I should n't have to carry insurance for your car either , you protect your car , I 'll protect mine .
That is fair .
Does n't work well , but I 'm for it .
You 'd have to make it legal to shoot random idiot drivers on the spot as well but hey , thats not a bad idea either.I 'm all for taking warning labels off of places that common sense should do , like lawn mowers that tell you not to pick them up and use them as hedge trimmers.However , I do have a problem with the idea of that doctors can not help people .
Take the whole hypocratic oath out of the process so we can realize these people are n't there to help us , they are there to make money .
Stop allowing companies to use government funded medical research to produce patented products .
Basically make the entire medical industry normal citizens instead of giving them special perks ( including a higher status level in society ) for 'helping people ' because thats not what they are doing .
Allow me some actual form of retribution or way to actually punish them if any form of malice occurs , malpractice insurance is basically a get out of jail card.Of course , we 'd probably end up with a lot fewer doctors if treated them like we treat our garbage men , car mechanics and IT people would n't we ? Yes .
I do expect you to pay for it , if it is something that a majority of our country thinks we should do .
Thats the reality of living in a civilized society , the majority rules , regardless of what you want , sorry .
In many ways if done right it really is easier and cheaper for everyone if we all do it together .
Corruption ensure thats practically impossible , but thats true with pretty much any system , people are corrupt.As for financials , again I agree.Lost a bunch of money ?
Too fucking bad .
I should n't be bailing your dumb ass , our your company out .
The company I work for is n't getting bonuses for running its business worse than a grade school lemonade stand .
To go along with that however , I damn sure expect a way that I came make the bastards who lost the money pay for what they 've done .
$ 50k can literally make or break most families in America .
Give them 50k and they can make a few intelligent choices and live nicely regardless of just about any existing financial situation .
Take 50k away from most Americans and they 'll be in such a sorry financial state that they can not function .
These guys lost billions .
Do you know how many chunks of 50k we 're talking about .
Do you realize how many families that equates too ?
That have been ruined ?
They suffer , and I 'm not allowed to torture these bastards to the point of death , heal them , repeat 50k times and finally execute them in public , with all the other people that do this sort of work in the front row ?
I 'd almost expect you to throw in their families as well , just to ensure that they can no longer harm the gene pool in any conceivable way.Of course , you would n't expect people to actually be able to hold you truly accountable in your life , would you ?
Your employer never let you make a mistake ?
How much cheaper is your health insurance because your employer subsidizes a portion of it ? I realize how you feel and what you 're saying , but do you realize what the implications of what you are saying actually are ?
Is your life truly so perfect that you are impervious to harm and will never need a little help after something mind numbingly unexpected happened ?
I really do n't want things to be 'fair ' as life without society would dictate , it would seem to me to be a very difficult life and probably would n't really leave me much time to bullshit with trolls on slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, I'll bite.I agree if you don't have car insurance and your car gets smashed up, too bad.
I shouldn't have to carry insurance for your car either, you protect your car, I'll protect mine.
That is fair.
Doesn't work well, but I'm for it.
You'd have to make it legal to shoot random idiot drivers on the spot as well but hey, thats not a bad idea either.I'm all for taking warning labels off of places that common sense should do, like lawn mowers that tell you not to pick them up and use them as hedge trimmers.However, I do have a problem with the idea of that doctors can not help people.
Take the whole hypocratic oath out of the process so we can realize these people aren't there to help us, they are there to make money.
Stop allowing companies to use government funded medical research to produce patented products.
Basically make the entire medical industry normal citizens instead of giving them special perks (including a higher status level in society) for 'helping people' because thats not what they are doing.
Allow me some actual form of retribution or way to actually punish them if any form of malice occurs, malpractice insurance is basically a get out of jail card.Of course, we'd probably end up with a lot fewer doctors if treated them like we treat our garbage men, car mechanics and IT people wouldn't we?Yes.
I do expect you to pay for it, if it is something that a majority of our country thinks we should do.
Thats the reality of living in a civilized society, the majority rules, regardless of what you want, sorry.
In many ways if done right it really is easier and cheaper for everyone if we all do it together.
Corruption ensure thats practically impossible, but thats true with pretty much any system, people are corrupt.As for financials, again I agree.Lost a bunch of money?
Too fucking bad.
I shouldn't be bailing your dumb ass, our your company out.
The company I work for isn't getting bonuses for running its business worse than a grade school lemonade stand.
To go along with that however, I damn sure expect a way that I came make the bastards who lost the money pay for what they've done.
$50k can literally make or break most families in America.
Give them 50k and they can make a few intelligent choices and live nicely regardless of just about any existing financial situation.
Take 50k away from most Americans and they'll be in such a sorry financial state that they can not function.
These guys lost billions.
Do you know how many chunks of 50k we're talking about.
Do you realize how many families that equates too?
That have been ruined?
They suffer, and I'm not allowed to torture these bastards to the point of death, heal them, repeat 50k times and finally execute them in public, with all the other people that do this sort of work in the front row?
I'd almost expect you to throw in their families as well, just to ensure that they can no longer harm the gene pool in any conceivable way.Of course, you wouldn't expect people to actually be able to hold you truly accountable in your life, would you?
Your employer never let you make a mistake?
How much cheaper is your health insurance because your employer subsidizes a portion of it?I realize how you feel and what you're saying, but do you realize what the implications of what you are saying actually are?
Is your life truly so perfect that you are impervious to harm and will never need a little help after something mind numbingly unexpected happened?
I really don't want things to be 'fair' as life without society would dictate, it would seem to me to be a very difficult life and probably wouldn't really leave me much time to bullshit with trolls on slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833</id>
	<title>Legalize it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245686280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure if that's a brilliant idea or not, but surely removing it from schedule 1 status is the right thing to do.</p><p>That Nixon-era policy makes classifies it as having "no medicinal value" and is considered "highly addictive". Both are jokes.</p><p>The status above cocaine gives law enforcement more incentive to go after potheads than Colombian smugglers. Ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure if that 's a brilliant idea or not , but surely removing it from schedule 1 status is the right thing to do.That Nixon-era policy makes classifies it as having " no medicinal value " and is considered " highly addictive " .
Both are jokes.The status above cocaine gives law enforcement more incentive to go after potheads than Colombian smugglers .
Ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure if that's a brilliant idea or not, but surely removing it from schedule 1 status is the right thing to do.That Nixon-era policy makes classifies it as having "no medicinal value" and is considered "highly addictive".
Both are jokes.The status above cocaine gives law enforcement more incentive to go after potheads than Colombian smugglers.
Ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28438683</id>
	<title>Gary Johnson is for smart decriminalization</title>
	<author>Elwar123</author>
	<datestamp>1245771240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been following former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson's take on decriminalizing drugs and he has some sound thoughts on the whole matter from a fiscally conservative point of view.<p>
For marijuana, legalize and tax it using the tax funds toward drug rehabilitation and education. Provide prescription access to heroin in ways that have been proven in other countries to cut down on use. For the harder drugs, take them by a case by case basis and approach it in an intelligent, non-kneejerk, manner that addresses the real issues.</p><p>
There was some talk of him running for president as a Republican in 2012.</p><p>
Check out:</p><p>
<a href="http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/" title="garyjohnson2012.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/</a> [garyjohnson2012.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been following former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson 's take on decriminalizing drugs and he has some sound thoughts on the whole matter from a fiscally conservative point of view .
For marijuana , legalize and tax it using the tax funds toward drug rehabilitation and education .
Provide prescription access to heroin in ways that have been proven in other countries to cut down on use .
For the harder drugs , take them by a case by case basis and approach it in an intelligent , non-kneejerk , manner that addresses the real issues .
There was some talk of him running for president as a Republican in 2012 .
Check out : http : //www.garyjohnson2012.com/ [ garyjohnson2012.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been following former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson's take on decriminalizing drugs and he has some sound thoughts on the whole matter from a fiscally conservative point of view.
For marijuana, legalize and tax it using the tax funds toward drug rehabilitation and education.
Provide prescription access to heroin in ways that have been proven in other countries to cut down on use.
For the harder drugs, take them by a case by case basis and approach it in an intelligent, non-kneejerk, manner that addresses the real issues.
There was some talk of him running for president as a Republican in 2012.
Check out:
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/ [garyjohnson2012.com] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437441</id>
	<title>Waste of time! Total lip service!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245764340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The UK gov did the same here and even though some points ( extra national holidays I think ) got something like 700,000 votes, it was still completely ignored.</p><p>Just an excuse for the gov to look they are "down" with the IT literate proles. Load of fecking lip-service cack!</p><p>Hope the US does it properly, the UK one is a big waste of taxes and time!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The UK gov did the same here and even though some points ( extra national holidays I think ) got something like 700,000 votes , it was still completely ignored.Just an excuse for the gov to look they are " down " with the IT literate proles .
Load of fecking lip-service cack ! Hope the US does it properly , the UK one is a big waste of taxes and time !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UK gov did the same here and even though some points ( extra national holidays I think ) got something like 700,000 votes, it was still completely ignored.Just an excuse for the gov to look they are "down" with the IT literate proles.
Load of fecking lip-service cack!Hope the US does it properly, the UK one is a big waste of taxes and time!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434349</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1245689100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll go for funny on this one<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Legalize it.  Put Clinton back in office.  Bring back Cuban cigars.  Sit back and enjoy the cloud that settles in and rest assured knowing that we're not going to attack anyone, we'll be too busy playing video games and eating Doritos, while the president rides around in a limo stoned off his ass using the cooch of a cow who slept her way to the whitehouse as a cigar cutter.</p><p>Doesn't really sound that bad to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll go for funny on this one ...Legalize it .
Put Clinton back in office .
Bring back Cuban cigars .
Sit back and enjoy the cloud that settles in and rest assured knowing that we 're not going to attack anyone , we 'll be too busy playing video games and eating Doritos , while the president rides around in a limo stoned off his ass using the cooch of a cow who slept her way to the whitehouse as a cigar cutter.Does n't really sound that bad to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll go for funny on this one ...Legalize it.
Put Clinton back in office.
Bring back Cuban cigars.
Sit back and enjoy the cloud that settles in and rest assured knowing that we're not going to attack anyone, we'll be too busy playing video games and eating Doritos, while the president rides around in a limo stoned off his ass using the cooch of a cow who slept her way to the whitehouse as a cigar cutter.Doesn't really sound that bad to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889</id>
	<title>Really??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245686640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmm.  Our economy is a disaster.  We have two wars going on with no real plan to get out of either.  We have a health care problem in this country that nobody has proposed a meaningful solution to.  The national debt is increased every year with no end in sight.  We have multiple states on the verge of financial ruin.  Our national infrastructure is falling apart in many ways and places.  Our education system is falling behind further every year.<br> <br>
And several critical countries around the world are increasingly unstable; including one that is developing nuclear weapons and ICBMs that could reach our country.<br> <br>
And for some reason <i>marijuana</i> is an important issue?  Are you kidding me?  I don't see how it could possibly be more relevant than any of the issues I already listed.  If we could solve <b>all</b> of them, then I would be comfortable with our national government looking into this "marijuana issue" (whatever the hell the issue is).  But until then I don't see why it merits the time of our government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm .
Our economy is a disaster .
We have two wars going on with no real plan to get out of either .
We have a health care problem in this country that nobody has proposed a meaningful solution to .
The national debt is increased every year with no end in sight .
We have multiple states on the verge of financial ruin .
Our national infrastructure is falling apart in many ways and places .
Our education system is falling behind further every year .
And several critical countries around the world are increasingly unstable ; including one that is developing nuclear weapons and ICBMs that could reach our country .
And for some reason marijuana is an important issue ?
Are you kidding me ?
I do n't see how it could possibly be more relevant than any of the issues I already listed .
If we could solve all of them , then I would be comfortable with our national government looking into this " marijuana issue " ( whatever the hell the issue is ) .
But until then I do n't see why it merits the time of our government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm.
Our economy is a disaster.
We have two wars going on with no real plan to get out of either.
We have a health care problem in this country that nobody has proposed a meaningful solution to.
The national debt is increased every year with no end in sight.
We have multiple states on the verge of financial ruin.
Our national infrastructure is falling apart in many ways and places.
Our education system is falling behind further every year.
And several critical countries around the world are increasingly unstable; including one that is developing nuclear weapons and ICBMs that could reach our country.
And for some reason marijuana is an important issue?
Are you kidding me?
I don't see how it could possibly be more relevant than any of the issues I already listed.
If we could solve all of them, then I would be comfortable with our national government looking into this "marijuana issue" (whatever the hell the issue is).
But until then I don't see why it merits the time of our government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434753</id>
	<title>obama's true place of birth</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1245692280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>vulcan</p><p>obama is not our first african american president</p><p>he's our first vulcan american president</p><p>the emotionless measured speech cadences, the prominent ears, the mind meld level charisma</p><p>c'mon, look at the dude!:</p><p><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president\_obama/" title="whitehouse.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president\_obama/</a> [whitehouse.gov]</p><p>this dude's an alien. not an illegal alien, a space alien</p><p>so you can bet all the comments that want ufo records unsealed as referred to in the article aren't going to get their request met</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>vulcanobama is not our first african american presidenthe 's our first vulcan american presidentthe emotionless measured speech cadences , the prominent ears , the mind meld level charismac'mon , look at the dude !
: http : //www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president \ _obama/ [ whitehouse.gov ] this dude 's an alien .
not an illegal alien , a space alienso you can bet all the comments that want ufo records unsealed as referred to in the article are n't going to get their request met</tokentext>
<sentencetext>vulcanobama is not our first african american presidenthe's our first vulcan american presidentthe emotionless measured speech cadences, the prominent ears, the mind meld level charismac'mon, look at the dude!
:http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president\_obama/ [whitehouse.gov]this dude's an alien.
not an illegal alien, a space alienso you can bet all the comments that want ufo records unsealed as referred to in the article aren't going to get their request met</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436271</id>
	<title>Re:Health Care/Social Plan To Fix Everything...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245751380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>YOU REALLY ARE A CUNT, AREN'T YOU...

lorem ipsum lower case to stop the filtwer rant from yelling at me more than i expect</htmltext>
<tokenext>YOU REALLY ARE A CUNT , ARE N'T YOU.. . lorem ipsum lower case to stop the filtwer rant from yelling at me more than i expect</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YOU REALLY ARE A CUNT, AREN'T YOU...

lorem ipsum lower case to stop the filtwer rant from yelling at me more than i expect</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434589</id>
	<title>Message from business owners.</title>
	<author>zymano</author>
	<datestamp>1245690780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't tax us for your healthcare program or we will cut employees.</p><p>**Hell socialists would love that.  More ditch digging jobs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't tax us for your healthcare program or we will cut employees .
* * Hell socialists would love that .
More ditch digging jobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't tax us for your healthcare program or we will cut employees.
**Hell socialists would love that.
More ditch digging jobs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434965</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>Ian Alexander</author>
	<datestamp>1245694200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The evidence strongly suggests that smoking heavily (5+ joints per diem), daily, for years at a time impairs short-term memory. That's not a common usage pattern AFAIK.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The evidence strongly suggests that smoking heavily ( 5 + joints per diem ) , daily , for years at a time impairs short-term memory .
That 's not a common usage pattern AFAIK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The evidence strongly suggests that smoking heavily (5+ joints per diem), daily, for years at a time impairs short-term memory.
That's not a common usage pattern AFAIK.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28438369</id>
	<title>aliban Switch to Growing Pot for Americans</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245769800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Legalizing Marijuana might make the Taliban switch to growing pot to fund their intense interest in the anatomy of the neck, as well as the abrasive behavior of the whip. Then again these buggers are so dumb they cannot even read the Koran.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Legalizing Marijuana might make the Taliban switch to growing pot to fund their intense interest in the anatomy of the neck , as well as the abrasive behavior of the whip .
Then again these buggers are so dumb they can not even read the Koran .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Legalizing Marijuana might make the Taliban switch to growing pot to fund their intense interest in the anatomy of the neck, as well as the abrasive behavior of the whip.
Then again these buggers are so dumb they cannot even read the Koran.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28467337</id>
	<title>Re:Why are people so difficult?</title>
	<author>Dripdry</author>
	<datestamp>1245949440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, have you looked at the state of things lately?</p><p>The system is too large to fix. There are too many differing opinions. It may not be that people are too dumb or disinterested (although it's part of it) it's that there is just nothing we can do anymore.</p><p>Vote them all out? Ok. Who do we put in there?<br>Have a revolution? Have you seen the weapons they would use on us?<br>Civil disobedience? Yeah, you'll be socially ostracized and bankrupted by court, police, shrinks, or others.</p><p>There's just no changing the course of this terrible beast called America. that is what I have come to over the last 10 years through research, discussions, and consideration. I used to be optimistic, but the only thing left now is to spark a fattie once in a while, kick back, and laugh at the whole insane thing. It'll crash eventually and the best thing is to batten down the hatches as much as possible (save,invest globally, learn survival skills), help your fellow man (if he even wants it anymore), and generally lead as productive and enjoyable a life as possible.</p><p>I have tried for a long time not to be fatalistic, but at this point it's going to take a MASSIVE catastrophe or very significant event to change the course of the USA. Maybe China will be the one to knock us out of our 50-year funk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , have you looked at the state of things lately ? The system is too large to fix .
There are too many differing opinions .
It may not be that people are too dumb or disinterested ( although it 's part of it ) it 's that there is just nothing we can do anymore.Vote them all out ?
Ok. Who do we put in there ? Have a revolution ?
Have you seen the weapons they would use on us ? Civil disobedience ?
Yeah , you 'll be socially ostracized and bankrupted by court , police , shrinks , or others.There 's just no changing the course of this terrible beast called America .
that is what I have come to over the last 10 years through research , discussions , and consideration .
I used to be optimistic , but the only thing left now is to spark a fattie once in a while , kick back , and laugh at the whole insane thing .
It 'll crash eventually and the best thing is to batten down the hatches as much as possible ( save,invest globally , learn survival skills ) , help your fellow man ( if he even wants it anymore ) , and generally lead as productive and enjoyable a life as possible.I have tried for a long time not to be fatalistic , but at this point it 's going to take a MASSIVE catastrophe or very significant event to change the course of the USA .
Maybe China will be the one to knock us out of our 50-year funk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, have you looked at the state of things lately?The system is too large to fix.
There are too many differing opinions.
It may not be that people are too dumb or disinterested (although it's part of it) it's that there is just nothing we can do anymore.Vote them all out?
Ok. Who do we put in there?Have a revolution?
Have you seen the weapons they would use on us?Civil disobedience?
Yeah, you'll be socially ostracized and bankrupted by court, police, shrinks, or others.There's just no changing the course of this terrible beast called America.
that is what I have come to over the last 10 years through research, discussions, and consideration.
I used to be optimistic, but the only thing left now is to spark a fattie once in a while, kick back, and laugh at the whole insane thing.
It'll crash eventually and the best thing is to batten down the hatches as much as possible (save,invest globally, learn survival skills), help your fellow man (if he even wants it anymore), and generally lead as productive and enjoyable a life as possible.I have tried for a long time not to be fatalistic, but at this point it's going to take a MASSIVE catastrophe or very significant event to change the course of the USA.
Maybe China will be the one to knock us out of our 50-year funk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434271</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>Will.Woodhull</author>
	<datestamp>1245688620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Legalize it, then it can be taxed and regulated. We should strongly consider doing the same thing with other drugs, too. If drugs were legally available, there would be no profit in the illicit drug trade, we would see a reduction in crime at all levels, and the medical costs associated with overdoses and adulterated drugs would also decrease. Legalizing marajuana would be an excellent test case.

</p><p>Also, if marajuana was legalized, then hemp would be legalized, and the USA would again have a valuable cash crop to grow on marginal lands. It is stupid that hemp is an illegal crop... the only reason for it being illegal is that it seemed easier to pass a law against hemp than to train law enforcement personnel in the simple botany needed to make the distinction. I, for one, think that our cops are smart enough to learn how to do a simple field test.

</p><p>Of course, legalizing any of the highly profitable black market drugs would mean bucking the lobbying efforts of one of the USA's major industries, and one of the very few that enjoys freedom from paying any taxes on its profits. So I don't expect this to happen soon or without great effort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Legalize it , then it can be taxed and regulated .
We should strongly consider doing the same thing with other drugs , too .
If drugs were legally available , there would be no profit in the illicit drug trade , we would see a reduction in crime at all levels , and the medical costs associated with overdoses and adulterated drugs would also decrease .
Legalizing marajuana would be an excellent test case .
Also , if marajuana was legalized , then hemp would be legalized , and the USA would again have a valuable cash crop to grow on marginal lands .
It is stupid that hemp is an illegal crop... the only reason for it being illegal is that it seemed easier to pass a law against hemp than to train law enforcement personnel in the simple botany needed to make the distinction .
I , for one , think that our cops are smart enough to learn how to do a simple field test .
Of course , legalizing any of the highly profitable black market drugs would mean bucking the lobbying efforts of one of the USA 's major industries , and one of the very few that enjoys freedom from paying any taxes on its profits .
So I do n't expect this to happen soon or without great effort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Legalize it, then it can be taxed and regulated.
We should strongly consider doing the same thing with other drugs, too.
If drugs were legally available, there would be no profit in the illicit drug trade, we would see a reduction in crime at all levels, and the medical costs associated with overdoses and adulterated drugs would also decrease.
Legalizing marajuana would be an excellent test case.
Also, if marajuana was legalized, then hemp would be legalized, and the USA would again have a valuable cash crop to grow on marginal lands.
It is stupid that hemp is an illegal crop... the only reason for it being illegal is that it seemed easier to pass a law against hemp than to train law enforcement personnel in the simple botany needed to make the distinction.
I, for one, think that our cops are smart enough to learn how to do a simple field test.
Of course, legalizing any of the highly profitable black market drugs would mean bucking the lobbying efforts of one of the USA's major industries, and one of the very few that enjoys freedom from paying any taxes on its profits.
So I don't expect this to happen soon or without great effort.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435865</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>bogjobber</author>
	<datestamp>1245789540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p><i>btw: I have a friend that used to smoke pot every single day. He is now in a psychiatric hospital with a severe psychosis and paranoia.</i></p></div>  </blockquote><p>And he had no mental health issues before smoking marijuana, right?  Doubtful.</p><p>I know many people who smoke pot every day, and almost all of them are fine.  I know many people who drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes every day and almost all of them are fine.  I know many people who take antidepressants or drink coffee or pound energy drinks every day, and almost all of them are fine.</p><p>The point isn't whether or not something has bad side effects, nearly all drugs have bad side effects.  The point is whether or not those side effects are dangerous enough to warrant a society-wide ban on a drug, where the violation of that ban results in a person spending a very long time in jail.  By the standards present in our society (judging by all the stuff that is legal), marijuana is not a dangerous drug.</p><p>*Maybe* we should be arguing whether or not it should be available solely via a doctor's prescription, but the idea of it being a schedule 1 drug is fucking absurd.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>btw : I have a friend that used to smoke pot every single day .
He is now in a psychiatric hospital with a severe psychosis and paranoia .
And he had no mental health issues before smoking marijuana , right ?
Doubtful.I know many people who smoke pot every day , and almost all of them are fine .
I know many people who drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes every day and almost all of them are fine .
I know many people who take antidepressants or drink coffee or pound energy drinks every day , and almost all of them are fine.The point is n't whether or not something has bad side effects , nearly all drugs have bad side effects .
The point is whether or not those side effects are dangerous enough to warrant a society-wide ban on a drug , where the violation of that ban results in a person spending a very long time in jail .
By the standards present in our society ( judging by all the stuff that is legal ) , marijuana is not a dangerous drug .
* Maybe * we should be arguing whether or not it should be available solely via a doctor 's prescription , but the idea of it being a schedule 1 drug is fucking absurd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>btw: I have a friend that used to smoke pot every single day.
He is now in a psychiatric hospital with a severe psychosis and paranoia.
And he had no mental health issues before smoking marijuana, right?
Doubtful.I know many people who smoke pot every day, and almost all of them are fine.
I know many people who drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes every day and almost all of them are fine.
I know many people who take antidepressants or drink coffee or pound energy drinks every day, and almost all of them are fine.The point isn't whether or not something has bad side effects, nearly all drugs have bad side effects.
The point is whether or not those side effects are dangerous enough to warrant a society-wide ban on a drug, where the violation of that ban results in a person spending a very long time in jail.
By the standards present in our society (judging by all the stuff that is legal), marijuana is not a dangerous drug.
*Maybe* we should be arguing whether or not it should be available solely via a doctor's prescription, but the idea of it being a schedule 1 drug is fucking absurd.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434321</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1245688860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of the reasons you listed sounds like a good enough reason to legalize marijuana.</p><p>If marijuana were legal, the government would be wasting less time.</p><p>FWIW, I wouldn't use marijuana even if it were legal.  I don't drink but once in a long while and really don't like inhaling smoke of any kind.  But I wouldn't seek to remove the right to doing it from anyone else...so long as they don't smoke around me which is no different than cigarettes and cigars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of the reasons you listed sounds like a good enough reason to legalize marijuana.If marijuana were legal , the government would be wasting less time.FWIW , I would n't use marijuana even if it were legal .
I do n't drink but once in a long while and really do n't like inhaling smoke of any kind .
But I would n't seek to remove the right to doing it from anyone else...so long as they do n't smoke around me which is no different than cigarettes and cigars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of the reasons you listed sounds like a good enough reason to legalize marijuana.If marijuana were legal, the government would be wasting less time.FWIW, I wouldn't use marijuana even if it were legal.
I don't drink but once in a long while and really don't like inhaling smoke of any kind.
But I wouldn't seek to remove the right to doing it from anyone else...so long as they don't smoke around me which is no different than cigarettes and cigars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433953</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1245686940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Marijuana is a fairly safe herbal supplement with thousands of years of demonstrated safe use. By even the most exaggerated accounts it is less addictive than most cough syrups. The known side effects are less severe and occur with less frequency than over the counter medications like say Aspirin and many other herbal supplements.</p><p>According to the FDA's own rules an herbal remedy with an established long term history of safe use should be unregulated right alongside all the other herbal supplements from the scam diet pills to those supported by clinical evidence like Ginko Biloba.</p><p>There is no legitimate reason to make marijuana a black market product but there are plenty of illegitimate reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Marijuana is a fairly safe herbal supplement with thousands of years of demonstrated safe use .
By even the most exaggerated accounts it is less addictive than most cough syrups .
The known side effects are less severe and occur with less frequency than over the counter medications like say Aspirin and many other herbal supplements.According to the FDA 's own rules an herbal remedy with an established long term history of safe use should be unregulated right alongside all the other herbal supplements from the scam diet pills to those supported by clinical evidence like Ginko Biloba.There is no legitimate reason to make marijuana a black market product but there are plenty of illegitimate reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Marijuana is a fairly safe herbal supplement with thousands of years of demonstrated safe use.
By even the most exaggerated accounts it is less addictive than most cough syrups.
The known side effects are less severe and occur with less frequency than over the counter medications like say Aspirin and many other herbal supplements.According to the FDA's own rules an herbal remedy with an established long term history of safe use should be unregulated right alongside all the other herbal supplements from the scam diet pills to those supported by clinical evidence like Ginko Biloba.There is no legitimate reason to make marijuana a black market product but there are plenty of illegitimate reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435235</id>
	<title>Second hand smoke?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245696960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm all for legalizing pot but if they do it I'd want to see some pretty big requirements about where you can smoke it.  The second hand smoke from it would be a lot bigger problem than normal cigarettes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all for legalizing pot but if they do it I 'd want to see some pretty big requirements about where you can smoke it .
The second hand smoke from it would be a lot bigger problem than normal cigarettes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all for legalizing pot but if they do it I'd want to see some pretty big requirements about where you can smoke it.
The second hand smoke from it would be a lot bigger problem than normal cigarettes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433967</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245687060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> And for some reason marijuana is an important issue? Are you kidding me? I don't see how it could possibly be more relevant than any of the issues I already listed. If we could solve all of them, then I would be comfortable with our national government looking into this "marijuana issue" (whatever the hell the issue is). But until then I don't see why it merits the time of our government.</p> </div><p>

Lets see... You legalize marijuana and you can cut down on the number of arrests made, cut down on the number of cops, when you legalize it you would also allow for new industries to thrive, tax dollars to collect, Assuming even only a moderate increase of marijuana consumption as a part of it being legalized, you open up an entire new industry, more jobs, less spending for the government, more freedom and more revenue. <br> <br>

There is no way you can argue for marijuana to not be legalized by a purely financial standpoint. Plus, legalizing it will cut costs, and spend less time looking at the issue rather than the more time you are foolishly suggesting.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And for some reason marijuana is an important issue ?
Are you kidding me ?
I do n't see how it could possibly be more relevant than any of the issues I already listed .
If we could solve all of them , then I would be comfortable with our national government looking into this " marijuana issue " ( whatever the hell the issue is ) .
But until then I do n't see why it merits the time of our government .
Lets see... You legalize marijuana and you can cut down on the number of arrests made , cut down on the number of cops , when you legalize it you would also allow for new industries to thrive , tax dollars to collect , Assuming even only a moderate increase of marijuana consumption as a part of it being legalized , you open up an entire new industry , more jobs , less spending for the government , more freedom and more revenue .
There is no way you can argue for marijuana to not be legalized by a purely financial standpoint .
Plus , legalizing it will cut costs , and spend less time looking at the issue rather than the more time you are foolishly suggesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> And for some reason marijuana is an important issue?
Are you kidding me?
I don't see how it could possibly be more relevant than any of the issues I already listed.
If we could solve all of them, then I would be comfortable with our national government looking into this "marijuana issue" (whatever the hell the issue is).
But until then I don't see why it merits the time of our government.
Lets see... You legalize marijuana and you can cut down on the number of arrests made, cut down on the number of cops, when you legalize it you would also allow for new industries to thrive, tax dollars to collect, Assuming even only a moderate increase of marijuana consumption as a part of it being legalized, you open up an entire new industry, more jobs, less spending for the government, more freedom and more revenue.
There is no way you can argue for marijuana to not be legalized by a purely financial standpoint.
Plus, legalizing it will cut costs, and spend less time looking at the issue rather than the more time you are foolishly suggesting.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435211</id>
	<title>Re:Health Care/Social Plan To Fix Everything...</title>
	<author>twostix</author>
	<datestamp>1245696780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you lose your job because of your absolutely woeful ability to spell and write a cohesive block of text and then fall critically ill you will change your tune.</p><p>You types always do.</p><p>Let me guess you are a middle class twenty something borne out of middle class white collar parents and have cruised through middle class high schools into college and out into the world of IT weighed down by the fevered ego and irrational belief that it was all made possible only through your own rugged individualism and determination against all odds(TM)?</p><p>Such a pity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you lose your job because of your absolutely woeful ability to spell and write a cohesive block of text and then fall critically ill you will change your tune.You types always do.Let me guess you are a middle class twenty something borne out of middle class white collar parents and have cruised through middle class high schools into college and out into the world of IT weighed down by the fevered ego and irrational belief that it was all made possible only through your own rugged individualism and determination against all odds ( TM ) ? Such a pity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you lose your job because of your absolutely woeful ability to spell and write a cohesive block of text and then fall critically ill you will change your tune.You types always do.Let me guess you are a middle class twenty something borne out of middle class white collar parents and have cruised through middle class high schools into college and out into the world of IT weighed down by the fevered ego and irrational belief that it was all made possible only through your own rugged individualism and determination against all odds(TM)?Such a pity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28462023</id>
	<title>Re:Lol Democracy</title>
	<author>simplexion</author>
	<datestamp>1245857220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you're not living in reality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're not living in reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're not living in reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437649</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>Gallon of Fuel</author>
	<datestamp>1245765840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While turning what was once a crime (marijuana use or possession) into a legal act will eliminate the instances of crime for that act (obviously, since it's no longer a crime), don't kid yourself into believing that anyone in the drug trade will suddenly pick up their newspapers and look for a legitimate job. Criminals do illegal things for profit because they are more profitable than the same amount of effort in a legal enterprise, and they feel the benefits outweigh the risks of getting caught. Legalizing drugs will not completely eliminate the illegal drug trade, nor will it put any significant dent in the violent crime rate among career criminals and the collateral damage their activities produce.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While turning what was once a crime ( marijuana use or possession ) into a legal act will eliminate the instances of crime for that act ( obviously , since it 's no longer a crime ) , do n't kid yourself into believing that anyone in the drug trade will suddenly pick up their newspapers and look for a legitimate job .
Criminals do illegal things for profit because they are more profitable than the same amount of effort in a legal enterprise , and they feel the benefits outweigh the risks of getting caught .
Legalizing drugs will not completely eliminate the illegal drug trade , nor will it put any significant dent in the violent crime rate among career criminals and the collateral damage their activities produce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While turning what was once a crime (marijuana use or possession) into a legal act will eliminate the instances of crime for that act (obviously, since it's no longer a crime), don't kid yourself into believing that anyone in the drug trade will suddenly pick up their newspapers and look for a legitimate job.
Criminals do illegal things for profit because they are more profitable than the same amount of effort in a legal enterprise, and they feel the benefits outweigh the risks of getting caught.
Legalizing drugs will not completely eliminate the illegal drug trade, nor will it put any significant dent in the violent crime rate among career criminals and the collateral damage their activities produce.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435645</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>opec</author>
	<datestamp>1245787320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your post made me shiver.

Narconon? More like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A\_Scanner\_Darkly" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">New-Path</a> [wikipedia.org]. I wish the dystopian futures our science fictions authors conjured up weren't coming true so devastatingly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post made me shiver .
Narconon ? More like New-Path [ wikipedia.org ] .
I wish the dystopian futures our science fictions authors conjured up were n't coming true so devastatingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post made me shiver.
Narconon? More like New-Path [wikipedia.org].
I wish the dystopian futures our science fictions authors conjured up weren't coming true so devastatingly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437585</id>
	<title>Re:Lol Democracy</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1245765540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed, you are correct, but it;s not that simple.  It actually boils down to the fact that the legalize marijuana movement is a highly organized and long standing grassroots movement with a massive membership.  Other movements with their own significant memberships also made the list.  For many of the laws we want added/changed, and many of the things we're CURRENTLY really in need of, the movements are just gaining traction, and have small, disorganized representation.  It's not that those ideas we not presented, or even proerly represented, they just made 50 posts intead of 1, and their base populous didn't know which one to vote up, so the vote became dilluted and didn't reach the value of others.</p><p>You are also correct in that large segments of the populous are not represented at all in this survey.  The young have a strong presence, as do the retired and disabled.  (people who have nothing better to do than be online, and also who have political motivations and interests).  Those who have no interest in politics, do still have an opinion, but you won;t find it here...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , you are correct , but it ; s not that simple .
It actually boils down to the fact that the legalize marijuana movement is a highly organized and long standing grassroots movement with a massive membership .
Other movements with their own significant memberships also made the list .
For many of the laws we want added/changed , and many of the things we 're CURRENTLY really in need of , the movements are just gaining traction , and have small , disorganized representation .
It 's not that those ideas we not presented , or even proerly represented , they just made 50 posts intead of 1 , and their base populous did n't know which one to vote up , so the vote became dilluted and did n't reach the value of others.You are also correct in that large segments of the populous are not represented at all in this survey .
The young have a strong presence , as do the retired and disabled .
( people who have nothing better to do than be online , and also who have political motivations and interests ) .
Those who have no interest in politics , do still have an opinion , but you won ; t find it here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, you are correct, but it;s not that simple.
It actually boils down to the fact that the legalize marijuana movement is a highly organized and long standing grassroots movement with a massive membership.
Other movements with their own significant memberships also made the list.
For many of the laws we want added/changed, and many of the things we're CURRENTLY really in need of, the movements are just gaining traction, and have small, disorganized representation.
It's not that those ideas we not presented, or even proerly represented, they just made 50 posts intead of 1, and their base populous didn't know which one to vote up, so the vote became dilluted and didn't reach the value of others.You are also correct in that large segments of the populous are not represented at all in this survey.
The young have a strong presence, as do the retired and disabled.
(people who have nothing better to do than be online, and also who have political motivations and interests).
Those who have no interest in politics, do still have an opinion, but you won;t find it here...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28440511</id>
	<title>AMA and ABA Love Socialized Medicine and Banking</title>
	<author>hypnolizard</author>
	<datestamp>1245778320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The prevailing definition of socialized medicine created by the American Medical Association is the same as the socialized banking model created by the American Bankers Association. The AMA can game Medicare and Medicaid, the ABA can run to the government whenever they screw up the financial system. Both love their carefully nurtured form of socialism and therefore rail against replacing it with an accountable system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The prevailing definition of socialized medicine created by the American Medical Association is the same as the socialized banking model created by the American Bankers Association .
The AMA can game Medicare and Medicaid , the ABA can run to the government whenever they screw up the financial system .
Both love their carefully nurtured form of socialism and therefore rail against replacing it with an accountable system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The prevailing definition of socialized medicine created by the American Medical Association is the same as the socialized banking model created by the American Bankers Association.
The AMA can game Medicare and Medicaid, the ABA can run to the government whenever they screw up the financial system.
Both love their carefully nurtured form of socialism and therefore rail against replacing it with an accountable system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434447</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1245689760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Over all you're likely correct, but keep in mind that until there's a good understanding of how it actually works in the body and what the effects of various strengths of plant have, it's premature to talk about that sort of step. That's not to say that a reasonable balanced couldn't be struck, but more to say that our method of refusing to regulate herbal supplements is probably not a good idea either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Over all you 're likely correct , but keep in mind that until there 's a good understanding of how it actually works in the body and what the effects of various strengths of plant have , it 's premature to talk about that sort of step .
That 's not to say that a reasonable balanced could n't be struck , but more to say that our method of refusing to regulate herbal supplements is probably not a good idea either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over all you're likely correct, but keep in mind that until there's a good understanding of how it actually works in the body and what the effects of various strengths of plant have, it's premature to talk about that sort of step.
That's not to say that a reasonable balanced couldn't be struck, but more to say that our method of refusing to regulate herbal supplements is probably not a good idea either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28439907</id>
	<title>Re:Health Care/Social Plan To Fix Everything...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245776040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, you're awesome.  Someone writes a post advocating self-reliance and responsibility, and you want to spit on accident victims.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you 're awesome .
Someone writes a post advocating self-reliance and responsibility , and you want to spit on accident victims .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you're awesome.
Someone writes a post advocating self-reliance and responsibility, and you want to spit on accident victims.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28444429</id>
	<title>The problem with true believers</title>
	<author>mbessey</author>
	<datestamp>1245748500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This applies equally well to any other conspiracy theorists, but I happen to have references handy for the UFO studies...</p><p>The US Government did organize a massive project, collecting data on UFO reports, called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project\_Blue\_Book" title="wikipedia.org">Project Blue Book</a> [wikipedia.org]. The project ran for almost 18 years, collected over 12,000 eyewitness reports, and concluded that UFO sightings likely did not represent visitation by extraterrestrials. The source reports have been made public under FOIA requests (and are readily available on the internet), and generally support the conclusion that the VAST majority of sightings are the result of misidentification of normal phenomena in the skies.</p><p>However, there are those pesky 6\% of the reports which were categorized as "unknown". The UFO enthusiasts tend to see these reports as evidence of alien spacecraft visiting Earth, since the Air Force couldn't come up with a convincing conventional explanation for these reports. The skeptics maintain that the "unknowns" are simple cases of not having enough detail to determine exactly what the witnesses saw. More anecdotal evidence doesn't do much to sway opinion for either group.</p><p>Unfortunately, there's no easy way to prove definitely whether or not any particular UFO report is made up, or a hallucination, or something ordinary that the viewer can't identify, or something really unusual. Lots of nominally reliable witnesses have seen strange lights in the sky, from pilots, to astronomers, to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy\_Carter\_UFO\_Incident" title="wikipedia.org">US Presidents</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>Then there are the claims that Blue Book was simply a disinformation campaign, and that the "real" UFO knowledge is stashed somewhere else. Obviously, there's no way to disprove that the US government is hiding some information somewhere. Unless you're willing to believe in a massive, well-orchestrated conspiracy involving multiple governments though, it's hard to believe that some really compelling evidence wouldn't have leaked somewhere.</p><p>The Wikipedia article on Project Blue Book that I linked to above has lots of links to more information, including the prior projects Sign and Grudge. The "Project Blue Book Archive" at <a href="http://www.bluebookarchive.org/" title="bluebookarchive.org">http://www.bluebookarchive.org/</a> [bluebookarchive.org] looks interesting, but I haven't had a chance to look through it in any detail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This applies equally well to any other conspiracy theorists , but I happen to have references handy for the UFO studies...The US Government did organize a massive project , collecting data on UFO reports , called Project Blue Book [ wikipedia.org ] .
The project ran for almost 18 years , collected over 12,000 eyewitness reports , and concluded that UFO sightings likely did not represent visitation by extraterrestrials .
The source reports have been made public under FOIA requests ( and are readily available on the internet ) , and generally support the conclusion that the VAST majority of sightings are the result of misidentification of normal phenomena in the skies.However , there are those pesky 6 \ % of the reports which were categorized as " unknown " .
The UFO enthusiasts tend to see these reports as evidence of alien spacecraft visiting Earth , since the Air Force could n't come up with a convincing conventional explanation for these reports .
The skeptics maintain that the " unknowns " are simple cases of not having enough detail to determine exactly what the witnesses saw .
More anecdotal evidence does n't do much to sway opinion for either group.Unfortunately , there 's no easy way to prove definitely whether or not any particular UFO report is made up , or a hallucination , or something ordinary that the viewer ca n't identify , or something really unusual .
Lots of nominally reliable witnesses have seen strange lights in the sky , from pilots , to astronomers , to US Presidents [ wikipedia.org ] .Then there are the claims that Blue Book was simply a disinformation campaign , and that the " real " UFO knowledge is stashed somewhere else .
Obviously , there 's no way to disprove that the US government is hiding some information somewhere .
Unless you 're willing to believe in a massive , well-orchestrated conspiracy involving multiple governments though , it 's hard to believe that some really compelling evidence would n't have leaked somewhere.The Wikipedia article on Project Blue Book that I linked to above has lots of links to more information , including the prior projects Sign and Grudge .
The " Project Blue Book Archive " at http : //www.bluebookarchive.org/ [ bluebookarchive.org ] looks interesting , but I have n't had a chance to look through it in any detail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This applies equally well to any other conspiracy theorists, but I happen to have references handy for the UFO studies...The US Government did organize a massive project, collecting data on UFO reports, called Project Blue Book [wikipedia.org].
The project ran for almost 18 years, collected over 12,000 eyewitness reports, and concluded that UFO sightings likely did not represent visitation by extraterrestrials.
The source reports have been made public under FOIA requests (and are readily available on the internet), and generally support the conclusion that the VAST majority of sightings are the result of misidentification of normal phenomena in the skies.However, there are those pesky 6\% of the reports which were categorized as "unknown".
The UFO enthusiasts tend to see these reports as evidence of alien spacecraft visiting Earth, since the Air Force couldn't come up with a convincing conventional explanation for these reports.
The skeptics maintain that the "unknowns" are simple cases of not having enough detail to determine exactly what the witnesses saw.
More anecdotal evidence doesn't do much to sway opinion for either group.Unfortunately, there's no easy way to prove definitely whether or not any particular UFO report is made up, or a hallucination, or something ordinary that the viewer can't identify, or something really unusual.
Lots of nominally reliable witnesses have seen strange lights in the sky, from pilots, to astronomers, to US Presidents [wikipedia.org].Then there are the claims that Blue Book was simply a disinformation campaign, and that the "real" UFO knowledge is stashed somewhere else.
Obviously, there's no way to disprove that the US government is hiding some information somewhere.
Unless you're willing to believe in a massive, well-orchestrated conspiracy involving multiple governments though, it's hard to believe that some really compelling evidence wouldn't have leaked somewhere.The Wikipedia article on Project Blue Book that I linked to above has lots of links to more information, including the prior projects Sign and Grudge.
The "Project Blue Book Archive" at http://www.bluebookarchive.org/ [bluebookarchive.org] looks interesting, but I haven't had a chance to look through it in any detail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437079</id>
	<title>By equivalence of argument...</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1245761040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>btw: I have a friend that used to smoke pot every single day. He is now in a psychiatric hospital with a severe psychosis and paranoia.
If you want to fsck up your brain, do it alone. Don't mislead other people</i> <br>
<br>
There's no way to know if you friend wouldn't have developed psychosis anyway. It's likely that if he had no access to pot, he would have become addicted to another substance. It's also likely that genetic factors have to play.<br>
<br>
By equivalence of argument, alcohol should be banned to, since it's addictive and has horrendous side-effects for chronic use. Stuff like fetal-alcohol syndrome (brain damaged kids), brain damage, and complete degeneration of the individuals life. I have alcohol in my fridge right now, and it gets touched once in a blue moon. For some people, if they touch alcohol, they may as well be injecting heroin. The difference is <i>genetic</i>, and the results are truly sad.<br>
<br>
But we don't ban alcohol, because many people enjoy a little bit every now and again, and it's fine. Same goes for pot.<br>
<br>
Perhaps the situation for people like your friend, is to <i>understand</i> why it happened, and then take proactive steps for other at risk individuals. Understanding is what that brain on the top of you head is for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>btw : I have a friend that used to smoke pot every single day .
He is now in a psychiatric hospital with a severe psychosis and paranoia .
If you want to fsck up your brain , do it alone .
Do n't mislead other people There 's no way to know if you friend would n't have developed psychosis anyway .
It 's likely that if he had no access to pot , he would have become addicted to another substance .
It 's also likely that genetic factors have to play .
By equivalence of argument , alcohol should be banned to , since it 's addictive and has horrendous side-effects for chronic use .
Stuff like fetal-alcohol syndrome ( brain damaged kids ) , brain damage , and complete degeneration of the individuals life .
I have alcohol in my fridge right now , and it gets touched once in a blue moon .
For some people , if they touch alcohol , they may as well be injecting heroin .
The difference is genetic , and the results are truly sad .
But we do n't ban alcohol , because many people enjoy a little bit every now and again , and it 's fine .
Same goes for pot .
Perhaps the situation for people like your friend , is to understand why it happened , and then take proactive steps for other at risk individuals .
Understanding is what that brain on the top of you head is for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>btw: I have a friend that used to smoke pot every single day.
He is now in a psychiatric hospital with a severe psychosis and paranoia.
If you want to fsck up your brain, do it alone.
Don't mislead other people 

There's no way to know if you friend wouldn't have developed psychosis anyway.
It's likely that if he had no access to pot, he would have become addicted to another substance.
It's also likely that genetic factors have to play.
By equivalence of argument, alcohol should be banned to, since it's addictive and has horrendous side-effects for chronic use.
Stuff like fetal-alcohol syndrome (brain damaged kids), brain damage, and complete degeneration of the individuals life.
I have alcohol in my fridge right now, and it gets touched once in a blue moon.
For some people, if they touch alcohol, they may as well be injecting heroin.
The difference is genetic, and the results are truly sad.
But we don't ban alcohol, because many people enjoy a little bit every now and again, and it's fine.
Same goes for pot.
Perhaps the situation for people like your friend, is to understand why it happened, and then take proactive steps for other at risk individuals.
Understanding is what that brain on the top of you head is for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434805</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245692700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your list includes a number of repeats. Clearly the authors were smoking something when they wrote it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your list includes a number of repeats .
Clearly the authors were smoking something when they wrote it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your list includes a number of repeats.
Clearly the authors were smoking something when they wrote it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436007</id>
	<title>Registering</title>
	<author>JimboFBX</author>
	<datestamp>1245747960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>So registering on the site isn't https. I know this isn't credit card information but still, I wonder how many people use the same password for this as they do their email. Too easy to snoop such a high profile web server.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So registering on the site is n't https .
I know this is n't credit card information but still , I wonder how many people use the same password for this as they do their email .
Too easy to snoop such a high profile web server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So registering on the site isn't https.
I know this isn't credit card information but still, I wonder how many people use the same password for this as they do their email.
Too easy to snoop such a high profile web server.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437137</id>
	<title>Vote, n.</title>
	<author>SavvyPlayer</author>
	<datestamp>1245761880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"VOTE, n. The instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country."<br>&#226;" Ambrose Bierce</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" VOTE , n. The instrument and symbol of a freeman 's power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country .
"   " Ambrose Bierce</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"VOTE, n. The instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country.
"â" Ambrose Bierce</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28447321</id>
	<title>Re:Health Care/Social Plan To Fix Everything...</title>
	<author>laddiebuck</author>
	<datestamp>1245761160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>6) There is a fine line between being true to libertarian ideals and being an asshole.</i>
<br> <br>

You're right. Very fine line. In fact, come to think of it, it's so fine I've never seen it at all. I know very few people who are true libertarians and not assholes, largely because to be a true libertarian in the US means failing to think through the results of your chosen policies to their logical conclusions.<br> <br>

Yes, I do know that there are libertarians who do think things through and are not assholes. But they're a very small minority; not even their Presidential candidate in '08 fit that description.</htmltext>
<tokenext>6 ) There is a fine line between being true to libertarian ideals and being an asshole .
You 're right .
Very fine line .
In fact , come to think of it , it 's so fine I 've never seen it at all .
I know very few people who are true libertarians and not assholes , largely because to be a true libertarian in the US means failing to think through the results of your chosen policies to their logical conclusions .
Yes , I do know that there are libertarians who do think things through and are not assholes .
But they 're a very small minority ; not even their Presidential candidate in '08 fit that description .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>6) There is a fine line between being true to libertarian ideals and being an asshole.
You're right.
Very fine line.
In fact, come to think of it, it's so fine I've never seen it at all.
I know very few people who are true libertarians and not assholes, largely because to be a true libertarian in the US means failing to think through the results of your chosen policies to their logical conclusions.
Yes, I do know that there are libertarians who do think things through and are not assholes.
But they're a very small minority; not even their Presidential candidate in '08 fit that description.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28438759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435751</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1245788340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The criminal underground you mention is the biggest reason why it should be legalised. It's a big source of revenue for organised crime, and they can use that revenue to fund bigger projects. It's how the mafia got big during the Prohibition era. Make it legal, for sale in shops in a way similar to strong alcohol, and the criminals get competition from honest businessmen with much lower profit margins.</p><p>And if you're afraid of how people will function in society, weed is less incapacitating than alcohol. How do you deal with drunks in the office? Most people drink only in the weekends or maybe a bit in the evening. The same happens with pot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The criminal underground you mention is the biggest reason why it should be legalised .
It 's a big source of revenue for organised crime , and they can use that revenue to fund bigger projects .
It 's how the mafia got big during the Prohibition era .
Make it legal , for sale in shops in a way similar to strong alcohol , and the criminals get competition from honest businessmen with much lower profit margins.And if you 're afraid of how people will function in society , weed is less incapacitating than alcohol .
How do you deal with drunks in the office ?
Most people drink only in the weekends or maybe a bit in the evening .
The same happens with pot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The criminal underground you mention is the biggest reason why it should be legalised.
It's a big source of revenue for organised crime, and they can use that revenue to fund bigger projects.
It's how the mafia got big during the Prohibition era.
Make it legal, for sale in shops in a way similar to strong alcohol, and the criminals get competition from honest businessmen with much lower profit margins.And if you're afraid of how people will function in society, weed is less incapacitating than alcohol.
How do you deal with drunks in the office?
Most people drink only in the weekends or maybe a bit in the evening.
The same happens with pot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434563</id>
	<title>Repudiation of the birth theories?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245690660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I googled this out of interest.</p><p>Has the theory that the "Certificate of Live Birth" is a forgery been proved false anywhere?</p><p>Based on the images the immediate impression from the pictures is that something IS wrong with the certificate:</p><p>http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/19/image6.jpg<br>http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/19/image10.jpg<br>http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q393/colbstuff/image7.gif</p><p>(Disclaimer: "biased source" is not an argument, as any source positive or even neutral to Obama would obviously not carry this regardless, hence by definition the only possible source would be a biased source)</p><p>I am simply interested in hearing if there are views that justify these differences between Obama's certificate and any other certificate issued in the period based on image analysis. Links would be welcome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I googled this out of interest.Has the theory that the " Certificate of Live Birth " is a forgery been proved false anywhere ? Based on the images the immediate impression from the pictures is that something IS wrong with the certificate : http : //atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.shared/image.html ? /photos/uncategorized/2008/07/19/image6.jpghttp : //atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/19/image10.jpghttp : //i349.photobucket.com/albums/q393/colbstuff/image7.gif ( Disclaimer : " biased source " is not an argument , as any source positive or even neutral to Obama would obviously not carry this regardless , hence by definition the only possible source would be a biased source ) I am simply interested in hearing if there are views that justify these differences between Obama 's certificate and any other certificate issued in the period based on image analysis .
Links would be welcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I googled this out of interest.Has the theory that the "Certificate of Live Birth" is a forgery been proved false anywhere?Based on the images the immediate impression from the pictures is that something IS wrong with the certificate:http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/19/image6.jpghttp://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/19/image10.jpghttp://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q393/colbstuff/image7.gif(Disclaimer: "biased source" is not an argument, as any source positive or even neutral to Obama would obviously not carry this regardless, hence by definition the only possible source would be a biased source)I am simply interested in hearing if there are views that justify these differences between Obama's certificate and any other certificate issued in the period based on image analysis.
Links would be welcome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28444881</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>jvkjvk</author>
	<datestamp>1245750060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>. But the point still stands that weed makes folks do irrational things that can't be explained without assuming addiction. A lot more addiction than cough syrup.</p></div><p>Nope, the point doesn't stand.  First, you must separate physical from psychological addiction.  MJ is not physically addictive.  This has been proven.  Cough syrup is physically addictive.  This has been proven.</p><p>That leaves psychological addiction.  This is a stickier wicket, because we still don't really understand the brain.</p><p>However, using your criteria, we could say that people are addicted to cars.  After all, look at the number of deaths each year!  Look at all the hassle you have to go through to get one (insurance, drivers license, registration, etc).  Look at the price and the ongoing monetary outlays.  Look at the number of arrests!  Yup, all you people with autos must be addicted to them, it's quite irrational.</p><p>Your criteria are meaningless and the inferrences you make from them make <i>you</i> the idiot, not the GP.</p><p>We seem to have been built with a very strong desire to alter our consciousness.  Witness the thousands of years spent refining meditation techniques, Yoga, beer.  Or perhaps just look at little children spinning around in circles.</p><p>Addiction has specific indicators, both physical and psychological.  Only a small percentage of users will ever be psychologically addicted to pot, with none having been shown as physically addicted.</p><p>Perhaps you should do some reading instead of coming to uninformed conclusions.</p><p>Oh wait, this is Slashdot.  Nevermind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
But the point still stands that weed makes folks do irrational things that ca n't be explained without assuming addiction .
A lot more addiction than cough syrup.Nope , the point does n't stand .
First , you must separate physical from psychological addiction .
MJ is not physically addictive .
This has been proven .
Cough syrup is physically addictive .
This has been proven.That leaves psychological addiction .
This is a stickier wicket , because we still do n't really understand the brain.However , using your criteria , we could say that people are addicted to cars .
After all , look at the number of deaths each year !
Look at all the hassle you have to go through to get one ( insurance , drivers license , registration , etc ) .
Look at the price and the ongoing monetary outlays .
Look at the number of arrests !
Yup , all you people with autos must be addicted to them , it 's quite irrational.Your criteria are meaningless and the inferrences you make from them make you the idiot , not the GP.We seem to have been built with a very strong desire to alter our consciousness .
Witness the thousands of years spent refining meditation techniques , Yoga , beer .
Or perhaps just look at little children spinning around in circles.Addiction has specific indicators , both physical and psychological .
Only a small percentage of users will ever be psychologically addicted to pot , with none having been shown as physically addicted.Perhaps you should do some reading instead of coming to uninformed conclusions.Oh wait , this is Slashdot .
Nevermind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
But the point still stands that weed makes folks do irrational things that can't be explained without assuming addiction.
A lot more addiction than cough syrup.Nope, the point doesn't stand.
First, you must separate physical from psychological addiction.
MJ is not physically addictive.
This has been proven.
Cough syrup is physically addictive.
This has been proven.That leaves psychological addiction.
This is a stickier wicket, because we still don't really understand the brain.However, using your criteria, we could say that people are addicted to cars.
After all, look at the number of deaths each year!
Look at all the hassle you have to go through to get one (insurance, drivers license, registration, etc).
Look at the price and the ongoing monetary outlays.
Look at the number of arrests!
Yup, all you people with autos must be addicted to them, it's quite irrational.Your criteria are meaningless and the inferrences you make from them make you the idiot, not the GP.We seem to have been built with a very strong desire to alter our consciousness.
Witness the thousands of years spent refining meditation techniques, Yoga, beer.
Or perhaps just look at little children spinning around in circles.Addiction has specific indicators, both physical and psychological.
Only a small percentage of users will ever be psychologically addicted to pot, with none having been shown as physically addicted.Perhaps you should do some reading instead of coming to uninformed conclusions.Oh wait, this is Slashdot.
Nevermind.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437195</id>
	<title>Re:Second hand smoke?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245762540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your ignorance is showing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your ignorance is showing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your ignorance is showing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28438759</id>
	<title>Re:Health Care/Social Plan To Fix Everything...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245771540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although in general people should be responsible for themselves, there are so many problems with your rant I can't begin to cover them all.<br>
1) Are current model is if you get heart disease without insurance, you have the operation anyway, run up hundreds of thousands in debt, then declare bankruptcy, leaving all the paying health care customers to make up the difference. Good luck with passing a law restricting health care to only those who pay fully in advance!<br>
2) Not all diseases are directly caused by behavior. Some people are genetically predisposed to cancer, diabetes, and even obesity, and will contract diseases no matter how healthy their lifestyle. I'm sorry, but "Born with a congenital medical condition? Well, you should have picked better parents, asshole!" doesn't really cut it.<br>
3) Your philosophy of "do whatever it takes to pay for your own health care" seems to encourage armed robbery, murder, kidnapping, drug dealing... whatever it take to afford it. Faced with committing a crime or dying, most people would choose to do the crime. After all, if they fail, they won't live long in jail anyway.<br>
4) It is human nature to not place a high value on preventative care, and only seek treatment when symptoms start to have a tangible effect on their life. It is in the best interests of all of us to subsidize preventative medicine, e.g. vaccinations. I agree that not all procedures should be subsidized. The Oregon Health Plan sorts all procedures by cost/benefit ratio, then draws a cut line based on available funds. A national health plan would need to do the same; we simply cannot afford to take extraordinary measures to prolong the life of everyone. Note that we already have a system that rations scarce donor organs, e.g. one cannot get a liver transplant if they have a history of alcohol use.<br>
5) Demand curves for medical services are the most inelastic imaginable. The free market simply doesn't work to keep medical costs in check. (When was the last time you heard of someone shopping around for an emergency room?) Individuals paying out of their own pocket must pay whatever the supplier demands. The consumer would be better off with a system in which medical goods and services are purchased in bulk by a large enough player to lean on suppliers and drive costs down, the way Walmart does with everything it sells.<br>
6) There is a fine line between being true to libertarian ideals and being an asshole.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although in general people should be responsible for themselves , there are so many problems with your rant I ca n't begin to cover them all .
1 ) Are current model is if you get heart disease without insurance , you have the operation anyway , run up hundreds of thousands in debt , then declare bankruptcy , leaving all the paying health care customers to make up the difference .
Good luck with passing a law restricting health care to only those who pay fully in advance !
2 ) Not all diseases are directly caused by behavior .
Some people are genetically predisposed to cancer , diabetes , and even obesity , and will contract diseases no matter how healthy their lifestyle .
I 'm sorry , but " Born with a congenital medical condition ?
Well , you should have picked better parents , asshole !
" does n't really cut it .
3 ) Your philosophy of " do whatever it takes to pay for your own health care " seems to encourage armed robbery , murder , kidnapping , drug dealing... whatever it take to afford it .
Faced with committing a crime or dying , most people would choose to do the crime .
After all , if they fail , they wo n't live long in jail anyway .
4 ) It is human nature to not place a high value on preventative care , and only seek treatment when symptoms start to have a tangible effect on their life .
It is in the best interests of all of us to subsidize preventative medicine , e.g .
vaccinations. I agree that not all procedures should be subsidized .
The Oregon Health Plan sorts all procedures by cost/benefit ratio , then draws a cut line based on available funds .
A national health plan would need to do the same ; we simply can not afford to take extraordinary measures to prolong the life of everyone .
Note that we already have a system that rations scarce donor organs , e.g .
one can not get a liver transplant if they have a history of alcohol use .
5 ) Demand curves for medical services are the most inelastic imaginable .
The free market simply does n't work to keep medical costs in check .
( When was the last time you heard of someone shopping around for an emergency room ?
) Individuals paying out of their own pocket must pay whatever the supplier demands .
The consumer would be better off with a system in which medical goods and services are purchased in bulk by a large enough player to lean on suppliers and drive costs down , the way Walmart does with everything it sells .
6 ) There is a fine line between being true to libertarian ideals and being an asshole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although in general people should be responsible for themselves, there are so many problems with your rant I can't begin to cover them all.
1) Are current model is if you get heart disease without insurance, you have the operation anyway, run up hundreds of thousands in debt, then declare bankruptcy, leaving all the paying health care customers to make up the difference.
Good luck with passing a law restricting health care to only those who pay fully in advance!
2) Not all diseases are directly caused by behavior.
Some people are genetically predisposed to cancer, diabetes, and even obesity, and will contract diseases no matter how healthy their lifestyle.
I'm sorry, but "Born with a congenital medical condition?
Well, you should have picked better parents, asshole!
" doesn't really cut it.
3) Your philosophy of "do whatever it takes to pay for your own health care" seems to encourage armed robbery, murder, kidnapping, drug dealing... whatever it take to afford it.
Faced with committing a crime or dying, most people would choose to do the crime.
After all, if they fail, they won't live long in jail anyway.
4) It is human nature to not place a high value on preventative care, and only seek treatment when symptoms start to have a tangible effect on their life.
It is in the best interests of all of us to subsidize preventative medicine, e.g.
vaccinations. I agree that not all procedures should be subsidized.
The Oregon Health Plan sorts all procedures by cost/benefit ratio, then draws a cut line based on available funds.
A national health plan would need to do the same; we simply cannot afford to take extraordinary measures to prolong the life of everyone.
Note that we already have a system that rations scarce donor organs, e.g.
one cannot get a liver transplant if they have a history of alcohol use.
5) Demand curves for medical services are the most inelastic imaginable.
The free market simply doesn't work to keep medical costs in check.
(When was the last time you heard of someone shopping around for an emergency room?
) Individuals paying out of their own pocket must pay whatever the supplier demands.
The consumer would be better off with a system in which medical goods and services are purchased in bulk by a large enough player to lean on suppliers and drive costs down, the way Walmart does with everything it sells.
6) There is a fine line between being true to libertarian ideals and being an asshole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434907</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245693720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>One only has to look to your first lie to see you don't know a thing about marijuana. THC kills off bad cells before they become cancerous. Marijuana does not cause cancer.
<br> <br>
Decreased social inhibitions? Yeah, Harry Anslinger said smoking marijuana would cause white women to sleep with black men. Today people simply suggest it makes you do bad things. Neither are true.
<br> <br>
Paranoia. Until you legalize it, all the paranoia comes from the fact you can get arrested with it. Once you're beyond that phase, you don't experience the paranoia.
<br> <br>
Impairments. You're likely pulling this trash from Partnership for a Drug Free America, which is funded by alcohol companies. Either that or you're invoking the stereotype, of stoners barely able to communicate coherently due to the dumbing down effect of marijuana, which doesn't exist.
<br> <br>
I'm still waiting for the intense anxiety and panic attacks. I call FUD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One only has to look to your first lie to see you do n't know a thing about marijuana .
THC kills off bad cells before they become cancerous .
Marijuana does not cause cancer .
Decreased social inhibitions ?
Yeah , Harry Anslinger said smoking marijuana would cause white women to sleep with black men .
Today people simply suggest it makes you do bad things .
Neither are true .
Paranoia. Until you legalize it , all the paranoia comes from the fact you can get arrested with it .
Once you 're beyond that phase , you do n't experience the paranoia .
Impairments. You 're likely pulling this trash from Partnership for a Drug Free America , which is funded by alcohol companies .
Either that or you 're invoking the stereotype , of stoners barely able to communicate coherently due to the dumbing down effect of marijuana , which does n't exist .
I 'm still waiting for the intense anxiety and panic attacks .
I call FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One only has to look to your first lie to see you don't know a thing about marijuana.
THC kills off bad cells before they become cancerous.
Marijuana does not cause cancer.
Decreased social inhibitions?
Yeah, Harry Anslinger said smoking marijuana would cause white women to sleep with black men.
Today people simply suggest it makes you do bad things.
Neither are true.
Paranoia. Until you legalize it, all the paranoia comes from the fact you can get arrested with it.
Once you're beyond that phase, you don't experience the paranoia.
Impairments. You're likely pulling this trash from Partnership for a Drug Free America, which is funded by alcohol companies.
Either that or you're invoking the stereotype, of stoners barely able to communicate coherently due to the dumbing down effect of marijuana, which doesn't exist.
I'm still waiting for the intense anxiety and panic attacks.
I call FUD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434857</id>
	<title>Why are people so difficult?</title>
	<author>Korey Kaczor</author>
	<datestamp>1245693120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The irony of this is, twofold:  One, this is the administration that that had added a huge increase to tobacco taxes, and these people think that the government is actually going to legalize marijuana?  Hah hah hah!  Good one.
<br> <br>
Two, it's just sad that our country's main concern is legalizing some drug that's major benefit is to get people high.  While marijuana has a lot of medical uses, and banning it is pointless, it's just pathetic that nobody cares about inflation, an overzealous foreign policy, the sick demented system of child "protection" services ruined to scam parents and ruin the family, the court system being a guilty-until-proven-innocent fiasco where the court orders you to prove your innocence and you have to pay for court costs, drugs tests, psych exams, and etc. to prove your innocence, and freedom from censorship.  Nope, us Americans gotta have our weed!  Gotta get high so we won't have any other problems to worry about, just pretend they don't exist with a nice pipe in front of us.
<br> <br>
I guess there is also a third point of irony: Weed stupifies you, you'd think the government would favor deregulating it so they could tax it to the sky's limit and get more money off of you that way, while having a bunch of people too high to care about the other rights the government keeps taking away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The irony of this is , twofold : One , this is the administration that that had added a huge increase to tobacco taxes , and these people think that the government is actually going to legalize marijuana ?
Hah hah hah !
Good one .
Two , it 's just sad that our country 's main concern is legalizing some drug that 's major benefit is to get people high .
While marijuana has a lot of medical uses , and banning it is pointless , it 's just pathetic that nobody cares about inflation , an overzealous foreign policy , the sick demented system of child " protection " services ruined to scam parents and ruin the family , the court system being a guilty-until-proven-innocent fiasco where the court orders you to prove your innocence and you have to pay for court costs , drugs tests , psych exams , and etc .
to prove your innocence , and freedom from censorship .
Nope , us Americans got ta have our weed !
Got ta get high so we wo n't have any other problems to worry about , just pretend they do n't exist with a nice pipe in front of us .
I guess there is also a third point of irony : Weed stupifies you , you 'd think the government would favor deregulating it so they could tax it to the sky 's limit and get more money off of you that way , while having a bunch of people too high to care about the other rights the government keeps taking away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The irony of this is, twofold:  One, this is the administration that that had added a huge increase to tobacco taxes, and these people think that the government is actually going to legalize marijuana?
Hah hah hah!
Good one.
Two, it's just sad that our country's main concern is legalizing some drug that's major benefit is to get people high.
While marijuana has a lot of medical uses, and banning it is pointless, it's just pathetic that nobody cares about inflation, an overzealous foreign policy, the sick demented system of child "protection" services ruined to scam parents and ruin the family, the court system being a guilty-until-proven-innocent fiasco where the court orders you to prove your innocence and you have to pay for court costs, drugs tests, psych exams, and etc.
to prove your innocence, and freedom from censorship.
Nope, us Americans gotta have our weed!
Gotta get high so we won't have any other problems to worry about, just pretend they don't exist with a nice pipe in front of us.
I guess there is also a third point of irony: Weed stupifies you, you'd think the government would favor deregulating it so they could tax it to the sky's limit and get more money off of you that way, while having a bunch of people too high to care about the other rights the government keeps taking away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435119</id>
	<title>Amazing, isn't it? ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245695520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Three of the top 10 most popular ideas called for legalizing marijuana, and two featured conspiracy theories about Mr. Obama's true place of birth.'"</p></div><p>What a great country the US is (and I mean it sincerely) considering the nearly three hundred million idiots that inhabit it</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Three of the top 10 most popular ideas called for legalizing marijuana , and two featured conspiracy theories about Mr. Obama 's true place of birth .
' " What a great country the US is ( and I mean it sincerely ) considering the nearly three hundred million idiots that inhabit it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Three of the top 10 most popular ideas called for legalizing marijuana, and two featured conspiracy theories about Mr. Obama's true place of birth.
'"What a great country the US is (and I mean it sincerely) considering the nearly three hundred million idiots that inhabit it
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437103</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1245761460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, wasn't cannabis banned on behest of the wood and cotton lobbies who wanted to get rid of hemp? IIRC that was one of the reasons why Hearst campaigned against it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , was n't cannabis banned on behest of the wood and cotton lobbies who wanted to get rid of hemp ?
IIRC that was one of the reasons why Hearst campaigned against it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, wasn't cannabis banned on behest of the wood and cotton lobbies who wanted to get rid of hemp?
IIRC that was one of the reasons why Hearst campaigned against it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437239</id>
	<title>The people have spoken!</title>
	<author>FatLittleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1245762900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>America wants to read their new president's long-form birth certificate and college transcripts, stoned.</htmltext>
<tokenext>America wants to read their new president 's long-form birth certificate and college transcripts , stoned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America wants to read their new president's long-form birth certificate and college transcripts, stoned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437379</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1245763920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't really see the Constitutional mandate behind regulating substances in the first place (yes, yes, the commerce clause).   I agree that the FDA is a useful thing, but surely we'd be 90\% to solving the problem if we passed a law with the following statement:<blockquote><div><p>The possession, sale, transport, or other use of a substance within a state shall not be subject to Federal prosecution or penalty if such act is not considered unlawful by that state's legislature.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Each state could patch the FDA's guidelines as it saw fit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really see the Constitutional mandate behind regulating substances in the first place ( yes , yes , the commerce clause ) .
I agree that the FDA is a useful thing , but surely we 'd be 90 \ % to solving the problem if we passed a law with the following statement : The possession , sale , transport , or other use of a substance within a state shall not be subject to Federal prosecution or penalty if such act is not considered unlawful by that state 's legislature .
Each state could patch the FDA 's guidelines as it saw fit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really see the Constitutional mandate behind regulating substances in the first place (yes, yes, the commerce clause).
I agree that the FDA is a useful thing, but surely we'd be 90\% to solving the problem if we passed a law with the following statement:The possession, sale, transport, or other use of a substance within a state shall not be subject to Federal prosecution or penalty if such act is not considered unlawful by that state's legislature.
Each state could patch the FDA's guidelines as it saw fit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28441991</id>
	<title>Re:Health Care/Social Plan To Fix Everything...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245783360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah thats all and good, except it does not work, because it drives out doctors and overwhelms the ones already there.  Both of my UK grandparent died on wait lists for simple operations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah thats all and good , except it does not work , because it drives out doctors and overwhelms the ones already there .
Both of my UK grandparent died on wait lists for simple operations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah thats all and good, except it does not work, because it drives out doctors and overwhelms the ones already there.
Both of my UK grandparent died on wait lists for simple operations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28450691</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>metaforest</author>
	<datestamp>1245843540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>silly rabbit.   Nothing can be banned in the US system of law.  So a tax is imposed similar to the tobacco tax where a stamp is issued for the sale.   However in the case of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937\_Marihuana\_Tax\_Act" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937\_Marihuana\_Tax\_Act</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>NO STAMP WAS EVER ISSUED, and NO PROVISION WAS MADE TO ISSUE IT!</p><p>production and sale of Cannabis Hemp at the federal level is a tax crime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>silly rabbit .
Nothing can be banned in the US system of law .
So a tax is imposed similar to the tobacco tax where a stamp is issued for the sale .
However in the case of http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937 \ _Marihuana \ _Tax \ _Act [ wikipedia.org ] NO STAMP WAS EVER ISSUED , and NO PROVISION WAS MADE TO ISSUE IT ! production and sale of Cannabis Hemp at the federal level is a tax crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>silly rabbit.
Nothing can be banned in the US system of law.
So a tax is imposed similar to the tobacco tax where a stamp is issued for the sale.
However in the case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937\_Marihuana\_Tax\_Act [wikipedia.org]NO STAMP WAS EVER ISSUED, and NO PROVISION WAS MADE TO ISSUE IT!production and sale of Cannabis Hemp at the federal level is a tax crime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434813</id>
	<title>Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245692760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.  See the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] by CNN.
<p>
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.  These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).  Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.  So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.  Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.  In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.
</p><p>
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.  At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
</p><p>
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.  That claim is an outright lie.  Look at the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NCDEM" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.  Consider the case of North Carolina.  Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.  Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.  Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.  Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
</p><p>
Here is the bottom line.  Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.  He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
</p><p>
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.  Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.  Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.  Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.  You need not defend your actions in any way.  Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During the election , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
See the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] by CNN .
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics , Asian-Americans , etc .
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites ( and other non-Black folks ) .
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian .
So , Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and , hence , serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern .
Only about 65 \ % of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama .
In other words , a maximum of 65 \ % support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and , hence , is acceptable .
If African-Americans were not racist , then at most 65 \ % of them would have supported Obama .
At that level of support , McCain would have won the presidential race .
At this point , African-American supremacists ( and apologists ) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he ( 1 ) is a member of the Democratic party and ( 2 ) supports its ideals .
That claim is an outright lie .
Look at the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] for the Democratic primaries .
Consider the case of North Carolina .
Again , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton .
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats , and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical .
Yet , 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton .
Why ? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
Here is the bottom line .
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America .
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans .
African-Americans have established that expressing " racial pride " by voting on the basis of skin color is 100 \ % acceptable .
Neither the " Wall Street Journal " nor the " New York Times " complained about this racist behavior .
Therefore , in future elections , please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color .
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American .
You need not defend your actions in any way .
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by the standards of today 's moral values .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.
So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.
Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.
In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.
At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.
That claim is an outright lie.
Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.
Consider the case of North Carolina.
Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.
Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.
Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line.
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.
Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.
Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.
You need not defend your actions in any way.
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437063</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1245760800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Says who?</p><p>Typical Marijuana Side Effects:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Enhanced cancer risk</p></div><p>That's not even true. Stop spreading FUD, you tool.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Says who ? Typical Marijuana Side Effects :         * Enhanced cancer riskThat 's not even true .
Stop spreading FUD , you tool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Says who?Typical Marijuana Side Effects:
        * Enhanced cancer riskThat's not even true.
Stop spreading FUD, you tool.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28440029</id>
	<title>Re:Health Care/Social Plan To Fix Everything...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245776520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If it was simply an issue of not being able to afford it, well then: perhaps you should have made more money. You should have studied harder in school, you should have found better employment.</p></div></blockquote><p>You left out the most important one: you should have been born into a wealthier family.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was simply an issue of not being able to afford it , well then : perhaps you should have made more money .
You should have studied harder in school , you should have found better employment.You left out the most important one : you should have been born into a wealthier family .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was simply an issue of not being able to afford it, well then: perhaps you should have made more money.
You should have studied harder in school, you should have found better employment.You left out the most important one: you should have been born into a wealthier family.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28448047</id>
	<title>How about that IG Law?</title>
	<author>smitty\_one\_each</author>
	<datestamp>1245766980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sort of a shame the Administration can't follow laws sponsored by the POTUS when he was a mere Senator.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sort of a shame the Administration ca n't follow laws sponsored by the POTUS when he was a mere Senator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sort of a shame the Administration can't follow laws sponsored by the POTUS when he was a mere Senator.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434725</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245692040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>There is no way you can argue for marijuana to not be legalized by a purely financial standpoint.</p></div><p>The evidence strongly suggests that regular use of marijuana impairs short-term memory, amongst other things. It continues to effect the person for days or weeks, unlike many other kinds of drugs. I'm not good enough with statistics to venture a guess on the impact on productivity at a societal level, but I'm confident it would dwarf the DEA's budget. Are you really that sure that the tax revenue and private sector profits would outweigh that loss?</p></div><p>Like most people, you are severely misinformed about marijuana. There is no effect on short term memory after intoxication has passed, usually less than a few hours. If you research the study that claims marijuana causes brain damage it's just a bunch of B.S. They pumped strait marijuana smoke into a mask, worn by a monkey, without additional oxygen. After five minutes the brain cells began to die. Marijuana didn't cause the brain damage, suffocation did.</p><p>Some studies even suggest that THC stimulates brain cell growth.</p><p>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8155-marijuana-might-cause-new-cell-growth-in-the-brain.html</p><p>You may find this site of Marijuana Myths interesting to read.</p><p>http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no way you can argue for marijuana to not be legalized by a purely financial standpoint.The evidence strongly suggests that regular use of marijuana impairs short-term memory , amongst other things .
It continues to effect the person for days or weeks , unlike many other kinds of drugs .
I 'm not good enough with statistics to venture a guess on the impact on productivity at a societal level , but I 'm confident it would dwarf the DEA 's budget .
Are you really that sure that the tax revenue and private sector profits would outweigh that loss ? Like most people , you are severely misinformed about marijuana .
There is no effect on short term memory after intoxication has passed , usually less than a few hours .
If you research the study that claims marijuana causes brain damage it 's just a bunch of B.S .
They pumped strait marijuana smoke into a mask , worn by a monkey , without additional oxygen .
After five minutes the brain cells began to die .
Marijuana did n't cause the brain damage , suffocation did.Some studies even suggest that THC stimulates brain cell growth.http : //www.newscientist.com/article/dn8155-marijuana-might-cause-new-cell-growth-in-the-brain.htmlYou may find this site of Marijuana Myths interesting to read.http : //www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no way you can argue for marijuana to not be legalized by a purely financial standpoint.The evidence strongly suggests that regular use of marijuana impairs short-term memory, amongst other things.
It continues to effect the person for days or weeks, unlike many other kinds of drugs.
I'm not good enough with statistics to venture a guess on the impact on productivity at a societal level, but I'm confident it would dwarf the DEA's budget.
Are you really that sure that the tax revenue and private sector profits would outweigh that loss?Like most people, you are severely misinformed about marijuana.
There is no effect on short term memory after intoxication has passed, usually less than a few hours.
If you research the study that claims marijuana causes brain damage it's just a bunch of B.S.
They pumped strait marijuana smoke into a mask, worn by a monkey, without additional oxygen.
After five minutes the brain cells began to die.
Marijuana didn't cause the brain damage, suffocation did.Some studies even suggest that THC stimulates brain cell growth.http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8155-marijuana-might-cause-new-cell-growth-in-the-brain.htmlYou may find this site of Marijuana Myths interesting to read.http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437977</id>
	<title>Re:Legalize it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245767640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I, for one, think that our cops are smart enough to learn how to do a simple field test. </i></p><p>Can we get a +1 funny on this please?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , think that our cops are smart enough to learn how to do a simple field test .
Can we get a + 1 funny on this please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, think that our cops are smart enough to learn how to do a simple field test.
Can we get a +1 funny on this please?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434997</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245694500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Paranoia, hallucinations</p></div><p>Speaking as someone who's gotten so stoned they forgot they existed, I highly doubt it's possible to hallucinate on weed. The closest thing to a hallucination I ever experience is that mental images become very vivid- admittedly, sometimes as vivid as actual eyesight if I close my eyes, but I have never once confused something in my mind's eye with reality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Paranoia , hallucinationsSpeaking as someone who 's gotten so stoned they forgot they existed , I highly doubt it 's possible to hallucinate on weed .
The closest thing to a hallucination I ever experience is that mental images become very vivid- admittedly , sometimes as vivid as actual eyesight if I close my eyes , but I have never once confused something in my mind 's eye with reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paranoia, hallucinationsSpeaking as someone who's gotten so stoned they forgot they existed, I highly doubt it's possible to hallucinate on weed.
The closest thing to a hallucination I ever experience is that mental images become very vivid- admittedly, sometimes as vivid as actual eyesight if I close my eyes, but I have never once confused something in my mind's eye with reality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28456063</id>
	<title>Re:I believe</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245871140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm one of those alien believer nutjobs.</i></p><p>Me, too. Hell, we have a whole country full of aliens to the north, and another whole country full of aliens to the south. I have a friend who just divorced her alien husband, who's in the US military in Afghanistan. It, too, is full of aliens.</p><p>Now, if you mean space aliens, the ISS is full of 'em.</p><p>But if you mean "creatures from another planet", sorry, I'm a skeptic - you've been watching too much Star Trek. I've seen the Roswell Aliens dissection video, think about it - do you really believe that on a completely alien envoronment, you'll have creatures evolve that look anything like us? Most creatures on earth look nothing like us, and in all probability the different species evolved from the same primary organism.</p><p>If anything (and I don't believe this either), they're not space aliens, but time aliens. Homo Sapiens has only been on this planet 100,000 years. What will we have evolved into ten million years in the future? We've only harnessed elecrricity in the last couple of centuries, and broken many barriers that were once thought unbreakable.</p><p>If these "aliens" do exist (and again, I don't believe they do), it's more likely they're achaeologists sent back in time to study we primitive pre-xgarg creatures.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm one of those alien believer nutjobs.Me , too .
Hell , we have a whole country full of aliens to the north , and another whole country full of aliens to the south .
I have a friend who just divorced her alien husband , who 's in the US military in Afghanistan .
It , too , is full of aliens.Now , if you mean space aliens , the ISS is full of 'em.But if you mean " creatures from another planet " , sorry , I 'm a skeptic - you 've been watching too much Star Trek .
I 've seen the Roswell Aliens dissection video , think about it - do you really believe that on a completely alien envoronment , you 'll have creatures evolve that look anything like us ?
Most creatures on earth look nothing like us , and in all probability the different species evolved from the same primary organism.If anything ( and I do n't believe this either ) , they 're not space aliens , but time aliens .
Homo Sapiens has only been on this planet 100,000 years .
What will we have evolved into ten million years in the future ?
We 've only harnessed elecrricity in the last couple of centuries , and broken many barriers that were once thought unbreakable.If these " aliens " do exist ( and again , I do n't believe they do ) , it 's more likely they 're achaeologists sent back in time to study we primitive pre-xgarg creatures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm one of those alien believer nutjobs.Me, too.
Hell, we have a whole country full of aliens to the north, and another whole country full of aliens to the south.
I have a friend who just divorced her alien husband, who's in the US military in Afghanistan.
It, too, is full of aliens.Now, if you mean space aliens, the ISS is full of 'em.But if you mean "creatures from another planet", sorry, I'm a skeptic - you've been watching too much Star Trek.
I've seen the Roswell Aliens dissection video, think about it - do you really believe that on a completely alien envoronment, you'll have creatures evolve that look anything like us?
Most creatures on earth look nothing like us, and in all probability the different species evolved from the same primary organism.If anything (and I don't believe this either), they're not space aliens, but time aliens.
Homo Sapiens has only been on this planet 100,000 years.
What will we have evolved into ten million years in the future?
We've only harnessed elecrricity in the last couple of centuries, and broken many barriers that were once thought unbreakable.If these "aliens" do exist (and again, I don't believe they do), it's more likely they're achaeologists sent back in time to study we primitive pre-xgarg creatures.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434147</id>
	<title>Re:Really??</title>
	<author>zendog</author>
	<datestamp>1245688020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dealing with one thing doesn't preclude dealing with the other.s There's actually surprisingly little overlap between domestic law enforcement and things like fiscal and foreign policy, health care, public works and education.

<p>
See under: Walking, Chewing Gum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dealing with one thing does n't preclude dealing with the other.s There 's actually surprisingly little overlap between domestic law enforcement and things like fiscal and foreign policy , health care , public works and education .
See under : Walking , Chewing Gum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dealing with one thing doesn't preclude dealing with the other.s There's actually surprisingly little overlap between domestic law enforcement and things like fiscal and foreign policy, health care, public works and education.
See under: Walking, Chewing Gum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28490435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28444881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28445039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28440511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28440517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28439847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28456063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28440029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28442747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28439731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28438673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28438655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28450933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28439205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28455531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28438759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28447321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28444429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28450691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28467337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28441991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28456151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28450767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28446181
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28462023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28454093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28439907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28439967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_0019219_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_0019219.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433953
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437523
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435155
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28439967
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28454093
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28440517
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28439205
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435751
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28446181
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28438673
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28444881
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435943
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434447
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28490435
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434271
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435847
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28450691
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28438655
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436879
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28439847
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437643
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437977
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436299
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437649
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437377
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437103
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437511
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_0019219.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434159
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435347
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437585
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437343
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28462023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_0019219.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28456063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28442747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28444429
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_0019219.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434539
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_0019219.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433967
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28439731
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28450767
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434277
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435109
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28455531
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434965
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434725
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434245
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434571
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434231
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28433981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434021
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436091
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434997
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435715
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437079
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435865
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437213
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434805
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434473
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435645
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435417
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434907
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437063
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436613
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434147
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_0019219.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434589
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_0019219.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28456151
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_0019219.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28467337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28450933
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_0019219.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28445039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28437195
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_0019219.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28440029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435577
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28441991
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28440511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28434915
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435583
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435791
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28439907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28438759
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28447321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28435211
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_0019219.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_0019219.28436007
</commentlist>
</conversation>
