You want fries with that strip search?

[brammy]

10-1 the server at Taco Bell was stoned. Pot in the old days (60s & early 70s) was bad enough ... it killed brain cells and, quite literally, made you stupider than you would be otherwise.

But pot these days is so much stronger as to be a different animal altogether, and is a VERY dangerous and destructive drug.

http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm

And for the record, the USofA is not a "democracy". It is a constitutional representative republic that uses democratic processes. As Dane correctly pointed out, democracy does not work. Just as the girl deserted on an island with 4 other guys.

[johnallg]

Not stoned, just challenged by life. Ge was in his mid 30s, his wife was the previous customer (equally challenged), and he screwed her order up also.

I do not mean mentally retarded either. Just really slow or thick. We used to call it dumb. As I said above, I walked away sad and felling sorry for the guy.

Also, I can't imagine stronger pot than what we got back in the early 70s.

[shamustwin]

I noticed, Kent, that the pot info you linked us to is of the Regan era.

I've heard lately that pot is good at alieviating anxiety and can successfully substitute the drugs normally prescibed for it.

I suppose some folks smoke it not to get stoned, but to slightly switch gears. That's what I hear, anyway.

[lyle_from_minneapolis]

Can't wait to hear Dane's response to the marijuana article, LOL!

I notice it assumes there are zero benefits. I would also argue that, as far as "effects" go, there is at least one missing element beyond red eyes, sore lungs and certain death.

Can't remember what it is, though...

[brammy]

Reagan era or not, facts are facts. I puffed my share from the late 60's into the mid/late 70's (and DID inhale). I remember when the very strong stuff started to come in in the 70's(Sinsemilla to start with and stronger stuff after that). The fact is that the stuff today is much stronger than the stuff we were smoking back then. So much so that we could, and should, think of it as a different animal altogether. It is VERY destructive, especially to younger minds. .... sorry if this seems like a rant, but this one hits close to home for me. As for the law, I'm a slightly libertarian on this. I dont think it should be criminalized to the extent that it is and if an adult wants to literally stupify him or herself, go right ahead. However, if that person gives stuff to my underage son, that person WILL regret it, I assure you.

"THC potency has increased since the 1970s but has been about the same since the mid-1980s." (2001)
http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/marijuana-information.htm

THC content of marijuana, which averaged less than 1 percent in 1974, rose to an average 4 percent by 1994. (1999)
http://www.acde.org/common/Marijana.htm

[lyle_from_minneapolis]

No wonder it costs so much more!

I hear you, Brammy. No arguments from me because it's one of those topics that polarize, like Hillary Clinton or Jesse Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken. But I would also direct your attention to the insidious addictive nature of "Dancing With The Stars." Even worse!

[brammy]

oh yes, far worse.

The conundrum here is that likely the only tolerable way to watch that show would be after a large dose of THC.

[johnallg]

"The conundrum here is that likely the only tolerable way to watch that show would be after a large dose of THC."

Sh*t, I just fell out of my chair!

[lyle_from_minneapolis]

Wasted time indeed!

[wayang]

Say it loud: I'm back and I'm plowed!

Not really...I'm currently under the influence of caffeine and nicotine, nothing more. I'll be rectifying that state of affairs in a bit...

Now then, to business...Brammy, Brammy, Brammy...we've been over this. Carl Sagan, Mike Wallace, George Washington, Ben Franklin...even your boys Lennon and McCartney: all hemp heads, yet you persist with these 'ideas' concerning brain cell killing and pot making one 'stupider' than one might already be. (News flash: 'stupider' is not a word.) So some poor bozo in a paper hat couldn't get John's order right...this does not constitute grounds for condemning the guy as a pot smoker, nor does it provide evidence for condemning pot as a 'stupifier'. How would you like it if I called you a pot smoker every time you misspelled a word? Not fair to you and not fair to that lovely herb...

There's a lot of information available concerning this ancient friend of humanity...I wouldn't trust government publications (especially ones that were published during a time when a completely organically brain-addled individual was running the store) to give you the straight story. For (what will undoubtedly not be) the last time: smoking cannabis does not destroy human brain cells. There is evidence currently coming to light that smoking pot may stave off Alzheimer's disease...but I'm sure Nancy Reagan doesn't want to hear about it...

[octagon]

U.S. jury awards $6.1 million to woman in McDonald's strip-search hoax

The Associated Press Published: October 5th 2007

SHEPHERDSVILLE, Kentucky: A jury in Kentucky awarded $6.1 million (€4.32 million) Friday to a woman who said she was forced to strip and perform sex acts in a McDonald's back office at the behest of a caller posing as a police officer.

Louise Ogborn, 21, sued the fast-food giant, accusing it of failing to warn her and other employees about the hoaxer, who had already struck other McDonald's stores and other fast-food restaurants across the United States.

Ogborn, who had been seeking $200 million from McDonald's Corp. said she was forced to undress, endure a strip search, and perform sex acts on herself and her then-assistant manager's fiance in the restaurant's back office. The events were captured on surveillance video, which was shown to jurors during the trial.

McDonald's said Ogborn is responsible for whatever damages she suffered for not realizing it was a hoax.

Ogborn hugged relatives after the verdict was read.

"Louise has stood up for what happened to her and what McDonald's failed to do for three-and-a-half years, and this jury just vindicated her completely," said her attorney, Ann Oldfather.

McDonald's is evaluating whether to appeal the decision, a spokesman said.

"While we are disappointed with the verdict, we remain vigilant in our efforts to protect our employees and provide them with a safe and respectful workplace," said William Whitman, a spokesman for McDonald's USA.

The jury — eight women and four men — said McDonald's should pay Ogden $5 million (€3.54 million) in punitive damages and awarded her another $1.1 million (€780,000) in compensatory damages and expenses, though they found that the unidentified caller was partially to blame.

Ogborn, who was 18 at the time of the incident, accused the company of negligence leading up to the events in April 2004, when she was detained for 3 1/2 hours.

The caller to the restaurant in Mount Washington impersonated a police officer and gave a description of a young, female employee, accusing her of stealing from a customer. The caller gave instructions for a strip search, which led to the incident and the lawsuit.

A former assistant manager, Donna Summers, was placed on probation for a misdemeanor conviction in relation to the incident. Her former fiance, Walter Nix Jr., is serving five years in prison for sexually abusing Ogborn during the search.

A Florida man, David Stewart, was charged with making the hoax phone call but acquitted last summer. Police have said the calls stopped after Stewart's arrest.

[brammy]

6 mil????

where do I sign up?