Today's Poll: Should 'synthetic marijuana' be outlawed in New York?

No, the Government has no right to tell me what I can and can't do to my own body as an adult, My rights only end where damage to another person begins. I fail to see why we prosecute for consensual crimes at all. Educate people of the danger of products, and not outlaw them over fear of the use. Making something illegal does not make it go away.

Unfortunately Cj, people who use drugs cause harm mostly to themselves but, you still have those knuckleheads who still endanger the public when they operate motor vehicles or become violent and harm others etc…. I know, “That’s not me or I am more responsible than that!” It is like when you go to a bar and you drink and then drive home. Bar owners are responsible for the safety of their customers and are suppose to cut someone off when they had too much to drink. Money is money and most bars do not enforce that policy. The fact remains for this “SPICE” it is something the government should control. It states on the packets “Not for Human Consumption!” So, when one abuses product, then it should be control. Beside, one may be harming oneself but, they still cost taxpayers money for emergency services because, of their stupidity. So, why should society have to pay for stupidity because, others feel they need a narcotic to escape reality.

Creating a new black market for a drug that only exists because of the old black market we created for another drug is sort of a stupid idea.

It is a waste of the taxpayers resources to try to control the habits of people particularly when they are not harming anyone, legalize and tax pot.

Legalize real marajuana and there wont be a market for the synthectic.

The criminalization of drugs has cost this nation more money and heartache than any other crime. If we went by the principle of some people will hurt other people so we should ban it, then things like alcohol, cigerettes, weapons of any kind, cars, kitchen utensils, baseball bats, hockey sticks, cleaning supplies, etc...should all be illegal. Bad people will do bad things. Good people make mistakes. By creating more laws, you create more criminals, but rarely do you create solutions.

It becomes my business when you are lying in a hopital dying from a disease caused by ingesting some God awful substance and I, as a taxpayer, am picking up the bills through NYS Medicaid. Your body is a temple, respect it and treat it well. It has to last a life time!

HMMMM, I am guessing there is a large number of "Potheads" in Batavia, lol. Anyways you are all missing the point. Making a law to ban a product that is "NOT" meant for Human Consumption (KEYPHRASE GENTLEMEN), is justified. Now using your comment on alcohol, cigarettes, blah blah blah, is just stupid! There are major differences. The keyword is Natural. If, people are abusing products, they are wrong. As far as war on drugs costing taxpayers money, well that is because, we have a lot dumasses who keep buying illegal drugs.

Oh, this should be fun. Let's make a list of optional activities that, if performed irresponsibly, can cause a person to end up in the emergency room and ostensibly cost Mr. Hunt some tax dollars:

Driving
Drinking alcohol
Unprotected sex
Skiing
Playing contact sports
Cooking
Do-it-yourself home improvements
Skateboarding
Jogging
Arguing with prohibitionist Puritans on the internet. (blood pressure related)

Anyone have some more?

Eating (choking hazard).

Going up and/or down stairs recklessly.

Showering - slippery surfaces.

Using hair dryer/curling iron…burns, electrocution, frustration.

Treadmill or other dangerous exercise.

Knitting or other needle-related activities.

Its not about " pottheads' its about making stupid puritan laws to protect ourselves from ourselves.and there would not be a " war on drugs if the drugs were not illegal.

So we should ban fast foods, high colesterol foods, etc.etc.. Overweight people cost us money as well. Where do we draw the line?

Frank,
The food police already are trying to ban fast food, so you are not too far off the mark.

Don't forget the brilliant David Patterson's soda tax and nudie bar tax. The question as always is where does it end? As Frank already wrote

Chris, it seems you have difficutly differentiating between normal human activities, yes they can be dangerous, and purposely ingesting or injectibg potentially harmful substances to alter ones perception of reality.

TP, sorry to break this to you, but smoking pot is a pretty normal human activity. A significant percentage of the population smokes or has smoked marijuana and a large portion of those people do so on a regular basis.

Drinking alcohol is a normal human behavior as well. Want to play that game where we contrast the dangers of the two?

I am surprise NYS doesn't legalize marijuana. Could you imagine the tax dollars they would earn, lmao? What are cigarettes at in price now? You can control the use of marijuana like alcohol.

So Phil, "By creating more laws, you create more criminals, but rarely do you create solutions." So, what would be your solution? Would you legalize cocaine, LSD, Marijuana, Meth, etc......? How would you ensure that people would not abuse these narcotics? If you try to regulate them; there needs to be laws in place. This means there is still money going to the courts, law enforcement agencies and state judicial systems.

BTW, I see a lot of people are for legalizing the use of marijuana but, what about cocaine, meth, LSD, etc....? What would be your justification to legalize or not to legalize them? If, one narcotic is ok, why not all? I mean everyone is coming up ridiculous comments on how everything is dangerous.

For all of you that think synthetic marijuana should stay legal. Just allow your child(ren) to swallow poison. It is the same thing.

Phil, just to let you know "LAWS do not create more Criminals." It is peoples' lack of respect, lack self-control, selfishness for their needs only and lack of knowing right from wrong.

This pic just popped up in my Facebook feed. Sort of relevant.

http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt65/ccharvella/BongNews.jpg

John, do you think that smoking marijuana is morally wrong? Forget about any law governing it for a moment, just consider the act itself.

A couple of points Mr. Hunt. If the Govt shut down medicaid tomorrow, I mean absolutely shut it down. Are you deluded enough to think you are gonna get a tax refund over it. I mean really it isnt any of your business what people do with their lives unless if effects you directly. By directly that means harming your person. You want to bitch at someone then go to your state and federal politician and hold them accountable. You pay taxes to the state and federal govts. Once its in their hands then its their money not yours anymore. Do you get to say how tithe money is spent by the churchm or how your grocery money is spent by whatever chain or franchise you spend it in.

The answer is no. People have a choice every November to make a change, yet for all the childish tantrums and whineing about it no one does anything different. The elect along party lines.

By the way why dont you thank the Temperance movement of the early 1900's for the corruption and bloated beaureucrats we have today. We all say that the Govt's strings are pulled by the corporate entities? Well it was the Prohibition age that sowed the seeds of that corruption and showed the Govt and its Officials the what and how to get away with while under the unpopular prohibition laws. Most of the sitting politicians today are the children and great grandchildren of these corrupt rum runners and robber barons of that era. The drug war is just as stupid now as Prohibition was then. Make it legal and those who make their living off of the profits of the black market and kill each other for distribution and sales rights will have all the power taken from them.

People who see the death and destruction of the drug war everyday and dont make millions from it would probably love to see all these problems go away and have an easily regulated system like todays alcohol, cigarettes and asprin.

Definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

LOL John Laws do create criminals, your description of what does create criminals is just human nature. Its also pretty normal for politics too.

All around us are people who's "lack of respect, lack self-control, selfishness for their needs only and lack of knowing right from wrong." exist right with us and you know what keeps them in check? Fear.... fear of getting caught, fear of retribution, fear of punishment. What gives society the ability to do that? Laws and rules. So explain to me again how laws dont create criminals?

Mowing my lawn with the rider mower while drinking a beer (A great American past time)

Riding my motorcycle.

Heating my house with a wood stove.

Driving after dark.

Breathing (contributing to carbon emissions)

Playing dodge ball.

Swinging in a swing.

Building snow forts (might collapse on you)

Fishing/swimming.

Sun worshiping.

Sledding downhill.

Pole dancing.

Julie, welcome back from your 25 week hiatus. Where ya been, jail?

Well Kyle you just supported my comment. "Fear.... fear of getting caught, fear of retribution, fear of punishment." So why "Fear?" That is when one “is” making the conscious decision to go against what they know is wrong! We vote for the people that establish our laws, which are usually started because, the public is concerned about that issue’s effect on society. Fear of punishment? Once again, one’s will should be strong enough to know but, probably not or they just do not care, they are going to do what they want to do. Which means a lack of respect?

Using “Fear” as an excuse is just plain weak! So, when one strikes another in the head during a fight, does one fear death? A strike to one’s head is considered deadly force. If you make the conscious decision go against established laws, it is because, one is weak minded.

John, I'm really interested here; do you think that smoking marijuana is an intrinsically immoral act? Or is it only 'wrong' because there is a law against it?

What does morality have to do with smoking pot? Do I have a problem with marijuana being legal? No! Out of all the narcotic out there, it is the least harmful. No more than alcohol. I am just saying where do we put the line? If, you legalize one narcotic then, why not legalize all narcotics? People agrue it is their choice but, do not fear the possibility of killing someone when they are under the influence of an narcotic. Same goes with alcohol, people do not fear the possibility with taking another's life.

My concern is not with marijuana but, what this poll asked. Synthetic Marijuana is not meant for human consumption. Narcotics are becoming too man made and extremely hazardous. I feel that we should outlaw it for the simple fact it is no different than allowing one's child(ren) to swallow poison.

Heck we have generic made corn with its own pesticide within it. Funny thing is when I was growing up you could eat a fresh ear of corn with no problem. Now corn from the midwest has to be processed before human consumption. Hmmm you make the call on that.

John,

How many people have died from complications of alcoholism? Lung cancer? Obeseity? Does the fact that people can hurt themselves and potentially hurt others mean that nothing should exist?

You ask where do you draw the line? That's what I've been asking for awhile. Everytime something bad happens the government, or some self righteous interest group demands a law.

I say legalize all drugs. Why not? Are you going to out and start doing LSD, John just because it's legal tomorrow? Do YOU fear that is what will happen?

Phil, just to let you know "LAWS do not create more Criminals." It is peoples' lack of respect, lack self-control, selfishness for their needs only and lack of knowing right from wrong.

Or maybe they're sick. Addiction is a sickness.

And maybe they're scum. Well guess what? A drug didn't make them scum, it just accentuated it.

You should have asked me what does morality have to do with laws about smoking pot.

I don't find the act of smoking marijuana to be immoral. I don't find it to be moral either. Smoking pot is a completely neutral act engaged in by a person making a choice that affects only him/her at the moment of consumption.

My argument here is that any law barring an adult from making a choice that doesn't affect any other adult is an immoral law.

I'll argue further that the prohibition laws governing marijuana, simply by their existence, have created a dangerous environment for people who were previously safe.

Because of this, you can actually quantify the immorality of marijuana prohibition laws simply by adding up the violent crimes related to trafficking, jail time served by non-violent drug offenders and public dollars spent on enforcing these laws.

Once again immoral act? Morality does not have anything to do with the issue at hand. You turn it to an moral or immoral issue because, you fail to except any laws from your arguements about law. Laws are establish by the people for the people. Whether you agree or disagree with the law is mute. People voice their concerns and their elected officials listen and work it through the judicial system.

"My argument here is that any law barring an adult from making a choice that doesn't affect any other adult is an immoral law." Show me where there is a law barring an adult from making a choice that doesn't effect another adult is in existence. In your opinion and maybe with others one exist but, the reality is, no! Our decisions as an human being always effect someone else whether good or bad.

Once again Phil and Chris you are making excuses for weak minded individuals who want to find fault for their actions instead of accepting responsibility. Addiction is a sickness? I can argue the fact it is not a sickness. Too me it is one's inability to control one's actions. Either because, they believe it makes them feel good and gives them a false sense of reality.

So, Phil and Chris if, you have children and say he/she is 18 years old. Your child/adult decides to take a aerosol can of Lysol and inhales it because, it helps them relax. Would you stop them from doing it or keep allowing them? Synthetic marijuana is not natural and chemically product. So, what would be the difference?

The last discussion of the legalization of natural marijuana created quite a debate. One that I fell on the side of not legalizing it. The arguments for synthetic should be the same. I must admit though that my arguments against it are purely based on my personal beliefs. I cannot make a logical argument as much as I may try, against legalizing marijuana, natural or synthetic, without rehashing prohibition of alcohol or cigarettes. Chris makes a good point, that the act of smoking marijuana is amoral as is the consumption of alcohol or the intake of many other legal substances. I do not advocate the legalization of any substance that affects behavior but I only do so based again on personal social mores and not on critical thinking or logic.

My perception of laws are that they are made to keep a society civil. The crap we call law in this country amounts to a bunch of pet peeves. We need to stay out of the personallity business, and shut down political correctness.
Our laws are making us less civil at best.

"Synthetic Marijuana is not meant for human consumption"

I just find this statement to be comical. It most certainly IS "intended" for human consumption! The tag "Not for human consumption" on the package is merely how the manufacturers and distributors cover their A$$E$! I read in one of the other news stories about the store in Batavia that refuses to sell "synthetic Marijuana" (Incense) to someone who he believes is going to consume it. I personally don't believe it.

Who is really going out of their way to find and purchase this stuff to take home and use as potpourri?? That would also mean that you don't sell glass pipes to people unless you know they are only going to smoke legal tobacco in it. I think we all know that you couldn't make a living off of selling glass pipes just for tobacco use.

Legalize and Tax real marijuana.

http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/blog/time-to-end-the-war-on-drugs

Portugal is the best argument for the legalization of drugs.

For those of you that don't want to read the article: Crime is down, drug use is down, government spending on jails is down, and people aren't as fucked overall.
But you don't hear shit about this in the American media usually. It's the same reason that you don't hear anything about how Iceland's strategy of letting their banks fail worked well.
These are legitimate real-world counterpoints to the spin that our corporate overlords want. If these kinds of viewpoints are allowed to invade the minds of middle Americans, then they might not believe the lines like "Too big to fail" that are being spouted by bought-and-paid-for politicians.
It also could undermine the Fear Sell that many politicians use to get votes. Anytime you hear, "We need to protect the children from this," then you're either about to get robbed or have some of your freedoms taken away.

"The crap we call law in this country amounts to a bunch of pet peeves. " Great line.

Agreed.

Also, I'd like to clarify something. I think that these synthetic drugs are most likely very dangerous and I'd like to see them gone. The argument I'm making is that they never would have come into existence if it weren't for the hackneyed and ineffective policy we have governing the relatively safe substances that the fake stuff is trying to emulate.

Of COURSE we should outlaw synthetic marijuana. Look how well that's worked out with real marijuana!

Birth should be outlawed also - it has a direct correlation to the death rate.

TP, who do you think pays for DEA agents, drug task forces, the rehabs, I beleive it would be a hell of a good trade off to pay for those lying in hospital beds -vs- the billions spent on the failed war on drugs.
Can you even imagine how many perk laden govt. jobs would be lost if drugs were legal?

"The crap we call law in this country amounts to a bunch of pet peeves." that is a great line, Frank. I'd add also that many laws are designed to benefit a few, instead of the many. Like Frank's line in the comment above #39 "Can you even imagine how many perk laden govt. jobs would be lost if drugs were legal?"

John W. "So, Phil and Chris if, you have children and say he/she is 18 years old. Your child/adult decides to take a aerosol can of Lysol and inhales it because, it helps them relax. Would you stop them from doing it or keep allowing them? Synthetic marijuana is not natural and chemically product. So, what would be the difference?"

the difference is, it is a parents responsibility to help your children learn to make responsible, prudent choices; not government.

John, if I do my job as a parent, when my daughter is eighteen she'll be capable of making responsible choices about what she does with her body.

You know if LAWS are just pet peeves, why have laws? Let's go back to lawless days. Hey let everyone do what they want to do. If you do not like your neighbor then just go over and shot them. After all you doing society a favor with population control. Besides his/her parents failed to teach them right from wrong?! However, human nature is human nature. Yes Dave it is the parents responsibility to teach their child(ren) right from wrong. However, who ensures the parents know right from wrong? All children do not have parents around to show them right from wrong. Also, a mass part of our society likes to makes excuses or find fault with others to explain bad things instead, of accepting responsibilities. That is why some of these laws are establish. Yes their are laws out there that only protect a few (Hench why politicians are protected more so than you or I). Most of our laws are to protect the majority.

Perk laden government jobs? I have a government job in Federal Law Enforcement. Heck, what perks do I receive? One! I have a job that pays less than some secretaries and some local police agencies. Do I complain? No, I love my job and glad to protect my COUNTRY and my fellow man. There are disadvantages to my job such as; taking another's life, ruining someone's life because, they made a mistake, and having people dislike you because, you represent the law. My advantage of my job; I get to help others!

As far as legalizing drugs, not if they are man made. A man made drug is nothing more than someone trying to get others addicted to help support their product and cost of living. Marijuana is addictive no more than alcohol is to some (Just weak minded people).

So, "IF" things go wrong in her life. Just know you FAILED as a parent to teach her the difference of right from wrong! You also, FAILED as a parent to Protect your child. Do not make excuses and blame others.

Hench is a good term to use for politicians.

Bottom line, John. You can't solve all of society's problems with laws, we all just need to learn to cope with people who don't think or act the same, or the way you think they should. Yes, there needs to be some rules, I believe however that our country has gone well overboard. We are making the majority pay (literally) for the mistakes and indifference to their responsibilities of a few. The myriad of laws and the enforcement, judicial and punitive costs required to uphold them is not only running our taxes up to the sky, but it's also creating an atmosphere where people who don't want to face their responsibilities and don't want to be considerate and don't care if they endanger others have an out, by saying, "hey, I'm legal" thereby causing someone like you to holler for more laws. And on and on it goes.

John, I would be willing to bet your job pays you well over min. wage, I would bet your health ins. doesn't cost you $150.00 a week, those are perks in comparison to most jobs now days. I have a relative who works for the govt., so I have a pretty good idea of what perks are available to govt. employees.
Another thought that came to mind, why don't we spend the war on drug money on a war on pedophiles, or sex offenders, these are serious threats we need to protect our children from. Yeah,I know, if I raised my kids right, they wouldn't become victims of pedos and perverts, silly me.

Talking about spending money frivolusly. Let me ask you all a question, isnt it nice... The billions of dollars we as a country (spearheaded by so many celebrities) for Haiti in its time of need after the earthquake? Did anyone notice the coverage of the 1st anniversary of the quake there, how little has been done? Where did all the money go? Or is that too politically incorrect to ask?

A "Federal Law Enforcement" job without critical thinking skills or a high school level command of the written word?

wow.

Not to advocate drug use; aside from the millions of Americans who regularly use recreational drugs, many noteworthy Americans have used marijuana, including: Bruce Babbitt, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Bradley, Jack Conway, Paul Cellucci, Lincoln Chafee, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Lawton Chiles, Bill Clinton, Steve Cohen, Andrew Cuomo, Howard Dean, Joseph DeNucci, Mary Donahue, John Edwards, Newt Gingrich, Al Gore, Gary Johnson, Joseph Patrick Kennedy II, John Kerry, Ed Koch, Connie Mack III, Kyle E. McSlarrow, John Miller, Susan Molinari, Jim Moran, Evelyn Murphy, Richard Neal, Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, George Pataki, David Paterson, Edward W. Pattison, Claiborne Pell, William Scranton, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Bill Thompson, Peter Torkeldsen, Jesse Ventura, Benjamin Franklin, Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, James Madison, James Monroe, Franklin Pierce, Zachary Taylor, George Washington.

…Also indulging- at least once: Aaron Sorkin, Abbie Hoffman, Alan Watts, Aldous Huxley, Aleister Crowley, Alexander Dumas, Alice B. Toklas, Allen Ginsberg, Alexis Korner, Andy Warhol, Annita Roddock, Anjelica Huston, Arthur Conan Doyle, members of The Beatles, Bill Gates, Bill Murray, Bill Walton, Blazin’ Bernie Carbo, Bob Denver, Bob Dylan. Bob Marley, Brian Eno, Buddy Rich, Cab Calloway, Carl Sagan, Carlos Santana, Carmelo Anthony, Carrie Fischer, Cary Grant, Cary Mullis, Charles Beaudelaire, Charles Dickens, Charles Oakley, Cheech Marin, Chris Armstrong, Chris Conrad, Chris Farley, Conan O'Brian, Clarence Thomas, Count Basie, David Crosby, David Gilmour, Dennis Hopper, Dennis Rodman, Diego Rivera, Dizzy Gillespie, Donovan, Douglas Adams, Dr. Francis Crick, Dr. Lester Grinspoon, Dr. R.D.Laing, Dr. John Marks, Dr. W.B. O'Shaugnessy, Drew Barrymore, Duke Ellington, Edgar Allen Poe, Elvis Presley, Ernest Hemmingway, Errol Flynn, Francis Ford Coppella, Francis Rabelais, Fredreich Nietzshe, Gary Johnson, Gene Krupa, George W. Bush, George Gurdjieff, members of The Greatful Dead, Henri Michaux, Herman Hesse, Howard Stern, Hunter S. Thompson, Kurt Cobain, Jack Kerouac, Jack Nicholson, Jackie Gleason, Jackson Pollock, Jane Fonda, James Brown, Janis Joplin, members of th Jefferson Airplane, Jerry Lee Lewis, Jimmy Dorsey, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, J. J. Reddick, Joan of Arc, Joan Rivers, John Belushi, John Denver, John F. Kennedy, John Keats, John Le Mesurier, Johnny Cash, John Sinclair, Joni Mitchell, Josh Howard, Judge John L. Kane, Julie Christie, Jules Verne, John Wayne, Josh Howard, Kareem Abdul-Jubbar, Kelsey Grammar, Ken Kesey, Kirk Douglas, Kurt Cobain, Lance Mackey, Larry Hagman, Lenny Bruce, Lewis Carroll, Little Richard, Lord Byron, Louis Armstrong, Marlon Brando, Martin Sheen, Mary Shelly, Mary Tyler Moore, Michael Beasley, Michael Phelps, Michael Vick, Mick Jagger, Mike Tyson, Miles Davis, Modigliani, Montel Williams, Montgomery Clift, Neil Diamond, Neil Young, Norman Mailer, Oliver Stone, Oscar Wilde, Pablo Picasso, Pancho Villa, Paul Simon, Phil Donohue, Peter Fonda, Peter Sellers, Peter Tosh, Pierre Trudeau, Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince Harry, Pythagoras, Queen Victoria, Ram Dass, Randy Moss, Ray Charles, Richard Branson, Richard Feynman, Richard Prior, Ricky Williams, Rimbaud, Robert Burns, Robert Anton Wilson, Robert Mitchum, Rob Van Dam, Rasheed Wallace, Salvador Dali, Samuel Beckett, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Sinead O'Connor, Sigmund Freud, Sonny Bono, Stephen King, Steve Jobs, Steve McQueen, Sting, Tariq Ali, Ted Turner, Tennessee Williams, Terence McKenna, Terry Gilliam, members The Who, Thelonius Monk, Tim Lincecum, Timothy Leary, Tipper Gore, Victor Hugo, Vincent Van Gogh, Walt Disney, William F. Buckley, William Burroughs, William Shakespeare, Willie Nelson, Winston Churchill, Woody Harrelson, Zoroaster- not a definitive list.

It has been argued that the ‘founding fathers’ cultivated marijuana specifically for industrial uses such as rope, fabric and oil, however, George Washington’s journals describe separating male from female cannabis plants. Harvesting buds does not suggest industrial use. Historically, medical use of cannabis was well-documented during the 18th Century, and that presupposes ingestion or inhalation. The latter generation of politicians were clearly not cultivating cannabis for rope.

Marijuana, opiates, cocaine and alcohol have been part of the American drug landscape since the colonial age. Laudanum and Paregoric, tinctures of opium, were commonplace household pharmaceuticals and were not regulated. Cocaine was so favored as a pick-me-up, it was a key ingredient in Coca-Cola. Pope Leo XIII endorsed a brand of coca wine. Heroin (as well as codeine and morphine) was an ingredient in cough syrup in the early 20th Century. Bayer (better known for Aspirin) included heroin in one of its cough suppressants. Soothing syrups for teething children included morphine. Paregoric was the remedy for diarrhea, teething and children who wouldn’t surrender to sleep. Malt beverages (2% alcohol) were marketed by Anheuser Busch (among others) recommended for nursing mothers. Cosadein cough medicine included marijuana, codiene and Chloroform. Tobacco was marketed as a remedy for asthma. The notion that these over-the-counter drugs were not employed recreationally is ludicrous. For example- Benzedrine (amphetamine) was manufactured in the 1920s – 40s and sold as a bronchial-dilator. Being available without prescription, it was often used recreationally as described in beat-era literature.

Americans ‘huff’ gasoline, glue and solvents to catch a buzz. Mind-altering substances have been used by humans as documented in earliest writings. The notion that well-intentioned laws will curtail the pursuit of recreational drug use is nonsensical. If we have learned anything from making ‘getting high’ illegal, organized crime will profit from prohibition. We should also understand that criminalizing non-violent ‘undesirable’ behavior creates more problems than it solves, notably: generating millions of (otherwise lawful) criminals, jails to hold them, police to catch them, judges to try them, loss of income which warrants public support, gangs, ‘pushers,’ designer drugs, copy-cat drugs, meth labs, drug cartels, emergency room techs to deal with reaction to drug lab concoctions, drug trade violence, associated crime (robbery, prostitution)…

Pot smoking, in-and-of-itself, is a comparably innocuous pastime. Drugs like marijuana and heroin would make coping with stage four cancer more dignified. The creative minds of ‘chemists’ looking for the next drug to market to those seeking to get high are not concerned with health. The amount of money we spend on eradicating drugs would build a lot of playgrounds, schools and teen centers to eradicate idleness.

Regardless whether Spice (or any other drug in its category) is safe for human consumption, the reason for the disclaimer is to protect the seller from legal action. By describing the substance as incense and packaging it with the warning, "Not for Human Consumption," the seller hides behind an a priori argument: "the stuff is incense, I can't help what it's used for once it leaves my shop." If and when this substance is categorized as a controlled substance, the argument will be moot.

Queen Victoria smoked reefer? Bet that was a hoot

Likely ingested, it was used to alleviate menstrual cramps.

C.M., you have a nostalgic plethora of historic facts.