What's your opinion on marijuana? [Archive]

coopdog

Mar 11, 2004, 09:55 PM

What is your opinion on marijuana, is it as bad as the media and law makes it out to be? I'm constantly bombarded by anti marijuana ads in school. The ads that say things like, "Just tell your brother you were busy getting stoned." Then they show a kid sitting on a curb, showing that he is waiting to be picked up. Then it says "responsibility" at the bottom. Couldn't you insert: busy volunteering, busy helping at school, busy studding to keep your 4.1 GPA, in place of "busy getting stoned?"

Then how about in the 70's-90's the ads they ran showing the brain of a non-marijuana user and a marijuana user. It showed how the marijuana brain was damaged. Too bad word got out that the "marijuana" brain was actually of a kid in a coma. :p

I have never seen an anti-drinking ad. Only the anti-smoking and anti-marijuana ads that claim crazy things like, "Marijuana supports terrorism." That got a bunch of bad press for it's a total lie.

I'm mostly angry about how strict laws are. So if you have enough just for personal use you can get up to 5 years?! :mad:
Why?!

It is used by SO many people. It is even a bigger cash crop for Hawaiian growers than sugarcane!

I know some of you are open about smoking the MJ. What are your guys’ opinions on marijuana, marijuana laws, and in general? :eek:

Wasteland? I don't know why. Well it is a huge "problem" in today's society. :rolleyes:

IIvan

Mar 11, 2004, 10:11 PM

anti-marijuana campaigns are ----. ITs true that if you smoke it all day every day then you will be in trouble- mainly just from lack of motivation to do anything else. For most people who just use it every now and then, weekends, etc... It has no harm at all- in fact most smokers I know are just as intelligent as non smokers, and tend to be a little more friendly and easy going.

I suppose that the government is trying to push a "war on drugs". They seem to find that we don't have a right to ingest any substance we want to. The ads often quote twisted and misleading statistics, and use shock and fear to try to get through. The terrorism/drugs and this is your brain on drugs (smasing egg with pan), super bowl rewind ad etc. They are really trying to scare us. The only real negative effects I see for responsible users are the cost and legal problems if you get caught. I really hate our government doing this to us

howard

Mar 11, 2004, 10:11 PM

i have mixed feelings...

personally i don't care if people do it... i think its less dangerous than drinking for example...at least you can function if your driving...unless your really baked.

i don't think its a good thing for high schoolers to be doing... its kinda like tv in that you just end up sitting around getting baked...theres nothing really good about it, you just get lazy...yeah it really is just like tv

one thing i do NOT agree with is how oppressed the plant is... there are so so many useful things you can do with hemp...its really incredibly...yet we can't cause people just want to get baked with the damn thing..it really irks me when something so useful is not accesible for stupid reasons

coopdog

Mar 11, 2004, 10:16 PM

Yeah.

coopdog

Mar 11, 2004, 10:19 PM

Steradian

Mar 11, 2004, 10:22 PM

Hemp is actually considered "anti-THC or Weed" It contains SUPER low levels of THC and contains another chemical that actually blocks THC's effects.
Indeed, they say that if we were to use hemp, that we could make major gains in environmental concerns.

mactastic

Mar 11, 2004, 10:24 PM

Drugs are bad Mmmmkay. You shouldn't do drugs. Has... has anyone seen that mari-juh-wana?

rainman::|:|

Mar 11, 2004, 10:36 PM

well, i don't encourage it's use among minors, or drivers (at least, really stoned people). beyond that, i think it's cool.

i smoke pot most nights, if i'm not busy (which is rare anymore) i can sit and smoke pot all night, working on webpages, listening to music, whatever projects i'm doing at the time. surfing macrumors ;) If i have plans, i'll still catch a buzz before bed usually. Weekends, same deal. I don't like being stoned around the city, personal preference... but at friends' houses, or when i'm not busy, again i may well be getting high. I don't think there's anything the least bit wrong with it... i maintain a job, where i'm a Project Manager, i pay my bills and taxes, i volunteer: Mensa webmaster, Make-A-Wish Foundation Benefit Committee, civil rights litigation (soon). I drive the speed limit (except on the interstate, but come on). I challenge anyone to tell me why it's wrong for me to smoke pot (and don't give me that pot=terrorist ************, that's absurd), or how it's destroying my life.

Again, kids shouldn't be doing it, for a lot of obvious reasons. same goes for alcohol. i won't get into that comparison tho, no doubt it will come up...

paul

Nanda Devi

Mar 11, 2004, 10:37 PM

Coop, I couldn't agree more with your point about never seeing anit-booze ads. Alcohol is so much more destructive to the people who abuse it than marijuana could ever be. In fact, I've really never seen any truly destructive impact from smoking weed. The worst it can really do is make you a little less motivated, a little bit lazy. But that is only with excessive use and if you use it excessively you probably have an addictive personality and feel you have to be stoned all the time, which isn't a good thing. But social smoking or even smoking a little bit every night to relax (as an alternative to booze) actually has positive effects in my opinion. It can make people more open and more friendly. It can enhance creativity and stimulate conversation on a more philosophic level.

And what does booze do for you? Well, you most definitely don't have deep conversations when you're wasted. (Over a good bottle of wine, now that's a different story ;)) And don't forget the fact that booze can KILL you, quite easily in fact, if you drink too much. On the other hand, you cannot smoke enough weed to kill you. It's physically impossible.

Alcohol abuse also destroys families and relationships left and right. Drunk drivers mow down innocent people in the road. Alcohol destroys your liver and makes you fat. The only way you'll get fat on weed is from giving in to the munchies. :)

So, instead of the bogus gamut of anti-marijuana ads out there, none of which contain a single grain of truth, where are the anti-booze ads? Let's show the father downing a pint of Smirnoff and smacking his kids around. Let's show the woman stumbling out of the bar after 6 martinis and plowing into a teenager on the way home. While we're at it, let's show the guy who's addicted to PRESCRIPTION medication and walking around in a perpetual coma.

But no, we get the fun-loving football fans with frosty mugs of Coors and the fashion models sipping Tanquerey. Now THAT'S almost as realistic as the "marijuana supports terrorism" ads.

crazytom

Mar 11, 2004, 10:43 PM

pseudobrit

Mar 11, 2004, 10:45 PM

While we're at it, let's show the guy who's addicted to PRESCRIPTION medication and walking around in a perpetual coma.

C'mon, now, Rush Limbaugh went to rehab for that stuff! ;)

rainman::|:|

Mar 11, 2004, 10:59 PM

I think all natural drugs are OK (marijuana, mushrooms, peyote, etc). They won't hurt anyone if used responsibly and in moderation. How can anything that might change your perspective or make you look at things differently be bad?

The laws are ridiculous. They're laws based on the mindset of the 1950's and keeping minorities down. They've become laws to protect people from themselves....so much for the pursuit of happiness.

I agree, I don't have as much experience with the other natural drugs (shrooms are amazingly fantastic and should be studied for their theraputic properties)(peyote is impossible to get around here), but i have used hallucinogenics to go on "vision quests" when my life is in turmoil... basically it's a way to remove yourself from both your emotions and your preconceived notions of the situation, allowing you to see perspectives and options you never saw before. i think everyone should trip once every 5 years, to keep in check ;)

As for the laws, they were actually passed between 1910-1930, mostly 1918 if i remember correctly... "reefer madness", many believe, was a business tactic to remove hemp as competition from the paper and nylon industries. Makes sense to me, hemp research has been badly retarded ever since, and the excuse now is that it's not economical in comparison... well, of course it's not, we have to IMPORT the crop in most cases (despite the fact that it's one of the hardiest plants in all US growing climates, better than corn or soybeans), and mass production has never been really competitive. give it 10 years of legality before clothing, paper, rope, etc can be produced cheaper than currently... and much more environmentally sound.

paul

Inspector Lee

Mar 11, 2004, 11:05 PM

600 trillion dollars

That is how much the "war on drugs" has cost America in the last 50 years. Think about what the country could have/can do with that type of coin - how about iBooks for every middle-schooler in the country? And why are 99% of the anti-drug ads geared towards "tea" and not coke, H, acid, ecstasy, etc.? How about booze, prescription abusers a la that turd Limbaugh? Nicotine, caffeine and the list goes on.

What is it with the "sheep mentality" that marijuana is "very very bad" which is how a couple of "sheep" I work with describe it. They've never tried it, don't know anyone who uses it, but it is "very very bad" because they are hammered with ads on teevee and radio day in and day out and they have become so sterilized and so void of opinion that they gobble up everything that is literally spoon-fed to them by mass media.

Booze has wrecked far more lives than marijuana. In fact, I don't know of anyone who has had their life ruined by weed. And don't give me that "gateway drug" rubbish either because I have two words for you - addictive personality. If weed is a gateway drug then are those late night Shannon Tweed skin flicks considered "gateway smut?" Rubbish.

I believe William S. Burroughs, the original Inspector Lee, described it best when he wrote that if you legalized drugs the number of people using drugs would actually decrease because many people do drugs just because it is considered taboo by society.

Awimoway

Mar 12, 2004, 12:16 AM

I'm not sure that I agree that all natural drugs are harmless--tobacco is natural, after all, and there doesn't seem to be a single way for humans to use it that doesn't make it seriously carcinogenic.

But I don't have any problems with marijuana (smoking it is still a cancer risk, I believe, but there are other, safer ways to use it) and I wish it were legal. Note that I have never tried it--conservative upbringing kept me clear of that kind of thing. But I have some chronic (heh heh) pains related a herniated disc and just a generally low threshold of pain and high tendency to feel aches and pains all over my body. I wish it were easier for me to get access to safe, natural painkillers with few dangerous side effects (e.g. addiction).

So at this point in my life, now that I am a little more open-minded, a little less gullible, etc., I would really, really like to try the stuff. I even recently spent a few hours enjoying reading about different breeds of marijuana you can grow, and they're varying effects. But I'm such a timid little square, I wouldn't even know where to begin to try to get some without being a nervous wreck about getting caught and fined/jailed.

I realize how silly that must sound to seasoned pros like paul, but that's simply how it is for me. :( I would ask for tips, but I don't want to get MacRumors in trouble. I do think it's use should be limited to adults, and I know we're not all of voting age here on the forum.

P.S. While writing this post, I heard another annoying anti-pot ad on XM Radio. It's saying that anyone who uses pot or condones pot use is a human wreck, but it doesn't ever analyze why this is so. There's no logic at all to it. I wish public service advertisers would spend more time worrying about real dangers like smoking and alcohol abuse.

rainman::|:|

Mar 12, 2004, 12:52 AM

I'm not sure that I agree that all natural drugs are harmless--tobacco is natural, after all, and there doesn't seem to be a single way for humans to use it that doesn't make it seriously carcinogenic.

Before tobacco was bred for commercialization, and without all of the additives (i don't even want to think about them, as i sit here chain-smoking lol), it was a good deal less carcinogenic. Not to say that it wasn't. But i do agree, just because something's natural doesn't mean it's healthy. As you elude to in the next sentence, vaporization makes pot much less harmful to the body. Unfortunately, thanks to the wonderful laws in the USA, vaporizers are very hard to come by in many locations.

But I don't have any problems with marijuana (smoking it is still a cancer risk, I believe, but there are other, safer ways to use it) and I wish it were legal. Note that I have never tried it--conservative upbringing kept me clear of that kind of thing. But I have some chronic (heh heh) pains related a herniated disc and just a generally low threshold of pain and high tendency to feel aches and pains all over my body. I wish it were easier for me to get access to safe, natural painkillers with few dangerous side effects (e.g. addiction).

So at this point in my life, now that I am a little more open-minded, a little less gullible, etc., I would really, really like to try the stuff. I even recently spent a few hours enjoying reading about different breeds of marijuana you can grow, and they're varying effects. But I'm such a timid little square, I wouldn't even know where to begin to try to get some without being a nervous wreck about getting caught and fined/jailed.

Not silly at all. It can be intimidating in many ways, both from a legal standpoint, and social. I know a lot of people that won't try it simply because they don't wish to get caught up in the oft-prevailing atmosphere-- drug dealers in ghettos, people acting way too cool and tough, other drugs on the scene. Truth be told, i sympathize, i too often found myself stoned and rather afraid in some stranger's house at 3am, staring at the butt of a pistol half-hidden under a couch cushion, trying to tell if the guy was going to freak out and think i was a narc. After a while, i figured out that if you stop looking for the drug scene, and simply look for the nice, mellow potheads in your scene, it works much better. Turns out there are people in every social grouping that get high, they just stay *very* quiet about it. damn near blew me away the first time i saw a guy in a suit leave his office and spark up a j with friends ;).

My friend's mom (uh, yeah) will smoke a bit now and again, when the percaset can't touch her back pain (she had a botched fusion on 6 vertebra). She's very careful about it, and it breaks my heart that she could lose her home and children (who know nothing of it) if anyone found out about her only reliable, non-liver-damaging, non-addictive painkiller. Drugs don't make criminals, laws do.

and if there's anything you don't want to post, there's always PM :)

paul

oldschool

Mar 12, 2004, 01:04 AM

They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the ****ing effort. There is a difference.

-Bill Hicks

IDANNY

Mar 12, 2004, 01:13 AM

I know many people that do much harder drugs, tons of MJ, and drink tons and still blow me away in school (in class and in grades). :( :mad: I know people that have 3.9-4.2 that do drugs and they haven't turned out bad, or anything like ads make them out to be.

I know what you are saying. Almost everyone I know who uses marijuana is a genius or almost at genius level. I have tried it, it isn’t my cup of tee. Furthermore I believe that if weed became legal; The country would save allot of money. I know in Vegas they are trying to make it legal for adults. Kids should not be using the stuff because they might go overboard. If you are a responsible adult you can make the decision to have a bit of marry Jane. I think the age limit should be 18 or 21 around there.

briankonar

Mar 12, 2004, 03:33 AM

just ask me! ha.
i've been smoking every day since I was 13. originally started out smoking weed with seeds, and if anthing needs to be illegal it should be mexican brick weed, talk about bad for your health! if your going to smoke, you should do your best to smoke nothing but the best (no stems, no seeds that you don't need), it takes less to get you high which in turn is less damaging to the lungs. All anti-marijuana ads are full of crap, has anyone seen the one with the baby girl going into the pool and it says "just tell her parents you were getting stoned." I mean c'mon, if they had a pool i'd be smoking IN THE POOL :D (seriously though you'd be so paranoid about anything happening to the kid you wouldn't let her out of your sight, or at least i wouldn't, and i used to get high when i babysat :eek: ) everyone i know smokes pot, from my doctor, to over half my teachers i've ever had, to my therapist (i have issues :P), all my friends, etc. etc. The thing that's pathetic is that nobody is willing to admit to it unless you do first. It's almost like your a criminal just for smoking. Cigarettes have FAR worse effects on your health, and the health of those around you (have you ever read the list of ingredients? you might as well pick up a piece of dog *****, roll it up in some newspaper, and go to town on it) i mean what other product do you know of that says "i contain TAR," and our government still gives it the thumbs up. If half the people in our society had any balls (amazingly it works out to about half of us do! :p ) it would be quite clear that marijuana is a perfectly acceptable part of our daily routine. Everyone I know accepts it, and even when I've been arrested, cops tell me they don't agree with the law but they have to enforce it (even though they let me go, but took my stash!!!). The US is possibly the most hypocritical country on the planet. Nowhere else can you go to class baked off your ass, have your teacher reprimand you, and then two minutes later make a joke about how high she's going to get tonight. I MEAN C'MON PEOPLE WAKE UP!!!

o and for everyone who drinks, you know your drinking fermented excrement? nothing like rotting yeast to get your buzz on!!! (do people ever think about what they're ingesting? mmm McDonalds!)

RandomDeadHead

Mar 12, 2004, 05:09 AM

NORML (http://www.norml.com/)

These guys are our friends

JamesDPS

Mar 12, 2004, 05:17 AM

Marijuana is worse for you than cigarettes, on a per smoke basis. Now before you go getting all upset, remember that it's not nearly as addictive. In fact, my parents always told me that it's less addictive than caffeine (okay maybe not really saying that much) and less harmful than aspirin, and they're both physicians! I think there have been a couple negative studies lately, but the greatest risk is ingesting non-marijuana additives, such as pesticides or other drugs mixed in.

Basically, do it very occasionally and the worst that can happen is you get busted (and paranoid, sleepy, and hungry), but make it a frequent habit and you're kind of screwing yourself over.

Of course, as a friend in high school always used to say:

"God made weed, man made speed. Who do you trust?"

arn

Mar 12, 2004, 05:22 AM

I'm not sure that I agree that all natural drugs are harmless--tobacco is natural, after all, and there doesn't seem to be a single way for humans to use it that doesn't make it seriously carcinogenic.

The natural vs non-natural distinction is ridiculous, imo. This is for everything - not just drugs. People seem to think that "natural" is better. You know what regulations there are on labeling something (food, groceries) as "natural"? None. It's not regulated... so you can put that label on whatever you want.

And what's the appeal of something that exists in nature vs doesn't? It's all comes down to molecules... it's all the same stuff.

arn

Awimoway

Mar 12, 2004, 05:54 AM

The natural vs non-natural distinction is ridiculous, imo. This is for everything - not just drugs. People seem to think that "natural" is better. You know what regulations there are on labeling something (food, groceries) as "natural"? None. It's not regulated... so you can put that label on whatever you want.

And what's the appeal of something that exists in nature vs doesn't? It's all comes down to molecules... it's all the same stuff.

arn

I mostly agree. After all, everything has a "natural" origin. But although "natural" is an imprecise and often misused term, I think it's meant to suggest a limited amount of processing and refinement. Many drugs and food substances have undergone radical and numerous refining and mixing processes that can transform even the molecules into new and different compounds. The building blocks may come from nature, but the finished product is not, in any honest sense of the word, "natural."

And I think it's reasonably safe to say, without any hard scientific figures to back me up--I think it's self evident, shall we say--that any product which is significantly less natural is more likely to be harmful to living things because their existence upsets the natural balance that millions of years of evolution have carefully crafted. Of course, evolution is all about survival of the fittest, and that implies that nature itself possesses many threats to life. Some are chemical, found in plants. Some come in the form of sharp teeth and strong jaws. So nature is no picnic, but it's generally safer (if not more effective) than synthetic compounds.

MongoTheGeek

Mar 12, 2004, 07:17 AM

(and don't give me that pot=terrorist ************, that's absurd), or how it's destroying my life.

Again, kids shouldn't be doing it, for a lot of obvious reasons. same goes for alcohol. i won't get into that comparison tho, no doubt it will come up...

The terrorist angle is not absurd if the source is international. If you grow your own or buy it from someone who does then no, but a lot of the south american marijuana does come from groups like FARC which run around killing civilians to effect political change.

MongoTheGeek

Mar 12, 2004, 07:24 AM

My friend's mom (uh, yeah) will smoke a bit now and again, when the percaset can't touch her back pain (she had a botched fusion on 6 vertebra). She's very careful about it, and it breaks my heart that she could lose her home and children (who know nothing of it) if anyone found out about her only reliable, non-liver-damaging, non-addictive painkiller. Drugs don't make criminals, laws do.

Percoset is okay stuff. They spike Oxycodone with acetomeniphen(tylenol) to partially help relieve the pain and partially to keep people from doubling and tripling up. Tylenol is hell on the liver. Hillbilly heroin and its cousins aren't too bad. She should try asking her doctor for something stronger or perhaps something with an anti-inflammatory.

MongoTheGeek

Mar 12, 2004, 07:37 AM

I have an odd perspective and odd views to go with that perspective.

I have done pot a few time, did get stoned, but found the experience tedious at best.

I am a former cancer patient. I had lots of friends offer to get me some. I don't think that marijuana needs to be legalized for cancer patients, I will admit that it is cheaper than the alternatives(the typical anti-emetic Zofran(works incredibly well) is $300 a pill).

I think marijuana should be legalized in general though. Its a relatively harmless drug that got a lot of bad press. Legalization makes a lot of sense on many levels. First of all it would be a great cash crop. Second it would wipe out large sections of the criminal element because the margins would go to next to nothing. Why pay 10 bucks for few grams down on the corner when you mail order Kansas and get a kilo for that, including free priority mail delivery.

Legalize heroin for cancer patients. If they are on their way out they might as well go out riding a horse.

hvfsl

Mar 12, 2004, 08:14 AM

OK so Weed is not as bad as some of the other drugs out there, but I think it is worst than alchohol. Alcohol is actually good for you in moderation, but weed is not. Alchohol is only bad if you have it in excess, but to have enough weed to do damage to your body, you need to be smoking it for a few years, so it is easier to do damage to your body with alcohol. Weed does have a lot of negative side effects like destroying the pleasure centres of the brain, so regular users have to move on to harder stuff to get the same buzz they used to get with weed.

The medical effects are not the real problem with weed, its the psycologocal effects. Weed like all over ilegal drugs alters your state of awareness, making it danagerous to do things like drive cars. Parents that are on drugs like weed are not fit to be parents because they cant pay enough attention to their kids when they are on it (parents are meant to put the needs of their kids first). I think it is really sad when people feel they have to take drugs like weed, or even cigs to make them feel better. Everyone must have heard the phrase, 'drugs are for people who cant cope with life'.

krimson

Mar 12, 2004, 09:06 AM

hvfsl, while I agree that a stoned parent isn't the best thing, especially when the child is young, you seem to think that alchohol is acceptable for the parent to be intoxicated on? While the raging/violent drunk isn't applied to everyone that comes home and has a few beers or a few glasses of whiskey, not all pot smokers are nonmotivated slobs.
----------------------------------------------------------
Anyways... :D
I've been smoking for over a decade, and while I admit that im not as motivated as I used to be, I've realized that i was never very motivated to begin with.
Yes, i can drive while a little high, though i wouldn't even want to bother driving if i were completely stoned, just as i wouldn't drive if i were drunk.

I find that alchohol is much more destructive to society than pot will ever be. But alas, i have to be un-naturally pessimistic and say that I doubt pot will ever be legalized. As a cash crop, and the associated taxes.... I help my friend grow some really good stuff in a sea of green in his basement.. why would I even need to purchase it from the local 7-11. Sorry, tax dollars lost.

Terrorists supporting? Does canada really have terrorists? I've gotten stuff from kentucky, I dont remember any terrorists there.

oh well, back to work.

IndyGopher

Mar 12, 2004, 09:14 AM

I am all in favor of the legalization/decriminilaztion of marijuana, and support people's efforts to get it done. However, the simple fact is that right now, at least in the US, it is illegal. And being illegal is all it takes to not do it. This is not some sort of civil disobedience... this is people deciding that the inconvenience of following the rules, and the processes involved in getting the rules changed, is not worth the effort.. so they just break the law.
Another thing I take great exception to is the argument that "everyone does it." That's of course a complete lie. It's the same BS people spout about most of the rules these scofflaws ignore daily. No one is perfect, but that's no reason not to at least try to follow the law.

1macker1

Mar 12, 2004, 09:31 AM

weed is bad, no other way around it.

mactastic

Mar 12, 2004, 09:35 AM

rainman::|:|

Mar 12, 2004, 09:58 AM

Parents that are on drugs like weed are not fit to be parents because they cant pay enough attention to their kids when they are on it (parents are meant to put the needs of their kids first). I think it is really sad when people feel they have to take drugs like weed, or even cigs to make them feel better. Everyone must have heard the phrase, 'drugs are for people who cant cope with life'.

Nothing like harsh generalizations. I know an AWFUL lot of people that smoke up, who have kids. If you think that catching a buzz makes you an unfit parent, you've either a)never smoked pot, or b)never had kids. It's not something i would recommend, especially often, because kids should get to know their parents without a mood-altering substance in the way. But to say that pot smokers = unfit parents shows an incredible ignorance, especially considering how many people in everyday society (probably people you know, and consider to be good parents) will spark a bowl after their kids go to bed.

And i'm glad you feel the need to pass judgement on people that prefer to be in altered states... even if it does become a crutch, what's really so wrong with that? all we can ask for in life is to get through it, meet as many goals as possible, and try and find a little bit of happiness in the mixture. Human beings have had crutches since the beginning of time, and it carries on to a lot more than drugs. If you define crutch as something that makes you happy, and helps you deal with the stress that we're inundated with, i'll guarantee you have a lot of crutches as well-- hobbies, TV, sleeping. I don't think it's right to condemn others' crutches if they don't harm anyone.

Lastly, as Lily Tomlin once said, "reality is a crutch for people that can't cope with drugs" ;)

paul

bont

Mar 12, 2004, 10:33 AM

Am I correct in believing that US law is pretty strict regarding cannabis possesion? I have heard some real horror stories. The law seems to be much more of a grey area in the UK now.
My experience is whilst it is pleasant to be stoned, your motivation to participate in other areas of life takes a backward step.
Like anything, it should be taking in moderation (ughh, I hate stating the obvious!)

hvfsl

Mar 12, 2004, 10:43 AM

Nothing like harsh generalizations. I know an AWFUL lot of people that smoke up, who have kids. If you think that catching a buzz makes you an unfit parent, you've either a)never smoked pot, or b)never had kids. It's not something i would recommend, especially often, because kids should get to know their parents without a mood-altering substance in the way. But to say that pot smokers = unfit parents shows an incredible ignorance, especially considering how many people in everyday society (probably people you know, and consider to be good parents) will spark a bowl after their kids go to bed.

And i'm glad you feel the need to pass judgement on people that prefer to be in altered states... even if it does become a crutch, what's really so wrong with that? all we can ask for in life is to get through it, meet as many goals as possible, and try and find a little bit of happiness in the mixture. Human beings have had crutches since the beginning of time, and it carries on to a lot more than drugs. If you define crutch as something that makes you happy, and helps you deal with the stress that we're inundated with, i'll guarantee you have a lot of crutches as well-- hobbies, TV, sleeping. I don't think it's right to condemn others' crutches if they don't harm anyone.

Lastly, as Lily Tomlin once said, "reality is a crutch for people that can't cope with drugs" ;)

paul

Well you seem to be generalising as well.

You are right I have never taken illegal drugs or have children (a bit too young to start thinking about that thankyou). I just dont like getting addicted to stuff and being a slave to something.

Also I know a parent that has MS and it is one of those diseases where weed helps 'some' of them, but he has no desire to take it because of his kids. I dont even know any parents that will have a glass of wine after their kids have gone to bed (unless its a special occasion).

The main problem I have with stuff like drugs is that people will look back at the end of their lives and realise that they wasted it all away. They never went out and explored all the wonders life has to offer. The same goes for people who drink too much or spend all their time watching TV. Too many people just excist without actually living and I think it is just a bit sad.

1macker1

Mar 12, 2004, 10:49 AM

I personally think weed is bad, I don't know of any type of smoke that's good for your lungs. With that being said, this is a free country, well use to be. I think the government is going to far with controlling our lives. I mean really, if a person want to somke weed, ruin their health, maybe ruin their future, well so be it, same for alcohol users like myself. Damn they telling people what they can and can't smoke, next thing you know they'll be telling us what we can and cannot eat. I'll take a 6pack of beer and a Super Size fries TO GO!!!!!

gwuMACaddict

Mar 12, 2004, 10:53 AM

I personally think weed is bad, I don't know of any type of smoke that's good for your lungs.

exactly... as a runner, biker, swimmer i cant IMAGINE putting anything that dirty in to my lungs... at least with ciggarettes you have a filter. with a joint you just suck it all in... gross if you ask me...

g30ffr3y

Mar 12, 2004, 11:01 AM

i dont see what all the fuss is about marijuana... i think if it was ruled over in the same way that alcohol was there wouldnt be a problem... kids shouldnt be doing it... there should be a limit as to how high you could be while driving or zero tolerance... you shouldnt go to work stoned... people dont go to work hammered... ya know... well they shouldnt at least...

i dont smoke... but if you want to... go ahead... whats the worst that will happen... maybe youll win a game of mac chess...

jelloshotsrule

Mar 12, 2004, 11:45 AM

i'm straightedge.. i hate drugs and never plan to use them..

that said, i'm all for legalizing pot.

1. we can tax it and make money for positive things (plus saving money on the anti-pot campaigns, court expenses, jail time, etc etc etc). positive things like bombing countries we don't like

2. i don't think it's as bad as drinking in many cases.

3. i think that the illegality of pot is the main thing that makes it a "gateway" drug. if joe q doesn't know how to get pot, most likely he can't get heroin, coke, etc. however, if joe q finds a dealer for pot, they are much more likely to be able to come across some heavier drugs as well

4. if nothing else, it should be legal in general, with restrictions on driving and such "under the influence".. why can i drink my ass off in my house but i can't smoke a joint or two when the effects are less severe.

i will continue to think that drugs are a waste of my time, but i will also continue to think that the "drug war" is an even bigger waste of time and resources... why not educate kids about the real effects of drugs, not some trumped up BS about how it will turn your brain into a fried egg?

bryanc

Mar 12, 2004, 12:53 PM

I've heard the argument that pot is a gateway drug that leads to the use of more dangerous drugs, and I never used to believe it. But, having had many friends start smoking tobacco after starting on marijuana, I'm now having second thoughts. Tobacco is certainly a highly addictive and dangerous drug.

Nonetheless, I'm in favour of complete legalization (not just decriminalization, but that would be a good first step).

The smartest people I've ever met have all been occasional users, and I've certainly found that it can be a great help to lateral thinking (next time you have writer's block, or have run out of ideas for approaching what seems to be an intractable problem, or don't know how to interpret some really weird research results, try getting stoned with someone who's also familiar with the problem and bouncing around a few ideas...you'll often come up with something really creative).

Cheers

tpjunkie

Mar 12, 2004, 01:41 PM

As some members here can attest to, I often drink on the weekends (with occasional weeknight "festivities" thrown in) One of the hardest (and messiest) lessons the novice drinker runs into is knowing when enough is enough, and they often run into problems like alcohol poisoning and other "fun" things. I occasionally (not recently though, got a drug test for a job coming up soon) smoke weed (the first time was last year, my freshman year of college) and I immediately noticed what a totally different experience it is than drinking. It doesn't impair your judgement (i've never seen anyone smoke 3 bowls then ask "who wants to rip gravity bong hits?," compare that with chugging beers then having a shotgunning race for time). The fact that its illegal is really pointless, the money spent "fighting" it could be better used for other programs, and the moeny that could be made if the government taxed it would be at least tripple that amount. If not made legal, it should at least be decriminalized, people that commit violent crimes are getting less jail time than repeat pot offenders.

Among my male housemates, I definitely smoke the least amount of weed, far and away, in fact I'd guess you could call most of them stoners, many of them smoke every day. Guess what? Half of them have higher GPAs than mine (3.2), and all of them are quite smart (not much of a surprise, I do attend a fairly selective college)

The US government frustrates me to no end...Draft me, but I can't go down the bar and try whats on draught? Bull$#!^! I have a similar view on its stance on marijuana.

parrothead

Mar 12, 2004, 02:02 PM

This question in my mind has an easy answer, it is against the law. Whether or not I agree with the law is a moot point. But to go beyond the law there are many bad things about marijuana. First and foremost, the most dangerous thing about it is the state of denial the people that use it are in. Pot, and alcohol, for that matter, alter your state of consciousness when you use them. In that state, no one should be doing anything that requires clear thinking and responsiblity. ESPECIALLY driving. I have had too many friends lost to driving under the influence. If you have a buzz your thinking has changed, you are risking the lives of everyone on the road, period. Not cool at all. You want to live on the edge and risk your life, go bungy jumping, or stay at home and smoke.

Beside all that I think it is pure laziness to use drugs and alcohol for recreational purposes (aka non medicinal). Too lazy to think of something to do, go smoke a joint. Too lazy to learn how to be interesting, go get drunk so you dont have to. You say you work better when stoned, too lazy to really use your mind and be creative. You want to go to a better place, read a book, watch a movie, go walk in a park. Life is so much more satisfying when you take responsibilty for yourself and you go out and live it without the crutches of drugs.

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 12, 2004, 02:12 PM

How many laws on the books that make no sense what so ever. weed is just another. tax it control it, and free up the courts,judges,cops,lawyers for real problems plus by making it legal and controling it it will be harder for minors to obtain. Just another bad law that was passed by a bunch of politicians. alcohol is much more dangerous. Its simple politics that keeps this law on the books, political incorrect to do anything about it just as its politicaly incorrect to smoke ciggs. Govt getting more and more involved with our lives, freedoms, liberties. One day you wont have a life it will be the states, you wont have freedom, and no liberties. Govt is making it happen little by little with the help of all those lawyers that run congress and the senate and the benches.

PlaceofDis

Mar 12, 2004, 02:29 PM

i have never smoked weed, but i dont see a problem with legalizing it, i mean as long as there are rules governing its use (ie driving under the influence ect) there should be no problem, let people do what they want to do as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else, its thier choice, i do think people need to become better informed about the effects of weed and alcohol and all of that, but if you want to smoke up in your house and just relax, why not? if you dont become belligerant and harrass people who do not want to smoke then thats cool. the government is definately a little to controlling these days and i think people need to have a choice when it comes to what they want and do not want to do, but having it illegal just encourages minors to do it more in my opinion...that said i have always been curious but never got around to trying it...who knows.......

neut

Mar 12, 2004, 02:45 PM

The terrorist angle is not absurd if the source is international. If you grow your own or buy it from someone who does then no, but a lot of the south american marijuana does come from groups like FARC which run around killing civilians to effect political change.

glad im not buying mary j in S.A. move to the NW where weed is grown by hippies from Cali., Idaho, Oregon, Washington and Canada. :D Hippies don't like to shoot people... nor blow people up.

if you're going to smoke weed, please smoke the good ****. ;)

now that you're high; go be creative.

peace.

jayscheuerle

Mar 12, 2004, 02:47 PM

Like alcohol, weed used in moderation is no problem. It's an escape. Some people drive fast to escape, some ride a bike down a rocky hill, some jump out of a plane and others read a book. Almost any activity that offers an escape can result in someone getting hurt if they push their limits of control (books are the exception here). I'd much rather be with a responsible adult who is smoking some weed than an irresponsible 17 year old behind the wheel of a car. Smoking until you can't lift your arse off the couch is no good. Neither is drinking until you slur. Nor is racing until you crash.

I know drinkers who can't hold a job.
I know smokers who don't care if they have a job, and
I know bikers who couldn't walk two miles to a job because of wrecks.
I also know people who don't do anything escapist or risky and are still losers.

Hemlock is natural. Don't green-light it. Trust me.

Escape can be fun, like a roller coaster ride. Know your limits and know yourself. If someone says you're ******** up, you probably are. Be responsible and respectful, don't hurt anybody, and brush your teeth before you go to bed. - j

tpjunkie

Mar 12, 2004, 02:49 PM

and brush your teeth before you go to bed. - j

Aw crud, I knew there was something I forgot saturday night :p

crazytom

Mar 12, 2004, 03:05 PM

Almost any activity that offers an escape can result in someone getting hurt if they push their limits of control (books are the exception here).

I don't know: if you read a ton of books and they happen to fall on you ... (dramatic pause) ... you could die! :eek:

I think there's a majority of people that would support the legalization of pot. But getting the federal government and the enforcement agencies, which get WAY TOO MUCH MONEY, to support (or better yet, just ignore) such a measure is impossible. It would literally mean the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in spending (military, prisons, enforcement, etc.). I think the best America can hope for is a gradual state by state decriminalization: little to no fine for being in possession. Then the 'problem' would silently go away while still maintaining the big budgets to fight cocaine and heroin.

Josh

Mar 12, 2004, 03:06 PM

I have very strong views on this subject, and have addressed it throughouly on my home forum (newtiburon.com).

Click here to see (http://www.newtiburon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4771)

My info is based on actual research, studies I have done (I'm a pre-med student) and personal expirience with it.

IIvan

Mar 12, 2004, 03:35 PM

I noticed somebody said that pot kills the pleasure centers of your brain. It has been my experience that after trying it, I am now capable of having feelings I never had before- sometimes not even when smoking- some of you may know what I mean

krimson

Mar 12, 2004, 03:44 PM

1macker1

Mar 12, 2004, 03:50 PM

Seems like everything is headed toward government regulation. Can anyone say Socialism.

arn

Mar 12, 2004, 04:18 PM

And I think it's reasonably safe to say, without any hard scientific figures to back me up--I think it's self evident, shall we say--that any product which is significantly less natural is more likely to be harmful to living things because their existence upsets the natural balance that millions of years of evolution have carefully crafted.

I don't think this is reasonable to say. (that Natural = "safer")

It's arbitrary... where do you draw the line? People are of nature.... people made XYZ. Therefore everything is "made of nature". It's not like people have tools not available to nature. Whatever chemical reaction steps used to make a substance is "of nature".

arn

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 12, 2004, 04:22 PM

I think this is an incorrect assumption. (that Natural = "safer")

arntrue arn, its a fact inhaling any kind of smoke is bad for you but making criminals out of those that want to relax after a hard days work is wrong. And think of the taxes the govt could get for all of their wars and social programs ;)

Savage Henry

Mar 12, 2004, 04:30 PM

krimson

Mar 12, 2004, 04:31 PM

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 12, 2004, 04:39 PM

where would the taxes come from?
cigarettes and weed are 2 completely different things.. one requires a long process of curing, shredding, "flavoring", etc. The other just requires some seeds, maybe a HPS and MH bulb, warm attic to hang stems and a green thumb.
IMO... they'd have to outlaw the home growing, which would also require police to enforce...so we're back to square one.not so, you see many growing their own tobacco? its just a seed also. they both need drying. I still think it would free up the justice system for REAL criminals, give the govt another source of income and help to keep it out of the hands of minors. 3 birds with one stone! :D

MongoTheGeek

Mar 12, 2004, 05:05 PM

And anyway, if the weed is so cool, why is everyone trying to sell me it whenever I go to a holiday destination that's got a beach. Pot is just the carcinogenic form of hair braiding.

[please note: it's not every person on every beach, but I've been asked to buy it enough times to find it annoying. Sellers of the world, I really don't want the stuff, ok?]

You must be going to the wrong beaches. I don't think I have ever people try to sell me pot on the beach. Then again I haven't seen hair braiding much either.

skunk

Mar 12, 2004, 05:14 PM

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the historical perspective
http://www.sumeria.net/politics/shadv3.html
Just like terrorism, it seems hemp is another manufactured reason for nice old Uncle Sam to stick his nose into his citizens' business.

krimson

Mar 12, 2004, 05:23 PM

not so, you see many growing their own tobacco? its just a seed also. they both need drying. I still think it would free up the justice system for REAL criminals, give the govt another source of income and help to keep it out of the hands of minors. 3 birds with one stone! :D

maybe because i live in a major metro area, i dont know anyone that grows their own tobacco... im just saying if you could get a decent bag of weed at lets say 7-11 or a circle-k for $10/g, it would be cheaper and you'd have better control if you grew it hydroponically yourself, or even in your backyard. 1 of the plants i've grown yielded around 5oz (not including small leaves [3oz] which were shredded for my euro friends) in a very small 2'x2' area without much assistance, except for 2 weeks where a metal-halide buld was used. Whereas a tobacco plant needs a larger area to grow, and is much harder to grow for a proper leaf. I could go research it, but im positive that pot is easier to grow by a few-fold.

MacAztec

Mar 12, 2004, 05:37 PM

Heres my take on marijuana-

Its ok to do it once in a while. When you start doing it 4 or 5 times a week, thats a little overboard. I smoke the stuff maybe once every two weeks.

During football in the playoff game stuff (when I never had a chance at playing, i got bumped up from JV), me and my friend would smoke after practice sometimes. We were sore, exhausted, etc.

I think marijuana is much safer than alcohol. I go to parties, and usually when there is a lot of drinking at a big party, something bad will happen. Either there is a fight, people go out and drive while wasted, puking, etc.

When you are stoned, you just want to kick back, relax, and eat. I have been on a "vision quest" (as pw says ;)) one time. I went to my buddies house and we were lit all weekend. It was kinda nice. I got energized after the weekend. I thought about stuff that I have never thought about, and we had some pretty hardcore conversations.

A bad example of marijuana use: my brother

He smokes the stuff once a day. He does it to relax. He is kind of a tense guy. Now, this guy is a genius. He got like a 1520 on his SAT, incredibly intelligent with technology. He doesn't have a job.

He always comes up with ideas and I tell him he should market or sell that. He never does. He thinks of things that I don't even want to discuss, because they are ideas that are not in production, and would make a lot of money. He currently is in real estate. He is working for his longtime girlfriend's uncle. I think he is going to make a virtual tour of all the houses with a really nice website and stuff. We'll see.

MongoTheGeek

Mar 12, 2004, 05:38 PM

rainman::|:|

Mar 12, 2004, 05:41 PM

i find it interesting that the only reason people can come up with for keeping pot illegal is that, anecdotally, it's "not good for you". Since when has the government been granted the constitutional right to decide what's not good for us, then make it illegal? That aside, again, i refer to my first post in this thread, and challenge anyone to tell me why/how i'm harming myself. Unmotivated? nope. unintelligent? nope (mensa). uncreative? nope. The only adverse reaction that marijuana poses on my life is the legal aspect... which is exactly what's being debated.

"Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself.' -President Jimmy Carter

paul

neut

Mar 12, 2004, 05:43 PM

well, im going home and im going to kick it with mary j (i love that girl... ). anyone want to join me?

enjoy the weekend; with some weed. ;)

peace.

MongoTheGeek

Mar 12, 2004, 05:44 PM

Whereas a tobacco plant needs a larger area to grow, and is much harder to grow for a proper leaf. I could go research it, but im positive that pot is easier to grow by a few-fold.

Tobacco isn't too hard to grow but it is hard on the soil. MJ is easy to grow. There are a number of people who have had "oops" with it growing unknown and unintended. I read about a guy who did a deep plow of a field that hadn't been used in decades and the whole thing came up pot.

PalmHarborTchr

Mar 12, 2004, 05:46 PM

Hemp is actually considered "anti-THC or Weed" It contains SUPER low levels of THC and contains another chemical that actually blocks THC's effects.

Pot, if makes you feel relaxed, appreciate music more, helps you
concentrate.......it must be stopped. President Bush knows that he
cannot have the poor feeling better than the Rich so he must spend
billions of dollars stopping it. Yeah, he knows schools are falling apart
and have rats, poor heat .....he's heard it before so lets just not talk
about it....Law Enforcement needs more money to stop the reefer madness.
Thats the end of it.........now lets go get drunk and drive our S.U.V.'s.
Vote for Bush.....Vote against your own Interests. Support the candidate
of the STUPID COMMUNITY. Bush.....he's a proud member of that community. When 9-11 attack happened he was in a 4th grade class in
Sarasota.........he was learning how to read. He was learning his vowel
sounds when that Secret Service guy came in and told him NYC had been
attacked..........he said "yeah, but I wanta learn how to read!! will leave
in 20 minutes........okay?"

skunk

Mar 12, 2004, 05:47 PM

I read about a guy who did a deep plow of a field that hadn't been used in decades and the whole thing came up pot.
Is that what he told the judge? :D VERY convincing.

MongoTheGeek

Mar 12, 2004, 05:52 PM

Is that what he told the judge? :D VERY convincing.

Well it wasn't just some farmer. He was a agricultural researcher and professor at a major university. He told the DEA as it was coming up. They believed him as he called and told them. I can't remember what happened afterwards.

MacAztec

Mar 12, 2004, 06:25 PM

Pot, if makes you feel relaxed, appreciate music more, helps you
concentrate.......it must be stopped. President Bush knows that he
cannot have the poor feeling better than the Rich so he must spend
billions of dollars stopping it. Yeah, he knows schools are falling apart
and have rats, poor heat .....he's heard it before so lets just not talk
about it....Law Enforcement needs more money to stop the reefer madness.
Thats the end of it.........now lets go get drunk and drive our S.U.V.'s.
Vote for Bush.....Vote against your own Interests. Support the candidate
of the STUPID COMMUNITY. Bush.....he's a proud member of that community. When 9-11 attack happened he was in a 4th grade class in
Sarasota.........he was learning how to read. He was learning his vowel
sounds when that Secret Service guy came in and told him NYC had been
attacked..........he said "yeah, but I wanta learn how to read!! will leave
in 20 minutes........okay?"

Bahahahaha.

Oh yea, I am sure it is Bushs' fault that it is illegal to possess Marijuana, right? And I'm sure that you think the lower class pays most the taxes too, right? Just like Rev. Jackson. God you are hilarious!

You didn't get your tax refund check or what? You just like making ludicrous remarks about things you haven't about? Funny man....

briankonar

Mar 13, 2004, 12:45 AM

exactly... as a runner, biker, swimmer i cant IMAGINE putting anything that dirty in to my lungs... at least with ciggarettes you have a filter. with a joint you just suck it all in... gross if you ask me...

wow...i don't know what to say...do you really feel a filter on TAR and UREA etc. etc. really helps? eventually (two or three puffs) and the filter will be saturated, thus no longer absorbing toxins. YAY for filters. Have you seen the Truth commercial that talks about how tobacco companies puncture holes into the filter so machines don't register such high toxin levels, but your lips cover these holes, making them a moot point (as far as your health is concerned). i've been smoking pot for 8 years, bongs only for the past 4, i can pull tubes without even phasing my lungs. One hit off a cigarette makes me cough my ass off. inhaling any smoke is inherently bad for you...but a cigarette is laced with so much garbage it's not even funny. I mean cyanide...WTF!?!? smoking a cigarette is like sucking on the end of a tail pipe.

o and if weed were legal, and more research was done on vaporization, it would be hardly be harmful upon your lungs at all. the cannibinols in THC vaporize at a temperature lower than the actually Cannabis combusts, thus if you heat it to the correct temperature (i believe it's around 190-200 degrees) you can inhale just the THC without burning the actual plant material (the vapors contain no solids that will deposit in your lungs). Actual combustion (a lighter for example) burns the whole chunk of plant material, resulting in a smoke containing a mixture of THC and various other chemicals (DHB, CDB, etc. etc.) I remember reading that weed has something like 420 ( :D ) chemicals, while your average cup of coffee has nearly 2,000. and i'm sure as runner, swimmer, etc, you love your caffeine no?

briankonar

Mar 13, 2004, 12:46 AM

Bahahahaha.

Oh yea, I am sure it is Bushs' fault that it is illegal to possess Marijuana, right? And I'm sure that you think the lower class pays most the taxes too, right? Just like Rev. Jackson. God you are hilarious!

You didn't get your tax refund check or what? You just like making ludicrous remarks about things you haven't about? Funny man....

Did you pay uncle Bush back for his refund check (aka loan) during tax season?

bush gave everyone that loan, as a much needed cash infusion into the economy. however people weren't spending in fear of further terrorism following 9/11, so the majority placed their $500 in the bank, thus screwing over the economy further. great plan bush! (how do you fall of a self balancing machine? forget to turn it on!)

briankonar

Mar 13, 2004, 12:59 AM

weed is bad, no other way around it.

meh, that contributes nothing to the discussion. why do you think weed is bad? have you ever even tried it? i'm not saying weed is the best thing ever, but it's hardly worth the amount of time and money being poured into suppressing it's use, when their are far worse drugs on the street (exstacy(sp?) is by far worse, and i've seen it's use quadruple in the past few years, cocaine, heroin, RITALIN, ADDERALL) we prescribe pharmaceuticals like candy to kids because they don't enjoy school, without thinking about how we could make school more enjoyable for them, so they might not need the drugs. on the other hand, a person who smokes a joint is a criminal and deserves jail time, and the person who sells the weed for that joint is a drug lord who also deals part time in guns and harder drugs. the majority of the USA's supply is grown right here in the states (i'd say 2/3 if not more...) while the rest comes from Mexico. Nobody in their right mind would ship weed from over seas, there's not enough money involved. The majority of the US's supplies in other drugs (the majority being cocaine and heroin) come from overseas, and these are the true supporters of terrorism. I need to move to Canada.

scem0

Mar 13, 2004, 01:10 AM

I like to think of alcohol and weed on the same terms. I think irresponsible people shouldn't be allowed to drink, nor should they be allowed to smoke pot.

A good friend of mine is not mature enough or responsible enough to smoke pot, but he does it anyways, now he has no plans for college, he is skipping school all the time, and he has gotten in trouble with the law recently (got caught off campus, skipping class, with weed).

But on the other hand, I know people who smoke in moderation and can handle it. I think pot is disguisting. I've never smoked it and I never plan to, but that's just me.

I don't know what to say about legalization of marijuana. I think it should be legal for responsible people, but there is no way to monitor how responsible or irresponsible one is, so I say outlaw it. But then again I've never touched marijuana, so I could care less whether it was outlawed or not.

But to a certain degree I want to say "legalize it and let Darwin's theory take place". Let the irresponsible people wreck their lives by abusing pot. But that also saddens me because my good friend has already done so. But it is easy enough to get marijuana, so an irresponsible person (like my friend) will end up abusing no matter what the law says.

scem0

themadchemist

Mar 13, 2004, 01:20 AM

I don't think this is reasonable to say. (that Natural = "safer")

It's arbitrary... where do you draw the line? People are of nature.... people made XYZ. Therefore everything is "made of nature". It's not like people have tools not available to nature. Whatever chemical reaction steps used to make a substance is "of nature".

arn

I agree to a good degree. People here have suggested that mushrooms are perfectly fine...Well, I hate to say it, but fungi can be extremely dangerous. And what about something else natural...Poison dart frog poison?

On the other hand, though, there's something to say for getting the active ingredients for your high from an actual organism. In general, enzymes are pretty specific and this specificity means that enzyme-catalyzed reactions often yield a single product. On the other hand, you can't say the same thing for many non-biological syntheses. Sure, Pfizer's going to make sure that it purifies its product to keep what it wants...However, is the average guy peddling LSD going to make sure that it was obtained by a reaction that yielded just one product or that the products were purified before being packaged? I doubt anyone runs assays on this sort of thing.

So one important point is that taking the chemistry out of people's hands and putting it into nature's hands tends to yield a more reliable product. I think that that increases safety, all else held constant.

Moreover, humans tend to get a little too creative with their organic chemistry. Our synthetic pathways have a tendency of getting a little wild on the side of toxicity. Moreover, just because we can create something that gets you a high, it doesn't mean that that substance won't cause cancer. There are too many variables to be certain that any particular substance that we synthesize newly ourselves is not dangerous. However, when one obtains substances from living organisms, it's a little better assurance that this substance isn't TOO problematic. Certainly, Arabidopsis could metabolize some molecule that we couldn't, but the fact that it can survive major exposure to molecule X suggests that molecule X is probably not toxic (unless it can be demonstrated that it is meant specifically as a defense mechanism). Therefore, the advantage of obtaining one's desired product from a living cell itself is that we have at least one test that shows that the substance doesn't totally prevent the maintenance of life.

Then there's the simple fact that people try to cut corners and get the shortest synthetic pathway. Great for efficiency and yield; not so great for safety and purity.

Of course, nothing's for certain.

Now, what somebody's PROBABLY doing is trying to find the genes that code for the proteins that makes you high (if it hasn't already been found). Then all you've gotta do is clone that sucker into E. coli, find some sort of activator, shut off most other gene production, and selectively mass produce the proteins of your choice.

THIS line of research would make somebody VERY wealthy.

themadchemist

Mar 13, 2004, 01:40 AM

But to a certain degree I want to say "legalize it and let Darwin's theory take place". Let the irresponsible people wreck their lives by abusing pot. But that also saddens me because my good friend has already done so. But it is easy enough to get marijuana, so an irresponsible person (like my friend) will end up abusing no matter what the law says.

scem0

Problem is that people who abuse substances don't just wreck their own lives. They wreck the lives of those around them and set society off balance: That's why there are laws against substance abuse. I, myself, think that legalizing marijuana would help solve some social problems and help to limit gang violence by reducing the illegal drug trade. It would also stop marijuana from being a gateway drug by cutting off its channels of association with distinctly more dangerous substances. I could elaborate, but I need to study molecular biology.

I've never smoked marijuana and probably never will. But I think as a matter of public policy, marijuana ought to be legalized.

Apologies for the double post.

topicolo

Mar 13, 2004, 01:41 AM

I believe that trying drugs like marajuana, acid, etc. is just a phase that some people go through. Their experimental stage, if you will--by the time they're 30, they grow out of it and everything's all good. Look at all those hippies back in the 60s: why don't we see a bunch of 50 and 60 year olds running around on acid trips and yelling "peace out man!" today?

tpjunkie

Mar 13, 2004, 01:42 AM

boy this argument is starting to turn nasty....

yosoyjay

Mar 13, 2004, 02:18 AM

The terrorist angle is not absurd if the source is international. If you grow your own or buy it from someone who does then no, but a lot of the south american marijuana does come from groups like FARC which run around killing civilians to effect political change.

The FARC, for the most part, taxes coca growers in the quasi-autonomous area they control. The paramilitary forces tend to do the same in Columbia. They like coke, not smoke.

Thanatoast

Mar 13, 2004, 02:25 AM

Given that she had been thrown out of the house by 13 for declaring herself a lesbian, spent her teenage years sleeping on subway trains and rotting piers and yet still managed to get her G.E.D., Laura Melendez figured she had kept her nose pretty clean.

Sure, there had been a few arrests for smoking marijuana, but after an entire adolescence spent on the streets, with far more visits by the police than by her parents, what did those offenses really amount to?

"It means I'll be denied an education," said Ms. Melendez, who is from the Bronx, now 22 and applying to college.

If Ms. Melendez had been an armed robber, a rapist, even a murderer, she would not be in the same predicament. Once out of prison, she would have been entitled to government grants and loans, no questions asked.

But under a contentious provision of federal law, tens of thousands of would-be college students have been denied financial aid because of drug offenses, even though the crimes may have been committed long ago and the sentences already served.

the rest (http://nytimes.com/2004/03/13/education/13DRUG.html)

themadchemist

Mar 13, 2004, 11:58 AM

the rest (http://nytimes.com/2004/03/13/education/13DRUG.html)

With a story like that, she'll get into Harvard. And with an income below 35k she won't have to pay anything...I'm sure the big-name privates, if they accepted her, would all fully bankroll her education. You've got to remember that at those schools, it's not federal grants, but private university grants, that account for MOST of financial aid.

PalmHarborTchr

Mar 13, 2004, 02:31 PM

Bahahahaha.

Oh yea, I am sure it is Bushs' fault that it is illegal to possess Marijuana, right? And I'm sure that you think the lower class pays most the taxes too, right? Just like Rev. Jackson. God you are hilarious!

You didn't get your tax refund check or what? You just like making ludicrous remarks about things you haven't about? Funny man....

He did not have a surplus of money to pay for those "tax cuts" he
had to print the money in the form of treasure bills and sell them
to the Chinese (yes, its still a communist govt and yes, its still a dictatorship, and yes you have only the freedom to agree)
This is why we have record deficits. That small refund check has
been eaten up by super high gas prices, big boasts in my car insurance
and $3 a pound for chicken. Local taxes went up too.
You must believe the the "chocolate ice cream diet" eat all the icecream you want and lose weight! (if you believe in Bush economics)

firewire2001

Mar 13, 2004, 02:48 PM

no offense dudes

but really very few of you guys know what your talking about
you cant know something real well
unless youve been in the major viewpoints of it

AhmedFaisal

Mar 13, 2004, 02:56 PM

m15t3r 8L4Ck

Mar 13, 2004, 02:56 PM

http://home.comcast.net/~mister.black/billgates.jpg

AhmedFaisal

Mar 13, 2004, 03:03 PM

http://home.comcast.net/~mister.black/billgates.jpg

Cuz' that guy's gotta be smokin' some real heavy **** to think he ownz Linux ;)

Ahmed

rainman::|:|

Mar 13, 2004, 03:12 PM

the rest (http://nytimes.com/2004/03/13/education/13DRUG.html)

yeah, a friend of mine is in this exact situation, couple of pot arrests lead to no chance of student loans, now that he's trying to clean himself up. really pisses me off, i hadn't realized this was going to happen before he told me. spent some time on the phone with my congresspeople's offices, urging them to support a bill reforming sentencing for marijuana offenses to avoid this. i mean, considering the percentage of people who at least try marijuana (40% IIRC), a lot of our best minds are being denied a college education because of something entirely silly. This hurts people, it hurts society, and it hurts the country as a whole.

paul

themadchemist

Mar 13, 2004, 03:15 PM

Why? First of all legalizing drugs will destroy the black market. It will also reduce "acquisition" crime since legal drugs will be cheaper than illegal ones, simply because of better availability. Also legalizing drugs and selling them under FDA rules will ensure quality of the drugs. A lot of the detrimental effects of drugs are not due to the drugs themselves but the stuff that is used to stretch them, and the varying concentrations. This has been proven in programs where heavy heroin addicts were taken off methadone (which causes the addicts to feel groggy) and given industrial grade pure heroin. Some of them recovered so well that they were able to live halfway normal lives with jobs etc.. It will also free police resources to combat other crime. The tax revenue can then be used for health care. Of course this will not get rid of the problem of drug abuse, but it will take it off the streets and will make it easier to control. Of course, some may say this might cause even more people to take drugs. I personally doubt that, and even if, people are responsible for their lifes, if they want to ruin it with drugs, alcohol or whatever, its their problem, I couldn't care less.
Cheers,

Ahmed

Absolutely. You can't regulate something that you don't allow. That's why prostitution is such a problem outside of Las Vegas. There, prostitutes get tested, so that if someone wants to indulge in debauchery, at least it's safe (from a physical, not moral, perspective). Subject drug dealers to market conditions. Drive the prices down. Sell weed in Wal-Mart (won't actually happen, but hey). As you said, tax it like hell and allow the FDA to do quality control.

What I think is key is making drug dealers into legitimate businesspeople. That's going to be fun. If it's not as hard to get your weed, then gangs aren't going to be killing each other to corner markets. Sure, there will be gang violence for other reasons, but much of it is rooted in drugs. If gangs can no longer make as much money off of marijuana, then they'll either fall apart or stop selling it. Sure, they might move to harder stuff, but a lot of people will get scared to sell worse things than marijuana. Those who do know that they're at an even greater risk. You're making it harder for gangs to operate.

As I said before, the best thing is that people who continue to sell marijuana will not sell other drugs. Why? They've now got a legitimate business. It's probably not worth the risks to couple that with highly-illegal activities. Thus, marijuana will no longer serve as a gateway to heroin, cocaine, etc.

neut

Mar 13, 2004, 03:34 PM

anyone concerned with their health can make brownies or use a vaporizer (http://www.marijuanavaporizer.com/benefits.html).

peace.

coopdog

Mar 13, 2004, 03:40 PM

I just saw an ad by the AARP. It started out showing police and goverment force on illegal drugs. Then it said that in the last 5 years the goverment has spent something like 87 billion dollars on the War On Drugs. The general feel of the ad was that the goverment should stop spending so much on illegal drugs and use that money to import drugs from Canada. I'm assuming they mean legal drugs.

coopdog

Mar 13, 2004, 03:53 PM

themadchemist

Mar 13, 2004, 06:12 PM

Pot, if makes you feel relaxed, appreciate music more, helps you
concentrate.......it must be stopped. President Bush knows that he
cannot have the poor feeling better than the Rich so he must spend
billions of dollars stopping it. Yeah, he knows schools are falling apart
and have rats, poor heat .....he's heard it before so lets just not talk
about it....Law Enforcement needs more money to stop the reefer madness.
Thats the end of it.........now lets go get drunk and drive our S.U.V.'s.
Vote for Bush.....Vote against your own Interests. Support the candidate
of the STUPID COMMUNITY. Bush.....he's a proud member of that community. When 9-11 attack happened he was in a 4th grade class in
Sarasota.........he was learning how to read. He was learning his vowel
sounds when that Secret Service guy came in and told him NYC had been
attacked..........he said "yeah, but I wanta learn how to read!! will leave
in 20 minutes........okay?"

I also dislike Bush with a passion. However, I don't think that your treatment of the problem is adequate to convince people of his incompetence. We focus too much on his stupidity and not enough on his danger. The best way to combat Bush is with verbal eloquence and an eloquent, sensible platform. He lacks both; in an attempt at sarcasm and cynicism, we should not take his road. Yes, he's an idiot, but to marginalize his thought process works also to marginalize people's perception of his power. It is much better to demonstrate to people that he is a dangerous, dangerous individual in whose hands the country is not safe.

At least, that's what I think. Let's get back on topic, though. Marijuana probably would not be as dangerous if legalized as Bush is. There. Does that segue satisfy everyone?
:D

rainman::|:|

Mar 13, 2004, 06:28 PM

yeah, i hate bush as much as the next libertarian, but let's not get too off track here... the most we can blame bush for in this case is maintaining an anti-marijuana attitude by appointing people highly unlikely to favor legalization in any case... which is, knowingly or not, what most recent administrations have done. It's not like Bush stepped in and criminalized pot, or has exactly inflamed the war on drugs. remember, he has an affinity for blow ;)

so, back on track, finally got some last night. had a fantastic night of being stoned, grooving to music (it's been sooo long since i've listened to In Utero!). These are the things that make up for a week of too-much-overtime ;)

paul

Thanatoast

Mar 13, 2004, 07:15 PM

the most we can blame bush for in this case is maintaining an anti-marijuana attitude by appointing people highly unlikely to favor legalization in any case...
The people Bush has appointed haven't just been unlikely to legalize marijuana, they've also been of the same ilk as Bush himself. The current Drug Czar (and there's a title which should tell you something about the office), isn't just anti-legalization, he's anti-decriminalization, anti-medical use, even anti-hemp. He busted Tommy freakin' Chong for goodness sake. He has ordered raids on medical growers associations, has arrested terminal cancer patients, and used the Patriot Act to investigate citizens. His anti-marjuana ads are patently ridiculous, and contribute more to the "problem" than the "solution". I feel pretty confident in pinning some blame on Bush for our current policies.

IIvan

Mar 13, 2004, 09:57 PM

wdlove

Mar 13, 2004, 10:26 PM

You're exactly right. However- most anyone is better than Bush- but none of the major candidates listens to what we think. They think about advancing their careers and making money, and they feel that trying to legalize drugs would destroy their careers. :rolleyes:

Hell will freeze over before any drugs are legalized

What is amazing about this is that politicians like to tax items, because it means more money for them to spend in order to grow government.

I agree that marijuana would be safer if regulated like other drugs.

rainman::|:|

Mar 14, 2004, 12:58 AM

The people Bush has appointed haven't just been unlikely to legalize marijuana, they've also been of the same ilk as Bush himself. The current Drug Czar (and there's a title which should tell you something about the office), isn't just anti-legalization, he's anti-decriminalization, anti-medical use, even anti-hemp. He busted Tommy freakin' Chong for goodness sake. He has ordered raids on medical growers associations, has arrested terminal cancer patients, and used the Patriot Act to investigate citizens. His anti-marjuana ads are patently ridiculous, and contribute more to the "problem" than the "solution". I feel pretty confident in pinning some blame on Bush for our current policies.

i'll grant you that. bush has also had influence in determining the legal standards for invasive drug law enforcement, including parts of the patriot act that i'm convinced are entirely there to help enforce certain laws like this. i'm also very affected with the DEA's sudden focus on head shops, Iowa suffered so major a crackdown that there is no such thing as a head shop anymore, just a few tobacco shops willing to suffer harsh scrutiny for selling cheapie bowls, and shops that sell them under the counter. i'm glad to see my tax dollars at work, busting up stoners that have initiative enough to run a business.

part of the reason i supported Clark was that i had a feeling he'd sway pro-decriminalization if he won... his original stance was "i don't support that right now, i might change my mind on that, but right now i don't". he also said he was ill-informed on the subject, and that his anti view was not strong. Sharpton or Mosley Braun would have probably favored, the former because he's always stoned (i'm not being racist, but look at him), the latter because she showed great ability to look at issues objectively... but, America can't have a serious black candidate outside of "24" :rolleyes:

poor tommy chong. i loved that Scott Thompson did a "free tommy chong" initiative on TV. i hope he's as well-respected in prison as i think he is... he seems like he'd lose in a fight.

wdlove, i'm surprised at your take on it. but, i know your interest in medicine, and i firmly believe pot taxation would allow our country to start a decent universal-healthcare program. i normally frown on disproportionate "sin-taxes", but it'd still be cheaper than it is now, with better quality product, if regulated.

paul

Prom1

Mar 14, 2004, 03:19 AM

Briank?? I think you said you've been toking since 13; ha I had my first draw since age 3!!! My Uncle used to always smoke it around me, even gave me my first batch (1/2 Qtr) when I was 7; really blew all the people at school around me wondering why I was High-strung, paranoid, nervous, and really fast at track 'n'field for grade 4 events - paranoia.

I've got some mixed opinions now that I'm older. "Naturally" grown weed, I mean wild, grown in the bush in my uncles back yard in Montego Bay, Jamaica from since my dad was a kid; can still do some strange things. Example, my cousin was born 2 weeks premature, and I swear to god she had no melanin, and she was healthy enough to be home. My uncle would toke a big'un around her 24/7 and since her 1st month she has an Indian red skin complexion, and my family is dark enough to be recognized as black. Poor girl.

Now as for making you lazy, damn straight it does. Your too mellow to follow thru your ambitions, but If your like me and your eyes become tell-tale red, don't smoke even a pinner the night before you need to goto work!!! Got away with it once, but never again; 12 guys I worked with got a warning not to be high/smoke on work grounds 3 days after. They didn't listen, needless to say the next week got to work and they were ALL fired.

I've pretty much quit smoking; I want to stay healthy & focused on my goals & family.

However, one thing that I agree on from the gov ads; is it is, for most everyone, a leader drug to high-profile designer drugs (Shrooms,Acid,Ecstacy,K, Coke) in that order usually. As I've seen it first hand from the people I've dropped as friends.

briankonar

Mar 14, 2004, 04:57 AM

Les Kern

Mar 14, 2004, 08:49 AM

What is your opinion on marijuana...

I wish it were legal, and it should be. The drug laws that lock up people for 10 years for possession are a travesty. Of course it's skewed WAY to the Black/Hispanic side. Whites are 7 times more likely to use them, but non-whites are 4 times more likely to searve time.
We lost the drug war about 20 years ago. Now the war isn't on the drugs, but on the people I feel have every right to use them.
Now you're going to have to excuse me... I'm going out and getting ********* up on beer.
Get it?

gerror

Mar 14, 2004, 11:31 AM

Here in the Netherlands it is as legal as it can be considering international laws. It is legal to buy it and smoke it. It is even legal to sell it when you have not more than some amount in stock. There are official places in al lot of towns. Also, it is legal to grow about 6 plants for private pleasure.
BUT, it is not legal to grow professionally. If we would allow that, the whole world will fall over us even more.

Personally, I have no problems with weed or hash. When I was 15 or 16 it was very exciting so I tried it a couple of times. Turned out it was not my cup of tea. I get very sleepy and unfortunaltely I never had a 'laughkick'.
So after that experience period I have never touched it again. Almost all my friends and people I hang out with followed the same route. 1 or 2 occasionally smoke weed.

However, I know a few people who smoke too much. I know 1 guy who can not sleep unless he smoked. Those people have a serious problem.

Like any other drugs like alcohol, nicotine and others, there will allways people who cannot deal with it. Every governement should count the pro's and the con's. My opinion is that there are more pro's than con's for weed and without offending anyone, I think the governement in the USA underestimate her people.

Josh

Mar 14, 2004, 11:44 AM

wrong link? :confused:

Sorry about that - I guess I did put the wrong link.

Thanks for pointing it out!

Here is the correct link to it My discussion on marijuana (http://www.newtiburon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=32212&postcount=147)

crazytom

Mar 14, 2004, 12:27 PM

Sorry about that - I guess I did put the wrong link.

Thanks for pointing it out!

Here is the correct link to it My discussion on marijuana (http://www.newtiburon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=32212&postcount=147)

Very interesting article. To me, it tells me that anyone operating heavy equipment shouldn't be using the drug. The pilot test was interesting, and even though it was in a controlled environment, I don't think it wasn't necessarily a good test. This is why I think that:

It was in a simulator. The effect of adrenaline wouldn't be present there as it would be in the real world: could the effects of adrenaline overcome the effects of THC? Also, they landed the plane 10 times while straight. Personally, I'd get pretty bored after that and not really care how I landed the plane the next 20-30 times, high or straight---especially knowing it's only a simulator and no real consequences of not doing it correct.

Also, the buildup around neurons was checked on dead brains. The impairment of the brain cells seems somewhat assumptive. I'd want to see some live scans of activity in those areas as proof. I could say, as an example: I have a slow moving stream running through my back yard. I want to make it move faster, so I piles up a bunch of dirt in the stream to narrow it. Now the water moves much faster. (Yeah, this is kinda stupid...the water moves faster, but the volume would remain the same...but you get my point).

I know your article was brief and to the point, but if there's other information that would debunk my points, I'd be happy to hear about it.

Josh

Mar 14, 2004, 12:45 PM

Very interesting article. To me, it tells me that anyone operating heavy equipment shouldn't be using the drug. The pilot test was interesting, and even though it was in a controlled environment, I don't think it wasn't necessarily a good test. This is why I think that:

It was in a simulator. The effect of adrenaline wouldn't be present there as it would be in the real world: could the effects of adrenaline overcome the effects of THC? Also, they landed the plane 10 times while straight. Personally, I'd get pretty bored after that and not really care how I landed the plane the next 20-30 times, high or straight---especially knowing it's only a simulator and no real consequences of not doing it correct.

Also, the buildup around neurons was checked on dead brains. The impairment of the brain cells seems somewhat assumptive. I'd want to see some live scans of activity in those areas as proof. I could say, as an example: I have a slow moving stream running through my back yard. I want to make it move faster, so I piles up a bunch of dirt in the stream to narrow it. Now the water moves much faster. (Yeah, this is kinda stupid...the water moves faster, but the volume would remain the same...but you get my point).

I know your article was brief and to the point, but if there's other information that would debunk my points, I'd be happy to hear about it.

Excellent point about the adrenaline, that is definitely something to consider. But adrenaline comes and goes very quickly, and while it my subside the effects of THC, it would only be temporary (where as the effects of THC last a very long time - much longer than most people realize).

The sections of the brains they studied were taken from the monkeys when they were living (i.e. the opperated on the live monkey, removed a portion of its brain, then studied it). Doing that is the only way to get a sample of the brain that can be studied under a very powerful microscope. If they just cut the monkey's head open and looked at the brain, they would only be able to see the neurons that lie on the very outermost shell of the brain, and not those deep within.

They were studying the physical THC deposits on the neurons. What they did was the only way to do that, and wether the brain was lively active or not would not affect the physical residue build up around the neurons. By testing for how much the THC depossited around the nuerons, it is very easy to determine that brain activity would be severly reduced in such a restricted environment

Think of nuerons like a large single-file row of people tossinga ball, (the information) a short distance along the line to one another. The dendrites would be the peoples' hands. If their hands were covered in dough (the dendrite covered in THC) they would have a much harder time tossing and catching the ball. And if the space between two people (space between two dendrites) was blocked by dough (space between dendrites blocked by THC), they'd have an even harder time getting the ball to one another. The restrictions in catching/tossing plus the restriction of getting the ball (info) across the space are cummulative - they add up, further hindering how well that ball will will travel down the line. The information in your brain is hindered by THC in both how sucessfuly a message is transmitted, and how quickly a sucessfull bit of information is transmitted and recieved. People with dough on their hands and between them will have a hard time passing the ball along, and when they do, it will be much slower than if they didnt have the dough - just the same as a brain saturated in THC when compared to one that is not.

MrMacMan

Mar 15, 2004, 12:20 AM

coopdog

Mar 15, 2004, 12:29 AM

briankonar

Mar 15, 2004, 12:54 AM

War on Drugs:
Total Crap.

You want to know the solution?

Buy every single field that drugs are made on. Burn them all Down.

I read an essay on this... a very long winded essay with that point.

The U.S could have burnt down all of the ____ drug fields 3x over and over... and could still have money left, but instead they try to 'bust' people....

Marijuana is fine... I got kicked out of my health class for saying that several times...

I have no info to back me up, can someone give me a link?
you must have some uptight teachers, i've done several assignments (papers, public cable access news snippets, speeches, computer presentations) on the legalization of marijuana in junior high and high school (only got to do one paper so far in college and english is over :( ). The worst response I've ever recieved was "be careful who you say that to." On the other hand I've never recieved less than an A on any of my legalization papers, so either they are impartial or they agree weed should be legal :D.

by the way, i went to high school at Glenbrook North (the one famous world wide for Powder Puff, aka the hazing incident) so you know everyone in that town smokes the ganj.

themadchemist

Mar 15, 2004, 04:51 AM

considering the posts here, perhaps we should start a "have you ever been high?" thread.

crazytom

Mar 15, 2004, 09:20 AM

Besides all the adverse effects of using marijuana, here's an interesting read (http://www.csuchico.edu/pot/bor.html) of the real casualties on the war on drugs.

After reading it, I realized that the war on terrorism has taken a lot of these injustices and pushed them even further.

neut

Mar 15, 2004, 09:43 AM

considering the posts here, perhaps we should start a "have you ever been high?" thread.

... with an 'if so, how often do you get high' poll. ;)

****

concerning the 'terrorist' comments by some; anyone notice the uprise in opiate usage lately? our government is paying middle-eastern drug lords to kep the terrorists at bay and for payment for this we are 'ignoring' thier opiate crops.

how 'bout we start subsidizing domestic marijuana growers instead – in order to 'keep it out of the hands of terrorists'? that's pro-american isn't? i new i could do it! :D

peace.

themadchemist

Mar 16, 2004, 02:12 AM

... with an 'if so, how often do you get high' poll. ;)

****

concerning the 'terrorist' comments by some; anyone notice the uprise in opiate usage lately? our government is paying middle-eastern drug lords to kep the terrorists at bay and for payment for this we are 'ignoring' thier opiate crops.

how 'bout we start subsidizing domestic marijuana growers instead – in order to 'keep it out of the hands of terrorists'? that's pro-american isn't? i new i could do it! :D

peace.

I say, friends, a chicken in every pot and a reefer in every yard!

snax

Jun 13, 2004, 01:05 AM

Everyone, including the people who banned it, know that marijuana/hemp is a great source for basically everything. Our 4 fathers used it. Half the presidents used it. Half th nation has used it! The only way it will be legalized is if everyone stands up for it. The more voices there are, the louder were going to be heard. Also, to everyone who opposes marijuana and hasn't smoked it, I have just one message, "You can't put it down, if you havn't picked it up." - Snax

P.S. Support NORML (http://www.norml.com) NORML can help you accomplish a lot.

Also visit Stoner Stuff (http://stonerstuff.has.it) for almost everything you need to know about marijuana.

phonemonkey

Jun 13, 2004, 01:36 AM

My opinion? I love the stuff.

Neserk

Jun 13, 2004, 01:43 AM

P.S. Support NORML (http://www.norml.com) NORML can help you accomplish a lot.

Also visit Stoner Stuff (http://stonerstuff.has.it) for almost everything you need to know about marijuana.

NORM is bogus. Not a single study to support their claims. Show me a medical study done by doctors that show that marijuana is harmless. You can't, because there aren't any. IT is just a bunch of people who want a dangerous drug to be legalized so the price will go down or so they can grow it without risk of getting arrested.

Pathetic. Using it for medical reasons is one thing, smoking your life away is another. People need to do fight for a real cause like the environment or to end wars and hunger.

Neserk

Jun 13, 2004, 01:48 AM

Absolutely. You can't regulate something that you don't allow. That's why prostitution is such a problem outside of Las Vegas. .

OMG! I can't believe this! Legalize prostitution??? That is sick, sick, sick. Let's recognize the history of these women: they were usually sexuall and/or physcially abused which is part of the reason they end up as prostitutes. And you want to condone this so they can continue to be abused. That makes me sick.

o Compared to victims of childhood physical abuse
and neglect, victims of childhood sexual abuse are
at greater risk of being arrested for one type of
sex crime: prostitution.

http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/abuse.txt

How about we help these victims instead of telling them to continue to be victims?

Amani

Jun 13, 2004, 01:59 AM

Decriminalize it! Read Reefer Madness (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0618334661/qid=1087109603/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3/002-7741240-6200039) to understand why.

Neserk

Jun 13, 2004, 08:10 AM

Decriminalize it! Read Reefer Madness (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0618334661/qid=1087109603/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3/002-7741240-6200039) to understand why.

Not going to buy a book of propaganda, but based on the title I will say that this is *not* a reason to legalize a dangerous drug! I love the excuses people come up with :rolleyes:

skunk

Jun 13, 2004, 08:28 AM

Not going to buy a book of propaganda, but based on the title I will say that this is *not* a reason to legalize a dangerous drug! I love the excuses people come up with :rolleyes:
You know what they say about judging a book by its cover? :rolleyes:

skunk

Jun 13, 2004, 08:39 AM

Show me a medical study done by doctors that show that marijuana is harmless. You can't, because there aren't any.
This is similar to W demanding that Saddam "prove" he had no WMD. It's up to you to prove it is harmful.

You can't IT is just a bunch of people who want a dangerous drug to be legalized so the price will go down or so they can grow it without risk of getting arrested.

Pathetic. Using it for medical reasons is one thing, smoking your life away is another. People need to do fight for a real cause like the environment or to end wars and hunger.
Smoking dope is no worse than a lot of activities which are not criminalized: working in any number of dead-end jobs, drinking, over-eating, being a politician. Nor does it preclude doing useful stuff at the same time. And it's a lot less dangerous than most other intoxicants.

skunk

Jun 13, 2004, 08:46 AM

OMG! I can't believe this! Legalize prostitution??? That is sick, sick, sick. Let's recognize the history of these women: they were usually sexuall and/or physcially abused which is part of the reason they end up as prostitutes. And you want to condone this so they can continue to be abused. That makes me sick.
All dogs may be four-legged animals, but not all four-legged animals are dogs. Prostitution is too old a profession to dismiss as solely the result of abuse.

Neserk

Jun 13, 2004, 11:41 AM

All dogs may be four-legged animals, but not all four-legged animals are dogs. Prostitution is too old a profession to dismiss as solely the result of abuse.

Abuse has existed since the beginning of time. Women and girls don't become prostitutes because they want to.

Neserk

Jun 13, 2004, 11:41 AM

This is similar to W demanding that Saddam "prove" he had no WMD. It's up to you to prove it is harmful.

.

NO, actually it is up to those who want it to be legal to prove it is not harmful. Safety first.

Neserk

Jun 13, 2004, 11:42 AM

You know what they say about judging a book by its cover? :rolleyes:

No, the title :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D :p

agreenster

Jun 13, 2004, 11:54 AM

I must be the most boring person on the planet.

I've never smoked weed in my life, and I've never had the desire to. Don't know why!! :confused:

I drink, and enjoy the buzz from a beer, but thats about it. I'm a bit of a clean freak/health nut, so the thought of smoke going in my lungs sorta frreaks me out, and I hate the dirty feeling of a smoky room. Maybe that's why.

My idea of a good time is going to the gym, getting a good pump and slamming a protein shake...:confused: Yep. I'm weird.

But when it comes to my opinion about people who smoke weed, and the politics/money surrounding it: I think its a waste of money to bust people for weed. Stronger drugs (heroin, cocaine, etc) that actually wreck people's lives should be illegal and controlled, but it's so lame to bust people who smoke weed. It's no more dangerous than beer, and thats legal. What gives?

Marijuana should be legal, so the money can go back into the legit economy, cops can spend their time busting real criminals, so people can be educated about its proper use, and the Hawaiians wont be so damn poor. :D Kidding.

Oirectine

Jun 13, 2004, 12:04 PM

I happen to have the opinion that as long as I'm not harming another individual, I should have the right to do whatever I want to my own body. This includes smoking marijuana. The harder drugs I'm not so sure about because they cost the community a lot of money in the long run.

Amani

Jun 13, 2004, 04:53 PM

Well, I think most of us know that drug related offenses constitute the highest rate of imprisonment of human beings in this country. People are being arrested and given unfair amounts of time just because they chose to use a drug that affects them and them only. Drug laws impact the most impoverished communities in this county--keeping people perminately tied into the system where they get no real help to confront their drug addiction or support or transcend the obstacles that often lead people to use drugs.

When alcohol was criminalized during the prohibition in this country, the sell of alcohol actually increased and things got worse.

To decriminalize drug use doesn't mean that it simply legitimizes its use. It means that you take out the underground exploitation of it. It means that you stop locking up people as a solution to their drug addiction. Locking up people for "harming" themselves simply doesn't work.

The only people who benefit are drug laws are drug dealers, lawyers, cops, probation officers, legal clerks, etc. Just imagine the amount of jobs that would be lost when some drugs are decriminalized.

Not going to buy a book of propaganda, but based on the title I will say that this is *not* a reason to legalize a dangerous drug! I love the excuses people come up with :rolleyes:

Neserk

Jun 13, 2004, 05:16 PM

Well, I think most of us know that drug related offenses constitute the highest rate of imprisonment of human beings in this country. .

Not in CA. They go to rehab. Much better way to deal with a social problem than jail.

Frohickey

Jun 13, 2004, 05:56 PM

Not in CA. They go to rehab. Much better way to deal with a social problem than jail.

I think that drug use that does not cause bystander injury ought to be dealt with as a revenue-generating endeavor.

Lets see. If a cop catches you smoking or selling drugs, your contact information will be taken, and the drugs confiscated. You can then go to the Department of Tax Revenue office to get your drugs back, after you pay a fine for taxes owed. Or, you can get a discount on this penalty if you disclose the name and whereabouts of the supplier. Then the cops pay him a visit in order to get the government's share of revenue.

If taxes aren't paid, the drugs are confiscated, and then sold at auction by the government, with the buyer paying a business license tax as well as drug taxes on the spot.

All monies gathered go towards tax revenue collection costs, police funding, and voluntary drug treatment for drug users and anti-drug use advertising campaign costs.

I think, let's see... how about $40 an ounce of marijuana ought to be the right amount of taxation.

Treat it like what is being done with smoking. You get rid of the incentive for law enforcement corruption, turn it into a lifestyle choice, bring it out of the black market, where it can be taxed and the money used to mitigate the damages caused.

Amani

Jun 13, 2004, 06:59 PM

I think that drug use that does not cause bystander injury ought to be dealt with as a revenue-generating endeavor.

This is sort of what the book Reefer Madness is trying to say. I wish I could find that book so I could provide a few specific quotes from it. It would be very useful to this discussion.

This issue is so much influeced by class, for again most of the arrest take place for drug use happens in poor, minority, communities, but we all know drug use is prevelant in middle class and rich communities as well.

My drug is pepsi--rarely do I drink a beer and I haven't smoked a joint in over twenty years--but I wonder why there's no prolong discussion about why there's such high rates of drug use in this society? What is about the culture that causes people to become addicted? We can't address these questions as long as criminalization and jailing people is primary way we deal with the issue.

Amani

Jun 13, 2004, 08:16 PM

Found the book: Reefer Madness, by Erick Schlosser:

Chew on this: "About 724,000 people were arrested in the United States for violating marijuana laws during 2001--more than were arrested for heroin or cocaine. Almost 90 percent of the marijuana arrests were for simple possession, a crime that in mot cases is a misdemeanor. Those arrested may spend a few days in jail. But possession of more than an ounce of marijuana--roughly equal to the amount of tobacco in a pack of cigarettes—is in many states a felony. Conviction may lead to a few months or a few years behind bars and the loss of a house or a job...." But even if the conviction is only a few months, it can have a long range negative impact on a convicted person's ability to get a job. Again, these convictions mainly take place in poor, minority, communities. If more arrests took place in affluent communities, drugs would be decriminalized.

This book is full of fascinating information. As a nation, we need to have more open discussions about this issue, a discussion or debate that does'nt begin with the McCarthy-like terror question: Do you now , or have you ever been a smoker of marijuana? What a stupid question. As if to smoke a natural herb is like devil worshipping or being a communist. I wonder why we don't ask the same question about benign addictions: Do you now or have you ever been addicted to shopping, watching endless hours of television, jerking off on a daily basis, overeating, or eating too many dead cows?

Neserk

Jun 13, 2004, 10:40 PM

Anyone has yet to provide information that clearly demonstrates that Marijuan is safe.

Should drug usage be decriminalized? yes, and people who are addicts should get help. But that isn't what this is about.

rainman::|:|

Jun 14, 2004, 12:26 AM

neserk: i'm not really understanding which side you're on, decriminalizing drugs or not. If you're arguing simply that NORML is wrong in saying marijuana isn't toxic, take it up with their source...

From NORML's section on responsible use (http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5442#responsible_use):

Marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. Around 50,000 people die each year from alcohol poisoning. Similarly, more than 400,000 deaths each year are attributed to tobacco smoking. By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose. According to the prestigious European medical journal, The Lancet, "The smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health. ... It would be reasonable to judge cannabis as less of a threat ... than alcohol or tobacco."

As with alcohol consumption, marijuana smoking can never be an excuse for misconduct or other improper behavior. For example, driving or operating heavy equipment while impaired from marijuana should be prohibited.

NORML cites a source, a british medical journal, they're the ones claiming that marijuana is not harmful. NORML is very much in line to quote such a journal. I'm not making any claims about the journal, and I actually agree with you that marijuana is harmful to health. But NORML is an advocacy group, not a research group...

As for prostitution, in places like Amsterdam where prostitution is a well-regulated industry, it's a valid form of employment for many women. They are not abused nor forced into prostitution, let alone forced into individual acts. Knowing a few private escorts, I can say that they seem perfectly well adjusted in their routine-- Dinner and consenting sex perhaps once a week, in exchange for a monthly stipend. Once you take religious morality out of the picture, something that government shouldn't be enforcing, there's no reason prostitution shouldn't be a regulated industry-- Indeed, it must become one, to protect the sex workers that already flourish in most cities. It's abhorrent to say "because I disagree about the morality of what you do, I will turn my back on you and leave you to the mercy of pimps". Making laws "for people's own good" invariably results in victimization.

As to my personal views of marijuana... I have recently cut back to a bit some nights, from being a stereotypical stoner for a few years. There was a time when it was less irresponsible for me to smoke so much, but now I need more focus and mental stamina than I had when I was always high. A lot of people go through phases in their lives when they use marijuana, and I strongly believe that they should be able to do so responsibly and legally. Hell, I contradict myself a dozen times a day, I'm about to start telling people what they can do with themselves. If you want to smoke pot? fine. If you don't want to? fine. What's the problem with that? :)

paul

Neserk

Jun 14, 2004, 12:38 AM

neserk: i'm not really understanding which side you're on, decriminalizing drugs or not.

Decriminalization means sending people to rehab instead of jail. That is something entirely different than make marijauna etc. legal.

But NORML is an advocacy group, not a research group...

But shouldn't advocates have their facts straight and support what they are advocating with science and studies? Saying something isn't as dangerous as alcohol or smoking is not an argument.

As for prostitution, in places like Amsterdam where prostitution is a well-regulated industry, it's a valid form of employment for many women.

Sorry, Prostitution will never be a valid form of employment for anyone, male or female, young or old, gay or straight I don't care how regulated it is. It is abuse and it is wrong.

Amani

Jun 14, 2004, 01:16 AM

Sorry, Prostitution will never be a valid form of employment for anyone, male or female, young or old, gay or straight I don't care how regulated it is. It is abuse and it is wrong.

But who gets to say what is valid or what is not? Not that I'm for prostitution, but I'm not prepared to say it's right or wrong for someone else. Why do I say that? Because I understand what position a male dominated, largely capitalist world puts most women in. You can't have this type of domination and then not say prostitution is not valid. It doesn't work that way in a capitalist patriarchal world. Prostitution in this country is not criminalized because law makers are trying to protect the rights of women. Prostitution is criminalized, like other similiar "crimes", because it's an ongoing method of social control. Such crimes leave people in mostly poor communities scared, divided, cynical, and politically confused and vunerable--thus giving those in power more power to decide what others can and cannot do.

Women sell the bodies everyday--it doesn't have to be prostitution. Just check out most any popular magazine display of women's bodies to sell products. That's of course acceptable. But two people ****ing is a form of behaivor that must be controlled just because money was exchanged.

Don't change the system whereby women wouldn't have to sell the their body, but just lock them and keep them in and out of the judicial system, so they get screwed even more.

The same goes for the use of weed. People are not being locked up for it because they are harming themselves. No, it's that their social behavior is being controlled. They can consume all types of chemically dangerous, but legalized foods, but they can't smoke weed because someone has decided that that is a behavior that must be controlled. Control it and you increase your power over what people decide to do and not to themselves.

Thus basically without these "crimes" you don't have cops, lawyers, judges, prison guards, politicians (law makers), etc. Without crimes you don't have fear of the criminal! What you do have without criminalization is societies grappling seriously to understand human behavior, and people fighting to demand a more just, democratic society. So the focus is not on fear of the criminal, but the consequences of power whereby a minority of people get to decide what others can and cannot do.

I'll stop there. Appreciate this civil discussion.

Amani

Jun 14, 2004, 01:22 AM

Making laws "for people's own good" invariably results in victimization. paul

Seriously well stated. Chew on it.

skunk

Jun 14, 2004, 06:15 AM

I'll stop there. Appreciate this civil discussion.
Oh, please don't stop: you were doing so well! :D

Jovian9

Jun 14, 2004, 09:02 AM

It's never caused any problems in my life.....other than arguments about it with an ex-sorority-girlfriend. A friend of mine has smoked nearly everyday since he was 11 or 12 (now 26) and has excelled at school and his life. He has his bachelors, created and obtained his Masters Degree, and is now the youngest person in his field (by many years) working on his Doctorate at NYU....and still smokes all the time.
Have I done drugs? Yes.....lots of them with lots of variety.
Do I still use drugs? No.....that phase has come and gone.....I enjoyed it but eventually all things come to an end.
Am I pro or anti-drug use? No.....that should be left up to the individual.
Over the years with all of the drugs and people doing drugs that I've been around I've learned several things:
1. Some people can handle drugs and some cannot
2. Some people can learn a lot from using drugs and some cannot
3. Drugs do not make a person less motivated or bring out bad/good things about a person......if a characteristic is inside someone it will find it's way out eventually....with or without drugs.

Note: I'm only speaking with experience from drugs I've used or been around.

krimson

Jun 14, 2004, 09:05 AM

Not in CA. They go to rehab. Much better way to deal with a social problem than jail.

Uh... unless this is a very recent change, not everyone is qualified to goto rehab.

Decriminalization means sending people to rehab instead of jail. That is something entirely different than make marijauna etc. legal.

If it were decriminalized, then what authority would the authorities have in sending people to rehab? :confused:

Neserk

Jun 14, 2004, 09:16 AM

But who gets to say what is valid or what is not? Not that I'm for prostitution, but I'm not prepared to say it's right or wrong for someone else. Why do I say that? Because I understand what position a male dominated, largely capitalist world puts most women in. You can't have this type of domination and then not say prostitution is not valid. It doesn't work that way in a capitalist patriarchal world. Prostitution in this country is not criminalized because law makers are trying to protect the rights of women. Prostitution is criminalized, like other similiar "crimes", because it's an ongoing method of social control. Such crimes leave people in mostly poor communities scared, divided, cynical, and politically confused and vunerable--thus giving those in power more power to decide what others can and cannot do.

I don't care *why* it is criminilized. It is wrong. I don't know how anyone who is in favor of women's equality and in favor of protecting children can be in favor of it. When you see a "profession" that has a much higher than normal rate of victims of sexual abuse and recognize that prostitution is an extenison of that abuse, you realize it is wrong.

Women sell the bodies everyday--it doesn't have to be prostitution. Just check out most any popular magazine display of women's bodies to sell products. That's of course acceptable. But two people ****ing is a form of behaivor that must be controlled just because money was exchanged.

That is not an argument.

Don't change the system whereby women wouldn't have to sell the their body, but just lock them and keep them in and out of the judicial system, so they get screwed even more.

Lets try and help them, instead.

I've got to go. But there a place in Chicago that helps people get out of prostitution. When you read their stories and the related statistics you'll understand why in real life prostitution is not as glamorous as Pretty Woman makes it out to be.

decksnap

Jun 14, 2004, 09:40 AM

Admittedly didn't read the entire thread, and I am not on either side of the fence regarding prostitution- but it strikes me as hilarious that the government capitalizes on our terrorist fears of late to tell us to get off the weed. But honestly- Who took over the booze trade when they made it illegal? If weed was legal, the terrorists would not profit off of it, the government would. Problem solved. And at that point shouldn't there be a commercial that says 'smoking weed supports the USA?' Seems along the same lines.

blue&whiteman

Jun 14, 2004, 12:08 PM

Neserk:

as a buddhist I do not wish ill toward anyone but your fascist ways go too far. you think everyone should think the way you do.

just because you are a total dead soul conformist doesn't mean you have to push it on everyone else.

"I don't just roll over when i'm told to. you see, I have this real moron thing I do. its call THINKING! ..and i'm not a very good american because I like to make my own decisions and form my own opinions"
George Carlin, 1992

George knows whats up!

People like Neserk are Bush supporters and don't even know it..

rainman::|:|

Jun 14, 2004, 03:02 PM

Neserk: How many prostitutes do you know personally? Why should anyone believe your sources any more than "Pretty Woman"? You still haven't explained why you want prostitutes to remain under the control of abusive pimps, rather than working in a union, being able to make demands, set their own prices, decide their own activities. Pimps are responsible for every bit of abuse prostitutes take, either by direct harm or by letting johns abuse the girls, and pimps are in business because prostitution is illegal. If it was legalized, it would be fine, exactly as it is in the Netherlands. Again, explain how the sex industry works so well there? I think you'd be hard pressed to find an "abused" prostitute there, or one that was forced into *anything*, etc. Hell, I'd rather be a whore than work at mcdonalds...

Blue&white-- Though I am on your side, as in so many arguments, I still feel that you bring up your buddhism as an argument point, to be a little bit condescending to other people. As i've said before, I know few buddhists that would enjoy bragging about buddhism to such a degree, trying to convince other people... How about you argue based on merit rather than diety? ;)

paul

Frohickey

Jun 14, 2004, 04:03 PM

Sounds to me that there are control freaks here that would like to maintain and expand their control over the lives of people. Its unfortunate that these control freaks don't just come out and say that they believe they are more enlightened and wise than the people, and that they have to go through the pretense of saying its for the people's own good that they are doing what they are doing.

I hate control freaks! :mad:

Control freak == tyrant

I agree with what Thomas Jefferson said about tyrants and trees. :D

krimson

Jun 14, 2004, 04:11 PM

They really need to legalize it, that way i can stop paying $300 for a O of fluff. :p

rainman::|:|

Jun 14, 2004, 04:59 PM

They really need to legalize it, that way i can stop paying $300 for a O of fluff. :p

Apparently $100 for a zone is pretty lucky, this weekend I hung out with friends about 80 miles away from my town, and they're paying even more than you are ($400). Actually I'm starting to see $75/zone (more wholesale than retail, catch my drift). Iowa has it's perks ;)

Of course, the price drops to this unbelievably level right when i'm stopping almost entirely... oh well. No one said this would be easy...

*ahem*
These discussions do get weird, don't they? :)

paul

krimson

Jun 14, 2004, 06:34 PM

Sub $250? That's amazing. :eek:

Sooo... This Iowa you speak of.. tell me more.. :D

...
2. Some people can learn a lot from using drugs and some cannot.
...

Not as an endorsement, but I've had 2 friends who tried acid, and are really better off for it.

On the flipside, i've had a few friends not have a good experience.

blue&whiteman

Jun 14, 2004, 06:54 PM

Blue&white-- Though I am on your side, as in so many arguments, I still feel that you bring up your buddhism as an argument point, to be a little bit condescending to other people. As i've said before, I know few buddhists that would enjoy bragging about buddhism to such a degree, trying to convince other people... How about you argue based on merit rather than diety? ;)

paul

how did I use buddhism as an argument point? I was simply explaining that the reason I don't mean ill toward Neserk is because i'm a buddhist. its fair to say that most pro pot people (or even pro free thinking/anti conformist people) would have ill feelings toward her.

MrMacMan

Jun 14, 2004, 11:12 PM

Look:
Step 1. Legalized and decriminalize.
Step 2. Government oversight like every other drug out there.
Step 3. Take the money away from the supposed 'terrorists' by taking over their buisness.

I see you getting busted for two things with marijuana:
1) Driving/heavy machinery. Just like Booze, stay away from the car.
2) No selling/using license ... see Gov't oversight.

I am find with it, I have never used it, maybe I will, maybe I wouldn't, I don't care too much. There are few harmful side affects of it. I mean really, you can't smoke yourself to death soooo. :D

Frohickey

Jun 15, 2004, 12:09 AM

Look:
Step 1. Legalized and decriminalize.
Step 2. Government oversight like every other drug out there.
Step 3. Take the money away from the supposed 'terrorists' by taking over their buisness.

Exactly.

Take the black market out of it and you get rid of the criminality that goes on in the production and distribution of the drug.
Also, you minimize the lure of the drug because now its legal, or semi-legal.
Also, you minimize the potential for corruption of law enforcement.
Plus, you decrease the amount of law enforcement resources spent on this.

BUT, that last part is why there needs to be a large outcry before this will happen. Right now, there is already a large cash outlay for drug enforcement and that goes right into the part about big government. You will not see anyone in government that is proposing a reduction in the size of government. Sure, the Republicans give lip service to this, but since when has a Republican actually reduced government? The Democrats do not even give lip service to reducing government, so they will not be the ones to legalize drugs (except that a lot of people voting for Democrats would probably be the ones to benefit from legalized recreational drugs. :eek)

Neserk

Jun 15, 2004, 12:21 AM

Neserk: How many prostitutes do you know personally? Why should anyone believe your sources any more than "Pretty Woman"?

http://www.genesishouse.org/index.html

explore.

Facts
70% of the women who enter the Genesis House residential recovery program remain in it to graduate.

60% of the women who graduate from the Genesis House residential recovery program stay clean, sober and out of prostitution.

90% of Genesis House residents are mothers.

60% of Genesis House residents are dually diagnosed with substance abuse problems and psychiatric disorders.

At Genesis House, 90% of the women have suffered traumas including childhood incest and sexual abuse.

http://www.chicagohomeless.org/factsfigures/prost.pdf

The average of beginning prostitution is 14

90% of prostitutes were vicitims of sex crimes

You still haven't explained why you want prostitutes to remain under the control of abusive pimps, rather than working in a union, being able to make demands, set their own prices, decide their own activities.

I don't :rolleyes: I want them out of prostitution.

Pimps are responsible for every bit of abuse prostitutes take, either by direct harm or by letting johns abuse the girls, and pimps are in business because prostitution is illegal.

The abuse starts when they are children and continues with pimps and johns. It won't end because it is legal.

If it was legalized, it would be fine, exactly as it is in the Netherlands. Again, explain how the sex industry works so well there? I think you'd be hard pressed to find an "abused" prostitute there, or one that was forced into *anything*, etc.

I was refering to their history of having been abused which is why they went into prostitution in the first place.

Hell, I'd rather be a whore than work at mcdonalds...

paul

That is sick. I worked at McDonald's for 5 months when I was in high school. It was actually not a bad job if you don't mind working with food. Not something I'd want to do for life... but not a bad job.

jelloshotsrule

Jun 15, 2004, 12:58 AM

neserk- you want women out of prostitution... do you think that will ever happen 100%? i ask because i would love to see no abortions... but do i ever think that will happen? no. so i think it should remain legal and safer than if abortion were outlawed.

it's not a perfect analogy (what is?) but that's what came to mind when i was reading your arguments....

blue&whiteman

Jun 15, 2004, 05:21 AM

That is sick.

as are you.

yay! I added Neserk to my ignore list!!!

Frohickey

Jun 15, 2004, 12:01 PM

That is sick. I worked at McDonald's for 5 months when I was in high school. It was actually not a bad job if you don't mind working with food. Not something I'd want to do for life... but not a bad job.

But you are missing the point completely.

You might think that McDonalds is perfectly fine for a temporary job. Others may not. Others may think that prostitution (or any other job that they undertake voluntarily) is perfectly fine for a temporary job. You certainly do not.

What makes your viewpoint any more valid than theirs? As long as no one is being harmed and its all voluntary.

I say that more freedom is a good thing.

Travl

Jun 15, 2004, 01:13 PM

I smoke weed pretty much everyday. I have smoked everyday for around 4 years or so. I live in Vancouver, BC so weed here is pretty much legal. I have been "busted" 2 times in possesion of marijuana and both times the police have just taken my bag and sent me on my merrie way. I smoke out of a bong. Besides a vaporizer, the bong is the cleanest possible way to smoke. I have even seen a Doctor speaking on the subject of smoking methods. A bong regestered much cleaner than a joint. About 80% if memory serves(my longterm is better than the short). Even smoking tobbacco out of a bong is much cleaner. The weed laws here are so lax, our standing Prime Minister (your version of the president) said he would move to decriminalize if re-elected. Standing in our way I see an all out assault of propoganda and political pressure put on Canada by the US government. Its bad enough they try to push this BS on their own citizens let alone another country. Ive seen Ashcroft speaking of how BC marijuana smuggled into the US is a form of Bio-Terror. ***** that!!! The only explination for the assault is economical. It makes them more money to controll it. Thats all there is to it.

PalmHarborTchr

Jun 15, 2004, 01:16 PM

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][SIZE=7][COLOR=Red] The two primary problems
that most people have with marijuana are:

Its too Expensive

I don't have a good supplier

multimedium

Jun 15, 2004, 05:37 PM

One of the best things I've ever heard about Marijuana was said in the movie Jackie Brown. Samuel L. Jackson says to his girlfriend "Are you getting high already? It's three o'clock! That **** is going to rob you of your ambition!" to which she says "it's that late?" and "not if your ambition is to get high and watch t.v.!"

I used to smoke a lot, but I often think I "outgrew" it. The biggest reasons I don't now is that I have to work really hard to make enough money to support my family. When I get high, all I want to do is hang out with friends and watch TV. Not that those are bad things, but like Sam Jackson says, it does rob you of your ambition. Especially when you get older. I think your friends still do well in school because they are young and full of energy. Not that it's necessarily good for them, though.

I think it's okay in moderation, like anything else. It's certainly not as bad for you as alcohol, especially if you filter it. It can complicate schizophrenia, it has been said high doses can even cause it.

I used to have some friends who are old hippies. I mean like, in their 50's now. Anyway, they bought their house and property so long ago (back in the 60's!) that their mortgage is only, like, $300 a month, for a few more years before it's paid off. Their property cost them maybe $20,000 if that, and is now worth at least quarter million. Yet, they smoke so much pot and spend so much money on it, though, that a few years ago they were behind in their mortgage payments and almost lost their house. They have children, too - can you imagine being so baked that you could make yourself homeless over it? It's possible, it just depends on what kind of person you are.

Royal Pineapple

Jun 15, 2004, 06:53 PM

if the us government were to legalize it they would save lots and lots of OUR (taxpayers) money that they are spending to enforce the marijuana laws, and then if they were to regulate its sale and tax it, they could make a pretty penny indeed, it costs almost nothing to grow and the manufactures could easily make a profit, even with a huge tax on it. if it were to be sold for $50 an ounce the government could take half that and the manufacturers could still make a pretty penny.
only problem would be people growing their own, but the government could levy a high tax on seeds too if they felt it necessary. imagine the day when you can walk in to your local 7-11 and buy an "O" for $50.
i say go for it

MongoTheGeek

Jun 15, 2004, 09:32 PM

Frohickey

Jun 15, 2004, 10:50 PM

I used to have some friends who are old hippies. I mean like, in their 50's now. Anyway, they bought their house and property so long ago (back in the 60's!) that their mortgage is only, like, $300 a month, for a few more years before it's paid off. Their property cost them maybe $20,000 if that, and is now worth at least quarter million. Yet, they smoke so much pot and spend so much money on it, though, that a few years ago they were behind in their mortgage payments and almost lost their house. They have children, too - can you imagine being so baked that you could make yourself homeless over it? It's possible, it just depends on what kind of person you are.

What, in your opinion is better, and I do it as a general idea of how things should operate?

Should people, consenting adults, be allowed the freedom to live their lives as they fit, providing that the manner in which they live their lives do not harm another person?

Or should people, consenting adults, be stripped of the freedom to live their lives as they fit, because too much freedom might cause them to hurt themselves?

I think that we should maximize freedom (usual caveat of not intruding on another person's freedom).

Neserk

Jun 15, 2004, 11:00 PM

What makes your viewpoint any more valid than theirs? As long as no one is being harmed and its all voluntary.
.

Gessh. Does anyone else bother to research things before forming such strong opinions? Go to the links I provided and see the statistics if you think no one is harmed and its all voluntary.

rainman::|:|

Jun 15, 2004, 11:08 PM

Gessh. Does anyone else bother to research things before forming such strong opinions? Go to the links I provided and see the statistics if you think no one is harmed and its all voluntary.

Provide some stats from countries where prostitution is legal. Otherwise, you're arguing the same side of the case that we are-- prostitutes in countries where prostitution is underground were often abused as children, sure. When prostitution is safe and legal, and it's simply seen as a particularly difficult blue-collar job, there's no need for there to be any job-related abuse. And what past childhood events make a person choose a career is not the concern of the government. Ensuring the safety and well-being of all of it's citizens, even sex workers, is. Test them, allow them to press charges against bad johns without fearing prosecution themselves.

now, let's get back to talking about pot. I'm in my one hour a day that i allow myself any, so i'm feeling pretty good about that subject right now... :cool:

paul

MrMacMan

Jun 15, 2004, 11:23 PM

Gessh. Does anyone else bother to research things before forming such strong opinions? Go to the links I provided and see the statistics if you think no one is harmed and its all voluntary.
And what everyone else says is that:
The Smoke doesn't harm you like cigarettes, cigars.
And it should still be illegal to be under the influence of marijuana while driving just as it is now with it and booze.

Am I going to say people don't act differently or are different when under this drug?
Not at all.
Am I going to say it has reasonable purposes for use?
Sure.
Am I going to say it has a purpose when it is used medically?
Absolutely.

Frohickey

Jun 15, 2004, 11:27 PM

And what past childhood events make a person choose a career is not the concern of the government. Ensuring the safety and well-being of all of it's citizens, even sex workers, is. Test them, allow them to press charges against bad johns without fearing prosecution themselves.

I would modify your statement...

And what past childhood events make a person choose a career is not the concern of the government. Ensuring the rights of its citizens are not infringed by other citizens or by the government, even sex workers, is. Test them, allow them to press charges against bad johns without fearing prosecution themselves.

rainman::|:|

Jun 15, 2004, 11:36 PM

I would modify your statement...

And what past childhood events make a person choose a career is not the concern of the government. Ensuring the rights of its citizens are not infringed by other citizens or by the government, even sex workers, is. Test them, allow them to press charges against bad johns without fearing prosecution themselves.

i like it, but i'm not sure my audience is libertarian enough? ;) You're absolutely correct tho, that's the other part of sex laws. If a person wants to have sex for money and another person wants to pay to have sex, the government has no reason to step in-- What about consenting sex can an objective government take issue with? The government is burdened to show an overwhelming, dire need to create (or enforce) any law that's going to infringe on civil liberties, something like a breach of national security. But alas, we had sodomy laws until very recently. The government does like to get it's eyes into people's bedrooms...

paul

Royal Pineapple

Jun 15, 2004, 11:51 PM

this thread is about marijuana not prostitution, granted they are both illegal but that is the only thing they have in common, i suggest someone start a prostitution thread and continue the discussion there. it is a good discussion but this is not the place its just gonna turn to flames.

Neserk

Jun 16, 2004, 01:23 AM

Provide some stats from countries where prostitution is legal. Otherwise, you're arguing the same side of the case that we are-- prostitutes in countries where prostitution is underground were often abused as children, sure.

paul

I'm not concerned about other countries I'm concerned about the situation right here in the United states and why Men, Women, Boys, and Girls become prostitutes here.

Neserk

Jun 16, 2004, 01:23 AM

And what everyone else says is that:
The Smoke doesn't harm you like cigarettes, cigars.
.

My comment is about prostitution, not smoking marijuana.

mcadam

Jun 16, 2004, 07:54 AM

I started smoking almost exactly 11 years ago. The last couple of years more or less every day, not a lot, just one small joint. I love smoking, the rolling, the taste, the buzz...

I absolutely agree that people can smoke every day and still be smart and active...and that smoking has many positive effects that you never hear governments talk about. But I have to many friends who can't handle it, basically just stalling their lives, to believe that smoking is just great and harmless!

I can't belieeeve all those people agreeing in the beginning of this thread that all the smokers they know are near geniouses!

I always get my head full of real good ideas when i smoke, all of my projects at uni have been positively influenced by it (architecture)! But I think it's a fact that for a lot of people including myself, those ideas will most often not find their way out of the stoned heads and into reality.

I also think it's a fact that if you have some small mental problems, like being depressed, stressed or worried smoking can be a dangerous friend. The first that happens is that you relax when you smoke and don't worry or stress for a while...but in the long run your problems have just become waay bigger and you can really get in trouble..."hash psychosis" is a term used in Denmark for this. And it certainly does exist.

The reason i write this negatively about smoking here is probably because I am encountering some of these problems at the moment. And everybody I know i can rely on, including a psychologist at uni, good friends that smokes themselves and my own experince, are advicing me to stop smoking...but it's sooo freakin' hard!!

I don't think smoking is the problem - it's a symptom. And I'm afraid it's sometimes making the problems worse :(

Maayan

Jun 16, 2004, 03:20 PM

Kill the scare tactics and educate so that folks can made an informed choice and minimize the risks involved with smoking up.

Don't decriminalize; as with parking tickets, police officers will have to actively hunt down marijuana smokers in order to fulfill their quota. Legalize in order to take the profits out of the black market and put them towards government use.

Impose an age restriction as with cigarettes and alcohol.

The end.

krimson

Jun 16, 2004, 03:23 PM

Legalize and everyone starts growing it in their backyards. :D

The End.

Maayan

Jun 16, 2004, 03:28 PM

Legalize and everyone starts growing it in their backyards. :D

The End.

... but the SMELL! :eek:

Frohickey

Jun 16, 2004, 03:34 PM

Legalize and everyone starts growing it in their backyards. :D

The End.

Well, if you grow too much, then you are considered a manufacturer, and they can go after you for business taxes. If you grow just enough for yourself, then thats fine.

With beer and wine, you can make your own, as long as you don't exceed a certain amount, and its for personal consumption.

Also, when you legalize it, you end up with another tax revenue stream. Plus, everyone is forgetting, legalized marijuana will result in more sales of munchies. Thats gotta be good for the economy. ;)

Royal Pineapple

Jun 16, 2004, 03:36 PM

legalized marijuana will result in more sales of munchies. Thats gotta be good for the economy. ;)
the day its legalized im buying stock in hostess and frito lay

Maayan

Jun 16, 2004, 03:38 PM

the day its legalized im buying stock in hostess and frito lay

*snorts* You've made my day.

krimson

Jun 16, 2004, 03:45 PM

... but the SMELL! :eek:

Ionic breeze or a carbon filter...

not that I would know... :rolleyes:

Doctor Q

Jun 16, 2004, 05:08 PM

Well, if you grow too much, then you are considered a manufacturer, and they can go after you for business taxes.How soon before the government pays you not to grow it, to help prop up the price to support the new branch of the farming industry?

Frohickey

Jun 16, 2004, 05:54 PM

How soon before the government pays you not to grow it, to help prop up the price to support the new branch of the farming industry?

Hopefully, never.

Government should never pay out. Only collect.

neut

Jun 16, 2004, 06:02 PM

... but the SMELL! :eek:

...would be wonderful! oh, the smell...

joy!

peace.

adamjay

Jun 16, 2004, 06:23 PM

what do i think about marijuana

i think alot of my friends would be anxious obsessive freaks if they didn't smoke it every day. so i guess i am thankful for that. i smoke very rarely (in my opinion), about once every month. i smoked alot in school, when it was cheap... when i had some i would smoke every day. but now as an adult i think that i can't justify paying $60 for an eighth.

enough of my friends smoke that i could hit off a pipe with them every other day if i chose to, but lately it has made me kinda paranoid. also i travel the world alot as part of my job, and i always try to sample different locations' offerings. i have to say the best i've had was in Doboj, Bosnia a couple months ago.

sushi

Jun 18, 2004, 08:07 AM

I think that we should maximize freedom (usual caveat of not intruding on another person's freedom).
So does this include an operator of a machine?

If you were in my crew and using any drug including marijuana, I would turn you in in a NY minute. Marijuana has no place in the cockpit.

Nor would I want my surgeon, dentist, etc. using marijuana.

Come to think of it, if you need someone to perform to accomplish their job, then marijuana has no place!

Sushi

rainman::|:|

Jun 18, 2004, 08:35 AM

So does this include an operator of a machine?

If you were in my crew and using any drug including marijuana, I would turn you in in a NY minute. Marijuana has no place in the cockpit.

Nor would I want my surgeon, dentist, etc. using marijuana.

Come to think of it, if you need someone to perform to accomplish their job, then marijuana has no place!

Sushi

If you drive around stoned out of your mind, you are intruding on someone else's freedom-- same goes for any of the things you listed, the same way it applies to alcohol. But pot smoking is generally a victimless crime when done on one's one time, as long as the weed money isn't taking food out of your kids' mouths, there's nothing wrong with smoking a bowl before bed.

I get hassled a lot, because since I cut back the first time (when i got a fulltime job after putting college on hold) i lost my tolerance, and i could get really messed up sometimes, so i refused to drive if i had been smoking... then since i cut back to almost none, i know there's no way i can drive even with a buzz-- so i don't. personal freedom and personal responsibility are not mutually exclusive...

paul

crazytom

Jun 18, 2004, 01:38 PM

Frohickey

Jun 18, 2004, 04:29 PM

Royal Pineapple

Jun 18, 2004, 05:00 PM

now what about manditory drug testing to get a job with large corperations?
if you arnt stoned at work, whos right is ti to know what you are doing on your own time. i can see drug testing an employee who comes to work smelling of pot, but what about the casheer at your local safeway who smoked a bowl at a party 2 weeks ago? the marijuana is still in his system, but he is far from being impared.
we need to develop a test to judge ones intoxication from marijuana, not just its presence in your system from 3days to a month ago (depending on variables such as metabolism and frequency of intake)

MongoTheGeek

Jun 18, 2004, 05:52 PM

Royal Pineapple

Jun 18, 2004, 07:46 PM

The trick is to just the THC and not the metabolites. It should be easy enough with a blood test and gas chromatograph. :)

but we need a portable system that can be used by police when toey have suspicion of a dui, like today's breathilizers

Frohickey

Jun 18, 2004, 08:49 PM

but we need a portable system that can be used by police when toey have suspicion of a dui, like today's breathilizers

Isn't just observing the driving behavior of a motorist, and stopping them if its unsafe enough?

Royal Pineapple

Jun 18, 2004, 08:54 PM

Isn't just observing the driving behavior of a motorist, and stopping them if its unsafe enough?
but there still needs to be a way to detimine that their imparment is caused by their use of drugs and not their cellphone, kids in the backseat, etc.

Frohickey

Jun 18, 2004, 09:28 PM

but there still needs to be a way to detimine that their imparment is caused by their use of drugs and not their cellphone, kids in the backseat, etc.

Why? Just the impairment itself should be sufficient.

Royal Pineapple

Jun 19, 2004, 12:10 AM

Why? Just the impairment itself should be sufficient.
fine, ill aggree to that, if soccer moms who are trying to talk on the phone while shuttleing their children to and fro are givven the same penaltys as thoes under the infulence. however this liberty granted to police could be misused to reach their quota and i feel that would be a bad thing. imagine you are compleetly sober and you get pulled over because some police officer felt that you made a good target, he/she could claim you were driving irradiclly and cite you for doing nothing wrong, just to reach his/her quota. so as long as there is some prevention form keeping the police from misusing thier privalages, im game.

Awimoway

Jun 19, 2004, 12:58 AM

now what about manditory drug testing to get a job with large corperations?
if you arnt stoned at work, whos right is ti to know what you are doing on your own time.

Or even if you are, at work, but the job you do is not hindered by it. I have a friend who did just that this week. Ingested some on the drive to work. A couple hours later, he was nicely buzzed for the next several hours. He doesn't operate heavy machinery and his job calls for creativity. He said work has been stressful lately, and he needed something to take the edge off. He did his job with no problems and went home sober and then had some more.

I don't have a problem with that. But his employer would, if it knew. It tests. It has a no drugs-on-the-job policy. They tested him before they hired him. But he told me that he blows it off for the same reasoning people blow off the RIAA. For the same reason one doesn't have to answer personal questions in a job interview. The employer crossed the line and asked for something they don't have the moral right to ask, so he flouts it a little.

Royal Pineapple

Jun 19, 2004, 01:28 AM

Or even if you are, at work, but the job you do is not hindered by it. I have a friend who did just that this week. Ingested some on the drive to work. A couple hours later, he was nicely buzzed for the next several hours. He doesn't operate heavy machinery and his job calls for creativity. He said work has been stressful lately, and he needed something to take the edge off. He did his job with no problems and went home sober and then had some more.

I don't have a problem with that. But his employer would, if it knew. It tests. It has a no drugs-on-the-job policy. They tested him before they hired him. But he told me that he blows it off for the same reasoning people blow off the RIAA. For the same reason one doesn't have to answer personal questions in a job interview. The employer crossed the line and asked for something they don't have the moral right to ask, so he flouts it a little.i aggree compleetly, makes perfect sense, and your discription, adds something, pot cna help you, yobody in thir right mind would sit in their car and take a few shots before going to work, because they know that alchahol is not going to help them with their job

sushi

Jun 19, 2004, 09:47 AM

Now, if you can deliver on your promises even if you are under the influence, what is the harm in that?
The problem is that when you are under the influence, you have no way of knowing if you are impaired or not.

In many professions, spit second/timely decisions must be made to ensure safe completion of the task at hand. For example, I used to fly a Cobra helicopter. When flying at certain AS, if your engine fails, you must recognize the failure and apply the appropriate emergency proceedure within 1 second to preclude loosing the AC (basically you are dead).

So obviously, in this situation anything that can/may impair the ability of the pilot cannot be allowed.

But so many other professions depend on clarity of thought and clearness of mind. In fact, I cannot think of one profession where either of these two items is not required.

Drugs including marijuana, and alcohol have residual side effects. That is where the problem comes into play. And of course the fact that marijuana and other drugs are illegal.

As for alcohol, in Japan they recently changed the law concerning DUI. Now if you are average sized and have one drink you are going to be past the limit. Good to see the change.

Sushi

sushi

Jun 19, 2004, 09:53 AM

For the same reason one doesn't have to answer personal questions in a job interview. The employer crossed the line and asked for something they don't have the moral right to ask, so he flouts it a little.
In some employment, the employer is free to ask questions, and conduct random unannounced tests.

All depends on whom your employer and job entails.

Sushi

neut

Jun 19, 2004, 02:03 PM

But so many other professions depend on clarity of thought and clearness of mind. In fact, I cannot think of one profession where either of these two items is not required.

'clarity of thought and clearness of mind' can be achieved with a marijuana high. when smoking alone, one can concentrate greatly. ninjas needed 'clarity of thought and clearness of mind' and a they smoked to marijuana to achieve this state of mind.

in my profession i smoke whilst working. not all the time as my coworkers do not smoke, but i smoke on personal projects and before i go into work for a nice ease into the day from dreamland. lots of creative ideas form around those times. :)

peace.

Neserk

Jun 19, 2004, 02:28 PM

*cheers Sushi on*

sushi

Jun 19, 2004, 06:58 PM

'clarity of thought and clearness of mind' can be achieved with a marijuana high.
You are fooling yourself. Just like with alcohol, the individual thinks that they are clear headed and doing everything normally. However, those around them can easily see the difference.

As for your Ninja story, that would be like saying that a current day assassin/sniper/etc. should use drugs to improve their performance. If you ever have the pleasure of knowing one, you will find that they have no place in their lives for drugs. Drugs dull the senses. When your life depends on performance, no one wants to give themselves a handicap to survival.

Sushi

Royal Pineapple

Jun 19, 2004, 08:03 PM

i aggree with sushi about piolts, bus drivers, opperators of heavy macheinery, ect. marijuana has no place at the workplace if it has any chance of putting people in danger, but what about musicians, artists, even gardeners and people who do labor? i wouldent care if my plumber was stoned as long as he did a good job. or my casheire at the local supermarket. i dont feel that because a few people have the kinds of jobs that the use of drugs would put others in danger, that the drug itself should be banned from all workplaces. just banned from thoes where it puts people at risk.

neut

Jun 21, 2004, 11:15 AM

You are fooling yourself. Just like with alcohol, the individual thinks that they are clear headed and doing everything normally. However, those around them can easily see the difference.

As for your Ninja story, that would be like saying that a current day assassin/sniper/etc. should use drugs to improve their performance. If you ever have the pleasure of knowing one, you will find that they have no place in their lives for drugs. Drugs dull the senses. When your life depends on performance, no one wants to give themselves a handicap to survival.

Sushi

you do know that the military issues meth to pilots don't you? there are quite a few soldiers ingesting drugs to maintain or enchance performance. drugs have been used since the beginning of civilization for many reason other than recreation.

a fool who takes drugs will become a bigger fool; a wise man who learns to control his rise into an altered state can become anything he wishes... though, self indulgence is hard to resist. ;)

peace.

*and no, im not saying a soldier is a wise man nor a fool. :) a soldier high on mary j would prolly just walk away... and go home. i know i would. how could you shoot someone while high?

davecuse

Jun 21, 2004, 12:49 PM

you do know that the military issues meth to pilots don't you? there are quite a few soldiers ingesting drugs to maintain or enchance performance. drugs have been used since the beginning of civilization for many reason other than recreation.

Aztec warriors used to chew on the same leaves that are now used to make cocaine prior to going into battle. Imagine if that was still common practice...

neut

Jun 21, 2004, 02:08 PM

Aztec warriors used to chew on the same leaves that are now used to make cocaine prior to going into battle. Imagine if that was still common practice...

african warriors used to eat mushrooms before battle... :)

could you even imagine??? :eek: :eek: :eek:

peace.

Awimoway

Jun 21, 2004, 02:28 PM

Aztec warriors used to chew on the same leaves that are now used to make cocaine prior to going into battle. Imagine if that was still common practice...

Actually, in it's natural form, the coca plant's effects are quite mild. It's not particularly addicting, it lessens pain and reduces appetite, making you hardier for long physical exertion. This is why it's not as big a deal as some would have us believe that Coca-Cola used to have come of the psychoactive compounds of coca in its drink.

It has traditionally been common for laborers--not just warriors--in many part of Central and South America to chew the coca leaf while they work or go on long treks. It's only when the psychoactive chemicals in it are concentrated into things like cocaine and crack that it becomes overpowering and highly addictive.

Call it religious faith, call it whatever you want, but I'm a firm believer in the notion that many plants have been given to us by a loving god with specific purposes in mind. Marijuana and coca leaf are good examples. (And there's got to be something hallucinogenic mushrooms help, but they probably weren't meant for ingestion.)

But this god allows us our freedom and sometimes we take the gifts and misuse them (tobacco is better used for treating bruises, topically, for example, and corn should never have been made into high fructose syrup or at least it should be used much more sparingly). Hence, cocaine as we know it.

rainman::|:|

Jun 21, 2004, 02:30 PM

Neither Sushi or Neserk has the right to tell me i can't use drugs, period. No matter what they do to me, how they screw up my brain (I'm in Mensa, so let's ignore that one), how "unmotivated" i am. None of their business.

On to the topic of drug use at work. I'll admit, in the past i have gone through periods of using at work. One was at McDonalds, where it's a rather common thing to do. More recently at the job i have now, for a while i would get stoned on lunchbreaks, etc with coworkers. i found that it put me at a disadvantage when communicating directly-- people that made me anxious (such as, a manager several levels up) made me downright paranoid. But, since most of my work is by myself, i found that it made me much, much more productive-- i was starting to get two and three days ahead of my workload. But, for various reasons that lifestyle wasn't working for me, and then i decided to dry out for a while anyway... So i'm back to my lazy-ass and mostly-rude way of doing things :)

paul

rainman::|:|

Jun 21, 2004, 02:35 PM

Call it religious faith, call it whatever you want, but I'm a firm believer in the notion that many plants have been given to us by a loving god with specific purposes in mind. Marijuana and coca leaf are good examples. (And there's got to be something hallucinogenic mushrooms help, but they probably weren't meant for ingestion.)

Research is starting to show that psylocibin - the active ingredient in "magic mushrooms" - may be effective at treating a broad range of mental disorders... It cures many anxiety disorders, reduces the symptoms of depression, and may help unlock secrets of PTSD. Of course, X was also used theraputically to some success, but experiements were discontinued at the end of the 80s, when MDMA became a problem. Acid was (and still is, some places) tested in cases of "unreachable" trauma victims.

Turns out our best psychologists and researchers in this country can't get the DEA permits to work with these drugs. Wonder how many diseases and disorders we could have cured by now if we had full access, instead of politically-driven chemical censorship.

paul

Awimoway

Jun 21, 2004, 02:38 PM

Research is starting to show that psylocibin - the active ingredient in "magic mushrooms" - may be effective at treating a broad range of mental disorders... It cures many anxiety disorders, reduces the symptoms of depression, and may help unlock secrets of PTSD. Of course, X was also used theraputically to some success, but experiements were discontinued at the end of the 80s, when MDMA became a problem. Acid was (and still is, some places) tested in cases of "unreachable" trauma victims.

Turns out our best psychologists and researchers in this country can't get the DEA permits to work with these drugs. Wonder how many diseases and disorders we could have cured by now if we had full access, instead of politically-driven chemical censorship.

paul

Interesting. I, myself, can't help but wonder what a boon to the world's weight problem coca could be, as an appetite suppressant, but I imagine it's difficult to get the permits to work with it, too.

krimson

Jun 21, 2004, 02:47 PM

Actually, in it's natural form, the coca plant's effects are quite mild. It's not particularly addicting, it lessens pain and reduces appetite, making you hardier for long physical exertion. This is why it's not as big a deal as some would have us believe that Coca-Cola used to have come of the psychoactive compounds of coca in its drink.

If you take the Inca Trail up to Machu Picchu, there are people along the way selling small bundles of coca leaves for like $1.
They're great for combating the effects of altitude... just chew one leaf every hour or so, while you're hiking. :rolleyes:
Does nothing for the blisters or heat exhaustion though.

davecuse

Jun 21, 2004, 03:57 PM

Interesting. I, myself, can't help but wonder what a boon to the world's weight problem coca could be, as an appetite suppressant, but I imagine it's difficult to get the permits to work with it, too.
You would think in this capitalist economy we live in people would be all for it, imagine the productivity increases, and with no need for a lunch hour people could fit twice the load in the same 9-5 day.

sushi

Jun 21, 2004, 08:33 PM

Aztec warriors used to chew on the same leaves that are now used to make cocaine prior to going into battle. Imagine if that was still common practice...
Yeah. So what. That's history. In today's battlefield they would be slautered in seconds. A total waste of human life.

Sushi

sushi

Jun 21, 2004, 08:39 PM

you do know that the military issues meth to pilots don't you? there are quite a few soldiers ingesting drugs to maintain or enchance performance. drugs have been used since the beginning of civilization for many reason other than recreation.
Reference the pilots. There is a huge difference between taking a prescribed medication/drug under the close supervision of a Flight Surgeon and the use of illegal recreational drugs on ones own.

Same holds true for those like LRRPS and the like.

Please do not confuse the two situations.

Sushi

rainman::|:|

Jun 21, 2004, 08:47 PM

Reference the pilots. There is a huge difference between taking a prescribed medication/drug under the close supervision of a Flight Surgeon and the use of illegal recreational drugs on ones own.

Same holds true for those like LRRPS and the like.

Please do not confuse the two situations.

Sushi

haha

yes, flight surgeons.

they hand the pilots bottles of speed, often. they've been doing it in the trucking industry for decades.

seems like having a flight surgeon babysit the pilot would be pointless- it'd be cheaper to have a second pilot, thereby removing the need for the harsh stimulants.

oh, and people that recreationally use drugs at least *know* what drug they're using. pilots, like all armed service members, have no knowledge of the drugs and vaccines administered them.

you still haven't proven (or even shown) cause for drugs to remain illegal. you've just shown cases where drug use may be unsafe. which holds true for sex, i think... yes, i wouldn't want my doctor having sex while treating me, nor an airline pilot having sex while flying the plane. So, outlaw sex, it's dangerous and distracting.

:rolleyes:

puritans, no matter what the nationality, are such a drag...

paul

Royal Pineapple

Jun 22, 2004, 01:26 AM

puritans, no matter what the nationality, are such a drag...

amen to that brother ;)

adamjay

Jun 22, 2004, 01:32 AM

you tell 'em, English.

davecuse

Jun 22, 2004, 05:31 AM

Yeah. So what. That's history. In today's battlefield they would be slautered in seconds. A total waste of human life.

Sushi
Obviously they would not stand a chance against a soldier with an M-16, I was simply making a historical reference related to the point that was being made.

neut

Jun 22, 2004, 10:47 AM

sushi

Jun 23, 2004, 06:37 PM

haha

yes, flight surgeons.

they hand the pilots bottles of speed, often. they've been doing it in the trucking industry for decades.

seems like having a flight surgeon babysit the pilot would be pointless- it'd be cheaper to have a second pilot, thereby removing the need for the harsh stimulants.

oh, and people that recreationally use drugs at least *know* what drug they're using. pilots, like all armed service members, have no knowledge of the drugs and vaccines administered them.
Paul, you speak of things that you have no idea about, and yet you speak as if you are an authority.

I would suggest that you do a little research and you will quickly find just how obtuse and incorrect your comments really are.

Sushi

sushi

Jun 23, 2004, 06:48 PM

ah, i see. it all comes clear to me. :) when a 'doctor' hands you the drugs then it ok, but if you just do them yourself it's not. wtf?!?!?
Concerning legal medications under the supervision of a qualified physician vice illegal drugs for personal use. Yes!

at least my connection tells me where my **** is being grown or what it's been cut with.
He He. Yeah, right... :eek:

BTW, I've got some swamp land, er. lake front land to sell you in Florida! :D

Sushi

neut

Jun 23, 2004, 08:01 PM

Concerning legal medications under the supervision of a qualified physician vice illegal drugs for personal use. Yes!

He He. Yeah, right... :eek:

BTW, I've got some swamp land, er. lake front land to sell you in Florida! :D

Sushi

i don't take legal medications... those are the ones that will kill you (meth is deadly; i still can't believe they give it to pilots :rolleyes: )

i pretty sure im not a retard... :) and i don't know what you think of the drug market, but where im from it's run by people who really care about each other. this is not a money making business – leave that to capitalism (drug companies are making way too much money... why do i need cold medicine that lasts 12-24hrs? why does everyone have so many alergies? are these things healthy for me?); which marijuana is hardly a part of... it's a plant. :)

i like plants | meth is bad for you.

peace.

blue&whiteman

Jun 23, 2004, 08:14 PM

neut knows whats up

davecuse

Jun 23, 2004, 09:55 PM

The majority of prescription medications originate from a natural (plant) source. It seems to me that simply going to the source, i.e. marijauna and the like is kind of like skipping the middleman. This drug, like all drugs will have a different effect on different people, so judge accordingly. If you've found that marijuana makes you more productive in your job, then more power to you, but I'm sure it has a different effect on other people.. The bottom line is, it's not for everyone, but if it's your thing then go for it.

<disclaimer> I could be wrong, but I doubt it. </disclaimer>

rainman::|:|

Jun 24, 2004, 12:23 AM

Paul, you speak of things that you have no idea about, and yet you speak as if you are an authority.

I would suggest that you do a little research and you will quickly find just how obtuse and incorrect your comments really are.

Sushi

that is easily one of the most vague posts i've ever seen. you don't take issue with any of my comments specifically, you basically called me stupid with nothing to back it up. Which is fine, i've been called stupid by a lot better than you, but at least be upfront about it.

Quite frankly, i do have a lot of knowledge in this field, far more than you apparently. My dad is a trucker and that's how i've seen the trucking companies that run their drivers on meth (not him, thank god... meth = nasty)... You merely have to turn to any website covering veterans affairs to see proof that soldiers are routinely administered various drugs and vaccines with no information about the drug, side effects, or health implications. If memory serves one young woman was killed by an allergic reaction to a mystery vaccine not too long ago.

I suggest a websearch of "gulf war syndrome". it's rather famous, perhaps you've heard of it?

so then, sushi, you who called my statements "obtuse" and "incorrect", what are you arguing with me about? You know you're wrong, you're using a moral argument in a civil discussion, and you can't back that up.

paul

CmdrLaForge

Jun 24, 2004, 01:16 AM

I think its good stuff. I liked it. When I was young.

I think the main problem is that its an entry drug for much harder and much more severe drugs you should really really never ever try.

Marijuana itself is more dangerous then alcohol or tobacco.

But its illegal and you get it only from drug dealers - and they want you to try other stuff as well - what you really shouldn't do ever.

my 2 cents

rt_brained

Jun 24, 2004, 03:59 AM

What is your opinion on marijuana, is it as bad as the media and law makes it out to be? I'm constantly bombarded by anti marijuana ads in school. The ads that say things like, "Just tell your brother you were busy getting stoned." Then they show a kid sitting on a curb, showing that he is waiting to be picked up. Then it says "responsibility" at the bottom. Couldn't you insert: busy volunteering, busy helping at school, busy studding to keep your 4.1 GPA, in place of "busy getting stoned?"

Then how about in the 70's-90's the ads they ran showing the brain of a non-marijuana user and a marijuana user. It showed how the marijuana brain was damaged. Too bad word got out that the "marijuana" brain was actually of a kid in a coma. :p

I have never seen an anti-drinking ad. Only the anti-smoking and anti-marijuana ads that claim crazy things like, "Marijuana supports terrorism." That got a bunch of bad press for its total lie.

So my friend that grows in his closest who I buy from supports terror? Oh man I better stop!
/sarcasm

I'm mostly angry about how strict laws are. So if you have enough just for personal use you can get up to 5 years?! :mad:
Why?!

It is used by SO many people. It is even a bigger cash crop for Hawaiian growers than sugarcane!

My health teacher in Mormon Utah even jokes that well if you do a report on marijuana you will already know the long term and short term effects ect.

I know some of you are open about smoking the MJ. What are your guys’ opinions on marijuana, marijuana laws, and in general? :eek:

Wasteland? I don't know why. Well it is a huge "problem" in today's society. :rolleyes:
Uhmm...

...what was the?

Oh, sugarcane...I tried it once. It just tasted like a stick.

sushi

Jun 24, 2004, 09:02 AM

pilots, like all armed service members, have no knowledge of the drugs and vaccines administered them.
Paul, I am trying to be civilized. However, this statement is totally rediculous and ignorante.

Are you a qualified physician? Or Flight Surgeon? Or a military pilot?

Have you interviewed ALL military/DoD members to see what they know about drugs?

Didn't think so... So how can you make a blatantly rediculous statement such as this.

BTW, I do hope that you realize that the majority of research for vaccines is done by the military/DoD? The reason why can be summed up in one word. Deployments.

you still haven't proven (or even shown) cause for drugs to remain illegal. you've just shown cases where drug use may be unsafe.
The problem with illegal drug use, is that the user is monitoring their own performance. And that, is why it doesn't work. You cannot monitor your own performance when under the influence of a drug. Only an outsider using an objective test can.

And before you say that I am full of BS, you might want to ask yourself why a country such as Japan recently significantly lowered the level for DUI.

Any drug affects your performance, illegal or not. In some cases it is not a safety issue, in others it is. That is why a trained and qualified Flight Surgeon monitors the pilot performance.

BTW, I am still waiting to see your factual based reasons as to why illegal drugs should be legalized.

Sushi

I'm Back

Jun 24, 2004, 09:05 AM

This thread has degenerated, into a slaging match :p.

sushi

Jun 24, 2004, 09:15 AM

Quite frankly, i do have a lot of knowledge in this field, far more than you apparently. My dad is a trucker and that's how i've seen the trucking companies that run their drivers on meth (not him, thank god... meth = nasty)...
I was not talking about truckers!

Rather your comments about the military.

You merely have to turn to any website covering veterans affairs to see proof that soldiers are routinely administered various drugs and vaccines with no information about the drug, side effects, or health implications.
Personally, I have never had a problem. For every vaccine that I have been administered, I was free to discuss all aspects of the vaccine with the medical professionals.

Please provide the URL of the site(s) that you are referring to.

If memory serves one young woman was killed by an allergic reaction to a mystery vaccine not too long ago.
Uh, a bee sting can kill you. And so can a bite from a tarantula if you are allergic to them.

You know you're wrong, you're using a moral argument in a civil discussion, and you can't back that up.
Nope. Not in the least.

IMHO, you haven't shown why illegal drugs should be made legal.

Nor have you shown that there is no effect from the drugs that can make them unsafe.

Sushi

sushi

Jun 24, 2004, 09:26 AM

i pretty sure im not a retard... :) and i don't know what you think of the drug market, but where im from it's run by people who really care about each other.
Never said that you were a retard. dislike that word BTW.

As far as the drug market is concerned, in my case, I've seen too many ODs and other problems caused by drug use.

And as for caring about each other, never met a pimp or dealer who gave a hoot about anybody but themselves, their money or their business tools (girls and drugs).

this is not a money making business – leave that to capitalism
Let me get this straight.

The folks who provide you drugs do it for free? Or don't make a profit?!

Give me a break.

BTW, please introduce your non profit taking drug dealer/supplier and/or system. I am sure that there are many hard core addicts who would love to benefit from system such as this! :D

TIA,

Sushi

rainman::|:|

Jun 24, 2004, 10:12 AM

I was not talking about truckers!

Rather your comments about the military.

That's why you point out what you're taking issue with, which is exactly what I said. How the hell do I know what you're arguing about unless you tell me!??! use some reason here!

Personally, I have never had a problem. For every vaccine that I have been administered, I was free to discuss all aspects of the vaccine with the medical professionals.

Please provide the URL of the site(s) that you are referring to.

Any vaccine labeled IND for instance... That means experimental. They test them on the army. This is quite beside the point, we're talking about drug legalization, you're talking about military vaccinations. I'll dig up some links later when I'm not at work.

IMHO, you haven't shown why illegal drugs should be made legal.

Nor have you shown that there is no effect from the drugs that can make them unsafe.

That last statement didn't make sense. Learn english, or at least try.

You've shown no reason why drugs should BE illegal. Just because they already are, doesn't mean that's right. We have a long history of having laws on the books for a very long time that wind up being unconstitutional.

I want to smoke pot. So it should be legal. Give me a reason why not.

Realistically, you could take any number of things, make them illegal, and then claim "there's no reason to legalize it". TV, movies, art, wealth... Really anything besides the basic necessities (food, water, shelter). But the great thing is, in America we're free to do ANYTHING unless it interferes with someone else's freedom.

which normal drug use does not.

So, it's IMPOSSIBLE for a drug user to monitor their own intake? Allright, explain to me why no one has EVER died of marijuana overdose? Explain to me why people don't simply take aspirin (or any other over-the-counter) until their stomach bleeds out? Self-medication has been around since the beginning of time, and it's only in the last few centuries that humans lost control over the drugs they put in their bodies. Now it's up to capitalist doctors.

There's no reason why people can't self-medicate. They have every right. The constitution says nothing about taking that right away. To say that it's impossible to self-medicate, you're erasing thousands of years of human history. You're pretending that no over-the-counter drugs exist. And you're making yourself sound very scared of taking any personal responsibility.

Explain to me why Mexico's pharmacies do not require prescriptions? They know that if you want a doctor, you'll get one. Beyond that, it's not their business. Your medical treatment is your choice, as it should be.

The way you make it sound, people would just walk into a pharmacia, buy a bottle of Percodan, eat them like M&Ms, and die. I assure you, this is not common practice.

If i do drugs, i'm not infringing on your rights. in any way. if you tell me not to do drugs, you ARE infringing on MY rights. Bad Sushi.

paul

krimson

Jun 24, 2004, 10:39 AM

....

As far as the drug market is concerned, in my case, I've seen too many ODs and other problems caused by drug use.

And as for caring about each other, never met a pimp or dealer who gave a hoot about anybody but themselves, their money or their business tools (girls and drugs).

Let me get this straight.

The folks who provide you drugs do it for free? Or don't make a profit?!

....

BTW, please introduce your non profit taking drug dealer/supplier and/or system. I am sure that there are many hard core addicts who would love to benefit from system such as this! :D

TIA,

Sushi

Print this out, and Next time you're in LA, ill make you smoke those words.

5300cs

Jun 27, 2004, 09:12 AM

I personally find all drugs to be infantile and a complete waste of time. I've had some bad experiences with drugs in the past, not from use though. I personally have never once tried any "controlled substances" and most people have labelled me as some of 'square'. Because I never 'smoked a little mary jane, man' I'm some kind of loser that doesn't get it. Art school sucked because most of the kids were on something or another. Social get togethers were moronic discussions about different kinds of herb, rolling papers, blah blah blah.

3 weeks ago, a fellow ALT (Assitant Language Teacher) got arrested for suspicion of drug usage. In Japan, drugs are not a trivial matter (like in the US) so what this numbnuts did has had far-reaching consequences towards all of us. Our current contract is still in danger, and will remain so until next March. Our contract from next April is very much in the air, and will most likely not come through. Because this idiot decided to smoke a little herb, our jobs are all in danger.

This man was a 43 year old single father, yet he was stupid enough to still 'smoke up' and people all feel sorry for him. 'He's got a son. Who's going to look after him?' People say .. well, the moron should've though of that. And all the people who feel sorry for him were people that he hooked up in the past.

If this sounds harsh, then it should. Every single pot smoker I've run into (at least 100, if not more) has had this attitude with me: I've never smoked, so I'm a loser.

PalmHarborTchr

Jun 27, 2004, 11:17 AM

Yeah, its good when Government decides for us that we shall not have
the right to alter our consiousness. I mean Pot is real dangerous....thousands of people have died from it unlike alcahol
which has proven to have a postive effect. Most people smoke pot
once and they like it so much they are hooked. Now booze tastes
horrible so you have to drink it a lot and develop a taste for it.
Yes, the ER in every hospital has many cases of people dying
on Weekends right there from overdosing of pot. Pot is a real
killer and thats why the government imposes heavy penalties
in Japan, Korea, China and I wish they would here. I mean if
we just decapitated pot smokers like in Saudi Arabia that would
go a long way to solving our drug problem.
Now OxyCont is okay cause its made by big corporate contributors.
Sinerely,
G.W. Bush :confused:

Awimoway

Jul 1, 2004, 04:16 PM

neut

Jul 1, 2004, 04:25 PM

im going to go home and smoke right now.. then come back to work for some real concentration. :)

peace.

5300cs

Jul 1, 2004, 05:27 PM

I see. So because no one has been nice to you therefore it's wrong? Maybe it's your attitude. You've got a lot showing through in this post alone. When it's everyone else's fault and none of your own... Well, I'd be suspicious of my perceptions, if I were you.

Pot is pleasant. It doesn't turn people into monsters.

I don't mean to single you out, but this is exactly what I'm talking about. No other "social group" has given me such a bad attitude.

You don't drink? Ok, that's cool. You don't smoke? Hey, no problem. You don't smoke pot? WoaH! This kids a f----- loser!! HAR HAR!! And that's EVERYONE I'VE MET.

I used to smoke (a lot. like filterless Luckies, a pack a day in high school) and I used to drink like a fish, but I never smoked pot, and all of a sudden it was like I was some kind of freak loser virigin or something. "DUDE! You don't SMOKE? What's UP with that??" This continued into college by the way. Thank the Lord I don't have people like that around me anymore.

So yeah, it's my perception, but based on experience with many people over many years. So, call me paranoid if it makes you feel better.

skunk

Jul 1, 2004, 05:34 PM

What's this thread doing in Politics and War?

Rower_CPU

Jul 1, 2004, 05:36 PM

What's this thread doing in Politics and War?

Judgment call. In the US, marijuana is a pretty political topic.

blackfox

Jul 1, 2004, 05:36 PM

What's this thread doing in Politics and War?
I guess it is the broad definition of Politics...anything involving choices...or, as noted in the rule thread, it may have been sent here to protect the rest of the forums from the heated debate we know and love...

skunk

Jul 1, 2004, 05:38 PM

I guess it is the broad definition of Politics...anything involving choices...or, as noted in the rule thread, it may have been sent here to protect the rest of the forums from the heated debate we know and love...
Well, I suppose if it's Politics, not War, that's something. ;)

zimv20

Jul 1, 2004, 05:43 PM

You don't drink? Ok, that's cool. You don't smoke? Hey, no problem. You don't smoke pot? WoaH! This kids a f----- loser!! HAR HAR!! And that's EVERYONE I'VE MET.
i know a lot of people who smoke pot and i can't recall ever encountering that attitude. imo, it's the consumption of alcohol that causes the most peer pressure to partake.

skunk

Jul 1, 2004, 05:46 PM

I don't mean to single you out, but this is exactly what I'm talking about. No other "social group" has given me such a bad attitude.
You're just mixing with the wrong bunch of potheads...

5300cs

Jul 1, 2004, 05:49 PM

i know a lot of people who smoke pot and i can't recall ever encountering that attitude. imo, it's the consumption of alcohol that causes the most peer pressure to partake.

I never had any pressure to start drinking -I was naturally inclined to start on my own :D

In my first post I mentioned the guy at our job getting arrested for smoking pot- actually it was suspicion. In this country it's a serious offense, in other coutries it means instant deportation or death. America is pretty easy-going when it comes to pot.

At least, when I was in Boston is was laid back. Sometimes the cops would smoke with people I knew from school. Is this a special case?

zimv20

Jul 1, 2004, 05:54 PM

I never had any pressure to start drinking -I was naturally inclined to start on my own :D
i've mostly given up drinking (i'll have about 1 drink/month). when i'm at a bar w/ friends, they'll always suggest i have a drink. i'm not saying it bothers me, i just find it interesting.

In this country
i hadn't noticed the 'Japan' location and didn't consider cultural differences. my comments were about US behavior only.

blue&whiteman

Jul 1, 2004, 06:02 PM

when it comes to weed, alcohol or whatever people use or do in life I feel that as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else then do what you want.

I don't see how someone sitting at home smoking pot is a threat. I would say most potheads are the exact opposite of a threat. rastafarians are very conscious human beings that are aware of the earth and all in and around it.

Frohickey

Jul 1, 2004, 07:32 PM

i know a lot of people who smoke pot and i can't recall ever encountering that attitude. imo, it's the consumption of alcohol that causes the most peer pressure to partake.

Pot smokers only call you a loser if you do not come to the party with either more pot, or munchies.

Bring some munchies with you next time. :p

MacAztec

Jul 1, 2004, 08:04 PM

I have no problem with pot, I actually think its alright. I don't understand going to a party and smoking pot, thats just worthless. You are going to a party to party, not to sit around and eat. Smoking is ok when you are tense and bored or whatever.

Pot smokers seem to be real peaceful people though. Its like, you ever get upset around some guys that are high and they say "chill out man, just chill". Thats what I hate about it. People turn in to pu**ies when they get high. I'm not saying go out and fight, but don't try to keep the peace.

I don't know why I am moving to this, but that man Pat Tillman that was killed in Iraq is the epitome (I believe) of what every american should be like. After 9/11, he said screw this, I don't want terrorist attacking my country and he join the Rangers. He quit his million dollar making football carreer. Thats how it was back in the <1950s. If we went to war, the whole country was involved. We didn't have media on TV talkin about how bad this whole thing is.

Anyways, back on topic.

Pot in the UK (I believe) was turned to a Class-C drug. Its like an underage kid having a ciggarette in america. They just take it away.

davecuse

Jul 1, 2004, 09:09 PM

that man Pat Tillman that was killed in Iraq is the epitome (I believe) of what every american should be like. After 9/11, he said screw this, I don't want terrorist attacking my country and he join the Rangers. He quit his million dollar making football carreer. Thats how it was back in the <1950s. If we went to war, the whole country was involved. We didn't have media on TV talkin about how bad this whole thing is.

Pat Tillman is definitely a man to be respected, as are all American troops who have taken a part in any battle in American history. They deserve our full respect, as I believe they have gotten. My problem is with the motives behind the war in Iraq, while Saddam is clearly a bad man there are plenty of bad men with bad motives in the world, and does he have any ties to Osama as we had been led to believe? I think the real issue is with Dubya, who maybe should have smoked pot in college rather than doing cocaine, as he leads our country into conflicts that we have no right to be involved with in the first place. I don't consider myself a pu**sy by any means, if someone attacks me I'm going to counter very very aggresively. But did Iraq ever attack us, no this entire war is revenge because that man tried to kill Dubyas daddy.

I just think that there is a lot of the story that's "classified" that apparently us normal citizen's aren't intelligent enough to be privey to. What really pisses me off is being under the impression that my government is lying to me. I just want to know what's really up, just tell me the truth.

I know that was very off topic, but hey this is the political discussion forum...

diamond geezer

Jul 1, 2004, 10:09 PM

You don't drink? Ok, that's cool. You don't smoke? Hey, no problem. You don't smoke pot? WoaH! This kids a f----- loser!! HAR HAR!! And that's EVERYONE I'VE MET.

I used to smoke (a lot. like filterless Luckies, a pack a day in high school) and I used to drink like a fish, but I never smoked pot, and all of a sudden it was like I was some kind of freak loser virigin or something. "DUDE! You don't SMOKE? What's UP with that??" This continued into college by the way. Thank the Lord I don't have people like that around me anymore.

I think your problem is the nationality of pot smokers you were hanging around with.

I've been a judge at the Cannabis Cup in Amsterdam twice, and the general attitude of the Americans there was terrible. Most were just straight obnoxious. Even some of the officials were rude and arrogant.

Awimoway

Jul 2, 2004, 05:39 AM

I think your problem is the nationality of pot smokers you were hanging around with.

I've been a judge at the Cannabis Cup in Amsterdam twice, and the general attitude of the Americans there was terrible. Most were just straight obnoxious. Even some of the officials were rude and arrogant.

That's terrible and makes me feel embarrassed for my country. Of course, it's no surprise that there are a lot of bad apples here, even "friendly" pot smokers. As interested as I am in visiting Amsterdam (again, that is -- I was there several times as a kid), I have heard before that the Americans make very poor impressions there. Makes me want to work on an accent so I can focus on enjoying the attractions. :rolleyes:

So you were a judge? How was that? How did you get picked? Did you enjoy it, overall?

Neserk

Jul 2, 2004, 10:07 AM

Most were just straight obnoxious. Even some of the officials were rude and arrogant.

Some of it is cultural, some of it is just plain true about Americans ;) I am one so I can say that :p

diamond geezer

Jul 4, 2004, 05:19 PM

That's terrible and makes me feel embarrassed for my country. Of course, it's no surprise that there are a lot of bad apples here, even "friendly" pot smokers. As interested as I am in visiting Amsterdam (again, that is -- I was there several times as a kid), I have heard before that the Americans make very poor impressions there. Makes me want to work on an accent so I can focus on enjoying the attractions. :rolleyes:

So you were a judge? How was that? How did you get picked? Did you enjoy it, overall?

The Cannabis Cup is a High Times magazine event, all you do is pay your money and turn up.

I was only a judge officially in 1995 (one about 1500 judges), I then realised that it was a bit of a rip-off and so was there in 98 but didn't register. In general, it's probably better to visit Amsterdam when the Cup is not on, as the Coffee Shops/hotels/hostels are less crowded. Also less chance of having aging US hippies in your hostel, loudly complaining about the dance music, "PLAY SOME PINK FLOYD". :-)

skunk

Jul 4, 2004, 07:59 PM

The Cannabis Cup is a High Times magazine event, all you do is pay your money and turn up.
Ahhh. High Times. THOSE were the days. At least I think they were. It's all so hazy. :D

Mord

Jul 30, 2004, 08:49 AM

personally i don't care if people do it... i think its less dangerous than drinking for example...at least you can function if your driving...unless your really baked.

driving while stoned is a really bad idea it's a depressent so it slows your reaction time just like drinking. a freind of mine dies while driving stoned dont do it.

weed is a funny one it screws up some people and dosent others it depends on the person. i know many paranoyoid failiers that are sitting at home right now doing nothing with no future, i also know people who smoke a bit and has very little effect on them sure they get hammered but the next day they are fine and are not dependent on it, it dose lead to higher things if yoy use it to much because you get bord of the high you get so you move on to more serious drugs. it all depend on the amout you do, like drinking it can ruin your life but the odd drink is not bad and quite enjoyable.

i dont smoke at all and i never will because i have better things to do but i know many people who do. i will never advise anyone to take it up but i wont hate them if they do.