OT: Everybody Must (not) Get Stoned

[hollowdweller]

Just a quick note before diving out the door to drive to W.Va.,

Jurassic,

Where you going in WV? In another thread you said Northern WV? Enjoy your trip. It's hot and humid here right now but the weather is good!

 

[Bamboo]

Thou shalt not smoke marijuana.

Thou shalt buy one's liquor at the drive in window off thee highway.


I hope I'm alive for the Revolution.

 

[Ryan8]

OK, here's my $.02 (and its worth about half that)

I have seen, first hand, personality changes in heavy marijuana users. I've seen "tweakers" who did not know what planet they were on. Teeth falling out of their head, looking 25 years older than they were. I've seen families destroyed. Children scarred for life.

No one will ever convince me street drugs should be legal.

I don't think you would need convincing that cannabis should be legal if you knew about how tolerance of its use works in other countries.

You surely know that you can go into a coffeeshop in the Netherlands and purchase small amounts of cannabis, and that the Dutch less cannabis than Americans.

The only difference, really, is that they don't piss away huge quantities of money arresting and prosecuting cannabis users. At the same time it helps to take money out of the hands of organized crime.

Our society can not afford it financially. But most of all, the destruction of human lives would be more than our conscience could bear.

Our society cannot afford cannabis prohibition. Every time you arrest someone smoking a joint, you've taken money out of the hands of public schools, fixing the roads, or some other useful thing.

As a nation, we seemed to get along just fine until cannabis was made illegal in 1937. Places that tolerate it get along just fine. Why is America different in this respect?

 

[cliff355]

---deleted---

 

[Svashtar]

I think people who sell smack and crack and hook people horribly on super-addictive substances _should_ be "tracked down" and put out of business permanently. On the other hand, from a libertarian standpoint, I agree with John that people are ultimately responsible for their own actions and decisions. Does a store owner ask if a person is an alcoholic before selling them a fifth of whiskey? Why not? Should people be forcibly stopped from destroying themselves? How far will society go to do that? I'm all for severely prosecuting people who endanger others because of their habit, but how many civil liberties have to be trampled to attain that worthy end?

I'm just talking about MEDICAL marijuana. The synthetic THC doesn't work nearly as well, and ANYTHING is better than the junk ditchweed the Government provides people. Someone is _dying_ and they are denied a natural herbal medicine that can help them? Unconscionable.

Regulate it if you like; do what California has done and unanimously say it is OK for terminal patients only, who must provide written proof from a doctor that it is needed, but do not allow the Government to just toss the will of the people aside and arrest sick people because of the medicine they are taking.

I'm sure that Jurassic did some good and honorable work in his long career. But to maintain the fiction 40 years later that pot is "highly addictive", and has NO medical benefits, is just hidebound thinking at it's best, and more importantly is just plain false.

Norm

 

[munk]

There is a difference between figuring something out and a debate. A debate has a winner and a loser. It's set up that way. I always thought Socrates was an A-- for that. The truth is a casualty of debate.

Norm, you haven't given the opposition much place to go; if they disagree with you they are 'hidebound'.

There isn't anyone here who if they know what they are talking about won't admit that Pot is found as a staple in the long process, the lifestyle of addiction. Yes, it's true Pot is not physically addictive, at least, not much. But it is emotionally addictive, and that's part of the lifestyle that says taking drugs is the way to go.

From every instinct and intuition I have, I'd say Jurrasicnarc didn't just do some honorable things, but was himself honorable in a profession rife with corruption. That says a lot, regardless whether or not one agrees with his position politically on illegal drugs.


munk

 

[hollowdweller]

But to maintain the fiction 40 years later that pot is "highly addictive", and has NO medical benefits, is just hidebound thinking at it's best, and more importantly is just plain false.
Norm

That's one thing people say about whatever drug that has always kind of rang false for me.

Many times, about many drugs, I have heard "highly addictive" or "try it once and you are hooked". However I have found this not to really be true.
I know of a LOT of people who have done stuff, even compulsively in the past, but as they got older they grew out of it. That's not saying it isn't highly addictive for some people, but just not most people.

 

[Bamboo]

There are many reasons a human being can fail. Yes, drugs are one of them.

There are also millions of happy, productive people who choose to incorporate into their day a glass of wine, a shot of whiskey, a cigar, a joint, maybe even coffee ...


Blaiming the drug for human weakness, human error, human frailty is the same as blaiming the gun for the death of the other person. It does come down to personal responsibility.


If you were treated like hell as a child, turned to drugs to escape, and wound up lost, then yes, the drugs are to blaim.

If you were treated like hell as a child, turned to fast motorcycles and reckless driving to escape, and died, then yes, the motorcycle is to blaim.

And if you were treated like hell as a child, and put your own family in hell to escape, then yes, they are to blaim.

We'd better make those things illegal too.


~ Bamboo ~

 

[munk]

Don't forget that time, Bamboo, when I opened my Twinkie package and found both delicacies were without the creme filling.




munk

 

[Bamboo]

LMAO Munk!


We'd better make those illegal too. Hell, think of the trama that could do to a young child. We'd better just ban everything so the kids grow up OK.

~ b

 

[edgetrip]

I'm a little confused by something. OK, pot for medicinal use is illegal. However, there is a drug called Marinol that is THC (synthetic) in a pill form. Perfectly legal with prescription. I'd expect that it'd have most if not all of the effects of mary jane, except that you don't have to fool with album covers and such.

Why is medicinal ganja needed with Marinol available? Is the slower absorbtion rate vs. smoking a problem? Do prescriptions get lots of attention and suspicion of the physician, etc? Is it just ungodly expensive?

The major problem wiht marinol is that for it to be effective you have to eat when you take it. If you do not then it passes straight thru your system. One of the jmajor uses of marijuana is as an anti nausea drug for people suffering from AIDS, Kemo etc. They can't eat until there drug takes effect so needing to eat to get there drug to take effect doesn't work very well. I also found marinol to have a much more sedative effect then simply smoking pot. When I had eaten enough and the capsule worked at all it was a serious downer much more so then the effects of smoking a joint or hitting a bowl.

I am really glad to read most of these posts. Your outrage over this issue makes me very proud to participate in this forum. I have used marijuanna for the past eight years to control glaucoma and it has been a more effective treatment then any of the numerous prescrition meds I tried previously. I am going to lose absolutely all of my vision eventually no matter what medication I use, the trick is how much pain I will feel during that process. Assuming I am not arrested and thrown in jail (and unable to get grass inside) I will continue to control my pain the best way I know how. If that means I am breaking the law then I am ok with that. Please don't hate me because I am a criminal;-)>

 

[Mr.BadExample]

I find it amusing that we are beginning to appreciate the medicinal qualities of red wine and moderate caffeine, but the calming effects of the devil weed are still verboten. I hope in a generation we'll get over this prohibition nonsense.

 

[Ryan8]

There isn't anyone here who if they know what they are talking about won't admit that Pot is found as a staple in the long process, the lifestyle of addiction. Yes, it's true Pot is not physically addictive, at least, not much. But it is emotionally addictive, and that's part of the lifestyle that says taking drugs is the way to go. munk

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. How does this justify arresting adult marijuana smokers?

What people consider a "drug" has no basis in medicine or science. The system we use to separate the legal ones from the illegal ones is based on politics and social attitudes, not on harm caused.

In terms of lives lost, tobacco would easily be Schedule I and cannabis would be available for consumption by adults.

In terms of physical withdrawal symptoms, alcohol should also be Schedule I. It's capable of causing seizures and death in severe cases. Even heroin won't do that. You know what the difference between alcohol and Schedule II barbiturates is? One comes in liquid form, the other in pill form. That's about it.

The point is, adults can make decisions about cannabis without force being used against them and society will not be destroyed.

 

[munk]

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. How does this justify arresting adult marijuana smokers? >>>> Ryan8


It does not. Show me where in my writing I've attempted to justify arresting pot smokers. If you re-read my post and the context, you'll find my words designed to expand beyond the jacket Norm was offering the opposition- hidebound. (I'm not the opposition,btw)

Every one knows munks do not have hide.


munk

 

[brantoken]

Sorry guys.... let's face it , if you want some weed, the kids have it.
Oh I know not my little johnny, it's not true. I think it is harder for kids to alcohol than it is pot ( or at least it was when I was a kid). I don't think that has changed. That's who has the stuff for the most part . Call it romance, or living dangerously , or mystic. doen't matter kids are going to try to do it. I think that by it being illegal it is more attractive to kids, it creates mystic and
kids looking to define themselves are helpless to that.

When it is illegal ( what ever, drug, prostutution.... sin) you have very little control who uses it. When it is legal can have some control. I am of the firm belief that you should tax sin and not prohit it. I pay too much tax now, and the way congress spends it we need all the cash we can get our hands on. this would also solve some problem with too many cheese burgers as well. You got the money it's fine, but you have to pay your share to society as your gonna cost more . In addition I would like to know who uses drugs in my community and that they are not using heavy equipment , have guns or anything else that they can harm other with. You want to be a junky you should loose some of your rights as well...... Also most of the darwin award winners will tend to deal with themselves.

Anyway, I think it's ridicoulous anyway, the feds haven't been able to stop drugs( any of them harmless or not) , they can't control the borders. It's all academic. Users could care less what the supreme courts says......It's all political smoke and mirrors to them anyway......( pun intended)

 

[Spectre]

The "pot is a gateway drug" thing is a red herring. If you want to point to any mind/mood altering substance that people usually try first, look at alcohol, which has known, readily provable (everybody does know that studies that show serious side effects from moderate marijuana smoking are invariably government-sponsored, right?) deleterious effects.

Hell, I was a good kid- uh, aside from being a smart @ss- and I tried alcohol for the first time when I was about 12...with my parents in the next room. And my parents DEFINED overprotective/restrictive.

Legalize it. Tax it. Then we can just shoot people over whether they've paid the tax, instead of just over possession. :barf:

John

 

[Svashtar]

There is a difference between figuring something out and a debate. A debate has a winner and a loser. It's set up that way. I always thought Socrates was an A-- for that. The truth is a casualty of debate.

Norm, you haven't given the opposition much place to go; if they disagree with you they are 'hidebound'.

<rest snipped>

Munk, I am not speaking in generalities or name calling for the sake of it. I am speaking specifically of this one statement, not using the word simply because he disagrees with me! What other word can be used other than "hidebound", for someone who stares straight ahead and fervently maintains, despite 40 years of new evidence, that pot has no medical benefits? and is a highly addictive gateway drug? "Stone age?", "Rigidly fixed?", "Inflexible?", "Intolerant?", "Close minded?"

OK, I take it back. Such thinking is not "hidebound." It is thoughtful and open minded and carefully encompasses all of the current available facts. All the hundreds of thousands of terminally ill people are faking their cancer and spinal degradation and nerve damage and chemo induced vomiting just to get some pot! Sneaky so 'n so's! Does that work better?

Sorry, I don't buy it. If the shoe fits...

N.

 

[Semper Fi]

I don't think you would need convincing that cannabis should be legal if you knew about how tolerance of its use works in other countries.

You surely know that you can go into a coffeeshop in the Netherlands and purchase small amounts of cannabis, and that the Dutch less cannabis than Americans.

The only difference, really, is that they don't piss away huge quantities of money arresting and prosecuting cannabis users. At the same time it helps to take money out of the hands of organized crime.




Our society cannot afford cannabis prohibition. Every time you arrest someone smoking a joint, you've taken money out of the hands of public schools, fixing the roads, or some other useful thing.

As a nation, we seemed to get along just fine until cannabis was made illegal in 1937. Places that tolerate it get along just fine. Why is America different in this respect?

I repeat my statement in my earlier post:

No one will ever convince me street drugs should be legal.

Your argument above has not changed my mind. Perhaps I have seen too much human suffering because of drugs (including pot) to have an "open" mind on this subject.

 

[Dave Rishar]

As long as we're not hurting anyone but ourselves, if you agree to tolerate my bad habits I will agree to tolerate yours. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Yvsa]

As long as we're not hurting anyone but ourselves, if you agree to tolerate my bad habits I will agree to tolerate yours. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

And isn't that the best way all the way around...

Guys what Munk is getting at is to not let things get personal. We're all good guys and gals here, some with just different experiences.
Some don't have the experiences because they've believed the hype and never tried it, others have tried it and know that a great deal of the BS is hype. As always the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Personally I'm all for legalizing pot myself but I have ulterior motives in that I live with pain on a daily basis and I Know For A Fact that pot does help alleviate that pain.
It's not a government study that says and it's not the medical profession that says.
It's Yvsa saying it from experience. If or when the pain gets bad enough and I can't afford the prescription drugs any longer then I'll probably resort to what is left in order to survive without pain but whether that day comes or not who can say?
Not any of us here. :grumpy:

As has been said, "Be nice, No hitting," and that means don't let it get personal, OK?

Reason for editing?
The damned "n" and the damned "b" are too close together.