BS: Legalize Pot?

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 11:28 PM

McGoH, just because my argument is full of holes, did you really need to shoot another one in it? :-)
Martin G, I agree 100%. Now, who's going to tell Columbia? Any volunteers to stroll up to the cartel kings and enlighten them?

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 12:43 AM

Those fellows are not conducive to enlightenment, I'm afraid. It would be like trying to get Tony Soprano to give up crime and go into philanthropy and spiritual self-improvement, only more dangerous. There are some people that there's simply no use talking to.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 03:09 AM

Yep, and a lot of them are Mudcatters

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 03:41 AM

I skipped this entire conversation but I would like to just add that The herb is a plant. There are several plants in this world that can give you a buzz. Reefer is just one of the few..
To me the whole point should be, who the hell does anyone think they are, to try and regulate any plant that grows or to control a spiecies of plant life.

We all choose our life. We all are responsible for how we choose to live it. Smoke pot, don't smoke pot.
The choice should be our own.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 10:21 AM

Yeah, that's what I always thought too. It is not sane to outlaw a plant which is part of nature, and whether one uses that plant privately is one's one business. It is sane to regulate the public sales of that plant, however, if it's a mind-altering one.

I remain convinced that the primary reason pot is a social problem is that there is a lot of money to be made selling it. This happens in one of 2 cases: 1. when it's illegal 2. when it's legal to mass market it.

Remove the money angle, and you have removed virtually the entire impetus driving people to aggressively push the drug...they do it for profit, not because they feel a sacred duty to get people high and give them a good time.

The only people left growing pot under the laws I propose would be a few quiet, harmless characters like Bobert, growing and smoking their own. In my opinion. I may be wrong. Only trying such a legal approach will ever prove if I am.

I don't think rebellious young people would be much interested in pot anymore if it was legal, as a matter of fact.

However, here's my prediction. It will either remain as it presently is, illegal....or it will be made legal AND marketed...and that will cause a lot more people to use it, because marketing has one objective in mind...SELL MORE PRODUCT BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE, AND WHO CARES WHO GETS HURT BY IT?

That's the ugly fact of the matter. I would rather see it remain totally illegal than see the politicians give private industry another way to hook people.

Why does everyone think in all-or-nothing terms when discussing such matters? Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: saulgoldie
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 01:44 PM

I'm still stuck on the lack of an answer to what society gains by having it illegal. Is it as simple as the fact the "the ruling elite" wants to keep the "proles" in their (our) place? Clearly, large numbers of people smoke despite its being illegal. Clearly also, most of them do not use other substances. I'm going to weigh in on the personal level, and perhaps someone can tell me why I should have done jail time to "benefit" society, and also why it is valuable to spend the hefty weight of criminal justice resources on doing so.

We were SO stoned! Oh yes, we were. I am NOT ASHAMED that I smoked! I did it; I LOVED IT; and I would do it again! And if life is good to me, I will.

Some of my circle of friends smoked over the three year period that we were tight, as much as two or three times a week. Some seldom smoked. I, myself, smoked occasionally three times a week, but more often only three or two times a month. Mostly, it was pot. On ocassion, we were fortunate enough to have some hash. But I enjoyed that sweet smell! I enjoyed the companionship of sending it around the circle as we all slowly got more buzzed. We listened to music; we discussed ideas, literature, history, philosophy, solved the world's problems--mostly through peace, love, and music--imagine that!--we ate WAY more food than we normally would; and we laughed hysterically at most anything. Firesign Theater and Frank Zappa records were a favorite, because they were funny even if we were straight.

Although a few of us tried acid a few times, no one in my group ever "went on" to narcotics. One of our group, however, did become an alcoholic. None of us ever perpetrated any crime other than "normal" traffic offenses. Among our group--this was 30 years ago--there is now a museum curator, a writer, a college professor, several K-12 teachers, several IT professionals, a classical musician, a silversmith, an astronomer, a medical doctor, a lawyer, a Navy Seal--now THERE was a huge disappointment!--an insurance salesman, an NSA employee, and assorted other productive members of society who have families, pay taxes, consume "stuff" (as all good consumers MUST do to keep the economy going), and just generally live their lives.

I enjoyed those times, and I would do it all over again. I would be more likely to smoke again if I were not so concerned about my lungs. The fact that it is illegal and the current atmosphere is paranoid and hysterical to the extreme is also a deterrent. If it were offered at a party, I would likely imbibe. I am confident that I would enjoy it, and that I would not injure society as a result of smoking.

Some of the group still smoke on ocassion; most don't. Some have taken up tobacco. Some have become drug-free to the point of eschewing most persctiption drugs, even. One smokes (pot) pretty regularly--perhaps five times a month. One of the former group reports that he has smoked a few times over the years in what he thought were the last few minutes of his life before he committed suicide. He reports that getting that buzz relaxed his tendency to do himself in and that he instead focused on listening to some music, finding food, and then falling blissfully asleep. By the time he "returned to normal" that he felt much less like killing himself. We don't know if he might have already killed himself otherwise. But I would not be the one to tell him to never ever again smoke pot. And don't start with "he should have sought treatment,etc." since we KNOW how that one would go, given the deplorable state of health care in the US, the confusion over how to treat depression, and the increasing likelihood of his personal information ending up on the Net.

Whether we smoke now or don't is most likely a result of us being in a different phase of life. The legality obviously has not stopped those who still smoke, iside or out of my own particular group. And society would not be better off if they were costing the taxpayers $50k to house rather than being productive, taxpaying professionals.

Of course, this is only anectdotal. YMMV. But I still cannot come up with any good reason for using the considerable force of law to punish someone for smoking pot. I have a long list of things that DO constitute harm to the community that should be powerfully punished. Let's start with making people completely responsible and conscious in their automobile driving. That means, stopping ALL distrative behaviors and use of ANY substance that might inhibit response time. But the power establishment, in its wisdumb does not see it my way.

Finally, would society be safer if Willy Nelson, Satchmo, and about MOST of the entire rock world had been made prisoners? How about Carl Sagan? Examples abound, and I eagerly await an answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: saulgoldie
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 01:54 PM

And speaking of bars...How about some prison time for "W" for his cocaine use? It is good enough for the rest of us...

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 01:58 PM

Only smoked it a few times in my student years. Never did much for me, couldn't be arsed to continue with it. I agree with Little Hawk's "2 ways" theory. And I sympathise/understand/applaud Saulgoldie's sentiments and his account of pot usage in his circle of friends. For the record, I would support its legalisation in order to take the glory out of it and would NOT support its commercialisation. You want to smoke it? Grow your own - leave it at that.
But what is all that poppycock about "the ruling elite" keeping "proles" in their place by keeping it illegal? And how, pray, do they achieve this dastardly purpose through this underhanded means?
Sorry, Saulgoldie, that's just "chip on the shoulder" stuff, sheep mentality.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: saulgoldie
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 02:06 PM

Keeping the proles under control is a viewpoint that has been expressed by others on this thread. I was only referring to that in my post. It does make sense, in a way. I am still waiting for plausible explanations for why it is good that it is illegal. That is the only suggestion on this thread, so far, and that was posed by someone who thinks it should not be illegal.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 04:25 PM

Laws can easily exist with no good reason at all, Saul, but merely as a result of hysteria, ignorance, prejudice, and unfamiliarity of the "mainstream" with something. They can also exist as a result of cultural expectations which are totally arbitrary. Example: Our present culture figures that women's breasts should not be exposed...completely, that is...in public. It's a custom. Men's breasts are not remarked upon. That is arbitrary. There have been many cultures where women's breasts were exposed, and nobody thought anything of it.

Marijuana was considered unusual when the laws were passed. A culturally-based viewpoint. Had it already been considered "usual", as it was among most young people that I knew in the 70's, then no laws would ever have been passed against it. It's as simple as that.

Can you hurt yourself with it? Yes, but most people don't hurt themselves much with it. You can hurt yourself with any number of legal things which are taken for granted by this simple method...overdo them or handle them improperly. More people die of overeating than of smoking dope, but the law has not seen fit to make gluttony illegal, because gluttony fits within the culturally established framework of things the law takes for granted. Pot doesn't. It's arbitrary.

People confuse "good and evil" all the time with what is really just "familiar and unfamiliar" to them....like bare female breasts in public, for example. These things are not a question of good and evil, they are a question of habit and expectations formed by habit.

We all tend to feel uncomfortable in the presence of things which go contrary to our usual habits, and that's understandable, but we should not be so quick to say, "That's bad!" when it's just different from what we are accustomed to.

I made my own free decision not to smoke pot, after thoroughly investigating the matter, and I grant other people the right to make their own decision about it as well. Freedom of choice does not frighten me. People restricting other people's freedom of choice is what frightens me.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 05:30 PM

Basically there are two reasons for wanting it to remain illegal.

One would be the idea that somehow this meant that fewer people used it, and that this meant fewer bad effects from their using it.

The second is that keeping it illegal benefits people in the pot industry, both on the dealing and on the law enforcement side.

The first reason seems very much at odds with the actual evidence, but provides a useful smokescreen The second reason strikes me as the one that actually determines policy.

.................
I'd wholly agree with Little Hawk about it very desirable to keep the commercial marketeers out of it. Essentially that's decriminalisation rather than legalisation, and it's how the Dutch have tried to work it, with some success. In fact there'd be a lot to be said for applying that principle to a whole lot of other things.

However I suspect that in the USA anyway, there'd be some constitutional problems in the way of putting legal restrictions on advertising, promoting and marketing something that wasn't actually illegal. I imagine it would be seen as undermining the free market/capitalist ideology - and though that could be an excellent thing to do, it'd be up against some powerful enemies.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 06:42 PM

Ah-hah! You have hit on an important matter there, McGrath. Indeed, in the USA it is sacrilege not to allow people to make good money off something that is legal! (Even if it's totally disgusting, vile, pointless, and destructive to society...and I am not referring to marijuana, but to many other popular things that sell bigtime.)

One does not offend the ruling deity (money) with impunity within the borders of the 50 states of the USA...or anywhere else these days either, practically.

And that's why marijuana will most probably not be de-criminalized...unless it is simultaneously turned into a burgeoning legal drug industry, complete with stylish TV commercials to get more people to buy it and be "cool".

You see, de-criminalizing it would be a heavy financial and organizational blow to both cops and drug dealers. That would be sacrilege in a true profit-oriented system. The cops might even have to downsize some, and that could put people out of work!

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 07:53 PM

Yep, and a lot of them are Mudcatters - ie people it's no use talking to.

This is fantastic conceit, Johnny. Several people who disagree with you have put forward cogent arguments in support of their own views, usually with more tolerance than I have felt inclined to show. You haven't begun to address any of those arguments. You haven't even given any indication that you've given them a moment's thought. Above all, you haven't attempted to show how prohibition helped in the case of your own family experience. So if it didn't work in your case, who DOES gain from prohibition? Apart from the racketeers etc?

Try letting some light in on the issues, instead of just thrashing around in the dark.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: annamill
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 09:33 PM

Sorry. Not having read all the posting due to time constraints, all I can say is: YES!

Love, Annamill

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 06:17 AM

Peter, there's very little point in attempting to argue it out because the Yea-Sayers will continue to say Yea no matter what I say. In fact my views were rubbished by some people for the very reason that I have experience (not only family but also professional) of hard-drug use which evolved from the use of cannabis! What a pie-eyed way to try to win an argument - they tell me "You're too experienced in the problem for your views to have any weight" whilst at the same time using the "I did it and I got away with it, therefore it's harmless" routine - is there any wonder I have no respect for these people? Do they also drive their cars under the influence of cannabis, or alcohol for that matter, on the basis that they've always got away with it so it's harmless? Duh!

I understand the reasoning behind the argument that legalisation will remove the dealers from the equation, however it's simply untrue that those who make serious money from trading in drugs will go away, and anyone who thinks they will clearly has never experienced the way they work (which is a highly-developed and intelligent marketing strategy, it's insinuous and involves a persuasiveness so effective on the minds of adolescents that it would astonish anyone who'd never witnessed it), nor their resilience, persistence and business acumen. Pot's as cheap as chips now, and it'll be a lot cheaper if and when it's legalised, so they will simply give the stuff away as a 'loss-leader' to ensure they make contact with, and exert influence on, the innocents who are susceptible to their persuasion. Despite what the pot-heads try to tell us, cannabis is psychologically addictive (witness the number of Good Ole Boys 'n' Gals on this thread who boast about how they smoke and what a great way it is to have fun and no-one gonna stop 'em spliffin' it up - a perfect indicator of psychological addiction n'est ce pas?), and once they have them in their grip they'll manipulate them, and move them on to the stuff that really brings home the bacon, exactly as they do now.

Drug dealers aren't people with dirty nails, in dirty coats, so high on drugs themselves they can barely think, who come up to you in alleyways and ask you if you "Want some good stuff" - they're just the messenger boys. Drug dealers live in big expensive houses in Cheshire and the Home Counties, they drive Mercedes' and Jags, they wear designer clothes and educate their children at private schools. They could live in your town and you'd never know. They're intelligent, articulate people who know the way to run a business. And legalising cannabis will be a godsend to them

I'm not a druggie or a pot-head trying to justify my habit, or past habits, by rubbishing the views of someone who opposes them and who, in my heart of hearts, I know has good justification for his opinion. I'm just a guy who's seen where this 'harmless' substance can lead. If one kid has a spliff and it stays there, well and good. If he or she moves on down the road to bigger and 'better' hits, that's one too many. I don't give a shit about the pot-heads, I care about the ones who don't 'get away with it'.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 06:31 AM

Oops, sorry, don't know what happened there - I was typing furiously and it suddenly disappeared. As I was saying..........

.....I care about the ones who don't 'get away with it'. We're talking adolescents here, young people with unfinished minds which are easy to play around with, and for too many the next step is an easy one. If the price of keeping one youngster from taking that step is for all the pot-heads in the world to be denied their drug it would be a price well worth paying.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 07:59 AM

Should pot be legalised and be available on the "open market" then the drug barons will push to recover profits by making available andselling more "hard drugs"....Am I thinking fact or fiction here?
They have to make their profits somehow!!

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 01:00 PM

Good post there, Strollin' Johnny. I agree with your description of the drug dealers and their methods. Very accurate. You are also quite correct that marijuana smoking is psychologically addictive for many, if not most people who choose to smoke it fairly regularly. This was what disturbed me most about it when virtually all my friends were into it back in the 70's. I could see that they had become dependent on it. They didn't see it that way. They saw it, frankly, much the same way they saw things like: coffee-drinking, eating burgers and other fast food, drinking pop, listening to their favourite music, and a lot of other things like that. It was simply part of the everday stuff that they considered enjoyable and normal in their lives. It was that common and ordinary. However, pot-smoking was accorded a sort of mystical importance which set it apart for this reason: it was seen as a very iconic and powerful "coming of age" ritual for those who were moving through adolescence into adulthood.

This is one of the problems that tends to arise in a society that has largely lost its traditional sense, caved in to mere mass marketing of anything that sells, and left its young people in moral limbo.

They go off and find their own coming of age rituals if they are not provided with much of any social structure by their elders.

The key coming of age rituals then (in the late 60's, early 70's) were:

1.(a)smoking cigarettes!

1. (b) drinking alcohol (most typically, beer)with your "buddies"

2. losing your virginity (if at all possible) and pretending you had lost it, if you didn't succeed in that objective!

3. swearing a lot, and using all those forbidden words at every possible opportunity (this tended to result in a very reduced vocabulary)

4. adopting various other verbal slang that older people didn't use or like (further reduction of vocabulary...)

5. wearing clothing that indicated your tribal affiliation (the "young" tribe) and bugged the hell out of older people

6. growing long, long hair and (for some of the guys) facial hair too

7. espousing unusual philosophies, politics, and religions

7. Getting high! You could get high on a variety of things, and pot and alcohol were definitely the favourites.

Now, what were these young people doing? They were trying to clamber out of childhood into adulthood and gain control over their own lives (instead of being controlled by their parents)...but without the wisdom of a few decades of experience that one hopefully gains later in life they were mostly just floundering around in confusion doing things that were silly, often destructive to their health, and sometimes illegal. This put them at further risk of unnecessarily acquiring a criminal record, although they were not, in truth, criminals. Lawbreakers, yes...but not criminals. There's a difference.

Criminals are people who consciously and deliberately act to harm, cheat, and take advantage of OTHER people. Criminals rob, murder, commit fraud, damage property, kidnap, embezzle, blackmail, and so on.

My friends were not criminals. They were simply young people with not much experience and not very good judgement. They were engaging in practices which were technically illegal (just like someone does when he parks in a "no-parking" spot or makes an illegal left turn on a deserted street with no other traffic in sight). They were not committing what I call "crimes".

I think it was unproductive and unhelpful that the legal system treated these young people as criminals. It did not help improve them in any way, and it often resulted in a worsening of their basic nature.

In my own case, I was quite unusual. I rebelled against my own age group even more than I did against the older people. I resisted peer pressure. Very few did that.

Accordingly, I did not smoke, barely drank, simply observed but did not participate in the common drug use around me, and didn't swear very much either (a bit, though...). I could have been classified as almost totally "uncool", except for these saving graces: I grew my hair very long, and I wore the cool clothing, and I was a good musician.

In fact, I refused to conform to the expectations of either straight society OR my young friends...so I guess I was protesting against just about everybody! :-)

My actions were based on this reasoning: Long hair doesn't hurt anyone, nor does hippy clothing. Smoking is bad for people's health. Getting drunk is bad for people's health and results in idiotic public behaviour. Getting stoned impairs judgement and efficiency and is most likely bad for your health. Doing things that are illegal is unnecessarily risky, so why bother?

I also took an interest in unusual philosophies, politics, and religions...and still do. Why? It opens one up to new possibilities and it doesn't hurt anyone.

I dearly wanted, like everyone else, to lose my virginity (which I don't call losing anything, but gaining experience)...but was frustrated in that endeavour for the longest time. :-)

Reasoning on this: Losing your virginity doesn't hurt you, as long as you have enough judgement to avoid getting someone pregnant. It's part of normal adult existence to have sex with consensual partners, and virtually everyone agrees that it's an experience worth having. :-) I was looking for "true love", but I had a very hard time finding it, probably because I was too serious about it.

Now, what puzzles me is how most young people are so careless in their choices of how to rebel...in that they do things which are personally risky and potentially harmful. I didn't. I could reason it all out beforehand. I think the main reason most young people are so reckless is this...they want to prove themselves to their peers. I was in rebellion against my peers for the most part.

The whole nature of adolescence guarantees this: if marijuana is illegal, most young people will seek out opportunities to try it. That is the norm. Those who are particularly vulnerable by nature to a psychological addiction to that particular experience will get heavily dependent on it. Those who aren't won't.

Why is it that I have tried marijuana (on a very few occasions), alcohol (very moderately), and yet not gotten hooked on either...while millions of other people do get hooked?

Why is it that all the young people whom I knew well in my 20's tried marijuana and used it quite a bit...yet not one of them died as a result of that...and most of them became conventional, functional, contributing members of the society....while a member of your family was apparently destroyed (indirectly) by it?

I don't know. It all comes down to the individual and the individual's unique characteristics.

I was undoubtedly helped by the fact that I grew up in a non-smoking family where alcohol and other drugs were never abused. One tends to follow the example one sees as a very young child. It gets imprinted.

I figure that if a toddler sees his/her parents smoking, then the chances that he will take up both tobacco smoking and marijuana-smoking in his adolescence are astronomically increased. If he sees heavy drinking in the home, he is likely to repeat that too.

Accordingly, the most important factor in shaping young people's minds is not the law...it is the day to day behaviour of their own parents while they are growing up. That will prove to be a much stronger influence on their minds in the end than a law that makes some common substance illegal.

I'm speaking in general terms there, and not trying to say anything about your particular family experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 01:18 PM

So would that imply, Georgiansilver, that keeping it illegal is justified as a way of paying-off the drug barons by protecting their sales, and so reducing to some extent the damage they might otherwise do?

True enough, anytime there is a demand for an illegal commodity, any illegal commodity, there will be people who will see this as a chance to make money. Ensuring that there is something relatively harmless which is outlawed is a way of making sure that there is a reliable source of income for the dealers. It happens to be pot, it could just as easily be coffee. Rather better since it would be a much bigger market.

There's a sort of logic in that, except that it hasn't worked too well so far with pot. The evidence seems to be that, keeping it illegal ensures that the various drug markets are integrated, so that dealers will supply whatever is required, and that would presumably apply if it were coffee instead of pot which was the drug they were after in the first place, the "gateway" drug.

On the other hand, the evidence is that decriminalisation of pot, in Holland at any rate, has had the effect that people wanting harder drugs would need to find a different dealer. So rather than being a gateway drug, in this context, it can be seen as providing a kind of barrier against harder drugs.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 02:01 PM

Thanks Johnny, I understand your reasoning much better and go along with some of it. But Little Hawk is surely right to say that people are affected in different ways, and if only for that reason I remain resistant to a blanket prohibition (which often fails to achieve much anyway, in terms of protecting the vulnerable). But McGrath has put some good arguments too, and I have no trouble accepting that if pot were available over the counter like tobacco, the most obvious link with hard drugs would immediately be severed.

The argument about denying all the pot-heads in the world to save a single life has a certain resonance ("He who saves a wingle life saves the world entire" is how the Talmud puts it, I think) but in the end it leaves me uneasy.

On all sides I see society being pushed towards ever greater fear of what seem to me to be quite reasonable risks. (For instance a mood of something close to hysteria surrounds sex crimes against children, or at least it does in the UK. It is fuelled by our disgraceful newspapers, and it fails to recognise that the incidence of such crime has changed little over several generations. The result is that even on traffic-safe routes, many children no longer have the daily pleasure of meandering their own way to school and back.)

For better or worse, life is a fragile. Life is a risk. We should celebrate the fact that our kids, on average, live 70 years and more, despite all the horrific risks that the tabloids keep throwing in our faces. So let's keep a sense of proportion. There are parts of Africa where all are dead before they're 30, with few exceptions.

By the way, I have also had (and continue to have) experience of trying to steer youngsters clear of drug dependency of any sort, but in the voluntary sector rather than as a professional. In fairness to Johnny I should admit that some of those I've worked with in this field - probably a majority - think as he does and would want the supplying of pot to remain illegal. But I've never met anyone who would pretend that either way is perfect.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 03:01 PM

Pot and other drugs are not good for kids. Period. I worked on a suicide hotline for a few years in Montreal. Drugs do bad things to people. Period. Saying it's otherwise doesn't make it otherwise.

We live in a world that gives Paxil, Prozac, etc., to children to alter their moods or behaviours. The drugs often just mask the problem. We let adults use the same drugs. The Rolling Stone's song, "Mother's Little Helper" was a reference to dexadrine (one of the amphetamine family), and lots of North Americans used it. I used Paxil for depression until it friggin' near killed me. Eight days of 10 mg/day and then on the second day of 20 mg/day, I went blind while driving on the highway. (Because I developed the habit years ago while driving ambulance of being aware of what's ahead, beside and behind me on any road, I knew I had the space/time to take my foot off the gas, "feel" for the shoulder, and glide to a stop.) Scared the crap outta me. I quit using it that day.

I know that drugs are not good for kids--and that includes grass. However, the drugs that have made me sickest have all been over-the-counter meds. Grass never made me go blind, lose my cool, look for stronger 'kicks'.

If it is legalized, I wouldn't care for it to be available for kids. I don't think I would go back to smoking. And I wouldn't want to enter an emergency situation with a fellow firefighter who had just toked up. But then, legality would have nothing to do with that, would it? I wouldn't want to enter ANY emergency situation with ANYONE who was CON (condition other than normal). It seems to me that legality/illegality is not the issue.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 05:13 PM

Of course, if it were legalized for people of a reasonable age - say 40 or 50 - it would make it very uncool for kids and they'd probably stop using it anywhere as much.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 09:14 PM

My God, what a stupendous idea! You're right, McGrath. Kids would lose all interest in the stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 10:06 PM

Well gol danged, ya' all...

Seems like this issue is being argued out by a bunch of non-stoners... Hey, that ain't fair...

All right. lets look as some realities here:

1. First and formost, there is no victim other than the stoner (and that's is a matter of dispute).

2. By keeping it illegal we are pushing kids toward crime and ciminals.

3. The chances of kids using harder drugs is increased by making folks buy pot from criminals.

4. The usual. Tax bucks lost.

5. All the rest of the logical argumements for legalization..

Now I don't make no bones about being a stoner. Yeah, some folks will say "Hey, Bobert's brain is so fried that he can't type 'er spell 'er nuthin'..." but that ain't he case at all... Catchin' a little buzz (organic, LH, gol dangit...) ain't the friggin' end of the world here. Most folks calm down from it. Most folks become more, ahhh, peaceful from it... Most folks become more creative from it...M ost folks don't become criminals or junkies, 'er___________ (fill in yer own scarey end to "Reefer Madness").

Yeah, it would be nice if everyone lived as cleanly as LH, but, hey, they don't. When I think of my 19 year old son out in Oregon I find a level of comfort knowing that he will take a couple tokes tonight rather than drinking alcohol...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 08:08 AM

Little Hawk and Fionn - very nice posts guys, thanks very much for that. And thanks for not simply shouting "Yah Boo Rubbish" like some others have done. You'll be disappointed to know that you haven't changed my opinion about legalisation, but I understand perfectly well where you're coming from and I respect your views.

Fionn - how right you are in your final sentence - neither way IS perfect. But I sure as hell know which one scares the hell out of me! :0)

Brucie - "If it is legalized, I wouldn't care for it to be available for kids". The sale of cigarettes to under-16's is illegal in the UK, but I see an astonishing number of 12-13 year-olds openly puffing away (surprisingly, nay nauseatingly, some with their parents' approval!). Cannabis is available to anyone who wants it, right now, legal or not - that's fact.

Bobert - "Most folks don't become criminals or junkies". Absolutely correct. "Most folks" who drive when over the legal alcohol limit don't have accidents - by your logic should we therefore make drunk driving legal because "Most folks" don't get hurt by it? Or is this another example of pot-head double standards? It's not about what "most folks" do or don't do, it's about what happens to a vulnerable, adolescent, innocent minority.

McGrath - you keep dropping in your irritating red herring about coffee. Caffeine is a stimulant. A stimulant, not an intoxicant. It does not give a recognisable 'hit', and its effect increases, rather than diminishes, over time due to continued use. Consumption of caffeine results in, inter alia, disturbed sleep patterns, disturbed heart-rhythm, irritability and, in my own case, the shits. It does not produce feelings of intoxication or euphoria. In my considerable experience gained over many years of life in the real world (as distinct from the pseudo-intellectual fantasy-land that some Mudcatters appear to reside in), I have never met a coffee-drinker who felt the need to move on to illegal hard drugs because coffee no longer gave a sufficent hit. You persist in comparing a horse with a camel. It's the act of a charlatan. Knock it off. :0)

J :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 10:21 AM

I think you miss the point I am making when I mention coffee, Strollin' Johnny. Obviously coffee has different effects from pot, just as is the case with alcohol and nicotine and theobromine (the active constituent in chocolate). What they all have in common is that are are all to some extent habit-forming, and they all have some psychoactive effect. By that I mean that people use them as a way of adjusting their mood and so forth. And it is definitely possible to take too much caffeine. (And in some cases it can have very serious effects)

And if any of these substances were made illegal, it is absolutely certain that there would be dealers selling them, and that in many cases these dealers would be ready to supply a range of other drugs. And I think it is pretty certain that there would be some people who would experiment with the other drugs on sale. What makes something a "gateway drug" isn't the fact that it is a drug, but that it is illegal.

Chewing gum would do as well. I believe in Singapore, where chewing gum has been illegal for the last 12 years, there is a flourishing black market - and I note that the Singapore government has recently relaxed the ban, though only for registered users, for medical purposes, from pharmacies Singapore lifts ban.

...............
When a comparison is drawn between two things that does not imply any suggestion that they are alike in all respects, but merely that in a particular respect or respects they have something in common. Which is rather obviously the case with horses and dromedaries since both are mammalian quadrupeds used for riding. But that doesn't mean that someone pointing out this commonality is under the impression that horses have humps and so forth.

I have noticed that people often seem to respond in this way when people make a comparison or draw an analogy, for example between two historical situations.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 12:07 PM

McGrath, I understood the point perfectly well, however I continue to dispute your assertion that it is the illegality of cannabis that makes it the 'gateway' drug (and thanks for the admission that it is indeed a 'gateway' drug, what a reality-leap that represents! Your fellow Yea-Sayers all, for some odd reason, fail to recognise that fact). Coffee (caffeine) is not commonly, if ever, used to achieve intoxication, it's used almost exclusively for other purposes - usually to do with maintaining alertness levels during strenuous and continuous mental exercise or simply because the consumer enjoys the taste. Conversely, the only purpose for the consumption of cannabis is to achieve intoxication. Hence my horse/camel analogy. They are both drugs, but there the similarity ends.

The people who trade in drugs are, as I've already pointed out, extremely resourceful, intelligent and organised, and they simply will not conveniently go away. They will find a way to defeat any attempt to subvert their purpose - trust me, I've met some of these people and they do not give up. I assure you they will continue to use 'harmless' cannabis as the sprat to catch the mackerel. Whatever it costs the punter to buy it legally over the counter, they will undercut it even to the point of giving it away - don't forget we're talking about hooking in adolescents here, they are the prime target because they are gullible and malleable, and they represent a long term constantly-developing market. A susceptible fourteen-year old wouldn't give tuppence for a cup of coffee because it doesn't give him a hit, but put a spliff in his mouth and everything changes when the room spins - and that's how they get hooked in to drug culture, nothing to do with illegality, everything to do with the effect of the drug. They don't care whether its legal or not, they just want the intoxicating effect, and having little or no income they'll follow the nice man who'll let them have it for nothing, or rather he'll 'lend' it to them for a while then call the debt in big-style.

The assumption that legalising cannabis will somehow make dealers throw in the towel is both naive and dangerous - it won't, and the kids will be hooked in just the same. Others here, like Bone-Head Bobert, might think it's a bit of Yee-Ha Slap-Ma-Thigh Down-Home Mountain-Man Fun. They've got a lot to learn - they should meet some of the people I've had the unpleasant experience of rubbing shoulders with, they'd soon change their minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 01:09 PM

The substances which for most people give them their first experience of getting intoxicated tend to be ones which are fairly easily obtained without getting into contact with dealers - most commonly glue, or petrol or alcohol.

In as sense it is fair to describe these as "gateway drugs" - some people are going to want to move on to other things. But there isn't the same direct connection with dealers that you get when a substance is not legally available in the first place, which is where they differ from cannabis.

When there is any kind of black market, the effect is that would-be purchasers are put in touch with people who can supply a wide range of illegal goods. In that sense, anything illegal or rationed can be a "gateway purchase". Coffee, chewing gum, nylons... I just don't think it is a good idea to broaden the black market in this way. And, as I have indicated I think it would be a very good idea to move cannabis out of that market, through some kind of decriminalisation.

The idea of dope dealers handing out free joints to kids at large in the hope of getting customers, in line with Tom Lehrer's "Old Dope Peddler" who "gives the kids free samples because he knows full well
that today's young innocent faces are tomorrow's clientele"? Well maybe - but I don't think it seems to work that way with other drugs that can be obtained legally. There may be dealers passing out free alcopops, as a way of drumming up trade for the hard stuff, but I don't think it's too common.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 03:51 PM

Strollin' Johnny:

As I said, legality/illegality is not the issue.

I started smoking cigarettes when I was nine. I have been able to get the habit down to about ten smokes a day, and I hope to keep it there. I don't think it's good that kids smoke tobacco either. I have never smoked or had alcohol around my kids--well, never smoked, and I don't drink at all. I worry that dealers will approach my kids--but I gotta tell ya buddy, I would have absolutely NO hesitation about taking a baseball bat to someone's knees. As a teacher, I have faced down some dealers who were trying to sell to my students. When it comes to my own kids, I would hospitalize the bastards and not think twice about doing so. I have made that clear to many people in the town I live in, and so far, the dealers are keeping away from both my students and my children. The day they don't is the day I call 911 for a few unlucky individuals.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 03:58 PM

PS, I'm not tryin' to come across as some sort of tough guy--I am, but I don't wish to give the impression that I settle things with my fists and feet. Other than an incident in which I got between two drunks and broke stuff up--and sparring in classes--I haven't been in a fight for over 20 years. But, sometimes a guy's gotta do what a guy's gotta do, ya know? First offense, I figure I'll get off with community service. I can live with that. And my kids are worth much more than that to me.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 08:38 AM

I think it's time we called a halt to this one. No-one's listening, no-one's winning. I give you people the benefit of my long, hard experience, you rubbish it (and yes, McGrath, I can tell you they ACTUALLY DO give it away - and your disbelief in your last post has given the game away on what a sheltered Airy-Fairy Cloud Cuckoo Land you must live in).

Brucie, you insult me by your inference that I haven't the balls to defend my kids. You don't know what we've been through and I'm not about to broadcast it here, but if you think I'm a weak-kneed wuss you couldn't be more wrong. I assre you I can look after myself, and I've defended myself very successfully on more occasions than I care to remember, but lots of people have tried the tough-guy act with these people and failed - you can't punch someone's lights out when a gang of his cronies have already punched you silly, or kneecapped you, or shot you from the back window of a moving vehicle. It's dead easy to be a Big Guy on a Mudcat Thread. As I told you all before, you should meet some of them - the Real Ones, not their little pissy-pants druggie messenger-boys.

What I tell you now is that, when cannabis is legalised (as it undoubtedly will be within the next ten years) and the horrible truth emerges, it'll give me no joy to say to you Planet Zog-dwellers "I told you so".

Now I'm outta here. Too much effort for too little gain.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 09:06 AM

My personal belief is that people who "NEED" pot should receive the benefits from it and those who just "do pot" for the sake of it should come in the "illegal" band....Who really wants to smoke it and why?. Our society has become watered down as far as the law is concerned. The "blind eye" is turned to many things and laws have been abolished to supposedly make life easier for all. Our society has been de-generating for years into one where people expect to be able to do as they like. They do not think it fair that they get a speeding ticket when they have been speeding because the law is stupid..They get angry when they get a parking ticket even though they are illegally parked....There are many other laws which people get agitated with/angry with...nevertheless they are laws and have been put there for a reason. So shall we abolish all these stupid laws and just do as we please? Why not abolish all laws instead of watering them down to suit how we think our society should be.
I'm all for keeping the laws we have and maybe even adding some new ones in some sort of effort to get safety back on the streets and in our own homes. I'd like to be able to walk the kerb without being mowed down by teenagers on bikes. I'd like to be able to walk the streets without the thought that I might get mugged. I'd like to be able to go anywhere in my town without seeing syringes lying around.
Ah well, I suppose I can dream of a better society can't I...OR should I just draw on my reefer and forget all the problems in our society????? What do you think?????

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 12:52 PM

Man, I dream of a better society every day! I never stop dreaming of it. Be that as it may, I consider the mainstream society to be deteriorating in many ways and I don't frankly know what I can do about it except govern my own activities as wisely as possible.

I think the problem may be that there are simply too many people sharing one planet at this point. Too high a density of population and a diminishing amount of land and resources.

It's harder to get along when you're in a crowded cage. Consider the example of lab rats. They start to lose their good relations when crowding passes a certain point.

When you're living in a very small town you can park your car wherever you like. The town gets bigger, more traffic, and they put in stop lights and meters. Life gets more complex. The town gets bigger yet and they put in all kinds of "no parking" zones and the price of the meters triples, and you start worrying about getting expensive parking tickets because you got delayed a few minutes doing your shopping.   The town gets bigger yet, and it takes you an hour of totally frustrating driving to even GET downtown at all, and when you finally do you have to pay $20 to park your car in a lot, and then somebody breaks into your car and steals your radio! Furthermore, you have no idea who that somebody could be, because there are so many people in the town now that everyone is lost in an anonymous haze and nobody cares about anyone else anymore!

And so it goes...just awful.

To escape it you have to go either where there are fewer people (and fewer jobs, though) OR you have to join an ashram or some other little society of like-minded people who have set themselves apart from the mainstream. In that ashram you will not find anyone dealing dope, needless to say.

I do not expect more laws to solve the problems of mainstream society. I think its problems are beyond solving at this point.

I don't blame people for still trying, though...

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 01:11 PM

Strollin' Johnny--anything I said was in no way meant to be insulting to you. I am aware that some of these guys play rough. And I did not imply--nor should you have inferred--that I was castigating you in any way.

However, take a flying fuck to yourself for your interpretation. You have had some terrible problems caused by drugs. However, you're not the only person who's had terrible problems, and fuck you for thinking you are. I had a brother who committed suicide recently, mostly due to drugs. So, fuck you again.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 01:43 PM

"They do give it away" - my point wasn't that this doesn't happen under the present regime, but that this is very tied up with the fact of illegality.

Drug dealers do not give out currently give out free alcopops, or even tubes of Evostik, so why should we anticipate them to be any more likely to give out free joints, once the normal source of supply for cannabis is somewhere else?

Somehow there always seems to be a tendency to read into a post what we expect to find there, when what is actually there can be significantly different. And then we leap to some conclusion that can be poles removed from the truth, like Strollin'Johnny. "What a sheltered Airy-Fairy Cloud Cuckoo Land you must live in" - if only!

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 03:30 PM

Yo Johnny, it would indeed seem fit to think of yerself as "strollin'" since you took what I wrote about folks who smoke pot and "strolled" ("rolled" would be a better word) right over to where you thought I talkinmg about.

Where did I say anyhting about folks driving impaired? I didn't. You took yer srollin' johnny self over there all by yer little strollin' johnny self.

There is responsible uses and irresponsible uses of just about anything on the planet. What, now you're gonna say that Bobert, because he says he is a "stoner", advocates driving impaired? Like, are you nuts, 'er what...

Hey, I say enough things fir folks to argue with 'round this joint not to have folks inventing stuff...

Now say "yer sorry" and, please, no more arguing with points that other folks ain't made, thank you...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 04:08 PM

I am in a town of 10,000--I would likely think very differently in a large city. Strollin' Johnny, you have your own demons to deal with. They are not everyone else's demons. Have a nice life. I will avoid you in future.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 05:51 PM

Yeah, living in a big city is totally different. I recommend living in smaller towns if you can manage it.

The key to using anything (pot, a gun, alcohol, a car, an ax, a knife, a match) is HOW you use it...responsibly or irresponsibly. I grew up in a family where alcohol was around, but it was never used irresponsibly. My uncle Bill had a family where guns were around but were never used irresponsibly. I see other people who can't use a car or anything else responsibly, because they don't give a damn about anyone.

Laws should be used to penalize irresponsible public activities, not to ban substances, in my opinion. Dealing drugs is an irresponsible public activity. Bobert's peacable smoking of a joint in his own home is not. It has not made him a bad person.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 07:14 PM

There are many good arguments for and against on this thread but also, yet again, so much personal attack which is unnecessary and possibly hurtful. Can people not just get points across without "downing" someone else to do it?. Also I believe that using swear words of whatever type proves nothing except a lack of good vocabulary on the users part....probably swear at me now eh??
Be Blessed.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 07:19 PM

I would posit that my vocabulary is the equal of yours, Georgiansilver. I though it was the right word to use. And you too be blessed.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 07:25 PM

I was just on another thread, and I posted this: ""See - you generally find here that sooner or later you find yourself with someone you've been arguing with.

And here's Georgiansilver, with another example of exactly that. And it strikes me that this is just another reason why personal attacks are so out of place and pointless.

Friendly insults are one thing, and can be fun, in their place, but personal attacks are completely different, and shouldn't have a place here.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 07:26 PM

I was just on another thread, and I posted this: "See - you generally find here that sooner or later you find yourself agreeing with someone you've been arguing with."

And here's Georgiansilver, with another example of exactly that. And it strikes me that this is just another reason why personal attacks are so out of place and pointless.

Friendly insults are one thing, and can be fun, in their place, but personal attacks are completely different, and shouldn't have a place here.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 08:15 PM

Well I'm with Georgiansilver to some extent. I was thinking brucie's attitude childish if not obnoxious well before the assault on Strolling Johnny. But for Georgian then to sneer about limited vocabulary because of an expetive or two - well that's pathetic.

I have grumbled about his/her "Be blessed" sign-off already, and coming at the end of the most recent post it looked particularly sanctimonious and patronising. Maybe that's the intended effect. Or maybe if Georgian realised it could have that effect, he/she would quietly drop it.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 08:25 PM

No, I think it's an indication of his desire to meet a certain spiritual standard of good intentions towards all...but...it can certainly sound sanctimonious to someone who doesn't like that style or subscribe to the same beliefs.

Half of the bitter arguments on this forum are kicked off mainly because someone just doesn't like someone else's style or way of expressing themselves. That's a matter of personal taste. For example, almost nobody likes Martin Gibson's way of expressing himself... :-) Some people can't stand mine either. Heh!

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 08:50 PM

Peter K: You are a good writer, OK thinker, and probably a very nice person. However, I find you to be a snob in some of your attitudes. Let's agree that we don't care for each other. Have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 23 Jun 04 - 03:45 AM

mmmmmm. I know I don't have to justify my "Be Blessed" to any of you but at the end of the day we are all just people who have arrived in the world, to whatever lives we live or have chosen to live. We have to live our lives as we see fit.
As a Christian I may make mistakes in life..I may say the wrong things to people at times...I may annoy some or frustrate them and maybe even hurt them because I am human!!! However...I have no malice toward anyone and truly wish a Blessing on all I come into contact with. I try to get my point across with dignity(which I am sure I often fail at).
I think the least we can offer our fellow man/woman(even if in total disagreement with him/her) is respect.
Perhaps you feel that is wrong for you but I'm how I chose to be.
Be Blessed.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 23 Jun 04 - 03:58 AM

Incidentally....I wonder how many of you would be prepared to face the people you "down" in real life..or how much you really know about them........I know nothing of Strollin' Johnnys beliefs but I have the honour and privilege of knowing him as a Folk performer of great talent and a person I respect. A man with a good knowledge of life and its pitfalls and who is capable of giving good advice to those in difficulty or despair. Someone with a rich life experience.....
I am Blessed.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 23 Jun 04 - 05:01 AM

Georgian, you may indeed be blessed, but I still don't see that it's incumbent on you to call down blessings on the rest of us. As I've just said in another thread, I tend to see religions as forms of mental illness, and I think you should show that view some respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jun 04 - 06:04 AM

Blessing is an interesting word, because its roots come from the word for wounding, which is what it still means in French.

Strikes me, though, that anyone who objects to it being used as a sign-off expression would have at least as much as much reason to object to "Goodbye".

Every now and again I sneeze in public, and some passing stranger says "Bless You", the way we do here. I rather like that. I suppose Fionn would find it insulting...

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 23 Jun 04 - 06:14 AM

Peter K(Fionn) If you chose to see me as mentally ill then so be it.
I am personally hoping you are not a Psychologist or Psychiatrist as your opinion of my mental state would certainly seem to have validity then.
Be Blessed.