BS: Legalize Pot?

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 05:43 AM

Incidentally...to those of you who think that you should be able to flout the laws of the land in your own homes...where does it stop???? If you beat your partner up in the house, should that also be allowed?..or sexually abuse your own children?...where does keeping the laws of the land begin and end?????. Just as people break the law by possessing or using drugs, some do both those things mentioned....should they also be legalised because some people enjoy doing them????

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 05:51 AM

GUEST - correct, though perhaps not in the way you mean! I will never give up on my son. I never gave up, either, on the poor, misguided, malinfluenced little buggers that I used to deal with on a professional basis, whose lives had been wrecked by the 'It's only a bit of harmelss pot' brigade, lying and leading them on. I even attended a couple of their funerals, and a 21-year old's funeral can be a tough experience.

McGrath - 'Towering rage'? No, I reserve my rage for those who are worthy of it, and a few SOBs with bad dress sense and no understanding of the value of a decent haircut don't fall into that category. :0) (LOL) But anger? Yes, I get mad about some of the drivel I've read on here but, as my regular opponent, Dianavan, told me recently, anger can be a good emotion (thanks Dianavan, I know exactly where you were coming from!). In my book it's better to feel anger than nothing at all. And is Towering Rage any worse than the Towering Arrogance, or Towering Stupidity I see in some of the other posts here and elsewhere in the BS section? Don't answer that - you'll be talking to The Hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 06:14 AM

"strict legal temperance"

"Temperance" means drinking (or whatever) in moderation. It doesn't mean total abstention. "A sensible level" was how the Government publicity about drinking put it - I found that most of the time I'm rather under the defined level, but during the festival season I get u[p to it from time to time.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 06:27 AM

"Presumably, those people here who are choosing to "slag off" others who have an opinion, are pot smokers or drug takers themselves...."

I'm pretty sure that most of the slagging-off of people with a different opinion has come from the prohibitionists. But either way it's a wrongheaded thing to do. The point of this kind of discussion isn't to try to change other people's minds, it's to try to understand why it is that well-meaning people see things very differently.

I don't think I know anyone who isn't some kind of drug taker. Tea, coffee, chocolate... All have measurable psychoactive effects, and all have actually at some time been illegal in some places.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 08:08 AM

The Hand here again - McGrath, I was just beginning to agree with your first paragraph when it was spoiled by glancing at the second one - which is a red herring I'm afraid. You're right about tea, coffee and chocolate. However, the difference between those three and pot is in the reason for using them, which in the case of pot is to become intoxicated. I personally consume very moderate quantities of tea, coffee and (gasp) chocolate for the sole reason that I enjoy the taste - do you know anyone who smokes cannabis simply and solely because they enjoy the taste? Of course you don't! And, conversely, I've never met a tea, coffee or chocolate consumer whose use of those commodities is for the sole purpose of intoxication, they'd have palpitations or migraine long before they achieved that Nirvana! (LOL)

So, a red herring? Of course it is - you've attempted to gain some sort of advantage here by comparing a horse with a dromedary, the last refuge of a scoundrel (albeit a likeable one!) who secretly knows, deep in their hearts, that they're arguing in defence of something which common sense (and Christ knows, there's been little enough of that from the Yea-Sayers) tells them is indefensible, but whose desire to appear to the world as a clever, deep-thinking radical prevents them from admitting it.

And in case you're planning to drag up 'medicinal purposes' - I'm already a supporter of the argument for Cannabis on prescription for bona-fide medical use.

And now, you'll be glad to know, The Hand's up again, absolutely, completely, finally. Bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 09:02 AM

Different drugs have different effects, and we dop use them for the effects as well as for the taste. Plenty of time I've had a cup of coffee to wake me up. Having a cup of tea to steady yourself in a crisis is a pretty general practice in England. People have chocolate to cheer yourself up, and that's not just the sugar.

The point is, caffeine (in tea and coffee) and theobromine (in choicolate) are drugs, as are nicotine and alcohol. They just happen (in our society at this time) to be legal.

When I have an alcoholic drink, it's not to get drunk, it's because I enjoy the taste, and I find it gives a mild degree of euphoria and exhileration. That's how many people use cannabis. Obviously in both cases some people do use it to get totally smashed or stoned. Silly, and potentially dangerious, much more so in the case of alcohol.

Obviously there are drugs with much more dramatic and dangerous effects. But when people go on about "drugs" as if they were all the same, it's nonsense. Horses and dromedaries have a lot in common, they just aren't quite the same. But just because someone didn't like horses they wouldn't be entitled to declare all mammals are the spawn of the devil.

The bottom line for me is this: the harmful effects of trying to enforce laws against cannabis are much greater than the harmful effects of relaxing these. And that is not exactly an extreme position. In fact it seems to be the general view of governments and law enforcement agencies across Europe.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 09:03 AM

Strollin Johnny saidi, "And in case you're planning to drag up 'medicinal purposes' - I'm already a supporter of the argument for Cannabis on prescription for bona-fide medical use."

Your logic escapes my wizened little brain's ability to understand it, Strollin' Johnny. Even a person using marijuana for "medical" purposes could be on the road to ruin in heroin/cocaine land. Why is this not a contradiction?

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 09:28 AM

Georgian Silver - You asked: "Is there anyone on this thread who does not smoke pot that feels it should be legalised??????."

Yes! Me. Where have you been? I have stated over and over again in this thread that I do not smoke pot, I have always thought it was a stupid thing to do (even when virtually my entire young peer group and all my friends were doing it in the '70's), I do not recommend that anyone do it, and I AM in favour of a certain form of legalization of it, as follows:

1. Make it legal to privately possess small amounts, to use those small amounts in the privacy of your own home, and to grow marijuana plants in small amounts in your own home for the purpose of personal use if you want to. (This is what millions of people already do and will continue doing no matter what laws you pass, and most of them do not suffer any major damage from so doing. More importantly, it's THEIR business, not the government's, if they do.)

2. Make it illegal to sell pot publicly or to mass market in any way. Make it illegal to deal. Make it illegal to put in a fancy package under any brand name. Make it illegal to advertise on any media.

3. Make it illegal to smoke or use in a public place, such as: restaurant, office, street, etc.

4. Establish a government regulated supply of clean, unadulterated pot for specific medicinal purpose (such as treating glaucoma), dispensed on a doctor's prescription).

What I am suggesting would address several important issues.

It would prevent mass marketing of the substance, which is the thing that creates large numbers of addicts. (examples: cigarettes, alcohol, tobacco, and all illegal drugs...legal drugs mass market openly, illegal ones mass market clandestinely).

It would remove the incentive to mass market (big profits to the seller!).

It would assist people who have medical needs that can be helped through the use of pot.

It would protect the ordinary public from undue harassment by cops who are wasting their time trying to protect people from themselves! The government has no business trying to protect me or you from ourselves. That is our job, not the government's.

Dear GeorgianSilver, I am not a drug user. I do not get high on any drug, I do not smoke, I drink so little and so seldom that if most people were like me the breweries and distilleries would all go bankrupt very quickly, I don't drink coffee, I take no prescription drugs at all, and I have been like that all my life. I also believe deeply in God, as I know you do, and I see a spiritual purpose being played out in every human situation.

I detest draconian governments which intrude in a dictatorial fashion into people's private lives, and I disapprove of self-righteous people who, like the scribes and pharisess in the New Testament, walk around in their cloak of dour conventionality trying to scare people and force everyone else to live according to their overweening will and misplaced sense of moral superiority.

Marijuana in itself is no threat to society and never was. The mass marketing of marijuana is a threat to society. That mass marketing will continue as long as there is BIG MONEY to be made by so doing...and there will be as long as the drug is illegal...or legal to market. I have suggested exactly how to cut this thing off at the marketing source, and at the same time leave ordinary little people alone in their ordinary little lives to make their own decisions about how to live in private.

You see, if he who really wants pot in a big way can grow his own...without fear of arrest...then you have totally eliminated the criminal AND the legal mass marketer! And you have thereby eliminated 98% of the pot problem...because the guy who really wants pot in a big way will always seek it out anyway. Far better if he can grow his own, rather than go to a criminal for it.

The politicians will not do this, though, because they do not serve the public, they serve the highest bidder!

And right now that is the crime syndicates, behind the scenes...but if pot were legalized for the purposes of marketing, it would be the cigarette companies (legal drug dealers of the worst sort) who would push it...and then you'd REALLY have a pot-smoking epidemic on your hands, brother! It would be advertised conspicuously and consumed conspicuously by all the little consumer sheep who watch TV every day.

I don't do that either, not anymore. I gave up on TV by around 1985, and I haven't looked back. The benefits have been considerable. (TV is another common addiction that wastes people's lives, in my opinion.) I read books and play music instead.

I don't fit your definition of a legalization of pot supporter. Not in the least.

You have to pay attention to the details in a matter like this...not just say, "Oh, that stuff is bad for people! Let's make it illegal and that will solve the problem." It has NOT solved the problem, it has enlarged the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Once Famous
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 10:33 AM

I agree with Georgiansilver, Blackcatter and my arguement is far from stupid. Doing something illegal while someone is not watching in your home is just plain flaunting the law.

Pot and it's cancer causing carcinagins (sp?) like cigarettes and alcohol seriously help contribute to the high cost of health care, something we all end up paying for.

I also said it should be legalized, heavily taxed, and the revenue used to feed hungry people.

If this happens, please feel free to smoke your lungs black.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 11:26 AM

Martin, you said: "Doing something illegal while someone is not watching in your home is just plain flaunting the law."

Uh-huh. And we all do that...sometime, somewhere...in some way that we consider minor and not terribly significant. We exceed the speed limit. We park in a no-parking spot. We fail to entirely accurately report our income taxes. We litter. We fail to report something else. We fail to obey some little statute somewhere, because it's momentarily inconvenient or we don't have the time or...whatever.... Find me a person who has never just plain flouted the law and I'll find you a three-headed Venusian dragon. Police flout the law. Politicians, judges, and priests flout the law. The law is an ass, Martin, an inflexible bunch of imperfect BS created by some bureaucrats in an office somewhere to try to manage an infinitely complicated and ever-changing social situation...but it's certainly better than NO law! :-) I'll vouch for that. It is not, however, infallible, and neither are we, and no one should expect us to be.

Like you, Martin, I'm against all that cancer-causing smoke, whether it be tobacco or pot. I'm also against stupid people going to bars, getting plastered, acting rowdy, and reeling out at 1 AM and creating noise on the street and acting like idiots. I'm against people eating junk food, getting overweight, and dying 20 years too soon of a heart attack. I'm against most rap music and most music videos. I'm against the crap music on commercial radio. I'm against the marketing of bimbos like Britney Spears. I'm against aggressive drivers who show no regard to anyone else on the road and won't let people into traffic. I'm against selfishness, boorishness, and gross laziness. I'm against people sitting around in smelly old undershirts all day, drinking beer, and watching football while ignoring their long-suffering wives and children. I'm against workaholism...which has killed way more people and ruined more lives than pot ever will.

But I do not propose enacting laws prohibiting people from personally engaging in all of the above activities for the simple reason that such laws would be basically unworkable and counterproductive, AND the suppression of people's right to use their own free will and judgement over their own lives...as are the laws persecuting marijuana users.

My way of dealing with all those things I listed above is simple. I don't do them.

I leave other people alone to work out their own life-maturing process in their own fashion. If they want to be idiots I can live with it. The World will always contain a fair number of idiots.

That's called: "live and let live" It ain't always easy, but it's better than the alternative, believe me. The alternative is a police state with enforced conformity at the point of a gun.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 11:28 AM

It's evident from reading through the posts on this thread that unfortunately, most people still don't understand why pot and other recreational drugs such as opium were criminalized in the first place. It's amazing to me that the general public still accepts the propoganda that these laws were created for health/social welfare reasons, presumably with the best interests of the population at heart!

This is simply not so. Lawmakers (ie the gov'ts of Canada and the US) never did, do not now and most likely never will have the best interests of the common people at heart. That is not why they were created, and it is NOT their purpose!

The purpose of the gov't and all it's supporting laws is simple - to protect, promote and serve the economic and political interests of the white ruling classes who designed and maintain them. Plain and simple.

Back in the 1920's, the intent of the ruling classes (ie the white, wealthy, 99% male and politically powerful law-makers) was simply to exert legal power and control over what they saw as "problem populations" - specifically the Orientals, blacks, natives, Hispanics and poorer whites - by criminalizing their drug(s) of choice. These populations had been using natural, cheap and easy to grow plants like opium and marijuana for recreation and relaxation for millenia.

And harming no one.

Europeans had long preferred alcohol, and had been reaping huge profits from the manufacture and sale of their deadly, debilitating and poisonous drug of choice for centuries. In fact, they still are!

It's interesting to note that while the users of opium in it's natural form were criminalized - ie the poor Orientals who flocked to the west coast of North America in droves in the late 1800's and early 20th century, taking precious jobs away from the whites - wealthier whites and their doctors who could afford the expensive and deadly derivatives of opium - heroin, morphine, laudenum etc - were not.

NO wonder! There's big bucks to be made from the manufacture and sale of deadly, addictive opium derivatives! But what profit could be made from poorer people who preferred growing and and harvesting poppies or hemp in their own backyards (instead of buying alcohol like their white neighbours) to change their state of consciousness?

Absolutely none.

To quote from A Sociology of Crime by Peter Elgin, PhD and professor of sociology/criminology at WLU, the following factors led to the Canadian Opium Act of 1908 and culminated in the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act of 1929:

(1) the racial conflict between 'whites' and 'orientals', (2) the status conflict between the high-status medical profession and its clients using narcotics for therapeutic purposes and the low-status users, particularly Chinese, using opium for pleasure and (3) the prevailing cultural beliefs and values about drugs and their link with sexual promiscuity and 'race-mixing'.

The racism of the time was expressed in such claims as 'they [Asiatics] make the country of no value for the surplus population of Great Britain', uttered by Mr Duncan Ross of Vancouver (House of Commons Debates 1907-1908) and 'whatever their motive, the traffic [in drugs] always comes with the Oriental, and ... one would, therefore be justified in assuming that it was their desire to injure the bright-browed races of the world'.

The criminalization was shaped by the differential power arising from status differences of different groups of users and producers of opium. Thus, while physicians created addicts among their often middle-class and maternal clientele by prescribing medicines containing opiates for a variety of complaints, neither they nor their practice was considered criminal ... Similarly, producers of the drugs alcohol and tobacco were often British, of high status and contributed useful taxes; their activities were not proscribed ...

... The 'solution' to the marijuana 'problem' is not the prevention of it's use but a changing of the attitudes towards it. If the cultivation, distribution and sale of cannabis were legalized, one would do away with a lot of devaint activity. One would have put and end to the need to smuggle the drug and also the illegalities involved in the use of the profits from the trade.

Whether marijuana is harmful is a complicated question, and whether it is more so than other drugs (tobacco and alcohol) is debatable. As to the suggestion that 'soft' drugs lead to the use of 'hard' drugs, this too might be contested. If it is the case that that they do, then part of the reason may be that it is in someone's economic interests to move people from 'soft' to 'hard' drug use, together with the fact that because of its illegality, the marijuana trade and the 'hard drug' trade are tied up with one another."

Little Hawk made some great points here, but I think Donuel said it best ...

Problem is, in the repressive regieme I live under, my family could lose the house, savings and child custody if the police had the excuse of finding pot here.

That's the purpose of criminalizing marijuana - it's an excuse for dominating and 'busting' people identified as 'problems' by the powers that be.

Some things just never change.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 12:06 PM

Couldn't agree more, daylia. What we have here is a privileged wealthy elite, busily engaged for the last many centuries in addicting people to tremedously pernicious drugs (alcohol and tobacco) for enormous profit, while demonizing and marginaling those people and substances which stood outside the controlling financial circles of power of the ruling clique.

And that's about all there is to it. Gross hypocrisy and profit-taking, masquerading as morality.

Just like the scribes and pharisees in the New Testament. Gross hypocrisy and profit-taking, masquerading as godliness and morality.

Not much has changed.

The modern police, mostly unwittingly, serve this beast, just as the Roman guards served it 2,000 years ago. And for what? For money and power...but mainly for money.

I suggest the one thing that they will never do: legalize marijuana in a way which doesn't make money for any established special interest group but provides it to ordinary people for free...by the sweat of their own hands. That is the one great SACRILEGE in this society of bought-out liars and dupes...that anything should be freely available. If they could control all the air, we would have to pay them even to breathe.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Once Famous
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 12:39 PM

Daylia and Little Hawk

Your arguements have degenerated into complete and total bullshit.

Live and let live? How about a lesson in right and wrong?

Go elect officials who see it your way. C'mon, you can do it! Put YOUR money where your mouth is. Change the laws the democratic way instead of pissing and whining on an old hippie forum. Go start the groundswell of popularity. Society is completely fucked up on this and everything else, right?

Your arguements were used 20-35 years ago. Obviously no one is listening, no matter how many smoke outs are staged, no matter all of the efforts of NORML if they even still exist. No one ever hears of them any more. I used to have the same arguements. Why don't you focus all of your energy by trying to be a happy person instead of being the great saviors of the underclass?

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 12:59 PM

"flaunting the law".

Flaunt: Wave proudly; display oneself por one's finery; show off, parade.

I think you probably mean "flouting the law"

Flout: mock, insult, express contempt for; scoff at.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 01:22 PM

I may do just that, Martin, but then you wouldn't have the joy of talking to my anymore cos I wouldn't be here. :-) Why don't YOU stop wasting your time pissing and moaning about my and daylia's opinions and do something useful with it instead?

I already have a solution to the problem. I don't smoke dope. I didn't even do it back when you DID, so who's the dummy? I do put my money where my mouth is...into things I believe in. I am happy most of the time. I discuss this issue because I figure it's still worth discussing, and because I find it interesting and challenging. I may get bored enough with it eventually that I won't bother anymore, of course.

Martin, you are a conventional thinker, that's all, and I'm not. It's as simple as that. You believe in the prevailing system. I don't. I think it's largely insane, corrupt, and arbitrary, but I manage to live inside it without much trouble because I have basically good judgement as to how to do that. (It's actually quite easy.) I have already stated many times that in terms of right and wrong (meaning helpful and harmful) I believe people are better off not to smoke marijuana...or cigarettes either. I don't. As for people who do, I do not presume to control their private lives...I only ask that they don't smoke in a public place where I end up breathing it along with them.

It isn't really a question of right and wrong, Martin, that motivates people regarding such laws...it's a question of thinking they have the sole right to control others' concepts of right and wrong behaviour. In the case of private drug use...they don't.

George

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 01:47 PM

Do you really want a lesson in "right and wrong", Martin? Well it's too hot for any more gardening right now so ok, here goes ...

"Right and wrong" are

(1) value judgments, not to be confused with facts or truths,

(2) highly subjective,

(3) culturally determined - reflecting the prejudices and biases of the environment in which they were learned,

(4) notoriously fickle,

(5) concepts of perennially use for propogandists of any persuasion - for church, state or any other agents of social exploitation, manipulation and control,   

(6) very thankfully subject to the laws of evolution and change, just like everything else in Nature.


Can't think of any more offhand, but I'd just like to say that I am a very happy person, right now. I'm creating a yard full of wildflowers around my house (cuz nothing else grows very well here) ... and this year quite literally lo and behold all that fancy manoevering with the lawnmower to avoid the "weeds" I like is paying off! Everything is comin up daisies! They've just started blooming over the last couple days, and I'm looking out at this veritable ocean of white and gold endazzlement gently rippling in the breeze ... and I just saw an absolultely gorgeous HUGE yellow and black butterfly of a species I've never encountered before. I'm SO EXCITED!

Now, THAT'S food for JOY around here!   Gonna get out the ole guitar and celebrate ... thanks for the opportunity to share my garden with you.

And I won't think about how my gov't dictates what kind of wildwood weeds or flowering tops I can and cannot grow around here either ... cuz that might spoil it ...

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 02:10 PM

Real right and wrong are centrally about stuff like cruelty and compassion, and I'd dispute that they are in fact highly subjective. Insofar as these kind of things are culturally determined, I'd see them as providing the standard by which the culture in question is to be measured.

Stuff like which drugs a culture adopts and which it outlaws are pretty arbitrary, and have very little to do with morality.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 03:52 PM

Insofar as these kind of things are culturally determined, I'd see them as providing the standard by which the culture in question is to be measured.

Agreed. And which "measuring stick" is used in making this value judgment? The very same one produced by the personal cultural experience, the "moral education" of the one making the judgment.

All research has this inherent bias. The "scientists" of sociology take great pains to compensate for it in their research methods. That's what I meant by saying that concepts like "right and wrong" are highly subjective and subject to both exploitation and evolution.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Once Famous
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 04:13 PM

Yes, Little Hawk, I am a conventional thinker with conventional wisdom. I think by having used it though, I have a much better perspective than you do as to it's values and wastes.

There is no substitute for a life experience to form an opinion on. Your opinions on pot usage are as an outsider with a guesstimate. What goes on behind closed doors in someone's home, whether it is pot usage or child porno does matter if it is indeed illegal. Laws don't have to be agreed with and can be changed. They have been by people who campaign for them and when the change has proven to make sense.

It is obvious to me that this law will never be changed. I considered myself a much weaker person when I used the stuff up until 10 years ago. I think that as long as it is illegal, people can continue to seek out other methods to make them feel better. It's a shame that people do need drugs or alcohol for this. I will not preach and suggest anything. Only that pot and other mind altering drugs do not truly enhance the human experience.

daylia, I feel very sorry for you if you are a parent. You spew the paranoia in life that I freed myself from years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 05:38 PM

"It is obvious to me that this law will never be changed."

But it has been changed in a lot of places, in Europe at any rate, and there is every reason to expect this process to continue. (Cannabis: European law changes) There is now a relatively relaxed attitude by the authorities towards the use of cannabis in numerous places where a few years ago people could expect to get jailed.
.........................

"You spew the paranoia in life that I freed myself from years ago." But in the light of that kind of abuse, Martin, are you quite sure you have succeeded in freeing yourself as much as you say?

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 05:51 PM

"There is no substitute for a life experience to form an opinion on."

Correct, Martin. I have such experience. I smoked pot exactly 5 times. Twice in the 70's. Three more times in the 80's. I did it precisely so that I would be knowledgable about it...and find out what the hell all the fuss was about! :-) I was not very impressed by the experience or by the stone (although that was quite powerful on 2 of those occasions).

Bear in mind that I had literally thousands of opportunities to smoke pot, hash, and hash oil in those 20 years...thousands...and I did it only enough times to see what it was all about for myself. It was not something I wanted in my life. Virtually all the friends I had smoked it casually, and a few did so regularly. I was an unusual musician, cos I had the long hair but no real interest in the drugs...legal or otherwise.

I wholeheartedly agree that smoking pot makes one "a much weaker person" and that "pot and other mind altering drugs do not truly enhance the human experience". Couldn't agree more, in fact. I feel the same way about tobacco and alcohol.

I think most people do it simply because it's considered "normal" in their favourite peer group...along with alcohol and tobacco. The 3 common substance vices generally go hand in hand, and encourage each other.

If you're in a somewhat different peer group now, then you find that pot is no longer "normal", but tobacco and alcohol may still be.

I don't go along with either one of those peer groups.

So, I understand your feeling on it all right. I get you.

I guess the real difference is that I think legalizing possession would protect the public while you think it would further endanger the public. For all I know you may be right...only doing it would enable us to find out.

I hate to think of the many perfectly harmless and decent people I know who do smoke it casually getting a criminal record because they had the bad luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and got arrested. It seems like a pointless waste to me. They are harmless people, not criminals. I'd rather see cops chase real criminals than go after harmless people who are a bit unconventional in some way.

The thing about the really bad element in a town...they smoke dope all right, but they also do any number of other things (like rob and fence and deal drugs) that the cops are going to be after them for anyway...regardless of the pot. I don't want to see peaceful, harmless users of a drug lumped in with real criminals by a law that is not flexible enough to know the difference.

That's my concern.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Once Famous
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 05:55 PM

Yes, I am McGrath. Completely.

It is good people are not getting life sentences for it. they shouldn't. They shouldn't speed, either.

Really, what difference does it make to you?

Do you like to get high?

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 06:10 PM

I like to get high playing music or meditating. Sex is also a lovely way to get high. A hot bath can do it. Being out in Nature on a beautiful day is good too.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: 42
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 07:15 AM

I sure hope you folks never get into freedom of choice!
or whether women are people...
or if slavery is sanctioned in the bible...

or if margarine should be able to look like butter (remember those little dye packages?)

are laws immutable? does nothing change? are we not able to make decisions based on logic and spirit?

I'm not planning to try to keep up with dahlia or little hawk's spiritual journeys or martin's invective but just had to add my two cents worth.

(can't see how growing a couple of plants can be harming the economy or smoking a few joints can ruin my life)

j

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 07:39 AM

"can't see how growing a couple of plants can be harming the economy or smoking a few joints can ruin my life"

Thats why you are just a number

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 09:56 AM

Numbers do serve to identify a poster with a post. Unlike "GUEST".

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 10:13 AM

Ha! That's funny. I know "42", and she is far more than just a number. She's a fine musician, a good primary school teacher, and yes, a very pillar of decent, if somewhat informal society! :-) (had to throw that in...) I would get her to stop smoking (tobacco, etc.) if I could, but it's her decision, not mine.

I had an interesting conversation with Raptor on the phone about this discussion yesterday. He's of the same opinion as Martin...that pot should be kept illegal...given the fact that he hung around with all kinds of VERY unsavoury people in the Barrie, Ontario, Canada area when he was young and foolish...heavy dope users all...and he figures the situation would get worse if it was legal. Maybe he's right. I figure the key is to not prosecute users but go after sellers. I think that legalizing the substance for SALE would be a disaster...and would increase people's usage of pot, but I don't think that use, per se, is a crime. It's a choice. Marketing it to people is a crime. Driving drunk or stoned is a crime.

42 was speaking in favour of choice. So am I.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 11:27 AM

It's the marketting process that is the problem far more than what is marketted. That goes for just about everything. Politicians, guns, sex, food, technology, ideology...

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 12:20 PM

are laws immutable?

Hopefully not!

does nothing change?

If it did, wouldn't that be something!!?

are we not able to make decisions based on logic and spirit?

Usually - as long as the one doesn't override the other.

I'm not planning to try to keep up with dahlia or little hawk's spiritual journeys

You are not only lovely and talented but a very wise woman!

or martin's invective

Well, that just demonstrates your emotional maturity and social smarts.

but just had to add my two cents worth.

And thank you for that!

(can't see how growing a couple of plants can be harming the economy or smoking a few joints can ruin my life)

Don't see how it affects the economy either, but please don't light up in front of the police station, or anywhere near people like Martin who may take pleasure in turning you in. Until our archaic criminal laws catch up with 21st century thinking and mores, those couple joints could still ruin your life. (See Donuel's posts above)

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 10:11 PM

Yep, that innocuous, stupid little joint can (legally speaking) ruin your life! (If a cop arrests you for it.) And that's another great reason not to have the stuff around or smoke it...if you can stand the bad smell and the awful taste of it in the first place, eh Daylia? :-) I sure can't. Ditto for the stinkin' cigarettes!

I would rather eat mangos, given the choice. Now THERE's a great high. Wonderful experience. I recommend well-ripened mangos direct from the tropics. They're still legal, too!

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: *daylia*
Date: 17 Jun 04 - 03:08 PM

OK LH I'm game - let's go get mangotangoed! :-)

As the responsible morally upright citizens we undoubtedly are ... ahem ... we'd best educate ourselves thoroughly about this hedonistic behavior first though. A seemingly innocuous mangomunchout might just be enough to bring the walls tumbling down!

For example, look what happened to Ms Black Widow's abode after she was duped into a bit of ditzy dopedabbling?

Scary, huh?

I think she enjoyed the best results with the peyote/mescaline - although the Gentle Herb does run a close second. Loosened her up a little, at any rate.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jun 04 - 03:16 PM

The really scary thing about mangos is that they taste SO good. It's downright sinful. For this reason, I think that it was the mango which Eve offered to Adam, not the apple. He ate it. The Angel then appeared with the flaming sword, said "Man Go!" and drove them out of Eden. A nasty tale.

If the Republican Party (or Martin Gibson) ever become fully aware of the threat that ripe mangos pose to society I'm sure they will be made totally illegal without delay...and I will then technically be a "criminal" on my way to perdition! Or I'll just move to Trinidad or Cuba.

Heh!

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: harpgirl
Date: 17 Jun 04 - 03:49 PM

You would have loved my parents south florida yard, LH. They had a mango tree, banana tree, key lime tree, carambola tree, grapefruit tree, orange tree, and two avocado trees thirty feet high all on a very small lot. Plus fishing in the intercoastal off the dock.

Now it is the pleasant views of the ancestral condo that lure me back rather than the ripe fruit...

But mangos are still plentiful in the grocery stores in North Florida and we eat them all the time. Very sweet, but I like NOrthern Michigan blueberries, Western Michigan cherries and Georgia peaches just as much....harpy

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jun 04 - 03:58 PM

Ahhhh...sounds like heaven. What's all this fuss about a smelly weed anyway? I am forever flummoxed by the stupidities of humanity...the only creatures on planet Earth dumb enough to deliberately inhale smoke.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jun 04 - 07:55 PM

It's all very subjective - I think pot, unlike tobacco, smells rather pleasant, better than mangoes. But even so, I'd be against banning mangoes. Mind, they probably have been, or are, illegal in some places - that applies to most things it seems.

Someone should come up with an index of what's been banned and where. There's very likely one anyway, somewhere on the net. Morris Dancing, Mince Pies and statues of Christian saints(Puritan England); music generally, and statues of Buddhist saints (Taliban Afghanistan); alcoholic drink and women drivers (Saudi Arabia); anyone driving on the roads without a man with a red flag walking in front (Victorian England); having a drink in a pub when you're under 21 in various places in the States...

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jun 04 - 08:44 PM

Yeah, I was gonna just stay the heck outtta this thread other than the few posts I've allready made but "smells bad and tastes bad? Now ya done crossed the line wid this ol' hillbilly, LH... Nuthin' better smellin' like the takin' a freash bud in late September... Ya' take that bud and kinda give it a little squeeze and get taht sticky THC on yer finger tips and.... geeze o pete... Great smell... Better than anything I can think of...

And as fir taste? Pot is good enough but now Lebanese blond hashish? Wow... What a nice taste, sho nuff is...

Hey, I may not do as much pot as I once did. Might of fact, no where near as much... And inhaling smoke prolly ain't the best thing in the world fir ya but the calming effects may outweigh the dangers of inhaling smoke... Lots o' stuff prolly don't sound too good fir ya on paper but the ends outwiegh the harm. Lots of folks have cancers treated successfully with chemotherapy, which, ahhh, is purdy much poisoning ones self...

That's my story and (cough) Iz stickin' to it...

Stoner Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 12:25 AM

Only in the US would someone dream of returning to the ancestral Condo!! LOL!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 07:41 AM

Ah. I've insulted a true believer, eh, Bobert? Well, it's all subjective, I guess. :-) After all, our dachshunds adore the smell of decaying meat, fresh dung, filth of every organic kind. They will go miles out of their way to roll in the stuff and then come home proudly.

Takes all kinds.

"Good shit, man!"

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 08:53 AM

Hey Bobert...pot seems to be playin havoc with your spellin. Better smoke even less eh?? lol

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 09:20 AM

Spellin' ain't my problem. The fact that all the letters is wored off my keyboard, coupled with my severe lexdxia, is... Ain't got nuthin' to do with weed... But don't let it be said that I don't appreciate yer conerns...

Now as the "fresh dung" comment from my lotus sittin', meditatin', never-met-a-tree-not-worth-a-hugin', mountain top prayin', neighbor from Canaburg I'd just like to say, "Yeah, LH, but its organic!" It oughtta get at least a point 'er three fir that... And no more talk of "good, sh*t" just 'casue it's organic, too...

Now for my sad but true pot story... 'Bout a year ago I figgures that maybe my poor ol' hillbilly thinkerator would work better if I took a little break from pot so I took my stash to the P-Vine and told her hide from me fir awhile... Well, 'bout a month 'er two later, after finding the thinkerator going the wrong way, I asked her fir it and she, who has never smoked none of it in her life, couldn't remember where she hid it! And to this very day, it's hid somewhere in the house. I'm thinking or calling the cops and asking if I could borrow one of their dope dogs fir a couple of hours to help my poor ol's self find my stash. Whaddayathink 'bout that idea?

Not-Stoner Enuff Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: JennyO
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 12:29 PM

Daylia, I was rather interested to notice that one of the weirdest looking webs was from the spider that had caffeine!

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 01:35 PM

I do agree with Martin that mind altering drugs do not enhance the human experience. As to whether pot should be legalised, I also agree with Martin - it shouldn't. But for totally different reasons, namely that the economies of so many developing countries like Afghanistan, Turkey etc etc would suffer as the price of the stuff drops with legalisation.

Tobacco, now there's a drug much more destructive - why isn't it banned, I wonder. Ah, yes, its tax revenues support the NHS in the UK and help keep taxes down in other countries.

Nobody is immune from double standards. When it suits them.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 03:10 PM

Now here's the dope - while mind altering drugs may or may not enhance the human experience, according to this Canadian study smoking a little dope every week may make you a little smarter!

Current marijuana use was significantly correlated (p < 0.05) in a dose- related fashion with a decline in IQ over the ages studied. The comparison of the IQ difference scores showed an average decrease of 4.1 points in current heavy users (p < 0.05) compared to gains in IQ points for light current users (5.8), former users (3.5) and non-users (2.6).

Hmmm - if I'm interpreting this correctly, this means people who've never used or quit using pot have less of an IQ increase than a light pot smoker. Interesting!

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 03:26 PM

I just noticed that the scientist at Carleton University responsible for that study is one Dr. Peter Fried!

Imagine that! He must wake up in the morning to piles of correspondences like "Dear Dr. Fried; I thoughtS there was something half-baked about your research, but now I see I was wrong. It's not half-baked - just Fried!"

Hee hee hee ... sorry ...

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 03:27 PM

So Georgiansilver presumes that the legalisers who have been slagging off those with other opinions are pot smokers. It seems a foolish presumption to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 04:44 PM

the economies of so many developing countries like Afghanistan, Turkey etc etc would suffer as the price of the stuff drops with legalisation.

Wouldn't work like that - the people who produce the stuff get a tiny fraction of the selling price, it's the entrepreneurs who take the profit. As is the normal pattern for Third World produce, legal or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: harpgirl
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 04:46 PM

....I believe the standard deviation on IQ tests like the Stanford-Binet is 10 IQ points daylia, which means anyone could score up or down within a range of ten points on any one day they took the test for no particular reason except that their socks were too tight; which makes predictions about the effects of pot on IQ meaningless. But I suppose I should read the study!

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: harpgirl
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 05:08 PM

The study *daylia* refers to is very interesting in its full text. I used a hierarchical regression analysis in my dissertation on a similarly small sample: their's 74, mine 109 subjects. That small a sample is too small to generalize to a larger population but it is an acceptable size in behavioral research. The amounts of pot they smoked was self-reported so there is no way to control for THC quantity but they averaged it at 5-5% THC to have a stable measure. e
Neither sample (mine about anxiety disorders, their's about pot smokers)was randomly selected which means that the statistical test has considerably less validity. The self selection quality of the sample is interesting because the IQ levels of the subjects (WISC test) appears to be slightly above average to begin with...It was longitudinal which gives it much more validity. The standard deviation on this test is 15. I just skimmed it so I haven't really given it a good workover but the most significant variable in the study is probably the fact that the subjects were.......








CANADIANS!!!!!!   


Now what could we conjecture about this!!!!!! LOL
love, harpy

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 05:39 PM

harpgirl: I don't know if it will help your research, but when I had the occasional puff or two in the '60s and '70s, there was a direct correlation between how much I smoked and the standings of Sara Lee on the TSE and NYSE. The study doesn't have any validity because there was only a few friends and myself involved--and of course Sara.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Once Famous
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 09:53 PM

El Grecko, wouldn't those economies of those underdeveloped countries be better served if they tapped the minds of it's citizens instead of feeding the underworld with a supply of narcotics?