BS: Legalize Pot?

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: 42
Date: 23 Jun 04 - 06:18 AM

It has always been my experience that a few tokes with congenial companions raised my spiritual awareness.
The crone seems to have cut the weave of this thread.
Whatever the terminology chosen; regardless of the casual nature of the benediction; how could anyone be offended by good wishes?

go gently

j

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jun 04 - 07:40 AM

Oh, some people can be offended by anything, 42. It just depends on what style rubs them the wrong way...or what mood they happen to be in at the time.

There are even people who are offended by a smile. Not many though, thankfully.

I find the "God bless you!" from people when I sneeze annoying. Why? Because we didn't follow that custom in my family when I was a kid, so it always kind of surprised me and puzzled me when people did it. It struck me as quite odd. To me a sneeze is just a sneeze, not something requiring a blessing or even something to be remarked upon at all. So, somebody sneezed. So what????

Then too, I have a basic resistance to cliches. I hate it when people say things like "Hot enough for you?" or "Are we keeping you up?" (when I yawn)...that sort of thing. Now admittedly, these people are not trying to be offensive, it's just that I get fed up with hearing the same thing again and again.

We all have our trigger points.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jun 04 - 08:01 AM

Well, I'm with you on the "Hot enough" one, LH and so I turn it back on 'um by sayin' "Heck no, put another log on the fire." Couple times of that and it makes 'um think about what they are sayin? Another one I hate is men callin' other men "Money". I don't know if they do it in yer parts of the world but when someone does that to me I says "Well, if I had your's, I'd burn mine". Again, a little humor to try to get folks to realize they are parroting some dumb stuff that they've heard all their lives...

Now I ain't got no problem with someone sayin' "God Bless you". Just not after someone sneezes, dangit. If it's heartfelt then it's a wonderful thing to not only say to someone but also, in most cases, for that person to hear because God does Bless us in so many ways.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jun 04 - 08:11 AM

Yeah, it's the "talking without thinking" that really bothers me...robotic behaviour by people who don't even know why they're doing it. I want to smack them and wake them up. I don't mind anyone saying "Bless you" to me as long as they actually consciously mean it, in a spiritual sense. It's when they don't really mean it that it bugs me.

I can just see it, the next time it's raining..."Did you order this weather?"

"Yeah, buddy, matter of fact I did! Bet you didn't know I had that kind of pull around here with Mother Nature, eh? Are you enjoying it?"

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Sttaw Legend
Date: 23 Jun 04 - 09:21 AM

Definition:   
[adj] expletives used informally as intensifiers; "he's a blasted idiot"; "it's a blamed shame"; "a blame cold winter"; "not a blessed dime"; "I'll be damned (or blessed or darned or goddamned) if I'll do any such thing"; "he's a damn (or goddam or goddamned) fool"; "a deuced idiot"; "tired or his everlasting whimpering"; "an infernal nuisance"
[adj] highly favored or fortunate (as e.g. by divine grace); "our blessed land"; "the blessed assurance of a steady income"
[adj] having good fortune bestowed or conferred upon; sometimes used as in combination; "blessed with a strong healthy body"; "a nation blessed with peace"; "a peace-blessed era"
[adj] characterized by happiness and good fortune; "a blessed time"
[adj] enjoying the bliss of heaven
[adj] Roman Catholic; proclaimed one of the blessed and thus worthy of veneration
[adj] worthy of worship; "the Blessed Trinity"

Be Blessed

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 23 Jun 04 - 11:46 AM

God knows where dianavan went. (Or maybe Allah knows.) Anyway, now this thread has finally frayed beyond repair (thanks in part to me, I'm afraid) I think she should be dragged back here to see what she started.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jun 04 - 12:22 PM

She started it? I've been enjoying its recent divergence into a discussion of annoying cliches....

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jun 04 - 12:28 PM

"I heard that", LH... Yeah, there's another one... There are folks out there who parrot that one after anything anyone says...

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jun 04 - 12:42 PM

Well, there's nothing like stating the obvious, is there, Bobert? I met a guy once who responded in this fashion...

Him: Hi, whatcha doin'?

You: I'm on my way downtown.

Him: Oh, are you?

You: Yeah, gotta get some groceries...

Him: Oh, do you?

You: Yeah...gotta eat, y'know.

Him: Oh, you gotta eat, eh?

You: (clenching teeth) Yeah. Well, I guess I'll head out...

Him: Oh, will you?

And so on...

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Green Man
Date: 24 Jun 04 - 09:31 AM

Some years ago a retiring high court Judge name of Pickles made a tv documentary and came out in favour of decriminalising cannabis in the UK. In the program he pointed out the amount of money spent by the government and the Excise in trying to control trafficking in cannabis. This money he said was of such an order that the NHS could be overhauled using it if it was saved.

Although as a Judge he was bound by law to point out that in no way was he condoning the use of illegal substances he made the point that breaking the chain between this 'relatively harmless substance' and dealers greatly lessened the likelyhood of a 'client' moving on to harder drugs as they werent likely to be exposed to them.

Hemp used to be grown in England as it was used to manufacture rope and canvas for our navy. It was only made illegal when a trade agreement dealing with the cotton trade came into force in about 1920. Up to that point it was considered by some to be a decorative plant and was found in a lot of Victorian walled gardens.

The substance THC fits into receptors in the human brain as if manufactured specifically for the purpose and as we have been given domain over the beasts of the field the plants and birds of the air do not see where any person has the right to stop us doing whatever we want with the plant. Retting the stalks to make canvas for jeans, using the oil to lubricate delicate machines or using the the plant medicinally are all possible uses. I have a pair of trousers made from hemp cloth and they will in probability outlast me.

As for it's addictive properties, I am not an expert but after reading the arguments here I would go with the point of view that anyone who is an addictive personality will eventually find a way of damaging themselves. ANything taken to excess will eventually cause problems. Excess is not the road to enlightenment, rather the reverse.


Blessed Be

Green Man

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: harpgirl
Date: 24 Jun 04 - 10:22 AM

Green Man... as I have mentioned before the use of the term "addictive personality" is gratuitous, non-informational, and pejorative. It's a way of blaming the victim, IMHO.

I have to keep up with the literature on street and prescribed pharmacology for my license. I recommend to anyone interested the following:

A Primer of Drug Action: A Concise, Nontechnical Guide to the Actions, Uses, and Side Effects of Psychoactive Drugs. (2000) Robert Julien MD. PhD. Freeman & Co New York. Chapter 11: Marijuana: A Unique Sedative-Euphoriant-Pyschedelic Drug.

This chapter talks extensively about the cannibinoid recepters, where they are in the brain and effects in humans and primates.

(Light, not heat, folks!) harpster

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Jun 04 - 11:26 AM

Most people have addictive personalities...just to what is the question. :-) For some, it's substances. For others, it's behaviours. For others it's physical sensations (most commonly, sexual sensations). For others, it's emotional habits, like anger or worrying. When anything occupies more of a person's time, energy or money than it ought to, to the point where it is damaging some other important aspects of their life, it's an addiction.

Pot is just the teeny tip of the iceberg when it comes to addictions. It could just as well have remained a useful plant used to make rope, sails, clothing, and lubricants...but it got a cultural reputation as a mind-altering drug in the 20th century, and there you go.

People have a way of being really silly, given half a chance.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jun 04 - 12:25 PM

"Canvas"is the same word as "cannabis", just a different spelling, because that's what they used to make it out of. George Washington used to grow it.

"It's a way of blaming the victim" I'd have thought "addictive personality" is the reverse of that, being a way of saying people can't always be assumed to be to blame for getting addicted.

Whether it's personality or physiology involved I've no idea - but if you look at the way that some people can smoke tobacco for years, and give it up just like that, and others have enormous problems, it's fairly clear that we aren't all the same when it comes to getting addicted to some drugs - and it's definitely not a matter of stronger or weaker willpower.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jun 04 - 12:49 PM

I think where I draw the line is somewhere around the concept of *harmful* when it comes to disussing addictions. This includes smoking pot, writing poetry, drinking, sex, etc. etc.

If the behavior is harmful then there's a problem. Now, I don't mean splitting hairs harmful, like the guy who takes a couple tokes of weed 2 or 3 times a week, or has a couple glasses of wine a day. Sure, some would argue those behaviors are harmful. And, I would guess under the wrong circumstances they would be. Example: person takes two tokes of pot and then gets in his car to pick up his daughter at school. That could be very well mean harmful becuase it is also irresponsible.

Now alcohol is a better example of the harmful argument. One guy drinks 2 glasses of wine every night with dinner. That makes approximately 700 glasses of wine a year. Another guy only drinks 5 glasses of wine a year but does it all in one sitting without the benefit of food. Then this guy gets in his car to pick up his daughter from school. Hmmmmm? See what I mean? It the irresponsible and potentially harmful consequences that come into play here.

Now some one is gonna say, "But, Bobert, inhaling smoke ain't good for you so why is that not harmful?" and I don't have a great answer for that but I have one none the less. Compared to smoking a pack a day of cigarettes, 6 inhalations a week of pot smoke cannot reasonably be considered to be in the same category. We all make choices. Red meat is also considered by some to be harmful but I don't eat red meat. Pork is considered hatmful and I don't eat pork. Heck, farm grown salmon is considered hatmful if eaten more than twice a month so I limit my intake of farm grown salmon. Tobacco products are considered hatmful so I don't use them. Driving fast is considered harmful so I don't do that. See where I'm going with this?

Like I said, people make lots of choices in life where there is some level of risk of harm. But I think responsible people have no problems figuring out the choices where imminent and probable harm will follow...

Now, that said, I think I'll have me a little toke..

Aww, jus' funnin'. Got to get back to work and pot and work don't mix too well. (Oh, how friggin' responsible, Bobert...)

Stoner (kinda?...) Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Jun 04 - 12:59 PM

That's true, Bobert, it's in overdoing things or doing them at the wrong time or in the wrong way that people get into trouble. There's a safe way and an unsafe way to deal with almost anything one could care to mention. Most of the people I knew used pot in a safe manner. Many of them did not use alcohol in a safe manner.

As for cigarettes, my sympathy fails when it comes to that. I don't regard them as "safe" under any circumstance, but I still would not make it illegal to smoke them outdoors or in privacy, because it's up to the user to make his own decision about that, not up to me to make his decision for him.

Besides, making tobacco illegal would result in an illegal drug trade that would make today's drug wars look mild in comparison (just like happened with alcohol during prohibition).

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jun 04 - 02:54 PM

My first point, LH, about cigarettes was that 6 tokes a week has to be way less harmfull than smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. And when I say tokes, I mean *one* inhalation.

My second point is that since tobacco products are hermful, since they are anly directly harmful to the smoker, then if someone wants to use 'um away from non cigarette smokers smokers, that's their business. Doesn't mean I gotta smoke 'um. I do, however, end up payoing more taxes and health insurance premiums, I'm sure as a result of someones elses cigarette habit, but that doesn't justify prohibition of tobacco products...

(Speaking of tobacco products, there's a good 'ol boy gas station in Winchester, Va that sells gas a little cheaper than the others around so I get my gas there. But walkin' in to pay fir it is a challenge since the entire lot is filled with wads of spit chewing tobacco. Talk about nasty!)

Now back to pot. You all see that I'm perfectly content talking about pot...

And speaking of pot, yeah, outlawing hemp production is the dumbest thing I ever heard of. It's about like outlawing movies or magazines to fight pornography... Dumb, dumb, dumb....

Now back to the *other* cannibus...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Jun 04 - 03:05 PM

Wa-a-a-a-ait a minute! What did you say? "outlawing movies or magazines to fight pornography..."

That is brilliant, Bobert! Just brilliant! It's so brilliant I'm amazed it hasn't been done. We could have eliminated all that disgusting pornography totally if that had been done long ago. Yes! We should definitely outlaw movies, magazines, books, and...well...the Internet...umm...(?)

Hmm. I gotta think about this for a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: saulgoldie
Date: 24 Jun 04 - 03:11 PM

Pornography...disgusting? Maybe you're buying from the wrong source.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: *daylia*
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 07:00 AM

saulgoldie, have you ever been propositioned a dozen times a day or more by barnyard animals, garden vegetables or prepubescent children? That went on and on for a few months last winter before I changed my eMail address.   

And yes, I did change it in a fit of disgust.

But hey, maybe I'm just criminally repressed. Hmmmmm ... maybe if I tried a bit harder to prefer alcohol over the Gentle Herb, it might help???    ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: *daylia*
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 07:34 AM

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.

saul, I haven't been on this thread for a bit and just noticed your post above. Good question!

Personal opinions and biases aside, 'keeping the proles under control' is the only explanation given here because it's not only true but the only one that fits with the historical facts. That's why I posted Dr Elgin's research above.

I'd like to see these facts become common knowledge outside of university classrooms. That would certainly help dispell some dearly-held illusions about the hows and whys of gov'ts and laws - and I'm not just referring to the laws criminalizing certain psychoactive plants.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 09:14 AM

Smoking is only one method of taking either nicotine or cannabis. Not the best - in fact the most anti-social and unhealthy method.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 09:29 AM

That's true. Smoking is silly. No animal will willingly inhale smoke. Eating cannabis or nicotine works better, I would think. The trouble with smoking (aside from lung damage to the user) is that it goes into the air and affects other people who are nearby as well, and that may not be their choice. Now I'm not accusing you of that daylia, just talking in general terms. There are many people whose children are exposed to cigarette (or in some cases marijuana) smoke all the time at home and, even worse, inside the car! What a rotten thing to do to your kids.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 10:51 AM

An addictive personality is often talked about, but I'm not entirely sure that it exists. Yes it is true that some people get addicted to more than one thing, or that when they stop abusing one substance they get hooked on something else. but that doesnt necessarily mean that they have an "addictive personality". I think it is more likely that when they quit the substance, they have not learned new coping strategy to deal with their problems/stress, so they resort to the same old methods they have always relied on. they think they have mad progress because they have given up eg booze, but might become a workaholic, or start abusing another substance etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 11:23 AM

Yeah, it's a stress relieving thing. You could do the same by engaging in daily meditation...if you were willing to and had the patience. Or maybe by running or playing golf, for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: el ted
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 11:28 AM

or... a pot full of Assam tea with genoa cake... or wild, rampant nostril flaring rumpo... or my personal favourite, combine all of the above simultaneously!

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 11:33 AM

Sounds lovely.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: jimmyt
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 05:09 PM

Let me throw my 2 cents in, now that you ran Brucie off. I have never tried cannibis, not once. I have used alcohol, though not ever to excess for 40 years. I have been, as a musician, around people who were high or drunk many many times over the years. My observation is that people that are high, tend to be mellow. People who are drunk are unpredictable and frequently will turn to violence with little provocation.

I wonder how the real research lines up on how many people would actually resort to "hard drugs" regardless of the portal of entry, whether from Cannibis, alcohol or by other means altogether. I tend to think pretty libertarian on this issue, that perhaps we need to have a war on drugs, but shouldn't we choose our battles to go after methamphetimine, cocaine heroin, etc rather than something that seems to not have any more adverse, in fact probably less adverse effects than Alcohol? And could I encourage some thoughtful discussion rather than the heated rhetoric that appears above?

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 06:09 PM

Well said, JimmyT. You know, looking back to the people I grew up with it wasn't too hard to see which ones were likely to turn to hard drugs. Yeah, those particular individuals used pot all right, and they also smoked and drank and searched out any other high they could possibly find, and did it exessively. They would have done the same thing if pot never existed at all. Blaming it on pot is a bit facile, in my opinion. You could just as well blame it on alcohol, cigarettes, or blue denims.

The crucial thing is a person's attitude. It is their self-destructive or reckless attitude that will take them into hard drugs and keep them there till it kills them. 98% of the young people I knew in my early 20's used pot casually. Only about 5% of them went into hard drugs to much extent, but about 50% of them had real trouble with alcohol and about 95% of them smoked cigarettes every day of their lives...and damaged their health and family life in the process.

I watched it all and couldn't fathom how they could do that. It was their attitude, and what they took for granted, and what they thought of as "a good time". It was also peer pressure...wanting to "fit in". Whenever I felt peer pressure pushing me, I tended to deliberately go the other way, and it served me well in the long run.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: jimmyt
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 06:26 PM

By the way Little Hawk, I still owe you a bottle of Piesporter Goldtrophkin or some other nice Reisling.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 08:03 PM

Yeah...you're down by Atlanta aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: jimmyt
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 09:13 PM

90 miles north in the foothills of the Appalachians near Chattanooga Tennessee

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Bert
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 10:21 PM

I must admit that I skipped the last half of this thread it started repeating itself too many times.

But a lot of people posting here seem to have missed a point.

Pot doesn't lead to hard drugs, it doesn't confuse the mind and make your thinking slower. It doesn't cause crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Bert
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 10:36 PM

OK. Windows, behave...

IT!!! doesn't do anything - but grow. It just sits there and grows period. If someone wants to do something WITH IT then that's a different issue.

So just let it sit there and grow. It will be quite happy. Or smoke it and you will either be quite happy yourself of kinda bored depending on how it affects you.

Whether it or any other substance should be legal or not or whether you should be allowed to ingest something or not is an issue of personal freedom.

If someone you love is taking a substance that is bad for them, I don't see how that should become a legal issue.

If you really insist on restricting personal freedom and want to start banning things. Then perhaps we should look at religion. How many people are have been killed this year by 'religion' (speak up Shrub, here's your chance) and how many have been killed by pot?

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 10:43 PM

Hear, hear...

Well said, Bert..

This toke's on you, pal...

Peace

(cough)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Gervase
Date: 18 Aug 04 - 07:57 AM

Surely the 'gateway' argument is old hat by now. Strolling Johnny calls on it to make his rather emotive points, but I have yet to see one serious piece of research that backs it up.
The addictive personality argument is trickier. I suspect that I may have one such, being addicted to nicotine and caffeine. Certainly I also like to experiment with psychoactive substances (for which Huxley can probably take more blame than my dope dealer).
Perhaps I should declare my hand here - I've smoked cannabis for more than 20 years - preferring to grow my own rather than subsidise criminals - but have also used many other drugs over that period.
For some time I used rather more cocaine than was good for me - up to two grammes a week in the early 90s (I was introduced to it by a friend who was vehemently anti-smoking and who had never even tried cannabis). The high was certainly enjoyable (and, Strolling Johnny, it is a stimulant very much like caffeine) and under the influence I was able to work and play longer and harder. The downside was, of course, that the 'downtime' became less pleasant - irritability, paranoia and depression are a high price to pay for a short-lived high - so I stopped snorting and haven't had a line for the best part of five years. I still sometimes get offered the odd line, but it simply doesn't appeal.
Crack cocaine I tried two or three times and, oh boy, I can see its appeal. The high is instant and very strong, giving a feeling of invincibility to the smoker. The downside is very similar to that of ordinary cocaine, however, and comes quicker, leaving the user feeling completely wrung out.
I've smoked but never injected heroin. That was the most worrying drug, because it seemed to produce some of the worst things attributed to cannabis, including demotivation, a loss of 'self identity' and a psychological craving, while wrapping one up in a warm feeling of contentment.
My experiences with LSD (which, of all the proscribed drugs, is the one that most researchers agree is non-addictive) were all remarkably positive, with the acid opening the doors of perception in Huxley's phrase. The downside there was that the apparent perception and lucidity were so transient, with the 'man from Porlock' getting his foot in the door before the effects had fully worn off.
All of the above drugs, however, came from different sources. Most dealers at street level in the UK seem to specialise in one drug - you get your grass from one, charlie from another and smack from a third. At no time when I was buying grass and hash was I ever offered a Class A drug, so the keepers of the gateway were certainly missing a trick there!
All of the above, however, is a personal and subjective view. I know of people who have found that cannabis precipitates psychological problems, just as there are others who can't take alcohol or caffeine.
If I have any regrets at all about my own experimentation it is that it has put absurd amounts of money into the hands of criminals and thus I've connived in the exploitation of others. As a result, my own view is that we should not only legalise cannabis but all other proscribed drugs as well. Like some others, I prefer to reserve my intolerance for organised religion!

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 18 Aug 04 - 08:19 AM

Gervase, a question - which of those illegal substances was the first one you used?

The 'gateway'argument is only old hat to those who wish to continue their consumption without the risk of prosecution and therefore shout loudly for its legalisation. There are a great many people who would disagree with you, and whose voices aren't heard because, as it's already illegal, they don't need to shout about it.

You may feel you've got away with your (apparently extreme) substance-abuse scot-free. I'd be interested to hear the views of your family, friends, employers about that. Assuming you still have them.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 18 Aug 04 - 01:54 PM

If ever there was a "gateway drug," it's tobacco.

Most of the "aging hippies" I know who still indulge in cannabis, occasionally or regularly, do *not* smoke cigarettes. Not "some," not "many," but nearly every one. Some never used tobacco, the others once did but have since quit. The population upon which I am reporting from personal experience is, by and large, gainfully employed, homeowning, and composed of "family people" -- parents and, in some cases, grandparents. Oh yeah -- they/we don't use other "harder" drugs, either. (Almost all will take a drink or two.)

A caveat: There are a few individuals in the same social circles who abuse prescription "downers" -- almost exclusively women, for whatever reason -- but these folks generally do not smoke (or otherwise ingest) pot. Also in general, they are able to carry on ostensibly normal lives, and do not allow their habit to overwhelm them.

In contrast, consider anyone you know who has a serious, habitual "drug problem." He/she can't last an hour without lighting up a cigarette -- right? Whether this is a manifestation of the so-called "addicitive personality" or not is moot; suffice it to say that some of those who cannot resist the siren song of the tobacco corporations exhibit a similar weakness for the addictive temptations offered by those other drug dealers who lack the protection of the law. And, conversely, almost *everyone* who has fallen prey to true narcotics additiction had long since become dependent upon tobacco.

Also, apropos of I-don't-know-what: If you ever want to witness a hotbed of chain-smoking, visit a psychiatric ward. The mentally ill are among the most desperately tobacco-addicted people anywhere in western society. I'm not sure exactly what this means, but I think it's worth consideration.

I have many more thoughts on the subject, but at this point in the discussion, I'd only be repeating what's already been said, quite articulately, by others.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Gervase
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 10:32 AM

SJ, the first illegal 'gateway' drug I tried was probably alcohol under-age, followed by cannabis at aged 16. It was the cannabis that eventually got me hooked on nicotine, because I found eating the stuff was too random in its effects. The next illegal substance was acid in my twenties, followed about a decade later by cocaine, crack and heroin.
As for family, friends and employers, I've still got 'em - and all of them apparently happy with me. Apart from employer, that is. I jacked in a £60k salary to start my own business and have now retrained as a blacksmith - and never been happier.
Of course there have been drawbacks to my substance abuse. I could have spent the money I spent on cocaine on alleviating third world poverty or subsidising the performing arts, or (like many of my contemporaries) on booze and fast cars.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but that's my own - admittedly subjective - experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: SINSULL
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 10:50 AM

There was a time when I easily said that pot should remain illegal. Now I think that if pot is to be illegal so must cigarettes and alcohol and for that matter McDonald's hamburgers. All are harmful to that section of the population that can't control their use of them.

I don't use pot and have no vested interest in having it made legal.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 12:32 PM

Well Gervase, if your story is indeed true (and I've no reason to believe otherwise) then you have indeed been a fortunate fellow. However, very many others aren't so fortunate, and you do impressionable young people no favours at all by revelling in and glorifying your personal stupidity.

As I said, at great length, in my much earlier posts, I have considerable subjective experience too, as a parent of a heroin-addict and also as a youth-worker. You're not raining on my parade - I'm well used to being shouted at and down by drug-abusers at all levels, and it's water off a duck's back. What I do care about though are impressionable young people whose lives are wrecked by drugs, and you should be ashamed of yourself for boasting about your abuses.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 07:21 PM

I don't use any drug whatsoever (unless you count drinking tea), and I am in favour of legalizing pot possession...but not legalizing the mass marketing of pot by any company or organization...just allow private individuals to grow and use their own, but not to sell it for profit. It is the search for profit that drives drug trade. If something is generally available and really easy for anyone to grow and prepare for use, then you can't effectively build a drug trade with it or make a profit with it.

I have always personally regarded it as stupid (very stupid) to smoke pot or any other substance whatsoever. If I were going to make something illegal, it would be tobacco...but it wouldn't work to do so. There would be a huge illegal drug trade in tobacco, and people would buy it and smoke it with far more determination than they presently do with pot, and the criminals pushing it would use it as the gateway to harder drugs...which is what they often do with pot now.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 10:02 PM

Absolutely!

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Gervase
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 05:30 AM

SJ, it's not a question of boasting. Undoubtedly I have put my health at risk in using drugs of all kinds. I mention my drug use merely to point out that 'drug abuse' is a huge subject that impacts on a large number of people, and is not always the horror story related by the red-top tabloids.
As for revelling or glorifying in personal stupidity, I've seen people put their lives in far greater jeopardy with booze - even at folk festivals!

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: HRH ted of hull
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 05:32 AM

294

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 05:40 PM

I think pot should be in the same category as alcohol and cigarettes. Use by minors would then be restricted in the same way. That way, the money used to enforce the present anti-pot laws, could go into busting crack houses and heroine pushers. Why spend so much money on trying to eradicate a weed? If it were legalized, there would be no need for anyone to push it.

Maybe its too hard to catch the real criminals or bust the crack houses. Busting pot farmers is easy (its done from the sky,) there's very little risk to the officers involved and it looks good in the media - "we're winning the war on drugs"! Meanwhile, the real criminals continue business as usual.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 06:10 PM

I thought a real criminal is someone who breaks the law..not just someone appointed so because of their particular activity.
It is acknowledged that Alcohol and Cigarettes damage health and wellbeing, why add to it?
Best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 06:36 PM

It is acknowledged that Alcohol and Cigarettes damage health and wellbeing, why add to it.

You mean why make things worse by making Alcohol and Cigarettes illegal? I agree. It wouldn't significantly reduce the damage they do, and at the same time prohibition would have terrible secondary effects on society,

And by the same token, decriminalising cannabis use would be unlikely to increase significantly whatever harm it does, and would reduce the harmful secondary effects of prohibition.

I'd favour "decrinminalising" rather than legalising, so that possession for personal use, growing your own, and supplying on a small scale would be free from criminal sanction, but attempts to make a tobacco style cannabis industry would be severely punished. Perhaps some kind of licensing scheme for suppliers might be the way to work that one out, with no licences for the big guys and the big companies. Or for anyone with any record selling heroin and so forth.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 10:55 PM

That's a matter of opinion, Georgian. I do not define "real criminal" as "a person who breaks the law". No sir. Lots of real criminals don't break the law, technically speaking. I define "a lawbreaker" as someone who breaks the law...and I do not necessarily define a lawbreaker as a criminal.

A lawbreaker, under some circumstances, is a hero and a benefactor to humanity. Gandhi openly broke the colonial laws numerous times as a protest against the British Empire in India and in South Africa. He was no criminal.

Jesus was seen by many to have broken Jewish law. He was no criminal.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Teresa
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 12:01 AM

There are a number of "right-wing" groups who are actually Libertarians, or have individual-rights leanings, and I think these folk, being less authoritarian-minded than others, are seeing the wisdom of keeping the issue out of the legislative/criminal arena.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 04:10 AM

300. I thank you.