BS: Legalize Pot?

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: gnu
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 05:56 PM

In the end, from what I have read so far, vape or eat eh. I don't do Mary Jane but I don't shit on those that do.

What the fuck is it to do with youse anyway? Ya wanna get all pissy? Get pissy about booze and tobacco. Then you might have some credibility.

I am gonna have a couple of Buds and watch some late night talk shows now and not bother to tell other people what to do except put up or shut up... it doesn't concern me in the slightest unless it's a problem like booze and smokes. That's some bad shit, man. Unfortunately, I can't do anything about them and, apparently, NObody else can either. Ya can't tell others what to do unless yer holier than thou and ya got the $$$ ta do it eh? Who makes more coin than the booze and smokes companies?

You get rid of booze and smokes and THEN we'll talk about weed. The sooner, the better.

BTW... my eye doc and my GP said weed would help me but they can't give me a "prescription" because our system is messed up. Soooo, I suffer and I wonder.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 04:57 PM

You are walkin' way out on a shaky limb, buster. Better be careful it don't break.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: olddude
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 04:43 PM

Bobster is alive unlike you stinking chimp

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 04:25 PM

I ain't into smokin' Marijuana myself, but I think it oughta be legal for private use and private cultivation.

So here is my simple solution:

1. make pot legal
2. make Bobertz illegal!

All the cops who are presently runnin' around and wastin' their energy over pot would be freed up to deal with Bobertz! :) This is a war that can be won! The war against drugs can't be won, but the war against Bobertz can definitely be won if all the cops in the USA are intent on dealin' with him, so it should be fought. When it is won, everyone can celebrate on a job well done.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 10:45 AM

While the source of this article is pro-pot, and few research sources are provided, the positive side of vaporization seems reasonable.


vaporization 

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 10:14 AM

you can argue any side using Google

"While chemically very similar, there are fundamental differences in the pharmacological properties between cannabis and tobacco smoke. Cannabis smoke contains cannabinoids whereas tobacco smoke contains nicotine. Available scientific data, that examines the carcinogenic properties of inhaling smoke and its biological consequences, suggests reasons why tobacco smoke, but not cannabis smoke, may result in lung cancer."

"While cannabis smoke has been implicated in respiratory dysfunction, including the conversion of respiratory cells to what appears to be a pre-cancerous state [5], it has not been causally linked with tobacco related cancers [6] such as lung, colon or rectal cancers. Recently, Hashibe et al [7] carried out an epidemiological analysis of marijuana smoking and cancer. A connection between marijuana smoking and lung or colorectal cancer was not observed. These conclusions are reinforced by the recent work of Tashkin and coworkers [8] who were unable to demonstrate a cannabis smoke and lung cancer link, despite clearly demonstrating cannabis smoke-induced cellular damage."


There are other links... Google marijuana + carcinogens

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: olddude
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 01:55 PM

Correct just pass it over to me.
I got no worries I got no cares
if got no trouble mind
The blues don't mean a thing to me
I stay stoned out.. All the time

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: GUEST,#
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 10:52 AM

I would suggest that those people opposed to smoking grass don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 09:37 AM

""Legalizing pot could stimulate business"

Munchie-Treats Inc.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: GUEST,chester
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 08:19 AM

True there are medical use for pot but does that mean it is acceptable for recreational use? Why are you mixing the two uses? Should we legallize narcotic pain killers for recreational use?
I dont think so

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: mayomick
Date: 13 Nov 14 - 01:23 PM

Chester ,
A 199 study by the Institute of Medicine, run by the United States National Academy of Science , concluded that that nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety can all be mitigated by cannabis.It can save the lives of patients going through chemotherapy - some of them find they can't hold down anything they eat without cannabis .

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: gnu
Date: 12 Nov 14 - 06:18 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciQ4ErmhO7g

And MANY more. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Well... no... smoking it is bad for you.

Do some research if you haven't made up your mind(s).

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: GUEST,chester
Date: 12 Nov 14 - 07:36 AM

A Threat to the Environment

Outdoor marijuana cultivation sites are becoming increasingly common. These "grows" often result in the destruction of natural habitat from diesel spills, pesticide runoff, and trash from cultivators.24 National parks and other public lands in the United States are used for cannabis cultivation operations, primarily by Mexican criminal groups. Data from the Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the Department of the Interior indicate that more than 4 million marijuana plants were eradicated from U.S. public lands in 2008 alone.

"The Administration steadfastly opposes legalization of marijuana and other drugs because legalization would increase the availability and use of illicit drugs, and pose significant health and safety risks to all Americans, particularly young people."
Whitehouse.gov

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: GUEST,#
Date: 11 Nov 14 - 08:05 PM

It's nice to quote your source.

http://www.mentalhealth.va.gov/coe/cih-visn2/Documents/Provider_Education_Handouts/Marijuana_Information_Sheet_for_BHPs_Version_3.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: GUEST,chester
Date: 11 Nov 14 - 08:53 AM

The Obama Administration, together with Federal partners and State and local officials, is working to reduce the use of marijuana and other illicit drugs through development of strategies that more fully integrate the principles of prevention, treatment, and recovery.

THC acts upon specific sites in the brain called cannabinoid receptors, triggering a series of cellular reactions that ultimately lead to the "high" users experience when they smoke the drug. Marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. Studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and schizophrenia. Other research has shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50‐70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke.

"Smoking marijuana is not something I encourage, and I've told my daughters I think it's a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy"

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 14 Sep 04 - 12:30 AM

I neither use nor like the stuff, myself but....
One definition of insanity is to continue a demonstrably failed response
to a current situation. THe US is a country with roughly one percent of its total population in prison (a considerably higher percentage of the adult males who seem to be the ones most frequently imprisoned.) Maybe we should try something different.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 09:41 AM

Suhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalize Pot?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 04:33 AM

Point taken LH and agreed with, my statement was sweeping and inaccurate. However, whosoever commits a crime ..if convicted..is a criminal. Breaking a speed limit does not commit a crime but does break the law so I accept your statement on that.
The point I was perhaps trying to make was that it is a crime to possess drugs, to distribute them etc. In the eyes of the law, whoever does whatever illegally with drugs commits a crime.
This is slowly becoming watered down in everyday life as are many other laws of the land.
Best wishes.

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

300. I thank you.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: HRH ted of hull
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 05:32 AM

294

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: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 10:02 PM

Absolutely!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 11:33 AM

Sounds lovely.

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 - 11:23 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: 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 - 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: 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: *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: *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???    ;-)