BS: Legalize Pot?

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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:22 PM

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

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: Georgiansilver
Date: 23 Jun 04 - 06:14 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bobert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so it goes...just awful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BM

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

Strollin' Johnny:

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

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

Bruce M

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J :0)

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

Well gol danged, ya' all...

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

All right. lets look as some realities here:

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

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

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

4. The usual. Tax bucks lost.

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

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

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

Bobert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bruce M

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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