Post by: HForrest on April 29, 2006, 09:43:31 PM
Post by: Stand_watie on April 30, 2006, 01:49:18 AM
My largest moral quandary about personal use of cannabis is that I don't know if it's possible to use it in small enough amounts to get a relaxation out of it without actually getting high. Maybe it is, I don't know. You can have just one or two beers and 'loosen up' without losing substantial amounts of your sobriety, but every time I've every used cannabis it was an all or nothing thing. One drag got me lip numbingly, giggly, 12 cheeseburger munching, can't drive a car or be trusted with a firearm high.
Post by: stevelyn on April 30, 2006, 03:38:16 AM
It's not something I would do. It didn't impress me as anything special when I tried it during my teen years. I can't see where it would have changed any.
I'd rather see most people stoned than on alcohol. I've seen far more harm caused by booze than I have weed.
Post by: 280plus on April 30, 2006, 03:58:30 AM
Post by: Nightfall on April 30, 2006, 04:19:30 AM
Quote
How do you view it in comparison to alcohol or tobacco? Would you use cannabis if it were legal? What are your general thoughts, feelings, opinions on the subject?
Wouldn't use it if it were legal, same as I don't use alcohol. I've always been at a loss as to why people would use a substance that reduces their cognitive functions on purpose. Why would you want to purposely make yourself less able to respond to situations, perhaps more likely to do things you'll regret later? Furthermore, too many people become less than morally upstanding citizens under the influence, so why would you want to place yourself in that situation? As you can probably tell by now, I'm none too enamored with any drug, nor those who use them. I want every brain cell I've got blazing at full capacity during my waking moments.
Post by: zahc on April 30, 2006, 04:50:30 AM
Post by: Gewehr98 on April 30, 2006, 05:04:21 AM
None for me. I sneeze and my eyes water when I'm around cannabis smoke, and my TS/SCI security clearance is good through January 2009. Regardless, I don't see the need to modify my brain with the *expletive deleted*it, I'm just fine without it.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 30, 2006, 06:58:49 AM
Quote from: Gewehr98
None for me. I sneeze and my eyes water when I'm around cannabis smoke, and my TS/SCI security clearance is good through January 2009. Regardless, I don't see the need to modify my brain with the *expletive deleted*it, I'm just fine without it.
Ditto. It doesnt look like a whole lot of fun. Alcohol on the other hand has a whole aesthetic experience to it that goes beyond the effect.And I dont support legalization. I support shooting drug dealers.
Post by: Otherguy Overby on April 30, 2006, 07:08:16 AM
For the most part the government lied to us about drugs. We knew it.
Since we already knew the government lied, we didn't believe them about Viet Nam, either.
The government still sees little value in its credibility. It's continued neurotic restrictions on "medical" marijuana in spite of being voted legal in several states is a proof of their insanity.
They demonize guns, also.
A government that lies to support any agenda is suspect.
Seems the government has worse memory problems than Jeff Spicolli.
Post by: Sindawe on April 30, 2006, 07:34:46 AM
Quote
The non-fatal consumption of 3000 mg/kg A THC by the dog and monkey would be comparable to a 154-pound human eating approximately 46 pounds (21 kilograms) of 1%-marihuana or 10 pounds of 5% hashish at one time. In addition, 92 mg/kg THC intravenously produced no fatalities in monkeys. These doses would be comparable to a 154-pound human smoking at one time almost three pounds (1.28 kg) of 1%-marihuana or 250,000 times the usual smoked dose and over a million times the minimal effective dose assuming 50% destruction of the THC by smoking.
Source: http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/LIBRARY/studies/nc/nc1e.htm
Source: http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/LIBRARY/studies/nc/nc1e.htm
Quote
My largest moral quandary about personal use of cannabis is that I don't know if it's possible to use it in small enough amounts to get a relaxation out of it without actually getting high. Maybe it is, I don't know. You can have just one or two beers and 'loosen up' without losing substantial amounts of your sobriety, but every time I've every used cannabis it was an all or nothing thing. One drag got me lip numbingly, giggly, 12 cheeseburger munching, can't drive a car or be trusted with a firearm high.
I think that depends on the persons physiology. When I sampled the plant back in High School, I did note that the effects could be titrated by moderating the amount consumed. One draw on the smoking device (joint, pipe, water pipe) would produce a pleasant euphoria on par with consuming one beer for me, while several would produce the spaced out introspection known as being stoned. This observation was corroborated by others, including my friend who as on chemo for Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. One draw would be sufficient to control his nausea and stress enough that he could eat and hold the food down. On another friend, no matter how much he smoked, he got ZERO effect from it.Were it legal again I might try it again. Mostly to compare the effects of actually consuming the plant to those I can produce when I consume in a lucid dream state.
Post by: Art Eatman on April 30, 2006, 07:43:34 AM
Anyhow, I meddled around a little bit with Sweet Grass in the '60s and '70s. I quickly learned that one aspect of government control is good: A standardized "intoxicant level". That is, you know that 80-proof whiskey is 40% alcohol. You know that 4.5% alcohol by volume beer is 4.5%. Mary Jane? Best luck and good wishes. Some, you might as well be smoking oregano. Some, two hits and you're wiped for hours.
I've been around grass-smokers since around 1965. One thing for sure I've found about those who are heavy users, as compared to booze-hounds: You can't do business with smokers. Yeah, be wary of booze-hounds, but they're far more likely to function in business deals.
If marijuana was legal and free, I wouldn't bother. I know where I am on Budweiser or Old Overcoat. I know I can make myself regain control fairly quickly if I overdose on those. Personal self-control is too important to me to mess with other stuff.
For now, with the legal structure we have, I've told those who talk about the relaxation effect that they're taking chances and spending a lot of money to get their heads where mine is when I wake up in the morning.
Overall, though, this War on Drugs is garbage. It's a War on the Bill of Rights, more than anything of any practical nature. Educational efforts about the stupidity of messing yourself up with crap is one thing, but what we're doing is dumber'n dirt.
I had a vice cop tell me one time, "I don't care if folks stay home and stick needles in their arms. But when they come out on the street they're making it my business." And the wrecker drivers and EMT.
Art
Post by: grampster on April 30, 2006, 08:05:11 AM
I just spit up my RC onto the...er, ah....thingy with the letters and numbers.
I have a problem with government control of any drug. I think, however, it is proper for an ombudsman type of organization like the FDA to review the efficacy and safety of drugs. Beyond that, if drugs were able to be sold otc it would force prices down and much of the crime and border (smuggling) problem that illegal drugs spawn, would go away to a large extent. The notion that drugs like heroin and the like can't be used under any circumstances is ludicrous. The government policy that says a terminal patient in pain can be denied the use of any kind of drug because it would be addictive, is insane. I read a study years ago in the National Review that proved that people who used powerful drugs to mitigate pain, quit using them when the reason they took the drugs went away. The billions of dollars now spent in the"War on Drugs", the prisons, the policing, etc would not have to be spent; to say nothing of halting the corruption in politics and LE. It would make our borders more secure as well as they could keep their pot and coke. Those who use would find it available here, legally. If the few people who actually became abusers needed help, the money would then be able to be available for rehab clinics.
As for pot, growing and using ought to be de-criminalized. Those who wish to consume would be able to grow their own and consume on their own or friends private property. Should be a civil infraction to transport or to sell. You get caught driving under the influence, or otherwise causing a disturbance (like falling asleep in midstep) you get your pee pee wacked just like you do with alcohol infractions.
Post by: InfidelSerf on April 30, 2006, 08:38:39 AM
Quote
Ditto. It doesnt look like a whole lot of fun. Alcohol on the other hand has a whole aesthetic experience to it that goes beyond the effect.
Well I suppose only a gardner could see or appreciate the aesthetic attributes of such an interesting plant. Oh yeah did I forget to mention that it's a plant. Very much a weed plant at that. KS is covered in wild hemp.
Quote
And I dont support legalization. I support shooting drug dealers.
So you would have supported executing speak easy operators, and moonshine runners in the 20's eh.(keep in mind I imagine you are reffering to the scum that suck the life out society by feeding on the blackmarkets created by our beloved government. Perhaps what you mean is that you support shooting violent criminals. The chosen market they wish to exploit, thanks to the government making it black by banning such item, is really irrelevant. They are violent people that will exploit whatever market the gubermint chooses to assault next.)
I have to respectfully disagree with you there Rabbi,
Cannibus has only been illegal since Sept 1937.
You would think we would have learned our lesson with prohibition.
How any government can tell me not to do anything with a plant that the good Lord God put on the earth is beyond me.
As far as the medical uses are concerned. Answer me this...
Clinical studies are performed and determined by trusting the participants to provide accurate interpretations of their bodies. Correct?
Human beings with no advanded medical training volunteering to ingest chemical concoctions and then interpret their own bodies and quantify those interpretations into words so that doctors can then analyse the interpretations in order to determine if the concoction works.
Then how is it the government can tell me I don't know what I'm talking about when I interpret the effects of anything I choose to ingest into my own body?
Post by: Otherguy Overby on April 30, 2006, 08:46:25 AM
The government arbitrarilly more than doubled the number of criminals in society by adding a mostly non-violent group. Seems quite counter-productive to me, but what's common sense got to do with anything.
Post by: Stand_watie on April 30, 2006, 09:12:04 AM
Quote from: grampster
280, I just spit up my RC onto the...er, ah....thingy with the letters and numbers. I have a problem with government control of any drug. I think, however, it is proper for an ombudsman type of organization like the FDA to review the efficacy and safety of drugs. Beyond that, if drugs were able to be sold otc it would force prices down and much of the crime and border (smuggling) problem that illegal drugs spawn, would go away to a large extent....
An excellent and well stated point that segues perfectly to Art's pointQuote
Anyhow, I meddled around a little bit with Sweet Grass in the '60s and '70s. I quickly learned that one aspect of government control is good: A standardized "intoxicant level". That is, you know that 80-proof whiskey is 40% alcohol. You know that 4.5% alcohol by volume beer is 4.5%. Mary Jane? Best luck and good wishes. Some, you might as well be smoking oregano. Some, two hits and you're wiped for hours
The largest criminal problems of the drug war could be alleviated by legalization, and the problems of not knowing what you're getting by being properly manufactured/labeled/packaged and sold in pharmacies or only by those with liquor licenses.
Post by: garyk/nm on April 30, 2006, 09:46:27 AM
I fail to see the distinction.
Art has a good point; the weed of my youth was such that 2 or 3 joints would get you a good buzz. Today's "super strains" will flat lay you out in 1 or 2 hits.
Devise some sort of rating system so that folks know what to expect, legalize it and tax the hell out of it, just like alcohol.
Just what I've heard, you understand?
Now I need to go find me some cheeseburgers.
Post by: 280plus on April 30, 2006, 10:29:28 AM
Quote
280, I just spit up my RC onto the...er, ah....thingy with the letters and numbers.
Ahh, my job here is done...
Post by: Firethorn on April 30, 2006, 10:31:48 AM
Quote from: Combat-wombat
Aside from the legal aspects of marijuana (I think most people here support its legalization on the basis that prohibition is morally wrong and does not work), what is your personal opinion of the recreational use of cannabis? How do you view it in comparison to alcohol or tobacco? Would you use cannabis if it were legal? What are your general thoughts, feelings, opinions on the subject?
Legalize it, Tax it, Regulate it. It's the biggest source of criminal problems in the states today.Personally, I wouldn't use it. Kinda like how I don't smoke or drink much. I average a couple drinks a year, hardly a problem.
By legalizing it, the government turns a net negative cash flow(the drug war) into a positive one (drug sin taxes). They also gain more control over it, allowing a FDA type organization to make sure it's as safe as it reasonably can be.
Post by: Justin on April 30, 2006, 10:52:52 AM
Quote
And I dont support legalization. I support shooting drug dealers.
You and Dear Leader Kim both, Comrade.
Post by: Otherguy Overby on April 30, 2006, 11:01:08 AM
Quote
Legalize it, Tax it, Regulate it. It's the biggest source of criminal problems in the states today.
How soon we forget. Taxing something heavily tends to create a black market.Government control of commodities through taxation and prohibition is what creates black markets. For example, just look at all the cigarette smuggling caused by taxation to achieve social engineering.
Post by: Lo.Com.Denom on April 30, 2006, 11:33:49 AM
Quote from: Art Eatman
Best luck and good wishes. Some, you might as well be smoking oregano.
Reminds me of a very funny episode of "Spaced"... Also, of the bigtime drinkers that I know, I can have an intelligent conversation with all of them (when sober). Of all the longterm drug users I know... well, let's just say that I try to keep things simple. As several folks have mentioned, you just don't know how it will affect some people. But I will say this: when a friend went into psychiatric hospital, all of the younger patients in there, including my friend, blamed their mental state on drug use.
Recent studies have drawn a link between weed usage in young people and mental health issues. The UK government has admitted that in the light of such studies, it was rash to decriminalise pot as it did a couple of years ago. Make of that what you will.
Me, I'm ambivalent. I understand why many people want drugs decriminalised or legalised, but I can also see the flip side of why they shouldn't be.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 30, 2006, 12:36:43 PM
Quote from: veloce851
Quote
Ditto. It doesnt look like a whole lot of fun. Alcohol on the other hand has a whole aesthetic experience to it that goes beyond the effect.
Well I suppose only a gardner could see or appreciate the aesthetic attributes of such an interesting plant. Oh yeah did I forget to mention that it's a plant. Very much a weed plant at that. KS is covered in wild hemp.
Take bourbon. It is an all-American spirit. It was invented here and we are still the only producers. Each brand has its own history, its own recipe, and its own taste. Visiting a distillary is a fun experience and talking with a bourbon devotee is like talking to someone into classical music. An entire vocabulary. There is a famous bourbon festival in Bardstown once a year and it is quite an event. The color, smell, taste and alcohol content all vary and all add to the experience. Even if there were no alcohol in Bourbon I would still drink it.
Only a philistine could compare an experience like that with sitting around a stinky bong getting stoned and listening to Alice in Chains.
Quote
You and Dear Leader Kim both, Comrade.
But they don't have a drug problem there.
Post by: Justin on April 30, 2006, 12:38:49 PM
Quote
Me, I'm ambivalent. I understand why many people want drugs decriminalised or legalised, but I can also see the flip side of why they shouldn't be.
My interest in seeing drugs decriminalized has nothing to do with wanting to partake and everything to do with living in a society where no-knock raids are illegal and the police don't own armored personnel carriers festooned with machineguns.We now live in a society where MD's prescribe doses of pain killers not based on what will be most effective for the patient, but based on what will keep them from getting in trouble with the DEA.
In many states now, you have to sign a sheet of paper when buying cold medicine, and there's talk of mandating that this be upgraded to a federal computer-based information network.
Every gun-control law that gets proposed is touted as banning guns that are "the choice of drug dealers."
The list of abuses in the name of the so-called War on Drugs would probably go from here to the moon, and yet they can't even keep Johnny the 15-year old wastoid from getting a dimebag.
The entire War on Drugs is utterly beyond pointless.
Post by: Justin on April 30, 2006, 12:41:56 PM
Quote
But they don't have a drug problem there.
That you know of.But I guess that if it's such a wonderful thing, then perhaps you ought to move to North Korea. I hear it's quite balmy in the summer and that Dear Leader pens some stupendously wonderful operas.
Post by: Monkeyleg on April 30, 2006, 01:26:52 PM
One was when I had a "bad trip" on LSD. After that, I couldn't even smoke pot without getting paranoid. I realized later that the paranoia wasn't because of the drugs per se, but because I was beginning to have anxiety attacks, a problem that haunted me for years after.
The other reason was that smoking that much grass was sapping my motivation. If I was to become the professional photographer I wanted to be, I needed every bit of ambition I could muster.
There are people I knew from that era who are still stoned all the time. And they haven't achieved anything. One friend told me that he'd finally quit, because he realized--at age 56--that it was keeping him from achieving his goals.
All of that said, I'm 100% fine with legalization. My BIL just got out of jail two days ago after serving a six-month sentence. He said that many of the guys in there were serving time for possession of an ounce or two of pot. That's just wrong.
Post by: brimic on April 30, 2006, 01:27:01 PM
As far as usage goes my attitude is "only dopes use dope."
Post by: grampster on April 30, 2006, 01:55:37 PM
Many people have had property confiscated and then were found to have been innocent but unable to get their property back because it had been auctioned off, or mysteriously disappeared. Many of the combined forces of various police agencies to war on pot growers and smokers are funded by proceeds from these siezures.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Post by: Justin on April 30, 2006, 02:48:24 PM
Quote
He said that many of the guys in there were serving time for possession of an ounce or two of pot. That's just wrong.
Yeah. They should have all been shot. THAT would have made it right.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 30, 2006, 03:01:46 PM
Quote from: Justin
Quote
He said that many of the guys in there were serving time for possession of an ounce or two of pot. That's just wrong.
Yeah. They should have all been shot. THAT would have made it right.Post by: Smith on April 30, 2006, 03:05:00 PM
Can you tell me, from the religious point of view, why shooting drug dealers is ok?
Post by: Guest on April 30, 2006, 03:47:22 PM
Post by: doczinn on April 30, 2006, 04:06:52 PM
Post by: Antibubba on April 30, 2006, 04:07:16 PM
If it were legal, I'd probably keep a little in the house. I have a bottle of Vicodin, and when I get the rare migraine, I take one. I don't see myself abusing the THC, either
Post by: Standing Wolf on April 30, 2006, 05:12:08 PM
Post by: Jamisjockey on April 30, 2006, 05:24:55 PM
Decriminilizing drugs would save alot of money and allow our police to work at arresting real criminals, like murderers, rapeists, child molesters, and republicans.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 30, 2006, 06:06:37 PM
But shooting people who spread disease, poverty and misery is a no-no because, well, that's Libertarian.
Post by: Justin on April 30, 2006, 07:09:33 PM
Post by: Justin on April 30, 2006, 07:15:11 PM
Quote
So I guess shooting people at the border because they want to come here to work hard and get ahead is OK. After all, they are criminals.
But shooting people who spread disease, poverty and misery is a no-no because, well, that's Libertarian.
Where have libertarians advocated machine-gunning people at the border?
But shooting people who spread disease, poverty and misery is a no-no because, well, that's Libertarian.
Post by: Vodka7 on April 30, 2006, 07:18:51 PM
If you still have that attitude when you're old enough to run, I will gladly vote for you for President.
As for smoking it, I much prefer a marlboro menthol and a glass with a smooth brown liquid poured over ice. I wouldn't recommend it to a friend, but if a friend were interested, I wouldn't dissuade him either--I'm a firm believer that you should try anything that interests you at least once, and probably some things that don't interest you as well.
Post by: K Frame on April 30, 2006, 08:19:35 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 30, 2006, 08:35:46 PM
In theory, I agree with the libertarians. If you wanna ruin your life (and your family, your friends, and perhaps your business/neighbors/community) with drugs, then that's your business. I agree that the criminalization of drugs has caused as many problems as its solved.
But at the same time, I suspect that the criminalization of drugs has done a lot of good for a lot of folks over the years. Not that it's the govermnent's job to save anyone from their own stupidity and misery, but still... It's damn hard to think that someone you really care about would be better off dead, and that the drugs that made her that way should be unrestricted.
There are plenty of things in this world that trouble me more than the fact that drugs are illegal.
Post by: Strings on April 30, 2006, 09:35:49 PM
THE best way of handling it, I think.
Those who want to use are going to, no matter what. Legalizing and taxing will cut crime...
Post by: Guest on April 30, 2006, 09:52:42 PM
As far as marijuana, I have used it when in school, just like damn near everyone else. I found that the experience was more enjoyable than alcohol with fewer negative consequences. Were it not for our cultural taboos and laws I would seriously consider grass to be a legitimate, and even prefferable alternative to alcohol. Of course we do have taboos and laws, so I havent smoked since I was in my teens.
I find it interesting that nearly all of the drugs available today were available in Victorian England, without restriction. They didnt seem to destroy that nation, and I dont see why they would destroy this one either.
Post by: HForrest on April 30, 2006, 10:17:05 PM
Quote
Take bourbon. It is an all-American spirit. It was invented here and we are still the only producers. Each brand has its own history, its own recipe, and its own taste. Visiting a distillary is a fun experience and talking with a bourbon devotee is like talking to someone into classical music. An entire vocabulary. There is a famous bourbon festival in Bardstown once a year and it is quite an event. The color, smell, taste and alcohol content all vary and all add to the experience. Even if there were no alcohol in Bourbon I would still drink it.
Only a philistine could compare an experience like that with sitting around a stinky bong getting stoned and listening to Alice in Chains.
That's entirely subjective. You're just creating a stereotypical, biased image of marijuana. You don't even know what you're talking about. Only a philistine could compare an experience like that with sitting around a stinky bong getting stoned and listening to Alice in Chains.
Quote
But they don't have a drug problem there.
I'm sure we could eliminate almost all recreational drug use by turning the United States into a communist dictatorship. Is that what you're advocating?Quote
But shooting people who spread disease, poverty and misery is a no-no because, well, that's Libertarian.
Please explain to me how marijuana dealers spread diesease, poverty, and misery- without using biased anecdotal evidence or your ill-informed, misconceived notions.
Post by: HForrest on April 30, 2006, 10:47:23 PM
Quote
I found that the experience was more enjoyable than alcohol with fewer negative consequences.
Exactly. Alcohol ruins far more lives, and is far more dangerous, than marijuana. Should the President of Jack Daniels be shot?
Consequences of heavy use...
Marijuana:
Immediate:
-Lethargy.
Long-term:
-Lack of motivation and effort in general over time.
-Possible lung damage over extended period of time.
Alcohol
Immediate:
-Alcohol poisoning; can result in death/coma.
-Extreme impairment, moreso than marijuana.
-Inhibitions diminished, moreso than marijuana.
-Agressive/violent behavior.
Long-term
-Irreversible liver damage accumulates over time.
Post by: Firethorn on May 01, 2006, 02:23:16 AM
Quote from: Otherguy Overby
Quote
Legalize it, Tax it, Regulate it. It's the biggest source of criminal problems in the states today.
How soon we forget. Taxing something heavily tends to create a black market.Government control of commodities through taxation and prohibition is what creates black markets. For example, just look at all the cigarette smuggling caused by taxation to achieve social engineering.
Same with Alchohol, there's just not that much illegal production going on. It's not that difficult to get a license.
By regulate it, I meant, that in order to sell it, it has to meet a certain amount of safety requirements and the THC level has to be on the package. It's illegal to sell/provide to those under 18/21. Want to grow your own? Fine, you can even share with friends. Just can't go over XX pounds of actual product a year. You'd have to work to keep the feds from trying to weight the entire plant, sometimes even the pot it's planted in.
As for driving under the influence you have the problem that, despite the television commercials, stoners have tested as better drivers while high. They're less aggressive. (The commercials tried to make them out as totally unattentive, running into a kid pulling out of a drivethrough-more like alcohol).
Post by: Art Eatman on May 01, 2006, 03:03:41 AM
Deaths from drug-related crimes are not all that high, as the US total for all reasons is around 50K per year. Lotsa publicity, though.
If you're past mellow in smoking pot, I guarantee you that driving is an extremely difficult chore. If you can keep your speed all the way up to legal, it's hard to concentrate on staying in your lane. If you work hard at staying in your lane, it's hard to remember to push on the gas pedal. Why do you think so many traffic stops result in a marijuana bust? The guy was doing 15mph in a 40mph zone! Dang car idles 15mph!
FWIW, the old days' 15-mg spansule of time-release Dexedrine was much better than a line of cocaine for being able to stay awake at a party. Much better. No rush, true, but you can get as much rush as you need from beer, bourbon and more importanly, some Sweet Young Thing.
And if the party isn't all that great, you can go on to bed and actually go to sleep. Your little eyelids don't go Sproink! and stay open whether you want them to or not.Oh well. The sun's not even up, yet, and I already have quail on my porch...
, Art
Post by: The Rabbi on May 01, 2006, 03:33:18 AM
Quote from: Art Eatman
Health: The numbers are that tobacco and alcohol create problems that are causative in some 400,000 deaths per year, each. The only number I've ever read--and although it was some years back, it was at a time when the alcohol/tobacco numbers were similar to the above--is 30,000 deaths related to drugs.
Deaths from drug-related crimes are not all that high, as the US total for all reasons is around 50K per year. Lotsa publicity, though.
Art, those arent very revealing statistics. You would have to put it in the context of overall usage or something. I agree (and it is obvious) that alcohol/tobacco cause a lot of deaths. So do car accidents. But taken in isolation those are pretty meaningless as a measure of danger. My recollection is that marijuana smoke contains as much tar (or more) as cigarettes. Of course smoking patterns are different as well.Deaths from drug-related crimes are not all that high, as the US total for all reasons is around 50K per year. Lotsa publicity, though.
Quote
Rabbi, were your parents killed by dope-fiends or something?
No, Blackburn, they weren't. Were your parents drug dealers or dope fiends?
Post by: tyme on May 01, 2006, 03:35:31 AM
Quote
I'm sorry, what was the question?
I started to ponder the question, but then I noticed I was hungry.I'm with Antibubba, except I didn't try pot in HS. I'd try a whole lot of drugs if I could be assured they were pure, or at least if I knew what they were cut with and by how much. Street-bought drugs scare me.
Post by: Firethorn on May 01, 2006, 04:22:41 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Art, those arent very revealing statistics. You would have to put it in the context of overall usage or something. I agree (and it is obvious) that alcohol/tobacco cause a lot of deaths. So do car accidents. But taken in isolation those are pretty meaningless as a measure of danger. My recollection is that marijuana smoke contains as much tar (or more) as cigarettes. Of course smoking patterns are different as well.
Yeah, you'd have to look at usage patterns. Unfortuantly, it's difficult to get an accurate estimate on illegal drug use. Yes, a cigarette is about equally dangerous whether you put tobacco or mj in it. Difference is that you'd smoke less mj. You also have more water-bongs and such, which are superior filterers than cig filters.Personally, I'd legalize the stuff, make driving/operating heavy equipment while on it illegal, with european style penalties(yes you can get prison terms for DUI). Being high on a drug, any drug, is not an excuse for doing something else illegal unless you were doped unknowingly or against your will, in which case the person who drugged you is the guilty party, with assault tacked on.
Post by: Jamisjockey on May 01, 2006, 04:27:55 AM
Quote from: Justin
Quote
So I guess shooting people at the border because they want to come here to work hard and get ahead is OK. After all, they are criminals.
But shooting people who spread disease, poverty and misery is a no-no because, well, that's Libertarian.
Where have libertarians advocated machine-gunning people at the border?But shooting people who spread disease, poverty and misery is a no-no because, well, that's Libertarian.
Post by: Guest on May 01, 2006, 08:01:28 AM
Quote from: Art Eatman
...Deaths from drug-related crimes are not all that high, as the US total for all reasons is around 50K per year. ...
I'm positive that deaths from the actual effects of illegal drugs is less than one-tenth that figure.Deaths from prescription drugs is twice that figure.
Post by: Justin on May 01, 2006, 08:33:03 AM
Quote
My recollection is that marijuana smoke contains as much tar (or more) as cigarettes. Of course smoking patterns are different as well.
Boy, you sure seem overly concerned with the health of people who you think ought to be shot.Maybe they should be sent to the Pit of Despair before being summarily executed.
Post by: cordex on May 01, 2006, 11:13:27 AM
If marijuana is legalized, thousands of people will die from car accidents, robberies and health conditions related to marijuana use. This would happen because some people like to be self-destructive. If marijuana continues to be illegal, people will still die by the thousands from car accidents, robberies and health conditions related to marijuana use. The number will be smaller, and law-abiding folks will tend towards destroying themselves and those around them with alcohol instead.
Notwithstanding Rabbi's affectionate obsession with his own drug of choice and his assertion that it is somehow more highbrow than the rabble's herbal choice, his drug is just that. Today it's an expensive bottle of bourbon or scotch. In ages past it was a Queen and Pope's cocaine tincture, an 18th century physician's ether, a wise man's hashish, and a Romantic or Victorian author's laudenum.
I guess that makes me a philistine.
Post by: roo_ster on May 01, 2006, 11:36:05 AM
Quote from: Combat-wombat
Aside from the legal aspects of marijuana (I think most people here support its legalization on the basis that prohibition is morally wrong and does not work), what is your personal opinion of the recreational use of cannabis? How do you view it in comparison to alcohol or tobacco? Would you use cannabis if it were legal? What are your general thoughts, feelings, opinions on the subject?
There is a term for those who recreationally use mj on a regular basis over a length of time: LOSERMJ use is tied up with several worthless sub-cultures which taint rec mj use and those who use it. If a teenager/college student uses it, it is a sign that they lack maturity. When an adult does the same...it is a sign that they lack maturity.
I would not use it recreationally, were mj legal. I might use it in lieu of/in addition to pain med after surgery or some such. That's about it.
MJ looks to be comparable to alcohol & tobacco with regard to health hazards. Most mj is smoked without filter, but with less frequency than tobacco, so it seems to be a wash, helath-effects-wise. Alcohol, however, is more dangerous in that you can actually OD & die from it, while mj does not, that I know of. MJ, OTOH, saps motivation and esentially makes the habitual user rather worthless. Oh, and mj stinks even worse than tobacco. Foul smelling. Quality tobacco & alcohol is pleasant-smelling and tasting. "Quality" does not equate to Malrboro Reds, Bud, and rotgut whisky.
Though I have a negative view of mj & its users, I would not keep it illegal. It is the biggest target in the War on Drugs. While I find mj & its users worthy of contempt and not fit for polite society, the WoD is a howling maelstrom of destruction and much worse than legalized mj, heroin, meth, or whatever.
To sum up, I would hold rec mj users in contempt, but I would not subject them to any more legal repercussions than tobacco or alcohol users.
Post by: Justin on May 01, 2006, 11:37:31 AM
The problem with prohibition is that there's a ridiculous amount of fallout that negatively affects everyone, not just drug users. From higher taxes to gun control to what drugs medical doctor is allowed to prescribe.
That's my problem with the War on Drugs. I don't care about someone who wants to waste their life sitting on the couch eating Cheetos and watching Aqua Teen Hunger Force. If that's what they want to do, it's no skin off my nose. But as soon as the .gov wants to use the threat of force, financed with my money to execute a no-knock warrant on Mr. Stonerguy, I have a problem with it.
That's the problem. When it comes to the drug war, everyone fixates on the drugs without paying attention to what they ought to.
Post by: DrAmazon on May 01, 2006, 12:02:57 PM
I understand the science of the restrictions, but they do really tick me off. I got really dirty looks at Walmart for muttering "let the junkies Darwin themselves" while I was digging out my drivers licence for sudafed.
Post by: The Rabbi on May 01, 2006, 12:15:57 PM
Quote from: cordex
Notwithstanding Rabbi's affectionate obsession with his own drug of choice and his assertion that it is somehow more highbrow than the rabble's herbal choice, his drug is just that. I guess that makes me a philistine.
I dont think I need to add any more.
Post by: Monkeyleg on May 01, 2006, 06:52:06 PM
Get down off your crosses, 'cause you're not Jesus.
Give me a week to look into your life, and I'll bet you dimes to dollars that I can find something about you that others would object to.
It's only in the last few years--especially those years on THR and TFL--that I've given any serious consideration to legalizing drugs. But the libertarians--small "L" liberatians--have convinced me that the war on drugs is wrong.
And, before anyone goes into a rant about driving while stoned, that person is missing the point. Driving or doing anything else while impaired by alcohol, drugs, prescription meds, or even lack of sleep is not acceptable behavior.
Back about 1994 or so, an anonymous person ran a full-page ad in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that stated that he had the Constitutional right to be left alone. That ad probably cost him $20,000 or more.
At the time, I thought the ad was just about the ban on Evil Black Rifles. Thinking back, though, I think the person was preaching a broader message.
Post by: cordex on May 02, 2006, 08:32:46 AM
Excuse me while I snicker.
I've got no problem with your bizarre, self-destructive, recreational habits, but man. Yeah, if Rabbi's definition of uncivilized is someone who avoids both poison yeast piss and the smoke of certain burning veggies, then I'm uncivilized. I'll happily take being sober over having Rabbi think I'm as cool as he is.
Post by: Gewehr98 on May 02, 2006, 08:47:36 AM
Post by: Gewehr98 on May 02, 2006, 08:53:26 AM
Quote
My, my, my. So many paragons of virtue on this forum. For a minute I thought I was on the official Vatican website.
Get down off your crosses, 'cause you're not Jesus.
Give me a week to look into your life, and I'll bet you dimes to dollars that I can find something about you that others would object to.
Dick, I should actually take you up on your challenge. I'd love to find the dirt on my own piddly little existence, if simply for the fact that I hold an FFL license and a TS/SCI clearance, with "lifestyles" polygraph through Jan of 2009. The feds have already crawled up my ass and exited the top end. Maybe you could find something they missed? Get down off your crosses, 'cause you're not Jesus.
Give me a week to look into your life, and I'll bet you dimes to dollars that I can find something about you that others would object to.
(Not a paragon of virtue, but I certainly don't hold marijuana users and alcoholics in the same esteem as responsible human beings. Maybe it's because I lost a brother to a drunk driver, maybe it's because I've had more random urinalysis tests in the last 20 years than I care for...)
Post by: zahc on May 02, 2006, 09:09:07 AM
It's funny you said 'alchoholics' and not 'people that drink', yet you felt no need to say 'marijuana addicts' as if it's not ok to use THC recreationally, but it is ok to use alcohol socially.
It's entirely possible to use drugs recreationally and with self control, whether it's tobacco, weed, or alchohol. I, for instance, do.
Post by: Sindawe on May 02, 2006, 09:17:27 AM
Quote
... maybe it's because I've had more random urinalysis tests in the last 20 years than I care for...
Maybe you've a bit of hostility toward people who refuse to tolerate that sort of nonsense in their lives?
Post by: The Rabbi on May 02, 2006, 11:53:36 AM
Quote from: cordex
Rabbi, I understand that you are really passionate about your booze, but while you're busy looking down your nose at pot smokers and saying "Those savages, why, they're burning a common weedand inhaling the smoke to addle their minds," remember that you've spent years and who knows how much money in order to aquire a taste for an expensive, toxic, brown-stained, mind-altering, liver-destroying solvent composed largely of a dangerous and concentrated bacterial waste product that develops in rotting corn. You're actually bragging about how much you like using it as a recreational drug and feeling that you're so much better than magic-brownie-munchers?
Excuse me while I snicker.
It is the habit of the ignorant to make fun of what they don't understand. Snicker away.
Excuse me while I snicker.
Post by: HForrest on May 02, 2006, 01:11:49 PM
Quote
It is the habit of the ignorant to make fun of what they don't understand.
So, um... what is it that he doesn't understand?
Post by: BillBlank on May 02, 2006, 01:54:15 PM
I don't do it because I used to until I realised I was becoming an idiot. I still feel the negative effects nearly ten years after my last dose. I can get very angry quite quickly now and, worst of all, I'm now as thick as two short planks compared to my teenage years. I struggle with debate and find it hard sometimes to form a coherent riposte. I am very frustrated by this. I do not encourage it's use and do not regard it as "harmless". I do not care if people choose to smoke it though. Their body etc. etc.
How do you view it in comparison to alcohol or tobacco?
I'd rather be in a bar surrounded by potheads than drunk people. So in that respect you could say that pot is a "better" drug than alchohol. I just don't think we, as a species, are very good at enjoying any drugs without overindulging and harming ourselves or others, but we really seem to enjoy it and don't look like stopping getting high anytime soon. The link between pot smoking and mental illness is worrying as well. I like being sober mostly and have to balance that with the aesthetic pleasure I get from a glass of wine/whiskey.
Would you use cannabis if it were legal?
No
What are your general thoughts, feelings, opinions on the subject?
In my experience marijuana is a drug that leads to other drug use. If only because of the crowd of people that you meet on the way. Thankfully, god knows how (I have the feeling it was something to do with not wanting to die), I always managed to not indulge in other things. I have outlived three close acquaintences that were not so fortunate.
There is a very strong moral argument for not using any illegal drugs. Unless you grow it yourself then, at some point in the chain of suppliers, the money you spend on your gear ends up in the hands of violent criminals. Your money helps sustain a global industry that either kills, intimidates or ruins a lot of people. Whether thats an argument for legalisation or not, I don't know. What the western world is doing at the moment doesn't seem to be working either.
Post by: cordex on May 03, 2006, 04:07:05 AM
Quote
It is the habit of the ignorant to make fun of what they don't understand. Snicker away.
It would be a sophomoric mistake to automatically confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.I've never done pot and I wouldn't know good bud from lawn mulch, so I guess when I make fun of pot heads I'm displaying some ignorance there. How about you?
Post by: The Rabbi on May 03, 2006, 05:51:55 AM
How does one evaluate a good bourbon?
How does one evaluate good marijuana?
Post by: Sindawe on May 03, 2006, 06:10:35 AM
How does one evaluate a good bourbon?
Color, visual clarity, aroma (bouquet?), smoothness, initial taste, over/under tones to taste, aftertaste (finish?), severity of hangover if overindulged?
How does one evaluate good marijuana?
Color, shape, seeds, aroma, smoothness, initial taste, amount required to feel effects, type of effects, duration of effects?
* I prefer fine beers, Scotch Whiskey and cigars.
Post by: publius on May 04, 2006, 03:42:33 AM
Like previous drug war precedents, that one was quickly applied to firearms.
Post by: Justin on May 04, 2006, 07:02:56 AM
Quote
It is the habit of the ignorant to make fun of what they don't understand. Snicker away.
Post by: Mabs2 on May 04, 2006, 08:21:47 AM
He had been high many times and I NEVER suspected anything AT ALL.
And like has been said before, keeping illegal causes more harm than good.
I believe alcohol is a much more dangerous substance than marijuana...however, I do not think that should be illegal either. But if I had to choose of a few drugs to be illegal, alcohol would be one.
Post by: Oleg Volk on May 04, 2006, 11:59:46 AM
Post by: publius on May 04, 2006, 01:00:07 PM
Post by: Justin on May 04, 2006, 01:03:02 PM
Post by: publius on May 04, 2006, 01:28:33 PM
Post by: Sindawe on May 04, 2006, 01:57:10 PM
Quote
I removed several rude posts. Trying to decide what to do about the authors.
[Monty Python]RELEASE THE TIGER!
[/Monty Python]
Post by: grampster on May 04, 2006, 02:22:00 PM
Let sleeping dogs lie. Once in awhile the snot flies, but all in all, it calms down a bit when another interesting topic crops up; like grampster needs a charitable contribution of Irish Whiskey and the APS-ites come through. heh heh.
PS: I picked up my bottle of RedBreast today, sampled a couple fingers at my favorite pub, had some kind of food that I don't, er, ah, remember now. But I'm feeling much better now. Think I'll have a couple fingers more, eh?
Post by: Ron on May 04, 2006, 03:13:43 PM
I do enjoy the looser atmosphere here and would encourage leniency as long as the offenders weren't too over the top in ad hominem attacks.
Let me also say I enjoy the restrictions of enforced civility (when necessary) at THR.
Post by: Mabs2 on May 04, 2006, 03:26:27 PM
Post by: Gewehr98 on May 04, 2006, 03:46:40 PM
Quote
PS: I picked up my bottle of RedBreast today, sampled a couple fingers at my favorite pub, had some kind of food that I don't, er, ah, remember now. But I'm feeling much better now. Think I'll have a couple fingers more, eh?
So what was your take on that variety, Grampster? I twas pleasantly surprised with RedBreast after thinking the stuff from the Scotland was best for many years...Regarding this:
Quote
Maybe you've a bit of hostility toward people who refuse to tolerate that sort of nonsense in their lives?
It wasn't nonsense. It was a military career, no different than being an airline pilot or Emergency Room doctor, or any other position of trust that has a zero-tolerance policy. Both my flying career and security clearance depended on being drug-free, and I intend to keep things that way at least until the clearance is up for renewal in 2009. On the other hand, I suppose I could have a doobie or two, and get used to saying "Would you like fries with that, sir?"
Post by: 280plus on May 04, 2006, 03:49:58 PM
Quote
On the other hand, I suppose I could have a doobie or two, and get used to saying "Would you like fries with that, sir?"
I BELIEVE if you were to smoke that doobie the question would turn into, "May I have some of your fries, sir?"
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 04, 2006, 04:08:50 PM
Quote from: DrAmazon
I got really dirty looks at Walmart for muttering "let the junkies Darwin themselves" while I was digging out my drivers licence for sudafed.
And well you should.
Post by: grampster on May 04, 2006, 05:22:11 PM
Post by: Gun Runner on May 04, 2006, 06:18:21 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
I support shooting drug dealers.
I know people who support shooting jews. I think it makes about the same amount of sense.Marijuana is great in moderation (a puff or three). Alcohol isn't so great in moderation, it takes at least 4 drinks to start to enjoying it. Do too much of either and you'll be sorry.
With that said I can't quite figure out why it's 2006 and this stuff is still illegal.
Post by: Sindawe on May 04, 2006, 09:46:33 PM
Quote
Alcohol isn't so great in moderation, it takes at least 4 drinks to start to enjoying it.
: blink blink : Either you're drinking some pretty weak EtOH, or you've got quite a tolerance for the stuff Gun Runner. Of course I suppose it would depend on what one considers "a drink", but I can feel the effects the glass of spoiled grape juice I drink 3-4 times week.Or do you define "enjoying it" as "build the campfire up huge and hot, then go pass out on the dirt road while looking at the stars so we don't puke in the tent"
Quote
On the other hand, I suppose I could have a doobie or two, and get used to saying "Would you like fries with that, sir?"
Hmmmm...maybe its just the company I keep, but most of the folks I've known over the years who do smoke a doobie or two say things like..."...are you sure you used the right restriction enzyme? This protein is all hosed up, its not folding correctly..."
or
"...I TOLD him to make sure all his functions cleaned up after themselves when they exited, but he insisted he knew what he was doing and ended up creating a memory leak that crashed ALL the database servers..."
Post by: 280plus on May 05, 2006, 02:11:32 AM
Quote
Between 1968 and 1974 or so, I smoked a lot of grass.
That's straight out of "The Pusher" by Steppenwolf, man...Alright, I've read enough stop being a wise ass and fess up. If you handed me something like some Hawaiin or some Thai and I had nothing better to do, I'd probably take a puff or two. So shoot me.
. I agree moderation is the key. I have seen many professionals who smoke and I have seen many many more lives destroyed by alcohol and coke, crack, meth. The whole gamut. It's everywhere folks, you just don't see it. I've always maintained legalize it all, tax it all. Then reap the rewards of freed up money and manpower as well as the gain from the taxes. Then put a lot of it into prevention, awareness and rehabilitation. Prevention at an early age works. There's a joke I heard. "When I was a kid i had to hide smoking pot from my parents. Now that I'm a parent I have to hide smoking pot from my kids."Gotta go.
Post by: grampster on May 05, 2006, 03:30:38 AM
Post by: Gun Runner on May 05, 2006, 05:52:10 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Take homegrown. It is an American/Canadian PLANT. It was invented here and we are still the only producers. Each strain has its own history, its own effects, and its own taste. Visiting a grow room is a fun experience and talking with a marijuana devotee is like talking to someone into classical music. An entire vocabulary. There are famous pot festivals in America and Canada several times a year and they are quite the events. The color, smell, taste and THC content all vary and all add to the experience. Even if there were no THC in pot I would still smoke it.
Quote from: Antibubba
I dabbled with it in high school, and it was enjoyable. What made me stop was that I would never know the chain of events that brought it to me-where it was grown, how many hands it had passed through, what other crap had been put into it...
That's why people grow their own I suppose. Marvelous!Quote from: Sindawe
Quote
Alcohol isn't so great in moderation, it takes at least 4 drinks to start to enjoying it.
: blink blink : Either you're drinking some pretty weak EtOH, or you've got quite a tolerance for the stuff Gun Runner. Of course I suppose it would depend on what one considers "a drink", but I can feel the effects the glass of spoiled grape juice I drink 3-4 times week.Or do you define "enjoying it" as "build the campfire up huge and hot, then go pass out on the dirt road while looking at the stars so we don't puke in the tent"
On the other hand if marijuana were legal I think I would enjoy cultivating it for my personal use and using small amounts here and there more than I enjoy a cold Grain Belt.
Post by: Sindawe on May 05, 2006, 08:10:35 AM
Quote
don't know what EtOH is...
My apologies. EtOH is chemical shorthand for Ethyl Alcohol, aka grain alcohol.C2H5-: Eythl group = Et
-OH: Hydroxyl group = OH
C2H5OH: Ethyl Alcohol = EtOH
Quote
"When I was a kid i had to hide smoking pot from my parents. Now that I'm a parent I have to hide smoking pot from my kids."
BWAHAHAHAHAHHA I've seen that joke in action. On of my buds (no pun intended) used to hide his pot smoking from his parents. Now he hides it from his children, both his toddlers and adult step children who DO NOT approve.
Post by: The Rabbi on May 05, 2006, 08:31:19 AM
Quote from: Gun Runner
Quote from: The Rabbi
I support shooting drug dealers.
I know people who support shooting jews. I think it makes about the same amount of sense.Marijuana is great in moderation (a puff or three). Alcohol isn't so great in moderation, it takes at least 4 drinks to start to enjoying it. Do too much of either and you'll be sorry.
With that said I can't quite figure out why it's 2006 and this stuff is still illegal.
If it takes you 4 drinks to enjoy alcohol then either you are missing a lot or drinking the wrong stuff. And while grow rooms can be sort of interesting I never heard anyone say they smoke pot because they like the taste.
Post by: cordex on May 05, 2006, 09:19:44 AM
Quote
I never heard anyone say they smoke pot because they like the taste.
Ask a kid who has never tasted pot, tobacco or alcohol and does not associate them with being cool to try each and tell you which tastes best and I'm guessing that most will puke on you and go back to eating dirt, freshly convinced that adults are morons.I suspect that like other things it is an acquired taste and that there are many pot smokers who enjoy the taste of it. It has been a long time since I've associated with people that I know use cannabis on a regular basis, but I do know a number of tobacco smokers who enjoy the flavor of their drug beyond the minor buzz it gives them, and to me tobacco smoke - even good pipe-tobacco - is some pretty nasty tasting stuff. Even the best bourbon will taste awful to someone unused to it, won't it?
You have to be pretty committed to getting intoxicated, and/or trying to look cool for your friends to willfully develop a taste for and seek out the effects of tobacco, alcohol or weed. Despite Rabbi's arguments as to the perceived aesthetic benefits of distilled spirits, the reason alcohol is still a part of human society outside of a role as a solvent and fuel is because of its intoxicating effects on the human body.
Post by: Strings on May 05, 2006, 10:25:37 AM
Now THAT is a classic line!
I will add, I'd grow it if it were legal: just small amounts, to use for nausea...
Post by: 280plus on May 05, 2006, 10:37:53 AM
But seriously, just for the record, I stopped all that activity when I was going for my pistol permit in ~1998. Getting caught with a little weed is one thing, getting caught with a little weed and a GUN is a whole different ballgame. I don't really miss it. I chose guns over weed as it were. I DID live in Kail for a number of years where it's legality was pretty much a non issue at the time. Still is I guess. Moving to other places/states later where it is still viewed as a criminal activity was quite the change though.
Post by: bermbuster on May 05, 2006, 11:31:35 AM
Post by: tyme on May 05, 2006, 12:28:04 PM
Quote
Hawaiian Blonde
Not registered according to the online trademark search engine:http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=53qesa.1.1
Post by: Justin on May 05, 2006, 02:39:48 PM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: DrAmazon
I got really dirty looks at Walmart for muttering "let the junkies Darwin themselves" while I was digging out my drivers licence for sudafed.
And well you should.So now we should be expected to not only endure the idiocy of a drug war foisted upon the rest of society because of a few losers who choose, of their own bloody volition, to destroy their lives with a chemical mixture cooked out of all sorts of nasty things, but we're now expected to smile about it?
Whatever. Somebody wants to ruin their life with the stuff, it's no skin off my back.
Incidentally, with regard to meth, check out the movie Spun. Was enough to make me honestly wonder why anyone would consider the stuff in the first place.
Post by: tyme on May 06, 2006, 01:43:48 PM
Watched it yesterday. I wasn't impressed. A bunch of people doing drugs, over-the-top portrayal of police, and a generic philosophical cop-out at the end.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 06, 2006, 02:40:55 PM
Quote from: Justin
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: DrAmazon
I got really dirty looks at Walmart for muttering "let the junkies Darwin themselves" while I was digging out my drivers licence for sudafed.
And well you should.Post by: Firethorn on May 06, 2006, 02:50:48 PM
Quote from: fistful
I don't know about all that other stuff you said, J, but hoping people die from their drug habit is literally hateful. I don't think the Doc really meant it, but you should expect some people to disapprove of such a sentiment.
I took it to mean 'Let people do what they want, even if it kills them, rather than tread on all of our freedoms to try to stop them'. It's not like he said 'I hope the junkies darwin themselves'.Face it, people Darwin themselves regularly, and most of that type will end up doing it to themselves one way or another.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 06, 2006, 02:54:12 PM
I'm also reacting to the Darwinist notion that the inferior should die for the sake of the more advanced. Just hit me the wrong way, I suppose.
Post by: Firethorn on May 06, 2006, 03:34:06 PM
Quote from: fistful
I'm also reacting to the Darwinist notion that the inferior should die for the sake of the more advanced. Just hit me the wrong way, I suppose.
Then you misunderstand the true Darwinist notion, which is that the inferior will tend to eliminate themsevles, leaving the superier(not necessarily more advanced) to reproduce. To be darwined doesn't require death, simply removal of the reproductive capability. To win the award, it has to be self-inflicted in such a fashion to make people think that it's a good thing that the winner isn't going to procreate any more.So 'Let the junkies Darwin themselves'
A: Objects to the treading on freedom (limits on cold medicine, identification requirements, etc...)
B: Implies that the making and usage of meth(identified by objections about cold medicine requirements) is stupidly dangerous.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 06, 2006, 04:31:37 PM
Post by: Strings on May 06, 2006, 07:59:25 PM
It's nothing more than a part of life, man: NOBODY gets out alive. What bothers most people isn't death itself, but what comes after: the unknown, basically. Even with your staunch faith, the ONLY thing you have saying Heaven is waiting on the other side of the veil is that faith... which sometimes, regardless of how strong your faith is, isn't enough to keep just a touch of doubt from your mind. This slight doubt is what makes death (the transition) something fearful...
I wouldn't say I'm afraid of death. It's more something i don't want on my resume at the moment (you're suddenly over-qualified for everything)...
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 07, 2006, 12:40:49 PM
My Biblical point of view would be that such people can be reformed, and that death is absolutely not a part a life. The body was not designed for death.
I think the second point of view, besides being more compassionate, is more realistic, as it recognizes that such people have always reproduced and will continue to do so.
None of which is an argument for drug prohibition.
Post by: tyme on May 07, 2006, 02:56:10 PM
Quote
That's not quite what I meant. As I understand evolution/Darwinism, death is a primary mechanism for improvement of the species, and in fact it would be good if "junkies" removed themselves from the gene pool.
It's not good that people die for stupid reasons. However, it's also not good to intervene in people's lives to prevent them from dying through idiocy, because that intervention restricts freedoms of intelligent people.Quote
My Biblical point of view...
It seems to me that religion dictates you should do what you can to educate your neighbors to reduce their chances of being darwined. If they still manage it due to the existence/availability of sharp objects, cliffs, guns, drugs, or a desire to climb mount everest, the consequences are between them and God.Therefore, while early death itself is not desireable, in the case of darwination, it's the best of all possible outcomes.
Post by: cosine on May 07, 2006, 03:00:06 PM
I'm all for showing stupid people their idiocy, and trying to educate them to keep them from being "darwined," but if they don't want to listen and/or change their ways the consquences are their own matter to deal with.
At least to me, that seems compassionate, because you tried to help the individual in question. If they don't want to accept your help, however, further interference into their lives is not compassionate but instead shows a lack of respect for their individuality and free will.
Post by: Ron on May 07, 2006, 03:03:47 PM
Quote
It seems to me that religion dictates you should do what you can to educate people so they reduce their own chances of being darwined. If they still manage to do so because of the existence/availability of sharp objects, cliffs, guns, drugs, or a desire to climb mount everest, the consequences are between them and God.
Well said. the power of the government to protect us from ourselves should be limited. Booze and dope while not life enriching have proved themselves to be relatively innocuous when used by responsible adults.The drugs with high addiction rates present a different problem. A high percentage of regular crack, meth and heroin users get addicted bad. Why shouldn't dangerous substances like that be regulated?
Post by: grampster on May 07, 2006, 03:13:54 PM
I have never been one to agree to the notion that we should reduce eveything to its lowest common denomenator. That has always been the fatal flaw in Communism/Socialism that the faint of heart are lothe to grasp.
I think that is why I believe one of the most powerful statements made by our founders was the one made by, I believe, Mr. Franklin and I paraphrase: 'A man that would give up a little freedom for a little security, deserves neither'.
Post by: tyme on May 07, 2006, 03:23:51 PM
Quote
Why shouldn't dangerous substances like that be regulated?
Such regulations can't be enforced without completely destroying any notion of privacy.The war on drugs has gotten us satellite and plane IR surveillance (constitutional, don't you know), routine checking of electricity usage to figure out where there might be grow ops (nevermind that the person might have simply gotten a bunch of new computer equipment), not to mention a nearly absolute evisceration of the notion that some searches and seizures are unreasonable. Just about any search and seizure is reasonable today, because drugs can be hidden just about anywhere at any time, and the chance is too great that they'll be disposed of if police are required to get a warrant.
Laws that can't be enforced make a mockery of the legal system, and that has much more serious consequences than the continued existence of some junkies.
Post by: Firethorn on May 07, 2006, 03:51:49 PM
Quote from: tyme
Quote
Why shouldn't dangerous substances like that be regulated?
Such regulations can't be enforced without completely destroying any notion of privacy.Quote
The war on drugs has gotten us satellite and plane IR surveillance (constitutional, don't you know), routine checking of electricity usage to figure out where there might be grow ops (nevermind that the person might have simply gotten a bunch of new computer equipment), not to mention a nearly absolute evisceration of the notion that some searches and seizures are unreasonable. Just about any search and seizure is reasonable today, because drugs can be hidden just about anywhere at any time, and the chance is too great that they'll be disposed of if police are required to get a warrant.
Laws that can't be enforced make a mockery of the legal system, and that has much more serious consequences than the continued existence of some junkies.
+1Laws that can't be enforced make a mockery of the legal system, and that has much more serious consequences than the continued existence of some junkies.
Without the drug war, government agencies wouldn't have their biggest excuse for seizing assets.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 07, 2006, 07:02:53 PM
Quote from: fistful
None of which is an argument for drug prohibition.
Post by: Bogie on May 08, 2006, 04:22:01 AM
...because.
Back around the turn of the century, people started to get disturbed by asian "opium dens," and they finally figured out that opioids were addictive... Bam!
In the 20s and 30s, they started worrying about their children consorting with negroes to smoke hemp.
BAM!
In the sixties, darn near everything but pennicillin came under fire.
Whammo!
Today, we've got a couple of major industries. Illicit unregulated importation and distribution, and the law enforcement side that is supposed to stop it. The black marked has ALWAYS won in the long run. Crime DOES pay.
Legalize it, all of it, and put it either in liquor stores or pharmacies. Take the hollywod and bling-bling out of it. The black market is essentially gone, since the opportunity for massive profits are gone. Sure, there's still _some_ bootlegging between high-tax and low-tax states, but you'll always see that - you don't have people doing drive-bys on competing bars or liquor stores...
Law enforcement is VERY worried about legalization. Not because of an anticipated increase in crime. Because of an anticipated DECREASE in need for law enforcement. There's always going to be petty theft by people addicted to one thing or another. But I'm guessing that'll even drop somewhat.
Post by: The Rabbi on May 08, 2006, 05:08:37 AM
Quote from: Bogie
The way I look at it, drugs are illegal...
...because.
Back around the turn of the century, people started to get disturbed by asian "opium dens," and they finally figured out that opioids were addictive... Bam!
In the 20s and 30s, they started worrying about their children consorting with negroes to smoke hemp.
BAM!
In the sixties, darn near everything but pennicillin came under fire.
Well, you are leaving out that in the 1960s crime rates started skyrocketing in areas that also had large increases in drug use.
...because.
Back around the turn of the century, people started to get disturbed by asian "opium dens," and they finally figured out that opioids were addictive... Bam!
In the 20s and 30s, they started worrying about their children consorting with negroes to smoke hemp.
BAM!
In the sixties, darn near everything but pennicillin came under fire.
Post by: Justin on May 08, 2006, 05:28:36 AM
Quote from: tyme
You must frequent torrent sites, since Spun just popped up on them in the last few days. Watched it yesterday. I wasn't impressed. A bunch of people doing drugs, over-the-top portrayal of police, and a generic philosophical cop-out at the end.
Oddly enough, my brother has it on DVD. I haven't gotten into the whole Torrent scene. Damn kids and their file sharing. Back in my day we used Napster!
Watched it yesterday. I wasn't impressed. A bunch of people doing drugs, over-the-top portrayal of police, and a generic philosophical cop-out at the end.Post by: Bogie on May 08, 2006, 05:27:56 PM
Post by: publius on May 09, 2006, 10:18:43 AM
Quote
122 posts about pot?
It's not THAT interesting.. is it?
122 posts do not seem like many compared to the government's level of interest in the stuff. In 2004, there were 771,605 marijuana arrests in the US, out of total drug arrests of 1,745,712.It's not THAT interesting.. is it?
That's over 2,000 arrests per day, and about 44% of all drug war arrests. Must be pretty darn important to be spending that kind of time and money, don't you think?
And yet, we've only seen 122 posts in about ten days on this subject, during which time more than 20,000 more marijuana arrests were made. I wonder how much it cost to arrest all those potheads, and if there might just be a better use for that money?
Post by: HForrest on May 09, 2006, 09:45:01 PM
Quote
You'd be able to enforce some regulations(such as not selling to minors, and safety/purity standards) far better if it was legal than keeping it illegal.
You're right. Alcohol is legal and regulated, but marijuana is DEA Schedule I. However, I can say with a fair degree of certainty that it is easier to obtain marijuana than alcohol in the high school I attend.