Post by: Perd Hapley on September 28, 2006, 04:49:28 AM
I tend to the drug warrior position, but if I take that view, it would seem to me that alcohol and tobacco should also be banned. One of the most ardent "drug warriors" on the board is also somewhat of a conniseur of alcoholic beverages. So, why should drugs like alcohol and tobacco be legal, but not crack, marijuana or others?
Post by: charby on September 28, 2006, 05:03:06 AM
-C
Post by: cordex on September 28, 2006, 05:16:26 AM
Quote
So, why should drugs like alcohol and tobacco be legal, but not crack, marijuana or others?
I believe the typical response to that is:"My drugs are [just different/socially acceptable/less harmful/less psychoactive/less addictive/less fun/cooler/already legal], so they are obviously different and should not be regulated. You're just a pothead who wants to smoke pot. Pothead."
To which the anti-drug-control supporter replies:
"Well, studies have proven that [pot/crack/heroine/cocaine/LSD/PCP/MSG/Trans-fatty-acids] is less addictive, less harmful and generally heathful and beneficial to the world than your drugs. You're just a facist who wants to control me."
The response to that is:
"You're an anarchist and a barbarian! I'm apalled that you would speak ill of my [fine booze/tobacco] in such a fashion. Mine can be enjoyed, but yours can only be abused! Alcohol and tobacco are harmless fluffybunnies compared to your drugs!"
And after a bit, everyone realizes the same arguments have been made over and over and over again with no one changing their minds because on the one hand we've got people who believe you can do whatever you want to your own body and on the other hand we've got folks who believe you can do whatever they want to your body and what either side considers reasonable and self-evident, the other side considers absurd.
Didn't you run almost this exact thread a few months ago, fistful?
Edit: Maybe not, but it sure feels like we've done this not too long ago.
Post by: Sindawe on September 28, 2006, 05:30:12 AM
Quote
Didn't you run almost this exact thread a few months ago, fistful?
Edit: Maybe not, but it sure feels like we've done this not too long ago.
That because we've danced this jig so many times that we all know each other moves. Edit: Maybe not, but it sure feels like we've done this not too long ago.
I've come to the point that trying to debate with the "drug warriors" is akin to trying to teach a pig to sing. It does nothing but waste my time and bore the pig. So being a magnanimous sort, I leave the "drug warriors" to their folly.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 28, 2006, 05:38:38 AM
I respectfully ask you all to delete your predictions on what the prohibitionists will say.
Quote from: fistful
This question is for those who favor laws against drugs.
I said that for a reason. I will appreciate the pro-legalization response, but only after hearing the actual arguments of prohibitionists. Your comments so far are muddying the waters.FWIW, I have never used illegal drugs and currently only use caffeine and the occasional aspirin - no alcohol or tobacco.
Post by: Devonai on September 28, 2006, 07:00:55 AM
However, I see no reason why Marijuana and LSD should be illegal. The former is no more dangerous or prone to abuse than alcohol and tobacco, and the latter may not have any ill health effects at all. I would have no problem with those substances being made legal and regulated in the same way as tobacco and alcohol.
I have never used illegal drugs of any kind. I have had many opportunities to smoke pot, heck, I lived in the same building with friends who were "420 friendly" and I could have been toking up 3-4 times a week if I wanted. I simply had another priority: keeping my firearms and carry permits. If marijuana is legalized I will probably try it, but I don't like getting "messed up" so if it was too powerful I would not use it.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 28, 2006, 07:46:06 AM
Quote from: fistful
This question is for those who favor laws against drugs. I haven't made up my mind on it, so maybe you can help me figure things out.
I tend to the drug warrior position, but if I take that view, it would seem to me that alcohol and tobacco should also be banned. One of the most ardent "drug warriors" on the board is also somewhat of a conniseur of alcoholic beverages. So, why should drugs like alcohol and tobacco be legal, but not crack, marijuana or others?
I think you at least partially answered your own question.I tend to the drug warrior position, but if I take that view, it would seem to me that alcohol and tobacco should also be banned. One of the most ardent "drug warriors" on the board is also somewhat of a conniseur of alcoholic beverages. So, why should drugs like alcohol and tobacco be legal, but not crack, marijuana or others?
How many "connoiseurs" of crack cocaine do you know? How many afficionados of methamphetamine have you met?
Again, I get back to a basic observation: the greater intelligence recognizes subtler distinctions.
A person can be a drinker and never get drunk in his life. But I have yet to see someone use drugs who didnt get high.
then there are practical argumetns, which always fall on deaf ears. Alcohol and tobacco have been parts of American culture back to the earliest times of this country. They occupy a socially acceptable place (less so now for tobacco) in society and the cost to ban them would outweigh any social benefit. The same is not true for drugs. Please do not post ads from the 1890s advertising opiates. My grandparents never used them for recreation and neither did yours.
I don't expect anyone to subscribe to this view. Most people here already have their minds made up.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 28, 2006, 07:52:22 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 28, 2006, 07:56:36 AM
Quote from: fistful
Thanks, Rabbi. You are of course the connoiseur to which I referred. What about milder drugs like marijuana?
I have less objection to marijuana for all the reasons that have already been given.
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on September 28, 2006, 08:55:34 AM
When someone has to break the law to get it, he's dealing with criminals. Criminals will sell you anything they can profit with, so if he's got pot in one hand and coke in the other, the person *might* say 'yeah, gimme an 8-ball of that coke, too'.
It's proximity is the only thing that makes it a gateway drug.
I spent nearly 20 years smoking pot, and the hallucinogenics were where my interest laid. Hashish is just another cannabis derivative.
I never tried coke, heroin, opium, or anything else, and never wanted to.
Once it became a paranoid nightmare every time I got high (about 15 years ago), I stopped completely.
The use of marijuana is less physically detrimental than alcohol, but saps energy, initiative, and motivation. A huge number of thirty-something potheads live in their parents' basement, and have little or no aspiration for more.
I think decriminalizing marijuana/hash would remove the rebellious appeal of it, separate it from heavy and debilitating drugs like meth, cocaine, and heroin, and allow for tax revenues from the sale.
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 28, 2006, 09:29:27 AM
Quote
A huge number of thirty-something potheads live in their parents' basement, and have little or no aspiration for more.
Witness my 24 and 26 year old stepsons, living in my basement, screaming at each other while playing Warcraft from 6 PM to 8 AM, and alluding to me as the "Piggy" because I am in the hiring process for the sheriff's department, putting a crimp in their plans to resume their 420 routine after I retired from my military career. As my wife and I reminded them, they're more than welcome to move to Washington State with their father and do what they will sans my house rules. The only problem with that is their father wouldn't tolerate the lack of motivation and initiative, either, and they know it.
That latest public service message on TV is rather neat, showing the potheads sitting baked on the couch, while life passes them by.
Post by: charby on September 28, 2006, 09:38:47 AM
Quote from: Gewehr98
That scares me, it's so true.
As my wife and I reminded them, they're more than welcome to move to Washington State with their father and do what they will sans my house rules. The only problem with that is their father wouldn't tolerate the lack of motivation and initiative, either, and they know it.
That latest public service message on TV is rather neat, showing the potheads sitting baked on the couch, while life passes them by.
Sounds like you need to find their secret stash and add too it some very finely chopped dog hair.
Quote
A huge number of thirty-something potheads live in their parents' basement, and have little or no aspiration for more.
Witness my 24 and 26 year old stepsons, living in my basement, screaming at each other while playing Warcraft from 6 PM to 8 AM, and alluding to me as the "Piggy" because I am in the hiring process for the sheriff's department, putting a crimp in their plans to resume their 420 routine after I retired from my military career. As my wife and I reminded them, they're more than welcome to move to Washington State with their father and do what they will sans my house rules. The only problem with that is their father wouldn't tolerate the lack of motivation and initiative, either, and they know it.
That latest public service message on TV is rather neat, showing the potheads sitting baked on the couch, while life passes them by.
Post by: BrokenPaw on September 28, 2006, 09:59:01 AM
Quote from: charby
Quote from: Gewehr98
That scares me, it's so true.
Sounds like you need to find their secret stash and add too it some very finely chopped dog hair.Quote
A huge number of thirty-something potheads live in their parents' basement, and have little or no aspiration for more.
Witness my 24 and 26 year old stepsons, living in my basement, screaming at each other while playing Warcraft from 6 PM to 8 AM...Granted, since they're Gewehr's stepsons, his hands may be tied in the matter of their geospatial coordinates. But there's no way my stepkids would ever be allowed to continue living in my home if they made a practice of insulting me. Fortunately 1.5 of them are good kids.
With respect to Fistful's subject: I favor legalization because I believe that people should be free to make choices about what they do with and to themselves. That said, intoxication of any intentional kind should be an automatic aggravating circumstance in the case of any crime committed. Kill someone while driving stoned/drunk/high? Oops, that's premeditation, that is, mate. You knew the risk before you toked/drank/snorted.
-BP
Post by: Lee on September 28, 2006, 10:00:47 AM
No offense, but someone is seriously enabling that behavior. Conversely, would you prefer that they boozed it up in the basement and smashed each other (or you) with pool cues?
I agree that pot tends to de-motivate young people, but so does booze. That's also why some overly motivated adults enjoy it...just as they might enjoy winding down with a good brandy. The only real distinction between nearly all drugs, and poison, is dosage.
I prefer decriminalization and education for drugs that are not very addictive or destructive. Hard drugs should never be legal...but their users need long term treatment, not long term prison sentences.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 28, 2006, 11:10:36 AM
Quote from: Lee
Hard drugs should never be legal...but their users need long term treatment, not long term prison sentences.
Can't a prison sentence be a treatment of a sort, at least in some cases?
Post by: charby on September 28, 2006, 11:13:08 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 28, 2006, 11:14:00 AM
Quote from: BrokenPaw
With respect to Fistful's subject: I favor legalization because I believe that people should be free to make choices about what they do with and to themselves. That said, intoxication of any intentional kind should be an automatic aggravating circumstance in the case of any crime committed. Kill someone while driving stoned/drunk/high? Oops, that's premeditation, that is, mate. You knew the risk before you toked/drank/snorted.
Believe me, I also want people to be able to do what they want to themselves. Otherwise, I'd be firmly in the prohibitionist camp. But I think it's a little odd that premeditation would be charged against a person who committed the crime due to their lack of ability to "meditate."Charby, I was referring to the disincentive effect of having to go to prison. I see your point, though.
Post by: SADShooter on September 28, 2006, 11:26:02 AM
Re: "meditation". I drink. Sometimes I drink to the point of intoxication, and have gone well beyond it in the past. My premeditation occurs at the point of knowingly ingesting an impairment-inducing substance. If someone else is harmed as a result of my impaired state, I see that as comparable to a conscious decision to harm that person, in that I inhibited my ability to prevent said harm.
Post by: BrokenPaw on September 28, 2006, 11:28:20 AM
Quote
But I think it's a little odd that premeditation would be charged against a person who committed the crime due to their lack of ability to "meditate."
No, see, it makes perfect sense:People who can't yet "meditate" are by definition in a "pre-meditated" state, see?
-BP
Edited to add: Yeah, what SADSHooter said.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 28, 2006, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: SADShooter
I drink. Sometimes I drink to the point of intoxication, and have gone well beyond it in the past. My premeditation occurs at the point of knowingly ingesting an impairment-inducing substance. If someone else is harmed as a result of my impaired state, I see that as comparable to a conscious decision to harm that person, in that I inhibited my ability to prevent said harm.
And you still drink?
Post by: SADShooter on September 28, 2006, 12:52:21 PM
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 28, 2006, 01:56:03 PM
Quote
No offense, but someone is seriously enabling that behavior. Conversely, would you prefer that they boozed it up in the basement and smashed each other (or you) with pool cues?
You'd best pray you never marry a single mom with two adult sons, then. Suffice it to say, it's not me enabling things. Eldest stepson also drinks like a fish, much to my chagrine. I say that, having lost an older brother to a drunk driver many years ago...
Were they to try to smash each other, it's the Darwin theory.
Were they to try to smash me, the outcome would be very predictable, 200gr SWCHP rounds to COM until the attack stopped, family or not. He who lives, wins.
Post by: charby on September 28, 2006, 03:17:59 PM
Fistful are you watching Charlie in the Chocolate Factory? (the newer one with Johnny Depp)
Post by: Sindawe on September 28, 2006, 03:22:04 PM
Quote
My grandparents never used them for recreation and neither did yours.
OK, you knew YOUR grandparents, but did you know ALL the details of their lives? I've known my last surviving grandparent for four plus decades and I'm STILL discovering things about their lives I never knew. Did you personally know my grandparents? Or for period accuracy, did you know my great grandparents and THEIR parents?Quote
Witness my 24 and 26 year old stepsons, living in my basement, screaming at each other while playing Warcraft from 6 PM to 8 AM, and alluding to me as the "Piggy" because I am in the hiring process for the sheriff's department, putting a crimp in their plans to resume their 420 routine after I retired from my military career.
OUCH! Assisting offspring when they fall on hard times is one thing, as is living in an extended family household were all contribute to the upkeep of the home, but this is beyond the pale. Quote
I prefer decriminalization and education for drugs that are not very addictive or destructive. Hard drugs should never be legal...but their users need long term treatment, not long term prison sentences.
Rather than keep the hard drugs verboten, I'd prefer to see them available to true addicts ONLY while under the care of a physician, paid for out of THEIR own pockets.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 28, 2006, 04:04:01 PM
Quote from: Sindawe
Quote
My grandparents never used them for recreation and neither did yours.
OK, you knew YOUR grandparents, but did you know ALL the details of their lives? I've known my last surviving grandparent for four plus decades and I'm STILL discovering things about their lives I never knew. Did you personally know my grandparents? Or for period accuracy, did you know my great grandparents and THEIR parents?Post by: cordex on September 28, 2006, 04:32:58 PM
Sorry I rained on your parade. Considering this subject has been discussed a number of times on this forum, I figured you'd have seen a pattern.
Rabbi,
Why does the presence or lack of "connoiseurs" and "afficianados" for a given drug, or the relative average intelligence of its users matter when it comes to legislating their legality?
If it could be demonstrated that there are a number of "connoiseurs" and "afficianados" of, for instance, cocaine or LSD, or that the average intelligence of the users is not so incomparable to those who use tobacco and alcohol, would that in any way impact your position?
It seems to me that an awful lot more folks of shall we say average intelligence drink Bud Light and MGD in large quantities and smoke Marlboros and Kamels than sample fine bourbon or old wine and enjoy the subtle nuances of a good bowl of tobacco or cigar. I imagine the same would hold true with almost all recreational drugs - most of the recreational users aren't going to be the cream of the crop whether their drug of choice is alcohol or cocaine.
Post by: Lee on September 28, 2006, 05:31:42 PM
If it was legal, I'd probably cultivate a few plants for occasional use, i.e. sit around the fire, sip some beer/wine, eat lots of munchies, and go soundly to sleep. I had several sports injuries when I was younger, and believe me, pot has a way of relieving physical and mental pain in many ways. Medical Mary Jane is the real deal, without the addictive qualites of opiates.
The introduction of crack cocaine and meth are what really created the severe drug problem, the anti-drug fervor, and the resulting War on Some Drugs. Just as the War on Terrorism lost focus by worrying about mouthwash carrying little old ladies, the War on Drugs lost focus by diverting resources to pot and such.
Post by: Standing Wolf on September 28, 2006, 05:58:31 PM
Stalin surely would have understood: some people break laws, so everyone needs to be punished.
The fundamental flaw is the presumption that Smith has a right to tell Jones what he may and may not do, whether his behavior is injurious to others or not. Once we sacrifice the first freedom, the rest will inevitably be lost. The only questions are how many and how quickly.
Post by: Strings on September 28, 2006, 06:11:45 PM
Again, I get back to a basic observation: the greater intelligence recognizes subtler distinctions.
A person can be a drinker and never get drunk in his life. But I have yet to see someone use drugs who didnt get high.<
Ok... so, if the only people using .22s are ingorant redneck hicks, then we can outlaw them? By your concept here, then the only guns that should be allowed are high-end sporting rifles and shotguns...
Post by: Third_Rail on September 28, 2006, 06:13:20 PM
My late grandmother (died just last month) was an opium addict. By this, I mean that she habitually made tea from the pods and stems of Papaver somniferum (opium poppy), harvested and ingested opium latex, grew poppies, so on and so forth.
She had quite a bit of pain due to many things, and was what many here define as an addict. She was also a wonderful woman, and a productive member of society for many years.
Just thought I'd share.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 28, 2006, 06:27:33 PM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
>How many "connoiseurs" of crack cocaine do you know? How many afficionados of methamphetamine have you met?
Again, I get back to a basic observation: the greater intelligence recognizes subtler distinctions.
A person can be a drinker and never get drunk in his life. But I have yet to see someone use drugs who didnt get high.<
Ok... so, if the only people using .22s are ingorant redneck hicks, then we can outlaw them? By your concept here, then the only guns that should be allowed are high-end sporting rifles and shotguns...
Huh?
Again, I get back to a basic observation: the greater intelligence recognizes subtler distinctions.
A person can be a drinker and never get drunk in his life. But I have yet to see someone use drugs who didnt get high.<
Ok... so, if the only people using .22s are ingorant redneck hicks, then we can outlaw them? By your concept here, then the only guns that should be allowed are high-end sporting rifles and shotguns...
Post by: roo_ster on September 28, 2006, 06:35:45 PM
But, I think folks are too quick to discount tradition and custom. Alcohol has a long tradition in out country, as does tobacco. I think tradition favoring alcohol and disgust at other drugs & the cultures that indulge them to be pretty legitimate in a system of self-government.
Post by: Sindawe on September 28, 2006, 07:24:38 PM
Quote
Did you discover that your grandparents were recreational drug users? No, I didnt think so either.
Actually, yes they are/were. Their drugs of choice happened to be ethyl alcohol and nicotine. Legal and accepted in our culture at the moment, but recreational drugs none the less.The point I was making which either you did not get (which would be my failing), or chose to ignore (more likely in my opinion given the cognitive abilities you have demonstrated with other topics) was that you made a statement about peoples activities when you have zero knowledge of the persons in question or their habits.
Quote
If it was legal, I'd probably cultivate a few plants...
Same here, though not for personal use. I saw a photograph several years ago of a Cannabis sport that was lacking in chlorophyll on one half of each leaf, with the division down the centerline of each leaf. Quite striking and attractive, would make a lovely garden or house plant.Third_Rail: Thank you for sharing about your Grandmother.
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 28, 2006, 07:40:28 PM
I've done pretty much every drug around, from alcohol to pot to amphetamines to LSD to anything else. I even did arsenic (now, that is sick, stupid, or both). I've done drugs that most people have never even heard of.
The only thing I never touched was narcotics. Even today, after surgery, I'd rather take the pain. I know I could become addicted, as it's in my personality. I won't take anything that's even remotely addictive, not even Tylonal 3.
In August of 1976, I quit all illegal drugs, after a really bad LSD experience. A week or two after, there was no pot or anything else in my apartment.
It was easier to quit all that stuff than it was to give up drinking coffee, which I did about eight years later.
Problem is, I have a couple of close and young relatives who are crack and/or coke addicts. One in particular has been "trying" to clean up for over ten years.
And I look at him and say, "if we legalized all the drugs, the FDA could approve them, they'd be available at pharmacies, the .gov could tax them, and we could use those taxes for more rehab centers." After all, my BIL has been through so many two-day rehab centers that I've lost count.
The problem is that no addict--whether his drug is alcohol, or cocaine, or heroin, or even cigarettes--is going to quit until he or she really wants to.
I've forgotten the number of times my BIL has done six to nine month stretches in the county lockup for drugs. And, each time, he says he's coming out clean.
Next day, he's back on the stuff.
Same with my older brother, who has multiple DUI convictions. No amount of jail has deterred him, and no two or three day stays in a rehab center did any good.
Both are going to die from their addictions, and die earlier than they would otherwise.
So, I look at the idea of legalizing drugs and say, "ok, maybe there's a small percentage of users out there who would actually get that monkey off their backs if they had more than two or three days in a rehab center."
And, then I look at the real addicts I know, and question whether the cost of new rehab centers would be justifiable.
All of that said, taking the billions of dollars from the major drug dealers would effectively end the War on Drugs, which has only fueled a police-style state.
But, do I want my government in the business of dealing drugs? The state governments have already taken over the gambling business. Nevada years ago took over the business of prostitution. How many more vices can our governments sell?
For all of you who advocate or oppose drug legalization, you have with me a very open mind.
Make your best case.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 28, 2006, 07:48:54 PM
Quote from: In another thread, fistful
Drugs and guns are a very poor analogy. Guns have a positive effect on society that drugs cannot match. Take all guns away tomorrow, and the weak would be helpless against the strong. Take all illegal drugs away tomorrow, and even booze and tobacco...what negative consequences might there be?
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 28, 2006, 08:40:24 PM
You're a smart person: convince me, one way or the other.
Post by: Guest on September 28, 2006, 08:43:11 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
How many "connoiseurs" of crack cocaine do you know? How many afficionados of methamphetamine have you met?...
They occupy a socially acceptable place (less so now for tobacco) in society and the cost to ban them would outweigh any social benefit.
I think with that mindset your really overlooking a sizeable portion of people who qualify. Think big firm lawyers. Cocaine is expensive, luckily they have the 6 figure incomes. They occupy a socially acceptable place (less so now for tobacco) in society and the cost to ban them would outweigh any social benefit.
While personally against drug use (I do look down on users) I do view it as a matter of personal freedom.
I did alot of research on the subject during my undergrad days (academic, not emperical). Was the topic of my senoir thesis. I spent alot of time visiting drug rehab centers and whatnot. One of the things that amazed me was just how many drug users are hidden in the woodwork. That someone is a drug user usually only becomes apparent when they are in full blown addiction and or social failure. Just like there are functional alchoholics, there are apparently alot of functional (perhaps more so from the drugs) illicit drug users.
Why arn't we aware? Cause its illegal and has a high social stigma.
I really believe in the gateway theory offered a number of posts ago. Its a gateway as it puts people in contact with criminals. It should be illegal cause its illegal
Post by: The Rabbi on September 29, 2006, 02:39:01 AM
Quote from: Sindawe
Quote
Did you discover that your grandparents were recreational drug users? No, I didnt think so either.
Actually, yes they are/were. Their drugs of choice happened to be ethyl alcohol and nicotine. Legal and accepted in our culture at the moment, but recreational drugs none the less.The point I was making which either you did not get (which would be my failing), or chose to ignore (more likely in my opinion given the cognitive abilities you have demonstrated with other topics) was that you made a statement about peoples activities when you have zero knowledge of the persons in question or their habits.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 29, 2006, 03:15:30 AM
Quote from: Monkeyleg
OK, Fistful. You've made your point about not wanting to jump to conclusions.
You're a smart person: convince me, one way or the other.
Monkeyleg, do you think I'm being clever, here?
You're a smart person: convince me, one way or the other.
Post by: client32 on September 29, 2006, 04:10:27 AM
Quote
Kill someone while driving stoned/drunk/high? Oops, that's premeditation, that is, mate. You knew the risk before you toked/drank/snorted.
This is something I agree with. Doesn't matter if the drug is legal/illegal in my mind. How many people here would have to be physically restrained if their loved one was kill by someone by a stoned/drunk/high driver?As to should we legalize, I'm with you fistful. I really don't know, or maybe I don't care.
Post by: Third_Rail on September 29, 2006, 06:02:40 AM
Quote
...when confronted with contradictory evidence or detrimental questions you waffle out of it...
Post by: Lee on September 29, 2006, 06:03:30 AM
There are reasonable uses for many things and reasonable limits that could be imposed on them. It's too bad that reason is left out of most discussions these days...it's always us vs. them, black and white.
Post by: charby on September 29, 2006, 06:06:28 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: Sindawe
Quote
Did you discover that your grandparents were recreational drug users? No, I didnt think so either.
Actually, yes they are/were. Their drugs of choice happened to be ethyl alcohol and nicotine. Legal and accepted in our culture at the moment, but recreational drugs none the less.The point I was making which either you did not get (which would be my failing), or chose to ignore (more likely in my opinion given the cognitive abilities you have demonstrated with other topics) was that you made a statement about peoples activities when you have zero knowledge of the persons in question or their habits.
-C
Post by: The Rabbi on September 29, 2006, 07:15:43 AM
Third Rail, there are people whose ancestors were horse thieves and prostitutes. They usually find ways to overcome their past.
Post by: Third_Rail on September 29, 2006, 07:57:36 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 29, 2006, 08:58:52 AM
Quote from: Third_Rail
And what of alcohol being illegal and the widespread use thereof during prohibition? You haven't addressed that.
It was widely popular and used long before Prohibition. Its use and manufacture are cornerstones of American culture. Trying to stamp out something so deeply imbedded in American life was a mistake. My grandfather a'h was a prominent, well-regarded lawyer on Savannah GA. I asked my grandmother what he did during Prohibition. She said "he drank." He bought liquor from bootleggers. He used the same bootlegger his fellow lawyers and judges did. When lawyers and judges in a small town resort to illegal activity to continue their lifestyles then something is wrong. But he never used marijuana or morphine or cocaine.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 29, 2006, 09:06:00 AM
So he's not claiming that our grandparents never drank or smoke. Nor is he saying that no one ever used hard drugs in the past. I think what he's saying is that these drugs ought to be illegal and they can be banned much more easily than alco and tobacco.
I think.
Post by: cordex on September 29, 2006, 09:56:41 AM
Quote
When lawyers and judges in a small town resort to illegal activity to continue their lifestyles then something is wrong.
So, if it were discovered that small-town judges and lawyers currently use or have used marijuana when it was illegal it might impact your view on the issue?
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 30, 2006, 06:23:28 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: fistful
Thanks, Rabbi. You are of course the connoiseur to which I referred. What about milder drugs like marijuana?
I have less objection to marijuana for all the reasons that have already been given.Post by: cordex on September 30, 2006, 07:31:14 PM
Quote
But there's still the "history and importance" part of his argument.
The "history and importance" argument isn't an argument for continued acceptance of alcohol, it is an argument against the practicality of immediate prohibition.Anyone who advocates the War on Drugs because they feel that all recreational drug use is bad should - at the very least - agree to and support incrementally increasing restrictions on alcohol with the view that it should be eventually eliminated from our society. Anything less is a tacit admission of hypocrisy.
Drinking alcohol is a form of recreational drug use.
If recreational drug use is a bad thing, then drinking alcohol is a bad thing.
If drinking alcohol is not a bad thing, then recreational drug use is not in and of itself a bad thing.
If recreational drug use is not in and of itself a bad thing, then I'd say that people who promote usage or prohibition of a given drug or group of drugs should have objective standards for evaluating them. Booze vs. Pot is where those objective standards usually break down.
Rabbi, I have three questions.
1. Do you believe that recreational drug use is a bad thing?
2. Would you support an effort to slowly work towards the eventual total elimination of alcohol in America, very much like the campaign against tobacco?
3. Do you have any objective standards to judge drugs and drug dosages that you would apply before judging a chemical fit for recreational use?
Post by: The Rabbi on October 01, 2006, 03:27:09 AM
Alcohol is not a recreational drug, any more than chocolate is a recreational drug. You are stooping to CAnoneer's reductio ad absurdam: crack=alcohol=tobacco=fast food.
The arguments in favor of continuing legal alcohol use are legion, and in no way applicable to drugs.
Post by: Art Eatman on October 01, 2006, 04:36:02 AM
I have some 56 years of "hands on" experience of doing a bit of my own drinking and watching a bunch of others who either were around me as customers or were in one of my night clubs. And, "just sittin' and sippin'."
Driniking as drinking doesn't hurt anything. Drinking too much for your circumstances is stupid--as in driving a car, etc. Getting drunk is one way of betting that evolution doesn't work.
Health? Last I read "the numbers", some 300,000 or so die from health problems associated with booze. IIRC, it's some 400,000 from tobacco-related problems. BUT: 30,000 from health problems associated with drugs.
From a health standpoint, then, drugs are a minor problem. That said, they're seen to be more tragic because the victims tend to be much younger than us old farts who are the ones dealing with the cumulative effects of booze and smoking.
Crack babies, for instance, are a helluva problem on an individual basis. Who gives a hoot about some old alky with a bad case of the Jakeleg?
Crime and drugs: It's a tradeoff. You would have probably ten percent as much crime if all drugs were legal. After the first spurt of all sorts of BS if all drugs were legalized, things would settle down as things always have. Just like when Prohibition was ended. A spike in use and then the lure of the illicit was gone.
Hey, when I turned 21 and it was legal for me to drink, the fun was pretty much gone and I mostly quit for a few years. Drank a lot less, anyhow. Gotta remember that I was in the Army and overseas during that era, but the reduction still occurred.
If drugs were legal, there'd be less of an assault on the Bill of Rights, which has been the real target of the so-called War on Drugs. The violence associated with turf wars has caused much of the abuse of the Second Amendment, and we've all commented about what's happened to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Me, I'd like to have them back.
Money: For all levels of government, we spend way north of $50 billion a year. That's a lot of dough that could go into anti-drug education, among other uses. It would also bankrupt a bunch of evil bastards around the world who are now making money from drugs and using that money to fund "guns against government". Colombia comes to mind, instantly. Afghanistan, where John Shirley happens to be, right now.
So I really don't give a hoot about anybody's moral views against booze and drugs. I try to live in a real world, not a dream world. If a person functions okay and doesn't harm the neighbors, what he does is his business. If a person does too much booze or drugs and harms somebody else, shame on his sorry butt; Graybar Hotel, thank you.
Seems simple enough. Punish folks for whatever bad thing they did, not for what they might do.
Sounds like a gun argument, doesn't it?
Art
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 01, 2006, 12:48:06 PM
Quote from: In another thread, fistful
Drugs and guns are a very poor analogy. Guns have a positive effect on society that drugs cannot match. Take all guns away tomorrow, and the weak would be helpless against the strong. Take all illegal drugs away tomorrow, and even booze and tobacco...what negative consequences might there be?
Art, your comments have enough cogency without the gun comparison.
Post by: Monkeyleg on October 01, 2006, 01:29:55 PM
How do you get kicked out of a flophouse?
He's only been out of jail for a couple of months, and this was the only place that he could find to rent, given his record.
So now he's just on the streets, looking for anyone who will let him stay. But he's burned every bridge with everyone he knows.
So, the next step is to get him back in jail for non-payment of child support. But first the cops have to find him (he's very good at running from the law).
This is a guy who's extremely likeable when he's straight, had a good job as a press operator for a printing company, and generally had everything going for him.
Everytime he gets out of jail after a six or nine-month stay, he says he's going straight.
Maybe he means it at first. What if there were rehab centers that offered more extensive treatment?
He's going to do drugs whether they're legal or not. I'm thinking that, if they were legal, at least he'd have a better chance of getting rehabilitated...if he wants to.
Post by: cordex on October 02, 2006, 07:40:15 AM
Quote
Alcohol is not a recreational drug
Are you serious, Rabbi? How exactly do you define "recreational drug" so that alcohol is not considered one?Rabbi, alcohol is a drug. As it is used in society today, it is a recreational drug. If you deny this then you're arguing from an undefendable position without basis in reality.
Quote
You are stooping to CAnoneer's reductio ad absurdam: crack=alcohol=tobacco=fast food.
Something tells me you didn't read my post. I said that if you believe that recreational drug use is okay, you should apply objective standards to drugs to determine whether or not they should be allowed.
Post by: richyoung on October 02, 2006, 09:55:13 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: Sindawe
Quote
Did you discover that your grandparents were recreational drug users? No, I didnt think so either.
Actually, yes they are/were. Their drugs of choice happened to be ethyl alcohol and nicotine. Legal and accepted in our culture at the moment, but recreational drugs none the less.The point I was making which either you did not get (which would be my failing), or chose to ignore (more likely in my opinion given the cognitive abilities you have demonstrated with other topics) was that you made a statement about peoples activities when you have zero knowledge of the persons in question or their habits.
Post by: richyoung on October 02, 2006, 10:05:34 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
But these were restricted to the avant-garde. The average American did not use drugs, mostly was ignorant of them.
Opiates, in the form of paragoric or laudenum among others, wither pure or in combination with other ingredients, were commonly used in sore throat lozenges, asthma treatments, digestive treatments, etc. Cocaine was a common ingredient in totthache and earache remedies, "restorative wines", etc. Amphetemine, in the form of benzedrine, was commonly available in inhaler form - airlines passed them out into the fifties.
Post by: richyoung on October 02, 2006, 10:28:07 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Thanks. You proved my point that 1) illegal drug use for recreational purposes was pretty much unknown, 2) ...
From http://www.answers.com/topic/laudanum"The Romantic and Victorian eras were marked by the widespread use of laudanum in Europe, and the United States. Initially a working class drug, laudanum was cheaper than a bottle of gin or wine, because it was treated as a medication for legal purposes and not taxed as an alcoholic beverage."
Post by: The Rabbi on October 02, 2006, 04:54:08 PM
Quote from: cordex
Quote
Alcohol is not a recreational drug
Are you serious, Rabbi? How exactly do you define "recreational drug" so that alcohol is not considered one?Rabbi, alcohol is a drug. As it is used in society today, it is a recreational drug. If you deny this then you're arguing from an undefendable position without basis in reality.
Quote
You are stooping to CAnoneer's reductio ad absurdam: crack=alcohol=tobacco=fast food.
Something tells me you didn't read my post. I said that if you believe that recreational drug use is okay, you should apply objective standards to drugs to determine whether or not they should be allowed.On your theory nutmeg is a recreational drug. So are bannanas.
Post by: Stand_watie on October 02, 2006, 05:17:35 PM
Post by: Stand_watie on October 02, 2006, 05:24:11 PM
John Lee Hooker
One bourbon, one scotch, and one beer
One bourbon, one scotch, and one beer
Hey mister bartender come here
I want another drink and I want it now
My baby she gone, she been gone two night
I ain't seen my baby since night before last
One bourbon, one scotch, and one beer
(Spoken)
And then I sit there, gettin' high, mellow
Knocked out, feeling good and by the time
I looked on the wall at the old clock on the wall
By that time, it was ten thirty daddy
I looked down the bar, at the bartender
He said, "Now what do you want Johnny?"
One bourbon, one scotch, and one beer
Well my baby she gone, she been gone two night
I ain't seen my baby since night before last
I wanna get drunk till I'm off of my mind
One bourbon, one scotch, and one beer
(Spoken)
And I sat there, gettin' high, stoned
Knocked out, and by the time
I looked on the wall, at the old clock again
And by that time, it was a quarter to two
Last call for alcohol, I said,
Hey mister bartender, what do you want?"
One bourbon, one scotch, and one beer
One bourbon, one scotch, and one beer
One bourbon, one scotch, and one beer
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 02, 2006, 07:54:01 PM
Post by: doczinn on October 02, 2006, 08:02:12 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 02, 2006, 08:09:44 PM
Post by: doczinn on October 02, 2006, 08:27:22 PM
Post by: Third_Rail on October 02, 2006, 08:38:46 PM
Post by: HForrest on October 02, 2006, 10:12:50 PM
Quote
How do you define recreational drug?
On your theory nutmeg is a recreational drug. So are bannanas.
A recreational drug is something one uses specifically to alter their consciousness. Nutmeg is a recreational drug when it's used as one, which is highly uncommon... And I don't know why you're talking about bananas, unless you're referring to a really old, disproven myth spread by the Anarchist's Cookbook.
On your theory nutmeg is a recreational drug. So are bannanas.
Post by: Sindawe on October 02, 2006, 10:23:33 PM
Quote
And I don't know why you're talking about bananas, unless you're referring to a really old, disproven myth spread by the Anarchist's Cookbook.
Maybe because bananas are high in K, which IIRC is used by neural tissue to create a higher electrochemical potential across the cell membrane and transmit impulses down the ganglions to the synapses.High potential = stronger impulses
Stronger impulses = more vivid dreams
More vivid dreams = recreational activity during sleep
Hark, what is that I hear? A hand of yellow fruit calling my name?
Post by: The Rabbi on October 03, 2006, 05:07:10 AM
Post by: cordex on October 03, 2006, 06:23:41 AM
Quote
How do you define recreational drug?
On your theory nutmeg is a recreational drug. So are bannanas.
And so is chocolate, sure, sure.On your theory nutmeg is a recreational drug. So are bannanas.
Many things contain very mild drugs in extremely small dosages that have little or no noticable psychoactive effect on the user. Poppy seeds intended for human consumption contain a minute amount of opiate, but most people just enjoy them for a little nutty crunch on bagels. Very few people use nutmeg to do anything but add flavor to a dish. Would you say the same is true for alcohol?
Again, my position is that when considering what chemicals one would like to prohibit, one should have some objective standards to judge the chemical and dosage. It is becoming increasingly clear that you have absolutely no objective standards with which to judge drugs. Indeed, against all logic, you have trouble identifying anything you enjoy as a drug even when it clearly is.
Rabbi, you've gone off the deep end on this. Alcohol isn't a recreational drug? Okay, so what is it?
Post by: The Rabbi on October 03, 2006, 08:11:58 AM
Now tell me how crack cocaine is no different from alcohol?
Post by: cordex on October 03, 2006, 09:35:45 AM
Quote
Alcohol is a food. It is digested like a food.
Actually, alcohol is not digested "like food". Alcohol is an organic solvent and is processed out of your body by your liver just like other poisons.Quote
It is consumed typically with other foods. In its consumed forms it has nutritional value, in some cases like beer considerable value.
Even when smoked, marijuana is consumed typically with foods. Indeed, marijuanna is well known to stimulate appetite. Brownies which use marijuana as an ingredient have significant nutritional value. So what?Non-alcoholic beer is available which is brewed as regular beer with much of the alcohol removed by vacuum evaporation. It contains the "considerable" nutritional value of other beer without the empty calories of alcohol.
Just how many people drink alcohol for its nutritional content?
Quote
It has proven effectiveness in fighting certain diseases in the right dosages.
Is alcohol, in its drug form, the only method of fighting those diseases? What percentage of drinkers consume alcohol only in the quantities sufficient to prevent disease? And again, marijuana has supposed medical benefits from nausea reduction, appetite stimulant, reduction in the effects of glaucoma and even reducing arterial blockages. In fact, synthetic forms of THC are available as Marinol and other brand names. If the benefits of so-called "medical marijuana" can be synthesized without the downside of having any enjoyable side-effects, why not try to do the same thing with alcohol?
Opiates are fantastic cough suppressants. Cocaine is a good topical anesthetic, and certain amphetamines - in the right dosages - can be relatively safe stimulants. Medical capability of a drug is certainly something to be considered, but doesn't mean anything in and of itself.
Quote
It is often used to enhance the flavor of foods. It is widely used in industrial food applications. Like nutmeg.
Cocaine was once used in the same manner. Indeed, even today decocainized fluid extract of coca is still used to flavor foods and, most notably, still used in the production of Coca Cola. I would wager that there are methods that alcohol's flavor could be duplicated without its psychoactive effects.In the other direction, people often cut alcohol with sweet fluids to help conceal the very flavor you laud. Some may do this to "enhance" the flavor of the juice or soft-drink, but more often I'll bet it is to make their drug of choice more palatable so consuming larger quantities is easier.
Quote
Now tell me how crack cocaine is no different from alcohol?
Straw man argument. I've never claimed that crack cocaine is no different from alcohol. However, just because they are very different doesn't mean that there are absolutely no similarities. For instance, whether or not you choose to recognize it, both are used as recreational drugs.Let's be realistic for a moment. There are some very valid uses of alcohol that have nothing to do with recreation. You've pointed out several, and I'm sure we could think up quite a few more. The same could be said for other drugs as well. However, like other drugs, alcohol is also used recreationally, and it is used recreationally more often than medicinally or for its rather weak nutritional value. You believe very strongly that in a cost-benefits analysis, alcohol legality produces more positives than negatives. That might well be the case, but it might also be the case with other drugs. You advocate alcohol use and believe it should remain legal. You condemn illicit drug use and believe all illicit drugs should remain illegal. However, what you haven't shown is how you came to that conclusion. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but my guess is that you have no standards by which you judge drugs. That's why you have to resort to "Yeah, but what about crack and meth!?!?"
Post by: The Rabbi on October 03, 2006, 09:38:19 AM
Quote from: cordex
I'm willing to be proven wrong
I dispute this statement. I do not believe you are willing at all. I believe you will offer corrupt and disingenuous arguments (as you did above) to support your point.But taking it at face value, what would persuade you that your position is incorrect?
Post by: richyoung on October 03, 2006, 09:54:43 AM
"Ethanol is a drug, with potential for overdose or toxic poisoning if taken in excessive quantities. Alcoholism, the physiological or psychological dependency on ethanol, is one of the most common drug addictions (caffeine causes chemical dependency, but not the mental longing known as addiction) in the world. Upon cessation or decrease of use, the physiological dependency can lead to physical withdrawal symptoms, such as restlessness, trouble sleeping, "the shakes," or even death. For the full article on this topic, see effects of alcohol on the body."
Post by: Third_Rail on October 03, 2006, 09:59:09 AM
Rabbi, I'm glad you've never stated (that I've seen) that you're willing to be proven wrong, because you don't seem to be open to changing your mind. I used to hate guns and think they had no use except illegal in nature; I decided that the reasonable thing to do would be to be open and actually research and get both sides of the argument. Now I support the RKBA.
Post by: cordex on October 03, 2006, 10:02:53 AM
Quote
I dispute this statement. I do not believe you are willing at all. I believe you will offer corrupt and disingenuous arguments (as you did above) to support your point.
But taking it at face value, what would persuade you that your position is incorrect?
*sigh*But taking it at face value, what would persuade you that your position is incorrect?
It's okay, Rabbi. Don't worry about it. You're not even reading my posts so why bother responding? Had you actually read my post (or even the very sentence you misquoted), you might have read the whole of the following sentence: "I'm willing to be proven wrong, but my guess is that you have no standards by which you judge drugs."
It thought that would be easy to understand, but I'll rephrase it.
I've asked you repeatedly what the standards are by which you objectively judge drugs and you've repeatedly ducked the question, usually by wailing about crack and meth. So, one last time.
What - if you have any - are the standards that you apply to all drugs (alcohol, MDMA, tobacco, PCP, caffeine, Cocaine, nutmeg, marijuana, bananas and crack) to determine what you believe should be openly available, what should be legal but slightly or strictly controlled and what you believe should be totally illegal?
I know that at best you'll skim this and be unlikely to address anything I actually say (as evidenced by your continual use of non-sequiturs, strawman arguments and other logical fallacies) but I'm not advocating total deregulation or total regulation. I think I'll pull a fistful and quote myself here:
Quote
If recreational drug use is a bad thing, then drinking alcohol is a bad thing.
If drinking alcohol is not a bad thing, then recreational drug use is not in and of itself a bad thing.
If recreational drug use is not in and of itself a bad thing, then I'd say that people who promote usage or prohibition of a given drug or group of drugs should have objective standards for evaluating them. Booze vs. Pot is where those objective standards usually break down.
Did you catch that? I'm just saying that whether you think pot should be legal or illegal, you should actually have standards for judging it. I don't think you do. You're welcome to prove me wrong on that, however.If drinking alcohol is not a bad thing, then recreational drug use is not in and of itself a bad thing.
If recreational drug use is not in and of itself a bad thing, then I'd say that people who promote usage or prohibition of a given drug or group of drugs should have objective standards for evaluating them. Booze vs. Pot is where those objective standards usually break down.
You're arguing for your booze using the same rediculous arguments that "medical marijuana" supporters use, and managing to look just as silly.
In essence, though, you're right in this most recent post. You probably can't persuade me that my position is incorrect. Of course, you haven't bothered to address or even consider my position yet, so that makes it even more unlikely. I wouldn't have thought desiring to have reasonable standards would be something you'd be so interested in opposing, but maybe it's just that bad of an idea. Or more likely, you're just blindly jerking your knee without bothering to pay attention.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2006, 10:06:47 AM
Quote from: cordex
I think I'll pull a fistful and quote myself here...
Woah, son, don't try that at home. When you're as good as I am, you quote yourself. After all, if you said it right the first time...
Post by: BrokenPaw on October 03, 2006, 10:25:38 AM
Quote from: "fistful'
After all, if you said it right the first time...
...it probably wouldn't have needed said again. Oh. Wait. Was that my out-loud voice? Dang. Internal monologue. Internal. Must work on that.
-BP
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2006, 10:46:46 AM
Quote from: BrokenPaw
Quote from: "fistful'
After all, if you said it right the first time...
...it probably wouldn't have needed said again. I'll have to quote this the next time I repeat myself.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 03, 2006, 11:03:18 AM
Quote from: cordex
In essence, though, you're right in this most recent post. You probably can't persuade me that my position is incorrect. Of course, you haven't bothered to address or even consider my position yet, so that makes it even more unlikely. I wouldn't have thought desiring to have reasonable standards would be something you'd be so interested in opposing, but maybe it's just that bad of an idea. Or more likely, you're just blindly jerking your knee without bothering to pay attention.
That's really the only thing that counts. You are not willing to be persuaded, as you admit. So let's call this one a stalemate and wait for the next chowderhead to raise the same issue so we can rehearse all the same arguments.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2006, 11:06:59 AM
Post by: BrokenPaw on October 03, 2006, 11:20:35 AM
Quote from: "The Rabbi"
You are not willing to be persuaded, as you admit.
He didn't say that he's not willing to be persuaded. He said that you couldn't persuade him. My guess is that there was an implication that the arguments you're using are not...well...persuasive. And I'd have to agree.Also, you dismiss his arguments as "disingenuous" without addressing how that is the case. In past discussions we've had, Rabbi, I've noticed that once you find you cannot refute what the other person is saying, you seem to fall back upon out-of-hand dismissal or outright silence.
If cordex's arguments are truly disingenuous, as you assert, you'll be able to back that assertion up without a whole lot of effort. Or if you can't, then you could admit you're arguing from an unsupported premise. Either one's fine.
-BP
Post by: Gewehr98 on October 03, 2006, 11:29:21 AM
I just put 15 gallons' worth in my truck this morning, as a matter of fact.
I'm biased, I lost an older brother to a drunk driver who hopped the curb and splattered him all over the sidewalk.
I've also got two pothead stepsons who live in my basement, unemployed, and have resorted to calling me "Piggie" since I started my post-retirement job as a deputy sheriff. Nice.
Regardless, prohibition was a failed experiment in regulating personal liberties, and would to this day still not work. However, were recreational drugs like alcohol, pot, cocaine, nicotine, crack, meth, and so forth just plain disappear the world would not come to a screeching halt, nor would I be bothered one bit by the absence. Of course, some people would never get laid, but the world population is already booming, big deal.
However, there would be much weeping and gnashing of teeth from those who consider those substances absolutely essential for their existence and altered states of mind. The ACLU would have a field day, and rightfully so, regardless of moral and ethical implications.
So, there will never be a win-win situation. The best we can hope for is that those who "need" those mind-altering substances will Darwin themselves posthaste and cause no collateral damage, preferably with a minimum of cleanup and imposition to society at large. In other words, "Screw 'em".
Post by: cordex on October 03, 2006, 11:45:39 AM
Quote
That's really the only thing that counts. You are not willing to be persuaded, as you admit.
*laugh*Rabbi, again you didn't bother to read my post, did you? You don't even bother to read what you quote.
You have repeatedly stated things as fact which are obviously and demonstrably false ("alcohol is digested as food", "alcohol is not a drug", etc) and then you accuse others of having corrupt arguments. Rabbi, from reading your posts in other threads you seem for the most part to be a very intelligent, informed and stable guy. Why is it that when discussing a few issues to include drugs other than booze, you completely turn off your brain?
Just for grins, let me try one last time.
My position is that if one wishes to allow or disallow use of a given substance, one should have universally applied standards to back up that assertion.
That's what I've been arguing. Frankly, I think it's a pretty sound idea, and that is what I'm not willing to lightly discard. Can you explain why you're so upset that people should have reasonable standards (whatever those standards might be) to the drugs they seek to outlaw or allow?
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2006, 11:47:59 AM
Post by: cordex on October 03, 2006, 11:50:33 AM
Quote
Please forgive me for starting this stupid thread.
No.
Post by: wingnutx on October 03, 2006, 11:50:43 AM
Quote
Even when smoked, marijuana is consumed typically with foods.
I'm suprised that the snack-foods industry isn't pushing for legalization.I once knew a woman who made pesto sauce out of marijuana.
Post by: Sindawe on October 03, 2006, 12:00:20 PM
Quote
I've also got two pothead stepsons who live in my basement, unemployed, and have resorted to calling me "Piggie" since I started my post-retirement job as a deputy sheriff. Nice.
Apologies in advance for thread-drift/sidebar. Gewehr98: So you've officially stated the job? I'm curious as to how you've reconciled your charge to enforce the law as a deputy Sheriff and the fact that you have two adult step children in the house who are violating the law with the choice of external chemical joy? Were I in you're position, I think I'd either have to resign the job(slim chance) or give the slackers the boot(more likely). But then, I tend to be a stickler for such things.
Quote
Well, I do like a good clam chowder, as long as it's not the Manhattan variety.
Manhatten style clam chowder is an offense against all that is proper and good in the Universe.
Post by: wingnutx on October 03, 2006, 12:06:36 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2006, 12:09:58 PM
Quote from: Sindawe
Manhatten style clam chowder is an offense against all that is proper and good in the Universe.
No surprise. So is Manhattan.Please drift this thread. Anything's better than the spat it has turned in to.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 03, 2006, 12:35:10 PM
Quote from: cordex
Just for grins, let me try one last time.
My position is that if one wishes to allow or disallow use of a given substance, one should have universally applied standards to back up that assertion.
That's what I've been arguing. Frankly, I think it's a pretty sound idea, and that is what I'm not willing to lightly discard. Can you explain why you're so upset that people should have reasonable standards (whatever those standards might be) to the drugs they seek to outlaw or allow?
OK. My standard is that what is illegal now ought to remain so with severe penalties. What is legal now ought to remain so. Not hard to understand.My position is that if one wishes to allow or disallow use of a given substance, one should have universally applied standards to back up that assertion.
That's what I've been arguing. Frankly, I think it's a pretty sound idea, and that is what I'm not willing to lightly discard. Can you explain why you're so upset that people should have reasonable standards (whatever those standards might be) to the drugs they seek to outlaw or allow?
Your arguments seem to be: people get ****** up on drugs and they get ****** up on booze so there shouldn't be any distinction legally. My position is that while people may get ****** up on booze, that isnt the primary purpose or the largest use of alcohol. Thus there is a big distinction. And if you assert that alcohol causes problems when over-consumed I reply that your solution is just to make that worse.
POST EDITED BY MODERATOR TO REMOVE PROFANITY. PLEASE DO NOT REPEAT SUCH LANGUAGE. Preacherman.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2006, 12:39:39 PM
Post by: cosine on October 03, 2006, 12:41:01 PM
Post by: Gewehr98 on October 03, 2006, 12:44:16 PM
Regarding Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, they don't imbibe at or near my domicile, just like they refrained when I was active-duty military - too much was at at stake. The consequences to them would be even more painful than my own were my clearance or commission revoked because of their stupidity - they at least understand and begrudgingly abide by it, even with the snide "Piggie" remarks. They just go somewhere else to toke up.
Their mother and I sent them to her brother's place in Minnesota last weekend for some "us" time, and to plot the road ahead, both for them and she and I. We (not just me) agreed that the apartments a dozen miles away would be best for them to indulge in their chosen non-vocation and lifestyles, while providing some measure of tranquility for herself and I, being 44 and 40, respectively. That's about as close to cutting the apron strings as I can get for now. Whatever they do there in their own place, if it's just them, I don't see it, I don't have to worry about it, and perhaps if police are involved, it's Sun Prairie Police Department vs. Dane County Sheriff's Office.
My biggest dog has even gotten involved, when they scream at each other during a particularly bad session of Warcraft online, he barks with his St. Bernard/Catahoula voice and then bites the louder transgressor in the backside to shut them up. Same thing happens when they get into a punching match. Works like a charm, and it's hilarious, but only because the situation provided for his fight-disarming skills and it's lessened the altercations to some degree since he adopted the technique.
Post by: cordex on October 03, 2006, 01:10:41 PM
Quote
OK. My standard is that what is illegal now ought to remain so with severe penalties. What is legal now ought to remain so. Not hard to understand.
Put a lot of thought into these standards, did you?Quote
Your arguments seem to be: people get *expletive deleted*ed up on drugs and they get *expletive deleted*ed up on booze so there shouldn't be any distinction legally.
No, I'm saying that if you believe that alcohol use is a good thing, it doesn't make sense to prohibit drugs with similar or lesser harmful effects.Quote
My position is that while people may get *expletive deleted*ed up on booze, that isnt the primary purpose or the largest use of alcohol. Thus there is a big distinction.
You think the primary purpose and largest use of alcohol is not to get intoxicated?Oh ... right. Just like alcohol digests like food and alcohol isn't a drug. Of course, why not? People buy Corvettes to go 55mph too. And folks buy bongs for decoration! Why didn't I realize that before? People by alcohol because they enjoy the flavor, want to prevent heart disease and for its considerable nutritional value.
You sure showed me the error of my ways.
Quote
And if you assert that alcohol causes problems when over-consumed I reply that your solution is just to make that worse.
I don't think I've stated any particular solution, just a method for analyzing the problem. Don't let that slow you down, though.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 03, 2006, 01:22:02 PM
Quote from: cordex
Quote
OK. My standard is that what is illegal now ought to remain so with severe penalties. What is legal now ought to remain so. Not hard to understand.
Put a lot of thought into these standards, did you?Quote from: cordex
Quote
Your arguments seem to be: people get *expletive deleted*ed up on drugs and they get *expletive deleted*ed up on booze so there shouldn't be any distinction legally.
No, I'm saying that if you believe that alcohol use is a good thing, it doesn't make sense to prohibit drugs with similar or lesser harmful effects.Quote from: cordex
Quote
My position is that while people may get *expletive deleted*ed up on booze, that isnt the primary purpose or the largest use of alcohol. Thus there is a big distinction.
You think the primary purpose and largest use of alcohol is not to get intoxicated?Oh ... right. Just like alcohol digests like food and alcohol isn't a drug. Of course, why not? People buy Corvettes to go 55mph too. And folks buy bongs for decoration! Why didn't I realize that before? People by alcohol because they enjoy the flavor, want to prevent heart disease and for its considerable nutritional value.
You sure showed me the error of my ways.
Quote from: cordex
Quote
And if you assert that alcohol causes problems when over-consumed I reply that your solution is just to make that worse.
I don't think I've stated any particular solution, just a method for analyzing the problem. Don't let that slow you down, though.Post by: cordex on October 03, 2006, 01:42:09 PM
Quote
I put it in terms that I thought you could comprehend. Maybe I was wrong.
Oh I comprehend your terms, just not your reasoning.Quote
Yes, crack has been shown to be beneficial over long term use.
Sorry, I missed where I said anything like that.Quote
A neon billboard from God could not do that. You obviously have turned off. I don't know where you come from but I can tell you that among many, maybe most, people drinking is not for the sake of getting drunk. It has many other social parameters and uses as well.
The primary reason for drinking alcohol is for the sake of intoxication. Getting drunk is simply an elevated level of intoxication.You may not drink because you enjoy the effects of your chosen drug, and that's fine, but you are the exception, not the rule.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 03, 2006, 01:55:30 PM
Quote from: cordex
The primary reason for drinking alcohol is for the sake of intoxication. Getting drunk is simply an elevated level of intoxication.
You may not drink because you enjoy the effects of your chosen drug, and that's fine, but you are the exception, not the rule.
Maybe in your circles.
You may not drink because you enjoy the effects of your chosen drug, and that's fine, but you are the exception, not the rule.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2006, 02:38:14 PM
Erase the f-word from your posts, please.
Post by: cordex on October 03, 2006, 02:41:32 PM
Someday, when you are capable of polite, rational discussion, maybe we'll talk again.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 03, 2006, 04:09:13 PM
Quote from: fistful
Rabbi,
Erase the f-word from your posts, please.
No, thank you.
Erase the f-word from your posts, please.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 03, 2006, 04:10:48 PM
Quote from: cordex
Rabbi,
Someday, when you are capable of polite, rational discussion, maybe we'll talk again.
OK, I'll never be capable of polite rational discussion. So please dont respond to my posts.
Someday, when you are capable of polite, rational discussion, maybe we'll talk again.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2006, 04:25:15 PM
don't.
Post by: Strings on October 03, 2006, 10:02:03 PM
Maybe you personally DON'T know all the many people that drink to get intoxicated: if that's the case, I have to say you've lived a sheltered life. Almost EVERYONE I've ever seen drinks alchohol to get intoxicated (to one degree or another)...
And I don't think anything more needs to be said about profanity...
Post by: Monkeyleg on October 03, 2006, 10:16:44 PM
Whatever happened to the original topic of drugs, and the question of legalization thereof?
The point of Prohibition in the 1920's has been hammered again and again.
I come to this conversation with a differerent persepctive than most, as I've driven, worked, walked, talked (including talking to the police) under the influence of just about every mind-altering substance known to man, with the exception of narcotics.
And, I've described a very personal story about my brother-in-law, as well as about my own brother.
But now the conversation seems to have devolved into "my drug is better than your drug."
I don't care whether alcohol is more socially accepted than marijuana, which is more acceptable than cocaine, which is more acceptable than meth....etc, ect.
Last week, some guy got onto the interstate, southbound in the northbound lane, and plowed head-on into the car driven by a 17 year-old girl who was a neighbor of mine.
She's dead.
I don't give a rat's ass whether he'd been drinking, snorting, or toking.
She's dead.
He's going to prison for homicide by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle. My guess is that he's faced lesser charges before.
And I don't even know if he was drinking. Maybe he'd been snorting too much coke.
Who cares?
Maybe there was a point where this guy was in rehab for a day or two.
What if he could have stayed longer? More to the point: what if he had wanted to, and the funding had actually been there?
Would he have been rehabbed? Statistics would say no. Maybe a 10% chance at best.
But all I'm reading now are these "counting the angels on the head of a pin" opinions.
As I said in a previous post, my BIL is going to back again. Would it be worth it to you, as a member of society, to have him come out of jail and go back to being a productive, tax-paying worker?
What price tag would you put on that? The price of cocaine being sold at pharmacies the same way that codeine and so many other drugs are sold?
It took the better part of yesterday afternoon for me to see my doctor, and then get a prescription filled at the pharmacy.
My BIL can buy cocaine in a matter of minutes.
Yep, that war on drugs is working.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 04, 2006, 02:40:21 AM
It's too bad about the little girl killed. But instead of 1 guy driving zonked out, how'd you like 20 guys? 30 guys? How many more people would try and abuse drugs absent the fear of getting caught, etc?
We run up on the same argument with guns: a determined person will always get one. But the key is the word determined. THere are plenty of people who are not determined, but if it were in front of them they'd do it. Those are criminals gun laws do affect. Drug laws arent much different.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2006, 03:15:57 AM
Post by: Stand_watie on October 04, 2006, 04:19:28 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
I couldnt buy cocaine in a matter of minutes. I would have no idea where to start. Most people who dont use drugs are in the same situation.
It's too bad about the little girl killed. But instead of 1 guy driving zonked out, how'd you like 20 guys? 30 guys? How many more people would try and abuse drugs absent the fear of getting caught, etc?
We run up on the same argument with guns: a determined person will always get one. But the key is the word determined. THere are plenty of people who are not determined, but if it were in front of them they'd do it. Those are criminals gun laws do affect. Drug laws arent much different.
I'm glad you at least recognize the similarity in thinking behind gun prohibitionists and drug prohibitionists. It's too bad about the little girl killed. But instead of 1 guy driving zonked out, how'd you like 20 guys? 30 guys? How many more people would try and abuse drugs absent the fear of getting caught, etc?
We run up on the same argument with guns: a determined person will always get one. But the key is the word determined. THere are plenty of people who are not determined, but if it were in front of them they'd do it. Those are criminals gun laws do affect. Drug laws arent much different.
C. S. Lewis
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Post by: BrokenPaw on October 04, 2006, 05:06:57 AM
Rabbi, you do not do yourself credit. And if your handle is an actual representation of your status, then you do not do your faith credit, either. I'm disappointed.
-BP
Post by: 280plus on October 04, 2006, 05:08:12 AM
Quote
I couldnt buy cocaine in a matter of minutes. I would have no idea where to start.
Just go to the Albany Ave. section of Hartford, CT and cruise up and down in the north end till some guy smiles and waves at you like he's your oldest buddy in the world. You'll have WHATEVER you want in a matter of minutes. But try not to get mugged, robbed and maybe even shot while you're at it.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2006, 05:14:46 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
I couldnt buy cocaine in a matter of minutes.
I guess you have to get a little higher in the WWJC (World Wide Jewish Conspiracy) before they let you know how they control the drugs. Just kidding. You guys just now figured out that Rabbi has no patience for those with whom he has a fundamental disagreement?
Post by: BrokenPaw on October 04, 2006, 05:23:26 AM
Quote
You guys just now figured out that Rabbi has no patience for those with whom he has a fundamental disagreement?
Nope, figured it out quite a while back. But no patience is one thing. No courtesy, no civility; that's another thing entirely. I don't have to agree with someone to treat him or her politely.The Rabbi has, on several occasions now, resorted to rudeness, ad hominem, strawman arguments, and generalized uncivil behavior when people did not bow to his "Proof by Emphatic Assertion" method of debate.
As he himself said on another thread:
Quote
If he can't govern himself how can he govern others?
How indeed?-BP
Post by: The Rabbi on October 04, 2006, 05:37:33 AM
Quote from: BrokenPaw
Quote
You guys just now figured out that Rabbi has no patience for those with whom he has a fundamental disagreement?
Nope, figured it out quite a while back. But no patience is one thing. No courtesy, no civility; that's another thing entirely. I don't have to agree with someone to treat him or her politely.The Rabbi has, on several occasions now, resorted to rudeness, ad hominem, strawman arguments, and generalized uncivil behavior when people did not bow to his "Proof by Emphatic Assertion" method of debate.
As he himself said on another thread:
Quote
If he can't govern himself how can he govern others?
How indeed?-BP
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2006, 05:41:00 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
if you'd care to discuss me and my many failings, why don't you start a new thread?
This has nothing to do with any new thread I just started.
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on October 04, 2006, 06:50:27 AM
Kum Ba Yah...
Post by: charby on October 04, 2006, 07:51:21 AM
Post by: mtnbkr on October 06, 2006, 02:11:06 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15145917/
Marijuana may help stave off Alzheimers
Quote
WASHINGTON - Good news for aging hippies: smoking pot may stave off Alzheimers disease.
New research shows that the active ingredient in marijuana may prevent the progression of the disease by preserving levels of an important neurotransmitter that allows the brain to function.
Researchers at the Scripps Research Institute in California found that marijuanas active ingredient, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, can prevent the neurotransmitter acetylcholine from breaking down more effectively than commercially marketed drugs.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement
THC is also more effective at blocking clumps of protein that can inhibit memory and cognition in Alzheimers patients, the researchers reported in the journal Molecular Pharmaceutics.
The researchers said their discovery could lead to more effective drug treatment for Alzheimers, the leading cause of dementia among the elderly.
Those afflicted with Alzheimers suffer from memory loss, impaired decision-making, and diminished language and movement skills. The ultimate cause of the disease is unknown, though it is believed to be hereditary.
Marijuana is used to relieve glaucoma and can help reduce side effects from cancer and AIDS treatment.
New research shows that the active ingredient in marijuana may prevent the progression of the disease by preserving levels of an important neurotransmitter that allows the brain to function.
Researchers at the Scripps Research Institute in California found that marijuanas active ingredient, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, can prevent the neurotransmitter acetylcholine from breaking down more effectively than commercially marketed drugs.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement
THC is also more effective at blocking clumps of protein that can inhibit memory and cognition in Alzheimers patients, the researchers reported in the journal Molecular Pharmaceutics.
The researchers said their discovery could lead to more effective drug treatment for Alzheimers, the leading cause of dementia among the elderly.
Those afflicted with Alzheimers suffer from memory loss, impaired decision-making, and diminished language and movement skills. The ultimate cause of the disease is unknown, though it is believed to be hereditary.
Marijuana is used to relieve glaucoma and can help reduce side effects from cancer and AIDS treatment.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 06, 2006, 03:08:05 AM
Post by: richyoung on October 06, 2006, 10:12:47 AM
I also think we should punish BEHAVIOR, and not the thought process that led to the behavior - hence "hate crimes" should not exist. I don't care if you killed him because he was gay, or black, or a jew, or because the purple ants on Zebulon 5 told you to - any which way, you get to ride Sparky...
Post by: Stand_watie on October 06, 2006, 04:22:55 PM
Quote from: fistful
So, wreck your brain with weed, or let Alzheimers do it later.
While I haven't read the study, and I agree that heavy use is bad for your brain (like the legal drug alcohol), I suspect that most medicinal dosages are quite low.