Marijuana lagalised at last!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Discussion in 'World Events' started by tablariddim, Feb 12, 2000.

  1. tablariddim forexU2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,795
    To everybody, this topic evolved from 'General Homophobic interest' but was too big and important not to have it's own title.


    Tiassa, Boris,
    do we decriminalise or legalise?
    Do we only do this for marijuana, or do we include other currently illegal drugs? if so, which ones do we keep banned?
    How desirable would it be to give everyone legal access to marijuana, let's say.
    How might it affect a society's productivity,
    or propensity for accidents?
    This is actually a huge subject, I'm wondering whether we should start a new thread for it!
    ...

    ...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    ------------------
    "The crows are already stoned", he said.
    With a look of dispassion on his sad face.

    IP


    [This message has been edited by tablariddim (edited February 12, 2000).]
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    Tab,

    Actually, I'm not sure this topic should properly belong in the Religious Debate forum. Maybe it's better off in the World Affairs. Though perhaps there is something "religious" to it after all -- at least as far as trust, freedom and choice go.

    Anyway, I am definitely for legalization of marijuana. That is not to say that I believe in legalization of all drugs; however marijuana is a clear exception. But let me elaborate.

    I know of at least one thing as addictive and detrimental to health and safety as marijuana -- but currently legal. That thing is alcohol. Now, United States had tried to outlaw alcohol early last century -- and ended up reaping more harm than benefit. Clearly, by a very simple analogy, all the current crime concentrated around marijuana will become nonexistent if marijuana is legalized.

    Marijuana is not physiologically addictive for the vast majority of us. I have heard of physiological addiction to pot in a few cases -- but this is not any different than the relatively rare incidence of alcoholism (which is merely a tendency to become physiologically addicted to alcohol.) As for psychological addiction -- this would not be a marijuana-specific issue. The same people who tend to become psychologically addicted to alcohol, will be the ones getting addicted to marijuana. So, I expect that the overall addiction toll country-wide from legalization of marijuana will be very minor if at all significant.

    As for physiological harm, I would agree that <u>smoking</u> ANYTHING is bad for your health. Human lungs did not evolve to handle concentrated products of carbohydrate combustion on a daily basis. So, if those who crave a little THC had access to smokeless inhalers (akin to asthma devices) that spray solutions containing extracted and purified THC -- then I would actually expect the overall pulmonary health of the nation to improve! As for tobacco (which is actually proven to be physiologically addictive) -- that should be the drug banned instead of marijuana.

    But legalization of marijuana will not only have repercussions on health and crime. THC is a potent (and non-addictive!) pain killer, and as such would be immensely valuable for medicine. Industrial hemp, which is currently outlawed because it looks too much like marijuana, would be an immensely valuable crop. Hemp can be easily made into paper, fabrics, ropes and other fibers, and construction materials. It could save enormous quantities of forests from getting cut, especially if it is re-adopted world-wide. It is an ecologically and industially wonderful substitute for cotton (there are no cotton worms to spray for when it comes to hemp! It is a weed, and as such it is extremely resilient and doesn't need herbicides or insecticides to be productive! It also does not require exhorbitant amounts of fertilizer, and does not need a lot of labor to be cultivated!)

    Legalization of marijuana might result in slight increases of accidents due to intoxication. Then again, who would start using marijuana were it to become legal, who is not using it already right now? But in any case, the benefits here by far outweigh the costs. And, there is no reason why marijuana cannot be placed under the same restrictions as alcohol. For example, we could pass laws prohibiting child use of marijuana until a certain age. We could pass laws prohibiting being under influence of marijuana while driving or doing other hazardous things. There is always a need for a health-oriented campaign to stop people from inhaling anything that is harmful (including smoke of any kind) -- so marijuana is nothing special in that case. In fact, if people have access to cheap legal inhalers (akin to wine bottles currently in stores) with all the "benefits" and none of the costs of smoking marijuana (like all the benefits and none of the costs of drinking illegal toxic booze), then overall public health will actually be improved!

    On the other hand, consider all the money, people and resources currently wasted on a "War" against something as relatively harmless as marijuana! This is money, people and resources that might better be put to use in a war against the really dangerous drugs like opium, hashish, cockaine, or meth. These are the drugs that result in fast and strong physical addiction. They are the real killers, they are the real danger to public health and the society as a whole. You can't even start trying to put marijuana into the same category as these other, "hard" drugs. The primary reason to wage a war on hard drugs is because they actually ensnare and kill people. For many addicts, there is no way out once they get trapped by a drug. And it is the physiological addiction that drives people to spend all of their resources on their habit -- and then resort to desperate crimes trying to finance the drug. None of this is true for marijuana.

    So as I see it, there is practically no incremental price to pay for legalization of marijuana; yet, there are immense benefits to reap. In my view, it's a no-brainer.

    <hr>

    And, as an altogether different kind of argument -- from an integrity viewpoint, marijuana must be legalized purely because otherwise its opponents would be hypocrites. Namely, I would observe that most opponents to legalization of marijuana in United States tend to be Republican (Conservative). Yet, these same people are advocating for transferrence of responsibilities and programs from the government "back to the people". But, if you are really going to advocate for the capacity of Americans to make their own decisions and manage their own lives -- how can you justify at the same time pampering them like children when it comes to marijuana? If you are going to treat Americans as rational adults, why don't you go all the way?

    ------------------
    I am; therefore I think.

    [This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 12, 2000).]
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. tablariddim forexU2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,795
    A few random thoughts on this, to be getting on with..

    Decriminalise or legalise?
    If you decriminalise possession of marijuana for personal use, then subject to the quantity one's allowed to keep, the user avoids a criminal record for that partircular crime. This is the only benefit of such a scheme.
    It does not however take the big time importer or dealer out of the picture, neither would it improve the quality or the price of the available drug.

    Another option would be to allow the cultivation of the herb for personal use, again subject to quantity allowed, based on size of plot or number of plants.
    This would effectively take the importer and dealer a fair way out of the picture.
    So the government saves a fortune on anti cannabis related resources, because the crime element is eliminated. Both for the user/cultivator and the importer/dealer.Or so it would seem.

    But then, other problems will manifest. Firstly, is the fact that marijuana now is in effect legal! I mean they could have laws banning the buying/selling and even the giving away of it, with strict penalties for supplying minors with it. But honestly, once personal use cultivation becomes legal, the product will become as ubiquitous as the eggs in peoples fridges and laws won't mean fuck. (

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Lori I cussed!)

    If the stuff becomes as easy to obtain as basil, you can be sure that a lot more people will get into it than presently exist. I don't think that this won't have a detrimental affect on productivity, services and education.
    Why? well, because the strains that will be imported, developed and widely available are bound to get more and more potent , as presumably more and more people succumb to its seducing pleasures over time.

    Marijuana, at its most potent is a subtle but very powerful hallucinogen and I don't really think is ideal or beneficial for most of working society.But this is where I see the danger, if the drug is freely available (that is, without penalty) and cheap, by any means, then I can imagine a great chunk of the working population getting hooked and abusing it, (that is, by being high, while working, driving, drinking, looking after children or making very important decisions).

    So I think that this is one problem that we would probably encounter. But there's another.
    The importer/dealer now moves out of cannabis stock and into the more lucrative and still illegal hard drugs futures market!
    The price of crack, coke and smack plummetts as the market is inundated with cheap, imported, competition for the almost free weed now growing in almost every household in the country!

    Dillema...

    I'll continue this later, I'm very trdi.,..



    ------------------
    "The crows are already stoned", he said.
    With a look of dispassion on his sad face.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    Tab,

    Were marijuana to be legalized, would <u>you personally</u>, Tab, start stoning yourself, losing your job, destroying your family, etc.? You mean to tell me that the only thing keeping you from unraveling your life with drugs is their illegality? I doubt it! And I doubt that the vast majority of Americans are that irresponsible. Remember, there was a time when there was NO war on drugs at all. People were free to consume whatever their heart desired. So, did everyone end up stoning themselves 24/7? Why should it be any different now?

    Why is the "working society" unable to see that for themselves, Tab? Why do they need you to tell them? Are you somehow superior, to be making their decisions for them? Don't they have as much common sense as you, Tab?

    Besides, what's all this talk of people growing stuff? Were marijuana to become legal, you wouldn't need to grow it! You could buy it at your corner drug store. Unless you really enjoy growing things -- but most people wouldn't bother. I mean, now that alcohol is legal, do you see many people trying to make their own moonshine?

    And why would people drive, work or look after children while intoxicated, if we pass laws making such activities as illegal as they are now with respect to alcohol? If you faced losing your driver's licence, your car, being fined, and encarcerated for a very long time (just like you do now if you drive while intoxicated) -- would you still smoke pot and drive? It would be incredibly stupid of you to do that, wouldn't it?

    Why would that happen?? First of all, we would still retain all the laws and enforcement against the hard drugs. Furthermore, the resources currently wasted on battling marijuana would be also diverted against hard drugs. So in fact, we'll be able to wage an even more effective "war"!

    <hr>

    Tab, you are not making much sense in your case against marijuana. May I suggest that you haven't thought it through very carefully and <u>independently</u>? I think it's the timber, tobacco, aspirin, and cotton industries talking. A long time ago, hemp used to be legal and widely used. And the end of the world didn't arrive; instead, the United States of America got created. There were never any good reasons to ban marijuana (other than public hysteria, similar to what led to the alcohol prohibition.) And there still aren't any good reasons. Even if you try to look for them reeeal hard.

    ------------------
    I am; therefore I think.

    [This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 12, 2000).]
     
  8. Corp.Hudson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    419
    How dare anyone tell me what I can do to my body. Although I personally do not like marijuana, and do not use it regularly, that should be MY decision, not the governments! Marijuana does not destroy society, it isn't even addicting.
     
  9. truestory Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,122
    tab'

    I think you are on to something!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Substance use and abuse in the United States...
    www.health.org/hp2010/26Substance.htm#_Toc471893380

    If you look at the tables in the above site, there seems to be a strong correlation between use of a particular substance and what society deems most acceptable. I have to agree with you that use would increase with legalization. Despite the fact that a considerable number of people disregard the current laws with respect to marijuana, there are many who have not even tried the substance because they respect and abide by the law. If marijuana were to be legalized, many more would indulge and abuse, I'm sure.

    Substance abuse and the American workplace:

    www.hrmsinc.com/html/substance_abuse_management.htm

    It looks to me like society has enough problems to deal with in the area of substance abuse without adding to the list of legal substances made available over-the counter for use and abuse.

    As far as legalization goes, I believe that marijuana should be made available by prescription as it does have medicinal benefits for many suffering with disease.


    [This message has been edited by truestory (edited February 13, 2000).]
     
  10. truestory Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,122
    Boris,

    In reference to the following statement which you made:

    As far as the United States goes, here is a brief history (well, relatively brief history) of the situation resulting from people being free to consume whatever their heart desired:

    If you are interested in the non-medical, non-regulated use of drugs in this country, the time to go back to is 1900. In 1900 there were far more people addicted to drugs in this country than there are today. Depending upon whose judgment, or whose assessment, you accept there were between two and five percent of the entire adult population of the United States addicted to drugs in 1900.

    Now, there were two principal causes of this dramatic level of drug addiction at the turn of the century. The first cause was the use of morphine and its various derivatives in legitimate medical operations. You know as late as 1900, particularly in areas where medical resources were scarce it was not at all uncommon for you to say, let's say you would have appendicitis, you would go into the hospital, and you would get morphine as a pain killer during the operation, you would be given morphine further after the operation and you would come out of the hospital with no appendix but addicted to morphine.

    The use of morphine in battlefield operations during the Civil War was so extensive that, by 1880, so many Union veterans were addicted to morphine that the popular press referred to morphinism as the "soldier's disease". Now I will say, being from Virginia as I am, that the Confederate veterans didn't have any problems about being addicted to morphine because the South was too poor to have any, and therefore battlefield operations on the Confederate Army were simply done by chopping off the relevant limb while they drank a little whiskey. But the Northern troops heavily found themselves, as the result of battlefield operations and the use of morphine, addicted to morphine.

    Now, the other fact that I think that is so interesting about drug addiction at the turn of the century, as opposed to today is who the addicts were, because they were the exact opposite of who you would think most likely to be an addict today. If I were to ask you in terms of statistical groups who is most likely to be involved with drugs today, you would say a young person, a male, who lives in the city and who may be a minority group member. That is the exact opposite of who was most likely to be addicted to drugs at the turn of the century.

    In terms of statistical groups, who was most likely to be addicted to drugs at the turn of the century? A rural living, middle-aged white woman. The use of morphine in medical operations does not explain the much higher incidence of drug addiction among women. What does is the second cause of the high level of addiction at the turn of the century -- the growth and development of what we now call the "patent medicine" industry.

    I think some of you, maybe from watching Westerns on TV if nothing else are aware that, again, as late as 1900, in areas, particularly rural areas where medical resources were scarce, it was typical for itinerant salesmen, not themselves doctors, to cruise around the countryside offering potions and elixirs of all sorts advertised in the most flamboyant kinds of terms. "Doctor Smith's Oil, Good for What Ails You", or "Doctor Smith's Oil, Good for Man or Beast."

    Well, what the purveyors of these medicines did not tell their purchasers, was that later, when these patent medicines were tested, many of them proved to be up to fifty percent morphine by volume.

    Now, what that meant, as I have always thought, was the most significant thing about the high morphine content in patent medicines was it meant they tended to live up to their advertising. Because no matter what is wrong with you, or your beast, you are going to feel a whole lot better after a couple of slugs of an elixir that is fifty percent morphine. So there was this tendency to think "Wow! This stuff works." Down you could go to the general store and get more of it and it could be sold to you directly over the counter.

    Now, for reasons that we weren't able to full research, but for reasons, I think, probably associated with the role of women rural societies then patent medicines were much more appealing to women than to men and account for the much higher incidence of drug addiction in 1900 among women than among men.

    If you want to see a relatively current portrayal of a woman addicted to patent medicine you might think of Eugene O'Neil's play "A Long Day's Journey Into Night". The mother figure there, the one that was played by Katherine Hepburn in the movies was addicted to patent medicines.

    In any event, the use of morphine in medical operations and the sale of patent medicines accounted for a dramatic level of addiction. Again, between two and five percent of the entire adult population of the United States was addicted to drugs as late as 1900.

    Now if my first point is that there was a lot more addiction in 1900 than there is today and that the people who were addicted are quite a different group than the group we would be thinking of today, my next point would be that if you look at drug addiction in 1900, what's the number one way in which it is different than drug addiction today? Answer: Almost all addiction at the turn of the century was accidental.

    People became involved with drugs they did not know that they were taking, that they did not know the impact of. The first point, then, is that there was more drug addiction than there is now and most of it was accidental.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Pure Food and Drug Act

    Then the single law which has done the most in this country to reduce the level of drug addiction is none of the criminal laws we have ever passed. The single law that reduced drug addiction the most was the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act.

    The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 did three things:

    1). It created the Food and Drug Administration in Washington that must approve all foods and drugs meant for human consumption. The very first impact of that was that the patent medicines were not approved for human consumption once they were tested.

    2) The Pure Food and Drug Act said that certain drugs could only be sold on prescription.

    3) The Pure Food and Drug Act, (and you know, this is still true today, go look in your medicine chest) requires that any drug that can be potentially habit-forming say so on it's label. "Warning -- May be habit forming."

    The labeling requirements, the prescription requirements, and the refusal to approve the patent medicines basically put the patent medicine business out of business and reduced that dramatic source of accidental addiction. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, not a criminal law, did more to reduce the level of addiction than any other single statute we have passed in all of the times from then to now.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (Whitebread - USC Law School)

    In conclusion, Boris, prior to the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, there were twice as many people addicted to drugs in this country than there are today (the most readily-available addictive drug being morphine). Additionally, it is a fact that most of the illegal drugs which concern today's American society, including marijuana, were not generally known to the citizens of the United States prior to 1906. So, although there was a period when people were able to consume what their heart desired (popularly, morphine), there has never actually been a period in this country when people were legally consuming the majority of substances which are deemed illegal today because these substances were not made readily available to the general population in the United States prior to regulation.



    [This message has been edited by truestory (edited February 13, 2000).]
     
  11. tablariddim forexU2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,795
    Dear Boris and Corp,
    I'd like to defer debate on this until I conclude my thesis. My comp just crashed and I lost a post that took me 3 hours to compose and type

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    GGRRRR, but it's cool mon, I'll juss build another short one, y'nahmeen?

    Ok, so far I've discussed two options available to us and I've made my reservations clear. Limited benefits to society at large, hardly any effect on general drug related crime and possibly more widespread abuse.

    Here's a third option, the actual legalisation of cannabis. By taking this option, the government will earn tax and save money on personell.
    Extracts will be made available to offer an alternative to smoking it, which is potentially harmful. And users will be rid of the stigma and paranoia associated with illegal products.
    This sounds better.

    However, this still leaves two problems, one is my assumption that drug related crime will stay relatively unaffected and second is my assumption that use and abuse of THC products may increase substantially, with a quantatively detrimental effect to society.
    If you don't consider this to be an issue and you don't think that legalisation will help to necessarily create more users and abusers. Then presumably you would hold the same criterion to be true of other illegal drugs also.

    Which brings me to a fourth option.
    It is widely acknowledged that the roots of most social crime and indeed of all drug related crime lie in the industry of illegal drugs. The problem not necessarily being with the drug itself but by the insidiously evil methodology used in obtaining it.

    Therefore, I think that if we legalised, taxed and responsibly supplied all the illegal psychotropic drugs that people currently enjoy consuming, we could benefit society in many more ways than just stopping at marijuana.
    You would perhaps have to use a system of secure ID registration through your GP or through specialised clinics, where you could buy your weekly dosage.
    We'd have to provide a comprehensive program of education to new and existing users, icluding psychological counselling, the correct dosage and desirable usage of the partircular substances, possible side effects, signs of abuse and direct avenues to full abstinence and rehabilitation services to the user, if they so desire. Costs could be bourne by the drug tax and perhaps a special insurance the user would be obliged to purchase.
    However, the tax raised would probably be enough to pay for the rehab clinics and services, on its own.

    What are the possible benefits?

    The sudden redundancy of probably 80% or more of the world's mafia.

    The meaningful redeployment of government personell and resources.

    The massive reduction of vice and forced prostitution (no need to sell your body to feed your $300 a day habit), $10 or less should cover it.

    The massive reduction of streetcrime

    The elimination of drug related thefts and murders.

    The massive reduction of turf gangs, as they will become pointless.

    The meaningful redeployment of the local police forces.

    The raised quality of life perceived by people with more than two locks on their front doors.

    A massive reduction in intravenously caught AIDS (shared needles)

    Less paranoia and stress for the user.

    Rehab available on tap.


    Possible dangers?

    80% of the worlds mafia will be wanting to create alternative methods of illegal income.

    A higher incidence of substance use and abuse. Leading to:

    A raised incidence of accidents at work, in the home and on the roads.

    A higher incidence of inefficient labour and services in general.

    A higher incidence of drug logic inspired religious cults and their inherent dangers.

    The last option seems to have some serious pros going for it. I like it.
    What do you think?

    ...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Lori Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,065
    Well, my two cents is this...

    When I drink, I find that I either want to f*&% or fight.

    When I smoke, I find that I want to sit in a lazy boy, eat doritos, and zone on the tube.

    It's not exactly nuclear physics is it?

    Plus, smoke happens to be a great hang-over cure!!!!! Hang-overs and dehydration and toilet worship are just NOT my idea of a fun, relaxing time??? Anyway, my two cents....

    And quit bogarting would ya? Pass the bong already.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ------------------
    "Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

    I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.
     
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Who has been a member of the U.S. Marine Corps? There's a reason I ask this. Specifically, I would like to know when the USMC is chartered to patrol the American interior with shoot-to-kill orders.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    * USMC soldiers patrolling in the south of Texas shot and killed Esquivel Hernandez, age 15, while he was tending sheep. The soldiers insist that Hernandez was heavily armed and fired deliberately at them. (Reality check: Hernandez was carrying a .22 rifle; more subjectively, many shepherds claim that randomly discharging a rifle into the air scares off potential predators that would otherwise thin the herd.) Neither DoJ or the military powers-that-be saw cause to prosecute a snipe to the back of a 15-year old American citizen working the family business on American soil.

    Are we all familiar with carrier-weight laws? These are the laws that create "irrefutable" evidence of how much of what a suspect was carrying. Actually, a few of the cases carried at http://www.famm.org (Families Against Mandatory Minimums). One of my favorite offenses against liberty is the imprisonment of a New Jersey man for 25 years for the possession, essentially, of one of his girlfriend's Tylox.

    * Couple is leaving a Grateful Dead show at the Meadowlands. Police are ignoring fleets of expensive cars drunkenly piloted through the parking lot, waiting to bust hippies returning to their VW's. Suspect is approached, stopped, and searched without cause (apparently, having long hair and dirty jeans at a Dead show is probable cause). Search turns up the following: Suspect is carrying less than 1 gram of marijuana; suspect has girlfriend's jacket tied around waist containing, among other items, one pill bottle with one prescription acetaminophen/coedine, and her identification. It is a standard distribution law that illicit substances packed into more than one container must necessarily equal intent to distribute; prosecution needs no buyer, needs no other evidence, and the charge is irrefutable upon the possession conviction. Furthermore, considering the coedine weight of Tylox (50mg), carrier-weight laws become very important. Suspect was convicted of marijuana possession. Suspect was convicted of intent to distribute, for having marijuana in separate container from Tylox. The synthetic opiates in coedine were weighed as being the entire weight of the pill and of the bottle, and then counted as straight opium. The sentencing standard for this reflects possession of an ounce of street-grade heroin. Suspect was sentenced to 25 years in prison, according to a Minor In Possession citation when he was 17, and mandatory minimum sentencing statutes. Where else in American justice is the law regarded in such a perverse manner?

    Are you a profile candidate?

    * You know, profiles. The cops say you look like someone or something, and they have probable cause to search your car, your home, your body cavities, and even draw blood if they so choose. A few things about profiles, whcih cover just about anyone in society.

    --Are you black? There's a profile. White? Brown? Yellow? Red? Purple with chartreuse spots? There's a profile.
    --Are you in an airport? Profiles exist to describe you as a drug dealer if you do any of the following: call a private residence from a public phone; call your city of origin from a public phone; call anyone on a celphone; fail to call anyone from the airport. (Attributes from several profiles.) There's a profile if you leave the airport by taxi; if you leave by bus; if you leave on foot; if you leave by private car. If you're coming from or going to a city regarded for "high drug traffic". There's a profile if you meet someone at the gate, at the luggage claim, at the curb outside.
    --Are you on the road? There's a profile to search your car if it's messy; if it's too clean; if it's too new; if it's too old and dingy; if you eat fast food; if you don't eat fast food.
    --And that just names three separate criteria: who you are, if you're in an airport, and if you're on the road. There's plenty more in the profiling method.

    I've seen a couple of statments generally pointing toward societal difficulties upon legalization of marijuana. To those, I would like to offer the following interesting parallel:

    * Statistics can tell you anything you like. (As a neutral example, try global warming; the world got cooler over the last one-hundred years if you actually include climactic shifts following volcanic eruptions--St. Helens, Pinatubo ... none of them are in the most popular figures.) In the case of societal conditions, statistics are rendered almost useless. To wit: An argument we hear about every four or so years from American Christian political institutions is that the crime-rate soared after we eliminated prayer from public schools. Perhaps, but as I said, much can be made of statistics. However, in the case of the War Against Drugs, we might remember that the UN has spoken its intention to eradicate species Cannabis from the Earth. Until 1937, however, we lived in close proximity to this plant, which grew wild in many places around the world. I might suggest, according to the prayer-in-schools model, that the crime rate, public morality, and so forth, have all gone to hell since we started removing ourselves from species Cannabis.

    Someone mentioned availability like basil. Ah, Tab (sorry, I had to look it up). Just a couple of points, because even the stoners wonder what will happen when the Green Wave is restored to its proper place in society. But:

    * We can make health effects a different point of argument (I'm persuaded toward minimal-damage theories, namely because of the 1972 BoN report to Congress). But what about mind-altering drugs that are as easy to get as basil? How many people wouldn't be whining at you every day if they weren't addicted to caffeine? How many miscommunications, industrial accidents, and so forth, might have been prevented if one's mind wasn't schizing out for coffee? What about nicotine? I've seen people fired from their jobs on the grounds that their nicotine-jonesing boss didn't have the patience to administrate a simple miscommunication.

    Anecdotal points:

    * I once worked on the first floor of an office situated amid a shipping yard. The drug policy there was such that if ... If a forklift driver were to accidentally lose control of his rig and send it through the wall so that I was horribly injured at my desk without ever knowing what events were unfolding behind me, and on the other side of a wall ... I would have to prove myself drug-free before the company will A) not contest a Work Comp claim, or B) pay the medical expenses on my immediate injuries. Hell of a compassionate policy, obviously devised by people with deep social consciences

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Actually, to be honest, I know the guy who wrote the policy. His opinion on work comp was that if the guys sailing the Bering Strait needed money to pay for their injuries, they shouldn't be sailing in the first place. Of course, that's a familiar psychology to me, but I won't generalize it any more than the implication I've made by including it.

    * Seattle police will let any publicly-permitted event run long, except .... Hempfest. In that case, they don riot gear, grab their tear gas, and surround the cite starting a half-hour before the scheduled event end (8pm, according to some bizarre local law that allows whoever permits such events to arbitrarily proscribe the hours; but that time only for Hempfest.)

    * King County sheriffs, unfortunately, broke a long-standing claim that pot hadn't killed anybody in X number of years. Apparently, someone shot a sheriff during a raid. Poor guy apparently died for nine ounces of marijuana, which means the fifteen pounds of street-ready methamphetamine, and the crank-lab which occupied multiple rooms of the house were probably irrelevant to the bust.

    * Asprin is a more likely drug to accidentally kill you than marijuana.

    * Why are the noble anti-drug lobbyists always associated with companies whose products would compete with something pot has to offer? (Timber/paper, cotton, fuel, pharmaceutical) Along this note, it's important to mention that Herer, in The Emperor Wears No Clothes includes a reprint of a magazine article describing an automobile built entirely from hemp components--including the engine block and other mechanical parts.

    * Does marijuana cause juvenile disruption, or does it exacerbate pre-existing conditions?

    * For all I've ever heard about evil, exploitative drug dealers, they're only common in my circle if you buy large amounts from them to sell. I've had a few goofy, arrogant dealers ... but their customers go away quickly, so it's kind of like retail in that sense. But by and large, until you're spending $500 a pop on your quantity, I've never met a "Jacques Renault" (Twin Peaks) marijuana dealer. Of course, it's harder to exploit potheads than it is tweakers, railers, or junkies.

    * Why are DARE grads statistically more likely to have drug problems than their "uneducated" peers?

    * My favorite anti-pot rhetoric ... from Harry Anslinger, ca. 1937, speaking before the U.S. Congress: "Marijuana is not dangerous in the way a cornered rattlesnake is not dangerous." Or, when he claimed that marijuana was all of the danger and chaos or opium (Mr. Hyde) with none of the pleasant (Dr. Jekyll) attributes of opiates.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    * My favorite pro-marijuana rhetoric: "God made it. I grew it. That settles it."

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    PS--I'm sober right now, and at work. But it's ok. I was always this lazy, even before I started toking.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ------------------
    Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this feast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")
     
  14. Lori Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,065
    Tiassa,

    Perverse isn't it? The law I mean. It makes no damn sense anyway you slice it. That's why I don't bother trying to understand it more than to just keep my ass out of jail ya know? I like God's laws MUCH better. They are all encompassing, and hey, they make sense! And I really like your rhetoric!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ------------------
    "Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

    I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.
     
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    I'm looking at the AP report right now.

    Gold finished the day at $304.25/troy oz.

    Marijuana is more expensive than gold. ($320/oz.)

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/f/AP-Metals.html

    ------------------
    The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)
     
  16. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    Tiassa,

    Now that's funny! Should we now consider it a national treasure, or a national asset?

    ------------------
    I am; therefore I think.
     
  17. m-cyber Registered Member

    Messages:
    18
    320$oz.? Wow
    Not Here its $65 oz in texas.
    Smoke it up!legal or not!
     
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    m-cyber . . . .

    To be fair, I suppose it depends on what level you're buying. Casual users usually pay $40 for 3.5 grams +/-. I suppose it's cheaper if you get it wholesale (nudge-nudge, wink-wink).

    As regards Texas ... I almost envy you, but I'm not sure; I've heard stories about that $65/oz. stuff. Just yesterday, in fact. But I'm also given to the notion that I'm spoiled among stoners. Winter 98/99 saw ridiculously high quality across the boards. It's been a pretty reasonable winter this year, but not nearly what happened last. But I've been extremely lucky to have kind dealers who are extremely devoted to their work. Incidentally, they would have died under a drug-trafficking penalty submitted to Congress in 1997 (I think) by a cadre of legislators including Newt Gingrich. ("100" standard doses--about two ounces of pot by someone's figuring--at the Canadian border gets you first-offense capital punishment. Bill died in committee, but hey, it was a doozy. Compare that to a Missouri bill submitted by an idiot named Bobby Moak, which would have removed an extremity from each drug trafficker convicted under the statute. Which extremity, apparently, was left for the convict to bargain with the bench. Bill never made it out of committee.)

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    p.s.-- (cough, cough, cough, hack, cough....)

    ------------------
    The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)
     
  19. tablariddim forexU2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,795
    Tiassa,
    talking about prices, how about, mmm.. 16 oz pure bud and 30 oz leaf, for er.. $500-$650?
    Which is the cost of electricity, soil and nutrients...allegedly!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ------------------
    "The crows are already stoned", he said.
    With a look of dispassion on his sad face.
     
  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Tab ....

    As with all production, the cost goes down with the volume. It's a lot cheaper than that if you're growing about a ton of it in your basement.

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ------------------
    The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)
     
  21. Peter Dolan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    113
    Everybody wants to smoke marijuana these days! Smoking is out man! You know even passive smoke kills! You folks have to wake up to reality and realize that smoking is a no, no. There is only one way that marijuana should be taken and that's Brownies! Yeah, nice chocolaty, fresh loving from the oven. Yeah man, I like to see that little Pillsbury guy do his wo,wah,wo,wo song/dance after eating a few of those babies!
     
  22. tablariddim forexU2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,795
    Peter,
    you gotta good recipe?
    The last time I tried hash cake, it didn't hit me until 12 hours later, at work! not wise.


    ...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ------------------
    "The crows are already stoned", he said.
    With a look of dispassion on his sad face.
     
  23. Peter Dolan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    113
    Tablariddim, Sorry ol'boy. My former response was one of facetiousness. In truth, I have a hard enoungh time getting water to boil let alone trying to cook up a batch of cannabis cupcakes or brownies.
     

Share This Page