PDA

View Full Version : It's Over. We Lost. Stop The War.



Pages : [1] 2

Rogue
5/26/2008, 09:25 PM
The War On drugs.

What a waste of resources. $500 billion-ish. We could use that for addictions treatment or the War on Poverty instead. Or to build a road or a school. Anything would be more useful than continuing this complete farce. There are some very rich folks in the prison-for-profit business are getting richer and wouldn’t want to see us, God forbid, lock up a few less junkies next year.

Now sometimes I’ll just try these ideas on for awhile, read and write some, and later reach a different conclusion. That’s not very likely here. I mean does ANYONE really think that what we are doing now and have done for the past 30+ years is working? Nobody I know does. And if you do, please make sure I’m sitting down when you tell me. Burning poppy fields in Afghanistan, coca plants in South America, and locking up thousands of (mostly not-caucasian) addicts and dealers hasn’t really worked. But we keep ****ing doing it. You can’t hang around addicts or alcoholics that have ever employed a 12-step program without learning AA’s (sometimes attributed to Einstein or Ben Franklin) definition of insanity which is “continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.”

For the sake of some who like linkage and some who might want to read better written opinions than mine, here are a few.


A great, and longish, piece in the 12/2007 Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17438347/how_america_lost_the_war_on_drugs)

The article describes how sound evidence-based ideas were scrapped in favor of sexier “tough on crime” anti-drug policies based on bad science and, IMO, worse motivation.

And check this:
Peruvian journalist Roger Rumrrill makes a few good points about the sensibility of legalizing drugs and that Big Pharma is one of the biggest opponents. (http://www.narconews.com/rumrrill1.html) Think about that.

A site devoted to the victims of the WOD, its methods, and consequences.
Good arguments that point to parallels with the problems from the Prohibition days.
Here:
Interesting views at least (http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/08/17/drugWarVictims.html)



Think this is just something neo-hippies and liberals believe? Nope, read on:

Yup, William F. Buckley, conservative icon, thinks it’s crazy. (http://www.lycaeum.org/drugwar/buckley1.html)

Another good take, from the writers of HBO’s THE WIRE, a couple months ago in Time. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1719872,00.html)
This quote is amazing,
Yet this war grinds on, flooding our prisons, devouring resources, turning city neighborhoods into free-fire zones. To what end? State and federal prisons are packed with victims of the drug conflict. A new report by the Pew Center shows that 1 of every 100 adults in the U.S. — and 1 in 15 black men over 18 — is currently incarcerated. That's the world's highest rate of imprisonment.

They go on to suggest that we quit enabling the failed policies of the war on drugs by means of jury nullification. Love it.

It’s getting late, I guess I’ll call this Part I and might do more later. Or it could just be called Part I and then if I never get around to a sequel I can have a quirky thing that only has one part but alludes to more parts that never show up. Cool.

Jerk
5/26/2008, 09:34 PM
Man, I was going to say WTF?

The Iraqi army just rolled 10,000 troops into Al Sadr's neighborhood and his militia has surrendered.

Jerk
5/26/2008, 09:35 PM
Count me as one conservative dude who think the WoD is a waste of time and money.

yermom
5/26/2008, 09:40 PM
legalize weed, tax it. what percentage of the war on drugs is wasted on weed?

go after dealers and not users, in general

treat the meth/crack/heroin addict as a patient or a victim not a criminal

sure, lock them up for crimes, but not for possession of drugs

Rogue
5/26/2008, 09:43 PM
Peter Tosh:

8HcXcYlF3_0

AggieTool
5/26/2008, 09:47 PM
I think outlawing naturally growing plants is stooooopid.

However if making your drug of choice involves a lab and dangerous chemicals, then it should be outlawed.

tommieharris91
5/26/2008, 09:52 PM
I say keep the stuff that kills brain cells and renders users non-productive illegal. Keep everything else legal. I say legalize weed, but put some nasty high taxes similar to tobacco on it.

MR2-Sooner86
5/26/2008, 09:53 PM
legalize weed, tax it. what percentage of the war on drugs is wasted on weed?

I agree and it's a good idea. However, we will probably never see it. Too many people still think it's a "gateway drug" and will lead to the decay of society.

StoopTroup
5/26/2008, 09:54 PM
When you legalize the weed are you saying that your OK if the Teachers at your kids school are OK to go smoke a fatty at lunch?

Or even toke up in the Teachers Lounge before their next class?

Are you saying your OK that the Pilot flying you and your girlfiend to Vegas for the weekend is OK to fly once his buzz wears off?

I'd like my Heart Surgeon to be relaxed when he starts my bypass surgery and maybe a little Maui Waui would really get him in the groove before he cuts open my chest. He could even put on some nice music and rock out while he's taking the vein from my leg and placing it in my chest.

You wanna get high and do a dangerous job...should the insurance companies make your employer either fire you after you chop your fingers off in the slicer while working the deli counter at Reasor's or just swallow the cost as at least you weren't doing crack?

yermom
5/26/2008, 09:55 PM
i don't think kids should use it, and i don't think it's healthy, but i do think we waste a lot of time trying to fight it, and not proportionally to how bad it is, especially compared to alcohol and cigarettes

yermom
5/26/2008, 09:56 PM
When you legalize the weed are you saying that your OK if the Teachers at your kids school are OK to go smoke a fatty at lunch?

Or even toke up in the Teachers Lounge before their next class?

Are you saying your OK that the Pilot flying you and your girlfiend to Vegas for the weekend is OK to fly once his buzz wears off?

I'd like my Heart Surgeon to be relaxed when he starts my bypass surgery and maybe a little Maui Waui would really get him in the groove before he cuts open my chest. He could even put on some nice music and rock out while he's taking the vein from my leg and placing it in my chest.

You wanna get high and do a dangerous job...should the insurance companies make your employer either fire you after you chop your fingers off in the slicer while working the deli counter at Reasor's or just swallow the cost as at least you weren't doing crack?

replace beer in that question

Turd_Ferguson
5/26/2008, 09:59 PM
replace beer in that questionWas gonna say, I think it's "8 hours bottle to throttle" for the pilots. Anybody smok'n the weed during the day is no different than someone drinkin a six pack during the day.

AggieTool
5/26/2008, 10:01 PM
replace beer in that question

Good point.

I know there are stats on how many people get killed by drunk drivers, and how many times a drunk beats his 'ole-lady, or how many times a guy with beer muscles takes on the entire bar.

Funny there are no stats on how many times a stoner does the same stuff.

Maybe because a person high on weed doesn't do these things?:rolleyes:

Rogue
5/26/2008, 10:01 PM
I'll play, for the sake of discussion and not just argument.


When you legalize the weed are you saying that your OK if the Teachers at your kids school are OK to go smoke a fatty at lunch?Or even toke up in the Teachers Lounge before their next class?
I'm saying that if it's OK for them to come to work on Percodan or have a martini at lunch, then a big fattie is no fat biggie. Otherwise, let's say working impaired is generally a bad thing but the law doesn't make users more compliant with your wishes or mine.



Are you saying your OK that the Pilot flying you and your girlfiend to Vegas for the weekend is OK to fly once his buzz wears off?

I'd like my Heart Surgeon to be relaxed when he starts my bypass surgery and maybe a little Maui Waui would really get him in the groove before he cuts open my chest. He could even put on some nice music and rock out while he's taking the vein from my leg and placing it in my chest.
Again, alcohol, valium, benadryl? Most surgeons actually do rock out in the OR, by the way.


You wanna get high and do a dangerous job...should the insurance companies make your employer either fire you after you chop your fingers off in the slicer while working the deli counter at Reasor's or just swallow the cost as at least you weren't doing crack?[/
Should I expect my insurance company to drug test every accident that comes their way? Would it bring my premiums down or make them higher?

MR2-Sooner86
5/26/2008, 10:04 PM
When you legalize the weed are you saying that your OK if the Teachers at your kids school are OK to go smoke a fatty at lunch?

Oh yes you know it! The way we currently allow teachers to drink at school too!


Or even toke up in the Teachers Lounge before their next class?

Yeah seeing as how right next to the water cooler in the teacher's lounge is a full service bar. Lets add a bong while we're at it!


Are you saying your OK that the Pilot flying you and your girlfiend to Vegas for the weekend is OK to fly once his buzz wears off?

Why not? I mean most of them fly a little tipsy so buzzed is alright.


I'd like my Heart Surgeon to be relaxed when he starts my bypass surgery and maybe a little Maui Waui would really get him in the groove before he cuts open my chest. He could even put on some nice music and rock out while he's taking the vein from my leg and placing it in my chest.

I like my surgeon to feel good so maybe a couple of drinks will do it.


You wanna get high and do a dangerous job...should the insurance companies make your employer either fire you after you chop your fingers off in the slicer while working the deli counter at Reasor's or just swallow the cost as at least you weren't doing crack?

Ok I can no longer be sarcastic. I'll explain it very simply.

You put a warning on it :eek: Yes we can do the same with alcohol that we can with weed :eek: Can you drink at school? No? Why not do the same with weed :eek: Can you drink and drive? No? Why not make it the same for weed :eek: You can go to work drunk? No? Why not make it the same for weed :eek:

shaun4411
5/26/2008, 10:25 PM
When you legalize the weed are you saying that your OK if the Teachers at your kids school are OK to go smoke a fatty at lunch?

Or even toke up in the Teachers Lounge before their next class?

Are you saying your OK that the Pilot flying you and your girlfiend to Vegas for the weekend is OK to fly once his buzz wears off?

I'd like my Heart Surgeon to be relaxed when he starts my bypass surgery and maybe a little Maui Waui would really get him in the groove before he cuts open my chest. He could even put on some nice music and rock out while he's taking the vein from my leg and placing it in my chest.

You wanna get high and do a dangerous job...should the insurance companies make your employer either fire you after you chop your fingers off in the slicer while working the deli counter at Reasor's or just swallow the cost as at least you weren't doing crack?


alcohol is legal, and you wouldnt expect a teacher to kick back a few cold ones in the lounge would you? it would work the same way alcohol works--in moderation. no driving drunk- no driving high. if you show up to work drunk, youre going home-same with high. drunk in public= jail ; high in public=jail. either way its public intoxication. the only difference is you have more control over yourself when youre high* than when drunk. and that's a fact.

*on marijuana

edit::: what mr2sooner said

47straight
5/26/2008, 10:57 PM
Good point.

I know there are stats on how many people get killed by drunk drivers, and how many times a drunk beats his 'ole-lady, or how many times a guy with beer muscles takes on the entire bar.

Funny there are no stats on how many times a stoner does the same stuff.

Maybe because a person high on weed doesn't do these things?:rolleyes:

Try again, my buddy in the county prosecutor's office just nailed a guy for DUI-marijuana.

NYC Poke
5/26/2008, 11:18 PM
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Okay, sorry, but it needed to be said, and I'm used to the abuse.

VeeJay
5/26/2008, 11:49 PM
Sorry to simplify this, but a lot of "progressive" towns and communities have outlawed cigarette smoking in restaurants and other public places.

These, seemingly, are the same folks who are pushing for the decriminalization of marijuana.

Can someone help me understand this?

yermom
5/27/2008, 02:32 AM
you wouldn't be smoking pot there either

def_lazer_fc
5/27/2008, 02:39 AM
When you legalize the weed are you saying that your OK if the Teachers at your kids school are OK to go smoke a fatty at lunch?

Or even toke up in the Teachers Lounge before their next class?

Are you saying your OK that the Pilot flying you and your girlfiend to Vegas for the weekend is OK to fly once his buzz wears off?

I'd like my Heart Surgeon to be relaxed when he starts my bypass surgery and maybe a little Maui Waui would really get him in the groove before he cuts open my chest. He could even put on some nice music and rock out while he's taking the vein from my leg and placing it in my chest.

You wanna get high and do a dangerous job...should the insurance companies make your employer either fire you after you chop your fingers off in the slicer while working the deli counter at Reasor's or just swallow the cost as at least you weren't doing crack?

i think i heard glen beck say this exact same thing the other day. teacher, pilot, doctor scenario and all.

When you legalize the BOOZE are you saying that your OK if the Teachers at your kids school are OK to go POUND A 40 at lunch?

Or even TAKE A SHOT in the Teachers Lounge before their next class?

Are you saying your OK that the Pilot flying you and your girlfiend to Vegas for the weekend is OK to fly once his buzz wears off?

I'd like my Heart Surgeon to be relaxed when he starts my bypass surgery and maybe a little COCKTAIL would really get him in the groove before he cuts open my chest. He could even put on some JIMMY BUFFET and rock out while he's taking the vein from my leg and placing it in my chest.

You wanna get DRUNK and do a dangerous job...should the insurance companies make your employer either fire you after you chop your fingers off in the slicer while working the deli counter at Reasor's or just swallow the cost as at least you weren't DOING ANY OTHER NUMBER OF LEGAL THINGS?

crawfish
5/27/2008, 06:42 AM
When you legalize the weed are you saying that your OK if the Teachers at your kids school are OK to go smoke a fatty at lunch?

Or even toke up in the Teachers Lounge before their next class?

Are you saying your OK that the Pilot flying you and your girlfiend to Vegas for the weekend is OK to fly once his buzz wears off?

I'd like my Heart Surgeon to be relaxed when he starts my bypass surgery and maybe a little Maui Waui would really get him in the groove before he cuts open my chest. He could even put on some nice music and rock out while he's taking the vein from my leg and placing it in my chest.

You wanna get high and do a dangerous job...should the insurance companies make your employer either fire you after you chop your fingers off in the slicer while working the deli counter at Reasor's or just swallow the cost as at least you weren't doing crack?

Has anybody else mentioned how inane this post is, since there are so many other legal ways to get wasted that we don't allow in these situations?

I'm sure somebody has, tho.

TUSooner
5/27/2008, 08:11 AM
When you legalize the weed are you saying that your OK if the Teachers at your kids school are OK to go smoke a fatty at lunch?

Or even toke up in the Teachers Lounge before their next class?

Are you saying your OK that the Pilot flying you and your girlfiend to Vegas for the weekend is OK to fly once his buzz wears off?

I'd like my Heart Surgeon to be relaxed when he starts my bypass surgery and maybe a little Maui Waui would really get him in the groove before he cuts open my chest. He could even put on some nice music and rock out while he's taking the vein from my leg and placing it in my chest.

You wanna get high and do a dangerous job...should the insurance companies make your employer either fire you after you chop your fingers off in the slicer while working the deli counter at Reasor's or just swallow the cost as at least you weren't doing crack?

If you ever wondered what a "straw man" argument is, that is it. The short & polite response to that post is "No."

The question before the house is not: "Should everybody be allowed to do drugs all the time without limits?"

Rather, it is: "Should we continue to waste zillions of dollars, countless lives, and immeasurable international goodwill and credibility by using a ginormous and expensive military, law enforcement, and prison establishment to satsify a puritanical obsession?"

Harry Beanbag
5/27/2008, 08:16 AM
If you ever wondered what a "straw man" argument is, that is it. The short & polite response to that post is "No."

The question before the house is not: "Should everybody be allowed to do drugs all the time without limits?"

Rather, it is: "Should we continue to waste zillions of dollars, countless lives, and immeasurable international goodwill and credibility by using a ginormous and expensive military, law enforcement, and prison establishment to satsify a puritanical obsession?"


Well, the response to your question is also "No". :)

TUSooner
5/27/2008, 08:17 AM
Sorry to simplify this, but a lot of "progressive" towns and communities have outlawed cigarette smoking in restaurants and other public places.

These, seemingly, are the same folks who are pushing for the decriminalization of marijuana.

Can someone help me understand this?

They are the "smoke it all at home" lobby?

BudSooner
5/27/2008, 09:37 AM
Yeah, sure legalize it. You do realize that if it is made legal then no more parodies of Ricky Williams II toking up, or other offending horn with the mary jane leaf on their helmets?

It.
would.
be.
legal.
just.
like.
momma.
feeding.
her.
son.
chicken.

soonervegas
5/27/2008, 09:45 AM
Count me in as a conservative who wants to stop wasting resources fighting a war we absolutely will not win. Legalize it, tax it. If people want to thin the herd...let em.

NormanPride
5/27/2008, 09:54 AM
I've always been in favor of legalization and taxation. I'm sure a lot of the bad stuff happens when people go overboard, which could be controlled a bit, or when bad stuff is cut into the drug, which would be regulated.

StoopTroup
5/27/2008, 09:59 AM
See...the deal for me is that there are so many questions that need answers.

I can see many reasons for the legalization.

Unfortunately many of our existing rules for drug testing in the workplace and in critical / security and Highly Skilled / Technical type positions for currently under the scrutiny of Federal Goverment testing policies.

My job requires a Spectroanalysis be done randomly on a percenatge basis and that test for say weed is measured in Nanograms. The level of nanograms of weed you would need to be drastically reduced for you to replace the word "BEER" with weed.

I know it sounds simple but in reality...once your off the weed that is...:D...you soon see that it will take more than just legalizing it to ensure that it is truely legal.

Even though we have strict policies where I work and you can loose a job very easily because of weed in your system...people still do it. They go to rehab...they come back...things are fine for say 6 months and they go again...this time they pay the $12,000 in rehab instead of the Employer...they then either figure out a better way to skate around getting caught or they quit smoking weed or simply decide that the job just isn't worth it and find another job that doesn't have Government Regulations requiring such testing.

Again...

I do think it needs to happen...I just want to know when I can go buy a new bong and not loose my job. :D ;)

NormanPride
5/27/2008, 10:08 AM
Obviouslly, there would be a lot of friction on a transition like that. Also realize that something like this would be gradual.

Consider another industry facing needed changes, but resisting: the auto industry. How long has it taken to get changes in engine designs? How much pressure and customer drive has it taken to get something done? Legalizing drugs would be much the same way. The only way it would happen is if somehow the costs VISIBLY impact you and me.

SoonerStormchaser
5/27/2008, 10:15 AM
I could care less...just as long as employers still have anti-drug policies!

yermom
5/27/2008, 10:29 AM
See...the deal for me is that there are so many questions that need answers.

I can see many reasons for the legalization.

Unfortunately many of our existing rules for drug testing in the workplace and in critical / security and Highly Skilled / Technical type positions for currently under the scrutiny of Federal Goverment testing policies.

My job requires a Spectroanalysis be done randomly on a percenatge basis and that test for say weed is measured in Nanograms. The level of nanograms of weed you would need to be drastically reduced for you to replace the word "BEER" with weed.

I know it sounds simple but in reality...once your off the weed that is...:D...you soon see that it will take more than just legalizing it to ensure that it is truely legal.

Even though we have strict policies where I work and you can loose a job very easily because of weed in your system...people still do it. They go to rehab...they come back...things are fine for say 6 months and they go again...this time they pay the $12,000 in rehab instead of the Employer...they then either figure out a better way to skate around getting caught or they quit smoking weed or simply decide that the job just isn't worth it and find another job that doesn't have Government Regulations requiring such testing.

Again...

I do think it needs to happen...I just want to know when I can go buy a new bong and not loose my job. :D ;)

the government making it legal would likely not change what you are talking about. just because it's legal doesn't mean that your employer doesn't have to stop screening for it. which i'm basically fine with, as long as you don't work at Chili's or something :D

C&CDean
5/27/2008, 10:42 AM
I don't have an opinion on the whole legalize/tax scenario.

However, I do have a fairly strong opinion on weed. And my opinion on it is a very valid/solid one; since I've spilled more weed than most of you people on here have or will ever smoke in your lifetime.

In the overall scheme of things, weed is at least as destructive as alcohol and all the other drugs. How you say? Here's what it does:

It slowly robs the user of drive and motivation. It creates an apathy in the user that is especially insidious since the user always thinks he's got his **** together and everybody else is ****ed up. The user thinks he's more creative, more in-tune with his surroundings, more self-actualized, and completely in control. Hell, he's probably even got a decent job and maybe even did good in school while hitting the bong every morning before first hour. I know, because I was there.

Over a period of years, the user becomes comfortably numb in his situation. Hey, the bills are paid, the kids seem to be doing OK, I don't have any issues with anything, so it's all good...I know, because I was there.

I can speak from personal experience that when you smoke weed on a regular basis you are functioning at half - maybe even less - of your ability. In everything. Your ability to manage your time. Your ability to self-motivate. Your ability to communicate with others. Your ability to make good, sound financial decisions. Your ability to set and achieve goals. Basically, if you're a pothead, you're functioning on 50% of where you should be.

I've heard people say "well so-and-so gets high all the time and he's a CEO or a doctor." No argument from me - other than he's only half the CEO or doctor that he could be. The **** makes people function in a fuzzy haze that impairs every thing they do. And I'm not talking just when they're high. It takes a good while for the brain to unfog after smoking for a long time.

So, all you "alcohol kills more people in a day than weed kills in a year" need to rethink that stance. Yes, more people are killed by a drunk driver, but being braindead in life is just as tragic.

SoonerStormchaser
5/27/2008, 10:44 AM
*DING DING DING* WE HAVE A WINNAR!!!

C&CDean
5/27/2008, 10:50 AM
One other thing:

Most of the people in prison for "drugs" are there because they commited a crime in the pursuit of obtaining money to buy their drugs. My mom does prison ministry, and almost EVERY SINGLE inmate's story starts out with "we were out getting high/drunk and..." or "I needed some money for some drugs..." or "the guy ripped me off so I killed him...." or.......

A common pothead typically isn't in jail - unless he's an extremely stupid pothead who gets busted a brazillion times. A pothead who steals a bunch of stereos or something to get $$ for weed is.

yermom
5/27/2008, 10:57 AM
i don't disagree at all Dean. i don't think weed's use should be encouraged, but i don't think someone should be committing a crime by smoking it

maybe they are destroying their life by smoking it, but i still think the alcohol comparison is valid. the guy that's operating at 50% isn't starting near as many fights as the guy with beer nuts

AggieTool
5/27/2008, 11:05 AM
Try again, my buddy in the county prosecutor's office just nailed a guy for DUI-marijuana.

Was he driving 10mph under the speed limit? In a very purposeful way?

My point is that potheads usually don't cause deadly auto accidents at the same rate as drunks.

TUSooner
5/27/2008, 11:16 AM
I don't have an opinion on the whole legalize/tax scenario.

However, I do have a fairly strong opinion on weed. And my opinion on it is a very valid/solid one; since I've spilled more weed than most of you people on here have or will ever smoke in your lifetime.

In the overall scheme of things, weed is at least as destructive as alcohol and all the other drugs. How you say? Here's what it does:

It slowly robs the user of drive and motivation. It creates an apathy in the user that is especially insidious since the user always thinks he's got his **** together and everybody else is ****ed up. The user thinks he's more creative, more in-tune with his surroundings, more self-actualized, and completely in control. Hell, he's probably even got a decent job and maybe even did good in school while hitting the bong every morning before first hour. I know, because I was there.

Over a period of years, the user becomes comfortably numb in his situation. Hey, the bills are paid, the kids seem to be doing OK, I don't have any issues with anything, so it's all good...I know, because I was there.

I can speak from personal experience that when you smoke weed on a regular basis you are functioning at half - maybe even less - of your ability. In everything. Your ability to manage your time. Your ability to self-motivate. Your ability to communicate with others. Your ability to make good, sound financial decisions. Your ability to set and achieve goals. Basically, if you're a pothead, you're functioning on 50% of where you should be.

I've heard people say "well so-and-so gets high all the time and he's a CEO or a doctor." No argument from me - other than he's only half the CEO or doctor that he could be. The **** makes people function in a fuzzy haze that impairs every thing they do. And I'm not talking just when they're high. It takes a good while for the brain to unfog after smoking for a long time.

So, all you "alcohol kills more people in a day than weed kills in a year" need to rethink that stance. Yes, more people are killed by a drunk driver, but being braindead in life is just as tragic.

Nail, meet hammer. That is THE explanation of why reefer is not "harmless." And I know from experience, too.

Yet, I still say that pot prohibition is not the answer as a matter of public policy. 50-percenters are not dangerous enough to be worth all the trouble of prohibition, and education will do more to discourage "reefer numbness" than jail will. I base this on tobacco smoking history. Tobacco has never been illegal, but over the past few decades smoking is way down because more people just realise that it's bad.
Put another way: I don't want my kids being potheads, but I don't want them to go to jail for it, either.

Sooner_Havok
5/27/2008, 12:14 PM
Look at it this way.

Why do kids like to drink when they are in high school?

Cause they aren't supposed to. I probably drank 10x more before I was 21 than after I turned 21. Back then it was cool cause we weren't supposed to be doing it. There is a segment of the population out there that wants to have the feeling that they are cool cause they do what they're not supposed to do.

How many music snobs do you guys know? You know, the guy that thinks everything on the top 40 sucks, and the only real music is the indy ****. Same principle. They want to be seen as maverick outsiders, shrugging off the cultural norms. I say if you legalize pot, after an initial surge, I would expect to see a drop in usage, it wouldn't be cool anymore if everyone could do it.

SoonerInKCMO
5/27/2008, 12:52 PM
How many music snobs do you guys know? You know, the guy that thinks everything on the top 40 sucks, and the only real music is the indy ****. Same principle. They want to be seen as maverick outsiders, shrugging off the cultural norms.


Rhino's gonna kick your ***. :texan:

mdklatt
5/27/2008, 12:53 PM
How many music snobs do you guys know? You know, the guy that thinks everything on the top 40 sucks, and the only real music is the indy ****.

Just check out the WAYLT threads for a comprehensive roster. :D

BlondeSoonerGirl
5/27/2008, 01:19 PM
Deer lord...

GrapevineSooner
5/27/2008, 01:21 PM
http://www.travel2canada.com/pics/hide/deer.jpg

I am the deer lord, BSG. What is you want?

BlondeSoonerGirl
5/27/2008, 01:22 PM
Heh.

Melo
5/27/2008, 01:30 PM
Ive never met so many potheads in my entire life than when I was studying music. When I would ask my friends what their plans were for the night, they would tell me they were going to smoke some, keep the bandhall open all night and practice for ridiculous amounts of hours. For the most part, I never saw these kids coming to class or performances high, but they would smoke a LOT before practicing or studying.

Having said that, I learned a valuable lesson in the past 5 months. I trust people WAY too easily. I had a lame boyfriend who was addicted to opiates. He had been put on pain pills (Oxycontins, etc) and he eventually moved on to Heroin. It consumed him. I learned, the hard way, and it took him stealing money from me and lying to me for me to wake up and realize that the person someone is, isnt who they are when they have something like Heroin in their lives. You might all see it as stupid on my part, but Im just glad I got out of it before something worse happened.

So Ill take the potheads, if I have to. But f*ck the addicts. They arent worth anything, they arent themselves anymore. Treat them like patients or victims, as someone said, or treat them like criminals. It doesnt matter much to me, as I have no sympathy for people who dont even have the willpower to behave like a normal person. Reality to someone not on drugs is a completely different world than the warped reality of an addicts mind. People with drug addictions usually dont see a lot WRONG with the drugs in the first place, then keep finding ways to get it because the withdrawals are too painful to deal with. Addiction is completely selfish and ruins not only the addicts life, but the lives of everyone closely involved.

I would agree with everyone here who says something needs to change, because what is happening now obviously isnt working.

imjebus
5/27/2008, 01:48 PM
The American Drug War a documentry by Kevin Booth is a great breakdown of the WoD debacle. It was playing on showtime. Go to www.sacredcow.com to order the DVD or to get more info on it.

badger
5/27/2008, 02:02 PM
I cannot confirm the validity of this, but I remember hearing somewhere that China was once even more closed off to the world than it is now. Like, Myanmar-closed. Other countries wanted to trade with China, like the U.S., for silk and other Chinese products, but China wouldn't have it.

Then, along came cheap drugs, namely opium. They meandered their way into China and really ****ed the Chinese government off, because it was adversely affecting their economy. Nothing protects China from the evil Brits and their opium trade than... a boat made of marble that doesn't float :D

LosAngelesSooner
5/27/2008, 02:09 PM
Pot is pretty much legal out here in LA. You just need to get a prescription for it. And getting a prescription means you go down to a Weed Store and pay $500 one time to an on site doctor to give you a prescription for your "headaches."

No more need for "dealers" or going to shady parts of town for weed.

There doesn't seem to be any anarchy out here yet.

As for the alcohol argument, if you drink alcohol every day I'll bet you're operating at less than 50%...and you're more likely to kill someone.

Gandalf_The_Grey
5/27/2008, 02:58 PM
The cigerrettes in the restaurant thing is a good idea because personally I don't want someone blowing smoke in my face while I am out eating with someone. However if a restaurant wants to open an enclosed room away from everyone else that people can smoke in if they "choose" to, How is that hurting anyone?

yermom
5/27/2008, 02:58 PM
the employees at said establishment still have to breathe smoke

Gandalf_The_Grey
5/27/2008, 03:01 PM
Working is a priviledge...not a right ;)

SicEmBaylor
5/27/2008, 03:18 PM
The War On drugs.

What a waste of resources. $500 billion-ish. We could use that for addictions treatment or the War on Poverty instead. Or to build a road or a school. Anything would be more useful than continuing this complete farce. There are some very rich folks in the prison-for-profit business are getting richer and wouldn’t want to see us, God forbid, lock up a few less junkies next year.

Now sometimes I’ll just try these ideas on for awhile, read and write some, and later reach a different conclusion. That’s not very likely here. I mean does ANYONE really think that what we are doing now and have done for the past 30+ years is working? Nobody I know does. And if you do, please make sure I’m sitting down when you tell me. Burning poppy fields in Afghanistan, coca plants in South America, and locking up thousands of (mostly not-caucasian) addicts and dealers hasn’t really worked. But we keep ****ing doing it. You can’t hang around addicts or alcoholics that have ever employed a 12-step program without learning AA’s (sometimes attributed to Einstein or Ben Franklin) definition of insanity which is “continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.”

For the sake of some who like linkage and some who might want to read better written opinions than mine, here are a few.


A great, and longish, piece in the 12/2007 Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17438347/how_america_lost_the_war_on_drugs)

The article describes how sound evidence-based ideas were scrapped in favor of sexier “tough on crime” anti-drug policies based on bad science and, IMO, worse motivation.

And check this:
Peruvian journalist Roger Rumrrill makes a few good points about the sensibility of legalizing drugs and that Big Pharma is one of the biggest opponents. (http://www.narconews.com/rumrrill1.html) Think about that.

A site devoted to the victims of the WOD, its methods, and consequences.
Good arguments that point to parallels with the problems from the Prohibition days.
Here:
Interesting views at least (http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/08/17/drugWarVictims.html)



Think this is just something neo-hippies and liberals believe? Nope, read on:

Yup, William F. Buckley, conservative icon, thinks it’s crazy. (http://www.lycaeum.org/drugwar/buckley1.html)

Another good take, from the writers of HBO’s THE WIRE, a couple months ago in Time. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1719872,00.html)
This quote is amazing,

They go on to suggest that we quit enabling the failed policies of the war on drugs by means of jury nullification. Love it.

It’s getting late, I guess I’ll call this Part I and might do more later. Or it could just be called Part I and then if I never get around to a sequel I can have a quirky thing that only has one part but alludes to more parts that never show up. Cool.

I endorse this post.
The Federal War on Drugs absolutely positively must end. States ought to be free to legalize whatever they want, though I would not favor the legalization of hard drugs in my own state. Nonetheless, the Drug War is a farce.

mdklatt
5/27/2008, 03:20 PM
the employees at said establishment still have to breathe smoke

Given that 99% of all restaurant employees smoke...is this really a big deal?

mdklatt
5/27/2008, 03:21 PM
I would not favor the legalization of hard drugs in my own state

What's a "hard drug"--anything stronger than a Zima?

GrapevineSooner
5/27/2008, 03:21 PM
I can't stand cigarette smoke as much as the next guy who can't stand cigarette smoke.

But I also recognize they exist and like to freely engage in their habit. I also recognize we have such a thing as a free market (or are supposed to) and if an establishment wishes to cater to that clientele, they should have the right to do so.

Melo,

As somebody who has a brother who could be considered an addict, I agree with everything you say.

Particularly the part about addicts being selfish and that the current form of the War on Drugs isn't working. You can keep throwing money at an addict's problem.

But it'll never get solved until the addict decides that want the issue to be addressed.

XingTheRubicon
5/27/2008, 03:27 PM
I personally know about 200 adult people. (Family, extended family, friends and clients) I counted them up and 14 of them are blazers or smoke more than once a week. 13 men and one woman. Most of them are pretty good people and a few of them are my closest friends.

Now, what Dean posted got me to thinking about pot and how it effects your drive. Out of the 14 stoners, (12 of which are over 30 and all make a decent living) ZERO of them have college funds for their kids, ZERO of them have IRA's, ZERO of them would be considered an overachiever by anyone.

Doesn't mean that weed is dangerous or even near as dangerous as alcohol, but eventually most people out there get married and start a family... Of the millions of parents out there who put their spouse and their kids first and works their *** off at the job and at home for the betterment of their family, I'm guessing about 9 of them are potheads. It's illegal for a reason, just not a reason that's easily accessible to the young or weak-minded or both.

mdklatt
5/27/2008, 03:38 PM
Now, what Dean posted got me to thinking about pot and how it effects your drive. Out of the 14 stoners, (12 of which are over 30 and all make a decent living) ZERO of them have college funds for their kids, ZERO of them have IRA's, ZERO of them would be considered an overachiever by anyone.


How many non-stoners do you think have college funds and IRAs? Not too many if you believe the news. This country has a negative savings rate. There are not that many stoners.

To flip it around, how many people do you know that get drunk every weekend are find upstanding citizens? It's not the drug, it's the user. If alcohol is legal, there's no reason weed shouldn't be.

XingTheRubicon
5/27/2008, 03:46 PM
How many non-stoners do you think have college funds and IRAs?


I'll take What is more than ZERO for two hundred, Alex.

C&CDean
5/27/2008, 03:48 PM
How many non-stoners do you think have college funds and IRAs? Not too many if you believe the news. This country has a negative savings rate. There are not that many stoners.

To flip it around, how many people do you know that get drunk every weekend are find upstanding citizens? It's not the drug, it's the user. If alcohol is legal, there's no reason weed shouldn't be.

This is a decent argument - but a flawed one. Yes, some users handle their booze/pot/drugs better than some others, but EVERY pot smoker is affected by the weed. And not just when they're high.

I can get drunk on Friday night, be a complete dillweed and get into a fight and drive my motorcycle at 140 mph. Stupid? yes. Dangerous? yes. However, when I go to work on Monday morning, I am functioning at 99+%.

It's not the same with weed. First, I wouldn't be a dillweed because I'd be all spacey and instrospective and sit there and stare at the wall. I wouldn't drive the motorcycle at 140 mph - because I'd be too busy checking my rear view for a cop - all the while going somewhere between 25 and 65 in a 70mph zone. And for days and days afterward my mental capabilities are dulled.

My argument isn't booze vs. weed. My argument is that weed makes you a shell of what you could be. It quietly and most assuredly makes you half the man you could be.

DBrown
5/27/2008, 03:51 PM
We've had 8 "wars on drugs" so far and I can't see where anything
has improved at all.

SicEmBaylor
5/27/2008, 03:52 PM
What's a "hard drug"--anything stronger than a Zima?

:D

CobraKai
5/27/2008, 03:53 PM
I understand the point, but it is hard for me to take the side. Our family just buried a brother that got hooked on meth and gave up everything. After spending his life as an alcoholic who smoked a lot of pot (he was an underachiever, but largely harmless), he tried meth. The result was a path of destruction that affected everyone in his life until he died young. Unfortunately I hear MANY similar stories where crystal meth is involved. I'm all for reducing scope of the war on drugs. I think pot should be legal. However, after seeing first-hand what meth does to a person, it is NOT a victimless crime in any way. That is my opinion anyway...

Melo
5/27/2008, 03:55 PM
While cigarettes and alcohol can be considered a drug and are considered as such by some, they really are not in the same playing field as hard drugs, which is what I have a problem with. Pot, even, while its a drug and has its own negative aspects, still dont stand up to those of other hard drugs.

Like I have made mention before, I have been around drugs. Weird hair, piercings and tattoos, you all KNOW I dont hang out with people you OR my parents would necessarily approve of. Ive dated all the guys that mom and dad hate. I am proud of how far Ive come from that, though, and I know I dont have to be a part of that lifestyle. Which I am not and I know I am making smarter decisions.

That being said, I have been around people whos lives revolve around pills, heroin, coke and X. Its one of the saddest things, to watch people go down a path that you can not and will not follow, and while these people are feeling great, youre making sure theyre drinking enough water, walking correctly, not choking on their own vomit. Addicts are selfish, they are careless, and in my opinion, stupid and weak. They dont see anything beyond getting high, and all they think about is getting high, and how they can get high, and how they can pay to get high.

C&CDean
5/27/2008, 04:01 PM
I understand the point, but it is hard for me to take the side. Our family just buried a brother that got hooked on meth and gave up everything. After spending his life as an alcoholic who smoked a lot of pot (he was an underachiever, but largely harmless), he tried meth. the result was a path of destruction that affected everyone in his life until he died. Unfortunately I hear MANY similar stories where crystal meth is involved. I'm all for reducing scope of the war on drugs. I think pot should be illegal. However, after seeing first-hand what meth does to a person, it is NOT a victimless crime in any way. That is my opinion anyway...

Which brings us around to the whole gateway drug thingy.

A lot of people on this board have poo pooed the notion that weed is a gateway drug to harder stuff. And they're ****ing morons.

I was eyeball deep in the drug culture for nigh on 25 years. I've pretty much done it all - except shooting heroin. LOTS of it all. And I've been around hundreds and hundreds of people who've completely wrecked - or lost - their lives with drugs.

And you know what? Not one tweaker I know began their drug use with meth. Not one cokehead or crack smoker began with cocaine. Not one stone junky started on heroin. Nope. They all started smoking weed then eventually moved/evolved into hardcore losers.

Anybody making the "weed is harmless" argument is either high, or clueless, or both.

badger
5/27/2008, 04:01 PM
As long as we're mentioning smoking, I think its funny that it was once considering elitist and absurd to not smoke tobacco.

For CS Lewis fans out there, he described Eustace Scrub's parents as this type, because they didn't smoke... I think those novels are only about 50, 60 years old. Times change quickly, eh?

CobraKai
5/27/2008, 04:06 PM
Which brings us around to the whole gateway drug thingy.

A lot of people on this board have poo pooed the notion that weed is a gateway drug to harder stuff. And they're ****ing morons.

I was eyeball deep in the drug culture for nigh on 25 years. I've pretty much done it all - except shooting heroin. LOTS of it all. And I've been around hundreds and hundreds of people who've completely wrecked - or lost - their lives with drugs.

And you know what? Not one tweaker I know began their drug use with meth. Not one cokehead or crack smoker began with cocaine. Not one stone junky started on heroin. Nope. They all started smoking weed then eventually moved/evolved into hardcore losers.

Anybody making the "weed is harmless" argument is either high, or clueless, or both.

I'm not saying weed is harmless, just that he was harmless when he was just smoking weed. I'm sure weed is a gateway drug. In his case, alcohol was too. He would sober up for periods, and most of the time the event that triggered his downward spiral would involve beer. He would have a few, then the whole process would start again.

Tulsa_Fireman
5/27/2008, 04:43 PM
Which brings us around to the whole gateway drug thingy.

A lot of people on this board have poo pooed the notion that weed is a gateway drug to harder stuff. And they're ****ing morons...

...Anybody making the "weed is harmless" argument is either high, or clueless, or both.

I think intent has everything in the world to do with it, personally. Intent, as in purpose for the specific drug at hand.

On one hand, I have a tall, thick stout with a slab of grilled dead cow. My lovely blonde headed Sooner girl likes a glass of wine when I throw down italian. A black lager fits like a non-OJ glove with a bratwurst and onion in a beer reduction over potatoes that I sling on occasion. And who here HASN'T had an ice cold, brain freezing Bud after workin' your tail off in the yard? Cold and refreshing. And I won't even start with my mama's bread pudding or my grandma's rum cake.

Practical applications all. No illicit intent.

When Joe Citizen rolls himself up a fatty, what's Joe Citizen doing? Increasing the pleasure of a well-cooked meal through complementing flavors? Enjoying a handcrafted masterpiece via a recipe that's been passed down through generations? Maybe even using that ages old liquid to provide sustenance in the manner of his forefathers? Or trying to cool off in the guaranteed, time-tested manner that I'm sure a large majority of us have enjoyed?

Or as that doob is being twisted, is the sole intent to smoke it to enjoy an altered mental status? And don't give me the brownie thing, either.

Hence where the gateway to other substances lies in my opinion. You smoke a joint to get high. There's no other reason to do it. A) It tastes like sh*t, B) it sure as hell doesn't add nutritional value, and C) the only positive outcome is the profit margin of the folks that make Doritos. Well, except for the fact that D) you smoke it to get stoned. Which may very well be a positive outcome in some folks' book. So yes, some abuse alcohol with negative results. Some don't. In fact, MANY people, what I'd guess as a large majority, don't abuse alcohol. In fact, in my specific circumstances alone, the byproduct of reaching an altered mental status actually works against using different alcoholic beverages in many different applications.

All of which point a finger at intent. And short of making rope and some shoes for a hippie, the usage of marijuana is wrapped entirely in the intent of gaining an altered mental status. Which for me, works just fine as an illegal aspect of our society.

NormanPride
5/27/2008, 04:43 PM
This is why I think bringing drugs out into the open is a good idea. For one, it will open the eyes of many for whom it's just another murder story on the local news. For another, it will let people keep better tabs on the addicts and people who need help out there. If Johnny Cokehead out there gets his fix from a reliable source that tracks how much he gets, where, and when, then people can help him better than if he gets it in some back alley where there's borax cut into it or something.

Rogue
5/27/2008, 04:46 PM
Which brings us around to the whole gateway drug thingy.

A lot of people on this board have poo pooed the notion that weed is a gateway drug to harder stuff. And they're ****ing morons.

I was eyeball deep in the drug culture for nigh on 25 years. I've pretty much done it all - except shooting heroin. LOTS of it all. And I've been around hundreds and hundreds of people who've completely wrecked - or lost - their lives with drugs.

And you know what? Not one tweaker I know began their drug use with meth. Not one cokehead or crack smoker began with cocaine. Not one stone junky started on heroin. Nope. They all started smoking weed then eventually moved/evolved into hardcore losers.

Anybody making the "weed is harmless" argument is either high, or clueless, or both.

I'm not going to get into a bigger dick contest about who's done more dope because it really doesn't change our credibility. I too have much experience with the mind altering chemicals and know others who do too. I haven't smoked pot or done other drugs in years and don't have any plans to.

That said, I don't buy the gateway-drug deal. I don't claim pot is harmless, but it is comparably way less harmful than many of the legal drugs that Pfizer, Merck, J&J et al are getting rich from.

I do agree that regular stoners aren't living up to their potential. I just don't see the cost-to-benefit ratio of chasing down everyone from the ganja farmers to the stoners as being worth all the trouble to make them as productive as they could/should/ought to be.

How much do we really invest in controlling our neighbors' vices? Whether it's internet pron, gambling, chasing skirts, smoking, or being completely obsessed with expensive techie-gizmos, folks generally don't live up to other folks' expectations of them. But we don't need a law, a militia, a foreign and domestic policy, and gazillions of dollars to try to regulate their behavior. We can, and IMO should, offer ways out for those who want to clean up.

I'm enjoying the heck out of this discussion. Typical SO. I laugh, I cringe, and I learn a thing or two.

Chuck Bao
5/27/2008, 04:47 PM
This is a decent argument - but a flawed one. Yes, some users handle their booze/pot/drugs better than some others, but EVERY pot smoker is affected by the weed. And not just when they're high.

I can get drunk on Friday night, be a complete dillweed and get into a fight and drive my motorcycle at 140 mph. Stupid? yes. Dangerous? yes. However, when I go to work on Monday morning, I am functioning at 99+%.

It's not the same with weed. First, I wouldn't be a dillweed because I'd be all spacey and instrospective and sit there and stare at the wall. I wouldn't drive the motorcycle at 140 mph - because I'd be too busy checking my rear view for a cop - all the while going somewhere between 25 and 65 in a 70mph zone. And for days and days afterward my mental capabilities are dulled.

My argument isn't booze vs. weed. My argument is that weed makes you a shell of what you could be. It quietly and most assuredly makes you half the man you could be.

I agree with Dean based on personal experience. And, I realize that pot maybe affects people differently. One joint and I stay loopy for three days. One bottle of whiskey and I'm hungover the next day and pretty much ****ed off at the world, but I still have my wits about me.

If it were legal, I don't think I'd do it.

I'm still in favor of legalization and everyone having the right to choose and taking responsibility for themselves.

yermom
5/27/2008, 04:51 PM
I think intent has everything in the world to do with it, personally. Intent, as in purpose for the specific drug at hand.

On one hand, I have a tall, thick stout with a slab of grilled dead cow. My lovely blonde headed Sooner girl likes a glass of wine when I throw down italian. A black lager fits like a non-OJ glove with a bratwurst and onion in a beer reduction over potatoes that I sling on occasion. And who here HASN'T had an ice cold, brain freezing Bud after workin' your tail off in the yard? Cold and refreshing. And I won't even start with my mama's bread pudding or my grandma's rum cake.

Practical applications all. No illicit intent.

When Joe Citizen rolls himself up a fatty, what's Joe Citizen doing? Increasing the pleasure of a well-cooked meal through complementing flavors? Enjoying a handcrafted masterpiece via a recipe that's been passed down through generations? Maybe even using that ages old liquid to provide sustenance in the manner of his forefathers? Or trying to cool off in the guaranteed, time-tested manner that I'm sure a large majority of us have enjoyed?

Or as that doob is being twisted, is the sole intent to smoke it to enjoy an altered mental status? And don't give me the brownie thing, either.

Hence where the gateway to other substances lies in my opinion. You smoke a joint to get high. There's no other reason to do it. A) It tastes like sh*t, B) it sure as hell doesn't add nutritional value, and C) the only positive outcome is the profit margin of the folks that make Doritos. Well, except for the fact that D) you smoke it to get stoned. Which may very well be a positive outcome in some folks' book. So yes, some abuse alcohol with negative results. Some don't. In fact, MANY people, what I'd guess as a large majority, don't abuse alcohol. In fact, in my specific circumstances alone, the byproduct of reaching an altered mental status actually works against using different alcoholic beverages in many different applications.

All of which point a finger at intent. And short of making rope and some shoes for a hippie, the usage of marijuana is wrapped entirely in the intent of gaining an altered mental status. Which for me, works just fine as an illegal aspect of our society.

LOTS of people drink to get drunk. i think alcohol is a large problem that is glossed over. that doesn't mean i don't think it should be legal

Rogue
5/27/2008, 04:55 PM
I think intent has everything in the world to do with it, personally. Intent, as in purpose for the specific drug at hand.
...

Or as that doob is being twisted, is the sole intent to smoke it to enjoy an altered mental status? And don't give me the brownie thing, either.

Hence where the gateway to other substances lies in my opinion. You smoke a joint to get high. There's no other reason to do it. A) It tastes like sh*t, B) it sure as hell doesn't add nutritional value, and C) the only positive outcome is the profit margin of the folks that make Doritos. Well, except for the fact that D) you smoke it to get stoned. Which may very well be a positive outcome in some folks' book. So yes, some abuse alcohol with negative results. Some don't.

All of which point a finger at intent. And short of making rope and some shoes for a hippie, the usage of marijuana is wrapped entirely in the intent of gaining an altered mental status. Which for me, works just fine as an illegal aspect of our society.

You didn't listen to the Peter Tosh song, did you? :D

Aside from the medical use arguments sure to follow, I really don't think your conclusions or assumptions are as self-evident as you might. 1) some folk think pot smells and tastes good 2) the fact that they intend to get high or achieve an "altered mental status" is necessarily bad? Man, we'd have to ban caffeine, nicotine, chocolate, and Mama's bon-bons if we try to start controlling intent of others' desires and abilities to enjoy a pleasant high.

Dean's right, it isn't entirely harmless. I just don't think it's worth much effort, if any, to continue to fail to control.

Chuck Bao
5/27/2008, 04:55 PM
I cannot confirm the validity of this, but I remember hearing somewhere that China was once even more closed off to the world than it is now. Like, Myanmar-closed. Other countries wanted to trade with China, like the U.S., for silk and other Chinese products, but China wouldn't have it.

Then, along came cheap drugs, namely opium. They meandered their way into China and really ****ed the Chinese government off, because it was adversely affecting their economy. Nothing protects China from the evil Brits and their opium trade than... a boat made of marble that doesn't float :D

Love this idea. Let's get China stoned and then they'll mellow out a bit and won't work so hard.

Badger, you deserve a senior job in the state department or on the national security council of the new Obama administration next year.

This is brilliant.

Tulsa_Fireman
5/27/2008, 04:55 PM
LOTS of people drink to get drunk. i think alcohol is a large problem that is glossed over. that doesn't mean i don't think it should be legal

Lots of folks may very well drink to get drunk. But there are those of us that don't.

However, 100%, each and every last person that smokes marijuana smokes to get stoned. Whether the effort is to aleviate pain, assist with glaucoma, or pure and simply just to get chonged, the point remains, there is no other purpose for smoking pot than to get stoned at some level, in some shape, form, or fashion.

Rogue
5/27/2008, 04:59 PM
Near-beer hasn't really caught on as well as some folks thought it would.

mdklatt
5/27/2008, 04:59 PM
Not one stone junky started on heroin. Nope. They all started smoking weed then eventually moved/evolved into hardcore losers.


I bet they started with alcohol before that. All the reasons I'm seeing for keeping pot illegal would work equally well for alcohol. To borrow from the NRA: Drugs don't get high, people do.

mdklatt
5/27/2008, 05:02 PM
However, 100%, each and every last person that smokes marijuana smokes to get stoned.

So what if they do? How is that your business? It's not illegal to get drunk in the privacy of your living room, why should it be illegal to get high?

LosAngelesSooner
5/27/2008, 05:02 PM
This is a decent argument - but a flawed one. Yes, some users handle their booze/pot/drugs better than some others, but EVERY pot smoker is affected by the weed. And not just when they're high.

I can get drunk on Friday night, be a complete dillweed and get into a fight and drive my motorcycle at 140 mph. Stupid? yes. Dangerous? yes. However, when I go to work on Monday morning, I am functioning at 99+%.

It's not the same with weed. First, I wouldn't be a dillweed because I'd be all spacey and instrospective and sit there and stare at the wall. I wouldn't drive the motorcycle at 140 mph - because I'd be too busy checking my rear view for a cop - all the while going somewhere between 25 and 65 in a 70mph zone. And for days and days afterward my mental capabilities are dulled.

My argument isn't booze vs. weed. My argument is that weed makes you a shell of what you could be. It quietly and most assuredly makes you half the man you could be.
You need to meet more stoners. I know a few who can smoke rIdIcUlOuS amounts of weed and still function fine, that day or the next.

Some people can handle their poison (whatever it may be) better than others.

badger
5/27/2008, 05:09 PM
Love this idea. Let's get China stoned and then they'll mellow out a bit and won't work so hard.

Badger, you deserve a senior job in the state department or on the national security council of the new Obama administration next year.

This is brilliant.

You know all those diplomatic talks Obama said he wanted to have as president? You know how his autobiographies tell how he used to do drugs way back when? You know the connection I'm trying to make, hmm?

I actually looked this up after typing it to make sure I wasn't relying on a former professor's rantings. The marble boat did exist and it didn't float. There's also a second version made of wood (Chinese people learn fast), but resembles the original marble one.

I think China is better globally than they even were a few months ago. All the Tibet protests? Gone. All from a little natural disaster that led to worldwide sympathy (cue 9/11 conspiracy theorists). Aside from the sympathy factor, they are opening their doors to media scrutiny on a global basis for the Olympics. The LDS church (Just call 'em Mormons if you want) did the same thing with hosting the Winter Olympics in... 2002? Sometime recent.

Anyways, China might not ever Puff the Magic Dragon, but Opium was once the focal point of a war (or series of wars, I don't really know the exact details as it was hundreds of years before my time) between China and European countries.

and... America wins!

...no, America didn't exist yet.

:D

Tulsa_Fireman
5/27/2008, 05:23 PM
You didn't listen to the Peter Tosh song, did you? :D

Aside from the medical use arguments sure to follow, I really don't think your conclusions or assumptions are as self-evident as you might. 1) some folk think pot smells and tastes good 2) the fact that they intend to get high or achieve an "altered mental status" is necessarily bad? Man, we'd have to ban caffeine, nicotine, chocolate, and Mama's bon-bons if we try to start controlling intent of others' desires and abilities to enjoy a pleasant high.

Dean's right, it isn't entirely harmless. I just don't think it's worth much effort, if any, to continue to fail to control.

Naw, you got me there. I came into the thread late. But let's hit those good points you just brought up anyway, even if my video clicker is takin' a day off. ;)

1) I can't say anything to this. Ugh. *shudder*

2) That's the kicker, my friend. Or it is in my book at least. There's a brazillion different ways to achieve an altered mental status, and through my loose usage of the term, you could hang just about everything on the hat peg of "altered mental status", from mainlining some china white to hearing your child say "daddy" for the first time. But I hope you understand my point when I speak of an "altered mental status" as in substance or circumstance that negatively affects one's motor function, reaction time, or potentially one's level of consciousness. So for me, it's not an effort to control whether or not you want to enjoy a cup of coffee, a pinch of snuff, a Hershey bar, or God forbid, even your mama's cookin'. It rolls right back to intent and potential outcome.

I keep seeing the example of the stoned guy driving 25 miles an hour down the street with his eyes peeled in the rear view mirror. It's been laughed off as a case where that driver will do no harm. However, given that "altered mental status", the sole intent of the driver when they sparked that fatty to diminish their motor function in the lone purpose of that "pleasant high", and the potential outcome of operating a piece of steel, fiberglass, and plastic while under the influence of such, we're posed with a problem. When I eat a piece of chocolate, I can do so, not abuse the substance, not consume in search of an altered mental status, and still function in the daily pursuit of my day. I can even have a pinch of snuff in my head as I roll a 20 ton piece of fire apparatus down Tulsa's streets with no ill effects. I might flounder a bit after my mama's cooking, but there's a slim chance that I'll have an altered mental status outside of the pain of knowing I'm gonna have to take a massive dump in a few hours. Even abused, what will these things do to my ability to do a number of things? Specifically in this case (an illogical argument of the general to the specific, and my apologies), operating a motor vehicle? Nothing.

Which goes one more time right back into the camp of intent.

Why'd I eat that chocolate? That 2nd plate of ham? That big ol' pinch of copenhagen? That's pretty obvious, because I enjoy it. Just like some enjoy torchin' up that J. But the repurcussions of my eating that chocolate, that 2nd plate of ham, or taking that pinch of snuff, affects only myself up until I get to skyrocket your insurance premiums for my lip cancer and heart disease. When I flame up, I'm doing so for the single intent of punchin' out from the neck up. There's no other reason to do it. And I think Dean touched solidly on why that's a bad thing.

And why the desire to get stoned can be potentially an open door for other harsher substances, as well as a danger to Joe Citizen.

mdklatt
5/27/2008, 05:27 PM
Which goes one more time right back into the camp of intent.


So anybody who drinks to get drunk should be arrested?

Chuck Bao
5/27/2008, 05:31 PM
You know all those diplomatic talks Obama said he wanted to have as president? You know how his autobiographies tell how he used to do drugs way back when? You know the connection I'm trying to make, hmm?

I actually looked this up after typing it to make sure I wasn't relying on a former professor's rantings. The marble boat did exist and it didn't float. There's also a second version made of wood (Chinese people learn fast), but resembles the original marble one.

I think China is better globally than they even were a few months ago. All the Tibet protests? Gone. All from a little natural disaster that led to worldwide sympathy (cue 9/11 conspiracy theorists). Aside from the sympathy factor, they are opening their doors to media scrutiny on a global basis for the Olympics. The LDS church (Just call 'em Mormons if you want) did the same thing with hosting the Winter Olympics in... 2002? Sometime recent.

Anyways, China might not ever Puff the Magic Dragon, but Opium was once the focal point of a war (or series of wars, I don't really know the exact details as it was hundreds of years before my time) between China and European countries.

and... America wins!

...no, America didn't exist yet.

:D

I know and that was a great history lesson, Badger.

I used to live in Hong Kong and the British carved out their then colony of Hong Kong partly from gunboat diplomacy and the Opium Wars. Shame about this fact was one of the reasons that the British were willing to turn their back on the Hong Kong people and give the colony back to China in '97. They could have done that, but offered British citizenship first. They didn't.

I still think the idea of flooding China with pot just still may work. And, we can still claim to be morally superior to the British because pot isn't as tough of a habit than smoking opium.

Anyone here ever smoke opium? I tried it once and didn't like it.

Also, I think the marble boat still does exist. I've be on it. If I remember correctly, it's at the lake besides summer palace.

Tulsa_Fireman
5/27/2008, 05:45 PM
So anybody who drinks to get drunk should be arrested?

Yes. And paraded in the public square, leading to a hanging by noon the next day. Excluding all the Christian religious holidays of course, as a means to repent before one's coming to their maker.

/sarcasm

Of course not. But how would one define intent on a substance that is WIDELY used outside of the intent of usage as a mind alterning substance?

"No, officer. I wasn't gettin' sh*tfaced. I was enjoying the deep rich aroma of the hops in homage of my great great great grandfather, who cultivated the hills of Bavaria in this very fruit of our beloved soil."

Compared to...

"Uhhhhh... Dude, I got the munchies. Heh heh heh."

If the only purpose of the substance is to alter one's mental status, why SHOULD the public en masse be able to use it? Maybe there's a legitimate argument in that of Montel Williams' position, using marijuana as pain relief for the sufferers of MS. Maybe there's a legitimate argument for a number of medical uses.

When you approach the argument that way, I guess there aren't any laws I can think of that ban the drinking of drano. Hell, let's legalize it. I'm convinced. Let's legalize a substance that has no other purpose but to lower your cognitive and spatial ability (exluding the SHoes And Rope for The USA, aka the SH.A.R.T USA movement), has no means of detection of usage in field applications to determine said altered mental status that doesn't violate one's rights yet still lowers one's ability to safely and appropriately operate a motor vehicle, and ignore the volumes of circumstantial evidence that points pretty dang accusingly at the substance as a drug that oftentimes leads to the pursuit of more dangerous, deadly substances, even though that may very well be a reflection of the individual and not the drug because guess what, it's illegal.

Let's do that. I'm convinced!

badger
5/27/2008, 05:52 PM
I know and that was a great history lesson, Badger.

Endorsement by Chuck!

I would now like to state my candidacy for new "Good Morning" thread starter based on my "great history lesson(s)"

;)

mdklatt
5/27/2008, 06:11 PM
Of course not. But how would one define intent on a substance that is WIDELY used outside of the intent of usage as a mind alterning substance?


I'm gonna call BS on the idea that most people drink alcohol strictly for the taste. Alcohol tastes disgusting. Look at all the ways we've devised to consume alcohol while masking it's taste. You could make a non-alcoholic beer that tasted exactly like the real thing, and I bet people would still prefer the alcoholic version. Do you think we should outlaw everything but Okie beer? Interestingly, the only medicinal use of alcohol is external; not so for marijuana. Seems to me like that alcohol is abused as a mind-altering substance just as much as marijuana.

But the real question is why so many dirty libz in this thread want Big Government to protect us from ourselves?

TUSooner
5/27/2008, 06:48 PM
****
If the only purpose of the substance is to alter one's mental status, why SHOULD the public en masse be able to use it?

****

Your premise that it is illegitimate to use any substance soley to alter one's "mental status" is soundly refuted by nothing less than the Holy Bible:

Psalm 104 states:

14 [God] makes grass grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate— bringing forth food from the earth:
15 wine that gladdens the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread that sustains his heart.

If somebody wants to "gladden his heart" without hurting anyone else, then you neo-Pharisees need to butt out.

And don't give me that tired, lame "butterfly effect" argument about an endless chain of causation that proves, somehow, that if Uncle Dave falls asleep on the couch after having a toke some innocent baby in Borneo will start coughing blood for lack of medical attention. Even your Southern Babdis pastor's wife's pristine lifestyle couldn't pass that muster.

And don't get me started on the hunormous medical racket
in "legitimate" mood altering drugs.

And what about comfort food? Is that bad too because it makes you "feel good?" Cholestrol? Sugar? Spicy food? You can get nutrition without all that decadence.

Disclaimer: This rant should be construed in the nicest possible way and is not intended to be a reflection on any poster's value as a human being. ;)

TUSooner
5/27/2008, 06:53 PM
Speaking of history, British America (the part that became us) didn't become sustainable until it was discovered that money could be made off that most evil weed, tobacco. You could look it up!

def_lazer_fc
5/27/2008, 08:17 PM
Lots of folks may very well drink to get drunk. But there are those of us that don't.

However, 100%, each and every last person that smokes marijuana smokes to get stoned. Whether the effort is to aleviate pain, assist with glaucoma, or pure and simply just to get chonged, the point remains, there is no other purpose for smoking pot than to get stoned at some level, in some shape, form, or fashion.

so painkillers ought to go as well. people take them for one purpose and one purpose only too. to get stoned at some level, in some shape, form, or fashion.

goingoneight
5/27/2008, 10:44 PM
Telling people not to do something... especially Americans, is a waste of money and effort. Raise your kids up the best you can and that's your best bet.

bluedogok
5/27/2008, 11:20 PM
I know plenty of people who don't smoke pot or drink that will never "live up to their potential", the majority of people on this planet will never reach their full potential. For some of them their drug is laziness......

As far as a "gateway drug" the one that I have seen most used as that is alcohol, pretty much everyone that I have known that has had drug problems (including a couple of extended family members) started with alcohol as a teen but I have known more alcoholics than I have people with other drug problems. I think if you have addictive tendencies you are going to "find" your way to addiction, whether it is alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, gambling, working out, porn or whatever else pushes your buttons. I also know quite a few who drink or smoke pot, that is the extent of their "recreation drug use" and has been the case for 20+ years. they just don't have whatever is in them to escalate use beyond that, just like I can have a six pack of beer in the fridge for up to six months. I like beer but I just don't drink it all the time because I don't have whatever it is to drive a person to drink whatever all the time but I have known others that go through at least a 12-pack a night and a pack of cigs.

We are all just different and we should have learned by now that we can't protect everyone from the vices of the world, THAT is nothing more than an exercise in futility.

47straight
5/27/2008, 11:47 PM
so painkillers ought to go as well. people take them for one purpose and one purpose only too. to get stoned at some level, in some shape, form, or fashion.



No. You take painkillers to feel normal. Well, at least when done correctly under the supervision of a doctor. They don't make you high. They make you feel somewhat normal.


And please don't construe "normal" as dazed and confused.

yermom
5/28/2008, 01:07 AM
No. You take painkillers to feel normal. Well, at least when done correctly under the supervision of a doctor. They don't make you high. They make you feel somewhat normal.


And please don't construe "normal" as dazed and confused.

yeah, but in most of the country you can't even be prescribed weed which can also be used for the same thing

i can't really think of one reason a terminal cancer patient shouldn't be allowed to smoke weed

which would you rather see your kids using, pot or Oxycontin?

LosAngelesSooner
5/28/2008, 01:46 AM
Yes. And paraded in the public square, leading to a hanging by noon the next day. Excluding all the Christian religious holidays of course, as a means to repent before one's coming to their maker.

/sarcasm

Of course not. But how would one define intent on a substance that is WIDELY used outside of the intent of usage as a mind alterning substance?

"No, officer. I wasn't gettin' sh*tfaced. I was enjoying the deep rich aroma of the hops in homage of my great great great grandfather, who cultivated the hills of Bavaria in this very fruit of our beloved soil."

Compared to...

"Uhhhhh... Dude, I got the munchies. Heh heh heh."

If the only purpose of the substance is to alter one's mental status, why SHOULD the public en masse be able to use it? Maybe there's a legitimate argument in that of Montel Williams' position, using marijuana as pain relief for the sufferers of MS. Maybe there's a legitimate argument for a number of medical uses.

When you approach the argument that way, I guess there aren't any laws I can think of that ban the drinking of drano. Hell, let's legalize it. I'm convinced. Let's legalize a substance that has no other purpose but to lower your cognitive and spatial ability (exluding the SHoes And Rope for The USA, aka the SH.A.R.T USA movement), has no means of detection of usage in field applications to determine said altered mental status that doesn't violate one's rights yet still lowers one's ability to safely and appropriately operate a motor vehicle, and ignore the volumes of circumstantial evidence that points pretty dang accusingly at the substance as a drug that oftentimes leads to the pursuit of more dangerous, deadly substances, even though that may very well be a reflection of the individual and not the drug because guess what, it's illegal.

Let's do that. I'm convinced!
The sole purpose of nicotine (upon the initial few uses) is to achieve an altered mental state (until your body builds up a tolerance for it).

Should all nicotine products be made illegal?

(also, you really should try GOOD weed instead of the stank stuff you've obviously experienced. That's another benefit of legalization...weed that doesn't make you cough and that smells/tastes good). ;)

yermom
5/28/2008, 02:08 AM
i don't even smoke, but i love the way it smells

TUSooner
5/28/2008, 07:49 AM
I know plenty of people who don't smoke pot or drink that will never "live up to their potential", the majority of people on this planet will never reach their full potential. For some of them their drug is laziness......

As far as a "gateway drug" the one that I have seen most used as that is alcohol, pretty much everyone that I have known that has had drug problems (including a couple of extended family members) started with alcohol as a teen but I have known more alcoholics than I have people with other drug problems. I think if you have addictive tendencies you are going to "find" your way to addiction, whether it is alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, gambling, working out, porn or whatever else pushes your buttons. I also know quite a few who drink or smoke pot, that is the extent of their "recreation drug use" and has been the case for 20+ years. they just don't have whatever is in them to escalate use beyond that, just like I can have a six pack of beer in the fridge for up to six months. I like beer but I just don't drink it all the time because I don't have whatever it is to drive a person to drink whatever all the time but I have known others that go through at least a 12-pack a night and a pack of cigs.

We are all just different and we should have learned by now that we can't protect everyone from the vices of the world, THAT is nothing more than an exercise in futility.

Hear him.

imjebus
5/28/2008, 09:13 AM
I want to know why weed gets the "gateway drug" title. Everyone I have even met started with cig's or alcohol. There is no such thing as a gateway drug, if you want to get high and don't give a crap about the consequences you will take whatever is in front of you.

I don't drink alcohol because I tend wake up in strange places with strange people not knowing if I killed someone the night before. Never had that experience with weed.

Never robbed anybody, never beat anybody, never raped anybody. Didn't lose one f'n job, laughed my *** off and went about my day. Sorry

OklahomaRed
5/28/2008, 09:14 AM
Fix one issue, but create another.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jU0Kn4BEwoBpTexvaQO-yKsuCHxwD90ULRNG0

yermom
5/28/2008, 09:38 AM
ok, so you've got the legal pot selling racket going, and you are too greedy to not mess it up

potheads are idiots

Partial Qualifier
5/28/2008, 09:45 AM
I love Weed debates!

I agree that weed can be dangerous but I acknowledge it affects some people differently, and I'm puzzled why people embellish weed's affects and then gloss over the harmful affects of ingesting alcohol.

Oh and I'd love to hear the WoD proponents explain why after all this time and hundreds of billions spent, weed is more easily located, higher quality, and quite a bit cheaper than it was 30 years ago. Add the fact that it grows 'like a weed' in may parts of the country... it's pretty damn foolish that we don't take a different approach towards marijuana & focus that time & money on eradicating the harder drugs.

badger
5/28/2008, 09:53 AM
Well, prohibition didn't work, but then again, weed has never been legal, while people had been drinking alcohol for awhile before it was suddenly banned.

I would worry that if it was legalized, people would grow it more than necessary crops (like corn for fuel, lol), but at the same time, they're probably growing it in abundance anyway.

CobraKai
5/28/2008, 09:58 AM
Just for debate purposes (and to stir the pot some), have we lost the war on murder? It seems like the more we spend trying to stop it, the more our jails are filling up with murderers. Should it be legalized too? :)

Obviously that is a outrageous analogy, but the point is that we have declared war on all sorts of moral issues, so if we want to stop fighting the losing battles we need to look at a lot more than just drugs. We seem to be losing the battles against stealing, global warming, gun violence, gangs, horrible, horrible reality TV shows... Should we call off those battles too? Obviously this question is somewhat rhetorical. I know nobody wants to call off the fight to get "Keeping up with the Kardashians" taken off the air.

Fraggle145
5/28/2008, 12:57 PM
No. You take painkillers to feel normal. Well, at least when done correctly under the supervision of a doctor. They don't make you high. They make you feel somewhat normal.


And please don't construe "normal" as dazed and confused.

So morphine is used to make you feel normal? :confused: Riggghhhht...

LosAngelesSooner
5/28/2008, 12:59 PM
Well, prohibition didn't work, but then again, weed has never been legal, while people had been drinking alcohol for awhile before it was suddenly banned.

I would worry that if it was legalized, people would grow it more than necessary crops (like corn for fuel, lol), but at the same time, they're probably growing it in abundance anyway.
Weed, cocaine, heroin were all legal until varying times between the 1800's and early 1900's.

And weed was made illegal by the newspaper lobby because the biggest newspaper men (William Randolph Hearst) also owned paper mills (from trees) and wanted to make more money that way since so much paper was being made out of hemp.

That's the actual reason that weed was petitioned to be made illegal in America. PAPER and MONEY. All the rest was just fear mongering to get the people behind the new law.

Oh...and for the record, I don't smoke weed. :)

LosAngelesSooner
5/28/2008, 01:02 PM
Just for debate purposes (and to stir the pot some), have we lost the war on murder? It seems like the more we spend trying to stop it, the more our jails are filling up with murderers. Should it be legalized too? :)

Obviously that is a outrageous analogy, but the point is that we have declared war on all sorts of moral issues, so if we want to stop fighting the losing battles we need to look at a lot more than just drugs. We seem to be losing the battles against stealing, global warming, gun violence, gangs, horrible, horrible reality TV shows... Should we call off those battles too? Obviously this question is somewhat rhetorical. I know nobody wants to call off the fight to get "Keeping up with the Kardashians" taken off the air.
Please, everyone...never...ever stop the war against horrible, horrible reality TV shows.

Please. :(

CobraKai
5/28/2008, 01:07 PM
Please, everyone...never...ever stop the war against horrible, horrible reality TV shows.

Please. :(

Thank you. If we can just get a few of them canceled (maybe Flavor of Love 9) then I will have done my small part.

OklahomaRed
5/28/2008, 03:43 PM
Please, everyone...never...ever stop the war against horrible, horrible reality TV shows.

Please. :(

I'm in. I watch about 3 seconds of some of these and then ask myself, "Who the heck watches this crap?" It's not funny, except to the point that these people are so frickin' stupid that they are embarrassingly funny. :gary:

yermom
5/28/2008, 03:47 PM
i'm glad we have some common ground here ;)

how many American Idols do we need?

Shot of Love? Rock of Love? Flavor of Love?

please make it stop.

there needs to be room for things like Firefly and Arrested Development :mad: :(

Sooner_Havok
5/28/2008, 03:57 PM
i'm glad we have some common ground here ;)

how many American Idols do we need?

Shot of Love? Rock of Love? Flavor of Love?

please make it stop.

there needs to be room for things like Firefly and Arrested Development :mad: :(

I miss Mr. Show

yermom
5/28/2008, 04:01 PM
it least that show had a run

there was some good stuff there though :D

David Cross is hilarious

Sooner_Havok
5/28/2008, 04:07 PM
Problem with funny, original, smart stuff like that is the America population is pretty stupid. Well, maybe not stupid, but at least lazy. Anything that takes any thought for them to understand, the flip the channel to find something that requires no thought at all.

TUSooner
5/28/2008, 04:08 PM
Just for debate purposes (and to stir the pot some), have we lost the war on murder? It seems like the more we spend trying to stop it, the more our jails are filling up with murderers. Should it be legalized too? :)

Obviously that is a outrageous analogy, but the point is that we have declared war on all sorts of moral issues, so if we want to stop fighting the losing battles we need to look at a lot more than just drugs. We seem to be losing the battles against stealing, global warming, gun violence, gangs, horrible, horrible reality TV shows... Should we call off those battles too? Obviously this question is somewhat rhetorical. I know nobody wants to call off the fight to get "Keeping up with the Kardashians" taken off the air.

Not bad.
I'd say the difference is that with most drug use the danger to society at lareg (as opposed to the user) is just not great enough to warrant out-and-out prohibition when some other sort of regulation would probably do a better job of actually controlling the thing. That is, a little tolerance could lead to better control by keeping the use "above ground" where it can be observed and regulated.

However, murder and reality shows are so intrinsically evil and harmful that there's no room in society to tolerate even one.

yermom
5/28/2008, 04:28 PM
Problem with funny, original, smart stuff like that is the America population is pretty stupid. Well, maybe not stupid, but at least lazy. Anything that takes any thought for them to understand, the flip the channel to find something that requires no thought at all.

eventually it will all be "Ow My Balls" and pr0n

C&CDean
5/28/2008, 04:38 PM
I want to know why weed gets the "gateway drug" title. Everyone I have even met started with cig's or alcohol. There is no such thing as a gateway drug, if you want to get high and don't give a crap about the consequences you will take whatever is in front of you.

I don't drink alcohol because I tend wake up in strange places with strange people not knowing if I killed someone the night before. Never had that experience with weed.

Never robbed anybody, never beat anybody, never raped anybody. Didn't lose one f'n job, laughed my *** off and went about my day. Sorry

Yeah, but look at you now.

I rest my case.

LosAngelesSooner
5/28/2008, 04:39 PM
I miss Mr. Show
Amen.

i'm glad we have some common ground here ;)

there needs to be room for things like Firefly and Arrested Development :mad: :(AMEN!

Problem with funny, original, smart stuff like that is the America population is pretty stupid. Well, maybe not stupid, but at least lazy. Anything that takes any thought for them to understand, the flip the channel to find something that requires no thought at all.Like Fox News?
;)

C&CDean
5/28/2008, 04:47 PM
Oh...and for the record, I don't smoke weed. :)

cough - bull**** - cough

In all honesty, your track record on what you say you are and what you actually believe and do reminds me of opposites day at grade school. Just sayin'.

More on the gateway drug thing.

Yes, cigs and alcohol are most definetely gateway drugs. Without a doubt. However, weed is the first "illicit" drug that most people experiment with. It didn't make them see purple spiders crawling on their skin like Reefer Madness said it would, so they try some pills. That was pretty groovy so they finally do find something that does make them see purple spiders crawling on their skin - but that was way too freaky.

So they try something that makes them feel like a rubberized turd uncapable of carrying on conversation but makes them really, really warm and fuzzy and they dig it. Another junky is born...

In all my experience I've never met a single addict that went from cigs/beer to heroin or meth or cocaine. Ever. Weed is the drug that gets them rolling down that downward spiraling road.

Sooner_Havok
5/28/2008, 04:51 PM
cough - bull**** - cough

In all honesty, your track record on what you say you are and what you actually believe and do reminds me of opposites day at grade school. Just sayin'.

More on the gateway drug thing.

Yes, cigs and alcohol are most definetely gateway drugs. Without a doubt. However, weed is the first "illicit" drug that most people experiment with. It didn't make them see purple spiders crawling on their skin like Reefer Madness said it would, so they try some pills. That was pretty groovy so they finally do find something that does make them see purple spiders crawling on their skin - but that was way too freaky.

So they try something that makes them feel like a rubberized turd uncapable of carrying on conversation but makes them really, really warm and fuzzy and they dig it. Another junky is born...

In all my experience I've never met a single addict that went from cigs/beer to heroin or meth or cocaine. Ever. Weed is the drug that gets them rolling down that downward spiraling road.

Ever met anyone that didn't smoke cigs or drink but started smoking pot?

C&CDean
5/28/2008, 04:55 PM
Ever met anyone that didn't smoke cigs or drink but started smoking pot?

Nope. Well I take that back, I have met a few people that have never smoked a cig in their life and started smoking pot, but they all drank first. What's kind of sad about this is that once they evolved beyond weed, and got into drugs like meth and coke they became chain smokers. Of cigs.

Rogue
5/28/2008, 04:59 PM
I dunno Dean. Does the theory go beyond "gateway" to the point of claiming that without weed there wouldn't be junkies? It just doesn't make sense to me. It's (weed) not nearly as addictive as opiates, coke, or meth so Ima say that there'd still be plenty of junkies if the weed were eradicated completely, we'd just blame some other "gateway" because it is comfortable and familiar to think it's the truth.

Now, I didn't say it's not addictive, because it can be. But it's not for everybody or, in fact, most people. Opiates, coke, and meth OTOH...almost everyone gets hooked the first time.

Rogue
5/28/2008, 05:00 PM
Nope. Well I take that back, I have met a few people that have never smoked a cig in their life and started smoking pot, but they all drank first. What's kind of sad about this is that once they evolved beyond weed, and got into drugs like meth and coke they became chain smokers. Of cigs.

Yup.

Sooner_Havok
5/28/2008, 05:04 PM
Nope. Well I take that back, I have met a few people that have never smoked a cig in their life and started smoking pot, but they all drank first. What's kind of sad about this is that once they evolved beyond weed, and got into drugs like meth and coke they became chain smokers. Of cigs.

I think it has more to do will self control and what not. I drink (at one point I may have even rivaled OleVet himself), I have been known to enjoy a good cigar from time to time, and occasionally I will enjoy a German cigarette. I stop there though. I have never, and probably will never smoke pot. To me it is a personal choice, but I still say it should be legal. Pot is no more a gateway to meth and coke as cigs and beer are to pot. I will say that some people are drawn deeper into the rabbit hole by both. I just think that the same percentage of people led to pot by cigs and beer is the same to the percentage of people led to meth and coke by pot.

C&CDean
5/28/2008, 05:04 PM
I dunno Dean. Does the theory go beyond "gateway" to the point of claiming that without weed there wouldn't be junkies? It just doesn't make sense to me. It's (weed) not nearly as addictive as opiates, coke, or meth so Ima say that there'd still be plenty of junkies if the weed were eradicated completely, we'd just blame some other "gateway" because it is comfortable and familiar to think it's the truth.

Now, I didn't say it's not addictive, because it can be. But it's not for everybody or, in fact, most people. Opiates, coke, and meth OTOH...almost everyone gets hooked the first time.

Valid.

I will say this:

Quitting cigs and dip was by far the hardest.
Quitting weed was a very close second.
Coke would be next.
Crank, acid, ludes, pills, etc. weren't very difficult to give up at all. I never allowed myself to do morphine or demerol every day. Lots of people ain't that smart though.
Alcohol? Still drink it. A man's gotta have at least one bad habit.

LosAngelesSooner
5/28/2008, 05:41 PM
cough - bull**** - cough
I didn't say that I had NEVER smoked weed, but I do NOT smoke weed. Don't really like it. Makes me sleepy.

Plus I work out and watch what I eat too much.


In all honesty, your track record on what you say you are and what you actually believe and do reminds me of opposites day at grade school. Just sayin'.
And your opinion of me is about as important to me as used Kleenex.

I am what I am, and I rarely waver from my opinions. If you don't like it that I'm a registered Republican who adheres to the original founding principles of the party, rather than the Neo-Con doctrine espoused by our current Faux-Publicans, then that's your problem.

Just sayin'. :rolleyes:


More on the gateway drug thing.

Yes, cigs and alcohol are most definetely gateway drugs. Without a doubt. However, weed is the first "illicit" drug that most people experiment with. It didn't make them see purple spiders crawling on their skin like Reefer Madness said it would, so they try some pills. That was pretty groovy so they finally do find something that does make them see purple spiders crawling on their skin - but that was way too freaky.

So they try something that makes them feel like a rubberized turd uncapable of carrying on conversation but makes them really, really warm and fuzzy and they dig it. Another junky is born...

In all my experience I've never met a single addict that went from cigs/beer to heroin or meth or cocaine. Ever. Weed is the drug that gets them rolling down that downward spiraling road.
So for you it's a matter of what is legal/illegal at which particular time. Because during prohibition, alcohol would have been the first "illicit drug" that people would have tried. And it wouldn't have made them lose control of themselves and have tons of random sex with strangers and hallucinate like the Temperance Movement peeps told everyone it would.

The problem you have, by your logic, is legality/timeline, not the particular drug.

:pop:

C&CDean
5/28/2008, 05:46 PM
I didn't say that I had NEVER smoked weed, but I do NOT smoke weed. Don't really like it. Makes me sleepy.

Plus I work out and watch what I eat too much.


And your opinion of me is about as important to me as used Kleenex.

I am what I am, and I rarely waver from my opinions. If you don't like it that I'm a registered Republican who adheres to the original founding principles of the party, rather than the Neo-Con doctrine espoused by our current Faux-Publicans, then that's your problem.

Just sayin'. :rolleyes:


So for you it's a matter of what is legal/illegal at which particular time. Because during prohibition, alcohol would have been the first "illicit drug" that people would have tried. And it wouldn't have made them lose control of themselves and have tons of random sex with strangers and hallucinate like the Temperance Movement peeps told everyone it would.

The problem you have, by your logic, is legality/timeline, not the particular drug.

:pop:

No, the problem I have is with potheads who think they have all the answers.

And I know that my opinion of you is at least as important to you as an unused kleenex.

On a sidenote, I'm pretty sure the founders of "our" party weren't hip to man love and baby scrapin'. Just sayin'.

Sooner_Havok
5/28/2008, 05:46 PM
If you don't like it that I'm a registered Republican who adheres to the original founding principles of the party, rather than the Neo-Con doctrine espoused by our current Faux-Publicans, then that's your problem.

Heh, I never knew you were a Republican expatriate too.

LosAngelesSooner
5/28/2008, 05:54 PM
No, the problem I have is with potheads who think they have all the answers.

And I know that my opinion of you is at least as important to you as an unused kleenex.

On a sidenote, I'm pretty sure the founders of "our" party weren't hip to man love and baby scrapin'. Just sayin'.
Okay. Maybe as much as an unused Kleenex. BUT NOTHING MORE! ;)

As for the founders of our party, one thing they weren't hip to was laws that intruded into our homes/bedrooms and litigating morality.

And they were very hip to the equal rights of every man, woman and child.

And by the way...you should be annoyed by anyone, pothead or not, who thinks they EVER have "all the answers." (IMHO)

C&CDean
5/28/2008, 05:58 PM
Okay. Maybe as much as an unused Kleenex. BUT NOTHING MORE! ;)

As for the founders of our party, one thing they weren't hip to was laws that intruded into our homes/bedrooms and litigating morality.

And they were very hip to the equal rights of every man, woman and child.

No argument from me.

Problem is, your people have created an issue by bringing their butt shenanigans OUT of their homes/bedrooms.

The whole equality for every m,w, and c is right on.

Rogue
5/28/2008, 06:00 PM
And they were very hip to the equal rights of every man, woman and child.
Well, except for that whole voting thing. :eek:
And men who weren't white.

Rogue
5/28/2008, 06:02 PM
It is interesting that the legalization issue doesn't seem to be so evenly split on our usual SO liberal/conservative lines.

As for the WoD, not many defenders so far.

47straight
5/28/2008, 07:21 PM
yeah, but in most of the country you can't even be prescribed weed which can also be used for the same thing

i can't really think of one reason a terminal cancer patient shouldn't be allowed to smoke weed

which would you rather see your kids using, pot or Oxycontin?

**** your false dichotomy.

Do they have some sort of acute pain problem? Oxycontin under the supervision of a doctor, whose effects have been known and studied. Self-medication never ends well.

47straight
5/28/2008, 07:24 PM
So morphine is used to make you feel normal? :confused: Riggghhhht...



Certainly more normal than screaming in pain, yes.



Oh wait, I'm sorry, you used "Riggghhht" which is the trump card in teh innernets debate. I'll go crawl back under my rock.

Melo
5/28/2008, 07:55 PM
**** your false dichotomy.

Do they have some sort of acute pain problem? Oxycontin under the supervision of a doctor, whose effects have been known and studied. Self-medication never ends well.

80mg of OC for a cancer patient might make them feel more normal, but to a person who is not sick, it is a pretty decent high, it can last all day, and because it is opiate based, is also highly addictive. $20 for some pot vs at least $60 for one pill, yea, Id rather see someone chilling on pot than doped up on OCs and Vike's.

I used to know this kid who sold OC's. It was as easy as having a pocket full of cash, getting a dirty doc to write a script, and having the cash to purchase the pills. For a couple hundred a bottle, selling every pill for $65, he banked.

mdklatt
5/28/2008, 08:07 PM
Do they have some sort of acute pain problem? Oxycontin under the supervision of a doctor, whose effects have been known and studied. Self-medication never ends well.

Known and studied to be highly addictive because Oxycontin is just this side of heroin. You can take marijuana under the supervision of a doctor, and I bet there's more literature on the effects of marijuana than there is on Limbaugh Lozenges. (I just made that up. Feel free to spread it around. :D)

I have no intention of ever smoking weed, but I'd sooner do that than take some of the manmade crap they're pushing now. The side effects are worse than the disease. One of the possible side effects of an RLS medication is compulsive gambling. Compulsive gambling. WTF?

47straight
5/28/2008, 08:09 PM
80mg of OC for a cancer patient might make them feel more normal, but to a person who is not sick, it is a pretty decent high, it can last all day, and because it is opiate based, is also highly addictive. $20 for some pot vs at least $60 for one pill, yea, Id rather see someone chilling on pot than doped up on OCs and Vike's.

I used to know this kid who sold OC's. It was as easy as having a pocket full of cash, getting a dirty doc to write a script, and having the cash to purchase the pills. For a couple hundred a bottle, selling every pill for $65, he banked.

Believe me, I've seen the destruction that addition to "legal" medicine has done to my sister's family. Sure, the nephew that steals my sister's meds is doing something illegal and dangerous. That doesn't lessen my sister's legitimate use of the medicine so that she can function like a normal human being.

The stuff you mention is becoming, IMO, as big of a public health crisis as meth. Dirty docs need to have their licenses stripped. But getting a doctor's license taken away is pretty much impossible.

But all this is beside the point that saying pot should be legal because people (illegally) abuse perscription drugs is a non-starter.

47straight
5/28/2008, 08:11 PM
Known and studied to be highly addictive because Oxycontin is just this side of heroin. You can take marijuana under the supervision of a doctor, and I bet there's more literature on the effects of marijuana than there is on Limbaugh Lozenges. (I just made that up. Feel free to spread it around. :D)

I have no intention of ever smoking weed, but I'd sooner do that than take some of the manmade crap they're pushing now. The side effects are worse than the disease. One of the possible side effects of an RLS medication is compulsive gambling. Compulsive gambling. WTF?

It's not addictive when taken correctly. But I don't know what this RLS is. Restless leg syndrome?

LosAngelesSooner
5/28/2008, 08:17 PM
No argument from me.

Problem is, your people have created an issue by bringing their butt shenanigans OUT of their homes/bedrooms.

The whole equality for every m,w, and c is right on."MY People"?!?!
Hardly.

Listen, we walk around straight, "flaunting" our "straightness" every single day without thinking about it. When gay people act like us, we accuse them of "Taking it out of the bedroom" and "flaunting it" (I'll leave the "cramming it down our throats" setup/punchline out of this example).

They are acting just like us. You may not like seeing it, but I don't like watching a really fat person eat all you can eat ribs (grosses me out), yet I deal with it, because it's their RIGHT. Just as it's the right of that hot chick in the Carl's Jr. commercial to sloppily eat that burger while riding a mechanical bull (which is totally hot, IMHO, and should be mandatory in every Carl's Jr. just like the Ronald McDonald statue in every McDonald's).

Oh, and congratulations on quitting the smokes and dip. I know just how hard that is to do. :)

mdklatt
5/28/2008, 08:21 PM
It's not addictive when taken correctly.

I doubt that marijuana is, either.


But I don't know what this RLS is. Restless leg syndrome?

Yes. I refuse to legitimize it by speaking its name. I know it's a real phenomenon; I've experienced it before. But I'm 99.99% certain that it wasn't a "syndrome" that needed treatment until some pharmaceutical company came up with a pill for it. A pill that might cause compulsive gambling. What do the usage directions say for something like that?

Do not use while operating heavy machinery or traveling to Las Vegas.

TUSooner
5/28/2008, 08:25 PM
<Kiss of Death Alert>
I'm surprised at how civil this discussion has been.

Tulsa_Fireman
5/28/2008, 09:41 PM
It is interesting that the legalization issue doesn't seem to be so evenly split on our usual SO liberal/conservative lines.

As for the WoD, not many defenders so far.

It HAS been civil. And I appreciate it, given the obvious difference in my and many of the board's opinions. But to crawfish back to the topic, just a hair, how exactly are we defining the War on Drugs?

Gunships in the Gulf of Mexico? The beast known as the DEA? Understaffed US Border Patrol? The Tulsa Police Department's drug interdiction task force? The state legislation restricting pseudoephedrine sales? Bumper stickers? The efforts of education and the examples we set at home and in the community?

See, to me, ALL that falls under the realm of the War on Drugs. And there's probably a hundred more examples that would jive. Do you expect TPD to do something about that crackhead accosting you in the parking lot of Quik Trip for "gas money"? Do you expect border agents to try their best to restrict the flow of illegal substances? Do you expect firm legislation to hamper the ability of that guy cooking meth in the trunk of the car next to you at the intersection? Do you expect a government agency that you fund with your tax dollars that are trained and equipped to deal with hazardous materials to mitigate and remove that pile of noxious, tooth-rotting death in the hotel room next door? Do you want a government agency charged and sworn to protect community life, health, property, and environment to run a $500,000 piece of equipment down the street in an effort to save the life of a victim of some of the substances certain folks succumb to?

So while the thread got off on a tangent of weed legalization, wasn't the original post an outcry against the War on Drugs?

Billions of dollars later, as we assign images of fast moving Coast Guard cutters and heavily armed squads of federal agents to the War on Drugs, don't you think that maybe there's a pretty dang effective war on the very things we all CAN agree are deadly, dangerously addictive, and threatening our community, right here at home?

Does that not count?

MR2-Sooner86
5/28/2008, 09:43 PM
I'd like to add a couple of things. I've heard but can't find a link or source on this. From what I've heard Anheuser Busch and Miller Brewing Company are two of the biggest supporters of anti-pot campagnes. However, they do things under the table where their hands cannot be seen. If you think about it though it makes sense.

Also, I noticed nobody on here has mentioned shrooms yet. Wouldn't shrooms be more of a gateway drug? I know people who have done shrooms and they don't stop after that and go on to harder things. I know several people though who do pot and keep it at pot and they're fine with it.

mdklatt
5/28/2008, 10:07 PM
Also, I noticed nobody on here has mentioned shrooms yet. Wouldn't shrooms be more of a gateway drug? I know people who have done shrooms and they don't stop after that and go on to harder things.

Just this weekend I mixed some shrooms with some alcohol. And some chicken breasts. :eek:

LosAngelesSooner
5/28/2008, 10:45 PM
I prefer shrooms to weed (though I don't do either anymore).

"Gateway drug" IMHO is just an excuse for either an addictive personality or lack of self-control. If there was no weed or alcohol, the types who inject heroin into their veins would still find a way to inject heroin into their veins.

They don't need a "gateway" to cross that bridge.

Fraggle145
5/29/2008, 02:15 AM
Certainly more normal than screaming in pain, yes.



Oh wait, I'm sorry, you used "Riggghhht" which is the trump card in teh innernets debate. I'll go crawl back under my rock.

Okay, maybe I was a bit sarcastic... but the point still holds. Is normal: "So messed up that you arent screaming" or is normal: "what someone should expect to feel on daily basis?"

All I was pointing out was that many of today's painkillers dont make you feel "normal." they make you feel "better" than normal so you dont feel as ****ty as you do right now. How is pot different?

BTW, I buy a lot of what Dean is saying... however there are a lto of people that are half-a$$ed for numerous other reasons.

I guess I'm just all for taxing it and getting it over with... Make it less of a "big deal." People who are addicts (and more than likely selfish pricks that cant deal with reality) to harder drugs should be treated not a$$raped in prison for it.

I feel that was not bad for a drunk post. :D

yermom
5/29/2008, 04:18 AM
**** your false dichotomy.

Do they have some sort of acute pain problem? Oxycontin under the supervision of a doctor, whose effects have been known and studied. Self-medication never ends well.

i'm talking about abuse, not use under the supervision of a doctor

and for the record, i don't smoke weed. i use Aspirin sparingly, that's about the extent of my drug use, other than a few beers here and there

i just don't get how MJ gets the special status it does when things that can be abused way worse can be obtained legally

but really, anything harder than weed IMO should not be easy to obtain. **** that makes you run into traffic or break into houses to get your next fix is worth keeping out of the hands of the public

Rogue
5/29/2008, 05:35 AM
It HAS been civil. And I appreciate it, given the obvious difference in my and many of the board's opinions. But to crawfish back to the topic, just a hair, how exactly are we defining the War on Drugs?

Gunships in the Gulf of Mexico? The beast known as the DEA? Understaffed US Border Patrol? The Tulsa Police Department's drug interdiction task force? The state legislation restricting pseudoephedrine sales? Bumper stickers? The efforts of education and the examples we set at home and in the community?
...
So while the thread got off on a tangent of weed legalization, wasn't the original post an outcry against the War on Drugs?
...
Billions of dollars later, as we assign images of fast moving Coast Guard cutters and heavily armed squads of federal agents to the War on Drugs, don't you think that maybe there's a pretty dang effective war on the very things we all CAN agree are deadly, dangerously addictive, and threatening our community, right here at home?

Does that not count?

Keeping the reefer illegal is an example of what hasn't worked.
The Rolling Stone article illustrated many of the problems with the WoD and some of the ideas that keep getting scrapped for ideas that have continually failed.

Here's what doesn't work:
The supply side "interventions" in the coca, ganja, and poppy fields around the world; the incarcerate-first and treatment as an afterthought approach to addiction; lame commercials on the teevee; warning labels on music, criminalization of drug-use instead of the criminal acts that too often accompany it (ie: violence, theft, etc) and the fortune we waste on these things.

The community policing model has worked comparably well many places. Sobering up apparently worked for Dean and me. The fallacy of border patrol winning the WoD hasn't ever, and probably won't ever work. You can grow pot or manufacture and distribute bad stuff like acid and meth in your own neighborhood.

C&CDean
5/29/2008, 07:46 AM
I think we've lost sight of the fact that there really aren't prisons full of people busted for smoking a joint. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that people in prison today for simple possession also have a laundry list of other offenses that helped seal the deal.

Contrary to what the potheads think, cops don't go around searching for people banging a bong in their back yard. However, when they get pulled over for going 20 in a 60 and the cop also happens to smell the weed, and then finds a gram or two on the dude well WTF is the cop supposed to do? Even so, nobody goes to prison for that - unless they're already deep into the legal system.

LosAngelesSooner
5/29/2008, 12:53 PM
True dat.

But sometimes they get busted for TRYING to obtain the MJ. (Thankfully that's been pretty much taken out of the equation out here)

Also, another thing that nobody has talked about is how much the illegality of drugs has increased the presence of gangs, gang wars and violence in the inner city. You make them legal and easier to aquire, you take 99% of the power and purpose out of the inner city thugs and I'll wager dollars to doughnuts you see the amount of crime, particularly violent crime, in the inner cities go WAY down.

47straight
5/29/2008, 01:19 PM
All I was pointing out was that many of today's painkillers dont make you feel "normal." they make you feel "better" than normal so you dont feel as ****ty as you do right now. How is pot different? ...
I feel that was not bad for a drunk post. :D

To clarify - are we talking more pain/physical ailment or mood?


And agreed, that weren't bad at all for drunk post. I don't have a radar for messages from drunkytown.

47straight
5/29/2008, 01:25 PM
i'm talking about abuse, not use under the supervision of a doctor

and for the record, i don't smoke weed. i use Aspirin sparingly, that's about the extent of my drug use, other than a few beers here and there

i just don't get how MJ gets the special status it does when things that can be abused way worse can be obtained legally

but really, anything harder than weed IMO should not be easy to obtain. **** that makes you run into traffic or break into houses to get your next fix is worth keeping out of the hands of the public

Well, I'm with you on condemning the abuse of "legal" drugs. But I don't think that they are really obtained "legally" most of the time when they are abused. You get a dirty doc, you buy them, you fake something to get a prescription, etc. Sure, there is going to be someone who takes a higher dosage on a legit prescription; of course, they hose themselves by running out when they need it later.

But in the other cases, having such a medication without a prescription is also a crime. I have no idea though how such a misdemeanor compares to that for possession of marijuana.

Pricetag
5/29/2008, 01:56 PM
Yes. I refuse to legitimize it by speaking its name. I know it's a real phenomenon; I've experienced it before. But I'm 99.99% certain that it wasn't a "syndrome" that needed treatment until some pharmaceutical company came up with a pill for it.
They're working on pills for droopy eye lids syndrome and incessant yawning syndrome as we speak.

imjebus
5/29/2008, 01:57 PM
Yeah, but look at you now.

I rest my case.


You know you love me....

imjebus
5/29/2008, 02:05 PM
No, the problem I have is with potheads who think they have all the answers.

And I know that my opinion of you is at least as important to you as an unused kleenex.

On a sidenote, I'm pretty sure the founders of "our" party weren't hip to man love and baby scrapin'. Just sayin'.



I have a problem with braindead alcoholics telling me that my drug of choice is wrong and their drug is right. I also have a problem with someone (who sounds like did their fair share of drugs) all of the sudden telling everyone how stupid they are. There is no truth anymore just your perception of what is true. Each side spins their side to try and make it accepted.

Melo
5/29/2008, 02:47 PM
People who are addicts (and more than likely selfish pricks that cant deal with reality) to harder drugs should be treated not a$$raped in prison for it.

They say once a heroin addict, always a heroin addict. And a broke heroin addict wont pay for his own treatment.

C&CDean
5/29/2008, 04:02 PM
I have a problem with braindead alcoholics telling me that my drug of choice is wrong and their drug is right. I also have a problem with someone (who sounds like did their fair share of drugs) all of the sudden telling everyone how stupid they are. There is no truth anymore just your perception of what is true. Each side spins their side to try and make it accepted.

Spoken like a true stoner.

I may be braindead, and I may drink my fair share, but this ain't about that. It's about weed ****ing up your life. You smoke it so you don't think it does. Hell I had a subscription to High Times for over a decade, and did all the NORML crap, tried to get people to understand how harmless weed was, and was pretty militant about it.

I quit smoking it and can look back and see how it did **** up my life and how it continues to **** up the lives of the folks I know who still hit the bong regularly. It has nothing to do with spin or perception. It has to do with what happens chemically in your brain when you smoke dope on a regular basis. You're a shell of what you could be. Denying it doesn't make it not so.

Give it up for about 2 years and then take a look back. You'll be shocked and amazed at how far your life progressed during that time. And it's all happens subconsciously. It's not like you go "wow, I've got my **** together now." You just one day realize how far you've come and go "dang, all my **** started falling into place when I gave up the ganga.

But you don't buy it, and you never will - unless you give it up some day. Then, grasshoppa, you will be ready...

badger
5/29/2008, 04:22 PM
Spoken like a true stoner.

I may be braindead, and I may drink my fair share, but this ain't about that. It's about weed ****ing up your life. You smoke it so you don't think it does. Hell I had a subscription to High Times for over a decade, and did all the NORML crap, tried to get people to understand how harmless weed was, and was pretty militant about it.

I quit smoking it and can look back and see how it did **** up my life and how it continues to **** up the lives of the folks I know who still hit the bong regularly. It has nothing to do with spin or perception. It has to do with what happens chemically in your brain when you smoke dope on a regular basis. You're a shell of what you could be. Denying it doesn't make it not so.

Give it up for about 2 years and then take a look back. You'll be shocked and amazed at how far your life progressed during that time. And it's all happens subconsciously. It's not like you go "wow, I've got my **** together now." You just one day realize how far you've come and go "dang, all my **** started falling into place when I gave up the ganga.

But you don't buy it, and you never will - unless you give it up some day. Then, grasshoppa, you will be ready...

The pre-Favre years were hard for all of us Packer fans, Dean. Probably as hard as the pre-Stoops years for Sooner fans.

(I'm talking 10 pre-years, not pre-ancient years, for those of you ready to point out the fact that the Packers have more championships than any other NFL team and the Sooners had six championships before Stoops... GO BOTH OF US!)

Sooner_Havok
5/29/2008, 04:57 PM
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/86678/

yermom
5/29/2008, 04:59 PM
Though they contain no racist language, the application of the government's zero-tolerance prohibition policies are overtly racist, classist, ineffective and inhumane.

they kinda lost me here...

Sooner_Havok
5/29/2008, 05:01 PM
they kinda lost me here...

I think they are saying poor minorities get busted for pot more often than whites do.

yermom
5/29/2008, 05:05 PM
that doesn't make them "overtly racist"

Rogue
5/29/2008, 05:08 PM
they kinda lost me here...

Me too, at first. I think they try to support it in the next blurb along with a few loosely associated assumptions.


The New York Civil Liberties Union released a report earlier this month that found 83 percent of those charged with marijuana possession over the last 10 years are black or Latino even though federal surveys show that whites are more likely to use pot. If you are poor and live in public housing, your whole family is punished for a drug offense--even for smoking a joint. But if you are middle class and do not rely on public housing or other benefits it is a "personal" issue.

def_lazer_fc
5/29/2008, 05:09 PM
i prefer weed to alcohol because beer guts aren't attractive.

Sooner_Havok
5/29/2008, 05:10 PM
that doesn't make them "overtly racist"

Theory goes (and I have heard it a million times in my sociology classes) law enforcement targets minorities more than whites for drug busts. That being the case, there are a disproportionate number of minorities with drug charges against them than there are whites with drug charges.

Since minorities are more likely to get busted with pot, places that have rules explicitly against it are racist, since odds are the whites smoking it aren't going to get busted as often as the minorities smoking it are.

OBTW I think it is weak sauce too

sitzpinkler
5/29/2008, 05:42 PM
edit: nevermind

XingTheRubicon
5/30/2008, 01:06 PM
I remember being 22 and "enlightening" people like Dean. Good Times. Suspending common sense is, if nothing else, an unknowingly fleeting luxury.


The alcohol argument is still a waste of time.

Let me help:

What percentage of teens that experiment with alcohol, end up moving on to coke/crack, heroin, meth/etc. I'm not sure, but I'll take a wild guess that it's not as bad as this:


Children 12 - 17 years old who use marijuana are 85 times more likely ...to use cocaine than children who have never used those substances.

http://mfiles.org/Marijuana/user_impact/b2_gateway.html


Let's go ahead and save this thread until every genius in it has at least one 14 year old kid.


but, but, but......it's the user, it's not the drug....everyone's different. Yeah, about 85 times different.

Sooner_Havok
5/30/2008, 01:11 PM
Let's go ahead and save this thread until every genius in it has at least one 14 year old kid.


but, but, but......it's the user, it's not the drug....everyone's different. Yeah, about 85 times different.

I don't think anyone wants it legal to 14 year old kids. 21 like other intoxicants maybe.

XingTheRubicon
5/30/2008, 01:25 PM
I don't think anyone wants it legal to 14 year old kids. 21 like other intoxicants maybe.

Once again, with the suspending common sense.


If MJ was legal for adults do you think you would have a easier or harder time convincing your underage kid to abstain. 78 percent of HS graduates have consumed alcohol...........8 percent have hit the bong.

Legalizing weed would obviously raise that 8 percent. No thanks, we're all stocked up on stoners as it is.

yermom
5/30/2008, 01:34 PM
yeah, but if it's illegal, then they are already having to deal with shady people to get it, and they are already breaking the law

if it was just a matter of finding someone old enough, i don't know if they would be making the same kind of connections

i'm not completely convinced that legal MJ correlates the way you are stating

and 8% sounds kinda low... not to mention the 85% sounding insanely high

mdklatt
5/30/2008, 01:35 PM
http://mfiles.org/Marijuana/user_impact/b2_gateway.html


In other words, people who have used one illegal substance are more likely to use another. Solution: Make marijuana legal.

Sooner_Havok
5/30/2008, 01:37 PM
Problematic alcohol consumption is not a benign condition that resolves with age. Individuals who first use alcohol before age 14 years are at increased risk of developing alcohol use disorders. Underage drinkers are susceptible to immediate consequences of alcohol use, including blackouts, hangovers, and alcohol poisoning and are at elevated risk of neurodegeneration (particularly in regions of the brain responsible for learning and memory), impairments in functional brain activity, and the appearance of neurocognitive deficits. Heavy episodic or binge drinking impairs study habits and erodes the development of transitional skills to adulthood.

It is illegal for them to get weed now. It would be illegal for them to get it if you legalized it. Don't want you kid smoking pot or drinking under age? Pay attention to them, and for the love of god, don't do either yourself.

yermom
5/30/2008, 01:44 PM
i don't think i disagree that more kids would likely smoke pot if it was legal for 21+

Sooner_Havok
5/30/2008, 01:53 PM
i don't think i disagree that more kids would likely smoke pot if it was legal for 21+

No, more probably would. But the job of spotting pot usage is a lot easy for the parents than spotting alcohol usage. If little Billy comes home reeking of pot, he was smoking. If little Billy comes home wearing different close then he went to school in and the clothes he was wearing smell like pot in the hamper, he is smoking. If you find a joint in little Billy's pocket, it is his.

Let's compare this to drinking shall we?

If little Billy always has mentos, he may think he has bad breath. If little Billy is going over to a party, he may just drink some punch. If you find a beer bottle cap in little Billy's pocket, he may have a bottle cap collection.

It is easier to spot pot usage than it is to spot underage drinking. Any parent with half a brain could piece it together if they see their kid more than 5 minutes a day.

yermom
5/30/2008, 02:04 PM
maybe if the kids are dumb...

Gandalf_The_Grey
5/30/2008, 02:11 PM
.....most are ;)

picasso
5/30/2008, 02:15 PM
legalizing marijuana.

beyond brilliant.:rolleyes:

just smoke it at home if that's what gets you there Jerry.

C&CDean
5/30/2008, 02:36 PM
No, more probably would. But the job of spotting pot usage is a lot easy for the parents than spotting alcohol usage. If little Billy comes home reeking of pot, he was smoking. If little Billy comes home wearing different close then he went to school in and the clothes he was wearing smell like pot in the hamper, he is smoking. If you find a joint in little Billy's pocket, it is his.

Let's compare this to drinking shall we?

If little Billy always has mentos, he may think he has bad breath. If little Billy is going over to a party, he may just drink some punch. If you find a beer bottle cap in little Billy's pocket, he may have a bottle cap collection.

It is easier to spot pot usage than it is to spot underage drinking. Any parent with half a brain could piece it together if they see their kid more than 5 minutes a day.

You know very little about spotting marijuana or alcohol usage in a kid. You must not have any.

The way you notice little Johnny is hitting the weed is pretty much through his behaviors. Little Johnny's grades start slipping. He starts picking up some tardies, or maybe ditches a day or two. He becomes a little distant, doesn't like hanging out with mom and dad anymore, and probably starts hanging with different kids. He may decide to quit playing sports, may change the type of music he listens to, etc. Lots of little red flags that most parents don't notice. Of course finding a pipe or some papers or a joint in Johnny's pocket is a no-brainer.

Alcohol? Hard to tell. If Johnny is drinking it at school you'll know the first time - assuming Johnny gets ****faced. A newby drinker doesn't usually hold his booze very well. If Johnny is only drinking when he spends the night with a friend, or when he goes out on the weekends it's a little harder to know. However, if you say "be home by midnight" and Johnny comes in at 4 am with puke all over his shirt then that's a dead give away.

And I'd highly suggest you refrain from using comments like "any parent with half a brain...." until you've raised a couple kids up through the teenage years. Put simply, you don't have a ****ing clue what you're talking about.

mdklatt
5/30/2008, 02:37 PM
No, more probably would. But the job of spotting pot usage is a lot easy for the parents than spotting alcohol usage.

Also, kids learn to drink mostly by watching their parents (and sneaking into the liquor cabinet when everybody is at work). I don't think underage marijuana usage would be anywhere near underage drinking, unless a lot of parents start toking up.

If you want your kids to be responsible, be a responsible role model.

Sooner_Havok
5/30/2008, 02:54 PM
You know very little about spotting marijuana or alcohol usage in a kid. You must not have any.

The way you notice little Johnny is hitting the weed is pretty much through his behaviors. Little Johnny's grades start slipping. He starts picking up some tardies, or maybe ditches a day or two. He becomes a little distant, doesn't like hanging out with mom and dad anymore, and probably starts hanging with different kids. He may decide to quit playing sports, may change the type of music he listens to, etc. Lots of little red flags that most parents don't notice. Of course finding a pipe or some papers or a joint in Johnny's pocket is a no-brainer.

Alcohol? Hard to tell. If Johnny is drinking it at school you'll know the first time - assuming Johnny gets ****faced. A newby drinker doesn't usually hold his booze very well. If Johnny is only drinking when he spends the night with a friend, or when he goes out on the weekends it's a little harder to know. However, if you say "be home by midnight" and Johnny comes in at 4 am with puke all over his shirt then that's a dead give away.

And I'd highly suggest you refrain from using comments like "any parent with half a brain...." until you've raised a couple kids up through the teenage years. Put simply, you don't have a ****ing clue what you're talking about.

I may not have a ****ing clue what I am talking about, but I assume you do. And though I am ****ing clueless, you pretty much backed me up on what I said. Pot smoking is easier to detect than drinking. For not having a ****ing clue, you got to admit I got pretty god damned close :D

Sooner_Havok
5/30/2008, 02:56 PM
Also, kids learn to drink mostly by watching their parents (and sneaking into the liquor cabinet when everybody is at work). I don't think underage marijuana usage would be anywhere near underage drinking, unless a lot of parents start toking up.

If you want your kids to be responsible, be a responsible role model.

That was what I was saying. If you don't want your kids to drink, don't drink. Don't want your kids to smoke, don't smoke. I was a kid not that long ago. Nothing drives you to do something more than adults telling you not to drink in between sips of a mixed drink

mdklatt
5/30/2008, 03:04 PM
That was what I was saying. If you don't want your kids to drink, don't drink. Don't want your kids to smoke, don't smoke. I was a kid not that long ago. Nothing drives you to do something more than adults telling you not to drink in between sips of a mixed drink

That's all part of the schizophrenic attitude we have towards drinking here in the US of Alcoholics. We tell kids that drinking is wrong while polishing off a six-pack during the game, but at the same time it's considered a rite of passage to spend a significant part of your high school and college years ****-faced. Talk about mixed messages.

Hamhock
5/30/2008, 03:16 PM
can someone give me a 2 or 3 sentence summary of this thread so i know whether or not i agree?

Ike
5/30/2008, 03:17 PM
I remember being 22 and "enlightening" people like Dean. Good Times. Suspending common sense is, if nothing else, an unknowingly fleeting luxury.


The alcohol argument is still a waste of time.

Let me help:


Children 12 - 17 years old who use marijuana are 85 times more likely ...to use cocaine than children who have never used those substances.

What percentage of teens that experiment with alcohol, end up moving on to coke/crack, heroin, meth/etc. I'm not sure, but I'll take a wild guess that it's not as bad as this:



http://mfiles.org/Marijuana/user_impact/b2_gateway.html


Let's go ahead and save this thread until every genius in it has at least one 14 year old kid.


but, but, but......it's the user, it's not the drug....everyone's different. Yeah, about 85 times different.

First off, I'm not going to argue about the good or bad effects of MJ legalization. I simply want to take the time to point out something that a whole lot of people overlook when dealing with statistics. Specifically with a stat that says "people who do x are y times more likely to do/get/have z than people who don't" Generally, these statements are correct in and of themselves, but they often paint a picture in the mind that is quite different from reality.

Lets take the situation mentioned above, that kids that try MJ are 85 times more likely to try coke than kids that don't. Suppose for the sake of an example that the rate of kids that eventually try coke without every trying MJ as a kid is something like 0.01%. According to this statistic then, of the kids that tried MJ, 0.85% of them will go on to try coke. Still less than 1%, but not as miniscule as the percentage for kids that never tried MJ. But say now that MJ becomes far far easier to obtain, but that coke doesn't. The rate for kids that don't try MJ might likely stay the same, at 0.01%. But what happens to the rate of kids that have tried MJ. The answer is that nobody knows. There is only one situation, and the relationship between these two statistics and the ease of obtaining each drug is unknown. In fact, if MJ was easier to obtain, and coke was no easier or harder to obtain, we might expect that while the rate for kids who didn't try MJ to be constant at 0.01%, that the rate for kids that try MJ might drop, by an amount similar to the increase in kids using MJ.

My point though, is that statistics like these can often contain very little predictive value. They really only contain information about the current population given the current state of affairs (like ease of obtaining certain drugs, risk associated with certain drugs, both legal and health, etc). If any of the conditions change, these statistics often become worthless.

Anyway, thats all. As far as legalizing or no legalizing, I really don't care that much.

Sooner_Havok
5/30/2008, 03:26 PM
can someone give me a 2 or 3 sentence summary of this thread so i know whether or not i agree?

Pot good

Pot Bad

Make it legal

Keep it baned

Bear & cigs no worse than pot

Pot leads to crack

Bear & cigs lead to pot

Pot messes you up and keeps you messed up

Caught up? :D

imjebus
5/30/2008, 03:55 PM
can someone give me a 2 or 3 sentence summary of this thread so i know whether or not i agree?



I would break it down for you but i'm way to stoned to have any clue as to what is going on. :rolleyes:

mdklatt
5/30/2008, 03:59 PM
can someone give me a 2 or 3 sentence summary of this thread so i know whether or not i agree?

Okay, imagine you've just killed a bobcat. Do you think you should have the option of rolling a fattie to celebrate, or should you be legally restricted to downing a cold one?

imjebus
5/30/2008, 04:08 PM
"some folks are just too close to the forest to see the trees."

I got this message and some neg spek. I must have upset the alcoholic crowd....lol

This is exactly my point on this subject. I don't care if someone wants to drink. I also don't want to make alcohol illegal. Even though I believe that alcohol is worse for your body than pot. It's your choice to put into your body what you want to. I however do not have that right. But it's not like it's hard to find even though it's illegal. So make it legal, don't make it legal, I honestly don't care.

Drugs are a medical and social problem rather than criminal and historically, prohibition doesn’t work.

IMHO

Hamhock
5/30/2008, 04:11 PM
Okay, imagine you've just killed a bobcat. Do you think you should have the option of rolling a fattie to celebrate, or should you be legally restricted to downing a cold one?

one coldbeer doesn't affect my ability to drive. does one joint? serious question.

Sooner_Havok
5/30/2008, 04:15 PM
one coldbeer doesn't affect my ability to drive. does one joint? serious question.

I think it has to do with how often you smoke. I THINK! Since I have never toked up before I really am not sure

yermom
5/30/2008, 04:25 PM
one coldbeer doesn't affect my ability to drive. does one joint? serious question.

i might equate a joint to a six pack, maybe?

i mean, it can be broken down more than someone smoking a whole joint

Hamhock
5/30/2008, 04:29 PM
i might equate a joint to a six pack, maybe?

i mean, it can be broken down more than someone smoking a whole joint

i drink a beer or two often because I enjoy the taste. do people toke for the same reason or is the only reason to smoke pot is to alter your senses?

imjebus
5/30/2008, 04:29 PM
one coldbeer doesn't affect my ability to drive. does one joint? serious question.

Yes one joint does have an affect of your driving. It makes you drive slower and more cautious.:P

imjebus
5/30/2008, 04:31 PM
i drink a beer or two often because I enjoy the taste. do people toke for the same reason or is the only reason to smoke pot is to alter your senses?

You also enjoy the relaxing sensation that beer or two gives you. But to answer your question... All the people I know that toke LOVE the taste. And each strain is a different taste just like a different brew.

mdklatt
5/30/2008, 04:32 PM
one coldbeer doesn't affect my ability to drive. does one joint? serious question.

I've never smoked marijuana and you can count the number of beers I've had in my entire life on two hands, but it seems to me that for the typical toker or drinker, smoking an entire joint in one sitting is just as rare as stopping at one beer. So, an entire joint might be the equivalent of a six-pack. There has to be an intoxication threshold for marijuana just as there is for beer. Do you think one puff is going to make you incapable of driving?

Also, even one beer does affect your ability to drive. And can't you get in bigger trouble for driving recklessly even if your BAC is less than the legal limit but greater than zero?

I say treat marijuana just like alcohol. Do as much as you want, but as soon as you endanger somebody the party's over.

mdklatt
5/30/2008, 04:37 PM
i drink a beer or two often because I enjoy the taste. do people toke for the same reason or is the only reason to smoke pot is to alter your senses?

Should we make cheap ****ty beer illegal, then? The only reason people drink that is to get drunk.

royalfan5
5/30/2008, 04:37 PM
Hanging out with english and theater majors in undergrad meant that I knew a lot of people who smoked pot. I really never saw anyone sit down and smoke a joint. I don't think I ever saw a joint. It was pretty much always people passing around a pipe or bong and sharing with multiple people instead of a dude(or chick) with a joint. It seems to me that smoking a joint may not be the best measure of how people smoke, but rather how many hits they take of a pipe that is passed around.

royalfan5
5/30/2008, 04:37 PM
Should we make cheap ****ty beer illegal, then? The only reason people drink that is to get drunk.

Not true, sometimes I'm just thirsty and there is only a high life in the fridge.

imjebus
5/30/2008, 04:46 PM
Should we make cheap ****ty beer illegal, then? The only reason people drink that is to get drunk.

No, if you read my posts you would see that I don't think either should be illegal, it's a waste of time to try and decide what is acceptable for people to shove into their bodies. Should we make foods that are ridiculiously high in fat illegal because it's not good for their body. No, it's your choice to get fat or high or drunk. At least thats what I think.

Hamhock
5/30/2008, 04:48 PM
Should we make cheap ****ty beer illegal, then? The only reason people drink that is to get drunk.


some people like the taste of beer, even teh cheap kind.

most of the people that i know that drink beer or wine, enjoy the taste and only have a glass or two.

i dont' know anyone who smokes pot so i'm seriously asking if anyone smokes pot just because they like the taste and stop before their senses are dulled.

yermom
5/30/2008, 04:53 PM
Not true, sometimes I'm just thirsty and there is only a high life in the fridge.

no, he said ****ty beer

High Life is the champagne of beers :D

i pretty much reject the idea that anyone drinks wine or beer only for the taste. even one or two beers has an effect

royalfan5
5/30/2008, 04:54 PM
even one or two beers has an effect
Yep, that's the right amount that makes me kick *** at darts and/or bowling.

Sooner_Havok
5/30/2008, 04:54 PM
no, he said ****ty beer

High Life is the champagne of beers :D

i pretty much reject the idea that anyone drinks wine or beer only for the taste. even one or two beers has an effect

Anyone here drink O'Doul's. nuff said :D

Hamhock
5/30/2008, 04:57 PM
no, he said ****ty beer

High Life is the champagne of beers :D

i pretty much reject the idea that anyone drinks wine or beer only for the taste. even one or two beers has an effect

my bad. i was unaware of your omniscience before i entered the discussion.

mdklatt
5/30/2008, 05:06 PM
i'm seriously asking if anyone smokes pot just because they like the taste and stop before their senses are dulled

Should that really be the criteria? If you're going to legislate based on mind-altering intent, you're going to have to outlaw morning coffee for sure. You're also going to have to define the boundary between drinking because you like the taste and drinking to get drunk. Shots should be outlawed for sure, right? Don't even try to convince me that people drink shots only for the taste. In fact, I believe people who say they only drink alcohol for the taste as much as I believe people who say they only read Playboy for the articles. I think many, many people confuse "tastes good" with "gives me a warm fuzzy feeling"...especially after that third drink.

yermom
5/30/2008, 05:10 PM
my bad. i was unaware of your omniscience before i entered the discussion.

it's ok, i'll forgive you on that one this time. ;)

i still think it's a minority if it happens, not the norm.

i just can't take that side seriously. i can accept someone only drinking 1 or 2 beers, i do that all the time. maybe if pot was legal you'd see more people taking 1-2 hits and stopping

even if it was legal, i'd still like to see anti-weed PSAs though

mdklatt
5/30/2008, 05:19 PM
even if it was legal, i'd still like to see anti-weed PSAs though

Good point. Just because some of us think it should be legal doesn't mean we think it's a good idea. It's just that we don't think you can make stupidity illegal (but oh how I wish that were true....)

Tulsa_Fireman
5/30/2008, 05:51 PM
In fact, I believe people who say they only drink alcohol for the taste as much as I believe people who say they only read Playboy for the articles. I think many, many people confuse "tastes good" with "gives me a warm fuzzy feeling"...especially after that third drink.

That's silly. And rather limited in perspective.

Unless you're speaking of alcohol as in liquor. But even then, why is fine bourbon aged in fired oak casks and allowed to rest for so long? Why do scotch makers pass down recipes through generations, guarded secretly? Why spend ten years aging a liquor when it'll get you ****-faced in 6 days? With that logic, there isn't a difference between Johnnie Walker Blue and Kentucky Deluxe.

Hell, I bet OleVet could get us a set-up for some corn mash. And I'll bet it'll smack you between the eyes. But will it ever be Glenlivet? No.

Because of flavor.

LosAngelesSooner
5/30/2008, 05:55 PM
I will admit that before I got my prescription for migraine meds, I used to take a puff or two off a pipe/joint whenever I got a migraine and it always cleared it right up without getting me "high."

Actually it was kind of a perfect way to get rid of migraines.

But now I've got my meds and they are just easier to deal with.

LosAngelesSooner
5/30/2008, 06:01 PM
That's silly. And rather limited in perspective.

Unless you're speaking of alcohol as in liquor. But even then, why is fine bourbon aged in fired oak casks and allowed to rest for so long? Why do scotch makers pass down recipes through generations, guarded secretly? Why spend ten years aging a liquor when it'll get you ****-faced in 6 days? With that logic, there isn't a difference between Johnnie Walker Blue and Kentucky Deluxe.

Hell, I bet OleVet could get us a set-up for some corn mash. And I'll bet it'll smack you between the eyes. But will it ever be Glenlivet? No.

Because of flavor.
Just to be the Devil's Advocate, there are many people who cross different types of weed, age it, use special recipes passed down through generations and have very, very different odors and flavors of weed with very different effects/strengths.

If weed was legalized, you'd see even MORE of this going on, too.

olevetonahill
5/30/2008, 06:08 PM
That's silly. And rather limited in perspective.

Unless you're speaking of alcohol as in liquor. But even then, why is fine bourbon aged in fired oak casks and allowed to rest for so long? Why do scotch makers pass down recipes through generations, guarded secretly? Why spend ten years aging a liquor when it'll get you ****-faced in 6 days? With that logic, there isn't a difference between Johnnie Walker Blue and Kentucky Deluxe.

Hell, I bet OleVet could get us a set-up for some corn mash. And I'll bet it'll smack you between the eyes. But will it ever be Glenlivet? No.

Because of flavor.

The Sour mash Is ageing
Ill put My mash against anything Yall want !:D

mdklatt
5/30/2008, 06:12 PM
That's silly. And rather limited in perspective.

Unless you're speaking of alcohol as in liquor. But even then, why is fine bourbon aged in fired oak casks and allowed to rest for so long? Why do scotch makers pass down recipes through generations, guarded secretly? Why spend ten years aging a liquor when it'll get you ****-faced in 6 days? With that logic, there isn't a difference between Johnnie Walker Blue and Kentucky Deluxe.


I'm not saying that all alcohol tastes the same. I mean, it all pretty much tastes like aftershave to me, but I know I'm not a representative sample. And that's the point. I have no personal use for alcohol, and I think it makes other people act like *******s and idiots. Plus, it's bad for you, and prone to abuse. So in my little perfect utopia, alcohol and most other drugs would be banished. But I know that my personal opinions should not be lorded over everybody else through force of law. Unless there's a victim, it shouldn't be illegal. (Under that standard, there's a lot of evidence that alcohol and tobacco should be illegal because they are both huge drains on society in general.)

yermom
5/30/2008, 06:22 PM
once you have gotten used to the "aquired taste" then you care about it being "cold filtered" or "aged 18 years" or whatever

basically only the seasoned drinker cares about that kinda thing. or someone with more money than they know what to do with ;)

mdklatt
5/30/2008, 06:38 PM
once you have gotten used to the "aquired taste" then you care about it being "cold filtered" or "aged 18 years" or whatever



All "acquired taste" means is, "yeah, it tastes like **** to you now, but once you power past that it's worth it". What is "worth it" about drinking alcohol? Is it only the taste? If it was possible to make a non-alcoholic drink that tasted exactly like the alcoholic equivalent, which one would you choose? Which one would sell better in general? People don't hit the bar just to enjoy the taste of a pitcher of beer.

Does anybody disagree that the main reason for alcohol consumption in this country is the mind-altering effects?

Tulsa_Fireman
5/30/2008, 06:55 PM
All "acquired taste" means is, "yeah, it tastes like **** to you now, but once you power past that it's worth it".

False. You're making assumptions about those of us that enjoy these potent potables. I've always liked beer. I quickly discovered "good" beer. And now, I'm to the point of wanting to start some homebrew so I can finetune what I feel is lacking in recipes I enjoy now.

I enjoy a good old scotch every RARE once in awhile, too. First time I had it, I enjoyed it. But then again, I was drinking it for the flavor. To discover what the hubbub was about. And it wasn't Kentucky Deluxe. And it was some good sh*t.


If it was possible to make a non-alcoholic drink that tasted exactly like the alcoholic equivalent, which one would you choose? Which one would sell better in general? People don't hit the bar just to enjoy the taste of a pitcher of beer.

The NA stuff, of course. IF it was possible. Sadly it's not, because I love me some beer and bolt my beer consumption around what meal I'm enjoying. Time of the year. My personal preference at the time, even. For a bunch of folks, this simply ain't true and just like you say, they slam brewskis in an effort to get ****faced. I'm not like that.

And I hit the bar to enjoy a pitcher, by the way. For it's flavor, if they got anything good.

mdklatt
5/30/2008, 07:28 PM
False. You're making assumptions about those of us that enjoy these potent potables.

It seems like there are a lot of assumptions being made in this thread about people that enjoy a good joint, too. Which is why society in general shouldn't be making decisions for individuals when those decisions don't effect society in general.

And I hit the bar to enjoy a pitcher, by the way. For it's flavor, if they got anything good.

I'm not saying your an alcoholic or anything, but I think you're probably underestimating your enjoyment of alcohol's, shall we say, experience-enhancing side effects. I think you're definitely underestimating most people's enjoyment of those side effects. People have more fun when they're drinking, and it's not because of the taste of beer. Even if they regret it in the morning, at the time they are enjoying themselves. And they will continue to seek out that feeling.

Rogue
5/30/2008, 09:06 PM
The Sour mash Is ageing
Ill put My mash against anything Yall want !:D

Vet, corn likker is almost always better when it's fresher.
Just sayin'.

Rogue
5/30/2008, 09:38 PM
_n9prNixjbg

Rogue
5/30/2008, 09:44 PM
AlHjVr1au9M&feature=related

jkjsooner
5/31/2008, 09:19 PM
I remember being 22 and "enlightening" people like Dean. Good Times. Suspending common sense is, if nothing else, an unknowingly fleeting luxury.


The alcohol argument is still a waste of time.

Let me help:

What percentage of teens that experiment with alcohol, end up moving on to coke/crack, heroin, meth/etc. I'm not sure, but I'll take a wild guess that it's not as bad as this:



http://mfiles.org/Marijuana/user_impact/b2_gateway.html


Let's go ahead and save this thread until every genius in it has at least one 14 year old kid.


but, but, but......it's the user, it's not the drug....everyone's different. Yeah, about 85 times different.


Yet another statistic meant to shock people who do not understand statistics. All this "85 times" means is that very very few people who do harder drugs did not try weed. Is that really shocking?

The people who quote this stat generally are implying a cause and effect. More likely there is just a correlation. I would interprete this statistic to mean that if your kid is prone to do hard drugs he will probably try weed first.

I would be absolutely shocked if this statistic wasn't even more pronounced with alcohol. What is the likelihood that someone who did harder drugs and never tried alcohol?

olevetonahill
5/31/2008, 09:25 PM
Vet, corn likker is almost always better when it's fresher.
Just sayin'.

So Ya saying I need to drink this up ?

Tulsa_Fireman
5/31/2008, 09:46 PM
So Ya saying I need to drink this up ?

It'd only be right. It'd save you from having to write a 'born on' date on the jug.

XingTheRubicon
5/31/2008, 11:19 PM
Yet another statistic meant to shock people who do not understand statistics. All this "85 times" means is that very very few people who do harder drugs did not try weed. Is that really shocking?

What that does not mean is that if your kid tries weed he's 85 times more likely than the average kid to do harder drugs. I would interprete this statistic to mean that if your kid is prone to do hard drugs he will probably try weed first.

I would be absolutely shocked if this statistic wasn't even more pronounced with alcohol. What is the likelihood that someone who did harder drugs never tried alcohol?


I think you're on to something.

Let's take this furthur. What's the likelihood someone who did harder drugs never drank water? or ate Ritz crackers?

jkjsooner
6/1/2008, 11:03 AM
More on the "85 times" argument....

Let me demonstrate the difference between causation and correlation. Let's look at crack use over the last 100 years. I would bet the probability of someone who smoked crack is orders of magnitude higher among those who played video games at least once in their life than those who did not.

Does that mean video games are a potential cause of crack use? Of course not. It is merely an indication that those who never once played a video game probably lived in a period of time when crack had not yet been invented. Since almost everyone who has lived in the era of crack use probably played a video game at least once in their life you can conclude that this are correlated but neither causes the other.

It's clear that there is going to be a correlation between someone who chose to break the legal barrier with harder drug use. That does not make a good argument against legalizing pot.

MR2-Sooner86
6/1/2008, 01:29 PM
Found some interesting information while researching this topic.

Most pot is grown in the Americas and our friendly neighbor Canada has the most pot smokers in the industrialized world.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288846,00.html

As for the "gateway drug" thing everybody is throwing around I found this.

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/54/65298.htm

Now this one is interesting. I would like to throw this into the mix.


Between 2002 and 2004, past month marijuana use declined for male youths aged 12 to 17 (9.1 percent in 2002, 8.6 percent in 2003, and 8.1 percent in 2004), but it remained level for female youths (7.2, 7.2, and 7.1 percent, respectively) during the same time span.

Yes pot is bad and lets keep it banned. Yet, we have no problem putting heroine in a nice little package and selling it?


There were significant increases in the lifetime prevalence of use from 2003 to 2004 in several categories of pain relievers among those aged 18 to 25. Specific pain relievers with statistically significant increases in lifetime use were Vicodin&#174;, Lortab&#174;, or Lorcet&#174; (from 15.0 to 16.5 percent); Percocet&#174;, Percodan&#174;, or Tylox&#174; (from 7.8 to 8.7 percent); hydrocodone products (from 16.3 to 17.4 percent); OxyContin&#174; (from 3.6 to 4.3 percent); and oxycodone products (from 8.9 to 10.1 percent).

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/press05/090805fs.html

XingTheRubicon
6/1/2008, 02:12 PM
Bong water does haze things up a bit.



Let's make it simpler.



Group A: 1,000 males that took their first hit at age 16.

Group B: 1,000 males that took their first hit at age 24.

Group C: 1,000 males that never experimented with weed at 24.


And just for argument's sake, ALL 3,000 men drank at least one beer by age 16.


Which of these 3 groups are going to have the highest concentration of 36 year old part-time Guitar Center employees?

Any of you wizards wanna take a random stab at that?




The main reason I don't want weed to be legal is because it's a PROVEN FACT that the younger a child experiments with marijuana the more likely they will experiment with harder drugs. If weed is legal for 21 year olds, I have this crazy idea that maybe, just maybe, kids under 21 might not care to wait. How 'bout a show of hands for everyone who waited for their 21st birthday to drink.



Now, to take a step back and not be so one-sided.

I know that it's probably pretty inconvenient to risk imprisonment to obtain a drug that is in and of itself, seemingly harmless. I know it must seem frustrating that a 24 year old adult has his liberties restricted just because 39 year old a-holes like me are worried about underage use. I can honestly see that side of it and I have been on that side of it, but one thing keeps getting in the way of pushing the legality of this drug over the fence. Unfortunately, as it seems to have worked out over the years, no one really gives a **** what a part-time employee at Guitar Center thinks.

yermom
6/1/2008, 03:05 PM
so if it was up to you, no one would work at Guitar Center?

XingTheRubicon
6/1/2008, 03:16 PM
so if it was up to you, no one would work at Guitar Center?


No, I just want to soften the shock for part-time Guitar Center employees that myself and the rest of the country could give a **** what they think.....

and by the time they grow up, dry up, and work their *** off to provide for their family, shockingly the legalization of mind altering drugs becomes less and less of a priority.

Funny how that works.

yermom
6/1/2008, 05:17 PM
then it will shift to gay marriage or something, i suppose

jkjsooner
6/1/2008, 06:00 PM
The main reason I don't want weed to be legal is because it's a PROVEN FACT that the younger a child experiments with marijuana the more likely they will experiment with harder drugs.

I could state this a different way. The younger a child experiments with illegal drugs the more likely they will experiment with hard drugs.

Again, not surprising. What it doesn't show is if this relationship is caused primarily by the pot use or the choice to break that legal barrier. I suspect the latter plays a much larger role than you give it credit for.

Also keep in mind that a child who smokes pot at a very young age generally has a lot going against him/her. These type of kids generally have a bad home life or little parental interraction. Again, is it the pot use or other factors that create this relationship that you pose.

Also, from my limited experience, the kids I knew who were experimenting with tobacco products at very early ages (say 10) almost all graduated into illegal drug use. It wasn't the tobacco that caused this. For many reasons these kids were just prime to get into heavy drug use.

jkjsooner
6/1/2008, 06:07 PM
and by the time they grow up, dry up, and work their *** off to provide for their family, shockingly the legalization of mind altering drugs becomes less and less of a priority.



You're missing the point. The legalization argument isn't all about wanting to get high legally. Most of use making that argument do not smoke pot.

We feel that the negative consequences to society outweigh the positives. We have Mexican gangs making Al Quida look like saints - executions, beheadings, kidnapping, etc. We have small time offenders being locked up in prisons where they learn to join race based gangs for protection. We are paying for a higher percentage of prisoners than any other country in the world.

It's not about wanting to get high.

MR2-Sooner86
6/1/2008, 06:58 PM
Let's make it simpler.

Group A: 1,000 males that took their first hit at age 16.

Group B: 1,000 males that took their first hit at age 24.

Group C: 1,000 males that never experimented with weed at 24.

And just for argument's sake, ALL 3,000 men drank at least one beer by age 16.

Which of these 3 groups are going to have the highest concentration of 36 year old part-time Guitar Center employees?

Any of you wizards wanna take a random stab at that?

Riddle me this. Replace pot in that question with lortabs, prozac, xanax, and other prescription pills that the kid got from his parent's medicine cabinet.


Unfortunately, as it seems to have worked out over the years, no one really gives a **** what a part-time employee at Guitar Center thinks.

Nice way to stereotype. Like the stereotyping the government did to get pot banned in the first place? Don't believe me? How about we get some quotes from Harry J. Anslinger the head of the Bureau of Narcotics in the 1930s who pushed for the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.

Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.

Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men.

You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother

...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.

Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing.

Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.

Yup that's a great reason to outlaw pot :rolleyes:

While we're at it lets throw out those doctors from the American Medical Association who opposed the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/AMA_opposes_1937.html

I said that because that was first brought to my attention, not by a employee at Guitar Center, but by a person I know at college who did that for a senior paper on why pot should be legalized. Yes he smokes and graduated with a 4.0, was on the Student Government EC, tutor, and the model for a perfect student. He wasn't the hippy burnout you think of when you think of pot smokers.

Also, I found a History Channel special called "Hooked" on youtube. It's a little long but it's very interesting. This is part 1 of 5 but the other 4 are right there to view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yqyx0pCIHA


Now I'd also like to add that no I'm not a pot smoker who is just "wantin to legally get high" even though I'll admit I've done it. To me, pot is so wide spread and so infused with today's culture that we can't fight it. We might as well legalize it and get tax dollars from it.

Rogue
6/1/2008, 10:17 PM
Meanwhile Marion Jones is in prison for lying about using steroids. I don't mind paying my taxes, but I'll take a few more $500 hammers instead of this.

olevetonahill
6/2/2008, 12:14 AM
Couldnt a Portion of B , Be a Part of C ?
Dayum Pot made me stupid ;)

Pricetag
6/2/2008, 01:18 AM
then it will shift to gay marriage or something, i suppose
Heh, I was thinking, at least the Guitar Center guy has a job and isn't on welfare and dragging all us fine, upstanding, self-made success stories down.

Vaevictis
6/2/2008, 03:25 AM
It really doesn't make sense to me that some of you think that the general population can be trusted with firearms, but not with pot.

(And no, I don't smoke pot. Or drink. Or smoke cigarettes. Caffeine is the only drug I'll touch.)

olevetonahill
6/2/2008, 03:56 AM
It really doesn't make sense to me that some of you think that the general population can be trusted with firearms, but not with pot.

(And no, I don't smoke pot. Or drink. Or smoke cigarettes. Caffeine is the only drug I'll touch.)

You Nasty Bastage !:cool:

Sooner_Havok
6/2/2008, 12:10 PM
It really doesn't make sense to me that some of you think that the general population can be trusted with firearms, but not with pot.

(And no, I don't smoke pot. Or drink. Or smoke cigarettes. Caffeine is the only drug I'll touch.)

But guns don't harm anyone but the gun owner... Oh, wait never mind :D

Ike
6/2/2008, 12:32 PM
The way I see it, having the argument over whether or not pot should or shouldn't become legal is a waste of breath. It won happen. At least, not in our lifetime. For one main reason. The people most likely to be for it are also the least likely to vote. The people most likely to be against it are also the people most likely to vote.

Because of that, it's easy for one to paint a pot-legalizer running for office as "soft on crime", and to have a lot of voters eat it up. With regard to such things, it's easier to get elected if you take a stubborn hard-line approach, regardless of it's practical effectiveness, than to be a surrender monkey.

Fraggle145
6/2/2008, 01:39 PM
Bong water does haze things up a bit.



Let's make it simpler.



Group A: 1,000 males that took their first hit at age 16.

Group B: 1,000 males that took their first hit at age 24.

Group C: 1,000 males that never experimented with weed at 24.


And just for argument's sake, ALL 3,000 men drank at least one beer by age 16.


Which of these 3 groups are going to have the highest concentration of 36 year old part-time Guitar Center employees?

Any of you wizards wanna take a random stab at that?




The main reason I don't want weed to be legal is because it's a PROVEN FACT that the younger a child experiments with marijuana the more likely they will experiment with harder drugs. If weed is legal for 21 year olds, I have this crazy idea that maybe, just maybe, kids under 21 might not care to wait. How 'bout a show of hands for everyone who waited for their 21st birthday to drink.



Now, to take a step back and not be so one-sided.

I know that it's probably pretty inconvenient to risk imprisonment to obtain a drug that is in and of itself, seemingly harmless. I know it must seem frustrating that a 24 year old adult has his liberties restricted just because 39 year old a-holes like me are worried about underage use. I can honestly see that side of it and I have been on that side of it, but one thing keeps getting in the way of pushing the legality of this drug over the fence. Unfortunately, as it seems to have worked out over the years, no one really gives a **** what a part-time employee at Guitar Center thinks.

Dude, that is still all correlation and not causation. You cant say its a proven fact all you can say is that its correlated. There are numerous other variables that have to be taken into account. This is the same problem scientists all over run into with their arguments on global warming for example... all we can say is that the earth is warming... and that it is correlated with greenhouse gases. We can can state probable causes, but its still correlation.

The problem being is that there hasnt been an explicit test done to test the hypothesis that "pot use at a young age leads to use of harder drugs or working at the local guitar center."

And it would be very difficult to test causation. Simply because these hypotheses, theories, etc... can only disproven or supported. They very rarely can be "proven." You can model probable causes (i.e., correlation) with single or numerous variables, but rarely do you get a model that fits and predicts the situation you are trying to understand.

mdklatt
6/2/2008, 01:46 PM
The problem being is that there hasnt been an explicit test done to test the hypothesis that "pot use at a young age leads to use of harder drugs or working at the local guitar center."


The even bigger question is being lost in all of this. Whether or not pot turns you into a loser, why is that the government's responsibility?

Fraggle145
6/2/2008, 01:49 PM
The even bigger question is being lost in all of this. Whether or not pot turns you into a loser, why is that the government's responsibility?

Good point.

So long as you are a loser i dont have to support thats fine by me...

Tulsa_Fireman
6/2/2008, 01:49 PM
The even bigger question is being lost in all of this. Whether or not pot turns you into a loser, why is that the government's responsibility?

Ah HA!

So there IS a negative effect besides poorly fitting shoes, greasy hippies, and lots and lots of rope!

Sooner_Havok
6/2/2008, 01:51 PM
The even bigger question is being lost in all of this. Whether or not pot turns you into a loser, why is that the government's responsibility?

It seems that a lot of the people against legalizing pot are also against giving any kind of assistance to life's losers so I am at a loss too. If pot smokers do end up being losers, then doesn't that mean there would be more high quality jobs available? And if we don't give out any kind of social welfare, than won't these losers have to either die or take the low paying jobs away from the mexicans? It seems like a win-win to me from their POV.:confused: :confused: :confused:

mdklatt
6/2/2008, 01:58 PM
It seems that a lot of the people against legalizing pot are also against giving any kind of assistance to life's losers so I am at a loss too.

When Republicans say they're for "less government", they mean "fewer regulations for me". Any law that doesn't effect them seems to be fair game.

yermom
6/2/2008, 01:58 PM
someone has to dig ditches, so maybe they will be happy ditch diggers ;)

Tulsa_Fireman
6/2/2008, 02:02 PM
When Republicans say they're for "less government", they mean "fewer regulations for me". Any law that doesn't effect them seems to be fair game.

Nice broad, assuming statement.

You win, I run away with my fellow pirate Republicans.

mdklatt
6/2/2008, 02:04 PM
someone has to dig ditches, so maybe they will be happy ditch diggers ;)

There's another conundrum. The Republican answer to somebody else's economic woes is always "get yourself a better job". So who do they think is going to dig the ditches? Oh wait, I get it. Lock up all the pot smokers and make them do it as part of a chain gang. Brilliant!

Sooner_Havok
6/2/2008, 02:04 PM
someone has to dig ditches, so maybe they will be happy ditch diggers ;)

Hey, we need people to fry our food, wash our cars, build our roads, and mow or yards too. Don't sell them short, they might very well be the new Mexicans :P

Fraggle145
6/2/2008, 02:05 PM
Nice broad, assuming statement.

You win, I run away with my fellow pirate Republicans.

ARRRRRRRRRR ;)

Sooner_Havok
6/2/2008, 02:06 PM
Nice broad, assuming statement.

You win, I run away with my fellow pirate Republicans.

Ah man, you guys get to be pirates :mad: Is it to late to switch back to being a republican so I can get my awesome hat, eye patch, and parrot?

mdklatt
6/2/2008, 02:08 PM
Nice broad, assuming statement.



Outlaw gay marriage? What the hell, I'm not gay.

Ban pot smoking? Sure, I'm not a stoner.

Patriot Act? No problem, I'm not a terrorist.

Outlaw trans fats?!?! You'll take my Twinkie from my cold, dead hand you Communist bastards!

Tulsa_Fireman
6/2/2008, 02:13 PM
Outlaw gay marriage? What the hell, I'm not gay.

Ban pot smoking? Sure, I'm not a stoner.

Patriot Act? No problem, I'm not a terrorist.

Outlaw trans fats?!?! You'll take my Twinkie from my cold, dead hand you Communist bastards!

Keep up with that dread talk, ya lubber, and I'll hang yer innards from the mizzenmast!

Go hug a tree! AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRR!

Whilst I program the youth culture into not taking baths, drinking rum, and chasing skirts!

http://www.parteaz.co.uk/cms/files/Pirate%20-%20Step%204a.jpg

AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGG!!!

Rogue
6/2/2008, 02:15 PM
> 12 pages, yea!

Seems that some still see this as a lib/con or Rep/Dem thing and I'm now convinced it's anything but that.

This one just doesn't fit in the box. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe "most" of one side, the other, or hell both as far as I know are either fer it or again' it. Me, I'm for some sensible policy other than the one we have because that shat is broke and broke bad.