The past year I have started to pay attention to the drug debate, and found the only logical arguement on the anti-prohibition side. It seems that the vast majority of Americans agree with us (the anti-prohibitioners), and I was greatly confused as to why this was not an "issue" in any presidential/senate/HOR elections. We HAVE to make them know about us. If they knew that so many voters were against something that they could so easily change, they'd support drug legalization in a heartbeat. Not to sound histarical, but lives are resting on this issue. Too many have died at the neglegent hands of the "Drug Warriors," and it's time for this to stop. We HAVE to do something, weather it be a massive petition, or full-fledged protesting in the streets. If we want to do a petition, we have to do it on a massive scale. Everybody should get everybody he/she/it knows to write a letter to their representitive, preferably on hemp paper or something symbolic like that, and have everybody send their letter at a certain time, with a delay of a day or two in-between mailings. Of course if this doesn't work, which it probably wont, the only way will be to get people out onto the streets, and demand change. The only thing our government is afraid of is massive protests or riots, which may be necessary, because they can shoot down any bill and/or law we throw at them. PLEASE, stop and take a minute or two to reply with ideas. DO NOT LET THIS PASS. The only way we can change anything is to do it all at once, or as Yahooka puts it, "If we unite together as one voice, we will be heard."
Nothing short of revolution ever seems to work, which is why it is vital that marijuana be liberated through the peaceful force of the masses. But consider a specific mass-protest that takes place largely because of a stoner joke: 4:20 pm. I live on the west coast of the US; there's a lot of us through Washington, Oregon, and California who smoke the sweet leaf. And I can confidently bet that, over the course of a few minutes to either side of 4:20 pm, at least a quarter-million people on the coast paused in their day to smoke pot. Think about those days on which people don't have to be at work at 4:20 ... you're committing civil disobedience alongside perhaps another million people, maybe more, in your time zone. If you want to see religion made of drugs, watch the stoners you know at work; if they're smart enough not to pop out for a quick joint on the street, you will still see them recognize the presence of 4:20. How do you tell a stoner at my work? None of us wear watches (that's not entirely true, but nearly). But how often do I cross a fellow smoker at work in a stairwell or a hallway and hear the whispered, "I want a bong rip". It's almost Pavlovian: a good stoner often flinches at 4:20 and guesses why because it's the only reason. But think of that civil disobedience: a million people smoking a joint or ripping a bong right alongside you. Pretty damn empowering, eh? Excuse me, I'm off to empower myself. (Smoke the Power ....) thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Down here in OZ we have a protest of that kind once a year. It all happens in a town called Nimbon, on the NSW northcoast. This protest attracts hundreds of thousands of people. With them come the police...and once a year the coppers turn a blind eye. The entire town is FULL of people smoking, having comps like hemp olympics etc etc...... This protest has gone on and on for years still the government ignores it. Like the Hundreds of thousands of people don't have a valid point because they are mere stoners...... It seems like the drug laws the world over are being enforced by ignorant people. (my 2.2cents worth inc GST)
Rally Smartly Greetings all! While protest is definetly an effective way to get attention, remember that it can often be the attention that can sink any cause, good or otherwise. The media has one objective. Sell. That is all. In order to sell, the story has to be of interest, and naturally, there is going to be interest among marijuana law reformation, among all users, rercreational and habitual. Now you can guarantee that there will be people who will attend a rally after all everyone loves a protest but I can guarantee to you that those whoi attend will not be as altruistic in motive as yourself. A couple years back, a peaceful protest was organized where I live, Calgary, AB, Can. All types showed up, which was encouraging, yet at the same time, a catalyst to the failure that would envelope. Many of those who attended the rally where on hand to enjoy a nice summer day, play frisbee, and hack, etc. and many more showed up for a free hoot, score some bud or just to "raise Hell" After a ten minute oration by an obviously well researched speaker, about 3/4 of the listening audience stood up, much to the chagrin of the organizers, headed for City Hall, chanting "Free the Weed" to everyone, families, kids, seniors and annoyed merchants having grimy kids who would normally be harrasing them otherwise get in their faces, this time yelling "pro Active" obscenties. Guess what made it into the paper? The positive, medicinal benefits, the irony of the law, or otherwise. Nope. Grimy kids hell bent in a mob mentality, not the suits, hippies, blue collars gathered in a peacefull rally. so in short, fight the good fight , but be complete, lets talk more Jason
Where is the country headed? You seem to have one drawback, the voters don't support it. There have been a few people that have tried to pool for legalizing drugs and the political scene slaughtered them. I believe strongly in legalizing almost all drugs. Why not regulate them instead of elevating them to an almost holy level and let drug cartels make all the money. Drugs would be much cheaper and the government could tax them if your local 7 11 sold them. The trend is in the opposite direction though and it is time to take a stand. Cigarettes are going to be illegal soon enough and proabition will come back. Alcohol is after guns and then what are we left with, no rights. Its the nature of a government like our own. People may say that things like this will never happen. Proabition cant, it already failed. But they are missing something. proabition failed because it happened to fast. If you would have tried to outlaw cigarettes in bars 50 years ago people would have laughed at you. Guess what, it is illegal to smoke in a bar in California, and the rest of the states are following suit. The war on cigarettes is almost over and those people need a new target. Guns are next, it's already started. We need a REALLY loud outcry for reform. I see revolution in the future. The government rarely gets rid of laws. Our greatest adversary would be the moral majority. The have a lot of votes and they are very radical. Politicians fear them and bend to their will because of there political power. It will take more than a few people to overthrow the current trend. However, it is often our own fault that we are not heard anyway and we need to show the rest of the country that we must be heard. Malaclypse, that's the attitude that makes us so damn quiet and we are all guilty of it. Most people just sit back and watch it all happen. The longer we wait the harder it is going to be to fight back. You are right, WE MUST DO SOMETHING, and it must be right now. Sorry to pick on you Malaclypse, just to make a point. Nothing against you. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
know what, I'd be the first to agree with you -but I'm smart enough to see the writing on the wall and to also see the futility. -sigh- We all know it's about control and control of people and their bodies by the State. Hell, the State doesn't even want you to die with dignity if you choose because THEY feel it neccessary to prolong THEIR PROPERTY so their property can continue to CONSUME!!! If I want to put a needle in my arm I should be able to, it's my fucking body and my freewill!! If I want to smoke some drug of choice, it's my fucking body and my freewill!! WE WANT CONTROL OF OUR BODIES, isn't this a fact? Why all the debate by the FDA to possibly regulate health-foods and alot of the supplements market? CONTROL!!! I eat very large doses of Vitamin C and make my own colloidal silver water. I HAVEN'T BEEN ILL WITH THE COMMON COLD IN AT LEAST 5 YEARS!!! Is this an accident? No, I've researched and learned through trial an error what works and talked with people......if Vitamin C is ever regulated because some moron in Washington is working in the interests of the Pharmaceuticals I would be the first to wield more than my words.......colloidal silver is already under scrutiny for whatever reasons I don't know. If my cynicism is so depressing I apologize and hope others don't take my stance. but you have my support in other ways........
Just a personal opinion I'm all for legalization of some drugs like marijuana, which, even though they kill you, do it slowly and gracefully (though in marijuana's case the ill-effects are probably little different from tobacco -- deriving mostly from chronic inhalation of smoke -- and so the resulting eventual illness and death may not be pretty.) At least with drugs like that, the users (most of them) still have a choice of quitting without risking coma. On the other hand, I'm not too thrilled about the concept of designer drugs manufactured to hook on first use and basically take over an addict's life. They should still be illegal, but the "punishment" must change: instead of locking users up, send them to rehabilitation where a conditioned aversion of the drug is also instilled to prevent relapse (the manufacturers of such drugs shold definitely pay with freedom and possessions; the latter would go a long way toward paying for the rehabilitation program.) Rehabilitation in such cases should probably also include a psych workup and a regimen of counceling. As for banning drug use from public places, I'm all for it. If you want to get high, do it in the <u>safety</u> of your own home -- or even better still, a specialized drug parlor where you'll be looked after. Otherwise, walking (or worse, driving) around while under the influence puts not only yourself but others at risk of injury or even death. For the stuff that is smoked, the additional reason to ban from public use is protecting the health of others. I like clean air and detest smoke, and there should be no reason why people like me should be denied a right to clean lungs simply because certain others personally choose to waive it. This isn't really addressing the point of the thread, but I'd note that if a public agenda along the lines of what I described above were to emerge, I would be behind it 100%.
You got me to thinking, Boris ... "A Publication of Drug Watch Oregon". http://www.satcom.net.au/apfdfy/Research.html I bring up this article for two reasons. First, please note in the summary portion, the patient had smoked marijuana for 10 years, and just prior to admission had smoked several marijuana cigarettes and consumed several bottles of beer. Furthermore, I can relate to the kidneys at this point, as I am about to start the third round of random antibiotics for what my doctors thought was kidney-related and has now turned into a head-scratching fiasco. Though cancer is scratched off the list and the host of veneral and incidental bacterial tests have all come up negative, I now get a high-end antibiotic (Tequin) for a month, just to see what happens. My specialist's official opinion of whether marijuana use, especially considering my rate of consumption, is involved in the puzzling internal bleeding (even at the level of physical damage from coughing) is a firm, "No." My physician didn't ask if I wanted to quit nicotine; if you smoke, you get a prescription of antibiotics from him. In fact, he even attempted to prescribe a double-cycle on the grounds that if I had a girlfriend (I'll skip the gory details of that) who smoked, it would be beneficial to me if she tried to quit at the same time. This is the only time he has acknowledged my marijuana use. He advised, "It's tougher to quit cigarettes if you're still smoking pot. Make brownies." Thus, the first reason I bring this up is that it is all well and fine to work with what data you have. If the data is that thin, well, it's that thin. But based on ... * 10 years marijuana use * Smoked several joints and drank several beers * No other psychotropic drugs were used (that night, or ever?) * Urinalysis revealed cannabinoids ... I must take issue with the first sentence of the commentary. This report is the first one showing clotting off of an artery to the kidney resulting from acute marijuana smoking. I find this to be extremely irresponsible. Was the patient dehydrated? If so, is patient chronically dehydrated? We accept ten years marijuana use, but what is patient's history of alcohol use? (Does alcohol use contribute to dehydration, perhaps chronically?) Thus I would hope to provide at least one example of the myths surrounding marijuana's harm. Secondly, I want to rip into Drug Watch. I ran a Google search on "marijuana" and "carcinogen", and the results were stacked with articles decrying marijuana as more toxic than cigarettes. Uniformly, the sites refer to a report at www.drugwatch.org which does not seem to exist at this moment. (The whole of drugwatch.org is, at this moment, unavailable.) I cannot presently read the report which these articles cite; this disturbs me in a propaganda way, and I await the .org's return to webdom. I have cited above, at satcom.net, a collection of newsletter articles from Drug Watch Oregon. Needless to say, I'm wondering how many grams of marijuana thirty-five pounds gets you in the UK; some of their stories invoke images of the Reefer Madness craze. But more to the point, I want to know where they get their study on marijuana as a carcinogen, and if that data includes nicotine use. Frankly, if they are accusing marijuana in the form of the newsletter, I can guarantee you there's something they're trying to hide about their data. Essentially, Boris has presented a few issues on which I would like to comment. It's not that anyone will assert that smoking pot is physically healthy the way drinking a protein shake is supposed to be healthy. But you'll notice that nobody is campaigning against bacon because a guy who had a heart attack ate bacon that morning, and had eaten bacon fairly regularly over the years. I present http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/publications/iprc/factline/marij.html ... This isn't that bad of a paragraph. There's only a couple of quick notes I want to comment on here: * "...marijuana smoke is smoked unfiltered ...." This is the primary reason why any good stoner prefers smoking a bong. Better yet is the idea of the vaporizer, which heats the marijuana to the THC release point (apparently just over 100 centigrade works well), and thus eliminates much of the particulate exhaust. Unfortunately, vaporizers have a few technical problems. Even better yet is the notion that, when it's legal, I can eat the stuff. This is the best way to use marijuana, but it is exceptionally expensive. I had the wonderful experience of attending a dinner where marijuana was used extensively in the food, most notably in the butter. The process is a bit time-consuming but well worth it if you're into marijuana. But the problem is that the pot-butter costs about $150 a pound to make. As delightful as it is, so much more sublime than smoking the stuff, it's prohibitively expensive to cook with marijuana. * "... potential carcinogens ... lung cancer ...." I think the use of the word "potential" is a perfectly acceptable word; you'll find no argument from me, except that I've seen nothing about the cannabinoids themselves being carcinogenic, or even potentially so. As to the lung cancer accusation ... you rarely see this anymore--the info at the site was updated five years ago--because it's an extremely tenuous link. For instance, Partnership for a Drug-Free America dropped that part of their campaign in the 1980s and early '90s when someone finally thought to ask, "Um ... how many of the stoners in that report smoked cigarettes? And how does this affect the data?[/i] This is an interesting notion. It seems fairly common-sense, except that there really isn't any way to determine the practical result of this except by extrapolating laboratory-observed data. I've actually heard of a report that says habitual pot-smokers get in less traffic accidents; the two reasons I don't pull that report out is twofold: A) I've never gotten my hands on it, and B) it's a self-reporting study, as I've been advised. I accept the cited assertion. It's a no-brainer. But, unlike alcohol, the apparent practical effect of this altered perception has yet to be observed. That is, pot smokers behind the wheel aren't slaying people by the thousands. Part of the reason for this is that such impairment is a no-brainer; generally, most stoners I know do not like to drive stoned. I do know some people who drive stoned, but their driving doesn't scare me in the least; more directly, though ... have you ever noticed how many stoners get where they're going, and then spark up? Take a concert, for instance: who wants to get high, drive an hour to the arena, find parking, walk to the show, and come down before the opening band hits the stage? (I will assert firmly here that what happens then is that people start drinking alcohol because it's the drug that's available.) I except Phish shows from the take a concert assertion for the simple fact that it's a moot-point: I wouldn't be surprised if the audience at the last Phish show I attended walked a combined two-hundred pounds through the front gate; if you were at the show, you were stoned, and there was flat-out no way around it. In the case of concerts, I might digress and wonder what the point is of serving alcohol to people and then trying to flush them out of the parking lot as fast as possible. Literally, people trying to sober up before they hit the road are being ordered by security teams to get the hell out. There's no cabs, there's no buses, and there's only the cops and ten-thousand other cars ... get your drunk ass on the road, boy! It's a fair question when considering the legalization of marijuana and the potential difficulties it might invite. Stoners after a Phish show usually do just fine about thirty minutes after they're out of the gate, not two hours. I'm well aware of marijuana's effect on motivation, but I was lazy before I ever smoked pot. Similarly, I once pinned my mother down when she was talking about my pot smoking and my behavior: "I started smoking pot when I was 18. Even you have told me that I acted depressed when I was 13." And besides, without attempting to be flippant, it truly does seem to me that the above citation describes the American Youth. I well remember apathy and passivity toward goals and future. Except that they weren't my goals, but the ones I was told to have. I sometimes wonder if, when we talk about drugs, we somehow pare away certain factors. Sure, I hate my job; sure, I could get a better one. But I love my job for two reasons: it pays me enough to live, and it doesn't come home with me. I decided I wanted to be a writer when I was five years old, and I'm still at it like an idiot. I stopped telling people every time I started a novel when I was 14. I would love, just once, to tell people I finished one, and if I'm apathetic toward normal social standards, including marriage and family, job and economic status, keeping up with the Joneses, even home ownership and so forth, it's not because of marijuana but because I'm not willing to do the things necessary to be married, or not willing to crack myself in half trying to pay for a house. I'd rather relax and learn how to write. If I sell one, and have a razor-sharp agent, I will very easily be able to afford to take part in society. But I would definitely charge that such an idea as marijuana-related amotivational syndrome, as described above, is a little bit superstitious. But overall, what I'm complaining about is the environment in which marijuana is discussed. 1) This is a point that legalization advocates harp on. Marijuana is described by Schedule 1 as having as high a potential for addiction and as high a physical toll as crack and heroin. 2) There's a reason for this. And shortly, when the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Co-Op beats the hell out of the Fed before the Supreme Court, point 2 will become invalid. 3) That's only because the people who write such guidelines refuse to consider such guidelines. What I really find macabre about point 3 and Schedule 1 in general is that Congressional Republicans put up the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999 in an effort to make the writing of such guidelines illegal. To apply MAPA's proposed standards to marijuana--for theory's sake--I would be facing multiple federal felony counts for this post alone. To place marijuana on Schedule 1 is dangerous. I cannot count the number of times I had to explain to my friends that just because marijuana isn't as dangerous as they say is no good reason to go do cocaine or methamphetamine. Lastly, I would like to refer to the "Myths & Facts" section of the indiana.edu page. So is rhubarb. But people know how to consume it safely. There are many plants more dangerous to our health than marijuana that are perfectly legal becuse people know how to use them. Marijuana: You set it on fire and put it in your lungs to force a set of reactions in your brain. This is not, generally speaking, "safe" to do to anything. But if this general degree of safety addressed is appropriate, I will retreat to the comfortable argument of pointing out that nicotine and alcohol are legal and taxed. I pick on caffeine because it is so prevalent in American culture. What is our obsession with caffeine? I can go buy caffeinated water! To me, drinking water infused with a diuretic is an exercise in futility. But it's caffeine, so we like it. I think it's a fairly safe assertion to say that most drug users' first drug addiction was caffeine. Bill Maher, on 3/21, refuted the "Gateway Drug" theory with the simple assertion that the gateway drug is alcohol. How many pot smokers smoked pot before cigarettes? I've met a few, but they're quite rare. That studies show that marijuana users may have a predisposition to use other drugs is no cause for it to be illegal. I think this is assumptive. Marijuana relieves stress. Sure, some people hide within its smokey veils; even I do that from time to time. I guess I could go spend forty bucks on booze, but why do I want a hangover? That's just another problem to cope with. Are we making the comparative "safer" equivalent to "safe"? It is safer to wear a bulletproof vest into combat, but that does not make combat safe. To be a little more relevant ... yes, marijuana is definitely a safer drug than alcohol. Marijuana does do funny things to the mind. But if the "FACT" portion is any reason to make marijuana illegal .... First, I have never heard the "MYTH" portion asserted by anyone except anti-drug people in "Myth and Fact" sessions. Which leads to ... Yes, we know the stuff is stronger. Anyone who's smoked Purple Kush or MTF or blueberry knows this. But this is less a difference in "danger" than, say, the difference between a wine cooler and Everclear. Lastly, how has horticultural development "added many other dangerous chemicals"? I will even go so far as to take the simplistic interpretation of "added chemicals" and note that organic marijuana offers a far-better quality spectrum than marijuana grown with chemical fertilizer. Most of the (few) growers I've met over the years dislike normal pesticides. As I've never known a huge plantation grower, I can say that the favorite insecticide of smaller growers seems to be made of pepper oil. But any "new" chemicals occurring in marijuana over the years would be either wholesale genetic changes or else naturally-occurring chemicals that only come out during optimized growth. I will stop now, and offer the following note to Boris ... where I got started on this rant was the line about marijuana being little different from tobacco in its health effects. On the one hand, they might be similar processes, but to the other, they're not as severe. To yet another hand, I am unhappy at the appearance of a muddled issue of marijuana carcinogenic effect and the idea of how many stoners smoke cigarettes. When the study came out that smoking both pot and cigarettes dramatically increased lung damage, I did not doubt this; this is another of those no-brainers, it seems to me. But I have never seen cigarette use tied into a carcinogenic marijuana assertion. I wanted also to mention that I think designer drugs lose their attractiveness when people know what they do. But in the case of the latest, MDMA, there seems to be low addictive potential for a reason that I, while I choose not to use MDMA, can sympathize with. I cannot take psilocybin frequently. As in daily. At a lower dose, yes. But pushing my consumption is difficult; I know I'm capable of using shrooms weekly, but I do not because I do not want to. But if I've soared on an eighth of cubensis on Friday, my body will literally refuse to accept more on Saturday. I am told by most of the MDMA users I know that they, too, know this circumstance. But despite the glowing reviews from friends, everyone knows I will not take the drug because it has methamphetamine in it, and I know the damage it can do. Meth and heroin are the only two drugs in my life with a death count, and the heroin user died of AIDS that may well have resulted from his ridiculously promiscuous sex life. (Strangely, at no time that I knew him was he an addict in the junkie sense; I cannot explain his ability to use heroin at will. As he was into S&M, though, maybe he liked the kicks.) Of punishment, I wanted to note that the drug itself is not, in my opinion, cause for punishment. A person has as much right to become addicted to glue if they want as they do to commit suicide the quick way. I'm all for mandatory rehabilitation for those convicted of certain crimes while under the influence, but why should someone have to confess to felonies before they can receive treatment? And I wanted to ask, of banning drug use in public places: Are you referring to a sidewalks, parks, &c.? I understand the idea of opium rooms and hash bars, but are you considering, say, a nightclub, a public place? However, the idea of arresting or citing people for Walking Under the Influence is a little ridiculous. And I wanted to comment directly on one thing: You are correct that you should be allowed to keep your lungs clean. * I feel the same way about cars and fossil fuels and the industrial section of Tacoma, Washington. For the record, I also feel the same way about most perfumes and colognes. I'm sorry, but just because someone wants to smell like an hallucinogenic moose doesn't mean I have to put up with it. Dior makes me bleed on contact; most women's perfumes cause vertigo and migraines; most men's colognes cause nausea. * Considering the cigarette wars, I resent the idea of forcing restaurants and bars to go smoke-free by law. If you want clean lungs, go ahead and eat somewhere else, as such. After all ... considerations of other people get strange when intoxication is involved. For instance, I can be arrested for standing on the sidewalk and drunkenly shouting at people. But if I'm spitting and shouting and stomping around with a Bible in my hand, I have the right to annoy the hell out of people. I don't understand this. Disturbing behavior is disturbing behavior. As far as that goes, if I'm high and you can't tell except for the smile and the red eyes, it's none of your business and you shouldn't be looking. Aspirin kills more people than marijuana. thanx much, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Tiassa, I beg your pardon Well, I didn't want to come off as categorical as you made me sound. I do not exclude the possibility of ingesting THC safely; indeed if it was legal you could probably just buy it in refined pill form. It's the common practice of <u>smoking</u> it that I referred to. I should think you wouldn't need scientific studies to figure out that clogging your lungs with combustion products is not good for you -- no matter what it was that you combusted. Even specific chemicals aside, just so much as putting soot into your lungs is exceptionally bad for you; particulate contamination leads to the black lung disease with which coal miners are so familiar (and they don't even smoke necessarily; they just inhale fine dust -- which isn't much different from smoke in particulate content.) The attitude that if you don't like it then go somewhere else is ridiculous. Just where would a person go if smoking is allowed everywhere? Must I get off this planet to find an agreeable bar or restaurant? Moreover, what choice would I even have if I'm stuck in an elevator with a bozo who wants to smoke? Or if I'm a child living in a house where the parent(s) smoke? As for the other air pollutants like cars and factories, the same applies. I'm one of those who believe that clean air for everyone (without totally destroying the capitalist economy) as a priority comes ahead of the comfort or the profits of a few (same applies to things other than air, of course.) I wouldn't know why anyone should decide to distort their own life with mind-altering substances (other then peer pressure) -- but ultimately it's their life and their business; I accept that and endorce it. The mandatory rehabilitation comes only in the extreme cases of junkies -- whose condition would be more appropriately described as a terminal (if untreated) degenerative disorder than deliberate drug use. Why should the society interfere with someone's right to die as they please? Well, in cases of people who are strung out on drugs they might not necessarily have wished to die when they started their habit, yet managed to get to a point of no return. In such a situation the humane thing to do is to help out. Everyone makes mistakes, and the mistakes need not be final. Note that I'm not blanketing all drug users here, only the extreme cases. As to "walking while intoxicated", I would think there is a grade of intoxication that would affect how safe or unsafe it is to the others around you. As you said, if the only signs of your high are red eyes or something like that, then there's no harm in it for the people around you. However, if your particular drug of choice (not marijuana, in all probability) causes you to hallucinate for example, then you might end up doing something really lethal like walking across a freeway or shooting off your gun into a crowd. A healthy human brain is suited to proper operation within its environment; mind-altering substances throw the normal functions out of balance -- which on the surface is not too different from transient mental illness. You wouldn't argue that we should let mentally ill people roam around the streets in the full bloom of their symptoms -- would you? So I envision a sort of law to the effect that: if you are doing scientifically unquantified drugs, it's mandatory for you to be observed by non-intoxicated caretakers until your high wears off; if you are doing quantified drugs, then you must first be aware of the particular intoxication laws that pertain to your drug (e.g. alcohol) -- I guess what it all comes down to is a social demand for responsible drug use. On the other hand, even if you think you are smart enough not to drive when you are stoned, do not assume that everyone else is equally smart -- and do not even assume you are equally smart when you are actually stoned. Otherwise, we wouldn't have to legislate against drunk driving either. Such laws don't really prevent people from breaking them of course, but at least they might serve as a reminder and an incentive to plan ahead and be careful (e.g. designated drivers, etc.)
First of all there is no doubt in my mind that laws against being high in public need to be set up. There are laws against being drunk in public as well because people do weird things when their brains are shut off. Most of the laws should be almost the same as the drinking laws. You can't be in a public place while drunk unless you in a bar or someplace like that. "The attitude that if you don't like it then go somewhere else is ridiculous. Just where would a person go if smoking is allowed everywhere? Must I get off this planet to find an agreeable bar or restaurant? Moreover, what choice would I even have if I'm stuck in an elevator with a bozo who wants to smoke? Or if I'm a child living in a house where the parent(s) smoke? As for the other air pollutants like cars and factories, the same applies. I'm one of those who believe that clean air for everyone (without totally destroying the capitalist economy) as a priority comes ahead of the comfort or the profits of a few (same applies to things other than air, of course.)" The problem here is the few word. The reality is that if it were only the few that wanted this comfort then businesses would make their places non-smoking. The reality is that it is most of us and majority should. Why should the whinny complaints of a few dictate what I may or may not do. That is ridiculous. I say go somewhere else, and if I am annoyed by it I will. If there is no other place to go then I will simply not go anywhere. As for marijuana's health issues, it is unhealthy and that is a simple fact. It isn't that hard to see. I have watched people completely loose any intelligence with constant marijuana use. To say that is healthy is a ridiculous statement. On the other hand programs like DARE are encouraging children to use marijuana. The paint a picture of an evil monster marijuana. Over exaggerating the effects simply causes people to completely disbelieve you. People need to hear the truth, not a souped up version to scare people into not using drugs. One last point. Forced rehabilitation is a stupid and pointless project. I have seen to many people go into those types of programs only to come out knowing a better way around the law. To get rehabilitated you NEED to want it, not be forced into it. I'm not saying it shouldn't be encouraged and jail is the best way. I'm just saying forcing it is pointless. We need a better way.
More to come later But I wanted to throw this one in for now, because it's short enough: I'm inclined to inquire regarding your opinion of capitalism and capitalists. For instance, there was (is?) a law that made it illegal to smoke in public in Los Angeles, to the point that taverns had to be smoke-free. Bearing this in mind, I submit the following idea for your consideration: If smoking is allowed by law, in public, there are a number of estabishments that will cater to smokers. This is why I say if you don't like it, find another restaurant. Would you assert that no capitalists would recognize the market of non-smoking establishments? In other words, if it is legal to smoke cigarettes in a bar, and you don't want secondhand smoke, are you telling me that nobody in Los Angeles, or Seattle, or any large city, would be bright enough to cater to the non-smoking consumer? No, you don't have to leave the planet to find an agreeable restuarant. If you look around, they're there. I can walk two blocks from my house to a number of restaurants where smoking is not allowed. I can walk two doors up the street to drink beer and listen to live music, where smoking is not allowed. If this particular prohibition bothers me, I can walk next door to that bar, and spend the evening in a fine bar where smoking is allowed, and the jazz played is tasteful. Personally, living in the United States, I don't see how it can be that we can take consenting adults using a legal product and banish them from recreational society. In BC, Candada, I believe in '99, a restaurant owner who felt his customers were smokers (by a definitive majority) attempted to run his restaurant as a smoking establishment, and had bright and bold signs informing everyone who approached the restaurant (visible from the road, the parking lot ... you have to be oblivious to miss it) that smoking was allowed in his restaurant. This was not acceptable to the government, and at the last I heard of the story, the owners were deciding whether to close and reinvest in another business, or submit to government authority. That's ridiculous. It's as dumb as Henry Waxman claiming that banning cigarettes in Los Angeles will alleviate smog. It's getting so that smokers can't even segregate themselves for your health. For myself, I'm perfectly aware of non-smokers when I smoke. I'm a particular fan of the individuals who follow you around wherever you move so they can complain about your smoke--a woman who would later complain that I was complicating her chest congestion only did so after getting up and moving four times to follow me and be in my smoke trail. I asked her how a woman complaining of pneumonia could shout so loudly on such a cold, wet morning. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Even better answer Boris-- An obvious answer occurred to me somewhere 'twixt last night and this morning: Did you ever go out and alter your own life with a couple of drinks, and then come home and get laid senseless? --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hi All, sorry to be coming in so late but I have to comment...I tried to let it go but here we are. Above Boris said: "On the other hand, even if you think you are smart enough not to drive when you are stoned, do not assume that everyone else is equally smart -- and do not even assume you are equally smart when you are actually stoned. " Ok I'm 27 and I've been smoking pot for about 13 years...although the bulk of it has only been about 6-7 years. Initially when I started I'd have 1 cone and it was all over I couldn't do anything but lie back and enjoy the high. However after a while your brain (well mine and that of everyone I've ever met who smokes the stuff) gets used to the high. I am not exagerating in the slightest when I tell you that I can smoke ALOT of hooter (not homegrown I'm talking hardcore HYDRO gear) and go to work DRIVE do presentations at work, teach, play guitar you name it and I can do it just as well as johny straight arse who is too pure to contaminate his body with pot. And to back up my claim (I know its not really any kind of verification but) the University of NSW (Aust. national university) has done research regarding the effects of cannibis on driving and the conclusion was that it does NOT effect the driving capabilities of people who are under the influence. Don't have the detials but I'm sure if you are realy keen to see it, it wouldn't be too hard to track down the report. BTW I wouldn't dream of driving drunk, infact I smoke when I go out because I refuse to drive even after 1 drink. I'm expecting everyone to tell me that I could do all those things better if i wasn't stoned...so bring it on.
In case anyone's interested in some anecdotal (and most unscientific) evidence: I've been wondering about cannabis' detrimental effects on things like driving ability for a while, so recently I decided to try something out. If you'd like to try this at home, you'll need a Playstation2, a copy of Ridge Racer V and your herb of choice. One evening, I started a new level while under the influence, and performed reasonably badly. On an old course, I kicked ass. The following evening, I tried it without any chemical assistance. I was much better at the new course, but worse at the old one. I've repeated this 'experiment' several times, and have come to the following preliminary conclusions: Hash does affect reaction time; on unfamiliar courses, I noticed a definite disimprovement; I was also worse at getting right the split second timing needed for the perfect start. OTOH, I zoned out much easier, and would - as I tend to do - race merrily while pondering the mysteries of the universe, then realise that I was just about to finish my third lap, and was breaking records. Not startling, I know: hash affects concentration and reaction time, but does wonders for repetitive or familiar tasks. robert the scientist
Amen ... Amen to the one hand, and I share a certain frustration on the other. I have heard of, and never seen, reports describing the effects of marijuana on the physical process of operating a motor vehicle; as you or I might expect, there is note of delayed reaction time. However, another set of studies that I have heard of, and never seen, indicates that marijuana is less of a factor in road accidents than such delays seem to imply. I shall endeavor to locate either of these data sets. In light of motorist-related issues, I should mention that some American states are considering the banning of cellular phone use (hands-free, voice activated excepted) on the grounds that statistics reflect that cel-phone use on the road is becoming as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol. Presently, I can confidently assert that marijuana has not yet demonstrated this tendency to any comparable severity. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hey, you get no argument from me where it comes to a need of quantifying the effect of THC blood levels on important things like driving. As I've said before, if it really doesn't impair you that much then it's obviously not a concern (as Tiassa pointed out.) On the other hand, I do worry about it -- because while I haven't done it myself, I've been in company of people smoking joints -- and the aftereffects I observed do not appear to be conducive to doing much other than slumping on the sofa in a daze for an hour or so. Then, it's well known that many people refuse to believe that alcohol impairs them even though it demonstrably does. That kind of bravado can be dangerous to everyone. So, until marijuana has been analyzed somewhat close to the level at which alcohol has been scrutinized, I'm having my reservations regarding it. Regarding forced rehabilitation, I both agree and disagree. I agree that it's much more effective when the subject actually wants to be rehabilitated. I disagree that it should not be done otherwise. Perhaps the methods need improvement... At any rate, part of the rehabilitation process must somehow make the subject want to be rehabilitated. That, I think, is a crucial psychological issue that isn't being addressed by contemporary methods. As for Tiassa's capitalism, I must admit that's a damn good point I have not considered. Thanks for knocking me straight there. But then what about public transportation? What about other establishments, e.g. theaters, shopping malls, museums? Are we to have smoking vs. nonsmoking sections on all those public facilities? That seems to introduce inefficiencies and costs counter to the capitalist ideal. Pretty much the only ones who benefit financially would be the cigarette makers and tobacco growers, while everyone else pays for the smoker/nonsmoker segregation projects with taxes. And actually, consider the possibility that smoking in public is banned by law uniformly all over the country. I know you'd hate that, but in terms of capitalism that does not hurt any single business one iota. That's because now all businesses are on equal footing, so that if smokers want to go to a bar, any bar, they would have to go to a nonsmoking one. That is pretty authoritarian though -- but isn't that what we always do: balance rights against money?
Rde, I'm not sure wheather you can really draw a conclusion from a video game. I know they are getting much better and realistic, but lets face it there is no real world feedback to assist in reaction and the is a limited field of vision (no periferal), sound is not 3D (I have full prologic surround but its far from realistic) and you are playing a racing game. Now I wouldn't be silly enough to do 200km/hr+ while stoned...and until about 3 weeks ago I had a car that I could do that in very easily (and I did around race tracks, never stoned though). While on video games, I tend to do VERY poorley on first person shoot 'em up's like say Unreal tournament or Quake etc. Racing games are cool. I find any activity that you can find a rythmn in becomes easier with pot. So I guess I have just verified what you have said ie familiar tasks or repeatitive tasks become easier -- well not what you said exactly but close. Tiassa, (are you still off the nicotine?? that drug you mentioned a while back is available in Aus now) I'll see if I can find the UNI of NSW report.
