Re: My RKJ.

Post #97,740 by rcareaga 4/21/03 9:43:25 PM 4/21/03 11:41:14 PM Reply	Re: My RKJ. Ah, me, where to begin? Perhaps with IMO, it is far more dangerous than any other substance with which I am familiar Since your familiarity is not firsthand, against which other "substances" are we measuring the Killer Weed? Alcohol? Tobacco? Petroleum distillate-based inhalants? Black tar heroin? Industrial solvents? Depleted uranium? Why this drug is so dangerous, imo, is that it affects (apparently permanently) one's judgement [note to all: the American spelling is judgment] If by this you mean that after moderate experience with the stuff one concludes that far the greater part of the propaganda arrayed against its use is utter codswallop, then you may have a point. That has been my judgment for a few decades and I've yet to encounter persuasive contrary evidence. But then none of the drunks that I've ever known would argue that their ability to drive a car/boat/airplane/whatever is not impaired when they are drunk That's funny: I've known several who've been rather insistent on that very point, including a couple I've had to relieve of their keys. Indeed, denial seems to be part and parcel of the truculent drunk's outlook (perhaps what they had in mind when the term "depraved indifference" was coined), and this stands in conspicuous contrast to the pot smoker's satisfied acceptance of his state: it's typically "I'm...not...zhrunk!" versus "I'm so-o-o stoned!" I have also never met a current or former pothead who accepts that "motor sensory functions are significantly impaired after smoking pot" Well, who knows about "significantly"? For my own part I was always deeply reluctant to drive under the influence and profoundly anxious on the few occasions I felt compelled by circumstances to do so. Could it possibly be that irresponsible assholes are overrepresented in your circle? I can only conclude that even moderate use of cannibis permanently affects, et cetera Well. Now. Really. There are actually any number of other things you could conclude. Friend, it is understandable that growing up as you did in the seventies, that ghastly mustard- and avocado-colored hangover of the sixties, you craved the structure absent in your formative years just as those of us who preceded you by a decade or so felt on the contrary that we had structure to burn--and did so, now and again. You've been exposed, apparently, to slacker-stoners, not the most impressive slice of the cannabis demographic. I run with...well, no-longer young urban professionals: physicians, attorneys, architects, museum professionals, librarians and a few others I would have to drape in decorous disguise (I will say that one occasional smoking partner in college already had a Pulitzer, and has gone on to additional renown in his field). I've known plenty of alcoholics who seemed to have landed, courtesy of that Universal Personality Solvent, well short of their potential. The pot smokers--none of them indulging daily that I'm aware of; most perhaps fortnightly--seem to be doing just fine. None would deserve the sanctions our lunatic War on Drugs would call down upon them. Sorry if your set needs to be protected from itself, but kindly leave the rest of us alone. cordially, [edit: typos] "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist." Edited by rcareaga April 21, 2003, 11:41:14 PM EDT Re: My RKJ. Ah. me, where to begin? Perhaps with IMO, it is far more dangerous than any other substance with which I am familiar Since your familiarity is not firsthand, against which other "substances" are we measuring the Killer Weed? Alcohol? Tobacco? Petroleum distillate-based inhalants? Black tar heroin? Industrial solvents? Depleted uranium? Why this drug is so dangerous, imo, is that it affects (apparently permanently) one's judgement [note to all: the American spelling is judgment] If by this you mean that after moderate experience with the stuff one concludes that far the greater part of the propaganda arrayed against its use is utter codswallop, then you may have a point. That has been my judgment for a few decades and I've yet to encounter persuasive contrary evidence. But then none of the drunks that I've ever known would argue that their ability to drive a car/boat/airplane/whatever is not impaired when they are drunk That's funny: I've known several who've been rather insistent on that very point, including a couple I've had to relieve of their keys. Indeed, denial seems to be part and parcel of the truculent drunk's outlook (perhaps what they had in mind when the term "depraved indifference" was coined), and this stands in conspicuous contrast to the pot smoker's satisfied acceptance of his state: it's typically "I'm...not...zhrunk!" versus "I'm so-o-o stoned!" I have also never met a current or former pothead who accepts that "motor sensory functions are significantly impaired after smoking pot" Well, who knows about "significantly"? For my own part I was always deeply reluctant to drive under the influence and profoundly anxious on the few occasions I felt compelled by circumstances to do so. Could it possibly be that irresponsible assholes are overrepresented in your circle? I can only conclude that even moderate use of cannibis permanently affects, et cetera Well. Now. Really. There are actually any number of other things you could conclude. Friend, it is understandable that growing up as you did in the seventies, that ghastly mustard- and avocado-colored hangover of the sixties, you craved the structure absent in your formative years just as those of us who preceded you by a decade or so felt on that on the contrary we had structure to burn--and did so, now and again. You've been exposed, apparently, to slacker-stoners, not the most impressive slice of the cannabis demographic. I run with...well, no-longer young urban professionals: physicians, attorneys, architects, museum professionals, librarians and a few others I would have to drape in decorous disguise (I will say that one occasional smoking partner in college already had a Pulitzer, and has gone on to additional renown in his field). I've known plenty of alcoholics who seemed to have landed, courtesy of that Universal Personality Solvent, well short of their potential. The pot smokers--none of them indulging daily that I'm aware of; most perhaps fortnightly--seem to be doing just fine. None would deserve the sanctions our lunatic War on Drugs would call down upon them. Sorry if your set needs to be protected from itself, but kindly leave the rest of us alone. cordially, "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist." Collapse All History
Post #97,759 by Ashton 4/21/03 11:42:10 PM Reply	Well.. typically though - the inexperienced with [whatever] have the strongest Certainty of what others must not be permitted to 'do'. Now this prehensile mindset seems a bit strange in an otherwise less sloganed-up individual as Mike appears to be. That alcohol and tobacco remain unmolested, aside from the periodic Iwannagetelected Me-Too spew - illustrates that, along with hypocrisy and mawkish sanctimony, there seem to be several strains of Murican-DNA which would normally be classed with the other detritus as junk-DNA. We're stuck with our biology, of course - until the dinosaurs die off, as childless as can be arranged (maybe by females' natural protective disdain for that particular kind of mind-odor). Personally, I never developed much interest in the prole grade weed of the early days; did pause later-on, a couple times.. to experience the fact that -- after pharm-chem enhancement$ by concentration, and for the u$ual motive$ -- certain Sinsemilla worked almost as effectively as hi-grade heroin. But in those cases: you could not even IMAGINE an interest in 'driving' anything.. even an Aston-Martin with Bond-girl in bondage. So there're just oodles of disinformation rampant. Surprise! (Start by taking any utterance of an Ashcroft (Oh.. and that Drug -Tsar -Czar General guy too, fersure) as most likely 179\ufffd59' polar opposite to Sweet Truth: on any topic on which they regularly choose to pontificate. I mean that sincerely.) Overall though - all the obfuscations, scare slogans about the cheeldrun and rest of the hype on our Warz-on-Our-People - follow genetically from that first infusion of defective Puritan-gened convicts: as did (accent upon past tense) the Aussies' bad-genes cause them to kidnap for domestic service their Aborigines, and otherwise treat them poorly until last couple decades (where the pendulum may even be overcorrecting a bit - in the eyes of the newly land-dispossessed.) But at least I never heard that anyone in Oz gave the natives smallpox-infected blankets after raping their females and stealing all their land -- then herding them into Relocation Camps to sign it all away forever. Atilla could've learned a few tricks from our predators. Ashton Time to unroll a few old posters again.. just for nostalgia. Question Authority! Pigs is often.. well, pigs Spread joy not cluster bombs "We lie loudest when we lie to ourselves." -- Eric Hoffer (via Alex) Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance - Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation. BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10 (via tse)
Post #97,974 by mmoffitt 4/22/03 4:49:47 PM Reply	It's not slogans, it's experience. Observation of stoners made my mind up for me, not any "Say No" campaigns. Jesus, is it impossible to believe that not everyone thinks "getting stoned" is the path to enlightenment? Here's another idea I have that you can choke on. This Sixties were a LIE. Sure, everybody loved everybody when they were all stoned, but what happened when they came down? My one-word summary of virtually every social movement of the 1960's is "insincerity". If they weren't all stoned (and simultaneously worried about getting their asses shot off in SE Asia) none of it would have happened. As I wrote that I realized for the first time that there IS some endearing quality in Murican potheads: when they're stoned, they're less reprehensible. bcnu, Mikem The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been...We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism. - Mark Twain, "Monarchical and Republican Patriotism"
Post #97,976 by Silverlock 4/22/03 4:51:34 PM Reply	A good reason for you to try it when they're stoned, they're less reprehensible. The world is only a simple place to the simple.
Post #97,978 by mmoffitt 4/22/03 4:53:54 PM Reply	I hate this topic. I'm going to stop stating my ideas on it. Living in a country that makes Bill O'Reilly a folk hero is difficult enough - it isolates me to a great extent. Then, somebody mentions this topic and I lose what friends I have :-( bcnu, Mikem The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been...We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism. - Mark Twain, "Monarchical and Republican Patriotism"
Post #97,980 by deSitter 4/22/03 4:57:01 PM Reply	Hey there No wucks, cobber. You have a real opinion, not a knee-jerk reaction. That's MY field! -drl Light is heavy: R{} = (2R/W)T - (1/2W){D-2,D-2}W Heavy is light: (D-3)(RF[] + 5/4 g) = 0
Post #98,046 by Silverlock 4/22/03 8:53:55 PM Reply	You haven't lost any friends. I just disagree. OK? I think you are pulling "every study" out of your ass. I could be wrong. Doesn't mean I like you less. On the contrary, I look forward to arguing with someone who has a basis for their position beyond "morals". The world is only a simple place to the simple.
Post #98,059 by Another Scott 4/22/03 9:26:28 PM Reply	Nope. You're wrong. Then, somebody mentions this topic and I lose what friends I have :-( You're wrong about that. :-) This disucssion reminds me of a health/science class I had in middle school. We were discussing things like LSD. The guy behind me was telling me that cocaine was a great drug because it wasn't addictive. Lots of people in the 1970s and early 1980s thought that.... Like you, I've known a few people over the years who were really messed up by pot. I've known a few others who could smoke it occasionally without apparent longterm deliterious effect. Illegal drugs and privacy issues (like the Santorum thread) cause some problems for me. Drugs clearly impair rational thinking and motor skills. But the harm of having them be illegal is something that's hard for me to unquestioningly tolerate. People should have a right to privacy, but obviously there are limits (e.g. you don't have the right to make $100 bills in your basement [unless it only becomes illegal when you try to pass them - but I think not]). Don't take the disagreements personally. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #98,069 by mmoffitt 4/22/03 9:40:53 PM Reply	Thanks everybody :-) I don't take arguments personally, it's just difficult arguing with the folks that are typically my allies ;-) bcnu, Mikem The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been...We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism. - Mark Twain, "Monarchical and Republican Patriotism"
Post #98,098 by boxley 4/22/03 10:50:49 PM Reply	no worries, lets give Jake a job to do (too old for google) In the 70's McGill University did a study observing the effects of Alchohol, Weed and both mixed including placebos and driving skills. The Amount of weed smoked was 2 pin rollies, strength of the average in Montreal at the time (pretty decent) 6 oz of vodka liberally mixed with oj and placebos for both. The skill test was for all drivers to drive a slalom both sober and after partaking. During the course the car radio would come on and a blinking light would flash, the job was to turn both off. Results, the person with the best "score" no cones knocked over sober or otherwise was a 110 lb woman with 6 oz and both joints inside her. Conclusion, most people get seriously fucked up on booze and weed singly or together. Point I am trying to make is WTF being high is not smart, being high among the straights annoys the straights. Thus is life, if you are not impairing someone else (annoyance is not impairing) why bother? I respect your opinions on this and many other subjects and once again if you and Marlowe share a viewpoint that makes you both human. take care of the peoples plane comrade and keep the faith, thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] Carpe Dieu
Post #97,992 by screamer 4/22/03 5:23:46 PM Reply	While I agree with much of what you are saying... especially about all that "feel good hippy shit" (Pete Townsend, Psychoderelict), you may be missing the point. It is not that anyone truly disagrees that most things that you smoke, ingest, shoot up, etc. have a cost with your metabolism (I have lost two brothers in their forties due to drugs/alcohol) - it's the idea that criminalizing/decriminalizing any substance is necessarily a "wise idea". To wit: You cannot legislate morality. When the Volstead Act was passed and Prohibition of alcohol was enacted, organized crime (gangsters) stepped in to fill the still present demand. Just like now, if you criminalize something like ecstasy/methamphetamine/pot/heroin/monkeydope/uppers/downers/poppers/cactus/mushrooms/pickanythingyouwant then organized crime is happy to step in to fill the demand. And that brings added violence - organized violence. It also fills up prisons with people who predominately are a threat only to themselves... It also greatly increases the prices of said drugs and lures poor folk in by economics alone. It's said, but if you check history, every culture that I've read about had it's drugs/alcohol to alter its reality. I don't drink anymore. I don't use drugs anymore. I haven't done either for many years. As I've said, I've watched two brothers die early deaths from overdose and schlerosis (just a month ago). Guess what? I still think these things should be not be illegal. To me, the cost of the war on drugs is far to high when compared to the benefits gained. YMMV. Just a few thoughts, Screamer Living is easy with eyes closed misunderstanding all you see, it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out it doesn't matter much to me J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
Post #97,999 by inthane-chan 4/22/03 5:47:06 PM Reply	Wot 'ee said. For the record, I have never knowingly ingested any hallucinatory substances other than three beers one night. Seriously. If somebody has an urge to bake their brains, as long as they don't do anything that endangers me or their kids, that's fine by me. After 9/11, Bush made two statements: 1. "Terrorists hate America because America is a land of freedom and opportunity." 2. "We intend to attack the root causes of terrorism." Sounds like everything is going according to plan.
Post #97,967 by mmoffitt 4/22/03 4:39:28 PM Reply	On one point, I wasn't clear. I should have said, "None of the drunks I have ever known, when they were sober, would not admit that they could not drive as well drunk as they could while sober. And none of the potheads I have ever known, when they weren't high, would admit that they could not drive as well high as they could sober." Few, if any, propaganda efforts have been as successful as the potheads "But it doesn't hurt anybody" campaign. And it is a complete fiction. bcnu, Mikem The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been...We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism. - Mark Twain, "Monarchical and Republican Patriotism"
Post #97,981 by rcareaga 4/22/03 4:57:11 PM Reply	Well, aren't we a spunky young feller! Head-lodgedly wrong on almost every point, but...undeniably spunky. Happy trails, Skippy! cordially, "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
Post #97,984 by mmoffitt 4/22/03 4:59:42 PM Reply	That's my motto. "Not infallible but never in doubt." :-) bcnu, Mikem The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been...We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism. - Mark Twain, "Monarchical and Republican Patriotism"
Post #98,091 by rcareaga 4/22/03 10:31:15 PM Reply	Re: That's my motto. I've met others of your cohort with the same views on this subject. You're wrong, of course, but many of you can be housebroken with respect to more important issues, and can be very decent company. cordially, "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."

Welcome to IWETHEY!