Post #97,159
4/17/03 8:20:54 PM
|
Joe Biden's in trouble.
[link|http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2003/04/17nooneravingover.html|This sort of hamfistedness would get him labelled a Nazi if he were a Republican]
Excerpt:
His controversial proposal to crack down on all-night dance parties where illegal drugs are used or sold is on the brink of becoming law, but Sen. Joe Biden insists he's not out to stop the music.
At issue is a bill -- once known as the "RAVE Act" -- that has drawn fire from civil liberties groups and grass-roots activists as an unfair attack on the events, popular with teenagers and young adults, where Ecstasy is a common ingredient.
The Delaware Democrat's proposal went nowhere last year in either the House or Senate. But this year he renamed it the "Illicit Drug Non-Proliferation Act" and slipped it into a larger crime bill during a House-Senate conference. The bill cleared Congress last week, and President Bush has said he will sign it.
"The reason I introduced this bill was not to ban dancing, kill 'the rave scene' or silence electronic music - all things of which I have been accused," Biden told the Senate last week. "In no way is this bill aimed at stifling any type of music or expression. It is only trying to deter illicit drug use and protect kids."
Biden's maneuver was little-noticed when Congress overwhelmingly approved the crime bill. The main sections of the legislation would expand the "Amber alert" interstate network aimed at catching child abductors and impose stiff penalties on child sex offenders and other criminals.
I say:
Ecstasy users are friggin' useless idiots. They're dumber than potheads, and potheads are pretty dumb. They're doing so much permanent damage to their brains they're likely to vote Democrat. So why not just crack down on the drug?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victory was the answer - to a great many problems.
When the facts speak for themselves, only a fool insists on having a debate.
The future is leaving the station, the US is at the throttle, and the Left isn't on board.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
|
Post #97,213
4/18/03 12:06:57 AM
|
Re: Joe Biden's in trouble.
why not just crack down on the drug? Why should free white adults [ IRONY GODDAMN ALERT for the irony goddamn-impaired] be deprived of their drugs of choice? Who are you, marlowe, to dictate others' choice of recreational intoxicants? testily, "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
|
Post #97,443
4/20/03 6:35:56 PM
|
Now why on earth would that hit a nerve with you?
Yeah, I know. Its just recreational, you're in control, you won't run anyone over or cut anyone in a fight, and you can stop any time you want to, you just don't want to, and would I kindly get out of your face.
Like I hadn't heard it before. And needed another reason to doubt your sanity.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victory was the answer - to a great many problems.
When the facts speak for themselves, only a fool insists on having a debate.
The future is leaving the station, the US is at the throttle, and the Left isn't on board.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
|
Post #97,518
4/21/03 1:44:45 AM
4/21/03 1:49:42 AM
|
wrong again, marlowe
--as a matter of fact, although I have numerous fond memories from my undergraduate years, it was always a take-it-or-leave-it proposition with me, and these latter decades it has been largely leave-it. Of the scores of people I know who do make regular use of it, I can think of just one whose moral and intellectual development the stuff may have impeded over the past 35 years (a 51 year-old ought not display the paintings of H.R. Giger in his home), and oddly enough his takes on domestic politics and foreign intervention seem to map in most particulars onto yours. Go figure. But I repeat, where does your right to dictate anyone's choice of recreational intoxicant enter into it?
Edit: I see, reviewing, that I thought you were speaking of cannabis rather than ecstasy, which is not much used in my circle and of which I have thus far neglected to acquire firsthand experience--although I also deny your right to dictate, et cetera.
"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
Edited by rcareaga
April 21, 2003, 01:49:42 AM EDT
|
Post #97,525
4/21/03 5:49:42 AM
|
Wasted reasoning, I fear -
The Authoritarian-besotted are never in doubt about how You should live, and whenever the status quo proves uncomfortable for one of these folk - why, it becomes malleable: Moral Arbiters for All\ufffd are exempt from current regulations for maintaining Order. (Someone has to do the lab work for preparing new regulations!)
Oddly, this rationale does not ever trip their BS-detector - I think they just never replace the batteries.
Ashton
|
Post #97,535
4/21/03 8:48:20 AM
|
No, I was speaking of anything that impairs judgement...
and/or motor skills, in exchange for a high. This makes the user a danger to the rest of us.
And anything that impairs judgement or motor skills as a side effect - while meeting some legitimate medical need - must be used responsibly. But if the only point is to get high - artificial stupidity - then responsible use is a foregone conclusion almost from the beginning.
And I don't limit to chemicals. Any [link|http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/03/Initiationceremonies.shtml|addictive ideology] that gives short-term emotional reinforcement in exchange for [link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/reality.png|what amounts to insanity] is also bad.
Now bad wall art is harmless. Nobody ever swerved onto the sidewalk and ran over a little girl because he was stoned on Giger. This may be a subtle distinction, but it is an important one.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victory was the answer - to a great many problems.
When the facts speak for themselves, only a fool insists on having a debate.
The future is leaving the station, the US is at the throttle, and the Left isn't on board.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html
|
Post #97,537
4/21/03 9:03:45 AM
|
That second link kills Galeon.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #97,548
4/21/03 9:52:21 AM
|
Motes, beams
Any addictive ideology that gives short-term emotional reinforcement in exchange for what amounts to insanity is also bad.
"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
|
Post #97,560
4/21/03 10:22:43 AM
|
and there is the still-unassailable argument
...that if you wish to ban the use of "anything that impairs judgement [sic] and/or motor skills, in exchange for a high" (including ideologies: how...interesting) you must perforce begin by resurrecting the Volstead Act or something very like it, given that the percentage of little girls on sidewalks squashed by wheeled drunks each year so lavishly exceeds the stoners' market share of this vital sector.
May we look to you, marlowe, to lobby for a re-imposition of Prohibition anytime soon--and will dangerous mind-altering ideologies be included in the ban?
cordially,
"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
|
Post #97,561
4/21/03 10:38:45 AM
|
In that case, Marlowe...PUT THAT BEER DOWN!!! NOW!!!
Or risk being proven the hypocrite that many of us already suspect you are.
jb4
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
Rich Cook
|
Post #97,562
4/21/03 10:41:15 AM
|
Too late. :)
|
Post #97,568
4/21/03 10:54:01 AM
|
And the cigarette!
Any addictive ideology that gives short-term emotional reinforcement
[link|mailto:jbrabeck@attbi.com|Joe]
|
Post #97,605
4/21/03 12:06:51 PM
|
And stop going to Church.
The world is only a simple place to the simple.
|
Post #97,712
4/21/03 7:19:07 PM
|
Nice try. I don't drink.
Assume makes an ass of you.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victory was the answer - to a great many problems.
When the facts speak for themselves, only a fool insists on having a debate.
The future is leaving the station, the US is at the throttle, and the Left isn't on board.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
|
Post #97,716
4/21/03 7:25:19 PM
|
theres your solution, whats yer problem again?
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 #97,718
4/21/03 7:29:08 PM
|
Somehow - that doesn't surprise me.
|
Post #97,743
4/21/03 10:41:54 PM
|
No doubt - he's the Churchlady
Isn't that special?
Denies experience for himself - then forces it on everyone else.
Typical fascist.
-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 #97,746
4/21/03 10:49:10 PM
|
You don't drink. You also...
conveniently ignore the question of whether in a marlowe-dominated society we might look forward to the reimposition of an expanded Volstead Act--so much easier to enforce with modern surveillance and data-farming techniques--for the greater glory and, ah, safety of the reic--realm.
cordially,
"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
|
Post #97,790
4/22/03 2:45:52 AM
|
Well. you should.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #97,628
4/21/03 2:09:30 PM
|
Fix your HTML please.
You want img src= not a href= for you insanity link,
Alex
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
|
Post #97,635
4/21/03 2:32:57 PM
|
My RKJ.
RKJ = Right Knee Jerk.
Cannibis should remain illegal. Unlike what most of its advocates say, it does hurt other people. IMO, it is far more dangerous than any other substance with which I am familiar.
I've never used it myself, but growing up in Southern California during the 1970's and subsequently living in North Carolina in the 1980's has given me far more experience with potheads than I ever wished to have. There are perhaps two other people that I know who are roughly my age that have never smoked pot. Why this drug is so dangerous, imo, is that it affects (apparently permanently) one's judgement. I come from a long line of drunks. But 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.
I have also never met a current or former pothead who accepts that "motor sensory functions are significantly impaired after smoking pot". This astonishes me (even many of my physician and nurse friends hold that, "unlike alcohol, you can still drive safely after smoking a joint.").
This notion is of course false and I had to endure tragedies in my adolescence as a consequence of its widely held truth. I can only conclude that even moderate use of cannibis permanently affects the judgement center in the brain to the extent that finding fault, or even limitation, with one's abilities while under the influence of the drug is forever made impossible. That is scary and far more dangerous than alcohol.
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 #97,665
4/21/03 4:22:55 PM
|
Gee, we have a certified physiologist in our ranks!
This notion is of course false[...] What...is Marlowe posting under two IDs? Mike, you might well be right. However, your dismissive handling of this, without any citations to back up what you already state is "your opinion", while you also cite those in the medical field with an opposing opinion, makes you sound butt-stoopud. I dunno, but it could be that the medical professionals might..just might... have a little more knowledge and facts to back up their opinion than your "growing up in Southern California during the 1970's and subsequently living in North Carolina in the 1980's" hearsay. You're of course entitled to your opinion. And you're entitled to expouse your opinion, and even proselytize, here and elsewhere, wherever you can get an audience. Just don't try to pass off your opinion as fact. jb4
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
Rich Cook
|
Post #97,963
4/22/03 4:31:06 PM
|
Since every study on that backs me up...
I didn't think it was necessary to list any. But, here's just one. You can get others via google. ;-) As THC enters the brain, it causes a user to feel euphoric - or "high" - by acting in the brain's reward system, areas of the brain that respond to stimuli such as food and drink as well as most drugs of abuse. THC activates the reward system in the same way that nearly all drugs of abuse do, by stimulating brain cells to release the chemical dopamine.32,33,34
A marijuana user may experience pleasant sensations, colors and sounds may seem more intense, and time appears to pass very slowly. The user's mouth feels dry, and he or she may suddenly become very hungry and thirsty. His or her hands may tremble and grow cold. The euphoria passes after awhile, and then the user may feel sleepy or depressed. Occasionally, marijuana use produces anxiety, fear, distrust, or panic.
Marijuana use impairs a person's ability to form memories, recall events (see Marijuana, Memory, and the Hippocampus), and shift attention from one thing to another.8,35 THC also disrupts coordination and balance by binding to receptors in the cerebellum and basal ganglia, parts of the brain that regulate balance, posture, coordination of movement, and reaction time.11 Through its effects on the brain and body, marijuana intoxication can cause accidents. Studies show that approximately 6 to 11 percent of fatal accident victims test positive for THC. [link|http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/Marijuana3.html|NIH Study] 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 #97,979
4/22/03 4:55:05 PM
|
Re: Since every study on that backs me up...
Studies would most likely show that 6 to 11 percent of lottery winners test positive for THC, and 1 to 3 percent of their dogs.
-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 #97,982
4/22/03 4:57:13 PM
|
Are you disputing where THC binds in the brain?
When you smoke pot it goes into virtually ALL your lymph tissue. Because it's so big, it's takes for damned ever to metabolize. That's why they can still find it 90 days after you smoke ;-)
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 #97,983
4/22/03 4:58:32 PM
4/22/03 5:00:01 PM
|
Re: Are you disputing where THC binds in the brain?
I'm disputing that demonizing weed is going to make the hiways safer. I'm for demonizing makeup and telephones.
(ObGallagher: Why DO they call them "highways"?)
-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
Edited by deSitter
April 22, 2003, 05:00:01 PM EDT
|
Post #97,986
4/22/03 5:00:43 PM
|
Better idea.
Let's ban the fscking automobile!
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 #98,050
4/22/03 9:00:10 PM
|
Makes more sense than banning a plant.
The world is only a simple place to the simple.
|
Post #98,325
4/23/03 3:54:54 PM
|
What I will dispute is the generalities:
THC activates the reward system in the same way that nearly all drugs of abuse do, by stimulating brain cells to release the chemical dopamine.32,33,34 Interesting, since I know for a fact that cocaine, and to a lesser degree Extacy and its ilk, produce its euphoric effect by stimulating the release of seratonin, not dopamine. That factoid seems to shoot a rather large hole in the throwaway: "[...] in the same way that nearly all drugs of abuse do [...]" Studies show that approximately 6 to 11 percent of fatal accident victims test positive for THC. If "studies" show something, why the 87% variance? Can they count or not? Or is this a WAG? jb4
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
Rich Cook
|
Post #98,520
4/24/03 11:42:44 AM
|
Methinks your reading with bias.
nearly all drugs does not equate to all drugs.
As far as the variance goes, I'm not sure because I haven't looked at the studies cited, but I'd guess that a partial explanation would be because of the time the studies were performed. Some could have been simple surveys. THC tests have not been around as long as alcohol tests. As recently as 1972, a "test for pot" was not available to be performed in California in a fatal auto accident that killed 3 of my dearest friends when three pot smokers lost control of their car and hit the car my friends were in head-on at 75 mph. I'll never forget what the cop at the scene told my father, "I could smell pot on them. But there was nothing I could do about it. They tested negative for booze and we don't have marijuana tests available."
I've actually had people who smoked pot in college (I'm even married to one) tell me that they were "sure that pot wasn't the problem. Maybe something else, cocaine for example, but not pot. Pot doesn't make you do that."
You want to legalize something that could yield such a ridiculous statement decades after the effect of it has worn off? And you think I'm out on a limb?
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 #98,595
4/24/03 4:34:05 PM
|
Decriminalize != legalize
But you already knew that.... Back to it: "Nearly all drugs" indeed != all drugs. However, "Nearly all drugs" is quite a bit more than the majority. Yet cocaine, extacy, and their seratonin stimulator ilk are themselves a sizeable minority of all "drugs of abuse". That this sizeable minority exists negates the "nearly all drugs" saw. Given that, one can easily surmise that the "study" you so eagerly quote is short on hard, quantitive facts and long on generalization and spin. [...] a fatal auto accident that killed 3 of my dearest friends when three pot smokers lost control of their car and hit the car my friends were in head-on at 75 mph. So now it becomes clear where your prejudice comes from re: cannabis. I'm sorry for your loss. I wonder how you would feel if the cop had said, "I could smell the booze on them...". To me, the statements are interchangeable. An intoxicant lead to imparement, the imparement lead to a fatal auto accident. Whether the intoxicant was cannabis, ethanol, mushroom alkaloids, or light sweet crude makes no difference to me...the intoxicated driver fucked up, period. I have absolutely no problems with getting intoxicated fuckheads of the roads. What I do have a problem with is the knee-jerk, brains-with-clutch-fully-disengaged reaction that all potheads are bad, we gotta lock 'em all up, yadda, yadda, yadda mantra that is typical of fascists the world over. Think, man! Is everybody who ever smoked the demon weed an evil miscreant, or are you still smarting over the senseless loss of your friends and turning your frustration and rage outward to an oh-so-convenient target? jb4
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
Rich Cook
|
Post #98,760
4/25/03 2:25:39 PM
|
Perhaps.
Years ago I made the mistake of saying something to my wife that I felt but had never uttered. It came on the heels of one of more than a handful of long, tiresome, trying arguments on this very topic. One of the people lost in the accident I mentioned was like a father to me. His name was Bob. He was the one who took me on camping trips, trips to the laguna, sailing, fishing, golfing, etc. when my own father didn't seem to have time. The week before he was killed he came by with a birthday present for me. The accident occured 13 days after my 13th birthday.
Back to the battle with my wife, I had become out of my head angry with my wife and then tired. Very tired and I said, "You know what the bottom line is for me? The bottom line is that when I imagine seeing Bob and he asks me the question, 'How could you marry some one just like the people who killed me?' I don't have an answer for him."
Up until last night, we never again discussed this issue. Now, I'm really worried. My girls are getting to the age when pot use is commonplace. This has all the trappings of a dividing moment in my home.
A huge part of me cannot alter my view of pot out of a sense (true or imagined) that by doing so I will profrain the memory of my friends (and mother who was the sole survivor in her car). All the reasoning in the world will not help me answer that question from Bob.
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 #98,775
4/25/03 3:18:04 PM
4/25/03 3:40:28 PM
|
(sigh) but mmoffit...
When you imagine seeing Bob and he asks me the question, "How could you marry some one just like the people who killed me?" and when you further worry that All the reasoning in the world will not help me answer that question from Bob you are neglecting to draw some vital implications from the irremediable fact that Bob. Is. Dead.And cannot pose questions or reproaches. Whether your daughters do the youthful experimentation bit or not (it's quite possible they will; it's more than likely they will go on to be reasonably happy and functional adults as so many have before; you might want, at appropriate moments, to talk up the perils of driving under the influence of any intoxicant and particularly of riding with an impaired driver), and whether your wife sees the stuff as being negligibly harmful, has nothing to do with Bob's opinions in these matters--he has none; he has not existed to have opinions since the night of his death--and everything to do with your own obsessive projections. This is magical thinking of a type considerably farther out in the ether than the "marijuana is not harmful mindset" you are so concerned about. I am sorry that your personal tragedies have resonated so deeply, but we cannot make social policy just to lay Bob's ghost for you. It appears that this thread has stirred up some issues within you. I'm no therapist (have you considered that route?), but it seems to me that the time to address these issues is before the Daughters and the Dreaded Drug becomes Topic A over dinner, and before these unresolved feelings cause you to say something truly boneheaded to your wife (I know a thing or about feminine moral accounting, young man, and let me tell you if you haven't noticed already that these debits stay in the ledger a long, long time). This doesn't mean you have to come over to our way of thinking ( "Yield! Embrace the Dark Side!"), but you need to be able to talk these things over with your near and dear without the dead hand of a youthful tragedy choking the reason out of you. Make this effort and I predict that you will both avert a measure of domestic discord and position yourself to make a more persuasive case to your daughters when the time comes. Good luck. cordially, [edit: duplicate word] "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
Edited by rcareaga
April 25, 2003, 03:40:28 PM EDT
|
Post #98,780
4/25/03 3:36:05 PM
|
Thanks.
I have had some therapy about this. Perhaps the best came from my mom. I told her how I felt and what I had said to my wife shortly after I made that comment. She was, to say the least, startled. She asked me why, when I was so clearly devoted to my wife, and loved her so much, would I intentionally seek to destroy my marriage?
That's why we (the wife and I) haven't discussed it. I have been unable in the 30 years following that tragedy to put it behind me. It will, I fear, forever color my judgement on this issue. I bring this all up not out of a yearning for any pity, but because I made such a big deal about intellectual honesty in this thread. I felt compelled to acknowledge my own shortcomings to clear thinking wrt the issue at hand.
As I've calmed some now, I look back on this as very therapeutic. Despite all of my arguments here, my opposition to marijuana use is an extremely emotional, deeply personal one that does not lend itself to reason.
Intellectually I know that I am a bigot of the worst stripe. When I see some one smoke (haven't in years, but often did) in the recesses of my mind I believe "they're just like the murderers of my friends". Irrational yes, but nonetheless real for me. It was not until this thread that I could see that clearly and I am quite surprised at myself. "They're all like that" is not a phrase I would ever consider coming from my mouth. Yet, for more than 30 years I have held such.
This discussion has been truly enlightening for me and I owe all who assailed me during it, and in particular you rc, a serious debt. I've learned quite a bit about myself, and it is mostly unpleasant.
Take care and happy puffing (if you're inclined).
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 #98,781
4/25/03 4:00:15 PM
4/25/03 4:04:22 PM
|
Re: Thanks.
It sounds as though your mother (earlier accounts, or my memories thereof, were unclear--was she also the victim of a toked-up driver?) has been able to put the past behind her. I don't know that you should be quite so resigned to never being able to bring your rational faculties to bear on the issue--I repeat that if you could see the issue clear you could make the best possible case contra to your daughters, whereas if you merely trot out some variation of the RKJ that started this thread unreeling they will, at best, hear you out politely and then make the finger-twirling-at-the-temple gesture when your back is turned, typically a sign that one's arguments have not carried all before them.
You're being a bit hard on yourself when you say "I know that I am a bigot of the worst stripe." Your mind may be rusted shut on this issue; we both know members here whose minds are welded shut in other matters. Finally, as to "happy puffing (if you're inclined)," a rather complex set of largely unrelated circumstances make this impractical for the nonce--and anyway, I'd found by my mid-twenties that it was as apt to make me feel stupid and anxious/depressed as it was to boost my spirits. "Hell," thought I, "if I'm going to get stupid, I might as well get stupid and exhilarated," and hoisted the first (I came to it late) of many tall frosties. But whether or not I take personal advantage of it I do hope I live to see the day when the savage and senseless "war on drugs" abates.
cordially,
{edit: rogue synonym]
"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
Edited by rcareaga
April 25, 2003, 04:04:22 PM EDT
|
Post #98,785
4/25/03 4:49:20 PM
|
Mom was in the car w/the 3 friends.
Truly miraculous she survived. EMS found her lying on the gas tank that didn't explode (they were in a VW station wagon - gas tank up front at point of impact). She spent the next two years in various medical centers. Has had a lifetime of medical complications from that accident (as well as profound mental problems - all related, we think, to the fact that at impact the drivers seat bolts broke and the seat with Bob still in it flew out the back of the car, striking my mother on the head in addition to driving her right leg's ball joint up under her collar bone, tearing a lung and exploding her pelvis, among other things).
The driver and his wife and the girl seated next to my mom were all killed. The tokers were walking around at the scene (they had a much larger car). Their worst was a broken arm. The car they hit (the one my mom was in) killed 3 and left 4 kids motherless and 2 orphans. Oldest in the car was Bob, aged 36, mom was 34.
Hell of a thing.
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 #98,787
4/25/03 4:58:32 PM
|
Re: Mom was in the car w/the 3 friends.
We all have crosses to bear. The love of my life wiped herself out on coke, something I've never had any use for. I watched another woman destroyed by barbituates. Yet I am in favor of decriminalizing all drugs, because making criminals out of people who are in too much pain to handle life, is the solution to exactly nothing.
I'm sorry about your Mom. Would it be any better for her if Billy Graham were driving the other car? Some random drunk? Accidents happen. Driving is dangerous for the sober, as well as the stoned.
-drl
|
Post #98,789
4/25/03 5:13:03 PM
|
BG driver no better, but it wasn't, was it?
Understand your sentiment and point, though ;-)
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 #97,672
4/21/03 4:34:52 PM
|
I could introduce you to drunks
that think a few toots improves their driving skills. To each their own, and yes weed does impair motor and thinking skills.
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 #97,674
4/21/03 4:39:49 PM
|
Re: I could introduce you to drunks
Well, having partaken on more than a few occasions, I never really wanted to go driving. The idea is sort of to get lost in speculative thought - not speculative yellow-light charging etc.
However, the point is - bad driving is bad driving. You can't fix bad driving by making stupidity and aggressiveness illegal. You fix bad driving by sticking it to bad drivers, in the wallet.
-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 #97,740
4/21/03 9:43:25 PM
4/21/03 11:41:14 PM
|
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
|
Post #97,759
4/21/03 11:42:10 PM
|
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
4/22/03 4:49:47 PM
|
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
4/22/03 4:51:34 PM
|
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
4/22/03 4:53:54 PM
|
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
4/22/03 4:57:01 PM
|
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
4/22/03 8:53:55 PM
|
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
4/22/03 9:26:28 PM
|
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
4/22/03 9:40:53 PM
|
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
4/22/03 10:50:49 PM
|
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
4/22/03 5:23:46 PM
|
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
4/22/03 5:47:06 PM
|
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
4/22/03 4:39:28 PM
|
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
4/22/03 4:57:11 PM
|
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
4/22/03 4:59:42 PM
|
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
4/22/03 10:31:15 PM
|
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."
|
Post #97,988
4/22/03 5:16:44 PM
|
Right impulse, wrong instantiation.
Ban bad driving, for whatever reason: bad vision, senility, antihistimines, alcohol, paint thinner fumes, etc.
The basic premise should be, "Don't drive while impaired", not, "don't do these things that would impair you IF you drove".
Same idea behind banning smoking in public places: if you smoke, fine. Just don't do it where you're affecting others.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #98,047
4/22/03 8:57:31 PM
|
What he said
The world is only a simple place to the simple.
|
Post #98,070
4/22/03 9:41:39 PM
|
People want to be able to measure things.
They want to have the appearance of impartiality when the law is applied.
How would you judge impaired driving? Weaving? Driving too slowly? These are judgement calls. You and I probably know it when we see it, but without an objective standard there's the possibility of abuse. It's much easier to write a law saying "an operator of a motor vehicle shall be driving under the influence if their blood alcohol level is 0.08% or higher" than saying "a driver is impaired if they weave substantially out of the traffic lane or drive substantially under the speed limit or the safe speed for given road conditions or ..." all of which involves judgement calls that are subject to abuse.
I agree with the sentiment that peoples actions should be judged, not the state of their blood chemistry. But I wonder how such a system can be constructed to remove impaired drivers from the roads before they become a hazard to others. Yes, the current system is subject to abuse, but there are objective numbers attached to some things - one is above the limit or not, one has pot in the car or not.
I'd feel much better about an "action-based" standard if there were a way to objectively judge and measure impairment. Does reciting the alphabet backwards or walking in a straight line or touching your nose have the same weight as a breath or blood test? I would think not, but don't have any personal experience with this.
Just something I've started worrying about. It reminds me of laws against "counter-revolutionary activity" - it's hard to define but the governments know it when they see it.... :-(
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #98,075
4/22/03 9:47:03 PM
|
You know what I've always found interesting re: auto safety?
If 50% of all fatal auto accidents involve alcohol/drugs (I'm just parroting here what I've always heard), then an equal number of fatal auto accidents have nothing to do with "driving while impaired".
I think it's a fool's errand to try to make driving safe.
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 #98,099
4/22/03 10:55:53 PM
|
What you've always found interesting
I think it's a fool's errand to try to make driving safe
In that case, why is it that you're so keen to regulate intoxicant intake off the road? If you want legal sanctions so draconian as to dissuade folks from taking the wheel after a couple of tokes, then I don't see how you aren't obliged to follow that road back to the Volstead Act--as would marlowe, but he never, ever responds when his logical contradictions are pointed out in these fora.
cordially,
cordially,
"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
|
Post #98,209
4/23/03 11:36:28 AM
|
It's like flying.
You cannot make flying "safe". What you can do is minimize risk. You and I know that there is still much too much money to be made via the internal combustion engine burning fossil based fuels in this country for any serious alternative to ever exist. Hence, Muricans are going to continue to buy and drive automobiles.
The responsible thing for society to do then, is to reduce to the greatest extent possible the risk involved in this deadly activity.
I don't see any inconsistency.
The best option, of course, is to eliminate the automobile. But, that won't happen even in my kids' lifetimes.
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 #98,256
4/23/03 1:29:50 PM
|
Re: It's like flying.
So you wish to maintain the current draconian marijuana laws, even though use of the stuff appears to be a vanishingly small factor in our annual roadkill, while leaving alcohol--demonstrably deadly when combined with petrol--readily available to all and sundry? That's the inconsistency.
cordially,
"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
|
Post #98,263
4/23/03 1:45:50 PM
|
But ... but ... but ...
Marijuanna is illegal. That means that only criminals are using it.
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #98,312
4/23/03 3:29:20 PM
|
Nice try.
I don't recall saying anything about alcohol laws. I did say I thought marijuana was more dangerous - and I still hold that view - because its users typically exhibit continued depression of function in the judgement centers of their brains long after the effects of THC have worn off. So, yes, I said implicitly that "alcohol is less dangerous than pot". But that's as close as I came to comparing alcohol with marijuana.
Another Scott posted auto fatality numbers and remarked that pot was not listed. Know why? THC tests are rarely, if ever, done in a post or even at the time of an accident - or traffic stop. Alcohol tests are simple and cheap. Pot tests are becoming less expensive, but are still far too costly to be commonplace.
So, the fact that alcohol is "demonstrably deadly when combined with petrol" and pot smoking is, perhaps, less demonstrably deadly when combined with petrol (aside: the American for petrol is gasoline) is likely more a consequence of a lack of investigation.
Again, I cannot see any inconsistency on my part.
But while our focus has been on auto safety, I used that as an example of how judgement is impaired long-term in potheads. I took the example of motor sensory function impairment because that (at least I thought) was inarguable. The fact that even this claim, that smoking marijuana impairs motor sensory function to the extent that it is unsafe to drive a car, could raise such ire among some of pot's advocates only underscores my argument that judgement is, apparently, permanently altered by the use of pot.
Murican judgment (like that spelling better? - see, I am teachable) is poor enough as it is. We do NOT need to legalize any behavior that makes it worse.
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 #98,355
4/23/03 4:56:07 PM
|
Re: Nice try.
(aside: the American for petrol is gasoline)Touché. But the inconsistency remains glaring, and it matters not that you have not compared hemp and hooch (nobody said you had). Alcohol is legal. Alcohol is known to be a major factor in highway carnage and assorted other social ills. Yet I may raise a glass at home, or in the restaurant or watering place of my choice and, provided that I do not then get behind the wheel or totter about on foot in a public place, I may drink myself silly if I choose, and my sozzled slumbers will never be disturbed of a midnight by the truncheon-wielding gendarmerie breaking down my door, warrant in hand, to seize my modest wine cellar. There are laws already in place to deal with public drunkenness, and much fiercer laws against driving under the influence, but the weary toiler, sprawling stunned on his recliner after a hard day of having his surplus labor value extracted, is permitted the unmolested solace of a nice cold bucket of suds. This seems eminently sensible: we do not punish moderate or even immoderate self-medication with this alkaloid by tippler or by sot unless consequent conduct so merits. You have stated your firmly-held belief (based, it would appear, on the fact of your slacker chums having been, well, losers) that "[marijuana] is far more dangerous than any other substance with which I am familiar." You are also given to adding--and this becomes annoying--that to hold a position contrary to yours is evidence of long-term impairment. Is alcohol, then, sufficiently less baneful that we should not again outlaw the product and bring to bear upon its use the same stern strictures (including a "zero tolerance" policy of massive asset forfeiture for violators) we have deemed appropriate to scourge and chasten users of that other alkaloid? Finally: Murican judgment...is poor enough as it is. We do NOT need to legalize any behavior that makes it worse. Ah, here is the darkly paternalistic heart of your argument. Your fellow citizens are (unlike yourself) woolly-minded...naive...have poor impulse control...are not to be trusted to decide these matters on their own. And who shall decide on their behalf? Why, you, of course! Why you and not me? Because you have never despoiled the temple of your body with forbidden alkaloids and your intellect is unclouded, whereas I and my set have all condemned ourselves with that "youthful experimentation" to be your social policy bitches. I. Ain't. Buyin'. And so far as I can tell, marlowe apart, nobody else here is either. Doesn't this tell you something? cordially,
"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
|
Post #98,371
4/23/03 5:46:09 PM
|
Very nicely said!
Ah, here is the darkly paternalistic heart of your argument. Your fellow citizens are (unlike yourself) woolly-minded...naive...have poor impulse control...are not to be trusted to decide these matters on their own. And who shall decide on their behalf? Why, you, of course! Why you and not me? Because you have never despoiled the temple of your body with forbidden alkaloids and your intellect is unclouded, whereas I and my set have all condemned ourselves with that "youthful experimentation" to be your social policy bitches {emphasis added) This is the essence of fascism, after all, is it not? Nice piece of distilling (pun intended!) jb4
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
Rich Cook
|
Post #98,513
4/24/03 11:26:02 AM
|
Perhaps my attempt at levity did betray something more...
sinister. It was written with tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps does not read that way. <must remember /sarcasm tag>
Yes, it does bother me that only marlowe is buying - I've alluded to that above. However, I am firmly in belief that we are all largely the sum of our experiences. And my experiences with people who smoke dope have been, generally - but of course not exclusively, horrible.
emphasis mine
Yet I may raise a glass at home, or in the restaurant or watering place of my choice and, provided that I do not then get behind the wheel or totter about on foot in a public place, I may drink myself silly if I choose, and my sozzled slumbers will never be disturbed of a midnight by the truncheon-wielding gendarmerie breaking down my door, warrant in hand, to seize my modest wine cellar. There are laws already in place to deal with public drunkenness, and much fiercer laws against driving under the influence, but the weary toiler, sprawling stunned on his recliner after a hard day of having his surplus labor value extracted, is permitted the unmolested solace of a nice cold bucket of suds. This seems eminently sensible: we do not punish moderate or even immoderate self-medication with this alkaloid [alcohol] by tippler or by sot unless consequent conduct so merits.
And there is my nub. It is precisely because potheads do not appreciate any limitation that alcohol should be treated differently. I repeat, a drinker at least knows that he cannot perform some functions when he is drunk (once he's sober, that is). A pothead (at least most) won't admit that - ever, straight or stoned. Hence, alcohol is different from pot in that sense. And that sense is the basis of my position that alcohol should be treated differently than pot. The fact that people still drive drunk does not diminish the fact that those same people, when sober know they should not. That appreciation for the detrimental effects associated with imbibing distinguishes alcohol users from potheads. Stoners think they can smoke all they want and suffer no ill effects.
While the evidence is overwhelming that smoking pot does diminish brain function, stoners (even well educated stoners) will still argue that it doesn't even after the effects of the drug have worn off.
That is the difference and I maintain the reason that pot and alcohol should be treated differently.
"All drugs should be treated equally" is a very ill-considered stand to make. It is a position that ignores the differences in effect.
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 #98,517
4/24/03 11:37:53 AM
4/24/03 11:38:07 AM
|
Sounds to me like...
... you ought to be arguing for education, not legislation.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Edited by admin
April 24, 2003, 11:38:07 AM EDT
|
Post #98,521
4/24/03 11:43:50 AM
|
That might help.
But only if we get them before they smoke dope ;-)
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 #98,523
4/24/03 11:49:32 AM
|
That's an argument for education, not banning
We take great pains to educate people on why they shouldn't drive drunk. We give fairly detailed medical descriptions of what it does to you. But when it turns to pot, there are people in charge of policing it who still insist that it is more addictive than crack and more damaging than heroine. Really, I just heard this on the radio a couple of days ago from someone in the DEA.
Once people see one friend take a few drinks and stumble around, and another one smoke a joint and seem mostly unaffected (except for the giggling); once they see their roommate light up twice a year to celebrate the end of finals, but not crave it the rest of the year; once they talk to aunts and uncles, or even parents, who smoked regularly through the 60s then gave it up when they left college and started their careers; they start to question what they've been told.
The politicians have been crying wolf over marijuanna for about 80 years.
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #98,529
4/24/03 12:03:27 PM
|
QED.
Once people see one friend take a few drinks and stumble around, and another one smoke a joint and seem mostly unaffected (except for the giggling); once they see their roommate light up twice a year to celebrate the end of finals, but not crave it the rest of the year; once they talk to aunts and uncles, or even parents, who smoked regularly through the 60s then gave it up when they left college and started their careers; they start to question what they've been told. Thank you for making my argument. A textbook example. Nicely done, truly. 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 #98,546
4/24/03 1:37:45 PM
|
Wow, talk about missing the point
Let me state my premises first. - Marijuanna is less addictive than crack.
- Marijuanna is less destructive than heroine.
- Marijuanna does cause some impairment.
- The effects of marijuanna appear to be roughly comparable to those of alcohol.
- Some people may have stronger reactions to alcohol than to marijuanna or vice versa.
Now the problem is that items four and five are readily observable to anyone who sees someone use the two products. Items one and two are frequently denied by those opposing marijuanna use. Seeing this contradiction, it is reasonable to suppose that young people with no other sources of information than the ones misrepresenting items one and two would doubt what they say about item three. Please explain how this example supports your position. ===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #98,531
4/24/03 12:09:24 PM
|
the breadth of your sample
mmoffit, who is nothing if not tenacious, advises us that we are all largely the sum of our experiences. And my experiences with people who smoke dope have been, generally - but of course not exclusively, horrible Let's parse that. What you appear to be saying is that, because your contacts with a particular segment of the dope demographic (I note that you have very sensibly refrained from claiming that this has been a large segment) have been unfavorable, these encounters have formed you in such a way as to have disposed you to look unkindly upon THC, and to impute a certain set of motives (principally the inability to share your opinion on this issue) to present and past users. Leaving aside the perhaps novel proposition that some of us occasionally contrive to transcend the mere sum of experiences (e.g., the abused child who elects not to pay that forward in adulthood), I believe that these following assertions can only be read in the light of this acknowledged prejudice of yours: potheads do not appreciate any limitation...A pothead (at least most) won't admit that - ever, straight or stoned...Stoners think they can smoke all they want and suffer no ill effects. You simply cannot put these statements forward with the expectation that your personal experience of marijuana users in Southern California and North Carolina confers upon them any legitimacy or authority whatsoever. May I ask why it is that your sample is more significant than mine? I repeat to you that I know scores of recreational users whose conduct has been moderate and responsible over the years, who would no more allege that they could "smoke all they want and suffer no ill effects" than that they could drink unlimited volumes, who acquit themselves with distinction in honorable professions, who have raised healthy, cheerful children and whose only apparent impairment would seem to be the fact that they do not see the issue as you do--a stance you persist in regarding as evidence variously of intellectual dishonesty or of brain damage. "Experience," apparently, can only be regarded as a legitimate guide in these matters if it leads to conclusions you deem permissible. This is an utterly pernicious mindset, quite apart from the underlying difference as to social policy, and if I believed as you do in the magical powers of the substance--if I thought that a bit of THC might serve at this late date to ameliorate such rigidity of thought--I would urge you to start toking. less cordially, "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
|
Post #98,533
4/24/03 12:28:40 PM
|
In the absence of any counter-example, what should I do?
Ignore lessons learned? Become amoral since surely my experiences and education cannot amount to much? You've criticized me for being inconsistent, and I will yield on that. I am inconsistent in how I view different drugs. Consistency here, is truly a foolish consistency.
The close friends I've lost are what, irrelevant? I should agree with my wife and others that "it wasn't pot that caused them to lose control of their car"? That "pot never hurt anybody so it should be legal"?
In short, ignore every fact I am aware of on this issue and "go with the crowd" is the appropriate thing to do here? Is that what I should do?
And I've been accused of being a fascist on this issue?
This may be the one issue that you, Ashton and I will never agree on. For I am not among the herd on this issue.
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 #98,535
4/24/03 12:59:21 PM
|
Re: In the absence of any counter-example, what should I do?
mmoffit wonders: The close friends I've lost are what, irrelevant? I should agree with my wife and others that "it wasn't pot that caused them to lose control of their car"? That "pot never hurt anybody so it should be legal"? 1. Your dead friends are of course relevant to you. But had they been taken out by a drunk instead, would you be leading your local chapter of the WCTU? 2. Is your wife aware that you believe she's brain-damaged? Is this an issue with the two of you? 3. No one here has asserted that "pot never hurt anybody so it should be legal," and it's difficult to imagine anyone not somehow...well, impaired (critically low THC blood levels?)...reading that into any of these posts. The consensus (I expect that others will correct me here if I'm misstating) is more along the lines of "marijuana used in moderation is not more harmful than alcohol used in moderation, and the social costs of the policies in place to outlaw its use are incommensurate with the harm prevented." No one's asking you to switch your position on this. The decriminalization of marijuana is an issue on which reasonable men may reasonably disagree. What some of us find offensive is your unwillingness to acknowledge any possible legitimacy to a contrary position--your insistence that only a mind permanently deranged by drug use could fail to speak ill of marijuana use, and that disagreement with your stance is ipso facto evidence of such derangement. cordially, "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
|
Post #98,538
4/24/03 1:17:10 PM
|
Closer, but that's not really my position.
your insistence that only a mind permanently deranged by drug use could fail to speak ill of marijuana use, and that disagreement with your stance is ipso facto evidence of such derangement.
It's not an inability to "speak ill of marijuana use" that causes me to believe that either permanent brain damage or dishonesty is involved. It is the inability to concede that marijuana use leads to impairment. The usual propaganda is "it relaxes me, it gives me a different perspective on everything, it relieves my stress, etc." It may well do all of those things, but it can also cause almost unbearable harm. I have yet to meet anyone (present company excluded?) that is an advocate of marijuana use that will concede that simple truth: that even moderate use of marijuana can cause tremendous harm.
If it were like booze, if its effects did not wield such narcotic power over its users to the point that they can truly see "no harm possible", I don't think even the deaths of my friends and the dismemberment of my mother would cause me to hold the view I have.
BTW, I do want to thank you for carrying on this little battle with me. It's been quite a while since I thought about this issue much. But as my daughters are now coming to the age where there will be tremendous pressure placed upon them to try it, it is a very good thing for me to discuss this with people whose opinions I have come to deeply respect (present issue excluded of course ;-)
And BTW again, yes my wife does know I think she's brain damaged. (If no other evidence existed, she married me didn't she?)
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 #98,549
4/24/03 1:47:39 PM
|
"Anything not prohibited is required."
I have yet to meet anyone (present company excluded?) that is an advocate of marijuana use that will concede that simple truth: that even moderate use of marijuana can cause tremendous harm. Do you count everyone who opposes criminalization of marijuanna as "an advocate of marijuanna use"? Because there's another possibility. The one that describes me in fact: I don't personally use marijuanna, nor do I want my children to, but I believe that choice should be left up to individual adults to make for themselves. Note the carefully chosen words: choice, adults. As for your assertion of the "simple truth: that even moderate use of marijuana can cause tremendous harm." If you are simply referring to a case where someone was driving while impaired, the same could be said of countless people using cell phones or eating while driving. Do you propose criminalization of food and cell phones? Even while not driving? ===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #98,554
4/24/03 1:59:25 PM
|
That, and...
Because there's another possibility. The one that describes me in fact: I don't personally use marijuanna, nor do I want my children to, but I believe that choice should be left up to individual adults to make for themselves. Note the carefully chosen words: choice, adults. I agree, and I also believe that the criminalization of marijuana causes MORE harm than marijuana use itself does, through the growth of organized crime and drug lords, and the incarceration of people who are doing nothing more than using the drug in their homes to no one's detriment but their own. Mike's own personal loss due to marijuana use is hard for him, but I think it's dwarfed by the consequences of encouraging the illicit drug trade by criminalizing a drug that is no worse than alcohol. We tried that once. It didn't work. It isn't working for marijuana now, either. Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #98,569
4/24/03 2:47:54 PM
|
I see.
Marijuana use is no more harmful than food. Classic.
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 #98,571
4/24/03 3:00:33 PM
|
Mike
Smoking dope is certainly no more harmful or dangerous than drinking booze, and I'd say less so (people on weed tend not to get into fights as easily, IME). Does this mean it's harmless? No. Does this mean it should be banned? No. While people I know thought dope was strictly harmless at one time, they basically abandoned that idea after they left high school, and grew wiser in the ways of the world.
As for the "dope is as harmless as food" strawman you're beating on... guess what? Food used in certain ways has enabled genocide (cf- Ukraine in the '30s). Should we ban food distribution systems? Baseball bats can be an afternoon's fun at the local park, or a night's terror at the same park after dark. Should we ban baseball bats? Beer can be fun with a barbecue, or a life-destroying drug when used all the time. Should we ban beer? Weed can be fun used in moderation, or something that leads to someone sitting around the house all day unbathed. Should we ban weed?
As for your personal experience, you'd probably be surprised at the number of people here who've smoked dope at one time, or even do so currently. If the stats in the general population hold true here, over a hundred of the people who've signed up have smoked dope at one time, and probably thirty or so do so regularly.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #98,583
4/24/03 3:44:06 PM
|
I would not be surprised at their number.
I'm too tired to look, but I think I said I personally knew of perhaps 2 or 3 only that have never smoked it. Doesn't bother me to be in a very small minority ;-)
...they basically abandoned that idea after they left high school...
If I could be convinced that this were true among smokers more often than not, I might change my position on this issue. But, except for anecdotal evidence presented here, I have never seen any evidence to support that this is the common conclusion.
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 #98,578
4/24/03 3:21:49 PM
|
Try responding to what I actually said
Here it is in case you missed it, with emphasis: If you are simply referring to a case where someone was driving while impaired, the same could be said of countless people using cell phones or eating while driving. Do you propose criminalization of food and cell phones? Even while not driving? So I'll ask explicitly. When you posit a "simple truth: that even moderate use of marijuana can cause tremendous harm", what harm are you referring to? Since much of what's been written here was about the effects of impaired driving I assumed that's the "tremendous harm" you meant. If that is what you meant, then yes, food if eaten while driving can be as harmful as marijuanna. Or were you talking about some other harm? ===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #98,572
4/24/03 3:06:29 PM
|
OK, work with me here
Let's clarify a few things (added emphases in bold): [What] causes me to believe that either permanent brain damage or dishonesty is involved...is the inability to concede that marijuana use leads to impairment. There is no "inability" here. Does marijuana lead to short-term impairment? Certainly it does. I no longer partake, but I would never have felt comfortable driving, addressing a public gathering or operating power tools under the influence, and this discomfort, I would argue, constitutes an acknowledgment of that transient impairment. Is the impairment long-term? I can only repeat ad nauseum that I can think of two dozen or more current recreational users whom I've known for periods ranging from five to thirty-five years and who are to all appearances happy, prosperous and productive members of society (I concede that one of them has appalling taste in home decor, but if this is symptomatic of brain damage I submit that long-term exposure to the cultural vacuum of the San Fernando Valley is at least as plausible a proximate cause). Can I exclude the possibility that but for this weakness they might today be (extrapolating from their observed tropisms and gifts) billionaire software magnates, Oscar-winning actors, newspaper publishers, Supreme Court justices, cabinet secretaries and Nobel laureates? I can't exclude it, but I can reasonably discount it. I have yet to meet anyone...that is an advocate of marijuana use that will concede that simple truth: that even moderate use of marijuana can cause tremendous harm. First of all, of course, no one here has advocated use. We have rather advocated for the right of the individual to determine whether its responsible use has a place in his own life. If the use becomes irresponsible, and becomes a nuisance or a hazard to other citizens, let the law deal with these manifestations as it does with the equivalent instances involving alcohol. Second, " can cause tremendous harm"? Hell's bells, mmoffit, all sorts of things can cause tremendous harm. One of my oldest friends, a hospital administrator (in your neck of the woods, in fact, and another secret dope fiend) is profoundly allergic to cucumbers. Anaphylactic shock city, as she discovered thirty years ago as a young nurse trainee--in a hospital cafeteria, fortunately, so when she turned scarlet and passed out, there were qualified personnel and pharmaceutical adrenaline close at hand. She has not, incidentally, allowed this episode to turn her into an anti-cucumber crusader. So I will stipulate that marijuana can cause tremendous harm, either by means of impaired driver-induced blunt trauma or, in the cases of some individuals, by means of a kind of moral erosion attendant upon use. I've never had occasion to observe instances of the latter, but sure--they could exist. But just as we do not ban alcohol even though in some individuals a single drink ("moderate use") will inevitably bring on a binge, just as we do not proscribe the cultivation and sale of cucumbers (hmmm... Cucumis sativus...coincidence? I think not) as a threat to public health, just as we do not launch public awareness campaigns to combat the "killer gourd," even though they're death on my friend G, it is folly to demonize marijuana and impose blanket sanctions on its use. if its effects did not wield such narcotic power over its users to the point that they can truly see "no harm possible", I don't think even the deaths of my friends and the dismemberment of my mother would cause me to hold the view I have. Excellent! We're there! I, a past user, can assure you that while I have seen no harm in my circle, I am certainly prepared to acknowledge that harm is "possible." I'll even go so far as to concede that today's postliterate teenagers are already sufficiently impaired by pop culture that anything that serves to make them even more scatterbrained is rather in the way of gilding the lily, and should not be encouraged. I believe that these sentiments are approximately representative of my generational, geographical and class cohort. We are living refutation of your illusory impression that users are incapable of acknowledging any possible harm in marijuana. You may lay down this burden. Go and sin no more. in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
|
Post #98,574
4/24/03 3:14:37 PM
|
Nomination for Post of the Day! Congrats!
Several ICLRPDs in there, but I'll let others pick out their favorites.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #98,585
4/24/03 4:05:37 PM
|
A request for enlightenment.
I have to dismiss out of hand the analogy you drew with a cucumber. For, unlike the substance at issue, cucumbers have nutritional value for most. That is, there is some good that can be reaped from cucumbers for most of the populace.
You implied that there was some "responsible use" possible of marijuana. I ask you the following question with all sincerity:
Aside from sharing use with young women in order to free them from their inhibitions concerning mating rituals, fogging one's brain to the point that it is virtually impossible to have a coherent thought and as a tool for joining the "in crowd", what exactly constitutes "responsible use" of marijuana?
I recognize that the three purposes for its use that I mention are not an exhaustive list. But I cannot imagine any other rationale for its use that I could put the moniker of "responsible" on. Perhaps it's just that I never was in the "popular crowd". Whatever reason, I'd love to see some one justify marijuana use to the extent that it could be deemed "responsible".
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 #98,587
4/24/03 4:13:23 PM
|
Responsible means: not harming others.
As in "personal responsibility".
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #98,593
4/24/03 4:28:01 PM
|
Marijuana use
is still in debate, but advocates have argued it primarily for anti-nausa and glucoma.
|
Post #98,626
4/24/03 8:18:22 PM
4/24/03 10:19:29 PM
|
They aren't advocates...
...those are [link|http://wilkes.edu/~kklemow/Cannabis.html|>DOCTORS<]. Presently, C. sativa has four medicinal values. First, it is used to relieve nausea and increase appetite. Second, it brings about the reduction of intraocular pressure in glaucoma. Third, it causes a reduction of muscle spasms. Fourth, it provides relief from mild to moderate chronic pain (Anon., 1996a). POST EDIT: #1 is particularly important for chemotherapy patients...where it is frequently recommended by doctors. oh...and... In a study in 1982, researchers analyzed the biological effects of chronic use of marijuana in human subjects. Pathological and biochemical tests were in a normal range. Chronic use did not produce serious, harmful effects in humans and a general medical examination showed no abnormalities. The researchers also concluded that marijuana can act as a hypotensive and reduce blood sugar, which is useful for treating hypertension, especially diabetic hypertension (Singh et al., 1981). Face it folks, you are dealing with someone who has an irrational belief structure surrounding cannabis sativa...a naturally occuring substance that humans have been enjoying for thousands of years. It seems to be based on actual circumstances, making it all the more difficult for him to do anything but remain rigid in his beliefs. The fact that the rest of us know or have known human beings that did not turn into stupified, laid back, long haired hippie freaks with an IQ somewhere between a shoe size and Ozzie the first time they sparked a doobie will be quite lost on him. Give up already. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
Edited by bepatient
April 24, 2003, 10:19:29 PM EDT
|
Post #98,720
4/25/03 10:49:05 AM
|
Good Christ! We agree.
It seems to be based on actual circumstances, making it all the more difficult for him to do anything but remain rigid in his beliefs.
The fact that the rest of us know or have known human beings that did not turn into stupified, laid back, long haired hippie freaks with an IQ somewhere between a shoe size and Ozzie the first time they sparked a doobie will be quite lost on him.
Well said. The fact that my experience differs so much from what has apparently been everyone else's makes it impossible for any of us to move an inch. Doing so would be betraying what we "know" from experience ("know" quoted intentionally). A possibility that I don't think exists for any of us here.
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 #98,728
4/25/03 11:02:36 AM
|
Sort of, yes we do.
I've a tendency to believe you are attributing too much blame to the substance and not enough to the irresponsibility of the person involved. But not knowing the specifics of your situation, that is a guess...maybe an educated guess...but a guess all the same.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #98,604
4/24/03 5:15:19 PM
|
What if the answer is "none"? What then?
Are you now suggesting that no food without nutritional value may be eaten? That no activity without redeeming value may be engaged in?
What if I evaluate an activity, determine that it has no redeeming value whatsoever, that in fact I am aware it will likely harm me, but that I want to do it anyway? On what grounds do you assume the right to prevent me?
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #98,607
4/24/03 5:44:37 PM
4/24/03 6:45:50 PM
|
Re: A request for enlightenment.
Always happy to help, old son. Stick with me and we'll lead you out of the darkness of doctrinal error and into a broad, sunlit uplands of reason and tolerance. The supplicant asks: Aside from sharing use with young women in order to free them from their inhibitions concerning mating rituals, fogging one's brain to the point that it is virtually impossible to have a coherent thought and as a tool for joining the "in crowd", what exactly constitutes "responsible use" of marijuana? Actually the first-named use, as a solvent for stubborn womanly virtue, is one I've had no experience with--I came of age at an odd cusp of our social history, a glorious brief period in which an unprepossessing young man (and I was certainly that) needed neither conspicuous charm, nor special comeliness, nor a predatory temperament nor strategies of stealth or substance to be assured of a reasonably steady supply of nookie. The young women of the era, at least in my neck of the woods, seemed not to require coaxing, tricking or stunning out of their knickers. I will add that some of the effects of the drug, in particular a certain introspection and passivity that settles upon one, strike me as unpromising for aphrodisiacal purposes. If you feel compelled to call upon the assistance of intoxicants to augment your native charms I think you'll have far better luck using strong drink for this purpose--it makes 'em frisky at the outset, or you can simply wait for her to pass out and then slake your goatish appetites on the young woman's recumbent form. Brainfogging could be construed as a responsible use, although "to the point that it is virtually impossible to have a coherent thought" is just as likely to be Too Much of a Good Thing with Oaxaca Wowie as with Glenlivet. A few glasses of wine at dinner--enough to make the conversation lively, and my neighborhood is well-served by public transit--is responsible use; two bottles of Night Train Express and then pissing oneself while passed out over the steam grate is not. Extrapolate. Finally, while few of us in adulthood are concerned with membership in an "in crowd," this sort of thing looms large in the adolescent mind as I recall, and if group partaking of a proscribed substance serves to cement a young person's entry and acceptance into one of these collectives I daresay the average teen would regard that function as, if not responsible, at least in some measure useful, although I would not myself encourage it for the reasons stated in an earlier post. In short, responsible use of marijuana can be considered socially equivalent to responsible use of alcohol (and please don't try to hand us the tired old bit about the intoxicating effects of alcohol being some kind of irrelevant side effect of the product--we could see through that one in tenth grade), although the two drugs have different effects and are appropriate tools for different purposes: strong drink as a social (and occasionally sexual) lubricant, pot for internal, free-associative wanderings (I always found the experience of music immeasurably enhanced), for augmenting certain forms of sensory input (premium ice cream, for example) or, I suppose, for entertaining oneself, when nothing else is available, with archival episodes of "My Mother the Car" on midnight cable (its more ardent partisans will argue firmly that marijuana enhances perceptions, but I am obliged to say I think it just as likely that it stuns the aesthetic: I can still recall raising myself up on one elbow late of an evening in 1974, croaking at the radio "That's the most beautiful goddamn thing I ever heard," and galloping three blocks to the all-night record store in Santa Cruz, returning home in triumph with a copy of Pierre Boulez's Le marteau sans ma\ufffdtre, the magic of which, alas, I was never able thereafter quite to recapture)--a harmless if again not strictly responsible means of passing the time. cordially, [edit:typos] "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
Edited by rcareaga
April 24, 2003, 06:45:50 PM EDT
|
Post #98,637
4/24/03 10:15:41 PM
|
NORML on "responsible use" (new thread)
Created as new thread #98636 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=98636|NORML on "responsible use"]
|
Post #98,673
4/25/03 4:02:43 AM
|
Re: A request for enlightenment.
Let's try a different tack -
Look, the fact is that you have 0-experience of [whatever it might be ???] that 'pot' produces in your *own* or anyone else's jello-ware - and all of us who have any measure of such: have only hearsay from Others of how Others.. actually react to the large and varying alkaloid derivatives in any given batch of what is, after all - a plant with many variants. THC is only one ingredient - Muricans so love to distill wonderfully natural mixtures into bean-counter 'doses' and Econ-major $-doses. Anality R'US.
Parallel:
Those of us enamoured of brass instruments - by actually playing them - can also find transcendence of the dreary world of McCommerce AND Disney-drear 101. Perhaps there -as perhaps.. with pot- the focus of one's entire mentation AND emot-iation becomes Different from the tawdry, repetitive even Profess- (that's what it means) -ional duties of a bizness day in a cubicle (say).
Vivent longtemps cette diff\ufffdrence!
Can the mastering of a particularly difficult cadenza in an Arban or Herbert L. Clarke 'theme and variations' - produce such bliss ?? >> HTF Would *You* KNOW ?? <<
In the end, you see: THAT is the critical difference. That 'Experience' of yours - of that infinitesimal-% of partakers of demon weed: which, in your sample seem notably obtuse in expressing carnal-knowledge of the word impaired.. well, you see: that particular affliction simply is NOT a statistically valid sample of All Those who have partaken - even on the Prison Planet of Disneyland-USA. It just *Isn't* OK? Most *will* demonstrate acknowledgment of tawdry-impairment By Not Doing Those Things\ufffd *While Impaired*. Period. Is that all cleared up?
So back to the important stuff:
All brass lovers, get the Wynton Marsalis 'Carnival' album! and you may experience vicariously [Hey in Murica -?- Vicarious Decidedly R'Us] what it's like.. to play the entire Arban Variations on (Funiculi, Funicula - a song actually about a funicular railway!) - at astonishing speed but also mellifluous legatto; particularly fine on the conical-bore cornet, as distinguished from the more fanfare-oriented cylindrical bore of the trumpet.. then end upon a superlative high G above-the-staff, as if it were a walk in the park. Goose-bumps for any who Know.
(Then obtain *any* album by the Virtuoso of *This* Millennium: the young Russian, Sergei Nakarikov - than which there has never been a better, though surely many different and also inspiring and brilliant (as is Wynton).)
Since I have never heard a pot smoker extol the virtues of a particular batch of Sinsemilla in quite these terms.. well, perhaps we should consider licensing The Cornet .. since, obviously its use is conducive to the disparagement of many Murican Dreams - and even The Murican Dream - even more effectively than..
demon weed.
Rest case.
Ashton
Who places Nakariakov's continued life on this Planet - at an immeasurably higher degree of urgency than:
The entire US Government, the Executive staff of every know Corporation and.. every Churchly-anointed One currently extant, robed or unrobed. All of these. I'd make the hostage exchange in a trice.
Guantanamo.. Here I Come.
You can't lick the system -- but you can certainly give it a damned good fondling.... Rick Moen
|
Post #98,675
4/25/03 5:30:52 AM
|
Cohort-LRPD: Escape from the prison planet!
|
Post #98,820
4/25/03 10:11:11 PM
8/21/07 5:53:55 AM
|
Responsible Users
And a couple of high profile ones at that:
Harvard Law Professor Charles Nesson uses it as a mood stabilizer.
"While Nesson experimented once with cocaine and tried LSD, he says he uses marijuana as a way to think creatively about his work, and also as a mood stabilizer. His father had depression and for a period of years was catatonic, Nesson says. While he says he has never fallen into a major depression, he believes - and at least one of his doctors has concurred - that only marijuana offers effective relief for his history of hypomania, or mild, manic behavior. "
(Link is being removed from the web - here is google cache [link|http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:zmRibFv9ui8C:www.lawschool100.com/nessonglobe.htm+Harvard+Nesson+marijuana&hl=en&ie=UTF-8|http://216.239.39.10...na&hl=en&ie=UTF-8])
And a Doctor Lester Grinspoon
"I was 44 years old in 1972 when I experienced my first marijuana high. Because I found it both useful and benign, I have used it ever since."
[link|http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/8jcl/8JCL83.htm|http://www.cognitive...g/8jcl/8JCL83.htm]
"Packed like lemmings into shiny metal boxes.
Contestants in a suicidal race."
- Synchronicity II - The Police
|
Post #98,107
4/22/03 11:30:10 PM
|
2001 US stats from NHTSA.gov
A PDF buried there...
Police-Reported Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes
.Fatal . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,795
.Injury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,003,000
.Property Damage Only. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,282,000
.Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,323,000
Traffic Crash Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . Killed / Injured
Occupants
.Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,840 / 1,989,000
.Passengers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,441 / 913,000
.Unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 / \ufffd
Nonmotorists
.Pedestrians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,882 / 78,000
.Pedalcyclists . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 728 / 45,000
.Other/Unknown . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 / 8,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,116 / 3,033,000
26% of fatal accidents which killed the driver involved alcohol. Almost 40% of fatal accidents in which the driver was 21-24 involved alcohol.
I don't see any stats regarding drug-induced impairment.
It's a long report with lots of figures. It's interesting, but doesn't seem to be prepared in a way that makes it easy to get answers to topics like you posed re driving impaired.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #98,115
4/23/03 12:48:24 AM
|
Re: 2001 US stats from NHTSA.gov
Irrespective of the causes, them's some shocking numbers.
SLOW DOWN.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #98,169
4/23/03 10:20:01 AM
|
There ya go
I wait for the bus on a stretch of road that is long and straight. The speed limit is 40. At least once a morning, I see some complete idiot pass on the RIGHT (that's your LEFT) going like a bat out of hell. I've taken to positioning myself behind both a telephone pole and a street light standard, to avoid becoming a 10th-pin spare.
Americans are BAD drivers. The auto is a surrogate sex organ here.
-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 #98,362
4/23/03 5:07:42 PM
|
Re: slow down
Not always.
There's a stretch of highway south of town (Milwaukee, Wis) that used to be posted 65 mph. A few years ago, they dropped the speed limit to 55 mph. A few days ago, they raised it back to 65 mph to reduce accidents. The number of traffic accidents on that stretch of highway INCREASED when the limit was reduced from 65 to 55.
Not trying to cause a dispute; just pointing out an interesting factoid that goes contrary to what you would think.
Brian Bronson
|
Post #98,101
4/22/03 10:56:05 PM
|
Er... we already do it that way.
Weaving in traffic has it's own ticket: improper lane usage. There's also "crossing the center line". We also have an "unsafe speed for conditions" ticket, "careless driving", "unsafe lane change", and "following too closely".
As it is, the blood alcohol test only applies if you get pulled over for erratic behavior, breaking a traffic law, get in an accident, etc. Simply apply the same standard: if you do something noticed by an officer of the law (weaving, running someone over, etc.) then you get a ticket for it, regardless of the cause.
Punish the result, not the cause. In the end it doesn't matter if you ran someone over because you were drunk, high, loopy from cold medicine, or just plain incapable of driving safely. You still ran someone over.
The basic rule should be: don't drive if you know you shouldn't. And don't drive if you aren't capable of determining if you shouldn't. Legislating the cause of the bad driving isn't going to fix the bad driving. It will just have unintended consequences, as is evident from the entire "drug war" debacle.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #98,108
4/22/03 11:32:39 PM
|
True. Good points.
Of course, if people behaved rationally like that, we wouldn't need police (or at least not as many). :-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #98,171
4/23/03 10:24:13 AM
|
Re: Er... we already do it that way.
The lazy cops should be out driving around in traffic, instead of hiding behind hills, signs etc. A simple analysis would surely prove that spending a few extra dollars for dedicated rolling traffic officers in HIGHLY marked cars, would save much more in costs to trauma centers and the other needed emergency personnel.
Also - jack the damn fines into the stratosphere. If you knew you would get a ticket at $100 per MPH over the limit, you'd think twice about driving like an idiot.
-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 #98,197
4/23/03 11:02:31 AM
|
No, that's all backwards
Also - jack the damn fines into the stratosphere. If you knew you would get a ticket at $100 per MPH over the limit, you'd think twice about driving like an idiot. It's all about volume. They'd rather have 100 people pay fines of $100 than 10 people pay fines of $1000. It seems counter-intuitive, but would you bother fighting a $100 ticket for something you actually did? Now would you fight a $1000 ticket, even if you did it? Don't believe me? Look at DUI (which conincidentally this thread started about). Every time someone wants to get tougher on DUI they do it by lowering the threshhold, not by toughening the punishment. The people who weren't deterred by the existing fine at 0.10 won't be deterred at 0.08. All the changes do is criminalize more behavior. I started out thinking this was going to be a sarcastic post, but I realize the pattern is all too common. You don't prove you're tough on crime by being tougher on the existing criminals, you do it by making more people criminals. ===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #98,200
4/23/03 11:08:29 AM
|
Damn - you're right
Stupid me, forgetting it was about ticket revenue.
Okay, next try: Leave the tickets alone, make people look at grisly photos of accident victims as part of their penance. Keep the same fines, but require a visit to the local horror chamber kept at the nearest cop shop. Ever seen a newly dead person wearing his transmission? Not something you're likely to forget.
Oh, charge admission, too.
-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 #97,217
4/18/03 12:16:27 AM
|
too much recreational drug usage?
did someone bend you over a stump and make you squeel like a pig while under the influence of ectasy? Ban all major sporting events and you would save more lives and money.
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 #97,227
4/18/03 2:26:30 AM
|
If absence of drugs creates marlowes amongst the
Authoritarian mindset dregs as are always with us -
I say:
All recreational drugs should be available under the \ufffdgis,
That which is not prohibited is compulsory.
..a Perfect Rule for The Age of the Nintendo-Eloi
It's a 1
OR
It's a 0
(even a marlowe can deal with that; with a little help)
|
Post #97,250
4/18/03 9:24:21 AM
|
One question
Per Biden on this bill:
"It is only trying to deter illicit drug use"
I may be confused here, but isn't this already illegal?
If so, why do we need ANOTHER F***ING LAW!
Are our lawmakers trying to say, "Well, this time we really, *really* mean it"?
Tom Sinclair
"Man, I love it when the complete absence of a plan comes together."
- [link|http://radio.weblogs.com/0104634/|Ernie the Attorney]
|
Post #97,263
4/18/03 11:07:20 AM
|
Whether or not they "mean it" is secondary
Most (probably 98.5+%) of legislators primary purpose in making laws is to show the people that they're doing something about X. Even if the law just duplicates existing laws, or won't actually change X, they still get to thump their chests and say, "I care about problem X, and my [opponent/opposing party] doesn't."
Brian Bronson
|
Post #97,279
4/18/03 12:30:08 PM
|
So why is Biden in trouble for proposing such a law...
and Hatch isn't for proposing a similar law...
oh yeah! now I remember, they're on different parties...we'll trust the Republicans to kill the raver bill and save us from the evil Democrats...
Meanwhile...TRUE LOYAL OPPOSITION will save us from well-meaning but misguided Republicans.
Cough...glad to see we paint everyone with an equal brush.
|
