You know what I've always found interesting re: auto safety?

Post #98,075 by mmoffitt 4/22/03 9:47:03 PM Reply	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 by rcareaga 4/22/03 10:55:53 PM Reply	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 by mmoffitt 4/23/03 11:36:28 AM Reply	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 by rcareaga 4/23/03 1:29:50 PM Reply	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 by drewk 4/23/03 1:45:50 PM Reply	But ... but ... but ... Marijuanna is illegal. That means that only criminals are using it. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #98,312 by mmoffitt 4/23/03 3:29:20 PM Reply	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 by rcareaga 4/23/03 4:56:07 PM Reply	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 by jb4 4/23/03 5:46:09 PM Reply	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 by mmoffitt 4/24/03 11:26:02 AM Reply	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 by admin 4/24/03 11:37:53 AM 4/24/03 11:38:07 AM Reply	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 Expand All History
Post #98,521 by mmoffitt 4/24/03 11:43:50 AM Reply	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 by drewk 4/24/03 11:49:32 AM Reply	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 by mmoffitt 4/24/03 12:03:27 PM Reply	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 by drewk 4/24/03 1:37:45 PM Reply	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 by rcareaga 4/24/03 12:09:24 PM Reply	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 by mmoffitt 4/24/03 12:28:40 PM Reply	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 by rcareaga 4/24/03 12:59:21 PM Reply	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 by mmoffitt 4/24/03 1:17:10 PM Reply	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 by drewk 4/24/03 1:47:39 PM Reply	"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 by admin 4/24/03 1:59:25 PM Reply	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 by mmoffitt 4/24/03 2:47:54 PM Reply	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 by jake123 4/24/03 3:00:33 PM Reply	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 by mmoffitt 4/24/03 3:44:06 PM Reply	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 by drewk 4/24/03 3:21:49 PM Reply	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 by rcareaga 4/24/03 3:06:29 PM Reply	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 by Another Scott 4/24/03 3:14:37 PM Reply	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 by mmoffitt 4/24/03 4:05:37 PM Reply	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 by admin 4/24/03 4:13:23 PM Reply	Responsible means: not harming others. As in "personal responsibility". Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #98,593 by Simon_Jester 4/24/03 4:28:01 PM Reply	Marijuana use is still in debate, but advocates have argued it primarily for anti-nausa and glucoma.
Post #98,626 by bepatient 4/24/03 8:18:22 PM 4/24/03 10:19:29 PM Reply	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 Expand All History
Post #98,720 by mmoffitt 4/25/03 10:49:05 AM Reply	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 by bepatient 4/25/03 11:02:36 AM Reply	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 by drewk 4/24/03 5:15:19 PM Reply	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 by rcareaga 4/24/03 5:44:37 PM 4/24/03 6:45:50 PM Reply	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 Expand All History
Post #98,637 by Another Scott 4/24/03 10:15:41 PM Reply	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 by Ashton 4/25/03 4:02:43 AM Reply	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 by Ashton 4/25/03 5:30:52 AM Reply	Cohort-LRPD: Escape from the prison planet!
Post #98,820 by tuberculosis 4/25/03 10:11:11 PM 8/21/07 5:53:55 AM Reply	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 Edited by tuberculosis Aug. 21, 2007, 05:53:55 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #98,107 by Another Scott 4/22/03 11:30:10 PM Reply	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 by pwhysall 4/23/03 12:48:24 AM Reply	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 by deSitter 4/23/03 10:20:01 AM Reply	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 by bbronson 4/23/03 5:07:42 PM Reply	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

Welcome to IWETHEY!