OT&Controversial: Just say no

[Walden]

The same sort of arguments can be used to advocate anarchy.

[Sean]

Without a doubt.

[The Weekenders]

Good thoughtful responses on this topic, especially Jim Stone. To address covert agendas: I think that somehow, someway, those people are trying to tweak acceptability in a society for which change is slow but possible. They are desparate because a glimmer of hope shined in the 70s that somehow pot might enter the legitimate world of condoned societal drugs. They're still fighting for its acceptance.

I have accepted alcohol hypocrisy with some humility that this is what my society has chosen and who am I to decide what's better for all (?), but the thread brought up my anger at the criminalization of our society.

My basic contention below all of this is that somehow, some way, we have ended up with virtually un-liveable lives and most are seeking self-medication, legal or illegal depending on your income and cognitive abilities.

Extreme, you say? Then why the hell is everybody seemingly taking something, except maybe those who follow religious practices which the media find unacceptable?

Look at expectations, electronic stimuli, even traffic and I am convinced that somehow we have gotten ourself into a daily living pickle that our little sober selves cannot handle... Go ahead and disagree but this is my observation.

As for crack about Bush's kid cover-up. Media covers up or ignores many things.
An example: two Jehovah's Witnesses were beheaded (five kidnapped) by Muslim extremists in Southeast Asia within the last week. Was it in your newspaper? The media is hell-bent on keeping us gentiles from getting angry about the Muslim agenda so we don't beat up on Omar at the liquor store.

Considering that the agenda is to destroy the "high towers of the infidel" etc and that there is no great upwelling of loyal American Muslims to counter what seems to be the Muslim Millenium starting up from afar, it gives one pause about who the newspapers and press agencies are protecting from whom.

The cover-ups or selective news filtering serves many agendas, not just evil Republican corporate Enron-causers or whatever one might ascribe as their favorite bogeymen...

[DazedinLA]

All I know is that here in Florida, Katheirine Harris is running for office.

Sigh.

I have to remember to make it to the polls today to vote my conscience.

And yet, screwed up as it is, where on earth is there a better system? I mean really.

[Sean]

But not a new phenomenon.
The imbibing of intoxicants over a vast majority of the population is a legacy of European descent.
The reason (IMHO) that it seems more prevelant now is the variety. It's not all wine, or tobacco, or beer (or marihuanna for that matter). Now everybody has theri own "custom" drug. Prozac, Ridilan, Lithium, Amphetamines (of various flavors themselves). I don't know a whole lot about these substances (nor do I have a desire to), but it seems that everyone has their "little helper".
"Do you drink?"
"No."
"Do you take drugs?"
"No, well, prescription Lithium. But it's a prescription."
What is the freakin' difference? If you take Aspirin you take drugs which affect your body chemistry and mental perception of the world. Don't think so? How much different is your day with vs. without a headache.
But that's different you say, it's not harmful. Neither is Alcohol or Marijuanna in RESPONSIBLE amounts. Just like you wouldn't take an entire bottle of aspirin and operate a vehicle, the same self-policing actions must be taken with "narcotics" (of which alcohol is most assuredly one.)
This is unfortunately (in the sense that it is making me want a margaritta (how's that for irony Walden)) an infinitely arguable subject which is ultimately up to the individual to decide upon. No laws, or lack thereof will change that. I doubt that making recreational drugs legal will cause a huge increase in users of said substances. I'm sure that there will remain a large consituancy beholden to their ideas that these are bad things. And for them I couldn't agree more, I for one would never expect someone to compromise their Ideals simply because it's legal to do so.
Sorry for the prattling, but I enjoy a well thought out debate between calm adults (not that I'm in that category EVER.)

[FrankM]

I can speak from experience and can tell you that it certainly works for dealing with chemotherapy side effects.
I was diagnosed with Hodgkins (cancer of the lymph system) this year and had to go through chemotherapy. Chemo was awful. The drugs that were prescribed to reduce the side effects were as bad, if not worse than chemo itself. So upon a few recommendations I tried marijuana. I had used it recreationally in the past but never for medicinal purposes. I couldn't believe it..it should be called the 'wonder drug.' Nausea gone immediately! Appetite returned and get this, I actually gained weight during chemo!
In addition, it made my day to day existence more tolerable. I was so irritable that my family were kiddingly referring to me as Dr. Jeckyl OR Mr. Hyde depending on whether I just had chemo or not. The marijuana helped to even out the mood swings caused by the chemo.
Sure there are side effects from pot, but do you want me to tell you about all the gut wrenching side effects of chemo or the other chemicals prescribed to 'ease my pain.'
Heck, my 77 year old mother was even all for it after she saw the difference it made for me.
I understand the apprehension of legalizing yet another drug. My theory is alcohol is kept legal by our governments because it gives people a 'fighting' mentality, a sense of bravado that keeps us competitive and of course good fighting Americans, whether it be war, commerce or sport. How many deaths are caused by drunk drivers but yet alcohol is still easily available.
Marijuana tends to mellow people out and be more pacifists...yet it's illegal because of it's 'evil.'
I believe God gave us a plentiful array of natural remedies available on His green earth. Like most things in life, it can be used for good or abused.

Just my 'nickles' worth....

[drewcifer]

On 2002-09-10 12:49, Walden wrote:
The same sort of arguments can be used to advocate anarchy.

"I heartily accept the motto, 'That government is best which governs least'; ... Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe-- 'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government they will have."
-- Henry David Thoreau - "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience" (1849)

[Walden]

On 2002-09-10 13:02, The Weekenders wrote:
As for crack about Bush's kid cover-up. Media covers up or ignores many things.
An example: two Jehovah's Witnesses were beheaded (five kidnapped) by Muslim extremists in Southeast Asia within the last week. Was it in your newspaper? The media is hell-bent on keeping us gentiles from getting angry about the Muslim agenda so we don't beat up on Omar at the liquor store.

My parents, who are Christian missionaries, led a medical mission to a Muslim island in that part of the world, and were pursued by militants who wanted to hold them for ransom. However my parents, and the medical team were protected from harm by the Muslim leaders of that island.

[U2]

There is a difference between supporting something and not opposing it. I do not support gay marriage. It simply does not concern me. But I do not oppose it. I see it as irrelevant. Gay individuals who want my support may view me as one who does not support their "rights" while many would consider me less than moral for not taking a stand against a lifestyle they oppose. I suppose I could be swayed if I heard logic that caused me to believe it mattered - to me. I find it a bit unrealistic for one group or another to expect unilateral “support” because they see benefits in legislation unrecognised by others. Legalising intoxicants may be such a point, growing useful fibre products appears different IMHO.

Why cite the Pandoras box argument with hopes our imaginations will run wild? Instead of looking at the issues at hand, why base our decisions on the worst case scenarios imaginable. Depending on the issue at hand, and whether one agrees or disagrees we all pick from our arsenal of logic to communicate our point of view. I do not argue that some percentage of people who advocate the legal agricultural production of hemp may also support of the legalisation of cannabis sativa with intoxicating levels of tetra hydra cannibinol. I simply have no way to quantify who is for one and not the other. But the US government's position really does appear to be based, many times, on the idea that locking its own citizens away, or the threat of doing so, solves the problem best. Is incarceration, or threat of it, taking place in the absence of attempting other solutions? And is it effective? It appears perhaps not.

We are all guilty of inconsistency. How many people do you know who do not support the death penalty, but supported military action (war, i.e. bombing, death) against OBL and his band men? Somehow an overt act of war as we witnessed last September causes us to re-examine the act of intentional killing. It is an issue of degree and threat assessment. We all pick and choose what we consider justifiable based on our own experiences. Those with tendencies toward physical addiction likely see legalisation of intoxicants as no big deal from a position that a person is either in control of themselves or they are not. But a person inclined to substance abuse (or closely associated with the effects of it), not use, will view it as one more potential pitfall for them personally.

In any case, it would seem a really weak argument to fail to seriously consider the agricultural production of a non-intoxicating variety of hemp on the basis of suspicions and the Pandora’s box image. Especially if those with an argument are unaware of all the issues.

[Sean]

U2,
You have made clear the heart of the matter.
Legalization of Hemp production, and legalization of narcotics are two dynamically different things. And the issues should be treated as such.
And just because we all love examples.
The poppy seeds on your bagel in the morning are the exact plant used to produce (deep breath....Dun,dun,dun) Heroine. You can prucure the seeds legally anywhere in the U.S. because they are not narcotic, although of the same species. You could actually grow (papave somni..something or other) opium producing poppies from these seeds (they won't sprout they're baked, so don't try this at home Walden.).
Hemp and pot are two completely different varieties of plant and it would be great if the anti-drug lobbyists would get that. Just because you have one DOES NOT necessitate the other.
And incidentally thanks Dale, for another sniper attack on us unsuspecting innocents.
Just shoot and run. (dirty...rotten...grumble...miffleflgmsmthn)

[Walden]

On 2002-09-10 15:40, Sean wrote:
You could actually grow (papave somni..something or other) opium producing poppies from these seeds (they won't sprout they're baked, so don't try this at home Walden.).

Who? Me? It's been ages since I've been down to the opium den. You're right, though, you can't grow poppies from a kaiser bun. You gotta go to the lawn and garden department of Atwood's.

[kardshark87]

On 2002-09-10 02:18, jim stone wrote:
I'm glad that pot is less available than it used to be.

It may be less available than it used to be (I'm not argueing that point, because I don't know) but that doesn't mean that it isn't readily accessible if you want it. I can think of several people who I could buy pot from if I asked. Lots of my friends have smoked pot before...That doesn't mean they're complete stoners. If pot was legalized, it doesn't mean that they would smoke pot more often. Neither does it mean that people who don't smoke pot right now will rush out to buy some pot and smoke it just because they can. There's also the added in factor of parents...Just because pot is legal by law doesn't mean that parents will let their kids smoke it. For most people that don't smoke pot (but maybe want to try it) its probably the fear of their parents catching them, not the law. I'm not going to say that any of what I have said is wrong. Opinions are never wrong (wrong in relation to True and False, not morals, etc.) and that's what this post is. My $.02 worth. Take it or leave it.

Brent

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kardshark87 on 2002-09-10 17:44 ]</font>

[U2]

I would like to hear the views of others on mandatory drug testing. Some of you have already demonstrated the ability to disagree with rationale, so rip away, will ye?

Mandatory drug tests screen for the use of illegal drugs, not prescribed drugs, and the issue appears to be one of legality, not impairment, otherwise alcohol would be included, or the tests would be similar to those given when a driver is suspected of being under the influence. Let's be clear: I don't want an impaired person administering medication to a loved one or performing other critical functions under the influence, but that doesn't seem to be the basis of testing. It seems to be one that assumes that what one does away from the job is somehow the business of one's employer, at least when drugs are involved. Any arguments yet?

So if the issue is one of legality...should a person who smokes a little weed in Amsterdam (legally) be subject to the penalties of a positive drug test in a country where it is illegal? Where is the offense? Am I missing something? Can you say "moral police?"

People who get blathered drunk in the evenings turn up for work red-eyed and without fear of scrutiny. Should the issue not be strictly on the basis of performance? I am not suggesting one has to solve all problems to attempt to solve any problems, but these seem closely related. Your thoughts are appreciated.

[chas]

I wanted to stay out of this one, but so many people have made so many good points.

Weekenders wrote:

My basic contention below all of this is that somehow, some way, we have ended up with virtually un-liveable lives and most are seeking self-medication, legal or illegal depending on your income and cognitive abilities.

As for crack about Bush's kid cover-up. Media covers up or ignores many things.
An example: two Jehovah's Witnesses were beheaded (five kidnapped) by Muslim extremists in Southeast Asia within the last week. Was it in your newspaper? The media is hell-bent on keeping us gentiles from getting angry about the Muslim agenda so we don't beat up on Omar at the liquor store.

As for the first paragraph, drugs of one sort or another have been present in just about every society ever studied, and certainly they've been around for thousands of years. I read once that the average Pilgrim (early US settler that is, and they're probably talking about adult males, although I don't know that) drank about a gallon of ale a day. Admittedly, it wasn't EKU 28 Kulminator or something, but it's still quite a bit, and these were God-fearing folk after all. Nowadays is nothing special, we're just a little more "diverse".

The second paragraph: I know what you mean. I read a one-paragraph story buried in the Washington Post this weekend that said that a Sherriff (I can't remember where, but I think Texas) was convicted of perjury in a civil suit. He said he didn't use profanity around his underlings; he faces up to 10 years in prison for it. So the next time some high-ranking government official says that perjury in a civil proceeding is never prosecuted, we'll know better.

Dazed wrote:

All I know is that here in Florida, Katheirine Harris is running for office.

Sigh.

I have to remember to make it to the polls today to vote my conscience.

And yet, screwed up as it is, where on earth is there a better system? I mean really.

Evidently the polls in Fla are still screwed up. My condolances.

I always vote my conscience. I was Gerrymandered into a district this year that regularly votes its congressman (and various state candidates) in with >85% of the vote. My vote is meaningless, but I'll still cast it. I remember when John Anderson ran for president, about 90% of the people I knew said, "I'd vote for Anderson, but he doesn't have a chance." Well, maybe if they DID vote for Anderson he would have had a chance. I hate the two-party system and vote for whomever I believe in, whether Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Reform, Rainbow, or whatever.

Charlie

[garycrosby]

On 2002-09-10 18:17, U2 wrote:

[snip]
Can you say "moral police?"
[snip]

I always find it interesting when people begin to throw around the phrase "moral police" and its close cousin "you can't legislate morality". Consider that the role of the police is to enforce the law. Consider also that the law serve no other function than to legislate morality. That is, all laws are founded on a moral basis -- they are founded upon the morals held by the majority of the people. There are no laws that are not founded on a moral basis. Don't believe me? We have laws against murder, rape, theft, and such insidious acts things because the majority of the people think they are wrong (aka immoral). We have laws against pollution because the majority of the people think its wrong (aka immoral) to destroy the environment. We have laws against cruelty animals because most people think its wrong (aka immoral) to cook fido in a microwave. It doesn't matter that a few people think its okay to murder, pollute the river, or decapitate fluffy with a lawnmower -- these things are still illegal because the majority think these acts are immoral. Yet, somehow our society is beginning to accept the concept that the law has nothing to do with morality. If we repealed all laws that legislated morality there wouldn't be any left and, hence, there wouldn't be any need for the police.

So yes, in a society with laws the polie who uphold the laws are in fact the "moral police" and you can "legislate morality."