What the hell is the big deal about marijuana?

Alright, I tried the stuff a few times and I really don't know if I felt the full effect. I think I did. It was a calm relaxing feeling, but I already had a bit of alchohol in my body at the time -- which is exactly my point.

Why the hell is it illegal? I really don't understand it. It's not nearly as addictive as nicotine or probably even alchohol for that matter. I don't believe it's intoxicating effect is as great as alchohol either.

So why am I permitted to consume one and not the other? The nation tried alchohol prohibition and it failed miserably. The war on drugs has been a miserable failure as well. I even think the argument can be made that the preoccupation with the "war on drugs" has seriously hurt the fight against terrorism.

So what's the big deal regarding marijuana? Is this another issue like gay rights and gay marriage, where European countries and Canada are simply ahead of the curve?

Serious. It's common among first-timers. They inhale but they don't really inhale. You've got to suck deep. You'll know when you're stoned.

I tried explaining that a few times way back in 1992 but nobody really wanted to listen. It was just too easy to mock Clinton as being disingenuous, but I've seen it with people who really didn't want to smoke, doing so just to participate with others who were. I knew what Clinton was talking about he second he said it, and whlie there is no way to prove it, just the way he reflected on it rang so true.

What gets me about that now in retrospect isn't how much shit Clinton took for NOT smoking, it's that a basically straight-arrow square like Clinton had to take it while a long-time cokehead Republican was under almost no pressure for his apparently decades-long habit with much harder drugs.

Of course no reporter made that obvious point.

Prohibition is a failure.

Well, I am against prohibition of drugs but I personally can't go near any of them, including pot. Today I am clean and serene BUT completely powerless over addiction. I was very addicted to pot and smoked all day everyday. It led to other drug abuse for me and a downward spiral of addiction where my life was totally unmanageable. I am grateful to be free of it. Life is challenging enough without impairing myself.

While I laugh my ass off at your post.

Personally, it's my experience that alcohol is a far more dangerous drug than pot, but if the guy is one of the people who shouldn't smoke it, hey, more power to him, or her, for figuring that out... keep the prices down for everyone else. He (or she) said he opposes prohibition, which is exactly how I feel about it.

Laugh and let laugh is what I say. Like I said I'm against prohibition of drugs. I did plenty of them in my life in massive quantities. Today I know I can choose not to use. There does seem to be mounting medical evidence that pot can be contributing factor in triggering schizophrenia
in 1 out of 5 users. Today's pot is much more potent than that of old and it is, contrary to popular myth, highly addictive. That being said, I know many pot smokers that aren't addicts. I know many drinkers that aren't alcoholics, and by the way, I agree that alcohol is more toxic that pot.

Believe me, I've smoked some extremely good pot in my day. The "today's pot" line comes straight from the DEA and the Government, which is trying to figure out a way to convince people who smoked lots of pot in the 60s, and as such know that it's not some horrible devil weed that will cause people to jump out of buildings, that now pot is a different drug menacing their kids, and as such it warrants the $60 Billion Dollars a year they waste trying to fight it... First off, there was some very, very good pot floating around in the 70s and 80s.. you just needed to know where to find it. "Today's pot" is pretty much the same animal-- it just gets you really high, and you have to smoke less-- which is better for you and your lungs, in the long run. Any stoner knows that past a certain point, you're high- you're not going to get any more high. It in no way is any more addictive than the old stuff... And definitions of "addiction" cover an awful lot of ground.. but here's a thought experiment, not for you, obviously, but you know what I'm talking about: drink a fifth of jack daniels every day for a year, then try to stop cold turkey. Then do the exact same thing with smoking an eighth of kind bud. Obviously, you're not going to have the same kind of physiological effects with pot... No one does. Do some people smoke lots of it? Sure. But I don't consider it "highly addictive" in that I've never known anyone to suffer DTs, shakes, convulsions or massive withdrawls when stopping. Ever. It just doesn't happen.

And the schizophrenia thing was pretty roundly debunked in a thread a week or two ago. People who are already predisposed to schizophrenia probably shouldn't smoke pot, like they shouldn't do a lot of things... but the idea that pot is "making people schizophrenic" is utter nonsense.

Bottom line is, there is a great deal of misinformation being spread out there, mostly by the government-- which has a huge vested interest in perpetuating its drug war gravy train.. They would go a lot further, I think, in educating people on the real dangers of addiction, particularly in regards to alcohol, if they would stop propagating blatant lies and misinformation for the purpose of justifying the drug war. The vast majority of the drug war expenditures go towards fighting pot, which I consider an abhorrent waste of my tax dollars.

This nonsense about "highly addictive" "more potent" weed gets recycled by the drug warriors periodically.

In addition to what you wrote, keeping drugs illegal means vast sums of underground money floating around. This no doubt is useful to many - including, if I remember correctly, our Intelligence forces. If the profits of illegality (in addition to the social control factors largely used against people of color) weren't so huge, we would have been done with this nonsense years ago, I firmly believe.

it's just a big racket.

that the corporations that run privatized prisons (and they contribute to political campaigns) need a steady supply of prisoners to make a profit. The "War on Drugs," which is aimed mainly at pot, supplies those prisoners.

100% accurate in all you said.

but I have a number of friends who were heavy pot smokers when younger who claim that they can't handle today's stuuf. I don't know, maybe they just got old.

For the record, I smoke from time to time, and the first 3 times I tried pot I felt no effects. The fourth time it hit me, and its kept on hitting me ever since. :)

PS on edit: the reason that I can't speak about addiction is that from experience with tobacco, I seem to be immune to getting addicted. Although I am not about to go and test that theory out with Mr. Harry

I have been a partaker for years. There have been times where I have chosen not to smoke.....(upcoming drug test, couldn't safely find any or couldn't afford any.). In my case... there were ABSOLUTELY zero effects that would make me think I was addicted. There were no cravings like a nicotine smoker, or withdrawls like heroine. On the other hand...many years ago..visiting Southern California with a friend.... I tried cocaine....there is a drug that is addictive.
I am not saying that it could not have some serious long term effects. But addiction is not one of them ...at least in my personal experience.

and a failure to control your mind. Am I wrong?

I'm one of the 10% or so of the population that can't handle alcohol. If you look at my family tree, including ancestors I never met (mostly male) alcoholism is like a bad set of christmas lights all over the thing. I don't believe that we all just "failed to control our minds" where alcohol is concerned. Also, and not to offend any 12 steppers here, I don't believe that it is a "spiritual illness", either. In my case, at least, I am convinced that there is something physiological, and genetic, going on.. And mountains of evidence back me up on this. I do know that I never drank "normally".. Most people drink, get a buzz, and stop. I never did. I would keep drinking until I was unconscious. This was not a "failure to control my mind", rather I'm pretty sure it was a failure of my liver enzymes to break it down properly. As I got older it became impossible for me to drink, at all, without triggering a reaction in my body that meant I would have to experience physical withdrawls when I would stop. Thankfully, I don't drink anymore. There is a good amount of research involving chemicals called THIQs, Tetra-Hydro-Isoquinolines I believe, that may play a part in addiction, particularly to alcohol. Obviously it's a complex process, and I do believe that states of mind come into play, but (as opposed to pot) with substances such as alcohol, in alcoholics -- and things like heroin, too, I'm sure-- there is undeniably a physiological component to addiction that can't be ignored.

then, your body didn't know when you were supposed to be drunk so of course you wouldn't know when to stop. I know somebody that that knows they have liver problems and they just have no control what so ever even though they know that they have a problem with thier liver. He uses addiction as a justification for doing so, I think it is just not caring and failing to control himself mentally.

but that's just my two cents.

I'm not a 12 stepper, so I do believe that there is a certain amount of power or self-responsibility that addicted individuals can (at least up until the point that they become so damaged from the process) exercise- before they indulge in the substance they're addicted to. In my case, that comes in not taking the first drink. Once the first drink gets in my system, a physiological process kicks in... And control flies out the window. That's not just me, that's pretty much anyone with (what I consider to be) severe alcoholism-- i.e. alcoholism to the point of, not just, "wow, you drink too much", but to the point of having an actual, physical addiction to the substance. If you don't believe that alcohol can be physically addictive, spend some time with some real alcoholics, go to the substance abuse ward of a hospital, or go to an AA meeting (not that I think they have the only answer)... The truth of the matter is, alcohol can be very, very physically addictive- for some people. It's a bitch, frankly, because most people who don't have the problem are, like, "why the hell can't you just have one and then stop?" "Why can't you drink normally?". Fortunately, people seem to be much more aware these days, and I haven't noticed anyone thinking it's a big deal that I don't drink for a very, very long time.

And, for the record, I don't have a problem with pot. I almost never smoke it anymore, but it certainly doesn't have the same effect on me that alcohol does. Doesn't trigger anything, doesn't cause me to do other substances, doesn't make me drink.

Anyway, in the case of your friend, the fact that one has an addiction doesn't justify not dealing with it, nor do I think it absolves a person from the responsibility of dealing with it. I mean, look, I think people can do what they want-- in terms of drinking heavily, I did, for many years.. But finally I had to decide that I didn't want to kill myself with alcohol, so I quit. That was my responsibility. The fact that I am genetically incapable of drinking normally doesn't give me any more or less "right" to drink than anyone else- it just means it's incredibly stupid for me to do so.

Physical dependence comes from drugs like cocaine, heroin, and nicotine. The consumption of these highly addictive drugs (directly or indirectly) releases andorphins - happy chemicals - into the brain and give the user a high. After several (or sometimes even just one) dosages of the drug, the part of the brain that produces andorphins stops production or slows down production considerably, and so, the only way the user can regain even a state of content is to consume more of the drug and normalize the andorphin levels.

This is why these drugs are so dangerous. The user is physically addicted because it is impossible for (s)he to be even content without using the drug. To make matters worse, as the use increases, the users' andorphin production decreases and thus a higher dosage is needed to acheive the same effect. This is how users develop a 'tolerance' for cocaine.

Psychological addiction is different. Drugs like THC aren't as dangerous as phsyically addictive drugs simply because they do not cause the same type of addiction. A psychological addiction is harder to explain (I'm not a psychiatrist), but it's sort of like the person wants, rather than needs, the drug because of its relaxing or similar effects. No long-term physical changes in the production of andorphins are caused by psychologically addictive drugs. Consequently, it is easier to break these types of addictions.

Ironically, the addiction you have to DU (or to BDSM porn... you sicko :D) is a similar addiction to pot.

alcohol can be extremely physically addictive for some people.

And cocaine is psychologically addictive, but I'm not sure it creates the same sorts of withdrawls. What I do know about it is that it, like some other drugs, leaves such an emotional crater or "down" after the effect wears off, that many people continue to do it addictively. But I'm not familiar enough with it to know if it produces withdrawls like heroin, or alcohol in alcoholics.

Roll another one....just like the other one....

marijuana does NOT lead to "other drug abuse". quit propagandizing the plant.

Try to see through your haze, man. I was talking about my own experiences regarding pot being a gateway drug. Look, "Normies" can party and not wreck their lives. Addicts can not. Pot was a serious addiction for me. One toke was too many and a thousand tokes never enough. Yes, the pot is stronger so it makes sense to only smoke a little bit. BUT ADDICTS have a compulsion to keep on going. ":If some is good, more is better." When that became my life with far more dangerous narcotics (Cocaine and others) I had to stop or face death.
Addiction sucks. I don't mean to proagandise your precious weed but I am entitled to express a dissenting view. I mean isn't this a "free Speech Zone?"

I've been addicted to being on line or doing things on my computer since 1991. Learning about computers, playing games on computers, being on-line, etc. all helped me quit smoking. :hippie:

Everybody certainly has their own path. Peace.

a gateway drug for people to use more potent and addictive drugs, I have to laugh. There are far, far more people who have used marijuana and never became addicted to other, more dangerous drugs than there are people who used marijuana and it lead to addictions to other more lethal drugs. There is no statistics on this because most people don't want to be counted as a previous or present pot smokers.

The whole drug war has been a failure. The war on drugs is based on a false premise that people who use drugs are criminals.

Another thing about addiction. I smoked pot about once a week in my 20s. After that I might take a hit or two if I was with other people who smoked, but that is rare. I never craved marijuana when I went long periods without it.

Now, smoking cigarettes is a whole different matter. I quit smoking 13 years ago, and I still crave a cigarette. That is addiction. I know if I ever smoke one cigarette again, I'll be hooked all over again. I also know if I smoke pot, afterwords, I can take it or leave it. It doesn't hook people like nicotine or even alcohol does . :hippie:

why mess with drugs when there is marijuana? capiche?

:hi:

Glad to hear that you are doing well.

Anyone that uses it should be stoned to death, just like the homosexuals, adulterers, and anyone who disagrees with George Bush. Don't you know? ;-)

Tuesday, they flail your skin off with a cat-o-nine tails?

:-)

Was that pun intended? :P

It's a matter of world-view ideology - and that is a very big deal.

Liberals are suspected of enjoying marijuana in greater proportions than conservatives who seem to prefer alcohol.

When you are a true-believer who hates liberals and everything they stand for - then marijuana makes an ideal target for law-and-order pandering RW politicians.

When you want to destroy your enemy - you demonize them and all their habits, religious preferences, clothing styles. Anything becomes fair game including recreational drug preferences.

It's a rather mild, relaxing high that doesn't make you puke, get in fist fights or kill people with your vehicle. And of course, younger conservatives and neo-cons probably use just as much marijuana as liberals. But that misses the point.

Only ideologues and zealots really understand how this works. We liberals believe that people are basically rational beings and we therefore expect that somewhere, after all this time, there would be a logical basis for the war on drugs and especially the war on pot.

That's why we keep asking questions like "What the hell is the big deal about marijuana?"

the pharmeceutical lobby is MUY powerful-

and why would people have to buy half the stuff they peddle, if it was legal to grow your own pot.

there's also the paper industry, the petrochemical industry, the liquor industry, etc...who each have their obvious reasons.

Those are all reasons other than the "danger of drugs" argument. Those are all competitive/financial reasons.

Some of those may be valid. But corporations are just as likely to try to get in on the action as they are to try to suppress its use.

There are also class and racial overtones - but I still go with the need for zealots and ideologues to demonize everything associated with an opposite world-view to their own.

I absolutely agree. Very well stated. This is THE main reason why pot is demonized: hatred toward liberals.

and you can't say it's just liberals that smoke it. All the rednecks around here smoke it, too. Who the hell do you think grows the shit?

In fact I said,

"It's a rather mild, relaxing high that doesn't make you puke, get in fist fights or kill people with your vehicle. And of course, younger conservatives and neo-cons probably use just as much marijuana as liberals. But that misses the point."

My other point was that there's nothing logical about it (the war on marijuana).

It's about hating and demonizing people who are different from you. The fact that your group shares the same habit that you are using to condemn those you despise - hardly even merits a notice, if you are a true-believer.

I'll say this again: Stop looking for logical connections and reasonable conclusions from ideologues and zealots. Their world-view doesn't require it - even if your's does. (I'm assuming you are not a leftist ideologue. There are some of those here at DU but from looking at your website I don't think you are one of them.)

But, they (typical RW ideologues) see the world through an entirely different window than we do. What they see out there and how they respond to it is nothing close to our experience. They are like another species.

Those with strong religious/political ideological world-views hardly even notice logical inconsistencies. Look at the whole Iraq war thing. The belief that GWB* is a an honest, plain-spoken man. The belief that his God wants us to kill Iraqi people whose sand happens to hold our oil.

Logical answers are not necessarily easy to come by. But we (most on the left, I believe) at least respect the effort to try.

the coalmine canary to see how effective other opinion control projects are faring. The ability to enforce a completely nonsensical policy against the force of reality is particularly clear on pot. Where there is literally no scientific basis for prohibition.

It is a measure of the thickness and pervasiveness of the cultural trance, and the easiest way to disenfranchise dissenters.

It didn't have to be pot, Mr. Anslinger could have as easily chosen lutefisc.

why did you say lutefisk?

I can smell it coming through the pixels.

The most illuminating class in my Poli Sci minor was called
'systems of social control'

It certainly made me look at institutions quite differently.

The Bush family has pushed for ever bigger prisons, and they believe that outlawing pot is the best way to fill them.

The US has quadrupled our prison population since Reagan/Bush. Its done by manditory sentencing and waging the never ending "Drug-War".

Amerika has, per capita, ten times more prisoners than Canada. That is, Amerika has one hundred prisoners for every Canadian one.

Whackenhut Prison Corporation is one of the main Bush family investments. "Poppy" Bush has been closely tied to the corporation since their inception.

Bill was much more harsh about pot smoking than poppa smirk.

Please?

...cannabis consumers arrested. The numbers got higher for each year he was prez. The final touches on mandatory sentences were passed during his first term. Clinton was by all appearances, a shlub when it came to enlightened treatment of medmar and recreational users of cannabis.

Marijuana Arrests Under President Bill Clinton

1993 380,399
1994 481,098
1995 588,963
1996 642,000
1997 695,200

Thanks Bill! Remember kids, if you smoke pot, do it at Oxford University.

I liked Clinton, but on this issue he was a complete sell-out.

something that many du'ers cannot bring themselves to admit. clinton was NOT a proponent of legalization and there were more pot smokers locked up under him than any repug pres. the truth is out there!

Statements like this are really hard to stomach for me. The whole "<insert Group Name> are like Jews in Nazi Germany" line of statements is a) always historically incorrect and b) an insult to the victims of the Holocaust and Nazi Terror.

As to the American prisons: it is interesting to see that the percentage of adults in jail is roughly the same as the difference in the unemployment rates between the US and central Europe/Canada (US Unemployment Rate + imprisoned = Euro Unemployment Rate + imprisoned).

If you get the right stuff, it blows away alcohol, and it does it in a few minutes. It also makes your stereo sound better. If you do it all the freaking time, you will be lazy and basically a worthless, stoned, piece of human debris. But, it sure was fun in my younger days.

If you do it all the freaking time, you will be lazy and basically a worthless, stoned, piece of human debris.

I've been a daily smoker for over 30 years.

I earn a good living.
I'm a homeowner in this crazy housing market on Long Island.
I'm never late on my bills.
I have a fantastic relationship with my 14 year old daughter.
I vote in every election, local and national.
I have a good relationship with my neighbors.
I don't consume alcohol.
My wife and I rarely argue.
I only miss work if I'm truly sick.

So please enlighten me Elwood. Do I sound like a worthless, lazy, piece of human debris?

There are many many people just like me. I choose to smoke after work, others may choose to have a couple of drinks. Whatever you choose to do to relax is fine with me.

Why should the government be able to make me a criminal just because my form of relaxation is different than theirs?

The only thing wrong with marijuana is that it's illegal.

You could have been describing me....LOL:toast:

it is possible to be a regular smoker and not be lazy. it is very very possible.

smoking dope helps my asthma and makes me exercise. i love a good runner's high and i love getting high. i love basketball and biking and lifting weights and smoking grass.

that said, certainly some people are lazy and smoke too much, but oh well, at least they aren't causing problems for other people.

I wouldn't have to take all the prescription drugs I take for asthma. I'm glad someone pointed that out. <wheez, wheez> :hippie:

including a relative, that smoke it from the time they get up until the time they go to bed. I did say if you smoke it all the time. Anyway, these two characters are in their 30s and look like they're as old as me (late 50s). They also get in their fair share of trouble.

I use to smoke it after work myself - for years. Don't have anything against that. I think it should be legalized.

He got high and started spoutin' all this peace and love crap. That's why they crucified him.

That's why they crucify us.

the Christians would be much more lenient. They would kill him with lethal injection.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/mjtaxact.htm

For the first 162 years of America's existence, marijuana was totally legal and hemp was a common crop. But during the 1930s, the U.S. government and the media began spreading outrageous lies about marijuana, which led to its prohibition. Some headlines made about marijuana in the 1930s were: "Marijuana: The assassin of youth." "Marijuana: The devil's weed with roots in hell." "Marijuana makes fiends of boys in 30 days."


In 1937 Anslinger testified before Congress in favor of Marijuana Prohibition by saying: "Marijuana is the most violence causing drug in the history of mankind." "Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes."
http://www.cannabis.com/untoldstory/hemp_5.shtml

So, on the ground that the birdseed people needed it -- did you know that the birdseed people both got and kept an exemption from the Marihuana Tax Act right through this very day for so-called "denatured seeds"?
In any event, there was Anslinger's testimony, there was the industrial testimony -- there was only one body of testimony left at these brief hearings and it was medical. There were two pieces of medical evidence introduced with regard to the marijuana prohibition.
The first came from a pharmacologist at Temple University who claimed that he had injected the active ingredient in marihuana into the brains of 300 dogs, and two of those dogs had died. When asked by the Congressmen, and I quote, "Doctor, did you choose dogs for the similarity of their reactions to that of humans?" The answer of the pharmacologist was, "I wouldn't know, I am not a dog psychologist."
Well, the active ingredient in marijuana was first synthesized in a laboratory in Holland after World War II. So what it was this pharmacologist injected into these dogs we will never know, but it almost certainly was not the active ingredient in marijuana.
The other piece of medical testimony came from a man named Dr. William C. Woodward. Dr. Woodward was both a lawyer and a doctor and he was Chief Counsel to the American Medical Association. Dr. Woodward came to testify at the behest of the American Medical Association saying, and I quote, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug."
What's amazing is not whether that's true or not. What's amazing is what the Congressmen then said to him. Immediately upon his saying, and I quote again, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug.", one of the Congressmen said, "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?"
That's an exact quote. The next Congressman said, "Doctor, if you haven't got something better to say than that, we are sick of hearing you."
Now, the interesting question for us is not about the medical evidence. The most fascinating question is: why was this legal counsel to the most prestigious group of doctors in the United States treated in such a high-handed way? And the answer makes a principle thesis of my work -- and that is -- you've seen it, you've been living it the last ten years. The history of drugs in this country perfectly mirrors the history of this country.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/whiteb1.htm

Much more at:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/taxact.htm

more to do with racism than with logic. Because black people were known for using it, they had to enforce their hate.

--What's amazing is not whether that's true or not. What's amazing is what the Congressmen then said to him. Immediately upon his saying, and I quote again, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug.", one of the Congressmen said, "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?"
That's an exact quote. The next Congressman said, "Doctor, if you haven't got something better to say than that, we are sick of hearing you." ---

sheesh, what a quote. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Did you know that now, scientists are forming a group to protest the twisting of scientific fact by the IMperial Chimp? Anything the Admin doesn't like, they change, truncate and threaten the researchers. I just read about this recently. Don't know any further info on it.

My FIL insists that studies say MJ is more potent now then in the old days. I started laughing when he said it and he seemed surprised when I said I believe it should be legalized and in the very least decriminalized. These are people who drink alcohol everyday and have very few working brain cells left...

Hey...isn't MJ medically legal in certain states already? Yes...but the feds keep ignoring states rights and busting up MJ distribution clubs. So...how is our vote working again?

It has done PRECISELY what it was intended to do: Make a lot of world class criminals VERY RICH while at the same time allowing them to corrupt an entire economic and political system. You have a reason to beef up the police, making them into a kind of 'standing national army' complete with rapid response 'swat' teams, while, at the same time, demonizing whole groups of (mostly poor, young and non white) people. The drugs-for-weapons trade is the hallmark of terrorism. We haven't even gotten to the effects of the drugs yet.

But, best of all, it gets to be used as the model for the "War on Terrorism" which, like its predecessor, is becoming equally successful in all the wrong ways.

There's enough of a demand for it to keep the distribution trees thriving.. If it were legalized, people who wanted to smoke would buy it in legal places, and there'd be far fewer building the relationships with hard-drug-dealers that lead to the (very profitable) cocaine trade.

Cannabis has known medical properties of pain killing, and has been
used for 1000's of years as a medicinal herb. The corporate congress
is deeply afraid that they will lose the money from the pharmaceutical
suppliers who are scared that they will be replaced by some plants
in the back garden.

You should smoke some better weed.

it's because the best weed doesnt come from America.

Just go to Holland.

...some of the best stuff I ever had came from Oregon!

Knocked me on my ass!

But I'm a lightweight.

Therefore, it is fucked and evil.

If only they could be like the people who make beer and cigarettes..

How the hell you gonna centralize and exploit the crap out of it?

Must.. Keep.. Criminalized..

Your whole capitalist system depends on people having to buy shit to have a good time... They'd criminalize sex if they could do it in a way that wouldn't keep people from producing more consumer-units. (Hell, they've sure tried.) Or any other pesky ass thing that people can do on their own, without having to spend any money or buy anything... What they can do, however, is convince people that they need to buy tons of crap to make them feel better, otherwise they won't get laid.

And regarding pot, I'm not even gonna get into the whole Dow Chemical, Wm Randolph Hearst angle.. feh.

There's plenty of evidence that the deep political forces at work in the US are up to their necks in the global drug trade. And if you have access to the levers of power, what better way to maximize your profits than to make your product illegal and have all the consumers pay a risk premium?

Pot is useful in this context precisely because its use is so widespread due to how innocuous it is. There's a large customer base, and you don't lose it due to fear of (or actual) overdose. Potheads also keep on being relatively productive members of society, unlike narcotic and heavy coke users. The only problem from the suppliers' perspective is that it's not addictive, so that means your customer base isn't captive. Unlike true narcotics, users can decide to quit pretty much at will. Heroin and coke are more attractive from that point of view, but pot forms the high-volume basis of the business.

The war on drugs focuses on pot for two main reasons. Because all you have to do is grow the stuff, and it grows pretty much anywhere, private grow-ops are both a nuisance and an opportunity. They do cut into the big boys' trade a bit, but they present an easy target for the drug warriors. So they're useful in the drug war both so the warriors can demonstrate their effectiveness (and justify their organizations' existence), and also so they can inject another inoculation of fear into the population - "See, organized crime has infiltrated YOUR neighborhood! Booga booga booga! We need more surveillance and arrest powers to Combat This Creeping Eeeeevil!"

A pox on all their houses. Legalize all drugs, treat abuse as a health problem instead of a legal one, and the problem goes away. Now why wouldn't they want a nice rational solution like that, I wonder?

I don't call it the war on drugs.

I say "the war on drugs that don't have major corporate sponsors".

dont smoke pot and people that dont smoke pot thinks it is addictive adn that one inhale and you turn into a big hairy monster that has no control over mind or body parts and you just sit in odd giggle and munching on brownies. cause they are ignorant and clueless

concensus is that pot effects each person in different ways. The differentiation comes from our own psychological makeup I think.

Two people can smoke the same amounts over the same period of time and have completely diffent outcomes. I think that if you have to do it, you have to know yourself very well and manage it accordingly.

the alcohol and tobacco industry. It's also an easy way to keep many young people in jail.

They can give you some insights as to why legalizing marijuana is such a horrible idea.

:toast:

Julie

Distilleries and Breweries don't like pot farmers cutting into their profits.

Betcha Pete Coors out in Colorado would favour more draconian pot laws....

I don't smoke, it makes me exrtemely ill to even smell it, but i think it should be legalized and taxed, just like booze. then we might have enough money for school kids.

that they can't decrim or legalize (even though everybody in the world knows it's harmless), because then they would be admitting that their ENTIRE "drug control" policy is wrong. Think about how different the country would be if Carter had beaten Ronnie, with the resulting lack of Nancy's Just Say Know/Drug "War".

I can't find any anymore. The stuff is more rare than Bush tellingthe truth. It's literally been months since I knew anybody who had any. I'm depressed

Alcohol prohibition was repealed in 1933, marijuana was outlawed in 1937. That right there tells me something. There have always been demagogues in the media trying to stir up the public against some threat or another. Alcohol prohibition was a failure so the next target was marijuana. The Hearst newspapers ran repeated stories about the devil drug and there were those anti-pot movies, Reefer Madness. That's the same kind of hysteria about alcohol that led to prohibition in the 1910s. Gotta have an imagined enemy to stir up the people against. In the case of marijuana there was a big racist tilt to the hysteria too, as in "marijuana is popular among those (gasp!) negroes! It's popular in the (gasp!) jazz music scene!"

Then came the 1960s and 1970s when marijuana became popular with young people. Another imagined enemy for the right wing demagogues to stir up the public against. "It's the drug of choice for those (gasp!) hippies and (gasp!) campus protesters! It leads to our young people getting into (gasp!) rock and roll!"

Today it's called a "gateway drug". Wouldn't want you to get hopelessly addicted to crack cocaine, heroin, and crystal meth because you took a little puff of pot now would we? But, notice how most of the anti-drug ads from the Partnership for a Drug Free America and their ilk target marijuana? Marijuana is the target because it was made a bellweather issue by the prohibition demagogues after alcohol prohibition failed, and it has been one ever since.

I would guess that if pot were ever legalized, demagogues would find some other big threat to public order and make it their new bellweather issue. I can only imagine: "The Internet is a gateway for our children to get into porn and extremist politics! We must ban the Internet!"

Full disclosure: I have smoked pot exactly twice in my life and the last time was over ten years ago. I still think it should be legal regardless that I don't use it.

It would be a great cash crop--and bring lots of money into the state coffers. The same people who use now, will continue to do so--and people who do not use now--probably will not be tempted.

We can cut out the middle men--who often are criminals--and sometimes terrorists.

And all drugs should at least be decriminalized--drug abuse is a health problem---not a legal problem.

...and I will advertise it.

its.... I'll try to remember for my next post.

Pharmeceutical industries, textile industries, alcohol and tobacco industries...dare I say it, big oil.

And I quit with ease. It's not addictive. At all. Period. I smoked cigarettes for a few years, and it took YEARS to rid the horrible addiction. That was hell.
Pot gets you high as a fucking kite. Not the first time. It is something that the brain needs to get used to. I smoked the strongest stuff on the planet, and would go to my calculus exams and ace them. 95%.
I believe it's illegal for a multiplicity of reasons. One of which is that the gov't doesn't get their tax money from it. They're upset about that. But it also goes back to the days of the industrial revolution. The big chemical companies wanted to make money selling fertilizers to farmers. Hemp doesn't need that stuff to grow. And even though hemp is better than cotton in ways, the big guys convinced and twisted arms in order to get their way. It's no different than what's happening now. You know- war. Lots of people are making money on these wars. Fuck the people.
And it's social. Repubs don't like to see people having fun for free. You know, it's the old flesh is bad kind of thinking. Pot was associated with opium and low life. Still, it's no different than today with the conservative so-called religious beliefs. Total bullshit.
Pot pulled me through. I survived Reagan and Bush 1 on pot. But it scarred me. And scared the shit out of me. I was a fugitive in my own country. Just say no. What a crock.
I believe there is a problem with smoking pot though. I used to think it was benign. I think chronic usage can lead to cardiac arrythmias. But that could be incorrect, or could vary from individual to individual. Other than that, I think we have a major problem with hypocracy. Tobacco and alchohol are killing untold numbers. Marijuana is essentially benign.
It's a good drug. It was my best friend for many years.

Oh, I thought I'd say one more thing about how bad it is- well, after smoking it heavily for 30 years, I'm now 48. So how is it that I entered a race with 150 young bicyclists, and came in 3rd last year?
<img src="" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" />

But I just haven't seen it after scanning this thread.

I think pot can be like any addiction: coke, gambling, heroin, food, etc.

Some people are susceptible to psychological addiction some are not. If you are susceptible to that, you can become technically "addicted" to pot. And yes, it can lead to other drugs, but only because some people are just natural addicts, and get addicted to anything they touch. I started out smoking pot, and went on to coke, pills, alcohol, etc. I have to avoid coke and pills because I know I will get hooked on them. I still smoke pot and drink (too much) and smoke cigarettes, but that is more because I'm an addictive personality than pot making me a drug addict. Even when I tried to quit smoking cigarettes, the hardest part was not the physical aspect, but the psychological aspect. I'm habituated to alcohol and cigarettes, which makes it difficult for me to quit either.

So yes, if someone has an addictive personality (like me), pot can lead to other drugs simply because you're looking for more and more things to get fucked up off of. This causes you to do anything people put in front of you. Unfortunately, the drug warriors try to turn this into "pot will make everyone into junkies or cokeheads." While that statement is not necessarily true, people who are inclined to get fucked up on anything will often start with pot because it's more readily availble and then put forth the effort to move on to other drugs.

For the guy who got "addicted" to pot, don't beat up on him. For some people, pot is something they can smoke and then stop with no problem. For others (like me), it's something they crave and don't know when to stop, just like your social drinkers vs. those who drink until they pass out (like me).

I've talked to overweight people who use food as a crutch, and people who use alcohol and/or pot as a crutch, and the behavior is remarkably similar. Hell, even religion has been a crutch for some people I know, who abused drugs to the point of utter insanity, and were only able to quit by becoming fundamentalist Christians. Addictions are not something specific to certain substances, I think, but just substitutions for something missing in your life, something you substitute with food, pot, coke, alcohol, etc.

But since I'm drunk right now, I hope that post made sense. :P And for the record, I'm for the legalization of ALL drugs, ideally, but most definitely the legalization of marijuana. The day that happens, we're having the biggest party at my house, and everyone's invited...

Group #1:

Big Pharma- Bristol Myers, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline. These guys don't want marijuana legal because they know that they can't patent it and anyone can grow it. They know that marijuana can help AIDS and cancer patients with their nausea and help them ingest and keep down drugs.

Group #2:

Prison Guard Unions- These guys are probably the biggest proponents of tough drug laws. They donate TONS Of money to drug warriors to get them to keep the laws strict, because, think about it for a second. If drugs were legal, we'd have 30% less people in prison. That means we'd need a lot less guards too, and these people might have to find other jobs.

So, basically, if we weaken these two groups, drug legalization will be easier.

How to corner the market ...Or should I say
Because it is impossible to Corner any market
created from it . In fact it would have no market .

people who smoke it would just grow it.

Who else is going to make things for cheap if we don't fill up the prisons with drug offenders?

Also, how else do we distract the lower class and minorities with turf wars over drugs so they don't get too uppity?

}(

ro discover::: No pot? Go with crystal Meth...now look, its gotten far worse and the meth shit leaves HOLES in your brain. It fucks up the user big time. Cat scans of long time users show large voids in the brain.....Damn....

Bring back POT....and fuck Harry Anslinger, former hd of the DEA who put pot on the schedule one list and had presidents sign international treatys banning the shit...

In his day, people spent years in jail for possession of roaches and seeds. Go read REEFER MADNESS by Larry Sloman....

It's a big deal !!

hundred thousand times and...What was the question? Im so far down in this post I truly forgot.

Do you like Onions with your Hotdogs. :)

The the party that is suppossedly for smaller government and keeping government out of our lives spends 60 Billion dollars to get incredibly deep into our lives over something that doesn't have any signifigant impact on social structure. Oh no, time for davey to go to jail.

for selling vibrators.

The party of smaller government has fuckwits like Santorum and Scalia who think the rightful province of government is not only to arrest gays, but arrest "adulterers" and "masturbators"

The party of smaller government has other luminaries like Roy Moore, who think the death penalty isn't an unreasonable way to deal with gays.

They're out of control, I tells ya.

for industrial, commercial, and recreational use.

if everybody's peaceful,they can't get their war on. nobody gets violent on pot.

Marijuana is harmless, and the main reason the govt. keeps it illegal is because it is cheap and easy to bust thousands of pot smokers and take their money to fund the real drug war.

:hi:

It slows your reflexes and limits your attention.

while doing a bonghit driving. So yes, Marijuana and driving don't go together.

:)