OT&Controversial: Just say no

cowtime · Post by **cowtime** » Sun Sep 08, 2002 9:04 pm

As a child of the 60's I had no problem with this subject until it was brought close to home. I now can tell you more about drug addiction,prescribed narcotics, illegal narcotics, methadone managment, talk the lingo, NA, Naranon, etc.etc. than I ever wanted to know. All because of my child, now, for today, an addict in recovery. It started with good old weed.

For medicinal use, I see no difference in any narcotic, if it has a legitimate use and can be properly dispensed as a controlled substance by ethical medical professionals.I know too many who became addicts at the hands of their Dr.

DazedinLA · Post by **DazedinLA** » Sun Sep 08, 2002 9:47 pm

I dont know about all this technical stuff, but like......you know.. when you like inhale then like stare at your hand really deep...like....you can like........hear the whole universe.........and like, it all......makes so much sense.....like WHOA......ya know?

You got some Doritos or something, man?

Actually, personally I never understood the allure of canabis.

Much better to obsess over VSB vs. SB, I suppose, but perhaps just as expensive.

[ This Message was edited by: dazedinla on 2002-09-08 23:52 ]

jim_mc · Post by **jim_mc** » Sun Sep 08, 2002 10:01 pm

People tend to get very emotional about this subject, but the fact is that not everyone who takes an occasional drink becomes an alcoholic, and not everyone who smokes a little weed here and there becomes an addict, or even a regular user of marijuana.

Here's a link to a provocative article on an unexpected effect of the U.S.'s war on drugs:

http://www.fff.org/comment/ed1101i.asp

burnsbyrne · Post by **burnsbyrne** » Mon Sep 09, 2002 6:08 am

On 2002-09-08 21:22, Lizzie wrote:
Ok Mike...just what IS
'an ethnic Canadian' from Cleveland? eh?

Lizzie,
Over the past few years we've hear in the news about "ethnic" Serbs, Croats, Albanians, etc. So, one day it dawned on me that three of my grandparents were born in Canada and came to the US as adults. (The fourth GP was born in Ireland) So, in the definition that was used in the Balkans, I am ethnically Canadian. Think of Mexicans who immigrate to the USA. After two generations they are considered by most Americans as Mexican-Americans. The difference with Canadian-Americans is that we blend in with mainstream Americans. We don't look like Asians, Central Americans or East Indians. People assume that we are "ethnic Americans". Well, I'm here to proclaim I'm polite and I'm an Ethnic Canadian!
:>) :>)

Mike

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Mon Sep 09, 2002 6:09 am

On 2002-09-09 00:01, jim_mc wrote:
People tend to get very emotional about this subject, but the fact is that not everyone who takes an occasional drink becomes an alcoholic, and not everyone who smokes a little weed here and there becomes an addict, or even a regular user of marijuana.

Some do, though.

Post by **Dale** » Mon Sep 09, 2002 6:19 am

Actually, I'm against marijuana. I advise people against using it. However, there is injustice in the fact that marijuana is illegal and alcohol is legal. Alcohol is clearly a more dangerous substance.

Dale

DazedinLA · Post by **DazedinLA** » Mon Sep 09, 2002 6:37 am

On 2002-09-09 08:19, DaleWisely wrote:
Actually, I'm against marijuana. I advise people against using it. However, there is injustice in the fact that marijuana is illegal and alcohol is legal. Alcohol is clearly a more dangerous substance.

Dale

I agree. But then, alcohol is manufactured by massive "legitimate" corporations with teams of well paid lobbyists (can you say "soft money", kids?), while marajuana does not.

Unfortunately, even if we were able to overcome the efforts of the major breweries, etc, history has taught us that our efforts to use legislative and judicial means to regulate alcohol consumption were, and possibl would always be, futile.

So, as usual, the only realistic solution is for each of us to regulate and moderate our own behavior, which each of us manages with varying degrees of success.

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Mon Sep 09, 2002 6:43 am

Yeah, my great-great granddaddy did time in the pen for moonshining. My great-granddaddy ran the shine for him, in the in-between times when he wasn't deacon at the Assembly of God church.

BrassBlower · Post by **BrassBlower** » Mon Sep 09, 2002 7:58 am

I know how this gateway drug thing works!

My gateway drug was Clannad. Before long, I was using harder stuff, like Steeleye Span and Altan. Next thing you know, I was buying Chieftains CD's. Now I have Trad CD's out the wazzoo, and if I see a new one on the shelf at B&N, I'll probably buy it, too! Better save some money for the electric bill, or I can't have my tunes!

Let's start a support group. What should we call it, "Tradaholix Anonymous"?

garycrosby · Post by **garycrosby** » Mon Sep 09, 2002 1:27 pm

On 2002-09-08 14:13, Lizzie wrote:
Just in case you were thinking of coming to Canada to smoke up, my understanding is this legalization will be for medical use only.

Lizzie. No, that is not the case. The (Canadian) Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs has recommended that marijuana be legalized and regulated under rules similar to those that govern the sale and consumption of alcohol. See the CBC news article here http://cbc.ca/stories/2002/09/04/pot_senate020904 and the Senate Committee reports here http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Committee_ ... comm_id=85

Apart from the important ethical issues, the proposed legalization of marijuana begs the question as to whether marijuana sales would be subject to the same exhorbitant taxation that is presntly applied to alcohol sales?

[Edited for clarity]

[ This Message was edited by: garycrosby on 2002-09-09 15:33 ]

Sean · Post by **Sean** » Mon Sep 09, 2002 1:48 pm

I have to chime in and say that I think that Canada is making a superior move in the scheme of their publics's climate. I hope to God that it is taxed for everything they can get out of it. There is no reason to not do so.
The fact of the matter is (whethter peole like it or not) that Citizens will use narcotics. Why lose the money that could boost (or in the U.S.'s case) save an economy to Illegal traffickers? You've lost not only the income, but also the cost of preventive task forces that make little or no impact on the situation.
Don't believe me? Go out to your local downtown area and ask someone if they know where to get any, I bet that more often than not you will find it.
'Course I'm also from Oregon so maybe it's just us hippies.
Besides how many crimes have occured because someone was high on just pot.
"Hey man, you know what'd be cool, if we like robbed a place."
"Oh man I'd hafta get up and, like, Move or somethin' for that right?"
"Yeah, just pass the Doritos."
"What were we doin'?"

rossmpfc13 · Post by **rossmpfc13** » Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:04 pm

On 2002-09-08 16:13, The Whistling Elf wrote:
*rolls eyes, shakes head, and then sighs while throwing hands up into the air*

Well said. Or gestured, rather.

The Weekenders · Post by **The Weekenders** » Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:11 pm

My reflection is that I remember when in high school, it was easier to get pot than liquor......I have never forgotten that aspect of its "illegality." The futility and side-effects of criminalizing drugs are huge factors that cannot be ignored by thoughtful people.

The asset seizure practices because of that illegality (including guns, too) is what lead to the barbecue at Waco. They wanted to arrest him at home because it is SOP by law enforcement (ATF, FBI, locals) to get the property, cars and cash while you're at it (makes the arrest "profitable" for department budgets). People naively asked why they didn't arrest the guy in town: there's yer answer.
Rep. Henry Hyde wrote a small book about asset forfeiture/seizure that is frightening.

I have never been more against the effects of pot than now, but I maintain that de-criminalization is the only sane way to proceed and have believed that way since the 1970s. Being in N. California gives me this perspective and I reckon that Sean, in nearby Oregon, has seen the copters and goon squads as well up there. The elemental social fabric of rural Northwest Ca has been really screwed-up by pot-growin,' all because of the implicit profits.

Sean · Post by **Sean** » Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:23 pm

No kidding, It would be eminently enjoyable to go for a walk in the woods with a whistle (I mean man, I live in the most beautiful temperate rainforest in the world.) without having to worry about stumbling onto illegal crops, not only because of the (understandably) grumpy owners. But also from the authorities, who while I understand are doing there jobs, could in this particular type of scenario do it with a bit less, um, zeal. I have actually been stopped by forest rangers and once by ATF looking for pot and been questioned about a LowD being a Bong. I t was actually pretty comical.

U2 · Post by U2 » Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:38 pm

Since you brought it up...Who on earth could be against medical marijuana? That is rather like being against all drugs ain't it? If agrucultural hemp production was legalized we could actually do something immediately to reduce the impact the lumber/fiber industries have on our timberlands, not to mention fuel oil and various other issues that could immediately be positively impacted. Whoops! Guess them lumberjacks and (subsidized) cotton farmers have lobbyists and the demonic hemp contingent will remain anathema.

The Sierra Club, as environmentally friendly as they wish to be perceived, recognize the value of hemp production, but do not want to be broad-brushed as remotely supporting legalization of drugs. 'Cause Lord knows them boys ain't scared of being called "liberals." Technically the Sierra huggers support re-legalization of hemp production, but they are not about to put it out front. The issue is one of confusion for many Americans who do not receive balanced information due to the financial tide working through lobbyists. Our elected declare "war" on everything under the sun and the rest of us wonder why our society is violent? Even Dr. Laura has her "warriors" (worriers). Isn't it time we approach something without declaring "war"? What do you think would happen?

[ This Message was edited by: U2 on 2002-09-09 17:45 ]