Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hypothesis about DU Marijuana Perspectives

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 08:17 PM
Original message
Hypothesis about DU Marijuana Perspectives
Edited on Fri Jul-06-07 08:55 PM by usregimechange
a) Some sources (esp government sources) tend to focus on and exaggerate the consequences of marijuana use and discount the positive uses/effects.

Do you agree?

b) Some sources tend to focus on and exaggerate the positive aspects of marijuana use and discount the consequences.

Do you agree?

Where would the following people tend to fit within the above spectrum of marijuana views?

Substance abuse counselor
Marijuana user
NIDA staffer
NORMAL staffer
DU member

Hypothesis:
The truth is some where in between and the typical DUer falls in the second category.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. "Do you agree? "
Yes. I believe the government sources definitely do exageratte the consequences.
Yes. I believe some sources only focus on the positive aspects.
Any of the people listed should be informed and aware of both perspectives.
I am only 2 of those - DU member and marijuana consumer.
I am aware of both sides of the issue but, after smoking for 30+ years, I
may be a little biased in where I stand.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Good insight...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jed Dilligan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
3. My predictions
Substance abuse counselor--in between, closer to a
Marijuana user--probably right smack in the middle
NIDA staffer--a parrot
NORMAL staffer--b parrot
DU member--in between, closer to b
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
4. As an avid smoker...
I can say, first hand, that EVERYTHING I've ever read about weed that comes from the govt NEVER even comes cloes to my experiences. Why is that?:shrug:;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Maybe you haven't had those particular experiences yet?
just playing devils advocate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. There isn't a bud I've NOT indulged in...
Sure, some might say I'm burned out, but I'm merely trying to fade away on my own terms.;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. and perhaps some effects are not apparent just as you can not
feel or see an increased chance of cancer as a tobacco smoker. You may agree that at least there is an increased chance of being arrested. That isn't pots fault but people who smoke it know the law and do it anyway, which may say something about them and their chances of dependence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Only if I'm stupid with it...
...but I partake only in my home, and my supplier lives only 5 minutes away (of course, I'm a morAn to say this on an internet message board ;))
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. It only takes 1 of those 5 minutes.
and I know from experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. Should I cave to the weed fascists?
No, never. I live in NYS, which less than a half ounce is merely a violation (i.e. no worse than a speeding ticket). Harry Anslinger is DEAD! I'll fight for my civil liberties.:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. If possession were a felony would you also do so?
and how does the right to use a drug compare to the right to vote? Differences and similarities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Probably - if one feels strongly about opression...
Edited on Fri Jul-06-07 09:38 PM by Cooley Hurd
...one will fight it. Ansligner was the prototypical social fascist. If I knew where he was buried, I'd smoke a blunt on his putrid grave.:thumbsup::smoke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
32. or holes in your lungs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #32
45. They're MY lungs...
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #45
76. Yes your lungs
But we'll all pay for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #76
78. How about if I come to your house and inventory every single thing that might possibly be harmful to
Edited on Sat Jul-07-07 08:05 PM by impeachdubya
your health: Fatty food, beer or liquor, soda with high fructose corn syrup. Oh, and I'd like a full list of your sexual partners and recreational activities, along with what kind of car you drive, where and how fast you go. Ride a motorcycle? Not on my watch.

Because obviously ANY behavior you could conceivably engage in that could ever impact your health in any way, shape or form is MY business to regulate, criminalize, and micro-manage!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. I don't eat meat, fatty foods, eat mostly vegetables and fruits.
gave booze up 22 years ago. 1 partner for life. drive a Camry - don't speed. You got me on the soda - love my coca-cola.
I have no interest in managing anybody's life. It was just a comment. Relax.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedCappedBandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #76
80. Course, you don't have to smoke marijuana.
Not to mention, I doubt the majority marijuana users smoke often or long enough to incur serious risks regarding their lungs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #80
82. Actually did - going through chemo for breast cancer - did help with nausea.
My first try - didn't know about taking seeds out and almost set my bed on fire. It was like my private Fouth of July. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 06:11 AM
Response to Reply #76
89. I have health insurance...
Edited on Sun Jul-08-07 06:28 AM by Cooley Hurd
Nice try, though...:eyes: I also use a vaporizer (no burning involved).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
High Plains Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #7
60. An increased chance of being arrested is not a function of marijuana
...but of the marijuana laws. Let's do a better job of separating out the harms attributable to the substance itself, shall we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #4
19. What we used to laugh about most concerning drug awareness classes
was that we were always told "marijuana affects everyone differently!". Our experience was that if you put 30 tokers in a room and started a discussion, it wouldn't be two minutes before you heard "Man...! I've DONE that !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. .
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wiccan Warrior Donating Member (388 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 07:04 AM
Response to Reply #4
47. You must get good stuff =)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ludwigb Donating Member (789 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
8. Eh...
Like most things in life marijuana has good and bad effects. Anyone who tells you otherwise isn't being honest.

I don't think people should ever be arrested for carrying less than an ounce--it shouldn't carry any more stigma than a traffic ticket. I haven't really made up my mind whether I support full-fledged decriminalization. Legalization, I think, would probably be bad for society. IMO people are less likely to make good decisions when high, and if more people used we'd have more people making worse decisions. Pot would become a big-time commercialized industry.

Although I agree that alcohol can be dangerous and certainly leads to more deaths, I don't necessarily agree that society would be better off if people smoked pot instead of drank alcohol. There would be some benefits--there would probably be a little less aggression and violence. But I question whether it would be good for productivity. There's a reason certain things became accepted by custom and other things became taboo. On the other hand, times change.

Maybe if it was decriminalized there wouldn't be such a stigma surrounding it and people would use it more socially. Perhaps healthier norms (similar to alcohol norms) would develop (ie don't abuse it, don't smoke it alone, don't smoke it before 6pm etc.). Also if it was decriminalized perhaps it would lose the silly stigma of being a "gateway drug". Some people smoke pot and never do other drugs.

I can definitely see why it is useful and comforting to cancer patients and other sick people, so I tend to support medical marijuana. Apparently, though, in California there is a cost to this, as high-quality pot becomes really easy to get and consequently life gets a little harder for addicts. And yes, of course pot isn't addictive like cocaine or nicotine or even alcohol but pot addiction is a legitimate social problem--some people are more susceptible to it than others.

I would like to see more social science on pot decriminalization and legalization experiments and their social effects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ljm2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #8
57. Do you know the history of why pot was made illegal?
Because if you did I wonder if you would make statements like "There's a reason certain things became accepted by custom and other things became taboo". If it were true that pot was taboo all along in our history, there would be more weight to your argument, but that is far from the case. In fact, it was made illegal at the federal level only in 1937 due to a bizarre campaign fueled by DuPont and Hearst, who both had a big economic stake in the outcome. Read up on it -- Google "Harry Anslinger" if you want to hear some of the most insane arguments made before Congress, ever. (See *** item below)

Pot addiction is a misnomer and you even acknowledge it. Yes some people have a dependency. So what? People have many psychological dependencies. If we criminalize everything that we deem a "dependency", everyone would be in jail.

What we have now is the worst of the possible choices. We criminalize a large percentage of the population, we create an underworld of illicit "drug" sales (I don't consider the herb a "drug" in the sense that, say, meth is a drug), we fail to acknowledge the reality of each drug (each one has its uses, each one has its damaging effects, each one has a different characteristic w.r.t. addictive properties), and in general we try to regulate behavior that is very hard to regulate as evidenced by the abject failure of the current policies.

It is way past time for "experiments" on legalization. We've already had the experiment on criminalization of pot: it doesn't work. It has swollen the prison population (perhaps by design). It is ridiculous. Legalize it now. And for some of the harder drugs, decriminalize and treat it as the medical problem it is. This would also have the effect of removing the social phenomenon of the drug subculture, which has its own issues; not to mention the business aspects, which keeps these drugs flowing freely due to the large amount of $$ to be made.

-----

***The following are excerpts of Mr. Anslinger's testimony before a Senate hearing on marijuana in 1937:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."

"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."

"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ludwigb Donating Member (789 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #57
77. Those quotes are pretty funny
Edited on Sat Jul-07-07 08:03 PM by ludwigb
Granted, specific economic interests and outright lies played a role in criminalizing pot. What I meant by my original statement is that alcohol seems to have been firmly accepted in Western civilization for centuries...millenia even. But we don't know so much about the history of recreational marijuana use. In the US, recreational use seems to have emerged in the 1910s (supposedly reintroduced by Mexican laborers). We know that hashish has a long history of use by Hindus and various Muslim sects. But we don't know enough about the long-term sociological effects of use (especially the use of today's higher-THC weed).

It is not insignificant that pot is illegal in most countries around the world--I realize there are many reasons for this but this fact does at least partially refute the notion that specific economic interests are solely responsible for pot's illegality. After all, there is a rational economic reason for banning pot that undergirds why drugs are generally discouraged by religious and moral teachings. That is the intuitive notion that pot, being both cheap and pleasurable, makes people less inclined to work hard and more inclined to chill out and smoke more.

That is not to say pot is bad and doesn't have legitimate therapeutic uses. My point is that if we are serious about building a healthy future, we should be very cautious about what sort of drugs become normal in society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Throwing Stones Donating Member (730 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
9. I think the dichotomy is between those who appreciate the gift from the earth ...
and those that shouldn't come around

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryLqfNwSSFE

in other words, if you haven't tried it, then don't knock it (especially while you're throwing back a martini).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Some arsenic (found occuring naturally) is a "gift from the earth"
although once ingested, it is hardly a gift unless your goal is to become sick and die.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Throwing Stones Donating Member (730 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. the first ones to find and ingest arsenic
probably got the time's equivalent of a Darwin Award.

Guess I'm lucky to be from the evolutionary line that found and ingested hemp instead of arsenic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #12
29. You mean like peaches? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #29
37. Yes somethings that are natrual are generally good for us but that...
is no guarantee, at least that was my point. Thus, that arguement is not the best I have heard for pot use.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #12
64. I used to eat pokeweed. Some parts were thought poisonous, so I
avoided them. Now I find the whole plant contains the poison, not just the berries. Oh well.



I ate the young stems. I'd peel them, soak them in a brine, then roll in cornmeal. I'd then fry them in bacon fat.

Apple seeds contain small amounts of cyanide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
parasim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
10. But there's more than those two perspectives
Both a. and b. seem to be the position taken with someone with an agenda of some sort. There are opinions that take both positive and negative views without "exaggeration" or "discount", aren't there?

For instance, myself, I believe that a moderate use of marijuana can be certainly useful for those suffering from illness (where it's used as a medicine) or those looking to unwind from a stressful day (used recreationally) or explore the full creative potential of the mind (used as a catalyst for a creative endeavor).

I also believe that abuse of the substance can be detrimental in a number of cases. Not nearly as detrimental as say, alcohol or cigarettes (both of which are also used for the same purposes as previously stated), of course, but too much of anything will eventually take a toll.

But assigning only a. or b. to the list of people you have there is a tad too much of a generalization in my opinion.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. I agree that some are moderate on the issue, sort of what I am...
advocating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
parasim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Yes, I understood that...
when you mentioned in your hypothesis that it was "somewhere in between".

I was only suggesting there should perhaps be at least a third perspective since I don't feel that I fall into either of those two categories.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
11. "Some sources" is the same as "some people say."
Which pretty much means that any information derived this way is crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
15. Seems to me
that we shouldn't even have to discuss it. :shrug:

Not commenting on the OP just commenting. :smoke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
20. I know it alleviates pain first hand
As a caregiver form my wife with chronic pain among other conditions, opiates were working well for pain till it slowed her digestive system down a few times,(not good) took a trip to england via the web and found a recipe for mj brownies, lo and behold it didn't stop the pain but took the edge off it where opiates were discontinued for 2 weeks.

Other considerations unfortunately came into play an it was discontinued, she has been back on the opiates for some time now without, well, recorded incident and all is well, but for that difficult time it was a life saver, perhaps in the future we may look into it further.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Opiates are much more addictive in my experience.
Nasty little bugers. Fastest growing addictions in America involve little pills. Btw, I am not suggesting that your wife is or will be addicted to opiates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. Yes, so I've heard
But in our case there was no notable withdrawal symptoms, as I am aware and very attentive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
25. Here we go again...
The only reason Pot is illegal is because it would cut into the profits of Drug, Alcohol and Tobacco companies. Never mind that the growing, curing, sale and export could save many U.S. farmers, and create jobs, and lets ignore the fact that the tax on Pot could put billions upon billions of dollars into the Governments coffers. No, I think we should keep spending billions and jailing non-criminals to make sure the "devil weed" doesn't get our children hooked. :eyes: Better yet we could start spraying Paraquat again and kill off all the pot smokers... This isn't even worth debating, if you are "anti-pot" then DON'T FUCKING SMOKE IT, other than that, get off my back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. THANK YOU, walldude!
DSOTM is the ULTIMATE album, stoned or not!:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchtv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. wouldn't get a penny of tax from Me
I'd grow it, unless the commercial(taxed) variety was cheap enough.
I advocate for legalization. I guess besides cottonmouth, I see little ill effect and I have smoked for 45 years. I don't feel I exagerate anything, tho I may be prejudiced. BTW that giant cancer baloon hasn't arrived yet.I used to say in my callow youth " things I like to do, i'd rather do stoned, and things I don't like to do, I can only do stoned" that all changed working in an office. All and all I don't think the govt has a right to monitor my drug intake, if I'm not driving or working where people depend on me for either safety or profit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #28
35. Your ancestors may evolve with a gland that secretes THC...
:-) Odd that we would not be equiped with one already if it were of such importance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. We don't have a gland that manufactures tomatoes or cucumbers
Why bother eating 'em? Obviously, since the human body doesn't manufacture it's own vegetables, there's absolutely no point in putting them in your body.

Shit, while we're at it, we should just throw everyone who is caught with 'em in prison for 5, 10 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. It was a joke. Note the smiley face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #25
33. I would have no disagreement with that as long as it is within the...
context of a social libertarian political philosphy that exists outside of the criminal groupthink of a group of people that wish to make their addictions appear to be harmless while they neglect their children and ignore their potential in favor of their selfish desire to escape.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. "criminal groupthink of a group of people"?
Good grief. I agree with you about a "social libertarian political philosophy", but you don't even need that to see why pot prohibition is totally ridiculous.

So everyone who smokes pot recreationally is neglecting their kids and ignoring their potential? Gimme a fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucking break.

Just like everyone who ever has a glass of wine is a bowery bum wino.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. Kindly do not distort what I said. I never said that all people who
do pot recreationally are addicted. Some are however, and they do use crimnal groupthink to rationalize stealing, lying, etc. Do you disagree? I can introduce you to some folks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #41
44. I'm not distorting what you said. I'm quoting it.
You posted this thread as a larger criticism of the "people on DU". If the "group of people" engaged in "criminal groupthink" you referenced in that post was not, in fact, the group of people your OP was about, and instead some other group of people that you, personally know but never bothered to mention, it sure as shit wasn't clear from that post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #44
54. I also criticized gov sources and the war on drugs
Although some of those in b) and here on DU do likely fall into the more narrow catagory of substance dependence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wiccan Warrior Donating Member (388 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 07:04 AM
Response to Reply #41
46. I never hear anyone Commiting a Crime
cause they were strung out on POT, it was usually mixed with Liquor (which is Legal), Acid, Coke, or meth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
High Plains Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #41
61. I've known many, many marijuana users.
I don't know any who behaved like crack heads or junkies breaking into cars to get money for their fixes. If they don't have money for the kind bud, they buy the cheap-ass Mexican brick weed.

Perhaps there is indeed a pathological .00001%er out there. I've never met him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
High Plains Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #33
58. A bit full of yourself, aren't you?
"Criminal groupthink"?

I don't know any reasonable person who claims that the use of any given psychoactive substance is always harmless. But if you're looking at comparative harmfulness, marijuana ranks well below other psychoactive substances, including legal ones like alcohol and tobacco.

It looks like you have some sort of issue with people claiming pot is harmless. There are some people like that. I'd wager that it's a defensive reaction to the decades of anti-pot propaganda. Marijuana users are, after all, a persecuted minority. Nearly one million marijuana arrests last year. I'm more concerned with the harm resulting to good citizens from our insane marijuana laws than the minimal harms associated with marijuana use, although I acknowledge the potential for dangerous bouts of couch potatoism.

If someone is neglecting his or her children, that is a crime, regardless of whether they're smoking pot, drinking alcohol, stringing beads, or praying to their favorite deity. My position is that drug use should not be a crime (and by extension, neither should providing those drugs), but if drug users commit other crimes, they should face the full force of the law.

How about addressing the harms associated with the drug laws? Oh, shit, that would take a library.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wiley50 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
31. I'm a chronic pain patient
I'm also an old hippie since the late '60's
and smoked pot for 30 years or so

i installed carpet for 30 years
and, as a direct result, i have chronic degenerative disc disease
10 discs involved, in all three spinal segments (cervical, Thoracic, and esp lumbar)
i have chronic degenerative nerve damage.
(that means i haven't been able to feel my toes (either foot0 in a couple of years,
I can't feel my little and ring finger on my left hand and all of my hand on that side,
I can't feel my little finger and part of the ring finger of my right hand)
And it will keep getting worse until I die

I smoked pot daily for 30 years, more as I began to have more pain
9and, with aspirin or ibuprofen it worked for a few years.
i didn't have medical coverage in those years so I was on my own.

As the pain got worse to the point that pot and aspirin didn't do the job,
I began using beer, and that progressed until it began just way too much
and was causing other difficulties in my life.

I finally got coverage and began to get to see doctors
I had my first back operation (and I'm looking at my next)
Got thrown into rehab to get me off the juice
where they laughed at my pain and tried to convert me to AA christianity
Only then, after several years of suffering, did I finally get some relief.

I've been on the Duragesic Fenanyl transdermal patch since '03
The first two years I puked my guts out every day
I don't live in a medical pot state
and I had to sign a contract saying I wouldn't in order for them to even put me on the patch.
But that doctor didn't enforce it and didn't do regular urine tests
He knew that the pot was the only way I could keep food down.
Two years ago, I got a different doctor, he did urine tests for about the first year.
and when I had smoked pot too soon, i gave him a story about being in a closed up car with friends who were smoking
and he'd give me a month to get it out of my system before he took a sample
That went on a couple of times
Now he doesn't bother to make me pee in a jar

But, I'd pass if he did. It's been over a year since I've smoked pot because I no longer know
anyone to get it from and wouldn't have the money to afford it on SSI, if I did.

But I'll tell you this:
My doctor has has to start giving me increasing amounts of morphine for break through pain
on top of my patch
and, since pot makes the opiates work so much better
that wouldn't be happening if I could just smoke pot

There's a reason that there was ever such a medicine as opiated hashish
they were meant to compliment each other
when it comes to treating chronic pain


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #31
66. i'm a chronic pain chrinic user as well.
i'm sorry about your pain, and glad you're getting relief.

my condition- ankylosing spondylitis, went un/mis- diagnosed for almost 20 years, before it was correctly identified by a chiropractor after a car accident

i take 50-70mg of methadone daily, as well as a vicoprofen or two, steroids every other day- and i smoke about an ounce of weed per week to go along with it.

i'm classified as permanent and total disability, and i've been on ssdi for the past 8 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 10:46 PM
Response to Original message
34. Legalize it, regulate it, tax it. If you don't want to smoke it or can't smoke it-- DON'T smoke it.
Hey, I don't smoke it, not anymore. Not for a long time. But I think the continuing criminalization of it is beyond fucking absurd. It's cruel, wasteful, and totally counter-productive.

I can't drink alcohol; alcohol has caused incredible amounts of problems in my family, since we seem to have the genes that can't tolerate it-- but even though alcohol is far more dangerous than pot, and personally something that I need to stay FAR away from, I don't support alcohol prohibition, either.

As for your OP; "government sources" don't "exaggerate" the negative aspects of marijuana use, they generally manufacture them out of the complete fucking cloth of falsehood. As for exaggerating the positive? A lot of people get something out of it; millions can use it recreationally same as millions can have a glass of wine or a beer with dinner.


I don't think pot, or alcohol, is "inherently" good or evil. I do think that as far as drugs go, pot is way toward the benign end of the spectrum. I think that's backed up by mountains of available evidence on the matter. I think prohibition, particularly for pot, IS inherently evil. It's well past time to fucking END it, already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. Gov sources manufacture theirs, mounds of evidence that pot is...
close to harmless. I think that is an example of b). Is that possible? Would you have the same level of skepticism toward gov funded findings on other subjects? Might your rather correct opposition to the drug war have prejudiced your view of any finding that indicates harmful consequences from inhaling this particular smoke? Where do you rate your own management of your biases on this subject?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #39
43. I rate the management of my biases on this subject as excellent, TYVM.
Edited on Sat Jul-07-07 01:00 AM by impeachdubya
I think the government has an extremely vested interest -given that the $40 Billion a year drug war gravy train is based primarily upon fighting pot smoking- in finding pot dangerous. The fact that they are totally unable to is all the more proof of its relative benign nature. Science is science. Scientific facts- like the facts about evolution, or the facts about the physiological effects of marijuana- no matter how much some may not like them, are still facts. They don't change depending on who says them..

Trust me, pal- I've spent a lot of time in my life around people doing any number of various substances, including the legal ones- and as someone who has been clean and sober for quite a while AND had plenty of experience around genuine addiction, I have no desire either to promote any particular substance needlessly or soft-pedal the damage that addiction can do.

And with that in mind, I absolutely believe, from all my experience, from everything I've witnessed, AS WELL AS from all the available science -including but hardly limited to the science coming out of the U.S. Government- that marijuana is far and away one of the more benign mind-altering substances out there, that most people are able to use it recreationally without major impact on their life and health, and for many people it is at worst a pleasant diversion and at best can actually spur creativity in the arts and music.

Those are the facts as I see them. Like I said; I don't do anything, anymore, so I don't personally have a dog in this hunt beyond the fact that I am a U.S. Taxpayer and someone who finds excessive government interference in the personal choices of consenting adults offensive to my concept of liberty.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
High Plains Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #39
62. Why don't you tell us how harmful pot is, Mr. Expert?
Because apparently you are the only one who can see this issue clearly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fed-up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-06-07 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
42. I misinterpreted your hypothesis to say that most DUers were Marijuana users-2nd cat
Where would the following people tend to fit within the above spectrum of marijuana views?

Substance abuse counselor
Marijuana user
NIDA staffer
NORMAL staffer
DU member

Hypothesis:
The truth is some where in between and the typical DUer falls in the second category.

Haven't smoked pot in 30 years, got too hungry and wanted to sleep

I do think it should be legalized on a federal level especially for medical use

It works wonders for my sis w/MS for her muscle spasms and is much better than the baclofen she was taking (9 a day)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wiccan Warrior Donating Member (388 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 07:08 AM
Response to Original message
48. People never have put this together,
I know someone who has EXTREME depression leading to Homicidal and Suicidal ideas at times on a whim, and he smokes pot daily. Why? Not because he is HOOKED on it, it's because it actually curbs his thought of hatred and anger. Yes he tried perscription drugs and that either made it worse or made him like a potato not caring about anything in the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 07:29 AM
Response to Original message
49. When I graduated from high school
I don't remember having heard the word marijuana or it I had it did not register then I'm off to san diego for navy bootcamp, 7/'67 and it all started, we watched film after film about how pot would do this and do that, now of which it turns out was true, anyways they put so much emphasis on how bad it was that the first time I got a chance to try pot, well lets say I never looked back, still smoking it 40 years later and I don't have breast, my balls didn't shrivel up and drop off, I haven't been reduced to a vegetable going goo goo gaa gaa or none of the shit they said. If our government hadn't lied so vehemently like they did I might not have tried it in the first place.
put that in your bowl and smoke it gov
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #49
53. A person can smoke tobacco his whole life with no symptoms as
well, what does that prove? Anecdotal evidence really isn't helpful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
High Plains Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #53
63. Neither is talking out your ass. How about some evidence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 07:48 AM
Response to Original message
50. I smoke NIDA staffer for wake and bake.
Puff Puff Pass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
51. Everyone needs a seat on the Green Couch every now and then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
52. Why is marijuana political and alcohol isn't ?
And if it were, would it fall under the same types of divisions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterHowdy Donating Member (295 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
55. weed gave me bad anxiety.
last few experiences i had smoking weed I had bad anxiety attacks, violent thoughts etc.
Was too afraid to leave the house at one point.

I smoked weed for about a year before that,
wonderful experiences with weed, I loved it.
It was the best.
Sadly, If I smoke it now I will get another anxiety attack.

I know, my anxiety was probably always there (before weed)
but for some reason weed brought it out and made it stronger.

Oh well, I had a lot of fun with weed, I had a good run.

Mind you, Pink Floyd's "Live at Pompeii" will never be the same : (
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #55
67. If you ever find yourself in Holland, you should try one of the cafes.
Tell the smoke-tender(?) what your experiences were and let her/him recommend a variety. Sounds like you may have got some that was too strong or not the right type for you.

There are over a hundred varieties/strains with distinct characteristics and most of what's available here is what I call the "smashed in the head with a velvet sledgehammer" variety.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrPrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
56. Some sources (esp government sources)?
"...Some sources (esp government sources)..."?

Which ones?

If one is going to grant moral and ethical license to government and it's laws, then they really should give their audience a lowdown on which government, what era, Presidential panel or Senate Committee, UN or EU, etc...all of which would have been an opportunity to C&P examples of A

B is a mess because it's dishonest -- "Some sources..."(it would technically be 'all' as 'sources' in your format can only fall into those two categories)...but these sources are ONLY providing positive aspects to 'lobby' against the legal prohibition.

That's actually the real question and not whether you think it's addictive, or a gateway to some undefined 'other' or part and parcel of criminal groupthink which is currently in vogue among the 'drug warriors' Nazis as they promote fear through the guise of public health concerns, religious authority or faux rationalist debates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zookeeper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
59. Well, the passion with which pot smokers defend their use...
usually sounds like alcoholics defending their drinking habits.

Although, I don't like the effects of pot on myself or others (makes people really dull, IMHO), the idea of throwing a pot smoker in prison with rapists and murderers is ridiculous.

Compared to Iraq, health care, poverty, outsourcing, the environment, education, etc., legalizing marijuana ranks very low on my list of priorities.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
High Plains Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #59
65. So you're okay with criminalizing nearly one million people a year?
No skin off your nose, right? And that pesky "drug exception" to the Fourth Amendment, no problem, right? And that paramilitary SWAT-style policing, just groovy, eh? And the mass drug testing of everyone from school kids to Walmart workers, ah, who cares about privacy or dignity?

Let's just let the criminal justice system continue to grind up harmless pot smokers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zookeeper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #65
68. I find the other issues I listed to be a higher priority....
Edited on Sat Jul-07-07 01:25 PM by Zookeeper
Pot is not a necessity of life, anymore than alcohol.

I have a child with Type 1 diabetes, who has to give herself daily insulin injections to stay alive, and I'm starting to worry about how she is going to afford $900 a month for the life-sustaining medicine when she is no longer covered by our insurance. But, I'm supposed to get all wound up and defend the recreational use of drugs?

Like I said, there are too many serious problems in the world that affect people without a choice in the matter and we all only have so much money, energy and time to devote to change. If you want to spend yours on reforming the system to benefit of people who enjoy choosing to smoke pot, fine. I just find it childish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
High Plains Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #68
71. No one is asking you to defend the recreational use of drugs.
But one million marijuana arrests a year? And all the associated police state tactics such policies require? And the financial resources?

Gee, maybe there would be money for your sick kid if we weren't spending $40 billion a year on the drug war. But what do I care? I grant you and your sick kid the same sympathy you grant recreational marijuana users.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zookeeper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #71
73. If you read my OP, you will notice that I said...
I think it's ridiculous that pot smokers are lumped in with rapists and murderers. I certainly don't oppose your efforts to change the system.

Please tell me why you think recreational marijuana users deserve the same level of sympathy as a chronically ill child? Or a kid born into generational poverty? Or people getting cancer from pollution in their drinking water? Or people left homeless by a Tsunami?

BTW, I doubt that your lack of sympathy will be a big loss.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #68
74. And I guess you're totally unaware of the $40 Billion a year we spend on the war on drugs
the vast majority of which goes towards fighting pot smoking. That's not including, mind you, the cost of our being the number one per capita incarcerator of non-violent offenders in the industrialized world. Add that gravy train along with assorted ancillary "law n' order" boondoggles, and pretty soon, like they say, you're talking about real money.

Yes, you're supposed to get 'wound up'- if for no other reason than this is one in a long line of seriously misguided priorities on the part of our government that culminates in, among other things, a lack of universal health coverage in this country. End the drug war, pare the Military down to something sane, legalize and TAX marijuana to the tune of billions a year--- and we could afford a SPHC system. Easy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zookeeper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #74
83. How about if recreational users stopped using and put...
the money they'd save into getting the drug laws changed?

There would be no "drug war" or drug trade if the users weren't buying.

Recreation drug use is not a human rights issue. There's something questionable about getting outraged over the money wasted on combating pot use and the injustice of lumping pot smokers in with violent offenders, but still continuing to support that "industry." I don't think you can have it both ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 03:40 AM
Response to Reply #83
85. Huh? There's something questionable about WHAT?
Edited on Sun Jul-08-07 04:03 AM by impeachdubya
Sorry, that sentence doesn't make any sense. Maybe if I was high?

There's something questionable about getting outraged over the money wasted on combating pot use and the injustice of lumping pot smokers in with violent offenders, but still continuing to support that "industry."


No, there's nothing questionable about ANY of it. First off, smoking pot, even buying pot, is not the same thing as giving money to DEA agents to kick down the doors of medical marijuana co-ops. Actually, your tax dollars do that, no matter what you smoke or don't smoke. Your argument is akin to saying, "Well, the war in Iraq is bad, but by being opposed to it you're only making it worse". Something like that. Frankly, it's not a very good argument. It's really not very coherent. But above and beyond that, leaving that aside, there is a baseline philosophical concept pertaining to personal freedom at play. Here, I'll spell it out for you, in big letters:

What a consenting adult does with his or her own body, bloodstream and nervous system, insofar as he or she isn't harming or endangering anyone else, is not any of the government's fucking business.

Period. End of story.

"Recreational drug use is not a human rights issue". Bullshit. The right of people to do what they damn well please with their own bodies on their own time fucking A is a human rights issue, as far as I'm concerned. As for "having it both ways", from what I can only take as your knee-jerk finger-wagging and moralizing at me with assumptions about what I do, where my money does or doesn't go, and what I hypocritically "support" or don't support, I have to assume you missed the posts elsewhere in this thread where I patiently explained that I've been clean and sober for many years, yet just as I don't drink and still magically am able to see what a giant fucking idiotic idea alcohol prohibition was, I feel the same way, maybe more so, about pot criminalization. Oh, yeah, everyone who doesn't support the drug war is a useless stoner, so addled by weed that they're totally unable to contribute anything meaningful to society-- like, you know, the late Carl Sagan.

But even if I was a huge stoner, even if I was smoking pot dusk 'til dawn, it wouldn't change the essential validity of my arguments about the drug war. It's a fucking waste of time, and it's fundamentally antithetical to any sane concept of liberty to incarcerate and otherwise harass something like 80 million otherwise law-abiding citizens because they recreationally smoke weed the way others recreationally drink wine or beer. It's a fucking joke, and it's well past time we stopped funding it...

...with our tax dollars, remember?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zookeeper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 03:58 AM
Response to Reply #85
87. Wow. You have a lot more energy to waste than I do.
As I've said in an earlier post to someone else, I don't oppose your efforts to change the laws. I've also said several times that it is unjust and ridiculous to put pot smokers in prison with rapists and murders. It sure would save time if you would calmly read my statements instead of instantly launching into your rant.

Perhaps I didn't make my sentence simple enough. Let me put it differently, it's hypocritical to complain about the money spent on drug wars when one is buying illegal drugs (and I understand that YOU are not). If someone used their drug money to change the laws, they would have more credibility. That isn't remotely like saying protesting the war will make it worse.

I've never said anything about medical marijuana. I've only referred to recreation use.

Since you are making a lot of ASSumptions about me and will remain steadfastly convinced of "the essential correctness" of your arguments, this is pointless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 04:09 AM
Response to Reply #87
88. Yeah, I am. I think people own their own bodies.
I think the notion that "we" belong to the State (an outgrowth of the notion that "we" belong to the Church) is at the root of a lot of the problems we face in our collective notions of government, and many of our collective neuroses about trying to control our neighbors' behavior.

I feel for the people who end up in situations with horribly painful diseases, who can't get adequate palliative care because their doctors are terrified of over-zealous DEA agents. And no, the DEA isn't the fault of the people who smoke pot or otherwise "support the drug industry". (As I explained in the other post) The DEA is the fault of the folks who can't grasp the simple concept of letting other people make their own choices about their own bodies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #59
75. I think if the government were spending $40 Billion a year to define everyone who has a glass of
Edited on Sat Jul-07-07 03:08 PM by impeachdubya
wine or beer as a dangerous criminal, and throwing millions of them in prison in the process, you would see more than just alcoholics defending the legality of drinking.

Yes, I know- the only reason anyone cares about this is because they're an addled pothead, right? Well, chew on this- I haven't smoked pot for years, and I'm more convinced than ever that the drug war is a sham and a cruel waste. And get this: I don't drink anymore- and yet somehow I don't support alcohol prohibition, either. How does that work? Oh, maybe because this is about more than people 'defending their habits'- maybe this is about the baseline concept that what a consenting adult does with his or her own body, insofar as he or she isn't harming or endangering anyone else (like getting behind the wheel) is none of the government's fucking business. Period. That ties into the drug war just as it ties into the battle for reproductive choice, equal rights for gays, end-of-life choice, the fight to make sure that pain patients have access to adequate palliative care, and the war to keep contraception legal and available in this country.

You may think that the notion of our bodies belonging to ourselves, and not church or state-sponsored entities, is some kind of an unimportant sideshow; but I happen to think it is central to everything worth fighting for in this country.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zookeeper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 03:32 AM
Response to Reply #75
84. Well, it's easy to lump all those things together in a paragraph...
Edited on Sun Jul-08-07 03:39 AM by Zookeeper
but, in RL, we generally have to choose a narrower focus if we expect to get anything done.

My priority is to work for some of the other things you mentioned, before I put my time, money or energy into "the right to use drugs."

As a life-long Feminist, the notion of "our bodies belonging to ourselves" is not alien to me, thank you very much.

That $40 billion dollars you mentioned could be used for health care and education if users stopped supporting the illegal drug and enforcement industry.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 03:52 AM
Response to Reply #84
86. Good. I'm glad the notion of your body belonging to you isn't alien.
Edited on Sun Jul-08-07 04:16 AM by impeachdubya
There are plenty of people who don't think reproductive freedom is "important". Maybe you should try to expand your horizons a bit, and try to see how everyone's body should belong to him or her self, period, and not just in circumstances that you approve of or personally consider "important".

I do expect to get things done. Frankly, I think the American Public is far more libertarian on social issues than the conventional wisdom nabobs give them credit for. This is why Terri Schiavo bit the GOP on the ass. I think one way to "get things done" is to unapologetically embrace a personal freedom agenda.

As for your last sentence- do you think alcohol prohibition worked very well? Was the reason it didn't work because people kept drinking, or was it because it was a fundamentally idiotic idea? Or a little of both? Do you expect that every person in this country would give up alcohol if they were only lectured about it enough? Do you think that's a realistic goal? (Believe me, I've seen the damage alcohol can do.) Do you honestly think it's worth spending billions to make every person who has a glass of wine or a beer a criminal?

And more importantly, why are stupid law enforcement boondoggles the responsibility of the people who, while otherwise minding their own damn business, happen to break the idiotic, anti-freedom laws? Here's a question, and I'd really like an answer to it: In Texas, until the Lawrence SCOTUS decision, there was a law on the books in Texas that made consensual gay sex between adults against the law. Was the "answer" to that law, and whatever misguided funds Texas spent enforcing it and otherwise keeping gay adults under at least some minor shadow of criminality, for the Gays in Texas to stop being gay or stop having sex?

Or was the answer to call that bullshit law what it was, an affront to personal choice and freedom, and work to get it off the books for good?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abq e streeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
69. my own perspective
I'm an old stoner that no longer uses, and think I have a good perspective on the whole issue. Like many other subjects, people here as well as elsewhere seem to be willing to just see their own side... I come down firmly on the side of legalization but that doesn't mean I think pot is perfectly harmless. Logic should tell you that pouring any type of hot smoke down your throat and your lungs can't be good for you. That doesn't mean you should be subject to jail for doing something that's not healthy for you; if that were true , voting republican would be illegal ( hmm...there's a tempting thought). I miss getting high, but also started after many years, to have bad reactions; to this day I don't know if they were severe anxiety attacks, or genuinely dangerous allergic reactions, or a mixture. All I know is I finally, reluctantly, had to stop. Pot did a lot of good things, opened up my creativity, as far as writing, helped put life in perspective when I was feeling down, and helped me to see through the bullshit that mainstream whitebread America keeps trying to convince everyone to buy into. Psychological addiction is a reality though; we all know you can get addicted in addition to substances, to food, sex, gambling... and the powers that be don't try to criminalize these (well maybe sex), and pot's no different; some people do smoke too much for their own good and can't get themselves to quit or cut down. But in the end, its for each individual to decide for themselves, and the government has absolutely no business telling you or me what kind of substances I can pour into my own body.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Madspirit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
70. Marijuana Truths!...I love MY weed...
Marijuana Truths

POT FACTS: www.norml.com

Who smokes marijuana?
According to recent statistics provided by the federal government, nearly 80 million Americans admit having smoked marijuana. Of these, twenty million Americans smoked marijuana during the past year. The vast majority of marijuana smokers, like most other Americans, are good citizens who work hard, raise families, pay taxes and contribute in a positive way to their communities. They are certainly not part of the crime problem in this country, and it is terribly unfair to continue to treat them as criminals.

Many successful business and professional leaders, including many state and elected federal officials, admit they have smoked marijuana. We must reflect this reality in our state and federal laws, and put to rest the myth that marijuana smoking is a fringe or deviant activity engaged in only by those on the margins of American society. Marijuana smokers are no different from their non-smoking peers, except for their marijuana use.


Why should we decriminalize or legalize marijuana?
As President Jimmy Carter acknowledged: "Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana in private for personal use."

Marijuana prohibition needlessly destroys the lives and careers of literally hundreds of thousands of good, hard-working, productive citizens each year in this country. More than 700,000 Americans were arrested on marijuana charges last year, and more than 5 million Americans have been arrested for marijuana offenses in the past decade. Almost 90 percent of these arrests are for simple possession, not trafficking or sale. This is a misapplication of the criminal sanction that invites government into areas of our private lives that are inappropriate and wastes valuable law enforcement resources that should be focused on serious and violent crime.


What about kids and marijuana?
Marijuana, like other drugs, is not for kids. There are many activities in our society that we permit adults to do, but forbid children, such as motorcycle riding, skydiving, signing contracts, getting married and drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco. However, we do not condone arresting adults who responsibly engage in these activities in order to dissuade our children from doing so. Nor can we justify arresting adult marijuana smokers on the grounds of sending a message to children. Our expectation and hope for young people is that they grow up to be responsible adults, and our obligation to them is to demonstrate what that means.

The NORML Board of Directors has adopted a set of principles called the "Principles of Responsible Cannabis Use," and the first principle is "Cannabis consumption is for adults only; it is irresponsible to provide cannabis to children."


Critics claim that marijuana is a "gateway drug." How do you respond to this charge?
There is no conclusive evidence that the effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent use of other illicit drugs. Preliminary animal studies alleging that marijuana "primed" the brain for other drug-taking behavior have not been replicated, nor are they supported by epidemiological human data. Statistically, for every 104 Americans who have tried marijuana, there is only one regular user of cocaine, and less than one user of heroin. Marijuana is clearly a "terminus" rather than a gateway for the overwhelming majority of marijuana smokers.

For those minority of marijuana smokers who do graduate to harder substances, it is marijuana prohibition -- which forces users to associate with the illicit drug black market -- rather than the use of marijuana itself, that often serves as a doorway to the world of hard drugs. The more users become integrated in an environment where, apart from cannabis, hard drugs can also be obtained, the greater the chances they will experiment with harder drugs.

In Holland, where politicians decided over 25 years ago to separate marijuana from the illicit drug market by permitting coffee shops all over the country to sell small amounts of marijuana to adults, individuals use marijuana and other drugs at rates less than half of their American counterparts.


But isn't marijuana addictive?
Substantial research exists regarding marijuana and addiction. While the scientific community has yet to achieve full consensus on this matter, the majority of epidemiological and animal data demonstrate that the reinforcing properties of marijuana in humans is low in comparison to other drugs of abuse, including alcohol and nicotine. According to the U.S. Institute of Medicine (IOM), fewer than one in 10 marijuana smokers become regular users of the drug, and most voluntary cease their use after 34 years of age. By comparison, 15 percent of alcohol consumers and 32 percent of tobacco smokers exhibit symptoms of drug dependence.

According to the IOM, observable cannabis withdrawal symptoms are rare and have only been identified under unique patient settings. These remain limited to adolescents in treatment facilities for substance abuse problems, and in a research setting where subjects were given marijuana or THC daily. Compared with the profound physical syndrome of alcohol or heroin withdrawal, marijuana-related withdrawal symptoms are mild and subtle. Symptoms may include restlessness, irritability, mild agitation and sleep disruption. However, for the overwhelming majority of marijuana smokers, these symptoms are not severe enough to re-initiate their use of cannabis.


The Supreme Court recently ruled that the U.S. Justice Department, including the Drug Enforcement Agency, may prosecute state-authorized medical marijuana patients for violating the federal Controlled Substances Act. What does this decision mean for seriously ill patients and for the ongoing tension between state and federal laws?
Laws in twelve states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington) remain in effect despite the Supreme Court's decision.

The US Supreme Court decided 6-3 in Gonzalez v. Raich that the Justice Department has the authority to prosecute state-authorized medicinal cannabis patients for violating the federal Controlled Substances Act.

The Ninth Federal Circuit Court had previously ruled 2-1 in December 2003," The intrastate, non-commercial cultivation, possession and use of marijuana for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician - is, in fact, different in kind from drug trafficking," and issued an injunction barring the US Justice Department from taking legal action against the appellants, California medical cannabis patients Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson, for violating the federal Controlled Substances Act. The Justice Department appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which ruled on June 6, 2005.

The Supreme Court's 2005 decision did not expand the powers of federal law enforcement agencies like the DEA; it only affirmed that they can enforce federal laws prohibiting the use of controlled substances, regardless of state, county, or municipal law. It is not anticipated that federal agents will step up efforts against state-authorized growers, dispensaries, or patients because of this decision. State and local law enforcement officers, who are responsible for the enforcement of state and municipal laws, will most likely continue to honor the democratic decisions that their residents have made about marijuana policy.

Writing for the majority, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said that he longs for the day when medicinal cannabis advocates "may be heard in the halls of Congress." NORML's chief complaint is directed at Congress, not at the Court, for allowing the federal/state inconsistency in medical marijuana laws to exist.


Why does Congress refuse to reschedule marijuana to permit its use as a medicine under federal law?
Many members of both parties in Congress have confused a public health issue, medical marijuana, with the politics of the War on Drugs. In doing so, they have denied an effective medication to the seriously ill and dying.

Pending legislation H.R. 2087, on this specific proposal.

Didn't Congress vote on a measure to prevent the federal prosecution of medical marijuana patients in 2005?
On June 15, 2005, the House voted 264 to 161 against a bi-partisan measure, sponsored by Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), that would have barred the US Department of Justice (DOJ) from targeting patients who use marijuana medicinally in accordance with the laws of their states.

The 161 House votes in favor of the patient-protection provision was the highest total ever recorded in a Congressional floor vote to liberalize marijuana laws. Of those who voted in support of the Hinchey/Rohrabacher medical marijuana amendment, 15 were Republicans and 128 were Democrats. The House's only Independent Congressman also voted in favor of the amendment.

Many Congressional battles are won only after several failed attempts. Please contact your representative now and urge their support for federal medical marijuana legislation.


Critics of the medical use of marijuana say (1) there are traditional medications to help patients and marijuana is not needed; and, (2) permitting the medical use of marijuana sends the wrong message to kids. How do you respond to these concerns?
For many patients, traditional medications do work and they do not require or desire medical marijuana. However, for a significant number of serious ill patients, including patients suffering from AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis and chronic pain among others, traditional medications do not provide symptomatic relief as effectively as medicinal cannabis. These patients must not be branded as criminals or forced to suffer needlessly in pain.

Dronabinol (trade name Marinol) is a legal, synthetic THC alternative to cannabis. Nevertheless, many patients claim they find minimal relief from it, particularly when compared to inhaled marijuana. The active ingredient in Marinol, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, is only one of the compounds isolated in marijuana that appears to be medically beneficial to patients. Other compounds such as cannabidiol (CBD), an anti-convulsant, and cannabichromine (CBC), an anti-inflammatory, are unavailable in Marinol, and patients only have access to their therapeutic properties by using cannabis.

Patients prescribed Marinol frequently complain of its high psychoactivity. This is because patients consume the drug orally. Once swallowed, Marinol passes through the liver, where a significant proportion is converted into other chemicals. One of these, the 11-hydroxy metabolite, is four to five times more potent than THC and greatly increases the likelihood of a patient experiencing an adverse psychological reaction. In contrast, inhaled marijuana doesn't cause significant levels of the 11-hydroxy metabolite to appear in the blood.

Marinol's oral administration also delays the drug from taking peak effect until two to fours hours after dosing. A 1999 report by the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded: "It is well recognized that Marinol's oral route of administration hampers its effectiveness because of slow absorption and patients' desire for more control over dosing. ... In contrast, inhaled marijuana is rapidly absorbed." In a series of US state studies in the 1980s, cancer patients given a choice between using inhaled marijuana and oral THC overwhelmingly chose cannabis.

As to the message we are sending to kids, NORML hopes the message we are sending is that we would not deny any effective medication to the seriously ill and dying. We routinely permit cancer patients to self- administer morphine in cancer wards all across the country; we allow physicians to prescribe amphetamines for weight loss and to use cocaine in nose and throat operations. Each of these drugs can be abused on the street, yet no one is suggesting we are sending the wrong message to kids by permitting their medical use.


Don't alcohol and tobacco use already cause enough damage to society? Why should we legalize another intoxicant?
While there are indeed health and societal problems due to the use of alcohol and nicotine, these negative consequences would be amplified if consumption of either substance were prohibited.

Marijuana is already the third most popular recreational drug in America, despite harsh laws against its use. Millions of Americans smoke it responsibly. Our public policies should reflect this reality, not deny it.

In addition, marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. It fails to inflict the types of serious health consequences these two legal drugs cause. Around 50,000 people die each year from alcohol poisoning. Similarly, more than 400,000 deaths each year are attributed to tobacco smoking. By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose. According to the prestigious European medical journal, The Lancet, "The smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health. It would be reasonable to judge cannabis as less of a threat than alcohol or tobacco."

No one is suggesting we encourage more drug use; simply that we stop arresting responsible marijuana smokers. In recent years, we have significantly reduced the prevalence of drunk driving and tobacco smoking. We have not achieved this by prohibiting the use of alcohol and tobacco or by targeting and arresting adults who use alcohol and tobacco responsibly, but through honest educational campaigns. We should apply these same principles to the responsible consumption of marijuana. The negative consequences primarily associated with marijuana -- such as an arrest or jail time -- are the result of the criminal prohibition of cannabis, not the use of marijuana itself.


What is industrial hemp? How does it differ from marijuana?
Hemp is a distinct variety of the plant species cannabis sativa L. It is a tall, slender fibrous plant similar to flax or kenaf. Farmers worldwide have harvested the crop for the past 12,000 years for fiber and food, and Popular Mechanics once boasted that over 25,000 environmentally friendly products could be derived from hemp.

Unlike marijuana, hemp contains only minute (less than 1%) amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. In addition, hemp possesses a high percentage of the compound cannabidiol (CBD), which has been shown to block the effects of THC. For these reasons, many botanists have dubbed industrial hemp "anti- marijuana."

More than 30 industrialized nations commercially grow hemp, including England and Canada. The European Union subsidizes farmers to grow the crop, which is legally recognized as a commercial crop by the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Nevertheless, US law forbids farmers from growing hemp without a federal license, and has discouraged all commercial hemp production since the 1950s. NORML is working to allow American farmers to once again have legal access to this agricultural commodity.


How can I help?
The most important step you can take is to contact your elected officials at all levels of government (local, state and federal), and let them know you oppose arresting responsible marijuana smokers. As a constituent, you hold special influence over the politicians who represent your district. It is critical you let them know how you feel.

Because the marijuana smoking community remains largely "in the closet" and is all too often invisible politically, our core constituency currently exercises far less political power than our numbers would otherwise suggest. The only way to overcome this handicap is for more of us to take an active role, and routinely contact our elected officials.

A majority of the American public opposes sending marijuana smokers to jail, and 3 out of 4 support the medical use of marijuana. Yet many elected officials remain fearful that if they support these reform proposals, they will be perceived as "soft" on crime and drugs and defeated at the next election.

Tell your elected officials that you know the difference between marijuana and more dangerous drugs and between marijuana smoking and violent crime, and that you do not support spending billions of dollars per year incarcerating nonviolent marijuana offenders.

To make that easy, NORML has a program on our web site that will identify your state and federal elected officials, and provide a sample letter that you can fax to Congress or e-mail to state legislators. Additionally, we encourage you to join NORML and help us with this fight for personal freedom. We depend on contributions from private individuals to fund our educational and lobbying campaign, and our ability to move reform efforts forward is partially a question of resources. Please join with us and let's end marijuana prohibition, once and for all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yella_dawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
72. More to the point.
Does the government, various pot heads, or even DUers have the right or the responsibility to tell me how I must behave in my own home, how I choose to manage my own consciousness, or pass judgments on my personal activities?



On the other hand, I honestly don't know of a lot of negative consequences one might discount. No hangovers or other nasty physical side effects. Heads are too relaxed to be obnoxious or otherwise troublesome. It's even hard to get too uptight about people who get stoned and drive 12 miles an hour. It may not be safe, as such, but it's more humorous than dangerous.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
81. I generally ignore the ganja debates on DU
since where I live the only people arrested for herb are sellers or exporters. Sensible people have theirs delivered like Chinese food.
People use it for morning tea, a teaspoon for their morning tonic (soaked in white rum), instead of alcohol, for their eyes or as an alternative to an evening cocktail. We have more serious crimes to worry about and there is no way we will ever have enough cops to stop people doing something that is culturally accepted.

Every fugging profession has people who use herb in my part of the world. I don't give a bloody damn who uses ganja. It's their lives.
By the way, my hubby smoked for decades and it hasn't done him a damn thing.
I used it occasionally back in the days. No cirrhosis of the liver in this home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC