honey2005 Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Once again, just because I disagree with you does not mean I am closed minded or brainwashed. I did not say the statements you were looking for were made up. I just said that it seems funny to me that many people who do smoke pot do seem to be trying to prove that what they are doing is ok, even though it is illegal, and that anyone who disagrees with them is "closed minded and brainwashed." Sorry if it did seem as if I was on your case, because really I wasn't. Your statements did stand out to me, and actually I didn't even look to see who had written them. I do respect your opinions, and I have read many posts you've replied to, it's just that this one time we are on completely different sides of the fence. I got alittle worked up back there, sorry if I sounded self righteous. Truce?
loveregardless Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 we're totally cool then, you DID get a little worked up...thats what I said that i thought you were on my ass. i felt like you were judging me and telling me I was a bad person because I feel that particual law is ridiculous...but blah blah...of COURSE your entitled to your opinion. I'm a strong opinion advocate. I never woulld have said otherwise if you hadn't of got me worked up...haha, it's ok though, no biggy...I'm PMSing today anyway. :laugh
dyermaker Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Originally posted by honey2005 I did not say the statements you were looking for were made up. I just said that it seems funny to me that many people who do smoke pot do seem to be trying to prove that what they are doing is ok, even though it is illegal, and that anyone who disagrees with them is "closed minded and brainwashed." Okay, but what's illegality? You live in West Virginia, yes? If you wear a hat inside a theater, you may be fined. Doctors and dentists may not place a woman under anesthesia unless a third person is present. It is illegal to snooze on a train. According to the state constitution, it is unlawful for anyone to own a red or a black flag. Whistling underwater is prohibited. In Nicholas County, No member of the clergy is allowed to tell jokes or humorous stories from the pulpit during a church service. In Huntington, It is legal to beat your wife so long as it is done in public on Sunday, on the courthouse steps. Wouldn't you agree with me in saying that a law should have a reason for staying on the books?
honey2005 Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 I'm not self righteous. When I know something is wrong I'm not going to sit around and let others fling facts that prove their point if I can't do the same. To some extent, yes it does--because saying it's wrong because it's illegal is an appeal to an unqualified authority. If something is illegal, I'm not going to do it. And don't jump in with the moral hiearchy crap here, because that is NOTHING like this. If I know something is illegal for the wrong reasons, I will stand up for it. I guess is one of those "you have to chose your battle" cases. It doesn't seem like reason enough to fight for a harmful (I believe it is) drug to be made legal, when I could be fighting for something more important. Too much of anything can kill you. It's easier to overdose on potatoes than pot though, not even Bob Marley had enough to OD. I didn't say it was easy to OD, I said it could kill brain cells. You can't *prove* that it's a gateway drug, that's a theory. And you can't prove it's not. Chances are a lot of people you know smoke pot, you just don't know it. I do know alot of peopel who smoke pot, and contrary to your belief, they do not have better logical reasoning than me. There is one individual who is very close to me who does smoke it sometimes, but just because I admire her and am friends with her doesn't mean I think smoking pot is ok. I'm not as self righteous as you think. They're overloaded with people who are doing nothing wrong. Breaking the law, i.e. smoking pot, is wrong. If you don't like it, stand up like lovereguardless said, and try to change it, don't complain that what you're doing is illegal, but you don't deserve to be punished. I wish someone would get you high. You might stop being so self-righteous. That's never going to happen.
loveregardless Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 my point honey my dear. exactly...did I mention I still love you even if you dismissed my pseudoscience Dyer.
tiki Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 I was a huge "Oh my God pot is a horrible thing" -er until I tried it for myself. I was in my mid twenties the first and really only time I've ever tried it. I had judged. And judged. And judged. Finally I came to the realization that to be able to knock it, I've got to try it and see what it would do to my bod. So I was days away from family, reality, all that stuff. It was the opportune moment. I smoked it, took about seven tokes, or whatever you call it. I was fine. But I never had a huge interest in doing it again, just for my son's sake. I felt like he deserved a non pot-smoking mom. So I give him that. Every day. I could smoke it, if I WANTED. But I don't want to. Not yet. Maybe in my older years I'll hit it once in a while, but not now. I want to do this for my son. I have an addictive personality and can't afford to be addicted to any drug. I'm hippyish and all my friends can't believe I don't get high, but it's a personal preference. Just because I like to get my groove on doesn't mean I like to get high and just because I like rainbows doesn't mean I'm a lesbian. I make my own choices. I make responsible choices that (hopefully) don't impose on others (cig smoking, drunk driving, etc). Soooooo....from MY experiences, personal ones (okay don't laugh, I'm limited) I have seen myself be more of a danger when I over-indulge in acohol versus having a few tokes off some maryjane. I don't want to say that alcohol is more dangerous...but it has caused me to be of danger to myself. I don't drink and drive. That's just STUPID. ~The BFL...keep your ~*~utopia~*~ preference in your own home. Don't impose it on me (AKA get out on the streets with me and my fam). Stay stoned in your OWN presence. Stay drunk at home or in a safe place. Don't be out behind the wheel of a TWO TON car on the streets with my little boy and I driving to Chuck E. Cheese.
honey2005 Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Whistling underwater is prohibited. Can you really do that? You know I'm going to have to try this now... Wouldn't you agree with me in saying that a law should have a reason for staying on the books? The funny thing is, I've never broken any of those laws . Hey guys, sorry if I'm stepping on anyone's toes. I do see the point that everyone should be able to make their own decisions and control what goes into their own bodies; there are just some people out there that would end up hurting someone indirectly...like a drunk driver killing another driver who had no say in the guys drinking. I'm PMSing today anyway I kind of think I might be, too
dyermaker Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Originally posted by honey2005 I'm not self righteous. When I know something is wrong I'm not going to sit around and let others fling facts that prove their point if I can't do the same. Okay. That's self-righteousness. No big deal. I'm self righteous about civil liberty. I'm just calling a spade a spade. If I know something is illegal for the wrong reasons, I will stand up for it. I guess is one of those "you have to chose your battle" cases. It doesn't seem like reason enough to fight for a harmful (I believe it is) drug to be made legal, when I could be fighting for something more important. It's fine if you don't want to fight for the legalization of drugs. No one asked you to! What really happened though, is you marginalized our fight. So if you're going to step into the battle calling drugs 'wrong', you should have some sort of base for your claim, and, as I pointed out, yours (wrong because illegal, illegal because wrong) is circular reasoning. I didn't say it was easy to OD, I said it could kill brain cells. So does Television. Why shouldn't we be able to kill our own brain cells? And you can't prove it's not. No, that's not how logic works, and, since the 1600's, it's not how science works either. Your assertion is that it's a gateway drug. The burden of proof is on you, then, to prove it is. I'm telling you that there is no conclusive research done. Feel free to prove me wrong. Breaking the law, i.e. smoking pot, is wrong. If you don't like it, stand up like lovereguardless said, and try to change it, don't complain that what you're doing is illegal, but you don't deserve to be punished. Breaking the law isn't always wrong. That's brainwash-speak. Was Rosa Parks wrong when she wouldn't give up her seat? Additionally, please don't refer to potsmoking as 'what i'm doing'. I've never smoked pot. I've also never owned a Lexus, but I don't think Lexuses should be illegal. Finally, before you talk about punishment, do a little research into why the prison systems are overloaded. Originally posted by loveregardless my point honey my dear. exactly...did I mention I still love you even if you dismissed my pseudoscience Dyer.
dyermaker Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Originally posted by honey2005 The funny thing is, I've never broken any of those laws . How about these West Virginia Laws? 61-8-4. Lewd and lascivious cohabitation and conduct; penalty; when persons presumed to be unmarried. If any persons, not married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, or, whether married or not, be guilty of open or gross lewdness and lasciviousness, they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be fined not less than fifty dollars, and may, in the discretion of the court, be imprisoned not exceeding six months, and, upon a repetition of the offense, they shall, upon conviction, be confined in jail not less than six nor more than twelve months. In prosecutions for adultery and fornication, and for lewdly and lasciviously cohabiting together, the persons named in the indictment shall be presumed to be unmarried persons in the absence of proof to the contrary. 61-8-3. Adultery and fornication; penalty. If any person commit adultery or fornication, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be fined not less than twenty dollars. 61-2-24. Taunting for nonparticipation in duel; penalty. If any person post another, or in writing or in print use any reproachful or contemptuous language to or concerning another, for not fighting a duel, or for not sending or accepting a challenge, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be confined in jail not more than six months, or fined not exceeding one hundred dollars. 61-8-15. Profane swearing and drunkenness; penalty. If any person arrived at the age of discretion profanely curse or swear or get drunk in public, he shall be fined by a justice one dollar for each offense.
tiki Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Dyer, how old are those laws? One dollar? Twenty dollars? C'mon that sounds like crap from the old days.
honey2005 Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 What really happened though, is you marginalized our fight. So if you're going to step into the battle calling drugs 'wrong', you should have some sort of base for your claim, and, as I pointed out, yours (wrong because illegal, illegal because wrong) is circular reasoning. Wrong because illegal, illegal because wrong was not the base for my claim. My base was the dangers that I stated in an earlier post. Okay. That's self-righteousness. No big deal. I'm self righteous about civil liberty. I'm just calling a spade a spade. Alright, I cave, I'm self righteous. It's fine if you don't want to fight for the legalization of drugs. No one asked you to! That wasn't what I was posting about. I just meant that we (the people posting in this thread) have different priorities. Some who chose to fight for legalization of drugs, other would not. I didn't say I felt that I was being pressured to want drugs to be made legal . Breaking the law isn't always wrong. That's brainwash-speak. Was Rosa Parks wrong when she wouldn't give up her seat? This is where the moral hiearchy I mentioned early came in. I knew you were going to bring that up. This is not "brainwash-speak". If you don't like it, stand up like lovereguardless said, and try to change it, don't complain that what you're doing is illegal, but you don't deserve to be punished. And I take out the "what you're doing" part, even though I didn't specifically mean YOU.
Papillon Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 I'm going to love ya and leave you with this little bit of hypocrisy. Ethanol, cannabis, coke, LSD, morphine, codeine, etc etc....they're all chemicals. There's no difference between a "lab chemical" and a "natural chemical". It's all atoms binding with other atoms through covalent and ionic bonds and so on. Fundamentally there's NO difference. It's all just molecules. The origin is irrelevant. What's important is what you do with the chemical, and why. I had a beautiful ethanol-induced buzz this evening, and it was fun. I'm a little sad it's over. Do I like getting tipsy? No, not really. Tomorrow I'm gonna feel like sheeite. Gotta pop some more chemicals to kill that, in turn. Chemicals for recreation/therapy aren't ideal. That's the end of it. Our bodies shouldn't need'em. Sometimes we do, and administered chemicals are a lifesaver (yeah...tomorrow morning) Ethical question at the heart of it all - popping a pill when you don't really have to, downing a drink when you don't really have to, toking a joint when you don't really have to.... is it neccessary at all? Nope. But I believe you should still have that choice. But where do you draw the line? When does a drug become a social hazard? From personal experience, I know cannabis can make you extremely f*cking dumb while you're stoned. Maybe dubya is a pothead, after all.
honey2005 Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 How about these West Virginia Laws? Nope, still haven't broke any . I like the duel one though .
dyermaker Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Originally posted by tikibrandy Dyer, how old are those laws? One dollar? Twenty dollars? C'mon that sounds like crap from the old days. The prohibition of marijuana is also antiquated. I consider even calling it marijuana 'crap from the old days'. My point is that laws don't constitute whether something is wrong or right. Originally posted by honey2005 Wrong because illegal, illegal because wrong was not the base for my claim. My base was the dangers that I stated in an earlier post. Then there's a huge hole in your argument. Marijuana is less dangerous than many legal things. Additionally, you never answered this question. Why aren't we free to hurt ourselves? If we can eat McDonalds every day for a month, why can't we light up after a long day at work? Don't mention driving while high, because that's a seperate crime, and could easily still stay on the books. That wasn't what I was posting about. I just meant that we (the people posting in this thread) have different priorities. Some who chose to fight for legalization of drugs, other would not. I didn't say I felt that I was being pressured to want drugs to be made legal . You're not just 'not fighting' for drugs to be legal, you're arguing that they should remain illegal, ergo, you're equally in the fray. This is where the moral hiearchy I mentioned early came in. I knew you were going to bring that up. This is not "brainwash-speak". If you're not brainwashed, then you can support your claim with logic. So, answer: Was Rosa Parks wrong when she wouldn't give up her seat? She was breaking the law, and breaking the law is wrong!
honey2005 Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Additionally, you never answered this question. Why aren't we free to hurt ourselves? If we can eat McDonalds every day for a month, why can't we light up after a long day at work? Acutally I did. I do see the point that everyone should be able to make their own decisions and control what goes into their own bodies; there are just some people out there that would end up hurting someone indirectly...like a drunk driver killing another driver who had no say in the guys drinking. My point is that laws don't constitute whether something is wrong or right. No, I guess not. But morals do, and I guess I am a very moral person. You're not just 'not fighting' for drugs to be legal, you're arguing that they should remain illegal, ergo, you're equally in the fray. I don't think some people can handle all drugs being legal. I agree with you point that the goverment would make the drugs cleaner and healthier, but there would still be those people who would make the drugs in their own kitchen, basement, whatever, and we would have the same problem. So, answer: Was Rosa Parks wrong when she wouldn't give up her seat? She was breaking the law, and breaking the law is wrong! My claim is not that breaking the law is wrong. Rosa Parks remained in her seat because she thought she had the right to be equal to everyone else. That is completely different. Smoking marijuana while it is still illegal is not a way to stand up for what you believe in. Fighting for it is, but not smoking it in your bedroom while the rest of your family doesn't know. (I don't mean YOU specifially there either). So to answer your question, no, Rosa Parks was not wrong to refuse to give up her seat, because she deserved equality. I'm not sure everyone should have the right to put whatever they want into their bodies, because, like I mentioned before, it does indirectly affect other people.
meanon Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 I read most of this thread earlier and can't face wading through it again (crap computer) so apologies if someone has already provided the evidence requested to illustrate the link between Cannabis use and mental illness. Cannabis psychosis is a psychiatric diagnosis. There is a dose dependent risk of a small but significant minority of people of developing psychotic symptoms, most usually schizophrenia (this can happen on first use). It's not a causal link, cannabis use precipitates disorders in people who are vulnerable and worsens the course of the disorder in those who already have it. For the majority of people, there's no link at all. It's much more common today than it was say 30 years ago because of the increases in the potency of cannabis. The jury is still out on a link to depression, research findings are mixed. I and many others I know have used cannabis in the past without any problem. I think it's less harmful than alcohol and should be legalised. It's not harmless, however. Besides the link to schizophrenia, I've witnessed first hand the so called "amotivational syndrome" that chronic, high dose use can lead to in some people. It causes personality change (often permanent) characterised by increased apathy and lack of motivation. It leads to emotional numbing and the damage to relationships that goes along with such disability. There are risks and knowledge of them is part of making an informed choice. http://www.belspo.be/belspo/home/publ/pub_ostc/Drug/rDR06r_en.pdf[/curl] http://www.priory.com/psych/cannabis.htm http://www.schizophrenia.com/newsletter/buckets/drugs.html
Fuzzymuzzy Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 I had smoked weed for about 10 years until 2 mo. ago. And speaking from personal experiance I can say that while drinking is more harmful if you plan on driving, marijuana is more harmful on your relationships, motivation, self esteem. I was totally indifferent about many things when I smoked and I smoked alot (3-4) joints a day. Alcohol is ok in moderation but when abused can destroy your life. I feel 100% better not smoking, but when I did I would tell people that smoking was ok and did not affect me. I was just so used to it I couldn't tell any difference.
dyermaker Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Originally posted by honey2005 No, I guess not. But morals do, and I guess I am a very moral person. Morality, like legality, is also subjective and arbitrary. Explain how marijuana use is immoral? I don't think some people can handle all drugs being legal. I agree with you point that the goverment would make the drugs cleaner and healthier, but there would still be those people who would make the drugs in their own kitchen, basement, whatever, and we would have the same problem. Uh, no. You wouldn't have to make drugs in your kitchen or basement, because there would be no illicit drug trafficking. My claim is not that breaking the law is wrong. Rosa Parks remained in her seat because she thought she had the right to be equal to everyone else. That is completely different. Smoking marijuana while it is still illegal is not a way to stand up for what you believe in. Fighting for it is, but not smoking it in your bedroom while the rest of your family doesn't know. (I don't mean YOU specifially there either). So to answer your question, no, Rosa Parks was not wrong to refuse to give up her seat, because she deserved equality. I'm not sure everyone should have the right to put whatever they want into their bodies, because, like I mentioned before, it does indirectly affect other people. The struggle of Rosa Parks and the struggle of legalization proponents share many commonalities. They're both fighting for personal liberty. Rosa Parks protested the law by breaking it. You *did* say, more than once, that breaking the law was wrong. You've now made it an issue of morality, which is sickening. You can't say it's wrong because it's dangerous, because plenty of other things are dangerous and still legal. You can't say it's wrong because it's illegal, because plenty of other things are illegal, but not wrong. Originally posted by meanon Besides the link to schizophrenia At the very least, the evidence is inconclusive. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5758223/ And speaking from personal experiance I can say that while drinking is more harmful if you plan on driving, marijuana is more harmful on your relationships Until you've had someone in your family suffer from severe alcohol abuse, I don't think you can say that one drug or another effects relationships more or less. The culprit isn't the chemical, it's the addiction, and whether or not we choose a path of addiction should either be: 1. The government's choice; In which case cigarettes and alcohol should be illegal. 2. Our choice; In which case we should be able to put whatever we want into ourselves. You can't be inconsistent, it makes no sense.
honey2005 Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 You can't say it's wrong because it's dangerous, because plenty of other things are dangerous and still legal. I couldn't care less what happens to the person smoking the pot or drinking the beer or whatever else. It's their choice and whatever happens to them was brought on by them. I do care, though, about the innocent people around them that had no choice in them taking the substance, but could very well become a victim to some careless, dangerous mistake they make while under the influence. THAT is why I think that alter your state of mind should be illegal. Morality, like legality, is also subjective and arbitrary. Explain how marijuana use is immoral? You're putting something in your body that can hurt you. To me that is immoral. I don't understand, though, why I need to explain my morals to you, because those, unlike laws, are for the individual, and nothing you can say can prove me wrong on my morals. Uh, no. You wouldn't have to make drugs in your kitchen or basement, because there would be no illicit drug trafficking. Unless they don't want to pay for them, fill out papers for them, or whatever else they will have to do when/if drugs are legalized. You *did* say, more than once, that breaking the law was wrong. You've now made it an issue of morality, which is sickening. Sorry, my morals are my own, and I don't see how that is sickening. Well now I'm off to read my evidence lacking Psychology book. Just kidding
meanon Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 but the scientists believe cannabis use only has a negative effect on people already genetically predisposed to the mental illness. This is an extract from the article you posted a link to, dyer. It's the same finding. It has a negative effect on those predisposed to the illness. Genetics play their part but predisposition to schizophrenia is made up of a number of factors. The human cost: it's estimated that elimination of cannabis use would reduce the incidence of schizophrenia by approximately 8%. I don't think it should be banned, I think people should be educated. Until you've had someone in your family suffer from severe alcohol abuse, I don't think you can say that one drug or another effects relationships more or less. Until you've had someone in your family suffer from severe cannabis abuse, I don't think you can say that one drug or another effects relationships more.
dyermaker Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Originally posted by honey2005 I do care, though, about the innocent people around them that had no choice in them taking the substance, but could very well become a victim to some careless, dangerous mistake they make while under the influence. No one said DUI's shouldn't be a crime. THAT is why I think that alter your state of mind should be illegal. What about alcohol? What about sugar? Where do we draw the line? You're putting something in your body that can hurt you. To me that is immoral. I don't understand, though, why I need to explain my morals to you, because those, unlike laws, are for the individual, and nothing you can say can prove me wrong on my morals. Is eating fast-food immoral? What about uncertified bottled water, is that immoral? Unless they don't want to pay for them, fill out papers for them, or whatever else they will have to do when/if drugs are legalized. Since you mentioned kitchens/basements/bathrooms, I'm assuming you're talking about methamphetamine. You'd still have to pay for the raw materials, and you'd still run a huge risk of blowing yourself up, or creating a ton of pollutants. Do you understand the proccess of making methamphetamine? You don't have to fill out papers to get liquor, so you wouldn't have to to get weed either. Sorry, my morals are my own, and I don't see how that is sickening. Take it in context. You stated specifically that you're a moral person, because you don't do drugs. That's clearly a moral judgement on anyone who does do drugs, which I find sickening, especially because you're unable to defend the argument that drugs are wrong. Originally posted by meanon Until you've had someone in your family suffer from severe cannabis abuse, I don't think you can say that one drug or another effects relationships more. I never said anything like that. Someone asserted that marijuana is more detrimental to relationships than alcohol, and I challenged their qualifications.
Bronzepen Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Dyermaker So? Why the hell aren't we free to damage our own brain? Just saying how pot effects a person. To answer your question. Most laws that curtail our liberties stem from parents that have had a tragedy of losing a son or daughter. A couple of kids die from some drug. Parents complain to their congresperson and/or senator. Politicians lump all the "bad" drugs into one bill and voila, drugs are illegal. I don't like wearing seatbelts and like your statement. Why can't I decide if I want to take a chance and not hurt myself in a car crash? Answer- Too many kids die in car crashes. Parents believe that child could have survived if the law told them they should have buckled their kids in. Doesn't make sense but that is how our society thinks.
loveregardless Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Ok, where to begin. First off, Papi, I'm sure that alot of people do act pretty "stupid" when they are high...but its all dependent upon the dosage. If you sit down and smoke joint after joint after joint, you are going to be pretty high. If you just hit a joint a few times to get moderately high, there is not THAT significant of a change in behavior, speech or reaction time. Everything is dependent on dosage...some people abuse everything they use, others do not. Honey, you did say, I guess I am a very moral person and that is stating that you don't smoke weed because you are a person with strong morals and that those who do smoke weed therefore do not have as strong of morals as you. I can tell you honestly, and I don't know if you have read any of my other posts before, but I am an extremely moral and ethical person...an extremely non violent and peaceful person...a very openminded and independent person...a very sensitive loving and caring person. I would not hurt a fly, literally. How can you compare the choice to smoke marijuana or not to that of making a moral or ethical decision about something. Being in an altered state happens more than you realize. As Dyer commented before, anytime you ingest caffiene, sugar, vitamins, over the counter medications, listen to shamanistic drumming, meditate, etc. etc. you are in an "altered" state. I don't think that anyone here was saying it is ok to get messed up on ANYTHING and go driving around. THAT is morally and ethically wrong. Bronzepen, marijuana was not illegalized because of parents who lost a child or anything remotely like that, although that is the main argument for the WAR on drugs. When hemp was illegalized in the 1930's they changed the name from hemp to marijuana to confuse people about exactly what it was they were making illegal. This is the process by which marijuana was illegalized. "Anslinger compiled a dossier of tabloid articles which sensationalize disinformation about marijuana use and the crimes committed while supposedly under the influence of the drug. This collection of newspaper clippings (most from Hearst newspapers) becomes known as the Gore Files. " "1936 - 1938 Hearst newspapers step-up the anti-marijuana campaign and newsreel clips at the local movies banner headlines like ‘Reefer Madness’ and ‘Marijuana--- Assassin of Youth." "1937 Walter Treadway, Assistant U.S. Surgeon General, tells the Cannabis Advisory Subcommittee of the League of Nations that extended use of cannabis derivatives is benign, both socially and emotionally, and that marijuana is habit forming... in the same sense... as sugar or coffee.’" "April 14, 1937, Marijuana Tax Law is introduced to the House Ways and Means Committee of Congress, chaired by Robert L. Doughton, a key DuPont ally. In subsequent committee hearings Dr. James Woodward, speaking for the American Medical Association (AMA), testifies against the proposed legislation stating that the plant Congress intends to outlaw is a perfectly safe substance used to treat scores of illnesses for over 100 years in America and that the ignorance of the proposed prohibition will deny the world access to potential medical breakthroughs." "Dr. Woodward is denounced by Anslinger and the congressional committee, then curtly excused. Ralph Lorenz, general counsel of the National Oil Seeds Institute (which represents the interests of high quality machine lubrication producers and paint manufacturers) also lobbies against the proposed legislation, eloquently citing the key importance of the hemp plant to American industry and reviewing the thousands of years of benign use of hemp by millions of people world-wide." "After receiving testimony from Anslinger who cites marijuana as "the most violence causing drug in the history of mankind," reviewing Anslinger’s marijuana "Gore Files" (which were later debunked by evidentiary scholars), and hearing a false, dishonest, and intentionally misleading report from the Ways and Means Committee that the AMA is in "complete agreement" with the proposed marijuana legislation, the Marijuana Tax Act is adopted as law by Congress. The legislation is carefully worded so that the great majority of American people, including many of those congress people who pass the law, have no idea that the agricultural hemp industry is being legislated into extinction. Popularity of DuPont’s "plastic fibers’ (like nylon) begins to dramatically increase." "1944 The "LaGuardia Marijuana Report," compiled between 1938 and 1944 by the New York Academy of Medicine at the request of Mayor Fiorella LaGuardia, is released to refute Anslinger’s negative claims about marijuana. It reports that marijuana use has caused no violence at all and cites numerous instances of beneficial effects. Anslinger denounces the Mayor, the report, and the Academy, proclaiming that the involved doctors will never again do marijuana research without his personal permission, or they will be sent to jail." "1945 With Anslinger’s’ coercive manipulation the AMA conducted what has since been labeled a "gutter science" study to refute the LaGuardia Report. Using biasing techniques which predetermine the outcome of research findings this prejudicial study, conducted with enlisted Army men, concludes that 34 Negro males who smoked marijuana were "disrespectful" of white soldiers and officers." "1948 - 1950 Anslinger has a sudden change of heart about the violence inducing properties of marijuana and, in a complete about-face from his previous position, testifies before a strongly anti-Communist Congress that marijuana causes users to become so peaceful and pacifistic that use of the herb by soldiers will weaken their will to fight ‘The Great Red Communist Plague.’" "1950’s - 1960’s The U.S. Army sponsors numerous tests to determine the effects of cannabis smoking on soldiers. The first study showed no loss of motivation or performance after two years of continual "heavy" smoking. This study is replicated six more times by the U.S. military and dozens of times by independent universities, always with the same basic findings." "1961 - 1962 Anslinger is forced to retire as the head of the Federal Narcotics Bureau (now the DEA) by President Kennedy after trying to censor the publications and blackmail and harass the publishers of Professor Alfred Lindsmith of Indiana University who wrote, among other works, "The Addict and the Law" (Washington Post, 1961). U.S. Medical research into the beneficial properties of cannabis resumes after nearly 3 decades of Anslinger’s prohibition." After this there was an attempt at readdressing the leaglization issue. President Kennedy openly admitted to smoking marijuana for his cronic back pain and planned to have it legalized. Does everyone remember what happened to Mr. Kennedy? If you want to know more please read the Emporer Wears No Clothes by Jack Herer, all of the information, facts and statistics for his book are sited and taken from government and medical studies and reports.
Bronzepen Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Originally posted by loveregardless Bronzepen, marijuana was not illegalized because of parents who lost a child or anything remotely like that, although that is the main argument for the WAR on drugs. When hemp was illegalized in the 1930's they changed the name from hemp to marijuana to confuse people about exactly what it was they were making illegal. This is the process by which marijuana was illegalized. I am generalizing. Like I said, "most" laws that curtail our liberties stem from tragedies. My answer was more directed at Dyermaker's question on why we are not allowed to damage our brain. So pot, among others, is the exception that proves the rule.
billybadass36 Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 My own personal preference: alcohol. I like to smoke pot a few times a year. It sometimes makes me sleepy, though. Do I care if anyone else smokes pot? No. Why should anyone care what someone else does in their own home? I think it's ridiculous for an 18 year old girl to look down upon someone who likes to unwind at the end of a long-a$$ crappy workday by smoking a joint instead of having a couple beers. What's the difference, really? Because a bunch of old white men decided half a century ago that it was bad? Ridiculous. I'm not interested in the arguments for and against cannabis or alcohol. When I was in college I smoked pot a LOT. I definitely noticed a reduced level of motivation from my near daily use of cannabis. Now, however, I only use it about 3-4 times a year (canoeing trips, concerts, etc.). That's about it. If I'm drinking, I really don't like to mix it with pot because I totally get droopy-eyed and *yawn* sleepy. I can tell you this: quitting smoking is the hardest thing I've ever had to do. I'd read somewhere (I think) that nicotine is more addictive than heroin or crack. Well, why is this debate limited to alcohol and cannabis? Hell, hundreds of thousands of people everyday are slowly committing suicide by choking down these cigarettes and lining the pockets of the tobacco companies. Fight that fight and leave the "pot heads" alone. Oh, and legality and morality are mutually exclusive ideas. Can there be morality without law? Can you break the law and still be moral? Well, that's obviously a resounding "yes". Examples are a-plenty, but the most obvious one (because it's so hugely disproportionate to the oppressive drug policies of this country - so don't yell at me for this "illustration" of why law and morality are mutually exclusive) is Nazi Germany. They had lots of laws that were immoral, unjust, and contrary to any moral code that could possibly exist. Now, would it be "immoral" to break certain laws of Nazi Germany? Not in the least. Likewise, is it "immoral" to break the laws of the United States? Depends on the context. MLK, Jr., broke lots of laws. Was he "immoral"? Nelson Mandella broke lots of laws. Was he "immoral"? No. Your individual ideas on morality are just that - individual.
Recommended Posts