Thread: Tennessee info

Indeed, I too have no respect for individuals who use drugs. They are social deviants, each and every one; and because they have no souls, a particularly fiery corner of hell awaits them in the afterlife.

I own an issue of Playboy magazine from February of 1970 that has a great panel discussion on "The Drug Revolution." In it, several dimwits like William S. Burroughs, James Coburn and Joel Fort M.D. actually suggest that adults can successfully engage in harmless, recreational drug use while holding down a full-time job -- even supporting a family!

The only panel member I could see eye to eye with was Harry J. Anslinger, who graduated from Penn State in 1915 and obtained his law degree in 1930 from American University. A distinguished civil servant, he served under nine presidents and was once the Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition. "He helped make the dry years dry," the article adds.

He had some poignant quotes:

"Supposedly harmless marijuana smoking is regarded by several doctors as a sign of incipient insanity. Marijuana may even cause psychosis."

"A person under the influence of marijuana can get so violent that it takes about five policemen to hold him down!"

"The American Medical Association, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs have all stated that marijuana has no medical uses and should be considered a social menace. We don't need any more research to show that. I challenge you to name one doctor who has reported a beneficial medical effect of marijuana, outside of the backward areas of the world and that 19th Century folk medicine you [Fort] were mentioning."

Just make sure that you don't transport
marijuana and a straight razor at the
same time.

Really though, for marijuana I am not
concerned. Never smoked it never will,but
if it were on the ballot tomorrow I would
vote to legalize it.


Terry

BW, you're basing your assumptions based on 36 year-old scientific knowledge. At that time there were still lots of reputable doctors who thought lobotomy had therapeutic value.
THC is rated as a depressant drug, just like alcohol. However the society finds it socially acceptable to drink a six-pack during the Superbowl game but not to smoke a blunt for the same reasons.
The only reason marijuana was outlawed in the US was as an indirect attack on the hippie movement, which was effective at erroding popular support for US-led wars in the Asian war theatre. The rest of the world just followed suit.
Fortunately in Canada, posession of small amounts doesn't lead to prosecution. Many countries in the world and even some US states are instituting or trying to institute that. As a recreational drug, it is more convenient and less harmful/addictive than alcohol.
I've known many people with families and responsible positions who functioned perfectly in the society even though they toked with their friends from time to time the same way some of you would chat with a friend over a bottle of wine.
Therefore, I am asking you to respect me for who I am and not for my life-style if it's not hurting you.

Oh, I was just kidding around, Firestart. That was five or six paragraphs of sarcasm I just posted.

Sorry BW. I was dealing with some personal issues while following up on the forums and I wasn't following who was saying what in the thread. On top of that there were a couple of previous attacks on potheads before your post so I didn't even read it properly before I started seeing red and organized a counter-offensive against people who think I'm worse than Hitler for taking the occasional (once or twice a month) toke.

If I right on this marijuana was outlawed
in the 1930's. Apparently the suff was
being grown and turned into paper.

Well enter William Randolph Hearst.
Inaddition to being owning numerious
newspapers, he also owned wood
pulp mills that were quite profitable.
Or it could have been hesimply sold
lots of pulp wood to others.

Well along comes this hemp paper and
it was cheaper to produce than wood
pulp paper.

So ole' Willie launches a massisve campaign
against the evils of this devil weed. Well to
make a long story short the stuff was
outlawed and Hearst got rid of a competitor.

Terry

Thanks for the historical correction Terry. On a good note, at least they are allowing the industrial use of hemp, so ol' Willie must be turning in his grave. Especially if the use of hemp would end our soft lumber dispute lol. But he was a smart political player. The prohibition was around that time period as well, which means that he used a strong puritanical undercurrent that seems to be showing itself again these days.

The ban on pot came after prohibition on alcohol
had ended in 1933. The marijuana scare came in
the late 30's.

This is kinda funny - when the ban went into effect
people could actually buy a government stamp to
legally posess the stuff. But you actually had to
posess pot before you could get the stamp.
So "Fred" walks into the government office and
says " I would like to buy a Marijuana Stamp."
Government clerk would ask " Do you have some
marijuana?" Fred would say " Yes" and show the
clerk the pot. Fred would then be arrested because
he was in possesion of marijuana without a stamp.

Though funny it's also sad. Most people though as
I have stated before only love freedom when it applies
to themselves.

Oh well, enough of my views. I'll shut up before I make
somebody mad.


Take care,

Terry

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

Sorry BW. I was dealing with some personal issues while following up on the forums and I wasn't following who was saying what in the thread. On top of that there were a couple of previous attacks on potheads before your post so I didn't even read it properly before I started seeing red and organized a counter-offensive against people who think I'm worse than Hitler for taking the occasional (once or twice a month) toke.

If you're talking about me, do us both a favor and don't put words in my mouth because I'm quite capable of saying exactly what I mean and don't need anyone else to make assumptions. I voiced my opinion of drug use, just like you did. You're absolutely entitled to your opinion that drug use is ok and glamorous. I'll ask you to respect the fact that I'm also absolutely entitled to the opinion that drug use is stupid and unglamorous. Seperate yourself from the act, take a step back and take a careful look at where the criticism is directed (hint, not at you *personally* although you took it that way).

I never made an ad hominem attack, I voiced an opinion of the _act_ of drug usage, not you personally so you can back down from defcon 4. I stand by my assertion that drug usage is stupid and I have no sympathy for dopers who get nailed and go to jail. I've seen too many lives get ruined by "casual" drug usage (some of those were pretty close friends, too) to change my opinion now. Whenever I hear someone whining to me that they got busted for dope I find myself *completely* unable to evoke even the barest ounce of sympathy.

The only person mentioning Hitler (at the risk of invoking Godwin's Law on this thread) is you. Of course, I guess people aren't allowed to have differing opinions when it comes to something *you* believe, or are they? I'd like to think that impression isn't true.

Originally Posted by wvbias

Most people though as I have stated before only love freedom when it applies to themselves.

Well stated and insightful. That cuts both ways though. Most people love freedom of speech until someone else says something that they don't like to hear or expresses a contrary viewpoint to their own. That makes people timid to stand up and express themselves when it might lead to a confrontation. I may be a lot of things, but timid ain't one of them.

-- Gary F.

Gary, you're putting words in my mouth now. I never called smoking pot is glamorous. I don't find it any more glamorous than drinking a beer or having a glass or two of wine.
Like any drug pot can become harmful if it's consumed in excess or at inapropriate times. If you smoke pot and drive it's just as bad as drinking and driving. If you're a chronic pothead, you're like an alcoholic, just with bad lungs instead of a bad liver.
With that being said, in our society, alcohol abuse is a much more serious problem than drug abuse, as alcohol is more available and legally/socially acceptable. Just because alcohol is legal and pot is not, it does not mean that it is any less dangerous.
Any substance can be harmful if taken in excess. Too much water reduces the concentration of electrolytes in your bloodstream and can kill you at extreme levels of hydration.
I personally feel sorry for people who abuse drugs, alcohol or any other substances. However, there is a line to be drawn between responsible use and abuse.

As for your comment about freedom of speech, I am not trying to curtail yours, but by the same merits, I am also entitled to express my own opinions. And my opinion runs in the direction of "people who do not recognize the difference between responsible use and abuse and who do not see that many legal foods/substances can be just as or more dangerous than illegal stuff hold a narrow-minded view on this issue."
Unlike some societies that claim to be free and to support free speech while arresting people for communist views and doing everything in their power to kill pornography, I really do practice what I preach. I will do everything in my power for a person to express their views even if they are violent and/or racist (and I'm heavily opposed to both attitudes). However, I'll also jump on the stage and express my own opinion and expect them to perform their civic duties as well.