J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
My Mexican Chihauhau (sp?) would be epic on Helium.
Million Marijuana March
- Thread starter NO CA$H
- Start date
- Status
Final Design Studios
Veteran
I wonder how high thisiswells's voice is?
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
chihuahua
thisiswells
Retired
HaHa.. Guys..
The Kelley family actually stopped production on helium a couple of years ago because
there is a 100 year supply already in storage.
"Ehh gats, brain, look what they've done!!"
--Brain from Pinky and the Brain
The Kelley family actually stopped production on helium a couple of years ago because
there is a 100 year supply already in storage.
"Ehh gats, brain, look what they've done!!"
--Brain from Pinky and the Brain
Final Design Studios
Veteran
So exactly how squeaky do you sound?
You guys are still at it? Don't you sleep
Issac here's a short list of famous people including artists, founding fathers and scientists who all have at one time or another recreationaly or medically used marijuana:
So you can't call bullshit.
I still call bullshit. Unless you can prove that Aaron Sorkin was high when he wrote the west wing. That's like saying that all those people who created those things did it because they ate hotdogs.
nullphonic
Well-known member
Isaac_Brody said:
LOL. I was strung-out on hotdogs once. Cheesburgers were my gateway, it's such a trap. First just plain hotdogs, then chilli, then.....well......I don't like to talk about it. Next thing I know I'm turning tricks trying to get that next ballpark-frank fix. It's an ugly life but I'm a better person now :thumbsup:
Damn you Oscar Myer Weiner. There should be a law, it's just another case of corporate greed and effective government lobby over the health and well-being of the public.
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
I have no doubt that mind altering substances make you feel more creative. More than once I have had a few and hit record on my 4 trak thinking what I did was amazing...until I listened to it the next day...perception versus reality.
Exactly. The next day you realize that the reality is that it's ****. Been there, definitely didn't get the juices flowing.
GenJerDan
Veteran
John_Hudson said:
Was afraid it sounded a little harsh. Sorry.
But it brought to mind the spate of celebs we had a few years ago doing the whole "don't do drugs" thing. They'd get up and warn the kids how drugs ruined their lives and blah blah blah...then walked on down to their Bentley and drove off to the next photo op.
Stoners are stoners because they are stoners. Wastes of space who chose to monorail their lives. But the same could be said about hardcore surfers.
Sure, warn the kids about the dangers of marijuana, that it can lead to listening to the Allman Brothers or The Dead.
The real trick is to figure out why someone would go that route, rather than the route most others do, i.e. a little recreational toking with friends on the weekends before heading back to the Monday - Friday grind.
Dan
nullphonic
Well-known member
GenJerDan said:
Now that's a crime :beer:
<prepares to be flamed by all the Dead fans :grin: >
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
GengerDan
That was not directed at you whatsoever! I only was responding to you about the child issue!
The second part of that post is more a general take.
That was not directed at you whatsoever! I only was responding to you about the child issue!
The second part of that post is more a general take.
The core issue
The core issue
I think the core issue on the question of legalization of pot is really recreational use. Let's just call it what it is and have at it. Most of the medical mary jane advocates are really interested in more than medical use, IMO.
PK- you keep beating the drum of education, and the assumption behind your points is that a properly-informed public will make the 'right' choice and not use recreational drugs. I disagree with you. People do what they do whether they are well-informed or stone ignorant. How many of you smokers can really claim that when you started that you didn't know tobacco smoke is poisonous and nicotine powerfully addictive?
We haven't really discussed the moral implications of recreational drug use, per se, except that PK is against any such use. I am on the other side of that coin. I've got no problem with it, as long as the user takes responsibility for his or her own actions.
And of all the drugs available, pot is probably the most benign. Yes, chronic use can and will cause undesirable effects, but so does abuse of sugar.
Keeping pot away from children is as good an idea as keeping the liquor away from teenage boys. But adults are a whole different matter, in my opinion.
Mary Jane definately has medicinal value; any govt agency that says otherwise is just trying to justify their own existence. It lowers blood pressure, increases appetite, induces euphoria (which helps the regulation of chronic pain), calms the nervous system, and is self-regulating in that consumers generally stop smoking once they are stoned. From a medical standpoint, these are all very desirable effects, and pot doesn't impart the same drastic after-effects that many other regulated and mainstream drugs do, such as damage the liver or impose addiction. The uses to epileptics, AIDs victims, glaucoma patients, people with dangerous high-blood pressure levels, or chronic pain are immediate and valid.
Smoking pot does damage the lungs. So does working in a coal mine.
Impairment: when you are stoned, you are impaired physically. Operating heavy machinery or manning the kill switch of a nuclear reactor are not responsible acts when you are under the influence of the drug. But anyone who says that pot inhibits creativity is delusional or misinformed. The Beatles would not have created the music they did without the influence of pot and other drugs. Same goes for artists like Picasso, Mary Shelly, Hemmingway, Michaelangelo, etc. The history of Western Art is that Sobriety is the exception, rather than the rule.
And not all people react the same way to various kinds of drugs. The founders of this country wrote some pretty fantastic law and they were stone drunk most of the time.
In fact, one of the biggest agricultural blunders in America's history was the decision to move away from hemp production and to switch to cotton. Hemp is a 'miracle' textile. Not only is it stronger and longer lasting than other types of material, but the plant is easier on the soil, and grows anywhere. Now that we've had pot prohibition for so long, our enforcement agencies are unwilling to allow hemp production because you can't tell by far-away visual inspection the plant from its more THC-laden cousin. As other people have said in this thread, the move to criminalize marijuhana (sp?) was racist, fascist, and bogus.
Pot is not addictive, it is *habituative*. This means that one would prefer to keep using it on a regular basis, but if one is suddenly deprived, one doesn't go into withdrawal. The issue of whether or not pot is a gateway drug is a complex one. Are people who claim that pot caused them to try out Meth reporting fact, or is it not some property of pot, but the inclination to engage in dangerous behavior more the case? I frankly don't believe that there is any chemical or social effect in pot itself which causes a person to suddenly crave harsher drugs. I for one have smoked my share of doobs back in the day and NEVER have had an urge to try heroin, coke, speed, or even ecstacy.
Our government classifies pot as a narcotic. My answer to that is to paraphrase from Abe Lincoln: "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. A dog still has four legs because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one."
So I am for the complete legalization of pot, recreationally or otherwise, for adults. As we have found with alcohol prohibition, alcohol is evil. No alcohol is worse.
The core issue
I think the core issue on the question of legalization of pot is really recreational use. Let's just call it what it is and have at it. Most of the medical mary jane advocates are really interested in more than medical use, IMO.
PK- you keep beating the drum of education, and the assumption behind your points is that a properly-informed public will make the 'right' choice and not use recreational drugs. I disagree with you. People do what they do whether they are well-informed or stone ignorant. How many of you smokers can really claim that when you started that you didn't know tobacco smoke is poisonous and nicotine powerfully addictive?
We haven't really discussed the moral implications of recreational drug use, per se, except that PK is against any such use. I am on the other side of that coin. I've got no problem with it, as long as the user takes responsibility for his or her own actions.
And of all the drugs available, pot is probably the most benign. Yes, chronic use can and will cause undesirable effects, but so does abuse of sugar.
Keeping pot away from children is as good an idea as keeping the liquor away from teenage boys. But adults are a whole different matter, in my opinion.
Mary Jane definately has medicinal value; any govt agency that says otherwise is just trying to justify their own existence. It lowers blood pressure, increases appetite, induces euphoria (which helps the regulation of chronic pain), calms the nervous system, and is self-regulating in that consumers generally stop smoking once they are stoned. From a medical standpoint, these are all very desirable effects, and pot doesn't impart the same drastic after-effects that many other regulated and mainstream drugs do, such as damage the liver or impose addiction. The uses to epileptics, AIDs victims, glaucoma patients, people with dangerous high-blood pressure levels, or chronic pain are immediate and valid.
Smoking pot does damage the lungs. So does working in a coal mine.
Impairment: when you are stoned, you are impaired physically. Operating heavy machinery or manning the kill switch of a nuclear reactor are not responsible acts when you are under the influence of the drug. But anyone who says that pot inhibits creativity is delusional or misinformed. The Beatles would not have created the music they did without the influence of pot and other drugs. Same goes for artists like Picasso, Mary Shelly, Hemmingway, Michaelangelo, etc. The history of Western Art is that Sobriety is the exception, rather than the rule.
And not all people react the same way to various kinds of drugs. The founders of this country wrote some pretty fantastic law and they were stone drunk most of the time.
In fact, one of the biggest agricultural blunders in America's history was the decision to move away from hemp production and to switch to cotton. Hemp is a 'miracle' textile. Not only is it stronger and longer lasting than other types of material, but the plant is easier on the soil, and grows anywhere. Now that we've had pot prohibition for so long, our enforcement agencies are unwilling to allow hemp production because you can't tell by far-away visual inspection the plant from its more THC-laden cousin. As other people have said in this thread, the move to criminalize marijuhana (sp?) was racist, fascist, and bogus.
Pot is not addictive, it is *habituative*. This means that one would prefer to keep using it on a regular basis, but if one is suddenly deprived, one doesn't go into withdrawal. The issue of whether or not pot is a gateway drug is a complex one. Are people who claim that pot caused them to try out Meth reporting fact, or is it not some property of pot, but the inclination to engage in dangerous behavior more the case? I frankly don't believe that there is any chemical or social effect in pot itself which causes a person to suddenly crave harsher drugs. I for one have smoked my share of doobs back in the day and NEVER have had an urge to try heroin, coke, speed, or even ecstacy.
Our government classifies pot as a narcotic. My answer to that is to paraphrase from Abe Lincoln: "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. A dog still has four legs because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one."
So I am for the complete legalization of pot, recreationally or otherwise, for adults. As we have found with alcohol prohibition, alcohol is evil. No alcohol is worse.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
That's one of the best takes yet on the matter and I have to agree on the points your raised.
- Status