PDA

View Full Version : Your Opinion on Marijuana?



Pages : [1] 2

Ewergrin
Friday, November 12th, 2004, 10:39 PM
How many members here use marijuana?
What are your thoughts and opinions on the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes and recreational use?

Legalize it, or not?

I'm very interested in hearing everyones opinions of the subject.

God's Helm
Saturday, November 13th, 2004, 02:59 AM
I do not, not have I ever used it in any way. I think it could be a good tool in when used for medicinal reasons. Other than that (and the use of it's fibers) I do not think anyone should use it. That is just my thoughts. I'm sure I'm outnumbered here.

Telperion
Saturday, November 13th, 2004, 05:24 AM
The criminalization of marijuana is surely one of the most misguided and hypocritical public policy initiatives of the past century. What rationale can there possibly be for criminalizing marijuana, yet legalizing (albeit with restrictions) tobacco and alcohol, both substances that kill tens of thousands of people per year? Given that marijuana is, at least, no more dangerous than these substances, and arguably less dangerous, it should be decriminalized. Or, if it is so dangerous, then surely alcohol and tobacco ought to be criminalized as well (though everyone knows what a titanic failure the prohibition of alcohol was). Either way, the current legal status of marijuana possession is absurd.

By the way, Canada (which already permits medicinal use of marijuana) has proposed legislation to de-criminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use, instead turning possession into a regulatory offense punishable by a small fine. The American ambassador up here has responded by publicly threatening this country with negative "consequences" if we dare to adopt a more permissive approach to marijuana within our own borders! My own view is that, far from caving into these threats, the Canadian gov't should tell the US to adopt more sensible policies itself. But the entrenched attitudes of the US federal gov't concerning this issue seem to pose a serious obstacle to any sort of reform of marijuana laws.

BTW I used marijuana a few times in university, but haven't done so recently, and don't plan to in the future, so I don't have a vested interest in de-criminalizing this substance. De-criminalization simply strikes me as common sense.

AryanKrieger
Saturday, November 13th, 2004, 02:11 PM
I have never taken any kind of ilegal drugs so I have no direct experience of this.
However I personally have no interest in the drug habits of others so long as they do not interfere with me in any way.
The problem with so-called "soft drugs" is that they can be a gateway to the use of much harder drugs and this in itself is my main concern.
I have seen the effects of drug misuse on clients in a professional capacity and invariably drug habits,which are expensive lead almost inevitably to attendant criminal and other anti-social behaviour.Frequently such people have difficulties in integrating into normal society and cannot maintain relationships or long term employment. There is an inevitable cost factor to the state and society as a whole.
For this reason I am against the legalisation of any addictive drugs for recreational purposes. I accept that marijuana can be used effectively for the alleviation of pain and this is the only legitimate use that I would allow legalisation for.
There are also attendant health risks in smoking marijuana in the same way as smoking nicotene related products. In an age of increasing public health awarness and state support for campaigns to educate people in the risks of smoking and excessive alcohol use is it really responsible to advocate the legalisation of yet more drugs?

Siegfried
Saturday, November 13th, 2004, 02:28 PM
I've smoked marihuana once, which is legal here in the Netherlands. It didn't do much for me and I don't think I'll ever use it again for recreational purposes. There is a Dutch policy that outlaws commercials for tobacco and marihuana, which I think is an acceptable third way. Don't ban the substances, but do not allow corporations to abuse the media to promote them, and keep the public informed about the dangers and benefits. This may be one of the few fields the Dutch state is not doing such a terrible job in.

Thorburn
Saturday, November 13th, 2004, 03:47 PM
How many members here use marijuana?
What are your thoughts and opinions on the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes and recreational use?

Legalize it, or not?

I'm very interested in hearing everyones opinions of the subject. I'm against it, that's why I'm for it. (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stop teenuse.com%2Fstreaming%2Fforit_high_v1. mov)

But then again, marijhuana use supports terrorism, (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arch ive.org%2Fdownload%2Fokay2004%2Fokay2004 .mpg) so I'm not entirely sure. ;) :p

Ewergrin
Saturday, November 13th, 2004, 04:13 PM
I do not, not have I ever used it in any way. I think it could be a good tool in when used for medicinal reasons. Other than that (and the use of it's fibers) I do not think anyone should use it. That is just my thoughts. I'm sure I'm outnumbered here.

You may or may not be outnumbered. That's why I created this thread. :)
Regardless, your opinion is welcome, whichever way the collective door swings.

Thorburn
Saturday, November 13th, 2004, 09:39 PM
How the U.S. got the Marijuana Prohibition



Excerpt of


The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States



by Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law, USC Law School



A Speech to the California Judges Association 1995 annual conference


The Early State Marijuana Laws

But before we get to that next big piece of Federal legislation, the marihuana prohibition of 1937, I would like to take a little detour, if I may, into an analysis of the early state marijuana laws passed in this country from 1915 to 1937.

Let me pause to tell you this. When Professor Bonnie and I set out to try to track the legal history of marijuana in this country, we were shocked that nobody had ever done that work before. And, secondly, the few people who had even conjectured about it went back to the 1937 Federal Act and said "Well, there's the beginning of it." No. If you go back to 1937, that fails to take account of the fact that, in the period from 1915 to 1937, some 27 states passed criminal laws against the use of marijuana. What Professor Bonnie and I did was, unique to our work, to go back to the legislative records in those states and back to the newspapers in the state capitols at the time these laws were passed to try to find out what motivated these 27 states to enact criminal laws against the use of marijuana. What we found was that the 27 states divided into three groups by explanation.

The first group of states to have marijuana laws in that part of the century were Rocky Mountain and southwestern states. By that, I mean Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana. You didn't have to go anywhere but to the legislative records to find out what had motivated those marijuana laws. The only thing you need to know to understand the early marijuana laws in the southwest and Rocky Mountain areas of this country is to know, that in the period just after 1914, into all of those areas was a substantial migration of Mexicans. They had come across the border in search of better economic conditions, they worked heavily as rural laborers, beet field workers, cotton pickers, things of that sort. And with them, they had brought marijuana.

Basically, none of the white people in these states knew anything about marijuana, and I make a distinction between white people and Mexicans to reflect a distinction that any legislator in one of these states at the time would have made. And all you had to do to find out what motivated the marijuana laws in the Rocky mountain and southwestern states was to go to the legislative records themselves. Probably the best single statement was the statement of a proponent of Texas first marijuana law. He said on the floor of the Texas Senate, and I quote, "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff (referring to marijuana) is what makes them crazy." Or, as the proponent of Montana's first marijuana law said, (and imagine this on the floor of the state legislature) and I quote, "Give one of these Mexican beet field workers a couple of puffs on a marijuana cigarette and he thinks he is in the bullring at Barcelona."

Well, there it was, you didn't have to look another foot as you went from state to state right on the floor of the state legislature. And so what was the genesis for the early state marijuana laws in the Rocky Mountain and southwestern areas of this country? It wasn't hostility to the drug, it was hostility to the newly arrived Mexican community that used it.


A second group of states that had criminal laws against the use of marijuana were in the Northeast, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York -- had one and then repealed it and then had one again -- New Jersey. Well, clearly no hypothesis about Mexican immigration will explain the genesis of those laws because, as you know, the Northeast has never had, still doesn't really, any substantial Mexican-American population. So we had to dig a little deeper to find the genesis of those laws. We had to go not only to the legislative records but to the newspapers in the state capitols at the time these laws were passed and what we found, in the early marijuana laws in the Northeast, we labeled the "fear of substitution." If I may, let me paraphrase an editorial from the New York Times in 1919 so we will get exactly the flavor of this fear of substitution.

The New York Times in an editorial in 1919 said, "No one here in New York uses this drug marijuana. We have only just heard about it from down in the Southwest," and here comes the substitution. "But," said the New York Times, "we had better prohibit its use before it gets here. Otherwise" -- here's the substitution concept -- "all the heroin and hard narcotics addicts cut off from their drug by the Harrison Act and all the alcohol drinkers cut off from their drug by 1919 alcohol Prohibition will substitute this new and unknown drug marijuana for the drugs they used to use."

Well, from state to state, on the theory that this newly encountered drug marijuana would be substituted by the hard narcotics addicts or by the alcohol drinkers for their previous drug that had been prohibited, state to state this fear of substitution carried, and that accounted for 26 of the 27 states -- that is, either the anti-Mexican sentiment in the Southwest and Rocky Mountain areas or fear of substitution in the Northeast. That accounted for 26 of the 27 states, and there was only one state left over. It was the most important state for us because it was the first state ever to enact a criminal law against the use of marijuana and it was the state of Utah.

Now, if you have been hearing this story and you have been playing along with me, you think "Oh, wait a minute, Whitebread, Utah fits exactly with Colorado, Montana, -- it must have been the Mexicans."

Well, that's what I thought at first. But we went and did a careful study of the actual immigration pattern and found, to our surprise, that Utah didn't have then, and doesn't have now, a really substantial Mexican-American population. So it had to be something else.

Come on folks, if it had to be something else, what do you think it might have been? Are you thinking what I was thinking -- that it must have had something to do with the single thing which makes Utah unique in American history -- its association with the Mormon church.


With help from some people in Salt Lake City, associated with the Mormon Church and the Mormon National Tabernacle in Washington -- with their help and a lot of work we found out what the genesis was of the first marihuana law in this country. Yes, it was directly connected to the history of Utah and Mormonism and it went like this.


I think that a lot of you know that, in its earliest days, the Mormon church permitted its male members to have more than one wife -- polygamy. Do you all know that in 1876, in a case called Reynolds against the United States, the United States Supreme Court said that Mormons were free to believe what they wanted, but they were not free to practice polygamy in this country. Well, who do you think enforced that ruling of the Supreme Court in 1876? At the end of the line, who enforces all rulings of the Supreme Court? Answer: the state and local police. And who were they in Utah then? All Mormons, and so nothing happened for many years. Those who wanted to live polygamously continued to do so.

In 1910, the Mormon Church in synod in Salt Lake City decreed polygamy to be a religious mistake and it was banned as a matter of the Mormon religion. Once that happened, there was a crackdown on people who wanted to live in what they called "the traditional way". So, just after 1910, a fairly large number of Mormons left the state of Utah, and indeed left the United States altogether and moved into northwest Mexico. They wrote a lot about what they wanted to accomplish in Mexico. They wanted to set up communities where they were basically going to convert the Indians, the Mexicans, and what they referred to as "the heathen" in the neighborhood to Mormonism.

By 1914, they had had very little luck with the heathen, but our research shows now beyond question that the heathen had a little luck with them. What happened apparently -- now some of you who may be members of the church, you know that there are still substantial Mormon communities in northwest Mexico -- was that, by and large most of the Mormons were not happy there, the religion had not done well there, they didn't feel comfortable there, they wanted to go back to Utah where there friends were and after 1914 did.

And with them, the Indians had given them marijuana. Now once you get somebody back in Utah with the marijuana it all becomes very easy, doesn't it? You know that the Mormon Church has always been opposed to the use of euphoriants of any kind. So, somebody saw them with the marijuana, and in August of 1915 the Church, meeting again in synod in Salt Lake City decreed the use of marijuana contrary to the Mormon religion and then -- and this is how things were in Utah in those days -- in October of 1915, the state legislature met and enacted every religious prohibition as a criminal law and we had the first criminal law in this country's history against the use of marijuana.

That digression into the early state marijuana laws aside, we will now get back on the Federal track, the year is 1937 and we get the national marijuana prohibition -- the Marihuana Tax Act


The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937

Now, first again, does everybody see the date, 1937? You may have thought that we have had a national marijuana prohibition for a very long time. Frankly, we haven't.

The marijuana prohibition is part and parcel of that era which is now being rejected rather generally -- the New Deal era in Washington in the late 30s.


Number two, you know, don't you, that whenever Congress is going to pass a law, they hold hearings. And you have seen these hearings. The hearings can be extremely voluminous, they go on and on, they have days and days of hearings. Well, may I say, that the hearings on the national marijuana prohibition were very brief indeed. The hearings on the national marijuana prohibition lasted one hour, on each of two mornings and since the hearings were so brief I can tell you almost exactly what was said to support the national marijuana prohibition.

Now, in doing this one at the FBI Academy, I didn't tell them this story, but I am going to tell you this story. You want to know how brief the hearings were on the national marijuana prohibition?


When we asked at the Library of Congress for a copy of the hearings, to the shock of the Library of Congress, none could be found. We went "What?" It took them four months to finally honor our request because -- are you ready for this? -- the hearings were so brief that the volume had slid down inside the side shelf of the bookcase and was so thin it had slid right down to the bottom inside the bookshelf. That's how brief they were. Are you ready for this? They had to break the bookshelf open because it had slid down inside.

There were three bodies of testimony at the hearings on the national marijuana prohibition.


The first testimony came from Commissioner Harry Anslinger, the newly named Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Now, I think some of you know that in the late 20s and early 30s in this country there were two Federal police agencies created, the FBI and the FBN -- the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.


In our book, I talk at great length about how different the history of these two organizations really are. But, the two organizations, the FBI and the FBN had some surface similarities and one of them was that a single individual headed each of them for a very long time. In the case of the FBI, it was J. Edgar Hoover, and in the case of the FBN it was Harry Anslinger, who was the Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics from 1930 until 1962.


Commissioner Anslinger gave the Government testimony and I will quote him directly. By the way, he was not working from a text that he had written. He was working from a text that had been written for him by a District Attorney in New Orleans, a guy named Stanley. Reading directly from Mr. Stanley's work, Commissioner Anslinger told the Congressmen at the hearings, and I quote, "Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death." That was the Government testimony to support the marijuana prohibition from the Commissioner.

The next body of testimony -- remember all of this took a total of two hours -- uh .. You understand what the idea was, don't you? The idea was to prohibit the cultivation of hemp in America. You all know, because there has been some initiative here in California, that hemp has other uses than its euphoriant use. For one, hemp has always been used to make rope. Number two, the resins of the hemp plant are used as bases for paints and varnishes. And, finally, the seeds of the hemp plant are widely used in bird seed. Since these industries were going to be affected the next body of testimony came from the industrial spokesmen who represented these industries.

The first person was the rope guy. The rope guy told a fascinating story -- it really is fascinating -- the growth of a hemp to make rope was a principle cash crop right where I am from, Northern Virginia and Southern Maryland at the time of the Revolutionary War. But, said the rope guy, by about 1820 it got cheaper to import the hemp we needed to make rope from the Far East and so now in 1937 we don't grow any more hemp to make rope in this country -- it isn't needed anymore.

If you heard that story, there are two things about it that I found fascinating. Number one, it explains the long-standing rumor that our forefathers had something to do with marijuana. Yes, they did -- they grew it. Hemp was the principal crop at Mount Vernon. It was a secondary crop at Monticello. Now, of course, in our research we did not find any evidence that any of our forefathers had used the hemp plant for euphoriant purposes, but they did grow it.

The second part of that story that, to me is even more interesting is -- did you see the date again - 1937? What did the rope guy say? We can get all the hemp we need to make rope from the Far East, we don't grow it hear anymore because we don't need to.

Five years later, 1942, we are cut off from our sources of hemp in the Far East. We need a lot of hemp to outfit our ships for World War II, rope for the ships, and therefore, the Federal Government, as some of you know, went into the business of growing hemp on gigantic farms throughout the Midwest and the South to make rope to outfit the ships for World War II.

So, even to this day, if you are from the Midwest you will always meet the people who say, "Gosh, hemp grows all along the railroad tracks." Well, it does. Why? Because these huge farms existed all during World War II.

But, the rope people didn't care. The paint and varnish people said "We can use something else." And, of the industrial spokesmen, only the birdseed people balked. The birdseed people were the ones who balked and the birdseed person was asked, "Couldn't you use some other seed?"

These are all, by the way, direct quotes from the hearings. The answer the birdseed guy gave was, "No, Congressman, we couldn't. We have never found another seed that makes a birds coat so lustrous or makes them sing so much."

So, on the ground that the birdseed people needed it -- did you know that the birdseed people both got and kept an exemption from the Marihuana Tax Act right through this very day for so-called "denatured seeds"?

In any event, there was Anslinger's testimony, there was the industrial testimony -- there was only one body of testimony left at these brief hearings and it was medical. There were two pieces of medical evidence introduced with regard to the marijuana prohibition.


The first came from a pharmacologist at Temple University who claimed that he had injected the active ingredient in marihuana into the brains of 300 dogs, and two of those dogs had died. When asked by the Congressmen, and I quote, "Doctor, did you choose dogs for the similarity of their reactions to that of humans?" The answer of the pharmacologist was, "I wouldn't know, I am not a dog psychologist."


Well, the active ingredient in marijuana was first synthesized in a laboratory in Holland after World War II. So what it was this pharmacologist injected into these dogs we will never know, but it almost certainly was not the active ingredient in marijuana.


The other piece of medical testimony came from a man named Dr. William C. Woodward. Dr. Woodward was both a lawyer and a doctor and he was Chief Counsel to the American Medical Association. Dr. Woodward came to testify at the behest of the American Medical Association saying, and I quote, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug."

What's amazing is not whether that's true or not. What's amazing is what the Congressmen then said to him. Immediately upon his saying, and I quote again, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug.", one of the Congressmen said, "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?"


That's an exact quote. The next Congressman said, "Doctor, if you haven't got something better to say than that, we are sick of hearing you."

Now, the interesting question for us is not about the medical evidence. The most fascinating question is: why was this legal counsel to the most prestigious group of doctors in the United States treated in such a high-handed way? And the answer makes a principle thesis of my work -- and that is -- you've seen it, you've been living it the last ten years. The history of drugs in this country perfectly mirrors the history of this country.

So look at the date -- 1937 -- what's going on in this country? Well, a lot of things, but the number one thing was that, in 1936, President Franklin Roosevelt was reelected in the largest landslide election in this country's history till then. He brought with him two Democrats for every Republican, all, or almost all of them pledged to that package of economic and social reform legislation we today call the New Deal.

And, did you know that the American Medical Association, from 1932, straight through 1937, had systematically opposed every single piece of New Deal legislation. So that, by 1937, this committee, heavily made up of New Deal Democrats is simply sick of hearing them: "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?"


So, over the objection of the American Medical Association, the bill passed out of committee and on to the floor of Congress. Now, some of you may think that the debate on the floor of Congress was more extensive on the marijuana prohibition. It wasn't. It lasted one minute and thirty-two seconds by my count and, as such, I will give it to you verbatim.


The entire debate on the national marijuana prohibition was as follows -- and, by the way, if you had grown up in Washington, DC as I had you would appreciate this date. Are you ready? The bill was brought on to the floor of the House of Representatives -- there never was any Senate debate on it not one word -- 5:45 Friday afternoon, August 20. Now, in pre-air-conditioning Washington, who was on the floor of the House? Who was on the floor of the House? Not very many people.

Speaker Sam Rayburn called for the bill to be passed on "tellers". Does everyone know "tellers"? Did you know that for the vast bulk of legislation in this country, there is not a recorded vote. It is simply, more people walk past this point than walk past that point and it passes -- it's called "tellers". They were getting ready to pass this thing on tellers without discussion and without a recorded vote when one of the few Republicans left in Congress, a guy from upstate New York, stood up and asked two questions, which constituted the entire debate on the national marijuana prohibition.

"Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?"

To which Speaker Rayburn replied, "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind."

Undaunted, the guy from Upstate New York asked a second question, which was as important to the Republicans as it was unimportant to the Democrats. "Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?"

In one of the most remarkable things I have ever found in any research, a guy who was on the committee, and who later went on to become a Supreme Court Justice, stood up and -- do you remember? The AMA guy was named William C. Woodward -- a member of the committee who had supported the bill leaped to his feet and he said, "Their Doctor Wentworth came down here. They support this bill 100 percent." It wasn't true, but it was good enough for the Republicans. They sat down and the bill passed on tellers, without a recorded vote.

In the Senate there never was any debate or a recorded vote, and the bill went to President Roosevelt's desk and he signed it and we had the national marijuana prohibition.

Conclusion - The Issue of Prohibition

And one other thing I want to do with you this morning, and that's this -- I want to say one thing. To tell you the real truth, my interest isn't in drugs, or in the criminalization of drugs although I think we should abolish the criminal penalties for drugs, and deal with it as the Europeans do in a medical way, but who cares? That's an opinion.


What interests me though, isn't drugs. What interests me is that larger issue, and the reason that I wrote the piece, and the reason they were my tenure pieces, I am interested in a much larger issue, and that is the idea of Prohibition -- the use of criminal law to criminalize conduct that a large number of us seem to want to engage in.


And, for my purposes, -- now, Professor Bonnie went on to be associated with NIDA and with all kinds of drug-related organizations and continues to be interested in the drug laws -- I am not. My interest is in criminal prohibitions and, for my purposes, as a criminal law scholar, we could have used any prohibition -- alcohol prohibition, the prohibition against gambling that exists still in many states. How about the prohibition in England from 1840 to 1880 against the drinking of gin? Not drinking, just gin -- got it? We could have used any of these prohibitions. We didn't. We chose the marijuana prohibition because the story had never been told -- and it is an amazing story.


We could have used any of these prohibitions. We could have used the alcohol prohibition. The reason we didn't is because so much good stuff has been written about it. And are you aware of this? That every single -- you know how fashionable it is to think that scholars can never agree? -- Don't you believe that -- Every single person who has ever written seriously about the national alcohol prohibition agrees on why it collapsed. Why?

Because it violated that iron law of Prohibitions. What is the iron law of Prohibitions? Prohibitions are always enacted by US, to govern the conduct of THEM. Do you have me? Take the alcohol prohibition. Every single person who has ever written about it agrees on why it collapsed.

Large numbers of people supported the idea of prohibition who were not themselves, opposed to drinking. Do you have me? What? The right answer to that one is Huh? Want to hear it again?

Large numbers of people supported the idea of prohibition who were not themselves, opposed to drinking. Want to see it?

Let me give you an example, 1919. You are a Republican in upstate New York. Whether you drink, or you don't, you are for the alcohol prohibition because it will close the licensed saloons in the City of New York which you view to be the corrupt patronage and power base of the Democratic Party in New York. So almost every Republican in New York was in favor of national alcohol prohibition. And, as soon as it passed, what do you think they said? "Well, what do you know? Success. Let's have a drink." That's what they thought, "let's have a drink." "Let's drink to this." A great success, you see.

Do you understand me? Huge numbers of people in this country were in favor of national alcohol prohibition who were not themselves opposed to drinking.

I just want to go back to the prohibition against the drinking of gin. How could a country prohibit just the drinking of gin, not the drinking of anything else for forty years? Answer: The rich people drank whiskey and the poor people drank what? -- gin. Do you see it?

Let's try the gambling prohibition. You know when I came to Virginia, this was a very lively issue, the gambling prohibition. By the way, I think it's a lively issue in California. Are you ready for it?


Have you ever seen the rhetoric that goes around the gambling prohibition? You know what it is. Look, we have had a good time. We have been together yesterday, we have been together today, I have known a lot of you guys for ages. How about after the talk, we have a minute or two, let's go on up to your room and we will play a little nickel, dime, quarter poker. Want to play some poker this afternoon? Why not? It's a nice thing to do.


Would we be outraged if the California State Police came barreling through the door and arrested us for violation of California's prohibition on gambling? Of course we would. Because, who is not supposed to gamble? Oh, you know who is not supposed to gamble -- them poor people, that's who. My God, they will spend the milk money. They don't know how to control it. They can't handle it. But us? We know what we are doing.


That's it. Every criminal prohibition has that same touch to it, doesn't it? It is enacted by US and it always regulates the conduct of THEM. And so, if you understand that is the name of the game, you don't have to ask me, or any of the other people which prohibitions will be abolished and which ones won't because you will always know. The iron law of prohibitions -- all of them -- is that they are passed by an identifiable US to control the conduct of an identifiable THEM.


And a prohibition is absolutely done for when it does what? Comes back and bothers US. If, at any time, in any way, that prohibition comes back and bothers us, we will get rid of it for sure, every doggone time. Look at the alcohol prohibition if you want a quick example. As long as it is only THEM --- you know, them criminals, them crazy people, them young people, them minority group members --- we are fine. But any prohibition that comes back and bothers US is done for.


Let's just try the marijuana prohibition as a quick one. Who do you think was arrested 650,000 strong two years ago for violation of the marijuana laws? Do you think it was all minority group members? Nope. It was not. It was some very identifiable children of US -- children of the middle class. You don't have to answer my opinion. No prohibition will stand -- ever-- when it comes back and penalizes our children -- the children of US who enacted it. And in fact, do you have any real doubt about that? Do you know what a fabulous sociological study we will be if we become the first society in the history of the world to penalize the sons and daughters of the wealthy class? Unheard of.

And so, yeah, we will continue the War on Drugs for a while until everybody sees its patent bankruptcy. But, let me say that I am not confident that good sense will prevail. Why? Because we love this idea of prohibition. We really do. We love it in this country. And so I will tell you what I predict. You will always know which ones are going out and which ones are coming in. And, can't you see the one coming right over the hill? Well, folks, we are going to have a new prohibition because we love this idea that we can solve difficult medical, economic, and social problems by the simple enactment of a criminal law. We adore this, and of course, you judges work it out, we have solved our problem. Do you have it? Our problem is over with the enactment of the law. You and the cops work it out, but we have solved our problem.

Here comes the new one? What's it going to be? No, it won't be guns, this one starts easy. This one is the Surgeon General has what? --Determined -- not "we want a little more checking it out", not "we need a few more studies", not "reasonable people disagree" -- "The Surgeon General has determined that the smoking of cigarettes will kill you."

Now, all you need, and here is my formula, for a new prohibition every time is what? We need an intractable, difficult, social, economic, or medical problem. But that is not enough. There has to be another thing. It has to divide by class --- by social or economic class, between US and THEM.

And so, here it comes. '

You know the Federal Government has been spending a lot of money since 1968 trying to persuade us not to smoke. And, indeed, the absolute numbers on smoking have declined very little. But, you know who has quit smoking, don't you? In gigantic numbers? The college-educated, that's who. The college-educated, that's who doesn't smoke. Who are they? Tomorrow's what? Movers and kickers, that's who. Tomorrow's movers and kickers don't smoke. Who does smoke? Oh, you know who smokes out of all proportion to their numbers in the society -- it is the people standing in your criminal courtrooms, that's who. Who are they? Tomorrow's moved and kicked, that's who.

And, there it is friends, once it divides between the movers and kickers and the moved and kicked it is all over and it will be all over very shortly.

It starts with "You know, they shouldn't smoke, they are killing themselves." Then it turns, as it has -- you see the ads out here -- "They shouldn't smoke, they are killing us." And pretty soon, that class division will happen, we will have the legislatures full of tomorrow's movers and kickers and they are going to say just what they are going to say any time now. "You know, this has just gotta stop, and we got an answer for it." We are going to have a criminal statute that forbids the manufacture, sale, or possession of tobacco cigarettes, or tobacco products period.

You know that the cigarette companies are expecting it. What have they been doing? They have been shifting all of their operations out of the United States and diversifying like crazy. Where are they going to sell their cigarettes? In China, that's where. And they are already moving, because they see it and I see it.

Ready? What are we going to have? You know what we are going to have. One day -- when's it gonna happen, ten years, fifteen? -- some legislator will get up and, just as though it had never been said before, "You know we gotta solve this smoking problem and I got a solution -- a criminal prohibition against the manufacture, sale, or possession of tobacco cigarettes." And then you know what happens. Then everybody who did want a cigarette here today, if there is anyone here who smokes, you are going to have to hide in the bathroom. And cigarettes are no longer going to be three dollars a pack, they are going to be three dollars a piece. And who's going to sell them to you? Who will always sell them to you? The people who will sell you anything -- organized crime. You got the concept, we will go through the whole darn thing again because I am telling you this country is hooked on the notion of prohibition.

Let me conclude, and again this is my prediction -- I will tell you I don't think it is subject to opinion. Just look at it. Just take a look at what has happened now and what will happen. I will tell you how inexorable it is. If we get together here in the year 2025, I will bet you that it is as likely as not that the possession of marijuana may not be criminal in this state. But the manufacture, sale, and possession of tobacco will be, and why? Because we love this idea of prohibitions, we can't live without them. They are our very favorite thing because we know how to solve difficult, social, economic, and medical problems -- a new criminal law with harsher penalties in every category for everybody.

Telperion
Saturday, November 13th, 2004, 11:48 PM
There are also attendant health risks in smoking marijuana in the same way as smoking nicotene related products. In an age of increasing public health awarness and state support for campaigns to educate people in the risks of smoking and excessive alcohol use is it really responsible to advocate the legalisation of yet more drugs?

I agree that smoking anything is bad for your health, which is one reason why I quit using marijuana some years ago and don't plan to use it again.

Never the less, the problem with the line of argument that you're pursuing is that there are any number of things that are bad for one's health, but no one proposes criminalizing them. Should Big Macs, french fries, Coca-Cola, and pork rinds be criminalized? All of these things are doubtlessly very bad for one's health, but we recognize that it is up to the individual whether they want to rot their teeth and destroy their arteries by consuming them in excess. Why then should marijuana be singled out, bearing in mind that prohibition doesn't actually stop those who want to obtain it?

A less intrusive and possibly more effective route to reducing marijuana use would be for the gov't to expend efforts to convince people that smoking anything is bad for them - and perhaps giving them an incentive not to abuse their bodies by imposing fines on those who seek publicly-funded medical care for "lifestyle"-related diseases. But, as I see it, if adults still want to consume things that are bad for them, that's ultimately their own business.

Ewergrin
Sunday, November 14th, 2004, 12:30 AM
"Marijuana is a gateway drug."


This line of thinking is a direct result of the forced idea that people are not responsible for their own actions in todays society. The leftist media has dropped this psychological bomb upon unsuspecting victims over the last 50 years or so.

I am not controlled by substances.
I control my consumption of those substances.
The actions that I make are of my own will, not under pressure of mass communications media or leftist agenda.
I am responsible for my actions. No one else.
No substance, product, or alien influence is to blame for the actions I make.

I have never felt the need to move on to a greater, more dangerous substance because of alcohol or marijuana. In fact, until last weekend, I had not used marijuana since I was 16 years old. I am now almost 28.

I recently had an epiphany of sorts in that I realized just how damaging alcohol can be, and just how harmless marijuana really is. Of course, the real reason that alcohol is legal and marijuana is not is the ability of the government to tax and control the use of either substance. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that marijuana is relatively easy to cultivate in your home or backyard. Thus the government cannot control the mass distribution of it to the public. I mean, for Wodens sake, this stuff grows naturally out of the ground, with no help from man. Alcohol, on the other hand, takes considerable time and preperation to cultivate, making it easier for large corporations to monopolize the industry and the government to tax it to death. Now I know that there are plenty of people who are homebrewers, and I wholly support their hobby, but lets face it, homebrewing is an art that takes time to learn, and with such broad public legal distribution of alcohol, there isn't much of a need for it. I am certain that there are more people in the United States who grow marijuana illegally in their homes than people who make alcohol legally.

Back to my original point:
Marijuana is no more a "gateway" drug than is alcohol (a substance which has been proven to be far more deadly.) People, especially in the United States are so used to having a scapegoat to blame for actions that are blatantly their own fault.

Who will step up and take responsibility for his own actions? Let's not make scapegoats for every vice under the sun.

AryanKrieger
Sunday, November 14th, 2004, 05:42 PM
I agree that smoking anything is bad for your health, which is one reason why I quit using marijuana some years ago and don't plan to use it again.

Never the less, the problem with the line of argument that you're pursuing is that there are any number of things that are bad for one's health, but no one proposes criminalizing them. Should Big Macs, french fries, Coca-Cola, and pork rinds be criminalized? All of these things are doubtlessly very bad for one's health, but we recognize that it is up to the individual whether they want to rot their teeth and destroy their arteries by consuming them in excess. Why then should marijuana be singled out, bearing in mind that prohibition doesn't actually stop those who want to obtain it?

A less intrusive and possibly more effective route to reducing marijuana use would be for the gov't to expend efforts to convince people that smoking anything is bad for them - and perhaps giving them an incentive not to abuse their bodies by imposing fines on those who seek publicly-funded medical care for "lifestyle"-related diseases. But, as I see it, if adults still want to consume things that are bad for them, that's ultimately their own business.


But surely if the use of drugs for recreational purposes results in anti-social and criminal behaviour that is a matter of concern for society at large?
Also if there are any proven or probable links between soft and hard drugs then that should be sufficient reason for them remaining illegal?
As of yet I have not heard of any link between Big Macs and criminality!

Ewergrin
Sunday, November 14th, 2004, 05:49 PM
I agree that smoking anything is bad for your health, which is one reason why I quit using marijuana some years ago and don't plan to use it again.
Indeed, smoking is bad for your health. I am not a smoker. However, I recognize the right that people have to smoke cigarettes, and in no way will I infringe upon their right to do so. The same can be said for any controlled substance.


Never the less, the problem with the line of argument that you're pursuing is that there are any number of things that are bad for one's health, but no one proposes criminalizing them.:thumbsup
The government is not here to protect ourselves from ourselves.


Should Big Macs, french fries, Coca-Cola, and pork rinds be criminalized? All of these things are doubtlessly very bad for one's health, but we recognize that it is up to the individual whether they want to rot their teeth and destroy their arteries by consuming them in excess.Absolutely.
No one is forcing anyone to consume those products. This isn;t the 40's/50's where not enough scientific information was compiled to determine the long-term effects of consuming said substances. Everyone on earth who buys a pack of cigarettes, eats a Big Mac, shovels pork rinds into their mouth, drinks a case of beer, drives 100 mph in a 55 mph speed zone, buys a 2 liter of Pepsi and has unprotected sex knows fully well what the risks of engaging in such behaviour are. It strictly the fault of the human partaking in such consumption, absorbtion, and inhalation if something happens during that time.


Why then should marijuana be singled out, bearing in mind that prohibition doesn't actually stop those who want to obtain it? The government has brainwashed and scared the general public since the 50's into thinking that marijuana is a "gateway drug." Also, they hav no real way to monopolize the cultivation of marijuana, thus they are not able to freely tax the shit out of it. One thing is certain: money is the number one reason they are against it's decriminalization. The only other factor is that it is just a way of reminding the people that they control everything and that they can fuck with you any time they want.


A less intrusive and possibly more effective route to reducing marijuana use would be for the gov't to expend efforts to convince people that smoking anything is bad for themI disagree. It is not the job of any government to give me advice on what to do with my body or to choose a lifestyle for me. We the people have enough interference from the government in everything else we do in our lives and I seriously think that it would cause quite an uproar should the government reach that far into our personal lives. They might draw back a stump.


But, as I see it, if adults still want to consume things that are bad for them, that's ultimately their own business.And it should be this way anywhere in the world where freedom and liberty are still valued.


But surely if the use of drugs for recreational purposes results in anti-social and criminal behaviour that is a matter of concern for society at large?
Do you drink alcohol?
Alcohol is just as deadly and dangerous as hard drugs, for both the person consuming it and the people around him/her. Why is alcohol legal? Marijuana is a purely organic substance, which is reason enough for it's decriminalization.


Also if there are any proven or probable links between soft and hard drugs then that should be sufficient reason for them remaining illegal?Alcohol is a hard drug. It is legal. Marijuana, a proven 'soft' drug, is illegal, with far less dangerous effects than alcohol.


As of yet I have not heard of any link between Big Macs and criminality!If Big Macs were suddenly made illegal, then anyone consuming them would be engaging in "criminality." Make marijuana legal and the criminal aspect of it disappears.

PsycholgclMishap
Monday, November 15th, 2004, 12:26 AM
I have used this substance more often in recent months. I don't buy it though. If it's offered to me I'll take it. But I refuse to spend my money on it.

I was completely against it for years because my dad always used it and I was taught that drugs were bad in school but I also saw the effects of harder drugs in the people who lived around me. I promised myself I would never use hard drugs. A large number of people who lived in my old neighborhoods were addicted to speed, heroin, meth, etc. I removed myself from any areas where I'd come across these people, and ultimately removed myself from the area entirely. I do not advocate drug use but people should be allowed to do whatever they want within reason.

Marijuana is NOT a "gateway" drug, so to speak. I agree with Troy. You MUST take responsibility for your own actions and that includes what you put into your body.

Telperion
Monday, November 15th, 2004, 05:30 PM
I disagree. It is not the job of any government to give me advice on what to do with my body or to choose a lifestyle for me. We the people have enough interference from the government in everything else we do in our lives and I seriously think that it would cause quite an uproar should the government reach that far into our personal lives. They might draw back a stump.



In a strictly libertarian society, I would agree. However, I am thinking of societies where the government (via taxes) pays for part or all of the costs of medical care. As a cost reduction measure, it would make sense to discourage people from behaviour that increases the burden on the medical system. But of course, if people were entirely paying their own way regarding their medical bills, there wouldn't be a rationale for the government to adopt a paternalistic attitude to their health.

Allenson
Monday, November 15th, 2004, 06:38 PM
Weed is certainly not a "gateway" drug. I know plenty of good ole' boys here in the hills of VT who smoke grass and drink a few beers every day and have never touched anything harder. Aneccotal, I realize, but perhaps telling nontheless.

I'm somewhat of an anarchist, so of course I don't think that it should be illegal. ;)

It pisses me off that some of my tax dollars here go to funding aeiral surveillance for growers when there are plenty of other ways of spending this money....

It's all ridiculous. It's just a plant....and a very useful one also regardless of its intoxicating properties.[

AryanKrieger
Monday, November 15th, 2004, 09:36 PM
Do you drink alcohol?
Alcohol is just as deadly and dangerous as hard drugs, for both the person consuming it and the people around him/her. Why is alcohol legal? Marijuana is a purely organic substance, which is reason enough for it's decriminalization.

Yes I drink alcohol but alcohol has a tradition amongst the Germanic peoples going back thousands of years and is engrained in our culture.Is hash?Do we really need yet more drugs to be socially acceptable within society?The organic nature of the drug is no logical argument for its decriminalisation.

Alcohol is a hard drug. It is legal. Marijuana, a proven 'soft' drug, is illegal, with far less dangerous effects than alcohol.

It is a proven pathway to hard drugs in a way that alcohol isnt.


If Big Macs were suddenly made illegal, then anyone consuming them would be engaging in "criminality." Make marijuana legal and the criminal aspect of it disappears.

Yes but not the social consequences.

She-Wolf
Monday, November 15th, 2004, 10:13 PM
I voted "no" when I should've voted "yes but for medicine only".

The drug may be very soothing and calming for those who can handle it but certain people (teenagers, yobs and various of unstable minds) wouldn't handle this drug in that way. It effects different people, and in that respect I don't think it should be legalised.

Cannibis plants are not native of Northern Europe are they?

AryanKrieger
Monday, November 15th, 2004, 10:29 PM
I voted "no" when I should've voted "yes but for medicine only".

The drug may be very soothing and calming for those who can handle it but certain people (teenagers, yobs and various of unstable minds) wouldn't handle this drug in that way. It effects different people, and in that respect I don't think it should be legalised.

Cannibis plants are not native of Northern Europe are they?

Indeed they are not and moreover the whole drug culture is not a part of any aspect of ancient Germanic civilisation.
The only traditional "drug" for Germanic peoples is alcohol and in this respect beer and possibly wine and mead.
Frankly I cannot see why White Nationalists or European Preservationists would favour the ready availability of behaviour altering substances to young people.How exactly does that fit in with the ethos of forums like this?

Allenson
Tuesday, November 16th, 2004, 08:39 PM
Cannibis plants are not native of Northern Europe are they?

No. It is thought that its native region is in central Asia. The Scythians are some of history's many known users--for various reasons.

As for Europe, here is a quote:

"Cannabis arrived in Europe from the north. In classical Greece and Rome, it was not cultivated as a fiber plant. Fiber for ropes and sails, however, was available to the Romans from Gaul as early as the third century B.C.

The Roman writer Lucilius mentioned it in 120 B.C. Pliny the Elder outlined the preparation and grades of hemp fibers in the first century A.C., and hemp rope was found in a Roman site in England dated A.D. 140-180.

Whether the Vikings used Hemp rope or not is not known, but palynological evidence indicates that Hemp cultivation had a tremendous increment in England from the early Anglo-Saxon period to late Saxon and Norman times -- from 400 to 1100.

Henry VIII fostered the cultivation of Hemp in England. The maritime supremacy of England during Elizabethan times greatly increased the demand."

from this site- http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mj001.htm

Indeed, it is one of the oldest domesticated plants alongside staples such as wheat, rye, oats, etc...

AryanKrieger
Tuesday, November 16th, 2004, 08:50 PM
No. It is thought that its native region is in central Asia. The Scythians are some of history's many known users--for various reasons.

As for Europe, here is a quote:

"Cannabis arrived in Europe from the north. In classical Greece and Rome, it was not cultivated as a fiber plant. Fiber for ropes and sails, however, was available to the Romans from Gaul as early as the third century B.C.

The Roman writer Lucilius mentioned it in 120 B.C. Pliny the Elder outlined the preparation and grades of hemp fibers in the first century A.C., and hemp rope was found in a Roman site in England dated A.D. 140-180.

Whether the Vikings used Hemp rope or not is not known, but palynological evidence indicates that Hemp cultivation had a tremendous increment in England from the early Anglo-Saxon period to late Saxon and Norman times -- from 400 to 1100.

Henry VIII fostered the cultivation of Hemp in England. The maritime supremacy of England during Elizabethan times greatly increased the demand."

from this site- http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mj001.htm

Indeed, it is one of the oldest domesticated plants alongside staples such as wheat, rye, oats, etc...


Hmmm but there is no evidence that they ever got stoned on it and behaved like doped up idiots.

AryanKrieger
Wednesday, November 17th, 2004, 06:40 PM
Weed is certainly not a "gateway" drug. I know plenty of good ole' boys here in the hills of VT who smoke grass and drink a few beers every day and have never touched anything harder. Aneccotal, I realize, but perhaps telling nontheless.

I'm somewhat of an anarchist, so of course I don't think that it should be illegal. ;)

It pisses me off that some of my tax dollars here go to funding aeiral surveillance for growers when there are plenty of other ways of spending this money....

It's all ridiculous. It's just a plant....and a very useful one also regardless of its intoxicating properties.[

I can tell you that from my dealings within the guidance world that most if not all people who become addicted to hard drugs[not referring to alcohol here] start by experimenting with soft drugs first and "graduate" to hard drugs.
I get the feeling that those who deny this obvious truth do so because they often wish to justify to themselves and others their "soft" drug habit.
Your so called "soft" drugs are not without long term health risks.
Your tax dollars are going towards the smashing of the evil drugs trade.Drugs destroy lives!

She-Wolf
Wednesday, November 17th, 2004, 06:59 PM
The pure plant itself grown in it's own natural environment isn't necessarily the same stuff that people sell on the streets, in bars or use for recreational smoking habits. Cannibis/grass and marijuanna resin today is found to be "treated" and mixed with dangerous substances, including oil. I personally know a few people who were once happy cannibis users but had later developed cancer. Apart from teenaged gangs who often freak out under the influence of "harmless" soft drugs, those of you remain calm and laid back by this stuff still want this made freely available. It will just make matters worse.

Allenson
Wednesday, November 17th, 2004, 07:07 PM
Hmmm but there is no evidence that they ever got stoned on it and behaved like doped up idiots.


From what I've read, the Scythians used it during religious ceremonies. I'm not using this as precedent for modern day use but instead just adding to the conversation.

"Writing in the 5th century BC, the Greek historian Herodotus
describes how the Scythians would purge themselves after funerals by
inhaling the smoke of hemp seeds thrown onto hot stones. "The Scythians
enjoy it so much that they howl with pleasure..." "

....

AryanKrieger
Wednesday, November 17th, 2004, 07:12 PM
From what I've read, the Scythians used it during religious ceremonies. I'm not using this as precedent for modern day use but instead just adding to the conversation.

"Writing in the 5th century BC, the Greek historian Herodotus
describes how the Scythians would purge themselves after funerals by
inhaling the smoke of hemp seeds thrown onto hot stones. "The Scythians
enjoy it so much that they howl with pleasure..." "

....

Maybe the Scythians did but I would remind you of three things-

1.The people who use this forum are primarily Germanic or Celtic and so are concerned mainly with the practices of the the Celto-Germanic peoples,not the Scythians.
2.There is a major doubt about the actual ethnic or even racial identity of the Scythians and so their practices may have little bearing upon us and
3.What you referred to were ritualistic practices which is hardly the same thing as stoned gangs of teenagers running riot.

Nefertari
Wednesday, November 17th, 2004, 07:15 PM
I don't have time for long, drawn-out explanations, so I'll keep this short and sweet.

I approve for medicinal purposes. However, I also think a small amount for private use, so long as it's in moderation is alright. I don't believe in abusing anything......legal or not.

That is all. :)

Allenson
Wednesday, November 17th, 2004, 07:21 PM
I can tell you that from my dealings within the guidance world that most if not all people who become addicted to hard drugs[not referring to alcohol here] start by experimenting with soft drugs first and "graduate" to hard drugs.
I get the feeling that those who deny this obvious truth do so because they often wish to justify to themselves and others their "soft" drug habit.
Your so called "soft" drugs are not without long term health risks.
Your tax dollars are going towards the smashing of the evil drugs trade.Drugs destroy lives!



I'm sure that most who become addicted to the so-called "harder" drugs such as heroine, cocaine, etc first started with alcohol, weed, etc. That I would never deny. What I do deny though and which studies have backed-up is that there is no absolute direct road from one to another. In other words, simply becase a person uses marijuana recreationally, this does not absolutely imply that he/she will eventually become an addict or even casual user of harder drugs.

Ha-ha! I do not wish or need to justify anything to anyone. I am fully aware of myself and strong in my mind and personal convictions. Besides, I never said that I am a user...

No, of course marijuana or alcohol....or bad food, legal medicinal drugs, breathing polluted air and drinking polluted water for that matter...are without potential long-term health risks. I never said otherwise. The "health" argument holds no water whatsoever. It's like a leaky ship really, as plenty of "legal" substances are far worse for human health than is marijuana. Hell, we can allow for a higher amount of mercury in our drinking water (see GWB) but we can't smoke a joint. That makes sense, eh?

Yes, I am painfully aware that my tax dollars contribute to the funding of the drug war and it makes me want to vomit. And no, drugs don't destroy lives (something similar to saying that guns don't shoot people) but people destroy lives.


Maybe the Scythians did but I would remind you of three things-

1.The people who use this forum are primarily Germanic or Celtic and so are concerned mainly with the practices of the the Celto-Germanic peoples,not the Scythians.
2.There is a major doubt about the actual ethnic or even racial identity of the Scythians and so their practices may have little bearing upon us and
3.What you referred to were ritualistic practices which is hardly the same thing as stoned gangs of teenagers running riot.


Agreed on your third point. As to your second, (and off topic here really), the Scythians, it has been shown time and again, were fully Europid and actually, rather Nordoid. This is based on the cranioskeletal evidence and some recent ancient DNA which has been successfully extracted from mummified remains.

Regardless, I already stated that I am not taking historical use by a particular tribe as a precedent for advocating modern use.

Telperion
Thursday, November 18th, 2004, 04:44 AM
I personally know a few people who were once happy cannibis users but had later developed cancer.

Indeed, I don't doubt that smoking mariujana over the long term is just as damaging to the health of the user as smoking tobacco.


Apart from teenaged gangs who often freak out under the influence of "harmless" soft drugs, those of you remain calm and laid back by this stuff still want this made freely available. It will just make matters worse.

Well, the thing is that it is freely available right now, in de facto (though not de jure) terms. It is no exaggeration to say that anyone who wants to obtain this substance can do so.

The consequences of criminalizing it are:

- creation of a profitable niche market for ruthless criminal gangs
- an expanded role for the coercive agencies of the state
- an inflated prison population
- loss of ability by the state to regulate the purity/consistency of the substance, further jeopardizing the health of users
- loss of potential tax revenue from legal sale of the substance

And yet marijuana is readily available to the public, despite the fact that making it unavailable (due to its negative effects) seems to be the basic rationale for criminalizing it. So again, given that there are indeed serious health risks raised by marijuana use, why is criminalization of its use the most appropriate remedy?

WarMaiden
Thursday, November 18th, 2004, 05:03 PM
I'm against its use for non medical reasons, the people i've known and seen do it are pieces of shit scumbags, and to support it would be to support them, i don't smoke, drink alcohol and have NEVER done any sort of drug, i think smokers are as equally gross!!

Hails~

She-Wolf
Thursday, November 18th, 2004, 06:10 PM
....So again, given that there are indeed serious health risks raised by marijuana use, why is criminalization of its use the most appropriate remedy?

Again AryanKrieger and myself have pointed out that to legalise it completely will cause many problems with people outside. There are individuals who enjoy taking it for leisure, and those many who can't handle the effects and will become dangerous.

Nefertari
Thursday, November 18th, 2004, 08:22 PM
I'm against its use for non medical reasons, the people i've known and seen do it are pieces of shit scumbags, and to support it would be to support them, i don't smoke, drink alcohol and have NEVER done any sort of drug, i think smokers are as equally gross!!

Hails~

I can understand your point, however, I suppose if one is enduring something like terminal cancer, it matters little what others think, so long as they can enjoy the simple pleasure of having a desire to eat.

I watched my mother's best friend die at 38 from brain cancer and suffer from g.m seizures. Her ability to sit and even eat a little with her family meant the world to her....that is, until it got so bad that she couldn't leave her bed and then morphine was given on a regular basis.

Thorsson
Thursday, November 18th, 2004, 09:11 PM
Personally, I think there should be a fourth option in the poll. Something along the lines of, "Yes, I think Marijuana should be totally legalized and untaxed."

Cheers to everyone for all the great information given. I smoke marijuana frequently and it does not interfere with anything else in my life. I do not use "harder" substances, nor do I plan to. I only drink alcohol and smoke marijuana (no, I don't smoke tobacco). As with most things in life, too much of anything is bad.

For more interesting facts on marijuana, I suggest:
www.norml.org
www.jackherer.com

AryanKrieger
Thursday, November 18th, 2004, 09:31 PM
Personally, I think there should be a fourth option in the poll. Something along the lines of, "Yes, I think Marijuana should be totally legalized and untaxed."

Cheers to everyone for all the great information given. I smoke marijuana frequently and it does not interfere with anything else in my life. I do not use "harder" substances, nor do I plan to. I only drink alcohol and smoke marijuana (no, I don't smoke tobacco). As with most things in life, too much of anything is bad.

For more interesting facts on marijuana, I suggest:
www.norml.org
www.jackherer.com

You are only 19:how do you know what drugs you will be taking 5-10 years down the line? What excuse will you have for illicit drug misuse then?

Thorsson
Thursday, November 18th, 2004, 11:42 PM
I've been smoking marijuana since I was 13. I've been a straight A student all of my life. I attend college, work, and play in a full-time, gigging band. I haven't had any problems with marijuana nor do I want to do anything "harder".

AryanKrieger
Thursday, November 18th, 2004, 11:58 PM
I've been smoking marijuana since I was 13. I've been a straight A student all of my life. I attend college, work, and play in a full-time, gigging band. I haven't had any problems with marijuana nor do I want to do anything "harder".

Taking drugs at the age of 13 is not something to boast about.
Long term use of dope will have an effect upon your brain:medical research backs that out.To use the drug from the age of 13 is probably more dangerous in the long term than if you started older.But you cannot be sure that your drug taking will not lead to experimenting with harder drugs.
The use of drugs is hardly a good advertisement for any brand of European Preservationism or White Nationalism and I dont need to remind you is illegal in most civilised countries.

Thorsson
Friday, November 19th, 2004, 02:22 AM
Taking drugs at the age of 13 is not something to boast about.
Long term use of dope will have an effect upon your brain:medical research backs that out.To use the drug from the age of 13 is probably more dangerous in the long term than if you started older.But you cannot be sure that your drug taking will not lead to experimenting with harder drugs.
The use of drugs is hardly a good advertisement for any brand of European Preservationism or White Nationalism and I dont need to remind you is illegal in most civilised countries.
I was hardly boasting about it you pretentious a******. Yeah, my enjoying marijuana might not be good advertisement, but I mean, your sitting around posting on forums all night is GREAT for "the movement". You're right, I can't be sure that it will lead to harder drugs, but on the same note, you can't prove that it will. Your facts on marijuana are from the same people who've fed you "the facts" on equality.

Thorburn
Friday, November 19th, 2004, 10:23 AM
I also saw the effects of harder drugs. I promised myself I would never use hard drugs.

The problem with so-called "soft drugs" is that they can be a gateway to the use of much harder drugs and this in itself is my main concern.

Alcohol is a hard drug. It is legal. Marijuana, a proven 'soft' drug, is illegal.

I know plenty of good ole' boys here in the hills of VT who smoke grass and drink a few beers every day and have never touched anything harder.

I smoke marijuana frequently and it does not interfere with anything else in my life. I do not use "harder" substances

Please define "hard drug" vs. "soft drug"? It's a ploy.


Marijuana is a purely organic substance, which is reason enough for it's decriminalization. The same can be said about the opium poppy, the coca plant, magic mushrooms, peyote, and so forth -- you agree?

Allenson
Friday, November 19th, 2004, 04:27 PM
Please define "hard drug" vs. "soft drug"? It's a ploy.

Indeed a dicey affair--and why in most of my posts in this thread, I placed the word 'harder' in full quotes.

Quickly and simply, I suppose "harder" could mean those substances that are more physically or psychologically addictive than others. It is subjective and relative though to what one is comparing it to.

Another way of defining it might be something along the lines of the 'high' a substance produces in comparison to another. In this light, I would consider say, heroin or LSD "harder" than reefer as their effects are (perhaps arguably) more serious on the user. Here, I am somewhat speaking without personal knowledge though, as I have never tried heroin. As for the other two though....I do indeed have first-hand experience.

Just a couple thoughts off the top of my head. ;)

She-Wolf
Friday, November 19th, 2004, 05:29 PM
I was hardly boasting about it you pretentious a******. Yeah, my enjoying marijuana might not be good advertisement, but I mean, your sitting around posting on forums all night is GREAT for "the movement". You're right, I can't be sure that it will lead to harder drugs, but on the same note, you can't prove that it will. Your facts on marijuana are from the same people who've fed you "the facts" on equality.


Nothing and no one is stopping you from being a dope smoker, by all means go ahead. :smt028 going by your "elegant" and polite post one can see that you smoking drugs at your age is doing wonders to you! Such freedom of flowery hippy lifestyle. AryanKrieger has a right to express his opinion on something, which is what posting forums is about. :)

AryanKrieger
Friday, November 19th, 2004, 06:26 PM
I was hardly boasting about it you pretentious a******. Yeah, my enjoying marijuana might not be good advertisement, but I mean, your sitting around posting on forums all night is GREAT for "the movement". You're right, I can't be sure that it will lead to harder drugs, but on the same note, you can't prove that it will. Your facts on marijuana are from the same people who've fed you "the facts" on equality.


Please forego personal insults. ~ Tiwaz

Well I think you have just demonstrated what drugs can do to human behaviour.

Telperion
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 12:10 AM
Everyone try to keep the discussion civil and free from personal remarks, please.

Ewergrin
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 02:33 AM
Yes I drink alcohol but alcohol has a tradition amongst the Germanic peoples going back thousands of years and is engrained in our culture.
Good point. I have no problem with alcohol when it is consumed responsibly. That dosen't mean that it is not potentially more dangerous than marijuana.


Do we really need yet more drugs to be socially acceptable within society?"Social acceptance" has already proven that the demand for it is astounding. No one here is saying that one must consume marijuana to be socially acceptable. The only argument here is whether or not any government has the right to control my consumption of that particular organic plant.


The organic nature of the drug is no logical argument for its decriminalisation.That is where we drastically disagree. As an organo-ruralist, the very fact that it is 100% organic has everything to do with why it should be legal. I will not have the federal government create rules and regulations, under biased, anti-freedom, anti-earth legislation, forbidding me from enjoying something that this great mother earth saw fit to provide me with.

In the end, the earth makes the rules, and I intend to follow them.


I voted "no" when I should've voted "yes but for medicine only".
Quite alright.


The drug may be very soothing and calming for those who can handle it but certain people (teenagers, yobs and various of unstable minds) wouldn't handle this drug in that way. It effects different people, and in that respect I don't think it should be legalised. So does alcohol. It's legal. What's the difference?



Cannibis plants are not native of Northern Europe are they?That has to do with what, exactly? If they had been native to Northern Europe, our ancestors would have been using them. That fact is that they are as organic as any other vegetation, sprouting from the soil, and free to use by man.


Indeed they are not and moreover the whole drug culture is not a part of any aspect of ancient Germanic civilisation.
Alcohol is a drug. That is a fact. You already stated that drinking alcohol was ingrained in Germanic culture. So which is it?


The only traditional "drug" for Germanic peoples is alcohol and in this respect beer and possibly wine and mead.Absolutely. Hard drugs, too.


Frankly I cannot see why White Nationalists or European Preservationists would favour the ready availability of behaviour altering substances to young people.Behaviour altering substances? Like alcohol?


How exactly does that fit in with the ethos of forums like this?How does a discussion about whether or not we should decriminalize a purely organic, natural plant not fit in with the ethos of a forum like this?


Well I think you have just demonstrated what drugs can do to human behaviour.

Is this a joke? What about those who use it and are perfectly eloquent, intelligent, articulate, and lucid?


Nothing and no one is stopping you from being a dope smoker, by all means go ahead.
Precisely. That's what this thread is about. Nothing more.


going by your "elegant" and polite post one can see that you smoking drugs at your age is doing wonders to you!Those who live in glass houses...


AryanKrieger has a right to express his opinion on something, which is what posting forums is about. :)Exactly. I am glad that both you and he are here. The both of you make good contributions and it's good that the forum has members with opposing viewpoints. No one wants to join a forum where everyone agrees with each other. ;)


Again AryanKrieger and myself have pointed out that to legalise it completely will cause many problems with people outside.
I must have missed it. Why is that again?



There are individuals who enjoy taking it for leisure, and those many who can't handle the effects and will become dangerous.The same can be said about alcohol. Why is marijuana any different?


I'm against its use for non medical reasons, the people i've known and seen do it are pieces of shit scumbags, and to support it would be to support them, i don't smoke, drink alcohol and have NEVER done any sort of drug, i think smokers are as equally gross!!

Hails~
So automatically anyone that does those things is a "gross peice of shit scumbag?"

And you complained that I was biased against skinhead types? Sheesh...

Telperion
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 02:50 AM
The same can be said about alcohol. Why is marijuana any different?

Indeed, it still hasn't been explained by those who advocate criminalization why criminalization is the most appropriate remedy to the problems that may be associated with marijuana use, but not to the problems associated with alcohol or tobacco use.

This is presumably because the implicit distinction criminalization advocates make between the nature or degree of harm caused by these substances is completely arbitrary and logically indefensible. Again, if marijuana creates such risks that its use should be criminalized, then surely alcohol and tobacco use should be criminalized as well, for the risks they pose to the welfare of users and others (e.g. the victims of drunk driving and secondhand smoke) are surely at least as great as the risks posed by marijuana use.

I would be curious to hear those who favour the criminalization of marijuana explain why they do not favour the prohibition of alcohol and tobacco (if indeed they don't).

Thorburn
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 04:05 AM
Indeed a dicey affair--and why in most of my posts in this thread, I placed the word 'harder' in full quotes.

Quickly and simply, I suppose "harder" could mean those substances that are more physically or psychologically addictive than others. It is subjective and relative though to what one is comparing it to. Fair. By addictability tobacco, speed, cocaine, opiates, and alcohol would be hard drugs, and marijuana, shrooms, XTC, and LSD would be soft drugs, with caffeine somewhere inbetween.


Another way of defining it might be something along the lines of the 'high' a substance produces in comparison to another. In this light, I would consider say, heroin or LSD "harder" than reefer as their effects are (perhaps arguably) more serious on the user. Here, I am somewhat speaking without personal knowledge though, as I have never tried heroin. As for the other two though....I do indeed have first-hand experience. Also fair. This depends on dosage, of course. I would postulate that by effect of an above-average recreational non-intravenous dose on change of consciousness cocaine, speed, alcohol, LSD, shrooms, XTC, and marijuana would be hard drugs, and tobacco and caffeine would be soft drugs, with opiates somewhere inbetween.


Just a couple thoughts off the top of my head. ;) Surely, one can also rank them by the harm long-term abuse does to people.

Then tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, and speed would be hard drugs, and marijuana, opiates, and caffeine would be soft drugs, with most psychedelics and XTC somewhere inbetween.

Needless to say, this is not how our legislators rank them. ;)


That is where we drastically disagree. As an organo-ruralist, the very fact that it is 100% organic has everything to do with why it should be legal. I will not have the federal government create rules and regulations, under biased, anti-freedom, anti-earth legislation, forbidding me from enjoying something that this great mother earth saw fit to provide me with.

In the end, the earth makes the rules, and I intend to follow them. The idea to outlaw nature appears very unnatural to me, indeed. ;)

Allenson
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 12:49 PM
Fair. By addictability tobacco, speed, cocaine, opiates, and alcohol would be hard drugs, and marijuana, shrooms, XTC, and LSD would be soft drugs, with caffeine somewhere inbetween.

Also fair. This depends on dosage, of course. I would postulate that by effect of an above-average recreational non-intravenous dose on change of consciousness cocaine, speed, alcohol, LSD, shrooms, XTC, and marijuana would be hard drugs, and tobacco and caffeine would be soft drugs, with opiates somewhere inbetween.

Surely, one can also rank them by the harm long-term abuse does to people.

Then tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, and speed would be hard drugs, and marijuana, opiates, and caffeine would be soft drugs, with most psychedelics and XTC somewhere inbetween.

Needless to say, this is not how our legislators rank them. ;)



Aha! So interesting indeed. It's sort of like races and subraces. Depending on the criteria used to classify, we come up a different taxonomy each time.... ;)

AryanKrieger
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 05:20 PM
Is this a joke? What about those who use it and are perfectly eloquent, intelligent, articulate, and lucid?

Of course one can use the drug and still be eloquent and lucid etc[at other times] but I have found drug users to be far from meeting this standard,especially when under the influence of the said drug.


I must have missed it. Why is that again?



The same can be said about alcohol. Why is marijuana any different?

You are right in the sense that it isnt any "different" but do we want to add yet another drug to the list of "legally available" and "socially acceptable" drugs?
State governments spend millions every year trying to educate people on the dangers of smoking tobacco.Do you seriously think that public opinion would accept the legalisation of another drug which is even more harmful than tobacco in the present anti-smoking climate?I dont think so.
To have to rely on chemicals to induce calm or a sense of well-being is a sad indictment of the supposedly superior Aryan race.The fact that White Nationalists advocate the legalisation of the drug is an even sadder indictment in my opinion.

She-Wolf
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 05:50 PM
So does alcohol. It's legal. What's the difference?

Alcohol does cause problems, too many of them with people who abuse it. The problem is that alcohol is being used excessively and so would marijuana if it became legal. However the drink-binge culture is one thing. Marijuana will create its own problems too.



That has to do with what, exactly? If they had been native to Northern Europe, our ancestors would have been using them. That fact is that they are as organic as any other vegetation, sprouting from the soil, and free to use by man.

It has everything to do with it. Mushrooms are hallucigenic and native to some northern European countries and therefor people from this part of the world wasn't meant to use it. Cannibis isn't native to Europe and nor is tobacco. It isn't to be "used by man" if it's only naturally grown in exotic corners of the world.

Ewergrin
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 05:52 PM
You are right in the sense that it isnt any "different" but do we want to add yet another drug to the list of "legally available" and "socially acceptable" drugs?
It's not any different. So why do you advocate one and not the other?


State governments spend millions every year trying to educate people on the dangers of smoking tobacco.Do you seriously think that public opinion would accept the legalisation of another drug which is even more harmful than tobacco in the present anti-smoking climate?Marijuana is more harmful than tobacco? Care to prove this?


To have to rely on chemicals to induce calm or a sense of well-being is a sad indictment of the supposedly superior Aryan race.Who said anything about relying on chemicals for a better sense of well-being? My well-being is perfectly fine without the use of the virtually harmless drug known as marijuana. The entire purpose of this thread was to find out whther or not it should be decriminalized so that free people could use it in their privacy of their own homes without the government stepping in and controlling every aspect of our personel lives. Also, this has nothing to do with any "superior Aryan race," either. Exactly what on earth does that have to do with the decriminalization of marijuana? This is a forum based on Eurocentric organo-ruralism, earth-based heathenism/paganism and the peoples who practice in such beliefs.


The fact that White Nationalists advocate the legalisation of the drug is an even sadder indictment in my opinion.This is NOT a "white nationalist" forum.
I am NOT a "white nationalist."
Do not ever think that this forum is to be used for the discussion of "White Nationalist" politics. The fine folks at Stormfront already have that base covered. While I allow people of any political orientation to join and speak their minds, this forum adopts no official political viewpoint.

You have failed to convincingly provide any reasons why marijuana should be decriminalized. You do realize that no one is forcing you to use it, right? Why are you willing to let the government (any government; The current powers-that-be who reign supreme on the British Isles are morally and politically no different than the ones here in the United States - both are equally driven by Israeli interest groups and controlled by Zionists) decide for you what substances you should or should not be consuming? I wonder how much different your reactions would be if England were to suddenly adopt a prohibition policy towards alcohol (a drug that you have already admitted was not much different than marijuana)?


It has everything to do with it. Mushrooms are hallucigenic and native to some northern European countries and therefor people from this part of the world wasn't meant to use it. Cannibis isn't native to Europe and nor is tobacco. It isn't to be "used by man" if it's only naturally grown in exotic corners of the world.


Nonsense. Plants migrate, as animals and humans do. When a storm rips through a field and sucks up plants and seeds, it can deposit them thousands of miles from where they were picked up. This earth is very old. Just because a particular type of plants is found in one region, doesn't mean it was not at one time in another region, or that it won't, in the future, be found in another region.

By your logic, I should never ever ever ever ever expect you to eat food that was not native to your region, drink alcohol not from your region, or use any product not indigenous to your region, EVER, in your life, right?

The computer you are using right now, I assume it is built in England, by English, using English parts, made in England? I hope you have never in your life eaten a slice of pizza, or consumed alcohol, from say, Italy, or Ireland, or anywhere NOT in England, yes?

She-Wolf
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 06:04 PM
Nonsense. Plants migrate, as animals and humans do. When a storm rips through a field and sucks up plants and seeds, it can deposit them thousands of miles from where they were picked up. This earth is very old. Just because a particular type of plants is found in one region, doesn't mean it was not at one time in another region, or that it won't, in the future, be found in another region.

By your logic, I should never ever ever ever ever expect you to eat food that was not native to your region, drink alcohol not from your region, or use any product not indigenous to your region, EVER, in your life, right?

The computer you are using right now, I assume it is built in England, by English, using English parts, made in England? I hope you have never in your life eaten a slice of pizza, or consumed alcohol, from say, Italy, or Ireland, or anywhere NOT in England, yes?


No you're talking about what happens when the forces of nature carries vegetation across the globe. That is NOT the case with cannibis... it's IMPORTED.
So what has my eating habits got to do with anything???? How is my eating European food going to cause problems in society?

AryanKrieger
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 06:09 PM
AryanKrieger
It's not any different. So why do you advocate one and not the other?

AryanKrieger :Because alcohol as I have already stated is deeply bedded into our Germanic culture and in some countries such as Germany is drunk at meal times as an alternative to hot and soft drinks.In a similar way to the consumption of wine at meal times in France.


Marijuana is more harmful than tobacco? Care to prove this?

AryanKrieger Yes, in addition to comparable attendant health risks,marijuana is capable of altering the users behaviour both immediately and in the long term in ways that clearly tobacco cant. This puts the drug on a level with excessive alcohol consumption[which I am not advocating either].
The harm therefore is in relation to the related anti-social behaviour.


Who said anything about relying on chemicals for a better sense of well-being? My well-being is perfectly fine without the use of the virtually harmless drug known as marijuana.

AryanKrieger It isnt "virtually harmless". That is an irresponsible claim to make.


The entire purpose of this thread was to find out whther or not it should be decriminalized so that free people could use it in their privacy of their own homes without the government stepping in and controlling every aspect of our personel lives.

AryanKrieger But if legalised can you guarantee that its would just remain inside the home?

Also, this has nothing to do with any "superior Aryan race," either. Exactly what on earth does that have to do with the decriminalization of marijuana?

AryanKrieger Because as Aryans we have a responsibility in setting a good example to the rest of the world.Smoking dope diminishes that.

This is a forum based on Eurocentric organo-ruralism, earth-based heathenism/paganism and the peoples who practice in such beliefs.

AryanKrieger :agreed.


This is NOT a "white nationalist" forum.

AryanKrieger This forum is concerned with indiginous northern European religion and culture.I think that you will find that a significant number of people within that culture are White Nationalist to some degree even if they do not accept or use the term.

I am NOT a "white nationalist."

AryanKrieger You dont need to be but if you want the forum to grow you will need to outreach to that community.

Do not ever think that this forum is to be used for the discussion of "White Nationalist" politics. The fine folks at Stormfront already have that base covered. While I allow people of any political orientation to join and speak their minds, this forum adopts no official political viewpoint.

AryanKrieger :agreed.

You have failed to convincingly provide any reasons why marijuana should be decriminalized. You do realize that no one is forcing you to use it, right? Why are you willing to let the government (any government; The current powers-that-be who reign supreme on the British Isles are morally and politically no different than the ones here in the United States - both are equally driven by Israeli interest groups and controlled by Zionists)

AryanKrieger ; That sounds like a White Nationalist statement.

decide for you what substances you should or should not be consuming? I wonder how much different your reactions would be if England were to suddenly adopt a prohibition policy towards alcohol (a drug that you have already admitted was not much different than marijuana)?

AryanKrieger :Prohibition would not work because practically everyone over 18 consumes alcohol.State governments can only introduce and enact legislation with the consent of the people surely?


Nonsense. Plants migrate, as animals and humans do. When a storm rips through a field and sucks up plants and seeds, it can deposit them thousands of miles from where they were picked up. This earth is very old. Just because a particular type of plants is found in one region, doesn't mean it was not at one time in another region, or that it won't, in the future, be found in another region.

By your logic, I should never ever ever ever ever expect you to eat food that was not native to your region, drink alcohol not from your region, or use any product not indigenous to your region, EVER, in your life, right?

The computer you are using right now, I assume it is built in England, by English, using English parts, made in England? I hope you have never in your life eaten a slice of pizza, or consumed alcohol, from say, Italy, or Ireland, or anywhere NOT in England, yes?

But surely the essence of She-Wolf`s argument is that the use of cannabis for recreational purposes has no place in traditional Germanic culture because it has never been grown traditionally within northern European countries.
To advocate ist use amongst northern Europeans is not rooted within our ancient cultural traditions and this is a forum dedicated to preserving ancient northern European cultural traditions is it not? Therefore I see no reason why you are encouraging this debate on this forum.

Ewergrin
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 06:30 PM
Because alcohol as I have already stated is deeply bedded into our Germanic culture and in some countries such as Germany is drunk at meal times as an alternative to hot and soft drinks.In a similar way to the consumption of wine at meal times in France.
Correct. That particular drug is widely accepted and used by the general public, regardless of the thousands of statistics which show how harmful it is. Knowing this, they still use it. Marijuana shouldn't be any different.


Yes, in addition to comparable attendant health risks,marijuana is capable of altering the users behaviour both immediately and in the long term in ways that clearly tobacco cant.
True. Long term effects of tobacco use always end in cancer and death, amongst a plentitude of other serious health problems.


This puts the drug on a level with excessive alcohol consumption[which I am not advocating either].
But you did advocate it, remember? It's ingrained into your heritage.


The harm therefore is in relation to the related anti-social behaviour. So marijuana users become more anti-social, whereas tobacco users get cancer and die.


It isnt "virtually harmless". That is an irresponsible claim to make.
Prove it otherwise.


But if legalised can you guarantee that its would just remain inside the home?
Of course not. That wasn't the point. Should alcohol be confined strictly to home use? Tobacco? How about legal, doctor prescribed medications that make the patients drowsy or otherwise affect their normal behaviour as a side effect? Of course not.


Because as Aryans we have a responsibility in setting a good example to the rest of the world.Smoking dope diminishes that.
But smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol doesn't? We call that a double-standard.


:agreed.
:thumbsup


This forum is concerned with indiginous northern European religion and culture.I think that you will find that a significant number of people within that culture are White Nationalist to some degree even if they do not accept or use the term.
And that is their own business, which they are more than welcome, and free, to have.


You dont need to be but if you want the forum to grow you will need to outreach to that community.
How so? Most 'white nationalists' don't subscribe to heathen beliefs. Why should I reach out to Christian Identity groups, Creator/Cosmotheist groups, and Christian groups for a heathen-based forum?


:agreed.
:thumbsup


That is quite anti-semitic statement to make for a non-White Nationalist.
Huh? That is absurd. White nationalists are the only anti-semitic peoples? Arabs are anti-semitic, but they certainly aren't white nationalists, now are they.


:Prohibition would not work because practically everyone over 18 consumes alcohol.State governments can only introduce and enact legislation with the consent of the people surely?
Why would they need the consent of the people? State governments aren't concerned with getting the peoples approval. If that were the case, we wouldn;t be having this discussion at now, now would we?

AryanKrieger
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 06:32 PM
The idea to outlaw nature appears very unnatural to me, indeed. ;)

Having sexual intercourse with closely related family members may appear natural to some but is none the less outlawed by the wider community.
Likewise theft may appear natural to some but is not in the wider interests of the community and consequently is unlawful.
Addling ones brain on dope may likewise appear natural to some but because it is not in the interests or considered to be in the interests of the wider community it is outlawed.

Ewergrin
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 06:33 PM
But surely the essence of She-Wolf`s argument is that the use of cannabis for recreational purposes has no place in traditional Germanic culture because it has never been grown traditionally within northern European countries.
I see her point exactly for what it is. It's still only her opinion, and it doesn't mean that it's true.


To advocate ist use amongst northern Europeans is not rooted within our ancient cultural traditions and this is a forum dedicated to preserving ancient northern European cultural traditions is it not? Therefore I see no reason why you are encouraging this debate on this forum.Read the banner, and answer the same questions that I asked her.


Having sexual intercourse with closely related family members may appear natural to some but is none the less outlawed by the wider community.
Likewise theft may appear natural to some but is not in the wider interests of the community and consequently is unlawful.
Addling ones brain on dope may likewise appear natural to some but because it is not in the interests or considered to be in the interests of the wider community it is outlawed.

You are grasping for straws. None of those things have anything to do with his quote.


No you're talking about what happens when the forces of nature carries vegetation across the globe. That is NOT the case with cannibis... it's IMPORTED.
not only does it grow, but it flourishes in European soil, as it does in soil everywhere on the earth. That alone tells me that it should be used. If one were to plant a marijuana tree in European soil, and it should die immediately, than I might think otherwise.


So what has my eating habits got to do with anything???? How is my eating European food going to cause problems in society?Because by your logic, you should never in your life enjoy anything that is not native to your region. You don't think that marijuana should be used by Europeans because it is not native to the land; shouldn't your logic apply to everything in your life then?

She-Wolf
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 06:40 PM
I see her point exactly for what it is. It's still only her opinion, and it doesn't mean that it's true.


Cannibis isn't native to North Europe. What have I said isn't true?

Ewergrin
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 06:44 PM
Cannibis isn't native to North Europe. What have I said isn't true?
That's not what I was reffering to. That much should be obvious.

She-Wolf
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 06:48 PM
not only does it grow, but it flourishes in European soil, as it does in soil everywhere on the earth. That alone tells me that it should be used. If one were to plant a marijuana tree in European soil, and it should die immediately, than I might think otherwise.

It doesn't come from Europe, and for that do you think non-whites should live in European countries? does your view apply to people of other races as it does for foreign plants? Also various plants and flowers that are not native to Europe have to be kept well away from native plants.



Because by your logic, you should never in your life enjoy anything that is not native to your region. You don't think that marijuana should be used by Europeans because it is not native to the land; shouldn't your logic apply to everything in your life then?

No, you've missed the point of what I was saying. It has nothing to do with enjoying life. I'm saying marijuana shouldn't become legalised because it can and will effect the masses of people. They will use it excessively as well as abuse it.

AryanKrieger
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 06:57 PM
I see her point exactly for what it is. It's still only her opinion, and it doesn't mean that it's true.


Read the banner, and answer the same questions that I asked her.


Yes it is her[and my] opinion but that doesnt make it any less true either[using the same logic].
I have read the banner and your point being?


You are grasping for straws. None of those things have anything to do with his quote.

I think that the examples that I gave illustrate the point very clearly in that drug taking is not necessarily a "natural" thing to do and the wider community has the collective right and responsibility to regulate behaviour that may damage the collective good.Or are you denying that right?


not only does it grow, but it flourishes in European soil, as it does in soil everywhere on the earth. That alone tells me that it should be used. If one were to plant a marijuana tree in European soil, and it should die immediately, than I might think otherwise.

AryanKrieger : Cannabis is not naturally grown in Europe except illicitly in the greenhouses and sheds of criminals.

Because by your logic, you should never in your life enjoy anything that is not native to your region. You don't think that marijuana should be used by Europeans because it is not native to the land; shouldn't your logic apply to everything in your life then?

AryanKrieger Cannabis is not only not native to Europe but also there is no traditional culture of using this drug.

Ewergrin
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 07:14 PM
It doesn't come from Europe, and for that do you think non-whites should live in European countries? does your view apply to people of other races as it does for foreign plants? Also various plants and flowers that are not native to Europe have to be kept well away from native plants.
No. Non-whites should not live in European countries. But then again, we aren't talking about people here, now are we?




No, you've missed the point of what I was saying. No, I didn't miss your point.


It has nothing to do with enjoying life. I'm saying marijuana shouldn't become legalised because it can and will effect the masses of people. They will use it excessively as well as abuse it. And it's okay for the government (a group of the very same people that you claim will abuse any potentially harmful substance) to step in and protect you from yourself? It has already been brought up (and ignored) time and time again in this debate that alcohol is a deadly narcotic, with (not always, since any substance in moderation is okay) deadly consequences, yet it is okay and not feared that it will be abused because it is embedded into our heritage?

I guess we should ban all fattening foods, alcohol of any variety, tobacco, loud music, sex, driving over 10 mph, skydiving, mountain climbing, cliff-jumping, riding bicycles, skateboarding, rollerblading, mowing the lawn, and any other potentially dangerous behaviour, as well as any other behaviour or activities that are not obviously fully European in origin.


I think that the examples that I gave illustrate the point very clearly in that drug taking is not necessarily a "natural" thing to do and the wider community has the collective right and responsibility to regulate behaviour that may damage the collective good.Or are you denying that right?

You're outlining non-standard human behaviour and claiming it is as natural as a plant growing out of the ground. How does that make sense?

AryanKrieger
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 07:24 PM
Correct. That particular drug is widely accepted and used by the general public, regardless of the thousands of statistics which show how harmful it is. Knowing this, they still use it. Marijuana shouldn't be any different.

My point is that there are a sufficient number of legally available potentially harmful drugs already on the open market without encouraging more.


True. Long term effects of tobacco use always end in cancer and death, amongst a plentitude of other serious health problems.

Not always.


But you did advocate it, remember? It's ingrained into your heritage.

I dont advocate excessive alcohol consumption.


So marijuana users become more anti-social, whereas tobacco users get cancer and die.

Thats more or less true.


Prove it otherwise.

The medical evidence is already widely available to the general public.


Of course not. That wasn't the point. Should alcohol be confined strictly to home use? Tobacco? How about legal, doctor prescribed medications that make the patients drowsy or otherwise affect their normal behaviour as a side effect? Of course not.

But in a way it is.Public drunkenness is a criminal offence and many public areas in pubs and cafes ban smoking.


But smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol doesn't? We call that a double-standard.
:thumbsup
And that is their own business, which they are more than welcome, and free, to have.
How so? Most 'white nationalists' don't subscribe to heathen beliefs. Why should I reach out to Christian Identity groups, Creator/Cosmotheist groups, and Christian groups for a heathen-based forum?

A significant number of them are heathen and that is a potentially large group to market this forum to as well as other non-WN heathen communities.


Huh? That is absurd. White nationalists are the only anti-semitic peoples? Arabs are anti-semitic, but they certainly aren't white nationalists, now are they?

Of course but anti-semitism is perceived by the wider world to be a characteristic of what we call White Nationalism if openly espoused by Whites.


Why would they need the consent of the people? State governments aren't concerned with getting the peoples approval. If that were the case, we wouldn;t be having this discussion at now, now would we?

Good point but governments cannot enact unworkable legislation as they lose credibility,votes and ultimately power.

Ewergrin
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 07:31 PM
AryanKrieger : Good point but governments cannot enact unworkable legislation as they lose credibility,votes and ultimately power.

In order to properly reply to your points, I am going to need to fix your post. Keep in mind that I am not going to edit the content; I am only going to edit the vB code so that the reader can make proper sense of it.

She-Wolf
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 07:35 PM
And it's okay for the government (a group of the very same people that you claim will abuse any potentially harmful substance) to step in and protect you from yourself?
I didn't say anything about this governmnet protecting anyone, which in reality it doesn't do. This government doesn't care about people like us as you should understand. Many politicians smoke dope and sniff cocaine, they've relaxed marijuana laws and they intend to legalise it. They know drugs will cause problems and they will find ways of making money out of it.


It has already been brought up (and ignored) time and time again in this debate that alcohol is a deadly narcotic, with (not always, since any substance in moderation is okay) deadly consequences, yet it is okay and not feared that it will be abused because it is embedded into our heritage?


That point hasn't been ignored, AryanKrieger and I have mentioned it many times. Alcohol is no good to be taken excessively and yes I agree it causes chaos. That is because people abuse it and drink too much. Alcohol shouldn't and never was used as much as it is today. Most of the alcoholic substances that cause people to go insane in public often drink the cheap, impure stuff filled with chemicals. It isn't the same quality drink that was used in ancient times. Alcohol contains medicinal ingredients. How can you attack one drug and defend another?




I guess we should ban all fattening foods, alcohol of any variety, tobacco, loud music, sex, driving over 10 mph, skydiving, mountain climbing, cliff-jumping, riding bicycles, skateboarding, rollerblading, mowing the lawn, and any other potentially dangerous behaviour, as well as any other behaviour or activities that are not obviously fully European in origin.

Those things are not drugs! :haha

Ewergrin
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 07:46 PM
I didn't say anything about this governmnet protecting anyone, which in reality it doesn't do. This government doesn't care about people like us as you should understand. Many politicians smoke dope and sniff cocaine, they've relaxed marijuana laws and they intend to legalise it. They know drugs will cause problems and they will find ways of making money out of it.
Then why is it criminalized? Because it is simply a way for the powers-that-be to remind us that they control everything that we do and that they can fuck with us anytime they want.


Most of the alcoholic substances that cause people to go insane in public often drink the cheap, impure stuff filled with chemicals. It isn't the same quality drink that was used in ancient times.
Where one arth did you get this bogus information? Care to provide proof? The making of alcohol has not changed much since its inception.


Alcohol contains medicinal ingredients.
And marijuana does to. In fact, you already stated that you wish to change your vote to reflect your beliefs that it should be legal for medicinal purposes. So maybe alcohol should be banned and allowed only for medicinal purposes as well, eh?


How can you attack one drug and defend another?
That is exactly what you are doing. I never once attacked alcohol. All I ever did was ask why is it okay to hold a double standard in relation to marijuana and alcohol. I drink moderately, too. Thankfully, I am responsbile enough to control it. Not the other way around. It is you that is attacking one drug and defending another.


Those things are not drugs! :haha
Some of them are, of course. Regardless, those things are still considered risky behaviour, with potentially dangerous or deadly consequences. Should they or should they not be susceptible to governmental interference and controled by legislation?

AryanKrieger
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 07:53 PM
Where one arth did you get this bogus information? Care to provide proof? The making of alcohol has not changed much since its inception.




There is a general concensus that the beer consumed by our ancestors was far weaker than that which is sold across bars and in shops today.
In ancient Germanic times beer was a staple drink in the same way as tea and coffee is now.This was mailnly due to unsafe water supplies.
This is why I say that it is engrained in our culture and cannot be eradicated but I do agree that excessive alcohol consumption is in itself deadlier than marijuana use.

Ewergrin
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 07:58 PM
My point is that there are a sufficient number of legally available potentially harmful drugs already on the open market without encouraging more.
Fair enough. But if peopel are still going to do the illegal ones, obviously the prohibition of such drugs was a wasted effort. Why not decriminalize it, save the taxpayers money (which obviously could be spent on real problems), and move on to something more meaningful, like finding murderers, rapists and hunting down all traitors and conspirators?


I dont advocate excessive alcohol consumption.Neither do I. However, I won't prohibit someone drinking alcohol just because I wouldn't drink as much as they would.


The medical evidence is already widely available to the general public.Great. Point me in the direction of the statistic that says marijuana is worse than nicotene, please.


But in a way it is.Public drunkenness is a criminal offence and many public areas in pubs and cafes ban smoking.As it is here in the United States. I also agree with banning smoking in public areas. I am not a smoker, and I don't want to breathe unnecessary second hand smoke. However, I still recognize their right to roll up the leaves of that particular organic plant and smoke them. It's their perogative.


A significant number of them are heathen and that is a potentially large group to market this forum to as well as other non-WN heathen communities.And those folks are welcome here.


Of course but anti-semitism is perceived by the wider world to be a characteristic of what we call White Nationalism if openly espoused by Whites.Maybe, but certainly not limited to.

Oh, and I hope neither of you eat chocolate, do you?

She-Wolf
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 08:08 PM
Then why is it criminalized? Because it is simply a way for the powers-that-be to remind us that they control everything that we do and that they can fuck with us anytime they want.

It's criminalised because of the effects on people's brains.



Where one arth did you get this bogus information? Care to provide proof? The making of alcohol has not changed much since its inception.
It's common knowledge. It's easy, have alook at the ingredients. Check up on a website and compare the alcoholic drinks from the past to those sold in bottles today.


And marijuana does to. In fact, you already stated that you wish to change your vote to reflect your beliefs that it should be legal for medicinal purposes. So maybe alcohol should be banned and allowed only for medicinal purposes as well, eh?Yes of course marijuana does, and so does morphine but do you think it means that masses of yobs should be allowed to use it excessively? I never said everything else should be banned. Alcohol laws should be tightened.



That is exactly what you are doing. I never once attacked alcohol. All I ever did was ask why is it okay to hold a double standard in relation to marijuana and alcohol. I drink moderately, too. Thankfully, I am responsbile enough to control it. Not the other way around. It is you that is attacking one drug and defending another. er, no I'm not :D I actually spoke of the dangers of alcoholic abuse and marijuana abuse. They're both drugs. Well you admit being responsible taking it but most people won't be. They won't mentally handle it. They freak out enough as it is.


Some of them are, of course. Regardless, those things are still considered risky behaviour, with potentially dangerous or deadly consequences. Should they or should they not be susceptible to governmental interference and controled by legislation?They're not drug substances but food and hobbies.


Oh, and I hope neither of you eat chocolate, do you?

Yes I eat chocolate. It's food and not a mind altering drug.

In the future long after marijuana becomes legalised and a normal way of life, with alcoholic binges and cannibis affected louts, you'll find those hard drug takers who will argue your same points, but instead wanting heroin and crack Cocaine to be legalised and freely openly used.

AryanKrieger
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 08:34 PM
Yes I eat chocolate. It's food and not a mind altering drug.

In the future long after marijuana becomes legalised and a normal way of life, with alcoholic binges and cannibis affected louts, you'll find those hard drug takers who will argue your same points, but instead wanting heroin and crack Cocaine to be legalised and freely openly used.


Thats an excellent point well made.
It is all a matter of pushing the boundaries even further until no-one knows where the boundaries are any more.
No wonder that people are so morally confused and directionless these days.

Ewergrin
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 09:23 PM
Yes I eat chocolate. It's food and not a mind altering drug.

But the cocoa plant is not indigenous to Europe. Why is it okay to use plants not native to Europe for one thing, but not for another? The fact that one is considered a narcotic should have little affect. Eating excessive amounts of chocolate is just as bad for you as smoking and drinking too much. Why the double standard?


In the future long after marijuana becomes legalised and a normal way of life, with alcoholic binges and cannibis affected louts, you'll find those hard drug takers who will argue your same points, but instead wanting heroin and crack Cocaine to be legalised and freely openly used.
The future may bring a lot of things. We should worry about the present first.

She-Wolf
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 09:28 PM
But the cocoa plant is not indigenous to Europe. Why is it okay to use plants not native to Europe for one thing, but not for another? The fact that one is considered a narcotic should have little affect. Eating excessive amounts of chocolate is just as bad for you as smoking and drinking too much. Why the double standard?
:doh

What "double standard" are you talking about? chocolate isn't the same as hard/soft drugs! Chocolate is not a mind altering drug.



The future may bring a lot of things. We should worry about the present first.

Which is what I'm doing here.

Ewergrin
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 09:31 PM
Thats an excellent point well made.
It is all a matter of pushing the boundaries even further until no-one knows where the boundaries are any more.
I doubt it. Humankind has a way of naturally setting it's own boundries. Common sense, in theory, should prevail.


No wonder that people are so morally confused and directionless these days.
There are a multitude of reasons why people today have become to dejected and disingenuous. I highly doubt that marijuana is a substantial contributing factor.

AryanKrieger
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 09:31 PM
But the cocoa plant is not indigenous to Europe. Why is it okay to use plants not native to Europe for one thing, but not for another? The fact that one is considered a narcotic should have little affect. Eating excessive amounts of chocolate is just as bad for you as smoking and drinking too much. Why the double standard?

In the future long after marijuana becomes legalised and a normal way of life, with alcoholic binges and cannibis affected louts, you'll find those hard drug takers who will argue your same points, but instead wanting heroin and crack Cocaine to be legalised and freely openly used.
The future may bring a lot of things. We should worry about the present first.[/QUOTE]


The last time that I checked chocolate did not produce any significant behavioural changes,least of all anti-social behaviour and criminality.
Why do you and others feel the need to anaesthetise yourselves with drugs?
Is She-Wolf advocating the excessive consumption of chocolate? I think not.

Ewergrin
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 09:32 PM
:doh

What "double standard" are you talking about? chocolate isn't the same as hard/soft drugs! Chocolate is not a mind altering drug.
You're ignoring the point. WHY is it okay for one, and not the other? :doh

AryanKrieger
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 09:36 PM
I doubt it. Humankind has a way of naturally setting it's own boundries. Common sense, in theory, should prevail.


There are a multitude of reasons why people today have become to dejected and disingenuous. I highly doubt that marijuana is a substantial contributing factor.


Humankind sets its boundaries collectively whether you or I like that is not the issue.
Society in general views recreational drug use as undesireable and therefore has set a boundary.
Unfortunately there are significant numbers of people who abuse drugs and are unable to control their habit[as with alcoholics] and to encourage the legalisation of other drugs will intensify the problem and send out the wrong public message.
The use of drugs signifies a desire to "escape". I wonder why the dope users on this forum use drugs.Perhaps we should ask them?

Ewergrin
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 09:41 PM
The last time that I checked chocolate did not produce any significant behavioural changes,least of all anti-social behaviour and criminality.
But it's not native to Europe. How can you use that as an excuse for why Europeans should not use one plant, but it's okay for another one? That's called hypocrisy.

For you to say that marijuana should not be used by Europeans, because it is not a plant that is native to European soil, while at the same time freely admitting to eating chocolate, which comes from a plant which is also not native to European soil, is ridiculous at best. As I said before, why is the fact that one is a narcotic a factor in that logic to begin with?


Why do you and others feel the need to anaesthetise yourselves with drugs?
I don't feel the need to do any such thing. On the rare occassion that I do it, it's because I am a responsible adult who wants to. No other reason.

She-Wolf
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 09:43 PM
You're ignoring the point. WHY is it okay for one, and not the other? :doh

I wasn't ignoring your point, I answered you already. I said chocolate isn't a mind altering drug.

AryanKrieger
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 09:49 PM
But it's not native to Europe. How can you use that as an excuse for why Europeans should not use one plant, but it's okay for another one? That's called hypocrisy.

I dont recall using that argument.Perhaps you are confusing me with She-Wolf?


For you to say that marijuana should not be used by Europeans, because it is not a plant that is native to European soil, while at the same time freely admitting to eating chocolate, which comes from a plant which is also not native to European soil, is ridiculous at best. As I said before, why is the fact that one is a narcotic a factor in that logic to begin with?

Again I never used that argument.I referred to the fact that smoking dope is not part of our indigenous culture.


I don't feel the need to do any such thing. On the rare occassion that I do it, it's because I am a responsible adult who wants to. No other reason.


You may be responsible but why do you use it?

Ewergrin
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 09:50 PM
I wasn't ignoring your point, I answered you already. I said chocolate isn't a mind altering drug.

So it's okay to use plants not native to Europe, as long as they can't be used as drugs, am I correct in understanding you?


I dont recall using that argument.Perhaps you are confusing me with She-Wolf?
You agreed with her, yes?


Again I never used that argument.I referred to the fact that smoking dope is not part of our indigenous culture.But you admitted that drinking it is.


You may be responsible but why do you use it?For the same reason that people smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol. It helps release anxiety and tension. It also enhances the senses. It's nice to have friends over and it's good for a chuckle. In other words, completely harmless to responsible adults.

She-Wolf
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 10:01 PM
So it's okay to use plants not native to Europe, as long as they can't be used as drugs, am I correct in understanding you?

Plants that are mind altering drugs and dangerous to native soil and plants shouldn't be here. Chocolate is sold as a cocoa bean, the plant isn't grown in Europe. You could say the same for the import of exotic fruit and rice. Food is different than a type of drug that makes a number of people freak out. Marijuana also makes a person totally laid back, and a society with stoned people isn't going to make anything happen. Also a car driver under the effects of cannibis is just as dangerous as one who is drunk. I don't think marijuana should be given to teenagers either, or those who are violent. Do you see how this can only add to the problems we have today? You can continue smoking dope as you like, but it shouldn't be made legal for eveyone's use. Also your arguement is just like saying magic mushrooms is no different than button mushrooms.

AryanKrieger
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 10:13 PM
You agreed with her, yes?


But you admitted that drinking it is.


For the same reason that people smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol. It helps release anxiety and tension. It also enhances the senses. It's nice to have friends over and it's good for a chuckle. In other words, completely harmless to responsible adults.

In answer to your question I agree with her stance on this issue yes. However we may have different reasons for opposing the use of marijuana.
My point is whether the plant is indigenous to Europe or not the smoking of that plant is not part of our ancient traditions and is harmful both to ones health as any smoking is and also it can cause anti-social behaviour,accidents etc.
Hey I can have a good chuckle over a glass of lemonade:I dont need chemical substances to induce laughter.

Ewergrin
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 10:29 PM
Plants that are mind altering drugs and dangerous to native soil and plants shouldn't be here.
Huh? Marijuana is dangerous to other plants, and the soil? :doh


Chocolate is sold as a cocoa bean, the plant isn't grown in Europe. You could say the same for the import of exotic fruit and rice. Food is different than a type of drug that makes a number of people freak out. How so? Both can be abused, and when they are abused, it can be potentially dangerous. Food has already been proven to be a vice to more people than drugs, and just as dangerous, albeit in a different way.


Marijuana also makes a person totally laid back, and a society with stoned people isn't going to make anything happen.It does different things to different people. Society is already full of stoned people. What would be the difference? You are acting as if decriminalizing marijuana is going to make millions of people who do not currently do the drug go out and spend the rest of their lives doing it. That, of course, is absurd. Decriminalizing marijuana will hardly affect the numbers of people who are doing it. It will, however, eliminate unnecessary fines and jailtime, as well as free up the system to deal with more important issues, like dealing with real crimes.


Also a car driver under the effects of cannibis is just as dangerous as one who is drunk.It should be obvious to anyone that operating a moving vehicle under any mind or body altering substance is a bad idea. What's your point?


I don't think marijuana should be given to teenagers either, or those who are violent.Fair enough. of course, no one here said anything about passing marijuana out to anyone who walks down the street. The idea behind is to decriminalize it. Which only means that the people who are already using it won't be getting harassed or arrested for doing so.


Do you see how this can only add to the problems we have today?Not at all, and you haven't provided enough evidence to do so.


You can continue smoking dope as you like, but it shouldn't be made legal for eveyone's use.How long have you hated freedom and liberty?


Also your arguement is just like saying magic mushrooms is no different than button mushrooms.Riiiight....
:rolleyes


In answer to your question I agree with her stance on this issue yes. However we may have different reasons for opposing the use of marijuana.
Good. I'm glad you're both here.


My point is whether the plant is indigenous to Europe or not the smoking of that plant is not part of our ancient traditions [quote]
Neither is electricity or the internet. Those things came into being because of progress...

[quote]and is harmful both to ones health as any smoking is and also it can cause anti-social behaviour,accidents etc.So then should smoking and alcohol be completely prohibited?


Hey I can have a good chuckle over a glass of lemonade:I dont need chemical substances to induce laughter.I don't need any substance to induce laughter either. What's your point?

AryanKrieger
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 10:38 PM
Huh? marijuana is dangerous to other pleants, and the soul? :doh


How so? Both can be abused, and when they are abused, it can be potentially dangerous. Food has already been proven to be a vice to more people than drugs, and just as dangerous, albeit in a different way.


It does different things to different people. Society is already full of stoned people. What would be the difference? You are acting as if decriminalizing marijuana is going to make millions of people who do not currently do the drug go out and spend the rest of their lives doing it. That, of course, is absurd. Decriminalizing marijuana will hardly affect the numbers of people who are doing it. It will, however, eliminate unnecessary fines and jailtime, as well as free up the system to deal with more important issues, like dealing with real crimes.


It should be obvious to anyone that operating a moving vehicle under any mind or body altering substance is a bad idea. What's your point?


Fair enough. of course, no one here said anything about passing marijuana out to anyone who walks down the street. The idea behind is to decriminalize it. Which only means that the people who are already using it won't be getting harassed or arrested for doing so.


Not at all, and you haven't provided enough evidence to do so.


How long have you hated freedom and liberty?


Riiiight....
:rolleyes


I think that the key argument here that She-Wolf and I are trying to make is that the decriminalisation of "soft drugs" would encourage their wider use amongst the community and this surely cannot be in the overall public interest just as an increase in numbers smoking tobacco would not be in the public interest?

She-Wolf
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 10:45 PM
Huh? marijuana is dangerous to other pleants, and the soul? :doh

Soul? I actually said "soil". This is what I wrote: "Plants that are mind altering drugs and dangerous to native soil and plants shouldn't be here."
To make it clear,
"Plants that are mind altering drugs" (like cannibis) "and dangerous to native soil and plants shouldn't be here". which is foreign flowers, shrubs, and other plants that are poisonous to native plantlife as well as GM pollen. Now I didn't say marijuana was dangerous to plants and soil. Maybe you've had enough dope as you've been losing concentrate on what's been said.



How so? Both can be abused, and when they are abused, it can be potentially dangerous. Food has already been proven to be a vice to more people than drugs, and just as dangerous, albeit in a different way.


Chocolate can be abused???? is that what you're trying to say? LOL



It does different things to different people. Society is already full of stoned people.

I can agree with you there.


What would be the difference? You are acting as if decriminalizing marijuana is going to make millions of people who do not currently do the drug go out and spend the rest of their lives doing it.

They do already because it's "cool" and will in the future, when marijuana becomes promoted.



That, of course, is absurd. Decriminalizing marijuana will hardly affect the numbers of people who are doing it. It will, however, eliminate unnecessary fines and jailtime, as well as free up the system to deal with more important issues, like dealing with real crimes.

Yes it will but I'm worried about the streets becoming an even dangerous mess with another drug added. This isn't about people getting stoned out of their heads at home, this is about the abuse.



It should be obvious to anyone that operating a moving vehicle under any mind or body altering substance is a bad idea. What's your point?

My point is that many will take drugs whatever they're doing, because it will become legal.


Fair enough. of course, no one here said anything about passing marijuana out to anyone who walks down the street. The idea behind is to decriminalize it. Which only means that the people who are already using it won't be getting harassed or arrested for doing so.


Yes, and also it will create more problems.


Not at all, and you haven't provided enough evidence to do so.


Why do I need to provide evidence, you haven't. And why haven't you replied to my earlier comment about the future possibility of people demanding legalisation of hard drugs?


How long have you hated freedom and liberty?


What on earth makes you think I hate freedom and liberty? besides, I'm not an American so I'm not obsessed with those phrases.


Riiiight....
:rolleyes

Which is what I thought when you started talking about chocolate :D

Ewergrin
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 10:46 PM
I think that the key argument here that She-Wolf and I are trying to make is that the decriminalisation of "soft drugs" would encourage their wider use amongst the community and this surely cannot be in the overall public interest just as an increase in numbers smoking tobacco would not be in the public interest?

Fair enough.
We dont really know if it would encourage a wider use, since it certainly hasn't been tried. My entire point is what is that if we legalize marijuana, and apply the same laws and restrictions to it as are already applied to alcohol, why is the difference, and why is that a bad thing?

AryanKrieger
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 10:52 PM
Fair enough.
We dont really know if it would encourage a wider use, since it certainly hasn't been tried. My entire point is what is that if we legalize marijuana, and apply the same laws and restrictions to it as are already applied to alcohol, why is the difference, and why is that a bad thing?


I personally think that alcohol abuse is getting out of hand,especially in England,amongst the young and particularly females[partly because of the girl power culture promoted in the 1990s].
I dont want to see the situation get worse by yet more drugs becoming widely available.
Of course we cant be sure what effects decriminalisation will have but it is a big risk to take.
Would it not be better to keep things as they are now and for responsible people to practice their habit discretely?

Ewergrin
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 11:02 PM
Soul? I actually said "soil". This is what I wrote: "Plants that are mind altering drugs and dangerous to native soil and plants shouldn't be here."
I know. it was a typo on my part, which I fixed already.


To make it clear,
"Plants that are mind altering drugs" (like cannibis) "and dangerous to native soil and plants shouldn't be here". which is foreign flowers, shrubs, and other plants that are poisonous to native plantlife as well as GM pollen. Now I didn't say marijuana was dangerous to plants and soil. Maybe you've had enough dope as you've been losing concentrate on what's been said.
If you were not implying that marijuana was dangerous to native plants and soil, then what plants are you reffering to? My concentration is perfectly fine. Perhaps you should re-read your own posts before making outlandish statements such as that one again. Your statements are not making sense.




Chocolate can be abused???? is that what you're trying to say? LOL
Absolutely. Chocolate is a food. It's a very fattening and it is abused daily by thousands and thousands of people across the world. It's not a drug, of course. No one ever said it was. However, it is still dangerous, as all food can be, when abused. It will lead to obesity, bad skin, crazed behaviour due to the excessive amount of sugar intake, and an overall general health hazard when abused. Do you deny this?


Yes it will but I'm worried about the streets becoming an even dangerous mess with another drug added. This isn't about people getting stoned out of their heads at home, this is about the abuse.
Alcohol is abused in public way more often than in private. Should alcohol be prohibited?


Why do I need to provide evidence, you haven't. And why haven't you replied to my earlier comment about the future possibility of people demanding legalisation of hard drugs?
I have given every logical reason why it should become legal, in my opinion. You have given your reasons why you think it should be illegal, in your opinion. I can't comment on the legalization of hard drugs because I do not do them.


What on earth makes you think I hate freedom and liberty? besides, I'm not an American so I'm not obsessed with those phrases.
Yes, those aweful, stupid Americans, obsessed with freedom and liberty, such horrific values! Incidently, it was the English who introduced those values here during this nations inception. Oops!

AryanKrieger
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 11:09 PM
I know. it was a typo on my part, which I fixed already.


If you were not implying that marijuana was dangerous to native plants and soil, then what plants are you reffering to? My concentration is perfectly fine. Perhaps you should re-read your own posts before making outlandish statements such as that one again. Your statements are not making sense.




Absolutely. Chocolate is a food. It's a very fattening and it is abused daily by thousands and thousands of people across the world. It's not a drug, of course. No one ever said it was. However, it is still dangerous, as all food can be, when abused. It will lead to obesity, bad skin, crazed behaviour due to the excessive amount of sugar intake, and an overall general health hazard when abused. Do you deny this?


Alcohol is abused in public way more often than in private. Should alcohol be prohibited?


I have given every logical reason why it should become legal, in my opinion. You have given your reasons why you think it should be illegal, in your opinion. I can't comment on the legalization of hard drugs because I do not do them.


Yes, those aweful, stupid Americans, obsessed with freedom and liberty, such horrific values! Incidently, it was the English who introduced those values here during this nations inception. Oops!


I think that the populist concpts of "freedom and liberty"[I notice that you didnt mention fraternity] were introduced after the French revolution and hence not by the English.

Ewergrin
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 11:10 PM
I personally think that alcohol abuse is getting out of hand,especially in England,amongst the young and particularly females[partly because of the girl power culture promoted in the 1990s].
I dont want to see the situation get worse by yet more drugs becoming widely available.
Of course we cant be sure what effects decriminalisation will have but it is a big risk to take.
Would it not be better to keep things as they are now and for responsible people to practice their habit discretely?

Possibly. The fact is, we just don't know, no matter how much we speculate.

Telperion
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 11:14 PM
Yes of course marijuana does, and so does morphine but do you think it means that masses of yobs should be allowed to use it excessively? I never said everything else should be banned. Alcohol laws should be tightened.


To clarify your position, are you saying that alcohol laws should be tightened, but alcohol should not be banned, becuase alcohol is somehow inherently less dangerous than marijuana? Or, are you saying that you would like to ban alcohol in principle along with marijuana, but that the only reason you don't favour banning alcohol in practice is that alcohol's use is already so widespread that banning it would be impracticable?

She-Wolf
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 11:18 PM
To clarify your position, are you saying that alcohol laws should be tightened, but alcohol should not be banned, becuase alcohol is somehow inherently less dangerous than marijuana? Or, are you saying that you would like to ban alcohol in principle along with marijuana, but that the only reason you don't favour banning alcohol in practice is that alcohol's use is already so widespread that banning it would be impracticable?

I'm saying marijuana is not native to Europe and should remain banned. Alcohol abuse should be controlled but that substance has been with Europeans since time began and shouldn't be banned.



If you were not implying that marijuana was dangerous to native plants and soil, then what plants are you reffering to? My concentration is perfectly fine. Perhaps you should re-read your own posts before making outlandish statements such as that one again. Your statements are not making sense.


*sigh* I repeat what I said earlier: "Plants that are mind altering drugs" (like cannibis) "and dangerous to native soil and plants shouldn't be here". which is foreign flowers, shrubs, and other plants that are poisonous to native plantlife as well as GM pollen.



Absolutely. Chocolate is a food. It's a very fattening and it is abused daily by thousands and thousands of people across the world. It's not a drug, of course. No one ever said it was. However, it is still dangerous, as all food can be, when abused. It will lead to obesity, bad skin, crazed behaviour due to the excessive amount of sugar intake, and an overall general health hazard when abused. Do you deny this?
:rolleyes:

What evidence do you have? You won't accept marijuana has abusive qualities?



Alcohol is abused in public way more often than in private. Should alcohol be prohibited?I've answered this one millions of times on this thread.



I have given every logical reason why it should become legal, in my opinion. You have given your reasons why you think it should be illegal, in your opinion. I can't comment on the legalization of hard drugs because I do not do them.
Your "logical" reason is that it should be legal so that people at home can socialise with friends and smoke dope without fear of arrest by the police. I also said that that's fair enough, but I don't think people on the streets can handle this drug.

Telperion
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 11:34 PM
I think that the examples that I gave illustrate the point very clearly in that drug taking is not necessarily a "natural" thing to do and the wider community has the collective right and responsibility to regulate behaviour that may damage the collective good.Or are you denying that right?

Personally, I would definitely deny any purported right to regulate behaviour that "may" be damaging according to some concept of the "collective good" that has not been clearly articulated. What is the "collective good"? Who defines it, and on what basis? Are there any limits to the concept of the "collective good" that restrict the scope of its application? These are important questions, because it should be obvious that state regulation of behaviour on the grounds that it "might" be contrary to a sufficiently elastic conception of the "collective good" is the basis for effectively limitless tyranny.

If you want to argue on the basis of the "collective good", then, you should clearly define this concept for the purposes of developing an argument on the drugs issue. For example, if one were to adopt the harm principle for criminalizing conduct, i.e. Oliver Wendel Holmes' statement that "the right to swing my fists ends where the other man's face begins", then one would have a basis for criminalizing specific types of conduct that harm or even pose a serious risk of harm to others, e.g. driving while intoxicated, but not conduct that does not in itself harm or pose a significant risk of harm to others, e.g. consuming alcohol per se. And the same principle could be applied to other drugs.


I'm saying marijuana is not native to Europe and should remain banned. Alcohol abuse should be controlled but that substance has been with Europeans since time began and shouldn't be banned.

Should tobacco also be banned, then? It is not native to Europe, and is unquestionably more addictive and lethal than alcohol or marijuana.

Ewergrin
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 11:58 PM
*sigh* I repeat what I said earlier: "Plants that are mind altering drugs" (like cannibis) "and dangerous to native soil and plants shouldn't be here". which is foreign flowers, shrubs, and other plants that are poisonous to native plantlife as well as GM pollen.

How is marijuana dangerous or poisonous to native soil and plants?


What evidence do you have? You won't accept marijuana has abusive qualities?
You're ignoring the part in this thread where I said that the same restrictions and laws that apply to alcohol could be applied to marijuana, thus controlling it, like alcohol.


I've answered this one millions of times on this thread.
Uh huh.


Your "logical" reason is that it should be legal so that people at home can socialise with friends and smoke dope without fear of arrest by the police. I also said that that's fair enough, but I don't think people on the streets can handle this drug.
People on the street are already handling it. It's marijuana afterall, not crack or PCP.

Thorburn
Sunday, November 21st, 2004, 05:04 AM
Of course one can use the drug and still be eloquent and lucid etc[at other times] but I have found drug users to be far from meeting this standard,especially when under the influence of the said drug. Depends on the drug. Nicotine, caffeine, and opiates would rather invigorate the lucidity and rhethoric abilities of him or her who is under their influence. Same can be said for small amounts of marijuana and cocaine.


You are right in the sense that it isnt any "different" but do we want to add yet another drug to the list of "legally available" and "socially acceptable" drugs? Legal and socially accepted are different things. We definitely want to add all currently prohibited drugs to the legal list. We furthermore should not mind or socially shun people if they use any drug moderately and responsibly for valid medical, psychological, social, or recreational reasons.

Now, there is simply no doubt that marijuana is less addictive, less harmful, and less socially damaging than alcohol. People believe that, if marijuana would be legalized, more people would be using it. Well, this is not necessarily true, because we have data from the Netherlands where it is decriminalized to a certain extent, as far as coffee shops and the possession of small amounts (5g or less) beyond them is concerned, and marijhuana use in the Netherlands is about average compared to other Western European countries, and it is far lower than in other countries where marijuana is prohibited, such as the United States or South Africa. The prohibition is simply patently not working. Everyone who wants a certain substance can get it at any time. In particular true for marijuana.

But even if we would assume that people would use more marijuana if it would be legalized (at least on the long run once it becomes more accepted), it would not be a net increase in substance use. It would be very much a replacement -- people would use more marijuana and less alcohol... they would substitute a less damaging for a more damaging drug, and this would have positive effects on the general health. Consequently, on these grounds alone, all drugs whose abuse is less damaging and has less negative social consequences than alcohol abuse should be legalized, and that would include at least marijuana and opiates.


State governments spend millions every year trying to educate people on the dangers of smoking tobacco. Do you seriously think that public opinion would accept the legalisation of another drug which is even more harmful than tobacco in the present anti-smoking climate? There is currently no more harmful drug than tobacco, and this by a huge margin.


Alcohol does cause problems, too many of them with people who abuse it. The problem is that alcohol is being used excessively and so would marijuana if it became legal. The abuse potential of marijuana is far lower, because it is far less addictive than alcohol. And again, if we could only get some of the hardcore alcoholics or potential alcohol addicts to use marijhuana instead, there will be far less damage, and they will be able to kick the habit much easier.


It has everything to do with it. Mushrooms are hallucigenic and native to some northern European countries and therefor people from this part of the world wasn't meant to use it. So you agree with the legalization of magic mushrooms?


Cannibis isn't native to Europe and nor is tobacco. Wine and beer are not of European origin either. The poppy, however, is native to Europe. So you agree with the legalization of opiates?


Nothing and no one is stopping you from being a dope smoker, by all means go ahead. Excellent. So you agree with the legalization of marijuana after all? Many people are stopped by the police, in fact.


Well I think you have just demonstrated what drugs can do to human behaviour. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.


But surely the essence of She-Wolf`s argument is that the use of cannabis for recreational purposes has no place in traditional Germanic culture because it has never been grown traditionally within northern European countries. Wine has never been grown traditionally in Europe until someone started it. Europeans are now growing marijuana for hundreds of years. How long do we have to wait until it becomes a "tradition" and thus should be legal in your eyes?


Having sexual intercourse with closely related family members may appear natural to some but is none the less outlawed by the wider community.
Likewise theft may appear natural to some but is not in the wider interests of the community and consequently is unlawful.
Addling ones brain on dope may likewise appear natural to some but because it is not in the interests or considered to be in the interests of the wider community it is outlawed. I'm talking about plants not incest. I'm talking about conduct that does no harm to others not theft. And if you want to have drugs banned on the ground that you think the prohibition prevents harm to the community, then you are wrong. The drug prohibition does harm to the community far beyond the combined damage drug use and drug abuse do.


I'm saying marijuana shouldn't become legalised because it can and will effect the masses of people. They will use it excessively as well as abuse it. The experiences we have from pre-prohibition times -- marijuana is really only outlawed for about 50-70 years in most countries -- and from the Netherlands do not back up your claim in the slightest. The United States with the most tough laws against marijuana has the highest rate of marijuana use of any country with a majority European population.


I think that the examples that I gave illustrate the point very clearly in that drug taking is not necessarily a "natural" thing to do and the wider community has the collective right and responsibility to regulate behaviour that may damage the collective good. Regulation sounds fair. That's exactly what we want. Same way alcohol is regulated. Quality control, taxes, protection of minors, information campaigns, medical treatment in other words. The community has no right whatsoever, however, to declare a Germanic man or woman a criminal for any conduct that does no harm to others. Apart from the fact that prohibition only harms the community.


My point is that there are a sufficient number of legally available potentially harmful drugs already on the open market without encouraging more. In fact, the most harmful drugs are legal, and harmless drugs are illegal. Any drug of interest to an intelligent person is now prohibited.


I dont advocate excessive alcohol consumption. Nobody advocates excessive use of any drug.


excessive alcohol consumption is in itself deadlier than marijuana use. Excessive alcohol consumption is also deadlier than excessive marijuana use.


Yes of course marijuana does, and so does morphine but do you think it means that masses of yobs should be allowed to use it excessively? ... Well you admit being responsible taking it but most people won't be. They won't mentally handle it. They freak out enough as it is. What yobs? And who is freaking out? Everyone but yourself I assume? Whenever I saw people smoking a joint, I never witnessed anyone freaking out. I have seen lots of drunkards freaking out, however. Nonetheless, most people use drugs moderately and responsibly, and obviously, every Germanic man and woman should have the right to use any substance at his or her own discretion, as long as (s)he does no harm to others, as it used to be tradition in our lands before the advent of Christianity and moral hypocrisy.


Yes I eat chocolate. It's food and not a mind altering drug. This is false. Chocolate contains theobromin and sugar both of which are addictive and mind-altering. Sugar actually kills annually about as many people as tobacco. Do you know how much damage is done by sugar, tobacco, alcohol, and prescription medicine -- yes, and, even over-the-counter medicine -- compared to the currently illegal drugs? How much damage is done by the prohibition compared to the illegal drugs?


In the future long after marijuana becomes legalised and a normal way of life, with alcoholic binges and cannibis affected louts, you'll find those hard drug takers who will argue your same points, but instead wanting heroin and crack Cocaine to be legalised and freely openly used. They should, in fact, be legalized and regulated, absolutely. It would reduce so much damage and harm. :)


The last time that I checked chocolate did not produce any significant behavioural changes,least of all anti-social behaviour and criminality. Alcohol can produce aggression, lack of inhibition and thus criminality; cocaine and speed can do the same; most drug-related criminality, about 99% of it, however, is produced by the prohibition. Marijuana, XTC, and opiates don't make people aggressive or otherwise inclined to criminal conduct. They would rather reduce the likeliness to such tendencies.


Society in general views recreational drug use as undesireable and therefore has set a boundary. Is this a joke? There is hardly anyone in Europe that doesn't use drugs.


Unfortunately there are significant numbers of people who abuse drugs and are unable to control their habit[as with alcoholics] and to encourage the legalisation of other drugs will intensify the problem and send out the wrong public message. False. There are roughly two sorts of people that take drugs. Firstly, drug users that use drugs moderately and responsibly. They don't have a drug problem but only a police problem, and the prohibition does only harm for them. And then there, secondly, drug abusers, a small percentage, who do have a drug problem. Adding a police problem onto their shoulders does not help them in the slightest and actually makes things worse; the damage done to them (and innocents) by the prohibition far exceeds the damage their drug abuse causes them. Consequently, the prohibtion should be rescinded and replaced by a system of regulation.

Furthermore, what "public message" are you talking about? Do you need your government to tell you what's morally right or wrong? What's good for you and what's damaging? What you should do and what not? Did you ever grow up? I want the government to stay out of my house and out of my backyard.


You can continue smoking dope as you like, but it shouldn't be made legal for eveyone's use. What you are saying is a contradiction, because people can exactly not keep on smoking it as they like because of the prohibition. So how would you separate the responsbile people from the irresponsible ones?


Chocolate can be abused???? is that what you're trying to say? LOL Indeed. Sugar and overweight cause far more damage to the society and individuals than alcohol plus all prescription drugs plus all illegal drugs combined. So why not outlaw it? It's not necessary for the nutrition of a human being. We would be healthier without it, no? And everyone that eats chocolate should have his house stormed and be thrown into prison to protect him from himself. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? Sounds like drug prohibition, actually. :)


What on earth makes you think I hate freedom and liberty? besides, I'm not an American so I'm not obsessed with those phrases. You are not a Germanic heathen either? Shame.


The use of drugs signifies a desire to "escape". I wonder why the dope users on this forum use drugs.Perhaps we should ask them? There are umpteen medical, social, psychological, and recreational reasons to take drugs, and all of them are perfectly legitimate. It has not necessarily anything to do to "escape" from reality. Not that brief moments of escape and self-reflection would be illegitimate.


Would it not be better to keep things as they are now and for responsible people to practice their habit discretely? No.

Siegfried
Sunday, November 21st, 2004, 02:31 PM
How is marijuana dangerous or poisonous to native soil and plants?

It may upset the local ecosystem if allowed to spread unregulated, just like European animals did when transported to, for example, Australia. This has little to do with legalisation of marihuana though, as the potential problem can be rather easily evaded by growing the plants in greenhouses. I think it highly unlikely that the limited number of seed that will then escape into the ecosystem will upset the local balance in any serious way.

An unfortunate side effect of the prohibition is the lack of extensive medical data on how long term use of marihuana and other drugs may affect your physical and mental abilities. Some more information on the effects of cannabis can be found in the Vaults of Erowid; click here (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.erow id.org%2Fplants%2Fcannabis%2Fcannabis_ef fects.shtml).

She-Wolf
Sunday, November 21st, 2004, 05:07 PM
Should tobacco also be banned, then? It is not native to Europe, and is unquestionably more addictive and lethal than alcohol or marijuana.

I don't smoke, but a few smokers have said that if it was banned it will get rid of a problem. I also believe cars should be banned but that's another topic.


How is marijuana dangerous or poisonous to native soil and plants?

I already told you twice yesterday... I didn't say marijuana was poisonous to plants and soil. I added along the sentance that other exotic plants were poisonous to native plants and soil and shouldn't be introduced into Europe.



You're ignoring the part in this thread where I said that the same restrictions and laws that apply to alcohol could be applied to marijuana, thus controlling it, like alcohol.
I wasn't ignoring it... you just didn't read my posts properly.



People on the street are already handling it. It's marijuana afterall, not crack or PCP.You don't know that.

AryanKrieger
Sunday, November 21st, 2004, 05:28 PM
Personally, I would definitely deny any purported right to regulate behaviour that "may" be damaging according to some concept of the "collective good" that has not been clearly articulated. What is the "collective good"? Who defines it, and on what basis? Are there any limits to the concept of the "collective good" that restrict the scope of its application? These are important questions, because it should be obvious that state regulation of behaviour on the grounds that it "might" be contrary to a sufficiently elastic conception of the "collective good" is the basis for effectively limitless tyranny.

If you want to argue on the basis of the "collective good", then, you should clearly define this concept for the purposes of developing an argument on the drugs issue. For example, if one were to adopt the harm principle for criminalizing conduct, i.e. Oliver Wendel Holmes' statement that "the right to swing my fists ends where the other man's face begins", then one would have a basis for criminalizing specific types of conduct that harm or even pose a serious risk of harm to others, e.g. driving while intoxicated, but not conduct that does not in itself harm or pose a significant risk of harm to others, e.g. consuming alcohol per se. And the same principle could be applied to other drugs.

The collective good I am referring to is public health and law and order.
We surely do not need a discussion on political science to be able to understand my terms of reference.
The detection and punishment of drug users and suppliers will have no detrimental effect on the vast majority of people who are not so weak of mind to rely upon drugs to make them feel good or relax.
I dont want to be inhaling someone elses cannabis thank you very much,even more so than tobacco and that is noxious enough.

She-Wolf
Sunday, November 21st, 2004, 05:40 PM
So you agree with the legalization of magic mushrooms?

No I don't, but magic mushrooms are native to European soil. I was poiting out the ridiculous comparison Folkish made about chocolate and drugs.



Wine and beer are not of European origin either. The poppy, however, is native to Europe. So you agree with the legalization of opiates?

Old beer was made with yeast and also with added honey. Wine is made from grapes. Vinyards exist all over Europe and the ingredients over the centuries have changed so that alcohol imports different drinks.


Excellent. So you agree with the legalization of marijuana after all? Many people are stopped by the police, in fact.

No I don't think it should be legalised, I never said that. I'm saying that you can continue smoking illegal drugs if you like but marijuana shouldn't be legal.



This is false. Chocolate contains theobromin and sugar both of which are addictive and mind-altering. Sugar actually kills annually about as many people as tobacco. Do you know how much damage is done by sugar, tobacco, alcohol, and prescription medicine -- yes, and, even over-the-counter medicine -- compared to the currently illegal drugs? How much damage is done by the prohibition compared to the illegal drugs?

So sugar kills people but marijuana smoke doesn't? I know a few dope smokers who later developed lung cancer.


They should, in fact, be legalized and regulated, absolutely. It would reduce so much damage and harm. :)

How will it?


What you are saying is a contradiction, because people can exactly not keep on smoking it as they like because of the prohibition. So how would you separate the responsbile people from the irresponsible ones?

Well you'll find out once it's legal.


You are not a Germanic heathen either? Shame.


I'm Germanic and heathen yes, just proud not to be an American.

AryanKrieger
Sunday, November 21st, 2004, 05:53 PM
Depends on the drug. Nicotine, caffeine, and opiates would rather invigorate the lucidity and rhethoric abilities of him or her who is under their influence. Same can be said for small amounts of marijuana and cocaine.

Legal and socially accepted are different things. We definitely want to add all currently prohibited drugs to the legal list. We furthermore should not mind or socially shun people if they use any drug moderately and responsibly for valid medical, psychological, social, or recreational reasons.

Now, there is simply no doubt that marijuana is less addictive, less harmful, and less socially damaging than alcohol. People believe that, if marijuana would be legalized, more people would be using it. Well, this is not necessarily true, because we have data from the Netherlands where it is decriminalized to a certain extent, as far as coffee shops and the possession of small amounts (5g or less) beyond them is concerned, and marijhuana use in the Netherlands is about average compared to other Western European countries, and it is far lower than in other countries where marijuana is prohibited, such as the United States or South Africa. The prohibition is simply patently not working. Everyone who wants a certain substance can get it at any time. In particular true for marijuana.

But even if we would assume that people would use more marijuana if it would be legalized (at least on the long run once it becomes more accepted), it would not be a net increase in substance use. It would be very much a replacement -- people would use more marijuana and less alcohol... they would substitute a less damaging for a more damaging drug, and this would have positive effects on the general health. Consequently, on these grounds alone, all drugs whose abuse is less damaging and has less negative social consequences than alcohol abuse should be legalized, and that would include at least marijuana and opiates.

There is currently no more harmful drug than tobacco, and this by a huge margin.

The abuse potential of marijuana is far lower, because it is far less addictive than alcohol. And again, if we could only get some of the hardcore alcoholics or potential alcohol addicts to use marijhuana instead, there will be far less damage, and they will be able to kick the habit much easier.

So you agree with the legalization of magic mushrooms?

Wine and beer are not of European origin either. The poppy, however, is native to Europe. So you agree with the legalization of opiates?

Excellent. So you agree with the legalization of marijuana after all? Many people are stopped by the police, in fact.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Wine has never been grown traditionally in Europe until someone started it. Europeans are now growing marijuana for hundreds of years. How long do we have to wait until it becomes a "tradition" and thus should be legal in your eyes?

I'm talking about plants not incest. I'm talking about conduct that does no harm to others not theft. And if you want to have drugs banned on the ground that you think the prohibition prevents harm to the community, then you are wrong. The drug prohibition does harm to the community far beyond the combined damage drug use and drug abuse do.

The experiences we have from pre-prohibition times -- marijuana is really only outlawed for about 50-70 years in most countries -- and from the Netherlands do not back up your claim in the slightest. The United States with the most tough laws against marijuana has the highest rate of marijuana use of any country with a majority European population.

Regulation sounds fair. That's exactly what we want. Same way alcohol is regulated. Quality control, taxes, protection of minors, information campaigns, medical treatment in other words. The community has no right whatsoever, however, to declare a Germanic man or woman a criminal for any conduct that does no harm to others. Apart from the fact that prohibition only harms the community.

In fact, the most harmful drugs are legal, and harmless drugs are illegal. Any drug of interest to an intelligent person is now prohibited.

Nobody advocates excessive use of any drug.

Excessive alcohol consumption is also deadlier than excessive marijuana use.

What yobs? And who is freaking out? Everyone but yourself I assume? Whenever I saw people smoking a joint, I never witnessed anyone freaking out. I have seen lots of drunkards freaking out, however. Nonetheless, most people use drugs moderately and responsibly, and obviously, every Germanic man and woman should have the right to use any substance at his or her own discretion, as long as (s)he does no harm to others, as it used to be tradition in our lands before the advent of Christianity and moral hypocrisy.

This is false. Chocolate contains theobromin and sugar both of which are addictive and mind-altering. Sugar actually kills annually about as many people as tobacco. Do you know how much damage is done by sugar, tobacco, alcohol, and prescription medicine -- yes, and, even over-the-counter medicine -- compared to the currently illegal drugs? How much damage is done by the prohibition compared to the illegal drugs?

They should, in fact, be legalized and regulated, absolutely. It would reduce so much damage and harm. :)

Alcohol can produce aggression, lack of inhibition and thus criminality; cocaine and speed can do the same; most drug-related criminality, about 99% of it, however, is produced by the prohibition. Marijuana, XTC, and opiates don't make people aggressive or otherwise inclined to criminal conduct. They would rather reduce the likeliness to such tendencies.

Is this a joke? There is hardly anyone in Europe that doesn't use drugs.

False. There are roughly two sorts of people that take drugs. Firstly, drug users that use drugs moderately and responsibly. They don't have a drug problem but only a police problem, and the prohibition does only harm for them. And then there, secondly, drug abusers, a small percentage, who do have a drug problem. Adding a police problem onto their shoulders does not help them in the slightest and actually makes things worse; the damage done to them (and innocents) by the prohibition far exceeds the damage their drug abuse causes them. Consequently, the prohibtion should be rescinded and replaced by a system of regulation.

Furthermore, what "public message" are you talking about? Do you need your government to tell you what's morally right or wrong? What's good for you and what's damaging? What you should do and what not? Did you ever grow up? I want the government to stay out of my house and out of my backyard.

What you are saying is a contradiction, because people can exactly not keep on smoking it as they like because of the prohibition. So how would you separate the responsbile people from the irresponsible ones?

Indeed. Sugar and overweight cause far more damage to the society and individuals than alcohol plus all prescription drugs plus all illegal drugs combined. So why not outlaw it? It's not necessary for the nutrition of a human being. We would be healthier without it, no? And everyone that eats chocolate should have his house stormed and be thrown into prison to protect him from himself. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? Sounds like drug prohibition, actually. :)

You are not a Germanic heathen either? Shame.

There are umpteen medical, social, psychological, and recreational reasons to take drugs, and all of them are perfectly legitimate. It has not necessarily anything to do to "escape" from reality. Not that brief moments of escape and self-reflection would be illegitimate.

No.


I fail to see why you assume that She-Wolf is neither Germanic nor heathen.
I can assure you personally that she is both but what she and I do not subscribe to are the false and shallow American reworkings of the concepts of "liberty" and "freedom."
These concepts have their origins in the French Revolution.Are you then proposing a form of secular humanism?
You are advocating a society where people can legally and freely get stoned,partake of any drug that they wish and inevitable become a real pain in the arse towards other people[as alcoholics are].
Perhaps if dope users spent less time and money inhaling plant fumes and did something productive with their lives Europe would not be in the diseased state that it is now?

Telperion
Sunday, November 21st, 2004, 06:22 PM
I don't smoke, but a few smokers have said that if it was banned it will get rid of a problem.

OK, I'll infer that you favour banning tobacco, which is of course fully consistent with your argument.

But if I may ask another question; alcohol, per se, is not native to Europe, rather being a byproduct of fermentation processes than can be initiated using a wide variety of plants anywhere in the world. So, it would seem that some alcoholic beverages are native to Europe, in the sense that they only use ingredients native to Europe, e.g. scotch, beer, mead, wine. However, other alcoholic beverages use ingredients that are not native to Europe, e.g. rum which is made with sugarcane, a crop native to the Caribbean. So, do you also favour banning alcoholic beverages such as rum that incorporate non-European ingredients?


The collective good I am referring to is public health and law and order.
We surely do not need a discussion on political science to be able to understand my terms of reference.
The detection and punishment of drug users and suppliers will have no detrimental effect on the vast majority of people who are not so weak of mind to rely upon drugs to make them feel good or relax.
I dont want to be inhaling someone elses cannabis thank you very much,even more so than tobacco and that is noxious enough.

Well, the political science element is important, because the sort of argument you are using could be applied to many other issues as well.

As far as "law and order" in concerned, that is a tautological argument, since is only because marijuana use is criminalized that those who use that substance are breaking the law. Therefore "law and order" isn't a rationale for banning marijuana, unless you can prove that its use leads inexorably, or with a very high degree of probability, to the commission of other criminal activity.

As for public health, the secondhand smoke issue is important, and certainly raises a solid rationale for banning the smoking of any substance in public places such as restaurants, pubs, subways, workplaces, etc. Such a ban is based on the harm principle, i.e. a non-smoker should not be involuntarily exposed to the risk of harm from tobacco or other smoke simply because they are in the same public place as a smoker.

But this is not a rationale for banning the private smoking of tobacco, or marijuana, or any other substance, unless you adopt a paternalistic approach that assumes it is alright for the state to tell adult citizens that they cannot choose to do things that are harmful to themselves alone. The point I am still trying to uncover in your argument is, what is the justification for this sort of paternalism?

Ewergrin
Monday, November 22nd, 2004, 12:04 AM
I already told you twice yesterday... I didn't say marijuana was poisonous to plants and soil. I added along the sentance that other exotic plants were poisonous to native plants and soil and shouldn't be introduced into Europe.
You have an odd way of wording your sentences if you think that that is the message you conveyed.




I wasn't ignoring it... you just didn't read my posts properly. I read them exactly as they were written. It's not my fault that they didn't make sense.




You don't know that.Yes I do.


No I don't, but magic mushrooms are native to European soil. I was poiting out the ridiculous comparison Folkish made about chocolate and drugs.
You stated that one reason marijuana should not be consumed by Europeans is because it is not native to European soil. Yet at the same time you eat chocolate, which comes from a plant not native to European soil. That's the most simple way it can be stated. It's a double standard. You refuse to recognize that.

Thorburn
Monday, November 22nd, 2004, 10:12 AM
I fail to see why you assume that She-Wolf is neither Germanic nor heathen. Name one Germanic Heathen society prior to Christianization that outlawed the personal consumption of any drug or plant or the harvesting or cultivation of any drug or plant; one Germanic community dedicated to the traditional ways out of the dozens of Germanic tribes at any point in time during the last millenia, at any location of this continent or beyond it (including North Africa), prior to the advent of Christianity in their midst, and I shall retract this statement. Authoritarianism and plant hysteria is totally incompatible with the Heathen way of life.


I can assure you personally that she is both But then again, that's the same a lot of New Agers and Fascisti and Nazis and Communists and even Judeo-Christians assure me of themselves.


but what she and I do not subscribe to are the false and shallow American reworkings of the concepts of "liberty" and "freedom." Too bad because they are unarguably Germanic in nature and go back to the renaissance, i. e. the rebirth of European values after the Dark Ages. Our nature breaking through.


These concepts have their origins in the French Revolution. Nah, that's distorted egalitarianism that drew partly from the same sources. I wouldn't call egalitarian totalitarianism and the execution of the nation's elite and dissidents freedom-conscious. The French revolutionaries understood Voltaire and Rousseau as much, as Lenin and Marx understood Hegel, namely not at all. The worst threat to humanity are people who are well-meaning but have little understanding. If you are British, you should start with John Stuart Mill. (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roya lfamily.org%2Fdemocracy%2FonLiberty0.htm ) A genius, I might add.


You are advocating a society where people can freely get stoned,partake of any drug that they wish and inevitable become a real pain in the arse towards other people[as alcoholics are]. Sounds like drug prohibition, as the drug prohibition doesn't prevent anyone from taking or getting drugs. It simply does not. It's crucial that you hammer this into your mind. Drug prohibition does not reduce drug consumption. It might shift drug consumption somewhat -- from illegal to semi-legal drugs (prescription drugs) and legal drugs (like alcohol). In other words, currently it shifts drug consumption primarily from less harmful (marijhuana, above all) to more harmful drugs (alcohol, above all).

Secondly, it does not prevent anyone, including your kids, from getting any drug (s)he likes. And there is no way you can prevent this, be it then you lock your kids up 24/7 in their room and permit them no visits by friends. Anyone who wants to get marijhuana will get it. Anyone who wants to get heroin or crack will get it. Anyone who is offered them and wants to try them will do so. Consequently, the prohibition does not prevent anyone from getting addicted either -- it actually increases addiction rates because drug prohibition leads to harder (and I'm using this term in its legitimate use of concentration; vodka is harder than beer; Heroin HCl is harder than opium; crack is harder than coca leaves; and hashish is harder than cannabis) and more addictive drugs.

They can get all these drugs freely and in 99+% of all cases absolutely undisturbedly. 99+% of all drug deals occur without problems. Why? Because it is not a crime. Two persons, a seller and a buyer, agree to exchange a commodity for an agreed price. Nobody is deprived of life, health, liberty, or property without his consent. That makes it fundamentally different from severe bodily harm, rape, burglary, theft, and so forth, where one party suffers harm against his will and the crime will be reported.

Needless to say, the War on Drugs can never be won on simple market-economical grounds. If you get tougher with the policing, you might deter a certain amount of people from entering the market as dealers: never on the top-levels, because there is just too much money to be made and they are facing life imprisonment or the death sentence even now, but on the street-levels, for sure. The non-addicts that is. Execute all petty dealers if caught, and there will be less of them around. That doesn't necessarily mean that there will be less drugs around, however. The business would shift to fewer people who are willing to take a higher risk and make significantly more money, enabling them to care for their protection.

However, let's just assume there would be less dealers and less drugs due to tougher policing. That would mean there is more risk involved in dealing, consequently drug prices would go up. Once drug prices go up, there is more money to be made, and more dealers will enter the market again and the prices decrease. And that's why drug prices have since the beginning of the prohibition remained remarkably stable, regardless of what we do -- shoot them or pat them on the head and give them a social worker, it doesn't matter, the drugs will be supplied, because people demand them and because people can make lots of money with no work by dealing drugs. Why? Because they are illegal.

Needless to say, the tougher we get with the policing, the tougher the drug dealers will get. If they get executed for dealing a few grams of marijuana or cocaine and if they get executed for murdering a cop, they can as well shoot him and try to escape. If you are a grand dealer and they raid your big storage depots why not bomb the police station, destroy evidence and teach them a lesson not to mess with you next time? You get executed for dealing, and you get executed for killing 20 cops. No difference. They execute you, so you execute them. If the police uses machine guns, then the drug dealers will use machine guns. Why not bribe the judges, state prosecutors, law enforcement, politicians, and correctional services officers and you will have less problems? We went through all this during the idiotic alcohol prohibition, and it's frustrating to see that people haven't learned anything from it.

Now, seeing that drug prohibition does not reduce drug consumption, does not deprive people from getting or trying any drug they want, does not protect people from getting addicted (on the contrary), why would we want to have drug prohibition?

To make a "moral" statement, you say. Well, that's not really a good argument for making anything illegal. Glue is legal, and that doesn't imply that the state condones that you sniff it on recreational grounds. Alcohol is legal and that doesn't imply that the state condones that you use or abuse it. Same can be said for tobacco, and all over-the-counter drugs. Also, I can't seen anything immoral about responsible drug use.

There are, however, many good reasons why the drug prohibition should be rescinded, the most important of which are:
It does an immense amount of harm to innocents and non-drug users. Milton Friedman, Nobel Price winner for Economics, estimates that the drug prohibition in America alone murders about 10,000 people every year. People killed not by drugs, but by the violence and crime created by the prohibition. In addition, there are another 80 million other crimes, everything from severe bodily harm over robbery to petty theft, caused by the prohibition and the insane drug prices it causes.
Prohibition costs the American tax payer about $40 billion every year wasted in an absolute futile war on drugs that can never be won and in which we have made no progress whatsoever since it has been enforced several decades ago. On the contrary, we have more addicts than ever, more drug users than ever, more crimes than ever, and see more harm than ever before in our history, including during all the time in our history -- acounting to 99+% -- where drugs have been legal.
Prohibition enrichens criminals and makes millionaires and billionaires out of criminals, people who contribute nothing to society but trading substances that should be available at pharmacies; it impovers law-abiding non-violent drug law offenders and potentially financially ruins non-violent law-abiding drug addicts. It overloads our justice system, or police services, and our correctional services with non-crimes (drug dealing and consumption) and real crimes caused by the prohibition.
It does an immense harm to drug users as well. While, as I mentioned, most drug deals really occur undisturbedly, you still have the 1% or so where the police interferes. This causes arrests, criminal records, job loss, family problems, girlfriend problems, divorce, loss of the right of custody, social tension and suffering, for millions of otherwise law-abiding and productive Americans every year. About 50% of the total prison population is made up of non-violent drug law offenders that should not be in prison.
It does an even greater amount of harm to drug abusers or addicts. There are thousands of heroin-related deaths in the United States every year, and if it would not be illegal, there would be exactly zero and we would see almost no harm by heroin- or opiate-addiction. The drug is neither toxic nor dangerous, nor does it cause criminal behavior, it is just addictive. Heroin-addicts die of various causes, all of them prohibition-caused and injection-related. Addicts start to inject eventually because of the insane prices caused by the prohibition:

Overdose: Caused by the addict being unable to judge the concentration of the street-heroin (it can contain anything between a few percent to 90+% of Heroin), by being sold another opiate instead of heroin (typically Fentanyl, being about 100 times stronger than Heroin and thus would need a 100 times smaller dose), caused by misjudging his tolerance due to involuntary withdrawal (because of lack of money, supply, or because of arrests), or the voluntary Golden Shot to escape the misery of street life.
Poisoning: That's the majority of cases of so-called Heroin OD. People die due to any of the substances with which heroin is stretched at times, frequently quinine; sometimes even strychnin; or other barbiturates and pain killers that cause cross-reactions; or other substances that cause allergic reactions.
Murder: Follow-up studies of heroin-addicts over long-term periods show that a significant number of them die of violence due to the criminal enviornment in which they had to move to guarantee the supply of their drug.
Disease: Heroin addicts in a prohibitive society are pushed to crime, prison, job loss, lack of shelter, street life, prostitution, unsafe injection practices and needle sharing, lack of proper nutrition, lack of medical care, hepatitis, aids, death.How many heroin addicts are murdered by the prohibition? All of them, thousands per year.

How many heroin addicts are killed by heroin? Zero.

As soon as they get access to cheap, clean, hygienic, doseable heroin, their problems are over, their health regenerates, they hold down jobs, and can take care about their kids, and finally, over years stop abusing the drugs. No aids infections, no overdoses. Crime is reduced by 90+%. All proved by Dr. Bürki in Bern and Dr. Marks in Liverpool, whose heroin and crack cocaine prescription clinic got shut down last year on U.S. pressure by idiotic drug warriors.

You can read more about it here (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drug library.org%2Fschaffer%2FMisc%2F60minliv .htm). And you can read about the incredible success here (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.sk adi.net%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D10529).

What about Cocaine and amphetamines or what have you? Don't they do damage by themselves? Long-term abuse of these substances -- like long-term abuse of alcohol -- surely does considerable damage and nobody argues otherwise. However, all the reasons I cited above for heroin also apply to speed and coke, and damage would be significantly reduced if they were legal, if people would stay socially integrated and would enjoy medical care.

Should we not try to prevent that new people get addicted to any drug? We should. But as I said, in the prohibitive society this is technically not achieved because everyone who wants to try a certain drug can freely do so, and despite of the prices, everyone can afford to continue to do so until he is addicted -- and then the real problem starts.

So what's the solution? The solution is to reduce harm as far as possible and that means legalization of all drugs, which will smash the black market and organized drug crime.
The possession of drugs for private use as well as the private cultivation of plants should not be illegal.
Drugs should be taxed, which will earn a lot of money for information, education, medical assistance and drug treatment. They should still remain cheap and affordable, however, in order to stop drug-related criminality and to minimize the black market. Every addict must be able to finance his habit by holding down a McDonald's job.
In addition we can pump the billions that we save from the futile war on drugs into education, medical aid and drug treatment.
We need strict quality controls; drugs have to be pharmaceutically prepared and should be pure and doseable, available in pharmacies or special drug stores. They should contain a bypack, informing about dose, risks, effects, and side-effects.How to reduce future abuse and addiction?

I would propose drug consumption cards issued to every adult, enabling him to buy a certain amount of drugs in pharmacies or special drug stores in a certain period of time without prescription. Such as 5 g of marijhuana, or 100 mg of Heroin, or 200 mg of Cocaine, or 250 µg of LSD, or 300 mg of Ecstacy per week, or whatever, or a combination thereof with dosages reduced. The amounts should be linked to body weight. That will permit everyone to use drugs moderately and responsibly, for valid medical, social, or recreational purposes, while, at the same time, it's just not enough to get addicted. It would not unreasonably restrict the freedom of man, crush the black market, and minimize harm at the same time. Doses should be raised for addicts with valid prescription. The availability of alcohol and tobacco could and should be similarly limited.

And I am, as always, magnanimous in victory.... ;)

Mistress Klaus
Monday, November 22nd, 2004, 04:22 PM
Cat Loving Folk:

Don't bother trying to get your cat(s) stoned by blowing marijuana smoke in their beloved faces. They prefer & respond to catmint (Catnip..Nepeta x faassenii):smt051

:smt096 My Vlad is on the herb constantly.......laying about the place between the munchies & turning outrageously FAT!:haha :haha

PsycholgclMishap
Tuesday, November 23rd, 2004, 04:38 AM
Your cat ruuules, SKADI. :)

Allenson
Tuesday, November 23rd, 2004, 02:39 PM
Interesting factoid I found:

"The Scythians brought Cannabis to Europe via a northern route where remnants of their campsites, from the Altai Mountains to Germany, date back 2,800 years. Seafaring Europe never smoked marijuana extensively, but hemp fiber became a major crop in the history of almost every European country. Pollen analysis dates the cultivation of Cannabis to 400 B.C. in Norway; 150 A.D. in Sweden, and 400 A.D. in Germany and England., although it is believed the plant was cultivated in the British Isles several centuries earlier. The Greeks and Romans used hemp for rope and sail but imported the fiber from Sicily and Gaul. And it has been said that "Caesar invaded Gaul in order to tie up the Roman Empire," all allusion to the Romans' need for hemp."

Allenson
Tuesday, November 23rd, 2004, 02:45 PM
Name one Germanic Heathen society prior to Christianization that outlawed the personal consumption of any drug or plant or the harvesting or cultivation of any drug or plant; one Germanic community dedicated to the traditional ways out of the dozens of Germanic tribes at any point in time during the last millenia, at any location of this continent or beyond it (including North Africa), prior to the advent of Christianity in their midst, and I shall retract this statement. Authoritarianism and plant hysteria is totally incompatible with the Heathen way of life.


Holy shit! And you think that I should be the supreme ruler of the Universe?! No my friend, my vote goes to you. ;)

May I use some or all of this for future signature material either here or at Skadi?

Siegfried
Tuesday, November 23rd, 2004, 03:50 PM
Interesting factoid I found:

"The Scythians brought Cannabis to Europe via a northern route where remnants of their campsites, from the Altai Mountains to Germany, date back 2,800 years. Seafaring Europe never smoked marijuana extensively, but hemp fiber became a major crop in the history of almost every European country. Pollen analysis dates the cultivation of Cannabis to 400 B.C. in Norway; 150 A.D. in Sweden, and 400 A.D. in Germany and England., although it is believed the plant was cultivated in the British Isles several centuries earlier. The Greeks and Romans used hemp for rope and sail but imported the fiber from Sicily and Gaul. And it has been said that "Caesar invaded Gaul in order to tie up the Roman Empire," all allusion to the Romans' need for hemp."

Source? :)

Thorburn
Wednesday, November 24th, 2004, 09:59 AM
Source? :) [Source #1 (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waln et.org%2Frosebud%2Fancienthistory.html)] [Source #2 (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cann abis-strains.com%2FEuropean_Strains%2F)] [Source #3 (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.beyo nd-the-illusion.com%2Ffiles%2FNew-Files%2F20000630%2Fcannabis_and_ancient_ history.txt)]


Holy shit! And you think that I should be the supreme ruler of the Universe?! No my friend, my vote goes to you. ;) Very kind. We can do it as in Communism. We vote for each other and then applaud ourselves when elected. :D


May I use some or all of this for future signature material either here or at Skadi? Of course. Being cited by the Supreme Ruler of Universe guarantees ultimate fame and the approving cheers of the mob. Who but the most unreasonably modest person could possibly object? ;)


So sugar kills people but marijuana smoke doesn't? I know a few dope smokers who later developed lung cancer. Marijhuana smoke is surely detrimental to health, albeit the issue is quite exaggerated.

People typically smoke 100,000s of cigarettes before they develop lung cancer... I know of one documented case where someone died due to marijhuana abuse after having smoked 20,000+ joints. (Again, the prohibition didn't prevent it.)

Needless to say, marijhuana doesn't have to be smoked, however. You could eat it (and there are lots of marijhuana recipies), you can make tea, and so forth. It could also be pharmaceutically prepared, and, in fact, it is. You can get "medical marijuana" (capsules containing THC) on prescription. Same way you can get morphine or cocaine on prescription.

It is exactly one of the absurdities of the international drug prohibition that this less damaging form of marijuana cannot be made available to the public.

PsycholgclMishap
Wednesday, November 24th, 2004, 02:26 PM
Are you all taking into account that the bulk of marijuana smokers ALSO smoke cigarettes? At least, the ones I know and have known.

Ewergrin
Wednesday, November 24th, 2004, 02:32 PM
Are you all taking into account that the bulk of marijuana smokers ALSO smoke cigarettes? At least, the ones I know and have known.

Good point.


[Source #1 (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waln et.org%2Frosebud%2Fancienthistory.html)] [Source #2 (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cann abis-strains.com%2FEuropean_Strains%2F)] [Source #3 (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.beyo nd-the-illusion.com%2Ffiles%2FNew-Files%2F20000630%2Fcannabis_and_ancient_ history.txt)]

I could not get Source #2 to work.

Allenson
Wednesday, November 24th, 2004, 04:03 PM
Source? :)


Yes, sorry about that.

Why, good ole' LG herself:

http://forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=16621

Mistress Klaus
Thursday, November 25th, 2004, 02:56 PM
Yes, sorry about that.

Why, good ole' LG herself:

http://forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=16621
Just on the subject of 'so-called' witches and their flight by broom skills (as noted/mentioned in LG's post)...many a misconception was made ...
A 16th century writer giving such descriptions & recipes as eleoselinum, aconitum, frondes populeas and soote, added to the fat of children...can give the hallucinations and delusions of flying. (rubbbed into the skin as an ointment).
Also alleged confessions by 'witches' in the Swedish trial of 1669 confessed that Satan had given them a horn in which to annoint themselves before flying to the Sabbath....English 'so-called' witches confessed somewhat the same, some 5 years previous...by rubbing into the wrists & forehead.

Obvious to me...we need a little help to get in the mood..:smt112 :smt077

AryanKrieger
Saturday, November 27th, 2004, 11:04 AM
You have an odd way of wording your sentences if you think that that is the message you conveyed.




I read them exactly as they were written. It's not my fault that they didn't make sense.




Yes I do.

Strange, her sentences make perfect sense to me.


You stated that one reason marijuana should not be consumed by Europeans is because it is not native to European soil. Yet at the same time you eat chocolate, which comes from a plant not native to European soil. That's the most simple way it can be stated. It's a double standard. You refuse to recognize that.

The point surely is that the ingestion or smoking of marijuana is not indigenous to our peoples and lands and its effects are not conducive to the communal good.Chocolate as far as I am aware does not cause doped up train drivers to crash causing loss of life nor is it responsible for anti-social behaviour.


Interesting factoid I found:

"The Scythians brought Cannabis to Europe via a northern route where remnants of their campsites, from the Altai Mountains to Germany, date back 2,800 years. Seafaring Europe never smoked marijuana extensively, but hemp fiber became a major crop in the history of almost every European country. Pollen analysis dates the cultivation of Cannabis to 400 B.C. in Norway; 150 A.D. in Sweden, and 400 A.D. in Germany and England., although it is believed the plant was cultivated in the British Isles several centuries earlier. The Greeks and Romans used hemp for rope and sail but imported the fiber from Sicily and Gaul. And it has been said that "Caesar invaded Gaul in order to tie up the Roman Empire," all allusion to the Romans' need for hemp."

State your source please!
I notice that nowhere within the aforementioned quote is reference made to smoking cannabis.Its use appears to have been restricted to practical purposes.

Ewergrin
Saturday, November 27th, 2004, 04:04 PM
Strange, her sentences make perfect sense to me.

You'd be the only one.


The point surely is that the ingestion or smoking of marijuana is not indigenous to our peoples and lands and its effects are not conducive to the communal good.
You are the spokesperson for the communal good?



Chocolate as far as I am aware does not cause doped up train drivers to crash causing loss of life nor is it responsible for anti-social behaviour.What's funny is that everyone else can see the double standard here, but you.

She-Wolf
Thursday, December 2nd, 2004, 07:56 PM
You have an odd way of wording your sentences if you think that that is the message you conveyed.




I read them exactly as they were written. It's not my fault that they didn't make sense.




Yes I do.

Sorry for the delay.

It's your fault you didn't understand my post. Your Americanism English is more simpler to read than my home county English so I can understand where you went wrong. I will remember to write simple basic English in future, LOL.
Also you were probably smoking too much dope at the time.

On the marijuana thing, we can agree to disagree.

AryanKrieger
Thursday, December 2nd, 2004, 08:15 PM
You are the spokesperson for the communal good?



What's funny is that everyone else can see the double standard here, but you.


I am no-one`s spokesperson but I am entitled to express my opinion as you are. The fact that we have different views does not make my opinion any less valid than yours.


You'd be the only one.


How do you know? Are you the spokesperson of the entire forum?

Ewergrin
Thursday, December 2nd, 2004, 08:27 PM
Your Americanism English is more simpler to read than my home county English so I can understand where you went wrong.
This is a joke, right? Tell me this is a joke, because I cannot stop laughing.


I will remember to write simple basic English in future, LOL.For your own sake, please do!


Also you were probably smoking too much dope at the time.:yawn
What's your excuse?


On the marijuana thing, we can agree to disagree.:thumbsup


I am no-one`s spokesperson but I am entitled to express my opinion as you are. The fact that we have different views does not make my opinion any less valid than yours.
:thumbsup
Of course, I never argued otherwise.


How do you know? Are you the spokesperson of the entire forum?
Well....... ;)

AryanKrieger
Thursday, December 2nd, 2004, 08:41 PM
This is a joke, right? Tell me this is a joke, because I cannot stop laughing.


For your own sake, please do!


:yawn
What's your excuse?


:thumbsup

For the record the lady speaks impeccable English and I am surprised that you cannot understand her. I can recommend some good text books. :-D

Thorburn
Thursday, December 2nd, 2004, 08:45 PM
I am no-one`s spokesperson but I am entitled to express my opinion as you are. Indeed. There is much to be said for the freedom of expression, in particular that a vigorous impression of truth is produced by the collision with error.


The fact that we have different views does not make my opinion any less valid than yours. Opinions are less valid if they can be empirically refuted beyond reasonable doubt or are logically ridiculously incongruous.

Ewergrin
Thursday, December 2nd, 2004, 08:47 PM
For the record the lady speaks impeccable English and I am surprised that you cannot understand her. I can recommend some good text books. :-D
Right. That much is obvious.

She-Wolf
Thursday, December 2nd, 2004, 08:54 PM
This is a joke, right? Tell me this is a joke, because I cannot stop laughing.


No it isn't :)



For your own sake, please do!


Yes, or you'll misunderstand again :-D


:yawn
What's your excuse?
talking to you

Awar
Saturday, December 4th, 2004, 07:12 AM
:lol I'm hooked on reading English literature:


For the record the lady speaks impeccable English and I am surprised that you cannot understand her. I can recommend some good text books.


Your Americanism English is more simpler to read than my home county English

Is that a drug?

Noah
Saturday, December 4th, 2004, 08:39 PM
Legalize it now! :smoking

Allenson
Sunday, December 5th, 2004, 02:40 PM
State your source please!
I notice that nowhere within the aforementioned quote is reference made to smoking cannabis.Its use appears to have been restricted to practical purposes.



Tiwaz so kindly summed up the sources:


http://www.blutundboden.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2917&postcount=132



See, the point here is not, whether or not we should be smoking the stuff but whether we should have the ability, legally, to decide for ourselves, as freemen and women what interaction we wish to have with this particular plant. It is as simple as that.

As for the historical context with regard to our direct European ancestors, you have argued that they did not smoke or ingest it in anyway and therefore we, as their descedents, should not as well. I was merely providing some information on its history in Europe as well as some of the myriad other used this plant has.... If it was legal, these other uses could be employed and smoking it is always the individuals choice. Currently, there are no choices.

As a Germanic freeman, I wish to have no restrictions of the sort hanging over my head. This does not mean that I am foaming at the mouth to smoke or ingest this plant but I wish the legal ability to do so without the severe repercussions that are currently en vogue

Prohibition and Germanic freeman do not equate.

:hveğrungur:
Monday, December 6th, 2004, 05:44 PM
Ive read about pot, smoking ciggarettes is a lot worse for your health that smoking pot, honestly if someone wants to smoke it hey go ahead, beer and ciggarettes are just as bad, if used in moderation it can be helpfull for someone. I personally dont smoke it, tried when I was younger and didnt like it. Ill stick to my guinness and jack d :)

Bluestreet
Tuesday, December 14th, 2004, 11:34 AM
For or against.

Siegfried
Tuesday, December 14th, 2004, 12:40 PM
I'm in favour of the legalisation of marihuana. An interesting - and rather extensive - discussion on this subject can be found on Blut und Boden (http://www.blutundboden.com/forum/) ; click here (http://www.blutundboden.com/forum/showthread.php?t=491&page=1).

Mac Seafraidh
Tuesday, December 14th, 2004, 05:54 PM
I am not opinionated on it really. To me, it would not matter. Negroes do any drug they can get their hand on. Quite frankly,if you were to grow your own, a moolie would not be touching it. I do not use it anymore because I choose not to(became paranoid with it),but I did like it with opium the best.

nicholas
Tuesday, December 14th, 2004, 06:33 PM
Its been repeatedly proven that marijuana can greatly assist in alleviating various symptoms of depression and chemotherapy. Do the research.

hightimes.com

Nick

Tommy Vercetti
Tuesday, December 14th, 2004, 06:55 PM
Its been repeatedly proven that marijuana can greatly assist in alleviating various symptoms of depression and chemotherapy. Do the research.

hightimes.com

Nick
it is also proven that tobacco in fact is healthy and that there is UFO:s etc...

nicholas
Tuesday, December 14th, 2004, 07:30 PM
it is also proven that tobacco in fact is healthy and that there is UFO:s etc...
Those are two completely different issues and are thus seperate from medicinal marijuana. Thus your statement is nonsensical.

Perhaps you could educate yourself about both sides of the marijuana issue rather than simply parroting the propaganda that you hear on tv.

Nick

Tommy Vercetti
Tuesday, December 14th, 2004, 07:49 PM
Perhaps you could educate yourself about both sides of the marijuana issue rather than simply parroting the propaganda that you hear on tv.

Nick

I've followed usage of marijuana closely for a long time, and I don't need tv to tell me that nothing good come out of it

nicholas
Tuesday, December 14th, 2004, 07:56 PM
I've followed usage of marijuana closely for a long time, and I don't need tv to tell me that nothing good come out of it
explain further please. Did you know an addict?:joint Were you an addict? Did they/you follow a 12 step program?:beer

I seek evidence and yet one mans experience doesn't define the entire issue.

Nick

maskedhate
Thursday, October 6th, 2005, 07:35 PM
I am totally against!!:thumbdown
There is a diference between medical use marijuana and free vicious consumption of it...

I am not against medical use of marijuana (that must be very controlled)...But free circulation of it like in Netherlands is unaceptable.

Waarnemer
Friday, October 7th, 2005, 12:28 AM
I am pro legalization. The whole fuss about marijuana is strongly overrated.

simplex
Friday, October 7th, 2005, 01:06 AM
I am completely against it.

Marijuana confuses sperm, complicates pregnancy, and causes cancer. Many people say it is not addicting, but after a few tries, it is. Marijuana has no medical use, except to treat depression. The sideaffects far outweigh any anti-depression use. What other good can inhaling natural insecticides do for you? It produces a pleasureable feeling which the weak minded scum of society need as a crutch.

I have seen to many friends ruin their lives for this substance. I have seen europeans come to the US who had been in unrestricted use of this subtstance. They were rather slow.

Requiem
Friday, October 7th, 2005, 01:45 AM
For. Stupid people that become addicted and take large amounts of it deserve to die in an overpopulated world. Those that are of higher quality are able to take it without falling to any of it's negative effects.

Cole Nidray
Friday, October 7th, 2005, 03:07 AM
Allow all drugs to be available at 18 years of age BUT have massive government education efforts to keep the public from doing them, funded from taxes on drugs.

Also be stringent about public intoxication.

This way citizens are still "free" and the loudest voice they hear will be looking out for them, not "ordering" them.

Herne
Friday, October 21st, 2005, 04:55 AM
Marijuana is more damaging to the lungs. I have a bad lung from smoking it as a teenager.

Æmeric
Friday, October 21st, 2005, 04:11 PM
I do'nt approve of recreational drug use but I believe the drugs laws should be repealed. Anyone who wants an illegal drug can get it, at an greatly inflated price. To much of our law inforcement resources are spent trying to control the private behavior of our citizens. I live in rural area of southern Indiana. The D.E.A. flys helicopters over this area (and other rural areas) looking for marijuana. The money spent on drug inforcement would be better spent on something else such as immigration control.
The profits from the drug trade have been a major corrupting influence on western society and are a major source of funding for terrorist groups. Even prescription drugs are tightly regulated. I think it is odd that abortion is a constitutional right because of privacy concerns, "between doctor and patient", but doctors and patients can be prosecuted over "improper use" of certain drugs such as OxyContin. Some states have started regulating the sale of cold medicines because they contain an ingredient use in the manufacture of meth. The United States has more then 2 million persons (both state and federal) looked up in prisons, out of a population of 295 million. Most of these prisoners were convicted on drug charges or crimes connected to the drug trade. The drugs laws have provided a major excuse to turn the United States into a police state.

signofthehammer
Saturday, October 22nd, 2005, 02:26 PM
I approve of all recreational use of drugs that are completely natural. That pretty much limmits it to marijuana and mushrooms these days. I believe that they were put here for a reason. The Finish Shamans used to take shrooms to enter the spirit world. I honestly think theres something to be said for this. I've written some of my best poetry whilst high - and poetry is Woden's own art.

Freydis
Wednesday, November 2nd, 2005, 11:10 PM
I think that marijuana should not be legalised. As someone of the teenaged age, I have seen and heard of so many people who have ruined their lives with this disgusting substance. I knew a guy who was possibly one of the smartest kids in my school and he got dumped by his girlfriend-- he started to smoke marijuana a lot and behold! he is now one of the stupidest (that's not even a word..) students in the school. All the kids that do marijuana end up ruining some aspect of their lives. Another thing, that cliché about being an artist doing all the drugs and being depressed and things-- it just doesn't work. Art should be pure and untainted by such matters. I've written all of my best poetry, drawn all my best pictures, painted my best paintings, written and recorded my best songs all when sober and not high. I know I'm not going to ruin my life with this garbage, and no one else should.

Dissident
Thursday, November 3rd, 2005, 12:28 AM
I know a person that has experienced exactly the stuff Freydis described. He was a bright and healthy young aryan, with straight ideals and then got into this smoking shit. After a while he would sell the dope, later on his whole family would be part of it and then he had his first meeting with the D-tox. (For consuming other stuff, mixed with alcohol and marijhuana.) It´s rather his lifestyle (caused by being stoned all the time.) than the substances he consumed though.

Later he stopped smoking pot, because his psychologists told him that would make his neurosis away (caused by shrooms and stuff) and found alcohol an adequate replacement. Having the old drug-friends still around (for "business issues") he soon started to consume amphetamines (speed) in order to not be so much of a wierdo (and to be able to drink a lot longer).

After his last suicide attempt I visited him in the psycho-clinic and we talked about Holocaustrevisionism and all kinds of things. (About 10 years ago, before the drugs came into his life, he used to be a national socialist.) He read a lot of books that I brought him and he really came up with some bright statements during our discussions. 2 Weeks after he was released from the hospital he wasnt even able to think clearly anymore because he is boozing again, taking speed or amphetamine-extacy etc.

I am very sure that this would never have happened if he´d kept his fingers off this marijhuana-shit.

I can imagine that it might be helpful and ok for medidative purposes, but not as a thing you do just for fun. We should rather outlaw alcohol and tobacco instead of legalizing the stuff that destroys your body and your mind.

88
Dissident

NS: This guy went to a very tough school before he started doing drugs, and then ended up with having the lowest degree of education, at the lowest sort of schools there is here in Germany. In your words that would probably mean: He is trying to achieve his high-school graduation in an evening school now. 10 years ago everybody though he was going to become a lawyer or engineer or so.

Freydis
Thursday, November 3rd, 2005, 02:08 AM
The sad part is, I know another guy like I described. Bright, funny, intelligent.. he started on marijuana and ecstasy, his life goes right down the toilet. Trying to make ends meet on his own while juggling his drug habit and a psychotic girlfriend... so sad. The modern world is doing this to the kids..

signofthehammer
Tuesday, January 24th, 2006, 09:10 PM
everyone's heard these types of stories. However there has been no conclusive evidence that marijuana has any long-term negative psychological/behavioral side effects. Most of the 'scientific' data that says marijuana makes one lazy was 'discovered' during the reefer madness craze - and was really just racist propaganda (in fact a medical review board found the findings full of errors and sloppy work). The only reason it's commonly refered to as marijuana and not cannibis is there was a deliberate attempt to associate it with Mexicans - later Blacks. As far as any doctor/scientist can tell it's harmless (except for the lungs). Jamaican and Mexican workers would and still smoke it to concentrate during labour. How lazy and degenerate can it make someone if it's been used for hundreds of years to concentrate?

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, January 24th, 2006, 09:36 PM
Im quite neutral on the question. Im not really in favor or legalizing it, but neither am I a fanatic about keeping it illegal.

Gorm the Old
Wednesday, January 25th, 2006, 04:22 AM
I think that marijuana is probably less harmful than alcohol. I think, therefore that its legal status should be about the same as that of alcohol: access and use limited to persons above a certain age.

Bridie
Wednesday, January 25th, 2006, 06:41 AM
The consumption of marijuana is a relatively common trigger for schizophrenia in susceptible individuals modern science is now finding.

My younger brother was one such susceptible person and is now in a mental hospital. His psychiatrist was telling my mum that in Australia there now seems to be an epidemic of mentally ill young males - with the drastic increase in numbers over the last 15 or so yrs being attributed to recreational drug use..... in particular amphetamine and marijuana use.

I've seen drugs (including pot) destroy too many lives.... legalisation will only lead some to believe that its not particularly harmful, which IMO would be a crying shame. :~(


</IMG>

signofthehammer
Wednesday, January 25th, 2006, 12:27 PM
The consumption of marijuana is a relatively common trigger for schizophrenia in susceptible individuals modern science is now finding

that's an important point right there. 'susceptible' individuals. why should it be ruined for everyone if some people are weak. Some people are genetically prone to alcoholism - should we outlaw booze? some people get fat from not taking care of their bodies - should we outlaw cake? Because marijuana has psychological effects on some people - probably due to some chemical thing that science hasn't precisely figured out yet - doesn't mean that everyone should be unable to use and enjoy it. Moreover my main problem with Pot being illeagal isn't because I think it's harmless and should be leagal - but because the government IMO has no right to say what I or anyone else can or can't do with there own time, money, and bodies. Government is there to protect our Lives, Liberty and Property - not to dictate our lives, control our liberty, and take our property - something government has become disconcertingly good at since the 1930s.

Ahren_
Wednesday, January 25th, 2006, 02:02 PM
There are other problems associated with Marijuana consumption besides the obvious. It has an adverse effect on the sex hormones. In Males, Testosterone levels drop (reason for amotivation) and in Females the levels rise, often causing facial hair growth if used on a regular basis. Any type of smoking can lead to bone problems caused by mineral deficiency and can later evolve into osteoporosis or other skeletal ailments.

Hippy
Wednesday, January 25th, 2006, 03:52 PM
Allow all drugs to be available at 18 years of age BUT have massive government education efforts to keep the public from doing them, funded from taxes on drugs.

Also be stringent about public intoxication.

This way citizens are still "free" and the loudest voice they hear will be looking out for them, not "ordering" them.
You are absolutely right, O.K.B. The evidence that our present drug laws are counter-productive is enormous. You need only read the many articles of Milton Friedman (I know he is jewish, but still. . . ) on the subject to know that. Cf. http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/milton_friedman.htm (http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/milton_friedman.htm)
IMO this is simply beyond dispute. People who cite the evidence of a friend or relative who succombed to addiction and whose life was ruined by drugs and on this basis argue that drugs must be remain illegal are guilty of illogic. If keeping drugs illegal prevented people from obtaining them, how did your friend or relative obtain the drugs that ruined his life? It should be obvious that making drugs illegal does not prevent people from trying them if they want to try them. The present drug laws did not save your friend or relative and will not save others. Only education (= proper brainwashing) can do that. In an open capitalist society drugs should be legal for people of a certain age, but not children.
A more interesting question is what would one do about drugs in a better kind of society, in, say, a NS society? In a NS society people and especially children would not be encouraged to take drugs by films and other media as they are in a capitalist society, for the government would prevent the distribution of such films and media. Education against drugs would hence be much more effective. Punishments given to illegal drug-dealers would be severe and certain. As Friedman points out, one of the reasons our present drug laws do not work is that we are too squeamish to kill drugdealers. Drugs are pleasurable for the individual but provide no palpable benefit to society. Contrary to what some have said here, drugs do not improve serious artistic production (not to mention scientific research). So what would one do about drugs in a NS society? You tell me.

Gorm the Old
Wednesday, January 25th, 2006, 04:09 PM
Artie Shaw once remarked in an interview that while he was he high, he thought that he was performing unusually well, but when he listened to recordings he had made while high, he realized that he could have played much better.

Æmeric
Wednesday, January 25th, 2006, 05:03 PM
I think all the drug laws should be repealed. Anyone who wants illegal drugs can obtain them. Drug laws keep the street value of illegal drugs at an artificially high price, causing drug addicts to resort to crime to support their habits. The profits from the drug trade finance criminal ethnic gangs. The Federal & State governments have increased their police powers to enforce the drug laws which means less freedom for everybody. There is a cost to the taxpayer in waging this neverending war on drugs, in lawenforcement cost, the operation of prisons (the U.S. has the highest per-capital incarceration rate in the world) and in destroyed neighborhoods. Recently several states have started regulating the sale of over-the-counter cold medicines because they are an ingredient in the production of Meth. Every year this country becomes a little bit more insane. The only way we'll see a reduction in the use of marijuana, heroin, cocaine etc.. is if entertainment celebrities & Washington political celebrities (are you listening Bill Clinton & John Kerry) stop glamorizing it.

Hippy
Wednesday, January 25th, 2006, 06:13 PM
Why the war on drugs continues endlessly and without the slightest success: http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/socialist.htm


The question that my puzzle raises is why is it that private enterprises are successful and government enterprises are not? One common answer is that the difference is in the incentive, that somehow the incentive of profit is stronger than the incentive of public service. In one sense, that's night; but in another, it's wrong.
The people who run our private enterprises and the people who run our government enterprises have exactly the same incentive. In both cases, they want to promote their private interests. The people who go into our government, who operate our government, are the same kind of people as those who are in the private sector. They are just as smart, in general. They have just as much integrity. They have just as many altruistic and selfless interests. There is no difference in that way. But as Armen Alchian, an economist at UCLA, once put it, "The one thing you can depend on everybody to do is to put his interest above yours." That is a very insightful comment. The Chinese who are on the mainland are not different people from the Chinese who are in Hong Kong. Yet, the Mainland is a morass of poverty and Hong Kong has been an oasis of relative well being. The people who occupied West Germany and East Germany before they were reunited had the same background, the same culture. They were the same people, but the results were drastically different.
The problem is not in the kind of people who run our governmental institutions versus those who run our private institutions. The trouble, as the Marxists used to say, is in the system. The system is what is at fault.
The difference is that the private interest of people is served in a different way in the private and the governmental spheres. Consider the bottom line they face.
Here's a project that might be suggested, to begin with, by somebody in the private sector or by somebody in the government sphere, and appears equally promising in either case. However, all good ideas are conjectures; they are experiments. Most are going to fail. What happens? Suppose a private group undertakes the project. Suppose it starts to lose money. The only way that they can keep it going is by digging into their own pockets. They have to bear the costs. That enterprise will not last long; people will shut it down. They will go on to something else.
Suppose government undertakes the same project and its initial experience is the same: it starts to lose money. What happens? The government officials could shut it down, but they have a very different alternative. With the best of intentions, they can believe that the only reason it has not done well is because it has not been operating on a large enough scale. They do not have to dig into their own pockets to finance an expansion. They can dig into the pockets of the taxpayers.
Indeed, financing an expansion will enable them to keep lucrative jobs. All they need to do is to persuade the taxpayer, or the legislators who control the purse that their project is a good one. And they are generally able to do so because, in turn, the people who vote on the expansion are not voting their own money; they are spending somebody else's money. And nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own.
The end result is that when a private enterprise fails, it is closed down; when a government enterprise fails, it is expanded. Isn't that exactly what has been happening with drugs? With schooling? With medical care?
We are all aware of the deterioration in schooling. But are you aware that we are now spending per pupil, on the average, three times as much as we were thirty years ago, after adjustment for inflation? There's a general rule in government and bureaucratic enterprises: the more you put in, the less you get out.
As these socialized enterprises have broadened their reach, it has become more and more difficult for the public to control them. That's the fundamental problem we face in respect of drugs. How do we make the vested interests of the government change their policy?
As we have all discovered, that is not an easy job. The people running the drug program have a great deal more resources than we have. They can command the attention of the media to make reform or repeal seem not respectable, not reasonable. After all, they will say over and over, the people who urge the legalization of drugs are simply ignorant or naive or don't understand what's going on. We, they will say, are the experts and know what works and what doesn't.

Flag-Soil
Wednesday, January 25th, 2006, 06:43 PM
I took drugs in my late teens/early twenties. Marijuana can cause depression or schizophrenia. Have you noticed people get paranoid when they are on drugs, what do you think that is? Normal? Do you think that is your brain becoming stronger and fitter?

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, January 25th, 2006, 06:46 PM
I do notice that people who take drugs after a while just dont seem to care about anything. Maintaining anykind of structure in their lives is extremely difficult for them.

Hippy
Wednesday, January 25th, 2006, 10:17 PM
Friedman would oppose any government run programs to help addicts: http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/stop_taxing_non.htm

Legalizing drugs would reduce enormously the number of victims of drug use who are not addicts: people who are mugged, people who are corrupted, the reduction of law and order because of the corruption of law enforcement, and the allocation of a very large fraction of law enforcement resources to this one particular activity. There are millions of people who are not addicts who are being harmed by the present system-not to mention the harm to the domestic pobtical systems of countries such as Colombia and Peru.
The costs of drug prohibition for nonaddicts, such as the increased risk of getting mugged, are the equivalent of taxes: they are government-imposed costs. We're imposing right now these very heavy costs on nonaddicts in the mistaken belief that we are thereby helping addicts. That's not sensible.
It would not be sensible after legalization, either. So although addicts should then be treated the way every other citizen is treated-getting the medical treatment provided any other individual-they should not be given special treatment compared to victims of other medical problems. I do not believe it is appropriate to impose special taxes on nonaddicts in order to provide benefits to addicts.
It would be very desirable after legalization for private, voluntary organizations to form for the purpose of treating addicts. I do not believe this is an appropriate function of government any more than I believe health insurance is an appropriate function of government. On the other hand, if government has a welfare system or a negative income tax, that should be available to addicts as well as anybody else. We should not impose on addicts any greater stigma than we attach to other victims. Equal treatment and equal opportunity ought to be the hallmark.
As I wrote in my Newsweek column on drugs 16 years ago, I believe that adults -by this I mean people whom we regard as responsible, and as a practical matter this means people who are neither insane nor below a certain age should be responsible for their own lives. I'm a Libertarian-a limited government libertarian, not an anarchist libertarian. People's freedom to make their own decisions is my fundamental objective.

Bridie
Thursday, January 26th, 2006, 09:43 AM
that's an important point right there. 'susceptible' individuals. why should it be ruined for everyone if some people are weak. Some people are genetically prone to alcoholism - should we outlaw booze? some people get fat from not taking care of their bodies - should we outlaw cake? Because marijuana has psychological effects on some people - probably due to some chemical thing that science hasn't precisely figured out yet - doesn't mean that everyone should be unable to use and enjoy it. Moreover my main problem with Pot being illeagal isn't because I think it's harmless and should be leagal - but because the government IMO has no right to say what I or anyone else can or can't do with there own time, money, and bodies. Government is there to protect our Lives, Liberty and Property - not to dictate our lives, control our liberty, and take our property - something government has become disconcertingly good at since the 1930s.

The fact is that pretty much all mental and physical illnesses need 2 things to develop in living things.... A GENETICALLY DETERMINED PREDISPOSITION TO THE ILLESS/CONDITION + AN ENVIRONMENTAL TRIGGER. This is why some people can smoke tobacco for 70 yrs and never get lung cancer or emphasema, yet others can smoke for a mere couple of yrs and develop the illnesses. Smoking tobacco is a well known trigger for all types of cancer and cardio-vascular conditons.

HOWEVER, one does NOT know prior to exposing themselves to the environmental trigger whether or not their genetic make-up makes them susceptible to a mental or physical illness.

Its about genetics, not "individual weakness" or "chemical things" as suggested in the above quote.

Here's the question; if consumption of marijuana by individuals in a society has the capability of doing great harm; ie, increasing levels of mental illness, increasing strain on mental health resources and levels of funding needed via tax-payers money, increases in crime and suicide rates, increasing funding and strain on physical health resources, family breakdown, domestic violence etc ec..... WHY on earth would anyone advocate its consumption? What, to feel a bit relaxed or get a bit of a buzz?? For christ's sake, go meditate instead.

signofthehammer
Thursday, January 26th, 2006, 01:03 PM
the bottom line is that it should be about choice. Like many debates this one is fast leading to ideological differences. I believe that everyone should have the choice to use or not use marijuana - same as the choice to smoke tobacco, the choice to drink, the choice to vote, etc. Any government that takes away that choice is failing to protect the rights of its peope. The debate over marijuana is not, IMO, about the right to do a particular drug - it's part of a larger debate about liberty. My body is my property - I should be able to do whatever I want with it.

Jekatrina
Thursday, January 26th, 2006, 01:53 PM
Legalizing marijuana in Denmark wouldn't make any difference whatsoever, and I don't think it should be legalized. To those who says that marijuana doesn't do any damage; wake up!
signofthehammer, I think you have a point. I just don't see how people can seriously think that it would benefit the society that people should be allowed to smoke it on the streets. If you want to do it, do it at home, everyone can do it even though it's illegal. I've been in Amsterdam, and I think it's disgusting to see people in all ages smoke it on the streets. Sure, I've smoked it myself, but I KNOW that it would spread even more if it became legal. We don't want an even slower generation of young people, do we?

Bridie
Thursday, January 26th, 2006, 03:01 PM
Like many debates this one is fast leading to ideological differences. Any government that takes away that choice is failing to protect the rights of its peope. The debate over marijuana is not, IMO, about the right to do a particular drug - it's part of a larger debate about liberty. My body is my property - I should be able to do whatever I want with it.

I agree, it is about ideological differences. I believe that we should be obligated to consider the consequences of our actions - and if those consequences could be negative, to refrain. You seem to believe that we should have the freedom to do whatever we please as long as its to our own bodies right? But what about the rights of the people who are affected by someone else's drug use? What about the rights of the bloke who gets his car stolen because someone was too off their face to realise that what they were doing was wrong.... or the poor bugger who has his house broken into and his stereo nicked to pay for someone else's drug habit.... or the mother who has her heart torn out when her once intelligent, strong son becomes permanently brain damaged and mentally ill due to his drug use.... what about the rights of the children who are born to parents who abuse drugs and inevitably neglect their children.... what about the rights of the tax payers who have to foot the bill when druggies inevitably end up in hospital or in re-hab (assuming they don't have private health).... what about the rights of an unborn baby to not be born with a cocaine addiction??? I could go on and on about possible consequences.

Before becoming a SAHM I was a nurse in a children's hospital and I saw MANY a baby born to drug addicted mothers. I can tell you, its heart-wrenching. My brother's best friend committed suicide by shooting himself in the head with a shot gun due to depression that he developed after he began heavily smoking pot. I feel that there is no way that he would have had the courage to pull the trigger had he not been stoned when he did it. His loved ones' lives have been all but destroyed.

See, the problem that I have with what you're saying Signofthehammer, is that you seem to be saying that we should be able to do whatever we like, no lines drawn. No man is an island, and what you do will always affect people other than just yourself. It can never be as black and white as "I want to do it, so I have the right to". Sometimes we have to do the right thing, not just what we desire for ourselves.

Æmeric
Thursday, January 26th, 2006, 04:03 PM
Marijuana & illicit drugs are a major social problem but the state response to the problem is even worse. The various branches of government in the U.S. use their police powers to the extreme to enforce the drug laws. I live in a rural area & it is not unusual in the summertime for law-enforcement helicopters to fly over looking for patches of marijuana. No warrent is needed to spy on me or to examine my families property. It is possible for individuals in the U.S. to have their personal property (cash, real estate, vehicles) confiscated & forfeited to the state without due process, that is without a criminal or civil trial, if law-enforcement believes it is somehow tied into the drug trade.

The only way drug use will decline is if it is stygmatized. In our modern secular societies, potsmoking, drug-abusing celebrities are the new gods & rolemodels. If celebrity drug abusers were ostracized perhaps Hollywood would clean up its act. The way it is now when a celebrity has a drug problem they go to upscale rehab clinic and then hit the talkshow circuit were they get applause for being a loser.

Bridie
Thursday, January 26th, 2006, 05:08 PM
The only way drug use will decline is if it is stygmatized. In our modern secular societies, potsmoking, drug-abusing celebrities are the new gods & rolemodels. If celebrity drug abusers were ostracized perhaps Hollywood would clean up its act. The way it is now when a celebrity has a drug problem they go to upscale rehab clinic and then hit the talkshow circuit were they get applause for being a loser.

I couldn't agree more. So who is in control of the institutions etc that glamourise illicit drug usage? And what could their motivations be to see "westerners" destroy their lives with such substances? Who's going to benefit? Hmmm.... sorry, I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist! LOL :D Am I taking it too far?


</IMG>

Glynd Eastŵd
Saturday, January 28th, 2006, 11:58 AM
Yes, marijuana can do damage - THC permanently alters your dopamine receptors if you're under 30 or so. This can lead to schizophrenia, cannabis psychosis, depersonalization disorder, and various thought disorders. I do, however, think that the risk is greatly over played. If you smoke cannabis once or twice a week you're not immediately going to drop out of school or become a sociopath. There are drugs out there which make marijuana seem mild in comparison. Alcohol for one.

Personally I think the governments which ban marijuana use yet condone the use of more traditional, taxed drugs (which are MUCH more physically addicting and unhealthy) are hypocrites. If marijuana was legalised I doubt very much would happen. The people who smoked pot would continue to smoke pot. Those too young to be buying the drug would now not gain access to it, and the crime caused by the drug's illegal status would all but disappear. Society wouldn't fall apart in a drug induced haze.

At the end of the day, how can't you see marijuana's illegal status as an infringement upon your personal liberties? Who's business is it what I take into my own body as long as I don't harm society and others?


I do notice that people who take drugs after a while just dont seem to care about anything. Maintaining anykind of structure in their lives is extremely difficult for them.
And I think that's a myth, really. Just think of all the students who 'experiment' during medical school. If you become addicted to any substance, thought, or idea then you're pretty much a zombie. But we're not talking about addiction. You can't say that common the recreational drug user 'doesn't seem to care about anything' - that's ridiculous.

Jekatrina
Saturday, January 28th, 2006, 12:29 PM
And I think that's a myth, really. Just think of all the students who 'experiment' during medical school. If you become addicted to any substance, thought, or idea then you're pretty much a zombie. But we're not talking about addiction. You can't say that common the recreational drug user 'doesn't seem to care about anything' - that's ridiculous.

You're right, you definitely can't just put it up like that. Just because people do drugs it doesn't mean they become careless. It's only when you are on the drugs. (Of course there are exceptions, but we're talking about the bigger picture.)

Taras Bulba
Sunday, January 29th, 2006, 09:23 PM
And I think that's a myth, really. Just think of all the students who 'experiment' during medical school. If you become addicted to any substance, thought, or idea then you're pretty much a zombie. But we're not talking about addiction. You can't say that common the recreational drug user 'doesn't seem to care about anything' - that's ridiculous.

Im speaking from personal experiences with people who have used the substance for quite some time. Did I say all users are that way? No. What I am saying that chronic use of the substance does tend to lead people towards that kind of attitude towards things.

CountBloodSpawn
Monday, January 30th, 2006, 02:21 AM
I really don't see marijuana as a big deal, I think I could live with marijuana being under controlled/regulated legal use

Chlodovech
Monday, January 30th, 2006, 06:05 PM
And I think that's a myth, really. Just think of all the students who 'experiment' during medical school. If you become addicted to any substance, thought, or idea then you're pretty much a zombie. But we're not talking about addiction. You can't say that common the recreational drug user 'doesn't seem to care about anything' - that's ridiculous.


Nice contribution, The Nausea. :thumbup

I can only speak for myself, and I'm a regular user. It's true what you wrote - one can still care all he wants, but cannabis can demotivate a pothead beyond belief. It takes a lot of discipline when you want to combine a prolonged weed experience with sport/studying/going out. And with the latter I mean: meeting friends at the other end of town at midnight, or something like that - that's what I think of it. :)

Glynd Eastŵd
Tuesday, January 31st, 2006, 11:26 AM
Im speaking from personal experiences with people who have used the substance for quite some time. Did I say all users are that way? No. What I am saying that chronic use of the substance does tend to lead people towards that kind of attitude towards things.

People can be demotivated for any number of different reasons. A lot of potheads are attracted to the drug because they were lazy to begin with, it suited their lazy and care free outlook, so to speak.

Besides, any number of non-drug activities can lead people towards that kind of lazy attitude. Watching too much TV, playing video games, spending too much time on the computer. What is your point? Should we ban these things, too, based on your logic

Chlodovech
Tuesday, January 31st, 2006, 01:02 PM
Sure, an addiction to technology may very well lead to anti-social behaviour - TN. All or nothing doesn't take the same degree of discipline, but using your medicine - your pc, coffee or sigarets once in a while takes discipline.

There's a pile of reasons why people start smoking pot, and I fail to see how 'laziness' is included. Most of the available drugs in my country won't even have the same effect of slowing you down like cannabis. Not to say they can't make you anti-social aswell.

Someone who's already relaxed/lazy will have his way with it after introduction, probably, but I think there's a world of difference between the cause (of trying out) and the immediate drug effect.

Slå ring om Norge
Tuesday, January 31st, 2006, 02:28 PM
I stopped smoking years ago, but pot has become so common, and many seems to have better of that than booze...

The damages by use are limited, and some reports highly overestimate it.

The social identification through criminalization is probably as harmful as the herb itself.

The polices ressources gets bound up, that leaves less to fight the worse enemies.

Like everything else it can be abused, bias to the rastafaris...and others.


The norwegian prime minister has been at national TV and admitted smoking. Also in the early 80`s I remember, he had very good afghan, and lighted me up. Small country. Everybody knows. He is neither very retarded?

Among the cultural elite, artists, authors, academics, media, entertainment one also finds many smokers. I even knew a former policeman that never got enough.

The highest order in Norway has many Knights (St.Olavs order) that smokes, so I guess the dinners at the Royal Castle potential could get really joyous over the teapot...

Let us not mention the Royal family, but conclude that smoking potentially may happend in the highest and most surprising circuits...

Junge Eiche
Tuesday, January 31st, 2006, 02:57 PM
....Any government that takes away that choice is failing to protect the rights of its peope. The debate over marijuana is not, IMO, about the right to do a particular drug - it's part of a larger debate about liberty. My body is my property - I should be able to do whatever I want with it.

If most people were to be considered to be able to take responsibility for their own actions, which they have proven they're NOT - otherwise there wouldn't be so many ending up pregnant at 16, addicted to whatever crap they shove in, overweight, racially mixed, dead in their cars on alcohol, kicked out of their jobs because of permanent, drug inflicted drowsiness AND SO ON - they would not require laws.

Laws have been created to protect people, and that's why certain substances, not many enough, IMO, have been forbidden.
"Rights" of people lead this society into its death.
"Everybody should have the right to do everything when and wherever he pleases" - BULLSHIT! I'm sorry!

Addicts and their senseless treatments cost the people enormous sums of money - so it may have been "their choice&freedom" to consume drugs, knowing of their effects, side effects and damage, but it is not my choice as a tax payer to finance the damage these inepts cause.

You want "the choice" - you suffer the consequence. You think about it - you don't. But that's not how things work.

So either you stick to laws - that obviously make sense - or you declare yourself antisocial and live with it - but no dizzied "Legalize it" screams, if you please.

I have spent the last ten years of my life in close contact with potheads. They're for the most part an easily recognizable sort of people, with a certain "look and feel", especially when they have consumed their "weed". All their lives revolve around this shit, all they think of is where and when they are going to smoke their beloved weed next, how completely fucked up they're going to be and how cool all of this is going to be. Weed quality, bong technique and weed prizes - that's what life is about, and how to, possibly, grow it yourself - best of all in your shower, cause you don't really need a shower so badly.

As Parsifal has said: it takes a lot of discipline to use it and have a life (appear at work on time, not sleep til noon etc.). I haven't met a SINGLE one yet. I have learned they're a bunch of unreliable morons with not enough brains left to remember what they said 10 Minutes ago...

:thumbdown

Utgard-Loki
Wednesday, February 1st, 2006, 02:59 AM
@ Hkl

It´s fine that you are against Drugs.
Any Kind of them is harmfull but if they
are forbidden the Users will get them elsewere.

These People who are heavy addicts
(nothing about People who can controll
TV, Weed , Coffee ;-) or whatever )
are lost in any Case so no Need to protect them
by Law.

I personally find it unpleasing to see
Drunk or Stoned Junkies in the Busses.
Unfortunatly Cracked up People are present
in all Times of History .
We need to work on a better Society .
not for everyone, but for us.

Junkies and other Losers should get the
choice behave or go ( maybe behind Concrete ) .
---------------------------------
edit ;
But we should also not forget People
of our Race who were brought into shuch
tragidy bye others , these People deserve
our help !
---------------------------------


I dont want more Laws, because our Country
already has to many of them ( do you want
the BRD to gain more Power ? ) .

Kind Regards

Utgard - Loki

ps. Pregnant with 16 is not as bad, better than no Children.
( we should encourage and support Mothers of our Race)

Slå ring om Norge
Wednesday, February 1st, 2006, 07:04 AM
Addicts and their senseless treatments cost the people enormous sums of money - so it may have been "their choice&freedom" to consume drugs, knowing of their effects, side effects and damage, but it is not my choice as a tax payer to finance the damage these inepts cause.
The treathment and damages caused by alcohol exceeds those expenses
many times that are caused by pot. Violence, drunk driving, rehabiltation


So either you stick to laws - that obviously make sense - or you declare yourself antisocial and live with it - but no dizzied "Legalize it" screams, if you please....
Some laws makes sense, some laws do not. The law says also you can not in any manner discriminate blacks, homosexuals may adopt children, so HKL, " either you stick to laws - that obviously make sense - or you declare yourself antisocial and live with it"...

Another detail, smoking pot is not a crime in any western country, illegal yes, but not a crime. We have another word for it. Crossing a red light is far more serious, at least according to Norwegian jura.


I have spent the last ten years of my life in close contact with potheads.
Your own choice. In Sweden we have a saying,"Tell me who you socialize with, and I`ll tell you who you are..."

I knew some of those potheads years ago, for the most they do the same things that they did 30 years ago, drink beer, smoke, and talk about the same things as always. We grew quick in each others directions. Those stagnated personalities would anyway have found whatever else to stagnate on, beer, booze, pills, junk. Better they smoke.

It surprises me that your social references to pot are so thin? Those I know that smokes are famous artists, exhibits in out-and inland, they make movies, most musicians I know smoke, they make records that you probably have heard many times, I know one officer of the army that smokes regular, and then businessmen, doctors, psychologs and psychiatrists and scientistst, and many, many media people smoke, they run TV stations, radios and papers. The Norwegian authors known abroad are or have all been eager smokers, no names. Famous footballplayers and other sportsmen, also some world champions has. Some of the norwegian government has smoked many, many times.

You say you do not smoke, nice. But is there anything of those thing mentioned above that you are able to do, that smokers are?

- best of all in your shower, cause you don't really need a shower so badly.
Western people shower much to often. That fear of body-perfume is highly unsane. What is it that is so dirty with bodies that it should need daily showers??? Unless one have dirty work?

Junge Eiche
Wednesday, February 1st, 2006, 09:35 AM
The treathment and damages caused by alcohol exceeds those expenses
many times that are caused by pot. Violence, drunk driving, rehabiltation


Alcohol IS a drug


Some laws makes sense, some laws do not. The law says also you can not in any manner discriminate blacks, homosexuals may adopt children, so HKL, " either you stick to laws - that obviously make sense - or you declare yourself antisocial and live with it"...

OK - either you have read my post or not, you even copy and paste it and then sell "some make sense, some not" as if I had never said it! Thanks for the rabulistics, man!



Another detail, smoking pot is not a crime in any western country, illegal yes, but not a crime. We have another word for it. Crossing a red light is far more serious, at least according to Norwegian jura.


So- illegal derives from the word "lex" which is translated as "law" - illegal would so translate as "against the law". Well, what is against the law? A crime. Well, I do not live in Norway, and consuming, owning or distributing drugs is illegal. There are just so many users of pot that the officials got tired of working against it.


Your own choice. In Sweden we have a saying,"Tell me who you socialize with, and I`ll tell you who you are..."

You really just want to piss me off, don't you? I don't have a choice, if my boss employs potheads and kicks them out again after a few weeks.


I knew some of those potheads years ago, for the most they do the same things that they did 30 years ago, drink beer, smoke, and talk about the same things as always. We grew quick in each others directions. Those stagnated personalities would anyway have found whatever else to stagnate on, beer, booze, pills, junk. Better they smoke.

Well, that is true. Though the latter doesn't make much difference to the former. It always depends on the dosage, and "potheads", in my opinion, are heavy, daily users. We might have the same discussion about alcohol!


It surprises me that your social references to pot are so thin? Those I know that smokes are famous artists, exhibits in out-and inland, they make movies, most musicians I know smoke, they make records that you probably have heard many times, I know one officer of the army that smokes regular, and then businessmen, doctors, psychologs and psychiatrists and scientistst, and many, many media people smoke, they run TV stations, radios and papers. The Norwegian authors known abroad are or have all been eager smokers, no names. Famous footballplayers and other sportsmen, also some world champions has. Some of the norwegian government has smoked many, many times.

Well, that's truly fantastic! Maybe we should introduce pot as mind and creativity supportive substance in our kindergartens already, so all humans may become such great-ass personalities as the ones you mentioned above :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup Marijuana for the world! It willsolve all our problems!!


You say you do not smoke, nice. But is there anything of those thing mentioned above that you are able to do, that smokers are?

Yes, I am, you won't fucking believe it! And I still prefer to spill my mind without help of substances without which I am nothing!


Western people shower much to often. That fear of body-perfume is highly unsane. What is it that is so dirty with bodies that it should need daily showers??? Unless one have dirty work?

OK. I really think that you're just sitting here laughing you ass off.

Well, my contribution to that:

I want to sit on my bed sheet without leaving brown stains!
I want to sit in my room without suffocating on my sock's stench!
I want the people next to me in the subway be able to get up when it's time to get off!
I want to hold my dick without having to shake it off my hand after I'm done!
I want a blowjob without having somebody puking on me!
I want people to move out of my way out of politeness, not out of disgust!
I want to take off my pullover without passing out for half an hour!
I want my pants to stand only when I wear them!

OK, maybe these are enough reasons for having a shower at home- other than that, one can, as great and inventive mind, get like totally stoned and find it really cool that one stinks - fart into the bong before inhaling or so, maybe that even changes the voice!

I'm sure there are plenty of stupid answers to this, I could think of many enough myself!

Slå ring om Norge
Wednesday, February 1st, 2006, 02:42 PM
Yes, I am, you won't fucking believe it! And I still prefer to spill my mind without help of substances without which I am nothing!


I believe you are capable of anything you want.

I appreciate and respect your posting, even if your attitudes to pot are conteary to mine.

I also think it is a nescessary balancing of argument, that opinions from all sides are heard. It is true that smoking claims some discipline, and that many has not achieved that. They need to be reminded.

And nobody suffers from hearing critical opinions, I think its a good reminder.

One thing we maybe agree on, is that pot and such should be burned!;)

Theudanaz
Wednesday, February 1st, 2006, 05:49 PM
For the legalization for prescription dosage of thc-rich cannabis controlled through strict government regulation, for wider-scale farming of low or 0-thc hemp for industrial/technical, feed and human consumption. for comprehensive educational system enculturating children into industrious and ethical behaviors and corollary hatred of using drugs such as cannabis for non-medical reasons, strict punishment of nonprescription usage, carrying and of course commerce.

VilhelMina
Tuesday, August 1st, 2006, 03:38 AM
I do not smoke Cannabis Sativa. (But such a pretty name)

Alcohol has by far caused more deaths than the weed ever will, that is for sure. And that shit is legal. :rollsmile Go figure.

I look at it this way;

If I am sitting on my porch, and I happen to see my neighbor smoking crack or mainlining heroin, I have a problem with that....but cannabis?

I could care less.

oneeyeisbetter
Tuesday, August 1st, 2006, 09:37 AM
keep it illegal. it makes for a flake-character and a lazy fiend. experiment but quit when you start loving it.;) I know because ive been clean for a year.

:hveğrungur:
Thursday, August 3rd, 2006, 08:31 PM
I am for it. I do not approve of rectrational drug use but if someone IS going to use drugs they should be used in moderation and with the knowledge of every single one of the effects the drug comes with.

Marijuana along with many other mind altering substances (Psilocybin Mushrooms and Opium for example) have their place in Integral Germanic culture. In both Heathen / Pagan rituals, Shamanism and Medicine.

While reading Try: Myth - Culture - Tradition Vol. 2 I read an interesting article called "The Sacred Plants of our Ancestors" from which this quote comes from:


Not Only Rope Got Twisted From Hemp

Hemp (of which there are three species: Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, and Cannabis rideralis) has been used for around 10,000 years for fibre, food (the seeds and their oil), medicine and as an intoxicant. It is one of the oldest - perhapts the oldest - cultivated plants of the human race. The drugs derived from hemp (hashish, marijuana) are very mild euphorics. They stimulate the associative imagination and put the user into a euphoric state for 2 - 3 hours, which is characterized by aphrodisiac feelings and changes in the experience of the time-space continuum.

The most ancient archeological discovery of hemp seeds (Cannabis sativa) was found at a dig done at the stratum of the band ceramics culture in Eisenberg near Thuringia (Renfrew 1973: 163). Thus, the earliest evidence of hemp culture (approximately 7,500 years old) is found on the soil of present-day Germany. Hemp has been established as part of Germanic culture from before the fifth century B.C.E. It was cultivated in fields, often together with Flax. Hemp was sown, tended and harfested by Women (Höfler 1990: 98 ). The workings of the love goddess Freya were recognized in hemp. Sowing and harvest were conducted in her honor with an erotic ritual, a Hochzeit - A "high time." In the feminine flowers lay the eroticizing and love-generating power of Freya (Neményi 1988 ). Those who became intoxicated from them experiences the sexual joy of the aphrodisiac ectasies of the love goddess. From archeological digs it has been discovered that the Germanic and Celtic tribes were alread placing hemp flowers (marijuana) at the graves of their dead 2,500 years ago (Kessler 1985).

This is just one small part of the Essay written. It also makes points on the use of mushrooms, opium among other drugs used by our Germanic ancestors with archeological evidence to back up the claims.

Some information on the Author of the Essay taken from Try: Myth - Culture - Tradition Vol. 2:


Christian Rätsch, Ph. D., is a world-renowned anthropologist and ethnophramocologist. For more than twenty years he has researched the medicinal and ritual use of plants, and in particular the cultural usage of psychoactive plants in Shamanism. His work has been published in numerous scholorary publications and recently he provided extensive contributions to the revised edition of Richard Schultes's and Albert Hofmann's classic text Plants of the Gods (Inner Traditions). Books by Christian Rätsch that have appeared this far in English translation include Plants of Love (Ten Speed) and Marijuana Medicine (Inner Traditions), and he is coauthor, along with Claudia Müller-Ebeling and others, of Shamanism and Tantra in the Himalayas and Witchcraft Medicine (both publishes by Inner Traditions).



When it comes to drugs, just like anything else today. Moderation is the key, an alcoholic is just as bad as a pothead or person addicted to any other mind altering substance. The water we drink, the food we eat can all harm us. Today natural organic food is hard to come by, the hamburger you buy from the local supermarket is loaded with anti biotics, steroids and growth hormones. Many people today believe that this is the cause in the rise of depression, insomnia, suicide among other mental illness. It is hypocritical to say someone who smokes pot is flawed becasue they are harming their bodys while they don't even take the time to look at the other things they have put into their body since the day they were born.

A person can die from drinking too much water while working out and sweating, with sweat you lose nutrients that water alone cannot put back in and for many long distance runners that fact has caused their deaths. Over hydration can kill people, scary thought isnt it? When it comes to such drugs as cocaine, crack, heroin or any other chemically man created drugs, I am strongly against their use but if we're talking pot, mushrooms and other naturally grown, non chemically created / strengthened drugs I am not against them in any way.

I would personally use mushrooms, pot and opium for Ritual / Traditional purposes but only when I have the means to grow my own, for personal use and research deeper on how excatally we think they were used.

Veritas Æquitas
Thursday, August 3rd, 2006, 08:42 PM
Very interesting , is there a place where I can research this further? Was that an e-book you read hveğrungur? Personally I don't think I have an opinion on this yet,.

:hveğrungur:
Thursday, August 3rd, 2006, 08:49 PM
Very interesting , is there a place where I can research this further? Was that an e-book you read hveğrungur? Personally I don't think I have an opinion on this yet,.

Greetings!

Well you can look at the references in the peice of the Article I posted for a start. The article itself was printed in a published the Radical Traditionalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Traditionalism) journal; Tyr: Myth - Culture - Tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyr_%28journal%29) Volume, II.

I paid for the Journal, it isnt available anywhere to read online I don't think. I ordered the book from Strange Forture (http://www.strangefortune.com) and I think Volume II (the journal with the article in question) is still available from the website's books section.

Thalia
Thursday, August 3rd, 2006, 09:07 PM
I haven't read the whole thread. Here is my opinion:

I'm against the complete legalization (not confound with complete against legalization) of marijuana because I think, if it would be available for everyone (even if only for people of full age) , the danger that kids and teenagers could make use of it would be higher. I'm against any sort of apperception changing stuff.
But that's only my personal opinion.

When it's used by a medical indication then it's a different kettle of fish. It would be ok, for example when you get a prescription by a doctor or sth.

Sorry for my bad English. Hope you could get what I mean :D

Fionn
Friday, August 4th, 2006, 05:24 AM
I voted no. I don't think it should be available for people to buy legally because "they want to get high". It may help relieve certain medical conditions, but besides that I don't see that it helps anyone. It slows the mind. People are a lot more productive without it. I know plenty of people who smoke weed and I notice a definite difference in their mental quickness and alertness from years past. Sure, I tried it once, but I'd be content to never try it again.

:hveğrungur:
Friday, August 4th, 2006, 05:58 AM
I voted no. I don't think it should be available for people to buy legally because "they want to get high". It may help relieve certain medical conditions, but besides that I don't see that it helps anyone. It slows the mind. People are a lot more productive without it. I know plenty of people who smoke weed and I notice a definite difference in their mental quickness and alertness from years past. Sure, I tried it once, but I'd be content to never try it again.

I could post a bunch of facts about alcohol and the food you probably eat every day but I won't. It's a personal choice and if Tobbacco, Alcohol and non Organic foods are legal Marijuana should be too.

Fionn
Friday, August 4th, 2006, 06:38 AM
I could post a bunch of facts about alcohol and the food you probably eat every day but I won't. It's a personal choice and if Tobbacco, Alcohol and non Organic foods are legal Marijuana should be too.

You do have a couple good points there. I don't know... I guess even if it isn't legal people will still find a way to get it.

Leofric
Thursday, July 19th, 2007, 11:35 PM
This poll is missing an option: "Yes, like most plants that grow wild without much encouragement in the absence of aggressive eradication procedures. Its acquisition, possession, and distribution should be just as unregulated as that for a dandelion or a russian thistle."

That'd be my choice.

SmokyGod
Friday, July 20th, 2007, 02:10 AM
+1 Leofric

can't remember if i posted on this thread yet (LOL, tricky leaf), but i should be able to grow my own, dammit!

Bridie
Friday, July 20th, 2007, 07:10 AM
See, the point here is not, whether or not we should be smoking the stuff but whether we should have the ability, legally, to decide for ourselves, as freemen and women what interaction we wish to have with this particular plant. It is as simple as that.I don't think it is as simple as that. We all have a social responsibility, and the fact is that regularly indulged in mind-altering drugs do impact on individual's mental health and behaviour, and therefore, on a grander scale, regular usage in a significant proportion of the population negatively impacts on society as a whole.

But then, I disagree with this whole notion of "freemen and women". ;) The majority of any given population are not responsible, intelligent nor insightful enough to make healthy decisions for themselves, let alone everyone else.

Bridie
Friday, July 20th, 2007, 07:17 AM
I'm for the legalization of marijuana. It is not more harmful than alcohol or tobacco, actually I've read that statistics reported more deaths as a result of alcohol or tobacco usage than that of illegal drugs:


Found here (http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/gen008.htm).


Such stats are misleading, considering that most of the deaths due to these drugs would either be the result of indirect complications (therefore may have been caused by the drug, but then maybe not) or overdose.

If tobacco kills such a large proportion of the population due to cancer... (which may or may not have been triggered by smoking) then a similar rate of death from cancer must surely apply to regular pot smokers. But these stats are most likely misrepresented due to the fact that a lot of pot smokers also smoke tobacco.

In any case, stats are as fallible as the mere humans who assess, collect and relay them. ;) I think common sense is a more reliable judge in the case of recreational drug use.

Allenson
Friday, July 20th, 2007, 02:05 PM
I don't think it is as simple as that. We all have a social responsibility, and the fact is that regularly indulged in mind-altering drugs do impact on individual's mental health and behaviour, and therefore, on a grander scale, regular usage in a significant proportion of the population negatively impacts on society as a whole.

Perhaps--but the jury is still out on weed. As a society, we haven't been given the legal opportunity to run around as a totally stoned-out collective.

It might be fun to try. ;)

Actually, here in the US anyway, it's amazing how many people smoke weed "under the radar"....and types that you'd never reckon would be users. Doctors, lawyers, Indian Chiefs.... :D



But then, I disagree with this whole notion of "freemen and women". ;) The majority of any given population are not responsible, intelligent nor insightful enough to make healthy decisions for themselves, let alone everyone else

You're right here, Bridie. A large chunk of the populace--once again, at least here in the States, have little sense of personal responsibility with regard to the greater whole. Given too many freedoms, I'm not sure they could handle themselves.

That still doesn't take away from my "give me liberty or give me death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_liberty_or_give_me_death)" ideals. ;)

That's why we need a serious eugenics movement....quality over quantitiy. People should be able to govern their own actions....and have the genetic capacity to do so.

Ewergrin
Friday, July 20th, 2007, 02:39 PM
I don't think it is as simple as that. We all have a social responsibility, and the fact is that regularly indulged in mind-altering drugs do impact on individual's mental health and behaviour, and therefore, on a grander scale, regular usage in a significant proportion of the population negatively impacts on society as a whole.
Sure, I'll buy that, as soon as we prohibit all alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs, especially in regards to the italicized statement above. :)


The majority of any given population are not responsible, intelligent nor insightful enough to make healthy decisions for themselves, let alone everyone else.
This statement can only be construed as true in a society where we let the vast majority be completely controlled by an infinitesimal minority. Humans are not meant for this type of social control. Your statement reeks of socialism, dear. The vast majority has already proved that marijuana is, for the most part, completely harmless, and certainly less harmful than most of the completely legal drugs that people abuse on a day to day basis.

Æmeric
Friday, July 20th, 2007, 04:51 PM
17 pages! This must be the most popular thread at BuB, I wonder why?;)

Personally I disapprove of marijuana & other recreational drug use. But laws outlawing the recreational use of marijuana & other drugs like heroin or cocaine have only had the effect of greatly inflating the price of those drugs. Anyone who wants marijuana or any other illegal substance can buy it, if they have the money. The majority of the crime in the US is related to drugs. Addicts steal or prostitute themselves to support their drug addictions. The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world because are prisons are full of drug users or smalltime drug peddlers. But the drug lords who run the crime syndicates that control the US drug trade are virtually untouchable. The huge profit margines made possible by the illegality of illicit drugs has made millionaires & sometimes billionaires out of the kingpins of the drug cartels allowing them to buy the protection of dishonest officials in Latin America and in the US. Many terrorist organizations use the drug trade to finance their terrorist activities. There is also the infringement on the rights of lawabiding citizens in trying to control the drug trade. I'm personally offended when I see a helicopter flying over my property & I know its the DEA checking to see if I'm growing marijuana in my woods.

So I'm in favor of decriminalizing marijuana and allowing the potheads to smoke all the weed they want, but if they know whats good for them they'll stand downwind of me when they lightup.

SmokyGod
Friday, July 20th, 2007, 06:05 PM
I'm personally offended when I see a helicopter flying over my property & I know its the DEA checking to see if I'm growing marijuana in my woods.


i HATE those bastards! :mad:

Bridie
Sunday, July 22nd, 2007, 09:23 AM
Sure, I'll buy that, as soon as we prohibit all alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs, especially in regards to the italicized statement above. :)
But it's ALL italicised. :P

Nevertheless... I can see you have a point with alcohol... but tobacco (no more mind-altering than coffee or refined sugar ;) ) and prescription drugs?? Some people rely on prescription drugs to survive. It is silly to compare prescription medications with recreational drugs.



This statement can only be construed as true in a society where we let the vast majority be completely controlled by an infinitesimal minority. Humans are not meant for this type of social control. Your statement reeks of socialism, dear.
Well, I do consider myself a Fascist. ;) :D



The vast majority has already proved that marijuana is, for the most part, completely harmless, and certainly less harmful than most of the completely legal drugs that people abuse on a day to day basis.Very untrue. More recent research is uncovering the mental health risks of marijuana use... memory loss, anxiety, paranoia, de-motivation, psychosis in susceptible persons... Marijuana can be a serious trigger for mental illness: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6606931.stm

Marijuana's reputation as a "soft" drug is misleading in my opinion, and in the opinion of many health professionals too from what I've heard and read.

Then we have to think too about other toxic chemicals present in Marijuana smoke... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1603611/posts

Allenson
Monday, July 23rd, 2007, 04:06 PM
I'm personally offended when I see a helicopter flying over my property & I know its the DEA checking to see if I'm growing marijuana in my woods.

Yep, every September and October, chopper traffic is pretty steady over the green hills of VT.

http://media.bonnint.net/apimage/MOMS10212200249.jpg

Ulf
Tuesday, July 24th, 2007, 02:02 AM
Tobacco is far worse than marijuana. Legalize it. Someone point me to one death from marijuana. Even if marijuana causes these alleged mental disorders, at least it doesn't kill people..

Gagnraad
Tuesday, July 24th, 2007, 02:24 AM
My opinion on it? Well, I've done it some times, and I believe alcohol is much better. So I don't use it.

Ban it, or legalize it - I couldn't care less.

SmokyGod
Tuesday, July 24th, 2007, 04:16 AM
My opinion on it? Well, I've done it some times, and I believe alcohol is much better. So I don't use it.

Ban it, or legalize it - I couldn't care less.

hmmm...

try this out http://www.white-widow-seeds.com/

:D

SmokyGod
Tuesday, July 24th, 2007, 04:19 AM
dank, sticky, sweet marijuana

damn ;)

Allenson
Tuesday, July 24th, 2007, 08:46 PM
dank, sticky, sweet marijuana

damn ;)


You really are the smoky god, eh? :P

Kith of woden
Tuesday, July 24th, 2007, 10:11 PM
I think alcohol in moderation is actually beneficial healthwise,whereas smoking anything isnt.On the other hand it is legal to pickle your liver and drink a bottle of whisky every night in your own home if that was your want,but you cant lawfully smoke one "puff" of a marijuana joint. So like many on these forums I say that whilst tobacco and alcohol are legal then so should cannabis be.It would also take out a lot of crime in that the dealers of weed would be made redundant. I know some people who have smoked it for years and they have never done no one no harm, yet alcohol can turn a placid person into a raving lunatic in a couple of hours,unrecognisable to those that know them. Just my opinion

SmokyGod
Wednesday, July 25th, 2007, 04:17 AM
You really are the smoky god, eh? :P


(puff)

what?

;)

Kith of woden
Wednesday, July 25th, 2007, 11:54 AM
(puff)

what?

;)


Yeah sorry I didnt take into consideration local dialects/slang lol
puff: To put the " cannabis cigarette inbetween both lips and inhale into the lungs before expelling the smoke " :D ;)

Wulfram
Friday, June 26th, 2009, 04:00 PM
(The latter half of this post will be a brief history of Hemp in Germany)


The picture below is your typical group of NORML protestors.
(click on photo for larger image)
http://i539.photobucket.com/albums/ff355/williamofwaco/3495318388_deb388d8eb_o.jpg

Have you ever seen such a multi-cultural stew?:D

They’re support of rights for medical marijuana users as well as the numerous uses of industrial hemp are noble. I support these goals myself.

But, I am in no way fond of or no longer associate with the people you see in the photograph.
These same people who carry placards demanding legalization are the same individuals who also support feminism, race-mixing, abortion, as well as immigration. You will see the same people marching in a gay pride parade. They look, talk and act like this in every large city.

The reason why many people in the world do not join in these marches is because they do not wish to associate with the characters who represent the legalization movement, many of whom are scary looking lesbians or weak-kneed effeminate males. This is just one of the reasons why hemp will never rise above the “Cheech and Chong” mentality that most potential converts perceive in groups like NORML.

Marijuana clearly does not bring people together because of a mutual appreciation of its medical and industrial benefits alone. There is too much resentment between conservatives and liberals who support the cause of legalization.
If you put a liberal in the same room with a conservative to thresh out a possible scheme of uniting them both for the sake of the cause, I guarantee you the very likely possiblity of the conservative putting his foot in the ass of that liberal.

In my opinion the kind of people the movement needs are strong, moral conservatives. Men who are men and women who are women.

It angers me that the beneficial uses of hemp are continuously hampered because its image will be forever associated with these self-centered, protest-because-its-cool hipsters.

On an ironic note, the same government they protest against is the very same government that now promotes gays and as well as immigrants.
They are not such strange bedfellows after all.


The following is a brief history of hemp in Germany:


Hemp in Germany has a long history
The earliest findings of hemp-based ropes and fabrics in Europe were made in the Stuttgart area and can be dated back to the pre-Roman period (800-400 BC).
Fabrics were not yet made from processed hemp fibers, but from the bast stripped from the plant's stem. During the early Middle Ages, retting, a biological process for the separation of plant fibers which had been used for flax, was transferred to hemp. The nutritious hemp seeds have been used as a food staple since the Middle Ages and early descriptions of the plant's medical applications date back to the 16th century. To this day, traditional hemp dishes are prepared in some of the former German provinces, such as the Silesian hemp soup made from hemp seeds and millet.
In the 14th century, the traditional Chinese art of making paper arrived in Germany via Italy. Exclusively used as raw material were rags from flax and hemp textiles. Wood based paper came into use only after mechanical and chemical pulping was developed in the mid eighteen hundreds in Germany and England, respectively. Because of the significantly lower costs of wood, often obtained by clear-cutting, flax and hemp as resources for the pulping industry were rapidly displaced.
Hemp experienced its heyday in Germany in the 17th century. Because of the high tensile strength of its fibers and their tolerance of moisture, essentially all sails, tows, nets, flags, and uniforms for the growing fleet of sailing ships were made from hemp. Within the boundaries of what later became Germany, hemp was grown on an area of approximately 150,000 hectares (ha).
The decline of hemp in Germany began in the 18th century, when technical improvements simplified the processing of cotton. This subsequently displaced flax and hemp from the textile market because their processing remained labor intensive. The concurrent decline in sailing caused the loss of yet another important market for hemp fibers.
Hemp became a war profiteer during the two world wars. Cut off from its overseas supplies of cotton, jute, sisal and ramie, the German governments reconsidered hemp and supported improvements to cultivation, harvesting and processing technologies. For example, the development of the so-called cottonization process allowed production of a short-fiber, high-quality cotton substitute from hemp fiber. During the 1920s, the substitution of all cotton imports by cottonized domestic hemp was seriously discussed. It would have required an area of approximately one million hectares. While these considerations were driven mainly by a desire for self-sufficiency, they still demonstrate the potential which was attributed to hemp fiber. Towards the end of World War II, hemp was grown in Germany on about 21,000 ha, which supplied approximately 20% of the demand for hemp fiber. Most of the balance was imported from Italy.

Siebenbürgerin
Friday, June 26th, 2009, 04:33 PM
I'm against the legalisation of marijuana. It's dangerous to smoke it, not only for the lungs, but also the behaviour. Tabocco and alcohol are more than enough, in my view there's no need to legalise other dangerous drugs.

Wulfram
Friday, June 26th, 2009, 04:53 PM
I'm against the legalisation of marijuana. It's dangerous to smoke it, not only for the lungs, but also the behaviour. Tabocco and alcohol are more than enough, in my view there's no need to legalise other dangerous drugs.

I am sure you have heard this very true fact before, but : Not one person has ever died from smoking marijuana. Compare this to the hundreds of thousands of people who die yearly as a result of alcohol and cigarettes.
Peanuts kill many people a year as well because it causes a deadly allergic reaction. Why not make peanuts illegal as well?

I no longer smoke myself, but in my past I smoked with hundreds of people and I can assure you that the majority of them were well behaved, responsible individuals. The ones who acted like jack-asses were always under the additional influence of cocaine or alcohol. You clearly have not been around enough individuals yourself who smoke or advocate its use to make such a clichéd statement.

Billions of dollars needlessly wasted on the drug war and not a dent has been made in curtailing its usage. Indeed, drug use has increased year after year.
All the money spent on the drug war is one of the reasons why the world is undergoing a recession as we speak.

To imprison someone for smoking a joint is a cruelty, a kind of torture. There is nothing honorable about prosecuting someone for being in possession of a plant.
Havent you heard about the recent report by the United Nations, who praised Portugal for its successful program of legalization? Why did they praise Portugal? Because all crime associated with drugs has fallen dramatically. Instead of increasing bad behavior, officials were amazed that people conducted themselves in a responsible manner.


Please read the following article:

In an about face, the United Nations on Wednesday lavishly praised drug decriminalization in its annual report on the state of global drug policy. In previous years, the UN drug czar had expressed skepticism about Portugal's decriminalization, which removed criminal penalties in 2001 for personal drug possession and emphasized treatment over incarceration. The UN had suggested the policy was in violation of international drug treaties and would encourage "drug tourism."

But in its 2009 World Drug Report, the UN had little but kind words for Portugal's radical (by U.S. standards) approach. "These conditions keep drugs out of the hands of those who would avoid them under a system of full prohibition, while encouraging treatment, rather than incarceration, for users. Among those who would not welcome a summons from a police officer are tourists, and, as a result, Portugal's policy has reportedly not led to an increase in drug tourism," reads the report. "It also appears that a number of drug-related problems have decreased."

In its upbeat appraisal of Portugal's policy, the UN finds itself in agreement with Salon's Glenn Greenwald.

The report, released at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., also puts to rest concerns that decriminalization doesn't comply with international treaties, which prevent countries from legalizing drugs.

U.S. Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske is scheduled to appear at the announcement of the report. (He has said "legalization" is not "in my vocabulary.")

"The International Narcotics Control Board was initially apprehensive when Portugal changed its law in 2001 (see their annual report for that year), but after a mission to Portugal in 2004, it "noted that the acquisition, possession and abuse of drugs had remained prohibited," and said "the practice of exempting small quantities of drugs from criminal prosecution is consistent with the international drug control treaties," reads a footnote to the report.

The UN report also dives head first into the debate over full drug legalization. Last year's World Drug Report ignored the issue entirely, save for a reference to Chinese opium policy in the 19th Century. This year's report begins with a lengthy rebuttal of arguments in favor of legalization. "Why unleash a drug epidemic in the developing world for the sake of libertarian arguments made by a pro-drug lobby that has the luxury of access to drug treatment?" argues the report.

But the UN also makes a significant concession to backers of legalization, who have long argued that it is prohibition policies that lead to violence and the growth of shadowy, underground networks.

"In the Preface to the report," reads the press release accompanying the report, "[UN Office of Drugs and Crime Executive Director Antonio Maria] Costa explores the debate over repealing drug controls. He acknowledges that controls have generated an illicit black market of macro-economic proportions that uses violence and corruption."

Jack Cole, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) and a retired undercover narcotics detective, objected to the report's classification of current policy as "control."

"The world's 'drug czar,' Antonio Maria Costa, would have you believe that the legalization movement is calling for the abolition of drug control," he said. "Quite the contrary, we are demanding that governments replace the failed policy of prohibition with a system that actually regulates and controls drugs, including their purity and prices, as well as who produces them and who they can be sold to. You can't have effective control under prohibition, as we should have learned from our failed experiment with alcohol in the U.S. between 1920 and 1933."

Additionaly, you did not give me your opinion of the history I provided in the post. Any thoughts on this?

velvet
Friday, June 26th, 2009, 05:29 PM
I'm against the legalisation of marijuana. It's dangerous to smoke it, not only for the lungs, but also the behaviour. Tabocco and alcohol are more than enough, in my view there's no need to legalise other dangerous drugs.

Just bad, that so far noone prooved the 'dangers' of marijuana ;)

Seriously, in Germany approx 40.000 people die of use/misuse of alcohol, while you will not find one death of marijuana.
I consume pot myself, not occasionally but regular for about 20 years now, sometimes more, sometimes less, in times none. I can tell you that it neither is addictive nor does it influence my behavior negative in any way, what I really cant say about alcohol. Therefor, my preferred drug is pot, alcohol I consume maybe two or three times a year, and after two of three times I really feel bad for days.

If people are going to prohibite 'dangerous drugs', then alcohol would be really on a more top place on the list. In the 40.000 deaths are only those mentioned that die on liver illness and other organ defects, not the ones who die in accidents due to their alcohol consume, killing probably more people in the accidents or people who just fell down the stairs while drunk.

Alcohol causes serious defects in the brain, reducing the cells significantly, specially in children's bodies, it causes infertility and other degenerative deseases, nonetheless alcohol is not considered dangerous. None of the allegedly present 'dangers' of pot were ever prooven, but people go nuts about it. As infratetraskelion said about tabacco, this is just another media induced hystery.

Most of all, the conclusion of its dangerousness is driven from the term gateway-drug, and that is only because it is pushed into illegality. If it would be sold in chemist's stores f.e., this chain would simply not be present and noone would talk about its, in itself not present, dangers. In fact, pot is used as medicine, but stays illegal for the common people. Dont you find it absurd? I do. In the Netherlands it is sold in special stores (coffee shops), it is not illegal and in the Netherlands they dont have any experience with pot as a gateway drug. For them it is just as normal as buying a beer, and ten kilometers further east, in Germany, people find themselves in illegality for pot.

The absurd thing is that actually noone cares for people's health when it comes to the things prohibited or not. Like Ronan pointed out, hemp was prohibited here after WWII, and it was because it offered Germany a certain independence from America's cotton supply. Even the THC-free sorts were prohibited, which should be enough to proove that it wasnt about the drug, but about the plant itself.

Sure, consuming drugs, whether it is alcohol, pot, mushrooms or peyote or poppy, requires responsibility, and none of it should be allowed for people under 18 or maybe even 21. But once you're an adult, it is everyone's own business to handle that with responsibility.


There would be more absurd things to point out, f.e. the hystery about vitamine B12, for which people are ripped off their children, while a common cancer therapy floods your body with all sorts of toxic and cancer-producing substancies. All this is really not about people's health, but about market power. Only.

Bärin
Friday, June 26th, 2009, 05:33 PM
I don't give a shit if no one died from smoking a joint. It should stay illegal, and tobacco and alcohol should be illegal too. No one needs them, they just cause stupid, retarded behavior. And the smoke is dangerous to children. he only ones benefiting from it are junkies, and junkies are scum period.

Siebenbürgerin
Friday, June 26th, 2009, 10:52 PM
Just bad, that so far noone prooved the 'dangers' of marijuana ;)
I think it was proved when it was made illegal. If marijuana was harmless, it wouldn't be illegal nowadays. Even if no one died from marijuana, the psychological factor can't be ignored. The peoples who smoke it become instable and dangerous in the society.


If people are going to prohibite 'dangerous drugs', then alcohol would be really on a more top place on the list. In the 40.000 deaths are only those mentioned that die on liver illness and other organ defects, not the ones who die in accidents due to their alcohol consume, killing probably more people in the accidents or people who just fell down the stairs while drunk.

Alcohol causes serious defects in the brain, reducing the cells significantly, specially in children's bodies, it causes infertility and other degenerative deseases, nonetheless alcohol is not considered dangerous. None of the allegedly present 'dangers' of pot were ever prooven, but people go nuts about it. As infratetraskelion said about tabacco, this is just another media induced hystery.Alcohol in high quantities causes the damages. In small quantities it's even benefic to the organism. And for children, it should obviously be prohibited.


In fact, pot is used as medicine, but stays illegal for the common people. Dont you find it absurd? I do.
Not all medicine is available to common peoples either. For some medicine you need a prescription to get it, because it can be abused to get high. It's not absurd in my view.

Willow
Friday, June 26th, 2009, 11:06 PM
It's definitly not my thing - i love red wine. I used to smoke it when i was younger, in my wilder days, although i could take it or leave it. I did know some people who just smoked it all the time, i mean, having a joint as soon as they get up in the morning - i found that sad and pathetic. But the thing i never liked about it, was how lazy is makes you, not to mention hungry. Lying around stoned, stuffing my face, watching stupid tv programmes and laughing at nothing and feeling paranoid, is not really my idea of a good time. Plus, it really screws with your mind - i can understand how it can cause mental problems and schizophrenia..

velvet
Saturday, June 27th, 2009, 12:16 AM
I think it was proved when it was made illegal. If marijuana was harmless, it wouldn't be illegal nowadays. Even if no one died from marijuana, the psychological factor can't be ignored. The peoples who smoke it become instable and dangerous in the society.

Thanks that you consider me unstable and dangerous in society ;)

To the law prohibition I just say that the same people who prohibited pot also promote multiculturalism, and you really wont agree that mass immigration is cultural enriching our societies, as they state, wont you? Why it was prohibited me and Ronan said now often enough though. It really had nothing to do with its 'dangers', only with the damage it produced on the profit for cotton exporting America.


Alcohol in high quantities causes the damages. In small quantities it's even benefic to the organism. And for children, it should obviously be prohibited.

Well, that counts for red wine and pils, for white wine this doesnt count and for all other sorts of alcohol neither, also not for top-fermented dark beer. So this is by no means a general rule for alcohol. High quality distilled malt whiskey can be 'healthy' too in small portions, that doesnt change anything on that you shouldnt drive after the small portion, because then you would endanger yourself and others.
The alcohol in medicine often is of a very low quality and is of the non-healthy sort, but noone cares.


Not all medicine is available to common peoples either. For some medicine you need a prescription to get it, because it can be abused to get high. It's not absurd in my view.

Did you know that nutmegs are toxic? And make you high when you consume a certain (unfortunately lethal) amount? Or thyme?
You can buy poppy seeds in every flower shop, they contain opium and noone cares, the processed poppy is used for decoration of all sorts of bakery stuff, contains opium and makes you high and is freely sold to children too. Two pieces of poppy cake and your world becomes really motley :D

A funny little story about the need for prescription for some medicine. Pills against headache containing paracetamol are now requiring a prescription, but only for packages of more than 20 pills, the 20 pills package you still can buy free. Does that makes sense? Specially when, like it is here, chemist's shops are every 100 meters or so (no joke, I always wonder why we need so many of them, haha). If I want to commit suicide with them (which would be possible), I can buy my needed amount in three shops within ten minutes. Reason for the new rule? To get people to the doctors again, since the introduction of a fee for visiting the doc (in addition to the 15% rip off of your income that we have to pay here anyway) only half as many people as before visit the docs, who now whine about a reduced income.
Engage yourself with the absurdities of modern 'health care' and you'll notice that actually noone cares about the health of the people, only about the health of their own cash box. Many of the existing rules actually make no sense at all.

Aspirin thins your blood, with a relevant gene disposition it makes you a bleeder, means you die of bleeding to death when you cut your finger while cooking. Does anyone care? No, of course not, you can buy as much aspirin as you want. Toothpaste, when eaten, can damage your digestive system seriously, and it addition, you can commit suicide with it. Does anyone care? No, children consider it funny to play ill with it (produces fever in small amounts). Amalgam contains quicksilver, but is used as teeth inlay. Certain acids that occure in common food can extract it again. Does anyone care? Of course not. Should I go on?


Plus, it really screws with your mind - i can understand how it can cause mental problems and schizophrenia..

Pot can support the development from already present dispositions to a notable defect, but pot does not cause them. I never had hallucinations or something, no panic attacks or whatever one usually get as argument against marijuana.
Oh, I know someone too who got completely screwed mentally. But he was screwed anyway (really bad childhood) and consumed unbelievable amounts of pot and all sorts of drugs he could get, alcohol, LSD, cocaine, even heroine (smoked). So I'm really not sure if it was the pot that shot his mind off ;)

Hipriformkatus
Saturday, June 27th, 2009, 02:16 AM
marijuana should be legal and available to responsible adults. i won't dispute the economic reasons for criminalization but i suspect here in america it was lumped in with other drugs like narcotics etc and as such was frowned upon-smoked by crazed jazz musicians and other degenerates :) (my favorite people) etc. today's war on drugs is known to be a sham but it won't end soon..... too many law enforcement personnel depend on it for something to do.
caveat: since people can sometime be idiots :-O ! i would be fearful, in the event of pot legalization, of it being used in combination with alcohol et al moments before getting behind the wheel of a car and the resulting synergism would triple the intoxication level of drunken idiots from coast to coast. america already has a bad drunk driving problem- add marijuana and the jails, emergency rooms, and morgues might fill to overflowing. apparently very few can understand the concept of staying at home when getting baked.
the difference between alcohol tolerance and marijuana intolerance is purely cultural. whiskey is ok but sinsemillia is not.
if aspirin were a new drug being developed today it would definitely require a prescription due to it's anti-clotting properties. it is an amazing drug but can cause problems for those in which platelet function must not be comprimised.
pharmaceutical companies and health care in general is a business after all and must operate 'in the black'. all the altruism in the world won't pay salaries and keep the machine turning. i don't totally curse these capitalists but not many drugs are produced without profit potential for the company producing them.
i don't smoke weed anymore. after all it IS a gateway drug.... for me it lead to sweat pants and cheetos - "smoking marijuana is linked to sitting around gettig high" ;)

Chlodovech
Saturday, June 27th, 2009, 02:30 AM
I think it was proved when it was made illegal. If marijuana was harmless, it wouldn't be illegal nowadays.

The state is not all knowing. In fact, the war on soft drugs is as ridiculous as the war against racism, and extremely contra-productive. Above all, it's based on misconceptions, greed, power and money.

Big time drug dealers agree with the state on this one: leaving the destribution of cannabis entirely in their hands is a very lucrative business for them. They have no interest in legalization at all, of course.

Virtually everything we learned about cannabis is a lie (especially so in the early days, when pot became available to the middle class) - to a degree that some of its real drawbacks are obscured and disbelieved.

I voted for legalize it.

An excellent and enlightening docu on this subject is The Union: The Business Behind Getting High:

-9077214414651731007&hl

Vindefense
Saturday, June 27th, 2009, 04:25 AM
There is only ever one reason for prohibition, and that is to corner the market.
It amazes me, that because of these drug laws something that will grow almost anywhere and thrive, has become such a lucrative business. Not only that but calculate how many lives are effected negatively because of it, from needles incarceration, to outright murder. Banning it does not stifle it's use at all. In fact it generates it.

Dittohead, Slayer

....explain the law again to me

Personally, It makes me want to move. I must be outdoors, and I must have something to do. I have to get up and do something, Normally, I'll jump from one thing to the next for a bit. Until I settle down and focus. Then I am able to concentrate exceedingly well. Don't do anything in life in excess, Know your limitations and adhere to them and you'll be fine. Like velvet said, a perfectly legal herb like nutmeg is way more dangerous.

Ward
Saturday, June 27th, 2009, 05:08 AM
I don't give a shit if no one died from smoking a joint. It should stay illegal, and tobacco and alcohol should be illegal too. No one needs them, they just cause stupid, retarded behavior. And the smoke is dangerous to children. he only ones benefiting from it are junkies, and junkies are scum period.

Who is the state to deprive me of enjoying a beer with my dinner? What's next, ban dessert? No one really needs that either, eh?



Just bad, that so far noone prooved the 'dangers' of marijuana ;)

I think lungs would be better off without the tar intake. Also, it's been shown to be bad for short-term memory.


If people are going to prohibite 'dangerous drugs', then alcohol would be really on a more top place on the list. In the 40.000 deaths are only those mentioned that die on liver illness and other organ defects, not the ones who die in accidents due to their alcohol consume, killing probably more people in the accidents or people who just fell down the stairs while drunk.

Alcohol causes serious defects in the brain, reducing the cells significantly, specially in children's bodies, it causes infertility and other degenerative deseases, nonetheless alcohol is not considered dangerous. None of the allegedly present 'dangers' of pot were ever prooven, but people go nuts about it.

But the difference is, people don't necessarily drink alcohol to get wasted. They can drink it in moderation for its taste, whereas one hit of weed gets you high. I don't know anyone who smokes weed just because they like the taste, they do it to get stoned.

What's more, alcohol in moderation is good for the heart.


Most of all, the conclusion of its dangerousness is driven from the term gateway-drug, and that is only because it is pushed into illegality. If it would be sold in chemist's stores f.e., this chain would simply not be present and noone would talk about its, in itself not present, dangers. In fact, pot is used as medicine, but stays illegal for the common people. Dont you find it absurd? I do. In the Netherlands it is sold in special stores (coffee shops), it is not illegal and in the Netherlands they dont have any experience with pot as a gateway drug. For them it is just as normal as buying a beer, and ten kilometers further east, in Germany, people find themselves in illegality for pot.

I can see how it's considered a gateway drug. A few years ago I was at a bar and some guy actually told me that he had shot heroin before, but at the same time insisted he had never smoked weed in his life.

I mean, how ridiculous does that sound? He was obviously lying about either having tried heroin or having never smoked weed. Who the hell just skips weed and goes straight to heroin? :lol

Certainly not everyone who has smoked weed takes it to the next level, but those who do take it to the next level almost always started out on weed.



The absurd thing is that actually noone cares for people's health when it comes to the things prohibited or not. Like Ronan pointed out, hemp was prohibited here after WWII, and it was because it offered Germany a certain independence from America's cotton supply. Even the THC-free sorts were prohibited, which should be enough to proove that it wasnt about the drug, but about the plant itself.

Before I believe that I'd need to see some credible documentation to support the claim that hemp was banned in Germany SOLELY for the sake of the U.S. cotton market and/or U.S. interests in general. Weed was banned in the U.S. simply because of its mind-altering properties.



It's definitly not my thing - i love red wine. I used to smoke it when i was younger, in my wilder days, although i could take it or leave it. I did know some people who just smoked it all the time, i mean, having a joint as soon as they get up in the morning - i found that sad and pathetic. But the thing i never liked about it, was how lazy is makes you, not to mention hungry. Lying around stoned, stuffing my face, watching stupid tv programmes and laughing at nothing and feeling paranoid, is not really my idea of a good time. Plus, it really screws with your mind - i can understand how it can cause mental problems and schizophrenia..

That pretty well matches my experience with it. It made me feel like a pile of crap. However, I've known a few people whom it seems to affect in the opposite way. They lead successful and active lives and say that weed gives them more focus and energy (like Vindefense). They're high all the time but you'd never even know it. I think they're the exception to the rule though..


...Anyway, I voted legalize it with a prescription, for the sake of cancer patients and for those who can prove they can use it for recreation and still keep their lives together.

But the hippie culture that so often goes along with it needs to be stamped out.

SwordOfTheVistula
Saturday, June 27th, 2009, 08:05 AM
But the difference is, people don't necessarily drink alcohol to get wasted. They can drink it in moderation for its taste, whereas one hit of weed gets you high. I don't know anyone who smokes weed just because they like the taste, they do it to get stoned.

To get buzzed mainly. Same thing as anything else which makes someone feel good really, like gorging on unhealthy food.

What's more, alcohol in moderation is good for the heart.


Certainly not everyone who has smoked weed takes it to the next level, but those who do take it to the next level almost always started out on weed.

And they almost always started with alcohol before that.



for those who can prove they can use it for recreation and still keep their lives together.

What are you supposed to do, have some kind of license and inspections? Too many empty frito-lay bags around and your license is revoked?


But the hippie culture that so often goes along with it needs to be stamped out.

Most of the people who smoke it aren't hippies, and plenty of rednecks and even skinheads smoke it. It was mainly linked to the hippie culture through a rebellion against 'the man' (the government/Christian establishment), this wouldn't be an issue if it was legal.

Jäger
Saturday, June 27th, 2009, 10:35 AM
As a side note, alcohol itself (ethanol) has no proven beneficial impact on health, it is just toxic, 30mg/day are medically neutral (this translates to roughly one German beer 0,5l).
The healthy impact of vine or beer (specifically wheat beer) is because of other substances present in those beverages.

Cail
Saturday, June 27th, 2009, 11:31 AM
I\'ve a very bad opinion even on tobacco and alcohol, let alone marijuana. All drugs, including nicotine, ethanol and cannabiol should be prohibited, and posessing should be punished, trading them - punished severely.

Wulfram
Saturday, June 27th, 2009, 12:16 PM
I\'ve a very bad opinion even on tobacco and alcohol, let alone marijuana. All drugs, including nicotine, ethanol and cannabiol should be prohibited, and posessing should be punished, trading them - punished severely.

You think the present methods of torture are not enough? In Texas if you are caught a third time with marijuana you will be sent to the multi-culture cess pit known as Huntsville State Prison. There you will more than likely be placed in a cell occupied by a negro who is there because he either raped or murdered someone and now spends all day pumping weights and hating "the man", which is us, White people. He will immediately try to assert dominance over you either by beating the crap out of or raping you.
The judge who sends an offender to Hunstville knows damn well that the majority of prison rapes are black-on-White, or black-on-black, and never White-on-black. If you are a White who is not physically strong or has'nt the abilty to project a strong will then you will eaten alive, since the overwhelming majority of inmates there are black.
The creepy part about all this is that the lawmakers seem to enjoy the idea that pot smokers undergo torment. "Wont listen to your leaders, eh? We'll teach you a lesson"
Back when I used to smoke I heard horror story after horror story(I still do) of how the system places non-violent drug users in the same group as repeat violent offenders. One poor guy was gang-raped within twenty-four hours of being sent there. He hanged himself in his cell the next day.
Would this be the kind of punishment you desire? That "they had it coming"?
Are you one of these punishment fetishists?
If you advocate the death penalty for users then I would not be surprised either.

Cail, I would remind you that my country as well as yours were made great with assistance of cannabis hemp. England gained power on the seas, and the hemp sails that they flew helped them to achieve this. In America there are an unbelievable amount of towns who are named after this plant.

Hempstead, New York
Hemphill Park - Austin, Texas
Hempville, Pennsylvania
Hempstead, Texas

There are quite a few others but you get my point.
If it wasn't for hemp you would not have the present right to oppose hemp.
To deny that hemp is beneficial and persist in the insane lie that it is the evil behind all the worlds ills is, in my opinion, a denial of your heritage. Very anti-Germanic.

velvet
Saturday, June 27th, 2009, 01:53 PM
I think lungs would be better off without the tar intake. Also, it's been shown to be bad for short-term memory.

Weeds do not contain tar, (processed) tabacco does. There are ways to consume pot without tabacco too ;)


But the difference is, people don't necessarily drink alcohol to get wasted. They can drink it in moderation for its taste, whereas one hit of weed gets you high. I don't know anyone who smokes weed just because they like the taste, they do it to get stoned.

Hmm, we have here, and I'm sure in America they exist too, a new volkssport called Komasaufen (coma drinking). Kids of age 12 to 18 meet at a club and drink as much as possible in short time. Their party is over before midnight and often ends in hospitals. They do not drink for the enjoyment of taste.
And the common, regular beer drinker neither enjoys its taste, but drinks for either the sake of drinking and shooting him a bit off reality or simply because they're addicted.
I guess we're talking about ~5% of consumers of alcohol (beer or whine to the meal) who solely do it for the sake of taste with the meal.
So we're talking about ~95 per cent who misuse alcohol in one way or another and in different levels of misuse.

Try it out next time you're out not to drink a beer with your friends. ;)


Before I believe that I'd need to see some credible documentation to support the claim that hemp was banned in Germany SOLELY for the sake of the U.S. cotton market and/or U.S. interests in general. Weed was banned in the U.S. simply because of its mind-altering properties.

Chlodovech has posted a nice docu on that matter, and how the government's opinion changed from this to the complete opposite site completely unbased in facts, but in assumptions and what was considered in one way or another beneficial - at that specific moment in time.

Oh, of course you'll not find in the official notes by the government the statement that it was prohibited because it reduced the export business of America. That would be quite stupid, wouldnt it? :P


That pretty well matches my experience with it. It made me feel like a pile of crap. However, I've known a few people whom it seems to affect in the opposite way. They lead successful and active lives and say that weed gives them more focus and energy (like Vindefense). They're high all the time but you'd never even know it. I think they're the exception to the rule though..

No, they are the other, much larger group of consumers, who know what they are doing and why, the group that handles the thing with responsibility and conscious ;)

Like with everything, there are also the f**ed up people hanging around and just loosing any grip on their life, but if they wouldnt misuse pot, they'd misuse alcohol or worth things.
And they'd still would just hang around if you'd take away any sort of drug from them.


But the hippie culture that so often goes along with it needs to be stamped out.

Agreed ;)
But they dont exist because of cannabis, these hippie cultures do exist for quite other reasons and pot is just one of some accessoires that just belong to the picture.

Cail
Saturday, June 27th, 2009, 02:03 PM
You think the present methods of torture are not enough? In Texas if you are caught a third time with marijuana you will be sent to the multi-culture cess pit known as Huntsville State Prison.
So - dont? Dont get caught with marijuana? Dont smoke marijuana? Are you a jamaican negro w/o brains? No? Than dont smoke it.


Cail, I would remind you that my country as well as yours were made great with assistance of cannabis hemp. England gained power on the seas, and the hemp sails that they flew helped them to achieve this. In America there are an unbelievable amount of towns who are named after this plant.

Hempstead, New York
Hemphill Park - Austin, Texas
Hempville, Pennsylvania
Hempstead, Texas

There are quite a few others but you get my point.
If it wasn\'t for hemp you would not have the present right to oppose hemp.
To deny that hemp is beneficial and persist in the insane lie that it is the evil behind all the worlds ills is, in my opinion, a denial of your heritage. Very anti-Germanic.

I loled. Making ropes of it and using it to fuck up yourself is very different. For instance - normal people use glue to actually glue things. But there are retards, that sniff glue to get high. Same thing with hemp.

Ward
Saturday, June 27th, 2009, 11:37 PM
What are you supposed to do, have some kind of license and inspections? Too many empty frito-lay bags around and your license is revoked?

Heheh.. touché.


I don't give much thought to this issue since I don't smoke, but if the benefits of legalizing it really do outweigh the drawbacks, then I suppose I could support it.

Metahumanoid
Tuesday, July 7th, 2009, 04:51 PM
;) Without reading all 26 pages of comments before me, i think not the THC itself is bad, only the negative side effects, like when the users get in a bad state or become criminal. And maybe the tar lung from smoking it. *g*

Wulfram
Tuesday, July 7th, 2009, 05:15 PM
;) Without reading all 26 pages of comments before me, i think not the THC itself is bad, only the negative side effects, like when the users get in a bad state or become criminal. And maybe the tar lung from smoking it. *g*

Metahumanoid, you really should have read all 26 pages of comments before yours.;)

Freigeistige
Wednesday, July 8th, 2009, 06:47 AM
I do not use nor advocate the use of any drugs, but I do have prior experience with marijuana use. While, personally, I feel that it is detrimental to the intellectual or scientific-minded, I recognize that making it's use illegal not only makes it less safe, but makes it more desirable. I would rather have legitimate businessmen profiting on it's safe and regulated use than have degenerate gang-bangers luring kids into buying and even selling it.

apwordsmith
Wednesday, July 8th, 2009, 07:41 PM
Yes, I have used marijuana and personally think there is nothing wrong with using it in a controlled manner, such as medicinal.

Berserkergang
Monday, January 18th, 2010, 04:47 PM
Yeah if one aims to become schizophrenic than weed is the perfect drug! I was a daily heavy potsmoker for 1 1/3 years and only now is my brain finally recovering from the damage of that garbage. Paranoia, delusions, irrational fear, anxiety etc.

I live in Canada and we smoke the most pot of any country in the world, including countries that have it legalized. Everyone here has such a relaxed view on weed it makes me sick to my core. Fuck sakes most people here think its benefitial and not harmful. Yes weed may have a few good affects for the body, but its not worth the damage it does to the mind. Plus everytime someone buys a bag of weed you are just putting money straight into the hands of minority gangbangers.

Ocko
Monday, January 18th, 2010, 05:27 PM
For me the state is a certain organisation to act when the whole of the people is affected and that pertains mainly to the outside of the state.

Internally I don't need somebody telling me what I can and what I cannot do.

Anyone against my freedom and cuts into my free will is going to be defeated either openly or by stealth.

Cannabis growers in California are actually beneficial to the state as they bring billions of Dollars to the state which would go otherwisely to Mexico or other foreign states.

If I smell in autumn the cannabis plantages I actually feel good about it.

And as California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger answered to the question 'What about Marijuana?' ......'It is just a leave'. I guess he gained milliones of voters through that little comment.

thoughtcrime
Monday, January 18th, 2010, 06:24 PM
In my opinion, a ban can be justified only on those drugs posing a direct threat for others but the user, for example, by being likely to make the user overly aggressive (like amphetamines). Laws aren't there to tell people how to live but to protect them from each other. In my opinion, the best way to achieve a maximum of both freedom and security would be to have a state monopole on marijuana, just like it works for tobacco (at least in Germany). This way, dealers are dried out, the customers recieve high quality marijuana and the state can make some coin by it.

I myself don't use marijuana, I used to when I was younger, but I don't like the effect anymore. Other than that, I don't want to loose my driver license.

Ocko: Nice signature, my grandpa used to say that from time to time...Plattdüütsch is quite similar to frisian.

Ocko
Monday, January 18th, 2010, 06:46 PM
In Germany people mostly smoke Haschisch in the US people vastly prefer the flowers.

The difference is in the effect.

Totenlicht: Ich bin von Ostfriesland, da spricht man plattdeutsch, friesisch ist schon lange nicht mehr existent.

frippardthree
Tuesday, January 19th, 2010, 04:43 AM
I don't smoke marijuana, and I think that smoking it is wrong. But who am I to judge? That's a personal preference. Our law enforcement agencies are wasting too much of the tax-payers' money to convict people of possession of marijuana, when this money could be used for going after the real criminals. I also have no problem with the idea that it should be legalized for medicinal use, as well. I would say regulate the sale of marijuana and tax it, when being used for recreational purposes, like tobacco and alcohol. This might help the economy, to some degree. I am all in favor of "Sin Taxes" for non-essentials, such as recreational drugs. However I do not believe that marijuana should be taxed if their is documented proof that a certain individual is using it for medicinal purposes.


What Does Sin Tax Mean?
A state-sponsored tax that is added to products or services that are seen as vices, such as alcohol, tobacco and gambling. These type of taxes are levied by governments to discourage individuals from partaking in such activities without making the use of the products illegal. These taxes also provide a source of government revenue.
Investopedia explains Sin Tax.

Sin taxes are typically added to liquor, cigarettes and other non-luxury items. State governments favor sin taxes because they generate an enormous amount of revenue and are usually easily accepted by the general public because they are indirect taxes that only affect those who use the products. When individual states run deficits, the sin tax is typically one of the first taxes recommended by lawmakers to help fill the budget gap.

Retrieved From:http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sin_tax.asp



Thou Shalt Tax Every Sin
Taxation is media solution to funding its preferred causes and punishing 'wrong' behavior like smoking, eating junk food and spewing carbon.

By Julia A. Seymour
Business & Media Institute
7/25/2007 6:21:26 PM

Death and taxes may be the only certainties in life, but journalists’ support for higher taxes is almost as predictable.

Sin taxes on tobacco, alcohol, unhealthy foods and environmentally unfriendly actions have each garnered media support – sometimes in the name of saving children. Right now, the media are promoting a “bipartisan” bill in Congress that would expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) by raising tobacco taxes sky-high.

“Senate Panel Adds Billions For Health,” announced a headline from the July 20 New York Times. The headline sent a positive message that people’s health would be improved, rather than the honest message that the bill calls for a 156-percent tax increase on cigarettes, and a more than 20,000-percent increase on cigars (up to $10 per cigar).

Complete Article:http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070725145034.aspx



Marijuana as Medicine

Many people believe that marijuana can be used as medicine to treat certain illnesses. Canada and several states in the U.S. have passed laws in recent years to specifically allow sick people to use marijuana for medicinal purposes. The only major federal report on the the subject of medicinal use of marijuana concluded that there was evidence that marijuana could be useful for "pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation."

Still, under the Title 21 of the U.S. Code, Section 812 (part of the Controlled Substances Act or CSA), the U.S. federal government classifies marijuana as a 'Schedule One' substance which has no medicinal value. Despite the evidence indicating therapeutic uses, The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has refused to consider reclassification of marijuana, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has officially opposed the use of marijuana as medicine.

We support the rights of sick people to help themselves by using marijuana as medicine. However, in the long term, we believe that medicinal marijuana will be a non-issue because marijuana will be legal for responsible adults to use regardless of illness.

Read what doctors, scientists, and others say about medicinal marijuana

Senior Citizens Support Medicinal Marijuana: 72 percent of respondents in an AARP survey agree that "adults should be allowed to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if a physician recommends it."

Complete Article:http://www.mjlegal.org/medicinal.html

Berserkergang
Wednesday, January 20th, 2010, 07:15 PM
There's nothing medicinally marijuana can do that garlic cannot do 5x better.

Deary
Wednesday, January 20th, 2010, 08:24 PM
Garlic has different benefits, contraindications and side effects, however. For instance, garlic can cause nausea, vomiting and and other gastrointestinal issues. Marijuana, on the other hand, has been known to help these. There's also the problem of allergies and that many people cannot tolerate spicy foods. So, one might not be suited to take garlic yet suited to use marijuana and vice versa.

Old Winter
Wednesday, January 20th, 2010, 09:38 PM
The people i know that smoke or used to smoke that marijuana stuff are now very very very slow.

The thing that i am sick of is that people who smoke it do not want to admit the negative sides of it.

Berserkergang
Thursday, January 21st, 2010, 03:01 AM
Garlic has different benefits, contraindications and side effects, however. For instance, garlic can cause nausea, vomiting and and other gastrointestinal issues. Marijuana, on the other hand, has been known to help these. There's also the problem of allergies and that many people cannot tolerate spicy foods. So, one might not be suited to take garlic yet suited to use marijuana and vice versa.

So weed can relieve nausea and give you the munchies. Big whoop. So can a couple beers. The hops in beer are in the same plant family as cannabis and have the same affect on appetite. There's no reason ever to toke, there's always alternatives.

Deary
Thursday, January 21st, 2010, 04:52 AM
So weed can relieve nausea and give you the munchies. Big whoop. So can a couple beers. The hops in beer are in the same plant family as cannabis and have the same affect on appetite. There's no reason ever to toke, there's always alternatives.

I'm merely pointing out the flaw in your statement. Garlic, the alternative you prescribed, would certainly not help five times better than marijuana if the situation involved someone suffering with a case of extreme nausea or vertigo.

OneWolf
Monday, January 25th, 2010, 02:07 AM
I use to smoke weed when I was in High School.It was okay at first but it really started effecting me in a negative way.I got paranoid and started doing poorly in school.I was a gifted American Football player.I started at Quarterback for three years but I screwed up all chances of going to college and playing ball when my name was drawn out of a hat and I was drug tested.
I failed.I was booted of the team ,all the colleges that where interested in me simply forgot I existed.I was devastated.I never touched pot again and am against it 100%.If I ever catch my kids doing it they will have a very bad day.:thumbdown

Berserkergang
Monday, January 25th, 2010, 12:36 PM
I'm merely pointing out the flaw in your statement. Garlic, the alternative you prescribed, would certainly not help five times better than marijuana if the situation involved someone suffering with a case of extreme nausea or vertigo.

And the munchie effect from weed has everything to do with the strain of ganja. Sativa strains have no effect on appetite what so ever and are the worst for causing rapid heart beat and racing anxious thoughts. Hybrids have little effect on appetite and still maintain more sativa like qualities than Indica qualities. The only strains that will give you relief of nausea and make you hungry are the Indica predominant strains. Problem is these are the body high strains that make your body feels like it weighs a ton and makes you sluggish/lazy/lethargic and not want to move a finger. Indica's are generally used medicinally for pain relief and nausea, but like I mentioned, to me at least, the body high is horrible, it weakens your muscles, makes you slow and really messes up your reaction time.

People just assume that all weed makes you hungry, they are most mistaken.

KWulf
Monday, January 25th, 2010, 01:26 PM
My grandfather smoked it for most of his life and he was a wifebeater and a general lowlife, whether this was because the weed affected his personality or not I wouldnt know (he walked out on my Dad as a child).
Either way i dont think it should be illegal; it just wastes police time trying to control it and since its so easy to get a hold of that if someone wants it they'll get it whatever sanctions are put on its use and supply.
Like tobacco and alchohol it should be restricted using public barring, high pricing and independent scientific research into ways to nullify its more addictive qualities.
At least if its legal the poilce can focus on more dangerous substances and it can be taxed in order contribute to society in a positive way.
If someone is weak enough to abuse a substance and get addicted to it then they're suusally the type of person who'll abuse and get addicted to anything, be legal, illegal, weed, drink or even cake!
Personally i smoked a joint or two in school and it didnt seem to affect me, so luckily i never picked up the habit!

Patrioten
Monday, January 25th, 2010, 02:06 PM
The typical liberal democratic society which combines anti-drug policies, that in theory outlaws every narcotic, with non-existent consequences for these offences, will forever wage a losing war against these products and its suppliers. I see this set up as a lesser evil however compared to having a government policy of laissez faire on narcotics use. It makes it easier to suggest tougher, more effective measures.

Wulfram
Monday, January 25th, 2010, 02:44 PM
The typical liberal democratic society which combines anti-drug policies, that in theory outlaws every narcotic, with non-existent consequences for these offences, will forever wage a losing war against these products and its suppliers.

Please explain yourself better here.


I see this set up as a lesser evil however compared to having a government policy of laissez faire on narcotics use. It makes it easier to suggest tougher, more effective measures.

Tougher? Are you kidding? We have never had a laissez faire policy here in the states.
Only recently have a few states relaxed a bit in regard to medical users.

In Texas the laws are about as tough as they can get short of hanging the addict or casual user in the town square.
Patrioten, do you advocate the death penalty for users?

All that the farcical drug war has proven is that the tougher the laws become the tougher the gangsters become, and the more determined they are to push their drugs on the streets.
The war has not made even a scratch, except on the user.
The drug war has destroyed far more lives than drugs ever have.

Ward
Monday, January 25th, 2010, 09:57 PM
In Texas the laws are about as tough as they can get short of hanging the addict or casual user in the town square.
Patrioten, do you advocate the death penalty for users?

I don't think it's as "draconian" as you're suggesting, but I agree that targeting drug users for severe punishment is not the best way to tackle the problem. If our society is to get serious about the war on drugs and cleaning up our communities, we should start hanging drug dealers. I imagine that would dry up the drug supply and thus drug usage rather quickly.


The drug war has destroyed far more lives than drugs ever have.

Nonsense.

Patrioten
Monday, January 25th, 2010, 11:59 PM
Please explain yourself better here.In theory it is illegal to do all sorts of things in Sweden and other countries in Europe, but the penalties that are handed out for these supposed crimes speak a different language.


Tougher? Are you kidding? We have never had a laissez faire policy here in the states.
Only recently have a few states relaxed a bit in regard to medical users.

In Texas the laws are about as tough as they can get short of hanging the addict or casual user in the town square.
Patrioten, do you advocate the death penalty for users?The fundamentals of the American judicial system are sound and good, it simply does not compare to any of the EU-member countries where justice is nowhere to be found. This doesn't mean that it couldn't be even tougher on crime however, and more effective.

You've got a death penalty that you hardly even use, and you only use it for a slight percentage of the murders even (first degree offences). I'd recomend extending that penalty to include those crimes where a reduction in crime would be most welcomed (including the organized production, trade and sale of narcotics). We stopped using the death penalty in Europe because we felt it to be inhumane, now we are being swamped by inhumane individuals who prey on our misguided humanity which bars us from effectively protecting those who we are supposed to protect, the law abiding citizens. Either you are with us or you are against us.

The habitual users, the addicts, that fund these operations should face involuntary confinement for an indefinite period of time. The regular users can be fined amounts which would render it an overall bad deal to buy drugs that fund organized crime and with that the corruption and downfall of civil society. Jail-time or hard labor can also be considered for repeated offences.

A healthy society does not bend to the will of the criminal, much in the same way that it does not bend to the will of an aggressive foreign power. Might is to be met with might, force with force, until either side is forced to yield. Justice is not achieved when criminals set the agenda and decide matters for us.


All that the farcical drug war has proven is that the tougher the laws become the tougher the gangsters become, and the more determined they are to push their drugs on the streets.
The war has not made even a scratch, except on the user.
The drug war has destroyed far more lives than drugs ever have.Their determination can be greatly reduced by the loss of life.

These people are involved in a criminal conspiracy against our societies where their existence revolves around breaking our laws for profit, erroding the rule of law and order in our society, and in so doing they contribute to the creation and existence of a wide-spread network of more or less well organized crime. This kind of behaviour, this kind of lifestyle is unacceptable and is to be dealt with in the harshest possible way, within the constraints of clinical effectiveness.

Anselm
Tuesday, March 16th, 2010, 08:16 PM
I've hardly ever used it, but in spurts. I've bought maybe 3 tiny bags in my life that each lasted me over a month.

I haven't had any for 4 months. I just moved to SC and wouldn't know who to get any from anyway, but I do think it should be legal. I can't believe booze is legal and MJ isn't.

I find it soothing in a better way than booze. Although it doesn't make me hungry, it makes food so much better. I hate to sound crude, but it's the same with sex, it 'enhances." Love to listen/play music after smoking too.

Vinlander
Thursday, April 1st, 2010, 11:14 PM
I agree with Kwulf. Addicts will get their fix how ever they can, be it legal or illegal. At least if it were legalized its could be controlled better, and taxed. Police could focus on more dangerous criminals (barring the result, that people would still continue to cultivate and sell it illegally). These drug dealers who plague our communities would at least to some degree find their income drying up.

Would I run out and start buying its by the pound? Certainly not, I prefer to be in control of my mental faculties, a sluggish response time often leads to a negative result. The addicts are just as much a plague on our communities as the people peddling the addiction, which ties back into the crime issue, if its legalized you might see the amount of crime associated with acquiring the illegal substance reduced. I my self am not fond of pot heads, stoner's, or burnouts. They're usually unproductive, lazy dregs who do nothing but bring a society/culture down, I doubt I need to use examples for this point.

Good post.

theTasmanian
Friday, April 2nd, 2010, 12:22 AM
Legalise it Yes

Would i use it No :D

Witta
Friday, April 2nd, 2010, 09:53 AM
It causes mental illness, emphysema, bronchitis and all the other smoking-related diseases. Dope smokers often drop out of college or steady apprenticeships leading to long term unemployment and financial insecurity which the rest of us have to pay for. They try to live an alternative lifestyle and begin hanging around communist types. The lying and deception involved divides dope smokers and growers from families and collegues. By buying dope you are investing in crime and lining the pockets of foreign criminals who care not the social problems above that are wrecking western society, in fact they are probably proud of it.

After 50 years of damning evidence and millions of parents and grandparents taken from us by smoking, scrawny, wheezing dope dealers try to tell us it is harmless. What are they smoking? Peer pressure gets people started on dope and often you can't give it up without giving up close relationships bonded by secrecy.

Haunebu III
Saturday, April 3rd, 2010, 09:37 PM
Grüße Germania!
First of all let me state that I'm completely ambivalent concerning the use of marijuana. I really don't care if people smoke it or not. But I do care about the spreading of misinformation and outdated propaganda and scare tactics from the 30's.

You wrote:
"It causes mental illness, emphysema, bronchitis and all the other smoking-related diseases."

I'm curious to know where you got your information and the facts to back up that accusation! Pot causes "mental illness"? Really? Let me enlighten you a little bit.

Marijuana is harmless. for you to overdose on it you'd have to consume about 1,500 lbs all at once or 1/3 of your body weight.

As far as smoking goes its less harmful than cigarettes..

Myth: Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco. Marijuana smokers are at a high risk of developing lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema.

Fact: Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana, and in a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased risk of lung cancer. Unlike heavy tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana smokers exhibit no obstruction of the lung's small airway. That indicates that people will not develop emphysema from smoking marijuana.

Myth: Marijuana Can Cause Permanent Mental Illness. Among adolescents, even occasional marijuana use may cause psychological damage. During intoxication, marijuana users become irrational and often behave erratically.

Fact: There is no convincing scientific evidence that marijuana causes psychological damage or mental illness in either teenagers or adults. Some marijuana users experience psychological distress following marijuana ingestion, which may include feelings of panic, anxiety, and paranoia. Such experiences can be frightening, but the effects are temporary. With very large doses, marijuana can cause temporary toxic psychosis. This occurs rarely, and almost always when marijuana is eaten rather than smoked. Marijuana does not cause profound changes in people's behavior.
Source(s):
http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/fact…
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/ca…

Moving on......You wrote:
"Dope smokers often drop out of college or steady apprenticeships leading to long term unemployment and financial insecurity which the rest of us have to pay for."

Statistically, abusers of alcohol, meth, cocaine and cigarettes are far more apt to to quit their jobs or get fired. Not pot smokers.

You wrote:
"They try to live an alternative lifestyle and begin hanging around communist types."

LOL! That's just ridiculous and you have no facts to back up that silly statement . If you do please show us where. I'd wager this is nothing more than your own personal opinion.

You wrote:
"The lying and deception involved divides dope smokers and growers from families and collegues."

Lying and deception about what??? Smoking a little pot? You must be kidding. I've seen people from the far right get just pissed faced drunk, start fights, attack innocent people for no reason, and end up going to jail because of drinking and alcohol abuse. But yet beer, wine, scotch, whiskey are all legal! And sold openly. Oktoberfest is one big, week long drunk fest. People get drunk, argue, vomit, piss themselves, and pass out in public. Yet that's a yearly celebration! People who smoke pot don't fight, piss themselves, argue, or get violent. They might eat too much because of the munchies but they're more likely laughing too loud instead of fighting.


You wrote:
"By buying dope you are investing in crime and lining the pockets of foreign criminals who care not the social problems above that are wrecking western society, in fact they are probably proud of it."

I live in the US and people here grow their own or just go to a pot clinic and buy it there. There's no crime involved, no violence, no social problems, etc. If you want to start pointing fingers at intoxicants that are actually "wrecking western society" then you should look at alcohol and cigarettes. (nicotine) These actually kill millions of people every year. Not pot.

You wrote:
"After 50 years of damning evidence and millions of parents and grandparents taken from us by smoking, scrawny, wheezing dope dealers try to tell us it is harmless. "

Again, you have absolutely no hard facts or evidence to back up or prove these outrageous statements and accusations. Stick to the facts my friend instead of your own personal prejudices, bias's and fears.

Auf Wiedersehen!
Haunebu III

Kaenor
Saturday, April 3rd, 2010, 10:42 PM
As with most things, I take a moderate position when it comes to marijuana. The people who damn it and the people who worship are equally as wrong in my opinion, because things are rarely that black and white.

Should it be legalized? It's a plant. Of course it shouldn't be illegal. There's virtually no way to control it anyway. Alcohol has worse side-effects, and it's legal. So I support decriminalizing it.

I don't think marijuana used medicinally is harmful, it's actually better than some alternatives to medications. I've seen people on chemotherapy take drugs to increase their appetite that caused other, horrible symptoms. The fact that they wouldn't be able to use an herb to try to help themselves, is disgusting. Herbs are what our ancestors used to cope with illness, right?

I also don't think it's bad to occasionally use pot recreationally. But "occasionally" is the keyword. I know people who get high every other day and think that's not a lot.

That being said, I do not use marijuana and wouldn't want to be with someone who does.

You can try to separate the drug all you want from the subculture, but here there's no getting around it. Hippies, wiggers, non-whites...they are the users of marijuana. That is how many of them make their livings. The whites who hang around them are trashy and often behave as blacks, and post pictures of themselves "rolling blunts" on Myspace. This is my experience where I live, maybe it's different in other areas but I can't speak of that.

The one negative thing I will say about marijuana itself is that when it's overused it tends to make people "content". The person who lives in filth everyday and who has no accomplishments, but yet who smokes weed everyday, will be content in that environment. The drugs numbs their mind and makes their pitiful existence seem fine. As long as they have marijuana to look forward to, they won't try to improve themselves in anyway or accomplish anything. They just search for a menial job to pay for video games and more drugs.

That is why it is a drug suited for negroes and Mexicans, and they're the ones using it in vast numbers in America.

But I don't believe we are so mentally childish to require such things, and our lives should have more meaning. We are not meant to use such a thing regularly, if we do we lower ourselves. We are perfectly able to being creative without it as well.

Lothar
Wednesday, April 14th, 2010, 09:01 PM
When I was a Teen their was nothing in the media or commonly published literature
against marijuana. I wasn't a cigarette smoker as their was plenty of info about how bad that was for you. So when my brother convinced me their was no danger and it was fun, I went for it. In the end I quite because all it did by that point for me was put me to sleep. (no fun) We are all individuals with free choice, anything that takes that away, we loose something.
there are many drugs that are far more harmful to society that need to be regulated, and stopped for the common good of a society, like crystal meth.
In my historical research of religions I find it interesting that Islam was the first to deal with the issue of marijuana they too felt it damaged the mind over time.


The earliest known prohibition of illegal drugs occurred under Islamic law, which prohibited the use of Hashish, a preparation of cannabis, as a recreational drug. Classical jurists in medieval Islamic jurisprudence, however, accepted the use of the Hashish drug for medicinal and therapeutic purposes, and agreed that its "medical use, even if it leads to mental derangement, remains exempt" from punishment. In the 14th century, the Islamic jurist Az-Zarkashi spoke of "the permissibility of its use for medical purposes if it is established that it is beneficial."[43] According to Mary Lynn Mathre, with "this legal distinction between the intoxicant and the medical uses of cannabis, medieval Muslim theologians were far ahead of present-day American law."[44]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shari'a

BundOstmark
Wednesday, April 14th, 2010, 09:26 PM
Its an un-Germanic thing to do. These drugs are detrimental to ones mental and physical health.:thumbdown

Hippies and weak degenerates like these drugs, but not healthy Germanics.

RoyBatty
Wednesday, April 14th, 2010, 11:32 PM
It was an enjoyable enough past time whilst doing compulsory military service. We even got wasted once during an exercise, needless to say the "competition" captured us lol!!! People who don't smoke, drink, swear or do dope in the military are the insane ones. In my opinion.

I don't need to give y'all a moralising lecture on the (mostly) cons surrounding heavy usage of Jah's Holy Herb. Suffice to say that in small quantities and with occasional use you're not going to develop "Reefer Madness" (don't believe everything your parents tell you) but prolonged usage of high THC skunk will do damage you. By that time you'll be too far gone to ever admit it though.

Heavy usage is going to alter your personality, make you paranoid and quite possibly ruin your life. I've worked around people with this "habit" and it's not always a pretty sight.

Kids, don't try this (or other much worse drugs) at home :D

Mrs vonTrep
Sunday, June 13th, 2010, 08:39 PM
I don't care if it's marijuana, alcohol or someting even worse - I don't do drugs at all. I don't even drink coffee, or smoke or anything like that, I guess I just don't see the point. :|