War On Pot Commentary

[Gary Sisco]

From Sullivan's site today, a good one with which I've wholeheartedly agreed for decades:

A reader hits the nail on the head:


"The difficulty with marijuana is that it produces a side effect that our government cannot tolerate. This side effect is so severe that any drug that produces it must be severely restricted or banned outright. And it is an insidious side effect. It is so insidious that it is nearly impossible to detect through measurments of body chemistry, metabolic function, critical organ functions, or tissue damage. You simply cannot find any harm caused by this side effect, but it's there.

"The side effect, of course, is pleasure. Our government will never allow it."

This is the nub of the issue, I think. Sometimes, you hear attempts at justifying the ban on pot that point to marinol, a THC-based drug that allegedly helps nausea. They're for that, if necessary. And they much prefer it to marijuana, even though smoked or vaporized THC is much more effective. Why? Because marinol doesn't provide pleasure. And pleasure, even harmless pleasure, is evil and must be prevented. Once you allow people to enjoy life, there's no end to the dangers. Unless, of course, pleasure is backed up by vast industries rendering hefty taxes, like tobacco and alcohol. Then it's fine.

For my part, I find the attempt to ban any naturally growing plant to be an attack on reality, and a denial of some of the most basic freedoms. I guess that's why today's GOP is so in favor of it.

[groover]

If you let the rats get stoned, they won't keep running the race as hard, and that's bad for business, isn't it?

[Coda]

Is the democratic party in favor of legalizing this drug? If not, I don't understand why you limited this to the GOP. If they are in favor, can you point me to where I can read about their position?

[Gary Sisco]

Originally Posted by groover

If you let the rats get stoned, they won't keep running the race as hard, and that's bad for business, isn't it?

Might even make you think about what the business is and why and so forth. Definitely bad for business, that.

[Gary Sisco]

Originally Posted by Coda

Is the democratic party in favor of legalizing this drug? If not, I don't understand why you limited this to the GOP. If they are in favor, can you point me to where I can read about their position?

If you bother to "read for comprehension," you'll see that it's Sullivan speaking about the GOP, not me.

I would say "the government" as Sullivan's quoted reader does. Neither of the parties is going anywhere with letting up on the War On Pot (it's not really a war on drugs because almost all of the effort is put into pot arrests and prosecution) but they're not going anywhere for different reasons. The dims because they try as hard as they can to be repugs lite, and the authoritarian and fundamentalist elements of the repugs (by far the dominant sections of the party today) for reasons already stated. Not that there aren't powerful sections of the dims who do, too. There is just something about the idea of people getting high -- however harmlessly -- that they can't accept. I trace it to the apparently permanent puritan streak in America, myself. Which gets reflected in both parties in different ways.

For the Nth time, however, I will say, again, that responding to me by asking whether the dims do this or that also means nothing to me because I don't support either party, I don't "lean toward" either party, I am opposed to both parties equally for different reasons.

This ignoring that "the dims do it too" isn't an argument. There is very little difference between saying that and telling your mama "X does it, too! X does it, too!"

It's not an argument at all in other words. It's a strawman at best, and it makes you sound silly.

And in any case, when has any written party position in the US meant a single thing to anyone at all? There is nothing more politically meaningless than a party platform or program in this society.

[Rob C]

I think Sullivan is on to something here.

The disingenuousness of legalization arguments always amused me. In college, every time I saw a pro-legalization rally, the literature was always about stuff like what excellent rope you can make out of hemp. Like anyone really gives a shit about rope. But I guess wanting to get high is not considered that strong of an argument!

Note that this is not say that anti-legalization arguments aren't equally disingenuous.

[Gary Sisco]

I'm actually strictly opposed to the whole hemp business. Shit, it took about a decade of serious experimentation to develop quality strains and now they want to go and release cannabis pollen that has zero THC and fuck up the weed?

Fuck that.

[Gary Sisco]

There is something to the pleasure argument, though.

Ever see a gathering of yuppies trying to look like they're having fun?

Case closed.

There's also huge denial to the point of lying on the part of my generation, which seems to want to distance itself from its youth as much as they like to celebrate themselves. Go figure.

Me, I'm an old pot head. The only reason for the weed is to get stoned.

Hallelu Jah!

[cookie]

The laws are insane. Plain insane.

So much money and time is wasted in this stupid refusal to see cannabis as a mild recreational drug similar to alcohol in its social use. Yes. It's for pleasure. It's a way to come down from (or rise above) the drudgery of survival. I don't need medical rationalizations, either.

Alcohol abuse (note: abuse not responsible use) is a far worse problem than pot smoking. I certainly think it causes more death and violence. The death/violence that occurs around marijuana seems to be related more to its black market status rather than any effects of the drug itself.

[groover]

As Shakespeare once wrote, you speak right on, Cookie!

[Gary Sisco]

Cookie -- I don't need medical rationales, either. The herbs to me are one of life's harmless pleasures. I bother no one smoking it. I get a kind of meditational state that is important to me and it enhances the enjoyment of life and of music. That's all I need to know about it.

I agree that the laws are stupid *and* insane.

Since '68, baby, and I've never looked back and won't.

[crawjo]

Well, I don't think politicians care that much one way or the other. They go where the voters are, and the voters aren't with pot legalization. At least not now. As soon as pot legalization becomes a way to win more votes than you lose, then government will be for it. I don't think it's government that is against people feeling pleasure, I think people in general are against other people feeling pleasure. Certainly not all people, but enough so that marijuana legalization is still a non-starter, politically. Even now, the only way to get people to take the issue seriously is to parade a bunch of old people who are dying of some horrible disease and need marijuana to ease their pain.

[Noj]

Any drug can be abused, even marijuana. However, marijuana is so mild that at most an overdose will put a person to sleep. Addiction to marijuana is very weak and can be broken in a few days.

Alcohol can be abused. Overdose can result in death. Alcoholism is considered a disease from which one never recovers.

Yet, both can be enjoyed wisely by responsible adults. Both can even provide health benefits.

In my opinion Americans should seek to maintain/take back our freedom of choice where all drugs are concerned and, as is done with alcohol, have our government and/or physicians regulate their distribution. Drugs such as heroin or cocaine actually had a proper medical purpose prior to their prohibition. Without illegal markets for these products, they are as harmless as demerol or vicodin when prescribed/employed appropriately by a physician. The demonization of even the most dangerous drugs has in fact only placed their distribution in the hands of demons instead of doctors.

[stonemonkts]

Originally Posted by Noj

Any drug can be abused, even marijuana. However, marijuana is so mild that at most an overdose will put a person to sleep. Addiction to marijuana is very weak and can be broken in a few days.

Most of the weed I've known lately (past several years) is so strong, it has to be used carefully , or it can cause a severe anxiety attack.

[Noj]

That's true, stonemonkts. I actually quit smoking herb at the beginning of this year because it was "bad tripping" me.

[stonemonkts]

I hear you, brother.

I take advice from Towellie. I just get a little hah.

[Jon Abbey]

Originally Posted by stonemonkts

Most of the weed I've known lately (past several years) is so strong, it has to be used carefully , or it can cause a severe anxiety attack.

I need to hook up with your connection.

[Gary Sisco]

Me, too.

Vermont grows some of the finest bud anywhere but it's beyond the reach of the likes of me. Has been for many years. I managed just a few weeks ago to get my hands on a bag of it for the first time since '90 or so. The growers normally sell their whole lots in one bang of a deal, most often to guys from NYC who can retail it, I'm told, for up to 900/oz. I could buy more than a year's worth of workingman's weed for less than that, much less.

Nevertheless, having smoked the finest in the world (real Thai stick, for example, while overseas in the service), I disagree with the current party line that the herbs today are stronger than ever. I doubt it. I've seen one tiny pin joint of Thai stick shut a whole roomfull of sailors' mouths for hours on end. I've actually seen this happen to the extent that no one even noticed that the record had ended. Real Oaxahan? I'd cut off a toe for a quarter pound of that. It'd last the rest of my life. Real Panama Red? Come on, now. Real Jamaican sensi? Sheeit.

Oh, sure, there are definitely designer strains out there but the price is way beyond the reach of anyone I know. Musician/hipster tribe I came up in fucking *was* the counterculture. We had the finest of the finest handed to us on a regular basis (along with a lot of other things besides). No way is the regular street weed today more powerful than the weed of one's youth, if a boomer. I beg to differ, having smoked almost daily since '68, in eight countries, three continents.

Often times, in my experience, the weed merely amplifies the anxiety that's already present. It makes you consciously aware of it. That to me is a good thing. It makes one question oneself and look to see what's going on in there.

Many years ago, I was home on leave and my sister had a bag of weed that's still legend. When people tell the stories about it, it's just referred to in these parts as "Sissy's weed." That shit was paralyzing, even by my high (ahem) standards of the time. Her boyfriend that night seriously thought he was having a heart attack and went to the hospital in an ambulance. When the doctor came out, my sister asked him what was the matter. The doctor said, "Well, if I had to guess, I'd have to say that he's just really, really stoned." I fell out. I thought I was going to piss myself.

German guy was here once last year, going off about cannabis. Older guy. I smoked him up with the local workingman's weed, maybe four tokes. Cat's standing with his weight resting in one arm on the back of an armchair, silly grin on his face. Bronwyn asks him, "Are you alright?" He grins and says, "Yes," then literally falls to his knees.

Cat's smoked cannabis all over the world. There was nothing fancy about that batch. It just caught him at the right (or wrong) time, that's all.

On the whole, the herbs are no stronger than they ever were, for people of reasonable means. Which is most.

Legalize it
I will advertise it

[stonemonkts]

My stuff is definitely not common, although I know it wouldn't compare to those genuinely amazing strains you mentioned (I had a direct connect for years way back to real Thai stick, and nothing I've ever had was that good...the resin seeping through your fingers as you prepared it could get you high).

But my stuff takes me only a single hit, and I'm good for hours. I dare anyone to take more than three, and not find themselves huddled in a corner sucking their thumb.

[Noj]

I smoked herb for 13 years. The very best I ever had was simply called "kush," and it was so sticky it couldn't be broken up by hand, only with scissors. In fact one didn't want to handle it at all, since touching skin or eyes afterward would cause irritation. I always kept it sealed in a jar, but it would stink up the whole house despite this fact. Very skunky aroma. Best to experience in tiny portions--a single hit from a bowl the size of a small raisin was all it took for a very long, intense high. Amazing flavor, "clean" tasting. Over the last 3-4 years I smoked I had this herb regularly, two harvests per year.

[Gerardo A]

Originally Posted by stonemonkts

my stuff takes me only a single hit, and I'm good for hours. I dare anyone to take more than three, and not find themselves huddled in a corner sucking their thumb.

I'll do it. I won't mind falling on my knees.

[Gerardo A]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

I'm actually strictly opposed to the whole hemp business. Shit, it took about a decade of serious experimentation to develop quality strains and now they want to go and release cannabis pollen that has zero THC and fuck up the weed?

Fuck that.

Hahahaha

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

For my part, I find the attempt to ban any naturally growing plant to be an attack on reality, and a denial of some of the most basic freedoms. I guess that's why today's GOP is so in favor of it.

If you are going to attack the GOP why not praise Justices Thomas and O'Connor, Republicans both, who dissented in Gonzales v. Raich?
All of the liberals on the Court as well as Scalia and Kennedy ruled against the state of California. They were wrong, Thomas and O'Connor were right.

The Court decision was about medical mariujana but on the larger issue of legalization, the late Milton Friedman and the conservative Bill Buckley have been high-profile advocates for the legalization of pot.

What are the positions of Hillary Clinton, Al Bore and Barack Obama?

[Gordon B]

It seems to me that Democrats want to go further than Republicans on banning substances that give pleasure, witness the anti-smoking legislation.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

It seems to me that Democrats want to go further than Republicans on banning substances that give pleasure, witness the anti-smoking legislation.

Gordon, what was said earlier about the "X does it!" argument? Let's stipulate that politicians of all stripes in the U.S. are anti-pleasure, m'kay?

Now...I wanna hear more about the Good Bud...(drool...)

[Gary Sisco]

Really, Gordon. I'm not going to repost the same thing to answer the same question. If you read through the thread you should be able to see that your remarks have already been made and responded to. Once again, "read for comprehension." I used to think that was an absurd phrase but apparently it isn't, since twice now *a quoted remark from someone else* has been answered as I were the one saying it. See punctuation.

I am *so* tired of people telling me what to say about this party or that so please, folks, hear this loud and clear: I am equally opposed to both the repugs and the dims. I have no preference at all for either. I don't "lean" toward either or anything else. I'm neither a liberal nor a (wrongly named) conservative. I don't support either party, at all. Telling me this party or that party does it too is a non-argument. Make an argument at least. Sheesh.

And people who've been around for long enough know that St Clintoid was an object of my scorn and derision over several major things *one of which* is the idiotic drug laws he called for and got as part of his fascoid "Crime Bill," which was as authoritarian as any legislation (pre-9/11) and as racist as any passed since the Civil Rights movement's dissipation decades ago.

I'm an equal opportunity oppositionist. In any case, the GOP is the party in power and if I want to rag on it, I'll rag on it. I don't "have to" or "should" say anything at all but what I want to say, thanks. I need no one's permission. When the dims were the party in power, I ragged on them just as hard. People used to get furious with me for pounding on Clinton, whom I loathed the entire eight years.

In any case, nearly all of the government is composed of unelected bureaucrats and cops and they make their own policies and ignore others. They don't change with any election.

Neither party is anywhere near letting up on potheads.

Being a stoner since '68, I'm likely more aware of the bipartisan idiocy of the issue than you are. It effects me and almost everyone I know, directly. It's not an intellectual argument for its own sake for us.

[Gary Sisco]

As for technique. In Jamaican fashion, I normally use a knife to finely chop the bud. If the herbs are good and fresh, it's a waste to use one's fingers. If it's not fresh, I just crush it.

I can't afford waste in that part of the budget.

It's been a hell of a long while since I've been able to find and afford anything near the strains I did in the day. I don't deny there are some wicked ones out there, but they are not common for most people, as can be said as well for a very fine bourbon or wine, because of price. Most guys, kids too (hey, I have nephews...), are still smoking the working-class grades and likely will continue.

[shrugs]

[Hudson Boy]

Some of the best strains of the old days were Thai Stick, the large gold ones (there are different types of Thai), and Black African Gungi. The Thai was a super-Sativa (head stone), and Gunji was likely pure Indica, which is more narcotic-like, similar to black hash.

Indica and Sativa hybrid strains are grown domestically today, producing such products as New York Sour Diesel - and hundreds more. Indica growing got off the ground in America with "Skunk". Most of the places that grew it before just used it to make hash.

I agree that most of the popular domestically-grown powerful sativa-indica hybrid types produce anxiety in many people. The imported strains of the past, even the strongest Sativa varieties, did not have this side-effect for most smokers. The ironic thing is, in New York City, it’s hard to find anything that's NOT really powerful - and expensive.

[walto]

The Court decision was about medical mariujana but on the larger issue of legalization, the late Milton Friedman and the conservative Bill Buckley have been high-profile advocates for the legalization of pot.

What are the positions of Hillary Clinton, Al Bore and Barack Obama?
Last edited by Gordon B : December-2nd-2006 at 08:13 AM.

Gordon BView Public ProfileSend a private message to Gordon BFind More Posts by Gordon BAdd Gordon B to Your Buddy List

December-2nd-2006, 08:15 AM #24 Gordon B vbmenu_register("postmenu_567343", true);
better than Murray Chass



Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 6,609


It seems to me that Democrats want to go further than Republicans on banning substances that give pleasure, witness the anti-smoking legislation.

I thought you were supposed to be non-partisan, Gordon. These are the typical remarks of a loyal party spinner. Do you really need somebody to post the names of high-profile Repubs against legalization of pot? Buckley and Friedman never won an election, and never had to, you know?