The general decline in standards today

[HudsonHawk]

I personally think a person should have a choice, a smoke if you will, a choice right before that firing squad..."you may have that Camel non filtered or...that joint now"..,"any last words"? NOT to say the Camel is in the same league as a joint, either. Self destruction should never be a choice taken.

The death penalty for tobacco use? This is the kind of rhetoric that gets you thrown into the "wingnut" category. There is all manner of scientific and sociologic evidence to support your position, but this does not advance it. In fact, it undermines it, and costs you a seat at the public and legislative discussion table.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Except it isn't opponents of legalization who are making leaps in causal logic. The pot crowd has a long way to go in convincing anyone with common sense and experience that their culture is benign.

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion. I'm saying that in order to have any meaningful influence on the public's perception, and especially on legislation, you have to focus on the facts, not the emotion.

 

[Feraud]

And what part of the pro-legislation crowd uses facts and not emotional slogans of "indivduality" and "Choice!" to change legislation? Not much at all from what I've seen.

My point of view is from the unfortunate experience of hard fact of what long-term drug use has done to family and friends. This is no philosophical discussion to me.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Except it isn't opponents of legalization who are making leaps in causal logic. The pot crowd has a long way to go in convincing anyone with common sense and experience that their culture is benign.

There was a time when marijuana wasn't even on my radar. I'd worked with people who used it in radio, and while they had a tendency to be irresponsible and disappear for weeks at a time, the same could be said of an awful lot of other people in that particular business. I didn't use it, I had no interest in using it, and I pretty much ignored it.

But over the years, as the legalization movement picked up steam, I began to hear more and more that didn't seem to make much sense. So I started listening to what they were saying, and I began to see that, as a movement, they had absolutely no conscience when it came to twisting the truth and distorting reality when it served their purpose. In short, they were sociopaths with a cause. Many of them, especially the fanatical libertarian "hemp will save the world and it's fun to smoke too" cultists follow a man, the late Jack Herer, who was a demonstrable liar -- who wrote a book filled with lies, half-truths, embroideries, distortions, and manufactured quotes in support of his cause.. And these lies, half-truths, embroideries, distortions, and manufactured quotes have become the fulcrum of a movement that utterly dominates the Internet -- the medium most young people will turn to first for information. Young people believe the lies, half-truths, embroideries, distortions, and manufactured quotes because, after all, you can't believe The Authorities in anything because they're just trying to bring us down, man -- and there you go, more kids are sucked into the "cannabis culture." If they're lucky, all they'll end up with is bloodshot eyes and bad breath, but an awful lot of them aren't lucky.

And screaming "HAHAHAHAH REEFER MADNESS ITS A PRECIOUS GOD GIVEN PLANT 420 BLAZEIT!" whenever someone points out that marijuana can be an extremely damaging, dangerous drug doesn't change the reality. Fools like these believe nothing they don't want to believe until, one day, they wake up strapped to a bed and can't remember how they got there.

 

[1961MJS]

Hi

The thing about the Pot Legalization movement I find hilarious is that they're trying to push smoking (the most common way of getting THC into your system), while the rest of the country is fully involved in making it illegal to smoke (thought to be tobacco, but not limited to it) ANYWHERE. Some of these people seem to be in the same group.

Oh well, no everyone took computer logic...

 

[HudsonHawk]

And what part of the pro-legislation crowd uses facts and not emotional slogans of "indivduality" and "Choice!" to change legislation? Not much at all from what I've seen.

You are not part of that crowd, correct? We're discussing *you*, the opponent of said legislation and how you can best affect it.

My point of view is from the unfortunate experience of hard fact of what long-term drug use has done to family and friends. This is no philosophical discussion to me.

I understand. So I'm saying focusing on those facts, those real experiences, will further your argument more than philosophy, emotion, and rhetoric.

 

[Feraud]

Lizzie, unfortunately the marijuana culture has been on my radar longer than I'd care to admit. Without getting too personal there were recreational smokers in my and my wife's family since we were teenagers. At 43 years old I have close to 30 years of first hand experience on the effects of the stuff. There is nothing glamorous or hip about it.

Hudson Hawk, you seem to be more intent on focusing on the semantics of the discussion than the reality. I'm really not interested in going there at all.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Hudson Hawk, you seem to be more intent on focusing on the semantics of the discussion than the reality. I'm really not interested in going there at all.

I'm not focusing on semantics at all, I'm focusing on the content of your argument. You have a legitmate one, but "shoot 'em all" emotion ain't it.

I understand your frustration, and I'm not trying to irritate you. The last word is yours if you want it.

 

[Feraud]

Fwiw, I didn't advocate the "shoot 'em all" attitude.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Fwiw, I didn't advocate the "shoot 'em all" attitude.

Sorry, I didn't mean that as if you've advocated the "shoot 'em all" of pot users. I meant to suggest that your argument would be more effective if it were more targeted with specific factual examples, rather than what I see as a more generalized "pot is bad".

Ok...I know I said "last word", but just wanted to clear up my clumsiness. Carry on.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Sorry, I didn't mean that as if you've advocated the "shoot 'em all" of pot users. I meant to suggest that your argument would be more effective if it were more targeted with specific factual examples, rather than what I see as a more generalized "pot is bad".

One of the things I've noticed about the cannabis cult is that its members are completely impervious to factual examples. You can point out specific examples of damage done and people hurt by pot, and the argument you *invariably* get back is something along the lines of "Marijuana is a harmless herb used by Native Americans for thousands of years, it has never killed anyone or injured anyone, so your example obviously couldn't have happened." Or, to put it succinctly, "Pot isn't bad because we don't believe it's bad." For all their pretense of "open mindnedness" and "reason," they're true believers, just like the slaves of any cult.

And the problem is that too many people today give them a free ride on this. NORML and MPP spokesmen are never fact-checked, they are never held to any kind of a rigorous standard by the media as they spout their "quotes" and their "facts," allowing this propaganda to insinuate itself quite neatly into the public mind. Because of this too many people today sincerely believe that hemp can cure cancer, that mariijuana is illegal because Harry Anslinger told "a congressional committee" that pot smoking caused white women to want sex with "Negroes and Hispanics" and that Hearst and Dupont were afraid of competition from hemp farmers, and that nobody in the history of human civilization has ever been injured by puffing on that magical, precious, god-given weed.

Really? There is no evidence that hemp can cure anything, let alone cancer. Harry Anslinger never made any such statement, and I have seen and read his entire Congressional testimony. Hearst and Dupont had no reason to worry about hemp farming, it had been all but extinct in the United States since the 1910s, and wasn't actually banned until 1972 -- fifteen years after the last American hemp farm went out of business due to lack of demand for its product. And you need look no further than your local emergency room for evidence of people harmed by that "god-given weed."

Wake up, America. You're being conned.

 

[Feraud]

Hi

The thing about the Pot Legalization movement I find hilarious is that they're trying to push smoking (the most common way of getting THC into your system), while the rest of the country is fully involved in making it illegal to smoke (thought to be tobacco, but not limited to it) ANYWHERE. Some of these people seem to be in the same group.

Oh well, no everyone took computer logic...

I've noticed that as well. The irony is thicker than the pot smoke they spew.

 

[Edward]

I'm open to persuasion on the issue (twenty odd years of studying and teaching law have convinced me that law truly should always be a last resort in dealing with social problems), but my experience has certainly been that the pro-legalisation crowd are every bit as blinkered as the tiresome "REEFER MADNESS!" puritans. They'd be better served, imo, building a case around legalisation as a route to taxation, as a route to cutting the incidence of weed being a gateway drug (debatable whether this would work of course - we still have people selling illegally imported cigarettes here, with no duty paid; likely this would be the same persons who currently peddle both weed and much harder stuff), and as a way of demystifying it (I firmly believe, based on the weed smokers I have known over the years, that half the appeal is the notion that they're doing something illegal. Typically, dumb as that is, few of these folks would have been dumb enough to go for something harder in lieu). Won't happen, though.... still the same, tedious "no harm" nonsense. None so blind as them who will not see.

The logic of "legalizing marijuana will cause non-smokers to start smoking cigarettes" makes no sense. Furthermore, alcohol prohibition is no panacea either. There are legitimate concerns about both, particularly with legalizing marijuana. Pointing out those will go much further in supporting your argument than fear mongering.

I think that might vary from place to place. I have been told that in the US weed is mostly smoked unmixed, whereas in Europe my understanding is that it is much more common to mix it with tobacco first, so over here an increase in use of the former would be likely to lead to an increase in use of the latter.

I totally agree with that Edward. I've mentioned to folks who advocate for "individual choice/recreational use" that as soon as weed is legal and the market looks good the boys from tobacco are going to unveil themselves and we're back to the bad old days of the population being hooked on cigarettes. I've no doubt the marketing will follow those old patterns too.

The way I see it going is them pushing it along the lines of "everything alcohol can give you, without the hangover", "the less carcinogenic alternative", etc.

Oh Great. Meet the Marlboro Mon. :doh:

lol

I knew even at a young age, as soon as my parents explained to me that Liberace was...well...you know...that the world was getting more "screwy" every year that came and went.

I love teaching my undergraduates about the libel case Liberace took against the Daily Mirror in 1959 for printing an article implying he was gay. He not only won, but won the biggest libel payment in history up to that point, later saying "I cried all the way to the bank". Course, then he had to stay in the closet for the rest of his life or be done for perjury, but those were different times and that probably seemed like not so bad an idea then... Bless 'im, I think he really did seem to believe that no-one knew... lol

 

[LizzieMaine]

I love teaching my undergraduates about the libel case Liberace took against the Daily Mirror in 1959 for printing an article implying he was gay. He not only won, but won the biggest libel payment in history up to that point, later saying "I cried all the way to the bank". Course, then he had to stay in the closet for the rest of his life or be done for perjury, but those were different times and that probably seemed like not so bad an idea then... Bless 'im, I think he really did seem to believe that no-one knew... lol

My mother insists to this day that Liberace was not in any way gay. "They only said that about him because he was good to his mama."

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

I love teaching my undergraduates about the libel case Liberace took against the Daily Mirror in 1959 for printing an article implying he was gay. He not only won, but won the biggest libel payment in history up to that point, later saying "I cried all the way to the bank". Course, then he had to stay in the closet for the rest of his life or be done for perjury, but those were different times and that probably seemed like not so bad an idea then... Bless 'im, I think he really did seem to believe that no-one knew... lol

More like he had a damn good lawyer. A good lawyer could pee on you and make you think it's raining.



[video=youtube;OFDlz9WwpVY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFDlz9WwpVY[/video]

 

[HudsonHawk]

One of the things I've noticed about the cannabis cult is that its members are completely impervious to factual examples. You can point out specific examples of damage done and people hurt by pot, and the argument you *invariably* get back is something along the lines of "Marijuana is a harmless herb used by Native Americans for thousands of years, it has never killed anyone or injured anyone, so your example obviously couldn't have happened." Or, to put it succinctly, "Pot isn't bad because we don't believe it's bad." For all their pretense of "open mindnedness" and "reason," they're true believers, just like the slaves of any cult.

All of this is true, but you're not trying to influence the pot culture, you're trying to influence legislators and the general public. I still believe that science and reason are the best ways to reach them. The die-hard pot crowd is a lost cause.

 

[HudsonHawk]

My mother insists to this day that Liberace was not in any way gay. "They only said that about him because he was good to his mama."

Wait a second...Liberace was gay?

 

[jamespowers]

The slackness of courts has something to do with it. We have an infamous case here in Australia at the moment of Jill Meagher who was raped and murdered and had her body dumped in a shallow grave out in the country.

It turned out that the man who raped and killed her was out of jail on parole. His crimes? He had committed 22 rapes.

I will repeat that in case you missed it. He had committed TWENTY TWO RAPES!


And there's more: AUTHORITIES were warned that Adrian Bayley was a risk of attacking a woman before Jill Meagher was raped and killed.

The Herald Sun can reveal that months before the 29-year-old ABC employee was raped and strangled, Bayley's parents met authorities and pleaded with them over their grave concerns about his behaviour

There is a guy who richly deserves killing. Wow! I thought we had morons here....

 

[jamespowers]

One of the things I've noticed about the cannabis cult is that its members are completely impervious to factual examples. You can point out specific examples of damage done and people hurt by pot, and the argument you *invariably* get back is something along the lines of "Marijuana is a harmless herb used by Native Americans for thousands of years, it has never killed anyone or injured anyone, so your example obviously couldn't have happened." Or, to put it succinctly, "Pot isn't bad because we don't believe it's bad." For all their pretense of "open mindnedness" and "reason," they're true believers, just like the slaves of any cult.

And see the problem with that is it is fraught with lies. The marijuana used by the native Americans in their religious ceremonies was nothing like what we have now. It isn't even like what the hippies had in the 60s and 70s. It has been bred to be much, much stronger. You don't have to look to the tobacco industry to see deliberate and nasty tricks to get people addicted---the dope dealers do it as a matter of every day business. To say that it is benign is ridiculous.
Looking at all the man hours lost, accidents due to use and the effects on families and we find that the stuff just isn't worth it. We have enough legal things available now that will do the same thing. Why add to the inventory? They don't think it is enough?
What I want to know is if they are going to let restauarants have a smoking and non-dope smoking section like they used to have when I was growing up. And if they do, can I smoke regular normal cigars in that section or is it just going to be for dope smokers? Yeah right! There aren't many places now that you can enjoy a cigar much less what the dopeheads want. Are they going to change that too? This culture is schizophrenic!

 

[HudsonHawk]

There aren't many places now that you can enjoy a cigar much less what the dopeheads want. Are they going to change that too? This culture is schizophrenic!

This is another thing that sticks in the libertarian section of my craw.