posted May 05, 2009 09:50 PM         

Of the pot smoker and alcohol drinker, you will more likely see an alcohol drinker in a fight or end up in hospital.

Long term and heavy usage of either drug will be bad.

Roughly the same price when you average the drinks out.

I dont drink, unless a glass of wine nearby with meals. Obviously, I smoke.

posted May 06, 2009 03:32 PM         

you've been looking for me
and here i am right under your high eyes
not the same as i used to be
i will lay bets you remember me
don't mention my old name
same nutter girl, oh yes, still the same
one more song or poem for you
i'll cheer you up when you are blue
and when you argue
i'll fight with you
side by side
until it is through
and when i make you oh so mad
i'll come right back and make you glad

thanks for missing me, now you know where i am

posted May 06, 2009 11:57 PM         

And I liked this from Reason magazine:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/27927.html

quote:

---

A-Camp was the only place at the Gathering where alcohol was widely accepted. Rainbows discourage its use but established the enclave because some members are alcoholics and can’t go long without a drink. It was also, we were told, the only place where money was seen as an acceptable marker of value.

So off we trudged, but only grudgingly. On the way into the Gathering, we had walked by A-Camp at about 6 a.m. The serious alcoholics on hand were either still or already drunk. A fight had broken out over an offensive remark one Rainbow had made about Guatemala: Someone sent his pit bull after the offender, and the entire encampment, including at least 50 people, was in an uproar for 20 minutes. The ubiquitous fighting made it clear that America’s only legal intoxicant is probably its most disruptive.

---

(btw, I disagreed with his view on their economy. He simply wasn't prepared for it, but blaming them for that would be like going to a foreign country and getting upset with its economy when they don't accept the native tender of where you're from.)

posted May 07, 2009 09:48 PM         

I will write my own for you when I am inspired.

I cant see people using weed as something social. Something to relax with yeah, or maybe one before going out to a club. Generally feel "relaxed" even though the opposite is true. You got to remember you are smoking a cigarette with a bit of extra kick!

Of course it will not be good for you. It will never be fatal, unless you drive on it, which is a bad thing to do.
Not too sure of the physical benefits, which there may be, it is used in some medicinal cases. Is it legal for medicinal use in one state?

posted May 07, 2009 11:12 PM         

i agree with melody, it shouldn't be whitewashed. people get so carried away defending it they bend over backwards sometimes. like anything else if not used consciously it can be a problem.

posted May 08, 2009 02:11 AM         

quote:

---

They do it because they can not face nor own up to the fact they messed their lives up..so they use all sorts of things to escape their own realities..

---

Did they say they messed their lives up or is that an observation from your stance?
How about people on top of their career, who have done everything?
What excuse do you think they might give?

Cheshire, what did you think of the drug when you tried it?

posted May 08, 2009 04:49 AM         

I know the difference between using as means of a medical purpose or having a good time and a addiction or trying to escape your troubles and responsibilities.

Also you have to keep in mind these people are not just on "pot" as means to escape, pot is just easier and cheaper to get around here..

They have all the opportunities in the world to do something with their lives yet they choose to blame the "white" man and the "po po's" for all their woes and troubles..

I agree with it being "themselves" and not the drug..which is kind of sad because pot should be legalized but when you live with these kind of people and their dependency..you change your mind after awhile..

posted May 25, 2009 01:40 AM         

For those who think it's harmless and is something great to use for recreational purposes, that is dope, well then really you should get a life. I won't explain my past history but I'll tell you that I've seen and heard many people start on weed to go onto harder drugs or if not, be just dysfunctional.

For those who say that it doesn't slow you down, well hello, it's a depressant like alcohol. It slows your reactive abilities for example.

Don't care what arguments you put about legalisation or not, the fact is, it is bad stuff and the issue really is the minimisation of the use of such substances.

posted May 25, 2009 06:10 AM         

Are you saying you favor alcohol prohibition and coffee prohibition, as well?

You sound as if you are, but I'm not sure if that's what you meant or not. (If you didn't, I'd wonder why, since alcohol is at least as much of a "gateway" drug as pot that also leads to extreme dysfunction, and maybe caffeine is, too.)

And just so you know, not all want to legalize drugs as they are "ok," but because they see drug legalization as bringing about less drug abuse in the long run for various reasons, from disempowering drug cartels, to treating drug addiction as a health problem (as opposed to crime problem) that people can openly go get help for without fearing prison (some would even like the billions of dollars wasted on the drug war to go into health care that include help for addiction). And for those who still partake, that the drugs can be better monitored (like alcohol did once it was no longer prohibited--back in prohibition when the gangs controlled it, alcohol was a much more dangerous substance).

posted May 25, 2009 08:00 AM         

I know very well your points that you raise and they may be valid. However here is a counter-argument to what you put, think about this. I come from a state in my country where marijuana was decriminalised, and where it recently again became criminalised. The law varied over a number of years from having in possession from one to up to ten marijuana plants and all that the possessor would receive was a miniscule on the spot fine. Marijuana is going to be around regardless of its legal status. However, my home state attracted significant criminal activity associated with the growing of marijuana, such that gangs moved in to cultivate and supply it in another states and in my home state and that even small time possessors who insisted that it was only for their own possession were later proved in court to produce marijuana for sale, which was illegal. So you can see how lax laws can be manipulated and were again tightened. The problem is that people manipulate these laws, the average person on the street is not too bright and then thinks it a complete relaxation of moral attitudes to drugs. Again, it promotes victimisation by allowing marijuana to be sold and thus making another dependent instead of keeping it your own issue which probably was the term of reference for my home state's laws.

The problem here really is education and teaching members of the community of the dangers of drugs. Alcohol too is ridiculously used in my community with devastating effects. Often with young people in particular, they think drugs won't effect them because (1) they don't see the damage quite yet and they simply focus on getting off; (2) peer pressure; (3) because cool famous people use it. Once you get to a certain age, you'll see how dangerous these activities are (hopefully, even though I know elderly are into it as well), and that even includes other activities that are not drug related.

Sure, if you want to use, go ahead. Unfortunately at the end of the day, to fix these addictions, it will require my tax money. If you want to be stupid enough to be CONTROLLED by another person through a substance, then go for it. Also If you want those triangular depressions underneath your eyes and fine wrinkles from drug abuse (esp speed), then go for it.

posted May 25, 2009 01:04 PM         

just as when we prohibited alcohol people were forced to turn to the capones of the world, or distill their own (usually poisonous) brews, the criminal element was eventually eliminated by regulation. and the govt was able to stop spending a fortune trying to catch the crooks and MAKE a small fortune on taxes etc.

posted May 25, 2009 05:26 PM         

quote:

---

PS No joke that non-drugs users aren't dysfunctional either.

---

From narcissistic moms to violent nuns spreading incessant rumors, from men who buy guns & body armor but won't replace vomit-stained mattresses & even wash their clothes (but buy brand new ones) because "For some reason, I just don't have the money," and a great many others, I can list plenty of people who are very much against drugs who are extremely dysfunctional and messed up. Oh, and one guy who buys the guns so he doesn't have the money for cleanliness refused to help a woman move some heavy furniture in, for the reason that she was "playing him for a putz" (ie, he knew that she wouldn't have sex with him just because he helped her move a couch in, so how dare she ask).

And lots of people who wouldn't even dream of touching drugs or alcohol believe in demonic activity, that they're casting out demons left & right, and that people like me go to black sabbaths to LITERALLY have sex with Satan.

Speaking of which, one Pentecostal mom (who still thought God protected her even after 2 men took turns raping her in her own bedroom) punished her 2 children with exorcisms, including a daughter for "growing breasts too early" (and the exorcists sat on top of the tied down little girl and put his hands over her breasts as he commanded the demons to depart), among other things. Yet she was too stupid to realize why her kids kept running away from home (just thought it was Satan).

I could go on and on. And I've met potheads who are more functional and intelligent and rational than these sober dopes.

posted May 25, 2009 06:29 PM         

In short, that "those who don't use drugs are NOT dysfunctional."

Just misunderstood. I'd have understood it better if I'd read, "No joke about non-drugs users being dysfunctional, too." Still, English is a really weird language, and even the professors can argue what constitutes a "double negative" and such, so these misunderstandings are bound to happen at times.

posted May 25, 2009 07:19 PM         

What I meant by the above phrase is that "Dysfunctionality can occur without drugs and this is obviously so" or "a non-user can be just as dysfunctional as a user and this is obviously so".

posted May 25, 2009 07:48 PM         

the tobacco companies or some such would surely get in there and create their own brands and flavours etc. but it would still be legal, the govt could make some money on the taxes and save a TON on jailing, chasing and so forth the weed users of the world. the price would come down and the police would have time to hunt real criminals. there would also be a lot less chance of getting involved with seriously shady characters...