On Tuesday’s Radio Show…
April 7th, 2009, 6:00 PM EDT
• Fox News White House Correspondent Mike Emanuel joins Alan to weigh in on the pros and cons of President Obama’s first trip overseas, including his surprise visit to the troops in Iraq.
• Christopher Hitchens, bestselling author of God Is Not Great, defends his controversial views about religion.
• In Virginia, a young high school student receives a 2-week suspension with the chance of expulsion after taking her birth control during lunch. Does the punishment fit the crime? Alan sorts through the issues.
On Tuesday’s radio show Alan will lose his patience with the callers and start yelling and screaming like he did on Monday’s radio show…………
April 7th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Hey Alan, please make sure you ask him about the debate he just had with William Lane Craig.
And you should have Mr. Craig on as a guest as soon as you can book him, let’s make sure we are consistent with our policies, mmmmmkkkay?
If you support the fairness doctrine then this shouldn’t be a problem for you……………
placefield Reply:
April 7th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Alan has already made it clear he does not support the fairness doctrine.
trees are people too Reply:
April 7th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Boy you ain’t kiddin………….spend some time listening to his show and you’ll see that what he really supports is his version of fairness which could actually be called the “unfairness doctrine”
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 1:55 am
Well, there’s one central fact a lot of people seem to miss. It’s the Alan Colmes radio show. So he can run it any d*mn way he wants.
And, as “placefield” says, Alan has made it absolutely clear on countless occasions that he does NOT support the fairness doctrine.
BigJim Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Was curious of Alan’s view of the Fairness Doctrine. I did not like it and glad he does not. Let the market dictate what is fair.
Who wants some government person deciding what is fair.
April 7th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Even many on the right say that Alan takes more clls from more people who disagree with him.
Many other shows, don’t let dissenting voices on the air at all.
April 7th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
“Many other shows, don’t let dissenting voices on the air at all.”
yeah well, poor ole fRosTy isn’t too happy with Alan and Joel right now…
signed,
one of my friends who’s not yet banned…
:(
April 7th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Why was Fr0st banned?
The ASCII porn?
Aren’t we adults here? I’ve heard much more offensive things from many of the posters than a little ASCII porn.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
What is ascII porn?
Um Cara Reply:
April 7th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
wasn’t it you that posted the guy mooning us, a picture made out of letters?
You are clearly a babe in the internet world if you don’t remember ascii porn.
You think computer nerds waited until full color graphics to start trading porn on the internet?
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 7th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
I thought it was my suggestion that TREES should google (two hairy bears have sex in the woods), and see what he gets?
Jeez…
April 7th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Hey, I’m back
Um Cara Reply:
April 7th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Well, go away. I was working up some good and righteous indignity, and you blow it by coming back.
Harmph.
Lily Reply:
April 7th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
It’s about time! You had us all worried. We didn’t know what happened to you. You could have been lying dead in a ditch for all we knew. Next time you phone us if you know you’re not going to be back!
Lily Reply:
April 7th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Oops, I think that must have been my mother posting.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
squeaky wheel gets the grease, I guess…but I admit I’ve been in a foul mood all day because of this.
Just Googled, ASC11 porn, lol…you mean the bum thing?
Hey, I thought it was rude too!
In fact, as I wrote, it was a cut and paste from Fox Nation…when it went into “moderation”, I even said ‘don’t bother’.
I just wanted to demonstrate (as I said) how carp like that is fine on Fox, but my critique of their posters, was apparently not…
April 7th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
test
April 7th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
I must admit, I’ve been in a foul mood all night about this, and decided to come on as Jay and say “so long!”
tried one more post, “what is ascII porn” and it worked!
…just googled ASCII porn, lol..you mean the bum thing?
In my own defence, if one reads that exchange, it was a cut and paste from FoX Nation, and it DID go to moderation, which I thought was kinda odd…I even had second thoughts…you can read my post where I ask the Mod to “forget about it”
I thought it odd that the bum makes it repeatedly to FN, (about once an hour or so) but my critique of their ‘clientele’ seems not to have, LMAO
Anyway, thanks.
Winds a bit out of my sails tonight after all this, so I’m off
:-)
April 7th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Cool, Christopher Hitchens…it would have been a carppy night to start my AlanCOM boycott…
cheers everyone
signed,
the new, humble, less outspoken, and not nearly so loud,
faiRly niCe fRosTy
craig7120 Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 12:08 am
later dude… where do I return that cessna that landed im my yard
April 7th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Is USA a judeo-christian nation? If so why was the
term only begun to be used in the early 1960’s?
Do Israelis identify themselves as a judeo-christian nation?
April 7th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Hmmm………….Hitchens says that belief in God is “ok” as long as no one expresses or attempts to share this belief and says that anyone who does so is acting in arrogance.
And yet he feels at liberty to express his beliefs to people, thereby breaking his own rule………..
Apparently he has either never met someone who shared their faith humbly or refuses to recognize this trait
April 7th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
He means “unsolicited” preaching. I think he was quite clear about that.
You also heard him say he never discusses his atheism even with his children, unless asked…
Clearly, he is asked often.
trees are people too Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 12:41 am
So, if I’m sitting on a bus and the person next to me starts a conversation, or I start a conversation, whatever, I’m not allowed to express any spiritual views?????
You are not compelled to have the discussion, but you also do not control my speech or anyone else’s.
Who made Hitchen’s, you, or anyone else the determiner of allowable free speech????
craig7120 Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 12:45 am
yeah but the problem is this…. your answer to this question why are you against same sex marriage?
craig7120 Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 12:46 am
i know you will answer it truthfully
trees are people too Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 12:49 am
Because I don’t agree with it, and I can speak a dissenting opinion concerning the practice of a behavior.
Is it your opinion that I should be silenced or intimidated?
craig7120 Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 12:59 am
no I dont advocate censorship… I will defend your right to an opinion but when you bring in a third party to justify your opinion all bets are off.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 11:34 am
no I dont advocate censorship… I will defend your right to an opinion but when you bring in a third party to justify your opinion all bets are off.
—
Craig7120
That may be the dumbest thing I’ve seen come from you.
craig7120 Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Guido~
How cool of you to take the time. Please continue that thought.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 12:52 am
That is what Mormons do, and it’s embarrasing when someone, out of the blue, starts talking abour “have you found Jeeeesus??”, or “Do you have Jeeesus Christ in your life? when I’m standing in line at the flippin’ hardward store!
“”no, man, I’m in line at Costco and all’s I got is this toilet plunger, you think I want to talk about Jesus right now?”"
craig7120 Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 1:04 am
trees and frosty wanna see something funny… at least I think so. click on my name and go to myspace that avatar has cracked me up all day.
trees are people too Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 1:07 am
I agree with you Frosty, I don’t like a sales pitch from anyone and I never come from out of left field with a stranger, and I don’t knock on the doors of someone’s home, however I will talk about spiritual matters if they arise in a conversation and I will indeed attempt to turn a conversation towards the spiritual, but I never approach someone in the store and attempt to sell them in the manner you have described.
This happened recently, I was sitting having coffee and the person next to me remarked to their friend that “there isn’t anything in this world that is free”, and so I inquired of him if he truly believed that, and he said, “yes”, at which point I made the observation that we were all breathing air free of charge, and from there I asked them about their beliefs.
It was a long and interesting conversation and it was civil during the entire discussion. They actually thanked me for the views I shared with them and we went our separate ways.
trees are people too Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Hmmmmmmmm……..
Yeah I need to get some photoshop software…..
craig7120 Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 1:17 am
well I guess its funnier when it come from a daughter still makes me laugh
trees are people too Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 1:23 am
I dunno, at first I thought it was altered but I just looked at it again and I can’t tell, they did a good job, whoever tweaked it.
yeah, Kids are great, give her a hug for me.
Cape Girardeau hunh, that’s on I55 I think right? Is there a Lambert’s home of throwed rolls around there somewhere? Missouri has some good food.
Anyhow it’s my bedtime, goodnight Craig, your friend trees
trees are people too Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 1:28 am
I was just looking at your other pictures and I couldn’t help but think of how God says the heavens declare His glory.
Anyway I gotta git to bed, goodnight again, sincerely trees
craig7120 Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 1:30 am
inspiration comes in all forms
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Frosty, would you have been offended if someone asked you if you knew the score of the Blue Jays game?
How dare they??? I hate baseball!
Generally speaking most people are courteous to a no, thank you.
April 8th, 2009 at 12:18 am
later brother and your correct about lamberts in sikeston about 45mins down the road.
Sarah Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Ahhh, hog jowls and sorghum molasses at the Home o’ the Throwed Rolls.
Has Flush Limburger been home lately, Craig?
craig7120 Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
LOL @ the flush!!! u know in fact he isnt as big here as say N.Ohio and upper states!! fact is the southern right is lookin in their wallets and sayin UH!!
craig7120 Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Oh btw you guys rock!!!!………… ‘period penalty’ I havnt read any of it, and still it looks worth while.
April 8th, 2009 at 1:28 am
Except the difference is, Guido, that baseball scores are a harmless “nuetral” topic, part of what is known in our society as ’small talk’. The sudden introduction of personal religious beliefs into a conversation, on the other hand, especially one that YOU intitiate, is not appreciated by many people, especially if those beliefs are prosyletizing a particular religion…
(Hari Khrisna, anyone?)
Would you enjoy sitting next to me in a dinner and having me lean over and say “You know, meat is murder!?” or maybe “that’s not fair-trade coffee, you know, you are supporting the terrorists!”?
Your personal religious beliefs should be just that, personal. If someone asks you specifically to discuss them, as they do Chris Hitchens – fill your boots.
For the record, I also don’t particularly wish to hear from people about the fact that that doughnut I’m eating is not the “good fat”, or that I’m wearing leather (OR fur), smoking outdoors, driving a 429 ci V8, need a haircut, or wearing white after bl**dy labour day.
And if YOU DO bring up some mythological figure that “waved His mighty hands and created the earth, sea and the very air we breath…ooooh myyy!”
…be VERY prepared, in return, for a three-hour non-stop lecture about false prophets, the evils of religion, hypocrisy and, of course, cyanobacteria…
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
fair enough…but that person didn’t ask about cyanobacteria…breaking your own rules homeslice.
I think you’re just being a little sensitive about it. if you don’t want to discuss something just say no thank you, it works for me most the time, and if it doesn’t I remove myself from the situation.
However since you would want to go on a 3 hour lecture about whatever, apparently you do want to discuss it, you just don’t want to hear a viewpoint contradictory to your own.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Not at all….
‘He’ mentioned the ‘air we breath’ and gave it a magical origin…I disagree. No magic needed here, folks, save you “miracles” for making saints out of popes, lol…
And I’m not as “offended”, as I am “embarrased” when this happens, if you look back to my orginal post!
Perhaps I think I am being “helpful” when I tell you this…but many people DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT YOUR GOD, lol.
Have you ever been anywhere that wasn’t Disney?
Would you start proslytizing about Feebus to complete strangers if you were in Tibet?
Indonesia?
Canada?
We DON’T want to hear it!
Get it?
Good.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
:-)
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
what does “Have you ever been anywhere that wasn’t Disney?” mean?
I haven’t been to tibet or indonesia, but I have been to Canada once, (coincidentally to hunt baby seals;)
I would like to travel more than I’ve had the chance to.
why are you embarrassed if someone asks you about “jeebus”?
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
“”why are you embarrassed if someone asks you about “jeebus”?”"
I’m embarrased for not just me, but them!
Clearly, they are not “asking” anything, are they Guido? Not really. They have had their mind made up for them since birth, or have had a pychotic episode and think they’ve “seen God”…and become “born again”, lol…
…either way, it’s just plain rude. I gave examples above which I think are very relevant.
Too me, if you want to know the inconvenient truth, it’s embarrassing because if someone is proselytizing “jeesus” to a stranger, uninvited, they are 99.9% likely to be radical fundementalists…e.g. those that believe that the bible was ‘written by God” and is “100% unchanging truth for all time”.
And that, of course, is absolute and indefensible phooey, as I have proven almost daily on here…
:-)
…And so, I am suddenly thrust into a situation where the nice old lady, or young man in a suit, has suddenly identified themself to be either brainwashed by religion, hypnotized by a cult, or just stupid…
Either way, I am embarrased.
cheers
JP
Kregg Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Frosty: But apparently I’m “ignorant and a fool” and “without excuse”…
…although in would think the former would rule out the latter…but that’s ‘christian” logic for ya!
K: Why is this true? One can be ignorant or a fool or both and be so WITH or WITHOUT an excuse for either? What makes this ‘christian logic’?
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Clearly, they are not “asking” anything, are they Guido? Not really.
they’re asking for a conversation, which should be easy enough to get out of. You spout this “righteous” indignation that anyone would ever ask you an unsolicited question…it’s silly really.
If no one ever asked an unsolicited question, nobody would ever speak.
trees are people too Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Nope, magic would imply that there was no intelligent agent responsible………..
And the fact is, is that science is completely baffled as to the origin of our atmosphere, as there is only one planet ever observed to have the atmospheric composition that ours does.
As well as an abundance of water, on a planet that has a very finely tuned self cleaning and self regulating conservation system.
Have you ever been out in the deep water of the pacific? Where I fish you can see down into the water for a remarkable distance, it’s that clean.
Science has absolutely no satisfactory explanation for the miracle of life, and as in accordance with the arrogance of men there have been certain people who believed that they discovered how life originated, only to later be exposed as “believing” a scientifically proven wrong hypothesis.
Discovering what it is that produced life has been impossibly frustrating and eternally elusive for the scientific community……….and true to form, when they either don’t have an answer or need to change an answer they reach into the bag and pull out the time card. “just give us enough time and we will have all of the answers”, or, “the universe and the planet are vastly older than we had previously imagined”………..
Only a fool believes that this place is a cosmic accident, and that there is no accountability for his words, thoughts, and deeds.
I have a reverence for the Being that gave me life, unlike those who deny Him and take it all for granted while foolishly mocking Him. You see, here is the dilemma you have……..you say there is no God, and then you mock Him which means that you do acknowledge Him, but that you dislike Him tremendously based on your pride and ignorance……….
When you stand before Him you will be without excuse, for you have made yourself His enemy.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
ummmmm, naw…It’s you I’m mocking not your “god”.
;-)
But apparently I’m “ignorant and a fool” and “without excuse”…
…although in would think the former would rule out the latter…but that’s ‘christian” logic for ya!
And the bible as this book of “truth and history and science”…yeah, I pretty much ridicule that too, I admit…
…it’s your clinging to your little collection of ancient texts and even more ancient myths, compiled over hundreds of years, by hundereds of fearful and supersticious men- translated, mis-translated again…selectively edited/thing took out/things put back in…and then calling it this great orginal “source of life”, it just shows your absolute complete lack of historical and scientific knowledge…but even more disturbing, is your lace of DESIRE for that knowledge…that’s what really I can’t fathom.
and as long as you see fit to post your big, long and slightly confused pontifications about “god, the universe and all the fish in the sea…”
I will feel compelled to respond in kind, lol>
That is, until I get bored, and my GF’s soon home from school and I got a tree to chop up…
Kinda like now…
;-)
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
BTW TRESS…”chopping up a tree” was not a silly and awful metaphor, lol…I really do – it fell in an autumn storm and has been lying across our back garden all winter!
I’m'a gonna make firewood outta it!
Got a new chainsaw too.
my old one didn’t work so good. Took it to the shop and the guy pulls the cord – I’m like “jaysus, bye, what’s that noise!”
Lily Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
…or wearing white after bl**dy labour day.
Posted by baD mR fRosTy
————–
And I used to respect you.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
I heard someone saying that white after labour (I’ll use your spelling…damn brits) day isn’t a hard rule anymore….but I’ve never paid much attention to the fashion experts.
Lily Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Wearing white after Labor Day leads to the more serious faux pas of wearing white before Memorial Day. Amd we all know what THAT means.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Indeed.
I hear the Klan wears white all year round…
The only white we Canadians wear in winter is dead baby seal.
Sarah Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
No velvet after February or before December (or is it January). And it’s uncouth to eat or smoke in the street. And it’s “curtains,” not “drapes.”
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
if it was socially acceptable I’d drape myself in velvet.
Sarah Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
“Do the drapes match the pubes?”
(My favorite line from “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”)
Lily Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
There’s another Sarah I’d like to forget. And I don’t mean you. :)
She’s trying again to manipulate politics up there in the uh….that place you can see from Russia… You know where I mean.
average james Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
I base all of my fashion decisions on what doesn’t itch.
I heard that somewhere and stole it cuz it’s true for me.
Lily Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
James, it was Gilda Radner who said that. And I have a refrigerator magnet to prove it.
average james Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
I miss Gilda Radner.
You must be allright if you’ve got a Gilda magnet.
craig7120 Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Ok the part that my g/f isnt home from school made me cough!! ooops I digress
trees are people too Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
yeahhhhhhh………….. I raised an eyebrow on that too………..I hope she’s at least in college
If he had said He had to pick her up from school that would have raised both eyebrows…………..
Kregg Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Frosty is driving a 429 ci V8? How uncouth… Everyone knows the 427 side-oiler is the one to drive if you’re a REAL man.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Why is that student taking her birth control pills during school hours anyway? If they can expel students for drawing a picture of a gun or for taking a toy soldier to school or for using their finger simulating a gun to play cowboys and indians, then Yes they can expel a student for taking birth control pills during school hours. IT IS ONLY FAIR.
Sarah Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Uh…so she can regulate her menstrual cycle and/or not become pregnant, perhaps.
average james Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Maybe, just maybe, unless there is something far more sinister at work here. Something set in motion by those Godless liberals, something designed to tear this great nation down and enslave us all and take away our guns and our free speech and ruin our military and …….
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Yea, it’s called the WAR ON DRUGS.
That’s where most of this stuff w/ kids not being able to take even aspirin at school comes from.
Zero tolerance policies.
average james Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Zero tolerance policies kinda bug me. Let’s hear the whole story and then decide what the appropriate response should be.
Like when my son got in a fight at school and was suspended as a result of the zero tolerance policy.
He told me that this kid was beating up a smaller kid who was my son’s friend, so my son jumped in. This story was backed up by the yard teacher and students alike. Even the boy who started the deal admitted it. By the way, now they are all grown up and friends, happy ending.
Zero tolerance is an unwise policy, IMO.
The WAR ON DRUGS is even more lame.
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Kids get thrown out of school for taking asprin, Willy.
I didn’t hear the show last night, not sure if this kid was in trouble specifically because it was birth control, or just because it was against the drug policy.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
or did she gather her friends around and sya “look, my parents are smart, and they let me take birth control so I don’t get pregnant and have to get an abortion”
And someone didn’t like that…
Sarah Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Girls at my school used to take their birth control during gym class. Big deal.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
My school district has a nurse rule, all drugs that may be needed during the course of a day have to be dispensed by the school nurse. I wonder if her school has a rule like that.
I’m going to assume the suspension was because of something she said in the principles office. Usually how things like this go.
In trouble for one thing, but in really big trouble for how they act when they’re in trouble.
April 8th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
“”And it’s uncouth to …. smoke in the street”"
X-(
Well here in Nova Scotia the non-smokers’s brigade (and of course this includes the “don’t admit we smoke”, as well as the “I only smoke when I’m drinking” crew…) has fought long and hard and they finally got their wish.
Smoking is not allowed ANYWHERE is several towns and cities, including Bridewater, where employess from the nearby shopping center congregate on the bridge (I’m not making this up) as it is the only place not “within 15 meters of city property” (The bridge is provincial).
In addition, we can smoke in halifax, but only at least 15 meters from private property, a business, or a residence.
Therefore, depending on oncoming traffic, I sometimes join other law-abiding citizens and smoke, you gussed it, in the middle of the street – the only legal place left….
Fortuanatly I live 2 miles back in the woods, use a boat to get groceries 8 months a year, and have a large supply of fags on hand at all times…
*wink*
trees are people too Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Wow……I might have to move to Nova Scotia………maybe we’ll run into each other at the Costco in Halifax………………
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Frost,
Smoking is not allowed ANYWHERE is several towns and cities, including Bridewater
Does that include weed, or just the hard stuff?
Sarah Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
I knew you smoked fags. ;)
I have a pack-a-week habit of me own, but I lay off when I’m sick.
I sympathize with you regarding the smoking ban. I have mixed feelings on stuff like that. I can dig the non-smoking view on it, but I also think it’s ridiculous to ban smoking “for health reasons” and then let the food lobby get away with everything from tainted foodstuffs to rampant fats and sugars.
By the way, I don’t call the “can I bum one?” crowd non-smokers, though. I call them non-buyers.
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
I have a pack-a-week habit of me own, but I lay off when I’m sick.
Have you considered submitting yourself to a substance abuse clinic?
Sarah Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
I notice you’re quickly turning into a one-note poster, Um Cara.
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I’m tired of the gay marriage debate.
Besides, the war on drugs is a far bigger civil rights issue than gay marriage.
Sarah Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
You’re certainly entitled to believe that.
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
I appreciate that you do not wish to have me thrown into a reprogramming camp for believing that..
As for why I believe that, from a recent Time magazine article:
Yea, I’d say it’s quite a bit more a civil rights issue than gay marriage.
Sarah Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Born gay, born black, born female…Born a pothead? I disagree.
But again, you’re certainly entitled to believe that.
trees are people too Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
What??
You want illicit drugs legalized???
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
You don’t believe there are folks born with a genetic disposition towards addiction?
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
You want illicit drugs legalized???
Pot should be legalized.
Other ‘illicit’ drugs should be decriminalized.
Sarah Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Um Cara Reply: April 8th, 2009 at 3:56 pm You don’t believe there are folks born with a genetic disposition towards addiction?
Sure, which is puzzling that anyone would want addictive drugs to become more prevalent and accessible through legalization.
Lily Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Reminds me of when I was in Chicago a few years back and went to a baseball game. I lit up in the stands and was reprimanded. So I went inside where they sell the hotdogs and beer, and it was ok to smoke there. Finally gave it up going on 2 years ago now. I still miss it though.
Sarah Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Good for you for giving it up, Lily. I admire your fortitude. Am thinking of giving up the habit as well, since I notice my wind is better when I’ve laid off of it for a few weeks at a time.
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Lily,
It is truly impressive that you were able to get over this serious addiction without benefit of being thrown in prison, or forced to attend a substance abuse clinic against your will.
Nicotine is supposed to be even tougher than coke to kick, congrats! (I bet you were a real grump when you were coming down, however. I remember when my dad quit…)
average james Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
I am currently engaged in the nicotine battle myself. Powerful stuff that nicotine. I’m down to about a 1/2 pack a day and already freakin losin it.
Sarah Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
It’s great that you’ve just lately begun to realize the perils of substance addiction, Um Cara. Bravo!
:)
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I have long realized the perils of substance addiction, what are you talking about?
You think that because I do not wish to throw my fellow Americans into reprogramming camps and work camps for using currently illegal intoxicants, I don’t realize the perils of substance abuse?
I don’t quite understand that line of thinking.
trees are people too Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Ok, what do we do then??
Sarah Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
I have to go pretty soon, but I’ll be returning to find out the answer to Trees’ question.
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Ok, what do we do then??
Treat addictions as the medical problems that they are.
Stop arresting so many of our citizens (five times the world average).
Americans are not five times more criminal than the rest of the world, we are just irrational w/ regards to drugs (especially pot).
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
so…in order to jumble up your position, people are born addicts (and is therefore a civil rights issue)…should we hospitalize or treat homosexuals as a medical problem (I thought we already went through that in this country)
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
hopefully you read this before you respond…**born predispositioned to addiction**
Kregg Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Um said: Treat addictions as the medical problems that they are.
K; Would you treat all drug use as an ‘addiction’ or would you continue to leave some drug use criminal?
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Would you treat all drug use as an ‘addiction’ or would you continue to leave some drug use criminal?
I would decriminalize the use of all drugs. I would legalize and regulate marijuana (in a similar manner as alcohol or tobacco, perhaps even a bit more stringently)
I would refocus the dollars we currently use to destroy the lives and futures of drug users towards freely available voluntary treatment programs.
I would encourage (and regulate and tax) the domestic production of marijuana. I would refocus the dollars we currently use to fight marijuana dealers towards fighting the sale of drugs like heroin, coke, and meth.
Lily Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Drug use doesn’t imply addiction.
trees are people too Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Well it’s practically legal now, and for me it was a stepping stone to other substances, however alcohol was the first stone I stepped on, pot was the second.
A very large percentage of our population would become unproductive addicts, if you think we have problems now take away any legal restraint and watch what happens….
Crystal meth has become an enormous problem, heroin devours entire neighborhoods, and cocaine causes an erosion of morals as people will do anything for another “rock”…….
I lived in this “world” at one time and trafficked in it and used, and Um, this policy of decriminalization would be a tragic mistake…………..
Drugs are a real evil that strips away the fabric of society, just like stripping flesh off a carcass.
The law and the repercussions of breaking it are what holds society together.
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
so…in order to jumble up your position, people are born addicts (and is therefore a civil rights issue)…should we hospitalize or treat homosexuals as a medical problem (I thought we already went through that in this country)
Well, remember, Sarah was actually the one who suggested it was not a civil rights issue as she did not believe that folks are born addicts, so you are kind of mixing the two of our positions.
As for mandatory reprogramming of homosexuals, I am of course against it, as I am against mandatory reprogramming of recreational drug users.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
how about the voluntary reprogramming of homosexuals?
Sarah Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Um Cara: ” who suggested it was not a civil rights issue as she did not believe that folks are born addicts,”
Not what I said at all. I said “born a pothead.” Here’s the difference, since your passion for the issue seems to have clouded your reason: Opposite of the words you’re putting into my mouth, I buy into the theory that some people are genetically (and sometimes environmentally, as in “everyone’s doing it,”) predisposed to addiction.
One can be born this way, and yet not become addicted to anything, either because they exercise self-discipline, or their addiction is illegal, or because they haven’t tried it to know that they like it to the point of addiction.
When do you decide whether or not someone is addicted? Or, secretly (like my dad) you hope to legalize/decriminalize drugs so that the addict eventually kills himself through substance abuse?
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
In some states, that is true. We, as a nation, are slowly becoming a bit less insane about pot.
The gateway stuff isn’t really born out by research.
The law and the repercussions of breaking it are what holds society together.
Dunno, pretty huge percentages of Americans have smoked dope, higher percentage than the Dutch, where small amounts of pot are legal.
If we quit spending so many resources taking away the freedoms, futures, and property of pot smokers, we could focus those resources on more dangerous criminals like smack dealers, or people who run red lights.
Sarah Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Why would we chase after smack dealers and meth-makers, when you’re advocating decriminalization of all illicit drugs?
And is there any research on how much money will be spent on voluntary rehab? I imagine not much, since no one would have to go. So I guess that’s another dollar-saver.
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Why would we chase after smack dealers and meth-makers, when you’re advocating decriminalization of all illicit drugs?
I am for the decriminalization of the use of all currently illegal drugs.
And is there any research on how much money will be spent on voluntary rehab? I imagine not much, since no one would have to go. So I guess that’s another dollar-saver.
There are different estimates on what we are spending on the war on drugs (which is mostly a war on pot), probably between 30 and 40 billion dollars this year.
But it isn’t so much a ‘dollar-saving’ issue for me anyway, more a redirecting of dollars from evil to good.
I believe in public health care, addiction is a health care problem, so I am in favor of public voluntary rehab programs.
Sarah Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Ah, you’re for the decriminalization of the USE of all currently illegal drugs.
The supply is only created to meet the demand. And to increase demand.
I’m having difficulty giving people a complete pass on any responsibility for getting addicted or choosing to use drugs in the first place, or for breaking the law and going to jail for it.
Ultimately, I guess we also differ in our view on drugs, in that I believe they’re made illegal/restricted for a reason, and you think variety is the spice of life when it comes to getting high.
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Ultimately, I guess we also differ in our view on drugs, in that I believe they’re made illegal/restricted for a reason, and you think variety is the spice of life when it comes to getting high.
I love how you accuse me of putting words in my mouth when you continue to make ridiculous statements like this.
Another time you said something like ‘The difference between you and me is I think pot is dangerous, and you think it is totally benign’
and another time you used a similar line where you told me what my position was (which was some ridiculous straw man position I had never stated)…
Anyway, my position isn’t that ‘variety is the spice of life when it comes to getting high’, I think imprisoning people for a medical problem is evil. And I consider addiction to be a medical problem.
I wouldn’t lock folks up for cancer either, even if they got it from smoking.
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
I love how you accuse me of putting words in my mouth…
should of course read ‘I love how you accuse me of putting words in your mouth…’
And, I actually don’t love it at all, by the way.
Sarah Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
No worries. I think you accidentally spit on my cheek a few times while you were yelling at me too, but don’t worry ’bout it. :)
Anyhow, sorry I’m misreading what you’re writing… With pearls like “I wouldn’t lock folks up for cancer either,” I, uh, bow to your superior reasoning skills.
It reminds me of the comparison between being addicted to books and being addicted to pot, with the insistence that, so what if someone wants to use recreational pot, it’s just like reading a book.
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Anyhow, sorry I’m misreading what you’re writing… With pearls like “I wouldn’t lock folks up for cancer either,” I, uh, bow to your superior reasoning skills.
As well you should on this issue. What with me being right and you being wrong, and all.
Sarah Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Of course, Um Cara, of course. There, there now.
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
See there, I knew you would come around. I just couldn’t believe that a chick as smart and compassionate as you would REALLY be for treating medical problems with police action if you just sat down and thought about it for a minute.
Now take the next step and join NORML.
Sarah Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
God, it really DOES kill you that I’m disagreeing with you! Wow!
Hey, I fell down the steps while I was robbing a bank. Clearly, instead of going to jail, we need to treat my medical problem, which wouldn’t have happened at all if, say, I wasn’t robbing a bank.
Sarah Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
(Like the line of reasoning? I borrowed it from you. You can have it back, it feels silly.)
ANYWAY! Would love to stick around and not change each other’s minds at-all some more, but I have to take my doggies to the park.
See you at the hooka bar.
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Hey, I fell down the steps while I was robbing a bank. Clearly, instead of going to jail, we need to treat my medical problem, which wouldn’t have happened at all if, say, I wasn’t robbing a bank.
Nah, you deserve to go to jail for robbing a bank. I would be in favor of you going to jail for robbing a bank even if you were burning a fatty while doing so.
(Like the line of reasoning? I borrowed it from you. You can have it back, it feels silly.)
It felt silly because you did it wrong. Your line of reasoning made no sense, whereas mine always does.
See you at the hooka bar.
No way, I’m not going to encourage your addiction to tobacco, though I wouldn’t tobacco to be made illegal either. You can be against a certain behavior without wanting the folks who engage in it to be locked up or reprogrammed.
God, it really DOES kill you that I’m disagreeing with you! Wow!
I just like to argue, you should know that. But yea, it does bother me a bit that someone as bright as you, and good as you, could hold such a foolish, evil view. Sure.
craig7120 Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
damn….
Lily Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
I’m not trying to impress, but I always thought it was odd that I couldn’t smoke outside at a ball game, but I could smoke inside where there was a designated area.
Kregg Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Lily: I’m not trying to impress, but I always thought it was odd that I couldn’t smoke outside at a ball game, but I could smoke inside where there was a designated area.
K; I would guess that you were allowed to smoke in an area that could contain the smoke so that it didn’t affect those sitting around you in the stands. Or, it might have been a fire hazard issue.
Sarah Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Probably has to do with the smoke wafting over to the other spectators, vs. people walking down a corridor, I guess.
I remember seeing a 1950s picture once, though, of kids who looked like they were 9 or 10, smoking cigarettes in the stands. You definitely wouldn’t see that today!
April 8th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Not what I said at all. I said “born a pothead.” Here’s the difference, since your passion for the issue seems to have clouded your reason:
Pot, kettle, and whatnot.
But absolutely I am passionate about turning back from the brink of a police state that we are becoming. I am passionate about stopping the carnage that we are wreaking upon individuals, families, and society as a whole.
Opposite of the words you’re putting into my mouth,
I guess I misunderstood your statement, however you have put more ‘words into my mouth’ on this issue.
I buy into the theory that some people are genetically (and sometimes environmentally, as in “everyone’s doing it,”) predisposed to addiction.
One can be born this way, and yet not become addicted to anything, either because they exercise self-discipline, or their addiction is illegal, or because they haven’t tried it to know that they like it to the point of addiction.
When do you decide whether or not someone is addicted? Or, secretly (like my dad) you hope to legalize/decriminalize drugs so that the addict eventually kills himself through substance abuse?
Mostly it is the folks who decide they are addicted and seek help who are able to kick their addictions (even sticking folks in prison doesn’t help, since drugs are available, and the networking opportunities for future black market connections are abundant).
I’m not in favor of the wildly out of proportion idea of throwing so many drug users in jail or reprogramming camps or work camps just to try to lessen the odds of their becoming addicted. We have tried that pretty hard since Nixon to little effect, I’d say it’s time to try something else. Something less evil than robbing people of their freedom, property, and future.
You and I both know your addiction to nicotine is terrible for you, but I don’t want to take away your freedom, property, or future in order to cure you of this addiction.
Sarah Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Um Cara: “You and I both know your addiction to nicotine is terrible for you, but I don’t want to take away your freedom, property, or future in order to cure you of this addiction.”
No worries, matie, since tobacco’s legal. If it were illegal, I wouldn’t smoke it. Kind of like my friend said the other day, when we were talking about our college experiences, “Thank god acid’s illegal, or I’d do it all the time.” If that’s true, then it’s fortunate for her, her husband, and her two small sons that it hasn’t yet been decriminalized or legalized.
Um Cara: “We have tried that pretty hard since Nixon to little effect, I’d say it’s time to try something else.”
Eh. We’ve tried it in varying degrees of “hard.” It’s always been winked at, especially by the baby-boomer generation and entertainment industry. Drug usage is glamorized, glossed-over, and satirized all the time, which builds up the usage and ultimately lands people in jail.
No one’s robbing anyone of their freedom, property and future– they’re willingly giving it, by breaking the law.
April 8th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
No worries, matie, since tobacco’s legal. If it were illegal, I wouldn’t smoke it.
If smack were legal, I wouldn’t do it. But sure, I’m a ridiculously law and order person myself, I don’t break any laws on purpose (I occasionally speed when I am not paying close enough attention, or when speed limit signs are hidden). Not everyone is as forward thinking as you and I, however.
We’ve tried it in varying degrees of “hard.” It’s always been winked at, especially by the baby-boomer generation and entertainment industry. Drug usage is glamorized, glossed-over, and satirized all the time, which builds up the usage and ultimately lands people in jail.
I’d say we are trying it at pretty oppressive levels of ‘hard’, again I point to the fact that we imprison a higher percentage of our population than any other country.
No one’s robbing anyone of their freedom, property and future– they’re willingly giving it, by breaking the law.
It is a foolish, counterproductive, evil law. We are a better nation than to wreak the havoc upon our citizens in the way that we do.
Shame on us.
April 8th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Um Cara: “I’d say we are trying it at pretty oppressive levels of ‘hard’, again I point to the fact that we imprison a higher percentage of our population than any other country.”
Perhaps our higher percentage of prisoners might also speak to other facets of our country. For example, we don’t really rate that high in areas of literacy, and our health-care system holds the other developed (and not-so-developed) countries in astonishment. No one carries guns like we do, and we have willing suppliers in Central and South America who do their best to meet our demands for more and stronger drugs. The income gap is widening, and frankly, there’s a culture of glamorized drug use like never before. It would stand to reason, in my opinion, that we use our country’s wealth to deal with many of the natural consequences of illiteracy, etc., which are also leading to higher percentages of imprisonment (and probably drug use).
Um Cara: “It is a foolish, counterproductive, evil law. We are a better nation than to wreak the havoc upon our citizens in the way that we do. Shame on us.”
Wellp. I guess that’s that, then. Doesn’t allow for much in the way of further discussion, or compromise, or progress, which is the real shame. Maybe we can revisit the issue again sometime when you’re calmer.
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Wellp. I guess that’s that, then. Doesn’t allow for much in the way of further discussion, or compromise, or progress, which is the real shame. Maybe we can revisit the issue again sometime when you’re calmer.
I’m quite calm, but no – I’m not going to compromise or suddenly be convinced that our oppressive punishments are in any way justifiable, or productive. Plus, on most of the issues I discuss on these blogs, I have already put years of thinking into my positions and am fairly set in them. You aren’t going to convince me to ‘compromise’ on the drug issue, any more than Kregg is going to get me to ‘compromise’ on the gay marriage issue. (I will say Kregg is far more flexible in his position, than you yours – with his support of civil unions, and not wanting to reprogram or imprison homosexuals).
But I always hope to learn something new here. Can’t say I have on this issue, I think you, Willy, and Trees are the only ones who have on the hard core prohibitionist view on this, which encourages me greatly.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
The majority of “addicts” I have met or known, and as a musician, (who has played in CA, the EU AND the US) their numbers are , No-one” WANTS to be a hopeless “addict”. Some people will always defend their USE, yes, but not a severe addiction…I would like for TREES to be honest, and back me up here.
This of course does not include pot, it is KNOWN to be not addictive, although some poeple have a HABIT of smoking too much, too ofthen. that is not good either, like eating too much junk food. I will not entertain nonsense that compares pot to herion, coke and meth. Apples and elephants.
This means YOU, Sarah. ;-)
Some addicts, who have access to money, can afford the artificially high prices due to prohibition, the rest are forced to turn to crime, or dealing…
They will, of course ,NOT be stopped from doing addictive drugs by the law, but will only stop when they have access to rehab and support for their addiction. This includes an END to the false and deplorable ’stigma’ of addiction!
“Let he without sin”…you like so much to say.
Um Cara has hit the nail straight on the head.
Both the US and Canada are guilty of “punishing” people and ruining their lives with this war on drugs nonsense.
The US needs to:
1) Legalize pot.
2) Tax it, and let American farmers grow the (2nd) best pot in the world, for export to other countries that will legalize it if you do.
3) Decriminalize the hard drugs, and use the billions saved on the ‘war on people’s misfortune’ to help those who would like to help themselves get off the hard drugs like meth and coke and heroin. Stop throwing people in jail for using!
4) Provide oppurtunity for peer counselling, clean needles, injection sites, and YES, prescription narcotics to those willing to admit, and ‘formalize’ their addiction – not a step that many would take lightly, I a$$ure you.
Therefore reducing death from disease and OD to near Zero.
The UK is thinking of returning to controlled, prescription heroin, like before 1970.
Again, TREES, I expect your agreement that NO-ONE would OD on heroin if they KNEW the ‘quality’ and strength. Unless of course they were suicidal.
Be a Christian and step up here, you know this is TRUE.
There will ALWAYS be a certain segment of any population that will use drugs, alcohol or religion to hide from reality…but your jails are rotting with otherwise good and valuable citizens, victimes of a sort of “mass-hysteria”.
And I will remind you again, crime comes not from the drug use, but from the addiction and the need to pay “prohibition” prices.
Every time I hear the police brag about a new bust, I think…lock your doors, they just raised crime rates!
Sarah Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Newp! Don’t agree. And actually, I rarely, if ever, say anything like, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
And crime does come from drug use, especially when people break the law by using illegal drugs. Shoot, people commit crimes when they’re drunk off their asses all the time.
“I will not entertain nonsense that compares pot to herion, coke and meth.” I’d agree they probably vary in terms of strength, addictiveness, etc., but they have one thing in common– they’re all illegal.
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
I will not entertain nonsense that compares pot to herion, coke and meth.” I’d agree they probably vary in terms of strength, addictiveness, etc., but they have one thing in common– they’re all illegal
Yes, they are all illegal. Sort of what we are talking about here, Sarah.
Pot, heroin, coke, meth
three of these things belong together…
I’ll skip to the end of the game, Pot does not deserve to be in the same group as those drugs.
Usually I’m lazy, and just argue for legalization of pot, and leave the other drugs out of the picture, because the case for the legalization of pot is so much stronger. But I had kind of hoped to hear some new, stronger arguments than
‘they are illegal’
Oh well.
Sarah Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Actually, “They are illegal” is only part of the argument, but you don’t agree with the rest of why I believe they’re deemed illegal, so it’s fruitless to re-hash (no pun intended) it all.
You think pot-smoking’s great, you want it to be an option for getting high, and I disagree with making yet another substance widely available so more people can whack out.
You probably think I’m maddeningly goody-two-shoes and shortsighted on this issue, and I probably think you’re incredibly naive and lax on this issue.
Perhaps there’s a grain of truth in what each of us is saying, and perhaps each of us is wrong on a few things. But I doubt either of us will change each other’s minds.
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
You think pot-smoking’s great, you want it to be an option for getting high, and I disagree with making yet another substance widely available so more people can whack out.
Duddete,
I love you (and I mean that) but you’ve got to stop putting words into my mouth, it’s annoying. It’s not ‘great’, it is less harmful than the existing legal intoxicants. The harm caused by it’s legal status is much greater than what harm would be caused by its legalization.
You probably think I’m maddeningly goody-two-shoes and shortsighted on this issue, and I probably think you’re incredibly naive and lax on this issue.
Honestly I think you are worse than goody two shoes, what you advocate doing to your fellow travelers on this thin raft is incredibly wrong –Morally, and from a practical perspective. Besides, folks who are goody two shoes don’t smoke, proven fact!
Perhaps there’s a grain of truth in what each of us is saying, and perhaps each of us is wrong on a few things. But I doubt either of us will change each other’s minds.
Undoubtedly true on all accounts (other than the possibility of me every being wrong on anything). But these debates are more for the peanut gallery than those of us who actually blog. Face it, none of us ever change our opinions on 99% of the stuff we talk about. We talk about it because we have thought about it quite a bit and already formed our opinions.
Plus I’m always curious as to why people have the wrong position (defined as a position different than mine, of course).
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
“”And crime does come from drug use, especially when people break the law by using illegal drugs.”‘
That, in and of itself, is a pure and silly text-book example of a ‘circular’ arguement, and I’m surprised to see you use it.
Do you really think that smoking pot makes people wantonly commit crimes?!
I hope you don’t really belive that.
Lee Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Frosty,
“This of course does not include pot, it is KNOWN to be not addictive, although some poeple have a HABIT of smoking too much,”
This is utter BS. It is addictive, I’ve had an addiction to it, not a ‘habit’ or ‘compulsion’. Its a f#$#ing ‘DRUG’!
Does everyone get addicted? No.. But I smoked for years on and off fine. Then I got addicted to the strong weed I smoked in California. It was not fun breaking the addiction (although I believe its easier than nicotine).
I’m all for legalization, I think overall it makes sense. But please stop propagating BS and perhaps look into why hundreds of thousands of people (who admit their addiction) get treated for marijuana addiction every year.
I have no particular agenda here other than to tell the truth and correct this kind of BS. If you want to smoke pot, fine, but like any drug it deserves respect.
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
But please stop propagating BS and perhaps look into why hundreds of thousands of people (who admit their addiction) get treated for marijuana addiction every year.
The vast majority of folks who seek treatment for their ‘marijuana addiction’ do so because the courts have mandated that they get treated for their ‘addiction’ as part of their sentence.
(the quotation marks are meant for those folks who have court mandated brainwashing…erm…treatment. Folks who voluntarily seek treatment in all likelihood have a real problem, that does not merit the quotation marks.)
Lee Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Oh please..
You know, one thing I’ve found about this subject is its a lot like politics. The vast majority of people either believe everything the government/anti-drugs campaigners say or alternatively they believe everything the pro-marijuana groups spout instead (substitute say a right-wing think tank like Cato versus a Michael Moore documentary for the political equivalent).
Unfortunately, you sound like someone in the latter camp, i.e that all their ‘facts’ are the ‘real truth’ and that everything negative about pot is all lies and exagerations.
The real ‘real truth’ is more of a gray area. Marijuana _is_ addictive. Heck, there are even AA equivalents for Marijuana. People have real addictions with cravings/withdrawal similar to other drug additions. The people ‘treated’ for addictions are not being treated for something that doesn’t exist and to make such an assertion when you don’t know that, is at best illogical and at worse, frankly extremely bigotted.
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Other than just generally saying that I don’t listen to facts, would you care to point out a non factual statement in my reply?
Might make it easier for me to have some idea of what you are rambling on about.
The people ‘treated’ for addictions are not being treated for something that doesn’t exist and to make such an assertion when you don’t know that, is at best illogical and at worse, frankly extremely bigotted.
I’ll do one of my favorite things when you or Sarah hyperventilate about this issue, and misrepresent my statements, I’ll quote myself:
Folks who voluntarily seek treatment in all likelihood have a real problem
That’s a quote from the very message you responded to, by the way.
Lee Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
“The vast majority of folks who seek treatment for their ‘marijuana addiction’ do so because the courts have mandated that they get treated for their ‘addiction’ as part of their sentence.”
Thats what I objected to as a ‘non-fact’ and the associated implication that its a vast exaggeration of reality.
I didn’t say you didn’t listen to facts. I implied you don’t care to listen for the whole truth. There is a big difference.
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Lee,
The Fed government tracks this treatment stuff, here are some statistics from 2007 report by The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration on folks admitted for marijuana/hash addiction treatment:
- 57% are forced into treatment by the courts
- 15% admitted themselves to treatment.
- the rest are referred by community referrals, schools, health care providers, etc…
Of those 15%, I bet you a number of them were recently arrested and wanted to make themselves look good before going to court. (I’ll make that bet because I know one person who did exactly that. Cried about being out of control, he was seeking treatment, etc… He got the low end of the sentencing guidelines too. Guess it worked.)
Other drugs have a far higher self admission rate.
So, I stand behind my factual statement:
The vast majority of folks who seek treatment for their ‘marijuana addiction’ do so because the courts have mandated that they get treated for their ‘addiction’ as part of their sentence.
I just don’t think it particularly useful to look at the total number of folks admitted for marijuana addiction treatment to draw any conclusions about the real number of folks w/ a pot addiction problem.
I didn’t say you didn’t listen to facts. I implied you don’t care to listen for the whole truth. There is a big difference.
Sure I do. I didn’t form my opinion yesterday, and I didn’t form it by reading ‘The Emperor has no Clothes’.
Lee Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Um,
Firstly, the problem with your interpretation of the data is you imply that the ‘court ordered’ folks don’t really have an addiction in at least the majority of the cases by the way you quoted ‘addiction’.
Again, you have no basis to imply those folks weren’t really addicted, but its convenient for you to associate that if a court ordered the admission, its likely they weren’t really ‘addicted’.
What about people like me who were addicts but didn’t seek treatment because of the stigma (i.e ‘pot addiction – lol’) and fear of it getting recorded officially somewhere? Since you researched this so thoroughly, what proportion are these folks? Let me guess.. you have no idea..
“Sure I do. I didn’t form my opinion yesterday, and I didn’t form it by reading ‘The Emperor has no Clothes’.”
The problem is you have ‘formed your opinion’ and it’s cast in stone. It’s an atypical attitude of pot users and frankly before my personal epiphany, I was exactly the same.
When confronted with facts that pot has real dangers etc, I don’t believe you are willing to accept you could be wrong, although as is again atypical, I’m sure you believe you are being open-minded and objective right?
I do agree that you should challenge data that conflicts with your current understanding, and its just as bad as blindly dismissing something as blindly believing it too.
However, I don’t believe when you are looking at this data that you are being objective but instead it seems you are just looking for some way to dismiss it.
This is again why I drew the analogy between the right and left in politics. The right mostly dismiss arguments presented by the left and vice versa. As many people have opined in quotes on these forums, it’s very difficult to actually change someones opinion.
Um Cara Reply:
April 9th, 2009 at 7:09 am
The problem is you have ‘formed your opinion’ and it’s cast in stone. It’s an atypical attitude of pot users and frankly before my personal epiphany, I was exactly the same.
I assume you meant typical, not atypical? At any rate, I’m not a pot user.
When confronted with facts that pot has real dangers etc, I don’t believe you are willing to accept you could be wrong, although as is again atypical, I’m sure you believe you are being open-minded and objective right?
As for ‘blah blah blah pot has real dangers’, I don’t know why you refuse to accept that I have stated numerous times that it can.
It appears that you are projecting your previous willful ignorance to the dangers upon me. I’m not ‘the old Lee’, I’m Um Cara, and I continue to read relevant research on this issue, and have for the past twenty five years.
However, I don’t believe when you are looking at this data that you are being objective but instead it seems you are just looking for some way to dismiss it.
Which of course, is exactly what I would say about you. Another relevant point from the data, is that pot has a self admittance rate of 1/3 to other drugs. Clearly, there aren’t all that many folks w/ a ‘pot addiction’ problem.
Sorry you drew the short straw on that particular genetic trait. You clearly won on other issues as your obvious intelligence indicates. But please, stop projecting ‘old Lee’ onto me. I’m not you.
Lee Reply:
April 9th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
“As for ‘blah blah blah pot has real dangers’, I don’t know why you refuse to accept that I have stated numerous times that it can.”
You’re right, I’m confusing your words with Frosty’s there and I apologize. You’ve definately stated that before.
I guess my only beef is downplaying the addiction statistics/facts which in my case I fully admit is heavily influenced/biased because of my own personal experience (and also why I cannot help getting hot under the collar when the topic is raised).
“Which of course, is exactly what I would say about you. Another relevant point from the data, is that pot has a self admittance rate of 1/3 to other drugs. Clearly, there aren’t all that many folks w/ a ‘pot addiction’ problem.”
I don’t think you can draw that conclusion from the stats. For one, I’d say pot addiction is not as ’severe’ as say heroin or maybe even nicotine addiction. The other factor is I would say there are a lot more pot users who were like myself in the mainstream of society and thus would not publically ‘come out’ to get help.
“Sorry you drew the short straw on that particular genetic trait.”
Maybe its genetic, but its uncanny that my wife was also affected (to a lesser extent) and I’d never had a problem in the years previous. I personally think the THC concentration, rate of consumption, regularity and length of time it was consumed are greater factors but I cannot prove that.
Anyway, again I’m sorry to have misinterpreted your overall position. I’ll agree to disagree on the addiction issues.
trees are people too Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Alright, let’s look this over………
The first thing you must understand is that an addict IS an addict, and whether he desires to be addicted is irrelevant, the addict is a slave to his addiction, and he will use your sympathy and helpful intentions to manipulate you, and the addict becomes a master of manipulation.
“I really want to quit, I really do, and if you help me I think I can do so, just let me get one more bag”…………..
They become masters at playing on your feelings, and once again it’s the demon of addiction who is the puppeteer, and the addict dances at the end of the strings.
I was once an addict, addicted to lot’s of things…………….the details are unimportant.
What is important is this……….until the addict decides that they want to quit, and I mean you have to really want to quit, they will not be able to……..and its usually when you have hit bottom, when you no longer have anyone that will enable you.
When you realize that everything and everyone you have ever loved is gone, that is usually when they begin seeking help.
It’s a condition of the heart, and as long as the heart has the substance as its master and as long as the desire of the heart is to get high, you are enslaved to the drug.
What’s required is to be given a new heart and new desires, and that only comes from a real recognition of your situation and a real desire to be free.
Rehab centers are only successful for a small number of people, and the counseling is only a temporary distraction, once the newly cured addict returns to the “world” he is exposed to the same old sights and sounds that he remembered from before, and his mind will inevitably wander to the temptation he once treasured.
Most addicts will relapse because they feel they can dabble with or control the drug, and it isn’t very long until they’re back in their mental prison.
When my dad died of cancer last year I was his primary care giver, and he died at home, under my supervision.
I had a huge bottle of liquid morphine that he had been prescribed, and a dose of this stuff was very small, just a fourth of an eyedropper under the tongue, and in addition to that I also had two bottles of morphine sulfate tablets, blue long acting 10hr time release, and white 4hr tablets. Little bitty pills they were, and I had no desire to use, and if you had ever walked in my shoes you would know how out of character that would have been for me at one time, but my father passing away was the only thing I thought about, my life was put on hold while I cared for him.
I still to this day don’t know why hospice prescribed so much morphine, the pills were prescribed first and dad was on those, and when he got near the end they prescribed the liquid, because he really couldn’t swallow any more and wasn’t conscious. They prescribed a 375ml bottle and he only had days to live. He was in a coma for the last 48 hrs.
When dad first started taking the morphine he and I used to joke about how now he was the user, instead of me. Taking care of him while he died was the hardest thing I’ve ever had to in life, and I thank God for allowing me to be my dad’s caregiver and spiritual messenger, and if it wasn’t for God I would have never been able to get through that time. You only get one earthly dad Frost, make sure you spend as much time with him as you can.
God is real Frosty, I have experienced Him. It’s why I talk about Him; if He wasn’t real I wouldn’t bother, I wouldn’t waste my time. I was once an atheist too.
Oh and by the way, I flushed the morphine down the toilet the day dad died, but was I tempted to keep it?
You bet.
I heard a distinctive voice in my head, loud and clear, the voice of the conscience, the voice of God asking me if I wanted to die, and also asking me to choose Him and life instead………..and then the drugs went down the toilet.
I chose God.
Now concerning Marijuana, you are right in the sense that the user does not suffer from withdrawal generally, and the addiction is typically classified as a habit, although I have heard former users who have reported withdrawal symptoms and they also report that their consumption of the drug was extremely high, no pun intended.
Is it safer than other drugs?
Yes.
Will it lead to other drugs?
It did for me and others I have known, but I have also known crack dealers who did not smoke crack, and heroin dealers who did not use heroin, but they did smoke pot and drink.
These guys had the benefit of seeing people destroy their lives and were wary enough to never hit the crack pipe or snort a line of dope themselves, they were entrepreneurs and were motivated by money. In a sense you could call them successful.
When someone does smoke crack or does dope or meth or smokes dust it is usually done the first time in a social setting and recreationally with friends, and peer pressure is a funny thing, the person who is being influenced is usually oblivious to the pressure of his peers, cause no one twists your arm, you do it to be cool and you feel it was something that you wanted to do all along, but acceptance, the wanting to be accepted was really part of it too.
Sarah is right when she says that Hollywood glorifies this, it’s why so many successful actors and actresses fall victim, the music industry glorifies it as well, and this is that peer pressure concept I was just talking about.
Frostman how many musicians are into dangerous stuff??
Don’t they pride themselves on this rebelliousness??
How many died of heroin overdose??
Whether they intended to or not doesn’t change reality, and thinking if they had access to a standardized dose that OD wouldn’t happen is unrealistic, to keep getting high you have to keep increasing the dose, and you are always chasing the high.
The line between really high and really dead is very thin.
Users like to be really high………………..
The whole war on drugs thing is about government attempting to protect society from itself, if you had a severe injury where an artery was bleeding, would you apply a tourniquet or encourage the bleeding?
Would you expect the medic to force a tourniquet on you, or would you be ok with his indifference?
When you see the kids today do you want to make the world a safer or less safe place?
I actually agree with Sarah, it’s insanity to decriminalize drugs; it’s like saying that the cure for cancer is carcinogens.
craig7120 Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
wait! you were an addict Trees?
with all the sincerity I can muster How dare you PREACH!!!!!
Humility not Nobility(religious class) would make you feel better my friend.
trees are people too Reply:
April 9th, 2009 at 12:18 am
Yes, Craig
And that’s exactly why I speak of God and the changes in my life.
I was worse than just an addict but mortal fallen men will never accept that a person can truly be born again, you yourself judge me but my judge is in heaven and not of this earth.
The God I worship has the ability to change lives, and He forgives what men will not.
For a man cannot be forgiven if he doesn’t understand that he needs forgiveness, all of us fall short of God’s standard and if you ever read the bible you’ll find that God uses imperfect men to demonstrate His plan of salvation.
I am not a Christian because I’m good Craig, and if you read what I write you would understand that I speak of failure, and the restoration of fallen humanity through the power of the cross.
When you truly understand the price that was paid on the cross of Calvary you will embrace it with both arms and never let go.
And when you truly believe, your life is changed, and I get my name for the passage in Mark 8:24, now you know.
I am not ashamed of the Author of my salvation and the Lord who gave me life.
I’ve never proclaimed my own righteousness but have only declared the righteousness of God.
I am not a pastor, I’m just someone who has seen things in life that most people don’t and has lived to tell the story.
I’m sorry if I have disappointed you.
trees are people too Reply:
April 9th, 2009 at 1:17 am
You want to know what will really blow your mind Craig?
Even a murderous PLO terrorist can be forgiven and give his life to Christ.
I have the opportunity to meet one at the end of this month, and I can’t wait………
That is the power of the living God………………………………..
Read the book of Acts chapter 9 sometime.
Sincerely, your friend trees
April 8th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Frosty,
let American farmers grow the (2nd) best pot in the world, for export to other countries that will legalize it if you do.
I sincerely hope you are not insinuating that BC ‘beaster’ bud is superior to Northern Californian kind bud?
Um Cara Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Ahem. Frosty.
Yankee Doodle here.
You still have not clarified what you meant by ’second’ best.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Oh my
You’d better Kreeggle “cannibus cup winners, most in total” and get the WIKI fax, Max…
Or you could Kreeggle “white widow” or the “northern lights 5 (NL5)”
Or even ’sweet tooth’, although you might get my old funk band from halifax, lol
Although we share some mutual accolades…90% of the world’s top ’strains’ and hybrids of Indica/Sativa for indoor and outdoor, were developed in the Gulf Islands of British Columbia in the 70’s and 80’s….this is common knowledge. Even in Amsterdam, we are greeted as heros just fro having the maple leaf on our back packs!
BUT, what most people DON”T know is that these strains were deveoped -
…mostly by ex-pat American draft dodgers that had fled to the islands in the 60’s!!
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
you might have to re-spell ‘cannabis’ before you Kreegle it, lol
I hate that word anyway, ick
I’m surprised the filter aloows it…say it sslllooowwwwwllyyyy c a n n a b i s….
sbj Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
I concur about the BC bud. It’s been somewhat decriminalized in BC, so growers have had the luxury of cultivating the best. Did you know cannabis is prescribed by doctors in BC? But I understand were your coming from Um Cara, it’s that we are the best at everything, the Yanky mentality.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
“”Face it, none of us ever change our opinions on 99% of the stuff we talk about.”‘
that’s not always true…I used to think the catholics were the most annoying christians until I came here…
April 8th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
OK, the gauntlet has been thrown.
One year after we have freed the poor plant, we will hold a liberaland smokeout, everyone bringing their best native kind.
Sure, there will be lots of arguing at first, but somehow I think things will get more mellow as the evening progresses.
Alan will of course be the final judge, and we will settle once and for all the question of who has the best quality herbage.
placefield Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
More then likely we just wouldn’t care anymore.
“Dude which one did you like better?”
“I don’t know man but some Ice Cream sure sounds good.”
“Yeah man, I know what you mean. Hey, did you ever notice the patern in the ceiling tiles before”
“Naw, there cool. What are we doing anyway’s”
“I don’t know man but some Ice Cream sure sounds good.”
sbj Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
LOL, me I’m trying to teach my eyes how to re-focus on this new 20′ monitor, WOW it’s BIG!!! Time for some munchies:)
average james Reply:
April 9th, 2009 at 1:05 am
Hey Placefield,
Gen X huh, ok by me. What about X ? Descendents ? Adolescents ? Fear ? Wasted Youth ? Circle jerks ?
Are you an aging punk rocker like me ? What’s up?
placefield Reply:
April 9th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Gen X, before Billy made himself into a joke IMO. Forgot how many good punk band were out there. I like those. Could also go for some Dead Kennedys and Dead Milkmen. Don’t know if I was ever officaly a punk rocker but have always dug the music.
Sarah Reply:
April 9th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
I miss Jesus & the Mary Chain.
average james Reply:
April 9th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Yah Sarah,
The Jesus and Mary chain, pretty cool. How about;
the Church, Love and Rockets, Echo and the Bunnymen.
Cool Placefield,
before Billy Idol solo, totally.
Sarah Reply:
April 9th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I adored the Church, Siouxsie and the Banshees, and ESPECIALLY Love and Rockets. I got to see the Dead Milkmen in concert. Violent Femmes. Hoodoo Gurus.
I also liked the other alternative music, like Depeche Commode, David & David, Housemartins, New Order, and the early REM shtuff. Sugar Cubes. OMD.
Good times, good times.
Um Cara Reply:
April 9th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Saw the Dead Milkmen in concert as well, good show. Went there in my buddies Bitchin Camero with my Punk Rock Girl, as a matter ‘o fact.
trees are people too Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
You know um, this idea that pot mellows people out is false.
The pot doesn’t mellow them out it’s that mellow people like to smoke pot.
They will still be mellow stoned or not, and the crazies who like action and are risk takers will continue to do that, stoned or otherwise…………….
April 8th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Lee, with all due respect…the medical and scientific literature trumps our own ‘anectdotal’ evidence. You are throwing around the term ‘addiction’ without even an attempt at a scientific and medical definition.
Are you saying you had a physical addiction? What were some of the clinical side-effects during those various times that you “quit”? What type of medical diagnosis, and from who, did you have to convince you that you had been ‘addicted’ to marijuana, rather than just having developed a “habit”? …there is a difference.
There are MANY things that I could simply not bear to ‘quit’, that are obviously not ‘addictions’ – e.g. reading, the internet, having orgasms, TV etc etc…any of those, especially number 3, orgasms, would be almost impossible to quit, if not so…
No-one here is saying that some pot isn’t “habit-forming”…as is TV, t’internet, etc.
But there is a clinical definition of an addictive drug, and I’m afraid marijuana is not one.
Don’t take MY word for it, here’s a link to the Canadian Senate study that took many years, and was released in 2002. Keep in mind that senators are often old and curmudgeonly and they were likely disappointed, as you will be at the findings, lol
I’m sorry to see that a few free-thinking liberals on here have had experiences that lead them to conclude, perhaps, that marijuana is very “dangerous”.
I don’t mean to belittle those experiences. But, on the other hand, if you are to continually call out “BS” whenever someone tried to argue that pot is less harmful than say, tobacco, caffeine, trans-fats, etc etc, then I feel compelled to call you on it…
…as much as you believe you are right, I believe you are misinformed, even by your own unfortunate experience…
The findings, in summary:
“”Marijuana is not a gateway to the use of hard drugs. “There is no convincing evidence to establish the gateway hypothesis. Data from population surveys show that out of 100 cannabis users in adolescence, about 10 will become regular users and 5 will move to using other drugs.”
Marijuana users are unlikely to become addicted. “Research conducted internationally shows that between 8 to 10 percent of cannabis users may develop some psychological dependency, a much smaller portion than for many other drugs, illegal and legal, and comparable to some prescribed medications. … For most dependent users, stopping use for a few days is usually sufficient to eliminate any symptoms of addiction.”
Marijuana prohibition has little impact on marijuana use. “Whether countries are prohibitionist such as Canada, Sweden or the USA or more liberal as in Australia, The Netherlands or Spain, levels and patterns of use vary according to other factors and are little influenced by the policy.” For example, Americans by percentage use marijuana at rates nearly twice as high as their Dutch counterparts, the study found.
Marijuana use does not lead to the commission of crime. “Cannabis use does not increase aggressive or anti-social behavior … [or] … induce users to commit other forms of crime.”
Marijuana is a not a serious health risk. “Cannabis may have some negative effects on the health of individuals, but considering the patterns of use, these effects are relatively benign.”
search
Canadian senate study, illegal drugs…
And please read, rather than reject…for your own enlightenment. There’s a reason we are on the path to legalization, and have universal prescribed and controlled use here in Canada, even if we are the butt of jokes from the prohibitionist lobby in the US, lol!
Lee Reply:
April 9th, 2009 at 3:04 am
Frosty,
Btw, I don’t think I mentioned my specific symptoms so I’ll briefly do that (no funnily enough I didn’t see a doctor):
During Smoking:
Almost never dreamed during sleep
Chronic sweating problems (I needed to wash my hands in cold water several times a day to avoid embarrassing handshakes)
Withdrawal:
Loss of appetite, all-day Nausea, Cold sweat at night, deep craving for the drug, ‘fake’ depression identical to ‘come-down’ from amphetamines, intermittent chest/abdominal cramps.
Symptoms peaked at day 3-5 and all symptoms stopped around 16-20 days after I finally quit.
trees are people too Reply:
April 9th, 2009 at 3:46 am
I think I know why they can’t understand marijuana addiction.
They have a negative association with addiction, and they inwardly demonize those who they see as addicts, hence the term “habit”, as in “I’m not an addict, I just have a habit”.
They don’t want to see themselves as they are, and that is as addicts and hypocrites, and while not all of us are addicts, or former addicts, all of us are hypocrites.
That is the true meaning of “judge not lest you be judged”, and it sure doesn’t mean throw a keg party because God doesn’t care about what you do, contrary to some of the beliefs I’ve seen posted around here.
The key to being set free is to recognize truth.
The key to being set free is to understand who you are, not who you pretend to be, and only then can you be changed, and the key to knowing who you are is simply by accepting the truth, and that is that we are all fallen creatures and that if the world could see into our minds and see what we are thinking during the course of a single day, let alone an entire lifetime, we would be exposed and we would hide our faces in shame, instead of marching around self righteous and proud………….
We are lying, thieving, murderous, adulterers at heart, blasphemers, and despisers of God, proud, insolent, arrogant, and rebellious, lovers of darkness and practitioners of wickedness……and God judges the heart
Don’t believe me?
Look at what passes for entertainment in the movies, on t.v. and in our music, just for starters………..
Jesus said, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free”.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
I’m sorry to see that a few free-thinking liberals on here have had experiences that lead them to conclude, perhaps, that marijuana is very “dangerous”.
I don’t mean to belittle those experiences. But, on the other hand, if you are to continually call out “BS” whenever someone tried to argue that pot is less harmful than say, tobacco, caffeine, trans-fats, etc etc, then I feel compelled to call you on it…
…as much as you believe you are right, I believe you are misinformed, even by your own unfortunate experience…
The findings, in summary, of the Canadian senate study (2002), which to me, closes the door once and for all on the pot “debate” – science trumps emotion and even our own stories. There will always be a few people who choke on an olive…
“”Marijuana is not a gateway to the use of hard drugs. “There is no convincing evidence to establish the gateway hypothesis. Data from population surveys show that out of 100 cannabis users in adolescence, about 10 will become regular users and 5 will move to using other drugs.”
Marijuana users are unlikely to become addicted. “Research conducted internationally shows that between 8 to 10 percent of cannabis users may develop some psychological dependency, a much smaller portion than for many other drugs, illegal and legal, and comparable to some prescribed medications. … For most dependent users, stopping use for a few days is usually sufficient to eliminate any symptoms of addiction.”
Marijuana prohibition has little impact on marijuana use. “Whether countries are prohibitionist such as Canada, Sweden or the USA or more liberal as in Australia, The Netherlands or Spain, levels and patterns of use vary according to other factors and are little influenced by the policy.” For example, Americans by percentage use marijuana at rates nearly twice as high as their Dutch counterparts, the study found.
Marijuana use does not lead to the commission of crime. “Cannabis use does not increase aggressive or anti-social behavior … [or] … induce users to commit other forms of crime.”
Marijuana is a not a serious health risk. “Cannabis may have some negative effects on the health of individuals, but considering the patterns of use, these effects are relatively benign.”
search
Canadian senate study, illegal drugs…
And please read, rather than reject…for your own enlightenment. There’s a reason we are on the path to legalization, and have universal prescribed and controlled use here in Canada, even if we are the butt of jokes from the prohibitionist lobby in the US, lol!
trees are people too Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
You’re a funny guy………..
How many people do you really think will answer that question honestly??
They all want it legalized because they smoke it and they are aware of the politics of the situation regarding its legal status.
I have two brothers who will both readily admit to being potheads and they will both deny using other drugs, I however know them well and know that they are lying when they say this…………….
Most people will not “fess up” when questioned about their drug use.
You should name your next band “spin machine”, or “the spinners”, or perhaps “spindizzy”, maybe “the spinnakers”…………….
Lee Reply:
April 9th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Frosty,
You stated Marijuana was not addictive. It was that statement that I called BS (and is) and if _you_ bothered to do searches on that topic you’d find a plethora of facts to back it up, my own personal story excepted.
Who said it was ‘very dangerous’ or more dangerous than tobacco etc.. I didn’t. But tobacco and alcohol are interesting anyway in that if we knew all the facts about them that we do now, I have little doubt they would both be illegal now. However, criminalizing them once they are already accepted into mainstream society is not viable.
The biggest problem I have is people like you don’t want to be objective. Frankly, according to you ‘its all good’ with marijuana and there are no dangers since “Marijuana is a not a serious health risk.” is not addictive and “does not induce crime” (sic), although the latter statement is one I agree with.
The funny thing is you make a statement like
“science trumps emotion and even our own stories” but again like I replied to the previous poster, you are using some facts to bolster your position and in the process dismiss other facts which don’t support your position. What is missing from your research is the term ‘objectivity’.
On top of that, to dismiss personal accounts because the facts don’t jibe with what you thought you knew about Pot and the ’science’ behind it. Well this is poster-child behavior of someone with a totally closed mind on the subject.
There is plenty of science out there which backs up personal accounts like mine, not to mention the thousands of other accounts/stories themselves.
But apparently, according to you, we are/were wrong, it was all ‘in our head’ and wasn’t a ‘real addiction’ like a ‘real drug’ and Pot is still wonderful, has never caused COPD or Cancer of any kind.
I enjoy your posts (and Um Cara’s) and generally agree with 90% of what you write. I’m in agreement on legalization and even that its less harmful than tobacco. However I take exception to the notion that its harmless and believe this kind of thinking is very naive and dangerous in the long-term.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
April 9th, 2009 at 10:17 am
I assume Frosty has a mary jane “habit” maybe he should stop smoking for a month and see what happens. I’d be interested in his experience.
step 1 to addiction recovery is admitted that you have a problem…or admitting that your problem is actually a problem.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
At least there aren’t many prohibitionists on this blog.
So far, Sarah, Willy, and Trees have come out in favor of continuing the destructive, immoral, failed, War on Pot.
craig7120 Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Actually you can convert Willy and Trees by calling it a conservative thought. Sarah on the other hand will stick. Just my opinion.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:19 pm