here's the thing

[justonemore]

This forum is/was supposed to be about the phenomena of mind control schools/units/ enclaves, what have you. There are many and many who have been irrevocably damaged by same, and the philosophy that drives them.
the problem is and was the desire for power over another, a kind of sado-masochistic sense of righteous-ness. this mind-set pervades, and seems to be becoming more prevalent. ie; Anne Bonney writes that , or indicates that, she drinks. another responds that 'normal people ' don't drink. Is this true? since fermentation of beverage and distillation of alcohol are among the oldest of human technologies, and the consumption of alcohols is widely present among animals, i question the writer who asserts that consumption of alcohol is 'not normal'. salud to anne bonney for pointing out the obvious, re: Would the budweiser fortune have been made in an 'abnormal' world? ( I'll say nothin' here about Inbev, Foster's, Guiness, Kingfisher, Stella artois  , etc., and I'll say nothin on account I'm a redneck, no-account, don't know nothin, no-how.)
I will not argue here whether drugs are per se harmful, for I simply do not know. I've met and know people who are former meth-adddicts, and crack addicts and rope-smokers, and heroin addicts, and my god, i run with a rough crowd. Truth is, i have a hard time separating their moral deficiencies from the rest of humanity. All told, they seem no different.
I worked with a warrant-officer, long time gone, and he told me that the marijuana of today is 60 to 70 times more potent than the stuff we smoked as kids. well, that's a different animal than the benign 'peace-and love' stuff of our world.
One thing i will argue here is this. Liberal puritanism is destructive of human life.
What happened after the passage of the 'Mann act" well, the dope-trade flourished, and certain populations were further dis-enfranchised. and, and. Gang-crime began to organize, and they had the funds to do so. they became nations without states.
Truth is, and i gotta keep it simple for the babitz and bennisons and sticky-stacks of this world, we are in a hell of a mess.
And, mostly it's because of the re-action of other people, the belief that I am my brother's jailer. (keeper means jailer in aramiac)
Yet another biblical mis-translation, yet another fallacy which leads to tragedy. J.O.M. ::unhappy::

[Antigen]

"Hallucinogens can cause paranoid and even violent reactions in people who have never used them." -- Zappa (I think)

[John Whooter Reuben]

"Hallucinogens can cause paranoid and even violent reactions in people who have never used them." -- Zappa (I think)

My guess (without looking it up) is Timothy Leary, but I might be wrong.  FZ didn't care much fer the psychoactive goodness.

[justonemore]

yah? ever read timothy leary? his work is weirdly reminescent of the Bardo Thodol, which is weirdly reminescent of the egyptian book of the dead. jes sayin
j.o.m.
not, of course, that i endorse leary. his scholarship and idealogy is crap, but that was at least interesting work.

[mark babitz]

This forum is/was supposed to be about the phenomena of mind control schools/units/ enclaves, what have you. There are many and many who have been irrevocably damaged by same, and the philosophy that drives them.
the problem is and was the desire for power over another, a kind of sado-masochistic sense of righteous-ness. this mind-set pervades, and seems to be becoming more prevalent. ie; Anne Bonney writes that , or indicates that, she drinks. another responds that 'normal people ' don't drink. Is this true? since fermentation of beverage and distillation of alcohol are among the oldest of human technologies, and the consumption of alcohols is widely present among animals, i question the writer who asserts that consumption of alcohol is 'not normal'. salud to anne bonney for pointing out the obvious, re: Would the budweiser fortune have been made in an 'abnormal' world? ( I'll say nothin' here about Inbev, Foster's, Guiness, Kingfisher, Stella artois  , etc., and I'll say nothin on account I'm a redneck, no-account, don't know nothin, no-how.)
I will not argue here whether drugs are per se harmful, for I simply do not know. I've met and know people who are former meth-adddicts, and crack addicts and rope-smokers, and heroin addicts, and my god, i run with a rough crowd. Truth is, i have a hard time separating their moral deficiencies from the rest of humanity. All told, they seem no different.
I worked with a warrant-officer, long time gone, and he told me that the marijuana of today is 60 to 70 times more potent than the stuff we smoked as kids. well, that's a different animal than the benign 'peace-and love' stuff of our world.
One thing i will argue here is this. Liberal puritanism is destructive of human life.
What happened after the passage of the 'Mann act" well, the dope-trade flourished, and certain populations were further dis-enfranchised. and, and. Gang-crime began to organize, and they had the funds to do so. they became nations without states.
Truth is, and i gotta keep it simple for the babitz and bennisons and sticky-stacks of this world, we are in a hell of a mess.
And, mostly it's because of the re-action of other people, the belief that I am my brother's jailer. (keeper means jailer in aramiac)
Yet another biblical mis-translation, yet another fallacy which leads to tragedy. J.O.M. ::unhappy::

    :jawdrop:  :jawdrop:  Do you have a point to make, , reading your post it doesn't  have any coherent meaning, If you ran with such a rough crowd you would talk the way you do. You would have much more back- ground in life and people, and the things they do for no real good reason. Let me guess you want to be a gang banger or a biker,is that right??. And do you even know what the true drive is to be in those groups and what they replace in { NORMAL LIFE },  :beat:  :beat: Why would you openly claim to run with a dysfunctional group and turn around and speak of functional decorum.?  you sound like an oxymoron . You dont need to bash Danny and Me for your own short comings, I wont fight and argue with you or call you names, I dont see the fun in that for me, I  dont  find you worthy or capable, with all due respect . I know that I make myself look childish and small in mind to tease or bully the less able. I think if you stay on the question side for a while the answers will come. But to jump out and attack people who have not attacked you, at least I know I haven't, just shows the lack of information you have. I truly know internet  rules and decorum, So to bait me is again lack of knowledge, If you get the national news in the town you live in,  right now, Face Book in Evanston Illinois  is under fire for someone crating a page on Cyber Bulling  :beat: http://www.modbee.com/2010/04/13/112681 ... gates.html . That was a reminder to me how many people out on the web just fish to trap someone in their  words.So I take new heed to that, and will be so careful not openly , say or post anything I can not prove or at least have strong evidence of before I spout off. Take that free advice it will start the answer processes, :cheers:  :cheers:  :cheers:  :cheers:

[justonemore]

nice of you to quote me, but you're still a dull boy, mark. "coherent meaning" and your mis-use of oxymoron are clues.Me thinks there's just no communicating with you, while folks like yourself like to shout from the rooftops. BTW, WERE YOU THREATENING ME? odd, ain't it, how those fellows who claim to be "real men" engage in so much bullying, and never fail to question another man.
Oddly , mark, in my life i've found that the rougher the crowd, the more inclined to be thoughtful they are. It seems that when you've come to terms with your own mortality, you can then afford to be a gentleman.I'll be kind here. I suppose you just don't know that much. J.O.M.

[Anne Bonney]

This forum is/was supposed to be about the phenomena of mind control schools/units/ enclaves, what have you. There are many and many who have been irrevocably damaged by same, and the philosophy that drives them.
the problem is and was the desire for power over another, a kind of sado-masochistic sense of righteous-ness. this mind-set pervades, and seems to be becoming more prevalent. ie; Anne Bonney writes that , or indicates that, she drinks. another responds that 'normal people ' don't drink. Is this true? since fermentation of beverage and distillation of alcohol are among the oldest of human technologies, and the consumption of alcohols is widely present among animals, i question the writer who asserts that consumption of alcohol is 'not normal'. salud to anne bonney for pointing out the obvious, re: Would the budweiser fortune have been made in an 'abnormal' world? ( I'll say nothin' here about Inbev, Foster's, Guiness, Kingfisher, Stella artois  , etc., and I'll say nothin on account I'm a redneck, no-account, don't know nothin, no-how.)

That's usually because they're still stuck in that mentality.  Anyone who uses any kind of recreational substance is summarily dismissed (AA influence).  Alcohol and drugs have been around since the beginning of time and they will always be.  Marijuana was and is a fantastic natural medicine, but for the washed it's a frightening concept.  It threatens all that they believe in and all that they've built their world upon.

I will not argue here whether drugs are per se harmful, for I simply do not know. I've met and know people who are former meth-adddicts, and crack addicts and rope-smokers, and heroin addicts, and my god, i run with a rough crowd.

Oh there's no doubt that drugs can be harmful if abused or used improperly but it doesn't negate their value as medicines.  Well, maybe except Meth...don't know, never done it but from everything I've read or heard, it's horrendous.  But even heroin (or opiate derivatives) has its place in medicine.  As does cocaine.  Zappa explained this perfectly....

A drug is neither moral nor immoral -- it's a chemical compound. The compound itself is not a menace to society until a human being treats it as if consumption bestowed a temporary license to act like an asshole. ~ Frank Zappa

I worked with a warrant-officer, long time gone, and he told me that the marijuana of today is 60 to 70 times more potent than the stuff we smoked as kids.

That may be true, but it doesn't make it harmful.  It just means you have to use less to achieve the same effect.  :seg:

well, that's a different animal than the benign 'peace-and love' stuff of our world.

Nah, not really.  See above.

[justonemore]

thanks anne, however... you didn't comment on "liberal puritanism" and i'd probably appreciate it if you did. regardless, i like your writing. Meth is indeed horrendous. (historical aside.. Hitler was injected 5 times daily with low dose meth. His doctors thought it would help him to become the super-soldier he dreamed of becoming.. it could explain a lot of his behaviour.) no, i maintain that a marijuana 60 times more potent than naturally occurring is a 'different animal'.
Just as low dose caffeine in coffee or tea is good for you, and high-dose caffeine is potentially hallucinogenic, and potentially lethal. In my experience, cocaine is fine , if chewed in leaf form, especially at altitude, yet when refined, it'll quickly produce psychosis. you should see the "yeyo" people, they are scary as hell. Many days past, I dealt with quite a few of them, under auspice of law enforcement (although I wasn't then a leo) and i can tell you it is a horror. There is a retired D.E.A. that i worked with, that shares my view, and a depressing view it is, that we should legalize all drugs.. and prepare for a two year bloodbath. Not a very 'nurturing' point of view, i'm sure, but i'm not a very nurturing kind of guy. J.O.M.

[Anne Bonney]

thanks anne, however... you didn't comment on "liberal puritanism" and i'd probably appreciate it if you did.

I guess I'm not really sure what you mean by "liberal puritanism".

 no, i maintain that a marijuana 60 times more potent than naturally occurring is a 'different animal'.

Well, I used marijuana back in the day and now.  I'm not finding it to be all that much different, 'cept I'm using less.  Maybe I'm just not getting ahold of the right stuff. ;-)  But seriously, I'd need to see some citations for the "60 times more potent" claim.

Just as low dose caffeine in coffee or tea is good for you, and high-dose caffeine is potentially hallucinogenic, and potentially lethal. In my experience, cocaine is fine , if chewed in leaf form, especially at altitude, yet when refined, it'll quickly produce psychosis. you should see the "yeyo" people, they are scary as hell. Many days past, I dealt with quite a few of them, under auspice of law enforcement (although I wasn't then a leo) and i can tell you it is a horror.

You're a LEO now?    :eek:   I'm not gonna have someone knocking down my door for lighting up anytime soon, right?   :seg2:

There is a retired D.E.A. that i worked with, that shares my view, and a depressing view it is, that we should legalize all drugs.. and prepare for a two year bloodbath. Not a very 'nurturing' point of view, i'm sure, but i'm not a very nurturing kind of guy. J.O.M.

I'm not sure it would be that much of a bloodbath.  Think about it.  Do you really know anyone who would run out and start using heroin just because it became legal?  I believe (and I'll have to dig around to find the stats) that when other countries have decriminalized or legalized drugs that they've actually seen a drop in use.

But yeah, there's quite a few LEOs that hold that point of view.  http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

[iJust]

i maintain that a marijuana 60 times more potent than naturally occurring is a 'different animal'.

I'm not so sure it's true.  Back in the 60s as it is now there was mexican dirt weed, various midgrades, high grades, and "brand name" strains such as the "Purple Haze" Hendrix sang about.  Each of varieties, and each higher grade strain have different potency and ratios of THC and CBD.  It's always been that way.  You should really look into how they've come up with the "X times more potent" rhetoric and why it doesn't really stand up under factual scrutiny.  One tip: weed loses potency over time. Are you aware they actually used weed stored in evidence lockers for 40 years to come up with some of those results (compared against fresh grown modern, of an unknown strain)?

I do agree with you, however, that all drugs should be legalized.  I'm not so sure it would result in a blood bath either.  Prohibition causes organized crime.  It was true in the days of Capone and it's true today.  I can't see a repeal of prohibition making it worse.

[Antigen]

Well, I used marijuana back in the day and now.  I'm not finding it to be all that much different, 'cept I'm using less.  Maybe I'm just not getting ahold of the right stuff. ;-)  But seriously, I'd need to see some citations for the "60 times more potent" claim.

I doubt seriously that those media sound bites are really honest. I can imagine that the finest Blueberry could be 60 - 70 x the potency of the poorest ditch weed. Some years back an avid Mapinc.org news hawk raked together a collection of drug warrior MJ potency claims made over the years. He and found that the bowl he was smoking right then, according to the authorities, contained an amazing 150% THC!  :roflmao:

I'm not sure it would be that much of a bloodbath.  Think about it.  Do you really know anyone who would run out and start using heroin just because it became legal?  I believe (and I'll have to dig around to find the stats) that when other countries have decriminalized or legalized drugs that they've actually seen a drop in use.

Yeah, what is the logical connection between legal drugs and violence? Nearly all the violence has to do with the black market trade involved. What always causes a blood bath is successful prosecution of a dominant dealer. Take the market leader out of the game and his competition is left to fight it out for his territory. They can't call in their lawyers to work out the details.

But yeah, there's quite a few LEOs that hold that point of view.  http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

Yup, those dudes explain it better than I can and from a much stronger position.

[Anne Bonney]

I doubt seriously that those media sound bites are really honest. I can imagine that the finest Blueberry could be 60 - 70 x the potency of the poorest ditch weed. Some years back an avid Mapinc.org news hawk raked together a collection of drug warrior MJ potency claims made over the years. He and found that the bowl he was smoking right then, according to the authorities, contained an amazing 150% THC!  :roflmao:

 :rofl:  :rofl:

Wouldn't it be nice?

[justonemore]

Dear anne,
No, not now not ever, not by me. there is a second amendment for a reason, my dear. keep the amendment close to heart, and your guns closer.
Re: liberal puritanism.. what I mean by that is the proclivity of some folk to know better than you how you should live, whether that's owning guns, or eating cheeseburgers, or 130 volt bulbs in your house or burning gasoline or what have you. it seems to stem from the puritan influence in this country, though i guess it's just more of the same old evil we've always been faced with. Personally, I believe that you are the world's leading expert on you, and thus, the authority on how you should live. In my view, god is your judge, I ain't. Furthermore I STILL LIKE YOUR WRITING AND YOUR ARGUMENT. so there! take that!
To dust; no, I don't have any clinical evidence of the 60 to 70 times argument, I may well be wrong, and I'm all too familiar with tainted evidence, so, though i hold , i wouldn't bet on my opinion.
As to the pending bloodbath.. well Ah jes doan kno. Yes, your argument has merit, and yet..the narcos are far more powerful and dangerous than most people know. Think of them as a race of psychotic kings, who sit atop, who will kill you or me , only on the suspicion, very like caligula. What then do we do? how then shall we live? in odd ways they govern everything, influence everything, and their influence is intolerable. It's not up to me to decide whether you should smoke or not, and it never will be. And it will never be in the proper purvue of government to decide that either.
If we legalize, those psychotic kings will want their funds, and that's when hell is loosed.I see no alternative, except ongoing liberal puritanism, or shari'a and those are worse hells.J.O.M.

[psy]

Dear anne,
No, not now not ever, not by me. there is a second amendment for a reason, my dear. keep the amendment close to heart, and your guns closer.
Re: liberal puritanism.. what I mean by that is the proclivity of some folk to know better than you how you should live, whether that's owning guns, or eating cheeseburgers, or 130 volt bulbs in your house or burning gasoline or what have you. it seems to stem from the puritan influence in this country

Read:

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better’, is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image.

good essay.  full version here: http://www.angelfire.com/pro/lewiscs/humanitarian.html

I disagree it stems from puritanical influence, though.  It stems from those in power who simply think they know better and are willing to take liberty away from others for their "own good".  It's an old idea but I agree in this society those sorts of ideas do often come from the left or the neo-right who are conservative in name only.  I think deep down people philosophically either favor the greater good of society or individual liberty.  I don't think the two are mutually exclusive (i think the market, literal or metaphorical of ideas, generally sorts things out) but once people get power they often seem to think they need to do something.  They don't trust in the people enough to sort things out for themselves and make their own competent decisions.  It stems from arrogance in a sense, I think.

though i guess it's just more of the same old evil we've always been faced with. Personally, I believe that you are the world's leading expert on you, and thus, the authority on how you should live. In my view, god is your judge, I ain't. Furthermore I STILL LIKE YOUR WRITING AND YOUR ARGUMENT. so there! take that!
To dust; no, I don't have any clinical evidence of the 60 to 70 times argument, I may well be wrong, and I'm all too familiar with tainted evidence, so, though i hold , i wouldn't bet on my opinion.
As to the pending bloodbath.. well Ah jes doan kno. Yes, your argument has merit, and yet..the narcos are far more powerful and dangerous than most people know. Think of them as a race of psychotic kings, who sit atop, who will kill you or me , only on the suspicion, very like caligula. What then do we do? how then shall we live? in odd ways they govern everything, influence everything, and their influence is intolerable. It's not up to me to decide whether you should smoke or not, and it never will be. And it will never be in the proper purvue of government to decide that either.
If we legalize, those psychotic kings will want their funds, and that's when hell is loosed.I see no alternative, except ongoing liberal puritanism, or shari'a and those are worse hells.J.O.M.

So you're suggesting that if drugs are legalized the existing kingpins will strike out violently at the legal competition?  I admit that's a small possibility but I would think it more likely they would simply choose to take their businesses legit.

[Eliscu2]

I doubt seriously that those media sound bites are really honest. I can imagine that the finest Blueberry could be 60 - 70 x the potency of the poorest ditch weed. Some years back an avid Mapinc.org news hawk raked together a collection of drug warrior MJ potency claims made over the years. He and found that the bowl he was smoking right then, according to the authorities, contained an amazing 150% THC!  :roflmao:

 :rofl:  :rofl:

Wouldn't it be nice?

O.K. if anybody finds this stuff I volunteer to do the Clinical Trial for Medicinal purposes.
 :tup: