Fornits
General Interest => Open Free for All => Topic started by: justonemore on April 13, 2010, 02:57:51 PM
-
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::
-
"Hallucinogens can cause paranoid and even violent reactions in people who have never used them." -- Zappa (I think)
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.modbee.com/2010/04/13/1126814/illinois-high-school-investigates.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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php)
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php)
Yup, those dudes explain it better than I can and from a much stronger position.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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:
-
dear psy. it galls me to say you're right, but right you are. And, yeah, C.S. Lewis had it right. (love that guy) But, no, my point regarding the narcos is that if they are displaced in revenue, they will do what other criminals do, and seek very violently a new kind of stasis. Arms and war come quickly to mind, but there's prostitution, kidnapping. other forms of violence. These folk are very dangerous, no redemption,fire on sight, sort of people. And, frankly i'm damned if i know why people seek power over others, i come originally from the west, where freedom is a given, and i grew up in miami, where piracy is king, and a man is what he is, so best leave him alone. It's a quandary, why people do what they do. J.O.M.
-
:cheers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#His ... in_traffic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#History_of_heroin_traffic) ::unhappy:: http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mj005.htm (http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mj005.htm) :rocker: Once you take away a trade it will be replaced like anything else, I think that kidnapping will become more popular in the U.S.. It is an unlimited resource and makes quick cash and quietly, Most people with the exception of T.V. have no idea of how wide spread and common it is when traveling abroad, But then most folks have never walked threw a town with cops armed with machine guns, and corruption just ramped http://blog.hotelclub.com/10-countries- ... napped-in/ (http://blog.hotelclub.com/10-countries-most-likely-to-get-kidnapped-in/) :jawdrop: http://americas.fiu.edu/Commentators/Ma ... ng_eng.pdf (http://americas.fiu.edu/Commentators/Martha_Pinzon/kidnapping_eng.pdf) :jawdrop: It is a trade that no one relay hears about or discuses, If they did, most wouldn't travel too far from home. I believe the drug co will jump in and taxes will be enforced and the Government will become the new [ Cartel ] so to speak. The U.S. needs income and pot is as close to alcohol as they can get , with out going over the edge. And now is the generation that smoked or at least tried it. Bootleggers never went away, they are very common in the south and east in the mountains,The ones that did stop, turned into drug dealers or went straight, or to prison. And hard drugs will always be the trade, There is a fortune to be made on paraphernalia,and accessories, and having the the country stoned always opens doors for new crime. Instead of drunks you get stoner's, the judicial door still turns, and fines will somehow be there for, being too high or giving your pot to someone without a prescription etc .There is a hell of a secondary market, How much stuff does the average person go online for or sneaks around and ask for things, when now they could buy that stuff right on Main St with out trouble or funny looks,?. The U.S. has it all figured out, think of the drinking and smoking stops the cops will make,Stoned to the Ba-Jesus and three beers ?. Not a good recipe. but will be come more common,Two cups of coffee and a joint in the morning, with the rush hour twist, Life will be better with POT :rocker: :rocker: :cheers: :cheers:
-
[
-
dear psy. it galls me to say you're right, but right you are. And, yeah, C.S. Lewis had it right. (love that guy) But, no, my point regarding the narcos is that if they are displaced in revenue, they will do what other criminals do, and seek very violently a new kind of stasis. Arms and war come quickly to mind, but there's prostitution, kidnapping. other forms of violence. These folk are very dangerous, no redemption,fire on sight, sort of people. And, frankly i'm damned if i know why people seek power over others, i come originally from the west, where freedom is a given, and i grew up in miami, where piracy is king, and a man is what he is, so best leave him alone. It's a quandary, why people do what they do. J.O.M.
Is that what happened when prohibition ended? If I'm remembering my history correctly, prohibition gave rise to Al Capone.
-
Not really reading this thread, but I'll say anyone arguing against decriminalization is a douche-bag. :on phone:
-
wow! that one got dumb in a hurry! Just for a point of reference, i knew a 'shiner' and ran for him three times. ran out of north carolina, dropped in cordele ga. he made a wonderful product, his farm was in the black because of it, and he'd put seven kids through college on the proceeds. illegal? sure, but i got no kick with the man, not now, not ever. he never mis treated anyone, and wouldn't take no kick from any one and that's why he ( and i )are still alive. Does the government have the right to tax any agricultural product? Ever? see. in case you haven't thought it through, there are only three ways of creating wealth, and they are mining, manufacturing, and agriculture.be very wary of taxes on agriculture. J.O.M
-
I just re-read my last post and ain't no denying. yup! it's a fact. i'm a redneck, cain't help it, was raised that way. but i can quote Suetonious, if that's any help.Worser than you can imagine, i'm catholic.J.O.M.
-
Does the government have the right to tax any agricultural product? Ever? see. in case you haven't thought it through, there are only three ways of creating wealth, and they are mining, manufacturing, and agriculture.be very wary of taxes on agriculture. J.O.M
The problem is the Supreme Court's idiotic rulings on the commerce clause. The commerce clause states that congress has the right to regulate commerce between the states. Now you might ask how growing a plant on your own property and consuming it there might qualify? Basically they ruled that regulating interstate commerce extended to anything that could possibly affect interstate commerce. So if you grow a plant on your property and that decreases interstate commerce, they can ban that activity.
See Gonzales v. Reich and previous precedents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v ... e_decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich#The_decision)
the court wrote:
the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity
If you follow this logic out, the federal government can basically ban whatever they want, which was not the intent. The intent was that congress was only allowed to pass laws in areas explicitly allowed. It's a gigantic catch-all loop-hole.
-
Dear psy, boy howdy, metal on metal you're right again ( this time it don't gall me so much) yes , absolutely It's a tenth amendment issue, and one we need to address. the interstate commerce ruling is one we need to reject, and gives monolithic federal power thanks for pointing that out, and i can still quote suetonius fer ya, though with a southern accent, I promise not to dress up like wolf blitzer while i do it., Kudos.( is that just sick, or what?)J.o.M ( i mean the wolf blitzer thing, not the suetonius thing.. funny story and by way of illlustration, i spent three days on a job in bainbridge ,ga., and i was shepherded by an army ranger, whose actual name was Bubba, well Bubba was a much sharper guy than you'd think also pretty damn big, pretty damn fast and effective as hell.Bubba, it seems had a thing for classical scholarship, and he quoted the romans at me until i could too. also truly great barbecue. We just didn't have that much to do, hanging around in the woods. then we went home, he to his and me to mine, and i read the romans, and cleaned my guns. j.O.M
-
the court wrote:
the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity
If you follow this logic out, the federal government can basically ban whatever they want, which was not the intent. The intent was that congress was only allowed to pass laws in areas explicitly allowed. It's a gigantic catch-all loop-hole.
Yes, isn't that silly! I thought their object was to eliminate interstate and intrastate commerce in canabis.
Be a patriotGrow Your Own!
-
dear ginger No, the interstate commerce ruling was based on wheat. a man grew wheat on his own land. it was one of those 'bellweather' rulings. and the issue at hand is not, absolutely not, about marijuana. there are many herbs, (or weeds, if you prefer) that have as far reaching consequence, such as rue, or pennyroyal, to name a couple familiar to women. The issue at hand here is what you may do on your land, who may decide,and at what point do you determine, all by yourself, and acting as a grownup,What you may grow, to whom you may sell, under what circumstance? At what point is the land, and the decisions that pertain thereto, yours? same/same for any commercial activity. It's a real, deadly, serious issue.J.O.M.
-
dear ginger No, the interstate commerce ruling was based on wheat. a man grew wheat on his own land. it was one of those 'bellweather' rulings. and the issue at hand is not, absolutely not, about marijuana. there are many herbs, (or weeds, if you prefer) that have as far reaching consequence, such as rue, or pennyroyal, to name a couple familiar to women. The issue at hand here is what you may do on your land, who may decide,and at what point do you determine, all by yourself, and acting as a grownup,What you may grow, to whom you may sell, under what circumstance? At what point is the land, and the decisions that pertain thereto, yours? same/same for any commercial activity. It's a real, deadly, serious issue.J.O.M.
Wha... What are you trying to say? I'll grow w/e i want on my property.. ?
-
C'mon Froderick, think this one through.. property rights are a profound issue, and at the very heart of liberty. I think that they devolve properly to communities, and states, and only where they involve conflicts between states, to "los federales" ie: suppose we're neighbors, that i run a day care on my property on my property, and you wanna start a munitions factory.. How is that to be decided? At issue here is how questions such as that are decided amongst neighbors, with the imperative being the maintenance of peace and public order. Ideas, anyone? J.O.M
-
C'mon Froderick, think this one through.. property rights are a profound issue, and at the very heart of liberty. I think that they devolve properly to communities, and states, and only where they involve conflicts between states, to "los federales" ie: suppose we're neighbors, that i run a day care on my property on my property, and you wanna start a munitions factory.. How is that to be decided? At issue here is how questions such as that are decided amongst neighbors, with the imperative being the maintenance of peace and public order. Ideas, anyone? J.O.M
Ok, I get what you were saying now.. took me a minute.
-
Ok, JOM, then by what authority does the Federal government pass and enforce drug control laws?
-
Antigen, that's a fair and very dificult question. I maintain that there is no authority, not federally. HOWEVER, (wow, that's a big however) things such as drug use, public drunkenness ( public drunkeness is only ever a vice of the poor, the rich have clubs for that sort of thing) Are against the public order. Prostitution as well. Loan-sharking, other crimes. We, that is you and I, if we are to form society, must agree on a set of rules..... and if we are not to become ossified in that society, if we are to be free men and women (that's a nod to you) then we must have social mechanisms which tolerate and encourage the selective breaking of those rules. Hence, religion, yeah, that old time religion which has redemption and forgiveness at it's core. ( i do not count either Communism or Islam as valid religions, for neither has at it's core forgiveness, and both contain war as an essential element. No war, no islam, no communism.) Just a bunch of unruly Sikhs and buddhists and christians and jews and some jains, and first americans ( were they really first? or maybe that's bragging) all of these folk, Hindus and swedes and poles and irish, trading amongst each other and trying hard every day to outwit each other in business, or to see who can have the greenest lawn, or whose car can go faster. Wow, got off on a tangent there,did'nt I.
If the question is strictly limited to drugs,Then here we must be careful. Yes, in my opinion you have the right to use whatever drug you choose, red-rice yeast or nettle or marijuana or whiskey. ( I like whiskey) However, we are fools to believe that drugs can not and are not being used as anti-population weapons. They are.
One of the major problems in america is that we do not think long-term. History to americans is what we had for lunch. Communists think in decades. Other societies have had "drug problems" and they adapted socially. We have yet to. The answer lies, to me, not in public law, which should be very limited, but in private moral law, and that requires a deeper and more far reaching revolution than most are comfortable with. This may be a convoluted argument,so, apologies a'priori. J.O.M And yes, my sense of humour is about that of a ten-year old. ::unhappy::
-
The funny thing about the Drug War/decriminalization argument is that Big Pharm legally pushes prescription abuse and our society is over diagnosed and over medicated to exponential degree. We don't fix our problems, we create them and medicate them. If illegal drugs go legit the irony of irony is that Big Pharm and the Government will take over and be the Big Pushers of all time. They won't need guns or cadres, just slick ads, re-packaging and branding, and bogus research.
I'm not anti-decriminalization. But it will create a Narcodemocracy (not sure about the democracy part.) Big Pharm will simply expand their territory, as capitalists are wont to do. Feds will reverse roles. People will buy into it because the masses are lazy and stupid. Common sense is nosediving to hell in this overmediated spoon-fed society and I just wonder if drug use will become more widespread with decriminalization. Glossy ads, glossy eyes.
-
samara, Maybe you are right, but i don't think so.Yeah, big pharma is an awful thing,so why do you suppose that health-food and chiropractic and accupuncture have grown exponentially.It's largely a matter of faith.
As a matter of faith I believe that most people are smarter than i think. (except sticky stack) I you leave them be, they will generally come to right conclusion, do right thing. there is always the problem of human evil, but for the most part that's aberration. I believe that people will do right, and do right by one another most often, when they are free. And when they don't. kill 'em J.O.M.
-
"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.
:shamrock: :shamrock:
When Deep Purple produced the Album "Made in Japan" the song "Smoke On The Water" was about Frank Zappa and his band being in the same building with the Deep when the place burnt up. Some folks were saying they were all tripping looking at the studio watching the smoke on the water. I read this in the Rolling Stone years back. Cheech and Chong were also there I heard.
Timothy Leary and Ken Keasy are pretty much known as the "fathers" of LSD.
Another thing when I was in California in 1979 I was hanging with some knarly dudes who had this "red hair" weed the buds would stick to your hands, well we had about 4 buds and this vial with a substance they called "honey oil" the oil extract from the "red hair" plant. We took a part of the bud put it in a paper then heated up the oil in the vial and poured a small amount across the weed horizontally. Well this bone would not stay lite because the oil would actually keep putting it out, so we cut that sucker up and put small pieces into a bong and smoked, well if that wasn't 60 -70 times greater......lol. I know we added to the percentage.
I will say this the red hair and purple hair/blueberry hair out in California is some of the strongest shit I've ever smoked it is 60-70 % stronger then that crap we smoked in the early 70's in the NorthEast.
Danny