Legalise the herb

[Drunken Monkey]

Heh, that was my point.. I'd much rather be at a hard house/trance/dnb club than any of the other regular bars in town.

Oh yeah, I see that now...

[What?]

... Not to mention 10 o'clock closing (anyone remember that??)

I remeber six o'clock closing. That was seriously ugly.
I did a few things in my younger days, but by 25 I has decided that there was so much to enjoy in life that drugs were not where it was at (sez he with a 7 oz glass of scotch beside the computer...)

[Drunken Monkey]

Forgot my other rant after getting caught up in my last post:

To all those who think a comparison of weed to alcohol is 'not on' (Jackrat, Jrandom, et al):

1. Alcohol alters your state of mind. (eg can make people overly aggressive)
2. Alcohol can kill or seriously maim you if you overdose. (eg severe alcohol poisoning)
3. Abuse of alcohol can cause permanent health damage (eg cirrhosis of the liver)
4. Alcohol can be addictive/abused like many other drugs.

As covered before, there are drugs of all classes that can be shown to be beneficial (perceived or actual). Even with the four points listed above, alcohol can still be bought by any adult without prescription or other form of metering. No other 'drug' leads to as many road deaths and wife/child beatings...

So you're going to have to come up with some seriously good points to convince me that it's a 'no comparison'. This point is only as tired as the rest of this subject is.

There are also cases in point where alcohol was in effect worse than other 'drugs':
Janis Joplin, John Bonham, Jim Morrison, Jimmy Hendrix. Examples of influential musicians who are all dead. In every case, it was the alcohol abuse which lead to their deaths.
Eric Clapton, Jimmy Page, Joe Cocker. Examples of influential musicians that were also Heroin junkies. Yeah they got sick. Yeah they spent time in a clinic. Hey, these guys are still alive.

That reminds me: Beware the Ham Sandwich! (Momma Cass).

[spudchucka]

I think you might find that many of the dead rockers you mention were in fact heavy abusers of many substances, not just alcohol and not just cannabis. Alcohol and drugs combined is worse than one or the other on their own.

[Drunken Monkey]

That's a given that some of them experimented at times, however Jim Morrison's manager on a documentary about Morrison (can't remember what it was called) stated that at that stage jim had given up on the drugs and was heavily into his burbon. John Bonham was a notorious drinker, and died by drowning in his own vomit after a particularly long drinking binge. A docco on Hendrix had a fellow muso say they only worried about Jimmy when he was on the booze, as he couldn't control himself.

Saying that they would be fine and dandy if they did drugs instead of drinking was more a tongue-in-cheek poke at the subject (hence my unscientifically small sample). I'm sure there are many examples people could pull with the opposite results...

I stand by the Ham Sandwich tho... :P

[Jackrat]

DM,
Maybe you should go back and read my post again.
I said people drink but don't get drunk.Now you show me anybody that smokes weed but don't exspect/want to get stoned.
I personaly don't draw any distinctions between a stoned loser or a drunk loser,the end result is the same.
And just in case you totaly missed my point,it was that I can't see the logic in legalising one bad for you thing just because another is already legal.
You can ramble about the evils of alcohol abuse as much as you like,it won't alter the fact that other drug abuse is also bad for you.
Like I said I don't see the logic.
It kind of sounds like Timmys mummy lets him go so I should as well.
Grow up man

[Drunken Monkey]

DM,
Maybe you should go back and read my post again.
...
And just in case you totaly missed my point,it was that I can't see the logic in legalising one bad for you thing just because another is already legal.
You can ramble about the evils of alcohol abuse as much as you like,it won't alter the fact that other drug abuse is also bad for you.

Just because you can't see the logic, doesn't mean it isn't there. I don't see why it isn't perfectly valid. I don't personally think that it's grounds alone for a law change, but in the context of all the information it's a different story.

I don't and didn't disagree that drug abuse was bad. Just because some people abuse drugs, why should others suffer. Also, to me it's not a legalising something we have been banned from perspective, but giving back a right that has been taken away.

There have been well publicised cases in the past where people have taken small amounts of marijuana purely for medicinal (pain releif) reasons. Not every weed smoker is a stoner because you can't see any other examples.

It kind of sounds like Timmys mummy lets him go so I should as well.
Grow up man

No, for fucks sake, YOU grow up. There's no need for that kind of public belittling, you self-righteous shit head. If I sit here and tell you I shagged your mum and she screamed your name when I stuck it in her ass, we wouldn't really be having an intelligent discussion now, would we?

[scumdog]

Quote:"There have been well publicised cases in the past where people have taken small amounts of marijuana purely for medicinal (pain releif) reasons. Not every weed smoker is a stoner because you can't see any other examples."

DM, that quote above is relly clutching at straws stuff, I use to use arguments like that when I was at Intermediate school too!

Mama Cass did NOT choke to death on a mythical ham sandwich, it was a heart attack brought on by obesity, you may ahve noticed she was a little plump! (I've heard about a guy who woke up in a bath full of ice and note beside him telling him one of his kidneys had been removed and to get to hospital fast, oh and I know 20 judges who had a daughter killed by a drunk driver, and yeah, if you eat one of those pub urinal deoderant things before a breath test you won't give a reading on the machine..etc)
I think they are all called urban myths

[Drunken Monkey]

Mama Cass did NOT choke to death on a mythical ham sandwich, it was a heart attack brought on by obesity,

No shit sherlock, the levity was obviously lost on you. I've taken from a line from the film 'Austin Powers', it's not some pseudo-fact I decided to make up on the spot.

Again with the child BS. Well sorry! Here, I'll reference my statement like it's a scientific journal because, heaven forbid, I might find someone who disagrees with me, and would just totally offend them for some reason. Are you trying to bait me into degenerating this into another mud slinging match c.f. Rel-Rav? Or are you just trying to insult me outright?

1. House of Lords Science & Technology Committee - Ninth Report
Cannabis: The Scientific and Medical Evidence (November 1998)

2. House of Lords Science & Technology Committee - Second Report
Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis (March 2001)

3. National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine
Marijuana and Medicine - Assessing the Science Base (1999)

And to state the obvious, for those who appear to be ignorant of legal procedure: Law is set by precedent. This is why it's an acceptable reason to compare the plausibility of legalisation of marijuana with the current legal understanding with application to alcohol. In order to set a case, one must put put forth existing points of law that can be compared to.

[toads]

the problem as I see it is all types of drugs appeal to teens, if weed is legal they will still go for whatever isn't plus weed and alcohol, we would be better off making teenagers illegal!! hehehe, there are people who genetically are prone to becoming addicted to substances and habits ie gambling, no matter what the law is this will continue, our main problem is westernised culture and thinking, tribal based societies often incorporate drug use and seemingly suffer no social dysfunction as result, ie tibetans smoking pot, peruvian indians etc, even the kava drinkers in the islands, in their own social environment it seems to be ok, in our society however we have no social taboos and no clearly defined set of rules for behaviour that is enforced by elders, so it gets out of control, lets just make idiocy illegal, problem solved

[toads]

I also want to add, I smoked pot and drank alcohol until I was pregnant with my first child, remained teetotal for 16 years until stress got too much and I tried both again!, got absolutely hammered ,mean hangover, decided it wasn't helping duh! gone back to excercising as a way of dealing with stress, like I said before, it's the way we think as a society that is the problem, whether something is legal has no bearing on it, look at alcohol, and gambling and the devastation those things cause when there are no boundaries in place. Glue sniffing/deodorant sniffing etc, what can you do to prevent that??, if we are lucky enough to have survived our teenage years, we can then get on with the business of growing up and then if we haven't destroyed our brains and we have some clues we can make informed choices, did anyone see 60 minutes the other night?, a doco about p/smoking women with kids?, one female decided to start smoking p when she was 4mths pregnant and then got addicted, please make idiocy illegal!

[James Deuce]

?, a doco about p/smoking women with kids?, one female decided to start smoking p when she was 4mths pregnant and then got addicted, please make idiocy illegal!

That's what prompted my righteous rage in my previous post. Take the kid off her. Sterilise her. Shoot her if she tries to contact the kid.

I'm sick of social workers (sorry CSL) making excuses for these types of people.

I think your comment about elders enforcing standards of acceptable behaviour is on the money. Western civilisation largely devalues the contribution the elderly have to make, especially now as we have become change oriented, and the most noble quest in society is to reach for the latest and greatest constantly. I think Grey Power would be a lot less reactionary if they felt less excluded and I think the concept of the Nuclear family has a lot to answer for. Prior to the Industrial revolution, the whole extended family did the job of raising kids and making sure everyone got by. I think if you had 20 or 30 people breathing down your neck you'd have a better chance of being a functional balanced human being, instead of having to rely on one or two parents who are often stressed beyond reason trying to do the right thing for their kids.

[toads]

I think the concept of the Nuclear family has a lot to answer for. Prior to the Industrial revolution, the whole extended family did the job of raising kids and making sure everyone got by. I think if you had 20 or 30 people breathing down your neck you'd have a better chance of being a functional balanced human being, instead of having to rely on one or two parents who are often stressed beyond reason trying to do the right thing for their kids.

I agree, but have to add that the nuclear family isn't even in vogue these days, there's more often than not a lone parent trying to do the job, the state should never be involved in social policy, they base the rules by whatever theorist is in at the time, we all know that older people know more than younger ones, most particularly in the arena of human relationships. Sadly though some of us have incredibly hopeless older relations, which is why I say that the tribal societies manage better, we are an individualistic society, which essentially means we are left to paddle our moral canoe by ourselves.

[scumdog]

Quote:"No shit sherlock, the levity was obviously lost on you. I've taken from a line from the film 'Austin Powers', it's not some pseudo-fact I decided to make up on the spot." - you mean it was a real-fact?

Do tell, just as mine was lost on you.

Using the legal status of one evil substance as justification to make another one legal is a somewhat spurious argument, where would you stop?

Status quo is the way to go, any slackening off on MODA would not improve the situation except for the dope-heads getting busted at present.

Chill out man

[Drunken Monkey]

Real-fact? No, that's what you seemed to think it was.

Your intermediate-school statement? Levity? Well I'm not going to second-guess your motives there, I'll take that on the chin. Fair cop.

Again, it is not spurious or illogical at all. Precedent is how the law works.

Evil? How can a 'thing' be evil? _People_ can be evil, and people can put things to evil use, but a fifty-bag, sitting in the bottom of a drawer, minding it's own business is neither evil nor good. Labelling things like drugs as 'evil' is the easiest way for people to absolve themselves of their responsibilities to their own health.

It's a fair observation you made about dope-heads, crims are going to be crims and will probably just move into different areas. I think the decriminalists are more worried about the anti-drug legislation being used to effect your average law abiding joe.
Take, example, if someone's flatmate starting growing small amounts of personal use weed in their home. One day, they might get busted. Just from the sheer fact you live with them and didn't report it, you could end up facing charges as well. Even a piddly little C-class drug conviction can mean bye-bye holiday Visa - if you like to travel, this can have bad implications.