+
/ Topic >  Re: Why pot? / 07 January 2004 / Newsgroups:
/ alt.politics.marijuana,talk.politics.drugs,alt.philosophy /
.
                      Why Pot? Why Not?
.
   "Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth; more
     than ruin, more even than death." -- Bertrand Russell
.
> On 14Dec03 Dan Day wrote: <snipsome> At the moment, the only
> conclusion of why someone would want to smoke pot (or really
> any other drug for that matter) is for the "fun" of it, which
> isn't a reason. Basically, I'm really curious to see if there
> is actually a reason out there for why someone would want
> to smoke pot, and a good one at that. So, my question is:
> Why smoke pot at all?
.
                     Part One - Why Pot?
.
         "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth
           shall make you free." -- John 8:32 / KJV
.
1) The desire to 'change your mind', in the sense of experiencing
altered states of consciousness, is both normal and healthy.
Using drugs is one way of doing this, but of course there are
many methods and techniques for accomplishing this goal that
don't require booze or dope (eg. meditation, art, music, etc).
Smoking pot is merely one of the easiest ways of changing your
mind. And since it is relatively mild, and relatively temporary,
and relatively safe as well, in comparison with 'hard drugs',
pot is clearly the best and most rational choice available
(hence its growing popularity).
.
 On the other hand, the abby-normal pot-haters are of the opinion
that there is only one way of perceiving reality, only one way
of "being-there"; namely, *their way*. And if anyone dares to
disagree with their arrogant, uptight, shallow, repressive, and
one-dimensional 'mode-of-being', then they fancy themselves
perfectly justified in hounding you, insulting you, and torturing
you to the max! If might makes right, then ten years for two
joints is called "justice". :(
.
 2) The experience of 'nothingness' is a pervasive one in a
childish and dissolute society such as ours, and while pot
cannot of itself cure this spiritual condition, it can at least
provide some temporary relief. This reason would then fall under
the category of the medicinal use of marijuana. But since most
doctors are shameless slaves of the established system, it is
unlikely that any of that lot would ever dare to approve pot-
use to this end. In any case, pot's pain-relief effect is not
limited to purely physical pain, but also includes pain of a
more psychological or spiritual nature.
.
 3) If it comes down to a choice between alcohol or pot, the
latter is easily the better and healthier choice. Alcohol is not
only more harmful to the body, but it is also a "downer"; ie. it
distorts our perceptions and *reduces* our minds. Marijuana, on
the other hand, enhances our enjoyment of many things (eg. music,
movies, video games, etc) and *expands* our minds.
.
 In my own case, if I have just one beer too many, I am
immediately attacked by a violent headache. No need to wait till
morning for a hangover; mine comes while the night is still
young! In any case, the responsible use (note: not abuse) of
these drugs depends on moderation. As the ancient Greeks wisely
advise us: Moderation in all things!
.
 Of course, recreational use purely for enjoyment could easily
be considered as falling under the general category of 'fun',
which Mr Day has deemed 'silly' and disallowed owing to his
apparent belief that fun is irrational, and therefore NOT a
valid reason for smoking pot. Now it seems to me that fun is not
irrational by any means, and therefore IS a perfectly legitimate
reason. Moreover, it is obvious that Mr Day's philosophical
foundations are, to say the least, somewhat less than adequate
to the variety and complexity of human realities.
.
                   Part Two - Why Not?
.
 A couple of weeks ago I rented a movie from the local video
store. When I got home and plugged the tape into the VCR, the
usual commercials and trailers preceded the feature film.
Nothing unusual there, except that one of the commercials was
about some guy who killed somebody with his car while driving
stoned. The punch-line went something like this: "Marijuana.
It's more dangerous than we all thought." Needless to say, I
was thoroughly offended and outraged by this gross and
disgusting piece of anti-pot propaganda.
.
 Blaming marijuana for the death of this accident victim is the
exact equivalent of blaming the gun when some psycho shoots
somebody. In the latter case the courts have no problem in
placing the blame squarely where it belongs: on the shooter,
NOT on the gun. In the same way, the blame in the former case
falls directly upon the irresponsible driver, NOT on the pot
he consumed.
.
 Thus the cops around these parts will arrest intoxicated drivers
whenever they catch them, and they make no distinction between
pot and alcohol. They know damn well that it is the stupidity
and irresponsibility of the driver that is the source of this
crime that endangers the public welfare. In this I am entirely
in accord with the police. Yes, even the gestapo can be right
once in a while.
.
 Yet the pot-haters would rather ignore reality and place the
blame on marijuana. 'Pot Kills!", says their Anslinger-inspired
drivel. No, Anslinger is NOT dead. Instead he moved to Canada,
and became the Right-Honorable-Mayor of Edmonton! :O
.
 But who are these rich and powerful pot-haters, and why do they
continue to pedal their pathetic paranoia? They are conservatives
and conformists (in the most vile, revolting, and despicable
sense of those terms). And obviously they are the majority. Not
the silent majority, oh no, but rather the stupid and hateful
majority. And chief among these are the Christian Churches. They
couldn't hold onto their prohibition of alcohol, poor things,
but they are more than able (thanks to Anslinger and his legion
of clones) to hold onto their cherished prohibition on marijuana.
.
    "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of
     the Lord is present, there is freedom" (2Cor.3:17).
.
 How odious this verse must be to the corrupt and spiritless
churches of the present age. Their hatred of freedom is apparent
in their anti-pot paranoia. They are consumed by fear of the
"devil's weed" because they are afraid of their own minds! They
suppose that they have a divine mandate to protect society from
the terrible evils of marijuana. And so they fervently believe
in all of Anslinger's lunatic ravings: "You smoke a joint and
you're likely to kill your brother."
.
 The commercial I saw so recently is the direct descendant of
this absurd claim. Nothing has changed. The churches today are
just like the Spanish Inquisition of olden times, who while
cutting off your nipples would piously assure you that they
were not torturing you for their own pleasure, but only for
the good of your soul. Well, I'd rather the churches would
keep their pharisee noses out of my soul, thx very much indeed!
.
 "No one is ever fanatically devoted to something they have
complete confidence in. ... Whenever someone is fanatically
devoted to a set of beliefs or dogmas or goals, it is only
because [they] are in doubt." -- Robert M. Pirsig
.
     - the fanatically anti-fanatic one - cybrwurm ;>
.
P.S. Why then should we legalize marijuana? -> Because it
would "Increase the aggregate amount of freedom, and free
police resources to deal with actual crime" (Eric Johnson).
.
P.P.S. Just say Grow!
x

+
/ Topic >  Re: Why pot? Why Not? / 14 January 2004 / NGZ:
/ alt.politics.marijuana,talk.politics.drugs,alt.philosophy /
.
> On Jan8 Scott Miller replied: The main problem with legalizing
> pot, or any other recreational illegal drug is: that once its
> legalized, if it does turn out to be a mistake, society will
> have a hell of a time making it illegal again.
.
 da wurm sayeth: There will be no need to make it illegal again,
Scott. A society of free citizens is *infinitely* better than
a society of slaves living in fear. Liberty is not a mistake.
Sanity is not a mistake. Living under paranoia created by lies
and illusions is a mistake. Wasting billions of dollars fighting
a "war" that is a lose-lose situation for everyone is a mistake.
.
> (Look at how badly prohibition worked).
.
>> Mike Helm answered: Look how badly it's "working" right now.
.
 Pot-prohibition benefits no one, other than the few big-time
dealers. The truth is that the cost of maintaining the illusion
that pot is mind-destroying, life-threatening, and will surely
destroy society if it is ever legalized, is just too damn high
to justify.
.
 Now it's true that there may be an increase in pot use (and
abuse) when legalization kicks in, but once the novelty wears
off, consumption will decrease and level off, and the number of
regular users will thereafter remain a fairly stable minority.
Society will not break down, or fall apart, and people will not
lose their will to do something constructive with their lives.
All such fears are groundless in the extreme.
.
> So if you want to make pot legal, you better be pretty damn
> sure it is not going to have a lot of social and health
> costs associated with it.
.
 Well it's funny you should mention that, because I recall that
there was a study done many years ago. They took a group of
alcoholics, and tried to cure them by giving them mescaline. It
was an inspired idea, but the results were mixed. Some of the
alkies were cured, and some made slight improvements, while
others were not affected one way or the other. These results
don't surprise me at all because there are as many causes of
alcoholism and drug addiction as there are alkies and addicts!
.
 Nevertheless, I find this experiment very encouraging in its
implications for pot-legalization. One could easily forecast
that one of the results of legalization would be a dramatic
decrease in the rate of alcoholism as people switch from booze
to pot. The net result (perhaps up to 50% less alcoholism)
would be a tremendous benefit to society in general; a boon
that is quite literally priceless.
.
 Speaking of costs ... Consider the current rise in the strength
of the Canadian dollar. Of course there are many factors behind
this, but one of these is relevant to our current concern. This
is the nasty habit of the American government to spend billions
of dollars like there's no tomorrow. Americans need their silly
diversions: the Mars programs, the war in Iraq, and the ongoing
war on drugs are just some of the more costly expenditures.
.
 But there's a catch, you see. Americans don't like to pay
taxes, and the net result of all these extravagant adventures
is a dramatic increase in the deficit. Who's going to pay for
all these meaningless diversions? Certainly not the current
generation. No, they'd much rather leave that nasty burden for
their grandchildren to bear!
.
 Elsewhere, shrewd observers are working over their calculators
and taking note of the fact that the American dollar is more
and more looking to be built upon empty promises. By contrast,
Canadians have a strong belief in fiscal responsibility and are
working hard to reduce the national deficit. And the net result
of Canadian rationality and American irresponsibility is a
stronger Canadian dollar!
.
 Perhaps it's high time that the American public wake up and
admit that the war on drugs is counter-productive, because if
they don't, then sooner or later reality will come crashing down
upon their heads, and then there will be a great deal of weeping
and wailing and gnashing of teeth! And then the whole country
will be asking: "How on earth did we get into this mess?"
.
 Well, duh!
.
> Also, the fact that alcohol is readily available does,
> I think, have something to do with it being the most
> dangerous abused drug in the world.
.
>> Mike Helm answered: I'm sure it has something to do with it,
>> but I believe there are other factors one of which is that it
>> is a very abusable, addictive and dangerous drug to begin with.
.
 Very true. On the other hand, people can become addicted to
anything really if they want it bad enough. I myself like to
make a clear distinction between the kind of physical addiction
associated with alcohol and heroin, and the more psychological
dependence associated with pot, coffee, Oprah, rap-music, the
soaps, and anything else that you could slot into this category.
It is human nature to be habitual about things. That's just the
way that human beings are built.
.
> Besides, making pot legal would take all of the fun out of
> smoking it on the sly.   -- Scott
.
 That kind of fun I can easily do without! I am more than
capable of creating my own fun; I certainly don't need the
added "thrill" that comes from doing something "dangerous
and illegal" that could call the gestapo down on my head.
.
>> Pete Zakel answered Scott: Of course, the whole idea of it
>> being fun to be in fear of going to jail for smoking a plant
>> is so ludicrous ...
.
 Absolutely right. Anyone who thinks that fear enhances fun is
in serious need of a head-shrinker. Masochism is NOT normal or
healthy. It's kinda like sticking your hand in the fire "just
for the fun of it".
.
           - the one with burnt fingers - cybrwurrm ;>
.
P.S. "What I think is not important. The important thing is to
know what is. And if I cannot tell what is, it is better for me
to be silent." -- from 'The Scandal of Truth' by Jean Danielou
x