So answer your own question, already!

Well, have a good cry and things’ll look better in the morning.

Thanks for helping me out with the obvious there. I appreciate it. I probably would have missed all that entirely.

Sorry to disappoint you but I don’t think the people here will ever be a big enough part of my life to warrant any crying. Cecil might want to shake his head and cry, though.

wolfman97 writes:

> Thanks for helping me out with the obvious there. I appreciate it. I probably
> would have missed all that entirely.

So if what I wrote was obvious to you, why did you post the OP at all? What you’re saying is “Come on, Cecil, you are obligated to answer the rhetorical question in your column. Even though it’s going to take a lot of your valuable time, even though you’re going to get hassled no matter what you answer, you are obligated to answer it.” This is like picking a fight with a bully and then grabbing the friend beside you and saying, “My friend here is obligated to defend me, so hit him and not me.” If you have anything to say about this question, go ahead and post it, but don’t think that Cecil is obligated to post anything about this question.

Have you noticed that he is a guest here. He probably saw this as a more interactive form of writing a letter to the editor. Give him a little time to get used to the way things work.

Also, while it might be obvious once it is pointed out, some people, (Myself included) have problems seeing the obvious, till it is pointed out to them.

That question has been answered, and answered again – with no less than five separate reasons at

Please read both threads and try to catch up with the whole story if you are really that interested. OK? There will be a quiz if you post like this anymore.

You are a good person, Scott.

Actually, I was beginning to wonder if wolfy was possessed by the spirit of IAMBIC. Trade weather for marijauna and the style is indistinguishable.

That said, we’ll just have to see how quickly he can learn the ropes.

I’ve read the thread. That still doesn’t answer my question. If you want Cecil to answer a question, write him a polite E-mail asking him to answer it. Starting a thread in which you try to badger Cecil into answering it doesn’t work.

Huh? It may be true (I haven’t the inclination to confirm) that early colonists (I assume you here mean early European colonists of what is now called America) were required by law to grow plants of the species Cannabis sativa. It’s certainly true that many of them did grow it. But that’s a plant species which happens to have a number of completely unrelated uses. Those who did grow it did so primarily for its use as a fiber plant, in ropes, fabric, and the like. While the drug comes from the same species of plant as does the rope, it’s generally from a vastly different cultivar of the species (as different as, say, cabbage and broccoli), and in any event, it’s used in a vastly different way as a drug than as a fiber. So the fact that early Americans grew it says nothing about our history with the drug.

Secondly, you are aware, are you not, that humans have been familiar with alcohol since long before the time of the American colonies? Or for that matter, long before there were any humans on the American continents at all. I would highly doubt that we’ve been in contact with marijuana for longer than with alcohol, since marijuana comes from a very specific plant native only to specific parts of the world, but alcohol can be made from pretty much anything organic. There might be some pharmacological plants native to Africa which our ancestors might conceivably have encountered before they encountered alcohol, but I can’t see any reason to suppose that cannabis would be one of them… It’s not native to Africa, is it?

Thanks for the news. It seemed like as good a method as any and, assuming some good lively responses, it might even pick up some other people who thought it was a good suggestion.

And where did you get the idea that anyone could “badger” Cecil through this or any other forum?

That sounds like an attempt to project your own mistake onto someone else. Wendell didn’t say he believed Cecil could be badgered, only that your attempt to do so wouldn’t work.

Anyway, if you’re now admitting that it wouldn’t work, are you going to keep trying anyway?

Because, your style of writing resembles badgering. Also, because he really reads these forums, once in a blue moon. However, trying to get him to answer a question NOW is not reasonable. Not in the least. As Wendell Wagner has said, what you need to do is too write a VERY well written e-mail politely asking him to follow up on the article. Mail the letter, and then forget it. Two years or so down the line, be pleasantly surprised when you find a column answering your question.

It was included in at least 250 common medicines at the time it was outlawed. The only thing people were confused about was the new name and the outrageous claims.

There are recorded cases of cave dwellers being found buried with marijuana tops around them that predate even the first mentions of alcohol. It has been a part of most cultures far too long for there to be any serious argument about alcohol being more “accepted”.

It simply wasn’t an issue until the influx of Mexicans across the border who typically used marijuana rather than alcohol. The laws were not really directed at the drug, anyway. They were directed at the people and sometimes explicitly said so. Some laws explicitly made these drugs illegal for racial minorities but not for whites.

OK, I will put that on the stack of other suggestions.

As for my writing style, I think someone else started the whole thing. PriceGuy hit me first.

It doesn’t matter who started it, break it up!

P.S. You are starting to make arguments similar to those in the GD thread. Notice the name of this forum, “Comments on Cecil’s Columns”. That is, “Comments”, not “Imported from another thread discussions”. If you wanted to request a retake on a subject, at the best, email. At the worst, post a brief suggestion here, then post no more.

I tried. A number of people apparently got confused.

By Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation is that you’re confused, not us, seeing as we’ve been on this board longer and had more time to observe and participate in the subtle interplay and conventions of posting.

Of course, if it turns out that we are indeed the confused ones, doesn’t this suggest you’ve done a less-than-adequate job in explaining your position?

Yeah, you might think that until you read all the various and conflicting advice about where the thread show go. Obviously, you guys don’t have it together on that, even. Then you look at some of the responses and . . . . well . . .

My aim was to encourage Cecil to give an opinon. I never intended to explain my position here in the first place. Then you guys came along . . . .

Well, you’re misinterpreting. As far as I can tell, there have been two major suggestions as to where such a discussion could go:
[ul][li]General Questions: If you want a discussion on the history of drug regulations in America. This invites factual responses of what law what passed when and by whom.[/li][li]Great Debates: If you want a discussion on the validity, morality, or effectiveness of such laws, and if the laws were passed for invalid political reasons.[/ul][/li]
This doesn’t strike me as particularly confusing. Choose A for the who, what and when; choose B for the why. As it happens, though, threads that start out on A (or B) sometimes drift into B (or A) territory, and get moved as a result.

Well, good luck with that, but the advice about writing direct (and polite) e-mails is sound. Take it; don’t take it. That’s up to you.

That became increasingly obvious with each of your posts. Actually, I think we were more than generous in repeatedly inviting you to explain yourself.