As I age, I find that I’m increasingly partial to ethanol in it’s various flavours and much less of a pothead. (In my youth I probably burned more than the Steamship Atlantic, though.)
Now I find when I smoke even a small amount I become a little uncommunicative, which is no fun. Alright for watching a movie alone, but no fun for social situations. I used to scratch my head when I heard folks make the same complaint about pot.
Now I like a little wine now and again, which never used to hold any attraction for me. (I blame my last girlfriend, who used to love to get a bottle of wine and order pizza in. Weird combo, but whaddya gonna do?)
Pissed drunk people are a menace. Or obnoxious. I’ll never get the “YAAAAHOOOO!” mentality.
It’s silly to disparage alcohol altogether, though. I’m with Omar Khayam:
I think the above sentiment applies equally to all mind-altering substances. Of course, “Be not drunk with wine wherein it is in excess, but be filled with the spirit” is good advice, too. That’s right kids, the Bible says have a good time, but don’t puke on your shoes.
Dude, my buddy experimented with shrooms for the first time last week. He said he hid out in the woods for 2 hours because he thought he was being hunted. I have done my serious bing drinking in the past, and quite frankly, besides the drunk dials, the sexual passes, and the unidentified party injuries, I have never (or people I know) been so high off of alcohol that they hid in the woods.
I’d have to agree with the OP that alcohol is probably a more damaging thing than pot. Yes, I have seen people becoming psychologically dependent on pot and turning into boring vegetables unable to get off the sofa except in order to get a tub of icecream. They are far outnumbered by the people with alcohol problems. Both of those sets of people are hugely outnumbered by people who enjoy and drink and/or a spliff and suffer no long term damage.
Any substance that alters your conscious carries a certain amount of risk. Then again, getting out of bed, getting dressed and driving into work carries some risk too. It’s up to responsible adults to decide whether or not the risks outweigh the benefits. Not the government’s job nor that of other people.
Just wait, in a few years things will change. If you are a hard-core drinker for a few years, then try to quit. You will get the shakes and shivers and see spiders crawling up your chest.
Semantics? The phrases are identical. I responded to “born into a race” with “born into a race”. You might be trying to make it semantical, but it isn’t. Just admit that you missed the post I was responding to, and get on with it.
By volunteering to subject yourself to the laws that you feel are unjust. That’s what civil disobedience is. Thoreau went to prison for refusing to pay taxes because he thought the tax money was being used unjustly.
Civil disobedience, as Thoreau wrote, was not just breaking the law, but breaking it publically, taking responsibility for your actions, and possibly going to prison. Getting high in your basement is no more “civil disobedience” than screwing a 10 year old girl when you disagree with the age of consent laws. So, I was requesting that Libertarian, and everybody who operates under the delusion that supporting the illicit drug trade in hiding is somehow an act of civil disobedience, to take their stash, march to the capital steps, and light up there. They should subject themselves to the unjust laws.
There are factions within the drug legalization movement that do just that. And speaking out against the laws, writing your congressperson, and changing public perception are all valid ways to fight laws you personlly feel are unjust. But don’t try and convince everybody that you are following in Thoreau’s extraordinary footsteps until you have the courage to go to prison too. Comparisons to Rosa Parks and Thoreau, unless you have the courage of your convictions to follow in their footsteps, are arrogant, and just plain wrong.
Yes, the phrases are identical, but the sentences aren’t. In the context of your sentence, it seems like when you used the word “race” you really meant “any race other than white”.
Obviously, every single human being born is “born into a race”. Khadaji’s sentence refers to each and every one of us, saying that race (any race) should not be used as a reason to restrict rights. Yours refers to people born only of certain races, so using that phrase doesn’t make sense.
For example, I was born white. You can plug that in and his still makes sense. “If, by being born white, your rights are restricted, that is unjust.” You can plug any race into his, and it still conveys the precise meaning he intended, because when he said “race” he meant any race.
When you use the phrase, I have to assume you meant only certain races. If that isn’t what you meant, then your sentence makes even less sense. You can’t deny that I, a white person, “happened to be born into a race”, can you? I doubt you meant to imply that drug laws are most oppressive of people who are white, but since I was born into a race, and you said that drug laws are most oppressive of people born into a race, you have therefore said that I am among those of whom drug laws are most oppressive. Me and every other human being on the planet. Which renders your sentence senseless.
Well, that’s a rather melodramatic account of the event. What he did was spend one night in the local jail after he encountered his friend, Sam Staples, at the shoe repair shop. Sam also happened to be the tax collector, constable, and jailer. His aunt bailed him out the next morning. He was upset that he was freed but not because he wanted to call attention to taxes. His thwarted intention was to protest the Mexican War and highlight the cause of abolition.
Then what Thoreau should have done was go to Capitol Hill with a rifle and resist the delivery of money to the government.
I meant any race at all. It so happens that blacks are the race targeted by the 30-year drug war, but that need not necessarily be the case. It would be just as unjust if whites were targeted. And if they had less political clout than blacks, they would be. They were born into the black race, but that isn’t why they’re oppressed. They’re oppressed because they are poor, ignorant, and powerless.