I would absolutely toke were it legal. I’d probably do it about as often as I drink heavily, which is about once every four months. I don’t understand why that matters.
Cheese Log, Cheese Log, cylindrical and yellow!
Cut the Cheese Log and I’m a happy fellow!
Looks like I was mistaken. I figured that what with the relative ease of obtaining marijuana, that pretty much everyone who wanted to smoke it was doing so. I guess there’s a few people that still have respect for our drug laws. I just have one question for them:
What’s wrong with you people?
“CIA Unveils New Ghetto Drugs for '98”
– The Onion
OTTO: I said that the CONSPIRACY had mainly been debunked by Cecil. No-one doubts that Hearst would do anything to sell a newspaper, or that Anslinger was a Neo-puritan idiot who would have been happy helping Torquemada.
It’s just that there was no huge antipot conspiracy. No one really cared that much, as posters above have pointed out. The Neo-puritians would have happily banned Tobacco & booze, too, but these had too much of a lobby. Not too many grew or use hemp, so they had no big lobby to fight for them.
It’s sad, that the REAL reason Hemp was outlawed, was not that there was a huge anti-hemp conspiracy, but that not enough really cared. “Not with a Bang, but with a whimper…” But that doesn’t make for a good story, big conspiracies do.
As for the raising of the hands dtilque, I bet there would be TONS of people out there who don’t try it because they have only heard about the negative effects. Once it came out that it is relatively safe and then legalized, they would be curious. As proof for my theory: I was at a fancy dinner with the owners and chiefs of my company (medium international investment company). After eating dinner we were drinking scotch and talking, and the topic of pot came up (because it was just recently made illegal here in the CZ where they were visiting)(a new bill to repeal that law is being introduced this month btw). Once the chief economist said he smoked it in college, everyone relaxed and started talking about doing it or wanting to. Now these are c. 40 to 55 year-old multi multi-naires in charge of billions of dollars, ok? And they and their spouses were all open to the idea of smoking pot (at least once, maybe occasionally if they liked it). The only awkward point came when they asked me (the most junior at the table) about it…So anyway, I got this feeling after awhile that they were half expecting me to jump up and say “Oh, really? Well, I’ve got some killer-shit back home and a wicked three-chambered bong - anyone want to join me? Waiter, check please!” It was real strange. I wonder what would have happened if I had actually said that I did have a joint back home that my friend had left me the week before…HHmmm…
I have so many thoughts going through my head that sometimes it’s hard to finish a
Don’t confuse “respect” with “fear.” Back in the day when I would smoke on occassion, the drug laws weren’t so draconian. Now you can go to prison for years for very small quantities, and I live in a town where the DA literally hauled a man out of his deathbed a few months ago to face drug charges because he’d been using various controlled substances to relieve the pain of his terminal illness. The judge dismissed the charges and the man went home and died within hours. Given the climate, the risks far outweigh the rewards.
Missed this earlier:
It was the 18th Amendment. The 19th Amendment is women’s suffrage. And the prohibition of alcohol was not necessarily dependent on passage of the amendment. A number of states has passed dry laws prior to passage of the amendment. The feds could have instituted prohibition without the amendment. As to whether such attempts would have withstood constitutional scrutiny, it’s hard to say. Prohibiting the manufacture or distribution of alcohol certainly isn’t an enumerated power of the federal government, but the USSC might have contorted the Commerce Clause to permit it. After the 18th was repealed (by the 21st, which specifically allowed the several states to remain dry if they chose), a number of states and counties remained dry. Kansas was dry until sometime in the 50s, I believe.
Um, right. I know. And I said that what Cecil wrote in his columns on the subject does not IMHO rise to the level of “debunking.” Are we going to have another go around where I say something and you proceed on apace as if I didn’t? because I’ll stop right now before I go back down that route again with you. As I said, Cecil may be entirely correct in stating categorically that there was no conspiracy. But “everyone else was doing it” doesn’t mean that Hearst wasn’t furthering a conspiracy by whipping up anti-hemp hysteria. “Hemp doesn’t make good stockings” doesn’t mean that other hemp products both current and future weren’t targeted by Du Pont. And “What exactly motivated Anslinger is a matter of debate” certainly doesn’t foreclose conspiracy as being what exactly motivated him. Appealing to Cecil is all well and good, but take what he says for what it is, a disagreement as opposed to a “debunking.”
This could be UL, but I remember from my pilot days stories of airlines not being able to serve alcohol when flying over Kansas. They would actually have some police on flights to make sure it didn’t happen…they then had to change airspace laws, etc. because they feared that things like that could be taken too far (States charging tax to fly over, etc.).
I have so many thoughts going through my head that sometimes it’s hard to finish a
Yep, pot is legal in S.C., California. For medical uses. Any age can smoke it too [far as they said]. You have to pay for it, approx the same as regular street prices.
Hey, if they legalize it, fine. I still wouldn’t try it. I tend to stay away from everything that can destroy my already depleted brain. And don’t say it won’t kill my brain- ever heard of the placebo effect? I am very impressionable 
“I know you’ve come to kill me. Shoot, coward, you’re only going to kill a man.” -Che Guevara, Oct 9, 1967.
Legal or illegal, I had a great 4/20. Anyone else?