who supports marijuana rights?

Post Reply New Topic

You just took another dump in your pants! Cannabis has anti-cancer properties.



Have you ever actually used it? If not how could you possibly have an informed opinion as to its effects.



The gateway 'theory' is a lot of hysterical nonsense left over from the reefer-madness era. The only way it makes any sense whatsoever is in the context of illegal activities being conducted by the same people/places. Therefore gateway theory is a complelling argument against prohibition.

A good example of this is the Netherlands where cannabis is decriminalised. The average age of heroin addicts is much higher than in neighbouring countries. This is because young people dont need to associate with hardened criminals to obtain it. Elsewhere, when you buy cannabis your often offerred other drugs, so a slippery slope is waiting for the unwary or emotionally troubled. And THATS your gateway, not the product itself , but the criminal network distributing it.

I did not take a dump in my pants. There are more cancer causing agents in a marijuana cigarette than there are in a tobacco one. Ok, I am not a cannabis expert and don't claim to be one. I just know that I don't want to live in a world with disgusting marijuana smoke everywhere. I don't even want the tobacco smoke. Besides, marijuana users do suffer from more bronchitis and respiratory infecti ons which are typically not considered good things.

You are telling me to try out an illegal drug. It is freakin' illegal, I would never do it if only for respect for the law. Besides, I also have never been butt-raped but that does not mean I won't knock it and that most certainly does not mean that I will even consider trying it. Besides, I don't know how this relates to my comment on marijuana not being the religious drug of the people here, none of you are rastafarians from what I can tell.

Perhaps the gateway is a socio-psychological thing. We still don't need marijuana and we simply need to crack down on druggies.

Reports are highly conflicting and go both ways. Ive seen some of the research papers and been able to pick holes in them. They are often have little relevance to real-world use and seem to be designed with a heavy bias. The cancer treatment research ive referred to is not funded or published by those with a political agenda, it exists solely to further fight against cancer.



Yes. thats exactly what i said



So what. are you saying my personal views on spirituality are worthless simply because i dont subscribe to one of the established/organised religions? Its a PERSONAL issue. People have used drugs including cannabis religiously for MILLENIA, long before your precious laws were cooked up.



I dont NEED to deal with your ignorance, authoritarian fixation and dictatorial rhetoric. I am doing so because i am a tolerant and respectful person. - by which i mean respectful of nature & PEOPLE, not arbitrary legislation.

Last edited by psych on 08 Feb 2006, 9:35 am, edited 3 times in total.

I think your insistence that other members need to be locked up and punished is a very bad example to be setting.

There is something going on here that I just can't stand anymore. I try to be nice. I try to simply explain what is going on and try to stay within "polite boundaries" but it does absolutely no good.

Certain people, not mentioning any names here, think that it is their God-given right to control the lives of others and ruin those who they cannot control. They create false disease scares to control people's sexual expression and to excuse disposing of a lot of small farms. They create false scares about the use of recreational drugs in order to control everything they can get their hands on. They lie and cheat to get a lot of privately owned animals banned and sterilized while pretending that all they are doing is protecting the animals.

Then they get on the Internet forums and do whatever it takes to destroy the discussions of just how badly we are being screwed over. They play games. They play stupid. They feel free, and usually are free, to call anyone paranoid who calls them on these games. Somehow they often get to play these mean games without limit on the forums and the people they victimize get in trouble with the moderators. Some of the first people banned from a forum will be those who try to warn everyone that such a game has started. That of course removes the best people. Then they work on anyone else who is still there until they get sick of it.

The people who do this are more of the same people who murdered me when I was a child. They are murderers, by proxy, maybe by actual commission, and definitely by gathering in groups to destroy anyone who has the least bit of virtue in this world.

Unfortunately an expression of AS in many people seems to be stereotyping and rigid thinking. The ability to focus acutely becomes a disability when its allowed to develop unchecked into lazy stubborness.

I think this phenomena has become increasingly obvious on this topic. AS sufferers tend not to socialize widely, therefore many never get exposed to drug culture IRL. The predisposition to stubborness often means they cant (or wont) reconcile their media-based view with the reality-based one related by more experienced posters.

If so, this reflects the stereotyping and rigid thinking of the people who brought up children who are AS. Have you seen more than a trace of racism among AS people? That would seem to be the perfect example of stereotyping and rigid thinking, yet it is conspicuously absent. The writings I have read here seem to indicate an ability to think more clearly than most and more freely.

The people who I am complaining about follow certain programs that wind up destroying a lot of people. You might say that I am employing stereotyping and whatever, but I have seen them perform these tricks dozens of times and destroy a lot of productive discussions. How can you tell people that such and such is false when you have all these people destroying the discussion? Everything that I want to talk about affects a multi-billion dollar industry, and we are aware of how many people have been blatantly murdered to support such industries as the diamond and oil cartels, or even access to farmland and lebensraum. A lot of this is so recent that we can't even realistically expect any breaks in the continuity. The murder of South Africans for the sake of industrial interests officially ended about the time that South Africans voted Nelson Mandela in, and of course we suck up to the Chinese big time while they blatantly murder a lot of people and harvest their organs. So what kind of mental illness would it take to even entertain the thought that there might be hired guns who get on the Internet to interfere with productive discussion?

Well i agree people here do have a great potential to think clearly and freely 'outside the box'. My point is that in some people this potential is not realised and in some that systemic way of thinking can even backfire.

Your point about racism is interesting. I suppose one possible reason is that racism is based on emotional flaws & simple predujice and so the subject is less seductive to an aspies analytical mind. Drug legislation however, has a wealth of pseudo-scientific research & facts and figures behind it which a systemic mind can use to develop opinons.

I am not the best person to judge, because of the cultural abyss between the US and EU. I dont know how common such intolerant views on drugs are in US society, over here they seem mostly confined to the 50+ age group. In fact AG has unknowingly paraphrased my grandmother several times, almost word for word



I understand what your saying, but i think 90% of the time people are genuinely unaware that their using underhand debating tricks or spreading disinformation and biased industrial propaganda.

Thats the way the powerful operate - they cant physically manipulate billions of people, so through media they program us to manipulate ourselves and each other. The best example of this is the instinct to ridicule or attack anyone who expresses a different opinion from the norm, without pause for thought. The fear of this threat causes us, unknowingly to gradually think or act in a constrained way.

To paraphrase David Icke;
We laugh at a flock of sheep, but really we've managed to outsheep the sheep. At least they need a sheep-dog to herd them about the place. We now do that to ourselves.

Bullied don't much care where they get their tricks. They just like to use them.

I do not know if any nation has become so totally screwed about individual freedoms.

[quote=psych]
Yes. thats exactly what i said Rolling Eyes

So what. are you saying my personal views on spirituality are worthless simply because i dont subscribe to one of the established/organised religions? Its a PERSONAL issue. People have used drugs including cannabis religiously for MILLENIA, long before your precious laws were cooked up.

I dont NEED to deal with your ignorance, authoritarian fixation and dictatorial rhetoric. I am doing so because i am a tolerant and respectful person. - by which i mean respectful of nature & PEOPLE, not arbitrary legislation. [/quote]
Well, considering that I consider the law extremely important I would not defy it for something so stupid as a discussion and a dare. I do think it is wrong for you to tell people to defy the institutes that be so pointlessly.

Yes, your views of religion/spirituallity can be considered to be worthless because you have no political power or even legitimate sounding claim to have these drugs. I can make up my own religion too and say that I need cocaine in order to practice my religion and simply do this for the desire to have cocaine. People have also practiced human sacrifice for a millenia before my laws were cooked up. However, human sacrifice is deemed illegal by my laws and cannot be allowed even for religious purposes. People have used drugs for religious ceremonies for years and this is simply because they probably smoked something and felt "oh I feel the holy being! when it was probably some delusion brought on by drug abuse". I really don't even support drug use for religion and would make the catholics use some form of non-alcoholic wine or grape juice or make sure consumption is controlled and heavily limited or something and I respect christianity and know that the purpose of the ritual has to do with the blood of Jesus.

You are right, you don't actually need to deal with any rhetoric. I don't even have to listen to your points either and your libertarian beliefs I am the one who chooses to stay though, you can do the same if you'd like. Legislation is to respected at least in the aspect of obeying it, you have the legal right to exert whatever political influence you have to repeal it but so do the forces that oppose you.

Actually I have met some people who do use marijuana. They were some of the most irresponsible people I have ever met and would frequently brag about the stupid stuff they did. They would have problems passing many of their classes despite the fact that they seemed relatively capable if they had focused. I possibly could have tried out the drug but I remember this one guy insisted that I not do it so that I wouldn't mess up my life. Perhaps it is a situation where correlation does not mean causation but everyone I have ever met who used marijuana has been more irresponsible than average and they all seem to underperform in some manner. One person simply described marijuana as a replacement for beer because it lacks the hangover. Everyone I have known who has used marijuana probably could have been a better person if they had not used marijuana. However, it was not my place to fight the people I barely know without law or force backing me.


Well, not needing a sheep dog is cost effective at the very least. However, it is only a sign of something if you are the sheep dog. Society always needs a sheep dog because no herd of sheep can perfectly run itself.

[quote=Remnant] The people who do this are more of the same people who murdered me when I was a child. They are murderers, by proxy, maybe by actual commission, and definitely by gathering in groups to destroy anyone who has the least bit of virtue in this world. [/quote]
I don't really know what you are talking about. It seems like a rant, however the last part seems odd because you have to technically be alive and therefore cannot be described as "murdered". I guess it could be figurative language but I don't know what it would refer to.


Hired guns? Nobody would care about an Aspergers forum discussion. There are not very many people compared to the overall population and most of them do not have much power, especially considering all of the people that talk about being social outcasts and welfare recipients. We are not worth the effort to even consider much less hire somebody to do something especially considering the bigger forums out there. The idea sounds like some level of paranoia. You are not posting while high? No marijuana induced paranoia I hope? Yes, I am joking.

You are obviously ignorant of ethnobotany, endogenous psychedelics and metaphysics (as are most people) If you are interested in learning something on the matter, you may find my comments on this thread enlightening;

http://www.wrongplanet.net/asperger.htm ... endogenous

Even if you seek to confirm your own bias, id be very intested to see how you could possibly attempt to do so, seeing as how you already stated your respect for christianity!

If we include the deaths of innocent people who are caught in the gun-fire when gangs raid grow-ops looking for cash or decide to do a drive-by to kill off some of the competition, then I'd say banning marijuana has a definite impact on human health and public safety.

As far as I'm concerned, the politicians, police and lawyers should try to create and enforce laws in favour of "the greater good". To automatically assume that a ban serves the greater good simply because marijuana is not neccessary for life is a very simplistic point of view. It doesn't balance the dangers of smoking marijuana against the dangers of a highly profitable black market. The dangers of smoking are pretty minor: some people will waste time and kill brain cells, and possibly injure themselves while under the effects. The dangers of a profitable black market is that it attracts a criminal element, and that money is generally reinvested in other criminal enterprises (including terrorism, no doubt). The black market is also a total loss from a taxation point of view, in spite of the occasional seizure of assets. Legalization, on the other hand, provides a distribution channel that is not controlled by criminals and which can be taxed. If properly supplied and regulated, the taxes on marijuana sales would most likely exceed the costs incurred in treatment of those who can't control themselves. My point here is that prohibition doesn't make sense if the goal is to reduce crime. As long as there is demand, any attempt to choke off the supply will only raise the profit margins on the remaining supplies -- the cash flow will remain constant no matter how many distributors are put in jail because the economics of scarcity will drive the prices up. Would you advocate lowering the use of oil by blowing up a few refineries? All that would do is cause prices at the pump to rise. If you want people to change their habits you need to offer incentives, not just punishment.

The argument keeps being made that "alcohol was illegal before, so there's nothing wrong with marijuana being illegal now", to which I would say "those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it." When you think about it, alcohol and marijuana are essentially identical in every respect. Both have a limited medical benefit. Both are abused. Prohibition of either leads to criminal activity. Legalization of either leads to control of the distribution channel and revenue for the government. The other thing to consider is quality control. We constantly hear warnings about the bad things (like crystal meth) that dealers are putting into their joints to try and get people hooked on stronger (more profitable) drugs. When's the last time you heard of someone going blind because their bottle of Smirnoff's was cut with wood alcohol? (Hint: Never.) Have you ever bought what you thought was beer, only to find the cans had antifreeze in them? (Answer: No.) If the government is concerned about kids moving from marijuana to harder drugs (which doesn't normally happen unless the dealer is surreptitiously hooking them without their knowledge) then the best solution is to legalize and regulate the production and put verifiable ingredients and quantity/dosage labels on the pack.

Some people worry that if marijuana was legal then kids would smoke it. Again, that assumption requires a non-regulated distribution channel controlled by criminals. The reason you don't see kids carrying a 6-pack of beer to school is because the demand for illegal beer from that age group doesn't justify the expense and risk of starting a criminal organization to provide it, and any such organization wouldn't be seriously interested in such a product because there's no profit in something that can be so easily purchased through a government-approved vendor. Just ask yourself how many bootleggers live in your city versus how many marijuana dealers.... The best way to keep marijuana out of the hands of kids is to put it on the shelf right next to the tobacco and alcohol. Yes, some kids will get their older brother to buy it for them. They do that with beer anyway. Right now, though, any 14-year-old with a few dollars can buy marijuana all by himself.

Too bad you didn't make any argument as to which is the cause and which is the effect. You are implying that drug use leads to academic failure. It would be just as easy to say that those kids who are intellectually challenged and are not provided with an appropriate learning environment are the ones who are most likely to become demoralized and resort to marijuana to dull the pain of failure. Maybe the marijuana problem is caused by poor education and not the other way around.

Well, one thing is that I never stated that I worshipped the Christian God or that I believed Christianity was true. I have not read the Bible, I do not go to Church. I just find that Christianity has a positive affect on virtue and find it useful for that reason. However, Christianity may very well be a bunch of filthy lies by a bunch of drunks/druggies. I do recognize the benefits of a faith though, it calms the soul and does many things. I could go further into my spirituality but I don't wish to at this moment.

Jetson does have some very good arguments. Hmm.... what if we legalized marijuana only under the condition that they had no marijuana content? That sounds good to me. Just joking. However, I think that part of the problem that we have with marijuana is the inconsistent message that we have sent about marijuana and perhaps the after effects of the 60s and 70s where marijuana was used to a great extent. I think it is possible that in the long run the amount of marijuana use can be decreased if more effort is put into fighting it. It wasn't economics that ended slavery, that fought discrimination or anything and a purely economic view usually is not perfect. I don't have a problem giving incentives to help people in a fight against drugs though. Marijuana legalization would help some issues but I think that in the long run it would be the one of the less good options. I won't kill myself if that is what it comes to but I think America can do better.

I think the point that people have been trying to make that you have ignored is that your reference to absolute criminality is simply circular reasoning. When people ask "is this a good law or a bad law" (as any citizen in a democracy is entitled to do), you tell them that THE LAW IS THE LAW, and therefore breaking the law is breaking the law. While it is normal for many aspies to be ruthlessly honest and blindly obedient, I'd like to think that we still have the right to disagree with the law even as we observe it. Perhaps THE LAW IS THE LAW AND THE LAW IS WRONG.

Right, well I think that the marijuana is to some extent the cause of this because of the fact that I have seen the kids who use marijuana. I believe that they are capable of the work, I also believe that one of their major problems is that they don't try as hard as they could. However, I did not say that one was cause and one was effect because it is not proven, there is a relationship though. I think that in order to solve this we need to attack the stoner culture to some extent. If a relationship could not be seen then I might not be so adamant, however, marijuana can affect the ability of people to think and such and to stay focused and it sedates them and all of this does bring up the idea that these qualities of marijuana cause undesirable effects in workers both academic and in the market.