XPost: ca.politics, alt.politics.usa, talk.politics.misc
XPost: alt.activism.drug-war
On 10/17/18 2:20 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:37:43 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
On 10/16/18 6:39 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:33:54 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
On 10/16/18 2:46 PM, Drugs Are A Human Right wrote:
We shouldn't have to market marijuana as recreation, to make it legal to >>>>> use it as recreation.
Marijuana should be marketed like Advil.
Condemn Congress until they change this problem.
You have that right. Aspirin, acetaminophen, booze
are more dangerous and so is water in the wrong place and
quantity. We still sell all those deadly OTC drugs in
quantities that can be used for self-harm. And if you
went by quantity to kill we would need to sell cannabis
in hay bale-sized amounts.
Careful now laddie ... too much weed makes Jack
a dull boy - just like too much booze or too many
pills. At least the booze wears off pretty quick ... it
takes months to get the THC out and the brain
cells working properly again. Been there, know that.
Talking from your own experience again, Mr.Black?
Other folks have different experiences based on their
personal physiology. My brain cells work well between my
medicinal doses of approximately 10 mg THC at bedtime
And the most common phrase uttered by drunks
pulled over for driving all over the road is "I only
had a couple ...".
In short, stoned people are in no position to judge
their own responses to being stoned.
Oh by the way I am an 81 year old former nurse
not a laddie but a mean old lady.
Mean indeed ... but I'm also glad you're a FORMER
nurse.
"Hmm ... now did I give him his insulin or not ....." :-)
Sorry to say I was not using when i worked.
As for my memory the way proper nursing is done is to record every medication administered. You don't guess, you check labels
3X to make sure you have the right medication and you check the
medication orders to make sure you are giving the prescribed doses.
So make it AVAILABLE ... but it's probably best not
to promote it.
But hey, the way the left has become born-again
puritans, it'll likely try to prohibit *everything*, for
our own good of course ............
The Left is not monolithic but some of the Left in
positions of power have been the ones to raise the taxes when
recreational cannabis was legalized.
Most everybody worships Mammon above all
other gawds ......
Edifice Complex?
But I was talking about the recent "#MeToo" and
Kavanaugh related hyper-puritanism. When looking
for dirt on opponents the Dems sure as hell sound
like screaming finger-pointing blue-nosed puritan
witch-hunters these days, harping on every hint of
sinful hedonism anybody (except themselves) MAY
have ever indulged.
That is hardly hyper-Puritanism but a fresh
recognition of the pervasiveness of patriarchal victim
blaming.
It's really disturbing to hear people who still call themselves
"liberal" talking like this. They'd better start wearing the hat
with the buckle so we can spot them in public places. At
this point the "conservatives" are actually far more "liberal"
and tolerant.
There is old school liberal and progressive Feminism.
If it was you or your son being sexually abused you
would figure our what they are talking about a lot faster.
It was the left of the streets(especially Castro Street
who got medical cannabis legalized and the left of the working
class who got recreational cannabis legalized.
It is the left or progressive Democrats in California
and in San Francisco who are the forward thinking activists
who are called on to volunteer when things need to be done.
And it'll be the left that re-criminalizes as soon as possible
if it gains ultimate power. No "alternative" states of mind
for the proles - makes 'em hard to brainwash and manage !
Ultimate Power? What a curious comic book phrase. In
the USA we are supposed to have checks and balances between the
branches of government. Ultimate power in the US system resides
in the citizenry.
Pure reactionary conjecture. That is what the right would
do if it has the chance else why are they trying to stack the court
with anti-women activists such as Kavanaugh. They would like to
take control of every fertile uterus. The right keeps on trying
to regulate the sex lives of citizens but forgives male sexual
aggression with the sorry refrain of "Boys will be Boys".
Trump himself wants to keep cannabis illegal using the
same DEA propaganda spewed for the last 80 years.
The right prefers to believe that desire is uncontrollable
and that its expression in sexual aggression against women is
uncontrollable. Otherwise we would sterilize and castrate
rapists to get rid of the uncontrollable elements in our
gene pool. They prefer the myth of male desire being uncontrollable
which gives them the excuse for the sexual aggression in which
they themselves have indulged.
Never confuse political motivations with "humanitarian"
motivations. Legalization serves the left NOW, but the
instant it doesn't they'll lump weed into the whole "opioid
epidemic" crusade just like they have nicotine.
You omit the death toll from nicotine use and abuse.
Current Opioid Crisis arises from the mis-Prescription of
opioid pain killers by licensed physicians and the sales by
"ethical" pharmaceutical producers of great numbers of doses
to places that had no use for so much.
In any case, I really don't care if you chew yer THC
gummies (ok, at your age it may be "gum yer THC
chewies" :-) or not. I'm not a prohibitionist, not a puritan,
more a small-L libertarian. My interest here is practical.
I still have teeth enough for steak.
Mind-altering substances should never be advertised
as "safe". It's amazing human brains work at all, so
"alterations" to that delicate balance are gonna have
crappy side-effects, possibly cumulative effects.
Even worse, the weed these days is at least 10 times
stronger than back in the good 'ole days. There's
"high" and then there's "wasted".
And people stop using sooner if they reach a level
that they are comfortable with. Except with oral use
which takes a long time 90 minutes to have apparent effects.
Which is why I stick with the stuff I use at the levels
I know are effective. I seldom even get high but simply
relax and go to sleep.
Since Trump was elected it has become apparent that
a great many human brains have failed to work and it is doubtful
that so many every used anything other than the opiate of the
people, bad religion and self-interest.
The imagined bad effects of cannabis use have been
demonstrated to be false since the late 19th Century when
the use of cannabis among the Indian population were studied.
1894 The Report of the Indian Hemp Drug Comission, running
to over three thousand pages in seven volumes, is published.
This inquiry, commissioned by the British government,
concluded: "There is no evidence of any weight regarding the
mental and moral injuries from the moderate use of these drugs.
.. . . Moderation does not lead to excess in hemp any more
than it does in alcohol. Regular, moderate use of ganja or
bhang produces the same effects as moderate and regular doses
of whiskey." The commission's proposal to tax bhang is never
put into effect, in part, perhaps, because one of the
commissioners, an Indian, cautions that Moslem law and Hindu
custom forbid "taxing anything that gives pleasure to the
poor." [Quoted in Norman Taylor, The pleasant assassin: The
story of marihuana, in David Solomon (Ed.) *The Marijuana
Papers*, pp. 31-47, p. 41]
It was studied again during the construction of the
Panama Canal and again found to be a false asseveration.
Siler Commission, Panama Canal Zone Report, 1930 [Reported
that cannabis use was harmless, and, having subjected to
medico-scientific clinical monitoring, heavy cannabis smoking
produced no effect upon motivation or performance.
The LaGuadia report in NYC before the beginning of
WW II showed users to be good students.
The LaGuardia Commission The studies leading to the La
Guardia Report in New York in the early 1940s recorded nine
psychotic outbreaks, of varying duration, among a sample of 200
studied intensely. Most of these were found to be cases of
already psychotic personalities, and one one of the
psychiatrists involved in the study wrote, in 1942, 'Marijuana
will not produce a psychosis de novo in a well-integrated
stable person.' The team who observed New York's marijuana
smokers for the period found them to be a rather passive,
peaceful, and friendly group, distinctly not prone to violence
(though above average perpetrators of petty crimes).
And when Nixon commission a report he suppressed the report.
In 1969, Nixon commissioned a study on marijuana that
recommended marijuana be decriminalized. Nixon rejected that
conclusion out of hand. More recently, a law counsel to the
DEA, Francis L. Young, Administrative Law Judge, on Sept. 6,
1988, filed a report that marijuana was factually and
truthfully less dangerous than aspirin. That report, too, was
summarily repressed and rejected.
Marihuana's relative potential for harm to the vast
majority of individual users and its actual impact on society
does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and
firmly punish those who use it.
For these reasons, we recommend to the public and its
policy-makers a social control policy seeking to discourage
marijuana use, while concentrating primarily on the prevention
of heavy or very heavy use. -- The Report of the National
Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse 1972
Only studies financed by the Federal Bureau of
Narcotics in the 1930s and the DEA after 1955 have shown
harm from cannabis.
Indeed the clear evidence of a Gateway drug use
is of cigarettes(nicotine) and of alcohol. Users of
both and of Caffeine were more likely to abuse other
drugs.
> "Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of
temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for
it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to
control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out
of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a
blow at the very principles upon which our government was
founded". --Attributed To: Abraham Lincoln, Speech in the
Illinois House of Representatives, Dec 18, 1840. It also
appears on page 544 of the Congressional Record-House for
December 22, 1914. Lincoln was quoted by Rep. Robert L. Henry
of Texas.
bliss --
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)