My problem with the "legalize it" movement

[Baptist]

If everyone who wants to end the war on drugs took a lesson from history, things could change in a matter of months not decades.


Abolition Movement

http://www.ushistory.org/us/images/00000681.jpg

Woman's Suffrage Movement

http://lib.lbcc.edu/handouts/images/AlphaLeague.jpg

Civil Rights Movement

http://aftm.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/1963_march_on_washington.jpg


If the Free Staters of New Hampshire dressed respectable, instead of running around topless while they smoked joints, things would change sooner rather than later. If the 420ers spent as much time educating America about the butt-rapes in prison, the innocent children and old people killed during SWAT raids, things could change sooner rather than later. The legalize it crowed needs to cut their hair, shave and dress respectable, so that Americans will listen while they present case after case after case of police brutality and human rights violations, all in the name of the War on Drugs. Until this happens, Americans will never know about the murdered house pets, the children terrorized in the night, the broken homes, and the scores of men getting sodomized in jail for smoking a plant. Instead, all that middle-age, elderly, religious and soccer mom America will see is a bunch of losers who want to get stoned out of their gourd. And who can blame them. I am more open-minded than the masses of drones, and quite frankly, I find it disgusting.


Legalize Marijuana Movement - 2010

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/04/21/article-0-0938861B000005DC-369_634x423.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/04/21/article-0-09387EAB000005DC-367_634x276.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/04/21/article-0-0938A679000005DC-513_634x763.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/04/21/article-0-09388217000005DC-587_634x423.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/04/21/article-0-0938A1D1000005DC-877_306x465.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/04/21/article-0-09387A31000005DC-401_634x382.jpg

[paulaholic]

Very good observation. I was debating pot legalization with a friend, and he said he was turned off by the movement for this very reason - too many people involved want marijuana legalized for "personal reasons" and not economic ones. My friend also told me that I was the first non-user he had ever heard advocate legalization, and I don't doubt it.

[noxagol]

No, their argument is quite sound actually. It's my body, fuck off.

[MRoCkEd]

^Their argument is correct, but their tactics are not the most effective.

This is why someone like Gary Johnson is a great spokesman for the legalize pot movement.

[amy31416]

^Their argument is correct, but their tactics are not the most effective.

This is why someone like Gary Johnson is a great spokesman for the legalize pot movement.

I read up on him recently, and I'm impressed.

The strongest mainstream argument, in my opinion, is that the stupid law denies an inexpensive treatment to those undergoing chemo or who are in chronic pain, etc.

[payme_rick]

Yah, I usually say "Hey, just be yourself, don't change for no one!", but that would be a VERRRY helpful change IMO (cleanin' up well, that is)...

[Imaginos]

^Their argument is correct, but their tactics are not the most effective.

This is why someone like Gary Johnson is a great spokesman for the legalize pot movement.
+1

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Very good observation. I was debating pot legalization with a friend, and he said he was turned off by the movement for this very reason - too many people involved want marijuana legalized for "personal reasons" and not economic ones. My friend also told me that I was the first non-user he had ever heard advocate legalization, and I don't doubt it.

So? Nothing should be illegal. When did I agree to the laws I'm bound to obey? I can do whatever I want. In the absence of statist law there is no chaos, most people aren't violent, the exceptions would do so otherwise

[constituent]

The real difference between the pro-legalization crowd (there is no "movement"), and the "movements" of yesteryear is one of approach.

Whereas the suffragettes asked the government "may I," and where the civil rights marchers begged the governments for "freedom," these folks are saying, "F* you government, I'm gettin' high. Wut?"

Given the choice, I'll take the latter any day.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The real difference between the pro-legalization crowd (there is no "movement"), and the "movements" of yesteryear is one of approach.

Whereas the suffragettes asked the government "may I," where the civil rights marchers begged the governments for "freedom," these folks are saying "f* you government, I'm gettin' high. Wut?"

Given the choice, I'll take the latter any day.

Woman's suffrage was partially orchestrated by the statists because they knew how most women would vote.

[squarepusher]

The real difference between the pro-legalization crowd (there is no "movement"), and the "movements" of yesteryear is one of approach.

Whereas the suffragettes asked the government "may I," and where the civil rights marchers begged the governments for "freedom," these folks are saying, "F* you government, I'm gettin' high. Wut?"

Given the choice, I'll take the latter any day.

lol'd

[Theocrat]

Though I agree with Baptist's assessment of how marijuana advocates portray themselves to the public, I think the premises of what they want are faulty. It shouldn't be "legalize it"; it should be "decriminalize it." The government, on any level, does not have a moral nor jurisdictional right to forbid the use of a natural element. After all, the earth was not created nor orchestrated by the civil magistrates.

Instead, the criminalization of using any plant should be abolished, and let individuals, families, churches, and/or other private entities deal with the consequences of its use, if they see it as a problem in society. That is a message I would rally behind them for, even if I wouldn't smoke the plant myself (understanding its medicinal uses).

[teamrican1]

Woman's suffrage was partially orchestrated by the statists because they knew how most women would vote.

I'd point out that the Civil Rights movement was co-opted by the statists as well. The Malcom X wing was marginalized to promote King and his socialsit, pro-state, version of "Civil Rights". I don't see how anyone can look at the state of black America today and view that as a success story. The Great Society doomed most blacks to a second round of slavery and they would have been much better off following the radicals who preached independence and self reliance.

[mczerone]

So start a marketing company, and pitch your idea to pot activists.

If your idea is worth anything, its worth something to those who can benefit, and the burden is on you to make it happen.

In NH at least, the 420 events aren't about impressing anyone, or showing any image beyond personal choice. Its about demonstrating to the public that anything people do with without coercion on others should be allowed, not about changing how many people agree with any activity. Its a mindset that accepts that people can dislike them, they just want to be left alone.

But I'm sure NORML and the West coast would be all about the popularity game.

[damiengwa]

I disagree with your practicality Baptist. Not b/c i am ideological, I am practical myself, but your practicality is, well, impractical. You see if the 420 demonstrators made an effort to 'clean up' there will still be some of the 'less than presentable' types showing up to do their, yes, less than presentable stuff. Who will the media focus on in their coverage. The 90% of the well dressed clean shaven types, or the 10% unrepresentables?

So all of the effort expended, all of the arguments it will cause and all the alliances it would fracture would not be worth the possibility of a slightly better image, which the biased MSM probably wouldn't give them anyhow.

See my point? In a perfect world where you can get all the activists on one page you would be right. But that utopia of activism just doesn't exist. So what kind of return on investment would one get being the appearance nanny in the movement?

When i went door to door for DR Paul in NH with OLFD, there were a handful of VERY nasty activist nannies who went so far as to throw activists out of the house b/c they didn't feel like coming to their stupid 8 am meeting where they would be told what they should be doing for the day.

The only rule that activists should try to enforce amongst their fellow activists is to not cause violence, property damage or use foul language. Outside of that your probably just spinning ur wheels for nothing b/c people will do what they want to anyway and if you grind on them too much they'll go home and the activism will die out.

[dannno]

Who will the media focus on in their coverage. The 90% of the well dressed clean shaven types, or the 10% unrepresentables?



I'd say the undesirables already make up less than 10% of the movement, and that is what the media focuses on.

I agree that we'd have to get it down to zero percent to make any real effective change and that's impossible.

As long as the media has an agenda, they are going to have a big advantage in this game (well at least to them it is a game)

[dannno]

It shouldn't be "legalize it"; it should be "decriminalize it." The government, on any level, does not have a moral nor jurisdictional right to forbid the use of a natural element.

That's mostly semantics because most places where it is decriminalized, it is still illegal to 'manufacture' or distribute. Legalizing inherently allows for manufacture and distribution which is pretty key when you look at the reality of the situation.

[damiengwa]

I'd say the undesirables already make up less than 10% of the movement, and that is what the media focuses on.

I agree that we'd have to get it down to zero percent to make any real effective change and that's impossible.

As long as the media has an agenda, they are going to have a big advantage in this game (well at least to them it is a game)

right danno, which highlights my point that its not worth the infighting and wasted energy pursuing an unobtainable perfection that won't even guarantee achieving the objective. The conquer and divide tactic is powerful.

ANd you know what, that picture from denver of that huge crowd smoking up, is a pretty good example of awesome, inclusive activism. Look at how many people! The subtitle should be, "Do we really want to arrest the whole neighborhood?" or something liike that. That crowd literally is the neighborhood!

Baptist, argument FAIL.. Book'em Danno!

[silentshout]

So what if the people who want it legalized use it themselves? Many people use it for medical ailments..so they shouldn't fight for their rights? I don't even smoke it anymore but I am involved with the movement.

[fisharmor]

Forgive me for pointing out that there's another, more obvious flaw in what you're saying, Baptist.

When abolitionists were marching and meeting and stumping, how many people witnessing it had the exact same reaction that you have to unkempt hippies smoking up in public?
When sufferagettes were marching and meeting and stumping, how many people witnessing it had the exact same reaction that you have to unkempt hippies smoking up in public?
When crowds of negroes were marching and meeting and stumping.... et cetera.

We're all viewing the old pictures you posted in hindsight, and none of us has a reaction to them, because we wouldn't think anything of it happening today. But we're living in the time of the new pictures.

The Million Man March wasn't spectacular, because it was something that had already happened, a lot.
There's a reason it'll be forgotten, but MLK's speech by the reflecting pool is history which is carved in stone and will never be forgotten.

That reason is because it was radical, and the mere fact of it happening was a shock to society.

People aren't used to seeing people smoke up at the park. It's shocking.
I say, good. After a year or two, it won't be. Then we make progress.

[dannno]

A lot of people might be initially disgusted by some of those pictures, but really... the 2' phatty joint... doesn't that just show how incredibly harmless this substance actually is?? The 13 year old kids toking a fat bong.. I mean, I don't advocate children using the substance unless it is for medical reasons, but again, doesn't that just show how incredibly harmless it is if you can have all of these thousands of people including children, supposedly "abusing" this substance, nobody gets hurt and everybody has a great time? I didn't see people doing lines of coke or shooting heroin at these events.. no violent outbreaks, drunken people falling over or getting in fights..

Some of the anti-mj folks just need to do a reality check.

[Jordan]

A lot of people might be initially disgusted by some of those pictures, but really... the 2' phatty joint... doesn't that just show how incredibly harmless this substance actually is?? The 13 year old kids toking a fat bong.. I mean, I don't advocate children using the substance unless it is for medical reasons, but again, doesn't that just show how incredibly harmless it is if you can have all of these thousands of people including children, supposedly "abusing" this substance, nobody gets hurt and everybody has a great time? I didn't see people doing lines of coke or shooting heroin at these events.. no violent outbreaks, drunken people falling over or getting in fights..

Some of the anti-mj folks just need to do a reality check.

I don't see that marijuana is harmless due to their heavy use, I see a bunch of losers overindulging in something that does actually have consequences.

To see young kids smoking pot isn't good marketing. Its awful marketing. I'd never, ever, ever want to see someone younger than 18 smoking weed. It is harmful. It is dangerous. And yes, it does have a profound impact on critical thinking and memory, especially with chronic use.

Perhaps the most dangerous part of marijuana is that it is supposedly harmless. People smoke it day in and day out, making it a part of every function of life. Then, years later, they wake up, realizing the damage they've done, opportunities forgone, and decisions they now regret.

Does that mean it should be illegal? Of course not. But marijuana does have consequences, you can overdo it. I've seen plenty of perfectly able and extraordinarily bright people ruin everything they had with marijuana. Marijuana this, marijuana that, everything is fine as long as I've got a sack..

[dannno]

I don't see that marijuana is harmless due to their heavy use, I see a bunch of losers overindulging in something that does actually have consequences.

To see young kids smoking pot isn't good marketing. Its awful marketing. I'd never, ever, ever want to see someone younger than 18 smoking weed. It is harmful. It is dangerous. And yes, it does have a profound impact on critical thinking and memory, especially with chronic use.

Perhaps the most dangerous part of marijuana is that it is supposedly harmless. People smoke it day in and day out, making it a part of every function of life. Then, years later, they wake up, realizing the damage they've done, opportunities forgone, and decisions they now regret.

Does that mean it should be illegal? Of course not. But marijuana does have consequences, you can overdo it. I've seen plenty of perfectly able and extraordinarily bright people ruin everything they had with marijuana. Marijuana this, marijuana that, everything is fine as long as I've got a sack..

I've seen more cannabis users lead productive lives than ruin them.. and if someone is going to ruin their lives with substance abuse, marijuana is a much better choice than alcohol or tobacco or other illicit substances. Fuck, I'd say it's safer than caffeine.

I don't agree with any of your statements regarding cannabis doing damage to critical thinking or memory, many recent studies have shown that chronic long-term use doesn't do any long-term damage to cognitive function.. on top of that, other studies have shown cannabis helps increase brain cell development in adults.

There are a lot of kids who have benefited from medicinal cannabis use, but there are studies that exist which show cannabis can be detrimental to developing minds which is why I don't advocate it until further studies are done (though I don't think kids should be punished by the state for possessing it)

[mczerone]

I don't see that marijuana is harmless due to their heavy use, I see a bunch of losers overindulging in something that does actually have consequences.

To see young kids smoking pot isn't good marketing. Its awful marketing. I'd never, ever, ever want to see someone younger than 18 smoking weed. It is harmful. It is dangerous. And yes, it does have a profound impact on critical thinking and memory, especially with chronic use.

Perhaps the most dangerous part of marijuana is that it is supposedly harmless. People smoke it day in and day out, making it a part of every function of life. Then, years later, they wake up, realizing the damage they've done, opportunities forgone, and decisions they now regret.

Does that mean it should be illegal? Of course not. But marijuana does have consequences, you can overdo it. I've seen plenty of perfectly able and extraordinarily bright people ruin everything they had with marijuana. Marijuana this, marijuana that, everything is fine as long as I've got a sack..

I doubt these effects are from the plant itself, and moreso from the opportunity costs in choosing to sit around and do nothing all day.

There are plenty of examples of heavy users who maintain great cognitive skills as they age, while there are also the examples of those people who do not smoke or drink, but watch TV all day anyway, and their brain is just as mushy as a pot-smoker who has been in his basement for 20 years.

I've seen plenty of perfectly able and extraordinary bright people ruin everything they had with too much sex, spending too much, or any general behavior taken to an extreme. I've also seen some of the most productive people in the world maintain a strong cannabis habit without missing a beat.

I'd rather see pre-teens trying pot than joining the pre-ROTC, yet the latter are "tomorrow's patriots" and are revered for learning obedience to the state - certainly a more harmful trait in the long run than feeling dizzy and watching cartoons with some friends.

[fisharmor]

many recent studies have shown that chronic long-term use doesn't do any long-term damage to cognitive function.

Well, to be fair, he didn't say anything about damage. He said it had a profound impact on critical thinking and memory.
I'm not sure about the memory, but it does have a profound impact on my thinking. It's one of the reasons I still do it occasionally.

[dannno]

Well, to be fair, he didn't say anything about damage. He said it had a profound impact on critical thinking and memory.
I'm not sure about the memory, but it does have a profound impact on my thinking. It's one of the reasons I still do it occasionally.

Good point. I agree that cannabis can have a profound impact on thinking :D

Whether it is negative or positive depends on the person and what they want.

[Jordan]

I've seen more cannabis users lead productive lives than ruin them.. and if someone is going to ruin their lives with substance abuse, marijuana is a much better choice than alcohol or tobacco or other illicit substances. Fuck, I'd say it's safer than caffeine.

I don't agree with any of your statements regarding cannabis doing damage to critical thinking or memory, many recent studies have shown that chronic long-term use doesn't do any long-term damage to cognitive function.. on top of that, other studies have shown cannabis helps increase brain cell development in adults.

There are a lot of kids who have benefited from medicinal cannabis use, but there are studies that exist which show cannabis can be detrimental to developing minds which is why I don't advocate it until further studies are done (though I don't think kids should be punished by the state for possessing it)

Studies have similarly shown that cannabis use affects the sleep cycle and sleep spindles. Sleep is, of course, one of the most important things to your overall health.

Studies show that after smoking marijuana the brain goes into a sleep-like state, utilizing resources while awake that should be reserved for sleep. In chronic smokers, this has a huge affect on the quality of sleep which affects practically everything from alertness, to attentiveness, to critical thinking.

edit: Before some stoner comes in here and says they sleep better after smoking, which I'm sure appears to be the case, length or depth of sleep has nothing to do with quality. No, sleeping like a log for 8 hours doesn't mean it was productive. Just as sleeping for 5 hours isn't necessarily unproductive.

[dannno]

Studies have similarly shown that cannabis use affects the sleep cycle and sleep spindles. Sleep is, of course, one of the most important things to your overall health.

Studies show that after smoking marijuana the brain goes into a sleep-like state, utilizing resources while awake that should be reserved for sleep. In chronic smokers, this has a huge affect on the quality of sleep which affects practically everything from alertness, to attentiveness, to critical thinking.

Wow, that explains why I used to be tired all the time in high school when I was sober and now I have more energy to do stuff since I've been smoking weed for 10 years. Great, thanks for letting me know that cannabis actually allows us to rest similarly to being asleep while we're awake so we can continue to entertain ourselves if we choose.

[dannno]

I used to fall asleep in class all the time in high school before I began consuming cannabis.. Ya. I had to wake up early.. but it wasn't long ago that I had a job that started at 7am, so I had to wake up early then, too.. I never fell asleep during the day then and wasn't as tired.. clearly a result of my cannabis intake.

[Jordan]

Wow, that explains why I used to be tired all the time in high school when I was sober and now I have more energy to do stuff since I've been smoking weed for 10 years. Great, thanks for letting me know that cannabis actually allows us to rest similarly to being asleep while we're awake so we can continue to entertain ourselves if we choose.

It might be better to actually do some research then come up with your own conclusions.

THC has been found to eliminate the REM cycle of sleep. REM is the only time your body goes into full rest, most of body's repair systems are in work, and it is when the immune system really gets moving.

I know so many smokers that no longer dream since smoking marijuana, indicative that they aren't getting enough REM and aren't properly recovering after a day's hard work, or lack thereof.

[dannno]

It might be better to actually do some research then come up with your own conclusions.

THC has been found to eliminate the REM cycle of sleep. REM is the only time your body goes into full rest, most of body's repair systems are in work, and it is when the immune system really gets moving.


So that explains why I don't get sick anymore and my injuries seem to heal faster!!

Great, I love these studies you are telling us about and turning them around to suit the reality in which I live.

Tell me more.




I know so many smokers that no longer dream since smoking marijuana, indicative that they aren't getting enough REM and aren't properly recovering after a day's hard work, or lack thereof.

I've heard that reported, and while dreaming is not as vivid I still have them nearly every night... but they are less distracting and for that I usually feel better in the morning.

[jkr]

their problem, THE problem, with the "?" movement is HEMP.

[Jordan]

So that explains why I don't get sick anymore and my injuries seem to heal faster!!

Great, I love these studies you are telling us about and turning them around to suit the reality in which I live.

Tell me more.




I've heard that reported, and while dreaming is not as vivid I still have them nearly every night... but they are less distracting and for that I usually feel better in the morning.

Sigh, you can refute as much as you want with your own "experiences," but I'm sure you've since lost much of your old memories of how things were before marijuana with such frequent use.

[jkr]

So that explains why I don't get sick anymore and my injuries seem to heal faster!!

Great, I love these studies you are telling us about and turning them around to suit the reality in which I live.

Tell me more.




I've heard that reported, and while dreaming is not as vivid I still have them nearly every night... but they are less distracting and for that I usually feel better in the morning.

doode i dream CONSTANTLY


color
full worlds ive never seen
sensory translation (tastes & smells)
lucid & controlleable to enjoy the ride
navigable with bouderies that can be HUGE
constructs of organic & inorganic nature with no known basis of reference other than tertiary...
flying
pain
joy
all emotions, usually one at a time
rollercoasters the likes could never be built


i spent last night seeing friends from school (why is there an "h" in that word)
dreams are cool



it doesnt effect me atall


:D

[jkr]

Sigh, you can refute as much as you want with your own "experiences," but I'm sure you've since lost much of your old memories of how things were before marijuana with such frequent use.

this just isnt true for me.:eek:

[Jordan]

this just isnt true for me.:eek:

I really don't have a problem with that argument.

Studies aren't built on the idea that everything is the same for all people. But to deny evidence that some things have an effect on a large number of people based on the view or experience of one person is simple ignorance.

The above is the same reason why I don't support plain vanilla laws on everyone when it may affect a small portion of people differently.

[dannno]

Sigh, you can refute as much as you want with your own "experiences," but I'm sure you've since lost much of your old memories of how things were before marijuana with such frequent use.

That's awfully presumptuous :rolleyes:

I have tons of memories of spending hours, days, weeks at doctors offices as a kid... I was always sick and having problems with allergies and asthma, infections, all sorts of ectamies back in my throat (adenoids removed TWICE and tonsils once) and all kinds of crap.

I haven't been to the doctor in years, I don't get sick anymore. Everybody in my office got sick this year, I didn't. There is no possible way you can convince me that cannabis is causing any negative issues related to my immune system... and if it is then it obviously doesn't matter.

[TinCanToNA]

Well I hope you don't have children living with you when you smoke...

Anyways, the original post made a very good observation. The "legalize it" crowd is remarkably unintelligent about the manner of presenting their argument. That's why it's considered "impressive" or a "good argument" when someone mentions the unintended consequences of the drug war--all of the "fuck off it's my body" types tend to crowd out the intelligent, thoughtful discussions of the issue.

[RedStripe]

Very good observation. I was debating pot legalization with a friend, and he said he was turned off by the movement for this very reason - too many people involved want marijuana legalized for "personal reasons" and not economic ones. My friend also told me that I was the first non-user he had ever heard advocate legalization, and I don't doubt it.

Heh, I agree with you black people that we should all have equal rights, but I can't help but suspect that you're only fighting for civil rights for personal reasons. I just can't respect that.

What a petty argument that is. Turn it around and ask him about something he likes to do, such as playing video games, and how he would feel if that was made illegal. And how ridiculous it would be for someone to discredit his protest simply because he wanted to be able to play video games again. I mean, that's kinda the point!

[No1ButPaul08]

I think people from the Abolition Movement, Women's Suffrage Movement, and the Civil Rights Movement would argue that it took decades, not months.

[silentshout]

Well I hope you don't have children living with you when you smoke...

Anyways, the original post made a very good observation. The "legalize it" crowd is remarkably unintelligent about the manner of presenting their argument. That's why it's considered "impressive" or a "good argument" when someone mentions the unintended consequences of the drug war--all of the "fuck off it's my body" types tend to crowd out the intelligent, thoughtful discussions of the issue.

So people who use medical marijuana for cancer or arthritis, and have kids, what about them? If they don't injest it around their kids or smoke in the same room, what is the big deal? Should they suffer because of their kids? No one should smoke ANYTHING around non-consenting people, which includes kids.

[Liberty Rebellion]

I'd say the undesirables already make up less than 10% of the movement, and that is what the media focuses on.

I agree that we'd have to get it down to zero percent to make any real effective change and that's impossible.

As long as the media has an agenda, they are going to have a big advantage in this game (well at least to them it is a game)

+1776

Brings to mind the pictures on MSNBC of Ron Paul supporters and Mitt Romney supporters at the Iowa Straw Poll. They showed a pic with a bunch of enthusiatic Mitt Romney supporters holding Mitt signs and then showed a pic of one Ron Paul supporter in the rain with an umbrellla when Paul's supporters were swarming that place. Wish I could find those pics.

[Working Poor]

Perhaps the most dangerous part of marijuana is that it is supposedly harmless.
No you are wrong the most dangerous thing about pot is the DEA breaking down the door to an innocent person's home(under the guise of making a drug bust) and going to the wrong house in and killing them for no reason.

http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-war-victim/

[dannno]

Well I hope you don't have children living with you when you smoke...



Uhh, do you know how many kids are around their drunk parents every day and how infinitely much WORSE that is?!!

[dannno]

Yes, kids should NEVER EVER be around smoke. I will never let my kids go camping because they might decide to sit around the campfire and inhale far more smoke than sitting in a relatively airy room with a moderate cannabis smoker..

Everybody inhales dust, debris, pollen, smoke from campfires, bbqs and if you live in the city EVERY time you inhale you get a bunch of smog in your lungs. Cannabis is an expectorant, it helps to keep your lungs clean from all of the other crap that you breath in all day. There is nothing inherently wrong with cannabis smoke considering all the other crap we breathe in all day and considering it actually helps remove those particulates.. I wouldn't put a kid in a room that was being hotboxed, but if a kid can smell some cannabis smoke in the room they aren't going go get high and they aren't going to get any negative health side effects from it. It is the furthest thing from my mind.. I would be much more concerned about cigarette smoke that is from tobacco that has radiated fertilizer and a bunch of random chemical additives.. and much more concerned about drunk parents abusing their kids than stoned parents..

Cannabis is so ridiculously harmless it is actually funny to see people here talking about how it is so dangerous and shouldn't be done in the same building as a child.. even if it's a different room!! I mean give me a fucking break.

[TinCanToNA]

Uhh, do you know how many kids are around their drunk parents every day and how infinitely much WORSE that is?!!That's irrelevant to the issue.

This and a previous quote are the issues I'm talking about. Illogical, incoherent, emotional ranting does not persuade. Moral relativism like what I just quoted is also unconvincing and irrelevant. Stick to the issues and stick to relevant parts of the issues. The real issue is a full-scale, broad-spectrum analysis of the consequences of anti-drug laws. This includes all the unintended consequences and every aspect of it. The personal liberty aspect is just one aspect, and it is among the least convincing. Do you want to know how I know that it's the least convincing? Because personal liberty is among the least influential values in our society--compare the population of "libertarians" to those of any other political ideology which places personal liberty below other values. Even among "libertarians" there is a lot of discussion on just what personal liberty means and how much it should be valued.

Stick to the relevant issues. You need not ignore the personal liberty aspect, but it should absolutely not be the central argument. Everyone is concerned to some extent about their wallet and their safety, and the war on drugs has impacted both negatively.

Full disclosure: I think you're a complete moron if you do illicit drugs for non-medicinal reasons. By that same token, I think you're a moron if you use alcohol in an irresponsible way, or caffeine, or any ingestible substance. However, I'm certainly in favor of legalizing (or decriminalizing on the Federal level) most of the drugs because of the raw logical reasons for doing so. Primarily it's the 'unintended consequences' of this war on drugs that makes its continuance absurd, especially including both the perpetuation of criminal gangs and of the prison industry.

You can't legislate away stupidity; in fact it is a fundamental force of the universe, according to some.

[dannno]

Full disclosure: I think you're a complete moron if you do illicit drugs for non-medicinal reasons. By that same token, I think you're a moron if you use alcohol in an irresponsible way, or caffeine, or any ingestible substance. .

So wait, everybody here who drinks caffeine is a moron, or only those who do it irresponsibly?

Alcohol can be used in a responsible way but cannabis cannot?

I know plenty of people who use caffeine in a relatively responsible way, yet they still get hooked on that crap, it makes me feel all wound up so I barely ever drink it except occasional green tea, which, btw, is extremely healthy and has small amounts of caffeine.

Pretty much any substance that you ingest is going to affect you some how, different types of food, chocolate, etc.. nothing wrong with using substances to enhance your life, just make sure to take a step back to see that they are actually enhancing your life.. sometimes feeling good temporarily can enhance your life overall, because feeling shitty isn't good for your health. Stress is one of the number one causes of medical conditions. Cannabis helps prevent a lot of these other problems by reducing stress for some people.

[jkr]

Well I hope you don't have children living with you when you smoke...

Anyways, the original post made a very good observation. The "legalize it" crowd is remarkably unintelligent about the manner of presenting their argument. That's why it's considered "impressive" or a "good argument" when someone mentions the unintended consequences of the drug war--all of the "fuck off it's my body" types tend to crowd out the intelligent, thoughtful discussions of the issue.

honestly, MOST people are "unintelligent".
no disrespect


i think its a SYSTEMIC problem, IMHO

[jkr]

uhh, do you know how many kids are around their drunk parents every day and how infinitely much worse that is?!!
+2 jillion

[BuddyRey]

Entertaining thread is entertaining me!

[jkr]

a complete moron if you do illicit drugs for non-medicinal reasons. By that same token, I think you're a moron if you use alcohol in an irresponsible way, or caffeine, or any ingestible substance. However, I'm certainly in favor of legalizing (or decriminalizing on the Federal level) most of the drugs because of the raw logical reasons for doing so. Primarily it's the 'unintended consequences' of this war on drugs that makes its continuance absurd, especially including both the perpetuation of criminal gangs and of the prison industry.

You can't legislate away stupidity; in fact it is a fundamental force of the universe, according to some.

apply this to watching tv please
and pblic scOOl

[TinCanToNA]

So wait, everybody here who drinks caffeine is a moron, or only those who do it irresponsibly?

Alcohol can be used in a responsible way but cannabis cannot?

I know plenty of people who use caffeine in a relatively responsible way, yet they still get hooked on that crap, it makes me feel all wound up so I barely ever drink it except occasional green tea, which, btw, is extremely healthy and has small amounts of caffeine.

Pretty much any substance that you ingest is going to affect you some how, different types of food, chocolate, etc.. nothing wrong with using substances to enhance your life, just make sure to take a step back to see that they are actually enhancing your life.. sometimes feeling good temporarily can enhance your life overall, because feeling shitty isn't good for your health. Stress is one of the number one causes of medical conditions. Cannabis helps prevent a lot of these other problems by reducing stress for some people.
You're right that any substance is going to affect you somehow. In my opinion, however, one is stupid if they knowingly risk all kinds of legal trouble for anything other than an alleviation of great pain.

Essentially, if marijuana or other drugs were legal generally, then I would only hold that those who use them irresponsibly as moronic. As it stands, however, I see no intelligent reason for someone to use illicit drugs aside from severe pain alleviation or the like. Reward << Risk.

People who are addicted to energy drinks are no different than those addicted to alcohol, as far as their willpower and their intelligence, at least in my opinion. If you let yourself become addicted, or use a substance to a dangerous degree, that's your choice but you certainly could be called out for being an idiot.

[.Tom]

Uhh, do you know how many kids are around their drunk parents every day and how infinitely much WORSE that is?!!

QFT.

And who gives a fuck if I toke up with my kids - the whole family can enjoy it together.

[MichelleHeart]

Although I oppose the War on Drugs and support decriminalization of marijuana and other substances, I've always been turned off by many in the pro-legalization movement. Just because I want marijuana legalized, for example, doesn't mean I promote its use. Many in the movement support legalization because they think it's "cool" and "hip" and "trendy." My reasons for supporting legalization have nothing to do with the promotion of the drug itself, which I find despicable, immoral, and stupid. My reasons for supporting legalization are 1) economic, 2) practical, related to my belief in 3) strict constitutionalism 4) philosophical individualism, 5) limited government, and 6) personal liberty. Otherwise, I refuse to associate with recreational pot smokers and other moral degenerates, such as prostitutes, strippers, atheists, earth-worshippers, the promiscuous, and the sex-obsessed in the promotion of their respective areas.

[dannno]

Many in the movement support legalization because they think it's "cool" and "hip" and "trendy."

Where on earth do you get that idea??

The bible cites cannabis as one of the ingredients used in anointing oil, and Jesus was referred to as "the anointed one". According to traditions of the time, Jesus was soaked in cannabis oil. He likely used it to heal the blind, as it does often help heal blind people, as well as cripples and others. Cannabis is an amazing substance and an amazing medicine. It can be used for spiritual, medicinal and recreational reasons and it can be used both responsibly and relatively irresponsibly (though it's not THAT irresponsible to smoke a lot unless it is affecting your life negatively)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/06/science.religion


This is a substance that has a history of over 5000 years of medicinal use alone. There is nothing hip or trendy about herb.


For being someone who is acting like you are Christian, you sure are judgmental.

[RM918]

I think Baptist has a solid point. Right or wrong, having a 'Hey man, fuck you' attitude isn't going to help you build coalitions and get rid of bad laws no matter how alluring or 'hardcore' you feel while doing it. I'm another who'll never touch the stuff and never has, even though a majority of my friends have been stoners.

As much as I think the stuff smells like a burning pile of feces and as lame as it is to be the only sober guy hanging around with a bunch of stoned people, I'll never call them degenerates. Whether you approve of something or not, people will be who they are. Moralizing at them will only make them hissy and mad, so there's no point to the endeavor - I have a right to my opinions and so do they.

The only stoners I can't get along with are the ones who's personality is defined by the stuff. Every five minutes, some joke or statement about pot, high or not. If you took that away, they'd be about as charismatic as a rock. But I just find it annoying, I'm not going to tell them to go burn in hell.

Amusingly enough, the two stoners I know best are AGAINST legalizing harder drugs (And maybe even pot, the conversation's a little hazy) because they think legalizing them will simply cause everyone to start doing it and thus it'll just cause more damage. While 40% of people in the U.S. have tried pot at least once in their lives, only 20% of the people in Amsterdam have, so that's rather silly. They actually say legalizing it will decrease usage because it'll take the fun out of doing something 'you're not supposed to'.

[dannno]

They actually say legalizing it will decrease usage because it'll take the fun out of doing something 'you're not supposed to'.

It's possible. I'm supposed to, my doctor said so, and I still enjoy it :confused:

[yokna7]

Very good observation. I was debating pot legalization with a friend, and he said he was turned off by the movement for this very reason - too many people involved want marijuana legalized for "personal reasons" and not economic ones. My friend also told me that I was the first non-user he had ever heard advocate legalization, and I don't doubt it.

What? We should legalize it for personal reasons. Why have something legalized for the government to tax?

[RM918]

What? We should legalize it for personal reasons. Why have something legalized for the government to tax?

I wish people would legalize it just because it's a horrible system, but unfortunately we'll have to settle for self-interest.

[RideTheDirt]

YouTube - Doug Stanhope - Medicinal Marijuana (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd5_nTwLVEg)

[Rocket80]

What is it that Glenn Beck always quotes Van Jones as saying?

We need to be "willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends"

It seems to have worked out for him, maybe it's not such a bad idea.

[Working Poor]

People think pot is dangerous(while it has been on this planet for many centuries and used as medicine) while putting GMO High Fructose Corn Syrup in their bodies everyday. Something that has only been on this earth for at most 2 decades. There is no propaganda about the dangers of GMO HFCS yet it was put on the public with no testing only much later has it been found to cause major organ failure but this message is very slow in getting out to the public.

[Working Poor]

I think Marijuana ought to be legal as a matter of health freedom. I know many people believe the only treatment for cancer is what the mainstream medicine people say it is but their are many people who claim marijuana has cured them of cancer.

Their is a man from Canada who a great risk to his own personal freedom has been on a mission to share marijuana oil with people for free I might add who have life threatening illness. His name is Rick Simpson he gives it to people who have been told they are going to die very soon.
The link below is one of my favorite interviews of this man it is part one of a 14 part video I hope you can listen to all 14 parts:

YouTube - Hemp Oil (Marijuana Oil) Cures Cancer? - Part 1/14 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI2rG1O3QpU&feature=related)

[Working Poor]

hump...

[fisharmor]

Stick to the relevant issues. You need not ignore the personal liberty aspect, but it should absolutely not be the central argument. Everyone is concerned to some extent about their wallet and their safety, and the war on drugs has impacted both negatively.

This was the important part of the post. If he thinks we're morons, that's his God-given right.
I don't care if he thinks I'm a moron, nor do I care if anyone else does.
I care about the issue, and he's right that people simply don't care about the personal liberty aspect.

Yes, it sucks a lot that people think that we need government overlords to nanny us into being good, with countless regulations and regular harassment. But we're not going to change that mode of thinking by smoking up in front of them, any more than open carry advocates are changing masses of hearts and minds.

I agree, more people are likely to come around on the drug issue when it's pointed out that we've spent billions on it and lost ground, and only created crime syndicates.

[jmdrake]

I've seen more cannabis users lead productive lives than ruin them.. and if someone is going to ruin their lives with substance abuse, marijuana is a much better choice than alcohol or tobacco or other illicit substances. Fuck, I'd say it's safer than caffeine.

I don't agree with any of your statements regarding cannabis doing damage to critical thinking or memory, many recent studies have shown that chronic long-term use doesn't do any long-term damage to cognitive function.. on top of that, other studies have shown cannabis helps increase brain cell development in adults.

There are a lot of kids who have benefited from medicinal cannabis use, but there are studies that exist which show cannabis can be detrimental to developing minds which is why I don't advocate it until further studies are done (though I don't think kids should be punished by the state for possessing it)

Let's assume the following assertions made by you are actually true:

A) The photo of a kid smoking marijuana shows that pot is "harmless".
B) Alcohol, cigarettes and caffeine are all more harmful than marijuana.

All I have to do is post a picture of some kid drinking a beer, smoking a cigarette, or even drinking a Coke to prove that one of those assertions is false. That's because if something can be proven to be harmless from a photo of a kid ingesting it, then it can't "more harmful" than something else.

Clearly assertion A is false. (I could post a picture of a kid playing Russian Roulette. That would not make that a harmless game.) I don't know about assertion B except to say that I've seen evidence going both ways on the effects of marijuana. But Jordan is 100% right that a kid taking a bong hit is poor advertising for the "legalize pot" cause, unless the point being made is "Once we quit arresting adults for using pot, society can devote more resources to keeping it out of the hands of kids like we do with alcohol and cigarettes and porn before the internet became ubiquitous".

The "pot is harmless" argument isn't going to work with anyone that doesn't already support decriminalization. In fact it doesn't even fly with some people who support decriminalization as shown by this thread. The strongest argument I can think of is the studies from Amsterdam that show that decriminalization hasn't led to greater usage rates in that country than here in the U.S. Clearly if the same number of people use a substance after it's decriminalized as before then no more "harm" can be done by it whether it's harmless or not. I'm not sure if the photos in the OP help or hurt that argument. It could hurt because it shows "hordes of pot smoker" just itching to light up once it's legal. It could help because it shows that many of them are going to do it anyway despite the law.

[dean.engelhardt]

The image of two children smoking on a bong really does not help the legalization movement.

[jmdrake]

Forgive me for pointing out that there's another, more obvious flaw in what you're saying, Baptist.

When abolitionists were marching and meeting and stumping, how many people witnessing it had the exact same reaction that you have to unkempt hippies smoking up in public?
When sufferagettes were marching and meeting and stumping, how many people witnessing it had the exact same reaction that you have to unkempt hippies smoking up in public?
When crowds of negroes were marching and meeting and stumping.... et cetera.

We're all viewing the old pictures you posted in hindsight, and none of us has a reaction to them, because we wouldn't think anything of it happening today. But we're living in the time of the new pictures.

The Million Man March wasn't spectacular, because it was something that had already happened, a lot.
There's a reason it'll be forgotten, but MLK's speech by the reflecting pool is history which is carved in stone and will never be forgotten.

That reason is because it was radical, and the mere fact of it happening was a shock to society.

People aren't used to seeing people smoke up at the park. It's shocking.
I say, good. After a year or two, it won't be. Then we make progress.

It's not illegal to hold meetings and do marches and it wasn't illegal when abolitionists, women's sufferagists, and civil rights advocates were doing it. It is illegal to light up a joint. A better analogy would civil rights advocates disobeying Jim Crowe laws by not giving up seats on a but or sitting down at all white lunch counters.

[dean.engelhardt]

The "pot is harmless" argument isn't going to work with anyone that doesn't already support decriminalization. In fact it doesn't even fly with some people who support decriminalization as shown by this thread. The strongest argument I can think of is the studies from Amsterdam that show that decriminalization hasn't led to greater usage rates in that country than here in the U.S. Clearly if the same number of people use a substance after it's decriminalized as before then no more "harm" can be done by it whether it's harmless or not. I'm not sure if the photos in the OP help or hurt that argument. It could hurt because it shows "hordes of pot smoker" just itching to light up once it's legal. It could help because it shows that many of them are going to do it anyway despite the law.

Very good reasoning. Substance abuse of pot, alcohol, or even junk food is harmful. The fight needs to be about the sensibility or the Drug War. Getting people to accept that pot use as completely socailly acceptable is as acheiveable as the acceptance of beer being served with school lunches.

[dean.engelhardt]

I think Marijuana ought to be legal as a matter of health freedom. I know many people believe the only treatment for cancer is what the mainstream medicine people say it is but their are many people who claim marijuana has cured them of cancer.

Their is a man from Canada who a great risk to his own personal freedom has been on a mission to share marijuana oil with people for free I might add who have life threatening illness. His name is Rick Simpson he gives it to people who have been told they are going to die very soon.
The link below is one of my favorite interviews of this man it is part one of a 14 part video I hope you can listen to all 14 parts:

YouTube - Hemp Oil (Marijuana Oil) Cures Cancer? - Part 1/14 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI2rG1O3QpU&feature=related)

This is a great video series. I discovered this while my mother was dying of cancer. It makes me wonder if the government didn't limit full research of the medical properties of HTC that she'd be alive today. Anyone concerned with liberty, corporitism, or health freedom needs to know about Rick Simpson.

[jmdrake]

I think Marijuana ought to be legal as a matter of health freedom. I know many people believe the only treatment for cancer is what the mainstream medicine people say it is but their are many people who claim marijuana has cured them of cancer.

Their is a man from Canada who a great risk to his own personal freedom has been on a mission to share marijuana oil with people for free I might add who have life threatening illness. His name is Rick Simpson he gives it to people who have been told they are going to die very soon.
The link below is one of my favorite interviews of this man it is part one of a 14 part video I hope you can listen to all 14 parts:

YouTube - Hemp Oil (Marijuana Oil) Cures Cancer? - Part 1/14 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI2rG1O3QpU&feature=related)

I'm sure you already know this, but just for clarification hemp products (including hemp oil) are perfectly legal in the U.S. It's hemp production that's not illegal. I think this is "justified" by some lame excuse that hemp looks to much like marijuana for cops to be able to tell the difference. (And yeah, I know the connection between chemical companies like DuPont and the ban on hemp production because it was a competitor to their Nylon and other products.)

[dean.engelhardt]

A lot of people might be initially disgusted by some of those pictures, but really... the 2' phatty joint... doesn't that just show how incredibly harmless this substance actually is?? The 13 year old kids toking a fat bong.. I mean, I don't advocate children using the substance unless it is for medical reasons, but again, doesn't that just show how incredibly harmless it is if you can have all of these thousands of people including children, supposedly "abusing" this substance, nobody gets hurt and everybody has a great time? I didn't see people doing lines of coke or shooting heroin at these events.. no violent outbreaks, drunken people falling over or getting in fights..

Some of the anti-mj folks just need to do a reality check.

Although I don't like the picture of the two kids, you have an excellent point. Huffing legal substances is brain damaging and killing many kids.

[Rael]

No, their argument is quite sound actually. It's my body, fuck off.

+1

[Daamien]

Those women suffragists really knew how to dress ;)

Really though, I totally agree that it is an image issue. I talk about legalization with my parents often and they associate marijuana with irresponsibility yet then proceed to enjoy an alcoholic beverage. They agree with me that it should be a state issue and not an offense that carries a prison term for personal use, but find it hard to support the legalization "movement" because of the social taboo and image.

[yokna7]

I wish people would legalize it just because it's a horrible system, but unfortunately we'll have to settle for self-interest.

Oh I agree, the war on drugs is a hole, but the "lets tax it" movement is just as misguided. I would be willing to pay an excise tax on marijuana if it were legal, but only if the federal income tax were repealed. That sounds like a good system.

[Jordan]

Oh I agree, the war on drugs is a hole, but the "lets tax it" movement is just as misguided. I would be willing to pay an excise tax on marijuana if it were legal, but only if the federal income tax were repealed. That sounds like a good system.

Estimates suggest the marijuana market is worth $70 billion in the US. That's 1/200th of the GDP.

Good luck displacing income taxes with marijuana excise taxes.

[jmdrake]

Oh I agree, the war on drugs is a hole, but the "lets tax it" movement is just as misguided. I would be willing to pay an excise tax on marijuana if it were legal, but only if the federal income tax were repealed. That sounds like a good system.

If marijuana is legalized at the very least it should be taxed to the same extent that other items are taxed. In many places there is an 18% tax on food. Arguing that marijuana should somehow be "tax free" is beyond the pale.

[Working Poor]

I'm sure you already know this, but just for clarification hemp products (including hemp oil) are perfectly legal in the U.S. It's hemp production that's not illegal. I think this is "justified" by some lame excuse that hemp looks to much like marijuana for cops to be able to tell the difference. (And yeah, I know the connection between chemical companies like DuPont and the ban on hemp production because it was a competitor to their Nylon and other products.)

yes but, jmdrake the person in this interview is talking about cannabis sativa the kind that gets people high on. According to him regular hemp does not have the same curative effect.

I do agree that regular hemp should not be illegal though.

[Anti Federalist]

If everyone who wants to end the war on drugs took a lesson from history, things could change in a matter of months not decades

Didn't read the whole thread, so maybe somebody already made this point, but:

Argument Fail.

The images you posted were how everybody looked and dressed in that time.

Everybody today looks and dresses like slobs or convicts, regardless of what movement they may be part of.

I'm no fashion plate, but when I travel, I at least wear long pants and clean shirt.

I've had people in first class on airplanes show up in pajama shorts and flip flops.

[silentshout]

Also, I've been thinking about this a bit. The people you see in these photos can come to these events as they are young and and don't have as much to lose as perhaps a professional or a family man/woman. They will stay in the closet for fear of losing their kids, their professional licenses, and so on. Even if they use it for medical reasons...the cops may still bring a SWAT team to their house in the middle of the night.

Sure, some celebrities and people like Rick Steves and Richard Branson have "come out" but trust me, there are so many professional people who just can't take that risk.

So, the kids and the party atmosphere is what people see.

[dannno]

Also, I've been thinking about this a bit. The people you see in these photos can come to these events as they are young and don't have as much to lose as perhaps a professional or a family man/woman. They will stay in the closet for fear of losing their kids, their professional licenses, and so on. Even if they use it for medical reasons...the cops may still bring a SWAT team to their house in the middle of the night.

Sure, some celebrities and people like Rick Steves and Richard Branson have "come out" but trust me, there are so many professional people who just can't take that risk.

Absolutely.

[.Tom]

Legalize it. Don't tax it. Don't regulate it. Same for all drugs.

It's my body, fuck off.

[Teaser Rate]

That's irrelevant to the issue.

This and a previous quote are the issues I'm talking about. Illogical, incoherent, emotional ranting does not persuade. Moral relativism like what I just quoted is also unconvincing and irrelevant. Stick to the issues and stick to relevant parts of the issues. The real issue is a full-scale, broad-spectrum analysis of the consequences of anti-drug laws. This includes all the unintended consequences and every aspect of it. The personal liberty aspect is just one aspect, and it is among the least convincing. Do you want to know how I know that it's the least convincing? Because personal liberty is among the least influential values in our society--compare the population of "libertarians" to those of any other political ideology which places personal liberty below other values. Even among "libertarians" there is a lot of discussion on just what personal liberty means and how much it should be valued.

Stick to the relevant issues. You need not ignore the personal liberty aspect, but it should absolutely not be the central argument. Everyone is concerned to some extent about their wallet and their safety, and the war on drugs has impacted both negatively.

Full disclosure: I think you're a complete moron if you do illicit drugs for non-medicinal reasons. By that same token, I think you're a moron if you use alcohol in an irresponsible way, or caffeine, or any ingestible substance. However, I'm certainly in favor of legalizing (or decriminalizing on the Federal level) most of the drugs because of the raw logical reasons for doing so. Primarily it's the 'unintended consequences' of this war on drugs that makes its continuance absurd, especially including both the perpetuation of criminal gangs and of the prison industry.

You can't legislate away stupidity; in fact it is a fundamental force of the universe, according to some.

I agree with everything you said. Most people see the personal liberty argument in favour of legalization as just another way of saying “I just want to get high”. However, making the argument that criminalization leads to more drug use and crime, and backing it up with relevant data and real-life examples can actually work towards changing people’s minds.

There are 3 basic ways to challenge a social policy, you can either argue against its morality, its premise or its consequences. Most of the time, the last option is always going to be the most effective.

Take drug legalization, the moral argument is “the government doesn’t have a right to tell me what to do with my body”, the premise argument is “drugs aren’t bad” and the consequence one is “the drug war increases drug use”. Most people who aren't already in favor of legalization aren't going to be swayed by the first two one bit.

This could also be applied to a number of other issues such as ending the welfare state or cutting military spending; when faced with the option of stating “government redistribution of wealth is always wrong”, “poor people deserve it” or “the welfare state actually makes people poorer”, I think it’s a fairly obvious choice on which type of argument libertarians should use when trying to lobby for social changes.

[jmdrake]

Where on earth do you get that idea??

The bible cites cannabis as one of the ingredients used in anointing oil, and Jesus was referred to as "the anointed one".
.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/06/science.religion


Ummm no. The Guardian newspaper cites some "expert" who says that the oil Jesus used contained cannabis, but the article doesn't give a single Bible verse to back up the claim. That's rather weak dontyathink?