Pot-smoking moms tired of being judged by wine drinkers

now that is what i call a MILF!

 

well phrased

 

What I'm saying is: ideally they should rely on neither.
(...)
And daily use of - any - drug is bad.

First of all, I really liked your post.
I agreed with nearly all of it, and found it perceptive, but I wonder if you are being a bit idealistic?
For instance,
a) it is extremely difficult to define "drug" and its related terms (such as "addiction") so as to not include foods and drinks (and fasting), oxygen, exercise, relationships to people, addictions to certain moods or thought processes, and more.
b) Once you do define what you mean, let us accept for the sake of argument that it is bad - in an ideal world.
c) You don't say how bad, and there is room for argument that circumstances in this reality (which may be only peripherally related to what we think of as ideal) may outweigh some limited badness in making a moral+rational decision.

I should confess that my own personal bias is to consider advanced ways of being that are due to factors that are "inherent and induced", such as meditation, yoga, fasting, and exercise, to be superior to those due to "obtained" methods, such as most "drugs". In other words:

Getting high through yoga etc. > getting high using "drugs"


I am pretty sure you would agree with this.
So, I am not trying to argue against you, but to agree with you,
but adding a reminder that that we really can't judge others' situations unless we have lived them.

Peace.

 

j'adour

 

Stoners, in general, yes - there are exceptions, tend to be less functional than drinkers. There aren't a lot of high-achieving people, outside of the arts, who smoke weed on a daily basis. They are the exceptions, not the rule. Weed often makes people boring and lazy. Peaceful, too, sure. But boring and lazy all the same...

Way to stereotype a massive, extremely diverse group of people. Lazy and unsuccessful? I get the feeling you don't realize just how many people enjoy cannabis, and only notice the more visible and obvious "stoners". I'd guess about half of the business owners I know smoke cannabis. They work extremely hard as well, and spend more time doing so than most. The hardest working man I know uses cannabis. He runs a successful high-end auto repair business and will often be there very early and long after the sun goes down. When it comes to people who use cannabis, he is not the exception, nor the rule. I've met smokers of every class, color, religion and status. A very wide range of people, and a lot of closet smokers who are too worried to admit to anyone that they enjoy a bowl or a joint after work. And with good reason. They don't want to be locked up, lose their jobs, or be looked down on and stereotyped by people like yourself.

And what was that crack about being opposed to the war on drugs? Maybe if you'd have close friends and family members locked up for extended periods for no good reason you'd think differently. It tears families apart and ruins lives. And you feel the need to mock those of us that are humane and competent enough to oppose such a thing? You come off as a frustrated individual. Maybe try some cannabis to calm you down.

 

I didn't mock anyone. I meant "stoners" as in the weed equivalent of alcoholics. I made it pretty clear I was talking about people who smoke weed every day, and those who do tend to have at least some minor issues relating to their use. I know thousands of people who are addicted to weed. I used to be one of them. From my observations, most of them would be better off if they broke their habits. All you have to do is go and check out the "I need a break" thread in the bluelight Cannabis Discussion forum to confirm what I'm saying. It takes "lifelong stoners" a long time to admit to themselves the impact that marijuana has on their lives.

Back in high school, I knew a lot of smart people who fucked up their education by smoking marijuana. I was one of them. I had a genius level IQ, and so did my brother. We both started smoking weed and our results went rapidly downhill. We didn't graduate with scores that reflected our abilities, and I attribute this largely to weed. A lot of less intelligent students, who didn't smoke every day, got better results and were able to get into more prestigious university courses. It's taken me a long time to function at a high level, academically, while smoking pot.

The guy you know who runs an auto shop, who knows what he would have been capable of if he wasn't smoking all the time. Weed doesn't improve your ability to succeed in this world, it impairs it. I'm not saying by how much it impairs it. Because I don't know. But it clearly does. I've seen it, time and time again. Though that guy, your friend, he might be an exception.

I don't look down on smokers. Most of my friends are smokers. The closet stoners are "out" to me. I am a friend of the drug taker. I am not, however, in denial about the effects of drugs. A lot of marijuana users refuse to admit that weed has any negative effect. This annoys me. It is counter-productive. Smoking bongs is a filthy habit. It's bad for your lungs and your teeth. It's highly addictive. It temporarily reduces intelligence. And, yes, it makes people lazy. And that IS the rule, not the exception. The fact that marijuana is demotivational is just that: a fact. It's not a conspiracy. It really does make people lazy. It made me lazy. Amphetamines on the other hand, while having other negative qualities, make people productive. Alcohol causes people to do reckless things. Every drug, doesn't matter what it is, has negative effects on people's lives. All drugs, including marijuana, need to be consumed in moderation. I'm not anti-pot. I'm pro-pot. But that doesn't mean I have to blindly embrace it as the answer to all life's problems. Like alcohol, and heroin, it is a drug and it has negative consequences on people's lives.

And what was that crack about being opposed to the war on drugs? Maybe if you'd have close friends and family members locked up for extended periods for no good reason you'd think differently. It tears families apart and ruins lives. And you feel the need to mock those of us that are humane and competent enough to oppose such a thing? You come off as a frustrated individual. Maybe try some cannabis to calm you down.

I don't know if you were stoned when you read what I wrote, no offence intended, but you totally misunderstood what I said.

Wars consist of two opposing forces. In the case of the war on drugs, there are the anti-drug people and the pro-drug people. Peace activists, in the context of this war, are not those on the pro-drug side. They are - as with all wars throughout history - those who try and not take sides. Those who try to have a neutral opinion. This is why I do not blindly support drugs and ignore the negative consequences. The tone of your post indicates that you have taken a side and are therefore - whether you know it or not - "contributing to the war".

I am perfectly calm. I'm just trying to look at the issue from a neutral perspective. Not as a stoner or an anti-stoner. I'm not trying to just see the negatives or just see the positives. Cheech and Chong type activists are pro-drug propagandists. They are no better than the anti-drug propagandists. There are no black & white "good guys" and "bad guys".

Heroin is illegal because it fucks up people's lives. The same can be said, to a lesser extent, about marijuana. The fact that long time users insist that it doesn't fuck up lives, and that it basically has no negative consequences whatsoever, contributes to it's status as illegal. The obliviousness of drug users is a concern for the drug war equivalent of peace activists.

The attitude that a lot of drug users have is reckless. We need to recognize the potential for drugs to do harm, in order to prevent them from doing so. Blindly embracing them as some sort of elixir of the Gods - with no negative qualities - is dangerous.

Ideally, all drugs should be legal - to an extent. I don't think heroin should be readily available to anyone and everyone, but the penalties for possession are incorrect; same goes for weed, IMO.

 

Heroin is illegal because it fucks up people's lives. The same can be said, to a lesser extent, about marijuana.

Not really.
Marijuana became illegal because of a scare campaign, and stays illegal because big industries stand to lose money if it is legalized. Alcohol, which fucks up more people's lives to a greater degree, remains legal.
I would say that "protection" has little to do with it.
Haven't you seen videos of cops killing people to "protect" them from the little baggie of weed or coke they just swallowed or flushed?

Cheech and Chong type activists are pro-drug propagandists. They are no better than the anti-drug propagandists.

Strongly disagree.
Cheech and Chong are reacting to a immoral system of bias and propaganda.
They may underestimate the dangers of weed, but they are far, far better than those who would "protect" us from nature's plants (so that we may increase our intake of other plants - tobacco and alcohol grains, for example).

The right to alter consciousness should be a fundamental freedom.
It is a desire found in every culture, in every stage of human history - even animals like to get high/drunk.
We owe it to people to legalize all drugs.
The best protection from the dangers of drugs lies in a solid, science-based approach to education, which means throwing out the DARE propaganda. Other than that, some age- and experience-based licensing system for drug use could prevent children, and those without enough knowledge/experience, from using (strong) drugs.

 

I understand where you're coming from, and I may be a bit biased myself, but you come off that way too. You had a negative experience you attribute to cannabis. And no, I don't believe cannabis is pure good, but this lazy, stupid, and unsuccessful stereotype is wrong. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but many strains of cannabis are actually very motivating and give energy. Take the hazes for example, I've never seen anyone act lazy or unmotivated after smoking a good haze strain. I know quite a few people who smoke instead of drinking coffee.

I also have to disagree that opposing the drug war is in fact contributing to it (unless I misunderstand you). Maybe it contributes to the battle over the war on drugs, but not the war itself. You have to be on one side or the other, otherwise you'd have to not care about the millions of people who have been affected by it and those who it will affect.

I agree nothing is plain black or white, and many people here will try to paint a rosy picture of cannabis use, but I feel you're doing just the opposite, making it out to be worse than it is.

Another thing real quick, now way in hell is a hardcore alcoholic more productive than a hardcore stoner. At least if you're stoned out of your gourd you can still talk, walk, and piss where you're supposed to.

 

I think being really stoned all day everyday usually causes problems, the same way being drunk all day everyday usually causes problems. I'd probably rather be addicted to weed than alcohol though.

Both of them are fine in moderation though.

 

I think being really stoned all day everyday usually causes problems, the same way being drunk all day everyday usually causes problems. I'd probably rather be addicted to weed than alcohol though.

Both of them are fine in moderation though.

Agreed.

Marijuana became illegal because of a scare campaign, and stays illegal because big industries stand to lose money if it is legalized. Alcohol, which fucks up more people's lives to a greater degree, remains legal.

I didn't say it became illegal because it fucks up people's lives. I said it is illegal because it fucks up people's lives. Through observation, parents and school teachers can clearly recognize that it is demotivational and that it threatens the "progress" of society. Although it is preferable to alcohol - I have never denied this - it is still causes problems.

Cheech and Chong are reacting to a immoral system of bias and propaganda.

They are capitalizing on a niche. I find little moral commentary in them dressing up like idiots and repeating the same bad jokes for four decades. They are contributing to one extreme of the argument, which is: drugs are harmless/ drugs are cool.

they are far, far better than those who would "protect" us from nature's plants

The DEA and other organizations who attempt, misguidedly, to control the use of dangerous substances are not evil. The punishments for such offences are wrong, but there needs to be some control. Especially with research chemicals and bath salts and what not. Before drugs became illegal, they caused serious problems. Look at opium, when it was introduced to Brittish culture. Look at alcohol with indigenous Australians. Drugs that have not existed, culturally, have not had time to assimilate themselves into every day lives. And serious problems emerge. The drug war people recognize this, and perhaps over-react to it - by prematurely banning RELATIVELY harmless substances - but the problem still exists. The drug war cannot be simplified down to money. Money is an aspect to every war. There is always a financial incentive. And there is always propaganda - to varying degrees. Typically, there is an underlying justification. You might not agree with the justification, but it exists.

Australia has some of the harshest drug schedules in the world. Recently I discovered that this might have something to do with Indigenous populations and their tendency towards recreational abuse. I think it was kava kava that was banned in Australia due to it's overuse by Aboriginal communities. The legalization - and relative accessiblity of all drugs - would not have a good impact on Indigenous populations who have not had the time to assimilate safe drug practices into their culture.

The right to alter consciousness should be a fundamental freedom. It is a desire found in every culture, in every stage of human history - even animals like to get high/drunk. We owe it to people to legalize all drugs. The best protection from the dangers of drugs lies in a solid, science-based approach to education, which means throwing out the DARE propaganda. Other than that, some age- and experience-based licensing system for drug use could prevent children, and those without enough knowledge/experience, from using (strong) drugs.

As I said, I believe drugs should be legal. But that's not going to solve the problem. Look at Portugal. There have been improvements since legalization, but the issues to drug use remain. Education is idealistic. The problems will always remain, to a certain extent. Marijuana will always fuck up some people's lives. It, like all drugs, should be approached with caution.

You had a negative experience you attribute to cannabis.

No, I haven't.

And no, I don't believe cannabis is pure good, but this lazy, stupid, and unsuccessful stereotype is wrong.

It has been proven to temporarily lower IQ and demotivate. I'm not saying it makes people stupid sloths, but it certainly has an impact - generally - on applied intelligence and productivity. You seem to be denying that it has any negative effects whatsoever... ? If it doesn't demotivate, then what would you say are the negative impacts of the drug?

I also have to disagree that opposing the drug war is in fact contributing to it (unless I misunderstand you). Maybe it contributes to the battle over the war on drugs, but not the war itself. You have to be on one side or the other, otherwise you'd have to not care about the millions of people who have been affected by it and those who it will affect.

You don't have to "take up arms" on either side. We're not talking about a physical war here, so it's easy to get confused. What I'm saying is this (I haven't been very clear throughout this argument; I blame the absurd amount of morphine I've been consuming) ... Anti-drug people lie about the negative effects of drugs. Pro-drug people lie about the positive effects of drugs. This is the (theoretical aspect of the) drug war. We need to be honest about the positives and the negatives in order to not contribute to the war. Your assertion that marijuana does not demotivate is not helpful. It clearly does. Maybe it doesn't demotivate you. But it has a demotivational effect. This isn't even necessarily a bad thing. It depends on whether or not you WANT to contribute towards the progress of society. Chilling out under a tree and watching the clouds is fine. It doesn't harm anyone. Weed makes you chill. Maybe that's a good thing. But to deny that it chills you out (and by extension demotivates you a bit) is absurd. People smoke and they relax. They sit back and play guitar. They love on another. Again this isn't BAD, but it exists. And it's not helpful towards a progressive society. The powers to be find it to be threatening because they want people to make money and spend money and contribute towards the machine. Generally, from my experience - and I can only speak from my experience, hardcore stoners tend to be less content with their lives as they approach middle age. How old are you, if you don't mind me asking?

I agree nothing is plain black or white, and many people here will try to paint a rosy picture of cannabis use, but I feel you're doing just the opposite, making it out to be worse than it is.

I'm sorrry if I cam across like that. I guess I was focusing more on the negative because - throughout this thread - the negative aspects had been ignored. The thread was saying: "Alcohol is evil." / "Weed is good." - which is an ignorant perspective that I commonly encounter from pro-drug types. I was just trying to balance things out, by pointing out that neither is evil or good. They are both drugs, and they both have both positive and negative qualities. Anti-drug types tend to ignore the negative apsects of alcohol and exaggerate the positive. That doesn't mean that we (pro-drug types) should do the opposite.

Another thing real quick, now way in hell is a hardcore alcoholic more productive than a hardcore stoner. At least if you're stoned out of your gourd you can still talk, walk, and piss where you're supposed to.

You're talking about the stereotypical alcoholic. I'd say there are more high functioning alcoholics than there are stoners. I'd also say that there are more high functioning heroin addicts, then there are stoners. I could be wrong. But extremes aside, it is easier to function when consuming alcohol in moderation than it is to function while consuming marijuana in moderation. The latter is more addictive and tends to have a longer half-life. It takes me over 24 hours to get over being really stoned once off. Whereas I can recover from a heavy drink the night before in a couple of hours. This is, I think, why the powers to be find marijuana to be more threatening than alcohol. Because weed makes you not want to go to work. And just chill out and say fuck it. And like I said, maybe that's not such a bad thing. But it's not what the machine wants you to do. Weed threatens the machine. Alcohol doesn't so much. That's just my opinion, anyway.

 

Just want to be clear in stating I respect your opinions, but I also respectfully disagree. Weed can have negative impacts on motivation. I attribute this to the popularization of cannabis indica (sativas are more difficult and take longer to grow), and the influx of lower-grade herb that will most definitely leave you feeling burnt. Cannabis Sativa is really quite different in its effect. Most people I've talked to would say sativas are cerebral, invigorating, and energetic with much less of a "body" effect, if any at all. Some sativas are even a bit racy, and cause anxiety if used in excess due to over-stimulation. When someone tells me they dislike marijuana, I usually tell them they're smoking the wrong type. Even though I say it jokingly, there's some truth to it. A lot of people haven't experienced cannabis that motivates, but I can assure you, it's out there.

And of course I was referring to the stereotypical drunk when talking about functionality. You were talking about the stereotypical stoner, were you not? I'd also hazard a guess that alcohol has more of a negative impact on the mind than cannabis. It's been proven to cause short-term memory loss just as cannabis has.
Also have to disagree about opiate addicts being more functional. I've met and talked with people of both worlds, and many opiate users get to the point where they can no longer maintain or afford their habit, and resort to underhanded things that they would normally never do just to keep up with it. I've also seen a few people nodding out at work, and thats anything but functional.

I can also guarantee there are a lot of people that you wouldn't know were smokers, and definitely won't volunteer that information. I know of one smoker whom I discovered by accident, and this guy's wife didn't even know. He didn't want anyone to find out. Negative stereotypes and fear of judgment drive people in to the shadows. Thats why I hope we can dispel the myths and stereotypes, and do our best not to make generalizations about any group of people.

 

Please answer the following questions:

You seem to be denying that it has any negative effects whatsoever... ? If it doesn't demotivate, then what would you say are the negative impacts of the drug?

How old are you, if you don't mind me asking?

...

I can also guarantee there are a lot of people that you wouldn't know were smokers, and definitely won't volunteer that information.

I don't think so. I'm not the sort of person one hides such information from. Maybe there is somebody in my life who is a closet smoker. But I seriously doubt it. I am so open about my drug use, that it would be completely nonsensical to disclose such information. As I said, there might be one (or two) really paranoid (another negative trait) individuals who feel the need to hide it from me. But there's certainly not a lot.

Cannabis Sativa is really quite different in its effect. Most people I've talked to would say sativas are cerebral, invigorating, and energetic with much less of a "body" effect, if any at all. Some sativas are even a bit racy, and cause anxiety if used in excess due to over-stimulation. When someone tells me they dislike marijuana, I usually tell them they're smoking the wrong type. Even though I say it jokingly, there's some truth to it. A lot of people haven't experienced cannabis that motivates, but I can assure you, it's out there.

I'd argue that I probably know more about weed than you do. I've been smoking for fifteen years. I know people who have plantations in different countries. I am aware that there are differences, in terms of effects - strain to strain. But they all contain THC, and THC - in sufficient quantities - demotivates. That doesn't mean it makes people into puddles of jelly. And, as I said, it's not necessarily a bad thing. I'm not sure why it's so difficult for you to accept the fact that - generally -it is a de-motivational drug. You can argue semantics with me all you like. You can say "it motivates people to eat cheese" or "it motivates people to play guitar" - but, generally, it is a downer.

And of course I was referring to the stereotypical drunk when talking about functionality. You were talking about the stereotypical stoner, were you not?

Yeah, but you were criticizing me for talking in stereotypes! You're applying a double standard. Which is my whole point. You find no issue with stereotyping drunks, yet - ironically - you object to stereotyping stoners!

I'd also hazard a guess that alcohol has more of a negative impact on the mind than cannabis. It's been proven to cause short-term memory loss just as cannabis has.

Alcohol, undoubtedly, is worse for the body and soul. That is not the point. As I said, if you argue that cannabis is "okay" because you can point out a worse alternative - then alcohol is also okay when compared to heroin or meth. And heroin/meth are okay when compared to corrosive acids. And so on and so forth. The argument is flawed. I've said that right from the beginning. I have never - at any point - argued that alcohol is "better" than marijuana. The reason that I point out that alcoholics are more functional than hardcore stoners is because I am trying to illustrate that both drugs have advantages over each other. And both drugs have drawbacks.

Also have to disagree about opiate addicts being more functional. I've met and talked with people of both worlds, and many opiate users get to the point where they can no longer maintain or afford their habit, and resort to underhanded things that they would normally never do just to keep up with it. I've also seen a few people nodding out at work, and thats anything but functional.

Low income workers do not represent the bulk of heroin addicts. I have personally known quite a few heroin dealers whose clientele exists entirely of people with six figure incomes. The problem with heroin and cocaine is: they are expensive drugs and are only compatible with people who can afford to use them.

Negative stereotypes and fear of judgment drive people in to the shadows. Thats why I hope we can dispel the myths and stereotypes, and do our best not to make generalizations about any group of people.

Yet you're happy to stereotype alcoholics and make generalizations about stoners/ opiate users and alcoholics!

"Stereotype" is not a dirty word and generalizations are not inherently offensive. Stereotypical stoners exist. They are real people. I see them all the time. Thirty year old men living in their parents basements, smoking bongs that haven't been cleaned for months and playing video games. I am making an example of these people, because they illustrate how destructive the drug CAN be on lifestyles. I'm not saying that you are a stereotypical stoner. But they do exist, in large numbers.

Weed is a boring drug. Some people spend a large portion of their lives getting stoned. There are so many different drugs out there, and so many different activities to partake in. I encourage people, who've spent the bulk of the past three or four years smoking weed, to stop. Not because weed is evil. Or alcohol is better. But because there is no point spending that much time devoted to any drug. Moderation is the key. Weed is so much better when consumed one in a while. Doesn't matter if it's strain A or strain B or strain Q. Smoking weed day after day for years is a not a good thing. At the very least, it has drawbacks. Addiction is not a good thing. Doesn't matter what the drug is. To ignore the negative aspects of being addicted to a drug is unhealthy - psychologically. Marijuana is a healthier alternative to alcohol, but that doesn't make it healthy. It causes people to become depressed and demotivated. I have seen it with my own eyes. And there have been studies done on it.

Again:

Please answer the following questions:

You seem to be denying that it has any negative effects whatsoever... ? If it doesn't demotivate, then what would you say are the negative impacts of the drug?

How old are you, if you don't mind me asking?

Thanks.

 

I did indeed say and agree that some, in fact most cannabis available, does demotivate. Nonetheless I'm still surprised with your knowledge of cannabis that you overlooked the energy and even motivation induced by cannabis sativa. For me and everyone I've spoken with, sativas increase energy levels. People become more talkative and outgoing. Thats not conducive to decreased motivation and laziness, but again that's only with sativas and sativa-dominant hybrids.
Aside from heavy indicas and low-grade herb causing a decrease in energy, I've also stated it causes memory loss. I also believe if smoked it can irritate the airways. I've seen no evidence of it causing cancer, and although many believe it does, I do reject the idea. Too much of anything is bad for you, but I feel pretty safe in saying that if treated with respect (and if you've got some decent herb) oftentimes the positives outweigh the negatives. There's a few more negatives that some people experience, my brains are just too fried to remember right now wait, oh yeah, there's dream suppression too and some very mild physical dependency (irritability, insomnia, anxiety)

and as for stereotypes, I felt you were the one focused on stoner stereotypes and the one that brought them up, so I responded in kind.

really want to know my age, huh? my youth coming through in my statements is it? I'm 25, and have been using cannabis 13 years. I'd like to think I know more about herb than your average stoner, and most stoners I know would agree. It is a subject thats near and dear to me, so I'm always hungry to learn more about it.

The argument that "alcohol is worse for you" is not to imply weed is good for you, it's an argument for legalization, silly.

 

Demotivation and (temporary) laziness are synonymous. You objected to me saying that smoking weed makes people lazy. So, by extension, you objected to the demotivational aspect of marijuana use. You got really defensive about me making negative comments about the drug. It's not the greatest drug in the world. Different strains contain different ratios/concentrations of the active ingredients - but they are still the same actives. While you can get a much cleaner high from eating high quality buds than you can from smoking garbage, either way it still gets you stoned. And, look, I enjoy being stoned. But you have to get to a point in your life when enough is enough. You're still young. That's why I asked your age. If you get to 35 or 40 and you're still smoking every day, that's a bit sad. Being stoned is fun, but it's not that much fun. I've known hippies who've smoked every day for 40/50 years and they end up being zombie like. Not because the weed has fried their brain or anything stupid like that. But because it makes people - in the long term - a little boring. Sometimes when I get stoned, I feel highly motivated to play music. I'll sit down at the piano for five hours until my fingers hurt. But, a lot of the time, even if it's really good bud, I'll just chill out on the couch all night. This "energy" that you're talking about: it's more of an exception than a rule. Weed (commonly) is a downer and a muscle relaxant - not an upper. Anyway, I'm done with this debate. I get carried away sometimes.

 

hey I enjoyed it. and yes I do get a bit defensive of the herb, but thats because it is my favorite. I've experimented quite a bit and cannabis, with the inexhaustible number of combinations and variations of it and its effects, is the only drug (save for the plethora of psych's and entactogens)I have yet to get bored with. I don't know maybe it's just me but different strains really affect me... well, differently. Almost like its a completely new substance. That, and the looks, flavors, and smells are divine.
anyway, I don't disagree with you all that much, but I do hate stereotypes. It makes people not even bother to get to know a person before passing judgment. ha. in a way they demotivate and cause people to become lazy.

 

I didn't say it became illegal because it fucks up people's lives. I said it is illegal because it fucks up people's lives. Through observation, parents and school teachers can clearly recognize that it is demotivational and that it threatens the "progress" of society. Although it is preferable to alcohol - I have never denied this - it is still causes problems.

Many things "cause problems". Loud music makes people go deaf. Sugar gives people diabetes. Aluminum gives people Alzheimer's. Cars and planes cause accidents.

Who should be the one to judge which threaten "progress", and which don't?

For me, a society in which everyone is addicted to marijuana could easily be preferable to the violent, materialistic society that is Western Culture.

They are capitalizing on a niche. I find little moral commentary in them dressing up like idiots and repeating the same bad jokes for four decades. They are contributing to one extreme of the argument, which is: drugs are harmless/ drugs are cool.

I agree that Cheech and Chong are capitalizing on a niche, but there is moral commentary in there, whether it is apparent to you or not (and whether they explicitly state it or not).
They refuse to compromise and give in to immoral, oppressive drug laws.
I don't think that they are saying drugs are not harmful - they portray "brain-dead", unmotivated stoners, right?
Exactly the personality traits you described earlier as dangerous aspects of cannabis use.

As I said, I believe drugs should be legal. But that's not going to solve the problem. Look at Portugal. There have been improvements since legalization, but the issues to drug use remain. Education is idealistic. The problems will always remain, to a certain extent. Marijuana will always fuck up some people's lives. It, like all drugs, should be approached with caution.

Just because education is not "perfect" (in that it cannot assure 100% safety and lack of harm in all cases) does not mean it is idealistic. It is the most excellent, peaceful form of power, and it is free. If you think it will solve all the problems in the world, maybe your view is idealistic, but education itself is the foundation of freedom.

If drugs will always be linked to problems in some cases, it is no reason to deny the right to use drugs to all people in all cases (as I think you will agree).



In any case, I really enjoy arguing with you.
You have well-thought out, bold, unconventional (at least around here) opinions, and you support them passionately. Let's keep going!

 

"You rarely find a story that says two stoners beat each other up outside of a bar.”

Absolutely spot on!

And on the other hand we all know how alcohol makes everyone so friendly...

 

I've come to rekindle my romance with weed and I think that used judiciously and infrequently, it has many, many benefits.

 

people who get drunk shouldn't judge anyone

 

I've come to rekindle my romance with weed and I think that used judiciously and infrequently, it has many, many benefits.

Definitely. So does alcohol. I'm looking forward to rekindling my romance with both sometime in 2013.

"You rarely find a story that says two stoners beat each other up outside of a bar.”

Absolutely spot on!

And on the other hand we all know how alcohol makes everyone so friendly...

Alcohol quite often does make people friendly. It can induce violent behavior but then again so can LSD.

people who get drunk shouldn't judge anyone

Should people who get stoned judge anyone?

I didn't say it became illegal because it fucks up people's lives. I said it is illegal because it fucks up people's lives. Through observation, parents and school teachers can clearly recognize that it is demotivational and that it threatens the "progress" of society. Although it is preferable to alcohol - I have never denied this - it is still causes problems.

Many things "cause problems". Loud music makes people go deaf. Sugar gives people diabetes. Aluminum gives people Alzheimer's. Cars and planes cause accidents.

Indeed, everything has it's benefits and drawbacks.

Who should be the one to judge which threaten "progress", and which don't?

I'm not justifying the government's decision to declare marijuana a threat. What I'm saying is: they do so, perhaps misguidedly, for what they think are the right reasons. Too many drug users demonize the opposition, just like how the opposition (DEA/ police officers/ government/ etc) demonize drug users.

For me, a society in which everyone is addicted to marijuana could easily be preferable to the violent, materialistic society that is Western Culture.

Western societies aren't so bad. I'd much rather be living in the States or Australia than most Eastern nations. Violence and materialism exists across the globe. Western Culture gets the blame, "Capitalist pig dogs!" but that's more due to the fact that we are free to self-criticize without fear of having our left testicle nailed to a sign saying "How dare you make inslut (not a typo) the prophet!"

I agree that Cheech and Chong are capitalizing on a niche, but there is moral commentary in there, whether it is apparent to you or not (and whether they explicitly state it or not). They refuse to compromise and give in to immoral, oppressive drug laws.

"Moral commentary" is a bit of a stretch. There's little dialogue to support this. Most of their films are poorly written trash about two guys who smoke a lot of weed. "Up in Smoke" was a good stoner movie. The rest of them are utterly horrible. If they are attempting to involve themselves in the debate, then why preach to the choir? Why make films that are only accessible to their side of the argument? My point is that they are re-enforcing the opinions of the pro-drug activists, just as anti-drug films (which focus on the horrific aspects of drug use, rather than the humorous ones) re-enforce the opinions of anti-drug activists. There really is very little difference - practically - between the two. Calling Cheech and Chong propaganda might be a bit of a stretch, but the term does apply to a number of pro-drug documentaries that I've seen.

I don't think that they (Cheech and Chong) are saying drugs are not harmful - they portray "brain-dead", unmotivated stoners, right? Exactly the personality traits you described earlier as dangerous aspects of cannabis use.

No, there are no negative consequences in the plots of their movies. They have lots of drugs and money and women land in their lap while cruising around smoking pot. The dangers of marijuana (dangers is the wrong word, I don't think I used it)... The downside of marijuana is glossed over in most stoner films. Cheech and Chong is certainly no exception. You don't see many stoner films that portray bong heads as demotivated unemployed losers who sit around all day doing nothing. (Note: I'm not saying this is what all stoners are like. This is, however, the stereotype.) On the contrary, stoner films typically see bong heads go on amazing adventures. This doesn't reflect the demotivational aspect of the "dope fiend".

Just because education is not "perfect" (in that it cannot assure 100% safety and lack of harm in all cases) does not mean it is idealistic. It is the most excellent, peaceful form of power, and it is free. If you think it will solve all the problems in the world, maybe your view is idealistic, but education itself is the foundation of freedom.

All I meant was that drug education is not going to solve the problem and it cannot be the entire solution to the issue of drug abuse.

If drugs will always be linked to problems in some cases, it is no reason to deny the right to use drugs to all people in all cases (as I think you will agree).

So kids should have the right to use heroin?

In any case, I really enjoy arguing with you. You have well-thought out, bold, unconventional (at least around here) opinions, and you support them passionately.

Thanks, I've enjoyed the debate too.

Let's keep going!

Your move.

 

My mum is a pot smoker with over 20 years "experience". Not everyday of course, but more at the end of a very stressful day maybe.