I want to do mushrooms again, but I want everyone around me to be on them this time.
This is a very good plan.
I hate being around people who aren't on mushrooms when I am on them. They don't understand you, you don't understand them, and they just piss you off. The worst are the ones who try to "trip you out" and treat you like you are an imbecile.
I'd just argue that you're with the wrong people.
Drunk adolescent males are the worst. They're obnoxious when you're sober, they're fifty times worse when you're tripping on magic mushrooms.
I quit smoking weed about a month and a half ago because I'm trying to find a decent job (in case they do drug screening) but I sometimes miss the "enhancement" effects. I really enjoyed movies and video games more while I was high.
I don't drink alcohol often - more of a social thing really and I can't even remember the last time I was drunk. I would say I maybe have a beer every two weeks on average. So, without drinking or other drug use, I really have trouble finding a way of "letting go" for a few hours every once in a while - something I was able to do with weed. Of course, I'm not trying to say that drugs are the only way to do that. I would much rather get high (off weed) than get drunk - you don't have to worry about feeling like shit the next day (actually, I always feel GREAT and I sleep sooo much better).
Weed and alcohol are the only drugs I've tried but the only other one I'll even touch is mushrooms.
I definitely don't miss the munchies - the worsrt part of getting high other than cottenmouth.
Also, moderation is key. I find it so much more enjoyable when you do it every once in a while other than everyday. I've been there and I know people that are still like that and I can't help but feel sorry for them. It's not that I have any issues with them doing it - it's their body and mind - but they actually get cranky and "fiend" for their next hit. Ugh. Half the time they complain about not being high, or high enough, and they've smoked more than I do in a month in just one sitting.
Drunk adolescent males are the worst. They're obnoxious when you're sober, they're fifty times worse when you're tripping on magic mushrooms.
Sure, I can see that. Actually, in general I've found that having people on different substances is usually worse than having a mixed tripping/sober group. Having one or two sober people around can actually be a very good thing, as long as they're kind of laid back and accepting people.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
By the way, has anyone had any experience with Ayahuasca or DMT? That's currently the most interesting thing on my to-do-eventually list.
The only thing Ive heard about that is from Marc Emery (who i consider a moron) who kept saying that it was completely safe because it is a naturally occuring brain chemical.
I dont think I'll do it, same way as I will never do acid.
Well, I mean, according the research I've done, it is. Produced naturally in the brain, I mean. Just in trace amounts, like when you dream (except when you die, then the brain is supposedly flooded with it). I don't know who this Mark Emery guy is though, the research I've read was done by people with degrees.
It interests me because on LSD and Psilocybin, I've always felt as though the trip is still grounded in me. I want to experience the completely alien unimaginable thoughts that I've heard people describe.
I had a friend who smoked DMT several years ago. He said that one of his main memories of the experience was being able to visualize a sphere from every angle at once.
Raiden333 on
There was a steam sig here. It's gone now.
0
Options
FalloutGIRL'S DAYWAS PRETTY GOOD WHILE THEY LASTEDRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
[22:46] falloutthebear: i have only done the mushrooms once, and that was like less than a month ago
[22:46] falloutthebear: my god dude, if everyone felt like I did then, there would be no problems in the world
[22:46] falloutthebear: when i take over the world and subjugate everyone into my fascist Falloutopia, everyone will be required to eat one serving of mushrooms at every meal, and it will be holy and glorious
[22:46] MisterDizzle738: hahahaha i know the beatles took out a full page ad in the times in the 60's saying that if congress did lsd there would be no war
[22:47] falloutthebear: hahaha
[22:47] falloutthebear: that's so fucking cool
[22:47] falloutthebear: if congress did acid they would be too busy looking at their hands to write declarations of war
[22:48] MisterDizzle738: hahahaha
I'll point out here that just because a chemical occurs naturally in one part of the body doesn't mean it's safe in another part of the body, or in quantities above what your body makes.
That said, there is no evidence that DMT is harmful, but there isn't much scientific knowledge about the physiological effects of DMT in general. I'd suspect though that it's relatively safe along the lines of other tryptamines, if taken at the minimum doses required and only occasionally.
Although there's probably a risk of HPPD, as mentioned earlier in the thread.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Excuse my drunkenness, but I'm a bit pissed (ololz). Why the fuck does the government get to relegate me to a drug that makes me hate myself when there's a perfectly good drug out there that at the very least does no more harm and at best is actually better for my psychological health because it tricks me into thinking I'm a real person? If I actually argue for legalization, I'll use medical facts and logic and numbers and shit, but right now fuck all that and come the fuck on. Clearly I'm not going to hurt myself any worse with marijuana than with alcohol (which should have killed me the night I drank a litre and a half of Jack in an hour), and at least it won't fuck with my psychological well-being. Because different drugs impact different people's minds in different ways, because every mind is wired differently. Particularly the entertaining minds. I should be allowed to take a drug that has all the relaxation effects but doesn't make me feel like I should be shot in the street.
Somebody here is probably a fricking expert on this: When and for what official reason was marijuana first banned, and by whom?
Not an official expert, but my read is "in the '50s, and because alcohol is too socially-ingrained for prohibition on it to be remotely plausible, but the stupid super-Christians who were convinced that drugs are the devil still needed appeasment to win their votes next term".
I've had a discussion about the legality of drugs with a friend of mine. His argument literally was, "Drugs are bad, so they should be illegal". He didn't understand that some drugs are worse than others, and actually categorised pharmaceuticals as "Medicine, not Drugs. Therefore, they're not bad.". It's mind-boggling how close-minded some people are about things. Social programming has just created some sort of router in their brain that automatically conjures up bad images whenever drugs are brought up.
Edit: I've also read that marijuana was associated with Mexicans and Blacks, and you can sorta see why it was banned from there.
Somebody here is probably a fricking expert on this: When and for what official reason was marijuana first banned, and by whom?
1937, the Marijuana Tax Act. It wasn't an official ban, but the documentation the law demanded of any growers or traffickers was onerous to say the least, making it a de facto ban. You can thank Henry Anslinger for that, with a little bit of help from William Randolph Hearst. Anslinger was a prohibitionist who, post-prohibition, had nothing to do so he turned his attention to pot. Hearst, besides being a yellow journalist extraordinaire, had significant investment in lumber futures, against which hemp was the main competitor.
The official reason? Reefer caused reefer madness. It was that simple.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I've had a discussion about the legality of drugs with a friend of mine. His argument literally was, "Drugs are bad, so they should be illegal". He didn't understand that some drugs are worse than others, and actually categorised pharmaceuticals as "Medicine, not Drugs. Therefore, they're not bad."
The first thing you learn in pharmacology is this: "the only difference between a medicine and a poison is the dose." Occasionally this is rephrased as "the only difference between a medicine and a poison is the patient."
The root word "pharma" comes from the Greek "pharmako" which meant "poison." The Greeks knew that there was no clear line between a deadly poison and a healing one.
Anything can kill you in ample quantities, even water. Aspirin can cause significant health problems in children. Tylenol is toxic to the liver. You can overdose on almost all of the major vitamins. The first prescription medicines in modern times were, in order, opium and cocaine. Often these were dissolved in a tincture of alcohol.
TLDR: your friend is an idiot.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Historically, marijuana was not the first drug banned in the US. That honor went to opium and cocaine which together were banned in the Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914. This was mostly Yellow Scare bullshit - according to the jingoists of the time, the chinamen were sending boatloads of addictive opium over to us to addict and corrupt hard-workin' Americans.
The Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914 was basically the beginning of drug politics as we know it. Almost every issue regarding the drug war, including issues prescription drug abuse, pain management, addiction medicine, and so on, can be traced back to that.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The first thing you learn in pharmacology is this: "the only difference between a medicine and a poison is the dose." Occasionally this is rephrased as "the only difference between a medicine and a poison is the patient."
Hehe. I'm half Polish. My ancestors have lived in cesspools for hundreds if not thousands of years. It's convenient. Case in point, drinking a litre and a half of Jack in an hour did not kill me. And I can't even tell I've taken hydrocodone apart from a mild stomach-ache (it was prescribed when I had my wisdom teeth out, but didn't do me a damn bit of good because my pain tolerance is higher than hydrocodone raises it, apparently).
Somebody here is probably a fricking expert on this: When and for what official reason was marijuana first banned, and by whom?
1937, the Marijuana Tax Act. It wasn't an official ban, but the documentation the law demanded of any growers or traffickers was onerous to say the least, making it a de facto ban. You can thank Henry Anslinger for that, with a little bit of help from William Randolph Hearst. Anslinger was a prohibitionist who, post-prohibition, had nothing to do so he turned his attention to pot. Hearst, besides being a yellow journalist extraordinaire, had significant investment in lumber futures, against which hemp was the main competitor.
The official reason? Reefer caused reefer madness. It was that simple.
Didn't Anslinger outright lie to congress to get that passed, telling them the complete opposite of the medical evidence he had been presented with? I also believe he said something along the lines "Everyone knows Mexicans are crazy and it's that marijuana that makes them crazy."
What you have there is an empty statistic built from a subjective evaluation of "overall harm" (which includes legal ramifications) that you've convinced yourself is important.
I fail to see how taking into account the "overall harm" a drug may cause is a bad idea when deciding on which substances should be prohibited. I also think that the best way to assess the overall damage a drug does to society is to have a panel of experts from made up of medical doctors and senior police officers. Again, this is completely valid for a study which was designed to be a starting point to re-examine the drug classification in the UK which currently has magic mushrooms placed in the same category as crack.
Given that this was done by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs whose purpose is:
to keep under review the situation in the United Kingdom with respect to drugs which are being or appear to them likely to be misused and of which the misuse is having or appears to them capable of having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem, and to give to any one or more of the Ministers, where either Council consider it expedient to do so or they are consulted by the Minister or Ministers in question, advice on measures (whether or not involving alteration of the law) which in the opinion of the Council ought to be taken for preventing the misuse of such drugs or dealing with social problems connected with their misuse,
I'd say "overall harm" is pretty fucking important regardless of whether or not you agree with the position of specific drugs on that graph.
The social problems associated with abuse include the social ramifications of smoking pot versus the social ramifications of popping codine. They also assume the present status of each drug in their summation of said social problems. You have to assume certain effects of legalization as well to be able to draw anything from that table. Fuck, ask me again when I'm sober enough to type staight.
ViolentChemistry on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
I had a friend who smoked DMT several years ago. He said that one of his main memories of the experience was being able to visualize a sphere from every angle at once.
this is the type of thing I want. I've never really hallucinated visually... and I want to. but I want more than just wavy lines and bright lights (I had "wavy lines" type thing once... looking at my deck it looked as though the paint on it was sweeping across left to right) I want an intense definitely-not-real visual explosion.
Man, I heard one of the reasons marijuana was originally banned was because hemp rope was the main competitior (and far superior) to the newly-created synthetic wonder of nylon.
And of course, it's going to stay illegal for a very, very, very long time because of the enormous number of lobbying and bureaucratic positions that are dependant upon the illegality of pot, not to mention the incredible boon it is to the prison industry.
I've played hide and seek on acid. Five of my friends were all hiding in the same darkened room convinced they were the only people there until someone came in and turned on the light.
Somebody here is probably a fricking expert on this: When and for what official reason was marijuana first banned, and by whom?
Not an official expert, but my read is "in the '50s, and because alcohol is too socially-ingrained for prohibition on it to be remotely plausible, but the stupid super-Christians who were convinced that drugs are the devil still needed appeasment to win their votes next term".
That, and a lot of people say the tobacco and lumber lobbyists had a nice big hand in it.
Also, ITT we try and figure out why alcohol makes VC think he ought to be shot in the street.
Dude half the time I smoked I'd go out and do shit. Nothing productive, but I was out there. The only times I just sat around the entire time with friends was when it was cold, raining, snowing, or too bright out.
Dude half the time I smoked I'd go out and do shit. Nothing productive, but I was out there. The only times I just sat around the entire time with friends was when it was cold, raining, snowing, or too bright out.
I don't do much high these days since the guys I smoke with like to just chill (and one of them has Lyme disease, so he really doesn't have much energy for doing stuff).
But man, a good 6 hours of Magic the Gathering stoned every few weeks is just what I need.
Dude half the time I smoked I'd go out and do shit. Nothing productive, but I was out there. The only times I just sat around the entire time with friends was when it was cold, raining, snowing, or too bright out.
Smoking a bowl and going on for a walk is probably my favorite activity ever.
Can we all agree that some drugs are on a different order?
Even coke does not compare in the slightest to crack. And meth is just god-awful addictive.
There's been next to no study of 'consumer habits', because drugs are so heavily regulated that no one is making a true choice. So, I guess my point is, in a totally prohibition-free environment (where coke and weed are just as cheap as beer), what are most people going to choose and how often? I am of the opinion that meth and crack are really just byproducts of prohibition: cheap methods of getting high that can be home produced.
There's no moonshine anymore, because you can't really undercut beer in terms of price. If pot and speed were the same way, would *anyone* ever smoke meth or crack? I have my suspicions, but it would be interesting to see some real numbers.
If we essentially did away with prescriptions and drug enforcement today, I think we'd see a *huge* drop-off in meth use, especially after prices settled out.
I agree with all of this. Expect on the moonshine part, people still make and sell that out in the Backwoods.
Buchwald on
"That theory is just the looniest of a whole bunch of complete nonsense that is spouted by Amanda Winn Lee and her cohorts in the Audio Commentary."
Dude half the time I smoked I'd go out and do shit. Nothing productive, but I was out there. The only times I just sat around the entire time with friends was when it was cold, raining, snowing, or too bright out.
Smoking a bowl and going on for a walk is probably my favorite activity ever.
I think part of the sedentary habits of most stoners comes from the fact that they expect smoking to make them lazy.
Dude half the time I smoked I'd go out and do shit. Nothing productive, but I was out there. The only times I just sat around the entire time with friends was when it was cold, raining, snowing, or too bright out.
Smoking a bowl and going on for a walk is probably my favorite activity ever.
I think part of the sedentary habits of most stoners comes from the fact that they expect smoking to make them lazy.
You know how a responsible adult who's not a total douche can get pretty tanked and still not stumble through the streets slurring made up lyrics to "singin' in the rain" at the top of their lungs while repeatedly punching their S.O. in the mouth? That's what happens when you don't use alcohol as an excuse to act like a douche. Same thing happens with pot.
Dude half the time I smoked I'd go out and do shit. Nothing productive, but I was out there. The only times I just sat around the entire time with friends was when it was cold, raining, snowing, or too bright out.
Smoking a bowl and going on for a walk is probably my favorite activity ever.
I think part of the sedentary habits of most stoners comes from the fact that they expect smoking to make them lazy.
That and the paranoia that kicks in for some people, I have friends that don't like being out in public when they're stoned even though you can't really tell by how they're acting.
Smoke a joint and tell me with a straight face that it's more dangerous than a couple of beers. Take a responsible mushroom trip with supportive, loving friends and tell me it's a crime against humanity. If I can buy a bottle of 180proof hard liquor and drink myself into a dangerous alcoholic fugue I should at least be able to grow a goddamn pot plant without going to jail for an absurd manditory minimum sentence.
I gotta agree with you 110% here! I've personally known and seen more people hurt theirselves, other people, and their lives because of alcohol and cigarettes than marijuana. I don't want them to ban or limit the sales of alcohol or cigarettes. If people want to intake something that's not going to harm others (like crack and meth will) then let 'em! I don't know I'm for weed being legalized, per se. If the government decided to allow people to possess and use weed but they wanted to put control factors on it like alcohol (age limits) then I'd be okay with that. Putting people in jail for years and making their lives difficult for a drug that does little more than make you relaxed is criminal in of itself!
Hell, when I was smoking I was able to reduce my stress levels - something I have a difficult time doing being all high-strung and what not. I'm not a big fan of drinking (makes me feel like shit afterward) so that leaves little else to help me deal with stress the way weed could. That, and it made for some great philosophical banter with friends. It really did free a large part of my mind.
Ah well.. it'd be nice to be able to toke up every once in a while without fear of losing a job, having difficulty finding a job, or being put in jail.
Dude half the time I smoked I'd go out and do shit. Nothing productive, but I was out there. The only times I just sat around the entire time with friends was when it was cold, raining, snowing, or too bright out.
Smoking a bowl and going on for a walk is probably my favorite activity ever.
I think part of the sedentary habits of most stoners comes from the fact that they expect smoking to make them lazy.
That and the paranoia that kicks in for some people, I have friends that don't like being out in public when they're stoned even though you can't really tell by how they're acting.
That paranoia likely stems from the fear of getting caught being high due to its stigma and illegality. I prefer to be by myself when I'm high BUT that's probably because I'm the same way when I'm sober.
If people want to intake something that's not going to harm others (like crack and meth will) then let 'em! I don't know I'm for weed being legalized, per se.
Curious, how does doing crack or meth cause someone to harm others? These can be very harmful substances but from my personal experience they cause the most harm to the user like all abused drugs.
Edit: just wanted to note that was mostly an observed experience. However been around a decent sample of crack/meth users to know the chance that I'd get hurt was almost non-existent.
djklay on
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
I was watching a formal debate on drug legalization the other day. It was entertaining to watch the opposing side basically get up and rant about how the drug culture was destroying today's youth, and that we would be worse off than past generations for it.
Then the supporting side got up, and basically said "Yeah, so, what are your feelings on booze? Is that destroying our country's youth as well? Also, prohibition didn't work the last time we tried it; things haven't changed much."
Then the supporting side got up, and basically said "Yeah, so, what are your feelings on booze? Is that destroying our country's youth as well? Also, prohibition didn't work the last time we tried it; things haven't changed much."
And intelligent people all over the country felt really good about themselves because their pro-legalisation views were vindicated. Then they felt shit again because nothing had changed and probably never will.
Posts
I don't drink alcohol often - more of a social thing really and I can't even remember the last time I was drunk. I would say I maybe have a beer every two weeks on average. So, without drinking or other drug use, I really have trouble finding a way of "letting go" for a few hours every once in a while - something I was able to do with weed. Of course, I'm not trying to say that drugs are the only way to do that. I would much rather get high (off weed) than get drunk - you don't have to worry about feeling like shit the next day (actually, I always feel GREAT and I sleep sooo much better).
Weed and alcohol are the only drugs I've tried but the only other one I'll even touch is mushrooms.
I definitely don't miss the munchies - the worsrt part of getting high other than cottenmouth.
Also, moderation is key. I find it so much more enjoyable when you do it every once in a while other than everyday. I've been there and I know people that are still like that and I can't help but feel sorry for them. It's not that I have any issues with them doing it - it's their body and mind - but they actually get cranky and "fiend" for their next hit. Ugh. Half the time they complain about not being high, or high enough, and they've smoked more than I do in a month in just one sitting.
Sure, I can see that. Actually, in general I've found that having people on different substances is usually worse than having a mixed tripping/sober group. Having one or two sober people around can actually be a very good thing, as long as they're kind of laid back and accepting people.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Well, I mean, according the research I've done, it is. Produced naturally in the brain, I mean. Just in trace amounts, like when you dream (except when you die, then the brain is supposedly flooded with it). I don't know who this Mark Emery guy is though, the research I've read was done by people with degrees.
It interests me because on LSD and Psilocybin, I've always felt as though the trip is still grounded in me. I want to experience the completely alien unimaginable thoughts that I've heard people describe.
I had a friend who smoked DMT several years ago. He said that one of his main memories of the experience was being able to visualize a sphere from every angle at once.
[22:46] falloutthebear: my god dude, if everyone felt like I did then, there would be no problems in the world
[22:46] falloutthebear: when i take over the world and subjugate everyone into my fascist Falloutopia, everyone will be required to eat one serving of mushrooms at every meal, and it will be holy and glorious
[22:46] MisterDizzle738: hahahaha i know the beatles took out a full page ad in the times in the 60's saying that if congress did lsd there would be no war
[22:47] falloutthebear: hahaha
[22:47] falloutthebear: that's so fucking cool
[22:47] falloutthebear: if congress did acid they would be too busy looking at their hands to write declarations of war
[22:48] MisterDizzle738: hahahaha
That said, there is no evidence that DMT is harmful, but there isn't much scientific knowledge about the physiological effects of DMT in general. I'd suspect though that it's relatively safe along the lines of other tryptamines, if taken at the minimum doses required and only occasionally.
Although there's probably a risk of HPPD, as mentioned earlier in the thread.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Not an official expert, but my read is "in the '50s, and because alcohol is too socially-ingrained for prohibition on it to be remotely plausible, but the stupid super-Christians who were convinced that drugs are the devil still needed appeasment to win their votes next term".
That whole Reefer Madness thing was based on current developments?
FUCK THAT ERA
Edit: I've also read that marijuana was associated with Mexicans and Blacks, and you can sorta see why it was banned from there.
1937, the Marijuana Tax Act. It wasn't an official ban, but the documentation the law demanded of any growers or traffickers was onerous to say the least, making it a de facto ban. You can thank Henry Anslinger for that, with a little bit of help from William Randolph Hearst. Anslinger was a prohibitionist who, post-prohibition, had nothing to do so he turned his attention to pot. Hearst, besides being a yellow journalist extraordinaire, had significant investment in lumber futures, against which hemp was the main competitor.
The official reason? Reefer caused reefer madness. It was that simple.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Hell, at least prohibition had something of a reality behind it.
The first thing you learn in pharmacology is this: "the only difference between a medicine and a poison is the dose." Occasionally this is rephrased as "the only difference between a medicine and a poison is the patient."
The root word "pharma" comes from the Greek "pharmako" which meant "poison." The Greeks knew that there was no clear line between a deadly poison and a healing one.
Anything can kill you in ample quantities, even water. Aspirin can cause significant health problems in children. Tylenol is toxic to the liver. You can overdose on almost all of the major vitamins. The first prescription medicines in modern times were, in order, opium and cocaine. Often these were dissolved in a tincture of alcohol.
TLDR: your friend is an idiot.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914 was basically the beginning of drug politics as we know it. Almost every issue regarding the drug war, including issues prescription drug abuse, pain management, addiction medicine, and so on, can be traced back to that.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Hehe. I'm half Polish. My ancestors have lived in cesspools for hundreds if not thousands of years. It's convenient. Case in point, drinking a litre and a half of Jack in an hour did not kill me. And I can't even tell I've taken hydrocodone apart from a mild stomach-ache (it was prescribed when I had my wisdom teeth out, but didn't do me a damn bit of good because my pain tolerance is higher than hydrocodone raises it, apparently).
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
#1 reason why Orson Welles is a motherfucking badass, and one of my personal heroes.
Edit: Everyone who has ever seen Citizen Kane should see RKO 281, then re-watch Citizen Kane.
Didn't Anslinger outright lie to congress to get that passed, telling them the complete opposite of the medical evidence he had been presented with? I also believe he said something along the lines "Everyone knows Mexicans are crazy and it's that marijuana that makes them crazy."
I fail to see how taking into account the "overall harm" a drug may cause is a bad idea when deciding on which substances should be prohibited. I also think that the best way to assess the overall damage a drug does to society is to have a panel of experts from made up of medical doctors and senior police officers. Again, this is completely valid for a study which was designed to be a starting point to re-examine the drug classification in the UK which currently has magic mushrooms placed in the same category as crack.
Given that this was done by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs whose purpose is:
I'd say "overall harm" is pretty fucking important regardless of whether or not you agree with the position of specific drugs on that graph.
this is the type of thing I want. I've never really hallucinated visually... and I want to. but I want more than just wavy lines and bright lights (I had "wavy lines" type thing once... looking at my deck it looked as though the paint on it was sweeping across left to right) I want an intense definitely-not-real visual explosion.
And of course, it's going to stay illegal for a very, very, very long time because of the enormous number of lobbying and bureaucratic positions that are dependant upon the illegality of pot, not to mention the incredible boon it is to the prison industry.
He never tells me what it was that was so enlightening though
Also, ITT we try and figure out why alcohol makes VC think he ought to be shot in the street.
What we have here, gentlemen, is a conundrum
Anyone who thinks legalizing marijuana would lead to crime has clearly never been around a stoned person.
I don't do much high these days since the guys I smoke with like to just chill (and one of them has Lyme disease, so he really doesn't have much energy for doing stuff).
But man, a good 6 hours of Magic the Gathering stoned every few weeks is just what I need.
Oh I already know why. It's because unlike pot, alcohol is legal and as such is obviously safer and better for me.
at least you've seen the light.
Smoking a bowl and going on for a walk is probably my favorite activity ever.
I agree with all of this. Expect on the moonshine part, people still make and sell that out in the Backwoods.
I think part of the sedentary habits of most stoners comes from the fact that they expect smoking to make them lazy.
You know how a responsible adult who's not a total douche can get pretty tanked and still not stumble through the streets slurring made up lyrics to "singin' in the rain" at the top of their lungs while repeatedly punching their S.O. in the mouth? That's what happens when you don't use alcohol as an excuse to act like a douche. Same thing happens with pot.
That and the paranoia that kicks in for some people, I have friends that don't like being out in public when they're stoned even though you can't really tell by how they're acting.
I gotta agree with you 110% here! I've personally known and seen more people hurt theirselves, other people, and their lives because of alcohol and cigarettes than marijuana. I don't want them to ban or limit the sales of alcohol or cigarettes. If people want to intake something that's not going to harm others (like crack and meth will) then let 'em! I don't know I'm for weed being legalized, per se. If the government decided to allow people to possess and use weed but they wanted to put control factors on it like alcohol (age limits) then I'd be okay with that. Putting people in jail for years and making their lives difficult for a drug that does little more than make you relaxed is criminal in of itself!
Hell, when I was smoking I was able to reduce my stress levels - something I have a difficult time doing being all high-strung and what not. I'm not a big fan of drinking (makes me feel like shit afterward) so that leaves little else to help me deal with stress the way weed could. That, and it made for some great philosophical banter with friends. It really did free a large part of my mind.
Ah well.. it'd be nice to be able to toke up every once in a while without fear of losing a job, having difficulty finding a job, or being put in jail.
That paranoia likely stems from the fear of getting caught being high due to its stigma and illegality. I prefer to be by myself when I'm high BUT that's probably because I'm the same way when I'm sober.
Curious, how does doing crack or meth cause someone to harm others? These can be very harmful substances but from my personal experience they cause the most harm to the user like all abused drugs.
Edit: just wanted to note that was mostly an observed experience. However been around a decent sample of crack/meth users to know the chance that I'd get hurt was almost non-existent.
Then the supporting side got up, and basically said "Yeah, so, what are your feelings on booze? Is that destroying our country's youth as well? Also, prohibition didn't work the last time we tried it; things haven't changed much."
And intelligent people all over the country felt really good about themselves because their pro-legalisation views were vindicated. Then they felt shit again because nothing had changed and probably never will.