in reply to vote 2000 mmj, (But felt too important not to start a new thread)
Related Topics
"Bromide Man" bongd...@hoopie.com
The reason they outlaw it is exactly that...
Drugs provide an issue of control. They are very desirable. People want them. Having control over such a desirable substance (in my estimate, marijuana is 100 times more desirable than gold, because I gurauntee everyone who smokes dope would cash their gold in for some herb!). The more people want it, and fight back, the greater a tool that control becomes.
Every penny invested in the war on drugs provides the means to yoke the population and control them. They are considered dangerous because they are very effective in being used subversively to control and influence people both using it, and not! If marijuana weren't illegal, would people get so paranoid? PARANOIA ahh. That issue of control, knowing that, if you smoke marijuana, you are a felon and an enemy of the state!
The law has the power of life and death under those beneath it. lato was talking about this 2000 years ago, the same issue, just a different face.
Consider why it is legal in amsterdam? Interesting to think about. Once, the netherlands were the most consertative (calvinist) christians in the past.
Religion is the opiate of the m***es. The best drug that hooks everyone the hardest. As long as we fear ourselves, we will always fear the unknown. That is what drives us all, the inner fears we try to avoid. The only peace we can find is to conquer them and try to reach some sort of enlightenment.
Marijuana is so desirable because it hits the areas in us that are what we are, and through it we see ourselves in finer details. It has been used for centuries because our minds are that potent.
That is the price we have paid for our understanding. I don't believe these drugs will ever be legalized until something even more desirable becomes available. Probably some futuristic virtual mind drugs or something out of a sci-fi movie. It's like computers. Every year, a better, faster chip comes out, yah know? I see that same evolution in drugs.. first it was marijuana, than LSD, and now ecstacy. We are always evolving. But I think, as long as we are carbon based, we will always desire the purity of cannabis sativa's graceful kiss.
"Harvey Nyquil" docblat...@yahoo.com
Nah...
You guys are looking too hard, or being too idealistic arguing why pot is illegal. Don't underestimate politicians... they're not idiots... maybe immoral but not stupid. They know the war on drugs is not working... it's not supposed to work. Come on, exactly what is the war on drugs? There's no war. There's ****ing 13 year olds on the corner smoking up... pretty ineffective war. It's probably harder for kids to get cigarettes and beer than marijuana. And the reason is: no one cares. Everyone's tried pot at least a few times. Our next president surely has used pot. How can a cop/politician/parent punish someone for something they had most likely done themselves? And they can't, at least, not in good conscience.
So, what's the deal then? Why is it illegal? Well, to find that out, you just have to isolate the real driving force behind nearly all major government policty: Big Business. The reason marijuana is illegal is because marijuana is too USEFULL. It has too many uses. It threatens the cotton industry, it threatens the oil industry, and maybe most importantly, it threatens the pharmaceutical industries. Come on... would anyone in American really bother with Prozac, for example, if marijuana was legalized?
It may not be possible to buy a joint in America, but it sure is legal to buy a politician or two. The reason politicians continue to fund an expensive, unproductive war on drugs is because they're padding their own pockets with money from lobbyests. Big Cotton and Big Oil and Big Drug are just as ruthless as Big Tobacco. None of corporate America gives a damn about the lives and environment they destroy. Nor do a lot of politicians really care where our tax money goes... so long as individually they are comfortably set.
Nothing will change until the system is changed... because right now, the system is busted. If a majority of a state votes in a proposition to legalize medicinal marijuana (which has happened several times) how does the government dare feel it has the right to step in, and break up the program?
Are we only pretending to be living in a democracy? You would think that Americans would be sick of all the corruption in Washington by now, but the majority continues to endorse the immoral fund raising practices of members of the two major parties by supporting them, so nothing will change.
At least, that's how I see it.
Can you tell I'm a Nader supporter?
Harv "I'd rather have this bottle in front of me... than a frontal lobotomy!"
"Eaton T. Fores" i...@ease.org
> Or top-posting.
I don't get it. What the hell is wrong with top-posting, besides the fact that it's apparently not hip enough? I mean, do you *like* reading the same thing you've read 10,000 times before? Do you *like* having to scroll down through 2000 lines of text to find the one sentence the poster has made that's new? I mean, like, would someone explain this bottom-posting snobbery to me? Is it something you can't understand unless you dress in all black all the time? Or what?
--
ETF
----------------
Keepin' it virtual.
...
"Cecil" n...@nowhere.com
Because when you top post, people who have just joined in the thread have no idea wtf your responding to, without scrolling down to the bottom of a mile long post.
Notice that you *didn't* top post here. That one stinking line you quoted makes it easy to determine what you're referring to.
No, that's another problem that's even worse than top-posting. Lazy bastards who don't snip out irrelevant stuff are a pain in the *** as well.
It's not snobbery. It just a matter of being considerate to others who read your posts, by quoting the relevant and snipping out the irrelevant.
[...]
"Eaton T. Fores" i...@ease.org
> Notice that you *didn't* top post here. That one > stinking line you quoted makes it easy to determine > what you're referring to.
That's what I *always* do. I thought that *was* top-posting.
--
ETF
----------------
Keepin' it virtual.
...
Harry of Harryworld harrywo...@home.com
No, top-posting is starting off the post with your reaction to the post you're responding to rather than any quoted text. I used to do it when I first began posting on usenet, but it annoys so many people, and it is true that when you want to catch up to a thread, you can do it even if the posts have expired off the server if someone has kept them in their post and responded way at the bottom.
--
Laughter is the true seriousness that destroys all false seriousness.
--M.M. Bakhtin ************************************************ For those pesky pills that won't give it up, check out the extraction page: http://members.home.net/harryworld/extraction.html
px ...@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel)
If the poster only adds one sentence, the poster shouldn't quote the entire 2000 line previous posting, but only enough (usually one or two lines) to establish context.
Or do you like wasting bandwidth?
-Pete Zakel (p...@seeheader.nospam) "Three great scientific theories of the structure of the universe are the molecular, the corpuscular and the atomic. A fourth affirms, with Haeckel, the condensation or precipitation of matter from ether -- whose existence is proved by the condensation or precipitation...A fifth theory is held by idiots, but it is doubtful if they know any more about the matter than the others."
"Eaton T. Fores" i...@ease.org
> Out of the murky depths of rec.drugs.cannabis, the > terrible Eaton T. Fores arose and bellowed forth: If the terrible Eaton T. Fores bellowed forth *anything* on some "cannabis" NG, it is only because some idiot cross-posted offensive drivel to adh.
> You are a newbie You are a ****ing imbecile without the slightest clue as to what he's talking about. You were still wearing diapers when I started posting. Come to think of it, you're probably *still* wearing diapers.
--
ETF
----------------
Keepin' it virtual.
The Great Melinko <i...@yourmothers***.org> wrote in message ...
"Eaton T. Fores" i...@ease.org
> Or do you like wasting bandwidth?
Is this more drivel from some "cannabis" or "psychedelic" NG? Responding to this shit is getting too tedious. Just stop x-posting to adh, and I promise not to x-post to your cannabis-psychedelic NG, and you can spend eternity contemplating how wonderful you are because of how fully you're apprehended reality, okay?
--
ETF
----------------
Keepin' it virtual.
Pete nospam Zakel <px...@cadence.com> wrote in message ...
| To Top |