Numerous tightly rolled cannabis cigarettes were in evidence at a June 12 luncheon at the Heartland Institute, a libertarian policy think-tank in the Chicago Loop. These doobies were emblazoned on the cover of the provocative, plainspoken book, Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use by Jacob Sullum, a senior editor at Reason (“Free Minds and Free Markets”) magazine. Yet the… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (59)Page 1 of 1 pagesI have used various drugs currently outlawed in the US during my lifetime, and have to come to understand and accept them for what they are.
I have had an interest in brain function and consciousness for many years, and the idea of a naturally occuring substance with the capacity to affect those functions fascinated me. I did a great deal of research and educated myself on the effects, positive/negative/otherwise, of these substances before I used them. It became quite clear that the biggest “risks” are psychological, not physical. The level of risk seems to be linked to your level of self-awareness, honesty, state of mind, maybe reason for use. The drugs, and I’m speaking from personal experience, so that includes thc and psilocybin, but these drugs are in and of themselves morally or ethically benign. The emotional or psychological content of the user, including set and setting, seem to be the determining factors for the outcome of use.
That said, I can understand why a government such as ours would want these substances, though naturally occuring, banned. However, the reasons the government has used to date do not hold water. The worst, of course, was “just say no!” Could there be a worse argument in a democratic society? For crying out loud, educate yourself. If you decide that drug use would not be beneficial to you, then don’t use them. Educate others so that they won’t use them if that’s how you feel. But don’t trample on the rights of others out of your own ignorance or fear.
Posted by mike on Oct 6, 2003 at 1:30 PM The notion that drugs are “bad” has been spawned from the notion that beauracratic dialogue, and propaganda (although just what it is) is “good”. And, Mike, you have an excellent point about the context of “drug” use-Sullum as well. It is sad, if not a litle bit scary, that naturally occurring substances can be subject to a cultural, what’s more poltical impasse… What about the indigenous peoples of this country we call America? Did they not embrace the natural image of the unknown? Can anyone say genocide? Maybe I am taking this a little to far, but I feel the history of the matter speaks for itself.
On a final note, and one that also speaks for itself:
Ignorance is bliss.
Posted by Choppy Cheex on Oct 7, 2003 at 12:11 AM I’ve seen the History Channel’s shows on illegal drugs and how they became so. And they backed up one of the reasons I already knew why marijuana was outlawed.
Back in the 30’s people were whipped to a frenzy of fear (doesn’t that sound familiar) because the media was saying, “Negro men high on cannibas were raping white women”. This also helped contribute to the racist notion that black men were drug users and criminals.
So when the list of banned substances was being presented to the government for its okay, weed was #1 because of it’s supposed social harm.
Posted by neil on Oct 7, 2003 at 7:30 AM “The notion that drugs are “bad” has been spawned from the notion that beauracratic dialogue, and propaganda”
Hey, I agree with you on marijuana, it is no worse as cigarettes but it is just as bad and I don’t have a problem with it being legalized, for medicinal use. But our society could no way be helped if drugs like cocaine, crack, ecstacy and any other drug were legalized. We don’t want people using them. They only hurt those who use them, and here’s the key, those around them. Mike from Phlly talked about psilocybin (sp?), I don’t want anyone taking a hallucinogen being able to get behind the wheel. Also a parent who smokes weed won’t be able to be as good of a parent if they are stoned. That’s the biggest reason why drugs should stay illegalized.
Posted by brad on Oct 7, 2003 at 10:27 AM Being a frequent, and educated user myself, I find that the biggest reasons as to why marijuana is still so demonized by the gov’t are hidden under a very thin shroud of lies, as it seems to be a standard practice in american politics.
For one, we have Big Dope, aka the pharmaceutical industry heavyweights who lobby against the legalization, for fear that it may herald a new groovy age in homeopathic treatments.
Then you have criminal interests in keeping the price high, something that can’t be sustained if every bar has a weed counter.
And finally, you have reformed coke addicts turned presidential candidate who will thrive hard to get the “swing-ye-bible-border-line-abortion-clinic-blowup” vote and will greatfully beat the drug war dog with any stick they can get ahold of…
In other words, we’re far away from Amsterdam in more ways than simple geography. The only ways out of this would be to either grant the patent rights for THC to Bristol Meyer Squibb or kill every eligible candidate until good ‘ole Nader left all by himself. Whatever happens, I wish you luck!
Posted by Alex on Oct 8, 2003 at 11:42 AM I’ve been smoking all my life and I’m 100% normal. I want to know how the rest of society can deal without some bud in the day.
All this stuff that’s been happening the last two years is crazy. Smoke out a bit and find some peace. We all off better with at least a nice buzz to carry us on.
Posted by Cary on Oct 9, 2003 at 10:16 AM Brad,
psilocybin grows naturally and has been used by people all over the world for millennia. Does making nature illegal not sound a little odd to you?
Cheers,
Owen
Posted by Owen on Oct 9, 2003 at 11:19 AM Maybe if the Bush Adminstration started to smoke weed, they would chill out a little bit and not be so determined on bombing every Arab country. I think a little weed is what the world needs.
I think part of the fear behind the current drug policies, specifically pot, is that it causes people to think outside the box. This is not what the conservative christians in the white house want.
Posted by Corbin Dallas on Oct 9, 2003 at 12:40 PM “LSD is like Christ in America. A materialist country needs a material savior.” - Sri Ramakrishna. Moral? You damn druggies are no better than lowly Christians!!! Have some self-respect. If you’re really serious, you will learn to stimulate your pineal gland without the use of hallucinogens, which is all that LSD or psilocybin does anyway (a suggestion? Contemplate the vagaries of contemporary physics while standing on your head for at least 11 minutes). And stop whining about the drug war cuz you can’t score any pot this weekend for Kill Bill. If you’ve not noticed, there are some other problems around. We are a society in the death throes; my co-workers celebrate that Arnold is a governor, my city’s tiny old cobblestone streets are clogged by urban assault vehicles, 1/2 the world’s population makes less than 2 dollars a day, and glaciers once thought to be immutable dissolve in our lifetimes. Let’s plan something quick, or face the wrath of our angry children (if my cantankerous lecturing did nothing to dissuade your drug use, try a combo of shrooms, opium, pot(the good stuff, no schwag), and the Siberian variety of the infamous amanita muscaria. Take 5-6 hours before dawn, and godspeed)
Posted by Campbell Rocco on Oct 9, 2003 at 10:02 PM Campbel-
What is “amanita muscaria”? Never heard of it. Is that a weekend thing with the girlfriend or can I still do my job on it?
oh, and you shouldn’t tell people to mix up drugs like that. I got so canned last time I did some Vancouver light with 1/4 shrooms I swear I thought I was going to die. Well, some things you can mix up but I think what you said is too much.
SCREW BUSH!
later- Cary
Posted by Cary on Oct 10, 2003 at 8:41 AM corbin:
I hope you were kidding, I I don’t wan’t my leader smoking weed and making their decisions high.Owen:
I don’t have a problem illegalizing something that’s natural becauase it hurts people.
Posted by brad on Oct 10, 2003 at 9:13 AM Cary - aminita muscaria is the fly agaric mushroom - often pictured in children’s books, red with white spots. It’s actually quite dangerous (as in, it could kill the user) in the wrong dose to humans and not recommended.
:-)Brad - who decides which natural things hurt people? you? your “leader”? corporate politicians?
why not outlaw poison ivy? that stuff sucks. or how about tobacco? how many people does your medical insurance payment cover every year because they are addicted to a leaf? or maybe deer should be outlawed? they run in front of people’s cars causing accidents.what’s the criteria for harm?
Instead, why not outlaw unnatural things that hurt people? things whose use is indisputably harmful. lead bullets? nuclear weapons? they sure have done wonders for the advancement of society.
Posted by mike on Oct 10, 2003 at 10:47 AM Mike,
Re: banning of lead bullets, if you can think of a better way to kill lots of brown people who dissent against World Bank edicts, I¥d like to hear it.
Posted by Owen on Oct 10, 2003 at 11:16 AM Mike, if you want to destroy oour nukes than your crazy. The nukes are only intended for our defense. I agree with you on guns, only the police should have them. The governent (and indiectly, the people) decide what is harmful. Why does it matter if shrooms are natural? They’re not good for society. The majority of america agrees
Posted by brad on Oct 11, 2003 at 3:27 PM Mike, if you want to destroy oour nukes than your crazy. The nukes are only intended for our defense. I agree with you on guns, only the police should have them. The governent (and indiectly, the people) decide what is harmful. Why does it matter if shrooms are natural? They’re not good for society. The majority of america agrees
Posted by brad on Oct 11, 2003 at 3:27 PM Brad,
those nukes are intended for one thing ultimately: dropping on civilian populations, and might I remind you there has only been one bunch of men and women in the world who have proved themselves psychotic enough to actually carry it out, not once but twice.
Posted by Owen on Oct 12, 2003 at 9:56 AM P.S. Men and women I refer to are the small bunch that claim to represent the US (and, more worryingly, God), not to be confused with the 280 million poor slobs who pay their wages.
Posted by Owen on Oct 12, 2003 at 8:43 PM Every American should have a subscription to “In These Times” and “High Times”.
Medical marijuana has to be passed. It’s the only way to stop the pain and make people whole. Herb even stops you from getting sick. Believe me, there is no way my friends and I are getting Glaucoma!
Peace everywhere- stop the Bush takeover!
Posted by Hill on Oct 13, 2003 at 9:32 AM “Every American should have a subscription to “In These Times” and “High Times”. “
I don’t know if in these times is too thrilled with being a “must-have” alongside a magazine that once put Jay and Silent Bob on the cover.
Mike-
My definiton of something harmful is something that not only causes harm to the user but also to other people around the user. A person who uses shrooms causes harm to their children and if they were to drive they could cause harm to other drivers. Aside from the harm, I can’t see where hallucinogens could actually help Americans.
Posted by brad on Oct 13, 2003 at 11:43 AM Well, you didn’t really answer my question, Brad. (Defintion of harmful is something that causes harm?)
Your example of the harm potentially caused by actions taken while under the influence of a psychedelic substance would just as easily apply to alcohol, would it not? Shouldn’t there be some consistency in the law?
You also say, “Aside from the harm, I can’t see where hallucinogens could actually help Americans.”
That’s fine, you may not see how these substances could help Americans. Others might disagree. But perceived lack of benefit is irrelevant when it comes to making something illegal to possess.
Posted by mike on Oct 13, 2003 at 1:43 PM Cannabis is unique in many ways which defy compartmentalizing this plant, taxing its production, or considering it as comparable to any other psychoactive substance. As an historically integral agricultural resource, used to produce a vast range and abundance of essential products, it is unique. As a safe and effective herbal therapeutic, it is unique. As a globally available source of essential fatty acids (EFAs) and vegetable protein, it is unique. And finally, as the euphoric-of-choice for people and cultures all over the world, it has for Centuries been, and continues to be, unique. Where Cannabis is readily available, the use and abuse of dangerous drugs is reduced. In the early part of the twentieth Century, Cannabis was used in the U.S. as a cure for alcoholism (Butler). Every effort to create scarcity of this unique and essential resource has resulted in pain, mysery and suffering for millions, including people who don’t use it. Essential resource scarcity has perverted mankind’s social evolution, undermined free-market economics, and continues to disrespect the Natural Order to the point of culturally sanctioned extinctionism.
Posted by Paul von Hartmann on Oct 16, 2003 at 6:53 AM There is an excellent article on drugs and crime on the Jovial Atheist web site. This is an excellent read on the subject. Google can direct you to the site.
Posted by Thomas Blaylock on Oct 20, 2003 at 11:37 AM Wow, great article whether you agree or not. . .
Brad: “. . . a parent who smokes weed won’t be able to be as good of a parent if they are stoned.”
Sorry, but the evidence doesn’t bear you out on that one. Taking an occasional puff of what Native Americans referred to as “medicine” does not impair one’s ability to love a child, hug a child, check up on a kids, call other parents, help with homework, or any one of 1000 things that are necessary to be a good parent every day. That was one of the fundamental premises of the book, that the majority of smokers are working people who love their kids and are important contributors to society.
I have known many people including doctors and attorneys who are considered stellar examples of both being good parents and outstanding professionals, who enjoy kicking back and smoking some herb, much like a few glasses of fine wine with dinner. People have been doing both for thousands of years and have managed to be competent, loving parents while doing it. . .
Therefore, it is time to set aside this culture of “blame that substance” for lack of personal responsibility or bad parenting. In general: Lazy, careless people will still be lazy and careless whether they smoke, drink or sing hymns every day. Upstanding citizens who take the time and sacrifice needed to raise their children well are going to do so whether or not they enjoy smoking a substance that former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop called, “the most therapeautic substance known to man.”
[On driving while shrooming, I’d have to agree with you 100%. Terrible idea and very dangerous].
What we need is a little more common sense from everyone regarding drug policy in this country - from both users and law enforcement. Maybe then we can get real about confronting our actual problems instead of our make-believe ones.
Posted by Ed Mellon on Oct 21, 2003 at 6:43 PM Brad.... Next time I’m driving drunk I’ll try and remember to put the joint down and throw the shrooms out the window.
Are you kidding me??
Shrooms are bad for america. Do you read what you write. Should every thought and action I have / do be dependent on whats “good for america”? Jeezum crow does everything have to do with the death spiral of our country?
Do you really think the crack head is worried about the law or whats good for amerika? I know I dont even give it a thought in between bong hits.
Is everyone in your world so childish that they cant snort a little heroin and resist the urge to go for a cruise in the family wagon?? Give me a brake.
Plenty of us “druggies” do a whole lot harder drugs then weed after we put the kids to bed and still manage to make it to work on monday morning. Look at Rush Limbaugh. The only reason he’s in re-hab is cause he got caught and is afraid of sitting his fat ass in a jail cell. If it wasnt for the national enquiring minds wanting to know, he’d still be on the radio as stoned as ever. That explains why he’s so fucked up.As for the rest of you… get off the holier than thouh natural high bullshit. Drugs are drugs. They’re all fun and safe when used correctly. Thats like the “protecting my home” gun owner. Bullshit guns are fun and safe when used correctly. Please...enough trying to justify yourself based on someone elses opinion.
Speaking out for the gun loving, herion shooting, weed smoking, shroom eating, coke sniffing, pill popping, freedom lovers of america.
Posted by Stoned again on Oct 21, 2003 at 11:00 PM Hey, as much as Brad and I have disagreed on this forum, he has a point in a way.
Way back when, weed gave me “the giggles” and mellowed me out. But I know some people it freaks out, makes them paranoid. I think, if I can take this license for you, this might be what you’re referring to, Brad?
Like all drugs, they affect people in different ways. As far as pot, there’s been enough research to prove the medicinal benefits and to show it won’t cause someone to jump off a cliff as those goofy high school drug films used to show.
But it does affect people differently. Me, it brings on seizures now because of the drunk driver hitting me resulting in my epilepsy. So that would be dangerous for myself and others if I were to smoke it and drive. I stay completely away from it.
Others, it just depends on if they have the common sense to know how it will affect them before going out in public.
But, also, I don’t want the government telling me what’s what on something proven to be less a harm to society, in my opinion, than alcohol. Drugs like coke, heroine, I’m of the opinion they’re harmful but the drug trade has made it more so.
Posted by neil on Oct 22, 2003 at 12:43 AM hey guys- no reason to fight here. we’re all pretty much on the same plane. bless you jess for passing this on. my first typing- hope i do right.
here’s how my crew sees it (well, to be safe, hiding some stuff cause we have to.).
don’t smoke or kick back if you’re patrolling or running the lift. if you’re working on a protective job on that day then thats what you have to do. no excuses. ever.
if you’re stuck in the “welcome to --------me your visa/amex fat butt family..well. at least give me a relief to deal with that.
NO- let’s just realize that we can be intelligent people with marijuana or whatever. If i’m stuck in the kitchen cutting pizza (early years) there is no reason why i can’t put myself in a nice state to do this. i’m not moving machinery around. i’m just dealing with a job that i can do better with smoke..
Posted by first snow on Oct 23, 2003 at 11:17 PM If I was an employer and I found out that workers came high to work they’d be gone in a second. No matter what the job was.
Posted by brad on Oct 27, 2003 at 11:17 AM If I was an employer and I found out that workers came high to work they’d be gone in a second. No matter what the job was.
Posted by brad on Oct 27, 2003 at 11:17 AM Some jobs I’ve had, I WISH some of my co-workers had been stoned.
Posted by neil on Oct 28, 2003 at 1:36 AM If I was an employer [and I have been]:
Imagine you have employee X and employee Y. X comes to work every day, does a decent job, and leaves. Y comes to work every day, produces 50% more output than X, has an outstanding attitude and the customers love them.
Now I ask you: which employee would you rather have? If somebody can produce 50% more output and my customers love them, I don’t care what the guy is doing before he comes to work. It shouldn’t even enter the equation! Why? Because he’s doing a great job and it’s none of my damn business. Each of us is guaranteed the right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution.
Now: Lots of people come to work on prescribed medication [ranging from pain treatments to psychological treatments] that impair performance, cause dependency and kill motivation a helluva lot more than your average joint can do. If public safety is an issue, those substances should be banned as well.
It’s time to get real about drug policy in this country. . . When scarce resources that could be used to fight rapists, murderers and terrorists are being diverted to bust your local pot-smoking pizza boy, there is a serious disconnect between the reality of what this nation needs now and the politics of a drug war hatched 20 years ago. This book seems to me to be about getting our facts straight, as opposed to presenting 1920’s drug propaganda as scientific fact [a practice which still continues to this day].
The entire nation loses with our current drug policies: Prohibition should have been enough of a history lesson on that score.
Posted by Ed Mellon on Oct 28, 2003 at 4:12 PM It doesn’t take a lot of research to arrive
at the conclusion that since the 1890s American drug policy has
been created from equal parts of bad science,
vicious intentions and self-serving opportunism.
-- And that was before Richard Nixon decided to take the
whole thing personally.That said, however, I think its important to remember that
whatever hedonistic sales appeal Libertarians embellish
their message with, the core values of Libertarianism
still revolve around deregulated markets, unregulated
industries, and tax free investment income.Championing “personal freedom “ issues such as access
to firearms, contraception and “soft” drugs doesn’t mean
than that Libertarianism is essentially any different
from any other neoconservative constituancy.A little pot may take the edge off Right Wing
Republicanism—but it doesn’t really make it
better.
Posted by Mitch on Oct 29, 2003 at 6:09 PM Brad,
I suppose we only have the good word of the Prez to assure us he¥s not still doing the top job in the country coked off his titties.
Posted by Owen on Oct 30, 2003 at 10:46 AM i’m sighing, because after so much debate we still can’t seem to get beyond the idea that if someone’s having fun it must be WRONG. The essential premise against intoxicants is that if you’re having ‘too much fun’ (by somebody else’s standard) then it should not be permitted to happen. Whatever happened to the idea that it’s okay to giggle at life? Many years ago (way back in the late 60’s & early 70’s) the was a book called “The Natural Mind” that put forth the premise that the drive to explore altered states of conciousness is as natural as hunger, thirst or sex… Observe little kids spinning around just to get dizzy & fall down. Where did we get the idea that we must supress those ‘natural’ urges? Also, just for the record, the most effective pain reliever for terminal cancer pain is heroin, which can’t be prescribed because someone who’s dying might become addicted… Does ‘our’ drug policy make sense?
Posted by brenda on Oct 30, 2003 at 12:54 PM You know, pot is illegal for several reasons. Anyhow, I’ve smoked it many times and you know what? I never got the “Reefer Madness” or lost my senses and engaged in “weird orgies”. I did go to some wild parties, but they were centered upon alcohol and keg stands. The only bongs were beer bongs and the police usually let us go when they got busted. There were a couple of kids who dies in alcohol related incidents when I was in junior high and high school. As far as I know, no kids dies in marihuana related incidents. Makes you wonder whether we as a society care to stop so-called deviant behaviors more than scientifically and behaviorally proven destructive ones. Only in America.
Posted by Red Rooster on Oct 30, 2003 at 8:38 PM Ed- I said if my workers were coming to work high then I would fire them and I believe that you would. How much respect can a person have for their boss and their job if they are high? You’re right about how it is none of my damn business if my employees like pot, but it is also my right as an employer to make sure that my workers are not criminals and I believe that companies can test their employees.
Owen:
Do you think that Bush is actually still doing coke? C’mon.
Posted by brad on Oct 30, 2003 at 8:40 PM Do most who suffer as a result of their use of drugs do so due to its legal ramifications, not the effects of the drug itself?
Aren’t most of those who have addictive type personalities already alcoholics or drug addicted? If prohibitions were lifted, would the percentage of the population whose lives are medically affected by their drug use really increase much, if most of those people are already substantial users of subtances that are presently available? If it didn’t change much, it may be offset favorably by the numbers of people whose lives are thereby not damaged by the prohibition.
Posted by Chris Corkins on Oct 30, 2003 at 10:20 PM Much as I find C¥mon to be a swaying argument, who¥s to say he¥s not?
Posted by Owen on Oct 31, 2003 at 11:46 AM Well, here’s my response: I would never test my employees if I felt they were doing a good job. If they were not doing a good job, I’d fire them. These decisions should have nothing to do with moral judgements [which are at best subjective, at worst plain false] and everything to do with individual performance.
Unfortunately, insurance costs drive the decisions that may employers make about these issues as opposed to common sense.
Here’s an observation: Someone can get drunk every night of the week and come to work hung over, and that is somehow considered more productive than being a pot smoker. We all know this is not true, but that’s what the law says. Other laws throughout our history have said that Japanese Americans needed to be put in internment camps, that witches needed to be burned at the stake and that anyone who drinks a beer is a criminal. These were actual laws on the books. Just saying that something is true because “the law says so” is not a valid argument.
My central premise is that pot smoking should not be illegal in the first place. Lumping rapists and murderers in the same category as gardeners is wrong. Ben Franklin smoked it, as well as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson [read their diaries and letters for the doubters]. To anyone who says those are not patriotic Americans and perfectly acceptable role models, I say move to Cuba.
Since the legitimacy of government flows from the consent of the governed - and more than 80% of Californians passed a law decriminalizing pot - I’d say that here in the 5th largest economy in the world, the problem is that the law needs to be changed. That would be a great first step in “getting government off our backs” as Ronald Reagan used to say.
Posted by Ed Mellon on Oct 31, 2003 at 4:22 PM reading comments on drug use (marijuana particularly) always gives me a smile. to me the main point is why would somebody find it dangerous to smoke marijuana in the first place? where would this fear overide their logic? the obvious answer is media and influence by the powers that be. my home town in canada weed is very normal and very acceptable by almost everybody. I even smoke with my grandparents. In america it seems much different, but like most things in america things seem so contradictary and absurd. I am currently living in china and have not found one little piece of drug here. you would find it interesting to know that out of all the people i’ve met in the 6 months being here not one person even knew that weed was a plant. they mostly thought of it as something to snort of shoot in your viens. my point is that although you can blame your culture and government for views on drug use, only those who do them and know what they can do and how they can help you have a right to speak on this matter.
Posted by brandon on Nov 1, 2003 at 12:23 AM Ed,
is this the same Ben Franklin who kept slaves for 30 years, on Nov 18 1733 (and again on 27 Nov and 2 Dec) placed a sign in his general store advertising: “To be Sold, A Likely Negro Wench, about Fifteen Years old, has had the Small-pox, been in the Country above a Year, and talks English. Enquire of the Printer hereof.”? Also in 1998 at his former house at No. 36 Craven Street near Trafalgar Square in London the remains of 10 human beings were found, six of them children, all of them dating from Franklin¥s tenure in the house.
Though I fully defend his right to get high, excuse me if I refrain from touting him as a role model.
Cheers,
Owen
Posted by Owen on Nov 3, 2003 at 2:37 PM Owen,
It sounds like you are saying Ben Franklin was a mass murderer. . . truly a fantastic claim, to say the least. If you have a source, I’m sure enquiring minds want to know.As far as owning slaves: I think it’s safe to say that the standards of 2003 do not apply to 1733. It isn’t politically correct to say it, but almost all white men owned slaves back then. It’s just the way things were done. That doesn’t mean that the entire basis of the U.S. Constitution is invalid, or that constitutional guarantees to liberty and privacy are misplaced. . .
If Ben Franklin is not an acceptable role model because he owned slaves, then you’d have to discount every [positive] contribution from virtually every civilization in human history before 1880.
I think the validity of the idea “freedom from unreasonable search and seizure” is still very much intact and pertinent today - regardless of Mr. Franklin’s lack of credentials for sainthood.
Posted by Ed Mellon on Nov 3, 2003 at 4:26 PM Ed,
happy to oblige:
<A>http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/98/02/11/timnwsnws01012.ht tml?999</A>I also compliment Franklin for the very cleverly written US Constitution which possesses all of the loopholes needed to circumvent it at the appropriate time. Too, does the word of someone who preaches freedom for all and keeps slaves at the same time count much for you?
About slavery: it still exists, they¥re making our Nikes and other luxury goods for little more than nothing a day. Read Naomi Klein¥s account of visiting a woman who spends 16 hours a day sewing Pocohontas pyjamas in Haiti and has to feed her infants sugared water to stave off starvation, so obviously we haven¥t evolved that much that 18c. standards are outmoded. But if you are looking for examples of free thought from Franklin¥s time, you might do well to check out Laurence Sterne¥s (author of Tristram Shandy) correspondence with Ignatius Sancho over the summer of 1766.
Cheers,
Owen
Posted by Owen on Nov 4, 2003 at 10:44 AM The <A> and </A> was my feeble attempt to make a link, btw
Posted by Owen on Nov 4, 2003 at 10:45 AM Owen,
Much obliged for the response; always looking for new sources of information and the Sterne material sounds interesting.You are very much correct to note that we still have a long way to go, as did Franklin and Co. . . Obviously human history is still very much a work in progress. However, my point is more about the value of attaining progress as opposed to wishing for the ideals of perfection.
While true enlightenment [of the individuals involved] in the American Experiment may have been lacking in some respects - and by many accounts still is - the experiment itself is still a worthy cause and has been a resounding success as a nation when measured by the traditional yardsticks of growth and power. Guarantees of personal liberty, however many loopholes they may have contained, were not existent in any European form of government at that time. Therefore, what they created and had the guts to see through was revolutionary. The system of government that they created was elsatic and necessarily vague so as to allow for growth and change. Those same ideas deserve our respect and support so they may continue to flourish, especially the concept of personal liberty from control of the state. As a founding father of what I consider to be a successful experiment, Franklin has my gratitude and respect.
What I’m getting at is this: no individual or action is perfect, but we [my clan, if you will] are after progress - not perfection. For example, nobody can say that Winston Churchill or Franklin Roosevelt were perfect men, but if the alternative is goose-stepping through Downing Street or Pennsylvania Avenue then by golly we were lucky to have them when we did. The same can be said about many geniuses and movers throughout history. Dichotomies and conflicts of character abound, which is partly why studying such people is so interesting.
Regards,
E
Posted by Ed Mellon on Nov 4, 2003 at 2:17 PM Everyone knows that alcoholism is certainly preferable to being stoned on a joint. I mean really, Having had an alcholic father all my life.
Posted by Sharon on Nov 7, 2003 at 8:59 AM Everyone knows that alcoholism is certainly preferable to being stoned on a joint. I mean really, Having had an alcholic father all my life.
Posted by Sharon on Nov 7, 2003 at 8:59 AM I have been a user of psychoactive plants and chemicals for a few years now. I feel that outlawing such things doesn’t stop the use it just makes it more dangerous, you don’t know the purity and strength of what your getting. I feel that a lot of substances such as MDMA(ecstasy) and mushrooms can be extremely helpful in peoples lives. They can help you understand yourself and the world around you. sometI think the only way to make drug use safe is for people to be fullly educated on what they take. So i am all for legalization of all plants and chemicals. Also i would like to add that we have 2 chemicals in our brain that are outlawed, GHB and DMT. I always thought that was a bit odd, but i guess if they can outlaw plants they can outlaw chemicals everyone one of us have in our brain.
Posted by Patrick on Nov 9, 2003 at 11:15 PM All right, I have read enough comments to make me ill. I have smoked since I was 15, now 48. I know what the affects are firt hand. Outlaw Alcohol, Bring in the Weed, for there you have a Peaceful Addiction that creates A Whole New YOU…
IF used correctly, no one is hurt or harmed. If used like cigarettes, you become too spacy. The key is how you use it.
I have seen how weed can turn a Raging Bull into a sweet Kitty.
Would I want Bush and Staff to use it, YOU BET, look what alcohol is doing to them, us and nation. My God we will never recover their mistakes. He and He alone has created Armaggeddon.
Look, anything used to excess will begin to control and devast your life, but used for all the right reasons Weed is Good For everyone, at one time or another.
Cramps, headaches, pains, insomnia, creative arts and works, it is amazing the magic Weed can have.
The pharmacy companies will not allow this to happen, look at the billions they would loose.
Uncle Sam would GAIN a new tax revenue that would lead this country out of DEBT.
And the Jails would be emptied.
Weed does not cause Anger or Crime, it mellows everyone out. And to me that is what is needed now more than ever.
Someone post it helps the user THINK OUT OF THE BOX, darn straight it does… Thank God for Weed, since he planted every seed we have on this planet. He knew what he was doing.
Blessings to All,
V
Posted by Central Wildcats 67 to 73 on Nov 11, 2003 at 1:41 PM Oh geez… ok, folks - it really boils down to personal responsibility, doesn’t it? I mean all the fun chemicals that have been mentioned CAN NOT be considered “dangerous” in the same category as, say arsenic or anthrax, right?
These are “relatively” benign substances, similar to alcohol, that bring the user release, relaxation… and usually interesting interpretations of most late Beatle’s releases. Like alcohol, if you aren’t responsible, you can fuck your life up, those of your family members, even those innocent victims you might take out in a car wreck.
Would I fire an employee I know came to work “high”? You bet - but I would do the same for a drunk employee, too. And believe me - I have no moral/ethical issue with some chemical recreation, far from it. To say otherwise would make me a hypocrite. I just feel that you pay an employee to work, not to have recreation time. Plus, of course, in certain job settings, there could be the danger factor.
So spare me the crap about being a bad parent, and especially the Ben Franklin tripe - that was pretty hilarious. Yes, all these guys owned slaves - get over it, that’s unfortunately how things were in those days. Even Jeffereson, whose original drafts of the D of I included verbage designed to eliminate slavery. Of course, the Continental Congress over ruled him.
But that didn’t stop them from printing the D of I, the Constitution, and virtually all of our other founding documents on… yep, you guessed it:
Hemp. Founding fathers, indeed!
Posted by Gary on Nov 12, 2003 at 5:21 PM But I didn’t like Hemp as well as Curly. The Stooges weren’t the same after he died.
Posted by neil on Nov 13, 2003 at 7:29 AM “Would I want Bush and Staff to use it, YOU BET, look what alcohol is doing to them, us and nation. My God we will never recover their mistakes. He and He alone has created Armaggeddon”
Bush is not an alocholic anymore and none of his staff is either.
If anyone actually thinks that weed makes them a more effective person, they’re crazy. It slows up your brain. That’s a fact.Bush created the armegeddon. What armegeddon? The movie? How come the world is still here?
By the way Neil, Shemp was the guy who replaced Curley. And you’re righyt, the stooges never were the same.
Posted by brad on Nov 15, 2003 at 7:37 PM It really bothers me people who say something like “that’s a fact” without providing any evidence to support the comment. That becomes an unsubstantied opinion. And that’s a fact!
Posted by Sir Gus Overton III on Nov 17, 2003 at 12:37 AM Way to go Sir Gus! I think that guy Brad on top of you is a weenie too! By the way, are you European Royalty?
Posted by Joseph Littleton on Nov 17, 2003 at 12:39 AM A study done in 2001 by the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that a “college students has shown that skills related to attention, memory, and learning are impaired among people who use marijuana heavily, even after discontinuing its use for at least 24 hours.”
I found that on the DEA’s website. Now if you want an independant source, I don’t feel like finding one, but I will if you ask.
Legalization was tried in alaska in the 70s and it failed and was repealed in 1990.
Sir Gus, you’re wrong. The reason people smoke marijuana is to get high. Being high is all of those things mentioned above.
Posted by brad on Nov 17, 2003 at 2:37 AM Why all this atheist talk?
Can’t college educated folks like me believe too? Faith is believing in things not seen. I can have Faith and smoke and read and love.
I wish others had more Faith.
I wish more people drank less.
I wish more people smoked pot! Why does one have to tarnish topics like marijuana and liberalism and education with thought freezing atheism?
What the world needs now is love sweet love… and maybe a little weed.
Posted by Lisa on Nov 18, 2003 at 8:46 AM All this talk about whether drugs are “good” or “bad” for you is really irrelavent to the question of whether the government should be deciding for us what we do or don’t do with our own bodies. If one person likes to drink beer while another person prefers smoking coke, then so be it. Neither of these people are bad people just because they choose one or the other. Can you tell who is going to commit a murder simply by knowing what type of chemicals they put into their body?
It just amazes me that there are people running around that say they love this country and everything that it stands for while at the same time using the power of government to force everyone to live their lives the way they feel is best “for the country”. Every card holding drug warrior in this country is a threat to free thinking, liberty loving Americans. If the government has the right to tell you what you can put in your body, they also have the right to tell you what you can see, read, feel, who you can associate with etc. All of these things can influence the way we think and act. The same logic that says the government should be able to control what chemicals you can ingest could be applied to what books you can read, what movies you can watch, and what video games you can play. They all affect the way we live our lives. And for those people that say that drug use affects everyone around you therefore it is not just a personal decision, that’s BS and they know it. There is almost nothing that we do in our lives that doesn’t affect other people. So by using that logic, there is almost nothing that the govenrment shouldn’t regulate in our lives. You like to eat your twinkies and pork rinds while you watch your 4.5 hours of TV every day? Well, your fat ass is going to potentially cost me and the rest of the taxpayers money down the line when you have a heart attack or develop diabeties. Therefore, we should make eating twinkies, pork rinds and watching 4.5 hours of TV illegal. Let’s not talk about doing any of those activities in moderation, that would be contrary to the logic applied by all the drug warriors out there. If it can be bad for you, then it should be illegal. Do you see where this is going? Can you see where this country is going if this type of thinking prevails? America will be a communist’s wet dream. You can’t be for liberty and freedom and be for the drug war. They are diametrically opposed philosophies.
Posted by Gothmog on Nov 21, 2003 at 3:20 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Posted by G-Dogg on Oct 22, 2003 at 8:07 AM 
Also by Mike Newirth
- Using Your Brain on Drugs
- Base Needs
Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2003 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
