I agree that the governments "war on drugs" is totally misguided.
However the real reason that drugs are illegal which the government goes out
of their way not to say. Is that drugs in general lower the productivity of
the population. If drugs were legalized in any fashion, we might be a
happier country, but the overall productivity of the nation as a whole would
probably drop as we have more fun ;-)
The US govt. wants to keep the illusion we are under that we live in a free
country and have all sorts of right. This illusion is the root of it's
power. If we actually lived in a free country we would be allowed to smoke
marijuana in our houses. So the govt. hides behind scary words, like
addiction, and crack babies.
Scientific study is also a bad thing, because the truth is impossible to
avoid. The citizens may learn it, and because "we the people" are still in
charge because they cant change the Constitution, we may cause the laws to
be changed, and as a result productivity in this will decline for good or
worse.
This is where the internet comes into play, and the real reason why it is so
important. Before the internet and it's precursor BBS's, where would we as
citizens have a place to discuss this issue without fear? Remember, the
commercials during the 80's? Kids were encouraged to turn in their parents.
Your neighbors might turn you in too...
We see now that the more socially liberal, and more technically advanced
states are voting to legalize medicinal marijuana. This is a direct effect
in my opinion of the ability of citizens to educate themselves as to the
facts. The real power of the internet is it's ability to allow people to
communicate. That's why it's so hyped by everyone beyond what it really is.
Everybody wants to internet to succeed, because it's a tool for giving
individuals power. Ebay, Yahoo, and everyone else are really just pawns in
the ordinary citizenries play for more power. They keep money flowing in so
the internet grows more powerful and so do we.
That's what it's alway's all about anyway.
Money and Power.
jon
p.s. the other constant...sex has already taken advantage of the internet
;-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jennifer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 4:01 PM
Subject: RE: Let's talk about drugs [was:RE: Violent education]
> At 12:22 PM 5/23/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> >Yes..case in point the legalising of medicinal marijuana use at a State
> >level, and the refusal of the Federal courts to recognise the state laws.
> >
> >Although in other instances they HAVE allowed States to have their own
take
> >on certain laws.
>
> The laws in question are pretty strict and one of the reasons that they
are
> pretty strict is the "War on Drugs." Federal Law supercedes state law and
> federal law says that marijuana is one of the most dangerous substances
> available. Where federal law conflicts with local laws, federal wins.
> Marijuana is simply not as addictive nor as deadly as some drugs that are
> correctly classified as less dangerous, and it is the physical
> addictiveness and deadly side-effects that are supposed to dictate the
> classification. Caffeine is more physically addictive than marijuana. I
> have yet to hear of a case of death caused by marijuana itself, as opposed
> to caused by the bad judgement that its use can induce.
>
> Its classification is also why the US can't use hemp paper, even though
> hemp is an easily renewable resource (unlike trees which can take hundreds
> of years to regrow) which doesn't require the chemicals needed to process
> trees into paper (which are poisonous and very harmful for the
> environment), and which contains THC in such small amounts that it's
> unusable as a drug. (Can we say paper industry money?) Hemp clothing has
> been somewhat ignored but is technically illegal-- there is now talk of
> prosecuting people for having hemp soap that again contains so little THC
> that it can't be used to get high. How? Under drug laws. All Hail the Drug
> War! I suggest a zero-tolerance policy for all those darned hemp-soap
using
> hippies.
>
> >They claim that Marijuana has no medicinal uses, even though research has
> >shown otherwise, and anecdotal evidence by the people who are suffering
and
> >using marijuana, also shows otherwise.
>
> They don't even claim that there are no medicinal uses-- only that the
> medicinal uses suggested by anecdotal evidence has never been
> comprehensively proven. Comprehensively proven means that they don't
> discount the research as "having been done by potheads," that it's been
> done by "respected scientists" which in part means people who have US or
> European credentials, and that the results of the experiments are
> repeatable by large numbers of unbiassed respected scientists. Anyone from
> a country that allows use of marijuana is automatically dismissed as a
> pothead. Anyone from a country that allows testing of marijuana for
medical
> uses is dismissed for "probably having gotten into the test materials."
The
> results can't be confirmed by people who can be given the benefit of the
> doubt, like our own US scientists can be, because those people can't do
the
> necessary the experiments to prove or disprove the results.
>
> >But I guess if people can grow a herb in their backyard, and get the
> >benefits of painkillers and psycho therapeutic drugs wihtout the terrible
> >stomach upsets, headaches and numerous other side effects...it would dent
> >the profit margins of quite a few large drug companies ....wouldn't it?
>
> It's not just the drug industry that stands to lose money-- there's drugs,
> paper, textiles, and fuel, plus the industries that support them:
chemical,
> wood, cotton, wool, flax, oil, natural gas, etc. There are a lot of
> businesses that would be hurt by the legalization of marijuana and/or
hemp.
>
> But, to be fair, marijuana does have side-effects. It's an hallucinogen.
> Generally speaking, hallucination is considered a bad side-effect.
However,
> several psychiatric drugs are also hallucinogens and LSD was originally an
> attempt at an anti-depressant (as was aspartame, better known as
> Nutra-Sweet, which has really bad side-effects including short-term memory
> loss). Many psychiatric drugs are just plain scary in terms of
> mood-alteration and side-effects. The reason that people are trying to
come
> up with synthetics for marijuana is to allow the benefits without the
> side-effects. But other substances that cause bad side-effects are
> prescribed when the side-effects are less problematic than the symptoms.
> These are usually last-resort medicines.
>
> And that is what medical marijuana was intended to be. Really strong
> painkillers (opiates, in particular) can cause severe nausea. If a patient
> on those painkillers has nausea as a side-effect, giving him/her/it
> anti-nausea medication can decrease the effectiveness of the painkillers.
> I've had this side-effect while passing two kidney stones-- it is not a
> withdrawl side-effect, although withdrawl can also cause nausea. If you
are
> already in enough pain to get that medicine, throwing up half-an-hour
after
> taking it every time you take it makes it a pretty horrible medication.
> That side-effect in a person who already has nausea is probably much
worse.
>
> Unfortunately, there is no last resort medication for the combination of
> pain and nausea. If marijuana has any medical benefit, people who are not
> helped by other medication fit the requirements for a last resort
> medication. Being unable to keep food in your stomach can cause death.
> Death is a more severe side-effect than hallucinations. If it could be
> proven to US government standards that marijuana could help these people,
> it could probably be legalized federally for medicinal uses.
Unfortunately,
> if the current situation continues, this will never happen.
>
>
> > >;-)
> >
> >-Gel
> >And the Wheel Of Morality Turns.
> >Turn Turn Turn
>
> Show us the lesson that we should learn...
>
> >Wheel Of Morality..
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Jennifer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> >That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that "any and all efforts" (not
> >even any and all existing efforts, but any and all efforts) to thwart
drug
> >use would include stopping drug use even when it is medically justified.
> >Stopping legal use of illegal drugs is a valid effort to stop people from
> >using those drugs. You have mentioned several exceptions to laws. My
point
> >is that "any and all" allows no room for exceptions and thus allows no
room
> >for legitimate or understandable uses, which makes the statement not very
> >well thought out.
> >
> >
> >
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-community@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
