Dope never hurt us none
Posted on 02/01/2005 10:22:25 AM PST by .cnI redruM
Many people, for example, have a glass of wine or two with dinner. Not to get high, but because it enhances the meal. The same is true of those who, instead, have an apertif before a meal, or a brandy afterwards.
People will have a glass of champagne to bring in the New Year or to celebrate a wedding. People will drink a toast at a farewell dinner. Will have a beer or two to cool down on a hot day. Will bring a bottle of wine as gift.
Alcohol is part of our culture. It's used in religious ceremonies and at social occasions. The person who abuses alcohol is frowned upon -- movies are not made glorifying the use of it to get high.
Responsible social drinkers do not drink with the intent of getting high. Those who will risk everything just to get their precious dope, do.
Would that be "original intent" or "sole intent"?
Doctors have to take the patients word on a lot of things. Doctors prescribe pain medication based on patients telling their doctor they are in pain. They also often prescribe benzodiazepines to people suffering from restless leg syndrome and as far as I know there is no medical test to confirm RLS.
You are trying to make the arguement that 90% of alchol use is responsible, i.e., goes to gifts, toasts, religious ceremonies etc. and only 10% is used to by people to get drunk? I'd like to see your data on that.
Dope never hurt us none
No, but quite a few of the connoisseur grade indica strains impart a sleepy "narcotic type" buzz, much more intense than the average spaciness derived from commercial Mexican. I'd put it on a level with cell phones or kids in the back seat. It can cause a serious distraction when driving.
Also, cannabis intoxication can be completely overcome by force of will.
LOL
If that has been your experience, you need to find a supplier with a better grade of product.
Without having been there at the time, it is difficult to prove. But I think it is more likely that he grew a sativa strain. Indica isn't native to this hemisphere.
In the beginning prices were high since it was rare but I find it impossible to believe what you are telling me, that is was cheaper than a joint.
So the morality nanny robertpaulsen is an admitted (former) drug user?
Priceless. I guess he needs the power of the government to keep him from using marijuana.
Please note, I NEVER SAID HE ADMITTED IT.
TE: That's one reason alcohol is legal and pot is not. Alcohol clouds reason.
My comment was intended to rise above the legal - illegal debate.
It matters not to the "behind the scenes" guys whether the average Joe is distracted by heroin, meth, prozac, ritalin, weed or booze. As long as his focus remains elsewhere, they get to do as they please, unobstructed.
Therefore, IMO, it is naive to believe that the problem of chemical dependence will ever be eliminated.
Free minds would create a far greater problem.
Cheaper than a joint? A lid, which was not a weighed ounce but a baggie stuffed four fingers wide making it closer to two ounces, was $5. Believe what you want to, I know what I paid.
Which can also be ignored by anyone with a little self-control. Point being, alcohol impairment can't.
If that has been your experience, you need to find a supplier with a better grade of product.
That's quite a humorous rejoinder but has nothing to do with reality.
My comment didn't bring it down to the legal - illegal sphere. Alcohol clouds reason as does everything else you listed...except cannabis. It is also the only one that produces no chemical dependence.
Read his diary....
August 7, 1765: "--began to seperate the Male from the Female Hemp at Do--rather too late."
As any farmer knows, this does not refer to hemp fiber production. This will decrease fiber production by 50%. The "rather too late" is significant. That means the females were already pollinated. You destroy the male plants to prevent the females developing seed. This is done to increas the potency of the drug. Today this is called the Sinsimilla Technique.
...
I already told you: the "generic" arguments combined with prudence. To rule out an argument because a subset of it applies to all drugs is simply to duck the marijuana debate.
Since it is well specified, its not being an explicit enumeration has no relevance.
Like the man said, I'd like to see the supporting data.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.