Posted on 09/05/2006 8:16:10 AM PDT by tang0r
Generally, there are two types of marijuana users. First is the most commonly stereotyped “stoner,” depicted in the media of movies (e.g. Spicoli from Fast Times at Ridgemont High) and television (e.g. Shaggy from Scooby Doo). These are the dead-end job, ambitionless abusers who ingest marijuana to escape their already dismal lives. They represent the image which is most often associated with marijuana use. Certainly, the average American high school is teeming with similar directionless pot-smoking losers, further cementing this public perception.
(Excerpt) Read more at prometheusinstitute.net ...
Yeah, they don't have the guts to go against the will of the people and stand up for what's right, dagnubbit!
I bet he still wears an ac/dc t-shirt too.
The guy I ran into the other day did, and he is around the same age. It's either an AC/DC shirt, or one with a pot plant symbol.
no, they are the same issue. Don't elevate one above the other.
Pro 20:1 ¶ Wine [is] a mocker, strong drink [is] raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.
the difficult thing for both is moderation.
Same rule as things posted in Bold
> But unlike pot, booze can be consumed in moderation without becoming stoned out of your mind.
No, *like* pot. I've no use for *any* mind alterring substances, but I've seen more than my share of people smoking weed. They were generally substantially less affected by it than people pounding down the brews.
The stoners are the public face of weed... as the boozed-out winos were of alcohol in the years before prohibition. I suspect we'd all be rather surprised at how prevalent pot is amongst those who seem perfectly sober.
I see all such drugs as equally silly and stupid. But I also don't see it as the business of governemnt to tell people what to do with themselves. And since there's no value to booze that pot doesn't have... the laws for one should be the same as the laws for the other.
Screw the Constitution. We should do whatever the latest opinion polls say.
You mean like licenced liquor establishments? Distiller's permits and the like? I thought we already had those licences and fees established for the production and consumption of alcohol.
Absent any other supporting evidence, loud is usually wrong.
Succinct, correct and to the point.
40,000 a year die in auto accidents.
the point is there is good and bad in everything.
I claim the cost benefit in alcohol is better than for pot.
Pot is prolific in my Son's high school. It's the most under the radar drug out there and is much more prevalent and accepted in society than most people think.
don't let facts get in the way of your argument, FRiend.
Smoke some pot sometime, then come tell me that. I can "pound back" quite a few brewski's before I get as stoned as I do from 1/2 a joint. Now consider a regular pot user, who is stoned 24 hrs a day who "thinks" he isn't that stoned because he's so used to being that way, and lites up a joint every couple hours. I won't lie, I've smoked pot on occassion, the last time being about a year ago. Stoned on pot is MUCH worse than drinking a few brewski's. The truth is, you will barf before you can get as drunk on beer.
"Gateway drug" is a term many different meanings as to render it virtually meaningless.
As far as I know there is nothing about marijuana that specifically makes you more likely to want to or use other, "harder" drugs. For people who seek new sensations and the thrill of the forbidden (as young adults often do) pot is naturally the first illegal drug they encounter, being the most prevalent in most areas.
From there, I'd say two factors come into play. One is that getting involved in using MJ regularly is likely to put you in contact with use, sell or can find you other drugs. Second, having experimented with pot and not found it to be the terrible bogeyman that the authorities have made it out to be, one is likely to discount the other (often valid) warnings that they have heard.
My personal opinion is that we'd do a lot better trying to educate people to respect their minds and bodies and use substances responsibly. Look at booze, for example. A drink now and then, or even an occasional bender, is not necessarily a bad thing. But drinking and driving, or becoming an alcoholic is. For whatever reasons, though, and I can think of a few, many young people use alcohol completely irresponsibly. Similarly with pot. Coke can be used occasionally and responsibly. Not sure about heroin - certainly most people have to desire to stick a needle in their arm just for fun.
Anyway, I think prohibitions of various substances miss the point: Why do so many people wish to lose themselves in a drug-induced state for so muc of their time? We don't seem to have put very much time or energy into answering that question.
It depends on what part of society you hang with. Upper scale professionals, like lawyers, doctors and LEOs have the best pot.
I understand. But your argument happened to be the point of the article. And both were equally intellectually bankrupt.
Are you wearing your AC/DC shirt today? or the pot leaf one?
Today I am wearing khaki slacks and a blue polo shirt. A brown leather belt completes my ensemble.
One thing I'm NOT wearing, unlike you, is a crazy persons' tinfoil hat.
Usually, they have the best cocaine. They may occasionally smoke pot, but not often from what I see. The Coke heads don't last long either, they spiral downhill sooner or later for one reason or another.
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.