Pot invasion stuns park officials. 600% jump in Sequoia plants may be tied to tight borders.

The Fresno Bee ^ | Sept 25, 2002 | Joan Obra

[Pern]

A new species is appearing more frequently in Sequoia National Park: marijuana. During the past month, park rangers and law enforcement officials have uprooted 19 marijuana gardens from the Mineral King and South Fork areas of the park. Officials disposed of more than 35,000 plants -- with an estimated street value of more than $140 million -- in an undisclosed Tulare County site.

[Auntie Mame]

Thank you. I was disappointed, until now, that no one picked up on what I thought was a good idea.

You've just made my day. ; - )

[rb22982]

That's priceless. Rat poison isn't seductively, pleasantly psychoactive—wherefore it is not desired as an intoxicant. But whadda ya know? The Rat Poison Analogy brought down the WOD nonetheless!

It's simple actually. People have weighed (in their mind) the costs of marijuana (temporary loss of some control + economic costs of the actual marijuana itself) vs the benefits (medical benefitis [pain relief, nausea, etc], temporary escape from reality + social benefits + 'fun' factor). The same is true rat poisoning people weigh the costs (brain damage/death + economic costs of rain poisoning itself) vs benefits (none for human digestion) and decide not to take it. You said that since it was legal, the government was OKing it. By your own logic the government is OKing the digestion of rat poisoning.

As for the "upsides", maybe we spar later. All this talk about pot is making me hungry.

I doubt we'll 'spar', you will not be able to find any downsides.

[avenir]

By your own logic the government is OK'ing the digestion of rat poisoning.

Logic doesn't get much better than this, does it? If I had smoked a fatty I might know how the Hay you came up with this.

I didn't.

And I don't.

[rb22982]

I simply do not understand how you do not understand it.

You stated that since the government does not outlaw it (or in marijuana's case, would RE-legalize it), the government has endorsed or "Ok"ed it (would be endorsing or oking it). Since rat poison is not illegal, under this same logic, the government is OKing the digestion of rat poisoning.

[rb22982]

Direct quote from you.

I meant giving it status as an accepted, legal substance

Rat poisoning is an legal substance, but do you think the government is 'accepting' or IOW "Oking" it's digestive use? Just because something is legal doesn't mean the government is telling people to go do something. Becoming a jew is legal, but being a Christian, I wouldn't recommend it. Being a socialist philosophically is legal, but I completely disagree with it. Eating till you get fatter than a blimp is legal, but I wouldn't recommend it. Just because marijuana being re-legalized doesn't mean we are telling people to go out and smoke dope and get high. It just means we are sick and tired of waging a war on our citizens.

[avenir]

Rat poison is a legal substance, but do you think the government is "accepting" its digestive use?

You strain out gnats and swallow camels.

[rb22982]

It was your logic, not mine. My logic is the government has no business interferring with what people do if they are not harming any others. It has nothing to do with 'promotion' or 'acceptance' of something.

[avenir]

My logic is the government has no business interferring with what people do if they are not harming any others. It has nothing to do with 'promotion' or 'acceptance' of something.

Life might be less illogical for you if you were to adopt a philosophical world view likely to be implemented in space-time history.

The "not harming others" thing is unworkable because, at bottom, people just aren't cold enough to ignore the quagmire their drug-addled loved one has gotten themselves into; or turn away from their prostitute daughter who has contracted AIDS; or refuse mercy to their drunken parent. They hurt plenty as their relative or friend or fellow human being crashes and burns after "not harming any others".

Libertarianism is a cold, unloving philosophy. The God of the Bible gives people plenty of rope to hang themselves with, but paradoxically is there waiting with his love and mercy to gather up the broken fragments of lives spent disintegrating in the name of "freedom".

[rb22982]

Life might be less illogical for you if you were to adopt a philosophical world view likely to be implemented in space-time history. The "not harming others" thing is unworkable because, at bottom, people just aren't cold enough to ignore the quagmire their drug-addled loved one has gotten themselves into; or turn away from their prostitute daughter who has contracted AIDS; or refuse mercy to their drunken parent. They hurt plenty as their relative or friend or fellow human being crashes and burns after "not harming any others".

Yes, the liberal it takes a community logic. But this still misses the point, the drug laws are not protecting those people, and in many cases worsens the problem. Libertarianism is a cold, unloving philosophy. The God of the Bible gives people plenty of rope to hang themselves with, but paradoxically is there waiting with his love and mercy to gather up the broken fragments of lives spent disintegrating in the name of "freedom".

Nonsense. What is more cold. Letting people do what they are going to do anyway, as long as they dont physical hurt or threaten someone else, or throwing someone in jail for possibly hurting themselves and telling them they are too stupid to take care of themselves so government will do it for them.

They hurt plenty as their relative or friend or fellow human being crashes and burns after "not harming any others".

Emotional distress is not cause for criminal probes. People become emotional distressed about 100s of things. Not only that, the law exacerbates the problem. Not only do they have to deal with their loved ones problems, they have to deal with the fact that he's going to prison and all their neighbors tax dollars are paying for it.

You'll be very hard pressed to find many lives 'ruined' by marijuana anyway.

[avenir]

Good night.

[MrLeRoy]

Where can i get an MrLe parsing driver?

Did you have anything of substance left to say?

[MrLeRoy]

Alcohol doesn't make everyone aggressive.

Don't kid yourself either if you think marijuana can't intensify pre-existing anger, or foster brooding.

But the fact remains that "the more people who switch from alcohol to pot, the better off we all are, simply from the decrease in violence."

From the U.S. Department of Justice's National Criminal Justice Reference Service (publication NCJ 145534): "Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. [...] Marijuana and opiates temporarily inhibit violent behavior [...] There is no evidence to support the claim that snorting or injecting cocaine stimulates violent behavior. [...] Anecdotal reports notwithstanding, no research evidence supports the notion that becoming high on hallucinogens, amphetamines, or PCP stimulates violent behavior in any systematic manner."

[MrLeRoy]

Have you ever read

No, he hasn't.

[MrLeRoy]

Did you mean, "Are there any other parts of the New Deal you'd DEFEND?"

[MrLeRoy]

just because it is legal, does not mean 'accepted.' Just because it is illegal, doesn't mean it is not 'accepted.'

Rat poison isn't seductively, pleasantly psychoactive

Airplane glue, Scotchgard, and other substances with mind-altering fumes are legal, but huffing is not 'accepted.'

[Wolfie]

Hey whaddayaknow, finally, a successful Federal farm program.

[MrLeRoy]

Emotional distress is not cause for criminal probes.

Amen! The issue is not "harm" but violation of rights; taking drugs violates nobody else's rights.

[Man of the Right]

I'm 54. I've had the opportunity to compare the life histories of friends and acquaintances who used illegal drugs in college to those who didn't. In this circle of friends and acquaintances, all of the drug users underachieved, many lead unproductive lives and some died prematurely. None of the abstainers died prematurely.

The war on drugs has incarcerated hundreds of thousands of otherwise law-abiding people for long periods of time, destabilized the border and eroded civil liberties. However, it has made it difficult for commercial interests to proselyte drug use. To my knowledge, my teenager did not use drugs. Had Philip Morris, Madison Avenue and Hollywood been free to promote and distribute illegal drugs, I'm not sure he would have abstained.

I have no problem with changing the law to allow patients to receive medication to alleviate pain, under appropriate controls. Also, I have no problem with reviewing sentencing guidelines.

However, I am among the overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose decriminalizing the use of illegal drugs.

[rb22982]

The war on drugs has incarcerated hundreds of thousands of otherwise law-abiding people for long periods of time, destabilized the border and eroded civil liberties. However, it has made it difficult for commercial interests to proselyte drug use. To my knowledge, my teenager did not use drugs. Had Philip Morris, Madison Avenue and Hollywood been free to promote and distribute illegal drugs, I'm not sure he would have abstained.

Unfortunately this strawman won't go over well, since it would still be a criminal offense to sell it to minors. I'm talking with people 21+. In fact I'd make it mandatory minimum 5 years for selling drugs to a minor (16-18), and at least 10 for someone under 16.

However, I am among the overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose decriminalizing the use of illegal drugs.

The majority of Americans also favor abortion on demand, sex with anyone and everyone and 100s of other immoral things that are currently legal. Just because something is the law, doesn't make it right.

As for drug users who underachieve, I can give a story for the exact opposite side, espeically when discussing just marijuana.

[Man of the Right]

Amazing.