XPost: talk.politics.drugs, alt.philosophy   
   From: erj66@xs4all.nl   
      
   On 08-01-2004 06:57, in article vvpsdfl7q3gp52@corp.supernews.com,   
   "cybrwurm"  wrote:   
      
   > +   
   > / Topic >  Re: Why pot? / 07 January 2004 / Newsgroups:   
   > / alt.politics.marijuana,talk.politics.drugs,alt.philosophy /   
   > .   
   >                     Why Pot? Why Not?   
   > .   
   >  "Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth; more   
   >    than ruin, more even than death." -- Bertrand Russell   
   > .   
   >> On 14Dec03 Dan Day wrote:  At the moment, the only   
   >> conclusion of why someone would want to smoke pot (or really   
   >> any other drug for that matter) is for the "fun" of it, which   
   >> isn't a reason. Basically, I'm really curious to see if there   
   >> is actually a reason out there for why someone would want   
   >> to smoke pot, and a good one at that. So, my question is:   
   >> Why smoke pot at all?   
   > .   
   >                    Part One - Why Pot?   
   > .   
   >        "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth   
   >          shall make you free." -- John 8:32 / KJV   
   > .   
   > 1) The desire to 'change your mind', in the sense of experiencing   
   > altered states of consciousness, is both normal and healthy.   
   > Using drugs is one way of doing this, but of course there are   
   > many methods and techniques for accomplishing this goal that   
   > don't require booze or dope (eg. meditation, art, music, etc).   
   > Smoking pot is merely one of the easiest ways of changing your   
   > mind. And since it is relatively mild, and relatively temporary,   
   > and relatively safe as well, in comparison with 'hard drugs',   
   > pot is clearly the best and most rational choice available   
   > (hence its growing popularity).   
   > .   
   > On the other hand, the abby-normal pot-haters are of the opinion   
   > that there is only one way of perceiving reality, only one way   
   > of "being-there"; namely, *their way*. And if anyone dares to   
   > disagree with their arrogant, uptight, shallow, repressive, and   
   > one-dimensional 'mode-of-being', then they fancy themselves   
   > perfectly justified in hounding you, insulting you, and torturing   
   > you to the max! If might makes right, then ten years for two   
   > joints is called "justice". :(   
   > .   
   > 2) The experience of 'nothingness' is a pervasive one in a   
   > childish and dissolute society such as ours, and while pot   
   > cannot of itself cure this spiritual condition, it can at least   
   > provide some temporary relief. This reason would then fall under   
   > the category of the medicinal use of marijuana. But since most   
   > doctors are shameless slaves of the established system, it is   
   > unlikely that any of that lot would ever dare to approve pot-   
   > use to this end. In any case, pot's pain-relief effect is not   
   > limited to purely physical pain, but also includes pain of a   
   > more psychological or spiritual nature.   
   > .   
   > 3) If it comes down to a choice between alcohol or pot, the   
   > latter is easily the better and healthier choice. Alcohol is not   
   > only more harmful to the body, but it is also a "downer"; ie. it   
   > distorts our perceptions and *reduces* our minds. Marijuana, on   
   > the other hand, enhances our enjoyment of many things (eg.   
   > music, movies, video games, etc) and *expands* our minds.   
   > .   
   > In my own case, if I have just one beer too many, I am   
   > immediately attacked by a violent headache. No need to wait till   
   > morning for a hangover; mine comes while the night is still   
   > young! In any case, the responsible use (note: not abuse) of   
   > these drugs depends on moderation. As the ancient Greeks wisely   
   > advise us: Moderation in all things!   
   > .   
   > Of course, recreational use purely for enjoyment could easily   
   > be considered as falling under the general category of 'fun',   
   > which Mr Day has deemed 'silly' and disallowed owing to his   
   > apparent belief that fun is irrational, and therefore NOT a   
   > valid reason for smoking pot. Now it seems to me that fun is not   
   > irrational by any means, and therefore IS a perfectly legitimate   
   > reason. Moreover, it is obvious that Mr Day's philosophical   
   > foundations are, to say the least, somewhat less than adequate   
   > to the variety and complexity of human realities.   
   > .   
   >                  Part Two - Why Not?   
   > .   
   > A couple of weeks ago I rented a movie from the local video   
   > store. When I got home and plugged the tape into the VCR, the   
   > usual commercials and trailers preceded the feature film.   
   > Nothing unusual there, except that one of the commercials was   
   > about some guy who killed somebody with his car while driving   
   > stoned. The punch-line went something like this: "Marijuana.   
   > It's more dangerous than we all thought." Needless to say, I   
   > was thoroughly offended and outraged by this gross and   
   > disgusting piece of anti-pot propaganda.   
   > .   
   > Blaming marijuana for the death of this accident victim is the   
   > exact equivalent of blaming the gun when some psycho shoots   
   > somebody. In the latter case the courts have no problem in   
   > placing the blame squarely where it belongs: on the shooter,   
   > NOT on the gun. In the same way, the blame in the former case   
   > falls directly upon the irresponsible driver, NOT on the pot   
   > he consumed.   
   > .   
   > Thus the cops around these parts will arrest intoxicated drivers   
   > whenever they catch them, and they make no distinction between   
   > pot and alcohol. They know damn well that it is the stupidity   
   > and irresponsibility of the driver that is the source of this   
   > crime that endangers the public welfare. In this I am entirely   
   > in accord with the police. Yes, even the gestapo can be right   
   > once in a while.   
   > .   
   > Yet the pot-haters would rather ignore reality and place the   
   > blame on marijuana. 'Pot Kills!", says their Anslinger-inspired   
   > drivel. No, Anslinger is NOT dead. Instead he moved to Canada,   
   > and became the Right-Honorable-Mayor of Edmonton! :O   
   > .   
   > But who are these rich and powerful pot-haters, and why do they   
   > continue to pedal their pathetic paranoia? They are conservatives   
   > and conformists (in the most vile, revolting, and despicable   
   > sense of those terms). And obviously they are the majority. Not   
   > the silent majority, oh no, but rather the stupid and hateful   
   > majority. And chief among these are the Christian Churches.   
   > They couldn't hold onto their prohibition of alcohol, poor things,   
   > but they are more than able (thanks to Anslinger and his legion   
   > of clones) to hold onto their cherished prohibition on marijuana.   
   > .   
   >   "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of   
   >    the Lord is present, there is freedom" (2Cor.3:17).   
   > .   
   > How odious this verse must be to the corrupt and spiritless   
   > churches of the present age. Their hatred of freedom is apparent   
   > in their anti-pot paranoia. They are consumed by fear of the   
   > "devil's weed" because they are afraid of their own minds! They   
   > suppose that they have a divine mandate to protect society from   
   > the terrible evils of marijuana. And so they fervently believe   
   > in all of Anslinger's lunatic ravings: "You smoke a joint and   
   > you're likely to kill your brother."   
   > .   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)