XPost: talk.politics.drugs, alt.philosophy   
   From: mhelm@not.known   
      
   On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 22:57:22 -0700, "cybrwurm"    
      
      
   >                   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.   
      
   I hope you told them you weren't going to rent there as long as they   
   continued to push political views on their customers by carrying tapes   
   with those commercials.   
      
   >.   
   > Blaming marijuana for the death of this accident victim is the   
   >exact equivalent of blaming the gun when some psycho shoots   
   >somebody.   
      
   Except that in the case of the commercial, it is a purely manufactured   
   example.   
      
   > 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."   
   >.   
   > The commercial I saw so recently is the direct descendant of   
   >this absurd claim. Nothing has changed. The churches today are   
   >just like the Spanish Inquisition of olden times, who while   
   >cutting off your nipples would piously assure you that they   
   >were not torturing you for their own pleasure, but only for   
   >the good of your soul. Well, I'd rather the churches would   
   >keep their pharisee noses out of my soul, thx very much indeed!   
   >.   
   > "No one is ever fanatically devoted to something they have   
   >complete confidence in. ... Whenever someone is fanatically   
   >devoted to a set of beliefs or dogmas or goals, it is only   
   >because [they] are in doubt." -- Robert M. Pirsig   
   >.   
   >     - the fanatically anti-fanatic one - cybrwurm ;>   
   >.   
   >P.S. Why then should we legalize marijuana? -> Because it   
   >would "Increase the aggregate amount of freedom, and free   
   >police resources to deal with actual crime" (Eric Johnson).   
   >.   
   >P.P.S. Just say Grow!   
   >x   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)