XPost: talk.politics.drugs, alt.philosophy
From: hb_raz@NOSPAMhotmail.com
"cybrwurm" wrote in message
news:vvpsdfl7q3gp52@corp.supernews.com...
> +
> / 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).
How the hell is meditation, art, music, etc. "altered states of
consciousness"? Except under the influence of a drug, consciousness is all
the same.
> 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',
This is an inconclusive statement. It is like asking "Would you rather die
quickly or die very slowly, painfully while you're screaming like crazy?"
The comparsion two wrongs doesn't make the lesser one right.
> 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!
Sure, some anti-pot smokers are like this.
> If might makes right, then ten years for two
> joints is called "justice". :(
This is more or less true. The penalties on pot-smokers are sometimes way
too absurd.
> .
> 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.
So what? Relief neither sloves the problem, nor does it ever improve the
situation. If one needs to relax from a situation, the alternatives are
better (e.g. sleep) which one is at least able-minded that they can work out
their problems and solve them. Pot (and any other drug) takes away that
ability of critical-thinking.
> 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.
"most doctors are shameless slaves of the stablished system"... sounds more
like a Marxist critique if anything, but albeit a poor one. Is it that you
just listen to the opinions of those doctors that approve of pot and turn
away from those who don't and call them "slaves"? It is pretty hypocritical
of you to criticise anti-pot smokers for being one-sided but then turning
around and doing the same.
> .
> 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.
How the hell does pot "expand" your mind when studies have shown it removes
(temporarily, of course) the chemicals in your brain which enable you to
learn?
> 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!
So what? You still haven't proven pot-smoking to be right in the first
place.
> .
> 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.
Fun is not a reason, but it is an appeal to a (popular) feeling.
> 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.
"human realities"? Last time I checked, there was only reality. The
statement "Man is the measure of all things" (which could logically justify
many realities) was proven false long ago.
> .
> Part Two - Why Not?
[snip rant against the majority opinion]
Irrelevant to this discussion as it proves nothing. So what if there is
majority out there that condemns it? I'm looking for WHY. I'm not looking
for legalization vs. crimilization answers. Ranting how the majority is
wrong doesn't make you (or the issue) right.
> 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)
|
