Rico Gathers
- Thread starter paultzman
- Start date
beast of the east
Active member
[quote="fuchsia" post=293937][quote="mjmaherjr" post=293936]I dont smoke at all but they need to decriminalize marijuana[/quote]
I don't either (except about two cigars a week when my cardiologist smokes with me) but a whole lot of work on co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorders in the same patient raises lots of issues about weed"[ul]
[li]does the psychoactive chemical in pot , tetrahydrocannabinol open some pathways in the brain for some folks that are best left closed, with ensuing psychiatric disabilities? [/li]
[li]how many families were broken apart at the border based on the dictum by fiat of AG Sessions with the support of the President, that victims of gang violence were not asylum worthy, when a significant amount of the funding for cartels and the government and law enforcement officials they bribe or terrorize comes from marijuana sales[/li]
[/ul]what is the long term cost to public safety and to paying for technically accurate law enforcement, of having a second widely available intoxicant with a whole different set of currently unknown limits related to when is it okay to drive and when are you liable for public intoxication?[ul][/quote]
This is an absolutely great post, and the clarity and common sense is what I love about you.
I don't either (except about two cigars a week when my cardiologist smokes with me) but a whole lot of work on co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorders in the same patient raises lots of issues about weed"[ul]
[li]does the psychoactive chemical in pot , tetrahydrocannabinol open some pathways in the brain for some folks that are best left closed, with ensuing psychiatric disabilities? [/li]
[li]how many families were broken apart at the border based on the dictum by fiat of AG Sessions with the support of the President, that victims of gang violence were not asylum worthy, when a significant amount of the funding for cartels and the government and law enforcement officials they bribe or terrorize comes from marijuana sales[/li]
[/ul]what is the long term cost to public safety and to paying for technically accurate law enforcement, of having a second widely available intoxicant with a whole different set of currently unknown limits related to when is it okay to drive and when are you liable for public intoxication?[ul][/quote]
This is an absolutely great post, and the clarity and common sense is what I love about you.
[quote="fuchsia" post=293937]I don't either (except about two cigars a week when my cardiologist smokes with me) but a whole lot of work on co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorders in the same patient raises lots of issues about weed"[ul]
[li]does the psychoactive chemical in pot , tetrahydrocannabinol open some pathways in the brain for some folks that are best left closed, with ensuing psychiatric disabilities?[/quote]
50 percent of the population has smoked marijuana and 40 percent of those people still smoke it. Which means that carry the one a quarter of the population gets high regularly. Unless 25 percent of the population suffers from psychiatric disabilities there's zero proof of causal effect between marijuana use and psychiatric disability. What's more likely is that there's some correlation between psychiatric disability and marijuana use - that is, that at least some people who suffer from some sort of psychiatric disability self medicate with marijuana.
Leaving aside your ridiculous immigration hyperbole, if marijuana was legal no one would have to be bribed or terrorized due to marijuana sales because you could grow it in your back yard or buy at at the grocery store. That cartels use drug money to cause misery is an argument for legalization, not against it.
What is the long term cost to public safety of imprisoning non violent offenders for possession and trafficking of relatively benign intoxicants - entailing as it does families being broken apart and any number of concomitant social ills - and of wasting public resources policing crimes that harm no one but the offender. We already pay for "technically accurate law enforcement," so I don't see how that's a concern, and in fact the fewer crimes there are the farther the law enforcement budget goes and towards greater social ills than someone smoking a joint when they get home from work.
Let's say it's never okay to drive whe you're stoned and let's assume that a breathylzer for marijuana could be made readily available, because the free market would create one.
The larger point is that no legitimate government has the right to dictate its citizens what those citizens can do to or with their bodies. Legitimate government intervention occurs when someone's fist hits someone else's nose. Anything short of that is fascism, however benign.
[li]does the psychoactive chemical in pot , tetrahydrocannabinol open some pathways in the brain for some folks that are best left closed, with ensuing psychiatric disabilities?[/quote]
50 percent of the population has smoked marijuana and 40 percent of those people still smoke it. Which means that carry the one a quarter of the population gets high regularly. Unless 25 percent of the population suffers from psychiatric disabilities there's zero proof of causal effect between marijuana use and psychiatric disability. What's more likely is that there's some correlation between psychiatric disability and marijuana use - that is, that at least some people who suffer from some sort of psychiatric disability self medicate with marijuana.
Leaving aside your ridiculous immigration hyperbole, if marijuana was legal no one would have to be bribed or terrorized due to marijuana sales because you could grow it in your back yard or buy at at the grocery store. That cartels use drug money to cause misery is an argument for legalization, not against it.
What is the long term cost to public safety of imprisoning non violent offenders for possession and trafficking of relatively benign intoxicants - entailing as it does families being broken apart and any number of concomitant social ills - and of wasting public resources policing crimes that harm no one but the offender. We already pay for "technically accurate law enforcement," so I don't see how that's a concern, and in fact the fewer crimes there are the farther the law enforcement budget goes and towards greater social ills than someone smoking a joint when they get home from work.
Let's say it's never okay to drive whe you're stoned and let's assume that a breathylzer for marijuana could be made readily available, because the free market would create one.
The larger point is that no legitimate government has the right to dictate its citizens what those citizens can do to or with their bodies. Legitimate government intervention occurs when someone's fist hits someone else's nose. Anything short of that is fascism, however benign.
Class of 72
Active member
Rico was lucky to get arrested in a Dallas suburb. I lived in central Texas for two years and to this day they will arrest you for smoking one joint and lock you up. With Rico, his arrest came less than 24 hours before the 4 p.m. ET Saturday NFL deadline for teams to cut their rosters down to 53 from 90 players. Rico made the cut despite the arrest. In Texas, that's progress.
Unlike NYC, and other places now in Texas it is illegal to possess even the tiniest amount of cannabis. Anyone caught using or in possession of marijuana can find themselves slapped with hefty fines and jail time.
Many states across the country have become more relaxed about marijuana. Some have passed medical cannabis laws, recreational laws, and decriminalization laws. But, this simply isn’t the case with Texas lawmakers. Marijuana charges are still punished severely. The penalties for such offenses are steep and punishable as follows:
Under 2 ounces = Misdemeanor: Up to $2,000 fine and up to 180 days’ incarceration
Luckily Rico will get a fine and probation.
Where it gets serious is when you are arrested with over 4 ounces. Then it's a felony.
Between 4 ounces to 5 pounds = Felony: Up to $10,000 fine and mandatory minimum sentence of 180 days to up to 2 years’ incarceration.
Pardon my long response but it's both ironic and hypocritical that in a state where on any Friday and Saturday night hundreds of thousands of Texans are drunk as a skunk including sheriffs, smoking weed is still a crime on the books. There is one safe city to toke in the sate and that is Austin. My favorite city in Texas!
Unlike NYC, and other places now in Texas it is illegal to possess even the tiniest amount of cannabis. Anyone caught using or in possession of marijuana can find themselves slapped with hefty fines and jail time.
Many states across the country have become more relaxed about marijuana. Some have passed medical cannabis laws, recreational laws, and decriminalization laws. But, this simply isn’t the case with Texas lawmakers. Marijuana charges are still punished severely. The penalties for such offenses are steep and punishable as follows:
Under 2 ounces = Misdemeanor: Up to $2,000 fine and up to 180 days’ incarceration
Luckily Rico will get a fine and probation.
Where it gets serious is when you are arrested with over 4 ounces. Then it's a felony.
Between 4 ounces to 5 pounds = Felony: Up to $10,000 fine and mandatory minimum sentence of 180 days to up to 2 years’ incarceration.
Pardon my long response but it's both ironic and hypocritical that in a state where on any Friday and Saturday night hundreds of thousands of Texans are drunk as a skunk including sheriffs, smoking weed is still a crime on the books. There is one safe city to toke in the sate and that is Austin. My favorite city in Texas!
Thank you very much, finally someone who understands. At first I was in favor of "Stop and Frisk" then I realized that if a young Black man got stopped and did not have a weapon, but had marijuana on him, he was going to jail. There are probably as many,if not more students at Adelphi and CW Post that smoke as at York College or CCNY. However, students at the Long Island schools did not have to worry about stop and frisk, while students attending the City schools in South Jamaica and Harlem did.
This is just an example of how Stop and Frisk laws destroyed the lives ofmany young people in minority communities.
This is just an example of how Stop and Frisk laws destroyed the lives ofmany young people in minority communities.
The amount of ignorance still extant regarding marijuana is Harry Anslinger's gift that keeps on giving. Whether it's my questions or Fun's libertarian speculation, ignorance is currently in the lead with I suspect not a lot of funding going in to real research as way to many people see marijuana spelled with $$$$ signs.
[quote="panther2" post=294041]Thank you very much, finally someone who understands. At first I was in favor of "Stop and Frisk" then I realized that if a young Black man got stopped and did not have a weapon, but had marijuana on him, he was going to jail. There are probably as many,if not more students at Adelphi and CW Post that smoke as at York College or CCNY. However, students at the Long Island schools did not have to worry about stop and frisk, while students attending the City schools in South Jamaica and Harlem did.
This is just an example of how Stop and Frisk laws destroyed the lives ofmany young people in minority communities.[/quote]
And when young white men are subject to "Stop and Frisk" . . . oh, never mind.
This is just an example of how Stop and Frisk laws destroyed the lives ofmany young people in minority communities.[/quote]
And when young white men are subject to "Stop and Frisk" . . . oh, never mind.
beast of the east
Active member
[quote="panther2" post=294041]Thank you very much, finally someone who understands. At first I was in favor of "Stop and Frisk" then I realized that if a young Black man got stopped and did not have a weapon, but had marijuana on him, he was going to jail. There are probably as many,if not more students at Adelphi and CW Post that smoke as at York College or CCNY. However, students at the Long Island schools did not have to worry about stop and frisk, while students attending the City schools in South Jamaica and Harlem did.
This is just an example of how Stop and Frisk laws destroyed the lives ofmany young people in minority communities.[/quote]
Here's where I take exception to your argument, panther, which by the way you articulated very well.
I never smoked pot or used any illegal drugs for one very good reason - they are illegal. My degree is in pharmacy and I was terrified it would jeopardize me professionally, and a criminal conviction follows you a long way.
Any person, black, white or green who willfully breaks the law subjects himself to the penalties under the law. The subject here happens to be pot, but it may as well be unlicensed weapons, stolen property. Or any other transgression under the law.
Now that the taboo of pot is essentially gone I can tell you that college students are becoming massive consumers, with very smart kids making cogent arguments of pot vs. Alcohol. What's far , far worse is that a fairly large number of kids are starting to use hallucenogens such as acid and mushrooms. The same very smart kids will tell you that hallucinogens are non addictive and much safer than opiates.
Because kids are breaking the law doesn't mean laws should be relaxed. It would be a reason to decriminalize unlicensed handguns,assault, lower the drinking age to 15 or any number of illegal behaviors.
I do believe that pot, although possibly safer, is for many a gateway substance to much stronger agents that will remain illegal.
This is just an example of how Stop and Frisk laws destroyed the lives ofmany young people in minority communities.[/quote]
Here's where I take exception to your argument, panther, which by the way you articulated very well.
I never smoked pot or used any illegal drugs for one very good reason - they are illegal. My degree is in pharmacy and I was terrified it would jeopardize me professionally, and a criminal conviction follows you a long way.
Any person, black, white or green who willfully breaks the law subjects himself to the penalties under the law. The subject here happens to be pot, but it may as well be unlicensed weapons, stolen property. Or any other transgression under the law.
Now that the taboo of pot is essentially gone I can tell you that college students are becoming massive consumers, with very smart kids making cogent arguments of pot vs. Alcohol. What's far , far worse is that a fairly large number of kids are starting to use hallucenogens such as acid and mushrooms. The same very smart kids will tell you that hallucinogens are non addictive and much safer than opiates.
Because kids are breaking the law doesn't mean laws should be relaxed. It would be a reason to decriminalize unlicensed handguns,assault, lower the drinking age to 15 or any number of illegal behaviors.
I do believe that pot, although possibly safer, is for many a gateway substance to much stronger agents that will remain illegal.
Last edited:
Class of 72
Active member
[quote="Beast of the East" post=294150][quote="panther2" post=294041]Thank you very much, finally someone who understands. At first I was in favor of "Stop and Frisk" then I realized that if a young Black man got stopped and did not have a weapon, but had marijuana on him, he was going to jail. There are probably as many,if not more students at Adelphi and CW Post that smoke as at York College or CCNY. However, students at the Long Island schools did not have to worry about stop and frisk, while students attending the City schools in South Jamaica and Harlem did.
This is just an example of how Stop and Frisk laws destroyed the lives ofmany young people in minority communities.[/quote]
Here's where I take exception to your argument, panther, which by the way you articulated very well.
I never smoked pot or used any illegal drugs for one very good reason - they are illegal. My degree is in pharmacy and I was terrified it would jeopardize me professionally, and a criminal conviction follows you a long way.
Any person, black, white or green who willfully breaks the law subjects himself to the penalties under the law. The subject here happens to be pot, but it may as well be unlicensed weapons, stolen property. Or any other transgression under the law.
Now that the taboo of pot is essentially gone I can tell you that college students are becoming massive consumers, with very smart kids making cogent arguments of pot vs. Alcohol. What's far , far worse is that a fairly large number of kids are starting to use hallucenogens such as acid and mushrooms. The same very smart kids will tell you that hallucinogens are non addictive and much safer than opiates.
Because kids are breaking the law doesn't mean laws should be relaxed. It would be a reason to decriminalize unlicensed handguns,assault, lower the drinking age to 15 or any number of illegal behaviors.
I do believe that pot, although possibly safer, is for many a gateway substance to much stronger agents that will remain illegal.[/quote]
Those damn kids! They should stick to the legal agents like barbituates, red bull, Reds, red birds, red devils, lilly, F-40s, pinks, pink ladies, cigarettes, alcohol, legal guns purchased in licensed gun shops in Florida to kill queers and freaks.
Do you seriously believe that marijuana is a gateway substance in this day and age when Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is being extracted for pharmaceutical uses??
During the Vietnam War, hundreds of thousands of G.I.'s toked a Bong Son Bomber before having boom-boom with Boom-Boom girl while on R&R.
You see Beast you missed the 60's with an illegal war and all that illegal stuff that went with it.
You can tell us that college students are becoming massive consumers? Horse crap!
They are massive consumers of on-line porn while being tethered to their Iphones.
This is just an example of how Stop and Frisk laws destroyed the lives ofmany young people in minority communities.[/quote]
Here's where I take exception to your argument, panther, which by the way you articulated very well.
I never smoked pot or used any illegal drugs for one very good reason - they are illegal. My degree is in pharmacy and I was terrified it would jeopardize me professionally, and a criminal conviction follows you a long way.
Any person, black, white or green who willfully breaks the law subjects himself to the penalties under the law. The subject here happens to be pot, but it may as well be unlicensed weapons, stolen property. Or any other transgression under the law.
Now that the taboo of pot is essentially gone I can tell you that college students are becoming massive consumers, with very smart kids making cogent arguments of pot vs. Alcohol. What's far , far worse is that a fairly large number of kids are starting to use hallucenogens such as acid and mushrooms. The same very smart kids will tell you that hallucinogens are non addictive and much safer than opiates.
Because kids are breaking the law doesn't mean laws should be relaxed. It would be a reason to decriminalize unlicensed handguns,assault, lower the drinking age to 15 or any number of illegal behaviors.
I do believe that pot, although possibly safer, is for many a gateway substance to much stronger agents that will remain illegal.[/quote]
Those damn kids! They should stick to the legal agents like barbituates, red bull, Reds, red birds, red devils, lilly, F-40s, pinks, pink ladies, cigarettes, alcohol, legal guns purchased in licensed gun shops in Florida to kill queers and freaks.
Do you seriously believe that marijuana is a gateway substance in this day and age when Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is being extracted for pharmaceutical uses??
During the Vietnam War, hundreds of thousands of G.I.'s toked a Bong Son Bomber before having boom-boom with Boom-Boom girl while on R&R.
You see Beast you missed the 60's with an illegal war and all that illegal stuff that went with it.
You can tell us that college students are becoming massive consumers? Horse crap!
They are massive consumers of on-line porn while being tethered to their Iphones.
Last edited:
ErickTheRed
Member
Nike could make him next ad campaign star.
Do you seriously believe that marijuana is a gateway substance in this day and age when Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is being extracted for pharmaceutical uses??
72, the case we always talked about was a guy with a schizophrenia diagnosis in one of the NY State Psychiatric Centers. The usual antipsychotic meds were not working and finally one of the expert psychiatrists on co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorders was called in. A full drug panel revealed high levels of THC and when the patient was managed to prevent access to marijuana, the psychotic features of his behavior dissipated. Still a lot of stuff related to Axis II personality disordered stuff, but no more psychosis.
At some level to me it feels like the same argument as getting tough on crime, is it worse to have people get away with stuff or for an innocent person to be punished?
72, the case we always talked about was a guy with a schizophrenia diagnosis in one of the NY State Psychiatric Centers. The usual antipsychotic meds were not working and finally one of the expert psychiatrists on co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorders was called in. A full drug panel revealed high levels of THC and when the patient was managed to prevent access to marijuana, the psychotic features of his behavior dissipated. Still a lot of stuff related to Axis II personality disordered stuff, but no more psychosis.
At some level to me it feels like the same argument as getting tough on crime, is it worse to have people get away with stuff or for an innocent person to be punished?
beast of the east
Active member
[quote="Class of 72" post=294155][quote="Beast of the East" post=294150][quote="panther2" post=294041]Thank you very much, finally someone who understands. At first I was in favor of "Stop and Frisk" then I realized that if a young Black man got stopped and did not have a weapon, but had marijuana on him, he was going to jail. There are probably as many,if not more students at Adelphi and CW Post that smoke as at York College or CCNY. However, students at the Long Island schools did not have to worry about stop and frisk, while students attending the City schools in South Jamaica and Harlem did.
This is just an example of how Stop and Frisk laws destroyed the lives ofmany young people in minority communities.[/quote]
Here's where I take exception to your argument, panther, which by the way you articulated very well.
I never smoked pot or used any illegal drugs for one very good reason - they are illegal. My degree is in pharmacy and I was terrified it would jeopardize me professionally, and a criminal conviction follows you a long way.
Any person, black, white or green who willfully breaks the law subjects himself to the penalties under the law. The subject here happens to be pot, but it may as well be unlicensed weapons, stolen property. Or any other transgression under the law.
Now that the taboo of pot is essentially gone I can tell you that college students are becoming massive consumers, with very smart kids making cogent arguments of pot vs. Alcohol. What's far , far worse is that a fairly large number of kids are starting to use hallucenogens such as acid and mushrooms. The same very smart kids will tell you that hallucinogens are non addictive and much safer than opiates.
Because kids are breaking the law doesn't mean laws should be relaxed. It would be a reason to decriminalize unlicensed handguns,assault, lower the drinking age to 15 or any number of illegal behaviors.
I do believe that pot, although possibly safer, is for many a gateway substance to much stronger agents that will remain illegal.[/quote]
Those damn kids! They should stick to the legal agents like barbituates, red bull, Reds, red birds, red devils, lilly, F-40s, pinks, pink ladies, cigarettes, alcohol, legal guns purchased in licensed gun shops in Florida to kill queers and freaks.
Do you seriously believe that marijuana is a gateway substance in this day and age when Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is being extracted for pharmaceutical uses??
During the Vietnam War, hundreds of thousands of G.I.'s toked a Bong Son Bomber before having boom-boom with Boom-Boom girl while on R&R.
You see Beast you missed the 60's with an illegal war and all that illegal stuff that went with it.
You can tell us that college students are becoming massive consumers? Horse crap!
They are massive consumers of on-line porn while being tethered to their Iphones.[/quote]
Man with a lot of your posts I don't know where to start.
Just because THC or any drug that is derived from plant source (pharmacognosy) has a legitimate use, many have abuse potential.
Yes, I would say that marijuana use has become more mainstream than 30 years ago, when it was more of a fringe element of students that partied. It's much more acceptable today and my guess is that overall usage has increased as legalization has followed.
Don't tell me about drug usage in Vietnam. Tons of men came back with serious addictions that many are still battling, and are part of their witness story in recovery.
There is one big difference between alcohol and marijuana. You can imbibe very conservatively , like a glass of wine at dinner, or a beer at a ballgame, where the intent is not to be impaired. The intent with pot is always to become impaired.
This is just an example of how Stop and Frisk laws destroyed the lives ofmany young people in minority communities.[/quote]
Here's where I take exception to your argument, panther, which by the way you articulated very well.
I never smoked pot or used any illegal drugs for one very good reason - they are illegal. My degree is in pharmacy and I was terrified it would jeopardize me professionally, and a criminal conviction follows you a long way.
Any person, black, white or green who willfully breaks the law subjects himself to the penalties under the law. The subject here happens to be pot, but it may as well be unlicensed weapons, stolen property. Or any other transgression under the law.
Now that the taboo of pot is essentially gone I can tell you that college students are becoming massive consumers, with very smart kids making cogent arguments of pot vs. Alcohol. What's far , far worse is that a fairly large number of kids are starting to use hallucenogens such as acid and mushrooms. The same very smart kids will tell you that hallucinogens are non addictive and much safer than opiates.
Because kids are breaking the law doesn't mean laws should be relaxed. It would be a reason to decriminalize unlicensed handguns,assault, lower the drinking age to 15 or any number of illegal behaviors.
I do believe that pot, although possibly safer, is for many a gateway substance to much stronger agents that will remain illegal.[/quote]
Those damn kids! They should stick to the legal agents like barbituates, red bull, Reds, red birds, red devils, lilly, F-40s, pinks, pink ladies, cigarettes, alcohol, legal guns purchased in licensed gun shops in Florida to kill queers and freaks.
Do you seriously believe that marijuana is a gateway substance in this day and age when Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is being extracted for pharmaceutical uses??
During the Vietnam War, hundreds of thousands of G.I.'s toked a Bong Son Bomber before having boom-boom with Boom-Boom girl while on R&R.
You see Beast you missed the 60's with an illegal war and all that illegal stuff that went with it.
You can tell us that college students are becoming massive consumers? Horse crap!
They are massive consumers of on-line porn while being tethered to their Iphones.[/quote]
Man with a lot of your posts I don't know where to start.
Just because THC or any drug that is derived from plant source (pharmacognosy) has a legitimate use, many have abuse potential.
Yes, I would say that marijuana use has become more mainstream than 30 years ago, when it was more of a fringe element of students that partied. It's much more acceptable today and my guess is that overall usage has increased as legalization has followed.
Don't tell me about drug usage in Vietnam. Tons of men came back with serious addictions that many are still battling, and are part of their witness story in recovery.
There is one big difference between alcohol and marijuana. You can imbibe very conservatively , like a glass of wine at dinner, or a beer at a ballgame, where the intent is not to be impaired. The intent with pot is always to become impaired.
Class of 72
Active member
[quote="Beast of the East" post=294166][quote="Class of 72" post=294155][quote="Beast of the East" post=294150][quote="panther2" post=294041]Thank you very much, finally someone who understands. At first I was in favor of "Stop and Frisk" then I realized that if a young Black man got stopped and did not have a weapon, but had marijuana on him, he was going to jail. There are probably as many,if not more students at Adelphi and CW Post that smoke as at York College or CCNY. However, students at the Long Island schools did not have to worry about stop and frisk, while students attending the City schools in South Jamaica and Harlem did.
This is just an example of how Stop and Frisk laws destroyed the lives ofmany young people in minority communities.[/quote]
Here's where I take exception to your argument, panther, which by the way you articulated very well.
I never smoked pot or used any illegal drugs for one very good reason - they are illegal. My degree is in pharmacy and I was terrified it would jeopardize me professionally, and a criminal conviction follows you a long way.
Any person, black, white or green who willfully breaks the law subjects himself to the penalties under the law. The subject here happens to be pot, but it may as well be unlicensed weapons, stolen property. Or any other transgression under the law.
Now that the taboo of pot is essentially gone I can tell you that college students are becoming massive consumers, with very smart kids making cogent arguments of pot vs. Alcohol. What's far , far worse is that a fairly large number of kids are starting to use hallucenogens such as acid and mushrooms. The same very smart kids will tell you that hallucinogens are non addictive and much safer than opiates.
Because kids are breaking the law doesn't mean laws should be relaxed. It would be a reason to decriminalize unlicensed handguns,assault, lower the drinking age to 15 or any number of illegal behaviors.
I do believe that pot, although possibly safer, is for many a gateway substance to much stronger agents that will remain illegal.[/quote]
Those damn kids! They should stick to the legal agents like barbituates, red bull, Reds, red birds, red devils, lilly, F-40s, pinks, pink ladies, cigarettes, alcohol, legal guns purchased in licensed gun shops in Florida to kill queers and freaks.
Do you seriously believe that marijuana is a gateway substance in this day and age when Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is being extracted for pharmaceutical uses??
During the Vietnam War, hundreds of thousands of G.I.'s toked a Bong Son Bomber before having boom-boom with Boom-Boom girl while on R&R.
You see Beast you missed the 60's with an illegal war and all that illegal stuff that went with it.
You can tell us that college students are becoming massive consumers? Horse crap!
They are massive consumers of on-line porn while being tethered to their Iphones.[/quote]
Man with a lot of your posts I don't know where to start.
Just because THC or any drug that is derived from plant source (pharmacognosy) has a legitimate use, many have abuse potential.
Yes, I would say that marijuana use has become more mainstream than 30 years ago, when it was more of a fringe element of students that partied. It's much more acceptable today and my guess is that overall usage has increased as legalization has followed.
Don't tell me about drug usage in Vietnam. Tons of men came back with serious addictions that many are still battling, and are part of their witness story in recovery.
There is one big difference between alcohol and marijuana. You can imbibe very conservatively , like a glass of wine at dinner, or a beer at a ballgame, where the intent is not to be impaired. The intent with pot is always to become impaired.[/quote]
As with many of your retorts I know exactly where to begin. You're FOS.
For a guy who never smoked weed, never was ex military and who takes Fuchsia's psychobabble seriously, you sure are an expert.
FYI, you can toke very conservatively just as well as with alcohol. You can take a couple of hits or you can do an entire bong. Kind of like what young people do at house parties or frat parties. Unlike vodka shots, most kids know when they have reached a certain high and don't need six joints because they are totally impaired as happens with alcohol.
I've seen very few pot heads who behave like drunks. Aggression, agitation, self-destructive behavior, or lack of restraint is not a common problem. Physical effects normally don't include nausea or vomiting. Yes, you get impaired but it is a completely different form of impairment.
From my experience in the military I don't recall many soldiers strung out on pot. I assisted in the readjustment processing of hundreds of Vietnam vets who returned with psychological scars. Heroin was the big problem in Nam for returning vets. For your edification here is an abstract from "The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse": 1976.
Abstract
"Highlights are presented on the issue of drug use among servicemen in Vietnam and its aftereffects. Two stages of Vietnam drug use are identified-a period of increasing marijuana use followed by the 1970 influx of highly potent heroin to which 1/5 of the enlisted troops were addicted at some time during their tour. The major contributing factors appear to be: (1) the need of troops in stressful combat situations for self-medication, escape, and hedonistic indulgence; (2) the relaxation of taboos against drug use in the United States; and (3) the availability of illicit drugs at low cost, which was apparently the result of profiteering by a number of South Vietnamese officials. Related to the above was the growing disenchantment with the war and the progressive deterioration in unit morale. These drugs are seen as serving many of the functions performed by alcohol in earlier military conflicts. There is no hard evidence that duty performance in Vietnam was seriously affected by drug use. Since 95% of those who were addicted to narcotics in Vietnam have not become readdicted, the situation does not appear to be as severe as originally supposed. Myths as to the persistence and intractibility of physiological narcotic addiction were dispelled. A major negative effect has been the difficulty that soldiers with less-than-honorable discharges due to drug abuse have had in obtaining jobs. Other long-term effects from drug use are less clear and are difficult to separate from the overall effects of the war."
The bottom line Beast is that we should not jail young people for smoking pot just as we should not jail young people under the age of 21 who drink illegally. It is stupid and immoral.
This is just an example of how Stop and Frisk laws destroyed the lives ofmany young people in minority communities.[/quote]
Here's where I take exception to your argument, panther, which by the way you articulated very well.
I never smoked pot or used any illegal drugs for one very good reason - they are illegal. My degree is in pharmacy and I was terrified it would jeopardize me professionally, and a criminal conviction follows you a long way.
Any person, black, white or green who willfully breaks the law subjects himself to the penalties under the law. The subject here happens to be pot, but it may as well be unlicensed weapons, stolen property. Or any other transgression under the law.
Now that the taboo of pot is essentially gone I can tell you that college students are becoming massive consumers, with very smart kids making cogent arguments of pot vs. Alcohol. What's far , far worse is that a fairly large number of kids are starting to use hallucenogens such as acid and mushrooms. The same very smart kids will tell you that hallucinogens are non addictive and much safer than opiates.
Because kids are breaking the law doesn't mean laws should be relaxed. It would be a reason to decriminalize unlicensed handguns,assault, lower the drinking age to 15 or any number of illegal behaviors.
I do believe that pot, although possibly safer, is for many a gateway substance to much stronger agents that will remain illegal.[/quote]
Those damn kids! They should stick to the legal agents like barbituates, red bull, Reds, red birds, red devils, lilly, F-40s, pinks, pink ladies, cigarettes, alcohol, legal guns purchased in licensed gun shops in Florida to kill queers and freaks.
Do you seriously believe that marijuana is a gateway substance in this day and age when Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is being extracted for pharmaceutical uses??
During the Vietnam War, hundreds of thousands of G.I.'s toked a Bong Son Bomber before having boom-boom with Boom-Boom girl while on R&R.
You see Beast you missed the 60's with an illegal war and all that illegal stuff that went with it.
You can tell us that college students are becoming massive consumers? Horse crap!
They are massive consumers of on-line porn while being tethered to their Iphones.[/quote]
Man with a lot of your posts I don't know where to start.
Just because THC or any drug that is derived from plant source (pharmacognosy) has a legitimate use, many have abuse potential.
Yes, I would say that marijuana use has become more mainstream than 30 years ago, when it was more of a fringe element of students that partied. It's much more acceptable today and my guess is that overall usage has increased as legalization has followed.
Don't tell me about drug usage in Vietnam. Tons of men came back with serious addictions that many are still battling, and are part of their witness story in recovery.
There is one big difference between alcohol and marijuana. You can imbibe very conservatively , like a glass of wine at dinner, or a beer at a ballgame, where the intent is not to be impaired. The intent with pot is always to become impaired.[/quote]
As with many of your retorts I know exactly where to begin. You're FOS.
For a guy who never smoked weed, never was ex military and who takes Fuchsia's psychobabble seriously, you sure are an expert.
FYI, you can toke very conservatively just as well as with alcohol. You can take a couple of hits or you can do an entire bong. Kind of like what young people do at house parties or frat parties. Unlike vodka shots, most kids know when they have reached a certain high and don't need six joints because they are totally impaired as happens with alcohol.
I've seen very few pot heads who behave like drunks. Aggression, agitation, self-destructive behavior, or lack of restraint is not a common problem. Physical effects normally don't include nausea or vomiting. Yes, you get impaired but it is a completely different form of impairment.
From my experience in the military I don't recall many soldiers strung out on pot. I assisted in the readjustment processing of hundreds of Vietnam vets who returned with psychological scars. Heroin was the big problem in Nam for returning vets. For your edification here is an abstract from "The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse": 1976.
Abstract
"Highlights are presented on the issue of drug use among servicemen in Vietnam and its aftereffects. Two stages of Vietnam drug use are identified-a period of increasing marijuana use followed by the 1970 influx of highly potent heroin to which 1/5 of the enlisted troops were addicted at some time during their tour. The major contributing factors appear to be: (1) the need of troops in stressful combat situations for self-medication, escape, and hedonistic indulgence; (2) the relaxation of taboos against drug use in the United States; and (3) the availability of illicit drugs at low cost, which was apparently the result of profiteering by a number of South Vietnamese officials. Related to the above was the growing disenchantment with the war and the progressive deterioration in unit morale. These drugs are seen as serving many of the functions performed by alcohol in earlier military conflicts. There is no hard evidence that duty performance in Vietnam was seriously affected by drug use. Since 95% of those who were addicted to narcotics in Vietnam have not become readdicted, the situation does not appear to be as severe as originally supposed. Myths as to the persistence and intractibility of physiological narcotic addiction were dispelled. A major negative effect has been the difficulty that soldiers with less-than-honorable discharges due to drug abuse have had in obtaining jobs. Other long-term effects from drug use are less clear and are difficult to separate from the overall effects of the war."
The bottom line Beast is that we should not jail young people for smoking pot just as we should not jail young people under the age of 21 who drink illegally. It is stupid and immoral.
[quote="Class of 72" post=294174][quote="Beast of the East" post=294166][quote="Class of 72" post=294155][quote="Beast of the East" post=294150][quote="panther2" post=294041]Thank you very much, finally someone who understands. At first I was in favor of "Stop and Frisk" then I realized that if a young Black man got stopped and did not have a weapon, but had marijuana on him, he was going to jail. There are probably as many,if not more students at Adelphi and CW Post that smoke as at York College or CCNY. However, students at the Long Island schools did not have to worry about stop and frisk, while students attending the City schools in South Jamaica and Harlem did.
This is just an example of how Stop and Frisk laws destroyed the lives ofmany young people in minority communities.[/quote]
Here's where I take exception to your argument, panther, which by the way you articulated very well.
I never smoked pot or used any illegal drugs for one very good reason - they are illegal. My degree is in pharmacy and I was terrified it would jeopardize me professionally, and a criminal conviction follows you a long way.
Any person, black, white or green who willfully breaks the law subjects himself to the penalties under the law. The subject here happens to be pot, but it may as well be unlicensed weapons, stolen property. Or any other transgression under the law.
Now that the taboo of pot is essentially gone I can tell you that college students are becoming massive consumers, with very smart kids making cogent arguments of pot vs. Alcohol. What's far , far worse is that a fairly large number of kids are starting to use hallucenogens such as acid and mushrooms. The same very smart kids will tell you that hallucinogens are non addictive and much safer than opiates.
Because kids are breaking the law doesn't mean laws should be relaxed. It would be a reason to decriminalize unlicensed handguns,assault, lower the drinking age to 15 or any number of illegal behaviors.
I do believe that pot, although possibly safer, is for many a gateway substance to much stronger agents that will remain illegal.[/quote]
Those damn kids! They should stick to the legal agents like barbituates, red bull, Reds, red birds, red devils, lilly, F-40s, pinks, pink ladies, cigarettes, alcohol, legal guns purchased in licensed gun shops in Florida to kill queers and freaks.
Do you seriously believe that marijuana is a gateway substance in this day and age when Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is being extracted for pharmaceutical uses??
During the Vietnam War, hundreds of thousands of G.I.'s toked a Bong Son Bomber before having boom-boom with Boom-Boom girl while on R&R.
You see Beast you missed the 60's with an illegal war and all that illegal stuff that went with it.
You can tell us that college students are becoming massive consumers? Horse crap!
They are massive consumers of on-line porn while being tethered to their Iphones.[/quote]
Man with a lot of your posts I don't know where to start.
Just because THC or any drug that is derived from plant source (pharmacognosy) has a legitimate use, many have abuse potential.
Yes, I would say that marijuana use has become more mainstream than 30 years ago, when it was more of a fringe element of students that partied. It's much more acceptable today and my guess is that overall usage has increased as legalization has followed.
Don't tell me about drug usage in Vietnam. Tons of men came back with serious addictions that many are still battling, and are part of their witness story in recovery.
There is one big difference between alcohol and marijuana. You can imbibe very conservatively , like a glass of wine at dinner, or a beer at a ballgame, where the intent is not to be impaired. The intent with pot is always to become impaired.[/quote]
As with many of your retorts I know exactly where to begin. You're FOS.
For a guy who never smoked weed, never was ex military and who takes Fuchsia's psychobabble seriously, you sure are an expert.
FYI, you can toke very conservatively just as well as with alcohol. You can take a couple of hits or you can do an entire bong. Kind of like what young people do at house parties or frat parties. Unlike vodka shots, most kids know when they have reached a certain high and don't need six joints because they are totally impaired as happens with alcohol.
I've seen very few pot heads who behave like drunks. Aggression, agitation, self-destructive behavior, or lack of restraint is not a common problem. Physical effects normally don't include nausea or vomiting. Yes, you get impaired but it is a completely different form of impairment.
From my experience in the military I don't recall many soldiers strung out on pot. I assisted in the readjustment processing of hundreds of Vietnam vets who returned with psychological scars. Heroin was the big problem in Nam for returning vets. For your edification here is an abstract from "The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse": 1976.
Abstract
"Highlights are presented on the issue of drug use among servicemen in Vietnam and its aftereffects. Two stages of Vietnam drug use are identified-a period of increasing marijuana use followed by the 1970 influx of highly potent heroin to which 1/5 of the enlisted troops were addicted at some time during their tour. The major contributing factors appear to be: (1) the need of troops in stressful combat situations for self-medication, escape, and hedonistic indulgence; (2) the relaxation of taboos against drug use in the United States; and (3) the availability of illicit drugs at low cost, which was apparently the result of profiteering by a number of South Vietnamese officials. Related to the above was the growing disenchantment with the war and the progressive deterioration in unit morale. These drugs are seen as serving many of the functions performed by alcohol in earlier military conflicts. There is no hard evidence that duty performance in Vietnam was seriously affected by drug use. Since 95% of those who were addicted to narcotics in Vietnam have not become readdicted, the situation does not appear to be as severe as originally supposed. Myths as to the persistence and intractibility of physiological narcotic addiction were dispelled. A major negative effect has been the difficulty that soldiers with less-than-honorable discharges due to drug abuse have had in obtaining jobs. Other long-term effects from drug use are less clear and are difficult to separate from the overall effects of the war."
The bottom line Beast is that we should not jail young people for smoking pot just as we should not jail young people under the age of 21 who drink illegally. It is stupid and immoral.[/quote]
We smoked weed when in base camp—off the line—and never in the jungle or when we were about to go back out. We were young, but not nuts.
Being young, beer was also popular, as was Ba Muoi Ba or ‘33’, a local yeaster.
As I recall, we had hangovers from alcohol use and not smoking grass.
Call it ‘anecdotal’ research.
This is just an example of how Stop and Frisk laws destroyed the lives ofmany young people in minority communities.[/quote]
Here's where I take exception to your argument, panther, which by the way you articulated very well.
I never smoked pot or used any illegal drugs for one very good reason - they are illegal. My degree is in pharmacy and I was terrified it would jeopardize me professionally, and a criminal conviction follows you a long way.
Any person, black, white or green who willfully breaks the law subjects himself to the penalties under the law. The subject here happens to be pot, but it may as well be unlicensed weapons, stolen property. Or any other transgression under the law.
Now that the taboo of pot is essentially gone I can tell you that college students are becoming massive consumers, with very smart kids making cogent arguments of pot vs. Alcohol. What's far , far worse is that a fairly large number of kids are starting to use hallucenogens such as acid and mushrooms. The same very smart kids will tell you that hallucinogens are non addictive and much safer than opiates.
Because kids are breaking the law doesn't mean laws should be relaxed. It would be a reason to decriminalize unlicensed handguns,assault, lower the drinking age to 15 or any number of illegal behaviors.
I do believe that pot, although possibly safer, is for many a gateway substance to much stronger agents that will remain illegal.[/quote]
Those damn kids! They should stick to the legal agents like barbituates, red bull, Reds, red birds, red devils, lilly, F-40s, pinks, pink ladies, cigarettes, alcohol, legal guns purchased in licensed gun shops in Florida to kill queers and freaks.
Do you seriously believe that marijuana is a gateway substance in this day and age when Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is being extracted for pharmaceutical uses??
During the Vietnam War, hundreds of thousands of G.I.'s toked a Bong Son Bomber before having boom-boom with Boom-Boom girl while on R&R.
You see Beast you missed the 60's with an illegal war and all that illegal stuff that went with it.
You can tell us that college students are becoming massive consumers? Horse crap!
They are massive consumers of on-line porn while being tethered to their Iphones.[/quote]
Man with a lot of your posts I don't know where to start.
Just because THC or any drug that is derived from plant source (pharmacognosy) has a legitimate use, many have abuse potential.
Yes, I would say that marijuana use has become more mainstream than 30 years ago, when it was more of a fringe element of students that partied. It's much more acceptable today and my guess is that overall usage has increased as legalization has followed.
Don't tell me about drug usage in Vietnam. Tons of men came back with serious addictions that many are still battling, and are part of their witness story in recovery.
There is one big difference between alcohol and marijuana. You can imbibe very conservatively , like a glass of wine at dinner, or a beer at a ballgame, where the intent is not to be impaired. The intent with pot is always to become impaired.[/quote]
As with many of your retorts I know exactly where to begin. You're FOS.
For a guy who never smoked weed, never was ex military and who takes Fuchsia's psychobabble seriously, you sure are an expert.
FYI, you can toke very conservatively just as well as with alcohol. You can take a couple of hits or you can do an entire bong. Kind of like what young people do at house parties or frat parties. Unlike vodka shots, most kids know when they have reached a certain high and don't need six joints because they are totally impaired as happens with alcohol.
I've seen very few pot heads who behave like drunks. Aggression, agitation, self-destructive behavior, or lack of restraint is not a common problem. Physical effects normally don't include nausea or vomiting. Yes, you get impaired but it is a completely different form of impairment.
From my experience in the military I don't recall many soldiers strung out on pot. I assisted in the readjustment processing of hundreds of Vietnam vets who returned with psychological scars. Heroin was the big problem in Nam for returning vets. For your edification here is an abstract from "The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse": 1976.
Abstract
"Highlights are presented on the issue of drug use among servicemen in Vietnam and its aftereffects. Two stages of Vietnam drug use are identified-a period of increasing marijuana use followed by the 1970 influx of highly potent heroin to which 1/5 of the enlisted troops were addicted at some time during their tour. The major contributing factors appear to be: (1) the need of troops in stressful combat situations for self-medication, escape, and hedonistic indulgence; (2) the relaxation of taboos against drug use in the United States; and (3) the availability of illicit drugs at low cost, which was apparently the result of profiteering by a number of South Vietnamese officials. Related to the above was the growing disenchantment with the war and the progressive deterioration in unit morale. These drugs are seen as serving many of the functions performed by alcohol in earlier military conflicts. There is no hard evidence that duty performance in Vietnam was seriously affected by drug use. Since 95% of those who were addicted to narcotics in Vietnam have not become readdicted, the situation does not appear to be as severe as originally supposed. Myths as to the persistence and intractibility of physiological narcotic addiction were dispelled. A major negative effect has been the difficulty that soldiers with less-than-honorable discharges due to drug abuse have had in obtaining jobs. Other long-term effects from drug use are less clear and are difficult to separate from the overall effects of the war."
The bottom line Beast is that we should not jail young people for smoking pot just as we should not jail young people under the age of 21 who drink illegally. It is stupid and immoral.[/quote]
We smoked weed when in base camp—off the line—and never in the jungle or when we were about to go back out. We were young, but not nuts.
Being young, beer was also popular, as was Ba Muoi Ba or ‘33’, a local yeaster.
As I recall, we had hangovers from alcohol use and not smoking grass.
Call it ‘anecdotal’ research.
[quote="fuchsia" post=294165], the case we always talked about was a guy with a schizophrenia diagnosis in one of the NY State Psychiatric Centers. The usual antipsychotic meds were not working and finally one of the expert psychiatrists on co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorders was called in. A full drug panel revealed high levels of THC and when the patient was managed to prevent access to marijuana, the psychotic features of his behavior dissipated. Still a lot of stuff related to Axis II personality disordered stuff, but no more psychosis. [/quote]
So one person one time had an (allegedly) adverse reaction to one substance, therefore that subtance should be illegal? Some people react badly to eating sand, should sand be illegal?
Yeah, that's absurd, no offense. What's worse - worst - is to have ignorant government functionaries dictating to the citizenry what acceptable behavior comprises. The same people who thought thalidomide was a good idea. The same people who can't pick up your garbage without spilling half of it on your lawn. The same people who murdered citizens at Waco and Ruby Ridge. It's a long list of ignorance and malignancy. The fact is that the government is stupid - comprising as it does stupid people of average intelligence, as does everything - and it sucks. Central planning comprises stupids advising stupids as to how to adhere to the most stupid behavior. Almost everyone knows nothing, the government most of all.
So one person one time had an (allegedly) adverse reaction to one substance, therefore that subtance should be illegal? Some people react badly to eating sand, should sand be illegal?
Yeah, that's absurd, no offense. What's worse - worst - is to have ignorant government functionaries dictating to the citizenry what acceptable behavior comprises. The same people who thought thalidomide was a good idea. The same people who can't pick up your garbage without spilling half of it on your lawn. The same people who murdered citizens at Waco and Ruby Ridge. It's a long list of ignorance and malignancy. The fact is that the government is stupid - comprising as it does stupid people of average intelligence, as does everything - and it sucks. Central planning comprises stupids advising stupids as to how to adhere to the most stupid behavior. Almost everyone knows nothing, the government most of all.
Last edited:
[quote="Chicago Days" post=294176]We smoked weed when in base camp—off the line—and never in the jungle or when we were about to go back out. We were young, but not nuts...[/quote]
At Long Binh, the largest U.S. base, we could get a carton of filtered "Golden Trees"(complete with packaging) in exchange for two cartons of Salem cigarettes (which cost something like $2.50 each). Locals insisted on Salem. On a more serious note, as 72 wrote, it was dirt-cheap heroin, not grass, that guys -- typically guys who had endured some horrible experiences and seen some awful things -- got strung out on.
At Long Binh, the largest U.S. base, we could get a carton of filtered "Golden Trees"(complete with packaging) in exchange for two cartons of Salem cigarettes (which cost something like $2.50 each). Locals insisted on Salem. On a more serious note, as 72 wrote, it was dirt-cheap heroin, not grass, that guys -- typically guys who had endured some horrible experiences and seen some awful things -- got strung out on.
Last edited:
[quote="redken" post=294200][quote="Chicago Days" post=294176]We smoked weed when in base camp—off the line—and never in the jungle or when we were about to go back out. We were young, but not nuts...[/quote]
At Long Binh, the largest U.S. base, we could get a carton of filtered "Golden Trees"(complete with packaging) in exchange for two cartons of Salem cigarettes (which cost something like $2.50 each). Locals insisted on Salem. On a more serious note, as 72 wrote, it was dirt-cheap heroin, not grass, that guys -- typically guys who had endured some horrible experiences and seen some awful things -- got strung out on.[/quote]
Yeah, we paid $5 for a large plastic bag of grass, complete with seeds and branches. Heroin wasn’t the big problem when I was there, that it became a few years later, but I do recall 1 or 2 guys being court-martialed and ‘escorted’ out of Nam.
At Long Binh, the largest U.S. base, we could get a carton of filtered "Golden Trees"(complete with packaging) in exchange for two cartons of Salem cigarettes (which cost something like $2.50 each). Locals insisted on Salem. On a more serious note, as 72 wrote, it was dirt-cheap heroin, not grass, that guys -- typically guys who had endured some horrible experiences and seen some awful things -- got strung out on.[/quote]
Yeah, we paid $5 for a large plastic bag of grass, complete with seeds and branches. Heroin wasn’t the big problem when I was there, that it became a few years later, but I do recall 1 or 2 guys being court-martialed and ‘escorted’ out of Nam.
Last edited:
[quote="Chicago Days" post=294201][quote="redken" post=294200][quote="Chicago Days" post=294176]We smoked weed when in base camp—off the line—and never in the jungle or when we were about to go back out. We were young, but not nuts...[/quote]
At Long Binh, the largest U.S. base, we could get a carton of filtered "Golden Trees"(complete with packaging) in exchange for two cartons of Salem cigarettes (which cost something like $2.50 each). Locals insisted on Salem. On a more serious note, as 72 wrote, it was dirt-cheap heroin, not grass, that guys -- typically guys who had endured some horrible experiences and seen some awful things -- got strung out on.[/quote]
Yeah, we paid $5 for a large plastic bag of grass, complete with seeds and branches. Heroin wasn’t a big problem when I was there, that it became a few years later, but I do recall 1 or 2 guys being court-martialed and ‘escorted’ out of Nam.[/quote]
When I left in October 1971, the heroin problem was wide-spread and growing. Got so prevalent that next to Bien Hoa airbase, the Army built a high-security, barbed-wired "detention center" for guys who failed recently instituted urine tests when they arrived at the base thinking they'd be flying home.
At Long Binh, the largest U.S. base, we could get a carton of filtered "Golden Trees"(complete with packaging) in exchange for two cartons of Salem cigarettes (which cost something like $2.50 each). Locals insisted on Salem. On a more serious note, as 72 wrote, it was dirt-cheap heroin, not grass, that guys -- typically guys who had endured some horrible experiences and seen some awful things -- got strung out on.[/quote]
Yeah, we paid $5 for a large plastic bag of grass, complete with seeds and branches. Heroin wasn’t a big problem when I was there, that it became a few years later, but I do recall 1 or 2 guys being court-martialed and ‘escorted’ out of Nam.[/quote]
When I left in October 1971, the heroin problem was wide-spread and growing. Got so prevalent that next to Bien Hoa airbase, the Army built a high-security, barbed-wired "detention center" for guys who failed recently instituted urine tests when they arrived at the base thinking they'd be flying home.
Last edited: