[quote="Class of 72" post=294257][quote="Beast of the East" post=294241][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]
I believe Panther reasonably articulated how stop and frisk was resulting in the arrest of young black men for possessing small quantities of marijuana.
Many jurisdictions that have not completely legalized recreational marijuana use have decriminalized possession of small quantities carried on person.
Your basis for invalidating any points I made are simply attempts at bullying - despite 2 degrees in pharmacy and state licensure, I am incapable of participation in a discussion about drugs I have not consumed, and because I did not serve in the military am not qualified to speak about the fallout from drug use in vietnam even as I worked with recovering frug and alcohol addicts for over 25 years. Although my company provided services to the Hazelden Betty Ford clinics for over 6 years, I claim no special expertise in the matter but am qualified to offer opinions.
My point regarding legalities is not to make alcohol consumption favorable over marijuana. To me, both can be destructive and can often lead to the use of devastating agents with catastrophic consequences. In many ways, society would be better off without both.
That's not to deny legitimate benefits of either based on pharmacologic properties that can lower blood pressure including intraocular pressure, reduce anxiety etc.
Legislation to legalize marijuana has zero to do with safety or any other reasonable conclusion and everything to do with tax revenue. Positive aspects though are quality control and possibly decreasing sales via drug dealers.
while government often gets legislation wrong, that does not free its citizenry from the consequences of deliberately transgressing the law, and that was my point to panther.[/quote]
I apologize if you thought I was bullying. I was just trying to give my experience view and separate textbook bullshit from the reality of Rico Gathers arrest for "smoking" an herb that should never have been criminalized in the first place. If the crooked politicians over the past century hadn't been bribed by the tobacco companies cigarettes should have been banned along with the growing of tobacco. THAT addiction has cost millions of lives and billions of dollars in related medical expenses. Unless one has significant psychological issues I've never met anyone "addicted" to weed. That it was popular in the African American community of the early 20th century may have influenced white politicians when white folks started smoking it in significant numbers. I am neutral on the stop and frisk issue as related to pot because legalization is a national issue and all races are affected by needless arrest records. Alcohol, tobacco and firearms are much more dangerous than kids smoking weed. Most people would agree all substances that alter one's senses can be abused. That's all I will say on the subject.[/quote]
Thanks for the apology and accepted if not your intent.
Tobacco should be banned, period. Companies like Phillip Morris are really the evil empire.
It is destructive and between cancer and cardiovascular effects costs all non-smokers billions if not trillions in healthcare premiums that help pay for treating those illnesses.
![URL]](http://[URL]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4b/26/77/4b2677194e7d0ef8ea3915782c9307f6.jpg[/URL])
