Happy 4/20 everybody! To answer your questions: No, I'm not a stoner, and yes, I have partaken in the much maligned vegetation. Marijuana is a much misunderstood, many splendored thing, evoking poorly thought out, knee-jerk reactions at its' very mention. Any serious debate on the subject is nearly impossible, with various unfounded suspicions bestowed upon those of us who would dare to argue for it's legalization, or at the very least it's decriminalization. The irrational "arguements" against it are like nothing ever seen in our country before...before 9/11. Now the "war on terror" has joined the "war on drugs" in the field of declaring wars on inanimate conceptions, wars with no real end-game to them. How does one win wars on these things? In a real war, such as WWII, this was a fairly easy question to answer; the unconditional surrender of the Axis Powers. Even the Cold War had end-game. But drugs certainly aren't going to surrender unconditionally to our government. Is it wise to start a war with no conceivable end to it?
I guess I wouldn't mind the illegalization of weed if only there was some sort of rationality to it. But I have yet to hear an arguement in support of outlawing marijuana that wouldn't also condemn either alcohol or tobacco to the same fate. And really, if the idea is to make society safer, then leagalizing marijuana and criminalizing alcohol would be the way to go. I think we tried making alcohol illegal once...how did that work out again? Alcoholics often become violent and awkwardly sexual harrassing, potheads generally will eat a whole pizza by themselves and watch Half-Baked for the 75th time. Who's the bigger blight on society?
One arguement is that pot is a "gateway drug" and that it leads to harder drugs. Then wouldn't either (or both) alcohol and tobacco be the real
gateway drugs? I know of no one who's smoked pot without trying at least one of these two. I do think that pot is a gateway drug in one way...it brings those who try this ubiquitous and innocuous drug into the so-called black market society, where they are exposed to things which are much more dangerous to them (harder drugs, prostitution, gangs, etc.). I say innocuous because it is about as harmful as other, legal drugs which are accepted in society at large, and ubiquitous because it is referred (no pun intended) to countless times every day on radio and tv in a joking or lighthearted manner. Seriously, I could have chosen from scores of quotes to title this post. And, by the way, I am most impressed with myself, as I spelled ubiquitous and innocuous correctly on my first attempt.
Another arguement is that legalizing pot would be like saying the government is telling the children that it approves of smoking weed. Oh, so I suppose that means the government also approves of kids smoking and drinking too. They must, because alcohol and tobacco are legal. Smoke 'em if you got 'em, junior!
Another arguement is that smoking marijuana is bad for your health. Ditto smoking, drinking, eating fast food, etc. Marijuana kills brain cells...so do tobacco, alcohol and watching tv. I repeat, there is no
arguement against pot that can't be applied to other, legal drugs. Come on, give me one. I dare you!
I could go on forever on this subject, and often do, because nothing pisses me off like double standards, especially ones that, when addressed, invariably end up with one side (mine) giving open minded and thoughtful debate (if I do say so myself), and the other side resorting to name calling, unwilling to listen to any arguement or reasoning. "Oh, you're just a stoner probably," they always say. "Oh, you're a complete ignoramus, but I'm still willing to present my arguement, if only you'd listen," I always reply.
I suppose there is something that pisses me off like double standards do, and that's these dumbass stoners who undermine the cause every time they open their mouths. The problem with the issue of pot, like it is with so many other issues (like sex, public education, underage drinking), isn't pot itself (or sex, public education, underage drinking), but stupid people. There are simply too many of them, drifting around without a thought in their head, unwilling or unable to examine who they are, what they stand for and why. They
are the ones who should not be allowed to smoke pot, or drink, or even breed for that matter. They need to be isolated and studied, so it can be determined what nutrients we can extract from them for our use...but I digress.
And another thing, just because you've smoked pot, that doesn't make you stupid. Carl Sagan did, and that guy be hella-smart, even if he couldn't pronounce 'billions'. Why, even George W...ok, bad example, but the arguement still stands (sorry, I just couldn't help myself. He just makes it so damn easy
P.S. What does 420 mean exactly? I've heard it refers (again, no pun intended) to police code, and I've heard it refers (ok, there, I intended that one) to a proposition regarding marijuana, and I'm sure there's some other theories I haven't heard of. Any clues?