Re: Re: No thanks to Marijuna

Posted by Doctor_Subtilis on 02-05-2008 in Should Marijuana be legalized?

All four of these points are unfounded.

First, if it was legalized then it would be regulated. This is one of the main points that groups like NORML and SSDP have been saying for years. Regulations that normal agricultural items go through is administered by the FDA, but the FDA doesn't regulate something unless it is legal and there is strong economic interest. But most importantly, I really am curious as to what benefit this regulation would do. The FDA has never really had a reputation (at the least, in my eyes and the eyes of those around me) for being a consumer-oriented organization. Yes, they attempt to make changes that will help consumers be protected from potential problems (read: media scares) but in reality has just been a publicity stunt to make large agro businesses look like they are participating in public policy. For instance, just recently cloned meat was given the go-ahead by the FDA and they don't even have to label what meat is cloned (a far cry from the EU's positions on agro/meat industries that is made obvious by their complete lack of interest in genetic modification).

Your second and third point illustrate a similar manner and will be addressed accordingly. First order of business is to say that you have a completely bogus idea of drug economics. Yes, there are people who have 'laced' drugs...but not marijuana. Cocaine is probably one of the most common drugs to lace. Why is this? For one reason because it looks like powdered sugar! There are a lot of things that look like powdered sugar, so why not pull a profit :P .

Another reason is that it is quite expensive and quite difficult to be involved in an effective cocaine economy. Thus, dealers extend their product to ensure the stability of their endeavor. (The funny thing is that I am extrapolating these points from purely imaginative capitalism! This is common knowledge! From Business 101!)

Marijuana is not a drug that is effectively laced. I don't doubt that is has been done. But most people actually are "used to" what it is like and thus would probably be immediatly turned off and would never by from the bad-dealer again! So I don't buy any argument that these dealers are sinister chaps that seem to be luciferian shamans to popular media.

Another very strong problem with your 'lacing' argument is that marijuana is not addictive! It is in the family of non-addictive psychoactive drugs known commonly as psychedelics. I invite you to research psychedelic drugs and realize that drugs like psylocybin(sp?) mushrooms, LSD (really?! yep!), peyote, and others are non-addictive (I don't doubt that there problably hasn't been enough study on some of these--NOT including LSD, of which there has been countless studies--but the ones that tend to be media-driven are either terrible and unfounded or they actually come out inconclusive).

I am not even going to comment on the "so that it becomes a more effective drug," because I am not even sure what that means and I think that it is an attempt at rhetoric, though empty it may be.

The growing conditions point is also seemingly slander. Tobacco companies (as well as the ENTIRE AGRO INDUSTRY!!!!!!!) uses a fertilizer that is extremely cheap. When I say cheap, I mean EXTREMELY FREAKIN CHEAP!...I needed to get that off my chest. It is called--though there are many forms and adaptations--phosphate. Phosphate fertilizers are actually radioactive! That seems strange doesn't it? Why would our food providers be OK with using radioactive fertilizers? Well, despite the fact that most industries seemingly avoid external issues such as HEALTH and the ENVIRONMENT, there are more subtle reasons as to why they use it: IT IS REALLY FREAKIN CHEAP. Seriously. Though a lot of the plants that the fertilizer is used on do not have carry more than a few micrograms of it into the grocery store (which adds up people! but that is another quib :P ), some have microfibers that can pick up larger quantities and carry them to the store shelves. One of these plants is known as tobacco. The funny part of this gigantic point that I am making is that no one seems to realize this! Not even the surgeon general can get this point across (I think it was 1994 that the at-the-time surgeon general declared that 90% of cancer caused by smoking was a phosphate problem, though I am not going to discuss conclusiveness of these arguments, I think the point still stands: no one wants it to be known). So, to wrap up, we have an industry that doesn't care about radioactive foods/products (in other news: does lead toys ring a bell?), and you want to tell me that the growing conditions of a dealer who is probably an avid smoker him/herself and thinks that a pot plant is like incan gold, is not going to take great care of his plants? I strongly doubt it and I think that, as usual, your position is really just fear that has been placed in your mind by terrible journalism.

Journalism is doing this to us? Who would cause such terrible indocrination? Well none other than the FOUNDING FATHER OF SENSATIONAL JOURNALISM....drum roll please!....

William Randolph Hearst!

What? Hearst did this?

Yes he did. Here is a a blurb that I quickly googled:

"Harry Anslinger got some additional help from William Randolf Hearst, owner of a huge chain of newspapers. Hearst had lots of reasons to help. First, he hated Mexicans. Second, he had invested heavily in the timber industry to support his newspaper chain and didn't want to see the development of hemp paper in competition. Third, he had lost 800,000 acres of timberland to Pancho Villa, so he hated Mexicans. Fourth, telling lurid lies about Mexicans (and the devil marijuana weed causing violence) sold newspapers, making him rich."

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html

"Hearst also sympathized with Harry J. Anslinger in his war against marijuana. In the early 1930's, Hearst's paper empire (he owned hundreds of acres of timber forests) was threatened by hemp, which could be regrown yearly, and associated marijuana with hemp"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst

That is just a taste of it. So, I hope you will think twice before posting such bogus thoughts, especially without any justification for them, and in a simple list form nonetheless! :P