posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 02:00 AM
I think some of the proponents on here are a little disconnected from reality. #1 reason why pot use will not be legalized any time soon? The abuse by
users. No streets full of stoners? Where do you live? Up until 3 months ago, I lived in a small city (approx. 750,000) and worked in the local mall.
During the week, at least 40% of mall shoppers I came into contact were OBVIOUSLY stoned. This includes children as young as 12, and adults of all
ages. Come weekend, at least 75% of shoppers would be. Go out at night? Right. The only people who aren't high got drunk before the pot was passed
around. I lived in that city for a year. I met 2 people in that entire time who were not at least semi-frequent pot users. That was in the northeast.
Now I live in the south, and while I haven't had that much time to meet as large a portion of the populace as I did in the northeast, the streets are
still full of stoners. Usage amongst non-minority adults is much, much lower here, but the only minorities I've met who aren't into pot are either
alcoholics of have moved onto harder drugs. You say there would be no problem with abuse if it was legalized? There already IS a problem. The
difference is that to users, other users are allies, and so they don't notice the amount of abuse.
Also, to all of those who say pot doesn't have negative effects on people: I have lost many, many friends to pot usage. They lose their motivation,
their desire to succeed, or to accomplish anything but going home to the next hit. For a good number of them, their usage eventually lost them their
jobs, as well. Not because of discrimination, like they complained about. How is it discrimination to fire someone for coming to work under the
influence of drugs? I've fired plenty for that myself, and every time I thought, hey, there's another life ruined (and yes, I blame the user, not
the drug, but then, as I am saying, the user is the problem here.) But then, users don't usually agree, because what they want in life is their
I do understand as well that there are different "grades" of users, and some users don't fall that far, which is true. But more I have known have
fallen that far, than those that haven't.
You want to talk conspiracy? Legalize it. Then the whites who get accused of trying to oppress the minorities just have another tool. Is pedro going
to come take your job? Is Jamal going to be the next president? Forget that. He'll be in the hood, fighting for another hit, stealing from his mother
so he can go score some more bud. The easiest way to oppress a people is give them a tool and let them do it to themselves. There are already plently
of laws that do it (affirmative action, welfare, etc.) Give them legal fatties, and they will blissfully smoke themselves into oblivion.
Now, as for hemp products, I do think they could be of great value to society. But you say hemp to any non-user, and all that comes to mind is the
shambling, vacant stoner that they see at some point in their daily lives. And that is the number one stumbling block against legalization. 99% of the
non-users are strongly against it because of the abuse of the users.
Now, you might say, 'its no worse than alcohol.' Indeed, I can agree, to a point. Alcohol, while in use by a person, has a much more severe effect
on a person, and can lead to some very destructive results. However, this actually tends to encourage most use to be in a select environment, and
during time that is basically plotted out as "drunk" time. By the next day, the only effect the sufferer might still have is a hangover, and their
normal daily functions are not affected in the immediate, though they may suffer from eventual decreases in brain function and organ damage over time.
On the other hand, the effects of THC take much longer to leave the system. For many users, they aren't really ever "clean," and it shows to the
outside observer. Secondly, because it does not drastically impair function on the scale of alcohol, it is often used at any opportune moment, which
can lead to damaging results, such as loss of employment, for an example. You see, people can accept the usuage of alcohol because they know it will
be used at, and its effects will be contained to, "known" locations, such as bars, parties, home, etc, with little "anytime, anywhere" usage.
Therefore, it can be avoided if one so desires, and one person's attitude and actions involving alcohol rarely affect those on the "outside." The
primary exception to this, drunk driving, has been and continues to be fought against with strong penalties, lower allowable BA levels, and awareness
campaigns. Why? Because it affects even those who choose to not have alcohol in their life. The only way to do so with pot is to outlaw it entirely.
So is it starting to make sense? You don't need a big conspiracy, not anymore, though I will admit it might have started that way. Now, all you need
to do is take another hit, then make a munchies run to the corner store. Don't blame THEM. Blame yourselves.
[edit on 28-11-2005 by saturnine_sweet]
[edit on 28-11-2005 by saturnine_sweet]