Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

[thewholetruth]

No Don, thewholetruth is that you are lying now.

I never asked you to call me "Christian", Ma'am. I said it would work for me, not that I ASKED you to call me that.

Seems to me it was in response to your calling me something disrespectful, wasn't it, Ma'am?

[MsTerry]

I I detect mucho sarcasm and acid attitude in your posts toward me, both generally and specifically from post to post.

Yes, Don you do elicit quite some sarcasm on this board, not just from me. Maybe you have surrounded yourself with people that nod their heads everytime you say something, and you have come to the conclusion that everything you say is The Truth.
Your unwillingness or inability to hear what other people are saying, with even as simple a thing as Zeno explaining to you that your Sirring people is not considered kind or polite, is quite baffling.
You can't even hear or understand that!
Instead my making fun of your Sirring and your request to call you Christian, get you all riled up, and then to top it off, you deny that you are offended by it or that you even said such a thing!
Don, honestly, take a deep breath, give your self a break.
You need some time off.

[MsTerry]

Seems to me it was in response to your calling me something disrespectful, wasn't it, Ma'am?

No Don, it actually was in response to YOU calling me something disrespectful.
you can read for yourself, Sir

[MsTerry]

Don, if you gave me permission to call you Sir and Christian, what is your real problem?

I never asked you to call me "Christian", Ma'am. I said it would work for me, not that I ASKED you to call me that.

[MsTerry]

Jee, Don
I thought you actually had READ the bible.
The rooster crowed to expose a liar, did you conveniently skip that part?

To get to the other side?

Ohhh, that's the chicken riddle I'm thinking of. I'll bite. How many, Ma'am?

[kpage9]

Hey, TWT, you can't tell someone else to adopt a zen-like attitude, ever, but especially in reaction to YOUR utterances. (I mean ONE's--not you in particular.) We have a common language because we can miraculously draw common meaning from the words that flow between us.

"Sir"ring someone every third word IS rhetorical gunfire, just as repeating the other person's name every other sentence is scolding and condescending. That's the common meaning.

You may be above the fray, and good on ya for it, but asking someone else to rise above their reactions to you--and trying to look wiser than they are while you're at it--hardly ever actually gets the desired outcome.

kathy

Feelings just are, sir. Don't put a lot of value on them personally, much of the time. They come, they go, sometimes valid, sometimes not, oftentimes random, sometimes foul, illegal, immoral, irrational, ridiculous, powerful, intense, amazing, incredible...but the truth is that they just are. They don't always mean something, nor is it necessary to say or do something just because I have one.

Seriously, if someone calling you sir on a regular basis, sir, "feels like rhetorical gunfire", then I would tend to abandon and ignore that feeling, myself. It's not worth the time it takes to even acknowledge it's there...IMHO, anyway.

[Braggi]

... You are right. It is a minor point. No matter what group, race, place or year, human beings are human. The availability of drugs in the mass population will lead to the problems of that period: folks getting strung out. Just as it happened with US from 1880 to 1914 as you pointed out in the "History of Bayer" or heroin you cited. Decriminalize and they will come in increasing numbers, ruinous to the population. Not a minor point, simply history. ...

No, you are just plain wrong, Lenny, and you're not being either forthcoming or honest here, I think. You are evading questions and facts.

Nobody is going to successfully market heroin in the United States as a cough medicine or as a non-habit forming treatment for morphine addiction.
The population is better informed now, though, due to the mismanagement of the Failed War on Some Drugs, many young people don't believe what the Government has to say on the topic, or, by extension, on much of anything. We have work to do informing the youth about the pleasures and perils of drug use and abuse. In my opinion, injecting heroin to get high is abuse. I think in most other people's minds it is as well. Even Don will agree with that.

If heroin became legal and available to you tomorrow, Lenny, would you go down and buy a large quantity and start using it? Would you give it to your family members? Would your neighbors that you know well start using it?

Please start with some personal honesty here. Integrity in responses builds respect and trust on these forums.

-Jeff

[thewholetruth]

No, you are just plain wrong, Lenny, and you're not being either forthcoming or honest here, I think. You are evading questions and facts.

Nobody is going to successfully market heroin in the United States as a cough medicine or as a non-habit forming treatment for morphine addiction.
The population is better informed now, though, due to the mismanagement of the Failed War on Some Drugs, many young people don't believe what the Government has to say on the topic, or, by extension, on much of anything. We have work to do informing the youth about the pleasures and perils of drug use and abuse. In my opinion, injecting heroin to get high is abuse. I think in most other people's minds it is as well. Even Don will agree with that.

If heroin became legal and available to you tomorrow, Lenny, would you go down and buy a large quantity and start using it? Would you give it to your family members? Would your neighbors that you know well start using it?

Please start with some personal honesty here. Integrity in responses builds respect and trust on these forums.

-Jeff

You are assuming much, Jeff, when you pretend that the public isn't going to try heroin if were legal, same as alcohol and cigarettes. The message legality sends is "safe" and heroin is not. I remember a day, Jeff, when I would have tried and used anything that was legal. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've already done that. Most of us do that, I suspect.

And it doesn't take "a large quantity" of heroin to get the addiction started. Heroin is highly physically addicting, even to those who aren't addictive by nature, Jeff.

Frankly, sir, there isn't an argument you can make in favor of legalizing hard drugs that history hasn't already disproven. Again, you can try to paint it a different color than we've already seen in history, but if you spray paint a turd gold, it's still a turd, Jeff. Your ideas on legalizing heroin/LSD/Ecstasy/etc., it seems to me, are the same as the turds of yesteryear, already thought up, already tried, already failed, just another attempt at making narcotics legal. It's not good for society, Jeff. You can see that. I don't know why you waste your own time, even, in fantasizing that somehow this time it will be different...

[thewholetruth]

Hey, TWT, you can't tell someone else to adopt a zen-like attitude, ever, but especially in reaction to YOUR utterances. (I mean ONE's--not you in particular.)

Yo, K, I'm not asking anyone to do anything "in reaction to [my] utterances", Ma'am. I've simply explained that I mean no disrespect. I know I can't control how you (I mean ONE's--not you in particular) perceive my comments, nor do I even have the desire to control that about you. No desire on my part to dictate how you SHOULD respond, either. I've simply explained that I mean no disrespect.

We have a common language because we can miraculously draw common meaning from the words that flow between us.

Amen.

"Sir"ring someone every third word IS rhetorical gunfire...

Just as "every third word" is gross exaggeration. No one said anything about "every third word", K. I certainly haven't "sir'ed" anyone every third word. Perhaps that's why your comments seem to be overreactive: you misunderstood. Someone said "every third sentence" I believe, not every third word.

... just as repeating the other person's name every other sentence is scolding and condescending. That's the common meaning.

That is your opinion, not my opinion. You can call me "Don" all night long, every third word if you like, and I'll not take offense. Why would I? Because you say it has a "common meaning"? I would disagree with you on that.

You may be above the fray, and good on ya for it...

What "fray" is that, exactly, K?

... but asking someone else to rise above their reactions to you--and trying to look wiser than they are while you're at it--hardly ever actually gets the desired outcome.

kathy

I'm just talkin' here, K. That's all. If it seems as if I'm "trying to look wiser than they are", I'd love some specific examples. IMO, I'm just having ordinary conversation. Help me out, will you K? Show me what prompts you to accuse me of "trying to look wiser than" anyone here, specifically. Post numbers would be helpful, along with specific statements which appear to be that, IYO. Something caused you to accuse me of this, and I'd love to know - specifically - what I said which prompted that accusation. Thanks.

[pbrinton]

Yo, K, I'm not asking anyone to do anything "in reaction to [my] utterances", Ma'am. I've simply explained that I mean no disrespect. I know I can't control how you (I mean ONE's--not you in particular) perceive my comments, nor do I even have the desire to control that about you. No desire on my part to dictate how you SHOULD respond, either. I've simply explained that I mean no disrespect.

...and so on, ad infant item

Folks, give it up already. You are dealing here with a highly skilled and intelligent passive-aggressive. His purpose is not to engage in a reasoned discussion striving towards a resolution, or even a spirited exchange of perhaps mutually exclusive opinions. The constant repetition of "sir" and peoples' names is indeed generally recognized in our culture as aggression, but in addition it shows clearly that his concern is with the person not the ideas being debated. He just enjoys pissing people off. I am sure he believes in the positions he takes, and I pretty much disagree with him right across the board, but I see no sense in engaging in dialog with him, as you will never convince him of anything. You are playing on the white squares, and he is playing on the black squares.

Maybe the time you all collectively spend beating your heads against this particular wall would be better spent in some more serene pursuit.

Patrick Brinton

[Zeno Swijtink]

No, you are just plain wrong, Lenny, and you're not being either forthcoming or honest here, I think. You are evading questions and facts.
....

Please start with some personal honesty here. Integrity in responses builds respect and trust on these forums.

-Jeff

Jeff, What's up? I thought you left for Paris yesterday? Are you texting from your plane? Or am I confused about the whole Friday in Europe is still Thursday in the US of A thing? Or is it the other way around?? Hope you know how to say "plain honesty" and "personal wrong"-doing in French. Or am I all confused?? Anyway, hope you have a swell time! - Z

[Braggi]

Jeff, What's up? I thought you left for Paris yesterday? Are you texting from your plane? ...

We have the French Connection.

We are there ...

-Jeff

[Braggi]

You are assuming much, Jeff, when you pretend that the public isn't going to try heroin if were legal, same as alcohol and cigarettes. ...

I assume nothing. Cigarette and tobacco use in general is down every year across the US. That is because it is legal and the propaganda against is largely true. The propaganda against marijuana is largely false. Big difference. The kids are smart enough to know the difference.

... The message legality sends is "safe" and heroin is not. I remember a day, Jeff, when I would have tried and used anything that was legal. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've already done that. Most of us do that, I suspect. ...

The messages are now confused and inconsistent. That will need to change, and I believe legalization will pave the way for that. It's possible and even likely that the "new generation" is smarter than you or me Don.

... Frankly, sir, there isn't an argument you can make in favor of legalizing hard drugs that history hasn't already disproven. ...

We have never before been at this point in history. As far as drug lore is concerned there has been an amazing renaissance in recent decades which the Web is largely responsible for. The information is now out there. We have to do away with the incorrect and misleading propaganda and real drug education can begin.

... Your ideas on legalizing heroin/LSD/Ecstasy/etc., ... I don't know why you waste your own time, even, in fantasizing that somehow this time it will be different...

I've not called for legalizing heroin as you have seen on these pages. I've called for legalizing plants as a first step. That will go a long way toward harm reduction. Our culture can also easily tolerate legal LSD, Ecstasy and a few other relatively safe, non addicting substances that are popular and "mind expanding."

Remember, our culture has no problems with drugs. There is a drug store on every corner. What we have a problem with is "mind expanding drugs." Why are we afraid of expanding our minds? What is is that our culture and its vested interests fear from a populace with expanded consciousness?

-Jeff

[Braggi]

To get back to an interrupted conversation ...

Braggi wrote:
So let's look at 1964. What happened? Perhaps you could remind us.
And this was the question that you didn't answer:

Quote:
Braggi wrote:
So, Lenny, would you start habitually taking LSD if it were legalized tomorrow? How many people that you know well would?
Perhaps you could try again.
-Jeff

Well, Jeff, that was personal and anecdotal for the most part. Having grown up in San Francisco and being on "the scene" that was the year in California LSD became illegal to sell or posses. This was due to folks taking it and "getting out there" with not a lot of anybody knowing how to deal with it. ...

Back then "not a lot of anybody [knew] how to deal with it." That was true to an extent. It was pretty well out of control. Thankfully now there are thousands of trained and experienced people who know "how to deal with it." Check out Burning Man for one large gathering of them that happens each year. I realize that even at that event there are some few people who get in trouble with their drugs. Even that is part of modern drug education.

... Actually I think it became illegal to sell and then a few months later, illegal to posses. Actually folks were out here for a couple of years prior to that taking LSD. As Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert and a few others were still at Harvard touting their East Coast trips, out here folks were doing other things with that acid. Lots of folks out here booed Leary and associates as he wanted folks to take acid HIS way and he was thought as a "fascist" type of guy! ...

Nonsense Lenny. I've met Tim Leary (St. Timothy) and also Ram Dass (Richard Alpert). These are two of the finest and easiest going people you'd ever care to meet. Between them and Ralph Metzner (the third of their Harvard trio) they taught thousands of people how to consciously use sacred medicines. Ken Kesey was out "here" doing the "Electric Coolaid Acid Tests" and they were certainly not as consciously considered as the Leary/Alpert/Metzner methods, and yet, there were few people having problems even then. Amazing how that went. Today we are a whole lot more aware, as a culture, of the hazards of unconscious and careless use of these substances. There is also a substantial literature that has developed in the meantime featuring the wisdom of many cultures. That did not exist in the '60s or '70s. It's about education and wisdom. Amazingly enough, there is a whole lot more of it now then there ever has been in the past and much is now available on the Web. See Erowid.org and follow the links.

It is possible for us to learn. How about that? Now we have to start acting like it (as a culture). It's not too late, although, we are running out of time.

... Anyway, it is clear and easy to see why LSD was made illegal. Oh, and to answer your personal question: no, LSD would not be taken daily, though I know of those that did back in the day. Too bad. But then LSD is not that kind of drug now, is it? As is other Class 1 drugs are, no?

There are many reasons LSD was made illegal and none of them were for the public's good. It was largely because LSD threatened the status quo as it does now. Politics.

I see now that you did partially answer the personal question, Lenny. Sorry I didn't see that before. No, LSD isn't to be taken daily because the result is diminishing returns each day as is the case with any of the psychedelic drugs. They are, almost by definition, not addicting. The less you take them the more you get out of them. Funny that they do not cause insanity; except in those who do not take them. (More wisdom from St. Timothy.)

-Jeff

[Lenny]

Quote:
Lenny wrote:
... You are right. It is a minor point. No matter what group, race, place or year, human beings are human. The availability of drugs in the mass population will lead to the problems of that period: folks getting strung out. Just as it happened with US from 1880 to 1914 as you pointed out in the "History of Bayer" or heroin you cited. Decriminalize and they will come in increasing numbers, ruinous to the population. Not a minor point, simply history. ...


[quote=Braggi;64631]No, you are just plain wrong, Lenny, and you're not being either forthcoming or honest here, I think. You are evading questions and facts. Nobody is going to successfully market heroin in the United States as a cough medicine or as a non-habit forming treatment for morphine addiction. The population is better informed now, though, due to the mismanagement of the Failed War on Some Drugs, many young people don't believe what the Government has to say on the topic, or, by extension, on much of anything.

Well, here again, we disagree, although how you may disagree with historical precedence is beyond me. The subterfuge in your argument regarding "nobody marketing heroin as cough syrup" not withstanding. As no one will, legal or not. The beauty of heroin is that none really need market it, just try it!
England had 6,000 "treated" addicts in 1954 being "maintained" by the gov't when she started those programs. Within a decade that treated market had exploded becoming impossible to handle, all this coinciding with the drug culture in the West. It simply doesn't work.
In the large picture, there is a move to have folks behave as if the government has no validity in anything. And this drug thing helps. And if folks get strung, hung, and done out, too bad, as the ends justify the means. Again, evil wins.

We have work to do informing the youth about the pleasures and perils of drug use and abuse. In my opinion, injecting heroin to get high is abuse. I think in most other people's minds it is as well. Even Don will agree with that.

Actually, the pleasures of drugs does not have to be taught.
Pleasure is what drugs bring, no?
If it were pain, no problem. Oh, wait. They DO bring pleasure at first but pain later. Or what?
As you point out, our neuro receptors are already primed for that. So, I suppose we have to train them to....what, Jeff? Not use them? But you are not for that! Or after the pleasure, then tell them? Or prior? Come on now, see how ridiculous?
As for what you think regarding what "most other people's minds" and heorin injection as abuse, the whole of society is not willing to do that via your Schedule 1 drugs nor opium legalization. How do you bypass that fact that someone, out of 330 million folks is NOT going to make junk from that?

If heroin became legal and available to you tomorrow, Lenny, would you go down and buy a large quantity and start using it? Would you give it to your family members? Would your neighbors that you know well start using it? Please start with some personal honesty here. Integrity in responses builds respect and trust on these forums. -Jeff

You approach to this argument as in making it anecdotal does not engender integrity. I still respect your position but find it untenable.
We all know of stories where folks DO introduce junk to family members, as well as neighbors. And why not go down and buy large amounts if it were legal?
Enjoyed the movie "Little Miss Sunshine". Alan Arkin's sweet and lovable character's line about heroin being for old folks was a blow for your position. Ah, the hell of it all marches forward, no?
Let's drop this as we can only agree to disagree. I see, by Zeno's post, that you are in Paris! Forget this crap and enjoy the lights. Do us a favor, post your favorite picture upon return.

[MsTerry]

We have the French Connection.

We are there ...

-Jeff

Isn't it sad that Jeff has to travel all the way to France to get a mind expanding trip?

[thewholetruth]

Folks, give it up already. You are dealing here with a highly skilled and intelligent passive-aggressive. His purpose is not to engage in a reasoned discussion striving towards a resolution, or even a spirited exchange of perhaps mutually exclusive opinions. The constant repetition of "sir" and peoples' names is indeed generally recognized in our culture as aggression, but in addition it shows clearly that his concern is with the person not the ideas being debated. He just enjoys pissing people off. I am sure he believes in the positions he takes, and I pretty much disagree with him right across the board, but I see no sense in engaging in dialog with him, as you will never convince him of anything.

I know when I feel as you do, that I disagree with someone across the board, rather than painting him to be an evil villain, I speak up and engage him. Classic passive/aggressive behavior is stabbing someone in the back because you're afraid to confront them face to face. You know...like you've done with me here.

My position is exactly as I've stated it. I mean no disrespect to anyone by calling them "sir" or by their name. In fact, while waiting for board meeting to get over I overheard some of our board members this morning and was privately pleased at hearing their liberal use of the word "sir" and of each others' names. You, however, consider it passive aggressive and "pissing people off"?!? LOL What a ridiculous world you've created for yourself, my friend. (Ooops! Is calling you "my friend" an attack on you too?)

You are playing on the white squares, and he is playing on the black squares.

And you seem to be playing in some imaginary world, where you think it's best not to confront people engage in character assassination, instead, in order to attack people you're afraid to dialogue with.

Maybe the time you all collectively spend beating your heads against this particular wall would be better spent in some more serene pursuit.

Patrick Brinton

Maybe having the courage to engage those with whom you disagree completely might help you open your mind and stop believing all the voices, Patrick.

[Lenny]

Quote:

Braggi wrote:
So let's look at 1964. What happened? Perhaps you could remind us.
And this was the question that you didn't answer:
So, Lenny, would you start habitually taking LSD if it were legalized tomorrow? How many people that you know well would? Perhaps you could try again.
-Jeff

Well, Jeff, that was personal and anecdotal for the most part. Having grown up in San Francisco and being on "the scene" that was the year in California LSD became illegal to sell or posses. This was due to folks taking it and "getting out there" with not a lot of anybody knowing how to deal with it. ...

To get back to an interrupted conversation ...
Back then "not a lot of anybody [knew] how to deal with it." That was true to an extent. It was pretty well out of control. Thankfully now there are thousands of trained and experienced people who know "how to deal with it." Check out Burning Man for one large gathering of them that happens each year. I realize that even at that event there are some few people who get in trouble with their drugs. Even that is part of modern drug education.

The trouble those folks get into could not be prevented by "education". We educate on how to drink, and in the case of teens not to (BTW, how goes that?) and yet the porcelain god gets nightly visits.
The mind of a person who may be high on psychotomometics is busy being psychotic, and intervention along those points though may have intentions of being helpful, is questionable.
Have your thousands of trained experienced people visit wards & prisons to bring those folks back to a "good place" as that is where the help is needed more.

Quote:
Lenny wrote:
... Actually I think it became illegal to sell and then a few months later, illegal to posses. Actually folks were out here for a couple of years prior to that taking LSD. As Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert and a few others were still at Harvard touting their East Coast trips, out here folks were doing other things with that acid. Lots of folks out here booed Leary and associates as he wanted folks to take acid HIS way and he was thought as a "fascist" type of guy! ...

Nonsense Lenny. I've met Tim Leary (St. Timothy) and also Ram Dass (Richard Alpert). These are two of the finest and easiest going people you'd ever care to meet. Between them and Ralph Metzner (the third of their Harvard trio) they taught thousands of people how to consciously use sacred medicines. Ken Kesey was out "here" doing the "Electric Coolaid Acid Tests" and they were certainly not as consciously considered as the Leary/Alpert/Metzner methods, and yet, there were few people having problems even then. Amazing how that went. Today we are a whole lot more aware, as a culture, of the hazards of unconscious and careless use of these substances. There is also a substantial literature that has developed in the meantime featuring the wisdom of many cultures. That did not exist in the '60s or '70s. It's about education and wisdom. Amazingly enough, there is a whole lot more of it now then there ever has been in the past and much is now available on the Web. See Erowid.org and follow the links.

Actually it was Ken Kesey that thought Leary was a "fascist" due to Leary's notion that everybody should take LSD in his way (Leary's) and it was Leary that learned from Kesey there was more than one way to "trip". But maybe that is what you said above.
Factually, in drug taking, there were fewer folks taking those drugs so there were fewer having problems then, but I will bet statistically they were the same numbers per population.
Your esoteric approach to the whole psychedelic thing may have merit in a refined world of "intellectuals" and under close supervision with highly trained individuals, but due to that separation by that "elite" to have it available in the real world market is counter to the benefit of all. IOW, even the elite must give up certain "pleasures" in the real world.
Reminds me of that "eye for an eye" was due to the elite killing folks who would awaken them from their naps!

Quote:
Lenny wrote:
... Anyway, it is clear and easy to see why LSD was made illegal. Oh, and to answer your personal question: no, LSD would not be taken daily, though I know of those that did back in the day. Too bad. But then LSD is not that kind of drug now, is it? As is other Class 1 drugs are, no?

There are many reasons LSD was made illegal and none of them were for the public's good. It was largely because LSD threatened the status quo as it does now. Politics.

Here lies the lie.
Of course in a sense ALL is "politics", eh? If I say, "Good morning" or not, then that could be considered politics, right?
As you twist this into "politics" and "the government is a lying, false, and untrustworthy" beast, you will wind up throwing the baby out with the water.
Do you think the status quo is bad? Or that the majority of folks are unhappy with it? Get out of that 1970 mentality. Even the poor know it's better off here than elsewhere. Why do you think they come or die trying? Or is the middle class that hates the status quo? Silly notion, no? I mean outside of teenagers that are TAUGHT to hate their parents by our current culture.
Or do you honestly think all are stupid of government? All find the gov't is telling the truth all the time? If not, do you wish to try and tell all of us that these drugs will "help" us see what you claim, that is that gov't is evil? If you do, then you were the baby in the bathwater.

I see now that you did partially answer the personal question, Lenny. Sorry I didn't see that before. No, LSD isn't to be taken daily because the result is diminishing returns each day as is the case with any of the psychedelic drugs. They are, almost by definition, not addicting. The less you take them the more you get out of them. Funny that they do not cause insanity; except in those who do not take them. (More wisdom from St. Timothy.) -Jeff

Yeah, growing up in the city during that period let me get to know and meet seemingly hundreds of kids and adults that wasted their talents. From witnessing them and the aftermath I can only conclude that Leary was deluded and like the Pied Piper led all that followed down to their ends. And like other false prophets and con men, still believers will follow.....go figure

[thewholetruth]

I assume nothing. Cigarette and tobacco use in general is down every year across the US. That is because it is legal and the propaganda against is largely true. The propaganda against marijuana is largely false. Big difference. The kids are smart enough to know the difference.

I disagree completely, Jeff. What "propaganda against marijuana" is "largely false", IYO?

The messages are now confused and inconsistent.

Such as which messages, exactly, are "confused and inconsistent", IYO?

That will need to change, and I believe legalization will pave the way for that. It's possible and even likely that the "new generation" is smarter than you or me Don.

LOL Riiiiiiiight. Like we're smarter than the last generation? Or the generation before that? We're no smarter than cavemen, Jeff, IMO. We've made the same mistakes generation after generation, have the same problems relationally as we always have, the same bigotry exists today that has always existed. Jeff? Our egos always want to believe that we're smarter than our parents' generation, but has it ever been true? I don't see the fruit in your statement. Oh sure, we've got much better technology, but Jeff, when man invented the wheel or discovered fire, weren't they launching mankind into a far greater leap forward than we've seen in our lifetime? Computers? Toys...and glorified calculators, to a great degree. They are the telephone of our time. Certainly no smarter than the man who invented the wheel, or those who discovered fire.

We have never before been at this point in history. As far as drug lore is concerned there has been an amazing renaissance in recent decades which the Web is largely responsible for. The information is now out there. We have to do away with the incorrect and misleading propaganda and real drug education can begin.

I don't value recreational drug use like you do. I'm surprised to read the hope you have in taking drugs to a new level. I'm more interested in taking relationships to a new level, wherein people start being honest with one another in love, not deceptive and secretive and dishonest. I hope that people surrender to loving one another, so they don't feel the need to escape in a drug induced intoxication, because if we truly connected with one another and had nothing to fear from one another, we would no longer have the desire to escape this reality. You and I differ in this way, I suspect: You want to explore your mind and escape from this reality. I want people to learn to be honest, to understand that there are consequences to our actions and to strive to stop taking actions which result in consequences we don't enjoy which tend to separate us from one another.

There was a time when I embraced the kind of lifestyle you say you embrace today (which included recreational use of drugs). I used to love drugs, too. I work with people every day who feel similarly to you in that regard. A few minor adjustments, a few major adjustments, and suddenly I'm no longer remotely interested in drugs at all, but suddenly very interested in deepening the relationships I have. I shudder to think what I would have missed had I continued in the recreational-drugs-as-a-matter-of-fact in my life. My relationship with my wife has deepened dramatically. My usefulness to others has increased dramatically. My appreciation for God's creations has, as well, and my understanding of others has improved as my understanding of myself has improved.

I've not called for legalizing heroin as you have seen on these pages. I've called for legalizing plants as a first step. That will go a long way toward harm reduction.

In your opinion. I disagree completely. There is no value in children being raised by stoned parents, Jeff, and in fact, there is incredible harm which results from being intoxicated, both occasionally and regularly, by those who are legally entrusted to raise us. Stoned doctors doing your surgery? Stoned attorneys handling your felony case? It's not better than straight doctors and attorneys, and in fact, I believe most folks would agree that those people are far more likely to make mistakes during surgery/court cases than their straight counterparts. I could go on forever, Jeff, with instances in which a lifestyle which includes being straight is more beneficial to relationships and circumstances than a lifestyle which includes getting loaded on anything 'recreationally'.

Our culture can also easily tolerate legal LSD, Ecstasy and a few other relatively safe, non addicting substances that are popular and "mind expanding."

These are not "relatively safe" substances, Jeff. Kids die every day from their 'recreational' use of Ecstasy.

Remember, our culture has no problems with drugs. There is a drug store on every corner. What we have a problem with is "mind expanding drugs." Why are we afraid of expanding our minds? What is is that our culture and its vested interests fear from a populace with expanded consciousness?

-Jeff

We've already learned that drugs don't expand the mind, Jeff. Drugs destroy the mind. That's what it is that our culture fears about 'recreational' drug use. Also, there is enough mental illness in our society today without adding to it with "mind expanding" drug use. You know as well as I do that "mind expanding" drugs induce symptoms similar to mental illness, particularly LSD and Ecstasy, which will render you temporarily insane, Jeff.

Society is not better off when allowing citizens to escape into temporary insanity, sir. In fact, IMO, the whole notion that it's a good idea is insane. But that's just me, perhaps...

[MsTerry]

IMy usefulness to others has increased dramatically. My appreciation for God's creations has, as well, and my understanding of others has improved as my understanding of myself has improved.

If your statement is true, Don, Don't you think you having all of this knowledge is partly due to your use of illegal drugs?
Don't you, Don, think your abuse of illegal drugs has given you an insight that you now can use, Sir?
Don't you, Sir, have any respect for GOD's creations?
Don, did God or man make the mushrooms?
Don, did God or man make drugs illegal?
If your use of substances helped you find your path, why are you scolding others for doing it their way?

[thewholetruth]

If your statement is true, Don, Don't you think you having all of this knowledge is partly due to your use of illegal drugs?

Do you have to stick your own hand in the fire after you've seen what happens when someone else does it, Ms. Terry?

Don't you, Don, think your abuse of illegal drugs has given you an insight that you now can use, Sir?

Don't you think prostitution has given women an insight that they can now use, Ms. Terry? Don't you think that murdering someone has given the murderer an insight they can now use, as well? Do you think that not wiping one's behind gives them an insight they can now use, Ms. Terry? Do we have to do everything in order to gain insight? Or can we use someone else's experience to help not open doors that aren't beneficial to folks?

Don't you, Sir, have any respect for GOD's creations?

LOL Here we go again.

Don, did God or man make the mushrooms?

Did God or man create creatures which produce feces, Ms. Terry? Do people eat feces, Ma'am? Do people eat sand? Did God or man create sand? Is everything on the planet good for us to ingest? Are we good judges of that? When Daddy steps off the top of the 4 story parking garage loaded on mushrooms, Ma'am, do you still think it's a good idea?

Don, did God or man make drugs illegal?

Man makes behavior illegal when Man has shown they are hurting themselves or others with such behavior, Ma'am.

If your use of substances helped you find your path, why are you scolding others for doing it their way?

Please show me where you think I'm "scolding others", Ms. Terry. And if prostitution helped someone else find their path, shall we all do it, Ma'am? Is that logical reasoning, IYO? It seems to be your reasoning in this post.

[Braggi]

I'm in a big place 5 days a week, sometimes 50-60 hours a week (that dang salary). Nearly 100 beds and I call everyone either Mr. Soandso or sir. I counsel a lot of people every day, and I counsel the counselors, maintain ongoing active relationships with Parole, Probation, the DA's office, Public Defender's office, private attorneys, other treatment centers and local businesses and individuals seeking treatment for themselves or for a friend or family member. ...

Hmmmm. Don, don't I remember you saying you made no money from the Failed War on Some Drugs?

Please clarify.

-Jeff

[thewholetruth]

Hmmmm. Don, don't I remember you saying you made no money from the Failed War on Some Drugs?

Please clarify.

-Jeff

I make no money from the War on Drugs, Jeff. I help people turn their lives around when they've decided perhaps they're on the wrong path. I'm in the business of Transforming Lives. I hope that clarifies this for you.

(Hoping you'll note that I only used your name once in 4 sentences, and didn't call you "sir" even one time. Trying to be cognizant of how sensitive some folks are.)

[Braggi]

I disagree completely, Jeff. What "propaganda against marijuana" is "largely false", IYO? ...

Such as which messages, exactly, are "confused and inconsistent", IYO?
...

Just one example:

"Short and Long Term Effects of Heroin Abuse
Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse
Short-Term Effects:
“Rush”
Depressed respiration
Clouded mental functioning
Nausea and vomiting
Suppression of pain
Spontaneous abortion
Long-Term Effects:
Infectious diseases (HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis)
Collapsed veins
Bacterial infections
Abscesses
Infection of heart lining and valves
Arthritis and other rheumatologic problems" [end quote]

And then, a few lines below, this:

"Commonly abused drugs
The drugs listed below are commonly abused, and affect the brain and physiology in different ways. Check out information provided by The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) which offers a chart of commonly abused drugs and identifies how they affect you and what the long-term health risks are. ... " [end quote]

And then there is a list of a number of categories of drugs in which "cannabanoids" are listed. No distinction is made among the various drugs and the symptoms listed above. This is at best confusing, at worst a lousy lie (no doubt from Hell). This is pretty typical of "drug warrior" misinformation.

I could list a whole lot more, in fact, almost every website listing the "dangers" of marijuana is completely full of lies and misrepresentations. I'll hold back on that because I'm actually enjoying my time in Paris right now. Just had a terrific potato soup that I made in the apartment we're staying in. Lovely. Although we do have better wine in California, the produce available here is pretty stellar. Somehow the colors of the vegetables seem larger than life ... but I digress.

Marijuana is truly the "gateway" drug. It is the drug that young people use to learn the Government is not to be trusted because "They" lie. That could be logical change number two in Govt. policy toward drugs after decriminalizing pot. The Govt. and its beneficiaries could start doing true drug education instead of offering misleading lies.

-Jeff

[StormDancer]

From those of us who were already, thinking, reasoning adults in 1980:

The "War on Drugs" like the "War on Poverty" before it and the "War on Terror" after it was never expected, by any but the most naive, to do what the polititians claimed it would.
The War on Drugs was opposed by those in the drug rehab fields as a waste of taxpayer money. Even at the time, most of us understood that the way to fight drug addiction was to remove the root causes and de-glamourize drug use and the drug trade. The War on Drugs did just the opposite. Many of us believed, even at the time, that it was designed by the CIA as an excuse to send US forces into south and central America to destabalize their governments...which it did very well.

The War on Poverty (1960's) allowed federal programs to usurp local public social services, destablize the financial base of local governments and make less afluent areas dependent on the federal bureaucracy. As we have observed, the War on Terror, has destabilized the oil producing areas of the middle east and anyone who reads books and blogs instead of watching TV can see it clearly. In each case, the result of these undeclared "wars" is that the unseen powers within the US government grow in strength and the general populace gets exciting new TV programs.
Thanks Barry, for the open forum.
-AnnaLisa
P.S. Oh, and in the 40's it was "The New Deal."

[thewholetruth]

From those of us who were already, thinking, reasoning adults in 1980:

The "War on Drugs" like the "War on Poverty" before it and the "War on Terror" after it was never expected, by any but the most naive, to do what the polititians claimed it would.
The War on Drugs was opposed by those in the drug rehab fields as a waste of taxpayer money. Even at the time, most of us understood that the way to fight drug addiction was to remove the root causes and de-glamourize drug use and the drug trade. The War on Drugs did just the opposite. Many of us believed, even at the time, that it was designed by the CIA as an excuse to send US forces into south and central America to destabalize their governments...which it did very well.

Interesting perspective, albeit after the fact. I'm not sure the conspiracy was as intentional as you've described, but neither of us really knows.

The War on Poverty (1960's) allowed federal programs to usurp local public social services, destablize the financial base of local governments and make less afluent areas dependent on the federal bureaucracy.

I'd love to see specific examples which support this statement. How have "federal programs usurp[ed] local social services, destabilize[d] the financial base of local goverments and [made] less afluent areas dependent on the federal bureaucracy"?

As we have observed, the War on Terror, has destabilized the oil producing areas of the middle east and anyone who reads books and blogs instead of watching TV can see it clearly. In each case, the result of these undeclared "wars" is that the unseen powers within the US government grow in strength and the general populace gets exciting new TV programs.

Amen to that. I'm trackin' with you here.

Thanks Barry, for the open forum.
-AnnaLisa

I'm trackin' with you here, too. Thanks, Barry!

[MsTerry]

Man makes behavior illegal when Man has shown they are hurting themselves or others with such behavior, Ma'am.

Really???
War is illegal now?
Using gasoline is illegal now?
Overeating is illegal now?

And a pagan might say; Religion is illegal now?

[MsTerry]

Did God or man create creatures which produce feces, Ms. Terry? Do people eat feces, Ma'am? Do people eat sand? Did God or man create sand? Is everything on the planet good for us to ingest? Are we good judges of that? When Daddy steps off the top of the 4 story parking garage loaded on mushrooms, Ma'am, do you still think it's a good idea?.

OhMy, Don
You really have outdone your self here!
I forgot that you aren't able to handle multiple concepts at the same time, but your ability to ridicule yourself has been noted with the above.

[Braggi]

I make no money from the War on Drugs, Jeff. I help people turn their lives around when they've decided perhaps they're on the wrong path. I'm in the business of Transforming Lives. I hope that clarifies this for you. ...

I'm a little slow, obviously. So, you get a salary from serving people in the process of "Transforming [their] Lives." You work: " ... in a big place 5 days a week, sometimes 50-60 hours a week (that dang salary). Nearly 100 beds ... I counsel a lot of people every day, and I counsel the counselors, maintain ongoing active relationships with Parole, Probation, the DA's office, Public Defender's office ... "

I imagine very few of those people filling the 100 beds are there on vacation or because they would otherwise choose that place over any other that might or might not be available to them. I'm going to guess that the majority are there on court order. You are clearly, by your statement above, serving the people involved in the "War on Drugs." The connection seems pretty clear unless ... ?

So, unless you can otherwise clarify, you are earning a living based on the Failed War on Some Drugs, and that pretty directly. Taxpayer's money on your bottom line? Looks that way. Dare I ask where in Sonoma County is there a 100 bed facility serving the addicted? I'm very impressed. I understand if the answer to that is ... confidential.

... (Hoping you'll note that I only used your name once in 4 sentences, and didn't call you "sir" even one time. Trying to be cognizant of how sensitive some folks are.)

I do appreciate that. I was one of the people who did not see it as respectful. Thanks.

-Jeff

[thewholetruth]

OhMy, Don
You really have outdone your self here!
I forgot that you aren't able to handle multiple concepts at the same time, but your ability to ridicule yourself has been noted with the above.

The fact that you cannot even respond to any of my questions really answers my questions, Ms. Terry. Frankly, I knew you wouldn't dare to tread there.