How America Lost the War on Drugs

[thewholetruth]

Sure, the drug is tobacco. It's legal. The reason for its decline is education. Real education with facts, not silly scare tactics and false statistics.

If pot is a gateway drug it's because it's the drug kids learn adults lie about. Once they think adults lie, they won't believe warnings about other drugs.

But tobacco is different. The truth is out. The kids respect that and are paying attention.

While it appears that you're quite enamored with your own philosophical musings about this, the truth is that the same adults are teaching kids about both tobacco and pot. Your hypothesis doesn't really hold water, Jeff. The difference may be the approach the advertising takes, as tobacco advertising has been very in your face, and pot, not so much, although they've begun a more aggressive campaign recently against pot. More will be revealed. Again, your theory that kid believe the adults who run the anti-tobacco ads, but not the adults who run the anti-pot ads doesn't wash. They're the same adults. Hey, I bet it looked good on paper when you wrote it though. :thumbsup:


... as availability of meth increase and use rates skyrocket. Wouldn't it be better if more stuck with pot?

LOL Do I think it would better if kids "stuck with" beer rather than whiskey? Do I think it would be better if kids "stuck with" knives rather than guns? Jeff, your illogic amazes me, and I bet you can't see the fallacy of your thinking either. So let me ask you a question, Jeff: Wouldn't it be better if kids were clean and sober and didn't need drugs or alcohol to cope with their lives? See, while you've been busy trying figure out the perfect drug cocktail for your evening fun, God has given me eyes to see what has caused the drug problems, the violence problems and even the homelessness in the world. The same thing is causing all those problems. Do you know what that is, Jeff? Hint: Pot isn't the solution.


I do think both coke and meth should remain illegal, BTW.

I'll bet you're just saying that to placate us straight folk.


Don, you're the only person who frustrates me on Wacco.

That's funny. I've seen you express your frustration with at least 2 other Waccos since I arrived.


I'm still not sure what you're trying to do here. -Jeff

Communicate, Jeff. Have an intelligent dialogue with folks who have a different perspective than me. That's what I'm trying to do here. And you?

[Braggi]

Quote:
Braggi wrote:
I do think both coke and meth should remain illegal, BTW

And Sir Don responded:

I'll bet you're just saying that to placate us straight folk. ...


But Don, you're not straight folk. You've admitted to being a pothead. I wouldn't be surprised if you're an alcoholic as well though I don't remember you admitting that.

Once an addict always an addict, right? Isn't that what your Higher Power teaches you? That's the way I've been told the 12 step program works. You're powerless against your addiction(s).

That's fine with me, but once again, I have to share with you that your experience isn't the same as everyone else's experience. We all have our own set of foolish errors that we live Don.

You got into a lot of trouble with your foolish errors, if I read you correctly.

Some of us are finding different ways to live with our errors. Some of us have found ways to correct them, or modify them, or even turn them into assets. It is possible to learn and grow. There are many teachers who have travelled these roads ahead of us. They've been around forever.

As Ram Dass taught me, " ... I still have my demons, but now they're little playful demons instead of huge scary demons."

As far as "perfecting my drug cocktails," the last time I took a medicine journey was almost exactly a year ago. I used only one substance, not a "cocktail." I took it with another person I was having a very painful, unworkable relationship with. Under the influence we shared at what we liked about each other, spent some wonderful hours hugging and talking, and then a few days later we went our separate ways. It was a great way to process, in sacred space, issues that were causing a great deal of discomfort. It was not only a "pain relieving" experience, it was a healing experience. We used the substance as a tool, not as a crutch. The fact that I haven't use any since SHOULD say something to you about the way that I use substances consciously and not in an addictive or habitual manner.

Had we not taken those hours to work together on our issues we might have had to continue for months in the painful impasse that was disturbing both our lives, and by extension, my family and some of my greater community. With the substance, we were able to look at our issues and come to the decision to end the problem by ending the relationship.

I don't know if you can see the value in what we did. Perhaps not. There are a lot of other readers here who do understand what I'm talking about. And they are out there, Don.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

Again with the Ad Hominum Abusive, Jeff? I'm disappointed. ...



Don't be so disappointed, Don. I wasn't talking to you and there was no debate in process so it can't be an Ad Hominum anything.

I was talking about you not to you.

-Jeff

[thewholetruth]

Just a couple thoughts as I follow this energetic thread:

"Gateway" drugs--it's been well established now that the real gateway drugs are tobacco and alcohol.No, that's not accurate. They aren't "the real gateway drugs". They are gateway drugs TOO.


Also that most kids who try pot do not go on to abuse any substance...

You mean any OTHER substances. Perhaps. But I'd like to see some unbaised peer-reviewed studies on that if you'll post some links for me.


(that's NIDA's info, Don, one of the most conservative sources of drug info around).

Prenatal effects of pot--one of the other results the feds don't want us to read is that hand-eye coordination is better in babies exposed to pot prenatallyAnd where can we see the unbiased peer-reviewed studies which support that claim?



Much more urgently in need of our attention as a society--prenatal alcohol, affecting roughly 4% of us, causes AD/HD symptoms complicated by poor memory, reasoning and judgment. It's the single largest contributor to mental retardation even though most have normal IQ. One out of 25 of us. Totally preventable.
In general alcohol and tobacco wreak massively more havoc than any illegal substance.Absolutely. Why? Because they are LEGAL and MORE AVAILABLE than illegal drugs like pot, which pot WILL BE TOO if it were ever legalized. If pot were to become legal in America, which it won't, but if it were, the big 2 would simply become the big 3 wreaking havoc in America. The instances of children left in the car to die in the heat would skyrocket. Children's parents literally check out while they are high, and it's already proven by experience that parents who are dependent upon or who even use pot on a regular basis (same thing, really) typically raise children who are dependent upon and/or use pot on a regular basis.[/quote]

Isn't getting high on life enough, really? It should be. I know this: since I began my spiritual quest, the best highs I've ever had have been on God. The high I was always looking for in all the drugs I used/abused I have found in my relationship with Him. Serious, euphoric, wondrous overwhelming deep joy in Christ totally kicks butt on anything drugs ever did for me.


And as for pot--I just wish it weren't so dang powerful these days. I used to love smoking pot because it always brought me a different perspective, usually via visual images, not my normal channel. Now it just makes me forget everything I start to say or think. Yes yes, menopause might have something to do with that!

It's not the menopause. Pot did that to me when I was in my 20s, too. It's what the drug does. It makes us forget our problems, but it also makes people forget they left our baby in the car when they go to the bar to visit their friends, and where we put our car keys, and whether or not we took our medication yet today.


Don, are you really saying that you don't believe there is such a thing as moderate use of mood-altering substances?

I do think there is such a thing. Most people who advocate for illegal drug use, however, seem to turn out to be abusers and/or addicts, who regularly, if not daily, use illegal substances.


(Do you eat dessert? Drink coffee?)

Dessert: occasionally. Coffee: most days. I'm actually drinking green tea more these days, primarily in the mornings.

Don

[thewholetruth]

No. Never read any of that stuff. Always looked phony to me.

More later,

-Jeff

He wasn't asking if you read it. He said your writing here "smells of Carlos Castaneda", Jeff, which it does.

Don

[thewholetruth]

Quote:
Braggi wrote:
I do think both coke and meth should remain illegal, BTW

And Sir Don responded:

I'll bet you're just saying that to placate us straight folk. ...


But Don, you're not straight folk. You've admitted to being a pothead.

I'm didn't say I'm a pothead, Jeff.


I wouldn't be surprised if you're an alcoholic as well though I don't remember you admitting that.

Once an addict always an addict, right?

Wrong, Jeff. It appears that you didn't pay close enough attention at those 12 Step meetings. I'm not addicted to anything, sir. Once addicted, no longer addicted. My addictive nature remains, but the way I live my life today doesn't facilitate addiction manifesting itself in my life. I have no addictions today, Jeff, and it would probably serve you well to start asking questions first, before you start firing off accusations at people you don't know.


Isn't that what your Higher Power teaches you?

*polite smile* No, Jeff, that's not what my "Higher Power" whose name is Jesus "teaches me", not by any stretch of the imagination. Quite the contrary, in fact.


That's the way I've been told the 12 step program works. You're powerless against your addiction(s).

You're talking about active addicts, Jeff, not recovered addicts. I've recovered from addiction.


That's fine with me, but once again, I have to share with you that your experience isn't the same as everyone else's experience. We all have our own set of foolish errors that we live Don.

Not all of us choose to continue to live with our foolish errors, Jeff. Some of us get the help we need to stop making such foolish errors.


You got into a lot of trouble with your foolish errors, if I read you correctly.

I was a Superintendent for a large local construction company, Jeff, in charge of building large subdivisions, hiring/firing/overseeing all of the subcontractors, inspecting their work, approving the cutting of their checks and hiring our own crew of carpenters, owned my own home and was married and raising 3 children. No DUIs, no drug arrests, so no, you're not reading me correctly. I didn't get into a lot of trouble, even when getting loaded was part of my lifestyle. I was a Weekend Warrior, btw, rarely partying during the week.


Some of us are finding different ways to live with our errors.

And some of us are finding different ways to stop making them. But pot is great for learning to live with our errors. Pot makes us forget we're making so many errors and gives us the false impression that "everythings okay" even when it's not.


Some of us have found ways to correct them, or modify them, or even turn them into assets. It is possible to learn and grow. There are many teachers who have travelled these roads ahead of us. They've been around forever.

I see. And some of us are great at rationalizing and trying to justify continuing to make the same errors again and again and again.


As Ram Dass taught me, " ... I still have my demons, but now they're little playful demons instead of huge scary demons."

Ram Dass is a very intelligent man. Too bad intelligence isn't acquired by osmosis, eh? LOL


As far as "perfecting my drug cocktails," the last time I took a medicine journey was almost exactly a year ago. I used only one substance, not a "cocktail." I took it with another person I was having a very painful, unworkable relationship with. Under the influence we shared at what we liked about each other, spent some wonderful hours hugging and talking, and then a few days later we went our separate ways.

You don't have to explain or defend yourself to me, Jeff. Really, so much is revealed in everything else you post, it's not necessary.


It was a great way to process, in sacred space

What exactly does "in sacred space" refer to?


... issues that were causing a great deal of discomfort. It was not only a "pain relieving" experience, it was a healing experience. We used the substance as a tool, not as a crutch. The fact that I haven't use any since SHOULD say something to you about the way that I use substances consciously and not in an addictive or habitual manner.

I'm not here to judge you, Jeff, nor do I believe that everything you post is the truth about your drug use. You've already offered the Big Disqualifier to being truthful when you said that your religion requires you to have secrets. Most people believe that God and spirituality and freedom come from the truth, not from secrets, but that you already admitted you keep secrets lets us know that you don't always tell the truth. You can't do both and have an honest conversation.


Had we not taken those hours to work together on our issues we might have had to continue for months in the painful impasse that was disturbing both our lives, and by extension, my family and some of my greater community. With the substance, we were able to look at our issues and come to the decision to end the problem by ending the relationship.

I don't know if you can see the value in what we did. Perhaps not. There are a lot of other readers here who do understand what I'm talking about. And they are out there, Don. -Jeff

And a whole lot more who believe that the truth will set you free, Jeff. Not drugs.

Don

[Zeno Swijtink]

He wasn't asking if you read it. He said your writing here "smells of Carlos Castaneda", Jeff, which it does.

Don

Could you hold your fire, Don? Jeff said he will address this later.

[MsTerry]

I'm didn't say I'm a pothead, Jeff.

Don
LMAO
Smoking and typing at the same time?
Be careful, smoking in a closet can be dangerous!

[thewholetruth]

Don't be so disappointed, Don. I wasn't talking to you and there was no debate in process so it can't be an Ad Hominum anything.

I was talking about you not to you.

-Jeff

I see. So it was just character assassination and gossip, not Ad Hominum. That's better.

Oh, wait...

Don

[thewholetruth]

Could you hold your fire, Don? Jeff said he will address this later.

He appeared to misunderstand so I offered clarification. My gun isn't even loaded, Zeno. :thumbsup:

Don

[Zeno Swijtink]

He appeared to misunderstand so I offered clarification. My gun isn't even loaded, Zeno. :thumbsup:

Don

I think he did understand, and his brief reply, as far as it went, was informative.

[MsTerry]

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->
I was a Superintendent for a large local construction company, Jeff, in charge of building large subdivisions, hiring/firing/overseeing all of the subcontractors, inspecting their work, approving the cutting of their checks and hiring our own crew of carpenters, owned my own home and was married and raising 3 children. No DUIs, no drug arrests, so no, you're not reading me correctly. I didn't get into a lot of trouble, even when getting loaded was part of my lifestyle. I was a Weekend Warrior, btw, rarely partying during the week.
Don

You sure know how to make a strong case for smoking pot and being successful!!:thumbsup:

[kpage9]

I apologize for the format--I haven't yet unlocked the secret of the nice boxed quotes! but I am teachable...


[quote=donc1955;58037]No, that's not accurate. They aren't "the real gateway drugs". They are gateway drugs TOO.

Alcohol and tobacco are by far the first substances used by people who go on to become addicts.


You mean any OTHER substances. No. I meant what I said. Most kids experiment with pot and then do not go on to abuse anything. Perhaps. But I'd like to see some unbaised peer-reviewed studies on that if you'll post some links for me.

I wonder how you justify asking us for links to back up our statements when yours go entirely unlinked.

And where can we see the unbiased peer-reviewed studies which support ...

It's not the menopause. Pot did that to me when I was in my 20s, too. It's what the drug does.

I don't smoke pot, haven't for years. (Tried it a few times in recent decades and didn't like the effect.) My memory has deteriorated with menopause.



I do think there is such a thing. Most people who advocate for illegal drug use, however, seem to turn out to be abusers and/or addicts, who regularly, if not daily, use illegal substances. Most? (where's your link to THAT!) That's not my experience. But in another post you said something about not believing Jeff's statements...so I don't know if you'll brush mine off as well.

[Braggi]

I ...
Ram Dass is a very intelligent man. Too bad intelligence isn't acquired by osmosis, eh? LOL ...

A significant part of Ram Dass' maturity (I won't say intelligence because I think he's always been intelligent) developed in sacred medicine circles which he has been involved in more or less continuously since his days at Harvard with Tim Leary (St. Tim) and Ralph Metzner. He's one of the great teachers of the movement; what Terrence McKenna called, "The Archaic Revival." (St. Terrence) I'm glad you've learned to appreciate Ram Dass. He's a man filled with love as well as a great teacher of the conscious use of sacred medicines.



... What exactly does "in sacred space" refer to? ...


This is for others since you've agreed you're not able to learn from me: Sacred space is all around us, all the time. There is no space that isn't sacred. When we, as humans "enter sacred space" or "create a sacred circle" it's about recognizing that we are in sacred space and becoming consciously aware of it through words or rituals. When two or more "enter sacred space" together an acknowledgement of that fact usually accompanies the act. It's becoming aware in a deep sense of The Sacred that we are all a part of every day.




... You've already offered the Big Disqualifier to being truthful when you said that your religion requires you to have secrets. ...

I may have misstated that. I'm not required to do anything by my religion. My religion has historically used secrecy to help prevent oppression by Christian based or Christian controlled governments. These governments are into torture, theft of property, murder, break up of families and suppression of those who think differently or who practice different religions.

I've been quite forthcoming in this forum.



...
And a whole lot more who believe that the truth will set you free, Jeff. Not drugs. ...

And some of us are able to live with both Don.

-Jeff

[kpage9]

[
Don says

'nor do I believe that everything you post is the truth about your drug use.'

leading me to wonder why we bother, when our best efforts can instantly dissolve in the acid bath of Don's disbelief.


Kathy

[thewholetruth]

[
Don says

'nor do I believe that everything you post is the truth about your drug use.'

leading me to wonder why we bother, when our best efforts can instantly dissolve in the acid bath of Don's disbelief.


Kathy

Kathy, you must not be paying attention. Jeff said his religion requires him to keep secrets. To a reasonable and intelligent person, that statement can bring into question everything he says.

Don

[Braggi]

Thanks for this posting which, I think, makes much clearer where you come from, which tends to disappear in a cloud of foul smelling dust when you squabble with Don.

On the other hand, as well as I can discern the direction you come from, the shape of your persona is vague. Maybe you could unpack for us the term "sacred"?

Your writing here smells of Carlos Castaneda with his The Teachings of Don Juan, an elaborate literary and anthropological hoax.

You're welcome. I've described my notion of "sacred space" in another post so you can begin to see the picture. I'll say further that I'm a Pantheist. I believe everything and everyone is a part of God or Goddess. I believe Love is the force that makes everything work and holds everything together. I don't think the love we as humans feel is superior to the love that holds the swirling, vibrating particles of a hydrogen atom together. Indeed, I think it's the same Love and ours' is just a part of the Sacred Whole. So even DonC1955 is God in my eyes. Even a toxic waste dump is sacred to me and filled with potential for learning and development (and cleanup). You can't separate me from the Sacred because everything is sacred and so am I.

I never read Castaneda because I've heard the same complaints you mention. I've worked with various teachers along the way and read a mountain of books on mythology, sacred medicines, science fiction, environmentalism and living a healthy lifestyle. There is no single book that describes my views and all of them do, in part. There's a reason my persona is vague: it's constantly growing and changing like science; like experience. I've made some big changes and big decisions along the way, but many more tiny, less significant ones.

My life is a microcosm of evolution.

Remember: when evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve.

Science and experience. And Love holds it all together.

-Jeff

[Valley Oak]

Dear kathryn,

The boxed quotes are created with a little bit of simple computer language code. For example, your quote below is started and ended by this code. But if I write the code out to demonstrate it, you won't see it because the software application that runs this bulletin board will obey the command; all you will see is the boxed quote again. So I will write the code with asterisks between each character. This way, the application won't 'use' it and you can write the code yourself without the asterisks:

*[*q*u*o*t*e*]*
To be or not to be, that is the question.
*[*/*q*u*o*t*e*]*

Without the asterisks, it appears as follows:



To be or not to be, that is the question.
Hope this helps,

Edward


...I haven't yet unlocked the secret of the nice boxed quotes! but I am teachable...

[kpage9]

There's a huge difference between keeping some information to oneself and outright lying---no???? Don?????




Kathy, you must not be paying attention. Jeff said his religion requires him to keep secrets. To a reasonable and intelligent person, that statement can bring into question everything he says.
Don

Also I have to say "you must not be paying attention"--out of a licensed counselor--therapist?--'s mouth is just not consistent with any mental health professional's training.

[MsTerry]

I've been quite forthcoming in this forum.


-Jeff
Yes, you have been revealing, honest and respectful.
You also have been stubborn as a mule into thinking that being reasonable and articulate is the way to convince another person to become respectful. And to try got someone, who is in direct communication with GOD (or was it Jesus) to at least listen and answer your sincere questions might indicate that you yourself has fallen victim to "I can save the world, one soul at a time" syndrome.
What's next, Jeff?

[MsTerry]

Kathy, you must not be paying attention. Jeff said his religion requires him to keep secrets. To a reasonable and intelligent person, that statement can bring into question everything he says.

Don
Only to an UN-reasonable and NON-intelligent person

[MsTerry]

Ed
I don't understand a word if what you mean by this?
Is there a short cut I don't know about?


Dear kathryn,

The boxed quotes are created with a little bit of simple computer language code. For example, your quote below is started and ended by this code. But if I write the code out to demonstrate it, you won't see it because the software application that runs this bulletin board will obey the command; all you will see is the boxed quote again. So I will write the code with asterisks between each character. This way, the application won't 'use' it and you can write the code yourself without the asterisks:

*[*q*u*o*t*e*]*
To be or not to be, that is the question.
*[*/*q*u*o*t*e*]*

Without the asterisks, it appears as follows:

Hope this helps,

Edward

[thewholetruth]

There's a huge difference between keeping some information to oneself and outright lying---no???? Don?????

That depends. Is lying by omission the same as outright lying? Some people think so. But the problem with stating that you live a life filled with secrets that your religion insists you keep is that in every ensuing conversation one has to wonder if we're talking about something that the Secret Keeper (whoever it is in a given case) can't tell the truth about...or not.



Also I have to say "you must not be paying attention"--out of a licensed counselor--therapist?--'s mouth is just not consistent with any mental health professional's training.

Then again, you're not my patient. I'm just talking with you openly and frankly, and frankly, when I have to repeat something someone else says in order to clarify for you, it appears that you haven't paid attention...so I'll say so. You paid attention enough to come against me, but you appeared to ignore the reference to which I was responding. Are you offended by that comment ("you must not be paying attention", I mean)? If so, did you not see Jeff's proclamation that he is a secret keeper? Or did you just not realize that my comments were in reference to his?

Don

[MsTerry]

Are you offended by that comment ?

Don
At some point it has to Don on you that the hole you are digging is getting so deep, that you won't be able to get out.

[kpage9]

Donno, here again you apply a double standard. You yourself have said you won't self-disclose much. Jeff didn't say he lives a life filled with secrets. He said some aspects of his religious practice were private.



That depends. Is lying by omission the same as outright lying? Some people think so. But the problem with stating that you live a life filled with secrets that your religion insists you keep is that in every ensuing conversation one has to wonder if we're talking about something that the Secret Keeper (whoever it is in a given case) can't tell the truth about...or not.


Someone who has been educated in mental health practices understands the effect of statements like "you must not be paying attention".



[color=blue][color=#000000]

Then again, you're not my patient. I'm just talking with you openly and frankly, and frankly, when I have to repeat something someone else says in order to clarify for you, it appears that you haven't paid attention..
.so I'll say so. You paid attention enough to come against me, but you appeared to ignore the reference to which I was responding. Are you offended by that comment ("you must not be paying attention", I mean)? If so, did you not see Jeff's proclamation that he is a secret keeper? Or did you just not realize that my comments were in reference to his?

Don

[Valley Oak]

I explained to Kathryn, I believe successfully, how to use the quoting tags for putting peoples' posts into those nice, neat little boxes when you respond to a message.

I used the asterisks to throw off the Wacco site's software so that she could see how the code is written.

Edward


Ed
I don't understand a word if what you mean by this?
Is there a short cut I don't know about?

[thewholetruth]

Donno, here again you apply a double standard. You yourself have said you won't self-disclose much. Jeff didn't say he lives a life filled with secrets. He said some aspects of his religious practice were private.

Your bias is showing, Kathy. That's not what he said. He said in post #103:


BTW, my religion causes me to have secrets, Don. How about that? A mystery religion. No, I don't sacrifice children or even chickens, but some of my practices I just don't talk about. So keeping secrets is part of who I am. It makes me ... trustworthy; sort of like a psychiatrist or a lawyer.

You see, Kathy, you looked at "my religion causes me to have secrets" concluded that his secrets have only to do with his religion. I saw no references to his secrets being religious, just that his religion caused him to have secrets. I also noted his comment "So keeping secrets is part of who I am". We're not our religions, Kathy, are we? I don't think so. But keeping secrets is, according to Jeff, part of who he is.


<!-- using waccobburl -->
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">
Someone who has been educated in mental health practices understands the effect of statements like "you must not be paying attention".


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


And I do understand the effects of that statement. I said it in the hopes that you might start paying closer attention to what's being said and why.

I've been on boards like this for more than 15 years, Kathy. Whenever people get into the kind of nitpicking you're doing to me, it's more about personality than priniciples. It's about you not liking me, not that you disagree with my comments.

Perhaps you're one of those folks who, like Jeff admits to being, cannot separate the comments from the person. To me, comments are comments and on an anonymous message board like this, we needn't get so worked up about disagreements that we resort to nothing but Ad Hominum attacks.

But that's just me. Clearly, I don't see eye to eye with you on some things, nor with Jeff. But that's why I'm here: to engage in (hopefully) intelligent dialogue with folks who don't see things like I do. When it's done without personalizing everything, it can be downright deep. When it gets down to the matter of facts or opinions, much gets revealed. When it stays mired in personal attacks, nothing gets accomplished at all. Granted, some personal observations are included during communication, as some is pertinent. But when one is blindly defending another, then it appears that one might not be paying attention...or perhaps isn't really interested in intelligent dialogue at all.

Don

[kpage9]

I think MsTerry's shortcut works fine--using the little text-in-a-squarish-balloon icon above, after selecting the part you want quoted.

I am still learning, however, so keep the tutorial coming!
kathy





Ed, you need to explain to her that she needs to remove the asterisks, then she can see what the .

[thewholetruth]

I think MsTerry's shortcut works fine--using the little text-in-a-squarish-balloon icon above, after selecting the part you want quoted.

I am still learning, however, so keep the tutorial coming!
kathy

I didn't intentionally send that because I couldn't express myself clearly. I cancelled it. As you can see, it's only part of a message. LOL I remember WaccoBB burping as I wrote, though. That's probably what happened.

Don

[Valley Oak]

I've learned something new!

I never before paid any attention to that 'little text-in-a-squarish-balloon icon above.' As a matter of fact, I never pay any attention to any of those little icons above. Now I have found new meaning in life and I have reached Nirvana! Wow, I never knew that the Wacco List could do so much for me. I need to send in a check to Barry for at least $100,000 because of what I have gained personally. I feel like a new man in a new world and I didn't go to any church or take any drugs!

Edward











I think MsTerry's shortcut works fine--using the little text-in-a-squarish-balloon icon above, after selecting the part you want quoted.

I am still learning, however, so keep the tutorial coming!
kathy

[MsTerry]

Does that mean there is another way to do it?


I've learned something new!

I never before paid any attention to that 'little text-in-a-squarish-balloon icon above.' As a matter of fact, I never pay any attention to any of those little icons above. Now I have found new meaning in life and I have reached Nirvana! Wow, I never knew that the Wacco List could do so much for me. I need to send in a check to Barry for at least $100,000 because of what I have gained personally. I feel like a new man in a new world and I didn't go to any church or take any drugs!

Edward

[Valley Oak]

YES!

The New Path is the way of Wacco! Spend endless hours and years arguing ad nauseum in WaccotTalk with everyone over everything, especially those who are diametrically opposed to your views, and you shall reach enlightenment!

Namaste!

Edward


Does that mean there is another way to do it?

[kpage9]

[

Oh Don. Do you really believe that accusing someone of not paying attention is the best way to open their ears?? It does make me wonder what kind of training you've had.



And I do understand the effects of that statement. I said it in the hopes that you might start paying closer attention to what's being said and why.


Tell me where I nitpick and I will apologize, I promise.


I've been on boards like this for more than 15 years, Kathy. Whenever people get into the kind of nitpicking you're doing to me, it's more about personality than priniciples.
It's about you not liking me, not that you disagree with my comments.

What on god's sweet green earth makes you think I don't LIKE you????!!!



But when one is blindly defending another, then it appears that one might not be paying attention...or perhaps isn't really interested in intelligent dialogue at all.

Now THERE's some language that would be just heaven-sent in the opening-another's-ears endeavor!!! (blindly defending jeff? or jeff's comment.....might) there be a difference?

Not that I'm not appreciative of all your efforts here. The sheer amount of time and energy you give us is actually quite generous.

Kathy (really sorry for the confused quote thing)

[Braggi]

... And to try [to get] someone, who is in direct communication with GOD (or was it Jesus) to at least listen and answer your sincere questions might indicate that you yourself has fallen victim to "I can save the world, one soul at a time" syndrome.
What's next, Jeff?

Well, I still haven't saved you, but I'm trying. :wink:

Listen, I see the Divine in Don, just as I see Her in you.

It will take a magnificent group effort to save the world. A lot of us will have to work together. I hope Don's work with addicts is a lot more successful than his appearance here, and I imagine it is.

It is truly Divine work healing people suffering from addictions. If we're going to save the world we'll need a lot of addicts to recover, so I don't feel like I'm entirely wasting my time conversing with Don, even if he's a little offensive and hard to get a straight answer out of.

MsTerry, I've watched your style on this BB improve over time. If that's possible than just about anything's possible. :wink:

Hugs,

-Jeff

[Braggi]

Donno, here again you apply a double standard. You yourself have said you won't self-disclose much. Jeff didn't say he lives a life filled with secrets. He said some aspects of his religious practice were private.

Kathryn, your understanding of my statement is correct.

I certainly didn't mean I lie to people on a regular basis either by omission or comission. It's more like a doctor / client privilege where we agree to keep secret that which is divulged in sacred space. That agreement allows participants to be truthful and forthcoming, which I'm sure Don would appreciate.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

... If so, did you not see Jeff's proclamation that he is a secret keeper? Or did you just not realize that my comments were in reference to his?


Don, are you saying you can't be trusted with the confidence of a patient? ... or of a friend or lover?

You are really putting this secret thing in a negative light, and I realize the comment "... like a psychiatrist or a lawyer ... " was purposefully misconstrued by you for ... some reason, but I do wonder? Can your clients trust you to keep their secrets?

-Jeff

PS. I mean other than a "mandated reporter" situation.

[Braggi]

Oh Don. Do you really believe that accusing someone of not paying attention is the best way to open their ears?? It does make me wonder what kind of training you've had.


Don was absent the day they covered the three "S"s.

Smooth, Suave and Subtle. :wink:

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

.

MsTerry, I've watched your style on this BB improve over time. If that's possible than just about anything's possible. :wink:

Hugs,

-Jeff
Are you implying that I am turning senile?:hmmm:

[kpage9]

Don we haven't seen you for some nine hours. I find myself a little worried. Hope you are ok.
kathy






I didn't intentionally send that because I couldn't express myself clearly. I cancelled it. As you can see, it's only part of a message. LOL I remember WaccoBB burping as I wrote, though. That's probably what happened.

Don

[Braggi]

Another editorial on medical marijuana:

A pro-stance on medical marijuana is morally right
BY DAVID OPPENHEIMER, ASHEVILLE • PUBLISHED MAY 10, 2008 12:15 AM

Last July 25, Congressman Shuler voted against the Hinchey Amendment that would protect states’ rights and patients’ rights. Medical marijuana is an essential medicine for hundreds of thousands of patients. A poll by the AARP showed that 80 percent of American seniors support the enactment of federal legislation to protect patients who use medical marijuana at their doctors’ recommendation. Recently, the second largest medical organization in the country, the American College of Physicians, with 124,000 members, issued a declaration supporting protection for medical marijuana patients and for marijuana to be rescheduled as a therapeutic drug.

Despite this, Shuler currently plans to vote no on the Hinchey Amendment as he did last year. By doing so, Shuler is asking to use our tax dollars to hunt and imprison patients who use medical marijuana. Patients who use medical marijuana are in a fight for their health, and some, their lives, and they do not belong in prison. Currently, 12 states have enacted protections for patients relying on medical marijuana, yet the DEA continues to arrest and fight for the imprisonment of people who are following their doctors’ advice and their states’ laws. I urge Shuler to stand up to drug companies and the DEA and vote in favor of the Hinchey Amendment and end this brutal treatment of patients and their families.

David Oppenheimer, Asheville

[thewholetruth]

Don we haven't seen you for some nine hours. I find myself a little worried. Hope you are ok.
kathy

Gosh, Kathy, I'm overwhelmed! I was in the middle of another inane response to some mindless comments when my fingers just locked up. My wife had to call the paramedics who transported me to the emergency room. Luckily, there was a holistic practitioner there who shot me up with Ecstasy and some shrooms and they talked me right down out of my cramps. Seems it might have been psychological. That double dose of E really did the trick! I'm typing like a madman once again!

Thanks for your concern, Kathy! :thumbsup:

Your pal,

Donnie

p.s. You weren't just being sarcastic, were you, Kathy? :hmmm:

[thewholetruth]

Oh Don. Do you really believe that accusing someone of not paying attention is the best way to open their ears?? It does make me wonder what kind of training you've had.

You're assuming that my goal is "to open their ears". That's not my goal here, Kathy. My goal here is simply to engage in intelligent dialogue with people who already have their ears and minds open. I'm not God. I can't make you hear what I'm saying. You'll hear it if you want to hear it, and you won't hear if you don't want to. It's not about whether or not I word things in a way that will magically "open your ears". It's about open and honest communication with (hopefully) other open-minded adults.


What on god's sweet green earth makes you think I don't LIKE you????!!!

Um, virtually everything you say to me and the way you say it.


Now THERE's some language that would be just heaven-sent in the opening-another's-ears endeavor!!! (blindly defending jeff? or jeff's comment.....might) there be a difference?

Jeff isn't here to defend. Only his comments are here.


Not that I'm not appreciative of all your efforts here. The sheer amount of time and energy you give us is actually quite generous.

Sarcasm will get you nowhere, Kathy. LOL


Kathy (really sorry for the confused quote thing)

Not a problem. It took me a while to figure it out, too. :wink:

Don

[thewholetruth]

Don, are you saying you can't be trusted with the confidence of a patient? ... or of a friend or lover?

You are really putting this secret thing in a negative light, and I realize the comment "... like a psychiatrist or a lawyer ... " was purposefully misconstrued by you for ... some reason, but I do wonder? Can your clients trust you to keep their secrets?

-Jeff

PS. I mean other than a "mandated reporter" situation.

This doesn't warrant a response, Jeff. This is an anonymous message board, Jeff. You're the one who said "Keeping secrets is part of who I am". Not "part of what I do professionally", but part of who you are. I believe you. Now you're trying to backpeddle because that little bit of self disclosure suddenly doesn't look so good on paper, does it. (rhetorical question)

Don't question my professional integrity, Jeff. You're the one who brags that you live in the dark with your drugs and your secrets. Not me.

Don

[MsTerry]

Don't question my professional integrity, Jeff. You're the one who brags that you live in the dark with your drugs and your secrets. Not me.

Don
We don't know your professional integrity, we don't what you do for a living or if you even work.
Your personal integrity is barely bearably though, especially with the above falsehood

[Braggi]

...
Don't question my professional integrity, Jeff. You're the one who brags that you live in the dark with your drugs and your secrets. Not me. ...


Why so nasty Don? Why assume people's intentions are always the worst? These crummy little conversations with you (and I mean specifically with you because I've not experienced this with anyone else on Waccobb) always seem to be based on YOUR intentional misrepresentation of someone else's comments even though other readers understand quite well the intent of the poster.

You so often assume sarcasm whether intended or not. A neutral comment is interpreted as an attack or a confession of some black art.

It's weird Don.

I made a comment that I keep secrets as part of my spiritual practice. That allows us an intimacy and an honesty you're unlikely to see in any Christian meeting of any kind, with the possible exception of Catholic "confession."

We are allowed to be honest because of a promise of confidentiality. We are protected by the creation of a safe and "sacred space." That's not so strange. It's like the safe space between a therapist and patient or between a lawyer and his client. When I mentioned that you belittled me.

Try to assume the positive once in a while. Try to give a poster the benefit of the doubt instead of condemnation. You might just find a little more pleasure and happiness in your life.

It could be a new key to joy for you. Maybe you could even soften your defenses and stop being in Spiritual Warfare all the time. That must be exhausting.

-Jeff

[Valley Oak]

Talking about secrets and rituals, check this out:
https://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/hombre/discute/diablo/elpepusoc/20080510elpepusoc_6/Tes

This guy is one of five Catholic priests in Spain that still practice exorcism. The last time I saw something this creepy and scary was when I saw the movie, 'The Exorcist.' The Spanish Catholic church tries to keep this current day exorcism somewhat under wraps but it gets out sooner or later. Basically, Catholic leaders in Spain don't go around publicizing or talking about the church's endorsement and practice of exorcism. It's bad publicity.

I wonder why!

Here is a Wikipedia link that is dedicated to the same individual. Jose Antonio Fortea is a 'demonologist,' if you can believe that! He has published several books on the subject. I had no idea that this 'specialty' even existed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Antonio_Fortea

Edward


Why so nasty Don? Why assume people's intentions are always the worst? These crummy little conversations with you (and I mean specifically with you because I've not experienced this with anyone else on Waccobb) always seem to be based on YOUR intentional misrepresentation of someone else's comments even though other readers understand quite well the intent of the poster.

You so often assume sarcasm whether intended or not. A neutral comment is interpreted as an attack or a confession of some black art.

It's weird Don.

I made a comment that I keep secrets as part of my spiritual practice. That allows us an intimacy and an honesty you're unlikely to see in any Christian meeting of any kind, with the possible exception of Catholic "confession."

We are allowed to be honest because of a promise of confidentiality. We are protected by the creation of a safe and "sacred space." That's not so strange. It's like the safe space between a therapist and patient or between a lawyer and his client. When I mentioned that you belittled me.

Try to assume the positive once in a while. Try to give a poster the benefit of the doubt instead of condemnation. You might just find a little more pleasure and happiness in your life.

It could be a new key to joy for you. Maybe you could even soften your defenses and stop being in Spiritual Warfare all the time. That must be exhausting.

-Jeff

[thewholetruth]

Why so nasty Don?

What do you mean "nasty", Jeff? What's nasty is you questioning my professional integrity here, yet you're the one who said "Keeping secrets is just a part of who I am". After a comment like that, I could be questioning your professional integrity, but I haven't.


Why assume people's intentions are always the worst?

I assume nothing. I just read the words you post.


These crummy little conversations with you (and I mean specifically with you because I've not experienced this with anyone else on Waccobb) always seem to be based on YOUR intentional misrepresentation of someone else's comments even though other readers understand quite well the intent of the poster.

What "other readers" are those to which you're referring, Jeff? Ohhh, you mean all of your Liberal friends. Mm-hmm. Wow. They agree with you, do they? Imagine that.

You, sir, have such a tendency to drift into Ad Hominum, character assassination and personality crap, rather than referring to specific statements. You make broad, sweeping assements about me that are nothing more than assumptions, and you do it all the time. Your perception of things here is very different than mine, but I certainly don't have time to respond to the volumes of personal criticism you dish out at me every day. Please try to focus on specific statements, if you take issue with anything I say. That way, we won't be spending so much time on the Ad Hominum stuff you seem to value so highly.


You so often assume sarcasm whether intended or not. A neutral comment is interpreted as an attack or a confession of some black art.

I don't assume anything, Jeff. I respond to the words I see posted. "Intent" oftentimes cannot be discerned in a venue such as this.


It's weird Don.

What's weird is how you go on and on about me personally. Stick to the comments posted on the board, Jeff. That's what this is about.


I made a comment that I keep secrets as part of my spiritual practice.

No you didn't. You said your religion forces you to keep secrets, and then you said "Keeping secrets is just a part of who I am".


That allows us an intimacy and an honesty you're unlikely to see in any Christian meeting of any kind, with the possible exception of Catholic "confession."

I see. Now throw in a little Christian bashing along with your Ad Hominum Abusive. Classic, Jeff. You're a real classic.


We are allowed to be honest because of a promise of confidentiality.

You can't even be honest about what religion you're talking about Jeff, or is that one of the things you have to "keep secret"? Rhetorical question.


We are protected by the creation of a safe and "sacred space." That's not so strange. It's like the safe space between a therapist and patient or between a lawyer and his client. When I mentioned that you belittled me.

I didn't belittle you about anything, and you've never said that in that way. Go read post #103 again. I simply referred to your comment that "Keeping secrets is part of who I am", Jeff, as that doesn't seem to provide a foundation for an honest and open conversation.


Try to assume the positive once in a while.

I assume nothing, Jeff. I just read the words you post. Ray Charles could see where you're coming from, sir. You're as transparent as they come. I consider that a good quality, btw. :thumbsup:


Try to give a poster the benefit of the doubt instead of condemnation. You might just find a little more pleasure and happiness in your life.

You have no idea, Jeff, how much pleasure and happiness my life is filled with, and I doubt you could comprehend it if I told you. Perhaps, though, you might try focusing on the discussion instead of the poster, rather than going on and on with your weird pseudoanalysis of me.


It could be a new key to joy for you. Maybe you could even soften your defenses and stop being in Spiritual Warfare all the time. That must be exhausting.

-Jeff

Spirtitual warfare has been going on for a long, long time, Jeff. It's not exausting at all. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me, buddy. Perhaps you'd be better off worrying about your own illicit drug use, or your tendency to focus on personalities rather than principles, than worrying about me. I do just fine without your unsolicited advice, sir.

Don

[Braggi]

Talking about secrets and rituals, check this out:
https://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/hombre/discute/diablo/elpepusoc/20080510elpepusoc_6/Tes
...

And you gotta love Google Translate: https://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.elpais.com%2Farticulo%2Fsociedad%2Fhombre%2Fdiscute%2Fdiablo%2Felpepusoc%2F20080510elpepusoc_6%2FTes&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=es&sl=es&tl=en&tl=en

-Jeff

[Braggi]

What do you mean "nasty", Jeff? What's nasty is you questioning my professional integrity here, yet you're the one who said "Keeping secrets is just a part of who I am". After a comment like that, I could be questioning your professional integrity, but I haven't.
...

Don, you spoke ill of me (to say the least) over and over when I made clear that I'm a person who can keep a secret and that part of my spiritual practice requires that if I intend to participate fully: just like a doctor or lawyer.

You have belittled me over and over about that which was completely uncalled for. When Kathryn spoke of it, you belittled her.

When I compare that to your integrity, you get all upset about it?!?

And I didn't even accuse you. I asked. You're the one who won't state you are trustworthy. I just asked.

I find your post completely defensive. I have trouble understanding that.

Do you think I'm attacking you Don?

What are you afraid of?

What is this about Spiritual Warfare?

Am I attacking your faith? Is your faith so weak it can't withstand an online conversation?

Please explain why you're so fragile and what it is you live in fear of.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

... Please try to focus on specific statements, if you take issue with anything I say. ...

I've tried that over and over Don. You don't answer specific questions with specific statements. You don't support your arguments with links, quotes from experts or even further clarification of your point of view. You resort to " ... see post number XXX ..." instead of answering the question. Then when someone goes to post XXX, they find nothing in the way of an answer.

When Lorrie asked for a study linking violent behavior to pot smoking you gave her a link to a newspaper you haven't even read! And not to any specific page or article. That's really lame.

You're intellectually lazy Don. You don't back up what you say with facts so it's a bit pointless to go anywhere in conversation with you except to the personal. At least you can talk about your feelings and opinions ... except you usually don't. Usually you just attack the person who questions.

I'm beginning to think (and I have to assume here; please correct me if I'm wrong) that we're seeing the "Spiritual Warfare" thing coming out. You're always defensive and always ready to attack. That's how it looks to us.

That seems like a very sad way to live life Don. I feel sorry for you.

Waccobb is one of the few online experiences I've had where conversation is nearly always clear and about facts and issues instead of personality crap. The difference in the last couple months is you, Don.

You figure it out.

-Jeff

[Valley Oak]

I took a closer look at the article and read things that are scarier than The Don and Repeat&Deny!

The Catholic church, at least in Spain, believes in demonic possessions! Man, I thought we were past that! Fuck! This world is totally icky and creepy to the max.

Who here believes in demonic possessions?

Edward


And you gotta love Google Translate: https://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.elpais.com%2Farticulo%2Fsociedad%2Fhombre%2Fdiscute%2Fdiablo%2Felpepusoc%2F20080510elpepusoc_6%2FTes&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=es&sl=es&tl=en&tl=en

-Jeff

[kpage9]

You said you were trying to get me to pay better attention.





You're assuming that my goal is "to open their ears". That's not my goal here, Kathy. My goal here is simply to engage in intelligent dialogue with people who already have their ears and minds open. I'm not God. I can't make you hear what I'm saying. You'll hear it if you want to hear it, and you won't hear if you don't want to. It's not about whether or not I word things in a way that will magically "open your ears". It's about open and honest communication with (hopefully) other open-minded adults.



Um, virtually everything you say to me and the way you say it.



Jeff isn't here to defend. Only his comments are here.

Anyone who knows me will tell you I never use sarcasm. And I think a closer read of my posts will show that. I wish you could believe me.



Sarcasm will get you nowhere, Kathy. LOL



Not a problem. It took me a while to figure it out, too. :wink:

Don

[kpage9]

Gosh, Kathy, I'm overwhelmed! I was in the middle of another inane response to some mindless comments when my fingers just locked up. My wife had to call the paramedics who transported me to the emergency room. Luckily, there was a holistic practitioner there who shot me up with Ecstasy and some shrooms and they talked me right down out of my cramps. Seems it might have been psychological. That double dose of E really did the trick! I'm typing like a madman once again!

Thanks for your concern, Kathy! :thumbsup:

Your pal,

Donnie

p.s. You weren't just being sarcastic, were you, Kathy? :hmmm:
[/quote]

No I wasn't being sarcastic. I do appreciate all the energy you put into your exchanges with us, and I did worry last night when you were silent for a long time.

[thewholetruth]

No I wasn't being sarcastic. I do appreciate all the energy you put into your exchanges with us, and I did worry last night when you were silent for a long time. [/quote]

I apologize. I misunderstood you.

Don

[thewholetruth]

Anyone who knows me will tell you I never use sarcasm. And I think a closer read of my posts will show that. I wish you could believe me.

I believe you. I apologize (again) for misreading you.

Don

[thewholetruth]

Enough, Jeff.

Nothing but Ad Hominum from you now.

I'll keep an eye out for when you might appear to be attempting intelligent discussion once more.

I apologized yesterday for any disrespect I might have pointed in your direction. I'll just leave it at that and watch for another serious attempt at intelligent dialogue.

Don


I've tried that over and over Don. You don't answer specific questions with specific statements. You don't support your arguments with links, quotes from experts or even further clarification of your point of view. You resort to " ... see post number XXX ..." instead of answering the question. Then when someone goes to post XXX, they find nothing in the way of an answer.

When Lorrie asked for a study linking violent behavior to pot smoking you gave her a link to a newspaper you haven't even read! And not to any specific page or article. That's really lame.

You're intellectually lazy Don. You don't back up what you say with facts so it's a bit pointless to go anywhere in conversation with you except to the personal. At least you can talk about your feelings and opinions ... except you usually don't. Usually you just attack the person who questions.

I'm beginning to think (and I have to assume here; please correct me if I'm wrong) that we're seeing the "Spiritual Warfare" thing coming out. You're always defensive and always ready to attack. That's how it looks to us.

That seems like a very sad way to live life Don. I feel sorry for you.

Waccobb is one of the few online experiences I've had where conversation is nearly always clear and about facts and issues instead of personality crap. The difference in the last couple months is you, Don.

You figure it out.

-Jeff

[Lenny]

And the only thing you learned then was Govt. propaganda, or so it would appear. We've actually uncovered some FACTS since then, Lenny. The propaganda of that day was wrong.[quote]

So it's your propaganda or....but NOT their propaganda?
How about this mornings news from George Bush, er, I mean Washington, that pot smoking among teens, depression, and suicidal ideation are somehow connected? Is that their "propaganda" and I should simply ignore it and encourage others to somke? Or have no intervention when they do? Or have no intervention when they wish to committ suicide, since after all it is THEIR body and free choice?
While the Brits find no relationship between pot and bad stuff? Whose propaganda is one to "believe"? The Brits can't be stupid in their findings, or wrong as well, since they agree with your position?
Actually, simply LOOKING at those youngsters that smoke dope and applying common sense really does wipe out any notion of "propaganda", doesn't it? And please, spare me the "facts" as propaganda notions. I think we have yet to discuss "bad science" but you know where I am coming from on that issue.

[quote=Braggi]Well you didn't read the study so you don't know. The women didn't have anything foisted on them, Lenny. They were Rastafarians and smoke daily as part of their spiritual practice. The researchers were documenting their habits and the health of the women and their children. They uncovered no negative health effects to everyone's surprise. The study, of course, was buried and never reported in the US media except on the Dr. Dean Edell radio show (as far as I know).[quote]

Is that a neener, neener tone in your first sentence? OK, I don't want to read it, and I believe that what you reported is accurate, true, and correct. And in a country that is at the VERY bottom of the heap, just givce them Rastas der' weed, mon, and der little brain deformed chillin will be luved by der mudders, too,mon. I mean de whole country is just chillin for revolution, mon, but dat weed just keeps dem all happy. Don't worry, just be happy, mon.
If you expect me to believe that there was no negative health effects, then go ahead, try and sell me that big orange bridge near by, and I'll tell you where I'll put it. And as for Dean Edell, yes, I know he is an advocate of decriminalizing pot. But then he is only a doctor, which may make him smart about medicine, and that is what he should stick to.

[quote=Braggi;57989]One of my favorite bands. I've actually seen them in concert a couple of times. The first time a little known band from the Bay Area opened for them: Santana. It was a very good concert. :):
But do you really remember that song? Remember the first line? Remember anything else about John Kay? [quote]

Yeah, didn't the song say something about him liking his pot? And no, I don't know another thing about John Kay.

[quote=Braggi;57989]I think that's illegal and reasonably so, Lenny. Wouldn't you agree?[quote]

Love to agree, but the same logic is used here, with smoking. We just have an issue as to what and where.

[quote=Braggi;57989]Yeah, pot smoking is kind of self limiting. In the sense that those who smoke pot usually are responsible enough to just stay home and not go out and get in trouble. Oh, but that might be bad for the economy because they're not out there burning gasoline and running up their credit cards. So maybe that's why pot is still illegal. But I digress ... [quote]

Well, the munchie industry would get a good boost, after a while but folks would not stay at home. That is one of the minor points that would become troublesome. In the "groovy" setting we are now in, folks are mellow on pot. However I have no problem seeing folks smoking pot and getting roiled up into doing some storm trooper stuff. I don't mean the day after legalization, but after a time the culture will change and pot will be used to get folks to do things counter to the social setting at large. Some what like alcohol. Kind of like Frank Zappa wondering what chords could he produce that would make somebody's hand into a fist and then use it on the person next to him. Don't we have that kind of setting and music now on some scenes? But we digress.....

[quote=Braggi;57989]Well, how generous of you. You'll not allow people to be responsible with their own bodies and brains but you are willing to put us all in the poor house trying to prosecute a "War" that can't be "won" but to what end, Lenny? What will it look like if we do "win?" Everyone who wants to smoke pot or take another substance will be tied up in a straight jacket so they can't hurt themselves while the rest of us get a second or third job so we can pay our taxes? That's insane.[quote]

Excuse me, sir?
What people do with their own bodies and brains has nothing to do with what I think, allow, do, or enjoy. People that WANT to get high, will no matter what. Does not heroin prove that? If folks want their weed, they are going to get it, and/or die trying. It's all around us. It is a market economy and none can stop human behavior....but we can stand up and not condone it by making it legal, AND then taking all the crap that will occur AFTER it's allowable.
And yes, it does limit EVERYONE'S "freedom", but then so do walls, spoons, relations, shoes, and anything else you may speak about. So? That is the price we pay for "freedom" AND security. We have to draw lines, granted? And they may seem arbitrary, and on that we both may agree, but in view of the problems both potential AND REAL, here is where the line may be drawn.
So you are restricted from taking your quarterly bong hit, staying at home, relaxing, and giggling the evening away. Sorry. And yes, that's about it! If you don't see the problems pot smoking brings to those kids one may see daily at the plaza square, then there is nothing I can say to help. No, pot is not helping them, nor the pregnant women of Hati, and their babies. In spite of what is written and the "facts". Those carefully culled out "facts" simply do not stand to common sense and reason, and more facts by reputable and true practioners of science.

[quote=Braggi;57989]Have you heard the saying "to each his own." How about "beauty is in the eye of the beholder?" Your values are not the same as everyone else's. Some people actually feel life is much better because of their use of exogenous substances. In fact, a lot of people would be dead or seriously ill without them.[quote]

You lose me here. I doubt if pot is life saving. As for other drugs, I do trust that many would be dead without them. And I trust those guys in the Amazon would also be null and void without theirs as well. But here, in this good ole' USA there is very little that gets by the greater good.


[quote=Braggi;57989]Let people have their medicines. Let people practice their religions. Let people have their fun. If they break laws that actually hurt someone, prosecute them for the crime. If they're not bothering anyone, leave them alone. That's the way of freedom. That's the way of liberty. That's the way the USA is supposed to be.-Jeff

Let them have their shotguns. Let them have their cars. Let them carry their shotguns in their cars. If they break the law.....
No, sorry, as folks that participate in this experiment, we've need err on the side of safety. The way of freedom, NOT LICENSE, is the way of responsibility, and, obviously in my opinion, pot smoking is not a responsible behavior to turn loose on the public.