Le Sabot Post-Moderne

I guess I'm confused, Disco. What makes you assume that this is a drug? Haven't you been educated about the many uses of hemp? Hemp hats, hemp bags, hemp cloting, hemp sandals, hemp soap, hemp food, hemp rope, hemp furniture and hemp baskets, hemp salad dressing, hemp pancake mix, hemp particle board, hemp shampoo, hemp body butter, hemp necklaces, hemp belts, hemp macrame plant hangers, hemp backpacks, hemp artist canvases, hemp bandanas, hemp eyeglass cases, hemp lanyards and hemp wallets.

I mean, a simple Google of hemp products will reveal to you the many uses of hemp. You really need to educate yourself. If you drop by a local university and stop by the hemp education table you can become aware that hemp is the most useful, renewable resource ever known.

It is very narrow-minded and bigoted of you to assume that just because someone values this most amazing of industrial resources they must be using it to alter their mental state.

Hey, wanna come over and listen to my Phish CDs?

Greg-

That's chilling. Very, very frightening. I started flashing back to my time in the Massachussett's Berkshire Mountains. Everyone there was a Phish-head or Dead Head or pot head or something. Jerry Garcia died while we were there -- the entire town went into mourning.

Every time someone mentions the many uses of hemp I get a vision of someone trying to smoke their hemp hat or jewelry.

Why not make it fully legal? If I've read your blog correctly, you are not a teetotaling Christian. Therefore, as an occasional (or more than occasional) drinker, you already understand the value of use of intoxicants. Considering that marijuana is significantly less problematic in almost all areas than alchohol, I think you would have to wonder why there is such an arbitrary division between drugs: this one is legal, this one isn't, this one requires prescriptions.

I personally think it doesn't make sense. The drug war has injured far more than it supposedly helps and, the government should stay out of what people want to ingest, beyond the areas of prohibiting things which are pure poison (such as poorly made hooch) and giving out health warnings on overuse (such as the warnings printed on cigarette packs and liquor bottles).

As for marijuana specifically: its not physically addictive, doesn't create long term health problems, doesn't bring out the meanness and violence in some people the way alcohol does. For some people this drug may be a bridge towards experimentation or addiction to harder drugs. But if these people had a predilection towards addiction, then this would have happened with other drugs serving as the introduction.

ObDisclaimer: I am not currently a marijuana smoker but I did it occasionally throughout my 20's. I hated what it did to my short-term memory and my conversational skills. But music was quite the beautiful experience. Still, these days I greatly prefer a clove cigarette and some Laphroaig. And, like anyone who has tried it, I know marijuana is mostly harmless and there's no reason to continue persecuting either its dealers or its users.

I'm with cs. Marijuana can be used in moderation, and in fact, that's the way it mostly is used.

And yeah, DS, the "bridge theory" doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny. Read Jacob Sullum's SAYING YES for a good overview of the history of marijuana criminalization, and of the conflicting messages the gov't. has used to try and justify its outlaw.

And no, I'm not going to go into my own - ahem - proclivities here.

Well - for what it's worth count me as one who does not agree with legalization. I've heard all of the damn arguments, too.

I do believe that fines would be more appropriate.

It is a drug, and based on my own experience with it (lots when I was young!) it does lead to use of other drugs.

I need to be able to tell my kids - this is illegal, don't do it. It's not good for a person I don't care how many say it's fine. I can point to studies, too - HA!

Not a very cogent argument but it's mine nonetheless.

So many of the drug laws were concieved in iniquity, no reasonable debate and racist presuppositions abounded in most drug legislation at the turn of the 20th Century. The book The Pursuit Of Oblivion is an excellent overview, I think, of the history of the West's narcotic obsessions.

My question is, are people really getting sent to jail for smoking pot anymore? I thought all you got, at least as a first time offender, was a slap on the wrist.

"its not physically addictive, doesn't create long term health problems, doesn't bring out the meanness and violence in some people the way alcohol does. For some people this drug may be a bridge towards experimentation or addiction to harder drugs. But if these people had a predilection towards addiction, then this would have happened with other drugs serving as the introduction."

Yes, it is physically addictive - though the addiction may take long repeated use. The current definition within medical community re: addiction is a severely limited one which does not correspond to the wider definition in common, modern day usage.

It does create long term health problems - namely cancer from smoke and inhaling into lungs.

And inregards to violence - just try dealing with someone who has been a long time smoker who has not lit up recently. (BTW recent story about a FL mom who beat her child for refusing to roll her joints.)

Yes, it is a bridge to harder drugs - because of its illegality it bridges to meth and/or heroin.

In regards to decrimininalization - could it get more decrimininalized without being legalized? In order to be prosecuted/face jail time one must be a cultivator or a seller - large number of plants or in possession of large quantity. People smoke it in the street with no problem like smoking a cigarette where I reside. I do pity those who are allergic to marijuana.

I do believe that the laws regarding marijuana and hemp should be revised.

Hello Hello,

Sorry but marijuana is not physically addictive, not in the way cigarettes, alcohol, or heroin are. Sure, some people get deeply attached to having their hit every day, but if it was taken away from them, they'll just a whine a lot and probably lose weight from reduced consumption of doritos.

While I would imagine that there are certain cases of individuals who were unlucky enough to acquire lung cancer or emphysema due to smoking pot a lot, since marijuana does seem to have higher tar content than most cigarettes, these occurrances don't seem to be common. I remember seeing referenced a health study of rastafarians in Jamaica and they, as a group, had equal or longer lives than the population at large. Health problems resulting from marijuana are nearly non-existant when compared against difficulties caused by the two major legal recreationals: alcohol and cigarettes.

As for violence, the fact you had to pick an obscure case of child abuse which happened somewhere in the country basically proves my point. To show a link between alcohol and the violence in some people, one only has to open the newspaper on monday morning to see the police report on all the fun people had over the weekend. Even in conservative, mostly-teetotalling Mormon country where I live, we get at least two or three incidents daily. When you live in a place where only about 10-20% of the population drinks, this shows how common the 'mean drunk' is. By comparison, you'll have to look for a while to find violence by people only affected by marijuna. Sure, with a sample size numbering in the millions, you will find some incidents. But they're definitely much lower on the curve than alcohol.

Again, there's been no solid proof about the bridge theory. Sure, some people have made the switch. Some people make the switch from beer to harder drugs because they don't like the nausea which accompanies heavy intoxication. But the majority of pot users don't go any further in the world of illegal drugs.

FYI. This post will be featured at SmartChristian.com/blog later today. Andy

Hi - I've never tried too (the hardships of growing up in a totalitarian country... we considered ourselves lucky if we could get vodka, lol). So, I have to confess, a part of me wants it legalized just for one day, so I can try the dang thing already and get it over with!

I've asked around. Apparently, everyone I have met here, has at some point used. No one is using now. People tell me it's harmless. What I tell my kids is, "yes, I hear that it's harmless, but it is illegal, don't use it, you don't want to get kicked out of school and/or get a police record". I definitely think that medical use needs to be legalized, if it isn't already. Other than that, I guess I just don't care one way or the other - it can be legal, it can be not, makes no difference to me, as long as it is still illegal to drive while stoned. Must be the middle age getting to me :)

WY-COME it got "CRIMINALIZED" - in the first place ?

Is "THAT" what will have to get RE-versed first ?

What's the POLITICS ?

What's the MEDICAL EVIDENCE ?

What's the "CASH-FLOW" ?

WHO LOSES WHAT - WHO GAINS WHAT ?

WHO CARES ?

Well, I don't have a really strong opinion on the overall question, but I think the medical argument is a really stupid one if used by itself. If there is a demonstrable medical use, and if there are otherwise good reasons for restricting its availability, make it a controlled substance. Duh. The fact that something has legitimate medical uses is not in itself a reason that it should be wide-open available to anyone who can manage to produce it. Cocaine and morphine, anyone?

If non-Christians want to do the damage to the midbrain that is associated with THC, I don't think the Christian community has a right to stop them. We may have an obligation to warn them - both spiritually and medically - but not stop them. We are told to give wine to those who are perishing, strong drink to those whose lives are bitter.

Marijuana was my drug of choice. I was stoned all day, every day for the better part of five years. It is the best high I ever experienced. It's also artificial and dangerous: artificial because of the effects on the brain and chemically induced euphoria; dangerous because the reasons for self-medicating are never dealt with. BTW, I feel the same way about alcohol, even though my wife drinks a glass or two a week. It's her choice, but I'm not sure it's productive or helpful.

Christians, in contrast to non-Christians, are forbidden to use "mind-altering" drugs; marijuana is a mind-altering drug, both immediately and permanently (if use is chronic). Drugs have been around for a long, long time and there are some clear admonitions in the OT about their use.

Summary: if unbelievers want to smoke pot, let 'em; we have a duty to warn, but no right to prohibit. Believers, however, need to stay clean. In more ways than one.

There is a legit historical argument that if we knew then what we know now, etc. would marijuana have been criminalized in the first place or would it be treated like alcohol. Plus, all the arguments about how criminalization creates more societal costs than it saves. True, bad pot is like bad moonshine, but legal pot might be safer, taxed, etc. Would legalized pot cause more harm than Guinness and whiskey have caused in Irish history or vodka has caused in Russian history?

But the truth is that there IS a history, and a context. I believe that in the context of the present day debate decriminalizing pot would be a capitulation to social liberals and make a negative statement about our desire to be a society that is more self-controlled and sober, not less.

I was around the stuff from my teens as a surfer-guy in LA through my university years. Never got into it. But I did, and do, drink socially -- and I think -- responsibily. And I think that drinking wine with dinner or a beer at the pub with friends or after mowing the lawn on a summer day does NOT communicate as negative image to my kids and community as firing up a bong and watching cartoons while eating Cheetos would.

Maybe that's inconsistent but consistency is the hobgoblin and all of that. Truth is, in this day and age I don't want to see the America give in to the NARAL crowd and become more like the Netherlands...

From a U.S. perspective: does the Constitution grant the Federal government the right to regulate what drugs its citizens ingest?

From a Biblical perspective: did the supposedly onerous Mosaic law grant the state of that time the right to regulate what its citizens ingested? Drunkenness is inveighed against, but I don't recall any passage where God gave the state the responsibility or right to sanction drunkenness. Biblically, regulation of the consumption of alcohol doesn't seem to be within the sphere of the Israelite state's authority. (Note that I am not a reconstructionist--I am merely pointing out relevant Scripture.)

I'm not sure if decriminalization or legalization is the answer, but I do think that the present arrangement is insane. And if we construe our policies so as never to give in to the social liberals, it seems to me that we will at the same time unavoidably grow the state well beyond its already excessive scope. That way lies tyranny, it seems to me.

I haven't ready Joel Miller's book Bad Trip: How the War Against Drugs is Destroying America, but I have heard good things about it. For what it may say about Miller, R.C. Sproul, Jr. and Douglas Wilson were at one time contributors to Miller's quasi-group-blog Razormouth.

Chuck, you're right: US law on this is maddenly inconsistent. Why alchohol and not pot? Should the state be in the biz of telling us what we can do at all? (although your hermenuetic for drawing the conclusion that OT Israel was libertarian on the issue is -- IMO -- a bit dodgy). And you're right that many with serious right-wing creds have advocated drug legalization, or at least thought out loud about it (William F. Buckley, for example).

But therin lies the difference between a "conservative" view of US society and a libertarian one. Why booze and not pot? For that matter, why pot and not crystal meth, or heroin? Why is prostitution illegal? Why are homosexual domestic partnerships legal but not marriages? Why is polygamy illegal? For that matter, why is the state in the biz of giving benefits to married people so that gays or polygamists are at a disadvantage in the first place? Why does the state give benefits to homeowners, in the form of mortgage interest deductions, but not renters? Why are college loans deductible but not car loans?

Going back to Disco's previous post, it seems that part of the difference between a conservative vision of society and a libertarian is that conservatives want to preserve some elements of a culture, values, traditions, etc. A society freely deciding that item A is legal to consume or do, but item B isn't, because within that culture/tradition one is valued and the other is not. A libertarian view, of course, believes that even a democratic community doesn't have the right to regulate individual behavior on these matters.

Can the USA remain "conservative" in this sense? Should it? I wonder often how multi-cultural we can become before we no longer have a common culture/tradition/values to conserve...

Greg: we are posting crossways :) See my comment in the humane conservatism thread.

As I see it, the humane conservatism we were talking about will transcend (or perhaps better: "ignore") the conservative/libertarian dichotomy. I don't see any reason to constrain ourselves to those categories. There are some things the conservatives get right, and some things that the libertarians get right. One thing I think the libertarians get more right than many conservatives is the need to limit the power of the government.

Putting conservatism in opposition to libertarianism (with a small 'l') seems to me too simple. It doesn't do real justice to the concerns I have and that at least some other conservative reformed Christians I know also have.

It's interesting that you should have this post right after one about being conservative. When I was a stoner (the beginning to many stories), I called myself a conservative...save the weed. "No need to smoke yourself sober, dude", "Joints are wasteful, stick with pipes", "I'll take those seeds you're tossing out, man" and the like. = )

As far as this wonderful argument you have going, I am decidedly against the use of marijuana. I don't really care about much of the argument points like the "physical addiction" crap, because that doesn't really matter. When has physical addiction ever been a long-term problem? I know of people who went through three days of hell coming off heroin only to jump back on it. On guy went through an entire year at the Teen Challenge I went to and on the night of his graduation, he went out and shot up. No, it's the mental and emotional addiction I worry about which is very much a part of marijuana use and its subculture.

I believe marijuana opens up doors spiritually that were not meant to be opened. It proved to be quite detrimental in my life and I'm thankful God has released me from that and other addictions.

I don't let anyone pull that DARE crap of bad, bad, bad, though. I used it as a medication and I wasn't stupid (completely). I used it because it had beneficial effects. However, with extended use the beneficial effects are definitely outweighed by the bad "side effects".

Before I go on rambling, I will comment on your actual point. I, like kathryn, wasn't aware of people be jailed for smoking weed. Cops don't really care much about the smokers, they'll just take away your weed (punishment enough) and fine you if they're in a bad mood. They're after the dealers, but perhaps that's what you had in mind.

Chuck, I agree with you that conservative/libertarian are reductionistic categories. Intellectually the questions are much more complex.

But politically the situation is NOT more complex. Conservatism and libertarianism on this issue are politically polarized, with the left siding with the the libertarians on this one. Legalizing/decriminalizing (whatever) pot in America today would set DISASTEROUS political precedents at this point in American politics.

cs, this is such deja vu for me. Because whenever the topic of mar. comes up - someone says on the pro-side - it is not addictive, and no ill effects. Then on the anti-side someone counters the misinformation with yes it is addictive. Then on the pro-side - no it is not addictive (which ends up degenerating into a yes, it is - no it is not, ...) - same for the argument concerning the bridge theory. It to degenerates into yes, it does, no it does not. ...

On the pro-side the 'no ill effects' argument comes up in defense of mar. Then on the anti- side yes, the ill effects are listed. On the pro-side the defence morphs into stating that the ill effects effect such a small number in comparison to the use of such drugs as alcohol and cigarettes.

This defence makes no sense to me for the following reasons. a) it is off topic - subject is marijuana not other drugs. And the same twisted thinking could be used to decriminalize heroin - after all how many heroin incidents are reported in your newspaper in comparison to alcohol? or crystal-meth?

b) also does not make sense to me because at which point via numbers does death, illness, violence, become non-acceptable? When do people matter and when do they not? What is the imaginary line which denotes significance and who determines this? Your usage of the phrase 'nearly non-existent' scares me because it relies on dimishing and de-valuing human life. In terms of the FL case - I referred to it as it is a current news item but many people have died as a direct result of someone being high. For me, even one human life is significant.

Yeah, that's it! Legalize pop drugs, legalize prostitution, legalize bigotry, legalize grand theft, legalize murder - turn all the crooks loose! Hey, this is all being done by all those really cool Eurocrats elected by folks who want no impediment to such behavior... and see, their countries are still standing - laughably, barely.

I've seen 25 years of going into 8 to 10 homes a day in Hollywood where pot is smoked - been back to the same places later where harder stuff was in use, and I've seen the toll it takes on families. Yeah - it's a great idea to 'decriminalize' or legalize or make it prim 'n proper to do all this stuff in public, with fines for those who object - if you want to see the country as a whole go the route of Bangladesh and other such national disasters.

Notably those who advocate such a course aren't elected in great numbers within the US... yet. But, who knows - the way things are going, we could see the day that America looks like and smells worse than Bangladesh. After all, Europe is turning into an extension of the Middle East - now called Eurabia, isn’t it? And, don’t I live in Mexafornia now? And aren’t US college profs calling for the southwest US to secede as a new Hispanic nation affiliated with Mexico?

Welcome to Orwell’s hellish vision - it’s just twenty something years late... because pitfalls were avoided for a little longer than he expected, but now seductive pitfalls are treated as attractive alternatives to maturity.

Ron: Is there an argument underneath all of that polemic?

Everyone always cites their personal experience when it comes to marijuana. That's why we always end up talking crossways - because everyone's experience is different. Sure, there have been some people who have ruined their lives with pot. But one could say the same thing about alcohol, or gambling, or collecting Beanie Babies. If you stick with statistics and studies, you'll see that pot is "mostly harmless" if used responsibly - just as guns aren't a threat if correctly cared for and kept out of reach of children.

Don't paint this as a "conservative vs. liberal" debate. I'm all for self-reliance, self-determination, and limited government. That's why I believe we need to ratchet back this country's antiquated marijuana laws.

Between 40-50% of the people in jail or on probation in the United States right now are there on drug charges, mostly marijuana, mostly for minor possession.

Just make it a fine if caught in public. I don't care if anyone smokes pot at home and it certainly doesn't have the violent effects of over-drinking.

Legalize? Hmm. Baby steps. Decriminalize it, and save a butt load of money on prison costs that are being paid for something stupid.

Marijuana is an herb, not a drug. Or it was never intended to be a drug. If it were used as an herb, than it could have some worthy benefits. Some of those benefits would benefit cancer, AIDS, and even anorexia patients. The active ingredient has many medicinal uses. The stalks have many uses as well. George Washington had his own crop, for crying out loud.

I don't advocate smoking pot or cigarettes. Although, I feel like alcohol, which is legal, is far worse than either pot or cigarettes.

I was watching the history channel. There was a special on marijuana. Basically, during prohibition the country turned to smoking marijuana and hashish, as a substitute. Apparently congress was having a Mexican immigration problem and were in fear for American jobs being lost to Mexicans who would work for far less pay. Congress passed a law in 1937 stating that you had to have a tax stamp to possess marijuana. {most all mexican immigrants possessed and smoked it as part of their culture, back then} No such tax stamps were ever issued. You had to have the stamp if you possessed it, yet there were no stamps to get. They ran this law until 1970 when someone took it to the Supreme court and called the 37 law a fraud. Then, finally, they did make it illegal, for real.

The History channel also made light of how the media and Hollywood incorporated propaghanda telling the public, through their entertainment, that pot caused you to be a murderer and a theif and a criminal in general. That propaghanda machine never stopped raging up until now.

The truth is, no one wants everyone to be relaxed and without worry. Another benefit of moderate thc consumption. Instead, they, whoever they are, want us to be in constant fear and worry. Add alittle alcohol and boom, you have problem, reaction, solution and the huge justification of millions of jobs. Having alcohol legal and pot illegal makes perfect sense if you know that most things are the opposite of the truth. If you ask me, with the mounting evidence against alcohol and tobacco, it should have been banned years ago!But, no, it is still legal and we believe the reasons why; which are what???? Why are they legal? No logic here.

Alcohol kills. Cigarettes kills. Smoking period, kills. Over eating kills. Pick your poison people. Consenting adults should have dominion over what the earth produces in whole form. It is not like it is something we mixed up like alcohol, tabbacco, and even perscription drugs.

People need to see beyond the fascade. God put the plant here for some reason and I doubt it was so people could go to jail for using it. Moderation is the key. Self control ranks right up there too.

"If you stick with statistics and studies, you'll see that pot is "mostly harmless" if used responsibly..."

Bunk. There are over 13,000 studies, reports, tests and medical evaluations that prove otherwise in recent past years, and half a dozen new reports come out monthly. Marijuana is repeatedly proven harmful, very harmful, and very dangerous to health, particularly to young people.

There is no such thing as 'responsible' use of pot, in view of what it does to the body. Many a 'responsible' user has found they are permanently damaged - women unable to bear children, men impotent and sterile - and that's only the tip of the iceberg. Many a beginning pot smoker has wound up dead. The full list of physiological detriment is long - as is the related psychological tally.

If anyone wants to read all the latest reports, they are readily available via searches on the net, but I doubt many will take the time. Users look for justification, just as drunks do. Those who have kids should take the time – a goodly amount of time to know exactly what all the risks are, because they are significant and many a life is ruined because people don’t take the time to know the facts.

Last year the US Department of Labor reported 16.6 million adult drug users – all of them started out using pot, 75.6 percent went for the harder addictive stuff. All, including the ‘responsible’ ones, got in trouble with their employers, more than 60 percent of them lost their jobs.

Want more – there’s lots of it – just go google a bit. You’ll even find the fools that try to say pot is good for you.

Hannah:

I'm glad that someone is taking the time to educate everyone here on the facts instead of just listening to the propaganda that comes out of Corporations that own the government/politicians/entertatinment industries.

It is part of the Big Lie that this herb is primarily used as a mind-altering drug. Indigenous peoples around the world have understood that a more organic integration of natural herbs and fibers with human society is a beneficial and superior way of life. Why is it that in this country, those who choose to make hemp an important part of their daily lives are automatically assumed to be drug fiends, like we were Chinamen from a century ago sqautting in an opium den?!

If you'll see my previous post in this thread, I also tried to point out that hemp is an amazing resource. As you said, George Washington was a hemp farmer. In addition to rope, hemp is a miraculous herb that can be used for a wide variety of medical purposes, as well as making hemp clothing, hemp soap, hemp food, hemp tires, hemp backpacks and hemp covers for Phish albums...