The Marijuana Legalization movement and its counterproductive image

[Mike Smash!]

I'm someone who thinks that marijuana should be legalized -- especially for medical purposes -- and that a number of other drugs should be decriminalized, if not legalized. That their being kept illegal creates more violent crime itself than the harm caused by the drugs themselves.

So one would think I would be an easy target for the Pot legalization movement, but I'm not.

I just finished a long weekend tabling for the Green Party of Seattle at the Fremont Fair in Seattle. While we were gathering signatures to get our candidate for King County Executive, Gentry Lange on the ballot, were were also about five booths away from the Hempfest booth.

Now, I know a lot of people who would support legalizing marijuana or at least decriminalizing it. People who certainly aren't radicals or activists, some of them are even suits or over 40.

But the image perpetuated by the Marijuana Legalization movement and the one I saw at the Hempfest booth is alot more like this:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20030818/226hempfest_1.jpg

Shirtless people in pot leaf hoola skirts wielding joint-shaped batons and generally putting off a self-marginalizing image that perpetuates the worst stereotypes of marijuana and pot smokers, while scaring the very sorts of people mentioned above, who could easily be their allies.

One of the things that American Green Party founder, John Rensenbrink once said was "If you're going to say something radical, wear a suit". I believe that very strongly.

That there are hundreds of potential allies out there who could strengthen your cause and broaden your base if you're willing to have a structured campaign, to dress appropriately for a campaign and to give up on playing dress up if you're not part of street theater activism.

A man or woman in a suit speaking before an audience of potential supporters can make a more convincing appeal than that same speaker with the same words and the same tone, if they were to be wearing pot leaf sunglasses and wearing a hemp pancho.

Simply put, in a suit, you can get away with a lot more and it's in a package that people won't be put off by and won't judge you by and give you that in to make your case. But in the latter, you've marginalized yourself before you even open your mouth and confirm the worst stereotypes of marijuana or whatever issue you're espousing.

So, what are your takes on the legalization of marijuana and the movement that's in place to legalize pot and hemp? What about their self image? Would you be potentially be a supporter if the movement took a different approach?

[Dreadstar]

I voted for completely legal, but I'd have preferred an intermediary between that and legal for medical use. OF COURSE it has to be regulated, in some way. AT LEAST as well as alcohol, preferrably more stringently.

But legal it should be.

[Mike Smash!]

And thoughts on the image that the legalization movement projects?

[Royal]

On the other hand, who trusts a suit?

[Winslow]

I voted de-emphasized by law enforcement- since I think we're filling our prisons with non-violent offenders.

But I'm a little leary of legalizing it outright, since I've heard so many differing opinions on it's detrimental health effects.

And uh, I'd probably become a big hemp-head if they ever legalized it. :o I've never toked - but I love a good nicotiene buzz. I can't imagine what marijuana would do to me. So I'm afraid of it (said somewhat tongue in cheek - but I wonder how many compulsive people would get hooked if it got legalized).

[Wesley Dodds]

And thoughts on the image that the legalization movement projects?

I agree. Australia's green movement had a lot of success protesting the construction of a dam in Tasmania by getting haircuts and dressing conservatively. It plays on similarity -- people are more likely to listen to and take seriously the claims of people who look similar to themselves. Actually, I think we can expect to see a "respectable" green movement emerge -- they would have the policies of the greens but dress and act like Baptists.

[Wesley Dodds]

And I favour total legalisation, by the way. Let's not be children -- pot is nowhere near as bad as drugs that are already legal. The only reason it's treated differently is that it's not the drug of choice of the people who have the most power.

[Mike Smash!]

it's not the drug of choice of the people who have the most power.I thought that drug was power...

[Mike Smash!]

By the way, guys.. I was hoping this thread would be more about the image of the movement than the legalization of pot itself...

For the people who voted that pot should be legal, what are your thoughts of the movement that I've written about?

[Dreadstar]

And thoughts on the image that the legalization movement projects?

Exactly what you said. How will it ever be taken seriously when the visible proponents are perceived as flakes?

[HomerJay]

On the other hand, who trusts a suit?

The other suits who actually make laws and pass legislation...

[Slam_Bradley]

I voted de-emphasized by law enforcement- since I think we're filling our prisons with non-violent offenders.



In my experience, it is already de-emphasized by law enforcement. Possession of personal use amounts is a misdemeanor and our Sheriff's Dept. won't go out of its way to get anything less than a trafficking charge on marijuana. You're more likely to do county jail time for "Driving Without Privilege's" than for simple marijuana possession in my county.

[Mike Smash!]

The other suits that actually make laws and pass legislation...True, those suits are the ones you have to either convince or defeat to get any real victories.

And even radicals like Ralph Nader wear suits. Hell, I've never seen Nader in anything other than a suit.

If Ralph were to wear tie dye and sandals, I don't think he would have been nearly as effective as both a Presidential candidate or a consumer advocate.

Besides, the suit provides the needed contrast to a call for radical change. The more radical the change, the more necessary it is to dress professionally.

[Winslow]

By the way, guys.. I was hoping this thread would be more about the image of the movement than the legalization of pot itself...

For the people who voted that pot should be legal, what are your thoughts of the movement that I've written about?

Generally, my perception of the pro-marijuana movement is that it is users that want access, rather then concerned citizens with well thought out arguments on why it would be good for the nation / state / whatever . . .

[Winslow]

In my experience, it is already de-emphasized by law enforcement. Possession of personal use amounts is a misdemeanor and our Sheriff's Dept. won't go out of its way to get anything less than a trafficking charge on marijuana. You're more likely to do county jail time for "Driving Without Privilege's" than for simple marijuana possession in my county.

I'm probably "out of touch."

I was in the Coast Guard in the 80s and we spent a heck of a lot of federal money keeping pot out of the country. All of my patrols in my two years stationed on a cutter were spent off the coast of South America.

Got to go to some cool Caribbean ports of call though - so I can't complain . . .

[clayholio]

The image does put off a of people. Regardless of how I feel on the issue, I know I'd never want to hang out with anyone who dressed like that. It undermines someone's credibility to dress like they're a circus clown, and eliminates any possibility of mainstream support for the cause. And, it pretty much confirms opponent's worst fears about what the effects of marijuana are.

But I do think it should be legalized, chiefly because the worst health effect of marijuana is that you can be jailed for it (at least in the US).

[Dreadstar]

In my experience, it is already de-emphasized by law enforcement. Possession of personal use amounts is a misdemeanor and our Sheriff's Dept. won't go out of its way to get anything less than a trafficking charge on marijuana. You're more likely to do county jail time for "Driving Without Privilege's" than for simple marijuana possession in my county.

What about cultivation in personal amounts? I mean obviously personal amounts, too.

[Slam_Bradley]

What about cultivation in personal amounts? I mean obviously personal amounts, too.

It's technically "manufacturing" and does have stiffer penalties, but if it's a couple of plants, chances are that it will get pled to a misdemeanor possession.

Of course, I can't speak to Winslow's experiences with the feds, but it strikes me that he's talking in terms of "trafficking" level amounts. In those cases, it's little different than efforts to get to high level bootleggers and unstamped cigarettes. They feds frown on those too.

[Winslow]

Of course, I can't speak to Winslow's experiences with the feds, but it strikes me that he's talking in terms of "trafficking" level amounts. In those cases, it's little different than efforts to get to high level bootleggers and unstamped cigarettes. They feds frown on those too.

Yes I am talking about "trafficking."

We busted traffickers with tons of marijuana (literally).

[Slam_Bradley]

Yes I am talking about "trafficking."

We busted traffickers with tons of marijuana (literally).


I'm clueless as to how anyone can think that this sort of interdiction is inappropriate. If they were coming in with tons of untaxed cigs or unlicensed booze, nobody would think it was unusual if they got nabbed and did some time.

[Alex]

This is the same thing as a guy at a liberal group meeting wearing a communist good shirt and looking for people to go burn down an SUV dealship, or a guy at a conservative pancake breakfast asking if anyone wants to blow up an abortion clinic.
I don't know if it hurts, because when we see those people, we generaly assume they don't represent the majority.
....
Or, i could say "Fucking Hippies" and point out how they never help any issue to move forward.

[Winslow]

I'm clueless as to how anyone can think that this sort of interdiction is inappropriate. If they were coming in with tons of untaxed cigs or unlicensed booze, nobody would think it was unusual if they got nabbed and did some time.

You're right - my post makes no sense with my vote.

My post-fu is bad in this thread.

I suppose I don't know how I feel about the issue, and my confusion is coming out in my posts.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I agree with you, Mike.

To achieve legalization, it's not enough to reach and appeal to the Cheech and Chong fans and get them to listen - they're already converted. You also have to get everyone else to listen. For that, you need more people who project an image other than "stoner."

That's not to say there's anything wrong with some also maintaining the "stoner" image too. Showing people that the reality of recreational pot use is more along the line of Jerry Garcia than "Reefer Madness" was an important step. But, further normalizing is a good thing to shoot for - and completely realistic, since the average user of pot is pretty much the average guy.

[Slam_Bradley]

You're right - my post makes no sense with my vote.

My post-fu is bad in this thread.

I suppose I don't know how I feel about the issue, and my confusion is coming out in my posts.


I'm not trying to pick on you. I'm more than happy to tell you what to think.

[bfrank]

The face of the pro marijuana movement should be a little old lady coming out of her chemo treatment...

[Mike Smash!]

The face of the pro marijuana movement should be a little old lady coming out of her chemo treatment...That would certainly be a lot more effective.

If there's one thing I've learned as an activist, it's that in any picketing campaign, you can increase your effectiveness tenfold if you have a handful of older people and a priest in your group.

[Slam_Bradley]

More germane to the topic, I absolutely agree with Mike as to image. There is simply no way that I can take most pro-legalization advocates seriously. Put on a suit, get a haircut and meet me in the proper forum. Then we'll talk.

[Winslow]

I'm not trying to pick on you. I'm more than happy to tell you what to think.

lol Now you sound like my wife again. :D

I didn't take it personal Slam. I just realized (light bulb came on) that my posts made no sense in light of my original post.

And I tried to explain myself in this post, but realized I was digging a deeper hole.

*bails out of thread*

[K'Nort]

The face of the pro marijuana movement should be a little old lady coming out of her chemo treatment...

I've been seeing a lot of that marketing technique lately, actually.


I think the stoner image definitely hurts the image. Many people don't want to be associated with that. And it adds further damage by helping make the drug look like something that destroys lives etc. (Not that happy hippies look destroyed, per se, but you know what I mean -- that stoner-hood is an inevitable result.)

A friend of mine realized the movement was doomed (about ten years ago) when a fellow was at the bar collecting signatures to put a decriminalization memo on the ballot and came up to him four times in twenty minutes. Hazily thinking him a new person each time.

[Nitmo]

Well, there's this:

http://www.dribbleglass.com/subpages/billboards69a.htm

as for me: I'd only like marijuana to be legalized in the same breath as tobacco being illegal. Otherwise: medical only.

[leigh_ann1982]

The face of the pro marijuana movement should be a little old lady coming out of her chemo treatment...


Well, the courts apparently didn't find that image pathetic enough because they decided that federal agencies could still prosecute patients with marijuana prescription in states where medical marijuana is legal.

I'm going to have to agree with Mike, if you're trying to accomplish something important, i.e. landing a job, changing legislation, etc. you have to dress up. Even if the entire pro-marijuana movement were to clean up their image, though, I doubt that legalization or dicriminalization would be anymore plausible. It is entirely too profitable for the government agencies and corporations that lobby (pay-off) legislators to keep it illegal.

The drug war is America's longest running and most profitable war. It is not a war that is meant to be won. I come from California and a few days ago it was announced that our 33rd state prison was opened. California requires so many prisons because of the "success" of three-strike laws at filling prisons with drug offenders. Billions of tax-payers dollars have been thrown at marijuana alone since the Marijuana Tax Act of 1935 was instituted. (I suggest watching the documentary Grass for a running total of the amount of money that was spent on the drug war throughout the years, and to see some hillarious vintage propaganda.) The corrections system employs thousands of people (I believe it's the third largest employer in my area after the military and the ag industry) and is so incredibly profitable at least 1-2 of the companies trades on the stock market.

The current street value of an ounce of medical grade marijuana is higher than the price per ounce of gold. That makes marijuana a "dangerous" drug because it can be traded for other illegal contraban. (Presumably, it could also be considered dangerous for it's health effects and social impact, but I think most studies have shown its effects to be less deleterious than say that of alcohol, and it's not a physically addictive substance. Personally, I think the effects of alcoholism are more detrimental than pot, phsyically and socially. I also think that keeping pot illegal has more of a detrimental impact on society as compared to any positive effects that could be said to occur by it being illegal. Especially when one consideres the millions of broken homes created by incarcerating non-violent drug offenders as opposed to treatment, and that the tax revenue spent to keep these people incarcerated would be more well-spent on say, education. California's educational system is currently ranked 49th or 50th among the states, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.)

If it were legalized or decriminalized, however, it wouldn't be as scarce, so it's value would be depreciated. That would also spell less tax revenue for agencies like the DEA, less seized property from drug offenders, and less work for those involved with the legal and corrective processes. Compared to the amount of money the goverment would be losing by keeping it illegal, I don't they would be recouping as much in taxes. It would be harder to tax and regulate than say alcohol or tobacco. Unlike alcohol or tobacco, which respectively undergo a distilling or curing process, marijuana grows like a weed, making it much easier to procure. And all the evidence of it's existence "goes up in smoke" so it would be hard to audit for taxation.

While marijuana may be dagerous hemp, which is also a member of the canaboid family, is not. You could smoke it all day and get little more than a headache for your efforts. Hemp is an easily renewable source of paper, fossil fuel, cloth, plastics, and cement to name only a few of its uses. Yet it is also illegal to be grown in the United states. Major corporations within the paper, plastics, and oil companies would stand to lose money. Money IS really what is at the heart of this issue, not tie-yed shirts or sandals.

[leigh_ann1982]

A bit of a sidebar, but here (http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/051105sensenalert.cfm) is some scary proposed anti-drug legislation. This bill, H.R. 1528, encourages citizens to spy on each other, otherwise face jail time among other ridiculous changes that would be made to existing drug laws. Considering about 1 in 3 American adults has admitted to trying pot at least once in their lives, this bill affects everyone.

[howyadoin]

Now, I know a lot of people who would support legalizing marijuana or at least decriminalizing it. People who certainly aren't radicals or activists, some of them are even suits or over 40.

But the image perpetuated by the Marijuana Legalization movement and the one I saw at the Hempfest booth is alot more like this:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20030818/226hempfest_1.jpg

Shirtless people in pot leaf hoola skirts wielding joint-shaped batons and generally putting off a self-marginalizing image that perpetuates the worst stereotypes of marijuana and pot smokers, while scaring the very sorts of people mentioned above, who could easily be their allies.

One of the things that American Green Party founder, John Rensenbrink once said was "If you're going to say something radical, wear a suit". I believe that very strongly.Couldn't agree more. The powers that be will never be persuaded by people who match the stereotype, regardless of who they are as people.

[macul]

I wouldn't take them seriously. I don't see this as any different than a job interview, marketing presentation, et cetera. There is a certain way you present yourself when trying to sell something. Doesn't matter if it is a product or a political message. I'm not saying you have to wear a suit. Heck, jeans and a nice golf shirt is good enough for me.

[MJC]

I'm completely pro-legalization.

That said, I don't like the idea of having to suck up to conservative white America to promote the idea. People should focus on the arguments that pro-legalization people make rather than how they look...but I guess I'm being naive.

Personally I'm not familiar with the Marijuana Legalization movement though.

[ghostrider666]

Now I dont smoke. But I believe that pot should be legal.
Legalize it, regulate it, tax it.

[Ugoff]

That would certainly be a lot more effective.

If there's one thing I've learned as an activist, it's that in any picketing campaign, you can increase your effectiveness tenfold if you have a handful of older people and a priest in your group.

I'm in favor of both legalization and decriminalization, but I have to wonder if it will ever happen. Lets face it the Evangelicals have declared war on all the heathens. Also doesnt everyone already know about the medicinal benefits of weed? Although I'm sure some dont. The most conservatives and most people still think it's wrong to smoke weed. There's a guy here in Texas that writes an article called The Drug Truth or something(for FreePressHouston) like that and he wrote in one article that he was passing out phamlets about mj and trying to get people to listen but they just wouldnt. I have seen an article by him for a while in the FreePress but I hope he starts writing again. He also does a radio show I think called 4:20 or something. I'll have to find his website.

[Paul McEnery]

And thoughts on the image that the legalization movement projects?
The hell?

Who cares if some pot smokers dress up funny? What's wrong with dressing up funny? Are you only allowed to have an opinion if you wear a suit?

[kmeyers]

The hell?

Who cares if some pot smokers dress up funny? What's wrong with dressing up funny? Are you only allowed to have an opinion if you wear a suit?
I was actually thinking the same thing...but, unfortunately, I also think a lot of people do feel that way.

it would be nice if everyone could not judge a book by it's cover, but I don't see that happening.

[howyadoin]

The hell?

Who cares if some pot smokers dress up funny?The idiots in power, who need to be appeased if it's ever gonna be legalized?

[Mike Smash!]

I'm completely pro-legalization.

That said, I don't like the idea of having to suck up to conservative white America to promote the idea. People should focus on the arguments that pro-legalization people make rather than how they look...but I guess I'm being naive.

Personally I'm not familiar with the Marijuana Legalization movement though.It's not about sucking up to conservatives. It's about winning over people who already agree with you, but are scared off by outlandish and childish behavior, like wearing a toga and a wreath of pot leaves.

That sort of stuff.

Dressing up for street theater is one thing, but even in the anti-war marches, 95% of the demonstrators are just wearing jeans and t-shirts. With the Pot legalization movement, the number of people in regular clothes drops to about 50%.

The rest actually hurt their cause. I'm certainly not a suit or a conservative and I wouldn't want to be associated with their movement the way its currently presenting itself.

[Mike Smash!]

The hell?

Who cares if some pot smokers dress up funny? What's wrong with dressing up funny? Are you only allowed to have an opinion if you wear a suit?No, but in just about every other movement, you have people who are willing to put on a suit and do the stuff that's necessary to win victories for your cause. And in many cases, that's putting on a suit, or at the least a button up shirt and slacks.

My goal isn't to make fun of the movement, but to comment that the legalization of pot is much more of a majoritarian sentiment than most believe and that the image put out by the Pot Legalization movement scares off potential allies like myself and several others on the thread as well as make yourself largely ineffective to affect any real change in the legislative arena.

Their mode of dress and behavior makes people judge them before they even open their mouths and therefore guarantee that their movement will remain small and marginalized.

The equivalent would be the people who fought to repeal Prohibition dressing up like the classic "town drunk" or as "frat boys" to make their case instead of a reasonable, logical response while using many of the facts and statistics that they currently use.

Is it fair that people are judged by their appearance? Of course not, but the reality is you have to choose between being a clown and being effective.

Paul, you know that I'm not a suit and that wearing one is really an act of pragmatism on my part. But it's the only way to get allies and broaden coalitions to affect real change. The alternative is stagnation and preaching to the choir.

[kmeyers]

It's not about sucking up to conservatives. It's about winning over people who already agree with you, but are scared off by outlandish and childish behavior, like wearing a toga and a wreath of pot leaves.

That sort of stuff.

I agree with you %800


it's about knowing your audience. you have to know how to communicate to the opposition.


but i also really don't want to tolerate anyone who would think my opinion is worthless because I'm wearing a tie dyed shirt.

[Mike Smash!]

but i also really don't want to tolerate anyone who would think my opinion is worthless because I'm wearing a tie dyed shirt.Wearing a tie dyed shirt is fine, but would you testify before Congress in one?

In the end, dressing professionally is what gives you permission to be more radical in your speech. Because living up to a stereotype will only shut peoples' ears to your message.

It would be wonderful if appearances didn't matter, but it's not just appearances, it's behavior. And the fact is that it scares off people who already agree with you.

When you embrace and embody the worst stereotypes people project onto you, you only confirm the worst about your movement right out of the gate.

This doesn't mean selling out. Selling out is the loss of one's principles for money or power. This is retaining those principles and repackaging them so that you can get your foot in the door.

[kmeyers]

Wearing a tie dyed shirt is fine, but would you testify before Congress in one?
dude...no I don't disagree with you about the suit thing, really...but are these hippies standing in front of congress?



n the end, dressing professionally is what gives you permission to be more radical in your speech. Because living up to a stereotype will only shut peoples' ears to your message..

im actually really surprised to hear you say this. Your clothes make your message? That sucks, because I don't care about fashion. I realize that wearing a suit makes people take notice...but you know what...fuck that...when I keep catering to what other people want, for whatever reason...I lose.


t would be wonderful if appearances didn't matter, but it's not just appearances, it's behavior. And the fact is that it scares off people who already agree with you
I see what youre saying...but scared??? really...hippies are scary?
.[/QUOTE]

[Mike Smash!]

dude...no I don't disagree with you about the suit thing, really...but are these hippies standing in front of congress?No, and that's a problem. Outside of festivals like Hempfest, they have absolutely zero political power, even in local legislation.

im actually really surprised to hear you say this. Your clothes make your message? That sucks, because I don't care about fashion. I realize that wearing a suit makes people take notice...but you know what...fuck that...when I keep catering to what other people want, for whatever reason...I lose.That's not what I said. I said that to enact change, you need to adapt your style a bit.

If you're going to get something like medical marijuana on the ballot for a statewide initiative, don't you think that talking to people while wearing pot leaf shaped sunglasses overwhelms your actual message.

I see what youre saying...but scared??? really...hippies are scary? I'm not talking about hippies. I'm talking about the pot movement, which may contain hippies, but certainly of a much more theatrical and more "Cheech and Chong" meets Cirque du Soliel and an over the top style than you wouldn't find in the majority for any other issue.

What I'm talking about are the excesses that are counter productive.

Like someone said before, they focus so much on the "pot rules" aspect of it that they usually totally forget the medical arguments or talking points that might actually sway opinion.

[kmeyers]

No, and that's a problem. Outside of festivals like Hempfest, they have absolutely zero political power, even in local legislation.

That's not what I said. I said that to enact change, you need to adapt your style a bit.
like I said....I agree with this point...but why the fuck should I change ...or conform to the norm because that's what is popular???



If you're going to get something like medical marijuana on the ballot for a statewide initiative, don't you think that talking to people while wearing pot leaf shaped sunglasses overwhelms your actual message.

I'm not talking about hippies. I'm talking about the pot movement, which may contain hippies, but certainly of a much more theatrical and more "Cheech and Chong" meets Cirque du Soliel and an over the top style than you wouldn't find in the majority for any other issue.

What I'm talking about are the excesses that are counter productive.

Like someone said before, they focus so much on the "pot rules" aspect of it that they usually totally forget the medical arguments or talking points that might actually sway opinion.
man...I agree with all of that. but I also hate that people who would agree with us, might change their mind because I wear a tie dyed shirt...that's ridiculous.

[Mike Smash!]

Meyers, I think you're taking what I'm saying far too literally and personaly.

This isn't a question of saying that people should conform. This is a question of whether your mode of dress is more important to you than enacting real change.

Of whether you'd like an audience at a community forum to pay more attention to what you're wearing or what you have to say.

[kmeyers]

Meyers, I think you're taking what I'm saying far too literally and personaly.

This isn't a question of saying that people should conform. This is a question of whether your mode of dress is more important to you than enacting real change.

Of whether you'd like an audience at a community forum to pay more attention to what you're wearing or what you have to say.

I know exactly what youre saying...and I agree that suits will influence more people's opinions...but what I was saying is...that thinking sucks. that like minded people need me to look like them to embrace similar ideals...sucks. If you don't like the way I look, how are you going to ever change your mind?

what if I was black...and couldn't change my appearance from the dissenters?

what if I couldnt put on a suit for you?

[leigh_ann1982]

dude...no I don't disagree with you about the suit thing, really...but are these hippies standing in front of congress?
.[/QUOTE]


It's not just congress that needs convincing--when you're trying to get a message out, the world is looking, and you're being judged on your appearance. I know plenty of professional people--teachers, doctors, business owners, law enforcement, etc.--who quietly support legalization/decriminalization, and probably even voted for legalizing medical marijuana when it was on the ballot in California. If these types of people were willing to give their support more publicly, then it would lend a lot more credibility to the movement. Some of them might, if they weren't worried about the stigmatized image associated with the movement affecting their professional persona.

[Dreadstar]

The image isn't just for TPTB. It's also for Mr. and Mrs. America, who you would like to woo over to your side of the argument. You can't do that by projecting an aura of silliness.

I've actually spoken to my folks about the issue, and they've sort of come around to the idea that, well hell, if it ain't dangerous and addictive, what's all the fuss?

But you know what they'd say if they saw a group dresssed similarly to that first picture?

"*sigh* Flakes. Well, maybe they'll grow out of it..."

[Nate C.]

Is it fair that people are judged by their appearance? Of course not, but the reality is you have to choose between being a clown and being effective.

Chris Rock once made the point that Adam Sandler can dress like a slob (and he usually does) on his press junkets and still be seen positively because he's white, but that he, (Rock) has to wear a suit to be seen as positively. I don't think Rock is playing the race card here, and I think he has a point. Chris Rock has avoided the thug stereotype that a lot of racists and idiots would have applied to him by being a very snappy dresser, usually in a suit.

Then, when he busts upside your head with a bit of social commentary, you subconciously think, "dang, this guy's right-he's wearing a suit." (tongue somewhat in cheek)


Paul, you know that I'm not a suit and that wearing one is really an act of pragmatism on my part. But it's the only way to get allies and broaden coalitions to affect real change. The alternative is stagnation and preaching to the choir.

Spots a moment of loss of idealism. :D

[Michael P]

but i also really don't want to tolerate anyone who would think my opinion is worthless because I'm wearing a tie dyed shirt.
Thought experiment. Imagine you run an employment agency, and you call a client about a position he's qualified for. When he comes in, he looks like this:

http://www.oneysoft.com/Klingon-WDM.jpg

You tell him the job requires business causal dress. He says, "Eh, I really don't want to work for anyone who would think my skills are worthless because I'm dressed like a Klingon. What else have you got for me?"

I've exaggerated for comic effect, but the point is still sound: Proper attire for the proper arena.

[Mike Smash!]

Chris Rock once made the point that Adam Sandler can dress like a slob (and he usually does) on his press junkets and still be seen positively because he's white, but that he, (Rock) has to wear a suit to be seen as positively. I don't think Rock is playing the race card here, and I think he has a point. Chris Rock has avoided the thug stereotype that a lot of racists and idiots would have applied to him by being a very snappy dresser, usually in a suit.

Then, when he busts upside your head with a bit of social commentary, you subconciously think, "dang, this guy's right-he's wearing a suit." (tongue somewhat in cheek)It's very true.

Spots a moment of loss of idealism. :DIt's not a lack of idealism. My message and my voice and words are the same, but I always wear a button up shirt to tabling events or at worst, a T-shirt and jeans. There is a stigma for third parties, even if our positions are majoritarian, so you have to side step their immediate judgement so that they'll hear you out.

I haven't sold anything out and I'm not normally one to dress like a hippie, but I'm also trying to be effective. Being an idealist doesn't mean being a purist, after all. My ideas are totally untouched, but I really have no problem with wearing a uniform, as I see it.

[kmeyers]

guys...I know what you're saying. dressing a certain way is unfortunately necessary to sway the general public, to make them take you seriously.

my point was, that sucks, because what if you CAN'T look a certain way to appear to be "one of them"

I realize we are talking about clothes...but that's not the only thing people don't tolerate about a person's appearance.

[Michael P]

guys...I know what you're saying. dressing a certain way is unfortunately necessary to sway the general public, to make them take you seriously.

my point was, that sucks, because what if you CAN'T look a certain way to appear to be "one of them"

I realize we are talking about clothes...but that's not the only thing people don't tolerate about a person's appearance.
What are you thinking of specifically?

[Ed Cunard]

What are you thinking of specifically?

I can say with some certainty that people have reacted to me when my tattoos and piercings are visible, compared to when they are not. I do cover up for work, mind you, but that's an "appearance" thing that I can't (well, more like "could, but don't want to") change.

[Puma]

If someone is rallying for the decriminalization of pot I know, for myself and many other middle class middle agers, that if the individual is wearing a t-shirt w/ a hooka smokin' caterpillar, lei made of maurijuana leaves, and generally appears to be a slacker stoner I'll tune them out as not helping the cause. Now if they're wearing jeans, plain shirt, or something like that and don't appear to currently be stoned, I'd be more likely to listen to them.

having someone like the woman Mike showed in his first post advocating the legalization of pot is a little like having a drunk make a speech for the decriminalization of drinking and driving

[kmeyers]

What are you thinking of specifically?
tattoos, piercings, but mostly I was talking about race.

some people, no matter how you dress up, won't listen to, or accept certain people because of the color of their skin. should black people put on a white suit to please these people?

[Michael P]

tattoos, piercings, but mostly I was talking about race.

some people, no matter how you dress up, won't listen to, or accept certain people because of the color of their skin. should black people put on a white suit to please these people?
Apples and oranges. No one said that the problem with the "Legal Marijuana" crowd is that they're all black. Heck, the pic Mike posted was of a white girl.

[Mike Smash!]

Apples and oranges. No one said that the problem with the "Legal Marijuana" crowd is that they're all black. Heck, the pic Mike posted was of a white girl.Most of the Hempfest people I am talking about are white.

I've not once brought up race.

[kmeyers]

Apples and oranges. No one said that the problem with the "Legal Marijuana" crowd is that they're all black. Heck, the pic Mike posted was of a white girl.
right...but I'm saying...some people look at someone and dismiss them for how they look.

Some people look at a hippie and say, "that person scares me/is an idiot."

Some people look at a black person and say "that person scares me/is an idiot."

all because of their appearance. Prejudice is prejudice.

dismissing a person for what they look like isn't cool to me. whether they look like a dirty hippie, or have dark skin.

[Dreadstar]

I'm not sure there's an analogy present here on people accepting other people no matter how they dress.

For example, I bet the person in Mike's first post doesn't dress like that every day. Which means she's going out of her way to make a statement. And the route she seems to be taking in going out of her way is one of frivolity. I wouldn't have any problem with a guy applying for work here showing up in jeans and a casual shirt, with a visible tattoo and piercing. Nor would I have problems with the guy attending conventions dressed as a Klingon.

I *would* however, have difficulty with him interviewing dressed as a Klingon.

[Slam_Bradley]

right...but I'm saying...some people look at someone and dismiss them for how they look.

Some people look at a hippie and say, "that person scares me/is an idiot."

Some people look at a black person and say "that person scares me/is an idiot."

all because of their appearance. Prejudice is prejudice.

dismissing a person for what they look like isn't cool to me. whether they look like a dirty hippie, or have dark skin.


Nobody has said that it's supposed to be cool with you that you may be judged by appearance. It is, however, a fact of life. You don't have to like it, but it is true.

If you want to get things changed, you're going to have to convince people of your point of view. In order to do that, they're going to have to take you seriously. I find it very hard to take 50 year old men in tie-dye shirts seriously.

[Mike Smash!]

right...but I'm saying...some people look at someone and dismiss them for how they look.

Some people look at a hippie and say, "that person scares me/is an idiot."

Some people look at a black person and say "that person scares me/is an idiot."

all because of their appearance. Prejudice is prejudice.

dismissing a person for what they look like isn't cool to me. whether they look like a dirty hippie, or have dark skin.I said over and over that I wasn't just talking about hippies, Meyers.

I'm talking not about someone with tie dye and shorts. I'm talking about the people I saw at the Fair this weekend. Shirtless with pot leaf hoola skirts. And instead of an image that would portray why pot is no less if not less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco or in its potential medical benefits, they settled for the "Pot is sooo cool!" stance and if anything, reinforced people's impressions of pot smokers, rather than changing minds.

A hippie in a hemp pancho or a black person in even the most "thuggish" clothes would make a better impression talking to a crowd than these people.

Like I've said countless times, this is as if Prohibition had been fought by drunken fratboys who spoke before audiences with beer bongs and helmets with cans of beer on them.

I misphrased. It's not that people are scared of them. It's that they're embarrassed of them and even if they agree with them on the issue, they'll certainly not fly to their defense.

This will keep the legalize pot movement small, marginalized and ridiculed.

[kmeyers]

Nobody has said that it's supposed to be cool with you that you may be judged by appearance. It is, however, a fact of life. You don't have to like it, but it is true.

If you want to get things changed, you're going to have to convince people of your point of view. In order to do that, they're going to have to take you seriously. I find it very hard to take 50 year old men in tie-dye shirts seriously.
and again...my point is, How does someone, like a black person, change their appearance to be accepted by people that judge them on their appearance, and should they even bother?

and why should the hippies have to?

what's the difference between prejudging a hippie for how they look, and prejudging a black person for the color of their skin? The fact that the hippie can change his clothes?

[Slam_Bradley]

what's the difference between prejudging a hippie for how they look, and prejudging a black person for the color of their skin? The fact that the hippie can change his clothes?


Bingo. The difference is that the hippie has total control over his clothing, hair length, hygene, etc.

[howyadoin]

and again...my point is, How does someone, like a black person, change their appearance to be accepted by people that judge them on their appearance, and should they even bother?

and why should the hippies have to?Nobody's saying they have to. They're saying that if you wanna convince the anti-pot crusaders to legalize, the only way it's ever gonna happen is on their terms.

[macul]

right...but I'm saying...some people look at someone and dismiss them for how they look.

Some people look at a hippie and say, "that person scares me/is an idiot."

Some people look at a black person and say "that person scares me/is an idiot."

all because of their appearance. Prejudice is prejudice.

dismissing a person for what they look like isn't cool to me. whether they look like a dirty hippie, or have dark skin.

The difference is that you can control how you dress, how you keep your hair, hygeine (sp), et cetera. You can't control your race. Ok, maybe you can nowadays, but you know what I mean.

If I'm meeting friends for an evening/afternoon at the local sports bar then I won't care how they dress. I won't care how any of the patrons dress. However, the same isn't true if I'm meeting my friends to pitch a business idea to a potential investor.

It is about having enough respect for the people you are meeting. If you can't be bothered to dress decently for a meeting then what does that say about your work ethic? Maybe nothing. But I don't know if I'd want to take that chance.

[heretic]

... but if Tobacco is legal I see no rational reason not to legalise Marijuana, especially given the medicinal/theraputic uses of the latter.

HTG (teatotaler)

[kmeyers]

but why is that ok?

why is it ok to prejudge a group of people, and expect them to change, or conform to your liking, just because they can.

[howyadoin]

but why is that ok?

why is it ok to prejudge a group of people, and expect them to change, or conform to your liking, just because they can.I don't think it's okay at all, but I recognize that it's a fact that has to be dealt with. Ultimately it's a matter of priorities, I think - which is more important, getting pot legalized or wearing t-shirts to business meetings?

[heretic]

For the people who voted that pot should be legal, what are your thoughts of the movement that I've written about?No movement can go out of it's way to frighten Mainstream America and hope to really get anywhere outside of very circumscribed circles (the Real Nuts at the Gay Pride Parades are not helpful either, and had the Black Panther Party been a bit more clean-cut and moderate in tone they may have gotten farther).

That being said it is never a good idea to dismiss a message from outside the mainstream out of hand.

HTG

[macul]

but why is that ok?

why is it ok to prejudge a group of people, and expect them to change, or conform to your liking, just because they can.

Why? Well, because it is an impression. Maybe a first impression, and we've all heard how important those are. Dressing like a slob for a job interview (just as an example) shows a basic lack of respect for the person conducting the interview. They took time to see you. They took time to give you the opportunity to pitch yourself for a job. Part of that pitch is appearance. Did you iron your clothes? Did you wear matching shoes? Did you wear shoes? Did you wear a tie if the environment calls for it (sales, for example)?

This is something that irks me a bit. It isn't about conforming. I heard that bogus line from my sister for a looooong time. I'm now hearing it from my brother. Both really smart people. Both really sucked in to that, "I don't have to conform! I'll dress how I want and people will just have to accept it!" line of thought. And that's fine...when you are with your friends. But when you are trying to get a job outside of the pizza joint it just ain't gonna work. My sister would go for an interview dressed to the hilt in her Grunge Gear and then pretend to be shocked when she didn't get the job.

To be honest, at least with them, I think it is more about not wanting to face the reality of having to get a real job. It is about not wanting to face the reality of having to pay for insurance, electric bills, et cetera. In short, growing up.

And really. How un-comforming are you when you and your friends dress exactly the same way?

[howyadoin]

Why? Well, because it is an impression. Maybe a first impression, and we've all heard how important those are. Dressing like a slob for a job interview (just as an example) shows a basic lack of respect for the person conducting the interview.Well in all fairness, to most of us who want pot legalized, the people who've been keeping it illegal really aren't deserving of respect. I realize they need to be appeased, but I also think the situation wouldn't be what it is today if the U.S. government hadn't made so many stupid decisions on the issue in the past.

[kmeyers]

Why? Well, because it is an impression. Maybe a first impression, and we've all heard how important those are. Dressing like a slob for a job interview (just as an example) shows a basic lack of respect for the person conducting the interview. They took time to see you. They took time to give you the opportunity to pitch yourself for a job. Part of that pitch is appearance. Did you iron your clothes? Did you wear matching shoes? Did you wear shoes? Did you wear a tie if the environment calls for it (sales, for example)?

This is something that irks me a bit. It isn't about conforming. I heard that bogus line from my sister for a looooong time. I'm now hearing it from my brother. Both really smart people. Both really sucked in to that, "I don't have to conform! I'll dress how I want and people will just have to accept it!" line of thought. And that's fine...when you are with your friends. But when you are trying to get a job outside of the pizza joint it just ain't gonna work. My sister would go for an interview dressed to the hilt in her Grunge Gear and then pretend to be shocked when she didn't get the job.

To be honest, at least with them, I think it is more about not wanting to face the reality of having to get a real job. It is about not wanting to face the reality of having to pay for insurance, electric bills, et cetera. In short, growing up.

And really. How un-comforming are you when you and your friends dress exactly the same way?
I'm really not trying to be a cool non conformist.

have you seen the comedy bit Eddie Murphy did, where he dressed up as a white guy, and was treated completely differently? He got the "white people's discounts", free newspapers...etc.

so...should black people wear makeup and dress like that to appease their critics?

I say no. and I don't see why anyone else should have to change what they look like to fit someone else's standard.

I understand that going to a job interview as a slob is one thing, but I'm not talking about that. I'm just talking about general prejudices. Some people will look at people and judge them before they even say a word, and I think THEY are the ones who should change.

[Mike Smash!]

The difference is that you can control how you dress, how you keep your hair, hygeine (sp), et cetera. You can't control your race. Ok, maybe you can nowadays, but you know what I mean.

If I'm meeting friends for an evening/afternoon at the local sports bar then I won't care how they dress. I won't care how any of the patrons dress. However, the same isn't true if I'm meeting my friends to pitch a business idea to a potential investor.

It is about having enough respect for the people you are meeting. If you can't be bothered to dress decently for a meeting then what does that say about your work ethic? Maybe nothing. But I don't know if I'd want to take that chance.macul, we don't agree often, but we do here and I'm going to enjoy it while I can. :)

It's about a level of respect and it's also about how serious you are about actually acheiving some level of success.

I talked to former Green candidate Chris LaRoche about this while he tabled with me on Sunday. That there are Greens out there who hate the idea of wearing suits and think that it's "selling out" or using "the man"'s methods. But it's not. It's simple pragmatism and if you're happy with remaining small and ineffectual than I encourage you to speak before audiences on a hot button issue in a manner with which they'll write you off, but you have to know your audience and know your topic.

Chris is not a suit wearer, but for the campaign, he found a nice medium that worked. He wore a button up green shirt, no tie, a suit jacket and jeans. It was very real, but showed that he was serious about looking respectable, even if he wasn't going to look like Donald Trump. For a very progressive, working class district in Seattle, this was the perfect look. And we found that our opponent followed Chris' lead and started giving up his tie for a turtleneck and a suit jacket.

But the pot movement is asking people to change the average person's mind on an issue that has been forced down our throats as evil since the days of the propoganda film, "Reefer Madness". And the more controversial the issue, the more that suit is required.

The costumes worn by the legalize pot movement are designed to make a statement and that statement overshadows all of the pertinent things that they are trying to say and largely leave them unheard or discredit them by association.

There are some unfair visual stereotype hurdles that people in just about any reform movement have to clear and the pot legalization movement has some of the tallest ones thanks to a real "Cheech and Chong" stereotype.

If they want to get their foot in the door, they need to sidestep it and get to the message so that they don't continue to embarrass away the millions of Americans who would support their efforts if they were repackaged.

[Mike Smash!]

but why is that ok?

why is it ok to prejudge a group of people, and expect them to change, or conform to your liking, just because they can.Nobody's saying that it is.

But it exists and if a movement wants to change minds, then you have to be somewhat pragmatic about marketing yourself, while keeping your central message and principles completely pure.

[Michael P]

Some people will look at people and judge them before they even say a word, and I think THEY are the ones who should change. Fair enough. Racism is bad. But judging people based on how much care they put into their personal appearance and judging people based on their race are two wildly different things.

[kmeyers]

Fair enough. Racism is bad. But judging people based on how much care they put into their personal appearance and judging people based on their race are two wildly different things.

why are they so different? you're asking hippies to change their appearance because they can. well...in my Eddie Murphy example, black people CAN wear makeup, and change their appearance, but should they have to do that to market themselves, or help change minds?

[Loren]

I think one of the biggest impediments to the success of the Libertarian Party is its similar population of potheads. It's almost as if your anti-government stoners migrate to the LP, and the anti-corporate ones to the Greens. It's hard enough for the Libertarians to sell their platform when item #1 on the agenda is "Legalize everything," but it just makes matters worse when the opposition can label them as druggies.

My perception is that the image problem is more severe on your side of the aisle, Mike. The LP has a reputation for being pro-pot, but I think it tries to put a lid on the hippie image as much as it can. When I helped the College Libs do a radio Q&A once, the first thing we were asked was to say why the LP wasn't a party of middle-class white guys.

I used to be in favor of legalization of virtually everything, and actually did another radio show where I defended that position. But I did a research project later, and I just couldn't find the evidence to convince me that it'd work. Tthe methods of the Drug War definitely need to be seriously overhauled, at least. Apparently some countries have had success with limited decriminalization coupled with drug treatment, and I think that should be looked into.

One of my problems with outright legalization (and I'm talking about any drugs here, not just marijuana) might be unexpected for someone with my general philosophy of government: I really don't like the idea of companies profiting off of the sale of addictive recreational drugs. I strongly believe in free markets, but freedom and choice are essential elements of the market. It's why I believe in anti-trust legislation and reject monopolies. Selling an addictive (and destructive) product to the consumer is depriving that consumer of the freedom of choice that is essential to the success of the open market.

Plus, I'm more than a little skeptical of the notion that marijuana or any drug could actually pass FDA scrutiny. The FDA exists to keep potentially harmful drugs off the market even if they have legitimate medical purposes, so I can't imagine how addictive and notoriously harmful recreational drugs could be loosed on the public. If the average American could buy cocaine over-the-counter, why should any drug require a prescription or FDA testing and approval? Isn't that creating an obscene double standard?

Finally, I never got around to posting a thread about it (maybe I still should), but I really hated that Supreme Court decision the other week about medical marijuana. It was the liberal bloc of the Court voting to disallow medical marijuana, relying on what I consider to be one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever. And it was the conservative justices saying that the states should be permitted to make exceptions for patients, with Clarence Thomas writing the most powerful dissent. I fear that we'll see a similar outcome (and split) in the eminent domain case next week.

Loren

[JeffreyWKramer]

Finally, I never got around to posting a thread about it (maybe I still should), but I really hated that Supreme Court decision the other week about medical marijuana. It was the liberal bloc of the Court voting to disallow medical marijuana, relying on what I consider to be one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever. And it was the conservative justices saying that the states should be permitted to make exceptions for patients, with Clarence Thomas writing the most powerful dissent. I fear that we'll see a similar outcome (and split) in the eminent domain case next week.


You and me are largely on the same page, here. I also think the decision was a truly bad one, and I worry about the eminent domain decision. However, there does tend to be a general tendency for the Court to expand government power in the case of drugs more than in other areas. Consider cases during the '70s, which allowed for restriction of peyote and similar substances despite "free practice of religion" concerns. This trend gives me some small hope we won't see a disastrous decision with eminent domain.

[Cei-U!]

The legalization movement is in a predicament not unlike the one folks wanting more respect for comics as an artform are in. It's hard to be taken seriously by others when your movement's public face is Woody Harrelson or The Simpsons' Comic Book Guy.

Should appearance matter? No. Does it matter? Hell, yes.

Even
Cei-U!
owns a coupla conservative ties!

[Michael P]

why are they so different? you're asking hippies to change their appearance because they can. well...in my Eddie Murphy example, black people CAN wear makeup, and change their appearance, but should they have to do that to market themselves, or help change minds?
Changing your clothes is not the same kind of sacrifice as changing your skin color. Not even remotely close.

[macul]

Well in all fairness, to most of us who want pot legalized, the people who've been keeping it illegal really aren't deserving of respect. I realize they need to be appeased, but I also think the situation wouldn't be what it is today if the U.S. government hadn't made so many stupid decisions on the issue in the past.

I wasn't talking about those people, though. I was talking about the average employer looking for an employee. I was addressing the issue of "why do I need to conform?"

[howyadoin]

I wasn't talking about those people, though. I was talking about the average employer looking for an employee. I was addressing the issue of "why do I need to conform?"Ah, okay. Got it now.

[macul]

I'm really not trying to be a cool non conformist.

have you seen the comedy bit Eddie Murphy did, where he dressed up as a white guy, and was treated completely differently? He got the "white people's discounts", free newspapers...etc.

Yep. Love that.


so...should black people wear makeup and dress like that to appease their critics?

I say no. and I don't see why anyone else should have to change what they look like to fit someone else's standard.

You keep bringing up race. No one here is talking about race. We are talking about factors you can control. Your clothing, hygiene, hair, et cetera.


I understand that going to a job interview as a slob is one thing, but I'm not talking about that. I'm just talking about general prejudices. Some people will look at people and judge them before they even say a word, and I think THEY are the ones who should change.

Then I think you are changing the subject. I was under the impression the question is, "why do I need to dress a certain way to impress people?" and not a general "Why do I need to dress a certain way?" Ok. That was badly phrased. Let me put it this way. There are two different environments here.

1. Job interview, sales pitch, et cetera. You need to dress the part. That's just the way it is.

2. Casual dress. You dress however the heck you want. You aren't selling yourself to anyone. Who cares how you dress? If someone is offended or the such, then who cares? You aren't there to impress that person.

[macul]

macul, we don't agree often, but we do here and I'm going to enjoy it while I can. :)


aaaahhhh...another broken promise I made to myself.

/me hangs his head in shame.

joking. We agree on more than you know.

[Ugoff]

I think one of the biggest impediments to the success of the Libertarian Party is its similar population of potheads. It's almost as if your anti-government stoners migrate to the LP, and the anti-corporate ones to the Greens. It's hard enough for the Libertarians to sell their platform when item #1 on the agenda is "Legalize everything," but it just makes matters worse when the opposition can label them as druggies.

My perception is that the image problem is more severe on your side of the aisle, Mike. The LP has a reputation for being pro-pot, but I think it tries to put a lid on the hippie image as much as it can. When I helped the College Libs do a radio Q&A once, the first thing we were asked was to say why the LP wasn't a party of middle-class white guys.

I used to be in favor of legalization of virtually everything, and actually did another radio show where I defended that position. But I did a research project later, and I just couldn't find the evidence to convince me that it'd work. Tthe methods of the Drug War definitely need to be seriously overhauled, at least. Apparently some countries have had success with limited decriminalization coupled with drug treatment, and I think that should be looked into.

One of my problems with outright legalization (and I'm talking about any drugs here, not just marijuana) might be unexpected for someone with my general philosophy of government: I really don't like the idea of companies profiting off of the sale of addictive recreational drugs. I strongly believe in free markets, but freedom and choice are essential elements of the market. It's why I believe in anti-trust legislation and reject monopolies. Selling an addictive (and destructive) product to the consumer is depriving that consumer of the freedom of choice that is essential to the success of the open market.

Plus, I'm more than a little skeptical of the notion that marijuana or any drug could actually pass FDA scrutiny. The FDA exists to keep potentially harmful drugs off the market even if they have legitimate medical purposes, so I can't imagine how addictive and notoriously harmful recreational drugs could be loosed on the public. If the average American could buy cocaine over-the-counter, why should any drug require a prescription or FDA testing and approval? Isn't that creating an obscene double standard?

Finally, I never got around to posting a thread about it (maybe I still should), but I really hated that Supreme Court decision the other week about medical marijuana. It was the liberal bloc of the Court voting to disallow medical marijuana, relying on what I consider to be one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever. And it was the conservative justices saying that the states should be permitted to make exceptions for patients, with Clarence Thomas writing the most powerful dissent. I fear that we'll see a similar outcome (and split) in the eminent domain case next week.

Loren

"I really don't like the idea of companies profiting off of the sale of addictive recreational drugs." Than what about cigarettes and alcohol, Loren? Which have both been proven addictive and deadly, not only to those who use them but to those who dont. Just recently on the news two twin babies were killed by a drunk driver. Most people who smoke weed stay at home and chill and are not violent. I've driven with many people who we're very stoned and they drive fine. We never got in any accidents. I agree with you thought that the Methods of the Drug War need to be overhauled. I just wonder why we arent more involved in making life better in Mexio/South American so people wont be so poor that they have to turn to selling/smuggling drugs. It's definitely a complex problem but it wont get any better if we just continue doing the same ole same ole we've been doing for years.

[K'Nort]

Even
Cei-U!
owns a coupla conservative ties!

Snappy bow ties, right?

[Loren]

"I really don't like the idea of companies profiting off of the sale of addictive recreational drugs." Than what about cigarettes and alcohol, Loren?

I don't like that tobacco and alcohol companies profit off the sale of addictive recreational drugs either. How's that? :)

I expected this response so much that I almost included a response to it in my in my post above.

First off, for better or worse, tobacco and alcohol are just too traditionally ingrained in our culture as legal commodities. If either had a long history of being illegal, and had only gained in popularity recently with calls for their legalization, then I daresay they'd be grouped in with your other drugs.

Second, the tobacco and alcohol industries are two of the most despicable segments of the corporate world. And note I'm not talking about individual companies that grew corrupt; these whole industries are tainted. Consider the tobacco companies' decades of lies or their avid marketing of cigarettes to children overseas. They breed on ignorance and they thrive on dependence.

Plus, their products' positive contributions to society are highly arguable, but their effect on suffering is indisputable. I don't think I need to cite any numbers about cancer or emphysema (a disease which is limited almost entirely to smokers these days). And it's sad to see how much crime is the consequence of drunkenness. Drunk driving is of course the most obvious example, but alcohol is a very common element in assaults and batteries, and is all but a universal component of domestic violence. And the cost of both products weighs the heaviest on the part of the population who can least afford it, and their addictive nature makes it all the harder to escape their grasp.

In short, I'm hard pressed to imagine why it would be a good thing to create another industry like the tobacco or alcohol industries. I can foresee only greater suffering as a result.

Loren

[Ugoff]

I don't like that tobacco and alcohol companies profit off the sale of addictive recreational drugs either. How's that? :)

I expected this response so much that I almost included a response to it in my in my post above.

First off, for better or worse, tobacco and alcohol are just too traditionally ingrained in our culture as legal commodities. If either had a long history of being illegal, and had only gained in popularity recently with calls for their legalization, then I daresay they'd be grouped in with your other drugs.

Second, the tobacco and alcohol industries are two of the most despicable segments of the corporate world. And note I'm not talking about individual companies that grew corrupt; these whole industries are tainted. Consider the tobacco companies' decades of lies or their avid marketing of cigarettes to children overseas. They breed on ignorance and they thrive on dependence.

Plus, their products' positive contributions to society are highly arguable, but their effect on suffering is indisputable. I don't think I need to cite any numbers about cancer or emphysema (a disease which is limited almost entirely to smokers these days). And it's sad to see how much crime is the consequence of drunkenness. Drunk driving is of course the most obvious example, but alcohol is a very common element in assaults and batteries, and is all but a universal component of domestic violence. And the cost of both products weighs the heaviest on the part of the population who can least afford it, and their addictive nature makes it all the harder to escape their grasp.

In short, I'm hard pressed to imagine why it would be a good thing to create another industry like the tobacco or alcohol industries. I can foresee only greater suffering as a result.

Loren

Weed is not as harmful as cigarettes or alcohol so where's the suffering? People could be allowed to grow there own weed, it doesnt have to come from some huge corporation. If you want to talk about "greater suffering", the Drug War has is and will continue to cause and breed suffering not only for US citizens but for those living in Mexico and South America. But I agree with you that we should try decriminalization along with drug counseling. But like I said earlier to continue to let things go on unchanged is ridiculous. Also people are already suffering because of mj being illegal. Those being sent to prison for long periods of time(alot of them black), people being killed over drug deals gone bad(most of them black or hispanic), those being penalized over having medicinial mj.

[cactusmaac]

Weed is not as harmful as cigarettes or alcohol so where's the suffering?

That's what we call a foolish consistency.

It's bad enough that booze and cigs are incapable of eradication.

Why offer even more opportunities for people to damage their health and their lives?

[Mike Smash!]

Snappy bow ties, right?He's Superman's Pal, Kurt Mitchell!

[Ugoff]

That's what we call a foolish consistency.

It's bad enough that booze and cigs are incapable of eradication.

Why offer even more opportunities for people to damage their health and their lives?

Because we all have free will and can make our own choices. Instead I should have said that weed isnt harmful and hasnt even been proven harmful. Actually it's been proven countless times that mj has positive advantages. If you want to examine the opportunities for people to damage their health lets look at overeating, partially hydrolized soybean oils/trans fat(which is in almost every kind of food these days and which is really not healthly for you at all), anti-depressants and other drugs which go on the market when companies know there are awful side effects, cigarettes, alcohol, mecury levels in fish, some items in 25 cent machines that contain lead. I've read alot about weed, I've seen people on weed, I know people who still smoke weed, I've experienced tons of weed myself. It's not as harmful or as evil as it is made out to be.

[Jared_Humpherys]

That's what we call a foolish consistency.

It's bad enough that booze and cigs are incapable of eradication.

Why offer even more opportunities for people to damage their health and their lives?

Then why stop there? Why not eradicate sleeping pills, so people can't overdose on them?

Look, as far as I'm concerned, I can f*ck up my body however badly I wish, and everyone else should be able to do the same.

[Dreadstar]

You and me, Sagroth, you and me...

[howyadoin]

Look, as far as I'm concerned, I can f*ck up my body however badly I wish, and everyone else should be able to do the same.Do you pay for your own health insurance?

[Dreadstar]

Do you pay for your own health insurance?

Partially. The other half is a perk, so therefore I've earned it, and thus payed for it through hard work and longevity.

[howyadoin]

Partially. The other half is a perk, so therefore I've earned it, and thus payed for it through hard work and longevity.Works for me, then.

[cactusmaac]

Because we all have free will and can make our own choices. Instead I should have said that weed isnt harmful and hasnt even been proven harmful. Actually it's been proven countless times that mj has positive advantages. If you want to examine the opportunities for people to damage their health lets look at overeating, partially hydrolized soybean oils/trans fat(which is in almost every kind of food these days and which is really not healthly for you at all), anti-depressants and other drugs which go on the market when companies know there are awful side effects, cigarettes, alcohol, mecury levels in fish, some items in 25 cent machines that contain lead. I've read alot about weed, I've seen people on weed, I know people who still smoke weed, I've experienced tons of weed myself. It's not as harmful or as evil as it is made out to be.

It's been linked to everything from brain damage to cancer.

It's not a harmless substance.

[MJC]

It's been linked to everything from brain damage to cancer.

It's not a harmless substance.

So everything that's harmful should be outlawed?

But I like my fast food...

[Mike Smash!]

It's been linked to everything from brain damage to cancer.

It's not a harmless substance.No drug is harmless, but the harm caused by marijuana has never been proven to be worse than alcohol or tobacco. In some cases, much less so. In alcohol's case, I've seen that the behavior under it's influence can be even more harmful than the drug itself.

What a person puts into their body is their business, so long as they don't harm anyone else.

By your logic, we should make McDonald's illegal, since I imagine it's causing much more widespread health problems than even one random tobacco company is.

[cactusmaac]

Then why stop there? Why not eradicate sleeping pills, so people can't overdose on them?

Look, as far as I'm concerned, I can f*ck up my body however badly I wish, and everyone else should be able to do the same.

Because sleeping pills actually have a purpose they can be properly employed for?

And it would be much simpler if drug addicts did absolutely no physical or emotional harm to those around them, didn't require a nickel's worth of extra government spending to cover the extra costs of crime, traffic accidents, welfare, domestic abuse and health spending and weren't likely to fuck up anything besides their own bodies.

Unfortunately that's not the case.

[howyadoin]

Because sleeping pills actually have a purpose they can be properly employed for?So does medical marijuana. And abusing sleeping pills will fuck you up a lot more than abusing pot.

[Ugoff]

It's been linked to everything from brain damage to cancer.

It's not a harmless substance.


Where are you getting your information from?


Everyone check out the Education of Shelby Knox tonight at 10pm central time on PBS----it's about sex education

[Mike Smash!]

Because sleeping pills actually have a purpose they can be properly employed for?

And it would be much simpler if drug addicts did absolutely no physical or emotional harm to those around them, didn't require a nickel's worth of extra government spending to cover the extra costs of crime, traffic accidents, welfare, domestic abuse and health spending and weren't likely to fuck up anything besides their own bodies.

Unfortunately that's not the case.Yes and alcohol doesn't apply to that statement? Or television?

And to be quite honest, aside from violent crime related to its illegality, I have never heard of a violent act perpetrated under the act of marijuana that wasn't tainted with something.

With alcohol, you fill a football stadium with all of the people who've been killed intentionally or unintentionally by the behavior of someone under the influence of alcohol.

[Dreadstar]

I'm sorry but for clarification, did someone just call marijuana users drug addicts?

[cactusmaac]

No drug is harmless, but the harm caused by marijuana has never been proven to be worse than alcohol or tobacco. In some cases, much less so. In alcohol's case, I've seen that the behavior under it's influence can be even more harmful than the drug itself.

Like I said before, I don't believe in foolish consistencies.


What a person puts into their body is their business, so long as they don't harm anyone else.

I wish it were that simple.


By your logic, we should make McDonald's illegal, since I imagine it's causing much more widespread health problems than even one random tobacco company is.

Obesity is a lifestyle problem, not one due to a Happy Meal addiction. Outlawing fast food would not be very effective.

Besides, moderate obesity doesn't have significantly deleterious health effects. If your waist size is below 36", you're in OK shape.

But I like my fast food...

[cactusmaac]

So does medical marijuana. And abusing sleeping pills will fuck you up a lot more than abusing pot.

I'd be OK with medical marijuana as long as there were no other palliatives around that could do the job.

And I'd prefer to make it harder for people to chemically abuse themselves.

[cactusmaac]

I'm sorry but for clarification, did someone just call marijuana users drug addicts?

Well, does taking pot provide physical or psychological impulses to take more pot in the future?

http://www.marijuana-anonymous.org/

[cactusmaac]

Where are you getting your information from?


Everyone check out the Education of Shelby Knox tonight at 10pm central time on PBS----it's about sex education

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html



Scientists have learned a great deal about how THC acts in the brain to produce its many effects. When someone smokes marijuana, THC rapidly passes from the lungs into the bloodstream, which carries the chemical to organs throughout the body, including the brain.

In the brain, THC connects to specific sites called cannabinoid receptors on nerve cells and influences the activity of those cells. Some brain areas have many cannabinoid receptors; others have few or none. Many cannabinoid receptors are found in the parts of the brain that influence pleasure, memory, thought, concentration, sensory and time perception, and coordinated movement(5).

The short-term effects of marijuana can include problems with memory and learning; distorted perception; difficulty in thinking and problem solving; loss of coordination; and increased heart rate. Research findings for long-term marijuana use indicate some changes in the brain similar to those seen after long-term use of other major drugs of abuse. For example, cannabinoid (THC or synthetic forms of THC) withdrawal in chronically exposed animals leads to an increase in the activation of the stress-response system(6) and changes in the activity of nerve cells containing dopamine(7). Dopamine neurons are involved in the regulation of motivation and reward, and are directly or indirectly affected by all drugs of abuse.
Effects on the Heart

One study has indicated that a user’s risk of heart attack more than quadruples in the first hour after smoking marijuana(8). The researchers suggest that such an effect might occur from marijuana’s effects on blood pressure and heart rate and reduced oxygen-carrying capacity of blood.
Effects on the Lungs

A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers(9). Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

Even infrequent use can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, often accompanied by a heavy cough. Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers do, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, a heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency to obstructed airways(10). Smoking marijuana increases the likelihood of developing cancer of the head or neck, and the more marijuana smoked the greater the increase(11). A study comparing 173 cancer patients and 176 healthy individuals produced strong evidence that marijuana smoking doubled or tripled the risk of these cancers.

Marijuana use also has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens(12, 13). In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke(14). It also produces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form—levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells(15). Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/drugs-alcohol/dn3098

The link between regular cannabis use and later depression and schizophrenia has been significantly strengthened by three new studies.

The studies provide "little support" for an alternative explanation - that people with mental illnesses self-medicate with marijuana - according to Joseph Rey and Christopher Tennant of the University of Sydney, who have written an editorial on the papers in the British Medical Journal.

One of the key conclusions of the research is that people who start smoking cannabis as adolescents are at the greatest risk of later developing mental health problems. Another team calculates that eliminating cannabis use in the UK population could reduce cases of schizophrenia by 13 per cent.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/drugs-alcohol/dn3543


Children born to mothers who use marijuana during pregnancy may suffer a host of lasting mental defects, suggests a new study in rats. Marijuana is the most widely used illegal drug among women of reproductive age.

The offspring of pregnant rats given a low dose of cannabinoid were found to perform poorly in learning tests throughout their lives, compared to rats that were not exposed.

The Italian research team found that long-term learning in the rats was damaged by the cannabinoids irreversibly disrupting chemical and electrical processes in the brain during gestation. The exposed rats were also more hyperactive as infants, although this effect wore off as the rats reached adulthood.

Marijuana being less harmful than alacohol or tobacco is still far from proven.

[howyadoin]

Marijuana being less harmful than alacohol or tobacco is still far from proven.Well, you can't overdose on pot. The same can hardly be said for booze.

[guy_inwheelchair]

Unfortunately, weed will never be legal in U.S.. If it would be, the real poison would be out of business, alcohol and tobacco. And that would be a major loss for the government.

[Loren]

Weed is not as harmful as cigarettes or alcohol so where's the suffering?

I didn't notice at first, but this isn't quite the same argument as before. Your previous question pointed out that alcohol and tobacco are also addictive recreational drugs like marijuana. That's pretty much indisputable.

But this time you're making a clear judgment call, and saying that tobacco and alcohol are worse than marijuana. That's not at all clear-cut, and is definitely not an assertion of fact, but you tossed it out like a foregone conclusion. (The same goes for the other posters drawing comparisons to sleeping pills and television.) Let's see some arguments as to why "Weed is not as harmful."

People could be allowed to grow there own weed, it doesnt have to come from some huge corporation.

I don't see how drugs could be truly legalized and not be sold on the open market. There's profit to be made in selling the stuff; why wouldn't a company like RJ Reynolds be interested in getting a piece of that action?

Besides, some level of decriminalization would allow for personal use and production, but could still bar the sale of marijuana between people. I believe that's the way some of those European nations have attempted it.

And don't forget that my comments about legalization were aimed at all drugs in general. I'd like to think that if marijuana is the only drug that's going to be disputed in this regard, then my reasoning is a bit more persuasive on the harder drugs. I'm guessing that fewer people would be willing to argue that cocaine or LSD are less harmful than cigarettes.

But I agree with you that we should try decriminalization along with drug counseling.

And it's a notion that can so easily be sold to people of different political persuasions. Reducing imprisonment in favor of mandatory counseling would be far cheaper and thus a potentially popular idea with those concerned over the budget. Anyone concerned with privacy and civil liberties should support a rolling back of intrusive investigatory methods and confiscatory laws. And anti-drug pragmatists could be won over by the argument that actual drug use is more likely to be reduced through treatment.

Loren

[Ugoff]

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html



http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/drugs-alcohol/dn3098



http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/drugs-alcohol/dn3543



Marijuana being less harmful than alacohol or tobacco is still far from proven.

Some of this stuff is truly laughable. I know people who smoke heavily and their kids are fine. Some are even very smart. But the effects of other drugs such as alcohol and heroine on unborn babies is much worse from what I can remember. Look at Jamaica or Amsterdam, they havent completely fallen apart.

[Loren]

Well, you can't overdose on pot. The same can hardly be said for booze.

You can't overdose on cigarettes either. But cigarettes don't impair a person's perceptions and judgment the way marijuana does, so in that respect pot is more like alcohol.

They're three different kinds of drugs with three different sets of properties. Each has certain qualities that distinguish it as worse than at least one of the others in some way. The question is whether once you add up all of those negatives, if one stands out as substantially better or worse than the others.

Loren

[Cei-U!]

Snappy bow ties, right?

...with the word "Dork" printed all over 'em. Ugh.

Cei-U!
I summon the Windsor knot!

[cactusmaac]

Some of this stuff is truly laughable. I know people who smoke heavily and their kids are fine.

Check back in 20 years.

[cactusmaac]

Well, you can't overdose on pot. The same can hardly be said for booze.

And like booze, a pot-smoker isn't someone who can be safely left in charge of heavy machinery or a car.

[Ugoff]

I didn't notice at first, but this isn't quite the same argument as before. Your previous question pointed out that alcohol and tobacco are also addictive recreational drugs like marijuana. That's pretty much indisputable.

But this time you're making a clear judgment call, and saying that tobacco and alcohol are worse than marijuana. That's not at all clear-cut, and is definitely not an assertion of fact, but you tossed it out like a foregone conclusion. (The same goes for the other posters drawing comparisons to sleeping pills and television.) Let's see some arguments as to why "Weed is not as harmful."



I don't see how drugs could be truly legalized and not be sold on the open market. There's profit to be made in selling the stuff; why wouldn't a company like RJ Reynolds be interested in getting a piece of that action?

Besides, some level of decriminalization would allow for personal use and production, but could still bar the sale of marijuana between people. I believe that's the way some of those European nations have attempted it.

And don't forget that my comments about legalization were aimed at all drugs in general. I'd like to think that if marijuana is the only drug that's going to be disputed in this regard, then my reasoning is a bit more persuasive on the harder drugs. I'm guessing that fewer people would be willing to argue that cocaine or LSD are less harmful than cigarettes.



And it's a notion that can so easily be sold to people of different political persuasions. Reducing imprisonment in favor of mandatory counseling would be far cheaper and thus a potentially popular idea with those concerned over the budget. Anyone concerned with privacy and civil liberties should support a rolling back of intrusive investigatory methods and confiscatory laws. And anti-drug pragmatists could be won over by the argument that actual drug use is more likely to be reduced through treatment. I'm not trying to change my opinion mid stream or assert facts as a forgone conculsion. I'm just speaking what I know, from the heart, what I've lived and what I've seen.

Loren

There have been alot of examples given in this thread about why "Weed is not as harmful as". Why go and buy weed at the store when you can grow it in your own back yard? I see what your saying, I do think that it could be sold on the open market but I see that as something very complex. I'm not sure how it would work and there will have to be regulations and stuff. But if we dont try it out, we wont know how it works. Alcohol and tabacco are a lot worse. Look at the evidence the deaths and the fact that the tabacco companies knew before hand that their product was deadly.

[Ugoff]

And like booze, a pot-smoker isn't someone who can be safely left in charge of heavy machinery or a car.


I've been in many cars where the driver is a major pothead and I'm safe and alive today. Also if pot has triple the carcinogens than cigarettes than why dont potheads get cancer sooner? Concerning the comment of check back in 20yrs about kids born of a mj user. I'll have to check on that but I'm sure those kids are fine. Also concerning long term smokers, I knew this one guy who was like 60 maybe cant remember his age but he had gray hair. He was weird but he was never violent or out of control. he also drove a car. I was at his house one time with the friend that intoduce us and I went to sleep on the couch. I woke up maybe an hour later and I was fine. He didnt go all shiczo and kill me, so I dont see the problem.

[Ed Cunard]

Also if pot has triple the carcinogens than cigarettes than why dont potheads get cancer sooner?

I'm actually pro-legalization, but it could have something to do with the cost of marijuana vs. the cost of cigarettes. I haven't bought pot in a long as time, but how much would it cost in today's narcotics market to purchase enough weed to make 20 approximately cigarette-sized joints?

And then, even if one was to handle a "pack of weed" or whatever a day (isn't that the smoking average? A pack a day?), that person couldn't just light up everywhere, right?

[bfrank]

And like booze, a pot-smoker isn't someone who can be safely left in charge of heavy machinery or a car.
So I take it you want to ban the booze too?

boy, I hope your grandmother never gets cancer, and never needs to smoke a joint to eat...especially given your holier than thou attitude....

[howyadoin]

And like booze, a pot-smoker isn't someone who can be safely left in charge of heavy machinery or a car.So don't drink/smoke or drive. It's not like every drinker or pot smoker has the immediate and uncontrollable urge to drive.

[Ugoff]

I'm actually pro-legalization, but it could have something to do with the cost of marijuana vs. the cost of cigarettes. I haven't bought pot in a long as time, but how much would it cost in today's narcotics market to purchase enough weed to make 20 approximately cigarette-sized joints?

And then, even if one was to handle a "pack of weed" or whatever a day (isn't that the smoking average? A pack a day?), that person couldn't just light up everywhere, right?

I dont get your point. What does the cost have to do with mj having triple the carcinogens? U can't light up where ever you please cuz u could get arrested. Weed is pretty expensive. It's more expensive than cigs I think. But most people can afford it or they get together in a group and pitch in money to afford it. I think the prices are still the same thought, a nickel bag is $5, a dime bag is $10 and so on I guess. I cant remember what you can get for 20 or more.

[Ed Cunard]

I dont get your point. What does the cost have to do with mj having triple the carcinogens? U can't light up where ever you please cuz u could get arrested. Weed is pretty expensive. It's more expensive than cigs I think. But most people can afford it or they get together in a group and pitch in money to afford it. I think the prices are still the same thought, a nickel bag is $5, a dime bag is $10 and so on I guess. I cant remember what you can get for 20 or more.

My point: smoking the same amount of marijuana as one might smoke cigarettes is cost-prohibitive, meaning the amount of marijuana smoke isn't an apples-to-apples comparrison with the amount of tobacco one might smoke.

Mathematically, with the supposition that marijuana has three times the carcinogenic content of tobacco:

X = 1 cigarette carcinogen level
3X = 1 joint carcinogen level

If one smokes a pack of cigarettes a day, he's taking in 20X.

If one smokes five joints a day, he's taking in 5(3X), or 15X.

You also mention the sharing of the cost, which would mean each person in said weed-smoking group would then smoke less.

And this has nothing to do with the original question that started the thread, so I'd like to say that as a pragmatist, I do think that how one dresses and/or portrays him/herself is something one should consider when trying to gain credibility for his/her arguments.

[Mike Smash!]

So don't drink/smoke or drive. It's not like every drinker or pot smoker has the immediate and uncontrollable urge to drive.But you have to admit that someone who's been drinking is certainly given to being more active (yelling, talking loudly, singing, falling down, driving, wanting to have sex, drive, fight...etc) than someone who's been smoking weed.

I've smoked pot maybe 7-8 times in my life and I've never wanted to do more than just eat potato chips and watch TV. On alcohol....I once made out with a girl with serious problems and learned to regret it over the next few weeks, to name just one of a few stupid things.

[Ugoff]

My point: smoking the same amount of marijuana as one might smoke cigarettes is cost-prohibitive, meaning the amount of marijuana smoke isn't an apples-to-apples comparrison with the amount of tobacco one might smoke.

Mathematically, with the supposition that marijuana has three times the carcinogenic content of tobacco:

X = 1 cigarette carcinogen level
3X = 1 joint carcinogen level

If one smokes a pack of cigarettes a day, he's taking in 20X.

If one smokes five joints a day, he's taking in 5(3X), or 15X.

You also mention the sharing of the cost, which would mean each person in said weed-smoking group would then smoke less.

And this has nothing to do with the original question that started the thread, so I'd like to say that as a pragmatist, I do think that how one dresses and/or portrays him/herself is something one should consider when trying to gain credibility for his/her arguments.


I do agree with you about the way one should dress to give their arguments credibility. I'm not trying to be rude to you. Concerning smoking weed vs. smoking cigs, I think most potheads smoke more weed than those who smoke cigarettes. Also those you smoke cigarettes usually have things going on with them that are negative before they even get cancer. They reek of cig smoke, bad teeth, poor health, discolored teeth. I dont think those in weed smoking groups would smoke less, they would smoke more. I've seen it. Also most people I know not only smoke weed but smoke cigs and I dont see any of them with cancer. But I'll have to see if they know anyone. So why arent potheads getting cancer quicker(especially those who also smoke) if weed contains triple the carcinogens as cigs? I'm not calling u out on this but I'm not buying the info that was posted from the website that cactus got it from.

[kmeyers]

I do agree with you about the way one should dress to give their arguments credibility. I'm not trying to be rude to you. Concerning smoking weed vs. smoking cigs, I think most potheads smoke more weed than those who smoke cigarettes. Also those you smoke cigarettes usually have things going on with them that are negative before they even get cancer. They reek of cig smoke, bad teeth, poor health, discolored teeth. I dont think those in weed smoking groups would smoke less, they would smoke more. I've seen it. Also most people I know not only smoke weed but smoke cigs and I dont see any of them with cancer. But I'll have to see if they know anyone. So why arent potheads getting cancer quicker(especially those who also smoke) if weed contains triple the carcinogens as cigs? I'm not calling u out on this but I'm not buying the info that was posted from the website that cactus got it from.
There is no way potheads smoke more weed than smokers smoke cigarrettes.

if the average cigarrette smoker smokes about a pack a day, I don't know anyone who smokes 20 joints a day. I'm sure it's possible, but no one does it every day. First of all, you would be incapacitated all day, every day, and there's no way you could afford to do that for very long. weed is really expensive.

although price of weed can vary greatly, the cheapest you would pay for 20 joints worth of weed would be around $20-$40, going to the most expensive end of $150.

[macul]

Then why stop there? Why not eradicate sleeping pills, so people can't overdose on them?

Look, as far as I'm concerned, I can f*ck up my body however badly I wish, and everyone else should be able to do the same.

Fine by me so long as we NEVER have national healthcare.

[Cei-U!]

Concerning smoking weed vs. smoking cigs, I think most potheads smoke more weed than those who smoke cigarettes.

That is simply untrue. My sister and I both smoke pot more-or-less daily. I don't do tobacco, never have, but my sister smokes 25-30 cigs a day (a low average for someone who's been smoking for 35+ years). Between the two of us, we probably don't smoke more than 1.25 cigs' worth of weed on any given day and usually much, much less. (Of course we're older and "wiser" and don't chase the kind of mindblowing highs we wanted as teens.) And with a single exception,* I've never met anyone who smoked the cannibis equivalent of a packa tabacca a day.

Cei-U!
I summon the perspective!

*And that person was out of control in all kinds of other ways.

[macul]

How much $$ does 30 cigs a day come out to per month?

[kmeyers]

How much $$ does 30 cigs a day come out to per month?
a pack of cigarrettes is what $3-$4.

[Loren]

How much $$ does 30 cigs a day come out to per month?

That's a pack and a half a day, and depending on brand a pack should cost $3-4 (as kmeyers pointed out). That's between $135 and $180 a month.

Loren

[Ugoff]

That is simply untrue. My sister and I both smoke pot more-or-less daily. I don't do tobacco, never have, but my sister smokes 25-30 cigs a day (a low average for someone who's been smoking for 35+ years). Between the two of us, we probably don't smoke more than 1.25 cigs' worth of weed on any given day and usually much, much less. (Of course we're older and "wiser" and don't chase the kind of mindblowing highs we wanted as teens.) And with a single exception,* I've never met anyone who smoked the cannibis equivalent of a packa tabacca a day.

Cei-U!
I summon the perspective!

*And that person was out of control in all kinds of other ways.

My bad. After thinking it over I am wrong. But I would like to see someone study that area of smoking. I use to know people who smoked alot of weed. But concerning the carcenogens what do you think of the question I posited? If weed has more than cigs why arent potheads gettin cancer/or any medical problems sooner than cig smokers. I guess you have to factor in it does take time for smokers to get to a certain point to where they have cancer or something. Say 20-30 years I guess. I use to know this lady who was like 88 and it seemed like she had been smoking all her life and she smoked them unflitered. I dont think she's ever had cancer or anything. There are alot of factors invloved I guess that determine what someone will have later on.

[K'Nort]

...with the word "Dork" printed all over 'em. Ugh.

Cei-U!
I summon the Windsor knot!

Tsk. Such disloyalty.

http://my.execpc.com/~icicle/johnnythunder.jpg

[macul]

That's a pack and a half a day, and depending on brand a pack should cost $3-4 (as kmeyers pointed out). That's between $135 and $180 a month.

Loren

Damn. That's sad. That's an electric and telephone payment.

[Slam_Bradley]

I've been in many cars where the driver is a major pothead and I'm safe and alive today.


And my parents never put me in car seats or seat belts. That doesn't change the fact that it's dangerous. Anecdotal evidence has very little probative value in this sort of debate.

[Ugoff]

And my parents never put me in car seats or seat belts.