A list of the losers who smoked pot and never amounted to anything
-
Shaftaire_of_Astora — 14 years ago(May 04, 2011 07:35 AM)
I don't doubt that Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and others on your list smoked an occasional joint, for recreational purposes.
Occasional joint? Their hemp fields were MASSIVE! Frequent is likely more accurate than occasional.
Bona fide potheads devote so much of their attention to this one habit that it impacts how they dress and speak; what type of friends they have; what type of music they listen to; which comedians they find funny; what movies they go to; and how they decorate their room.
So what? Cannabis is a whole culture in and of itself, and I don't see how there's anything even remotely wrong with a culture. When so many people are so intolerant of someone using marijuana, it's only natural that we're going to surround ourselves with like-minded individuals. It's a helluva lot better than being constantly criticized and looked down on by people with holier-than-thou attitudes who have no idea what they're talking about, and for whatever reason have to make everyone's business their own.
As far as the music goes, "stoner" bands, to this day, largely remain the most popular and influential of our time. How many non-marijuana users do you know who like The Beatles? Pink Floyd? Led Zeppelin? Jimi Hendrix? The Doors? The Who?
(Notice I said "room" and not "house," since most potheads will never be able to save enough money for a house.)
Another ignorant statement. Most potheads I know have college degrees and live in apartments (who in their young 20s owns a house?). I also know plenty of plenty of people who DON'T smoke weed and are living at home and/or are unemployed. Now's not the time to conveniently forget about our economic situation.
Those who believe the Scarface myth of drugs leading to success and happiness are the ones who are really naive and misinformed.
You're right, they are, but I've
never ever
met a single person who ever thought smoking marijuana would lead to multimillionaire Kingpin status. That would be like me saying 'those who believe driving cars will make them billions of dollars in oil are naive and misinformed'. It's common sense, and it simply doesn't apply. The majority of people who smoke weed don't think they're going to get rich because of it.
People who have become filthy rich from selling drugs are pretty
grateful
for prohibition, the DEA, and the War on Drugs. NOT the opposite. Our government has done nothing but help the dangerous become rich.
"Prohibitiongoes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."
Abraham Lincoln, December, 1840
The FBI reports that 65-75% of criminal violence is alcohol related. I was watching a show, I believe it was 'Jail', where one of the guards openly stated (without even realizing what he was
truly
saying) that "Over 80% of the people who come through here are drunk". If anyone can hear this and still think there's nothing wrong then they're truly blind to all things logical.
All of that said, why do you not support it being legal for just recreational use? -
nocomputer1962 — 14 years ago(May 04, 2011 11:01 AM)
1.) Franklin and Jefferson may have had massive hemp fields, but it's naive to think that they smoked all of their own stash. They were too busy with their accomplishments to lay around and smoke pot all day.
2.) Your list of "stoner bands" is impressive; I am a non-user who likes all of those bands, along with the Velvet Underground, the Kinks, CCR, Dylan, the Grateful Dead, Steppenwolf, Yes, etc. However, you might be chagrined to learn how few of today's hip-hop losers have even HEARD of any of them. If your own experience is different, then more power to you.
3.) I don't doubt that you know degreed professionals who smoke pot, but if they have the time and initiative to get a college degree and a real job, then they do not fit my definition of a bona fide pothead, and are therefore irrelevant to this discussion.
4.) Again, if your circle of friends rejects the Scarface myth, then more power to you and them. Meanwhile, the incarceration and umemployment rates for inner city youths seems to rise at about the rate as the sales of Scarface posters, T-Shirts, bandannas, cigarette lighters, etc. So, obviously, there are a lot of people who are falling for it.
I hope this clarifies my position. -
Shaftaire_of_Astora — 14 years ago(May 05, 2011 07:02 PM)
Sorry for the long rant, I don't expect you to read the whole thing. It's just obviously an issue I'm passionate about. I apologize if my thoughts are jumbled. I'm pretty high at the moment
1.) There's no reason to think they couldn't have been both regular users and productive as they were at the same time. Most of the really successful potheads I know wait until their day's tasks are complete, but you better believe as soon as their responsibilities are taken care of they're getting high as a kite, pretty much on a daily basis. I don't think it's unreasonable to think this could very well have been the case hundreds of years ago, especially when hard work and dedication was expected from everyone.
2.)
It's pretty much a fact that most bands and musicians influenced by weed/lsd/other psychedelics is top notch stuff. They're all excellent chemicals for being both inspiring and thought provoking, and I consider that to be one of the better qualities of the plant (and the psychedelics). A lot of people seem to selectively ignore all of that.
3) We just have different opinions of what a bona-fide pothead is then.
Annnnnd this is going to be long.
A lot of what you said in #4 seems to almost always only apply to areas of poverty and poor education, especially where gang-related violence is rampant. Education in particular plays a big part, but that's such a difficult problem to take care of when gang-life is so much more glorified in some areas than having a good education with a respectful occupation and lifestyle. It's pretty evident that cocaine/crack and heroin are much more responsible for the conditions of these areas than cannabis is. It's not at all normal for someone high on pot and only pot to be a dangerous person. It's a simple case of what the chemical does to a person, and for the most part marijuana just doesn't make an individual aggressive or violent in any way. The very real and very sad glorification of being a criminal is responsible for that. So, pretty much gangsta rap. People who are very impressionable are the ones who get brainwashed by it all. P.S. - I'm not racist. Really.
Unfortunately a lot of prohibitionists target these users and only these users as examples of what marijuana users "are like". It's comparable to if I only used domestically abusive rednecks as an example of what alcohol consumers are like. It's the same kind of tactics the government was trying to push on everyone in the 30s on, and back then it was primarily made a race issue. It's still the same way in a lot of conservative states that are often associated with racism. It's just not an accurate representation of the whole, or even close to half. In many cultures it's even used for religious reasons, which is a great example of the how positive the experience can be.
Prohibition laws are very dangerous to our society. Far more harmful than helpful. A drug conviction can ruin a person's chances at
a lot
of opportunities, in a lot of cases even long after the fact. Most of the time it isn't even the dealers who get taken down! Just the users! If any of the politicians who have admitted to smoking weed had gotten arrested for it, they wouldn't have made it to where they are. A possession charge alone is more than enough to ruin someone's chances and raise some major problems.
The double standards are some of the most sickening things about the laws. It seems like a lot of times drunken criminals get excused for their actions because they were drunk, and walk away with a slap on the wrist and minor fine.
On the other hand, someone arrested
JUST FOR HAVING WEED
can receive much harsher punishments.
Drunk drivers should not serve less time than someone in on possession. Period. And it happens.
It's just ridiculous, especially when you consider the VERY high percentage of criminals who get booked are piss drunk. It's pretty frustrating when such blatant hypocrisy is not only accepted, but strongly supported by damn near half the country.
I could get into the health issues of marijuana vs alcohol (alcohol is far more damaging both physically and psychologically), but that would need a super long post of it's own.
A LEGITIMATE MEDICINE is illegal while a
NEUROTOXIC POISON
is the only intoxicant mainstream society approves of
! What sense does that make? Absolutely none. There's
zero
legitimate justification for marijuana prohibition. -
nocomputer1962 — 14 years ago(May 06, 2011 07:30 AM)
I agree or at least understand most of what you've said, but we will probably never agree on what a "bona fide pothead" is. All along, I've used that phrase to describe a type of person whose entire life revolves around the worship of weed, to the detriment of his/her social, family, and economic life. (I avoid the phrase "marijuana addict," because I don't believe marijuana is addictive.) The laws as they currently exist ARE too draconian, and tend to punish the little guy while protecting the powerful drug pushers. (As you get older, you'll realize that nearly ALL laws exist to protect powerful interests. C'est la vie.) My biggest problem is with the way gangsta culture sells a lie to inner city youth, that they can prosper by dropping out of school, dressing like a rodeo clown, listening to mind-numbing thumpety-thump music, proectecting their turf with guns, and buying and selling drugs. If they were less gullible, they would see that the only way out of the 'hood is to stay in school and try to make something of themselves. Until a few weeks ago, my commute to work included a daily drive through the inner city; the squalor and wasted potential always left me speechless. I'm not racist either, but I wish people in general were less naive and more skeptical to anyone who tries to push a bum's lifestyle on them.
-
Shaftaire_of_Astora — 14 years ago(May 06, 2011 12:32 PM)
I really think crack is the real culprit here. Marijuana has been used since the beginning of mankind, and never proved to be a real problem. The myths they tried to create were that weed makes you crazy and act like a lunatic, but it was all total BS. On the other hand crack (not so much cocaine) is something that hardly existed until the late 80s. Pretty much the same time gangsta rap became really popular, and I don't think that's a coincidence. It's the real cash crop because it doesn't last long, is highly addictive, and relatively affordable even for people with low income. I personally believe the two together are mostly responsible for the explosion of that kind of lifestyle.
The issue with all of that is drugs will
always
exist, and humans will
always
use them, until the end of time as we know it. No amount of laws will ever stop people from using them, so it's useless to even try. The drug war has been nothing but a complete failure. It's been wasting billions of dollars a year since it all started. I would compare it to trying to catch every fish in the ocean, and we would all be forced to pay taxes for it. Who in their right mind would keep doing it? Especially since the 'fish' don't pose any danger.
All of this money we waste could and SHOULD be nothing but profit. The cannabis industry could be a MASSIVE one, and there are hundreds of uses for the plant. It would be a huge boost to our economy, not only because of the income but because of the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of jobs it would create. With police not focusing on marijuana users
at all
, THEN they can focus more manpower on going after the real criminals that you're describing. Right now our prisons are full of harmless individuals convicted of doing something as benign as getting high in the safety of their own homes. These are the people police are focusing such a large number of time, money and energy. Our government needs to stop going after people who get high and instead go after the truly dangerous criminals out there. A lot more could be done if they shift their priorities.
Weed is a wonderful thing indeed, but crack is whack, yo. -
STinG3606 — 14 years ago(July 16, 2011 11:10 PM)
I'm surprised the OP missed Frank Zappa. One of my fav guitarists and composers, Zappa (despite a heavy cigarette smoker) was very much against the use of weed, prohibiting it from his band. Dude's a beep boss though, despite it.
BTW, I'm not anti-marijuana, I use to smoke it. It's not as bad nor as good as its hyped up to be.
'You ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?'
'Yeah, he told me you're gay.'
BANG! -
nocomputer1962 — 12 years ago(May 16, 2013 03:01 PM)
Now, who's stereotyping? Most of the people on my list are dead, and therefore make less money than me. Yasmine Bleeth, who is alive, probably makes less money than me (unless you count "Baywatch" royalties.)
-
nocomputer1962 — 12 years ago(May 17, 2013 06:24 AM)
Ah, yes. . . Dave Chapelle, whose last acting role was as a guest voice on "Crank Yankers" in 2007. He probably does make more money than me, due to royalties from his outstanding comedy show of a decade ago. I put Chappelle on my list because he is an extraordinary comedy talent who turned his back on the world to worship the ganja god. Too bad, because the world could really use a laugh right now. Ozzy Osbourne undoubtedly makes more money than me, but, seriously, he's a buffoon with a life that I wouldn't want.