A list of the losers who smoked pot and never amounted to anything
-
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.