I agree with those statements. I just found the discussion a bit biased towards "the dangers of Cannabis" and lacking in perspective.
For instance, it was claimed, and still is often claimed "Cannabis reduces motivation". The notorious British pot writer Howard Marks replies to this in his book "Mr. Nice", as a very motivated trafficker and smoker of marijuana in the 70s and 80s, that (I paraphrase) "when on Cannabis, its just very difficult to do the things you really don't want to do. It's the plants way of reminding us that we are free to pursue the things we want to, and if we're just more serious about being lazy enough, we can probably devise ways of securing our lives with less effort. But doing the things we like, Cannabis is a motivator. It's natural that somebody working in an job-environment exploiting them, will not want to work if they take a couple of puffs. I don't think they're demotivated, but if stagnation and depression persists, they should probably relax more, reorient their lives to making a more enjoyable living, more easily. And if not they should forget Cannabis." It also forces teens to become inventive with their laziness, as they go seek out liminal cracks between the edifices of civilization and nature. The places teenagers retreat to, when they get stoned: forest edges, panoramic vistas in nature, some magical hidden spot in a park. In the age of getting lost in Facebook and fancy mobile phones, this escapist behavior is relatively benign, if not positive for development of mind. Sure it can be dangerous when people get locked in their own boredom and don't pick up the sense of letting go of fixed ideals, to pursue something better; but mostly they do and relative to background of other addictions and the behavioral modifications they produce, the dangers are relatively small, and that a "cannabis ideology" paired with an open mind, is one of the few dependencies, that reverberate beyond personal satisfaction and create benefits for society, as all the books, poetry, art, thinking, and music it has inspired, are aimed at relaxing our fixations with threats, evils, making judgements and instead, chilling us out a bit. This type of dis-inhibition is more benign than alcohol. I find media consumption, gambling, and nursing of the majority of obsessions and fetishes to some form of "fixed ideal" people lock themselves up with, much more problematic. So yes, we agree on the prohibition things, that there are danger etc. but I thought it should be noted equally, that there are benefits for more than billionaires and rich people, and that these are not exceptional in any way. It's just not talked about for obvious reasons, even though we all benefit from the creative attitudes of beatles, stones, hendrix, or pink floyd etc. once in awhile. On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 02 Sep 2012, at 16:38, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > It depends what standards for and quality of information you have on > something. > > People shouldn't judge what they do not understand. Bruno you understand > what Krokodil entails, with solid information, so trying it is nonsense. > But I don't think most understand what Cannabis entails because of > misinformation. To most people what Krokodil entails is the same as > Cannabis. > > I let a singer songwriter make the point lacking in this thread > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhKq9JvssB8 > > :) > > Paraphrasing old Nietsche: > Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not > to hit it at all. > > To which I would add: > They should be asked to leave, or at least get out of the way. > > > I think we agree, OK? (or I miss something?). > > Prohibition is exactly what makes information impossible. If all drugs > were legal, Krokodil would never have appeared, and everybody would know > that cannabis is less toxic (if toxic at all) compared to crack, meth, and > krokodil (except it would not exist in that case). > > If cannabis was not illegal, nobody would ever hide its many medicinal > qualities. > > The deep point is that food and drug is not the business of any > collectivity. People should be judged on the harm they do, not on the > speculation that they might react in some way with some products. > Prohibition is dangerous as it kills democracy, notably. > > Like the NDAA, fortunately suspended by the supreme court. It would have > made possible to detain without trial, for arbitrary time anyone belonging > to a fuzzy category of "suspects of threat", like if the human rights were > not universal: it makes no sense to delimitate a class of people to whom > the human rights and the constitutional right don't apply. Prohibition and > NDAA belongs to the family of tyrannic technic to maintain anti-democratic > powers. > > > Bruno > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.