Weed Not Good For Music

[Bluesape]

When you're righteously stoned on pot, you're seriously too impaired to drive. Been there, done that. Won't do it again.

[Prague]

And we wonder why DJ's take a lot of the business. Individual musicans can't agree on much. Can you imagine a band full of them?

 

No thanks.

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

Originally posted by Prague:

And we wonder why DJ's take a lot of the business. Individual musicans can't agree on much. Can you imagine a band full of them?

 

No thanks.

Another non sequitur from the king of them? One thing has exactly nothing to do with the other.

 

And, just because someone doesn't agree with you (when you are obviously WAAAAY off base), does not mean that individual musicians can't agree. That was one hell of a quantum leap. It just means they don't agree with you. That has absolutely nothing to do with a DJ taking a paying gig. None of this has anything at all to do with smoking or not smoking pot. However, the inabilty to follow a train of thought to a logical conclusion is definitely a symptom of smoking pot.

[Tone Taster]

Originally posted by Prague:

And we wonder why DJ's take a lot of the business. Individual musicans can't agree on much. Can you imagine a band full of them?

 

No thanks.

Insufficient Pleading

 

Failed to plead all of the element$

[Caevan O’Shite]

 

Aaaaaah, yer raggin' on me, greenboy!

 

Just so anyone and everyone knows, though, that's not any kind of paraphernalia in my avatar-image, it's borrowed art- a photo of a painted sculpture called Dark Matter of the Universe in a very pricey NW/NA arthouse, the Stonington Gallery, to be exact. I explain just out of respect for the artist, Jean Ferrier, and NA peoples in general.

 

That is pretty damn funny, though, gb, especially the wonky image manipulation ya done there... !!

[Prague]

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

the king

I'll allow yuou to call me King. Just remember to capitalize.

 

OMG, I just noticed you accussed a musician of smoking pot?

 

[skipclone 1]

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

Originally posted by skipclone 1:

I don`t want to open a big can of worms here but I`ve read several informative articles and seen other sources enough to convince me that legalization, even if it makes sense from a social and economic standpoint, will probably not happen in the forseeable future. Too many people who claim to be `protecting` us are funding all kinds of little extracurricular activities that you`re probably better off not knowing about.

What does that mean? What "extracurricular activities"? Which people, specifically, that are supposed to be protecting us? Why would we be better off not knowing? Do you know what the "extracurricular activities" are and who the people are? Were you better off not knowing? If it was a written and published article then we can assume it's common knowledge, so I can't see where there's any harm in a few more people knowing (even if we won't be better off). Please share. Where can we read these authoritative and informative artlicles?

Who are the players? don`t ask me, I don`t have time for soap operas. Probably Khun Sa would be a good example, he`s been around a long time.

Meanwhile, start here:

 

www.pacificnews.org/jinn/stories/223/961115-cia.html

 

There`s lots more, I`ll pull a few things out of the database.

And yeah I would have rather just thought sleazy stuff goes on without having to pour over numerous detailed reports.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

I have not seen a study yet that shows there would be some benefit to the public health if drugs were legalized.

Well, if recreational drugs were legalized and regulated, the way alcohol and pharmaceuticals are regulated, the drugs would probably be cleaner. You don't get chalk dust and detergent in aspirin, do you? So that's a lot of kidney and liver problems solved straight away. And if needles were freely available, that's a big drop in things such as as hep and AIDS too.

 

Besides, if you were an addict and could buy your drugs from a corner store you wouldn't have to waste as much time hunting them down every day. You'd probably manage to hold down a job, like lots of other people do. And they wouldn't have to turn to crime, so that's a benefit to the public health system right there. You don't beat people up for cigarette money, do you?

 

I'm in favour of legalizing drugs and "que sera, sera". Prohibition did absolutely nothing for people, it just enriched a lot of gangsters. The current prohibition ties up legal resources. It's pointless.

 

Both the Swiss and the Dutch have legalized grass for a while now and they haven't fallen into some sort of weird barbaric anarchy. What makes you guys think that America would collapse if you legalized grass?

 

Lastly, I think there's a big diff between psychological dependence and a proper physical addiction (such as happens to alcoholics) where their bodies change and they are no longer able to eat properly.

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

Originally posted by skipclone 1:

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

Originally posted by skipclone 1:

I don`t want to open a big can of worms here but I`ve read several informative articles and seen other sources enough to convince me that legalization, even if it makes sense from a social and economic standpoint, will probably not happen in the forseeable future. Too many people who claim to be `protecting` us are funding all kinds of little extracurricular activities that you`re probably better off not knowing about.

What does that mean? What "extracurricular activities"? Which people, specifically, that are supposed to be protecting us? Why would we be better off not knowing? Do you know what the "extracurricular activities" are and who the people are? Were you better off not knowing? If it was a written and published article then we can assume it's common knowledge, so I can't see where there's any harm in a few more people knowing (even if we won't be better off). Please share. Where can we read these authoritative and informative artlicles?

Who are the players? don`t ask me, I don`t have time for soap operas. Probably Khun Sa would be a good example, he`s been around a long time.

Meanwhile, start here:

 

www.pacificnews.org/jinn/stories/223/961115-cia.html

 

There`s lots more, I`ll pull a few things out of the database.

And yeah I would have rather just thought sleazy stuff goes on without having to pour over numerous detailed reports.

That link doesn't work for me, but I'm guessing from other things you said that you're not talking about U.S. Officials and politics.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

That link doesn't work for me, but I'm guessing from other things you said that you're not talking about U.S. Officials and politics.

Well, the controversy over the CIA's alleged involvement in growing opium in Laos (as a source of hidden revenue) still continues.

 

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=cia+hmong+heroin&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&fr=FP-tab-web-t-322&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8

 

I'm not American, but I find it hard to believe that any sort of illicit drug trade can exist anywhere without some police awareness of the people involved.

 

Would you really find it surprising if there was all sorts of corruption in the system, especially considering the sums involved?

 

I'm not pointing a finger at anyone, it's not my problem. But do you really think some (or enough) American law enforcement people DON'T take bribes?

 

As far as US politics go, do you really think that the various cartels don't back prohibitionist congressmen? They'd be mad not to do so. Every day of prohibition is worth thousands, if not millions to the traffickers.

[Darklava]

What was the topic about again?

[A String]

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

I was with you right up to this point. Who did this documentary? NORML?

In all fairness I can't recall who released the documentary. Is was a documentary discussing the lies surrounding pot use. I suppose there is every chance that NORML was behind it.

 

May I ask why you believe things you read on the "Regan's war on drugs" type of propaganda sites, yet the information collected and released by NORML is instantly discredited?

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

I'm of three minds on the drug issue.

 

On one hand, we (the US) don't really need more legally fucked up people running around.

 

On the other hand the hypocracy pisses me off. People talk about their drug use on TV all the time. It is in the press. They make jokes about it on comedy shows. Police turn a blind eye. Either it IS illegal or it ISN'T. If it IS, then maybe all these hours of taped confessions and admissions should be put to use; putting a little fear into those who aren't celebrities.... if we're busting the powerful and rich, maybe we'll bust them, too.

 

And third, as has been pointed out; there are other parts of the world which manage to have some sort of legalization policy that seems to work.

 

I suspect that a lot of the allure to illicit drugs comes from the simple illegality of them. "Hey kids, here's something so cool that you parents can't handle it, and don't want you to have it! " Take away that allure, and there is a chance that fewer will find it attractive. At any rate, what we are doing now hasn't worked, maybe this is worth a try.

 

I suspect that, made legal and regulated, some drugs could be better handled and understood by users. As has been mentioned, quality and purity could be controlled. And let us not forget the income stream to the government in the form of taxes. (sigh...)

 

I'm really about personal freedom and responsibility. The two go hand in hand.

 

I believe that most kids, if raised right, will chose to do the right thing.

 

I also believe that there are personalities that are adictive/compulsive, or self-destructive. These people will always find a way to mess up. Should we help them by giving them easier access to more destructive persuits?

 

In my heart of hearts, I can't get too firmly into the "Legalize It!" camp because it just seems wrong to me. Yet I am a hypocrite, too. I have friends who have been smokers since the 60s. I've been known to enjoy a line or two now and again. This is where the /personal freedom and responsibility' comes into play for me though. If you can do what you have to do, meet your commitments, and do not hurt anyone, then you should be able to do most any recreational persuit.

 

No easy answers, and it is hard to work within a framework that considers a large group, when there are so many personal and individual tragedies that are a very real part of the question.

 

Bill

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

Originally posted by Vince C.:

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

That link doesn't work for me, but I'm guessing from other things you said that you're not talking about U.S. Officials and politics.

Well, the controversy over the CIA's alleged involvement in growing opium in Laos (as a source of hidden revenue) still continues.

 

That's not disputed. That happened..I know it did. So what? That was 30 or more years ago and the growing didn't only happen in Laos, it also happened in northern Thailand. There's a whole hell of a lot more to that story. The people that are protesting that action, quite frankly, don't know what they are talking about. Was it right? Hell no. It was necessary, though. We were at war and the enemy was not playing by the rules. How the hell are you supposed to win a war if you are the only one abiding by international law? Some of the covert action could not legally be funded with US Government monies and the missions had to be carried out. Unless you were there and had to have a part in the missions or in the planning and logistics of the missions, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

I really don't think that's what he's referring to anyway, is it? If it is, it's about time to let that go. Or, we could just go ahead and dig up things that happened during the Revolutionary War..it's just as relevant to the things that are going on now...

 

 

Would you really find it surprising if there was all sorts of corruption in the system, especially considering the sums involved?

 

Not at all. Your point?

 

I'm not pointing a finger at anyone, it's not my problem. But do you really think some (or enough) American law enforcement people DON'T take bribes?

 

Not at all. Your point?

 

As far as US politics go, do you really think that the various cartels don't back prohibitionist congressmen?

 

Nope. I don't think that.

 

They'd be mad not to do so. Every day of prohibition is worth thousands, if not millions to the traffickers.

 

 

Yes it is worth millions a day to them. So?

 

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

Originally posted by A String:

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

I was with you right up to this point. Who did this documentary? NORML?

In all fairness I can't recall who released the documentary. Is was a documentary discussing the lies surrounding pot use. I suppose there is every chance that NORML was behind it.

 

May I ask why you believe things you read on the "Regan's war on drugs" type of propaganda sites, yet the information collected and released by NORML is instantly discredited?

Reagan's War on Drugs? Where did you get that? What I know and believe is a result of growing up in the 50's, 60's and early 70's. Right in the middle of the drug counter-culture... and what I have seen and experienced first-hand. I know what drugs are and what they do. If you looked outside and saw for yourself that it was daytime, would you change that belief just because I argued it was night? I believe what I have seen. Today's dopers can try to tell me anything they want to, but that damned sure doesn't make it true. People are still people and dope is still dope. And stupid is still stupid, just like dead is still dead. Nothing has really changed in the last 30 years.

 

Anything that comes out of NORML is automatically suspect because of their agenda. Anything they release is obviously going to be biased and slanted in favor of that.

[Tone Taster]

Originally posted by Darklava:

What was the topic about again?

How pot affects musicianship, productivity, etc . . .

 

The allegation that it makes you more "creative", etc . . .

[A String]

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

Anything that comes out of NORML is automatically suspect because of their agenda. Anything they release is obviously going to be biased and slanted in favor of that.

If you can see that, why can't you see that information, released by the "Anti-drug" crowd will also be slanted and biased?

 

As I've stated, our country has released info that the last fifty years has been ripe with propaganda about pot. They have stated that it was all in an attempt to scare people away from it and basically "outed" your government for doing the same thing.

 

Your government has obviously done a good job of keeping this info from you as well, because you haven't heard it.

 

As for your views, they are tainted with people who have messed up by using hard drugs. Hard drugs comprise all of the things you hate about drugs. Pot is a naturally occurring plant that is not addictive, does not cause insanity and has no, ill lasting effects.

 

If you try to separate pot and other, harder drugs, it may help you to make a better judgement.

 

I know doctors, lawyers and many other folks who all smoke pot on the weekend. These people hold down their jobs, play with their kids and live normal lives. They just smoke a joint on the weekend instead of drinking a few beers. Should they be treated like criminals because of a society that has been scared by the propaganda of a government with an agenda?

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

It was necessary, though. We were at war and the enemy was not playing by the rules. How the hell are you supposed to win a war if you are the only one abiding by international law? Some of the covert action could not legally be funded with US Government monies and the missions had to be carried out. Unless you were there and had to have a part in the missions or in the planning and logistics of the missions, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

Well, one important result was drug addicted servicemen who eventually returned to the US. If defending Vietnam from Communism was worth it is up to you. Not my problem.

 

I only bring it up because a) it establishes a precedent where US officials were quite gainfully employed in the drug trade and b) there's a fair amount of allegations online where people claim that the CIA is using Afghanistan's opium crop in much the same way and for much the same purposes as they did in Vietnam.

 

If people are going to say there's no US officials involved in the drug trade, they COULD be right, but I kinda doubt it. THAT is my point.

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

Originally posted by A String:

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

Anything that comes out of NORML is automatically suspect because of their agenda. Anything they release is obviously going to be biased and slanted in favor of that.

If you can see that, why can't you see that information, released by the "Anti-drug" crowd will also be slanted and biased?

 

As I've stated, our country has released info that the last fifty years has been ripe with propaganda about pot. They have stated that it was all in an attempt to scare people away from it and basically "outed" your government for doing the same thing.

 

Your government has obviously done a good job of keeping this info from you as well, because you haven't heard it.

 

As for your views, they are tainted with people who have messed up by using hard drugs. Hard drugs comprise all of the things you hate about drugs. Pot is a naturally occurring plant that is not addictive, does not cause insanity and has no, ill lasting effects.

 

If you try to separate pot and other, harder drugs, it may help you to make a better judgement.

 

I know doctors, lawyers and many other folks who all smoke pot on the weekend. These people hold down their jobs, play with their kids and live normal lives. They just smoke a joint on the weekend instead of drinking a few beers. Should they be treated like criminals because of a society that has been scared by the propaganda of a government with an agenda?

I have heard and read all the arguments on both side. I don't live in a vacuum. I take most of them with a grain of salt unless they agree with what I have seen for myself. The Government will lie. That's a well known fact. NORML will lie if it fit's their agenda. The Democrats and liberals will lie if it fits their agenda. The Republicans and conservatives will lie if it fits their agenda. I personally don't give a damn what any of them say. I trust what I have seen and experienced.

 

I also know many, many people that smoke dope on the weekends. Yep, Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, no-good bums, housewives, teachers, all walks of life. I don't think that if pot were decriminalized or legalized that society would collapse. I've already stated (if you read my posts) that I think pot can be separated and classified differently than the "hard drugs". I just personally don't think it should be legalized because I don't think it's the right thing to do..gut feel, I think it would be opening a Pandora's Box. That being said, I wouldn't panic right away if it happened. I'm not sure I am totally against decriminalization, though. I'm not entirely sure it (pot) should carry criminal penalties, however......

 

Do I think people should be treated criminally if they are caught with it? Yes, as long as it is illegal with criminal penalties. Illegal is illegal. Just because you don't agree with a law does not give you the right to break it with impunity. If you don't like a law or think it is unjust, the right thing to do is to try to get it changed. Not just violate it anyway. I'm in favor of leniency towards violations involving marijuana, but the people that violate the laws know that it is illegal, know that there is a chance that they will be caught and willingly take that chance.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

Do I think people should be treated criminally if they are caught with it? Yes, as long as it is illegal with criminal penalties.

Well, I agree with everything else pretty much, and your gut feelings are your own. Not sure about the above point though. As you're probably aware, there's heaps of laws lying around from past centuries and decades which have simply fallen into disuse but are still quite present in the statutes books. If society is going to stick to the letter of the law, what a terrible place it could be. There's always a lot of ground for interpretation.

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

Originally posted by Vince C.:

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

It was necessary, though. We were at war and the enemy was not playing by the rules. How the hell are you supposed to win a war if you are the only one abiding by international law? Some of the covert action could not legally be funded with US Government monies and the missions had to be carried out. Unless you were there and had to have a part in the missions or in the planning and logistics of the missions, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

Well, one important result was drug addicted servicemen who eventually returned to the US. If defending Vietnam from Communism was worth it is up to you. Not my problem.

 

Well, we went to Vietnam because South Vietnam ASKED us to get involved. The French got their asses kicked at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 (big surprise there) and run out of the country, and the communists from the north had been trying to take over the south since. The Viet Minh (later the Viet Cong) terrorists were becoming a real problem as were the NVA regulars. They did not want to be communist and they asked for our help. Yes, in my opinion it was worth it. Would I have gotten involved voluntarily if I had known ahead of time how it was going to turn out? That's another question entirely and WAAAY off topic.

 

I only bring it up because a) it establishes a precedent where US officials were quite gainfully employed in the drug trade and b) there's a fair amount of allegations online where people claim that the CIA is using Afghanistan's opium crop in much the same way and for much the same purposes as they did in Vietnam.

 

When the enemy doesn't follow the rules, you do what you have to do. We are there to win a war, not a popularity contest. If some of these whining bleeding-hearts think that they can do a better job of getting this war won and over with, then maybe they should join the military and go shown 'em how it's done. Bad things happen in war. People die and things get torn up. We did not go over there to lose. Maybe people that haven't been there and done that should just keep out of it and let the people that know how to do it handle it.

 

If people are going to say there's no US officials involved in the drug trade, they COULD be right, but I kinda doubt it. THAT is my point.

 

 

Agreed, for what it's worth.

 

[Eric Iverson]

This has certainly been an interesting thread!

 

I'm not particularly into telling people what to do; but when people start killing themselves and each other, how can any sane person not object to it?

 

What to do about it is a complex question. Clearly lots of people are in prison who really belong in treatment centers, IMHO; and there are people who sell poison to children, who really belong, well... fill in your own! Hint: I don't LIKE them!!

 

The current anti-drug policy is not working very well, obviously. I hope that, going forward, a better way can be found. I wish I knew what it was! Now if you asked me how to finger a D min7 b5 chord, I could probably help you..

[Corner Pocket]

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

Illegal is illegal. Just because you don't agree with a law does not give you the right to break it with impunity. If you don't like a law or think it is unjust, the right thing to do is to try to get it changed. Not just violate it anyway.

I'm no fan of drug use, and will NOT endorse it in any way. I do believe the studies that show

MODERATE red wine consumption can be beneficial. That benefit is tempered with some very real risks.

 

However, sometimes the law is wrong and you HAVE to violate it to effect change. Two words support this position: Rosa Parks.

 

I stand by my earlier observation is that all druge users are unreliable while on drugs, and all drug abusers are unreliable at all times. This is my experience, and I choose to not associate with drug users and drug abusers in any social, professional or musical setting. I've never known any drug user to tell the truth about the extent of their drug use. It always starts with "I only smoke once in a while." They never give hard numbers.

 

An earlier post questioned the benfit to society that would come from decriminalization. Part of me believes that drugs are not the problem, drug crime is the problem. If you take the profit out of drugs, you can take the crime out of drugs. That might have been more true in the past, but with crystal meth use on the rise, abuse of prescription pain killers getting out of hand. If the "Drug Problem" were only about marijuana, it would be less of a problem. Unfortunately it frequently escalates.

 

As a kindergarten teacher, my wife has noticed that the second 10 years of her career have seen a lot more kids with cognitive, developmental and behavioural issues that are obviously linked to parental drug use. Crack babies, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, etc, are real, and the effects are for life. Drug use is NOT victimless, and these children are the evidence.

 

There is evidence that drug use affects the quality and genetic make-up of sperm in men. There is also evidence that the children of welders have a stastically higher than average rate of birth defects. (It has to do with the fumes.)

 

My question is this. With all the things we have to deal with in life, things that we cannot avoid, things that can F_@& up both us and our children, why would we consider worsening the odds by taking on a recreational habit that has no documented benefit, and many documented risks?

 

Peace,

 

Paul

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

Originally posted by rockincyanblues:

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

Illegal is illegal. Just because you don't agree with a law does not give you the right to break it with impunity. If you don't like a law or think it is unjust, the right thing to do is to try to get it changed. Not just violate it anyway.

I'm no fan of drug use, and will NOT endorse it in any way. I do believe the studies that show

MODERATE red wine consumption can be beneficial. That benefit is tempered with some very real risks.

 

However, sometimes the law is wrong and you HAVE to violate it to effect change. Two words support this position: Rosa Parks.

 

I stand by my earlier observation is that all druge users are unreliable while on drugs, and all drug abusers are unreliable at all times. This is my experience, and I choose to not associate with drug users and drug abusers in any social, professional or musical setting. I've never known any drug user to tell the truth about the extent of their drug use. It always starts with "I only smoke once in a while." They never give hard numbers.

 

An earlier post questioned the benfit to society that would come from decriminalization. Part of me believes that drugs are not the problem, drug crime is the problem. If you take the profit out of drugs, you can take the crime out of drugs. That might have been more true in the past, but with crystal meth use on the rise, abuse of prescription pain killers getting out of hand. If the "Drug Problem" were only about marijuana, it would be less of a problem. Unfortunately it frequently escalates.

 

As a kindergarten teacher, my wife has noticed that the second 10 years of her career have seen a lot more kids with cognitive, developmental and behavioural issues that are obviously linked to parental drug use. Crack babies, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, etc, are real, and the effects are for life. Drug use is NOT victimless, and these children are the evidence.

 

There is evidence that drug use affects the quality and genetic make-up of sperm in men. There is also evidence that the children of welders have a stastically higher than average rate of birth defects. (It has to do with the fumes.)

 

My question is this. With all the things we have to deal with in life, things that we cannot avoid, things that can F_@& up both us and our children, why would we consider worsening the odds by taking on a recreational habit that has no documented benefit, and many documented risks?

 

Peace,

 

Paul

I agree completely with everything you said.

 

The Montgomery Alabama law that required Blacks to sit at the rear of the bus, use separate rest rooms and water fountains, allowed store and restaurant operators to refuse service to Blacks based on race, and infringed on the rights of Blacks to attend public schools was an unjust law. What Rosa Parks did was civil disobedience. Yes, she broke the law and was taken to jail. Had she NOT been arrested and taken to jail, there would have never been the attention called to the incident that there was. The media would have never picked it up. So, are you saying that it would have been better if she had not been treated as a criminal? She knew she was going to be arrested and she did it anyway. She made a personal sacrifice to call attention to an unjust situation.

 

My point is that it's best to let the system either work or not work as it was designed. If a law doesn't work, it will eventually get changed. Maybe not quickly enough to suit everyone, but it will happen.

 

Part of the system is the power that the people have to elect officials that will enact or repeal laws as the voters see fit. If the majority of people agree, then it is so. If the majority don't agree, then it won't happen.

[Tone Taster]

Originally posted by Eric Iverson:

I hope that, going forward, a better way can be found. I wish I knew what it was! Now if you asked me how to finger a D min7 b5 chord, I could probably help you..

Just don't burn any dubes if you waNT to learn all of the inversions and inversion shapes.

 

D mi 7 b5 - D F Ab C

Drop 2 - 4 inversions including root positions playable w/ a 5th string Bass & 4th string Bass = 8 shapes

 

Drop 2 + 4 - 8 shapes

 

Drop 3 - 8 shapes

 

So that's 24 possible inversions for one chord.

 

Now God forbid if you're stoned and on one of those inversion and you have to play the next chord which has the closer inversion to it.

 

For One chord -12 key centers times 24 inversions/shapes

 

288 chords

 

What about the other main Seventh chord qualities?

 

Maj 7

Dom7

Min7

(Min7b5)

Min Maj 7

 

5 chord qualities

 

multiply 288 times 5 = 1440 chords

 

Man, that would suck to be high and at the same time have the desire to really advance in not only taking in 1440 chords, but having to apply them.

 

Unless of course you wish to take the easy way out and say

"well, why would I want to learn and grow in my musicianship at a faster rate anyway?"

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by rockincyanblues:

why would we consider worsening the odds by taking on a recreational habit that has no documented benefit, and many documented risks?

 

Peace,

 

Paul

Sounds a bit like NFL, bungee jumping and 1000 other dangerous sports and pasttimes!

[Corner Pocket]

Sasquatch51:

 

Rosa Parks did the right thing to correct a wrong. It may have been orchestrated by the NAACP, or other civil rights groups, or it may have been the defiant act of a solitary woman. Either way it was at the time, and in hindsight, the right thing to do.

 

Civil disobedience is tough. Are the riots in France Civil Disobedience because a group that feels disenfranchised needs drastic measures to draw attention to the cause, or are the riots the criminal acts of hoodlums with a misguided sense of entitlement? I don't know.

 

David Crosy has said about his generation, (and I am paraphrasing here), "We were right about a lot of things in the 60's. We were right about civil rights, we were right about the ERA, we were right about Vietnam, we were wrong about drugs."

 

I think by the time David Crosby figured out he was wrong about drugs it was too deeply entrenched a behaviour for him to get it worked out. He will struggle for the rest of his life because of his drug habits as a younger man.

 

I disagree with this statement of yours:

 

"Part of the system is the power that the people have to elect officials that will enact or repeal laws as the voters see fit. If the majority of people agree, then it is so. If the majority don't agree, then it won't happen."

 

The whole pupose of a Bill of Rights, (or as we have in Canada, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms), is to protect the minority from the will of the majority. The Constitutional Amendment in Texas prohibiting gay marraige is an example of that. On a federal level you have a document guaranteeing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. On a state level you have the power to limit those guarantees. That bothers me.

 

I would much rather have a goverment run by politicians who are Christians, as opposed to Christian Politicians. The Prime Minster of Canada, Paul Martin, was able to separate his religious beliefs, (Gay Marraige is wrong), from his duty as the PM of Canada, and recognize that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to everybody. We now have legal recognition of Gay Marraige in Canada. The opposition parties are in effect saying that The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply equally to all Canadians, and that they alone have the wisdom to decide who gets what rights, and who doesn't. That terrifies me.

 

Peace,

 

Paul

[A String]

Originally posted by Vince C.:

Originally posted by rockincyanblues:

why would we consider worsening the odds by taking on a recreational habit that has no documented benefit, and many documented risks?

 

Peace,

 

Paul

Sounds a bit like NFL, bungee jumping and 1000 other dangerous sports and pasttimes!

That's it exactly. All of these "dangerous" activities are legal, but one, that is enjoyed by millions of people, is illegal. It's not right.

 

On a side note, pot has been (mostly) decriminalized here. You can carry a certain amount and own a certain number of plants and it will only afford you a ticket if you are caught. Similar to a speeding infraction.

 

For the most part, unless you are a dealer, there is really no problem.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by A String:

On a side note, pot has been (mostly) decriminalized here. You can carry a certain amount and own a certain number of plants and it will only afford you a ticket if you are caught. Similar to a speeding infraction.

 

For the most part, unless you are a dealer, there is really no problem.

Can't remember what the law is over here. They keep changing it. At one stage you were allowed to have drugs on you if you could prove that it was for your own personal consumption. They gave you a bit of a margin too, in case you'd been busted while going out to score for a few friends. (ie personal consumption x number of waiting friends).

 

I can just image the scene though... this guy arriving home with the cops in tow. "That's billy. Hey, Billy, you wanted some smack, didn't you? Can you tell the Sgt? And Paul, stop trying to hide under the coffee table! You wanted some too, right?" Where're Cheech and Chong when you need them?

 

I've heard that penalties have gotten stiffer recently but that's because Berlusconi is so desperate to lick Bush's ass.

[skipclone 1]

Originally posted by Vince C.:

Originally posted by A String:

On a side note, pot has been (mostly) decriminalized here. You can carry a certain amount and own a certain number of plants and it will only afford you a ticket if you are caught. Similar to a speeding infraction.

 

For the most part, unless you are a dealer, there is really no problem.

Can't remember what the law is over here. They keep changing it. At one stage you were allowed to have drugs on you if you could prove that it was for your own personal consumption. They gave you a bit of a margin too, in case you'd been busted while going out to score for a few friends. (ie personal consumption x number of waiting friends).

 

I can just image the scene though... this guy arriving home with the cops in tow. "That's billy. Hey, Billy, you wanted some smack, didn't you? Can you tell the Sgt? And Paul, stop trying to hide under the coffee table! You wanted some too, right?" Where're Cheech and Chong when you need them?

 

I've heard that penalties have gotten stiffer recently but that's because Berlusconi is so desperate to lick Bush's ass.

Well who isn`t-I think Castro may have a point that the U.S. is becoming or has become a `hyperpower`-

out of proportion perhaps to its actual importance in the big picture-perception is reality in some circles, after all.

Japan is weird-in a similar appeasement no doubt, a roach can send you to prison. but there is a popular band here, Tha Blue Herb, that openly flouts antipot laws. I have walked into a head shop in downtown Tokyo and seen peyote buttons displayed for sale-at a price that suggests first contact with Ferenghi (Star Trek DS9), but right there in front of the world.