Hey, there! Log in / Register
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Aw, man
I KNEW there was someplace I wanted to go today.
Dude. Like,
Dude.
Like, whoa.
*giggles*
Wasn't there, like.
...
Wasn't there, like-- uh, something?
Something this weekend.
*giggles*
I supported marijuana
I supported marijuana legalization, until I saw that photo.
Yes, the sight of hundreds of
Yes, the sight of hundreds of people peacefully milling around a park listening to speeches and music is absolutely horrifying AND MUST BE STOPPED!
Check out that cloud. In the
Check out that cloud. In the park. It's like exactly what some people fear would cover the city if marijuana were legalized.
If only people would get this
If only people would get this worked up for a cause which actually matters.
If you're a daily pot smoker,
If you're a daily pot smoker, smoking pot is the main thing.
Dude, if everyone in the world was constantly buzzed, there'd be no more war!
Or
some people wouldn't smoke pot due to religious, political, or moral convictions and would roll over the pot-smokers with great purpose and present-mindedness.
Why it matters
Non-smoking legalization supporter here ...
It matters because:
- weed isn't nearly as dangerous a drug to health or society as alcohol
- small time weed dealers are sitting in prison serving long sentences, eating tax dollars and resulting in earlier release of violent, but non drug offenders
- I asked my 14 year old whether it would be easier for him to get some weed, cigarettes or booze. He thought for a minute, and then said "weed, definitely weed". Think about that. If it is easier for kids to get drugs than booze or ciggys, then the control scheme isn't working.
It isn't about stoner joy time - it is about responsible use of societal resources commensurate with what we know about the risks of the substance. Weed being illegal and untaxed is a major fail, our opinion of goofy potheads notwithstanding.
I can see it both ways
Yeah, definitely tax and regulate it. And I'm also a non-user.
But in terms of all this personpower, it could surely be spent on better things. The real issue at play here is racism and classism. I'm frequently told by mostly white, middle-class-appearing friends that even before the decriminalization, they would smoke it wherever they pleased, and when cops noticed or cared at all, they'd just tell them to please go inside, or please be further away from children playing or whatever.
I'm also frequently told by people who are lower class and primarily of color that they or people they know have been arrested for possession. We all know the reasons for this -- people of color and of lower class status are pulled over or approached by cops more, more likely to be hanging in places where cops are looking for problems, more likely to have a friend with them who has a warrant, more likely to share an address or have been seen with someone "known to police", more likely to be seen by cops as not cooperative, etc.
Hemp
There are tons of legitimate uses for hemp which are wrapped up into the legalization of marijuana. Until these two issues are separated from each other, I say let the stoners keep fighting the good fight.
Government should have
Government should have offered everyone there a free one way ticket to Mexico. Half the drug war could have been won in one fell swoop.
ugh
What an absolute bunch of morons. This is how they spend their energy and time? What a waste.
Such morons!
Cause you know, spending a Saturday afternoon at a park is a terrible thing...
Yeah, they should have just
Yeah, they should have just stayed home and drank the legal drug alcohol, then got violent and had the cops called and have a hangover. Fun times, NOT! Legalize marijuana.
typical
What a typical response. Show me the data that demonstrates legalizing pot means less alcohol abuse? Or are you too high to google or make coherent, valid arguments?
Charlie Brown Teacher voice
Wahwahwahwahwahwahwahwah. Really, who cares what you say or what your arguments are? It's been decriminalized here and, judging by the state of the city after that rally, it didn't hurt anyone or drive up the crime rate over the weekend. Go cool off in a temperance fountain.
Coming from someone..
who probably smokes cigarettes and drinks alcohol. And WE'RE the morons. And yes, I too can make baseless assumptions.
O'rly?
On what do you base these baseless assumptions?
you know
You don't even know me so stick your generalizations up your ass. My biggest gripe with pot and smoking in general is that why should I have to get cancer so you lame asses can get high and fry your brains? Anybody who smokes in public is essentially a selfish piece of crap.
Smokescreen
The laws banning indoor smoking are usually written to ban smoking, not tobacco use per se. If the smoking laws are your problem here, then you need to change those.
Good luck: there are actual studies of the comparative exposures of outdoor smoking and indoor smoking, and most situations do not show sufficient exposure levels and therefore sufficient hazard to justify regulations. The only places where there is outdoor smoking that even comes close to creating such a hazard is in sidewalk cafes in narrow lanes in continental Europe. Even then the risks are lower than living near or spending time around a roadway with heavy diesel traffic. By comparison, indoor smoking is banned in many places now because the risks are both high and well established (and cancer is the least of it - heart disease is the big time reaper!). In short, there is little evidence of the hazards you are complaining about with tobacco or weed smoked outside in public because the exposures in many places are just too low to be considered hazardous. (I'll see if some of my buddies brought air quality measurement equipment to the pictured smoke cloud ...).
Most of all, the legality or illegality of pot is irrelevant to your complaints about public smoking being legal. Keeping pot illegal does not make smoking go away. Legalizing pot will not make it legal to smoke indoors or anywhere else smoking is prohibited. Your anti-pot-as-anti-tobacco comments are a smokescreen.
google
From a 2007 Stanford study:
"Now, Stanford University researchers have conducted the first in-depth study on how smoking affects air quality at sidewalk cafés, park benches and other outdoor locations. Writing in the May issue of the Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association (JAWMA), the Stanford team concluded that a non-smoker sitting a few feet downwind from a smoldering cigarette is likely to be exposed to substantial levels of contaminated air for brief periods of time"
Full url is here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/07050...
I don't want that shit in my body and people should have no right to inflict it upon me. In an era when smoking tobacco is on the decline, this makes no sense.
Don't try this at home
Disclaimer: I work in public health and air pollution regulation. When I say there isn't enough good evidence to show sufficient harm from cigarettes smoked outside to regulate the practice, I know professionally what I'm saying. I didn't say NO risk, I said good luck making a case of sufficient risk to justify the resources necessary to enact and enforce.
One paragraph? Try the whole article next time. Please. Estimate how often you will be that close to an active smoker in a given day, week, year ... and then compare the risk to walking down a busy roadway.
Then lets get back to the REAL point: YOUR COMPLAINTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH POT BEING LEGAL OR ILLEGAL. They have to do with public smoking.
So, please, go forth and make your case to your state legislator. Google your heart out and snip free all the paragraphs you please. Make your moral argument about toxic trespass too. For the time being, that's still allowed and you are free to try. Good luck.
i did
I posted the full URL to the study.
You're right, for the most part, although you're arguing from a public policy effectiveness standpoint rather than personal one. It is public smoking that I'm against. But for city dwellers almost all smoking is public, since we're packed together, including in these apartment buildings. That infringes on my rights and my space. There should be no right to essentially give someone else cancer. Any move to make it easier to fill my building or my street with pot smoke doesn't make me happy. In the time since the decriminalization law passed here I see way more pot smoking on the street. It's pretty much everywhere. It seems like a pretty stupid way to live. I'll say the same thing about alcohol for the most part. I will say, as someone said above, look what's going on California; it's not all great. And the Dutch are considering heavily modifying their drug laws as well. That said - while I personally am against pot and will always vote against any kind legalization, I do agree that the current system isn't great. I think the 2009 law is a joke that does nothing but move it to a gray zone.
What you're not understanding
What you're not understanding is that living in an urban environment is more likely to give you cancer than occasional second hand cigarette smoke. By your logic cars should be banned from all public areas.
and furthermore
And to follow that up, there's the 2006 Surgeon General's report that there are no safe levels of exposure.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/06062...
and
And say what you will about alcohol, but when drunk responsibly, drinking doesn't hurt anybody else. You cannot same the same thing about any form of smoking when done in the presence of others. If I'm going to cook my brain, I want it to be my decision not somebody elses.
Take it walking, pal
In the eyes of the Massachusetts law enforcement, the legal boundaries for smoking pot and smoking cigarettes are the same. You can no sooner light up a joint in a Starbucks than you could light up a Marlboro. So what's your basic premise? Don't light up in front of others? Pal, weed smokers usually don't anyway, unless the others chipped in and are sharing what's going around. My guess is that you don't smoke weed because no one's ever offered you any. Otherwise, you're just making up scenarios that, among actual smokers, never happen. I'd tell you to stick the studies up your ass, but I wouldn't want you to profit off of the resulting diamond.
hahaha...Central Squared, are
hahaha...Central Squared, are you serious?......alcohol when consumed responsibly doesn't hurt anyone else?
Please get your head out of your ass!
For every responsible drinker,there are probably 10 climbing into there cars drunk and driving, starting bar fights, beating there spouse or child, ruining there liver, potentially causing stomach and/or throat, mouth cancer in turn costing the healthcare industry (and us) millions of dollars....clogging up our jails with repeat drunk driving offenders....turning people into alcoholics and ruining lives everyday.
Cancer cases caused solely by marijuana smoke are very rare.
It's a ba-zillion times more safe than alcohol. You can't overdose or die from it like alcohol.
The environmental and economic benefits of hemp fiber and marijuana seed are extraordinary.
And you're certainly not going to get cancer if you happen to smell a few whiffs blowing by...hahahaha! Laughable!
Do you avoid cold cuts with sodium nitrates?
Do you drink soda?
Do you avoid artificial sweetners?
Do you eat trans-fats...chips, fried foods, fast food, etc?
Do you avoid harsh cleaners around the house?
Do you use un-natural, chemical filled soaps and detergents.
Do you use aluminum based anti-perspirant?
These things are all much more harmful to you than marijuana!
And like anything...it's all about moderation. I've been a daily pot smoker for the most part for appx. 20 + years.
I don't smoke ALL DAY..or at work...but I do enjoy a smoke when in the privacy of my own home, winding down for the day. No different than having a glass or 2 of wine in my opinion.
And note' I have no criminal record...I work and pay taxes...I have an Engineering Degree from Northeastern, I'm 16 years into a rewarding and profitable career, own a home, drive a nice vehicle, I'm healthy & in shape, more than most my age, exercise daily and run 20 miles per week, practice martial arts. etc etc etc....
On the other hand, One of my best friends, who doesn't smoke pot but is a daily drinker....has been fired from jobs, did time in jail for multiple drunk driving offenses, lost his wife, is fat and unhealthy. etc etc.
But alcohol doesn't hurt anyone?...Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
uhm...
This gives me the giggles and I'm not even smoking anything!
John W..I see your point and
John W..I see your point and that's actually pretty funny :)
Kidding aside...
Moderation is the process of lessening extremes.
I hardly call taking a few puffs of grass in the evening "extreme".
it's really my only vice. Besides coffee that is.
A daily marijuana smoker and a heavy marijuana smoker are two different things.
A glass or 2 of wine each day is ok for most adults where consuming a bottle or 2 of wine each day isn't so healthy.
Just because someone is a marijuana smoker doesn't mean they can be automatically classified as the stereotypical Jeff Spicoli type. I'm not saying they aren't out there. But used responsibly by adults it's relatively harmless and there are planty of responsible, tax paying citizens making this world go round who are smokers.
It hasn't seemed to cause me any negative issues in my life...and I'm pretty sure I haven't given anyone cancer. :)
Just sayin'
Ok..who's going to be the
Ok..who's going to be the first to flame me for mis-spelling "plenty" ?
Whooooah duuuude...I must be stoned :) hahahaha
For the record...
I think it should be legalized, but am not much invested in the cause as I don't smoke anything.
Personally I'd love to see weed legalized and an aggressive demand-side solution to narcotics addiction implemented in order to cut the legs out from under a whole lot of criminal empires.
I do agree that smoking of
I do agree that smoking of any kind should be banned in restaurants, bars, establishments, etc...but to say someone shouldn't smoke a cigarette (or joint) out side in a park, because they're afraid of getting cancer is pretty silly (as Central did). Like someone said..if you're afraid of breathing harmful carcinogens in the air you should stop breathing all together, and stop driving cars...or move to an island were there are no cars. Regular pollution levels in a city are far more harmful than if you happen to catch a whif of someones cigarette, etc. as you're walking by. You may not like the smell, but you're not going to get cancer from it.
I also agree that the Hempfest doesn't really do much for the cause and does in fact bring out alot of the stereotypical "stoner" types just there to smoke in public and defy authority. The media always focuses on the 17 yr old blazing in public rather than the activists trying to raise awareness, curb ignorance and change marijuana laws.
Maybe someday in our lives people will realize that we're neglecting a valuable environmentally friendly materials resource, medical resource, a harmless, taxable recreational resource, feeding the ability for organized crime to operate one of the biggest cash crops in the country and wasting millions and millions of dollars on prosecuting otherwise law abiding citizens. It's rediculous & I don't understand in this day and age how people are still so ignorant.
Oh well, maybe someday.
Hempfest Not Helping
Or the public health community, which has been coalescing around legalization of weed, distribution of drug enforcement resources according to dangerousness to society and health, and increased treatment availability for the far more dangerous drugs like crack and meth.
Legalize it, tax it heavily, and put it out in the open where it can be controlled much more effectively. The only dangerous thing about weed is the black market.
sure but its no tea party!
Just imagine the coverage and I dare say importance of this event if they had been protesting Obama-care and screeching about the constitution? When Queen Sarah and a couple wingnut radio clowns held a rally there it was national news. At least the pot heads have a coherent position.
My Take On The Hemp Rallies
I've worked a number of the annual rallies, manning a Libertarian Party information table, handing out leaflets and providing voter registration forms for folks who weren't yet registered to vote (and, while we hoped for them to register Libertarian, and provided our best reasons for doing so, we always turned in the forms even if someone registered with another party - just so you know.) I was also a featured speaker at one of the earlier of the rallies - 1992 - while a candidate for state representative.
The crowd is always a mix of those with deadly serious political agendas and those who just want to tweak authority by lighting up in public.
The biggest problem with the rally is the problem with pot smokers in general: they don't vote and it's near impossible to convince them that their votes could make a huge difference if all of them did register to vote.
I finally gave up on working it after coming to the realization that those in attendance who were serious about it were already registered, while those not serious were mostly unlikely to be convinced to do anything more than show up to puff in public on this one day. The time spent proselytizing at an event of this nature, and the good result of same, is way disproportionate to the success one could have doing something as simple as going door-to-door, or perhaps soliciting folks at malls.
It can be a fun gathering, if you like a day outdoors listening to bands and getting high, but the political aspects could be grouped under the heading of Preaching To The Choir. Media coverage of the event mostly amounts to scant mention by those outlets looking to fill time or space, and the best that can be hoped for is a lack of hand-wringing and 'clever' drug joke banter from the TV reporters and/or staff writers covering the event. It's odds-on that any TV coverage that goes longer than 20 seconds will include an interview with one of the most zapped out attendees, and totally ignored are those political candidates who take time from their lives to speak at the event.
(This last would change if any candidates from the two 'major' parties deigned to speak, but they don't. If you want the laws changed, I consider that fact a good thing to remember. However, I digress.)
As much as I admire the organizers and hope for success in their endeavors, I think the gathering becomes more an exercise in futility with each succeeding year. The image most people on the fence take away from it, via media coverage, is that of a big party and not really a political protest. I'd like to think there could be a way to make it more effective, but I'll be damned if I can think of a way to achieve that end, short of banning actual pot smoking while there, and that would be a trifle hypocritical, wouldn't it? :-)
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
What's crazy
What's crazy about the idea that "it wouldn't matter if I voted" is that we're reaching such an epically low voter turnout these days that the biggest special interest group *DOES* matter. If there were 30,000 pot smokers at Hempfest (I have no idea the crowd size) and each of them got 3 of their non-attending friends to vote, you'd have more votes than the difference between Coakley and Brown in the recent statewide election. In smaller races and primaries, it's even easier to sway the balance these days (see: TEA PARTY and O'CONNELL, BROOMHILDA).
In a state where the Democrat pretty much always wins, with some Democratic primaries ending up with TWO HUNDRED vote margins...you put one of the pro-pot members on that ticket and I bet they win if all of the attendees in their district vote for them. Then, general election voters have to choose between the evil Republican or the pro-pot Democrat...they'll vote for the Democrat. You could easily start to effect things on a local level.
Most people at Hempfest are probably willing to see a bit of reason if you present it. I think it just has to be presented in a "it's *this* easy" recipe. First, you get the state senate primaries, then you get the state senate election, then you get the power, then you get the women!
talking to potheads about
talking to potheads about politics is like doing the same to cats.