On the pipe again!
I can’t wait to get back on the pipe again.
I’ve got some mushrooms for my friends
But I just can’t wait to get back on the pipe again.
On the surface the story that veteran country singer Willie Nelson has been arrested for marijuana possession is nothing more then a bit of comic relief. Especially when you read that his sister Bobbie was arrested as well. One visualises these people, well into their 70’s in age, sitting round the camp fire, having a puff, tripping out on a few pharmaceutical mushrooms, and polishing their ‘geriatrics for grass’ buttons.
It is all rather ludicrous. However, even though I care little for country music and even less for marijuana, my own feeling is, well, good on them; people that get to their ‘Golden Years’ are entitled to as much enjoyment in life as the rest of us, after all.
However, we are not talking about your everyday geriatrics here. This is not your Aunt Mabel pottering around her back yard, but a popular entertainer who has a history of political causes behind him, and is by no means inactive in politics even at this late stage of his career.
Before the bust, the Farm Aid founder and his band were in his native Texas to headline Saturday’s Austin City Limits Music Festival. Nelson gave an interview there in which he urged politicians to scrap criminal penalties for pot possession.
Those sentiments echoed the platform of his pal Friedman, a singer-songwriter turned politician who’s mounting an independent bid for Texas governor and has called on the decriminalization of marijuana to help clear clogged state prisons of nonviolent offenders. Nelson has actively supported Friedman’s candidacy, hosting a $1,000-per-plate fundraising dinner and signing a petition to get Friedman on the ballot.
“The hundred times that Kinky and I have talked during his campaign – we talked about energy, health, biodiesel, immigration, war – and the pot thing has never come up. Of course, I felt always that I knew where Kinky stood on that, and he knew where I stood, but I also knew that it was very risky to bring that out politically, but what’s Kinky got to lose?” Nelson said.
Louisiana police will deny that they are in any way trying to ‘send a message’ but in their latest arrest of the country music legend, they have done nothing but highlight the utter uselessness of drug laws. That these laws are useless is as well known as the fact that the sky is blue and the sun rises in the east. Yet to get anywhere in reforming them, Nelson has to throw what prestige he has behind an oddball candidate like ‘Kinky’ Friedman.
What is wrong with this picture?
Why can’t they leave Willie alone? Next thing they’ll be going after Kenny Rogers.
Quite coincidentally on the same topic, some of the (UK) Liberal Democrat Party seem to be living up to their name:
According to the BBC:
guy herbert:
Quite coincidentally on the same topic, some of the (UK) Liberal Democrat Party seem to be living up to their name:
I am impressed by the courage of a proposal like this coming from a mainstream politician. However, keep in mind that any particular country that dares to repel (or even substantially relax) the drug prohibition will soon find itself bullied by the US to reverse that decision. For a recent example, remember what happened in Mexico a few months ago. This one of the principal reasons why I am extremely pessimistic about the future of the whole drug war insanity.
Yet to get anywhere in reforming them, Nelson has to throw what prestige he has behind an oddball candidate like ‘Kinky’ Friedman.
Friedman and Nelson (or Kinky and Willie as everyone calls them here in Austin TX, which they both live just outside) have been friends for a long time- Kinky used to have a band called The Texas Jewboys. I don’t think there is any damage to Willie’s prestige here. Oddballs are appreciated in Texas anyway (see the late Harley-riding Ann Richards). Of course, the marijuana laws are crazy, but I still find it telling that Willie had to go to Louisiana to get arrested.
Having supervised two students doing theses in maths and smoking marijuana, I can attest to dramatic (negative) effects of drugs on cognition and mental competence. I also have a nephew who is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia attributed to marijuana use. I can see very good reasons for not legalising the bloody stuff.
The following drugs, medications, substances or toxins are some of the possible causes of Paranoia as a symptom. This list is incomplete and various other drugs or substances may cause your symptoms. Always advise your doctor of any medications or treatments you are using, including prescription, over-the-counter, supplements, herbal or alternative treatments.
* Cannabis
* Marijuana
* Benzphetamine Hydrochloride
* Didrex
* Amphetamine Sulfate ”
The co-occurrence of substance abuse and schizophrenia is one of the worst problems in psychiatry!
On a verbal learning test “long-term users recalled significantly fewer words than either shorter-term users or controls; there was no difference between shorter-term users and controls. Long-term users showed impaired learning, retention and retrieval compared with controls,” the study said.
“Researchers using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) have found similar abnormalities in the brains of adolescents who are daily marijuana users and adolescents with schizophrenia.
*
The abnormalities were found in a part of the brain still developing during adolescence that is associated with the higher aspects of language and auditory functions.”
Will that do for a start?
I live about 70 miles from Lafayette, Louisiana where Willie was busted. Right down Interstate Ten. We had a “shelter in place” warning Sunday which was blamed on a chemical gas leak from one of the petrochemical plants here in the Lake Charles area. Now I know what really caused it, Willie’s bus motoring through the area blowing wacky smoke everywhere!
My state is notorious for all the wrong reasons (except the food).
No, because whilst everything you say (might) be true, it is also quite irrelevant.
Those are a series of good reasons for not taking drugs (though I know huge numbers of people who do or have smoked dope without ill effects) but none of those are a good reason for making them illegal.
By making drugs illegal you derange the state of civil liberties on a global scale to very little effect on people’s ability to get the stuff, not to mention creating a vast transnational criminal underworld.
I live in Manchester and lived in Nottingham. Every year quite a few folk in both cities get randomly whacked by yardies and other drug gangs through either mistaken identity or because these gangs shoot wildly at each other and have a tendancy to cause “collateral”.
I don’t smoke crack. That’s my choice. If I did and suffered inevitable, lamentable consequences that would be my fault.
If I get shot by a gangster because I’m just in the wrong place at the wrong time going about my legit business then that isn’t my choice that is a complete injustice.
For this (and other reasons) I support legalisation of anything which will take the gang culture out of our cities. Because what the authorites are doing now sure ain’t working.
Whether or not drug laws are stupid, while they are the law they must be enforced, otherwise the consequence is disrespect for the law and hence the breakdown of society (although I think, on the whole, this exact same arguement is a very good reason for legalising drugs).
The argument that marijuana is no big deal is a false one. In know 3 people who I used to call friends who I can no longer bear to have a conversation with, such is their inability to string a sentence together. This doesn’t mean that it should be illegal, but it should be something that sensible people condemn rather than condone.
Aside from all that, the best reason, from my selfish perspective, for the legalisation of marijuana, is that it will make the case for criminalising tobbaco competely insupportable.
Legalise them all and let them run their course.
I’m sure the damage will be lesser
and quicker.
But the laws (a) simply do not work because too many people do not agree with them (i.e. either they want drugs or do not care enough about the issue to cooperate) and (b) do more damage by virtue of (a) and the fact that motivates large criminal enterprises to cater to the demonstrably unsurpressable demand.
Few things breed contempt for the law more than passing ones which both fail and motivate entire criminal industries.
How many rappers in the US openly admit drug taking?
Yet they leave them alone and takedown Willie Nelson. Hmm, something about someone pulling out weapons and fighting back might have something to do with it.
I used to have a lot of time for the “don’t make them illegal but point out the harm argument” and now I don’t.
1)Civil liberties are largely about the “you do what you want so long as it doesn’t impinge on me” argument.
It doesn’t really apply to drugs
(i)families are massively affected (see comments above). Anecdotally, apart from my nephew I have a brother-in-law who is still paranoid and unable to string a clear sentence together, 20 years after stopping `using’.
(ii) the NHS is massively affected.
2)The message versus inadequate message argument is completely fallacious. The message is sent by `law rigorously enforced’-we have an aging hippy ruling class who constantly subvert that message. Moreover, most of the people who say `legalise but disapprove’ actually send out a message of at best tolerance and at worst outright approval. At least that’s what my nephew thought and it’s what a large proportion of the media do.
If Mr De Havilland was out there telling adolescents not to mess up their brains by being trendy I might have more time for his libertarian arguments.
“But the laws (a) simply do not work because too many people do not agree with them (i.e. either they want drugs or do not care enough about the issue to cooperate) and (b) do more damage by virtue of (a) and the fact that motivates large criminal enterprises to cater to the demonstrably unsurpressable demand.
Few things breed contempt for the law more than passing ones which both fail and motivate entire criminal industries.”
That’s a good argument for going back in a time machine and not criminalising marijuana, but not necessarily for legalising it. I can think of few things more calculated to bring disrepect for the rule of law than setting the precedent that if enough people break a law then said law will be repealed.
It certainly doesn’t change the fact that while any law remains on the statute books people, yes even country music stars, must obey it.
canker, you could make much the same argument (families affected, NHS affected) about mountaineering or any number of activities which I suspect you would prefer not to see bannned. Personally, I know more people who have been seriously affected by mountaineering accidents than by drugs, & the number of drug-takers i’ve known probably outnumber the mountaineers 10 to 1. Would you suggest on this basis that we should ban mountaineering in order to spare families the grief of loosing a son, or the NHS the cost of repairing broken bones?
Your interpretation of civil liberties is highly dubious to say the least.
Gabriel, what you’ve not addressed is *why* people feel motivated to break a law. I think (& it seems as though millions agree with me) that it’s utterly wrong for the government to tell people what they can & cannot do with their own bodies & minds, provided it harms no-one else.
Would you have argued against repealing prohibition on a similar basis in 1933?
Ban cars, they cause more deaths and blah blah blah blah blah.
Make all drugs legal.
Change the “education” sytem so that people are aware of the pros and cons of ingesting things etc.
Adolescents “shouldn’t” be taking illegal/legal drugs including alcohol. Stopping them is another thing. education is the key here, for the future. Things need to change so that rebellion is taken out of the equation. Look at the Netherlands which is quite a conservative country as a model. Cannabis may not be 100% legal but is freely available and it is still a small percentage of the population that uses cannabis.
I can’t see the majority of the population in the UK smoking their brains out as soon as it is made legal.
I know two people who have ended up with mental health problems due to cannabis use…both were chronic users towit if they had been using alochol the same way they would have been regarded as alcoholics. Having a drink or a smoke in moderation seems to have no adverse affect in the short or longterm, variations within individuals notwithstanding.
I am not for “young” people getting completely trollied by any means but adults shoul be free to ingest what they so wish without interference form the state.
I realise I’m on a hiding to nothing here, but what the hell.
I think what I’m saying is that the libertarianism argument is extremely appealing but that it needs to be applied with caution. In particular, people have families and the families get hurt. More to the point, they have to pick up and carry the pieces, maybe for 20 years or longer. When this happens, A_t’s cry of “it’s utterly wrong for the government to tell people what they can & cannot do with their own bodies & minds, provided it harms no-one else” starts to look a bit sick. I will partially accept it for anyone, but I will entirely accept it only where the person involved signs out completely and utterly from the welfare state and carries suitable insurance.
Short aside – the social cost (but not the family cost) of drinking and smoking is more than paid for by the duty charged on them. And please don’t suggest any more sin taxes-they’re very bad for governments.
To revert to students, I guess they should be allowed to get legless and stoned every night because it doesn’t hurt anyone else…
but it does! For a start they’re wasting about £6000 a year paid for out of your taxes (which is the teaching bill not covered by the £3000 they pay in fees).
Then, there is, in my opinion, a substantial difference between taking risks in mountaineering and in smoking dope.
Oh bugger, I could go on all day without making a dent in anyone’s opinion. The point is we live in a highly interdependent society and I don’t see the dope-smoking libertarians saying “I opt out, don’t carry the cost”.
Advancing personal liberty as an absolute good strikes me as the same parasitism as the hippies describing money as theft while they cashed the latest check from their parents.
The message may be ‘sent’ but it is clearly not recieved, the evidence of decades is quite clear on that point.
Most people do not take drugs not because it is illegal but because they think it is unwise. Anyone who wants to will not find it hard to find them regardless of any ‘law rigorously enforced’. Continuing to dig the same hole ever deeper is not going to change that.
Oh, and as I do not think the NHS should exist at all, I really do not care how deeply it is affected. In fact if drug abuse makes the NHS untenable, that would mean all that drug induced misery at least produced something worthwhile in the long run.
Now all we need is for the state to allow me to opt out and thereby not be taxed for the services I do not want the state to be providing to me!
Which is not argument at all against getting legless and stoned but is rather a splendid argument about the foolishness of state funding of education.
Why do getting legless and/or stoned have to be associated with “opting out”?
I have done both on occasion and most definitely do not “opt out”.
Being to allowede to opt out of the NHS, can I get high and do that then please?
Seemingly stoned by my typing…….
canker,
Sounds like a perfect rationale for banning motorcycles. Many people are crippled & left dependent on others as a result of them.
Would you be in favour of such a ban?
If not, why?
“Gabriel, what you’ve not addressed is *why* people feel motivated to break a law. I think (& it seems as though millions agree with me) that it’s utterly wrong for the government to tell people what they can & cannot do with their own bodies & minds, provided it harms no-one else.
Would you have argued against repealing prohibition on a similar basis in 1933?”
This is an interesting question. I would like to cheat and say that I never would have implemented prohibition in the first place so it’s a moot point (I like to use the same argument when questioned whether, as a conservative, I would have repealed the Jim Crow laws). But I’ll give an honest answer. Yes, I would have argued for the abolition of prohibition for the simple reason that I like drink and I think alcohol is a wholesome substance. I like wine and beer and the odd G & T because I think they’re nice drinks. The sole purpose of dope, though, is to become, well, a dope. I don’t see why anyone should smoke it.
If I thought philisophical consistency was an important thing in politics, then I’d probably take your position, but I don’t really. I generally support libertarian policies because that’s the sort of society I’d like to live in, but I’m willing to make exceptions.
As an aside, left-wing popstars who pontificate about helping the poor and then spend their money on narcotics should be tortured to death, poetically speaking.
canker:Then, there is, in my opinion, a substantial difference between taking risks in mountaineering and in smoking dope.
Actually, I had an acquaintance who died in a mountaineering accident, and several others who were badly hurt, escaping death very narrowly. On the other hand, I know dozens of people who smoke weed on an occasional or semi-regular basis, and I haven’t seen any tragic stories about lives ruined by that particular vice. Frankly, if I have kids one day, I will be much more worried if they decide to go mountaineering without adequate equipment and training than if they light up a joint occasionally.
Gabriel: Yes, I would have argued for the abolition of prohibition for the simple reason that I like drink and I think alcohol is a wholesome substance. I like wine and beer and the odd G & T because I think they’re nice drinks. The sole purpose of dope, though, is to become, well, a dope. I don’t see why anyone should smoke it.
Although it might sound bizarre in a society where most people are thoroughly indoctrinated by the drug war propaganda, alcohol is in fact a much “harder” and more destructive drug than marijuana (and many other currently illegal drugs). Even the difference in destructiveness between alcohol and most “hard” drugs is in fact much smaller than most people imagine.
Think of all the silliness in the propaganda of alcohol prohibitionists 80 or 90 years ago. What makes you think that today’s drug war propaganda — which the bulk of people today take as holy writ — has any more connection with reality?
1)Gabriel is not necessarily philosophically inconsistent (consistent doesn’t equal facile) and I agree with him/her.
2)Ivan, anecdotal information is dangerous. I suggest that the damage may be far greater than you realise.
I have been unable (after almost no effort) to locate a quote but I am fairly sure that I read in a reputable source that 80% of paranoia cases are now attributed to drugs (maybe specifically marijuana).
3)Perry: ok you wish to take things that far. When you’re most of the way there then I’ll accept the legalisation argument but not as most of the rest of things stand.
4)A_t: “Sounds like a perfect rationale for banning motorcycles”. Only if you’re smoking dope at the time.
5)BTW: why does no one advocating the legalisation of drugs discuss the issues of driving while stoned and culpable negligence while ditto?
Ivan, fortunately I’m largely oblivious to the language of the War On Drugs and so the difference I see between alcohol and Marijuana is not based on any criteria of “hard” and “soft”.
I will try to elucidate as clearly as I can what I believe the difference to be:
Alcohol is a chemical which is necessary for the creation of certain drinks which are inordinately nicer than any other. The complications of flavour, body and other sensory experiences present in alcoholic beverages is far in excess of anything else. Thus drinking them is one of the great pleasures that only civilized human beings can appreciate.
Marijuana, on the other hand, is something you ingest in order to get stoned off your face, lose your rational capabilities (if only temporarily) and lower yourself to the status of a beast.
Even if Marijuana should be legal, that difference still holds.
canker, for reference purposes – if nothing else – I’m a bloke.
P.S.(I can think of only one culture in the history of mankind that has prohibited alcohol and allowed marijuana…. and it sucks, big time)
Let’s see: Gabriel likes alcohol, so it should be legal. He doesn’t like weed, so it should be illegal.
Excellent rationale, Gabriel. I don’t like assholes who support prohibition based on their personal likes and dislikes without regard to what other people might like, not to mention the whole thing about being able to put what you want in your own body.
Maybe you should be illegal. After all, I’m following your rationale, so you should agree with me.
That is preposterous. I smoked weed back in university days and it made me ‘comfortably numb’ rather than a beast. In fact, unlike many drugs (such as alcohol), people are less likely to act like beasts when smoking weed. It makes you slow and laid back.
I agree that driving whilst stoned or drunk puts others in an unacceptable position of danger, but that is quite a different issue than simply getting stoned in private.
Canker,
The argument that marijuana is no big deal is a false one.
Perhaps, but it is also a stupid one. I have no sympathy whatsoever for potheads who say, “But it’s mellow and natural, man – no chemicals. Dealers in hard stuff gotta be stopped tho’.” How bad for the user a drug is should have no effect whatsoever on its legality. The moral case for legalisation is the same.
However, as far as the practical case is concerned, there is a heirarchy of drugs, and most people have it back to front. Cocaine, heroin and amphetamines have most associated gangsterism, because they are both addictive and hard to grow discretely in most homes. Those are the drugs that it is most important to legalise from a practical point of view.
Shleep! Hold it in, Hold it in!
Whoowah!
Takes sip of vintage Cabernet Sauvinion.
Ah what was the question again ?
The only thing I’m driving at the moment is an internet connection and a hard drive. I’m happily talking to you all in a sane and sober manner yet I am completely illegal and immoral, to judge from the tone of some commentators above.
The reason Drugs are illegal goes all the way back to those 1930’s Elliot Ness days.
Prohibition was proved to be a huge stupid waste of time and repealed. But Not the Drugs laws, which were in tandem with it .
The harm, or lack of it , is entirely down to the effects on the individual.
I am that individual.
Please allow me to decide what I wish to do with my conciousness and body!
Alcohol is a chemical which is necessary for the creation of certain drinks which are inordinately nicer than any other. The complications of flavour, body and other sensory experiences present in alcoholic beverages is far in excess of anything else. Thus drinking them is one of the great pleasures that only civilized human beings can appreciate.
Marijuana, on the other hand, is something you ingest in order to get stoned off your face, lose your rational capabilities (if only temporarily) and lower yourself to the status of a beast.
Perry notes that when he smoked marijuana it made him comfortably numb. I don’t tend to go even that far. I have probably smoked some the majority of the days of the last 38 years (I abstain always at least during Lent and am in an abstention right now) and my target is mildly buzzed, relaxed and inclined to revery. I do specialized technical work in the mobile telephone field, and not only haven’t I damaged my mind to the point where I can’t but have performed some of these tasks whilst becanabissed. Also note that the flavof of the smoke from properly bred and grown herb is an aesthetic pleasure similar to the one I get from aged single malts. On the other hand, some people repeatedly pour cheap booze into their livers till they puke and pass out.
canker:2)Ivan, anecdotal information is dangerous. I suggest that the damage may be far greater than you realise.
I have been unable (after almost no effort) to locate a quote but I am fairly sure that I read in a reputable source that 80% of paranoia cases are now attributed to drugs (maybe specifically marijuana).
Well, for virtually any medical disorder, you can find something that strongly correlates with it — or even uncontroversially causes it — and construct an argument for witchhunt and nanny-statism. But if you apply such arguments consistently, you’ll end up with a list of necessary regulations and prohibitions where marijuana (and arguably many other currently illegal drugs) will be rather low on the list of priorities — certainly well below, say, cars, unhealthy diets, or extreme sports of any kind.
The figure I would like to see is not what percentage of the known cases of whatever disorder are caused by the drug consumption — this by itself tells you nothing — but what percentage of users of a given drug actually develop that disorder. Can you cite any such figures from reputable sources for marijuana?
And as for the “anecdotal” evidence, I believe that knowing large numbers of people who have casually used weed for long periods of time and none of whom suffered any observable consequences is an entirely valid basis for drawing conclusions.
Gabriel:
Alcohol is a chemical which is necessary for the creation of certain drinks which are inordinately nicer than any other. The complications of flavour, body and other sensory experiences present in alcoholic beverages is far in excess of anything else. Thus drinking them is one of the great pleasures that only civilized human beings can appreciate.
Marijuana, on the other hand, is something you ingest in order to get stoned off your face, lose your rational capabilities (if only temporarily) and lower yourself to the status of a beast.
I don’t know where you got this idea about weed turning men into beasts, but rest assured that most people consume marijuana only to a very moderate point of intoxication, just like most alcohol consumers. A drag or two won’t make you any more irrational or beastly than a glass of wine. And when it comes to those who engage in binging, in that case marijuana is blessedly safe and mild compared to alcohol — both in its effect on human behavior and in its effect on the physical health. Honestly, I’ve seen men turned into real beasts by alcohol, but I’ve never seen one turned into a beast by weed.
Now, you can certainly argue that alcohol should be held in higher esteem because some of its varieties are characterized by subtle flavors, which by themselves offer opportunities for sophisticated enjoyment unknown to weed consumers. But do you really believe that this argument has any weight when it comes to legal prohibition, where people actually get thrown in jail for one, but not the other?
Personally, I greatly prefer alcohol to marijuana, and I find myself far worse affected by the exorbitant alcohol taxes and the ridiculously stringent regulation of alcohol sales and consumption than by the marijuana prohibition (I live in Canada). But I’m definitely not comfortable seeing people thrown in prison or having their lives ruined by criminal records simply because of having some innocent fun — or supplying the means by entirely honest agriculture and trade.
Gabriel, go and do some research on the weed growing forums that exist. ” The complications of flavour, body and other sensory experiences present in alcoholic beverages is far in excess of anything else.”
You will find the same comments made on flavour, effect, longevity of effect etc. The “nerd factor” exists everywhere, not just for wine and other beverages.
As for comments made on losing ones rational capabilities. It may be true that some capabilities are inhibited. Musicians and people who mix and edit video and audio use cannabis as it enhances their pattern recognition showing that not all rational capabilities are affected in a negative way. As with anything in this life some people are going to be more sensitive to some substances and should learn to refrain or not overindulge. The individual should have the right to choose for themselves. I do not care to try heroin but I do believe that it should be available to those that want it. The “get it down your neck 12 pints a night” culture in the UK and Ireland is something that entrains young people to overindulge, thus leading to smoking too much weed in a sitting and getting paranoid.
Well I have a brother-in-law that regularly smokes pot and he is a millionaire investment banker.
I occassionally smoke pot and I make six figures a year.
I have smoked pot with 4-5 work colleagues and they all make six figures as well.
Does this mean that smoking pot makes you rich?
For some reason people assume I that by “beast” I meant lion or tiger or something. Far from it, if that were the case there would, perhaps, be something to be said for it. I was thinking more along the lines of sheep or cattle: docile, slow, incapable of rational thought. I’d rather someone at least be radical and take amphetmines, or cocaine, even LSD; something that at least has some purpose beyoned auto-stupification.
Thinking along these lines, why is it that most people pushing marijuana legalisation are Social Democrats? Is it perhaps their unstinting committment to the principle of self-ownership? Maybe it stems from a passionate belief in individual liberty? Possibly a deep-seated aversion to restraints on commerce?
Or could it, perchance, be because they recognise that dopers make more pliant, obsequious and unquestioning cogs in their social machine? Mark my words, before I die the NHS will be handing out marijuana on the NHS: first for *depression* then for refusal to pay taxes, then for thought crimes.
So, yeah, I’ll go with Perry’s criteria and extend them.
When the NHS is abolished as well as state-funded education and welfare & all known narcotics are legal, I will personally campaign day in and day out for the right of the British people to meditate on the size of their hands with a little help from the Islamic world’s favourite intoxicant.
Sheesh you really had a white out when you tried Marijuana didn’t you Gabriel!!?
I have tried all of the above drugs you mentioned.
Let me run my experiences of them by you.
Amphetamines.
AKA Speed. Speaks for itself really. You are robbing peter to pay paul. Speedfreaks do not eat. The drug suppresses the hungry instinct. The main reason people take it is to stay awake for long periods of time. It was a standard in the kit of soldiers on D Day for instance. The other reason is that it gives one a jittery buzz. I have suffered speed freaks regailing me with their trip to the Lav and back at parties that took hours longer than the journey itself.
I have no problem staying awake for three or four days and dislike the jittery buzz so I only took it a couple of times.
Cocaine. Rather like Speed, in that the lines I was offered at parties and clubs had so little coke in them as to be worthless (plenty of speed and drain cleaner though!).
Ah but when you get REAL Coke, you feel like God on rollerblades. You are the cleverest, most witty human on the Planet- For 10 minutes. Then you have to do it all again to maintain the high.
A friend , with whom I spent a lost weekend, and a gramme of Coke, explained to me the two edged sword that Coke represents. It will steal your soul and your bank balance because you have to keep upping the dose for the same effect. The health effects are even worse. Coke users are the real paranoics. Plus the degraded septum etc.
LSD. Well back in my young day we had “Operation Julie” acid that was as pure as you could get outside the Sandoz labs that invented it back in the early fifties.
There were two ways of “Doing” it back then.
Leary or Kesey.
With Uncle Tim, you did indeed contemplate your hand in a candlelit environment, usually whilst reading the Tibetan Book of the Dead, and for about 8 hours.
The Kesey (Merry Prankster way – my way) was to take it and get on with life on the steets. Never telling or apologising to people what you were doing.
If they thought you weird, so be it. But then I am weird stone cold sober!
Now we come to Marijuana. Well the fact is that more people smoke dope today than ever before. The newspaper scare stories tell you that it is now stronger (Skunk etc) than it ever was.
Bollocks!!!!
It is just more consistent in it’s quality (Heh! market forces and all that! people wont pay for crap anymore).
As to your “Alcohol is needed for those fine refined tastes etc” as someone said above, there is always a Jilly Gullen of Pot too.
The difference between the buzz and effect of Paki Black, Red Lebanese, Nepalese Temple balls or Thai sticks are vast. Just like Tea, and it’s various blends.
Users know when to use which for when, as it were.
Now ,of course, you dont get those varieties in Britain .
You get grown under lights grass and imported greeny brown hash from Morocco.
So Gabriel, you poor unadventurous soul, take your paranoia away from us “Nervous pot smokers shaking chocolate machines” Little Donovan quote for you there, and experience life more fully than you obviously do.
A white-out? I wish. I just felt like someone had a shaved off a few dozen IQ points.