How old were you the first time you smoked pot?

@Ionus,

David wrote:

your logic is incorrect: there IS a point in banding together in defense from alien enemies, or domestic predators.
That does NOT interfere with personal autonomy qua matters that do not violate the rights of OTHERS.

Ionus wrote:

I am not allowed to kill others,

I 'd not be as radical as to go THAT far, but if u DO it
u better have a good reason for it, to avoid retribution.

Ionus wrote:

nor am I allowed to kill myself despite perhaps having every sane reason to do so.

I dunno about what U r "allowed" but WE never gave government jd to interfere in self-destructive conduct.
Any such jurisdiction was seized by USURPATION.

That is NOT what the Founders had in mind,
nor what thay asked for, in political power.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Your founders had a different world. You could buy dynamite at a corner store till quite late in your history.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Your founders had a different world.
You could buy dynamite at a corner store till quite late in your history.

YES; so what ???

In America, law is not "lost in desuetude".
It remains intact, until repealed.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

YES; so what ???

I thought the meaning was obvious.....modern times, ie rapid changes and small adjustment times, have produced anti-social behaviour. What worked in the past does not work now. Laws are added to stop a minority from adversely affecting the majority. The greatest handicap to the USA is its constitution AND decentralised system. In the founders days, it would take days even weeks to travel the length of the country. Now it is hours. The old "sense" is dead and people are stressed at the pace of change. Some of the legal framework is old and inadequate whilst other parts are new and distressing.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

David wrote:

YES; so what ???

Ionus wrote:

I thought the meaning was obvious.....modern times,
ie rapid changes and small adjustment times, have produced anti-social behaviour.

That can be good; as Individuals, we shoud be cognizant of the dangers of society; keep it on a short leash.

Ionus wrote:

What worked in the past does not work now.

Well, it can work to keep government weak and starved and inoffensive (blessings be unto Heinlein).
THAT 's the important thing, insofar as domestic jd is concerned.

Ionus wrote:

Laws are added to stop a minority from adversely affecting the majority.

Depending on the specific circumstances, that can be OK, or not.
The dispositive consideration is whether government was granted the jd in question.
As individuals, we owe it to ourselves to be very stingy with domestic jd.
Personal freedom and domestic jd of government are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL.

Ionus wrote:

The greatest handicap to the USA is its constitution AND decentralised system.

Indeed, yes!!!
As citizens, we need to be alert to take every opportunity
to curtail, strangle, choke and degrade the domestic jd of government. Keep the monster chained to its slab in the lab.
Don 't let it get loose n run amuk. We MUST handicap the damned thing (government), and use the Constitution to do that!
Keep it on a short leash. Demoralize it; break its spirit. Thanx for the reminder.

Ionus wrote:

In the founders days, it would take days even weeks to travel the length of the country. Now it is hours.

That does NOT grant additional domestic power to government.

Ionus wrote:

The old "sense" is dead and people are stressed at the pace of change.

Let 'em complain to their bartenders n psychologists.

Ionus wrote:

Some of the legal framework is old and inadequate whilst other parts are new and distressing.

That 's OK; no problem.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I've been mulling over your conversation with Nancy for a bit.

It's interesting that in all the anti-drug information that kids get that the possiblilty of reliance/necessity/addiction isn't really a big part of it. I kind of like your angle: it's not so much the drugs (bad as they might be, and some of them are absolutely awful) but the NEED for someone to have them, and the frenzy to acquire them, that creates the real problem.

When the time comes for me to really talk to Mo about drugs I'll most likely incorporate that line of thought.

Thank you.

1 Reply

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

I was probably about 12.

don't wait too long to talk to Mo

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

You're right.

0 Replies

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

I've been mulling over your conversation with Nancy for a bit.

It's interesting that in all the anti-drug information that kids get that the possiblilty of reliance/necessity/addiction isn't really a big part of it. I kind of like your angle: it's not so much the drugs (bad as they might be, and some of them are absolutely awful) but the NEED for someone to have them, and the frenzy to acquire them, that creates the real problem.

Yes; the War on Drugs is profoundly, fundamentally un-American, in that the American Revolution, and its result: the US Constitution are Instruments of LIberty. Even the King of England did not interfere in what thay coud ingest. A few years ago, I saw some interviews on 60 Minutes, including a middle aged businessman in England, who had been prescribed by a panel of 3 health care professionals, pure heroin to satisfy his need. He got it re-filled each week at a pharmacy for about 20 years, after which, he said, that he simply lost interest and forgot about it; i.e., no frenzy and no criminal violence to raise funds to support his habit.
In the meantime, he innocently and productively ran his small business.

boomerang wrote:

When the time comes for me to really talk to Mo about drugs I'll most likely incorporate that line of thought.

Thank you.

Its my pleasure, boomer.
When I spoke to Nancy, I just spoke from the heart,
being simple in words and as relevantly informative as I knew how to be, without exceeding her attention span.

David

0 Replies

@boomerang,

Around 30yrs of age, I ate some 'cake' at a party and enjoyed the effects it had on me (eg. not shutting up giggling and laughing), went on to try smoking from there, smoked a bit too much for around 3-4 years then calmed down again, now it's once a week. Do i regret ever starting! YES, my advice is ... if you haven't tried it - then don't, then you can't miss it and you won't end up wanting it for the rest of your life.

0 Replies

I’ve never smoked pot, never even tried it. I have a few friends that do smoke it and I’m okay with that, just never had any desire to smoke anything.

1 Reply

Oh great, thread reactivated, more pages of 'user ignored' on their way.

1 Reply

@boomerang,

It was 19 years Old.The first time I smoked pot.

http://www.buydutchseeds.com/images/semenkiddo.gif

0 Replies

@squinney,

Just saw Noddy's signature line there, Squinney.
What a fine thread this is. All the best folks have a lot of zeroes..

0 Replies

I think I was 15 the first time.... and 20 the last time.

1 Reply

@Crazielady420,

I meant to say never, I have never smoked pot before.. sorry about that :-)

0 Replies

Finished rereading the somewhat trashed thread, including by me for keeping responding, and not very well. I enjoyed the thread, though, for quite a while.

0 Replies

@jcboy,

I doff my hat to you... we have something in common .

1 Reply

@hingehead,

Quote:

more pages of 'user ignored' on their way.

You admit to being a bigot but are too stupid to realise .

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

I doff my hat to you... we have something in common .

Except for the part where he's okay with other people indulging their curiosity and not blindly following anti-drug propaganda like a child.

Also the part where he has a few friends.

0 Replies

How old were you the first time you smoked pot?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know