Letters to health and justice ministers
- Thread starter GrowRock
- Start date
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Could eventually compete with fossil fuels. Especially if we drop all the laws that protect big oil from lawsuits. Namely patent law. This is how they avoid getting sued to shit for causing cancer by poisoning the water table everywhere they frack - they hide behind patent law which protects their trade secrets so the chemicals discovered in the water cannot actually be directly connected to the companies as far as the judges are concerned.
You may already know this though.
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
I'll have to disagree, OGE. Plants like peyote and shrooms are not legal to cultivate even if they grow wild. Is that right or wrong?-I dunno. Hemp has been grown continuously in Canada for about 90 years...it is legal but over-controlled,imo. As far as being able to produce your own opium or cocaine...I draw the line there. I have seen the destruction of prescription opiates on people. You cannot put weed in the same class as those other plants,imo, as there is no risk of addiction or overdose. Doing so sets us back, I think. If we were to say we won't be happy with growing our own weed unless we can also grow opium we would be guaranteed NEVER to be able to grow.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
They're both legal to grow.
https://www.erowid.org/plants/peyote/peyote_law.shtml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_psilocybin_mushrooms
A huge amount of the destruction from those drugs stems from prohibition. I have also seen what they can do to people. I've also seen someone overdose and die getting heroin laced with fentanyl. Opiate use is at insanely high levels in our current model anyway except it's ridiculously high priced and also more dangerous than opiates of the past which are far far better studied and in the case of opium far less concentrated.
Now almost all cocaine is laced with animal dewormer which is also killing people. There is no logical argument to keeping this shit illegal. Purely emotional. Alcohol is worse than all of them in terms of destructiveness and just as addictive as cocaine. Heroin is more addictive, but people generally are not interested in doing it. And manufacturing it isn't exactly a fail safe process anyone would really want to go through if it were legally produced elsewhere. They would be cheap too. People wouldn't have to steal. There are many many functional addicts all through history. It's better to simply judge people on their actions. John Hopkins couldn't perform surgery without being high on opium because he'd get the shakes so bad he would have killed his patients. Guy invented many surgeries still used today and was world class at his job. It's all relative. Would I prefer he was sober and clean of mind? Yeah. But push come to shove I probably also still choose him over the average surgeon of the day back then. Yet with prohibition he would not have done the things he did.
Contaminants in these drugs often do far more damage than the drugs themselves. Opiates can be used very long term. It's not a particularly great way to live, although some people need to for pain reasons. But they are far less toxic than alcohol. Cocaine is less toxic than alcohol too although your heart will give way eventually.
It's purely your own biases making your opinion here IMO because I've never seen a good argument beyond 'oh but the government needs to protect us because we cannot possibly do that ourselves'. Giving up your rights and corresponding responsibilities has never ended well all through history.
I'll flip the lid on you and suggest that the government in an authoritarian system should have every single right to tell you exactly how to live since there are going to be people taking from others to get the care they need from the government. Thereby justifying complete totalitarianism in the name of equal protection under the law. Because that is actually a concept most people agree with, even if they have a different view on what the law should be.
https://www.erowid.org/plants/peyote/peyote_law.shtml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_psilocybin_mushrooms
A huge amount of the destruction from those drugs stems from prohibition. I have also seen what they can do to people. I've also seen someone overdose and die getting heroin laced with fentanyl. Opiate use is at insanely high levels in our current model anyway except it's ridiculously high priced and also more dangerous than opiates of the past which are far far better studied and in the case of opium far less concentrated.
Now almost all cocaine is laced with animal dewormer which is also killing people. There is no logical argument to keeping this shit illegal. Purely emotional. Alcohol is worse than all of them in terms of destructiveness and just as addictive as cocaine. Heroin is more addictive, but people generally are not interested in doing it. And manufacturing it isn't exactly a fail safe process anyone would really want to go through if it were legally produced elsewhere. They would be cheap too. People wouldn't have to steal. There are many many functional addicts all through history. It's better to simply judge people on their actions. John Hopkins couldn't perform surgery without being high on opium because he'd get the shakes so bad he would have killed his patients. Guy invented many surgeries still used today and was world class at his job. It's all relative. Would I prefer he was sober and clean of mind? Yeah. But push come to shove I probably also still choose him over the average surgeon of the day back then. Yet with prohibition he would not have done the things he did.
Contaminants in these drugs often do far more damage than the drugs themselves. Opiates can be used very long term. It's not a particularly great way to live, although some people need to for pain reasons. But they are far less toxic than alcohol. Cocaine is less toxic than alcohol too although your heart will give way eventually.
It's purely your own biases making your opinion here IMO because I've never seen a good argument beyond 'oh but the government needs to protect us because we cannot possibly do that ourselves'. Giving up your rights and corresponding responsibilities has never ended well all through history.
I'll flip the lid on you and suggest that the government in an authoritarian system should have every single right to tell you exactly how to live since there are going to be people taking from others to get the care they need from the government. Thereby justifying complete totalitarianism in the name of equal protection under the law. Because that is actually a concept most people agree with, even if they have a different view on what the law should be.
OLD MOTHER SATIVA
Well-Known Member
terrific !!
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
does anyone else see the irony in the author being named Peter Jackson?
Similar threads
