What are your views on weed?

[GiantBear91]

I believe there is nothing wrong with Cannibus. It is a natural herb and people have been growing ever since humans knew how to harvest/grow things.
It does not kill brain cells, that is a lie. It helps cancer victams as well. There are many other things it can be used for besides smoking.

I think cannibus should be legalized everywhere.

What are you veiws?

[Pirate Utopian]

nGsEt-qtOqs

[Vahanian]

i'm with pirate on this one:thumbup:

[GiantBear91]

haha hell yeah man.

[LOLseph Stalin]

It helps cancer victams as well.

It actually helps with more than just cancer. It helps to control seizures in epiliptics and to ease pain for people with various other medical conditions. I actually know some people who smoke it to ease pain. Of course they're forced to do it illegally since governments around the world are too hesistant to look at the benefits rather than the bad.

[Jazzratt]

Generally on weed I have the same views, I just take longer to enunciate them.

[Sprocket Hole]

I think it's great, but here in America, there is a long history as to why it is outlawed. Started for racist reasons against Mexicans. But I swear, every generation, there is a new reason as to why it is outlawed.. It will make you kill people, then, you'll go crazy and kill yourself, then it will make you do herion, and now if you smoke your future will go up in flames..

Personally, I dont smoke it very often and especially not socially. I get paranoid easy, and I never feel like doing much when I'm high.
To quote The Edukators.. "Grass stifles young people's revolutionary energy" or something to that effect..

[Delirium]

The Whizz is so high on weed right now!

lemme my hacky sack?

[Black Dagger]

I smoke weed almost every day, so infer away!

[Delirium]

So do I, i also happen to enjoy hacky sack too.:rolleyes:

[Black Dagger]

Why the eye-roll?

[Delirium]

Because this thread needs as many eye roll smilies as it can get

[LOLseph Stalin]

Because this thread needs as many eye roll smilies as it can get

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: happy? hehe.

[Delirium]

Yes

EXTREMELY

[SoupIsGoodFood]

I think weed should be legalized, because it is my right to put whatever I want to in my body.

[Black Dagger]

Because this thread needs as many eye roll smilies as it can get

Why? What am i missing here?

[Delirium]

the internet circle jerk about legalizing weed on revleft? Thats whats amusing me!

[Black Dagger]

Whilst it is a pretty redundant conversation (i can't see too many people here voicing an opposition to the legalisation of cannabis)... i just see these sorts of threads as being temporary replacements for the 'stoner talk thread' (which i liked) and the other drugs threads that disappeared into the abyss/archive.

[Delirium]

I was more of a fan of the Drugs! thread, but to each thier own.

[TC]

I had a very very very bad hallucinatory trip on weed once and haven't used it since :confused:
experiences like that seem extremely rare though so people should generally be encouraged to try weed.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

C0mEDE

fuck it ain't working, it's http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0mEDE_w1xo

THEY'RE GOING TO AIR THIS!!!

Seeing a Pro-Pot Ad has been a dream for me, almost up there with legalization itself.


I am tired of those motherfucking "The Anti-Drug" or "Above the Influence" bullshit ads.

Like this

jhjwUR2SeAE

Or this

Fv3kep8fB-0

or this

kiJ0xjrDQAc


I honestly like these a lot more:

fH3SIG2Zk

(this is the best one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH3SIG2Zk_4&feature=related)

this one is pretty good too

wEvAUvN9aDE

But only because of the black kid. I like that smile on his face when he says his line, makes me laugh.

What I really hate about all those ads is the way it is only focused on middle-class (almost exclusively white) suburban kids. As if policy should be set because some dumbass passed out at a party and got drawn on.

That's not because of weed. That's because your friends are pieces of shit.



and fuck carrots

[GiantBear91]

Dude that first video was amazing. Thank you for sharing that.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

No, thank NORML :D

I really do feel like a page has been turned and that legalization is on its way. Not this decade, maybe not for a few more years, but it's definitely coming.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don't partake of this substance called "weed," but I could care less if other people do. Have fun.

[Invincible Summer]

I think marijuana is a very unharmful substance that should be legalized by all means. I don't understand the great stigma surrounding it.

I don't smoke it myself (I've only tried it once to no great effect) but nearly all my friends do. It seems like good, safe, wholesome fun :cool:

I can't believe nasty shit like cigarettes are legal but weed isn't (no offense to smokers)

[Sasha]

What are your views on weed?

i'm dutch, what ya think ;)

[revolution inaction]

i'm dutch, what ya think ;)

I last dutch person I knew was opposed to taking drugs and thought weed should be illegal

[S.O.I]

the cannabis plant is a god given miracle that we should harvest and use in the biggest scale possible. industrially, medically and recreationally.

[The Idler]

Cannabis causes lung and mouth cancer and even a small amount can cause psychosis or other adverse psychological effects. Long-term use also causes paranoia and memory loss. Governments generally turn a blind eye to its use, because it keeps the population (particularly the rebellious enough to try it) compliant and passive. Legalization and regulation with public health warnings would help make the dangers more widely known.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

i'm dutch, what ya think ;)

I think your spoiled. :glare:

Just kidding :D

[NecroCommie]

My views on weed tend to be hazy.

[Cynical Observer]

*gives a "thumbs up" as he giggles hysterically and rolls another blunt* LEGALIZE IT!!!! :D

[bcbm]

Cannabis causes lung and mouth cancer and even a small amount can cause psychosis or other adverse psychological effects. Long-term use also causes paranoia and memory loss. Governments generally turn a blind eye to its use, because it keeps the population (particularly the rebellious enough to try it) compliant and passive. Legalization and regulation with public health warnings would help make the dangers more widely known.

This.

As revolutionaries it is our duty to be disciplined and clear-headed at all times, so as to be as precise as possible in our actions and how they benefit the struggle. Drugs seriously impede this ability, particularly marijuana given the ease in obtaining it and its common place in society. Therefore we must take a strong stand against drugs and their use so long as class society continues to weigh upon us, within our circles of political comrades if nothing else.

[Pogue]

doesn't appeal to me because i don't like smoking but i dont care about what other people do

it should be legalised too

[mykittyhasaboner]

Cannabis causes lung and mouth cancer
Bullshit.


and even a small amount can cause psychosis or other adverse psychological effects.
You want to be specific? Otherwise, more bullshit.



Long-term use also causes paranoia and memory loss.
Oh no! Don't let those stoners become scared and forgetful! They'll be to afraid to finish their weed, and they'll forget to clean their bongs!!!


Governments generally turn a blind eye to its use, because it keeps the population (particularly the rebellious enough to try it) compliant and passive.
Tell that to thousands of people who are incarcerated because of marijuana related criminal offenses in the US.


Legalization and regulation with public health warnings would help make the dangers more widely known.

Yeah, except there is pretty much little to no dangers involved in consuming marijuana.

[Pogue]

the only thing which bothers me really is the cancer

and mental problems/it being a gateway drug.

so i guess its a bit to be worried about

but if you want to do it go ahead, just make sure you know what your doing (legal, dont do it too much, wrong times etc)

[mykittyhasaboner]

What is all this nonsense about it being possible to get cancer from consuming marijuana!? That is complete crap.

[Pogue]

What is all this nonsense about it being possible to get cancer from consuming marijuana!? That is complete crap.

i thought that was to do with how you smoked it

as far as i know its considered medical fact?

[bcbm]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html

[mykittyhasaboner]

i thought that was to do with how you smoked it
No method of consuming marijuana (be it through smoking, eating, or vaporizing) causes cancer.


as far as i know its considered medical fact?
Absolutely not, it is considered a medical fallacy and sheer anti-drug propaganda.

A quick look at any of these sources will suggest that it not only does not cause cancer, but it can even play a part in curing cancer.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy_main/2007/apr/18/cannabis_doesnt_cause_cancer_but

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/marijuana-ingredient-cuts-lung-cancer-growth-spread-18538.html

[Pogue]

interesting, very interesting. Can't it be proven to cause mental problems though, and as a gateway drug?

I honestly want to know. I think it should be legal but I've never wanted to take it myself due to the health risks I thought there were (although if these are false I'd be interested to know).

[mykittyhasaboner]

interesting, very interesting. Can't it be proven to cause mental problems though, and as a gateway drug?
It's not a "gateway drug", because there is not such thing as a 'gateway drug'.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5490

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/study-say-marijuana-no-gateway-drug-12116.html

http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/45535/


I honestly want to know. I think it should be legal but I've never wanted to take it myself due to the health risks I thought there were (although if these are false I'd be interested to know).You don't need to be worried about any health risks if you want to use marijuana. So simply make your choice based on personal preference, not through fear of supposed health risks.

My advice don't be afraid, feel free to try it and see if you like it.

[black magick hustla]

weed is my favorite drug. its pretty good. i am kindof ashamed of smoking it because a lot of leftists are total stoners and i dont want to be associated with them lol

[hugsandmarxism]

I'm fairly certain that my Christian Methodist conservative mother once smoked it, and the only time she asks me about politics is to know who's trying to legalize it. I haven't smoked weed, or done any of that kind of thing, but I think it should be legalized. I mean, hell, if alcohol is legal, why the fuck should the less harmful, more helpful, and more fun drug be illegal? Jailing people for possession of weed goes back to the narco-fascist policies of Nixon's repressions of the left, and even before that, to chauvinism against mexican immigrants in the South West. I agree that leftists should aim to keep a clear head, but I'm not your daddy. Smoke safe, and never behind the wheel of a car, comrades ;)

[mykittyhasaboner]

http://s2.buzzfeed.com/static/imagebuzz/web02/2009/2/4/18/anigif_thor-roll-joint-9946-1233789850-0.gif

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

If there is a detriment to weed, and maybe the drug culture in general, it's that a lot of stoners seem to become apolitical in their little nihilistic search to get high.

The Hippy movement, for example, largely abandoned the radical politics of the 1960s and just looked at the world through their cloud of potsmoke, as Hunter Thompson put it.

[Black Dagger]

http://s2.buzzfeed.com/static/imagebuzz/web02/2009/2/4/18/anigif_thor-roll-joint-9946-1233789850-0.gif

:lol::lol::lol::lol: I'd rep if it was possible :P

[Angry Young Man]

Legalise and ration all drugs.

[The Idler]

@mykittyhasaboner

Medical studies took many decades to establish (and in spite of the interests of lucrative drug companies) that smoking tobacco causes cancer. Because of its illegal status, medical studies of smoking cannabis are far fewer. However, even in the Washington Post (2003) source, the study says "Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco". The claim that THC kills cancerous cells is highly speculative at this stage. Another problem with it being illegal is that in most cases it is cut with tobacco and then inhaled more deeply than a normal cigarette.

Consuming it may be less likely to cause cancer, but increases the risk of psychosis. As a psychoactive drug, cannabis also affects your brain function in an unpredictable way. It would be trivializing to describe the kind of clinical paranoia and clinical memory loss as merely scared and forgetful.

Until it is studied to the same degree as tobacco, it would be foolish to pretend there are no medical risks associated with human consumption.

My advice would be to get your highs without gambling with your mind and body on substances.

Even with the medical risks (which may even be less than alcohol and tobacco), there is certainly a case for legalization (if only to broaden awareness of these risks). Just as alcohol and tobacco carry warnings, so should cannabis. The anti-drug lobby unfortunately has resorted to lies (that it is a narcotic) and misinformation (William Randolph Hearst's anti-Mexican interests) which has generally discredited the medical risks. The gateway drug theory was popular with the anti-drug lobby years ago but is now rightly regarded as quack science.

Governments do turn a blind eye (relative to the number of users who are punished), even some elements of the anti-drug lobby recognize this (see here where the law is described as a dead letter for example (http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/04/they-rave-about-the-peril-of-sunbeds-then-let-us-fry-our-brains-on-cannabis.html)). For every thousands of drug dealers in prison, many millions more try or use cannabis without government interference.


"In Aldous Huxley's dystopian novel Brave New World, Soma is a popular dream-inducing drug. It provides an easy escape from the hassles of daily life and is employed by the government as a method of control through pleasure." - Wikipedia

[bcbm]

My advice would be to get your highs without gambling with your mind and body on substances.

But those are all I have to gamble!

[Killfacer]

interesting, very interesting. Can't it be proven to cause mental problems though, and as a gateway drug?

I honestly want to know. I think it should be legal but I've never wanted to take it myself due to the health risks I thought there were (although if these are false I'd be interested to know).

Weed ain't got many health risks. As long as you don't have a fuck load of schizos in your family then it's fine.

Having said that i know a lot of people who smoked heavily around the age of 15 who became really fucking dopy.

Still, i've smoked on and off since i was about 15 and it's never done me any harm. I don't really smoke anymore though.

[mykittyhasaboner]

@mykittyhasaboner

Medical studies took many decades to establish (and in spite of the interests of lucrative drug companies) that smoking tobacco causes cancer. Because of its illegal status, medical studies of smoking cannabis are far fewer. However, even in the Washington Post (2003) source, the study says "Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco". The claim that THC kills cancerous cells is highly speculative at this stage. Another problem with it being illegal is that in most cases it is cut with tobacco and then inhaled more deeply than a normal cigarette.
The only problem I have with this "earlier work" is that, like you said, marijuana is illegal and outlawed both legally and ethically in the US. So it's not surprising that "early work" would reflect this.

THC does counteract cancer cells. (http://www.drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/cancer/THC_cancer_nov_2003.htm)

Also, tell me if there is such a cancerous risk with thc, then why is it prescribed to cancer patients?


Consuming it may be less likely to cause cancer, but increases the risk of psychosis. As a psychoactive drug, cannabis also affects your brain function in an unpredictable way. It would be trivializing to describe the kind of clinical paranoia and clinical memory loss as merely scared and forgetful.In some cases this may be true, because it is a psychoactive substance as you say. All though clinical paranoia or memory loss is very unlikely.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/#memory


Until it is studied to the same degree as tobacco, it would be foolish to pretend there are no medical risks associated with human consumption.Except that these potential risks are minimal. Proof of this: there is no known case where someone has died, or contracted a disease directly from consuming marijuana.


My advice would be to get your highs without gambling with your mind and body on substances.I'm sure that marijuana is the least of my worries when it comes to this. I'm more worried about the quality of the food/water/air I consume.



Even with the medical risks (which may even be less than alcohol and tobacco), there is certainly a case for legalization (if only to broaden awareness of these risks). Just as alcohol and tobacco carry warnings, so should cannabis. The anti-drug lobby unfortunately has resorted to lies (that it is a narcotic) and misinformation (William Randolph Hearst's anti-Mexican interests) which has generally discredited the medical risks. The gateway drug theory was popular with the anti-drug lobby years ago but is now rightly regarded as quack science.Correct.


Governments do turn a blind eye (relative to the number of users who are punished), even some elements of the anti-drug lobby recognize this (see here where the law is described as a dead letter for example (http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/04/they-rave-about-the-peril-of-sunbeds-then-let-us-fry-our-brains-on-cannabis.html)). For every thousands of drug dealers in prison, many millions more try or use cannabis without government interference.That's because you can't inhibit the growth and distribution of a substance that has such a demand. While millions use it without getting arrested, its the same case the other way around. As a victim of the war on drugs (and friend of those who were more severely victimized); I find it pitiful that you suggest governments that are hostile towards marijuana simply turn a blind eye, or are benevolent in their enforcement of drug policy.

[Primus_Raven]

Dose anybody have a link to "The Union"?

[mykittyhasaboner]

?

[Comrade B]

My views on weed. It has left me very confused on anything that happened in the last couple days....
God damn, hate how this shit fucks with my memory...
Drink, smoke, repeat...

[The Idler]

The only problem I have with this "earlier work" is that, like you said, marijuana is illegal and outlawed both legally and ethically in the US. So it's not surprising that "early work" would reflect this.
So the early studies are biased, but the later studies (even though marijuana is still illegal) are independent?

Also, tell me if there is such a cancerous risk with thc, then why is it prescribed to cancer patients? I'm not claiming THC causes cancer, if anything it is the tar. Marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.

In some cases this may be true, because it is a psychoactive substance as you say. All though clinical paranoia or memory loss is very unlikely.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/#memoryThat may be true, but that is a biased source.
Except that these potential risks are minimal. Proof of this: there is no known case where someone has died, or contracted a disease directly from consuming marijuana.

I'm sure that marijuana is the least of my worries when it comes to this. I'm more worried about the quality of the food/water/air I consume. No-one has ever died from consuming food/water/air, unless it is contaminated, which marijuana is more likely to be. Its paranoia to worry more about food/water/air which is less likely to be contaminated than marijuana.

That's because you can't inhibit the growth and distribution of a substance that has such a demand. While millions use it without getting arrested, its the same case the other way around. As a victim of the war on drugs (and friend of those who were more severely victimized); I find it pitiful that you suggest governments that are hostile towards marijuana simply turn a blind eye, or are benevolent in their enforcement of drug policy.I'm not sure how you can say demand cannot be reduced for substances through regulation etc. From 1965 to 2006, rates of (tobacco) smoking in the United States have declined from 42% to 20.8%. A benevolent governmental drug policy would be doing the same for cannabis. Unfortunately we have the worst of both worlds, punitive prohibition penalizing the few who are caught, with a relatively unregulated free market of cannabis with warnings of the health risks distorted by dealers and ignorant friends.

[Comrade B]

food/water/air, unless it is contaminated, which marijuana is more likely to be
Honestly, in my experience burning things gets rid of the contamination.
Try drinking river water out where I live if you think that water is less contaminated than weed.


That may be true, but that is a biased source.
If it is true, I don't think the source matters. If Hugo Chavez calls Hitler a bad man, I don't think the US will disagree because it is a biased source.


I'm not claiming THC causes cancer, if anything it is the tar. Marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.
Then don't smoke it. I don't smoke cigarettes because they are bad for me, but I don't try to make them illegal for my 90% of friends that smoke. Also, there are ways of getting high with weed other than burning it, for example vaporizers.

[LeninBalls]

I used to smoke a lot, but now it's boring and I don't see any fun or reason to do so anymore. I couldn't care less if anyone else smokes it though.

[mykittyhasaboner]

So the early studies are biased, but the later studies (even though marijuana is still illegal) are independent?
That's not what I'm saying. What this "earlier work" exactly was isn't specified, so I was merely questioning the intent behind stating that "earlier work" established that marijuana contains cancerous chemicals, without even saying what type of study was conducted; and then go on to say that said studies are false, and marijuana in fact counteracts cancer cells.

I just find that dubious and peculiar.


I'm not claiming THC causes cancer, if anything it is the tar. Marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.
The amount of tar in marijuana varies with how it is consumed, so I'm not quite sure what your comparing a cigarette tar with. Vaporizing or eating leaves you with no tar at all, while a water based smoking method reduces the amount of tar greatly, and a joint or blunt is obviously contains the most tar.

However, Tashkin's findings contradicts your sentiment that marijuana (even the high levels of tar received when smoking a joint) cause cancer. So I don't really know what your getting at.



That may be true, but that is a biased source.Ha, typical. Mind telling me how all these sources are biased in the same direction?



Wetzel, C.D. et al., “Remote Memory During Marijuana Intoxication,” Psychopharmacology 76 (1982): 278-81.



Deadwyler, S.A. et al., “The Effects of Delta-9-THC on Mechanisms of Learning and Memory.” Neurobiology of Drug Abuse: Learning and Memory. Ed. L. Erinoff. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse 1990. 79-83.



Block, R.I. et al., “Acute Effects of Marijuana on Cognition: Relationships to Chronic Effects and Smoking Techniques.” Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 43 (1992): 907-917.




No-one has ever died from consuming food/water/air, unless it is contaminated, which marijuana is more likely to be. Its paranoia to worry more about food/water/air which is less likely to be contaminated than marijuana.
That is not true. You cannot provide statistics showing how likely it is for marijuana to be contaminated with something else, so your claim is baseless. This type of thing depends entirely on who's producing it and how its being produced. Many people have died from contaminated food and water; and it is likely someone could die from smoking decent amounts of marijuana laced with other harmful drugs, but that would be the fault of those who produced, and laced the marijuana.


I'm not sure how you can say demand cannot be reduced for substances through regulation etc. From 1965 to 2006, rates of (tobacco) smoking in the United States have declined from 42% to 20.8%.
What the fuck are you on about? I never said demand cannot be reduced through regulation, what does that and declined tobacco usage have to do with anything?

A benevolent governmental drug policy would be doing the same for cannabis. Unfortunately we have the worst of both worlds, punitive prohibition penalizing the few who are caught, with a relatively unregulated free market of cannabis with warnings of the health risks distorted by dealers and ignorant friends.
The demand of cannabis would vary if it were legalized. For medical patients it would increase, as more freedom to use cannabis would obviously result in more prescriptions for medicinal purposes. Recreational usage could go anywhere, but what is your point? You obviously ignore the severity and criminal nature thousands of people being incarcerated (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/095/marijuanaprisoners.shtml) for what shouldn't be a felony offense in most places. You also like to blame dealers and 'ignorant friends' for distorting supposed health risks; why not blame the disastrous "War on Drugs" which simply wastes money and increases police presence and brutality. Surely these 'ignorant friends' and shoddy dealers wouldn't be much of a problem if there was a sensible marijuana policy in place.

[Primus_Raven]

?

One of the best documentaries on weed ever made IMO.

[mykittyhasaboner]

One of the best documentaries on weed ever made IMO.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007

[Primus_Raven]

I love you man..

[mykittyhasaboner]

I love you man..
:lol:

[Prairie Fire]

Gotta go against the grain a little bit here...

The thread opened with enthusiastic, almost unanimous support for marijuana use. Then, with a few dissenting voices, it kind of became a debate about wether or not it is harmful/carinogenic.

My stance:

I'll start by saying that the political organizations that I am affiliated with, my comrades, and I are in favour of Marijuana legalization.

That said, I discourage it's use, and don't use it myself.

It is not an issue of "morality"; that is an abstraction, not an argument with merit.

It is not a health issue; Ciggarettes certainly cause cancer, and I rarely give that a second thought.

It is an issue of revolutionary politics. Pursuit of persynal hedonisim and inhebriation in the place of political work is not revolutionary at all, it is petty-bourgeois.

I'm not being hypocritical about this; I also discourage alcohol use.

For example, here are the first three points form the Black panthers code of conduct:


1. No party member can have narcotics or weed in his possession while doing party work.
2. Any part member found shooting narcotics will be expelled from this party.
3. No party member can be drunk while doing daily party work.

http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/workers/black-panthers/unknown-date/party-rules.htm


I think this quote from the cult of abe lincoln nails it:


If there is a detriment to weed, and maybe the drug culture in general, it's that a lot of stoners seem to become apolitical in their little nihilistic search to get high.

The Hippy movement, for example, largely abandoned the radical politics of the 1960s and just looked at the world through their cloud of potsmoke, as Hunter Thompson put it.


My older comrades tell me about the stance the party took in the 60's and seventies against the promotion of "Turn on, tune in, drop out" culture. All of the adhearents of that way of thinking either completely fizzled out of the struggle and dissapeared from the scene, or they consume themselves only with the legalization of marijuana and drug issues, while ignoring or only paying token lip-service to the struggle of the working class and oppressed peoples of the world.

The revolutionary current of the sixties (and even the seventies as well,) was destroyed by many factors, but the officially promoted fixation with drug use certainly didn't help.

Marijuana legalization has it's benefits, yes, and there are situations where it can improve the situation (ie. Medicinal benefits), but generally revolutionary politics and marijuana use mix like oil and water.

An excellent commentary on marijuana use and politics is the Marijuana party in my country. Disorganized, no commited membership, random actions and half-assed commitment, with all of their protests and demonstrations turning into superficial "smoke-ins".

My major experience with them involves myself and comrades going to a rally that they put on, to stand in solidarity against the extradition of Canadian Marijuana party leader Marc Emmery to the US a few years ago. When we showed up at the event, it was decided that they would have a brief introduction and all smoke weed in unison at a pre-determined time ( we wern't taking part in the "smoke-in").

A quick round of conversations with those gathered revealed to me that almost no one there was a marijuana party member, and hardly anyone there knew who Marc Emmery was or what the event was about. As my comrade gave a stirring speech of solidarity with Marc Emmery, and condemned his extradition, the crowd got fidgity, looking at their watches, counting the seconds until the clock struck the hour when they were going to smoke up.

My comrades speech ran a bit long, the hour struck, and most of the crowd cheered and was running away to smoke up with out even waiting for my comrade to finish. Organizers of the event had to put them back in line and tell them to wait until the speech was over.

As soon as he finished, the crowd dispersed immediately around the corner, and before long the scent of marijuana hit me. Those gathered that day had no idea what the event was about and didn't care. They had largely never heard of Marc Emmery ( a man who is the chief advocate of marijuana legalization in my country, and the leader of the marijuana party), and didn't give a fuck about his plight.

They accomplished nothing with their "smoke-in", and most had no intentions to. This was a social occasion,nothing more.

During the 2005 election in my country, the Marijuana party was on the ballot in my comrade's electoral riding. They were absent at all of the all-candidates speaking forums in the city, except for one at the University, where they left a couple of tiny marijuana party flags on a table without an attendant. That was the bulk of their participation that I saw in the 2005 federal election (other than being on the ballot).

Any other "political" event that I have attended which was hosted by pot-smokers consisted entirely of live music and (surprise) getting high, with the occasional token political demands advanced by the MC between bands setting up.:rolleyes:

Of course the revolutionary party and revolutionary forces must defend and uphold the rights of the people. That said, consuming yourself with liberal diversions and over-fixating on persynal liberties is not revolutionary in the least. Also, being stoned, drunk, high or otherwise comprimised is not revolutionary.
Your spare time is your own buisness, but it is not a revolutionary act and comprimises any political work or endeavors that a persyn is involved in.


Mykittyhasaboner:

Tell that to thousands of people who are incarcerated because of marijuana related criminal offenses in the US.

Point of interest: the so called "drug war" in the United States has nothing to do with drugs. It is a war on especially dis-enfranchised elements of the population in the US.

(Time wise, watch 4:04-5:17)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C55zE_qJd2g&feature=PlayList&p=23FE595A60E9AB9A&index=18


Anyways, that is my two cents. I anticipate being called a "Puritan" or some other such nonsense, as I have in the past.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Lets re-quote that:


1. No party member can have narcotics or weed in his possession while doing party work.
2. Any part member found shooting narcotics will be expelled from this party.
3. No party member can be drunk while doing daily party work.

If someone wants to use weed in his spare time it should not be a problem, and it would become problematic if one's entire life would be consumed by revolutionary politics.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Mykittyhasaboner:


Point of interest: the so called "drug war" in the United States has nothing to do with drugs. It is a war on especially dis-enfranchised elements of the population in the US.

(Time wise, watch 4:04-5:17)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C55zE_qJd2g&feature=PlayList&p=23FE595A60E9AB9A&index=18



It's obviously more about class war, and attacking the poor sections of the working class; but it would be naive to say it has nothing to do with the drug itself.

[Os Cangaceiros]

This thread is hilarious on so many levels.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Like this

jhjwUR2SeAE



That's my all-time favorite anti-drug commercial.

I'm convinced that that particular ad was conceived and created by pro-marijuana saboteurs within the Ad Council.

[black magick hustla]

:shrugs: I agree with a lot of the gist of your post but I disagree communists need to emulate the sad ascetics of the third internationale like lenin in that matter. It has a very nechayevesque feel to it - the belief that every little bit of your being should be used for nothing else that the establishment of a revolutionary society. We do not have to fall on the same rhetoric of the clerical vermin and the miserable puritanism of the deadweight of tradition. The call for mystical ascetism only belongs for those who guarantee a kingdom in the afterlife.

[bcbm]

All of the adhearents of that way of thinking either completely fizzled out of the struggle and dissapeared fromt he scene, or they consume themselves only with the legalization of marijuana and drug issues

Or bombed government buildings and broke Timothy Leary out of jail.

[black magick hustla]

Or bombed government buildings and broke Timothy Leary out of jail.

lol the weathermen where a bunch of kids who dropped to much acid and didnt know how to do bombs (cuz they were all sociology students)

[Prairie Fire]

Sorry; I double posted so I deleted one.


and it would become problematic if one's entire life would be consumed by revolutionary politics.


It has a very nechayevesque feel to it - the belief that every little bit of your being should be used for nothing else that the establishment of a revolutionary society.

I hear this a lot on revleft.

Revolutionary politics is not a chic sub-culture,a hipster fad, an abstract pub discussion or a role-playing game that you can switch on or switch off.

As I have said before when confronted with this line, the class struggle doesn't pause for you. The advocates of reactionary ideology and the bourgeoisie are consistent in their ideology, actions and world outlook at all times. Should the revolutionary forces be any less consistent?

This isn't a game. If you are going to switch on/switch off when it is convenient to your tastes, then go join your local social-democratic party, and be done with it.



Or bombed government buildings and broke Timothy Leary out of jail.


The Weathermen may not be apathetic and hedonistic, but that are erroneous and a heavilly flawed none the less. That is a different thread, though.

[black magick hustla]

It is not a game for me. I do not combine booze and politics and I take my politics very seriously. But I like having friends and drinking with them or sometimes smoking sometimes a joint with them. I am also not one of those dumb anarcho-hipsters who politicize their hedonism. Is there anything wrong for a communist to have a drink and like to dance?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Wow, talk about a fucking false dichotomy.

You have Marmot on the one hand talking about how the left shouldn't be some kind of ultra-zealous fanatical movement in the mold of Sergei Nechayev, and on the other hand you have Prairie Fire talking about how the left shouldn't be a "chic subculture".

You guys desperately need to look up the definition of "happy medium".

[Panda Tse Tung]

Revolutionary politics is not a chic sub-culture,a hipster fad, an abstract pub discussion or a role-playing game that you can switch on or switch off.

As I have said before when confronted with this line, the class struggle doesn't pause for you. The advocates of reactionary ideology and the bourgeoisie are consistent in their ideology, actions and world outlook at all times. Should the revolutionary forces be any different?

Do you work?
Cause if you do, you know you need some time off every now and then. And Marijuana is a great way to spend that time off. Not every single breath in your body, nor every single second of your life has to be devoted to 'revolutionary politics', because it will destroy you. If you cant live and you just have 'revolutionary politics' then the essence of the revolutionary politics. A better life, disappeared.

[black magick hustla]

Wow, talk about a fucking false dichotomy.

You have Marmot on the one hand talking about how the left shouldn't be some kind of ultra-zealous fanatical movement in the mold of Sergei Nechayev, and on the other hand you have Prairie Fire talking about how the left shouldn't be a "chic subculture".

You guys desperately need to look up the definition of "happy median".

I think I am a happy median.

[black magick hustla]

Who the hell wants to be like nechayev anyway. He was mad. He was a boneheaded gangster that killed a comrade of his and that everybody and their grandma in the first international hated.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I was debating whether to use happy medium or happy median. The phraseology is kind of convoluted for that particular term, it would seem.

Nechayev is just someone that people like yourself use to strawman the anarchists with. :rolleyes:

[black magick hustla]

I was debating whether to use happy medium or happy median. The phraseology is kind of convoluted for that particular term, it would seem.

Nechayev is just someone that people like yourself use to strawman the anarchists with. :rolleyes:
what

[Os Cangaceiros]

what

I'll break it down for you:

You're using the example of Nechayev as a strawman. This means that no one is actually endorsing what Nechayev stood for in relation to how you should conduct your activism in real life, and you're constructing an argument that doesn't exist on this board.

Clear?

[bcbm]

As I have said before when confronted with this line, the class struggle doesn't pause for you. The advocates of reactionary ideology and the bourgeoisie are consistent in their ideology, actions and world outlook at all times. Should the revolutionary forces be any less consistent?

Having time for yourself for fun or reflection or whatever is entirely consistent with revolutionary ideology. You think Lenin never kicked back and had a drink? Taking time for yourself doesn't mean you're viewing it as a game or a fad, it means you understand the need for rest in order to stay sane and not get burned out.


lol the weathermen where a bunch of kids who dropped to much acid and didnt know how to do bombs (cuz they were all sociology students)

The Weathermen may not be apathetic and hedonistic, but that are erroneous and a heavilly flawed none the less. That is a different thread, though.

I'm not suggesting they were good in any way, just pointing out that your history lesson wasn't entirely correct. Certainly much of the movement dropped out of the struggle completely, but that isn't the case across the board. And I would argue that the Weatherman were hedonistic. "Freaks are revolutionaries, revolutionaries are freaks."


I am also not one of those dumb anarcho-hipsters who politicize their hedonism.

Psh, politicized hedonism is fun. I also don't see a problem with combining booze and politics... working people drink and I've had many good discussions over a pitcher of beer with coworkers and friends. The Midwest network that was built up prior to the RNC last year was also largely fueled by booze and it was really the social connections we built that made us more effective in organizing and in the streets.

[black magick hustla]

I'll break it down for you:

You're using the example of Nechayev as a strawman. This means that no one is actually endorsing what Nechayev stood for in relation to how you should conduct your activism in real life, and you're constructing an argument that doesn't exist on this board.

Clear?

You are crazy. I was not comparing anarchists to Nechayev, but Prairie Fire's arguments.

[Os Cangaceiros]

You are crazy. I was not comparing anarchists to Nechayev, but Prairie Fire's arguments.

My comment about him as a politicized tool against anarchists was a side comment...his legacy is often brought up to discredit anarchist practice, such as POTD, etc.

My main point was that you were using him as a strawman against PF, just as she is using the strawman of the "chic subculture"...no one self-identifies themselves as belonging to a "chic subculture", and no one wants to be like Nechayev. :rolleyes:

[black magick hustla]

I disagree, I think a lot of american anarchists are part of this "chick subculture" and, especially inside maoism, in a lot of places where maoists actually engage in guerrillas, there is this hardened culture of nechayevesque martyrs that throw themselves in the "name of the people" and become emtpy shells (and that is why they routinely mass murder villages).

[which doctor]

I spend a good chunk of my waking (and sleeping) hours under the influence of THC, but I don't think I'm what you'd call a stoner. A lot of the people I interact with everyday don't even know I smoke at all :cool:

[bcbm]

I disagree, I think a lot of american anarchists are part of this "chick subculture"

This is all rather vague. What specifically do you view as this "chic subculture," and do you think that anarchists consider their politics to be subcultural, or are their subcultural affiliations incidental?

[MilitantAnarchist]

Weed is great, not a bad word to say about it. Not just for smoking for everything.... its something along the lines of 1 acre of weed, equals 12acres of trees for paper.... u can make rope out of it.... INFACT A FACT FOR YOU YANKS, THE DECLARATION OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE WAS PRINTED ON WEEEEEEEEED!!!!!!! :D
Its the wonder plant, helps alsorts of illness (as some bloke said ^^ up there) AND IT GETS YOU HIGH, whats the problems with it???
MAYBE ITS GOT SOMTHING TO DO WITH THE OIL YOU CAN CREATE FROM IT,
but there ya go :confused:
Legalise all drugs anyway :p reduce crime and fuck off the dealers :p
and should all be free on the NHS (in uk, well NHS should be everywhere but thats for another thread)

[black magick hustla]

This is all rather vague. What specifically do you view as this "chic subculture," and do you think that anarchists consider their politics to be subcultural, or are their subcultural affiliations incidental?


First I don't think all of them are like that. I've met a few solid anarchists. I do think in the US though there is this "ghettoization" of anarchism around certain subcultures, fashions etc. I am not criticizing their size (my tendency is fucking tiny), but from all the situ-stuff a lot of them might be acquainted with, a lot of them apparently did not read carefully the the critique of Vaneigem over people fitting certain premanufactured roles of the "spectacle", for a lot of anarchists seem rather willing to fit in the sack, so to speak. Although this gettoization has a prescence in the whole world, because of the state of labor struggles in the US, it seems to hit harder here.

[black magick hustla]

Weed is great, not a bad word to say about it. Not just for smoking for everything.... its something along the lines of 1 acre of weed, equals 12acres of trees for paper.... u can make rope out of it.... INFACT A FACT FOR YOU YANKS, THE DECLARATION OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE WAS PRINTED ON WEEEEEEEEED!!!!!!! :D
Its the wonder plant, helps alsorts of illness (as some bloke said ^^ up there) AND IT GETS YOU HIGH, whats the problems with it???
MAYBE ITS GOT SOMTHING TO DO WITH THE OIL YOU CAN CREATE FROM IT,
but there ya go :confused:
Legalise all drugs anyway :p reduce crime and fuck off the dealers :p

this is what i am talking about btw

[Kamerat]

People should be free to do what ever they want as long as its not reducing other peoples freedom in any way. And since smoking weed is not effecting anyone else except the one smoking, it should be legal.

[bcbm]

this is what i am talking about btw

I'm not sure if I'm more embarrassed for him or myself. But anyway, I think anarchism has been starting to move out of the "ghetto" that it was in in the US for the past decade or so.

[gorillafuck]

I like smoking weed.

True story.

[Comrade B]

I honestly think weed is turned into way too much of an issue, everywhere. I smoke about once a month, I feel stupid afterward usually, but it feels right at the time, and relaxes you after a shit load of stress.
I think the issue is blown way out of proportion, that this thread is 5 pages is like a 5 page thread on American Football, people have gotten brain damage and messed up their lives with over playing of football, but the majority don't have any problems with it. If people are worried about football, they don't play it.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I like smoking weed.

True story.

qft

[Dejavu]

Weed? I used to smoke it all the time. Now I only smoke it like once a year. I think its relaxing and really good to have with friends.

[Bright Banana Beard]

It is best to do it with your social-likening friends.

[Glenn Beck]

Weed is great, not a bad word to say about it. Not just for smoking for everything.... its something along the lines of 1 acre of weed, equals 12acres of trees for paper.... u can make rope out of it.... INFACT A FACT FOR YOU YANKS, THE DECLARATION OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE WAS PRINTED ON WEEEEEEEEED!!!!!!! :D
Its the wonder plant, helps alsorts of illness (as some bloke said ^^ up there) AND IT GETS YOU HIGH, whats the problems with it???
MAYBE ITS GOT SOMTHING TO DO WITH THE OIL YOU CAN CREATE FROM IT,
but there ya go :confused:
Legalise all drugs anyway :p reduce crime and fuck off the dealers :p
and should all be free on the NHS (in uk, well NHS should be everywhere but thats for another thread)
http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/stalin/s-pipl.jpg

Pick it, pack it,
Fire it up, Come alooong,
And take a hit from the booong,
Put the blunt down just for a second,
Don't get me wrong it's not a new method,
Inhaaale, Exhaaale,
Just got a ounce in the mail,
I like a blunt or a big fat cone,
But my double barrel bong is gettin' me stoned

[redSHARP]

i hate the shit. i am for legalizing it though. the last 2 years really showed me that pot makes people unreliable, unmotivated, and rather dull.

i find that the pot smokers i have gotten to know are just so lame; burnt out wastes. and when i need them for something they usually fuck up.

don't get offended, i am just jaded i guess.

[Incendiarism]

Being high is alright. Had some particularly striking episodes under its influence.

[StalinFanboy]

weed is my favorite drug. its pretty good. i am kindof ashamed of smoking it because a lot of leftists are total stoners and i dont want to be associated with them lol
This. I don't like how stoners glorify weed, but I do find it to be fun. It often helps with my depression.

[Sprocket Hole]

Gotta say, one of my buds recently restored my faith in the plant. But I still refuse to smoke with people, everyone who tries to with me are the types that do ABSOLUTELY nothing but smoke weed, eat food, and watch TV.

For me, it's something great to relax with at the end of the day, not something to replace all the great projects I could be working on during the day.

[bcbm]

I'm cutting myself off from buying any for two weeks.

[black magick hustla]

I'm not sure if I'm more embarrassed for him or myself. But anyway, I think anarchism has been starting to move out of the "ghetto" that it was in in the US for the past decade or so.

I think this has a lot to do with the fact that there has been a hike in labor struggles around the world in the 21th century tbh. Remember, we communists are part of the class and our situation, including our splits, sterile theorization etc, has everything to do with how the world is doing.

[Sentinel]

What are your views on weed?

That there should be some of it here right now.

[Rawthentic]

I smoke quite a bit of weed. But its never been a problem politically, mentally, physically, or socially. I know that I'll need to cut back some or completely as time goes by and I get more and more politically immersed.

[Comrade_]

Ganja, to me, is completely fine.

But put simply, it won't ever be legal in the "Western World" - Big capitalist countries. Simply because it would be very hard for them to monopolize it.

[bcbm]

I'm cutting myself off from buying any for two weeks.

fail.

[Jia]

I will never do it myself, but others doing it is fine by me.

[mykittyhasaboner]

fail.
lol

[which doctor]

fail.
I cut myself off from buying any for two weeks every two weeks. I just make sure to leave a few hours between fasts to restock.

[bcbm]

I cut myself off from buying any for two weeks every two weeks. I just make sure to leave a few hours between fasts to restock.

We gotta hang out next time I'm in town.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

I must make a note in future not to do it outside a club in front of bouncers in the future as they dont let you back in...silly me.

[Il Medico]

Good stuff, use it myself.:laugh:

[BOZG]

To each, their own. I tend to just fall asleep after smoking weed. As far as I'm concerned, it's possibly the most boring drug going.

Though people who like to brag about being stoners are fucking idiots.

[Black Dagger]

I tend to just fall asleep after smoking weed. As far as I'm concerned, it's possibly the most boring drug going.

I'm sorry for your loss :(

[BOZG]

I'm sorry for your loss :(


Ha ha. Even when I don't, I just find it boring. If I wanted to relax, I'd drink alcohol. If I want to take drugs, I want something that gives me energy or is psychedelic.

[swampfox]

I see nothing wrong with legalizing weed, as long as people used it in moderation.

[Rawthentic]

Saying that weed is boring is (imo) a narrow minded opinion.

If to you it's boring, what was your rationale for smoking it in the first place?

I have my reasons for using it, mainly for social interaction, musical appreciation, food, sex, reading, biking, walking, etc. I don't see it as a drug in the same category as alcohol. Why? Mainly because weed is actually a natural plant that has actual proven (useful) uses in many different areas.

[LeninBalls]

Saying that weed is boring is (imo) a narrow minded opinion.

If to you it's boring, what was your rationale for smoking it in the first place?

Wow fu.

Sorry for having a completely harmless opinion, but I think weed is incredibly boring after 200 + joints.

My "rationale" for smoking it in the first place? Why is this even a question :confused: Some people want to try weed, just to see what it's like, no one said "weed is boring as shit even though ive never tried it fuck off".

/rant over etc 3h2jfeeddddew398

[Il Medico]

Ha ha. Even when I don't, I just find it boring. If I wanted to relax, I'd drink alcohol. If I want to take drugs, I want something that gives me energy or is psychedelic.
If you want psychedelic, most of my friends that use the harder stuff like acid, however, don't use it if you're afraid of anything. I know one guy who clung to a fridge for more than an hour, because he thought he would fall off a cliff if he did not hold on. He was afraid of heights. If you really want to get fucked up LSD is your best bet. Hell, just listening to songs about it makes ya feel hazy. There is a reason in the sixties they used it to "expand human consciousness".

[BOZG]

If you want psychedelic, most of my friends that use the harder stuff like acid, however, don't use it if you're afraid of anything. I know one guy who clung to a fridge for more than an hour, because he thought he would fall off a cliff if he did not hold on. He was afraid of heights. If you really want to get fucked up LSD is your best bet. Hell, just listening to songs about it makes ya feel hazy. There is a reason in the sixties they used it to "expand human consciousness".

I've tried it. I was talking about experiences of rather than a desire to take them.

[BOZG]

If to you it's boring, what was your rationale for smoking it in the first place?

I have my reasons for using it, mainly for social interaction, musical appreciation, food, sex, reading, biking, walking, etc. I don't see it as a drug in the same category as alcohol. Why? Mainly because weed is actually a natural plant that has actual proven (useful) uses in many different areas.

Well, if you apply some logic to that question, you'd come up with the answer that I find it boring because I've tried it. It would be quite difficult to have an experience from something you've never had.....

[Pogue]

Its honestly never appealed to me to do it. I think its something to do with the fact its smoked. It just doesn't itnerest me, I get thrills other ways. It looks a bit shit, really.

[BOZG]

It looks a bit shit, really.

So does your face.

[Killfacer]

Anyone else feel like this needs to be played?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSOCdaT3j2E

[Jazzratt]

Its honestly never appealed to me to do it. I think its something to do with the fact its smoked.

Or brewed in a tea, or eaten. A number of people take weed in this way because they don't like smoking.

Then again I don't see much reason to force experimentation on people - what someone does or does not take is not my problem.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Anyone else feel like this needs to be played?

YSOCdaT3j2E


Thanks God, I was expecting Pass the Dutchie!!

Peter Tosh is the best for songs bout weed!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbHzlcDKeik

What are your opinions on legal versions of weed? they are cheap and legal so can be smoked outside the pub etc.
http://www.shivaheadshop.co.uk/shop/legal_highs/herbal_blends/low_cost_blends/products/yuba_gold_seal.html

[BOZG]

Thanks God, I was expecting Pass the Dutchie!!

Peter Tosh is the best for songs bout weed!

nbHzlcDKeik

What are your opinions on legal versions of weed? they are cheap and legal so can be smoked outside the pub etc.
http://www.shivaheadshop.co.uk/shop/legal_highs/herbal_blends/low_cost_blends/products/yuba_gold_seal.html

Never really worked for me.

[Jazzratt]

What are your opinions on legal versions of weed? they are cheap and legal so can be smoked outside the pub etc.
http://www.shivaheadshop.co.uk/shop/legal_highs/herbal_blends/low_cost_blends/products/yuba_gold_seal.html

From what I've heard they are a great big rip off.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The only thing such stuff is good for is for mixing with weed instead of tobacco.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Thanks, my general thoughts were, if it was any good it would be illegal by now anyway!

[The Idler]

Thanks, my general thoughts were, if it was any good it would be illegal by now anyway!
A lot of naive people genuinely believe this is the reason the government makes recreational drugs illegal.

[revolution inaction]

A lot of naive people genuinely believe this is the reason the government makes recreational drugs illegal.

I always assumed that competition with legal drugs like alcohol was a big part of it.