Smoking gun: Bell a callous enforcer, say pot reformers

legalize it, don't critize it!

PS - tax it.

Thanks for nothing, Rob.

Ole' Rob's got an agenda too. He's angling to be AG one day. Boy, wouldn't THAT suck.

It happened again! I tried to post maybe two paragraphs and it disappeared. What's up Hook?

Take "the" from in front of "organized crime", I am writing too fast. Cannabis receptors: Even if we have receptors which match a chemical in marijuana that does not mean we should be partaking of marijuana. Those receptors were originally there for a chemical that our body naturally produces. (Hi Mr. Michael, thanks, very good idea, for now I am posting these little bits.)

Dear hamadryad,
You may want to write the message in an email to yourself and then copy it into the forum that way you can't lose it so easily. I know how it feels when you get something finally written the way you like it and then poof it's gone. Michael

And the "personal experience of detrimental effects of marijuana use on young people" is this: As a teacher I have noticed that those kids who are "potheads" are a dreary, sad, lethargic sort, with all their vibrancy and energy muted. From a purely empirical stand, pot can't be good for kids if it makes them act half-dead.

Laws: We were talking about Rob Bell originally and state laws. I think that for medical use both federally and at the state level it should NOT be banned. And I don't want jails filled with nonviolent marijuana offenders. We agree more than you realize on laws. Too many nonviolent offenders in jail make for no room for the murderers, rapists, and molesters who really should be there!

The end.

my new hero: Roy B. Scherer

Monomaniac at work again. I won't tell you how delicious dinner was (homemade spinach-cheese calzones, manicotti in fresh tomato-basil sauce, rolls, spring salad) because that would be exhibitionistic and I disapprove of that modern, narcissistic trend.

Oh, as a side example let me tell you about someone close to me who smoked pot in his teenage years, then left it. He had, and still has, phenomenal musical ability. He noticed that when he smoked marijuana he was not as creative, couldn't "hear" sounds and melodies as well as when he was not smoking regularly. And the effect lasted for days, not just when he was high. He stopped and as a man in his twenties never partakes for two reasons: it is the law, and he doesn't think it's good for him.

P.S.
Also, read the current (or perhaps previous) issue of CHARLOTTESVILLE magazine for a good review of this issue.

The unintended consequences were increase in the power of the organized crime and the rise of the Kennedy dynasty. :)

Only checked this today. I see I got a rise out of a few people. OK, first off, I said I am not in favor of severe penalties. Perhaps Rob Bell is in favor of penalties more severe than I would call for, but I still do not support total legalization of marijuana. It IS still a sub-culture in America, and I hope it stays that way. Kids, and grownups for that matter, do not need to smoke more pot. I teach History so I know that there are many cultural phenomena that go back more than 10,000 years and are now scorned--let's see, cannibalism, slavery, hallucinogenic mushroom use (OK I scorn that, perhaps you don't), human sacrifice, prostitution--just because people have done something for a long time is not at all a sign that what has traditionally been done is a good thing. (And of course I know cannibalism is much worse than partaking of marijuana. These are examples. It seems the human race has a fatal bent for things that are not good for them or others.)

And to the man, or any person for that matter, who is helped with nausea or pain by using marijuana, I say, let a real physician prescribe it. However, this excuse of "medical" usage is put forth mostly by people who just want to get high. And it is true that our brains have receptors with which drugs interact, but the receptors are not there because it is a natural thing to do drugs. It is not. Natural activities like exercise, prayer, meditation, sex, and just socializing, laughing, and having a good time are what they were really made for. If there is a major problem like disease, pain, etc., by all means, use drugs, but the regular use of mind-altering substances is a sign to me that someone does not know how to really LIVE.

And now for all those hamadryad comments. Hamadryads do not "live in trees" per se. They ARE trees, trees who have spirits and can sometimes appear as people, other times as trees. But when they are people, they are rather leafy people, and when they are trees, they have a remarkably human aspect. (Read Tolkien and C. S. Lewis, it's all in there.)

This is my 4th point/response: hamadryads: I don’t mind half so much as you might think being called a tree-dweller. Right now a large hollowed out tree seems not such a bad alternative to the mortgage I am shelling out. And we could all be a little kinder and gentler in our language. I, after all, called those first posters ââ?¬Å?1d1ots”. Which wasn’t very nice!

You are all idiots. Marijuana use is part of a "subculture", not a longstanding cultural phenomenon like alcohol. There still are very good reasons for trying to suppress its use, and there is a much better chance of success in a marijuana prohibition than with alcohol. I am not saying penalties should be severe, but legalizing it would DRAMATICALLY increase its use and that is in no sense a good thing. Huzzah to Rob Bell for standing up for what is right. If he was not "cool" enough to do pot in high school, I would say "coolness" is highly overrated. (I am a high school teacher and I know what I am talking about here. Too often the "cool" kids are delinquents.) Good for Rob Bell and I will vote for him again!

Hamadryad -
Nice screen anme, since it seems that in spite of being a high school teacher you seem to have been living in a tree all these years.

Marijuana use is indeed a "subculture", but is absolutely longstanding -- at least 5,000 years, arguably more than twice that.

You say, "There still are very good reasons for trying to suppress its use, and there is a much better chance of success in a marijuana prohibition than with alcohol."

Would you care to list those reasons, AND estimate the costs associated with them? It's all well and good to say that in a perfect world, no one would use drugs of any kind, but in case you've been living in a tree, I need to inform you that we do not live in a perfect world. In the real world, people get sick, and need medicine, and some of those medicines cause other problems which in turn require more medicines to treat them. In the real world, people use various ways to give themselves a temporary break from the humdrum day-to-day life with its cares.

Every society of which we know has some means of escape -- with the possible exception of the Eskimo. Even grade-school children, without drugs, engage in breath-holding maneuvers and spinning maneuvers to give them a short-term break from reality. Can you say -- and if so, with what evidence? -- that any behaviour so widespread is abnormal?

You say, "legalizing it would DRAMATICALLY increase its use", but again you show no evidence for that, and for that matter "legalizing" was not at any point under consideration. HB1134 would have lowered the penalty for possession to A $500 civil fine. The maximum penalty for 1st-offense possession under current law is MAXIMUM 30 days, and $500 CRIMINAL fine. Not a very big change, and would prevent thousands of young Virginians from having a criminal conviction on their records. As far as that change dramatically changing the rate of drug use, you obviously have not paid any attention to the twenty years and more of evidence of what's happened in those states which have made this change. Too much time in the tree, I suppose.

The other bill (HB1136) which Rob Bell, Todd Gilbert, Ben Cline, et. al. killed would have very slightly expanded the possibilities for physicians to prescribe marijuana to their patients when, in their professional judgment, it would be appropriate. You know, just like cocaine and morphine. You have a problem with that? If so, for what reasons?

If I may, I would gently suggest that you get out of your tree and actually do some research before you spout off in the future.
-- Roy B. Scherer
-- Oh, by the way, please notice that SOME of us do not hide behind screen-names. The reason for that is that we post truth, and we are willing to defend our views against any anonymous attacks from idiots on either side.

Oh Leafy One, allow me to deal with a couple of points you raise.

Let me first say that I'm aware of the nature of hamadryads. I admit taking the easy shot at you for being a tree-dweller, because it was so appropriate concerning both your screen name and your attitudes -- and because I can't resist a straight line. "It was the hamadryad's fault, Lord. She tempted me."

Now, I agree that marijuana users are a subculture, but don't see the significance. Chess players are a subculture, as are sky-divers and oenophiles. None of the latter are illegal, and none have been around as long as marijuana use. Are you suggesting that America should attempt to eliminate all subcultures? Wouldn't that make the melting-pot a bit bland?

People don't need to smoke pot? No, of course they don't, in most cases. They don't need to read books, or watch movies, or add spice to their foods, either.

We're human. To live, as opposed to merely existing, means more than merely breathing, taking sustenance, excreting, possibly breeding, and eventually dying. Yes, some of the things we do are not good for us, and may well harm us. That's all right, Hamadryad. Some people climb Mount Everest, some people jump out of airplanes, some people smoke marijuana. It's all right. We have billions of humans on the planet; if some of them kill themselves, there are plenty of replacements, and the death will provide a useful object lesson for others.

As far as medical use is concerned, you quite obviously do not understand the current state of Virginia and Federal law, or you would not prattle about "let a real physician prescribe it".

Virginia law theoretically allows medical use, "pursuant to a valid prescription issued by a medical doctor in the course of his professional practice for treatment of cancer or glaucoma",
.
The trouble with that is twofold. First is that use is limited to those two specific condition(unlike the case with any other substance whatsoever, and second is that it requires a "valid prescription". That last would be no problem at all, were it not for the fact that the Feds have marijuana classified as a "Schedule I" substance, which means that any prescription written for it is INvalid on its face.

The Feds, of course, finally admitted (in January) that they have been systematically blocking research into the therapeutic uses of marijuana for decades. In spite of that, there's good evidence that it has multiple medical uses, and that specific components have more.

As to whether or not "this excuse of ââ?¬Å?medical” usage is put forth mostly by people who just want to get high", that's first of all merely your opinion, and irrelevant even if true. EVEN IF 99 percent of medical-necessity claims were false, that would say nothing about the ethics of allowing genuine medical use. After all, merely because junkies fake symptoms and forge prescriptions to get morphine does not keep it from being a vital part of the pharmacopeia.

Regarding brain receptors, I'm afraid that once again you reveal that you haven't done too much research in this field. All the things you cite are indeed good ways to feel good, but they do not excite the same receptors used for cannabinoids.

Finally, you may have a sort of point about drug use being a sign that someone doesn't "know how to really LIVE", but according to the studies that have been done, use of marijuana is much more likely to be the RESULT of physical/mental/psychological problems than it is to be the CAUSE of them.

Seriously, Hamadryad, I understand your concern, and (as a certified geek and nerd), I completely agree that "ââ?¬Å?coolness” is highly overrated". However, you have failed to do the research. I'd suggest that you start with what is still, in my estimation, the best layman's book on drugs that I've ever read: LICIT AND ILLICIT DRUGS, by Edward Brecher and the Editors of Consumer Reports (1972, Consumer's Union). You might follow that up with the report of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, volume 1, MARIHUANA: SIGNAL OF MISUNDERSTANDING (1972, Government Printing Office). Once you've read those, drop me a line at .

The above is an actual question for the Hook staff. Do you have my submission somewhere?

OK Mr. Roy, they are only letting me post 2 or 3 lines at a time. The short posts may not contain the devastating argument of the originals, but I will try to be succinct. My rejoinders were on the topics of 1. subcultures 2. cannabis receptors 3. laws 4. hamadryads and 5. I forget, maybe it will come back to me.

Something can be illegal and not merit jail time. I think we could be much more creative in punishments--community service, etc. I want to discourage people, especially young people, from using it, not slam them in jail. (OK guys I am sorry for all these posts with HAMADRYAD as the header. I like my nom de plume but even I am getting nauseous seeing it this many times.)

OK I am going to eat dinner. Someone (Michael? Roy?) please post. I am beginning to look like a monomaniac. And I don't even do this very often!