Growing up like I did, with illicit substances always around the house in the hands of my stoner parents, I guess I have a hard time understanding -- even though I haven't smoked since I was a high school Junior -- what exactly should make my parents criminals and marijuana illegal. How can something less damaging than alcohol with more legimate medical uses be considered a dangerous narcotic?
This brings me to another one of my random, off-the-wall theories: should marijuana be used to treat menopause? Or better yet, hash brownies? Because if marijuana acts enough like estrogen that males can begin to develop breasts after enough exposure (supposedly), then why exactly aren't we using it to treat women with hormonal imbalances across the spectrum? Imagine it, hash brownies -- pot and chocolate -- being used to treat women for entire spectrums of problems, relatively naturally! Or maybe I'm just talking out of my ass -- I'm not a chemist or a biologist. But if I'm right, think of the potential! :-P
It just always struck me as funny that even the big three illegal drugs -- marijuana, heroin, and cocaine -- all have legimate medical uses. Novacaine is a synthetic form of the main painkiller in cocaine, and it replaced the use of cocaine in modern medicine. Heroin is a derivative of morphine. Then there's pot, the seeming wonder drug. A myriad of uses is possible with the most harmless of the big three, and I really wonder why we don't just give up the stupid war on hash. What good has that part of the Drug War ever really brought us? Although I'm in danger of sounding like every other pothead legalization advocate -- or as they call themselves, the "anti-prohibition" movement -- I really do think we need to give it up and make weed a regulated substance, complete with sin tax.
I mean, imagine the revenue for state and federal governments from sin taxes on weed. And yes, there would be so many more people who might use it recreationally due to relaxed fears of being screened out of jobs and custodial rights by drug tests; but is that a bad thing? They would be regulated with the strength of their pot under strict control, much like we control the various proofs of alcohol. Let people do with their bodies what they want: you're not going to stop someone from drinking or smoking by enacting draconian laws and punishing them far beyond their crime. You're just creating a lot of bad will towards the law and the government. If the general consensus becomes that there are laws that are unjust and they deserve to be broken, then they will be. But when, then, should people stop ignoring the law? Total freaking anarchy, am I right?
I know I can't be the only one to see this? Are there really that many authoritarians who want to see draconian legislation and bans on (mostly) harmless substances like marijuana maintained and expanded?
This brings me to another one of my random, off-the-wall theories: should marijuana be used to treat menopause? Or better yet, hash brownies? Because if marijuana acts enough like estrogen that males can begin to develop breasts after enough exposure (supposedly), then why exactly aren't we using it to treat women with hormonal imbalances across the spectrum? Imagine it, hash brownies -- pot and chocolate -- being used to treat women for entire spectrums of problems, relatively naturally! Or maybe I'm just talking out of my ass -- I'm not a chemist or a biologist. But if I'm right, think of the potential! :-P
It just always struck me as funny that even the big three illegal drugs -- marijuana, heroin, and cocaine -- all have legimate medical uses. Novacaine is a synthetic form of the main painkiller in cocaine, and it replaced the use of cocaine in modern medicine. Heroin is a derivative of morphine. Then there's pot, the seeming wonder drug. A myriad of uses is possible with the most harmless of the big three, and I really wonder why we don't just give up the stupid war on hash. What good has that part of the Drug War ever really brought us? Although I'm in danger of sounding like every other pothead legalization advocate -- or as they call themselves, the "anti-prohibition" movement -- I really do think we need to give it up and make weed a regulated substance, complete with sin tax.
I mean, imagine the revenue for state and federal governments from sin taxes on weed. And yes, there would be so many more people who might use it recreationally due to relaxed fears of being screened out of jobs and custodial rights by drug tests; but is that a bad thing? They would be regulated with the strength of their pot under strict control, much like we control the various proofs of alcohol. Let people do with their bodies what they want: you're not going to stop someone from drinking or smoking by enacting draconian laws and punishing them far beyond their crime. You're just creating a lot of bad will towards the law and the government. If the general consensus becomes that there are laws that are unjust and they deserve to be broken, then they will be. But when, then, should people stop ignoring the law? Total freaking anarchy, am I right?
I know I can't be the only one to see this? Are there really that many authoritarians who want to see draconian legislation and bans on (mostly) harmless substances like marijuana maintained and expanded?
No comments:
Post a Comment