Tags
barack obama, Colorado, Harvard Professor Timothy Leary, marijuana, Mark Brawner, Rolling Stones
Barack Obama, model for American youth
credit; news busters.org
I learned to play the guitar in the late 60s, the days of marijuana, hippies, the Beatles, the Doors, the Rolling Stones, the birth of the counterculture. “Turn on, tune in, drop out,” said the LSD marinated Harvard Professor Timothy Leary, and many took his advice.
Particularly in rock musician’s circles, marijuana was common. Those that used it thought it made them soooo much more insightful and creative. In actuality it made them lazy, completely unreliable, and utterly destroyed their sense of meter and tempo. They couldn’t play in time to save their lives. I wasn’t impressed, nor were non-stoned audiences. For awhile, it become relatively difficult to find rock musicians that weren’t more interested in pot culture than music. It’s hard enough to perform music of any kind properly when you’re not trained, experienced, and utterly and completely focused on the music. when your brain is in a chemically induced fog that makes you clumsy, disoriented and stupid, well… Those weren’t exactly the good old days.
That’s why when Colorado legalized pot—I was surprised it took the Rocky Mountain stoners so long—I knew precisely what the consequences would be. Such as:
When workers at his Colorado business went to pot, Mark Brawner said it was enough for him to roll out of the Rockies and head for South Carolina.
Brawner, who ran Little Spider Creations out of an old Denver warehouse for years until this month, told KUSA-TV Thursday he moved because pot was hurting his company. He said employees started to come to work stoned after the state legalized the drug for recreational use in 2012.
‘The main reason we pulled out was because of marijuana,’ Brawner said. ‘Marijuana got into our industry. Half the sculptors will come in high. As soon as we’d catch it, they’d be let go. We went through 25 sculptors. Only five of (our sculptors) either were quality or would show up unimpaired.
It seems that Mr. Brawner found himself the target of a stoner backlash:
But Brawner told FoxNews.com Friday his comments got ‘twisted out of proportion,’ although he did not deny relocating to the Myrtle Beach area, where smoking pot is still illegal.
By all means, take the link and read the rest of article if you’re interested.
I’ve recently heard a number of radio reports on the overall results of the noble Colorado doper experiment. It seems that every rosy promise made about pot funding education, and all manner of similar sunshine and lollipops has not come to pass. In fact, younger kids are getting heavily involved in pot, and that is not leading to dedication, responsibility, and bright futures. There are substantially increased rates of driving while stoned, accidents of all kinds directly attributable to pot intoxication, and the usual mayhem one can expect when people blunt and degrade their consciousness with drugs.
During my police days, kids often asked me if I favored legalizing marijuana. I always replied:
if the negative effects of legal pot on society are only half as bad as legal alcohol, we’d be idiots to legalize it.
In Colorado, at least, it seems that verdict is becoming self-evident. Really, what did they expect? Like, wow, man!
PS: By all means, check out this earlier article.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
Many of those advocating “pot legalization” (aka, advocating that everyone get stoned so the stoners don’t stand out as failures) also advocate eliminating fat and animal protein from one’s diet. (except their major vegetarian spokesperson has been outted by nutritionists as a dangerous fraud). Coincidence? Mike McDaniel is right on target when he says pot legalization just results in more people not showing up (for any normal responsibilities like job-holding).
It’s possible I’m way off base here, but lately I’ve been wondering if Marijuana use (and other drugs as well) could be the reason we see an apparent increase in autism and other genetic problems? When my kids were born in the 50’s, I had never heard of such things. Now I have 3 granddaughters. Two of them have never used drugs of any kind that I know about and their offspring have no genetic problem of which I’m aware. The third has used them her entire life, especially Marijuana. The third has 3 sons, 2 of whom are autistic. The son that is not autistic has many other emotional problems. I realize this is just a very small sample, but it has set me thinking on the problem.
I live in Colorado and when asked why I voted against Marijauna legalization I would ask these questions.
If I am drinking at a bar and you are not drinking at a bar, will you become drunk?
If you are smoking marijuana in room and I am sitting in the room not smoking marijuana, will I become stoned?
IMHO, and from experience, the first question’s answer is NO and the second question’s answer is YES.
I have personally seen to may people’s lives destroyed by Marijuana.
I fully expect more businesses to move from Colorado to other states where marijuana is not allowed. However, I won’t be surprised if those other states approve marijuana use too.
First the disclaimer to get this out of the way (although I’ll probably still be accused of it just because that’s the go-to argument against legalization): I don’t smoke pot. I don’t even like taking prescription medications if I can avoid it. I would not smoke pot were it legal throughout the US. Nor would I do heroin, cocaine or meth were it legal to do so. The strongest drug in which I imbibe is caffeine (OK, I do take cholesterol medication…that could be considered stronger, I don’t really know).
I understand that there are costs involved in legalizing pot. I understand that some people will destroy themselves as a result of it. I understand that there will be other negative consequences.
However I have to ask one question of conservatives who otherwise revere freedom and liberty and try to honor the principles of limited government and the Constitution:
Exactly what business is it of the government’s what substances I choose to put in my body?
If I am under the influence of pot, (or alcohol, or prescribed medications, or cold medicine) and I cause harm to others, I absolutely agree that I should be held accountable for that harm.
If my use of substances that are known not to be good for my health results in medical problems, I absolutely agree that “society” should not be on the hook for my poor choices.
But if I’m harming no one but myself, am not out robbing banks or knocking over 7-11’s to support my use, and am doing it in a manner that is not endangering others (such as driving while impaired), why should the government have any say over what I do?
Freedom, by definition, means we’re free to make stupid decisions as well as smart ones.
In using the threat of violence through government force to inhibit behaviors with which you disapprove, how are you different from, say, the gun control crowd, or the environmental fanatics, or the animal rights extremists?
Government control over our personal choices is OK as long as its only exercised on the personal choices of which you disapprove? That’s a bit hypocritical isn’t it?
I tend to agree with you. IMO, I think the reason some good people who think of themselves as “Conservatives” may have fallen for the whole ideology as distinct from taking a more objective, judicious approach to such conflicts. Personally, I decided not to continue falling for any “ism” – they all seem to have logical contradictions built into them -not the same “literally” but of the kind to which you refer: prohibition of alcoholic beverages just led to other problems and never did prevent people from buying booze. This is poor cost/benefit analysis, too. So why insist that “Pot Prohibition” would work or is working?
My comment (proceeding yours) was more about personal decisions like the one you say you’ve made. I “like” to a have a beer or mixed drink once in a while but “once in a while” for me is less than one per month. Likewise: I tried pot over 30 years ago: didn’t like the way it messed with my brain or those of the others who were “co-participants” at the time. Just stopped and never looked back. OTH: those I know smoke pot are “uniformly” dropouts from any kind of personal responsibility. Some have even become vengeful when I said anything about MY choice or theirs.
I have reason to believe (backed by scientific studies) that pot is less dangerous (nominally “non-addictive”) than nicotine. Since 2008, I’ve had two major surgeries: both attributed by doctors to my smoking. My own physician told me: “You’re my bullet dodger” after the second surgery. But I am (scientifically speaking) a true addict, my brain has been altered in the same way any addictive substance does.So my view is: rather than prohibiting smoking: just let the addicts die earlier than normal and put all the effort into convincing people they should not “try” any addictive substance. If no one “starts” then there’ll be no market and the profit-making system for that drug will have no revenue. (Americans are said to have the largest percentage of population actively consuming addictive drugs. So much for appreciating how good we have it in America.)