|
|
|
|
dead_milkman
Jul 2, 2003, 9:33 PM
Post #176 of 355
(17522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 241
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: "Laws designed to protect a person from his or her own decisions are immoral" - Basically, you're saying ALL LAWS are immoral No. That's not what's being said. Since your faculties are so clear from avoiding pot, it's funny that you can't understand a basic sentence written in English. But that's not what he said. There's a difference between what someone said and what they meant to say. Since my faculties are so clear from avoiding pot, I can understand a basic sentence written in English... unlike some stoners on this sight. :roll: |
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 2, 2003, 10:08 PM
Post #177 of 355
(17522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Prohibition laws, suicide laws, sodomy laws, and so on are designed to engineer society and only serve the purpose of limiting personal freedoms. Rumor has it - though with the recent law-making frenzy that's overtaken the White House I'm no longer sure - that America is all about these freedoms...
Interesting that of the 3 you cited sodomy is the only one upheld by the Supreme Court. There are still plenty of prohibition laws and suicide remains illegal in most states.
Thus the government is reaffirming our inherent right to go screw ourselves?
Hehe
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
paganmonkeyboy
Jul 2, 2003, 10:37 PM
Post #178 of 355
(17522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 30, 2003
Posts: 663
|
In reply to: Joe Simpson, Leo Houlding, countless climbers of Yosemite's golden age, Doug Scott, Jon Krakauer... REINHOLD MESSNER! All climbers who smoke. Sure Mike and Lance have great athletic talent, but this is a climbing-related message board and website. Personally, I respect the climbers I've named as much as or more than your list of "uber-athletes". "uber-athlete"... give me a break. Messner, Simpson, and others do what they do at the world's highest elevations.
wow - I'd love to burn one with Reinhold, Leo, and Jon, maybe get them to drag my sorry behind up some sick routes :)
Guys - if you are reading this thread - feel free to PM me for a belay *anytime*...
and just for the record - yes smoking too much destroys your motivation - you need to be aware of it, dry out from time to time, deal with it effectively if you want to smoke da ganja :D. Price of the ticket...
|
|
|
|
|
solid
Jul 2, 2003, 11:07 PM
Post #179 of 355
(17522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 20, 2003
Posts: 338
|
In reply to: In reply to: how many uber-atheletes in other sports smoke? lance armstrong, michael jordan, michael johnson all don't smoke--maybe that means something... Joe Simpson, Leo Houlding, countless climbers of Yosemite's golden age, Doug Scott, Jon Krakauer... REINHOLD MESSNER! All climbers who smoke. Sure Mike and Lance have great athletic talent, but this is a climbing-related message board and website. Personally, I respect the climbers I've named as much as or more than your list of "uber-athletes". "uber-athlete"... give me a break. Messner, Simpson, and others do what they do at the world's highest elevations.
More than you would think.
And though I am by no means an "uber-athlete" i'm one of the best runners in my state and smoke like a detroit factory...
Also, if you'll notice, more athletes whose sports require technique and finess smoke than those whose sports require strength or agility. For example, sharshooters often smoke to calm their nerves and become more cognisant of their heartbeats so they can shoot in between them.
But i'm sure you'll find a conveinient way to justify ignoring this post.
|
|
|
|
|
micahmcguire
Jul 3, 2003, 3:04 AM
Post #180 of 355
(17522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 889
|
roninthrone's said it all...nice one
|
|
|
|
|
craggy
Jul 3, 2003, 3:27 AM
Post #181 of 355
(17522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 3, 2002
Posts: 112
|
for me I suck crap when I smoke up...
|
|
|
|
|
gthornberg
Jul 3, 2003, 4:08 AM
Post #182 of 355
(17522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 7, 2003
Posts: 106
|
And I Quote:
"You are making an invalid deductive inference here. Your first statement is a false proposition: Breaking the law is not necessarily wrong. There is a great American tradition of ignoring laws which are unjust.
"The fact that your argument starts with a false proposition invalidates the deductive inference you're attempting to make. Therefore, your conclusion is invalid."
My Response:
Why is it invalid? From what source did you draw the conclusion, "your [gthornberg’s] first statement is a false proposition"? There are a lot of times when laws are wrong; e.g., segregation. It's obvious why people broke segregation laws—people were being hurt by such laws.
What makes breaking the law by smoking pot tantamount to “a great American tradition of ignoring laws which are unjust”? (emphasis mine) What’s unjust about laws denying the “right” to smoke pot?
Let me ask you this: Who is hurt when they are legally denied pot?
It’s obvious you assume that breaking the law with pot is not wrong. Yet you never prove why you’re right and why I’m wrong. You just say I’m wrong and some here praise you for it. You can’t prove something to be true by simply saying, “You’re wrong,” or “I’m right.”
Finally, you state the often over touted argument that pot is not harmful (e.g., “The effects, both positive and negative, are negligible.”) I agree that other things in this world are more harmful than pot. I really do. Yet even if that is true, nothing makes it “unjust” or even remotely harmful to deny someone smoking pot. That’s like saying, “There are murderers who are a lot worse than I am, so you have no right to give me a speeding ticket.”
I’m trying to say this in the most polite way I can. I don’t want to attack any of you or say that your arguments are ignorant or stupid. Some are implying that my argument is not intelligent stating things like, “This is a retarded argument…” Not retarded at all! I care about all of you or I wouldn’t be standing up willing to take the hits some of you are giving me. Do I hope to change your mind? You bet I do! I’m not attacking any of you. If you ever meet me, know that I care and that I’d do anything to be a real friend.
With all my respect,
GT
|
|
|
|
|
holmeslovesguinness
Jul 3, 2003, 4:30 AM
Post #183 of 355
(17522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2002
Posts: 548
|
In reply to: My Response: Why is it invalid? From what source did you draw the conclusion, "your [gthornberg’s] first statement is a false proposition"? There are a lot of times when laws are wrong; e.g., segregation. It's obvious why people broke segregation laws—people were being hurt by such laws. .
gthornberg - why did people break the law during the days of prohibition? because they thought a law telling them they couldn't drink was wrong. this is a case where the individual has to decide what is right or wrong for them, not the government. as soon as you take away the responsibilty for making personal decisions away from the individual you are in muddy waters. make sense?
|
|
|
|
|
gthornberg
Jul 3, 2003, 6:00 AM
Post #184 of 355
(17522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 7, 2003
Posts: 106
|
Most people obeyed the prohibition laws. It was a relatively small group of people growing in their discontent towards the laws of the time. The prohibition laws had tremendously positive social impacts. Dr. Norman Geisler (1998) in his book Legislating Morality, quotes the former U.S. Health and Welfare Secretary, Joseph Califano
“During Prohibition, admission to mental health institutions for alcohol psychosis dropped 60 percent; arrests for drunk and disorderly went down 50 percent; welfare agencies reported significant declines in cases due to alcohol-related family problems, and the death rate from impure alcohol did not rise…”
(Dr. Norman Geisler (1998), Legislating Morality, Bethany House Publishers, p. 29)
My point: People cannot argue from a Prohibition analogy that the laws against any unnecessary drug-like compound (including pot) can justifiably be considered worth defying. The evidence for prohibition of many substances justifies the need for further dialogue and, if socially/morally necessary, the prohibition of them. Instead of an anarchic approach to pot where people just break the law and do whatever they want, bring the discussion before those who create the laws. Don’t break the law and claim you’re “overcoming oppression” or that such a law is “unfair.” Denying people the “right” to smoke pot is not hurting anyone nor is it unfair. Pot smokers are not civil right cases. The same goes for those who use tobacco and alcohol.
If everyone is free to pick and choose whatever law they want to obey, there’d be no end of justifications and the anarchy that follows. In the great democracy we are privileged to have, breaking the law is not the best way to bring about positive social changes.
Thanks for the dialogue and please, no hard feeling.
GT
|
|
|
|
|
ridethespiral
Jul 3, 2003, 6:51 AM
Post #185 of 355
(17522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 32
|
I'm glad you people who equate illegal with wrong weren't here during the 1700's. It's only because people believed in standing up for freedom even though it went against the government of that time that this country exists.
|
|
|
|
|
alpinestylist
Jul 3, 2003, 10:07 PM
Post #186 of 355
(17522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 193
|
I've watched this thread for some time with interest...
As antecdotal (sp?damn pot) I offer my own experience
Hardest freeclimbing OS...glazed, high as a kite
Hardest aid lead ....glazed high as a kite
Every (almost broke the streak soloing Moonlight Butt IAD, but Lizzy Scully got me high out of an apple) wall I've EVER climbed, glazed high as a kite
Hard ice leads (non alpine) glazed high as a kite
Numerous long free climbs in many places.
The only time I am hesitant to puff is on long alpine endeavors where some aerobic component is neccessary. But then I'm always a puffin on top.
People, I believe, can perform well under these conditions with enough "training". I could fill in the numbers on the above things but I think they are all numbers are worthless. The vast majority of ascents that I am proud of were fully irie powered
Society of Rasta Mountaineers rule!
|
|
|
|
|
gthornberg
Jul 3, 2003, 10:21 PM
Post #187 of 355
(17522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 7, 2003
Posts: 106
|
Let me get this right. Because I don't support smoking pot, I obviously wouldn't support other issues like civil rights and things worth fighting for? Wow! Talk about a leap in logic. I never said everything that's illegal is wrong. I am pointing out that there are no grounds to call laws against pot "oppressive," "unfair," "unjust," "retarded" or whatever else they have been called in this thread. I'm amazed how I can stand right in the middle—not too liberal or too right winged—and be so completely misunderstood. I am also pointing to the fact that MOST laws in this nation are good or at least not oppressive.
There are a lot of good people against pot that fully support civil rights and other liberties. I wouldn't put the right to smoke pot under the category of "self evident" truths this nation was based on. I certainly wouldn't put the right to smoke pot in the same category as things worth fighting and dying for like you just did by your statement above. It's really unfair to say the equivalent of, "if you don't support the right to smoke pot, you won't stand up for anything like the issues in the 1700s."
I still think it's wrong to break a law that is by no mean oppressive.
GT
|
|
|
|
|
alpinerockfiend
Jul 3, 2003, 10:26 PM
Post #188 of 355
(17522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 598
|
In reply to: I'm amazed how I can stand right in the middle—not too liberal or too right winged—and be so completely misunderstood. I am also pointing to the fact that MOST laws in this nation are good or at least not oppressive.
If you were in support of smoking marijuana and made your latter statement, I'd bet you my rack that you'd get a lot more support from those responding to this thread. Just a suggestion into the insight of many of the "contributors" here. Draw your own inferences.
|
|
|
|
|
prowsolo
Jul 3, 2003, 11:37 PM
Post #189 of 355
(17522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 22, 2003
Posts: 17
|
I once went to Figures on a landscape at Joshua. I lead up the first
pitch and became a coward after about 25 feet without pro.
I lowered down, took 4-5 bong hits and got back on the sharp end.
I fired all three pitches without any trouble.
Best Climbing I ever did.
But then again I have done most of my hard climbings, Big Walls,
Big Wall Solos etc on painkillers.
I have been mixing painkillers and climbing for 25 years.
I would not consider hiking down from Taqhuitz, or jumping
on the big stone by the road without them. Nose this fall for sure.
Wilson is back.
In this same time I have designed experiments that are orbiting the
sun, and started my own business.
Rockstar
|
|
|
|
|
holmeslovesguinness
Jul 4, 2003, 12:13 AM
Post #190 of 355
(17522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2002
Posts: 548
|
gthornberg:
Most people obeyed the prohibition laws. It was a relatively small group of people growing in their discontent towards the laws of the time. The prohibition laws had tremendously positive social impacts.
Most people obeyed the prohibition laws? Exactly where did you get this information? The sale of illegal liqour was a huge source of income for organized crime during this period - obviously there was a large demand for illegal alchohol during prohibition.
And while there may have been some positive social impacts, you also have to acknowledge the fact that organized crime really began to take root in this country during the prohibition era, with a resulting increase in violent crime, etc.
My point: People cannot argue from a Prohibition analogy that the laws against any unnecessary drug-like compound (including pot) can justifiably be considered worth defying.
You haven't provided any evidence that contradicts using the Prohibition analogy at all - there is in fact a strong similarity between that period of time and the current 'war on drugs'.
The evidence for prohibition of many substances justifies the need for further dialogue and, if socially/morally necessary, the prohibition of them.
My point, which you have yet to address, is that it should be up to the individual, not the goverment, to decide whether it is right or wrong to use a particular substance. Personal freedom. I have no problem with laws that punish people for acts they might commit while under the influence of a substance, but not for the consumption of said substance.
In the great democracy we are privileged to have, breaking the law is not the best way to bring about positive social changes.
Obviously there are a number of examples from our countries history that would contradict that statement....
|
|
|
|
|
alpinerockfiend
Jul 4, 2003, 4:01 AM
Post #191 of 355
(17522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 598
|
In reply to: gthornberg: Most people obeyed the prohibition laws. It was a relatively small group of people growing in their discontent towards the laws of the time. The prohibition laws had tremendously positive social impacts. Most people obeyed the prohibition laws? Exactly where did you get this information? The sale of illegal liqour was a huge source of income for organized crime during this period - obviously there was a large demand for illegal alchohol during prohibition.
I wish I could remember my American History a bit better, but it seems to me that a president during the prohibition era enjoyed nice plugs off his own moonshine during golf games, unwinding behind his desk, etc.... Can somebody help me out on this one?
|
|
|
|
|
solid
Jul 6, 2003, 2:42 AM
Post #192 of 355
(17522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 20, 2003
Posts: 338
|
In reply to: In reply to: gthornberg: Most people obeyed the prohibition laws. It was a relatively small group of people growing in their discontent towards the laws of the time. The prohibition laws had tremendously positive social impacts. Most people obeyed the prohibition laws? Exactly where did you get this information? The sale of illegal liqour was a huge source of income for organized crime during this period - obviously there was a large demand for illegal alchohol during prohibition. I wish I could remember my American History a bit better, but it seems to me that a president during the prohibition era enjoyed nice plugs off his own moonshine during golf games, unwinding behind his desk, etc.... Can somebody help me out on this one?
You're entirely correct, saddly I can't sort my presidents so i'd rather not throw one out there that'll be wrong.
And the following of prohibition laws was very regional. Down south and up north liquor was very easy to get (caribean rum, canadian whiskey, and moonshine)
I dare any of you to put forth evidence against the prohibition analogy.
While you're answering keep two things in mind 1) prohibition doesn't work (fact, you're an idiot if you think otherwise) 2) answer the fucking question, nobody wants to see you dance about like a little ballerina.
|
|
|
|
|
pywiak
Jul 6, 2003, 3:42 AM
Post #193 of 355
(17522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 5, 2002
Posts: 105
|
Just say no...
Life is so much better without chemical addiction making you think and do silly sh*t.
|
|
|
|
|
roninthorne
Jul 6, 2003, 3:57 AM
Post #194 of 355
(17522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2002
Posts: 659
|
It's really late in the thread for this footnote, but-
An Unofficial Heads-Up, from Ronin, party-burnt and road-worn old rockrat; To any young, aspiring rock climber who has not ever smoked marijuana, reading this thread and thinking this is all pretty cool, maybe making some decisions involving your own life and expanding some of your frontiers... let me say this, from the mouth of somebody who has burned down big and for quite a while... not preaching but telling you the truth, and giving you my best advice, straight from the hip.
Wait.
Not "Don't!"... but wait. Please.
You will only pass this way once. You only get to be young, and clean, and seeing it all for the first time this one time... everything after that, no matter how wonderful and new, is a repetition of the theme, and with time old wounds and bad karma tend to cloud the skies. When and if those days come, then you can make your own calls. But don't rush to greet them by being too stoned to get out and climb, either.
Drugs are not a bridge... no more than they are a barricade. Crank hard... make your own decisions about your mind, your body, your life and your climbing... cover your back, whether with a spotter, rope, or the advice of a good friend.. maybe even a parent. You have a long, long time to start making choices with drugs, with alcohol, and with a thousand other distractions of "adult" life. Most of them are the things we use to distract ourselves from the truth of wasted time and lost opportunity.
Carpe diem. There are plenty of stoner climbers. We've got that one covered. Do the hard, undreamed-of, "impossible" climbs, first. Someday, trust me, you'll be glad you did. Then you too can hang around here, flame newbies, drink too much and smoke too much and post a lot of shoe threads, like us old farts....
|
|
|
|
|
micahmcguire
Jul 6, 2003, 4:19 AM
Post #195 of 355
(17521 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 889
|
I disagree. I think the problem with alot of drug users/heavy drinkers is that they forget to stop when they "grow up." Like Chef said in Southpark, "Children, there is a time and place for everything-and its called college." So my advise is, if you are going to smoke pot and drink, do it after you cease to run the risk of stunting certain aspects of cognitive growth (do it after adolesence), but before you have to do things like raising kids, getting a good job, etc. As far as climbing and lighting up, Chris Sharma seems to do fine, so I say do whatcha wanna do.
ps-pywiak. Chemical addiction? Not last time I checked! Do a bit of research before you tell other people how they should feel. Just because you have a voice doesn't mean you ought to speak.
|
|
|
|
|
mewalrus
Jul 6, 2003, 4:29 AM
Post #196 of 355
(17521 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 132
|
In reply to: Let me ask you this: Who is hurt when they are legally denied pot? GT
What the hell was the United States Bill of Rights and Constitution based on??? I thought it was maximum freedom, but you seem to believe that you have no rights unless you prove you need them. I guess EVERYTHING should bee illegal unless you prove a need. By this argument then Rock Climbing should DEFINATELY bee ILLEGAL, what a waste of time and resources. Plus the risk of getting hurt is just more than society should have to deal with! Who is hurt if they are legally denied the ability to rock climb??? Noone, therefore it should bee illegal. I see nothing beneficial to society coming form rock climbing, just a bunch of loosers wasteing their time which should bee put to a productive use.
FYI
I used to smoke pot, lots of it. Then I got bored with it and quit. I basically learned to rock climb while stoned, cause in those days i smoked 24/7. You can hold this against me if you want, I don't care what you or the government thinks about how I use my free time.
Oh yea, and as to pots effect on climbing. It made me much more careful and less likely to take any risks. When I smoked I was much more paranoid and triple and quadruple check my safety stuff. This was probably also cause I was a new climber.
Do you even know why Marijuana was made illegal? It was purely big business, namely William Randolf Hearst(papermaking and publishing magnate) and Dupont(makers of nylon). Why? Because they just developed a hemp harvesting machine that promised to make Hearst's millions of acres of timberland worthless(cheap Hemp paper) and really hurt Duponts fledgling Nylon industry(cheap hemp clothes and rope). Look for a Popular Science article from 1933/34, right before the ban. The Title was THE NEXT BILLION DOLLAR CROP imagine a BILLION dollars back in the 1930's!!! Now you can uderstand why Hearst and the many newspapers he own demonized marijuana with a buch of lies. You support laws based on lies?
|
|
|
|
|
mewalrus
Jul 6, 2003, 5:00 AM
Post #197 of 355
(17521 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 132
|
In reply to: I still think it's wrong to break a law that is by no mean oppressive. GT
How do you have the right to judge what is oppressive?
Please tell me where the line is drawn?
You seem to think that solely because a democratic majority goes along then its fine. Well a democratic majority elected Hitler.
I believe every person has a set of rights to bee secure in their own person as long as they aren't harming someone else or putting them directly in danger. Live and let live. Its such a simple idea, why can't people just mind their own business???
|
|
|
|
|
nalo
Jul 6, 2003, 10:37 AM
Post #198 of 355
(17521 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 8, 2002
Posts: 37
|
I though it became illegal because of discriminating reasons, back when mexicans in the US and other minorities smoked pot.
Anyway, I would smoke a little when climbing. The thing is that after I went to Amsterdamn I smoked some stuff that made me crazy, now I get to much paranoia, I was almost heading to schizophrenia. But now I just smoke good old home grown weed.
Well, I would double check everything, and then I would check it again, and again, and again, not good.
Pero fumen monte, el monte es bueno!!
Pablo.
|
|
|
|
|
micahmcguire
Jul 6, 2003, 6:25 PM
Post #199 of 355
(17521 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 889
|
I had always heard that cannibis was illigalized and "reefer madness" put out to scare people from smoking it because it was damaging to the paper and textiles industry. One could theoretically harvest roughly three crops of hemp a year and produce the same amount of material that lumber yields over some fifty-odd years of slowly growing.
And yeah, gthornberg, how do you know the law is not oppressive? when I want to unwind after a hard day's work, I have to call a drug dealer and risk jail time to smoke a drug that is much less physically and socially destructive than the alcohol I can buy at any grocery store. That seems a tad oppressive to me, but then again maybe its for my own good. Maybe some republican that has "never touched the stuff" has a unique understanding of what works best for me.
|
|
|
|
|
mewalrus
Jul 7, 2003, 1:07 AM
Post #200 of 355
(17521 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 132
|
In reply to: I though it became illegal because of discriminating reasons, back when mexicans in the US and other minorities smoked pot.
No those were just the scare stories that were put in the newspapers by those with a huge monetary interest in it. The jist of what they said were that white women would fall prey to Balck and Mexican men when they smoke reefer. And that those under the influence of reefer would kill indiscriminately.
Just because they used those stories doesn't mean thats why marijuana was made illegal, just like WOMD are not the real reason for the war in Iraq. They just make good scary soundbites on the news.
|
|
|
|
|
|
