cannabisnews.com: Why Kids Ignore Anti-Drug Ads Why Kids Ignore Anti-Drug Ads Posted by CN Staff on June 09, 2002 at 08:41:08 PT By Lynn Waldsmith, Special to The Detroit News Source: Detroit News Remember the anti-drug ad that featured an egg and a frying pan? Close-up shot of frying pan and egg. Voice over: "This is your brain." Close-up of egg searing in hot grease. "This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?" The message was simple and powerful. It's also a message that today's teen-agers are too young to remember. Countless other anti-drug public service announcements have aired since then, but new research has raised serious questions about their effectiveness. Tim Addison, 18, of Northville considers anti-drug ads a waste of money. "A TV ad is not going to do it," he says. "It's mainly the crowd you hang out with." Ed Spitsbergen, who counsels teen-agers at Growth Works, a drug and alcohol counseling center in Plymouth, agrees. "I don't think prevention works for a lot for kids," he says. "It may work for some. There's probably some good to it (anti-drug advertising). But we have adults who are using drugs and alcohol on a pretty regular basis. And kids basically are going to do what adults do." According to a new survey conducted by the private research firm Westat and the University of Pennsylvania, teens are largely ignoring the government's multimillion-dollar anti-drug ad campaign. The National Office of Drug Control Policy has spent more than $900 million during the past five years on anti-drug ads, yet the research finds no evidence that the messages are discouraging drug use. The evaluation is based on a survey of youth ages 12 to 18 between September 1999 and December 2001. The survey did not, however, include the effectiveness of recent ads that link drug use to funding terrorism. The poll also discovered that girls aged 12 to 13, who hadn't used drugs already, were slightly more likely to use marijuana after seeing the ads. Researchers dismiss the finding as a "statistical anomaly," but apparently the government isn't so sure. "When you answer questions that kids don't have, sometimes you're putting a question in their heads," says Tom Riley, a spokesman for the Office of Drug Control Policy. The survey results come at a time when President George W. Bush's top drug policy adviser is asking Congress to maintain the media campaign's funding at its current level of $180 million. National drug czar John P. Walters, emphasizing an "accountability agenda," says anti-drug ads and their impact will be reviewed every six months. "If we can't make them work, we're going to end the program and put the money where the other needs in this area are," he says. Diana Tobin, 16, of Redford Township concurs, saying whether the ads are effective depends on the individual. "For some people they do work, for some people they don't," she says. "Most people blow them off." No simple answer exists for why the anti-drug message isn't working, but a number of theories prevail, along with a lot of finger-pointing: * Theory No. 1: The ad buy ($180 million a year) isn't large enough to have a significant impact. "That sounds like a lot of money, and it is a lot of money," says Riley. "But that only makes us about the 100th largest advertiser in the United States. There are at least 100 brands or products that are getting higher exposure. You're competing with a lot of other messages." According to Steve Pasierb, executive director of the Partnership For a Drug-Free America, less than $130 million is actually spent on advertising while about $50 million is appropriated to community events, posters, and public relations materials. * Theory No. 2: Current anti-drug ads aren't hard-hitting enough. Ads that feature teen icons, show teens enjoying pastimes like skateboarding or preach slogans like "Just say no" evidently don't have the impact that the egg and the frying pan did. The latest round of anti-drug ads, though, link drugs to terrorism in an apparent philosophical shift from emphasizing how drugs can hurt the viewer himself to how drugs can affect other people. * Theory No. 3: Many anti-drug ads were never tested. The success of any advertising campaign is largely based on consumer research -- determining the attitudes of the target audience and creating media messages based on those attitudes. Walters says 60 percent of anti-drug ads went on the air untested. But the government is confident the drugs and terror ads work because they were extensively tested. "They got more attention and conversation and buzz than all the previous (anti-drug) ads combined, by far," Riley says. Others are skeptical of the effectiveness of the terrorism ads on younger teens. "Kids are not that tuned into things that don't affect them right now," says Fred Stafford, executive creative director of the Y & R Group in Dearborn. "Kids think five seconds ahead, if that much." * Theory No. 4: They're targeting the wrong demographic. One of the major problems of the campaign is that the Office of Drug Control Policy chose an 11- to 13-year-old target, says Pasierb of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. Yet research shows most kids don't begin experimenting with drugs until after age 14. "What they were trying to do was not a drug prevention campaign but experiment with 'inoculation,' which is talk to kids who don't use drugs and hope they'll never use drugs," Pasierb says. "That really wasn't the intent of this campaign. This campaign was designed to target older teens." * Theory No. 5: The campaign began to go in too many different directions and lost its focus. "Director Walters refers to hard-hitting ads," Pasierb says. "I would say what we don't have any more is consumer-focused ads." The campaign has used multiple themes such as social norming, positive alternatives and monitoring your child. It has used about 32 different message strategies aimed at parents and kids. Each mesage was only in the market for eight weeks. Pasierb adds, so it didn't have time to penetrate the consumer. "Not only were we not talking to the right group of people, we were talking to them about too many things," he says. * Theory No. 6: They (the advertisers or the government, depending on the point of view) don't know what they're doing. The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is produced through a public-private partnership between the Office of Drug Control Policy and a nonprofit group called the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. The partnership gets ad firms to donate ads while the government buys television and radio time. Relying upon free advertising may contribute to the problem of ineffective ads or inadequate testing of ads, Riley says. The government wants more creative control and hired the advertising firm of Olgivy & Mather to produce the terrorism ads in a departure from using donated advertising. The partnership says the government needs to be part of the process but not micro-manage it. Far too many policymakers, behavioral scientists and public relations professionals are already involved, Pasierb says, bogging the process down in bureaucracy. "There's no proof that more policy intervention makes better advertising," he says. * Perhaps the biggest, most controversial theory is that anti-drug advertising can't work. The theory goes something like this: Some people do drugs, some don't. And no amount of advertising is going to change that fact. "I don't think there's anything you can say in 60 seconds that is powerful enough to outweigh the peer pressure that kids deal with when it comes to drugs," says Stafford of Dearborn's Y & R Group. "That's the bottom line." Others scoff at the notion of teens being unaffected by media messages in the age of MTV. "Just take a look around and see what kids wear," says Susan Hiltz, executive director of the Prevention Coalition of Southeast Michigan. "It's not by osmosis. They are influenced by media, and it can have a powerful impact on them making the right decisions and being informed about the dangers of drugs." Tamela Aikens is executive director of Northwest Detroit Weed and Seed, an organization whose objective is to "weed" out crime and "seed" in positive community services. She says youths she comes in contact with do pay attention to anti-drug messages and even critique them. "Not only are they not ignoring them," she says, "they're using them as food for thought." Merve' Baybas, 18, of Canton Township, shares that sentiment to a point. Whether you choose to do drugs or not depends on your personal convictions and how you deal with peer pressure, she says. Anti-drug ads are a good idea because they probably reinforce anti-drug feelings on a subconscious levels, argues, Michelle Corwin, 18, of Canton. "They may not be the most effective way to discourage drug use," she says, "but what is?" Advertising surrounding a public health issue can be effective, says David Walsh, president and founder of the National Institute on Media and the Family. He points to the success of the anti-smoking media campaign as a prime example. "The overall strategy of using advertising to influence behavior in a positive direction still makes sense," says Walsh. "I'm glad they came to the realization that those particular (anti-drug) ads weren't working. They need to do what good advertising agencies or good advertisers do -- go back to the drawing boards." In fact, it's not completely true to say the anti-drug ads aren't working. The University of Pennsylvania survey shows that media messages aimed at parents are working extremely well. Those ads urge parents to become more involved in their children's lives. "What we ve learned is that parents have an incredible ability in changing their children's behavior," says Craig Yaldoo, director of Michigan Office of Drug Control Policy. "So that in itself is encouraging." So what does it take to make the ads work for teens? Experts say refocus the campaign through better management, targeting ads to older teens, allocating more money directly to advertising, extensive testing of ads and measuring their effectiveness. But don't forget the missing link, Hiltz says: Kids themselves. Forget what bureaucrats and advertisers think they know. Forget using rock stars, sports figures or other celebrities in ads. She says teens should be involved in creating the ads and be exclusively featured in them. "Peer to peer is better," Hiltz says. "If you look at most of the research, what really works with kids is having strong parental support at home and good peer to peer support." Ad exec Stafford agrees. "I think one of the most ridiculous messages ever out there was probably 'Just say no' because it's not that easy. It's so hard to fight peer pressure. Peer pressure and the social environment is why most kids begin to use drugs in the first place." Supporters of the anti-drug media campaign insist advertising can work. The problem is finding a better way of making it work. "Naturally, I don't think we're going to reach every single kid," Hiltz admits. "But we're going to get a portion of the kids. It would be wrong to let down our guards now, if we can get some of them." The national drug control strategy has three components: treatment, enforcement and prevention. Prevention is the most important, Riley says, and where the best bang for the buck should be. "If you don't start using drugs by the time you're 20, you're never going to do drugs," Riley says. "If you don't start using drugs as a teenager, you're never going to become an addict, a drug criminal or all these associations that wind up having enormous social, public health and law enforcement costs. If you can just prevent kids from starting, it's by far the best investment. It's also hard to do." Note: Survey stirs debate on what message prevents drug use.Source: Detroit News (MI)Author: Lynn Waldsmith, Special to The Detroit NewsPublished: Sunday, June 9, 2002 Copyright: 2002 The Detroit NewsWebsite: http://detnews.com/Contact: letters detnews.comRelated Articles & Web Site:Crossfire: Do Drug Ads Work?http://freedomtoexhale.com/cf.htmDrug Czar: Anti-Drug Ads Too Soft, Ineffective http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13083.shtmlDrug Czar & Safeway Team Up http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13024.shtmlDowner Story for the Media -- Don't Do Drug Adshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12909.shtmlDrug Czar Walters' Assertion of Ads' Flop Absurd http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12851.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #122 posted by Industrial Strength on June 18, 2002 at 00:42:54 PT surly I felt just that at the time of posting. Please forgive me. [ Post Comment ] Comment #121 posted by dddd on June 17, 2002 at 23:21:32 PT ....Industrial Strength..... ...Can you clarify as to what you mean by "the debate "we cant win? "...Flawed logic...All you Christians DO NOT want to start that debate. It is one you cannot win. " ..If you mean a debate concerning "flawed logic",,,I'm ready to engage in a discussion,or debate on the subject anytime,,but this is obviously not the place to hold such a debate.....and dont be thinking that everyone here is "Christian"...This site is not about religion,,,people can say what they think,and I hope you dont think of people here as being a "gang of Christians".....we all just stumbled through here,and decided to comment.......Remember,,,just because someone claims to be a Christian,doesn't mean they are not also an asshole...there are plenty of Christian idiots out there...I dont care if you dont like the "Christian" thing is not your cup of tea,,but please beware of stereotypifying people for what they are labeled as.... ...you agnostics DO NOT wat to start that debate..you cannot win!.....(just kidding?)...dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #120 posted by Industrial Strength on June 17, 2002 at 21:37:11 PT dddd Read the book, is all I can say to all of you. This is not fiction, it can not really "take a turn for the worse at the end." The first chapter is worth hunting it down for. Flawed logic...All you Christians DO NOT want to start that debate. It is one you cannot win. [ Post Comment ] Comment #119 posted by dddd on June 14, 2002 at 04:10:22 PT overlapping posts yup ...On more than one occassion,I've prepare a lengthy filibuster,,and then,after I finally post it,I find that it has been outdated by a bunch of posts....I like the fact that we hit on the same flaws BGreen. ...this threads getting so big,,I'm afraid it might O.D. the software or something....dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #118 posted by BGreen on June 14, 2002 at 03:35:52 PT To be fair I must point out There are many scientists and authors calling themselves Christians who fabricate scientific "facts" to try and prove some predetermined conclusion. It happens on both sides, but in and of itself discredits neither, because there are equally as many truly looking, studying, comparing and evaluating all of the data in an unbiased way trying to find the truth. [ Post Comment ] Comment #117 posted by BGreen on June 14, 2002 at 03:14:03 PT Overlapping posts We hit on the same flaws, didn't we? LOL [ Post Comment ] Comment #116 posted by BGreen on June 14, 2002 at 03:12:02 PT Look at this faulty reasoning McDonald: If religion is an obstacle to understanding what you're saying, why is it getting it wrong? Dawkins: A creator who created the universe or set up the laws of physics so that life would evolve or who actually supervised the evolution of life, or anything like that, would have to be some sort of super-intelligence, some sort of mega-mind. That mega-mind would have had to be present right at the start of the universe. The whole message of evolution is that complexity and intelligence and all the things that would go with being a creative force come late, they come as a consequence of hundreds of millions of years of natural selection. There was no intelligence early on in the universe. Intelligence arose, it's arisen here, maybe it's arisen on lots of other places in the universe. Maybe somewhere in some other galaxy there is a super-intelligence so colossal that from our point of view it would be a god. But it cannot have been the sort of God that we need to explain the origin of the universe, because it cannot have been there that early. Using the theory of evolution as an absolute proof of anything, let alone the existance of a supreme being is flawed reasoning. McDonald: And there is no possibility of there being something beyond our knowing, beyond your ability as a scientist, zoologist, to [...] Dawkins: No, that's quite different. I think there's every possibility that there might be something beyond our knowing. All I've said is that I don't think there is any intelligence or any creativity or any purposiveness before the first few hundred million years that the universe has been in existence. So I don't think it's helpful to equate that which we don't understand with God in any sense that is already understood in the existing religions. The gods that are already understood in existing religions are all thoroughly documented. They do things like forgive sins and impregnate virgins, and they do all sorts of rather ordinary, mundane, human kinds of things. That has nothing whatever to do with the high-flown profound difficulties that science may yet face in understanding the deep problems of the universe. He says he knows without a doubt there's no God, but then admits "there's every possibility that there might be something beyond our knowing," but it couldn't be that "something beyond our knowing" might be God. That's illogical. [ Post Comment ] Comment #115 posted by dddd on June 14, 2002 at 02:52:17 PT ...BGreen... ..Thanx for the Dawkins link.I have read Dawkins a long time ago,but I didnt connect it because I thought that I.S. was talking about a new book. Dawkins: A creator who created the universe or set up the laws of physics so that life would evolve or who actually supervised the evolution of life, or anything like that, would have to be some sort of super-intelligence, some sort of mega-mind. That mega-mind would have had to be present right at the start of the universe. The whole message of evolution is that complexity and intelligence and all the things that would go with being a creative force come late, they come as a consequence of hundreds of millions of years of natural selection. There was no intelligence early on in the universe. Intelligence arose, it's arisen here, maybe it's arisen on lots of other places in the universe. Maybe somewhere in some other galaxy there is a super-intelligence so colossal that from our point of view it would be a god. But it cannot have been the sort of God that we need to explain the origin of the universe, because it cannot have been there that early. ..Dawkins is right,,and wrong....His main mistake is the assumption that time is accuratly portrayed by modern man...His entire theory falls apart,when he presumes to know that the universe was formed before God was there. ."Maybe somewhere in some other galaxy there is a super-intelligence so colossal that from our point of view it would be a god. But it cannot have been the sort of God that we need to explain the origin of the universe, because it cannot have been there that early." ...as if Dawkins had the facts about the origins of the universe,and the origins of God.......Dawkins is an interesting thinker,,,but his logic is flawed by obscene presumptions....dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #114 posted by BGreen on June 14, 2002 at 02:30:23 PT By the way, Industrial Strength You said: "Actually, a chimp is equal to an 8 year old human. Some parrots are parallel."Where do you come up with that? I'd strongly disagree with that assumption. Mozart created music at the age of 7, with the emphasis on the word "created." I've watched chimps play with their poop. Parrots mimic, so to say they're parallel is comical. Once again, the creativity of humans is unparalleled in nature, no matter how many words Dawkins makes up to describe processes he himself invents. [ Post Comment ] Comment #113 posted by BGreen on June 14, 2002 at 02:17:25 PT Here's another Don't let the title fool you, the author loves this guy. DARWIN'S DANGEROUS DISCIPLE [ Post Comment ] Comment #112 posted by BGreen on June 14, 2002 at 02:12:01 PT You don't have to read much This interview with Richard Dawkins spells out his agenda pretty quickly.He sounds intelligent, but his theories just don't hold water.He says God, or the belief in God, gets in the way of truth. I say God is truth. He has always been an atheist and never sought the truth, but is the first in line to discredit creationism.The idea that evolution suddenly gains validity by stating it takes place in a series of successive steps is really grasping at straws. Dawkins focuses too much on his zoology training, but he fails to factor in discoveries in other scientific disiplines. If you look at the whole picture it tends to put Dawkins on the fringe. Interview with Richard Dawkins [ Post Comment ] Comment #111 posted by dddd on June 14, 2002 at 01:32:51 PT Good Grief Industrial Strength! ..You recommend a book you havnt even finished reading!!!??..and then I go to all the hassle of hunting it down,,and reading it all the way through,,and it turns out the ending shows that the entire book is really a bunch of worthless crap like some qqqq comment!?..dont be recommending books you havnt finished yet.....I've read the Bible cover to cover more than once,,but it was a hassle,,I would not recommend you read the whole thing,,but I could recommend some of the really good parts....Perhaps you might want to do the same for me after you finish "The Selfish Gene"...?.......................dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #110 posted by Industrial Strength on June 14, 2002 at 00:58:05 PT the selfish gene Im not even finished it yet, but what I have read so far is incredibly profound. Its scientific, yet easy to read. Dont be afraid to ramble. Catholics really are something else, arn't they? I cant believe god would have so many fickle and ridiculous "rules". I certainly dont believe he would want us to repress our natural instincts. [ Post Comment ] Comment #109 posted by dddd on June 14, 2002 at 00:41:39 PT ...Industrial Strength.... ..I will find,and read,"The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins.....I will join you in saying,"I dont know",,because I only "know",what I believe,and just because I "know",what I believe,does not mean I "know" what anyone else should believe........I have one last thing I want to say about this whole complex matter of 'something/nothing',(or whatever we should call the discussion in this thread,),,,,and this is something that I KNOW!....:: If a person believes in God,then the most important part of believing is between that person, and God....People can talk about God ,and a person can learn things about God from others,,but when someone tries to tell you that they know what God has to say to YOU,,then watch out... .In my life,,the most important thing about God,,is between God and Me...that's it.....For me,,God is omnipresent.,,He's always everywhere... In other words,,if you come to the conclusion that God is there,,then you gotta start thinking about how "there",he is...Some people seem to see a limited "God",,,a God who is real,,but is somehow not everywhere....Personally,,I think God is the King of The Universe.He knows EVERYTHING I do,or think...and I'm kinda bad in alot of ways,and it's rather embarassing to know that God sees me being bad..You'd think that if I really believed God was always there watching me,that I would never do anything "bad"..(that's a whole 'nother ramble.)...anyway,,here's another example;;;;.I dont mean to offend any of my Catholic friends,,but I think that it is quite a bogus piece of bullshit for the catholic church to suggest that one can confess their "sins",to some priest,,and that the priest has some special deal with God,,where the priest knows God really well,and can put in the good word for the person who has confessed to the priest..It's like the priests are supposed to be some sort of religious lobbyist,and they can explain your situation to God,,and let God know that you really aren't that bad of a person,and you made a mistake ,,,and the sin you confessed to wasnt really all your fault because you had been tempted by influenced by some other really bad sinners,,and the priest would advise God to forgive you..........And then,,the next day,,you run into the priest at the grocery store,,and he says;"hello,,I put in the good word for you with God,,I think he's gonna forgive you this time,,but he was none too happy about your habitual sinning,,I might not be able to get you off the hook next time...especially with the really bad type sins you've been doing lately!"...... ..once again,,I've said way too much of something,,and it probably means nothing..I'm sorry to go out on such a religious tangent,,but it is a subject that means the most to me..In my teen years,I thought anyone who bought into believing in "God",was too weak to get by on their own.I thought that people who were into religion were just hiding their intellectual shortcomings behind some spiritual facade......anyway,,I could go on and on,,,but I will spare you..... ..Industrial Strength...here is a book that I recommend for you.."Mere Christianity",,by C.S. Lewis.I read it when I was 18,(reluctantly),,,it's worth reading....I think I know a library here in outer space where I can get "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins....I will read it..............this comment turned out to be really spacey,and too long...please forgive me.....keep on keepin' on.....dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #108 posted by Industrial Strength on June 13, 2002 at 22:31:03 PT dddd Actually, a chimp is equal to an 8 year old human. Some parrots are parallel. Im more or less playing devils advocate here, but I suggest that you read "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins. Also, (if you have not already) "The origins of man" by Darwin..."What Darwin really said" by Benjamin Farrington is also a good read. This is certainly and intresting debate, but not one which will likely ever reach a general consensus. At this point, I'm almost content to say "I dont know" and leave it at that, but certain things really do point to a "creator". At this point didn't mean the thread, but life in general. [ Post Comment ] Comment #107 posted by FoM on June 13, 2002 at 18:15:14 PT dddd What can I say but thank you. That was beautiful.I'm watching the concert that was held for the Queen. I just listened to Joe Cocker sing I get high with a little help from my friends and it was awesome. If you get VHI it's on until 10pm et. [ Post Comment ] Comment #106 posted by BGreen on June 13, 2002 at 17:36:26 PT dddd You've made another "old hippy" very proud. [ Post Comment ] Comment #105 posted by dddd on June 13, 2002 at 16:55:08 PT ..Industrial Strength..... .....I want to make a few more points,,,mainly concerning creationism.........Consider the following points,and let me know if you think I'm just trying to make something out of nothing..... ...In your previous comment,you mentioned:....."..... talks about how if scientists combine elements in a flask that they think may have been present on earth before life and subject them to ultraviolet light or electrical sparks, after awhile things begin to appear in the mix. Maybe the creator is a chemistry nut, and was wondering what would be the result of different combinations of elements." ...Yes,,,,I guess "the creator",would have to be somewhat of a "chemistry nut"......But...it doesnt take a chemistry nut to realize,that our world is is more than just an evolution of chemical reactions....If you seriously entertain a belief in the total absence of any spiritual factor in the exsistence of this world,,then you have alot of questions to answer..........let's start with this;;;;;;what about yourself Industrial Strength?..I think you are rather special,,one of a kind...I think you are intelligent,(or perhaps just well read,and well spoken?),,.....but,,if your "nothing" theory is true,and we are all merely the evolutionary product of chance,,,then you are no more relevant than a mouse,,a rabbit,,,or a bug!....If you deny any factor of creation in your exsistence,then you are no more special than a rat,or a hamster...The only difference between you,and a sheep,is that you possess a different biological form,and as a Human,you happen to have somehow evolved with spectacular powers of reasoning...But , ,the fact remains,,,that if you are just an evolved amaeoba,,then there is really no difference between someone murdering me,dddd,,or stepping on a bug..both events were merely the ending of a biological organisms exsistence. ..............I hope you will agree,that at the very least,,this is not true.In whatever way,we humans are way WAY different than anything else that is on this planet...... o....if you agree with me,,that us humans are actually quite special,and unique ,,,then,,what is it that makes us so unique?..If you were to be a strict evolutionist,,then you would need to explain the huge chasm in the spectrum of intelligence and reasoning between the smartest ape,(or whale,,dog,,??),,and even a simple human....in other words,,if we were to measure intelligence on a scale of 1 to 100,,and a clam,or an ant was about a 1 or 2,,,and a human was 100... a bird might be a 3,,a cat 5,,a dog 7,,a chimp 8,,, perhaps a dolphin would be an 11,,but after that,,you would find the next thing on the scale,to be a really stupid human,,at about 96!..Humans are far too special to be the results of some random chance evolutionary formation!,,and the same holds true for the Earth we live on...I think it takes a much larger leap of faith to believe that there is "nothing",,instead of "something"......It's a strange world we live in,,and I know my explanations of my beliefs are somewhat akwardly stated,,but I want to say one last thing about why God is really there...it refers to a bibical reference,,but dont let the bibical thing offend you,or cause you to not seriously consider my point... ....First off,,if we are going to believe in a "creator",,then we must agree that this "creator" is extremely awesome!..If there is this "God",who is the creator,then he(she/it),has got to have an intellect that is way beyond our comprhension....Obviously,that's why anyone who tells you they know what God "thinks",,is fulla shit!..If this "God" I'm talking about,,who created the Universe,,,if this God was a god that I could figure out,and comprehend with my own human mind,,then he would be a pretty cheesy god!.....to put it another way;;;If we are going to believe in a god who created us,and created the astonishing world we live in,,then it stands to reason that we are not going to be able to understand everything that God understands..If we could,then I guess we would all be gods? ..So the crux of my point is,,.The bible says that God created man in his own image...I believe that what makes us so special,is that God gave us a small amount of what he is,,or has...God gave us the ability to CREATE... Think about it,,us humans have the ability to create,and reason...These things are what makes us very unique and special.....................................................I hope all this was understandable................dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #104 posted by BGreen on June 13, 2002 at 15:03:56 PT Industrial Strength I can't answer your question, but I challenge you to read Dr. Ross' papers on the subject, and compare his arguments against those of other authors you've read. [ Post Comment ] Comment #103 posted by FoM on June 13, 2002 at 07:28:08 PT Amen Hope Yes I agree! [ Post Comment ] Comment #102 posted by Hope on June 13, 2002 at 07:24:26 PT "What is man, that God is mindful of him?" Is what I meant to say. Prufread! Prufread! Prufread! [ Post Comment ] Comment #101 posted by FoM on June 13, 2002 at 07:22:26 PT Thank You Everyone I just want to thank all of you for this thread. It has been interesting and educational! [ Post Comment ] Comment #100 posted by Hope on June 13, 2002 at 07:21:44 PT "Maybe the creator is a chemistry nut" *smile* I wouldn't be surprised! "What is man, that is God is mindful of him?" [ Post Comment ] Comment #99 posted by Industrial Strength on June 13, 2002 at 00:58:02 PT creationism "The scientific community is making discoveries about how precisely the optimal conditions must be met to support life, and Dr. Ross shows how it points to a loving Creator instead of just being a random event." Do you mean a creator of the barren universe which life grew and evolved on, or a creator of "life". The book im reading, The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins, talks about how if scientists combine elements in a flask that they think may have been present on earth before life and subject them to ultraviolet light or electrical sparks, after awhile things begin to appear in the mix. Maybe the creator is a chemistry nut, and was wondering what would be the result of different combinations of elements. [ Post Comment ] Comment #98 posted by BGreen on June 12, 2002 at 16:50:29 PT Industrial Strength I'd like to quote you and then respond.You said: "... that no matter what a man in a pretty frock may tell you, there is no way of actually knowing the answer to mans oldest question."Up until the 15th century the Bible was kept out of the hands of the lay people so that they had to trust the "man in a pretty frock," but today the material is available to research for yourself.Blind trust in ANY person is dangerous. Listen, and then check it out for yourself. I have different views than many of the people who also claim to be Christians, but I follow God and not man.I know, without a doubt, that cannabis is one of the greatest gifts that God has ever given to the world, and I know I'm within His grace when I grow and consume His creation.Give thanks with a grateful heart! [ Post Comment ] Comment #97 posted by BGreen on June 12, 2002 at 16:24:50 PT My pleasure, Hope I recommend you check out Dr. Ross' writings on the fine-tuning of the universe. The scientific community is making discoveries about how precisely the optimal conditions must be met to support life, and Dr. Ross shows how it points to a loving Creator instead of just being a random event. I've read several of his books, and, as an educated person, I can tell you his books have none of the psuedo-science that many so-called "Christian Scientists" conjure up. Dr. Ross says that the Bible encourages being tested, yet many people seem to fear that if we test it, God will fail. Many people then try to rewrite science to prove their theories, instead of letting the commonly accepted scientific data speak for itself.Trust me, Dr. Ross makes it a lot more interesting than me, so check out more of this on his website. [ Post Comment ] Comment #96 posted by goneposthole on June 12, 2002 at 16:07:07 PT No matter what you do, you sin It cannot be avoided. Only by the grace of God can one be saved. Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. You do not even have to be baptized. You only have to believe. Doing 'good works' to find your way into the 'material' heaven is sinning. As long as you live, you sin.Thou shalt not steal doesn't mean you can't.Thou shalt not commit adultery doesn't mean you can't.George Bush said, "I'm a loving guy." He found out he didn't have a problem bombing the shit out of the Taliban.Thou shalt not kill, but he can and does, too. He cannot help himself from sinning.Vaya con Dios. Eat some hemp seeds today. [ Post Comment ] Comment #95 posted by Industrial Strength on June 12, 2002 at 15:08:09 PT dddd Thinking of nothing=something, but if there was nothing there would be no one to invision nothing. Black holes are nothingness. Nothingness exists, despite human kinds lack of ability to express it. Supreme nothingness. Humans cant process infinity either, but it most likely exists. Hope you bother reading down here. [ Post Comment ] Comment #94 posted by Hope on June 12, 2002 at 13:45:08 PT "Praying Menace" Last night I went to a softball game in a local park. The children around me had discovered a praying mantis. I heard one little girl explain to the other children that it was a "Praying Menace". I couldn't help but think of John Ashcroft."From the mouths of babes." [ Post Comment ] Comment #93 posted by Hope on June 12, 2002 at 11:27:06 PT BGreen, "God and Extra Time Dimensions" BGreen, That link you posted is great. Thanks. [ Post Comment ] Comment #92 posted by Hope on June 12, 2002 at 11:03:55 PT Right or wrong? While my son was in college, he walked out of a bar and was cornered by a group of "Christians" who told him that because he had been in that bar he was lost and going to hell. He took the time to "preach" to them. He informed them that he was most definitely not "lost" or going to "hell". He said that not only had he been in that bar that in a few hours he would go to work in one of the most infamous bars in Illinois and Missouri. (He was a bouncer.) He informed the group that he would, in fact, not be sinning in being in that bar, either. He assured the man that if the man, himself, went into either bar that he would indeed be "sinning" and he agreed with him that he should avoid going into bars at all costs. He made it clear to them that when he,my son, was in a bar that he was no more "sinning" than he was when he was in a church pew. There were things he could do while in there that could be construed as sin, which of course, could be done anywhere, but he didn't expect to do them there anymore than anywhere else. A weaker person could find himself, once iside, in a world of temptation. He didn't and that however good the group's intentions were, that they was doing their cause harm by waylaying customers of the bar and accusing them of doing wrong.I hope they were able to hear the truth in his words. [ Post Comment ] Comment #91 posted by FoM on June 12, 2002 at 10:46:06 PT Hope The way you express your faith is very kind and non judgmental. I always hesitate to post my feelings about religion but I do feel I'm on a mission with what I do here. The thing that gives me strength is a belief that I am doing the right thing for the right reasons if that makes sense. I am not a preachy person even though I have been called The Church Lady! Oh No Mr. Bill!!! LOL! You are more then OK in my book.PS: June is always slow. It is usually the slowest month for news if I remember right but we can keep talking and that is what it's all about. That's how we form friendships and learn. [ Post Comment ] Comment #90 posted by Hope on June 12, 2002 at 10:36:27 PT dddd "I've always tried to avoid going too heavily into religious specifics because I think that it tends to get out of hand,".I feel the same way, dddd, and I try to be careful because it's strongly ingrained to sound obviously that I'm coming from "that" direction. I realize that many people find it offensive...and I don't like to offend...especially with something that’s a personal treasure. It sort of soils it’s beauty for a time, and then I have to clean it up. But there is something golden, a soft glowing warmth and light, in this thread that made me feel drawn to it and safe, so I decided to go for it. Everybody has had all the nonsense pounded into us, mostly from the media and the government, about how wrong and immoral marijuana use is. We probably all went through a big thing, believers and non believers alike, of deciding if using marijuana was right or wrong. We decided. I did. Marijuana is a gift from God, in my eyes. Then we, or at least I, wanted a sense of confirmation from that being that I know as my God, about what I had come to believe about the matter. For me personally, right and wrong is always affirmed, one way or the other, by what I believe God desires. I wanted his opinion. I believe I got it. Marijuana is a gift from God.If you happen to be concerned about that sort of thing, marijuana use is not a sin or immoral or anything bad for me and lots of other folks. It's only a sin if you believe it is and your own conscience condemns you for it. Your mind, your spirit is your judge...but don't let your conscience be MY guide. It's yours. Not mine. I never try to convince folks that think it is a sin or immoral that it isn't. I just ask them to respect that it's not for me and many others and consider, "From a spiritual point of view and contemplating what you think God, as you know him, would think, which is worse? Consuming marijuana or jailing and persecuting the person who does?"The board sure is active. For a couple of days I was afraid everyone had been “busted”. I like seeing lots of posting here…especially about good things (as opposed to someone being murdered or harmed by misled, brute beasts). Remember the victims of the war on drugs. [ Post Comment ] Comment #89 posted by BGreen on June 12, 2002 at 07:24:55 PT A possible answer to who made God If you have questions concerning the scientific nature of God the creator and how current scientific discoveries point to a loving Creator, I'd suggest you check out Reasons To Believe, a ministry run by astrophysicist Hugh Ross.His website includes chapters from some of his books, and I'd recommend anybody who thought you had to ignore the scientific evidence to believe in a Creator check out this website with an open mind.This chapter deals with the question "Who created God?http://reasons.org/resources/books/beyondthecosmos/btc7.html?main Reasons To Believe [ Post Comment ] Comment #88 posted by dddd on June 12, 2002 at 01:52:53 PT .....Hope... "Well...I hope I haven't brought this thread to a stunning silence with all these revelations about my beliefs and myself!".. ....No,,,I liked your comment....I dont think this "thread",ever ends...It will always continue to re-appear.... .It's kind of hypocritical of me to say this,because I'm always wandering miles off topics,,into politics,and tall tales,,,,but I've always tried to avoid going too heavily into religious specifics because I think that it tends to get out of hand,,,,but I like knowing that so many of us have the same beliefs... ...." You guys make it easy to love my fellow man.".............the feeling's mutual Hope.. .this is a special group of people...I would love it if someday we were able to have a get together,and meet in person...When I read peoples comments,,I sometimes get this sort of mental image of who everyone is,and what they look like......Maybe we could start to think about having a gathering somewhere,someday......Hey,,,how bout Vegas,,or Reno?,,,easy to get to,,,plenty of accomodations,,,(perhaps a 'group rate',at some casino),,,,..on second thought,,no,,maybe not,,,I'd probably gamble till I was broke,and end up having to bum from Kaptinemo,Ethan,or Doc Zombie for gas money to get home...dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #87 posted by Hope on June 12, 2002 at 01:04:37 PT Goneposthole "God, creator of all things, even the hemp we need. A thought to be cherished and not abhorred."I agree with you and I do cherish the thought. God did make cannabis...and I, for one, am very thankful that he did. [ Post Comment ] Comment #86 posted by Hope on June 12, 2002 at 00:59:24 PT IndustrialStrength, Goneposthole, GCW, dddd, FoM IndustrialStrength, an Agnostic is a "Seeker of Truth". That's the only place to start a search for understanding. First you have to want understanding before you can find it. Atheists are, I think, in fact, very religious in their beliefs. They "know"... and that's that. The end of the question. An Atheist makes quick work of the quest before it barely begins and calls it the conclusion. An Agnostic is open. Skeptical, but open. You will find your answers. Why? First, you suspect that there just might be an unseen something, a being that you can't comprehend. You already know that some things exist whether you are able to see them or not. You prefer solid, indisputable facts, which makes it hard for you to accept a concept that doesn't seem that far removed from a child's "invisible friend", yet, somehow, you cannot make yourself deny it's existence. You are obviously smart enough to realize that many people down through the ages and into the present, that are quite worthy of respect, have been willing to admit their belief in the existence of such a being and your intelligence won't allow you to be arrogant enough to proclaim that they all were just "too stupid" and were just somehow not capable of intelligent understanding. For an Atheist, the journey is over. Agnostics haven't decided which direction their path will ultimately take in spiritual matters, and for the Believer, it is a never ending journey, full of surprises, wonder, joy, revelation, love, gifts, obstacles, challenges and everything that goes with all of those.Someday, perhaps, you'll decide to speak to that entity that you suspect may know your every thought, even before you think it. You'll ask him to reveal himself or itself to you, or even just an understanding about him, and it, or he, (he's more than a "he" or "she" or "it". I choose to think of him in masculine terms because I tend to think of him as my "Daddy" or "Papa"...a powerful, loving parent figure is the relationship I have chosen to have with him, through belief that Jesus is the Christ, and my brother) will reveal himself to you in quiet, subtle, or maybe not so quiet and subtle ways. Maybe not like you expected, or when you expected...but if you keep your heart and mind open and willing, you will find what you look for. (Notice that I said , “I CHOOSE” to think of him in masculine terms and I also choose to believe that Jesus is the Christ. I’m not saying that you have to choose what I choose, to be right.)Goneposthole, Thank you for starting this conversation. When I came back to it this morning, I was prepared to see my posts ravaged or ignored. Instead, I find myself, as is so often the case at CannabisNews, in the presence of friends. People I truly like, admire, and respect and feel respected by.dddd, Thank you so much. :-)FoM, Thank you so much. You are something wonderful. A friendly and loving powerhouse of a human being and spirit. Friendly and loving often don't equate well with the word powerhouse. You manage to fulfill that unlikely image. The GCW, Thank you so much, too. I appreciate your advice and completely agree with you. I try to follow that advice everyday. If I were speaking only to believers about that "I Am That I Am", I would probably have worded my post differently. I probably would have said, that after much prayer and listening, I felt that the Holy Spirit had revealed to me the meaning of the Name that God, himself, I believe, said was "who he is". I cannot describe to you the joy I felt in receiving that mysterious yet simple truth, that I felt, for me, explained that age old question…”How did God create himself?” We, the Believers, have what's almost a special language amongst us and we all understand it, but it's sort of like "tongues" when speaking to people that don't "get it"...yet. It is so important to talk the talk with other Believers...Brothers and Sisters in the Lord. One reason, is because it's fun...recreational even, and it’s the most “real”, “important” and “everyday and every minute” part of our lives. It IS our lives. Another is that I have found that in seeking answers, that sometimes, often, in fact, that no amount of meditation and prayer will reveal the answer in the "ah ha!" sort of revelation, because for one reason or another he wants to reveal it to me through another Believer. I appreciate that and you have blessed me many times with many of your posts. Thank you, Brother GCW!Well...I hope I haven't brought this thread to a stunning silence with all these revelations about my beliefs and myself! You guys make it easy to love my fellow man.Thank you. [ Post Comment ] Comment #85 posted by dddd on June 11, 2002 at 23:51:48 PT ...Industrial Strength... ...OK....so,,if nothing,,makes more "sense",,than something.....I guess we should begin by reaching a general agreement on the definition of our terms.;;;;;; ..."nothing",,would be the complete absence of anything(?). ..'Absolute nothing',is an akward concept to grasp,because,in theory,"absolute nothing" would be inconceivable due to the fact that the moment me or you perceive "nothing",it is no longer absolute nothing because we are there to see that it is nothing,,,,,so the equation is ;nothing + us,(= something?).......okay,,I dont think absolute nothing is what you meant,,,(sorry for all the philoso-babble,.I think it is necessary for our discussion.).......I will assume,for the purpose of this discussion,,,"nothing",means the absence of life,and humanity,,a sterile universe ,, no God,,etc.... [[Now, if we start to think about this definition of "nothing",,we immediately run into a problem...the question is,if this "nothing",is in fact "sterile",,then it would theoreticly not exsist because as far as we know,matter cannot exsist without form.As soon as this "nothing",has a piece of dust in it,then it becomes a "something,,etc,,,,,]]]...anyway,,I guess our "nothing",will be defined as the absence of a spiritual factor,or presence.(??),,in other words,we would still be here on this planet Earth,but there would be "nothing" spiritual about anything.(?)...everything that exsists happened by pure chance?...... ..Is this definition of "nothing",agreeable for the purpose of our discussion?..If so,,then perhaps you can suggest how we will define "something"....... ...regards.....from outer space........d..d...d...d [ Post Comment ] Comment #84 posted by Industrial Strength on June 11, 2002 at 21:32:22 PT hope What you are saying is rather profound, and it has a certain sense to it, however, I still cant fully wrap my mind around it. Perhaps I will adopt George Carlin's (and many, many people before him)doctrine and worship the sun. DDDD, nothing makes alot more sense than something... No universe, no life, absolutely NOTHING (another thing that is impossible to comprehend), to me at least, makes more sense than what we have now. It would also make sense as far as the human understanding of physics is concerned. [ Post Comment ] Comment #83 posted by dddd on June 11, 2002 at 21:07:56 PT Hope ...My apologies...no more kitty poo jokes....dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #82 posted by FoM on June 11, 2002 at 14:46:10 PT An Octopus When I see an Octopus I know that something more then chance made it. They are remarkable creatures. I picked an Octopus because of a special I saw on The Discovery Channel. Elephants grieve for their fallen comrades. There is order even in chaos in the natural world. I can't explain that away. [ Post Comment ] Comment #81 posted by The GCW on June 11, 2002 at 14:38:48 PT All green collar workers, us. Hope,The mode restraint You notice, not being able to convey Your perception, may be alleviated through (for Me) prayer. Perhaps, daily, I ask My Father (in so many words) to show Me the Truth on this issue of weather or not it is ok to cage a human for using cannabis. I ask often, because, since I am speaking for My Father, I want to be right on. Through experience I may be noticing that I can go in and out of particular modes, in that I can go into my, more physical mode. But, take it some steps, further. I ask My Father to show Me the Truth as He wishes for Me to know it, in elementary terms, since I may not see the obvious... and ask that I be shown so clearly that I may also share what I am given, with My Brothers in elementary terms, and that they may understand it clearly enough to convey it to others, still.Through the Holy Spirit of Truth, like a computer w/o wires, it comes out fluently, daily, in God Awesome consistency.I attribute it to what I have asked, as it is told in that John 14-16 section.If I am able to convey, what My Father has already said, it is only because of what I have been given.If You ask Our Father in accordance with John 14-16, to help YOu share what You are given with Our Family, it seems like, You will do well. (we're not requesting a 2 bedroom Aston Martin)It seems that the persecuted have special access, or something. To stay in Spiritual Truth, is different, and pure.Ask Our Father, if YOu can help spread the Truth. Is that it? Simply asking for Truth.Have You read that in Our Fathers house is many rooms? (John 14-16 + -)I am only, perhaps, in one.Using a spell check, may be as close to faking it, as it gets. [ Post Comment ] Comment #80 posted by goneposthole on June 11, 2002 at 14:27:14 PT Hope Great handle. I started this conversation, but I do not need to end it. I'm a sinner, just being alive makes me one. When I look in the mirror and see what I see, who could possibly create such a being other than a creator? I certainly cannot create myself. 90 percent of the universe is hydrogen, a single atom with an electron, proton, and a neutron. A trinity of quirks and quarks, and nothing can explain such a phenomena other than God.God, creator of all things, even the hemp we need. A thought to be cherished and not abhorred. [ Post Comment ] Comment #79 posted by FoM on June 11, 2002 at 14:06:51 PT Dear Hope You never end a conversation! I do! LOL! [ Post Comment ] Comment #78 posted by Hope on June 11, 2002 at 13:46:41 PT dddd and qqqq It would make me very happy if you never mentioned the possibility of you eating cat excrement ever again. It does get the point across in a way...but I'm become so yucked out that I forget what you were talking about in the first place. But, if it makes you happy, by all means...keep threatening it!:-) [ Post Comment ] Comment #77 posted by Hope on June 11, 2002 at 13:30:49 PT Please do not end this conversation! I hate it when I make a post and it like brings the conversation to an abrupt end!Say I'm stupid...say I may be right or I may be wrong...or I am wrong! But don't just leave me ruining a conversation! [ Post Comment ] Comment #76 posted by Hope on June 11, 2002 at 13:28:38 PT and in conclusion: Then I realized he was saying He is that one who just said, "I AM" and he created himself! He is that beginning. He is that sort of bolt of pure light described in the Kabala (find the better effort there) that literally sprang out of darkness and nothingness and bolted from one end of nothingness to the other, and back around in a sort of half circle to the beginning of the straight line bolt into being, and from there around in another half circle to make what if you could have seen it was like a full circle of explosive, brighter than bright light, with a line...the beginning of itself through the middle. This sounds idiotic...I realize...anytime a fool tries to describe something like this it comes off as idiotic if the hearer doesn't want to hear it.I AM THAT I AM is that being that you wonder about...when you wonder "Who/What made god"...HE is that...THAT (particular) I AM.I doubt I have explained the unexplainable...but if you try...really want to hear what I am saying and what the voice in the bush was saying to Moses...you CAN understand it. I know you CAN understand it because of the question you asked. You'll know the answer when you see it.As for contemplating, eternity and infinity, I too, abused my brain a bit with that one. Then one day, I realized that it is something that cannot be grasped...and in doing that I realized what infinity and eternity is. Sounds nuts, but it's the truth, I think. I found a good feeling of resolution in it anyway. :-) [ Post Comment ] Comment #75 posted by Hope on June 11, 2002 at 13:21:32 PT Who/What It came to me when I was reading, again, about when Moses was sent to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt. He was speaking to the voice, that appeared to come from a bush, that appeared to be burning, (a real attention getter in the desert). The voice had just ordered him to lead the Israelites out of Egyptian captivity and slavery. Moses didn't think the Israelites would follow him. He said basically, "Who shall I say sent me?" The voice in the, apparently, unconsumed but blazing bush, said, "Tell them "I AM THAT I AM" sent you.” I have a strange way of trying to get everything out of a statement that I am studying. I have a meditation that I do to it, so to speak .I thought, " I am that I am. I AM that I am. I am THAT I am. I am that I am", "I am that I AM." Rolling the "name" he gave Moses over and over in my mind by accenting and emphasizing each individual word in turn. If the sentence is "Girls like boys"...I would study it by repeating to myself...emphasizing a different word each time, "GIRLS like boys." Girls LIKE boys." and Girls like BOYS." You can pick up on perhaps an understanding you might have missed otherwise. "I Am That I Am" had always puzzled me as a name. [ Post Comment ] Comment #74 posted by Hope on June 11, 2002 at 13:05:31 PT like a theology lesson from "Lucy" or Gracie "And if there is a god, who/what created god? My mind cannot grasp infinite time, so the thought of him/her/it just always BEING is just as mind boggling as the creation of the universe." The question you ask, "Who/What created god?" was a question of mine for many, many years. I learned to ask that spiritual entity that I believe to be the inkling of the essence of God that I can, with my limited mind, conceive is at least an aspect of God, to help me understand the answers to the questions I had and have. The answer to the question, for me, about "What/Who created God" came one day in rereading a few verses I had read and heard many times. You may or may not find your answer there, too. [ Post Comment ] Comment #73 posted by Hope on June 11, 2002 at 12:59:45 PT IndustrialStrength Bear with me please and do me the honor of trying to read this overlong post. I am not eloquent and can't get things said easily..so I struggle a bit...as I will with this. Please try to read it though. I'm going to make it in in two or three smaller posts...because the struggle to explain can overcome what I'm saying. And please, don't discount me right away because I'm "spiritual" and I certainly won't discount you because you are 18. I wouldn't anyway. [ Post Comment ] Comment #72 posted by Hope on June 11, 2002 at 12:52:59 PT dddd You brain is not fried and you likely don't have Alzheimers. It's astounding that when people get past forty, they no longer just make mistakes or get something wrong, like everyone else. Something is suddenly wrong with you?! No...I expect you just made a mistake. [ Post Comment ] Comment #71 posted by The GCW on June 11, 2002 at 12:39:17 PT Links Other links to help: ( no order) Remember The Burning Shiva at Pot TV.MARIJUANA AND THE BIBLE by The Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church - http://www.iahushua.com/T-L-J/Mbib.html MARIJUANA AND CHRISTIANITY - http://www.iahushua.com/T-L-J/MariC.htm KANEH BOSM THE HIDDEN STORY OF CANNABIS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT http://www.hempbc.com/magazine/mayjune96/kanehbosm.html MARIJUANA AS THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENT-- Part 7. http://www.ccguide.org.uk/bible.html A BIBLE STUDY CONCERNING A GOD-GIVEN PLANT MARIJUANA. http://www.holyhemp.org/ Ganja- The Herb of Inspiration http://users.hartwick.edu/~chauftyj/ganja.htm EVIDENCE INDICATING THE SEMITIC ORIGIN OF CANNABIS http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Atrium/4689/pages/OR/Jewish.htm Cannabis and the Christ: Jesus used Marijuana http://www.cannabisculture.com/backissues/cc11/christ.html The Scythians / High plains drifters: http://www.cannabisculture.com/backissues/jul95/scythians.html IS CANNABIS A DRUG? - A DISCUSSION http://www.ccguide.org.uk/isitdrug.html Cannabis: discrimination of "internal bliss"? http://www.cannabis.net/intbliss.html Bible Truth & Drug War Lies http://www.drugwarroom.com/BibleTruthvsDrugWarLies.htm Genesis of Eden Diversity Encyclopedia http://www.geocities.com/dhushara/book/twelve/tw1.htm#anchor460125 UNRAVELING AN AMERICAN DILEMMA: THE DEMONIZATION OF MARIHUANA http://www.iahushua.com/T-L-J/DMH.html Sacramental Cannabis http://www.angelfire.com/ca7/ddc/Sacramental.html Sacramental cannabis sects http://www.hempbc.com/articles/1670.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #70 posted by FoM on June 11, 2002 at 09:06:26 PT qqqq Oh my poor stomach just did a major flip flop! LOL!PS: I can't find any news so far but I'll keep looking. It's always slow in June. I appreciate all the comments. I believe we can disagree and not fight with one another. That's what I see in this thread and it makes me very happy. [ Post Comment ] Comment #69 posted by qqqq on June 11, 2002 at 07:59:38 PT ....If GCW is faking; ..I'll eat a piece of catshit! [ Post Comment ] Comment #68 posted by goneposthole on June 11, 2002 at 07:43:50 PT If GCW is faking us out I'm going to nail myself to a cross, for Christ's sake. [ Post Comment ] Comment #67 posted by dddd on June 11, 2002 at 07:25:57 PT ...Industrial Strength..... .........." Is being well spoken really a measure of intelligence?"........I dont know?..I guess that's a good question....Intelligence comes in many forms,and theoreticly a person could be intellectually challenged,yet so well read that they could successfully fool people like me into thinking they were actually intelligent,,when they were actually a mere simpleton,pretending to be smart,,but if a person is smart enough to hide their stupidity,,then they would indeed posess a certain amount of intelligence....???? I dont know,,perhaps I misjudged you,and you are actually a crafty,well spoken idiot!!!..that would be quite anomoiaous... .. "Nothing just makes so much more sense than something."..what the hell does this mean? Maybe you actually are sorta stupid,,,,or maybe this concept is so advanced,that my old fried brain no longer has enough marbles of gray matter to comprehend?.................dddd ....P.S.....after reading the previous GCW comment,,I must admit that he is not shy about speaking from the pulpit...but I agree with gonepostholes assessment of GCW...GCW is a good person,,,and if he's not,,he's done a really good job of faking me and goneposthole out. [ Post Comment ] Comment #66 posted by The GCW on June 11, 2002 at 06:51:16 PT mmm TRUTH, is My Love. You'll find out that there are Christians who follow the example of Christs' love and compassion, not condemnation and hatred. (from #45), = realize that with John 14-16 put into perspective, those that cage and kill for cannabis use, are people that hate Our Father, even when they say they are Christians. dO NOT LET THIS TYPE OF PERSON MAKE YOUR DECISSION, ON WHERE TO HEAD! YOU KEEP LOOKING FOR TRUTH & I ASSURE YOU, YOU WILL RUN INTO IT. PRAY FOR TRUTH AND I MEAN ALL TRUTH... True Christians live and follow the example of Christ, WHICH IS AND ALWAYS BE THE OPITOME OF LOVE. Nothing ever short of love, is Truth. No love in caging God's son for using God's plant, is there?Bush ain't got no Love. Except love for the cage and the chamber. (boom chicka boom)Industrial streingth, quoted: “but life itself makes me want to believe in something”. I testify, that You can go past BELIVING in something to KNOWING the PROMISED RELATIONSHIP WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT OF TRUTH, Your self. You can confirm that YOUR SELF. As described in John 14 –16.Here is a piece writen by Duke Stone that may help: The "Advantage" of the Holy Spirit http://www.hickoryvalley.org/sermons/John%2014.htm And believe Me when I tell You, You don’t have to trust Me on this. You can go right to the source Your self.ALL TRUTH = cannabis is ALL GOOD. Cannabis is a good seed.Think about it!! A mental consciousness, just beyond Your comprehencion, that is distant yet attainable, a new mode, unlike that of belief. Seriously, really,This is described as having a better relationship that what the apostles had with Christ in person, and I testify it is real, it is as promised. (read Duke Stone's thing [in prayer, asking for Him to show You the Trtuh}.If those who say they are Christian knew what they were doing when they cage and kill they would not be doing it.And so it is good to show My family what is True. [ Post Comment ] Comment #65 posted by goneposthole on June 11, 2002 at 06:18:03 PT It's that F#&kin' goneposthole again The no good SOB, the prick. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I like GCW, his comments are well worth reading. His sincerity is foolproof. A true believer and I mean it.Keep it up GCW, as I have said before, what you have to say is all good. Your enthusiasm is inspiring. The word 'enthusiasm' is derived from the Greek language and translates 'to have God within'.In the words of Guy Clark, a west Texas singer/songwriter: "Hang on for as long as you can. Get up whenever you fall. Keep it up, boy, and go 'round again. Don't be hangin' your life on the wall."Eat a hemp seed today. [ Post Comment ] Comment #64 posted by Industrial Strength on June 11, 2002 at 03:48:27 PT 2030 No, I doubt it will be pretty either, but I reside in Canada. It may just be a little better here. Is being well spoken really a measure of intelligence? I just read alot. You wouldnt have far to go in convincing me there is a god. You couldnt do the same about adopting some form of organized religion, but life itself makes me want to believe in something. Existence is the greatest irony. Nothing just makes so much more sense than something. [ Post Comment ] Comment #63 posted by dddd on June 11, 2002 at 03:36:45 PT ....... even more worrysome is that I was idiotic enough to believe that there was this new variation of the word;'anomoly',,that I had never seen before. ..maybe my brain is fried....yea,,that's it,,my brain is fried,,or ,,maybe this is a harbinger of eminent senility.,,a wake up call from Alzhiemer... ...You are lucky to be so intelligent :P,,,but I'm afraid you are not so lucky to be only18 years old....In the year 2030 ,you will be as old as I am today....The world will be different,,,.it aint gonna be pretty. ...I'll bet you that I can convince you that there is a ":God"...dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #62 posted by Industrial Strength on June 11, 2002 at 03:16:18 PT haha What should worry you even more is that I knew that without the dictionary :P [ Post Comment ] Comment #61 posted by dddd on June 11, 2002 at 03:09:29 PT ...dammit... ....well Industrial Strength,,,looks like I get to play the part of the foolish asshole.....I need to get some glasses or something,,,my old worn out Websters grainy print made that "L",look like a very convincing "i"...Please accept my sincere apologies for all my pompous bullshit...I stand corrected,,,,I may never comment here again...it's time for me to get some therapy....dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #60 posted by Industrial Strength on June 11, 2002 at 03:00:21 PT anomalous a-nom-a-lous, adj,Deviating from the common rule; exceptional; abnormal Funk & Wagnalls standard desk dictionary, volume 1/a-m No anomaious. [ Post Comment ] Comment #59 posted by BGreen on June 11, 2002 at 02:51:30 PT qqqq's true identity It just came to me, boys and girls. Let's all give a rousing welcome to TIPPER GORE. [ Post Comment ] Comment #58 posted by qqqq on June 11, 2002 at 02:45:37 PT Watch it BGreen!!! ..I'm a Christian Troll pop-up bitch,,and proud of it!,,,you ignorant slut. [ Post Comment ] Comment #57 posted by Industrial Strength on June 11, 2002 at 02:44:16 PT dddd Well, all that will be thrown out of the window with this post...Im 18. That's enough for all respect I have earned in this epic sprawl of eclectic posts to evaporate. I am bitter in some respects, naive in others, bitter perhaps because I am naive...who knows. But we both have long hair...unless "long hair" was figurative. Why is the natural response to a compliment to chastise yourself? [ Post Comment ] Comment #56 posted by dddd on June 11, 2002 at 02:41:22 PT ...Spelling mistake???? .are you referring to;...anomaious...!...?.....no mistake there.....get a dictionary and check it out....dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #55 posted by dddd on June 11, 2002 at 02:35:28 PT ...Industrial Strength.... ...for whatever it's worth,,,,I think you are quite cool and refreshing....I'm glad you have joined in here.....My old withering ass is nearing 50...I'm a bitter old longhair Hippie blabbermouth,,whose mind has weathered over 30 years of drug use,and abuse...I've been ramblin' and ravin' here at Cnews for years.,The people here are special. ...dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #54 posted by Industrial Strength on June 11, 2002 at 02:16:55 PT sardonic, yes I was politely poking fun at your spelling mistake...We all make them, but its funny when they occur in a word that is needlessly...whats a nice word for pretentious? :P [ Post Comment ] Comment #53 posted by BGreen on June 11, 2002 at 02:16:01 PT That troll reference That wasn't describing you guys, just some troublemakers from the past. [ Post Comment ] Comment #52 posted by BGreen on June 11, 2002 at 02:12:38 PT Guilty of Bristling Things are said about Christians that wouldn't be tolerated if they were applied to Jews or Muslims. This isn't right, and I'm a little tired of it.At least I'm a regular contributor, and not a troll who pops in to bitch and disappear. [ Post Comment ] Comment #51 posted by dddd on June 11, 2002 at 02:08:35 PT ...Industrial Strength..... ...I'm shocked!....I hope your questioning my use of the word anomaious,was meant to be sardonic....?..dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #50 posted by Industrial Strength on June 11, 2002 at 02:02:27 PT compromise space cookie? I dont use the dictionary but I admit to having word perfect open so I can always check my spelling. And by the way, im barly halfway to thirty and I got the "Jane, you ignorant..." reference. [ Post Comment ] Comment #49 posted by dddd on June 11, 2002 at 01:59:34 PT BGreen,,You Christian Idiot! ......no....I liked your use if the term "bristle",,,I think it was appropriate in describing the flavor of I.S.s' somewhat provocative statements concerning Christians/religion,,,but,,I also thought that your "take your trash elsewhere" comment was a bit on the bristly side....... ......."Cant we all just get along?"..... ...........dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #48 posted by BGreen on June 11, 2002 at 01:53:40 PT Industrial Strength I don't accept cookies, but a "space cake" would be highly appreciated. However, I must confess that I make good use of my dictionary, so I'll understand if you choose to retract your offer. [ Post Comment ] Comment #47 posted by Industrial Strength on June 11, 2002 at 01:44:57 PT anomaious? You stumped me...Unless you mean anomaLous (which would fit)? I am really torn on the subject - matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Yet here we are. And if there is a god, who/what created god? My mind cannot grasp infinite time, so the thought of him/her/it just always BEING is just as mindboggling as the creation of the universe. Bgreen, you know both meanings, you deserve a cookie. I didnt trash talk anyone, I just didnt appreciate being dictated what spirituality was. [ Post Comment ] Comment #46 posted by BGreen on June 11, 2002 at 01:41:32 PT dddd I never ONCE used the phrase 'Jane, you ignorant sl**.' LOLLest I offend anyone under the age of 30 or named "Jane," that was a reference to a Jane Curtain/Dan Akyroid point/counterpoint sketch on SNL back in the caveman days. [ Post Comment ] Comment #45 posted by BGreen on June 11, 2002 at 01:34:41 PT Industrial Strength I have nothing against you, and I understand WHY you feel the way you do. As a Christian, I can't tell you how bad I feel that boobs like Ashcroft and Bill Bennett are paraded around as poster children for Christ.You'll find out that there are Christians who follow the example of Christs' love and compassion, not condemnation and hatred.Don't be so quick to bristle when you hear The GCW or myself mention OUR belief, because it's part of our lives.Peace to all of my CNews brothers and sisters! [ Post Comment ] Comment #44 posted by dddd on June 11, 2002 at 01:31:01 PT ...c'mon now friends... ...let's roll with the punches,and try to avoid getting nasty,or overly offended.....point/counterpoint,,,,argument/rebuttal...... that's what makes this particular forum special......a robust exchange of viewpoints...... yes,,,robust [ Post Comment ] Comment #43 posted by dddd on June 11, 2002 at 01:20:48 PT ...Dazzling!.... .....My compliments on the outstanding reply!...cant blame you for suggesting that I may be jackin' you around with my anomaious,wayward verbosity. ...For many years,I had a bitter outlook towards religion,and Christians,,,very similar to what you have expressed. You are obviously quite intelligent,and,,at the risk of sounding arrogant,,,someday,,I think you will eventually realize that God is there.......dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #42 posted by BGreen on June 11, 2002 at 01:18:45 PT I know BOTH meanings I won't stand for Christian bashing anymore than anti-semetic or racist talk. Believe or don't believe what you want, but take the trash talk someplace else where it might be appreciated. [ Post Comment ] Comment #41 posted by Industrial Strength on June 11, 2002 at 01:18:21 PT Bgreen Read my post that preceded yours. Its not that you believe in god, its that you insist on telling me your right. "you" being Christian's in general, not you the person...just so we dont have any further...misunderstandings. [ Post Comment ] Comment #40 posted by Industrial Strength on June 11, 2002 at 01:13:46 PT agnostics vs atheists Atheists don't believe in god. Agnostics, such as myself, own up to the fact that no matter what a man in a pretty frock may tell you, there is no way of actually knowing the answer to mans oldest question. [ Post Comment ] Comment #39 posted by BGreen on June 11, 2002 at 01:08:32 PT Why is it? Why is it that agnostics don't know what they believe in, but feel perfectly qualified to judge those who do believe in God?By all means, don't believe in God, god, or dogs, but get off your self-created pedestal and stop criticizing others. Maybe you're the one who doesn't have a clue, Industrial Strength. [ Post Comment ] Comment #38 posted by Industrial Strength on June 11, 2002 at 00:52:25 PT arrogance Im sorry, but being told that "now your talking biblical" because the word spiritual was brought up rubbed me the wrong way. For GCW, and an awful lot of other people, that is the case. For me, the bible is akin to a childrens story with a moral - the moral is the lesson, the rest of the stuff is not to be taken literally. Also, and I dont know if this apply's to GCW, but alot of Christian's are so assured that they know the one true faith and every other religion is wrong, that comes across as arrogant. Arrogance may very well be one of my own flaws. As for "some straws are worth grasping"...In some cases, where people are devoid of hope, religion is more a tree branch at the edge of a cliff to grasp at than a straw. Robust, what a kind word for dogmatic :P. Eloquent...Im searching for the verbal manifestation of the hold your hand straight out and rock it up and down gesture...so so. I appreciate your insightfulness and grammatical anomalies [ Post Comment ] Comment #37 posted by dddd on June 10, 2002 at 22:43:28 PT take it easy there Industrial Strength ...I think it is perhaps a bit harsh for you to suggest that GCW deserves to be called "arrogant",because of his viewpoint....I like GCW,,and I think maybe your suggesting arrogance in referring to GCWs comment,,is perhaps an arrogant thing for you to say...(I realize you are not specificly trying to trash anyone),,... ..I appreciate your robust and eloquent comments,,...... I think there are some straws out there that are worth grasping..... ....Regards.....d..d...d..d [ Post Comment ] Comment #36 posted by Industrial Strength on June 10, 2002 at 21:23:13 PT foul taste in my mouth Now, I dont want to rain down fire on anyone's religion, but to paint everything spiritual in nature as "biblical" is absurdly arrogant, don't you think? I am an agnostic, and I personally believe anyone who has convinced themselves they in fact do know the answer is grasping at straws. [ Post Comment ] Comment #35 posted by The GCW on June 10, 2002 at 20:53:04 PT If you talk spiritual then you are talking Biblical, and on the first page, it reeeefers to it as fooooood.It is also spiritual food.even if you don't know it yet.A logical reason for the Lord to have given it psychoactive qualities, is that it makes one feel closer to God. It is an aid to communication with the Lord. The reason that people like to be "high" because it feels good to be closer to God. Most are not be aware however, that God is trying to communicate with them however, and just enjoy the high. http://www.olywa.net/when/bible08.html PROHIBITION AND THE BIBLE - 8-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Post Comment ] Comment #34 posted by Industrial Strength on June 10, 2002 at 20:23:42 PT haha Do they not already have that? Here in Canada, thats what we think of mexi brick :P [ Post Comment ] Comment #33 posted by dddd on June 10, 2002 at 20:06:42 PT ...Smoke responsibly... ....yea Industrial Strength.,,,,the thought of cannabis without THC crossed my mind earlier,,,,and I started imagining ;;;someday in the future,,when Marijuana prohibition has ended,,the big weed corporations will probably come out with non-THC Marijuana,,like "O'Douls Gold",,,or "Sharps"..and then when the family goes out to dinner,and Mom & Dad are going to order a before dinner joint,they can order a 'Shiley Temple',non-THC joint for their kids who are under age........."O'Douls Gold...All the Flavor,,,None of the Stone!".......?....dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #32 posted by BGreen on June 10, 2002 at 19:14:56 PT Semantics Frank Zappa said he didn't use drugs, but he smoked cigarettes, which he referred to as "food."No matter what you call it, I'm alive and Zappa is dead.Ashcroft believes he is sensitive and obedient to the will of God. He needs to understand that cannabis is a gift from our Father. We may not like the time schedule, but I guarantee that Ashcroft will eventually get that hearing, and he's not going to like the outcome. [ Post Comment ] Comment #31 posted by Industrial Strength on June 10, 2002 at 18:57:19 PT dddd No offence taken...I was trying to illustrate what people might think of the plant/drug thing, not label the argument in that fashion, I guess I was slightly cryptic. As for coffee and tea not being drugs...ever get a little heavy handed with the coffee pot? I certainly have, and would consider coffee a drug. And as for cannabis being a plant and THC being a drug, what is cannabis WITHOUT THC? This is an intresting argument because there are so many angles ... About the grey area, I suppose seing as there is a link between stress and poor health, that any usage of marijuana could be considered medicinal...You could make the same point about all usage being spiritual...So many angles. [ Post Comment ] Comment #30 posted by FoM on June 10, 2002 at 18:41:32 PT Maybe Cannabis is This Get the Top 10 Most Popular Sites for "Psychotropic" Powered by Ask Jeeves 3 entries found for Psychotropic. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=Psychotropic psy·cho·tro·pic Pronunciation Key (sk-trpk, -trpk) adj. Having an altering effect on perception, emotion, or behavior. Used especially of a drug. n. A psychotropic drug or other agent. [ Post Comment ] Comment #29 posted by dddd on June 10, 2002 at 18:27:44 PT furthermore ..there is somewhat of a nebulous,gray area between medicinal,spiritual,and "recreational"....The fact that Marijuana might make a person feel better,could be construed as 'medical'.,,a mild sedative..And if it caused a person to have enhanced peace of mind,and inner peace,,then we could probably call it 'spiritual'...I think that Industrial Strength was right,,, alot of this discussion depends on semantic factors............I like these sort of debates/discussions.. [ Post Comment ] Comment #28 posted by dddd on June 10, 2002 at 18:13:36 PT ....Industrial Strength.... "Yes, I do believe that in order for any moderate to consider what we have to say, we cannot come off as the flakey "man, like, its not a DRUG because its a PLANT, man." That is some incredibly strange logic if you think about it." ....now hang on a minute.....man!......I think it's rather strange logic to try and prove your point with such a cheesy example...anything someone says in that way, is going to diminish their credibility..."...man,,like that's strange logic ..man.."... ...I dont mean to offensive.I appreciate,and respect your comments..I do understand,and agree with what you are saying...It's like my puctuational deviations.I refrain from using this style when writing formal letters,or messages.I think Jose Menedez is right.Cannabis is an herb/plant..THC is a drug.....poppy=plant..opium=drug..etc. If we were to follow your logic,then coffee and tea would be considered drugs. ...........respectfully submitted for your perusal.....dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #27 posted by goneposthole on June 10, 2002 at 18:06:44 PT Why it is used doesn't matter I have suffered from migraine headaches ever since I can remember from my early chilhood. Aspirin is tough on my stomach, and cannabis greatly relieves my symptoms, if some enjoyment comes from it, that is good, too. I do not use it just to get high, and I do not believe for one second anybody else does. All cannabis use is for spitiual/medicinal purposes, if the purpose of cannabis is discovered via recreational use , so be it. The philosophical conundrum has been manifested because it is illegal. [ Post Comment ] Comment #26 posted by Industrial Strength on June 10, 2002 at 17:38:44 PT yea... But they also knew you could get high from smoking it. Im not questioning the spiritual/medicinal properties of cannabis, but to claim to use it in that manner when all your really doing is getting high is insulting to the people who have a genuine medicinal/spiritual reason. [ Post Comment ] Comment #25 posted by goneposthole on June 10, 2002 at 17:33:27 PT I've got an illegal smile What debate? I just have a choice, and it happens to be cannabis. Not THC. If I give irrelevant information, I'll forget about it.4000 years ago, I don't think the issue was debated. People used cannabis because they found out and then knew it was both a spiritual and medicinal plant.In 2000 BC, China had a population of some 300 million people. How's that for irrelevance?More relevant irrelevance: Find out why AOL's stock price is in the toilet, and why you should be concerned. http://www.murderoususjudges.com [ Post Comment ] Comment #24 posted by Industrial Strength on June 10, 2002 at 17:16:32 PT Huh? "I don't use reagent grade 100 percent ethyl alcohol when I have a drink. I use vodka or whiskey or gin or rum or beer." Well, I dont smoke 100 percent thc, but only because I cant find it. In this case, alcohol and THC are completely uncomparable. It would be far better for you to smoke pure THC. "Enjoyment and peace of mind are important. if I use cannabis for that purpose, I can't really say I am a habitual drug user." So the alcoholic who drinks a bottle of whisky a day to chase away lifes demons is not a habitual drug user? "Spiritual and medicinal are the same. The Hopi gave particularly stubborn braves Jimson Weed to cure meanness." Not at all relevant to this debate (thats what I consider this, I hope you dont feel like im hounding you). [ Post Comment ] Comment #23 posted by goneposthole on June 10, 2002 at 17:09:06 PT Peace of mind I don't use reagent grade 100 percent ethyl alcohol when I have a drink. I use vodka or whiskey or gin or rum or beer.Enjoyment and peace of mind are important. if I use cannabis for that purpose, I can't really say I am a habitual drug user.Spiritual and medicinal are the same. The Hopi gave particularly stubborn braves Jimson Weed to cure meanness. [ Post Comment ] Comment #22 posted by FoM on June 10, 2002 at 16:46:07 PT Herb or Drug? I did a search and found this from Herbs.org Herbs.org http://www.herbs.org/current/cannabis.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by Industrial Strength on June 10, 2002 at 16:27:59 PT dddd Yes, I do believe that in order for any moderate to consider what we have to say, we cannot come off as the flakey "man, like, its not a DRUG because its a PLANT, man." That is some incredibly strange logic if you think about it. Goneposthole, what do you think your doing when you twist up a joint? Do you suffer a medical affliction that requires marijuana as treatment? Are you rastafarian or something similar? What defines a drug? If you smoke or otherwise consume marijuana without a definite spiritual or medical objective, are you not merely "smoking drugs", regardless of the fact that your particular drug is far more benign than most others? [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by goneposthole on June 10, 2002 at 08:06:38 PT Rye rust Ergot is the rye seed that has rusted from the presence of a fungus. Ergot is used to make LSD, a chemical substance derived by manmade means. LSD is a drug, ergot is a rusted rye seed.When I roll a sticky bud into a joint, I don't think of it as 'taking drugs'. [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by Jose Melendez on June 10, 2002 at 05:21:27 PT cannabis = plant, THC = drug. Any questions? Opium is a drug. It comes from the poppy, not a drug, but a plant. OK. Coffee, not thought of as a drug, has caffeine, which is thought of as a drug.Yes, caffeine is a drug. I agree with Industrial Strength that it might tend to discredit our position to suggest Cannabis is not a drug, it is indeed a plant containing at least Delta-9-tetra-hydrocannabinol, which is being used as a drug just as nicotine is used from the Tobacco plant. A big difference is that ganja tea is healthy for you, and Tobacco tea is... poison. Are nicotine, caffeine and opiates "medicines"? Well, people tend to take caffeine to relieve (you guessed it) caffeine withdrawal, and a similar point can be made for nicotine and opiates. So, why are drugs from the Cannabis plant illegal? Is it because our politicians are corrupt, and we potheads don't vote enough? That's what I think.Peace, Jose Melendez [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on June 10, 2002 at 05:19:54 PT Defacing billboards for personal amusement I've always wanted to get a can of spray paint and find one of those annoying ONDCP billboards which read "My child will be home at ____ today - Questions: The Anti Drug!"... and spray-paint in the blank a big "4:20"... [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by observer on June 10, 2002 at 04:20:14 PT Because... Why Kids Ignore Anti-Drug AdsWhy?Because they know the government is lying to them, that's why.Why do kids and adults ignore anti-drug ads? Because of the lies, because of the hypocrisy. This is the obvious reason, but notice how Waldsmith can never admit it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by The GCW on June 10, 2002 at 03:55:05 PT goneposthole - flax = 0 GLA unless I'm mistaken, there's no GLA in flax seed oil.Opium is a drug. It comes from the poppy, not a drug, but a plant.Coffee, not thought of as a drug, has caffeine, which is thought of as a drug.Can we use a plant as medicine / drug? YesKitties eat grass to spit up hair balls, yet grass is not a drug, even though the kitty uses it as medicine.Biblically plants were given as food and medicine.I think the word drug is a bad conotation. It can be used as drug.But we're talking about a plant first and foremost.I'm put off by news headlines that state, man busted and jailed for drugs, and read the story only to find out what he was really busted for was for having a plant. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by dddd on June 10, 2002 at 01:00:47 PT ...Industrial Strength.. ..I must agree......It really comes down to being a matter of semantics,,,,but in my opinion,,I do not consider Marijuana a "drug"...I do not consider coffee or tea "drugs" either. ...as far as being;" taken at all seriously by the masses with the "pot is not a drug" logic."...well,,I think it's interesting that you put it in those terms.....Do you mean to suggest that somehow the "masses" ,will be more likely to engage in a serious discussion about Marijuana,if we go along with the thing of labeling it as a "drug"???????............dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by Industrial Strength on June 09, 2002 at 23:41:50 PT drugs What about opium? That exists as just a plant. Coffee beans? Marijuana is only medicine if you have a legitmate medical concern. What about hallucinogenic mushrooms? Peyote? The list is endless. It really is just a question of semantics, but I dont think you will be taken at all seriously by the masses with the "pot is not a drug" logic. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by Dan B on June 09, 2002 at 22:24:57 PT: My 2 cents If one is to assert that cannabis is not a drug because it occurs naturally without human intervention, one must also concede that alcohol is not a drug by that same definition. As long as one is consistent, there is no problem. As with cannabis, humans can do things to aid the natural process in order to insure the best possible product, but the process of fermentation is every bit as natural as the process of growing a plant.The difficulty, though, is that cannabis can be correctly defined as an herb, but alcohol really can't, can it? Perhaps we'd have to put that substance in a category of its own. I think its relative danger to just about every other substance available illustrates that alcohol does, indeed, deserve to be in a class by itself.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by FoM on June 09, 2002 at 22:06:13 PT Industrial Strength I understand how you might feel Cannabis is a drug but I don't think it's a drug either. It's a medicinal plant in my opinion. That's what I believe. I think of a drug as man made and a medicinal herb as something that is not made by man. Cannabis has mind altering properties but so do medicinal herbs like St. John's Wort, Valarian Root and many more. Just my 2 cents and it's just my opinion. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by Industrial Strength on June 09, 2002 at 21:42:23 PT goneposthole When you say things like "cannabis is not a drug" you discredit yourself and the entire movement. Cannabis is my drug of choice, but it's just that...A drug. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by goneposthole on June 09, 2002 at 20:24:26 PT Thanks, GCW I wasn't breastfed, but my wife has made sure that our children were and are.The other sources of GLA are evening primrose oil, borage seed oil, flaxseed oil and black currant oil.Cannabis is not a drug, as we know. When someone uses cannabis they are not using a drug.A current theory: The drugs used to 'aid' the birthing (pain medication) are what is craved by a child latter on in life. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by ekim on June 09, 2002 at 18:28:58 PT they be at it again Based upon what the San Francisco Chronicle was able to dig up through the Freedom of Information Act after a 17 year effort, we learn that J. Edgar Hoover not just endorsed but initiated a program designed to discredit and impugn the reputations of innocent people and claim that they were being subversive during the "cold war". He had the help of the infamous Senator McCarthy who ran the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings. Today we don't simply have the Director of the FBI on a similar witch hunt, we have his *boss* on a similar mission, a fellow who is trying to turn the FOIA on it's head. Anybody who doesn't recognize that we are in serious trouble has not read the Chronicle story or simply refuses to accept reality. http://www.sfgate.com/campus/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by The GCW on June 09, 2002 at 18:12:50 PT goneposthole, goneposthole,Let’s remember that gamma linolenic acid is found in mothers milk &&&& HEMP SEED OIL!It is only found in about 3 other locations!!!It is responsible for a strong immune system.Hemp seed oil only supplies 2.8% of our daily needs.If You were not nursed as a baby, you may have never put GLA into your body.The county that tries to erradicate cannabis, and thus hemp seed oil has the highest cancer rates.Who do you think put GLA in mothers milk and hemp seed oil?We also have cannabinoid receptor sites in our brains... who do you think put those there?Be sure to thank God for hemp seed oil, GLA, and mothers milk.The GCW And once the children know they have been lied to, you've lost them. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by MikeEEEEE on June 09, 2002 at 18:10:24 PT E_Johnson I think the russians invented propaganda, or maybe it was the nazi's, but the Americans seemed to have perfected it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by E_Johnson on June 09, 2002 at 11:27:57 PT Has everyone forgotten good parenting? Since parents make all the laws and set the drug policy, it is kind of natural that the role of parents in causing kids to turn to drugs is not being adequately investigated.I think it is indicative of this problem that we have had a national anti-drug campaign claiming that parents are the anti-drug.Parents had better aim for being more than an anti-drug. Parents are supposed to be the foundation of a child's whole life. Not just a marketing slogan in a polical campaign to support an increasingly fat and yet still greedy federal drug bureaucracy.Are drugs the problem for which parents are the cure, or are parents the problem for which drugs are the cure?In many of the households of this country, it would be hard to answer this question definitively.It depends, of course, on the parents and the drugs in question. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by E_Johnson on June 09, 2002 at 11:20:50 PT Remember the Soviet Union anyone? This was a whole social structure built around the idea that an all-powerful government could propagandize and imprison its way out of anything.Oh where are they now?Their propaganda lines the trash can of history wherein their theories and practices of social control now reside. Oh but wait! Who is that man in a suit rummaging through the trash can of history looking for ways to keep kids off drugs?Why it's John Walters, the trashpicker of drug policy.Be careful, you'll get your suit dirty, there's all kinds of messy icky stuff down there, like forced labor camps and mass political repression.But John Walters is not afraid of getting a little dirty to win the War on Drugs. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Hubris on June 09, 2002 at 10:25:28 PT Mmmhmm The only place I could even remotely see where a link to terrorism and drug production is feasible, is Columbia. The Taliban, actually, had almost eradicated Poppy production in Afghanistan. I wonder when someone in the government will realize that most teens operate off of peer pressure. Of course they can always just add more DARE programs. I've been told b some folks that DARE actually made them more curious about drugs. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by RavingDave on June 09, 2002 at 10:12:40 PT Down the Drain According to a new survey conducted by the private research firm Westat and the University of Pennsylvania, teens are largely ignoring the government's multimillion-dollar anti-drug ad campaign.The solution? Increase the budget for more advertising, of course. When will these idiots learn that kids will listen to things they generally agree with, not "persuasive" advertising. I remember the "this is your brain on drugs" ads of the 80's. In large part, these ads drove me to do more drugs, not less. In fact, I still have a T-shirt which mocks these ads. I hope they bring the ads back so I can get more laughs when I wear my shirt. Otherwise, what a huge waste of money. But then, that's what American politicians are trained to do. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Dan B on June 09, 2002 at 09:28:44 PT: Please feel free to finish this analysis Theory No. 1: The ad buy ($180 million a year) isn't large enough to have a significant impact. This would be true, save for two important facts: (1) the United States government has forced all advertisers to give these ads a two-for-one special, such that every dollar that is spent on advertising is matched with another dollar worth of advertising. Since no other advertiser is given this privilege, that $180 million is actually $360 million in terms of actual advertising received. This makes the ONDCP about the 83rd largest advertiser, or somewhere between Clorox Company and Charles Schwab and Company (ever heard of those two?), and (2) the figure is a low estimate since the government created a five-year, $1.5 billion ad campaign in 1997 for the ONDCP, which means $300 million per year, or $600 million in actual advertising. This makes the ONDCP the 54th largest advertiser, right after Nike (surely you've heard of Nike?). In short (and to nobody's great surprise), the U.S. government is lying on this one. * Theory No. 2: Current anti-drug ads aren't hard-hitting enough. Given the media backlash to the most current spate of government anti-sane-drug-law propaganda, I'd say that the focus groups they tested were not representativeor, more likely, lying so as to avoid incarceration for conspiracy to commit terrorist acts (supporting terrorism by pointing otu the obvious logical flaw in the government's drug use=terrorism argument).I could go through the rest, but I haven't the time (many things to do today). Suffice to say that the remainder can also be dismantled with ease, and the only reason why the guv wants to keep the ad campaign is spelled like this: $$$.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by goneposthole on June 09, 2002 at 09:05:52 PT Effective drug prevention method for people Breast feed them as infants so they can feel fully satisfied and can develop normally and naturally, then maybe the problems of future drug abuse will be greatly diminished.Money cannot buy love, nor can money buy drug free people. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment