Weed Vs. Hypocrisy

[KFJ]

Which do you think is the dominant theme of the song?
I'm going with hypocrisy... seems the "you must have been high" was just thrown in as a pisstake at the title which (IMO) refers to THE POT calling the kettle black.

[burning bridges]

I highly doubt it is about weed.

[VillageIdiot]

It's not really about drugs.

[W_I_E]

Its about hypocrisy. for example some one who goes to huge rallies for say outlawing abortion in America or some shit and then they when they have an unexpected pregnancy they go have an abortion. but this person probably would be the head of the rally or some one in charge of the hole thing so every one trusts her to be their leader. but she has an abortion and every one finds out and then she is eye ball deep in muddy water. that’s just my thoughts on the matter. abortion has nothing to do with the song that’s just the first thing that popped into my head to use for an example its probably about some one in politics like say George bush or something but im not a very political person so I couldn’t think of an example from politics to use.

[Systolic]

I don't know...

I think its about both, but I don't want to go into why because it will take too long at its 4 AM. Maybe later - But my overall idea is drugs promote hypocrisy. Call me stupid, but I don't think the members of Tool do drugs. They value their personal lives (i.e Maynard's kid) WAY too much to take the rock star approach and get fucked up on everything imaginable, and if you think thats an unfeasible idea, read Maynards interview that Orange Juice posted.

But I went more in depth than I wanted... I'll argue my entire point later.

[Bongzilla]

Systolic, I thought it was widely known fact that all the members of the band have done or keep doing weed/acid.

[Ancalagon]

Yeah, dude, they do drugs, and it doesn't fuck up their life. Maybe not addictive narcotics like cocaine and heroine, but acid/weed, etc. ... yeah, that doesn't fuck up their lives.

Anyways, the Pot is both about hypocrisy and the stupidity of marijuana laws-- both combined, perhaps.

[Fearthelettuce]

Call me stupid, but I don't think the members of Tool do drugs.

Third Eye... nuff said

[Untamed]

Which do you think is the dominant theme of the song?
I'm going with hypocrisy... seems the "you must have been high" was just thrown in as a pisstake at the title which (IMO) refers to THE POT calling the kettle black.


a suggestion was brought up in another thread about this song.

The female sounding voice is his Mother, pretty much saying "How the hell you gonna tell me my faith is shit, take a look at yourself, tell me...is there any difference between a lawyer, a liar, or what you see in that mirror?"

Judith's answer to "Judith" ......good shit.


Which would solve the whole "bad placement of song" thing out there.

[bogsnarth]

i think he just uses the "pot" and "high" imagery as a vehicle for this song... of course "the pot" also refers to the old "pot/kettle" saying, as evidenced by "when you pissed all over my black kettle"..

i think the "high" part just means "high and mighty".. hence "wave your mighty fingers at me".. but of course it's also humorously related to the title if you take it as a weed reference..


and OF COURSE tool does drugs.. jesus fucking christ, if you believe they don't i've got a bridge for sale in brooklyn you might be interested in.

[toocooltool]

Perhaps.

[dancingflame]

Call me stupid, but I don't think the members of Tool do drugs. They value their personal lives (i.e Maynard's kid) WAY too much to take the rock star approach and get fucked up on everything imaginable

I call you stupid...and I am VERY sure you were never tripping...am I right???

have you read an interview wth them? hallucinogenes don`t have much to do with rock-star approach...I feel a bit sorry for everyone who never went there...in wings maynard sings "none of us has been there...NOT LIKE YOU" which is ANOTHER drug-reference (if you want to interpret it that way: ketamine and DMT are known for taking you on the other side)....its so funny with trips: if you`re in you`re in and if you`re out you`re still in...but if you are inside the trip-experience you can interpret ANYTHING in tool-songs as a trip-experience....whoa...stupid post..sorry...:)

[bogsnarth]

i'm going to have to agree with dancingflame.. in my experience people who think there's only 2 states -- sober or totallyfuckeduponeverydrugallthetime -- have either never done drugs or have an addiction problem. but if you were the type with an addiction problem, you'd probably have gone on about some AA bullshit..

maynard is definitely not about drug *abuse*, as i think is evidenced by lines like "fuck all you junkies and fuck your short memory" and the abundance of anti-addiction themes on "thirteenth step" (at least in one interpretation).. but songs like Third Eye really sort of preclude the idea that he's against drug *use*.


edit: for the record, i wrote my post before dancingflame's edit.. i only agreed with this part:
I call you stupid...and I am VERY sure you were never tripping...am I right???

[Systolic]

You can interpret anything as a drug reference if you want...

I don't think that th eband would go to the extent to criticize drug use if they themselves did it... Then they WOULD be hypocrites, which would make them hypocrites for writing a SONG about hypocrites... I don't think so.

Maynard has a whole family... and nowhere has any of the band openly admitted to doing drugs, the same way that no one knows anything about Devo or his wife (if he has one?).

No, I don't do drugs. Its a waste of money and perfectly good brain cells. I'm a musician and I make and enjoy music without having to have some separate agent.. I know this will spark controversy, but I don't think its respectable at all if you have to use something outside of yourself to invoke something within yourself. Your mind is there all the time, you just have to make yourself vulnerable enough to understand and know what you want. I feel like drugs are a religion within themselves. People use them to find an escape from the realities of the world. Now, I'm not going to go on some anti-drug march or something... To each his own, but it does lower my opinion of people.

The song, however - I THINK is designed to mock people who DO use drugs and yet still find problems with society. If the lyrics are as I think they are, it points towards a criticism towards people who can't function without drugs, but then they blame problems in humanity on everything else. All drug trade is illegal. Period. But yet these people who deal and buy drugs always try and justify it, when according to the law, it is wrong. There are more reasons to drugs being illegalized than just the health factor. If hard drugs were legalized, it would TOTALLY offset our economy. I know SEVERAL people who do drugs, and a couple of them are addicts. If the world got addicted to cocaine because it were legalized, it would bring up monopolization issues. The Sherman Anti-Trust act would have to be altered, and businesses who produce things like cigarettes, and alcohol, would have a completely different realm of competition. Not to mention the fact that the government supports the idea that Americans should have enough pride NOT to want to walk around trashed and incoherent. Think about what it would be like if you walked down the street and everyone were stoned. Not cool. How productive is that? Not at all.

The band, I think, is saying "If you're going to do drugs, and if you're going to live your lives in crime, don't bitch about the government and what it does.", hence the pot calling the kettle black. Its just a clever play on words that fits nicely, and it also fits Tool's overall mood for this album, which is obviously more cynical and pessimistic.

You can retort with anything you want, but the bottom line is that drugs are illegal, and by law there is no justification in the purchase and consumption of drugs without medical consent.

[bogsnarth]

ok first, let's get away from the nebulous and ill-defined term "drugs.." there are legal drugs and illegal drugs, and there are "hard," heavily phyiscally addictive drugs (both legal and illegal) and "soft" drugs which are mostly mentally addictive (again, legal and illegal).. so let's throw that term RIGHT OUT.

some people use drugs of all sorts as a means to escape reality.. whether it's the culturally accepted ones like alcohol or the unaccepted ones like pot et al.. but without drugs, the people who do this would STILL TRY TO ESCAPE REALITY, JUST BY USING DIFFERENT MEANS. my point is that it's a mentality, not the drugs themselves.

furthermore, i agree that hallucinogenic and psychedelic drugs (lsd, pot, dmt, salvia divinorum, peyote/mescaline, etc) don't do anything but bring out what's already inside.. they are a quick shortcut to the same sort of mental states acheivable by various occult and yogic practices.. (hence "prying open my third eye"). however, the states they evoke are not to be disregarded simply because they are brought on by chemically altered conciousness..

you're entitled to your opinion but i suggest that you not form an opinion from a perspective of ignorance. by this i am referring to your comment about brain cells in particular and your view of the effects of legalized drugs (look at the netherlands for some empirical data on this subject) in general. drugs like lsd and pot, the hallucinogens and psychedelics, do not kill brain cells. alcohol does. make of that what you will.

further still, who cares of it's wrong in the eyes of the law? embryonic stem cell research is wrong in the eyes of the law, gay marriage is wrong in the eyes of the law, and if a certain segment of the population gets its way, abortions will be wrong in the eyes of the law.. as long as a person is hurting no one besides his- or herself, the government should have no say in the matter.

also i don't think you know what you're talking about re: the economy. legalizing all drugs would literally DOUBLE the amount of taxable exchanges in this country. secondly, "the world" is not going to get addicted to cocaine if it's legalized. it was legal until some time in the 19th century, if memory serves. the idea that "everyone will walk around stoned" is typical of the anti-drug hysterias of the past. do people walk around dead drunk all the time? some, yes, but by and large, no. and we have laws against doing it, so why wouldn't we have similar laws against being stoned/tweaked/whatever while driving or in public?

i think you've misinterpreted the direction of the criticism in the song.. it's not aimed at drug users, but rather at the government and the hypocrisy of allowing potentially very harmful drugs like alcohol and nicotine while banning the use of potentially extremely useful psychoactives such as lsd and mdma (read up on the studies of timothy leary et al to see what i mean).

there are dangers involved in using any drugs, legal or otherwise, but who the fuck is the government to step in and protect us?

Do what thou wilt.

[placidium]

weed > hipocrisy

[bogsnarth]

btw the only illicit drugs i've ever done are weed, lsd and mushrooms. i haven't taken lsd or shrooms in probably 4 or 5 years, and i haven't smoked pot--which was the only one i had any sort of addiction problems with, purely psychological, and which habit i broke myself of without the aid of any 12-step programs or the like--for just over 2 years.

[Nate-dogg21]

I think its about both.

Systolic, im sry but im gonna flame you, but ill be nice... You say your a musician, but im sry, u seem to be missing a big part of what being a musician (artist) is. The way you interpreted this song kind of bothers me. Being a musician myself, i know a fair amount about songwriting and musical composition. Let me explain something to you. Part of being a musician is creating something that ppl can connect with. Not everyone lives the same life and can connect with things the same way as 'you.' So in creating a song u need to make it personal to you, while at the same time leaving it vague enough that people can see other things that they will be able to relate to. I dont think any of maynards songs have ONE SPECIFIC meaning (well, maybe maynards dick?) Yeah, they may lean towards a common theme, but theyre designed so people can find many hidden meanings and underlying themes.

I really dont mean to be a dick, but to a musician it doesnt matter if their fans figure out why they wrote the song, and how it relates to the artist. They care about how their fans are feeling it. Its called art, not an autobiography.


I actually find it ridiculous that someone made this thread... because thats the point of virtually all of maynards lyrics. "Think for yourself" ill leave the rest out because its irrelevent right now. Dont read into all of these other people opinion, think for yourself, use your brain, and formulate your own ideas. Hell yeah, discuss with other people, but dont be so cut and dry "this is the right answer, and the only answer..."

[Ancalagon]

Thank you, bogsnarth. Ignorance is a truly horrific thing; closed-minded perspectives that group all "drugs" together are absurd.

Alcohol and nicotine are truly harmful, addictive drugs that physically destroy people and can ruin people's lives.

You don't get in fights at bars when you are high.
You don't go home and beat your wife when you are high.
You don't develop a real physical addiction (scientifically proven) to marijuana.

Alcohol and nicotine are much worse than marijuana.
The same can be said stronger (but not more harmful) drugs like salvia divinorum, LSD (well, LSD can be harmful if used incorrectly or by immature, irresponsible people), mushrooms, etc.

Cocaine and heroin are straight-up addictive, horrible drugs in my opinion.

If marijuana, shrooms, etc. were legalized I am sure we would still have laws against driving while intoxicated, public ridiculousness, etc. Others have already pointed that out. We could tax it and treat it like alcohol (which, in my already stated opinion, can be a much worse drug).

Systolic, you demonstrate horrible ignorance, and I suggest you do some real research before you make sweeping generalizations about drugs or people who do them. I do "drugs" and I maintain a very high GPA, a job performed well, etc. I love my friends and family and am a productive member of society. I consider myself bettered by "drug use."

WHO ARE YOU TO WAVE YOUR FINGER?!?

[praefector]

take whatever you like from the song.

you could argue it is a personal song...someone who "waved his finger" at maynard for something ... this person must have been "SO high" to think that he could go around judging someone like maynard for his behavior.

you could argue that is just a blanket topic about hypocrisy.

you could also argue that its about the government pointing their "fingers" at drug users when drug use is already pervasive and accepted; so long as the drugs you use are government approved.

this seems to be a very general song....another that you can take however you like. im choosing to believe that its a personal song. at it's core, about a specific person or incident.

[Nate-dogg21]

Lets say shrooms/marijuana were made legal. I can almost guaruntee a lot of crime would disappear. The only thing ud have to worry about is the stoner drivers, but even thats not bad.... Bill hicks put it best "even if they got in an accident, theyre only going 20 miles an hour." something along those lines.... Shrooms, ive never known anyone to drive on shrooms, and ive been around ALOT of mushrooms. My friends and i were tripping balls one time (for example), and our driver had eaten a few caps, but he wasnt tripping yet. As soon as he started trippping, he pulled over and we just ended up walking becuase he started freaking out with the car in his control.

Youn want to bring up 'gateway drug' maybe you should shut the fuck up. Most people who elevate above and beyond weed, had intentions of elevating above it before they even tried weed. I think people need to educate themselves with drugs before they form their opinions. You see movies like traffic where theyre dealing with the problems of cocaine/heroin. Everything negative about drugs deals with the amphetamines and such. A guy is out of weed, doesnt have any money to buy weed, hes disappointed. A guy is out of heroin, has no money to buy heroin, he goes and steals something.

Cocaine/heroin/meth/alcohol contribute to crime.
People are too calm and mellow to do anything when theyre high on weed....
People just wanna go play in a forest when theyre tripping balls on shrooms....
People stay the hell away from ppl when theyre soaring on LSD.....
Theres so much love when your high on Ex, i dont get the problem

[praefector]

ive driven on shrooms before

hardest part is learning not to focus on the streetlights and other cars taillights/headlights....but after that its nothing

and if psychadelics were legal (well use marijuana for example), which they are experimenting with on a small scale, there would be an economic boom for certain. especially for pot, which the non flowering parts of the plant, can be used to make all sorts of products which could be sold. the benefits of legalization would be very difficult to ignore.

but there could be consequences as well. drugs lead to disaffection. disaffection leads to a dearth in productivity. dearth in productivity leads to unemployment. america is where it is becuase it never stops trying to achieve....if we were to lose that, theres no telling where we could end up.

non-users would also be put in a bad position during all of this too...and we could possibly see an even more fierce drug war emerge.

[praefector]

Cocaine/heroin/meth/alcohol contribute to crime.
People are too calm and mellow to do anything when theyre high on weed....
People just wanna go play in a forest when theyre tripping balls on shrooms....
People stay the hell away from ppl when theyre soaring on LSD.....
Theres so much love when your high on Ex, i dont get the problem


these are fallacies because drug culture is about excess. using any of these without restraint or moderation is most certainly harmful;

even acid, pot, and shrooms

[quasiperiodica]

Its about hypocrisy. for example some one who goes to huge rallies for say outlawing abortion in America or some shit and then they when they have an unexpected pregnancy they go have an abortion. but this person probably would be the head of the rally or some one in charge of the hole thing so every one trusts her to be their leader. but she has an abortion and every one finds out and then she is eye ball deep in muddy water. that’s just my thoughts on the matter. abortion has nothing to do with the song that’s just the first thing that popped into my head to use for an example its probably about some one in politics like say George bush or something but im not a very political person so I couldn’t think of an example from politics to use.

when have you EVER met someone whose gone to an anti-abortion rally, then gets pregnant and has an abortion?? Aren't those the types of people who would just never be in that situation? and so being narrow-minded and insensative to people who are, would look to outlaw such a thing??? hmm?? HMM???

[Nate-dogg21]

these are fallacies because drug culture is about excess. using any of these without restraint or moderation is most certainly harmful;

even acid, pot, and shrooms


You're a fucking moron. I smoke pot hardly ever. Ive done shrooms probably 30 times or so over the past 6 years... Ive never done LSD, but the people i drug out with do it rarely.

Anyone ive ever known who abuses drugs, is an addict. There are plenty of people who are not addicts, and do not abuse drugs, its a common misconception. You're just a stupid fucker who knows nothing and hasnt been around shit. Maybe im wrong, but im going to with my idea that you know nothing. Your parents sucked at raising you. They taught u just like D.A.R.E teaches you, which is wrong. Talk to me when u know something.

[quasiperiodica]

The fact is that psychedelics pose a threat upon the conservative, rich blue collar tight-ass hypocrites who argue and bitch and pretend to fix problems that dont exist in Washington. Not because of their abusive qualities, or their so-called health hazards to society, but the fact that psychedelics cause people to think freely. And people in the 60s suddenly started to open up their minds, and if it weren't for the creation of LSD, thought by some to be the second-coming of Christ, we'd all still be living in the 50s suburbia landfill. No. If it weren't for the counter-cultural revolution, which wouldn't have happened if it weren't for psychedelics, we probably would have destroyed the earth by now, which was predicted by many sci-fi novelists, self-proclaimed prophets, etc. The fact is that the psychedelic state of mind, and the changes in personality and behaviors of people after experiences, threatens the whole democratic, capitalist world of passive observers and the walking dead Americans wasting their lives in this fucking rat-maze, this larger than life system which we all adhere to. LSD sets people free from this, and helps people to realize that our existence is not limited to our grounded states of getting up, playing the game which is your life, filling up space, taking on roles, pretending to be enthused by your dead, numb, pathetic existence. It makes people become sensative and aware of themselves as much greater entities, that we are NOT our bodies, that our bodies are just one more object in space and time. It makes people realize that this higher entity which we've called "God" for millenia, and considered a father figure at our early childish stages in evolution, is really just ourselves. Science has evolved incredibly by psychedelic research. Psychedelics have even been found in the human brain, produced naturally, connected biologically to our spiritual experience, including birth and death. One more point, people who are caught selling enough LSD can be charged with conspiracy to overthrow the government, I've heard, and after the results of the 60s and Timothy Leary and Ken Kesey, I'm not surprised in the least.

[praefector]

You're a fucking moron. I smoke pot hardly ever. Ive done shrooms probably 30 times or so over the past 6 years... Ive never done LSD, but the people i drug out with do it rarely.

Anyone ive ever known who abuses drugs, is an addict. There are plenty of people who are not addicts, and do not abuse drugs, its a common misconception. You're just a stupid fucker who knows nothing and hasnt been around shit. Maybe im wrong, but im going to with my idea that you know nothing. Your parents sucked at raising you. They taught u just like D.A.R.E teaches you, which is wrong. Talk to me when u know something.


wow

you presume all of this about me from one statment...and IM the moron ...right

on the contrary, ive probably done more drugs than youve read about...and guess what I DONT WEAR IT LIKE A FUCKING BADGE. drugs are harmful if their use isnt carefully moderated.

you arent an abuser; thats terrific for you. but for every one guy like you there are 100 people that dont know when to lay off. you legalize drugs in this manner and users get younger. more dependent, and harder to impress.

when did you use drugs for the first time? i was doing freon and duster with my step brother at 9 and smoking spliffs at 12. acid at 14 coke at 16 rehab at 18. it just got too big for me so i KNOW how it happens. it doesnt just hit you one day to do as many drugs as you can. you go from once a week, to three times a week, to oh ill get high today but i wont get high tomorrow, to well i got high two days in a row but i wont do it again....until eventually youre doing speedballs, mixing benzos and opiates, doing psychotropics and depressants. it spins out of control and you never even realize it.

so again, awesome for you that youve been able to use drugs recreationally with no dependency...but dont assume that just because it didnt turn sour on you that it wouldnt for someone else.

and mock d.a.r.e. if you will...i did also at 15, but drug education is vital...even if it approaches brainwashing.

[praefector]

The fact is that psychedelics pose a threat upon the conservative, rich blue collar tight-ass hypocrites who argue and bitch and pretend to fix problems that dont exist in Washington. Not because of their abusive qualities, or their so-called health hazards to society, but the fact that psychedelics cause people to think freely. .


this is the most misguided argument ive ever heard.

EXCESSIVE DRUG USE (which broad legalization WOULD exacerbate) pose a threat to our collective standard of living and drugs DO NOT = enlightenment.

dropping acid doesnt make you a revolutionary...it may give you revolutionary ideas...but you have to work within the system to sabotage it...

the government isnt "afraid" of a bunch of dopeheads.

[Ancalagon]

I agree the government isn't "afraid" of a bunch of dopeheads except that they misguidedly think they will be unproductive and harmful members of society.

I also agree with a moderate approach. I am not opposed to drug use, but I am opposed to addiction. Personally I use drugs safely and rarely; others might not. Drug education is important, drug regulation is not-- in my own opinion.

Anyways, this song rules.

[bogsnarth]

take whatever you like from the song.

you could argue it is a personal song...someone who "waved his finger" at maynard for something ... this person must have been "SO high" to think that he could go around judging someone like maynard for his behavior.

you could argue that is just a blanket topic about hypocrisy.

you could also argue that its about the government pointing their "fingers" at drug users when drug use is already pervasive and accepted; so long as the drugs you use are government approved.

this seems to be a very general song....another that you can take however you like. im choosing to believe that its a personal song. at it's core, about a specific person or incident.
i agree with you here.. i meant to make that part of my other post, but it slipped my mind.. the whole drug user/government interpretation is just one of many, and i didn't mean to sound like that was the only one.

[paraflux]

You're a fucking moron.
And you are on probation

[bogsnarth]

aw..

nate-dogg had some good stuff to add in a lot of other threads.. :/

[paraflux]

too bad he had to go that route, then.

[bogsnarth]

so what's the deal with Probation? is it as temporary as it sounds or is it just a nice way of saying "BANNED MTHRFQQRZ"?

[prime weed]

I WAS THE 1ST TO SAY IT WAS ABOUT MARIJUANA!

[burning bridges]

I think it was Bill Hicks who said something like "but of course the drugs that show you that you are getting FUCKED everyday in your lives are made illegal by the goverment"

"I am sure their motives are pure."





The key to drug use ( psychedelics) is moderation. Since starting to take shrooms, alot of trivial pointless materialistic things that used to be important to me aren't anymore. I don't watch TV anymore. I now look at things "for myself." You could say my third eye is somewhat open, but I don't have to use drugs to get there (although it helped). I think that is the real thing about all this.

[Dr. Jake Destructo]

the government isnt "afraid" of a bunch of dopeheads.

This has to be the most amazing statement I've ever heard. It's at least top ten.

[Systolic]

Systolic, you demonstrate horrible ignorance, and I suggest you do some real research before you make sweeping generalizations about drugs or people who do them. I do "drugs" and I maintain a very high GPA, a job performed well, etc. I love my friends and family and am a productive member of society. I consider myself bettered by "drug use."

WHO ARE YOU TO WAVE YOUR FINGER?!?


So what happens when your boss finds out you're on drugs?

[burning bridges]

He's fucked.

More moderation = less risk.

[Systolic]

All of you wasted druggie no-brainers can't argue that what you do isn't illegal. Period. You all act like I'm missing out on some joy of the world, but I've done marijuana before (and hated it, mind you), and I am a music major in college, and I know from studying music HISTORY that you don't have to do drugs to create amazing music. Music is NOT some cryptic, obscure, vague puzzle, IT IS WHAT YOU MAKE IT. My interpretation of thr song may have been different from yours, but rather than arguing my point, you simply took the approach that I didn't do my research (despite the numerous factual mishaps that you all used to "dispute" my point, such as the cocaine legalization, which was mistaken for marijuana, which was actully illegalized because of hemp rope dominating the economy), and that resulted in argumentation that seems like some drug addict trying to cope with his inner struggles pertaining to his mindless addiction. Drugs are illegal for a reason, I say again. If you want to blatantly break the law, then go for it, but there's no way to justify your actions.

[burning bridges]

All of you wasted druggie no-brainers can't argue that what you do isn't illegal. Period. You all act like I'm missing out on some joy of the world, but I've done marijuana before (and hated it, mind you), and I am a music major in college, and I know from studying music HISTORY that you don't have to do drugs to create amazing music. Music is NOT some cryptic, obscure, vague puzzle, IT IS WHAT YOU MAKE IT. My interpretation of thr song may have been different from yours, but rather than arguing my point, you simply took the approach that I didn't do my research (despite the numerous factual mishaps that you all used to "dispute" my point, such as the cocaine legalization, which was mistaken for marijuana, which was actully illegalized because of hemp rope dominating the economy), and that resulted in argumentation that seems like some drug addict trying to cope with his inner struggles pertaining to his mindless addiction. Drugs are illegal for a reason, I say again. If you want to blatantly break the law, then go for it, but there's no way to justify your actions.

Haha nice sweeping generalization with the wasted druggie no-brainers.

THE GOVERMENT MADE SHROOMS AND ACID AND WEED AND DMT ILLEGAL SO OF COURSE THEY MUST BE BAD.

The goverment is shit.

You'd be surprised about the "good" hallucinogens have done for people. Of course the people who can get there without using drugs in my opinion are the real deal.

[bogsnarth]

All of you wasted druggie no-brainers can't argue that what you do isn't illegal. Period. You all act like I'm missing out on some joy of the world, but I've done marijuana before (and hated it, mind you), and I am a music major in college, and I know from studying music HISTORY that you don't have to do drugs to create amazing music. Music is NOT some cryptic, obscure, vague puzzle, IT IS WHAT YOU MAKE IT. My interpretation of thr song may have been different from yours, but rather than arguing my point, you simply took the approach that I didn't do my research (despite the numerous factual mishaps that you all used to "dispute" my point, such as the cocaine legalization, which was mistaken for marijuana, which was actully illegalized because of hemp rope dominating the economy), and that resulted in argumentation that seems like some drug addict trying to cope with his inner struggles pertaining to his mindless addiction. Drugs are illegal for a reason, I say again. If you want to blatantly break the law, then go for it, but there's no way to justify your actions.
wow.. so you really listened to those after school specials when you were a kid, eh?

i know it's trite on this board, but meditate on the following:

Think for yourself.
Question authority.

[praefector]

You'd be surprised about the "good" hallucinogens have done for people. Of course the people who can get there without using drugs in my opinion are the real deal.

just out of curiosity...

suprise me

[burning bridges]

Things such as complete relieve of stress, the ability to finally start ignoring some trivial materialistic things and habits, not to mention to some degree spiritual understanding. I cannot go into detail because I am writing a paper at the moment. Drugs aren't as bad as the media portrays it (at least the ones I do). It's all about moderation.

[UrQuattro]

If marijuana, shrooms, etc. were legalized I am sure we would still have laws against driving while intoxicated, public ridiculousness, etc.?


oh PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let this become a law.

US CODE Sec 18 Chap 1 Art 1: There shall be no public ridiculousness due to ensuing hilarity, comedic outlandeshness or childish nonsense.

[UrQuattro]

Oh, and if you want real information about the effect of legalization/prohibion on current society due to the war on drugs. here is my published writing:

http://www.counterpunch.org/mwilliams1.html

here is an excerpt from it:


Prohibition is unconstitutional; alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment to be created, and no such act was written to allow the illegality of drugs. Instead, a loophole was utilized, and "with passage of the Marijuana Stamp Act in 1937 marijuana was prohibited." (ACLU). By refusing to allow anyone to purchase these stamps, the government effectively eliminated the legal sale and use of marijuana. This program followed the original Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914, declaring opiates and cocaine illegal (ACLU) through the same tax laws, and has now evolved and been extended almost as a blanket rule to any new chemical that is created which alters one's perception of self or reality, regardless of safety or medical merit. According to the constitution, the government does not have the power to regulate personal choice, but it created this alternative route to prohibition despite the massive legal hurdles.

Many believe that health issues are the primary reason for drugs being illegal, yet the general public does not realize that legal drugs are more toxic than those which are illegal. In the United States, tobacco alone kills over 430,000, alcohol 110,000 (Drug War Facts), and prescription drugs kill approximately 32,000 people (Corey) yearly, while all illegal drugs combined, including cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, marijuana, LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide), psilocybin "magic" mushrooms, ecstasy, GHB (gamma hydroxybutyrate), mescaline and PCP (phencyclidine), killed approximately 11,000 people in 1999 (DAWN). Interestingly, of those 11,000 people, only 55% can be attributed to accidental overdose, while approximately 16% were intentional overdoses in order to commit suicide (DAWN). Additionally, there has not been one reported death due to a marijuana overdose (Facts). NSAIDS, medicines such as aspirin and Tylenol were linked to 7,600 deaths in 1996 (Facts), making these nearly as lethal as their illegal counterparts, yet nobody questions their safety, or calls for their prohibition. Compared to illegal drugs, there are many more lethal activities, including driving a car, participated in daily by the general public, yet these activities, unlike illicit drugs, are considered integral parts of daily life, and the dangers presented are considered accepted risks.

Beyond the direct health impact, prohibition has not been shown to have a strong impact on the demand for drugs in general. Some countries, such as the Netherlands, have legalized "soft drugs" including marijuana and "magic" mushrooms, while others, such as Italy, Portugal, and Spain, have decriminalized the use of all drugs, including heroin and cocaine. They also have government subsidized programs to assist those addicted to "hard drugs," such as heroin, by providing them with doctor supervised locations to ingest their drugs. The result of these programs has been lower addiction, use, and death rates in users. According to a study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry and reported by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), "removal of criminal prohibitions on cannabis possession (decriminalization) will not increase the prevalence of marijuana or any other illicit drug . . . a far greater percentage of Americans age 12 and older (33 percent) report having tried marijuana as do their Dutch counterparts (16 percent), despite the fact that open sale and possession of pot is permitted in the Netherlands." If prohibition is claimed to lower the use and availability of illicit drugs in the populace, why do facts speak otherwise?

By preventing valid manufacturers from making these products, prohibition increases the dangers associated with drug use by preventing regulation, and forcing drug users to buy products which have no guarantee of purity or dosage. Most deaths associated with heroin are not due to the toxicity of the drug, but are in fact caused by the lack of ability for the user to accurately gauge how much of the actual drug they are ingesting. Ecstasy, or MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxy-n-methylamphetamine), related deaths have risen due to misinformation and lack of quality control, not because of the acute toxicity of MDMA itself. "The DanceSafe organization now cites at least 100 ecstasy-related deaths. The vast majority of these, however, were not overdoses but the result of becoming overheated on the dance floor or ingesting pills sold as ecstasy that were actually dangerous substances like DXM, a cough suppressant that can cause overheating if taken in large quantities, and the stimulant PMA." (Salon). Injuries and deaths associated with this side-effect of prohibition would be eliminated if drugs were simply made legal, and real education regarding the actual dangers made available.

Apart from the increased health risks of drugs, prohibition increases street violence by forcing the sale of drugs to the black market. This encourages the formation of organized crime in order to manufacture and distribute these substances under the control of a group of individuals. Additionally, the structure of laws are such that adults are punished more heavily than minors, and due to this, minors are enlisted by these organized crime units, provided with guns or other weapons, and used to transport or sell these drugs, with the knowledge that if they are caught, they will not be as heavily punished.

With this increase of violence and the focus on criminalizing drug use,the criminal justice system is being overloaded. According to the United States Department of Justice, "In 1999 the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) estimated that there were 1,532,200 State and local arrests for drug abuse violations in the United States." Prisons are being filled with non-violent drug offenders, who "make up 58 percent of the federal prison population." (ACLU). Because this obsession with locking up drug sellers and users, violent criminals walk free every day for lack of space.

In addition, mandatory minimum sentencing laws are unfairly distributed, jailing some for life, simply for selling a chemical which the buyer chooses to ingest, making it a harsher crime to participate in a consensual act than to murder someone in the second degree. Arrest rates also do not follow the demographics of the U.S. population, as "According to the 1991 Uniform Crime Reports, 58% of the drug arrests were of whites versus 41% for blacks . . . This sounds evenly distributed until you consider that, in 1991, blacks composed only 12% of the U.S. population." (McWilliams). Crack cocaine, the "freebased" form of cocaine, is simply powdered cocaine combined with baking soda to allow the user to smoke it, and carries a significantly stiffer penalty for sale and possession than does the powdered form. This is unjust as they are chemically identical, and interact with the brain identically. Unfortunately, crack users tend to be poor and from the inner city, while powdered cocaine users are generally more wealthy, due to the incredible difference in cost between the two forms. This causes a severe racial disparity in the execution of drug laws, and subsequently a large minority population in prisons.

By increasing the rate of consumption, increasing the inherent dangers present with drug use, and filling our jails, the "War on Drugs" presents an immense monetary drain on the United States Economy. "In 2000 the Clinton administration spent more than $17.9 billion." (Facts) on the drug war. For comparison, "The President is requesting $44.5 billion in discretionary appropriations for the Department of Education in fiscal year 2002." (Dept. of Ed.) That means that the US is spending 40% as much on fighting the drug war as it is on educating the next generation. Imagine the benefits to society if that eighteen billion dollars was instead spent on education; the impact of a 40% budget increase would be enormous. Is the threat of illegal drugs so great, that fighting the personal choice to ingest a substance which alters one's consciousness is more important than fully educating the next generation of adults?

Additionally, by prohibiting the legal sale of drugs, the government misses an opportunity to raise an incredible amount of tax revenue. "The international illicit drug business generates as much as $400 billion in trade annually according to the United Nations International Drug Control Program. That amounts to 8% of all international trade and is comparable to the annual turnover in textiles, according to the study." (UN). By taxing this immense industry, this money could then be used to pay for schools, drug treatment programs, and health care. Legalization would not only eliminate the $18 billion per year spent to fight the drug war, but it would in turn raise at least $40 billion per year in tax revenue, if one assumes a mild 10% tax on the drug trade, a number nearly equivalent to the entire US education budget.

[bogsnarth]

damn.. that's exactly like the paper i wrote on the subject in my english comp class a couple of years ago..

I'LL SUE

[Xariable]

Which do you think is the dominant theme of the song?
I'm going with hypocrisy... seems the "you must have been high" was just thrown in as a pisstake at the title which (IMO) refers to THE POT calling the kettle black.
In a way, I think its about both. I think its obvious.

[dgalish]

We are all criminals; everyone here has broken the law more than once, on many levels. Whether it be consuming alcohol before the age of 21, stealing something, or other small petty things that we determine to be against the law. The argument that because drugs are illegal they are wrong is an ignorant one. Drugs are most definitely not good for you, but neither is a McDonalds hamburger. I would place a large bet that someone who smokes marijuana everyday and someone who eats McDonalds hamburgers everyday that the one eating hamburgers will be far less healthy than the person smoking marijuana. The United States has more citizens in the prison system than any other country in the world. This is a direct cause and effect of the drug laws that were brought into the United States, when the conservatives during the early 1980's decided that drug users were criminals. We have drugs for every type of emotion and disease yet the majority of those drugs carry large side effects, but because they're taxed its OK. I think of all places a tool message board is a great place for discussion about drugs in the United States, many of Tools song deal with this issue. The only thing that you own as a human being is your body, nothing else. By the government telling you what you can and can’t put into your body, they are saying in a sense that they own your body. When you take away that right you can start to take away alot more. There is hypocrisy in the war on drugs and if you fail to see that I suggest you eat some mushrooms, sit in a field, and let God explain it to you.

[burning bridges]

Cannabis and mushrooms are part of nature. They grow from the planet. What balls does the government have to say that they are illegal?

[tool/rush/mars]

Systolic, you are so closed minded it hurts. I have done drugs and i no longer do them (except for the occasional marijuana use, very rare). I went through a phase where I was out of control. Do I regret that time in my life?

Absolutely not. I am also a musician and having that perspective that drugs have given me definitely helps. Do I need drugs to write good music, hell no. I am a better musician sober, plain and simple fact.

Systolic, you act like the fact that drugs are illegal automatically makes people who use them lesser people than you yourself. You are the one passing judgement.

To think we live in a world with perfect laws is a joke. Also, I am in college and most economists, including my econ teacher, are advocates of the legalization of marijuana. You saying that legalization would totally offset the economy is a joke. The economy would certainly change, but you make it seem like there would be negative repercussions.

Unless less crime is a negative repercussion I don't know what your basing this on. Now I understand a lot of stoners are complete idiots and I myself hate most of them. But you are failing to realize that there are very successful, very intelligent drug users.

Basically, you need to look at yourself and a lot of criticisms your making about drug users can be applied to yourself....just think about it.


Oh yeah I laugh at people who don't think Tool does drugs. It is beyond hysterical. They might not do them now, but that is a whole different arguement.

Also, when I was a heavy pot smoker. I had a job at Guitar Center as a sales representative. In my first month I ranked in the top five in total sales out of 50 odd salesman. Do you think I would of been number 1 if I was sober? Doubt it. Point being, you can successfully use drugs...granted the majority of people abuse them.

But your sweeping generalizations are just painful to read.

[dygytylace]

I think "Obstreperous" is the perfect nickname for you, omg chic, chill out and smoke one.

[Systolic]

Meh, its no generalization to say that illegal drug users are criminals, now is it?

[newalbumblows]

btw the only illicit drugs i've ever done are weed, lsd and mushrooms. i haven't taken lsd or shrooms in probably 4 or 5 years, and i haven't smoked pot--which was the only one i had any sort of addiction problems with, purely psychological, and which habit i broke myself of without the aid of any 12-step programs or the like--for just over 2 years.

thanks for sharing dildo

[praefector]

I have done drugs and i no longer do them (except for the occasional marijuana use, very rare). I went through a phase where I was out of control. Do I regret that time in my life?




your "out of control" could be regular behaviour for some people. couldnt say for sure of course without knowing you or talking about it but just a thought...you might have felt like you were "out of control" when compared to another user you were still in stage 2 or 3



The economy would certainly change, but you make it seem like there would be negative repercussions.



see both sides of the argument here; an increase in taxable domestic product as well as an increase in foreign trade would be positive. but regular drug use does make people lethargic....it's scientific fact. productivity would fall leading to a rise in uneployment and a steep rise in taxes. if youre going to be an economist, examine the ebb AND flow.


Unless less crime is a negative repercussion I don't know what your basing this on. Now I understand a lot of stoners are complete idiots and I myself hate most of them. But you are failing to realize that there are very successful, very intelligent drug users.



yes, and for ever successful drug user there are thousands of burnouts and junkies. this isnt a good argument.


Oh yeah I laugh at people who don't think Tool does drugs. It is beyond hysterical. They might not do them now, but that is a whole different arguement.\



i laugh at people that make suppositions about others' drug use.



Also, when I was a heavy pot smoker. I had a job at Guitar Center as a sales representative. In my first month I ranked in the top five in total sales out of 50 odd salesman. Do you think I would of been number 1 if I was sober? Doubt it. Point being, you can successfully use drugs...granted the majority of people abuse them.



id be up for reading an accurate breakdown of how being a pothead made you a better salesman. just for my own curiosity.

But your sweeping generalizations are just painful to read.

"Now I understand a lot of stoners are complete idiots and I myself hate most of them."

pot. meet kettle.

[nconcklin]

I don't think that the band would go to the extent to criticize drug use if they themselves did it... Then they WOULD be hypocrites, which would make them hypocrites for writing a SONG about hypocrites... I don't think so.

Have you ever consumed coffee, tea, or perhaps been prescribed pain killers (even if just for say the removal of your wisdom teeth)? Your existence is under the constant dictation of chemical brews in your head. It would take a great deal of effort to keep external influences out of your system, especially in our society. On top of that, the category of substances typically referring to "drugs" (which I will, from this point on, assume means all forms of psychoactive materials, whether organic, synthetic, or chemically derived from organics) exists as a spectrum, as does anything that has some form of effect upon the observable world. Capiche? Maynard was once an extreme heroin addict. Heroin is a very potent creation of chemistry, and subsequently much more destructive to the organic matter that comprises any being, sentient or not. The amount of acting chemicals consumed in one typical injection of heroin is so far on the opposite end of the spectrum then say the amount of active chemicals consumed after smoking a bowl of normal "nugget" marijuana (if my memory serves me correctly 10% to 17% THC content, can anyone verify this?). If you are naive enough to be in denial about Maynard’s previous substance abuse feel free to look at tour pictures from Undertow, then take a gander at images from Aenima. When heroin addicts kick the habit, they tend to have a significant increase in muscle mass and an increase in overall physical health. Now I ask you why Maynard is incorrect (logically, not morally. I don't want to hear your objective standards for judgment) in critiquing and speaking against the destructive path typically associated with potent central nervous agents and more generally opioid addiction (something he has experienced) and yet not condemned at the same time much less potent drugs, specifically ones that act on different areas of the brain and induce radically different experiences? I beg of you to respond, and put some god damned effort into it (do some research, trust me it'll help you to not sound like a naive sheep in denial of what he has not experienced which subsequently revokes any authority you may attempt to insert on this topic).

and nowhere has any of the band openly admitted to doing drugs, the same way that no one knows anything about Devo or his wife (if he has one?).

I specifically recall various audio interviews being released on the official Tool website, where they were asked something to the liking of where the band tends to draw their inspiration. I apologize I cannot recall the exact question. Nonetheless, this is obviously a very, very broad question with an infinite list of answers. But the answer they gave (and I think it was Justin that said it) was that "it depends on what drugs we're on." If you are still refusing to at least consider that, as very intelligent people, these men are capable of using psychotropic substances in a mature and perhaps even spiritual manner using very keen and lucid awareness of the self and environment to guide their moderation, I suggest you make a fresh, unbiased analysis of the bands lyrics over the years and the extensive amount of research conducted by the enthusiastic members of this forum. For example, and it's only been mentioned god-knows how many times, Third Eye is a clear glorification in the guided and mature use of LSD. Next time you're not too busy boasting about your up and coming musical career listen to some Bill Hick's stand up bit on drugs (a man openly associated with Tool).

And what does Maynard’s family have to do with drugs? You're saying that because Maynard has avoided direct comment on both topics that we are incapable of even postulating his position. If this is the case, then all the effort of Tool fans and Toolshed members have been practically in vain. You seem to support a very unpopular stance of epistemology. Excuse me if I'm over-reading, but you need to ask yourself "what exactly does Tool or Maynard ever directly spoon-feed his fans and the public alike?" One of the most beloved traits of this band by its fans is their indirect conveyance, forcing us to open our minds and go beyond conventional thought in an attempt to interpret what they are saying (whether it be lyrics, symbolism in the musical constructs, cover art, music videos, interviews, etc.)

And I think I speak for anyone who took the time to read your comments when I tell you to avoid giving us your personal background and autobiographical justifications for your life choices. It's irrelevant and just makes you seem lost when it comes to the direction and overall structure of your argument (which I have no doubt you are).

[nconcklin]

I was going to end on that note but you have a string of comments I have to crucify.

I feel like drugs are a religion within themselves.

I believe I echo the concerns of the community when I say…WHAT?! Any more statements like this one and I assure you no one will take you seriously. You’re treading on thin ice as it is. Buy a dictionary. Take a ‘Drugs & Society’ class at your local community college or something (typically a psychology or sociology course). Please.


All drug trade is illegal. Period.

Oh man, I think I'm going to put a lawn chair outside of GNC, or Glaxo-Smith Kline, or Jack Daniels brewing mill, or Lipton, or Dunkin' Donuts and just wait for the DEA raids. It'll be such a spectacular show.

But yet these people who deal and buy drugs always try and justify it, when according to the law, it is wrong. There are more reasons to drugs being illegalized than just the health factor.

Would you like to discuss the philosophy of law? If so I suggest you do research and attempt to forge an educated argument before supplying me with a rebuttal. Funny you mention the health factor, as there are many campaigns (by both state legislatures and private institutions) for the legalization of certain drugs BECAUSE of it's effects on health. Your pristine concept of legislature and our federal administration is wholly ideal and unexposed to the large collection of variables that effect every decision, majority of which most of us will remain ignorant too. Your placing entirely too much blind faith into the judgment of the government. Take a brief look at certain drug legislature and constituents in other cultures. It's not hard, and judging by your uneducated assertions going to be an eye-opener to social order and it's relationship with drugs.

Not to mention the fact that the government supports the idea that Americans should have enough pride NOT to want to walk around trashed and incoherent.

Have you EVER been to a major city? Alcoholism is rampant in the US. Most of our drug legislature is due to the bias exercises of one particular man for the better part of a century (look up Anslinger). Our government glorifies tradition, and fears what it considers drastic changes in it's administration of authority. Why do you think alcohol prohibition was such a horrid failure?

Think about what it would be like if you walked down the street and everyone were stoned. Not cool. How productive is that? Not at all.

I've done just that for majority of my elevated academic career and I'd like to think that I've accomplished a lot more then most of my collegiate peers. A stoned population would be a hell of a lot more productive then the alcoholic and crackhead epidemics we currently suffer from. Aside from those who glorify the cultural traits stereotyped to certain drug scenes, I can assure you that you would be shocked to know who is on what out there on the street. Something cool I highly suggest you read about is Philosophical Subjectivism. Then think about its relation to drug use in your spare time.

Its just a clever play on words that fits nicely, and it also fits Tool's overall mood for this album, which is obviously more cynical and pessimistic.

Because Tool is known for it's clever euphemisms. More cynical and pessimistic then what? Then Undertow? I don't think you're going to find much support there. Then Aenima? I doubt you'll find ANY support with that claim. The band calls this their 'blues' album, which can be seen in the albums overly whelming emotional content. One could even go out on a limb and say the album has more depressing atmosphere. Regardless of what we choose to label this album, be careful what you claim to be obvious.

bottom line is that drugs are illegal, and by law there is no justification in the purchase and consumption of drugs without medical consent.

By Federal law even medicinal purposes aren't enough to justify it, though it's enough at the State level. Bottom line is up till some time ago sodomy was illegal. That didn't stop people who enjoy anal sex from enjoying it. Bottom line is a lot of people have legal prescriptions to Adderall, a mild amphetamine used in the treatment of ADD and ADHD. Yet it's one of the most highly trafficked drugs on college campuses. Bottom line is that some states have stiffer penalties then others that have decriminalized certain drugs. Why is there such a lack of continuity? Not just among the smaller communties that forge this nation, but among the international community? Why do certain European countries have practically no drinking age? The answer is long winded, but I'll add finding the answer to my list of suggestions I've already given you. Bottom line is access to a variety of drugs, the purchase, and the consumption of these drugs will never cease, unless of course we become subject to a totalitarian government that monitors the activities of every citizen.

Bottom line is, there are no objective laws and justifications for you to ascribe to. Illegal one place is decriminalized in another is legal in another is glorfied in another. Thats not just with drugs. I always took this basic truth for granted, but now I see that objectivity (typically spawning from religious ideals) is a threat all too real.

If you managed to read this far, congratulations. Make sure to take the time to reply. I'd hate to see such an effort fall upon the 'deaf, dumb, and blind.'

[nconcklin]

Meh, its no generalization to say that illegal drug users are criminals, now is it?

They are only criminals under paternal law. A businesswoman who enjoys a joint in the privacy of her home after a long days work harms no one, except (depending on what perspective you adopt) herself. Our federal government sees this harm to the self as enough motive to take action and prosecute this person as a criminal (a criminal that can potentially serve more time then a rapist). In Alaska this is not seen as a crime. Nor is it seen as a crime in New York state.

So yes, it is a generalization.

[UrQuattro]

see both sides of the argument here; an increase in taxable domestic product as well as an increase in foreign trade would be positive. but regular drug use does make people lethargic....it's scientific fact. productivity would fall leading to a rise in uneployment and a steep rise in taxes. if youre going to be an economist, examine the ebb AND flow.

well, yes, there are many studies that have been done which link certain drugs with an amotivational syndrome of sorts/ but how do you respond to the fact that data collected from various international and domestic sources which relate to the statistics of drug use, abuse and addiction in nations where these narcotics have been legalized, or at minimum, decriminalized, indicate that there is a negligable increase in use of drugs in general, and that there is a significant drop in hard drug usage. the most important aspect: a signifant descrease in the number of drug users who are addicted to the point of requiring intervention (through therapy, govt. sponsored distribution programs, etc), as well as a MUCH lower rate of usage in those under the age of 18 indicates the contradiction in expected drug usage trends following relaxation of prohibition laws to be a correlation strong enough to use as a predictive measure of the policy's success in other regions. The best examples of this are the netherlands, portugal, spain, (great britain has some data similar to this now), greece, etc, as they have enacted these sorts of programs on a fully national level.

Associated crime (esp. violent) has nearly disappeared, and the quality of life for those who were otherwise unnecessarly exposed to health risks and other vectors of mortality improves dramatically through a much lower rate of hiv infection, participation in crime, and a much greater acceptance in to the society surrrounding them.

Economically, and i now speak of the united states, the burden of prohibbition is a major impediment to overall fiscal health and concurrent redistribution of tax-revenue based upon relattive priority for the society as a whole. Tens of billions of dollars are specifically budgeted for the national 'war on drugs' through the central government, and hundreds of billions of dollars more are spent trying to enforce the federal laws regarding intoxicants.

So much of this is the cost of supplying law enforcement with enough money to have adequate weaponry, training, manpower and PR campaigns. Additionally, the money funds the housing of the majority of the 2+ million prizoners that are serving time domestically. amazingly, the majority of the drug offenders that are in custody are due to non-violent offenses, such as possession, dealing, transportation, and the various levels of monetary based crimes that are on the books. Approximately 1mil people are arrested for marijuana offenses alone each year, half of these are simple possession. With the current system of mandatory minimums, not only have Judges been stripped of a massive amount of their duty in regards for administering an appropriate punishment to the individual situation, but they are subject to a massive amount of political pressure due to the jingoistic propoganda that has been displayed to the US population as 'Scientific Fact/Proof' and are therefore in a compromised position to maintain impartiality.

As people who are otherwise not involved in any sort of crime, let alone violent crime, are imprizoned, they are exposed to an element of criminal society and psychology which they would have otherwise never been a part of. They leave the institutions with a significantly augmented base of understanding for the successful strategies regarding the crimes which will help protect them from getting caught as easily as well as softening their old moral judgements to facilitate a moving of those lines that governed their criminal behavior in the past, and statistically, there is a correlation between repeat offenders and an increase in the violent crime.



yes, and for ever successful drug user there are thousands of burnouts and junkies. this isnt a good argument.

unfortunately, neither is your argument a strong one. it is a bit of hyperboly, as a matter of fact. The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of those who have used drugs are fully functional members of society. Studies, surveys, and census data which have been compiled and analyzed suggest that the only commonly used drug which has an addiction rate over 50% is, in fact, tobacco. The addiction rate of the overal using population is 88%. Opiates (including heroin - which is diacetyl-morphine - chemically..) have a rate of approximately 42%, alcohol is about 38%, stimulants (including MDMA, methamphetamine, caffeine, amphetamines, cocaine, etc etc) is about 24%, while hallucinogens and pot share a rate of 11%. I concede that the characteristics of the addictions to different categories of drugs are not equivelent in either social or medical impact.

The counterpoint to the latter sentence is the fact that the rate of actual drug usage is inversely correlated to the addictive potential of the specific chemical - with exception given to alcohol (where approximately 95% of adults have used alcohol at least once) and tobacco (which, if i can remember correctly, is approximately 65-70% of adults). Marijuana is the most commonly used illegal drug, at about 45% or so...



id be up for reading an accurate breakdown of how being a pothead made you a better salesman. just for my own curiosity.

well, i can briefly describe how my pot usage while being employed as a car salesman (selling audi, vw, volvo, mazda - so, fairly high end middle range cars, with an emphasis on the audi/vw customer base for my job). i was more than successful within a couple weeks of having started the job, and was ranked #2 salesman at the dealership within 2 months of having started there (it was my first sales job, and was told that i should not take the first few weeks, or even possibly the first couple months as an indicator that i wouldnt succeed, as it was expected that i not make a net profit for the dealership during that time. I made 3500 dollars my first month, and averaged about 5300 dollars, with my best month being just under 7000 dollars - at the age of 19-20. My best months were the times when i was actively partying at night and indulging in a fair amount of alcohol, tobacco and pot, with the occasional psychedelic trip throwwn in for good measure. I found that, prior to using, i was a bit more hesitant to approach someone, had the perspective of someone who expected to be rejected embarrassingly by the customer, and lacked a lot of subtlety regarding my negotiation skills. When i would get high, and reflect about what i could improve upon as far as my sales methods, i would find that i would have insights in to the interpersonal interactions with my customers, and was able to think more divergently when formulating strategies. I did not, however, ever work while intoxicated - that would have been irresponsible given the fact that driving was an inherent part of the job. I left the dealership to start my own professional racing team - which was very successful, it was the first domestic race team in american history to get factory sponsorship from audi, and it was my very first venture in to auto racing... I was acting as the owner, publicist, and the backup driver. Eventually, i stopped using pot as it was not enjoyable to me anymore, and i continued on with my life, much better off than prior to it all.. but im not tryinng to say, either, that i am in any way a typical or average person, esp in this regard.

hopefully what i wrote was interesting enough for you to get through it. i welcome your response, and those of whomever else wishes.

thanks.

[UrQuattro]

I believe I echo the concerns of the community when I say…WHAT?! Any more statements like this one and I assure you no one will take you seriously. You’re treading on thin ice as it is. Buy a dictionary. Take a ‘Drugs & Society’ class at your local community college or something (typically a psychology or sociology course). Please.

i blieve that what was being said, with respect to drugs being a religion unto themselves is the very fervent defensiveness that is expressed by those who do use drugs, by those who are very anti-drug, and by those who are trying to get rid of the hyperbole on both sides of the conversation. there are a lot of views which can be considered dogmatic or at least fundamentalistic - people see value in exagerating their point to fallacy and forget the rational basis for the lack of real understanding present in the entire subject.

drugs are a very complex topic of study and are one of THE most important and fundamentally affective issues in the public forum today. not only do we currently have the capabilty to understand the pysiological occurences involved in the metabolism of these psychoactives, but there is a huge amount of tradition, morality, religious condemnation, and sociological forces that lead to the atmosphere of intolerance and fear that exists today... there are enough sources for the abstinence of drugs as to make anyone who needs an excuse to not get high feel as though they are not 'alone' and are supported by a population of 'like minded' individuals.

One must admit, too, that at least in western society, there is a definite marginalization that occurs when someone is discovered to have used/be using drugs at all - no matter how much of a success they are in life, or how much they are able to contribute to others. Only the abolute greatest examples of drug users in their respective fields are given the excuse of existence as an authority of aspiration 'despite' their admitted drug usage. Those who do not pioneer the bleeding edge of their chosen foci in life end up being lowered from their deserved pedistal and the idea of 'but think of how much better he/she would have done had they not used drugs.' I think that this attitude is partially responsible for the way that those who use drugs tend to associate with others who do, and those who abstain tend to associate with those who do likewise. The segregated strata of society that results ends up facilitating the enduring ignorance that underlies the hypocricy of preaching one's own personal choice as a judgemental view upon another's choice to make the same decision.

through this, over time, and without intervention aiming to reduce this fear, one may see how either side of the dividing line might be viewed as a religion of sorts, for it is assumed by many that a certain type of individual character be required to fall in to one side of the other.




Would you like to discuss the philosophy of law? If so I suggest you do research and attempt to forge an educated argument before supplying me with a rebuttal. Funny you mention the health factor, as there are many campaigns (by both state legislatures and private institutions) for the legalization of certain drugs BECAUSE of it's effects on health.

good example.

Your pristine concept of legislature and our federal administration is wholly ideal and unexposed to the large collection of variables that effect every decision, majority of which most of us will remain ignorant too.

well, the thing is that the fundamental principles upon which the government is founded are indellible and intended to be followed to the letter, or the government is guilty of overstepping its powers and shifting toward a totalitarian or fascistic philosophy of governing. i understand the point that you are making, but, especially for the central government, operating within the boundaries laid out by the constitution is absolutely vital for the continued health of the power structure as it was intended, as well as the preservation of the integrity of the established identity of our nation. without either of those, collapse of the us will follow, and leading that will be an implosion of public confidence in the capabilitiies of the leadership to police their own tendency to expand their powerbase through re-interpretation of the tenets of their establishmental laws.

i've done a fair amount of reading of the US Code, and of the constitution itself, and find that there is SO much inefficiency in the government due to the misunderstanding of the design of the constitution and its necessary flexibility through the addition of ammendments. through the set pathways of emendational power structures, the central govt is meant to be fairly limited on its executable authority, and especially due to the 9th and 10th ammendments acquiesce to the states and those who reside in them, for the retaining or discarding of specific rights not enumerated within the constitution (and not specifically prohibited by it) through state-level legislation. i see nothing in the constitution with allows the national government to regulate personal choices that do not lead to crimes of inherent nature to limit the capability of other citizens to exercise their own array of personal choices in life. of course, it is established that they may have the capability to punish and define criminal behavior, but it is supposed to be done within the bounds of the constitution and the enforcement of the perspective of acting in whichever direction will preserve the freedom of will for all those who wish to express it, and to restrict the expression of actions which will limit this freedom of the pursuit of one's happiness through the enumeration of them as criminal behaviors.

Have you EVER been to a major city? Alcoholism is rampant in the US. Most of our drug legislature is due to the bias exercises of one particular man for the better part of a century (look up Anslinger). Our government glorifies tradition, and fears what it considers drastic changes in it's administration of authority. Why do you think alcohol prohibition was such a horrid failure?

well, most of the drug laws were originally established through explicitly racist motivations. marijuana forbidden to hurt hispanic workers, opium and opiates to hurt the asian immigrants, and cocaine to hurt hispanic and black residents. i dont know my old reference list offhand, but i guarantee you that these are statements VERY well backed by historical documentation, and even the subsequent analyses from historians.



Bottom line is a lot of people have legal prescriptions to Adderall, a mild amphetamine used in the treatment of ADD and ADHD. Yet it's one of the most highly trafficked drugs on college campuses.

well, actually.... adderall is a combination of 4 different amphetamines: levo-amphetamine aspartate monohydrate , levo-amphetamine sulfate, dextro-amphetamine hydrochloride and dextro-amphetamine saccarate. the reason for the inclusion of the 4 different variations is the fact that the "levo" isomer and the "dextro" isomer react differently within the nervous system, as the 'levo' form is closer to naturally occuring, and the 'dextro' form is actually more psychoactive on a larger number of neurological systems and areas within the brain. The different salt variants are there to assist in the solubility at the normal pH of the body as well as to modify the metabolic half-life of the compounds. by doing this, you can have a single tablet that contains chemicals that are absorbed quickly and eliminated quickly, and also have ones that take time to process, but linger in the body for a greater period thereby facilitating a much more medicinal coursse of action that is also more stable in terms of the patient's mood and cognitive characteristics. it is, in my opinion, the most effective, and the best ADD/ADHD drug on the market today, and is much less subject to abuse than desoxyn(methamphetamine), dexadrin (dextro-amphetamine hydrochloride), or ritalin (methylphenidate). it has less of a 'rush' asociated with it, less euphoria (for most), and a lower detrimental impact on the physical health of the patient. I do not deny, however, that it is very subject to abuse by anyone who finds pleasure in it, but instead maintain that, comparatively, it has the best profile of efficacy and the best risk/benefit ratio.


good post.

[ZeroPointEther]

EXCESSIVE DRUG USE (which broad legalization WOULD exacerbate)

Nothing personal but that has been proven to be very untrue.

Marihuana use for instance is legal in Holland and there are less people catalogued there as regular pot smokers (meaning people who smoke it about once a week or more if I recall correctly) then in almost all other European countries where it is outlawed.

That whole argument proves how upside down everything is anno 2006. The argument has probably received tons of applause in drug debates all over, because nobody bothers to double check the facts.

BTW Does anyone know a site where you can enter a verb to check all it's derivatives (past tense etc.) because I suck at English grammar.

[praefector]

well, yes, there are many studies that have been done which link certain drugs with an amotivational syndrome of sorts/ but how do you respond to the fact that data collected from various international and domestic sources which relate to the statistics of drug use, abuse and addiction in nations where these narcotics have been legalized, or at minimum, decriminalized, indicate that there is a negligable increase in use of drugs in general, and that there is a significant drop in hard drug usage.



i would respond by requesting a link describing this study or its results. what you describe seems like it could be used to support new legislation.




Associated crime (esp. violent) has nearly disappeared, and the quality of life for those who were otherwise unnecessarly exposed to health risks and other vectors of mortality improves dramatically through a much lower rate of hiv infection, participation in crime, and a much greater acceptance in to the society surrrounding them.


sadly this doesnt explain away the drug-related deaths that involve no law enforcement...but i see where youre going and its very nice in theory. however, i dont think this could ever really be used as a platform for legalization.


Economically, and i now speak of the united states, the burden of prohibbition is a major impediment to overall fiscal health and concurrent redistribution of tax-revenue based upon relattive priority for the society as a whole.


itd be impossible to disagree with you here... but i should point out that the new revenues we gain could offset the domestic drug structure we already have...not that that is a BAD thing (the FDA needs to be destroyed -- im absolutely serious about this)






unfortunately, neither is your argument a strong one. it is a bit of hyperboly, as a matter of fact.


clear use of hyperbole, yes. but it doesnt change the argument.... i wouldnt call anyone who has posted in this thread "weak minded" which protects your collective brains from psychological dependency. many not so fortunate people are pulled into the lifestyle of excess through simple usage that becomes more and more frequent. if youre supposing the former outweighs the latter in this matter i believe youre mistaken.




well, i can briefly describe how my pot usage while being employed as a car salesman (selling audi, vw, volvo, mazda - so, fairly high end middle range cars, with an emphasis on the audi/vw customer base for my job). .

i cant understand why drugs would get the credit for you finally realizing some interpersonal talent inside yourself; but to each their own.

[tin foil hat]

its probably about some one in politics like say George bush or something but im not a very political person so I couldn’t think of an example from politics to use.
Like high level politicians who profit from illegal drug traffic e.g. Bush Sr.

[Finny]

ok first, let's get away from the nebulous and ill-defined term "drugs.." there are legal drugs and illegal drugs, and there are "hard," heavily phyiscally addictive drugs (both legal and illegal) and "soft" drugs which are mostly mentally addictive (again, legal and illegal).. so let's throw that term RIGHT OUT.

some people use drugs of all sorts as a means to escape reality.. whether it's the culturally accepted ones like alcohol or the unaccepted ones like pot et al.. but without drugs, the people who do this would STILL TRY TO ESCAPE REALITY, JUST BY USING DIFFERENT MEANS. my point is that it's a mentality, not the drugs themselves.

furthermore, i agree that hallucinogenic and psychedelic drugs (lsd, pot, dmt, salvia divinorum, peyote/mescaline, etc) don't do anything but bring out what's already inside.. they are a quick shortcut to the same sort of mental states acheivable by various occult and yogic practices.. (hence "prying open my third eye"). however, the states they evoke are not to be disregarded simply because they are brought on by chemically altered conciousness..

you're entitled to your opinion but i suggest that you not form an opinion from a perspective of ignorance. by this i am referring to your comment about brain cells in particular and your view of the effects of legalized drugs (look at the netherlands for some empirical data on this subject) in general. drugs like lsd and pot, the hallucinogens and psychedelics, do not kill brain cells. alcohol does. make of that what you will.

further still, who cares of it's wrong in the eyes of the law? embryonic stem cell research is wrong in the eyes of the law, gay marriage is wrong in the eyes of the law, and if a certain segment of the population gets its way, abortions will be wrong in the eyes of the law.. as long as a person is hurting no one besides his- or herself, the government should have no say in the matter.

also i don't think you know what you're talking about re: the economy. legalizing all drugs would literally DOUBLE the amount of taxable exchanges in this country. secondly, "the world" is not going to get addicted to cocaine if it's legalized. it was legal until some time in the 19th century, if memory serves. the idea that "everyone will walk around stoned" is typical of the anti-drug hysterias of the past. do people walk around dead drunk all the time? some, yes, but by and large, no. and we have laws against doing it, so why wouldn't we have similar laws against being stoned/tweaked/whatever while driving or in public?

i think you've misinterpreted the direction of the criticism in the song.. it's not aimed at drug users, but rather at the government and the hypocrisy of allowing potentially very harmful drugs like alcohol and nicotine while banning the use of potentially extremely useful psychoactives such as lsd and mdma (read up on the studies of timothy leary et al to see what i mean).

there are dangers involved in using any drugs, legal or otherwise, but who the fuck is the government to step in and protect us?

Do what thou wilt.


nice post...

[gabis]

I would just like to submit that, in my opinion, the reason most teens(and younger) start using drugs is due to a) lack of understanding of what drugs really are, what they do, and actual reasons why they shouldnt be using them instead of fear tactics. Parents fear bringing up the subject, much like sex. This leads us back to the primal 'forbidden pleasure' fiasco which typically leads to over-indulgance. In my eyes this is caused in large part by b) the fact they are illegal to begin with.

When I was in Italy, where alcohol is legal at pretty much any age, I found that the vast majority of teens really didnt drink. I was 17 at the time, and the fact that I could go to a bar and order a shot of jack and a pint of newcastle was mindblowing. I found out very quickly, though, that even to the kids my age drinking too much was frowned upon very highly. I have many cousins I was hanging out with, and lots of their friends, and they all definitely drank less than 75% of people I went to school with. This was undoubtedly due to the fact that they had been able to drink freely from a young age if they wanted to.

Now, having been of legal age for a few years, I completely understand the mindset they were in. Its not a big deal. My 17 year old self could drink my 23 year old self under the table and still beer bong a couple of 40s. I no longer even enjoy getting that drunk, it seems ludicrous, and I get fairly annoyed with some of my friends who get overly drunk at bars and such. On occassion, whatever, go all out, do your thing, but taking anything to the extreme frequently is a bad idea.

Also, when you talk about legalization effecting crime you are backwards I think. It seems to me that completely removing possesion, sale, or possibly(but not likely) production of illicit drugs as criminal offenses you are going to see an instant drop in statistical 'crime rate'. Now I know, thats kindve a backwards shady way to make a point, but also consider that all of the profits from cultivation and sale of drugs are due mainly to their status as illegal. Making them legal regulates their sale while also regulating the quality of the drugs making drug use safer for everyone. Now, this would really only fuel the pharmecutical dynasties we have established in this country full of legal and prescription drug addicts as they would instantly jump into this emerging market. Their existing status as a reputable company combined with their manufacturing, distribution, and marketing capabilities would almost instantly drive out the criminal element. But thats a whole other thread...

Anyways, ranted a bit more than I intended and I apologize. This is only my opinion, everyone is entiteled to their own. There is no definitive right or wrong, the quicker we all learn this the better off we will be. You must also forgive me for any blatent typos and such, I am dead tired and this red/black scheme really messes with my mild color-blindness.