I think this song has to be about the War on Drugs (i.e. the War on Personal Freedom -- thank you, Bill Hicks). The song is clearly about hypocrisy -- I think we can all agree on that -- but why the double entendre? The pot calling the kettle black is pretty cliché, and I don’t see Tool doing that without actually relating the song to marijuana in some way.

Additionally, we all know how much Tool loves Bill Hicks, and this was one of his favorite topics (one of my all-time favorite Hicks quotes was “That’s an egg, that’s a frying pan, that’s a stove, you’re an alcoholic . . . Dude, I’m tripping right now, and I still see that’s a fucking egg”). I’m surprised no one has (to my knowledge) pointed this out yet.

(Side note: Did any other Bill Hicks fans love the “stealth banana” reference in “Rosetta Stoned”?)

The hypocrisy to which this song refers (and this is my opinion, but I’m personally convinced) is that of a government which allows and even participates in the everyday use of one drug -- alcohol* -- while condemning the use of several others, including marijuana. The kangaroo imagery probably does refer to a kangaroo court (look it up if you’re still unclear on this subject), which makes a lot of sense in a country that has mandatory minimum sentences. The kangaroo is the government, he’s as guilty as anyone else (how many politicians don’t drink?), and he’s stoned. “Stoned” can refer to drunkenness (not very often today), but I think that word was chosen (along with, of course, “high”) to show that there’s not really a lot of difference between alcohol and marijuana (many will make the argument that marijuana is actually safer, but that’s beside the point). This song, in my admittedly amateur opinion, is an attack on a twenty-plus-year government condemnation of “drugs” while practically endorsing alcohol.

*Okay, there’s tobacco, etc. But I think they’re principally concerned with booze here.

-A

PS - To anyone who thinks this is about Bush, you must be sooo hiiigh.

I think your interpretation is pretty spot on, at least its what it appears the song is about to me. Does anyone else get the feeling though that Maynard and the rest of tool are probably too intelligent to honestly believe that all drugs should be legalized? Yes the WAR on drugs is a joke, but some of them have to be legal and others illegal. Crystal meth, heroin, and crack (to name a few) are insanely addictive, insanely destructive, and by my estimation should not be legal. i wouldnt want my little brother or sister being able to buy these things when they turn 18 or 21 or whatever. lets face it the government has a legitimate interest in eliminating (some) of these worthless substances.

why does at least one tool fan think every song is about drugs
not meaning you, just sayin'

ps) i like michael moore.
actually, i like Dylan Avery even more.

is stealth banana from the bit where he was saying if you can drop a bomb down an air shaft shouldn't you be able to shoot food at hungry people??? great bit.....

it has to be partially about pot in some way... i mean... does not maynard yell "ganga police" at one point?

Yeah. "The Stealth Banana . . . Smart fruit!"

Always fun to see an argument in the form of "Only a moron would believe X, you're not a moron, are you?" I have a newsflash for you: your little brother or sister can buy heroin or crystal meth RIGHT NOW. (I don't know their ages, so obviously not if they're infants) Making drugs illegal, even the bad ones, produces only one reliable result: It makes the illegal drugs more expensive and therefore more profitable for those willing to skirt the law. Our society is predicated on the idea that the government doesn't have the power to tell us what to except in certain specific areas. I've done pot despite the fact that it's illegal but I don't do heroin because of the big downside. Legality doesn't enter into the equation.

Theres nothing moronic about it, and i wasnt trying to insinuate that there was. It just seems that its a cop out and a cliche to decry the war on drugs, without looking at the reality that the drugs really are dangerous and need to be regulated. in effect i feel like people think its the "cool" thing sometimes to be against the war on drugs. And you have a point legality doesnt really ever enter into my mind either, in fact it was far easier to find pot back when i was in high school than it was to get alcohol. have you ever seen what meth does to people? no mind expanding, no positivity, nothing redemeable about it, just death. For plenty of people with jobs, and families legality does enter into the equation and for those kind of highly addictive drugs i believe we should keep them regulated just for that reason. again just my opinion, wasnt calling anyone a moron.

I was paraphrasing your argument to put it in its generic form. Here's what you said

So they're "too intelligent" to "believe that all drugs should be legalized". So I suppose I and those like me are therefore insufficiently intelligent because we believe the government has no place regulating the consentual activities of adults. What should the government proscribe next "for our own good", to help protect us helpless little lambs? Eating poorly and not exercising is probably not as short-term lethal as a meth overdose but affects a much larger segment of the population - perhaps we should have the government regulate our diets and force us to exercise "for our own good".

I think it should be 100% illegal for me to FORCE someone to take crystal meth, but I don't think it should be illegal for ME to take crystal meth - although I do think it would be stupid of me to do so.

While I'll grant you there are not likely many "high-functioning" crystal meth addicts out there, there's all kinds of things that will hurt you if you use them wrong. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has been granted the power to protect people from themselves and as the 10th Amendment makes clear, any powers not *specifically* granted to the federal government are the domain of the states or the people. If anyone wants to criminalize a substance, they must AMEND the Constitution in order to stay within the rule of law (See: 18th Amendment) and even then it can turn out to be a miserable failure (See: 21st Amendment).

The solution to crystal meth zombies is education and treatment, but ultimately you can't criminalize suicide.

But then again, the fact that I feel this way demonstrates my lack of intelligence.

Well first, I'm not in need of a constitutional primer as im actually in the midst of finishing my first year of law school. (insert whatever witty joke about lawyers you have here). What you seem to be ignoring is that the regulation of these drugs isnt just to protect the safety of those who would take them, its to protect other innocent people in society who can be effected by them. I hardley think regulation of unhealthy foods or exersice is analagous at all becaue those things do not harm others. Unlike drug addicts who turn to crime, neglect their childern, etc. but someone as "intelligent" as you would obviously see that flaw in your reasoning. ( i tried to say earlier i wasnt attempting to offend or call anyone a moron i just worded my argument wrong, but since you insist i guess we will go there).
Additionally since your so concerned about government interference in our private lifes isn't it the least bit disconcerting to you that you are backing an idea that would allow the government to make BILLIONS of dollars by selling its own people poison? doesn't the government sell us enough shit, as it is without allowing them to profit from this too? yes lets just sit back, legalize it up and let people do as they will, while the government gets even more filthy rich by exploiting human zombies. Good solution. I recognize the criminal aspect of the drug trade leads to alot of crime and the like but legalization doesnt seem like a rational solution to me. Like you said treatment and education are EXTREMELY important.

Interesting theory.. i am not convinced however.

Your argument has a number of flaws.

Healthy eating and exercise are directly related to the general concept of "health" - your health is of utmost concern to me. Unhealthy people spread disease and raise insurance premiums.

Having established that, our government already makes a killing from ALCOHOL and TOBACCO, two very addictive and destructive substances. I fail to see how the current model of "regulation" for those two substances is different than the black market. Realistically, alcohol and tobacco are not regulated. I can buy enough booze to drink two horses to death and the lady at the liquor store won't say boo.

Hrm, comments about our government selling poison always flash the words "REAGAN - NICARAGUA - CRACK" in my mind. I wonder why...

Would you rather continue with the current plan of "spend $30+ billion a year and get nowhere?" Would our government making some extra $$$ and using those funds on treatment and education be a bad thing?

This concept of drugs being "poison" is tied to two factors: abuse and black market distribution. Both of these are health problems and should be treated as such. Alcohol abuse is a problem - when are we going to start raiding trailer parks and arresting the mulleted NASCAR crowd? I don't know for a fact, but I would put a sizeable wager on the idea that many of the deadbeat parents in this country are alcoholics, not potheads, cokeheads, methheads, or Deadheads.

I agree that treatment and education are of critical importance. It is unfortunate that we don't practice either of these in our society. Incarceration is always favored over treatment and drug education is a joke. "Drugs are bad, mmm'kay?" is the best anti-drug message I've heard in years and it was on fucking South Park.

If one were extremely cynical (I tend to be), one could say that the practice of the government becoming filthy rich by exploting human zombies is called "politics". Treating drug abuse as a political issue, as opposed to a health issue, is exploitation at its worst.

Thanks for reading. Criticisms are always welcome.

since we are pointing out flaws....( Note: seriously this is pretty funny cause im SO not anti drug...i am simply aware that much of america is probably far to irresponsible or wise to abstain or limit their use of certain drugs...and yes there is a public interest in regulating these substances.)

overweight and people who dont exercise dont spread disease....as far as i can tell? they get heart disease, or diabetes, or suffer strokes...these things are not contagious or dangerous to the public as a whole. they may raise insurance premiums though so point taken there.

your right the gov makes a pretty penny taxing alcohol and tabacco, and we could debate further regulation of those which may or may not be a good idea. are you honestly comparing nicotine and alcohol with meth, cocaine, and heroin? the destructive potential of those is far quicker and far more severe. (use alchohol a few times a week and youre ok....use meth a few times a week and your headed for fast trouble....this is retardedly obvious)

i already said the war on drugs was a joke above, i dont wanna keep wasting money on that. How does that lead to a conclusion that we need to legalize though? the war on drugs and legalization are two very differnt concepts.

the poisonousness of the drugs mentioned (not POT, not SHROOMS, and NOT acid, all of which i would have no problem with legalizing probably) comes from their highly addictive potential, which you call abuse. you are right abuse is what makes em poisonous and the drugs i named coke , meth , and heroin, are particularily addictive and dangerous, hence they are abused far more than others. Consult some scientific literature.

Any responsible drug user will freely admit that those drugs should not be widley used by anyone who can get their hands on them especially not those who are young and particularily vulnerable to peer pressure, etc or other jackass knuckleheads. legalizing them potentially exposes those groups to more and cheaper access to those particular drugs.

your cynicism is probably well founded. Politics is a dirty dirty game. (Further check out a country such as amsterdam which has decriminalized/legalized soft drugs, but leaves hard drugs illegal and combats them with treatment and education as well as legal penalties. This seems to work pretty well, and its a much more reasonable idea than the legalization of all drugs) blah whatever this is old ,apparently no one has another idea other than legalize em all get the government out of it

Well, I can't speak about Meth, as it's almost nonexistant in europe. Bute H? Well, as strange as it might sound, that drug's actually pretty harmles. The true dangers of Heroin use are needle sharing, and all the poison mixed in to raise the profit marges. Sure, it's addictive as hell - but most junkies would be able to lead rather productive lives, if you'd let them. Look at the projects in the Netherlands and Switzerlands, that give out "real" (and pure) H to junkies instead of methadon. It works.

Other innocent people can be affected (not effected) by lots of things and when that happens we have laws to deal with those situations - as we would no longer be dealing with what one consentual adult does to himself. Neglecting your children is legitimately illegal, as is robbing someone to support one's habit.

I fail to see a flaw, as my argument centers around the non-coercive activities of adults and doesn't relate one iota to actual crimes being commited against others. Making things illegal because they may lead to actual offenses against others is a slipperly slope - let's just stick to making things illegal where there is a victim other than the offender.

Nice straw man argument, but I didn't say that. Now, you could argue that the government would tax the sale of these substances (as with beer and cigarrettes), but that leads to an argument against taxation.

Again, an argument against the government selling us shit in the first place. I can't think of any nationalized industries off the top of my head, however, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. I gather you think it sounds absurd on its face to "sit back, legalize it and let people do as the will", but I have exactly the opposite opinion and we're not likely to convince one another. We may be able to agree on the harm caused by the governement "get(ting) filthy rich by exploiting human zombies", but to me that's a call to arms to get the government out of the business of doing THAT, not an argument against legalization.

The bottom line is that the criminalization of drugs (and other things, like gambling and prostitution) would appear to do more harm than good or is, at the very least a wash, except for the enormous cost of enforcement.

Some people just can't shake the propaganda out of their systems...

Why should the legalization of a drug result in increased use and why would it make it easier for youth to obtain drugs?

The way I see it, you legalize a drug and tax it. Use the tax revenue to educate the population on the effects of the drug and pay for medical costs resulting from its use. Legal mass-produced drugs will be cheaper and of higher quality than the illegal shit sold on the streets, dropping profit margins and killing the street trade. Without street dealers, the only way to aquire the drug is by buying it from the government, which regulates use and restricts access based on age. Just like alcohol, the drug becomes MORE difficult for youth to obtain. Of-age citizens purchase the drug from a consistent, safe source that can monitor for unsafe addicts and see to it that they get medical attention. As is, we spend billions trying to achieve the impossible, and then spend billions more on medical costs resulting from unsafe drug use.

Addiction is inevitable. Addicts are not criminals. Addiction is a medical issue and needs to be treated as such. So let's kill like eight birds with one stone and stop trying to criminalize personal morality.

So who are these wise men who will lead us poor idiot masses? Is there a test I can take to opt out of the government sticking its nose into my personal business?

PS: You keep doing it, so I can't resist giving you a tip: "your" is the possessive form of "you" and "you're" is a contraction of "you are". I try to avoid being pedantic, but this is a pet peeve up there with "there", "their" and "they're".

Well i guess we will just have to agree to disagree, figured it was an interesting debate either way. I highly doubt the effects of legalization in practice are very predictable by either of us anyway. Also if the legalization of drugs is such a grand idea, and drug use is a victimless crime as you portray it, why do the VAST majority of countries legislate HARD drugs ( im assuming as i dont know exactly how many do but its pretty safte to say its in the 90 percent range i would guess???). I guess you would say all these people are wrong, and just because a majority of countries do it why should we, and that once slavery was the law or something along those lines blah blah blah. You concede nothing and your arguments are obviously one sided.

1.) I've noted i support the legalization of so called "soft" drugs
2.) conceded the war on drugs is unecessarily expensive, and generally retarded
3.) conceded education and treatment are hugely important

Unfortunately it's people like you who actually do a disservice to those of us who would LIKE to see "soft" drugs legalized by pushing for an all or nothing approach that only a tiny minority of people think makes any sense. Only 36 percent of americans want marijuana legalized as it is ( yeah polls suck, whatever). You're more concerned about government regulation of our private lives than thinking about if what you're advocating is wise public policy. "its my body its my choice i can do what i want, it doesnt hurt anyone but me" start living in the real world. You should become a politician and convince people of your profound public policy stance. good luck.

(YOUR ( haha did i get it right) grammar is amazing BTW, sorry mine is shit)

...
Actually, suicide IS illegal...
Obviously not easily enforced, but you'll be arrested if you're caught attempting it by and large. Even if it leads to a mental institution and not jail.

Really? There's a federal law in the US against suicide? Whoo. What's the punishment?

Actually, suicide is the only crime (in the US, at least) for which you can be punished if you attempt it, but not if you succeed in committing it.

I'll throw my hat in the War on Drugs ring later . . . busy with work.

My grammer was indeed an amazing woman. On the serious side, I have also enjoyed our debate. I hope you realise I understand your position. Also, point well taken: I tend to argue from an almost anarchocapitalist or anarcholibertarian viewpoint but at the end of the day must concede that a great many people ARE sheep and quite enjoy being so. (So much less pressure than making your own decisions and taking responsibility for them.)

My fear is that unless some indisputably omniscient and supreme being deigns to come down from on high to provide the appropriate level of guidance for each person's own personal responsibility quotient, many government interventions are going to ultimately be carried out by *other* highly falliable human beings.

So there will be bright spots (the almost miraculous improvement of the lives and longevity of the common man ushered in by rule of law and free markets) and the downsides (the Holocost, etc. etc. ad infinitum) All we can do is continue to make our meager contributions and muddle through.

Rest assured that when talking to folks who are skeptical of even marijuana reform, my lead argument is not "legalize crack!" - so we're more on the same page than this debate might otherwise suggest.


Also: Lawyer joke: Did you hear they've started using lawyers instead of rats in laboratory experiments? Three reasons: 1) There are more lawyers. 2) The lab technicians don't get as attached to them, and 3) Frankly, there are some things even a rat won't do. (Via my sister who is a lawyer)

werd

The whole concept of regulation based on 'potential harm' is a farce.

It shouldn't. Are all of us who don't do coke all going to go out and do a few lines tomorrow if it's suddenly legalized? . . . I didn't think so.

Also, speaking of coke: I know someone earlier mentioned it was a highly addictive substance. This isn't entirely correct. While many people experience a high psychological addiction (just like one can to masturbation or bad TV or Tool), cocaine lacks physical withdrawal symptoms and is therefore by definition not an addictive substance. Go ahead, look it up.

And no, I've never done it. I just know that science says it's not physically addictive, so please don't come back and accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about. Just pointing out the facts here.

Absolutely correct about the psychological vs. physiological addiction of cocaine. Does that make it any less addictive though? Yeah it doesnt have nasty physical withdrawl when you stop a la heroin, but the urge to do it is just as great.

Also "The whole concept of regulation based on 'potential harm' is a farce.".....there are too many things to list that are regulated based on potential for harm, from little things such as speeding (greater potential for accidents if you speed), to the regulation of Hazardous chemicals (potential for pollution if not used correctly etc) to Drunk driving ( most drunk drivers that are arrested havnt crashed but its their high potential for accidents that leads us to regulate the activity of drunken driving.) Simillarly drugs are regulated for their potential for abuse, their physical harms, and their contribution to crime.

Do you guys think people should be able to buy any prescription drug they want? at least those have theraputic value. (yes i am aware cocaine and heroin derivatives were/are used in theraputic settings)

Has anyone considered the potential litigation drug companies would face if hard drugs were legalized and sold by them. If a drug dealer sells to someone and that person OD's he or she can be held liable in america. Even with legal products sellers of abnormally dangerous products are held strictly liable for the harms they cause. ( policy being those who profit from dangerous things should bear the cost of their harms....which makes sense) The potential for lawsuits against drug companies if these drugs were to be legalized is staggering...family members of anyone who died while taking them could sue and recover. this would (probably, if it follows the trend of other industries) raise the price of the drugs to cover the cost of litigation thus opening back up the possibilty of a black market where the drugs could be obtained on the cheap. I guess just more random crap to think about. Those who think certain drugs should be kept illegal are no more sheep than those who blindly jump on the legalization bandwagon cause their favorite band, or friend thinks its a good idea. Think for yourself.

Then where should the line for 'potential' be drawn, hypocrite? That social need outweighs the liberty of the individual is the train you are on, and if so keep trucking all the way to China. We currently aren't regulating a damn thing, the pushers are. So we still do MORE potential harm by allowing a black market to thrive than to regulate a legal substance, regardless of what it might be.

As long as there is an appetite for it, people will find ways to get it because it does what they want it to do. By making a differentiation between 'soft' and 'hard' you really only make the 'bad' drugs worse.

I think it would be a good idea.
there's me thinking for myself. I just bought another pack of cigarettes today.
I still can't figure out what the positive effect that they provide to a smoker which warrants them being legal while pot is not.
I'd love for someone to answer this for me.
I think those that blindly accept this double standard are the worst.

I use both. I would rather be able to purchase a joint than cigarettes at my local gas station.
Is there someone else that would be affected by me being able to make that decision that I dont know about?
I smoke pot about once every couple of months or so lately since it is not at all convenient to obtain in this frigid hellhole. during those times, pretty much every aspect of my life is enhanced.
cigarettes do nothing but make me poorer.
to me, the hypocrisy of these laws are painfully obvious.

This is very basic.
People should have the freedom to do whatever they want, be it smoke crack or drink hairspray or eat 5 pounds of bacon for dinner.
You can't leave it up to the government to decide which drugs to legalize and which not too, you can't let anyone decide what another person can do with their own body. If you don't own that what do you own?
What can be done is honest education (no fixed test results or manipulated statistics, no language of hysteria) and let people make their own choices.
I can see why this seems so unrealistic and extreme to some but it seems to me to be a logical extension of individual freedom. The way to protect people is to teach them the consequences of certain behaviors and practices. That's where it ends. Whatever choices we make should be ours. We need to live and let live.
I'm not an insensitive person, by any means, but if people kill themselves then people kill themselves. That is the price of freedom.
It's not like we have a shortage on humans.

1) Marlboro, RJ Reynolds, etc.
2) Arguably Anheuser-busch., Coors-Molson, Bacardi, etc.
3) Arguably Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, etc.

Lobbyists. Big $$

One of the biggest reasons marijuana is illegal is these very companies you're speaking of.

It's difficult to grow tobacco on your own property, and even more difficult to create an alcoholic drink. It's not very hard to grow yourself a marijuana plant. This is one of the big incentives for these companies to keep the drug illegal, since they stand to make a helluva lot less profit if it's legalized.

That's the idea I was going for

I think that's what he was saying, your "news break" was just an add-on.

Ah, I'm sorry. I thought you were suggesting those companies would stand to profit off the legalization.

Nah, we're on the same page...although I don't know of specific companies that would be in a similar position as those, undoubtedly the whole prison-industrial complex stands to lose out big time if there was a legalization/decriminalization of marijuana (I support the Amsterdam, soft-drugs approach). For my speech class a couple years ago I talked about this. I could go dig up the particular statistics I used, from NORML and FBI and other government data, about the millions of people incarcerated each year for possession alone; the huge increase in prison population over the past 3-4 decades and the percentage that are non-violent drug offenses; the money spent by local, state, & federal enforcement efforts (that should be delegated to serious issues, i.e. the meth epidemic & not busting Tommy Chong); the court costs of trying these cases & the subsequent cost of housing these inmates each year, etc. The economic cost is giant. I do remember coming to a rough estimate of about $50 Billion/Year that legalization could allow for the US based on eliminating the aforementioned costs, and then factoring the amount of money that could be made by regulating it, taxing it, selling it, the whole deal.

As much as System of Down has progressively sucked more & more imo, they did have a good basic quote in Prison Song...something like "All research on effective drug policy shows that treatment should be increased, law enforcement decreased, while abolishing mandatory minimum sentences"...sounds pretty fair to me

Yeah.
I guess what I meant to say is if there was anyone that would be affected by my decision that I would mind affecting.

I don't care about them much.

There are definitely grounds to this interpretarion, but I think it also convolutes a bunch of lines' potential meaning.

If this is a good interpretation:

what is the significance of indigo?

Why is it alcohol in particular, there are no references to it?

'Steal, borrow, reap and save your shady inference' how is it a scandel?

Why is this administration and not others that a guilty?

There seems to be emphasis that it is a single event 'out of this one' etc. That doesn't make conceptual sense with the drug policy.

As I look at it more all the possible references are more to hypocracy in general. There is no reason to assume Pot means anything but a reference to the pot calling the kettle black. May be this interpretation has to do with the prevalence of the drug culture in Tool's fans. I dunno as I have written this and looked closer, I am not buying it anymore.

Read it:

AIN'T NOBODY'S BUSINESS IF YOU DO
The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Country

I hope this isn't considered an advertisement... just a relevant suggestion.

The whole thing is available for free at
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/toc.htm

I agree with your over all point, though i'd point out meth is the same way, almost no physical withdraw....all mental.
anyways.
My personal opinion of this song is as follows.
i agree with anyone who says its about the drug war.

"Who are you to wave your finger?....fucking hippocrite" The anti-drug crowd

and thats my condensed view.

great song over all, 6:19 of it, I just cant stand the first 5 seconds or so, exactly how i felt with the grudge.

How d.a.r.e you’s talk about drugs without me?

Right now, “they” say “drugs are bad, and (pretty much) if you use them, you’re a loser”. Then these kids see people they know and trust using them, and being they don’t consider them losers or complete fuck ups like the gov would lead you to believe, they think the government is lying. So fuck it, why not try them? This more then likely will start with marijuana, being I really doubt that any student in any high school in the US, unless they’re not that social, can make it to graduation without being offered it.

We will never know what it would be like, if instead of the government generally speaking and saying “you will fuck up your life with these substances”, as opposed to “Ok it’s legal, you’re allow to do it, but these substances have a very high potential to fuck up your life and this is why”, instead of grouping them all together and making generalizations about them. We will never know, at least not in the US.

Would someone be more likely to try meth if the government throws bullshit rhetoric about it at every chance they get, or if they were honest about it? There are responsible meth users. Really.

I’m sure that most people here, who say they wouldn’t do it, aren’t stopping themselves because the government told them too; they’re not going to do it because of the dangers they’ve seen.

If heroin were legal, addicts would most likely never EVER have to steal to support their habits, because it would be that cheap. It comes from a plant.

Most people against legalization assume that so many more people are going to use these dangerous, highly addictive substances if they’re no longer illegal. It’s sounds reasonable, but how many people do you think are out there that would smoke crack tomorrow just because they wouldn’t get arrested for having it?

Chances are, we’re never going to find out.