# Hairy PotHead and the Marijuana Stone



## Guest (Sep 29, 2007)

NDP candidate hopes success of Mary Jane fantasy will see him rolling in it

Doug Ward, Vancouver Sun
Published: Friday, September 21, 2007

A federal NDP candidate has written a book that reads like something J.K. Rowling might have conjured up, if she smoked B.C. bud. It's called Hairy Pothead and the Marijuana Stone and features a character with the same name who lives an ordinary life until he's rescued by a biker, gets a glass bong and is taken to Cannabis Castle where he attends Hempwards School of Herbcraft and Weedery and smokes a tonne of marijuana. Sound vaguely familiar?

Dana Larsen has written his own version of the Harry Potter series. The potted parody of Rowling's hit Harry Potter series is written by Dana Larsen, the NDP candidate in the riding of West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast. Larsen has read all seven of the Potter fantasy novels and is a big Rowling fan. He acknowledges that others have called forth Harry or Hairy Pothead parodies, but said he's the first to roll the concept into a book.

Larsen's Hairy Pothead learns to play Qannabbi instead of Quidditch, meets Delirious Bake instead of Sirius Black -- and on it goes with other Rowlingesque characters such as Master Head Alwaze Duinthadope, Professor Moruvva McGanjagal and other stoner members of the Hempwards staff.

Larsen said he's not concerned Hairy Pothead might put off some voters who don't share his enthusiasm for weed and hemp. The New Democrat said he's always been upfront about his marijuana activism -- even during his nomination, which he won earlier this year by acclamation.

Larsen, 36, manages the Vancouver Seed Bank, which sells marijuana seeds by mail order. He is the former editor of Cannabis Culture Magazine. He is also a good friend and colleague of Marc Emery, the B.C.-based "Prince of Pot" who is being targeted by the U.S. federal government for selling marijuana seeds through the mail to U.S. customers. Emery edited and published Hairy Pothead.

Larsen's book is being sold in a magazine format, at $8.95, with an initial run of 30,000 copies. He said it will be available at both head shops and chain book stores. He said he hopes to follow Rowling's example and write sequels if his initial offering is popular. "If I attract only a tiny fraction of the audience Harry Potter got, then my book will be a bestseller."









http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=140d0d0a-1932-4c70-acad-335dc34d03c7
http://www.hairypothead.net/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUy6f6LVlBA


----------



## suttree (Aug 17, 2007)

see, it's people like this who give the world the impression that potheads will laugh at anything. 

sorry, great cause, looks like a crappy book.


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

That's why I don't vote NDP. What a moron. Makes me kind of embarrassed to be a BC resident...


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

He'd get my vote. But that has to do more with the fact that there has been no Rhinoceros Party for several years.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Stratin2traynor said:


> That's why I don't vote NDP. What a moron. Makes me kind of embarrassed to be a BC resident...



...conversely, this is the kind of irreverance that could convince me to vote ndp!!

-dh


----------



## Guest (Oct 2, 2007)

What a colossal WOMBAT


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

Hahahahah! About bloody time these politico's lighten up and get a sense of humor. He's got my vote! :smilie_flagge17:
(and I don't even touch pot myself)


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> What a colossal WOMBAT


Is that a good or bad thing? :smile:


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Paul said:


> http://rhinoparty.com/


Like, far out man !!!


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ne1roc said:


> Is that a good or bad thing? :smile:


...tasmanian devils like 'em a lot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wombat

-dh


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

I'm actually surprised a French Canadian didn't come up with a similar spoof a long time ago. 'Potter' to French speakers looks like a phonetic corruption of the French word for 'pothead'. My friends and I would actually joke about it whenever the book came up.


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

NB-SK said:


> I'm actually surprised a French Canadian didn't come up with a similar spoof a long time ago.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2007)

A WOMBAT is a "Waste Of Money Brains And Time".... 

How could it ever be a good thing?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> A WOMBAT is a "Waste Of Money Brains And Time"....
> How could it ever be a good thing?


...to those who dare to have an opinion contrary to yours, and with the courage to look beyond the obvious, quite easily:

"A federal NDP candidate has written a book that reads like something J.K. Rowling might have conjured up, if she smoked B.C. bud. It's called Hairy Pothead and the Marijuana Stone and features a character with the same name who lives an ordinary life until he's rescued by a biker, gets a glass bong and is taken to Cannabis Castle where he attends Hempwards School of Herbcraft and Weedery and smokes a tonne of marijuana. Sound vaguely familiar?"

...story of my life!

-dh


----------



## suttree (Aug 17, 2007)

so harper today announced his new drug policy. boy oh boy steve, way to distance yourself from the americans 

the american "war on drugs" has been lost. resoundingly. so let's hitch our wagon to it, eh stephen? i knew the americans would be lobbying hard to change the government's stance on drugs. and i knew harper would be just the toady they're looking for...


----------



## Tarbender (Apr 7, 2006)

After reading this, well... any one else got the munchies... who wants to split a SAD??????????


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

suttree said:


> so harper today announced his new drug policy. boy oh boy steve, way to distance yourself from the americans
> 
> the american "war on drugs" has been lost. resoundingly. so let's hitch our wagon to it, eh stephen? i knew the americans would be lobbying hard to change the government's stance on drugs. and i knew harper would be just the toady they're looking for...


Why does it have anything to do with the Americans? The power boys in Harper's party tend to be western conservatives. They're more likely socially to be Ned Flanders from the Simpsons types than partakers of BC bud. Wouldn't it make more sense that they would do this on their own? I think you're twisting a coincidence to fit your argument.

Besides, on this issue I'm a conspiracy nut!:smile: It's historical record that Al Capone and other bootleggers paid politicians to continue to support Prohibition. The last thing they wanted was to have booze become legal and wipe out their money tree!

I'm convinced the same thing is happening today, We're talking BILLIONS of dollars here! BC bud is the largest cash crop on the west coast. Cocaine is an industry in Florida perhaps 3 times bigger than anything legal!

Cops catch only a ridiculously small amount of drugs. They bust a grow op or two a year while there are literally hundreds more around any given city. Downtown Hamilton has crackheads all over the place, every single day of the week.

There's no way on earth that organized crime wants legalization. They have all the money they could ever need to place enough bribes to the right politicians to maintain the status quo.

Anybody with more than 3 functioning brain cells can see that prohibition tactics against lifestyle issues like drugs and prostitution can never work. So why do we still have them? Because stopping lifestyle "crimes" is not the real goal!

The real goal is simple politics. Most sensible folks know it's all a scam but it won't change their vote. Meanwhile, there is always a fair number of votes to tap from the Ned Flanders contingent who are naive enough to think that passing a law is the same as solving a problem. They will vote for parties like Harper's Tories when he enacts such anti-libertarian legislation. They have no idea of how the real world works. They just know that some politician appears to think the same way as themselves!

You can't take such tactics too far. If you start to get into religious matters you usually trigger a backlash from the real "silent majority". Most Canadians (and Americans too! Coincidence or conspiracy?) want governments to stay absolutely secular. They realise that if any one religion gained control over the legal system the first thing that would happen is laws favouring one religion over another and ALL religion over atheists and agnostics!

Stockwell Day found this out when he became head of the Alliance Party. John Tory just got a reality check here in Ontario over the faith-based schools issue during the provincial campaign.

My guess is that nothing much will really change. Tougher laws against dealers will be on the books but judges won't bother using them. We have tough laws against using handguns on the street but nobody actually applies them against criminals.

It's all just for show...


:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

suttree said:


> so harper today announced his new drug policy. boy oh boy steve, way to distance yourself from the americans
> 
> the american "war on drugs" has been lost. resoundingly. so let's hitch our wagon to it, eh stephen? i knew the americans would be lobbying hard to change the government's stance on drugs. and i knew harper would be just the toady they're looking for...


Suttree

C'mon. You can't be that naive. There has never been a "war on drugs".


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2007)

"There has never been a "war on drugs"."
You can't really be that naive.... Tell the billions of taxpayer $s spent on it that there's never been a war on drugs...

That's it has always been a total failure is impossible to dispute.

It matters not how many grow-ops are busted, or how many tons of coke are seized or how many addicted people are sent to already over-crowded prisons.... There has never been a single person with money in their hand* who wanted drugs who couldn't get drugs.

*And well if they didn't have money, there's plenty of other things they can do 'in exchange'....


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "There has never been a "war on drugs"."
> You can't really be that naive.... Tell the billions of taxpayer $s spent on it that there's never been a war on drugs...
> 
> That's it has always been a total failure is impossible to dispute.
> ...


Apparently you are that naive. Again...There has never been a war on drugs. There has been an entertaining dog and pony show but never a war on drugs. 

No matter how eloquently you state your position, it will have no effect on mine. Drugs are a multi-billion dollar business and there are as many "legitimate" people making money off of drugs as there are "criminals". Everyone wants a piece of the action. Peace


----------



## suttree (Aug 17, 2007)

stratin, i think this is a semantics difference, possibly. there is a real war on drugs, the americans are spraying paraquat on jamaica and columbia (inducing birth defects and more), they're shooting down boats and planes, and they're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on buying equipment to seize the incoming drugs. they're further spending trillions of dollars on incarcerating (mainly black and hispanic) non-violent drug users, who then become violent criminals in jail to survive. they also kill thousands of people, directly and indirectly. that doesn't sound like a "dog and pony show" to me. but hey, since my eloquence wont have any effect on your position, then i guess i'll stop addressing you on the topic. 

CH, i say that it's american pressure, because they have been placing a ton of very real political pressure on the canadian government to adopt their harsher position on drugs. they sent politicians and speakers out to refute the dutch government's experiences. of course big business is behind a lot of this, seagram's and the cotton grower's association and etc... the criminal element wants the status quo, too of course, it's the source of their massive profits. i understand these things, but i think that politically it's a great bugbear the law and order types ramp up to scare voters with, and to look like hawks. scaring the voters is an american tactic, and one that the power structures here in canada are very interested in adopting, as it allows for a wonderful dilution of civil liberties as well as he funds for a whole lot of big boys' toys.


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2007)

"they're shooting down boats and planes, and they're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on buying equipment to seize the incoming drugs. they're further spending trillions of dollars on incarcerating (mainly black and hispanic) non-violent drug users, who then become violent criminals in jail to survive. they also kill thousands of people, directly and indirectly"
And after all that they've never stopped ONE person who wanted to get high, from getting high.... 

"i guess i'll stop addressing you"
+1


"CH, i say that it's american pressure"
They sure do fear us Canadians... with our beady little eyes and our flapping heads... I think they're still smarting from what we handed them in 1812! LOL 


Drugs.... Drugs are great.... with enough drugs it's o.k. for a person to have open heart surgery.


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

First of all, let me apologize if I offended anyone (in particular suttree and ClintonHammond) with my "naive" comment. 

I am not a fan of the whole drug/lifestyle/choice debate. I shouldn't have gotten involved. IMO anyone importing or trafficking should be summarily executed. Peace


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Stratin2traynor said:


> First of all, let me apologize if I offended anyone (in particular suttree and ClintonHammond) with my "naive" comment.
> 
> I am not a fan of the whole drug/lifestyle/choice debate. I shouldn't have gotten involved. IMO anyone importing or trafficking should be summarily executed. Peace


Interesting position. Perhaps some day we can share a beer or other form of alcohol and further discuss it.:smile:

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## suttree (Aug 17, 2007)

Stratin2traynor said:


> First of all, let me apologize if I offended anyone (in particular suttree and ClintonHammond) with my "naive" comment.


no worries, i've got a pretty thick skin. it's a forum, i don't take this stuff personally. just that you said you were closed minded on the subject, so i really was responding for no reason. 



> I am not a fan of the whole drug/lifestyle/choice debate. I shouldn't have gotten involved. IMO anyone importing or trafficking should be summarily executed. Peace


kind of an odd sentiment to close on the word "peace", don't you think?


----------



## suttree (Aug 17, 2007)

Wild Bill said:


> Interesting position. Perhaps some day we can share a beer or other form of alcohol and further discuss it.


or a cigarette. or a valium. or an oxycontin, or in front of a television.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

I still find Cheech and Chong as funny as hell. And I haven't touched anything for 30 years. Had a student on placement with us last year, his name was Dave,.... I couldn't help it. Anytime someone asked for Dave, ... I couldn't help it.


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

WildBill - sounds great. 

Suttree - I have my own definition for peace. lol

Robert1950 - I still find Cheech and Chong flicks pretty funny.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

I have not doubt that some of thpse billions in drug money has bought a few politicians, judges, and police officers. Didn't a very high ranking member of the RCMP commite suicide in the 80's after his connections to the mafia were revealed by a hitman who had turned informer?

Cliftonhammond, someone is profiting from the 'war on drugs' just as they are profiting from the 'war on terrorism'.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2007)




----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2007)

"someone is profiting from the 'war on drugs'"
So, what you're p!ssed about is that they're not sharing their money with you??

Someone profits from everything. And more power to 'em.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

ClintonHammond said:


> "someone is profiting from the 'war on drugs'"
> So, what you're p!ssed about is that they're not sharing their money with you??
> 
> Someone profits from everything. And more power to 'em.


I'm not pissed. But, you need to remember that lots of nasty things are done in the 'war on drugs', like spraying toxic chemicals on the fields of poor coffee farmers because they began growing coca or opium poppies, consequently dooming them to starvation. Oh, but they are growing drugs. Well, it's not that simple. What they don't tell you on the news is that they wouldn't have begun growing drugs if they weren't already on the brink of starvation. They had no choice, and we are to blame for it. Simply put, it costs them more to grow coffee than what the multinationals are willing to pay them for it. Many large coffee manufacturers now use the cheapest available Southeast Asian coffee beans, beans that used to be unfit for the international market, for their canned coffee (ever seen 75 cents a pound coffee before it was roasted and ground? It's not pretty). That's why I try to purchase my green coffee beans from 'fare trade' sources. Hey, but at least they don't drop laser guided bombs on people at a wedding party when they try to catch drug dealers, right?


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Dave's not here man!


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2007)

"lots of nasty things are done in the 'war on drugs'"
Lots of nasty things are done everywhere, most often by people who claim to love the person they're hurting.... I don't have time or energy to give-a-sh!t about each and every individual case.... 

I'm not disagreeing... The war on drugs is a WOMBAT.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

ClintonHammond said:


> "lots of nasty things are done in the 'war on drugs'"
> Lots of nasty things are done everywhere, most often by people who claim to love the person they're hurting.... I don't have time or energy to give-a-sh!t about each and every individual case....
> 
> I'm not disagreeing... The war on drugs is a WOMBAT.


Sure, but I was just pointing out that those who claim to be standing on the moral highground are usually just standing on the slippery slope around it.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

NB-SK said:


> Sure, but I was just pointing out that those who claim to be standing on the moral highground are usually just standing on the slippery slope around it.


When I hear the term "War on Drugs". I think of a public service announcement featuring Laura Bush telling everyone that drugs are bad, bad, bad, and unamerican. Meanwhile, Mrs. Dubya's assistant has her gin and tonic with a slice of lemon waiting so she can throw it back as soon as the director says cut.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2007)

"moral highground"
There's no such thing...


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "moral highground"
> There's no such thing...


...and that, folks, is because mister hammond says so. period. end of discussion. don't even ask...

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> Someone profits from everything. And more power to 'em.



...two words: child pornography.

"more power to 'em"?

-dh


----------



## MaxWedge (Feb 24, 2006)

Where is the criminality in getting high. As many crimes are committed by sober follks as any. So maybe sobriety should be illegal. The whole idea of a war on drugs sicks me out. A war on drugs is a war on people. Where is the choices in our 'enlightened society'. I for one do not do well with the government's choice for getting high. I'll choose for myself what works best. I could go no and on.


----------



## Michelle (Aug 21, 2006)

MaxWedge said:


> Where is the criminality in getting high. .........


The worst thing about pot is that anyone can grow it for nothing, that means TPTB can't profit from the prohibition revenues, people start to think more independently and creatively - seeing thru the matrix of deception, use less alcohol, maybe even stop smoking tobacco, and it may cause some of them to stop using pharmaceuticals. THAT IS CRIMINAL!


----------



## MaxWedge (Feb 24, 2006)

Michelle, thankyou for the supportive view. A buddy of mine right now is dealing with cancer. It's not good, he's rough shape. Since getting his permit to use pot, he has cut his morphine by a half. His greatest fear is that the self righteous Harper bunch will take away his pot priviledges. So much for a compasionate Canadian government.


----------



## Michelle (Aug 21, 2006)

Hey Max; Sorry to hear about your friend. Glad you understood my sarcasm, I'm all for legalization. It really bugs me how some think they can tell me how I should live my life and what I can't do with my mind & body. I rarely listen, because 'they' lie.

I believe that most Canadians are either indifferent or supportive of decriminalization/legalization. :smilie_flagge17:


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2007)

"people start to think more independently and creatively"
I have never met a more cookie-cutter, uninspired lot than the chronic pot-smokers.... They make career alcoholics look like a diverse and prolific bunch.

"I'm all for legalization."
Hear hear!


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "people start to think more independently and creatively"
> I have never met a more cookie-cutter, uninspired lot than the chronic pot-smokers.... They make career alcoholics look like a diverse and prolific bunch.
> 
> "I'm all for legalization."
> Hear hear!


And remember drinking drivers kill at least 10x as many people as guns or who knows how many times more than a pothead behind the wheel. So don't go making comparisons with alcoholics - family breakdowns, violence, the billions of dollars a year than alcoholics cost the health care system. Chronic pot smokers are a drop in bucket right now compared to the damage done by alcoholics.


----------



## MaxWedge (Feb 24, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "people start to think more independently and creatively"
> I have never met a more cookie-cutter, uninspired lot than the chronic pot-smokers.... They make career alcoholics look like a diverse and prolific bunch.
> 
> "I'm all for legalization."
> Hear hear!


Geez Clint all I'm asking for is choice. I'll bet you wouldn't be anymore impressed with a drunk Max as a high Max. People are individuals.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "people start to think more independently and creatively"
> I have never met a more cookie-cutter, uninspired lot than the chronic pot-smokers....


...while that is probably true of many heavy tokers, it is still an unfair and ill-informed generalization.

i happen to know a number of "chronic pot-smokers" who are able to function, both physically and intellectually, far better than either you or i.

barry gibb (the bee gees), just to name one.

-dh


----------



## MaxWedge (Feb 24, 2006)

Eliminate choice and what you have left is a society that refers to each other as 'comrad'. There are always casualties when mind altering substances are used. I feel those casualties would be reduced if there were choices. The statistics on alcohol use would bear that out. That said. Ever hear a drunk argue. The stoners only arguement is what topping to put on the pizza.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...while that is probably true of many heavy tokers, it is still an unfair and ill-informed generalization.
> 
> *i happen to know a number of "chronic pot-smokers" who are able to function, both physically and intellectually, far better than either you or i.*
> 
> ...


Sure, I doubt you know many people who'll come close to this guy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBwVNtOL4d4 

In any case, the vast majority aren't that smart since most people aren't too bright to start off with, regardless of whether they are smokers or not. :banana:


----------



## Michelle (Aug 21, 2006)

NB-SK said:


> ..........
> In any case, the vast majority aren't that smart since most people aren't too bright to start off with..........


Glad I ain't 'most people', :smile:

"Don't worry about what others think, most of the time they don't."


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Nothing's easier than telling your neighbour how to live his life.

Except maybe balancing someone ELSE's budget!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

MaxWedge said:


> The stoners only arguement is what topping to put on the pizza.


...i've never understood that one. pretty much the _last_ thing i want to do when i'm in an altered state is poison it with junk food.

-dh


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Paul said:


> Drunk driving is bad, driving while high should be considered the same.



Absolutely! And any of the folks I know who indulge in a little of the "left handed Cigarettes" treat it just that way. Co-incidentally they're all adults who would never dream of chain smoking the things.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

*God it pains me to find that while I don't always agree with Clint's choice of language, I seem to agree with a lot of basic points. I'm not going to win many friends like that.:smile:*

...its true, though. if clint ever decides to some down from his high horse of smug superiority he'll find that he and i actually agree on most issues. in fact, clint reminds me very much of my own initial foray into harmony central way back when i had an enormous chip on my shoulder. hopefully, i've whittled it down a bit. clint oughta do the same.

*Everyone, everyone, I have known that is/was a recreational drug user has let me down and blown it of with a "...sorry man, I was sooooo wasted". They have all turned into Jeff Spicoli, if only for a day or two, but when I thought I could rely on them, it turned out I couldn't.
I've never had that experience with a sober/straight person.*

...how about a straight person who gets high when you are not around? for example, unless you knwo me personally, and spend an inordinate amount of time with me, you will never be anywhere near me when i'm toking. like the vast majority of tokers, its something i only do when it is appropriate, which is to say almost never in public.

*My problem with drug users is personal, and I choose to not tolerate the behaviours that my experience has taught me to expect. YMMV.*

...you are only referring to a very tiny minority of tokers who display their inability to use drugs in moderation in public. is that a fair and accurate characterization? using that logic, could i say that all catholic priests are like the nut bars that taught at brother rice high school in saint john's, nfld, in 1966?

*I have no problem with a "pot store" set up similar to the model of The Beer Store. There would be reasonable control over quality and distribution, and hopefully we'd have some control over inappropriate public behaviours. There is evidence that THC has both short and long term effects on the reasoning and decision making parts of the brain. Drunk driving is bad, driving while high should be considered the same.*

...absolutely!

as well, if pot was legal, it would not be too long before we would be afforded a way to enjoy the drug without having to inhale smoke into our lungs.

-dh


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Paul said:


> God it pains me to find that while I don't always agree with Clint's choice of language, I seem to agree with a lot of basic points. I'm not going to win many friends like that.


Hey, it has to happen sooner or later. 10,000 monkeys chained to typewriters, you know!:smile:



Paul said:


> Everyone, _everyone_, I have known that is/was a recreational drug user has let me down and blown it of with a "...sorry man, I was sooooo wasted". They have all turned into Jeff Spicoli, if only for a day or two, but when I thought I could rely on them, it turned out I couldn't.
> 
> I've never had that experience with a sober/straight person.


I've had that experience with a few stoners but not the vast majority of marijuana users. Maybe you've just known a small sample. Or maybe most of the recreational users never let you know that they were such!

Meanwhile, how do you feel about trusting a drunk to hold on to your wallet while you go swimming?



Paul said:


> My problem with drug users is personal, and I choose to not tolerate the behaviours that my experience has taught me to expect. YMMV.


Absolutely! That's freedom! I refuse to tolerate Witnesses at my door early on a weekend morning or telephone solicitors. So I treat them as "meat" that I can jerk around for my own entertainment. I had a session with one arrogant fellow from the Church of Later Day Saints that still can make me laugh to this day!




Paul said:


> My problem with drugs, isn't the drugs themselves, it's drug crime. I believe that drug crime is profit driven. Get rid of the profit and you get rid of the crime. And if there was ever an organization capable of destroying the profit in anything, it's the gov't. I have no problem with a "pot store" set up similar to the model of The Beer Store. There would be reasonable control over quality and distribution, and hopefully we'd have some control over inappropriate public behaviours.


Did you happen to read any of the reports from medical marijuana users after receiving supplies of government grown pot? They all described it as not fit for human consumption! Go figure.

Why do you assume that some in government are not making profit right now? It's historical fact that Al Capone and other bootleggers during Prohibition gave money to various politicians to keep booze ILLEGAL! Not hard to figure out why given that it was Al's livelihood. Bet you 3 beer of your own choice that half of Florida's politicians are on the take to cocaine barons. Would you also assume that our Canadian politicians are all honourable?



Paul said:


> There is evidence that THC has both short and long term effects on the reasoning and decision making parts of the brain. Drunk driving is bad, driving while high should be considered the same.


Well, first of all there's no easy, cheap and quick equivalent to a breathalyzer for THC. How would you determine grounds for a charge? It's easy to make a wish. And if my aunt had balls she's be my uncle!

Furthermore, it has always seemed odd to me that it took nearly 40 years before these claims against THC started to come out. Before believing them one should take a close look at where they come from and where they got their funding. These days you can get some lab coats to "prove" almost anything, for the right price. Just look at some of the claims from tobacco companies. If you accept that there's corruption in footnotes you have to accept that it can occur on all sides of an argument.

The nicest thing about claiming long term damage is that you can use the claim to change lifestyle choice laws today and not have to prove your claim for years and years and years...

As for driving, I have always championed a simpler approach. Given that we have few or no cop patrols anymore, just the odd breath test program during holidays why bother having charges for only being intoxicated at all?

The real problem would be a driver causing an accident, while drunk, stoned or sober. If he does today we have a screwy system where being drunk actually can reduce your sentence after killing someone because you were "unable to form intent". In effect, being intoxicated is an excuse! We see it in the courts every single day.

Me, if someone caused an accident that resulted in death I would remove being intoxicated as part of the defense. Instead, I would ADD years to the sentence!

But that's just me!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Michelle (Aug 21, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> ........... And if my aunt had balls she's be my uncle!..........


And if my uncle... oh never mind. Where do you get these sayings Bill? What a hoot, speaking of hoot, I know lots of people that give all the appearances and indications of being 'straight', not GLBTQWXYZZzzzzz straight, like 'upstanding citizen' straight, that puff like fiends. Me, I wear my freak flag every day and don't care what people think, all they have to do is just look at my life and what I have accomplished this time around, so far.

Thank Gord it's Friday

Oh, and I heard my boss from CB use 'mice nuts' this week, immediately thought; "Hey, he must know Bill or Bill is from CB". :wave:


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2007)

"Chronic pot smokers are a drop in bucket right now compared to the damage done by alcoholics."
Care to TRY to source that?  

"many times more than a pothead behind the wheel"
Again, you have no source for that claim, so I'm going to dismiss it.  

There's one reason it might SEEM like that, because there's no 'breathalyser' for potheads.... Yet.

If your government was REALLY interested in stopping drunk driving, every car would be fitted with a breathalyser in the ignition... If you blew over, your car would lock up for at least 12 hours. Ralph Nader was pushing that back in the 50s.... 

"I have not been drunk since the 80's."
And it shows.... believe me.... 

"People are individuals."
Bull... Most people are scared little insecure twerps, jumping on every band-wagon that their neighbour jumps on.... They mostly all dress the same and wear the same clothes and think the same as the people they're around most.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

ClintonHammond said:


> "Bull... Most people are scared little insecure twerps,


I guess it takes one to know one :smile:


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2007)

So you must see them all over the place...


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

ClintonHammond said:


> So you must see them all over the place...


That's a good one Clinton, Are you 12?


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

Starbuck50 said:


> That's a good one Clinton, Are you 12?


No,I think he's on his 13th beer now!


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...for clint, coming here to parade his pomposity beats having a life of his own.

-dh


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2007)

"Are you 12?"
Just speaking to your level, "Starbuck50". ,-)


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

*As I understand it this is one of the known effects of THC. It stimulates the appetite.*


...oddly enough, it has the opposite effect on mine.

*I am all for the theraputic uses of marijuana. Where I stop supporting is when people choose marijuana to self medicate. *

...why? we human beings have been "self-medicating" for thousands of years. how is that a bad thing? how does it affect you? people ingest everything from tea, whiskey, legal pharmaceuticals and ginsseng to pot, mescal etc etc etc in order to achieve a high, or an altered state.

*(I was just a drinker, and a damn fine one if I may say so myself!!!:food-smiley-004 *

...is/was this not a form a self-medication?

*Out of the folks I knew back then, the ones that grew out of it, (matured? is that the right word?), grew out of it. The ones that continue to (ab)use the substance of their choice just haven't managed to put it all together. *

...that is just ill-informed, unless you really believe that people like barry gibb and willie nelson (among many, many others) are poster boys for dysfunctionality.

*I guess if I had to come up with a litmus test, it'd be like this....Invite people to help you move. The ones that start drinking when they get there are not on my list of long term friends. The ones that wait until everything is moved before they open the beer, they are the good friends. The ones that come back the next day with a bottle of Lagavulin....they are friends for life.:smile:*

...i agree, wholeheartedly, but i fail to see any relevance to the topic at hand.

-dh


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2007)

"I would guess that drug use has derailed more creative careers than it has enhanced"
+1!

"Alcohol is a recreational drug"
So is chocolate.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Michelle said:


> And if my uncle... oh never mind. Where do you get these sayings Bill? What a hoot, speaking of hoot, I know lots of people that give all the appearances and indications of being 'straight', not GLBTQWXYZZzzzzz straight, like 'upstanding citizen' straight, that puff like fiends. Me, I wear my freak flag every day and don't care what people think, all they have to do is just look at my life and what I have accomplished this time around, so far.
> 
> Thank Gord it's Friday
> 
> Oh, and I heard my boss from CB use 'mice nuts' this week, immediately thought; "Hey, he must know Bill or Bill is from CB". :wave:


Hi Michelle!

I gotta confess. Even though I'm now an old fart I've got eastcoaster blood and that's where I get my inspiration with language. I was a kid in Dartmouth and my mother's folks are all from Pictou/Antigonish. John Crosbie is one of my alltime heroes.

So when I get excited I lose my Ontarioan accent!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

*My point is that of all the pot smokers I knew, all of them have disappointed me, and blew it off with a drug based excuse. * 

...from what i can gather, the pot smokers you knew were in the habit of smoking in public, innapropriately, and at inopportune times. do you similarly judge all drinkers by those who are 'drunkards"?

*Of the drinkers I knew/know, the chronics have little value to me. The rest manage to enjoy the one glass of red with dinner once or twice a week, and life goes on peacefully.*

...would this not parallel "stoners"? the point being that you are not likely, since you don't toke, to meet people who enjoy the drug in private, and don't allow it to interfere with their professional, family and/or social lives.

*The self-medicators have taken recreational use, (drugs, alcohol, sex, food, whatever), one step too far.* 

...absolutely but, again, they are ONLY representative of abusers, NOT pot smokers in general.

*Most have a hard time coming back. The heavy recreational drug users seem to be creative artists, not neurosurgeons. *

...this hits close to home, of course. i have not written a song in "normal" state of mind since 1968.

*(Apparently anesthetists have extremely high substance abuse rates.) I'm not sure there is an understood link between creativity and drug use.* 

...it is deeply understood, by me.

*I imagine it changes creativity, but I'm not sure it's an improvement. * 

...purely subjective, but creative types have been altering their consciousness for a very long time. where there's smoke...

but even if there is *NO* so-called "improvement", who cares? when i toke, i find it very, very easy to focus on writing and creating. even if i'm deluding myself, its a delusion that works for me. to hear a sample of the fruits of my creativity, go to: 

www.davidhenmanband.com

...even better, i'll send you a copy of the new cd when its finished. 

*I would guess that drug use has derailed more creative careers than it has enhanced. *

..now you're venturing into territory that goes far beyond recreational use of marijuana. i challenge you to find even one human being whose entire life has been destroyed by marijuana use. marijuana *abuse*, perhaps, but even then you're going to have a very difficult time finding an example.

*There is a lot of roadkill out there. Some of it is talent almost thrown away like Lindsay Lohan, or lost like Shannon Hoon, (sp?) and some of it is talent we never got to enjoy because the recreational drug use was one roadblock too many.*

...i would suggest their drug use involved much more than marijuana, and could hardly be defined as _recreational_.

*I am sure there are thousands upon thousands of responsible recreational drug users out there. I've just never knowingly met one. *

...do you hang with that particular crowd? i have rarely knowingly met a mafia hitman, but i don't tend to hang out with violent people. at least, not recently...

*Unfortunately the ones that get all the press, and the ones that have disappointed me on a personal level are the irresponsible drug users. My life stays less complicated if I keep the pot smokers, and heavy drinkers, and... at arms length.*

...which answers my previous question. please, don't judge people by those that get media attention. do you think that all priests are pedophiles?

one final thought, and it is a crucial one: i do not _advocate_ for pot use. it is purely a personal, lifestyle choice. i would never, in a million lifetimes, suggest that because i enjoy pot, that you, or anyone else, should too.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Hi Michelle!
> I gotta confess. Even though I'm now an old fart I've got eastcoaster blood and that's where I get my inspiration with language. I was a kid in Dartmouth and my mother's folks are all from Pictou/Antigonish. John Crosbie is one of my alltime heroes.
> So when I get excited I lose my Ontarioan accent!
> :food-smiley-004:



...wild bill! 

are you from "down home"?

i knew there was a reason why i like you !!!

john crosbie is one of my heros, as well, and i have a couple of stories i'd like to share with you over a pint one day.

what year were you a "kid in dartmouth"?

-dh


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Paul said:


> Out of the folks I knew back then, the ones that grew out of it, (matured? is that the right word?), grew out of it. The ones that continue to (ab)use the substance of their choice just haven't managed to put it all together. When you are 35 years old and you spend Friday afternoon at work planning how and where "..to get wasted this weekend", there's something wrong with your life plan.
> 
> I guess if I had to come up with a litmus test, it'd be like this....Invite people to help you move. The ones that start drinking when they get there are not on my list of long term friends. The ones that wait until everything is moved before they open the beer, they are the good friends. The ones that come back the next day with a bottle of Lagavulin....they are friends for life.:smile:
> 
> YMMV


Paul, I think you are making a very common and human mistake in logic. A proof does not automatically work both ways.

By this I mean that just because you get attacked by a grey wolf doesn't mean all wolves are grey. Just because you know some lazy pot smokers doesn't prove pot smoking makes you lazy. Just because a heroin user once smoked pot doesn't at all mean that pot leads to heroin. Most heroin users have also drank booze or used aspirin. Or Pepsi, for that matter. Does Pepsi lead to heroin?

When I was younger I too found out who was useful in moving and who wasn't but you know what? Some folks who never did anything stronger than herbal tea were unreliable and useless as well! And some of the biggest tokers were the hardest and most sensible workers. 

I could have great fun in spinning you a great sounding argument claming that NDP types are the worst movers (either they would try to get the government to do it for them or they'd hold us up while they consulted the I Ching) but it wouldn't really stand up to true logic. I guarantee I could convince quite a few folks, though! 

It's just not scientific to take a premise and tag it only on those whose character traits will help prove it. You have to look at how all people act and go where the evidence takes you.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

jroberts said:


> Alcohol is a recreational drug.
> And, personally, when I realized many years ago that alcohol and pot are essentially just two types of the same thing, the dichotomy society has created between the two seems very silly. Where alcohol is glorified, pot is demonized. Weird.


...i couldn't agree more, jr. we live in a strange world, where guns, gore and violence are glorified, but the sight of a nipple is feared.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

*I could have great fun in spinning you a great sounding argument claming that NDP types are the worst movers (either they would try to get the government to do it for them or they'd hold us up while they consulted the I Ching) but it wouldn't really stand up to true logic. I guarantee I could convince quite a few folks, though! *

....ah, wild bill, you've stabbed me in my big, round, warm and fuzzy socialist heart.



-dh


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...wild bill!
> 
> are you from "down home"?
> 
> ...


Oh geez, David! Late Pleistocene Era, maybe?

Actually, I was 8 years old when my dad got out of the navy and we left Dartmouth. That was 1960!

I'd love to hear the stories!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Paul said:


> Dave,
> 
> In my small sphere of existance my experience is that, without fail, the recreational drug users, (see my earlier definition for recreational drugs) have _always_ used drug use as a blow-off explanation for irresponsible behaviour. They've _always_ crossed that line. Usually it's at a gig where their use compromised the quality of the work. (And I get to define the quality in this scenario.) There have been many drinkers that have ruined a gig for me too, and I am no more tolerant of them.



I knew it! Your representative sample of lazy, unmotivated potheads comes from musicians!:smile:

I'll make a further claim! They were all drummers!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...i couldn't agree more, jr. we live in a strange world, where guns, gore and violence are glorified, but the sight of a nipple is feared.
> 
> -dh


I for one am not afraid of nipples.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

*In my small sphere of existance my experience is that, without fail, the recreational drug users, (see my earlier definition for recreational drugs) have always used drug use as a blow-off explanation for irresponsible behaviour. They've always crossed that line. Usually it's at a gig where their use compromised the quality of the work. (And I get to define the quality in this scenario.) There have been many drinkers that have ruined a gig for me too, and I am no more tolerant of them.

The difference is that the rec. drug users, (in my own experience) are batting 1000. The drinkers haven't been as successful in pissing me off. To steal from Dr. Phil, the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. I'm knowingly excluding a significant portion of the population from my world when I make this distinction, but it works for me.*

...you need to develop the ability to step outside of your own experience. you remind me of women who have made bad choices when it comes to men and, as a result, believe that all men are scum.

*I am not pro- or anti- marijuana. I am why-marijuana. It's been a loooooong time since I smoked, and for where I am in my life now, I can see no value in bringing it back into my world. For me it was a part of growing up, but I have since grown up. In my youth I hung with some of "the drug crowd". I just don't go there anymore.*

...that's great. i'm glad it works for you. but, sadly, it has made you very judgemental and given you blinders.

*There are a lot of incredibly gifted musicians whose work I admire, respect and even envy that seemed to make marijuana (and other drugs) work for them. (Dizzy, Miles, Bird, Louis Armstrong). But I often, (admittedly selfishly), wonder what their body of work might have been had they not chosen the altered path. * 

...wonder away. but in the end, you'll probably realize that their body of work might have been different, not neccessarily better or worse. and, beyond that, you may begins to wonder why it even matters.

*The best example I can give is SRV. I remember listening to the EL Mocambo concert on the radio. I saw every show he did in T.O. after that. Compare the Live Alive album, (this was his cocaine abuse period) to In Step. To my ears it's obvious which is the better piece of work. What I'll never know is if the Live Alive period of his life was necessary for him to be able to create In Step. If yes, then I will choose to not take that path, as it is not worth it to me. If no, then what a waste.*

...now here i will agree with you 100 per cent. cocaine is a complete waste of time, money and energy. in my travels, i have not met one person whose life benefited in any way from cocaine use, although many thought so _at the time_. but, again, be very careful of gross generalizations. marijuana and cocaine are on opposite ends of the spectrum of drug use/abuse.

*I guess I don't know where the line is that separates drug use from drug abuse.* 

...good for you for admitting that.

*And you will NOT send me a copy of your work. :smile::smile:I am a firm believer that musicians must be paid for their work. I am hugely gratified that Radiohead fans are mostly paying full freight for an album they can download free if they so choose. When your new CD is finished, I will pay full freight. *

...classy. i like that.

*Thanks so much for being a part of this board. We might not agree on everything, but we agree on the value of music, and thats everything else!!!*

...yup, classy indeed.

:food-smiley-004:

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Stratin2traynor said:


> I for one am not afraid of nipples.


...even that giant one that is at this very moment sneaking right up behind you?



oops! too late!

oh, man, that's going to leave a mark.

-dh


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2007)

"a very common and human mistake in logic"
It would seem to be to be the "No True Scotsman" fallacy


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

jroberts said:


> I've had the opposite experience. I have had far, FAR more negative experiences in my life with drunks than with potheads; even on a per-capita basis. I've never experienced a pothead that was beligerent or that wanted to pick a fight, that pissed in the middle of a dancefloor while my band was playing, that threw up in my car, that kicked a big dent in a friend's car, that had to be stopped from beating up his girlfriend, that killed a friend of mine with his car by driving through a red light, etc., etc. I've experienced drunks doing all of those things, though. The worst I've ever experieced with a pothead is unreliability.


...thanks, jr. this needed to be stated.

-dh


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

jroberts said:


> I've had the opposite experience. I have had far, FAR more negative experiences in my life with drunks than with potheads; even on a per-capita basis. I've never experienced a pothead that was beligerent or that wanted to pick a fight, that pissed in the middle of a dancefloor while my band was playing, that threw up in my car, that kicked a big dent in a friend's car, that had to be stopped from beating up his girlfriend, that killed a friend of mine with his car by driving through a red light, etc., etc. I've experienced drunks doing all of those things, though. The worst I've ever experieced with a pothead is unreliability.


+1, JR!

I remember back in the late 70's running into one of my high school teachers. I had graduated in '71 and was one of the last of the "hippy" students. He told me that he actually missed us! The main reason was that at the school dances where he chaperoned the kids were all into booze. Puking, fights, broken bottles in the toilets...you can imagine. He told me that with my crowd all they ever had to do was keep us from floating and bumping something hard on the ceiling!:smile: We were flower children but we had been replaced by barley and rye.

Not long after that high schools stopped having dances at all. No teachers wanted to volunteer for the trouble.

We may have been a naive bunch but at least we rarely wanted to hurt anybody.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Stratin2traynor said:


> I for one am not afraid of nipples.


It all depends on the quality of the heart underneath 'em!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...it would not be too long before we would be afforded a way
> to enjoy the drug without having to inhale smoke into our lungs.
> 
> -dh


There is. A *Vaporizer*. Cannabis vaporizers are designed to let users 
inhale active cannabinoids while avoiding harmful smoke toxins. 
They do so by heating cannabis to a temperature of 180 - 200° C,
just below the point of combustion where smoke is produced. 
At this point, THC and other medically active cannabinoids are emitted 
with little or none of the carcinogenic tars and noxious gases found in smoke. 
You can also consider baking cookies.


----------

