On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 01:18:34PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 04:04:57PM -0500, ScruLoose wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 11:36:29AM -0800, Tom wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 03:35:39PM +0100, Benedict Verheyen wrote: > > > > > > I have mixed feelings. One the one hand, I read about China's opium > > > wars in the 1800s, and see a failed people resulting from "legalizing > > > it." On the other hand, I see a drug which causes people to fight, > > > crash their cars, and beat their kids (alcohol) completely normalized. > > Not to be too much of a nit, but China's opium problems, and the Opium > Wars, were mostly courtesey of the British, who were the pushers, > dealers, and instigators of the whole affair, including the various > skirmishes and battles. The situation back then was quite far from > 'legalizing it', and was much closer to the way drugs move in the U.S. > today, with foreign governments handling production and [illegal] > distribution, and with the U.S. government fighting a loosing battle > against them.
That is all true. Read Terry Parssinen's "Webs of Smoke" for the gory details. However, it is a blunt fact that Chinese users happily consumed the drug (poppies from India were considered best; chinese poppies were low-grade), and as a result, their culture, pride, and manhood were wasted. It left a cultural mark of shame that lasts to this day. So the point is, maybe it's not so good for millions of people to get high, regardless of the cause :-) I'm arguing that it's okay to do pot only insofar as it is severely limited, by law and by cultural norms. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
