|
October 31, 2009
Is tobacco the new pot?
Juxtaposing two posts by Ann Althouse made me wonder. The war against tobacco is proceeding like a relentless juggernaut -- to the point now where law professors are being forced to act as anti-tobacco narcs: They will be armed with small cards that detail the school's impending ban on smoking or using tobacco products anywhere on campus, indoors and outdoors. If that's not enough to keep people from lighting up on campus, repeat offenders might be fined...In a growing number of communities, smoking is being banned everywhere. But meanwhile, marijuana smoking is being winked at: basically, in California, anybody who wants to use marijuana and is willing to be mildly deceitful to do it, can now do it legally... almost. You have to be -- if not actually sick -- willing to go through the medical dance and to accept the not-quite-completely legal aspect of it.I don't believe in drug laws, and I think the things that people put in their bodies should be their own business. But I find myself wondering whether there is some poorly understood mechanism at work here. It's so much what is made illegal, but what it is that fills the social disapproval niche. Another classic example involves dog genitalia. Mickey Rourke wants to make dog testicles uncool, and of course, laws soon come, biting on the heels of social disapproval. Those who cut off their dogs' balls think it's "unfair" when they see your dog's balls swinging freely, and they are being conditioned to point to the balls and gasp in horror. They do not realize that their morality has been remanufactured for them. It's eerily reminiscent of the way the remanufactured Donald Sutherland in the Invasion of the Body Snatchers reacts when he spots a normal human being:
Might people have a basic emotional need to stigmatize others? And if such a need exists, might it be that whenever it is uprooted in one place, it will just sprout up in whatever new place it can? If that's the case, then all that needs to happen is whenever an old enemy is de-stigmatized, the forces that be have only to point the finger at the new enemy, and the need is met again, via collective agreement. (And it makes no difference whether the old enemy was "better" or more "conventional" than the new one.) I wish people thought more about how their unconscious needs can influence them, because I worry that they're being manipulated and herded too easily -- before they have even had time to think. On the bright side, those who drive these endless cycles of remanufactured morality tend to forget two things: 1. Some people don't like being told what to do; posted by Eric on 10.31.09 at 11:52 AM
Comments
I've noticed for years that the ultra-cool, ultra-hip lefty crowd has been advocating that everything legal should be illegal and everything illegal should be legal and vice versa. It's random and it stems from a desire to control their perceived inferiors. Under their warped thinking, drugs like heroin, cocaine and X should be perfectly legal, but legitimate pharmaceuticals with proven healing capabilities should be very highly regulated, never used for anything other than an approved use, and very difficult to obtain only through layers of medical bureaucracy (neurontin) or wholly banned (thalidomide). They probably think alcohol should be legal for people under 21 but illegal for the 21+ crowd. Rhodium Heart · October 31, 2009 01:51 PM Charles Whitebread predicted this in 1995. You know the Federal Government has been spending a lot of money since 1968 trying to persuade us not to smoke. And, indeed, the absolute numbers on smoking have declined very little. But, you know who has quit smoking, don't you? In gigantic numbers? The college-educated, that's who. The college-educated, that's who doesn't smoke. Who are they? Tomorrow's what? Movers and kickers, that's who. Tomorrow's movers and kickers don't smoke. Who does smoke? Oh, you know who smokes out of all proportion to their numbers in the society -- it is the people standing in your criminal courtrooms, that's who. Who are they? Tomorrow's moved and kicked, that's who. And, there it is friends, once it divides between the movers and kickers and the moved and kicked it is all over and it will be all over very shortly. M. Simon · October 31, 2009 04:16 PM Lynne, Some asthmatics benefit from pot smoke. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061025201839AAsuN48 Still. It is not about benefit or harm. It is about having untermenschen to kick. M. Simon · October 31, 2009 04:22 PM Might people have a basic emotional need to stigmatize others? And if such a need exists, might it be that whenever it is uprooted in one place, it will just sprout up in whatever new place it can? Yes. Seriously, where did you go to high school? Veeshir · October 31, 2009 10:46 PM What Veeshir said. We appear to be comfortable in tribes, and all tribes have signalling devices (shibboleths) to determine who is in tribe and out tribe. Yours, Tom DeGisi · November 1, 2009 05:25 PM If more smokers would smoking things like whitecloudecigoutlet.com, then cigarettes would NOT be the new pot. This is getting ridiculous. Why not just make EVERYONE happy (smokers AND non-smokers??) Setrh · November 2, 2009 04:02 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
November 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
November 2009
October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Rich putsch kitsch
the blackening of my Pangasius hypophthalmus Giving a rat's ass about a new foreign minister Why McCain Picked Palin Dede Is A Democrat Israeli Settlers Shelter Gay Palestinian Bringing the war home? Dede Has Taken Tim Leary's Advice Happy Halloween! Oil Supply And Demand
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I'm glad to see you mention the disconnect between anti-tobacco/pro-marijuana laws. This puzzles me completely. Smoking is smoking is smoking, isnt' it? I mean, the smoke from a cig is gonna bother as asthmatic just as much as the smoke from a joint, I should think. It's still smoke inhalation. Is there good smoke and bad smoke? Will pot wind up legal in places where cigarettes aren't? And why?
Here's another question I've got- is the popularity of pot based entirely on smoking it? I knew a cancer patient that was prescribed Marinol for anti-nausea purposes. Is there a reason pot is still used recreationally by means of smoking, instead of other delivery methods?