Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Smoke 'Em If You Got 'Em

The first lesson I learned in my first job in security (bouncer) for the Dirty Floor Inn, was that we (the nightclub) love the pot-heads.  What my supervisor meant by that was that, as a security issue, pot smokers were a non-threat to business.  They could be counted on to remain peacefully tame, as well as dependably thirsty.  Which are good things for a bar's customers to be: tame and thirsty.

Now, the flip-side of that lesson was that we preferred to be particularly discriminatory in regards to the nose-candy afficionados (cocaine users), who on the other hand, tend to be highly excitable and quick-tempered.  Because of the negative impact unruly behavior has on business, it just makes good business sense to keep abrasive, or highly agitated, behavior at a safe distance (read: anywhere else).

Same is true for society.  You really want to keep the misfits well away from that which matters most.  Kind of like having the adults at one table and the younguns at another (preferably separated by at least one wall).

In observance (not really) of today being a special day for those pot-heads, I'd like to make a proposal.  What's that you say?  What's special about today?

Well, kinda like "happy hour", which is an arbitrary period of late afternoon dedicated in the bar business to be an excuse to "git your drink on", 4:20PM every day is somewhat recognized as the international time to get high.  Similarly, April 20th (4/20), is a pot-smoker's self-proclaimed international holiday.  Look at your co-worker three cubicles down...inside, he's Kent Dorfman in Animal House going, "This is going to be so great" as he fantasizes about furtive bong hits in the parking lot during his afternoon break.  Seriously dude, check him out...he's jonesin big-time.

So, that is what is special about today.  And so, on to my proposal.

I suggest that pot, and all other recreational drugs, be legalized.  Stick with me, because this is a radical departure from my long-held stance against legalization.  I don't smoke pot, and I don't partake of recreational drugs.  Ain't gonna say I never did.  But I don't do it, nor do I recommend it to anyone.  Drugs are a self-degradation, and an embracing of abuse to a person's own mind and body.  Not good.

Legalization will come with certain caveats, though.  First, a digression...

I believe that Republicans in general, and Conservatives particularly, are perceived as being especially intolerant of recreational drug use.  Okay, that may be the understatement of the year.  But seriously, Republicans are far more associated with oppressive authority than are Democrats.  I know; I used to BE a Democrat.  So, if you're a counter-culturalist of any magnitude (from the occasional party-toker, to the habitual coke head, to the addicted meth fiend/ heroin junkie) any authority is bad.  And, if you're of voting age, and possess the limited initiative to crawl out of your cave on Election Tuesday, you're more apt to cast your lot with the party of least oppression (from your foggy perspective), and that be the Corruptocrats.  Hell, you could care less about national security and the economy (and even for that matter, the crookedness and fraud in either party), so long as you're left to your own self-indulgence, right?

On April 20th, 2013, we're going to make all recreational drug use 100% legal for those US citizens who formally register with the new Pothead Party.  There will be some other restrictions (such as what time of day or days of week you're allowed to operate a motor vehicle), but the main thrust is that while you'll still be allowed to vote, your vote will no longer, thenceforth and forever, carry any elective weight.  That is, you can continue to speak your mind through your just won't count for anything substantive.  And in return, you can grow, possess, distrubute, and consume mass friggin' quantities to your little heart's content.

It's really a lot like what's happening to the concept of democratically constested elections (see Minnesota Senate race, 2008), where the votes of some folks don't really count.

All this really does, in the long run, is remove from the decision-making process those people who aren't that good at thinking beyond their own "special interests".

Therefore, if you're a user who wishes legalization for any reason (medicinal, recreational, religious, or other), help guarantee that your "rights" are permanently ensured.  Vote Republican in 2010 and again in 2012.  Better yet, pay special attention to the candidates distinguished by support from the Tea Party movement.  They're the most republican (note little "r" signifying their adherence to the US Constitution) of all big-"R" Republicans.

You are not our enemies.  Or, at least you won't be, when you're no longer unwittingly helping to dismantle our society.  And then we'll also feel as if we've helped you get what you want...a happy trip without the hassle of worrying about "the man."

You will have your own cutlture, and it will be protected and guaranteed.  And the sanctity of my Constitution will be much less threatened.  Win/win scenario, baby.


  1. L'm not sure even that would be enough to motivate potheads to show up and vote, but you're on to something. Beat the libs at there own game. Pull the rug out from under them. Offer some compromise to one of the oppressed groups of our society. Let illegals stay legally, but not as citizens (no vote). Let gays marry. Give blacks slavery reparations. Not popular ideas with conservatives, but sometimes you have to give a little to get a lot. Besides if we leave the progressives in charge they will do a lot worse.

  2. mx,

    Glad to have your commentary, but I must take exception with your points. I don't wish to motivate losers, but to remove them from the equation.

    Stoners aren't "oppressed", except in their own addiction to playing the victim (See Ann Coulter for more enlightenment on this syndrome). Their chains are of their own making. And my suggestion is less "compromise" than an effort to replace heavy-handed control (jail) with the softer/gentler approach (the virtual padded rooms of stoners' own homes).

    "Let illegals stay"? Uh, no. Zero amnesty. Legal citizenship in America is not that difficult to attain, neither is non-citizen residency. Too many good immigrants follow those rules to suddenly justify granting free passes to those who can't/won't. All amnesty does is fatten the rolls of entitlement whores and the interdependency of big government and their socialist constituency.

    "Let gays marry"? Now, you're just trying to piss me off. Might as well say "Let pigs fly." Marriage is divine union, sanctified by the Creator, signifying a permanent bond between a man and a woman. Wherein lies the benefit of perverting that?

    I love blacks. But they've already been handed way too many "slavery reparations". The convoluted combination of some measure of Affirmative Action and creeping white guilt has led to the election of a sorta-black, America-loathing, zero-accomplishment-or-leadership-experience, Muslim-sympathizing, big-government, anti-capitalism teleprompter reader, with questionable citizenry of his own, to the most important office in the world. And at possibly the most perilous TIME in our country's history. Let's just say that's enough in the reparation department, and plenty of reason to abandon your own white guilt.

    Methinks, mx, that you've gleaned more so-called "knowledge" from the Huffpo, n'est ce pas? I say you should spend more time here (and visiting those sites listed in my blogroll) than with those moonbats. Just a thought.

  3. You missed the point I was trying to make. Consider that if we don't win the next presidential election it's hello socialism. I don't personally support the examples of compromise I mentioned, They were examples after all, but I'am a realist. I would rather lose a battle than lose the war. Fact is we conservatives are not a majority. We are a center right country. So we may have to embrace some others along the way.

    As for where I roam, I go where I please. Why limit myself.

    Why doe's a narrow mind need a big head?
    Room to expand!

    n'est ce pas? Regards.

  4. Fair enough, mx. I figured you could be just another Huffpo troll, as that does happen around here.

    I've never been particularly adept at compromise, so if you're good at it, I say wear 'em out. I might also suggest that decades of compromise have been the main reason for our country's current predicament. Following your point, to pretend that the center needs to woo the far left to gain electoral success, is turning our backs on our principles (my humble opinion).

    To me, the erosion of what is fundamentally right and good is unacceptable. Whether forced upon me/us from outside, or a product of my own attempt toward compromise.

    It is good we can politely disagree, though, my friend.


  5. An excellent quote, mx, which you may agree is applicable to this discussion:

    "Compromise, hell! ... If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?" -NC Senator Jesse Helms