What We Missed
When the recession ends, what will happen to women workers?
The Frisky chats with Crystal Renn about her new memoir about the body-size pressures of the modeling world.
Newsflash! Some women like to hunt. And some smoke pot.
Do organizations and officials that try to help women out of forced prostitution hurt more than they help?
Ten tips for talking to kids about sexism.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: What We Missed.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16351
I find neither of those news flashes. :) I may have even dated a few women here and there who liked to smoke pot. And I might have even partook myself in a past life. And I might have even read that article with a wistful sense of recollecting past events, past lovers, and past times.
Sorry, should have included a *sarcasm* note!
My mom in an eastern Kentucky mountain hunting elk as we speak. (Okay, type/read.)
In Appalachia, we all hunted. It was part of the culture. It was about food and nature, and I'm so glad I was a part of it. It's not something I do now, but it gave me tremendous perspective and respect for something that a lot of people judge from a distance.
My great grandmother used to "hunt" (poach) deer in her back yard. North Georgia mountains and hills that's what you do there. She also trapped squirrels and possum for Brunswick stew.
I found the "ten tips for talking to kids about sexism" to be really problematic.
#1 - uhm, let's *not* release a bunch of toxic fumes into there and waste money buying some stupid doll to burn. Why not buy dolls with more realistic body sizes? Or make/modify your own dolls to look like real women and girls?
#4 - what if they discover they like wearing itchy stockings and suspenders and acting like porn stars in the bedroom? This is just silly. "Enjoy it - but enjoy it the way I want you to!"
#5 - this is heteronormative and shames women may be naturally thin. "Don't care what men think but if you look like that THEY'LL NEVER WANT YOU"
#7 - shaming of sex workers AND a teenage girl. Nice. Why not take her to the part of town where the prostitutes and strip/poledancing clubs are and have a discussion about how poverty, race, and gender so often collide - and why not all Sex workers are victims of it. And perhaps Miley Cyrus can be used as a jumping off point for a frank discussion of teen sexuality.
#8 - insulting to men - a lot of boys and men do groom themselves in advance of dates, especially if its a dance or something. They often do dress up and try to look smart. I, however, have rather nontraditional dates and don't like dressing up - so I take a shower and dry my hair and go most of the time. Instead, watch some romcoms with your girls and ask them to spot the differences in how men and women behave on dates and in relationships - discuss why these are not the best models.
#10 - another inane way to make a point. Instead of shaming someone who had it go badly (and implying, YOU NEVER WANT TO LOOK LIKE THAT OR NO ONE WILL WANT YOU), look for the root issue of why your daughter thinks something is wrong enough to require surgery. And always tell her she is complete and lovely as she is.
Damn, I don't have or want kids and I could give better parenting advice on this topic. >.
There was a lot of negativity towards real, specific women in that article that I really didn't like. And "burn the freaks!"? I wouldn't want to teach my kids to say that about anyone. Also-- why is this article directed specifically at how to talk to one's daughters about sexism? Isn't it at least equally important to talk to young boys about these things?
It's up to WOMEN to RESIST pressure from sex and it's up to WOMEN to RESIST sexism, dontchaknow.
/eyeroll
It's always towards women to fight oppression, and never towards men to NOT OPPRESS
Oh my God, I totally agree. Let's add my own comments to the very apt ones above:
1) Anybody -- ANYBODY -- who encourages their children, or ANYBODY ELSE to "burn the freaks!" is a fucking sociopath. This is Salem Witch Trials, Lord of the Flies shit. And if that wasn't disturbing enough (somehow), the whole scenario comes way too close to re-enacting violence against women.
4) Is there something inherently wrong with being a middle-aged "swinger"? Oh right, I forgot. After you turn 40 you are supposed to lose all of the sex drive you weren't supposed to have in the first place and restrict yourself to PIV sex with your husband for the express purpose of making babies. Speaking of husbands, there's a lot of heteronormativity hree.
5) See 4.
Also: http://jezebel.com/5371299/ways-to-teach-kids-about-sexism--including-by-example?skyline=true&s=x
I don't really have anything to add except that I didn't like the article either. And I can't imagine that it would be very effective. It should be titled "Ten Tips for Being an Insensitive Parent".
I'm so glad you wrote this. That whole article rubbed me the wrong way. And while I like her overall intentions of her comments I most certainly do not like the way she suggests addressing them.
Also, I want to address the comment about Miley since everyone else made such good observations about my other concerns. When I actually watched the video with her "stripper" performance it looks completely harmless and not at all like she is on a stripper pole. To me the only thing that made it look seductive were the photographs taken of her and then distributed to make it look bad.
Absolutely! And can I add:
#4: MENTAL ILLNESS IS TEH EBUL!!!!!1111
#5: Way to completely disregard Victoria Beckam and treat her as a non-person. What do we call that? Sexism!
I can't get over how terrible and potentially damaging #1 is though :(
http://jezebel.com/5371299/ways-to-teach-kids-about-sexism--including-by-example?skyline=true&s=x
MUCH better article.
Pluralist:
#1 - alternative suggestions were offered if people don't want to burn the dolls.
'#4 - what if they discover they like wearing itchy stockings and suspenders and acting like porn stars in the bedroom? This is just silly. "Enjoy it - but enjoy it the way I want you to!"'
Did you see where it said you don't HAVE to wear itchy stockings and suspenders? Which is a bit different to saying 'you must NOT' wear them?
#5 - NO woman is naturally that thin. I agree that the 'men LIKE curves' thing can be problematic though.
#7 was more about enforced female 'sexuality' as something consumed by men, I don't see where you got 'shaming' from it.
And taking a teenage girl to strip clubs squicks me out. A lot. NOT the way to have a 'discussion' - and 'not all sex workers are victims'? You don't think teenage girls are ALREADY getting the message that sex work is like totes cool and empowerfulled?
#8 - do you mean to sound as if you are saying 'what about the mens'? No not all girls and women spend a lot of time 'grooming' but some do, and it's those ones the suggestion is addressed to.
#10 - meh, I can kind of see your point here, but most parents DO tell their girls they are beautiful as they are. It doesn't work - teenage girls think 'you have to say that, you're my parents' and given the comments they may have had from peers, and given that they can see they don't look like the women in magazines, they will conclude they are not attractive. The root reason girls want cosmetic surgery is the photoshopped, porntastic media, not anything else - so arguments made on those terms will be the most effective.
Actually, some women are naturally that thin. I have a friend who really, really struggles to get her BMI over 17.5, which is the threshold for anorexia when a woman displays eating disorder symptoms and isn't menstruating. I also have a grandmother who couldn't get her weight into triple digits until middle age, even after she had three kids in five years. Her son, my uncle, eats a ton and weighs maybe 100-110 pounds at 5'8". His daughter, one of my cousins, had to wear children's clothes well into her teens despite having reached her adult height of 5'8" and still stays a size zero without trying. Some people are genetically coded to be really, really thin.
Yup. People are genetically coded to naturally stay at all different sizes. Some women can't get above a size 2, others can't get below a size 20 and others stay solidly in the middle. It's not right to shame someone for the body they were born in, no matter WHAT size it is.
(Even if you pretend it's for their "health")
Because sticking pins into people or using them as pinatas in effigy because they are "freaks" is such an improvement.
#1 - alternative suggestions were offered if people don't want to burn the dolls.
Yeah, because beating them with sticks or puncturing them with needles is a much better way to get the message across.
'#4 - Did you see where it said you don't HAVE to wear itchy stockings and suspenders? Which is a bit different to saying 'you must NOT' wear them?
“This is only for actresses in porn movies. If they behave like this in real life they are likely to a) be sectioned or b) be invited to a middle class swinger's party. .We're not sure what's worse.”
This shames people who do want to do those things.
#5 – No, there are women who are that thin – not many, but some, and they should not be marginalized.
#7 – I say it’s shaming because it implies that sex workers never enthusiastically choose their profession, that it is always a unpalatable “last resort”.
I’m sorry, I think part of that was unclear – I mean take her to the neighbourhoods, etc where prostitutes, gentleman’s clubs, etc. are: atleast where I live, this is a pretty seedy place, and thus gives a visual picture of the intersectionality of poverty, gender, sex work, and race.
And, no, I don’t think teenage girls (being one) are getting the message that sex work is empowering or cool. This could be regional/geographic, but in my area sex work is base, gross, and evil re: popular mindset.
#8 – Uhm, I feel the wording of the statement “When your teenage daughter is getting ready for a date - plucking, waxing, dyeing, face-packing, curling” – it assumes that all teenage girls are doing this in preparation for dates.
And yeah, I am asking “what about the mens?” because it’s an entirely valid question in this case, because the statement is overgeneralising and plays into the false stereotype of men being slovenly and not giving enough shit about their dolled-up date to try and look nice.
#10 – Again, as a teenage girl, it means the world to me when my parents compliment me – yes, that doesn’t always mean that other messages don’t get through, but this is a parenting advice column. Furthermore, there are more than a few girls and women who’s parents’ overly critical (even unintentionally, as I have experienced) statements have given them some insecurities about their appearance.
I think the plastic surgery issue reaches into our quick-fix culture attitude, as well as into the problems in the media that you mentioned. If we didn’t raise our children to think a surgery here and a pill there can give you perfect looks and health, plastic surgery wouldn’t be viewed as a solution to the (patently false) “problem” of not looking like a magazine ad.
Also, discounting the influence of anything other than media is illogical - teenage girls do have people influencing them AND the ability to sort through media messages (hence one of the few sane suggestions, which is to enhance media literacy) and decide which one's are bullshit.
I agree. There were a couple of tips that were OK (#4, #6 and #9 were pretty good, though the last sentence of #4 could have been left off) but some of the others weirded me out. Maybe there were good points fueling them but they were buried under some things that didn't work.
#2 could be done without being insulting. Yeah, show the before and after effects of Photoshop so they understand what happens, but "chain-smoking cockle?" Meh.
#5 maybe explain that not every man finds her attractive but not that No man does (we know of at least one). Or better yet, don't teach her to fram attractiveness based on what men think. (as a side note, I wouldn't be opposed to spending an evening with David Beckham, but in an entirely different way than the article meant...)
that whole article about pot is stupid. it's one sideded and doesnt even talk about the negative effects of pot use. uhm, remember when drugs used to be bad and corruptive?
did they forget they are supporting the drug war in mexico whenever they smoke a blunt? ignorant stoners make me so mad, especially since I lost family members to pot as well as my first boyfriend who abused me due to his use of pot cause "its just pot" mindset.
they all use stupid excuses that it doesnt have an aftereffect. yes it does, especially on relatives and close friends. you become a different person. maybe there are certain instences where it doesnt have a control over a relationship, but that is in fact very rare.
Criminalization supports the drug war by offering people willing to murder a way to get rich in doinbg so.
My Portugal, let me show it to you: http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/columnists/andrew_hanon/2009/09/08/10784611-sun.html
Phobition does not work.
LOL im sorry that was just ridiculous.
Why, because evidence when it contradicts your opinions is automatically "ridiculous"?
"Pushers", the traffickers and distributors of narcotics need the products to be illegal and they need people to use the more addictive and expensive products. Thus they help people get hooked on harder drugs as there is a profit incentive.
Science in the form of evidence beats assumptions and personal anecdotal experience. If it did not then the lifestyle of every racist who justified their racism based on a personal bad experience would be justified.
Tinnie - I'm sorry that you were abused by someone who used pot. But that means the person is to blame not the pot, just we blame the drinker not the drink when it is alcohol that contributes to abuse.
Most of the smokers I know smoke home-grown stuff, but there is a valid point about how our choices impact things far away; however, the drug wars would not exist if marijuana was legal and Mexico's government not a pile of shit due to imperialism.
Anything used to excess is bad, when that thing is illegal the issues become more complicated and messy. The statistics, however, show that alcohol is much more damaging to relationships and health than marijuana.
And, as far as anecdata goes, the pot smokers I know are not "different people" than they wore before they started smoking. In some cases, they have had problems with substance abuse in general - but this is not something inherent in pot that makes it dangerous for them to use.
Again, most pot smokers dont just do pot. Thats a fact. And legalizing it will only hurt potsmokers becaue the gov. will make the prices go up.
I find people who do pot usually have lower moral standards then normal clean person. Just my experience living in San. Fran. capital of all drugs.
Yes, partly because of the gateway effect caused by criminalizing it.
To summarize the original description of the gateway effect it was this:
If you criminalize marijuana, people will purchase marijuana from illegal sources, this will mean more people will know dealers, because they already know a dealer the cost to trying another drug is lowered.
It was an argument against criminalization, because if it was decriminalized and sold at a store, they'd only know that store and only be an increased risk of purchasing the other legal items that store carries.
Further the government policy is entirely centered around increasing prices. It is generally acknowledged even by members of the DEA that they cannot prevent access to marijuana, in fact they have been failing miserably at that. Instead they argue that they create a risk for dealing marijuana, and that risk increases prices, which is true.
The problem is that the drug dealers also take that increased price as a form of accounting (but not economic) profit. In that they get more money because it is criminalized. Were the government to tax the marijuana the government would first be able to tax it very heavily to bring it to current street prices, and the government would be able to reap all the benefits from that tax (in terms of collecting revenue) and to reap all the benefits from the lessened costs of finding illegal growers. In fact the presence of illegal growers would give the government an incentive to keep prices in a range where they push out illegal growers, collect a large tax, and benefit the farmers who are growing a relatively easy to grow crop.
I think you need to cite your source for something like "Most pot smokers use other drugs, that' a fact."
Facts can be proven based on measurements and testing and those measurement and tests are part of a construct and would be recorded. If you can't point to the construct then I'm calling "made up bullshit" to your statement.
Nixon and Reagan both had panels established to determine if pot truly led to other drugs or if it should be legal based on the repeal of alcohol prohibition and both panels came back with pot being benign compared to alcohol and not leading to other drugs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Marihuana_and_Drug_Abuse
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm
Amazingly enough I found time in my marijuana smoke filled life to actually research ideas that didn't reconcile with the things I had seen in my own life.
I believe we blame the drink.....? Sounds like you got your phrasing mixed up.
As far as I'm concerned, the fact you are defending an illegal substances worries me that you might go further to say "Well, it's just POT."
Btw, pot has has indirected ruined many peoples lives as well as killed many people in mexico. I'm sorry, I don't support something that causes such great harm in our world.
It may just be a small thing to you, but to many others it is a huge issue.
Just cause it doesnt effect YOU negatively doesnt mean you can go around saying it's not a big deal.
It's like me saying "Well, I'm a guy so sexism doesnt effect me."
What????
Excessive alcohol consumption may make it easier to be abusive, but it doesn't force people to do anything. I think most people (including myself) would be much more inclined to blame the drinker than the drink in those cases.
The same goes for pot. Some people abuse it and allow their habits to damage their life and their relationships, while others, like myself and the women mentioned in the article, can enjoy it without allowing it to interfere with their lives. And as some other posters have mentioned, drug wars and the violence and destruction that result are not the fault of the drug itself but of imperialism, poverty and ridiculous drug laws that have placed the growth and sale of cannabis outside of government regulation.
I'm not arguing that marijuana can't have destructive effects; it can, but so can alcohol, or even cold medicine if used incorrectly. The fact that such abuses exist doesn't give anyone the right to tell other people what to do with their bodies.
No, actually, my phrasing is quite what I intended it to be. People do not abuse because of drugs: some abusers use drugs. If we blame the drug then why isn't every single person who's been drunk an abuser? Why aren't all abusers druggies? It's like saying video games cause kids to be more violent.
I am defending an illegal substance because I don't believe it should be illegal - I will also defend banned books, because I don't believe any book should be banned.
Excuse me, you do not know my life story, so don't act like it. I implied in my last paragraph that not everyone I know has had positive experiences with drugs (because they ALREADY had emotional problems that they tried to deal with through drugs); I am not prepared to air the messy details on this board.
Furthermore, I acknowledged that there are problems associated with pot: but these arise due to the drug's legal status, the history of the US and Mexico, and social mores NOT FROM THE DRUG ITSELF.
Pot has been a fairly big, though neutral, part of my life (I don't use myself, for clarity) - so it *does* affect me, and people I love, but not necessarily for the worse (or better).
Again, I'm sorry you suffered at the hands of pot abuser - but that does not change the fact that pot is less dangerous to one's health and less associated with domestic violence than legal drugs like alcohol.
Gasoline/oil, diamonds, sugar, cotton, mass produced shoes and rainwear, electronics, classic "Our Gang" tv shows, any beef imported from South and Central America, most tropical fruits grown in Ecuador, Southeast Asian and Amazonian hardwoods.
You don't use any of these products directly or indirectly?
Wow, how do you get internet in your cave?
I believe we blame the drink.....? Sounds like you got your phrasing mixed up.
As far as I'm concerned, the fact you are defending an illegal substances worries me that you might go further to say "Well, it's just POT."
Btw, pot has has indirected ruined many peoples lives as well as killed many people in mexico. I'm sorry, I don't support something that causes such great harm in our world.
It may just be a small thing to you, but to many others it is a huge issue.
Just cause it doesnt effect YOU negatively doesnt mean you can go around saying it's not a big deal.
It's like me saying "Well, I'm a guy so sexism doesnt effect me."
What????
I think the drugs used by the mexican mafia often are hard ones such as cocaine, crack, ect. They also get money out of sex slavery. Alot of the sex slaves are trafficked into America and come from other countries. I think its the mafias and the general lack of education/income that causes the problems in Mexico. Mafias are a very bad thing. Southern Italy still has issues due to the mafias and the people are kept in poverty due to the $$$ and power the mafias have there. Even in spite of the fact that people openly protest against them. Mafias are international organizations that regardless of the local environment will get money and power from other countries and use it to dominate the local communities.
No drug is healthy when abused. And I in no way would want to diminish the pain you've been through due to addiction. But it is possible to use drugs without abusing them. It's also possible to be conscientious about where you're buying from, just like buying fair trade and local foods. It's harder to guarantee, yes, because it's illegal, but I always make sure to buy from people who I know grow their own weed.
doesnt matter who you buy it from, smoking is endorsing that it's ok. and drugs as I was raised are not. You must be really ignorant to deny the facts that drugs cause a lot of pain and destruction.
Sure, there are people who don't know the indirect effects of their druguse, but that's no excuse.
It's everyone's choice, and I don't condemn those who occasionally tote but those who defend pot are very VERY ignorant to it's real effects. To me it's like someone who drinks occasionally. Ok, whatever, but who has the nerve to defend the logistics of drinking? And believe it or not, drugs are effecting your life for the worse without you even knowing it. I didn't realize that until I saw what it has done to all the people in my life.
It's just annoying to have these drug users defend something that is a major issue in young adults lives.
When did I deny that drugs cause pain and destruction? When did I (or anyone else) say that there are no real effects to marijuana? I don't think that recreational drug use (I'm counting alcohol, because it is a drug) is ever the healthiest way to go, and abuse is always unhealthy. And yes, I do endorse that smoking is OK when I smoke, just as people who drink endorse that that's OK, and people who eat unhealthy foods endorse that that's OK. The way I was raised, what one does with one's body and life is between the individual and their loved ones.
"As you were raised"?
Oh so you're one of the Brain-washed Nancy Reagan kids!
Are you also afraid about the Feminists and Rock Music corrupting our youth?
You must be really ignorant to deny that people being puritanical and holier-than-thou cause a lot of pain and destruction.
What about people who use marijuana for chronic pain, nausea from chemo, etc? Marijuana is an effective medication.
Ummm
My pot use hasn't negatively effected my life at all, and I'm sure I could show you a lot of people who have the same attitude towards their pot use. And even if you do think I'm hurting myself, what I do with my body is none of your business.
I'm sorry that you had bad experiences and maybe I'm overstepping my boundaries a little, but did you ever consider that maybe your boyfriend was abusive to you because HE was an asshole? It took me a long time to accept that I wasn't raped because the man who raped me drank. Being drunk doesn't make you want to molest and rape a small child. And being high doesn't make you want to abuse your girlfriend unless it was part of your personality before you got high.
Either way, it's not your opposition to pot that ultimately annoys me. It's your insistence that it should be illegal when a) decision's about one's body should be personal and b) the criminalization of drugs has fueled the drug war as well as classism/racism in the U.S. judicial and prison systems.
"uhm, remember when drugs used to be bad and corruptive?"
I remember that! "Marihuana" was making all those dirty negroes and Mexicans rape good white women. Of course, that has nothing to do with how marijuana prohibition works today so I guess it's not really relevant.
If THC (in pill form) was legal - I think that it would be a better option than pain medications (depending on person/pain, obviously). My mom has chronic nerve damage from a dog bite...the pain meds she has to take make her a completely different person. And not just a different person, an intoxicated person. The pills don't do much for her pain either - more like they distract her from the pain. I think your judgements of ALL pot smokers or those who condone marijuana are pretty ridiculous. I would rather see my mom on pot than the synthetic heroins they feed her. Not only is she out of it when she is on it, but she also deals with a lot of stomach issues and loss of appetite.
I agree. THC is a much more effective and, if you ask me, much less dangerous painkiller than most of the opiate-based ones you get in hospitals. You've got to wonder why a THC pill hasn't been invented yet - is it possible that drug laws are preventing research from being done?
Marinol exists, but it has problems relative to cannabis to my recollection.
Yes, you are correct on both counts. There are multiple psychoactive components in marijuana, of which THC is only one (albeit the main one). Marinol is synthetic THC. CBD, also a major cannabinoid in marijuana, has more sedative-like effects. Together, they produce the analgesic, relaxed feelings that are beneficial for medical purposes. THC alone is, according to many who have taken Marinol for medical purposes, a little too intense. Additionally, Marinol being a pill creates problems. It's more difficult to regulate the amount consumed, it takes longer to kick in, and it adds another pill when the user might already be nauseous from other medications/treatments (specifically, chemotherapy). Smoked marijuana, on the other hand, takes effect almost instantly and it's quite easy to control the dosage. So, while I think it's good that Marinol was created because it shows good-faith in approaching marijuana as a medical substance, it hasn't proven terribly effective.
Isnt that why they used to ban alcohol? They thought it encouraged men to abuse women. Clearly its not the drugs but the people. I'm not saying anything about decriminalizing marijuana and definitely other drugs, but I think it wasnt the drugs but his personality that made him do it. I've known plenty of people that have smoked pot and never remember them becoming assholes (they smoked it rarely to occassionally).
Re: Women smoke pot
This is coming from such a foreign culture to the one I was raised in and have lived in my entire life. Every woman I know including my grandmother (at least the Mormon one, not the Jehova's Witness one) says it should at least be as legal as alcohol and I know for a fact that the JW one smoked it in her youth (she's 88-89).
Must resist temptation to post FARK-like three thousand word essay on why it should be legal.
Again, using religion as an excuse is not reason. Yah, God also said Gays should go to hell. Um, I know better then to take what a religion does.
I learn from others mistakes.
Most world governments have also said 'gays,' as you so charmingly put it, should be legally disenfranchised, if not penalized or executed. So we should probably distrust government too, right? It's offensive enough that you've implied that anyone with a different experience regarding marijuana is ignorant, but an attack on religion as a whole is completely uncalled for.
I have no idea if you just didn't really read what I was typing or you are kind of clueless.
I'll try to make it a bit more clear: Of the women I know my grandmothers are the most conservative, one is Mormon and the other is a Jehovah Witness. Even the Mormon one thinks it is comparable to alcohol and thus should be similarly controlled. The other, the JW does think it should be illegal but even she admits to using it in the past and it did not ruin her life but because her faith says it should be illegal (or at least her pastor says so) then she thinks it should be legal.
You're reminding me of someone who is against abortion but is also against teaching people about contraception. Despite the fact that all evidence suggests that teaching contraception does a lot to lower the number of abortions you're going to ignore logic and go with an instinct that has been demonstrated to be faulty.
Legalization lowers use and decreases instances of people moving from mild drugs to hard drugs. It takes the money out of the hands of violent criminals because they can't compete with governments. It saves money from locking up and pursuing non-violent people who are only criminal by the fact that they ingests something that is no more inebriating (in most cases) than alcohol they can legally consume and no more toxic than alcohol or cigarettes (in most cases).
The few people who would be hardcore junkies will still be hard-core junkies (look at how many people sniff paint or glue or air conditioner gas, all legal substance and all well known to be more toxic than pretty much anything other than asbestos soaked in rat poison), but at least the money both saved on cop and prisons and possibly taxes made from the monitored sale of drugs can help some of them who can be helped via treatment programs.
http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/drug_guide/Marijuana
yah, no effects right?
just keep telling yourself that.
drugs=illusions.
but be safe everyone! just remember that it is still illegal, and there's a good reason for it.
(why do u think alchohol was illegal? cause it it fucks people up and causes a lot of damage in society. even tho aldus huxley wrote a book about heroin, he also wrote the negative effects about it in The Brave New World)
dont use it as a crutch or deny the negative effects is all i am saying.
peace
I think we're talking about two different things. It's one thing to say that pot abuse isn't good for you (like abuse of alcohol, tobacco, retail therapy, etc.). It's another to advocate for total prohibition. Our government spends *billions* each year on the "war on drugs," and all we have to show for it is a bunch of people in prison who shouldn't be and stronger pot than our parents had. How much time does law enforcement - local, state, federal, international - spend chasing after people who are criminals only because marijuana is illegal in the U.S.? How many other crimes go unprosecuted because the resources are being wasted on this? Others have mentioned the power of the Mexican cartels, who would lose quite a bit of influence if the U.S. decriminalized pot.
I understand that you feel strongly about this because of your experiences. I feel pretty strongly, too... among other reasons, I had the misfortune of being raped in the meth/Oxycontin capital of the south, and part of the reason my case was put on the back burner is because the local authorities - and their federal grant funding - prioritized catching home-growers over rapists. It's bullshit.
Yeah - I agree with you. There was a guy who was growing his own marijuana locally and got busted, he got LIFE in prison. The same year - a man who was convicted of sexually molesting all three of his kids for their entire childhoods was put in jail for THREE years. I think that is completely backwards.
And sorry that your case didn't get the attention it deserved. I think it's BS too.
That is completely morally bankrupt.
Well we just don't have the money to keep kid rapers in jail, we have to lock up pot smokers for the good of society.
That IS fucked up. Absolutely insane.
Almost all of the side effects of marijuana are temporary. Smoking anything for a long period of time, whether it is weed, tobacco, or green tea can increase a person's risk for cancer. Just about everybody who smokes anything does so knowing that there is a heightened risk that they could get cancer, even if it is a slight risk as with marijuana. There's a higher risk of cancer associated with tanning than there is with marijuana.
Marijuana isn't a drug, it's a plant, consumed in its natural form. Crystal meth, heroin, nicotine, alcohol, and caffeine are drugs; they are what you get when you take a plant and concentrate its active ingredient(s) so that it is consumable.
Consuming weed in excess is just as bad as consuming anything else in excess; it's irresponsible.
Not only is it impossible to stop the illegal drug trade, it would be immoral to do so if we could, for it would violate the same basic principles of self-ownership that the legality of abortion is based on.
After my criticism of one of your comments yesterday I'm feeling the need to make amends. This is why I like your input, Alice. Autonomy is a feminist issue that happens to extend to many other areas of government. We have different views on where the line should be drawn I suppose but we do agree that it is inherently valuable. And for the record, I don't only value your opinion when its in line with mine.
"illegal drug trade"
Because meth and crack are such good things?
Dont think so. Theyre not marijauna.
Personally I like my kava's!!
Meth, marijiana, tobacco, it's all the same to me because I don't do any of them. It's all the same to me when other people do them, to, because they are all equally not my business. Either way, a conclusion is reached before their relative merits even come into consideration.
Please stop trying to impose your judgment of good and bad on what other people do with their own bodies.
"illegal drug trade, it would be immoral to do so if we could, for it would violate the same basic principles of self-ownership "
You said that banning things like cocaine, ect and other drugs would be morally wrong. Thats not easy, nice drugs like marijuana but hard stuff that really screws people like meth and crack. Things that you can literally become addicted to and could severely harm others or oneself. You have not made the case that it would violate self-ownership. You also tried to compare the autonomous, sane decision of abortion with drugs? No dice.
"You have not made the case that it would violate self-ownership."
In my opinion, the burden of proof shouldn't be on the person saying "I have the right to do this," it should be on the person saying, "No, you don't." The law cannot grant us rights, and should exist solely in order to protect them. If an action impinges on another person's rights (e.g, murder, theft, etc.), then it should be illegal. Drug use does not have a direct effect on anyone but the user.
I think meth and crack do indeed have a effect on more than just the user.
A direct effect? How's that? Addiction and compulsions of all types have an effect on an individual's loved ones. That's between the person and their friends and family, not the law. And it's unreasonable to assume that anyone who uses hard drugs (or any drugs) WILL become addicted.
Despite the fact that "hard" drugs are much more dangerous than marijuana, the state is still imposing on personal autonomy by making it illegal for people to use them. The onus is not on the individual to defend the choices they make about what they put in their body, it's on the state to justify its interference in the personal choices of the citizens.
I think theyve made the case for why crack,cocaine and meth should be illegal.
I don't see it - hard drug use is a medical problem, not a criminal one, and it should be treated as such.
Some pot smokers use other drugs, some don't. Some drinkers use other drugs, some don't. Some people only smoke cigarettes. Some people drink coffee and smoke cigarettes.
Legalising marijuana will be good for people who could benefit from medical cannibis and everyday recreational users and even those who may be dependent by bringing it all out for regulation and taxation. Research could be done in the US if it was legalised, giving us a much better picture of how people respond to the drug medically. It would keep many youths (particularly men of colour) from needlessly spending time in prison or being denied jobs, and take away the "rebellious" attraction it currently has. Those who are dependent would find it easier to seek help if it wasn't so stigmatised.
And way to be elitist and over-generalising! For one thing, since the 60s-70s drug use has become quite "normal" in our culture (though this often goes unacknowledged). So many people have smoked or do currently smoke pot that if it had some direct effect on our morality we would be in a hell of a lot worse shape than we are now. And of course your whole statement hinges on what you consider "moral"
As I spark up my primo locally grown greenage this fine Sunday afternoon, I'll laugh a hearty guffaw at all the ignorant and misinformed comments about my good friend Mary Jane.
lol
This week at Feminist Review...
Bright Star, Jane Campion’s newest film, chronicles the Romance (with a capital “R”) between Keats and Brawne from its budding first impressions until its final consumptive breath. Playing the doomed young lovers, Australian Abbie Cornish and period-piece laden Ben Whishaw embody the very essence of cinematic enchantment, and their performances will leave you breathless.
Starstruck: An Interview with Jane Campion: After seeing Bright Star, which is based on the love affair between the poet John Keats and his neighbor Fanny Brawne, I jumped for joy when the opportunity to talk with Campion about the film, her career, and a special feminist moment she experienced recently.
Freshwater Pearl and Blue Topaz Earrings: I’m going to my first Indian wedding this December, a celebration I am enormously excited about because of the sheer enormity of this type of event. Indian weddings are multi-day festivities filled with family, friends, fun, and (best of all) food. The wedding I will attend will be a particularly exciting culinary event; it is sure to include a sampler of delicacies from West Bengal, the Punjab, and Burma, a feast that is a reflection of the multiple and overlapping ethnicities of the bride and groom. Now, I’m not a wedding kind of gal. I didn’t have one myself, and I’ve deftly avoided being in them, but this is an altogether different kind of affair than the cookie cutter wedding industrial complex in the States.