Forums | MacLife

Bren wrote:

justine wrote:

It's commendable that you're trying to quit, but post again when you've been clean for 5 or more years. 1 month is nothing for a crank fiend.

A few years ago, these two guys who I swear had to be narcs asked me if I knew where they could get any crank.

I tried to control my laughter as I replied, "No, I'm sorry, I don't know where you can find any 'crank.' If you weren't cops or just very indiscrete, I could tell you where to find crystal meth that's more potent than the finest, pharmaceutical grade amphetamines. I do not, however, have a current source for this 'crank' that you speak of."

justine wrote:

You are changing your circle of friends, aren't you?

I ran screaming from my circle of friends a long, long time ago.

Those few people who are important enough that they're still in my life are certainly not going to get the brush-off from me.

I know all too well what it feels like when good friends disappear.

You know, it doesn't matter what you call it, and you're old enough that i'm sure you've referred to it as crank at some point in your life. It's funny that you take issue with my terminology and not that i think a month is too short to be sharing in your happiness. IIRC correctly, this is at least the second time you've come to the forums and proclaimed you're quitting. I really do hope you quit this time, but i just don't trust anyone that uses.

wellfleation wrote:

You have to be stupid to even try meth, heroin, and a few other drugs.

In related news, I'm still smoking pot and loving it.

If you can't see the irony in the above statement, you're smoking too much.

If you ever have a chance, read Dr. Drew's book, "Cracked." Really good book, very compelling, honest, and scrupulously self-searching. More to the point, he has a lot to say about the role that marijuana tends to play in the average addict's personal history.

justine wrote:

It's funny that you take issue with my terminology and not that i think a month is too short to be sharing in your happiness.

What, you expected me to argue? I've twice before quit using meth. The first time, I stayed off it for nine months. Unfortunately, I made up for it by smoking tons of weed, and I was also on Prozac and Wellbutryn (or was it Zoloft and Zyprexa? God, I don't even remember...), so I wasn't exactly drug free.

The second time I was clean for...  I dunno, a few weeks, I guess. My lover at the time agreed with me that we both missed frothing-at-the-mouth-sexual-deviant Bren, and that I should definitely relapse in order to get that aspect of my personality to return with all of its vim and vigor.

This time around, I'm not smoking pot, but I have been compulsively over-eating and taking far too many baths. As far as the sexual adventurin' goes, that just doesn't seem as important as it once did.

I'm more concerned with making sure my parents don't have to bury their only kid.

justine wrote:

... i just don't trust anyone that uses.

I know what you're saying, but such statements just make me bristle. Some of the finest human beings I've ever known have been drug addicts, and have not made me regret trusting them.

That's in general. If you're talking more about trusting what an addict tells you about their own relationship with their drug of choice and what they're doing about it, I can see how that would be another matter altogether.

I'm just saying I know a few tweakers and at least one junkie whose levels of personal strength, integrity, and courage are, well, humbling.

Oh, i meant trusting an addict, especially meth addicts, that say they quit. They are very good liars and can deceive anyone. I've only known one that ever stole from me, but his problem was more crack related.

You can take this for what it's worth, but i'd suggest therapy since you've not been successful twice already. I quit cold turkey with one relapse. Most people can't do that, and it hasn't been easy.

I really do hope this works out for you, though, so good luck.

I realized today that I could never quit meat.

Chickenhawk wrote:

why should it be taxed less than alcohol or tobacco?

Alcohol and Tobacco taxes are way to tax the poor, who purchase those products (especially tobacco) far more often than the middle and upper class does.

We don't need to add Marijuana to that list.

Prime example - the Dems are increasing the Tobacco tax to pay for child health care.
IE - they are taxing the poor to pay for child health care.

How the smurf does that make sense?

And I don't think it is fair to say that only low-income people purchase alcohol and cigarettes.

Who buys all the wine and aged whiskeys and bourbons? The poor?

Who buys the fine cigars and cigarettes by the carton? The poor?

I, personally, don't think so and therefore don't agree with your claim resedit.

I would also like to see your source for the claim or at least the source for the numbers that you have used to support your claim.

Holy smurf! It looks like I was right about our current economic crisis effecting legalization efforts in order to produce more tax revenue:

Speaking at a landmark press conference today, California Assemblyman Tom
Ammiano (D-San Francisco) introduced comprehensive legislation to tax and
regulate the commercial production and sale of cannabis in a manner
similar to alcohol.

"With the state in the midst of an historic economic crisis, the move
towards regulating and taxing marijuana is simply common sense. This
legislation would generate much needed revenue for the state, restrict
access to only those over 21, end the environmental damage to our public
lands from illicit crops, and improve public safety by redirecting law
enforcement efforts to more serious crimes", Assemblyman Ammiano said.
"California has the opportunity to be the first state in the nation to
enact a smart, responsible public policy for the control and regulation of
marijuana."

The proposal is the first marijuana legalization bill ever introduced in
California.

"It's time for California taxpayers to stop wasting money trying to
enforce marijuana prohibition, and to realize the tax benefits from a
legal, regulated market instead," said Dale Gieringer, director of
California NORML, a sponsor of the bill.

As introduced, Ammiano's measure would allow for the licensed production
and sale of cannabis to consumers age 21 and over. Licensed cultivators
would pay an excise tax of $50 per ounce of cannabis. In addition, the
proposal would impose a sales tax on commercial sales. (Ammiano's proposal
would not affect the state's medical marijuana law, allowing patients and
caregivers to grow their own medicine.)

If enacted, the measure would raise over $1 billion per year in state
revenue, according to an economic analysis by California NORML, available
online here: http://www.canorml.org/backgroun...

Ammiano's bill comes at a time of growing public support for legalizing
marijuana. A recent Zogby poll reported that nearly six in ten west coast
voters support taxing and regulating marijuana like alcohol. Faced with a
$40 billion budget deficit, other public officials have joined in
endorsing Ammiano's bill, including San Francisco Sheriff Mike Hennessy
and Betty Yee, a member of the State Board of Equalization, which oversees
collection of sales taxes.

Currently, tens of millions of dollars are paid annually in state and
local taxes by licensed distributors of medical marijuana. However, these
sales only represent a fraction of the overall statewide marijuana market.
"The millions of dollars raised each on the sales of medicinal cannabis is
only the tip of the iceberg," Gieringer said. "Kudos to Assemblyman
Ammiano for proposing a path-breaking bill that would benefit our economy,
safety and freedom by making marijuana a winning proposition for
California."

Sincerely,
The NORML Team

bloomsday wrote:

wtf is going on here?
it doesn't matter if pot deserves to be legal.
it isn't.
you moderators need to think of new visitors. young visitors. parents.
i personally don't care...
but you're smurfing with Mac|Life the magazine by letting this go on.
wow.

*Koff*...

Staff is aware.

bloomsday wrote:

but it is sad that i am the only one thinking about the magazine.

my posts aren't about politics.
i don't care what any of you choose to do.
i don't care about your or any other poster's opinion.
i would hope you all have better things to concern yourselves with besides my view.

get off my high horse? how about getting off your jack-ass? how about smurf off?
my point refers to what is appropriate for Mac|Life's website & magazine.
i look forward to my son's introduction to the world of Apple.
i don't want to have to try to explain to him what any of this has to do with a Mac|Life.
i couldn't. 
because it doesn't have anything to do with Mac|Life.

lest you all go junkie on me...
i'll say it for a fourth time.
i don't care what you people do.

and now something for the suggestion box...
how about calling the magazine MacDrugAddict?
somebody get Future US Inc. on the phone!
they'll love it!

Ok, this looks like as good a time as any to lock this thread.

Bren, good luck with quitting. Everyone here is hoping you're successful this time. The rest of you, go to your room.