Being a Pot-Tard won’t Save the Philippines

It seems a lot of pot-tards were stirred up by fellow blogger Ilda’s article about Cecilia Lero and Rappler’s seeming promotion of illegal drugs. The pot-tards came in with all these arguments about pot benefits, studies of this and that, how other countries treat it, and more. All of which miss the point; pot is still illegal here in the Philippines. Obviously they want it to be legal, but they seem to join Lero and Rappler in encouraging another thing: if you feel it’s good to break the law, then break the law.

One other argument I’ve heard, and I’m sure the pot-tards are parroting it, is that being a pothead may “save the Philippines.” It’s based on that argument that, all you need is just keep people happy with narcotics and they won’t do anything wrong. So legalize drugs, keep people happy, and they’ll not go around doing anything bad. If drugs are legal, then no one will go around shooting anyone, right? It’ll lead to world peace!

Nah. It seems they willingly ignore that many illegal drugs are declared so because they damage the brain. And people who have had large doses of meth, cocaine and heroin simply go crazy and kill people. That’s well-documented. Unless the pot-tards dismiss such documentation facts as Illuminati or New World Order propaganda. Well, that’s stubbornness right there. But let’s say pot-tards agree, okay, let’s keep meth and other such drugs illegal then. But, what about pot? It’s completely harmless, OK?

Nah. You won’t save the Philippines by being a pothead because you’re too busy lazing around in your trip. And marijuana being “completely harmless?” A myth.

I find it silly that a group of people would consider a self-pleasuring activity involving consumption of a stimulative chemical “enlightening” or “bringing world peace.” It’s like, if I were masturbating in my bedroom, I had already saved the world (hmm, maybe that’s how SJWs start). It ignores the history of the Opium Wars, where people were also pleasuring themselves, but in order to get that pleasuring substance, a war was fought. It’s also the same as saying, “let’s make love, not war,” where it is assumed that people will stop thinking of war if all they do is sex. But sex doesn’t prevent wars, because people can fight wars over it (When men fight over a woman, for example; perhaps Helen of Troy was an analogy of that). People will still fight and kill even when drugged.

It seems the pot-tards (separating them from pot-heads who advocate pot or even just medical marijuana without needing to resort to tardism) are so absorbed in their source of pleasure that they treat it as a religion and fight tooth or nail to defend it. They would do the SJW thing, arguing on the Internet and attacking anyone who doesn’t support their “cause.”

Some of them may say “food is a drug,” so pot should be accepted like food. I don’t believe that crap, because food gives nutrients and sustenance more than pleasure (or fullness-inducing) chemicals. Food is not for feeling only, it’s for energy. There are also those myths, such as pot supposedly curing cancer. So much pseudoscience is being used just to promote pot-smoking.

I see this too: marijuana seems to be the new “torches of freedom,” similar to the marketing campaign created by advertising genius Edward Bernays. Bernays in the 1920s was tasked to make it fashionable for women to smoke cigarettes. He did it by tagging cigarettes as “torches of freedom,” that if they smoke, women are liberated and free. Well, liberated and free, but with a bad cough, emphysema and lung cancer maybe. So today, rabid potheads follow the same track, believing they are fighting for “freedom,” but are just brainwashed by this remnant of Bernays.

The fallacy is that, if you can’t do pot, you’re not really free. Nope. What I say is, if you can’t be free from pot, when you can’t do without the feeling it gives, you’re a slave to it, a slave to your sensations and to dopamine in your brain. Getting high is an escape, not a freedom or solution.

Snap out of it. Get off your butt, show the world you’re useful and be a good example. If you’re not useful, then you’re just wasting everyone’s time. And I’ll repeat the comment I made: if you want marijuana made legal in the Philippines, pressure a congressman. But if it’s still illegal, deal with it. No amount of arguing in comment sections will change policy. Or if you’re really stubborn, best be quiet about it and remember, the culture of the country doesn’t look favorably on drug use. Discretion is the better part of valor here.

print

About ChinoF

I stick with this blog because I believe, as my cohorts do, that many things Filipino embrace as part of their culture keep their society backward. And blogging freely to show that in a truly decent society, with true freedom of speech, even nobodies have a voice.

28 Comments on “Being a Pot-Tard won’t Save the Philippines”

  1. The author here thinks that the only way to change a law is by writing a letter to a senator. Well, if we do that then the Philippines will change its laws by the year 2200. So that wont help one bit. The author is really a person who can only think in terms of follow guidelines and the author never thinks in terms of how to establish things by thinking outside the box. Yes, my dear, that needs talents.

    This is not about being a pot-tard (again very creative word. How long did it take you to come up with that word? Did you need a dictionary?).

    ” if you feel it’s good to break the law, then break the law.”

    Sometime to change a law it needs “civil disobedience”.

    I have just one question for the author. Is there one law in your country of which you think that that law must be abolished now? And if there is, what are you doing to get it abolished? No, I will not ask you for any proof.

    1. I’m not the author, but I hope you don’t mind a random Filipino citizen’s thoughts to be attached to your comment.

      While I do agree that doing things outside the law is essential at times (especially when the law is deemed oppressive), it’s still very important that we follow the law most of the time. That is, if we don’t want to slip into anarchy.

      The topic at hand is legalization of Marijuana, which is already being processed… *but* for medicinal purposes and not for recreational ones. If the author’s link is to be believed then consistent use of Marijuana (outside of prescription I would assume) is considered dangerous.

      So should “Pot-heads” advocate legal recreational pot? Well, sure why not? I assume it’s gonna be a hard battle like cigarettes and alcohols.
      Should they continue to use pot until its legalization? Sure if you want to, but police will still do their jobs and bust your arses if they caught you.

      Should they advocate the use of marijuana? Well, just be responsible about it. Don’t spread lies about it being harmless. Give its benefits sure, but also call out its side effects. “Cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health”, “Drink responsibly”, stuff like that.

      “Is there one law in your country of which you think that that law must be abolished now? ”

      One law I could think of is the Bank Secrecy law. I believe that checking over one’s bank accounts should be similar to a search warrant. If the court approves to a search then the house will be searched, but with the Bank Secrecy you have to ask permission to the owner before he lets the authorities take a peek. And as it turned out, all manner of shady individuals (from our local politicians to money launderers) are using it to hide their potentially hidden wealth. Obviously what manner of thief would simply agree to let his “spoils” be seen?

      What do I do to make it abolished? Sorry, none. You must think lowly of me now then? I am but an ordinary citizen who shares my opinions to obscure comment sections like this one. Beyond that, I do not do anything else with political effect as I firmly believe living through my daily life and supporting my family takes much more importance.

      1. Random citizen,
        Lets go to Ireland for a second. Like the Philippines, Ireland is also an overwhelming religious country. Well until very recently. The population is getting more and more secular. But they have one problem. The laws are not doing the same. To name one law: abortion. Its a big fat NO in Ireland. So to speak with ChinoF, we have a lot of Abortion-tards. (great word, right?). Now what is happening over there in Ireland. Women dont accept that law. How? They take a boat trip or a plane flight to England to have an abortion there. And some are ordering abortion pills over the internet (this is actually also not legal).

        Now what is the result of all this? The Irish government is strongly considering to allow abortion.

        My point is not and never was about drugs or abortion. My point was and is taking matters into your own hands (and make the government listen). And that is what is happening here. I am NOT pro anarchy. But I know that the only way to change things is by “bottoms up” (starting with the people).

        But our dearest Mr. ChinoF wants us to write letters to our senators. Well in case of a pregnancy that is not very practical to do. Let me remind you about the RH law. Is it already in operation?

        I honestly think, if we have to follow Chino that the Philippines will change its first “illegal” law somewhere in the year 2200.
        Sometime people have to cross the/a line to get results. The Irish did that.

        1. I’d wait till the law is actually passed in Ireland to consider it an actual result. But they had the numbers for that, I’d guess. And Ireland and the Philippines are different societies with different procedures and laws. And marijuana is not that important a thing to lobby angrily about.

        2. It actually doesn’t matter whether it will be passed or not. Women will go to England and they will order those pills online.

          Ireland and the Philippines are the same. They are both populated by human beings who all want the same freedom and want to be free in making choices. The problem is the laws dont provide that choice (in both countries). And that is why Irish women will take matters into their own hands.

        3. The concept of being big enough to decide what to take and not to take into your body is foreign to the Filipino mind. Government should decide for us.

          I mean, how can one possibly think that the government can be trusted in that area when they cannot even be trusted with taxpayers’ money?

    2. Civil disobedience is not thinking out of the box. It’s just plain opposition. And it doesn’t always work. You might be thinking of the 1950s and 1960s where lots of people opposed racially discriminating culture and policies. That one had a lot of people going for it, and it convinced the lawmakers, with the amount of support, to change laws regarding it. That’s not going to work for marijuana. It’s not popular here, and the feeling of society towards it isn’t favorable. Civil disobedience only makes it more hated.

      Convincing a congressman or senator isn’t confined in the box (or, it can be out of the box) because, really, that’s the only way you could initiate changing or abolishing a law. Because, even if you do civil disobedience, who else is going to touch all the documents that’s needed to change the law? Perhaps you need an out of the box way to convince the congressman. I’m just unlucky maybe that my district’s congressman is Belmonte of LP.

      One law I hoped changed in the Juvenile law of Pangilinan, which required that juvenile delinquents to be released a certain time after being caught, so they’re free to commit crimes again. That one seems to be a matter of politics, because Pangilinan is sure to fight tooth and nail to defend it. Yet asking your congressman to challenge it isn’t way off.

      Well, Random Citizen mentioned that legalization of marijuana is being worked on, so I’ll wait and see how that goes.

    3. You must have read enough of this author’s pieces to know he’s this site’s goody two shoes. He just can’t stand people being naughty. I remember him saying he still lived with his mum in his late 20s (maybe even now?), so you’re not going to relate to his worldview, give up.

  2. If the collective is favor of a current laws, then it will never be changed.

    A significant number is needed so that a considerable delegate in the legislative department is made that can act and change the current law.

    Civil disobedience will not change a law.

    However, just because its illegal does not immediately follow that we “deal with it”.

    And no, when a government can dictate what you can and cannot put in your body, you are not really in a free and democratic society.

    People can be addicted to a lot of things, such as video games, liquor, tobacco and sex. Are those illegal? No. So addiction is not basis for illegality of recreational drugs.

    1. “when a government can dictate what you can and cannot put in your body, you are not really in a free and democratic society.”

      What is this liberal shit you’re spewing? This isn’t freedom, its license.

      “People can be addicted to a lot of things, such as video games, liquor, tobacco and sex. Are those illegal? No. So addiction is not basis for illegality of recreational drugs.”

      The author never said anything about addiction as the basis of a prohibition. Are you trying to mislead us?

      Besides, it isn’t addiction per se, its the harmful effects that come with that addiction. All of the addictive things you mentioned have some harmful effects which is why you see them getting banned in some countries. Tobacco and alcohol are regulated, being drunk can get you in prison, perverse sex in some countries can get you stoned in some countries. Video games, well, your parents prohibited you from playing on weeknights didn’t they? So therefore, the addiction is not the basis in itself.

      1. You’re shooting youself. Despite how drinking alcohol is more deadly than narcotics alcohol is legal. So the harmful effects that come with addiction is still not the basis itself.

        “This isn’t freedom, its license.” – You simple do not know what you are blabbering about.

        1. Please explain how I shot myself in the foot? Don’t you know that Alcohol is prohibited in some cultures (think Islam)? Did you know it has prohibited in the US in the 1920s? The problem with alcohol is its cultural and historical use and ease of production, making it extremely difficult to regulate. There is no denying that it has so many harmful effects, but alcohol is so hard to control that lawmakers decided not to prohibit alcohol per se , but to punish alcohol related behavior more severely hoping to get people to drunk less. In the Philippines, we have drunk driving laws, public drunkenness laws and crimes committed under the influence of alcohol are aggravated (I.e. you get more jail time). So no, there is nothing wrong with my analogy, just a difference in the government approach against alcohol versus drugs. So please think about your answersand explain your position properly.

          Furthermore, you compared government regulating what gets placed in your body as an affront against your freedom. Among the powers of government, we have this power called “police power”. This is one of the most plenary and least limitable powers of government. Every constitutional scholar would agree that government has the power to regulate substances deemed harmful. So this isn’t about freedom. What you seek is “license” or “permission” from government to take harmful substances.

    2. Your last paragraph is, unfortunately, misleading. If you try to lump narcotics in the same frame as video games, liquor, tobacco and sex, then you have a problem…

      1. It isn’t misleading at all. Try going to “harmful effects of narcotics” like Dick O’Rosary and you simply reveal yourself as an ignoramus.

        1. Ehem, we already did. But you try to put at the same level as the things that you mentioned as if you try to say narcotics should be legalized because they could be regulated just like alchohol and tobacco, etc.

          I never thought cocaine is harmless…

        2. Do you even know how many deaths happen every year on drunk driving alone compared to drug-related deaths?

          The fact the alcohol is still very much legal despite that destroys the justification to keep recreational drugs illegal.

  3. Such a wonderful article. Thanks for reminding me on the ‘SJW’ thing, where they’re nothing but a bunch of whiny pansies.

    Great nod to the Opium Wars, which greatly affected China due to trade disputes, with opium being the center of it.

  4. ChinoF,
    it probably feels like I am attacking you personally. Sometimes, I get the notion that you dont want the Philippines to advance and that you restrict yourself (and the GRP audience by the way you are writing your articles) by being too much a law-abiding citizen and to do everything by the book. What is wrong with being a law-abiding citizen? Nothing. But mostly those people are in favour of status quo. Doing everything by the book may change things but only very slowly and probably only decades or centuries later.

    I dont see the PH government (be it the former government or the current) to work their butts off to make the Philippines great (again). Sorry that was not originally mine (stole it from Mr. Trump).

    1. Perhaps what I’m trying to say is, marijuana is overrated in national importance. Aggressive potheads had better just cool it.

      1. then why are you writing about it if it is overrated? Just let it go. Those addicts are NOT ruining your brains/head. And that is my philosophy about things.

        I personally can be (I am not but I can be) against abortion, but/and because a woman is having an abortion, does NOT offend and not insult me. I will let her have it. I couldnt care less. Its her body (not mine)

        1. I wrote about it because it does bring up other ideas that may be of greater importance than legalizing a narcotic. Ideas about attitude.

          Let me add, they drew this attention to themselves in Ilda’s article.

        2. And no one’s forcing you to read anything, either. Much less this piece. You even commented for crying out loud. Pot, meet kettle.

  5. When the British, planned to invade and colonize China. They let the farmers in Afghanistan grow Opium. Sold the Opium to China , in large quantities. The Chinese were hooked, in Opium smoking, and Heroin. China fell easily to the British, and other world power.

    Marijuana and other mind altering illegal drugs, like : Shabu, Opium, Heroine, Ecstasy , etc…affect the brain of the user. The addicted user does not think anything, but the next fix of his addiction.

    As I had stated, in the inner cities in America, where illegal drugs, including marijuana are widely used. There are a lot of crimes. Addicts become: prostitutes, criminals, thieves, etc., just to have money to support their addictions.

    Some become crazy, by killing people without any reason. Women addicts become prostitutes; sell their bodies and souls, to get money, for the next fix on their addiction.

    Is this the country, we want ? A country of Pot Heads and Addicts !

  6. Those who possess wisdom cannot just ladle it out to every wantwit and jackanapes who comes along and asks for it. A person must be prepared to receive wisdom, or else it will do him more harm than good. Moreover, a lout thrashing about in the clear waters of wisdom will dirty those waters for everyone else.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.