For general reference, there is an odd little story for how 420 came to be a synonym to Marijuana.
The 4/20 celebrations have taken off in the last few years, but their origins appear to lie in the escapades of a group of friends from San Rafael high school, northern California, in 1971. That autumn, the five teenagers came into possession of a hand-drawn map supposedly locating a marijuana crop at Point Reyes, north-west of San Francisco.
The friends - who called themselves the Waldos because they used to hang out by a wall - met after school, at 4:20pm, and drove off on their treasure hunt. They never found the plot. "We were smoking a lot of weed at the time," says Dave Reddix or Waldo Dave, now a 59-year-old filmmaker. "Half the fun was just going looking for it." The group began using the term 420. So did friends and acquaintances, who included - at a couple of steps removed - members of the Grateful Dead rock band. The term spread among the band's fans, known as Deadheads.
theboyinadress, 420 was the number on the senate bill for legalization of marijuana .
What's in room 237?
A belated thank you for the explanation, Nugget.
Now the question you ask is a good one and even though I knew it was from a movie called 'The Shinning'... I think it was called that, I had once heard Boy In A Dress whisper it to himself last Hallowe'en eve.
He had been getting himself dressed to go out with the kids in the neighbourhood due to his penchant for all things sweet and I knew he truly enjoyed this particular event. I've watched him many times running along the streets with miniature -versions of Frankenstein, Dracula and the Werewolf. Giggling with the children in the Autumn night and seemingly not a care in the world. But I was mistaken
In his torn, black bin-bag and witch's hat, he would stand on the little veranda of his shed and wait for me to inspect his costume. There he stood, all flustered and chest swelling with pride. To be honest, that can be off-putting, but I digress.
The daylight had all-but gone and the only illumination was from the rows of fairy-lights that hung from the eaves of his home.
Anyway, to cut the tale short, after I gave the 'okay' about his apparel, he would walk off in his high-heels whispering something under his breath and last year, I actually heard what he said. It was 'don't go in Room 237'
What it truly means, I can only guess it was something to do with BIAD's past and his time with the Military.
Hope this helps.
Last Edit: Aug 20, 2015 15:12:34 GMT -6 by theboyinadress
Post by theboyinadress on Aug 21, 2015 0:12:34 GMT -6
Well if the taking of road signs becomes a fad, then it may pay me now to start hunting on Google maps for 'Boy In A Dress Avenue' or 'BIAD Street'
I do recall the rare day I took him to town and allowed him to wander around. The place where I live has narrow alley-ways that lead into open spaces that hold small stores, similar to the street-scenes in the 'Harry Potter' movies.
One particular incursion found the bare-thighed freak gazing up at the old Victorian name-plates of those alleyways and when I asked him what he was doing he seemed a little dazed.
'I would like to name my back-passage...' he murmured and kept his eyeless head focused on the heavily-embossed letters. '...Yes, it needs a title' he added.
Slightly taken-aback by the weird request and the innuendo, I put down the bags of shopping and asked him to explain further.
Unknown to me, he had altered an ivy-covered fence near to his shed at my home and created a route through a make-shift gate. One can only imagine the relief.
theboyinadress, I never tire of reading your posts. You're absolutely amazing, and I could "listen" to you "speak" all day.
Jas
Thank you, Boy In A Dress is a simple soul and yet, he holds so much wisdom in his heart that -at times, I miss his subtle hints at what he is telling me. Also, his diligence at keeping his tiny abode rain-proof tends to find you waiting around for his nectar-tasting acumen!
Thank you again and I'll pass it on. (I can see him from where I'm sitting and he's talking to an elderberry bush at this moment!)
Last Edit: Aug 21, 2015 5:46:39 GMT -6 by theboyinadress
...I'm for 100% legalization of MEDICAL Marijuana with real (not stoner logic based) medical distribution...
Does this mean that you choose "government control" over "personal freedom"?
Honest question - I might understand your argument better, if I knew where you were coming from?
(snipped the rest...but, am addressing comments that were among them)
As to "Stoner logic", "idiot logic" &/or "Stoner Stupid"...I am not familiar with the terminology. Are these "official" or "peer reviewed" terms that I should know about, before considering, or are they simply in line with your idea of common sense?
I am out of synch with the notion that marijuana use is problematic to society any more than all other vices, except through the notion that monies are not "accounted for"...to someone.
My experience in Colorado, shortly-prior to marijuana 'going public'...had about 40% of high schoolers partaking regularly, and a Huge portion of those that declined through their school years, acquiring the vice thereafter.
There is really very little room for growth in those numbers - is my point.
As far back as I can recall, Boulder (UofCO) has been been known as party central. Openly smoking & defying... Red Rocks - one of the most prestigious landing strips for Rock Concerts... Smoke wafts like rolling clouds of Charmin (heard & read).
So - I don't see the new law turning it into a 'stoner party State'
For my perspective - I am for individual/personal freedom/s.
Last Edit: Aug 21, 2015 13:58:50 GMT -6 by minstrel63
Well, I figured someone would take issue with my position and it wouldn't be fun otherwise.
No..I don't want Government distribution, if you mean 'State Stores' like some states are doing with it and some have already had as their sole means for selling alcohol. Some states are a little..odd..about how they do things.
I do think it ought to be as reasonable a thing as any other prescribed drug though (Before Uncle became so tight he could crap diamonds easier than a pain pill). That is where the form being distributed even includes the 'high' aspect.
There IS a whole different aspect to this now, which never really existed before, and changes a lot of things, IMO. People make creams with it, and other things which actually DO help, as I've seen and read myself. No question..and why set up control on those items? What was distilled to form them isn't even what makes someone "feel good". Its just the medicinal side left, which makes someone feel normal again. I'm all for that. I do think a REAL, generally termed for the need, prescription on the 'feel good' part is a reasonable thing.
--
I'm not one of these Reefer Madness goobers. Heck, lets say even a rabbit goes through an experimental phase in life, at the very least, and I went so far as to put a little time in with NORML petitions when I was 18, in front of the local K-Mart in Southern Cal. In moderation, if it actually HAD gone like Alcohol, it has nothing inherently wrong with it, beyond being a growth stunter for young people in the middle of their growing years (physical, not mental, and that second part varies with everyone).
Places like Denver haven't simply picked it up like a new couple shelves next to the Alcohol, or a special store akin to the Eastern 'State' liquor stores. It's basically played an in your face game to force itself right into mainstream culture, and then, to be a part of it. Okie Dokie...That is kinda pushing it. In fact, that isn't just kinda, that is BADLY pushing what is probably perfectly tolerable to a majority of Americans by now, if its something done within one's own 4 walls and not made a public spectacle.
--
Stoner thinking is short term thinking with a real habit of lacking depth. Kinda like looking at the growing backlash against them and figuring 'bahh.. can't do nothing about it anywho..so why care?'. Then..I'd remind that short term thinking, a change in written policy enforcement requiring no more than a different attitude and a pen from the White House will put those loud stoners into prison on a priority plan. Even California has the cops keeping close tabs and a closer watch on the goings on, who is who for it, and just how its all made up. That isn't for trivial pursuit games 10 years from now. It's to flip back on the orders, if they come before current crops of cops retire, IMO.
Stoner logic is what takes a recreational pastime too far, and makes a social confrontation of any kind with it. Just my thinking...
Last Edit: Aug 21, 2015 16:34:18 GMT -6 by Deleted
Post by minstrel63 on Aug 21, 2015 20:25:40 GMT -6
Thanks for the conversation, @wrabbit2000,
If the Government wrote/writes laws that touch on the substance...to make it "bad/evil/sin" - the Government has taken control.
The government's position has always emanated from the "Reefer Madness" craze.
Farmers subsidized to grow hemp one year - then it's illegal.
It was not "bad" or "wrong" or even "suspect" before this craziness (&, of course, Mash's own Hawkeye let us know that someone named Hearst might have had some influence in the equation, as well)...but, now that it has been in place for longer than most of us (at least) have been alive, we continue the fundamentally skewed dialogue, as if it ever had any value...at all.
Why does anyone need a doctor's authorization to treat themselves? Because some might 'abuse' themselves (&/or others) with medications, stimulants, etc...? What if the "prescribers" and the system that authorizes the "prescribers" are both abusing us...with artificial medicines - to control us...just like...they control marijuana?
What about dandelions? Hallucinogenic drink can be brewed from these...
Native Americans are 'allowed' to partake of numerous substances that are "illegal" for the rest of us. Why? Because it is a part of their heritage...? Weak excuse.
If it's wrong/evil/sin...it is Wrong/Evil/Sin for everyone, forever.
What has kept marijuana use in 'young people' at whatever level it has been...for the many decades when the use/possession of marijuana was a crime (as bad as any)? Parents. Religion. DARE.
And - why was it wrong? It's The Law. Reefer Madness. It's the devil's weed.
At no point in this chronology...was marijuana actually "Wrong" or "Evil"... The law that made it wrong was based in error (to include - greed).
To point at legalization & decriminalization as "we might want to think about this, a little longer"...is to support the perpetuation of injustice.
It cannot be just/justified if the foundation is cracked.
I have family --- plenty of family on the Front Range. I have visited. I have not heard complaint of, nor seen (not once) an 'in your face' party atmosphere.
My Opinion - The only crime about/with marijuana is...it is natural, and connects its users with this planet (Earth), from whence it derives.
Our keepers do not want this. Our keepers vehemently oppose this.
Every day they take another inch, step, mile, Gulf of Mexico, rainforest, et al...of nature from us - and will continue until we are living in mega-metropoles, and surviving on Soylent Green and recycled piss.
Hope that wasn't too down'ing...as I heard there's a party over at Duffy's.
Regards.
Think I'll step out back for a smoke with the lip-sync band...
Actually, Government positions have definitely not all come from the paranoid nuttiness of 'Reefer Madness'. There were also studies on another impact which marijuana has in a strictly clinical sense.
Folks like to suggest it has 0 negative effect, but that is nonsense. Some people compensate for the effect better than others, and some can't cope at all, to slip into a hazy fog of life where they don't really care. It has to do with motivation.
However, Governments have looked into it in the past, as I'd imagine you would have heard of over the years, indicating it generates a higher level of Pacifism in a population. As I recall, it was Southern governments looking into that side of it during the 80's, and when having the population fighting for or against, or actively staying out of the way was a high priority among a number of them.
It's not nearly as simple a topic or as cut and dry as either end of the debate would dearly love it to be, in my opinion.
Post by minstrel63 on Aug 22, 2015 11:28:54 GMT -6
@wrabbit2000,
Thanks again,
Studies... Reports... What were they looking for? Justification for - "This planet is bad for you. Your government will now take control..." ...?
Regardless of effects &/or side-effects, it is the individual's choice...just like the consumption of alcohol, processed sugar, pseudoephedrine, and microwave popcorn. No-one (excepting those under the jurisdiction/guardianship of others) is required to partake any of them...but if one should, each has effects, side-effects, and can be abused to the extreme (forfeiting one's life &/or others').
The/This government is all for regulating alcohol, processed sugar, pseudoephedrine and microwave popcorn - while un-controlled-&-regulated natural substances are Wrong/Criminal...
"...folks suggest it has 0 negative effect..."
What substance on Earth has 0 negative effect? Everything CAN have negative effect/s. So - how does "they have found negative effects" transcend to Marijuana Should Be Controlled/Regulated!...?
Let's see --
Government does not want The People calm and peaceable... Check
Government wants The People agitated into frenzy... Check
Government wants The People...at each others' throats...and distracted from their own individual responsibility...and away from whose pockets are being lined, and whose houses are being invaded, thieved, ransacked and demolished, and lives snuffed...in The People's' name/s... ? Check
As it is in some lands & customs, it could soon be in the USoA that Opinions are not allowed... The argument will go forth (as developed through the ages) - 'opinions' are not good for the health, safety and welfare of 'the people'...and only serve to cripple the economy, and hope of future generations... There will be a grandfathering period, where those abused by former generations into reliance upon unapproved dogma/(Opinion) are given grace - but...if Opinions are explicitly expressed &/or suspected by any/all others...said crime/s will be punishable to the extent of extreme prejudice.
When supporting studies are published as bases for such law/s ...will that be good enough, too?
"Hey - They have studies..." - shirks and nods in acquiescence
You opened this dialogue claiming to have changed stance/perspective on the subject.
Well, lets do your reply justice and go point by point....
Studies... Reports... What were they looking for?
Justification for - "This planet is bad for you. Your government will now take control..." ...?
At the time? No.. The Banana Republics, 1980's style, were trying NOT to see their populations go passive and accepting of communist insurgent forces (where the commies were the insurgents, anyway)..and who only needed the public to be apathetic to win. The idea was finding if pot would make a public LESS apt to fight..which proved to be a YES...for exactly what they did NOT want to see. Hence..the 1980's ideas of legal from the source, and green from the South up....failed miserably to the needs of war torn nations in the supply areas.
Regardless of effects &/or side-effects, it is the individual's choice...just like the consumption of alcohol, processed sugar, pseudoephedrine, and microwave popcorn.
No-one (excepting those under the jurisdiction/guardianship of others) is required to partake any of them...but if one should, each has effects, side-effects, and can be abused to the extreme (forfeiting one's life &/or others').
Yes. It absolutely is the individuals choice. Legal or not, really, it still comes down to individual choice for something so plentiful in all states. I also have no issue with what a man or woman does in the privacy of their own home and within their own 4 walls. Frankly, if they want to make their family pets more family than we'd like to imagne...even that..is really none of my business if it never leaves those ...odd 4 walls..to BECOME anyone else's business.
Pot is FAR from something private to the inner sanctum of a man's own 4 walls. It WAS that, before legalization of recreational use. It still IS that way where recreational use isn't tolerated in public or openly in any form. In the states with full recreational legalization tho? Wow...it's a public spectacle forced onto a public, whether they want to hear, see and smell other people's idea of fun or not.
In that way, and in having to deal with stoner stupid at school and work at times...for how THAT now violates MY rights where it overlaps? We do need regulation.
Why?
Well, if I could ask them to keep their dope out of my visible world, and expect to be taken seriously? We wouldn't need regulation. If I could help them see my point with a few stars to a good pop in the nose, after being ignored? We wouldn't need regulation. However.....the law has deemed life can't be any fun, and I can't ask a stoner to stop stoning the general air I ALSO breathe or making a public show of something MOST parents still find adult activity AT BEST for public display being totally inappropriate.
When Stoner rights overlap public interest..regulation is needed because the alternative just isn't legal in polite society.
Government does not want The People calm and peaceable...
Check
Government wants The People agitated into frenzy...
Check
Government wants The People...at each others' throats...and distracted from their own individual responsibility...and away from whose pockets are being lined, and whose houses are being invaded, thieved, ransacked and demolished, and lives snuffed...in The People's' name/s... ?
Check
I generally agree with you, but for some critical distinctions to differ on.
The Government DOES not want people calm and peaceful...(and that is a new one since 2007, for my living experience in America)..but they DO want is apathetic toward the big questions or big problems "they" might be personally held to account for. So it's a mixed bag. Be mad....but forget what you should be REALLY mad about. As you note.. [CHECK!]
Frenzy? No..I wouldn't say that. Frenzies get people killed, and that becomes self feeding to running out of control. The Government, to a person, is outnumbered roughly 100:1, if EVERYONE down to the secretary pool were handed a weapon to fight for Uncle at the same time. They can never..ever..in a dream..outright conflict with the American public to see anything but the fall of our nation in the outcome. Even those power hungry buffoons know that. They just want people mad, confused, and ready to lash out ..but not with very long attention spans. That is a bad thing to 'them'. [CHECK!]
Can't argue the last point. That flows right on into mad, active, but never focused or even clear headed as to what the anger OUGHT to actually be focused at. Hey....that could have just been used as a summary of Occupy and saved people writing whole books on the topic. [CHECK!]
As it is in some lands & customs, it could soon be in the USoA that Opinions are not allowed...
The argument will go forth (as developed through the ages) - 'opinions' are not good for the health, safety and welfare of 'the people'...and only serve to cripple the economy, and hope of future generations... There will be a grandfathering period, where those abused by former generations into reliance upon unapproved dogma/(Opinion) are given grace - but...if Opinions are explicitly expressed &/or suspected by any/all others...said crime/s will be punishable to the extent of extreme prejudice.
When supporting studies are published as bases for such law/s ...will that be good enough, too?
You kinda lose me entirely with this, because I am entirely missing what one has to do with the other? What does the overall topic of free speech, expression and the attack on both right now...have to do with the availability of a medicine and/or intoxicant substance?
I think that is the OTHER problem of 'stoner culture', for lack of a better term to the people who make pot a lifestyle thing. Perspective. It's totally blown out the window, and really? On both sides.
It's a plant. Nothing more. Nothing less. As much a plant as Hemlock or Corn, and just as natural. One kills with a quickness, the other feeds a world. Marijuana does neither, but is still in demand, and a fact of life to deal with. No one should be losing their freedom for it....but nor does society need to damn near worship it as a fix to all which ails, and a wonder dope to give smiles to the masses.
America is living BOTH extremes to that, depending on the state we go to.
Last Edit: Aug 22, 2015 12:56:12 GMT -6 by Deleted
Post by minstrel63 on Aug 22, 2015 20:33:03 GMT -6
@wrabbit2000, Thank you for the discussion. I think I see where you're coming from, and hope my perspective and questions were conveyed with some manner of clarity, as well. If not - my bad.
No need of trying to change someone-else's perspective, being difficult-enough to maintain one's own.