Firebeetle's page

Firebeetle wrote:

This product clearly and obviously supports a drug lifestyle. I do not do business with any company that sells products that support a drug lifestyle. Until this product is removed, I sadly shall not continue to do business with Paizo.com

If you feel the same, please sign below. Let Paizo know you don't support drugs.

If you have some debate about this, please read my responses on this thread to a similar product.

Baked Baked Plush

Thank you for your support.

Again Firebeetle I'm with you in your original reaction, but you are missing the point. This product deals with legalization. It doesn't say "Hey smoke pot, we don't care it's illegal"...it says "Marijuana is a 'drug' that has less detrimental effect on the user than alcohol does, and oh yeah, thousands of people are thrown in jail for years for using or selling this relatively harmless (compared to alcohol) substance."

This is a separate issue from supporting drug culture. This is an examination of the politics and legality of marijuana.

For the record, I have never used any illegal narcotic in my life (including marijuana) and I am still very much in favor of seeing it legalized. Many of the people I know whose lives have been ruined by pot, I can honestly say, WOULD NOT have had their lives fall apart on them if marijuana was treated the same way as alcohol by this country. Certainly, one of my friends, who is a brilliant artist and musician would not be in jail right now.

Whether or not pot should be legalized is topic in which reasonable people can disagree, and I respect you if you believe it should not be legalized. Again though, boycotting Paizo for carrying a product that promotes this very important high-minded debate (in a humorous fashion) may not be the answer to this country's problems with drug culture.

This product SAYS it is about legalization, but has cards that instruct people to toke, for everyone to toke, and to smoke if you are holding. These cards do not deal with legalization, they are DIRECT INSTRUCTIONS TO USE AN ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE. Until I brought attention to this game, Looney Lab's advice to finding children playing this game was to play it with them. Like any addicts, these people are clearly delusional about the impact of their drug of choice.

As for being "less dangerous than alcohol", if it ever was that, it certainly isn't now. The modern strain of cannabis is highly potent and marijuana cannot be considered a "light" drug. Those who compare it with caffeine are laughable.

Just checking to see if Paizo was still selling this crap. I just they don't care about their customers or children, that's too bad.

I've had a lot of requests for research. I'm in the middle of researching for my Ed Specialist thesis, so my progress here is slow but forthcoming. I actually a research guy, but find anecdotes are more powerful rhetoric for most.

I thought it was perfectly clear, but I'll make it clear. I'm talking about illegal drug use, obviously marijuana use in particular. I am not discussing legal drugs. Yes, I agree alcohol and smoking are very, very bad. We've certainly lost kids to alcohol too. That is another topic. I apologize deeply for any confusion because I didn't put "illegal" or "illicit" EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Yes, I'm telling Paizo what to sell and what not to sell. Ownership is not a moral good by itself. This store serves our community, note that verb SERVES. We, the customer, have every right to dictate how our community will be served. We do not have to accept our lot like little lambs and spend our money dutifully regardless of how we feel. I was hoping for more support, but working without support is something I'm used to and I'm already working on other strategies.

I must ask Ms. Stevens how you would feel if your employees bought this doll or played Stoner Fluxx on their breaks? Would she feel so comfortable about this merchandise then? Would it factor into their evaluations? Does Paizo have a drug policy Ms. Stevens? Is drug use grounds for termination at Paizo?

Finally, I'm not saying terrible things would not happen without drug use. I am saying that drugs are that contributing factor that can only be overcome by sheer force of will. For those who don't deal with addicts, drugs become as important to them as food, water, or air. They do anything for that drug. Some people would still do terrible things, but I know many kids whose lives would have been better if they or their parents were not users. I know a boy scout who would still be alive, a valedictorian candidate who wouldn't be in jail now instead (dealing marijuana at school, user kept his numbers on his cell phone), a young man who would not be haunted by the memory of shooting his best friend in a moment of supreme stupidity.

You are D&D players for Pete's sake! Do you fail to fight the orcs just because they'll be reanimated as zombies? Do you stop the dungeon crawl because you know you're not high enough level to beat the dragon? No! You do what you can. You keep chipping away at that evil with the full knowledge that no matter how hard you try, you'll never get it all.

Firebeetle wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Firebeetle wrote:

Marijuana, like any drug, is evil.

I love my morning cup of coffee, and for you or anyone else to take it away from me because caffeine is a drug (and therefore "evil") would be totally uncalled-for.

Get over yourself. I'm talking specifically about marijuana, an illegal and illicit drug. Not car accidents, or caffeine, or Japanese pornography. Straw man arguments are a fallacy, let's stuff them away shall we?

Ah, the infallible latter-day fallback for someone whose position has crumbled; the ever-popular shout of "straw man!" Let's examine one of mine. Caffeine is a drug. It is physically and psychologically addictive, causing physical withdrawal systems when withheld from a habitual user. It is "mind-altering" insofar as alertness is heightened, and IQ test results can indicate as much as a 20-point difference depending on the presence or absence of the drug in one's system. It is aggressively pushed on a hapless populace in the form of "energy drinks" and to children in the form of sweet, milkshake-like "mochaccinos." Indeed, it fits ALL of your definitions for marijuana with the sole exception that it is legal, and marijuana is not.

So the straw man in this case is stuffed with bricks.

Let's see. Your statement is that caffeine is a drug as bad as marijuana. Your straw man isn't full of bricks, I suspect it's full of grass. . .

Just want to throw in (probably has been mentioned) that the only thing that makes marijuana bad is that it's illegal.

If you get drunk (a perfectly legal thing, technically), you are both becoming out of your head (as marijuana would do) and dangerous (as marijuana might do).

So the only difference is that marijuana is illegal. There are plenty of legal things that can get you into as bad a state as weed will.

I've hit upon this as well. Basic fallacy. Your argument is alcohol is legal, marijuana is illegal. Both are bad. Marijuana should therefore be legal. Non Sequitor. Legal or not, marijuana is still bad.

I'm not discussing alcohol. Yes, it's bad. So is smoking. They are the three gateway drugs. Each must be fought in a different way. I'm discussing marijuana on this thread. No alcohol, smoking, caffeine, ammodium AD, aspirin, Tylenol, or otherwise.

Hey guys, I used to be a regular toker, anyways, firebeetle, no matter how many things you have seen or done, it is not the drug, it is the person. And if you still think its the Reefer madness is making these pepole do horrible things, it's thier fault, I've never seen someone have a join stuck in thier mouth, lit, and get kicked in the gut so they inhale.

As I've said, drug use is a choice. The choice to use an illegal drug, such a marijuana, is to make a choice that is detrimental to our society. In short, the consequences are more than just yourself, it affects all of us. Thus, we do not tolerate the message that drug use is OK.

How many times to I have to say this? How many times do I have to restate this?

That being said, I'm a little disturbed by some of the reactions. I can understand people being offended by Firebeetle's stance, but it's not like it isn't obvious that he's working really, really hard with something very serious and basically good and it's clearly affecting his stance on the issue.

I'm okay with him being a "zealot" about something if it's a result of caring too much. He's not out shooting anyone or actually affecting any of our rights or being a terrorist or mafia hitman. He's just a guy who needs to vent because he's tough enough to do some hard work that needs doing. That'd wear me down worse than it has him.

If you don't like his soap box, move on. Sounds like he's doing a lot of good in the real world; doesn't mean we have to like him or listen to him here. I haven't seen anyone swayed by his opinion to not buy from Paizo because of a doll, and it doesn't really make me mad that his opinion differs from mine or that he's wrong about some stuff, or even that he won't buy from Paizo anymore. I dig that he cares, though, and I for sure wouldn't ever want to add to the burdens of someone out there trying to do some good.

Thank you Riskbreaker. I really appreciate your comments. They made my day.

Former cop here. Thanks for telling the truth, firebeetle. I've seen what pot can do in my own life (pre-getting-my-head-on-straight) and in my small rural town. It's a shame some people refuse to see the truth for what it is.

Thank you sir. It is much appreciated.

Firebeetle wrote:

Marijuana is not as immediately destructive as other drugs, as I've stated. Consequences are often secondary,such as the mother in my prior example, too stoned to parent but buys the gun her son wants, perhaps thinking defense against other users who would steal from her. It's all fun and games until someone's brains are shot out. Even if this horrible event did not occur, her son had extreme problems coping with absolutely anything do to his mother's use and utter lack of guidance.

You know, the more details you reveal about this story, the more it sounds completely made up. Another fiction.

Guns do NOT come sold with bullets already in them. Either the mother or the son had to have put the bullet in there. I know accidental shootings like this happen now and again, but the rate is actually pretty low (since most gun owners are responsible, take gun safety courses, and make everybody in the house do the same).

More importantly, even if this did really happen? I suspect it would have played out exactly the same if there was no marijuana use in the poor kid's family at all. You don't say the kid who shot his friend was using marijuana, just his mother. So what was the idiot kid's excuse for pointing a real gun, loaded or not, at his friend's face and pulling the trigger?

Idiocy and irresponsible gun ownership was the cause of that accident (if it even really happened, which I doubt), not marijuana.

You listen up and you listen good. I work 12 hours a day serving these kids. I go to their homes when their parents are too stoned to come to the conference. I make sure they have clothes when no one is providing them at home. I hotline their parents when they are being abused. I have had things thrown at my house, my car almost set on fire, obscene phones calls, and a death threat against my family because my family and I advocate for these kids when no one else will. I would never, ever, dishonor their memory with a made up or exaggerated story. FERPA will not allow me to give a name, but I can give you the number of the local library if you want to go digging through some micro fices of the local paper. A search of Clinton, MO in the Mo State Trooper database on sex offenders will turn up some of the villains I've spoken of.

You say: This would have happened anyway? What sort of argument is that?!

This is what that kid needed from Mom to prevent this from happening. Marijuana blocks it every time.

1.) Actual parenting, including consequences for actions- Mom is too stoned and too paranoid about getting into trouble to give consequences or seek parenting support. Result- child is immature, irresponsible, and does not consider consequences.
2.) Purchase of a gun- Drug users frequently have guns to protect themselves from theft, a common part of the drug-using culture. Having her son, getting quite large, with a gun was quite a good choice for a drug user. Having an immature and thoughtless child with a gun makes no sense to a non-drug using parent.
3.) Supervision- Here's the big one. Drug using parents are supervised by their kids, not the other way around. That is, until the children join the family activity and become users themselves. In this case, no supervision was to be had as the child had a gun. Again, Mom was stoned.

Marijuana = no chance for the kid. The prosecutor agreed. Mom was charged, not the kid.

Oh, get OVER yourself already.

Your way of looking at the world is not the only way to look at it. Your anecdotes are not the only anecdotes (and I know I can match anecdote for anecdote, showing that marijuana use is completely benign).

Your (nothing but) anecdotal evidence is disingenuous emotional manipulation, trying to make your case by telling us the most awful stories you can think of, so we react aghast, in horror.

I appreciate your strong feeling on the subject, as clearly it is something close to your heart, but you have provided nothing, not one tiny iota of evidence showing even the most minor correlation (let alone actual causation) between Paizo selling these products and any possible increase in the societal acceptance of drug use.

Do you even know how many of these products Paizo has sold through the website?

Frankly, since every single person who has come in this thread (mostly to oppose your silly boycott, which seems to be starting as soon as you're done using the Paizo boards) has expressed an extreme disinterest in both this plush doll and the stupid card game, I would be very surprised if Paizo has sold any at all.

You say all marijuana use is evil? Evil is a really strong word. Perhaps the reason for your zealotry (something I disdain no matter what its cause) is that you have strong religious beliefs on the subject? Satan is twirling his moustache somewhere and laughing evilly every time someone lights up a joint somewhere? If religion is, in fact, the cause of...

My anecdotes are testimony of a bonded, certified state employee who has served well over a thousand students in my career, as has my wife (a different student body) and my daughter has served hundreds of clients. My anecdotes are the testimony of dedicated, college educated public servants who are privy to information that the common citizen is not, we see the stories that others do not see. Serving an at risk population (or addicts in my daughter's case) we have seen many die in accidents and murders, serve serious jail time (including two lifers), raped, abused, or just plain drop off the list of law-abiding society.

You're right, my way of looking at things isn't the only way. Many people agree with the position that it is in allowing a civil tolerance of marijuana that allows its use to grow.

Yes, evil. Let's use another useless anecdote about a student from my first year. An amazingly smart child who always behaved and did the right thing. Her family used marijuana extensively. The year prior to mine, she had to have her head shaved to eliminate the head lice. When she was removed from her home, no food was found for her or her younger siblings. She was diminuative for her age. She was often sent home due to head lice, or kept home to babysit when her mother was tripping. Once, she came to school in a jacket that reeked of marijuana. Mom was put into jail in the second quarter, and she went to live with her aunt and uncle, the latter raping her repeatedly. He went to jail for years but returned to the very same home. You know, that kid deserved a chance, but thanks to marijuana she never got it. That's evil, any way you cut it.

I should get over myself? You should wake up.

I am glad to see we have another attempt at a personal attack, glad I'm getting through so well. My religion is now on trial, since I'm obviously a religious fanatic or something. I'm not, I'm a Presbyterian, we are an incredibly mellow bunch. Mr. Rodgers was a Presbyterian, we have the same amount of religious fervor in our church as he did on his show, which is to say not at all. I can't remember the word "drug" or even "devil" being mentioned in the last ten years. We are much more concerned with world hunger and poverty, using "feed and clothe" missions vs. "come to Jesus" missions. Sorry, the only zealots you'll find in this debate are the drug users.

Firebeetle wrote:

Marijuana, like any drug, is evil. It ruins lives, that's evil.

Car accidents ruin lives, sir; are automobiles therefore indisputably evil, by your definition? Do you walk everywhere? Cancer ruins lives, but it's not "evil," it's a disease. If everything with the potential to ruin lives is "evil," then very few things are not evil, and we're left with a very small world indeed.

I avoid illegal drugs because I value my brain, and because they're illegal. But I love my morning cup of coffee, and for you or anyone else to take it away from me because caffeine is a drug (and therefore "evil") would be totally uncalled-for. In this case, though, you're not just denying people their cup of coffee: you would seemingly deny them their 1st amendment right to speak out in favor of coffee as well. That's not how things work in the U.S. Possessing or selling marijuana is a crime, but simply speaking in favor of its legalization is not, no matter how much you may want it to be.

Get over yourself. I'm talking specifically about marijuana, an illegal and illicit drug. Not car accidents, or caffeine, or Japanese pornography. Straw man arguments are a fallacy, let's stuff them away shall we?

I'm talking about supporing a drug lifestyle, which is done by selling obviously drug related items. The doll and the Fluxx game are the gamer equivalent of a hat or belt buckle with a marijuana leaf on them. The primary customers for these will be drug users. Paizo is about supporting the gamer lifestyle, not the drug lifestyle.

You say you value your brain so you don't use drugs. Don't you value the brains of your fellow gamers? I do, for what we do is social and not individual. You can say, "let them choose" but letting someone choose a mind-altering, addictive, chemical is not a good choice under any circumstance. We cannot stop people from choosing, but we can sure as hell let them know it is not acceptable. In fact, that's ultimately all we can do.

Ahh... My previous life as a High School English teacher rears again.

"Good and evil we know in the field of this world grow up together almost inseparably; and the knowledge of good is so involved and interwoven with the knowledge of evil, and in so many cunning resemblances hardly to be discerned, that those confused seeds which were imposed upon Psyche as an incessant labour to cull out and sort asunder, were not more intermixed. It was from out the rind of one apple tasted that the knowledge of good and evil, as two twins cleaving together, leaped forth into the world. And perhaps this is that doom which Adam fell into of knowing good and evil, that is to say of knowing good by evil."

Please, Censors of the World, read John Milton's Areopagitica, or at least read the Spark/Cliff Notes...

Censorship, oh please.

When you were a teacher, you couldn't show certain movies (say "Pink Floyd's The Wall"), because they were not appropriate. There have been Supreme Court cases about such, you would lose your job and not a soul would say "censorship"

Your local library doesn't carry Playboy, or Penthouse, or Maxim, or High Times. It's not appropriate. Neither does your supermarket, or Wal-Mart. If they did, patrons would complain they don't want to shop someplace where Playboy or High Times is sold. The manager might say "but we have it behind the counter, and only adults could buy" People would still be well within their rights to exercise their power as a consumer and say no. This is not censorship, this is taking control of the place where your money is spent. We are not just open wallets, we are people who have the right to influence what is sold where we spend our money. We the consumers have the power, but only if we exercise it.

I work at a movie theater on weekends, if we decided to show porn every Saturday night at midnight, admitting only adults, we would be broke inside a week. People would simply stop coming. This is not censorship, it's consumer action to let the merchant, who is providing the community a service, what the public wants. Capitalism is not a moral good onto itself, it must serves the needs and interests of the community. Marijuana, an illegal drug, does not serve the needs or interests of the law-abiding community. Hence we do not support it.

Drugs and RPGs, on those rare occasions they meet, have a terrible history that has stigmatized the game. Wade Dallas Egbert III Chris Pritchard, Rodrick Justin Farrell . . .all these cases had drug associations. As a community, we should say no. Period.

Firebeetle wrote:

Homegrown, not homegrown, it's all evil.

Evil. Evil? I mean, really, EVIL? Natural herbs that, when smoked, give the user a mild sense of euphoria. Evil? A substance that the DEA declared to be a therapeutically safe drug. Evil? I don't support drug use, but I definitely take issue with these sorts of attempts at disingenuous manipulation. Words have power, and when we carelessly--or worse, purposefully--use words like "Evil" in an attempt to make an argument, we cheapen the definition of those words. Like it or not, marijuana is not "evil" any more than hemlock is "evil." And people who choose to use or even abuse marijuana are not "evil."

I take issue with, and condemn, your attempt to impose censorship upon Paizo or anyone else. But as much as I despise censorship, even censorship (generally speaking) is not "evil." Misguided, yes. Unacceptable and anathema to freedom? Certainly. But not evil.

Slavery is evil. Sweatshops are evil. Racism, sexism and bigotry...even those things might not be evil--just ignorant. Though they can lead to evil. Abuse of power for personal gain might be evil. Hatred may be evil. Oppression is evil. But a plant? Let's keep some perspective here.

And I find it interesting that you should have stumbled upon these products that offend you so greatly. I spend a lot of time on this site. A lot. And I had never heard of these products before today. So the impression I have is that you have gone looking for something by which to be offended.

It reminds of a story I heard from a co-worker back when I worked in law enforcement: A little old lady calls the police to complain of a "naked man" outside her house. The officers show up and ask where she saw the naked man. She takes them inside to her bathroom and points out the window. the officers look out the window and see the house next door. They can see the bathroom of the house next door and a man with no shirt on with shaving cream on...

That's a very long attribution, Silvermace. I never personally attacked you, BTW. Your argument is: You are a zealot and therefore your argument cannot be trusted. Is that what you are inferring with this? If not, what? I count this as a victory, BTW, once the personal attacks start coming I know I'm getting somewhere. That's when people can't argue with you anymore, so that try to discredit you instead. Good luck with that.

I noticed the doll on the newsletter that is sent to my e-mail. I recognized the doll as drug related instantly (so if a square like me notices it right away, it's very obvious to those claiming it's not), confirmed via the site copy ad and then wrote a letter to paizo and also posted it originally on EN World. Someone there pointed out the Stoner Fluxx game. In her earlier post, Stevens notes that it should be taken off the blog.

Will there be any other personal attacks? I really resent having to take a paragraph to explain how I came across information to disprove some lame theory. If you're looking for a zealot, look elsewhere.

Marijuana, like any drug, is evil. It ruins lives, that's evil. Some people lives are not ruined, that is true. Like many evil things, it is not always obvious. I know you've been convinced that marijuana is some sort of god given miracle medicine. Frankly, it's nothing that isn't handled better with Marinol (sp?). Once again, addicts will say anything and believe anything if is means supporting their habit. That's why selling them a drug-related doll or game is also evil and I refuse to accept it.

I'm guessing from statements given here that many haven't seen the business end of addiction (no, I'm not an addict, stop it already.) My daughter works in this area, treating dozens and dozens of addicts over the years who are lucky to be alive. A great number of them started off taking a toke from some jerk who told them it was good for them.

couple of quick corrections and one reaction:

1st - The 'gateway theory' has never been quantitatively proven in an unbiased survey. The only published studies come from groups whose funding is tied to the war on drugs - a clear conflict of interest.

2nd - Marijuana is a mild hallucinogen, not a depressant.

Finally, I strongly agree with the position that people need to make up their own minds on a topic. Especially youth. Your method of stating your point clearly demonstrates your passion about the topic and your caring for today's youth. Unfortunately, your tone and delivery leave it clear that the only acceptable 'decision' a person could make is to agree with you. That's not actually a decision at all.

Even though I agree with much of what you say, these products are satirical in the same vein as the Big Johnson T-shirts of the early 1990's. Those shirts elicited a similar over-reaction. Many attempts to limit free speech or censor humor come from misguided altruism. Personally, I find that irksome.

Those T-shirts supported drug use how? I thought the purpose of those shirts was to indicate the wearer had a big penis, regardless if they actually did or not. I fail to see the correlation.

To your arguments, thank you for stating them clearly.

1- Causality, that A leads to B, is difficult to establish. A strong majority of drug users report marijuana as their first drug. Marijuana use can be used as a barometer for harder drug usage. This doesn't necessarily mean causality scientifically even when obvious practically. Tobacco used this argument for decades (Just because our customers get lung cancer does not mean cigarettes are the cause.) However, my daughter who works in rehabilitation can quickly tell you, marijuana is the first drug that users use. If we keep them away from it they do not get inducted into the subculture, taught how to use and keep it hidden, and don't try the harder stuff thinking it is safe.

2- It's a depressant. From standford's website:

As part of a larger investigation based in Australia, the method identified 277 twin pairs in which one had initiated marijuana use before age 17 and the other did not. By studying twins, researchers are better able to separate whether drug use and depression are caused by genetic or environmental factors, particularly if they look at the differences between identical and fraternal twins.

Lynskey’s study revealed that suicidal thoughts and attempts were over twice as likely to appear in the marijuana-dependent twin.

That's tip of the iceberg, there are many other indicators. I'd like to point to that "suicidal thoughts and attempts" line. This drug is fatal, contrary to what users would have you believe. They say silly things like "I use it and I'm not dead." Of course not, then you wouldn't be talking to me would you? Not everyone dies, but that doesn't mean it isn't dangerous.

Now, you can sit there and choose not to do anything about it, which is a choice by itself. You can spend your money here with the knowledge that Paizo profits from drug use. I don't choose to. I take a stand against drugs.

Again Firebeetle I'm with you in your original reaction, but you are missing the point. This product deals with legalization. It doesn't say "Hey smoke pot, we don't care it's illegal"...it says "Marijuana is a 'drug' that has less detrimental effect on the user than alcohol does, and oh yeah, thousands of people are thrown in jail for years for using or selling this relatively harmless (compared to alcohol) substance."

This is a separate issue from supporting drug culture. This is an examination of the politics and legality of marijuana.

For those who don't know, this product promises that a $1 from sales will be spent on legalizing marijuana. On their site they show they have spent THOUSANDS on this issue.

If you believe that this product is simply aimed at legalization, and that those buying the Baked Baked plush are simply making fun of drug users, you are being incredibly naive. It is upon this naivete users feed. The thing they dread most is someone telling them no.

This is a consumer issue. We as a community have the right to say "we do not want drugs to be part of our gaming community" I don't think that is so far fetched, do you?

Woah, woah there. Did they leave a joint at the scene?

My wife had everything stolen from her by her drug using roommate when she was younger and single mother. Her friend not only kept her habit secret, but GOT A MOVING VAN and moved out every last bit of furniture and item including her daughter's (now my daughter too)toys.

This is common for users, they constantly steal from anyone who gives them the slightest amount of trust.

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

Though the actual status of dope vs opium (the Taleban's preferred currency) isn't clear to me, it is still the case that if you are buying drugs, you are involving yourself in organised crime. And that isn't funny or cute.

The single most effective way to stop the flow of cash to organized crime from drugs?

Legalization.

The other problems with drug use and abuse are a seperate thing, but if what you're concerned about is lining the pockets of organized crime? Legalize it. There is no other way to shut off the flow of cash to organized crime.

There will always be crime, and thus there will always be people trying to do it in an organized fashion. I'm sorry, but there's no going back to the Garden. If you're talking about getting rid of crime and drug use altogether, you're talking about recreating Eden, and it ain't gonna happen.

Legalization in those countries with lenient or permissive laws still lead to crimes. Users cannot afford their habits, so they turn to crimes to pay for them. Burglary, prostitution (trading sex for drugs is the common introduction for many prostitutes), mugging, manufacturing drugs, blackmarket etc.

Further, legalization of marijuana increases use. Use of marijuana can be used as a measure to harder drug usage. Increase marijuana usage, and you increase usage for harder, more profitable drugs.

Legalization does not eliminate organized crime involvement, it just makes their operations legal. Case in point is Las Vegas, with a history of mafia involvement that dates back to the city founders.

There will always be crime, you are correct. We can do our best to contain and control that. Throwing up our hands and saying "just let it happen" is not a solution.

Firebeetle wrote:

Every drug destroys, but the consequences and time frame vary.

Does this drug count? And what about all the Internal Medicine specialists, 'Internists' who belong to this world-renowned organization, would they agree with you? In fact, you can search their archives, as well as the archives for this respectable little club, who argue that tobacco is the gateway drug to alcohol, which statistically causes more accidental deaths, incidents of domestic and child abuse, murder, rape, and theft in a single year than marijuana in a decade; and that marijuana is statistically less dangerous a drug, pharmacologically, than cough syrup...but don't take my word for it; research the sites on your own.

Alcohol, tobacco, and cough syrup (which contains alcohol and is frequently used by addicts) are all legal, as I've stated. You will see a far greater incidence.

Marijuana is not as immediately destructive as other drugs, as I've stated. Consequences are often secondary,such as the mother in my prior example, too stoned to parent but buys the gun her son wants, perhaps thinking defense against other users who would steal from her. It's all fun and games until someone's brains are shot out. Even if this horrible event did not occur, her son had extreme problems coping with absolutely anything do to his mother's use and utter lack of guidance.

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

And as it is illegal, and the proceeds are used to fund all sorts of unsavoury things like terrorism

Buy homegrown, or grow your own. It supports your local farmers, and doesn't fund terrorism.

More anecdotes:

An old, old friend of mine lived with two homegrowers in Boulder, Colorado. That sort of thing is frankly common there. One of there casual customers sexually assualted her in their home. The two homegrowers convinced my friend not to call the police. That would have compromised their operation. It was at that time I began to disassociate myself with friends who use drugs. They have no judgement.

Homegrown, not homegrown, it's all evil.

This product clearly and obviously supports a drug lifestyle. I do not do business with any company that sells products that support a drug lifestyle. Until this product is removed, I sadly shall not continue to do business with Paizo.com

If you feel the same, please sign below. Let Paizo know you don't support drugs.

If you have some debate about this, please read my responses on this thread to a similar product.

Baked Baked Plush

Thank you for your support.

Hey y'all:

We'll take a look at these toys when we get back from GenCon. We have content that we sell on the website that isn't intended for all people. We usually tag this as adult content so that folks who are less than 18 can't actually see it. Looks like we missed this product. I'll have Gary switch the picture on the blog.

We try to offer a wide range of products that appeal to all tastes. Some of it is adult content and it goes all the way to Christian card and board games. To each his own. I don't want to make paizo.com a place where I personally make decisions about what is right and wrong, and what people should buy or not. So my suggestion is to buy the stuff that you want and don't buy the other stuff. If enough folks don't buy items, they eventually die off.

Thanks!

-Lisa

“To each his own” In this response you legitimize drug use, you say, “some adults choose that, and that is OK.” I disagree.

We aren’t talking about a matter of taste here, we are talking about illegal drug use that is detrimental to our society and your company is making a profit from it. I’m going to try to summarize your response, please let me know if I’ve got it wrong. Since I’m dealing with inference here it’s tricky.

“Adults may choose to use illegal drugs if they want to. As a merchant, I can sell them merchandise that supports their drug lifestyle and profit from it, regardless of the social harm illegal drugs and their users cause.”

What, ma’am, is incorrect about this statement or do I have it right?

I am not claiming that the Baked Baked doll or Stoner Fluxx causes anyone to use drugs. They do, however, support the drug lifestyle. They let the drug user celebrate and revel in their addiction. It communicate to other users and gives them reason to discourse and socialize. In short, when a user buys your doll or game, they are buying acceptance. Drug subculture doesn’t need any help, yet here is Paizo profiting from it.

I have no problem, as some have suggested, with profiting from D&D. No matter the content and despite urban legends to the contrary, there is no evidence of social harm from D&D. In fact, research has found gamers have been found to be more likely to be law-abiding citizens with regular jobs, and (ironically) are less likely to commit suicide. There is no harm here. There is no harm in selling games, even ones with morbid themes, as games are a social activity in an ever-increasingly unsocial world. I don’t even have a problem with your Hentai porn. If some guy masturbates to a picture of a naked girl with a bat wing hat or a tail or cat slit eyes or something, I fail to see the victim other than some innocent sperm cells.

I must ask Ms. Stevens. How much profit do you make from these dolls, or from Stoner Fluxx? How much do legitimate merchants make from a user buying knick knacks and doodads that celebrate her favorite activity? Let’s say a user spends as much as I do on D&D, at least $500 a year. That seems generous.

How much do the rest of us pay? How much of their money goes to drug dealers who use it to fund their other criminal operations? How much do they steal from family, friends, and others to fund their habit? How much do we taxpayers spend on law enforcement to deal with them? How much do we spend on courts costs? How much to jail them? I’m willing to bet it is more than $500. That $3 to $6 dollars you made so your adult, drug using customer could feel good about her habit isn’t worth it.

The consequences of drug use on the user and on the rest of us are very, very real. They are often hard to see, as confidentiality restrictions and the rules of polite society blind most of the populace to it. For many of us who deal with this population, I can assure you it is horrifying. Are you really so comfortable profiting from that? I for one am not. Others feel as I do.

I have many Paizo issues of Dungeon and Dragon on my shelf. I’ve got the whole set of Steel Sqwire spell templates and maps. I frequently buy your material form my FLGS, scouting out your website ahead of those rare times I have cash. I look with envy at your Gamer Mastery miniature sets and little tile maps. I’d really hate not to be able to purchase these items when the money comes, and I hope you will not stay my hand further.

You’ve advised me to “not buy the items I don’t like.” That does not address the problem, which is profiting from drug usage. The message must be sent loud and clear. We as a society reject illegal drug use. It is not acceptable. If you accept the drug addict’s business for your drug-related items, you’re accepting her addiction. I will not buy from anyone who profits from drug use. I can’t spend my money here, nor on anything Paizo makes. It would not be responsible to the students and community I serve. I would dishonor those many victims I have already seen.

So long as Paizo profits from products that support a drug lifestyle, I will not purchase Paizo products and will encourage others to do the same. If you’re still unsure, please call your former partner Johnny. I have met him and I feel certain he will advise you well on this issue. You have stated you would rather not have to choose what does and does not appear on your site. That, in itself, is a choice.

I'm a teacher and it is the first of the year (hence missing Gen Con.) I've got a million things to do. Everybody else can have the last word. I feel I've made myself clear on this issue. If it belongs in a head shop, it doesn't belong on Paizo.com

"Gateway Drug"

I smoked pot. I didn't smoke crack. The only reason both might have come from the same source (a criminal) was because of the law. I taught English in high school for several years before accepting my current job and I have seen students who drink and do drugs, and neither one of them impressed me. When I was in high school a friend of mine was raped while she was drunk. I've never met a girl who was raped after smoking copious amounts of pot. My best friend's dad was killed by a drunk driver. I know two people who died of lung cancer smoking cigarettes.

Why do I say these things? Because I think the issue is far more complicated than saying "marijuana is bad" and people who do so really annoy me.

Our young people having a future and being able to think for themselves seems to me to be far more important than generalizations about drug users.

Two weeks ago one of my wife’s students was picked up and charged with dealing marijuana. After being released he committed suicide. He was 16 years old. He had a family that loved him, they miss him terribly.

Two years ago, a former student of mine was playing with a gun his marijuana using mother had bought for him. Thinking it unloaded, he pointed it at his best friend, another former student, and pulled the trigger. The good news is that his best friend died instantly as the brain went through his skull. Another family is short a son. The shooter has to live with the guilt of killing his best friend forever. As far as I know, his mother still smokes pot.

A former client of my daughter’s had been a marijuana user when he decided to try something harder for the first time. A common scenario as marijuana gives the impression that drugs are safe to use. He and a friend of his went out under the influence of this drug, tortured and killed an old man (a father and grandfather.) The former client and his accomplice are now serving a life sentences.

I am not making any of this up, I wish to God I was. Nothing here is exaggerated. These are just a few examples of the dangers of marijuana use that I can personally attest to. So at the risk of annoying you, I’m going to “generalize” and say “marijuana is bad.”

I don’t know you personally, but I have to say you present a very classic set of addict arguments. I’ll restate these into statements, you can tell me if I’m incorrect.

1. I have used marijuana and have suffered no problems, therefore it is OK- I’ve seen addicts who cannot hold a job for over a month say this. I’ve seen addicts out of work, divorced and estranged from their families, and getting into violent brawls constantly say this. I’ve seen people in court for stealing to support their habit say this. Denial is in the nature of the drug. Users almost never admit there

But let’s say you really haven’t had a problem. As my three examples above show, this is not the case for everyone else. If marijuana was immediately as terrible as the end results, we wouldn’t be having this discourse. Drugs often destroy slowly, not to see that is unintelligent and unperceptive.

2. Alcohol and tobacco are legal drugs with terrible consequences, so marijuana is good- This is a fallacy. AIDS is bad, so herpes is good. Bears are bad, so lions are good. The reason the consequences for drugs and alcohol are so prevalent is because these drugs are legal and therefore usage is widespread. I find it ironic that some call for marijuana legalization on the basis of alcohol and tobacco legality, which would only increase usage of yet another problem drug. We really should be addressing the problems with alcohol and tobacco.

3. Marijuana isn’t the problem, it is harder drugs like crack that are the problem- Every drug destroys, but the consequences and time frame vary. Many drugs are immediately dangerous, others are more subtle and sinister. Tobacco, with its highly addictive quality, ready availability, slick advertising, and payload of carcinogens was denied as dangerous for decades. Marijuana’s victims range from suicide (it’s a depressant, after all) to people who simply drop out of existence (like the mother of the shooter above.) Finally, marijuana is the gateway drug (I find people understand “starter” more intuitively, but I am very familiar with the term) for those harder drugs like the murderer in the third example. It is the stepping stone for hard drug use. Without the stepping stone, the determined will still make it across the river but most will be dissuaded.

I absolutely think children need to think for themselves. That's why I think the message about the unacceptability of drugs needs to be loud and clear. Because they do choose, and they need to know from us that we as a society do not approve of drugs instead of selling them dolls and games.

I am VERY upset to see your "Baked Baked Plush" doll. My wife and I are both teachers of high risk students and my daughter works in drug rehabilitation and we have a FIRM, IRON-CLAD POLICY against spending money on any merchant who supports a drug lifestyle. The doll whose "activities include baking batches of special brownies, ripping crispy bingers and burning bowls followed by the consumption of large quantities of chips, cookies, candy bars, ice cream, pizza, pretty much anything edible and some things that aren't" certainly qualifies.

Anything that sends the message "you can celebrate your drug use with this purchase" is not acceptable to me. I estimate I have spent over $200 on Paizo products in the last year and was considering subscribing to your "Pathfinder" periodical. That is out of the question if you choose to market and sell this doll. Marijuana use is a "starter" for almost every other drug out there.

Between students and clients my family has seen one tragic death, one suicide, at least two murders, multiple life-changing injuries, multiple jail sentences (including two life sentences) and more than a few drop-outs related to drug use. We take this matter seriously and will not "get over it" or "lighten up" about "just pot."

I really hope I can spend money on Paizo products again. Send this doll back to the manufacturer now.

I might be wrong, but I think the phasm was created for the 3E Monster Manual. I sort of remember one of those trivia questions in Dragon having to do with that.

M@

Yes, I just found that one. It's from the original 3.0 MM.

Thank you all for the insight on lamia's, I'm doing some serious research on them now that I have a mythical reference.

I'm thinking about doing an ecology article. These three are candidates. Does anyone know of any history to these? I know Lamia was in an ecology a long time ago, and someone mentioned that the Phasm may be in an Elminster Ecologies. That's about all I know. Any suggestions or hints on where to look?

These articles WERE online freely on the old Wizards site. Again, I would like to see them again. It would be great to have some sort of product regarding them, free or not.

Just wondering what some upcoming themes where for Dragon that are in the planning stage please? This is for the purpose of proposing articles.

Even if the magazines weren't contractually obliged so, it's not in their best business interests to release their stuff for free. When magazines sell out they still sell back issues, and when those sell out they can still sell PDF copies.

To be honest I'm baffled that anyone who sells D&D products would particularly want to release their stuff as OGL. It's essentially saying, "I'm going to sell this for $5, but it's perfectly legal for a competitor to basically copy it word-for-word and resell it."

You don't get the OGC (Open Game Concept) concept. You're right, someone can copy whatever you make OGC (which a certain percentage of your work HAS to be) and use it in their product freely. In fact, that's the idea.

Delancey envisoned the OGL allowing the game to evolve at it went. Like an open source program it would have the ability to evolve as different users added to it and refined it. We have seen this already to some effect, as some of Monte Cook's work has been inspiration for Eberron material, for example. I suspect you will see it more and more when a publisher realizes they can print an alternate PHB with considerable additional material. We've also seen many compilations of feats, spells, and monsters that have been reworked and revised. These happen usally long after the "sales window" for the original product, so no harm no foul as far as publishers are concerned.

But that's not the only reason for the OGL. The second reason is to make D&D the "lingo franca" of role-playing games. Before the OGL, there were a few big RPGs and loads of little ones. This has a fragmentary effect on the RPG market. The OGL seeks to consoldate the "little guy" effect by giving them the rules to use for free. D&D has always attracted, by it's nature, a lot of tinkering and attempts to publish extra rules or extra games. Now that effect works FOR D&D, not against it. In return, publishers get to sell their ideas and games to a market that knows how to use them and doesn't need further education.

But that's not the only reason for the OGL either. The main reason is the market. A product can only be as big as it's market, and the RPG market was in freefall for a while there. Every dollar spent in a market helps the market leader, even if they don't spend it on the market leader's product directly. Any money spent on an RPG supports D&D, because it supports the concept, the store it was purchased in that sells the product, the publisher who gets his booth at the con were D&D is featured, and adds to the community of potential gamers there. It is known that some buyers will move on and never come back, but if they are buying RPG product, especially OGL product, it still helps the market leader (D&D).

That's why you give it away. Why is Adobe the king of panformat readers? they give it away. Why is Real the king of media players? they give it away. Why is D&D the king of the market, a market that now shows growth instead of loss? They give it away.

So when is Dragon going to give it away? That's my question.

Are there any plans to release anything as OGC? The purpose of the OGL was to build an environment in which the game could be increased and built upon. That process is stifled if you keep it to yourself. Perhaps things could be released on some sort of schedule, or when back issues sold out?

I wonder what Dragon articles and material is Open Game Content, if any? In particular, I'm interested in material from the player's option articles, such as flaws, backgrounds, cleric beliefs, and so on. I'm also interested if the Bloodline feats of Dragon 311 and 324 (?) are OGC. Does anyone know?