# Politics and News > Rants, Opinions, Observations >  Legalizing pot may begin the end, well add to the finish of the beginning of the end

## Archer

*Abstract*Impairments of human cognition and learning following chronic marijuana use are of serious concern, but have not been clearly demonstrated. To determine whether such impairments occurred, this study compared performance of adult marijuana users and non-users (_N_=144 and_N_=72, respectively) matched on intellectual functioning before the onset of drug use, i.e., on scores from standardized tests administered during the fourth grade of grammar school (Iowa Tests of Basic Skills). Subjects were given the twelfth grade versions of these tests (Iowa Tests of Educational Development) and other, computerized cognitive tests in successive test sessions. Heavy marijuana use (defined by use seven or more times weekly) was associated with deficits in mathematical skills and verbal expression in the Iowa Tests of Educational Development and selective impairments in memory retrieval processes in Buschke's Test. The retrieval impairments were restricted to words that were easy to visualize. Impairments depended on the frequency of chronic marijuana use, i.e., light and intermediate marijuana use (defined by use one to four and five to six times weekly, respectively) were not associated with deficits. Intermediate use was associated with superior performance in one condition (fuzzy concepts) of a Concept Formation test.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02246977

Don't we have enough dumb asses running around?

----------


## Perianne

@Archer, do you ever smoke pot?  If you don't mind saying.

----------


## Archer

> @Archer, do you ever smoke pot?  If you don't mind saying.


Not for at least twenty years. I did when I was a kid.

----------


## JustPassinThru

That's been my point on this all along.

WHY would we make available, a drug that just makes young people STUPID?

----------

Irascible Crusader (03-04-2014)

----------


## Perianne

> Not for at least twenty years. I did when I was a kid.


I did once.

----------


## Archer

> That's been my point on this all along.
> 
> WHY would we make available, a drug that just makes young people STUPID?


Imagin how smert I wdve bean if I hant smote the pot!

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

The study analyzes "heavy marijuana use", defined as consumption seven or more times a week. While informative regarding individuals who are chronic users, I think a more important question is surveying how many individuals who use marijuana are actually "heavy" users as opposed to recreational users.

----------


## Archer

Honestly it was reefer back in the day. Never smoked a pot but hey the BONG!!! Dat wuz the shiznit!

----------


## Archer

> The study analyzes "heavy marijuana use", defined as consumption seven or more times a week. While informative regarding individuals, I think a more important question is surveying how many individuals who use marijuana are actually "heavy" users as opposed to recreational users.


Seven time a week? Shit I have used seven times in a damn day... For the life of me I do not think I ever got high off of the crap though. And yes it was real but I know most opiates have no effect on me so it may be pot as well.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Imagin how smert I wdve bean if I hant smote the pot!


It's like anything else.  Some people aren't perceptibly affected; and some hugely.  Winston Churchill used to drink a fifth of whiskey a day...at his desk, during the war.  Never seemed to cloud his judgment.

Try doing THAT.  I know I couldn't, not even after years of practice.

But alcohol use is so intertwined to various human cultures - even Saudi Arabia has alcoholics - that one has to wonder if attraction to alcohol is hard-wired to the brain.  And the intoxication effect is short-lived, and if the drunk does it often he is short-lived, too.  Thus cleansing the gene pool and solving his own problem.

Not so pot.  Nope, doesn't shorten one's life - the pothead remains a leach and an imbecile for a long, long time.

----------


## Perianne

> ...the pothead remains a leach and an imbecile for a long, long time.


And annoying, too.

----------


## Dos Equis

> That's been my point on this all along.
> 
> WHY would we make available, a drug that just makes young people STUPID?


Why would the government want a bunch of misinformed ignorant voters?

Beats the hell out of me.

----------

DeadEye (03-06-2014)

----------


## Sentinel

> Why would the government want a bunch of misinformed ignorant voters?
> 
> Beats the hell out of me.


Baah Ba Baa Bah

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Why would the government want a bunch of misinformed ignorant voters?
> 
> Beats the hell out of me.


Does it, really?

Tyrants love idiotic voters.  They're easily led; and can be deceived into voting their democracy away.

Hitler was elected.  So was Castro and Francois Duvalier.  And Hugo Chavez.

It's a common step; but it starts with putting the ignorant in the voting booths.

----------


## Archer

> It's like anything else.  Some people aren't perceptibly affected; and some hugely.  Winston Churchill used to drink a fifth of whiskey a day...at his desk, during the war.  Never seemed to cloud his judgment.
> 
> Try doing THAT.  I know I couldn't, not even after years of practice.
> 
> But alcohol use is so intertwined to various human cultures - even Saudi Arabia has alcoholics - that one has to wonder if attraction to alcohol is hard-wired to the brain.  And the intoxication effect is short-lived, and if the drunk does it often he is short-lived, too.  Thus cleansing the gene pool and solving his own problem.
> 
> Not so pot.  Nope, doesn't shorten one's life - the pothead remains a leach and an imbecile for a long, long time.


I got one friend who smokes it on the norm. Pretty smart and not your typical pot head. I have worked with others who... Well you just knew... think Sean Penn Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Dude...

----------


## Irascible Crusader

I don't believe the myth that potheads make people mellow.  Like all drugs, pot stunts people's maturation process by giving them an escape.  It's why people who have been doing drugs their whole life and finally get clean and sober act like large children, because the maturing process picked up again where it left off.....years ago when the abuse first started.  And it seems the Pothead Left, especially the "libertarians" are a mean bunch, screaming and swearing at anyone who doesn't love Ron Paul as much as they do.  If you don't agree with them on everything, they hate you and you're no different than any totalitarian statist.  Pot didn't make them mellow, it made them permanently angry.

----------


## Matt

> That's been my point on this all along.
> 
> WHY would we make available, a drug that just makes young people STUPID?


Umm...beer is ever flowing and so is liquor....so yeah...about that...

One day America will wake up. Don't know how we ignored thousands upon thousands of medical literature posted in medical journals around the world saying that marijuana is completely harmless...but man this one study...it sure seals the deal doesn't it? Propaganda is propaganda....remain slaves of the government....you don't have to smoke it....but don't deny others their rights to do so.

----------

DeadEye (03-06-2014),fyrenza (03-07-2014)

----------


## Archer

> Umm...beer is ever flowing and so is liquor....so yeah...about that...
> 
> One day America will wake up. Don't know how we ignored thousands upon thousands of medical literature posted in medical journals around the world saying that marijuana is completely harmless...but man this one study...it sure seals the deal doesn't it? Propaganda is propaganda....remain slaves of the government....you don't have to smoke it....but don't deny others their rights to do so.


Beer and liquor mess up the brain as well.

----------

fyrenza (03-07-2014)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Umm...beer is ever flowing and so is liquor....so yeah...about that...
> 
> One day America will wake up. Don't know how we ignored thousands upon thousands of medical literature posted in medical journals around the world saying that marijuana is completely harmless...but man this one study...it sure seals the deal doesn't it? Propaganda is propaganda....remain slaves of the government....you don't have to smoke it....but don't deny others their rights to do so.


You should know better.  How is any smoke you suck into your lungs harmless?

----------


## Matt

> You should know better.  How is any smoke you suck into your lungs harmless?


Well obviously if it's abused it can hurt you. Just like many other things. You can kill yourself with sugar too. Should we ban that?

----------

fyrenza (03-07-2014)

----------


## Perianne

> Don't know how we ignored thousands upon thousands of medical literature posted in medical journals around the world saying that marijuana is completely harmless...


Show me one legitimate medical source that says marijuana is completely harmless and I will donate $20 to the charity of your choice.

----------

Irascible Crusader (03-04-2014)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Well obviously if it's abused it can hurt you. Just like many other things. You can kill yourself with sugar too. Should we ban that?


It's amazing how the Pothead Left continues to make this stupid argument and I kill it every time with my response:

Having one dangerous substance on our streets is not a justification to add even more danger.

----------

Perianne (03-04-2014)

----------


## Matt

> Having one dangerous substance on our streets is not a justification to add even more danger.


Violating personal liberties in order to create a false sense of security only dumbs down the population. 

I'd say that shoots down your response pretty well. I'm not liberal...I don't care what they think. That was easy to pop.

----------

DeadEye (03-06-2014),fyrenza (03-07-2014)

----------


## Matt

Even better...




> They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
> Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
> He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
> He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
> People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
> If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
> Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
> He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
> ...




~Ben Franklin

----------

DeadEye (03-06-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Umm...beer is ever flowing and so is liquor....so yeah...about that...
> 
> One day America will wake up. Don't know how we ignored thousands upon thousands of medical literature posted in medical journals around the world saying that marijuana is completely harmless...but man this one study...it sure seals the deal doesn't it? Propaganda is propaganda....remain slaves of the government....you don't have to smoke it....but don't deny others their rights to do so.


Stupid for hours, as opposed to weeks - or permanently.

You don't get it, do you?  The CURRENT elites WANT us on this brain-rotting shit.  It takes time, and stupid implementation of draconian drug laws builds a consensus that we need to legalize it.  Like we need to force government health-care.  Like we need to throw open the borders.

Colorado proves that.  Arizona cannot enforce a State law that MIRRORS Federal law; but Colorado can pass a law CONTRARY to a whole SECTION of Federal laws, and nobody does anything.  THEY WANT PEOPLE STONED, STUPID AND PASSIVE.

----------


## Archer

> Even better...
> 
> 
> 
> ~Ben Franklin[/FONT][/COLOR]


I have no problem with it but if they use they get no assistance at all.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Violating personal liberties in order to create a false sense of security only dumbs down the population. 
> 
> I'd say that shoots down your response pretty well. I'm not liberal...I don't care what they think. That was easy to pop.


What liberties are we talking about?  What constitutional right do people have to get high?  I somehow missed that in my reading of the Bill of Rights.

----------

JustPassinThru (03-04-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Violating personal liberties in order to create a false sense of security only dumbs down the population. 
> 
> I'd say that shoots down your response pretty well. I'm not liberal...I don't care what they think. That was easy to pop.


Liberty is not anarchy.

NO ONE has the right to ANY sort of behavior or even substance use.

Try drinking a beer on the sidewalk of a strip mall.  You may - or may not - finish it before the police roll up.

And no, that's not a new thing.  Public drinking has always been illegal - as long as there have been municipalities.  And the behavior in mining towns out West, showed the wisdom of in fact mandating behavioral standards.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I have no problem with it but if they use they get no assistance at all.


Well you know that's not going to change.  We couldn't even get drug tests required for welfare recipients.  The Pothead Left will not only insist on getting all their bennies, but they'll insist it's a right, that it's not just decriminalized, but they have a right shoot, snort, and smoke drugs.  That means they can't be fired for it, landlords can't evict them for it, and they can face no discrimination.  That's what happens when the Left, and libertarians who deny that they're leftists, make up rights out of thin air.

----------


## Sentinel

> Show me one legitimate medical source that says marijuana is completely harmless and I will donate $20 to the charity of your choice.


Nothing is completely harmless. But, pot is less physiologically harmful than practically all OTC drugs and many popular foods.  Without regard to the "high", it's fair to say pot is completely harmless, if consumed without smoking (nothing smoked is harmless).

----------

DeadEye (03-06-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

And why do we need a drug to make people stupid, again?

Don't we have ENOUGH stupidity without making more?

----------


## Calypso Jones

legalizing pot and other drugs.   I think it's gonna backfire.  And maybe that is exactly what those pols pushing for it want. Wouldn't these people be so mellow that they could be easily controlled?   Obama wants loads of people on welfare and obamacare? .  well.  he's gonna get it.   how is it going to be paid for?

----------

Irascible Crusader (03-05-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> legalizing pot and other drugs.   I think it's gonna backfire.  And maybe that is exactly what those pols pushing for it want. Wouldn't these people be so mellow that they could be easily controlled?   Obama wants loads of people on welfare and obamacare? .  well.  he's gonna get it.   how is it going to be paid for?


That's EXACTLY the plan.

Long before Georg Soros started buying Democrat pols like Beanie Babies...he was campaigning, worldwide, in his covert way, to overturn marijuana laws.  He apparently envisions a world where the masses are opiated, not with Jesus, but with real drugs.  To control them will be the strongmen - the Chavezes, the Putins, the Castros, the Mugabees.  And those, in turn, would be managed by King Georg.

I don't think Barry Bozo is in Georg's long-term strategy - he's weak and a drug-addled idiot himself; but he's certainly useful in taking this country in that direction.

And what I do NOT get, is why Soros, who's in his eighties, still hangs onto these dreams.  He won't live to see even a collapse coming soon; and I doubt there's any bastard children who can duck taxes and assume Georg's political capital.  Most likely, he, too, is both mad - from the isolation his wealth has gotten him - and senile.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Nothing is completely harmless. But, pot is less physiologically harmful than practically all OTC drugs and many popular foods.  Without regard to the "high", it's fair to say pot is completely harmless, if consumed without smoking (nothing smoked is harmless).


Do you want the surgeon performing brain surgery on you to be half baked because he smoked a blunt the night before?

----------


## Katzndogz

Of all the detrimental things we could do to destroy ourselves, the legalization of drugs, starting with marijuana is at the top of the list.  As bad as Jerry Brown is, as much as much of his policies are nonsense, even HE can perceive what the result would be.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.1708540

_“The world’s pretty dangerous, very competitive. I think we need to stay alert, if not 24 hours a day, [then] more than some of the potheads might be able to put together,” Brown buzzed Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”_

_Brown said the country’s competitive edge could go up in smoke if too many of its citizenry are getting stoned._

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Do you want the surgeon performing brain surgery on you to be half baked because he smoked a blunt the night before?


The anti-pot propaganda is bordering on the absurd now.

----------

DeadEye (03-06-2014),fyrenza (03-07-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014),nonsqtr (03-06-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> *Abstract*
> 
> Impairments of human cognition and learning following chronic marijuana use are of serious concern, but have not been clearly demonstrated. To determine whether such impairments occurred, this study compared performance of adult marijuana users and non-users (_N_=144 and_N_=72, respectively) matched on intellectual functioning before the onset of drug use, i.e., on scores from standardized tests administered during the fourth grade of grammar school (Iowa Tests of Basic Skills). Subjects were given the twelfth grade versions of these tests (Iowa Tests of Educational Development) and other, computerized cognitive tests in successive test sessions. Heavy marijuana use (defined by use seven or more times weekly) was associated with deficits in mathematical skills and verbal expression in the Iowa Tests of Educational Development and selective impairments in memory retrieval processes in Buschke's Test. The retrieval impairments were restricted to words that were easy to visualize. Impairments depended on the frequency of chronic marijuana use, i.e., light and intermediate marijuana use (defined by use one to four and five to six times weekly, respectively) were not associated with deficits. Intermediate use was associated with superior performance in one condition (fuzzy concepts) of a Concept Formation test.
> 
> http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02246977
> 
> Don't we have enough dumb asses running around?


I don't consider myself stupid, and my IQ supports that. I've smoked pot all my life.

----------

DeadEye (03-06-2014),fyrenza (03-07-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

I'll tell you three things on this topic:

1. I'd be dead right now without medical marijuana. It kept my weight up when I had cancer. Nothing else worked, everything else made me sicker than I already was. Anyone who says marijuana has "no medical uses" is lying.
2. The federal government shall not regulate what I put into my body. Fuck 'em. No one ever gave 'em that power in the first place. Didn't we learn anything from Prohibition? Keeping pot illegal is putting money into the pockets of the cartels. People are going to smoke it with or without any dumb-ass laws, the only real question is where the money goes.
3. I can run circles around any of our elected representatives, any day, stoned or not. My worst day stoned is better than the best day of some of these dumb-ass fuckers supposedly "running" our government, and until those bastards start obeying their own laws I have no interest in obeying them either.

Good day, ladies and gentlemen.  :Smile:

----------

DeadEye (03-06-2014),fyrenza (03-07-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014),michaelr (03-06-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> legalizing pot and other drugs.   I think it's gonna backfire.  And maybe that is exactly what those pols pushing for it want. Wouldn't these people be so mellow that they could be easily controlled?   Obama wants loads of people on welfare and obamacare? .  well.  he's gonna get it.   how is it going to be paid for?


I find it interesting that you wonder if people can be more controlled, yet right here you are claiming that it is legitimate for government to tell you what you cannot do with your body. You are already controlled. Your very thought process on this matter indicates that you are easily controlled by legislation.  Why would they need to legalize drugs? The war on drugs gives them immeasurable power soothing a populace that cringes in fear of people who do them.

----------

DeadEye (03-06-2014),fyrenza (03-07-2014),michaelr (03-06-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Do you want the surgeon performing brain surgery on you to be half baked because he smoked a blunt the night before?


Ah, the good old progressive fear-mongering. You should go to work for the Brady campaign, you'd do a great job rewriting these as anti-gun rants.

----------


## michaelr

Like NonSqaut, part of my pot use is medical. If anyone denies that pot is a great pain killer, then I would argue they know nothing of pain.

As states get closer to joining WA and CO with legalization, propaganda like this, and 'it makes boys grow breasts', will be ramped up.

----------


## JustPassinThru

Sure.

A burning medical NEED.  Oh, all those people dead for want of Colombian Gold; and all the people CURED by hallucinogenic DRUGS!

Show me the double-blind studies that identify what marijuana cures and the path of the disease's retreat.

----------


## michaelr

> Sure.
> 
> A burning medical NEED.  Oh, all those people dead for want of Colombian Gold; and all the people CURED by hallucinogenic DRUGS!
> 
> Show me the double-blind studies that identify what marijuana cures and the path of the disease's retreat.


You wont see that, but you'll see the studies about Attention Deficit Disorder even though the ass that coined the word gave a death bed confession that it's completly made up. How many kids are powerful mind altering drugs that cause suicide at biblical levels for that. But hey, that's nice and legal huh.

Science has been bastardized. BTW, legalize pot on thosd deaths that you claim concerne you would drop like a brick!

----------

DeadEye (03-06-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

Yeah.  Any science that doesn't give the result demanded by the pressure group in question, is bastardized science.

Know what's REALLY bastardized?  This moral-free society; where we put ZERO priority on HONESTY and INTEGRITY.  Morals are for squares, clutching their Bibles and guns.  The ends justify the means...and any means necessary.

Truth has become a handmaiden of political expediency.  And here we have potheads insisting that hallucinogenic drugs, "cure" something.

----------


## michaelr

> Yeah.  Any science that doesn't give the result demanded by the pressure group in question, is bastardized science.
> 
> Know what's REALLY bastardized?  This moral-free society; where we put ZERO priority on HONESTY and INTEGRITY.  Morals are for squares, clutching their Bibles and guns.  The ends justify the means...and any means necessary.
> 
> Truth has become a handmaiden of political expediency.  And here we have potheads insisting that hallucinogenic drugs, "cure" something.


I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I find most people to be honest, hard working, and responsible.

Are you actually saying that pot is an hallucinogenic? You can't be serious.

Yes, science is bastardized, hell I figured global warming alone would have taught you that.

Do you what pain is? Don't give me examples of broken bones are weak crap like that, but real pain?

Let me tell you something. I live in real pain. I have to take pain meds three times a day. My doctors want me on oxies, but I refuse. No one takes those without addiction. Hell, I take vicodin and ibuprofen. Bad enough huh? See, I have an upper spinal cord injury, it's cronic. I broke my neck in winter of '99. Had surgery, but the injury to my spinal cord re-occurred about 10 years ago. My nerve damage is permanent. Parts of my arms, my hands, and lots of my body from the neck down fell they're in a vice. Without my pills, the pain is debilitating. With them, I get about 30% relieve. Smoke a joint, and one joint takes me two days to smoke, and I can relieve another 20%. 

I had a friend or two that died of cancer. I never understood their pain, you describe it well enough. I understand now, and even before medical marijuana, they had pot oil in capsules for these people. Seems the smart people know what you don't.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (03-07-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I find most people to be honest, hard working, and responsible.
> 
> Are you actually saying that pot is an hallucinogenic? You can't be serious.
> 
> Yes, science is bastardized, hell I figured global warming alone would have taught you that.
> 
> Do you what pain is? Don't give me examples of broken bones are weak crap like that, but real pain?
> 
> Let me tell you something. I live in real pain. I have to take pain meds three times a day. My doctors want me on oxies, but I refuse. No one takes those without addiction. Hell, I take vicodin and ibuprofen. Bad enough huh? See, I have an upper spinal cord injury, it's cronic. I broke my neck in winter of '99. Had surgery, but the injury to my spinal cord re-occurred about 10 years ago. My nerve damage is permanent. Parts of my arms, my hands, and lots of my body from the neck down fell they're in a vice. Without my pills, the pain is debilitating. With them, I get about 30% relieve. Smoke a joint, and one joint takes me two days to smoke, and I can relieve another 20%. 
> ...


I'm sorry you're going through all that.  I still don't see basing broad social policies on extreme, rare circumstances.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I don't know what the hell you're talking about.


That's because pot affects your ability to track a complex thought.




> I find most people to be honest, hard working, and responsible.


The whistle you heard was my point going clear over your head.  The WHOLE DEBATE, like the debate over "Global Warming/Climate Change/Polar Vortices" is one long string of lies with sham-science thrown in, and prostituted "experts" telling us what to think, without telling why or on what basis




> Are you actually saying that pot is an hallucinogenic? You can't be serious.


But you, on the other hand, could be that clueless.

Maijuana - mild hallucinogenic

Nor is this new.  It's been classified as such since it's been categorized by law.  Back before science became a tool of pressure groups.

It IS an hallucinogen.  It alters your perception of realty.  *That is why you USE it.*




> Yes, science is bastardized, hell I figured global warming alone would have taught you that.


Global-warming science isn't science.  And science being corrupted IS relatively new - dates back to about 1990.




> Do you what pain is? Don't give me examples of broken bones are weak crap like that, but real pain?


Yes.  Any woman who's had a difficult childbirth knows pain.  I've been in car crashes; had the shit beaten out of me in bars; was knocked unconscious when a metal fixture on a pivot was dropped while I was standing under it.  Hurt like hell

And pain is not new.  Think of how soldiers 150 years ago, dealt with gunshots - before modern opiates and analgesics.  They didn't use it as an excuse to bake their brains, either.




> Let me tell you something. I live in real pain. I have to take pain meds three times a day. My doctors want me on oxies, but I refuse. No one takes those without addiction. Hell, I take vicodin and ibuprofen. Bad enough huh? See, I have an upper spinal cord injury, it's cronic. I broke my neck in winter of '99. Had surgery, but the injury to my spinal cord re-occurred about 10 years ago. My nerve damage is permanent. Parts of my arms, my hands, and lots of my body from the neck down fell they're in a vice. Without my pills, the pain is debilitating. With them, I get about 30% relieve. Smoke a joint, and one joint takes me two days to smoke, and I can relieve another 20%. 
> 
> I had a friend or two that died of cancer. I never understood their pain, you describe it well enough. I understand now, and even before medical marijuana, they had pot oil in capsules for these people. Seems the smart people know what you don't.


Sittin' at home, smokin' weed, waiting for that Disability check to arrive each month.  Oh...wait.  Goes in electronically.

Know what I think you're suffering from?  BOREDOM.  Complete idleness and drug use, do bring that on.

----------


## michaelr

> I'm sorry you're going through all that.  I still don't see basing broad social policies on extreme, rare circumstances.


There are millions, probably tens of million that use pot as pain relief. I will look, probably tonight, if not, then tomorrow, but I do think I find a study acceptable to all about remission of cancer due to marijuana.

Thank you. I just accept it as part of life.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (03-07-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> That's because pot affects your ability to track a complex thought.
> 
> 
> 
> The whistle you heard was my point going clear over your head.  The WHOLE DEBATE, like the debate over "Global Warming/Climate Change/Polar Vortices" is one long string of lies with sham-science thrown in, and prostituted "experts" telling us what to think, without telling why or on what basis
> 
> 
> 
> But you, on the other hand, could be that clueless.
> ...


Oh good grief. Please, if all you have are insults, then use them elsewhere. I don't like being on a board with intelligent members and deal with childlike posts as yours is too. And you haven't the right to judge my life, you fucking know me.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (03-07-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

That's rich - YOU calling ME childlike.

I guess you judge someone's intelligence on how much he supports your search for the Eternal Buzz.

That should make me pretty intelligent - SINCE YOU ARE ALMOST-CERTAINLY SUPPORTED BY MY TAX MONIES.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Yeah.  Any science that doesn't give the result demanded by the pressure group in question, is bastardized science.
> 
> Know what's REALLY bastardized?  This moral-free society; where we put ZERO priority on HONESTY and INTEGRITY.  Morals are for squares, clutching their Bibles and guns.  The ends justify the means...and any means necessary.
> 
> Truth has become a handmaiden of political expediency.  And here we have potheads insisting that hallucinogenic drugs, "cure" something.


Actually there's plenty of evidence that marijuana helps fight cancer, and in fact the THC and associated chemicals (especially the diols) have direct tumor-fighting and tumor-shrinking properties, in certain types of cancer.

Marijuana is also a "generally accepted" symptomatic treatment for Multiple Sclerosis (MS), in the cases where Tysabri and the other newfangled "pharmaceuticals" aren't desirable or effective.

You can google on all this, it's in the public domain. The only reason you wouldn't find this information is if you didn't want to.

----------

fyrenza (03-07-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> That's rich - YOU calling ME childlike.
> 
> I guess you judge someone's intelligence on how much he supports your search for the Eternal Buzz.
> 
> That should make me pretty intelligent - SINCE YOU ARE ALMOST-CERTAINLY SUPPORTED BY MY TAX MONIES.


Oh that's rich, I smoke pot so I'm on welfare.Just like that.

You don't see it do you? It's your childish posts that makes me think that your childish. That little narrow view you have. 

Like I asked, politely I migh add, don't judge my life please, you don't know me.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (03-07-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> That's rich - YOU calling ME childlike.
> 
> I guess you judge someone's intelligence on how much he supports your search for the Eternal Buzz.


I find your perspective to be moralistic and narrow minded.




> That should make me pretty intelligent - SINCE YOU ARE ALMOST-CERTAINLY SUPPORTED BY MY TAX MONIES.


You have no business telling me how I can or can't live my life.

I'm not causing you any harm by smoking pot, for medical reasons or any other reason.

So butt the fuck out and stop trying to meddle in other peoples' affairs, medical or otherwise. 'Kay?

Plain and simple.

Pot is a lot safer than alcohol. A lot. You ever seen an alcoholic buying wine at 6 in the morning? You want to talk about hallucinogens? Hm?

You're clearly drinking the government's kool-aid, succumbing to Harry Anslinger's bullshit - which was driven by William Randolph Hearst's business interests and his money. No one's ignorant around here, everyone knows what's going on.

That's why no one gives a shit about the pot laws, one way or the other - until the government start deriving tax revenue from it, then they start caring.

Morons.  :Geez:

----------

DeadEye (03-06-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> That's rich - YOU calling ME childlike.
> 
> I guess you judge someone's intelligence on how much he supports your search for the Eternal Buzz.
> 
> That should make me pretty intelligent - SINCE YOU ARE ALMOST-CERTAINLY SUPPORTED BY MY TAX MONIES.



BTW, I didn't call you childlike, I said your posts were, and I stand by that.

----------


## JustPassinThru

...and all this miracle curative quality was discovered...only after junk-science, science where the desired outcome determines the testing, became mainstream science.

I do not believe it.  What I believe is morally-bankrupt young people create this demand for legal pot; and pot-addled young people create a receptive audience for imbecilic sham-science.  As regards marijuana and many other subjects.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> BTW, I didn't call you childlike, I said your posts were, and I stand by that.


Distinction without a difference.

----------


## DeadEye

> What liberties are we talking about?  What constitutional right do people have to get high?  I somehow missed that in my reading of the Bill of Rights.


prolly the life and liberty part.just guessing.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (03-07-2014)

----------


## Matt

> Do you want the surgeon performing brain surgery on you to be half baked because he smoked a blunt the night before?


As opposed to my surgeons who all hate the Air Force so much that they're all chronic alcoholics? No problems there right?

----------


## DeadEye

> Well you know that's not going to change.  We couldn't even get drug tests required for welfare recipients.  The Pothead Left will not only insist on getting all their bennies, but they'll insist it's a right, that it's not just decriminalized, but they have a right shoot, snort, and smoke drugs.  That means they can't be fired for it, landlords can't evict them for it, and they can face no discrimination.  That's what happens when the Left, and libertarians who deny that they're leftists, make up rights out of thin air.


I would argue that it is their right if they have the votes to make it so. That's how democracy works. Sometimes it comes back to bite ya in the ass.

----------


## michaelr

> Distinction without a difference.


No, but you're going to put me in the uncomfortable position of giving you your prophecy. Is that what you need? If I call you childlike, you'll know it, I guarantee it.

----------


## DeadEye

> And why do we need a drug to make people stupid, again?
> 
> Don't we have ENOUGH stupidity without making more?


What you got against stupid people?

----------


## Dan40

> That's been my point on this all along.
> 
> WHY would we make available, a drug that just makes young people STUPID?



Obviously the Federal Department of Education does not need the help!

----------


## nonsqtr

> ...and all this miracle curative quality was discovered...only after junk-science, science where the desired outcome determines the testing, became mainstream science.


No! People have known about pot for thousands of years! The very first civilizations along the Indus river valley used marijuana. Mostly they drank it, with milk, in a concoction that the Indians today call "bhang" (no relation to "bong" the water pipe which is American slang). Marijuana has been used by almost every civilization in the world, with very few exceptions - including American jazz musicians! George Washington was a hemp farmer, f'r cryin' out loud!  :Dontknow: 




> I do not believe it.  What I believe is morally-bankrupt young people create this demand for legal pot; and pot-addled young people create a receptive audience for imbecilic sham-science.  As regards marijuana and many other subjects.


Dude - that's not a conservative political position. It's just not. The conservative viewpoint is that our federal government has not been granted this power, to where they can intervene in the things you're putting into your body. Nor the things in your backyard, nor the things you're growing, nor the type of light bulbs you have or even whether you put on your seatbelt or not.

Let me ask you something - why is it that making alcohol legal and illegal (via Prohibition and the repeal thereof), required a Constitutional Amendment?

Hm? Why did alcohol require a Constitutional Amendment, but the fucking President can just snap his fingers and decide all by himself which drugs are on Schedule 1? Hm? Have you ever seriously looked at the history on this one?

You're going to run up against an issue called "delegation of powers" (in this case, from the Congress to the Executive Branch) - and you're also going to come up against the issue of "administrative law", which is basically when the King says "I declare..." and whatever comes out of his mouth after that becomes the law.

Really - this is not the issue that you may think it is. It's not an issue of morality, it's a deep political issue. Marijuana is illegal because of the abuse of political power, and nothing less and nothing more. Study the history. William Randolph Hearst was trying to shut down the midwestern hemp farmers that represented a threat to this ownership of the northwestern paper mills. It's all there on google, the real history, not the bullshit our government wants you to swallow.

----------

DeadEye (03-06-2014),fyrenza (03-07-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014),michaelr (03-06-2014)

----------


## Dan40

> What you got against stupid people?


They "think" stupid questions don't exist.

No offense intended.

----------


## DeadEye

> That's rich - YOU calling ME childlike.
> 
> I guess you judge someone's intelligence on how much he supports your search for the Eternal Buzz.
> 
> That should make me pretty intelligent - SINCE YOU ARE ALMOST-CERTAINLY SUPPORTED BY MY TAX MONIES.


He might not be but I sure am. What you going to do about?

----------

fyrenza (03-07-2014)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> He might not be but I sure am. What you going to do about?


Are you one of those who feels entitled to live off the toils of others?

----------


## michaelr

> Are you one of those who feels entitled to live off the toils of others?


Do you plan on collecting you social security, or do you plan on donating that to the feds?

Come on, don't you think that you're quick to judge?

----------


## DeadEye

I'll be glad when all these people who think they have power over people's behavior disappear. They speak of morals and then want to force those morals on a free people and they wonder why there is conflict. True moral teaching does not require force.

----------

fyrenza (03-07-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014),nonsqtr (03-07-2014)

----------


## DeadEye

> Are you one of those who feels entitled to live off the toils of others?


Damn right, I payed my SS taxes for 30 years. I'm entitled.

----------

fyrenza (03-07-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014),michaelr (03-06-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> I'll be glad when all these people who think they have power over people's behavior disappear. They speak of morals and then want to force those morals on a free people and they wonder why there is conflict. True moral teaching does not require force.


Well said!!

----------


## DeadEye

> Do you plan on collecting you social security, or do you plan on donating that to the feds?
> 
> Come on, don't you think that you're quick to judge?


That is one of the main problems of the right. Instead of being right they feel compelled to force people to do what they consider to be right.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (03-07-2014),fyrenza (03-07-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014),michaelr (03-06-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

I'm going to exempt michaelr and others in his situation from the entire pot debate. They know what works best for them, in consultation with their medical professional, and I wouldn't want to interfere with that.

That exception having been made, I'm leery about making weed generally available as a recreational substance. JPT has an excellent point about a stoned population being easily manipulated and controlled by the powers that be.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> prolly the life and liberty part.just guessing.


Liberty is not anarchy.

When people start spouting off about how drug laws interfere with PERSONAL LIBERTIES; and how only a dictatorship would try to control PERSONAL BEHAVIOR...I start wondering:  Do they endorse repeal of fireworks-control laws, also?  Noise laws?

What business is it of government, if I want to buy M-80s and then give them to my kid to set off?

ALL civilized societies have restrictions on personal behavior.  Especially personal behavior that affects their very minds and personas.  It doesn't take a great philosopher to realize that something that makes the user stupid, for weeks (the time the drug is in the body) is not good when used by large numbers of people.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> What you got against stupid people?


Nothing.

When they can't HELP IT.

When they CHOOSE to be stupid; choose to MAKE themselves stupid...let's just say I have no sympathy.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I'm going to exempt michaelr and others in his situation from the entire pot debate. They know what works best for them, in consultation with their medical professional, and I wouldn't want to interfere with that.
> 
> That exception having been made, I'm leery about making weed generally available as a recreational substance. JPT has an excellent point about a stoned population being easily manipulated and controlled by the powers that be.


Very-tactful cap on the debate.

Of course, the hard-core stoners are going to accept nothing that gets between them and their buzz...

----------


## Matt

> Of course, the hard-core stoners are going to accept nothing that gets between them and their buzz...


Like those alcoholics and cigarette smokers eh?

----------

DeadEye (03-06-2014),fyrenza (03-07-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## DeadEye

> Nothing.
> 
> When they can't HELP IT.
> 
> When they CHOOSE to be stupid; choose to MAKE themselves stupid...let's just say I have no sympathy.



There is no one asking for your sympathy. I've smoked pot for years and will continue to do so whether the government approves or not. No one said anything about anarchy and the liberty to live ones life peaceably is not anarchy but god given and no man can take it away.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Liberty is not anarchy.
> 
> ALL civilized societies have restrictions on personal behavior.  Especially personal behavior that affects their very minds and personas.  It doesn't take a great philosopher to realize that something that makes the user stupid, for weeks (the time the drug is in the body) is not good when used by large numbers of people.


This is exactly why I can NEVER be a libertarian. 

Libertarians cannot see that such a thing as intricate as 'society' exists. All they see are individuals and their putative 'rights'. To hell with society!

----------


## DeadEye

> Very-tactful cap on the debate.
> 
> Of course, the hard-core stoners are going to accept nothing that gets between them and their buzz...


It's not so much about being a hard core stoner but understanding what liberty means and stopping those who would take our liberties on the pretense they are helping us.

----------


## michaelr

> Liberty is not anarchy.
> 
> When people start spouting off about how drug laws interfere with PERSONAL LIBERTIES; and how only a dictatorship would try to control PERSONAL BEHAVIOR...I start wondering:  Do they endorse repeal of fireworks-control laws, also?  Noise laws?
> 
> What business is it of government, if I want to buy M-80s and then give them to my kid to set off?
> 
> ALL civilized societies have restrictions on personal behavior.  Especially personal behavior that affects their very minds and personas.  It doesn't take a great philosopher to realize that something that makes the user stupid, for weeks (the time the drug is in the body) is not good when used by large numbers of people.


Imagine a world where adulthood is legal. Do you drink? I read you last post, it was disgusting. Hard core stoner? Is that what you got from this discussion? Are you a drunk? Should I assume you are?

----------


## DeadEye

> This is exactly why I can NEVER be a libertarian. 
> 
> Libertarians cannot see that such a thing as intricate as 'society' exists. All they see are individuals and their putative 'rights'. To hell with society!


That may be but what is society if not a collection of individuals. You can not have a society without them. Liberty for the individual forgoes any collectivist notion of society.

----------


## michaelr

> This is exactly why I can NEVER be a libertarian. 
> 
> Libertarians cannot see that such a thing as intricate as 'society' exists. All they see are individuals and their putative 'rights'. To hell with society!


Huh. Well I'm a proud libertarian, most say by the book, yet I don't agree with the premise of you post at all. 

Let me ask you something. If the government wanted a stoned population for control purposes, then why not legalize pot, and steer the 'science' more befitting to their needs?

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> That may be but what is society if not a collection of individuals. You can not have a society without them. Liberty for the individual forgoes any collectivist notion of society.


I agree that a society is collection of individuals, but it's questionable that there can even BE  such a thing as a fully developed human being WITHOUT one that exists in the context of a greater society. That means that you are now speaking of millions of individuals that have to exist with each other. And THAT inevitably implies rules and standards to reduce bruising collisions and conflicts among all these individuals existing together. When you acknowledge THAT very obvious truth, you are now in the realm where you have to make laws determining what can be allowed and what can't. 

And it's at exactly THIS point where you have to determine the issue of legalized drugs and if they are desirable or not as far as injury to society and the individuals that make it up goes.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Like those alcoholics and cigarette smokers eh?


Alcohol is a depressant - not an hallucinogen.

Alcohol's effects last hours.

Nicotine's a stimulant and an antidepressant.  Its effects last a few hours.

Marijuana is an hallucinogen - and the drug is absorbed by fat cells, released into the body for WEEKS.  That's why you fail a drug test a month after your choom party.  And if its in the blood, it's in the brain - whether or not you feel the buzz.

Long term users of prescription narcotics don't feel the buzz after they've acclimated to the drug, either.  Doesn't mean it doesn't effect them.  A narcotic slows you down; an hallucinogen changes your perception of reality.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Imagine a world where adulthood is legal. Do you drink? I read you last post, it was disgusting. Hard core stoner? Is that what you got from this discussion? Are you a drunk? Should I assume you are?


Imagine a world without restrictions on behavior.

I can.  It's called WAR.

I thought libertarians were opposed to war.

There is no other.  In a CIVILIZED state, there are restrictions on behavior.

My bladder is full.  There's a storm-sewer grate right there.  WHY can I not whip it out and take care of my NEED?  What, women walking by?  They know what it looks like.  Maybe they'd like relief, too.

No.  Civilization IS restrictions on behavior.

----------


## michaelr

Anyone who thinks pot is an hallucination should not debate this issue. That level of ignorance demands that!

----------

Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## hoytmonger

> Liberty is not anarchy.
> 
> When people start spouting off about how drug laws interfere with PERSONAL LIBERTIES; and how only a dictatorship would try to control PERSONAL BEHAVIOR...I start wondering:  Do they endorse repeal of fireworks-control laws, also?  Noise laws?
> 
> What business is it of government, if I want to buy M-80s and then give them to my kid to set off?
> 
> ALL civilized societies have restrictions on personal behavior.  Especially personal behavior that affects their very minds and personas.  It doesn't take a great philosopher to realize that something that makes the user stupid, for weeks (the time the drug is in the body) is not good when used by large numbers of people.





> Imagine a world without restrictions on behavior.
> 
> I can.  It's called WAR.
> 
> I thought libertarians were opposed to war.
> 
> There is no other.  In a CIVILIZED state, there are restrictions on behavior.
> 
> My bladder is full.  There's a storm-sewer grate right there.  WHY can I not whip it out and take care of my NEED?  What, women walking by?  They know what it looks like.  Maybe they'd like relief, too.
> ...


'Everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing above the state.' 

-Benito Mussolini

----------

DeadEye (03-06-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> Imagine a world without restrictions on behavior.
> 
> I can.  It's called WAR.
> 
> I thought libertarians were opposed to war.
> 
> There is no other.  In a CIVILIZED state, there are restrictions on behavior.
> 
> My bladder is full.  There's a storm-sewer grate right there.  WHY can I not whip it out and take care of my NEED?  What, women walking by?  They know what it looks like.  Maybe they'd like relief, too.
> ...


We have and need laws. We have too damn many. Laws against drugs does not reduce drug use. Laws that forbid adults from making choices about their own bodies are ludicrous. We're not children.

Libertarians are against intervention, that's different then being against wars. Defense is vital.

Oh good grief. Now, it is odd that peeing on the side of a freeway can get you arrested. The people outside your home have rights too. Now I pee in my backyard from time to time, and if someone has a problem with that, then I'd suggest they don't look.

----------

fyrenza (03-07-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Anyone who thinks pot is an hallucination should not debate this issue. That level of ignorance demands that!


In the mid-80s I was getting right baked in a friends attic as another friend kept going on and on about the Tom Vu system of real estate scams [remember that cagey Vietnamese dude's infomercials?]...

I had smoked a LOT of weed that night, which was a hot stuffy late July one. The windows were open. Gradually I heard a sound coming from outside, one that alarmed me. It sounded like a pack of bloodhounds barking and howling and getting closer and closer. I went to the window. The sound receded and seemed to come from no particular direction. I asked one of my friends if he heard anything canine. He said no. 

So, yeah, if it's strong enough and you've had enough of it, you WILL experience hallucinations.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> 'Everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing above the state.' 
> 
> -Benito Mussolini


We're not talking about the arbitrary, whimsical dictates of some 'Duce'. We're talking about the body of law that NO society can exist without.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Anyone who thinks pot is an hallucination should not debate this issue. That level of ignorance demands that!


Pot is an hallucinogen, that's a documented fact. And you were given evidence of that.  Everything points to ignorance being your bedfellow.

----------


## michaelr

> In the mid-80s I was getting right baked in a friends attic as another friend kept going on and on about the Tom Vu system of real estate scams [remember that cagey Vietnamese dude's infomercials?]...
> 
> I had smoked a LOT of weed that night, which was a hot stuffy late July one. The windows were open. Gradually I heard a sound coming from outside, one that alarmed me. It sounded like a pack of bloodhounds barking and howling and getting closer and closer. I went to the window. The sound receded and seemed to come from no particular direction. I asked one of my friends if he heard anything canine. He said no. 
> 
> So, yeah, if it's strong enough and you've had enough of it, you WILL experience hallucinations.


Hold on. You heard  dogs, your friend didn't, and you attribute that event to hallucinating. That's a far fetched stretch. I've been around the block, hell I'm 54 and have smoked pot all my life. When in the military we'd use gas masks, smoked for hours, and never have I, nor have I heard of anyone, hallucinating from pot.

How many days were you up, that'll do it.

----------


## michaelr

> Pot is an hallucinogen, that's a documented fact. And you were given evidence of that.  Everything points to ignorance being your bedfellow.


Show me the documentation or it didn't happen. This is the first I've heard such a claim.

----------


## DeadEye

> I agree that a society is collection of individuals, but it's questionable that there can even BE  such a thing as a fully developed human being WITHOUT one that exists in the context of a greater society. That means that you are now speaking of millions of individuals that have to exist with each other. And THAT inevitably implies rules and standards to reduce bruising collisions and conflicts among all these individuals existing together. When you acknowledge THAT very obvious truth, you are now in the realm where you have to make laws determining what can be allowed and what can't. 
> 
> And it's at exactly THIS point where you have to determine the issue of legalized drugs and if they are desirable or not as far as injury to society and the individuals that make it up goes.


It depends on what one considers to be a fully developed human being. Could one be developed outside the confines of society? Possibly, although collectives do serve a purpose. I have nothing against law making but when those laws infringe on my god given rights they mean very little to me. I have a right to privacy, property and life. If I allow government control of either then I lose them all. Look at this nation of laws you speak of. With all these laws people should fell safer and more content should they not? Yet, all we see is fear and paranoia, among other things.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Hold on. You heard  dogs, your friend didn't, and you attribute that event to hallucinating. That's a far fetched stretch. I've been around the block, hell I'm 54 and have smoked pot all my life. When in the military we'd use gas masks, smoked for hours, and never have I, nor have I heard of anyone, hallucinating from pot.
> 
> How many days were you up, that'll do it.


It was very late, after 3 in the morning, but apart from that nothing was unusual.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Are you one of those who feels entitled to live off the toils of others?


No, he's from PH, like me. We're used to being scrappy.  :Tongue20:   :Cool20:

----------

DeadEye (03-06-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> In the mid-80s I was getting right baked in a friends attic as another friend kept going on and on about the Tom Vu system of real estate scams [remember that cagey Vietnamese dude's infomercials?]...
> 
> I had smoked a LOT of weed that night, which was a hot stuffy late July one. The windows were open. Gradually I heard a sound coming from outside, one that alarmed me. It sounded like a pack of bloodhounds barking and howling and getting closer and closer. I went to the window. The sound receded and seemed to come from no particular direction. I asked one of my friends if he heard anything canine. He said no. 
> 
> So, yeah, if it's strong enough and you've had enough of it, you WILL experience hallucinations.


"Hallucinogenic" doesn't mean necessarily you'll see snakes coming out of the ceiling tiles.

It means your PERCEPTION OF REALITY is altered.  You think you're driving fine but you're doing 15 on the freeway.  You think your brainwaves are being intercepted by the jets laying chemtrails.  Mostly, you think you're being really clever, when any witness or videotape shows you're acting like a re-tard.

Because in addition to altering your perception of reality, marijuana takes away a number of higher functions.  Like, concentrational or conceptual powers.

I'm just one man and I can't stop this madness.  We've elected a brain-damaged pothead to the Presidency!  How you liking it?

The stoners like it fine.  Especially the ones on sham disability payments now.  The rest of us, not so much.

----------


## hoytmonger

> We're not talking about the arbitrary, whimsical dictates of some 'Duce'. We're talking about the body of law that NO society can exist without.


Anarchy means stateless, not lawless. A civilized society doesn't require a state, in fact the state is detrimental to civilized society. 

The state, on the other hand, exists only through it's monopoly of force and using that force to coerce others to provide it's needs.

----------

DeadEye (03-06-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Anyone who thinks pot is an hallucination should not debate this issue. That level of ignorance demands that!


Denial is not a river in Egypt.

It is what is is.  And facts are stubborn things, and not subject to pressure campaigns or public hysteria and shaming.

----------


## Dos Equis

> Hold on. You heard  dogs, your friend didn't, and you attribute that event to hallucinating. That's a far fetched stretch. I've been around the block, hell I'm 54 and have smoked pot all my life. When in the military we'd use gas masks, smoked for hours, and never have I, nor have I heard of anyone, hallucinating from pot.
> 
> How many days were you up, that'll do it.


I can prove pot causes hullucinations.

Obama used to smoke it and he thought he could insure 30 million more people and at the same time lower our premiums.  Then all the pot smokers in this country agreed and voted for the reefer.

----------

JustPassinThru (03-06-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> It was very late, after 3 in the morning, but apart from that nothing was unusual.


No angel dust? No nothing? Is it possible you pot was treated without your knowledge? I'm telling you man, I've been known to put down some pot and this is new to me, and I've never read anyone else making the claim that pot is an hallucinogen.

----------


## DeadEye

> Anarchy means stateless, not lawless. A civilized society doesn't require a state, in fact the state is detrimental to civilized society. 
> 
> The state, on the other hand, exists only through it's monopoly of force and using that force to coerce others to provide it's needs.


If they don't understand that, don't throw liberty at them.

----------

fyrenza (03-07-2014),hoytmonger (03-06-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> I can prove pot causes hullucinations.
> 
> Obama used to smoke it and he thought he could insure 30 million more people and at the same time lower our premiums.  Then all the pot smokers in this country agreed and voted for the reefer.


We don't know what that fuck sucks.....err smokes.

----------


## Dos Equis

> I agree that a society is collection of individuals, but it's questionable that there can even BE  such a thing as a fully developed human being WITHOUT one that exists in the context of a greater society. That means that you are now speaking of millions of individuals that have to exist with each other. And THAT inevitably implies rules and standards to reduce bruising collisions and conflicts among all these individuals existing together. When you acknowledge THAT very obvious truth, you are now in the realm where you have to make laws determining what can be allowed and what can't. 
> 
> And it's at exactly THIS point where you have to determine the issue of legalized drugs and if they are desirable or not as far as injury to society and the individuals that make it up goes.


It seems to me that smoking in general causes harm to the individual and society.  Should it be illegal as well?

----------


## DeadEye

> I can prove pot causes hullucinations.
> 
> Obama used to smoke it and he thought he could insure 30 million more people and at the same time lower our premiums.  Then all the pot smokers in this country agreed and voted for the reefer.


 :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## DeadEye

> It seems to me that smoking in general causes harm to the individual and society.  Should it be illegal as well?


Oh fuck, don't give them something else to outlaw.

----------


## Dos Equis

> We don't know what that fuck sucks.....err smokes.


Michael, don't fear the reefer.

Hope and change baby!!!

----------

michaelr (03-06-2014)

----------


## Roadmaster

Some people do lace pot with other things. It can be dangerous if you are around people you don't know or can't trust. Just like with drinks.

----------

DeadEye (03-06-2014),fyrenza (03-07-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014),michaelr (03-06-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Anarchy means stateless, not lawless. A civilized society doesn't require a state, in fact the state is detrimental to civilized society. 
> 
> The state, on the other hand, exists only through it's monopoly of force and using that force to coerce others to provide it's needs.


Name me such a society from the historical records.

----------


## Dos Equis

> Oh fuck, don't give them something else to outlaw.


Well it sort of already is.

Many establishments have outlawed smoking.  In fact, some places of employment will fire you or not hire you because you smoke.  Why?  Because it kills you, that's why.  Also, employers don't want to shell out a lot of money in sick time, that gets expensive.

So the question begs, what about gays?  Gay males account for well over half the new AIDS cases and STD cases every year.  Should they not be treated the same?

That is why I think the police state will someday turn on those who now support it.  They don't see this yet, but the writing is on the wall.

----------

fyrenza (03-07-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> Pot is an hallucinogen, that's a documented fact. And you were given evidence of that.  Everything points to ignorance being your bedfellow.


Caffeine is an hallucinogen too, if you want to get technical about it. 

So what?

Listen, pot is like a gentle Chinese herb, that's all. Something you might put in your tea, that kind of thing. Chamomile. It has a relaxing effect, that's what people enjoy about it. It "takes the edge off", and some people might drink a beer for that purpose, but others don't like beer and would prefer a joint.

People don't smoke pot 'cause they want to hallucinate. If you want to hallucinate then you're after a different set of drugs, not pot. Pot doesn't really make you hallucinate, it doesn't make you see things that aren't there, it doesn't make you talk to the Coke machine (or think it's talking back), nothing like that. At most there are some subtle visual effects of the nature of what one might call "pastel colors", but they're background, it's not like they're being confused with real objects or anything. Just kinda subtly flowing waves of pastel colors, and I mean.... how can I say this, if you're smoking that much pot, to where you're in that of thing, then most likely what's going to happen next is you're going to raid the fridge and fall asleep. There's no such thing as people "tripping out" because of pot, there is such a thing as having a predisposing psychological condition which pot may "release" or somehow amplify, but the frequency of that is far less than the number of people who are truly allergic to alcohol. 

I'm far from ignorant, we can talk about how phosphodiesterase inhibitors can become hallucinogens, if you want. We can talk about the receptors in the brain, and the pathways they serve, and what other drugs interact there... I mean, really - if you're concerned about oddball behavior related to drugs, you should be far more concerned about prescription anti-depressants. Did you know that every single one of the recent mass shooters have been on anti-depressants? Every single f'in one of 'em, and I mean, they tell you right there in the ad, "may lead to suicidal thoughts" - pot doesn't do any of that stuff. Pot is safe, compared to alcohol, compared to prescription anti-depressants, compared to addictive opioid pain-killers.... I mean.... why the fuck would anyone be stuck up on pot? It's harmless! If you gotta be upset at something, there's plenty of legitimate stuff to be upset at!

----------

DeadEye (03-06-2014),fyrenza (03-07-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> Some people do lace pot with other things. It can be dangerous if you are around people you don't know or can't trust. Just like with drinks.


I've seen crazy shit with dust and stuff. Lucky for me that drugs scare the hell out of me, and raising kids all my life kept me on the straight and narrow......say for a little pot and my share of booze.

----------

DeadEye (03-06-2014)

----------


## hoytmonger

The very title of this thread is a misinterpretation of the facts. Marijuana isn't being legalized, it's being decriminalized and regulated... meaning government control over it. More laws and more government... and the potheads think this is a good idea.

----------

DeadEye (03-06-2014),michaelr (03-06-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Anarchy means stateless, not lawless. A civilized society doesn't require a state, in fact the state is detrimental to civilized society. 
> 
> The state, on the other hand, exists only through it's monopoly of force and using that force to coerce others to provide it's needs.


Man! you HAVE to blow all that Mikail Bakunin and Emma Goldman out of your head, FAST!

----------


## nonsqtr

> Because in addition to altering your perception of reality, marijuana takes away a number of higher functions.  Like, concentrational or conceptual powers.


 No it doesn't. Not in the least. You've been fed a line of BS. I got a 3.7 at an Ivy League university stoned the whole time, and I can run circles around anyone else in my field, stoned or not. "Could I have gotten a 3.9" if I weren't stoned all the time? Sure. Maybe. Do I care? Nah. I learned what I wanted to learn, the whole thing worked out just fine. Am I a "menace to society" because I'm smoking pot again after 20 years, for a different reason this time? No, not that either. I've served society in many ways, my engineering stuff got onto the space shuttle, I worked in healthcare, on Wall Street, all that stuff contributes to society, and unlike the righteous arrogant assholes in suits, I've always paid my taxes and I've never ripped anyone off. And I've never stepped on anyone's career for political reasons either.




> I'm just one man and I can't stop this madness.  We've elected a brain-damaged pothead to the Presidency!  How you liking it?


He was that way before the pot.  :Smiley ROFLMAO: 




> The stoners like it fine.  Especially the ones on sham disability payments now.  The rest of us, not so much.


Are you kidding? Stoners hate Obama! First he promised to leave the dispensaries alone, then he promptly started busting them and shutting them down. Now he's back the other way. He's a loose cannon, he can't be trusted. He'll say whatever's expedient.

Do you know how easy it would be to put pot on the shelves at CVS? Two phone calls on the part of the President. That's all it would take.

Obama is a grade-A hypocrite.

----------

fyrenza (03-07-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Caffeine is an hallucinogen too, if you want to get technical about it.


No, caffeine is a STIMULANT.

These terms have meanings.

A depressant, slows the thought processes down.  A stimulant, stimulates.  And an hallucinogen, alters perceptions.

If you weren't baked on pot you would be able to grasp this.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

It's not an unimportant aspect of this debate that the weed that is smoked today is by many orders of magnitude more powerful than the stuff I was smoking in the mid-80.

This is no longer a mere matter of being a little lit up, the stuff now is CRUSHINGLY potent.

----------


## hoytmonger

> Name me such a society from the historical records.


I'll give you two...

Celtic Ireland (650-1650) http://foranemergentgovernance.tumbl...339178/ireland and The Icelandic Commonwealth (930-1264) https://notendur.hi.is//~bthru/iep.htm

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

So...emulating Iron age agrarian societies is your solution to our problems, huh? :Geez:

----------

JustPassinThru (03-06-2014)

----------


## Dos Equis

> Are you kidding? Stoners hate Obama! First he promised to leave the dispensaries alone, then he promptly started busting them and shutting them down. Now he's back the other way. He's a loose cannon, he can't be trusted. He'll say whatever's expedient.
> 
> Do you know how easy it would be to put pot on the shelves at CVS? Two phone calls on the part of the President. That's all it would take.
> 
> Obama is a grade-A hypocrite.


I think the democratic platform will soon come and in support of this.  It will solidify a whole other block of dead headed voters.

----------


## DeadEye

> Well it sort of already is.
> 
> Many establishments have outlawed smoking.  In fact, some places of employment will fire you or not hire you because you smoke.  Why?  Because it kills you, that's why.  Also, employers don't want to shell out a lot of money in sick time, that gets expensive.
> 
> So the question begs, what about gays?  Gay males account for well over half the new AIDS cases and STD cases every year.  Should they not be treated the same?
> 
> That is why I think the police state will someday turn on those who now support it.  They don't see this yet, but the writing is on the wall.


I agree, there is no end to what is good for society once individual liberty has been abolished. Yet, that's what fascists and commie's do.

----------

fyrenza (03-07-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> The very title of this thread is a misinterpretation of the facts. Marijuana isn't being legalized, it's being decriminalized and regulated... meaning government control over it. More laws and more government... and the potheads think this is a good idea.


Well, that's a good point, and I don't think the potheads are "happy" about it, I think they more view it as an acceptable compromise for the time being. The real question is where the money goes. If pot is illegal the money ends up going to the cartels, and not only that the nature of the market says you're going to create new cartels too (new powerful ones) - it's the same thing that happened during Prohibition. However if pot (or booze) is regulated and taxed, then the money ends up going to the government which means it ends up with the People somehow, and that's better than it ending up in the hands of organized crime, isn't it?

----------

fyrenza (03-07-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> No, caffeine is a STIMULANT.


Caffeine, in sufficient quantities, is an hallucinogen, and it generates effects approximately similar to marijuana (which effects I have already described - the "pastel colors").

Unlike marijuana, that much caffeine also makes you shake, sweat, shiver, and otherwise feel uncomfortable in a number of ways. It could even be medically dangerous, if you're anywhere near a stroke or you have congested arteries or something.




> These terms have meanings.
> 
>  A depressant, slows the thought processes down.  A stimulant, stimulates.  And an hallucinogen, alters perceptions.
> 
>  If you weren't baked on pot you would be able to grasp this.


That's the best you got? You're trying to ridicule the guy that just told you something you didn't know?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I agree, there is no end to what is good for society *once individual liberty has been abolished.* Yet, that's what fascists and commie's do.


Once more that goofball meme.

WHERE has there EVER been, for any period of time, a society that did not have regulations/rules/laws governing personal behavior?

I'll save you the search.  NEVER.

Because it's impossible.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Once more that goofball meme.
> 
> WHERE has there EVER been, for any period of time, a society that did not have regulations/rules/laws governing personal behavior?
> 
> I'll save you the search.  NEVER.
> 
> Because it's impossible.


Yeah, but you're arguing the LibProg position. You're blaming the gun, not the person firing it.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> I'll give you two...
> 
> Celtic Ireland (650-1650) http://foranemergentgovernance.tumbl...339178/ireland and The Icelandic Commonwealth (930-1264) https://notendur.hi.is//~bthru/iep.htm


By the way, you just made the point I've tried to make about anarchy with these examples...

I've LONG since read the major Icelandic sagas, as well as the ancient Irish tales of Cuchulain and the Fenian Cycle of tales. These were EXTREMELY violent, blood-soaked, warrior societies, where war and raiding were THE way of life.

In the ancient Celtic and Norse worlds, the weak went to the wall, and the strong called the shots.

----------


## hoytmonger

> Man! you HAVE to blow all that Mikail Bakunin and Emma Goldman out of your head, FAST!


First, I don't HAVE to do anything you suggest.

Second, don't presume you know where I derive my political philosophy.

Just because you're unable to think beyond your indoctrination doesn't mean statism is the only possible form of society.

----------


## michaelr

> The very title of this thread is a misinterpretation of the facts. Marijuana isn't being legalized, it's being decriminalized and regulated... meaning government control over it. More laws and more government... and the potheads think this is a good idea.


Actually here it turned out to be a real bad idea. They want to cap THC content then they are gutting the medical marijuana industry. They want, and will probably get caps on that too. For myself it doesn't matter, I have to leave it there. I wont abide by caps though, but the rest may have to. They are also training cops for pot dui's and tests for them. 

Its a bad idea, criminalizing pot is just stupid.

----------


## DeadEye

> Once more that goofball meme.
> 
> WHERE has there EVER been, for any period of time, a society that did not have regulations/rules/laws governing personal behavior?
> 
> I'll save you the search.  NEVER.
> 
> Because it's impossible.


So,, liberty means nothing when it comes to the wishes of society? What do you think liberty, privacy, and the right to own property means?

----------


## hoytmonger

> By the way, you just made the point I've tried to make about anarchy with these examples...
> 
> I've LONG since read the major Icelandic sagas, as well as the ancient Irish tales of Cuchulain and the Fenian Cycle of tales. These were EXTREMELY violent, blood-soaked, warrior societies, where war and raiding were THE way of life.
> 
> In the ancient Celtic and Norse worlds, the weak went to the wall, and the strong called the shots.


You obviously overestimate your knowledge of these societies.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> You obviously overestimate your knowledge of these societies.


No. I don't.

Compassion and objective notions of justice did not rank very high in their world.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Some people do lace pot with other things. It can be dangerous if you are around people you don't know or can't trust. Just like with drinks.


Right. That's why legal dispensaries are a good thing. That way the product is regulated, like foodstuffs. They can't sell you brownies that'll make you sick, that kind of thing. (They're food, brownies contain butter, they're regulated by the FDA and they're supposed to have the little ingredient labels, y'know.... "according to the law").

And yes, you gotta pay a little tax for the regulation. In Los Angeles right now it's around ten percent. Not too bad. They keep the dispensaries away from schools and other places where kids congregate (public parks, like that), and, they also enforce the medical law so everyone who goes in there has to have a doctor's permit. Which means there's still an underground trade, which is a bad thing, but at least this way that volume gets cut very significantly. Last I heard in CA which has 38 million-ish people there are about 2 million registered medical marijuana users.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Yeah, but you're arguing the LibProg position. You're blaming the gun, not the person firing it.


No, I'm advocating that we CONTINUE to make illegal, mind-altering drugs that make the person stupid enough to FIRE the goddamn gun!

You can't give up this idea that a world without law and structure would be a beautiful place.  Another term for it would be, "stuck on stupid."

----------



----------


## hoytmonger

> No. I don't.
> 
> Compassion and objective notions of justice did not rank very high in their world.


I see you're consumed with arrogance... and ignorance. The members of those societies didn't differ in temperament from others of the time, they just managed to exist for centuries without a state.

----------


## nonsqtr

> So,, liberty means nothing when it comes to the wishes of society? What do you think liberty, privacy, and the right to own property means?


Right. That's the point I was trying to make too. My take is JPT is arguing from a moral position, but he's kind of sounding like one of these "intrusive government" types instead.

See, and I mean, this is the argument I would make in general, in the context of today's GOP, these goals of "regulating individual behavior" and "limited government" are contradictory, and if they both appear in the platform then it makes the whole platform self-contradictory.

Every single one of these so-called "social issues" is about regulating individual behavior - emphasis on the word "regulating".

And, if you're on the conservative side, you need to balance that against exactly what Anonymous is talking about, which is the freedom and liberty and the idea that our federal government has only the powers we specifically give it.

How can there ever be respect for the law when we have so many dumb-ass self-contradictory laws?

We need to focus. 

Are you aware the DC just decriminalized possession of small quantities? That means our elected weasels can walk around town sneaking themselves a hit from time to time. 

That would be a great conspiracy theory, wouldn't it? "I smelled marijuana smoke on the grassy knoll". Bwah ha ha.  :Biglaugh:

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> No, I'm advocating that we CONTINUE to make illegal, mind-altering drugs that make the person stupid enough to FIRE the goddamn gun!


Hm. Well, I'm an expert marksman. Does that concept scare you?  :Cool20: 

Listen - all I'm saying is, there are people out here who can use pot responsibly - and quite a few who really do need it. You go into one of these dispensaries some day, you'll see what I'm talking about. The lady in the wheelchair with MS is waiting in line right behind the guy with AIDS who's got purple blotches all over his skin, and they're both so thin they hardly look like they eat at all, and I mean... you'll see the reality. It's not like it's all 18-year-olds who can't sleep, gnome sain'?

There are people who use pot responsibly, and even some who truly need it.

And you're going to take it away from them.... why?




> You can't give up this idea that a world without law and structure would be a beautiful place.  Another term for it would be, "stuck on stupid."


Who, me? I like law and structure. I just want to know who decides, that's all. Last I checked We the People were supposed to have control over a lot of things that we don't seem to have control over anymore. Like the purse strings for instance. And the pot laws.

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> I see you're consumed with arrogance... and ignorance. The members of those societies didn't differ in temperament from others, they just managed to exist for centuries without a state.


Of COURSE they had 'states'!!

The High King at Tara was a ceremonial position, but the different regions each had their own monarchs. There were monarchs and chieftains, and it was a very stratified society, with aristocratic warrior classes and slaves.

THIS was NOT your anarchistic paradise, dude!

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

It has to make one laugh:

Pot threads are inevitably the longest and the most passionately argued!

Why IS that?!

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Yeah.  Any science that doesn't give the result demanded by the pressure group in question, is bastardized science.
> 
> Know what's REALLY bastardized?  This moral-free society; where we put ZERO priority on HONESTY and INTEGRITY.  Morals are for squares, clutching their Bibles and guns.  The ends justify the means...and any means necessary.


Why do you need honesty and integrity? You can just force people to be obedient through the law. After all, that's what you advocate for. If you wanted honesty and integrity, you wouldn't demand that government take away responsibility for it and replace it with punishment.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> What liberties are we talking about?  What constitutional right do people have to get high?  I somehow missed that in my reading of the Bill of Rights.


9th amendment. Of course, that only applies when you hold that rights come before the Constitution, not the Constitution as a source of it. Government-worshipers hold to the latter.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> That is one of the main problems of the right. Instead of being right they feel compelled to force people to do what they consider to be right.


It's not the entire right. It's the progressive right, the neocons, who believe that. They are no different than the liberal progressives in their use of rhetoric. Just switch guns for Marijuana, and the arguments are the same, and just as irrational and fear-based.

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Name me such a society from the historical records.


If you had lived in the 1700's, you would have been a Tory and demanding that those in favor of a new nation prove that a Republic had ever been successful. Considering that the last Republic had failed and become a despotic empire during the early Iron Age, you would have been firm in your opinion that trying to create a new one is ridiculous. Monarchies were much more lasting and generally more stable.

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014),hoytmonger (03-07-2014)

----------


## hoytmonger

> Of COURSE they had 'states'!!
> 
> The High King at Tara was a ceremonial position, but the different regions each had their own monarchs. There were monarchs and chieftains, and it was a very stratified society, with aristocratic warrior classes and slaves.
> 
> THIS was NOT your anarchistic paradise, dude!


No, there were no states. There were no taxes. There were landholders and tenants. 'Chieftains' were not heads of state  Slaves were vanquished enemy invaders. Pretty much the same as North American natives only with a more refined theory of law.

----------


## Dos Equis

> It has to make one laugh:
> 
> Pot threads are inevitably the longest and the most passionately argued!
> 
> Why IS that?!


Because its the #1 issue Americans care about.

----------


## nonsqtr

> It's not the entire right. It's the progressive right, the neocons, who believe that. They are no different than the liberal progressives in their use of rhetoric. Just switch guns for Marijuana, and the arguments are the same, and just as irrational and fear-based.


Neo-Cons are fundamentally liberals (even though most of 'em don't realize it). They're war-hawk liberals in the mold of Lyndon Johnson (nasty people, I didn't like Johnson much, and Nixon was just Johnson with an R after his name instead of a D, so... anyway...). Yeah, Neo-Cons originated in the Scoop Jackson campaign. They couldn't cut it as Democrats because the Dems were sick of war by then, they'd gone far to the left (nominated McGovern and such) - so the Neo-Cons jumped ship and became Republicans, and immediately infected the Reagan camp (which included George HW Bush)... the GOP's "lost of soul" goes back a long way. Back to Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon, probably.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (03-07-2014),DeadEye (03-07-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> It has to make one laugh:
> 
> Pot threads are inevitably the longest and the most passionately argued!
> 
> Why IS that?!


It is a matter of liberty versus anti-liberty. The war on drugs has correlated to the rise of a militarized police state which has destroyed civil liberties and made prisoners of millions of non-criminals. Those in favor of a war on human behavior fundamentally believe that a person is owned by the state, has a duty to be productive, and should be an obedient subject. Those against prohibition fundamentally believe that human beings are self-owners who are responsible for their bodies and capable of making decisions about them. It is authoritarian collectivism versus individualism and self-rule.

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014),fyrenza (03-07-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> Because its the #1 issue Americans care about.


The pot issue is the issue of limited government.

And states' rights, that too.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (03-07-2014)

----------


## Matt

> Because its the #1 issue Americans care about.



Hope not. I can think of at least a few dozen things that would hopefully come before it...

COUGH-obamacare.forcing.millions.out.of.insurance-COUGH

...sorry got a nasty cold there :P

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Hope not. I can think of at least a few dozen things that would hopefully come before it...
> 
> COUGH-obamacare.forcing.millions.out.of.insurance-COUGH
> 
> ...sorry got a nasty cold there :P


If it is legitimate for government to tell you what you may or may not put in your body, it is legitimate for government to control your healthcare decisions. Complaining about government ruling one area of your life while advocating that it rule other areas is just hypocrisy at it's finest. You might as well argue whether one should be fascist or communist. In the end, we get totalitarianism.

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> No, there were no states. There were no taxes. There were landholders and tenants. 'Chieftains' were not heads of state  Slaves were vanquished enemy invaders. Pretty much the same as North American natives only with a more refined theory of law.


Here's a news flash: a 'kingdom' is a 'state'. 

So this is your anarchic ideal, then: a lawless war chief leading a band of armed retainers pretty much imposing their will as they please, constantly cattle-raiding their neighbors and living off those who are given no choice but to till the soil on their behalf....huh!

Ladies and gentleman: 'Anarchy'. :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## nonsqtr

> It is a matter of liberty versus anti-liberty. The war on drugs has correlated to the rise of a militarized police state which has destroyed civil liberties and made prisoners of millions of non-criminals. Those in favor of a war on human behavior fundamentally believe that a person is owned by the state, has a duty to be productive, and should be an obedient subject. Those against prohibition fundamentally believe that human beings are self-owners who are responsible for their bodies and capable of making decisions about them. It is authoritarian collectivism versus individualism and self-rule.


You're exactly right.

And, it seems to me, the opposite has been sold to a lot of the right.

The left, we expect that stuff from.

But some of the right, has been hoodwinked.

I'd like to help the right regain a consistent platform - and to do that, IMO, it has to get back to basics.

Real basics, traditional basics.

Limited government. Separation of powers. Checks and balances. Like that.

The real issue here, is that "something different" has already been institutionalized into the law. And it's a big effort to reshape the law, a big long lengthy and expensive effort.

The real question becomes, are we willing to sacrifice, and pay the cost, to regain a better balanced system?

Do we think it's "important" enough, relative to other priorities?

Do we have the "political will", to make it happen?

----------

BleedingHeadKen (03-07-2014)

----------


## hoytmonger

> Here's a news flash: a 'kingdom' is a 'state'. 
> 
> So this is your anarchic ideal, then: a lawless war chief leading a band of armed retainers pretty much imposing their will as they please, constantly cattle-raiding their neighbors and living off those who are given no choice but to till the soil on their behalf....huh!
> 
> Ladies and gentleman: 'Anarchy'.


You called it a 'kingdom', not I.

You pose no fact, just hyperbole... which means you have no argument.

----------


## nonsqtr

> It is a matter of liberty versus anti-liberty. *The war on drugs has correlated to the rise of a militarized police state which has destroyed civil liberties and made prisoners of millions of non-criminals*. Those in favor of a war on human behavior fundamentally believe that a person is owned by the state, has a duty to be productive, and should be an obedient subject. Those against prohibition fundamentally believe that human beings are self-owners who are responsible for their bodies and capable of making decisions about them. It is authoritarian collectivism versus individualism and self-rule.


This part really bears repeating. It's very true. The "war on drugs" is a truly astounding piece of politics, if you really start checking into it. One of the first things I noticed was that a lot of the same people show up in this story, as show up in the Bay of Pigs, and subsequently in the Iran/Contra fiasco. The "spooks", the dark people who make things happen. Well, our CIA looked the other way while these guys brought stolen drugs into our country, and sometimes they even acquired a little black ops money that way. I've read one deposition after another from these guys, there's hundreds of 'em (and hundreds more we don't know about, I'm sure).

So now, there's an interesting character in the Nixon pardon story, his name is Herbert J "Jack" Miller. He was the top lawyer in the Justice Department all through the Johnson years, and then he went off and started his own law firm which defended the rich and powerful, like some of the Watergate burglars. 

So, later, it was Miller who brokered the deal for Nixon's pardon. Nixon was scared that Jaworski would object to any pardon deal, and it was Miller who assured him that Jaworski would accept an "implication" of guilt in lieu of the alternative.

Now, this character Miller, he has a full box in the National Archives, it's classified and it's not going to be released till 2027 or some such thing - which contains several hundred of the 50,000 documents that are still being withheld pertaining to the Kennedy assassination. Miller's role at the time, was going after organized crime. He was the one responsible for making the tax charges stick on Hoffa. That kind of thing. There's over 300 documents with his name on them, that have been catalogued by the Assassinations Records Review Board, that our government refuses to release. 

(And as you know, Gerald Ford was on the Warren Commission. You may also be aware that some of the remaining records on Kennedy's assassination were stored in the World Trade Center prior to 9/11, and they're now of course gone).

Anyway, J Edgar Hoover's activities during the Johnson years come very close to what you might expect from a "militarized police state". He was wiretapping people with impunity, strong-arming witnesses, fabricating and falsifying and even destroying evidence, and gathering as much dirt on people as he could for the purpose of political blackmail and personal control. There's no question it was abuse of power. As usual, in the name of national security.

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> It is a matter of liberty versus anti-liberty. The war on drugs has correlated to the rise of a militarized police state which has destroyed civil liberties and made prisoners of millions of non-criminals. Those in favor of a war on human behavior fundamentally believe that a person is owned by the state, has a duty to be productive, and should be an obedient subject. Those against prohibition fundamentally believe that human beings are self-owners who are responsible for their bodies and capable of making decisions about them. It is authoritarian collectivism versus individualism and self-rule.


There we go - once again, claiming that prohibitions on mind-altering drugs are an infringement on "liberty."

How about fireworks laws?  Be okay if I shoot off skyrockets in your neighborhood at three in the morning?  Or light off Chinese firecrackers at 7 am?

How about sanitation laws?  I want to be ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY - and make my backyard a compost pile.  Should that be okay?...me dumping my garbage in the yard, where it festers, reeks, draws vermin?

NO.  And I'm not arguing that it is.

But the dopers all DEMAND their RIGHT to the Eternal Buzz!

Why?  

DailyWeed.jpg

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Why do you need honesty and integrity? You can just force people to be obedient through the law. After all, that's what you advocate for. If you wanted honesty and integrity, you wouldn't demand that government take away responsibility for it and replace it with punishment.


The law is just one part of it.  Obviously morality cannot be legislated.

What we're seeing here is society de-laminating.  First we've discarded moral foundations.  Then, we've made gratification through chemical abuse acceptable through the media and other subversion of parental and community authority.

Then, we argue, with twisted facts and disregard for the truth, for immediate gratification and legal imprimatur.

Dope laws don't work.  So we should repeal them.

Homicide laws don't work, either.  So, using your foggy way of thinking, we should repeal THEM also.

----------


## hoytmonger

The consumption of mind altering substances doesn't infringe on the rights of others, therefore victimless. If a person wishes to cloud their mind then let them have at it... as long as they do no harm to others or their property.

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## DeadEye

> 9th amendment. Of course, that only applies when you hold that rights come before the Constitution, not the Constitution as a source of it. Government-worshipers hold to the latter.


That is exactly right!!   :Thumbsup20:

----------


## DeadEye

> It's not the entire right. It's the progressive right, the neocons, who believe that. They are no different than the liberal progressives in their use of rhetoric. Just switch guns for Marijuana, and the arguments are the same, and just as irrational and fear-based.


I agree, they are two peas in a pod.

----------


## DeadEye

> You're exactly right.
> 
> And, it seems to me, the opposite has been sold to a lot of the right.
> 
> The left, we expect that stuff from.
> 
> But some of the right, has been hoodwinked.
> 
> I'd like to help the right regain a consistent platform - and to do that, IMO, it has to get back to basics.
> ...


I am sorry to say that most people could care less. So many do not understand what liberty is or the responsibility that comes with being a free man.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> There we go - once again, claiming that prohibitions on mind-altering drugs are an infringement on "liberty."


Denying people their self-ownership is an infringement on liberty. As a progressive, you must turn this into a matter of just "mind-altering drugs" because all you have is fear and epithets. 

If you were a liberal progressive, you would use the exact same arguments. Those who believe it is an infringement on liberty to outlaw firearms just want to kill people, you would claim. They love guns and shooting things.





> How about fireworks laws?  Be okay if I shoot off skyrockets in your neighborhood at three in the morning?  Or light off Chinese firecrackers at 7 am?


It depends on the neighborhood, doesn't it? If the people in the neighborhood want skyrockets to go off at 3 in the morning, what right do you have to tell them otherwise?  I get it, though. You know what is right for people, so laws, and punishment, should conform to your superior beliefs. Just as guns should be outlawed because progressives know best. Just as healthcare should be run by government, because progressives know best.

The fact is, if the people of the neighborhood are losing the enjoyment of their property because of noise pollution, then they have recourse in civil court, and, if it persists, there may be reason for criminal liability. That should be up to the neighbors to pursue; not high-minded progressives who believe that what they feel is right must be right for everyone else.

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## DeadEye

> Denying people their self-ownership is an infringement on liberty. As a progressive, you must turn this into a matter of just "mind-altering drugs" because all you have is fear and epithets. 
> 
> If you were a liberal progressive, you would use the exact same arguments. Those who believe it is an infringement on liberty to outlaw firearms just want to kill people, you would claim. They love guns and shooting things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the neighborhood, doesn't it? If the people in the neighborhood want skyrockets to go off at 3 in the morning, what right do you have to tell them otherwise?  I get it, though. You know what is right for people, so laws, and punishment, should conform to your superior beliefs. Just as guns should be outlawed because progressives know best. Just as healthcare should be run by government, because progressives know best.
> 
> The fact is, if the people of the neighborhood are losing the enjoyment of their property because of noise pollution, then they have recourse in civil court, and, if it persists, there may be reason for criminal liability. That should be up to the neighbors to pursue; not high-minded progressives who believe that what they feel is right must be right for everyone else.


That is the crux of the matter. It's not enough for their ilk to be content with their world view. They must, for some unconscionable reason force others to comply with said world views. They are afraid of free men who exercise their liberties. They are a cold and heartless bunch who would have you serve government instead of being the free man/women god created.

----------


## Archer

I believe in liberty and community. I feel that until the fed gov removes the yoke of shared responsibility, for those who choose to be irresponsible, it places on the American people, we do not need to legalize drugs that will hinder ability.

If we do away with the welfare system, food stamps,.. for those who destroy themselves and limit their own opportunity I could see legalizing it. As it is I believe we subsidize most potheads! They can not hold a job where drug testing is the norm and are stuck in menial positions...

This carries over to medicare and Social Security as well!

----------


## Taylor

pot's not a big deal its just a plant and doesn't harm people. There are a bunch other things that are a bigger deal like poverty, crime, greed, cost of living, shitty politicians and laws, pollution, and stuff like that. If i want to get high tonight that's my choice and doest harm anybody else and it doesn't contribute to society breaking down either.

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## Archer

> pot's not a big deal its just a plant and doesn't harm people. There are a bunch other things that are a bigger deal like poverty, crime, greed, cost of living, shitty politicians and laws, pollution, and stuff like that. If i want to get high tonight that's my choice and doest harm anybody else and it doesn't contribute to society breaking down either.


If you can do it and keep a job that leaves you independant then all is good. Most of the potheads I know are stuck! They get dumber! They become a drain on society because they are not as productive and can not generally get a good job!

----------


## DeadEye

> I believe in liberty and community. I feel that until the fed gov removes the yoke of shared responsibility, for those who choose to be irresponsible, it places on the American people, we do not need to legalize drugs that will hinder ability.
> 
> If we do away with the welfare system, food stamps,.. for those who destroy themselves and limit their own opportunity I could see legalizing it. As it is I believe we subsidize most potheads! They can not hold a job where drug testing is the norm and are stuck in menial positions...
> 
> This carries over to medicare and Social Security as well!


I respect that and some of your ideas have merit. Yet, why is it so terrible for a person to live free and do with their bodies what they wish? Why do we need a government in our personal lives?

To me true liberty consists in the privilege of enjoying our own rights, not in the destruction of the rights of others. 

Burke said it best when he said this.

"Men are quakified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be of it without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of interpenetrate habits cannot be free. There passions forge their fetters.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> pot's not a big deal its just a plant and doesn't harm people. There are a bunch other things that are a bigger deal like poverty, crime, greed, cost of living, shitty politicians and laws, pollution, and stuff like that. If i want to get high tonight that's my choice and doest harm anybody else and it doesn't contribute to society breaking down either.


Are you a truck driver, surgeon, police officer, EOD technician, heavy equipment operator, parent, airplane pilot, or air traffic controller?

Do you plan to drive on public streets in the next 72 hours?

Are their children in your home?

If the answer to all these is no, then I got no problem with you getting high on pot tonight.

----------


## Archer

> I respect that and some of your ideas have merit. Yet, why is it so terrible for a person to live free and do with their bodies what they wish? Why do we need a government in our personal lives?
> 
> To me true liberty consists in the privilege of enjoying our own rights, not in the destruction of the rights of others. 
> 
> Burke said it best when he said this.
> 
> "Men are quakified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be of it without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of interpenetrate habits cannot be free. There passions forge their fetters.


I agree but I draw the line at supplementing the income of a person that chooses to hold themselves back. Their liberty encroaches on my liberty! Pot hurts overall productivity and drunks are no better!

----------


## Archer

> Are you a truck driver, surgeon, police officer, EOD technician, heavy equipment operator, parent, airplane pilot, or air traffic controller?
> 
> Do you plan to drive on public streets in the next 72 hours?
> 
> Are their children in your home?
> 
> If the answer to all these is no, then I got no problem with you getting high on pot tonight.


You forgot to add that if he is not a tax burden!

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I agree but I draw the line at supplementing the income of a person that chooses to hold themselves back. Their liberty encroaches on my liberty! Pot hurts overall productivity and drunks are no better!


And more to your point, this society isn't mature enough to simply decriminalize something, but still allow appropriate discrimination for lifestyle choices.  Potheads will scream like the large brats they are that they have a RIGHT to smoke pot and their employer can't test them for drugs, nor their landlord evict them for drug use on their property.  Some asshole Leftist judge will go along with it.  I wouldn't even begin considering legalizing pot until THIS COUNTRY GROWS THE FUCK UP AND HOLDS PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CHOICES!

sorry for yelling.

----------


## Archer

> And more to your point, this society isn't mature enough to simply decriminalize something, but still allow appropriate discrimination for lifestyle choices.  Potheads will scream like the large brats they are that they have a RIGHT to smoke pot and their employer can't test them for drugs, nor their landlord evict them for drug use on their property.  Some asshole Leftist judge will go along with it.  I wouldn't even begin considering legalizing pot until THIS COUNTRY GROWS THE FUCK UP AND HOLDS PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CHOICES!
> 
> sorry for yelling.


*AMEN BRUDDER


*​Sorry I just became a little hard of hearing :Smile:

----------


## michaelr

> And more to your point, this society isn't mature enough to simply decriminalize something, but still allow appropriate discrimination for lifestyle choices.  Potheads will scream like the large brats they are that they have a RIGHT to smoke pot and their employer can't test them for drugs, nor their landlord evict them for drug use on their property.  Some asshole Leftist judge will go along with it.  I wouldn't even begin considering legalizing pot until THIS COUNTRY GROWS THE FUCK UP AND HOLDS PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CHOICES!
> 
> sorry for yelling.


We don't need you or anyone else telling us what we are or are not mature enough for. You're a typical authoritarian neocon, your just like the liberals, your way or no way. You and they haven't that right. Pot shouldn't be illegal to begin with, no drug should, but you demand that control. Are you trying to protect yourself or us. Truth is, criminalizing protects no one. Learn to stand on your own damn feet, we'll do the same, and we don't need nor want any help from you!

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## Archer

> We don't need you or anyone else telling us what we are or are not mature enough for. You're a typical authoritarian neocon, your just like the liberals, your way or no way. You and they haven't that right. Pot shouldn't be illegal to begin with, no drug should, but you demand that control. Are you trying to protect yourself or us. Truth is, criminalizing protects no one. Learn to stand on your own damn feet, we'll do the same, and we don't need nor want any help from you!


Then refuse and help or tax incentives (credits) from the government!

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> We don't need you or anyone else telling us what we are or are not mature enough for. You're a typical authoritarian neocon, your just like the liberals, your way or no way. You and they haven't that right. Pot shouldn't be illegal to begin with, no drug should, but you demand that control. Are you trying to protect yourself or us. Truth is, criminalizing protects no one. Learn to stand on your own damn feet, we'll do the same, and we don't need nor want any help from you!




That was the only valid question in all that claptrap. I'm trying to protect myself and my family.  You want to commit suicide? Vaya con Dios!  But you druggies put my family at risk and that I cannot tolerate.

----------


## michaelr

> Then refuse and help or tax incentives (credits) from the government!


I don't know what incentives you're talking about, but I'll one futher anyway. I am dead solid against any tax incentives for any industry. I wont cherry pick or sugar coat it. If GE is tax exempt, if the banks are, then every corporation and industry should be.

----------


## DeadEye

> I agree but I draw the line at supplementing the income of a person that chooses to hold themselves back. Their liberty encroaches on my liberty! Pot hurts overall productivity and drunks are no better!


How does their liberty encroach on yours? I think you are missing the point.

----------


## DeadEye

> You forgot to add that if he is not a tax burden!


What? every single one of us is a tax burden at this point in time. Some more of a burden than others.

----------


## michaelr

> [/COLOR]
> 
> That was the only valid question in all that claptrap. I'm trying to protect myself and my family.  You want to commit suicide? Vaya con Dios!  But you druggies put my family at risk and that I cannot tolerate.


Are this naive? Hey kids don't do pot, it's illegal. Problem solved.

Good lord. Your kids are going to be 18 one day. My youngest is 27. I have 5 kids, two currently smoke pot. Big God damned deal. It's their choice, they were taught not to until they were old enough to choose for themselves, 18. Your children, like it or not neocon, will live their own lives, and keeping pot illegal is so  insignificant that it wont matter. Only your teachings will, but still, ultimately it'll be their choice.

I thought my entire post was good, you're no better then any other class of authoritarians.

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## DeadEye

> And more to your point, this society isn't mature enough to simply decriminalize something, but still allow appropriate discrimination for lifestyle choices.  Potheads will scream like the large brats they are that they have a RIGHT to smoke pot and their employer can't test them for drugs, nor their landlord evict them for drug use on their property.  Some asshole Leftist judge will go along with it.  I wouldn't even begin considering legalizing pot until THIS COUNTRY GROWS THE FUCK UP AND HOLDS PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CHOICES!
> 
> sorry for yelling.


Good lawd!! You are really afraid of free men huh? As long as pot smoking doesn't cause you harm what's the beef. Millions are doing it now and the government feeds on them like parasites.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Are this naive? Hey kids don't do pot, it's illegal. Problem solved.
> 
> Good lord. Your kids are going to be 18 one day. My youngest is 27. I have 5 kids, two currently smoke pot. Big God damned deal. It's their choice, they were taught not to until they were old enough to choose for themselves, 18. Your children, like it or not neocon, will live their own lives, and keeping pot illegal is so  insignificant that it wont matter. Only your teachings will, but still, ultimately it'll be their choice.
> 
> I thought my entire post was good, you're no better then any other class of authoritarians.


My parents taught me not to do drugs and I never have.  I teach my kids never to do drugs and they most likely won't either.

It's called parenting and it works.

----------


## DeadEye

> [/COLOR]
> 
> That was the only valid question in all that claptrap. I'm trying to protect myself and my family.  You want to commit suicide? Vaya con Dios!  But you druggies put my family at risk and that I cannot tolerate.


how do we put you at risk? Being we live so far apart and all. On the other hand you and your ilk put me and many more millions at risk everyday of prosecution and incarceration. Tell me who is getting the shitty end of the stick. You or me?

----------

Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Do you plan to drive on public streets in the next 72 hours?


Next four WEEKS, more like.

That's how long it takes for the psychoactive ingredient to work out of the body.

----------


## michaelr

> [/COLOR]
> 
> That was the only valid question in all that claptrap. I'm trying to protect myself and my family.  You want to commit suicide? Vaya con Dios!  But you druggies put my family at risk and that I cannot tolerate.


Meth heads, heroin freaks, and the like do, and laws wont change that. Pot heads, dude really, you call the lazy, stupid, a bunch of ignorant shit, but they aren't dangerous.

----------


## Dan40

Why are potheads not DEMANDING that children have freedom to use pot AND alcohol at any age?  Don't children have rights once they're past the incubation stage where they are allowed to be murdered for the convenience of the parents?

----------


## michaelr

> My parents taught me not to do drugs and I never have.  I teach my kids never to do drugs and they most likely won't either.
> 
> It's called parenting and it works.


So then Einstein, why the need for prohibition? Your ball, your court!

----------


## JustPassinThru

> The consumption of mind altering substances doesn't infringe on the rights of others, therefore victimless. If a person wishes to cloud their mind then let them have at it... as long as they do no harm to others or their property.


Right now we have a government run by what can only be madmen.  The insane choices they're making, in terms of budget, border security, national security, WILL throw us into the worst crisis we've ever experienced as a nation.

Yet the voters returned these loonies.  WHY?  Why, when they're having their health insurance cancelled; government-mandated policies three times as expensive; when their fuel and utility bills are doubling and more, do to the mad choices being made.

Why ELSE except that LARGE numbers of voters are not in their OWN right minds?

That is what wide use of an intoxicating or hallucinogenic drug will do.  And...it's not as if the user gets his buzz for the night.  HE REMAINS IMPAIRED AS LONG AS THC IS IN HIS BLOODSTREAM.  Four to six weeks.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> So then Einstein, why the need for prohibition? Your ball, your court!


1)  To add an "or else" into the moral suasion.

2)  To remove those who would tempt the immature and weak.

I could turn that on its head:  Since we all agree that HOMICIDE is really, really bad...why do we need laws against IT?

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

I would only support full legalization if it is accompanied by an anti-pot smoking campaign as relentless and intense as that against cigarette smoking, with warnings and nasty pictures on every package of pot purchased.

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

The impaired will still be driving; and drawing government bennies; AND VOTING.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Meth heads, heroin freaks, and the like do, and laws wont change that. Pot heads, dude really, you call the lazy, stupid, a bunch of ignorant shit, but they aren't dangerous.


Good.  When you go under the knife, request a surgeon that smoked a blunt the night before.

----------


## michaelr

> 1)  To add an "or else" into the moral suasion.
> 
> 2)  To remove those who would tempt the immature and weak.
> 
> I could turn that on its head:  Since we all agree that HOMICIDE is really, really bad...why do we need laws against IT?


Gee, drug laws work so well. In a half second I'll educate you on why they will never produce your expected result.

That's stupid to even suggest we don't have laws against murder, but not for the reason you think.

Now, as promissed.

Law aren't designed to prevent crime, they are designed to punis crime after the crime has been committed.

You people need a joint!!!

----------


## michaelr

> Good.  When you go under the knife, request a surgeon that smoked a blunt the night before.


Oh I see, you kids live under the blade and the stoned surgeons are what frightens you. I thought you said it was druggies. My bad.

----------


## DeadEye

> Right now we have a government run by what can only be madmen.  The insane choices they're making, in terms of budget, border security, national security, WILL throw us into the worst crisis we've ever experienced as a nation.
> 
> Yet the voters returned these loonies.  WHY?  Why, when they're having their health insurance cancelled; government-mandated policies three times as expensive; when their fuel and utility bills are doubling and more, do to the mad choices being made.
> 
> Why ELSE except that LARGE numbers of voters are not in their OWN right minds?
> 
> That is what wide use of an intoxicating or hallucinogenic drug will do.  And...it's not as if the user gets his buzz for the night.  HE REMAINS IMPAIRED AS LONG AS THC IS IN HIS BLOODSTREAM.  Four to six weeks.


 :Smiley ROFLMAO:   Yea, that's right !! this nation is where it is because of pot   :Geez:

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Gee, drug laws work so well. In a half second I'll educate you on why they will never produce your expected result.
> 
> That's stupid to even suggest we don't have laws against murder, but not for the reason you think.
> 
> Now, as promissed.
> 
> Law aren't designed to prevent crime, they are designed to punis crime after the crime has been committed.
> 
> You people need a joint!!!


There you have it.  Classic stoner-ism.

An illogical, incoherent rant...and of course WE are the problem because OUR brains aren't baked to perfection.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Yea, that's right !! this nation is where it is because of pot


It's one more nail in the coffin, and at the very least it sure ain't helping matters.

----------


## DeadEye

> The impaired will still be driving; and drawing government bennies; AND VOTING.


woohoo !! all on your dime. Don't you just love democracy?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Gee, drug laws work so well. In a half second I'll educate you on why they will never produce your expected result.
> 
> That's stupid to even suggest we don't have laws against murder, but not for the reason you think.
> 
> Now, as promissed.
> 
> Law aren't designed to prevent crime, they are designed to punis crime after the crime has been committed.
> 
> You people need a joint!!!


Another gem.

DETERRENCE is the purpose of punishment.  Which more properly would be called "consequences."

Stick up a grocery store, and you'll spend twenty years in the Crossbar Hilton with a roommate named Bubba.

Kill the manager while you're in it, and you're guest of honor at a necktie party.

DETERRENCE VALUE.  In case Momma didn't give you any sort of morals instruction.

Once the deed is done and it's in the courtroom, the law has failed.  All there is to be gained is a MORALITY PLAY for anyone ELSE tempted to stray from the straight and narrow.

----------

Irascible Crusader (03-07-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> woohoo !! all on your dime. Don't you just love democracy?


Yes.

And democracy is not anarchy.

No matter how much you work to confuse the two.

NO society has existed without rules of personal behavior, backed by law.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Gee, drug laws work so well. In a half second I'll educate you on why they will never produce your expected result.
> 
> That's stupid to even suggest we don't have laws against murder, but not for the reason you think.
> 
> Now, as promissed.
> 
> Law aren't designed to prevent crime, they are designed to punis crime after the crime has been committed.
> 
> You people need a joint!!!


It's a myopic argument you potheads bring up over and over, proving JPT and I right that pot kills brain cells and makes you stupider.  The war on drugs doesn't have to be perfect in order to work. The fact that people can still get drugs doesn't indicate failure.  Millions of kilos of cocaine, marijuana, heroine, etc are seized at the borders, in transit, during drug deals busted by cops, and on the high seas by the Coast Guard.  Every seizure means less drugs in our streets which can only possibly benefit society.  Moreover, the war on drugs includes education and is chiefly responsible for kids in middle and high school being taught what drugs are, how they affect the body, and the dangers of abusing drugs.  

How many people never do drugs because they were taught in school about the consequences of doing so?

How many people didn't OD because a major drug shipment was seized, poisoners were put in prison, or a meth lab was shut down?

How many people hit rock bottom by being arrested, went to jail which halted a downward spiral that could only lead to their death, and then turned their life around and lived instead?

You can't put a number to any of these, so don't tell me the War on Drugs isn't working.

IT'S SAVING LIVES EVERY DAY!

----------


## JustPassinThru

> It's one more nail in the coffin, and at the very least it sure ain't helping matters.


You can't reason with a doper; any more than you can bring a drunk to Jesus.

----------


## DeadEye

> There you have it.  Classic stoner-ism.
> 
> An illogical, incoherent rant...and of course WE are the problem because OUR brains aren't baked to perfection.


 :Smiley ROFLMAO:   stoner-ism what exactly is that?

----------


## michaelr

> There you have it.  Classic stoner-ism.
> 
> An illogical, incoherent rant...and of course WE are the problem because OUR brains aren't baked to perfection.


If you consider that incoherent, then you lack IQ. It's as clear as bell. A bit long winded maybe, but clear.

You're only the problem because you have the moral right to dictate your will upon others. You don't. I don't. This scum criminal government sure as hell doesn't. Being ignorant may be you handicap I dunno, nor do I care!

----------


## JustPassinThru

> If you consider that incoherent, then you lack IQ. It's as clear as bell. A bit long winded maybe, but clear.
> 
> You're only the problem because you have the moral right to dictate your will upon others. You don't. I don't. This scum criminal government sure as hell doesn't. Being ignorant may be you handicap I dunno, nor do I care!


I consider it incoherent because it is.

And I can see that because I'm not fried on pot.

----------


## DeadEye

> Yes.
> 
> And democracy is not anarchy.
> 
> No matter how much you work to confuse the two.
> 
> NO society has existed without rules of personal behavior, backed by law.


I never said they did or implied they did. Sure you haven't burned one?

----------


## michaelr

> Another gem.
> 
> DETERRENCE is the purpose of punishment.  Which more properly would be called "consequences."
> 
> Stick up a grocery store, and you'll spend twenty years in the Crossbar Hilton with a roommate named Bubba.
> 
> Kill the manager while you're in it, and you're guest of honor at a necktie party.
> 
> DETERRENCE VALUE.  In case Momma didn't give you any sort of morals instruction.
> ...


No it isn't. Are you suggesting murder rates would jump if it weren't illegal? Let me ask you a question, lonely on that perch?


Psst, I don't need the likes of you defining words, terms, or phrases for me. Keep your fucking condescending bullshit to yourself!

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> No it isn't. *Are you suggesting murder rates would jump if it weren't illegal?* Let me ask you a question, lonely on that perch?
> 
> 
> Psst, I don't need the likes of you defining words, terms, or phrases for me. Keep your fucking condescending bullshit to yourself!


Yes.  In fact, murder rates jumped in places that abolished capital punishment.

You can shit-can the personal attacks.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I never said they did or implied they did. Sure you haven't burned one?


Is that why you want more people to smoke pot, so you don't seem like the weak, pathetic reject of a druggie that you are?  I always find it enlightening when people who know they're doing wrong try to entice others to do the same so they have the illusion of consensus to justify their behavior.  You're a weak man who needs to get high which pretty much revokes your man card.  The rest of us real men face life and it's challenges, adversity, suffering, and even the good times without the aid of mind altering substances.  It's why we're more mature than potheads and druggies, because we don't court escape from our problems, we face them and we overcome them all on our own.

You want real men to be as weak as you so you can feel like a real man too.  Not going to work.

----------


## michaelr

> It's a myopic argument you potheads bring up over and over, proving JPT and I right that pot kills brain cells and makes you stupider.  The war on drugs doesn't have to be perfect in order to work. The fact that people can still get drugs doesn't indicate failure.  Millions of kilos of cocaine, marijuana, heroine, etc are seized at the borders, in transit, during drug deals busted by cops, and on the high seas by the Coast Guard.  Every seizure means less drugs in our streets which can only possibly benefit society.  Moreover, the war on drugs includes education and is chiefly responsible for kids in middle and high school being taught what drugs are, how they affect the body, and the dangers of abusing drugs.  
> 
> How many people never do drugs because they were taught in school about the consequences of doing so?
> 
> How many people didn't OD because a major drug shipment was seized, poisoners were put in prison, or a meth lab was shut down?
> 
> How many people hit rock bottom by being arrested, went to jail which halted a downward spiral that could only lead to their death, and then turned their life around and lived instead?
> 
> You can't put a number to any of these, so don't tell me the War on Drugs isn't working.
> ...


Did you read your post at all? Do know what this so called war on drugs costs? 

I am about done with you and this thread for a while, but I have a question that I want you to answer.

Do you think the bank launder more drug monies then they recieve from the federal government "fighting" this so called war on drugs?

I want for you and the self proclaimed grammar police to think about this as well. You people, year after year, trillion after trillions of dollars, say the same fucking thing, do the same fucking thing, and the problem gets worse, the expence becomes exponential, the insanity spreads. That's the net result of all this. You praise it.

Good grief!

----------


## DeadEye

> Yes.  In fact, murder rates jumped in places that abolished capital punishment.
> 
> You can shit-can the personal attacks.


So, calling people who smoke pot names is not a personal attack; gotcha!

----------

Invayne (03-08-2014),michaelr (03-07-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Did you read your post at all? Do know what this so called war on drugs costs? 
> 
> I am about done with you and this thread for a while, but I have a question that I want you to answer.
> 
> Do you think the bank launder more drug monies then they recieve from the federal government "fighting" this so called war on drugs?
> 
> I want for you and the self proclaimed grammar police to think about this as well. You people, year after year, trillion after trillions of dollars, say the same fucking thing, do the same fucking thing, and the problem gets worse, the expence becomes exponential, the insanity spreads. That's the net result of all this. You praise it.
> 
> Good grief!


That's by design.

Liberals have created a counterculture which undercuts the mainstream culture.  The counterculture glorifies drug use, mindless sexual contact, contempt for authority; the promise of a beautiful world if laws were abolished and the government spent all its time taking from those who make it and giving it to the Beautiful People.

It undercut parental authority...until we got to where a majority of parents support this counterculture.  Counterculture advocates now control the schools as well as universities; and most public libraries as well...many state government and virtually all major-city governments.

With this sort of seductive message undercutting the square, fuddy-duddy message that drugs cause problems and waste lives...who are young people going to listen to?  What hormonally-charged sixteen-year-old doesn't want license to find longer and better orgasms with willing partners he/she just met?

The COUNTERCULTURE need be stamped out.

Socrates was put to death for the charge of corrupting the young.  The charge was false; but the punishment for the crime was appropriate.

(oh, and, potheads?  Don't ask me to translate that.  You won't get it.  Can't get it.  Because you've fried your brains.)

----------


## DeadEye

> Is that why you want more people to smoke pot, so you don't seem like the weak, pathetic reject of a druggie that you are?  I always find it enlightening when people who know they're doing wrong try to entice others to do the same so they have the illusion of consensus to justify their behavior.  You're a weak man who needs to get high which pretty much revokes your man card.  The rest of us real men face life and it's challenges, adversity, suffering, and even the good times without the aid of mind altering substances.  It's why we're more mature than potheads and druggies, because we don't court escape from our problems, we face them and we overcome them all on our own.
> 
> You want real men to be as weak as you so you can feel like a real man too.  Not going to work.


You are so convoluted that there is nothing I can say to help you. You simply do not understand the concept of liberty and all that it entails. You somehow think you are just in belittling people of which you know nothing about while taking it upon yourself to decide what is right for another person and then have the audacity to suggest you are somehow a real man. You got some real issues of a personal level.

----------

Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> Yes.  In fact, murder rates jumped in places that abolished capital punishment.
> 
> You can shit-can the personal attacks.


I thought that you were the grammar police. Show me my attack?

Murder rates wouldn't make a significant jump in numbers. What are we, animals? Are you trying to tell us something? Most people don't have the urge to kill, and the law wouldn't and doesn't prevent it when someone does. It isn't designed to, its paper and words.

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> That's by design.
> 
> Liberals have created a counterculture which undercuts the mainstream culture.  The counterculture glorifies drug use, mindless sexual contact, contempt for authority; the promise of a beautiful world if laws were abolished and the government spent all its time taking from those who make it and giving it to the Beautiful People.
> 
> It undercut parental authority...until we got to where a majority of parents support this counterculture.  Counterculture advocates now control the schools as well as universities; and most public libraries as well...many state government and virtually all major-city governments.
> 
> With this sort of seductive message undercutting the square, fuddy-duddy message that drugs cause problems and waste lives...who are young people going to listen to?  What hormonally-charged sixteen-year-old doesn't want license to find longer and better orgasms with willing partners he/she just met?
> 
> The COUNTERCULTURE need be stamped out.
> ...


Ask you translate it? Dude you're rambling, and making hair brained accusations. You lose!

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I thought that you were the grammar police. Show me my attack?


Track it back.  If you can't see it, maybe a mod can point it out to you.




> Murder rates wouldn't make a significant jump in numbers. What are we, animals?


Been to Detroit lately?  Chicago?




> Are you trying to tell us something? Most people don't have the urge to kill, and the law wouldn't and doesn't prevent it when someone does. It isn't designed to, its paper and words.


Take that attitude to Chicago's South Side.  See where it takes you.  Especially after you've burned a few blunts...feeling groovy, no doubt, until you get knock-out'ed by da bruddah-men.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Ask you translate it? Dude you're rambling, and making hair brained accusations. You lose!


No.  YOU cannot follow it.

----------


## michaelr

> Track it back.  If you can't see it, maybe a mod can point it out to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Been to Detroit lately?  Chicago?
> 
> 
> 
> Take that attitude to Chicago's South Side.  See where it takes you.  Especially after you've burned a few blunts...feeling groovy, no doubt, until you get knock-out'ed by da bruddah-men.


I read my post. I asked if you're naive. Now, I get it, you think thats an insult. This is why I don't care what you think. You seem to always be wrong, yet somehow arrogant. 

Your level of debate is that if a child today. Have a beer, roll a fat one, take it easy.

----------


## michaelr

> No.  YOU cannot follow it.


Umm, I think it is way more likely that you don't even know what the hell you wrote. It's fine, it's all public.

----------


## Calypso Jones

Gentlemen, please, back to topic.  thankseverso.

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014),michaelr (03-07-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> Gentlemen, please, back to topic.  thankseverso.


You're right.

Criminalizing drugs cost taxpayers trillions, and allowed the cartels to become so large that the TBTJail banks compete for their business, and that gets a free pass!!!!

It doesn't work.

Insanity is continuation of this crap!!!

----------


## JustPassinThru

Insanity is what comes out of the smoking end of a blunt.

----------


## michaelr

> Insanity is what comes out of the smoking end of a blunt.


You know what? I respect that opinion, and suggest that you don't do it.

----------


## Archer

> How does their liberty encroach on yours? I think you are missing the point.


Higher taxes to supplement their ineptitude! And their habit!
Drug testing for any government benefit!

----------


## DeadEye

> Higher taxes to supplament their ineptitude! And their habit!


That's the government doing that to you not the pot smoker.

----------

Invayne (03-08-2014),michaelr (03-07-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> Higher taxes to supplement their ineptitude! And their habit!
> Drug testing for any government benefit!


Where does that testing end? Cigarettes? FL is trying that. Think that wont effect jobs?

You want pot smokers to pay more taxes? Do have any idea how much monies are raised for municipalities to states from marijuana? Good grief, in allot of states it ranks in the top 5 cash crops, top 3 in others.

----------


## Archer

> That's the government doing that to you not the pot smoker.


Not arguing that point so no aid for anyone who can not pass a drug test.

----------


## Matalese

Legalizing drugs in order to collect taxes is just an attack on the nations children. Sacrifice the kids for taxes? And don't tell me the kids won't buy pot either.

----------


## Matalese

> Where does that testing end? Cigarettes? FL is trying that. Think that wont effect jobs?
> 
> You want pot smokers to pay more taxes? Do have any idea how much monies are raised for municipalities to states from marijuana? Good grief, in allot of states it ranks in the top 5 cash crops, top 3 in others.


No it won't effect jobs but it might affect them!

----------


## Archer

> Where does that testing end? Cigarettes? FL is trying that. Think that wont effect jobs?
> 
> You want pot smokers to pay more taxes? Do have any idea how much monies are raised for municipalities to states from marijuana? Good grief, in allot of states it ranks in the top 5 cash crops, top 3 in others.


I would say if anyone get government money they should be answerable to the government and the people. Why the hell should one man bust his ass while another works a min wag job, gets benefits and thousands in tax credits.

Smoke? Nope the money is not for addictions!

Drink? Not on the dime of the people!

And I feel that our government should not buy alcohol either!

And paying taxes? I aint saying they should pay more but they do not need to be getting tax dollars either.

----------


## Matalese

> Not arguing that point so no aid for anyone who can not pass a drug test.


I'm all for that if they can afford drugs they don't need my help.

----------

Archer (03-07-2014)

----------


## Dan40

> That's the government doing that to you not the pot smoker.


If pot smokers are supplying the govt with billions of tax dollars, then the pot smokers are supporting and approving an oppressive government.

Better the pot remain illegal and COST the oppressive govt money.

----------


## DeadEye

> Not arguing that point so no aid for anyone who can not pass a drug test.


Bullshit, why should I be drug tested to receive SS? I wasn't drug tested when they took my money. All this is is more control over a free people.

----------

Invayne (03-08-2014),nonsqtr (03-07-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> I would say if anyone get government money they should be answerable to the government and the people. Why the hell should one man bust his ass while another works a min wag job, gets benefits and thousands in tax credits.
> 
> Smoke? Nope the money is not for addictions!
> 
> Drink? Not on the dime of the people!
> 
> And I feel that our government should not buy alcohol either!
> 
> And paying taxes? I aint saying they should pay more but they do not need to be getting tax dollars either.


Your post of assumptions. I bet more people who don't smoke pot are on handouts then those that do. I bet they both drink.

Maybe the working poor are just lucky to have any job. 

Lets go this way. A non-drinker/pot smoker works minimum wage, and raises kids. Isn't that person entitled under the law, earned income credits? Yes. Whould that be ok with you?

----------


## Archer

> Bullshit, why should I be drug tested to receive SS? I wasn't drug tested when they took my money. All this is is more control over a free people.


SS is not the same as welfare but if you get a disease related to smoking, drinking, over eating or drug abuse they you can foot the damn bill yourself or die.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Bullshit, why should I be drug tested to receive SS? I wasn't drug tested when they took my money. All this is is more control over a free people.


Oh, NOW you're complaining.

I didn't hear you complain when there was a movement afoot to privatize antiSocial inSecurity.  No...can't do THAT!...NOT...FAIR!

All that money you paid...even in this farked-up market, you'd have had FAR more to draw off than you'll ever get from Ponzi Security.

IF you paid into it.

I wouldn't bet on that last, though.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> If pot smokers are supplying the govt with billions of tax dollars, then the pot smokers are supporting and approving an oppressive government.
> 
> Better the pot remain illegal and COST the oppressive govt money.


Good point often overlooked.  The Lefitst libertarians want pot to simply be decriminalized.  They're deluded on two counts:

1. Potheads will insist it's not enough to not be thrown in jail for smoking a joint, they want it to be a right, so employers can't drug test anymore, landlords can't evict, etc.

2. The only way politicians will decriminalize pot is if it because an avenue for more revenue.  Potheads are even pleading, "tax us more!" trying to entice politicians to legalize and then tax it.  (which is why I call Libertarians Leftists, they're full of shit)

Dan, what I'm amazed at is the charade of this legalize pot movement being a bid for freedom.  It gives government even more control over our lives through regulation, licensing, and taxation.  The Pothead Left's real agenda is betrayed in that they just want to get high and will accept any price or loss of freedom to do so.

And I see them for the bullshitters they are.

----------

JustPassinThru (03-07-2014)

----------


## DeadEye

> Oh, NOW you're complaining.
> 
> I didn't hear you complain when there was a movement afoot to privatize antiSocial inSecurity.  No...can't do THAT!...NOT...FAIR!
> 
> All that money you paid...even in this farked-up market, you'd have had FAR more to draw off than you'll ever get from Ponzi Security.
> 
> IF you paid into it.
> 
> I wouldn't bet on that last, though.


Just more assumptions, if not that then name calling. That's all you got.

----------

michaelr (03-07-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Just more assumptions, if not that then name calling. That's all you got.


Report it, then.

----------


## Archer

> Your post of assumptions. I bet more people who don't smoke pot are on handouts then those that do. I bet they both drink.
> 
> Maybe the working poor are just lucky to have any job. 
> 
> Lets go this way. A non-drinker/pot smoker works minimum wage, and raises kids. Isn't that person entitled under the law, earned income credits? Yes. Whould that be ok with you?


I guarantee more non pot smokers are on welfare than pot smokers... Now should we talk percentage of pot smoking population as compared to pot smoking population?

I feel all credits need to be done away with!

Look my problem is not with a person smoking pot it is with the societal cost. Remove that cost and I really do not give a shit. 

I am for 100% community rule and standards! Federal taxes only for the common defense...

If there were no welfare there would be less need for welfare! People would stop having babies for Uncle Sam to pay for, people would make wiser decisions and please phase out Medicare! Please Phase out social security!

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014),michaelr (03-07-2014)

----------


## Dan40

> Good point often overlooked.  The Lefitst libertarians want pot to simply be decriminalized.  They're deluded on two counts:
> 
> 1. Potheads will insist it's not enough to not be thrown in jail for smoking a joint, they want it to be a right, so employers can't drug test anymore, landlords can't evict, etc.
> 
> 2. The only way politicians will decriminalize pot is if it because an avenue for more revenue.  Potheads are even pleading, "tax us more!" trying to entice politicians to legalize and then tax it.  (which is why I call Libertarians Leftists, they're full of shit)
> 
> Dan, what I'm amazed at is the charade of this legalize pot movement being a bid for freedom.  It gives government even more control over our lives through regulation, licensing, and taxation.  The Pothead Left's real agenda is betrayed in that they just want to get high and will accept any price or loss of freedom to do so.
> 
> And I see them for the bullshitters they are.


All pot smokers have to do is look at beer wine and whiskey.  That is the status they are AXING for  :Smile: .  Except pot smoking will have all the booze restrictions AND all the smoking restrictions TOO.

You got to be really high to think of that as FREEDOM.

----------

Irascible Crusader (03-07-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> what I'm amazed at is the charade of this legalize pot movement being a bid for freedom.  It gives government even more control over our lives through regulation, licensing, and taxation.  The Pothead Left's real agenda is betrayed in that they just want to get high and will accept any price or loss of freedom to do so.
> 
> And I see them for the bullshitters they are.


It will do more than that.

It will impair the voting public to where they'll passively or even actively vote AWAY freedoms.  And MOST despots are ELECTED.

Hitler was.  Castro was.  Duvalier was.  Mussolini...Chavez...Ortega...many more I can't recall.

But when the people are themselves permanently impaired - because the drug is long-acting and the user uses again long before he's clean of it - they'll vote foolishly, as they'll live foolishly.  And tyrants jump at the opportunity.

This is why Soros' misnamed "Open Society Project" is so heavy on legalized drugs.  Does anyone think Soros is an humanitarian or friend of republican democracy?

----------


## michaelr

Y'all want the ironic part of all this. If the pro-war-on-drugs types were right, this flipping thread wouldn't exist. After trillions, all the prisons, all the crushed families, all of it a huge liability for naught. 

Time to try something else. Perhaps without all thos needless, worthless expenses, we could try some compassion, treat it like the cancer it is. But y'all want to keep rubbing salt on the wound hoping it heals. Listen to just how stupid that 'cure' sounds? I call it counterproductive, I say it's designed that way. The war on drugs is huge business, and they don't go away.

The really funny thing is, the war drugs was declared durring Iran/Contra. How's that for irony?

----------


## Dan40

> It will do more than that.
> 
> It will impair the voting public to where they'll passively or even actively vote AWAY freedoms.  And MOST despots are ELECTED.
> 
> Hitler was.  Castro was.  Duvalier was.  Mussolini...Chavez...Ortega...many more I can't recall.
> 
> But when the people are themselves permanently impaired - because the drug is long-acting and the user uses again long before he's clean of it - they'll vote foolishly, as they'll live foolishly.  And tyrants jump at the opportunity.
> 
> This is why Soros' misnamed "Open Society Project" is so heavy on legalized drugs.  Does anyone think Soros is an humanitarian or friend of republican democracy?


The voting public is mindless now.  High and mindless won't be noticeably different.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Y'all want the ironic part of all this. If the pro-war-on-drugs types were right, this flipping thread wouldn't exist. After trillions, all the prisons, all the crushed families, all of it a huge liability for naught. 
> 
> Time to try something else. Perhaps without all thos needless, worthless expenses, we could try some compassion, treat it like the cancer it is. But y'all want to keep rubbing salt on the wound hoping it heals. Listen to just how stupid that 'cure' sounds? I call it counterproductive, I say it's designed that way. The war on drugs is huge business, and they don't go away.
> 
> The really funny thing is, the war drugs was declared durring Iran/Contra. How's that for irony?


I went through that.  You didn't see it because you were honking that doobie...I was harshing the mellow...

The Left has created a counterculture, which glorifies all the culture, all Western cultures, condemn.  And these counter-culture types are embedded in universities, schools, libraries, and courts.  And of course elected government.

So there are two forces - the counterculture making "kewel" everything the Judeo-Christian culture forbids.  THAT is why the law is failing - the culture warriors are turning our values on their heads.

Got that?

I didn't think so.

----------


## Matalese

Treat it like the cancer it is by legalizing it?

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Y'all want the ironic part of all this. If the pro-war-on-drugs types were right, this flipping thread wouldn't exist. After trillions, all the prisons, all the crushed families, all of it a huge liability for naught. 
> 
> Time to try something else. Perhaps without all thos needless, worthless expenses, we could try some compassion, treat it like the cancer it is. But y'all want to keep rubbing salt on the wound hoping it heals. Listen to just how stupid that 'cure' sounds? I call it counterproductive, I say it's designed that way. The war on drugs is huge business, and they don't go away.
> 
> The really funny thing is, the war drugs was declared durring Iran/Contra. How's that for irony?


Your pothead website sources are wrong.  The War On Drugs term was coined by Richard Nixon in 1971 in a speech he gave regarding the disturbing uptrend in drug abuse.  Oh, and we haven't spent "trillions" on this war either, the current spending annually is $51 billion.  You keep proving over and over for our satisfaction the mental impediment of marijuana.  Get off the dope and maybe you'll stop making these silly mistakes, if there isn't too much permanent brain damage.

----------

JustPassinThru (03-07-2014)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> The voting public is mindless now.  High and mindless won't be noticeably different.


Truth is, it might even help us if we can get enough zit faced OWS potheads to space out election day.

----------


## michaelr

> I went through that.  You didn't see it because you were honking that doobie...I was harshing the mellow...
> 
> The Left has created a counterculture, which glorifies all the culture, all Western cultures, condemn.  And these counter-culture types are embedded in universities, schools, libraries, and courts.  And of course elected government.
> 
> So there are two forces - the counterculture making "kewel" everything the Judeo-Christian culture forbids.  THAT is why the law is failing - the culture warriors are turning our values on their heads.
> 
> Got that?
> 
> I didn't think so.


Man, really....we were asked to stick to the subject. I can only respond by saying you're wrong on this issue.

----------


## michaelr

> Your pothead website sources are wrong.  The War On Drugs term was coined by Richard Nixon in 1971 in a speech he gave regarding the disturbing uptrend in drug abuse.  Oh, and we haven't spent "trillions" on this war either, the current spending annually is $51 billion.  You keep proving over and over for our satisfaction the mental impediment of marijuana.  Get off the dope and maybe you'll stop making these silly mistakes, if there isn't too much permanent brain damage.


Oh now a mistake is from brain damage. Why is it that you people are getting away with your insults?

You're right, Reagan expanded it big time as he was importing cocaine and creating the crack epidemic.....err durring Iran/Contra. 

My bad.


> *The 1980s and 90s: Drug Hysteria and Skyrocketing Incarceration Rates*The presidency of Ronald Reagan marked the start of a long period of skyrocketing rates of incarceration, largely thanks to his unprecedented expansion of the drug war. The number of people behind bars for nonviolent drug law offenses increased from 50,000 in 1980 to over 400,000 by 1997.
> Public concern about illicit drug use built throughout the 1980s, largely due to media portrayals of people addicted to the smokeable form of cocaine dubbed “crack.” Soon after Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, his wife, Nancy Reagan, began a highly-publicized anti-drug campaign, coining the slogan "Just Say No." This set the stage for the zero tolerance policies implemented in the mid-to-late 1980s. Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates, who believed that “casual drug users should be taken out and shot,” founded the DARE drug education program, which was quickly adopted nationwide despite the lack of evidence of its effectiveness. The increasingly harsh drug policies also blocked the expansion of syringe access programs and other harm reduction policies to reduce the rapid spread of HIV/AIDS.



http://www.drugpolicy.org/new-soluti...story-drug-war

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Man, really....we were asked to stick to the subject. I can only respond by saying you're wrong on this issue.


Calypso Jones asked us to stick to the subjects after a few posts that were nothing but insults.  JPT's post has content that you are unable to refute, just to set things straight.

----------


## michaelr

> Calypso Jones asked us to stick to the subjects after a few posts that were nothing but insults.  JPT's post has content that you are unable to refute, just to set things straight.


Pretzels are straight.

He and you are wrong. Trillions of dollars, mass incarcerations, huge debts, massive social costs, and the problem is worse then ever, the cartels are larger then ever, all ot proves my point, not yours not his.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Pretzels are straight.
> 
> He and you are wrong. Trillions of dollars, mass incarcerations, huge debts, massive social costs, and the problem is worse then ever, the cartels are larger then ever, all ot proves my point, not yours not his.


There you go with "trillions of dollars" figure again.  You're so hopped up on dope you don't even learn from your mistakes. http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics

----------


## michaelr

> There you go with "trillions of dollars" figure again.  You're so hopped up on dope you don't even learn from your mistakes. http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics


Your arrogance is unearned.

One trillion in 2010.http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05...ed-meet-goals/

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Your arrogance is unearned.
> 
> One trillion in 2010.http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05...ed-meet-goals/


$1 Trillion in FORTY YEARS.

_MEXICO CITY (AP) — After 40 years, the United States'  war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives,  and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and  widespread.

...
_
_This week President Obama promised to "reduce drug use and the great  damage it causes" with a new national policy that he said treats drug  use more as a public health issue and focuses on prevention and  treatment._
_
Nevertheless, his administration has increased spending on interdiction  and law enforcement to record levels both in dollars and in percentage  terms; this year, they account for $10 billion of his $15.5 billion  drug-control budget._

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Your arrogance is unearned.
> 
> One trillion in 2010.http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05...ed-meet-goals/


Even the source you cited said, "1 trillion".  Were you also smoking pot in high school when your English teacher was explaining the difference between singular and plural?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Even the source you cited said, "1 trillion".  Were you also smoking pot in high school when your English teacher was explaining the difference between singular and plural?


He obviously has a reading-comprehension problem.

Read the article and then his assertion.  He's about $985 billion off.

----------


## Taylor

> Are you a truck driver, surgeon, police officer, EOD technician, heavy equipment operator, parent, airplane pilot, or air traffic controller?
> 
> Do you plan to drive on public streets in the next 72 hours?
> 
> Are their children in your home?
> 
> If the answer to all these is no, then I got no problem with you getting high on pot tonight.


im not any of those things and I dont have children, but I will probably drive in the next 72 hours. Everything will be fine though.

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> im not any of those things and I dont have children, but I will probably drive in the next 72 hours. Everything will be fine though.


Sure it will.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> im not any of those things and I dont have children, but I will probably drive in the next 72 hours. Everything will be fine though.


I don't think the parents whose children will be on the road with you are so easily assured.  I'd rather you just get hammered. Alcohol dissipates cleanly from your body leaving nothing but a headache the next morning.  THC stores in your fat cells, making you high for up to a month.  Don't for a moment believe you're completely uninhibited by pot when you're driving.  Here are the facts: http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factsheets/driving.htm

----------


## Taylor

> My parents taught me not to do drugs and I never have.  I teach my kids never to do drugs and they most likely won't either.
> 
> It's called parenting and it works.


You can have good parents and still make decisions for yourself. My parents taught me not to do drugs but ill still smoke pot every now and then. They dont know that I do but I do anyway. I'm not 21 yet but I drink alcohol as well in spite of them saying not to drink underage.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> You can have good parents and still make decisions for yourself. My parents taught me not to do drugs but ill still smoke pot every now and then. They dont know that I do but I do anyway. I'm not 21 yet but I drink alcohol as well in spite of them saying not to drink underage.


Good parenting works more often than it doesn't.  Every now and then, there's one kid who's a screw up, committed to delinquency no matter how well they're brought up.  You're obviously that kid.  It has no bearing on me or my kids.

----------

Archer (03-07-2014)

----------


## Taylor

> Good parenting works more often than it doesn't.  Every now and then, there's one kid who's a screw up, committed to delinquency no matter how well they're brought up.  You're obviously that kid.  It has no bearing on me or my kids.


committed to delinquency? WTF? I've never been arrested or in any kind of real trouble. So I smoke some pot every now and then and will drink a beer or something like that with friends sometimes without my parents knowing. That makes me a screw up and a delinquent?

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> committed to delinquency? WTF? I've never been arrested or in any kind of real trouble. So I smoke some pot every now and then and will drink a beer or something like that with friends sometimes without my parents knowing. That makes me a screw up and a delinquent?


EDIT

It makes you a criminal.  That should be bad enough.

----------


## Network

Glovernment can't stop pot usage any better than they can create jobs, end poverty, or spread democracy to sand nations.  In the end, you have billions/trillions of stolen wealth flushed down the drain with nothing to show for it.  

So many people take the wrong angle to this argument. _ It should be outlawed! _ Fail

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014)

----------


## Archer

> committed to delinquency? WTF? I've never been arrested or in any kind of real trouble. So I smoke some pot every now and then and will drink a beer or something like that with friends sometimes without my parents knowing. That makes me a screw up and a delinquent?


It makes you a kid... Many do it but most stop when they are forced to get a job and grow up.

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014)

----------


## Archer

> Glovernment can't stop pot usage any better than they can create jobs, end poverty, or spread democracy to sand nations.  In the end, you have billions/trillions of stolen wealth flushed down the drain with nothing to show for it.  
> 
> So many people take the wrong angle to this argument. _ It should be outlawed! _ Fail


It should be as it is but they should drop the harsh penalties! Also if they want a job they will quit and if not they should not get any assistance.

Watch the child starve! Yup pot or the life of your child.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> It makes you a kid... Many do it but most stop when they are forced to get a job and grow up.


You're being nicer than me.  I'm actually showing this conversation to my 10 year old so he knows not to grow up to be a druggie criminal screw up.

----------


## Network

Hey, we can just hope for now that the government can reverse the explosion of opiate production in Afghanistan.

O wait..

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

One thing I WILL support: do not arrest or give a criminal record to the possession of small, personal amounts of weed. That is not just, to screw up a young person's life for having a few tokes in his glove compartment.

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> You're being nicer than me.  I'm actually showing this conversation to my 10 year old so he knows not to grow up to be a druggie criminal screw up.


Excellent idea.

Kids...often have a lot more brainpower than we give them credit for.  I remember a Philosophy professor I had...had to take two semesters of PHIL, as the course catalog abbreviated it.  But he was telling us, one day, how the previous summer, just for kicks, he took about eight of his twelve-year-old daughter's friends and started them on an Introduction to Philosophy class.  Now, the kid was probably pretty smart, and would have smart friends...but he was astounded at how well they lapped up concepts that some of his 19-year-old students would have trouble with.

So.  Show him this.  Show him the flagrant non-sequiturs that got tossed out by the pro-pot posters.  Who admit they use; who are probably using as they post.

You can tell a kid that pot will make him stupid, and he'll laugh.  You can SHOW him...and maybe he'll think about it.

----------


## Taylor

> EDIT
> 
> It makes you a criminal.  That should be bad enough.


Yeah ok, im a criminal. If I am sitting on a couch with a friend smoking pot or drinking wine I am hurting nobody. FYI im not breaking any major laws smoking pot on my friends couch, and me drinking underage at someones house is not even on a cops radar. I also speed on occasion and I don't always use a cross walk. I'm a horrible horrible person.

----------


## Network

Reefer Madness!

I've only had bad encounters with drunk retards.  The papers tell the same story with DUI manslaughters on a consistent basis.  Prohibition, bring it back!

How smart do you need to be to work in America?  I could do my _engineering_ job on a high dosage of morphine.  

By the way, most smart people vote for democrats, so your republican worries about stupid voters are unfounded.

----------


## nonsqtr

> There you go with "trillions of dollars" figure again.  You're so hopped up on dope you don't even learn from your mistakes. http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics


Um... simple math... 51 billion dollars a year, times 43 years (since 1971), equals 2.193 trillion.

"Trillions".

Jeez, even us stoned people can do simple math. You can too, if you'd stop spending so much time being distracted by irrelevancies.

I noticed you and JPT haven't been able to address any of my earlier points. And, I'll point out a couple of things about the dialog. Let me go collect some quotes. Be right back.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

True, one is more likely to get into a fight at a bar with drunks than in a room full of pot-heads, that's for damn sure!

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Um... simple math... 51 billion dollars a year, times 43 years (since 1971), equals 2.193 trillion.
> 
> "Trillions".
> 
> Jeez, even us stoned people can do simple math. You can too, if you'd stop spending so much time being distracted by irrelevancies.
> 
> I noticed you and JPT haven't been able to address any of my earlier points. And, I'll point out a couple of things about the dialog. Let me go collect some quotes. Be right back.


Once again, your buzz is clouding things.

*$15 billion*, not $51 billion.  My gawd - you try to say marijuana doesn't impair you?

----------


## nonsqtr

> You're being nicer than me.  I'm actually showing this conversation to my 10 year old so he knows not to grow up to be a druggie criminal screw up.


Yeah. Don't forget to show him my post about doing simple math. Yuk.  :Thumbsup20:

----------


## nonsqtr

> Once again, your buzz is clouding things.
> 
> *$15 billion*, not $51 billion.  My gawd - you try to say marijuana doesn't impair you?


I wasn't talkin' to you (yet).

In fact, that 51 billion comes from Irascible's own link, the one that he posted.

Besides, you're beating around the bush. You know very well that our very own CIA is the number drug runner on the planet, and it's been that way since long before 1971. Our government is the one that ensures we have plenty of drugs on the streets. Don't you get it? You vote for these assholes. They're doing exactly what you want them to do.

----------


## Network

angry alcoholics have a hard time admitting that they are more violent, dumber, and in worse health than potheads.

I can vouch for both sides.

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I wasn't talkin' to you (yet).
> 
> In fact, that 51 billion comes from Irascible's own link, the one that he posted.
> 
> Besides, you're beating around the bush. You know very well that our very own CIA is the number drug runner on the planet, and it's been that way since long before 1971. Our government is the one that ensures we have plenty of drugs on the streets. Don't you get it? You vote for these assholes. They're doing exactly what you want them to do.


You forgot the chemtrails.  And the microwaves aimed at your brain, to upload your thoughts and steal your ideas.

 :Tool20: 

 :Tool: 

 :Weedsmoking: 

 :Tinfoil:

----------


## Network



----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> 


I see that every so often as I live under what is a major military air corridor.

It always makes me nervous, because in the past it's sometimes just preceded an air attack somewhere. I remember skies like that just prior to the interventions in the Yugoslav War in the 90s and the Iraq War.

Those flyboys are practicing for something, I think.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Classic stoner-ism.





> You can't reason with a doper.





> The COUNTERCULTURE need(s) be stamped out.


The level of ignorance in statements like these is truly astounding.

You used the word "druggies" too - as if all drugs were the same, and produced the same effect on behavior.

It's hard to take you seriously when you're promoting the oppression of half of society. Sorry man. I mean, I respect your opinion and all, but this kind of stuff is not going to get you any votes. Most of us who've actually studied history realize what a debacle Prohibition was, and how entirely corrupt the Schedules are in terms of our government's powers.

And when you make statements about "the counter-culture", the level of ignorance there is so extreme that I'd ask you to stay away from my kids. I don't trust people with myopic viewpoints like this, I'm very sorry but I find the need to guard against these kinds of perversions of humanity. You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm going to make my kids aware that there are people in this world that they need to protect themselves from.

I just don't subscribe to this level of nuttery, is all. 

And I don't tell other people how to live their lives, either.

Until they start stepping on my boundaries, and I mean, anyone who tries to take away my life saving medicine is going to have more than just a political fight on their hands.




> Insanity is what comes out of the smoking end of a blunt.


Demonstrably false assertions like this are a dime a dozen. They usually come out of the mouths of considerably nasty people. Whose only way to get self esteem is by disparaging others.

That's really all I have to say here, I don't really feel the need to debate on this topic at this level.

Colorado just legalized pot, and they're doing just fine. We're going to see in a year or two, whether they have any new traffic accidents, or whether the kids' grades start going down in the schools, or what exactly is going to happen. Until then, I'm going to withhold judgement on other peoples' lives. And I'm going to keep living mine no matter what anyone's opinion is about it.

However when people start trying to influence the policies in my kids' schools and stuff like that, I get engaged. Fortunately, only the minority of people are ignorant, and only the minority of people are looking for scapegoats for their own inadequacies and fears. I'll always have the power of numbers on my side, and I'm very good with the English language too, I can be very persuasive.  :Smile: 

Cheers, see ya. Maybe we'll tangle again someday.  :Headbang:

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## Network

> I see that every so often as I live under what is a major military air corridor.
> 
> It always makes me nervous, because in the past it's sometimes just preceded an air attack somewhere. I remember skies like that just prior to the interventions in the Yugoslav War in the 90s and the Iraq War.
> 
> Those flyboys are practicing for something, I think.



Haven't seen that in your skies since then?  They're practicing something for sure, weather modification.  I have personal experience from work about a case over a certain _eastern_ nation where the weather-related calculations were impossible because of manmade factors over that particular area, which had lead to a deadly flood a few years prior to the new study.  And that's all I can say about that.

_Legalize it. _

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

There are regularly scheduled exercises that lead to a lot of con-rails in the sky, no doubt. I even saw a refueling taking place between a tanker plane and what was probably a bomber. The two got closer and closer to each other until they were almost on top of each other before the were too far away to see. 

As for the stupid conspiracy theories about con-trails, file that under the same waste-paper basket as FEMA camps and Koch Brothers paranoia.

----------


## Network

> There are regularly scheduled exercises that lead to a lot of con-rails in the sky, no doubt. I even saw a refueling taking place between a tanker plane and what was probably a bomber. The two got closer and closer to each other until they were almost on top of each other before the were too far away to see. 
> 
> As for the stupid conspiracy theories about con-trails, file that under the same waste-paper basket as FEMA camps and Koch Brothers paranoia.



mmmhmmm

*US company to help increase rainfall in KSA* By Habib Shaikh

JEDDAH – An American firm – Weather Modification – based in Fargo, North Dakota is helping Saudi Arabia to increase the chance of rainfall.
“Weather Modification can’t work miracles by producing rain where there is no possibility of it. But the company can increase the chance of rain and the amount of rain that does fall,” Jim Sweeney, company vice president, said in information made available to Saudi Gazette here. “We nudge Mother Nature along,” he said.
Weather Modification has worked in the Kingdom for more than three years on air quality monitoring, atmospheric research and cloud seeding missions.
Currently, 10 Weather Modification aircraft are active in Saudi Arabia. In what Sweeney described as “a technology transfer program,”12 new aircraft – to be modified in Fargo and flown to Saudi Arabia over the next one and half years – will be operated by the Saudis, replacing the weather modification aircraft.
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index...=2009022630442

----------


## JustPassinThru

Two things:

1)  I grieve for what used to be my country.

2)  Those who are destroying it, deserve EXACTLY what they are gonna get.  Only problem is, I'm gonna get it, too.

----------


## Network

yeah huh

*Owning the weather by 2025*
http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf

----------


## michaelr

> $1 Trillion in FORTY YEARS.
> 
> _MEXICO CITY (AP)  After 40 years, the United States'  war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives,  and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and  widespread.
> 
> ...
> _
> _This week President Obama promised to "reduce drug use and the great  damage it causes" with a new national policy that he said treats drug  use more as a public health issue and focuses on prevention and  treatment._
> _
> Nevertheless, his administration has increased spending on interdiction  and law enforcement to record levels both in dollars and in percentage  terms; this year, they account for $10 billion of his $15.5 billion  drug-control budget._


I posted that for a reason. Did you notice what isn't on it, and now more costly then ever. See, that trillion is on policy itself, think infrastructure here. It is far, far from the true cost of this failed policy. I would have thought that would have been noticed. My bad.

----------


## michaelr

> Even the source you cited said, "1 trillion".  Were you also smoking pot in high school when your English teacher was explaining the difference between singular and plural?


Read my prior post.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I posted that for a reason. Did you notice what isn't on it, and now more costly then ever. See, that trillion is on policy itself, think infrastructure here. It is far, far from the true cost of this failed policy. I would have thought that would have been noticed. My bad.


FAIL on the spin and damage control.

It says what it says.  No matter your assertions otherwise.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> mmmhmmm
> 
> *US company to help increase rainfall in KSA*
> 
>  By Habib Shaikh
> 
> JEDDAH – An American firm – Weather Modification – based in Fargo, North Dakota is helping Saudi Arabia to increase the chance of rainfall.
> “Weather Modification can’t work miracles by producing rain where there is no possibility of it. But the company can increase the chance of rain and the amount of rain that does fall,” Jim Sweeney, company vice president, said in information made available to Saudi Gazette here. “We nudge Mother Nature along,” he said.
> Weather Modification has worked in the Kingdom for more than three years on air quality monitoring, atmospheric research and cloud seeding missions.
> ...


But that's not a conspiracy, it's well-known. People have been cloud-seeding and stuff for a while now.

----------


## michaelr

> FAIL on the spin and damage control.
> 
> It says what it says.  No matter your assertions otherwise.


There is no spin, just the facts. It mentions the deaths, how the rest of the economic drag? 

It's a failed policy that costs trillions, and thats me being conservative.

I'll await your insult.

----------


## JustPassinThru

Only a fewel argues with someone under the influence of drugs.

I'm done wasting my time with you.

----------


## RMNIXON

> That's been my point on this all along.
> 
> *WHY would we make available, a drug that just makes young people STUPID?*



Making people soft headed and more dependent?

Making them think they have a right to do as they please with their bodies, but others should take care of them?

I can see how this might be a benefit to a particular party and ideology. But it won't be libertarianism.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Making people soft headed and more dependent?
> 
> Making them think they have a right to do as they please with their bodies, but others should take care of them?
> 
> I can see how this might be a benefit to a particular party and ideology. But it won't be libertarianism.


Yes. 

A very short-term benefit.

What ambitious king, dictator, potentate of a large nation-state increased his power, by making his people stupid?...or causing them to act in ways that did not generate wealth, if not for the peasants, then for the nobility?

NONE!  A nation of slothful, scatterbrained simpletons - whether inbred, malnourished, or made that way pharmacologically - that nation does NOT have wealth or power or anything that would add to the Emperor's stature.  It's all he can do to hold it together.  Which in the end cannot be done.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Um... simple math... 51 billion dollars a year, times 43 years (since 1971), equals 2.193 trillion.
> 
> "Trillions".
> 
> Jeez, even us stoned people can do simple math. You can too, if you'd stop spending so much time being distracted by irrelevancies.
> 
> I noticed you and JPT haven't been able to address any of my earlier points. And, I'll point out a couple of things about the dialog. Let me go collect some quotes. Be right back.


It's currently $51 billion according to some sources.  It hasn't always costed that much and you failed to include the curve.  Moreover, much of that $51 billion represents money that would be spent anyway war or no war.  That's the problem with throwing numbers around without understanding, it guarantees that you'll be wrong on any issue.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Making people soft headed and more dependent?
> 
> Making them think they have a right to do as they please with their bodies, but others should take care of them?
> 
> I can see how this might be a benefit to a particular party and ideology. But it won't be libertarianism.


That's another unmined vein in this discussion.  When these druggies end up in the hospital, who do the Branch Paulinians think is going to pay for their care?  Yet another argument that bursts the "victimless crime" balloon.  Good point.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> There is no spin, just the facts. It mentions the deaths, how the rest of the economic drag? 
> 
> It's a failed policy that costs trillions, and thats me being conservative.
> 
> I'll await your insult.


Since the burden of proof is clearly on you, I defy you to show the breakdown of this alleged "trillions" we spend on the war on drugs.  I call bullshit.

----------


## michaelr

> Since the burden of proof is clearly on you, I defy you to show the breakdown of this alleged "trillions" we spend on the war on drugs.  I call bullshit.


Its clearly visible. We're talking minimum sentencing requirements to lost jobs, costs to hospitals, you name it. None of that is included. The trillion plus is infrastructure spending, shit like advertising the war on drugs to bureaucracies. I dont think i need point anything out.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Its clearly visible. We're talking minimum sentencing requirements to lost jobs, costs to hospitals, you name it. None of that is included. The trillion plus is infrastructure spending, shit like advertising the war on drugs to bureaucracies. I dont think i need point anything out.


So, in other words, you pulled that "trillions" figure out of your ass.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Yeah. Don't forget to show him my post about doing simple math. Yuk.


You fucked that post up by assuming that $51 billion was a constant.  You gotta get off the weed so you don't continue to embarrass yourself.

----------


## michaelr

> So, in other words, you pulled that "trillions" figure out of your ass.


No I didn't. But I do notice that you're using as a distraction. As Reagan imports cocaine, and destroys the inner-cities the war on drugs was vastly escalated.

----------


## JustPassinThru

Sure.

That drug runner, Ronnie Ray-Gun.

DAMN him!

----------


## michaelr

> Sure.
> 
> That drug runner, Ronnie Ray-Gun.
> 
> DAMN him!


I'm no liberal. Hell, you as a neocon are far more liberal then I. I voted for Reagan twice, then H. W. Bush, once. That said, Iran/Contra imported enough cocaine to keep the Iranians fighting for years, heavy weapons and all. Don't blame me if you slept through that bit of history.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> I'm no liberal. Hell, you as a neocon are far more liberal then I. I voted for Reagan twice, then H. W. Bush, once. That said, Iran/Contra imported enough cocaine to keep the Iranians fighting for years, heavy weapons and all. Don't blame me if you slept through that bit of history.


You voted for Reagan?

Then you VOTED FOR A NEOCON PRESIDENT!!

Look at his cabinet, for heaven's sake!

----------


## michaelr

> You voted for Reagan?
> 
> Then you VOTED FOR A NEOCON PRESIDENT!!
> 
> Look at his cabinet, for heaven's sake!


Reagan was ok until he was shot. Yea, I was young and dumb, he was my first vote. I didn't realize the power of Bush until it it was to late. In my defense, I was building homes and went from construction loans to out of pocket durring that time. It took lots of sacrifices, and I didn't have time to pay attention. I should have known better. I was a Junior Bircher, and have been a life long member since I was eighteen. 

I had faith, and I have some shame. Live and learn huh?

----------


## hoytmonger

Reagan was the best President since Calvin Coolidge... but that's not saying much.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Reagan was the best President since Calvin Coolidge... but that's not saying much.


That's saying a great deal, actually, and Silent Cal was one of the most under-rated prezes EVER.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Reagan was the best President since Calvin Coolidge... but that's not saying much.


And Coolidge was a problem, why?

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Reagan was ok until he was shot. Yea, I was young and dumb, he was my first vote. I didn't realize the power of Bush until it it was to late. In my defense, I was building homes and went from construction loans to out of pocket durring that time. It took lots of sacrifices, and I didn't have time to pay attention. I should have known better. I was a Junior Bircher, and have been a life long member since I was eighteen. 
> 
> I had faith, and I have some shame. Live and learn huh?


I meant 'neocon' as a compliment. 

Without neocons it's hard to imagine a modern conservative intellectual tradition at all.

----------


## JustPassinThru

Actually, neocon is codeword, usually for those verminous joos...always getting into things.  Or else a Rightist-professing statist.

----------


## michaelr

> Reagan was the best President since Calvin Coolidge... but that's not saying much.


He got both my first and second votes. If you look back on it, Iran/Contra was CIA, and I know now who to blame for that, but Reagan was president. 

There is an article on the board by Paul Craig Roberts. He wrote Reagannomics, but that was never implemented, so his economy got dubbed that. Roberts is a mentor of sorts.

----------


## michaelr

> I meant 'neocon' as a compliment. 
> 
> Without neocons it's hard to imagine a modern conservative intellectual tradition at all.


No. Neocons are big government, war on drugs as one example, they are pro debt, pro deficit. They are authoritarian. They are liberal.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Actually, neocon is codeword, usually for those verminous joos...always getting into things.  Or else a Rightist-professing statist.


It's true that a lot of neoconservatives were Jewish, an almost equally significant segment came from Catholic intellectuals. It's often called a Jewish-Catholic conservative movement.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> It's true that a lot of neoconservatives were Jewish, an almost equally significant segment came from Catholic intellectuals. It's often called a Jewish-Catholic conservative movement.


Right, but you're missing my point.

"Neo-con" is veritably HISSED out of the mouths of smug liberals...usually when they see a conservative named Goldberg or some such.  More muttering about the Tribe and of the deep, dark secrets that are told in synagogues.

The Left IDENTIFIES the whole world by race and religion...as they understand them.  Joos; or blacks; or "Hispanics" (a made-up category).  And there are in-groups and out-groups.  And joos are most DEFINITELY out - they don't follow a liberal self-appointed leader; they're too successful.  They don't need government; government needs THEM, their tax-monies.

And of course everyone knows joos eat Palestinian babies...first, there is no nation or ethnicity called "Palestinian" and second, anytime ANYONE is in conflict with a joo or jooish group or nation, the Left has already chosen sides.  Facts don't matter; joos are a threat to liberals, who need sheeple to manage.

----------


## michaelr

> Right, but you're missing my point.
> 
> "Neo-con" is veritably HISSED out of the mouths of smug liberals...usually when they see a conservative named Goldberg or some such.  More muttering about the Tribe and of the deep, dark secrets that are told in synagogues.
> 
> The Left IDENTIFIES the whole world by race and religion...as they understand them.  Joos; or blacks; or "Hispanics" (a made-up category).  And there are in-groups and out-groups.  And joos are most DEFINITELY out - they don't follow a liberal self-appointed leader; they're too successful.  They don't need government; government needs THEM, their tax-monies.
> 
> And of course everyone knows joos eat Palestinian babies...first, there is no nation or ethnicity called "Palestinian" and second, anytime ANYONE is in conflict with a joo or jooish group or nation, the Left has already chosen sides.  Facts don't matter; joos are a threat to liberals, who need sheeple to manage.


You assume any opposition to neoconservatism comes from liberals?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> You assume any opposition to neoconservatism comes from liberals?


FOCUS.  As best you can.

There IS no "neoconservatism."  There are neoconservatIVES; those are conservatives named Levin or Goldberg or Stein.

That's where the hate comes from.  What they ARE, or are believed to be.

----------


## michaelr

> FOCUS. As best you can.
> 
> There IS no "neoconservatism." There are neoconservatIVES; those are conservatives named Levin or Goldberg or Stein.
> 
> That's where the hate comes from. What they ARE, or are believed to be.


More insults. Got it. Hell, why not, you're about to suck egg off your face....




> *Neoconservatism* is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s. Many of its adherents rose to political fame during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. During the George W. Bush administration, neoconservatives played a major role in promoting and planning the invasion of Iraq.[1]
> The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist (largely Trotsky) Left to the camp of American conservatism. Neoconservatives frequently advocate the "assertive" promotion of democracy and promotion of "American national interest" in international affairs including by means of military force.[2][3] The movement had its intellectual roots in the monthly review magazine _Commentary_.[4][5] The Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, claims that most influential neoconservatives refer explicitly to the theoretical ideas in the philosophy of Leo Strauss (1899–1973).[6]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

The funny thing is neocon, you don't even know your party was started by liberals and socialists.




> *neoconservatism
> *
> Nioʊkənˈsɜrvəˌtɪzəm/ Show Spelled [nee-oh-k_uh_n-*sur*-v_uh_-tiz-_uh_m] Show IPA 
> *noun* moderate political conservatism espoused or advocated by former liberals or socialists. 
> 
> 
> *Origin:* 
> 1960–65; neo- + conservatism 
> 
> _Related forms_ *neoconservative, noun,*


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/neoconservative


Here is an entire search on them....

https://www.google.com/search?source....0.8ftjpBaO96g

----------

Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## Network

Dat alcohol comparison is their undoing.

They don't understand that the government is a hoax and cannot stop anything and will actually enhance the illegal activity.  So, the prohibition failure should just be preached far and wide.

----------


## DeadEye

> Report it, then.


Report what? You can name call,denigrate, or act like a general asshole all you want. It goes in one ear and out the other because I am better than that. As with most folk round here. You on the other hand have no manners and are a crude person demanding things that are not yours to have.

----------

Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

My major disagreement with the neoconservative trend is this Wilsonian idea of promoting democracy around the world. It has a very noble intent, but it's based on entirely wrong presuppositions. The belief that every human being harbours in his heart a yearning for liberty is simply NOT TRUE. Liberty is only one of many ultimate values. Only nations with a history of liberty--and let's face it, we're talking mostly of the Anglosphere here, and maybe Switzerland and some Scandinavian nations at some point--have liberty as its highest value. You cannot export it to, say, places like Afghanistan.

----------


## michaelr

> My major disagreement with the neoconservative trend is this Wilsonian idea of promoting democracy around the world. It has a very noble intent, but it's based on entirely wrong presuppositions. The belief that every human being harbours in his heart a yearning for liberty is simply NOT TRUE. Liberty is only one of many ultimate values. Only nations with a history of liberty--and let's face it, we're talking mostly of the Anglosphere here, and maybe Switzerland and some Scandinavian nations at some point--have liberty as its highest value. You cannot export it to, say, places like Afghanistan.


Or Libya, or Egypt, or Syria, or Ukraine.....

We shouldn't attemp to export our values. If they are worth having then they'll be adopted. Besides it allows to much intervention in the name of.

----------


## DeadEye

> All pot smokers have to do is look at beer wine and whiskey.  That is the status they are AXING for .  Except pot smoking will have all the booze restrictions AND all the smoking restrictions TOO.
> 
> You got to be really high to think of that as FREEDOM.


It's not and I have not claimed it is. I have advocated the legalization of it primarily so I can cultivate it legally. Yet with all consumer goods it would be subject to tax it if were to be sold on the open market. That's how the government works. They get their cut and everything is cool.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Or Libya, or Egypt, or Syria, or Ukraine.....
> 
> We shouldn't attemp to export our values. If they are worth having then they'll be adopted. Besides it allows to much intervention in the name of.


No disagreement there.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

I myself was semi-Wilsonian up until the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations. 

Then it slowly became evident to me that some cultures are too primitive and backward to be democratized. I completely reversed my opinion at that point.

----------


## DeadEye

> committed to delinquency? WTF? I've never been arrested or in any kind of real trouble. So I smoke some pot every now and then and will drink a beer or something like that with friends sometimes without my parents knowing. That makes me a screw up and a delinquent?


No, it makes you human. It seems like you have a good head on your shoulders. Try to listen to your parents and do as they ask alcohol can be very dangerous for a young person. Be very careful when you step your toe into the pool of life.  :Cool20:

----------


## michaelr

> I myself was semi-Wilsonian up until the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations. 
> 
> Then it slowly became evident to me that some cultures are too primitive and backward to be democratized. I completely reversed my opinion at that point.


That primitive Iraq, well they invented the wheel, writing, hell been there thousands of years before Christ. Maybe they like what they had. It would be within their right, as long as they play by the rules WE IMPOSE I guess.

----------


## michaelr

God bless the Goldman Sachs!!!

----------

Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## Network

The end is hear
legal plants

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> That primitive Iraq, well they invented the wheel, writing, hell been there thousands of years before Christ. Maybe they like what they had. It would be within their right, as long as they play by the rules WE IMPOSE I guess.


They were big in the centuries BC and in the early Muslim period, but they've been a backwater for centuries. And if they want to continue to be so, he, they can be my guest. No skin off my nose.

----------


## Archer

> You're being nicer than me.  I'm actually showing this conversation to my 10 year old so he knows not to grow up to be a druggie criminal screw up.


I am trying to keep it civil and help this kid. You beat him and I will try to push in the right direction!

----------

DeadEye (03-07-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> They were big in the centuries BC and in the early Muslim period, but they've been a backwater for centuries. And if they want to continue to be so, he, they can be my guest. No skin off my nose.

----------


## DeadEye

> You're being nicer than me.  I'm actually showing this conversation to my 10 year old so he knows not to grow up to be a druggie criminal screw up.


Good lawd what makes you so judgmental? What is it so important to show people in the worst possible light?

----------

Invayne (03-08-2014),michaelr (03-07-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> Good lawd what makes you so judgmental? What is it so important to show people in the worst possible light?


It isn't the worse possible light, its in his imagination. I am glad I don't know this guy.

----------

Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## michaelr

I gunna smoke some pot now.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

There is something I've noticed about potheads, and it is linked to possible injuries to the brain caused by consistently high levels of THC:

All the most earnest and uncritical believers in conspiracy theories tend to be big-time partakers of the ganja.

THAT tells you something right there!

----------

JustPassinThru (03-07-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> There is something I've noticed about potheads, and it is linked to possible injuries to the brain caused by consistently high levels of THC:
> 
> All the most earnest and uncritical believers in conspiracy theories tend to be big-time partakers of the ganja.
> 
> THAT tells you something right there!


What kind of conspiracies are you talking about?

----------


## michaelr

I mean, the benghazi riots were a conspiracy theory brought on by the government. Personally I didn't believe that for one second.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> What kind of conspiracies are you talking about?


Well, Network's endless raving insanity, for starters. 911 'Truthers', Apollo 11 was a hoax, the Moon is a hologram, etc etc etc.

It's impossible to even keep up with this incredible crap if you're NOT stoned out of your gourd.

Granted, it's MOSTLY pretty harmless, but still, it indicates some cerebral damage.

----------


## Network

> Well, Network's endless raving insanity, for starters. 911 'Truthers', Apollo 11 was a hoax, the Moon is a hologram, etc etc etc.
> 
> It's impossible to even keep up with this incredible crap if you're NOT stoned out of your gourd.
> 
> Granted, it's MOSTLY pretty harmless, but still, it indicates some cerebral damage.



Now now, ghost, 911 was obviously a crater of shit, as was the moon landings.  I know it might be hard to understand that the moon is gone, but it is.

----------


## michaelr

> Well, Network's endless raving insanity, for starters. 911 'Truthers', Apollo 11 was a hoax, the Moon is a hologram, etc etc etc.
> 
> It's impossible to even keep up with this incredible crap if you're NOT stoned out of your gourd.
> 
> Granted, it's MOSTLY pretty harmless, but still, it indicates some cerebral damage.


Yea, huh. Personally I think there was no hoax in the moon landings. The people that did though weren't stoners in the beginning. I don't know who even cares now. 

Why is it that you feel that you can't say what you want? Let it out.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Why is it that you feel that you can't say what you want? Let it out.


I always say what I want, that's just the problem, it keeps getting me into hot water. :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Network

Anyone who believes in this video needs to smoke a lot-o-pot

Apollo (sun god) moonshit is the lamest hoax ever pulled.  Haven't you noticed yet?  C'mon Man.  It's a fucking sparkler party.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

:Geez:

----------


## michaelr

> I always say what I want, that's just the problem, it keeps getting me into hot water.


You're painting a broad swash saying pot smokers are insane, and insane people believe in CTs.

Dude, you told me that the government wants a stoned population so they can control us? Remember that? Remember my response? Are you fucking kidding here?

----------


## Network

> 



Exactly

Apalled.png

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

I may have overstated the case in the heat of argument. I don't believe there's an actual conspiracy to that effect, but I think they're aware of the inherent possibilities of mind-altering drugs. There was extensive experimentation with LSD by the CIA in the 50s and 60s based on this idea.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

I'm also prepared to admit that pot affects different people in very different ways. Some it may not seriously affect, but some may suffer very serious psychological damage. The majority will fall somewhere along the spectrum between these two extremes.

----------


## michaelr

> I'm also prepared to admit that pot affects different people in very different ways. Some it may not seriously affect, but some may suffer very serious psychological damage. The majority will fall somewhere along the spectrum between these two extremes.


Huh, good point. Can I put this crayon up my nose now?

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

It's like all those hippies that dropped acid in the 60s. Most of them had few long-term effects beyond the odd flashback. But for those who had latent psychiatric illnesses, like schizophrenia, it pushed them over the edge into full-blown mental illness.

----------


## Taylor

> I am trying to keep it civil and help this kid. You beat him and I will try to push in the right direction!


I don't really think I need help though. I just don't think pot's a big deal and I think that it is harmless when compared to so many other things that's all. FYI I'm a her not a him.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Can I put this crayon up my nose now?


Yeah, as long as it's not the fuschia-coloured one...THAT will REALLY fuck you up, man! :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

michaelr (03-07-2014)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I am trying to keep it civil and help this kid. You beat him and I will try to push in the right direction!


That's right.

I love beating kids.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> That's right.
> 
> I love beating kids.


You too!?!?! :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

Irascible Crusader (03-08-2014)

----------


## Dan40

> It's like all those hippies that dropped acid in the 60s. Most of them had few long-term effects beyond the odd flashback. But for those who had latent psychiatric illnesses, like schizophrenia, it pushed them over the edge into full-blown mental illness.



Those 60's hippies are today's DC politicians,,,,,,,,,,and you say there were no long term effects???  Get outa town!

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Oh now a mistake is from brain damage. Why is it that you people are getting away with your insults?


Cut them some slack. If they had rational, intelligent arguments, they'd use them. Like the progressives that they are, they rely entirely on insults, fear-mongering, and running away when faced with arguments they cannot refute.

----------

Invayne (03-08-2014),michaelr (03-08-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> You're being nicer than me.  I'm actually showing this conversation to my 10 year old so he knows not to grow up to be a druggie criminal screw up.


Did you tell him that his father is an obedient government-slave who would vote for Obama in a heartbeat if it meant staying a slave versus being free?

----------

Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Cut them some slack. If they had rational, intelligent arguments, they'd use them. Like the progressives that they are, they rely entirely on insults, fear-mongering, and running away when faced with arguments they cannot refute.


Yeah, JPT, IC, me...we're ALL such wildly 'progressive' types, aren't we! :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> My major disagreement with the neoconservative trend is this Wilsonian idea of promoting democracy around the world. It has a very noble intent, but it's based on entirely wrong presuppositions. The belief that every human being harbours in his heart a yearning for liberty is simply NOT TRUE. Liberty is only one of many ultimate values. Only nations with a history of liberty--and let's face it, we're talking mostly of the Anglosphere here, and maybe Switzerland and some Scandinavian nations at some point--have liberty as its highest value. You cannot export it to, say, places like Afghanistan.


Hell, even you neocons don't yearn for liberty. You proudly wear your shackles and beat your chests in favor of more chains being added on. Orwell was right, in the minds of the authoritarian statist, freedom is slavery and the neocons are as much the epitome of that as any modern day liberal progressive.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Did you tell him that his father is an obedient government-slave who would vote for Obama in a heartbeat if it meant staying a slave versus being free?


Self-ownership is not an absolute. We are not atoms. We are BOTH individuals AND part of a greater society beyond that. Just as there are barriers beyond which that society has no claims on us, so there are barriers to our behaviour if it threatens to destabilize the society to which we belong. It has to cut both ways, so neither the radical individualism of the libertarians nor the collective values of the progressives are absolute, but both must necessarily exist in a fluid and uneasy balance. I know you simplistic, reductionist libertarians won't find that adequate because it's not clear-cut enough for you, but real life is not clear-cut. It's messy.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Hell, even you neocons don't yearn for liberty. You proudly wear your shackles and beat your chests in favor of more chains being added on. Orwell was right, in the minds of the authoritarian statist, freedom is slavery and the neocons are as much the epitome of that as any modern day liberal progressive.


Good for you for approvingly quoting a life-long socialist, even if he was one of the more sensible ones. :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Hell, even you neocons don't yearn for liberty. You proudly wear your shackles and beat your chests in favor of more chains being added on. Orwell was right, in the minds of the authoritarian statist, freedom is slavery and the neocons are as much the epitome of that as any modern day liberal progressive.


So Reagan was for slavery, Milton Friedman was for slavery, Friedrich Hayek was for slavery, Jeane Kirkpatrick was for slavery...any one of these neoconservatives did more to advance the standard of liberty on a BAD day than you will do in your entire LIFE!! How DARE you!! :Angry20:

----------

Irascible Crusader (03-08-2014)

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> So *Reagan* was for slavery, Milton Friedman was for slavery, Friedrich Hayek was for slavery, *Jeane Kirkpatrick* was for slavery...any one of these neoconservatives did more to advance the standard of liberty on a BAD day than you will do in your entire LIFE!! How DARE you!!


The same Reagan-Kirkpatrick duo who sold guns to the Mullahs, funnelled cash into the Nicaraguan War Crimes Brigade and bolstered authoritarian regimes across the globe? I've done more to advance liberty than those two.

----------


## Archer

> I gunna smoke some pot now.


You know that is part of the problem with it. It is illegal and there is no respect for the law! Libertarian and anarchist are not the same.

----------


## michaelr

> You know that is part of the problem with it. It is illegal and there is no respect for the law! Libertarian and anarchist are not the same.


Umm....it's legal here.

Some laws, like what we see in CT are just made to break.

----------

Invayne (03-08-2014),Mordent (03-08-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> The same Reagan-Kirkpatrick duo who sold guns to the Mullahs, funnelled cash into the Nicaraguan War Crimes Brigade and bolstered authoritarian regimes across the globe? I've done more to advance liberty than those two.


I'm going to let you think a while about that one before I respond, because I'm going to assume, given the lateness of the hour in which you posted this you may have been drunk, and you've forgotten what happened in the late '80s/early '90s.

----------


## Archer

> I'm also prepared to admit that pot affects different people in very different ways. Some it may not seriously affect, but some may suffer very serious psychological damage. The majority will fall somewhere along the spectrum between these two extremes.


It is like alcohol in one respect... the more you use, over time, the stupider you get.

----------


## Archer

> I don't really think I need help though. I just don't think pot's a big deal and I think that it is harmless when compared to so many other things that's all. FYI I'm a her not a him.


Sorry about the gender confusion.

Look smoking a joint now and again is not really a big deal (as long as you can get a job and pay 100% of your own way) but those who use it all the time are a problem.

----------


## Archer

> That's right.
> 
> I love beating kids.


Hey! You can not read my tone! I did not mean for you to think I was complaining about the beating... I approve.

In clearer language you are beating her down (justly might I say) and I am coming is as the nice guy trying another method of communication. The thought is she may listen to one of us.

----------


## Archer

> Umm....it's legal here.
> 
> Some laws, like what we see in CT are just made to break.


Well legal is legal...

In the rest of the US it is not.

Still I feel the social impact will be seen in about a decade.

----------


## Taylor

> Hey! You can not read my tone! I did not mean for you to think I was complaining about the beating... I approve.
> 
> In clearer language you are beating her down (justly might I say) and I am coming is as the nice guy trying another method of communication. The thought is she may listen to one of us.


yah ok but see the problem is that im being judged for smoking pot and being called a delinquent for doing something in the privacy of a house that harms nobody and being used as a bad example to someones 10 year old even though pot aside I do volunteer work around town and have even gone to other states in the country to do it, I refuse to let my parents help me pay for the classes that im taking at a local community college right now since I want to do it myself, I work part time to pay for things myself, ive never been in trouble with the police, im loyal to my friends and family, im overall a good person, but yet because I get high on occasion im someone that should be avoided and beaten down. Thats some righteous bullshit you have to admit.

----------

fyrenza (03-08-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014),Mordent (03-08-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> Well legal is legal...
> 
> In the rest of the US it is not.
> 
> Still I feel the social impact will be seen in about a decade.


People have smoking pot a long time. The failed war on drugs only made them criminals, they never stopped. The economic impact will be a boom for this state.

----------

fyrenza (03-08-2014)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> yah ok but see the problem is that im being judged for smoking pot and being called a delinquent for doing something in the privacy of a house that harms nobody and being used as a bad example to someones 10 year old even though pot aside I do volunteer work around town and have even gone to other states in the country to do it, I refuse to let my parents help me pay for the classes that im taking at a local community college right now since I want to do it myself, I work part time to pay for things myself, ive never been in trouble with the police, im loyal to my friends and family, im overall a good person, but yet because I get high on occasion im someone that should be avoided and beaten down. Thats some righteous bullshit you have to admit.


Your breaking the law. And by your own admission, you were raised to know better.  If they were anything like my parents, you were probably also taught that bad behavior should be judged contrary to what the "don't judge me!" Left says.  You're not an "overall good person" you're a criminal smoking pot and drinking underage.  Start by simply being a law abiding citizen, then you can start speculating that you might be a good person.

On a different note, I see you only have 10 posts so far.  Please don't feel discouraged by my harsh tone. Jump in and make yourself heard on this forum.  We look forward to your enthusiastic participation.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> People have smoking pot a long time. The failed war on drugs only made them criminals, they never stopped. The economic impact will be a boom for this state.


Then again, there are a lot of people who didn't use dope simply because it was illegal.  You make your case using only the law breakers and therefore only paint half the picture.

----------


## michaelr

> Then again, there are a lot of people who didn't use dope simply because it was illegal.  You make your case using only the law breakers and therefore only paint half the picture.


Yea gee, and bet equally as much did because it was illegal. Yawn, this thread bores me.

----------


## Taylor

> Your breaking the law. And by your own admission, you were raised to know better.  If they were anything like my parents, you were probably also taught that bad behavior should be judged contrary to what the "don't judge me!" Left says.  You're not an "overall good person" you're a criminal smoking pot and drinking underage.  Start by simply being a law abiding citizen, then you can start speculating that you might be a good person.
> 
> On a different note, I see you only have 10 posts so far.  Please don't feel discouraged by my harsh tone. Jump in and make yourself heard on this forum.  We look forward to your enthusiastic participation.


People break laws everyday, especially minor ones. Have you ever crossed a street without using the painted crosswalk? Have you ever gone over the speed limit? Have you ever accidentally or on purpose littered? Have you ever forgotten your drivers license at home and realized it after youve been driving but kept driving anyway? Did you ever taste alcohol before you turned 21? Have you ever biked, skateboarded, rollerbladed, or anything like that on a sidewalk that had signs posted not to do those things? Have you ever gone onto someones property without permission? Have you ever not fully stopped at a stop sign in the middle of nowhere? People break laws every single day, knowingly and accidentally, but that doesn't make them criminals. It's an epic overreaction to something so small. Texting while driving is more dangerous and irresponsible than me smoking pot or having a beer on someones back porch. I'm not hurting you or anybody and im not a criminal.

----------

Invayne (03-08-2014),Mordent (03-08-2014)

----------


## Archer

> yah ok but see the problem is that im being judged for smoking pot and being called a delinquent for doing something in the privacy of a house that harms nobody and being used as a bad example to someones 10 year old even though pot aside I do volunteer work around town and have even gone to other states in the country to do it, I refuse to let my parents help me pay for the classes that im taking at a local community college right now since I want to do it myself, I work part time to pay for things myself, ive never been in trouble with the police, im loyal to my friends and family, im overall a good person, but yet because I get high on occasion im someone that should be avoided and beaten down. Thats some righteous bullshit you have to admit.


And you see there is a difference. A recreational user that smokes a joint on the weekends is one thing but a person who uses every day is another.

I have seen the long term effects.

To be clear I smoked my first joint in 1984 beside a small pond off of Nato road in Fayetteville, NC. I was 10! I started smoking cigarettes at the time.

I smoked it socially (from time to time) until I had to get a job and I have not had one since. I never smoked a joint alone and I have never gotten high from reefer. Shit I even has a friends sister call me a drug addict but she did not know I only ever smoked it when I was with the crowd. 

There is a time to grow up.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> People break laws everyday, especially minor ones. Have you ever crossed a street without using the painted crosswalk? Have you ever gone over the speed limit? Have you ever accidentally or on purpose littered? Have you ever forgotten your drivers license at home and realized it after youve been driving but kept driving anyway? Did you ever taste alcohol before you turned 21? Have you ever biked, skateboarded, rollerbladed, or anything like that on a sidewalk that had signs posted not to do those things? Have you ever gone onto someones property without permission? Have you ever not fully stopped at a stop sign in the middle of nowhere? People break laws every single day, knowingly and accidentally, but that doesn't make them criminals. It's an epic overreaction to something so small. Texting while driving is more dangerous and irresponsible than me smoking pot or having a beer on someones back porch. I'm not hurting you or anybody and im not a criminal.


By breaking the law, you are by definition a criminal, and I don't mean jaywalking which results at the most in a traffic citation.  You think that criminal behavior justifies criminal behavior, and that shows your immaturity because that's how children think.  Grow up, act responsibly, obey the law, and quit filling your lungs with crap and you'll put the odds in your favor of having a good life.

----------

Archer (03-08-2014)

----------


## Archer

> By breaking the law, you are by definition a criminal, and I don't mean jaywalking which results at the most in a traffic citation.  You think that criminal behavior justifies criminal behavior, and that shows your immaturity because that's how children think.  Grow up, act responsibly, obey the law, and quit filling your lungs with crap and you'll put the odds in your favor of having a good life.


I agree 100%. Before it is too late a change needs to be made or when she starts working a normal job she may find that she is trying to unionize a FF restaurant to get a raise over min wage.

----------


## Taylor

> I agree 100%. Before it is too late a change needs to be made or when she starts working a normal job she may find that she is trying to unionize a FF restaurant to get a raise over min wage.


I actually have a part time job right now at a local donut/coffee shop that I really like and enjoy. It's helping me pay for a college class that im taking and I could totes see myself working there full time. It's not a fancy job and it isnt going to make me rich by any stretch of the imagination but I work with some super cool people, I get to meet alot of interesting strangers, and it makes me happy. All of which, including my pot smoking and occasional drinking in the privacy of a home, harms nobody at all, doesnt effect my job performance, and makes me an even happier girl than I already am.

----------

fyrenza (03-08-2014)

----------


## Archer

> I actually have a part time job right now at a local donut/coffee shop that I really like and enjoy. It's helping me pay for a college class that im taking and I could totes see myself working there full time. It's not a fancy job and it isnt going to make me rich by any stretch of the imagination but I work with some super cool people, I get to meet alot of interesting strangers, and it makes me happy. All of which, including my pot smoking and occasional drinking in the privacy of a home, harms nobody at all, doesnt effect my job performance, and makes me an even happier girl than I already am.


But when you get married (presumably to a pot smoker) and have kids how will you take care of them yourselves being limited in the employment prospects?

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I actually have a part time job right now at a local donut/coffee shop that I really like and enjoy. It's helping me pay for a college class that im taking and I could totes see myself working there full time. It's not a fancy job and it isnt going to make me rich by any stretch of the imagination but I work with some super cool people, I get to meet alot of interesting strangers, and it makes me happy. All of which, including my pot smoking and occasional drinking in the privacy of a home, harms nobody at all, doesnt effect my job performance, and makes me an even happier girl than I already am.


The problem is the premise in your thinking.  You've already demonstrated you think criminal behavior justifies even more criminal behavior. But further than that, you think that the only basis for judging actions is whether you think it harms somebody or not.  If you drive on the road, you are endangering the public because unless it's been a month since you last toked, your partially inebriated by THC.  Furthermore, at your age, your brain is still developing, but you're tag teaming it by drinking and doing drugs, a course of action that has devastating long term effects.

You also talk about how happy you are smoking pot and somehow missed the glaring fault with that thinking.  You depend on a chemical for happiness.  Other people feel good after a 5 mile run, helping out at the homeless shelter, or taking a bath while reading a good book. They don't need booze or bud to give them an artificial high because they're high on life.

I'm not trying to be mean to you, but your thinking is all wrong on this.  As a young person, you need to reassess the way you think about life.

----------

Archer (03-08-2014)

----------


## Taylor

> By breaking the law, you are by definition a criminal, and I don't mean jaywalking which results at the most in a traffic citation.  You think that criminal behavior justifies criminal behavior, and that shows your immaturity because that's how children think.  Grow up, act responsibly, obey the law, and quit filling your lungs with crap and you'll put the odds in your favor of having a good life.


and you could mind your own business and not worry about what I or any other person is doing in the privacy of our own home of which harms absolutely nobody at all. If I were to be irresponsible id go smoke pot and have some shots while driving 80 down the highway jamming to some music, but instead I am in fact being responsible by doing it in the safety and privacy of a home. Also I like my life, it's a good life in my opinion.

----------

fyrenza (03-08-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## Archer

> and you could mind your own business and not worry about what I or any other person is doing in the privacy of our own home of which harms absolutely nobody at all. If I were to be irresponsible id go smoke pot and have some shots while driving 80 down the highway jamming to some music, but instead I am in fact being responsible by doing it in the safety and privacy of a home. Also I like my life, it's a good life in my opinion.


And if pot prevents you from getting a decent job or if it gets US legalized and makes us even sorrier... Refuse tax credits or any federal assistance!

----------


## Taylor

> The problem is the premise in your thinking.  You've already demonstrated you think criminal behavior justifies even more criminal behavior. But further than that, you think that the only basis for judging actions is whether you think it harms somebody or not.  If you drive on the road, you are endangering the public because unless it's been a month since you last toked, your partially inebriated by THC.  Furthermore, at your age, your brain is still developing, but you're tag teaming it by drinking and doing drugs, a course of action that has devastating long term effects.
> 
> You also talk about how happy you are smoking pot and somehow missed the glaring fault with that thinking.  You depend on a chemical for happiness.  Other people feel good after a 5 mile run, helping out at the homeless shelter, or taking a bath while reading a good book. They don't need booze or bud to give them an artificial high because they're high on life.
> 
> I'm not trying to be mean to you, but your thinking is all wrong on this.  As a young person, you need to reassess the way you think about life.


I dont depend on it for my happiness. I do alot of things to add to my happiness that aren't through drugs or alcohol. The occasional joint or drink is just one small aspect of what makes me happy and thats primarily because im with my friends that I love. You are judging my entire being on the fact that I get high sometimes or that I had a shot at a party. Its not right.

----------

DeadEye (03-08-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## Archer

> I dont depend on it for my happiness. I do alot of things to add to my happiness that aren't through drugs or alcohol. The occasional joint or drink is just one small aspect of what makes me happy and thats primarily because im with my friends that I love. You are judging my entire being on the fact that I get high sometimes or that I had a shot at a party. Its not right.


Some of his judgements can be justified by your defense of drug usage and disrespecting the wishes of your parents. It is like you are proud of it and want to show it off. It is similar to gays flaunting and pushing their shit on other people who do not want to hear it.

Some shit you need to keep to yourself.

----------


## Taylor

> But when you get married (presumably to a pot smoker) and have kids how will you take care of them yourselves being limited in the employment prospects?


what makes you think i'll be limited? also what makes you think that we wouldn't be happy with the lifestyle that we would have? I have a very simple apartment right now but its mine, I live within my means, I dont ask for help from my parents even though they try hard to make me accept it, I dont buy new clothes every week like a lot of girls do, I have hobbies that aren't "illegal", I love my job even though it doesnt pay well, I probably wont finish college but thats ok to me since im taking one or two classes at a time and im just not into it, but thats all on me. If I marry a pot smoker then we will probably smoke pot every now and then together, or maybe we wont, who knows. Its not like I do that every day or anything and I dont even have any in my apartment. One day if I have kids, I dont know if I want kids yet, but if I do, then at least they will be raised to sincere, to be happy with themselves, and to not be judgmental.

----------

DeadEye (03-08-2014)

----------


## fyrenza

@Archer ~ You do realize that herb is already legal in Washington state?




> With the passage of I-502 in the 2012 Washington State election, marijuana became legal in Washington -- not just for medical use, but also for recreational use.


~ http://seattle.about.com/od/localgov...gton-State.htm

A LOT of companies aren't going to be so obtuse as to disallow it for most employees,

so that's sort of an In-Your-Face question, imho.

----------

Invayne (03-08-2014),Taylor (03-08-2014)

----------


## Archer

> what makes you think i'll be limited? also what makes you think that we wouldn't be happy with the lifestyle that we would have? I have a very simple apartment right now but its mine, I live within my means, I dont ask for help from my parents even though they try hard to make me accept it, I dont buy new clothes every week like a lot of girls do, I have hobbies that aren't "illegal", I love my job even though it doesnt pay well, I probably wont finish college but thats ok to me since im taking one or two classes at a time and im just not into it, but thats all on me. If I marry a pot smoker then we will probably smoke pot every now and then together, or maybe we wont, who knows. Its not like I do that every day or anything and I dont even have any in my apartment. One day if I have kids, I dont know if I want kids yet, but if I do, then at least they will be raised to sincere, to be happy with themselves, and to not be judgmental.


Can you pass a random drug test? If not then you are very limited! You have to find an employer who does not care that you use drugs and does not test.

So as long as you are happy? So I should help pay your way with welfare and tax credits? Yup go vote Obama and his ilk...

----------


## Taylor

> Some of his judgements can be justified by your defense of drug usage and disrespecting the wishes of your parents. It is like you are proud of it and want to show it off. It is similar to gays flaunting and pushing their shit on other people who do not want to hear it.
> 
> Some shit you need to keep to yourself.


No no you cant tell someone to keep that shit to themselves while also wanting to judge them for doing shit in the privacy of their own home. You cant have it both ways. This topic is about pot so we are talking about it, thats not me flaunting its just me talking about the topic. Im over 18, I dont have to do what my parents ask me to do anymore. I listen to almost everything they say and have said but I also have my own life now and these are my choices. Im also not pushing anything on anybody. Its people with your point of view that is pushing laws on people like me that are not harming anybody at all. Also if a gay couple wants to make out with their partner on a city sidewalk then all the power to them, it doesnt hurt you.

----------

DeadEye (03-08-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Some of his judgements can be justified by your defense of drug usage and disrespecting the wishes of your parents. It is like you are proud of it and want to show it off. It is similar to gays flaunting and pushing their shit on other people who do not want to hear it.
> 
> Some shit you need to keep to yourself.


I know it's frustrating.  We were all 20 year old kids at one time so certain we knew better than people twice our age.  Like many teens and young people, she's taking this as an attack on her when neither of us are attacking, we're trying to get her to understand she's playing a very dangerous hand.  I would be having this conversation with any of my own children if I saw them straying into danger and I would likely be twice as harsh.

----------


## Matalese

I'd love me a pot smoking surgeon or perhaps my airline pilot. Yup yup yup!

----------

Irascible Crusader (03-08-2014)

----------


## Archer

> @Archer ~ You do realize that herb is already legal in Washington state?
> 
> 
> ~ http://seattle.about.com/od/localgov...gton-State.htm
> 
> A LOT of companies aren't going to be so obtuse as to disallow it for most employees,
> 
> so that's sort of an In-Your-Face question, imho.


Still illegal for her... Under 21.

All companies that have any type of federal or out of state contracts must drug test. Many companies require all contractors who work for them in any way to drug test. Some companies will not buy from suppliers who do not drug test...

Questions?

I had to write a court brief on this for a law class a few years back and I concluded that the fed gov could use the interstate commerce clause to overthrow the will of the people in states that legalized pot.

I have done a bit of research on this subject.

----------


## Archer

> I know it's frustrating.  We were all 20 year old kids at one time so certain we knew better than people twice our age.  Like many teens and young people, she's taking this as an attack on her when neither of us are attacking, we're trying to get her to understand she's playing a very dangerous hand.  I would be having this conversation with any of my own children if I saw them straying into danger and I would likely be twice as harsh.


Some can not see past the cloud of smoke.

Welcome to the ME generation!

----------


## wist43

> No no you cant tell someone to keep that shit to themselves while also wanting to judge them for doing shit in the privacy of their own home. You cant have it both ways. This topic is about pot so we are talking about it, thats not me flaunting its just me talking about the topic. Im over 18, I dont have to do what my parents ask me to do anymore. I listen to almost everything they say and have said but I also have my own life now and these are my choices. Im also not pushing anything on anybody. Its people with your point of view that is pushing laws on people like me that are not harming anybody at all. Also if a gay couple wants to make out with their partner on a city sidewalk then all the power to them, it doesnt hurt you.


On this subject, Archer and IC are hypocritical bigots - with the emphasis on bigots.

As most liberals can't mind their own business on most subjects - these guys are not liberals, rather they are sooooo righteous and correct, that they feel they can violate your rights for your own good.

They are just as willing as any liberal to ignore the Constitution, ignore your rights, and move heaven and earth to bust your skull open b/c you're doing something they don't approve of.

They don't see their hypocracy, and will throw themselves on the floor in a fit if you bring up the Constitution on this matter. On this subject?? They are radical leftists - for your own good of course  :Wink:

----------

DeadEye (03-08-2014),fyrenza (03-08-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014),nonsqtr (03-09-2014)

----------


## Archer

> No no you cant tell someone to keep that shit to themselves while also wanting to judge them for doing shit in the privacy of their own home. You cant have it both ways. This topic is about pot so we are talking about it, thats not me flaunting its just me talking about the topic. Im over 18, I dont have to do what my parents ask me to do anymore. I listen to almost everything they say and have said but I also have my own life now and these are my choices. Im also not pushing anything on anybody. Its people with your point of view that is pushing laws on people like me that are not harming anybody at all. Also if a gay couple wants to make out with their partner on a city sidewalk then all the power to them, it doesnt hurt you.


You told people you smoked pot. You made yourself the victim. It hurts everyone when a person can not get a damn job that pays their bills because they choose to smoke pot.

----------


## Taylor

> Some can not see past the cloud of smoke.
> 
> Welcome to the ME generation!


The irony being that YOU and others have the issues with ME and MY decisions which do not harm or effect YOU. Im not wanting anything from you, but you want a lot from me. Who is being more selfish?

----------

DeadEye (03-08-2014),fyrenza (03-08-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014),Mordent (03-08-2014),wist43 (03-08-2014)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> On this subject, Archer and IC are hypocritical bigots - with the emphasis on bigots.
> 
> As most liberals can't mind their own business on most subjects - these guys are not liberals, rather they are sooooo righteous and correct, that they feel they can violate your rights for your own good.
> 
> They are just as willing as any liberal to ignore the Constitution, ignore your rights, and move heaven and earth to bust your skull open b/c you're doing something they don't approve of.
> 
> They don't see their hypocracy, and will throw themselves on the floor in a fit if you bring up the Constitution on this matter. On this subject?? They are radical leftists - for your own good of course


Does that mean you're not inviting me to the next Christmas party?

----------


## Archer

> On this subject, Archer and IC are hypocritical bigots - with the emphasis on bigots.
> 
> As most liberals can't mind their own business on most subjects - these guys are not liberals, rather they are sooooo righteous and correct, that they feel they can violate your rights for your own good.
> 
> They are just as willing as any liberal to ignore the Constitution, ignore your rights, and move heaven and earth to bust your skull open b/c you're doing something they don't approve of.
> 
> They don't see their hypocracy, and will throw themselves on the floor in a fit if you bring up the Constitution on this matter. On this subject?? They are radical leftists - for your own good of course


...Wait for it... Wait foooorrr it... Fuck you.

All of my posts were related to social costs that were financial. I have no problem if another can smoke pot, pay 100% of their way and not hurt productivity.

A min wage job is supplemented by tax payers! Tax payers help pay for the damn pot!

----------

Irascible Crusader (03-08-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> There is something I've noticed about potheads, and it is linked to possible injuries to the brain caused by consistently high levels of THC:
> 
> All the most earnest and uncritical believers in conspiracy theories tend to be big-time partakers of the ganja.
> 
> THAT tells you something right there!


I've noticed the paranoiac tendencies in some.

But the conspiracy theories are something else.  

They tend to come from people who are variously, of low intelligence or limited education.  They're trying to organize the world they see, which is unfathomable to them, around fundamentals that make sense.

They can understand gangs and people coming together to hurt others - often it's because they were picked on.  Potheads and dullards seem to have that in common, in schools. 

So, a "conspiracy" just makes sense to them.  And they don't understand the difference between five guys working together, and 100 million; or 20,000 people.

They don't understand economics; so having some Mister Big set PRICES, explains so much.

They don't understand air-traffic controls, so having jets fly over the same places, leaving their vapor trails...must be they're poisoning the Earth.

And on and on.

These theories do a lot for their self-esteem.  It gives the believe a feeling of some power and control - he's FIGURED IT OUT!  Status as well...now that he KNOWS, he's got INSIDE INFORMATION!

It's just one more bit of evidence of how marijuana cripples a mind.

----------


## Archer

> The irony being that YOU and others have the issues with ME and MY decisions which do not harm or effect YOU. Im not wanting anything from you, but you want a lot from me. Who is being more selfish?


...Wait for it... Wait foooorrr it... ,<<PERSONAL ATTACK>> not nice @Archer 

All of my posts were related to social costs that were financial. I have no problem if another can smoke pot, pay 100% of their way and not hurt productivity.

A min wage job is supplemented by tax payers! Tax payers help pay for the damn pot!

If you can do more but choose not to so that you can get high it is you being selfish not I. It is me trying to stop you from stealing from my childrens inheritance not being selfish.

----------


## Matalese

I would like to see the arguments against this information. 


http://www.drugabuse.gov/publication...acts/marijuana

----------


## JustPassinThru

> People have smoking pot a long time. The failed war on drugs only made them criminals, they never stopped. The economic impact will be a boom for this state.


Not in the numbers they smoke now; and marijuana in our culture is less than a century old.  Compare that to alcohol, which has been with man since before organized cities.

And marijuana wasn't criminalized lightly.  The experience with Prohibition was fresh in mind; but lawmakers wanted to nip this one off at the bud.  No pun intended.

----------


## fyrenza

> Still illegal for her... Under 21.
> 
> All companies that have any type of federal or out of state contracts must drug test. Many companies require all contractors who work for them in any way to drug test. Some companies will not buy from suppliers who do not drug test...
> 
> Questions?
> 
> I had to write a court brief on this for a law class a few years back and I concluded that the fed gov could use the interstate commerce clause to overthrow the will of the people in states that legalized pot.
> 
> I have done a bit of research on this subject.


Did we happen to forget that Washington, *DC* is getting ready to legalize?




> D.C.'s proposal to decriminalize marijuana goes further than almost any other state in the nation, short of Colorado and Washington.


~ http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...0b9_story.html

Gee.  wEnder what THAT might do to any Federal Laws/Guidelines regarding recreational use? ...

----------

Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I actually have a part time job right now at a local donut/coffee shop that I really like and enjoy. It's helping me pay for a college class that im taking and I could totes see myself working there full time. It's not a fancy job and it isnt going to make me rich by any stretch of the imagination but I work with some super cool people, I get to meet alot of interesting strangers, and it makes me happy. All of which, including my pot smoking and occasional drinking in the privacy of a home, harms nobody at all, doesnt effect my job performance, and makes me an even happier girl than I already am.


That, too, illustrates one of the problems of pot usage.  It destroys ambition.

She's settling.  Kewel people; having fun; getting by.  Which is just fine when you're 20.  When you're 55 and still on your feet all day, working for pennies...not so much.

And you won't have a choice by that time.

----------

Matalese (03-08-2014)

----------


## fyrenza

> I have done a bit of research on this subject.


Obviously, not enough, and oh, wow ~

there just went any credibility YOU could have had on this subject!

----------

Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## Matalese

> That, too, illustrates one of the problems of pot usage.  It destroys ambition.
> 
> She's settling.  Kewel people; having fun; getting by.  Which is just fine when you're 20.  When you're 55 and still on your feet all day, working for pennies...not so much.
> 
> And you won't have a choice by that time.



 :Thumbsup20:

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Did we happen to forget that Washington, *DC* is getting ready to legalize?
> 
> 
> ~ http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...0b9_story.html
> 
> Gee.  wEnder what THAT might do to any Federal Laws/Guidelines regarding recreational use? ...


You on the Left celebrate your lawless president and assume that the next president after him will be just as lawless.  A truly foolish assumption.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> [font="Verdana"][size="3"][color=#000033]Obviously, not enough, and oh, wow ~
> 
> there just went any credibility YOU could have had on this subject!


According to you?

----------


## Matalese

> You on the Left celebrate your lawless president and assume that the next president after him will be just as lawless.  A truly foolish assumption.


I just idolize everything DC does don't you?

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I just idolize everything DC does don't you?


I'm amazed at all the alliances these "libertarians" are finding with the Left.  It's almost like they believe the crocodile isn't really a crocodile after all.

----------


## Matalese

> I'm amazed at all the alliances these "libertarians" are finding with the Left.  It's almost like they believe the crocodile isn't really a crocodile after all.


Their smoking hot lips are planted all over obama's ass.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> You on the Left celebrate your lawless president and assume that the next president after him will be just as lawless.  A truly foolish assumption.


The Rule of Law is being destroyed by what's happening now.

They'll not only expect the next Preezy to be just as lawless, if he/she is a DumbocRat, they'll DEMAND it.  And yet they'll wail for Impeachment if it's a Re-Pubican who tries to unilaterally roll back some of this "Progressive" garbage.

The Rule of Law, that is, the guidance of Law being above the whim of the officeholder, is gone.  No longer expected.  Now it's who yells the loudest and who can Astroturf demands the most aggressively.

Such societies don't last long.  A leader given the right and with the expectation to act that way, will quickly use that power to cement himself into power.

----------

Irascible Crusader (03-08-2014)

----------


## Taylor

> ...Wait for it... Wait foooorrr it... Fuck you.
> 
> All of my posts were related to social costs that were financial. I have no problem if another can smoke pot, pay 100% of their way and not hurt productivity.
> 
> A min wage job is supplemented by tax payers! Tax payers help pay for the damn pot!
> 
> If you can do more but choose not to so that you can get high it is you being selfish not I. It is me trying to stop you from stealing from my childrens inheritance not being selfish.


Well you obviously didnt like my comment, but its still true. All of the money I get on my paycheck is money that I earned. Tax payers gave me nothing on my check. I choose to not do more right now because i am happy with my situation. Why would I choose to stop doing something that provides for my needs right now and makes me happy? Im not stealing anything from you or your kids.

----------

fyrenza (03-08-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## Taylor

> That, too, illustrates one of the problems of pot usage.  It destroys ambition.
> 
> She's settling.  Kewel people; having fun; getting by.  Which is just fine when you're 20.  When you're 55 and still on your feet all day, working for pennies...not so much.
> 
> And you won't have a choice by that time.


Im not "settling" im just happy. I know its hard to believe that a person not making thousands and thousands of dollars could possibly enjoy their life but I do. Eventually one day ill probably move my way up but only if I feel fulfilled by it.

----------

Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Well you obviously didnt like my comment, but its still true. All of the money I get on my paycheck is money that I earned. Tax payers gave me nothing on my check. I choose to not do more right now because i am happy with my situation. Why would I choose to stop doing something that provides for my needs right now and makes me happy? Im not stealing anything from you or your kids.


So you're saying you can't find happiness without chemical dependency?  None of us here are your enemy, but we're trying to get you to see the bigger picture which is your life.  Straight A students start smoking pot and start getting D's and F's. The ambition killing aspect of marijuana are proven, in spite of the pothead Left claiming that all unflattering data on marijuana is a lie.  Even the tenor of your posts proves JPT right that you're settling.  At this point in your life you should be stretching out your wings and striving for remarkable achievements, but instead you're opting for the easy road, the most untroubled life you can have.

I wish you would think about this.  I'm twice your age as are many people here and we've seen the destruction of young people who choose a foolish path.  You got no enemies here, just concerned older mentors.

----------


## fyrenza

I'm not sure where any Admins or Mod are,

but Jesus H. CHRIST, folks!!!

This is a NEW MEMBER, ffs,

and y'all are PILING on her like rats to a new-found raft!

We don't even really know this lady,
and you're trying to ...

what?

Make her feel like the scum of the earth for blowing a J or sipping a drink every now and again?

Cripes!

----------

DeadEye (03-08-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014),nonsqtr (03-09-2014),Taylor (03-08-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I wish you would think about this.  I'm twice your age as are many people here and we've seen the destruction of young people who choose a foolish path.  You got no enemies here, just concerned older mentors.


I am 55.  It wasn't pot but booze that got me...I just liked getting hammered.  Not an alcoholic as I understand alcoholics to be - because when I HAD to taper off, for medical reasons, it wasn't hard.  I just LIKED getting trashed.

And I pissed away my youth.  Did the college number but it interfered with my habits and friends - and by then my social constraints were limited, to drunks and drug users anyway.  I did benefit from my education, at least in that I can communicate well here on broad topics - but in terms of making connections, getting launched in a career?  Major fail.

Early middle age gave me a chance at a blue-collar craft, on the railroad.  I took it; and I did well with it - but now I'm older and not so energetic and there's no place for me to go.  At some point I won't be able to work in the craft, and I'm not a candidate for management.

This HAPPENS.  Look at some sad-sack 60-something cleaning woman...remember, not so long ago, she was 25 and full of energy.  Something went wrong; and I think what they did is approximately what you're doing.

----------

Irascible Crusader (03-08-2014)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I'm not sure where any Admins or Mod are,
> 
> but Jesus H. CHRIST, folks!!!
> 
> This is a NEW MEMBER, ffs,
> 
> and y'all are PILING on her like rats to a new-found raft!
> 
> We don't even really know this lady,
> ...


There are no victims here and you're transparent as glass.  You just don't like fellow potheads getting grief.  TayTay disclosed on a public forum that she smokes pot and drinks underage and as she's made clear over and over, she's a big girl and can handle herself.  So stuff it.

----------

Matalese (03-08-2014)

----------


## Taylor

> So you're saying you can't find happiness without chemical dependency?  None of us here are your enemy, but we're trying to get you to see the bigger picture which is your life.  Straight A students start smoking pot and start getting D's and F's. The ambition killing aspect of marijuana are proven, in spite of the pothead Left claiming that all unflattering data on marijuana is a lie.  Even the tenor of your posts proves JPT right that you're settling.  At this point in your life you should be stretching out your wings and striving for remarkable achievements, but instead you're opting for the easy road, the most untroubled life you can have.
> 
> I wish you would think about this.  I'm twice your age as are many people here and we've seen the destruction of young people who choose a foolish path.  You got no enemies here, just concerned older mentors.


I don't need chemical dependency. I don't even buy the pot that I smoke its usually just when im with friends and that its available. Ambition can mean something different to alot of people. Ive never wanted a job that makes millions of dollar and ive never really wanted a job that would put me in charge of alot of people. I want a job that makes me happy and that when I wake up in the morning I want to go there. No doubt I want an untroubled life but thats not a lack of ambition its just an embracing of what makes me happy and continuing that until im not happy anymore or fulfilled anymore. I dont need marijuana or alcohol to be happy, its just something that adds to it on occasion. I also play music, play the guitar, I like to garden on my apartment patio (not marijuana), I volunteer when I can, I do a hella good job at the place that I work at and am appreciated there. Im not in danger and im not slacking or settling. You shouldnt prejudge MY happiness based on YOUR experiences.

----------

DeadEye (03-08-2014),fyrenza (03-08-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> *<<previously deleted post removed>>*


I'm going out on a limb here to hazard a guess.......

Pothead?

----------


## Toefoot

Nope. Retired Army, Got a problem?




> I'm going out on a limb here to hazard a guess.......
> 
> Pothead?

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Nope. Retired Army, Got a problem?


That's not what I was asking.  Do you smoke weed?

----------


## Toefoot

What part of "NOPE"....as in "NO" did you not understand?




> That's not what I was asking.  Do you smoke weed?

----------


## Archer

> Well you obviously didnt like my comment, but its still true. All of the money I get on my paycheck is money that I earned. Tax payers gave me nothing on my check. I choose to not do more right now because i am happy with my situation. Why would I choose to stop doing something that provides for my needs right now and makes me happy? Im not stealing anything from you or your kids.


Actually the FU was fer fun!

So how much comes out of your check in taxes? Do you claim yourself...

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> What part of "NOPE"....as in "NO" did you not understand?


Thank you.  It seems that on this thread, Archer and I being called mean has been nothing more than potheads not wanting to be criticized.  It's like gay people who rub your face in their lifestyle but then are outraged when you voice disapproval. That's exactly what's going on here, and you jumped in the middle of it.

----------


## Taylor

> Actually the FU was fer fun!
> 
> So how much comes out of your check in taxes? Do you claim yourself...


I dont always work the same amount of hours so the dollar amount can change but Washington doesnt really have a state income tax so its mainly just the federal taxes and stuff like that. I dont have any dependents or anything like that so yes its just me.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Now you are a victim? Fuck Archer.


So you've had a hard on for Archer even before this.  I'm beginning to see that now.  I'm now going to hazard yet another guess....

Retired E-7?

----------


## Taylor

> Thank you.  It seems that on this thread, Archer and I being called mean has been nothing more than potheads not wanting to be criticized.  It's like gay people who rub your face in their lifestyle but then are outraged when you voice disapproval. That's exactly what's going on here, and you jumped in the middle of it.


hey im not denying your ability to criticize me, criticize all you want, but just realize that just because my life and interests are different from yours it doesnt make your path better or worse, its just your path. My choices have no impact on you but my choices are making me happy, and really thats all that matters right now since it is my life at the end of the day.

----------

fyrenza (03-08-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014),Mordent (03-08-2014)

----------


## Toefoot

Nope. 




> So you've had a hard on for Archer even before this.  I'm beginning to see that now.  I'm now going to hazard yet another guess....
> 
> Retired E-7?

----------


## Archer

So on a yearly basis you pay no federal income taxes working a part time job for low wages.

----------


## metheron

> *Abstract*
> 
> Impairments of human cognition and learning following chronic marijuana use are of serious concern, but have not been clearly demonstrated. To determine whether such impairments occurred, this study compared performance of adult marijuana users and non-users (_N_=144 and_N_=72, respectively) matched on intellectual functioning before the onset of drug use, i.e., on scores from standardized tests administered during the fourth grade of grammar school (Iowa Tests of Basic Skills). Subjects were given the twelfth grade versions of these tests (Iowa Tests of Educational Development) and other, computerized cognitive tests in successive test sessions. Heavy marijuana use (defined by use seven or more times weekly) was associated with deficits in mathematical skills and verbal expression in the Iowa Tests of Educational Development and selective impairments in memory retrieval processes in Buschke's Test. The retrieval impairments were restricted to words that were easy to visualize. Impairments depended on the frequency of chronic marijuana use, i.e., light and intermediate marijuana use (defined by use one to four and five to six times weekly, respectively) were not associated with deficits. Intermediate use was associated with superior performance in one condition (fuzzy concepts) of a Concept Formation test.
> 
> http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02246977
> 
> Don't we have enough dumb asses running around?


Do you support criminalizing alcohol?

----------


## Matt

> Thank you.  It seems that on this thread, Archer and I being called mean has been nothing more than potheads not wanting to be criticized.


Actually I would venture to say that you're so well rooted in your opinion, so fortified, that you don't realize people are being offended by being called "potheads" when they don't even use the substance. Assumptions are the enemies of debate...and there's a lot of assuming all up in this thread. So of course when you assume about others they assume about you.

----------

DeadEye (03-08-2014),fyrenza (03-08-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014),Trinnity (03-08-2014)

----------


## Taylor

> So on a yearly basis you pay no federal income taxes working a part time job for low wages.


Does it matter? I support myself, I live within my means, and im happy.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> hey im not denying your ability to criticize me, criticize all you want, but just realize that just because my life and interests are different from yours it doesnt make your path better or worse, its just your path. My choices have no impact on you but my choices are making me happy, and really thats all that matters right now since it is my life at the end of the day.


You're right that we all have different values.  Yours is whatever makes you happy, a sentiment you expressed repeatedly.  Mine is to be a good person, to matter in this world and to make the world a better place.  My values extend way beyond myself.  I will benefit from lifelong satisfaction from this.  Your self centered hedonism will only satisfy you temporarily, as the Bible says: "Sin is pleasurable for a season, but in the end leads to death".   In the end, you'll find no comfort in the knowledge that you pleased yourself and didn't hurt anyone in the process.  Even the words will be like ashes in your mouth.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Actually I would venture to say that you're so well rooted in your opinion, so fortified, that you don't realize people are being offended by being called "potheads" when they don't even use the substance. Assumptions are the enemies of debate...and there's a lot of assuming all up in this thread. So of course when you assume about others they assume about you.


I know that with your light participation in these threads, you may not have realized that several members here have come out of the closet, so to speak.  The people I call potheads......

Well, they really are potheads.

----------


## Matt

> I know that with your light participation in these threads, you may not have realized that several members here have come out of the closet, so to speak.  The people I call potheads......
> 
> Well, they really are potheads.


It's only light because you people have literally ganged up on me in this thread and others. Bullying is not dead at tpf even if we want people to think it is. Then I walk in and you all are whining how you're upset you're being called "mean". It was so ironic I could not resist replying. There is a lot of broad generalization going on in this thread and like most fallacies...it's wrong.

----------

DeadEye (03-08-2014),fyrenza (03-08-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014),Trinnity (03-08-2014)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Nope.


Then for retired Army, you're displaying a deficit of character that I would expect from a man of your prestige and I'm reminded that people can fabricate for themselves accolades on the internet that they have no real claim to.  I might expect this from an E-7 because so many guys attain that rank and just coast into retirement because they can't be demoted apart from an act of Congress.   That leaves the officer corps which requires you to be continually promoted or eventually discharged for failure to promote.  That should make you a retired major or LC at the least.  Such people have little time for silliness and petty grudges on the internet.  Same goes NCO's promoted beyond E-7 and go on to the 1st Sergeant and Sergeant Major ranks.  Men like this run entire companies and battalions, more so than any officer.  They too wouldn't make the posts I'm seeing from you.

All this to say, your claim rings hollow.

----------


## wist43

> Does that mean you're not inviting me to the next Christmas party?


Of course you're welcome... just don't call the cops on we druggies when we duck out the back and fire up a fat one  :Wink: 

I'm not the one who is intolerant - you are.

----------

DeadEye (03-08-2014),fyrenza (03-08-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> It's only light because you people have literally ganged up on me in this thread and others. Bullying is not dead at tpf even if we want people to think it is. Then I walk in and you all are whining how you're upset you're being called "mean". It was so ironic I could not resist replying. There is a lot of broad generalization going on in this thread and like most fallacies...it's wrong.


Keep reading back.  You'll find the preponderance of whining is on the other side.

----------


## Matt

> Keep reading back.  You'll find the preponderance of whining is on the other side.


I don't know. You're going on about the leadership of those about E7 and what not....while little old me...co-supervisor of an entire hospital department at E4...is just watching. Rank isn't anything more than a pissing contest. I've known good people in the higher ranks and I've known shitty ones. I would never criticize someone on a topic based on past or current rank. I'll read back but these last few replies...yeah.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Of course you're welcome... just don't call the cops on we druggies when we duck out the back and fire up a fat one 
> 
> I'm not the one who is intolerant - you are.


Ok....as long as the party is still on!

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I don't know. You're going on about the leadership of those about E7 and what not....while little old me...co-supervisor of an entire hospital department at E4...is just watching. Rank isn't anything more than a pissing contest. I've known good people in the higher ranks and I've known shitty ones. I would never criticize someone on a topic based on past or current rank. I'll read back but these last few replies...yeah.


I'm talking about retired Army.  And the E-7 coast to the finish line is a well known issue at least in the Army.

----------


## wist43

> ...Wait for it... Wait foooorrr it... Fuck you.
> 
> All of my posts were related to social costs that were financial. I have no problem if another can smoke pot, pay 100% of their way and not hurt productivity.
> 
> A min wage job is supplemented by tax payers! Tax payers help pay for the damn pot!


Well, that's an ignorant load of shit... I'm a chemist, and have made a good living. 

More than that... I know a lot of people who smoke pot - a lot... and none of them are on the dole. Every one of them is a hard working, taxpaying, mind their own business, American. 

Perhaps your bigotry is born out of racism?? It certainly is tainted with ignorance.

----------

DeadEye (03-08-2014),fyrenza (03-08-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014),Mordent (03-08-2014)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Well, that's an ignorant load of shit... I'm a chemist, and have made a good living. 
> 
> More than that... I know a lot of people who smoke pot - a lot... and none of them are on the dole. Every one of them is a hard working, taxpaying, mind their own business, American. 
> 
> Perhaps your bigotry is born out of racism?? It certainly is tainted with ignorance.


Really?

You pulled the racist card?

Really?

----------


## Taylor

> You're right that we all have different values.  Yours is whatever makes you happy, a sentiment you expressed repeatedly.  Mine is to be a good person, to matter in this world and to make the world a better place.  My values extend way beyond myself.  I will benefit from lifelong satisfaction from this.  Your self centered hedonism will only satisfy you temporarily, as the Bible says: "Sin is pleasurable for a season, but in the end leads to death".   In the end, you'll find no comfort in the knowledge that you pleased yourself and didn't hurt anyone in the process.  Even the words will be like ashes in your mouth.


or could it be that Ill find comfort in the knowledge that I was happy with my life, didn't hurt anyone in the process, AND helped people along the way? Here are few examples

Me helping to rebuild a house that was damaged

399112_2966058558199_98937572_n.jpg

still helping (blue shirt)

550073_2966057318168_1922512523_n.jpg

me after painting another house

292674_2968169010959_394342378_n.jpg

me helping in the kitchen to feed everyone else that volunteered

527959_2968171331017_1215554663_n.jpg

All without smoking any pot, drinking any alcohol, getting paid, or expecting anything in return. Just saying.

----------

DeadEye (03-08-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## Roadmaster

> or could it be that Ill find comfort in the knowledge that I was happy with my life, didn't hurt anyone in the process, AND helped people along the way? Here are few examples
> 
> Me helping to rebuild a house that was damaged
> 
> 399112_2966058558199_98937572_n.jpg
> 
> still helping (blue shirt)
> 
> 550073_2966057318168_1922512523_n.jpg
> ...


You have to remember with age sometimes becomes wisdom. They are afraid you will end up like many people we witnessed growing up. I would love to see you do nothing in drugs or drinking but I can't live you life. Be responsible that's all we are asking and try to move away from it.

----------

Mordent (03-08-2014)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> or could it be that Ill find comfort in the knowledge that I was happy with my life, didn't hurt anyone in the process, AND helped people along the way? Here are few examples
> 
> Me helping to rebuild a house that was damaged
> 
> 399112_2966058558199_98937572_n.jpg
> 
> still helping (blue shirt)
> 
> 550073_2966057318168_1922512523_n.jpg
> ...


Then I'm glad you proved me wrong. But you also proved yourself wrong.  It isn't all about what makes you happy. You live and love beyond yourself.  Good for you!

----------


## fyrenza

> So on a yearly basis you pay no federal income taxes working a part time job for low wages.


WTF???

These are PERSONAL questions!!!

Let's see YOUR w-2's.

Let's have some PROOF that YOU aren't sucking up tax monies,
in the way of a real name and address that could be investigated.

Until YOU are ready to Put Up?

SHUT UP!

----------

DeadEye (03-08-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> WTF???
> 
> These are PERSONAL questions!!!
> 
> Let's see YOUR w-2's.
> 
> Let's have some PROOF that YOU aren't sucking up tax monies,
> in the way of a real name and address that could be investigated.
> 
> ...

----------

Matalese (03-08-2014)

----------


## Matalese

> Well, that's an ignorant load of shit... I'm a chemist, and have made a good living. 
> 
> More than that... I know a lot of people who smoke pot - a lot... and none of them are on the dole. Every one of them is a hard working, taxpaying, mind their own business, American. 
> 
> Perhaps your bigotry is born out of racism?? It certainly is tainted with ignorance.


Oh goody. The race card has been thrown! Whoopie dawgs!

----------


## Trinnity

> I'm amazed at all the alliances these "libertarians" are finding with the Left.  It's almost like they believe the crocodile isn't really a crocodile after all.


*We don't have any cuddles with the Left. Pot is a personal Liberty issue. If you don't like it, fine. But it doesn't give you the right to attack a new member (or anyone) on this  forum. Some of you have been behaving like pompous self-righteous asses on this thread and I'm disgusted with you. You all know who you are.*

----------

DeadEye (03-08-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014),nonsqtr (03-09-2014)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> *We don't have any cuddles with the Left. Pot is a personal Liberty issue. If you don't like it, fine. But it doesn't give you the right to attack a new member (or anyone) on this  forum. Some of you have been behaving like pompous self-righteous asses on this thread and I'm disgusted with you. You all know who you are.*


Trinnity, I disagree that any new members have been attacked if you look at the whole conversation, there was also a lot of love.  It's best that people learn early that if they share certain things about their lives, those things are up for discussion.  I certainly learned that with some different issues that I shared and was turned against me.  If TayTay can withstand this, then she'll survive here. The ones that flame out are thin skinned people who share personal things but then cry foul when those things are discussed.  I think Archer and I have been fair with her, but I understand if opinions vary on that.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

BTW, @Trinnity, TayTay is a tough gal. I admire her already.

----------


## Trinnity

*I expect civility on this forum and by god, I'll have it. Personal attacks, dog-piling (ganging up), and hurling "fuck you" will not be accepted. Period.*

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> *I expect civility on this forum and by god, I'll have it. Personal attacks, dog-piling (ganging up), and hurling "fuck you" will not be accepted. Period.*


Noted. We're on the same page here.  :Smile:

----------


## Matalese

> *I expect civility on this forum and by god, I'll have it. Personal attacks, dog-piling (ganging up), and hurling "fuck you" will not be accepted. Period.*


There are plenty of fuck you's  down in the basement .

----------


## Invayne

> Do you want the surgeon performing brain surgery on you to be half baked because *he smoked a blunt the night before?*


This AGAIN? Where do you come up with this shit? Good gawd, man! LMAO!!!!  :Geez:

----------


## Invayne

> The anti-pot propaganda is bordering on the absurd now.


Bordering? I'd say it's way beyond that...

----------

DeadEye (03-08-2014),fyrenza (03-08-2014)

----------


## Invayne

> That's because pot affects your ability to track a complex thought.
> 
> 
> 
> The whistle you heard was my point going clear over your head.  The WHOLE DEBATE, like the debate over "Global Warming/Climate Change/Polar Vortices" is one long string of lies with sham-science thrown in, and prostituted "experts" telling us what to think, without telling why or on what basis
> 
> 
> 
> But you, on the other hand, could be that clueless.
> ...


Wow. The stupidity in here is amazing.

----------


## Trinnity

*I'm reopening this thread. If I have to do more damage control here it's gloves off.

Be CIVIL.*

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> This AGAIN? Where do you come up with this shit? Good gawd, man! LMAO!!!!


So I take it you can't respond.  I also conclude that when push comes to shove, you won't stake your very life on your strange "pot is harmless" theory.

Interesting.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> *I'm reopening this thread. If I have to do more damage control here it's gloves off.
> 
> Be CIVIL.*


Noted.

----------


## Invayne

> I don't think the parents whose children will be on the road with you are so easily assured.  I'd rather you just get hammered. Alcohol dissipates cleanly from your body leaving nothing but a headache the next morning.  THC stores in your fat cells, *making you high for up to a month.*  Don't for a moment believe you're completely uninhibited by pot when you're driving.  Here are the facts: http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factsheets/driving.htm


 :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

High for a month? Really? Holyfuckingshit, you are hilarious! Yeah, alcohol dissipates cleanly from your body leaving only a headache...uh huh. Why is it after an all-nighter, I can wake up and have just one drink and I'm wasted again? (and believe me, it takes a lot to get me drunk) Why don't you try it sometime so you can see just how stupid you sound?

----------


## Invayne

> committed to delinquency? WTF? I've never been arrested or in any kind of real trouble. So I smoke some pot every now and then and will drink a beer or something like that with friends sometimes without my parents knowing. That makes me a screw up and a delinquent?


To a neocon bootlicking statist, you are a criminal in need of prison time.

I'm not sure you should say too much about your personal life...they might send the po-po to your door... ;-)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> High for a month? Really? Holyfuckingshit, you are hilarious! Yeah, alcohol dissipates cleanly from your body leaving only a headache...uh huh. Why is it after an all-nighter, I can wake up and have just one drink and I'm wasted again? (and believe me, it takes a lot to get me drunk) Why don't you try it sometime so you can see just how stupid you sound?


Tell you what.  Why don't you carry this thread on all by yourself.  I'm sick of the hostility you've shown ALL FUCKING DAY LONG.  A man can only take so much.

It's all yours. Don't bother responding, I won't be revisiting this thread.

----------


## Invayne

> EDIT
> 
> It makes you a criminal.  That should be bad enough.


 :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

See what I mean?

----------


## Invayne

> Hey, we can just hope for now that the government can reverse the explosion of opiate production in Afghanistan.
> 
> O wait..


Yeah, People are under the illusion that we're fighting for freedom (LOL!) when we're really fighting for opium, oil, bankers, and corporations. Gotta love it! :Headbang:

----------

DeadEye (03-08-2014)

----------


## Invayne

> Tell you what.  Why don't you carry this thread on all by yourself.  I'm sick of the hostility you've shown ALL FUCKING DAY LONG.  A man can only take so much.
> 
> It's all yours. Don't bother responding, I won't be revisiting this thread.


I'm sorry...what? MY hostility?? Have you read anything YOU have posted today? All of your childish petty insults? 


Dismissed.

----------


## Matalese

> To a neocon bootlicking statist, you are a criminal in need of prison time.
> 
> I'm not sure you should say too much about your personal life...they might send the po-po to your door... ;-)



so much drama! how much did that cost? drama school?

----------


## Invayne

> Your breaking the law. And by your own admission, you were raised to know better.  If they were anything like my parents, you were probably also taught that bad behavior should be judged contrary to what the "don't judge me!" Left says. * You're not an "overall good person" you're a criminal smoking pot and drinking underage.  Start by simply being a law abiding citizen, then you can start speculating that you might be a good person.*
> 
> On a different note, I see you only have 10 posts so far.  Please don't feel discouraged by my harsh tone. Jump in and make yourself heard on this forum.  We look forward to your enthusiastic participation.


Good gawd. Unbefuckinglievable.

----------


## Mordent

> Straight A students start smoking pot and start getting D's and F's.


I started smoking pot at 16. I was a straight A, honor roll student the whole time. As a matter of fact, the only time I missed being on the honor roll was in 9th grade, before I ever got high, and due to being a shitty typist (still do hunt n peck). Not everyone fits in your box.

----------

Invayne (03-08-2014)

----------


## Matalese

> Good gawd. Unbefuckinglievable.



what? you can't fathom a different opinion? Wow! just Wow!

----------


## Invayne

> Can you pass a random drug test? If not then you are very limited! You have to find an employer who does not care that you use drugs and does not test.
> 
> So as long as you are happy? So I should help pay your way with welfare and tax credits? Yup go vote Obama and his ilk...


Why do you people believe that everyone that's not making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year is on some kind of welfare? You do realize that tax dollars go to the very rich, don't you?

Why do you people believe that everyone that uses drugs is going to end up some kind of loser? Um...hello....

http://www.businessinsider.com/scien...#ixzz2cnMNgFWu

----------


## Matalese

you people...

----------


## Invayne

> Im not "settling" im just happy. I know its hard to believe that a person not making thousands and thousands of dollars could possibly enjoy their life but I do. Eventually one day ill probably move my way up but only if I feel fulfilled by it.


I have to assume that to these people, money is God. Without it, they are nothing. Sad, really. They just can't imagine anyone being happy without millions of dollars.

----------


## Invayne

> Straight A students start smoking pot and start getting D's and F's. The ambition killing aspect of marijuana are proven, in spite of the pothead Left claiming that all unflattering data on marijuana is a lie.
> 
> I wish you would think about this.  I'm twice your age as are many people here and we've seen the destruction of young people who choose a foolish path.


Um.....

http://www.businessinsider.com/scien...#ixzz2cnMNgFWu

----------


## usfan

I've hated this subject for a long time. it is such a major distraction. The bigger question is are we going to have a nanny state or a free state? I'm all for freedom if there is responsibility for that freedom. But I don't want to be responsible for somebody else's stupidity.  if you want to laze about and smoke bongs all day I have no problem with that. But you should also not get to eat and have free housing, healthcare, a free cellphone and everything else that the government wants to give you for being a lazy good for nothing.

----------

Archer (03-08-2014),Invayne (03-08-2014),Matalese (03-08-2014),Mordent (03-08-2014),Trinnity (03-08-2014)

----------


## Invayne

> I am 55.  It wasn't pot but booze that got me...I just liked getting hammered.  Not an alcoholic as I understand alcoholics to be - because when I HAD to taper off, for medical reasons, it wasn't hard.  I just LIKED getting trashed.
> 
> And I pissed away my youth.  Did the college number but it interfered with my habits and friends - and by then my social constraints were limited, to drunks and drug users anyway.  I did benefit from my education, at least in that I can communicate well here on broad topics - but in terms of making connections, getting launched in a career?  Major fail.
> 
> Early middle age gave me a chance at a blue-collar craft, on the railroad.  I took it; and I did well with it - but now I'm older and not so energetic and there's no place for me to go.  At some point I won't be able to work in the craft, and I'm not a candidate for management.
> 
> This HAPPENS.  Look at some sad-sack 60-something cleaning woman...remember, not so long ago, she was 25 and full of energy.  Something went wrong; and I think what they did is approximately what you're doing.


Just because some people end up as losers, doesn't mean everyone will. :Dontknow:

----------


## Invayne

> what? you can't fathom a different opinion? Wow! just Wow!


I have no problem with differences of opinion. I DO have a problem with idiots that insult others over things they know absolutely nothing about.

----------

fyrenza (03-09-2014)

----------


## Invayne

> I've hated this subject for a long time. it is such a major distraction. The bigger question is are we going to have a nanny state or a free state? I'm all for freedom if there is responsibility for that freedom. But I don't want to be responsible for somebody else's stupidity.  if you want to laze about and smoke bongs all day I have no problem with that. *But you should also not get to eat and have free housing, healthcare, a free cellphone and everything else that the government wants to give you for being a lazy good for nothing.*


I think we're all in agreement with that. But don't assume that just because someone uses it, they're going to automatically become a government leech. That's what the accusations are, and they are wrong!

----------

fyrenza (03-09-2014),Trinnity (03-08-2014)

----------


## Matalese

> I have no problem with differences of opinion. I DO have a problem with idiots that insult others over things they know absolutely nothing about.



maybe he's a winner, he didn't do drugs. that makes him a winner in my book.

----------


## Invayne

> maybe he's a winner, he didn't do drugs. that makes him a winner in my book.


Yeah, right. And Bill Gates is a loser? :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Mordent

> maybe he's a winner, he didn't do drugs. that makes him a winner in my book.


Does that make me a loser?  =(

----------

Archer (03-08-2014)

----------


## Dan40

> Um.....
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/scien...#ixzz2cnMNgFWu


And you believe liberal politicians too.

----------


## Invayne

> And you believe liberal politicians too.


LOL...what?

----------


## usfan

> I think we're all in agreement with that. But don't assume that just because someone uses it, they're going to automatically become a government leech. That's what the accusations are, and they are wrong!


No, but it is more than coincedental that the drug culture & the dependency, entitlement culture are nearly the same people.  There are wonderful exceptions, i am sure.  But as long as we're going the nanny state route, you've got to nanny the drugs, too.  They want to tell us what size soft drinks, & what hamburgers to eat,  & yet everyone wants to get bent out of shape about pot?  Let's focus on building a free society, WITH responsibility, & THEN i'd support legalizing drugs.  But promoting easy, state provided drugs along with the rest of the entitlement commodities will only accelerate the crash.  I'll support full legalization of drugs, if you give people full responsibility for their own lives.

----------


## Matalese

> No, but it is more than coincedental that the drug culture & the dependency, entitlement culture are nearly the same people.  There are wonderful exceptions, i am sure.  But as long as we're going the nanny state route, you've got to nanny the drugs, too.  They want to tell us what size soft drinks, & what hamburgers to eat,  & yet everyone wants to get bent out of shape about pot?  Let's focus on building a free society, WITH responsibility, & THEN i'd support legalizing drugs.  But promoting easy, state provided drugs along with the rest of the entitlement commodities will only accelerate the crash.  I'll support full legalization of drugs, if you give people full responsibility for their own lives.


I agree totally.

----------


## Invayne

> No, but it is more than coincedental that the drug culture & the dependency, entitlement culture are nearly the same people.  There are wonderful exceptions, i am sure.  But as long as we're going the nanny state route, you've got to nanny the drugs, too.  They want to tell us what size soft drinks, & what hamburgers to eat,  & yet everyone wants to get bent out of shape about pot?  Let's focus on building a free society, WITH responsibility, & THEN i'd support legalizing drugs.  But promoting easy, state provided drugs along with the rest of the entitlement commodities will only accelerate the crash.* I'll support full legalization of drugs, if you give people full responsibility for their own lives.*


I already do believe that everyone should be responsible for their own lives. I don't see where you think I don't. I don't believe The State should provide drugs...I think the The State should just leave everybody alone, and that includes letting them drink their Big Gulps and eat any crap they want. :Dontknow:

----------


## Dan40

> I already do believe that everyone should be responsible for their own lives. I don't see where you think I don't. I don't believe The State should provide drugs...I think the The State should just leave everybody alone, and that includes letting them drink their Big Gulps and eat any crap they want.


How about prescription medications?  Do away with prescriptions?  Everything available to everyone all the time?

And of course, we will need to have govt subsidies so poor people can buy their over-the-counter heroin and cocaine too.  Naturally, those subsidies for the poor would have to be expanded to include all alcoholic beverages as well.

Let freedom reign?

----------


## Mordent

> How about prescription medications?  Do away with prescriptions?  Everything available to everyone all the time?
> 
> And of course, we will need to have govt subsidies so poor people can buy their over-the-counter heroin and cocaine too.  Naturally, those subsidies for the poor would have to be expanded to include all alcoholic beverages as well.
> 
> Let freedom reign?


No government subsidies. Otherwise, sure!

----------


## Dan40

> No government subsidies. Otherwise, sure!


NG!  Why are you denying the poor their rights?






One thing you need to learn is that Freedom is not free.  Freedom is the most expensive form of govt people can impose on themselves.

For freedom to work, people MUST conduct themselves in a very responsible manner.

People don't.

Therefore some responsibility MUST be mandated.  Freedom always has and always will, walk a fine line between free and mandated responsibility.

And the sad part is, the mandated responsibility must account for the least responsible members of our society.

So all of us that ARE responsible have to suffer a bit for the irresponsible.  It has always been that way, and it will always be that way in a free society.

----------

usfan (03-09-2014)

----------


## Mordent

> NG!  Why are you denying the poor their rights?


No one has a right to be subsidized by their neighbors.

----------


## wist43

There are examples of some pharmaceutical products that need to be prescribed and regulated b/c they do, in fact, affect public health, i.e. they affect others.

Antibiotics are the best example. As bugs develop resistance to existing antibiotics, we as a society have to adapt how we fight them. Everyone is affected - and so that truly is a public health issue.

That said, as the Constitution is written, the FedGov has no authority to even regulate antibiotics. Still, even with something like antibiotics, I don't think there needs to be national oversight - the states can handle these things on their own.

As for marijuana, as I've pointed out, the FedGov has no authority whatsoever to prohibit its use; and since it does not affect others, the states shouldn't be involved in prohibition either. Public consumption laws are fine - same as with alcohol, but there is no logical argument for prohibition.

Prohibition is simply the result of indoctrination and fearmongering on the part of the statists who are always looking for ways to control others. Unfortunately, this slice of statism has taken root with "conservatives"; yet, of course, they deny they are acting as statists.

----------


## Matalese

> There are examples of some pharmaceutical products that need to be prescribed and regulated b/c they do, in fact, affect public health, i.e. they affect others.
> 
> Antibiotics are the best example. As bugs develop resistance to existing antibiotics, we as a society have to adapt how we fight them. Everyone is affected - and so that truly is a public health issue.
> 
> That said, as the Constitution is written, the FedGov has no authority to even regulate antibiotics. Still, even with something like antibiotics, I don't think there needs to be national oversight - the states can handle these things on their own.
> 
> As for marijuana, as I've pointed out, the FedGov has no authority whatsoever to prohibit its use; and since it does not affect others, the states shouldn't be involved in prohibition either. Public consumption laws are fine - same as with alcohol, but there is no logical argument for prohibition.
> 
> Prohibition is simply the result of indoctrination and fearmongering on the part of the statists who are always looking for ways to control others. Unfortunately, this slice of statism has taken root with "conservatives"; yet, of course, they deny they are acting as statists.


Well then if the states should have no say so then it blows up the argument to legalize and tax.

----------


## Dan40

> No one has a right to be subsidized by their neighbors.


You are sprouting Libertarian philosophy, and I agree with the philosophy.

But it is not REALITY!

----------


## usfan

> NG!  Why are you denying the poor their rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing you need to learn is that Freedom is not free.  Freedom is the most expensive form of govt people can impose on themselves.
> 
> ...


Responsibility is the big issue. People carry on about freedom, but without responsibility freedom is an illusion. Real freedom has responsibility. Unless we require responsibility for people's choices, there really is no freedom. Everyone else becomes enslaved to the irresponsible peoples' choices in life. That is not freedom at all. As long as we continue to subsidize drug users by providing all of their needs in life: food housing, healthcare, cell phones, et cetera, the state should control drugs too. If you're gonna have a nanny state you got to nanny everything. You can't let something like alcohol and recreational drugs go un-nannied,  and nanny things like hamburgers and soft drinks.
I don't like the nanny state. I think it is inhuman and anti American. It is redistribution and violates the basic right to property. But recreational drugs and alcohol is not the place to begin. Get the nanny state out of our lives and I'll support the libertarian drug culture. Let some people die and starve from their life choices and I'll believe that you will require responsibility.  But just giving freedom for drugs only burdens the producers by requiring them to subsidize the drug lifestyle.

----------

Archer (03-09-2014)

----------


## Archer

I am back! So let me be clear! Your liberties end where the liberties of others begin! 

Be it over eating and costing medicare in your old age, smoking and getting COPD while on medicare, needing liver work on the government dime, poking the wrong asshole, getting AIDS and needing tax payer funded drugs... You want freedom then it comes with the responsibility of being responsible for your choices!




> Summary of the Long-Term Effects of Cannabis on Executive Functions
> Cannabis appears to continue to exert impairing effects in executive functions even after 3 weeks of abstinence and beyond. While basic attentional and working memory abilities are largely restored, the most enduring and detectable deficits are seen in decision-making, concept formation and planning. Verbal fluency impairments are somewhat mixed at this stage. Similar to the residual effects of cannabis use, those studies with subjects having chronic, heavy cannabis use show the most enduring deficits.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3037578/

Get stupid it is on you! And studies also show pot smoking hurts productivity. Productivity has a cost! This means on a national leve things could slip a little which can shift the tax burden and raise taxes.

Oh not for most pot smokers though because they will not be able to work high end jobs. They will be on welfare and getting high on their income which is subsidized by the tax payer.

Yeah there are plenty of people who smoke pot and get along fine. Many smoke it and do not abuse it. The effects are generally not able to be measured and these people get on fine. Most are currently working low income jobs and living off mom and pop or subsidized by the taxpayer. 

We need to rework welfare! Sheit we need to kill all government welfare. We need to phase out SS, Medicare, Medicaid and we need to destroy the insurance industry.

----------


## Matt

> Your liberties end where the liberties of others begin!


That sounds like a two way street though. Doesn't really help your side much IMO.

Actually. 90% of your post is just diatribe and stereotyping. Never mind I guess.  :Thinking:

----------

BleedingHeadKen (03-09-2014),fyrenza (03-09-2014),Invayne (03-10-2014)

----------


## Archer

> That sounds like a two way street though. Doesn't really help your side much IMO.
> 
> Actually. 90% of your post is just diatribe and stereotyping. Never mind I guess.


Studies support me as do my observations.

----------


## Dan40

> I am back! So let me be clear! Your liberties end where the liberties of others begin! 
> 
> Be it over eating and costing medicare in your old age, smoking and getting COPD while on medicare, needing liver work on the government dime, poking the wrong asshole, getting AIDS and needing tax payer funded drugs... You want freedom then it comes with the responsibility of being responsible for your choices!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3037578/
> 
> Get stupid it is on you! And studies also show pot smoking hurts productivity. Productivity has a cost! This means on a national leve things could slip a little which can shift the tax burden and raise taxes.
> ...


Did you just suffer a stroke?

Why should we do away with an essential industry?

Insurance is necessary.  And insurers do a fabulous job considering they have to slog through more govt regulations than the Atomic energy power industry does.

I spent many years in the insurance business representing dozens of different insurers.  Our customers, not the insurers were what was important to us.  In EVERY question, we battled on the side of our customer and against the insurer.

In NO CASE did an insurer not pay what they were required to pay.  NO CASE.

In fact insurers pride themselves on paying claims.

99.99% of insurance problems are caused by the insured wanting the insurer to cover something that is clearly NOT covered in the policy.  If it is in the policy, a claim WILL be paid, and quickly.  If its not in the policy, the claim will NOT be paid, but even there insurers make exceptions.

One of obobo's big lies is a case in point.

when he was drumming for the passage of obamascam he told this lie.

A man had insurance, but when he got cancer the insurers dropped him. So the man died because his policy was cancelled.   That was a goddamn lie by the psychotic liar obama.  The facts:

It was a NEW policy, less than 2 years old.  There is a 2 year contestability in insurance.  The policy was within that period, so the insurer investaged what the man had stated on his application for insurance.  They found he had a pre-existing condition that would not have been eligible for coverage, but he did not disclose that on his application.  100% justified for the insurers to cancel the policy, which they did, RETURNING to him every penny of premium he paid.

He appealed to the insurer, stating that 1. he did not think his condition was important and 2. it had nothing to do with the cancer he developed.  The insurer reconsidered and reissued the policy, ridering out the pre-existing condition, but covering the cancer treatment.  They PAID for his entire cancer treatment until HIS doctors were satisfied that treatment was complete.  The man remained covered until his death 4 years after the cancer treatment ended, NOT from cancer.

If you have it coming, insurance will pay.

When Hurricane Jeanne destroyed half my house, the insurer paid 150% of its total insured value to repair it.  Plus paid for 10 months of us living outside the house while it was rebuilt.  They replaced all my tools as the shop lost its roof and all the tools were rusted and water damaged.  They even paid $800.00 for all my silk neckties that were ruined in the master bedroom, plus thousand for suits and other clothes. [The wife's walk in was untouched, she was pissed!  :Smile: ]

----------

BleedingHeadKen (03-09-2014),fyrenza (03-09-2014),JustPassinThru (03-09-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

That cannot be stressed enough.  Insurance is a LEGAL CONTRACT; and when a legal contract involving an obviously-solvent opposing party is broken, there are obvious recourse routes.

Even before a suit for damages, insurance oversight boards step in.  No, they are not perfect.  But they DO NOT just cancel insurance when a claim is filed!  It JUST IS NOT SO!

There are specifics and caps because only an insane person or group would agree to open-ended financial exposure.  The caps are considered when a safe level of liquidity is determined - how much money available to pay a number of big claims.  And this is part of what is considered when rates are set.

Of course all of this goes over Dumbo-cRats; Obamatons; and potheads.  But it USED to be we MARGINALIZED the impaired and the stupid - we didn't let them set public policy.

----------


## nonsqtr

> I meant 'neocon' as a compliment. 
> 
> Without neocons it's hard to imagine a modern conservative intellectual tradition at all.


The mere fact that you would need to "imagine" it speaks volumes.

----------


## nonsqtr

> There is something I've noticed about potheads, and it is linked to possible injuries to the brain caused by consistently high levels of THC:
> 
> All the most earnest and uncritical believers in conspiracy theories tend to be big-time partakers of the ganja.
> 
> THAT tells you something right there!


You have that backwards.

Proof?

The hippies were right.

The Gulf of Tonkin really was staged.

----------

fyrenza (03-09-2014),Invayne (03-10-2014),michaelr (03-09-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> And you see there is a difference. A recreational user that smokes a joint on the weekends is one thing but a person who uses every day is another.
> 
> I have seen the long term effects.
> 
> To be clear I smoked my first joint in 1984 beside a small pond off of Nato road in Fayetteville, NC. I was 10! I started smoking cigarettes at the time.
> 
> I smoked it socially (from time to time) until I had to get a job and I have not had one since. I never smoked a joint alone and I have never gotten high from reefer. Shit I even has a friends sister call me a drug addict but she did not know I only ever smoked it when I was with the crowd. 
> 
> There is a time to grow up.


Hm. Let's take a little poll here. JPT, you ever smoked a joint? How about you, IC? Ghost?

----------


## Mordent

> You are sprouting Libertarian philosophy, and I agree with the philosophy.
> 
> But it is not REALITY!


It is a changeable reality, though, if we can educate people about the price and benefits of liberty.

----------


## nonsqtr

> By breaking the law, you are by definition a criminal, and I don't mean jaywalking which results at the most in a traffic citation.  You think that criminal behavior justifies criminal behavior, and that shows your immaturity because that's how children think.  Grow up, act responsibly, obey the law, and quit filling your lungs with crap and you'll put the odds in your favor of having a good life.


BFD. Obama breaks the law every single day. So did Bush. So did Clinton before him, and Bush Sr before that.

We're just following the example of our elected leaders, that's all.

----------

fyrenza (03-09-2014),Invayne (03-10-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Hm. Let's take a little poll here. JPT, you ever smoked a joint? How about you, IC? Ghost?


A considerable amount in the late 70s up till the late 80s or so. And hash and hash oil. But socially, mostly on weekends. I never was officially a 'pothead' sparking up at every opportunity, every day, several times a day.

I have to say, I enjoyed being mildly stoned.

----------


## Mordent

> BFD. Obama breaks the law every single day. So did Bush. So did Clinton before him, and Bush Sr before that.
> 
> We're just following the example of our elected leaders, that's all.


There is such a mountain of laws in this country that no one can follow them all. It's planned that way. For every law that gets repealed, a thousand new ones get passed.

----------


## Matt

> Studies support me as do my observations.


The KKK claims the same ironically.

So....yeah. I don't take them at face value...probably not going to take your nonsense at it either.

----------

fyrenza (03-09-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> Can you pass a random drug test?


Of course. Anyone can. But there's a larger issue, isn't there? Remember a little old thing called HIPAA? Medical information is protected, and the only one who gets to choose whom to share it with is you.

There's legislation in CA right now that seeks to illegalize drug testing as a condition of employment. It also prevents corporations from discriminating against legal medical marijuana users. How do you like them apples?  :Smile:

----------

fyrenza (03-09-2014),Invayne (03-10-2014),Toefoot (03-09-2014)

----------


## Toefoot

Cal......are you a up and coming Medic?




> The KKK claims the same ironically.
> 
> So....yeah. I don't take them at face value...probably not going to take your nonsense at it either.

----------


## nonsqtr

> You told people you smoked pot. You made yourself the victim. It hurts everyone when a person can not get a damn job that pays their bills because they choose to smoke pot.


That is true. Discrimination hurts everyone. That's why it's been made illegal (in most cases).

----------

fyrenza (03-09-2014)

----------


## Matt

> Cal......are you a up and coming Medic?


No, I've done this for nearly 10 years.

----------

Toefoot (03-09-2014)

----------


## Toefoot

Air Force?



> No, I've done this for nearly 10 years.

----------


## nonsqtr

> A min wage job is supplemented by tax payers! Tax payers help pay for the damn pot!


You have that backwards. 

Taxpayers pay for prohibition and enforcement.

When pot is legal, the government gets the tax, which means we all get the tax money. It ends up funding school lunches, and keeps libraries open on Saturdays so the kids can read books.

There's no downside. People are going to smoke pot anyway, with or without the law. You can't make it disappear off the streets, it's impossible. There isn't enough money in the world to accomplish that goal. The best thing you can to is to make sure the money goes in the right direction.

----------

Devil505 (03-09-2014),fyrenza (03-09-2014),Invayne (03-10-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> The Rule of Law is being destroyed by what's happening now.


Maybe if they'd stop passing dumb-ass laws people would start respecting the law again. Ya think?  :Dontknow:

----------

fyrenza (03-09-2014),Invayne (03-10-2014),Mordent (03-09-2014)

----------


## Matt

> Air Force?


Civilian. I have several medical levels I practice under. The Air Force is yet another one. 

In 5 years time from this date I expect to be even higher than that. My goal is a BSN in nursing by 2018-19.

I don't like speculating very far into the history but  I would like to reach Nurse Practitioner one day.

----------


## Toefoot

Good for you.....and your profession.

I loved combat trauma.....more so. It was my life work, can not find it with AMR.




> Civilian. I have several medical levels I practice under. The Air Force is yet another one. 
> 
> In 5 years time from this date I expect to be even higher than that. My goal is a BSN in nursing by 2018-19.
> 
> I don't like speculating very far into the history but  I would like to reach Nurse Practitioner one day.

----------


## Matt

> Good for you.....and your profession.
> 
> I loved combat trauma.....more so. It was my life work, can not find it with AMR.


Ugh. AMR. I don't particularly like that company. Civilian EMS is mostly 99% bullshit with 1% of actual life saving involved. I still love it though.

Met a guy in a training once who had the same opinion as you. He was a former green beret, specialized as a medic, and was forced out of the service by a combat injury. He was trying to make it in the civilian side and just hated it.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Hm. Let's take a little poll here. JPT, you ever smoked a joint? How about you, IC? Ghost?


Four times.

Didn't much like it.  It messed me up but wasn't euphoric.

What does that have to do with anything?  I've never raped a woman either; I don't need to to know that rape is bad and should be illegal.

----------

Matalese (03-09-2014),nonsqtr (03-09-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Maybe if they'd stop passing dumb-ass laws people would start respecting the law again. Ya think?


Yes, I do think; no, I don't think that.

And I'm not impaired with an hallucinogen, either.

----------

Matalese (03-09-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> No, but it is more than coincedental that the drug culture & the dependency, entitlement culture are nearly the same people.


WTF are you talking about? Dependency "culture"? You think the welfare queens are out there conspiring about how to get more weed money?




> There are wonderful exceptions, i am sure.


Yeah. 99% of humanity is unlike anything you're talking about.




> But as long as we're going the nanny state route, you've got to nanny the drugs, too.  They want to tell us what size soft drinks, & what hamburgers to eat,  & yet everyone wants to get bent out of shape about pot?  Let's focus on building a free society, WITH responsibility, & THEN i'd support legalizing drugs.  But promoting easy, state provided drugs along with the rest of the entitlement commodities will only accelerate the crash.  I'll support full legalization of drugs, if you give people full responsibility for their own lives.


Jeez. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. It's real simple. The federal government does not have the power to regulate self medication. It has never been granted that power. The Schedules are entirely un-Constitutional, because our federal government has not been granted the power to regulate them. Any such grant would require a Constitutional Amendment, just like Prohibition did. And, there's never been any such Amendment. Therefore, our federal government does not have the power.

And that's pretty much the end of the story.

----------


## Mordent

> I've never raped a woman either; I don't need to to know that rape is bad and should be illegal.


Smoking pot is like raping yourself, except it's consensual, meaning it isn't comparable to rape at all.

----------


## Archer

> You have that backwards. 
> 
> Taxpayers pay for prohibition and enforcement.
> 
> When pot is legal, the government gets the tax, which means we all get the tax money. It ends up funding school lunches, and keeps libraries open on Saturdays so the kids can read books.
> 
> There's no downside. People are going to smoke pot anyway, with or without the law. You can't make it disappear off the streets, it's impossible. There isn't enough money in the world to accomplish that goal. The best thing you can to is to make sure the money goes in the right direction.


And more deadbeat people are created. It will be like this BS lie of an education lottery here in NC.

----------


## nonsqtr

> I am back! So let me be clear! Your liberties end where the liberties of others begin!


Oh brother.  :Geez: 

No, Archer, you don't have any more (or less) rights than the next guy.

You've never heard of "conflict of rights"?

On a good day, these are the type of cases our Supreme Court should spend 100% of its time hearing.

For example, yelling fire in a crowded theater, weighs the right to speech and expression, against the concepts of public safety and other peoples' personal safety.

Political rights need to be balanced, there's nothing "absolute" that can't be touched by anything else.

----------


## Network

The notion that the government accomplishes any of their_ stated_ goals continues.
Despite a history of the contrary.

----------

Mordent (03-09-2014)

----------


## Network

See, the glovernment is so lame, so worthless, so full of fail, and so crooked, that something as simple as smoking some plants is much more popular when they are against it.

Plus the fact that it's better for you than a Big Pharm opiate addiction.   :Wink: 

Listen to Super Bowl coach Pete Carroll who says to legalize it for player pain.
Instead of the countless cases of pharm-addicts because of their sore knees and whatnot.

----------

fyrenza (03-09-2014),Invayne (03-10-2014)

----------


## Matalese

I see energizer bunnies!

----------


## nonsqtr

> A considerable amount in the late 70s up till the late 80s or so. And hash and hash oil. But socially, mostly on weekends. I never was officially a 'pothead' sparking up at every opportunity, every day, several times a day.
> 
> I have to say, I enjoyed being mildly stoned.


Okay, good. So let's run with that. You say you enjoyed being mildly stoned - and, all things considered, I would say the same, I enjoy it - however my enjoyment is more of a "freedom from" rather than a "freedom to".

In addition to the specific medical issue I already mentioned, I find that a small dose of marijuana focuses my attention and "takes the edge off" some of the too-bright perceptions. I am not "distracted" as much when I smoke a small amount of weed, intellectually or emotionally, and that helps both my analytical skills and my people skills.

And, everyone responds differently, to pot - everyone "feels" a different way when they're high. I happen to be well anchored, psychologically - so my response to the weed is pretty consistent. Some people are more variable, they go on good trips, bad trips, whatever.

If you agree that making people responsible for their own behavior is the answer, then you have to let them experience for themselves what the weed feels like, right? There needs to be a coupling between the behavior and its consequences, amirite? Plenty of people stop smoking weed for that exact reason, they say the weed ends up making them "lazy and stupid", and they don't like being that way, so they quit.

Everyone's balance is different, and I think it's a good idea to let individuals find their own balance whenever possible.

The idea that one can "impose" a balance from outside, by political means, is problematic. Seems to me, history has shown quite clearly how problematic it is.

----------

fyrenza (03-09-2014),Mordent (03-09-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> The notion that the government accomplishes any of their_ stated_ goals continues.
> Despite a history of the contrary.


May 25,1961





July 20, 1969

----------


## nonsqtr

> Four times.
> 
> Didn't much like it.  It messed me up but wasn't euphoric.
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?  I've never raped a woman either; I don't need to to know that rape is bad and should be illegal.


Okay, good. So you've tried it, you know what it's like.

Do you drink beer? I don't drink "at all". I choose not to. I had a stellar career at one point, but now, the effect has become unpleasant. That's really all there is to it, I've developed some kind of "sensitivity" or something (maybe because of my various medical conditions), and if I drink so much as a beer I get... I dunno... drunk.  :Confused4:  For whatever reason, that state's become "unpleasant", so I don't do it.

I'll tell you the story behind the weed. A few years back I had a herniated disc in lumbar C-4, I couldn't stand up or sit down, it was very painful. The doctors at Kaiser, they tried everything, musta been 20 different anti-inflammatories, pain killers, I got the cortisone pills and the cortisone shots directly into the back - we tried everything, and the only thing that worked (kinda sorta) was this pill called Indocin (indomethacin). So the doctor gave me a 30-day supply, and when I went back for more he said no. And I said "why?" and he said, 'cause if you take 'em for more than 30 days they burn holes in your gut, you get bleeding ulcers and stuff like that. So, we were back to the other choices, none of which worked, and he started talkin' about surgery so I asked isn't there some other drug we haven't tried yet, and he says "you didn't hear this from me, and if you tell anyone I'll deny I ever said it, 'kay?" and then he makes like he's takin' a couple of puffs on a joint. And I'm like "really?" - and I hadn't smoked weed in years at that point, and it was just becoming legal for medical reasons in California. But at that point the real doctors could still lose their licenses for "recommending" it... so, there's more, that you should be aware of.

When I got down to the dispensary, I told the guy behind the counter all about my back pains. And he says, "well, certain strains are better than others, I'll try to hook you up". So, over time, I had to do a little experimenting with the various different kinds of weed they had there, indicas, sativas, hybrids, whatever. What I found is, the super-stony killer shit didn't work for me. Not at all. I mean, it got me high, but it didn't work on my back. What worked on my back, was this strain they called "Diesel", which is this kinda low-grade semi-mediocre bud.... it's "okay", it's just nothing special, is all. You'd have to smoke a lot of it to get really "high" to the point where you could easily get with a hit or two of the high-grade medical stuff.

Anyway, so that's it. I smoke 'cause it works. I don't drink 'cause it doesn't work for me.

----------

fyrenza (03-09-2014),Invayne (03-10-2014),michaelr (03-09-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Okay, good. So you've tried it, you know what it's like.
> 
> Do you drink beer? I don't drink "at all". I choose not to. I had a stellar career at one point, but now, the effect has become unpleasant. That's really all there is to it, I've developed some kind of "sensitivity" or something (maybe because of my various medical conditions), and if I drink so much as a beer I get... I dunno... drunk.  For whatever reason, that state's become "unpleasant", so I don't do it.
> 
> I'll tell you the story behind the weed. A few years back I had a herniated disc in lumbar C-4, I couldn't stand up or sit down, it was very painful. The doctors at Kaiser, they tried everything, musta been 20 different anti-inflammatories, pain killers, I got the cortisone pills and the cortisone shots directly into the back - we tried everything, and the only thing that worked (kinda sorta) was this pill called Indocin (indomethacin). So the doctor gave me a 30-day supply, and when I went back for more he said no. And I said "why?" and he said, 'cause if you take 'em for more than 30 days they burn holes in your gut, you get bleeding ulcers and stuff like that. So, we were back to the other choices, none of which worked, and he started talkin' about surgery so I asked isn't there some other drug we haven't tried yet, and he says "you didn't hear this from me, and if you tell anyone I'll deny I ever said it, 'kay?" and then he makes like he's takin' a couple of puffs on a joint. And I'm like "really?" - and I hadn't smoked weed in years at that point, and it was just becoming legal for medical reasons in California. But at that point the real doctors could still lose their licenses for "recommending" it... so, there's more, that you should be aware of.
> 
> When I got down to the dispensary, I told the guy behind the counter all about my back pains. And he says, "well, certain strains are better than others, I'll try to hook you up". So, over time, I had to do a little experimenting with the various different kinds of weed they had there, indicas, sativas, hybrids, whatever. What I found is, the super-stony killer shit didn't work for me. Not at all. I mean, it got me high, but it didn't work on my back. What worked on my back, was this strain they called "Diesel", which is this kinda low-grade semi-mediocre bud.... it's "okay", it's just nothing special, is all. You'd have to smoke a lot of it to get really "high" to the point where you could easily get with a hit or two of the high-grade medical stuff.
> 
> Anyway, so that's it. I smoke 'cause it works. I don't drink 'cause it doesn't work for me.


I have told you and all why alcohol is different; and you keep on ignoring it.  So saying it once more won't change anything.  It's the difference of hours versus weeks.  And the difference between a depressant and an hallucinogenic.

If you don't believe my reasoning, can you believe history?

WHAT industrial society had widespread marijuana use?

What industrial society had widespread ALCOHOL use?  How about, all of them?

You don't have to like it; but facts are stubborn things.

----------


## Dan40

> It is a changeable reality, though, if we can educate people about the price and benefits of liberty.


One thing is certain, no one is going to get Educated about anything by our federal Department of Indoctrination.

Churchill was right.  The young and inexperienced will mostly be liberals, and the older, experienced people will mostly be conservatives.

But that education is only available at the school of hard knocks, called life and living.

Those older but still liberals do not have experience, they repeat the same experiences over and over 'thinking' they are amassing experience.  All they are amassing is repetition.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> We need to rework welfare! Sheit we need to kill all government welfare. We need to phase out SS, Medicare, Medicaid and we need to destroy the insurance industry.


Destroy the insurance industry? It's a capitalist enterprise which has enormous benefits to the standard of living of human beings. You talk about liberty, and then want to destroy, presumably through the police powers of the state, one of the greatest free market innovations since the beginning of civilization. Unless you have another method in mind?

----------


## Archer

> Destroy the insurance industry? It's a capitalist enterprise which has enormous benefits to the standard of living of human beings. You talk about liberty, and then want to destroy, presumably through the police powers of the state, one of the greatest free market innovations since the beginning of civilization. Unless you have another method in mind?


There was a time when you could actually afford to see a doctor cash and carry. It was not that long ago.

----------

Invayne (03-10-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> By breaking the law, you are by definition a criminal, and I don't mean jaywalking which results at the most in a traffic citation.  You think that criminal behavior justifies criminal behavior, and that shows your immaturity because that's how children think.  Grow up, act responsibly, obey the law, and quit filling your lungs with crap and you'll put the odds in your favor of having a good life.


The progressive version of Malum Prohitum, which you advocate for here, is that government defines law, and lawbreaking is immoral. Therefore, by your logic, the government is the arbiter of right and wrong. There is no other way around this conclusion in which you can remain logically consistent. Of course, logical consistency may mean nothing to you. It means nothing to most progressives who believe right and wrong, and therefore the direction of the police powers of government, should be based on emotions and what feels good. 

A free man realizes that government can call something a crime, but that does not make it a crime. A free man derives his principles from the foundations of liberty, which is that each human being is a self-owner and that it is wrong to initiate aggression against others or to commit fraud. Where the government initiates aggression, it is acting immorally. 

What you describe is the thinking of a slave, the subjugated government subject.

----------

fyrenza (03-09-2014),Invayne (03-10-2014),Mordent (03-09-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> There was a time when you could actually afford to see a doctor cash and carry. It was not that long ago.


I wouldn't blame that on the insurance industry.

Even here in California I could afford to do that just 10 years ago. Before I moved halfway around the world, I went to see my family doctor (Harvard trained) for a checkup. It cost me all of $300 including tests.

It's still possible to do that, thought not for long. Concierge medical services are becoming much more popular, though Obamacare will likely put them out of business.

----------


## Dan40

> There is such a mountain of laws in this country that no one can follow them all. It's planned that way. For every law that gets repealed, a thousand new ones get passed.


FYI, since 1950, local, state, and federal govts have passed more than 2,000,000 laws.  More than 30,000 per years.

For instance, making medical marijuana LEGAL in CO. meant about 100 pages of NEW LAWS!

The faster I go there, the behinder I get.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> There was a time when you could actually afford to see a doctor cash and carry. It was not that long ago.


You STILL can, in some areas.

My doc is a cash-operation.  No insurance.  No billing.  You make arrangements before you see him; and you pay before you leave. 

He'll take credit cards but discounts cash.  And he has NO army of billing clerks - just his Medical Assistant and himself.  Cost is two-thirds of what a typical clinic doctor charges.

AND he's not keeping Obamarecords.  No questions about how many guns I have or whether I go to Tea Party meetings.  He's a Tea Party guy himself.

----------

Archer (03-10-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> FYI, since 1950, local, state, and federal govts have passed more than 2,000,000 laws.  More than 30,000 per years.
> 
> For instance, making medical marijuana LEGAL in CO. meant about 100 pages of NEW LAWS!
> 
> The faster I go there, the behinder I get.


Yep. Repealing them would be better. Start with the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1910 which was intended to cartelize the pharmaceutical and medical industries, not protect us from a non-existent scourge of drugs.

----------

fyrenza (03-09-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> Yep. Repealing them would be better. Start with the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1910 which was intended to cartelize the pharmaceutical and medical industries, not protect us from a non-existent scourge of drugs.


Yes. The real tragedy of these bogus laws is in the extent and frequency with which "mandatory sentencing" has been imposed on first-time possessors of small amounts. For example, if you read through this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_..._United_States

You can kinda see what's going on there, at first the federal government failed entirely to distinguish the true nature of the "poisons" they were trying to regulate, next they lumped marijuana in with opium as a "narcotic" (which is laughable), and then it took the Supreme Court 20 more years to strike down the un-Constitutional sentencing guidelines - and meanwhile thousands of people went to jail, literally for smoking a joint. And as late as 1970 we have the federal government saying there are "no accepted medical uses", a situation that came to an abrupt end with the AIDS crisis in the 80's.  And then in the 90's we had the introduction of the "drug courts", which worked spectacularly well for the people who actually wanted to quit (which were a high percentage - those who simply didn't know how, and were somehow "hooked" into the drug or the lifestyle). And underlying all of that, we had the medical undercurrent which really only became widespread in 2000 and thereafter, when "compassionate use of medical marijuana" became the norm. And now people aren't even satisfied with that, they want to smoke pot recreationally and they're basically rebelling against the federal government for ever telling 'em they couldn't.

It's real easy to see the stupidity in all this - look here:




> _Gonzales v. Raich_ 545 U.S. 1 (2005) was a decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (6-3) that even where persons are cultivating, possessing, or distributing medical cannabis in accordance with state-approved medical cannabis programs, such persons are violating federal marijuana laws and can therefore be prosecuted by federal authorities because the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution permits federal authorities (pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act) to prosecute any and all offenses of federal marijuana laws.


This is our shit-for-brains Supreme Morons trying to claim the federal government has jurisdiction over stuff I grow in my back yard and smoke in my own home?

*Fuck* those clowns! 'Kay? Their job is to uphold and defend the Constitution and they're doing the exact opposite. Any first year law student probably has a better understanding of our Constitution than the Robed Idiots do.

*This* is why people continue to smoke pot, in spite of the federal government's shit-for-brains laws against it. Because these laws are so entirely ridiculous that adhering to them would be abrogating the Constitution. It's good that people want to stick a big middle finger in the federal government's eye on this issue. The federal fuckups deserve a big middle finger on this issue.

Nah man, this issue is important. The harder our federal government pushes on these buttons the more the People are going to push back. The little guy on the ground isn't going to stand for Uncle Sam trampling on his weed, he's just not. As far as most people are concerned, Uncle Sam can go take a flying leap on this issue.

----------

Invayne (03-10-2014)

----------


## Archer

> I wouldn't blame that on the insurance industry.
> 
> Even here in California I could afford to do that just 10 years ago. Before I moved halfway around the world, I went to see my family doctor (Harvard trained) for a checkup. It cost me all of $300 including tests.
> 
> It's still possible to do that, thought not for long. Concierge medical services are becoming much more popular, though Obamacare will likely put them out of business.


I strongly believe that various industries are working together with government to get all the money out of the peoples pockets that they can.

If the damn doctors would give a prescription for exercise and eat right or you gonna die! See how quick shit changes. Give it a few years and preventable diseases would be controlled.

----------


## Invayne

> There was a time when you could actually afford to see a doctor cash and carry. It was not that long ago.


I went to my doctor a few years ago to get a refill for a prescription...I lost my job because of NAFTA, and of course I lost my medical insurance also. Just for walking in and getting blood pressure checked and requesting a prescription, they wanted to charge me over $300. I told the receptionist, Look, I don't have insurance and I can't afford this. She went to talk to somebody for a minute, and then came back and said in a low voice...OK, that'll be $52. I said Thank you.

----------

Archer (03-10-2014)

----------


## Archer

> I went to my doctor a few years ago to get a refill for a prescription...I lost my job because of NAFTA, and of course I lost my medical insurance also. Just for walking in and getting blood pressure checked and requesting a prescription, they wanted to charge me over $300. I told the receptionist, Look, I don't have insurance and I can't afford this. She went to talk to somebody for a minute, and then came back and said in a low voice...OK, that'll be $52. I said Thank you.


Exactly. Insurance causes costs to go up because it adds overhead and unnecessary (double) oversight.

Save the doctor money and time you see it reflected in your bill.

----------

Invayne (03-10-2014)

----------


## Dan40

> Exactly. Insurance causes costs to go up because it adds overhead and unnecessary (double) oversight.
> 
> Save the doctor money and time you see it reflected in your bill.


You are blaming insurance companies for the errors of politicians..

Insurance is a transfer of risk, nothing else.  It is intended to take on your risk in exchange for a small premium.

A doctor's office visit is not a "risk."  It is a routine expense WE should bear.  But politicians [regulators] insisted that office visits and all routine medical needs be covered.  So if an insurer must provide payment for routine procedures, then they MUST charge premiums higher than the annual cost of those procedures.

Can you imagine how much your auto insurance premium would be if insurers were forced to cover tune ups, oil changes, gasoline, tires, batteries, and car washes?

That's what govt regulators have forced health insurers to do.

Insurers, in an effort to reduce costs, negotiate with doctors and hospitals to pay a percentage of normal charges.  So the doctor or hospital, wanting more money, does not negotiate better, they INCREASE their "normal" charges to improve their negotiating position.  And the death spiral of higher prices is on.

But it started with govt regulators.

----------

Bondo (03-12-2014),JustPassinThru (03-10-2014),Perianne (03-10-2014),usfan (03-10-2014)

----------


## Archer

> You are blaming insurance companies for the errors of politicians..
> 
> Insurance is a transfer of risk, nothing else.  It is intended to take on your risk in exchange for a small premium.
> 
> A doctor's office visit is not a "risk."  It is a routine expense WE should bear.  But politicians [regulators] insisted that office visits and all routine medical needs be covered.  So if an insurer must provide payment for routine procedures, then they MUST charge premiums higher than the annual cost of those procedures.
> 
> Can you imagine how much your auto insurance premium would be if insurers were forced to cover tune ups, oil changes, gasoline, tires, batteries, and car washes?
> 
> That's what govt regulators have forced health insurers to do.
> ...


Regulators are definitely a problem but so is cost.

----------


## Dan40

> Regulators are definitely a problem but so is cost.


The regulators and their regulations ARE the cost problem.

Unregulated open market competition would solve the cost problem.

Regulations not only increase costs, they also dumb down the public.

The topic drift of this thread is a case in point.

----------

Bondo (03-12-2014)

----------


## Katzndogz

> I went to my doctor a few years ago to get a refill for a prescription...I lost my job because of NAFTA, and of course I lost my medical insurance also. Just for walking in and getting blood pressure checked and requesting a prescription, they wanted to charge me over $300. I told the receptionist, Look, I don't have insurance and I can't afford this. She went to talk to somebody for a minute, and then came back and said in a low voice...OK, that'll be $52. I said Thank you.


I have never had insurance.  I never paid more than $50.00 for a doctor's visit in my life.  If you have insurance the doctor is going to charge enough to cover the cost of processing insurance forms.   Not just doctor visits.  My doctor prescribed a skin cream that cost a thousand dollars a tube.  Knowing I had no insurance, the doctor called the manufacturer, got a code number to use from them and my cream was $35.00.

----------

Invayne (03-10-2014)

----------


## Invayne

> I have never had insurance.  I never paid more than $50.00 for a doctor's visit in my life.  If you have insurance the doctor is going to charge enough to cover the cost of processing insurance forms.   Not just doctor visits.  My doctor prescribed a skin cream that cost a thousand dollars a tube.  Knowing I had no insurance, the doctor called the manufacturer, got a code number to use from them and my cream was $35.00.


Nice! Good deal!

----------


## Invayne

You do realize that now the fines will be higher than your doctor visits, right?

Thanks, Obama! :Tongue20:

----------


## Archer

> You do realize that now the fines will be higher than your doctor visits, right?
> 
> Thanks, Obama!


Yup and some of us can not get credits (not that I am asking for them) for our insurance. Shit even with the fines it is cheaper to go cash.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> I'm going to let you think a while about that one before I respond, because I'm going to assume, given the lateness of the hour in which you posted this you may have been drunk, and you've forgotten what happened in the late '80s/early '90s.


My bad. I've come to a forum where it's fashionable to hold Saint Ronnie with ending the Cold War.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> My bad. I've come to a forum where it's fashionable to hold Saint Ronnie with ending the Cold War.


Yeah.  Every Really Smart Person knows that it was Mikhail Gorbachev who ended the Cold War.

After the previous generation of Soviet leaders taught us the value of charity and humility by accepting our wheat for twenty years.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Yeah.  Every Really Smart Person knows that it was Mikhail Gorbachev who ended the Cold War.
> 
> After the previous generation of Soviet leaders taught us the value of charity and humility by accepting our wheat for twenty years.


There you go, the USSR collapsed on itself. Reagan was a B-movie actor who found himself in the right place at the right time.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> There you go, the USSR collapsed on itself. Reagan was a B-movie actor who found himself in the right place at the right time.


Years after it was discredited, he still spouts the Leftist meme.

Know what Reagan's major was in college?

AND...do you not find it strange that the USSR "collapsed on itself" WHILE REAGAN WAS IN OFFICE and NOT accommodating them, kowtowing to them, dreading them and appeasing them?

Course not.  Reagan was a dolt, says the Left...all facts and evidence to the contrary.

----------


## Calypso Jones

sad.

----------


## Matt

> sad.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Years after it was discredited, he still spouts the Leftist meme.
> 
> Know what Reagan's major was in college?
> 
> AND...do you not find it strange that the USSR "collapsed on itself" WHILE REAGAN WAS IN OFFICE and NOT accommodating them, kowtowing to them, dreading them and appeasing them?
> 
> Course not.  Reagan was a dolt, says the Left...all facts and evidence to the contrary.


Reagan wasn't a dolt, he was just senile. George HW Bush had the reins during most of RayGun's second term.

----------


## nonsqtr

> you tube ...


I don't get it. What does heroin have to do with pot? ===> *Nothing!*

See, I mean, this is profound ignorance. Lumping all drugs together as "the same", calling people "druggies", equating heroin with pot... the ignorance level there, is so profound that it's hard to even have a meaningful conversation.

There are two distinct issues here: the political issue, and the medical issue.

The political issue is very simple - straightforward, cut and dried. FedGov doesn't have the authority. Period, end of story.

The medical issue is only "slightly" more complex, in the sense that you actually have to know something to speak about it. You have to know a little bit about neurochemistry and the brain - pathways, receptor molecules, that kind of thing. You have to understand how opium works, and why it's physically addictive (whereas pot is not). You have to understand something called "receptor supersensitivity", and exactly how it works, before you're qualified to say word one about heroin.

And then, you need to understand a little about THC and how it works, and why it's not physically addictive. And, once you start studying that, it'll take you very quickly into the most complex parts of neuroscience, brain areas like the hippocampus and the anterior cingulate cortex. The effect of THC is very specific, it has an effect on cluster recall as distinct from other kinds of recall. 

So like, if you don't know what the f*ck "cluster recall" means, you kinda need to read a little before you open your mouth. You're entitled to have a political opinion, but really, a successful democracy depends on a well informed electorate, yes?

(no offense, just makin' a point)  :Smile:

----------

Bondo (03-12-2014),fyrenza (03-12-2014),Invayne (03-12-2014)

----------


## Invayne

> sad.


She ain't smoking weed, that's for sure. Whatever that is, I don't want any part of it!

----------


## nonsqtr

Colorado brought in 3 million dollars of tax money in the first month of legal pot.

http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-made-...232257807.html

----------


## Archer

> Colorado brought in 3 million dollars of tax money in the first month of legal pot.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-made-...232257807.html


One directed post to show the desired results. What are the increased cost?

----------


## Dan40

> Reagan wasn't a dolt, he was just senile. George HW Bush had the reins during most of RayGun's second term.


What were you doing 1/1985 to 1/1989?  Reagan was not senile, and Bush didn't run the show.

----------


## nonsqtr

> What were you doing 1/1985 to 1/1989?


I can't tell you.




> Reagan was not senile, and Bush didn't run the show.


And... you have evidence for these assertions?

----------


## Archer

> One directed post to show the desired results. What are the increased cost?


Oh and I read 2.1M

----------


## Dan40

> I can't tell you.
> 
> 
> 
> And... you have evidence for these assertions?


Personal observations at the time.  So YES!

----------


## nonsqtr

> Personal observations at the time.  So YES!


 :Smile: 

I look at it this way - 3 million a month, in one state. If the sales tax is 10%, which is being generous, then that's 30 million in sales. In a month. Colorado has about 5.3 million residents at last count (2013). So there's two ways of looking at this - one is, that every Colorado resident spends about $70 a year on pot. But if you start paring down the population, things change. For example. Assume that half the residents are children, and assume further that half don't smoke pot "at all" (mostly these would be the people up in the north and east, near the Wyoming border, lol). So then, the per capita goes up to 280 bucks. The point being, that people are spending a lot of money on pot. A lot! So, you start multiplying out 3 million in terms of the population, for 300 million people at 70 bucks a pop that's 21 billion anually, if they did this "all over". That's not shabby, 21 billion bucks would go a long way in terms of books and school lunches and all that.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Colorado brought in 3 million dollars of tax money in the first month of legal pot.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-made-...232257807.html


What happens when the stoners squander their savings?

Drug users are neither industrious nor provident.

This is an anomalty.  Like a sudden hike in a tax.  Immediately it catches people off guard; but then things readjust and revenues drop.

Like the bank accounts of pot users.

----------

Archer (03-13-2014)

----------


## Archer

> What happens when the stoners squander their savings?
> 
> Drug users are neither industrious nor provident.
> 
> This is an anomalty.  Like a sudden hike in a tax.  Immediately it catches people off guard; but then things readjust and revenues drop.
> 
> Like the bank accounts of pot users.


Well they will depend on the government. Sadly if it were just the pot head that were the issue. It is most Americans.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Well they will depend on the government. Sadly if it were just the pot head that were the issue. It is most Americans.


Correct.

So the jackpot of tax revenue to come in, is a myth.

----------


## Dan40

> Colorado brought in 3 million dollars of tax money in the first month of legal pot.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-made-...232257807.html




State of Colorado revenue

2010, 21.6 billion  +2.9 b


2011, $23.2 billion +1.6 b

2012, $19.3 billion. -3.9 b


2013, $21.2 billion. +1.9 


2014 $22.8 billion.  +1.6 billion PROJECTED.




2013 CORPORATE INCOME TAXES, $700 MILLION.  2014 projected $700 million

2013 ALL business taxes, $2.3 billion.  2014 projected, $2.5 billion

A projected gain of $200 million, but only equal to 2012.

----------


## Dan40

> Colorado brought in 3 million dollars of tax money in the first month of legal pot.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-made-...232257807.html




State of Colorado revenue

2010, 21.6 billion  +2.9 b


2011, $23.2 billion +1.6 b

2012, $19.3 billion. -3.9 b


2013, $21.2 billion. +1.9 


2014 $22.8 billion.  +1.6 billion PROJECTED.




2013 CORPORATE INCOME TAXES, $700 MILLION.  2014 projected $700 million

2013 ALL business taxes, $2.3 billion.  2014 projected, $2.5 billion

A projected gain of $200 million, but only equal to 2012.

And the website for the CO. Dept. of Revenue has NO page for revenue from medical marijuana.

----------


## Katzndogz

Pot candy going to children

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?id=8939778

Traffic deaths triple due to pot
http://www.bing.com/search?q=traffic...NTDF&MKT=en-us

When does the price so people can get high, become too high?

----------


## Matalese

> Pot candy going to children
> 
> http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?id=8939778
> 
> Traffic deaths triple due to pot
> http://www.bing.com/search?q=traffic...NTDF&MKT=en-us
> 
> When does the price so people can get high, become too high?


It never gets too high.

----------


## Invayne

> What happens when the stoners squander their savings?
> 
> Drug users are neither industrious nor provident.
> 
> This is an anomalty.  Like a sudden hike in a tax.  Immediately it catches people off guard; but then things readjust and revenues drop.
> 
> Like the bank accounts of pot users.


Yeah, that fucking Bill Gates and Steve Jobs...LOSERS, I tell ya! :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Dan40

> Yeah, that fucking Bill Gates and Steve Jobs...LOSERS, I tell ya!


That's two.

How hard do you have to look to find 2000 to balance them out?

----------


## Invayne

> That's two.
> 
> How hard do you have to look to find 2000 to balance them out?


I know a lot of people personally that smoke and are very successful. I don't know why you think smoking makes you a loser. It's not true.  :Dontknow:

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Pot candy going to children
> 
> http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?id=8939778
> 
> Traffic deaths triple due to pot
> http://www.bing.com/search?q=traffic...NTDF&MKT=en-us
> 
> When does the price so people can get high, become too high?


Have you got an objective line, or should we expect something emotional? Liberals love to play on emotions.

If we have an objective line, then we can determine when, say, the price is too high for any given thing. For example, when is the price too high for people to own cars to drive for pleasure. After all, tens of thousands of people die each year in automobile accidents. Think how many lives could be saved by eliminating pleasure driving. And motorcycles - no one needs a motorcycle. Banning motorcycles would have saved 5,000 lives in 2012.

Airplanes. Sure, they are handy, but look how many people are killed each year in airplane accidents when they didn't really need to be going where they were going?

If government has a moral imperative to eliminate risk, as you claim, shouldn't you be calling for the end of all of these risks?

----------

fyrenza (03-13-2014),Invayne (03-14-2014)

----------


## Dan40

> I know a lot of people personally that smoke and are very successful. I don't know why you think smoking makes you a loser. It's not true.


Smoking hurts your brain.  But some people are stupid enough to damage themselves in numerous ways.  I smoked, I drank, and retired successful.  I still drink a very tiny amount.  But i don't lie to myself and defend it.  Both smoking and drinking did reduce the efficiency of my brain.  But not so terribly that I couldn't wise up.

----------


## Katzndogz

Smoking does not adversely affect the brain.  Nicotine sharpens the senses and makes someone more alert.  Its danger isn't posed to the brain but to the heart since it raises blood pressure and heart rate.  Nicotine is about as dangerous as caffeine.  If you ingest to much of either, you will likely die.   The Red Bull deaths aren't from tobacco or nicotine but caffeine.

----------


## Katzndogz

> Have you got an objective line, or should we expect something emotional? Liberals love to play on emotions.
> 
> If we have an objective line, then we can determine when, say, the price is too high for any given thing. For example, when is the price too high for people to own cars to drive for pleasure. After all, tens of thousands of people die each year in automobile accidents. Think how many lives could be saved by eliminating pleasure driving. And motorcycles - no one needs a motorcycle. Banning motorcycles would have saved 5,000 lives in 2012.
> 
> Airplanes. Sure, they are handy, but look how many people are killed each year in airplane accidents when they didn't really need to be going where they were going?
> 
> If government has a moral imperative to eliminate risk, as you claim, shouldn't you be calling for the end of all of these risks?


The government has no imperative to eliminate risk, nor does it have an imperative to raise risk.  For instance, eliminating driving tests or licensing as a way to make the roads safer.

Legalize these mind altering drugs and the nation will just not survive.  Even a drug user like Jerry Brown recognizes that.

----------


## usfan

> Smoking hurts your brain.  But some people are stupid enough to damage themselves in numerous ways.  I smoked, I drank, and retired successful.  I still drink a very tiny amount.  But i don't lie to myself and defend it.  Both smoking and drinking did reduce the efficiency of my brain.  But not so terribly that I couldn't wise up.


hmm... you think so?   :Laughing7:

----------


## Dan40

> hmm... you think so?


Ya kno, like maybe wow man.  ya yew know like no O2 man, like dead cells man  ya get so fucked up and den ya doan know if yer fucked up er the udder guy is fucked up,,,,,,

wot wuz da question,  like wow?

----------

usfan (03-13-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> The government has no imperative to eliminate risk, nor does it have an imperative to raise risk.  For instance, eliminating driving tests or licensing as a way to make the roads safer.


It doesn't? Then why are you asking "when is the price too high"? If your objective is not to eliminate risk, what is it? Are you even clear on your objective?




> Legalize these mind altering drugs and the nation will just not survive.  Even a drug user like Jerry Brown recognizes that.


This is just pandering to fear.  Drugs were legal for centuries and yet the nation not only survived, it prospered with much smaller government than we have now. It's you big government types that are killing this nation.

----------

fyrenza (03-13-2014),Invayne (03-14-2014)

----------


## Invayne

> Smoking does not adversely affect the brain.  Nicotine sharpens the senses and makes someone more alert.  Its danger isn't posed to the brain but to the heart since it raises blood pressure and heart rate.  Nicotine is about as dangerous as caffeine.  If you ingest to much of either, you will likely die.   The Red Bull deaths aren't from tobacco or nicotine but caffeine.


I was referring to marijuana.

Nicotine always made me feel like shit unless I was drinking.

----------


## nonsqtr

> And the website for the CO. Dept. of Revenue has NO page for revenue from medical marijuana.


 :Smile: 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...taxes/6261131/

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/20/news...ado/index.html

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25...enue-proposals

Here's the state's official site: http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite.../1251581331216

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Yeah, that fucking Bill Gates and Steve Jobs...LOSERS, I tell ya!


I guarantee ya, Jobs quit the weed while he was on the street, scrabbling a living after being booted from Apple.

He did a lot of growing up there - he was tossed out as an emotionally-stunted, disturbed, troublemaking adolescent in an adult's body.  When he returned, it was as someone born to power - confident bearing, clear and firm decisions and not at random, either.  He had a plan.  He implemented that plan.  Apple was on the verge of being broken up or merged out of existence - its numbers were that bad.  When Jobs stepped down for poor health, it was THE primo technology company in the States.  Modern digital music sales and smartphones...both Jobs' ideas and no one else's.

As for Gates:  I've not read of his pot use.  What I HAVE read suggested he was a grind of a geek - not a partier, but someone who worked endlessly for the sake of work.

----------


## nonsqtr

> As for Gates:  I've not read of his pot use.  What I HAVE read suggested he was a grind of a geek - not a partier, but someone who worked endlessly for the sake of work.


The two are not mutually exclusive.  :Smile:

----------


## JustPassinThru

> The two are not mutually exclusive.


You can't work while taking drugs.

Not unless your "work" is stripping - or writing vacuous poetry; or making bubblegum-rock music.

Gates was starting with NOTHING - and writing Windows without the aid of a Windows computer.  I doubt he was huffing a bong the same time.

----------


## Archer

> You can't work while taking drugs.
> 
> Not unless your "work" is stripping - or writing vacuous poetry; or making bubblegum-rock music.
> 
> Gates was starting with NOTHING - and writing Windows without the aid of a Windows computer.  I doubt he was huffing a bong the same time.


On working on your back or hands and knees!

----------


## Invayne

> On working on your back or hands and knees!


You got a problem with working girls???


 :Engel017:

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Years after it was discredited, he still spouts the Leftist meme.
> 
> Know what Reagan's major was in college?


Do I give a shit?



> AND...do you not find it strange that the USSR "collapsed on itself" WHILE REAGAN WAS IN OFFICE and NOT accommodating them, kowtowing to them, dreading them and appeasing them?


The USSR was a broken excuse for a nation-state, run by a succession of dementia-addled bureaucrats and war veterans with no touch for reality. It had been in a state of constant decline for decades. But Reagandidit.



> Course not.  Reagan was a dolt, says the Left...all facts and evidence to the contrary.


For my own sake as much as yours, I'm not going to call in that "evidence" you flout, and just put you down as another progressive Republican on Ronnie Kool-Aid.

----------


## Archer

> You got a problem with working girls???


Yes I do! That is one trade I think should be regulated for the health and protection of the working girls. But they can hit a bong while getting hit in the bum.

----------


## nonsqtr

> You can't work while taking drugs.


Sure you can.

Counter-examples: Keith Richards, Bob Marley, Oprah, and Lady Gaga.

All very successful.

http://coed.com/2009/02/06/the-10-mo...h-to-admit-it/




> Not unless your "work" is stripping - or writing vacuous poetry; or making bubblegum-rock music.


Hm. Do you have any idea what goes on relative to the navigation of our nuclear submarines?

People take LSD down there, you know. 

Really.

Seriously.  :Dontknow: 




> Gates was starting with NOTHING - and writing Windows without the aid of a Windows computer.  I doubt he was huffing a bong the same time.


Hm. Well... I dunno what to tell you. Except that... um... y'know those little mosquito-sized CIA drones you've heard about? Those were invented by a buncha pot-smoking hippies. And um... every major audio or video "media organization" that exists today, was started by druggies, or built by druggies, or made wealthy and powerful by druggies.

What I think is, some people are scared of what they don't know. They "know" alcohol but they don't "know" drugs, so, my way becomes the right way, and everyone else should get on board with my way or hit the highway. That kinda thing.

The reality is very different from the hype. Opium is dangerous. That's why there are still people taking 200 pain pills a day. Pot isn't that way. It just isn't.  :Dontknow:

----------


## Calypso Jones

George Michael decides to change his life. He's giving up Pot.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/even...unacy-80s.html

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Do I give a shit?
> 
> The USSR was a broken excuse for a nation-state, run by a succession of dementia-addled bureaucrats and war veterans with no touch for reality. It had been in a state of constant decline for decades. But Reagandidit.
> 
> For my own sake as much as yours, I'm not going to call in that "evidence" you flout, and just put you down as another progressive Republican on Ronnie Kool-Aid.


Reagan's major in college was ECONOMICS.

He wrote extensively in college about what later was derided as "Supply-Side Economics."  Classic Adam Smith economics; the same principles which launched America as a powerhouse for wealth generation.

He fell into a lucrative profession that had nothing to do with his major but he never forgot what he'd learned.  And as California governor and later as President, his proposed principles did what he said they would, to the extent they were applied.

You just can't let reality interfere with a good narrative, can you.

----------

