# Stuff and Things > The Pub >  Legalizing Pot:  40 more years of Dem Rule

## Calypso Jones

and take a good listen to the voters. Perfect.  



http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/04/26/video-pot-aficianados-as-up-to-speed-on-current-events-as-youd-expect/

----------


## Irascible Crusader

Legalizing drugs is a bad idea with no upside.  A good and just society who cares about its children protects its children from dangerous and deadly substances.

----------


## GrassrootsConservative

> Legalizing drugs is a bad idea with no upside.  A good and just society who cares about its children protects its children from *dangerous and deadly substances.*


Nobody has ever died from smoking pot. On the contrary:
Go and look up how many people die a year from prescription drugs. Then look up how many have ever died from smoking marijuana.

----------

Fearandloathing (04-29-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

and these people are freakin' bonged out.    Really?  We're gonna leave the future of the country to people like this??

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Nobody has ever died from smoking pot. On the contrary:
> Go and look up how many people die a year from prescription drugs. Then look up how many have ever died from smoking marijuana.



no doubt...they're not gonna die from smoking pot.  They're gonna die from their sheer stupidity.

----------

Archer (04-28-2013),Irascible Crusader (04-28-2013)

----------


## GrassrootsConservative

> no doubt...they're not gonna die from smoking pot.  They're gonna die from their sheer stupidity.


Speaking of stupidity, let me know when you have something besides hateful ad hom.

----------



----------


## Irascible Crusader

I can't continue to argue with these potheads who want to legalize pot so they can get high without being arrested. The moment you take a stand for keeping dangerous drugs illegal, you get hordes of these brainless zombies who want to spew their stupidity.  I've fought that battle and won.  These drooling retards just don't know when they've been beat.

----------

Common (04-28-2013)

----------


## Network

I don't do drugs.

The government is not stopping the drugs, in many cases they have been caught bringing in and distributing the drugs.

There is a rebellious side to most individuals influencing them to seek out the "unlawful" and forbidden.  It's like the kid who goes nuts as soon as he gets away from strict parents.

Besides that...you have all of the obvious things like the cost of the prison system, the failed drug war, and the crime due to drugs being a black market with only criminals involved in seeking the massive profits from the government-induced high prices.  Also, the high prices force the users into crime.

I do agree that alcohol should be illegal, however.

----------



----------


## The XL

So, the nudist is still backing up his stance of throwing non violent people in prison for something he doesn't agree with, when he practices something as controversial?

Interesting.

----------


## Common

> Nobody has ever died from smoking pot. On the contrary:
> Go and look up how many people die a year from prescription drugs. Then look up how many have ever died from smoking marijuana.


  You keep saying that and that is not true, they die just like the die when using any other psychotropic alcholhol coke, they die smashing their car and cross using, theres been many studies that show heavy weed smokers are alchohol abusers also and coke addicts and crack addicts intermittently smoke weed.

  I read an article that if they legalized weed the govt would tax it to high heaven and the age would be 21 to buy weed legally, SO what did we accomplish, we accomplished have the same weed importers, import the same weed they always did the same pushers moving weed to the 21 and under crowd and selling it a little cheaper than the taxed to high heaven weed sells for.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Speaking of stupidity, let me know when you have something besides hateful ad hom.


dude. ad hom? really? Did you SEE the video? They ARE stupid. And even MORE stupid to actually speak on film when they're stoned. MAYBE it will do one or two of them some good to see that pot doesn't make you smarter.

----------

Common (04-28-2013)

----------


## GrassrootsConservative

> You keep saying that and that is not true, they die just like the die when using any other psychotropic alcholhol coke, they die smashing their car and cross using, theres been many studies that show heavy weed smokers are alchohol abusers also and coke addicts and crack addicts intermittently smoke weed.


But the weed isn't the problem. It's all that other man-made not-natural bullshit.

----------


## The XL

Are all those in favor of criminalizing weed in favor of criminalizing alcohol?

----------


## Calypso Jones

absolutely not.

----------


## Calypso Jones

Pot screws you up way faster and more permanently than alcohol.

But you got legalized pot.    How long do you think the areas where these people dominate are going to be able to survive.

well, hell.  Maybe this is a good thing.

----------


## GrassrootsConservative

> Are all those in favor of criminalizing weed in favor of criminalizing alcohol?


Weed shouldn't be a crime. It's victimless. 

Alcohol, on the other hand, kills many alcoholics and innocent bystanders on a yearly basis.

Legalize the natural stuff, and criminalize the man-made alcohol. 

(This would be my stand if criminalizing alcohol had worked, but it didn't, prohibition taught us this.)

----------


## GrassrootsConservative

> Pot screws you up way faster and more permanently than alcohol.


Got a link? Sorry, I listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio 5 days a week. You won't get by in a political debate with me just by stating how you feel.

----------


## Network

State-mongers hate the alcohol argument.  

It highlights their fear of hippies.

The state can actually accomplish something instead of wasting resources and wealth.

Brilliant!

----------


## Calypso Jones

at least half those people weren't hippies.  They're just stoners.   and they vote.  probably for King Bones. So it does affect all of us.

----------


## The XL

> *Pot screws you up way faster and more permanently than alcohol.
> *
> But you got legalized pot.    How long do you think the areas where these people dominate are going to be able to survive.
> 
> well, hell.  Maybe this is a good thing.


Baseless conjecture.

----------


## Karl

> Got a link? Sorry, I listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio 5 days a week. You won't get by in a political debate with me just by stating how you feel.


Talent on loan from God..... 

Half his brain tied behind his back to make it fair......

The one the only Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence In Broadcasting network......

----------


## Karl

> Got a link? Sorry, I listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio 5 days a week. You won't get by in a political debate with me just by stating how you feel.


Talent on loan from God..... 

Half his brain tied behind his back to make it fair......

The one the only Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence In Broadcasting network......

----------


## Network

We can't afford any more drug war or the World's Largest Prison population.  Do a better job raising your children perhaps so the state doesn't have to?  

Damn, a fiscal conservative argument combined with implications of bad parenting.  Try to recover from that one!   :Wink:

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Baseless conjecture.



well you go right ahead then.   Hopefully in a few years you won't even know how to find your way to the polls.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Pot screws you up way faster and more permanently than alcohol.


A completely ridiculous statement that is not supported by any decent medical professional. There are entire organizations of police officers dedicated to legalizing pot, and none dedicated to support alcohol.

----------


## Network

_All of the children belong to the state and we need to move beyond the idea that the parents are responsible for the children._

-ideology of drug warriors


Sounds like something I've heard recently.

----------


## Common

All you have to do is watch the videos of the weed burnouts talking bout man they need to legalize my weed.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> All you have to do is watch the videos of the weed burnouts talking bout man they need to legalize my weed.


If I walked around and filmed a few white guys from, say, Stormfront or the KKK, talking about lynching minorities and then posted it to Youtube, would you agree that all whites want to lynch minorities?

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> well you go right ahead then.   Hopefully in a few years you won't even know how to find your way to the polls.


All conservatives secretly hope that the Pothead Left starts spacing out election day.  After Obama being re-elected by the low-information voter, perhaps a little weed will do something positive.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I can't continue to argue with these potheads who want to legalize pot so they can get high without being arrested. The moment you take a stand for keeping dangerous drugs illegal, you get hordes of these brainless zombies who want to spew their stupidity.  I've fought that battle and won.  These drooling retards just don't know when they've been beat.


You never started to argue. You don't discuss the issue, you just decry that your position is true, regardless of the evidence presented against it. I have shown, as has @Rina_Dragonborn, time and time again that countries who legalized and decriminalized drugs dramatically lowered the amount of drug abuse in their nations, and rather than develop a strong, convincing argument to rebut it, you just cop out with, "America is not (insert drug-smart nation here)." Only in your echo chamber does that make you right and us wrong.

----------

garyo (04-28-2013)

----------


## Karl

> All conservatives secretly hope that the Pothead Left starts spacing out election day.  After Obama being re-elected by the low-information voter, perhaps a little weed will do something positive.


I'm not a "Low Information" voter I'll have you know according to @Dan40 I am a NO INFORMATION VOTER....

----------


## Network

Republican policies = 40 more years of statist rule + the 40 that already passed.

----------


## garyo

> You never started to argue. You don't discuss the issue, you just decry that your position is true, regardless of the evidence presented against it. I have shown, as has @Rina_Dragonborn, time and time again that countries who legalized and decriminalized drugs dramatically lowered the amount of drug abuse in their nations, and rather than develop a strong, convincing argument to rebut it, you just cop out with, "America is not (insert drug-smart nation here)." Only in your echo chamber does that make you right and us wrong.


And Chicago has toughest gun laws in the nation, please pass that joint, legalizing pot is safer than pushing alcohol.

----------


## Guest

All of these responses are emotional.  Science has shown none of this.  The latest in research has positive things to say about it.  But whatever, right now I could give two shits what any of you think on this topic.

Huzzah, have fun...

----------

garyo (04-28-2013)

----------


## garyo

> All of these responses are emotional.  Science has shown none of this.  The latest in research has positive things to say about it.  But whatever, right now I could give two shits what any of you think on this topic.
> 
> Huzzah, have fun...


Pooh on you. :Tongue20: , although I love ya.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Republican policies = 40 more years of statist rule + the 40 that already passed.



but you totally ignore the leftist conspiracy to destroy you.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> All of these responses are emotional.  Science has shown none of this.  The latest in research has positive things to say about it.  But whatever, right now I could give two shits what any of you think on this topic.
> 
> Huzzah, have fun...


Life is short.  Play naked!

----------

garyo (04-28-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

myths about pot use.

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/bldea050426.htm

You use it if you want...go ahead. But no decriminalizing. No more young victims. Do yourself in, not others.

----------

Irascible Crusader (04-28-2013)

----------


## Guest

> myths about pot use.
> 
> http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/bldea050426.htm
> 
> You use it if you want...go ahead. But no decriminalizing. No more young victims. Do yourself in, not others.


That is about dot com.  Go to the NIH, Johns Hopkins, Harvard Medical, or Duke.  The latest research is that it can actually be used to realign neurotransmitters and get a damaged brain working again.

----------


## Guest

Studies show marijuana causes new cell growth in brain
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...the-brain.html

Cannaboids may slow brain aging

http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/2...w-brain-aging/

Ten reasons pot is good for you

http://www.businessinsider.com/healt...a-2012-11?op=1


I do not smoke pot.  I'm just tired of all the activity on drunk threads while pot is treated like heroin.

----------

garyo (04-28-2013)

----------


## Network

It doesn't even have to be about pot, it's about how the state fails with all of their money spent towards the effort to stop drug abuse.

The state is incredibly worthless and expensive, just like with everything else it attempts.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> All of these responses are emotional. Science has shown none of this. The latest in research has positive things to say about it. But whatever, right now I could give two shits what any of you think on this topic.
> 
> Huzzah, have fun...



well thanks for that visual.   LoL

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Studies show marijuana causes new cell growth in brain
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/...the-brain.html
> 
> Cannaboids may slow brain aging
> 
> http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/2...w-brain-aging/
> 
> Ten reasons pot is good for you
> 
> ...



key word 'might'. Unfortunately this is all bs. sorry.

----------

Irascible Crusader (04-28-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

At least with alcohol you get sick eventually, pass out and sometimes learn not to do that.   Some people become addicted to alcohol but way less than stoners.  Stoners get stupid...and don't get sick...but they do get more and more stupid.   And less and less moral.   Compromised mentally and emotionally.    Humans can't live like that...they can't function.  It destroys everyone.  Themselves and then those around them.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> At least with alcohol you get sick eventually, pass out and sometimes learn not to do that.   Some people become addicted to alcohol but way less than stoners.  Stoners get stupid...and don't get sick...but they do get more and more stupid.   And less and less moral.   Compromised mentally and emotionally.    Humans can't live like that...they can't function.  It destroys everyone.  Themselves and then those around them.


Pot doesn't make you stupid. Stupid stoners were stupid before they got stoned. I've known some very intelligent stoners, like Thomas Jefferson.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

Anyway, I'm honestly tired of the drug war discussions. November 2012 drove the last two nails in the drug war's coffin, nails called Colorado and Washington. Within ten years, marijuana prohibition will go the way of the dodo, just as alcohol prohibition failed and died in the 20s, and there's nothing you jackbooted thugs can do to stop it, @Calypso Jones and @saintmichaeldefendthem. 

But, you know, whatever. Flail against the tide all you want, it won't stop your tyrant state from smashing against the rocks.

----------


## Calypso Jones

LoL...jackbooted thug  Calypso Jones.   LoL  

truth....Imagine...Ows in New York...a year ago...Now imagine 10PLUS times the stoners in the same space.  That's what Europe is going thru with legalizing pot.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> LoL...jackbooted thug  Calypso Jones.   LoL
> 
> truth....Imagine...Ows in New York...a year ago...Now imagine 10PLUS times the stoners in the same space.  That's what Europe is going thru with legalizing pot.


No, they are not. They are reducing their drug abuse while we are making our drug abuse worse.

----------


## Guest

> key word 'might'. Unfortunately this is all bs. sorry.


And yours is not?  You send me to an "about dot com" and I send you to businessinsider and scientific magazines.

Do you know the stats on alcohol and domestic violence?  How about pot and domestic violence?

Ack...why bother.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-28-2013)

----------


## Archer

I can hear obummer now... Ill have them stoners voting democratic for the next 200 years!

----------

Irascible Crusader (04-29-2013)

----------


## Guest

> At least with alcohol you get sick eventually, pass out and sometimes learn not to do that.   Some people become addicted to alcohol but way less than stoners.  Stoners get stupid...and don't get sick...but they do get more and more stupid.   And less and less moral.   Compromised mentally and emotionally.    Humans can't live like that...they can't function.  It destroys everyone.  Themselves and then those around them.


How do you know this is true?  This feels like you heard it on a teen movie.  I have said that I don't smoke pot.  I don't.  I'm not saying that I've never smoked pot.  I did and still managed to have straight A's in school, hold down a part-time job, etc  I didn't drive while smoking pot.  I didn't want to do anything but play video games.

I also never stole anything.  I never was disrespectful to the elderly.  I still worked at soup kitchens.  I still followed all of the same teachings I was raised with.  I try to love my enemies, care for the needy.  My marriage was set in stone...I wouldn't have partied out on him nor would I have left him in a million years.  None of this turns you into an amoral person is true.

Same with my brother.  He even had the dredlocks for awhile.  He's now a CPA with short hair and drives a BMW.


I stopped because I got older and had a career that could be over in an instant if I was caught with pot.  Same with him.

The feeling of being drunk is far more difficult to overcome than being stoned.  A short burst of adrenalin won't remove the feelings of alcohol because alcohol is a chemical depressant.  Pot is considered a mild hallucinogen, it only enhances the feelings you are having.  If you're happy, you'll be happier, if you're depressed you'll be pensive, etc.

As for pot being some gateway drug--total crap.  I know of no one who tried pot without first having had alcohol.

----------


## Guest

> I can hear obummer now... Ill have them stoners voting democratic for the next 200 years!


Rand Paul is polling high and got rave reviews from black voters for his decriminalization push.  They're just bogarting his ideas.

----------


## Archer

> Rand Paul is polling high and got rave reviews from black voters for his decriminalization push.  They're just bogarting his ideas.


Paul is worthless. Not because of his views but because of the stupidity of the American people. I personally do not care and see pot as no different than alcohol.

But I also feel that if a person can not get a job because of their choices they are not entitled to any benefits. Smoke pot and cant pay your rent then you have a choice. Stop smoking it or be homeless because there is no aid.

Sorry I am sick of the government paying out the ass for the life choices of people.

----------


## Guest

> Paul is worthless. Not because of his views but because of the stupidity of the American people. I personally do not care and see pot as no different than alcohol.
> 
> But I also feel that if a person can not get a job because of their choices they are not entitled to any benefits. Smoke pot and cant pay your rent then you have a choice. Stop smoking it or be homeless because there is no aid.
> 
> Sorry I am sick of the government paying out the ass for the life choices of people.


Dude, people can't get a job because we have more people out of work than there are jobs, and the job opening stay open forever because it's a buyer's market, so to speak.

I don't know of a single pothead at Gamestop (doesn't drug test) that ever gave me poor service, and in fact, have hooked me up multiple times.

----------


## Archer

> Dude, people can't get a job because we have more people out of work than there are jobs, and the job opening stay open forever because it's a buyer's market, so to speak.
> 
> I don't know of a single pothead at Gamestop (doesn't drug test) that ever gave me poor service, and in fact, have hooked me up multiple times.


Hey there are plenty of pot smokers working. I know quite a few but that smoke pot; they are not pot heads. In my vernacular pot head = alcoholic. And there are plenty of jobs out there just ask the 10M+ illegals.

I was not clear in my post.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Hey there are plenty of pot smokers working. I know quite a few but that smoke pot; they are not pot heads. In my vernacular pot head = alcoholic. And there are plenty of jobs out there just ask the 10M+ illegals.
> 
> I was not clear in my post.


No credible economist will tell you that there are "plenty of jobs."

----------


## Archer

> No credible economist will tell you that there are "plenty of jobs."


Economists can kiss my ass. There are plenty of jobs but no body to take them. They are being filled by immigrants (legal and illegal) or work is being off shored. The issue is people will not take the jobs. If the market says you take 10 bucks an hour and you demand 15 the guy that takes ten gets the job.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Economists can kiss my ass. There are plenty of jobs but no body to take them. They are being filled by immigrants (legal and illegal) or work is being off shored. The issue is people will not take the jobs. If the market says you take 10 bucks an hour and you demand 15 the guy that takes ten gets the job.


That's not the reality of the situation. There are more workers than there are jobs.

----------



----------


## Archer

> That's not the reality of the situation. There are more workers than there are jobs.


Yet we have over 10M illegals and millions of legals here or coming in and getting jobs. Where have you been? We are lacking in skilled and unskilled labor because of the BS economists and the crap about tech jobs.

----------


## Guest

> Yet we have over 10M illegals and millions of legals here or coming in and getting jobs. Where have you been? We are lacking in skilled and unskilled labor because of the BS economists and the crap about tech jobs.


That's under the table jobs at below minimum wage.  Most of us don't want to take the chance of the IRS kicking own our doors for undeclared funds.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-29-2013)

----------


## Archer

> That's under the table jobs at below minimum wage.  Most of us don't want to take the chance of the IRS kicking own our doors for undeclared funds.


Actually it is not Rina. There is a real problem but the press does not want to counter the official story of get a 4 year degree to prepare for the future pushed by economists, the government and their banking masters.

----------


## Archer

http://www.themanufacturinginstitute...ap-Report.aspx




> But as the 2012 presidential candidates roam the state offering ways to “bring the jobs back,” many manufacturers say that, in fact, the jobs are already here.
> What’s missing are the skilled workers needed to fill them.
> A metal-parts factory here has been searching since the fall for a machinist, an assembly team leader and a die-setter. Another plant is offering referral bonuses for a welder. And a company that makes molds for automakers has been trying for seven months to fill four spots on the second shift.
> http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...f-workers-jobs


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...facturing-jobs



Suck it!

You say free market economy then cry when people will not take the jobs and blame starts. Bunch of bitchy little girls.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> http://www.themanufacturinginstitute...ap-Report.aspx
> 
> 
> 
> http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...facturing-jobs
> 
> 
> 
> Suck it!
> ...


Three factories looking for eight jobs between them is your idea of more jobs than workers?

----------


## Guest

> http://www.themanufacturinginstitute...ap-Report.aspx
> 
> 
> 
> http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...facturing-jobs
> 
> 
> 
> Suck it!
> ...


Uhhh, wtf?  Who's cryin' in this scenario?  Also did you read your own article?




> Through a combination of overseas competition and productivity gains, the United States has lost nearly 4 million manufacturing jobs in the past 10 years. But many manufacturers say the losses have not yielded a surplus of skilled factory workers.
> 
> and
> 
> A recent report by Deloitte for the Manufacturing Institute, based on a  survey of manufacturers, found that as many as *600,000* jobs are going  unfilled. By comparison, the unemployed in the United States number  *12.8 millio*n, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.


I'm also talking in terms of regions.  New York City is doing well because all the bankers and assholes are here.  DC metro and Virginia...same thing...they are all doing okay.  The rest of the country not so much.

----------


## Archer

> Three factories looking for eight jobs between them is your idea of more jobs than workers?


You say 8 jobs? Read the shit man.



> A recent report by Deloitte for the Manufacturing Institute, based on a survey of manufacturers, found that as many as 600,000 jobs are going unfilled. By comparison, the unemployed in the United States number 12.8 million, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.


And that is the tip:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44838614

Deport illegals and force american to work or starve. No work no eat!

----------


## Archer

> Uhhh, wtf?  Who's cryin' in this scenario?  Also did you read your own article?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also talking in terms of regions.  New York City is doing well because all the bankers and assholes are here.  DC metro and Virginia...same thing...they are all doing okay.  The rest of the country not so much.



Yes I did read them. I see jobs open every damn day. The people are just too sorry to take them and the government does not want to admit it screwed up listening to economists and the collages and banks like sucking up money.

Also I worked the fields as a teen and it was white and black and not it is all Latino. Lazy ass americans will not take the jobs. You hire illegals and legals if you want to stay in business. You contract to china if you cant get US workers because they think they are too damn good for factory work.

It is the free market trying to survive in a corrupt system that has brainwashed the people.

----------


## Archer

I am calming now and I am sorry if I was a little insulting earlier. 

Look the fact is we have millions of unfilled jobs and millions of jobs filled by non citizens. That is fact not anecdote or assumption.

There are many reasons why but it is a fact.

If you displace immigrants and fill the jobs that are unfilled instead of sitting around crying and pitying yourself things will change quickly.

If I put 3M people to work more jobs are created from the monies that are spent... Am I really the only one who knows simple macro and micro around here?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> You say 8 jobs? Read the shit man.
> 
> 
> And that is the tip:
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/id/44838614
> 
> Deport illegals and force american to work or starve. No work no eat!


Yes, 600,000 jobs - barely over half a million in a nation of 12.8 million unemployed.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> LoL...jackbooted thug  Calypso Jones.   LoL  
> 
> truth....Imagine...Ows in New York...a year ago...Now imagine 10PLUS times the stoners in the same space.  That's what Europe is going thru with legalizing pot.


That's the way they are, these Branch Paulinians.  Conservatives believe in smaller, limited, and constitutionally restrained government. We decry high taxation, federal largess, the growing welfare state, and encroachments on our civil liberties.  We express a desire to cut deeply into government, even ridding it of at least a dozen agencies and programs.  We adore the founding fathers, the advancement of liberty, and the philosophy of allowing people the maximum freedom to achieve and pursue happiness. But........

Because we believe that drugs are dangerous and should be kept illegal, we're Marxist statists rolling out the carpet for the Red Brigades to march down the streets and we're "jack booted thugs" who worship tyranny and unmitigated state power.  

I mean honestly, my 5 year old thinks on a higher plane than these retards.

----------


## Archer

> Yes, 600,000 jobs - barely over half a million in a nation of 12.8 million unemployed.


You missed the 3+ million in the link there did you not? You missed the fact that I am talking about displacing immigrants.

----------


## Guest

> That's the way they are, these Branch Paulinians.  Conservatives believe in smaller, limited, and constitutionally restrained government. We decry high taxation, federal largess, the growing welfare state, and encroachments on our civil liberties.  We express a desire to cut deeply into government, even ridding it of at least a dozen agencies and programs.  We adore the founding fathers, the advancement of liberty, and the philosophy of allowing people the maximum freedom to achieve and pursue happiness. But........
> 
> Because we believe that drugs are dangerous and should be kept illegal, we're Marxist statists rolling out the carpet for the Red Brigades to march down the streets and we're "jack booted thugs" who worship tyranny and unmitigated state power.  
> 
> I mean honestly, my 5 year old thinks on a higher plane than these retards.


Well, then let's prohibit the most dangerous one right along with it: alcohol.

----------

Archer (04-29-2013),countryboy (04-29-2013),Gemini (04-29-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-29-2013),The XL (04-29-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> That's the way they are, these Branch Paulinians.  Conservatives believe in smaller, limited, and constitutionally restrained government. We decry high taxation, federal largess, the growing welfare state, and encroachments on our civil liberties.  We express a desire to cut deeply into government, even ridding it of at least a dozen agencies and programs.  We adore the founding fathers, the advancement of liberty, and the philosophy of allowing people the maximum freedom to achieve and pursue happiness. But........
> 
> Because we believe that drugs are dangerous and should be kept illegal, we're Marxist statists rolling out the carpet for the Red Brigades to march down the streets and we're "jack booted thugs" who worship tyranny and unmitigated state power.  
> 
> I mean honestly, my 5 year old thinks on a higher plane than these retards.


You want the power to decide what substance a person can or cannot put in their bodies. There's little difference between your idea and Bloomberg's soda ban. It's the same principle, and you consistently ignore the entire concept of "precedent."

But whatever. Like I said, within ten years marijuana will be 100% legal and there's nothing you can do about it. Your foolish ideas will go the same way alcohol prohibition did.

----------

The XL (04-29-2013)

----------


## Archer

> Well, then let's prohibit the most dangerous one right along with it: alcohol.


The most dangerous to others not necessarily the user.

----------



----------


## Guest

> The most dangerous to others not necessarily the user.


There is no record of anyone dying exclusively from THC, but people have died from alcohol overdose and DTs when attempting to withdraw from chronic alcohol use.

----------


## The XL

Hey, Saintmike is still a raging statist who has no fucking clue what he's talking about.

In other news, water is still wet.

----------



----------


## The XL

> Well, then let's prohibit the most dangerous one right along with it: alcohol.


He won't have an intelligent answer.  Wanna know how I know?

He never does.

----------



----------


## Archer

> There is no record of anyone dying exclusively from THC, but people have died from alcohol overdose and DTs when attempting to withdraw from chronic alcohol use.


What I was getting at was the harm to people that had nothing to do with it. I was also not covering the death and disease in the drug culture (hard drugs not pot and pills).

----------



----------


## The XL

So, Saintmike ultimately believes that you should go away for weed, but it's okay to drink alcohol, and be a nudist to boot?  That makes zero sense, at all.  And I guarantee he won't back his assertion on why it's legally or morally correct with any coherent argument.

I know you blocked me because you were upset when I exposed you for being a hypocrite about a month ago and can't see me, but I want to further expose you for the fraud you really are in front of the others.

----------


## Guest

> So, Saintmike ultimatley believes that you should go away for weed, but it's okay to drink alcohol, and be a nudist to boot?  That makes zero sense, at all.  And I guarantee he won't back his assertion on why it's legally or morally correct with any coherent argument.


Yes.  Either he has never smoked it and doesn't realize it gives you less of an out of control feeling than being drunk or...maybe he just likes alcohol.  Who knows?

I think that SMDT is a parent, and probably scared about the world his kids are going into...you get so much propaganda from the government that you really don't know what to believe.

I remember my boyfriend and I got high with some other kids in the Ford Plant and I came home thinking my parents were still out at the movies with friends.  Instead they were playing cards with my boyfriend's parents.  Now, his parents knew he got baked but mine didn't.  The next night over dinner my mom asks me if I was taking drugs.  I can't lie to my mother--CANNOT--so I just go: "Mom, I am a straight A student.  How can I take drugs and make good grades?"

She was satisfied with this for YEARS because people believe there is a "type" and that the "type" is what you see in movies.  Half the alleged potheads put on that demeanor because that is what they think they should act like.

I smoked pot every day after school, waited a half hour, went home, did my homework and graduated as Valedictorian.

I'd probably still smoke it if I could do it and keep my job.  It kept my anxiety at bay and made me less irritable with people.  I haven't done it in about 7 years now.  Wow.  I just realized  I'm old.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Yes.  Either he has never smoked it and doesn't realize it gives you less of an out of control feeling than being drunk or...maybe he just likes alcohol.  Who knows?
> 
> I think that SMDT is a parent, and probably scared about the world his kids are going into...you get so much propaganda from the government that you really don't know what to believe.
> 
> I remember my boyfriend and I got high with some other kids in the Ford Plant and I came home thinking my parents were still out at the movies with friends.  Instead they were playing cards with my boyfriend's parents.  Now, his parents knew he got baked but mine didn't.  The next night over dinner my mom asks me if I was taking drugs.  I can't lie to my mother--CANNOT--so I just go: "Mom, I am a straight A student.  How can I take drugs and make good grades?"
> 
> She was satisfied with this for YEARS because people believe there is a "type" and that the "type" is what you see in movies.  Half the alleged potheads put on that demeanor because that is what they think they should act like.
> 
> I smoked pot every day after school, waited a half hour, went home, did my homework and graduated as Valedictorian.
> ...


Two years for me. But yeah, I used to smoke it all the time when I lived in Virginia, and I'd still walk to work and kick my job's ass. I was on top of the world.

----------


## The XL

> Yes.  Either he has never smoked it and doesn't realize it gives you less of an out of control feeling than being drunk or...maybe he just likes alcohol.  Who knows?
> 
> I think that SMDT is a parent, and probably scared about the world his kids are going into...you get so much propaganda from the government that you really don't know what to believe.
> 
> I remember my boyfriend and I got high with some other kids in the Ford Plant and I came home thinking my parents were still out at the movies with friends.  Instead they were playing cards with my boyfriend's parents.  Now, his parents knew he got baked but mine didn't.  The next night over dinner my mom asks me if I was taking drugs.  I can't lie to my mother--CANNOT--so I just go: "Mom, I am a straight A student.  How can I take drugs and make good grades?"
> 
> She was satisfied with this for YEARS because people believe there is a "type" and that the "type" is what you see in movies.  Half the alleged potheads put on that demeanor because that is what they think they should act like.
> 
> I smoked pot every day after school, waited a half hour, went home, did my homework and graduated as Valedictorian.
> ...


Saintmike is FAR more of a threat to his child than the average pothead.  Far more.

----------

Fearandloathing (04-29-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Well, then let's prohibit the most dangerous one right along with it: alcohol.


I won't miss it. I'm not an alcoholic.

----------


## Fearandloathing

No, you are leaving the country to people who talk like that when they're straight.

I just attended the 420 celebration, where 50,000 people gathered in public in Vancouver to further the cause of the legalization of marijuana.  The speakers and attendees there were are erudite and informed as anyone on this forum and more than capable of engaging the debate.

If the pot legalization world was as dim witted as this shallow TV personality tries to portray, how the fuck did we ever mange not only to get front and center on the international stage, but get it legalized in Colorado and Washington?

We hate being manipulated in the media...except when that manipulative item substantiates are own biases.

----------

GrassrootsConservative (04-29-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> No, you are leaving the country to people who talk like that when they're straight.
> 
> I just attended the 420 celebration, where 50,000 people gathered in public in Vancouver to further the cause of the legalization of marijuana.  The speakers and attendees there were are erudite and informed as anyone on this forum and more than capable of engaging the debate.
> 
> If the pot legalization world was as dim witted as this shallow TV personality tries to portray, how the fuck did we ever mange not only to get front and center on the international stage, but get it legalized in Colorado and Washington?
> 
> We hate being manipulated in the media...except when that manipulative item substantiates are own biases.


In case you haven't heard, Colorado is a dismal failure. The law allowed counties to make their own decision on enforcement of marijuana laws. Those counties that decriminalized it were quickly swamped by the 'wrong' sort of people and they changed back to having it illegal.  Colorado is a microcosm for the whole debate, people thinking that legalization is a good idea until it actually happens and they see the ramifications.

----------


## Fearandloathing

> I won't miss it. I'm not an alcoholic.


I am an alcoholic and I haven't missed it in nearly 23 years. 

Here's the point:  Millions of man hours are lost EVERY DAY due to drunkenness and alcoholism.  Millions of people die every year as a result of drunkenness and alcoholism.  Thousands of people are injured weekly dues to violence associated with drunkenness and alcoholism.

Hundreds of thousands of families are broken, children left with one parent because of drunkenness and alcoholism and drunkenness.

Hundreds of millions of people are in jail or have records as a result of actions they performed while drunk.

When was the last time you ever heard of anyone getting into a fist fight because they were stoned?

----------

The XL (04-29-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I am an alcoholic and I haven't missed it in nearly 23 years. 
> 
> Here's the point:  Millions of man hours are lost EVERY DAY due to drunkenness and alcoholism.  Millions of people die every year as a result of drunkenness and alcoholism.  Thousands of people are injured weekly dues to violence associated with drunkenness and alcoholism.
> 
> Hundreds of thousands of families are broken, children left with one parent because of drunkenness and alcoholism and drunkenness.
> 
> Hundreds of millions of people are in jail or have records as a result of actions they performed while drunk.
> 
> When was the last time you ever heard of anyone getting into a fist fight because they were stoned?


Don't know. Not enough people get stoned in public to make a statistic.

----------


## Fearandloathing

> In case you haven't heard, Colorado is a dismal failure. The law allowed counties to make their own decision on enforcement of marijuana laws. Those counties that decriminalized it were quickly swamped by the 'wrong' sort of people and they changed back to having it illegal.  Colorado is a microcosm for the whole debate, people thinking that legalization is a good idea until it actually happens and they see the ramifications.



Not part of my argument.

How the current administration goes about the implementation of a plebiscite is entirely irrelevant to whether people who support the legalization and/or use marijuana are slobbering, moronic, idiots....

I have NEVER over estimated the America law making system....you are the people who wrote how many thousands of pages for Obamacare that nobody even read...

Don't blame the people, blame the law makers.  I suggest if they had a few tokes things might have worked out better...

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Not part of my argument.
> 
> How the current administration goes about the implementation of a plebiscite is entirely irrelevant to whether people who support the legalization and/or use marijuana are slobbering, moronic, idiots....
> 
> I have NEVER over estimated the America law making system....you are the people who wrote how many thousands of pages for Obamacare that nobody even read...
> 
> Don't blame the people, blame the law makers.  I suggest if they had a few tokes things might have worked out better...


I wrote Obamacare?  Now I'm beginning to think you're

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> In case you haven't heard, Colorado is a dismal failure. The law allowed counties to make their own decision on enforcement of marijuana laws. Those counties that decriminalized it were quickly swamped by the 'wrong' sort of people and they changed back to having it illegal.  Colorado is a microcosm for the whole debate, people thinking that legalization is a good idea until it actually happens and they see the ramifications.


I'm not the type of person who thinks there's only one way to do something.

----------


## Guest

If people took basic chemistry class and had the sense to read the actual scientific research they would understand why people become violent while imbibing a depressant (alcohol) and nonviolent when imbibing a mild hallucinogen (pot).

----------


## Fearandloathing

> I wrote Obamacare?  Now I'm beginning to think you're


That's insulting.

Not even an idiot could come to the conclusion I suggested YOU wrote Obamacare.

Trite, shallow, diversionary and a stupid and inept attempt to take a cheap shot through an inane troll tactic.

----------

GrassrootsConservative (04-29-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-29-2013)

----------


## Fearandloathing

> Don't know. Not enough people get stoned in public to make a statistic.


So you admit then you are either too lazy or too stupid to even think it through?   You don't have Google to do a search?

Being so self admittedly ignorant of the facts, admit you don't have even a vague clue, but have NO hesitation in offering an opinion that would, in intelligent circles require at least a thin veneer of knowledge?

Thanks

----------

GrassrootsConservative (04-29-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I'm not the type of person who thinks there's only one way to do something.


I know. You're like so many socialists who think that socialism will work if only tried the correct way.  No matter how many times it fails, you don't get the message.  Wait, what were we talking about?

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> That's insulting.
> 
> Not even an idiot could come to the conclusion I suggested YOU wrote Obamacare.
> 
> Trite, shallow, diversionary and a stupid and inept attempt to take a cheap shot through an inane troll tactic.


I don't suppose you could scroll back and read what you wrote, genius.

----------


## Guest

2Yi31yE.jpghttp://imgur.com/2Yi31yE

Open the chart.  More people die from Big Pharm's contributions.  You'll note that the CDC indicates death from alcohol more common than heroin.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> So you admit then you are either too lazy or too stupid to even think it through?   You don't have Google to do a search?
> 
> Being so self admittedly ignorant of the facts, admit you don't have even a vague clue, but have NO hesitation in offering an opinion that would, in intelligent circles require at least a thin veneer of knowledge?
> 
> Thanks


Sounds like the issue is getting away from you and your now falling back on emotional outbursts.  It's all the same. There's no logical argument for legalizing dangerous poisons and exposing children to the effects of it, so it makes sense that you would beat your chest and shriek like a West African baboon hoping that a display of primal savagery will ward off reason and logic.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I know. You're like so many socialists who think that socialism will work if only tried the correct way.  No matter how many times it fails, you don't get the message.  Wait, what were we talking about?


Well, it's sure as hell better than being a shallow-minded coward who only tries something once and then gives it up. If more human beings had your ridiculous mindset, we'd still be fire-worshiping cavemen.

----------


## GrassrootsConservative

> Sounds like the issue is getting away from you and your now falling back on emotional outbursts.  It's all the same. There's no logical argument for legalizing dangerous poisons and exposing children to the effects of it, so it makes sense that you would beat your chest and shriek like a West African baboon hoping that a display of primal savagery will ward off reason and logic.


"Legalizing dangerous poisons"? How do you explain doctors prescribing their poisons then? Pills will kill you if you take too much. I'm sorry, I thought that was legal.

Poison is defined by mirriam-webster as 


> 1 a substance that through its chemical action usually kills, injures, or impairs an organism. 2 something destructive or harmful.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poison

So by your own argument, doctors should have to operate from dark alleys right? Because they DO prescribe dangerous poisons on a daily basis.

----------


## The XL

I still find it fucking hilarious that Saintmike has had the nerve to complain about people insulting him.

Lmfao.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Well, it's sure as hell better than being a shallow-minded coward who only tries something once and then gives it up. If more human beings had your ridiculous mindset, we'd still be fire-worshiping cavemen.


I never tried pot even once.

----------



----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I never tried pot even once.


I never suggested you did, and you know it. Play that game with someone else.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I never suggested you did, and you know it. Play that game with someone else.


Then I have no idea what you were talking about.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Then I have no idea what you were talking about.


The same thing we've been talking about. That Colorado tried one method of legalizing pot and failed (a story I doubt) does not mean that pot legalization is a failed effort. It means that way of doing it is a failed effort.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Legalizing drugs is a bad idea with no upside.  A good and just society who cares about its children protects its children from dangerous and deadly substances.


So, the fact that pushers wouldn't be around to infest school areas and sell to schoolchildren or recruit them into gangs is not an upside?
I guess it would be a downside for the pushers.

----------



----------


## Irascible Crusader

> The same thing we've been talking about. That Colorado tried one method of legalizing pot and failed (a story I doubt) does not mean that pot legalization is a failed effort. It means that way of doing it is a failed effort.


Colorado learned that when you legalized pot you get more potheads and potheads suck.  What correct way is there to promote and normalize the drug culture?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Colorado learned that when you legalized pot you get more potheads and potheads suck.  What correct way is there to promote and normalize the drug culture?


"Potheads suck" is your own bigoted opinion, don't pass it off as fact.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> "Potheads suck" is your own bigoted opinion, don't pass it off as fact.


I've had to deal with them, live with them. It's fact.

----------


## Gemini

Pot.

Criminalizing really pans out quite well...

...if you are a government with employees, a government with the ability to fine you, a cop needing a reason to show up to work, a private prison institution, a prison guard, a government contractor...

Follow the money.  Usually the most tenacious groups against legalization of illegal substances are gigantic companies, followed by an ignorant populace.

Listen, I'm a Mormon, I am not going to do the stuff out of personal choice.  However, try landing a decent job in the private sector when you can't pass a drug test.  The market processes alone will fix the bulk of the problem.

Parenting itself will help cure the problem.  Just because something is legal doesn't mean we let our kids do it.  And another thing, you would put a lot of drug cartels out of business.  Gobs of violent crime would be reduced because people don't have to operate behind in the shadows anymore.  The price would go down on such products, and there would be a short term proliferation of all manner of substances.

I personally would legalize everything.  EVERYTHING.  The dumb ones will kill themselves and a few other innocents in the process, but then those who are smart will either self regulate, quit, or not touch it to begin with, and they would be a parent to their children for starters.  It would get worse before it got better, but it would be much better than what we have now.

----------



----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I've had to deal with them, live with them. It's fact.


So have I. It's no more a fact than "black people rape and murder" and "white people are racist."

----------


## GrassrootsConservative

> So have I. It's no more a fact than "black people rape and murder" and "white people are racist."


Or "Native Americans talk to trees."

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-29-2013)

----------


## Fearandloathing

> I don't suppose you could scroll back and read what you wrote, genius.


Cheap shots are your forte then?

Genius?   am I the guy who took the low road?  

Come on troll.....try debating...


But then you would need something more than a single digit IQ.


Ignore.

----------


## Fearandloathing

> Then I have no idea what you were talking about.


And that is new how?

since when have you been actually in the debate as opposed to drive-by cheap shots?

----------


## Fearandloathing

> Sounds like the issue is getting away from you and your now falling back on emotional outbursts.  It's all the same. There's no logical argument for legalizing dangerous poisons and exposing children to the effects of it, so it makes sense that you would beat your chest and shriek like a West African baboon hoping that a display of primal savagery will ward off reason and logic.



Give it a fucking rest.

Emotional outbursts indeed.   The fact is you admitted being ignorant of the facts concerning the use of marijuana. Period paragraph.

You are the one who is unenlightened and refuse to even look at the evidence before you but instead engage in empty rhetoric and name calling.  

You clearly do not understand the issue.  By claiming without one shred of evidence that marijuana is a poisonous substance is mere internet propagandizing and an absolute refusal to engage in enlightened debate.  Useless is any attempt to have a conversation with you about the health benefits of cannabis and if anyone is behaving like an ape, I suggest you look in the mirror to see who it is..



But if ignorance is bliss, you are clearly a very happy man.

----------


## Calypso Jones

Colorado legislators are considering revoking the legalization....UNLESS they can get the voters to allow them to put any amount of tax on the drug. :lol: Looks like these stoners have brand new gov't sanctioned dealers.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Colorado legislators are considering revoking the legalization....UNLESS they can get the voters to allow them to put any amount of tax on the drug. :lol: Looks like these stoners have brand new gov't sanctioned dealers.


Most pro-legalization people I know are totally okay with the gov't taxing it. The revenue it would generate alone would fund the state budget without relying on the income tax.

----------

Fearandloathing (04-29-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Most pro-legalization people I know are totally okay with the gov't taxing it. The revenue it would generate alone would fund the state budget without relying on the income tax.


and bancrupt the rest of the citizens with theft, burglaries, property damage, property depreciation, business losses, welfare, unemployment, child abuse and abandonment,  traffic accidents and deaths, hospital fees, assaults. 

you really think they'll use the funds for what they say they will? And do stoners actually work or do they work at criminal activities.

----------

Irascible Crusader (04-29-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Most pro-legalization people I know are totally okay with the gov't taxing it. The revenue it would generate alone would fund the state budget without relying on the income tax.


It's the marijuana debate that reveals potheads for what they really are, raging statists looking for an excuse to give government more power and more money...even (especially) the ones pretending to be libertarians.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> and bancrupt the rest of the citizens with theft, burglaries, property damage, property depreciation, business losses, welfare, unemployment, child abuse and abandonment,  traffic accidents and deaths, hospital fees, assaults. 
> 
> you really think they'll use the funds for what they say they will? And do stoners actually work or do they work at criminal activities.


Now I know you're full of shit. Cite five incidents of stoners committing any sort of crime. _JUST STONERS_, not crack whores that also use pot. Just five incidents of people who only smoke pot committing crime.

----------

Fearandloathing (04-29-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

Sit on a grand jury sometime and see what these people are up to. They are detrimental to society, themselves and the people that love them.  They destroy everything they touch.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> It's the marijuana debate that reveals potheads for what they really are, raging statists looking for an excuse to give government more power and more money...even (especially) the ones pretending to be libertarians.


And up is down, black is white, and the thinf that looks like, walks like, and quacks like a duck is a moose.

You know, I was about to get onto @The XL for insulting your intelligence, but that post was nothing but pure stupid.

----------


## GrassrootsConservative

> It's the marijuana debate that reveals potheads for what they really are, raging statists looking for an excuse to give government more power and more money...even (especially) the ones pretending to be libertarians.


Could I get a response to post #98 please?

----------


## The XL

> *and bancrupt the rest of the citizens with theft, burglaries, property damage, property depreciation, business losses, welfare, unemployment, child abuse and abandonment,  traffic accidents and deaths, hospital fees, assaults.* 
> 
> you really think they'll use the funds for what they say they will? And do stoners actually work or do they work at criminal activities.


Based on what?

Using that line of logic, we should ban religion too because it starts wars, creates homophobes, etc.

Right?

----------

GrassrootsConservative (04-29-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Sit on a grand jury sometime and see what these people are up to. They are detrimental to society, themselves and the people that love them.  They destroy everything they touch.


Give some actual examples of pot only users, then. From credible sources.

----------


## The XL

> Could I get a response to post #98 please?


I'm going to let you in on a little secret.  Don't tell anyone.

Saintmike isn't very smart.  He doesn't actually give legitimate responses.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> And up is down, black is white, and the thinf that looks like, walks like, and quacks like a duck is a moose.
> 
> You know, I was about to get onto @The XL for insulting your intelligence, but that post was nothing but pure stupid.


Don't bother to defend me to people I have on permanent ignore, but thanks for the thought!  :Cool20:

----------


## Fearandloathing

> Most pro-legalization people I know are totally okay with the gov't taxing it. The revenue it would generate alone would fund the state budget without relying on the income tax.


I insist on it.  A user tax is the fairest AND it allows stricter controls and while that may sound like I am abandoning my libertarian roots, I agree that some things need to be regulated, who drives, who flies, who commands a ship and who drinks or uses drugs.

And the revenue will be welcomed

----------

GrassrootsConservative (04-29-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-29-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I insist on it.  A user tax is the fairest AND it allows stricter controls and while that may sound like I am abandoning my libertarian roots, I agree that some things need to be regulated, who drives, who flies, who commands a ship and who drinks or uses drugs.
> 
> And the revenue will be welcomed


Yep, all the libertarian principles fly out the window so prevalent is your lust to legalize drugs; even giving government a brand new way to separate people from their money as if they didn't have enough avenues already.

I respect real Libertarians who see the same danger I do and want to simply decriminalize marijuana and not turn it into a wealth redistribution scheme.  The rest of you are hypocrites.

----------


## Fearandloathing

> Now I know you're full of shit. Cite five incidents of stoners committing any sort of crime. _JUST STONERS_, not crack whores that also use pot. Just five incidents of people who only smoke pot committing crime.


Great post.  Not very many crack heads have much time for pot.  The laws that pot smokers break are those associated with pot, they are not usually big drinkers and the most recent survey indicated they tend to be above average intelligence and college educated.

The myth pot users are fiends was created in the 1950's by J. Edgar Hoover who used his considerable public relations resources to produce several films.  It was there that the term "gateway drug" was invented.

----------


## Calypso Jones

that's right.  /give the gov't more of your money while they make you a poor dumb drug using multiple times voter.

----------


## GrassrootsConservative

> I insist on it.  A user tax is the fairest AND it allows stricter controls and while that may sound like I am abandoning my libertarian roots, I agree that some things need to be regulated, who drives, who flies, who commands a ship and who drinks or uses drugs.
> 
> And the revenue will be welcomed


Maybe eventually we can break even and stop losing money while we keep actual criminals in prison.

----------


## garyo

> I insist on it.  A user tax is the fairest AND it allows stricter controls and while that may sound like I am abandoning my libertarian roots, I agree that some things need to be regulated, who drives, who flies, who commands a ship and who drinks or uses drugs.
> 
> And the revenue will be welcomed


I agree to a certain degree, the more taxes raised the more the Idiots spend.

----------


## Guest

> Yep, all the libertarian principles fly out the window so prevalent is your lust to legalize drugs; even giving government a brand new way to separate people from their money as if they didn't have enough avenues already.


Libertarian principles are that you are to be left alone to live your life as you see fit UNTIL you commit an actual crime, versus have a vice others don't like.

Locking up nonviolent people is not just.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Yep, all the libertarian principles fly out the window so prevalent is your lust to legalize drugs; even giving government a brand new way to separate people from their money as if they didn't have enough avenues already.
> 
> I respect real Libertarians who see the same danger I do and want to simply decriminalize marijuana and not turn it into a wealth redistribution scheme.  The rest of you are hypocrites.


And you have no idea that "libertarian" is a philisophical spectrum that contains multiple degrees of "libertarian." @Fearandloathing may not be as libertarian as @Rina_Dragonborn or @Maximatic, but that doesn't mean he isn't at all just because he supports one tax. In fact, a marijuana tax is no different than any other consumption tax, which @Rina_Dragonborn does advocate.

----------

Fearandloathing (04-30-2013)

----------


## GrassrootsConservative

> that's right.  /give the gov't more of your money while they make you a poor dumb drug using multiple times voter.


Our government needs TO PRODUCE A PRODUCT.

What part don't you understand about this? Our government DOES NOTHING. It does not create, produce, construct, or do anything else to create profit. 

They need money. We are in debt. If they can put out a product and start making money off it, who the hell are you to bitch about that?

----------

Fearandloathing (04-30-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> that's right.  /give the gov't more of your money while they make you a poor dumb drug using multiple times voter.


I'm still waiting for you to prove your crazy ass claims that droves of evil pot users are looting stores and raping and murdering people.

----------



----------


## Guest

> that's right.  /give the gov't more of your money while they make you a poor dumb drug using multiple times voter.


Laws don't stop people from doing anything.  They punish you afterwards.  If I wanted to do drugs I would do them.  Nothing you say or do would stop me.

The people who do drugs and vote Democrat haven't changed, but it will be another nail in the coffin of people who try to pretend their party is the party of small government and federalism.  Thomas Jefferson smoked pot, Calypso.  He wrote about it.  It didn't stop him from writing our Declaration of Independence nor did it prevent him from being a great president.

----------

Fearandloathing (04-30-2013),GrassrootsConservative (04-29-2013)

----------


## Fearandloathing

> Yep, all the libertarian principles fly out the window so prevalent is your lust to legalize drugs; even giving government a brand new way to separate people from their money as if they didn't have enough avenues already.
> 
> I respect real Libertarians who see the same danger I do and want to simply decriminalize marijuana and not turn it into a wealth redistribution scheme.  The rest of you are hypocrites.


How about you cite ONE credible source for pot being a "poisonous substance".  When you can demonstrate that you are not a complete bullshit artist we will deal with the rest of your crap./
..

FFS, first you claim pot is poison, then anyone who supports its legalization is a "statist" then claim I'm some sort of hypocrite as I agree with the principle of driver's licenses etc.

At least try to be consistent, we don't expect you to have any accuracy or content.....

And anyone who would even suggest remotely that I am a statist has had their head up their ass so long their brain has decomposed.

----------



----------


## Guest

> And you have no idea that "libertarian" is a philisophical spectrum that contains multiple degrees of "libertarian." @Fearandloathing may not be as libertarian as @Rina_Dragonborn or @Maximatic, but that doesn't mean he isn't at all just because he supports one tax. In fact, a marijuana tax is no different than any other consumption tax, which @Rina_Dragonborn does advocate.


I support no income tax and consumption tax only, yes.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-29-2013)

----------


## Guest

> Our government needs TO PRODUCE A PRODUCT.
> 
> What part don't you understand about this? Our government DOES NOTHING. It does not create, produce, construct, or do anything else to create profit. 
> 
> They need money. We are in debt. If they can put out a product and start making money off it, who the hell are you to bitch about that?


Amen, Brother @Grassroots Conservative!  Amen.

----------

GrassrootsConservative (04-29-2013)

----------


## The XL

> And up is down, black is white, and the thinf that looks like, walks like, and quacks like a duck is a moose.
> 
> You know, I was about to get onto @The XL for insulting your intelligence, but that post was nothing but pure stupid.


The only quality that surpasses Saintmikes lack of intelligence is his evilness.  

He wants to subjectively throw non violent marijuana users in a cell while giving a pass to consumers of alcohol.  And he can't back up his assertion on why weed is so bad.

He's both evil and stupid.  A dangerous combination.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I support no income tax and consumption tax only, yes.


Right. The amount of revenue generated just from the pot tax alone (whoch is a consumption tax, imo) would allow us to do away with the income tax without all the hysterical income tax supporters having anything to screech about.

----------

GrassrootsConservative (04-29-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> And you have no idea that "libertarian" is a philisophical spectrum that contains multiple degrees of "libertarian." @Fearandloathing may not be as libertarian as @Rina_Dragonborn or @Maximatic, but that doesn't mean he isn't at all just because he supports one tax. In fact, a marijuana tax is no different than any other consumption tax, which @Rina_Dragonborn does advocate.


I'll accept this lecture from anyone but you or Rina.  We conservatives want limited government, a respect for civil liberties, a curbing of military expansionism, an elimination of every agency and program that isn't justified by the Constitution...but because we disagree with you on one issue, we're tyranny loving, state worshipping statists who pine away for more and more government.  You're the one who takes things to extremes, my friend, not I.

----------


## The XL

Going by Saintmike and Calypsos line of logic, we should be able to imprison them for being dangerous religious extremists.

----------



----------


## GrassrootsConservative

> Laws don't stop people from doing anything.  They punish you afterwards.  If I wanted to do drugs I would do them.  Nothing you say or do would stop me.
> 
> The people who do drugs and vote Democrat haven't changed, but it will be another nail in the coffin of people who try to pretend their party is the party of small government and federalism.  Thomas Jefferson smoked pot, Calypso.  He wrote about it.  It didn't stop him from writing our Declaration of Independence nor did it prevent him from being a great president.


Michael Phelps smoked pot and he's won more swimming Olympic medals than anyone else.

----------



----------


## Guest

> Right. The amount of revenue generated just from the pot tax alone (whoch is a consumption tax, imo) would allow us to do away with the income tax without all the hysterical income tax supporters having anything to screech about.


Yep, absolutely.

----------

GrassrootsConservative (04-29-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-29-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Michael Phelps smoked pot and he's won more swimming Olympic medals than anyone else.


The trend is for people to lose ambition and not achieve greatness when on weed. Students go from straight A's to D's and F's regularly on weed.  I'm continually amazed at how you people delude yourselves into thinking that people's lives are nonplussed by marijuana.  You keep promoting the "harmless" myth like it's some sort of sick religion that defies all facts.

----------


## Guest

> I'll accept this lecture from anyone but you or Rina.  We conservatives want limited government, a respect for civil liberties, a curbing of military expansionism, an elimination of every agency and program that isn't justified by the Constitution...but because we disagree with you on one issue, we're tyranny loving, state worshipping statists who pine away for more and more government.  You're the one who takes things to extremes, my friend, not I.


I love how I'm dragged into this.  I'm talking about the evils of locking up *nonviolent* people who make choices someone doesn't approve of and that is not "libertarian" to this cat.  Whatevs, ninja.

----------


## Fearandloathing

> Sit on a grand jury sometime and see what these people are up to. They are detrimental to society, themselves and the people that love them.  They destroy everything they touch.


And you have? 

What grand jury was this that heard evidence of gang rapes and the other crap you claimed and why hasn't the world heard of it?

With some 7,000 pro legalization sites and an army of cops and lawyers arrayed to keep it illegal so they can keep their jobs, how is it that none of this is being posted on even questionable sites, that more and more evidence to the contrary is being published daily, that even some police have organized to make it legal and you're the only one who knows about all this crime?

More myth.

Hundreds of studies have clearly demonstrated that aggressive tendencies are damped by THC, that unlike hard drugs and alcohol the cannabis user is never out of his ethical realm but, there all this gang rape cause by marijuana that no one know about.

Hmmmm

----------



----------


## Guest

> The trend is for people to lose ambition and not achieve greatness when on weed. Students go from straight A's to D's and F's regularly on weed.  I'm continually amazed at how you people delude yourselves into thinking that people's lives are nonplussed by marijuana.  You keep promoting the "harmless" myth like it's some sort of sick religion that defies all facts.


Two people on here have met me in real life, one of them even worked temporarily for my firm.  Both of them can testify that I am a kick ass over-achiever...and when I was in high school and undergrad I smoked pot.  I had straight A's and never was a burnout.

No one knew--which is also a testimony to the "quit anytime" because (unlike alcohol and most other drugs that aren't hallucinogens) there is no chemical dependency associated with it.

Had I been arrested for something that was so harmless no one ever knew about, I wouldn't be contributing close to (starts to cry) $150k+ to the income tax coffers each year to pay for your military, roads, etc.

You believe in myths.  Most people I know that have smoked pot wear suits.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I'll accept this lecture from anyone but you or Rina.  We conservatives want limited government, a respect for civil liberties, a curbing of military expansionism, an elimination of every agency and program that isn't justified by the Constitution...but because we disagree with you on one issue, we're tyranny loving, state worshipping statists who pine away for more and more government.  You're the one who takes things to extremes, my friend, not I.


I have never said that this one issue is what makes you a jack-booted thug. It's multiple issues that, when put together, make you a jack-booted thug, if only a minor one. The two major reasons I say that are:

1) You want the government to control what substances you can and cannot consume. 
2) You defend the government when it institutes martial law.

You have a very shallow way if thinking. You ignore the concept of precedence and have no sense of foresight.

----------



----------


## The XL

Let's lock up people for eating bad food and being fat, it makes you lazy, ergo, a criminal.

----------

Fearandloathing (04-30-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Could I get a response to post #98 please?


Let me tell you where you stand in my totem pole in this discussion.(a little Indian lingo for you).  You're one of about 20 or more zombies that spawn from thin air whenever anyone voices opposition to legalization.  Calypso, Archer, and I, and others like us are always outnumbered at least 8 to 1.  Your arguments are easily defeated, but that doesn't stop the incessant onslaught. It's like playing fucking wack-a-mole with you people.  I've already fought this war on this forum and even took the trophy on a hosted one on one debate.  I've run my race and my arguments held sway.

That's why I don't get around to answer every pestering question from the innumerable hordes of potheads out there.

----------


## Guest

> Let's lock up people for eating bad food and being fat, it makes you lazy, ergo, a criminal.


Or being so fat that they drive up our insurance costs.

----------


## Guest

> Let me tell you where you stand in my totem pole in this discussion.(a little Indian lingo for you).  You're one of about 20 or more zombies that spawn from thin air whenever anyone voices opposition to legalization.  Calypso, Archer, and I, and others like us are always outnumbered at least 8 to 1.  Your arguments are easily defeated, but that doesn't stop the incessant onslaught. It's like playing fucking wack-a-mole with you people.  I've already fought this war on this forum and even took the trophy on a hosted one on one debate.  I've run my race and my arguments held sway.
> 
> That's why I don't get around to answer every pestering question from the innumerable hordes of potheads out there.


You took a trophy because TRAT (no offense) doesn't know the law, doesn't know case law, and tried to take a moral position.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-29-2013)

----------


## Fearandloathing

> that's right.  /give the gov't more of your money while they make you a poor dumb drug using multiple times voter.


And you don't drive a car?

Buy booze?

How much do you pay the government in percentage terms for a drink of booze?

Would you be surprised if I said 60%?

Your argument is irrational.  If you are against its legalization it is idiocy and pure stubbornness to rail against its taxation.

After all these years of being attacked for being a conservative it is refreshing to be attacked on a matter or pure principle while the attackers engage in the same tactic as the left when they attack conservatives.

Now if one of you could substantiate one of the posts we would have a debate.  But with rashly false claims like cannabis being a poison and claim of gangs of pot fiends roaming suburban neighborhoods looking for women to rape and dogs to kill tend to show a rather blind and intubated mind set.

Now watch, my conservatism which has been steadfast ten years in these forums will be challenged just as my libertarianism has been questioned. 

They call that reason.

----------


## The XL

I'm probably the cleanest eater, healthiest person, and best athlete on here, and I've never smoked pot once.  You've admitted you're a fat nobody.    You don't know what the fuck you're rambling about.

Despite that, I believe in the right to do what you wish if it doesn't effect somebody because I believe in freedom and because I'm not an evil person.

----------



----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I have never said that this one issue is what makes you a jack-booted thug. It's multiple issues that, when put together, make you a jack-booted thug, if only a minor one. The two major reasons I say that are:
> 
> 1) You want the government to control what substances you can and cannot consume. 
> 2) You defend the government when it institutes martial law.
> 
> You have a very shallow way if thinking. You ignore the concept of precedence and have no sense of foresight.


1) I want dangerous poisons off the streets so my kids and my family won't be endangered by sheer proximity to them. That's a far cry from wanting government to have a say in everything we eat or drink.  Stuff the drama.

2)  I never have ever supported the imposition of martial law. The only thing I ever opposed is the ridiculous examples that some of you wingnuts post on this forum as examples of martial law.  Being American and thereby unacquainted with the real thing, you dramatize every police action to be the death knell to civil liberties.  Not going along with your ridiculous litany of bullshit does not make me a supporter of martial law. If anything, it makes me a supporter of rational thought and keeping a level head.

Shallow?  Look in the mirror because it doesn't take much to get your type going off on a kookie tangent.

----------


## Guest

> 1) I want dangerous poisons off the streets so my kids and my family won't be endangered by sheer proximity to them. That's a far cry from wanting government to have a say in everything we eat or drink.  Stuff the drama.


It's not a dangerous poison.  Drano is.  If you studied chemistry (and now I'm thinking you haven't) then you'd be able to discern that it is categorized as "mild".

Is "pop" a dangerous poison, drama queen?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Let me tell you where you stand in my totem pole in this discussion.(a little Indian lingo for you).  You're one of about 20 or more zombies that spawn from thin air whenever anyone voices opposition to legalization.  Calypso, Archer, and I, and others like us are always outnumbered at least 8 to 1.  Your arguments are easily defeated, but that doesn't stop the incessant onslaught. It's like playing fucking wack-a-mole with you people.  I've already fought this war on this forum and even took the trophy on a hosted one on one debate.  I've run my race and my arguments held sway.
> 
> That's why I don't get around to answer every pestering question from the innumerable hordes of potheads out there.


As Rina said, you won because I threw the debate. I knew my ignorance of the law, because I'm a moral person and not a letter of the law person. I instead used that debate to defend my moral perspective on the issue.

----------


## Fearandloathing

> I support no income tax and consumption tax only, yes.


And there I agree.

But, somehow I have lost claim to my beloved libertarianism while you have not.

But, I suspect that has to do with the fact that neither the entrenched left nor the entrenched right know what is libertarianism and seem to confuse it with anarchy.  Political science seems to confuse so many Americans, perhaps because it is called a science when it is a study of the implementation of philosophy.

The libertarian is not opposed to government, in fact the opposite, insist that government be strong.  But, that government remain small and mostly out of the lives of people.  As a right leaning libertarian I support a fair tax system so long as government have sufficient civilian oversight to ensure the people's money is spent wisely.

With that, a consumption tax applied at a flat rate is the fairest, most economical form of tax should be, since the government employs business unpaid to calculate and collect it.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> You took a trophy because TRAT (no offense) doesn't know the law, doesn't know case law, and tried to take a moral position.


None taken. I know the depth of my ignorance, unlike some people here whose names start with @saintmichaeldefendthem and @Calypso Jones. I chose to make my side a moral stance, even if it meant losing a superficial debate.

----------

Fearandloathing (04-30-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> And there I agree.
> 
> But, somehow I have lost claim to my beloved libertarianism while you have not.
> 
> But, I suspect that has to do with the fact that neither the entrenched left nor the entrenched right know what is libertarianism and seem to confuse it with anarchy.  Political science seems to confuse so many Americans, perhaps because it is called a science when it is a study of the implementation of philosophy.
> 
> The libertarian is not opposed to government, in fact the opposite, insist that government be strong.  But, that government remain small and mostly out of the lives of people.  As a right leaning libertarian I support a fair tax system so long as government have sufficient civilian oversight to ensure the people's money is spent wisely.
> 
> With that, a consumption tax applied at a flat rate is the fairest, most economical form of tax should be, since the government employs business unpaid to calculate and collect it.


Actually, @saintmichaeldefendthem doesn't believe @Rina_Dragonborn is a libertarian either.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> You took a trophy because TRAT (no offense) doesn't know the law, doesn't know case law, and tried to take a moral position.


Oh sweet benevolent, hindsight!  Come hither to me with graceful arms and remedial balms and soothe my rueful butt-hurt.  Perish the sting of defeat and bereave from my tormented mind all memory of disgrace.

----------


## Fearandloathing

> I'm probably the cleanest eater, healthiest person, and best athlete on here, and I've never smoked pot once.  You've admitted you're a fat nobody.    You don't know what the fuck you're rambling about.
> 
> Despite that, I believe in the right to do what you wish if it doesn't effect somebody because I believe in freedom and because I'm not an evil person.


If that's directed at me  I suggest you back down.

Calling someone a "fat nobody" gets you nowhere bud.

----------


## Guest

> None taken. I know the depth of my ignorance, unlike some people here whose names start with @saintmichaeldefendthem and @Calypso Jones. I chose to make my side a moral stance, even if it meant losing a superficial debate.


Well, I couldn't argue the definition of kindness other than to say, my smoopums, that it looks like you.

**_bows_**

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-29-2013)

----------


## garyo

> I'm probably the cleanest eater, healthiest person, and best athlete on here, and I've never smoked pot once.  You've admitted you're a fat nobody.    You don't know what the fuck you're rambling about.
> 
> Despite that, I believe in the right to do what you wish if it doesn't effect somebody because I believe in freedom and because I'm not an evil person.


You may be a lot of things but the best athlete on here is not one of them, I walked my dog today, so there.

----------

The XL (04-29-2013)

----------


## Guest

> If that's directed at me  I suggest you back down.
> 
> Calling someone a "fat nobody" gets you nowhere bud.


LOL, no.  SaintMike always admits to being pudgy.

----------


## Fearandloathing

> Actually, @saintmichaeldefendthem doesn't believe @Rina_Dragonborn is a libertarian either.


I am fast losing any concern about what stwhateverthefuck thinks about anything.

He's a sloppy troll who cannot substantiate ONE claim and insists on passing off empty blather as fact.

Welcome the ignore button and love life.

----------


## Guest

> Oh sweet benevolent, hindsight!  Come hither to me with graceful arms and remedial balms and soothe my rueful butt-hurt.  Perish the sting of defeat and bereave from my tormented mind all memory of disgrace.


If you'd like to debate me on the topic, one on one, with @Trinnity judging bring it.  I'm not a sweet 22 year old kid who hasn't had this debate a million times at at top ten law school.  How's Friday?  I'll even drink and debate to give you a leg up.

----------


## Fearandloathing

> 1) I want dangerous poisons off the streets so my kids and my family won't be endangered by sheer proximity to them. That's a far cry from wanting government to have a say in everything we eat or drink.  Stuff the drama.
> 
> 2)  I never have ever supported the imposition of martial law. The only thing I ever opposed is the ridiculous examples that some of you wingnuts post on this forum as examples of martial law.  Being American and thereby unacquainted with the real thing, you dramatize every police action to be the death knell to civil liberties.  Not going along with your ridiculous litany of bullshit does not make me a supporter of martial law. If anything, it makes me a supporter of rational thought and keeping a level head.
> 
> Shallow?  Look in the mirror because it doesn't take much to get your type going off on a kookie tangent.


Yeah me too.

Only problem is you haven't established that cannabis is a poison let alone dangerous.

Frankly, I'm for a whole lot more pot on the street and a lot less guns.  I never heard of anyone dying from pot...but Americans seem to be more interested in killing each other with hand guns and bombs.

But I guess you're good with wide open gun ownership.

Fucking tragic

----------

GrassrootsConservative (04-29-2013)

----------


## Archer

> "Potheads suck" is your own bigoted opinion, don't pass it off as fact.


I agree pot heads are about useless and they are a danger at work. Mind you to me a pot head = alcoholic. I have worked with idiots both drunk and high and the drunks are more dangerous because of poor motor control and the high guys get stupid causing accidents.

Smoke pot at home? Never seen any issues with it save not being able to pass a drug test.

----------



----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Well, I couldn't argue the definition of kindness other than to say, my smoopums, that it looks like you.
> 
> **_bows_**


All the credit goes to my momma, gramma, wife, and my mentor/Rabbi (may he rest in peace). I deserve none of it. I learned from them.

----------


## Guest

> I am fast losing any concern about what stwhateverthefuck thinks about anything.
> 
> He's a sloppy troll who cannot substantiate ONE claim and insists on passing off empty blather as fact.
> 
> Welcome the ignore button and love life.


 @saintmichaeldefendthem is a troll, but he's not sloppy.  He's rather poetic and witty, at times, rather like the evil Prince John in Erol (sp) Flynn's Robin Hood.

----------


## Fearandloathing

> You may be a lot of things but the best athlete on here is not one of them, I walked my dog today, so there.


I typed these posts.


I'm retired.

That's exersize

----------

garyo (04-29-2013),The XL (04-29-2013),Trinnity (04-29-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Oh sweet benevolent, hindsight!  Come hither to me with graceful arms and remedial balms and soothe my rueful butt-hurt.  Perish the sting of defeat and bereave from my tormented mind all memory of disgrace.


If you recall, it was @Trinnity, when handing down her judgement, who said that I won on substance, but you won on topic, only because I strayed from the topic. So take it up with her.

----------


## Fearandloathing

> @saintmichaeldefendthem is a troll, but he's not sloppy.  He's rather poetic and witty, at times, rather like the evil Prince John in Erol (sp) Flynn's Robin Hood.



A toll is a troll. 

I swat flies and they serve a purpose.

----------


## garyo

> I typed these posts.
> 
> 
> I'm retired.
> Well I bet my fingers are stronger than yours, for other reasons.
> 
> That's exersize


 :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Guest

> You may be a lot of things but the best athlete on here is not one of them, I walked my dog today, so there.


Ummm, @The XL is pretty fucking athletic...it's not a dry boast.  We've hung in the real world.  If the BG stayed it would be a tossup on the athleticism thing. I give credit where credit is due.

----------


## Guest

> A toll is a troll. 
> 
> I swat flies and they serve a purpose.


Well...I can't argue with that...he's a troll.

----------


## garyo

> Ummm, @The XL is pretty fucking athletic...it's not a dry boast.  We've hung in the real world.  If the BG stayed it would be a tossup on the athleticism thing. I give credit where credit is due.


Well young lady you haven't seen my tennis shoes.

----------

The XL (04-29-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Well young lady you haven't seen my tennis shoes.


Hell, even I haven't seen my tennis shoes.

----------

Fearandloathing (04-30-2013),garyo (04-29-2013)

----------


## Guest

> I agree pot heads are about useless and they are a danger at work. Mind you to me a pot head = alcoholic. I have worked with idiots both drunk and high and the drunks are more dangerous because of poor motor control and the high guys get stupid causing accidents.
> 
> Smoke pot at home? Never seen any issues with it save not being able to pass a drug test.


So @Archer...they've confused you and your position then?

----------


## Guest

> Well young lady you haven't seen my tennis shoes.


 @garyo, I would LOVE to see your tennis shoes.   :Smile:   Come to NYC some time and we'll go running together.

----------


## Fearandloathing

Well its been swell hanging with you guys, but my vaporizer is heating up and I have some Rock Star sativa in the grinder, a pirated movie just downloaded and we're about to break out into a criminal frenzy.  

So, I best be going now.

----------

garyo (04-29-2013)

----------


## garyo

> Hell, even I haven't seen my tennis shoes.


Then you haven't seen your Johnson.

----------


## garyo

> @garyo, I would LOVE to see your tennis shoes.    Come to NYC some time and we'll go running together.


Not a problem, I'll chase you all over central park, in my tennis shoes.

----------


## Archer

> So @Archer...they've confused you and your position then?


My position is and always has been what you do on your time is your business as long as it does not affect you on my time or affect my life. Never saw these THC after highs people supposedly get but there again I have never been high myself. Not for a lack of trying but something about my body don't get off on pot.

----------


## Guest

> Not a problem, I'll chase you all over central park, in my tennis shoes.


Sounds like a date.  If you catch me, I'll buy you an ice cream.

----------

The XL (04-29-2013)

----------


## garyo

> Sounds like a date.  If you catch me, I'll buy you an ice cream.


I can't eat that much ice cream, sorry, couldn't pass that up.

----------



----------


## Fearandloathing

> Well young lady you haven't seen my tennis shoes.


Either have you apparently.

At least not when they're on... :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## garyo

> I can't eat that much ice cream, sorry, couldn't pass that up.


Just so everyone knows our inside joke,


The middle-aged wife had just returned to the house on Saturday  afternoon after a shopping trip. She was quite agitated, and proceeded  to tell her husband about a certain shoe salesman who had been rude. It  seems she was sitting down while he helped her try on various shoes, and  happened to glance up and notice that she was not wearing any knickers  under her dress. Without even thinking, he just blurted out, "If that  thing was full of ice cream, I'd eat every bite." Well, she was  understandably insulted, and now wanted to know what her husband was  going to do about it. The husband just sat there, watching football on  TV, and grunted. The wife became hysterical, and insisted on knowing why  he didn't go down to the shop and punch the rude salesman right in the  nose." Well", the husband replied, "There are three reasons I won't  punch that guy in the nose. First of all, you shouldn't have even been  shopping for shoes, since you have a whole wardrobe full of them.  Secondly, you have no business going shopping with no knickers on. But  most of all, I'm not going to punch anyone who's big enough to eat that  much ice cream!"

 :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

GrassrootsConservative (04-29-2013)

----------


## The XL

> If that's directed at me  I suggest you back down.
> 
> Calling someone a "fat nobody" gets you nowhere bud.


I wasn't speaking to you.  Unless you're a fat, anti freedom statist.  Are you?

If not, then be at ease.

----------

Fearandloathing (04-30-2013)

----------


## garyo

> I wasn't speaking to you.  Unless you're a fat, anti freedom statist.  Are you?
> 
> If not, then be at ease.


FandL is one of the good guys.

----------



----------


## Guest

> FandL is one of the good guys.


He is...I like him.  Even tho SaintMike's a dick to me most days...I like him, too.  There's really only one person on here that I don't like.

----------


## garyo

> He is...I like him.  Even tho SaintMike's a dick to me most days...I like him, too.  There's really only one person on here that I don't like.


You tell me who it is and I will beat that suka with my wet noodle, nobody disrespects my Rina.

----------



----------


## Guest

> You tell me who it is and I will beat that suka with my wet noodle, nobody disrespects my Rina.


Awwww.  I love ya @garyo.

----------


## garyo

> Awwww.  I love ya @garyo.


I comin to see ya nekid wearin my tennis shoes, get ready.

----------

Calypso Jones (04-29-2013)

----------


## Guest

> I comin to see ya nekid wearin my tennis shoes, get ready.


Hahaha, I'm getting faster every day.  Ask the BG.

----------


## garyo

> Hahaha, I'm getting faster every day.  Ask the BG.


Well Hell, if I have to chase you I'll just surrender my tennis shoes, but not my love.

----------


## Gemini

> Yep, all the libertarian principles fly out the window so prevalent is your lust to legalize drugs; even giving government a brand new way to separate people from their money as if they didn't have enough avenues already.
> 
> I respect real Libertarians who see the same danger I do and want to simply decriminalize marijuana and not turn it into a wealth redistribution scheme.  *The rest of you are hypocrites*.


 @saintmichaeldefendthem

Those are some mighty big stones to be throwing from that glass house of yours chief.

----------

The XL (04-29-2013)

----------


## Guest

> Well Hell, if I have to chase you I'll just surrender my tennis shoes, but not my love.


 @garyo, 

you, TRAT, and Trinnity are the forum's heart.   :Smile:

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-29-2013)

----------


## garyo

> @saintmichaeldefendthem
> 
> Those are some mighty big stones to be throwing from that glass house of yours chief.


People live in....

----------


## garyo

> @garyo, 
> 
> you, TRAT, and Trinnity are the forum's heart.


What a beautiful thing to say, I will speak for us all, I have gas, but I'm willing to share, you are the steadfast stall-worth and for that I thank you, you knew I had to be contrite.

----------



----------


## Calypso Jones

i have another part in mind for Trat.

----------


## Maximatic

> i have another part in mind for Trat.


The hair?

----------


## Guest

> The hair?


That's @The XL--the kid really does have nice hair.  No, no, TRAT's got a big heart and that's why he forgives people when they assume things about him, make shit up about him, pick at him, etc.

----------


## garyo

> i have another part in mind for Trat.


Calypso, you are to me a very valued person on here, don't ever sell your self short, I consider you my bud.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> The hair?



well that narrows it abit.

----------


## Fearandloathing

> I wasn't speaking to you.  Unless you're a fat, anti freedom statist.  Are you?
> 
> If not, then be at ease.



I am at ease then, serene in fact.

As I spent a winter last year losing 70 lbs to beat first high blood pressure and then diabetes I am, understandably, sensitive to any suggestion of being, shall we say, an obese slob.

At 64, 6'1", 197 lbs, 44" jacket size with a 35" waste [we're still working on that] I imagine you will understand the work it took.....

----------

The XL (04-30-2013)

----------


## Guest

> I am at ease then, serene in fact.
> 
> As I spent a winter last year losing 70 lbs to beat first high blood pressure and then diabetes I am, understandably, sensitive to any suggestion of being, shall we say, an obese slob.
> 
> At 64, 6'1", 197 lbs, 44" jacket size with a 35" waste [we're still working on that] I imagine you will understand the work it took.....


He's having a bad week.

----------


## Fearandloathing

> Laws don't stop people from doing anything.  They punish you afterwards.  If I wanted to do drugs I would do them.  Nothing you say or do would stop me.
> 
> The people who do drugs and vote Democrat haven't changed, but it will be another nail in the coffin of people who try to pretend their party is the party of small government and federalism.  Thomas Jefferson smoked pot, Calypso.  He wrote about it.  It didn't stop him from writing our Declaration of Independence nor did it prevent him from being a great president.


So did George Washington.  He rubbed it on his teeth because of the constant nagging pain.

Theodore Roosevelt used cocaine in college and while he wrote THE text book of Naval warfare.

Governments know they cannot legislate anything out of existence.  Canada, Switzerland and Holland have the most law abiding citizens in the world....and they have all decriminalized and/or legalized.

It does not take a genius to look at the results and know that prohibitions DO NOT work.

The only reason they try is to increase revenues.  Have speed traps and big fines cured speeding?  DWI's?

No.  And neither has the extreme penalty driven "war" on drugs in the US.  

Fact:  Per Capita the United States has more people incarcerated for drug offenses than Canada has in total.  Does it make sense to send a person to prison for the same sentence as a violent crime when the most damage the individual has done is own something.

Where is the benefit?  Has drug used eased at all?  No.  It increases annually.

One definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results.  Americans are reluctant, to say the least, to admit there is a problem.

And finally, does it make sense to arrest, charge, imprison a drug addict at a cost of hundreds of thousand of dollars per conviction only to send him to the one institution in the world where there is a guaranteed supply?

Only three places in society have a better supply of illegal drugs: the medical profession, the police/security profession and the military.

Great system guys.

----------


## JohnAdams

> Nobody has ever died from smoking pot. On the contrary:
> Go and look up how many people die a year from prescription drugs. Then look up how many have ever died from smoking marijuana.


 Lots when you consider those who smoke pot, get high, then get on the highway and kill someone else because their abilities are impaired....

Next argument?

I'm sorry I'm all for legalization of cannabis and it's products, to be used in one's own home. As well as in our society IE: clothin, oil etc...

On the Constitutional grounds that the government doesn't have any constitutional right to tell me what I can and cannot ingest/partake of in my own home alone.

But...don't make arguments in favor of legalization that are dishonest, and misleading such as that no one ever died from or because of pot use, because people have in fact died due to it's use. See illustration about driving above.

Just one example among many many: http://www.katu.com/news/local/Polic...183885991.html

----------


## JohnAdams

> Laws don't stop people from doing anything.  They punish you afterwards.  If I wanted to do drugs I would do them.  Nothing you say or do would stop me.
> 
> The people who do drugs and vote Democrat haven't changed, but it will be another nail in the coffin of people who try to pretend their party is the party of small government and federalism.  Thomas Jefferson smoked pot, Calypso.  He wrote about it.  It didn't stop him from writing our Declaration of Independence nor did it prevent him from being a great president.


No he didn't. He was a part of a committee which did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Five

And if one want's to be technical, since the document had to first be approved and passed by the Continental Congress, the Thirteen States did.

Please stop distorting our history.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Lots when you consider those who smoke pot, get high, then get on the highway and kill someone else because their abilities are impaired....
> 
> Next argument?
> 
> I'm sorry I'm all for legalization of cannabis and it's products, to be used in one's own home. As well as in our society IE: clothin, oil etc...
> 
> On the Constitutional grounds that the government doesn't have any constitutional right to tell me what I can and cannot ingest/partake of in my own home alone.
> 
> But...don't make arguments in favor of legalization that are dishonest, and misleading such as that no one ever died from or because of pot use, because people have in fact died due to it's use. See illustration about driving above.
> ...


This is the problem. I could be convinced to allow people to grow a couple of plants in their own home for personal use but this isn't what's being proposed. What IS being proposed and doesn't get any opposition from the libertarians here or anywhere is a plan to involve government in the issue, give it regulatory and taxation powers, and grow it even bigger, giving it more money at a time we should be agreed that Tubby needs to go on a diet.  This isn't about marijuana legalization, this is about government empowerment and the "libertarians" on this forum should be ashamed at their duplicity.

----------


## Guest

> No he didn't. He was a part of a committee which did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Five


He wrote it, they word smithed it.  We all know this.  We also know what the committee took out so don't pretend that their contributions were all that awesome.

----------


## Maximatic

> This is the problem. I could be convinced to allow people to grow a couple of plants in their own home for personal use but this isn't what's being proposed. What IS being proposed and doesn't get any opposition from the libertarians here or anywhere is a plan to involve government in the issue, give it regulatory and taxation powers, and grow it even bigger, giving it more money at a time we should be agreed that Tubby needs to go on a diet.  This isn't about marijuana legalization, this is about government empowerment and the "libertarians" on this forum should be ashamed at their duplicity.


Just for the record, I'll officially declare my opposition to government taxation and regulation of marijuana and everything else under the sun.

----------

Irascible Crusader (05-02-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Just for the record, I'll officially declare my opposition to government taxation and regulation of marijuana and everything else under the sun.


I'll keep that in mind. I think it's not a matter of libertarians pining away for more taxation and regulation but rather a thundering absence in opposition.  It's redolent of peaceful Muslims seeming complicit in terrorist and jihad simply because they don't make themselves heard in opposing it.  I don't see many libertarians taking a definitive stand on this just as you have here.

----------


## usfan

> no doubt...they're not gonna die from smoking pot.  They're gonna die from their sheer stupidity.


I think we all die of that, calypso..    :Cool20:

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I think we all die of that, calypso..


I think we have a double standard going here.  When people die of lung cancer and emphysema after smoking cigarettes, we readily attribute that to tobacco use, but when it comes to those diseases as a result of marijuana use, suddenly one has nothing to do with the other.  There's some serious denial going on here.  Filling our lungs with toxic smoke is only unhealthy when it comes from cigarettes?  And it doesn't lead to lung cancer and emphysema when it comes from Pot?  

Zoo Wee Mama!

----------


## JohnAdams

> and these people are freakin' bonged out.    Really?  We're gonna leave the future of the country to people like this??


CJ given what I heard yesterday, re: the polling done about Obamacare. And how something like 70 percent, think Obammyhandout was struck down by the U.S. supreme's as unconstitutional.

And given the way certain American's are just fine and hunky dory with being rousted out of their homes at gunpoint by the police with no warrant or even probable cause to search your home. As we saw in Boston recently.

I am not all that sure at this point, that it would matter much if they're bonged out or not.

I mean seems to me, a great many are just as bad straight up sober, as someone who's bonged out yk?

----------


## JohnAdams

> He wrote it, they word smithed it.  We all know this.  We also know what the committee took out so don't pretend that their contributions were all that awesome.


No he didn't write it. As pointed out, it was done initially by the committee of five, who did in fact have input on what wound up in there not only on what came out, and by the entire vote of the Congress.

Which also had a hand at what ultimately wound up in there, and what ultimately did not. 

Therefore Jefferson, did not write the declaration as attributed, but rather merely was one who assisted in it's drafting.

Do you really wish to attempt to dispute the historical validity of that?

I've already given one link to the facts showing that to be the historical truth.

Showing that Jefferson did not in fact write the document by himself, as attributed to him in popular myth, but that he merely had a hand in drafting it.

As did others.

There are plenty more sources we can point too as well, to show this. 

Including several sources from the Library of Congress itself.

----------


## Guest

You gave me wiki.  Should I give you Monticello.org?

But back to the actual topic, and no obfuscations why do you feel that pot prevents greatness again?  Or are you disputing these men who were our Founders used it for recreational purposes and medicinally?  I will assume you also voted Bush and he admitted his own use of much harder drugs.

----------


## Fearandloathing

> This is the problem. I could be convinced to allow people to grow a couple of plants in their own home for personal use but this isn't what's being proposed. What IS being proposed and doesn't get any opposition from the libertarians here or anywhere is a plan to involve government in the issue, give it regulatory and taxation powers, and grow it even bigger, giving it more money at a time we should be agreed that Tubby needs to go on a diet.  This isn't about marijuana legalization, this is about government empowerment and the "libertarians" on this forum should be ashamed at their duplicity.



What duplicity?

Look, I think we've established that even though pot is a relatively benign substance, it still has need of some regulation.  

First, let's be clear that libertarianism is NOT anarchy.  I would never agree to tearing down government structure all together...there is need for regulation, a determination of ownership, conflict resolution and security.

We demand that a person be of a certain age before they can hunt or own a weapon, drive a car, fly a plane.  We accept the need for licenses for all the above as well as to build a residence, open a business or sell goods on the street.  Society's need for 'peace, order and good government' demands it.

At present we have a benign weed, a form of grass indigenous to the US, grows pretty well anywhere, is a medicine, a calming influence, and a soft recreational drug. It is the most power pain management tool available to cancer treatment and it's use is being expanded to hip replacement recovery and Post-polio syndrome where the current opiate based medicines are creating addicts.
 As well, the plant is an excellent source of dietary fiber, with the same properties as flax in cholesteral control,  [THC only forms on the flowers in good growing conditions], a perfect source of fine linen AND the best rope making material on the planet.  At present it is an indictable federal offense to even allow one of these weeds to grow on your property, never mind that that plant does not contain any of the substance that makes you stoned, THC.

Second, hundreds of thousands of people are languishing in state and federal prisons for having merely possessed the drug while people who have committed robbery, assault, and caused injury and mayhem as a result of abusing alcohol walk fee.  The cost of investigating, arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating these individuals is in the billions annually and a true waste of court time.

This makes sense?

Third, we tax the shit out of cigarettes, the most addictive substance known to mankind, reaping an enormous government windfall but relegating the government into the role of a drug dealer.....capitalizing on people's addiction.  

Marijuana is not addictive.


If it's the fact you don't think libertarians should support a tax...well maybe study some on what a libertarian is...I find these forums to be strikingly ignorant on the subject....some people even think it's a religion.

And finally, it's coming.  Just like women's rights, civil rights, diversity, same sex marriage, legal marijuana is coming.  You can fight it like Americans fought all the others, but it is inevitable.

----------


## usfan

I guess i'm at a point of letting the libs have all they want, IF they will not make me pay for it.  You want to do drugs until your mind is fried?  Fine, just don't ask me to support you.  You can bugger each other until your peckers fall off, too.. i don't care.. just don't make me pay for your aids drugs & sex change operations.  I'll even let you kill all the babies you  want, too.. just don't demand i pay for it.  How about some 'fairness' & 'equity' in finances & taxes?  To me, this is like arguing over the dessert menu on the titanic.  IF we get the money straight, a lot of things will take care of themselves..

follow the money..

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Look, I think we've established that even though pot is a relatively benign substance, it still has need of some regulation.


  What for?  Have we gotten so used to government papoosing us that we can't think in terms of self sufficiency and being able to live without government?  What regulation is needed to allow people to grow up to 2 plants (because of cannabis cycles, at least 2 are needed for constant supply) for personal use?  What excuse is that for more taxation?




> First, let's be clear that libertarianism is NOT anarchy.


  Is that the choice we're faced with, either grow government more, give it more taxing and regulatory power or anarchy?




> I would never agree to tearing down government structure all together...there is need for regulation, a determination of ownership, conflict resolution and security.


  I think we've gotten so far from the days when men struck out west, staked out land, grew crops and lifestock, and defended it against attack all without the help of government that we can't seem to imagine being independent from government looking over our shoulder all the time.  I agree with you in substance, that some regulation is needed, but it's now clear to nearly everyone that we're overregulated as is.  Why should we give the obese man yet another slice of cheese cake?




> We demand that a person be of a certain age before they can hunt or own a weapon, drive a car, fly a plane.  We accept the need for licenses for all the above as well as to build a residence, open a business or sell goods on the street.  Society's need for 'peace, order and good government' demands it.


  I disagree with you that all that is necessary.




> At present we have a benign weed, a form of grass indigenous to the US, grows pretty well anywhere, is a medicine, a calming influence, and a soft recreational drug. It is the most power pain management tool available to cancer treatment and it's use is being expanded to hip replacement recovery and Post-polio syndrome where the current opiate based medicines are creating addicts.
>  As well, the plant is an excellent source of dietary fiber, with the same properties as flax in cholesteral control,  [THC only forms on the flowers in good growing conditions], a perfect source of fine linen AND the best rope making material on the planet.  At present it is an indictable federal offense to even allow one of these weeds to grow on your property, never mind that that plant does not contain any of the substance that makes you stoned, THC.


  And now you're making your point for me.  Because it really does grow like a "weed" it doesn't require Big Brother's interference.  People can grow it without government help just like they grow a tomato plant.




> Second, hundreds of thousands of people are languishing in state and federal prisons for having merely possessed the drug while people who have committed robbery, assault, and caused injury and mayhem as a result of abusing alcohol walk fee.  The cost of investigating, arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating these individuals is in the billions annually and a true waste of court time.
> 
> This makes sense?


  I think it makes sense to keep the trafficking of all drugs illegal while allowing people to grow enough marijuana for personal use.  Most of the crimes you mentioned are tied to the trafficking of drugs.  Legalize cultivation for personal use, and much of that goes away.




> Third, we tax the shit out of cigarettes, the most addictive substance known to mankind, reaping an enormous government windfall but relegating the government into the role of a drug dealer.....capitalizing on people's addiction.  
> 
> Marijuana is not addictive.


  Everything can be addictive.




> If it's the fact you don't think libertarians should support a tax...well maybe study some on what a libertarian is...I find these forums to be strikingly ignorant on the subject....some people even think it's a religion.
> 
> And finally, it's coming.  Just like women's rights, civil rights, diversity, same sex marriage, legal marijuana is coming.  You can fight it like Americans fought all the others, but it is inevitable.


I'm pretty familiar with libertarianism.  I haven't found any that think we should give the government even more power in our lives and a brand new way to separate us from our money.  That just isn't a libertarian belief no matter where they are on the spectrum.

----------


## Maximatic

> What for?  Have we gotten so used to government papoosing us that we can't think in terms of self sufficiency and being able to live without government?  What regulation is needed to allow people to grow up to 2 plants (because of cannabis cycles, at least 2 are needed for constant supply) for personal use?  What excuse is that for more taxation?
> 
>   Is that the choice we're faced with, either grow government more, give it more taxing and regulatory power or anarchy?
> 
>   I think we've gotten so far from the days when men struck out west, staked out land, grew crops and lifestock, and defended it against attack all without the help of government that we can't seem to imagine being independent from government looking over our shoulder all the time.  I agree with you in substance, that some regulation is needed, but it's now clear to nearly everyone that we're overregulated as is.  Why should we give the obese man yet another slice of cheese cake?
> 
>   I disagree with you that all that is necessary.
> 
>   And now you're making your point for me.  Because it really does grow like a "weed" it doesn't require Big Brother's interference.  People can grow it without government help just like they grow a tomato plant.
> ...


Wow, this is weird. It's a St Mike post. It's about drugs. It's a little bit long, but I think I only see one sentence that I actually disagree with. A mediocre libertarian could like this post in good conscience.

----------

Irascible Crusader (05-02-2013)

----------


## Fearandloathing

> What for?  Have we gotten so used to government papoosing us that we can't think in terms of self sufficiency and being able to live without government?  What regulation is needed to allow people to grow up to 2 plants (because of cannabis cycles, at least 2 are needed for constant supply) for personal use?  What excuse is that for more taxation?
> 
>   Is that the choice we're faced with, either grow government more, give it more taxing and regulatory power or anarchy?
> 
>   I think we've gotten so far from the days when men struck out west, staked out land, grew crops and lifestock, and defended it against attack all without the help of government that we can't seem to imagine being independent from government looking over our shoulder all the time.  I agree with you in substance, that some regulation is needed, but it's now clear to nearly everyone that we're overregulated as is.  Why should we give the obese man yet another slice of cheese cake?
> 
>   I disagree with you that all that is necessary.
> 
>   And now you're making your point for me.  Because it really does grow like a "weed" it doesn't require Big Brother's interference.  People can grow it without government help just like they grow a tomato plant.
> ...


that post is proof you haven't a clue what it means.

You're trying to win a debate by flaunting the same opinions over and over.....and those opinions are devoid of facts.

----------


## Fearandloathing

Everything can be addictive?

Classic over generalization unsupported by facts and ignorant of the scientific basis of addictions.

Have you even Googled addictions?  It takes two minutes.

Sorry man, but you're too uninformed to debate with.

----------


## Fearandloathing

> I guess i'm at a point of letting the libs have all they want, IF they will not make me pay for it.  You want to do drugs until your mind is fried?  Fine, just don't ask me to support you.  You can bugger each other until your peckers fall off, too.. i don't care.. just don't make me pay for your aids drugs & sex change operations.  I'll even let you kill all the babies you  want, too.. just don't demand i pay for it.  How about some 'fairness' & 'equity' in finances & taxes?  To me, this is like arguing over the dessert menu on the titanic.  IF we get the money straight, a lot of things will take care of themselves..
> 
> follow the money..


And there is what we call 'crux ignoratio'

It is not a war; a matter of who wins, but what is right.

Lost is the thinking that began the experiment that was the United States of American that I may disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death your right to say it.  Arrived is the surrender of letting the state decide how we will live.

Real is the ability of the United States government to know every secret you have, know what you do, eat, wear, who you see and who you fuck.  they are doing it now.  Your neighbors are being wised away to secret prisons without even a phone call and no one cares.  The freedoms our grandfathers and fathers fought for are forgotten and have been replaced with the desire for order, the demand that the state remove all things we may find offensive whether it be fast food, hemp clothing or antique farm machinery [yes, some states have laws regulating who can own and display it].

But, so long as Americans see everything in war terms, the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on terror, and see freedoms as a war with political opponents the state is the winner.

What none of you realize is that is exactly what Hitler did....he put every German social issue on a war footing, and then turned it racist.

----------


## usfan

> And there is what we call 'crux ignoratio'
> 
> It is not a war; a matter of who wins, but what is right.
> 
> Lost is the thinking that began the experiment that was the United States of American that I may disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death your right to say it.  Arrived is the surrender of letting the state decide how we will live.
> 
> Real is the ability of the United States government to know every secret you have, know what you do, eat, wear, who you see and who you fuck.  they are doing it now.  Your neighbors are being wised away to secret prisons without even a phone call and no one cares.  The freedoms our grandfathers and fathers fought for are forgotten and have been replaced with the desire for order, the demand that the state remove all things we may find offensive whether it be fast food, hemp clothing or antique farm machinery [yes, some states have laws regulating who can own and display it].
> 
> But, so long as Americans see everything in war terms, the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on terror, and see freedoms as a war with political opponents the state is the winner.
> ...


 :Yawn: 

Haven't you got some windmills to tilt at somewhere?   :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> that post is proof you haven't a clue what it means.
> 
> You're trying to win a debate by flaunting the same opinions over and over.....and those opinions are devoid of facts.


I kept scrolling down hoping you would get around to demonstrating how I'm wrong.  I'll keep checking. You might have had to go to work or run some errands or something.  I'm sure it's forthcoming.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Wow, this is weird. It's a St Mike post. It's about drugs. It's a little bit long, but I think I only see one sentence that I actually disagree with. A mediocre libertarian could like this post in good conscience.


I have my moments....  :Cool20:

----------


## The XL

Not really.

----------

