The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy reported last month that a teenager who has been depressed in the past year was more than twice as likely to have used marijuana than teenagers who have not reported being depressed (25 percent compared with 12 percent). The study said marijuana use increased the risk of developing mental disorders by 40 percent. So much for the "harmless" nature of pot.
There are more worrisome statistics still. The 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that among Americans age 12 and older there were 14.8 million current users of marijuana and 4.2 million Americans classified with dependency or abuse of marijuana. Addiction is a real threat. Another 2006 report found 16.1 percent of drug treatment admissions were for marijuana as the primary drug of abuse. This compares to six percent in 1992.
There surely are multiple reasons to explain the increasing use of this drug. But one reason for the trend is surely its glamorization by Hollywood, which thinks marijuana is a fun-and-games subject.
"Access Hollywood" has breathlessly promoted a new movie called "The Wackness," set in 1994 New York. A young man sells marijuana out of an Italian-ice cart. He starts seeing a therapist, asking him for guidance on dating a young woman. He pays for the therapy sessions with pot.
If the plot seems tiresome, it’s the casting that’s truly saddening. The young pot-dealer is played by Josh Peck, who just months ago was delighting hundreds of thousands of small children as a rubber-faced jokester on Nickelodeon’s teen comedy "Drake and Josh." One of his regular pothead customers is played by Mary-Kate Olsen, half of the famous twins who played the baby sister on the family sitcom "Full House."
Child stars too often go looking for a part to "stretch their range," but that’s code for scraping off any odor of a goody-goody reputation. These actors are doing it by glorifying marijuana.
Drug-dealer chic really began with "Weeds," the Showtime pay-cable series starring Mary-Louise Parker as widowed suburban mother/pot dealer Nancy Botwin. The fourth season recently premiered to the delight of TV critics, who love the show’s exposure of suburban hypocrisy. Showtime publicists wrote, with noticeable pride: "Last season, viewers saw Nancy venture from hesitant but determined toe-dipper in the unpredictable waters of drug dealing to confident, full-fledged queen-pin entrepreneur."
They’re proud of the drug-dealing mom as she gains confidence in her "queen-pin" criminality?
The show’s primary hypocrite is the boozy anti-drug crusader Celia Hodes, played by Elizabeth Perkins, who told TV Guide that her character "discovers drugs this year...and she’s like a kid in a candy shop." Perkins is delighted by the bad behavior on the show. "There's just something delicious about watching people misbehave without any sense of conscience."
This is a classic Hollywood outburst. These people love misbehavior, wallow in it, and suggest anyone who would dare take a stand that appears morally upright is undoubtedly just a repressed fraud. It carries an Orwellian echo: Honesty is found in corruption, and moral fervor is a sickness that needs to be vanquished. Morality is immoral.
Perkins displayed more of her debased philosophy on CBS’s "The Early Show" on July 2 in a cozy showcase of CBS-Showtime corporate-cousin synergy. She described her moralizing character as fun to play because she’s "really screwed up and evil." She’s an unstable hypocrite in a bad marriage who’s "going to take it out on whoever happens to be standing in her way."
CBS anchor Julie Chen asked Perkins if she supports legalizing marijuana in real life. "Oh yeah, absolutely." she answered. "Alcohol is legal. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me why marijuana's not."
Chen asked what her character would say in response. Perkins replied: "Oh, put them all in jail." Chen laughed and agreed. "She’s so self-righteous." Perkins then added, "Well, Celia’s probably the only character on the show who's never smoked marijuana...Never cave with marijuana, because that’s the ‘evil drug’ -- according to her." Chen guffawed along, in mockery of the anti-drug position.
Teenagers will go see the movie with the Nickelodeon star selling pot, and teenagers are in the audience when Showtime is displaying its affection for "Weeds." Hollywood is not merely mocking people who moralize against marijuana, they're actively encouraging young people to explore the "edgy" life of illegal drugs they see on screen. But Hollywood will not be around for comfort or counseling when teenagers have to go to detox, or see psychologists for depression or other mental problems.
They ought to look in the mirror and wonder if they’re the self-righteous people who are really screwed up and pushing evil.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
→ Again with the weed
July 4, 2008 - 07:44 ET by Cool ArrowAnother reason to vote against Obama.
I don't want weed in my family.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
If you don't want weed in
July 4, 2008 - 12:25 ET by steveba4If you don't want weed in your family, it's your responsibility to make sure it doesn't get there...not the government's.
Deceptive Statistic
July 4, 2008 - 14:12 ET by zeestephenBrent Bozell writes: "[Marijuana] addiction is a real threat. Another 2006 report found 16.1 percent of drug treatment admissions were for marijuana as the primary drug of abuse. This compares to six percent in 1992."
It's important to note that in 2008 "drug treatment" has become a "no jail time" surrogate for law enforcement.
Many, many of the people in drug treatment for marijuana are first time offenders, and many more have "pleaded down" after being arrested for minor crimes plus possession of marijuana.
No doubt some small percentage are marijuana addicts.
But common sense should rule here.
Tour any Detox unit in the country.
Are 16% of the inmates begging for marijuana?
Of course not.
They beg for alcohol, cocaine, amphetamines, and opiates.
Legalize murder, theft, smoking on airplanes...
July 5, 2008 - 09:50 ET by TruthMongerIf you don't want (insert illegal behavior here) in your family, it's your responsibility to make sure it doesn't get there...not the government's.
No laws, no attorneys - sounds good to me:)!
→ Soking on airplanes
July 5, 2008 - 09:53 ET by Cool ArrowLegalize smoking on airplnes?
Truth, is there no end to the decadance and depravity?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
it would be
July 5, 2008 - 10:03 ET by TruthMongerit would be like.....caligula
Liberals think I
July 4, 2008 - 07:52 ET by MidAmericaLiberals think I should have the right to use marijuana but they want to ban cheeseburgers.
Just plain crazy
July 4, 2008 - 16:01 ET by doug1950That is just incongruous. Just what is the person to do once they get the munchies.
refer madness redux
July 4, 2008 - 08:11 ET by VonuIf you want to take on an evil drug, why not go after booze? Oh, that's right, your ilk already tried that one. When you can can show one case of mary-jane overdose you might have a better hope of scarring people, but the fact is more people die each year from caffeine than pot. I thought we moved on from this mind set where the goverment nags control every aspect of one's life. Not so with the war loving neocons. God bless them in their quest for total control. This bowl's for you!
Aching for rot
July 4, 2008 - 08:20 ET by UnsaneNot so with the war loving neocons Bigoted, much?
Sorry, vonu. I know you love the idea of a rotting America that is going absolutely nowhere, much like the Netherlands. But I like the idea of a United States that actually progresses, invents, innovates, and constantly contributes to world civilization.
I like a much less intrusive government, but I also understand there are some public health issues that simply cannot be ignored. I also know that all societies have these pesky things called "standards". Shoot me. Hang me from the nearest tree.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
The key is correctly determinng value before it becomes obvious
July 4, 2008 - 08:56 ET by VonuNo, I'm not bigoted, nor would I shoot or hang or use vilolence against another simply because they hold "standards" of which you might be refering to the Federal Reserve System. Since 1913 and the creation of the Fed the dollar has lost 95% of its value. I have written previously here that the Fed needs to devalue another 95% to pay the 75 trillion in unfunded future debt.
Neocons depend on war to expand their power. It is not s stretch to call this a love of war.
I believe in the greatness of man, that the leeches will be overcome in the end. I am working toward that end.
If one takes care of the means, the ends take care of themselves.
Vonu
→ Right vonu
July 4, 2008 - 08:59 ET by Cool ArrowAnd we're gonna pay off the debt with increased potato chip sales.
Brilliant!
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
when pot heads attack...
July 5, 2008 - 09:52 ET by TruthMongerdare not come between a lib and his/her/its weed...
they will ferociously protect their young...
→ Denver Dem Smoke Off
July 5, 2008 - 09:56 ET by Cool Arrow(and Presidential convention)
No wonder they chose Colorado.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
tm
July 5, 2008 - 10:03 ET by shawn228...or an insurgent and their innoccent victims
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
→ ™
July 5, 2008 - 10:08 ET by Cool ArrowOr Libs and their self-loathing.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Looks like you need another dose
July 5, 2008 - 10:17 ET by sarcasmoOf this 'toon. Obviously, the Creator of All Things created a mistake in this case. And going from $75 million to $2.4 BILLION(!) is another wonderful victory for "smaller government," like various Nixonian Republicans keep promising over the decades. I keep learning all these fascinating new things about principled, unpolitical religion from you folks...Thanks!!
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
where to even start why
July 5, 2008 - 14:31 ET by TruthMongerwhere to even start
why even bother:)
Start with the blatant hypocrisy
July 5, 2008 - 15:34 ET by sarcasmoAnd go on to the busted budget, just like I linked... Seeing your explanation of how God makes mistakes & politicians don't should be especially educational, or interesting, or maybe just amusing for the rest of us, so I can assure you that it's worth your time to address this issue even if you resent the fact that my Russmo cartoon is a direct-hit.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Interesting cartoon. I
July 6, 2008 - 16:54 ET by dmntd1Interesting cartoon. I guess I miss the point...
My sister was released from the hospital today. Cancer, well, Leukemia. Blood Cancer.
Luckily for all of us, but especially her, she's in remission. While she was there, she received the best care one could imagine. Some of that care was by frequent visitation of friends that worked in the hospital.
One is an RN. Many years in this particular hospital as such, prior experience in the military. Another is a cardiologist. My sister's pain got so bad, they both started joking about a certain drug available at the hospital. One of them, the RN, had administered it one time. The pharmacist joked with her about it.
It was a canabanoid. Same effects as smoking the pot, minus the potential side effects that comes with smoking...well... anything really. If these cancer patients wish to ease their pain with marijuana, there are legal, federally-authorized and legal, ways to do so.
To sidestep a law you feel is inappropriate is ridiculous. Change the law. If you can't change the law, change the lawmakers. It's the American Way.
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his imminent relationship with a superior law and with an objective will that transcends the particular individual - Mussolini
The point of the cartoon is politically incorrect but simple.
July 6, 2008 - 19:26 ET by sarcasmoPut bluntly: "The Creator of All Things doesn't create mistakes." And obviously, some Christians like to think for themselves.
There's also a fiscal point that's being studiously-ignored here. And going from $75 million to $2.4 BILLION(!) is what's called "ABJECT FAILURE" by folks like me. Even the "war on poverty" doesn't suck that much, and we all know it sucks tremendously. Democrats and Republicans need to admit the mistake, but they haven't, so I admit it for you.
JMR
PS I find it amusing that your sister's experience, like others', totally contradicts PopTech's list-o-links "proof" regarding analgesic effects of cannabis. In other new-study health news, apparently we should all be popping hallucinogenic mushrooms.
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
dmntd... You made
July 6, 2008 - 19:39 ET by bigtimerdmntd...
You made excellent points here of others to be aware of.
I wish your sister well, and the best for all of you.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
what??
July 4, 2008 - 09:02 ET by candanceWhat does money have to do with this? Now you're just randomly bouncing around to complain about everything you dislike.
Neocons depend on war to expand their power.
No sweetie, we depend on war to protect us from external threats that cannot be reasoned with. If we used it to expand our power we would have colonies all over the world.
I believe in the greatness of man, that the leeches will be overcome in the end.
Really? 21 centuries hasn't been long enough. Exactly when do you suppose that will happen?
If one takes care of the means, the ends take care of themselves.
Ah yes, the ends justify the means....except when it comes to war and illegal drugs.
The search for utopia
July 4, 2008 - 09:08 ET by UnsaneSince 1913 and the creation of the Fed the dollar has lost 95% of its value. I have written previously here that the Fed needs to devalue another 95% to pay the 75 trillion in unfunded future debt. You are going to war with reality. Currency fluctuates in value. 6000 years of human civilization is stacked against you. Currency is a medium of exchange, nothing more, nothing less. Stop being lazy and SAVE and INVEST your money, instead of hoping and praying your currency will never ever fluctuate in value.
Besides, as another poster pointed out, the dollar in 2008 can by a whole hell of a LOT more than a dollar in 1913, something I suppose is lost on you.
But that's a good way to change a subject, isn't it?
By "standards" I mean "standards" like a society proscribing the ability of people to poison themselves. Whine all you want about alcohol but there are many areas in TX where you can't buy it to this day. Prohibition, in more than one respect, is alive and well.
Neocons depend on war to expand their power. It is not s stretch to call this a love of war. Again, bigoted much?
I believe in the greatness of man, that the leeches will be overcome in the end. I am working toward that end. Who are the "leeches"?
If one takes care of the means, the ends take care of themselves. Huh???
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Voluntaryist masthead
July 4, 2008 - 10:29 ET by VonuSorry, I miss quoted the Voluntaryist masthead. Should have read:
"If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself."
That makes more sense.
At 2 per cent inflation one's savings will be cut in half in 25 years.
Right now inflation reported by the gov. is over 4 per cent. Interest rates are at or near that. Some believe the gov under reports inflation, if they are right about that, then savers are earning a negative return. Inflation is raping the saver and you call me lazy.
You are correct in that we have had money for 6000 years and I will add that because of money great progress was made that could not be achieved by a barter society. But they were not using Federal Reserve Notes 6000 years ago and they won't be using said Notes 6000 years hence.
the dollar in 2008 can by a whole hell of a LOT more than a dollar in 1913,
Lets see. Today I will BBQ a nice piece of meat, something called a beef loin top serloin roast boneless. At 1.88 lbs and 7.29USD per pound this guy set me back 13.71.
Now I'm not sure about the year but Henry Ford back in the day, paid his workers 5 dollars a day, a rate that was unheard of at the time for factory work. But today, that highly paid worker would have to work almost 3 days to pay for my roast. That tells me the Ford worker's dollar was worth much more than ours today.
But what if this worker was paid in silver dollars? Today's silver dollars, the Silver Eagles, are sold for about 23USD today. That would be a pay rate of 115USD per day today. At that pay, the roast is earned in less than one hour.
In the 1950's a single wage earner could support a family on one income. Don't see that too often today. In fact I wonder if anyone has any money today. It seems money has been replaced by debt. People today have credit, but no money. HD Thoureau makes it pretty clear whose clutches that put you in, and you won't have to read much into Walden Pond to find it. We are coming to the end of a very long credit cycle. Find some of that money they had centuries ago and hoard it. And when the darkness lifts, you and others like you will provide the capital to rebuild the world in your likeness, with your values.
Econ - a lost art
July 4, 2008 - 10:35 ET by AgnosticI've often said that classes in economics should start right after a student learns basic math and courses should be mandated as often as Math, English/Literature and any Science. Thank you for helping to prove my point.
Money always fluctuates in value, as everything does
July 5, 2008 - 13:22 ET by UnsaneYou are correct in that we have had money for 6000 years and I will add that because of money great progress was made that could not be achieved by a barter society. But they were not using Federal Reserve Notes 6000 years ago and they won't be using said Notes 6000 years hence. I know you have an extreme, passionate, intense hatred of ICBs here, but bear with me. With or without a Federal Reserve, MONEY FLUCTUATES IN VALUE. Money always HAS fluctuated in value. This is reality and you simply have to accept it. Money is a medium of exchange, and is not nor ever intended to be a store of value. You want a store of value? Instead of endlessly pouting about the Federal Reserve, get off your ass and open a savings account, or invest some of your cash elsewhere.
The rest of your post is nothing but a whine for the absolute impossible: money ALWAYS fluctuates in value. The end. And you may think the days of the introduction of the assembly line were great, but I don't. Now, unlike then, I have the option of buying airline tickets to remote destinations, computers, and all sorts of things that belonged in the science fiction realm back then.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
I do not get pay tv
July 4, 2008 - 09:47 ET by BDI do not get pay tv channels, does this show depict the Marjijuana users accurately - that being 28 year olds hiding in their mom's basement eating doritos's and yelling up the stairs "Really, mom, I will look for a job tomorrow...."?
Much like the typical
July 4, 2008 - 10:03 ET by JasonCMuch like the typical beer-drinker is a blue-collar out-of-work loser who steals his kid's paper rout money to get blitzed on PBR down at the pub with his equally fat and pathetic pals before going home to punch his wife?
Il y a la merde quel remort produit quand il a mange trop stupidite.
Jeeze Jason - you really are obsessed
July 4, 2008 - 10:47 ET by Dee BunkWith the "Red State" view of conservatives. You should really stop watching those videos. You make these kind of comments all the time. Do you think there are no liberals who drink beer and beat their wives?
I'm sure that if anything liberals also drink more alcohol than conservatives (after adjusting for differences in sexes).
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Chill the hell out Dee, I
July 4, 2008 - 10:51 ET by JasonCChill the hell out Dee, I was being 100% sarcastic. Look at BD's post to which I am responding. I was creating an equally absurd caricature.
Il y a la merde quel remort produit quand il a mange trop stupidite.
FOrtunately, my depiction
July 4, 2008 - 11:37 ET by BDFOrtunately, my depiction of Marijuana users is accurate.
What is the percentage of unemployment of daily users of marijuana________? NOw compare that tot he unemployment rate of daily beer drinkers_______?
How many fortune 500 execs do you think smoke marijuana daily? How many do you think have a glass of wine?
How many of the Joint Chief of staff go home at the end of the day and roll a fat one compared to how many have a Heineken?
How many surgeons spark up in th evening compared to the user of chablis?
How many particle physics scientists do a dube compared to having a martini?
Get to reality immediately.... it will help you in the long run.
I have no statistics on the
July 4, 2008 - 11:46 ET by JasonCI have no statistics on the matter, and I am sure you don't either. However, isn't it quite likely that the matter of legality is the reason behind this? A politician or CEO drinking a Heineken or glass of wine is commonplace; the same person smoking pot would be a scandal.
Millions and millions of Americans smoke pot semi-regularly and it's a pricey habit. You might be correct that more chronic stoners than alcoholics are unemployed, but I bet you'd be amazed at how many professionals and otherwise put-together people that you interact with smoke up now and then. I'm certainly not mocking drinkers, since I love beer and wine (and occasionally whisky) and do not smoke pot. I just wanted to construct a stereotype as outrageously reductive as your own. At least you understood what I was doing, unlike Dee who just hit the roof over it.
Il y a la merde quel remort produit quand il a mange trop stupidite.
You are the one hitting the roof over it Jason
July 4, 2008 - 12:36 ET by Dee BunkI'm telling you that I don't appreciate your constant "red state" stero types. This isn't the only place you have done it. I'm not hitting the roof, I'm telling you my opinion.
The point is that BD's stero type is much more realistic than yours.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
It's a stereotype of a
July 4, 2008 - 13:12 ET by JasonCIt's a stereotype of a drunkard. I made no allusion to "red" states; you're reading that into it. That's your inference, not mine, and if conservatism is the first thing YOU think of when you think about alcoholism and wife-beating, well, I don't see why that's my problem.
Il y a la merde quel remort produit quand il a mange trop stupidite.
It's only because of your past statements Jason
July 4, 2008 - 13:21 ET by Dee BunkAnd the fact that you love that Red State. It's not the first thing I think of at all - only when it comes from you or someone like you.
I see a Dem Union guy with that picture just as I do with the Red State vids. They put the Dem Union guy stereo type on conservatives and it's way off the mark.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Funny, Dee, I don't believe
July 4, 2008 - 13:31 ET by JasonCFunny, Dee, I don't believe I've ever made a statement about "Red State" people being drunkards. As for that show you know I like, I appreciate it as a satire of liberal stereotyping of southerners and rural people. Yup, could just as easily be a union man, it's true. Yet, your mind went straight to RedStater even though I didn't and never have equated the two. Weird.
Il y a la merde quel remort produit quand il a mange trop stupidite.
No it's not wierd Jason because the Redstater
July 4, 2008 - 15:46 ET by Dee BunkThat they portray in those vids is really a Union Democrat. That's the point. It's not an accurate depiction of a Conservative! Duh!
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
I'd bet the usage rate
July 4, 2008 - 16:12 ET by DarkCurrentI'd bet the usage rate among particle physics scientists is significantly higher than the other groups mentioned, and as a result we have String Theory. Beyond that, no clue...
There's a fair number of
July 5, 2008 - 00:22 ET by cleverpigThere's a fair number of particle physicists here in Berkeley. That's all I'm gonna say...
ah well Jason
July 4, 2008 - 12:54 ET by candanceI got the sarcastic analogy you were trying to make.
Sadly though, most people who smoke pot really do act worse for the wear.
1-
July 4, 2008 - 10:52 ET by Agnostic?
JasonC: Just saying that
July 4, 2008 - 11:29 ET by BDJasonC:
Just saying that every person I have met who smokes Marijuana is a loser.
Been my experience and I see no signs of it changing.
Right BD
July 4, 2008 - 11:33 ET by Dee BunkI can't say every person, but the vast majority are, unlike beer drinkers who only a minority seem to be losers.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Gotta say that EVERY Person
July 4, 2008 - 11:42 ET by BDGotta say that EVERY Person I know who is a regular user is a loser.
THis includes two trust fund kids I know who have never had jobs, simply live off the interest from their funds and only leave the house to gather more weed. THey are 50 years old and their lives revolve solely around their preoccupation, not their children who have been farmed out..
Shameful.
Every person I know who is a
July 4, 2008 - 12:29 ET by steveba4Every person I know who is a regular user is gainfully employed and has been so since they graduated from college.
The losers I know are gainfully employed also
July 4, 2008 - 12:39 ET by Dee Bunkunemployment isn't the only factor that makes someone a loser and you can be unemployed and not be a loser.
People who are still smoking pot with any regularity after they have children are generally not very responsible.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Hmm, so now that BD's
July 4, 2008 - 13:18 ET by JasonCHmm, so now that BD's stereotype has been squashed, we'll make it about parents who smoke pot. Keep movin' those rhetorical goalposts. As long as children are sheltered and hidden from anything that anyone, anywhere, might regard as damaging or corrupting, THEN we'll be a stronger society.
Yup, anything that might potentially make someone a less responsible parent should just be flat-out illegal.
Il y a la merde quel remort produit quand il a mange trop stupidite.
I'm afraid I have to agree with JasonC
July 4, 2008 - 14:28 ET by ironchefofmunchiesI almost never agree with JasonC, but this is one issue that I agree with him on.
BD-you say "every person I've met who smokes pot is a loser". But what you don't realize is you've met lots of people who smoke pot who AREN'T losers. You don't realize they smoke pot because they get up, work, raise families, and do everything else that non-pot-smokers do.
We (as conservatives) don't blame guns for gun violence. We blame the people who use guns illegally. So why do you blame the inanimate object called "pot" for some people making bad decisions? Be consistant-some people will be able to use pot responsibly and others will not.
But don't ban it from everybody based on the argument that "some people will not use it correctly/some people will be harmed".
That's a LIBERAL argument-that the government must protect us from ourselves.
And that I cannot support-from anybody.
ironchef,
July 4, 2008 - 14:51 ET by R D HelmThat's a LIBERAL argument-that the government must protect us from ourselves.
I think you nailed it with that one. :-)
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
Thanks RD. I see the
July 4, 2008 - 15:07 ET by ironchefofmunchiesThanks RD.
I see the pros and cons on both sides of this issue. But I trust myself more than the government to decide what is best for me.
It just makes me wonder why so many conservatives do not (on THIS issue at least).
ironchef - it appears you fell for Jasons diversions
July 4, 2008 - 15:55 ET by Dee Bunkbecause I already told him in another post (that he responded to before this one below) that I wasn't against legalizing it and now he acts as if that is part of my argument. It's not.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Oh, me and my deceitfully
July 5, 2008 - 16:41 ET by JasonCOh, me and my deceitfully duplicitious diversions.
Doesn't change the fact that BD's caricature of a stoner is an inaccurate and juvenile stereotype. As a person who works in the military, perhaps he just isn't around pot smokers that much (since I assume that military people are likely to be drug-tested and to be in a world of sh*t if they test positive), but they can be as productive as anybody else. The figure of the aimless, lazy stoner who lives in his mom's basement and has zero ambition is the exception, not the norm, at least in my experience - anecdotal evidence seems to be the only way to discuss this around here - and I have met many many stoners in my day.
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
Doesn't change the fact
July 5, 2008 - 22:58 ET by BDDoesn't change the fact that BD's caricature of a stoner is an inaccurate and juvenile stereotype.
perhaps he just isn't around pot smokers that much (since I assume that military people are likely to be drug-tested and to be in a world of sh*t if they test positive),
Let me take this
July 6, 2008 - 08:48 ET by JasonCLet me take this opportunity to point out that I certainly think organizations like the military should have every right to drug test if they choose to. In the military, there are obvious reasons to exclude recreational drug users. Ditto professions like haz-mat transportation or police. Companies like Wal-Mart that drug test their cashiers, I think, are trying more to exclude a certain kind of person more than they are really concerned about the effect smoking pot will have on the employee's performance. Of course, a major point would be whether the employee comes to work stoned or simply gets high after work. Either way, he/she would fail a drug test.
I still maintain that your 'typical pothead' figure of an unemployed parental-basement-dweller is completely off-base. It has as much legitimacy as my drunkard stereotype.
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
Companies like Wal-Mart
July 6, 2008 - 09:11 ET by BDCompanies like Wal-Mart that drug test their cashiers, I think, are trying more to exclude a certain kind of person more than they are really concerned about the effect smoking pot will have on the employee's performance.
There you go again with
July 6, 2008 - 16:23 ET by JasonCThere you go again with your ridiculous stereotypes. How do you not get it that saying "anyone who smokes pot is a loser" makes as much sense as saying "anyone who drinks chianti with dinner is a wino"?
In my early twenties I smoked a great deal of pot - roughly 1/4 oz. a week, for those of you who know how much that is - and I can assure you of three things:
1. I never had problems with the law.
2. I worked 60 hours/week and made a lot of money for myself and my employer (who was cool enough not to demand drug tests and who left his employees alone about such things as long as it didn't affect their work.
3. I quit completely, of my own accord, around age 24.
As I said, I think businesses should be allowed to conduct tests if they wish. But I do not think I am far off in saying it is to avoid hiring a certain stereotype of person. If a person's pot use affects their performance, they should be fired because of that performance. I know a couple of pot heads that I would love to have work for me, because notwithstanding what they do on their own time, they are talented, hard-working, and dependable.
And that is part of the problem with drug-testing. It doesn't matter if you occasionally smoke a joint to relax after work or get high behind the building every two hours. The test will nab you either way - it doesn't discriminate between on and off the job use. So again, why not just fire people who mess up at work, rather than trying to guess who will mess up based on their drug use and dictating what people can or can't do off the clock?
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
In my early twenties I smoked a great deal of pot
July 6, 2008 - 16:32 ET by Free StinkerIn my early twenties I smoked a great deal of pot
I gotta tell ya, I'm shocked to hear that! /Sarcasm Off
And yet, I was a productive
July 6, 2008 - 16:52 ET by JasonCAnd yet, I was a productive citizen and decided for myself when it was time to quit. Now, like any person who kicks a bad habit, I do look at pot-smokers now with a bit of contempt - something along the lines of "Hmmph, I'm so over that" - but that doesn't make me feel differently about the wrongheadedness of prohibition.
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
1.) Ar eyou more
July 6, 2008 - 17:30 ET by BD1.) Ar eyou more productive NOW than you were THEN?
2.) If not why did you quit?
EVERY person I have met who was a pothead was a loser. SOrry, you might not have thought you were, but sadly most alcoholics and Heroin addicts think they are on the ball as well.
You can look backward with all the rose colored galsses you want. You were undoubtedly still a L-O-S-E-R.
1. About the same. Popular
July 6, 2008 - 17:36 ET by JasonC1. About the same. Popular misconceptions aside, being stoned can be kinda motivating for some things, in the right frame of mind.
2. I realized I no longer enjoyed it, so why spend money on it?
[final paragraph]. If you say so. And I'll just assume you're a lush what with all that chianti.
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
You are free to think of me
July 6, 2008 - 19:03 ET by BDYou are free to think of me what you will.
Well I for one BD am glad you are not a pot head
July 6, 2008 - 19:07 ET by Dee BunkI can't imagine a pot head doing as good a job as you do fighting for this country.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
are you kidding me Jason?
July 6, 2008 - 14:45 ET by candanceCompanies like Wal-Mart that drug test their cashiers, I think, are trying more to exclude a certain kind of person more than they are really concerned about the effect smoking pot will have on the employee's performance
This has to be a joke. Do you *work* with a lot of people who routinely smoke pot? I do and I see every day that you can tell the difference in their job performance.
Some of the people at work come in smelling like stale smoke, not paying attention, making a lot of mistakes, etc. Wait until you own your own business and one man comes in high and drives a fork lift into his buddy. Your workers' comp insurance would require you to ban pot users from there on out. It doesn't have anything to do with being snobby.
Candance, see my response
July 6, 2008 - 16:25 ET by JasonCCandance, see my response to BD above.
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
Jason - I called it a diversion - you added deceitful and
July 6, 2008 - 12:17 ET by Dee Bunkduplicitious. If you want to admit that, I won't argue but I wouldn't have gone that far myself.
My point is that you ignore my arguments and can't even see that even though I have some similar beliefs about everyday pot smokers as BD, my argument is completely different from his. My argument (below) dealt with your hypocricy argument and I understand why you don't want to address it.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
What was my "hypocricy
July 6, 2008 - 16:23 ET by JasonCWhat was my "hypocricy argument" [sic], again?
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
It's down near the end of the thread Jason
July 6, 2008 - 19:08 ET by Dee BunkYou never responded. Don't worry about it, I'm bored with this topic now anyway.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
ironchef, I think people who consume alcohol yet condemn pot...
July 7, 2008 - 21:23 ET by R D Helm...are being a little hypocritical. Actually, they are being a lot hypocritical.
We tried outlawing alcohol in this country once and got organized crime, and a lot of dead innocent Americans, for our troubles.
We are seeing the exact same result with the "War on Drugs," yet no one seems to be the least bit concerned.
To me, this entire issue boils down to true freedom. The fact that some people are using the force of government to prevent others from doing anything that is not a threat to the life, liberty, or property of others, is in total confict my my concept of liberty.
Sad so many conservatives are oblivious to that simple, yet profound concept.
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
Well said.
July 8, 2008 - 03:34 ET by WhichWingWell said.
Exactly RD
July 6, 2008 - 16:19 ET by shawn228This goes against conservative values and more for the moral police values.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
Huh???
July 7, 2008 - 04:23 ET by UnsaneWho is a Leftist to tell conservatives what goes against conservative values?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Who is a Conservative to
July 8, 2008 - 03:36 ET by WhichWingWho is a Conservative to tell a Leftist what not to consume?
"Contradictions collapse" ;)
July 8, 2008 - 04:09 ET by sarcasmoSorry, couldn't resist. Expect a very-angry response which might be unintentionally hilarious, especially if you're not paying taxes in the USA to finance this weird prohibitionist religion. Taxpayers like me keep having to look harder & harder to find any humor in the drugwar's obese government worship cult...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Hang me
July 9, 2008 - 03:24 ET by UnsaneI care about public health/safety issues. Hang me from the nearest tree.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
So when are you going to
July 9, 2008 - 04:14 ET by WhichWingSo when are you going to apply this to ALL substances that pose health and safety issues?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
To quote Jules:
July 12, 2008 - 19:23 ET by UnsaneExample.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
I'll go with the obvious
July 13, 2008 - 06:05 ET by WhichWingI'll go with the obvious ones. Alcohol and cigarettes.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
I didn't expect you to have
July 17, 2008 - 06:43 ET by WhichWingI didn't expect you to have an answer, yet I'm surprised that you haven't responded.
Shocking
July 18, 2008 - 01:46 ET by UnsaneIt may come as a shock to you, but between my job, Reserve duty, and various other errands and hobbies, NB is rather low on my list of priorities at times.
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
Bad examples
July 18, 2008 - 01:43 ET by UnsaneProhibition still exists (read the 21st Amendment very carefully) and take a look at cigarettes. They are ALL but illegal.
But as far as cigarettes go, I have yet to hear of anyone who has killed anyone else driving under the influence of nicotine (for one example). Try driving under the influence of the hippie lettuce.
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
I care about public
July 18, 2008 - 05:39 ET by WhichWingI care about public health/safety issues.
So when are you going to apply this to ALL substances that pose health and safety issues?
Example.
I'll go with the obvious ones. Alcohol and cigarettes.
Prohibition still exists (read the 21st Amendment very carefully) and take a look at cigarettes. They are ALL but illegal.
But as far as cigarettes go, I have yet to hear of anyone who has
killed anyone else driving under the influence of nicotine (for one
example). Try driving under the influence of the hippie lettuce.
So, I'll ask again, when are you going to apply this to ALL substances that pose health and safety issues? (I see you ignored alcohol altogether in your response.)
P.S. I'd be up for your challenge. You get drunk, I'll get high, then we'll see who gets stopped first.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Try reading sometime
July 20, 2008 - 14:46 ET by UnsaneSo, I'll ask again, when are you going to apply this to ALL substances that pose health and safety issues? I am. Your failure and inability to simply READ is showing itself again. Look at how heavily regulated LEGAL products like alcohol and cigarettes are. (I don't know how alcohol effects people more greatly on Sundays, but you cannot purchase alcohol before noon on Sundays in TX.) (I see you ignored alcohol altogether in your response.) Well, maybe if you stopped burning blunts and READ the response, you will see that I asked you to read the 21st Amendment carefully to see that Prohibition isn't as over as you think. It is clear to me that your constant consuming of drugs has had detrimental effects on your ability to read. Which is yet ANOTHER reason to keep drugs illegal. Even alcoholics and cig smokers can still read.
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
Obviously
July 20, 2008 - 16:11 ET by doug1950You have never dropped a cigarette between your legs while driving.
Cigarette ash
July 23, 2008 - 05:13 ET by UnsaneHey, I got hit with burning cigarette ash in various places after people swear up and down the ash got flicked out the window. It sucks. (But I never lost control of the car or anything lile that.) Can't say I dropped a cigarette between my legs though...
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
what you don't realize is
July 4, 2008 - 16:48 ET by BDwhat you don't realize is you've met lots of people who smoke pot who AREN'T losers.
We (as conservatives) don't blame guns for gun violence.
So why do you blame the inanimate object called "pot" for some people making bad decisions?
Be consistant-some people will be able to use pot responsibly and others will not.
But don't ban it from everybody based on the argument that "some people will not use it correctly/some people will be harmed".
what you don't realize is
July 4, 2008 - 18:27 ET by ironchefofmunchieswhat you don't realize is you've met lots of people who smoke pot who AREN'T losers.
We (as conservatives) don't blame guns for gun violence.
Be consistant-some people will be able to use pot responsibly and others will not.
But don't ban it from everybody based on the argument that "some people will not use it correctly/some people will be harmed".
I gotta ask where you live,
July 4, 2008 - 16:32 ET by BDI gotta ask where you live, because what you describe is NOT my experience at all.
according to his profile he
July 5, 2008 - 09:58 ET by TruthMongeraccording to his profile he is from lalaland
(toke/type post/toke/type post/toke/yell upstairs MA WHERE'S MY MEATLOAF?!?!?!?!?!?/toke/what was i doing again?)
Yeah BD - I think regular user is the key
July 4, 2008 - 12:32 ET by Dee BunkI know some people who just do it once in a rare while for nostalgia or something and they are the only ones I know that are not losers.
Smoking pot makes people less motivated, there is no doubt about it.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Dee,
July 7, 2008 - 21:49 ET by RESTLESS 1You'd be surprised how motivated pot smokers can be when the pot is running low. I've seen some go absolutely McGyver when using common items to make bongs. Of course, they are so addled, I guess it never occurs to them to go 15 feet to the corner store and buy some papers. LOL.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Addled is the PERfect
July 8, 2008 - 09:03 ET by BDAddled is the PERfect term.
Years ago I was doing some Counter-Narcotics analysis in SOuthwestern Arizona.
My station I was working at owned a traffic checkpoint about six miles north of the border on I-8 and all traffic was monitored by having an agent monitor the traffic and profile anything suspicious.
I got a call from a very excited agent at the ckeckpoint who was nearly giggling over the radio that they had found something suspicious and headed that way in my vehicle to oberve the events and further work on my analysis.
When I was about 1/4 mile away I could tell which vehicle was pulled over for inspection and decided to try and determine what particular profile the driver had "Busted" to arouse suspicion of the BP agents manning the checkpoint.
About 1/8 of a mile from the checkpoint I could tell that it was a VW Microbus - BING! Strike 1.
A few seconds later as I started to pull in behind it I noticed that the owners had painted huge pot leaves in green tempra pain on the panels of the vehicle - BING!! Strike 2.
As I pulled in behind it I noticed several bumper stickers attached to the vehicle in random patterns saying things like "Decriminalize Pot" - BING!!! Strike 3.
As I walked around to the side of the vehicle I noticed three extremely thin blond guys with scraggly beards and dreadlocks just wearing shorts handcuffed and hunched over as the patrolmen who by now I could tell were giggling as they furthered the investigation.
One of the agents waved me over towards the side door and as I passed the first of the Moron kids I heard him say to the agent who was looking at him "Dude- DUDE, Its just Gods HERB!!!!"
Then the agent slid the side door open with a very graphic motion and did a Vana White impersonation as he pointed to the 24 potted pot plants neatly arranged on the van floor.
During the later interrogation which I read, these morons had sat around getting buzzed on their floor of their dive in California and said "You know dude, all those cool people on the east coast don't have our good pot! We should take it to them."
So with half a tank of gas, $10, and a single bottle of water they loaded up the Microbus and set off for the east coast.
If the BP had not stopped them their bones would still be bleaching in the sun west of Phoenix.
L-O-S-E-R-S!!!!!!
I see you that all involved
July 8, 2008 - 17:42 ET by WhichWingI see that all involved were concerned about these potheads and the crimes they committed, but tell us, how is the victim doing after all this?
Would you throw that
July 8, 2008 - 17:59 ET by RESTLESS 1Would you throw that flippant remark out if they were driving drunk instead of stoned?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
There was no mention of
July 8, 2008 - 19:17 ET by WhichWingThere was no mention of anyone driving stoned, you jumped to that conclusion all by yourself. There wasn't even a mention of dried marijuana, just potted plants. So how's that for a flippant remark?
"During the later
July 8, 2008 - 22:19 ET by RESTLESS 1"During the later interrogation which I read, these morons had sat
around getting buzzed on their floor of their dive in California and
said 'You know dude, all those cool people on the east coast don't have
our good pot! We should take it to them.'"
Your comprehension skills need work. The above quote would bring any sane person to the conclusion they were operating the vehicle while under the influence.
As for flippancy, I've seen better.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
My comprehension skills?
July 9, 2008 - 02:23 ET by WhichWingMy comprehension skills? You are jumping to the conclusions here. When were they getting buzzed? That day? A few days before? It was in California, we know that from your quote. We also know that they were stopped in Arizona. Were they still buzzed? You assume so.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Victims? Okay, lets
July 8, 2008 - 18:11 ET by BDVictims?
Okay, lets see. 24 potted pot plants were prevented from reaching the east coast (or Marana under a best case scenario) THerefore the public was prevented with having to deal with an increasing number of LOSERS supplied by three LOSERS who used them inapproriately. THerefore prevention of increased victims.
THree LOSERS were removed from society and locked up, even if only for a short time. According to the Broekn windows school of thought, that is a decrease in victimization right there.
The three LOSERs lives were saved from wandering in 126 degree heat in the western Arizona Desert.
THe possibility of a DUI based fatality was alleviated.
All in all, a VERY GOOD DAY.
We're stretching awful hard
July 8, 2008 - 19:17 ET by WhichWingWe're stretching awful hard to find some victims, aren't we? You've decided that marijuana on the east coast from these guys would result in an increased number of losers. But what in the world do you base that on? It's also strange that you want to give these guys all kinds of credit all of a sudden. These 3 guys, that you insist were on their way to die in the hot sun, were going to supply the entire area with their 24 potted plants and VW micro bus? Get real, you stopped no crime that day, you only created three criminals. (And rest assured, that pot could easily have been traded for gas, so you aren't even a hero in that part of your story.)
The possibility of a fatal DUI? From a contact high with the potted plants? Or would you show the same concern when you find a vehicle with an unopened bottle of whiskey?
All in all, a huge waste of tax payer money, law enforement resources and prison space for actual criminals.
created three criminals.
July 8, 2008 - 19:22 ET by Clear thinker"you created three criminals."
Only those that break the law are criminal, so I say these three fit the bill. Everything that happened to them was their fault.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
So we have three criminals
July 8, 2008 - 19:49 ET by WhichWingSo we have three criminals and no victims? Who were the police protecting in this situation? Who was in danger as a result of these three guys possessing potted marijuana plants? (A weed that grows wildly in ditches across the country.)
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
The public at large. That's
July 8, 2008 - 19:49 ET by Clear thinkerThe public at large. That's their job, remember.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Please elaborate. How did
July 8, 2008 - 20:40 ET by WhichWingPlease elaborate. How did these individuals impose on or threaten the life or property of someone else?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
To review
July 9, 2008 - 03:38 ET by UnsaneLet's see here:
1) The cops protected the losers from themselves by saving them from certain death in the desert.
2) The cops protected unsuspecting drivers from people who were driving stoned from the looks of things.
I'm not nearly as big a fan of law enforcement as you might think. But here they did good. At minimum, they saved the losers' lives.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
It's a shame that you've
July 9, 2008 - 04:21 ET by WhichWingIt's a shame that you've based your entire post on assumptions:
1) You assume, along with BD, that they weren't capable of getting to their destination. You've both assumed that they were going to die in the hot sun had there not been an intervention.
2) You've assumed they were driving stoned "from the looks of things." What things? They had potted marijuana plants. Weeds! You can't just pluck it out of there and smoke it.
Then you complete your circular logic by announcing that the lives of these pitiful losers have been saved by their arrest. Nice work private.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
We're stretching awful hard
July 8, 2008 - 20:34 ET by BDWe're stretching awful hard to find some victims, aren't we?
You've decided that marijuana on the east coast from these guys would result in an increased number of losers.
But what in the world do you base that on?
It's also strange that you want to give these guys all kinds of credit all of a sudden.
These 3 guys, that you insist were on their way to die in the hot sun, were going to supply the entire area with their 24 potted plants and VW micro bus?
Get real, you stopped no crime that day,
you only created three criminals.
(And rest assured, that pot could easily have been traded for gas, so you aren't even a hero in that part of your story.)
The possibility of a fatal DUI? From a contact high with the potted plants?
Or would you show the same concern when you find a vehicle with an unopened bottle of whiskey?
All in all, a huge waste of tax payer money, law enforement resources and prison space for actual criminals.
There are plenty of people
July 8, 2008 - 20:47 ET by balboaThere are plenty of people who smoke pot that aren't "LOSERS." What a silly assumption to make.
In accordance with my
July 8, 2008 - 21:51 ET by BDIn accordance with my previous posts, the potsmokers I have met have uniformly been LOSERS. And I have met quite a few.
Therefore, I must asume they all are.
Likewise, all Islamic fascist terrorists I have met have been homicidal maniac assholes. So I likewise must assume all are.
How many pot smokers have
July 8, 2008 - 22:07 ET by balboaHow many pot smokers have you met? Were they all in the parking lot of a Phish concert? ;-)
I definitely think there are a lot of loser potheads. But I know many people -- successful, even! -- who smoke pot. Parents, businessmen and women, etc. I respect that that's your experience, but I've had more of a mix when it comes to tokers.
My first point here was
July 8, 2008 - 20:58 ET by WhichWingMy first point here was that there was no victim, or potential victim. You've not made a case for your side yet. Did you think that they intended to force others to consume their marijuana?
Your observations of how many people? Were they known users, or suspected? Were they chronic users, or occasional? Did they not let you come to their party in high school and you've held a grudge ever since?
Yes, obviously this was a "crime" by definition, but hiding behind that does not further this discussion. I am making the case that this should not be a crime, and you saying 'but it is' does not make a compelling case.
Yes, maybe you should let the 'LOSERS' bake in the sun. Or help them if that had been the situation. But it wasn't, you dreamed up the baking in the sun fantasy, remember?
"BUt then again we did not do a urinalysis. Didn't seem necessary since WE CAUGHT THEM WITH 24 POT PLANTS IN THE VW MICROBUS."
Now that sounds like some shitty police work to me. You should be embarrased to have made a statement like that in the position you are in.
'Let's assume that these folks are under the influence because we found pot plants. And stop that guy with the hops in his truck, he's obviously drunk!'
Of course I said UNopened bottle, since that would be similar to a plant. Not readily available for consumption. So, would you be as concerned about someone with an unopened bottle of liquor or not?
By the way, spelling out LOSER in capital letters doesn't make it any more true than if you had used small letters. Repeating it without backing it up doesn't seem to be helping you either.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Did you think that they
July 8, 2008 - 22:15 ET by BDDid you think that they intended to force others to consume their marijuana?
Your observations of how many people?
Were they known users, or suspected?
Were they chronic users, or occasional?
Did they not let you come to their party in high school and you've held a grudge ever since?
Yes, obviously this was a "crime" by definition,
I am making the case that this should not be a crime, and you saying 'but it is' does not make a compelling case.
Yes, maybe you should let the 'LOSERS' bake in the sun. Or help them if that had been the situation. But it wasn't, you dreamed up the baking in the sun fantasy, remember?
BUt then again we did not do a urinalysis. Didn't seem necessary since WE CAUGHT THEM WITH 24 POT PLANTS IN THE VW MICROBUS."
Now that sounds like some shitty police work to me.
You should be embarrased to have made a statement like that in the position you are in.
Of course I said UNopened bottle, since that would be similar to a plant. Not readily available for consumption. So, would you be as concerned about someone with an unopened bottle of liquor or not?
By the way, spelling out LOSER in capital letters doesn't make it any more true than if you had used small letters. Repeating it without backing it up doesn't seem to be helping you either.
BD, true...they lose me with
July 8, 2008 - 22:34 ET by Conservative VoiceBD, true...they lose me with its the "its no big deal" argument, and sarc absolutely loses me with his position that the drug war is a racist war. Where they have a compelling argument, and where I agree I wrote here. If they aren't willing to admit that drug use makes a person a loser, than I rather keep it illegal, because of slippery slope...make it legal, you make it that much harder for the state to remove kids in unhealthy homes.
So, do I lose you on the racist history?
July 9, 2008 - 04:43 ET by sarcasmoOr on the equally-racist present results??
I mean, the numbers aren't lying, whether you like 'em or not, and they're on my side on this one. I only decided to go on the offensive here when I discovered, to my shock, that so many conservatives were anti-racism activists when it comes to libertarian-leaning candidates for President, after all, so this negative reaction to my history-lesson is somewhat surprising. But that's why the sigfile stays 'till election-day.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Numbers are numbers, its
July 9, 2008 - 14:31 ET by Conservative VoiceNumbers are numbers, its the interpretation of the numbers that make statistics a tool of the devil. All the people in the 1800s who ate carrots, died. Hence carrots are bad for the health.
Are there some cops who are racist, sure. But just because there are more blacks proportionately in prison, doesn't make it a race issue. You even have to say "looks" racist, looks don't imply reality. The charge that most cops are racist is way off base...why is it that we give criminals innocent until proven guilty, but with cops, they are guilty if sarcasmo concludes that they "look" guilty? Here is some logic for you, its racist to claim that the drug war is racist, at least it looks racist.
I never mentioned cops
July 9, 2008 - 14:50 ET by sarcasmoI'm talking about the drugwar itself. You're the one who's trying to bring in cops, not me. As I said in the NewsBusted thread the other day, the drugwar is a religion. Nothing else could possibly require so damn much faith despite a history of failure.
Its history and its present application are racist, and proponents should want to repeal the 9th Amendment, but most frankly aren't that-honest when it comes to the Constitution. The history stuff's especially blatant, and can be found in the Congressional Record quite easily, so I don't know what conservatives think in their fetish for denial, which frankly reminds me of lefties '90s era reflexive denial of the obviously-racist history of gun laws.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
"its present application are
July 9, 2008 - 15:19 ET by Conservative Voice"its present application are racist", and how does this not bring in the cops sarc?
for that matter, I guess that means a majority of the judges are also racist?
I can't speak for anyone
July 10, 2008 - 06:08 ET by WhichWingI can't speak for anyone here, but I think Sarcasmo might be referring to the stiffer sentences for minority offenders. Such as the mandatory minimums for crack vs. cocaine. They are the same drug, but crack had a much stiffer punishment. Blacks were associated with crack, while whites were associated with cocaine.
These facts from a link in his signature might provide us with some clues:
became effective, the average federal drug offense sentence for blacks
was 11% higher than for whites. Four years later following the
implementation of harsher drug sentencing laws, the average federal
drug offense sentence was 49% higher for blacks.
offenses at yearend 2004, 112,500 (45.1%) were black, 51,800 (20.8%)
were Hispanic, and 65,900 (26.4%) were white.
I'm sure Sarc will be along sometime to clarify and back up his position.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
again, everyone who ate
July 10, 2008 - 14:12 ET by Conservative Voiceagain, everyone who ate carrots in the 1800s are dead, we can therefore conclude carrots will kill you.
How about, stonger sentence for cack because crack is more dangerous? If a white person uses crack, is he ignored? No he is treated the same as a black person who uses crack.
To prove that there was racism involved, you would have to look at the lawmakers. If they were out to get Blacks because they knew the stat that blacks used it more, so out of hate they wrote the law to "keep the Black Man in his place"...if that was THE reason why they made the law, then you would have a case against the lawmakers. The judges and police are just doing their job, and for whatever reasons Blacks happen to be caught more often. It doesn't imply racism, anymore does 90% of Al Sharpton accusations mean racism.
I could very easily reverse the logic on you btw. The law makers knowly knew Blacks were prone to crack, and so out of love and concern chose tough love as a means to help Blacks clean up their neighborhood and their lives. But more likely they wrote the law because crack users tend to use more vile criminal behavior to get the drug then the rich do in getting their coke, ie the Black variable didn't even enter the equation.
So this doesn't seem wrong
July 11, 2008 - 06:07 ET by WhichWingSo this doesn't seem wrong to you:
In 1986, before mandatory minimums for crack offenses became effective, the average federal drug offense sentence for blacks was 11% higher than for whites. Four years later following the implementation of harsher drug sentencing laws, the average federal drug offense sentence was 49% higher for blacks.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
ww,
July 11, 2008 - 07:40 ET by AgnosticSince it is the drug offense sentance that went up it could be construed that prior to mandatory sentancing that blacks were being let off with lesser sentances than whites. While it does go against what is commonly believed it is a possibility.
But the sentences were
July 12, 2008 - 05:40 ET by WhichWingBut the sentences were higher for blacks before AND after the change, so that seems unlikely.
No it doesn't, because the
July 11, 2008 - 12:53 ET by Conservative VoiceNo it doesn't, because the stat is meaningless. Please re-read my post about carrots. To prove that the law is racist, you can't simply look at the stat, you have to look at the intent of the lawmakers and prove they were out to get Blacks. To prove the application is racist, you would have to look at each judge and each cop who made the arrest. Are there racist judges, lawmakers, and cops...sure...but are they in the majority? You have yet to prove it, in the meantime I will give our lawmakers and judges and cops be innocent until proven guilty.
How about this:
July 12, 2008 - 05:40 ET by WhichWingThis exact topic was debated in Congress recently (and I believe a change in the law was made). Here is a Nov. 07 article on the subject, including these statements:
"The commission is taking up one of the most racially sensitive issues of the two-decades-old war on drugs. Jurists and civil rights organizations have long complained that the commission's guidelines mandate more stringent federal penalties for crack cocaine offenses, which usually involve African Americans, than for crimes involving powder cocaine, which generally involve white people. The chemical properties of the drugs are the same, though crack is potentially more addictive.
Nearly 86 percent of inmates who would be affected by the change are black; slightly fewer than 6 percent are white. Ninety-four percent are men."
Reductio ad absurdum
July 23, 2008 - 05:15 ET by UnsaneSo I can peddle drugs directly in front of HPD headquarters in downtown Houston and nothing will happen to me, right?
The cops will come out to arrest me, and one of them will say, "He's white. Leave him alone." Right?
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
Most of your post is
July 9, 2008 - 02:45 ET by WhichWingMost of your post is nonsense meant to avoid the topic at hand, but I'll humor you and play back.
You've declared all these people LOSERS based on your observations, but you haven't mentioned the criteria yet. You see, I think people that watch professional wrestling are losers. As well as people who read romance novels. Listen to Sting. Argue on the internet. CAPITALIZE words thinking that drives their point home.
But what does all this mean? Let's say you are right, and they are all losers. Why should we care? Let them be losers. It's not our duty to mold and guide every citizen into a productive role in our society. If someone were to commit a crime under the influence of marijuana, crack, alcohol or lsd, let's punish them for the crime committed. But the consumption or possession alone should not be a crime. There was a woman up here recently that was in court for letting her child drown in the bathtub while she shopped online in another room. She wasn't high or drunk. She was stupid. She neglected her child and that is a crime. Point is people, there are losers and stupid people everywhere, there are also responsible people. We can't lump them all together based on them smoking pot or shopping online.
"You aren't from around here are you? That is no mere dream. We find bones in the Sonoran desert all the time."
The dream was you dreaming of them baking in the sun if you hadn't come along and 'rescued' them.
"The USBP cannot arrest someone for (un)open container. Ergo, no problem."
The thought here is that an unopened bottle is not being consumed. Just like the potted plants. Ergo, no problem?
As for your crack about libertarian this or that, you better take a
long look in the mirror before you call someone a liberal, especially
after the position you've taken in this thread.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Most of your post is
July 9, 2008 - 10:00 ET by BDMost of your post is nonsense meant to avoid the topic at hand, but I'll humor you and play back.
You've declared all these people LOSERS based on your observations, but you haven't mentioned the criteria yet.
You see, I think people that watch professional wrestling are losers. As well as people who read romance novels. Listen to Sting. Argue on the internet. CAPITALIZE words thinking that drives their point home.
But what does all this mean? Let's say you are right, and they are all losers. Why should we care? Let them be losers.
"You aren't from around here are you? That is no mere dream. We find bones in the Sonoran desert all the time."
The dream was you dreaming of them baking in the sun if you hadn't come along and 'rescued' them.
"The USBP cannot arrest someone for (un)open container. Ergo, no problem."
The thought here is that an unopened bottle is not being consumed. Just like the potted plants. Ergo, no problem?
As for your crack about libertarian this or that, you better take a long look in the mirror before you call someone a liberal, especially after the position you've taken in this thread.
You didn't provide any
July 10, 2008 - 05:56 ET by WhichWingYou didn't provide any victims. You provided a bunch of what-if type scenarios. So I'll give you a hypothetical and you tell me who the victim is:
Let's say that right after I post this comment, I go sit in my LazyBoy and smoke a joint. A big joint. The biggest you could imagine. Afterwards I'll be baked out of my mind. Who is the victim?
As for your declaration of winners and losers, you don't have to do anything, but if you want anyone to take you seriously, I think it would only be right of you to tell us what you think constitutes a loser. Are they unemployed? Do they live with their parents well into middle age? Are pot-smoking entertainers who make millions of dollars a year LOSERS? If you found out tomorrow that your boss smoked pot would you be able to continue working for him/her? Would you be able to respect them still, or is it all out the window if you find out they smoke? (Even if they had been smoking for decades and you just found out?)
As far as what you call the Libertarian philosophy (Conservative too?) that I finally arrived at...I've made that argument many times, in many places. Instead of making it again with you, I wanted to know why you think everyone that smokes pot is a LOSER. (An answer that you have refused to provide.)
Good for you and the rescue missions that you've been dispatched to in the past, but the story in question was not one of them. It was pure speculation on your part to say that they would of baked to death in the desert, is it not?
You are stubbornly refusing to see the point of the unopened bottle question. I'm not asking what the law is or who can or cannot enforce it. I'm asking your opinion. Is an unopened bottle of liquor just as concerning to you as a potted marijuana plant? Why or why not. (This will be tough, but try not to say "because its the law!")
I didn't enter into this thread to spread Libertarian philosophy. Just as I imagine you didn't come here to spread Conservative philosophy. I've been arguing for the end of this illogical war on drugs since before I knew what a Libertarian was, so where does that leave me? You see, the viewpoints I already had is what drew me to libertarianism, not the other way around.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Let's say that right after
July 10, 2008 - 08:52 ET by BDLet's say that right after I post this comment, I go sit in my LazyBoy and smoke a joint. A big joint. The biggest you could imagine. Afterwards I'll be baked out of my mind. Who is the victim?
As for your declaration of winners and losers, you don't have to do anything, but if you want anyone to take you seriously, I think it would only be right of you to tell us what you think constitutes a loser. Are they unemployed?
Are pot-smoking entertainers who make millions of dollars a year LOSERS? If you found out tomorrow that your boss smoked pot would you be able to continue working for him/her?
As far as what you call the Libertarian philosophy (Conservative too?) that I finally arrived at...I've made that argument many times, in many places.
I wanted to know why you think everyone that smokes pot is a LOSER.
Good for you and the rescue missions that you've been dispatched to in the past, but the story in question was not one of them.
I'm asking your opinion. Is an unopened bottle of liquor just as concerning to you as a potted marijuana plant? Why or why not. (This will be tough, but try not to say "because its the law!")
I've been arguing for the end of this illogical war on drugs since before I knew what a Libertarian was, so where does that leave me?
We will start with your
July 11, 2008 - 06:37 ET by WhichWingWe will start with your self. If you did so it would be apparrent that
you could not hold a decent job or be a productive citizen. ("Mom, can
you get me a yoo-hoo?) WHich leads to society losing productive
personnel.
Scratch this one, I work an average of 42 hours a week. I have had a full time job since I was a senior in high school, and I haven't lived with my folks since I was 17.
We will procede on to your children who will also be apt to be losers
since they tend to follow the activities of their parents. THey will
also have contact with the THC.
Scratch this one too, since I have no kids.
We will also add the people who sold you the marijuana (I assume you
bought the illegal product) since they are also vicitimsi n that they
are also losers.
So, my purchasing a product that someone else was looking to sell makes them a victim? I don't think so. I do appreciate the effort though.
We will apply anyone who comes into contact with you at your home.
I don't see how this would make anyone a victim.
So again, you've failed miserably to show who the victim is when an individual consumes marijuana from the comfort of their own home.
Statistically, those wo use illicit drugs are much more apt to be unemployed or underemployed.
You going to back that up, or is it just true because you said "statistically" at the beginning of the sentence? And do you think this is so because the drugs cause it, or the persecution for using drugs?
You are kidding right? If my boss came up hot on a piss test, he would
be forced to resign in disgrace. His good name would be ruined, and
there would be no chance for him to get a decent job in the outside
world.
Ah, you've made my point quite nicely. Let's say your boss had been smoking pot for 20 years, and all the while doing a great job at work. Then you discover one day that he smokes pot and he is suddenly a disgrace that can't get a decent job in the outside world. His use did not have an adverse effect on his job, or you might of noticed alot sooner. Not only that, you've now decided that he's not worthy of a decent job. So who is causing the unemployment? Use of drugs, or your desire to control other people's lives?
Your definition of loser is pretty pathetic. In fact, you weren't able to do it in any of your 4 "points" without actually saying loser. You ever seen a dictionary defintion that used the word in question to define the word? I didn't think so, try again. (Plus I noticed you tried to preempt a bunch of counter arguments, but then stopped short of providing a reason that they don't apply. I would guess that this is due to your inability to do so.)
Actually, we prevented it from happening. You obviously have never
been in hte Sonoran Desert because the BP checkpoint i s the last
freindly location for about 100 miles. THe odds of these LOSERS making
it to Gila Bend in 126 degree heat was MARGINAL.
Is that so? You prevented it from happening?? As I said in my previous post, that you just happened to leave out of your response, it was pure speculation as to what would of happened to these guys had you not been there. Admit to that so we can stop going in circles over this irrelevant point.
Well, under that assessment, transferring a vial of plutonium in a lead
lined case is equally safe as is transferring binary chemical rounds
without the fuses.
You are still refusing to answer this one, and I honestly can't figure out why. Do you consider the transportation of an unopened bottle of liquor to be as serious of a concern as the transportation of potted marijuana plants?
That leaves you as a Marijuana Evangelical.
I guess that makes you a LOSER Evangelical?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Scratch this one, I work an
July 11, 2008 - 08:32 ET by BDScratch this one, I work an average of 42 hours a week. I have had a full time job since I was a senior in high school, and I haven't lived with my folks since I was 17.
Scratch this one too, since I have no kids.
So, my purchasing a product that someone else was looking to sell makes them a victim? I don't think so. I do appreciate the effort though.
You going to back that up, or is it just true because you said "statistically" at the beginning of the sentence? And do you think this is so because the drugs cause it, or the persecution for using drugs?
Ah, you've made my point quite nicely. Let's say your boss had been smoking pot for 20 years, and all the while doing a great job at work.
Your definition of loser is pretty pathetic. In fact, you weren't able to do it in any of your 4 "points" without actually saying loser.
THe odds of these LOSERS making it to Gila Bend in 126 degree heat was MARGINAL. Is that so? You prevented it from happening??
Do you consider the transportation of an unopened bottle of liquor to be as serious of a concern as the transportation of potted marijuana plants?
That leaves you as a Marijuana Evangelical. I guess that makes you a LOSER Evangelical?
You describe my situation
July 12, 2008 - 06:00 ET by WhichWingYou describe my situation as an exception to the rule, when in fact it may be the other way around (although we'll likely never have definitive proof either way). The person you asked about who sells the drugs...he works a full time job as well. There are many people that buy and sell drugs to either save money (savings on quantity, just like many other goods) or for a little extra spending money. Now, as in any situation, this is going to vary from person to person. Some users are losers, some dealers are losers, but then some church members are losers, some bakers, bankers, scientists and on and on are losers. I guess that is the main point I try to get across to you when you start calling everyone a loser. We all know by now that all situations are different, and the prejudice shown by lumping large groups of people into a single category is not pretty.
Impossible. Brigadier Generals are on duty 24-7 365. Having to make
decisions about deployment sof troops all the while buzzed is hardly
likely.
Would be just as upset to find out he had used alcohol at any point during that 24-7 365 job? (Not meaning to imply that you should or shouldn't, I am asking.)
I do not. Nor is it illegal.
I appreciate your response, and I'm sure you saw my point coming from a mile away, but I'll make it anyway. Someone bringing their liquor home from the store is no worse than someone bringing their weed home from the dealer. One is legal, one is not, but one is still no worse than the other
Another point about the legalization of drugs: Crimes committed on, or in pursuit of drugs would still be crimes. 'Driving while intoxicated' is a crime, whatever the substance. Child neglect is a crime, whether it be caused by heavy drug use or extreme laziness. Robbery is a crime, drugs involved or not. I'm simply saying that people who can consume drugs in a responsible manner should be allowed to do so, and there are many people that can do just that.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
You describe my situation
July 13, 2008 - 11:59 ET by BDYou describe my situation as an exception to the rule, when in fact it may be the other way around (although we'll likely never have definitive proof either way).
Would be just as upset to find out he had used alcohol at any point during that 24-7 365 job? (Not meaning to imply that you should or shouldn't, I am asking.)
Society has already made
July 13, 2008 - 19:13 ET by WhichWingSociety has already made that call for us.
When did this happen? Do you know when, how, and why marijuana was first prohibited? You might be surprised by the misinformation used to accomplish this task, and to continue it.
I would love to see the results of that poll you mentioned. But it really would be pointless. Asking whether or not people should legally be allowed to consume pot regularly would be a much more interesting poll.
I would NOT be concerned. The whole intent behind using pot is to get high. No one smokes pot to have 0% effect.
There are relatively few people who use pot to have no effect (as in 'get high'). The same is true of alcohol. But just as there are exceptions for alcohol users, there are exceptions for marijuana users (medical uses). And just as some people don't drink to get totally drunk, some people don't smoke to get totally baked.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
When did this
July 13, 2008 - 21:05 ET by BDWhen did this happen?
I would love to see the results of that poll you mentioned.
There are relatively few people who use pot to have no effect (as in 'get high').
The same is true of alcohol.
there are exceptions for marijuana users (medical uses).
And just as some people don't drink to get totally drunk, some people don't smoke to get totally baked.
First, if given a
July 13, 2008 - 23:25 ET by WhichWingFirst, if given a referendum and voted down, then I do not object to that community's choice. I hope it has the oppurtunity to be presented truth's, not scare tactics, before voting. (Ever seen "Reefer Madness"?) I also hope that the federal gov't respects the will of the states. (Which hasn't happened thus far.)
Your speculation on the imaginary poll is fun but pointless. There must have been some polls on this subject, find us some results.
No one smokes marijuana for the taste, nor the opportunity to get lung cancer.
Would you make the same statement about cigarettes? They taste gross and almost guarentee you a shot at cancer. Yet we lose something like 400,000 citizens a year to tobacco. (Zero to marijuana.)
I disagree. I would say that most people who drink alcohol do so without the intention of getting intoxicated.
When you say intoxicated, do you mean drunk? I think the majority of people are after a buzz, a slight buzz most times, but a buzz nonetheless. (Buzz = high, by the way.)
Nonsense. smoking medical marijuana is a false choice. Better options exist, Marinol being one such .
Smoking marijuana is not the only way to consume it. I would think that alot of medical users would cook and eat it. Since, depending on the illness, smoking could be more hazardous to their health. Next, why would you ban a naturally occurring substance and promote a synthetic alternative? Why take work from farmers and give millions to drug companies? Marijuana should be the worlds cheapest medicine, but you want to prohibit it, drive up the price of it, and offer for sale an identical substance at an unfair price? This does not sound like conservative/free market philosophy to me.
{some people don't smoke to get totally baked.}
Right......
Ever heard of a "one-hitter"?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
First, if given a
July 14, 2008 - 09:43 ET by BDFirst, if given a referendum and voted down, then I do not object to that community's choice. I hope it has the oppurtunity to be presented truth's, not scare tactics, before voting. (Ever seen "Reefer Madness"?) I also hope that the federal gov't respects the will of the states. (Which hasn't happened thus far.)
No one smokes marijuana for the taste, nor the opportunity to get lung cancer. Would you make the same statement about cigarettes? They taste gross and almost guarentee you a shot at cancer. Yet we lose something like 400,000 citizens a year to tobacco. (Zero to marijuana.)
I disagree. I would say that most people who drink alcohol do so without the intention of getting intoxicated. When you say intoxicated, do you mean drunk? I think the majority of people are after a buzz, a slight buzz most times, but a buzz nonetheless. (Buzz = high, by the way.)
Smoking marijuana is not the only way to consume it. I would think that alot of medical users would cook and eat it. Since, depending on the illness, smoking could be more hazardous to their health. Next, why would you ban a naturally occurring substance and promote a synthetic alternative? Why take work from farmers and give millions to drug companies? Marijuana should be the worlds cheapest medicine, but you want to prohibit it, drive up the price of it, and offer for sale an identical substance at an unfair price? This does not sound like conservative/free market philosophy to me.
Right...... Ever heard of a "one-hitter"?
So, the public is deluded
July 14, 2008 - 12:20 ET by WhichWingSo, the public is deluded and only the acolytes of the great weed hold the secret to life?
I don't understand your comment. I said I had no objection to a community voting down the use of marijuana by way of a referendum.
Oh, and
marijuana has the same carcinogenic effects.
Ooooppps. I forgot, can't say that to a marijuana evangelical, they come UNGLUED.
Unglued? Show me one death attributed to marijuana use alone. Just one.
I do not, nor do my friends go after the BUZZ. I would assume the rest
of the public is much the same. But then again, perhaps we have
tighter standards.
So, you are suggesting people are drinking tequila for the smooth taste? I spent many years working in bars and restaurants and I know that a majority of the customers that drank, drank to get a buzz, if not hammered. (By the way, in this little town of 3,500 people, there are 6 bars and a liquor store, someone is getting drunk.)
Processing gets rid of in=mpurities, concentrates, and produces a dosed drug that is safer.
Safer? I refer back to my earlier statement, find one case where someone died from marijuana use alone. Then look up side effects of marijuana vs. marinol.
Cocaine also has therapeutic capabilities, wanna had out bags of it?
No, nor do I want to hand out bags of marijuana.
Right........
You seem to claim a lot of expertise on this subject. Have you ever smoked pot? Do you know how high you get from a joint vs. a one-hitter vs. a water bong?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
http://alcoholism.ab...
July 14, 2008 - 12:59 ET by Conservative Voicehttp://alcoholism.ab...
From your link: hundreds
July 14, 2008 - 19:42 ET by WhichWingFrom your link:
hundreds of young people die each year in "accidents" caused by their prolonged use of the drug
What does that mean? Why did they need to put accidents in quotation marks? The article was about as vague as you could be.
If this is considered evidence for prohibition, then we need to immediately ban cell phones and medicines that cause drowsiness. (Due to the accidents they cause.)
you claimed zero fatalities
July 14, 2008 - 19:59 ET by Conservative Voiceyou claimed zero fatalities are related to weed, I provided information that disproved that assertion.
That's laughable. Your
July 15, 2008 - 00:44 ET by WhichWingThat's laughable. Your link proved nothing. Go ahead, cite the facts from that article that disproved my assertion.
It claims that "hundreds of young people die each year in 'accidents' caused by their prolonged use of the drug," and then doesn't say a word to back it up. No facts to be found in the whole thing.
To contrast, try this link: with sources
Whats laughable is your
July 15, 2008 - 15:35 ET by Conservative VoiceWhats laughable is your glorification for the drug. The more you glorify the drug, the less incline I am to making it legal. Stick with the libertarian argument...is it the government's business? When you minimize the harmful effects instead of being honest about it, makes you a propagandist, and one to not be trusted.
Look, I am one of those conservatives who doesn't believe in seat belt laws nor speed laws...because I am one of those don't tread on me kind of guys. But when you glorify a harmful substance and claim its no big deal, then I would rather keep it illegal. Fact is when the alcohol prohibition was enforced, America did drink less. Crime in your mind increased, but this is a folly...the mob was already in place. They sold gambling and prostitutes. In fact lets look at gambling. The more they make gambling available, the more money is spent on gambling, and the more losers we have. Drugs are no different. I would be ok to make it legal if and only if it was understood that users are losers, and if you use around kids, you lose them.
Glorification of the
July 15, 2008 - 18:13 ET by WhichWingGlorification of the drug? Another laugh. Alcohol is promoted at almost every turn. We all gather around at the Super Bowl and watch beer commercials that cost millions of dollars to air. The media likes to ask "who you would rather have a beer with" when looking at presidential candidates. Yet I'm glorifying marijuana by pointing out facts that you can't dispute? You must apply your entire post to alcohol, or drop your silly premise entirely.
By the way, America became hard liquor drinkers as a result of prohibition. Beer was the substance of choice, but that was not easily made by home brewers trying to stay below the radar. Just as meth is easier to make undetected in a shed than weed is to grow undetected in a field. Our laws have made harder drug use much more prevelant in this country.
So, up to this point in time, what would you credit the War on Drugs with accomplishing?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
WhichWhine...
July 15, 2008 - 18:24 ET by Clear thinkerI will make you a deal.
If you will spend your time trying to get alcohol outlawed, and you succeed, then I will climb on board with legalizing drugs. Better get busy.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
I can't do that. You see,
July 15, 2008 - 19:27 ET by WhichWingI can't do that. You see, while I oppose the use of alcohol and don't use it myself, I don't want to take away anyone else's right to use it. Also, while I have used marijuana and feel I had a right to do so, I don't necessarily recommend someone else do it, I just think they should have the right to make that choice themselves.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Ok WhichWing...
July 15, 2008 - 19:33 ET by Clear thinkerThen it won't be any time soon that I will be supporting your agenda!
At least you were honest about it.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
WhichWing, you are
July 15, 2008 - 18:51 ET by Conservative VoiceWhichWing, you are challenging the wrong person. Though I have libertarian leanings, I have no problem with the alcohol ban for moral reasons.
My problem with the war on drugs, is it isn't a war. If it was, we would use the military to bomb drug cartels, we would do more on the border, etc. You seem to think drugs are adult candy.
On the one hand, I can agree that the government should mine its own business. But I quickly change my mind when people like you minimize the problems with drugs...even celebrate its use. Because I have seen too many foster kids in my home because their parents are too stoned to care for them. I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't do drugs. If we want to legalize drugs, fine, then keep them immoral. Continue to allow and encourage random drug tests, continue to take kids away from drug users, continue to throw the book at people who use and drive.
I also think there is a major difference from a beer drinker or a smoker and a pothead. I could care less about the health problems seen 30 years later, rather how does the person respond to now. I can have an intelligent conversation with someone who smokes, and for the most part have an intelligent conversation with a drinker, but after one joint, they are as BD described...a loser. With driving, smoking has very little effect. Alcohol has some, a joint...hmmm ya, don't think so. Because Alcohol, you lose response time, but at least you still care...a pothead not so much.
With kids, if the parents smoke, I don't care. If they drink, I don't care as long as they aren't negligent, with weed...sorry man, you're too much of a loser.
You are taking your
July 15, 2008 - 19:55 ET by WhichWingYou are taking your argument further down the wrong path, in my opinion. Banning something to 'protect people from themselves' is wrong, and worse is declaring something immoral. Your morals are your morals, not mine.
If someone's drug use leads to child neglect or abuse, their kids should definately be taken away from them. But we should really just take the "drug use" out of that statement and just punish those that neglect or abuse their children. Using drugs as the scapegoat serves no useful purpose. I'm sure it is a contributing factor in some cases, no doubt about it. But we don't need to punish everyone for the acts of a few. I mentioned a story up here recently, where a woman let her toddler drown in the tub while she shopped for shoes online. It was an awful story, but it was not followed with calls for banning computers or online shopping. She was irresponsible. And she will pay for her crime. That is the universal standard that needs to be applied. Child neglect is the crime, not smoking pot or shopping online.
I'm not opposed to drug tests by employers, that's their right to do so. I do think it's unfortunate that their testing methods seem aimed primarily at pot users. Pot is one of only a few substances that will show up in your urine for a long period of time after use. Much more dangerous drugs, such as cocaine and meth, will not usually show up in urine for more than a day or so. This then ends up leaving the employers with a false sense of security. They think they have kept all users out of their facility, when in fact, they may have just hired every alcoholic and coke-head in town. (At least they'll have kept those dangers pot users out, right?)
but after one joint, they are as BD described...a loser.
It's too bad that you decided to reduce our conversation to this. One joint is going to have a different effect on different people. I'll leave it there.
Because Alcohol, you lose response time, but at least you still care...a pothead not so much.
What in the world do you base this statement on???
With kids, if the parents smoke, I don't care. If they drink, I don't
care as long as they aren't negligent, with weed...sorry man, you're
too much of a loser.
Let's just apply your drinking standard to the weed. And please, don't go this "loser" route. There are daily pot smokers and there are daily drinkers. There are social drinkers and social pot smokers. Why the hell do you lump the pot smokers together, but refuse to do so on the drinkers? At least try to be consistent in the condemnation of your fellow citizens...
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Ooooppps. I forgot, can't
July 14, 2008 - 13:27 ET by BDOoooppps. I forgot, can't say that to a marijuana evangelical, they come UNGLUED. Unglued? Show me one death attributed to marijuana use alone. Just one.
So, you are suggesting people are drinking tequila for the smooth taste?
Safer? I refer back to my earlier statement, find one case where someone died from marijuana use alone. Then look up side effects of marijuana vs. marinol
But we can find hundreds of
July 14, 2008 - 19:44 ET by WhichWingBut we can find hundreds of thousands of deaths attributed every year to cigarettes, or alcohol. Not once has someone said, "This man died as a result of marijuana use."
Did you look up the side effects of marinol vs. marijuana? A chemical creation vs. a plant. I wonder which one is more dangerous?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Suicide by Pot...
July 14, 2008 - 19:48 ET by Clear thinkerHalf of the students in this video committed suicide after spending a day with their teacher. And it was all caught on tape!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0CN9lVblko
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
LMAO! I don't know what
July 15, 2008 - 00:34 ET by WhichWingLMAO! I don't know what that was, but I think I found his European cousin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86AJje3ElDc
But we can find hundreds of
July 15, 2008 - 08:54 ET by BDBut we can find hundreds of thousands of deaths attributed every year to cigarettes,
Did you look up the side effects of marinol vs. marijuana? A chemical creation vs. a plant. I wonder which one is more dangerous?
This is what your argument against my statement that marijuana users are losers has become? Boy, you are one of the FAITHFUL.
Really, their death
July 15, 2008 - 18:26 ET by WhichWingReally, their death certificates say "Dead from Cigarettes"? I
always thought they said things like "heart failure, respiratory
collapse" etc.
I really DOUBT you will be able to likewise find a single cert
saying "Cigarettes" and few saying alcohol - unless it is alcohol
poisoning.
This is why I said "attributed." Do you dispute that people are dying as a result of cigarette smoking? Emphysema is a known risk cigarette smokers face. Can you name a medical condition that marijuana users risk facing due to their use?
No brainer. A measured dose is always safer than a unmeasured smoke based inhalent.
No brainer, as I said before, there are many ways to consume marijuana, so I guess I'll have to rephrase my question in order to keep you from trying to skate by it. What are the side effects of marinol vs. marijuana consumed as a food? Which would be safer?
Your statement that all marijuana users are losers is a waste of bandwidth. And the prejudice shown by a statement like that should embarrass you.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
This is why I said
July 16, 2008 - 08:29 ET by BDThis is why I said "attributed."
Do you dispute that people are dying as a result of cigarette smoking? Emphysema is a known risk cigarette smokers face.
Can you name a medical condition that marijuana users risk facing due to their use?
No brainer, as I said before, there are many ways to consume marijuana
Your statement that all marijuana users are losers is a waste of bandwidth.
And the prejudice shown by a statement like that should embarrass you.
Then Marijuana, with its
July 17, 2008 - 06:27 ET by WhichWingThen Marijuana, with its inhaled smoke and other carcinogens can have
each person who smoked a joint and later developed cancer ATTRIBUTED to them as well.
[...]
Lung Cancer, emphysema, heart disease, thyroid cancer, mouth cancer, cancer of the esophagous, tooth loss.
Links or sources? And, if possible, could you clarify if the cause is the substance, or is it the method of ingestion. (I've noticed that you have not said, or replied, to anything about marinol since you first mentioned it, why is that?)
Then why does it bother you enough to keep you posting for the past five + days?
Ignorance bothers me. But I must also point out that it is you that has returned to debate a "LOSER" for the last 5+ days.
It does not.
I suppose that makes judging people easier.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Links or
July 17, 2008 - 08:57 ET by BDLinks or sources?
And, if possible, could you clarify if the cause is the substance, or is it the method of ingestion.
(I've noticed that you have not said, or replied, to anything about marinol since you first mentioned it, why is that?)
Ignorance bothers me.
But I must also point out that it is you that has returned to debate a "LOSER" for the last 5+ days.
Shhhhhhh!
July 18, 2008 - 02:02 ET by UnsaneAs Sarc can tellyou, I rarely play the link game, I perform my own analysis. Shhh! Don't tell that to Sarc's paramour, WhichWhine. He lives and dies by the link just as Sarc does, and cannot and will not understand why you are not the same.
I know this from personal experience.
And like you, I cannot understand some people's complete overwhelming obsession with drugs, and their desire to induce as much societal rot as possible.
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
And I cannot understand some
July 18, 2008 - 05:50 ET by WhichWingAnd I cannot understand some people's complete overwhelming obsession with controlling the lives of others, and their desire to induce as much federal spending as possible in the process.
Federal spending? Not me,
July 18, 2008 - 08:11 ET by BDFederal spending? Not me, I think things could be done quite efficiently at extremely low cost.
Control others lives? Not me, but I realize that those who have a religious obsession with narcotics (Particularly "Gods Herb") are losers.
The fact that I realize the situation for what it is unhinges those who have such a religious obsession. For instance, if I had siad something else like "Those who wear Hockey Jerseys to hockey games are losers" you would not nearly get so unbalanaced. But your obsession forces you to respond.
Federal spending? Not me,
July 18, 2008 - 15:06 ET by WhichWingFederal spending? Not me, I think things could be done quite efficiently at extremely low cost.
What you think could be done, and what is being done, seem to be two entirely different things.
Control others lives? Not me, but I realize that those who have a
religious obsession with narcotics (Particularly "Gods Herb") are
losers.
I think telling someone what they can and can't consume in the privacy of their own home is controlling lives, and you support that.
The fact that I realize the situation for what it is unhinges those who
have such a religious obsession. For instance, if I had siad something
else like "Those who wear Hockey Jerseys to hockey games are losers"
you would not nearly get so unbalanaced. But your obsession forces you
to respond.
Well then, let's test your theory, shall we?
ALL THE TROOPS ARE LOSERS. At least all the troops that I've met. LOSERS. Just look at Unsane, LOSER.
Now, responding to that statement in order to disagree with it would show a religious obsession, according to you.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Federal spending? Not me, I
July 18, 2008 - 16:35 ET by BDFederal spending? Not me, I think things could be done quite efficiently at extremely low cost. What you think could be done, and what is being done, seem to be two entirely different things.
Control others lives? Not me, but I realize that those who have a religious obsession with narcotics (Particularly "Gods Herb") are losers. I think telling someone what they can and can't consume in the privacy of their own home is controlling lives, and you support that.
The fact that I realize the situation for what it is unhinges those who have such a religious obsession. For instance, if I had siad something else like "Those who wear Hockey Jerseys to hockey games are losers" you would not nearly get so unbalanaced. But your obsession forces you to respond.
Well then, let's test your theory, shall we? ALL THE TROOPS ARE LOSERS. At least all the troops that I've met. LOSERS.
SOurces, years of reading
July 18, 2008 - 05:46 ET by WhichWingSOurces, years of reading the news showing that Marijuana has the same cancer risks as cigarettes if NOT MORE.
As Sarc can tellyou, I rarely play the link game, I perform my own analysis.
Alright, you go ahead and make a claim and refuse to back it up, that's up to you, but you won't convince me of anything that way.
I imagine if you breathe in grassfire/Mesquite smoke long enough you will be more likely for lung diseases
Once again, you've made my point quite nicely. It's not the substance, it's the smoke. So again, I ask for proof that marijuana causes cancer. (Tobacco is not the same by the way, as you can get cancer from smokeless tobaccos as well.)
What do you want to know about it. Is it approved by the FDA? Yes.
I wanted to know what the side effects of marinol are. And then I was hoping you'd compare those to the side effects of marijuana. Then maybe you could follow all that up with a cost vs. benefit analysis. I suspect that you'd never bring up marinol again if you did all that.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
SOurces, years of reading
July 18, 2008 - 09:19 ET by BDSOurces, years of reading the news showing that Marijuana has the same cancer risks as cigarettes if NOT MORE.
As Sarc can tellyou, I rarely play the link game, I perform my own analysis. Alright, you go ahead and make a claim and refuse to back it up, that's up to you, but you won't convince me of anything that way.
Once again, you've made my point quite nicely. It's not the substance, it's the smoke. So again, I ask for proof that marijuana causes cancer.
I wanted to know what the side effects of marinol are. And then I was hoping you'd compare those to the side effects of marijuana. Then maybe you could follow all that up with a cost vs. benefit analysis. I suspect that you'd never bring up marinol again if you did all that.
Dude, if you do not accept
July 18, 2008 - 15:19 ET by WhichWingDude, if you do not accept that smoke itself is harmful to the lungs, then you have risen to the level of Leity.
You seem to suffer from poor comprehension. I said exactly that, didn't I? The smoke is a danger, but the marijuana itself is not.
Okay, just for you, I went into Google and typed "Marijuana Harms" and
found several pages that clearly show that the substance harms the
user.
Good thinking, that looks like a pretty unbiased way to begin your research... ("Marijuana Harms" - what sort of results would you expect???)
So, do my pages beat your pages?
How about using some pages from the government, you are backing up their position, why not use them as a source?
Okay, I wen tonline and got a link for you that pretty much shows that
the side effects are much the same as any other THC product. In other
words, you suffer from the potential of getting high, and all that
entails (Racing pulse if too much etc.).
Looks like you left a couple out, but overall it seems like a pretty safe drug. Although, it doesn't look to be any safer than marijuana, and I'd bet a month's salary that it's more expensive than marijuana. So why would you take this decision out of the market place and hand it over to doctors and drug companies?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Tell your doctor
July 18, 2008 - 16:39 ET by BDMy first encounter with pot
July 19, 2008 - 03:22 ET by WhichWingMy first encounter with pot was more than 15 years ago and the only side effects in that list that I've seen are: "fast/pounding heartbeat, difficulty concentrating and memory loss."
We still haven't addressed the cost of one vs. the other. Do you think you could supply your patients with marinol or marijuana cheaper? As a (hypothetical) doctor, would you prefer they use the natural substance, or the chemical meant to mimic it?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
My first encounter with pot
July 21, 2008 - 17:11 ET by BDMy first encounter with pot was more than 15 years ago and the only side effects in that list that I've seen are: "fast/pounding heartbeat, difficulty concentrating and memory loss."
We still haven't addressed the cost of one vs. the other. Do you think you could supply your patients with marinol or marijuana cheaper?
As a (hypothetical) doctor, would you prefer they use the natural substance, or the chemical meant to mimic it?
Ooops, but I commit heresy to the faith of the cannibulars
BD
July 22, 2008 - 14:07 ET by Conservative VoiceDon't you get it, its "natural" therefore more pure...you have to love the argument that natural means pure...I mean dog crap is as natural as you get, but until someone gets high off of it, no one will digest it. But given a certain tree frog, finger lickin good right? yuck.
Aspirin is from tree bark, which would you rather swallow? Give me the Bayer anyday. Or better yet, if you are a girl, how about some premarin...or would you rather just drink it in its natural form? ( Its pregnant mare's urine )
Disagree
July 9, 2008 - 03:33 ET by UnsaneAll in all, a huge waste of tax payer money, law enforement resources actually, this was a GREAT use of taxpayer money. At minimum, those LOSERS' lives were saved from baking to death in 120+ degree heat. and prison space for actual criminals. You mean actual criminals like drug dealers, right?
WhichWhine, why can't you accept that some of us actually like an America that is not internally rotting and full of drug addicted losers?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
There's that circular logic
July 9, 2008 - 04:27 ET by WhichWingThere's that circular logic to show that not only was it good they were arrested for that dreadful marijuana, but their lives were saved!
Where's the victim when you sell someone drugs? It is a deal entered into by two consenting parties. You could regulate who could buy and sell drugs, but you'd have to legalize it first. As it is now, kids have pretty easy access to drugs. Probably harder for them to get liquor than pot. So what is really being accomplished here?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
The obsessive devotion
July 12, 2008 - 19:35 ET by UnsaneThrowing around the phrase "circular logic" does not win an argument nor does it make you look like the supreme intellectual on this board. From what I have seen here, every waking moment of your life is devoted to an intense, passionate, all-consuming obsession with drugs. That is just beyond weak.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
So you don't feel up to the
July 13, 2008 - 06:08 ET by WhichWingSo you don't feel up to the challenge of addressing the points made in my post? Such as drugs being easier for kids to get than alcohol...
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
What points?
July 17, 2008 - 04:31 ET by UnsaneWhat points? You are completely, overwhelmingly obsessed with drugs. I agree with CV here, your religious obsessive devotion to drugs is making me more, not less, inclined to see them continue to be 100% illegal.
Besides, two things will happen if they ever are legalized:
One, the day drugs ever become legal, I will throw every last dime I have at the stock of Frito-Lay and other such companies. I will be a multibillionaire in less than a year.
Two, you won't survive the first 24 hours of legalization if it ever happens.
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
What points?! I'll repeat
July 17, 2008 - 06:36 ET by WhichWingWhat points?! I'll repeat this one a third time. It is easier for kids to get drugs than it is for them to get alcohol. What are we truly accomplishing here?
Why don't you get your last two dimes into Frito-Lay right now? You haven't managed to prevent anyone from smoking weed, and I doubt there will be a rush of people who suddenly decided that they'd like to be pot smokers just because it is legalized. Those that want to smoke it already do, those that don't want to already don't.
"Two, you won't survive the first 24 hours of legalization if it ever happens."
How's that?
That's a nice quote you got for your signature...it's got kind of a Nazi feel to it. You should be proud and put your name next to it...
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Crap
July 18, 2008 - 02:25 ET by UnsaneIt is easier for kids to get drugs than it is for them to get alcohol. Total, utter, complete crap. I grew up in what was then a quiet part of San Antonio that has since faded, but even then we all knew where the rougher parts were. But even so, it was infinitely easier for me and my friends to procure alcohol.
See, I was raised, as my friends were, by parents who had access to alcohol. My parents NEVER locked the bar up; no one was stopping me from drinking several varities of rum, whiskey, tequila and vodka that they had on hand.
I have been drinking since I was 16 (unsupervised). I began developing a taste for wine and good beer then by pilfering the occasional beer and glasses of wine from my parents and older sisters. But then, the Unsane family, it being anchored in part by a German woman, has never been hostile to alcohol consumption. Indeed, I am looked upon as an alcohol prude in my family due to the several varieties of hard liquor I refuse to touch.
The alcohol was inifinitely easier to get to as a kid. Don't even get me started on cigarettes. I am the only one in my family who never smoked a cigarette...to the point that when I dabbled in cigars, as I still do, this blows people away.
Why don't you get your last two dimes into Frito-Lay right now? The market sucks right now. Next. You haven't managed to prevent anyone from smoking weed, and I doubt there will be a rush of people who suddenly decided that they'd like to be pot smokers just because it is legalized. Every post you have put up is proving otherwise. Those that want to smoke it already do, those that don't want to already don't. So how do you feel about legalizing murder?
How's that? Simple. Your obsessive devotion (h/t to Epica, I have been listening to their music nonstop as of late) to drugs convinces me that the moment they are made legal, you will consume, consume and consume until you OD. Hence you won't survive 24 hours of legalization.
Maybe you should pack up and move to AK. If there is a more pot-obsessed place on earth I don't know what is. Upside for you: pot is legal up to 1 oz according to a 1975 AK Supreme Court decision. Downside: all the pot freaks keep pushing for legalization and keep getting shot down, as they did in 2004. (The only borough that supported the Proposition was Juneau. Makes me wonder what the hell is the deal with Juneau, which was one of my favorite AK towns...)
That's a nice quote you got for your signature...it's got kind of a Nazi feel to it. You should be proud and put your name next to it...When you type crap like this, I am only convinced it isn't mockery on your part as much as it is an honest demonstration of your own political idiocy. I also take it that you will never whine to me again "Wahhhh!!! No I didn't!!!!" when I point out that you have called me a Nazi.
Besides, the signature is sadly 100% accurate. Obama is a Socialist. He assures people that yes, he will steal from various segments of the population when he is elected (latest promise to steal: a promise to raise capital gains taxes to "fair" levels). And there are too many people around here who want to whine and cry about it instead of doing something about it. Need more info on my signature? Try rereading my "Tax Philosophy" thread. You know, the one where you want to discuss EVERYTHING but taxation philosophy???
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
Well then, I guess your one
July 18, 2008 - 06:05 ET by WhichWingWell then, I guess your one example makes it truth, even though not all households have alcohol in them. (But, you never mentioned if you ever tried to get drugs, and how easy or hard it was compared to alcohol...)
Every post you have put up is proving otherwise.
Example?
So how do you feel about legalizing murder?
You've tried this silly argument before. If I were to commit murder there would be a victim. If I were to smoke a joint in my own home, there would not be. You do recognize this don't you?
Your obsessive devotion (h/t to Epica, I have been listening to their
music nonstop as of late) to drugs convinces me that the moment they
are made legal, you will consume, consume and consume until you OD.
Hence you won't survive 24 hours of legalization.
This goes back to the point I made earlier. I have my substance of choice. If you were to legalize all drugs tomorrow I would not suddenly become a user of those drugs. Don't you realize that I, and everyone else, has access to those drugs now? I've already chosen to not use them, and that would not change upon legalization.
Obama is a socialist? That may be true, but then we know Bush is. Unless you call bailing out private banks and corporations with your tax money something else?
P.S. Your taxation thread did get off track, and I know I had a hand in that, but you might want to look back and see that I was the first to respond, and it was in agreement with you.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Well then, I guess your one
July 20, 2008 - 15:08 ET by UnsaneWell then, I guess your one example makes it truth, even though not all households have alcohol in them. (But, you never mentioned if you ever tried to get drugs, and how easy or hard it was compared to alcohol...) I never tried to get drugs because I was not nor am I now a total loser. Those I knew who DID drugs were the losers and dropouts, and I had no desire to join them, even as much as high school sucked. I knew where to go if I wanted them, but the fact remains, the alcohol was MUCH EASIER to access.
Example? Let's see here...how old is this thread, and you are STILL COMING BACK to constantly declare your allegiance to drugs...your relentless attack on anyone who DARE wants drugs illegal...your changing subjects on other threads to drugs. You have an OBSESSIVE DEVOTION to drugs.
You've tried this silly argument before. If I were to commit murder there would be a victim. If I were to smoke a joint in my own home, there would not be. You do recognize this don't you? And you have tried this silly argument before. In both cases there are victims. You smoke a joint in your home, then you check out of society in most cases, and you become a burden on society. You create enough such burdens as you wish to, you then induce SOCIETAL ROT. And that's you being single. If you have a family it gets worse.
This goes back to the point I made earlier. I have my substance of choice. If you were to legalize all drugs tomorrow I would not suddenly become a user of those drugs. Don't you realize that I, and everyone else, has access to those drugs now? I've already chosen to not use them, and that would not change upon legalization. That is crap, considering your obsessive devotion to drugs. Here's betting you use them and have been using them.
Obama is a socialist? That may be true, but then we know Bush is. Unless you call bailing out private banks and corporations with your tax money something else? Hmmm. Can you point to me a post where I came out in support of this policy? Nice way to try and change the subject.
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
So, Unsane , do you believe
July 22, 2008 - 23:10 ET by randy hayesSo, Unsane , do you believe Bush was a loser for smoking weed and doing coke??
Nice to be Back!
Oh randy
July 22, 2008 - 23:16 ET by BlondeI see you haven't changed one iota.
Dropping little turdling (jturbayne) posts, two days after the fact, knowing full well that the poster isn't here to answer your crap!
And you are still apparently suffering from full-blown BDS.
How cute, little wombat!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde, Do you ever get
July 22, 2008 - 23:44 ET by randy hayesBlonde, Do you ever get away from the computer?
Do you stalk me?
Why do you come up with personal comments about my life and career . I do not apreciate it!
Apparently you enjoy being a thorn in my side and continue to slander me and my name?
I suppose writing a letter to Mathew probably wont help since personal slanderous comments to my name are ok when you are Republican ? You appear to never leave this site so you are invulnerable to being banned from the site as liberals have been continually banned over the years since I checked on this site.
It will be a scary thing when harrassing and slanderous folks as yourself take control of the government again,
I have attempted to ignore your nasty remarks over the years but you take the cake!
Nice to be Back!
randy
July 22, 2008 - 23:53 ET by MrShyGeez, THAT post from Blonde has you all turned and twisted like this?
Are you aware that this is a political blog site, where our "ideology" (hate that word, but...) /beliefs are in full opposition, for the most part, to those that come here from "the other side", like yourself? Are you expecting rose petals and incense?
Blonde's post is rather lightweight, with some whimsy and humor thrown in. You need a few more layers of skin, and/or a better sense of humor about yourself.
Otherwise, maybe this site is not for you (liberal or conservative.... and yes, we have a lot of long-time libs on NB who have never been banned, and we've banned conservatives who acted up as well.)
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Well, Randy
July 22, 2008 - 23:57 ET by BlondeIt seems that you are on at the same time I am...too bad for you.
Stalk you? Sheesh...don't flatter yourself. That's the funniest thing I've seen this week.
I am extremely pleased that you do not appreciate my very long, and exceedingly accurate, memory.
And exactly how, Randy, did I slander you? By calling you by your real name here, JTurbayne? You don't like that, do you? Because, I know for a fact, that several NB's were able to track you, and your sick history, down by using that name.
Tough.
You are more than welcome to write to the Masthead and complain, Randy. In fact, copy me...I'll send it off to Matt myself.
You've just given me bigger grins than if you'd just stayed silent and over on Stern, haysie.
I'm so pleased that I can still get under your skin in only two sentences. Funny how that works, yes?
So, haysebat, thanks for the cake...I'll take it, happily.
BTW...keep up the government control rant up....it's soooooo cute.
P.S. The orderlies are going to be knocking on your door, Randy. In about 45 seconds. Better run.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
So you and this site are into cyberstalking?
July 23, 2008 - 00:16 ET by randy hayes"And exactly how, Randy, did I slander you? By calling you by your real name here, JTurbayne? You don't like that, do you? Because, I know for a fact, that several NB's were able to track you, and your sick history, down by using that name. "
If you are friends with Mathew, and he approves of cyberstalking we need for your friends on MSNBC expose this this type of behavior!
The monolith?
July 23, 2008 - 05:44 ET by Unsane"This site" this and "This site" that...hayes, when will you grow up and understand that this isn't a monolithic entity? This is NOT the Borg Collective...
(That really p!#%es me off. You prompted me to make a Star Trek: Next Generation reference. I don't even like ANY of the incarnations of Star Trek!!!)
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
Yes randy, he was...past
July 23, 2008 - 00:26 ET by Conservative VoiceYes randy, he was...past tense, he was also a loser when he drove drunk. And I will take it one step further, I don't care how successful a person is, he is a loser when he uses drugs for non-medical reasons. Can a loser repent and sober up...sure, but realize everytime he uses, he is right back being the mayor of loserville. And just to show you that I am being consistent, I am a big fan of Rush Limbaugh, but he was a loser when he was addicted...and he almost lost everything in the process.
Excellent post, C V.
July 23, 2008 - 00:33 ET by JerExcellent post, C V.
Jer
The mallet is sure and precise
July 23, 2008 - 05:41 ET by UnsaneCan I get an AMEN??? :-)
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
Obsessive Devotion
July 23, 2008 - 05:29 ET by UnsaneSpeaking of obsessive devotions, you have an obsessive devotion to your extreme, overwhelming hatred of Bush. You simply will have nothing to live for as of early next year.
Your drug is hatred and you are thoroughly addicted. That surely makes YOU a LOSER.
"One thoughtless moment passes in slow motion. As I lie down, I realize that...
"All I wish, is to get rid of this obsessive devotion!!!" - Epica, "The Obsessive Devotion", from The Divine Conspiracy (2007)
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
Caught in a lie?
July 23, 2008 - 05:37 ET by UnsaneOh, and I note that you say that you have chosen not to use them, yet admit to having used pot 15 years ago. And you called it your FIRST encounter. Care to explain that?
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
Especially the clowns who
July 4, 2008 - 12:38 ET by NL207Especially the clowns who didn't inhale it when they smoked it!
lol the hypocrisy is astounding
July 4, 2008 - 08:48 ET by candanceI thought we moved on from this mind set where the goverment nags control every aspect of one's life.
Really? Then why is the progressive left trying to control what lightbulbs we put in our house, how we set our thermostats, where we send our children for education, and how much profit a company should be allowed to make?
Face it vonu, our government is like six monkeys fighting over five bananas.
You are right
July 4, 2008 - 09:00 ET by VonuI chose my words poorly. I'm taken aback by the capitulation of the right. They have joined in the crusade against everything having to do with human choice. Read Ayn Rand this weekend.
→ Vonu
July 4, 2008 - 09:04 ET by Cool ArrowIf I get to withhold my tax dollars from government funding for housing, lfare, food stamps, healtcare, and a host of other drug related subsidies, count me in.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Ayn Rand
July 4, 2008 - 09:13 ET by UnsaneI have been pilloried for my Ayn Rand obsession. Nonetheless, I don't like the idea of telling my children that it is 100% okay to sit arond and do nothing but poison him/herself and check out of society. I missed the part where John Galt was inspired to greatness by the hippie lettuce and how Howard Roark shot up to learn architecture.
Or how Кира Аргоунова dreamed of consuming all the drugs she wanted in the capitals of Europe, or how the hero of Anthem carved "SMOKE OUT" over his door.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Tao of Steve
July 4, 2008 - 09:25 ET by VonuThere's a line in that movie, something like, "What if A. Hitler sat around in his room and smoked pot all day, wouldn't the world be a better place today?"
The reference to Miss Rand has to do with her insistance that morality is a choice. Just becasue you are fordidden to do something does not make you a moral person.
I take this to mean that the more laws against doing something there are, the less moral that society is.
We can make a list a mile long about all the bad things, fine. But without choice what good does that do?
Public health
July 5, 2008 - 13:30 ET by UnsaneI have no problem with laws that proscribe something due to public health issues. See, I LIKE the fact that the United States is an inventive, ambitious, progressive, innovating society. That is why the United States is #1 on so many levels. Oh sure, I guess we could be a rotting, going-nowhere society like the Netherlands, but why should we sacrifice the #1 spot just because of some potheads?
You can still make a choice to throw away your own life. Just emigrate to Europe, where they won't have a problem with drugs. Besides, the Nanny States there need more people to steal from.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Are you trying to show us
July 4, 2008 - 08:51 ET by Roger the ShrubberAre you trying to show us that dopeheads AREN'T blithering idiots?
lol roger
July 4, 2008 - 08:53 ET by candanceGood point.
vonu, you useing a line of defence.........
July 4, 2008 - 08:52 ET by larry on LIthat dates back to the sixties.heard that too many times.but one thing i can attest to is there is a hell of a difference in the mental ability,between casual use and hibitual use.been there ,done that and see the living results of the depedant users.
There is, of course, a
July 4, 2008 - 08:57 ET by celatorThere is, of course, a huge effort ongoing for many years to get teens off booze. It's not a campaign against the use of either mj or booze; both can cause tremendous damage to individuals and families. As Brent points out, there is a 40 percent probability of mental disorder of some variety (mostly depression) in teens as a result of the use of mj. About 20 percent of these individuals are likely to have severe psychotic episodes. This is very very bad stuff, difficult to treat or manage.
Many pot users have convinced themselves that no physical or brain damage comes from using pot. This is not true, though the symptoms vary from very mild to big time outbreaks of long term craziness. Some of the most observable behaviors in pot smokers include an inability to mentally focus for more than a few minutes, difficulty in long term planning, and a low level paranoia, which gets worse over time. There are also toxins in pot that are not present in, say, cigarettes (which are bad enough, indeed). Many of these are psychotropic and very bad stuff. Just don't mess with the stuff. You don't need it.
There is, of course, a huge effort ongoing for many years to get
July 4, 2008 - 09:08 ET by VonuThere is, of course, a huge effort ongoing for many years to get teens off booze.
Suppressing MJ is not helping in that effort. I know, MJ is going to kill you and make your balls fall off. So is living near a freeway. But which drug is worse? The legal one - can we at least agree on that point. Because if we can't, my argument will make no sense to you. I suggest you read Andrew Weil's very first book, The Natural Mind.
Marijuana is Dangerous, Alcohol has health benefits
July 4, 2008 - 09:31 ET by PopularTechNothing like more Pot Head Propaganda for the 4th! Here is the reality:
Cannabis Almost Doubles Risk Of Fatal Crashes (Science Daily)
Emotional Intelligence And The Use Of Tobacco And Cannabis (Science Daily)
Addiction:
Marijuana Withdrawal As Bad As Withdrawal From Cigarettes (Science Daily)
Marijuana Withdrawal Reported By Teens Seeking Treatment (Science Daily)
NIDA Researchers Find That Animals Exposed To Marijuana's Active Component Will Self-Administer The Drug (Science Daily)
Negative Health Effects:
Brain Damage - Cannabis Could Increase Risks Of Psychotic Illness By 40 Percent (Science Daily)
Brain Damage - Cannabis Increases Risk Of Psychosis (Science Daily)
Brain Damage - Frequent Marijuana Use May Affect Brain Function (Science Daily)
Brain Damage - How Smoking Marijuana Damages The Fetal Brain (Science Daily)
Brain Damage - Long-term Cannabis Users May Have Structural Brain Abnormalities (Science Daily)
Brain Damage - Marijuana And Alcohol Taken Together Induced Widespread Nerve Cell Death In Brains Of Young Rats (Science Daily)
Brain Damage - Marijuana Use Affects Blood Flow In Brain Even After Abstinence (Science Daily)
Brain Damage - More Evidence Of Cannabis-induced Psychosis (Science Daily)
Skunk smokers 18 times more likely to be psychotic (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Brain Damage - Smoking Marijuana Impairs Cognitive Function In MS Patients, Study Shows (Science Daily)
Brain Damage - Study Finds Cannabis Triggers Transient Schizophrenia-like Symptoms (Science Daily)
Brain Damage - Teen Drug Use Associated With Psychiatric Disorders Later In Life (Science Daily)
Brain Damage - Teen Marijuana Use Worsens Depression, Leads To More Serious Mental Illness, New Report Reveals (Science Daily)
Cancer - Marijuana Use Associated with HPV-Positive Head and Neck Cancer, Study Shows (Science Daily)
Cancer - Researchers At UCLA's Jonsson Cancer Center Report Smoking Marijuana May Increase Risk Of Head And Neck Cancers (Science Daily)
Gum Disease - Heavy Marijuana Use Linked To Gum Disease, Study Shows (Science Daily)
Heart Disease - Possible Connection Between Marijuana Abuse And Stroke Or Heart Attacks (Science Daily)
Heart Disease - Regular Cannabis May Increase Risk Of Stroke In Young Users (Science Daily)
Heart Disease - Study Finds Marijuana Use May Pose Health Threat To Baby Boomers (Science Daily)
Infertility - Marijuana-Like Compounds May Alter Human Fertility, UB Researchers Show (Science Daily)
Infertility - Sperm From Marijuana Smokers Move Too Fast Too Early, Impairing Fertility, UB Research Shows (Science Daily)
Infertility - Study Finds; Abusing Marijuana May Overload System, Inhibit Fertility (Science Daily)
Lung Disease - Impact On Lungs Of One Cannabis Joint Equal To Up To Five Cigarettes (Science Daily)
Lung Disease - Long-term Marijuana Smoking Leads To Respiratory Complaints (Science Daily)
Lung Disease - Marijuana Smoke Contains Higher Levels Of Certain Toxins Than Tobacco Smoke (Science Daily)
Lung Disease - Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers (Science Daily)
Lung Disease - Marijuana Worsens COPD Symptoms In Current Cigarette Smokers (Science Daily)
Obesity - Machinery Of The 'Marijuana Munchies' (Science Daily)
Pregnancy Failure - Marijuana Use Causes Early Pregnancy Failure (Science Daily)
Viral Infection - Marijuana Component Opens The Door For Virus That Causes Kaposi's Sarcoma (Science Daily)
Viral Infection - Regular Marijuana Use Increases Risk Of Hepatitis C-related Liver Damage (Science Daily)
Myths:
Pain Relief - Oral Cannabis Ineffective In Treating Acute Pain, Study Finds (Science Daily)
The Health Benefits of Alcohol:
A Drink To Healthy Aging (Science Daily)
A Few Drinks A Day Do No Harm To The Alcoholic Heart (Science Daily)
A Glass Of Red Wine A Day May Keep Prostate Cancer Away (Science Daily)
Anti-cancer Compound In Beer Gaining Interest (Science Daily)
Antioxidant Found In Many Foods And Red Wine Is Potent And Selective Killer Of Leukemia Cells (Science Daily)
After Dinner Drink Proves Beneficial To Postmenopausal Women (Science Daily)
Alcohol Drinking Linked To Reduced Risk Of Renal Cell Cancer (Science Daily)
Alcohol Linked To Decreased Hypertension Risk In Young Women (Science Daily)
Baseball Food And Drink: Healthy Chemistry Scores A Surprise Hit (Science Daily)
Beer, In Moderation, Cuts Risk Of Cataracts And Heart Disease (Science Daily)
Beer Inhibits Action Of Carcinogenic Mutagens (Science Daily)
Cabernet Sauvignon Red Wine Reduces The Risk Of Alzheimer's Disease (Science Daily)
Chemical In Red Wine, Fruits And Vegetables Counters Unhealthy Effects Of High-fat Foods (Science Daily)
Chemical In Red Wine, Fruits And Vegetables May Stop Cancer, Heart Disease (Science Daily)
Compound In Wine Reduces Levels Of Alzheimer's Disease-causing Peptides (Science Daily)
Daily Glass Of Wine Could Improve Liver Health (Science Daily)
Drink A Day May Delay Dementia, Study Suggests (Science Daily)
Drinking Alcohol Cuts Risk Of Developing Rheumatoid Arthritis In Half, Study Suggests (Science Daily)
Drinking Small Amounts Of Alcohol Regularly Reduces Risk Of Obesity (Science Daily)
Drinking Wine May Lower Risk Of Dementia (Science Daily)
Drinking Wine, Particularly White Wine, May Help Keep Lungs Healthy, University At Buffalo Study Finds (Science Daily)
Frequency Of Light-to-moderate Drinking Reduces Heart Disease Risk In Men (Science Daily)
Further Evidence That Alcohol, When Consumed In Moderation, Reduces Risk Of Death (Science Daily)
Further Evidence That Moderate Drinking Reduces Men's Heart Attack Risk (Science Daily)
Grapes May Minimize Brain Damage In Stroke Victims (Science Daily)
Grapes Or Grain? Wine Drinking May Reduce Colon Cancer Risk; Beer, Hard Liquor Provide No Benefit (Science Daily)
Grape Skin Compound Fights The Complications Of Diabetes (Science Daily)
Health Benefits Of A Christmas Brandy (Science Daily)
Light Alcohol Use May Protect Against Sudden Cardiac Death (Science Daily)
Light To Moderate Drinking Reduces Risk Of Cardiac Events, Death (Science Daily)
Light Wine Intake Is Associated With Longer Life Expectancy In Men (Science Daily)
Little Evidence That Binge Drinking While Pregnant Seriously Harms Fetus, Review Of Research Suggests (Science Daily)
Men With Hypertension Who Drink Moderate Amounts Of Alcohol May Have A Lower Risk Of Heart Attack (Science Daily)
Moderate Alcohol Consumption Can Act As A 'Blood Thinner' (Science Daily)
Moderate Alcohol Consumption Enhances The Formation Of New Nerve Cells (Science Daily)
Moderate Alcohol Consumption In Middle Age Can Lower Cardiac Risk, Study Shows (Science Daily)
Moderate Alcohol Consumption Decreases Risk Of Cardiovascular Disease Death In Men (Science Daily)
Moderate Alcohol Intake Associated With Better Mental Function In Older Women (Science Daily)
Moderate Alcohol Intake May Reduce Risk Of Dementia In Older Women (Science Daily)
Moderate Drinking Associated With Better Cognition In Women (Science Daily)
Moderate Drinking Lowers Women's Risk Of Heart Attack (Science Daily)
Moderate Drinking May Boost Memory, Study Suggests (Science Daily)
Moderate Drinking May Help Older Women Live Longer (Science Daily)
Moderate Drinking May Protect Heart By Improving Insulin Resistance, Study Suggests (Science Daily)
Mounting Evidence Shows Red Wine Antioxidant Kills Cancer (Science Daily)
New Cholesterol Fighter Found In Red Wine (Science Daily)
New Study Ties Moderate Beer Drinking To Lower Heart Attack Risk (Science Daily)
No Need For Reduced Alcohol Consumption In Later Life, Study Suggests (Science Daily)
One Or Two Drinks A Day May Be Better For Women Than None (Science Daily)
Researchers Develop White Wine With Cholesterol-Lowering Benefits, Discover Israeli Wines Healthier Than French Wines (Science Daily)
Researchers Develop White Wine With Health Benefits Similar To Red (Science Daily)
Red Wine And Grape Juice Help Defend Against Food-borne Diseases, Study Suggests (Science Daily)
Red Wine And White Wine May Be Equally Good For The Heart (Science Daily)
Red Wine Can Help Maintain Immune System, UF Researcher Finds (Science Daily)
Red Wine Compound Shown To Prevent Prostate Cancer (Science Daily)
Red Wine Ingredient -- Resveratrol -- Fights Diabetes In Mice (Science Daily)
Red Wine Lovers, Take Heart: More Evidence Points To The Drink's Cardiac Health Benefits (Science Daily)
Red Wine Molecule Extends Lifespan Of Fat Mice Lives By Reversing Obesity-Related Gene Pathways (Science Daily)
Red Wine Protects The Heart (Science Daily)
Red Wine Protects The Prostate, Research Suggests (Science Daily)
Red Wine's Resveratrol May Help Battle Obesity (Science Daily)
Red Wine, Tea, May Help Regulate Blood Sugar In Type 2 Diabetics, Research Suggests (Science Daily)
Researchers Discover That A Protein In Grape Skins Can Kill Cancer Cells (Science Daily)
Researchers Link Red Wine To "Good Cholesterol" (Science Daily)
Resveratrol, Found In Red Wine, Wards Off Effects Of Age On Heart, Bones, Eyes And Muscle (Science Daily)
Scientists Shed Light On Mechanism Behind Beneficial Effects Of Red Wine (Science Daily)
Staying Active And Drinking Moderately Is The Key To A Long Life, Study Suggests (Science Daily)
Strawberry Daiquiris: The Extra-healthy Cocktail? (Science Daily)
Study Finds That Moderate Drinkers May Have Lower Risk Of Mortality After A Heart Attack (Science Daily)
Study Identifies Genetics Of Fat Metabolism, Red Wine Link (Science Daily)
Substance In Red Wine, Resveratrol, Found To Keep Hearts Young (Science Daily)
Wine Drinkers Have Healthier Lifestyles (Science Daily)
Wine Keeps Women's Hearts Beating Healthily (Science Daily)
Wine May Combat Tooth Decay And Upper Respiratory Tract Disease Bacteria (Science Daily)
Wine May Protect Against Dementia, Study Suggests (Science Daily)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Haha, wow, your stringing
July 4, 2008 - 09:39 ET by JasonCHaha, wow, your stringing these together isn't propagandistic at all!
No mention of cirrhosis of the liver or DUI deaths or domestic violence, I see.
I love to drink a beer or two on a warm afternoon and I love wine with dinner. And I don't smoke pot. But let's be honest here, neither vice contains calcium and vitamins, and the people who abstain altogether will ultimately be lot healthier than those of us who don't. But none of this is compelling evidence about legalization. And to be fair, alcohol-related deaths are hell of a lot higher than those of pot.
Il y a la merde quel remort produit quand il a mange trop stupidite.
75 Scientific Studies document the health benefits of Alcohol
July 4, 2008 - 09:55 ET by PopularTechThe science disagrees with you as to how much healthier you would be from completely abstaining from alcohol such as Red Wine.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
True, but to stay focused
July 4, 2008 - 09:59 ET by JasonCTrue, but to stay focused on the issue here, I don't know too many alcoholics who drink nothing but cabernet. Honest-to-God alcoholics generally drink beer, whisky, or vodka.
Il y a la merde quel remort produit quand il a mange trop stupidite.
Personnally I am a Chianti
July 4, 2008 - 11:45 ET by BDPersonnally I am a Chianti man myself. a glass of Ruffino Reserve is OUTSTANDING with dinner.
Chianti tends to be a bit
July 4, 2008 - 11:49 ET by JasonCChianti tends to be a bit dry for me, though Da Vinci chianti is excellent with pasta/red sauce type meals.
That aside though, I bet you don't get hammered on the stuff every night.
Another benefit to pot over drinking viz. productivity, by the way: no hangovers with weed.
Il y a la merde quel remort produit quand il a mange trop stupidite.
I do not "Get Hammered" Nor
July 4, 2008 - 17:43 ET by BDI do not "Get Hammered" Nor even "Buzzed".
And I get up afterwards and go check on the SDO and other work related things. In other words, I am productive.
Not my experience with the users of Marjijuana where the intent is to do both..
Beer can be good for you too
July 4, 2008 - 19:20 ET by PopularTechAnti-cancer Compound In Beer Gaining Interest (Science Daily)
Beer, In Moderation, Cuts Risk Of Cataracts And Heart Disease (Science Daily)
Beer Inhibits Action Of Carcinogenic Mutagens (Science Daily)
New Study Ties Moderate Beer Drinking To Lower Heart Attack Risk (Science Daily)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PopTech does his thing by
July 7, 2008 - 23:34 ET by cleverpigPopTech does his thing by searching only one side of each story out. So he found every article he could that ascribed negative effects to marijuana and every article he could that ascribed positive effects to alcohol. There is no attempt to provide any balance or an accurate representation of the relative positive and negative effects of either substance.
So, to counter, looking up "alcohol" on ScienceDaily nets 44 articles on alcohol's negative effects (that's by page 20, at which point I got tired of looking. There are more) Here are some gems from page 1:
Why alcohol is bad for your pancreas
Alcohol and Cancer: Is drinking the new smoking?
and
Warning for women who binge drink: Bladder can rupture
Now, like PopTech, I haven't read all of this articles, so I'm just basing my count on the titles. One should also keep in mind that this is just recent research. A lot of the work that is being done with marijuana now was studied on alcohol years ago.This doesn't include all of the delightful fetal alcohol studies.
Articles detailing positive effects of marijuana total 11, including:
Cannabis may help alleviate allergic skin disease
Marijuana compound shows promise in fighting breast cancer
and
Smoked cannabis proven effective in treating neuropathic pain
I think it is incredibly disingenuous to pretend that either substance lacks positive or negative effects. It seems to me that abstaining from both is probably the safest course, and yet there are good reasons for certain people to decide to partake of both substances and probably little harm for anyone who only does so occasionally.
Can we try to be a little more even-handed in our presentation of the facts here?
This post reminds me of the
July 4, 2008 - 12:32 ET by steveba4This post reminds me of the Styx song, Too Much Time on My Hands.
Pop Tech, I like to smoke
July 4, 2008 - 16:17 ET by DarkCurrentPop Tech,
I like to smoke when I drink. Is that good or bad?
Smoking Pot and Drinking Alcohol can be dangerous
July 4, 2008 - 18:37 ET by PopularTechIf you smoke Pot and drink Alcohol that can cause brain damage:
Marijuana And Alcohol Taken Together Induced Widespread Nerve Cell Death In Brains Of Young Rats
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Pop Tech-So Much Wasted Time&Effort,So Easily Dismissed
July 5, 2008 - 13:12 ET byPop Tech acts as a propagandist in his presentation of studies to
make a case against legalizing marijuana and to make a case for
legalized alcohol, while ignoring tobacco. He flaunts his extreme
bias, selectively choosing which information to use and not to use.
He only uses misleading headlines of articles, yet the articles tell
a more innocuous different story. The scientific community would
reject Pop Tech's presentation (his postings) based on the extreme
bias and we should too. Then there's his offensive hypocritical
position against the same freedom for marijuana as extended to
alcohol and tobacco.
Let me start by easily dismissing the
studies and argument against smoking pot by making them totally
irrelevant.
--Simply Legalize the sale of marijuana
but only in food products. No physical endangerment -None.*
-----No study has ever proven serious to life threatening physical
conditions due to smoking pot alone.
-----No One Has Ever Died of Cancer, Emphysema, or other
Respiratory Diseases From Smoking Marijuana Alone. In fact one
of Pop Tech's referenced articles states that studies have shown NO
increased risk of emphysema from smoking pot.
----- It is impossible to overdose on marijuana. There is never
any immediate physical danger in simply smoking pot.
Pop Tech insults our intelligence in so many ways. His extreme
bias is flaunted in his selective choices on what he uses and doesn't
present, thinking we would miss his choice to use studies of
frequent, heavy long term pot use, use among young people (no group
advocating the legalization of pot advocates making it available to
those under 18, but unfortunately that group can get it relatively
easy now) while only citing studies of low to moderate alcohol use.
Or that we wouldn't read these studies beyond the headlines and find
none of the studies prove serious ill effects from moderate use of
marijuana alone.
* Does not address auto accidents due to using pot because no
group advocates the legalization of driving under the influence of
pot.
Here's the problem with
July 5, 2008 - 00:39 ET by cleverpigHere's the problem with those studies-- the groups are self selecting, there's no random application of treatment effect.
So you cannot take surveys and determine a cause. Fundamentally, you cannot prove that marijuana use causes mental illness rather than the other way around. That study might just show that teens who are struggling with burgeoning depression are more likely to experiment with drugs.
How do you determine cause? You administer marijuana to randomly selected groups of teenagers and wait to see if the group assigned marijuana use develops more mental illness than the ones who weren't. Obviously that study is completely unethical in every way, so you do it to rats.
As far as I can tell, just from a brief internet search, the results of those experiments are widely variable. Some say the rats die horribly, some say they live longer than non-dosed rats, some say they are more easily addicted to heroin, some say they prevent cancer.
Honestly, when you factor in issues like relative dosage and synthetic versions of THC, it doesn't seem like we know what marijuana does to our brains. Or to the brains of rats.
mary jane
July 4, 2008 - 08:32 ET by candanceI work with a lot of teens at my job and all of them smoke pot.
I bet you never hear the
July 4, 2008 - 08:55 ET by Roger the ShrubberI bet you never hear the word "dude" at work.
Candance
July 4, 2008 - 09:23 ET by shawn228Nice to see you. You Unsane and Roger and Cool Arrow all know my feelings on pot so no need to repeat. Happy 4th of July Guys :-)
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
→ Happy 4th shawn
July 4, 2008 - 09:32 ET by Cool ArrowAs one who has been there, done that, I've seen my share of friends get caught in the wayback machine.
Certainly it was a phase for most, but others just got toasted brains.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Cool Arrow
July 4, 2008 - 09:39 ET by shawn228Its been a little while for me. It was last year at a Oakland Raiders game. and was in the Mens restroom when the guy next to me lit up a joint.
He told me weed is good its from the earth man and offered me a toke. Can't say I did not consider it, but I had my wife and daughter waiting for me in the stands. They might have been suspicious at me eating 5 orders of garlic fries :-)
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
Vansterdam
July 4, 2008 - 10:08 ET by UnsaneYeah, we know, Shawn, the Netherlands is your ideal society. Even if it is Going Absolutely Nowhere.
At the Rush concert up in Vansterdam, the potheads were burning tree there. I forgot how disgusting that crap is to the sense of smell. I was offered the hippie lettuce, but as I LIKE being a commissioned officer in the Reserves, I said no.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Vancouver
July 4, 2008 - 10:53 ET by shawn228My lungs can't take it any more. I'm actually going to be in Vancouver next week to visit the folks for my annual trip.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
Canada Day
July 5, 2008 - 13:34 ET by UnsaneWhat, no kind words for Happyland this past 1 July?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
it's all good shawn
July 4, 2008 - 13:05 ET by candancePot is one of those messy subjects with no real cut-and-dry answer. That said, I still don't like it.
I hope that's not at a
July 4, 2008 - 09:40 ET by Jack BauerI hope that's not at a nuclear power plant!
→ Different drug Jack
July 4, 2008 - 09:45 ET by Cool ArrowDidn't you see "China White Syndrome" with Jack Lemon and Jane Fonda, I think.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
a couple things
July 4, 2008 - 09:18 ET byThe first paragraph is misleading. Pot isn't what causes the problem with depression, it is people who are self medicating with pot who have depression issues.
I don't think Weeds glorifies pot, but it does saterize suburban culture. I don't have showtime anymore and only saw season one, so I can't speak dor any of the other seasons, but I can probably bet that is more episodes than you have ever seen. I remember PErkins character to be delporable in the show, but it was due to her pretty much being a miserable human and projecting it onto other people, most notibly with her young daughter who se treated horribly.
I agree
July 4, 2008 - 14:38 ET by ironchefofmunchiesI had the exact same thought reading that first paragraph.
What makes the author decide that smoking pot was the cause of depression, rather than depression increasing the likelihood of smoking pot?
I have personal experience with family members suffering through depression, and believe me when I say that the side effects of the prescription drugs they were given were every bit as awful as the side effects that were given in PopTech's links above. Actually, the prescription drugs were worse.
And NO, i'm not saying pot is side-effect free. I'm just saying that pot is no worse than what over-medicating doctors wanted to prescribe.
Right! The report is
July 5, 2008 - 00:41 ET by cleverpigRight!
The report is based on surveys. No actual experimental work was done.
I 've always been of the
July 4, 2008 - 09:47 ET by JasonCI 've always been of the mindset that Hollywood and other cinematic producers are free to glamorize whatever they wish. Didn't we learn anything from Paris Hilton and Britney? If parents could be bothered to exert one iota of control over their children, we wouldn't need scapegoats in the personage of pot smokers, heiress bimbos, rap music, and movies about golden compasses. Parents who bitch and whine about their children's values being corrupted while they (the parents) basically participate in the same crass consumer culture, and think that the entertainment industry owes them parental favors, should be sterilized. Ever notice how plenty of kids do manage to negotiate pop culture and turn out fine? It's not a special gene, it has to do with being given values and building character that balances out all the BS.
A s for pot, whether it's addictive or not, whether it causes death or not, whether it is responsibile for depression and mental disorders (I do wish Mr. Bozell could have cited something a bit less biased than the White House Office of Drug Control) is not the issue. You can make the disingenuous comparison all you want, but cheeseburgers are not illegal. Some restaurants have made their menus more healthy because they are gauging what customers want and because they do not want to be synonymous with unhealthy lifestyles - in other words, it is free market capitalism adapting and responding to the cultural mood.
When the McDonald's CEO is hunted down by DEA storm troopers and incarcerated for selling a Big Mac, and customers are arrested and made to roll over on the cashiers (in exchange for a reduction of thei minimum ten-year sentence for possession), and those 18-wheelers - the delivery trucks with the big disgusting McD's food painted on the trailer that you see on every interstate in America - get pulled over and the drivers arrested for trafficking, you can safely make the comparison. As far as I can tell, the only reason that conservatives stop short on this issue as one of personal choice, despite their passionate fight for guns, SUVs, cigarettes, alcohol, what have you, is because this one happens to have vague associations with liberal culture.
Above, Cool Arrow said "I don't want pot in my family"; well no shit. But it's being illegal makes it MORE likely that it will be there, because your kids can buy it from their friends. Ever wonder why there aren't pushers selling nips of Seagram's near middle schools. Because it's LEGAL! Ta-da! I mean this is so stupefyingly obvious. Stop legislating morality. Legalize it, tax it. New source of income, the NORML types will shut the hell up, some people who were getting baked every day will continue to do so (but won't be putting money in the coffers of drug cartels), we'll have a new high-demand industry (that = jobs and farm investments), and eventually its productiona and sale will be just like alcohol - and its effects less detrimental.
Il y a la merde quel remort produit quand il a mange trop stupidite.
Marijuana does cause mental disorders
July 4, 2008 - 09:52 ET by PopularTechI will cite these for Mr. Bozell:
Brain Damage - Cannabis Could Increase Risks Of Psychotic Illness By 40 Percent (Science Daily)
Brain Damage - Cannabis Increases Risk Of Psychosis (Science Daily)
Brain Damage - Frequent Marijuana Use May Affect Brain Function (Science Daily)
Brain Damage - How Smoking Marijuana Damages The Fetal Brain (Science Daily)
Brain Damage - Long-term Cannabis Users May Have Structural Brain Abnormalities (Science Daily)
Brain Damage - Marijuana And Alcohol Taken Together Induced Widespread Nerve Cell Death In Brains Of Young Rats (Science Daily)
Brain Damage - Marijuana Use Affects Blood Flow In Brain Even After Abstinence (Science Daily)
Brain Damage - More Evidence Of Cannabis-induced Psychosis (Science Daily)
Brain Damage - Skunk smokers 18 times more likely to be psychotic (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Brain Damage - Smoking Marijuana Impairs Cognitive Function In MS Patients, Study Shows (Science Daily)
Brain Damage - Study Finds Cannabis Triggers Transient Schizophrenia-like Symptoms (Science Daily)
Brain Damage - Teen Drug Use Associated With Psychiatric Disorders Later In Life (Science Daily)
Brain Damage - Teen Marijuana Use Worsens Depression, Leads To More Serious Mental Illness, New Report Reveals (Science Daily)
It is also addictive:
Marijuana Withdrawal As Bad As Withdrawal From Cigarettes (Science Daily)
Marijuana Withdrawal Reported By Teens Seeking Treatment (Science Daily)
NIDA Researchers Find That Animals Exposed To Marijuana's Active Component Will Self-Administer The Drug (Science Daily)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
OK, super. There are also
July 4, 2008 - 09:57 ET by JasonCOK, super. There are also many studies that contradict these, but that has nothing to do with my post. As I've said above, I will freely concede that individuals who abstain from alcohol and pot will be generally in better shape than those who use either or both. The question is: Does criminalization help any of these issues? Absolutely not. I don't accuse the government of directly endorsing emphysema or lung cancer or liver dysfunction or bar fights because cigarettes and booze are legal. They are in-demand products and we should have the right to choose. I would think that the people who approach this from a moralistic perspective would want to legalize pot if only to put and end to the gangs and dealers who control and handsomely benefit from its illegal status.
Il y a la merde quel remort produit quand il a mange trop stupidite.
Except, for some weird
July 4, 2008 - 10:12 ET by UnsaneExcept, for some weird reason, the countries that are on top of league tables or aspire to get to the top tend to frown severely on drug use.
Those who "decriminalize" drug use are all in my Going Nowhere club. Yeah, the Netherlands is a First World country and all, but outside contributing to CD development, Epica and Within Temptation, what have they contributed to world civilization since, say, WWII? Not one damn thing.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Oh Please Unsane
July 5, 2008 - 17:05 ET by shawn228Seriously dude, you have to stop using that argument. Your argument about people going nowhere is getting old.
Oh the countries you consider going nowhere, they supply us with over 70 percent of our oil. Oil is about 145 dollars a barrel. Hmm I guess financial clout is good as well, how about the fact that the Canadaian dollar has surpassed the US Dollar. I'm not saying Canada is better than the USA, but I would hardly say they are going nowhere.
How about that other country going nowhere, Britain. Hey aren't they one of only few countrys that has been with us since the beginning of both wars?
You keep arguing that they are going nowhere, but the countries you say are going somewhere is China and India. Yes their innovative and have money, did I mention the Canadians sell their oil for 145 a a barrell? Most people are still poor.
Oh lets wait for it....now your goinng to bring up that the average incomc is more for an American be a few thousand. So what? You use play statistics with me all the time. How about the fact you say Brazil has a bigger economy that China. When I asked how how you came up with it, you said per capital.
What is it with you and the per capitas?
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
My take on the drug war
July 5, 2008 - 17:36 ET by Conservative VoiceThe argument its bad for one's health...lame for the government to make that decision;
The argument that its bad for the economy...certainly its bad for the person's economy in that a drug user can't hold a job, therefore is not a productive member of society...should that be the government's concern? I would say, no, but they shouldn't enable the behavior either by paying them to be unproductive.
Where I draw the line, is the kids. If someone wants to be a drug addict, they should lose their kids...have one year to sober up or lose them for good. Someone who gives drugs to kids, should be locked up. Other than that, the anti-drug crowd, your best argument is the nanny state argument. Everything else is smoke ( pun intended )
Should there ever be a needle park? No, anymore should there be public orgies.
CV
July 5, 2008 - 17:52 ET by shawn228I agree with you. I have explained over and over again, the reason why I am against the Republican party, they want to police everything that does no harm to anyone but ourselve. The liberals are the same away about seat belts and fatty food. I think the more time I spend on NB, the more libertarian I become.
It should not be anybodys business what one, wants to do to ones own body . It is going against everything conservatism stands for. I mean theres the moral argumentment, but no one is forcing you to smoke.
Also your right, I believe we can have freedom for ourselves, but protect our kids at the same time.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
Yep, after McCain won the
July 5, 2008 - 18:04 ET by Conservative VoiceYep, after McCain won the Republican party, I began to seriously look at being a libertarian, and am leaning to vote for Bob Barr...because I think both parties stink. I want to get two flags and hang it high...the American Flag, and the Don't Tread on me...because I am thinking we need another Boston Tea Party. The more I am on NB, HotAir, and listen to Glenn Beck the more I want to grab the pitch fork and say ENOUGH already!
"I think the more time I
July 5, 2008 - 18:16 ET by WhichWing"I think the more time I spend on NB, the more libertarian I become."
Indeed.
Are you trying to order ME around, shawn???
July 6, 2008 - 03:59 ET by UnsaneSeriously dude, you have to stop using that argument. Your argument about people going nowhere is getting old. Why, shawn? YOUR say-so? It doesn't change because I am resolute in my principles and they aren't changing. Nor do I see any reason to change the argument (a refutation of any sort; hell, Dr. Sowell's "Imitators" series gave me even MORE ammunition!).
Oh the countries you consider going nowhere, they supply us with over 70 percent of our oil. That number sounds a little high considering the proximity of such nations as Mexico and Venezuela. Oil is about 145 dollars a barrel. OK. Hmm I guess financial clout is good as well, how about the fact that the Canadaian dollar has surpassed the US Dollar. Check again, Currency Fetishist. Last I saw the loonie is trading lower than the dollar, and by the way, if not for oil, Canada's economy would have CONTRACTED over the past five years. I'm not saying Canada is better than the USA, but I would hardly say they are going nowhere. I would. Other than Canadarm and Rush, what have they given world civilization over the past, say, sixty years? NOTHING. The United States in the meantime has put people on the moon, radically advanced aviation, medicine, and a whole host of other industries, and invented the same Internet that Canada is beholden to for so much. Time for you to face reality squarely: Canada is an exploitative economy. If they had no natural resources, they would be DONE. Before WWII, their chief market was Britain; now it is the United States. They will ALWAYS need a customer for their goodies.
By the way, Currency Fetishist: if the value of currency is all there is (it apparently is that way to you), then why isn't the British Pound still a reserve currency, seeing that it is worth more than the loonie, the dollar, and the Euro??? Hmmmmmm????
How about that other country going nowhere, Britain. Hey aren't they one of only few countrys that has been with us since the beginning of both wars? Ever since they embraced Socialism, they have been going absolutely nowhere. I see very little innovation and invention coming out of that country as of late. Although I must say I respect their ability to project power (with much help from the United States: check Operation Corporate), which is more than I can say for your beloved Happyland.
You keep arguing that they are going nowhere, but the countries you say are going somewhere is China and India. Yes their innovative and have money, did I mention the Canadians sell their oil for 145 a a barrell? Most people are still poor. AND EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN CANADA IS SO SO SO HAPPY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let's face facts: in about another 25 years or so, the premier economies in the world will be the United States, China, Japan, possibly India, and possibly Brazil. Mentioned NOWHERE is Canada, perhaps because it's government is so busy coddling and pampering its population. Maybe if Ottawa stopped doing that and exhibited tough love (and you need TONS of tough love yourself), Canada would be in the same league. They aren't.
Oh lets wait for it....now your goinng to bring up that the average incomc is more for an American be a few thousand. So what? You use play statistics with me all the time. How about the fact you say Brazil has a bigger economy that China. When I asked how how you came up with it, you said per capital. That's per capita. I am so f#!king sorry, Shawn, that I don't have a freaking almanac to quote to you from chapter and verse all the time. Grab the 2008 World Almanac and Book of Facts and try to prove me wrong. Also, try accessing The Economist. Hell, how about you quoting statistics from the Communist Chinese government directly? Yeah, we ALL know how reliable that source is. What they fail to tell you is that while the coastal regions are developing nicely, there is still a vast underdeveloped hinterland. When that region starts to take off, if you think Canada is a world footnote now, you haven't seen anything yet.
Canada and the rest of the Nanny States of Europe are all First World right now, but that doesn't mean the corrosive nature of their coddling and pampering isn't taking effect as we speak. Theirs are NOT examples for either the United States or the rest of the world to follow. Hence "going nowhere". (You know, even the"founder" of Canada's coddling health care system is having regrets!)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Come on Unsane
July 6, 2008 - 09:54 ET by shawn228I did not order you to do anything. Your being ultra sensitive aren't you? For a person that almost always says Stop Whiiiining Shawn, Says Shawn needs his nanny state..waaaaaaahhh constantly. How often do you hear me complain about it? Thats just the way you are and I try to except it. So no, I'm not trying to order you around.
".....and by the way, if not for oil, Canada's economy would have CONTRACTED over the past five years "
Isn't that like saying the USA would not be so tough, if it was not for their weapons?
As far as what you say about Brazil having a bigger economy than China
This one says Brazil's GPD is tenth in world
This Brazil Newspaper says they are the 6th biggest in the world, but not as big as China
Ok, this argument is getting old, if you persist in nitpicking about what country invented what it does not matter, it matters who useds it best. America invented the automobile, but seems the Japanese have been doing a much better job in that market lately.
China invented Pasta, but the Italians do a better job of that too.
Lets talk about the fact that criminalizing pot goes against all conservative principals of real freedon. You hate nanny states, but you want a nanny to tell you what you can and cannot do to your own body, that does not effect anybody else. You don't use marijuana, and think it makes you stupid so you naturally feel it is okay for the government to tell everybody else it is not okay. That is a double standard.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
don't "come on Unsane" me...
July 6, 2008 - 15:25 ET by UnsaneSorry shawn, but Brazil has had decades more to develop than China has. Brazil didn't short-circuit itself with things like the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, or murdering 70 million of its own people. The Economist, as I have quoted for you before, has called Brazil "richer". Not to mention that Brazil only has to develop 176 million people versus 1.1 billion for China.
Isn't that like saying the USA would not be so tough, if it was not for their weapons? It's not the weapons. It IS the ability of the United States to globally project power.
Ok, this argument is getting old, if you persist in nitpicking about what country invented what it does not matter, it matters who useds it best. America invented the automobile, but seems the Japanese have been doing a much better job in that market lately. And one reason for that is that the United States has moved on to bigger and better things. Just think of the billions of computer users that use something called Windows to run them. Or, how many of those same billions use the American-built and American-run Internet.
Go ahead, shawn, make a list of all that the United States has invented and innovated over the past 100 years and stack them against any other country. If it weren't for Henry Ford, it is doubtful the Japanese would have an automotive industry.
Then ask yourself WHY that is. This is fundamental stuff here.
Lets talk about the fact that criminalizing pot goes against all conservative principals of real freedon. You hate nanny states, but you want a nanny to tell you what you can and cannot do to your own body, that does not effect anybody else. You don't use marijuana, and think it makes you stupid so you naturally feel it is okay for the government to tell everybody else it is not okay. That is a double standard. Before you whine about my double standards - and the issue is not freedom but rather public health (you know, if a severe plague breaks out, are you going to demand quarantine not be practiced in the name of freedom???) - analyze your own. You are absolutely enraged that people have the economic freedom to do whatever they want in regards to doctors, and because you want to be COMPLETELY PAMPERED AND BABIED by the State, you want to legally stick a gun in my face, steal from me as much as possible, and have me pay for your living expenses. And if one's medical problems are induced by drugs - legal or not - you STILL want ME to pay for it even though I had nothing to do with it.
The pothead losers in AK made a hysterical commercial about how legalizing pot was ALL ABOUT FREEDOM. (No, it was about getting high legally in my view.) When THAT didn't work, they pulled a shawn: unveiled and pushed forth as many sob stories on the AK voters as possible via advertising. It ALL still failed and pot over 1 oz is STILL 100% illegal in the pot-crazed AK.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
lol Unsane
July 6, 2008 - 15:36 ET by shawn228I feel the "countries going nowhere" is old and I guess we have to agree to disagree on it.
"Before you whine about my double standards - and the issue is not "
freedom but rather public health (you know, if a severe plague breaks
out, are you going to demand quarantine not be practiced in the name of
freedom???) -
for one of the most intelligent people on nb, can you think about how silly your statement is? Your talking about a plague, it affects other people and people can die. Of coure I would not be against it.
Smoking pot effects nobody else and it is an attack on freedom to tell people what to do in the privicy of their own home. As far as my beliefs on universal health care, it is irrelivant, because it has nothing to do with this debate and you are reaching.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
shawn, shawn, shawn...
July 7, 2008 - 04:34 ET by UnsaneSmoking pot effects nobody else and it is an attack on freedom to tell people what to do in the privicy of their own home. The PRP would REALLY terrify you then. In certain career fields in the AF, you are dictated to about virtually ANYTHING you put in your body. And yes, those pot smokers ARE hurting people far beyond their homes. When you become an unproductive lazy bum, you become a burden on society. Thus, your habit becomes MY problem.
As far as my beliefs on universal health care, it is irrelivant, because it has nothing to do with this debate and you are reaching. It isn't reaching; it is exposing one of your contradictions. Isn't it YOU who so prides yourself on exposing hypocrisy? I wouldn't have brought up your aching for a Government Nanny had you not been dumb enough to play the "Freedom Card" when arguing for getting high legally. Yeah, we live in an evil dictatorship because we don't want our citizens to poison themselves and become worthless lazy bums, but you sure want to take away freedom in other areas of life.
"I'm sorry if you can't stand the naked truth..." - Within Temptation, "The Cross", from The Heart of Everything (2007)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
There are many unproductive
July 7, 2008 - 05:15 ET by shawn228There are many unproductive lazy bums in the United States and it is not limited to potsmoker. If your are being a lazy unproductive bum, that is your right as a citizen.
It just seems everytime we debate about anything, you either bring up the going nowhere club, or my belief in Universal Healthcare.
My opinion on Universal healthcare has as much to do with legalizing weed as your infatuation with Maria Sharpova and the upcoming election.
One thing I do have to say about you though Unsane, In the past year and a half, as many times that you have accussed me of whining, crying or wanting a government nanny, you have never used a personal insult and called me names.
I feel when people do that it is sort of like a defense mechanism, when they are losing an argument.
Anyways it is 3 in the morning and I have to get up to go to work in a few hours and I can't seem to sleep. Maybe I am looking too forward to my trip to the socialist in a few days:-)
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
shawn, shawn, shawn
July 9, 2008 - 03:55 ET by UnsaneMy opinion on Universal healthcare has as much to do with legalizing weed as your infatuation with Мариа Шарапова (I so hate seeing Russian names and words transliterated!!!) and the upcoming election. It really isn't my fault that you refuse to see the glaring contradiction in your philosophy. You simply do not wish to read and comprehend what I type. Maybe that is YOUR defense mechanism, because YOU are losing the argument.
Again, you were dumb enough to play the "freedom" card when it comes to drugs. I pointed out that you in fact preach against freedom on occasion.
If you were consistent, you could defend my right to take financial/economic risks AND then come in here preaching about "freedom" as your sole motivation behind your desire to decriminalize drug use. At which point I'd say "I vehemently disagree with shawn on drugs but at least he is consistent. I'll give him high marks for that." But I can't.
Note I only look at drugs through the prism of public health/safety.
Anyways, it is nearly 4 AM CST and I still have dishes to do, and dinner to consume. I think I'll make something Italian.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Jason - they get to glamorize we get to criticize
July 4, 2008 - 10:24 ET by Dee BunkThat's how it works with free speech. I don't understand your whole first paragraph. Most people who are against this stuff are not against it only for what it might do to their kids, but what it does to other kids. They are also concerned about what type of adults they grow up to be in our society. There will always be lots of kids who have bad parents and that is why good parents need to speak out against the corruption of children.
As to the rest of your point about legalizing Marijuana, I'm one of the many conservatives who could care less about it. It's funny though that you think it's so strange that conservatives don't support it and compare it to SUV's smoking and guns when there is a huge difference with all of those. Pot has always been illegal. The other things were not and were rights taken away.
The hypocrites on the issue are liberals. They give us the seat-belt laws, smoking laws,gun laws, speed limit laws, and want to impose many other nanny laws but this one is okay because their heros in Hollywood and rock star land advocate for it.
Right now - smoking laws and seat belt laws are enforced much more strictly than marijuana laws. I go to a lot of concerts and people are kicked out for smoking cigarettes but pot smoking is ignored. You can be pulled over for doing absolutely nothing but not having a seat belt and get a $100 ticket (where I live). If you are a pot smoker and a non seatbelt wearer then I'm pretty sure you are much more likely to get in trouble for not wearing your seatbelt. Small quantities of pot in most states is a misdemeanor and not strictly enforced.
Your romanticized view of how it will bring in so much tax revenue is unrealistic. If it were to be legalized I would not support any additional taxes being placed on it. Just like cigarette taxes, they would go to line the pockets of irresponsible politicians and do little to improve anything. They also are extremely regressive taxes that hurt the poor. In addition, pot is more likely to be home grown and sold in the black market if it's taxed too high.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Dee, my first paragraph is
July 4, 2008 - 10:48 ET by JasonCDee, my first paragraph is a general rant about people who think the media owes them parental favors. I can't stand it when people rail about how Paris Hilton and Marilyn Manson and drug use in media should be monitored because they're a "bad influence". Raise your kids right and cut the damn cable if you have to. The media is not your babysitter.
Second paragraph: I agree with your pointing out the double standard. I am not the kind of liberal who wants to take away individual freedoms of choice, so we are on the same page. But marijuana has not always been illegal, and its illegalization was based almost solely on finding an excuse to arrest migrant workers and jazz musicians. Even then, it was construed as "protecting the children".
Your third paragraph sounds dubious and exaggerated to me, but I'll assume you've actually seen this stuff happen. Yes, pot is more widely tolerated now, but let's ask what the people serving 10-year sentences for selling anounce think about that.
I don't see an epidemic of people selling tobacco on the black market because of its outrageously high prices, do you? Most people either begrudgingly shell out the dough or quit. Legalized pot would be an economic and agricultural boon, there's no two ways around that. The problem of the taxes "doing nothing" or lining politicians' pockets is a problem of D.C. culture, not of the product in question.
Happy 4th.
Il y a la merde quel remort produit quand il a mange trop stupidite.
Jason - you completely ignored my point
July 4, 2008 - 12:01 ET by Dee Bunkabout people wanting to stop other innocent children from being easily corrupted, but you never do understand my arguments about children.
My third paragraph sounded dubious and exaggerated to you? Do you go to any concerts? Do you have any friends or family who have got a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt? Maybe in your state they have to have another reason to pull you over. In mine they just changed it this year that they don't have to have another reason. I know lots of people who have got tickets (including myself) but I know of no pot smokers who have been arrested for it (smoking it - not selling it).
My brother and all his loser friends are pot smokers (every day) and they have never been arrested for it. My brother was once and it was because he was drunk and obnoxious on a train and they arrested him and searched him and found a very small amount. They ended up dropping that charge by the time it went to court and he got disorderly conduct. They only searched him because he was drunk.
I smoked pot as a teenager and into my 20's and never got in any trouble for it. I knew lots of people who did also and they never got in any trouble for it. If my examples sound dubious and exaggerated to you then you must live in a very different kind of place and it would be your states law enforcement, not the Federal Government to blame.
And yes there is black market tobacco now, but it's different because it's been legal for so long and most people are used to using filters so they still need the product to be produced and packaged by the tobacco companies. Many people buy Cigarettes in different states, on Indian Reservations and on the Internet to avoid exorbitant state taxes. I know people who do it. I did it before I quit smoking.
Marijuana would be completely different because people are not used to a corporate product and can grow and roll their own.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
The Smell of Freedom
July 4, 2008 - 10:12 ET by third eyeIf you dont like the show Weeds, then dont watch it. If you dont like smoking pot, then dont. Free market capitalism will take care of the rest.
Not a freedom issue, a PUBLIC HEALTH issue
July 4, 2008 - 10:15 ET by UnsaneHey, we CAN still bitch about the show. We have the freedom to do that, don't we?
As I really don't like the idea of inducing societal rot, or of the United States joining the Going Nowhere club, let's just keep pot illegal.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Freedom is a good thing
July 4, 2008 - 10:22 ET by third eyeHell you can complain about anything you want to, ill give you that. And if you dont want to smoke it, then dont. But I believe in letting other people do as they please.
hey I say lets keep it
July 4, 2008 - 12:46 ET by red_dragon311hey I say lets keep it illiegal too.....it will be much much cheaper that way
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Gerald Ford
Anarchy, anyone?
July 5, 2008 - 13:54 ET by UnsaneBut I believe in letting other people do as they please. So I can come over to your house, whack your entire family in tune to Slayer's "Kill Again", and you'd just sit back and watch, right?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Isn't it time for that one
July 4, 2008 - 18:55 ET by steveba4Isn't it time for that one guy to post about how he's seen so many people die in the back of his squad car because they smoked marijuana to make a post? His posts on the last story concerning Weeds were priceless.
A good documetary on the subject is called "Super High Me" in which a guy smokes marijuana 24/7 for 30 days straight. As I recall, he didn't die or shoot up his local police station. The humor may be a bit crude for some of the social conservatives around here though.
My mother likes to watch
July 4, 2008 - 18:28 ET by Doraemon_OReillyMy mother likes to watch that stupid show on Showtime. I respect her choices, though I sometimes criticize her choices. I don't like anything that glamorizes drugs and shows anti-drug people as hypocrites.
"Kame-Hame-HAAAA!!!!!" - Son Goku, destroying Usama Bin Laden.
Hollywood glamorizes drugs
July 4, 2008 - 19:11 ET by greenfairieHollywood and the rest of popular culture has passed off marijuana as some harmless drug. Bill Clinton turned his pot use into a joke ("I didn't inhale!"). Is it any wonder kids don't think it's any big deal to start using marijuana then start on other drugs once pot bores them? Who needs peer pressure when Hollywood portrays drug use as normal and that those who resist drugs are uncool, mean-spirited, and hypocritical? Great message to send to young people.
The same industry that gives us Weeds or The Whacked is baffled when people like Lindsay Lohan makes her 50th trip to some "resort" rehab clinic. It's shocked and stunned when people like Heath Ledger or John Belushi die.
If you think drugs are all laughs and giggles Julie "Casting Couch" Chen, go sit through a season's worth of Intervention. All of those people once though a little pot wouldn't hurt them either.
Political Correctness At Its Worst
July 4, 2008 - 22:02 ET by The7SticksThis has to be the funniest article I haven read in some time. I see that you are auditioning for The Onion satirical magazine because nobody really believes this nonsense that marijuana is harmful to anyone. Mental disorders can be caused by any substance if used irresponsibly. Did you know that constantly drinking Diet Pepsi can kill brain cells, which could also impair you mentally, not to mention abusing alcohol? Oh, and it's more likely for you to contract lung cancer through cigarettes than it would be through unprocessed marijuana. The difference between those and marijuana is that it has more medicinal benefits that outweigh its harmful effects, just like aspirin or some other potentially dangerous medication.
Actually the reason a lot of us in Hollywood constantly glamorize marijuana is to stick it to you soft-minded morons. This is our way of protesting the drug policies of idiots who don't want to take risks against anything.
And P.S. The only people who are evil are people who try to kill you, like terrorists. And we all know damn well that marijuana doesn't kill people. That's one of the lies that have been debunked time and time again. If you don't support marijuana, then you support the terrorists.
Who's the evil one now, buddy-boy? You lose. I win.
)
> [D ppbbbtttt!
)
Correct Pot Heads are Scientifically Illiterate
July 4, 2008 - 22:41 ET by PopularTechThe Dangers of Marijuana are well documented despite all the Pot Head propaganda. There are no medical benefits to Marijuana not even "pain relief".
Oral Cannabis Ineffective In Treating Acute Pain, Study Finds (Science Daily)
Smoking Marijuana is actually worse than Cigarettes:
Lung Disease - Impact On Lungs Of One Cannabis Joint Equal To Up To Five Cigarettes (Science Daily)
Lung Disease - Long-term Marijuana Smoking Leads To Respiratory Complaints (Science Daily)
Lung Disease - Marijuana Smoke Contains Higher Levels Of Certain Toxins Than Tobacco Smoke (Science Daily)
Lung Disease - Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers (Science Daily)
Lung Disease - Marijuana Worsens COPD Symptoms In Current Cigarette Smokers (Science Daily)
Pot Heads were never very smart.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
You could always use a
July 5, 2008 - 00:49 ET by steveba4You could always use a vaporizer. Vaporizers eliminate the majority of carcinogens in marijuana because you don't actually burn the marijuana. So much safer than smoking a cigarette or a cigar.
Or we could just make PopularTech the king of the world and ban anything he doesn't like.
The fact is that smoke is
July 5, 2008 - 00:52 ET by cleverpigThe fact is that smoke is bad for your lungs. It doesn't matter what kind of smoke it is. Mesquite smoke is bad for your lungs! Inhale enough of it, and you will also complain about respiratory issues when you are 70!
Yes, smoke is bad for your lungs
July 5, 2008 - 13:58 ET by UnsaneI've known longtime potheads that sound way worse in their 30s and 40s than my parents in their 60s. My parents, all the way up until about 10-12 years ago, were chimneys (smoking cigarettes).
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Vapors aren't smoke. What
July 5, 2008 - 22:11 ET by steveba4Vapors aren't smoke. What part of vaporizer didn't you understand?
Excuse the hell out of me!
July 6, 2008 - 15:36 ET by UnsaneWell, excuse the f!#k out of me, as I, not being a loser, have NO experience with the world of pot. You know, how empty does one life HAVE to be to cause them to resort to something like dabbling in the hippie lettuce?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
well....
July 6, 2008 - 15:40 ET by shawn228Instead of addressing the fact that vapours do not cause lung or throat cancer, you have to point out your not a loser. Very nice.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me!!!!
July 7, 2008 - 04:43 ET by UnsaneAgain, shawn, excuse the f#!k out of me. I am not an expert on the drug culture as apparently you and your buddy are. I don't know the difference between a bong and a joint (example) and really don't care: all I know is that only losers mess with either.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
The point, Unsane, is that
July 6, 2008 - 11:45 ET by cleverpigThe point, Unsane, is that the damage to people's lungs is not from the marijuana itself, it is from the burning of it. There are many other ways to ingest the stuff-- vaporizers, as mentioned, brownies-- I hear it makes a great olive oil.
How about a campaign to promote alternative means of ingestion? Like a needle exchange-- sure it's illegal, but if you are going to do it do it safely so that the tax payers don't have to pay for your lung cancer. If this is a public health issue, then I think all concerned Americans should be sharing their brownie recipes. ;)
Two things
July 6, 2008 - 15:31 ET by UnsaneFor one thing, taxpayers shouldn't pay for my doctor to begin with. For another, needle exchange programs are a horrible idea. Maybe we'd be better served by putting a bullet in each of their heads, because we are surely helping the users kill themselves, something that doesn't seem to bother you at all. (But then, Leftists like you view life as cheap anyway.)
I LIKE the United States at the top of league tables and aspiring for more greatness, thank you.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Mesquite smoke is bad for your lungs!
July 5, 2008 - 22:18 ET by R D HelmMesquite smoke is bad for your lungs! Inhale enough of it, and you will also complain about respiratory issues when you are 70!
CP-LOL-I can think of far worse ways to go. :-)
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
Seriously! That settles
July 6, 2008 - 11:40 ET by cleverpigSeriously! That settles it, it's time for a barbeque :)
Too bad, Rush didn't try a
July 5, 2008 - 12:39 ET by randy hayesToo bad, Rush didn't try a doobie or two instead of getting addicted to Oxycontin!
Nice to be Back!
Oh shi*sky!
July 5, 2008 - 22:17 ET by BlondeRandy's back.
Sorry for the, um, outburst!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde, Oh shi*sky?
July 5, 2008 - 22:28 ET by R D HelmLOL.
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
Hi Randy!
July 6, 2008 - 11:54 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsRandy! Welcome back! Please tell us again your delightful story about how George Bush made the movie '300' to control all our minds.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Pot lowers blood pressure.
July 5, 2008 - 14:43 ET by randy hayesPot lowers blood pressure. There are many health benefits.
If it was allowed as food there would be no harmful carcinogens from smoke.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060620083025.htm
Nice to be Back!
Late to the party as usual.
July 5, 2008 - 18:17 ET by badger.Late to the party as usual. I remember old college debates on marijuana. IMO it was corruption/politics. William Randolph Hearst. (Citizen Kane) Money = Power = Influence = 1937 Marihauana Act. Today = George Soros.
Like Ted Nugent, I don't use alcohol/cigs/drugs. None of my business, when someone does. Like Hank Williams said "mind your own business, then you won't be mindin' mine, mind your own business, you'll stay busy all the time." As a kid, I did experiment with booze a couple of times, got my rump tore up for my trouble. Wrong for anyone to imply/insinuate, people who may support someday after further research, legalizing marijuana, is a current or former user. Impossible for anyone to know everything about anything & everybody.
U.S. encouraging poor countries to grow cheap corn instead cash crops like coca/marijuana/poppy. Yeah, sure pal. America can't control our own country & people. We should first clean up your own yard, before trying to police the world..
Turn food into fuel, with millions of people starving, with yearly natural disasters. More research on batteries/coal/nuclear/wind/solar energy. The U.S. invented cloth/fuel/oil/paper, from hemp, before & during WWII, (synthetic rubber) Germans-coal into fuel. Years for an acre of paper trees, months for an acre of hemp. Stick our heads in the sand, it's illegal, it's a drug, eradicate now. Brilliant
A drug/food/fuel/paper/rope/weed. IMO for the U.S. to conclude as fact, that marijuana has no useful properties for mankind, is absurd. Man knows very little about all the yet undiscovered plants on this planet. U.S. Govt. sees no problems associated with alcohol & tobacco, dog/horse racing, casinos, lotteries, gambling, etc.... so much revenue. Abortion & pornography. Kill babies.(save criminals) Roe v. Wade - Constitutional right to privacy.
Internet information age = scientific facts, like opinions, both are plentiful, everybody got one. Dr. Knowitall's experiments confirms/concludes or evidence suggests/supports that......blah blah. Gullible! Radio/TV lawsuit commercials everywhere. Exposure to a new product, drug, surgery, list is endless. John Edwards made a fortune. Companies paying out millions, along with lame explanations - Our scientific data and 10 years of lab experiments on guinea pigs/monkeys/mice/rats worked fine, don't understand what went wrong.
Evolution & Global Warming- IMO hype. Improvement needed for caring of people/animals/plants, and our seas. Schools cramming junk science down our throats as scientific facts. A monkey jawbone proves nothing, except there was once prehistoric monkeys running around that are now extinct.
If Man has anything to do with it, it will surely get fouled up.
PopTech - So many articles – Yet you have so little credibility.
July 6, 2008 - 01:52 ET byEither PopTech didn't read
the articles or he didn't think we would read them. Either way he
loses his credibility.
PopTech obviously did a search of
Science Daily on marijuana articles and picked just the ones with
headlines that seem to back his contention that marijuana is only
harmful. I certainly agree that marijuana can have serious side
effects. I certainly support honest education that discourages
usage, Especially Emphatically of young
people.
Unfortunately, PopTech has taken a
dishonest approach. He does more harm than good to a good cause and
it cost him his credibility.
2 Examples:
1. “OBESITY- Machinery Of The
'Marijuana Munchies' -
Nothing in this article is about
obesity among pot users. It's a case of a beneficial use of pot in
finding ways to help reduce obesity. Then there's the
ridiculousness of citing the munchies as endangerment to your health,
let alone the silly idea that it's a reason to ban pot.
2. PopTech-”There are no medical
benefits to Marijuana not even "pain relief". “
Pull up this article that he referenced
to back up his claim:
Oral Cannabis Ineffective In Treating
Acute Pain, Study Finds
It contains contradictions to PopTech's
claim and exposes his dishonesty about”no medical benefits” :
“Previous studies have suggested that
cannabis and THC may be effective in treating chronic pain, such as
in cancer patients, patients with spinal cord injury, or those with
multiple sclerosis. And, though inconsistent, some studies on
patients with acute pain have suggested beneficial effects.”
“Dr. Kraft stressed, however, that
cannabis may still remain a viable option for certain types of
chronic pain patients. “
“Recent studies have indicated that
cannabis can be effective in treating certain types of chronic pain
and helping patients to cope by improving quality of life.”
The
article's page contains links to the following articles about pot
being effective in treating pain:
Marijuana
May Be Effective For Neuropathic Pain
Smoked Cannabis Proven
Effective In Treating Neuropathic Pain
Cannabis Smoke Is Less Likely To Cause Cancer Than Tobacco
Smoke
All this indicates
more research is needed and PopTech is not a believable source for
pot info.
It would seem that
July 6, 2008 - 02:15 ET by RESTLESS 1It would seem that everything has it's place and use. Pot probably has some beneficial qualities, but it should be administered by knowlegable, licensed physicians. I think it folly to think that we have every use for everything on this planet figured out.
The question then becomes, how do we control abuse of substances availed to us by nature or God or whatever one believes put it here? Use isn't the problem, abuse is.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Chinese Solution
July 7, 2008 - 05:47 ET by kilrodSince the pointy-headed libs seem to like socialism/communism, lets just use the chinese solution to settle the drug question->-
Drug dealer,- first offense,- bullet to the back of the head.
Drug user,- first offense,- re-education.
Drug user,-second offense,- bullet to the back of the head.
Simple problem, Simple solution!!
(GRINS) kilrod
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier
Why not?
July 7, 2008 - 06:11 ET by sarcasmoSince going from $75 million to $2.4 BILLION(!) apparently isn't considered a fiscal failure by many "conservatives," we might as well go toward totally-big government control over all of humanity.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Only $2.4 billion?
July 17, 2008 - 04:14 ET by Unsane$2.4 billion? Out of a federal budget of $3.1 TRILLION? (and who knows what the total amount of money spent by the state and local governments is) Looks like we can kill off some pork projects and invest some more money in the cause of keeping the United States on top of world league tables...
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
This is pretty much the
July 17, 2008 - 06:49 ET by WhichWingThis is pretty much the same thing you said in response to the $10 billion a year to Israel. That leaves me to wonder one thing:
How many billions do you have to spend before you are considered a conservative?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
some spending pigs
July 18, 2008 - 06:26 ET by sarcasmoAre clearly more-equal than others, but what I love is the total absolution of the massive rate of spending growth, despite a decades long history of abject failure & law enforcement/political corruption that's only getting worse... This argument isn't exactly a big intellectual task to win these days, as we've seen.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
"Conservatives" know
July 18, 2008 - 15:25 ET by WhichWing"Conservatives" know best. If at first you don't succeed, expand the government and the police force, and then throw all the money you can find at the problem until it goes away.
I'm not sure we have a 'right' in this country anymore. Republicans have become the left, which is why they need Limbaugh and Hannity to warn us all about the FAR left. I think this thread is a great illustration of that point. Look how many liberal stances have been taken here by people who claim to be conservatives. People that detest liberals. It just doesn't add up.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Ample example (and heavens you need tons)
July 23, 2008 - 05:59 ET by UnsaneRightists like me don't mind spending on law enforcement and foreign policy (both of which you clearly find abhorrent).
Now, for an example of stupid spending we can do without: I enjoy going out to occasional symphonic performances. I have even donated money to them. But why must the federal government give them money via the National Endowment for the Arts? I would suggest that symphonies and other arts establishments in this country will do just fine without the federal government giving them money.
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.